Loading...
Item R5 �s R.5 r`, County of Monroe �y,4 ' �, "tr, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS County �a� Mayor Michelle Coldiron,District 2 �1 nff `ll Mayor Pro Tem David Rice,District 4 -Ile Florida.Keys Craig Cates,District 1 Eddie Martinez,District 3 w Mike Forster,District 5 County Commission Meeting May 19, 2021 Agenda Item Number: R.5 Agenda Item Summary #3136 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper(305) 289-2500 1:30 PM PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider approval of a resolution transmitting an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Policy 301.1.2 of the 2030 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to reflect the BOCC's approval, on February 17, 2021, of the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force Recommendations on the level of service methodology (File 42020-193) ITEM BACKGROUND: This is a proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, to amend Policy 301.1.2 to reflect the 2020 U.S. 1 LOS Task Force Recommendations to the BOCC on the level of service methodology, adopted pursuant to Resolution 64-2021 on February 17, 2021. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result in a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. The County has adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roads,particularly US Highway 1 (U.S. 1), which is part of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) State Highway System. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and LDC have adopted a LOS standard of"C" for U.S. 1, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force (the "Task Force") and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan also requires the Task Force to periodically review and update the methodology when new data is available. Policy 301.1.2 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. I LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. I shall be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C. Policy 301.2.1 Monroe County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic Packet Pg. 2736 R.5 monitoring program initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.I and on each of 24 study segments of U.S. 1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. Monroe County shall use the methodology developed by the U.S. I LOS Task Force composed of representatives from Monroe County, FDOT, and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO)for conducting this analysis and shall request that the Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis when new data becomes available. The original US 1 LOS Task Force was formed in 1990 to review and develop a way of measuring level of service in the Florida Keys for transportation facilities, which is unique in having only one major road. The Task Force consisted of Monroe County staff, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which is now Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). This original Task Force developed a unique methodology to assess level of service for the Florida Keys to cover both its overall arterial length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 roadway segments, based on an average travel speed formula. This methodology was adopted by the BOCC on August 6, 1991. The Task Force was again re-engaged in 1997 to evaluate the methodology, and the recommended update was approved by the BOCC on December 10, 1997. This 1997 review focused on 10 potential adjustments; but the Task Force recommended one (1) update: to the signal delay for LOS C which was to increases to 25 seconds from 15 seconds to account for changes in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). On October 21, 2020, the BOCC adopted Resolution 355-2020, reconvening the US 1 LOS Task Force and directing the Task Force to evaluate the LOS Methodology and potential updates to it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (ATTDs). Eight (8) individuals were appointed to the Task Force, in accordance with Policy 301.2.1, which specifies that the task force be composed of representatives from Monroe County, FDOT, and the DEO. The Task Force met on November 10, 2020, January 6, 2021, and January 21, 2021 and voted to recommend updates to the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology, summarized below, and, more specifically, as shown in the 2021 update to "A Methodology To Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys:" 1. Signal Delay: Increase to 35 seconds (to be consistent with the current Highway Capacity Manual); 2. Signal Delay: Continue to apply to only uninterrupted segments (not overall US-1 LOS calculations); 3. Drawbridge Delay: Deduct delays due to drawbridge openings from the time run calculations for both affected segments and overall US-1, using a delay time of 6 minutes (average gate closure time based on FDOT data for drawbridge delays), and applying to only those travel runs which were impacted by bridge openings; 4. Overall LOS calculation methodology for segments versus overall US-1 will stay the same; 5. Travel Time Schedule: Conduct 2021 travel time runs based on current schedule. Also, Packet Pg. 2737 R.5 conduct supplemental runs in the southbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during AM peak (7-8 am) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. Additionally, conduct supplemental runs in the northbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during the PM Peak (5-6pm) on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second week. The results of the supplemental runs will be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report for informational purposes only and will not be used in overall LOS calculations. This information will be reviewed to decide if supplemental runs should be incorporated into future ATTDS and LOS calculations, as directed by the Monroe County BOCC; and 6. Include by reference the Data Collection Methodology into the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology document. These recommendations were accepted and approved by BOCC on February 17, 2021, via Resolution 064-2021 adopting the recommendations of the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and the 2021 Updated methodology document, A Methodology To Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys, for County use. Accordingly, staff is recommending the following update to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan: Policy 301.1.2 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in A-ig*6i"444-_F_ebruarv_202l m(fjCj Cmm nest lLmtit n f}64 2.02I . The level of service on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: August 6, 1991 — Adoption of the U.S.1 Level of Service (LOS) C as measured by the U.S.1 Level of Service (LOS) Methodology established by the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. December 10, 1997 — Approval of amendment to the U.S.1 LOS Methodology based on recommendations of the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. January 23, 2019 - Approval of Work Order 47 to complete the 2019 U.S. 1 ATTDS. July 15, 2020 - BOCC considered the Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time & Delay Study, and directed staff to re-engage the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force to evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates to it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS. October 21, 2020 — BOCC approval of Resolution 355-2020 reconvening the US 1 LOS Task Force and tasking the US 1 LOS Task Force with evaluating the LOS Methodology and potential updates to it based on the Considerations identified in the draft 2019 ATTDS. February 17, 2021 — BOCC approved a Resolution 064-2021 adopting the recommendations of the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and the 2021 Updated methodology document, A Methodology To Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys, for County use. Packet Pg. 2738 R.5 CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval DOCUMENTATION: 2020-193_Transmittal_Resolution_US 1 LOS methodology 2020-193_Ordinance US 1 LOS methodology Ex A to Resolution 2020-193_Staff Report US 1 LOS methodogy_BOCC Ex.l_US-1 LOS Methodology Update_Final_strikethrough underline Ex. 2_BOCC Resolution 064-2021 adopting updated methodology Ex. 3_Item N3_12.10.97_BOCC_LOS methodology 7.15.2020 Agenda item 6519_discussion—direction on US Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study 10.21.2020 Agenda item 7401 reconvening the U.S.1 LOS Task Force FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: n/a Additional Details: REVIEWED BY: Emily Schemper Completed 04/29/2021 10:38 PM Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed 05/03/2021 10:46 AM Derek Howard Completed 05/03/2021 12:23 PM Maureen Proffitt Completed 05/03/2021 12:50 PM Packet Pg. 2739 R.5 Purchasing Completed 05/03/2021 12:51 PM Budget and Finance Completed 05/03/2021 12:54 PM Maria Slavik Completed 05/03/2021 1:03 PM Liz Yongue Completed 05/04/2021 11:47 AM Board of County Commissioners Pending 05/19/2021 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 2740 R 5.a �l 2 �1y� 4 \ r� 6 7 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA CL 8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CL 9 RESOLUTION NO. -2021 10 i i A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 12 COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING 13 AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICY 301.1.2 OF THE 15 MONROE COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REFLECT THE 16 U.S. 1 LOS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF 17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THE LEVEL OF SERVICE 18 METHODOLOGY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING 19 FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR 20 TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE 21 SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE `- 22 MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN c 23 EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2020-193) 0 24 0 25 26 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public 27 hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal pursuant to the State Coordinated Review J 28 Process in Sec. 163.3184(4), F.S., to the State Land Planning Agency for objections, T- 29 recommendations and comments, and to the other Reviewing Agencies as defined in Sec. 30 163.3184(1)(c), F.S., for review and comment on a proposed amendment to the Monroe County 2� 31 Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and 32 0 33 WHEREAS,the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board of 34 County Commissioners support the requested text amendment; 35 36 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 37 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 38 r9 39 Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of the 40 Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, for 41 adoption of the proposed text amendment. 42 43 Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed E 44 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in 45 accordance with the State Coordinated Review process pursuant to Section 46 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. Resolution No. - 2021 Page 1 of 2 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2741 R 5.a 47 48 Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required 49 transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in 50 accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. 51 r� 52 Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this 53 resolution to the Director of Planning. 0 54 c. 55 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 56 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of May 2021. 2 57 58 Mayor Michelle Coldiron 59 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice 60 Commissioner Craig Cates 0 61 Commissioner Eddie Martinez c 62 Commissioner Mike Forster a� 63 64 65 66 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 67 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 68 c 69 BY 0 70 MAYOR MICHELLE COLDIRON c 71 72 (SEAL) 73 74 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK U) 75 76 AS DEPUTY CLERK c MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY y`o APPROVED AS TO O w ASSISTANT-tOUNTY ATTORNEY TE 05-03-2021 DA 77 F r9 cv CD cv Resolution No. - 2021 Page 2 of 2 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2742 R.5.b Exhibit A to Transmittal Resolution 2 3 � li 1 4 ! N tt' 4 5 ., r? ' U 6 c 7 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 8 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 ORDINANCE NO. -2021 10 11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 12 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICY 301.1.2 OF THE MONROE 13 COUNTY 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REFLECT THE U.S. 1 LOS 14 TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY 15 COMMISSIONERS ON THE LEVEL OF SERVICE METHODOLOGY; W 16 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF 17 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO 18 THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF 19 STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY 20 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE 21 DATE. (File 2020-193) c 22 23 24 c 25 WHEREAS, Monroe County policies and regulations adopted in the Monroe County 26 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code are to maintain public health, safety, and w 27 welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and to strengthen our local government capability to 28 manage land use and development; and C 29 'a 30 WHEREAS, Monroe County utilizes a unique methodology to assess level of service for c 31 the Florida Keys to cover both its overall arterial length from Key West to the Florida mainland, E 32 and 24 roadway segments, based on an average travel speed formula; and 33 34 WHEREAS, the unique methodology was developed by a US 1 LOS Task Force U) 35 consisting of Monroe County staff,Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)and Department 36 of Community Affairs (DCA), which is now Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO); and 37 38 WHEREAS, the US 1 LOS Task Force was reconvened pursuant to Policy 301.2.1 and 39 BOCC Resolution 355-2020; and ®i 40 41 WHEREAS, the BOCC approved a Resolution 064-2021 adopting the recommendations 42 of the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and the 2021 Updated methodology document, A Methodology To 43 Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys, and 44 Ord. -2021 Page 1 of 4 File 42020-193 Packet Pg. 2743 R.5.b Exhibit A to Transmittal Resolution 1 WHEREAS, on January 7, 2021 a community meeting was held, as required by LDC 2 Section 102-159(b)(3), to discuss the proposed text amendment, and to provide for public ry 3 participation; and 4 5 WHEREAS,the Monroe County Development Review Committee(DRC)considered and 6 reviewed the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on February 23, 2021; 0 7 and a. 8 9 WHEREAS,the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28, 10 2021, for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and 11 � 12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was presented with the following documents and C 13 other information relevant to the request, which by reference is hereby incorporated as part of the 0 14 record of said hearing: 0 15 1. Staff report prepared by Cheryl Cioffari, Assistant Director of Planning and Mayte 16 Santamaria, Senior Planning Policy Advisor, dated March 24, 2021; E 17 2. Sworn testimony of Monroe County Planning&Environmental Resources Department 18 staff, and 19 3. Advice and counsel of Peter Morris, Assistant County Attorney, and John Wolfe, U)_ 20 Planning Commission Counsel; and 21 22 WHEREAS, based upon the information and documentation submitted, the Planning 0 23 Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 24 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 0 25 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and < 26 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development X 27 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and 28 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163,Florida Statute; and c 0 29 30 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P05-21 31 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and E 32 v) 33 WHEREAS, staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments to the 2030 34 Comprehensive Plan, to amend Policy 301.1.2 to reflect the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force U) 35 Recommendations to the BOCC on the level of service methodology; and 36 37 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on May 19, 2021, the Monroe County 38 Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing, considered the staff report, and provided 39 for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and ®i 40 the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process; and 41 42 WHEREAS, at the May 19, 2021, public hearing, the BOCC adopted Resolution - 43 2021, transmitting the proposed text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and 44 E Ord. -2021 Page 2 of 4 File 42020-193 Packet Pg. 2744 R.5.b Exhibit A to Transmittal Resolution 1 WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an 2 Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report, received by the County c 3 on ; and 4 5 WHEREAS,the ORC report stated ; and 6 0. 7 WHEREAS, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the 0. 8 proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment; and 9 10 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the BOCC held a 11 public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment; and 12 13 WHEREAS, Monroe County policies and regulations adopted in the Monroe County 0 14 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code are to maintain public health, safety, and 0 15 welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and to strengthen our local government capability to a, 16 manage land use and development; and E v) 17 18 WHEREAS, based upon the documentation submitted and information provided in the T- 19 accompanying staff report, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the 20 following Conclusions of Law: r- 21 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 2 22 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and 0 23 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for 24 the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and 0 25 6. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute. x 26 27 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY c 28 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 0 29 c E 30 Section 1. The text of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended °i 31 as follows (deletions are shown stfi ke th-,, additions are shown underlined): 32 33 Policy 301.1.2 U) 34 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard 35 of C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task 36 Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in ^„gtist '99 37 February 2021 (BOCC Resolution 064-2021). The level of service on U.S. 1 38 shall be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C. ®i 39 40 cv 41 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or 42 provision of this ordinance is held invalid,the remainder of this ordinance shall not 43 be affected by such validity. 44 Ord. -2021 Page 3 of 4 File 42020-193 Packet Pg. 2745 R.5.b Exhibit A to Transmittal Resolution 1 Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in 2 conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. c 3 4 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the 5 State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. 6 CL 7 Section 5. Filin2 and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the CL 8 Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is 9 issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding 10 the amendment in compliance with Chapters 163 and 380,Florida Statutes and after 11 any applicable challenges have been resolved. 12 13 Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The text amendment shall be incorporated 0 14 in the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing 0 15 amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County W 16 Comprehensive Plan. E 17 18 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, T- 19 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of 20 21 Mayor Michelle Coldiron c 22 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice 23 Commissioner Craig Cates 24 Commissioner Eddie Martinez 0 25 Commissioner Mike Forster 26 27 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 28 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA CD 29 'a 30 c 31 BY E 32 MAYOR MICHELLE COLDIRON v) 33 (SEAL) 34 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK v) 35 i 36 By 37 AS DEPUTY CLERK MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TOFORM: . OWARD �, AI l TTlTY ATTORNEY cCD 44 DATE 5-03-?021 38 m Ord. -2021 Page 4 of 4 File 42020-193 Packet Pg. 2746 l AN 1 u 4 5 MEMORANDUM _ 6 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT ry 7 8 9 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 2 10 C 0L CL 11 Through: Emily Schemper, AICP, CFM, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources 12 13 From: Cheryl Cioffari, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning 14 Mayte Santamaria, Senior Planning Policy Advisor 15 16 Date: April 28, 2021 0 17 18 Subject: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Policy 0 19 301.1.2 of the 2030 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to reflect the U.S. 1 LOS Task W 20 Force Recommendations to the BOCC on the level of service methodology. (File 42020- v) 21 193) J 22 23 Meeting: May 19, 2021 24 ca 25 26 I. REQUEST 27 c 28 The Monroe County Planning& Environmental Resources Department is proposing amendments to 0 29 the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, to amend Policy 301.1.2 to reflect the 2020 U.S. 1 LOS Task Force 30 Recommendations to the BOCC on the level of service methodology, adopted pursuant to Resolution E 31 64-2021 on February 17, 2021. 32 33 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 34 35 The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all 0 36 development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result in W 37 a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. 38 U) 39 The County has adopted level of service(LOS)standards for roads,particularly US Highway 1 (U.S. 40 1), which is part of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) State Highway System. The 41 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and LDC have adopted a LOS standard of"C" for U.S. 1, as 42 measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force (the "Task Force") and 43 adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 44 also requires the Task Force to periodically review and update the methodology when new data is 45 available. 46 47 48 49 BOCC SR Page 1 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2747 R.5.0 I Policy 301.1.2 2 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as 3 measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by 4 the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. 1 shall 5 be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C. _ 6 N r 7 Policy 301.2.1 8 Monroe County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic 9 monitoring program initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at 2 10 permanent count stations and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of 0. 11 24 study segments of U.S. 1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and 0. 12 through traffic. Monroe County shall use the methodology developed by the U.S. 1 LOS 13 Task Force composed of representatives from Monroe County, FDOT, and the 2 14 Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for conducting this analysis and shall 15 request that the Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a 16 periodic basis when new data becomes available. o 17 18 The original US 1 LOS Task Force was formed in 1990 to review and develop a way of measuring 0 19 level of service in the Florida Keys for transportation facilities, which is unique in having only one 0) 20 major road. v) 21 J 22 The Task Force consisted of Monroe County staff, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) T- 23 and Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which is now Department of Economic Opportunity U)_ 24 (DEO). This original Task Force developed a unique methodology to assess level of service for the 25 Florida Keys to cover both its overall arterial length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 26 roadway segments,based on an average travel speed formula. This methodology was adopted by the 27 BOCC on August 6, 1991. 28 a 29 The Task Force was again re-engaged in 1997 to evaluate the methodology, and the recommended 30 update was approved by the BOCC on December 10, 1997. This 1997 review focused on 10 potential E 31 adjustments; but the Task Force recommended one (1)update: to the signal delay for LOS C which 32 was to increases to 25 seconds from 15 seconds to account for changes in the Highway Capacity 33 Manual (HCM). 34 i 35 On October 21, 2020, the BOCC adopted Resolution 355-2020, reconvening the US 1 LOS Task 0 36 Force and directing the Task Force with evaluating the LOS Methodology and potential updates to 37 it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study 4-- 38 (ATTDs). v) 39 40 In the Draft 2019 ATTDs, the County's traffic consultant, AECOM, noted potential methodology 41 updates for consideration, as shown in the following excerpt from the draft report: N U BOCC SR Page 2 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2748 R.5.0 The follow, ing is. a list of cons.id nations for review. t he US 1 Level of Service Task Force was formulated in 1�9E92 to deve I op a methodology for Ib S f th at utilizes an ern pi ricail relationship ship between the vol rurtye-based capacit ies and the spee -b ased Level of Service f LO S). The,Task Force was :a multi-agency. team with r nembers: fror ti Monroe County, the FIGrida Department of Transportation, and the Department of Ec. norniic Opp rtani (fo,rnierl known as Florida Department of C rnrmiun iit ffaiT - DC A). The, miethodology esta 'l i shed by the, tafs;k force includes a procedure for using travel speed as a rmearts of,as.sess i n g the leve[ofservic:eand reserve capacity for US 1. The nienibers. of the: Task: Force met, again in 1997to re-evaluate the 2 LOS methodology and made some rni;r o r changes. The, signal delay for LOS C wwa CL c ,increased to 25 seconds. frorn 15 seconds to account for changes in the, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM'). Cons.iderling that the last rneeting of the Task Farce was held in re than 22 years. ago, i°t is suggested that the rnerribers. of the:Task: Force rneet .again to, review the LOS methodology and identify any potential changes to ensure that; the rnethodology is consistent with current practices and to identify opportunities. for, improvermert , if any. Since the lust Task Force review, there have been updates, to the Highway Capacity Mart al (HCM'), which may creed to be incorporated. Some specific items that can be reviewed, inclrrde: 1 � c Review the, signal delay threshold for LO S C based ort the current Highway Capaci tya, Manual (delay threshold increased frorn 25 s.ec nds. to 35 seconds) ,and adjust this methodo[ogy accordingly. The,nyet o,dol ogy to determine the LO S for the 24 individual roadway seg men ts. and the overall 'US I are slightly? different. [ndividual segment LOS is determined by. comparing the rmedi an trave'I speed with the, weighted) posted speed lii rmiit for the, egrmerrt. For, example, Segment LOS is A if the rmedliaan travel speedl is 1.5 rmph c, above the posted speed [i,rni t.. Alternatively, the overall LOS for US 1 i s determined by comparing the rr'ediar'I travel speed with pre taa b I i shed speed thresholds for different lever of service. Fore anip,le, the LOS for US 1 [% A, if the overall[ trave f peedl is aqua I too r above.51 inph, i rres pecti ve of the overal l weighted prrs.tedl speed l i,rni t„ I r7 other words,, the overaH LOS criteria does not consider the posted speed C ccording to the current method l g y, delays. due,to drawwbridge openings should be a cliu ed from the segr-troenit travel times, but included in the overall[travel times. Considering that delays,aa.a.ociated with drawbridge openings are coon-recurring and iirmpact the oven111 U S I level of service, thi,. part of the, r° ethodo logy should be U) 2 reviewed and adjusted accordingly. i 3 Review the travel time schedule (i.e. departure times and staggered schedule) and 4 adjust as needed to reflect current,traffic conditions. 0 5 6 7 In accordance with Policy 301.2.1,which specifies that the task force be composed of representatives 8 from Monroe County, FDOT, and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), the following 9 total eight individuals (or their appointed representatives, in the event of an absence)were appointed 10 to the Task Force: 11 12 DEO: E 13 Barbara Powell, Regional Program Administrator 14 Justin Stiell,Planning Analyst 15 16 FDOT: 17 Neil Lyn, District Statistics Administrator 18 Gina Bonyani, Systems Implementation Office BOCC SR Page 3 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2749 R.5.0 1 2 Monroe County Traffic Consultant(AECOM): 3 Vivek Reddy, Traffic Engineering Department Manager 4 5 Monroe County Staff- 6 Emily Schemper, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources N 7 Janene Sclafam, Transportation Planner 8 Judith Clarke, Director of Engineering Services 9 10 Per BOCC direction on October 21, 2020, the Task Force was reconvened and performed the 6 11 following tasks and meetings: a. a. 12 • Task 1 —Review the Current Highway Capacity Manual 13 • Task 2 —Review Current Traffic Data 14 • Task 3 —Develop a New Travel Time Study Schedule 15 • Task 4 — Coordinate and Schedule Task Force Meetings 16 • Task 5 —Project Meetings 17 • Task 6 —Update the US 1 LOS Methodology —°c 18 • Task 7 —Project Progress Meeting 0 19 20 Task Force meetings were held as follows: E v) 21 1. November 10, 2020 - Initial Task Force meeting to discuss initial methodology update 22 Highway Capacity Manual review, and decide on the initial direction for updating the LOS T— 23 methodology. 24 2. January 6, 2021 - Second Task Force meeting to review of a first draft of the updated 25 methodology. 26 3. January 7, 2021 - Community Meeting to gather public input on draft methodology update a®ai 27 (will satisfy Community Meeting requirement to update methodology in Comprehensive � 28 Plan and Land Development Code as well). 'a 29 4. January 21, 2021 - Third Task Force meeting to present the final methodology and gain 30 consensus from all members. E 31 32 The Task Force considered and voted to recommend updates to the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology, 33 summarized below, and, more specifically, as shown in 2021 update to "A Methodology To 34 Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys " attached to this agenda item as Exhibit 35 1: c 36 37 1. Signal Delay: Increase to 35 seconds (to be consistent with the current Highway Capacity 38 Manual); 39 2. Signal Delay: Continue to apply to only uninterrupted segments (not overall US-1 LOS 40 calculations); 41 3. Drawbridge Delay: Deduct delays due to drawbridge openings from the time run calculations N 42 for both affected segments and overall US-1, using a delay time of 6 minutes (average gate 43 closure time based on FDOT data for drawbridge delays), and applying to only those travel 44 runs which were impacted by bridge openings; E 45 4. Overall LOS calculation methodology for segments versus overall US-1 will stay the same; 46 5. Travel Time Schedule: Conduct 2021 travel time runs based on current schedule. Also, 47 conduct supplemental runs in the southbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during AM 48 peak (7-8 am) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. Additionally, 49 conduct supplemental runs in the northbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during the PM 50 Peak (5-6pm) on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second week. The results of the BOCC SR Page 4 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2750 R.5.0 I supplemental runs will be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report for informational purposes 2 only and will not be used in overall LOS calculations. This information will be reviewed to 3 decide if supplemental runs should be incorporated into future ATTDS and LOS calculations, 4 as directed by the Monroe County BOCC; and 5 6. Include by reference the Data Collection Methodology into the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology 6 document. 7 8 Community Meeting and Public Participation 9 In accordance with LDC Section 102-159(b)(3), a Community Meeting for the Comprehensive Plan 2 10 and Land Development Code text amendments was held on January 7, 2021 via Zoom Webinar and 0. 11 provided for public input. There were three(3)members of the public in attendance. Comments from 0. 12 the public included questions regarding the drawbridge delay, potential deductions for the 13 drawbridge delay and clarification of the Level of Service for segments versus overall. 14 15 Development Review Committee Meeting and Public Participation 16 The Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at a regular meeting on o 17 February 23, 2021. No public input was received. 0 18 0 19 Planning Commission Meeting and Public Participation W 20 The Planning Commissioner considered the proposed amendment at a regular meeting on April 28, U) 21 2021, adopted Resolution No. P05-21 recommending approval of the proposed amendment. No 22 public input was received. 23 _ 24 Previous Relevant BOCC Actions 25 August 6, 1991 —Adoption of the U.S.1 Level of Service (LOS) C as measured by the U.S.1 Level 26 of Service (LOS) Methodology established by the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. 27 28 December 10, 1997 — Approval of amendment to the U.S.1 LOS Methodology based on a 29 recommendations of the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. 30 E 31 January 23, 2019 - Approval of Work Order 47 to complete the 2019 U.S. 1 ATTDS. 32 33 July 15, 2020 -BOCC considered the Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time & Delay Study, and directed 34 staff to re-engage the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force to evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updatesi 35 to it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS. 0 36 37 October 21, 2020—BOCC approval of Resolution 355-2020 reconvening the US 1 LOS Task Force 38 and tasking the US 1 LOS Task Force with evaluating the LOS Methodology and potential updates U) 39 to it based on the Considerations identified in the draft 2019 ATTDS. 40 41 February 17, 2021 — BOCC approved a Resolution 064-2021 adopting the recommendations of the 42 U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and the 2021 Updated methodology document, A Methodology To Assess 43 Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys, for County use (Exhibit 2). 44 E 45 The subject of this staff report is the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 46 eC 47 BOCC SR Page 5 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2751 1 111. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS 2 3 Proposed Amendment(deletions are stfieken*hr-e additions are shown in underlined). 4 5 Policy 301.1.2 6 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of T� T_ 7 C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. I LOS Task Force 8 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 449-4- February --------------------— .2 9 2021 L11QC(: Reso1utioii 064-2021 The level of service on U.S. I shall be CL0 ­­­­-------- CL 10 maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C. 11 12 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT 13 14 Based on the recommendations of the U.S. I LOS Task Force and adoption of a Resolution 064- 15 2021 by the BOCC, the only required amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is provided above. .2 0 16 'a 0 17 No further changes are required to the Comprehensive Plan's goals, objectives or policies at this W 18 time. E 19 U)0 20 The amendment is necessary to reflect the most recent methodology adopted by the BOCC, updated 21 based on the current Highway Capacity Manual and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) U) 22 data on the drawbridge openings and to implement Policy 301.2.1 (Monroe County...shall request 23 that the Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis when new 24 data becomes available). 0 25 26 V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE 0 'a 27 PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT,AND FLORIDA STATUTES. 0 28 E 29 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the U) 0 30 Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it furthers: 31 U) 32 Policy 101.1.5 =)1 33 Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the impacts of the r_ 0 34 development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the adopted level-of-service 35 standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement of construction, a developer is required 36 to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or 37 improvement of proportionate share of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the U) 38 proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The development 39 of a single family residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this 40 requirement. C14 41 42 Objective 301.1 43 Monroe County shall establish level of service(LOS) standards for all paved roads in Monroe County for E 44 the purpose of determining existing and future roadway needs. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)] 45 46 Policy 301.1.1 47 For all County roads,Monroe County hereby adopts a minimum peak hour level of service(LOS)standard 48 of D,measured by the methodology identified in the most recent edition of the Highway Capacity Manual, BOCC SR Page 6 of 13 File 2020-193 1 Packet Pg. 2752 R.5.0 I as necessary to determine proposed development impacts. The County shall maintain the level of service 2 on County roads within five percent(5%)of LOS D. 3 4 Policy 301.1.3 5 Monroe County shall coordinate with municipalities in the review of the systematic traffic monitoring 6 program to monitor traffic volumes and travel speeds of U.S. I as well as on each of the 24 study segments N 7 on U.S.I. The County and municipalities shall coordinate with FDOT to evaluate segments with 8 deficiencies of LOS to determine necessary improvements and strategies to address any degradation 9 and/or deficiencies. 10 11 Policy 301.1.4 00 . 12 Monroe County shall update its Long Range Transportation Plan to include roadway improvements on c- U 13 County owned roads designed to improve the LOS on U.S. 1. 14 2 15 Objective 301.2 16 Monroe County shall ensure that all paved roads have sufficient capacity to serve development at the 17 adopted LOS standards concurrent with the impact of said development. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.a.] 18 0 19 Policy 301.2.1 'a C 20 Monroe County,in coordination with the FDOT,shall continue the systematic traffic monitoring program �. 21 initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations and travel E 22 speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of 24 study segments of U.S. 1, and to determine the 23 cumulative impact of development and through traffic. Monroe County shall use the methodology 24 developed by the U.S. I LOS Task Force composed of representatives from Monroe County, FDOT, and 25 the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for conducting this analysis and shall request that the 26 Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis when new data becomes 27 available. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.b.] 28 29 Policy 301.2.2 30 Monroe County shall utilize the results of the systematic traffic monitoring program for development 0 31 approval process and to evaluate any potential degradation in LOS and the need for improvements in 0 32 order to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standard. a, 33 E 34 Policy 301.2.3 35 Monroe County shall not permit new development which would significantly degrade the LOS below the 36 adopted LOS standards on U.S. 1 (overall)unless the proportionate share of the impact is mitigated. The v) 37 development of one single family residential unit, on a single parcel, shall be considered de minimis and 38 shall not be subject to this requirement.A five percent projected decrease in travel speeds,below LOS C, c 39 is a significant degradation in the level of service on U.S. 1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D 40 standard by more than five percent is a significant degradation in the level of service on any other County 41 road. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.e.] 42 i 43 Policy 301.2.4 44 As approved by the County Commission on a case by case basis, Monroe County shall provide funding ' 45 from gas taxes,impact fees, and any other legally available sources to expedite local projects. cv 46 47 Policy 301.2.5 48 In order to proceed with development, a parcel shall have legal access to public or private roads,rights of 49 way or easements or such access shall be established. 50 51 Policy 1401.4.4 52 Public facilities and services needed to support development shall be available in accordance with the 53 adopted levels of service referenced in Policy 1401.4.1. Development approval may be phased to allow 54 the provision of public facilities and services necessary to maintain the adopted levels of service. BOCC SR Page 7 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2753 R.5.0 1 2 Policy 1401.4.5 3 Monroe County hereby adopts a Concurrency Management System to ensure that facilities and services 4 needed to support development are available concurrent with the impact of development. The 5 Concurrency Management System shall ensure that the County shall issue no development order or permit 6 which results in a reduction in the level of service (LOS)below the adopted LOS standards referenced in N 7 Policy 1401.4.1 for those public facilities that are subject to the system. The guidelines established in 8 Policies 1401.4.6, 1401.4.7, 1401.4.8, 1401.4.9, and 1401.4.10 shall ensure that concurrency is 9 successfully implemented. >, 10 11 Policy 1401.4.6 CL 12 The following guidelines identify the stages in the development review process when the test for c- U 13 concurrency must be met. 14 1. Preliminary Development Order Stage - A preliminary development order is a development order 2 15 that precedes the issuance of a building permit, such as a subdivision plat, development plan, 16 certificate of compliance, conditional use permit, or development of regional impact development 17 order. A proposed development must receive a conditional concurrency determination prior to 18 receiving a preliminary development order. 2 c 19 2. Final Development Order Stage - A final development order is a building permit or any other 'a C 20 development permit authorizing the construction or expansion of a structure, an increase in �. 21 development intensity, or a change of use requiring a new certificate of occupancy. A proposed E 22 development must receive a final concurrency determination prior to receiving a final development 23 order. 24 25 Policy 1401.4.7 W 26 The following guidelines identify the effect of a concurrency determination: 27 1.A Conditional Concurrency Determination shall indicate that adequate public facilities are available 28 at the time the determination is issued,but shall not guarantee the adequacy or availability of public M 29 facilities at subsequent stages of development review. a, 30 2.A Final Concurrency Determination shall indicate that adequate public facilities will be available at 0 31 all subsequent stages of development stages of development review, subject to certain limitations 0 32 such as elapsed time and the payment of fees. a, 33 E 34 Policy 1401.4.8 35 The following guidelines identify the minimum criteria necessary to meet the concurrency requirements 36 of each public facility type. 37 1. The concurrency requirements for potable water, solid waste, sanitary sewer, and drainage facilitiesi 38 and services shall be satisfied if one or more of the following conditions are met: C 39 a) the necessary facilities and services are in place at the time a development permit is issued; or 40 b) the necessary facilities and services are in place at the time a certificate of occupancy, or its 41 functional equivalent is issued. 42 2. The concurrency requirements for recreational facilities shall be satisfied if one or more of the U)i 43 following conditions are met: �+ 44 a) conditions 1(a)or 1(b) listed above or,in the case of acreage for parks and recreational facilities, 45 which shall be dedicated to or acquired by the County prior to issuance of a building permit, or CD 46 funds in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed no later than the approval to �. 47 commence construction; or 48 b) an enforceable development agreement guarantees that the necessary facilities and services will 49 be in place with the issuance of the applicable development permit. An enforceable development 50 agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to section 51 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. 52 3. The concurrency requirements for roads shall be satisfied if one or more of the following conditions 53 are met: 54 a) conditions 1(a) or 1(b) listed above; or BOCC SR Page 8 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2754 R.5.c I b) a binding executed contract is in place at the time the development permit is issued which 2 provides for the commencement of the actual construction of the required facilities or provision of 3 services; or 4 c) an enforceable development agreement guarantees that the necessary facilities and services will 5 be in place with the issuance of the applicable development permit. An enforceable development 6 agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to Section N 7 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. r~ 8 9 Policy 1401.4.9 10 The following guidelines identify the minimum components of the County's concurrency monitoring 0 11 system. a. 12 1. The County shall maintain a database of permitting data that includes the amount of development c- U 13 for which final development orders have been issued, development for which final development C 14 orders have expired, development which is under construction, and development which has been 15 constructed. 16 2. The County shall maintain a database of public facility data that includes the capacity of existing 17 public facilities, the additional capacity created by facility improvements, the impacts of existingCD 18 development, and the impacts anticipated due to committed development. 2 C 19 3. The County shall prepare a Public Facilities Capacity Report assessing the capacities of all public 'a C 20 facilities subject to the Concurrency Management System. The Concurrency Management Report 21 shall be used to monitor changes in the capacity of public facilities and the levels of service provided E 22 by the facilities based upon development activities and capital improvement projects completed. 23 24 Policy 1401.4.10 25 Monroe County shall use the following guidelines for interpreting and applying level of service standards 26 to development order applications.For the purposes of this policy,reserve capacity refers to the capacity 27 of existing public facilities plus the capacity of public facilities which do not exist but which meet the 28 applicable requirements of Policy 1401.4.7, less the existing demand for those facilities and the demand CO 29 expected to be created for those facilities by approved but unbuilt development as determined by the 30 databases in Policy 1401.4.9. C 31 1.Potable Water—The County shall not render a final concurrency determination unless the quantity 0 32 of water available under the FKAA Consumptive Use Permit meets or exceeds the estimated water 33 demand of the proposed development together with the estimated water demand of all existing and E 34 committed development. 35 2. Solid Waste—The County shall not render a final concurrency determination unless capacity 36 available at solid waste facilities under contract with Monroe County meets or exceeds the 37 estimated daily solid waste generation of the proposed development together with the estimatedi 38 daily solid waste generation of all existing and committed development for a period of three (3) C 39 years from development approval. 40 3. Sanitary Sewer—The County shall not render a final concurrency determination unless the proposed 41 development will be served by a treatment plant permitted by the FDEP with adequate reserve 42 capacity to accommodate the impact of the proposed development or an on-site sewage disposal U)i 43 system permitted by the DOH. 44 4. Drainage—The County shall not render a final concurrency determination unless the proposed ' 45 development will be served by stormwater management facilities approved by the South Florida `V cv 46 Water Management District; or has received an individual construction permit or written �. 47 authorization to proceed pursuant to a general permit from the South Florida Water Management 48 District.If the proposed development requires a permit from the South Florida Water Management 49 District,such permit must be obtained prior to the final concurrency determination or the applicant's 50 drainage plans must be consistent with Monroe County's stormwater management requirements. 51 5. Parks—The County shall not render a final concurrency determination unless the park facilities 52 either in existence or programmed within the next year will meet or exceed the estimated park 53 demand of the proposed development together with the estimated park demand of all existing and 54 committed development.Within each impact area for park facilities,the County shall determine the BOCC SR Page 9 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2755 R.5.0 I population capacity of both resource-based and activity-based facilities by multiplying the level of 2 service standard by the number of acres of existing or programmed parks. 3 6. Roads—The County will not render a final concurrency determination unless the estimated traffic 4 impacts of the proposed development,together with the estimated traffic impacts of all existing and 5 committed development,will not exceed the level of service of U.S. 1, as determined by the U.S. 1 6 Level of Service Task Force methodology. The trip assignment for proposed developments with an N 7 estimated trip generation rate of more than 10 trips per day shall be based on a traffic impact report r~ 8 prepared by the developer based on a professionally accepted methodology. The trip assignment 9 for proposed developments with a trip generation rate of 10 trips or less (such as a single family >, 10 home) shall be limited to the segment of U.S. 1 most directly impacted by the development. 2 11 CL CL 12 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida 13 Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes. 14 15 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the 16 principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be 17 construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other o 18 provisions. 0 19 0 20 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local 21 government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern E v) 22 designation. 23 (b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass 24 beds,wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. v) 25 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical 26 vegetation(for example,hardwood hammocks and pinelands),dune ridges and beaches,wildlife,and U 27 their habitat. 28 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic 29 development. CD 30 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. a 31 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources,promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and 32 ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. E 33 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. 34 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency,cost-effectiveness,and amortized life of existing and proposed major 35 public investments,including: 36 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 37 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 38 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 39 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 40 5. Transportation facilities; 41 6. Federal parks,wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; v) 42 7. State parks,recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 43 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 44 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. N 45 (1) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, N 46 and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and 47 disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage E 48 treatment and disposal systems. 49 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of 50 wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), 51 as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities 52 through permit allocation systems. 53 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida 54 Keys. BOCC SR Page 10 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2756 R.5.0 1 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. 2 (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural 3 or manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan. 4 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining 5 the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. 6 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is not inconsistent 7 with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any 8 Principle. 9 10 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute 0 CL 11 (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: c. 12 13 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and 14 enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, 15 consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future 16 problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through 17 the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, o 18 promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, 0 19 convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and 20 efficient provision of transportation,water, sewerage, schools,parks,recreational facilities,housing, 21 and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources E 22 within their jurisdictions. 23 24 163.3161(6),F.S.—It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the legal status 25 set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted except in conformity 26 with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof,prepared and adopted in conformity with 27 this act. 0 28 29 163.3177(l), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and c 30 strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal a 31 development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. 32 These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain E 33 programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the 34 comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, j 35 and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development v- 36 regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a i 37 consistent manner.It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations 38 in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land 39 development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan e� 40 and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will 41 be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and v)i 42 development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land 43 development and use regulations. 44 04 45 163.3177(6)(b)1.,F.S.—Each local government's transportation element shall address traffic circulation, 46 including the types, locations, and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares and 47 transportation routes, including bicycle and pedestrian ways. Transportation corridors, as defined in E 48 s.334.03,may be designated in the transportation element pursuant to s.337.273.If the transportation U 49 corridors are designated, the local government may adopt a transportation corridor management 50 ordinance.The element shall include a map or map series showing the general location of the existing 51 and proposed transportation system features and shall be coordinated with the future land use map or 52 map series. The element shall reflect the data, analysis, and associated principles and strategies 53 relating to: BOCC SR Page 11 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2757 R.5.0 I a. The existing transportation system levels of service and system needs and the availability of 2 transportation facilities and services. 3 b. The growth trends and travel patterns and interactions between land use and transportation. 4 c. Existing and projected intermodal deficiencies and needs. 5 d. The projected transportation system levels of service and system needs based upon the future 6 land use map and the projected integrated transportation system. N 7 e. How the local government will correct existing facility deficiencies, meet the identified needs r~ 8 of the projected transportation system,and advance the purpose of this paragraph and the other 9 elements of the comprehensive plan. >, 10 11 163.3180, F.S.—Concurrency.— CL 12 (5)(a) If concurrency is applied to transportation facilities, the local government comprehensive plan c- U 13 must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies,including adopted levels of service C 14 to guide its application. 15 (b) Local governments shall use professionally accepted studies to evaluate the appropriate levels of 'a 16 service. Local governments should consider the number of facilities that will be necessary to meet 17 level-of-service demands when determining the appropriate levels of service. The schedule of 18 facilities that are necessary to meet the adopted level of service shall be reflected in the capital 2 c 19 improvement element. 'a C 20 (c) Local governments shall use professionally accepted techniques for measuring levels of service �. 21 when evaluating potential impacts of a proposed development. E 22 (d) The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and 23 maintain the adopted level of service standard. A comprehensive plan that imposes transportation 24 concurrency shall contain appropriate amendments to the capital improvements element of the 25 comprehensive plan, consistent with the requirements of s. 163.3177(3). The capital improvements 26 element shall identify facilities necessary to meet adopted levels of service during a 5-year period. 27 (e) If a local government applies transportation concurrency in its jurisdiction, it is encouraged to 28 develop policy guidelines and techniques to address potential negative impacts on future Ca 29 development: CD 30 1. In urban infill and redevelopment, and urban service areas. 0 31 2. With special part-time demands on the transportation system. 0 32 3. With de minimis impacts. 33 4. On community desired types of development, such as redevelopment,or job creation projects. E 34 (f)Local governments are encouraged to develop tools and techniques to complement the application 35 of transportation concurrency such as: 36 1. Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development patterns that support multimodal 37 solutions,including urban design,and appropriate land use mixes,including intensity and density. i 38 2. Adoption of an areawide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function. C 39 3. Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development, such as development in 40 urban areas,redevelopment,job creation, and mixed use on the transportation system. 41 4. Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe, 42 comfortable, and attractive pedestrian environment,with convenient interconnection to transit. U)i 43 5. Establishing multimodal level of service standards that rely primarily on nonvehicular modes �+ 44 of transportation where existing or planned community design will provide adequate level of 45 mobility. N 46 6. Reducing impact fees or local access fees to promote development within urban areas, 47 multimodal transportation districts, and a balance of mixed-use development in certain areas or 48 districts, or for affordable or workforce housing. 49 (g) Local governments are encouraged to coordinate with adjacent local governments for the purpose 50 of using common methodologies for measuring impacts on transportation facilities. 51 52 163.3201, F.S. — Relationship of comprehensive plan to exercise of land development regulatory 53 authority.—It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans or elements thereof shall be 54 implemented, in part, by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate local regulations on the BOCC SR Page 12 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2758 R.5.0 I development of lands and waters within an area. It is the intent of this act that the adoption and 2 enforcement by a governing body of regulations for the development of land or the adoption and 3 enforcement by a governing body of a land development code for an area shall be based on,be related 4 to, and be a means of implementation for an adopted comprehensive plan as required by this act. 5 6 VI. PROCESS 7 8 Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the 9 Planning Commission,the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual 10 interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review 0 11 and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review CL 12 Committee and the Planning Commission. 13 2 14 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall a 15 review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & 16 Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the o 17 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the 0 18 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the 0 19 transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff 20 recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not E 21 recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to State 22 Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, T_ 23 Recommendations and Comments (ORC)Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report,the County has 24 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the 25 amendment. 26 i 27 VIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 28 29 Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. c 30 E 31 VIII.EXHIBITS 32 33 1. A Methodology To Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys, updated January U) 34 2021 by AECOM Technical Services, Inc., based on input from the 2020/2021 US-1 LOS Taski 35 Force (strike-though and underline version). C 36 2. BOCC Resolution 064-2021 adopting the recommendations of the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and 37 the 2021 Updated methodology document,A Methodology To Assess Level-Of-Service On US- 38 1 In The Florida Keys. U) 39 3. BOCC agenda item N3 for the December 10, 1997 BOCC meeting, for the approval of M1 40 modification to the U.S. 1 Level of Service Methodology based on recommendations of the U.S. 41 1 Level of Service Task Force. N U BOCC SR Page 13 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 2759 R.E. De Arazoza D.S.Macleod Exhibit 1 cv CL CL r9 A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS 0 m By Rafael E. De Arazoza Florida Department of Transportation District 6 602 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 377-5910 i 0 And Douglas S. McLeod Florida Department of Transportation Mail Station 19 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (904) 922-0449 i 0 For Presentation at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting January 1993 UPDATE January 2021 i Updated by AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Based on input from the 2020/2021 US-1 LOS Task Force m Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 2760 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod ABSTRACT `~ This paper presents the methodology developed to assess level-of-service (LOS) on US-1 r9 in the Florida Keys. Although predominantly an uninterrupted flow two-lane roadway in the Keys, US-1's uniqueness warrants all alternative LOS evaluation process to that found 0. c 0. in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. U.S.-1 extends from the Key West to the Florida mainland with no major roads intersecting it. Furthermore, no other principal arterial serves the Keys or the Keys' resident and tourist population, over 100,000. Its unique geography, land use patterns, trip making 0 characteristics presented a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable c method to assess its LOS. A uniform method was developed to assess LOS on U.S.-1 to cover both its overall arterial T_ length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 roadway segments delineated. The methodology employs average travel speed as the main measure of effectiveness. It was developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapters 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985 i Highway Capacity Manual. 2 The results of the study correlate well with perceived operating conditions on US-1 and over a two- year period the methodology appears to have a good level of reliability. The authors 76 recommend that for uninterrupted flow conditions in developed areas, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Highway Capacity Manual incorporates average travel speed as the main measure of effectiveness to determine LOS. i c 0 0 i Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 2761 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod N A METHOD TO ASSESS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS CD CD r9 INTRODUCTION CL The purpose of this paper is to present the methodology developed by the Monroe County US- ca 1 level- of-service (LOS) Task Force to assess LOS on US-1 (the Overseas Highway) in the Florida Keys (1). The authors are members of the referenced task force. US-1 which is mostly two-lanes, has unique geographic and trip characteristics. It extends .2 through the Florida Keys covering approximately 180 kilometers (112 miles) from the City of c Key West to the Florida mainland (Figure 1). There are 48 bridges crossing water for a total E length of 35 km (22 mi), with the longest bridge approximately 11 km (7 mi) long. There is no other road, to provide vehicular access to the Florida Keys from the rest of Florida or T_ anywhere else. Few local roads are 5 km (3 mi) in length. Consequently, US-1 serves not only as a regional principal arterial which serves intra as well as interstate travel, but also serves as the local road for most of the trips within the Keys. US-1 Annual average daily traffic (AADT) volumes range from a low of 4700 to a high of 34200. The road serves a large tourist i demand and is one of the most scenic in the United States. The linear geography with the c narrow land width of most of the Florida Keys are further characteristics. Most of the surrounding land use is rural developed and suburban in nature; however, some 76 areas are totally rural and others are urban, such as the Key West and its suburbs. With the exception of the few completely rural segments and the bridges, strip commercial stores, motels and restaurants are very common throughout the Keys along US-1. Numerous driveways and intersecting local roads provide access to the surrounding residential areas. c 0 The US-1 LOS study encompassed approximately 174 km (108 mi)of US-1 from Key c West/Stock Island to the Monroe/Dade County Line, broken down as follows: 0 129 km (80 mi) (74%) two-lane uninterrupted flow; 0 32 km (20 mi) (19 %) four-lane uninterrupted flow; and i 0 13 km (8 mi) (7%) four-lane urban/suburban interrupted flow. Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 2762 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod Part of the growth management process in Florida is to assess roadway LOS to determine if cv roadway facilities meet standards established by state regulations. The Transportation Research Board Special Report 209 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2) is extensively used throughout Florida as the source document to determine highway capacities and LOS. 2 HCM Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) were consulted to determine applicability to the unique conditions and vehicular traffic operations and characteristics of the Florida Keys. Only the 13 km (8 mi) of urban/suburban interrupted flow and the small percentage of the two-lane truly rural 0 portions correlate directly to the HCM Chapters 11 and 8. 0 m Thus, the challenge was to develop a methodology to assess arterial LOS along US-1 without deviating from the principles of the HCM. Towards that end a task force was created consisting of representatives from State and local agencies and an engineering consulting firm. 0 m i 0 0 i 0 i i 0 0 m i m Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 2763 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod THE NEED TO DEVELOP A LOS MEASUREMENT METHOD CD From a state transportation perspective, the overall operating condition of US-1 is important, not the condition of any smaller segment. With Key West as a major tourist destination at the C 0L CL southern end of the Keys and no alternative routes, the logical analysis section of highway extends from Key West to the mainland. From local transportation and development approval perspectives,shorter segments for analysis are desirable. Chapter 8 of the HCM presents a methodology which applies to typical rural two-lane highways .2 with basically long stretches of roads, and few side intersecting streets and driveways directly c connecting to the roads. Chapter 8 methodology relies mainly on "percent time delay" to E assess LOS. The HCM further states that "Percent time delay...is defined as the average percent of time that all vehicles are delayed while traveling in platoons due to inability to pass. T_ Percent time delay is difficult to measure directly in the field. The percent of vehicles traveling at headways less than 5 seconds can be used as a surrogate measure in field studies." Chapter 8 of the HCM also uses average travel speed and capacity utilization as additional i measures of effectiveness to assess LOS. However, the HCM states clearly that percent time c delay is the primary measure of service quality. Further inspection of the average speeds for level terrain depicted by Table 8-1 of the HCM do not correspond well with the typical operating speeds of US-1 in the Florida Keys. For instance, Table 8-1 shows average speeds 76 ranging from 58 mph (93 kmh) (LOS A) to 45 mph (72 kmh) (LOS D). i The overall weighted posted speed limit for US-1 in the Florida Keys is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph). The overall median operating speeds along US-1 according to the 1991 and 1992 field studies (3, 4) were 76.8 and 75.5 kmh (47.7 and 46.9 mph), respectively. The field studies showed, for the most part, the survey vehicle(s) was traveling close to the posted speed limit. c m It is believed the average motorist in the Florida Keys is mostly concerned with operating at an acceptable average travel speed rather than being concerned about the ability to pass. This is supported by the physical and traffic characteristics of the Keys (e.g., i adjacent land development, sight-seeing tourists), local knowledge, and discussions with motorists. Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 2764 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod From the above statements, it was clear to the task team that HCM Chapter 8 methodology N could not be applied to US-1 for analysis of its two-lane sections. With regards to the four-lane uninterrupted flow portions of US-1, a similar dilemma occurred. HCM Chapter 7 methodology applies to multi-lane highways with operating characteristics 2 CL generally unlike those of US-1 through the Florida Keys. For instance, average travel speeds CL depicted by Table 7-1 of the HCM are also higher than those encountered in the Keys. Further, the methodology inherent in equations (7-1), (7-2) and (7-3)are closely related to those of freeways with their higher service flow rates,which again neither simulate nor resemble those of US-1 in the Keys. The Four-lane portion is found mostly in Key Largo(the northeastern end 0 of the Keys) which has a weighted posted speed limit of 72.5 kmh (45 mph). Key largo is 0 developed with strip commercial and residential development. It has numerous driveway connections and side streets directly accessing US-1. The remaining 7% of the total US-1 mileage is four-lane interrupted flow. These are the portions encompassing Marathon(in the middle of the Keys)and Stock Island(near Key West). The operating characteristics here are truly urban/suburban and interrupted flow in nature m resembling those of HCM Chapter 11. Thus, the methodology of Chapter 11 was employed in assessing LOS on these segments. 0 From the preceding discussion, it was evident that a distinct method to assess LOS on US-1 had to be developed. The task team's efforts concentrated on keeping consistency with the basic philosophy of the HCM,and yet be sensitive to the Keys uniqueness. Thus,the proposed 76 methodology correlates measured travel speeds along US-1 with LOS speed thresholds i 0 developed as part of this study. This is in line with the concept behind the HCM of average travel speed being the main parameter to measure arterial LOS. i 0 0 m i m Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 2765 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod METHODOLOGY cv CD Considering the types of trips served by US-1, it was decided to conduct travel time and delay runs to cover both the entire length of US-1 from Key West to the Monroe/Dade County Line 2 (mainland) and for each segment of the highway along the way. Twenty-four segments were selected as depicted by Table 1. Each segment is fairly homogeneous in nature having a uniform roadway cross section and traffic flow. Travel speeds for the overall length (from Key West to the mainland) provide an indication of 0 the LOS for the regional trips. Travel speeds for each segment also provides an opportunity 0 to assess the impact of local trips. Establishing speed criteria for both the overall length m and for each roadway segment satisfies the requirements of the Florida growth management process. The next step in the process was to determine the number of travel time runs and how,when and to/from where. Runs were started at both ends of US-1. For example, one run started on m Stock Island (Key West City limits) and proceeded to the mainland (Dade County). After reaching this point, the vehicle turned back and proceeded to end the run where it started, on Stock Island. On another day the reverse was true(i.e., the run started in Dade County instead of Stock Island). It was decided to perform a total of fourteen two-way runs or twenty-eight in each direction covering the 174 km (108 mi)study portion of US-1. Twenty-eight runs provide enough data for statistical significance. Control points were established at each of the 24 76 segments to record travel time and speed data specific to each one of those segments. Seven i 0 runs were started at Stock Island and seven in Dade County. Each began at staggered hours to cover the varied trip purposes and time frames within the Keys. The surveys were conducted i during March, reflecting the area's peak traffic season. 0 0 The 2021 travel time runs shall be conducted based on the current schedule. In addition, m supplemental runs shall be conducted in the souhbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during AM peak (7-8 am) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. Also, conduct supplemental runs in the northbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during the PM U, Peak (5-6pm) on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second week. The results of the supplemental runs will be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report for informational purposes only and will not be used in overall or segment LOS calculations. This information will be reviewed to decide if supplemental runs should be incorporated into future ATTDS and LOS calculations, as directed by the Monroe County BOCC. Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 2766 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod N For each run the process provided data(see Exhibit 1, Data Collection Methodology), such as running speed and travel speed, in each direction of US-1. Vehicular traffic counts were also 2 0 collected at three locations covering seven days. CL CL The travel time runs yielded a total of 28 one-way travel speed values for the overall length of US-1 and for each of the 24 segments. The value selected for analysis was the median speed which would reflect a "typical peak period during the peak season." In other developed parts of Florida the typical peak hour of the peak season approximates the 100th highest hour of 0 the year(5). The median value was also selected, instead of the average,to avoid the influence of extremely high or low speed value at either end of the survey population. The process up to this point provided median travel speeds. The question then became, what LOS do these speeds represent. The next step was to develop a set of LOS/Speed threshold values for both the overall length m of US-1 and the pertinent segments of the highway. Towards this end, the speed ratios between LOS thresholds from Tables 7-1, 8-1 and 11-1 of the HCM were used in the analysis. These ratios were weighted against actual mileage of US-1 in the Florida Keys to represent the prevailing type of flow; two-lane uninterrupted flow, four-lane uninterrupted flow and four- lane interrupted flow. For example, from the level terrain portion of HCM Table 8-1, the ratio between LOS B speed and LOS A speed is 55/58 = 0.948. The ratio between LOS C/LOS A = 76 52/58 = 0.897; the ratio between LOS D/LOS A= 50/58 = 0.862 and so on. The same process i was applied to Tables 7-1 (96.6 kmh) (60 mph) and 11-1. Then each ratio was weighted to take into account the length of the section of US-1 to which that type of traffic flow applied. Once i all the ratios were developed, the weight criteria was applied as in the following example: c 0 0 TYPE OF FLOW LOS C/LOS A RATIO WEIGHT Two-lane uninterrupted 52/58 = 0.897 74 Four-lane uninterrupted 44/50 = 0.880 19 Four-lane interrupted 22/35 = 0.629 07 i Therefore, the overall speed ratio between LOS C and LOS A is: [74(0.897)+19(0.880)+7(0.629)]+100=0.875 Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 2767 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod The above process was applied to develop all the required ratios. Further observations with cv reference to Tables 8-1, 7-1 and 11-1 yielded the following. From Table 8-1 the difference between LOS A and LOS B speeds is 4.8 kmh (3 mph), or 4.8 kmh (3 mph) above an assumed posted speed limit of 88 kmh (55 mph). From Tables 7-1 and 11-1 the differences are 3.2 kmh 2 0. and 11.3 kmh (2 mph and 7 mph), respectively, with LOS lower than assumed speed limits. Therefore, from these observations plus local knowledge, it was determined that the overall US-1 posted speed limit is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) reasonably fell between the LOS A and B thresholds. 0 This assumption is not far away from the premise that if a vehicle is able to sustain a travel 0 speed equal to the posted speed limit, then it will correspond typically with the upper ranges of LOS (i.e., LOS A or B). With the above speed differentials and LOS range premise in mind, the US-1 overall speed thresholds for LOS A and B became 82.1 kmh (51 mph) (2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above 79.7 kmh (49.5) and 77.3 kmh (48 mph), respectively. Applying the developed ratio between LOS m C/LOS A to the LOS A speed resulted in 72.5 kmh (45 mph), rounded off (i.e., 0.875 x 82.1 kmh (51 mph) = 71.8 kmh (44.6 mph)), which then became the threshold for LOS C. After applying all the ratios the overall LOS criteria for US-1 became: 0 LOS Speed ni A >_ 82 kmh (51 mph) B >_ 77 kmh (48 mph) o� C >_ 72 kmh (45 mph) D >_ 68 kmh (42 mph) E >_ 58 kmh (36 mph) o F < 58 kmh (36 mph) m Inspection of the criteria above indicates a close relationship with the speed differentials of both Tables 8-1 and 7-1 of the HCM. Comparing the median speed data for US-1 from the 1991 and 1992 field studies to the above criteria resulted in an overall LOS of C for both years, i i.e., 76.8 kmh (47.7 mph)for 1991 and 75.5 kmh (46.9 mph)for 1992. These speeds are 2.9 kmh (1.8 mph)and 4.2 kmh(2.6 mph) below the overall weighted 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) speed limit, which would correspond to the upper range of LOS C. The authors also believe that LOS C o is the appropriate LOS designation for the whole of US-1 from Key West to the mainland. Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 2768 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod N A final step was still needed to complete the task of developing LOS/Speed threshold values r9 for the segments of US-1. No further work was needed to cover the 7% mileage of the interrupted portions of US-1 found on Marathon and Stock Island, adjacent to Key West. As discussed earlier, these segments correlate with Chapter 11 of the HCM. Therefore,direct application of Table 11-1 LOS/speed criteria for a Class I arterial was made. 0 The remaining segments fell within the two-lane and four lane uninterrupted flow criteria. It was decided to make LOS A speed criterion 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the weighted posted speed limit in order to keep consistency with the overall criteria. LOS C speed was set 9.7 kmh (6 mph) below LOS A speed consistent with Tables 7-1 and 8-1 of the HCM. LOS B and D 0) speed criteria were set to provide equal increments between LOS A and LOS D (i.e., LOS B 4.8 kmh (3 mph) below LOS A speed and LOS D 4.8 kmh (3 mph) below LOS C speed). LOS E was set 9.7 kmh (6 mph) below the LOS D Speed. This makes the segmental speed differential between LOS thresholds consistent with the differentials in the overall criteria, except for one consideration. On any uninterrupted flow segment, signalized intersection delay would be deducted from the segment's travel time to account for the influence of that signal on the i seg the traffic signals (i.e., signal delay = 1.0 x 445-35 seconds average stopped delay). This corresponds to an LOS C delay due to isolated signals. LOS C delay was chosen because LOS C is the state LOS standard for US-1 in the Florida Keys. The rationale behind deducting signal delayfrom the segment analysis was to recognize the impact of signals in reducing travel time. This provides the required sensitivity in the segment which is not only to assess the impact of regional vehicular trips, but also those that are local in nature. The following of illustrates the concept plus one example for the US-1 Segmental LOS/speed relationship. i o The uninterrupted flow segment criteria are: 0 0 LOS SPEED m A >_ 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the posted speed limit B >_ 4.8 kmh (3.0 mph) below LOS A C >_ 9.7 kmh (6.0 mph) below LOS A ' D >_ 14.5 kmh (9.0 mph) below LOS A i E >_ 24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A F <24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A m o A segment having a weighted posted speed limit of 72 kmh (45 mph)would then have this criteria: Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 2769 R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod N LOS SPEED CD A >_ 74.9 kmh (46.5 mph) B >_ 70.0 kmh (43.5 mph) 2 0 C >_ 65.2 kmh (40.5 mph) CL CL D >_ 60.4 kmh (37.5 mph) E >_ 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph) F < 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph) o The LOS/Speed criteria for interrupted flow segments (marathon and Stock 0 Island) are based directly on a Class I arterial from Table 11-1 of the HCM. LOS SPEED A >_ 56.4 kmh (35 mph) B >_ 45.1 kmh (28 mph) W C >_ 35.4 kmh (22 mph) D >_ 27.4 kmh (17 mph) E >_ 20.9 kmh (13 mph) F <20.9 kmh (13 mph) c Speed data from both the overall length of US-1 and the individual segments were compared against the applicable LOS/speed thresholds. This provided for an assessment of the facility 76 LOS plus an indication of reserve speed, if any. i Under Florida's and Monroe County's growth management process if the overall LOS for i US-1 fell below the LOS C standard, then no additional land development would be allowed c to proceed in the Florida Keys. Unless the proposed new development traffic impact were 0 mitigated. If the overall LOS for US-1 was C or better, then additional development could take m place in those segments where there was reserve speed available (i.e., segment's speed was higher than the standard threshold). Besides meeting highway LOS standards there are numerous other considerations in Florida's growth management process pertaining to the Florida Keys that are beyond the scope of this paper. As mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this study was to present the methodology to assess-LOS on US-1. Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 2770 Exhibit 1 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY cv (Previously Approved by Task Force) Calibration of the DMI CL CL Prior to beginning the study, the DMI was calibrated over a half-mile course. The calibration procedure set-up by the DMI manufacturer established a calibration factor of 0.682 for the test vehicle, which resulted in measurements within 3 feet of the 5,280- foot distance (0.057%). At this level of accuracy, the DMI would measure the 108 mile distance of US 1 between Stock Island and the Dade County line to within 325 feet, or to within 0.03 mile per hour(mph) of the 45 mph standard for LOS C. c Floating Car Method and Passingcore 0 The study employed the floating car method, whereby under ideal conditions the test 0) vehicle passes and is passed by an equal number of vehicles (i.e. "goes with the flow"). A passing score was recorded for each segment to document the extent to which this objective was accomplished. Positive scores indicate the number of excess vehicles the test car passed; negative scores indicate the number of excess vehicles that passed the test car; and zero indicates an even balance. The overall passing score consists of the sum of the segment scores. The passing score provided an objective measure of the traffic flow, allowing the driver to adjust the test car speed accordingly. In the event that the traffic flow was higher i than the posted speed limit, as was frequently the case in the Dade County and Boca Chica segments, the test car also traveled above the speed limit.Vehicles turning on or off US 1 were omitted from the passing score. Employing the floating car method in two-lane segments was fairly straightforward, where the observers frequently encountered platoons of sufficient size to discourage yi or prohibit passing. When positioned at the rear or in the middle of a platoon, the observers simply traveled with the pack.When positioned as the lead car,the observers _ avoided delaying the platoon yet kept the platoon within sight. On two-lane segments the observers occasionally encountered stopped vehicles waiting to turn left, raising the question of whether the test vehicle should leave the lane or paved road surface and pass to the right of the stopped vehicle. When the vehicles ahead of the observers passed to the right of the stopped vehicle, then the observers did also. However, when the test car was the lead car in the platoon, the observers only passed on the right if they could do so without leaving the paved roadway. Within four-lane segments with light congestion, the observers often encountered traffic traveling in the right lane at or below the posted speed limit,while there was little or no traffic in the left lane. Rather than "floating" below the speed limit in the right lane or traveling at the maximum possible speed in the left lane, the observers traveled at the posted speed limit, which resulted in passing score as high as +10. Thus, in these cases, a passing score of zero is undesirable,since the corresponding speed would fail to reflect the availability of the vacant passing lane. Within four-lane segments with moderate or heavy congestion, the observers often encountered separate platoons in the right and left lanes, with the left lane typically Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 2771 Exhibit 1 moving at a faster speed. Rather than continuously changing lanes to achieve a passing score of zero, the test car"floated" in the faster of the two platoons,which also yielded high passing scores. T_ r9 Platoon Size 0 CL To provide a measure of roadway congestion within each segment,the average number CL of vehicles traveling in the test car's platoon was recorded, including the test car itself. Within four-lane segments,this number represents the average number of vehicles that E traveled in the test car's platoon within the test car's lane. Treat men of lay In accordance with the FDOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies, the observers began recording delay when the test car's speed fell to 5 mph and terminated the delay event when the test car's speed rose to 15 mph. Each delay entry was identified, in the DMI memory by a sequential code number. The observers recorded the type and location E of the delay on a field data sheet. When computing both segments and overall travel times, delays due to typical events T_ such as turning movements, traffic signals, and certain types of congestion were included. Unusual or non-recurring delays, such as construction, accidents, school bus, and emergency vehicles were excluded. Delays due to drawbridge openings were should be deducted from the segment travel times(all affected segments) , but e and the overall travel times, to account for the influence of the drawbridge openings. A delay of 6 minutes should be deducted from those travel time runs that i were impacted by bridge openings. -However, regardless of how a particular type of delay was treated in the analysis, all delays of all types were identified and recorded on the field data sheets. Occasionally an external event slowed traffic speeds, but not enough to meet the 5 mph criteria for a formal delay. Highway construction and maintenance activities were the76 most common example of this borderline situation. The decision of whether to record _ these events was made on a case-by-case basis in the field. As long as the observers i were traveling at speeds within 5 to 10 mph of the posted speed limit and the event occurred over a distance of about a mile or less, the event was not recorded. However, if the activity caused speeds slower than this or when the observers witnessed active interference, such as bulldozers or flagman blocking the traffic, the event was recorded and later excluded from the analysis. 0 0 i Pale 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 2772 R.5.e 0 2 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 3 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 RESOLUTION NO. 064 -2021 5 6 7 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF c 8 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING UPDATES TO 9 THE U.S. 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE ("L.O.S.") 10 METHODOLOGY BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS E 11 MADE BY THE U.S. 1 L.O.S. TASK FORCE WHICH 12 EVALUATED CONSIDERATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE 13 DRAFT 2019 ARTERIAL TRAVEL TIME AND DELAY 14 STUDY ("ATTDS"). 15 0 16 WHEREAS, in August, 1991, the BOCC adopted the U.S. 1 Level of Service ("L.O.S.") 17 C as measured by the U.S. 1 L.O.S. Methodology established by the U.S. 1 L.O.S. Task Force; E 18 and 19 WHEREAS, on December 10, 1997, the BOCC approved an amendment to the U.S. 1 20 L.O.S. Methodology based on recommendations of the U.S. 1 L.O.S. Task Force; and 21 WHEREAS, on July 15, 2020,the BOCC considered the Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time 0 22 & Delay Study ("ATTDS"), prepared by the County's traffic consultant, AECOM Technical 23 Services, Inc. ("AECOM"), which identified several considerations regarding methodology; and CCD 44 N 24 WHEREAS, at the July 15, 2020, meeting,the BOCC directed staff to re-engage the U.S. 25 1 L.O.S. Task Force to evaluate the L.O.S. methodology and consider updates to it based on the 26 considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS; and 0 27 WHEREAS, on October 21, 2020, the BOCC adopted Resolution No. 355-2020, 28 reconvening the U.S. 1 L.O.S. Task Force and tasking the U.S. 1 L.O.S. Task Force with evaluating 29 the L.O.S. Methodology and potential updates to it based on the considerations identified in the 30 draft 2019 ATTDS; and °c°i 31 WHEREAS, U.S. 1 L.O.S. Task Force met on November 10, 2020, January 6, 2021, and w 32 January 21, 2021, to evaluate the L.O.S. methodology and to consider updates to it based on the 33 considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS; and E 1 of 3 Packet Pg. 2773 R.5.e I WHEREAS, U.S. 1 L.O.S. Task Force agreed to the following recommended items 2 through a roll call for vote for the update to the L.O.S. methodology at the January 21, 2021, 3 meeting: 4 1. Signal Delay: Increase to 35 seconds (to be consistent with the current Highway 5 Capacity Manual); 0 6 c. 7 2. Signal Delay: Continue to apply to only uninterrupted segments (not overall U.S.-1 8 L.O.S. calculations); 9 10 3. Drawbridge Delay: Deduct delays due to drawbridge openings from the time run 11 calculations for both affected segments and overall U.S.-1 using a delay time of 6 g g Y 2 12 minutes (average gate closure time based on FDOT data for drawbridge delays), and 0 13 applying to only those travel runs which were impacted by bridge openings; 0 14 m 15 4. Overall L.O.S. calculation methodology for segments versus overall U.S.-1 will stay 16 the same; 17 18 5. Travel Time Schedule: Conduct 2021 travel time runs based on current schedule. Also, 19 conduct supplemental runs in the southbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during CD 20 AM peak (7-8 AM) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. 2 0 21 Additionally, conduct supplemental runs in the northbound direction within Segments a 22 1 to 4 during the PM Peak(5-6 PM)on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second 23 week. The results of the supplemental runs will be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report E 24 for informational purposes only and will not be used in overall L.O.S. calculations. 25 This information will be reviewed to decide if supplemental runs should be 26 incorporated into future ATTDS and L.O.S. calculations, as directed by the Monroe 27 County BOCC; and 28 0 29 6. Include by reference the Data Collection Methodology into the U.S. 1 L.O.S. 30 Methodology document. N 31 32 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 33 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: 34 Section 1. The recitals contained herein are true and correct and are hereby 35 incorporated as if fully set forth herein. CJ CJ 36 Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the 37 recommendations of the U.S. 1 L.O.S. Task Force and the 2021 Updated 38 methodology document, A Methodology To Assess Level-Of-Service On 39 US-1 In The Florida Keys, attached as Exhibit A, for County use. a� 40 41 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 42 Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 17th day of February, 2021. 2of3 Packet Pg. 2774 R.S.e 1 2 Mayor Michelle Coldiron Yes 3 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice Yes 4 Commissioner Craig Cates Yes 5 Commissioner Eddie Martinez 6 Commissioner Mike Forster 7 CL CL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS o OF MONROE Au 0 BY 0 1 r•�` MAYOR MICHELLE COLDIRON 16 T: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK 17 MONROE CO ATTORNEY 18 APPy10'6r-_ TC FOW l� r 19 By - -- `'- PETER MORM 20 AS DE I]TY CLERK ASWSTAWCCUNTyATTURWy Dale! 21Z121 21 0 22 0 m 0 3 r`' C5 i tV r 0 tJ tJ tV I 0 0 0 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 2775 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S.Macleod Exhibit A 0 CL CL A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS 0 0 By Rafael E. De Arazoza Florida Department of Transportation District 6 602 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 377-5910 c And Douglas S. McLeod Florida Department of Transportation Mail Station 19 605 Suwannee Street c Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (904) 922-0449 cv cv For Presentation at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting January 1993 y UPDATE January 2021 i cv Updated by AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Based on input from the 2020/2021 US-1 LOS Task Force Page 1 of 11 Packet Pg. 2776 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod ABSTRACT N This paper presents the methodology developed to assess level-of-service (LOS) on US-1 in the Florida Keys. Although predominantly an uninterrupted flow two-lane roadway in the Keys, US-1's uniqueness warrants all alternative LOS evaluation process to that found in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. U.S.-1 extends from the Key West to the Florida mainland with no major roads intersecting it. Furthermore, no other principal arterial serves the Keys or the Keys' resident and tourist population, over 100,000. Its unique geography, land use patterns, trip making c characteristics presented a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to assess its LOS. A uniform method was developed to assess LOS on U.S.-1 to cover both its overall arterial length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 roadway segments delineated. The methodology employs average travel speed as the main measure of effectiveness. It was developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapters 7 (Rural Multilane 0 Highways), 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The results of the study correlate well with perceived operating conditions on US-1 and over a two- year period the methodology appears to have a good level of reliability. The authors recommend that for uninterrupted flow conditions in developed areas, Chapters 7 and 8 of the Highway Capacity Manual incorporates average travel speed as the main measure of effectiveness to determine LOS. cv c cv i Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 2777 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod A METHOD TO ASSESS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE �! ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS CD r9 INTRODUCTION 2 0 CL The purpose of this paper is to present the methodology developed by the Monroe County US- 1 level- of-service (LOS) Task Force to assess LOS on US-1 (the Overseas Highway) in the Florida Keys (1). The authors are members of the referenced task force. US-1 which is mostly two-lanes, has unique geographic and trip characteristics. It extends c through the Florida Keys covering approximately 180 kilometers (112 miles) from the City of Key West to the Florida mainland (Figure 1). There are 48 bridges crossing water for a total length of 35 km (22 mi), with the longest bridge approximately 11 km (7 mi) long. There is no other road, to provide vehicular access to the Florida Keys from the rest of Florida or anywhere else. Few local roads are 5 km(3 mi) in length. Consequently, US-1 serves not only as a regional principal arterial which serves intra as well as interstate travel, but also serves as the local road for most of the trips within the Keys. US-1 Annual average daily traffic 0 (AADT) volumes range from a low of 4700 to a high of 34200. The road serves a large tourist demand and is one of the most scenic in the United States. The linear geography with the narrow land width of most of the Florida Keys are further characteristics. Most of the surrounding land use is rural developed and suburban in nature; however, some areas are totally rural and others are urban, such as the Key West and its suburbs. With the c exception of the few completely rural segments and the bridges, strip commercial stores, motels and restaurants are very common throughout the Keys along US-1. Numerous cv driveways and intersecting local roads provide access to the surrounding residential areas. c The US-1 LOS study encompassed approximately 174 km(108 mi)of US-1 from Key West/Stock Island to the Monroe/Dade County Line, broken down as follows: 0 129 km (80 mi) (74%) two-lane uninterrupted flow; 0 32 km (20 mi) (19 %) four-lane uninterrupted flow; and cV� 0 13 km (8 mi) (7%) four-lane urban/suburban interrupted flow. Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 2778 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod Part of the growth management process in Florida is to assess roadway LOS to determine if roadway facilities meet standards established by state regulations. The Transportation "! Research Board Special Report 209 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2) is extensively used r9 throughout Florida as the source document to determine highway capacities and LOS. HCM Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and ca Suburban Arterials) were consulted to determine applicability to the unique conditions and vehicular traffic operations and characteristics of the Florida Keys. Only the 13 km (8 mi) of urban/suburban interrupted flow and the small percentage of the two-lane truly rural portions correlate directly to the HCM Chapters 11 and 8. 0 0 Thus, the challenge was to develop a methodology to assess arterial LOS along US-1 without o deviating from the principles of the HCM. Towards that end a task force was created consisting of representatives from State and local agencies and an engineering consulting firm. .� 0 0 m 0 0 cv cv 0 0 cv i m Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 2779 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod THE NEED TO DEVELOP A LOS MEASUREMENT METHODCD N From a state transportation perspective, the overall operating condition of US-1 is important, not the condition of any smaller segment. With Key West as a major tourist destination at the CL southern end of the Keys and no alternative routes, the logical analysis section of highway CL extends from Key West to the mainland. From local transportation and development approval perspectives,shorter segments for analysis are desirable. Chapter 8 of the HCM presents a methodology which applies to typical rural two-lane highways o with basically long stretches of roads,and few side intersecting streets and driveways directly connecting to the roads. Chapter 8 methodology relies mainly on "percent time delay" to assess LOS. The HCM further states that "Percent time delay...is defined as the average percent of time that all vehicles are delayed while traveling in platoons due to inability to pass. Percent time delay is difficult to measure directly in the field. The percent of vehicles traveling at headways less than 5 seconds can be used as a surrogate measure in field studies." 0 0 Chapter 8 of the HCM also uses average travel speed and capacity utilization as additional o measures of effectiveness to assess LOS. However, the HCM states clearly that percent time o delay is the primary measure of service quality. Further inspection of the average speeds for level terrain depicted by Table 8-1 of the HCM do not correspond well with the typical operating speeds of US-1 in the Florida Keys. For instance, Table 8-1 shows average speeds ranging from 58 mph (93 kmh) (LOS A) to 45 mph (72 kmh) (LOS D). The overall weighted posted speed limit for US-1 in the Florida Keys is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph). `V cv The overall median operating speeds along US-1 according to the 1991 and 1992 field studies (3, 4) were 76.8 and 75.5 kmh (47.7 and 46.9 mph), respectively. The field studies showed, for the most part, the survey vehicle(s) was traveling close to the posted speed limit. 0 0 It is believed the average motorist in the Florida Keys is mostly concerned with operating at an acceptable average travel speed rather than being concerned about the ability to i pass. This is supported by the physical and traffic characteristics of the Keys (e.g., adjacent land development, sight-seeing tourists), local knowledge, and discussions with motorists. Page 5 of 11 Packet Pg. 2780 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod From the above statements, it was clear to the task team that HCM Chapter 8 methodology could not be applied to US-1 for analysis of its two-lane sections. n! With regards to the four-lane uninterrupted flow portions of US-1, a similar dilemma occurred. r9 HCM Chapter 7 methodology applies to multi-lane highways with operating characteristics generally unlike those of US-1 through the Florida Keys. For instance, average travel speeds CL 0 CL depicted by Table 7-1 of the HCM are also higher than those encountered in the Keys. Further, the methodology inherent in equations (7-1), (7-2) and (7-3)are closely related to those of freeways with their higher service flow rates, which again neither simulate nor resemble those of US-1 in the Keys. The Four-lane portion is found mostly in Key Largo(the northeastern end of the Keys) which has a weighted posted speed limit of 72.5 kmh (45 mph). Key largo is 0 developed with strip commercial and residential development. It has numerous driveway connections and side streets directly accessing US-1. o The remaining 7% of the total US-1 mileage is four-lane interrupted flow. These are the portions encompassing Marathon(in the middle of the Keys)and Stock Island(near Key West). The operating characteristics here are truly urban/suburban and interrupted flow in nature 0 resembling those of HCM Chapter 11. Thus, the methodology of Chapter 11 was employed in 0 assessing LOS on these segments. 0 From the preceding discussion, it was evident that a distinct method to assess LOS on US-1 had to be developed. The task team's efforts concentrated on keeping consistency with the basic philosophy of the HCM,and yet be sensitive to the Keys uniqueness. Thus,the proposed methodology correlates measured travel speeds along US-1 with LOS speed thresholds developed as part of this study. This is in line with the concept behind the HCM of average cv travel speed being the main parameter to measure arterial LOS. cv 0 0 cv i m Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 2781 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod METHODOLOGY cv Considering the types of trips served by US-1, it was decided to conduct travel time and delay r9 runs to cover both the entire length of US-1 from Key West to the Monroe/Dade County Line (mainland) and for each segment of the highway along the way. Twenty-four segments were 0 selected as depicted by Table 1. Each segment is fairly homogeneous in nature having a uniform roadway cross section and traffic flow. Travel speeds for the overall length (from Key West to the mainland) provide an indication of the LOS for the regional trips. Travel speeds for each segment also provides an opportunity 0 to assess the impact of local trips. Establishing speed criteria for both the overall length 0 and for each roadway segment satisfies the requirements of the Florida growth management o process. The next step in the process was to determine the number of travel time runs and how, when and to/from where. Runs were started at both ends of US-1. For example, one run started on 0 Stock Island (Key West City limits) and proceeded to the mainland (Dade County). After 0 reaching this point, the vehicle turned back and proceeded to end the run where it started, on Stock Island. On another day the reverse was true (i.e., the run started in Dade County instead of Stock Island). It was decided to perform a total of fourteen two-way runs or twenty-eight in each direction covering the 174 km (108 mi)study portion of US-1. Twenty-eight runs provide enough data for statistical significance. Control points were established at each of the 24 segments to record travel time and speed data specific to each one of those segments. Seven runs were started at Stock Island and seven in Dade County. Each began at staggered hours cv to cover the varied trip purposes and time frames within the Keys. The surveys were conducted cv during March, reflecting the area's peak traffic season. 0 The 2021 travel time runs shall be conducted based on the current schedule. In addition, supplemental runs shall be conducted in the southbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during AM peak (7-8 am) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. Also, conduct supplemental runs in the northbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during the PM i cv Peak (5-6pm) on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second week. The results of the supplemental runs will be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report for informational purposes only and will not be used in overall or segment LOS calculations. This information will be reviewed o to decide if supplemental runs should be incorporated into future ATTDS and LOS calculations, as directed by the Monroe County BOCC. Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 2782 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod N For each run the process provided data (see Exhibit 1, Data Collection Methodology), such as r9 running speed and travel speed, in each direction of US-1. Vehicular traffic counts were also collected at three locations covering seven days. CL 0 CL The travel time runs yielded a total of 28 one-way travel speed values for the overall length of US-1 and for each of the 24 segments. The value selected for analysis was the median speed which would reflect a "typical peak period during the peak season." In other developed parts of Florida the typical peak hour of the peak season approximates the 100th highest hour of 0 the year(5). The median value was also selected, instead of the average,to avoid the influence 0 of extremely high or low speed value at either end of the survey population. The process up o to this point provided median travel speeds. The question then became, what LOS do these speeds represent. The next step was to develop a set of LOS/Speed threshold values for both the overall length 0 of US-1 and the pertinent segments of the highway. Towards this end, the speed ratios 0 between LOS thresholds from Tables 7-1, 8-1 and 11-1 of the HCM were used in the analysis. These ratios were weighted against actual mileage of US-1 in the Florida Keys to represent the prevailing type of flow; two-lane uninterrupted flow, four-lane uninterrupted flow and four- lane interrupted flow. For example, from the level terrain portion of HCM Table 8-1, the ratio between LOS B speed and LOS A speed is 55/58 = 0.948. The ratio between LOS C/LOS A = 52/58 = 0.897; the ratio between LOS D/LOS A = 50/58 = 0.862 and so on. The same process was applied to Tables 7-1 (96.6 kmh)(60 mph)and 11-1. Then each ratio was weighted to take N into account the length of the section of US-1 to which that type of traffic flow applied. Once cv all the ratios were developed, the weight criteria was applied as in the following example: 0 TYPE OF FLOW LOS C/LOS A RATIO WEIGHT Two-lane uninterrupted 52/58 = 0.897 74 Four-lane uninterrupted 44/50 = 0.880 19 Four-lane interrupted 22/35 = 0.629 07 N� X Therefore, the overall speed ratio between LOS C and LOS A is: [74(0.897)+19(0.880)+7(0.629)]+100=0.875 Page 8 of 11 Packet Pg. 2783 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod The above process was applied to develop all the required ratios. Further observations with reference to Tables 8-1, 7-1 and 11-1 yielded the following. From Table 8-1 the difference "! between LOS A and LOS B speeds is 4.8 kmh (3 mph), or 4.8 kmh (3 mph)above an assumed r9 posted speed limit of 88 kmh (55 mph). From Tables 7-1 and 11-1 the differences are 3.2 kmh and 11.3 kmh (2 mph and 7 mph), respectively, with LOS lower than assumed speed limits. 0 Therefore, from these observations plus local knowledge, it was determined that the overall US-1 posted speed limit is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) reasonably fell between the LOS A and B thresholds. This assumption is not far away from the premise that if a vehicle is able to sustain a travel 0 speed equal to the posted speed limit, then it will correspond typically with the upper ranges of LOS (i.e., LOS A or B). o With the above speed differentials and LOS range premise in mind, the US-1 overall speed thresholds for LOS A and B became 82.1 kmh (51 mph) (2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above 79.7 kmh (49.5) and 77.3 kmh (48 mph), respectively. Applying the developed ratio between LOS 0 C/LOS A to the LOS A speed resulted in 72.5 kmh (45 mph), rounded off (i.e., 0.875 x 82.1 0 kmh (51 mph) = 71.8 kmh (44.6 mph)), which then became the threshold for LOS C. After m applying all the ratios the overall LOS criteria for US-1 became: 0 LOS Speed A >_ 82 kmh (51 mph) B >_ 77 kmh (48 mph) C >_ 72 kmh (45 mph) 04 CD 04 D >_ 68 kmh (42 mph) E >_ 58 kmh (36 mph) 0 F < 58 kmh (36 mph) 0 Inspection of the criteria above indicates a close relationship with the speed differentials of both Tables 8-1 and 7-1 of the HCM. Comparing the median speed data for US-1 from the 1991 and 1992 field studies to the above criteria resulted in an overall LOS of C for both years, i i.e., 76.8 kmh (47.7 mph)for 1991 and 75.5 kmh (46.9 mph)for 1992. These speeds are 2.9 kmh (1.8 mph)and 4.2 kmh(2.6 mph) below the overall weighted 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) speed limit, which would correspond to the upper range of LOS C. The authors also believe that LOS C is the appropriate LOS designation for the whole of US-1 from Key West to the mainland. Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 2784 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod N A final step was still needed to complete the task of developing LOS/Speed threshold values for the segments of US-1. No further work was needed to cover the 7% mileage of the interrupted portions of US-1 found on Marathon and Stock Island, adjacent to Key West. 2 As discussed earlier, these segments correlate with Chapter 11 of the HCM. Therefore,direct application of Table 11-1 LOS/speed criteria for a Class I arterial was made. The remaining segments fell within the two-lane and four lane uninterrupted flow criteria. It was decided to make LOS A speed criterion 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the weighted posted c speed limit in order to keep consistency with the overall criteria. LOS C speed was set 9.7 kmh (6 mph) below LOS A speed consistent with Tables 7-1 and 8-1 of the HCM. LOS B and D c m speed criteria were set to provide equal increments between LOS A and LOS D (i.e., LOS B 4.8 kmh (3 mph) below LOS A speed and LOS D 4.8 kmh (3 mph)below LOS C speed). LOS E was set 9.7 kmh (6 mph) below the LOS D Speed. This makes the segmental speed differential between LOS thresholds consistent with the differentials in the overall criteria, except for one consideration. On any uninterrupted flow segment, signalized intersection delay would be deducted from the segment's travel time to account for the influence of that signal ^" the seg the traffic signals (i.e., signal delay = 1.0 x 4�35 seconds average stopped delay). This corresponds to an LOS C delay due to isolated signals. LOS C delay was chosen because LOS C is the state LOS standard for US-1 in the Florida Keys. The rationale behind deducting signal delay from the segment analysis was to recognize the impact of signals in reducing travel time. This provides the required sensitivity in the segment which is not only to assess the impact of regional vehicular trips, but also those that are local in nature. The following illustrates the concept plus one example for the US-1 Segmental LOS/speed relationship. N o The uninterrupted flow segment criteria are: c LOS SPEED A >_ 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the posted speed limit B >_ 4.8 kmh (3.0 mph) below LOS A C >_ 9.7 kmh (6.0 mph) below LOS A i D >_ 14.5 kmh (9.0 mph) below LOS A `V E >_ 24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A F <24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A o A segment having a weighted posted speed limit of 72 kmh (45 mph)would then have this criteria: Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 2785 R.5.e R.E. De Arazoza D.S. Macleod N LOS SPEED T; A >_ 74.9 kmh (46.5 mph) B >_ 70.0 kmh (43.5 mph) C >_ 65.2 kmh (40.5 mph) CL c D >_ 60.4 kmh (37.5 mph) CL E >_ 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph) F < 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph) o The LOS/Speed criteria for interrupted flow segments (marathon and Stock c Island)are based directly on a Class I arterial from Table 11-1 of the HCM. 0 LOS SPEED A >_ 56.4 kmh (35 mph) B >_ 45.1 kmh (28 mph) C >_ 35.4 kmh (22 mph) D >_ 27.4 kmh (17 mph) E >_ 20.9 kmh (13 mph) 0 F < 20.9 kmh (13 mph) Speed data from both the overall length of US-1 and the individual segments were compared against the applicable LOS/speed thresholds. This provided for an assessment of the facility LOS plus an indication of reserve speed, if any. N Under Florida's and Monroe County's growth management process if the overall LOS for cv US-1 fell below the LOS C standard, then no additional land development would be allowed to proceed in the Florida Keys. Unless the proposed new development traffic impact were mitigated. If the overall LOS for US-1 was C or better, then additional development could take place in those segments where there was reserve speed available (i.e., segment's speed was higher than the standard threshold). N i Besides meeting highway LOS standards there are numerous other considerations in Florida's growth management process pertaining to the Florida Keys that are beyond the scope of this paper. As mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this study was to present the E methodology to assess-LOS on US-1. Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 2786 R.5.e Exhibit 1 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY (Previously Approved by Task Force) Calibration of the DMI 0 CL Prior to beginning the study, the DMI was calibrated over a half-mile course. The CL calibration procedure set-up by the DMI manufacturer established a calibration factor of 0.682 for the test vehicle, which resulted in measurements within 3 feet of the 5,280- foot distance (0.057%). At this level of accuracy, the DMI would measure the 108 mile distance of US 1 between Stock Island and the Dade County line to within 325 feet, or to within 0.03 mile per hour(mph) of the 45 mph standard for LOS C. Floating Car Method a9d Passinqcore c 0 The study employed the floating car method, whereby under ideal conditions the test vehicle passes and is passed by an equal number of vehicles (i.e. "goes with the flow"). E A passing score was recorded for each segment to document the extent to which this objective was accomplished. Positive scores indicate the number of excess vehicles the test car passed; negative scores indicate the number of excess vehicles that passed the test car; and zero indicates an even balance. The overall passing score consists of the sum of the segment scores. ` % CD The passing score provided an objective measure of the traffic flow, allowing the driver to adjust the test car speed accordingly. In the event that the traffic flow was higher than the posted speed limit, as was frequently the case in the Dade County and Boca Chica segments, the test car also traveled above the speed limit.Vehicles turning on or off US 1 were omitted from the passing score. Employing the floating car method in two-lane segments was fairly straightforward, where the observers frequently encountered platoons of sufficient size to discourage or prohibit passing. When positioned at the rear or in the middle of a platoon, the observers simply traveled with the pack.When positioned as the lead car,the observers c avoided delaying the platoon yet kept the platoon within sight. On two-lane segments the observers occasionally encountered stopped vehicles waiting to turn left, raising the question of whether the test vehicle should leave the ' lane or paved road surface and pass to the right of the stopped vehicle. When the vehicles ahead of the observers passed to the right of the stopped vehicle, then the observers did also. However, when the test car was the lead car in the platoon, the observers only passed on the right if they could do so without leaving the paved y roadway. w Within four-lane segments with light congestion, the observers often encountered traffic traveling in the right lane at or below the posted speed limit, while there was little ca or no traffic in the left lane. Rather than "floating" below the speed limit in the right lane Ni or traveling at the maximum possible speed in the left lane, the observers traveled at the posted speed limit, which resulted in passing score as high as +10. Thus, in these cases,a passing score of zero is undesirable,since the corresponding speed would fail to reflect the availability of the vacant passing lane. Within four-lane segments with moderate or heavy congestion, the observers often encountered separate platoons in the right and left lanes, with the left lane typically Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 2787 R.5.e Exhibit 1 moving at a faster speed. Rather than continuously changing lanes to achieve a passing score of zero, the test car"floated" in the faster of the two platoons,which also yielded high passing scores. Platoon Size To provide a measure of roadway congestion within each segment,the average number CL c of vehicles traveling in the test car's platoon was recorded, including the test car itself. CL Within four-lane segments,this number represents the average number of vehicles that traveled in the test car's platoon within the test car's lane. Treat men o slay In accordance with the FDOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies, the observers began c recording delay when the test car's speed fell to 5 mph and terminated the delay event when the test car's speed rose to 15 mph. Each delay entry was identified, in the DMI c memory by a sequential code number. The observers recorded the type and location of the delay on a field data sheet. When computing both segments and overall travel times, delays due to typical events such as turning movements, traffic signals, and certain types of congestion were included. Unusual or non-recurring delays, such as construction, accidents, school bus, and emergency vehicles were excluded. Delays due to drawbridge openings were should be deducted from the segment travel times(all affected segments), but inGlude e and the overall travel times, to account for the influence of the drawbridge openings. A delay of 6 minutes should be deducted from those travel time runs that c were impacted by bridge openings. -However, regardless of how a particular type of delay was treated in the analysis, all delays of all types were identified and recorded on the field data sheets. Occasionally an external event slowed traffic speeds, but not enough to meet the 5 mph criteria for a formal delay. Highway construction and maintenance activities were the most common example of this borderline situation. The decision of whether to record these events was made on a case-by-case basis in the field. As long as the observers were traveling at speeds within 5 to 10 mph of the posted speed limit and the event occurred over a distance of about a mile or less, the event was not recorded. However, if the activity caused speeds slower than this or when the observers witnessed active cv interference, such as bulldozers or flagman blocking the traffic, the event was recorded and later excluded from the analysis. Ca cv i Pale 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 2788 R.5.f,i Exhibit 3 I N gFugn • . ,2 V.I. CL In ft I u �! ot*e UA t .9 IT,EM RACKGROV,NM As c9led far by paucy 301ax dbk U& + f d bI • i W'w,fGr WOW09,dw w0hc&-Jogy. A 0 bdtfmg will • ■ l buw a dw ;& TOTAL COI Now• -- ( y W A".ROVED ! , • INAKU4 Mg CN I ' M _. .- Packet Pg. 2789 n! 'J. MCGRM, ® Nowriber ,. ' CL t l at Swim 2 I. r i � * . . affi Departmd a to b k VS:. 1# , a bwwpwb °on waft G3 S"ffwft of * and ", 1 l , '. ■ kWtdng I ; - ir*Uco w , • R I *Vol swvico f. I KXC adv*W Ow T r ®I M U.S. t 04mm'*Woni E - (J Packet Pg. 2790 . , wNSPONAMOV, 6DWEROMBLVa.ffi • Litpupwgmpmm+IMI7 •f • ga%. I t f ` ry r9 #` CJ i IffMONRORCOMM ® AQ of E Service ?law find otmiched a s • . " WWhodoI .. U) has met to vo�ontldor • I r . . owasy levelPom • usn>. Ii + r I 1i r i 4=6 an Us. 1. The iumbas 1 Floids DopmMmt of TmWmiono Dq===t OMMONVILY 'a 0 mothWolog forusad 1 ofuwk*cmUAi . . tit . 1. I ,girgusu • i f . I pmeme . •• als of .,I. ` in - CaI i iouft bc ioWd by eg wiffic ISO Task Pura in • • ce i 1 e r ®I pted you admid me to °a bWat ofildis in Z l which Mlowlas Mu of ` C si Monme s : .. i . i I lowls of smice-NNW corApeted on . Ii f . bit MjRWWA witMe " i FILE Kate.Ift Packet Pg. 2791 r r- , 1 •Wag ft nwmmenW 25 swoiW odiwMangrl 2 .11w IM • ! speed . vJw&AW AdjusimenC wMeh is leawd ImmodWyi . ThM if dw r j u. Addidefid W 40WOpmW to omwe subject to The rMdUlim ii ' . 11 on Big Fine K11W si do t1wowOng 1n a re'linAwdan devilopmeM 0 g ngwft thr i i G rgommC p cWW to the spW-bacd motaddogy for deamdning kW of mWce wo UX . plow give me&=11 ir)*u UM to discos dft Mona Andw. Simadyt r MCc 0 0 ® • 4tc® tJ tJ h I ®P4Shompm LM ConalsoM Irmo r N r M ®I M Packet Pg. 2792 �f WITTE :19 SWW COWEAERVALMO-WM LAUKNDALC PLUM MAI M-1245—f4l, U.S. i LEVEL OF SERVICE 2 Mmember DATED CL -- MWm 1, cami c ito twin-".Los SUFAM 'Im• t ; ; ah&g i. i to have it Los D mododolov V=dew . i i i * ° ®• . FlWda CD tided UrS f J• 1, . . 1 . i • J -000 e i i 1 •�� lli - , cD Wjocufm of 130�' 'oak Fo�►ce IAct the card ofcmv caimbsimm In ,jbr anabft she i r Wkm Amiffdjtw PS-1. K 1014 Of Ws C. cmuWiw impict i is t t : Packet Pg. 2793 rOFJWVJM • I ® � tMkW lb lArdwed IN.Mmh J9010 anN ( E , to MwIffir t PeMMM count qr SWUM1, t t c 2 dV wd*fir r c- MDn .�';iaM*awe Asir CL e�At MMrhOdOjOV dowoW by® rho 1 LOS 3 Few r oves'of � m Ow Few Ike mffk~®; e SUM1,340tv or FWDINGS 'a 0 in , . . to Mdaw clonty. w momm ,far'darmidng , tin ing CD minims d"umm ag tbw AbuN M aid�• CN CN E cto i • cudaft do Trawd Timeof 6tyuk sk web of idle Wiwr Mooftginw at=to impWis • ` ® `��' jh& " . t Cmkkft- thme yem of mediant Lowebis Packet Pg. 2794 ® via rAsK Facs Fmjtct N.- Abwmkr • Adjusting dw wmds of R Signals N 9f do J&M of C i existing. y The Tmk Force cmalft tll1 t T L" 1 I. 0. increm At deley A410SUM00t for signmkUwad an an QniMem,pW*&W 1 '!y l s naimtv TM TA*raw-Service C l►y t E w that adiumma to to �l 1� c 0 Four I l ; , 1. mmaiw a it it 3."Mdm mWr . eIli Mid anise 1 Rto set =W Lm swWamis F In MAMMUly emu 0014thm wmdxm t V46 do , a � � - r f when 11imml1 below&c tt old 1mNl spd for drat WgxML II ` Cal CD a _ f N ' i v i . r ® e . tw) =, P imeml to an i t of canOwn amwe lum hu pffl4dedwo t iUSIRCapomted Mmmm CopinLy and ii inM 592MCNIL E ��-The Task Force ommidemd dmuffingthe time . ilk inek on ) uhan travel din SUMP Ole c t .. dw MOM ;" Packet Pg. 2795 OFSFAWF r . . 1 i A 1S . gownsbpd mdm to ft volum-104voiCL _Cdculmdon1 ' t owtswima-have only 311sm Aftes. die ( L&WWAft . . The wamm jWjjL Howmr, cO*gjjlmg ream to mdie mh a a . 1U TA*Fam Ommad 10 m ot`aacm point dw+1t _addride t io signal$WINS �, • #a s no ne To* Form c ' in i ` r . apply two-Ism . . ® -ipacity t ' i • r i® A• $ r doy am mile te b • i i T-i LOS 1 • X • i . ! I@%jl asguo" U im,d M%im gw cub mpma r&dW dm osing qed don ftm c mad mm am Year. m Rmb in ONO h N Packet Pg. 2796 i ® I IraWled an m OWIRMMqAW _ N swoU t i 0 ® C it nmeSM7 to am"" am I of .2 yam ofmWm mpod Mo. 0 CL CL t swiftIm-d spied ftTwk Few im r li f • ® • 1. t mmkmnt Vvid,ihe105 • _ e � ° •' Posed 0 1C • value romims '') Wit f 1 -is • t With tk wrnm WO adjuiumn on Avg up"Ra of U.S. . �- R „ In&a Lml of wi * "maimml mom xi •' .WINGOW, he i tabular, ' - l 1 • ` 1 i Ca, -1 SWpj'.. a ji � M mu Ila ` . Thi OcamIllid Tables1 ' ul as ! -of SOMet ! madmidolejw for LSC1 ! f r . 1 ° • 0. opwate.ar e e I i . 1 ® • rmBig pige It yam a r 1 i� �t Packet Pg. 2797 a ®A&Ivmkt I lanoBdum v4th 1JUdPWMbalhlaWed docidoft twida t tappas dot to WoM-bmd.00hoddlRBY ' iduAlf.eft `' • r 40c.0mining lavd of MMOC 1 CL CwMdy i nd is I Irip fim 1he Dade Cow" lia to the cow Key I tit 1t' 1 r a S i usluld be teip n . . o ' 4 is a policy dawou to �, W sandird for U.S. I. th m a lilgods am iftWied ad go pw,vd qp"Ihnia M mdumd in l l r 45 fa r . (, to Cal an twould a. _ ._ ® i Ii It limit to G l E t e I' IkwMd =� .li o } Packet Pg. 2798 I I I I � 2 E � � I I � -- E rv, i r,a — 6 + C wmm t I= r 1 a Eto � I i I i t Packet Pg 2799 I I LI I ( I is Mc , i I i it I I I f ( i , i 1 • I I i I i i I i I f I,. I I I s I I, i I I _ f I 1 _ i, "• #,�j �` `' 1^ � !R sir. rl g, v m rt 1 ) � u 7711 I 1 ry 1 •ut �a•nt,.l', � la 4 �, s r-, s 4 'i> t 1 gmrj I + _ Ii ^ x j • R"PPMORWF SUMMARNOMSCUUMN gh1t 2 Nmba f CL c� DeNdo f Inumpted Plow SWIM" . l r c 1 0 WM:m® . ®va r ewa ow The moft wit dismai DoQ li d uknwm y 1, s s q erq s to �111t , .4. AU*w U=W CMW,10 sd . . R` I imeffilwo1uKtArims OM ' ■ a.. -. , Cal- �.. . N- hW mediw a CD C C 2. COUIL it y cu c� ® ® ql Foot ` _ Packet Pg. 2803 fqnwqw at LOS Mn&M an ■ • Compmbmsive p1j, ■ %r,docidw CmmuMWAfUm whichgafted • 1 v • i and to daft da y a CL yields t f 6Lmw.Mr.WolD ` 1�3 i ® ' *r `. umU • s r vmdd qwm at Lew of ' f • 1 .. v - : i 3 9 ituse ® ■ r6romACoin 111 . f . . C='Koy.ChmAM1&KP be Alit it d • Ranh UI mwto mkg&Aew _*a to Tq*Folvisi n is f, •_ e 4. C cSi ppmowCal fvw1didoNd&FWTpwWdcd9ivc*&Yudk • autme ew ■ i 4 i e dfb@ Tak c to comb*miaoradjusmenls 10 the rip�D0d0% RdnP „ E w� M Packet Pg. 2804 771 ! d41 tf, [ r: til`.. 77 I 1 1 ( S _ r t 5 17 y^r I pp ii � {_a I,s J fey_['::'❑ I.. y , I f 4 '�.. t I i Y r7 ^^ jl . k 5.... I AI t IL ✓IN m *. I RA r p. CL c CL } 1. M r ® ` N tOn As �%- j t g N E Packet Pg. 2806 s M&AI LEVIEL eirsERVICE TASK _ c� 2 W %IN in" millmg ETi i *MM'soadder 1 - . r 1 -h'lc` l® 1 - . , •r r . 0 r W 0 Wy mn timm for 6phri IbAmim mom baM ca chuses ift Peak amd WDVA,fimes ift Fladda Keys. hCal P ,C„ 13 wmk . do t 'TwU*No should consuff oft Ilawmammenis now i Mile Packet Pg. 2807 I Com - f 1 ® ... 2 ... :. CL 4. { - 1 1 0 ` -a so olimmeal y + Wits® ,• .,fir:�, •a M sea AMA • , ti E ti *mhoM vdm. - YC witfby doe' Valle PS. LU '• G3 , - I ° i Packet Pg. 2808 c� c� .2 v Weed oft*KjmntdWt0dWPFM=ft0fatmMJf", ® W c Y o +using ' i + . l Immiftili ftvw ofavk C44 i E i j Packet Pg. 2809 ® r ®•r c� 0 00000 low, CL Cn NINO 0 swum now, INFO 0 ♦ +. 10 i` !o F N • r Alk r a i ■ w�l Packet Pg. 2810 ry i u I y CL CL t JIL ado 4 I 804ft - qy .,< < Of "owl*oft"Wwomm" WNW ? *aims on Tww 'San CD 14 I I Packet Pg. 2811 � I hr b t • *p n 4 d _ f I M � y e rAiP Mr� � s 2 t I i I +I" ... . .. .... .2 00 c- CIL 71 Y m c g m J ` " i i c� Pro E Soma Em i s M womb Packet Pg. 2813 .2 0 CL CL �' to CD 0 CD "Pot kwob ' w (L � . • � . R PRIM WAA - r r a _ r Packet Pg. 2814 AAA ofvw wo arc Jill l�lloomlommm tv CD r9 I 2 own ..,. CIO mom i mom I won jot imp"P49M MIN ilia"114111111111, c a ,w. 6 NOW on bow Cal It, mill. MwA If I opw r U . ,k Y Packet Pg. 2815 . 1 W .2 0 c. Wed awf C � . . c maim CD 47 Ims slat low IV " ill -Ap - c c c L i I • T e, C-1 - 4 i ® -� £ „9 AVOW r °e ® WWa + e ~'+•...,,,,ram � �I Packet Pg. 2816 end r r+r r ■• -����� • • r r r .• Poll loll �g'm 40 • CIL rCIL ' 0 ._. avow"off*wrooft it Im x Cal A*KGO �k a M m - r N via LU XW r • r G3 U • • 0 Packet Pg. 2817 t L N w r 2 • 0 • 41 CL rpm qoo*%mw ta*w We rum" e 0 0 wow NAM'WO: � a , J 0 F.n2 Mon" F4 I 0 CN "Ago, .. r I _ 4 LU ®I um M t ■ Packet Pg. 2818 • °2 - - CL ILI RON ., cu 4 WOU 4-1 .,1,44, r 40 IL . W P 0 21 AM* qq;; �.. _ vmcw M .. i 9- • .,• _... 0 V 46 .. rib* to a LU �i r i Packet Pg. 2819 b a a i I t' R P - A. �... • • 1 I A 8 � A iI R it k g a 4n 2 CL CL - Ow Aft"Im; IMF" qswwwwlwolww� _ 1 'a 0 ® 1w, . Wo lair � i fJl law is to mot* e �. aw cub �i IWO Packet Pg. 2821 s 7 IL I n �4 a �R' I 1ba� h r g � 4 m S i Y4 A x 4 F n v m. M M 4 � ♦a I " F. I' a �� Div • N ® PWAMWAF CL + OWLIwill (h � � r w 0 . •' J _ CJ ■ T- M I p - Alli LU C k 131 .N o ■ Packet Pg. 2823 • ry of r 6 CL CL 6 � a— gi ® c c s . f ® 4 c c c J ® e ca ca i w cai c� i I 6 Packet Pg. 2824 r9 m ®. ca J W c w tJ E i B Packet Pg. 2825 i of t-. AI it- Rom VIM 717 � I -i I � � I I +, NA27 :2 e i tN ka s , r A , R„ �f , , a i sae; 0 am � R r , , 9 � - .. F left t: ry 2 0 CL CL c c J c 0 0 0 ca i ca C44 i w c� m u Packet Pg. 2828 County of Monroe rt �ko BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS by Irl Mayor Michelle Coldiron,District 2 Mayor Pro Tern David Rice,District 4 'Me Florida Keys � - �� Craig Cates,District 1 Eddie Martinez,District 3 .w `'" Mike Forster,District 5 County Commission Meeting July 15, 2020 Agenda Item Number: I.1 W Agenda Item Summary #6519 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper(305) 289-2500 2:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction on the 2019 US1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study and the preparation of the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report E as well as the level of service and concurrency reviews for development proposals. ITEM BACKGROUND: The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result in a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and LDC have adopted level of service (LOS) standards for roads, particularly US Highway 1, which is part of the Florida Department of U) Transportation (FDOT) State Highway System. 0 Policy 301.1.2 c For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five percent �� (5%) of LOS C. .2 Sec. 114-2. - Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures. � (a) Level of Service Standards (LOS). All development shall be served by adequate public facilities in accordance with the following standards: LO (1) Transportation/Roadways. W a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial length E and the 24 roadway segments of U.S. 1, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. 1n addition, all segments of U.S. 1, as identified in the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C. N b. Development may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all other �! permitted development will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent (5%) below LOS "' C, as measured by the U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific Packet Pg. 2829 R.5.g improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS C and/or deficiencies. 0 This LOS standard is used within the County's Concurrency Management System to review 0 development proposals and ensure that the transportation facilities needed to serve development will 0 be in place when the impacts of the development occur; to evaluate any potential degradation in the 0) adopted LOS; and to determine the need for improvements in order to achieve and maintain the v) adopted LOS standard. Concurrency must be satisfied at the time a development permit is issued; at the time a certificate of occupancy; or through a binding contract or agreement for the necessary facility and/or service improvements or proportionate share contribution. Policy 101.1.5 Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the impacts of the v) development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained, prior to commencement of construction, a developer is required to enter into a binding and legally enforceable commitment to the County to assure construction or a improvement of proportionate share of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The development E of a single family residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this i= requirement. Policy 301.2.3 76 Monroe County shall not permit new development which would significantly degrade the LOS below the adopted LOS standards on U.S. 1 (overall) unless the proportionate share of the impact is mitigated. The development of one single family residential unit, on a single parcel, shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this requirement. A five percent projected decrease in travel speeds,below LOS C, v) is a significant degradation in the level of service on U.S. 1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D standard by more than five percent is a significant degradation in the level of service on any other C County road. o m To determine the level of service on U.S. 1, the County's traffic consultant conducts an established systematic traffic monitoring program, developed by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force, to monitor traffic 0 volumes and travel speeds of U.S. 1 as well as on each of the 24 study segments on U.S. 1. This review has been conducted since 1992. The review was completed annually until 2013 and since 2013 the review has been conducted every two years (2013, 2015, 2017 & 2019). This information is provided as a report titled, the US I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study. �+ LO It is important to note, that the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force developed a unique methodology to assess o level of service for the Florida Keys to cover both its overall arterial length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 roadway segments delineated, based on an average travel speed formula. The data is collected over fourteen (14) round trips for a total of 28 travel time runs with a staggered schedule of departure times (generally between 9am and 4pm). These runs are represent a sample of two runs for each day of the week. The seven-day, 24-hour traffic data are collected in Islamorada, Marathon, and Big Pine Key. Li r®® Over the years, there have been timeframes where certain segments of U.S. 1 have experienced a degradation of traffic speeds/LOS but not for U.S. 1 overall (entire arterial length). Unlike prior E Packet Pg. 2830 R.5.g years, the draft 2019 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study indicates that the overall LOS for the entire length of U.S. 1 has fallen from LOS C to LOS D, and there is no reserve capacity for additional trips. According to the policies and regulations in the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, this would mean that County may not permit o new development, other than single family homes, unless the proposed development's traffic impact 'a is mitigated(see attachment with Comprehensive Plan and LDC transportation provisions). 0 a� Excerpt from draft 2019 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study: 2019 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND RESERVE CAPACITY ADJ.. AD I(USTED MEDIAN 2019 2017 SEGMENT LENGTH FACILITY POSTED SPEED FOR L)S C TRAVEL LOS RESERVE MAXIMUM RESERVE 5',ALLOCATION MAXIMUM RESERVE (mites) TYPE L€mots Average SIGNAL CRITERIA SPEECH SPEED VOLUME BELOW11i VOLUME {anph3 itnPh) ImPh) (inPh) (mph) (mplr) (trips} {trips) (trips) 1 Suck Island(4.0-5.0) 1.10 4-LT) W45 429 WA 220 33.0 B 11.0 2,004 2,207 1.348 � 2 Boca Chica(5.0-9..0) 3.9 4-LID 45155 54.7 WA 5D.2 55.8 B 5.6 3,617 5,249 6.0�71 3 Big Cappiri(9 D-13.5) 'I.5 2-LD 45i-5 457 W 412 46.1 B 4.9 1,217 1,737 1.341 4 Saddiebunch(10.5-16.F) 5.8 2-LfU 45i55 53.6 WA 49.1 52.0 C 2.9 2,785 5,102 4.034 5 Sugarloaf(I6 5-20.5) 3.9 2-LfU 45 45.Ci 4.5 36.0 48.1 A 12.1 7,815 8,966 7.944 6 Cudjoe(20.5-23.0) 2.5 2-LfU 45 45.Ci WA 4D..5 47.2 A 6.7 2,774 3,612 3.198 (B 7 Summerland(23:0-25.0) 2.2 2-LAU 45 45.Ci WA 4D..5 45.2 B 4.7 1,712 2,466 1.639 � 5 Ramrod(25.0-27.5) 2.3 2-LAU 45 45.0 WA 4D..5 46.7 A 6.2 2,361 3.,138 2.133 9 Torch(27.5-2q.51 2.1 2-LfU 45 45.Ci WA 4D..5 48.1 A 7.6 2,643 3,352 2.504 ID Big Pine(2q.5-3.3..17) 3.4 2-LfU 45 45.Ci 4.0 36..5 42.4 B 5.9 3,322 4,332 1.295 Z II Bahia Honda 030-400; 7.0 2LfU(70%) 45I53155 524 WA, 47.9 54.2 A 6.3 7,303 10.047 6.723 4-LT)(30'!) 12 7-Mile Brag.(40.0-47 a) 68 2-UU 45I53155 54 4 NIA 49.9 53.4 B 3.5 3,941 6,711 3.603 1® 13 Marathon(47 0-.54..D) 7.3 2 LU(f3'!) 35145 42.3 WA 22.0 37.9 A 15.9 19,221 20.518 19,221 4-UD(87!j ate.. 14 Grassy(54.0-60.5) 6.4 2-LfU 45i55 54.6 (A 48.7 50�.7 C 2.1 2,226 4,794 3.296 15 Duck(60.5-63,0) 2.7 2-LfU 55 55.3 WA 5D..5 53.3 C 2.8 1,252 2,402 1.252 16 Lang 1630-730Y 9.9 2-UU 40A54,X3 5 534 NIA 48.9 52.0 B 3.1 5,032 9,017 2A59 17 L Matecurnbe J10-77.51 4.5 2-LfU 50155 54.0 WA 49..5 49.6 C 0.1 75 11890 224 18 Tea Tahle(77.5-79.5) 2.2 2-UU 45155 52.9 NIA 484 46.9 D -1.5 (546) 342 (692) 19 U Matecumbe(79.5-84.0 4.1 2-LAU 30i40)45 45.Ci WA 4D..5 36.4 E -4.1 (2,784) (1,4,04) (88-1) 23 Ar indl ay(84 0-860) 19 2-UU 30t4045 450 NIA 4D.5 37.0 E -3.5 )1,101) 1476) 157 21 Pl antatian(869-91.51) 5.8. 2-UU 45 450 4.2 36.3 35.3 D -1.0 060) 743 3.266 22 Ta.•emier(915-99.51 B.0 4-L,D 4560 472 2.0 4D7 46.9 A 6.2 8,214 10.884 8.876 , 23 Key Largo(99.5-106.0) 6.8 4-LfD 45 4150 3.8 36.7 44.2 A 7.5 8,44% 10.558 8.333 24 Cross(105.0-112.5) 6.2 2-L!t} 45155 .51.4 WA 46.9 5€I.2 B 3.3 3,388 5,775 5.862 Overall f0P.3 45.0 44.6 D -0.4 7,419) I CV CV I M Packet Pg. 2831 R.5.g s wN,•,v r�o-xaws aw.rorm �" s sr�abn sr�:are � � � rf iui r - Ih .a P e ffi.a au NoE B e 4s 4A l5 B R CBS qa,, ' rvca ✓. +D5 a5 B R33 + v }�p r c Zr.v#+fu1N]P rh! r3:.r J+52'e N la9e lb+b _ L1 Co-"Iyy 0 prlrlµ•.NI fl]5 ZJI 59,4 j ���4' 0 tt 42 //qq V M Eye 3 #.Y t n4aa '`'. 0 0- Y+e nsi aac au.^ A n dJJ' srt,d ••, _ !✓ti3 ,- ruo ru x!c nn sr,a !e a!m re, mn s+A rba C d d4 51 5l! ,5 f4s 3J 3]J ry Hof anq ry n,. cw ra sasa 21 76 2 A 47 2 .•z Are+ N! J.� red sss ec b 3,i Y�i c ax rsi c c +s d ,w n5 xs 6 ntN _ �� Y, �N�lb xr dnnyw 45 +! )33 d+t1 a ds2 �L r �.sk see wnmr c j(. 7 3 U)6 4 fl ��i IJ+aG Y mod'+ 1. B a'2 I A 1� 9 wry`,: ( _ - � y� C 03 Afd8 7 �•iA+as o 1➢5 3{� S i2!) 5 In�ai 17AI§i H 46$ BaGI � 1 f 54.Cr_ C 50.7 ss w a �ta az.a Segment Number _ Li 3 3 0, >'� 1A-087 a6I H/5 4 B — rt iH0 3p771 10(11 A7 ai an Spee9 �n ar 2 . av,_ c� 0-44 a 2(W)LOSAt die Spec _ a m in s2n Along with completing the systematic traffic monitoring program, the Comprehensive Plan and LDC < Section 114-2(b)(3) directs staff to submit a Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity v- Report to the BOCC to identify the capacity of available public facilities for not only roads/transportation but also solid waste, potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage and recreation and 0 open space. For this report, the County utilizes the US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study to 0 document the road/transportation available capacity and areas of marginal or inadequate facility capacity. =� i The LDC further directs that the County shall not approve applications for development in areas of the County that are served by inadequate facilities identified in the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report, except the County may approve development that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where the developer agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level of service standard, through: LO • A binding executed contract is in place at the time the development permit is issued which E provides for the commencement of the actual construction of the required facilities or provision of services; or • An enforceable development agreement guarantees that the necessary facilities and services will be in place with the issuance of the applicable development permit. An enforceable development agreement may include, but is not limited to, development agreements pursuant to section 163.3220, F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to ChapterLO 380, F.S., or • The proportionate share contribution or construction is sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvement(s)that will benefit a regionally significant transportation facility. Packet Pg. 2832 R.5.g With the draft 2019 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study indicating an overall LOS D on US 1 with a median speed of 44.6 mph, an applicant would need to work with County and FDOT to >, identify mitigation and improvement projects to achieve and maintain the Level of Service, o represented by a median speed of 45 mph. Since the travel speed for the entire length of U.S. 1 has 'a fallen from LOS C to LOS D and improvement projects must be assessed and approved by FDOT, 0 and it may take time to identify and evaluate options. FDOT develops a 5-year Work Program to 0) plan for the funding, design and construction of projects in Monroe County. The current FDOT Citizen's Report on the Draft Tentative Work Program Fiscal Year 2021 — 2025 (attached) mainly J show resurfacing and bridge-repair/rehabilitation which do not add capacity. v- LDC Section 114-2(b)(4) further states, the BOCC shall consider and approve or approve with modifications the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report. In the event the BOCC 2 acts to increase the development capacity of any service area, the BOCC shall make specific findings � of fact as to the reasons for the increase, including the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity required to serve additional development to be permitted during the next 12- to 24-month period. The recently completed and approved Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Reports e= include: > • Resolution 341-2018 approving the 2016-2017 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, 2 approved by the BOCC on October 17, 2018. • Resolution 340-2015 approving the 2014-2015 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, approved by the BOCC on October 21, 2015. �C • Resolution 098-2013 approving the 2013 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, v) approved by the BOCC on May 21, 2014. 0 r- Before preparing the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report, County staff is e requesting direction on potential updates to the methodology for completing the U.S. 1 Arterial a Travel Time and Delay Study, as outlined by the County traffic consultant (page 2-3 and 22-23 of draft 2019 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study). 0 Potential updates to the methodology would be consistent with Policy 301.2.1. Policy 301.2.1 Monroe County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic monitoring LO program initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations and E travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of 24 study segments of U.S. 1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. Monroe County shall use the methodology developed by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force composed of representatives from Monroe County,FDOT, and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for conducting this analysis and shall request that the e( Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis when new data N becomes available. N LO r AECOM, County consultant, considerations for updating the methodology of the U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (excerpt from 2019 draft): E Packet Pg. 2833 R.5.g The following is a list of considerations for review: : 1) The US 1 Levell of Service Task Force was formal �ira 1 2 to develop a methodology for US f that utillizes are ermpiricall relati hip bet eerr the Il rr --based capacities and the speed-based Level of;Service (LOS). The Task Force was multi-agency tearmi with rr*rnbers frcrm Monroe County, the Florida rti m rat of Transportation, and the Department of Economic OpportUnity (fonTrerly knownas Flo=nida Department of Cc murrity Affaiir - DCA). The mettrodology. established by the task force includes a � procedure fcr usling travel speedas a means of assessling the he ell of service and reserve, capacity for CIS 1.The members of the Task Forte met again in 1997 to re,-evalluate the LOS metbodiology and made, some rminar changes. The s grrall delay for LOS C was increased to 25 seconds from 15 secondia to, account for changes in the 14.jghw ay Capacity Manual,t(,HCM),, Considerinig that the last meeting of the Task Force was held more than, 22 years ago, it is suggested at the members of the Task Force meet again to review the LOS rmreth l l d' identify any potential changes to ensure that the merthodology is, consistent with current practices and to identify opportunities for irmprover'rrerrt, if any. Since the 1!a t Task Force review, there have been updates to the Highway Capacity Manual f ' ), which, may need to be incorporated Some, specific w iterns that,can be, reviewed,include,, Reviewer the signal delay threshold for LOS C hayed on the current Highway Capacity � Ida mial (delay threshold increased from 25 seconds to 3,5 seconds)and adjust the iE methodology accordingly. The rmethearlelogy to detennirre the LOS for the 24 indii idduall roadway segments and the overall US 1 are slightly different. Irrdiividual segrment LOS is determined by comparing the median travell speed with the weighted posted speed limit for the segiment. For a .amplle, Segment LOS its A if the median travel speed is 1.5 rnph � above the pasted speed 11mit. AJIternativelly, the overaill LOS for,US 1 ills determined by comparing the inedian travel speed with, pre-established speed d thresholds for different levels of serviice. For example, the LOS for US f is A if the overall travel U) speed is equall to or above 51 mph,iirrespecti e of the overal I weighted pasted speed; Ilirmiit. Iln other words, the overall LOS criltena does not consider the postedspeedc Ilirn t. c Acc rd ng to the current. methodology, delays due to drawbridge openings should be excluded from the segment tra yell fir ee,,but.included in the overall travel tiirnes,. Considering at delays associated with drawbridge openings are non-reCUrring and impact the €veraill US 1 level of service, this part of the methodology should be, reviewed and adjusted accordingly. U LO W N N LO h U Packet Pg. 2834 R.5.g Review the tra ell time schedule (Le. departure tin*sand staggered c.he allle) and adjust as needed to reflect current traffiic condiitilum . 2) Under,the adopted growAh, management process, if the overalil I_ S for US 1 fallfs below tlrie I_ S C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed a,rnie e nnitigation, mastares are i rnplilemenited. Roadway uraiidening is atypical mitigation measure (or capacity iiinpr€v nt) used by most agencies. However, in Monroe County, road widening (specifically along US t) is restricted by the adopted comprehensive plan � policies to preserve and protect the fragile ecological o3n iition . There are 'Oyler, E remedies that. could be explored and',evalr,aced to improve the traffic flow and capacity along US t,. Some examples include: Upgrade the traffic signall infrastru•ctUre ands r signall timing at signallized -- intersections all ng US 1 to enhance t affiic flog. Evaluate the feasibillity of irnpllementing adaptive signall control systems to ir'rrprcve traffic flow. Provide or iimprc a transit service cr other muliti-rn ddall transportation alternatives,. Ilmplement; active traffic management and Transportation System °anagFen it, & Operation type in=rpr ven eats, which inctude reall-time monitoring of traffic flow and implementing meaSUres to address traffic congestion. Add tarn lanes at strategic:locations to improve roadway capacity. � Ilmplernent. access management improvements (consollidate drivewaystaccess pciint , modify mediian openings, etc.)to redua ce,iinterruiptions to 'US t traffic. Provide ancY r improve frontage roads to reduce the impact on US t. lir prove local roads to rniinilmize US t being LIsedd as a local street fiar part-trip. Do not allow new traffic signal's alonqUS 1,if a safe and./or less restrictive alternative. 76 (such as indirect left-turns, a roundal etc.), can be provided to accoilarn bdate traffic movements. Conduct speed studies on,selected segments,,of US 1 to confirmi if the current posted peed limits are correct and m ddify,ilf;necessary. 0 This its the first Travel Tirrie and Delay Study cond4lcted after Hurricane II !a made landfall iin 2017 as a Category 4 startia in the Florida Keys. The hurricane restoration activities and associated construction ve idles using US t may have impacted travel tllive .This is a natural disaster,that i out of the nonn and this irregUllarity needs to be considered and possibIly discounted or re-evaluated wilth an additional interiin travel l time study.. Ch I LO cv cv LO r®: Packet Pg. 2835 R.5.g 3 OPTIONS for BOICC Consideration: 1. CCDINIPLETE PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT WITH 2,019 ATTD STUDY l°ltY -- APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY 'NIITIGATIO- WITH COUNTY& F©OT 0 Dii°ecf staff to prepare the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report with the draft "019 US 1 Arterial Travel Tirrre and Delav Study. K m • The draft 2019 LJS 1 Axterial Travel Time and Delay Snidy reports an overall LOS D on US 1 With a median speed of 44.6 ittplt. Unlike )ardor years. the draft 2019 Study indicates that the overall LOS for the entire length of US I has fiallen from LOS C" to LOS D. and there is no reserve capacity for additional trips. According to the policies and regulations in the Monroe County 'rear 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. this would mean that W County may not iaenuit new development, other than single family lronres, unless the proposed development's traffic impact is mitigated. Determining the appropriate mitigation is a coordinated effort with I-DOT and the County. and may include addin- dedicated trrm lanes. consolidating driveways/access points.providing and%or improving frontage roads, etc. • Direct staff to review development proposals and provide a prelinrinar F conditional concrrrrency determination based on the 2019 US I Arterial Travel Time and Delays Study. • Direct staff to provide, a fmal concur-envy determination for a final development order (a CIO m building permit or any other development permit authorizing the construction or expansion of a smicture an increase in develolanrent intensity, or a change of use requiring a new certificate of occupancy)based on the 2019 LIiS 1 arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (see Policies 1401 A.6 > and 1401A7). 2019 LEVEL OF SERVICE AND RESERVE CAPACITY ADJ. ADJUSTED MEDIAN 2019 2017 SEGMENT LENGTH FACILITY POSTED SPEED FOR LOS C TRAVEL RESERVE MAXIMUM RESERVE 6%ALLr7GATIOU MAXIMUM RESERVE [miles) TYPE Limits Awerage SIGNAL CRI7ERI.A SPEED LOS, SPEED VOLUME BELOW LOSC VOLUME imph) irmph) Im P'h) impri (mph) (mph) (trrpst 1trips) ;trips) 1 Such Island KU-5.0} 1..10 4-LID 30745 42.9 N.tA 2..0 33.0 B 11.0 2,004 2.207 1,348 2 Bo ca Chi ca f 5..9-9.01 309 4-1I1) 45155 54.7 N.tA 53-2 55.8 B 5.6 3.617 5,249 6.071 3 Big Cappitt(9 D-13-51 1.5 2-LFU 45155 45.7 N.tA 41-2 46.1 B 4.9 1,217 1,737 1,341 , 4 Saddlebunch.(13.5-16.5 5:8 2-LFU 45155 53.6 N.tA 49..1 52.0 C 2.9 2,785 5,102 4,034 S S[i ga gloat{IE-5-20.5} 3:9 2-LfU 45 45:D 4.5 3E..0 48.1 A 12.1 7.815 8,966 7.944 6 Cud-oe 23-5-23:31 2.5 2-LFU 45 45:1) N.tA 43..5 47.2 A 6.7 2,774 3,612 3.188 7 Sumnnehand�23.0-26.D 2-LFU 45 45.D N;A 43..5 45.2 B 4.7 1,712 2.466 1,639 8 Ramrod(25.0-27..51 2.3 2-LFU 45 45:1) N.tA 43..5 46.7 A 6.2 2,361 3.138 2,133 0 9 Torch{27..5 29.5) 2.1 2-LFU 45 45:1) N.tA 43..5 48.1 A 7.6 2,643 3,352 2,504 .N 10 Big Pine I(29.5-33.171 3.4 2-LFU 45 45:1) 4.13 35..5 42.4 B 5.9 3,322 4,332 1,295 0 2-LFU 70%} y 11 Bahia Hand.(a&D-40.Li 7.D 45t50/55 52 4 N.tA 47..9 54.2 A 6.3 7,303 10,047 6,723 4-LID(30%} 12 7-Mile bridge(43.0-47.0) 6:8 2-LFU 45l50155 54.4 N.tA 49..9 53.4 B 3.5 3,941 6,711 3.603 13 Marathon i,47.0-54.Oi 7.3 2-LFU 0 3 ti} 35145 42.3 NIA 22..0 37.9 A 15.9 19,221 20,518 19,221 P' 4-LID f87%I, LO 14 Gracsy(54A-60.5} 6.4 2-LfU 45755 54.6 1.4 45..7 50.7 C 2.1 2,226 4,794 3,286 15 Duck-60.5-63.0} 2.7 2-LFU 55 55:1) N.tA 53..5 53.3 C 2.6 1,252 2,402 1,252 16 Long(63.0-73,0) 9.9 2-LFU 40145150155 534 N.tA 483..9 52.0 B 3.1 5,082 9,017 2,459 _ 17 L Matecumbe i73.C-77..51 4.5 2-LfU 50f55 54.D N.tA 49..5 49.13 C 0.1 75 1,890 224 CIO 18 Tea Table(77.5-75.51 2.2 2-LfU 45155 52.9 N,`A 4B.A 46.9 D -1.5 1546t 342 [692t 19 U Maecumbe i79.5-64.f11 4.1 2-LFU 3014W45 45:1) N.tA 4D..5 36.4 E -4.1 g2.784) (1,4041 [883t 0 20 Windle `64..0-H.D1 1.9 2-LFU 30/40/45 45.D N;A 4D..5 37.0 E -3.5 11.101 f 4761 157 21 Plantation 660 5.8 2-LFU 45 45.D 42 3E..3 35.3 D -1.0 g9MN 743 lHiS 22 Tavern ier i91 5 49 51• 8.0 4-1-ID 45151) 472 2.17 4D..7 46.9 A 6.2 8.214 10.864 8.876 CV 23 Key Lang.(95 5-10i3�.01 6 8 4-LtD 45 45_D 3.8 3.6.7 44.2 A 7.6 8.446 10,568 8.333 24 Crass I:.106-0-112.51 6.2 2-LFU 45155 51.4 N;A 4E..9 50.2 B 3.3 3.388 5„775 5.852 CV LO M Overall 108.3 45.3 44.6 D -0.4 (7,419} Packet Pg. 2836 R.5.g 2. COMPLETE PUBLIC:FACILITIES REPORT NNTTII 2019 ATTD STUDY — RE-ENGAGE US 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE TASK FORCE TO EVALUATE AEIC O-N PROVIDED CONSIDERATIONS TO UPDATING G THE METHODOLOGY— APPLIC:;A'_'tiTS TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION WITH COUNTY& FDOT 0 Direct staff to prepare the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report.with the draft o 2019 US I Arterial Travel Time and Delay- Study and direct staff to request to re err aye Lei-el of Service Task Force to evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates to- Review the si;zrral delay- threshold for LOS C based on the current Highway C'apacity- Manual (dela-- threshold increased from 15 seconds to 35 seconds) and adjust the rnnetliodolo2 -accordingly. Review the rnethodolo2y to deterrnnine the LOS for the 24 individual roadway segnnents (comparing the rxlediaanr travel speed with the weighted posted speed limit for the s*egrnnent) vs. the overall US 1 (comparing the rnechan travel speed with pre-established speed thresholds for different levels of service). In other words. the overall LOS criteria does not consider the pasted speed limit. � Review drawbrid>e delays. According to the crurent methodology. delays clue to drawbridge opernrrngs should be excluded from the segnnernt travel times. birt included in the overall travel times. Considering that delays associated vith dra-,bridge openings are m n+ori-recurring and impact the overall US 1 level of service. this pant of the methodology P should be revieived and dactiusted accordingly. � Revie%v the travel time schedule (i.e. departure tines and staggered schedule) and adjust as needed to reflect ciurennt traffic conditions. Currently. the data is collected over fourteen (14) ronrrnd trips for da total of 8 travel tinnre rlrrn; Nvith a staggered schedule of depamrre times (generally between 9annn and 4pnnn). The task force call evaluate dalterin2 the staggered schedule of depar-mire tines. • The draft 2019 ITS 1 Arterial Travel Tinne and Delay- Study reports ari overall LOS D on US 1 -,vith a nnedian speed of 44.6 mplr. Unlike prior gears. the draft 2019 Study irndicates that the overall LOS for the enrtnre length of US1 has fallen from LOS C To LOS D. and there is no reserve capacity- for additional trips. According to the policies and regulations in the Monroe County Year 1-030 ConnprehensiVe flan and Land Developrnnennt Cede. this -,vould mean that County- may not permit rnew development. ether than single family homes. unless the proposed i development's traffic impact is mitigated. Determining the appropriate mitigation is a o coordinated effort with FDOT arid the County. and may include addirng dedicated turn lames;, y consolidating drivev,ay-s.access points.providing arid.or improving frontage roads. etc. � • Direct staff to review development proposals and provide a prelnnnYnnnary=conditional concurrency- determination based oil the 2019 ITS 1 arterial Travel Tnnrre and Delay Study. +� • Direct staff to not provide a final concurrernc = determination for a final development order (a LO lanrilclnnrg permit or and other development pernnYit authorizing the construction or expansion of a. 0 stiactru•e. an increase in development intensity. or a clnanrge of use requiring a new certificate of occupancy) until the completion of the next Arterial Travel Tirane and Delay Study (see Policies 1401.4.6 and 1401 4.7), � cv cv LO r®: m Packet Pg. 2837 R.5.g 3. (COMPLETE PUBLIC FACILITIES PART WITI`I 0,17 A`.0 1 D STUDY — RE-ENGAGE US I LEVEL Of SERVICE TASK FORCE TO EVALUATE AEC ?li; PROVIDED CON SIDE RATIONS TO UPDATING TIN THE -METHODOLOGY T1Ol OGY APPLICANTS NTS TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION FOR SEGMENTS NVITH COUNTY : FDOT p Dir'ect staff to prepare the Plertnhaf Assea;saarettt of Pr bhe Farilitr s C alraarily Report, with the p carravni 201 17S 1 Arteriral Travel Three and Doty Study and dlf.a°ect stat't to request to roonja e the C.'S I Level of Ser`vice Trask Force to ev l" ate the LOS rraethodlology and cdarr�ider "polate to: I ea-iew� the signal dleby threshold) for LOS Cbased oil the caaa-rant Highway Capacity MaaaatAal Web, t rWioldl increased fr"orn M seconds i 35 seconds) and adlrtast Me laaet]adad�ldtlda° � aad:.coaaliat ��'. �d a The 2 evie%N' itte rrrefilrod ology to d eierar'ine the LOS �(�for � aadlGy,'ldlirza.l roadwayroadwaysrrird�rrt'� .-� (comparing the raredlia:rr travel speed with the wLi hired) posted) speed liiuuit for the s ptuuetut) vs. the ovelaall US l ( orailraatirag 10 iuictlijara travel speed with late-established ,-',peed) threstlolds for different levels of sarrvice)- Ili o ltd_r- words the overall LOS criteria. dots not a:daaasidler the posted) speed) Wit t. are kvv Nwil idlge delay, Acd:ot:dli g to dw caruent alaetlaod olo 3-. dlei ya ,, dne to dlraaWlraidlge da,vaeauillgS' shdraaldl be, excluded f `oru7 tlae sd:grrld2rtt travel tirrrdrs, but irrd`:ltadledl, iai the ovaMl travel tirrae . Considering that delay's zotsoLisared with dlrawbridfge opening, are � t:aotu-a cdlr iut� and impact this overall US 1 Inv! of sanon this part of tlae iatetl odl ld; — dtonldl be reviewed)and adljus sill �dcdaicliat�l h: Fd:eO= the travel titres schedule t,i e, dlelaamar"e tirures and staggered edl schedlaaleri and adl~lm as twedletl to reflect claa-vin rr-afre is condlitioaa . Caanvntly- Be dlaara is collected) over � t"b'aaa'tt ela (14) rdraaaradl trQM for a tdrtal of 28 travel inne ratlrs wit a st i ggaedl Whedule of dleparair fiiaaa s {.geoaea`ally bemeen 9mn and 4l no, The task force can evaluate a1 rin � th maa gercd sd heAtile of deparruare fiiraae�s. 0 The BOCC can consider mid approve or approve with rnodlitications Me assessrrrerrt of pialalic facilities caap"'Icily aatadl aaaraake specific hudlirags of fact s to the avasoaas ior rrtiliz rrg this 2017 US 1 -)a'terial Travel Tirr.re and Delay,Staidly. • Accordbig to the pohcW% and regaillatiorv, in the Nldatrrdae Comaty Year 20,30 ConalarAtensi e I'l.i C arid) Land De4.`eldapnieul Code, alive Coulat9° arny not enni! rreav elevelol inelrt. lather tlrarrm single faatauily horules, araaless the proposed) d evelolrraaenCs Wtic ittWoct is aaai,dp at d. DetenWhig this � apywolrr'icate traiti aation for s grr'rellts is as coordlirl:adl effort with FDOT and the County, and raabay, � include adldlirr dedicated nun lmns. corawhdafiirrg dlrivtway,access poinm. proAdhig caaadvor° iaua.prov inn from age roq.dl.s. eta." e T}rrw st:a:ff too review d eve)pine*]fit 1)ropo.-., hl and provide a 1welimhury d«ondatll?aM cdatBa:t rroi y � diet t aaiau atidarr based data the 2017 US 1 Ar enol Travel Tiauue brad)Delay Study a Ekmct staff to provide a final coracaaar°rerac:y deterraaiaaarioar for as final develaapnie ut order (a i bill JAitalm lnrlrait or ally other laeaust aaarthoii iaa", The d:or)snarctioln Or exFansiola of a Str°uacttaae, All irlCMISE ire dleavld parent irrtd':iva i y, or a change of ise redlaaixiaag da ease- izer ilicaate of E occupancy) )bused) on the 2017 t"S 1 Avehal Tfavel.Thne and Dehy Staidly tree Policies 1401,4-6 and 140 A.7), N N Packet Pg. 2838 R.5.g Suraiiiiar T of-"0.1.7 U.S. I: Arterial Tr,-ivel Tinge and _.Delav Studv results: W ADJ. ADJUSTED MEDIAN 017 SEGMENT LENGTH FACILITY POSTED SPEED FOR LOS C TRAVEL L.r75 RESERVE MAXIMUM RESERVE 5%ALLOCATION CD (arnles( TYPE Limft Average SIGNAL CRITERIA SPEED, SPEED DAILY VOLUME BELOW LOS G _IMOL_MO nu 11 r1y hV Iry GIs (r11 1 d a s t i 1StodIs1wld(40-5.()) ...IA0 4-L'G 30�45 42.8 NIA 22.0 29.4 8.....' 7.4 1,348 N,r11 c 2 Boca China(5 0-9 M _ _ mmm3.94-L'D 45r55 N17 NfA 50 2 59.6 A 9.4 6,,071 N`A 3 BQ Ca Ilt(9.0-10 51 1.5 1 2 UU 45755 457 NIA 41 L 7 Z6 B 5.4 1,341 NA 4Saddlebunch{1t}5-lb,5b 58 2ALrU' 4tV5'5 53f� NeA 49.1 53.3 4.2 4,034 NIA 5 Sra arloaf 1G 5-20 5. 3.9 2-1JU' 45 45 fl 4,5 36,0 48,3 A 12.3 7,944 W 5 Cudj ore(20,5-230) 21s 2 LW 45 460 NIA 40 .2 A 7.7 31188 N/A 7 Sumn er7andv 210 25.01 _L 2...... 2 L}U....... 45 450 NA 40-5 45.0 $. 4.5. 1,639 N'A 6 Rat grad 25 0 27.5] 2.3 2 1JU 45 45.0 NIA 40-5 46A IS 5.6 2„133 NA r 9 7 roll d27: 21q1.5) t L'U 45 45 0 NIA 40 47 7 A 7.2 2 5Q4 NA _._. 10....B Pine(295-330)..... 34......... 2LlU........ .. ......4 ..... .4`0.. .....34 .. .....37.1........ 7 39.4 C_ .. 23--- 1295 NA 11 Bahm Hoflda(33 0-40 01 7.0 2-UU(70'�) 46t60165 524 Nip, 47 9 53 78 5A 6.723 N,'A 4-LfD+ 30%) 12'7-Ia*Bodge(40.0-47.01 6.8 2-L,'U, 4560V+5ra 54 G NtA 50.1 53,3 8 3.2 3.603 NA 13 Maranon....(47 0-54-0, 7.3 2 UU r 13%) 35445 42.3 NIA 22.0 37.9 A 15.9 1.9,221 NA 410(87% 14 Gass 4'`4.0 n0.5 0.4 2 L U' 4555 54.5 1. 40.5 51.6 C 3A 3.286 NA 15...Duck(W..5-63.0') 2.7 2 LfU 55 55.0 NIA 50.5 53.3 C 2.8 1,252 NA 3 4 NIA 46:9 5T,5 C 1.5 2,459 N'A i6 Lxs {03. .730I 9.9 2-LIU 40145(50,�55 5 0) 17 L Matecaambe(73 0 775 4.5 2-1JU' .065 E4 iT NIA 40.5 T 49.8 C 0.3 224 N/A 18 Tea Table(77 1,-79 5=.) 2.2 2-1JU 45f5l, 'A 1 NIA 49 Ta 47.6 D -1.9 (6921 193 � 19 U M1a',ecumbe(74 5-04 0 4.1 2 IJU'.. 3V40A5 450 NIA 40.5 1912 -I.3 881 522 20lh ndle (aa 0 86 01 1 9 2 LIU 0140145 45 Z ^VIA 40 5 41 0 C 0.5 157 N/A 21 RagAation(06 0 91 cry 5.9 L LIU 45 45 0 3.4 31 1 4'5 F3 3.4 3 266 NA.m....mm m...........m ........m........... ... ..m...m.. .m ...m. 22 Tadernreri91 1 991, .90 4 L71 4�50 47.2 20 40�7 17.4 A 6.7 8,876 NA 23 Ke*Lat t'9J 5 10U.Op t.L 4-LIG 45 d5.0 3.5 37:0 44.4 A 7.4 8.333 NA _ 24 Ciruss 1.0,5 0-112.5) 62 1 2-1JIJ 1 45t55 1 &1'...:4 1 NiA 469 52.7 B 1 5.7 1 5,852 N(A Z Overall 108.3 45.0 415.0 C 1.0 18.547 PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: U) 6/17/20 (HI) BOCC continued this item to BOCC 7/15/20 in Marathon, FL 0 C c October 2011-Approval of Work Order 41 to complete the 2011 TTDS August 2011 -BOCC approval of the 2011 US 1 Arterial Travel Time Delay Study Ct February 2012 - Approval of Work Order 43 to complete the 2012 TTDS December 2012 - BOCC approval of the 2012 US 1 Arterial Travel Time Delay Study LO February 2013 - Approval of Work Order 45 to complete the 2013 TTDS September 17, 2013 - BOCC approval of the 2013 US 1 Arterial Travel Time Delay Study January 2015 - Approval of first option to renew Continuing Services Contract through March 15, 2016. e( February 18, 2015 - BOCC approval of Work Order 412 to complete the 2015 TTDSLO N cv October 21, 2015 - BOCC approval of the 2015 US 1 Arterial Travel Time Delay Study January 2016 - Approval of second option to renew Continuing Services Contract through March 15, 2017. E Packet Pg. 2839 R.5.g November 22, 2016 - BOCC approval of Work Order 419 to complete the 2017 TTDS. May 17, 2017 — Approval of a 4-year continuing services contract, with options for renewal on an annual basis for two additional years,with AECOM Technical Services, Inc. for Transportation Planning Services. o 0 February 21, 2018 - BOCC approval of the 2017 US 1 Arterial Travel Time Delay Study 0 January 23, 2019 - Approval of Work Order 47 to complete the 2019 US 1 TTDS v) CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a 0 c i c i LO cv cv LO r®: Packet Pg. 2840 R.5.g STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 3. COMPLETE PUBLIC; FAC:ILI`I'IES REPORT WITH 201; A`l. 1 fi 'l 1. DY-- RE-ENGAGE VS I LEVEL OF SERVICE TASTE FORCE TO EXTALUATE AEC:'O ',I PROVIDED CON SIDE RATIQ TO UPD-ATING TIE METHODOLOGY APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION FOR SEGMEN'TSM°°"ITIT COUNTY ; FDOT 0 Direct staff to prepare the Iliennial Assessri eni of Public Facilities Crajmrii)� Report, with She m currem 201 17S 1 Arterial 11=0 Tim and Delay; Stud , and tll,rect staff to request to re-eggg e, the I."S l lavel of S r-Oc Task Forve to evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates.to: Review ihie si�rraal delay threshold for LOS C" baa ed on dre current Highway C"apaacity T- lwp nual Welay dut hrold increased frorr.i 2� secoiuls to 35 second, and adjust the a,arrlr+�tl��ho ,� �a�;c�ardiargh�. `.� l ea uo,a° glee rrrediodolo y to determine tho LOS for° the 24 rarclividirad r°onchvaay segirreirrs (comparbig the rrrediaan travel speed with. the weighted posted speed hrrrit for the segrrrcta) vs. the overall ITS l ( orrrlrarirrg the inediAatr -%vitlr pare-estalalrshed >11 speed fliresliold for dilfereuat levels of saviee). In other words.. the ow°eraall LOS Wwriaa. � dogs trot consider the posted speed lirrrut° -a E w-ie,,v dram°w-hard;e delays- cr c aclirag to the tuwent ruetlrudo ogy. del ys. clue w. dr twhurclg opa ui�r should he excluded War ih e s�?grirorat tr ivel tarrres. but irichided in as the o,-erall travel tairres. Considering drat deli , associated with drawbridge bridge operriirgs are r:rorr-Tecrurr.irag and irrapract the 0-cerall t..S l level of sere i:e. this part of the rraethodology dmould be reviewed mid aidjrtsied accor°diragly. Review the travel time schedule 04, dclrarure tithes and staggered wwhechderi and ara:lat h- as needed to reflect current traffic couaditioris, Currently- the daaiat is collected o%vrt 706 fo rteear (14) round nips for° as total cif 28; travel iiirae marts with a st as gered sc luo(h le of departure threes (gerwolly bets nen 9ain and spin), The Task f6r°`e can evaluate arlteriii; th staggered Scliedrtle ofdep.'Alluare titureS. T- # The BOCC can ciansider arid ajaprow°e or approve with modifications the assessmait of pat lrlic hcilides tapxaciry arard make specific findings of faQt as to the reasons for uhh&p flee 2017 ij S l ="a serial Travel Tirrre ar,rral eltu� Stxtd�. . '* According to the..policies and regulations- in the Nlor.rroe County Year 2030 Clrrrp m he nine Phu it ar:t'ad Land Development Code. the Caturry may not perinit irew other Than siargle lattrrily lronles° triales the proposed darvdolairrenCs twfHc impact is initigatamal. Determining the i appropriate arritigaatrorr for wginents is as coor`cliu:wd effort with I°DOTT and the Ccstaaaty aaml ruay c include addirrg dedicated tune, laires: consolidating drive°eww°ay aaccess polo. providing :7nutl.`or° y itral row iirg tiorrtage roads. etc.° ME Direct staff to review dew°elopinerrt paropo�,als and pinvitle a pr'elirrrbary conditional coricrrrr°ency Ameainfirattion lased on the 2017 ITS l Arterra=al Travel,Tiirre and Delta- Study � Ekrect staff to provide a final concurrency deteiininaT,tiori for as final devekapinent order t;a to briildiug perirrit or any other development pertuit artithori i`tg me Construction or expaaan'sion of a mrwwrure, area iuc ew in develop inent irrtand ,•. or ar c ha age of use reapariaing as new icer-fifunare ail- occupaurcy) based on the 2017 LIS 1 Artedaal ThAwal Thue and Delay Struly (see Policies 1401,4-%? and l 401 A.7 h. m DOCUMENTATION: cv Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study MONROE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CONCURRENCY a` PROVISIONS 2019 FDOT Work Program Citizen's Report- Monroe County 09.27.19 Packet Pg. 2841 R.5.g Draft 2019 Level of Service and Reserve Capacity Table Methodology to Assess_LOS_USl_FLA_Keys Kittelson & Assoc, Inc Reevaluation of LOS Methodology_1997 08_06_1991 BOCC Regular Minutes o Ordinance 007-1992_adopting revised traffic LOS 'a 0 FINANCIAL IMPACT: E Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: -� Total Cost to County: unknown Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: n/a Additional Details: 0 n/a c REVIEWED BY: Cheryl Cioffari Completed 01/27/2020 9:28 AM Emily Schemper Completed 02/27/2020 12:44 PM Mayte Santamaria Skipped 02/28/2020 12:13 AM Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed 02/28/2020 11:57 AM LO Steve Williams Completed 02/28/2020 2:39 PM E Budget and Finance Completed 03/02/2020 8:26 AM Maria Slavik Completed 03/02/2020 9:35 AM Kathy Peters Completed 03/02/2020 5:01 PM Board of County Commissioners Completed 03/18/2020 9:00 AM Board of County Commissioners Completed 06/17/2020 9:00 AM N cv LO r®: Packet Pg. 2842 R.5.h County of Monroe 1t •\o BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l y Irl # Mayor Michelle Coldiron,District 2 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice,District 4 'Me Florida Keys \ Craig Cates,District 1 Eddie Martinez District 3 j .w ` " Mike Forster,District 5 rti r9 County Commission Meeting October 21, 2020 CL Agenda Item Number: K.3 c� Agenda Item Summary #7401 BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources e 0 0 TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper(305) 289-2500 NA AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution reconvening the U.S.1 LOS Task Force, T- including 2 representatives from the Department Of Economic Opportunity (DEO) (Barbara Powell, U) Regional Program Administrator, and Justin Stiell, Planning Analyst); 2 representatives from the Florida Department Of Transportation (FDOT) (Neil Lyn, District Statistics Administrator, and Gina 2 Bonyani, Systems Implementation Office); 1 representative from the County's traffic consultant, U- le AECOM (Vivek Reddy, Traffic Engineering Department Manager); and 3 County staff representatives (Emily Schemper, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources, Janene Sclafani, Transportation Planner, and Judith Clarke, Director of Engineering Services); allowing appointed members to designate alternates in the event of their absence; and tasking the U.S.1 LOS j Task Force with evaluating the LOS methodology and potential updates to it based on the �? considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS. ITEM BACKGROUND: The Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County shall be 0 served by adequate public or private facilities. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and LDC a have adopted level of service (LOS) standards for transportation/roadways, including for U.S. 1 Highway 1, which is part of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) State Highway System. E Comprehensive Platy Policy 301.1.2 � For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 1991. The level of service on U.S. 1 shall be maintained within five percent N (5%) of LOS C. N cv LDC Section II4-2. - Adequate Facilities and Review Procedures. (a) Level of Service Standards (LOS). All development shall be served by adequate public facilities in ;j accordance with the following standards: (1) Transportation/Roadways. a. U.S. 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall arterial Packet Pg. 2843 R.5.hi length and the 24 roadway segments of U.S. I, as measured by the U.S. I Level of Service Task ry Force Methodology, at all intersections and roadway segments. In addition, all segments of U.S. I, as identified in the U.S. I Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to U.S. I, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C. 2 0 CL To determine the level of service on U.S. 1, the County's traffic consultant conducts an established CL tL systematic traffic monitoring program, developed by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force, to monitor traffic volumes and travel speeds of U.S. 1 as well as on each of the 24 study segments on U.S. 1. This review has been conducted since 1992. The review was completed annually until 2013 and since 2013 the review has been conducted every two years (2013, 2015, 2017 & 2019). This information is provided as a report entitled, U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (ATTDS). 0 It is important to note, that the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force developed a unique methodology in 1991 e (updated once in 1997)to assess level of service for the Florida Keys to cover both its overall arterial a) length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 roadway segments delineated, based on an U) average travel speed formula. The data is collected over fourteen (14) round trips for a total of 28 travel time runs with a staggered schedule of departure times (generally between 9am and 4pm). v- These runs represent a sample of two runs for each day of the week. During the study period, seven- day, 24-hour traffic data are also collected at specified locations in Islamorada, Marathon, and Big Pine Key. 0 Over the years, there have been timeframes where certain segments of U.S. 1 have experienced a degradation of traffic speeds below LOS standards, but not for the overall U.S. 1 (entire arterial v) length). Unlike prior years, the Draft 2019 ATTDS indicated that the overall LOS for the entire length of U.S. 1 has fallen from LOS C to LOS D, and there is no reserve capacity for additional trips. According to the policies and regulations in the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, this would mean the County may not permit new development, other than single family homes, unless the proposed development's traffic impact is miti _gated. In the Draft 2019 ATTDS, the County's traffic consultant, AECOM, noted potential methodology considerations, as shown in the following excerpt from the draft report: 0 a� i cv cv cv Packet Pg. 2844 R.5.hi The follow i mg i,s,a list of con s.ideratiions for review, 1 p The US 1 Level of Service Task Force was formulated irr 1 52 to develop a methodology for,U S I that utilizes are empirical relation ship between the vo'Iuine-Lased capacities and the speed-based Level of Service LOS). The Task Force was :a multi-agency team with 2 nnenmbers fro in Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and theCL Department of Econornic Opportunilty Ifornierl known as Florida Depart rat of CL ommnuunit affairs - ID CA). The methodology established by the task force includes a proceduure for uus.ing travel speed as a means of assessing theleve[ofserviceand reserve capacity for 'US I. The nienibers. of the Task, Force met again in 1997 to re-evaluate the LOS methodology and made some mn4nor changes. The signal delay for LDS C was increased to 25 seconds. from, 15 seconds to account for changes, in the Highway Capacity Manual (:H M). Cons.idering that the last rneeting of the Task Force was held more than 22 years ago, it is suggested that;the mneinbrers of the Task Force meet again to, review the LOS methodology and identify any poteruti:al changes to ensure that, the methodology is consistent with: current practices and to identify opportunities for improve . nt, if any. Since the la'ist Task Force review, there have been uupd.ates to the � Highways Capacity Manual lHCM), which niay need to be incorporated. So,rne specific items that can be reviewed, inckuude, Review the signal delay tlhreshold'for LO S C Lased on the current Highway Capa,city Manual (delay threshold iincreased from, 25 secomdls. to 35 seconds) and adjust the methodology accordingly. 0) The nnet:fuodology to determir7 e the LO S for the 24 individual uuail ro adway segments an d' the overall IDS t are slightly different. [ndivi=dlrial segment LOS is determined by le comparing the medilari travel speed with the weightedl posted; s.peedl Iirnit for the, segment.. For example, Segment LOS is A, iif the rnedlian travel speed its 1,5 rnph above the posted speed li;miit. lterrnativel , the overalf LOS for US 1 is deterrniined by comparing the nnedian travel speed with pre-e tabliishedl speed thresholds for different levels of service.: For example, the LOS for US 1 is A if the overall; travel; U) speed) is equuaI to or above 51 inph, irrespectiw'e of the overal[weighted posted speed li'mnit. Ir7 other words,, the overa][ LOS criteria does not consider the posted speed' � llimnlit. 41 According to the current nneth;odolog , delays. due to drawbridge openings should be excluded from the segment travel tunes, but included in the overall trowel timnes„ � onsiderir7g that delay s.associated with drawbridge openings are nor-recuurTing and impact the overalll US I level of service, this part of the methodology should Ise 0 reviewedand adjusted accordingly. � i On July 15, 2020, at their regular meeting, the BOCC discussed the Draft 2019 ATTDS, the fact that r le ° an overall U.S. 1 degradation below LOS C, with failing segments in Islamorada, makes it difficult to develop mitigation projects to improve the overall LOS capacity; the methodology's outdated signal delay thresholds compared to standards of the current Highway Capacity Manual; the inconsistency between overall and segment LOS methodology; and the way drawbridge openings are included or not included in the segment versus overall LOS measurements; and directed staff to re- engage the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force to evaluate the LOS methodology (which has not been reviewed for updates in over 20 years) and consider updates to it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS, before the 2021 ATTDS is conducted. Potential updates to the methodology would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 301.2.1. Packet Pg. 2845 R.5.hi Policy 301.2.1 Monroe County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic monitoring program initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of 24 study segments of U.S. 1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. Monroe County shall use the methodology 2 developed by the U.S. I LOS Task Force composed of representatives from Monroe County, FDOT, and 0. the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for conducting this analysis and shall request that the 0. U Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis when new data becomes available. a, In accordance with Policy 301.2.1, which specifies that the task force be composed of representatives from Monroe County, FDOT, and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), letters were sent by Mayor Carruthers to DEO Executive Director Dane Eagle and FDOT Secretary 0 Kevin J. Thibault asking for their participation in reconvening the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. Both have 0 indicated agreement to participate, and the following total eight individuals (or their appointed representatives, in the event of an absence) are proposed to be on the task force: E v) DEO: Barbara Powell, Regional Program Administrator Justin Stiell,Planning Analyst 2 FDOT: - Neil Lyn, District Statistics Administrator Gina Bonyani, Systems Implementation Office v) Monroe County Traffic Consultant(AECOM) Vivek Reddy, Traffic Engineering Department Manager Ui Monroe County Staff: Emily Schemper, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Janene Sclafani, Transportation Planner Judith Clarke, Director of Engineering Services 0 Staff is requesting approval of the U.S.1 LOS Task Force membership as listed above, with the assignment to evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates to it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS. E The target schedule of the U.S.1 LOS Task Force would be to complete the review and update of the a LOS methodology and present it to the BOCC for approval by February 2021, prior to the regularly scheduled commencement of data collection for the 2021 biennial ATTDS. Data collection must be done during a 6-week window of time in late February — early March, as specified in the current methodology. N The proposed scope of work for the Task Force (presented in another Board agenda item to be approved separately) includes the following primary tasks: E • Task 1 —Review the Current Highway Capacity Manual Packet Pg. 2846 R.5.hi • Task 2 —Review Current Traffic Data • Task 3 —Develop a New Travel Time Study Schedule • Task 4—Coordinate and Schedule Task Force Meetings • Task 5 —Project Meetings • Task 6—Update the US 1 LOS Methodology 0 • Task 7—Project Progress Meeting 0. The scope includes a total of four Task Force meetings between November and January, one of which would be a Community Meeting, to gather public input on draft recommendations from the Task Force, as well as a presentation to the BOCC at their regularly scheduled meeting in February, 2021, at which time the BOCC would decide whether to adopt any recommended methodology changes proposed by the Task Force. 0 0 Proposed Task Force Meetings: 1. Initial Task Force meeting to discuss initial methodology update, Highway Capacity Manual review, and decide on the initial direction for updating the LOS methodology. 2. Second Task Force meeting to review the first draft of the updated methodology. T- 3. Community Meeting to gather public input on draft methodology update (will satisfy Community Meeting requirement to update methodology in Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code as well). 2 4. Third Task Force meeting to present the final methodology and gain consensus from all U- mem ers. BOCC Regular Meeting—February 17, 2021: J Presentation of Task Force recommended methodology update and adoption by BOCC. Data collection for the 2021 ATTDS would begin in late February/early March, using whatever methodology updates may be adopted by the BOCC. The 2021 ATTDS report is anticipated to bed scheduled to come before the BOCC for approval in August 2021. 0 This timeline coincides with the timeline for the County's recently initiated Transportation Master a Plan process, which is anticipated to produce a draft report in August 2021. A detailed timeline is attached which includes the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force, Transportation Master Plan, Comprehensive Plan Update, 2021 ATTDS, and Public Facilities Capacity Report. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: °3 August 1991 —Adoption of the U.S.1 Level of Service (LOS) C as measured by the U.S.1 Level of Service (LOS) Methodology established by the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. December 10, 1997 — Approval of amendment to the U.S.1 LOS Methodology based on recommendations of the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. January 23, 2019 - Approval of Work Order 47 to complete the 2019 U.S. 1 ATTDS. Packet Pg. 2847 R.5.hi May 20, 2020 — Approval of Supplemental Amendment No. 1 to Joint Participation Agreement GIA71 with FDOT, adding $300,000, for the County's Transportation Planning Program. Total JPA amount$600,000 (County portion $75,000). July 15, 2020 - BOCC considered the Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time & Delay Study, and directed 0 staff to re-engage the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force to evaluate the LOS methodology and consider updates a. c. to it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 0 DOCUMENTATION: 08-06-1991 BOCC Regular Minutes Accepting Original Task Force Traffic LOS Methodology Resolution to Reconvene Task Force -with Exhibit Ordinance 0071992_Adopting Original Task Force Traffic LOS in Comp Plan BOCC meeting Item N3—1997 Approval of LOS Methodology Task Force Update CURRENT TIMELINE_traffic methodology-traffic study-transportation master plan-10.2.20 2 County Letter to DEO Signed 9.10.2020 U_ County Letter to FDOTSigned 9.10.2020 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: Ui Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: $0 Total Cost to County: $0 Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: T-1 CPI: Ile Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: County Match: N Insurance Required: n/a N Additional Details: Packet Pg. 2848 R.5.hi REVIEWED BY: Emily Schemper Completed 09/30/2020 5:22 PM Derek Howard Completed 09/30/2020 6:20 PM Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed 10/05/2020 3:06 PM 0 Purchasing Completed 10/05/2020 3:07 PM CL CL Budget and Finance Completed 10/05/2020 5:29 PM Risk Management Completed 10/05/2020 6:53 PM � Liz Yongue Completed 10/06/2020 8:32 AM Board of County Commissioners Completed 10/21/2020 9:00 AM c 0 0 2 0 0 i cv cv cv U Packet Pg. 2849