The URL can be used to link to this page

Item M3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: December 18, 2002 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Planning and Environmental Resources - - AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation of the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector Study and selection of a preferred alignment(s). ITEM BACKGROUND: The purpose of the Big Pine Key Island Connector study was to develop and evaluate alternatives for a cross island connector road on Big Pine Key north of US # 1 as proposed in the Livable CommuniKeys master planning process and the Habitat Conservation Plan for Big Pine Key. The consultant, with oversight by the Technical Steering Committee, has evaluated alternatives to determine the most suitable segments to form an east west corridor eliminating the least desirable segments based on impacts to the environment and/or community and engineering considerations, PREVIOUS REVELANT BOCC ACTION: The Board of County Commissioners approved the Monroe County-URS Corporation Southern Contract Amendment, on April 17,2002 to conduct the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector Study. The BOCC previously approved resolution 118-2002 authorizing the corridor study. CONTRACT tAGREEMENT CHANGES: Nt A ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: 93,000 (study only) BUDGETED: Yes No - - COST TO COUNTY: Unknown REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year - - -- APPROVED BY: County Atty ~ DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENT A TION: Included )( , DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # ~ Revised 2/27/0 I ~~ County of Monroe Growth Management Division Board of Countv Commissioners 2798 Overseas Highway Mayor Dixie Spehar, District 1 Suite 410 Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, District 5 Marathon, I10rida 33050 Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3 Voice: 305.289. 2500 Comm. George Neugent, District 2 FAX: 305.289. 2536 Comm. David Rice, District 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, AICP ~ Director of Growth Manageme DATE: December 5,2002 SUBJECT: Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector Study Overview At its regularly scheduled December 18, 2002, meeting, the BOCC will be given a presentation by the County's traffic engmeenng and planning consultant firm on the findings and recommendations of the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector Study. The BOCC will be asked to make a decision on the selection of a preferred alignment for a cross island connector. If the BOCC approves a preferred alignment, the consultant and Growth Management Division staff will move forward with the preparation of detailed preferred alignment plan, which will go into more detail on the recommended alignment and will involve at least one community workshop. Background and Initial Evaluation The BOCC approved the preparation of the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector Study in Resolution 118-2002. The purpose of the study is to identify and evaluate alternatives for a cross island connector road, north of V.S, Highway 1 on Big Pine Key, as proposed in the Livable CommuniKeys community master planning process and the draft Habitat Conservation Plan. The study was initiated in July 2002 with a kick-off meeting between the consultant, URS Corporation Southern, and the study's Technical Steering Committee, The Technical Steering Committee consists of Director of Growth Management, chairman, County Planning Director, County Engineer, and representatives from the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Department of Transportation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Technical Steering Committee met four times during the course of the study and provided input from the perspective of each member's respective agencies and specific expertise. The study incorporated public input at a public workshop held on Big Pine Key on August 13, 2002, at a Page 1 of3 public meeting before the Planning Commission in September, and at a Technical Steering Committee meeting held on November 15,2002. On September 11, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft Preferred Alignment Report for the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector. After taking testimony from the public, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend that efforts to establish a cross island connector be abandoned and that necessary improvements be made to U.S. Highway 1 through three laning of that facility to enhance local traffic and raise the level of service. Subsequent to that meeting the Technical Steering Committee directed the consultant to prepare a full draft alternatives report that incorporated public and staff comments including further investigation of alternative alignments, In October 2002, the consultant prepared the draft "Alternatives Evaluation Report" and "Appendices" as part of the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector Study, (Copies of these two large documents have been sent to the BOCC under separate cover,) Final Alternatives Evaluation Due to the length and complexity of these documents and the need to move forward with specific alternatives for consideration by the BOCC, the Chairman of the Technical Steering Committee called a meeting of the committee on November 15, 2002. The purpose of this meeting was to complete the evaluation and screening of alignment alternatives and provide specific options for consideration by the BOCC. At that meeting, the Committee in consultation with the consultant reviewed each viable alternative and made specific recommendations on the alternative alignments and order of preference. (Minutes of the Technical Steering Committee meeting are presented in Exhibit 1.) In discussing the alternatives, the issue of removal of the barriers was brought up by County staff. A copy of a memorandum from the Growth Management Division's legal counsel concerning removal of any of the restrictive covenants on roads in Tropical Key Colony was presented to the Committee (see Exhibit 2). This memorandum indicates that the restricted covenant requiring the barriers could be revised subject to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval. It was further discussed that the barriers were placed on these roads to obtain approval from the Service to allow for the paving of the roads to bring them up to County standards. The U,S. Fish and Wildlife Service representatives reiterated that the need for these barriers to mitigate impacts on Key Deer was no longer relevant due to the results of the modeling work completed for the HCP, Subsequent to the meeting, the consultant prepared the enclosed "Alternatives Evaluation Report, Revised Executive Summary," for the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector Study, which presents the specific findings and recommendations on alignment options and a "no build" alternative based on its own evaluation and input from the Technical Steering Committee. The proposed alternatives are listed in order of preference with the preferred alternative being a Page 2 of3 .. combination of Alignment #1 (Harbor Lights Road/Lyttons Way/Hibiscus drive) and Alignment #2 (Main Street/24th Street). Although the preferred alternative is a combination of Alignments #1 and #2, the Growth Management Division staff and its transportation planning consultant recommend that due to the permitting and acquisition problems with Alignment #2 (Main Street/24th Street) the County proceed at this time with only Alignment #1 (Harbor Lights Road/Lyttons Way/Hibiscus Drive) and address the other alignment at a later date. The strategy is to minimize unnecessary delays and costs to the County and focus the energies of staff and consultant on preparing a detailed plan for the alignment which has the greatest potential for implementation. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners: 1) approve the preferred combination alternative (combination of Alignments #l-Harbor Lights Road/Lyttons Way/Hibiscus Drive and #2-Main Street/24th Street); 2) direct the staff and consultant to prepare for the Board's approval a detailed a plan for Alignment #1; and, 3) that the planning/design process for the preparation of the detailed alignment plan provide for adequate input from the Big Pine Key community. Exhibit 1 - Minutes of Technical Steering Committee November 15,2002 Meeting Exhibit 2 - Legal Memorandum from Karen Cabanas, Esq., Morgan and Hendrick Attachment - "Alternatives Evaluation Report, Revised Executive Summary" Page 3 of3 ........lo...L.t...L..!J..L.J.. ..... 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 MEMORANDUM Date: November 21, 2002 To: Marlene Conaway - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 289 2536 Liz Holloway - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 289 2536 Rebecca Jetton - DCA - Fax # (305) David Koppel - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 295 4321 Tim McGarry - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 289 2536 Rafael DeArazoza - FDOT - Fax # (305) 377 5684 Andrew G, Gude - USFWS - Fax # (305) 872 3469 Phil Frank - USFWS - Fax # (305) 872 3469 CC: Jenn L. King - URS From: Raj Shanmugam - URS Subject: Fourth Steering Committee Meeting Minutes - November 15,2002 The fourth Steering Committee meeting for the Big Pine Key Cross Connector was held on Friday, November 15, 2002. The primary intent of this meeting was to review the Alternatives Evaluation Report (AER) and to prepare for a presentation at the December BOCC meeting, In addition to the Steering Committee members a few local residents were present at this meeting, Following is a summary of items discussed at the meeting and their disposition. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. . USFWS cautioned that, other than Alignment # 1, some segments of the remaining three west alignments have significant environmental issues that may cause considerable delays in securing approval from permitting agencies. For example; all three alignments require building on un-scarified land that were either purchased through CARL program, or it is Tier I Key Deer Habitat and/or Pine Land. URS explained that all alignments have some form of environmental, community and/or engineering issues to be dealt with. The magnitude of the issues and the difficulty associated with addressing these issues are being used as factors in the segment and alignment evaluation process. . County Engineer stated that having several cross island connectors will achieve the goal better than only one connector. He suggested that in addition to building a cross island connector, re-grading all gravel roadways should be proposed. Further, he does not favor removing the barricades at the Journeys End / Sands Road intersection, because it will affect many residents who live along Journeys End, unlike the removal of Harbor Lights Road barricades which will affect only a few residents. The proposed Alternative 5 consist of Alignments # 1 and # 3. Improving the roadways (re-grading) is a Public Works function recognized and identified in the HCP. Not removing the Journeys End barricades may be a good compromise to build consensus among the residents. . County staff noted that the numbers presented on the traffic table in Appendix C contradict the traffic numbers presented on exhibits in Appendix D. URS explained that the reason for the discrepancy is that the table reflects the raw numbers from QRS Traffic Model and the numbers on the exhibits are adjusted model numbers to reflect reasonable distribution of traffic volumes within the study network. County staff requested that it should be explained in the report. . USFWS suggested that a traffic monitoring program should be recommended with the implementation of the preferred alternative. The implementation details will consider adding the traffic monitoring task. . County's Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator suggested that bike and pedestrian facilities should be part of any cross island connector. The implementation details will consider adding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. . One of the residents suggested that the county should re-grade Lyttons Way / Harbor Light Road corridor and monitor the traffic before implementing the cross island connector. Another of the resident questioned why take the 'all or nothing' approach, why not implement the east side connector and observe what the implications are before implementing the west side connector. County staff noted, that in order for the cross island connector to be affective it should not be implemented piecemeal. . The Steering Committee concurred with the study finding that the best cross island connector will be a combination of Alignments # 1 and # 3, referred to as Alternative 5. However, the anticipated permitting delays associated with some segments of this alternative was recognized, and the committee recommended that Alternative 5 should be implemented segment by segment, starting with the implementation of segments that has no issues that may delay the implementation. . The report is a technical document and has many details that may be confusing to the BOCC and may misinform, A revised Executive Summary will be prepared and submitted to the County Staff for review by 11/22/02. This document will not exceed four pages and will include a discussion of pros and cons of each alternative that was studied. EXHIBIT 2 LAW OFFICES Hugh J, Morgan MORGAN & HENDRICK W. Curry Harris James T. Hendrick 317 WmTEHEAD STREET (1907-1988) Karen K, Cabanas KEY WEST, FLORIDA 33040 Hilary U. Albury Robert Cintron, Jr. ( 1920-1999) TELEPHONE 305.296.5676 FACSIMILE 305.296.4331 MEMORANDUM TO: Marlene Conaway, Director of Planning FROM: Karen Cabanas ~ DATE: November 8, 2002 RE: Tropical Key Colony; road re-opening The restrictive covenant placed on the property by Monroe County was voluntarily placed on the property, It runs in favor of the County and may be voluntarily revoked, provided USFWS has no objection and deems that the re-opening of the road to motor vehicles will not result in a taking under Endangered Species Act. I would advise obtaining a written opinion from USFWS prior to executing a revocation of the restrictive covenant and attach it to the revocation as 'Exhibit A', PRIVILEGED MATERIAL (attorney-client/work product): The information contained in this message and attached document(s) is confidential and privileged. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity identified. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not disseminate, distribute or copy. Instead please notify us at 305.296.5676 immediately. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1117, KEY WEST FL 33041 E-MAIL: KCabanas@morganandhendrick.com BIG PINE KEY CROSS ISLAND CONNECTOR ST DY Alternatives Evaluation Re rt REVISED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Th18 Ie a companion document to the Altematlv.. Evaluation (AE) Report pntpaNd In _2. TIIII companion document 1nc0rp0rate8 some minor rw..... to the AE It. However, the conclusions reached In the AE ~ remain the ...... December 15, 2002 Prepared by Monroe County Plannin.gDepartmet and URS 5180 N.W. 33 A...... ..... iSO, Fort .............. FIorI"a, CROSS ISLAND CONNECTOR Purpose The primary purpose of a Cross Island Connector on Big Pine Key is to provide local easUwest access to and from residential areas and local attractions. The residential areas north of U.S. 1 in Big Pine Key, namely Pine Channel Estates, Tropical Key Colony, Sands Subdivision, Atlantic Estates, and Big Pine Cove do not have any reasonable easUwest local street connections between them. U.S. 1, a major state arterial, currently functions as a local connector between these residential subdivisions and also provides access from each of these subdivisions to the area commercial center - Big Pine Plaza, located between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road. This underscores the need for a Cross Island Connector road on Big Pine Key to be a part of the overall transportation solution for the island. Exhibit 1 represents the general traffic movement within and across Big Pine Key. Backaround In 2000, a community driven planning effort called the "Livable CommuniKeys Program" (LCP) was started on Big Pine Key and No Name Key to address very specific needs of this unique island community. Primary among the concerns expressed by the community was the desire for better roadways for the local residents. Twenty six percent of the responses from one workshop identified improvements to the transportation system as the most important community need. Among transportation improvements, constructing a cross connector was the number one choice (28%) followed by improving the U.S. 1 / Key Deer Boulevard intersection (19%). A deferral of the issuance of building permits began in 1994 on Big Pine Key, because of the traffic volumes, delay, and level of service (LOS) on U.S. 1. The Cross Island Connector will provide temporary relief to congestion on U.S.1 and potentially will lift the moratorium for a period of time. Alternative Roadwav Evaluation Nearly 80 roadway segments (see Exhibit 2) were evaluated. The following factors were used in determining the most suitable road segments for the Cross Island Connector. . House Impact . Historic Sites . Travel Time . Business Impact . Segment Condition . Segment Volume . Parcel Impact . Marsh Rabbit . Floodplain Impact . Ease of Acquisition . Key Deer . Relative Cost . U.S. 1 LOS . Vegetation Impact . Community Impact Although all forms of impacts are mitigatable except impact to Marsh Rabbit Habitat, the least desirable segments based on most impact to the environment, community and/or engineering were eliminated. For example, the Pond Lane segment between Ships Way and West Sandy Circle is undesirable due to Marsh Rabbit impact. Within the same limits, all other impacts being more or less equal, the Lyttons Way segment was eliminated as oppose to the Harbor Lights Road segment due to house and business impacts. At the end of the evaluation 41 segments were discarded and 39 segments were identified as the most suitable segments for the Cross Island Connector. Theses 39 roadway segments were combined to form four west corridors and four east corridors. The east and west corridors each terminate at Wilder Road in the center of the island. A west corridor and an east corridor were combined to form a Cross Island Connector alignment. The four alignments and the 'Do Nothing' option were further evaluated. The location of the potential Cross Island Connector alignments and an evaluation are presented in the following pages. The alignments in the order of most preferred to least preferred are as follows: 1. Harbor Lights Road / Lyttons Way / Hibiscus Drive 2. Main Street / 24th Street 3. Frontage Road 4. Journeys End / 22nd Street / Hammock Drive 5. Do Nothing The Journeys End and the Frontage Road were ranked the least preferred alignments, because of increased impacts to the existing commercial or residential communities, endangered species habitat, and wetlands. The 'Do Nothing' alternative was ranked last, because it does not meet the need for a cross-island connector identified by the community in the planning process and fails to provide any congestion relief on U.S. Highway 1. A combination of alignments will result in lesser impacts on anyone street while meeting the desires of the local residents. Therefore, an alternative alignment that combines the two most preferred alignments - Harbor Lights Road / Lyttons Way/ Hibiscus Drive alignment and Main Street / 24th Street alignment, is recommended as the preferred alternative. Preference of a combined alignment was also reflected in the public input. Most residents (38% of the respondents) favor the combined alignment. ......,.. , Parcel 8egme.... Yellow _Blue _ GINn _Rod ~ I -- \. EXHIBIT 2 I - TUOlualse , - Orooge \.~. _ Purple . -~ I _Brown ,.... ill ~Wlr: :....~o;nj' :L.~....:..:,.t.... I " , ., . I 1t 'F .",!. ,>__ ' "~,'in , c- '. . c. . ....... .J, ,ji T , .i-'" 22ndSt. ." '. ",'~;;:'" .............. . ',", ;..j:...:=:.j....i.:,'.j+/l;J..'_~.i_,!, .:..':.,1',...1 .n ~f Ilr--" I'," ",,,..: , _.'::';'::! (: =, .r2\i~if~ JlrR ,. -...A , I, ',', #1 Harbor Liahts Road I Lvttons Way I Hibiscus Drive Alianment Description: This alignment follows an existing public roadway corridor located approximately 0.4 miles north of U.S. 1. On the west side it incorporates Harbor Lights Road, takes a short jog to the north on to West Sandy Circle, then follows Lyttons Way, a short jog to the south on Key Deer Boulevard, and again onto Lyttons Way. On the east side it incorporates Lyttons Way, takes a short jog north on to Ixora Drive, and then follows Hibiscus Drive. The connection is between Ships Way (North end of Pine Channel Estates) in the west and County Road (North end of Sands Subdivision) to the east. Improved access will be provided for local residents to the shopping center, post office, churches, county parks and other facilities. Parts of Harbor Lights Road at the west end and the entire Hibiscus Drive segment at the east end are paved, the remainder of this alignment is scarified or improved with gravel. There is currently a barrier at Harbor Lights Road at the intersection with West Sandy Circle, which will have to be removed. This alignment is estimated to cost approximately $600K. ugjjQ ) -- stA/t,ED IIWl - - - - ~ HOUERICH m MEt lIMO s!t;;ss;;'!! .LUE ~ "... Ifl70IIS wr .... HlBlStVS OR -------- LYTTONSwY """"" UGHTS RO - ------- Jl(fJ ------ PRISOtt ....., Jl(ff FIRE /Jf LlI..' 21ST ST Ii! Ii! tRJRO AVE H ~ ~ UllOA S1' ~ l t2l/1l ST AVE . HAlllIacKM IWlEY RO Jl(fr JOORND'S ElfD ffD """ ST flIIlJTS CT AVE E .. ~ ~ l'j lATER !i VAl: er sAlIs RO ~ ~ ~ ~ T.... ~ !i Ii! AVE Il .. ~ 14TH Sf ~ l ~ f'1J/DEI/ er 1 ... .. oJ ~ /:: i MC~ '" HENRI'LJI I i i AVE' 8 '" ~ s. eIR it " fIlE UI ..., US/ II UJROr:T OfFICE AVE A I;; Ii! f ~ 5TH AvE i .. Pros and Cons: . Uses existing paved and unpaved scarified roadway segments, which makes this alignment the least in costs and is easiest to permit and implement. . Can be implemented without a Comprehensive Plan amendment or approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan. . Has the least impact on Key Deer, because the corridor is already scarified. . Provides the best congestion relief on U.S. 1 increasing the level of service to at least "C" for 5 to 7 years without other improvements to that highway with the anticipated maximum number of vehicles per day (vpd) traveling the route during peak season of 5,000 on the west side and 2,000 on the east side. . Deters non-local traffic from accessing this roadway because of its distance from U.S. 1. . Reduces outbound left turning movement from Ships Way, although total turning traffic volumes are anticipated to increase at the U.S. 1 / Ships Way intersection. . Passes by only nine scattered, existing homes on the west side with no homes physically impacted. . Achieves the community's objective to provide a local cross island connection and is the most preferred (34% to 36% of survey respondents) alignment. Issues: 1. Right-of-way acquisition - additional private lands with public access conservation easements must be acquired for the public road. 2. Barrier removal - is a controversial issue among the residents of Tropical Key Colony and will require BOCC approval. 3. Traffic calming - will require some form of traffic calming to curtail potential speeders 4. Intersection improvements- improvements are required at the U.S. 1 / Ships Way intersection to accommodate higher traffic volumes. 5. Wetland permitting - mitigation for the filling of a small segment of wetlands at the western end of Harbor Lights Road will be required. #2 Main Street I 24th Street Alianment Description: This alignment is located approximately 0.15 mile north of U.S. 1. On the west side it incorporates a new east/west 900' segment (state and private owned), aligning with Enterprise Avenue across from Ships Way, adjacent to the north property line of the mobile home park, then it takes a short jog to the south along an existing scarified County property on the east side of the mobile home park, then follows an east/west segment on existing unscarified County property, followed by a jog to the south on West Sandy Circle, South Sandy Circle, then a jog north on East Sandy Circle, then follows a new east/west segment on existing scarified County property, a jog north on to Loma Lane, a new east/west segment state owned adjacent to the north property line of the lumber business, then following northeasterly an existing scarified state owned segment, and a new private owned segment between the two banks. On the east side it incorporates scarified segments starting with 24th Street, a short jog north on to Pine Drive, then Mac Court to join with Cunningham Lane. The connection is between Ships Way (Lower Pine Channel Estates) in the west and County Road (Middle Sands Subdivision) to the east. Improved access will be provided for local residents to the shopping center, post office, churches, county parks and other facilities. This alignment is estimated to cost approximately $1.3M. ~ ~ -- stNflFED fDD _ _ _ _ l; HOUERK:H DR """- ~ BLUE !l: I1TTO/fS wY "'RON HIBtSDJS OR Ii PA" HAIfB01f UGHTS RD l1TTOI/S wY AVU PItIIiOM ....., AVE I FIfE /J( ,_ 21ST ST i i WID RD AVE . i I t2IID ST AVE G IlE.THOOlliT ._DR /WlEY RD AVE F JtJJRMlYS EIID RD ON'''' BRD IT AVE E ~ ...nA {/lAHt STJ :s ,.., AVED ~ I i A~ c~ HEJ/lffUf - i AVE. oo 1//' Uf 8 UJtlD CT AVE A ~ i '" ;/ f i!' ~TH A.VE" ~ Pros and Cons: . Requires clearing of critical Key Deer habitat in several of the segments of the alignment, located on conservation lands owned by the state; however, this acquisition and clearing may be justified by providing a needed fire break in these areas. . Requires a comprehensive plan amendment and approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan. . Provides some congestion relief on U.S. 1, increasing the level of service to at least "e" for at least 5 to 7 years without other improvements to that highway with the anticipated maximum number of vehicles per day (vpd) traveling the route during peak season of 4,000 on the west side and 2,000 on the east side. . Deters most non-local traffic from accessing this roadway due to its distance from U.S. 1. . Reduces outbound left turning movement from Ships Way, although total turning traffic volumes are anticipated to increase at the U.S. 1 / Ships Way intersection. . Passes by 21 existing homes on the west side and 12 existing homes on east side with no homes physically impacted. . Reasonably achieves the community's objective to provide a local cross island connection. Issues: 1. Right-of-way acquisition - requires for specific segments the clearing and acquiring of sensitive Key Deer habitat primarily owned by the state for conservation purposes, which makes permitting and acquisition a difficult and time consuming process. 2. Traffic calming - will require some form of traffic calming to curtail potential speeders. 3. Intersection improvements - improvements are required at the U.S. 1/ Ships Way intersection to accommodate higher traffic volumes. 4. Wetland permitting - mitigation for the filing of a small segment of disturbed wetland at the center of the alignment near Key Deer Boulevard will be required. #3 Frontaae Road Alianment Description: This alignment is immediately adjacent to the U.S. 1 corridor. On the west side it incorporates Henry Lane for approximately 300', then follows a new north/south unscarified segment on existing County property, then a new easUwest segment within the U.S. 1 right-of-way, then a new north/south segment on undeveloped private property between the two lumber businesses, a northeasterly existing scarified segment, and a new segment on private property between the two banks. On the east side it incorporates a 600' new easUwest segment behind the developed parcels. then a new north/south jog between developed parcels, then a new easUwest segment adjacent to U.S. 1 (but not within the FOOT right-of-way), and connects to Avenue A. The connection is between Ships Way (lower Pine Channel Estates) in the west and County Road (lower Sands Subdivision) to the east. Improved access will be provided for local residents to the shopping center and the post office. This alignment is estimated to cost approximately $1.1M. LEGEND ~ -- Sl:NIIFTCDIrJAD____ ~ HOUERt::H Off .. /GAD ,tStES!!!!! BLUE ~ HUON HIBISCUS lJff rtrnJItSiI'l' IYTTO//S iI'l' PARK 1YTTO//SiI'l' HIBlstJJS Oft HA/fB}/f LSfTS RO AVE J PRISOtrt -, AVE I LOQG( lIST sr i! i! E _~ AVE H ~ il.! i UllOA ST CHlIlCH U/ AVE . tzND ST _011 BAILEf AD AVE f DJRNEfS END RD t3I!D ST PJWTS CT AVE E ~ ~ l5 I!i I/Ji; cr SAJIs~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I!i Ii! AVE 0 '" j 24TH Sf plllDEJf C1 ~ ~ i ~ '" I i l: i! Aiof' c::n I;; " i A~ I Ii; ~ ! ~CT Ill' U/ tFfQlTISE. ffDJ .....A ------- 0- i! '" i!/ , i!' 5TH AVE 13 is .. Pros and Cons: . Uses existing paved and unpaved scarified roadway segments, except for a small segment, making this alignment the third least expensive, but still almost twice as much as the Harbor Lights Road / Lyttons Way / Hibiscus Drive alignment. . Requires a comprehensive plan amendment and approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan. . Requires clearing of critical Key Deer habitat in several segments of the alignment, located on conservation lands owned by the state. . Reduces commercial local trips from US 1 as it provides direct access to businesses; however, not as convenient for local residents as other alignments, because of its distance from established residential neighborhoods. . Provides some congestion relief on U.S. 1, increasing the level of service to "C" for 5 to 7 years without other improvements to that highway. . Attracts most non-local traffic because of the location abutting and paralleling U.S. 1. . Creates operational and safety problems with the U,S. 1 intersections. . Passes by very few residential parcels, only two of which has homes with no homes physically impacted. . Impacts business access and parking, which may have deleterious impact on some businesses. . Preferred by only 2% - 6% of the survey respondents. Issues: 1. Right-of-way acquisition - requires clearing and acquiring of sensitive Key Deer and wetlands habitat primarily owned by the state for conservation purposes and transfer from FOOT of surplus right-of-way which makes permitting and acquisition a very difficult and time consuming process. 2. Traffic operations - will result in operational and safety problems with U.S. 1 intersections that must be addressed to obtain FOOT approval for this alignment. 3. Business Impact - will result in significant functional problems for businesses unless access and parking issues are satisfactorily resolved, further complicating highway design and construction of the facility. 4. Bicycle Path - in some locations the Frontage Road cannot be accommodated within the existing FDOT right-of- way without either eliminating the existing bike path or acquiring new right-of-way to relocate the bike path. # 4 Journevs End I 22"d Street I Hammock Drive Alianment Description: This alignment located approximately 0.2 miles north of U.S, 1, On the west side it incorporates Journeys End Road, then a short jog to the south on to West Sandy Circle, follows a new east/west privately owned segment, then a short jog to the north on to Palmetto Avenue, follows a new east/west privately owned segment connecting to the west end of the water tower road, follows the water tower road, then a northerly jog on to Key Deer Boulevard, and connects with Church Lane. On the east side it incorporates 2200 Street, then a short jog south and then east on an existing scarified segment, and connects with Cunningham Lane. The connection is between Ships Way (middle Pine Channel Estates) in the west and County Road (middle Sands Subdivision) to the east. Improved access will be provided for local residents to the shopping center, post office, churches, county parks and other facilities. There is currently a barrier at Journeys End Road at the intersection with West Sandy Circle, which will have to be removed. This alignment is estimated to cost approximately $1M. lLW:U2. ~ -- zJ#W1ED1fJNJ____ ~ HOULIIICI/ aI ~1IJJiJ HHH'tt't ~ IYTTOiIS "" HIB1St:US aI IYTTOiIS "" _ UIIHTS lID M J ""ION ...., M I ,.... lIST ST Ii! Ii! 'NIO lID MH i I --~~---...... AVE , HNi/IrJac aI IWlEf lID J/tEr JlJHI/tE'fS EIID lID P!1RD ST ~urrs rr ME 5 IS MAC rr i W IS Ii! J/tED MlI ST .. ~ plI/lJENrr Met;. ... .. " ~ l: Ii! .. HEI/Ir UI j I MB ti i t ~rr AVE A ... Ii! ... Ii! ... ... ~ .CMlIOL .. ~ ... ... I ~ i 111 5TH AVE ~ 5 Pros and Cons: . Requires clearing of critical Key Deer habitat in several of the segments of the alignment, located on conservation lands owned by the state. . Requires a comprehensive plan amendment and approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan. . Provides some congestion relief on U.S. 1, increasing the level of service to at least "C" for at least 5 to 7 years without other improvements to that highway with the anticipated maximum number of vehicles per day (vpd) traveling the route during peak season of 4,500 on the west side and 2,500 on the east side. . Deters most non-local traffic from accessing this roadway due to distance from U.S. 1. . Reduces outbound left turning movement from Ships Way, although total turning traffic volumes are anticipated to increase at the U.S. 1 / Ships Way intersection. . Passes 21 existing homes on the west side within an established residential neighborhood, although no homes physically impacted, the neighborhood environment of the Tropical Key Colony subdivision may be noticeably changed and disrupted. . Reasonably meets the community's objective to provide a local cross island connection. Issues: 1. Right-of-way acquisition - requires for specific segments the clearing and acquiring of sensitive Key Deer habitat primarily owned by the state for conservation purposes, which makes permitting and acquisition a difficult and time consuming process. 2. Barrier removal - is a controversial issue among the residents of Tropical Key Colony. 3. Traffic calming - will require some form of traffic calming to curtail potential speeders, and intersection improvements at the U.S. 1 / Ships Way intersection to accommodate higher traffic volumes. 4. Community disruption - a total of 43 homes located along this corridor, therefore having the most disruption to the community. #1 and #3 Combined Alianments Description: This alignment combines the Harbor Light Road / Lyttons Way / Hibiscus Drive alignment and the Main Street / 24th Street alignment. The connection is between Ships Way (Pine Channel Estates) in the west and County Road (Sands Subdivision) to the east. Improved access will be provided for local residents to the shopping center, post office, churches, county parks and other facilities. The barrier at Harbor Lights Road at the intersection with West Sandy Circle will have to be removed. Si~nificant additional benefits can be reaped on the east end by adding to the combined alignment the segment of 22" Street between Wilder Road and Cunningham Lane. Because this is a scarified segment of gravel roadway, the cost of adding this segment to the combined alignment will be relatively insignificant. The combined alignment is estimated to cost approximately $2M. LEGEND ~ -- st:A/I'IlDIIMD____ ~ /IOUEJIICHDII Mf!t'ffJAD ,SSSlS!S!!l! ILl.< ~ rtTTOIISwr HEROM IYTTO/tswr .... HIBISCUS DR i> IYTTO/tswr HNffDf UGHTS RD AVE' PJlI50N ....., AVE' FIRE UI LODG' 21ST ST Ii! Ii! A/lD lID AVEH i l!! i UllOA Sf AVE 6 IltETHOO11T .... HAJIIIa:t. DR BAIlEY RD AVE F .xJJRlfEYS END RD CHURe>< 2JRD ST PILOTS cr AVE E 1l 1l "'TEA I!i UJl: cr SAils lID (UAIJI STJ ~ ",... urHST ~ !i i AVED ~ ~ ________, PlNDERCT ! @ A.yE ct:; e I:: HfNRf LIt ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ""'. '" 0; "'" II/E UI WRD cr OFfiCE AVE A ~ Ii! '" ~ f 5TH AVE g Pros and Cons: . Has same pros and cons of the two combined alignments. . Uses several alignments, which result in the highest cost of any alternative; however . Requires a comprehensive plan amendment for several segments and approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan for all but the northern alignment element. . Has a greater impact on Key Deer due to total length of paved road surfaces compared to other alignments. . Provides the best congestion relief on US Highway, increasing level of service to at least "C" for greater than 7 years or more. . Creates the least traffic volumes on local residential streets other than the "No Build" alternative reducing by half the anticipated maximum number of vehicles per day traveling these alignments during peak season compared to the single alignments. . Deters most non-local traffic from accessing this roadway due to distance from U.S. 1. . Meets the community's objective for a local cross island connection and is the most preferred alternative (38% of the survey respondents). . Provides for flexibility in implementation as the northern alignment element (Harbor Lights Road / Lyttons Way) may be implemented without reliance upon the southern alignment element (Main Street / 24th Street), which has numerous permitting and acquisition obstacles to overcome. Issues: 1. Rights-of-way acquisition, barrier removal, traffic calming, intersection improvements at U.S. 1/ Ships Way, and wetland permitting - these issues are same as for the two combined alignments. 2. Implementation - northern alignment element of this combined alignment may be implemented with little or no delays, while the southern alignment element requires securing permits and acquisition issues that may take years to implement; therefore the combined alignment would be implemented in stages with the more problematic segments being implemented at a later date after the least restrictive northern alignment element is completed. # 5 "No Build" Alternative Description: The "No Build" alternative assumes that no cross-island connector is built and therefore has no attendant costs for construction. Pros and Cons: . Does not require the expenditure of any public funds. . Has no impact on habitat and wildlife. . Does not increase through traffic on any of Big Pine Key's roads, especially on the west side and therefore creates no impacts on existing residential and business areas. . Provides no relief from the traffic congestion on U.S.1; any relief from traffic congestion on US 1 would be dependent upon proposed three laning of that facility which may take conservatively three to five years to implement before concurrency requirements under the Florida Statutes would be satisfied. . Is the least preferred alternative based on the survey responses (12% of survey respondents). . Does not meet the community objective of providing a cross island connector. . Does not provide a safe and convenient alternative for Big Pine Key residents to travel east to west on the island without traveling on US 1. Issues: 1. Building moratorium - with no cross island connector the current building moratorium is expected to remain in effect until the following actions are accomplished: approval of the Habitat Conservation Plan and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to authorize the three laning of US Highway 1 (6 months to a year), followed by the programming and completion of planning, design, and engineering (PD&E) for the project (approximately 1.5 to 2 years); and programming by FDOT of construction funds after PD&E is completed that guarantees that the highway improvement will be under construction within three years. 2. Community objective - a major need arising out of the community master planning process for Big Pine Key under the Livable CommuniKeys Program was a cross-island connector to connect living, working, recreation, and shopping areas north of U.S. 1 without residents having to use US. Highway 1; this alternative fails to accommodate this community need. BIG PINE KEY CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY (APPENDICES) Alternatives Evaluation Report MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA OCTOBER 2002 URS PROJECT .: 1263761 0.OOOOOIC5000041 n .07 Prepared by: URS CORPORATION SOUTHERN ,. 5100 N.W. 33 Avenue, Suite 150, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 333309 . ,. ! . Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study '\i ' . .,' -,- Alternatives Evaluation Report '.'. -'- --.' - _.- ,.- APPENDIX A Minutes URS 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 954,739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 MEMO Date: July 24, 2002 To: Marlene Conaway - Momoe County Rafael DeArazou - FDOT Rebecca Jetton - DCA David Koppel - Momoe County Tim McGarry - Momoe County Bill Miller - USFWS Julio Boucle - URS Raj Shanmugam - URS X. K, Yang - URS From: J enn L. King, P .E. Subject: Meeting Minutes Below, please find minutes from our first Steering Committee meeting for the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector, held on Monday, July 8, 2002. Attached, please find the revised project timeline, as discussed at the meeting. If you have any questions, feel .free to call me or Raj. . . This project will go through a full public involvement process. . Need # 1 - enhance local travel. . Need # 2 - reduce congestion on U.S.l. . The U.S. 1 three-laning project is critical, but not yet in the FDOT five-year work program, because it first must go through Comp Plan amendments. . The purpose of the Steering Committee is to take the lead for the direction of the project, provide a conduit of information from outside sources to the consultant, and to conduct the public meetings. . All Steering Committee members are working together to expedite the various processes that will be involved in this project. . Previous studies have been reviewed and data incorporated into this analysis. . The quit-claim deeds to property needed for the 1988 project of similar nature have been returned to the owners. Many of those lots are now owned by the USFWS. . The Key deer are a critical issue. The County has gone through an extensive planning process to prove that the project will not endanger the future of the deer. . Existing aerials will be used for the report and public meeting displays, in addition to graphics using GIS data. . A GIS-compatible Key Deer Mortality layer will be provided to the consultant by USFWS, Memo - Meeting Minutes July 24, 2002 Page 2 of3 . When details are required, the design will comply to County roadway standards. . Prelimirunyright-of-wayinformation will be used in the first report (Altematives Evaluation Report). The final report (Preferred Alignment Report) will include legal descriptions, with aid from the County. . Traffic calming measures will be considered throughout the process and will be detailed in the PAR. . Traffic data will consider a 20-year horizon (i.e. 2022). . The study area was preliminarily sketched in the draft HCP report, however that is to be modified. Ships Way will be one of the study area boundaries. A frontage road along V,S, 1 will also be included in the study area, . It was proposed that the study area extend to Watson Boulevard to the north. However, it was agreed that the study area boundary would stop at South Street. . CARL-funded land (through the DEP) may not be used for roads, only conservation and recreation. This will require further research. . Freshwaterwetlands are hard to find, but a loss is considered a "red flag". Saltwater wetland loss is also an issue, but not as critical. There are ways to mitigate for this, and it is discussed in the HCP. The County's "380 Agreement" with DCA will need to be addressed. . A GIS-compatible red-flag wetland layer will be provided to the consultant by the County. . Mitigation forrefuge lands is unusual, however the VSFWS will try to be flexible, given the data in and intent of the HCP. . Despite the HCP, there is no mitigation for impacts to Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat - "zero tolerance". . Some environmental taking is expected, regardless of alignment, which was one of the pwposes ofthe HCP. . The draft HCP will be modified from a "menu style" of improvements, to a "habitat unit" concept. . A road is not considered "development". . The AER matrix will include a "no build" alternative. . The matrix will be more qualitative than quantitative. The key issues to be "balanced" will be: A) community connectivity/human factors B) environment C) engineering/mobility D) economic cost . One issue to be incorporated in the AER - ease of acquisition of property, . Traffic will be modeled using QRS. Existing conditions will be calibrated. Each alignment will be separately evaluated. . Existing condition analyses will include the northbound right-turn lane intersection improvement along V.S, 1. . The 20-year future analyses will include the V.S, 1 three-laning project. . The local resident worst case conditions (Saturday morning to midday) will be analyzed, Memo - Meeting Minutes July 24, 2002 Page 3 on . Consideration of signs will be included in the PAR Economic development and community issues will be addressed separately in the PAR. . The anticipated posted speed will be 25 mph, suitable for a local County road, not for an FDOT arterial. . One alignment may be a "series of links", possibly just existing paved roads. . Alignments may have dog-legs. "Themeing" ideas such as bicycle lanes, sidewalks, decorative lighting, and/or land/streetscaping will only be applied to new segments of an alignment, not to existing paved segments. . It may be possible to create "public easements" for roadways. . Next Steering Committee meeting will be Tuesday, August 6, 2002, at 10:00 AM, same place. An updated project schedule is included with these minutes. 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 954.739.1881 Fax: 954,739.1789 MEMO Date: August 15,2002 To: Marlene Conaway - Monroe County Rafael DeArazoza - FDOT Van Fischer - USFWS Phil Frank - USFWS Liz Holloway - Monroe County Rebecca Jetton - DCA David Koppel - Monroe County Tim McGarry - Monroe County Bill Miller - USFWS Raj Shamnugam - URS From: J enn L. King, P .E. Subject: Meeting Minutes Below, please find minutes from our second Steering Committee meeting for the Big Pine Key Cross Island Connector, held on Tuesday, August 6, 2002. For your use, attached please find the updated project time line. If you have any questions, feel free to call me or Raj. . To date, the study length has been broken into 10 "color" segments for analysis, in order to eliminate some combinations of choices, Started with over 150 choices, now at approximately 40, will get to approximately 8 for the public meeting. . All alternatives will connect from Ships Way to Sands Road, to provide the desired cross island connection. . The study segments will all run east/west, unless there is a need to include a north/south segment. When the segments are combined they will form corridors. . Based on discussions with DEP Tallahassee staff, CARL state-owned land can be used for public purpose. They are open to this idea. They have sent URS details of what they own. The concept is that if (non FDOT) state-owned land is required, then the County will need to acquire other property that is on the D EP ''wish-list'' as mitigation. The DEP annually contacts a list oflocal property owners asking to buy their property. . Based on discussions with the USFWS, federally-owned property will be almost impossible to acquire for this project. Under the concept in the HCP to avoid and minimize, if there is any other choice, then the feds would be opposed. . County staff indicated that it would be desirable to open both Journeys End and Harbor Lights. Based on an understanding to date, the existing road barriers could be removed by the County at anytime. A review of the covenant between the homeowners and the County may be required. Memo - Meeting Minutes August 15, 2002 Page 2 of3 It is the current understanding that previously the roads were private and were brought up to County Code for County maintenance. Therefore, the County should have the final discretion concerning opening them to traffic, however this is a political issue. . Discussion of extending Lyttons Way to the west to connect to Ships Way, in lieu of using, for example, Harbor Lights, resulted in the realization of potential significant environmental impacts on the north option, as compared to Harbor Lights. It was noted that the north option would impact a home and/or business to connect to Ships Way, versus the fact that Harbor Lights has approximately three houses that front onto it, who will likely be opposed to the barricade removal. . The use of a "dogleg" alignment was discussed, They provide an impediment to the use ofthe alignment and are less preferred from an engineering standpoint. However, they tend to keep speeds lower and extraneous intrusive vehicles from using the alignment. There are pros and cons to having a dogleg alignment, but it is likely that the final alignment will have some doglegs. Regardless of doglegs or not, traffic calming techniques will be applied to the selected alternative to keep speeds low and minimize intrusion. It may be possible to buy additional right-of-way along the alignment, and turn some of the smaller doglegs into reverse curves. Most north/south doglegs were selected keeping a reasonable maximum distance in mind. . There was a discussion about parallel frontage roads to U.S. 1. Based on the best available information, the FDOT only owns the U.s. 1 corridor. The FDOT noted that the use of frontage roads was a popular concept, however many were poorly designed, and as a result, their use has fallen from favor. They can create problems, particularly the possibility of accidents at the connections back onto the main roadway. These connecting points can become "choke points" for traffic flow. . The process of segment elimination was demonstrated by the yellow segment on Pond Lane in reference to the Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit territory. The County noted that the yellow segment that extended Henry Lane through the mobile home park would have significant negative impacts. Within each color group such comparisons would be made to narrow the choices to approximately eight for the public meeting. . Some updates to the current "existing conditions" Exhibit included: adding the daycare facility on Pond Lane, label 20th Street as Lyttons Way, change "Potential Park" at north end of Sands Road to "County Park" (it has been voted on and will become a reality), and add Blue Heron Park on the north side ofLyttons Way. . Based on a preliminary review of engineering variables, it has been observed that alignments to the north provide less improvement to resident travel times than alignments to the south. This is in keeping with the idea that if you already live central or south, you are less likely to travel north to get to your destinations, most of which are south. . The segment matrix and the corridor matrix will be "Consumer Reports" style - qualitative, with full moons, etc. . The first cut making decisions on segments will analyze environmental and homelbusiness factors. The second cut between the approximate eight alignments will also include engineering factors and cost. Memo - Meeting Minutes August 15,2002 Page 3 of3 . In considering the human factors, do parcels reflect impact or should the number people/houses be used? It was decided that both number of parcels (titles to deal with) and number of houses would be used as criteria in the matrix. . It was noted that the public is concerned about life style. Theywill ask how many "new" cars will drive by my house? Segment volumes will also be added to the evaluation matrix. . Recognizing that choice will be beneficial, the County requested a review of an "all open" option, removing barriers at both Harbor Lights and Journeys End. Also create a "combo" of multiple alignments for better service. . It was discussed if Ships Way may become a bottle neck onto U.S. 1. The local residents who would drive west to Ships Way will most likely be interested in turning west (right) to head to Key West. In addition, the lower volumes on U.S. 1 will allow all movements more gaps in the traffic stream. Overall traffic is expected to improve. . Upon selection of the preferred alignment, a decision will be made regarding sidewalks and bikes. Some items may be considered overkill, depending on the exact location. . Within the blue color group, between West Sandy Circle and East Sandy Circle, some ofthe intermediate segments were questioned. These will be evaluated, and will remain only ifthey logically connect other east/west segments. . Consideration should be given to closing or making one-way the section of Wilder Boulevard between U.S. 1 and 24th Street. A new connection south ofthe shopping plaza would have enough separation from U.S. 1 to operate acceptably, considering the expected volumes. . No alternative should require a new traffic signal. This would not be in keeping with the rural nature of the project. . The traffic distribution model QRS was discussed. The model has been calibrated to existing collected data. A SYNCHRO analysis was reviewed, and will be available at the public meeting. . Exhibit 3 will be revised to note "internal" and "external". . Exhibit 6 will be revised to more clearly indicate travel to/from Key West/Marathon. . A JPG file of all the potential segments will be submitted to the County to post to the website prior to the public meeting. . Next meeting will be Tuesday, 13 August, at 1 :00 PM, at these County offices. The public meeting will be in Big Pine Key at the Neighborhood School at 6:30 PM. The public meeting will include aPowerPoint overview and boards around the room. The County will provide comment sheets, a sign-in sheet, and staff to watch the door. . The current schedule remains unchanged (see attached). . A draft report will be submitted to the County on 19 August, incorporating the public comments. . The following meeting will be Tuesday 26 August, from 10:30 AM until 5 :00 PM at the USFWS building in the Winn Dixie Plaza on Big Pine Key. Agenda will be a review and comments on the draft report, discussion of public input, and a determination of which alignment to recommend, to be incorporated into the Preferred Alignment Report (PAR). 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 954.739,1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 MEMO Date: September 11, 2002 To: Marlene Conaway - Monroe County Liz Holloway - Monroe County Rebecca Jetton - DCA David Koppel - Monroe County Tim McGarry - Monroe County Raj Shanmugam - URS Rob Will - Monroe County CC: Rafael DeArazoza - FDOT Bill Miller - USFWS From: Jeon L. King, P.E. ,~7 Subiect: Meeting Minutes Below, please find minutes from our third Steering Committee meeting for the Big Pine Key Cross Connector, held on Thursday, September 5, 2002. If you have any questions, feel free to call me or Raj. . For the FDOT three-Ianing project to happen: first the HCP must be completed, there is a possibility of court cases associated with the HCP that may also then need to be addressed, then a380 agreement with DCA must be complete to modify the Comprehensive Plan, then the FDOT can program the PD&E phase of the project, approximately for two years, then monies for construction can be added to the FDOT Five-Year Work Program. . Tim and Rebecca agreed that the 380 agreement is to facilitate Comprehensive Plan changes, not to just lift the moratorium or to ignore concurrency issues. . While the FDOT three-Ianing project will require a Comprehensive Plan change, the Cross Connector will not, . To reiterate, the primary purpose is for local convenience, and the secondary purpose is for better U.S. conditions. . Historically, the road closures on Harbor Lights Road and on Journeys End Road were not desired by the owners, but was an environmental issue from USFWS. At that time Mayor Jack London agreed to make progress, and a resolution was recorded. Resolutions can be un-recorded. In the time since then, the USFWS has determined that Key deer mortality is not a compelling issue to maintain the road closure. According to Marlene, the county attorney has determined that the Memo - Meeting Minutes September 11, 2002 Page 2 of 4 street closure could be dissolved when both parties are in agreement. Marlene will provide this letter or information to the team. . Based on Florida concurrency statues, the three-laning project has to be in place or under actual construction within three years of the "issuance of a C.O, or its functional equivalent", To lift the moratorium the three-laning project would have to be in the firstthree years of the FDOT Five- Year Work Program as a funded construction project. . F or the Public Input Appendix, add a summary text sheet to the pie graphs. Remove the bulky actual two-sided forms. . For the intro, revise to indicate that the reason that Lyttons W aywas not built last time was due at least in part to DCA issues, parcel sizes, and land development regulations, Although unlikely given the current land development regulations, if necessary, steps will be taken so as to avoid creating non-conformance (due to lot size, etc.). The historic environmental and land use issues have currently been addressed by the RCP and the density changes in the land development code, . Background section, bullet 3: verify the word "sufficient" with respect to the 2000 "Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study", . Convey the idea - even if the FDOT does the three-laning proj ect, the Cross Connector is still needed to be a part of the overall transportation solution for the island. . Section IT.A. - add key attracting destinations beyond study area - have to cross it to get to them. . Change from "New County Park" to county parks in general (all encompassing). . Add discussion of normalization to the section on traffic data. . Add to the conclusion section a mention about considerations for Ships Way traffic. . For Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8, indicate that it is the existing roadway network. . On Exhibit 10, simplify the legend, Many of the types in the legend did not occur, Make the items distinct (better for photocopies) symbols. List general motor vehicle accidents and Key deer accidents and a table ofthe number of accidents. . Upon completion, provide entire report in PDF format to County. . Add a secondary house impact - use visual aerial inspection and count actual houses along each corridor, This is a part of the community "impact". . Move entire discussion of segments out of report body and into a new appendix. . On Exhibit 16 - change the legend to say "Future Land Use". . For Exhibit 18 - change the legend to say "RCP Tier Information". . Expand the conclusion section. Discuss items from the evaluation matrix, issues, ownership, easements, etc. . Add to the conclusion "other issues to be addressed in the PAR" - speed humps, STOP sign locations, left turns on V,S. 1 (intrusion), etc. . For community impact, include figures in an appendix that show the traffic volumes "past my house" . Memo - Meeting Minutes September 11, 2002 Page 3 of 4 . Coordinate with the draft RCP regarding the ability to use other than only existing pavement/scarified area. The final PV A model with R -values will be a tool that will allow the County flexibility. . Prior to this meeting, Tim had requested that a sketch ofthe recommendation be added to the conclusion section, including back ofbusiness connections, intersections, returns, right-of-way, and the roadway, on top of an aerial. Exhibit 25 was created for this purpose. . In order to shelter the residents in the area, in the PAR look at possible one-way road on Sunrise Road or Sunset Road. Perhaps a barrier? Maybe leave the J oumeys End Road barrier up? But this does not seem equitable to all, and is counterproductive for facilitating traffic. . Remove the speed humps noted in Exhibit 25 - these are only in one residential area, however ultimately they will be in more locations. Discuss them in text. . Limiting left turns from Ships Way and Palmetto A venue is a possibility for future consideration, Definitely consider an additional southbound right-turn lane on Ships Way. . For Wilder Road and Loma Lane don't show new barriers, but discuss in text. . At the new intersection with Key Deer Boulevard, don't show a circle, show STOP signs, but discuss in text. At Wilder Road, move STOP signs to east/west until further study. . For this report, keep the options to text only, and the exhibit simple. Details are for the next step, . For this report, do indicate the two barriers are to be opened. . On Exhibit 25, indicate existing STOP signs, versus proposed new ones. . For Exhibit 25, label it Lyttons Way, rather than 20th Street. . For the September 11, 2002 meeting at the Planning Commission, bring the new Exhibit 25, the public involvement pie graphs, and the proposed traffic volume figures. Do not provide a full background ofthe project. . For the PAR, keep the design as rural as possible. Sidewalks and bike lanes will be considered at a future time, if needed. . In general, if two-way volumes are greater than 800 vpd, consider a paved shoulder for bike use. . Keep lane widths narrow. Do not expect to provide street lighting. . After this process, right-of-way will be the next concern. Design will come at the end ofthe acquisition phase. . In the PAR, allow for multiple pieces - many typical sections are allowed. If the segment is existing, expect to do nothing. . F or this proj ect, no survey effort. Although it has recognized limitations, use the GIS data for ownership and right-of-way data. The County Property Appraiser likely has the same dataset. Cross reference to title information, with an RE#. Tim will assist with this step, particularly with easements. . Specifically review the two areas on the Main Street alignment west of West Sandy Circle to verifY ownership - is it owned by the County? . Momoe County roadway standard specs provide a "hardship clause" - if there are significant constraints (like environmental or right-of-way) then there can be deviations. Memo - Meeting Minutes September 11, 2002 Page 4 of 4 . Per the roadway standard specs, consider the Cross Connector a collector roadway. For new segments, II-foot lanes apply. . Submit final report one week after the planning meeting. . After this meeting, Rafael provided clarification - for the three-Ianing proj ect, when the HCP, the DCA 380 agreement, and the Comprehensive Plan are done, then the County must supply a letter to FDOT stating such, and asking that the FDOT program the three-Ianing proj ect. It is possible that even with the HCP, a simplified PD&E phase will be required. If any Chapter 120 issues arise, it may be possible to continue a PD&E phase, but not later phases. 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 MEMO Date: November 21,2002 To: Marlene Conaway - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 289 2536 Liz Holloway - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 289 2536 Rebecca Jetton - DCA - Fax # (305) David Koppel - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 295 4321 Tim McGarry - Monroe County - Fax # (305) 289 2536 Rafael DeArazoza - FDOT - Fax # (305) 377 5684 Andrew G, Gude - USFWS - Fax # (305) 872 3469 Phil Frank - USFWS - Fax # (305) 872 3469 CC: J enn L. King From: Raj Shanmugam - URS Subject: Fourth Steering Committee Meeting Minutes - November 15.2002 The fourth Steering Committee meeting for the Big Pine Key Cross Connector was held on Friday, November 15, 2002. The primary intent of this meeting was to review the Alternatives Evaluation Report (AER) and to prepare for a presentation at the December BOCC meeting. In addition to the Steering Committee members a few local residents were present at this meeting, Following is a summary of items discussed at the meeting and their disposition. If you have any questions, feel free to call me. . USFWS cautioned that, other than Alignment # 1, some segments ofthe remaining three west alignments have significant environmental issues that may cause considerable delays in securing approval from permitting agencies. For example; all three alignments require building on unscarified land that were either purchased through CARL program, or it is Tier I Key Deer Habitat and/or Pine Land, URS explained that all alignments have some form of environmental, community and/or engineering issues to be dealt with. The magnitude of the issues and the difficulty associated with addressing these issues are being used as factors in the segment and alignment evaluation process. . County Engineer stated that having several cross island connectors will achieve the goal better than only one connector, He suggested that in addition to building a cross island connector, regrading all gravel roadways should be proposed. Further, he does not favor removing the barricades at Fourth Steering Committee Meeting Minutes November 15, 2002 Page 2 of2 the Journeys End / Sands Road intersection, because it will affect many residents who live along Journeys End, unlike the removal of Harbor Lights Road barricades which will affect only a few residents. The proposed Alternative 5 consist of Alignments # 1 and # 3. Improving the roadways (re- grading) is a Public Works function recognized and identified in the HCP. Not removing the Journeys End barricades may be a good compromise to build consensus among the residents. . County staff noted that the numbers presented on the traffic table in Appendix C contradict the traffic numbers presented on exhibits in Appendix D. URS explained that the reason for the discrepancy is that the table reflects the raw numbers from QRS Traffic Model and the numbers on the exhibits are adjusted model numbers to reflect reasonable distribution of traffic volumes within the study network. County staff requested that it should be explained in the report. . USFWS suggested that a traffic monitoring program should be recommended with the implementation of the preferred alternative. The implementation details will consider adding the traffic monitoring task. . County's Bicycle / Pedestrian Coordinator suggested that bike and pedestrian facilities should be part of any cross island connector. The implementation details will consider adding bicycle and pedestrian facilities. . One ofthe residents suggested that the county should re-grade L yttons Way / Harbor Light Road corridor and monitor the traffic before implementing the cross island connector. Another of the resident questioned why take the 'all or nothing' approach, why not implement the east side connector and observe what the implications are before implementing the west side connector. County staff noted, that in order for the cross island connector to be affective it should not be implemented piecemeal. . The Steering Committee concurred with the study finding that the best cross island connector will be a combination of Alignments # 1 and # 3, referred to as Alternative 5. However, the anticipated permitting delays associated with some segments of this alternative was recognized, and the committee recommended that Alternative 5 should be implemented segment by segment, starting with the implementation of segments that has no issues that may delay the implementation. . The report is a technical document and has many details that may be confusing to the BOCC and may mis-inform. A revised Executive Summary will be prepared and submitted to the County Stafffor review by 11/22/02. This document will not exceed four pages and will include a discussion of pros and cons of each alternative that was studied. ,~ ,,," ~ ~ -. 1- ' Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study \i' '" Alternatives Evaluation Report APPENDIX B Traffic Data URS US 1 w. of Spa/lish Ch. Br. Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 000000000001 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, 1322, Weston FI, 33326 Start Date: 07/08/2002 File r ,.D. : C: \PROGRAM IT Street name :US 1 Cross'street:W. of Spanish,Ch. Br. , Page : 1 Begin Mon, 07/08 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. .Sun. Week Avg. Time NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB /'fB SB NB SB 12:00 am * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 86 69 86 69 02: 00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 60 31 60 31 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 33 26 33 26 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 55 28 55 28 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 46 40 46 40. 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 132 98 132 98 07:00 * * * * .. * * * * * .. * 255 118 255 118 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 357 199 351 199 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 583 318 583 318 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * .* * 654 412 654 412 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 764 551 764 557 12:00 pm * * * * * * * * * * * * 756 639 756 639 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 619 601 619 601 02:00 * * .. * .. .. .. * .. * * .. 641 576 641 .576 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 584 629 584 629 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 584 547 584 547 05:00 * * * * * * * * *, * * * 546 542 546 542 06:00 .. * * * * * * * * * * * 488 457 488 457 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 430 378 430 378 08: 00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 306 337 306 337 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * .282 239 .282 239 10:00 * * .. * * * .. * * * * * 229 159 229 159 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 131 101 131 101 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8621 7101 8621 7101 0 0 0 0 0 0 15722 15722 Avg. Day ,0% ,0% .0% .0% ,0% ;0% .0% .0% .0% .0% ,0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00' Volume 764 557 764 557 PM Peaks 12~OO 12 :130 12~OO 12~OO Volume 756 639 756 639 ...---- US 1 W. of Sp~ish Ch. Hr. Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 000000000001 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, t322, Weston Fl, 33326 Start Date: 07/08/2002 File 1. D. ~ C~ ",PROGRAM FI Street n Cross stxeet,:.W. of S anish Ch. Br~ , Pa e : 2 Begin 07 15 Tues, Wed. Thur, Fri. Sat, Sun. Week Avg. Time -S8 .blB SB NB S8 NIl ,S8 .NIl sa m SB ,HB S8 HB S8 12:00 am 38 79 59 76 66 71 66 88 71 152 142 . . 92 74 01:00 34 33 61 30 42 25 40 36 65 68 91 . . 38 56 02:00 33 33 44 22, 48 17 U 23 40 54 60 . * _29 44 03:00 2~ 25 24 32 25 31 32 36 27 55 49 * .* J.6 30 04:00 56 53. 39, 54 41 54 55 51 57 63 43 * * 54 48 05:00 91 72 95 88 89 94 _ 89 95 99 67 69 * * 86 89 06:00 275 175 .297 191 320, 1H8 303 191 2,93 153 141 * * .181 272 07:00 511 395 554 351 537 319 536 399 +99 322 282 * * 372 486 08:00 501 487 460 557 503 484 447 535 494 513 351 * . 517 459 09:00 472 569 447 .569 524 541 446 5,40 515 603 489 * * 563 482 10:00 507 57Q 570 5.43 496 6H3 510 643, 550 637 625 . * 627 543 11:00 593 581 592 713 608 660 612 736 565 695 771 . * 671 624 12:00 pm 641 630 602 651 646 645 630 678 639 695 611 781 * * 628 680 01:00 571 609 559 650 5A.8 60.9 55,5, 677 58.4 744 550 816 * * 561 684 02:00 592 ~72 544 .~24 529 .618. 553 .jj98 590 7~7 5~7 .~31 ,* * s.62 678 03:00 558 657 58.1 622 641 706 565 696 694 810 557 715 * * 599 701 04:00 659 586 672 659 655 655 619 667 . 704 765 549 676 * .. 643 668 05:00 611 569 728 580 740. 5.15 72.4, 629 701 785 522 6.92 * * 671 628 06:00 541 +67 -v12 471 569 HO ~2 520 ~oo 619 550 ~77 * . 57.9 541 07:00 366 350. 375. 349. ' 360. 381. 437 415" 446 469 395 583 * . 396 424 08:00 270 223 305 310 290 339 287 295 285 461 310 470 * * 291 350 09:00 232 190 297 223 292 204 .3,15, 264.. 338 .364 .379 277 * * 309 254 10:00 Hl2 131 2{)3 159 238 161 245 192 272 U1 410 2G8 * * 258 185 11:00 129 92_. 165 96 138 111- 151- 126. 181 240 .~.,.., * * ).oW * * 153 133 Totals 8659 8313 8715 8636 8872 8793 8910 9034 9407 10255 8782 9639 0 0 8916 9133 16972 17351 17665 17944 19662 iotJ- 18421 ~gii 0 18049 Avg, Day 97.1% 91. 0% 97.7% 94.5% 99,5% 96,2% 99.9% 98,9% 105.5% 112.2% 98.5% 105.5% .0% ,0% AM Peaks 10:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 1,0:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 685 593 581 592 713 608 683 612 736 565 .695 771 671 624 PM Peaks {)4-:00 02~OO 05-:00 04:00 05:00 {J;3:oo 05:.GO 02:00 04: 00 03:.00 12:00 01:00 05:00 03:00 Volume 659 672 728 659 740 706 724 698 704 810 611 816 671 701 ADTs US 1 E. of Ships Way Raven Engineering data. Inc. Site Code: 000000000002 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace. '322. Weston Fl. 33326 Start Date: 01/08/2002 File 1. D. : c: \ PROGRAM FI Street n~ :US 1 CrOBS street,E. of Ships Way . Page : 1 Begin Mon. 01/08 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Week Avg, Time SB NB SB HB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB 12:00 am ,- * * * * * * * -* * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 35 54 35 54 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 25 34 25 34 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 54 31 54 05:00 * * * ,* * * * * * * * * 40 48 40 48 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 91 136 91 136 01:00 * .. * * * * * .. .. * .. * -125 254 125 254 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * *- * 221 380 221 380 09:00 * .. * * * * * * * * * * 350 608 350 608 10:00 * * * .. * .. * * * * * * 458 616 458 616 11:00 * .. * * * * * * * * .. * 608 159 608 159 12:00 pm * * * * * " .. * * * * * 100 160 100 160 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 652 625 652 625 02:00 * *- .. * .. * * * .. * .. * 629 643 - -629 643 03:00 * * * * * * * .. * * * * 680 585 680 585 04:00 * .. * * * * * * * * * * 586 581 586 581 05:00 * * " * * * * * * * * * 588 540 588 540 06:00 * * .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 485 499 485 -499 01:00 .. .. * .. .. * * * * * * * 399 443 399 443 08:00 * .. * * * * * .. * * .. .. 366 308 366 308 09:00 * * '* * * * .. .. .. * .. .. 241 290 241 290 10:00 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Hi9 213 Hi9 213 11:00 .. * .. * * * * .. * * * * 105 134 105 134 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1608- 8630 1608 8630 0 0 0 0 0 0 16238 16238 Avg. Day .0% .0% .0% ,0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100,0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 608 159 608 159 _ PM Peaks 12~llO 12~Oll 12"illl 12" 00 Volume 100 160 100 160 US 1 E. of Ships Way Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code 000000000002 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, .322, Weston Fl, 33326 Start Date 07/08/2002 File 1- D. C,\PROGRAM FI Str-eet 11 Cross street:E. of Shi s Wa , pa e 2 Begin 07 15 Tues, Wed.. Thur.. Fri. Sat. Sun. .Week Avq. Time NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB 12:00 am ' 86 58 79 68 82 69 73 0 157 0 296 4 0 34 110 01:00 35 63 33 50 38 42 27 0 108 0 158 * * 32 66 02:00 23 49 31 49 22 42 11 0 60, 0 113 * * 28 H 03:00 -35 23 25 2-6 .33 '32 31 0 65 0 1D9 * * 18 5D 04:00 47 40 55 41 54 56 55 0 109 0 107 * * 33 71 05:00 99 97 70 87 91 83 97 0 196 0 144 * * 60 116 06:00 198 288. 196. 304, 206 29,8 H4 0 495 0 3,06 * * .194 266 07:00 404 549 406 542 370 51-6 392 2 9:14 0 -6-34 * * 354 520 08:00 554, 489 501 517 574 483 504 0 1079 4 895 * * 338 684 09:00 578 474 611 544 588 475 549 1 1084 1 1148 * * 336 760 10:00 -68,9, 6,15. 566. . 519 570 50,9 71.4 13, 1258 1 1351 * * .3611 ,858 11:00 673 034 '594 651. 73"6 ~55 '979 0 1'348 0 1.'550 * * 381 980 12:00 pm 676 664 700 597 679 676 135 1244 3 1393 0 1437 * * 366 1002 01:00 659 581 687 568 656 54.7 6 .1285 0 1378" 0 1385 * * 335 957 02:00 733 --605 -6611 564 7-IM 54-8 2 B02 -0 14D6 0 1239 ,* * 352 944 03:00 6.92- 541 64.1, 581 76-4 646 2 1330 O. 1552 1 1336 * * 350 998 04:00 636 652 699 690 720 655 5 1307 2 1533 0 1276 * * 344 1019 05:00 637 630 632. 721 58.0 757 L 1403 0 .1529 ..0 .1287 * * 308 .1054 06:00 517 529 513 -623 550 51Hi 0 1190 0 12115 0 1289 * * 263 917 07:00 374. 380 374 385 410 369 0 900 O. 951 0 1020 * * 193 668 08:00 255 271 339 307 376 295 0 621 1 784 0 818 * * 162 516 09:00 209 233 250, ,3,01 21,9, 288, 0 597 .0 126 0 693 * * 1.13 473 10:00 141 1-68 .17-6 21.3 172 231 0 .H6 0 545 -0 -6511 * * 82 377 11:00 95- 126, 98 162 119_ 133 0 286 0 410 35 185 * * 5,8 217 Totals 8951 8801 9156 8881 9349 9095 3111 15543 22 20365 42 19434 4 0 5102 13667 17752 18037 18444 18,654 20387. 19476 4 18769 Avg. Day 115.4\ 64.4% 179.4% 64.9\ 183,2"% 66 ;"5% 60,9% 113.7% .4% 149.0% .8% 142.2% .0% .0% JIM Peaks 11:00 10:00 11:00 09:00' 11:00 11:00 07:00 11:00 . 10:00 11:00 08:00 11:00 12:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 645 689 634 611 651 736 516 979 13 1348 4 1550 4 381 980 PM Peaks -62-: GO IZ-:Oe 12-:'0e 05-:'00 '0-3,00 -05-: DO 12,00 D5-:-60 12,00 'G3-:0o 11,00 12-: 00 12,00 05,00 Volume 733 664 700 721 764 757 135 1403 3 1552 '35 1437 366 1054 ADTs US 1 W. of Post Office Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 000000000003 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, '322, Weston Fl, 33326 Start Date: 07/08/2002 File I. D. : C: \PROGRAM FI Street name :US 1 Cross street:W. of Post Office , Page : 1 Begin Mon. 07/08 Tues. Wed. Thur. FrL Sat. Week Avg. Time NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB S13 NB SB 12:00 am * * * * * * * * * * . * . . 01:00 . . . * . . * * . . . * ~<.) 1;1 . . 02:00 . . . . * . * . . . . . 54 54 37 03:00 . * * . * * . . * . * . 31 26 31 26 04:00 . . * . . . . . . * * . 52 31 52 31 05:00 . . . * * * * . * * * * 48 44 48 44 06:00 * * . * * * * * * * * * 140 94 140 94 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 267 142 267 142 08:00 . * * * * * * * . * * * 387 230 387 230 09:00 * * * * * * * . * * * * 639 334 639 334 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 695 433 695 433 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 773 603 773 603 12:00 pm * * * * * * * . * * * * 785 648 785 648 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 639 629 639 629 02:00 * * * * * * * * . * * * 651 618 651 618 03,00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 604 639 604 639 04:00 * * * * * . * * * * * * 617 575 617 575 05:00 * * * * * * . * * * * * 567 557 567 557 06:00 * * * * * * . * * * * * 507 455 507 455 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 445 372 445 372 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 332 368 332 368 09:00 * * * * * * *. * * * . * 303 .251 303 251 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 216 162 216 162 11:00 * * . * * * . * . * * . 133 100 133 100 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .a3&5 ~ 8885 7348 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 16233 ~~ - 7<fU Avg. Day .0% .0% ,0% ,0% .0% .0% ,0% ;0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 773 603 773 603 PM Peaks 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Volume 785 648 785 648 US 1 ~. of Post Office Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code 000000000003 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, #324, Weston F~, 33326 .Start Date. 07/08/2002 FileI.D. C: \PROGRAM FI street Cross street:W, of Post Office , Page 2 Begin 07/15 Tues. Wed. Thur, Fri. Sat, Sun. Week Avg. Time SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB S8 NB SB NB SB N8 SB 12:00 am 39- 0, 141 O. 148 0 140. 0 0 0 0 * * 14 78 01:00 3~ 0 95 0 90 0 74 0 0 0 o. * * 6 50 02:00 2 0 78 0 68 0 70 0 0 0 0 * * -4 41 03:00 31 0 47 0 60 0 62 0 0 0 3 * * 6 34 04:00 56 0 94, 0 96 0 1.11 0 0 0 1 * * 8 60 05:00 97 0 165 0 185 0 182 0 0 0 ~ 0 * * 16 105 06:00 260. 0 4.18 0 510 0 482" 0 0 0 4 * * 34 289 07:00 463 0 928 2 665 0 692 0 3 0 2 * * 72 532 08:00 524 4 9all 0 1096 0 998 0 9 0 3 * * 95 603 09:00 450 0 1095 0 1172 0 989 0 7 5 20 * * 104 622 10:00 511 o. 11a6 0 1115 2 1.62 0 15 0 .1-0 * * 123 500 11:00 604 1 1240 0 1362 1 12 1 23 0 10 * * 122 542 12:00 pm 701 642 1 1305 1 1335 1 20 1 10 0 19 * * 118 555 01:00 607 642 .1 1276 0 1266 0 1,6 3 21 1 5 * * l.Q2 536 02:00 634 696 0 1210 0 1241 1 7 0 24 0 3 * * 106 530 03:00 581 650 0 1250 0 1395 1 9 0 4 0 4 * * 97 552 04:00 675 595 0 1362 0 1350 0 4 0 5 0 2 * * 112 553 05:00 665 574 0 1358 0 1311 2, 0 4 3 0 1 * * .112 541 06:00 160 855 2 1136 0 1100 0 0 0 2 0 0 * * 27 516 07:00 0 764 0 765 O. 767 0 2 0 11 0 3 * * 0 392 08:00. 0 516 0 637 0 677 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * 0 305 09:00 0 458 0 550 0 518 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * 0 ,.254 10:00 0 315 0 371 0 411 0 0 0 0 0 1 * * 0 163 11:00 0 232 O. 255 0 261 0 0 0 0 * * * * 0 150 Totals 7638 10062 9 18030 3 16441/, 6 4232 9 137 6 91 0 0 1276 6525 17700 18039 16444 4240 146 97 0 9603 - Avg. Day 597.6% 118.0% .7% 211. 5% .2% 216.3% .6% 49.6% .7% 1. 6% .4% 1.0% .0% .0% AM Peaks 10:00 11:00 06:00 11:00 07:00 11:00 10:00 08:00 11:00 11:00 09:00 09:00 10:00 09:00 Volume 737 604 4 1240 2 1362 2 996 1 23 5 20 123 622 PM Peaks 12:00 06:00 06:00 04:00 12:00 03:00 05:00 12:00 05:00 02:00 01:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Volume 701 855 2 1362 1 1395 2 20 4 24 1 19 118 555 ADTs US 1 E. of Palmetto Rd. Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.4 Big Pine _ 316 Indian Trace, '32.2, Weston F1, 33326 Start Date: 0.7/0.6/20.0.2 File I. D. -: c: \PROGRAM FI Street II of Palmetto Rd. , Pa e : 1 Begin Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun, Week Avg. Time .NB BE .NB SB NB BE .NB SB NB BE NB SB NB 12:0.0. am . . . . . . . . . * . . . . . 0.1:0.0. . . . * . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2:0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 46 36 46 0.3:0.0. . . . -. . . . . . . '" . 25 31 25 31 0.4:0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . * 34 51 34 51 0.5:0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 47 43 47 0.6:0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ba 142 BB 142 0.7:0.0. '" * '" . '" . * '" * . . * 147 265 147 265 o.B:o.o. '. * . . . . . . . . * . 241 387 241 387 0.9:0.0. . . . '" * . . . . . . . 371 652 371 652 10.:0.0. . . . * . . . . * . * * 490. 696 490. 696 11:0.0. '" * '" * . * * * . * * . 667 769 667 769 12:0.0. pm . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 790. 721 790. 0.1:0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . * 685 648 685 -648 0.2:0.0. '" . '" . . '" '" '" . . . . 6-61 649 ~1 649 0.3:0.0. . * * . . . * . * . * * 662 614 662 614 0.4:0.0. * * . . . * * * * * * * 611 615 611 615 0.5:0.0. * * . * . * * * . * . * 60.5 .554 60-5 .554 0.6:0.0. . -. . * '" . . . '" * * . 50.4 5il9 50.4 50.9 0.7:0.0. . * * . * * . . * * * * 40.3 439 40.3 439 0.8:0.0. * * . * . . * . * * * * 379 331 379 331 0.9:0.0. * * . * * * * * . * * * -268 30,9 268 3-09 10.:0.0._ . . . * '" '" . '" '" * * . 166 215 166 215 11:0.0. * * . . * * . * * . * . 110. 130. 110. 130. Totals 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 7939 6911 7939 8911 0. 0. 0 0. a 0. 16650. 16850. Avg. Day .~ oil' .-6-% ,{l% .-{l% ,0% .-0.% .{l% .0., .il' .-0% .il'1ilO.a' 10D.{}% AM Peaks 11:0.0. 11:0.0. 11:0.0. 11:0.0. Volume 667 789 667 769 . PM Peaks 12~ 00 -ill: 00 -12:'00 12-:00 Volume 721 790. 721 790. . US 1 -.:. -uf-'Pa"lJnetto Ro. Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 000000000004 Big pine 318 Indian Trace, 1322, Weston Fl, 33326 Start Date: 07/08/2002 FHa I...D. -= C: \PRDGRAM FI Street n Crossstreet:E. of Pallftetto Rd. Pa e : 2" Begin 07 15 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat, Sun. Week Avg, Time NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB 12:00 am' 85 67 75, 71 80 70 11 78 0 158 0 * '" 81 52 01:00 34 67 31 52 37 47 27 69 0 100 0 '" '" 62 22 02:00 25 47 32 ,51 22 49, 18 42 0 fi6 0 '" '" A8 1.6 03:00 -3ii 23 26 25 34 3~ 31 31 {) 50 0 * '" 31 21 04:00 47 37 53 39 53 57 54 48 0 42 0 '" '" 47 34 05:00 98 107 74 91 92 85 94 104 0 77 0 * '" 94 60 06:00 199 286 198 298 219 288 201 299 0 -149 0 * * 256 ' 13.6 07:00 -435 548 -421 544 -38~ 5H 418 ,411 0 2~ G * '" -4-81 21~ 08:00 554- 499 - 531 571 599- 530 492 558 0 413 0 * '" 528 363 09:00 648 552 648 629 631 515 487 602 0 578 0 * * 574 402 10:00 760 673 6_09 605 .629 _582 1 663 0 149 0 '" * 646 333 11:00 740 709 674 720 750 734 0 691 0 926 0 * '" 150 361 12:00 pm 739 725 751- 657 739 696 785 0 807 0 876 0 * * 783 346 01:00 726 621 762 613 738 618 753 0 860 q-O ' _87-0 0 * '" 185 309 02:00 714 -646 111 58-3 165 569 -829 ~ -81-4 0 120 0 '" '" 1-80 300 03:00 740- 589 731 627 815 669 789 0 -894 0 810 0 * * 796 314 04:00 693 677 747 704 763 686 768 0 878 0 744 0 * * _ 766 344 05:00 643 660 669 727 616 7-74 729 0 907 0 .738 0 * * ..724 - -360 06:00 5-3ii 521 5~ ~3a 513 58-4 595 {) 130 0 141 0 '" '" 621 290 07:00 403 395 414 405 443- 391 4,84 0 535 0 656 0 * * 489 198 08:00 258 276 362 315 401 308 363 0 512 0 516 0 * '" 402 150 09:00 224 248 255 306 224 ,294 285 0 392 -n 325 0 * * 284 -1-41 10:00 H3 H2 la2 215 -1-80 -243 213 0 260 0 2-H -0 * '" 201 105 11:00 103 131 105 155 129 137 141 0 248 0 '" '" * * 145 85 ,Totals 9551 9322 9859 9317 10082 9495 10235 1894 11579 0 10884 0 0 0 10390 SOla 18873 19176 19577 12129 11579 10884 0 15408 Avg. Day 91. 9% 185.7% 94.8% 185.6% 97.0% 1-89.2% 98.5% 37.7% 111. 4% .0% 104.7% .0% .0% .0% AM Peaks 11:00 10:00 l1:QO 11:00 11-:00 11:00 11:00 08:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 09:00 Volume 717 760 709 674 720 750 734 492 691 926 750 402 PM Peaks -02-:-00 12 :0001-:-00 05-:00 -o3~OO or. 00 02: GO -e5~-OO 12:00 -e3~OO -o5~00 VolUDle 774 725 762 727 815 774 829 907 876 796 360 ADTs I ( ; ~ US 1 E. of Lorna Ln. Raven Engineering data, Inc, Site Code : 000000000005 Big Pine 318 ,Indian Trace, 1322, Weston Fl, 33326 Start. ,Date: 07/D8/2002 File 1.0. : C: \PROGRAM IT street "lUfte :-US 1 ~ Cross street:-E. of LOIna'Ln. , Pa e : 1: Begin Man,. 07 08 Tues. Wed. Thur. FrL ~~.sa t. ,.,Sun. Week Avg. Time NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB 12:00 am * * * * * * * * * * * * .~r *)2 * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * . * * )f: *,Sl * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * . * * *}f * * 03:00 * * * * * * * . * . * * U'34 24 34 24 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 51 32 51 32 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 48 42 48 42 06:00 * * * * * * * * * . * * 1..39 .86 1:39 86 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 267 144 267 144 08:00 * * * * * * * . * * * * 393 238 393 238 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * :,.. 659 358 659 358 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * ..* 113 '414 11-3 '474 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 814 646 814 646 12:00 pm * * * * * * * * * * * * 825 702 825 102 01:00 * * * * * * * * * . * ,. .. 6.ElO 668 .680 .668 02:00 * . . . " . " . . '. . . 619 6-42 619 642 03:00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 656 631 656 04:00 . . . . . . . * . . . . 635 594 635 594 05:00 . . . . . . . . . . . . .581 .594 58.1 594 06:00 .. . .. . " .. . .. . . . . 5Hi 4-67. 516 481 07:00 . ., . . . . . . * . . . 460 409 460 409 08:00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 378 341 318 09:00 . . . . . . .. . . * . . .317 ,.268 . ,.311 .268 10:00 .. ,* .. '. " .. " '. '. '. .. . 22-3 165 223 HiS 11:00 . . . . . . . . * . * . 127 107 127 107 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 9133 7714 9133 7714 0 0 0 0 0 0 'j3.-16847 16847 g"" 7~~ Avg. Day .ll% ;-0% ;m ,ll% ';m ;ll'% :U% :U% :01 .U\ .01 .O\-nro.. U'% . TOU ,0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 814 646 814 646 PM Peaks H!:-mJ 12 ~-OO 12-:-00 1.2:00 Volume 825 102 825 702 ~ US 1 'E. 'cff 1:.011\6 Ln. Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code 000000000005 Big Pine 318 Indian TraceJ 1322, Weston FlJ 33326 Start Date 07(08/2002 File I~ D. C: \ PROGRAM FI street name :US 1 Cross street~E. of LOIIIa Ln. , Page 2 Begin Mon. 07/15 Tues, Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. . Sun. Week _Ayq~ Time NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB liB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB 12:00 am ' 6.7 31 89 0 81 0 0 4 0 5 0 9 * * 43 9 01:00 35 38 38 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * 19 6 02:00 25 31 40 0 26 .0 0 O. 0 0 0 .1 * * 15 5 03:00 35 29 33 0 3~ 0 {) {) {) 0 {) 8 * * 17 6 04:00 48.. 61. Ei9. 1 54. 0 0 1 0 7 0 5 * * 26 12 05:00 98 100 93 0 92 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 * * 47 18 06:00 205 271 258 0 221 0 0 2 0 6 .0 5 * .. .114 47 07:00. 443 494 524 ,0 3e7 0 1 0 {) 5 0 9 * * 226 '85 08:00 574. 584_ 662 . 1 615_ 0 1 0 0 12 0 5 * .. 309 100 09:00 661 551 698 2 696 0 2 40 .0 16 0 9 * .. qH3 -.1.03 10:00 782 588 742 2 953 0 0 82 0 13 0 13 .. .. 413 116 11:00 776 698 751 1 316 5 0 16 0 12 0 9 * * 307 124 12:00 pm 753 727 722 0 200 7 0 8 0 3. 0 0 .. .. 27? 124 01:00 644 700 1083 0 19 15 0 6 {) -0 0 {) * .. 291 120 02:00 674 14-9 815 0 0 16 0 4 0 0 0 0 * * 248 128 03:00 615- 708 1000 0 2. 22 0 I- 0 1, 0 0 * .. 270 122 04:00 707 667 441 0 23 19 0 5 0 0 0 0 .. .. 195 115 05:00 _677 627 784 0 22 14 0 1 0 0 ,,0 0 .. .. -247 107 06:00 545 8e 672 1 2 34 0 0 0 0 0 3 .. .. 203 21 07:00 501 0 421 O. 1 32 0 0 O. 0 0 6 * .. 154 6 08:00 358 0 321 0 0 36 0 5 0 6 0 23 .. .. 113 12 09:00 :PO 0 315 0 0 50 0 ..8 {) 14 .0 22 .. * .98 -Hi 10:00 1-114 {) 220 0 0 32 0 6 0 .11 0 27 * .. 67 13 11:00 144 0_ 158 O. 0 22_ 0 3 0 2 .. .. * * 60 5 Totals 9841 7748 10949 8 3784 ' 304 4 192 0 115 0 159 0 0 4106 1420 17589 10957 4088 196 115 159 0 5526 ( Avg. Day 239.6% 545.6% 266.6% .5% 92.1% 21.4% .1% 13.5% .0' 8.1% .0% 11.2% ,0% ,0%. AM Peaks 10:00 11:00 11:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 09: 00 10:00 09:00 10:0'0 10:00 11:00 Volume 782 698 751 2 953 5 2 82 16 13 413 124 PM Peaks 12~OO ()2~{){) -ol~OO' 06:00 12:,00 .09:00, 12:00 09:00 10:00 01:00 02:00 Volume 753 749 1083 1 200 50 8 14 :27 2,91 128 ADTs - US 1 W. of Key Deer Raven "Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 1)OOOOOotlOOO6 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, 1322," Weston FI, 33326 start Date: 07/08/2002 File LD. : C:\PROGRAM FI street name :US. 1 Cross street:W.' of" Key Deer , P6qe : I Begin Mon. 07/08 "Tues. "Wed. "l'hur. Frio Sat. Sun. Week Avg. Time NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB 12:00 am * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * '* * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 31 33 31 33 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 38 54 38 54 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 45 46 45 46 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 80 125 80 125 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 146 234 146 234 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 231 351 231 351 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 368 551 368 551 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 461 618 461 618 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 638 686 638 686 12:00 pm * * * * * * * * * * * * 710 728 710 728 Dl.,:,QO * * * * * * * * * * * * 665 626 665 626 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 645 608 645 608 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 672 563 672 563 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 591 567 591 567 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 614 551 614 551 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 509 489 509 489 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 443 44-1 443 441 08:00 * * '" * * * * * * * * * 390 347 390 347 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 294 322 2,94 322 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 185 212 185 212 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 115 140 115 140 Totals 0 Q 0 Q "0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7871 8292 7871 8292 0 0 0 0 0 0 16163 16163 Avg. Day .0'% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100,0% 100.0% AM Peaks 11-:00 ll~-oO 1l~00 11~00 Volume 638 686 638 686 PM Peaks 12:00 12:00 12:00 12:00 Volume 710 728 710 728 US 1 'W. - of Key Deer Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code 000000000006 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, '322, Weston Fl, 33326 Start Date 07/0B/2002 File I.D. C:\PROGRAM FI street n Cros5street:W. of Ke "Deer , Pa e 2 Begin 07 15 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Week Avg. Time .SB liB -SB liB -SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB -SB 12:00 am " 94 71 84. 71 79 74 86 84 84, 165 153, * * 86 97 01:00 33 61 37 57 55 51 32 74 54 101 76 * * 64 48 02:00 26 53 30 54 24 47. 23 40 28 66 41 * * 49 29 03:00 3~ 2~ 30 29 35 29 33 33 33 52 64 * * 33 38 04:00 47 44 49 41 5.1 63 51 49 56 44 63 * * 51 53 05:00 91 101 66 91 85 71 88 101 89 78 57 * * 90 79 06:00 162 268 1.61 2.96 177 ,27.8" 1,65 279 17B 152 14.1 * * 260 164 07:00 -402 545 376 527 3-53 523 361 4a8 393 293 340 * " 481 371 08:00 5.12 520 457 592 524 534, 448 578 499 409 494 * * 538 489 09:00 569 547 56B 634 600 542 557 615 573 575 595 * * 579 577 10:00 677 65.3 5,85 589 563 ,571 64,9 652 638 711 645 * * .63.5 626 11:00 695 '-6% -617 101 -691 131 '618 -6~3 101 691 6113 " " 133 677 12:00 pm 740 663 764 602 733 641 180 641 795 654 853 603 * * 718 635 01:00 738 592 754, 598 760 591. 753, 578 822 612. 907 499 * * 7.89 518 02:00 %6 513 135 540 -1-63 54-4 -622 52-6 675 593 694 5-65 * * 71~ 557 .03:00 721 546 716 578 785 605 786 582 902 636 789 545 * * 783 582 04:00 675 604 746 633 768 626 750 566 863 680 764 534 * * 761 607 05:00 642 63,4 658 656. 607 694. 73!l 6.77 899 671 164 537 * * 1.11 .6_45 06:00 556 4c87 562 -614 5-98 -590 576 .5a9 142 -514 730 560 * " -628 569 07:00 418. 3.9-7 41,6, 427 440 UO 520 446 556 457 656 419 * * 501 426 08:00 285 291 380 311 415 306 365 324 494 312 563 317 * * 417 310 09:00 238 2,5.7 263 29B 237 2B2. 295. 321 !l10, ,326 329 .370 * * ,295 -3,0,9 10:00 142 H7 2&3 242 195- 26-6 239 262 309 3i36 245 396 ,* " 222 275 11:00 '118 137 122 159 1.40 139. 14-6 '164 '275 171 188 292 * * 165 177 Totals 9643 8702 9904 8720 101251 8937 10282 8847 11598 9318 11025 8986 0 0 10431 8918 18345 18624 19066 19129, 20916 20011 0 19349 Avg. Day 92.4% 97.5% 94,9% 97.7% 97,1% -100,2% 96.5% ~9,2% 111.1' 104.4% 105.6% 100.7% .Q% .0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 704 695.. 696 617 707 691 731 67,8 663 701 B97 67B 733 677 PM Peaks 02~OO 12~00 12:00 05~00 03~QO ~OO. 02~00 05~00 03~iJ{) 04~eO 01~O,O 12~00 01~00 '05-:eO Volume 766 663 76!l 656 785 69,4, 822 671 902 680 907 603 789 645 ADTs US 1 E. of Key Deer Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 000000000007 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, '322, Weston Fl, 33326 Start Date: 07/08/2002 File I.D, : C: \PROGRAM IT street name :US.1 Crijss street:E. of Ke Deer , Pa e : 1 Begin Mon. 07 08 Tues. Wed. Thur. Frio Sat. Sun. Week Avg, Time SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB 12:00 am * * * * * * ,* * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * *, * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 04:00 * * *. * * * * * * * * * 27 48 27 48 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 43 52 43 52 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * .58 134 58 134 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 170 268 170 268 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 226 395 226 395 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 353 535 353 535 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 446 703 446 703 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 603 714 603 114 12:00 pm * * * * * * * *' * * * * 654 794 654 194 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 611 .630 611 630 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 602 615 602 615 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 658 614 658 614 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 577 578 577 578 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * ,,573 544 .573 544 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 471 4-65 471 465 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 398 412 398 412 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 330 306 330 306 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * ,245' ..275 .245 275 10:00 ,* * * * * .. .. .. * * * * 1611 III 7 168 187 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * .. * 97 130 91 130 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7310 8399 7310 8399 0 0 () 0 O. 0 15709 15709 Avg. Day .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% ,0% .0% .0% 100.0% 100~0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 603 714 603 714 PM Peaks 03:00 12-: 00 03,00 12.00 Volume 658 794 658 794 . US 1 E. of Key IR'\er Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 000000000007 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, '322, Weston FI, 33326 Start Date: 07/08/2002 File I.D. : C:\PROGRAM FI street 'n Cross street:E. of Ke Deer , Pa e : 2 Begin 07 15 Tues, Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Week Avg. Time .NB SB NB .sB. .NB .sJ3 .NB .sB .NB SB NB SB ,NB SII .HE 12:00 am 81 0 0 0 107 0 62_ 0 0 0 1 . . B 42 01:00 32 0 1 0 92 0 43 0 0 0 0 . . 6 28 02:00 27 0 0 1 70 0 25 0 0 0 0 * * 8 20 03:00 34 0 1 -0 61 0 1 0 0 0 0 . * 4 1-6 04:00 40 0 1 0 98 0 9 0 0 0 0 . * 10 25 05:00 108 0 0 1 157 0 6 0 0 0 0 . * 13 45 06:00 195 0 3 1 419 0 9 0 0 0 0 . * 34 104 07:00 472 0 4 4 786 0 29 0 1 0 0 . * 58 215 08:00 566 0- 3 0 81ll. 0 31 0 3 0 3 . * 81 248 09:00 595 3 18 1 933 1 26 0 1 0 3 . * 87 263 10:00 715 1 15 2 737 4 0 1 4 0 4 . * 101 246 11:00 721 3 10 1 996 5 1 0 6 3 4 . * 113 290 12:00 pm 725 643 6 18 5 1033 3 5 0 3 1 1 . * 123 284 01:00 677 590 0 12 0 999 7 4 2 5 3 7 . * 115 270 02:00 707 515 0 1 0 807 2 10 2 4 3 2 . * 119 233 03:00 720 546- . 1 12 3 955 2 7 0 14 1 1 . * 121 256 04:00 708 591 1 6 1 994 1 2 2 6 1 0 . * 119 266 05:00 673 534 2 47 2 858 2 5 5 6 5 1 . * 115 2-42 06:00 184 451 0 74 0 832 0 0 2 7 4 0 . * 32 227 07:00 0 12 0 269 0 560 0 0 0 1 0 0 . * 0 140. 08:00 0 21 0 438 0 488 0 0 0 2 * * * * 0 190 09:00 0 5 0 429 0 341 0 0 0 1 * * * * .0 155 10:00 -0 9 -0 334 0 290 1 2 0 1 * * . * 0 127_ 11:00 0 9' 1 209 0 153. O. 0 0 0 . * . * 0 74 Totals 7499 7572 18 1905 22 13647 28 277 14 65 21 27 0 0 1267 4006 15071 1923 13669 305 79 48 0 5273 Avg. Day 59-1.8% 189.0\ 1.4-\ 47,5\ 1.1\' 340.-6\ 2,2% 6.9% 1.1% 1.6% :1.6% ,6% .0% .0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 09:00 09:00 07:00 11:00 11:00 12:00 10:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 666 721 3 18 4 996 5 62 1 6 3 4 113 290 PM Peaks 12,-00 12,00 12,00 ~:OO 12:-ee ,. 12 :00 -01,:00 -02:00 -05:-00 03:00 '05,00 01:00 12:00 12:00 Volume 125. 6A3. 6_ 438 5. 1033 1 10 5 14 5 7 123 284 ADTs US 1 W. Of CouJlty Rd Raven" Engineering data, Inc. Site Code : 000000000008 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, *322, Weston Fl" 33326 Start Date: 01/08/2002 File 1.0. : c: \PROGRAM FI Street name :US 1 Cross street:W. of Count Rd. , Pa e : 1 Begin Mon. 01 08 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Week Avg. Time SB llB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB, SB NB SB NB SB NB 12:00 am * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 03:00 * * * * * .. * * * * ,* * * * * * 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 35 43 35 43 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 34 49 34 49 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 68 125 68 125 07:00 * * * * * .. * * * * * * 141 2fi1 141 267 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 224 331 224 337 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 299 497 299 497 10:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 379 650 319 650 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 563 filHl 5-63 688 12:00 pm * * * * * * * * * * * * 594 111 5~4 111 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 514 615 514 615 02:00 .. * * .. .. * * ,* * * * * 5'13 -510 513 570 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 630 604 630 604 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 533 525 533 525 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 524 5O1 524 501 06:00 * .. * * * * * * . * * * 43-6 432 43-6 432 07:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 353 399 353 399 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 325 284 325 284 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 206 235 206 235 10:00 * * * * * * * .* * * .... '" 142 1-92 142 192 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 89 107 89 107 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6124 7831 6724 7831 0 0 0 0 0 0 14555 14555 Avg. Day .{J% ,{J% .-0% .-0% .{J% .-0% .{J% .{J% ,{J% .0% .0% .0% 160.0' 100.0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 563 688 563 688 PM Peaks 03~ 00 12~OO 03,-00 -12.,.00 Volume 630 111 630 111 US 1 1i .'Q1'Cou}lty Rd Raven Engineering data, Inc; Site Code 000000000008 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, #322, Weston F1, 33326 Start Date 07/08/2002 File 1_ D. C, \.PROGRJIM IT Street n . Cross street,W.. of Caun Rd;. Pa e 2 Begin 07 15 Tues. Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. Sun. Week Avg. Time NB S8 NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB N8 12:00 am ' 80. 60 70 61. 64. 58. 52 3 151 1 273 . . 38 115 01:00 32 62 29 38 34 41 27 2 103 1 144 .. . 30 62 02:00 25 U 22 55 25 4,6 14 2 68 1 89 . . 30 40 03:00 3-6 i-9 25 25 '32 30 21 .2 56 0 BB . . 17 44 04:00 37 35 54. 41. 51 48 51", 3 100 4 88 . . 31 64 05:00 104 80 74 69 85 68 96 1 169 0 133 . . 50 110 06:00 .20.0 n7 193 232 21.7 193 2.02 3 420 ,2 2% . . 14,1 255 07:00 '1-3-3 '-359 .Hi -359 '399 352 .4-34 B 711 1 560 . . 23'4 505 08,00 520 371 493 422 532 388 455 13 922. 11 742 . . 276 611 09:00 549 441 535 484 581 442 544 7 982 4 968 . . 302 693 10:00 6,48 502 5,44 478 522 .H7 922 ,6 ,.1.05.5 ,19 .1ll,6 . . .279 801 11:00 658 605 541 645 647 45 1234 5 1240 10 1379 . . 314 950 12:00 pm 648 587 634 549 648 611 22 1188 10 1313 10 1331 . . 329 930 01:00 58I. 527 600 533 659 513 18 ,1159 5 12,51 32 1154 . . 316 856 02:00 -617 ,563 .6-60 ,464 .-642 51;0 23 1145 -3 12-89 12 H-34 . . .32-ii --85-4 03:00 641, 496 659 535 709 55,1 20 1197 22 1374, 11 1212 . . 344 894 04:00 635 544 646 556 666 542 2 1240 18 1386 15 1138 . . 330 901 05:00 .602 471. 6,45 535 607 61.4, 12. 1211 24 139.1 15 1155 . . 318 . .906 06:00 -497 4-lH .4-81 510 5Hl -47-4 1 1019 5 1150 8 1150 . * 250 764 07:00 355. 322 34.7, 3Q6 385 327 2 761 2 854, 8, 94.3 * . 183 586 08:00 211 210 279 246 327 247 2 527 0 700 5 788 . . 137 453 09:00 175 .234 213 255 ,.197 268 1 52.1. 1 643 3 .612 . . .98 422 10:00 135 149 :H7 1% 1-65 2Iti .7 399 2 53-0 3 593 .. .. '16 :348 '11:00 104. lOa 99 127 123. 10,4, 1 230 0 393 0 384 . . 54. 224 Totals 7989 7934 8202 7823 8547 8168 1989 14715 147 18313 176 17492 0 0 4506 12408 15923 16025 16715 16,704 18460 17668 0 16914 Avg. Day 177. 3% .63.9% 182.0% 63.0% 189.6% 65.8% 44.1% 118.5% 3.2% 147.5% 3.9% 140.9% .0% .0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 10:00 11:00 11,00 09:00 11:00' 08:00 11:00 10:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 577 658 605 544 645 647 442 1234 13 1240 19 1379 314 950' PM Peaks 12,00 12:00 -62.,00 '04-:-00 -6:3,00, -9S-:60 02,00 ,OS-: 00 -05,00 05-:-0 0 '01,60 12,00 ,0'3"00 12,00 Volume 648 587 660 556 709 614 23 1271 24 1391 32 1331 344 930 ADTs US 1, E. of First St. Raven Engineering data, Inc. Si te Code : 000000000009 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, *322, Weston Fl, 33326 start Date: 01/08/2002 File 1.D. : C:\PROGRAM IT street name :US 1 Cross street:E. of First st. , Page : 1 Begin Mon. 01/08 Tues_ Wed. Thur. Fri. Sat. StIli. Week Avg. Time SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB SB NB 12:00 am * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .. 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .. 02:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .. 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * .. 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 39 21 39 27 05:00 * * * * * *, * * * * * * 48 26 48 26 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 125 39 125 39 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 239 80 239 80 08:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 289 155 289 155 09:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 441 203 441 203 10:00 * * * *. * * * * * * * * 518 212 518 212 11:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 624 461 624 461 12:00 pm * * * .. * * * * * * * * 648 463 648 463 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 555 485 555 485 02:00 * .. * * * * * * * * * * 496 499 496 499 03:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 543 535 543 535 04:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 466 448 466 448 05:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 415 445 415 445 06:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 351 350 351 350 01:00 * * * * * * * * * * * * 290 211 290 217 08:00 * * * * * * * * .* * * .. 214 215 214 215 09:00 .. .. .. .. * .. .. .. .. .. .. * 112 156 112 156 10:00 * * .. .. *' * ... .. * .. .. .. 155 113 155 113 11:00 * .. .. .. .. .. .. * * * .. .. 80 11 80 11 Totals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6180 5380 618Q 5380 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 12160 12160 Avg. Day .0% .0% .0% ,0% .0% .0% ,0% .0% .0% .0% ,0% .0% 100.0% 100.0% AM Peaks 11:00 11:00 11:00 11:00 Volume 624 461 624 461 PM Peaks 12:00 03:00 12:00 03:00 Volume 648 535 648 535 US 1 'E. of Firpt St. Raven Engineering data, Inc. Site Code 0.00.0000000.09 Big Pine 318 Indian Trace, '322, Weston FI, 33326 Start Date 07/.08/2002 File 1.,0- C:\PROGRAM FI Street n~ :US 1 Crossstreet:'E; of First SL , Pa e 2 Begin Mon'.- 07 15 Tues. Wed. Thur. Frl.. Sat. Sun. "Week Avg. Time SB HB SB HB SB HB SB NB sa NB sa Ha sa HB sa NB 12:00 am " 62 36 49 51 52 45 43 51 50 69 78 130 * * 56 64 01:00 27 36 20 62 27 38 21 37 19 57 36 81 * * 25 52 02:00 17 38 18 39 15 45 12 46- 16 42 25 49 * * 17 ,43 03:00 35 21 2.0 18 2-6 18 22 3.0 28 28 39 34 * ,* 28 25 04:00 W 56, S3 29 55 36 49 39 60 39 54 32 * * 52 38 05:00 98 55 69 57 84 54 97 50 89 66 66 53 * * 84 56 06:00 200 14.3 19.0 128 2.15, 139 208 116 205 122 142 104 * * 193 125 07:00 394 217 379 226 3~5 228 392 234 4.01 211 211 1~7 ,* * 3~7 215 .08:00 436 282 372 234 433, 286 380 272 431 282 375 211 * * 404 261 09:00 450 303 448 305 474 331 461 320 431 347 463 314 * * 454 32.0 10:00 545 373 453 391 422 '352 567 389 494 379 490 438 * ,..* 495 -387 11:00 "532 434 426 464 5'1ll 494 "562 4110 562 450 520 595 * * "525 4116 12:00 pm 484 510 435 501 443 486 434 503 498 552 505 622 * * 466 529 01:00 394 430 413 438 394 509 402 517 401 572 383 6.04 * * 398 512 02:00 445 508 345 528 313 533 3'85 57-8 43.0 594 4,01 530 * * 396 545 03:00 364 521 392 518 405 539 379 565 450 686 377 595 * * 394 571 04:00 398 523 393 491 420 548 380 559 434 669 369 587 * * 399 563 05:00 337 493 383 501 445 494 389 574 416 681 360 6.06 * * 388 558 .06:00 294 424 341 367 36.0 416 346 42.0 3~.o 517 39.0 530 * * " 348 446 .07:00 219 269 223 252 208 3.03 247 334, 279 366 282 474 * * 243 333 08:.00 136 150 158 211 168 244 172 213 174 337 189 423 * * 166 263 09:.00 161 125 192 155 210 163 197 180 192 293 267 191 * * 2.03 184 10,:.00 IH) 1eO 138 121 169 126 17.0 143 n~ 25-3 313 17-3 * * 179 153 11:00 83 79 93, 85 76 91 85' 95 95 207 198 137 * * 105 116 Totals 6261 6126 6.003 6172 6387 6518 64.00 6745 6691 7825 6599 7680 0 0 6387 6845 12387 12175 129.05 13145 14516 14279 .0 13232 Avg. Day '98..0% 89,5% 93,9% 90.1% 100.0% 95.2% '100,2% 98.51 1.04,7% 114.3% 1.03.3% 112.2% .0% .0% AM Peaks 10:00 11:00 10:00 11:.00 11:00 11:00 10:.0.0, 11:.00 11:.00 11:00 11:0.0 11:00 11:00 11:0.0 Volume 545 434 453 464 548 494 567 480 562 450 520 595 525 486 PM Peaks 12~OO 04~00 12~'O.o .o2~.oO 05,{)0 .04,:0.0 12:.0.0 .02:0.0 12~.oO .03:00 12 ~-OO 12:00 12~00 03:0.0 Volume 484 523 435 528 445 548 434 578 498 686 505 622 466 571 ADTs URS Corporation Southern 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name: site_1 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000001 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Right App. R' ht App. R' ht App. Int. Total Ig Total Ig Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 02:00 PM 0 185 4 13 6 123 321 02:15 PM 0 184 5 7 2 155 346 02:30 PM 0 195 5 9 5 178 382 02:45 PM 0 153 8 14 4 130 297 Total 0 717 22 43 17 586 1346 Grand Total 0 690 27 0 7171 22 0 21 0 431 17 568 1 0 5861 1346 Apprch % 0.0 96.2 3.8 0.0 51.2 0.0 48.8 0.0 2.9 96.9 0.2 0.0 Total % 0.0 51.3 2.0 0.0 53.3 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 3.2 1.3 42.2 0.1 0.0 43.5 -~ T ~~ .l! N <Xl o - I- to f--~Cll l() ~ ---. North co l() 0 CD .... _ c l() - - r :1 :;- .r; 07/20/2002 14:00 00- ~~ rm,~ ::J 07/201200214:45 .... ~~ 0 '" 'll 't> CD ~~ CD c. a. '" '" lit 0 0- .... ~ ~ Left Right Peds I "~ ' ~ 43~ Out In Total New Found Blvd URS Corporation Southern 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name : site 2 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000002 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start T. R' ht App. R' ht App. R' ht App. Int. Ime 19 Total 19 Total 19 Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 02:00 PM 2 7 0 176 0 118 301 02:15 PM 2 4 1 148 0 133 285 02:30 PM 0 0 1 193 0 161 354 02:45 PM 0 4 1 147 0 149 300 Total 4 15 3 664 0 561 1240 Grand Total 4 0 11 0 151 3 661 0 0 6641 0 555 6 0 561 11240 Apprch % 26.7 0.0 73.3 0.0 0.5 99.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.9 1.1 0.0 Total % 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.2 0.2 53.3 0.0 0.0 53.5 0.0 44.8 0.5 0.0 45.2 Pa metto Avenue Out In T olal ~~L::::"J I I 1 41 0 111 01 Right Thru Left Peds .-J 1 4 _~<D <D il::~ T L~ Q j!!N G) 'go 0 0..... ..J - (J'lC ~ (.0) CJ)- 0> on ~ :g 2~ North ~=l to J:; ----------r ....---- 2 en on ~ 0> ~ .E 07/20/2002 14:00 ~ 0> :;- ::J 0 :E 07/20/200214:45 r- ~ ~ _ []:g ~+ -Autos + ~ 0 ~-l <5 0 en "'0 N ~ '0 CD '" CD ~ 0 ~ 0 o ~~~ Out In Tolal Not Named URS Corporation Southern 5100 NW. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name: site_3 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000003 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Righ App. Righ App. Righ App. Int. t Total t Total t Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 123 274 03:15 PM 0 0 1 2 2 180 368 03:30 PM 0 1 1 4 1 131 331 03:45 PM 5 7 3 13 10 156 394 Total 5 8 5 19 14 590 1367 Grand 5 0 3 8 5 737 8 750 12 0 7 19 14 573 3 590 1367 Total Apprch % 62.5 0.0 37.5 0.7 98.3 1.1 63.2 0.0 36.8 2.4 97.1 0.5 Total % 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.4 53.9 0.6 54.9 0.9 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.0 41.9 0.2 43.2 Lorna Lane Out In Total ~~L3 51 0 31 Right Thru Left .-J 1 4 -~ i Q~ to '" "'~~ L~ o ~ ~ Q) -' North a: 0 '" en '" ~ c on .... -l ......:;- c (J) - on ] -----. 07/20/200215:00 ~2...... :;) ~ '" ~ 07/20/200215:45 '" 0 .... 8[] .... - Autos ~ - .r:; r ~d ~+ +~'" '" liT '" - '" ~ i ~ Left Thru Right I '~ "I ~ 19~ Out In Total Retail URS Corporation Southern 5100 NW. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name: site_ 4 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000004 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Right App. R' ht App. R' ht App. Int. Total Ig Total Ig Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 11:00 AM 0 50 5 14 8 38 102 11:15AM 0 46 5 12 7 42 100 11:30 AM 0 51 12 27 9 37 115 11:45 AM 0 57 15 33 9 38 128 Total 0 204 37 86 33 155 445 Grand Total 0 163 41 0 2041 37 0 49 0 861 33 122 0 0 1551 445 Apprch % 0.0 79.9 20.1 0.0 43.0 0.0 57.0 0.0 21.3 78.7 0.0 0.0 Total % 0.0 36.6 9.2 0.0 45.8 8.3 0.0 11.0 0.0 19.3 7.4 27.4 0.0 0.0 34.8 Key Deer Out In Total ~ ~ ~o T L~ W~ ;r ~ '" .... North ~~ ~ $0 0 ::l 07/20/2002 11 :00 0 ':i Ql <: 07/20/2002 11 :45 ,... 0> .. +gj,~ ~ 80 - Autos ~~ ~ "ll .. 0> - 0. 0 .. 0 ~ Left URS Corporation Southern 5100 NW. 33rd Av~. Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale. Florida 33309 File Name: site_5 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000005 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Right App. Right App. R. ht App. Int. Total Total Ig Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 11 :00 AM 0 50 1 32 15 51 133 11:15AM 0 40 3 21 23 65 126 11 :30 AM 0 60 4 26 19 50 136 11 :45 AM 0 47 6 24 26 64 135 Total 0 197 14 103 83 230 530 Grand Total 0 189 8 0 1971 14 0 89 0 103 I 83 147 0 0 2301 530 Apprch % 0.0 95.9 4.1 0.0 13.6 0.0 86.4 0.0 36.1 63.9 0.0 0.0 Total % 0.0 35.7 1.5 0.0 37.2 2.6 0.0 16.8 0.0 19.4 15.7 27.7 0.0 0.0 43.4 Out Total ~ ~ ~o T L~ Q~ ~ - ~ .... North ~[ ~ ~o 0 S. 07/20/2002 11 :00 0 5' 0 ::I 07120/2002 11 :45 '" < r ~ 80 - Autos ...r- ~ ~ ~~~ "U .. CD - Q. .... en 0 ~ Left ~ ~ Out Total URS Corporation Southern 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name: site_6&7 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000006 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Right App. R ht App. Right App. Int. Total Ig Total Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 11 :00 AM 0 27 0 32 3 6 65 11:15AM 4 26 0 36 1 7 69 11:30 AM 6 21 0 37 1 8 66 11 :45 AM 3 17 0 34 1 5 56 Total 13 91 0 139 6 26 256 Grand Total 13 78 0 0 91 I 0 86 53 0 1391 6 0 20 0 261 256 Apprch % 14.3 85.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.9 38.1 0.0 23.1 0.0 76.9 0.0 Total % 5.1 30.5 0.0 0.0 35.5 0.0 33.6 20.7 0.0 54.3 2.3 0.0 7.8 0.0 10.2 1 -LJ ~=~ T D~ ~ CD -' l- e >. ~ -----. North '" 1C D~ : ~ N CD I- ;!: <: 07/20/2002 11 :00 0- U> ~ E 07/20/2002 11 :45 1:: CD 0 iE+ z 8U - Autos Di e on ." CD c.. URS Corporation Southern 5100 NW. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name: site_6&7 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000007 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Right App. Right App. R' ht App. Int. Total Total Ig Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 11 :00 AM 0 17 0 30 4 5 52 11:15 AM 1 22 0 31 2 3 56 11 :30 AM 1 25 0 19 1 1 45 11 :45 AM 2 24 0 20 1 2 46 Total 4 88 0 100 8 11 199 Grand Total 4 84 0 0 881 0 83 17 0 100 I 8 0 3 0 11 1 199 Apprch % 4.5 95.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 17.0 0.0 72.7 0.0 27.3 0.0 Total % 2.0 42.2 0.0 0.0 44.2 0.0 41.7 8.5 0.0 50.3 4.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 5.5 WI der Roo Out In Total ~~~ I 41 84 01 01 Right Thru Left Peds .-J 1 4 ~LJ M=~ T CD ...J 0 >. ]--. North 11l ~ ;: CD f- .f: -= 07/20/2002 11 :00 c CD .<= :E 07/20/2002 11 :45 "5 ~ ~LJ ~~ - Autos 0 .. '" CD Q. T ~ Thru Right 0 URS Corporation Southern 5100 N'w. 33rd Avenue. Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name : site 8 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 000'00008 Start Date: 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start T. R' ht App. R' ht App. R' ht App. Int. Ime 19 Total 19 Total 19 Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 03:00 PM 0 0 0 173 0 114 287 03:15 PM 2 3 1 164 0 117 284 03:30 PM 2 2 0 151 0 98 251 03:45 PM 2 2 0 137 0 92 231 Total 6 7 1 625 0 421 1053 Grand Total 6 0 1 0 71 1624 0 0 6251 0418 3 0 42111053 Apprch % 85.7 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.3 0.7 0.0 Total % 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.1 59.3 0.0 0.0 59.4 0.0 39.7 0.3 0.0 40.0 unmng m Out In Total C3~L:::"J I I I 61 0 11 01 Right Thru Left Peds .J 1 4 s~~ (')~~ T L~ ~o o ...... ....J it' .Jlo. I: .... ~ ...a. - 10 co ~ ::;: 2 ------.. North ~ ~ ~ f5. ------r c ~ ;;; .E 07/20/200215:00 ... OJ " C ::J 0 N ...a. _ []:;l:+ 07/~~:0:0215:45 r ~ 0 ~"'-I <5 00 " o~ -g [ t a. .. o ~~~ Out In Total Not Named URS Corporation Southern 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name: site_9 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000009 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Righ App. Righ App. Righ App. Righ App. Int. t Total t Total t Total t Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10:00 AM 1 7 2 14 13 21 0 1 43 10:15 AM 2 13 1 15 8 14 0 2 44 10:30 AM 0 8 2 12 15 24 0 2 46 10:45 AM 1 14 2 15 9 13 0 1 43 Total 4 42 7 56 45 72 0 6 176 Grand 4 35 3 42 7 15 34 56 45 24 3 72 0 5 1 6 176 Total Apprch % 9.5 83.3 7.1 12.5 26.8 60.7 62.5 33.3 4.2 0.0 83.3 16.7 Total % 2.3 19.9 1.7 23.9 4.0 8.5 19.3 31.8 25.6 13.6 1.7 40.9 0.0 2.8 0.6 3.4 County Roo Out In Total ~~~ I 41 35 31 Right Thru Left .-J 1 4 ~LJ ~=~ T L~ ~~ CD ;r ...J North .... CD co ..., CD .--- [ - a .l!! .5 ~ ---. 07/20/200210:00 :I :I " '" liT E! I- 07120/200210:45 ~ '" Ie U. CD ~LJ 0 - Autos :E ,.... ~~ ~+ +~~ 0- co ~ T ~ Left Thru Right I '~ "I ~ 72~ Out In Total County Road URS Corporation Southern 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name : site _10 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000010 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Right App. Right App. R' ht App. Int. Total Total Ig Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 10:00 AM 14 15 2 102 0 124 241 10:15 AM 16 21 1 128 0 134 283 10:30 AM 16 16 2 92 0 163 271 10:45 AM 18 21 2 140 0 125 286 Total 64 1 73 7 462 0 546 1081 Grand Total 64 1 8 0 731 7 455 0 0 4621 0 479 67 0 5461 1081 Apprch % 87.7 1.4 11.0 0.0 1.5 98.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 87.7 12.3 0.0 Total % 5.9 0.1 0.7 0.0 6.8 0.6 42.1 0.0 0.0 42.7 0.0 44.3 6.2 0.0 50.5 1 -~ ~=~ i L~ ~~ .l!!O Ql o ~ --' ;;!: I- .... '" "- North -f co ...~~ +--2" . ... ~ c: '" I- c.n 07/20/200210:00 c.n - c en - .... :> => 0 '" :E 07/201200210:45 ,... ..., 80 ~~ - Autos +~o 0 Q~ '" '0 .... - "0 Ql co Ql Co Q. .. 0 ~~~ Out In Total 10 URS Corporation Southern 5100 NW. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name : site_11 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000011 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Right App. R' ht App. Right App. Int. Total Ig Total Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 12:00 PM 13 19 9 252 0 178 449 12:15 PM 15 19 6 157 0 187 363 12:30 PM 16 17 11 207 0 152 376 12:45 PM 15 17 11 224 0 167 408 Total 59 72 37 840 0 684 1596 Grand Total 59 0 13 0 721 37 803 0 0 840 I 0 626 58 0 6841 1596 Apprch % 81.9 0.0 18.1 0.0 4.4 95.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.5 8.5 0.0 Total % 3.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 4.5 2.3 50.3 0.0 0.0 52.6 0.0 39.2 3.6 0.0 42.9 cotty's Dnveway Out In Total ~ 72 ~ 1 -~ ~=~ r L~ ~~ '" It) III o~ ...J :T -", I- .... co N North -l ~ co ~------. ~2Q) a) ~ " co I- a (j)- 07/201200212:00 '" "" ;,- => a .. ~ ~ 07120/200212:45 .-- a 8~ ~~ r~a ~d a .. 'tJ ..or .... - .., III co III c- n. .. a ~~~ Out In Total 11 I I I I URS Corporation Southern 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name : site 12 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000012 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start T' R' ht App. R' ht App. R' ht App. Int. Ime 19 Total 19 Total 19 Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 10:00 AM 2 2 0 1 0 2 5 10:15AM 4 4 0 3 0 4 11 10:30 AM 5 5 0 3 0 6 14 10:45 AM 3 3 0 2 0 7 12 Total 14 14 0 9 0 19 42 Grand Total 14 0 0 0 14 0 9 0 0 9 0 11 8 0 19 42 Apprch % 1000 0,0 0.0 0,0 0.0 10~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.9 42.1 0.0 Total % 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 21.4 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 26.2 19,0 0.0 45.2 First treet Out In Tolal c:::::::iJ~C3 I 1 141 0 01 01 Right Thru Left Peds ~ 1 4 _LJN a> ~~ T 'L~ Q -5 ~ ;?: 2 ~ 0 ~ - 0> :: 2 --. North f--- ~ 8>> T- ~ ~ :tI .11! E 07/20/2002 10'00 co :l g go' or ot _ LJN i ~ 07/~~::0210:45 r ~ 0 ~co -i 'g " 0 0 o en ~ N~ ~ ft 0 o ~~~Out In T alai Not Named URS Corporation Southern 5100 N.W, 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309 File Name: site_13 (954) 739-1881, Fax: (954) 739-1789 Site Code : 00000013 Start Date : 07/20/2002 Page No : 1 Start Time Righ App. Righ App, Righ App. Righ App, Int. t Total t Total t Total t Total Total Factor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 12:00 PM 5 67 0 0 1 36 4 15 118 12:15 PM 5 59 0 1 0 55 5 15 130 12:30 PM 12 67 0 2 0 29 4 12 110 12:45 PM 6 68 1 2 0 31 4 20 121 Total 28 261 1 5 1 151 17 62 479 Grand 28 230 3 261 1 3 1 5 1 141 9 151 17 1 44 62 479 Total Apprch % 10.7 88,1 1.1 20.0 60.0 20.0 0.7 93.4 6.0 27.4 1,6 71.0 Total % 5.8 48.0 0.6 54,5 0.2 0.6 0.2 1.0 0.2 29.4 1.9 31.5 3.5 0,2 9.2 12.9 -~ T D~ .11! - :=~ 'L~ 0 l- ll) >- ...J North 3: ~ ~ N ll) co - > " " ~--. 071201200212:00 f--- ~ c - .. ~ I- 07/20/200212:45 '" '" · LJ .... - Autos ~~ : - - Ul ... .<: r- '5 ~~ r~~ 0 ~ ~ Left Right 1 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study ~ Alternatives Evaluation ReDort \i.," '1"'--~~ --.-- ~ APPENDIX C Traffic Simulation Information URS I Traffic-simulation report 1. Application of QRS QRS (Quick Response System) is traffic distribution and assignment software. It is a computer program for forecasting impacts of the developments on highway traffic and estimating the impacts of highway projects on travel patterns. The objective of applying QRS in this project is to look at how traffic circulates in the roadway network given the different alternatives. The logic embedded in QRS to distribute and assign traffic volumes follows the traditional four-step procedures (Trip Generation, Trip Distribution, Model Split, and Traffic Assignment). The required inputs for QRS include the land use features such as income, dwelling units of houses, square feet of commercial (retail) buildings and other public & private facilities. The inputs also require traffic-related information like link capacity, link speed, link distance, intersection characteristics, etc. The QRS model is built such that it reflects the existing layout ofland-use and street network. In the QRS models, Centroid is used to represent residential area. The inputs include income and dwelling units. The dwelling units are obtained from Arc View database parcel by parcel (traffic zone). There are 129 parcels defined in Big Pine Key. The Production! Attraction Tag is used to represent commercial (retail). The trips produced from commercial area are based on the ITE trip generation book. The External Station is used to represent the end of the network (both ends of US 1). The production and attraction trips are based on the daily traffic volumes at the ends. There are 410 nodes and 491 links in the system. The system link speed is set to 25 mph except for U.S. 1 that is 45 mph. 2. Calibration of models The model calibration is to guarantee that the model can represent the real conditions. The procedure of model calibration is to compare the output from the model with the existing counts. This is a trial-and-error process, involving a lot of computer time. The following table shows the comparison between the QRS outputs and the existing counts. East-West Link Daily Volume Comparison for Bi :Pine Kev (Existing) Link Name of Links EB Volume WB Volume Combined No Counts Model Counts Model Difference 1 US 1: Bridge (W) --- Ships Way 11124 10033 10389 11490 0 2 US 1: Ships Way --- Newfound Blvd. 11572 12058 10425 10149 1% 1 US 1: Newfound --- Palmetto Way 12445 11895 9075 9999 1.7% 4 US 1: Palmetto Way --- Lorna Lane 11640 12017 10878 11404 4% 'i US 1: Loma Lane --- Scotty's Drive 11183 11929 8258 9176 8,6% 6 US 1: Scotty's Drive --- Chapman St. 13286 13147 9500 10447 3.5% 7 US 1: Chapman St. --- Cunningham 11842 8494 9032 11199 -5.6% R US 1: Cunningham ---County Road 10060 8130 9224 10836 -1.6% Q US 1: First St. --- Bridge (E) 9255 8964 6968 7129 -0.8% G:\134oo35\BigPineXIs1and\AEReport\ Traffic _ Simu]ation_ Report _ Oct_ 2002.doc 2 From the table it can be seen that the difference of the daily two-way traffic volumes between the models and existing conditions is very small, demonstrating that the model is well built. It can reasonably represent the actual traffic situation of Big Pine Key. 3. Develop future volumes The future traffic volumes were developed based on the growth in Big Pine Key 20 years after. The growth includes the opening of the County Park located at Atlantis Drive, and 200 homes distributed in the north part of US. 1. This information was put into QRS model and the outputs were compared with the future development on US. 1. The daily two-way traffic volumes on the segments of U.S. 1 were taken as the criterion to do the comparison. The traffic growth rate was obtained from the "2002 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study". In this study, regression analysis was conducted by using consecutive to-year traffic data at Big Pine Key. The annual growth rate is 0.14% and is used to estimate the future traffic volumes on US.l. The existing volumes on U.S. 1 were compounded calculated and the future results are shown in Exhibit 8. The following table exhibits the comparison of the daily two-way traffic volumes between QRS model and future volumes on the segments of US. 1. East-West Link Dailv Volume Comparison for BigPine Key (future) Link Name of Links EB Volume WB Volume Combined No Counts Model Counts Model Difference 1 US 1: Bridge (W) --- Ships Way 11440 10030 10685 12380 1.3% 2 US 1: Shins Wav --- Newfound Blvd. 11900 12270 10720 9310 -4,6% ~ US 1: Newfound --- Palmetto Way 12800 11910 9335 8955 -5.7% 4 US 1: Palmetto Wav --- Loma Lane 11970 11940 11190 10295 -4% 5 US 1: Loma Lane --- Scotty's Drive 11500 11920 8495 10340 11.3% h US 1: Scotty's Drive --- Chapman St. 13665 13440 9770 10550 2.4% 7 US 1: Chanman St. --- Cunningham 12180 8925 9290 11450 -5.1% R US I: CunninQ:ham ---County Road 10345 8795 9490 11360 1,6% Q US 1: First St. --- Bridge (E) 9520 9770 7170 6965 0,3% 4. Outputs- O-D points The current roadway network forms an isolated community, resulting in an excessive use of US. 1 for local people to meet the daily travel requirement. In order to monitor the inconvenience of the local residents due to the lack of connector, we pick up some origins and destinations in the island to look at how people travel from one point to the other. The O-D points are shown in Exhibit 15. The points selected are all the places that local residents often drive to visit like WinnDixie (point 5), Post Office (point 6), homes (point 1 through point 4), and Baseball field (point 7). Point 2 represents all residents living in the north beyond the South Street. It should be noted that point 1 is also the location of the future County Park. Therefore, the O-D 0:\ 1340035\BigPineXIsland\AEReport\ Traffic_Simulation _ Report_ Oct_ 2002.doc 3 pairs 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, and 1-7 are very critical in analyzing the convenience and travel time saving provided the connector is built up. 5. Travel time analysis In order to see an engineering effectiveness, travel time study was conducted for the selected pairs of origin and destinations. To get the travel time for each pair, SYNCHRO and CORSIM were used. These two computer packages can perform operation analysis in detail. For each scenario, we have to run QRS first and put the results from QRS to SYNCHRO. Then, we transfer SYNCHRO file to CORSIM and run CORSIM simulation. Finally, we obtain the results from CORSIM. This involves huge computer runs and human effort. The results of travel time for the existing conditions and alternatives are shown in the following table. It can be seen from the table that alternative 1 shows significant benefit in terms of travel time. Whereas, alternative 16 shows least benefit of travel time because it is too close to U.S. 1. Travel Time Under Existing Traffic Conditions (in minutes) 0-0 Existing Alt1 Alt6 Alt11 Alt15 Alt16 Combo 1--4 7,1 3,76 4,5 6.46 6,74 7,1 3,76 1--5 5,06 2,52 2,63 2,95 3.32 4,85 2,52 1-6 6,35 6,31 6,32 6,35 6,35 6.35 6,35 1--7 6.65 3,66 4.06 4.33 4.4 5,85 3,66 2-1 9,65 6,64 7,05 8,51 7.43 7,94 6.64 2-6 5,04 4,95 4,9 4,92 4,76 4,76 4,92 3--5 3.52 1,67 1.7 3,48 3.45 3,44 1,67 3-7 4,62 1,31 2,83 3,55 4.13 4.15 1,31 4-5 3.83 2,34 2,38 2.84 3,47 3.45 2,34 4--7 4,96 2.36 3.86 4,15 4,54 4,6 2.36 Alt 1 = W-l plus E-l Alt 6 = W-2-1 plus E-2 Alt 11 = W-3AorB plus E-3 Alt 15 was removed from consideration Alt 16 = W-4A or B plus E-4. 6. Segment volumes As mentioned before, the power of QRS is in its assignment of traffic automatically. In order to look at how traffic assigns to the roadway links due to the different alternatives, the segment volume analysis was conducted by running QRS. The segment volume is defined as the daily two-way traffic volume at the segment. The segments are selected such that they are the representatives of the important streets and the concerns of local residents once upon the connector is built. G:\ 1340035\BigPineX1s1and\AEReport\ Traffic_Simulation _ Report_ Oct_ 2002.doc 4 Seament Dailv Volumes (both directionsl West Description of segment Existing Alll AIl6 Altll Alt15 Alt16 Combo Roadway Begin End 1 Harbor Light Ships Way W. Sandy NA 252 134 NA NA NA 106 2 Journeys End Ships Way W. Sandy NA 5123 1417 NA NA NA 4443 3 Main Street Ships Way W. Sandy NA NA NA 5656 NA NA 1329 4 Henry/Frontage Ships Way Key Deer NA NA NA NA 6304 2211 NA 5 N. Sandy W. Sandy E,Sandy 55 5588 96 120 101 131 3546 6 Jo. Ex, W, Sandy E.Sandy NA NA 598 NA NA NA NA 7 S. Sandy W. Sandy E,Sandy 21 470 1356 4397 0 0 1214 8 Lyttons E.Sandy Key Deer NA 8322 NA NA NA NA 3588 9 Jo. Ex. E.Sandy Lama NA NA 598 NA NA NA NA 10 Main Street E.Sandy Lama NA NA NA 4397 NA NA 1329 11 Water Tower Lorna KeyDeer NA NA 3756 NA NA NA NA 12 Main Street Lorna KeyDeer NA NA NA NA NA NA 1214 13 Lyttons KeyDeer Wilder NA 2937 NA NA NA NA 1384 14 Church Lane KeyDeer Wilder 147 236 599 130 126 128 170 15 Bank Road KeyDeer Wilder NA NA NA 3769 3877 2086 2246 East 1 L yttons E.Wilder Hibiscus NA 2142 NA NA NA NA 740 2 22nd SI. EWilder Hammock NA NA 2833 NA NA NA NA 3 24th SI. E. Wilder Mac NA NA NA 4244 1979 NA 1935 4 F ronlage E, Wilder Cunningham NA NA NA NA NA 4929 NA 5 Hibiscus Ixora County 50 1869 50 50 50 50 760 6 Hammock Cumminghar County 195 438 1455 1326 595 2143 882 7 Ave. A Cumminghar County 913 1411 1932 3618 1236 2923 1796 8 Hibiscus County Sands 393 1461 529 481 374 579 835 9 Bailey County Sands 195 295 1455 1518 148 1680 1276 10 Ave. A County Sands 900 1490 1609 2727 1481 3176 909 Alt 1 = W-l plus E-l Alt 6 = W-2-1 plus E-2 Alt 11 = W-3AorB plus E-3 Alt 15 was removed from consideration Alt 16 = W-4A or B plus E-4. Combo = Alt 5 = W-l plus E-l and W-3AorB plus E-3 The above table exhibits the two-way daily volumes on the segments, which are produced from raw QRS runs. The study area is divided into two parts: west side and east side, using Wilder Road as a boundary line. Based on the QRS simulation run, it can be found that most traffic concentrates on the segments of the west side of Wilder Road. This is consistent with the previous study that more residents travel to Key West than Marathon. G:\1340035\BigPineXIsland\AEReport\ Traffic_Simulation _ Report_ Oct_ 2002.doc 09/11/02 04:39:29 PM D:\DGN\BIGPINE\091102\APPENDIX\EXH-1-1.DGN r- r" ~ ~ c) ~ ;it -I ~ ~ ~ r" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ :to ~ -I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;8 ~ ::0 ~ :a.;; -r,0lr- ~ Vi ~ ~ ~ --1-)> ~ I'1j ~ ~ . C>~ ~ ~ r-C>r" )>~V) -..:: 2000 ~~::t: CAHILL CT W 1550 r". C> ~ -- SHIPS WY ~~Fg 2000 ---... ~ SUNSET RD 700 )>~ ~ r-::O i ~ ~ i r"C'::J ~ ~ ~~8 PELICAN LH ~ ~ igJ :fi j as r-r,,~ NEWFOUND BLVD ~ ""f :-0 t) "tj it r- I'l'j ::0 ~ ~V)r" ~ ~ ~ ~C::~ ;:n ~ ~- CUPON8JGHT RD W. SANDI' CIR SUNRISE RD a--l l..Or" ~ I NEWFOUND HARBoR RD ~ ~ 0)- !\l ~ PAUlETTO NE ~Ol :- ~ aOl a ,... I - Rl~ .,,~ --I BAHIA HONDA RD ::!! ~ ~Vl ~~ r" ~ ~ E. SANDI' CIR 5 c: ~ ~rT1 ""< V) ~ ~1: ~.." .. ::j~ ~~ ~J ~'" ~~ . ~Vl ~~ ~ ~ .,,;ti I.J)UA LH ~ ~1'11 I\) ~ ~~ C;:~ ..~, .., ~~ r;;""< ~~ -I'S ~~ FLEA MARKET RD l:'5 ~~ ~~ ~ -IVl ~a ~ ~~ PALAMINO HORSE TR :0 V) aV) ~ ~8 r,,\)92 Mir-- ~ ~~ WILDER RD \)aG) ,.... CHAPMAN ST ~~J2 ~ ~I:) S? :c::rr,~ ~ &Qj ~ --I\)rr, . ~ ::t: ~--I ~ ~ ,.. . a ~ 8 ~ ~ .":or,, Vl i ~ -I r-V)~ ~ ~ U. iii ~--I l:::l ?; :i ~ ~C:: ~ ~ ~~ ~ iJ f~ ~ CHAMBER ST ~ ::x: ~ ." ........ G') ~ ~ ~ CUNNINGHAM LH ~ ~ ~ ~ ." l!? c:: ::x: s::> ~ --I ~ ~ ~ N c:: r" COIJNTY RD Sl ~~ Vl ~ ~ --I ::0 ::tc) I:) ~ h~ ~ ~ INlXJSTRlAL RD SANDS RD ~400 r-r- --I~ ---- f11--1 500 gJ t8 :0:0 ~h h'" ...,." ;s - ~?) 1ST ST ~ r" ~ ..a Vi - r- Sl c:: ~ r" FATHER TONY WY V) ~ ~ V;\ ~ ~ ':r. STHST r"r" ~ r,,>< ""f "'i::t (3 Z - - -to ~ ~ a"'i .,,- I\) ._--------....-.~.__......>.,"~ 09/11/02 05:01:46 PM D:\DGN\BIGPINE\091102\APPENDIX\EXH-1-2.DGN - r- rr, ~ <: C) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ "'i ~ ~ n ~ ~ a ~ ;;;;: ==l :0 ~ ::G 0 :II' ~ ~~r- ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ -Iah · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i-c>~ 01 ~ ~,., ,., h ~ ,., ~ ~ ::t: CAHILL CT W --c 2000 600 rr,.c> - ::0 lIIl ::0 2000 -- "" 1 1 "" -- C) lIIl rr, ~ g, T 8 SUNSET RD 450 h::o ~8~f: hie::, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. i ~ ~ 8 PEUCNi LN ~ ~ ~ j ~~~ ~1 r- rr, ~ ,.,., ~ 'I ""f0 ~ 0) .I ;:Q IfORo/ATH RD ~ "'i ~ ~ ~ 8 lIIl ~ rr, ~ ~ ~ ::G \I) lIIl c:: ~ ;:0 ~ lIIl ===i CUPONBlGHT RD W. SNiOf ClR SUNRISE RD @rr, ~ ch - NEWFOUND H.A~ ~ ~ ~ lIIl 01 {\):- <: ~~ RD ~ ~ PALMETTO NE Q01 :t:J:t:J",c::; C> ~ I aoo- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ BAHIA HONDA RD ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 it:""< ~ ;:0 ~ E. SNiOf CIR ;:J )0. n, ""< ~ .. c:) !if "'i~ n,)o. \I) Ci- ~:tJ .....~..... ..1.....:. . ~~:; ~~ lmIAiN i ~t g -. I'll -- !q ! ,.... n, u \"., t:::"'i Sin, "'i ,)0. fi; ""< - ::.;; Yl~ :ti~ ~ ~ ~ FLEA MARKET RD o ""1'1i ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I'1i ~ PAUMINO HORSE rR ~V1CXl ~ ~@ 8 G) ~ ~ "'i WIWER RD 8 <: ~ ~ ~ CHAPIlNi ST n C:<:~ ~ "'ic:: ~ <:rr,<: ~ &!!! ~ -I(")rr, ("'). ~ :<~:>;: ~::x: ~ .,::o~ ~ ~ "J f E)V1 ~ ~ ~ g ~ ::0-1 l::l ('"j ::t: cs ~~ ~ ~ ~ J f a::x: CHAMBER sr ~ 8 ~ ~ ", ~ ~ ~ ~ CUNNINGHAM LN ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ., c ~ ~,... c:: ::x:. -I ~:ti: :b. (ij c:: - ~ ::0 Cl l:I COUNTY RD ~ ~ rr, :r:.. I'll -I ~::o ::t:l:::) l::)",,< b ~ ~ ~ INDUSTRIAL RD --.0{ 300 f- r- =e:O SNiOS RD -I '"'< ~ ~~ ~ wtt <:h 0 h., 0 ~ .~~ ~ST . B rr,<) -(5 lnr- c:: ~ rr, V1 FATHER TONY WY ~ :b. V1 ~sr ::t rr,rr, ~ rr,~ ~ -I :t: C! Z ,,, 05 II) __ IV_ n a-l ~ .,- I\) --------~_...,,-,,-,_..._.. ." ft r ' Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study !'i.J1' Alternatives Evaluation Reoort APPENDIX D Segment Information URS 1 Segment Information The entire study area was reviewed to determine possible east/west segments for the Cross Connector roadway. All types of potential segments were initially accepted, including existing paved roads, scarified or dirt roads and new segments, Ten segment areas were identified. The segments generally run from east to west, and terminate at logical north/south existing points. This allows for the maximum number of combinations to be considered. A description of the ten segment areas is listed below, from west to east: . Yellow Area - from Ships Way to West Sandy Circle . Blue Area - from West Sandy Circle to East Sandy Circle . Green Area - from East Sandy Circle to Loma Lane . Red Area - from Lorna Lane to Key Deer Boulevard . Magenta Area - from Key Deer Boulevard to Wilder Road . Turquoise Area - from Wilder Road to Pine DrivelIxora Drive . Orange Area - from Pine DrivelIxora Drive to Palmetto Drive . Purple Area - from PakIletto Drive to County Road . Brown Area - from County Road to Sands Road. The ten segment areas and all of the identified segments are indicated in reference to an aerial photograph of the study area in Exhibit A at the end of this section and in reference to GIS parcel information in Exhibit B at the end of this section, Exhibit A also identifies the segment conditions, whether it is an existing paved road, a scarified road, or a new segment. Each of the segments is described in each color area below. In total, 77 segments were identified. In general, the segments are listed from north to south. Main segments are the most direct east/west option, secondary segments are variations from the original east/west main segments, Yellow Segment Y- J: extends the north end of Ships Way to the north to connect to the west end of Pond Lane and follows Pond Lane. Yellow Segment Y-2: creates a connection from the north end of Ships Way to the west end of Lyttons Way, Yellow Segment Y-3: utilizes Harbor Lights Road. Yellow Segment Y-4: utilizes Journeys End Road, Yellow Segment Y-5: creates a new segment, generally aligning with Enterprise Avenue to the west, adjacent to the north side of the mobile home park, connecting to West Sandy Circle. Yellow Segment Y-5A: creates a new segment, generally aligning with Enterprise Avenue to the west, adjacent to the north side of the mobile home park, then at the east end of the mobile home park, turns south along existing County property, then turns east along existing County property to connect to West Sandy Circle, Yellow Segment Y-6: extends Henry Lane through the mobile home park, turns north along existing County property, then turns east along existing County property to connect to West Sandy Circle, G:\1340035\BigPineXIs1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc 2 Yellow Segment Y-7: creates a frontage road along U. S. 1, within the existing FDOT right-of- way, Yellow Segment Y-7A: begins on Henry Lane, then turns south through County property, then turns east to create a frontage road along U.S. I, within the existing FDOT right-of-way. Blue Segment B-1: along Pond Lane. Blue Segment B-2: along Lyttons Way. Blue Segment B-3: creates a new segment between West Sandy Circle and East Sandy Circle, approximately aligning with Spring Time Road. Blue Segment B-4-1: creates new segment between West Sandy Circle and Palmetto Avenue, just south of Journeys End Road. Blue Segment B-4-2: creates new segment between Palmetto Avenue and East Sandy Circle, approximately aligning with Journeys End Road. Blue Segment B-5-1: creates new segment between West Sandy Circle and Palmetto Avenue, approximately aligning with Enterprise Avenue. Blue Segment B-5-2: creates new segment between Palmetto Avenue and East Sandy Circle, just south of Enterprise Avenue. Blue Segment B-6-1: creates new segment between West Sandy Circle and Palmetto Avenue, aligning with the County property to the west of West Sandy Circle. Blue Segment B-6-2: creates new segment between Palmetto Avenue and East Sandy Circle, approximately aligning with Henry Lane, Blue Segment B-7: along South Sandy Circle. Blue Segment B-8: creates a frontage road along U.S. 1, within in the existing FDOT right-of- way. Green Segment G-1: along Pond Lane. Green Segment G-2: along Lyttons Way. Green Segment G-3: along Linda Street. Green Segment G-4: creates new segment between East Sandy Circle and Lorna Lane, angling to the southeast, approximately connecting to an extension of the water tower road. Green Segment G-5: creates new segment between East Sandy Circle and Lorna Lane, angling to the southeast, approximately connecting to an extension of the north property line of the major business properties along U. S .1. Green Segment G-6: creates new segment between East Sandy Circle and Lorna Lane, along existing County property, Green Segment G-7: creates a frontage road along U.S. 1, within in the existing FDOT right-of- way. Red Segment R-1: along Lyttons Way. Red Segment R-2: creates new segment between Lorna Lane and Key Deer Boulevard, by extending the existing water tower road to Lorna Lane. Red Segment R-3: creates new segment between Lorna Lane and Key Deer Boulevard, adjacent to the north property line of the major business properties along U.S.l. Red Segment R-3A: creates new segment between Lorna Lane and Key Deer Boulevard, adjacent to the north property line of the major business properties along U.S,I, then angles northeast along an existing scarified roadway. Red Segment R-4: creates new segment between Lorna Lane and Key Deer Boulevard, connecting the existing County property on the west of Lorna Lane to the north property line of the major business properties along U.S.l, then continues along that same north property line, G:\1340035\BigPineXlsland\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc 3 Red Segment R-4A: creates new segment between Lorna Lane and Key Deer Boulevard, connecting the existing County property on the west ofLoma Lane to the north property line ofthe major business properties along US.l, then continues along that same north property line, then angles northeast along an existing scarified roadway. Red Segment R-5: creates a frontage road along US, 1, within in the existing FDOT right-of- way. Red Segment R-5A: creates a frontage road along US. 1, within in the existing FDOT right-of- way, then angles northeast to avoid the existing signalized/Y intersection on US. 1, connecting to Key Deer Boulevard. Red Segment R-5B: creates a frontage road along US. 1, within in the existing FDOT right-of- way, then turns north along existing County property, then turns east to continue along the north property line of the major business properties along US.1. Magenta Segment M-l: along South Street. Magenta Segment M-2: along Raccoon Lane. Magenta Segment M-3: along Lyttons Way. Magenta Segment M-4: along Church Lane. Magenta Segment M-5: creates new segment between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road, connecting the existing scarified roadway on the west of Key Deer Boulevard to a point aligning with 24th Street. Magenta Segment M-6: creates new segment between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road, connecting from the north property line of the major business properties along US.l to a point aligning with 24th Street. Magenta Segment M-7: creates new segment between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road, just north of the signalized/Y intersection on US. 1. Turquoise Segment T-l: along 19th Street. Turquoise Segment T-2: along Lyttons Way. Turquoise Segment T-3: along 22nd Street. Turquoise Segment T-4: along 23Td Street. Turquoise Segment T-5: along 24th Street. Turquoise Segment T-6: creates a frontage road along US, 1, Turquoise Segment T-6A: avoids existing signalized/Y intersection on US. 1 by starting north on Wilder Boulevard, then angles southeast to create a frontage road along US .1. Turquoise Segment T-6B: avoids existing signalized/Y intersection on US. I by starting north on Wilder Boulevard, continuing to the east, then turning south on undeveloped property, then turns east to create a frontage road along US, 1. Orange Segment 0-1: connects east end ofLyttons Way along a north/south segment on Ixora Drive to connect and continue along Hibiscus Drive. Orange Segment 0-2: creates new segment extending 22nd Street to align with Mercedes Road, Orange Segment 0-3: creates new segment extending 22nd Street on an angle to the southeast to connect to the north end of Cunningham Lane. Orange Segment 0-4: along Mac Court. Orange Segment 0-5: connects from the east end of 24th Street along a north/south segment on Pine Drive to connect and continue along Mac Court, Orange Segment 0-6: creates a new segment that connects from the east end of 24th Street along a north/south segment on existing County property, then turns east to connect to Cunningham Lane, approximately aligning with Sunshine Lane. G:\1340035\BigPineXIs1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo.doc 4 Orange Segment 0-7: creates a frontage road along U.S. 1, connecting to the east end of Avenue A. Purple Segment P-I: along Hibiscus Drive. Purple Segment P-2: creates new segment extending 22nd Street to align with Mercedes Road, Purple Segment P-3: along Hammock Drive, Purple Segment P-4: creates new segment between Cunningham Lane and Palmetto Drive, aligning with Mac Court. Purple Segment P-5: creates new segment between Cunningham Lane and Palmetto Drive, approximately aligning with Sunshine Lane. Purple Segment P-6: along Avenue A. Pink Segment Pi-I: along Hibiscus Drive. - Pink Segment Pi-2: creates new segment extending 22nd Street to align with Mercedes Road. Pink Segment Pi-3: along Hammock Drive. Pink Segment Pi-4: creates new segment between Palmetto Drive and County Road, approximately aligning with Sams Road. Pink Segment Pi-5: creates new segment between Palmetto Drive and County Road, adjacent to the north property line of the business on U.S. 1. Pink Segment Pi-6: along A venue A. Brown Segment Br-I: along Hibiscus Drive. Brown Segment Br-2: along Mercedes Road. Brown Segment Br-3: along Bailey Road, Brown Segment Br-4: along Nathalie Road. Brown Segment Br-5: create new segment connecting County Road to the east end of Sams Road and continuing along Sams Road. Brown Segment Br-6: along Sunshine Lane, extending through the mobile home park to connect to Sands Road. Brown Segment Br-7: along A venue A. A comparative review of the various segments within each color area was performed using ten of the evaluation criteria described previously. For each parameter, the segments were assigned a relative ranking, from low impact (most preferred), to intermediate, to high impact (least preferred). In general, segments with the greatest number of unfavorable designations were eliminated from further consideration, A complete matrix for each color area including all of the segment evaluation criteria is provided in Exhibit J-l through Exhibit J-IO at the end of this section. From the GIS database, FEMA floodplain information was reviewed with respect to each of the segments. The floodplain impact analysis is provided in Exhibit C at the end of this section. As can be seen in the figure, the entire study area and all of the segments are within the flood zone. Therefore, all of the segments were ranked unfavorably for these engineering criteria, and no distinction between segments could be made on this parameter. Similarly, the archaeological potential GIS data within the study area was reviewed. The historic sites impact analysis is provided in Exhibit D at the end of this section, As can be seen in the figure, none of the segments are within areas with high or moderate archaeological potential. Therefore, all of the segments were ranked favorably for this criteria, and no distinction between segments could be made on this parameter. G: \1340035\BigPineXlsland\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc 5 As discussed in the HCP, the Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a covered species whose numbers are so low that zero impact to their remaining habitat will be permitted. A review of the study area compared to the GIS marsh rabbit habitat GIS database is provided in Exhibit E at the end of this section. The figure indicates that segment Y-l and segment M-l both have the potential to impact the marsh rabbit habitat. Therefore these two segments were ranked unfavorably and will not be considered for further analysis. Aerial photographs and field reviews were analyzed to determine the potential for segments to impact houses or businesses. Segments with significant potential impacts in these categories were ranked unfavorably. Where existing data made the determination of potential impacts difficult, the analysis conservatively assigned the segment an intermediate ranking. To evaluate parcel impacts and ease of acquisition, GIS data were reviewed, An parcel analysis was made for each segment, based on the information provided in Exhibit B. GIS future land use and parcel ownership information is provided in Exhibit F -1 through Exhibit F -10 and Exhibit G-l through G-I0 at the end of this section. Note that the areas listed in the figures (in acres) are graphically determined based on the GIS database, and do not necessarily reflect actual right-of-way that mayor may not need to be acquired for each segment. Segments returning a zero value are not included in the area tables. Segment impacts were ranked relative to other segments within the same color group. Although impacts to USFWS property are noted for some segments, this analysis based on graphical interpretation of the data and may not accurately reflect ultimate impacts, An analysis of segment conditions was made from a review of Exhibit A and field review notes. Segment lengths were measured and categorized into paved, scarified or new sections. Segments of all paved existing roads were ranked favorably, while segments of all new sections were ranked unfavorably. Segment Key deer habitat impacts were determined using the HCP tier information. The tier data are provided in Exhibit H-l through Exhibit H-lO at the end of this section. Segments with no impact to Tier I habitat were ranked favorably. Segments with impacts in Tier III were ranked higher than those with only Tier I impacts. Vegetation impacts for each segment were established based on the HCP compiled GIS database. The information is provided in Exhibit 1-1 through Exhibit 1-10 at the end of this section. Segments only impacting areas considered developed were ranked favorably, Segments with wetland impacts were ranked unfavorably. Based on a review of the section matrices, Exhibit J-l through Exhibit J-I0, numerous segments were eliminated from further consideration, In general, segments with the greatest number of unfavorable designations were eliminated first. Segments that had no logical use once adjacent segments were eliminated were also eliminated. When two segments accomplished nearly the same route, in general, only one segment with the highest ranking was considered for further evaluation, G: \1340035\BigPineXIsland\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc . I . . .. >, -. , " I ~ ,; J .:. \ I ~ r I I .. . . :.1 ,~~;l !.i ill .. iii ~. I t , , J i ~ ; . , I ,; ! ! I i Ii .. N I ---' f ! i 1 , I / ~,;~ ~. I I ,;;ii,. I - I ';~''1." "",,,,,,~,,, "''fir'" . i/I~. '. ': ~ ' , - , " '~ . . ' ~ r !~ iIIj iIIj 'm ~ " .. f ... p,,-"'."'- V II . ~.'"' ',. .,N' .:; ~,:.'\ .~ A: .'. ~' i ' ... - ", . . .,>";X' ~h . ,~~, ~, "." ~:~.~,,~':;;~'"F" '" .. ~,,-t!j ,W :'-. ,~ .. ...,1!"'" .. II) c ~ o tll r/l N .... .- Cl) "C Q) ~ c: l5go>~ c <..J o ....elll.QQ)~'OCl~~e-~~ I o ::J CU ... Q) :::s .... ~ tll :::s '- :::s .S '- !::::: ~ ~ 0 ~ ; ~ ffi G ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ 1111-1' I I ~ u.. UJ . ..... Lu <Ii ::) I PH~~ i' b Pl:J n03 u: o ~ ~ .... ,Jil:' ~ . - O' Q ,,- U [fI L. I 4,. ~ X~. :-F.. ,~~ ~ 'f., ".. t,., . .'!' .'. .~ . ~~..~ ....~.~. CJ Hct'< f~ ~f ~~ () '" 't' ",. () ::.~ ~ ~~ -.J ~.~ ~; :~ ~ ..~: i~:;; (~. .~ ~~ ~ ~~:.; ~;, ";",,' ~. ~ ~ :' .~ ". I" '.."f o I>; \'~ 'l:! .... '.. .. ~:' . . VJ CI)~ (IF" ;lc ~ ~~ ~ ~ a; C~ =~. ~" ... <"'IS:S~ ~""'~~~~'i ~ ~.'" .~I.~'" .... __ :'~ ,~. ~ -""'- ''l! ~ ~~ C'i;.1/Ii.......~ Q Q :!1 ~l \;, ,~~"~ ,. ~. ~ -- p~ JePI!M .~ ,,~ ':'i)~~' ~ tI) ~ >- -.J LuQ:l1.. ~ 0 . 1->- C Lu<..J1- ~ ~Lu~ ~ -~~ u Q~o 3 ~0<..J ~ _<..J o ~ Lu 1.1)0 I.I)Q: O~ Q:O ~ <..J~ I I I I . I) I I ~\..a~ , - ~o . ~o ~e~ e^ ~~I~d I I ~ i . ::";:~IV') lJJV)1V') -..J Q: ~ ~~-..J ~ 8<::(l1.. ~ ~ Q~ <<w Q:-..J C 0 ~<::( ~.... I/) lJJ ,- J Q '0 a ~ Q: IV') Q: c.- E a .lJJ o ~ ~ c :r:::5:a D.. 5 0 ~ V);:::::::> of .., ~ lJJ <::( . c ~a-..J :x: $ <::(Q~ o ~ -..J~~ o co lL - + ; o ~ Z v; :::) o ~ ~ o o co N80'J-HX3\XION3dd~\~'3'~\SN~ld\ON~lSlX3N[d8[8\S(00v(1\:8 W~ (1:Sl:b0 Z0/(t/b0 -''''~..,~.,. _.- -,,,- 'ii .. c Cl ~ I-. Q. CI;l - IU CI;l .s .!a ctl - CI;l ~ 0 - U Q) ~ c: c: 0) ~ c: ::t:: '~..c: CI;l CI;l ::l ~ ~ 0 CI;l CI;l '0 0) e- c: 0. ~ ~ en = ~ ~ '- c: '0 .21 -g m - Q) ::l CI;l m ::l ::l ._ <- lJJ CIl I :!: D.. ; >- in C) a:= :!: I- 0 D.. D.. m .... ~ r~-I E IIIIIII I uj CJ) => lU c( L.~ tJ) PHSPUes ~ , "oJ = I- " U ~ <( Q) ~ p~ ~ , --- '- I ct i C i , V) .~ ~ \< , '-. , C u lLJ 0 c( ~I ,~ I ~ I- :J , U --- ,! \ ' V) :e; :J:" \, u If r ~ --- h"", I ct:: r'T :~,'i c~ a ~ ~ I- ~ ;!i;i ~ ;';.J ~ ~.' V) t. ~~ --- l:ii !~ I ~ :r: ~,j i I .~i 'i: ~; e.1 - fj".. 01 ;1 ~ U) I~' . ~ .r:. !!-'f ". a~ 3) c ? t~j ~ .... ~~~ ::>-<:{ ~~: ~~ ClCl p~ J9PI!M :J: ~ ::::>0: "1 1-.0 V)-..J GJa:lJ.. ~ 0 . 1-.::>- c Luul-. ...J ~Lu~ .r:. Q~8 e :J <.!:Iou .r:. _u 0 CQV)~ V) a: O~ a:o u~ I) I . , ~\~6 (;ltl!''t a ~e~ 9^ n9WIHd I I lC)1'r) ~'O I lJJO') I-.~ ~:Sl'r) lJJV)1'r) -..I ct.f " ~lJJ-..I 0~lJ.. a:: <...> <:{ . " " ~.lJJ c. a:: w ct~ c II) II) lJJl'r)~ ...J ... >. .r:. ctl'r)ct " CJ) GJ C :J E as;~ 0 :J C :t: .::::> 0.. '- 0 ...J 0 ., ~ V)<:<:{ ~ lJJa-..J '- c ftJ Q) ~a . :I: :I: ~_I-. 0 -..IlC)Ll. g r..r.: .... +-' z+~ uj 0 Q) => {f 0 ~ 0 (") 0 0 co NOO'O-HX3\XION3dd~\~'3'~\SN~ld\ON~lSIX3NldOI8\S[00v[1\ :0 W~ [2:L 1 :b0 20/[[/b0 -,.""....- - -- -..'-. ......... _n ___ -,.......-.. ro +-' :.0 ~ Lu ~ h ..a CD _ &. s .!!l CD ~ ~ m ~ c ~ g 0 ~ c ~ ~eUlo~~'O~2'ijie--E~ :>.:: ro m - CD ~ CD - ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I.. ~ ~ c ~ ffi ~ oc ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m ~ ~ } IIIIIII I ; I p~spues ~ I h l ~ ~ ~ p~ J.. no~ ~ ~ --- c ct ~ ~ G h O. () > en ~O ct 63 j ,. L 'I S22 .- ~:.;! , ' ~ ::r:~: :6' :I: 1):: .., :;,,,, Q::: :f':\ <<J. .:.Ii, i?fi ',,!ii;.. '''''''~~.' ,~.' . '1'" . b<:1 t.....' ~ \'I...'. -r- ~ ',' ~ ~ ~ I IE (A ~ ~ Q:::V) i'~ i~ c /f.;;' ~; 0 ~ . ~ .&.". '. ~,.e..., "'l: ~ ' ~; ~ ~j ~ ~;~ .... . I. ~~ Jt! ~ I ~ t . I ~ US ~ tiS !II ij' "'1 J:I' ~.' c:: - ~ N... ~...' ..,.......llIl'IJIlU.."1 N. '" .,.,. 'it' :>- "'- ;,w : ).~ Q Q !,.: >':~ ili1: ::::J --- p~Japl!M if},~ tn gs :>- -.J LuQ:lJ.. ~ a . h:>- c:: Luuh ~ ~Lu~ e Q~~ >-::s <.!:> a u := J: _u cn 0 CQV)~ c:: V)Q: o a~ - Q:a ~ u~ - UJ '" ~ . ~\~~ ~ - ~ ~a ~e~ a^ :a:a8wled I ~ ~ lLJO'l h~ :>.::=:3t-') lLJV)1V) I -.J I Q. : ~ ~~-.J ~ 8"'ClJ.. ", ~ ~~ ,., c:: , o......J -.J - W a:"'C .5.t! UJ lLJ t-') C) ", a ~ a: IV) Q: C::.- E a =::::. lLJ o ~ c:: ::t:::=C) do ~ 5 ~ <.I)<:===> ~ "') ~ lLJ "'C ~ c:: ~a-.J ~ $ "'CQh o ~ -.J~lJ.. o <0 ~ ~ - + ~ o ~ Z r/1 ::i o ~ g o o <0 N~O'3-HX3\X]ON3dd~\~'3'~\SN~ld\ON~lS]X3N]d~I8\S~00v~]\:~ W~ Sv:S1:b0 Z0/~I/b0 _.....-. ..._- - - -'--..~.<_.,.' " -- - \ Future Land Use CONSERVATION - INDUSTRIAL Pond Ln INSTITUTIONAL ,- MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING .. PUBLIC FACILITIES ,- RECREATION .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH .. WATER BODIES Segment ,- Yellow ,_ I . Henry_lY c 24th St .... .- . ~' Segment Lan d Use Acres Yellow1 CONSERVATION 0,287 ,- Yellow1 RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION ( 025 DU lAC) 0,751 x Yellow1 RESIDEN'T'IA~Ll?,^,(0.5 DU lAC) 1.169 w z Yellow2 CONSERVATION 1,144 a: Yellow2 RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (0,25 DU I AC) 0,216 <.:J - - Yellow2 RESIDENTIAL LOW (0.5 DU lAC) 0.274 co ./ Yellow2 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0,005 l!) M CSl Yell0w3 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 1,610 CSl ~ Yellow4 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 1,607 - C"1~ ;:::: YellowS R~~Ir:iE.~~.~.[55~tO~5plJ1J\C ) 1,595 c3 Yellow5A RESIDENTIAL HIGH (12 DUlAC) 0.244 Yellow5A RESIDENTIAL LOW (0,5 DU lAC) 1,608 - YellowS RESIDENTIAL HIGH (12 DUlAC) 0,878 x Yellow6 RESIDENTIAL LOW (0:5 DU lAC) 0,828 <I: M Yellow7 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 1.581 l!) MIXE b' USE/COMMERCIAL .. Yellow7A 0,624 - N .-...- ,,,..-..'..-.----,,"- .. .'- -- Yellow7A RESIDENTIAL HIGH (12 DUlAC) 0,877 cF Yellow7A RESIDENTIAL LOW (0,5 DU lAC) 0.629 CSl N - CSl BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F I OF 10 "'- M :;;:: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA cr CSl MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA YELLOvV SEGMENTS - - Pond Ln Future Land Use .. ~ Blue1 CONSERVATION -- INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL Lyttons V MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL - .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING .. PUBLIC FACILITIES - RECREATION .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION .- Chi RESIDENTIAL LOW RESt DENTIAL MEDIUM - .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH . .. WATER BODIES .. lue~2 Segment .- :;; z - DSlue c..:l a " ai CII I IU~ LL .. I '-.- I :c x w / X 0 .- z w a... a... <I: / a: -ui <i. Segment Land Use Acres / CJ') Blue1 CONSERVATION 0.591 z <I: Blue1 RESiDENtJALL..oW (O.5DU / AC ) 0.135 - -! a... / Blue2 CONSERVATION 0,405 a z .u. ,_..,' ..'. _ _.,_,_" ,.._.~ . d_ ""nO" ._'^O.~" <I: Blue2 PUBLIC FACILITIES 0.002 -! RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) - CJ') Blue2 0.227 X Blue2 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 0,107 w z . .. _.. - ,___ ." _. " . ~_ ..... '. ... ',' .".' __, ......_... _...... n','" . ".'_~,_ ,_ ............ _,' ...._., _,_ a: Blue3 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 0.770 c..:l Blue4_1 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.410 -00 Blue4_2 REsiDENtiAL MEDiUM (8 DUlAc) 0.407 / L!1 (VI Blue5_1 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.094 lSl lSl Blue5_1 RESfoENiiALMEDIUM (S DUlAC) 0.321 "" .- (VI Blue5 2 RESIDENtIAL.. MEl5iOM(SDUlAC) 0.404 - / - c..:l Blue6 1 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU I AC ) 0.100 Blue6_1 RESiDENtiAL.. MEDiUM (S DuJAc) 0.318 - Blue6_2 RESlg~~J.\L FI11~g~~~.(~I?~/AC) 0,403 ~ <I: Blue7 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.099 "'- _.~~.___ ,___n. . . .___..__._n__....._. - Blue7 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.671 - a:i Blue8 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.194 "" REsioENfiALMEbiUM'(8 DUlAC) cf BlueS 0.574 lSl N e - lSl BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F 2 OF 10 ...... (VI :;;:: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA (T' , . . lSl '._' ' .1 MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA BLUE SEGMENTS - ,__~,.___.__.__._.,_...m.._ "'- Future Land Use n I . Green 1 CONSERVATION "- INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL - MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING .. PUBLIC FACILITIES - RECREATION .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION "- Church Ln RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH . - . .. WATER BODIES - Segment D Green - I Green? Ave - Segment Land Use Acres x:. Green1 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.398 w',: z" ...- '-'.--...'---,,, ....-...- a:: Green2 CONSERVATION 0.304 0 Green2 PUBLIC FACILITIES 0.139 .- CD '__'.... ....____.. ____'.... __..._.n_ _. .__,. ........ ___ .._.. ._........ . __..._ /' Green2 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.042 U1 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 600 M Green2 0.004 1SI ..._......._____... .___n... .. ."_.,,_ h.u.__._.._.",.......,........ ,.._..... 1SI Green3 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.430 I 'l" "_ M Green4 RESIDENTIAL LOW (0.5 DU / AC) 0.399 - /' .-.... _.-.-<~,..-.__....__._..-....-. ---'-'-",,-'--"-. ....-.........-... -.. ...... .... .,,' -, .,...-.. 0 Green4 ~_E:~I_l?E:"':l!I~L~E:qIUfIt1J8_ [)UlAC) 0.084 GreenS RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.341 - GreenS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 0.099 ~ <I Green6 RESfDENTIAL.L6W(o.sbiJ i At) 0.328 1SI Green6 REE)I_~~~_~~~I:)~LJfv1J~ DUlAC) 0.097 M ,- ~ Green7 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.332 'l" <F Green7 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) " 0.104 1SI N - 1SI BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F 3 OF 10 " M :::: . CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA CT ' , 1SI ..._1' .( MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA GREEN SEGMENTS - ~--~-"."-_.<"'--' - - Future Land Use 1 CONSERVATION ,- INDUSTRIAL Lytton. Wy INSTITUTIONAL ,- MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING .. PUBLIC FACILITIES ,- RECREATION Church Ln 2: .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION . - . RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - . . . Red2 .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH .. WATER BODIES a 2 Segment A~wJ .- z DRed a 0 c::i I LL - I I X W /' X 0 -z w (L (L <I /' a: -u.i <i. /' Segment Land Use Acres Ul z' <I " Red1 PUBLIC FAClLlllES 0.110 ~i< - ~.~ /'i! Red1 RESIDENllAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.177 0' z', Red2 I NSll1UllONAL 0.226 <I ;: .J " _ . ,.-,,"-. Ul' Red2 M~DUSE/COMMERC~L 0.149 .- - Red2 PUBLIC FAClLlllES 0,170 x w z Red2 RESIDENllAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0,738 a: a Red3 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0,466 - ~,.- -'-'--- "..' -. '. ..... - m Red3 RESIDENllAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 1.138 /' LC1 Red3A M~D USE/COMMERCIAL 0,349 M lSl lSl Red3A RESIDENllAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 1.163 '<T ,_ M Red4 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.466 "/ _.--,,-." . ...-- a Red4 RESI~~~~~ LqY\'J9'?[;)LJ / AC) 1.160 Red4A MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.349 . '. __....,.._..,,_. __.. om __,"__. __.. ,- Red4A RESIDENJlAL Lq~{o.:?!?lJIAC) 1.182 ~ <I RedS M IXED USE/COMMERC~L 1.957 <Xl Red5A MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 1.678 M -_...._~.. ..- - - _ tD Red5A RESIDENllAL LOW ( 0,5 DU / AC ) 0.431 '<T Red5B MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 1.930 BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F 4 OF 10 e CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA . , '_I . I MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA RED SEGMENTS - ._--'"_.~--,.__. ." - ".:,','. '...., ^- :~,:;:>F:;:::':~;',; ';:~>{~:_IY.~~::;f~~~'~~ ' :<~ "" ,'I ^,.. .'^_ta1 Future Land Use iil~~'"'... cf_~/Y}i':: -:. ' . .\. ,il ',_ ~1:,*jlA ""'~'j,>"S,"^i"';;""^ CONSERVATION - INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL -- MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL ~ I .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING ~ .. PUBLIC FACILITIES - \ I I RECREATION \ .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION '- Magenta2 RESIDENTIAL LOW - 11th st RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - Magenta3 .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH .. WATER BODIES Segment D Magenta ~g.1rst oS 4i1ta5'1J1t 24lh $I ; Magenta6' ~ ',', Magenta? '-LLJ <i /' Segment Land Use Acres U.s. 1 U1 z CONSERVATlON <I: Magenta1 1.261 _ --l a. Magenta1 RESIDENTlAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 1.692 /' a Ml'!Qenta1 RESIDEN11ALrv1~[)ILJr\i1 (8 DU/AC) 0.580 z <I: --l Magenta2 CONSERVATlON 0.826 U1 - ~ Magenta2 RESIDE~~~<?V\f (9,5 DU / AC ) 1.131 x LLJ z Magenta3 CONSERVATlON 0.421 a:: Magenta3 PUBLIC FACILlTlES 0,109 t:l -a; Magenta3 RESIDENllAL LOW ( 0.5 DU I AC ) 1.118 /' 1!1: M~genta4 CONSERVATlON 0.051 800 0 M' S ~: .' ."- ',-. .,.. .--.- 1SI Magenta4 INSTllUllONAL 0.059 I '<t _M Mag~ta4 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.691 ::;:: MCigenta4 RESIDEf',JTlAL~9V\J'(O.5 DU / AC ) 0.220 t:l MCl9enta.? CONSERVATlON 0.035 ,-,... ....,........,~....._.,....- .-.. - Magenta5 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.508 ~ _ __,_'c__ .d.._.....~_.__,_._ <I: Magenta6 CONS ERVATlON 0.066 1SI Magenta6 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.350 M ...._-.-..-.- _.,-,," _<Xi Magenta7 CONS ERVATlON 0.143 M Magenta 7 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.333 .. ~ ~ N - 1SI CITY OF WILTON MANORS EXHIBIT F 5 OF 10 "- M ::::: PONE RUNE PARK BOAT RAMP FUTURE LAND USE DATA cr 1SI BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA MAGENTA SEGMENTS ,- --.-.--.....-...... - Future Land Use 19th St.. . .'.,', "'.' ',' CONSERVATION l..-: v - ,""'T"r""L"l,-.'<:::.,c:;.J, - --.. ---~.. "':~;;>" '''.:D: INDUSTRIAL ;.'''''~~' ns Wy;;(':;.(~i;"c;i(;/}~ INSTITUTIONAL _ '-_ - :::; T y::: ~, MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING .. PUBLIC FACILITIES RECREATION Church Ln .22ttd St .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION - (- - --=-===-----...-::.:' RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH .. WATER BODIES Segment - g [~~J Turquoise u: ~1.~,' I -'-. "" ... '. D\ '.. 1; ,,! quO!::>:' LL' ... ,..,\' " .", ...'j..) ....' '\ i I" .- ~ .,.. ~ ~\ ~i w 1,' " .. ."..,..; , ' I '" . .i" ' : :,)C':',; L"::": 'C , -- - '-" ~ _.-.. ,... -' U.S. 1 o -2 w Cl. Cl. <I if Segment Land Use Acres - W Turquoise1 CONSERVATION 0.166 ~ Turquoise1 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU I AC ) 1.254 ~ Turquoise1 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 0.139 _ S Turquoise2 CONSERVATION 0.263 Cl. ' """".. '. '... C; Turquoise2 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 1.300 ~ Turquoise3 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.075 -l . ., ,'. ".. ., ,'" .. ..". , " _ ~ Turquoise3 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 1.539 G5 Turquoise4 CONSERVATION 0.001 2 " ,. '" .,.'....d,'" ...... . ~ Turquoise4 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.088 Cl. ~ Turquoise4 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU I AC ) 1.420 - tD .... ,. .,' ., ' ........ .. .. ,.. '" Turquoise4 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0,168 lfJ ~ TurquoiseS CONSERVATION 0.332 ~ Turquoise5 MIXED USeTCOMMERCIAL 0.039 I - ~ TurquoiseS RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 1.143 '" 2i TurquoiseS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.157 Turquoise6 CONSERVATION 0.147 - 2 Turquoise6 MIXED':l~E/C()tw1r\tlE~CIAL 1.537 <I Turquoise6A CONSERVATION 0.492 :; Turquoise6A MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 1.597 - ~ Turquoise68 CONSERVATION 0.189 .:: Turquoise68 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 1.712 N . - ~ BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F 6 OF 10 ~ . -", i,' CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA _ lSl . , , ' MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA TURQUOISE SEGMENTS *-, -.---...-.." .~ - 800 0 800 Future Land Use I Feet CONSERVATION - D! INDUSTRIAL -5 .N INSTITUTIONAL - EW+E MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING s .. PUBLIC FACILITIES - RECREATION 19th St .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION .- RESIDENTIAL LOW '19 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH .. WATER BODIES - Segment z <..:J Orange 0 ci Ln 22nd St I LL ,_ 0 I X W / X 0 .- z w a.. a.. <I 24th St / ex: -w <i. / U1 Z <I - .....J a.. / \..J ran q e7 c::::::::> 0 z U.S. 1 <I .....J U1 - X w z a: Segment Land Use Acres <..:J - ~ RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0,5 DU / AC ) 0.214 en Orange1 / LC1 m _._ ___.. _n,___,__ . _"_'_'. ...u,_u....__ .. _..." ._.... ", '0. M ()r21n~~1 R~~lpE~IALM~DILJ~ (8 DU/AC) 0,316 IS) IS) Orange2 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0,317 '" _M Orange3 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.256 :;:;: . '.._ ..'._.._ ,"_''-__ . __""",. ',' ."'''_ _____u.__ a Ora~Qe3 RE~I~~_t-JTIA~~E[)IU~J8 ~LJ/AC) 0.157 Orange4 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.241 .- Orange4 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.017 ~ ()ran~_e5 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0,313 <I _.,'.. H ...._ '._' ",' . '__"_.__._~..._~_~..,.... d." _ ___" w OrangeS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.156 M _iSi OrangeS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.576 '" Orange7 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.261 .. ~ ~ N - IS) EXHIBIT F 7 OF 10 "- M ~ FUTURE LAND USE DATA "- cr IS) ORANGE SEGMENTS - ____~A_.__ '",'"' - 700 0 700 I Future Land Use Feet CONSERVATION - -! INDUSTRIAL it N INSTITUTIONAL - W+E MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING S .. PUBLIC FACILITIES - 19th St RECREATION .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH ~ WATER BODIES ..- Segment z 22nd St D Purple c..:J 0 :i I l.L ",_ I I X W ./ X 0 -z 24th St w a... a... ([ ./ a: -u.,j <i. ./ en z ([ --.J U.S. 1 a... ./ 0 Z ([ ...J - en X w z a: c..:J - ~ CD ./ Land Use Acres l!1 Segment C'1 1SI Purple1 ~E~I[)E.f',/!IAL L<:>~( 0:5 D~IAC ) 0.046 1SI '<T ,- C'1 Purple1 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 0.202 - ./ Purple2 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.191 c3 .__.~ " .-,-.-... ......--..-....,.., . ,- '..'-..-.--.'..-..".".. ..... ...,....-. .." -. ,. . .,,--., Purple3 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 0.234 ..- Purple4 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.227 ~ Purple5 RESli5ENllAI.. I..OW( 6.S"OU/ At ) .. 0.121 ([ l!1 Purple5 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DU/AC) 0.114 (\J "... .___. .._..... ".. . - .n.."__ ,'" ___ ...._ ._',. ~+. ._. "__ . . .. Purple6 MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.248 ..,. .. - - (\J - 1SI BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F 8 OF 10 "- C'1 - CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA "- CT 1SI MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA PURPLE SEGMENTS - --.-.,---...... "- - 700 0 700 I Future Land Use Feet CONSERVATION - -8 INDUSTRIAL i .N INSTITUTIONAL - W+E MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING s .. PUBLIC FACILITIES - 19th St RECREATION .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH .. WATER BODIES - Segment z 22nd St o Pink c.:J 0 - , u. - , I X W ,.- x -~ 24th St w Cl. Cl. <I: ,.- a: UJ <i ,.- CJl Z <I: ---I U.S. 1 Cl. ,.- 0 Z <I: --I - CJl X w z a: Segment Land Use Acres c.:J CIl Pink1 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU I AC ) 0.185 ,.- 1!1 Pink1 RESiDENTIAL. M EDIUM (S DU/AC) 0.390 M lSl RESIDENtiAL. Low Td.s bUIAC) lSl Pink2 0.413 .... - M Pink2 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.206 '/ Pink3 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 bU/AC) 0.561 c.:J Pink4 MIXED USE/COrvfM ERCfAL ,. 0.045 - Pink4 RESIDENTIAL HIGH (12 DUlAC) 0.269 ~ Pink4 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.252 <I: 1!1 PinkS ' RESioENtiALRIGi{(1iDU/Ac) 0.246 lSl - N Pink5 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5,DU I AC) 0.326 .... .. PinkS MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL 0.567 - - _ C\J lSl BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F 9 OF 10 "- M ~ . CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA cr - , lSl . l _ .r MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA PINK SEGMENTS -- ,.-.-- ....."..-..-....- - ,- 700 0 Future Land Use Feet CONSERVATION - INDUSTRIAL .N INSTITUTIONAL .- W+" MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL st .. MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL FISHING S .. PUBLIC FACILITIES - RECREATION .. RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION - RESIDENTIAL LOW RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM .- .. RESIDENTIAL HIGH St .. WATER BODIES Segment - 2 D Brown c.:J Cl ...; I IJ.. - I :c x w ./ ~St Cl -2 W 0- 0- <[ ./ a: .- ui <i. . ..BrowgtS. 1 ./ U1 2 <[ - ...J 0- ./ Cl 2 <[ ...J U1 -- X W 2 Segment Land Use Acres 0: c.:J Brown 1 RESIDENTIAL LOW ( 0.5 DU / AC ) 0.152 - m ./ Brown 1 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0.473 l!'l (") Brown2 RESibENllALM-EOiDM(SbUiAC) 0.625 lSl lSl Brown 3 RESiDENllALMe.-I5IDM{8 DU/AC) 0.628 q- - (") :; Brown4 RESIDENTIAL HIGH (12 DUlAC) 0.278 a Brown4 RE~.I~~NtfA~MEl5llJKI\(8DUiAc) 0.354 Brown 5 RESIDENTIAL HIGH(12 DUlAC) 0.295 - Brown 5 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (8 DUlAC) 0,336 ::!: <[ BrownS MIXEOOSEicOMMERCiAL.. 0.303 '<t l!'l BrownS RESIDENTIAL HIGH (12 DUlAC) 0.291 ._ N BrownS RESIDENtiAL MEDIUM(S bU/AC) 0.030 '<t .. Brown 7 MI5<EOUSEiCOMMERCIAC'" '. 0.624 - - C\I . - lSl BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT F 10 OF 10 "- (") :;:: : , CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY FUTURE LAND USE DATA cr -. '. lSl '-' ," MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA BRONN SEGMENTS .- ... j~ ,,~ -. .'. , ,,' Owner 600 0 600 ,., ,,' ",.>> I __'" ,'..".; Developed - Feet '., .,' '.", '" ,; Undeveloped ~1 The Nature Conservancy - .~;;i _,~ . ..,.. ,. · ~~::~I T .' .' State ,,- .,.".,."...$ ., . ,... .... ., ,,' , ,.." " ,," Federal " 11__ '-' Segment _ _" '" . .,' ,11".1', ,. y."".I",W, .' ,. " . 1111 - I,.. .. . '" ~ '" ~ II.. PondLn -z a .' -'-- ~ Segment Owner Acres , II II a Yellow1 DEVELOPED 0.248 il., - I Yellow1 FEDERAL 0.259 , ; Yellow1 STATE 1.147 Harbor Lights Rd IdI! x Yellow1 UNDEVELOPED 0.496 '~ ;';lfl!li _ ~ Yellow2 DEVELOPED 0.018 "'" ~ Yell0w2 FEDERAL 0.262 ~ ;Jl!i1~ CD lIi'lII1 ~ Y ellow2 STATE 0.061 _'~ . ~ 1iR'WIl _ W Yell0w3 DEVELOPED 0.009 ~;!'> ~ 0 <i. Yell0w3 FEDERAL 0.166 ','II' ,,' ~ , .~ ,'jij ~ /' i'ill'k ~ ,. - U1 Yellow3 STATE 0,041 '," ....... 1Ii9l\ E .. S Yellow4 DEVELOPED 0.064 .. !J '.il _ i J ~ Yellow4 STATE 0.052 ~" Journeys End Rd ~'lij " . ~ Yellow4 UNDEVELOPED 0.015 'ilJW~_ .11" ctJ YelloWS COUNTY 0.118 II - :3 YellowS DEVELOPED 0.304 IIK''-' ~ .. z Y elloWS STATE 0, 925 ....._~_... .. ~ YelloWS UNDEVELOPED 0.193 · ~ ."1 .~'B . - lD YellowSA COUNTY 0.274 \'!BIll IIIlIJI "'ry Ln .. /' - ~ YellowSA DEVELOPED 0.304 ,~ '!'W<lIl ~ YellowSA STATE 1.016"" - ~ YellowSA UNDEVELOPED 0.204 US 1 · II -:: Yellow6 COUNTY 1.180 . . a Yellow6 DEVELOPED 0.086 _ i _ Y ell0w6 STATE 0.361 iiiJi: ~ Yellow6 UNDEVELOPED 0.027 """ ~. ~ ~ Yellow7A COUNTY 1.337 .. III ~ " .. M Yellow7A DEVELOPED 0.063 I',' Jill II" iii! l\ · '?: Yellow7A STATE 0.360 . i!i.~.. :: Yellow7A UNDEVELOPED 0.011 I ' . N e - ~ . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G I OF 10 ~ -", ' , CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY ONNERSHIP OAT A .. \Sl'_' .' MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA YELLON SEGMENTS ..,.",- OWner 600 0 600 .,., , ," I "v~ ". p Developed ' _ .. .. Feet.... 11.< . . ; Undeveloped ,1 'S l&.. The Nature Conservancy _ I.N; Municipal '~wA-._~\~.. '," County ~-_. ~ T . State - .. : "c.ii ~..~ " ' :ff~*'ii~" ;"c"'~ Federal _ I . . Segment" I ...' ',' ~, . . ",; _.., . CJ Blue' I _ ~ ' ~ .', .'.. "'. I"; ,1'" I c,o& - " ,1!1A';",'. ' -l~ . ..., ..,>,'" 'O'i '. Segment Owner Acres'. .... , . ,- 6 Blue1 DEVELOPED 0,393 " o Blue1 FEDERAL 0.334 ' ~ Blue2 DEVELOPED 0.034 Pond Ln __ ~ Blue2 FEDERAL 0.071 '.' ' . .. . . Blue1 C;S Blue2 STATE 0.002" . ' ~ Blue3 FEDERAL 0.324; _ ~ Blue3 STATE 0.317 . " . Blue2 ~ Blue4_1 DEVELOPED 0.003 arbor Lights Rd. ~ ~ Blue4 1 FEDERAL 0.161 ./ - _ a: Blue4_1 UNDEVELOPED 0.161 '!,>;,:$i*' ~ Blue4_2 DEVELOPED 0.015. ~ cJ; Blue4 2 FEDERAL 0.149! i8IIi ~' _ ~ Blue4=2 UNDEVELOPED 0.169 I ;IJ I< ~ . Blue3 ~ Blue5_1 DEVELOPED 0.044 '. ,","l~ ~ II . ~ Blue5_1 FEDERAL 0.002 I Ci I ~ BlueS_1 STATE 0.166 Journeys End Rd ~ ff.IlIIIJ. 4 2 - x Blue5_1 UNDEVELOPED 0.123 II 81 4 1 - ~ Blue5_2 DEVELOPED 0.002 ' ue - _ ~ Blue5_2 FEDERAL 0.170 . en BlueS 2 UNDEVELOPED 0.157 - ~ Blue(1 COUNTY 0.005 I Blue5_1' =. Blue ~ Blue6_1 DEVELOPED 0.002 ry Ln BI 6 1 ell : ~ : _ ;:; Blue6 1 STATE 0.169 Util - I ~ Blue6=1 UNDEVELOPED 0.162 "lIeS, @o ..BIU . <.:l Blue6_2 FEDERAL 0.040 ,.."'" I _ Blue6_2 STATE 0.119 K . Blue . ~ Blue6_2 UNDEVELOPED 0.164 ,.. ',' ii". t- lil Blue7 DEVELOPED 0.018 ' II _ ~ Blue7 FEDERAL 0.002 ~,,'JJI ~ '" I ~ Blue7 STATE 0.005 ill ~ :: Blue7 UNDEVELOPED 0.008 ..~ . III 1& _ ,_N . ~ ^. BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 2 OF 10 ~ . _'..:, CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY OWNERSHIP DATA _ tSl '_'J MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA BLUE SEGMENTS ,,;~. ~. 'ir; , .''''';,. ~':'" - . . . OWner I Developed - Undeveloped Pond Ln . . . . Green1 The Nature Conservancy :i Municipal - . Green4..ytto& County " Harbor Lights Rd " . State - ". UNITEDSTAlESOF:E.A.,= ,..111 , Federal Segment - ~ > " o Green ", . ~1i.t~,,' . ~, I~. ~ Ii I . I $-, I ~ I 22nd St . . ~ Journeys End Rd ~ - . .:'lIIIIR Green4 -g III QI!lillI . 24th St I .. ,- .~en ryLn ...G _ 0 z ! . w a.. 'it;"..)- a.. <J: r ,/ a: - ~ 1'1 ,., I I - . I II w <i ~~ , I ,/ .~;, . .-.-.--.. Ul Z . .!lW <r - ...J .. I a.. ~ IfJ, ,. ,/ ~1. ,. 0 z Segment Owner Acres <r ...J Green 1 DEVELOPED 0.368 I _ Ul x Green 1 FEDERAL.. 0.009 w z Green2 DEVELOPED 0.065 a:: _,_ .,. - u..". _ _.._ ".,_..' 0 Green2 FEDERAL 0.059 CXl Green2 STATE 0.124 ,/ l!1 .,.................-.,,-.. 600 0 6~1 ' C'1 Green3 DEVELOPED 0.004 tSl tSl Green3 FEDERAL 0.005 I .&..I <;f - C'1 Green3 UNDEVELOPED 0.002 Feet - ,/ 0 Green4 FEDERAL 0.083 __mil ~ . ... ,-'. .'.-.'-~'~'" ".------.---.. Green4 UNDEVELOPED 0.312 - GreenS FEDERAL.. 0.353 _ w+ ~ <r Green5 UNDEVELOPED 0.002 C'1 GreenS DEVELiSPED 0.020 l!1 .- Ui Green6 FEDERAL 0.113 _ 1___ <;f UNDEVELOPED .. GreenS 0.003 - - _ N tSl BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 3 OF 10 " C'1 :::: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY ONNERSHIP OAT A (J" tSl MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA GREEN SEGMENTS - ~it~t;~, Red ~ LyttO.y OWner Developed .,;""'.~ "',.~ ,- , ,', '\': . it. Undeveloped Gl ~'".'.. ' t The Nature Conservancy ~, .- t."" '.', >!!", , ,1::,.1" · . . ~~:~~~I G) 'J ,<Ii~, ' ,_ ,', ~"'; II'll" , ~1 " Ch Ln 22nd., st State !t Rd",r .' "",""'''.IJ-. ,.,.",'. > .., Federal ,. ,,",oM '.,' Segment - Red3' _ · Red2 o Red ,':~,i~f' Red3A ,II:,' ," 'ii MtlC'\"t '.~.:,,',',"'i"':',':"',?,: ~ '~st ~ - , ,,~,.,Q...t4 II .... "';""" ',., '0 . ~ ' p~~ ,_ z ;fIM/1 1',. ~ iidS 1':-' ...' t~ ~ g" ''''d SA 't; i ".,.~ - ~ .. , I lI.' . 'AI,I(,' 'I"",' X ,,>.' " h. . " ~ .... ~. '.' II'. '" .~.. x Segment Owner Acres .. .-.,' " Red1 DEVELOPED 0.061 ~. " . '., ' '., ...,.....: ;v,.".,. Red 1 STATE 0.067 pi I. Red2 DEVELOPED 0.261 ,., " Red2 STATE 0.570 I' .' I"''''" Red2 UNDEVELOPED 0.346 ',."," " Red3 COUNlY 0.091. , Red3 DEVELOPED 0.316 ~:; UND~~~~PED ~:;: .," I .", '.1"'."'. _ Red3A COUNlY 0.006 ' '. 8 ROO3A DEVELOPED 0.071 : = Red3A STATE 0.983 . , " , , . ~ ROO3A UNDEVELOPED 0.355 ~ Red4 COUNlY 0.091 ~ Red4 DEVELOPED 0.316 lSl ~ Red4 STATE 0.745 - ~ Red4 UNDEVELOPED 0.334 ~ Red4A COUNlY 0.006 Red4A DEVELOPED 0.071 - Red4A STATE 0.983 ~ Red4A UNDEVELOPED 0,327 ~ Red5A COUNlY 0,472 - f' ROO5A STATE 0.691 '<t .:: Red5B DEVELOPED 0.509 - _N . ~ BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 4 OF 10 ~ . ."" CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY OWNERSHIP DATA _ lSl , " ' MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA RED SEGMENTS -,"-_.__._"".,~.",~.. .._'_._".,~->~._-'> . 700 0 700 Owner I It';; Developed - " Undeveloped .. ... ~ il ,The Nature conservancy _ I, 'llli."", Il:>',', ",."'..",',,,".,,~,..'.'.,'.', MUnicipal , .,~,' '''' '. 1!,1 I ' ,'.. *; County . " " ".~ 1~' S~t .'~ s " , '. ., 'la e - _."""~ ~" 1 ' "'tiJ~J.~ i' Federal . . Segment - ._;" ,C'. ," '~~. D Magenta ,,,,I';:"', .~ . _ '.._ ',' p..,"'~ ,'<. .......~.".-,- .. -, ' ,,: ., ..,...... ,-" _ ~ Mapntj1 -z" ,II .., II t:l I' ' .' ", o . '. . f ~ . ",.,...,. U,'.' ",.'.' -I III ~ 't '... "'" 11,_ ~ RI ~.. - ~ Segment Owner Acres . ' - a:: , II II 8: Magenta1 COUNTY 0.121_ ~. '. ' ~ Magenta1 DEVELOPED 0.2121J ~ II ~ Mag, onta1 MUNICIPAL 0.008 . " , I'.", ~ Magenta1 STAlE 0.439 . ~ Magenta 1 UNDEVELOPED 0.177 <I: - a:' Ma~enta2 DEVELOPED 0.614 . . C; Magenta2 FEDERAL 0.554 . z ' II <I: Magenta2 STAlE 0.629 _ uJ NO Magenta2 UNDEVELOPED 0.061 . LvttO. Magenta Magonta3 COUI'ITY 0.141 ~II Magenta3 DEVELOPED 0.148 '-,., " -:, . Magenta3 FEDERAL 0.580 '~ Magento3 STAlE 0.297 ~ H Magenta3 UNDEVELOPED 0.380 {' , . Magent04 DEVELOPED 0.747 , ; c. LnM __ " St :;:: Magenta4 FEDERAL 0.043 li , II 2:i M~enta4 STAlE 0.094 " Magenta4 UNDEVELOPED 0.041 - MagentaS DEVELOPED 0.416 _ II MagentaS FEDERAL 0.003 agenta5 Magenta6 DEVELOPED 0.301 Magenta6 FEDERAL 0.004 a enta6 Magenta? DEVELOPED 0.361 N . - ~ ". , BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 5 OF 10 M :;;: .., .. , CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY OWNERSHIP OAT A _ g; . ,_I " MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA MAGENT A SEGMENTS ~ - 900 0 900 OYmer I Feet S'" St Developed _ Ii;"', Undeveloped "i : ":t=:"-': ,~ N ," " ; , " . ,. "".,.. The Nature Conservancy -_ 'II +. '~. ,'II Municipal .. ,W -'E ..,.. , , · County s., State . ,; .,' , Federal I _ t ." .,. 1\1 II.','..', ~ "0 Segment -'1"" .." ~~ ~' ',. Turquoise ',. .'.'" "., , .. ;g ,k' , ",' . II ., ",',' II", ~ "J~i$! - -~ I'. Pond Ln .." _ ~ ~ Turquo~se1 FEDERAL 0.267 " · .,. ,'. H~1&IS 0&::, ~ TurquoIse1 STA lE 0.559r:,~:::::::::;::,:::",""~:,,,~,,=~- ',:. ~ Turquoise1 UNDEVELOPED 0.442 If"'--I x Turquoise2 DEVELOPED 0.502 - ~ Turquoise2 FEDERAL 0.171 I" '. II'" ',., 8:: Turquoise2 STAlE 0.214 .' '. ~ Turquo~se2 UNDEVELOPED 0.627 " ,22nd St ' - ui ~ TurquOlse3 DEVELOPED 0.001 '''liit--iiit-=..: " . ~ Turquoise3 FEDERAL 0.147 .. 1lIll -.- ~ Turquoise3 STAlE 0.585 , _"_.__ r ," . " <t ~ . 3 NDEVELOPED 0 3 . .._-..,--~ ,. ' , '. ,.,~, ,_ ...J I urquOlse U .83 - -_"___M_"'II' :=:; : " . '-. u'. ;~ 6 Turquoise4 DEVELOPED 0.297 ..II" ," Mae etR\' ' ~ Turquoise4 FEDERAL 0.401 ,. '" 24thSt , -I rf1,) ''11('''' _ ul Turqu0ise4 STATE 0.769 ~"""~lL'" ~ Turquo~se4 UNDEVELOPED 0.143 'r,.; :"~I;:' ,,::...' quO!)',' . "'_ ~ Turquo~se5 DEVELOPED 0.089 ,: 'A, q U, 'J, - - t,. "P ~ ill _ ~ TurqUOISeS FEDERAL 0.759 :, :,: ,,';,;,;:.:.h, ' ~~ . I ,.'-' '.....'\ ....-J _._. ,~.. "'''- 'v '. _" ...... . - . < ~ TurqUOiseS STAlE 0.172 . (-,,-"'-,-,----,..--~,.....~.",' ~ TurquoiseS UNDEVELOPED 0.592 ~ II ~ I I ~ TurquoiseS DEVELOPED 0,536 ' ',., " , ' , ,~."r I - S TurquoiseS FEDERAL 0.241 ~ ~ III II c3 TurquoiseS UNDEVELOPED 0.761 ", ," '. ,~ Turquoise6A DEVELOPED 0.561 ,. ~ I. r- ~ - Turquoise6A FEDERAL 0.241 I' ' .,., ~ Turquoise6A UNDEVELOPED 1.167 I . , I.. ~ Turquoise6B DEVELOPED 0.760 . .. cS} Turquoise6B FEDERAL 0.241 ~ ,.' N Turquoise6B UNDEVELOPED 0.765 _N e ~ ',BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 6 OF 10 M :;:: ..,. ' CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY OWNERSHIP DATA _ g; . , -,' MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA TURQUOISE SEGMENTS . .)l',l<' - 800 0 800 If Owner W 11;"<''''' ," ,',,' ~"' ~ 1i",,3,' ~:.F., e""e",.....t~$..; 'i',' ,",. ,,',,~~,i, Developed , .c ." {~~ - .~'",.,' "Undeveloped .' ~ _ ~ ...,.",. ,,',', .,. . " :Ueni~=~lreconservancy Wy E .. County \. s .".. . . 'c', '.. " State _ , 't:I"" ~& ."".,' " a:: .'"'' .'" '1iJ Federal ~ . '. ~ . , ." I),. " ~ '-l'" '., ,', " ",;", . .,;; . ' :g " ".,' ,,"..",..,., . ", " ~" ',", '''';~',':.' Segment _ , r;;: ",.~ 0 '\ I"" . :> , . "\i,'(, .,?'. range ". 10 . :&::.., :04>\-/';,' ".. "'e' .- ': .: -,,,., ~ " " ,.~~j ~i~~ . ~ .",'" ij,"',''''' '''lt~ _ . ".<l;:.,~> ~\,t\"': Z ,. o ' . ~ c:: ".. t.J 1f."" .. .' '" ',L I ....,,, ..',."...", ,;: t.J r ' , . -~.,,'" -, ' 1.1.1 ...,. ' / ~ .A ~~ . ~ -~il~ ~ ... .". <I: "<" ~ 22nd St Mercldes Rd I - w Segment Owner Acres.. I <i Orange1 DEVELOPED 0.053 ,,' , " mock. ~ ./ ~ Orange1 FEDERAL 0.015 ' , - 5 Orange1 STATE 0.099. · ~ Orange1 UNDEVELOPED 0.210 .' ~~.,_; . ,_1 ; ~ Orange2 UNDEVELOPED 0.317 24th St ,', ~llr . ' _ Vl Orange3 COUNTY 0.024 'tJ ~ Orange3 DEVELOPED 0.005 irl\~ ,lW ~ Orange3 STATE 0.076 ,,:. ~ · _ ~ Orange3 UNDEVELOPED 0.153 _, ~J ?iII'i,', ,,_ - .. ~ Orange4 DEVELOPED 0.032 , ' :', .~ ~ Orange4 STATE 0.011 ,; ii LAIIL. ISI _ ~ Orange4 UNDEVELOPED 0.053 , , I" ,', 111;< ..., " ~ Orange5 DEVELOPED 0.056 ,.' ~', ./ ,." '" ,,,' . t:i OrangeS STATE 0.082 ". ~ '.'. ,~i~ .~' Orange5 UNDEVI:.~OF'l:D 0.105 II -.J" '~ '.." -. ~ Orange6 DEVELOPED 0.136 _., II a. Orange6 STATE 0.005 I III" ~ Orange6 UNDEVELOPED 0.288 . . .-... ....- -'--'" - .:.: Orange7 DEVELOPED 0.018 ISI N Orange7 UNDEVELOPED 0.127 _ N ~ BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 7 OF 10 C'1 :;:: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY OWNERSHIP OAT A cr _ ISI MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA ORANGE SEGMENTS - 700 0 700 OWner I Feet Developed - it: Undeveloped ... '.~, CD ~,. . :2 The Nature Conservancy .N - I W+E ~~' Municipal ~, County ~. ~ S ~fj State - ~~i+~ i\ :~ Federal . ~!i:. "!\l" ,~., Segment - .-... _f..,: ~1 . .".. ,~~ D Purple . - ..~.. . -,'. . ~.' -'. . ',~ , _: ~~ .~ ~+'. '" . <-' .~j'; - M% .1 '~ . i?\ ',.' '; " Th 11>>' ,'.,. " . "', '" . '-'" ~ .', ,:; ,~ ';C.' ", ~ . " '._._ ,>d" l \'ti. ~ h~ ., '. ' . ~ ' 22nd St ercld_ Rd ~ ~ " '",. " " ' , . ;",- .:'~.J-< ock. I . :~ 1111 - I II .~ :c ,iI ., . X . W . , /' X . _0 PIe 4 _I r ,'" r ," ~ z . 24th St w ~,. '", ill.", , ,~,. II Cl. Cl. <I: /' ~ ""1.11..&' 0: ~' - . " , ", .. - . w - <i. ", -- 1..-.. I ~;I. /' Ul 5- .' ~'" .' , ,$ z <I: ...~ .--- . - ...J Cl. /' U.S. 1 Q I II z II I. IE!~' <I: ...J _Ul <'.. .: . . &~i~:~.;:, . ~ x . w ~ z Segment Owner Acres a: a Purple1 UNDEVELOPED 0.132 .~ - ~ 4 CD Purple2 DEVeLOPED 0.021 /' II1 ("') Purple2 UNDEVELOPED 0.170 51 51 Purple3 COUNTY 0.004 ~ - ("') . - .,' . .--.'-",-, - Purple3 DEVELOPED 0.040 /' c3 Purple3 UNDEVELOPED 0.010 Purple4 DeVeLOPED 0.161 - Purple4 UNDeVELOPED 0.013 Purple5 DEVELOPED 0.178 -., Purple5 UNDeVeLoPED 0.006 Purple6 DEVELOPED 0.080 -. Purple6 UNDEVELOPED 0.009 e BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 8 OF 10 , " _...' CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY OWNERSHIP OAT A CT . , , 51 l._' . _,/ MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA PURPLE SEGMENTS - _ 0 700 I Owner Feet Developed '" - i '".,. "" Undeveloped N' ~"~ The Nature Conservancy ._ + i",., ~* Municipal W -. , ~ co il-", ~.!c soutnty _ .."1. _ . ",.,,', i;;-;;' ',..' ,.'.,""..""""."""" ,.'".,' " ta e -- . ~.. ~0' l1ii" . Federal , . Pink 1 _ Segment ,- ;_~. - ..' , " ;... '; ~~., . ~;;. r-'"'''' Pink _ . ~ '_"'-'_.1 . ,; '. . . .'. II en i -. 1'1 _ z 22nd St ercldes Rd I' ~ .~ is ..., · '";'. . . Pink3 ~!' - i,' ' II fWSt..........,.. ", ..+,. ~",.,1 o . 24th St .,.......,...'. - ' Ii. -~ II ,,~', ...'.*,1.1\'.."..".,&,.' ";,-'J~ (l. '0" . ,.""~ (l. '~ ~ ,,1;'. ~. J I~ ~--...... i~L ~ ,. ,~r~! ~ Pink6 II. t .. .,! <I: i~ II' , " . U.S.1..,_ -0: :.''''~,.. I' I~; 1-' .,.-, 1:,.i.'Y:,'/..~_.._........,'''~_......'',''..,.''';;..; '" . ' 1 ,.'. ilfj~;"",'''fi'' . .. '. . . /' '.' ~_" " _.' rt _ - ~t l:g-o\j ''Y..", ~ '" , '.' ;, " '. '" . !~~;-:;),;'.. ' "f; <1:, .-.-. , ,',,...., .'!iiiI!~'l " .".. - ~ ..---..-.' "~- _ ~ ..,.t;-\ '. " _ ..,i "'" ~ - z a: Segment Owner Acres _ ~ Pink1 DEVELOPED 0.131 al ~ Pink1 UNDEVELOPED 0.153 g Pink2 DEVELOPED 0.535 tSl _ ;; Pink2 UNDEVELOPED 0.022 :::: Pink3 DEVELOPED 0.104 2i Pink3 UNDEVELOPED 0,018 __ ,._'.' .,_ _~ - dn' Pink4 DEVELOPED 0.005 - 2 Pink4 UNDE\lEL.OPED 0.462 ._ ; (l. Pink.5 DEVELOPED 0.241 ~ Pink5 UNDEVEL6PED 0.247_' .- g Pink6 DEVELOPED 0.008 ~ Pink.6 UNDEVELOPED 0.183 _.. N . - ~ ' BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 9 OF 10 ~ ' ._ " CROSS CONNECTOR STUlJY ONNERSHIP DATA _ tSl_".' MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA PINK SEGMENTS - 700 0 7~0 II OWner Feet ' W Developed _ Undeveloped .N ,'ifti{ The Nature Conservancy ,_ " + ~,.,';~",i ~;i' Municipal W -. E ie,,,,,,' ,,-,,,,, County 1 'M;~ ~~;~.:?- . , .....~. .",,". , , .'.. State _~~; ~ m, - i,!{J, .~ H_.' Dr.~ Federal Segment _ _ ,~ DBrown - . i "I>i.,.,', ',.".." ..iilllI :~i:~ - - ~ 22nd 51 !!!!! I ~";.'. .. '; ~~ !1iiwi? ~ ,~ mock. '" '1 ow(\3 II',",' · ..., . .-r"'f. . I" .'J. r nSW ;.' '. " ..' o ' ' , ',... .1.1'"'''' At. ~ J~"'~ -2 ". '0 ' '.. ..'''if' ~ ; P"'1III\i - ..', .,....,'; ;,..,,,Dl '.\ .' " a.. _' ,- _ - .', .' _, ,',' ' :',"*'c.) ~ ; ;: - - - -: -, % ':-; -5 .. ........ & -- .~..,!. ~ J " .L*: ~a7 - .' .. II'. u.s. 1 . .'., II I".' .'. I'~.~' ~. ..,.;,~..i ,..,..,...,."." ..,., , ,,'" ".. ';~""c>~,., ., . ,'J:!t;" . .~. ". ~ ~ -,,~ , ' , ...$, . '" ' !l1 '. 1L. .. II ~ a: Segment Owner Acres _ ~ Brown 1 DEVELOPED 0.147 (Xl u:; Brown 1 UNDEVELOPED 0.180 ~ Brown2 DEVELOPED 0.170 1SI ." ",..', ",.",'.. _ ~ Brown2 UNDEVELOPED 0.022 :/ Brown3 DEVELOPED 0,150 2i Brown4 DEVELOPED 0.130 Brown4 UNDEVELOPED 0.047 ,- ~ Brown5 DEVELOPED 0.229 a.. .,.. ,..., ..., ...... ~' BrownS UNDEVELOPED 0.090 ~ BrownS DEVELOPED 0.406 - ~ BrownS UNbEVELO~ED 0.140 N Brown7 DEVELOPED 0.178 N e - ~ ;.' ^ BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT G 10 OF 10 ~ ' . _..,' CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY OWNERSHIP OAT A ._ 1SI .,,1 " MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA BROWN SEGMENTS j~-e.r.........-. - HCP Tier Information "1 - 2 3 ,- Segment Yellow - - - - z a 0 <i I I - , I X W ./ X -- 0 .- z II I w 0.. 0.. <I ./ a: -ui <i ./ C./l Z <I - -l 0.. ./ 0 Z <I -l - C./l X w z a: Segment Tier Acres a - ~ Yellow1 1 2.150 -- CD ./ Yell0w2 1 0.341 LC1 M IS) Yellow3 1 0.216 0 IS) oq- Yellow4 1 0.131 - M I ..... YellowS 1 1.312 ./ Feet c3 Yell0w5 3 0.228 YellowSA 1 1.414 ,- ::[ YellowSA 3 0.384 0.. LC1 YellowS 1 1.075 oq- Yell0w6 3 0.579 .- oq- Yellow7A 1 1.203 IS) N Yellow7A 3 0.568 ..... N - IS) BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H I OF 10 "- M ::::: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DATA cr IS) MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA YELLON SEGMENTS '. "" - HCP Tier Information 0 "1 - Feet 2 pIIIIfIIII 3 - Iv+~ . " I - --- ... - ... - ... ... '-8~... a:i ... , I - I I X "11.. w / X 0 - z w 0.. 0.. <I / a: -ui <i / en z <I - -' 0.. / Cl Z <I -' en -- - -,.. - ~ x w Segment Tier Acres z ~ Blue1 1 0.705 0.. a - co Blue1 3 0.022 / Blue2 1 0.107 L(J ('1 lSl Blue3 1 0.641 lSl -.r Blue4_1 1 0.325 __ ('1 - Blue4_2 1 0.333 / c3 Blue5_1 1 0.335 - Blue5_2 1 0.329 ~ Blue6_1 1 0.333 0.. CD Blue6,-1 3 0.005 -.r Blue6 2 1 0.323 - ~ - - Blue7 1 0.018 '~ N Blue7 3 0.015 - -I"~ N - CSl e BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H 2 OF 10 ..... ('1 :::::: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DATA CT " , lSl . ,._, ./ MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA BLUE SEGMENTS - '''. - HCP Tier Information "1 - 2 3 - - - - <i. / ell II I z <I _ ...J a.. / 0 Z <I ...J ell X W Z a:: ~ - CD / lI'l Segment Tier M lSl Green1 0.022 lSl v _ M Green1 0.355 - /' .~ Green2 0.183 5- Green2 0.065 - Green3 0.011 2 Green4 0.395 a.. M GreenS 0.355 M _ r:: Green6 0.116 - Green6 0.020 BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H J OF 10 :;:: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DATA cr lSl MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA GREEN SEGMENTS .. - '- ~+ - HCP Tier Information "1 - 2 3 - .- <- - ci I I I -I X W ./ X 0 _2 W (l. I (l. <I: ./ a: <-w <i ./ (f) 2 <I: --l -(l. ./ 0 2 <I: --l (f) -x w 2 Segment Tier Acres a:: tJ Red 1 1 0.067 -en Red1 3 0.061 ./ - Ln C'1 Red2 1 0.916 tSI tSI Red2 3 0.261 ~ <- C'1 Red3 1 1.303 - - ./ tJ Red3 3 0.215 Red3A 1 1.415 - - Red4 1 1.271 ~ (l. Red4 3 0.215 - ..... Red4A 1 1.387 C'1 - cO Red5A 1 1.163 - - N Red58 3 0.509 - N _ tSI e BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H 4 OF 10 ..... C'1 - CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DAT A ..... cr < , , tSI MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA RED SEGMENTS - ,- - - - "-"HCP Tier Information ---.. "1 ,',- ---.. 2 3 .- ___.. Segment D Magenta ---... - ---- - ---- ,- - ~ x w z a.. Segment Tier Acres <.:l -C!l Mag~ta1 1 0.957 ,/ LO lVIar;}~ta? 1 1.857 M ISl ISl Magenta2 3 0.001 "'" ,,- M Magenta3 1 1.546 :;: -,---,. -- ',. 1 0.178 Q lVIar;}erlta4 Magenta4 3 0.747 - Magenta5 1 0.003 ::;: Magenta5 3 0.416 a.. C!l .....d. ___ __ ......_._~_ 1 0.004 "'" Magenta6 .. Magenta6 3 0.301 -(\j N Magenta7 3 0.361 ~ N e BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H 5 OF 10 -1Sl " M CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DATA - " cr ' , ISl MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA MAGENTA SEGMENTS ,- -"--'"...._,-~-~.,.....--"".-..,..,..,,,...,~-,-'- '.. .,. - 800 0 HCP Tier Information "1 - 2 3 Segment ,- , " Turquoise --..-.... T' "'qIlO;'~1 -- l." I ... J \ .:')__ , - - 1 ; - . I I I II . -- Segment lier a:: <.:l Turquoise1 1 1.493 - co Turquoise2 1 1.514 /' ll1 TurqlH)ise3 1 1.565 M 51 51 Turquoise3 3 0,001 q- _M Turquoise4 1 1,610 - /' TurquoiseS 1 1,612 a TurquoiseS 1 0,878 - TurquoiseS 3 0.660 ~ Turquoise6A 1 1.284 a... cr Turquoise6A 3 0.685 ll1 - -. .~- '. . .-..,. N Turquoise68 1 0.882 -N N Turquoise68 3 0.884 - N _ 51 BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H 6 OF 10 "- . M :::::: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DATA cr - ,. , 51 . _' i, ,- MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA TURQUmSE SEGMENTS - -_._~..,~-_..-,." - - 800 0 HCP Tier Information I "1 - 2 3 .- Segment Orange - - - - z c.:J 0 I I - Segment lier Acres Orange1 1 0.296 Orange1 3 0.081 Orange2 1 0.317 Orange3 1 0.258 - Orange4 1 0.096 OrangeS 1 0.243 Orange6 1 0.429 Orange7 1 0.127 Orange? 3 0.018 BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H 7 OF 10 - CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER OAT A ..... CT' 1SI MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA ORANGE SEGMENTS - ._..._---"._-_.._...~_.'._----,~-,._~._<-,-._~" - - 700 0 HCP Tier Information I "1 - 2 3 - Segment D Purple ,- - - --- - z 0 0 I , :c - I :c x lJ.J / X 0 -z w a.. a.. ([ / a: -L.J..i <i. / en z ([ -- -.J a.. / ~I I II . I -.J en - X -- w z a.. 0 - ~ co / Segment lier Acres I.Cl M lSl Purple1 1 0.066 lSl "'" Purple1 3 0.066 - M ::;:: Purple2 1 0.191 c.3 Purple3 1 0.054 ,- Purple4 1 0.174 ~ PurpleS 1 0.169 a.. tD PurpleS 3 0.015 - Purple6 1 0.009 - "'" (\J Purple6 3 0.080 N - (\J ,- lSl EXHIBIT H 8 OF 10 "- M - KEY DEER OAT A "- C1" lSl PURPLE SEGMENTS - ~"------""--""" ,-~'--', .- ''''''''''''.;'--., ~-.'- .- 700 0 I HCP Tier Information "1 - 2 3 - Segment Pink - - - - ~.- -z ~ 0 - I :c ,_ I :c x w ./ x a -z w 0.. 0.. <I: ./ a: .- . w <i ./ (f) Z <I: I II . I - --1 0.. ./ 0 Z -- <I: --1 (f) .- -- Segment Tier Acres Pink1 1 0.135 Pink1 3 0.149 c.3 Pink2 1 0.557 Pink3 1 0.122 - Pink4 1 0.487 ~ PinkS 1 0.256 0.. N Pink5 3 0.232 - _ Ii) Pink6 1 0.183 N PinkS 3 0.008 N - . -- N - 1SI e BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H 9 OF 10 ...... C'1 ::::: , . .'"," CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DATA cr 1SI ,-" MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA PINK SEGMENTS .- "" -~_.~_..~.'~,.~.,..~- ". - - 700 0 HCP Tier Information I "1 - 2 3 - Segment D Brown - - - -_._--. , , -z Q 0 ---.. ....; I I "_ I rT_~. I x UJ / X a -z UJ 0- 0- <I / a: - UJ <i. - / Ul II z . I <I _--I 0- / 0 -- Z <I --I Ul -- X UJ z 0:: Q -00 / l!1 M lSl lSl Segment Acres 'T ._ M - Brown1 0.171 / 2i Brown1 0.156 Brown2 0.192 - Brown3 0.150 ~ 0- Brown4 0.177 lSl l!1 Brown5 0.319 _LD Brown6 0.546 N N Brown7 0.178 - N .- lSl e BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT H 10 OF 10 ...... M ::::: , _<',' CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY KEY DEER DAT A CT' lSl . -' MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA BROWN SEGMENTS "- .. - Vegetation Developed - Buttonwoods .. Freshwater Marsh - Hammocks .. Mangrove .. Pinelands - Segment Yellow - - -z t:l a <i. I - III . - I :r: x w ,/ x U.S. 1 Ci ,- z ,. .. w a.. a.. <! ,/ a: ~... -u..i Segment Veg Acres <i. ,/ Yellow1 Developed 0.374 r.Il I~ z Yellow1 Freshwater Marsh 0.896 <! ._ -1 a.. Yellow1 ManQrove 0.599 ,/ a Yellow1 Pinelands 0.281 . z <! Yell0w2 Develo~ed 0,044 -1 r.Il - Yell0w2 Freshwater Marsh 0.034 x w Yell0w2 Pinelands 0.263 z a: Yellow3 Devel~ped_ 0.027 t:l -ai Yellow3 Freshwater Marsh 0.023 ,/ I,(l Yellow3 Pinelands 0.166 M \Sl Yell0w4 Developed 0.064 \Sl 0 'f Yellow4 Pinelands 0.067 ,_ M I :; YellowS Developed 0.453 Feet c3 YellowS Pinelands 1.087 - '''_,.__.-_..~. ~.- - YellowSA Developed 0.609 ~ YellowSA Pinelands 1.189 a.. lD YellowS Developed 1.177 _lSi YellowS Pinelands 0.477 M Yellow7A Devel~~ 0.983 N - Yellow7A Pinelands 0.788 N - \Sl e BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 1 OF 10 ..... M - CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A ..... c;r . , \Sl '-' - -'~ MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA YELLON SEGMENTS .- _._....._-"---,-~_.,,,._-_..__.",. '" - Vegetation Developed - Feet Buttonwoods pili I .. Freshwater Marsh ~+~ Hammocks - .. Mangrove .. Pinelands .- ...s Segment .1- DBlue - ..., - . , - g~. . CD , . I - ,_ I J: X ,. II w ".- . X 0 .- z w a.. a.. <I ".- a: - ui <i. ".- U1 Acres z Segment Veg <I ._ ....J Blue1 Developed 0.393 a.. ".- Cl Blue1 Pinelands 0.334 z <I Blue2 Developed 0.036 ....J U1 Blue2 Pinelands 0.071 - x w Blue3 Pinelands 0.641 z a.. Blue4 1 De~ICJPed 0.003 c.:J - - co Blue4_1 Pinelands 0.322 ".- Blue4_2 Developed 0.015 lC1 C'1 1SI Blue4__2 Pinelands 0.318 1SI Blu q- Blue5_1 Developed 0.044 .- C'1 -- :::: Blue5_1 Pinelands 0.291 c.:J Blue5_2 Developed 0.002 - Blue5_2 Pinelands 0.327 ~ Blue6_1 Developed 0.007 ,. .. a.. q- Blue6_1 Pinelands 0.331 1SI Blue6 2 Pinelands 0.323 - c\j C'1 Blue? Developed 0.020 ~-- c\j Blue7 Pinelands 0.013 - N - 1SI . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 2 OF 10 "- C'1 :::: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A (J' . . .,. 1SI "_' I,,': MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BLUE SEGMENTS - _._.__."--~- " - Vegetation Developed ,- Buttonwoods ~ Freshwater Marsh - Hammocks .. Mangrove i .. Pinelands ""- Segment D Green - - I ,. .. . . <i. ~-- ....1.. ./ U1 Z ([ .. . _ ..J .- 0... ./ a z ([ ..J .' U1 .- - x w z a: t.:) Segment Veg Acres -a; Green 1 Developed 0.368 ./ Il'l _.0' '__',,_"'____' ~._. '.._...__ M.. Green 1 Pinelands 0.009 lSl . lSl - '_' .._.h_ _ _.... 'l'i Green2 Developed 0.124 .- Mir Green2 Pinelands 0.124 -"',\ ./", ,..._u..-_.._..........dn 2) 10: Green3 I?e~!oped 0.004 . Green3 Pinelands 0.007 I - 1(: Green4 Developed 0.004 ~~ Green4 Pinelands 0.391 ,.... GreenS Pineiands 0.355 ... Il'l _ N Green6 Developed 0.02 M - N Green6 Pinelands 0.116 - ('\J - lSl . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 3 OF 10 ...... M ::::: -".. ; , CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A cr . , lSl "- . .,/ MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA GREEN SEGMENTS .- - - - Vegetation Developed ,- Buttonwoods .. Freshwater Marsh - Hammocks l1li Mangrove .. Pinelands - Segment DRed - .- c:i I - I -:r: x w ,/ x d a _2 "B.. w a.. a.. <I: ,/ 0: .- w <i. ~-- ,/ en 2 <I: ~ - a.. ,/ Cl 2 <I: ~ Segment Veg Acres en -'X Red1 Developed 0.067 w ."- .'.- '._"'--.....'..'. 2 Red1 Pinelands 0.061 a:: (.') Red2 Developed 0.972 - - co Red2 Pinelands 0.205 ,/ l!1. Red3 Developed 0.339 (") tSl tSl Red3 Pinelands 1.179 <r - (") Red3A Developed 0.083 ,/ Red3A Pinelands 1.332 . D Red4 Developed 0.339 I - Red4 Pinelands 1.147 ~ . "_,_,,,__ ......_,_ _"_W'O a.. Red4A Dewloped 0.083 ... N Red4A Pinelands 1.304 N ':7 ;;. ~ -...... ......, ....-. Red5A Pinelands 1.163 - M">li' Red58 Developed 0.509 N - N _ tSl . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 4 OF 10 ..... (") - CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A ..... -.. - .' cr . / tSl MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA RED SEGMENTS ,,- -_._.,..,_...,~,.,,-_._---,._....- - .,. 1_'" Vegetation ~ .-w _.. .1 Developed - ... .-' r .. Buttonwoods . . .. Freshwater Marsh - _ PI.I. .11.\1. Hammocks _. _....~. .. Mangrove - ..-. .. Pinelands - _ _.... 1ft Segment - _ _ _ .... c;: M;enta l' nil I Segment Veg Acres - 8 ~a~enta1 De-.eloped 0,28 ~ Magenta1 Freshwater Marsh 0.468 ~ Magenta1 Pinelands 0.209 - ~ Magenta2 Developed 0.614 ~ Magenta2 Pinelands 1.244 tSI ~ Magenta3 Developed 0.506 - ~ Magenta3 Pinelands 1.04 '" Magenta4 Developed 0.747 O"H' . ,.,,_. .h Magenta4 Pinelands 0.178 - Magenta5 Dewloped 0.416 ~ Magenta5 Pinelands 0.003 ~ MagentaS De-.eJoped 0.301 _ t!i MagentaS Pinelands 0.004 (") N Magenta7 De-.eloped 0.361 - N e - ~ ", BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 5 OF 10 (") :;:: -'. ; , CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON DAT A _ ~..,,' MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA MAGENT A SEGMENTS ->----~--~". ...- - Vegetation Developed - '~'"". " ,;,c Buttonwoods ,!.... '..f'.._,' '")\"._ HibiWi Dr.. III Freshwater Marsh Hammocks - . ~ '.- .. Mangrove lit .. Pinelands - ,1:';'" Segment r" ':;:"t' Turquoise - Mercldes Rd . - iSe~ ~ ~c~. '~d 'tJ - r.~.: - i '..,.r'-_j 6 ~ 0 u.s. 1 _2 - . w . CL CL <I /' .-.1 ----- a: - w <i .. . ~'~~'- - /' en z ~1,~ <I :~~':~\;~~~."~.. '~"..' . .J -Cl. Segment Veg Acres /' a z Turquoise1 Dewloped 0.225 <I .J Turquoise1 Pinelands 1.268 en ,- - Turquoise2 Dewloped 0.502 x w 2 Turquoise2 Pinelands 1.012 a:: 0 Turquoise3 Dewloped 0.377 -< Pinel~mds - ~~.' Turquoise3 1.189 - 8071 l(')'l- Turquoise4 Dewloped 0.297 M 800 0 IS! ...........--.. .... IS! Turquoise4 Pinelands 1.313 I I .,. - M TurquoiseS Dewloped 0.249 /,,' .,... ...-....--..--- ... ..;t; TurquoiseS Pinelands 1.363 0' TurCl~()ise? Dewloped 0.827 - Turquoise6 Pinelands 0.711 ~ Turquoise6A Dewloped 0.852 Cl. ..- "-.--------..---.._,,- , Pineland's Turquoise6A 1.117 Turquoise6B Dewloped 1.051 .. ""--... -.-...... ---- .._-----.. Turquoise6B Pinelands 0.715 - BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 6 OF 10 , CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A a- IS! MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA TURQUmSE SEGMENTS - .-"..-,--........,..- - ,~,......,- .. ... ,".~ - 800 0 Vegetation .. Developed .-- . Buttonwoods .. Freshwater Marsh Hammocks - .. Mangrove II. - .. Pinelands - HibiSW Dr__ Segment . ' Orange , - ';.- en -"B,~j.,!.,..,.",. - " . "..;lC)',.....;.' _2 . . a 0 t:i I - - <i. i,"J l:~-=-\ C:::::~.:: - /' u.s. 1 U1 II . 2 . ([ -1 ,- a. /' .....1..--. 0 2 ([ -1 U1 - X .... W 2 Segment Veg a:: a Orange1 Dewloped 0.081 - (Xl Orange1 Pinelands 0,296 /' l!1 "_---..0" .___..., ("1 ()~n~~2 Pinelands 0.317 lSl Developed lSl Orange3 0.005 '<T ("1 Orange3 Pinelands 0.253 - :;:: a Oran~e4 Deveioped 0.032 Orange4 Pinelands 0.064 ....- . .- O~al'l~e5 Dewloped 0.063 ~ a. OrangeS Pinelands 0.18 ..... (T' Orange6 Dewloped 0.255 l!1 __. ''".___.0_.._. __. w ()ran~e6 Pinelands 0.174 - ("1, .... -._'-' . --~- ...... - ,.. N Orange 7 Dewloped 0.145 - N ,_ lSl BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 7 OF 10 ..... ("1 :;::: CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A (T' lSl MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA ORANGE SEGMENTS '- --...__..~~,,_..."_.~~ - - 700 Vegetation .. Developed - . Buttonwoods .. Freshwater Marsh Hammocks - .. Mangrove .. Pinelands ,- Segment _1 '...,.". D Purple .<c '~<."H'.,. ~'..~\;:;>~;~,~.:ti t" - '" 1/;" {/;", .- ~r~,? ... :,tc"" ;;;.s?v~,:{~; ;;,,~,' :i I t~d '0 - r~.: - _ w <i Purpl~ /' U1 u.s. 1 z II . <I: . ....J - a.. /' a .....1....-. z <I: ....J U1 -x .... w z CL Segment Veg a _ c:c Purple1 Developed 0.036 /' l!1 Purple1 Pinelands 0.096 M ISl Purple2 Pinelands 0.191 ISl ..,. M Purple3 Dev~lI()p'ed 0.04 - - /' Purple3 Pinelands 0.014 c3 .' F'.~rpl~4 Developed 0.161 :o."! ". ,- '- ....... .-.._,-. "-'-~-".' --' ....- . ~ Purp1e-1 , Pinelands 0.013 ~ .- ~ _, ._.,.___n ""___"___ a.. PurpleS Developed 0.178 (\J Purple5 Pinelands 0.006 .. l!1 -'''--'--' .--- " Purpl,:~ Developed 0.08 - M '--"-"-----"'" -,-, .... ,"- - N PurpleS Pinelands 0.009 - (\J ISl . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 8 OF 10 - "- M :::: .j ~ CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A -<. ' IT ' , ISl . -' '-,: MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA PURPLE SEGMENTS - -.....----."..., ,- - - - 700 0 700 U t t' I v~a~ Feet Developed - .. Buttonwoods . .. Freshwater Marsh _ Hammocks .. Mangrove .. Pinelands Segment Pink" DPink - .'- - .Jrn'"~t ',";,:+:I,t:",..tt' .'1~:~i3';> ,_ Z o CJ ~ I I - :r: x ~ ~t~d _z ~ -?_.-- _~ 1flK ~ ~ - - ~ Pink6 _ ~ II . U.S. 1 ~ ........-.. - x w z fu Segment Veg Acres - ~ Pink1 Developed 0.131 ~ Pink1 Pinelands 0.153 ~ Pink2 Pinelands 0.557 v _ ~ Pink3 Developed 0.104 -:: Pink3 Pii'lefands 0.018 o Pink4 Developed 0.005 _ Pink4 Pinelands 0.482 ... .. ~ Pink5 Developed 0.241 _ tH ,~ PinkS Pinelands 0.247 . . M Pink6 Developed 0.008 - ~ Pink6 Pinelands 0.183 _ N . - ~ "BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 9 OF 10 ~ ' _", " CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A lSl . _" MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA PINK SEGMENTS -~-~---_.__.'--,"_."- .- - 0 roo . I Vegetation .. Developed - Buttonwoods . .. Freshwater Marsh _ Hammocks _ .. Mangrove II _ .. Pinelands - Hibi-.. Dr Segment ,;;S,1;;j?,;~_ D Brown {:",..;r:;i({.~~.:,1o'; ~tn.'^:,'.','>"""" ~'~t~).$~ - -~~~ ~r"" ,J; _ ~ s .~Wi~ a ~ -; ~ ~rown!3 I ";' 'it~ir~S1~t -~ ~ r , w . ' ,,' ......, ~ . -!i- r.,':'" -~ r ~- a... ... _"" _.. Q.'~k ,':"" ~ .~ - w 0 "",; . - ~ . ~ J BrOw~!S. 1 _~ II . . ~ . I 5 I ....-. (f) ,- x ~ Segment Veg Acres Ci: Brown 1 Developed 0.147 a _ aJ Brown 1 Hammocks 0.009 u:; Brown 1 Pinelands 0.171 ("') lSl Brown2 Developed 0.17 lSl ;:!; Brown2 Pinelands 0.022 - ::;: Brown3 Developed 0.15 a Brown4 Developed 0.139 Brown4 Pinei~indS 0.038 .. .. .1. ... . - ~ Brown5 Developed 0.229 . ..__- a... ... ..' c.!l BrownS Pinelands 0.09 ..:.. ~ Brown6 Developed 0.539 - ~ Brown6 Hammocks 0.007 ~ Brown7 Developed 0.178 N e - ~ "BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 10 OF 10 ~ . . _". " CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY VEGET AT/ON OAT A _ lSl,_", MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BROWN SEGMENTS .--....-".-.,-.....-.......-"'., Exhibit J-l - Yellow Segment Matrix s:: s:: s:: .g 'a s:: 0 ..... rn ..... ..... 0 .- s:: rn t+-< .- -at) s:: ._ u "td..... Q) Q) t) Q) t) ..... o .~ Q) ..... 'C ...t::.t:: - u e:.t3 ..... u e rn ~ .S ~ Q) ~ Q) g. "'c:l ~ o rn rn"D >.~ Q) ~ OIl g 0. rn 0. u 0. o 0. OIlS:: ~ Q) ~~ 000. ;:::l e ~ e rn U .Sl e Q) 0 .- ..... Q) Q) Q) e Q) =:c:.s ~< CIl ~- P-4_ ~- CIlU =:C:iZi ::EP::: ~Cl >- Y-l 0 .. 0 0 0 .. . 0 0 0 Y-2 0 0 0 0 0 .. . . 0 0 Y-3 . . 0 0 0 .. . . 0 0 Y-4 . . 0 .. 0 . . . 0 .. Y-5 . . . .. 0 0 . . .. .. Y- . . .. .. 0 .. . . .. .. 5A Y-6 .. 0 .. .. 0 .. . . .. .. Y-7 0 0 . . 0 .. . . . . Y- .. 0 .. .. 0 .. . . .. .. 7A Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred .. = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc Exhibit J-2 - Blue Segment Matrix s:: s:: s:: 0 s:: ..... .~ 0 ~ <I) ...... ...... 0 0 ..... <I) 4-4 ..... 0........ s:: ..... ...... Q) Q)'O Q) '0 ...... o.~ Q)...... 'C ..c:.-::: ~'O - 0 "0 0 e~ e <I) cG .S cG Q) cG Q) ::s o cG o <I) <I).D >>~ Q) cG 00 ::s 0.. <I) 0.. o 0.. <I) cr' o 0.. 00S:: ~ Q) ;s~ 000.. Q) o 8 ::s 8 ;S e cG 0 - 8 C1) 0 ..... ...... Q) C1) Q) 8 en ::r1..... t:Q..... ,:l;..... ~< ~..... enU ::r1iZi :::E~ ~Cl >..... B-1 . . 0 0 0 a . . a a B-2 . . a a 0 . . . 0 a B-3 . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 a B-4- . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 a I B-4- . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 a 2 B-5- . . a a 0 0 . . 0 a 1 B-5- . . a 0 0 0 . . 0 a 2 B-6- . . 0 a 0 0 . . a a I B-6- . . a a 0 0 . . 0 a 2 B-7 . . 0 a 0 . . . a a B-8 . 0 . . 0 a . . . . Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred ... = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc Exhibit 1-3 - Green Segment Matrix s::: s::: I s::: .9 .~ s::: 0 15 m - - 0 .- m c...... . ril - s::: ._ u - (I) (I)'t) (I) - - 0..- (]) :::: 'C ..s::.-;:: ,5't) s::: u - u o ._ "'0 u 8 m td ._ td (I) td (I) S- o td 8"'0 o m m,L;) ;>,~ (I) td 00 ;:j 0.. m 0.. u 0.. o 0.. 00S::: 1;; (I) ~~ 000.. o 8 ;:j 8 ~ 8 m u (I) 0 ~- (I) (I) (I) 8 (I) ~< - 8 en ::;Ep::: ~o CZl ::I:~ a:l~ ~~ ~~ CZlU >~ G-l . 0 - - 0 - . . - - G-2 . . - - 0 - . . - - G-3 . . 0 - 0 . . . 0 - G-4 . . - - 0 0 . . 0 - G-5 . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 - G-6 . . 0 - 0 - . . - - G-7 . 0 . . 0 - . . . . Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred - = Medium Impact /lntermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc Exhibit J-4 - Red Segment Matrix t:: t:: t:: 0 t:: m .- .t\=j 0 1:: - - 0 .- m 4-< .- -a- t:: ._ C,) ..... <I) (1)0 <I) 0 ..... o.~ <I) .-=: 'C ..r;::.-=: l1:S ..... - C,) "'0 C,) ..... C,) 6 m l1:S .S l1:S <I) l1:S <I) ::l o l1:S 6"'0 o m m..o >.t <I) l1:S 00 ::l 0.. m 0.. C,) 0.. m 0" o 0.. oot:: t;i <I) a~ 000.. <I) ~,E ::l 6 a 6 l1:S C,) - 6 <I) 0 ::a..... <I) <I) <I) 6 CI'.l ~- ~- ~< ~- CI'.lU CZi ;:Ep::: ~Q >- R-l . . .. .. 0 .. . . .. .. R-2 . .. .. .. 0 .. . . .. .. R-3 . . 0 .. 0 0 . . .. .. R- . . .. .. 0 .. . . 0 .. 3A R-4 . . 0 .. 0 0 . . .. .. R- . . 0 .. 0 .. . . 0 .. 4A R-5 . 0 . . 0 .. . . . . R- . 0 . .. 0 .. . . 0 .. 5A R-5B . 0 . .. 0 .. . . .. . Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred - = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo.doc Exhibit J-5 - Magenta Segment Matrix s:: s:: s:: 0 s:: .... .ta 0 ..... <I) ..... ..... 0 .~ ..... s:: <I) 4-4 . ... - s:: .... C,) Q) Q) t) Q) ..... ..... o .~ o..t) Q) .-;:: 'C ..t:: .-::: 6 s:: C,) - C,) ..... C,) <I) cd .... cd Q) cd Q) g. -0 cd 6-0 o <I) <1)..0 >.1U Q) cd 00 5 0.. <I) 0.. C,) 0.. o 0.. 00S:: tl Q) ~~ 000.. ~ 6 <I) C,) ,.g 6 Q) ~~ =' 6 ~< Q) 0 t!J..... Q) Q) Q) 6 00 a:l- ~- ~- ooU Vi ::;Ep::: ~Q >- M-l . . 0 - 0 - . 0 0 0 M-2 . . - 0 0 - . . - - M-3 . . - 0 0 - . . 0 - M-4 . . - - 0 . . . - - M-5 . . . - 0 0 . . - - M-6 . . . - 0 0 . . - - M-7 . 0 . - 0 - . . . . Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred - = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc Exhibit J-6 - Turquoise Segment Matrix s:: s:: s:: .g .ta s:: 0 'E: UJ ... - 0 .- UJ 4-< .- -a..... s::._ 0 ..... (1) (1) t) (1) ..... ..... o o~ (1)..... '1:: ..c:: .-::: Cd ..... e s:: 0 - 0 "'0 0 E:.a ..... 0 <1:1 Cd Om ~ (1) Cd (1) ;:j o Cd o <1:1 <1:1.0 >>i> (1) Cd 01) ;:j 0.. 00.. UJ 0- o 0.. coS:: ~ (1) ~~ COo.. (1) o E ;:j E ~ E Cd 0 - E (1) 0 .- ... (1) Q.) (1) e r/1 :I:_ lI)_ ~- ~< ~- r/1U :I: 00 ::E~ ~O >- T-l . . - 0 0 - . . 0 - T-2 . . - - 0 - . . 0 - T-3 . . 0 - 0 - . . - - T-4 . . 0 0 0 - . . 0 - T-5 . . - 0 0 - . . 0 - T-6 . 0 . - 0 - . . - - T-6A . 0 . - 0 - . . - - T-6B . 0 . - 0 - . . - - Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred .. = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc Exhibit J-7 - Orange Segment Matrix = = = 0 = ..... .ta 0 t5 <IJ .... .... 0 ..... <IJ c..., . r;; 0..0 = ..... u .... CI) CI) 0 CI) 0 .... <U .-:: 'C ..s::: .-::: ~.... - u 0..... .... u 8 <IJ ~ .5 ~ CI) ~ CI) ;::3 "'0 ~ 8"'0 o <IJ <IJ.L;) >.ij) CI) ~ 00 g p,. <IJ p,. U p,. <IJ 0- o p,. 00= t; CI) ~~ bOp,. ;::3 8 ~ 8 ~ u B 8 CI) 0 0::.... CI) CI) CI) 8 CI) :I:!l ~< r:nU ..... ~~ ~o r:n a:l~ P-t~ p;.,~ r:n >~ 0-1 . . - 0 0 - . . - - 0-2 . . . . 0 0 . . 0 - 0-3 . . - - 0 - . . 0 - 0-4 . . - - 0 . . . 0 - 0-5 . . 0 - 0 - . . 0 - 0-6 0 . 0 - 0 0 . . 0 - 0-7 . 0 . - 0 - . . - . Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred - = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc Exhibit J-8 - Purple Segment Matrix !:l !:l !:l 0 !:l ... rn ..... .ta 0 ... ... 0 '.+:j C rn c..., ..... -a.... c ..... to> CD <l) "0 CD .... ... o .~ <l) .... 'r:: ..c .~ ~ .... e !:l to> ......... to> "0 to> e:.a .... to> VI ~ ..... ~ <l) ~ <l) ~ o ~ o VI VI.J:l >>a> <l) ~ 00 ~ 0.. VI 0.. to> 0.. VI 0" o 0.. oo!:l ti <l) ~~ 000.. <l) o e ;:j e a e ~ to> ......... e CD 0 ..... .... <l) <l) <l) e en ::I1_ ~- p...- ~<t:: ~- enU ::I1u:3 ~o >- P-I . . ... . 0 . . . ... ... P-2 . . . ... 0 0 . . 0 ... P-3 . . 0 ... 0 . . . 0 ... P-4 0 . ... ... 0 0 . . 0 ... P-5 . . 0 ... 0 0 . . ... ... P-6 . . . ... 0 . . . ... ... Legend: . = Low Impact I Most Preferred .. = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact I Least Preferred G: \1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo,doc Exhibit J-9 - Pink Segment Matrix C C C ..... <IJ .9 '(\i C 0 ..... ..... 0 .~ ...., C <IJ C+-o ...... -at) C ...... u CI) Cl)t) CI) ..... ..... o .~ CI) .t:: 'C ...c: .t:: c U -- U ..... U 6 <IJ ~ ...... ~ CI) ~ CI) ::l "'0 ~ 6"'0 o <IJ <lJoD >>li3 CI) ~ bO g p.. <IJ p.. U p.. <IJ 0" o p.. bOC ~ CI) ~~ bOp.. CI) p::~ ::l 6 a 6 ~ U .,g 6 CI) 0 ::a..... CI) CI) CI) 6 00 0:1_ P-._ ~< ~- ooU v.i ~o >- Pi-l . . .. .. 0 . . . .. .. Pi-2 0 . . .. 0 0 . . 0 .. Pi-3 . . 0 .. 0 . . . 0 .. Pi-4 . . . .. 0 0 . . 0 .. Pi-5 . . .. .. 0 0 . . .. .. Pi-6 . . . .. 0 . . . .. .. Legend: . = Low Impact / Most Preferred - = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXls1and\AEReport\SegmentInfo.doc Exhibit I-I 0 - Brown Segment Matrix I:: I:: I:: 0 .- I:: 0 ...... rJ:l '.;:1 t':l ...... 0 I:: rJ:l t+-. . - 0........ I:: ._ (,) .~ ~ Q) Q) t) Q) ...... ...... o .~ <1) :;:: 'C ...c:.-::: 6 I:: (,) ..... (,) "'0 (,) ...... (,) rJ:l t':l 'm [ Q) t':l Q) ;:j o t':l 6"'0 o rJ:l rJ:l,.o >.~ Q) t':l 00 ;:j 0.. (,) 0.. rJ:l 0" o 0.. 001:: ~ Q) 1-0.0 000.. Q) o 6 ;:j 6 ~ 6 t':l (,) ..... 6 Q) 0 .- ...... ~;2 Q) Q) Q) 6 00 ::t:_ ~- ~- r.il< ~- ooU ::t:lZi ~Q >- Br-l . . . .. 0 . . . .. .. Br-2 . . 0 .. 0 . . . 0 .. Br-3 . . .. .. 0 . . . 0 . Br-4 . . .. .. 0 . . . 0 .. Br-5 0 . 0 .. 0 .. . . 0 .. Br-6 0 .. .. .. 0 .. . . 0 .. Br-7 . . . .. 0 . . . .. . Le2eDd: . = Low Impact/Most PIdb..Ia1 - = Medium Impact / Intermediate o = High Impact / Least Preferred G:\1340035\BigPineXlsland\AEReport\Segmentlnfo,doc ,~ .'-'- ~. , ,.;e. " Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study /1 ' '\i . \.. I .- Alternatives Evaluation ReDort " ""--' . ---" ---- APPENDIX E Cost Estimates URS WEST CORRIDORS Corridor Segment Length Type Rate Construction Cost (ft) W-1 Y-3 752 S $ 467,000 $ 66,512 631 P $ 467,000 $ 55,810 B-2 606 P $ 467,000 $ 53,599 G-2 377 S $ 467,000 $ 33,345 R-1 258 S $ 467,000 $ 22,819 M-3 1392 S $ 467,000 $ 123,118 TOTAL $ 355,200 W-2-1 Y-4 1375 P $ 467,000 $ 121,615 B-4-1 318 N $ 1,574,000 $ 94,798 B-4-2 313 N $ 1,574,000 $ 93,307 G-4 386 N $ 1 ,574,000 $ 115,069 R-2 467 N $ 1,574,000 $ 139,216 611 S $ 467,000 $ 54,041 (NS) 464 P $ 467,000 $ 41 ,039 M-4 848 P $ 467,000 $ 75,003 TOTAL $ 734,100 W-2-2 Y-4 1375 P $ 467,000 $ 121,615 B-4-1 318 N $ 1,574,000 $ 94,798 B-4-2 313 N $ 1,574,000 $ 93,307 G-4 386 N $ 1,574,000 $ 115,069 R-2 467 N $ 1,574,000 $ 139,216 611 S $ 467,000 $ 54,041 (NS) 323 P $ 467,000 $ 28,568 M-5 425 N $ 1,574,000 $ 126,695 TOTAL $ 773,300 W-3A Y-5A 1007 N $ 1,574,000 $ 300,193 260 S $ 467,000 $ 22,996 365 N $ 1 ,574,000 $ 108,809 (NS) 217 P $ 467,000 $ 19,193 B-7 637 P $ 467,000 $ 56,341 (NS) 128 P $ 467,000 $ 11,321 G-6 339 N $ 1,574,000 $ 101,058 (NS) 113 P $ 467,000 $ 9,995 R-3A 545 N $ 1,574,000 $ 162,468 723 S $ 467,000 $ 63,947 M-5 425 N $ 1,574,000 $ 126,695 TOTAL $ 983,000 W-3B Y-5A 1007 N $ 1,574,000 $ 300,193 260 S $ 467,000 $ 22,996 365 N $ 1 ,574,000 $ 108,809 (NS) 217 P $ 467,000 $ 19,193 B-7 637 P $ 467,000 $ 56,341 (NS) 128 P $ 467,000 $ 11,321 G-6 339 N $ 1,574,000 $ 101,058 (NS) 113 P $ 467,000 $ 9,995 R-3 1370 N $ 1,574,000 $ 408,405 M-6 298 N $ 1,574,000 $ 88,836 TOTAL $ 1 ,127,1 00 Page 1 of 2 WEST CORRIDORS Corridor Segment Length Type Rate Construction Cost (ft) W-4A Y-7A 206 S $ 467,000 $ 18,220 (NS) 300 N $ 1,574,000 $ 89,432 1164 S $ 467,000 $ 102,952 8-8 642 S $ 467,000 $ 56,783 G-7 335 S $ 467,000 $ 29,630 R-5A 694 S $ 467,000 $ 61,382 (NS) 470 N $ 1,574,000 $ 140,110 580 S $ 467,000 $ 51,299 M-5 425 N $ 1,574,000 $ 126,695 TOTAL $ 676,500 W-48 Y-7A 206 S $ 467,000 $ 18,220 (NS) 300 N $ 1 ,574,000 $ 89,432 1164 S $ 467,000 $ 102,952 8-8 642 S $ 467,000 $ 56,783 G-7 335 S $ 467,000 $ 29,630 R-5A 694 S $ 467,000 $ 61,382 (NS) 470 N $ 1,574,000 $ 140,110 580 S $ 467,000 $ 51,299 M-6 298 N $ 1 ,574,000 $ 88,836 TOTAL $ 638,600 W-5 W-1 + W-3A TOTAL $ 1 ,338,200 Page 2 of 2 EAST CORRIDORS Corridor Segment Length Type Rate Construction Cost (ft) E-1 T-2 1322 S $ 467,000 $116,927 0-1 127 S $ 467,000 $ 11 ,233 278 P $ 467,000 $ 24,588 P-1 179 P $ 467,000 $ 15,832 Pi-1 449 P $ 467,000 $ 39,713 Br-1 500 P $ 467,000 $ 44,223 TOTAL $252,500 E-2 T-3 1380 S $ 467,000 $122,057 0-3 259 S $ 467,000 $ 22,908 P-3 170 P $ 467,000 $ 15,036 Pi-3 453 P $ 467,000 $ 40,066 Br-3 506 P $ 467,000 $ 44,754 TOTAL $244,800 E-3 T-5 1373 S $ 467,000 $121,438 0-5 203 S $ 467,000 $ 17,955 199 P $ 467,000 $ 17,601 (NS) 776 P $ 467,000 $ 68,635 P-6 170 P $ 467,000 $ 15,036 Pi-6 460 P $ 467,000 $ 40,686 Br-7 506 P $ 467,000 $ 44,754 TOTAL $326,100 E-4 T-6A 397 N $1,574,000 $118,348 322 N $1,574,000 $ 95,990 1012 S $ 467,000 $ 89,508 0-7 199 S $ 467,000 $ 17,601 P-6 170 P $ 467,000 $ 15,036 Pi-6 460 P $ 467,000 $ 40,686 Br-7 506 P $ 467,000 $ 44,754 TOTAL $421,900 E-5 E-1 + E-3 TOTAL $578,600 Page 1 of 1 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study ~ Alternatives Evaluation ReDort .\i. , , -- -. -- , APPENDIX F Public Input C.{(. URS Public Info Summary Public Information Workshop Summary In order to obtain residents' feedback, a Public Information Workshop was held on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, from 6:30 P.M. until 9:00 P.M., at the Big Pine Key Neighborhood School, on Big Pine Key. At the meeting, an overview was given of the Cross Connector Study, including the corridors under review and the preliminary evaluation matrix that had been completed to date, At the meeting, a feedback sheet was provided to attendees, who were asked to rank the nine west and six east corridors. A copy of the feed back sheet is included at the end of this section. Feedback sheets were generally made available to the public after the workshop as well. Through the Technical Steering Committee, other public input (letters and faxes) was also received. At the workshop 112 people signed in on the sign-in sheet. At the end of the workshop 96 forms were collected. In the time following the workshop an additional 37 forms were received for a total of 133 forms. A review of the names and address on the forms indicates that there were no duplicate names and that six forms were for people not associated with Big Pine Key, based on available information, which were not included in the dataset. The public was asked to rank the west and east corridors separately, relative to each other. The feedback from the forms is summarized in the pie graphs at the end of this section. A summary of the most preferred and least preferred alternatives is provided below. Other responses are considered intermediate. Alternative Most Preferred (%) Least Preferred (%) W-O 12 66 W-l 36 4 W-2-1 0 6 W -2-2 4 2 W-3A 0 0 W-3B 0 2 W-4A 2 2 W-4B 8 10 W-5 38 8 West Total 100 100 E-O 16 66 E-l 34 10 E-2 6 2 E-3 0 0 E-4 6 8 E-5 38 14 East Total 100 100 Page lof2 Public Info Summary A review of the feedback indicates the following about the responses: WEST CORRIDORS: . The vast majority (88%) desires to "do something" and most (66%) ranked the corridor W -0 (Do Nothing) lowest. . Corridor W-5 (the combination of Lyttons Way plus Main Street) was ranked the highest (38%) overall. . Corridor W-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second highest. . The frontage road corridors (W-4A and W-4B) were ranked next, with a very slight preference for corridor W -4B. . In general, when individuals ranked corridor W-5 (the combination) first, corridor W-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second. . In general, when individuals ranked corridor W -0 (Do Nothing) first, the frontage road corridors (W-4A and W-4B) were ranked second. EAST CORRIDORS: . The vast majority (84%) desires to "do something" and most (66%) ranked the corridor E-O (Do Nothing) lowest. . Corridor E-5 (the combination of Lyttons Way plus 24th Street) was ranked the highest (38%) overall. . CorridorE-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second highest. . The frontage road corridor (E-4) was ranked next. . In general, when individuals ranked corridor E-5 (the combination) first, corridor E-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second. . In general, when individuals ranked corridor E-O (Do Nothing) first, the frontage road corridor (E-4) was ranked second. The average scores are as follows, where 1 is most favorable. W-O W-1 W-2-1 W-2-2 W-3A W-3B W-4A W-4B W-5 7.2 3.1 5.2 4.6 4.7 4.7 5.6 6.1 3.9 E-O E-1 E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 4.8 2.4 3.1 3.6 4.0 3.0 Page 2 of2 BIG PINE KEY CROSS CONNECTOR ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION PUBLIC INFORMATION WORKSHOP Tuesday, August 13, 2002, 6:30 P.M. Big Pine Key Neighborhood School, Big Pine Key Please Print Name: Address: EAST CORRIDORS Name DescriPtion Sketch Rank Comments E-O Do Nothing EXISTING ROAD NETWORK -...- ---.. 19TH sr "'I ~ ~!;.I/ HtJlU'R/CIf t Lyttons Way :lNS wY '\, lYTTfJIK wY': lYTmNSwY I ~ ~I:I HI8ISCI E-l + ~ H1SIStJJS m .tli . . ...... .. F /fIE I.N - ,AI HIbISCUS Dr :I&;.. ----.- 21ST ST ... Ei1II MD RD AI _....-I!I.!.!!",.., .. ,-- , . ~.- ... IYTmNS WY I H181S01$ DR AVE' 2200 St ...... u~ FIRF ill := 215T ST IoI/F -~""- ~ E- 2 + ".,.. l.\"t.. EOIIIRD Hammock Dr ,.....HI."../lJA..,J..'... ..51 ~," CI/lmCH. Ui _'.'1'1' 1fEf/Cj tJES' "" A\IF 5 .=~-_,.""." I> 1olIF. "l!l ' ~'ij.... a ,,"'" ",. :l\ I"'-. a .",,110 j'" 01=,' .. \-e. .., '." ' !l I> ....." '", .'.'.,. ~. (tlItl1.S; 2.JRtJ 57 ~.z, i ---- " wE 24th St :!i .3!! . .,.' ... ~ ,'" J.-. E-3 + . ~ - '-I -" .~.~,'~ i ,:3 ~ th tv MacCt or IIf \ l.t~ .2. ~ ll.i i US/ l'l ~ ~ -"".I............ " '\: ."'0 Q 2JRDST ~ ~ ~ ~~ WElt "'; r.: ~ I .. /:: --.L.y Frontage Rd . ~ ~ 24TH n J~" 1. ~, ! '!i ........ E-4 + ~ G !Ii I ~ 8i.~ III III Ave A !:.. IR -...,;: 1. l 9 ~ \;:j ~I 'lIei ~ ~ I - " ~ E-5 COMBO, _... - :.. _ ~- .. .. . ~ E-I + E-3 _ .~.=b=.l-!__-_~_~___ ~__ ~:"-'- Rank 1 through 6, with 1 being most preferred. . ......_.." __"... .. _ ______.__.....__._,_.__..__._..____~_.._..._._~~_.~_.~_______ <_.... _____~____.._____.H WE,ST CORRIDORS Name Des~ription Sketclt Rank Comments W-O Do Nothing EXISTING ROAD NETWORK ,'. Harbor Lights '" lYTTI'W WY \ trTTONS WY _ Lyttons Way F~STAL AVE ili H t>OI1D ''''''TS RD ,:i ~.IQ!iL W-l .._ T FICA!. T_ 10 10'. __ 5ARATOGA AV~ Q ~ .... FIRE VI ,_ 21ST S Open Harbor Lights 'l: Sf'R1IiG TillE III ct.::~ \ -.- and Journeys End 'D€PENnFNrF' AVE~, l!I. .."..n."r"~!'...\ '. ,.. Journeys End JEPEf#/)(;Nr;1;. AV" .;I-.--,!(j ...".., Water Tower ~IF-T_llIlli .. ,...YJ!.DA....R = CHfIIOI tit. ?t!!!UL ebb L R/llKJER AVC D!I lilI 3:!!!ii ."\ W 2 ,} , me n, .n*FYC "/II) RII"U ..,_.. _I". , - - . - dlllll _.' FlYING C,(VD AVI' $ t= Is ~ i!'JRO 5T. <.>"'~,,; "'2!! ~ Open Harbor ughts ENTF'RPIlKF AVE 10 ~ VI "J'- \~ ~ and Journeys P..nd .l!! ,4.: "; '" , .< __.;;J ---l4~ ... U. l<> "..~ Joume'll<tEnd flf-I'pOENCE AVE 1lI.,!!! _-'....... J- !i!" i UNDA ~T -.. CIIVfr:H IN WaterT, ,ower RNlGER AVE iIt ill ~!!; - ~'~ I 22NlJ S7 ".,., '>>IIIIlYSENJRJ. ......2 Il'_' "" _,. W-2-2 Bank. Rd FlYlIIG CI1VD AVE !Ii l' Is -,unt ~ 2JRO <;1 U~"'~" .flt ~ .PIITERPRISE AVE ~ VI" _t "~ Open~LighI$ ~ 4.: !<i ~ . ..s 24TH 51 and Joume~ imd ttJIISTlTUTIONAlII. HENRr VI ~ ~.. MainStl'"' ~._- AVE 9; e ~ ~-_.. '\~ Sl 23RD ST S_S,..~,'.,....., +~,'.',ir I'''TFRPR,'. l'SE wE WU ~ .~ ~:-aiS i ~ AugleRd ~ ..; ~ ~ NTH ST W-3A '0..";1..1'>,1 IX1IISTITUIKJ/t AVE Hl!/lR'f LN _~.-o:: ".~ ,,', _.l'i.U ~. "'I~l. 1Nf1I'., IR \... ..... ".,' '''''II, US/ ....'" "",',.', 1"-- ~,'I .. - '$ .lllJNlE!rS EliDitu u .;. ... ~ ,...... ~nam t ..m Q: e - '1;':_ <;lilt. Q 2lIlIl ""T S.B,_,."., i,~, ..0, /ix' 'f'''tFRfilRlSE.AvE.,.. ;,', ~ L \Ill: ", W-3B BUS111ellSRd ,. ~ 1: oj 1 ~. ....!!J 1!41H ST Bank. Rd " ' HE/lR'f IN . ".'.<" >IIB'.' ~ \1 t " ;~" a QOT.~ \ US/ ;.;;.;.;;. "..'.. .iiitiirs1llll>iM' ... (,j....~ ,,[ ;... '... .<It,,,.. ~'t1IJil AVE, " , .ft ,..E! ' ~ . ~~ii'lil ..."'" ..... ,.. .../..",;;. .',,', '.. g !!i , ~ ~ r.:.c 'li.....i~ ' " W4Az::r.""'- ~ i ..; ~ '~NTH <T- rnlISTI"""- AIII'HFfIIW IN . " , l:l~i, ] ~ ";',5 INIX IR \. CkK,Wfll1l#~t USI H~Ln FlYING ClJJJD AVE l!; e Ii! ,," \": -iOit. lil 23IID SI Ft<mt;f.1Je Rid ENrERfilRISE AVE ~ i ~ :5 r=; l! W4B BlI$m.,~, Rid h'..,', ~ "- ..: ~... ~ Z'fTH S7 Bank.Rd GUlfST/J'IJrKJ/t AIIl!' """RY IN . ~ I It ;',5 I/fDf /R \ Close Wflder segment ~""" US/ , - ~"""'L - -.1. _ -.. __AU__ COMBO: 'e ,~ --"""- .. fa.a - -. W-5 W~l + W-3A __ ~ -... iJ.J: . ~ -~ -... ,; -liD · · I !f!! 1IIi[ll" ~ IJ<J ..... 'I 1151__ I I lL Rank 1 througJf9, witbl being most preFerred. ~ 0 N N '0 ~ ~ ~ a.. 1il as Q) - --I ~ ~ . Co 0 N C ~ Q) 1ii (,) :0 .- Q) ::is E ~ .... Q) Q. - c: - - C) 0 C '0 :c ~ - 0 Q) ...... Z ~ 0 a.. C 1il - 0 0 ~ I II 3: '0 - ~ ::::J Q) Q, - .E e a.. C.) 1il .- jS Cll Q) ::::J -I D.. . - Q) >- - tU Cll 3: :0 Q) In E c Q) 0 - c:: ~ - 0 ..J ~ '0 0 - ...,. Q) In .... - .... .c Q) - en e :::i a.. ... 1il 0 0 .c ~ ... II tU ::J: - - I 3: - ::::s c. c .~ :c ::::s D.. - C ...J .c ~ '0 ::::s ~ .c .... 0 ~ 1:: ~ CI) a.. ~ 1;) ro I- ?f- ?f- Q) ..J ... 0 -.:t . CI) m - Q) ~ - ?f- ro :0 <0 Q) "C E c .... w Q) - U) c:: >- CI) E ::::s 0 "") - - I N I ~ - ~ c.. .5 .~ :is ~ D.. - " '0 0:: ~ ~ c ~ cu ~ m a.. 'i:: u; CD cu ~ '$. Q) ...J 0 ~ . t- to.. Q) - CD '$. cu - C\I :c cu Q) ~ ~ E 0 oq- " CD Q) - c c:: W 0 UJ '0 >- ~ CD E ~ ~ ~ 0 a.. ..., - - Vl N 0 I ~ N II I ~ - ~ Q, .5 .~ :is ~ Q. - ~ 'C ~ ~ .... c CI) C'CS - m ~ - ll. "C 1i) 0:: cu CI) .3 OJ . C CI) ~ - cu 10,,; ~ :c (3 0 0 CI) 0 E >- ..... .... "C CI) - C c: C'CS 0 C/) en 'C ~ ~ .... ~ C/) ~ C ll. .- - C'CS rn :E 0 - :2 <C . C'? I ~ .. ~ c.. "C C ~ .... (,) ~ 0- ~ ::is a.. ~ 1;) D.. ctI - a> "C ...J 0:= . ~ a> - C ctI ftS ~ :c m 0 a> IX) - 0> E "C .... 0:= a> - c::: rn - rn 0 CD "C C ~ 0; .... a> ~ 00- m ~ 't: a.. 0 - rn 0 >- ~ "C III c ftS en 0 ~ en c oca :!: - m C'? I ~ ~ ::s Q. c u .- ::c ::s "C D.. ~ .... - ~ "C 0:: ~ a.. ~ 1;) C as ra Q) a:a ...J - . "C 0:: Q) - CI) as :c C) ~ ~ Q) 0 0 E c N CO ~ CD .... ~ Q) - "C 0 c: N 0:: 0 CI) "C C) ~ ra .... ~ Q) C ..... e ~ a.. LL - - Ul C 0 ...J ~ ~ . C CI) ::r: - oCt ., ;: - =' Q, C '0 (,) ~ .- .... ::c Q) - =' ~ c.. Q. - 'lil "C C'll 0:: Q) ....J ~ . c Q) C'G - In C'll ~ :c - ~ 0 "C 0 N Q) 0:: CO CO E .... In Q) - In c::: CI) - c 0 .- '0 In =' ~ In .... - ~ ~ ~ 0.. CI) 'lil C) 0 C'G ~ - II c e LL - C -oJ ~ C CI) J: - In .,. 3: '0 - ~ :::s Q) c.. - c ~ a.. .~ 1il :is tV Q) :::s ...I D.. . - Q) c:r:: ..... M .~ I '0 ;: Q) E + .... Q) ..... - c: I ;: 0 0 ?fl. '0 .c co ~ E ~ 0 ~ (.) a.. - 1il ." 0 I ::2: ;: III ~ 0 CO ..... '0 ~ ... ~ - ~ ::::I C- o.. c: 1ii - ctl .~ Q) J :c . ::::I Q) D. - .~ - '0 C) Q) c: E .r:. Q) - - 0 c: Z 0 0 '0 C ~ - ~ 0 . ~ W a.. 1ii 0 ::!!: . - "C ::::s ~ c. c ~ Q) CJ .... a. :is 1il ::::s ell D.. Q) ....I - . ... c Q) I/) - .~ ::::s "C CJ Q) I/) E :c Q) - :a:: c:: + 0 ~ "C ca e 3: .... Q) - I/) e c a. 0 1il - 0 >. :::2!: ..J . - <r"" . W 'C - ~ ::::I C. ~ C ~ (,) a. .- 1;) :c t'll Q) ::::I ...J D. . - ::.e '- Q) c 0 - to .5!! ~ 'C (,) Q) 0 E E Q) ?ft. ::.e - E 0 c::: N N - CG en 0 :z: 'C + ~ .... - ~ U) ~ " a. c 1;) N N 0 - ~ N II I W "C ~ ... ~ - ~ :::I Q.. C. ii) C co - Q) .~ ....J :c . Q) :::I - Q. co :c - ~ Q) - 0 0 0 E 0 CJ ..... Q) - C'G c: ~ 0 + "C - ~ en Q) .c - Q) - ... ~ Q.. N ii) - C'? 0 . :i: W . ~ '0 ::I ~ Q, ... c ~ - ~ (.) Q. :c U) ::I co Q) Q. ...J - *' . <C co Q) CI) *' - ~ .~ co '0 00 Q) + E ... "C Q) - 0:: -= CI) 0 CJ ~ '0 0 C'G 00 ~ ~ C ... ~ ~ ~ U. Q. - - "'lIt IJ) I 0 W :E II 'C ~ ~ ~ a.. 1;) m Q) - ...J ::::s . C- Q) t: - - m CJ :c .- Q) :is E ::::s Q) a. - - ..= M 0 . W 'C + ~ Q) - "- . ~ W a.. 0 1;) .c 0 E ~ 0 III 0 - It) . W . \ Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study ~, \ , ~@_;I Alternatives Evaluation Report THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK URS BIG PINE KEY CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY Alternatives Evaluation Report MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA OCTOBER 2002 URS PROJECT t: 1213711.._11fC....177.07 Prepared by: URS CORPORATION SOUTHERN 5100 N.W. 33 Avenue, Suite 150, Fort uuderd..., Florida, 333309 -- .,,-. ~ BIG PINE KEY - CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY -. Alternatives Evaluation Report -- - - - -- MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA -- OCTOBER 2002 ,- URS PROJECT #: 12637610.00000/C500004177.07 .- Prepared by - URS - RAJENDRAN SHANMUGAM, P,E,. License #: 39626 CORPORATION SOUTHERN -- 5100 N.W. 33 Avenue, Suite 150, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33309 -- -"--- URS October 21,2002 Ms. K. Marlene Conaway Director of Planning MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2798 Overseas Highway Suite 410 Marathon, Florida 33050 Re: Monroe County Transportation Planning Services Big Pine Cross Island Connector Study - Alternatives Evaluation Report (Final) Dear Ms. Conaway: Please find enclosed five copies of the subject final report for your use and/or distribution. We have incorporated all comments received to date. Should you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, URS Corporation Southern ~~~7 ~ Project Manager Enclosure RS'JS'rs. C~}vfCJ(}:J02_Con.!r Letter. v-Yhl URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW33rd Avenue. Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tel: 954.739,1881 Fax: 954.739,1789 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARy........... ...... ....... .................... ........ ......... ......... .............. .......... .... ...... iv I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1 A. Background............................................................................................................ 1 B. Purpose................................................................................................................... 3 C. Procedure......... ...................................................................................................... 3 II. EXIS TING COND ITI ONS ............................................................................................. 5 A. Study Area.............................................................................................................. 5 B. Roadways and Access................................... .................... ... .............. ..................... 9 C. General Existing Conditions ................... ....... ................................... .................... 11 III. TRAFFIC DATA ......... ................................. .................................. ........... ................... 13 A. Existing and Future Traffic Conditions .................................................................13 B. Traffic Simulation Modeling................................................................................. 20 C. Accident Data....................................................................................................... 23 IV. AL TERNA TIVES ANAL YSIS ................ ........................ ............................................. 25 A. General Concepts.................................................................................................. 25 B. Evaluation Criteria........................... ..................................................................... 27 C. Segment Determination..... ................................................................................... 31 D. Corridor Determination................................................... .............. ........................ 32 E. Corridor Comparison ..................................... ....................................................... 41 F. Public Information Workshop................................................. ........................ ......44 G. Evaluation Matrix............................................................................ .....................46 V. CONCLUSIONS........................ ................................................................................... 48 A. West Corridor Summary....................................................................................... 48 B. East Corridor Summary........................................................................................ 52 VI. RECOMMENDATIONS.. .................................................................................... .........56 A. Preferred Alignment ................................................. .............. .............................. 56 B. Other Considerations ............................... ........................ ....... .......... ....................57 LIST OF EXIllBITS Exhibit 1 - Location Map 7 Exhibit 2 - Study Area 8 Exhibit 3 - General Access Map 10 Exhibit 4 - Existing Conditions 12 Exhibit 5 - Hourly Turning Movement Count Data 15 Exhibit 6A - Two Way Daily Traffic Volumes - U.S. 1 - Wednesday 16 Exhibit 6B - Two Way Daily Traffic Volumes - U.S. 1- Saturday 17 Exhibit 7 - Existing Daily Traffic Volumes on Existing Road Network 18 Exhibit 8 - Future Daily Traffic Volumes on Existing Road Network 19 Exhibit 9 - Generalized O-D Trips 21 Exhibit 10 - Accident Data - Year 2001 24 Exhibit 11 - Potential Segments - Segment Conditions 33 11 URS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report LIST OF EXHIBITS (con't) Exhibit 12 - Potential Segments - Color Areas 34 Exhibit 13 - West Corridors 39 Exhibit 14 - East Corridors 40 Exhibit 15 - Travel Time Analysis Points 43 Exhibit 16 - West Corridor Matrix 46 Exhibit 17 - East Corridor Matrix 47 Exhibit 18 - Recommended Cross Connector Roadway (West End) 59 Exhibit 19 - Recommended Cross Connector Roadway (East End) 60 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - Minutes APPENDIX B - Traffic Data APPENDIX C - Traffic Simulation Information APPENDIX D - Segment Information APPENDIX E - Cost Estimates APPENDIX F - Public Input 111 URS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Monroe County, in response to requests from residents living on Big Pine Key, retained the services ofURS to develop this Cross Connector Study. The need for a cross island connector was identified through the "Livable Communi Keys Program". The primary purpose of this Cross Connector Study is to provide local east/west connection(s) to and from residential areas and local attracting destinations so that the locals will not need to access U.S. I for local trips. The secondary purpose of this study is to reduce traffic volumes and congestion on U.S.I by providing a local connection(s). This study is consistent with the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which is currently being drafted. Based on a review of existing connections within the study area, four distinct pockets of the study area emerge. Under existing conditions, there are no east/west connections between these four pockets. This underscores the need for a Cross Connector road on Big Pine Key to be a part of the overall transportation solution for the island The 2000 "Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study" recommends that the Florida Department of Transportation three-lane U.S. I be constructed as soon as they are permitted to enter it into their work program and that a Cross Connector road be constructed to alleviate U.S. I traffic in the near future. For the purposes of this study, all Cross Connector road alternatives begin at Ships Way on the west and end at Sands Road on the east. A connector of this length within the study area will connect all four of the separate pockets on Big Pine Key. In order to provide a thorough analysis, consideration for potential segments was given to all types of roadways, from existing paved roadways to scarified lands to new segments. In addition to an analysis of potential roadways, an analysis ofa "Do Nothing/No Build" alternative was also considered. After a preliminary analysis, remaining segments were combined in a logical fashion to create parallel corridors for further analysis. A total of nine east corridors and six west corridors (including the "Do Nothing/No Build" alternative) were developed for further evaluation. The corridors were ranked based on 15 criteria: . House Impact . Segment Condition . Travel Time . Business Impact . Historic Sites . Segment Volume . Parcel Impact . Marsh Rabbit . U.S. I LOS . Ease of Acquisition . Key Deer . Relative Cost . Floodplain Impact . Vegetation Impact . Community Impact As part of the evaluation of community impact, residents' feedback was obtained at a Public Information Workshop. At the meeting, an overview was given of the Cross Connector Study, including the corridors IV URS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report under review and the preliminary evaluation matrix that had been completed to date. Feedback sheets were provided to attendees, who were asked to rank the nine west and six east corridors, with rank I being most preferred. A complete matrix for each west and east corridor was compiled, including all of the evaluation criteria. Each corridor was evaluated in a relative manner from low impact to high impact, from most preferred to least preferred. A brief description of each corridor is as follows, along with pertinent details and public input. WEST CORRIDORS . W-O - "Do Nothing" - has the least impacts. Does not address the local need for alternatives to u.s. I. The public ranked this alternative least preferred. . W-l - "Harbor Lights/Lvttons Way" - has relatively low impacts. Includes removing the barriers at both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road Due to how far north it is located, it will not benefit the maximum number of residents. The public ranked this alternative second most preferred . W-2-1- "Journeys EndlWater Tower/Church Ln" - generally intermediate to high impacts. Includes removing the barriers at both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . W-2-2 - "Journeys EndlWater Tower/Bank Rd" - relatively high impacts. Includes removing the barriers at both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . W-3A - "Main St/S. Sandy Cir/Angle RdlBank Rd" - generally intermediate to high impacts. Provides connections along the north sides of businesses. The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . W-3B - "Main St/S. Sandy Cir/Business Rd/Bank Rd" - generally intermediate to high impacts. Provides connections along the north sides of businesses. The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . W-4A - "Henry LnlFrontage RdI Angle Rd/Bank Rd" - generally low to intermediate impacts. Provides a frontage road to u.S. 1. Has high business impacts and low environmental impacts. The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . W-4B - "Henry LnlFrontage Rd/Business Rd/Bank Rd" - generally low to intermediate impacts. Provides a frontage road to u.S. I. Has high business impacts and low environmental impacts. The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . W-5 - "Combo W-I + W-3A" - has relatively low impacts. Includes removing the barriers at both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road. Due to multiple parallel corridors, it provides the best engineering and planning solution. The public ranked this alternative the most preferred v URS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report EAST CORRIDORS . E-O - "Do Nothing" - has the least impacts. Does not address the local need for alternatives to U.S. I. The public ranked this alternative least preferred. . E-l - "Lvttons Way + Hibiscus Dr" - has relatively low impacts. Due to how far north it is located, it will not benefit the maximum number of residents. The public ranked this alternative second most preferred. . E-2 - "2200 Street + Hammock Dr" - has intermediate impacts. The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . E-3 - "24th Street + Mac Ct" - has intermediate impacts. The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . E-4 - "Frontage Rd + Ave A" - has intermediate impacts. Provides frontage road to U.S. 1. Has high business impacts and low environmental impacts. The public ranked this alternative intermediate. . E-5 - "Combo E-l + E-3" - has relatively low impacts. Due to multiple parallel corridors, it provides the best engineering and planning solution. The public ranked this alternative the most preferred Based on a review of all the analyses herein, it is recommended that the pairing of Corridor W -5 and Corridor E-5 be developed into the Cross Connector roadway. The preferred alignment fulfills both the primary and secondary purposes of this study. The selected alignment consists of two generally parallel east/west corridors. The two corridors are comprised ofthe following segments: . Harbor Lights Road! Lyttons Way/ Hibiscus Drive, and . A new "Main Street" aligning with Enterprise Avenue/ South Sandy Circle/ a new east-west segment, using the scarified angled road! a new road between the banks! 24th Street/ Mac Court! Hammock Drive/ Bailey Road. The preferred alignment includes removing the barricades from both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road. The west corridors are depicted in Exhibit 18 at the end of this study. The east corridors are depicted in Exhibit 19 at the end of this study. The recommended alignment is not expected to physically impact any houses or any businesses, although there are 18 houses fronting the north corridor and 27 houses fronting the south corridor. Like all of the corridors, the recommended alignment abuts some federally-owned parcels. It also abuts state-owned parcels. Mitigation for this, if any, has not yet been determined. The recommended alignment is comprised of a mixture of existing paved roads, scarified roads and some segments of new road Like all of the corridors, portions of the recommended alignment are within Tier I areas, and will require coordination with the Habitat Conservation Plan to ameliorate environmental impacts. Of all the alternatives, the recommended alignment VI URS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report produces the most reduction in resident travel times on the island, distributes the volumes in the most efficient manner, and has the most positive impact on lessening congestion on U.S.!. Because of it is comprised of two alignments, it has the highest relative cost of all alternatives considered. Based on a review of public input, the recommended alignment is the most preferred alternative. The forth-coming companion Preferred Alignment Report will provide more detailed information about the recommended alignments. The Preferred Alignment Report will include consideration of typical sections, lane widths, right-of-way, construction cost estimates, and Key deer considerations. Other items to be considered in the detailed final analysis of the alignments include further evaluation of speed humps for traffic calming speed control, location of STOP signs, possible right turn lane on Ships Way southbound, possible roadblock locations, possible turn restrictions to minimize intrusion and facilitate traffic flow, possible one-way designations, evaluation of the 'V' intersection of Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road, and consideration of a traffic circle. It may be possible to develop the project in multiple phases. Fast track items may include removing the barriers, completing Lyttons Way, and paving existing scarified sections. VB URS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Monroe County, in response to requests from residents living on Big Pine Key, retained the services of URS to develop this Cross Connector Study. In the 1980's a similar project was proposed, however due to a combination of then-current land use regulations issues and environmental issues, the project was stopped. In the meantime, traffic volumes in the Florida Keys, particularly on U.S. 1, have continued to grow. In 1994, a building moratorium was enforced on Big Pine Key, in direct relation to the traffic volumes, delay, and level of service (LOS) on U.S. 1. In 1997 a Big Pine Traffic Task Team was established to review this issue. The Task Team was comprised of representatives of the following agencies: . Monroe County Planning Department . Monroe County Engineering Department . Monroe County Sheriff's Office . Florida Highway Patrol . Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) . Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) . US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). In 1998, an inter-agency Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed to develop a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). The HCP will address impacts to covered species resulting from a proposed 20-year development program on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. The HCP is required by the federal government, to describe a conservation and mitigation strategy to minimize and mitigate an "incidental take" of threatened and endangered species during the execution ofthe proposed development program. URS 1 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report The HCP is currently being drafted. The proposed development plan includes this proposed Cross Connector road on Big Pine Key. Preliminary HCP-model analysis indicates that any plan should have zero impacts to the Lower Keys marsh rabbit, and that anticipated impacts to Florida Key deer (and other covered species) are not expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild. In the HCP discussion of the proposed development plan, some key issues are mentioned. The development plan considers a variety of possible local road improvements. These include the construction of a cross-island access road, widening other existing paved local roads to accommodate bicycle paths, current U.S. 1 improvements at the signalized intersection with Key Deer Boulevard, and the future FDOT widening of U.S. 1 to three lanes across the business section of Big Pine Key. In 2000, a community involvement program called the "Livable CommuniKeys Program" (LCP) was developed to address local resident concerns. Primary among them was the desire for better roadways for the local residents. This Cross Connector Study was initiated from the LCP feedback and general planning considerations by Monroe County. Other reports also indicate the need for a Cross Connector road. The County annual "U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study" continues to conclude that the LOS on U.S. 1 is unacceptable, and therefore the building moratorium continues. As part ofthe LCP, a "Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study" (TIS) was developed in 2000, incorporating public workshops in the preliminary development of transportation alternatives for Big Pine Key and URS 2 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report No Name Key, including both U.S. 1 and local roads. The results of the 2000 TIS indicate the following: · In general, an improvement to current local traffic patterns and U.S. I LOS is desired; · The proposed FDOT signalized intersection improvements will not be sufficient by itself; . A future proposed FDOT three-Ianing project of U.S.l will improve U.S. 1 LOS in the long term, and a Cross Connector road will improve U.S. 1 LOS in the short term; · It is recommended that the FDOT three-lane U.S. I as soon as they are permitted to enter it into their work program and that a Cross Connector road be constructed to alleviate U.S. 1 traffic. B. Purpose The primary purpose of this Cross Connector Study is to provide local east/west connection(s) to and from residential areas and local attracting destinations so that the locals will not need to access U.S. 1 for local trips. The secondary purpose of this study is to provide local connection(s) that will reduce traffic volumes and congestion on U.S.1. This study is consistent with the HCP, which is currently being drafted, and the on-going LCP. C. Procedure This Cross Connector Study has been developed incorporating multiple issues, including community issues, environmental issues, and engineering issues. Throughout the development of this study, a Technical Steering Committee has guided the direction of the study. The Technical Steering Committee consists of representatives ofthe following agencies: . Monroe County Planning Department . Monroe County Engineering Department . FDOT . DCA . USFWS. URS 3 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report The Technical Steering Committee has provided a conduit of information from outside sources to the development of this study. Meeting minutes are provided in Appendix A. This Cross Connector Study has also incorporated public input, in the form of a Public Information Workshop, held on Tuesday, August 13, 2002, from 6:30 P.M. until 9:00 P.M., at the Big Pine Key Neighborhood School, on Big Pine Key. Additional public input has also been incorporated. This Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report will develop, review and analyze potential east/west local connection(s). The results ofthis Alternatives Evaluation Report will be incorporated into the on-going analysis in the HCP. The final recommendation of this Alternatives Evaluation Report will be used to develop a companion document, to be called the "Big Pine Key Cross Connector Study Preferred Alignment Report" (PAR). URS 4 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Study Area Big Pine Key is the a largest single island in the Lower Florida Keys. No Name Key is adjacent to Big Pine Key to the east. A location map is provided in Exhibit 1 at the end of this section. U.S. 1 is the only arterial roadway that connects Big Pine Key to the rest of the Florida Keys. Road access to No Name Key is only via Watson Boulevard from Big Pine Key. U.S. 1 traverses Big Pine Key in and east/west direction. The bulk of the island is on the north side of U.S. 1. The main north/south roadway on Big Pine Key is Key Deer Boulevard. A secondary north/south roadway on Big Pine Key is Wilder Boulevard. For the purposes ofthis Alternatives Evaluation Report, the island of Big Pine Key was reviewed to determine appropriate study limits. The locations of significant residential areas and key local attracting destinations on the island were identified. Some of the key residential communities within the study area are: . Pine Channel Estates . Tropical Key Colony . the Linda/Loma area . the PineIHammock area . the Sands area. Some of the key attracting destinations within the study area are: . Post Office (adjacent to U.S. 1) . Shopping Plaza (between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Boulevard) . County Parks. URS 5 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report Some other key attracting destinations on Big Pine Key are: .. Neighborhood School ,* Flea Market . Churches to Moose Lodge . Daycare . Senior Center . Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge. In determining potential east/west connection(s), the section of Big Pine Key north of U.S. 1 as far as and including South Street was established as the study area for the Cross Connector road A map ofthe study area, noting key features, is provided in Exhibit 2 at the end of this section. URS 6 ~\ ~-'" \' \ \"\ _J] 1, ~ ~ NOT TO SCAlE I C'\ 0 ~~~NE KEY ,/ ~~ NO NAME \ KEY ~ !l\ \ (\ L KEY \j REFUGE KEY V(_~) :z \ a Cl /-~\ iSi SPANISH I jjJr-1 rJ :x: HARBOR x LI T T LE " /-....../ W . ((~, ~ ./ TORCH /"" '--",) ) KEY ~I N 1SI - ~,KE) // ~ a:: _J~,~_-, 1SI ~~ \ "./ /j ./ \ ,- _/ W RAMROD KEY) \.- , \ :z ~ c: _/ ( a --~J ~J/----) en / ./ //'--., /' :z a ,/ -. .-',.~/ Cl //- ./ ~//"-,.- , 0 ,J->~~==~,//-'-'/ \/ ~ ~ CL LD STUDY AREA "'" M - M 1SI N . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT I 1SI ...... . ~,; ~ CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY LOCATION MAP - , '. ':~' i_:;: ", MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA CT 1SI ~.... ~l!~i'N-" . ";t ~~\ ~ .. .'f_~ ; '".,.'" , " \ , .~y J >:. '" +~ -I ' ,vf \ , ;;f.,_l: \. , '-'''h3 -~ \ ~\~; \ ~ _ 1~~.~t\. ~.- , W"'-'-- \- ''; ,;. .~-. " " . 1,.~~ \ . 'I EXHIBIT 2 ,- '11 STUDY AREA Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report B. Roadways and Access A field review was conducted of the existing roadway network within the study area. For the purposes of this report, paved roadways are considered existing connections. Unpaved roadways, also known as scarified roadways or dirt roadways, were observed in multiple locations on the island. However, given the poor road surface conditions, these roadways were not considered viable usable connections under existing conditions. Although, a few vehicles were observed to use these unpaved roads. Based on a review of existing connections within the study area, four distinct pockets of the study area emerge. The four pockets are indicated in Exhibit 3 and are generally described as: the "east pocket" which encompasses the area from the east coast to Pine Drive/Ixora Drive; the "external west pocket" which encompasses the area from the west coast up to but not including West Sandy Circle; the "internal west pocket" which encompasses the area from West Sandy Circle to Lorna Lane; and the "central pocket" which encompasses the entire north section of Big Pine Key, all of No Name Key, and everything else north of U.S. 1 not within one of the other three pockets. Under existing conditions, there are no east/west connections between these four pockets. This underscores the need for a Cross Connector road on Big Pine Key to be a part of the overall transportation solution for the island. The existing island roadway network within the study area has a few notable features. There is one signalized intersection on U.S. 1 at Key Deer Boulevard. There are roadblocks across Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road just west of West Sandy Circle. The east side of the study area is provided with an established network of connecting roadways, in a generally typical block configuration. URS 9 , '~;_""r,e;. ~;c);i;~ - f' , 1iB~~'- ,u';:'7', ., .. '. ..~... '." ~. . ',,/' , . "}/"'::. '~ ~'-- ' '" - :,~ . ~ . "".,> "-" .. C: 2 I:t~, ,~"~,"'i~t "; '''pl;ii~'t . J' '.~' ~{X'.4 ,,' }""""" "-""'-,- ';:~ji 'trt \ ~I"~;'i}~;,::..j~ ~~'t ~ WI"> ......t;(":~;' m~~; .... ..il,..U", ~' Il~j1t''lj; .. . 't~ ", '_.'- ,r 1J~.... '>,._~ \..[! 'J\i:.{;",,:). j' ~ i ~ ......~.. I".. ~'l, \l'..,. ,.,~ '" " ,'. , A,;.. .~ .. ! 'ilf.l ,. '. ."", .. ....~" '~'i'" "~~,~,. ~ \.. '. ~W;''''''' .ii..;...., J..J'.,,:, I.'" .~.. ~ '1 ~~" ..i', '/}1, l'f{ ",.r"., i"'.J!!Li r. ';:':'-'1. iC "F , "" ! ... ." ~'-. J ' ,.. ~..... . ji.'\lj ... ~ ..... ",'~' .. i!!\" lW?:! :"..~ ,1: ; ~,.,. ., j,," .r", v ", 19l11,.? tf'l :~':'''''r 1'::if ;:; ;;,. 4'~ '''''' i ..,." ''''W ' ~.' '.:.' . :;';""':"./. .: ,i; , h ", ' '''''~:''-',,,,'''''Id:':-''I'. . c ~J .. '.".. ...t-. k, , . r" , '~. '.~ i..ri ",;, ~..," ;~,~""" ," ' ",:. ~t/:;t'l'Jm.~,' . .' ",;'S,J,'i~:1;~:,ii ~~" I I,' . ..' "''''';''''''''',,/14, iI'!':>;,~~ ....I1F ," ~z,; ';;:'.,;:::r"';(~";;11~~1i ~~~~~~~ ';V">'7:~';''/.' ',,':'"~'~ 'F~~~~~ '. ~,' "";;." ,. .~. ',. .",. ...........,#'" :!t~ ",~;;f!~/;'i"~, {~~j(~\.", t~ ~' "..',-", " "'3 .,~ ~ r',...~. !I.. . . .. ""H".. ,,' '.. "'~"'jo ~~~k~'::~~~..~,~~.. \'~"'''''',+,." ",' .~'" ;';',,>,f,.~~ ~ 'N:: ' ~~: ~~,,,. .~, J'!~' I ~:~.".......... ~Ul , >.' ~:~~'ll >~-"~t; 'I. -:'T.~ ,,, 't]::2.... . ---.. i ~-~;:: -~;~ \ ,y1 '"..~~. ----:~. - .', - ' -, . . ~l "Iit;'. EXHIBIT 3 - GENERAL ACCESS MAP . , ., 1 -, , Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report C. General Existing Conditions An existing conditions aerial figure is provided in Exhibit 4. Most of the existing roadways, paved or scarified, are identified as public roadways (within Monroe County right-of-way) and has various widths. Based on preliminary information, some of the roadways are on private property, and some are on easements across private property. Some of the roadways have homes and/or businesses abutting them while others traverse mostly vacant land. In general, the existing land uses within the study area are mainly low and medium-density residential. There are two mobile home parks that are considered high-density residential. Commercial property is mostly located along U.S. 1 frontage, in addition to the shopping plaza located between Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road. Publicly owned areas include the water tower and the prison. Churches own the institutional property. Recreational property generally indicates public parks. Additionally, there are areas set aside for conservation, typically owned by the USFWS for environmental purposes. URS 11 . - t'" : t . . 1 ; , ~ .. ~~ ~~ , . ,it, ;J '" '" - EXHIBIT 4 ~ .'I~ . ~~ Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report In. TRAFFIC DATA In keeping with the purpose of this study, traffic conditions on both U.S. I and local roadways were reviewed. Existing traffic data were extrapolated to a 20-year future horizon, in keeping with the 20-year proposed development program in the HCP. A. Existing and Future Traffic Conditions Historic daily traffic data and turning movements counts along the U.S. 1 were collected from a variety of sources such as the "2002 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study", the "Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study" (December 2000), and the "Big Pine Key Origin/Destination Survey" (March 2000). The traffic data were collected during 1999, 2000, and 2002 and are summarized in Exhibit 5 at the end of this section. In addition to historic data, hourly turning movement count data were collected for this study on Saturday, July 20, 2002 at 13 locations. Daily traffic data were collected on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 for this study at nine locations along U.S. 1. The data are summarized in Exhibit 6A at the end of this section and provided in Appendix B. Although the data do not reflect peak season conditions, they do indicate the difference in traffic volumes on different portions of U.S. I on Big Pine Key. It should be noted that traffic volumes on the east (Marathon) side of the island are significantly lower than volumes on the west (Key West) side of the island, indicating that the dominant traffic pattern is to and from Big Pine Key and points south (Key West). It can also be noted that the segments of U.S. 1 in the middle of the island (near Key Deer Boulevard) experience higher volumes than segments of U.S. 1 entering or leaving the island. URS 13 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report These trips reflect the current need for local Big Pine Key trips to use U.S. 1. A local east/west connection(s) would have the potential to reduce the traffic volumes on these segments of U.S. 1, alleviating the locals having to contend with the traffic congestion along U.S. I during peak season, reducing travel times for most local trips, and overall lessening congestion within the island. The July 2002 data were adjusted to reflect peak season data using daily traffic counts collected in March 2002. The peak season daily traffic volumes on U.S. 1 are reflected in Exhibit 6B at the end of this section. Existing peak season daily volumes for the general study area are summarized in Exhibit 7. Year 2022 traffic volumes (a 20-year future horizon) were developed from the collected existing daily two-way traffic volume data. The U.S. 1 traffic growth rate was obtained from the "2002 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study". In that study, regression analyses were conducted using ten consecutive years of traffic data on Big Pine Key. The annual growth rate on U.S. in Big Pine Key is 0.14% and was compounded annually to estimate the future traffic volumes on U.S.1. Given the current building moratorium and Monroe County policies concerning growth, traffic volumes on the existing local roadways are not expected to grow at the same rate as U.S. 1. However, consistent with the HCP proposed development plan, an additional 200 homes were assumed to be distributed in areas north of U.S. 1, along with the opening of the County park at the north end of Sands Road. The future year 2022 peak volumes in the area are indicated in Exhibit 8. URS 14 , , , / ! / / / INDEPENDENCE AlE / / RANGER AlE / / NOT TO SOLE FLYING CUJUO AlE / / ~ NE G EKTERPRISE AlE Ie ~ Iii CONSTfl'lfflON AVE HENRY L NE D AlE C t;; lIVE 8 /~ lIVE A ..., z / ~ t:; t:l 0 ~ ui _ OAT A !COO/RED / ~ ~ IS) I JULY 20. 2002 :t: x w / '" N IS) - C; / IS) ,/ w z / a: \ t:l CD / '" \ z t:l 0 Rl-lCl '" ~ ~ Ci ) \. )l\. ~ ~ 27 J '- /2 a... 149- -520 a:l 35 -:\ ~ 1/ M ~ ,r( .. N M (t:::::lCl IS) N LAKESHORE IS) ...... 5/00 N.W. 33RfENT COUNT OAT A EXHIBIT 5 - - FT.LAUOEROAl ...... cr IS) 19600 z t:) Cl ui CSl I :I: X W ./ N ISl - cr TO KEY WEST >- {j ~ ~ ~ ~ TO MARAmON ISl ~ ./ .. ~ ~ . w z C"I'.l ~ - ~ C"I'.l = 0- E-o ~ t:) C"I'.l ~ ~ co ~ t:Q /" ~ t:Q z ~ t:) a ~ /" Ci ~ ~ 0- M <t c\i NOTE: DATA COllECTED JULY f1. 2002 fUNAJUSTEDJ. N M ISl N CSl . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT 6A ...... - _., i \ - CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY TWO WAY DAILY VOLUMES ...... (T' CSl .~,_j 1_ ~...- MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA US 1- WEDNESDAY 22800 z c.::J Cl ui CSl I :r: x w /' (\J CSl - >< ~ ;; TO KEY WEST ~ ~ Q ~ TO MARAlliON CSl ~ < /' .. ~ ~ ... W Z a'.l ~ - ~ a'.l ~ 0.. f-o ~ a a'.l a'.l ~ 0 co 0 ~ ~ et:: a'.l /' ~ Z ~ a 0 /' ~ 0 ~ 0.. C"l - Iii NOTE: 2002 PEAK SEASON DATA (\J M lSl (\J CSl . BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT 6B ...... - . , - .-. . .... I CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY TWO WAY DAILY VOLUMES ...... a- ,. -, .- lSl ._._1 !__/,'- . MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA US I - SATURDAY NOT TO SCALE INDEPENDENCE AVE RANGER AlE FLYING CLroD AVE Jt ~ ~ ENTERPRISE AlE ~ ~ ~ It) ..... I;;;: CONSTffUTION IVE In 15 HENR ..... !a ~ ..... ~J ts -1f iJ ti l&.: In :g ~ """ ~J t~ '\0389 ltl USI ~ ~ 1157': ,\,\'\24 AIlE A z c.:l 0 r..: ~ IS) t:; I :c x ;;J W ./ ~ C\J IS) - C; IS) ./ W Z a: c.:l CD ./ Z t.:l 0 ./ c3 ~ Cl.. lfl lfl 00 C\J M IS) IS) LAKE SHORE ...... - 5/00 N.W. 33RFFIC VOLUMES - ...... cr FT.LAUDERDALO NETWORK EXHIBIT 7 IS) NOT TO SCALE INDEPENDENCE AVE ~ ~ RANGER /lVE ~ FLYING CLOOD AlE .A ~ ~ ENTERPRISE WE ~ ;t: ~ CIj ~ I;;; CONSTffUT/ON IVE HENR ~ 15 ~ '- ~t f~-1E ~J t;; L&.: If) ~J t~ ~ ,\Q68S 1tI US' ~ ~ -- ,\'\440 1190C AVE A z c.::J Cl cO 3t CSl t; I :c x ~ UJ ,- ~ N CSl - c; CSl ,- UJ Z ~ 0- c.::J CD ,- z c.::J Cl ,- Cl ~ 0- cr' CSl 5i C'"l ;; CSl N CSl LAKE SHORE ..... - 5100 N.W. 3JRrFIC VOLUMES - ..... 0- FT.LAUDERDALO NETWORK EXHIBIT 8 CSl - Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report An analysis ofthe traffic data indicates that it is generally consistent with previous origin- destination (O-D) studies that have been conducted in the area. Using the existing two-way daily volumes on U.S. 1, Exhibit 9 ofthis section depicts the current general traffic flow patterns on U.S. 1, including local trips. B. Traffic Simulation Modeling Traffic simulation models were developed to generate and distribute traffic volumes on the roadway network within the study area. The network consisted of the existing paved connections, both local roads and U.S. 1. The models were later used to compare and analyze the operation ofa variety of future network changes, such as providing east/west connection(s). QRS (Quick Response System) was the traffic distribution and assignment planning software chosen for this study. It is a computer program for forecasting the impacts of development on roadway traffic and estimating the impacts of roadway projects on travel patterns. QRS employs a traditional four-step procedure to distribute and assign traffic volumes to the roadway network: . Trip Generation . Trip Distribution . Model Split . Traffic Assignment. URS 20 :E 0- N CSl BIG PINE KEY EXHIBIT 9 ...... - '= CROSS CONNECTOR STUDY GENERALIZED cr CSl MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 0-0 TRIPS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report The required input data for QRS include the land use features (dwelling units, square feet of commercial buildings, etc.) and traffic-related information (link capacity, link speed, link distance, intersection characteristics, etc.). The QRS model was built to reflect existing conditions and includes the nearly complete FDOT intersection improvement project at the signalized intersection of U.S. 1 with Key Deer Boulevard. The existing network consists of 410 nodes and 491 system links. Existing land use feature data were obtained from a review of a current parcel database for Big Pine Key. In generaL residential parcels were considered trip originators and commercial parcels were considered trip attractors. Trip generation rates were used consistent with the most current Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation" report. Both ends of U.S. 1 were modeled to be consistent with collected daily traffic data. System link speed was set to reflect posted speed limits. Adjusted peak season two-way daily traffic volumes' were used to calibrate the existing conditions QRS model. Traffic simulation calibration information is provided in Appendix. C. The model was found to simulate existing traffic volume conditions very closely. The generated future year 2022 traffic volumes were entered into a future conditions QRS model. The future proposed FDOT three-Ianing project was included in the model of future conditions. A comparison of the expected future volumes on U.S. 1 and the future conditions QRS model indicated that the model simulates expected future traffic volume conditions well. URS 22 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report In addition to the QRS model, a second computer model, SYNCHRO, was used to model the traffic flow. SYNCHRO is a traffic-engineering model, capable of providing travel time output data. It also can provide animation of the traffic flow on the roadway network. Output volumes from QRS and existing turning movement volume distribution data were directly input into the SYNCHRO models. The animation was used at meetings and at the Public Information Workshop. C. Accident Data Accident data for the entire islands of Big Pine Key and No Name Key were obtained from the Monroe County Sheriff's Office. A total of 53 crashes in Big Pine Key were reported during the year 2001. There were no bicycle or pedestrian crashes among the data. There were a total of32 (60%) accidents that occurred on U.S. 1. There was one injury crash that took place adjacent to the Catholic Church. There were no fatalities during the entire year. The crash data are illustrated in Exhibit 10. It can be seen that most crashes occurred at the signalized intersection of U.S. 1 and Key Deer Boulevard. The interaction between higher volumes of traffic, the long queue at this intersection and short distance between signal and the geometry at intersection of Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road may contribute to the high number of crashes. For the year 2001, there were four automobile crash reports involving Key deer. It should be noted that the FDOT is currently constructing two Key deer underpasses under U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key. Additional Key deer mortality information is included in the HCP analysis, which is incorporated into this report. URS 23 "'....:" 0 200 800 I , LEGEND :;: C:i ACCI DENT TYPE SYMBOL TOTAL ~ Il. .. MOTOR VEHI elE x 49 I!) to I!) KEY DEER 0 4 to \Sl N LAKE SHORE \Sl "- 5100 N.W. 33R( YEAR 2001 EXHIBIT 10 M , FT. LAUDERDAl cr \Sl Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report IV. AL TERNA TIVES ANALYSIS A. General Concepts In the development of alternatives for a potential east/west Cross Connector road, logical termini were established so that alternatives could be fairly compared. For the purposes ofthis study, all Cross Connector road alternatives will begin at Ships Way on the west and end at Sands Road on the east. A connector of this length within the study area will connect all four of the separate pockets on Big Pine Key. For the purposes of this report, the following general defmitions have been applied to the alternatives to be evaluated: . Segment - a relatively short section of a roadway . Corridor - a combination of segments, generally parallel to other corridors with logical termini. . Alignment - the complete Cross Connector road, which may be comprised of one or more corridors, including parallel corridors. Some general assumptions for the proposed roadway were made for this preliminary evaluation of possible alternatives. For the purposes of this report, the proposed Cross Connector road will consist of: . two, II-foot-wide, paved, undivided lanes; . within a 50-foot-wide corridor; . along a relatively straight east/west alignment. When a final alignment has been recommended, a more detailed analysis of the Cross Connector road will be included in the companion to this report, the Preferred Alignment Report (PAR). The PAR will include consideration of the following items, at a minimum: URS 25 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report . Specific typical section . Exact right-of-way width . Provision of shoulders . Provision for pedestrians or bicyclists . Landscapinglstreetscaping techniques . Location and type oftraffic calming devices . Key deer signs and/or treatments. In order to provide a thorough analysis, consideration for potential segments was given to all types of roadways, from existing paved roadways to scarified lands to new segments. In addition to an analysis of potential roadways, an analysis of a "Do NothingINo Build" alternative was also considered. Upon first reviewing the study area, over 150 potential alignments could be considered, comprised of numerous combinations of possible segments. In order to reduce the possible alternatives to a more manageable number, a two-step evaluation process evolved. The first evaluation was at a segment level, keeping only the most viable choices. The second was at a corridor level, comparing viable choices comprised of the segments that remained from the first analysis. A more detailed description of the two-step evaluation process is described later in this report. URS 26 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report B. Evaluation Criteria The location of the Cross Connector road must consider a variety of factors. In general, the criteria used in analyzing potential alignments fall into one ofthree broad categories: . Community/Human Factors . EnvironmentaVHistorical Issues . Engineering/Cost Considerations In selecting an alternative, a balance must be achieved between the categories. Many decisions will require a compromise between the various criteria. One valuable source of evaluation criteria is the HCP, which is currently being drafted. The source of the data being reviewed in the HCP is provided in Geographic Information System (GIS) format and is the same source to be used in this report. A variety of GIS information is currently available, including parcel locations, ownership data, land use designations, and various environmental data. In addition to the GIS information, aerial photographs of Big Pine Key, coupled with field reviews of the study area, provide valuable data for comparing alternatives. Based on the information available and with direction from the Technical Steering Committee, the following 15 parameters will be used in the evaluation of alternatives for the Cross Connector road: URS 27 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report Communitv/Human Factors . House Impact: Upon review of aerial and field data, the proposed location of some of these new segments has the potential to physically impact existing houses or structures. Segments with this potential are rated lower than other segments. . Business Impact: Similarly, some new segments have the potential to physically impact business property and/or the business itself. Segments with this potential are rated lower than other segments. It should be noted that one of the Monroe County planning objectives is to encourage commercial development to be oriented to the local community, so segments adjacent to businesses (but not physically impacting the structure) would further this objective. . Parcel Impact: Based on preliminary (GIS) parcel information, potential roadway segments will abut privately owned parcels, typically on both sides of the segment. Depending on the final typical section width (to be determined in the future in the PAR) and the actual width of existing right-of-way, the potential roadway segment may require some right-of-way acquisition. The number of parcels along a segment gives a relative indication of cost (number of separate legal titles to be dealt with during acquisition) and a relative indication of the number of possible residents who may have the Cross Connector road as a direct connection. Segments with a higher number of potential parcel impacts are rated lower than other segments. . Ease of Acauisition: Depending on the ownership of the potential abutting parcels, some right-of-way acquisition is anticipated to be relatively easier to obtain than others. Property already owned by Monroe County is ranked most preferred. Undeveloped privately-owned property is expected to be relatively easier to obtain than developed parcels. Based on discussions with staff, property owned by the state (Florida Department of Environmental Protection - FDEP, State Lands Division, commonly acquired under the Conservation and Recreation Land program - CARL) is for public purpose and can be converted to other (non-conservation) public uses, however mitigation would be required. For this project, the cost of acquiring another parcel on Big Pine Key that is on a FDEP list of desirable properties would have to be factored into the cost of the Cross Connector road, for mitigation purposes. Federally owned property URS 28 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report (under the USFWS) is rated lowest, as that property is commonly part of the Key Deer National Wildlife Refuge. As detailed in the HCP, Key deer lands should be avoided to the extent possible. . Community Impact: Corridors were presented at the Public Information Workshop, at which the residents were asked to rank them. Public input was summarized and corridors with the most public support are ranked most preferred. In addition, an aerial inspection analysis was made of the approximate number of actual house structures that abut each corridor, as a measure of possible extent of negative response to each corridor. EnvironmentaVHistorlca/ Issues . Floodplain Impact: From an engineering point of view, it is most desirable to construct roadways that are outside of the 100-year floodplain as determined by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps. Construction outside of the 100-year floodplain is often less expensive than construction within a floodplain. . Segment Condition: As discussed previously, all types of potential segments were initially identified. From engineering, cost, and environmental points of view, existing paved segments are ranked most preferred, and scarified or dirt roads are ranked higher than new segments. . Historic Sites: Based on currently available data, in GIS format, a review was made with respect to the location of potential segments in relation to the location of areas with high or moderate potential for archeologically significant findings. Segments in areas with such historic potential are ranked high impact/least preferred. . Marsh Rabbit: As discussed in the HCP, the Lower Keys marsh rabbit is a covered species whose numbers are so low that zero impact to their remaining habitat will be permitted. Therefore, potential segments with impacts to marsh rabbit habitat, as determined from the GIS database, are ranked high impact/least preferred and subsequently not considered for further analysis. . Key Deer: Similarly, the HCP has developed a model of the Key deer habitat on Big Pine Key. The analysis in the draft HCP has categorized property into three "Tiers" of land with "Tier I" being the highest quality Key deer habitat, down to "Tier III" which URS 29 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report provides the least-valuable Key deer habitat. Note that this "Tier" system also incorporates the other covered species considered in the HCP. The "Tier" GIS data have been reviewed with respect to potential segments. Segments in "Tier III" are rated highest for the Cross Connector road, while segments in "Tier I" are rated lowest. It should be noted that the vast majority ofthe study area is considered "Tier I" so complete avoidance ofthis tier for the ultimate Cross Connector road is unlikely. . Vegetation Impact: A variety of vegetation and habitat are also considered in the HCP for their value relative to covered species. A simplified vegetation GIS database was obtained from the HCP and was reviewed with respect to potential segments. Segments impacting wetlands (freshwater, buttonwood, and/or mangrove) are ranked lower than segments impacting uplands (pinelands and/or hammocks). Segments that are in areas described as "developed" were ranked low impact/most preferred. Em!ineerimzlCost Considerations . Travel Time: Corridors were reviewed with respect to the relative decrease in driving time it takes to make common local trips, based on SYNCHRO simulation analysis. Corridors that provide the largest time savings are ranked most preferred. . Segment Volume: Based on output from the QRS simulation analysis, relative two-way volumes for various corridors were determined. In genera~ corridors that produced the highest relative volumes along specified segments are rated lowest and corridors that produced the best distribution of traffic volumes are rated highest. . U.S. 1 Level of Service: Based on a review of the output from the engineering simulation models, corridors were reviewed with respect to the potential for improving traffic flow on U.S. 1. Corridors anticipated to provide the most relief to U.S. 1 congestion are ranked most preferred. . Relative Cost: A construction cost estimate for each corridor was developed, based on the length ofthe centerline ofthe roadway. Cost factors included the segment conditions. Corridors with the lowest costs are rated highest. URS 30 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report At the segment-level analysis, the evaluation focused on environmental/historical issues, along with some community/human factors and a few general engineering/cost considerations. At the corridor-level analysis, more extensive engineering and cost analyses were performed, which, along with pertinent community feedback from the Public Involvement Workshop, were used to develop the recommended alternative. Each segment and corridor was ranked in a relative manner respective to comparable alternatives. Corridors were also ranked relative to the "Do NothingINo Build" alternative. C. Segment Determination The entire study area was reviewed to determine possible east/west segments for the Cross Connector roadway. All types of potential segments were initially accepted, including existing paved roads, scarified or dirt roads and new segments. Ten segment areas were identified. The segments generally run from east to west, and terminate at logical north/south existing points. This allows for the maximum number of combinations to be considered. A description of the ten segment areas is listed below, from west to east: . Yellow Area - from Ships Way to West Sandy Circle . Blue Area - from West Sandy Circle to East Sandy Circle . Green Area - from East Sandy Circle to Lorna Lane . Red Area - from Lorna Lane to Key Deer Boulevard . Magenta Area - from Key Deer Boulevard to Wilder Road . Turquoise Area - from Wilder Road to Pine Drive/Ixora Drive . Orange Area - from Pine DrivelIxora Drive to Palmetto Drive . Purple Area - from Palmetto Drive to County Road . Brown Area - from County Road to Sands Road. URS 31 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report The ten segment areas and all of the identified segments are indicated on an aerial photograph of the study area in Exhibit 11 and in reference to GIS parcel information in Exhibit 12. Exhibit 11 also identifies the actual segment conditions, whether it is an existing paved road, a scarified road, or a new segment. Each of the segments is described in detail and analyzed in Appendix D. A comparative review of the various segments within each color area was performed using ten of the evaluation criteria described previously. D. Corridor Determination After the preliminary segment analysis in Appendix D, the remaining segments were combined in a logical fashion to create parallel corridors for further analysis. A review of the potential corridors indicated that the two areas west and east of Wilder Boulevard can operate somewhat independently. Therefore west corridors and east corridors were developed for separate analysis. All west corridors begin at Ships Way and end at Wilder Road. All east corridors begin at Wilder Road and end at Sands Road. From the segments that remain from the first analysis, four main corridors were developed on both the west and east sides of the study area. Because of the potential to connect the remaining segments in multiple ways, secondary corridors were also developed. At this stage in the evaluation, all corridors were compared to a "Do Nothing/No Build" alternative. In addition, based on input from the Technical Steering Committee, a corridor containing a combination of multiple simultaneous corridors was also considered. URS 32 - ,- UAC CT PILOTS CT ,,- PINDER CT LORD CT HAMMOCK DR ,,- BA/ LEY RD NA THALlE RD SAMS RD 0 200 800 I I - SUNSHINE LN - p.- - ,.- ,- ,- ..- ,- - 0 LEGEND ,- PAVED ROAD (SOLID) ~ CL <D SCARIFIED WJAD I I /OOTLINEDJ lSl <.D ,- I!J NEW ROAD ,SS~~S~~~~~~SSS' /HASHED LINE} M lSl - N LAKE SHORE ~NTS- lSl "- EXHIBIT II - 5100 N.W. JJRDTIONS , '- (]" FT. LAUDERDALE lSl -- Parcel 300 0 600 Segments 600 Yellow - Feet .. Blue N .. Green - W+E .. Red .. Magenta - ~ Turquoise S .. Orange .- .. Purple Pink l1li Brown - - .- Pond Ln - - Harbor Lights Rd "0 c:: - II) "0 C z J1 0 - 0 N - ~rcedes Rd I J: x w Journeys En( Dr - ,,- €'.I 5l - (i 5l ,,- .- w z ~ 0: 0 CD ,,- - z Henry Ln 0 "0 0 ,,- a:: 0 ~ - ::J ::;: 0 Cl. ;~A u €'.I U.S. 1 U.S. 1 €'.I - cXi LC1 M 5l - LAKESHORE(ENTS _ EXHIBIT 12 €'.I 5100 N.W. JJRD4S 5l "- - - FT. LAUDERDALE - "- (J'" 5l -- Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report A total of nine east corridors and six west corridors (including one "Do Nothing/No Build" alternative for each area) were developed for further evaluation. The west corridors are depicted in Exhibit 13 at the end of this section and the east corridors are depicted in Exhibit 14 at the end of this section. In general, the corridors are listed from north to south. The original segments that created each of the corridors are detailed in Appendix D and are listed below, along with a detailed description of each corridor. WEST CORRIDORS: . Corridor W-O: This is the "Do Nothing/No Build" alternative for the west side of the study area. . Corridor W-l: This corridor is comprised of segments Y-3, B-2, 0-2, R-l, and M-3. It incorporates Harbor Lights Road, a short jog to the north on West Sandy Circle, Lyttons Way, a short jog to the south on Key Deer Boulevard, and Lyttons Way. For analysis purposes, the existing roadblocks on both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road are considered to be removed and both roadways open to through traffic. Approximately nine existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor W-2-1: This corridor is comprised of segments Y-4, B-4-1, B-4-2, 0-4, R-2, and M-4. It incorporates Journeys End Road, a short jog to the south on West Sandy Circle, a new east/west segment, a short jog to the north on Palmetto Avenue, a new east/west segment connecting to the west end of the water tower road, the water tower road, a northerly jog on Key Deer Boulevard, and Church Lane. For analysis purposes, the existing roadblocks on both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road are considered to be removed and both roadways open to through traffic. Approximately 21 existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor W-2-2: This corridor is comprised of segments Y-4, B-4-1, B-4-2, 0-4, R-2, and M-5. It incorporates Journeys End Road, a short jog to the south on West Sandy Circle, a new east/west segment, a short jog to the north on Palmetto A venue, a new east/west segment connecting to the west end of the water tower road, the water tower road, a southerly jog on Key Deer Boulevard, and a new segment between the two banks. For analysis purposes, the existing roadblocks on both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys URS 35 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report End Road are considered to be removed and both roadways open to through traffic. Approximately 21 existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor W -3A: This corridor is comprised of segments Y -SA, B-7, G-6, R-3A, and M- S. It incorporates a new east/west segment aligning with Enterprise Avenue, adjacent to the north property line of the mobile home park, a north/south segment on existing County property on the east side of the mobile home park. an east/west segment on existing County property, a jog south on West Sandy Circle, South Sandy Circle, a jog north on East Sandy Circle, a new east/west segment on existing County property, a jog north on Loma Lane, a new east/west segment adjacent to the north property line of the lumber business, a northeasterly existing scarified segment, and a new segment between the two banks. It should be noted that although segment R-4A was eliminated from further consideration, another similar alignment connecting the Lorna Lane to the north property line of the lumber business could also be accommodated. Given the proximity ofthe segment between the banks and the existing signalized/Y intersection on U.S.l, for analysis purposes the section of Wilder Road between 24th Street and U.S. 1 is assumed to be closed to through traffic, maintaining access to existing driveways. The intersection with Key Deer Boulevard is a potential candidate for a roundabout. Approximately 21 existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor W-3B: This corridor is comprised of segments V-SA, B-7, G-6, R-3, and M-6. It incorporates a new east/west segment aligning with Enterprise Avenue, adjacent to the north property line of the mobile home park, a north/south segment on existing County property on the east side of the mobile home park, an east/west segment on existing County property, a jog south on West Sandy Circle, South Sandy Circle, a jog north on East Sandy Circle, a new east/west segment on existing County property, a jog north on Loma Lane, a new east/west segment adjacent to the north property line of the businesses, and a new segment between the two banks. It should be noted that although segment R-4A was eliminated from further consideration, another similar alignment connecting the Loma Lane to the north property line of the lumber business could also be accommodated. Given the proximity of the segment between the banks and the existing signalized/Y intersection on U.S.l, for analysis purposes the section of Wilder Road between 24th Street and U.S. 1 is assumed to be closed to through traffic, maintaining URS 36 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report access to existing driveways. The intersection with Key Deer Boulevard is a potential candidate for a roundabout. Approximately 15 existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor W-4A: This corridor is comprised of segments Y-7A, B-8, G-7, R-5A, and M- 5. It incorporates Henry Lane, a new north/south segment on existing County property, a new east/west segment within the U.S. 1 right-of-way, a new north/south segment on undeveloped property between the two lumber businesses, a northeasterly existing scarified segment, and a new segment between the two banks. Given the proximity of the segment between the banks and the existing signalized/Y intersection on U.S.l, for analysis purposes the section of Wilder Road between 24th Street and U.S. 1 is assumed to be closed to through traffic, maintaining access to existing driveways. The intersection with Key Deer Boulevard is a potential candidate for a roundabout. Approximately two houses abut this corridor. . Corridor W-4B: This corridor is comprised of segments Y-7A, B-8, G-7, R-5A, and M- 6. It incorporates Henry Lane, a new north/south segment on existing County property, a new east/west segment within the U.S. 1 right-of-way, a new north/south segment on undeveloped property between the two lumber businesses, a new east/west segment adjacent to the north property line of the businesses, and a new segment between the two banks. Given the proximity of the segment between the banks and the existing signalized/Y intersection on U.S.l, for analysis purposes the section of Wilder Road between 24th Street and U.S. 1 is assumed to be closed to through traffic, maintaining access to existing driveways. The intersection with Key Deer Boulevard is a potential candidate for a roundabout. Approximately two houses abut this corridor. . Corridor W-S: This is a combination corridor. In keeping with good planning and engineering practices, and based on a preliminary evaluation of the other eight corridors, it was determined that a combination of Corridor W-l and Corridor W-3A would be evaluated. Approximately 21 existing houses abut these two corridors, total. EAST CORRIDORS . Corridor E-O: This is the "Do Nothing/No Build" alternative for the west side of the study area. . Corridor E-l: This corridor is comprised of segments T-2, 0-1, P-l, Pi-I, and Br-l. It incorporates Lyttons Way, a short jog north on Ixora Drive, and Hibiscus Drive. Approximately nine existing houses abut this corridor. URS 37 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report . Corridor E-2: This corridor is comprised of segments T -3, 0-3, P-3, Pi-3, and Br-3. It incorporates 22nd Street, a short jog south and then east on an existing scarified segment, a short jog south on Cunningham Lane, Hammock Drive, a short jog south on County Road, and Bailey Road. To provide a consistent basis for analysis, this corridor identifies the use of Hammock Drive and Bailey Road, however it should be noted that upon connection to Cunningham Lane, the entire existing interconnected roadway system on the east side of the island is actually available. Approximately 23 existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor E-3: This corridor is comprised of segments T-5, 0-5, P-6, Pi-6, and Br-7. It incorporates 24th Street, a short jog north on Pine Drive, Mac Court, a jog north on Cunningham Lane, Hammock Drive, a short jog south on County Road, and Bailey Road. To provide a consistent basis for analysis, this corridor identifies the use of Hammock Drive and Bailey Road, however it should be noted that upon connection to Cunningham Lane, the entire existing interconnected roadway system on the east side of the island is actually available. It should also be noted that although segment 0-6 was eliminated from further consideration, another similar alignment connecting the east end of 24th Street to Cunningham Lane, south of Mac Court, could also be accommodated. Approximately 12 existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor E-4: This corridor is comprised of segments T -6A, 0-7, P-6, Pi-6, and Br-7. It incorporates a new east/west segment behind the developed parcels, a new north/south jog between developed parcels, a new east/west segment adjacent to U.S. 1 (but not within the FDOT right-of-way), and Avenue A. To provide a consistent basis for analysis, this corridor identifies the use of A venue A, however it should be noted that upon connection to Cunningham Lane, the entire existing interconnected roadway system on the east side of the island is actually available. It appears that zero existing houses abut this corridor. . Corridor E-5: This is a combination corridor. In keeping with good planning and engineering practices, and based on a preliminary evaluation of the other five corridors, it was determined that a combination of Corridor E-l and Corridor E-3 would be evaluated. Approximately 21 existing houses abut these two corridors, total. URS 38 ~ - - .. ..~ 200 - - ,.,..... - ..- .- .- - - - .- N LAKESHORE tSl " 5100 N.W. 33ROORS EXHIBIT 13 - ~ :::: FT. LAUDERDALE. CT' tSl -- '","" .- -. - - ,- ,- ..- - - ~- ,- .- - - .. N LAKESHORE lSl ...... 5100 N.W. 33R[)ORS E XHIB/T /4 - N :::: a- FT. LAUDERDAU 51 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report E. Corridor Comparison A comparative review of the different corridors was performed using the ten sets of evaluation criteria used in the segment analysis and five additional parameters. For each parameter, the corridors were assigned a relative ranking, from low impact (most preferred), to intermediate, to high impact (least preferred). An evaluation matrix for each corridor including the expanded criteria will be used to make final recommendations. In general, for the parameters that were reviewed in the segment analyses, an overall corridor ranking was determined from a review of a summation of the individual segments. Relative rankings between the corridors were made for parcel impact, segment conditions, and Key Deer impacts. Both west and east corridors were compared to a "Do Nothing/No Build" alternative. The additional parameters considered for the corridors but not for the segments include the engineering/cost criteria of travel time, segment volume, U.S. 1 LOS, and relative cost. Combinations of logical west and east corridors were selected and modeled using the traffic simulation software. To analyze travel time, a series of origin-destination (O-D) combinations were determined, to represent common local trips that currently must access U.S. 1. The O-D points are indicated in Exhibit 15 at the end of this section and are described below: . Point 1 - residential origins in the east pocket, and the destination of the County park. . Point 2 - residential origins in the north portion of the central pocket. . Point 3 - residential origins in the internal west pocket. . Point 4 - residential origins in the external west pocket. . Point 5 - the destination of the shopping plaza. . Point 6 - the destination of the post office. . Point 7 - the destination ofthe ballpark. URS 41 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report The model included reasonable business connections to the proposed roads and assumed access management techniques were employed along the U.S. 1 frontage roads to reduce intrusion. Travel times were compared to existing conditions. Corridors with the greatest reduction in travel time were ranked highest. Similarly, segment volumes along specific existing roadways were reviewed under existing conditions and with various Cross Connector road corridors in place. In general, corridors that produced the highest relative volumes along specified segments were rated lowest and corridors that produced the best distribution of traffic volumes were ranked most preferred. Travel time and segment volume data are provided in Appendix C. Reviewing U.S. 1 simulation conditions, corridors that provided the most relief to U.S. 1 congestion were rated highest. Relative construction cost estimates for each separate corridor were developed. The centerline length of each corridor was graphically determined. General statewide roadway transportation construction costs were obtained from FDOT data. The cost rates were based on the assumption of an undivided, rural, two-lane roadway, with paved shoulders, and no major structures. The available data were based on 1999 research, so a five-percent per year inflation factor was applied. In addition, in recognition of the unique situation of the Florida Keys as compared to the rest of the state of Florida, a 15% area adjustment factor was applied. Based on the above considerations, the centerline construction cost rate for existing paved roadway segments (which are assumed to only require milling and resurfacing) was estimated at $467,000 per mile and the centerline construction cost rate for all other roadway segments (conservatively including both scarified and new) was estimated at $1,574,000 per mile. Relative cost estimates for each corridor are provided in Appendix E. Corridors with the lowest costs were rated highest. URS 42 ,{:~rf \ i' 1,4=, 'C, \ ,', . I _, , I ' \ .. : , j \ \ , + \ -~., <"..:l'f .,; ~_ ~ 1. ...' _.,~~.;;.~ ~ J~:,-'I'; .~'- .. __~_; ,.~ '\ ;" ::"~~-~'\ '.:?.. ", \~ ~:- -. ~-~<""""-!iJ -~ " !:-:"","-', " . ',.' " ,.. '~""-. '.',-~>-' .. . '. , - .;;4:-?'::~;, i~~:~,,~ \ .l,' ~ -"0 ,~, ,. .!!:;... '\ ~"~~';Ji'~~' -_. "-~-~-): ., ~''1'''' t,t~4 ,..;' ,''\1:- 1"'-- .1Ot ~."( .v ~_ ~ -. - -,' -* t=;~O 1-;; . ~~ . ~~ \ . - -.,~""....;;;l . ~~ I 11': " EXHIBIT /5 ,- 'I TRAVEL TIME ,- 'I' ANALYSIS POINTS Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report F. Public Information Workshop The corridor analysis also includes a community impact parameter. As mentioned previously, an aerial inspection analysis was made of the approximate number of actual house structures that abut each corridor. This factor of community impact was indicated in the corridor determination detailed descriptions above. In order to obtain residents' feedback, a Public Information Workshop was held on Tuesday, August 13,2002, from 6:30 P.M. until 9:00 P.M., at the Big Pine Key Neighborhood School, on Big Pine Key. At the meeting, an overview was given of the Cross Connector Study, including the corridors under review and the preliminary evaluation matrix that had been completed to date. At the meeting, a feedback sheet was provided to attendees, who were asked to rank the nine west and six east corridors. Feedback sheets were generally made available to the public after the workshop as well. Through the Technical Steering Committee, other public input (letters, articles, and faxes) was also received. During the workshop and the time that followed, 127 feedback sheets were received. The public was asked to rank the west and east corridors separately, relative to each other. The public input for each corridor is summarized in Appendix F. A review of the feedback indicates the following about the responses: URS 44 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report WEST CORRIDORS: . The vast majority (88%) desires to "do something" and most (66%) ranked the Corridor W-O (Do Nothing) lowest. . Corridor W-5 (the combination of Lyttons Way plus Main Street) was ranked the highest (38%) overall. . Corridor W-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second highest. . The frontage road corridors (W-4A and W-4B) were ranked next, with a very slight preference for Corridor W-4B. . In general, when individuals ranked Corridor W-5 (the combination) first, Corridor W-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second. . In general, when individuals ranked Corridor W-O (Do Nothing) first, the frontage road corridors (W-4A and W-4B) were ranked second. EAST CORRIDORS: . The vast majority (84%) desires to "do something" and most (66%) ranked the Corridor E-O (Do Nothing) lowest. . Corridor E-5 (the combination of Lyttons Way plus 24th Street) was ranked the highest (38%) overall. . Corridor E-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second highest. . The frontage road corridor (E-4) was ranked next. . In general, when individuals ranked Corridor E-5 (the combination) first, Corridor E-l (Lyttons Way) was ranked second. . In general, when individuals ranked Corridor E-O (Do Nothing) first, the frontage road corridor (E-4) was ranked second. OTHER GENERAL COMMENTS . There were many requests to improve (or four-lane) U.S. 1, with or without a cross connector roadway. . The idea that "something has to be done" was frequently repeated. . Generally, residents do not want the roadway in their neighborhood, which was often coupled with the idea that the business/frontage road corridors would be best. . There were frequent comments stating that the combination corridors seemed the best and the most fair for all the people and needs. . Some requests were made to review traffic on Ships Way. URS 45 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report G. Evaluation Matrix From the above factors, a complete evaluation matrix for each west and east corridor was compiled, including all study criteria. The matrices are provided in Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17. Exhibit 16 - West Corridors Evaluation Matrix Corridor w-o W-l W-2-l W-2-2 W-3A W-3B W-4A W-4B W-5 House . . . . . . t t Impact . Business . . . . 0 Impact t t 0 . Parcel . t t t t t . t Impact . Ease of . 0 0 0 t t Acquisition . . 0 Floodplain . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Impact Segment . . . 0 t t t t t Conditions Historic . . . . . . Sites . . . Marsh . . . . . Rabbit . . . . Key . 0 0 0 . . 0 Deer t t Vegetation . 0 t t t t . . 0 Impact Travel 0 . t t t t Time 0 0 . Segment . 0 t t t t t t . Volume U.S.l 0 . t t t t t LOS t . Relative . . t t t Cost 0 . . 0 Community 0 . t t t t t t . Impact Legend: . = Low Impact I Most Preferred . = Medium Impact I Intermediate o = High Impact I Least Preferred URS 46 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report Exhibit 17 - East Corridor Evaluation Matrix Corridor E-O E-l E-2 E-3 E-4 E-5 House . . . . . . Impact Business . . . . 0 . Impact Parcel . . 0 . . . Impact Ease of . . . 0 . 0 Acquisition Floodplain . 0 0 0 0 0 Impact Segment . . . . 0 . Conditions Historic . . . . . . Sites Marsh . . . . . . Rabbit Key . . 0 . . . Deer Vegetation . . . . . . Impact Travel 0 . . . Time 0 . Segment . 0 . . . . Volume u.S. 1 0 . . . . . LOS Relative . . . . . Cost 0 Community 0 . . . . . Impact Legend: · = Low Impact I Most Preferred 41 = Medium Impact I Intermediate o = High Impact I Least Preferred URS 47 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report V. CONCLUSIONS To determine the preferred alignment for the Cross Connector roadway, a review of the evaluation matrix for the west and east corridors in Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17 respectively is summarized below for each of the corridors. The review includes the community/human factors, environmentaVhistorical issues, and engineering/cost considerations. As discussed previously, there is no differentiation between any of the corridors on the criteria of floodplain, historic sites, or marsh rabbit impacts. A. West Corridor Summary Corridor W -0 (Do Nothing) has the least impacts of the west corridors, overall. However it does not address the need to provide local east/west connection( s) to and from residential areas and local attracting destinations so that the locals will not need to access U.S. 1 for local trips. Also, it does not provide local connection(s) that will reduce traffic volumes and congestion on U.S.!. In addition, it is not preferred by the public, as indicated in the feedback forms from the Public Workshop. None of the west corridors are expected to physically impact a house structure, except maybe Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B. Upon more detailed survey and right-of-way information, this issue can be clarified, however for the purposes of this report, these two corridors were conservatively ranked intermediate. Both of the frontage road corridors, Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B will have significant impacts to existing businesses along U.S. 1, and therefore are ranked high impact/least preferred URS 48 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report for this criteria. Corridor W-2-1 and Corridor W-2-2 were ranked intermediate, conservatively indicating possible impacts along the water tower road to the water tower or abutting church. Relatively all of the west corridors will impact approximately the same number of parcels, given that they all traverse similar residential areas. Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B are rated highest for this criteria because they abut the least number of parcels. As discussed previously, actual quantities of potential right-of-way acquisition is beyond this phase ofthe study. However, a review ofthe ownership ofthe parcels abutting each of the west corridors was made to determine the possible parties who may be involved should right-of-way acquisition be required. If any of the abutting parcels are federally-owned, the corridor was ranked least preferred. This does not necessarily mean that federally-owned property will be required, but is a relative measure of comparison between the alternatives. Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B either involve county-owned parcels or are located within existing FDOT right- of-way, and therefore were rated highest for this criteria. Of all the west corridors, Corridor W-2-2 has the greatest number of new segments and therefore is ranked least preferred. Corridor W-l and Corridor W-2-1 have the greatest number of paved segments and therefore are ranked most preferred for this criteria. For Key Deer impact, the individual segment impacts were reviewed. Broadly speaking, potential for Key deer impact decreases from the north to the south of the study area. Corridor W-l, Corridor W-2-1, Corridor W-2-2, and (by association with Corridor W-l) Corridor W-5 are comprised of segments with greatest Key Deer impact. Therefore, they are ranked least preferred for this criteria. Similarly, Corridor W-3A and Corridor W-3B are of segments with URS 49 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report intermediate Key Deer impact and are ranked intermediate. Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B are comprised of segments with least Key Deer impact, in part to being located within FDOT right-of-way, and are therefore ranked most preferred. In a similar manner, for vegetation impact, Corridor W-I and (by association) Corridor W-5 are comprised of segments that include segments ranked least preferred. Therefore, these corridors are ranked least preferred. Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B are comprised of segments that include segments ranked most preferred. Therefore, these corridors are ranked most preferred. From an engineering and planning perspective, multiple parallel corridors are generally the preferred design. The travel time analysis indicated that Corridor W-5 and Corridor W-l provided the greatest and second greatest reductions in travel time for residents, respectively. The travel time analysis for Corridor W-4A and W-4B indicates no change in travel time. This is because of the extreme close proximity of the frontage road concept to U.S. 1, which, unlike the other alternatives, can be directly seen from U.S. 1. In addition, Corridor W-4A and W-4B would require additional engineering effort to discourage through volumes on U.S. 1 from using the frontage road. Intruding U.S. 1 volumes will negatively impact the travel time for these two corridors. Corridor W -0 (Do Nothing) provides zero improvement to existing travel times and therefore is ranked least preferred. A review of the estimated segment volume conditions for each of the west corridors indicates that, by far, Corridor W-5 (as part of Alternative 5) produces the best distribution of traffic on the proposed road network, equitably assigning traffic to a wide variety of roadways, therefore not focusing the traffic on anyone path. The analysis also indicates that Corridor W-l (as part of URS 50 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report Alternative I) concentrates the highest volume of traffic on the fewest number of roads, and therefore is ranked least preferred. This is because of the relatively direct alignment and the location of the corridor so far to the north, which primarily facilitates only those trips outside of Big Pine Key (Key West, Marathon, etc.) and not those trips to local attractors (Post Office, Shopping Plaza, etc.). For the U.S. 1 LOS criteria, a review of the traffic simulation models indicates that Corridor W-5 and Corridor W-l will provide the greatest relief to congestion on U.S. 1 and therefore are ranked most preferred. Corridor W-5 provides multiple alternatives to U.S. 1 which locals will be able to use for a variety of trip types. Corridor W-l, as discussed above, will provide a better connection for trips to and from Big Pine Key and points outside (Key West, Marathon, etc.). As noted in the traffic analysis herein, and indicated in Exhibit 9, this is the predominant O-D pair for Big Pine Key. Removing this traffic stream from the signalized intersection on U.S. 1 will provide congestion relief to U.S. 1. Corridor W-O (Do Nothing) provides zero improvement to the conditions on U.S. 1 and therefore is ranked least preferred. The relative cost of each of the west corridors was also considered. Note, these relative costs are for comparative purposes only, and do not reflect actual construction or right-of-way costs, which can only be determined after more detailed design decisions have been made in the companion PAR document. Corridor W-5 (the combination of two alternatives) and Corridor W-3B have the highest relative costs of all the west alternatives and therefore were ranked least preferred for this criteria. Corridor W-l, Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B have the lowest relative costs of all the west alternatives and therefore were ranked most preferred for this criteria. URS 51 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report The west corridors were ranked from the public feedback received for community impact. In addition, a review of the number of houses abutting a corridor was completed. As can be seen in Appendix F, by far, Corridor W-5 and Corridor W-l were ranked most preferred and second most preferred of all the west alternatives. Corridor W-O (Do Nothing) was rated last. Corridor W-4A and Corridor W-4B have the fewest houses abutting them, while Corridor W-2-1 and Corridor W-2-2 have the most houses abutting them. B. East Corridor Summary Corridor E-O (Do Nothing) has the least impacts overall. However it does not address the need to provide local east/west connection( s) to and from residential areas and local attracting destinations so that the locals will not need to access U.S. 1 for local trips. Also, it does not provide local connection(s) that will reduce traffic volumes and congestion on U.S.!. In addition, it is not preferred by the public, as indicated in the feedback forms from the Public Workshop. None of the east corridors are expected to physically impact a house structure. Therefore all are ranked low impact for this criteria. The frontage road corridor, Corridor E-4 will have significant impacts to existing businesses along U.S. 1, and therefore is ranked high impact/least preferred for this criteria. None of the other east corridors are expected to have business impacts. Although the east corridors will impact nearly the same number of parcels, counting the number of parcels along each corridor, Corridor E-2 has the greatest number, and therefore is ranked URS 52 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report least preferred. Corridor E-4, which abuts fewer, larger business properties and abuts U.S. 1 along the south, has the smallest number, and therefore is ranked the most preferred. As discussed previously, actual quantities of potential right-of-way acquisition is beyond this phase ofthe study. However, a review of the ownership of the parcels abutting each of the east corridors was made to determine the possible parties who may be involved should right-of-way acquisition be required. If any of the abutting parcels are federally-owned, the corridor was ranked least preferred. This does not necessarily mean that federally-owned property will be required, but is a relative measure of comparison between the alternatives. While all of the east corridors abut some federally-owned property, Corridor E-3 and (by association) Corridor E-5 appear to abut the most, and therefore are ranked least preferred. Of all the east corridors, Corridor E-4 has the greatest number of new segments and therefore is ranked least preferred. Corridor E-l, Corridor E-3, and (by association) E-5 have the greatest number of paved segments and therefore are ranked most preferred. For Key deer impact, the individual segment impacts were reviewed. Broadly speaking, potential for Key deer impact decreases from the north to the south of the study area. Corridor E-2 is comprised of segments, the majority of which were ranked least preferred for this criteria. Therefore, it is ranked least preferred. Similarly, Corridor E-4 is comprised of segments, the majority of which were ranked most preferred for this criteria, in part to being located along A venue A and is therefore ranked most preferred. URS 53 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report In a similar manner, for vegetation impact, Corridor E-4 is comprised of segments that include segments ranked most preferred. Therefore, this corridor is ranked most preferred. From an engineering and planning perspective, multiple parallel corridors are generally the preferred design. The travel time analysis indicated that Corridor E-5 and Corridor E-l provided the greatest and second greatest reductions in travel time for residents, respectively. The travel time analysis for Corridor E-4 indicates no change in travel time. This is because of the extreme close proximity of the frontage road concept to U.S. 1, which, unlike the other alternatives, can be directly seen from U.S. 1. In addition, Corridor E-4 would require additional engineering effort to discourage through volumes on U.S. 1 from using the frontage road. Intruding U.S. 1 volumes will negatively impact the travel time for this corridor. Corridor E-O (Do Nothing) provides zero improvement to existing travel times and therefore is ranked least preferred. A review of the estimated segment volume conditions for each of the corridors indicates that, by far, Corridor E-5 (as part of Alternative 5) produces the best distribution of traffic on the proposed road network, equitably assigning traffic to a wide variety of roadways, therefore not focusing the traffic on anyone path. The analysis also indicates that Corridor E-l (as part of Alternative 1) concentrates the highest volume of traffic on the fewest number of roads, and therefore is ranked least preferred. This is because of the relatively direct alignment and the location of the corridor so far to the north, which does not facilitate trips to local attractors (Post Office, Shopping Plaza, etc.) from the existing typical block configuration on the east side of the island. URS 54 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report For the U.S. 1 LOS criteria, a review of the traffic simulation models indicates that Corridor E-5 will provide the greatest relief to congestion on U.S. 1 and therefore is ranked most preferred. Corridor E-5 provides multiple alternatives to U.S. 1 which locals will be able to use for a variety of trip types. Corridor E-O (Do Nothing) provides zero improvement to the conditions on U.S. 1 and therefore is ranked least preferred. The relative cost of each of the corridors was also considered. Note, these relative costs are for comparative purposes only, and do not reflect actual construction or right-of-way costs, which can only be determined after more detailed design decisions have been made in the companion PAR document. Corridor E-5 (the combination of two alternatives) has the highest relative costs of all the east alternatives and therefore was ranked least preferred for this criteria. Corridor E-l and Corridor E-2 have the lowest relative costs of all the east alternatives and therefore were ranked most preferred for this criteria. The corridors were ranked indicating public feedback for community impact. In addition, a review ofthe number of houses abutting a corridor was completed. As can be seen in Appendix F, by far, Corridor E-5 and Corridor E-l were ranked most preferred and second most preferred of all the alternatives. Corridor E-O (Do Nothing) was rated last. Corridor E-4 appears to have zero houses abutting it, while Corridor E-2 has the most houses abutting it. URS 55 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report VI. RECOMMENDATIONS A. Preferred Alignment Based on a review of all the analyses herein, it is recommended that the pairing of Corridor W-5 and Corridor E-5 be developed into the Cross Connector roadway. The preferred alignment fulfills both the primary and secondary purposes of this study. The selection is actually two generally parallel east/west alignments. The two alignments are comprised of the following segments: . Harbor Lights Road! Lyttons Way/ Hibiscus Drive, and . A new "Main Street" aligning with Enterprise A venue/ South Sandy Circle/ a new east- west segment, using the scarified angled road! a new road between the banks/24th Street! Mac Court/ Hammock Drive/ Bailey Road. The preferred alignment includes removing the barricades from both Harbor Lights Road and Journeys End Road. The preferred west side corridors are depicted in Exhibit 18 at the end of this section. The preferred east side corridors are depicted in Exhibit 19 at the end of this section. The recommended alignment is not expected to physically impact any houses or any businesses. There are 18 houses fronting the north alignment and 27 houses fronting the south alignment. Like all of the corridors, the recommended alignment abuts some federally-owned parcels. The need to acquire federally-owned property, if any, has not yet been determined. The recommended alignment also abuts state-owned parcels. Mitigation for this, if any, has not yet been determined. The recommended alignment is comprised of a mixture of existing paved roads, scarified roads and some segments of new road. Like all of the corridors, portions of the URS 56 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report recommended alignment are within Tier 1 areas, and will require coordination with the HCP to ameliorate environmental impacts. Of all the alternatives, the recommended alignment produces the most reduction in resident travel times on the island, distributes the volumes in the most efficient manner, and has the most positive impact on lessening congestion on U.S.1. Because of it is comprised of two alignments, it has the highest relative cost of all alternatives considered. Based on a review of public input, the recommended alignment is the most preferred alternative. B. Other Considerations The forth-coming companion Preferred Alignment Report (PAR) will provide more detailed information about the recommended alignments. The PAR will include consideration of the following items, at a minimum: . Specific typical section(s) and lane width(s) . Exact right-of-way width(s) . More detailed easement and ownership data . Provision of shoulders (paved or unpaved) . Provision for pedestrians, if any . Provision for bicyclists, if any . Provision of roadway lighting, if any . Landscapinglstreetscaping techniques, if any . Key deer signs and/or treatments . More detailed construction cost estimates Other items to be considered in the detailed final analysis of the alignments include further evaluation of the following: . Location of speed humps for traffic calming speed control . Location of STOP signs . Possible right turn lane on Ships Way southbound . Possible roadblock locations URS 57 Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report . Possible turn restrictions to minimize intrusion and facilitate traffic flow . Possible one-way designations . Evaluation of the Y intersection of Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road . Consideration of a traffic circle It may be possible to develop the project in multiple phases. Fast track items may include removing the barriers, completing Lyttons Way, and paving existing scarified sections. URS 58 ,- - - ,~ - -" LEGEND ,- 8 EXISTING STOP . PROPOSED STOP - LAKE SHORE 'ED EXHIBIT 18 N 5100 N.W. 33RC ROADN AY (Sl "- - - FT. LAUDERDALf)) - "- rr (Sl ,- - ... JOO , ,- - - .. '. .- - - ". 8 EXISTING STOP SIGN ,~- ~' , . PROPOSED STOP SIGN '........ LAKE SHORE ED ...... - 5100 N.W. 33RD ROADWAY EXHIBIT 19 :::: a- FT. LAUDE ROALD) 1SI Big Pine Key - Cross Connector Study Alternatives Evaluation Report TillS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK URS 61 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1JRS CORPORATION SOUTHERN - 5100 N.W. 33rd Avenue, Suite 150, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 - --