The URL can be used to link to this page

Item P6 } P.6 `, County of Monroe �y,4 ' �, "tr, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 August 13, 2021 Agenda Item Number: P.6 Agenda Item Summary #3530 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 adoption of 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. I 1..,OS Task Force Recommendations to the BOCC on the level of` service methodology, adopted pursuant to BOCC Resolution 64-202I on February I7., 2021, On May I9., 2021, the BOCC held a public bearing and adopted Resolution I98-202I to transmit the proposed amendments to the Department of'Econornic Opportunity (DEO) to review the proposal, DEO reviewed the amendment and issued an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORQ report, received by the County on July 23, 2021, The OR.0 report stated, "the DeperrRtlnent goes not dent fy,cilij,, nth/ections or cctnnnents to the proposed cllnelldl gent," This is the second required public bearing on the proposal., for the BOCC to consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment and submittal to DEO again for a compliance reviews No changes have been made to the amendment, ent, 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. I LOS Task Force (the "Task Force") and Packet Pg. 1838 P.6 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 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, Packet Pg. 1839 P.6 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, 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. Packet Pg. 1840 P.6 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. May 19, 2021— BOCC adopted Resolution 198-2021 transmitting the proposed text amendment to the State for review. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval DOCUMENTATION: 2020-193—Ordinance_US 1 LOS methodogy_BOCC—ADOPTION State review_7.23.21_ORC_MONROE CO. 21-04ACSC (P) 2020-193—Staff Report US 1 LOS methodogy_BOCC—ADOPTION 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: Packet Pg. 1841 P.6 Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: n/a Additional Details: REVIEWED BY: Emily Schemper Completed 07/23/2021 5:23 PM Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Skipped 07/26/2021 10:34 AM Derek Howard Completed 08/02/2021 9:26 AM Maureen Proffitt Completed 08/02/2021 9:36 AM Purchasing Completed 08/02/2021 10:41 AM Budget and Finance Completed 08/02/2021 11:40 AM Maria Slavik Completed 08/02/2021 1:43 PM Liz Yongue Completed 08/02/2021 4:10 PM Board of County Commissioners Pending 08/18/2021 9:00 AM Packet Pg. 1842 P.6.ai 1 =' 2 3 �i,"�� 1 4 CD 5 f 2 6 0 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; 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) 22CL e= 23 24 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 27 welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and to strengthen our local government capability to °ai 28 manage land use and development; and 29 0 30 WHEREAS, Monroe County utilizes a unique methodology to assess level of service for 31 the Florida Keys to cover both its overall arterial length from Key West to the Florida mainland 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 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 40 41 WHEREAS, the BOCC approved a Resolution 064-2021 adopting the recommendations N 42 of the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and the 2021 Updated methodology document, A Methodology To N 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. 1843 P.6.ai I 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 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 13 other information relevant to the request, which by reference is hereby incorporated as part of the c 0 14 record of said hearing: a 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 PlanningCL 23 Commission makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 0 24 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 25 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and 26 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development 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 0 29 0 30 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. P05-21 a� 31 recommending approval of the proposed amendment; and E 32 33 WHEREAS, staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendments to the 2030 T- 34 Comprehensive Plan, to amend Policy 301.1.2 to reflect the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force 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 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 198- 43 2021, transmitting the proposed text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and 44 Ord. -2021 Page 2 of 4 File 42020-193 Packet Pg. 1844 P.6.ai I WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an 2 Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on July 23, 3 2021; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the ORC report stated, "the Department does not identify any objections or 6 comments to the proposed amendment;" and 0 7 c. 8 WHEREAS, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the 9 proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment; and 10 11 WHEREAS,at a regularly scheduled meeting on August 18,2021,the BOCC held a public 12 hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text amendment; and 13 c 14 WHEREAS, Monroe County policies and regulations adopted in the Monroe County 0 15 Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code are to maintain public health, safety, and E 16 welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and to strengthen our local government capability to E 17 manage land use and development; and v) 18 19 WHEREAS, based upon the documentation submitted and information provided in the 20 accompanying staff report, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners makes the 21 following Conclusions of Law: 22 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 0. 23 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and a 24 5. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for i 25 the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and 26 6. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute. aai 27 0 28 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 29 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 30 31 Section 1. The text of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended 32 as follows (deletions are shown st+ieke*d4fettg4; additions are shown underlined): 33 v) 34 Policy 301.1.2 35 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard 36 of C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task 37 Force and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in "„a_.st ?99 38 February 2021 (BOCC Resolution 064-20211. The level of service on U.S. 1 39 shall be maintained within five percent(5%) of LOS C. 40 N 41 42 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or 43 provision of this ordinance is held invalid,the remainder of this ordinance shall not E 44 be affected by such validity. 45 Ord. -2021 Page 3 of 4 File 42020-193 Packet Pg. 1845 P.6.ai I 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. 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 0 7 Section 5. Filin2 and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the CL 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 c 14 in the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing a 15 amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County E 16 Comprehensive Plan. E 17 v) 18 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 19 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of 20 21 Mayor Michelle Coldiron 22 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice CL 23 Commissioner Craig Cates 24 Commissioner Eddie Martinez e( 25 Commissioner Mike Forster cap 26 27 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS i 28 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA c 29 0 30 31 BY 32 MAYOR MICHELLE COLDIRON 33 (SEAL) 34 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK 35 36 By 37 AS DEPUTY CLERK i cv CD cv Ord. -2021 Page 4 of 4 File 42020-193 Packet Pg. 1846 P.6.b DERon DeSantis Dane Eagle ECONOMICFLORIDA DEPARTMENTof I N July 23, 2021 The Honorable Michelle Coldiron Mayor, Monroe County CL CL 25 Ships Way Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Dear Mayor Coldiron: The Department of Economic Opportunity("Department") has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Monroe County(Amendment No. 21-04ACSC), which was received and determined complete on May 26,2021. We have reviewed the proposed amendment in accordance with the state coordinated review process set forth in Sections 163.3184(2) and (4), m Florida Statutes(F.S.),for compliance with Chapter 163, Part II, F.S.The Department does not identify any objections or comments to the proposed amendment and this letter serves as the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. Review comments received by the Department from the U) appropriate reviewing agencies, if any, are enclosed. The County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes,or not adopt the proposed amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures for final adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment.The second public hearing, which shall be a hearing on whether to adopt one or more comprehensive plan amendments, must be held within 180 days of your receipt of the Department's attached report, or the amendment will be deemed withdrawn unless extended by `V agreement with notice to the Department and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(4)(e)1., F.S. Lu If you have any questions related to this review, please contact Jennie Leigh Copps, Planning Analyst, by telephone at(850) 717-8534 or by email at jennie.copps@deo.myflorida.com. i Sincerely, 0Xf N N 'ustin B. Stiell,ACSC Regional Planning Administrator Bureau of Community Planning and Growth JBS/jlc Enclosure: Procedures for Adoption Agency Comments cc: Isabel Cosio Carballo, Executive Director,South Florida Regional Planning Council Christine Hurley,County Administrator, Monroe County l''on a Department of Econorna c Opportunity F CaldweU Building 1 E. Madison Street I "ailahasse , l- 399 850246.7105 An equA r°pp rl:inity emp� oy riprograrn.AuAliary aids and service are avallable upon request to individuals with disabilities,All v6cetelephone numbers one this document may be reached by persons using TTYMD equipment Ala the Florida Relay Service at 711, Packet Pg. 1847 P.6.b SUBMITTAL OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR STATE COORDINATED REVIEW cv Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes r9 NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit electronically using the Department's electronic amendment submittal portal "Comprehensive Plan and Amendment Upload" CL CL ( tt «" q ,. �: � . or submit three complete copies of all comprehensive plan materials,of which one complete paper copy and two complete electronic copies on CD ROM in Portable Document Format(PDF)to the State Land Planning Agency and one copy to each entity below that provided timely comments to the local government:the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District; Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; 6 Department of State;the appropriate county(municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife 0 Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services(county plan amendments only);and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools); and for certain local governments,the appropriate military installation and any other local government or governmental agency that has filed a written request. SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the adopted amendment: Department of Economic Opportunity identification number for adopted amendment package; Summary description of the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but not `V adopted; c, Ordinance number and adoption date; Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that provided i timely comments to the local government; i Name,title, address,telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government contact; n! r9 cv r®: Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local government. m ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information in the amendment package: In the case of text amendments,changes should be shown in strike-through/underline format; In the case of future land use map amendment,an adopted future land use map, in color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its existing future land use designation, and its adopted designation, A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate. Effective:June 2, 2011 (updated March 2021) Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 1848 P.6.b Note: If the local government is relying on previously submitted data and analysis, no additional data and analysis is required; cv Copy of executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s); r9 Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review: 0 The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be CL CL the date the state land planning agency posts a notice of intent determining that this amendment is in compliance. If the amendment is timely challenged, or if the state land planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in compliance, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance." CD 0 0 List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the Department of Economic Opportunity did not previously review; m List of findings of the local governing body, if any,that were not included in the ordinance and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed amendment; Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed by the W Department of Economic Opportunity to the ORC report from the Department of Economic Opportunity. cv i 1 cv ai cv r®: i m Effective:June 2, 2011(Updated lurch 2021) Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 1849 P.6.b From: a=t r ti ear; To: Cc: Plan Revie Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Monroe County 21-04ACSC Proposed tV Date: Tuesday,June 22,20214:57:15 PM Attachments: To: Ray Eubanks, DEO Plan Review Administrator 2 0 CL Re: Monroe County 21-04ACSC—State Coordinated Review of Proposed ComprehensiveCL Plan Amendment The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department)has reviewed the above-referenced amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163,Florida Statutes. The Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities, specifically: —o air and water pollution;wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands, including state parks,greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water and wastewater treatment. Based on our review of the submitted amendment package,the Department has found no provision that, if adopted,would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject U) to the Department's jurisdiction. Please submit all future amendments by email to phir g z� ' ��,;,,��1"�d2 gQv. If your � submittal is too large to send via email or if you need other assistance, contact Lindsay v) Weaver at(850) 717-9037. N f F. i i N �i N i n3 n3 Packet Pg. 1850 DocuSign Envelope ID:898D2B0E-5D98-45C8-ADC1-01 F2A0654CB2 FDOT . Na Florida Department of Transportation ,N DESANTIS 1000I NW I IIth Avenue KEVIN:.'t`HdBAULT,PM GOVERNOR t➢1t Miami,mi,FL 331'72-5 I9 5�,�. �i"�`�T��' U June 18, 2021 CL CL Ms. Mayte Santamaria, AICP Senior Planning Policy Advisor Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department Marathon Government Center 0 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Marathon, Florida 33050 Subject: Comments for the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Amendment FDEO #21-04ACSC U) Dear Ms. Santamaria: Pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), in its role as a reviewing agency as identified in Section 163.3184(1)(c), F.S., the Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, reviewed the proposed amendment to the Monroe County's comprehensive plan. The proposed amendment will modify Policy 301.1.2 of the 2030 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to reflect the U.S. 1 Level of Service (LOS) Task Force Recommendations concerning the level of service methodology. As a member of this task force, FDOT worked with Monroe County in developing the revised traffic LOS methodology. The District reviewed the amendment package per Chapter 163 Florida Statutes and found the proposed amendment would not adversely impact transportation resources and facilities of state importance. In addition, the District recommends that the County continue to identify and address the needs of all modes of travel, including public transportation. The District encourages the County to include pedestrian and bicycle facilities to promote a walkable and connected community consistent with ss. 163.3177, Florida Statutes. Please transmit a copy of the amendment, along with the supporting data and E analysis, to the District upon its adoption. Thank you for coordinating on the review of this proposed amendment with FDOT. If you have any questions, please do not Itnprov Sgfely, Fnhance Wbility Inspire Innovation www.f(,iot.gov Packet Pg. 1851 P.6.b DocuSign Envelope ID:898D2BOE-5D98-45C8-ADC1-01F2AO654CB2 Ms. Mayte Santamaria, AICP June 18, 2021 Page 2 hesitate to contact me by email at sh r fond (. ot.st t .fl.us or at 305-470- 5393. inrl , CL 0 .rDocuffigned by: CL 806CD06755954DD.. Shereen Yee Fong � Transportation Planner IV CD 0 c: Daniel Iglesias, Floridaof Transportation, District 6 o Dat n ., Florida Department of Transportation, District Kennethri Florida t of Transportation, District y Eubanks, Department of Economic Opportunity U) Isabel Cosio Carballo, South Floridai n I Planning Council Kathe Lerch, South lori Regional Planning Council _ U U N i i N N i 0 0 0 0 Packet Pg. 1852 P.6.b From: ("u'anMia {siCe .al"" l #fix' .a lse r ut. Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Monroe CountyP21-04ACSC(198-2021) Date: Friday,3une 18,2021 3:28:30 PM Dear Ms. Santarnaria: CL Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(F C) staff reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with Chapter 163.318 (4),Florida Statutes. e have no comments,recommendations, or objections related to listed species and their habitat or other fish and wildlife resources to offer on this amendment. If you have specific technical questions,please contact Cori Ca yniu at( 50) 556-5948 or by email at _...4 .., az� I Yv.x...x.... . For all other inquiries,please contact our office by 0 email at ��,r�.a� „6isg„��z��=€s�.«.`;v "v4€ �_�"� s�� .�5'��. 6 0 Sincerely, Josh Cuclnella Biological Administrator 11 Office of Conservation Planning Services Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 139 SW I oth Street Ocala,Florida.34471 (352)620-7330 Monroe County 21-04ACSC_44595 tV tJ I tJ r I N M N h I U Packet Pg. 1853 P.6.b From: Kith , To: Y 7. Qh v c. , � w' .i�=te.,£x, r�. I i_ ro a..3t,org; al 1g �..r...#::, x�k. _ r,w 9t 8 '';:.,� ,..Mkr'u u.#'::. r(P m_;r i �v ..,` e,,,,kf.-; Ieia,�� *m..., s5 w.r y.(.'�• ...".ter.� .. nr x .okt C nv�tesk=_ . : 1Qi N Y . 0 . . `.. T' Cc: s7,, ,'tis� €"; M 'f _.. tt{... . . :z L 4.,# . °.c. r r Subject: (EXTERNAL)-SFRPC Council Muting June 28,2021 Agenda Item IV.C,Consent:6roeward:21-02ESR;Monroe: 0 CL 21-01,21-04ACSC;Miami-Dade Co,Hialeah:21-01ESR,Coral Springs:20-Q1ESR,21-01ER,Marathon:21 CL - 02ACSC Date: Wednesday,June 30,2021 10:27:51 AM py 74a_2 Li, f... ) M O 'aa V At the June 28, 2021,Council Meeting,the South Florida Regional Planning Council approved the W attached report,finding the proposed and adopted amendments to be generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida.Should you have any questions, contact Isabel Cosio Carballo, Executive Director, at(954)924-3653 or,��a. �.��. . If. ..w,,t_�:. :._.._..,_�. Broward County Commission SFRPC Agenda IV.0#21-02ESR; Mtc e CC Ca Steve Geller Deanne D. Von Stetina/Jo Sesodia/Barbara Blake Boy/ Miami-Dade County Commission SFRPC Agenda IV.C,#20-01ESR; Mavor cc Doniella Levine Cava Garett Rowe/Jerry Bell/B.Jack Osterholt cv , -._...7 M Monroe County Commission SFRPC Agenda IV.0#21-01ACSC,21-04ACSC; Ma or CC _ ¢' Michelle Coldiron Emily Schemper/Heidi Siegel/Cheryl Cioffori/ V t G7 .....,., ....1.1.�, ais �t 'r, �'>'` .... ......... ., Cb City of Coral Springs SFRPC Agenda IV.0#20-01ESR;21-01ER Ma�or cc Packet Pg. 1854 P.6.b Scott Brook Susan Hess/Christopher Suneson/ ��_ , w g ........... City f Hialeah SFRPC Agenda 11- e ma ys?r _ cc r- r9 Carlos Hernandez Deborah Storch/lonathan Martinez/Alex David f ttvoo I F �f.......: IF£ ..i...��...�..?.�„.�x.......... :. ........ Ve p LL — CL CJ City of Marathon SFRPC Agenda IV.0#21-01ACSC,21-02ACSC Mavor - cc Luis Gonzalez George Garrett/Brian Shea/ 0 0 Should you have any questions, contact Isabel Cosio Carballo, Executive Director,at(954)924-3653 or i ,.�i � � � �i,a�. 0 :V,, :uF _J i n _rc' 4- - 5, U) mISFRPC N �a 0 f �,, 0 I tJ r I N M N h I Packet Pg. 1855 P.6.b cv MR, - r9 MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM#IV.0 o CL CL DATE: JUNE 28,2021 TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: STAFF 0 SUBJECT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED AND ADOPTED AMENDMENT o CONSENT AGENDA m Pursuant to the 1974 Interlocal Agreement creating the South Florida Regional Planning Council(Council), T' the Council is directed by its member counties to"assure the orderly,economic,and balanced growth and development of the Region, consistent with the protection of natural resources and environment of the '✓ Region and to protect the health,safety,welfare and quality of life of the residents of the Region." In fulfillment of the Interlocal Agreement directive and its duties under State law, the Council reviews local government Comprehensive Plan amendments for consistency with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida(SRPP). Pursuant to Section 163.3184,Florida Statues as presently in effect,Council review of comprehensive plan amendments is limited to 1) adverse effects on regional resources and facilities identified in the SRPP and 2) extra-jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the Region. The Council's review of amendments is conducted in two stages: (1) proposed or transmittal and (2) adoption. Council staff reviews the contents of the amendment package once the Department of Economic Opportunity certifies its completeness. i A written report of Council's evaluation pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, is to be provided i to the local government and the State Land Planning Agency within 30 calendar days of receipt of the amendment. cv r®: i Recommendation m Find the proposed and adopted plan amendments from the local governments listed in the tables below generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. Approve this report for transmittal to the local governments with a copy to the State Land Planning Agency. South Florida Regional Planning Council i Oakwood Boulevard,Suite 25o, Hollywood, Florida 33020 954-924-3653 Phone,954-924-3654 FAX .-- -, Packet Pg. 1856 P.6.b PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Local Government Local Government T' and Plan Proposed Adopted Council Review Transmittal or Amendment Number Date Adoption Public Hearing and Meeting CL Miami-Dade County CL 21-01ESR (received 05-19-21) N/A 06-28-21 04-21-21 1. The proposed amendments to Miami-Dade County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) would revise the Future Land Use designations of two properties to increase their maximum residential intensity per acre as follows: a. Revises a property from Low-Medium Density Residential (6 to 13 dwelling units per gross acre)to Medium Density Residential (13 to 25 dwelling units per acre) in response to an application by Old Cutler Apartments, Ltd. b. Revises a property from Low Density Residential (2.5 to 6 dwelling units per acre) to Low-Medium DensityResidential 6 to 13 dwelling units per gross acre in response to an application b Lennar ( g p g ) � p pp Y �.. Homes, LLC. 2. The amendments affect two properties in Miami-Dade County:approximately 22.57 gross acres north of Old Cutler Road between the Homestead Extension to Florida's Turnpike and Black Creek Canal (Old Cutler _ Apartments, Ltd.) and approximately 35.8 gross acres on the south side of SW 288 Street between SW 162 . U and SW 164 Avenues (Lennar Homes, LLC.). 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. i Monroe County 21-04ACSC (received 05-27-21) �/ N/A 06-28-21 05-19-21 _. ....... 1. The proposed amendment revises Monroe County s Comprehensive Plan to reflect the U.S. 1 Level of Service i (LOS)Task Force recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners on the LOS methodology. 2. This amendment affects Monroe County. 3. Council notes that the LOS on U.S. 1 in Monroe County shall be maintained within five percent(5%)of LOS C N and encourages the County to continue supporting pedestrian and bicycle mobility, safety, and access to transit.This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. r�i n � City of Coral Springs 21-01ER (received 05-11-21) N/A 06-28-21 05-05-21 1. The proposed amendments to the City of Coral Springs' Comprehensive Plan includes policy additions and m revisions resulting from an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process and includes the City of Coral Springs 10 Year Water Supply Plan. 2. These amendments affect the City of Coral Springs. 3. Council staff recommends addressing the technical assistance comments provided by the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)to ensure full compliance with all elements of the most recent Lower Packet Pg. 1857 P.6.b Local Government Local Government and Plan Proposed Adopted Council Review Transmittal or N Amendment Number Date Adoption Public (( Hearing and Meeting East Coast Water Supply Plan Update approved by the SFWMD District Board.The inclusion of policies related to green development, Complete Streets, accessory dwelling units,traffic management, downtown mixed CL - CL use,and continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program's Community Rating System (CRS) c, are supportive of the Council's regional goals and policies. _ City of Hialeah 21-01ESR received 05-14-21 ( ) ,/ N/A 06-28-21 04-27-21 0 j i 1. The proposed amendment amends the City of Hialeah's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the 20-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Update(2020-2040). 2. This amendment affects the City of Hialeah. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. Council staff e recommends addressing the technical assistance comments provided by staff of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to ensure full compliance with the Draft Miami-Dade Water and Sewer ~� Department 10-Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan and the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update _ approved by the SFWMD District Board. t� City of Marathon 21-02ACSC (received 06-04-20) N/A 06-28-21 04-13-21 c, f ......... ....... ... ... _µ _ __ _....._...... -- 1 The proposed amendment revises the City of Marathon's Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the City's 10- Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. 2. This amendment affects the City of Marathon. 2 1 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. The amendment is intended to be consistent with the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)Lower 0i East Coast Water Supply Plan and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 20-Year Water System Capital N Improvement Master Plan. Council staff recommends continued coordination with the SFWMD regarding consistency, as needed. i > 3 Packet Pg. 1858 P.6.b ADOPTED AMENDMENTS Local Government Local Government and Plan Proposed Adopted Council Review Transmittal or Amendment Date Adoption Public Number Hearing and U Meeting C 0L CL Broward County 21-02ESR (received 06-04-21) N/A ✓ 06-28-21 06-01-21 1. The adopted amendments to the Broward County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP) include three map amendments and two text amendments,and are concurrent with the following amendments: 0 • Miramar 21-01ESR— revises the land use designation of approximately 59 acres of Community and 24 acres of Commerce to Activity Center for a property located on both sides of Miramar Parkway, between Florida's Turnpike and Hibiscus Place/SW 67 Avenue and a corresponding text amendment in the City of Miramar. • Hollywood 21-01ESR — revises the land use designation of approximately 15 acres of Commerce and approximately 11.6 acres of Low-Medium (10) Residential to Medium (16) Residential for a property U) located on the south side of Stirling Road, between Oakwood Boulevard and North 22 Avenue in the City of Hollywood. CL • Lauderhill 21-01ESR—revises the land use designation of approximately 14.2 acres of Commerce to High (50) Residential generally located on the west side of University Drive between Commercial Boulevard and Inverrary Boulevard/NW 50 Street in the City of Lauderhill. • Pompano Beach 20-03ESR — revises text to add 1,500,000 square feet of industrial uses and reduce 650,000 square feet of office uses within the"Pompano Park South Activity Center"generally located on the east side of Powerline Road, between SW 3 Street/Race Tract Road and North Cypress Bend Drive in the City of Pompano Beach. 2. The amendment affects areas within Broward County. 3. The amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. 4. The Council reviewed this amendment when proposed. c, i Monroe County 21-01ACSC [ (received 06-01-21) N/A 06-28-21 05-19-21 N i 1. The adopted amendment to Monroe County's Comprehensive Plan modifies the Future Land Use Element and the Housing Element to establish a new building permit allocation category to award 300 workforce housing early evacuation unit building permit allocations pursuant to the Workforce-Affordable Housing Initiative and establishes specific requirements. 2. This amendment affects Monroe County. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. 4. The Council reviewed this amendment when proposed. I 4 Packet Pg. 1859 P.6.b F m Local Government Local Government and Plan Proposed Adopted Council Review Transmittal or Amendment o Date Adoption Public Number Hearing and Meeting .2 City of Coral Springs C 0L 20-01ESR CL ca (received 05-12-21) N/A �/ 06-28-21 06-17-21 1. The adopted amendment to the City of Coral Spring's Comprehensive Plan revises the land use designation of 15.59 acres of Commercial use designation and 0.07 acres of Transportation use designation to 15.59 acres of Medium (8.00-20.00 du/acre) Residential use,circumscribed to 10.1 du/acre and 0.07 acres of Community Facilities. 2. This amendment affects a site located in Section 7,Township 48 South, Range 41 East,generally located on 00 the north side of Wiles Road,west of Coral Ridge Drive in the City of Coral Springs. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. 4. Council reviewed the amendment when proposed. - — . .. City of Marathon 21-01ACSC W (received 05-24-21) ( N/A 06-28-21 01-12-21 1. The adopted amendment revises the City of Marathon's Comprehensive Plan by amending the land use designation of two properties on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)from Residential High (RH)to Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C) with the intent of allowing the expansion of an adjacent marine aquaculture/research iN facility. 2. This amendment affects two properties located at 163 63 Street(Ocean) in the City of Marathon. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. 4. The Council reviewed this amendment when proposed. _ ca i cv ai cv r®: i m 5 Packet Pg. 1860 ,l AN r _u 4 `V 5 MEMORANDUM 6 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 7 2 0 8 CL CL 9 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners ca 10 � 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 o 15 'a 16 Date: April 28, 2021, updated July 23, 2021 0 17 18 Subject: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Policy v) 19 301.1.2 of the 2030 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan to reflect the U.S. 1 LOS Task 20 Force Recommendations to the BOCC on the level of service methodology. (File 42020- 21 193) 22 z 23 Meeting: May 19, 2021 (transmittal),August 18, 2021 (adoption) P CL 24 25 26 I. REQUEST 27 28 The Monroe County Planning& Environmental Resources Department is proposing amendments to i 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 a 31 64-2021 on February 17, 2021. 32 E 33 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 34 35 The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all 36 development and redevelopment taking place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result ini 37 a reduction of the level of service requirements, including transportation facilities. 0 38 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 v)i 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. a 46 47 48 49 BOCC SR Page 1 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 1861 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. T, 6 7 Policy 301.2.1 2 8 Monroe County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic ac. 9 monitoring program initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at 10 permanent count stations and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of 11 24 study segments of U.S. 1, and to determine the cumulative impact of development and 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 14 Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for conducting this analysis and shall o 15 request that the Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a 0 16 periodic basis when new data becomes available. 0 17 18 The original US 1 LOS Task Force was formed in 1990 to review and develop a way of measuring v) 19 level of service in the Florida Keys for transportation facilities, which is unique in having only one 20 major road. 21 22 The Task Force consisted of Monroe County staff, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 23 and Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which is now Department of Economic Opportunity 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 i 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 a 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 E 33 Manual (HCM). v) 34 35 On October 21, 2020, the BOCC adopted Resolution 355-2020, reconvening the US 1 LOS Task U) 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 0 38 (ATTDs). 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: cv cv BOCC SR Page 2 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 1862 The follow, i ng is. a list of cores.ideraat ions for review. 1 The US 1 Level of Service Task Force was formulated in 1�9E 2 to deve I op a rmeth o d iog for Ib S 1 that utilizes an ern piiricail relationship between the vofrurrie-based capacities and ry the spee -b ased Level of Service (LOS). The Task Force was :a multi-agency term with members. front' Monroe County, the FIGrida Department of Transportation, and the Department of Ec norniic Opp rtani (fo,rnierl known as Florida Department of 2 prnrmiun iit ffai;r - DC A). The miethodology esta 'l i shed by the, tafs;k force includes a procedure f6r,usi rig travel speed as a rmearts of,as.sess i n g the leve[ofservic:eand reserve CL CL capacity for US 1. The nienibers. of the: Teask: Force met, again in 1997to re-evaluate the: LOS methodology and made some rni;r o r changes. The, signal delay for LOS C was ,increased to 25 seconds. frorn 1.5 seconds to account for changes in the, Highway Capacity Manual (HCM'). Cons.iderling that the last rneeting of the Task Force was held more, than 22 years. ago, it 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 opporturrities. for, 2 improverment, if any. Since the lust Task Force review, there have been updates: to the Highway Capacity Man,ual HCM' which may need to be into rporated. Some specific c 1 items that can be reviewed, include: � v) • review the signaai delay threshold for LO S C based orr the current Highway Capacity Manual (delay threshold increased frorn 25 s.ec reds. to 35 econd ) and adjust the, methodo[ogy accordingly. • The,methodolo to determine the LO S for the 24 iindivi uail roadway seg men ts. arrd the overall 'US 1 are slightly? different. [ndividual segment LOS i.s deterrmined by. comparing the rmedi am trave'I speed with the weighted posted speed lii rmiit for the CL segment,.. For, example, Segment LOS is A if the rmedlian travel speedl is 1.5 rmph 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 i different lever of service. Fore ample, the LOS for US 1 [% A, if the overall[ trave f peedl is aqua I too r above.51 mph, i rres pecti ve of the overal l weighted prrs.tedl speed l i,rni t„ I r7 other words,, the overal I LOS criteria does not consider the posted speed l i rnit„ CD c • Accordilg to the current methpd l g y, delays. due,to drawwbridge openings should be a cliu ed from the a r-troent travel times, but included in the overall[travel times. Considering that delays,aa.a.ociated with drawbridge openings are nom-recurTing and m iirmpact the overa111 U S 1 level of service, thi,. part of the, r° ethodo logy should be 2 reviewed and adjusted accordingly. 3 Review the travel time schedule (i.e. departure times and staggered schedule) and T- 4 adjust as needed to reflect current traffiic conditions. i 5 c 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 N 12 DEO: C14 13 Barbara Powell, Regional Program Administrator 14 Justin Stiell,Planning Analyst E 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. 1863 1 2 Monroe County Traffic Consultant(AECOM): 3 Vivek Reddy, Traffic Engineering Department Manager 4 cv 5 Monroe County Staff- 6 Emily Schemper, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources 7 Janene Sclafam, Transportation Planner 8 Judith Clarke, Director of Engineering Services 0 9 c' CL 10 Per BOCC direction on October 21, 2020, the Task Force was reconvened and performed the 11 following tasks and meetings: 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 —°c 16 • Task 5 —Project Meetings 0 17 • Task 6 —Update the US 1 LOS Methodology 0) 18 • Task 7 —Project Progress Meeting E 19 20 Task Force meetings were held as follows: 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 z 23 methodology. 24 2. January 6, 2021 - Second Task Force meeting to review of a first draft of the updated 0. 0. 25 methodology. a 26 3. January 7, 2021 - Community Meeting to gather public input on draft methodology update 27 (will satisfy Community Meeting requirement to update methodology in Comprehensive 28 Plan and Land Development Code as well). ca 29 4. January 21, 2021 - Third Task Force meeting to present the final methodology and gain 30 consensus from all members. c 31 c 32 The Task Force considered and voted to recommend updates to the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology, °i 33 summarized below, and, more specifically, as shown in 2021 update to "A Methodology To v) 34 Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys " attached to this agenda item as Exhibit 35 1: 36 1 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 MI 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; N 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, E 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. 1864 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 2 8 Community Meeting and Public Participation c 9 In accordance with LDC Section 102-159(b)(3), a Community Meeting for the Comprehensive Plan 10 and Land Development Code text amendments was held on January 7, 2021 via Zoom Webinar and S 11 provided for public input. There were three(3)members of the public in attendance. Comments from 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 C 15 Development Review Committee Meeting and Public Participation c 16 The Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at a regular meeting on c 17 February 23, 2021. No public input was received. 18 v) 19 Planning Commission Meeting and Public Participation 20 The Planning Commissioner considered the proposed amendment at a regular meeting on April 28, v_ 21 2021, adopted Resolution No. P05-21 recommending approval of the proposed amendment. No 22 public input was received. 23 0 24 Previous Relevant BOCC Actions CL 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 0 28 December 10, 1997 — Approval of amendment to the U.S.1 LOS Methodology based on cai 29 recommendations of the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. 30 'a 31 January 23, 2019 - Approval of Work Order 47 to complete the 2019 U.S. 1 ATTDS. c 32 E 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 updates 35 to it based on the considerations identified in the Draft 2019 ATTDS. v) 36 37 October 21, 2020—BOCC approval of Resolution 355-2020 reconvening the US 1 LOS Task Force 0 38 and tasking the US 1 LOS Task Force with evaluating the LOS Methodology and potential updates 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 45 May 19, 2021— BOCC adopted Resolution 198-2021 transmitting the proposed text amendment to 46 the State for review. E 47 48 The subject of this staff report is the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. 49 BOCC SR Page 5 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 1865 1 111. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENTS 2 3 Proposed Amendment(deletions are stfieken*hr-e additions are shown in underlined). 4 T� T_ 5 Policy 301.1.2 6 For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of 7 C, as measured by the methodology established by the U.S. I LOS Task Force 0 CL 8 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 449-4- U February CL --------------------—9 2021 L11QC(: Reso1utioii 064-2021 The level of service on U.S. I shall be -------- 10 maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C. 11 12 IV. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT 13 .2 0 14 Based on the recommendations of the U.S. I LOS Task Force and adoption of a Resolution 064- 'a 0 15 2021 by the BOCC, the only required amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is provided above. 16 E U) 17 No further changes are required to the Comprehensive Plan's goals, objectives or policies at this 0 18 time. 19 U) 20 The amendment is necessary to reflect the most recent methodology adopted by the BOCC, updated z 21 based on the current Highway Capacity Manual and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 0 22 data on the drawbridge openings and to implement Policy 301.2.1 (Monroe County...shall request CL 23 that the Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis when new 0 24 data becomes available). 25 26 V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE 0 M 27 PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT,AND FLORIDA STATUTES. ::11 CD 28 0 'a 29 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 0 30 Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, it furthers: E 31 U) 32 Policy 101.1.5 0 33 Transportation facilities needed to serve new development shall be in place when the impacts of the 34 development occur. If transportation facilities are needed to ensure that the adopted level-of-service U) 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 0 37 improvement of proportionate share of required improvements, or to assure the provision of the 38 proportionate share contribution of the costs for the necessary transportation facilities. The development 4-- 39 of a single family residential unit shall be considered de minimis and shall not be subject to this U) 40 requirement. 41 42 Objective 301.1 43 Monroe County shall establish level of service(LOS) standards for all paved roads in Monroe County for C44 44 the purpose of determining existing and future roadway needs. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)] 45 E 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. 1866 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 ry 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. 1 as well as on each of the 24 study segments 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 0 9 and/or deficiencies. CL CL 10 t� 11 Policy 301.1.4 12 Monroe County shall update its Long Range Transportation Plan to include roadway improvements on 13 County owned roads designed to improve the LOS on U.S. 1. 14 15 Objective 301.2 0 16 Monroe County shall ensure that all paved roads have sufficient capacity to serve development at the 0 17 adopted LOS standards concurrent with the impact of said development. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.a.] 0 18 19 Policy 301.2.1 E 20 Monroe County,in coordination with the FDOT,shall continue the systematic traffic monitoring program v) 0 21 initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations and travel 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 v) 23 cumulative impact of development and through traffic. Monroe County shall use the methodology 24 developed by the U.S. 1 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 0 26 Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis when new data becomes c- 0 27 available. [F.S. § 163.3177(6)(b)l.b.] 28 i 29 Policy 301.2.2 30 Monroe County shall utilize the results of the systematic traffic monitoring program for development 31 approval process and to evaluate any potential degradation in LOS and the need for improvements in 32 order to achieve and maintain the adopted LOS standard. 33 0 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, U) v) 39 is a significant degradation in the level of service on U.S. 1. Traffic volume which exceeds the LOS D i 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 43 Policy 301.2.4 44 As approved by the County Commission on a case by case basis, Monroe County shall provide funding i 45 from gas taxes,impact fees, and any other legally available sources to expedite local projects. 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 `V 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. 1867 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 ry 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 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 0 9 successfully implemented. c- CL 10 11 Policy 1401.4.6 12 The following guidelines identify the stages in the development review process when the test for 13 concurrency must be met. 14 1. Preliminary Development Order Stage - A preliminary development order is a development order 15 that precedes the issuance of a building permit, such as a subdivision plat, development plan, o 16 certificate of compliance, conditional use permit, or development of regional impact development 0 17 order. A proposed development must receive a conditional concurrency determination prior to 0 18 receiving a preliminary development order. 19 2. Final Development Order Stage - A final development order is a building permit or any other 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 22 development must receive a final concurrency determination prior to receiving a final development U) 23 order. 24 25 Policy 1401.4.7 0 26 The following guidelines identify the effect of a concurrency determination: CL 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 eti 29 facilities at subsequent stages of development review. 30 2.A Final Concurrency Determination shall indicate that adequate public facilities will be available at 31 all subsequent stages of development stages of development review, subject to certain limitations 32 such as elapsed time and the payment of fees. C 33 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 facilities 38 and services shall be satisfied if one or more of the following conditions are met: 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 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, i 45 which shall be dedicated to or acquired by the County prior to issuance of a building permit, or 46 funds in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed no later than the approval to 47 commence construction; or N 48 b) an enforceable development agreement guarantees that the necessary facilities and services will 04 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. 1868 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 ry 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 7 163.3220,F.S., or an agreement or development order issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S. 8 0 9 Policy 1401.4.9 CL CL 10 The following guidelines identify the minimum components of the County's concurrency monitoring U 11 system. . 12 1. The County shall maintain a database of permitting data that includes the amount of development 13 for which final development orders have been issued, development for which final development 14 orders have expired, development which is under construction, and development which has been 15 constructed. o 16 2. The County shall maintain a database of public facility data that includes the capacity of existing 0 17 public facilities, the additional capacity created by facility improvements, the impacts of existing 0 18 development, and the impacts anticipated due to committed development. 19 3. The County shall prepare a Public Facilities Capacity Report assessing the capacities of all public 20 facilities subject to the Concurrency Management System. The Concurrency Management Report v) 0 21 shall be used to monitor changes in the capacity of public facilities and the levels of service provided 22 by the facilities based upon development activities and capital improvement projects completed. v) 23 24 Policy 1401.4.10 25 Monroe County shall use the following guidelines for interpreting and applying level of service standards 0 26 to development order applications.For the purposes of this policy,reserve capacity refers to the capacity c- 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 eti 29 expected to be created for those facilities by approved but unbuilt development as determined by the 30 databases in Policy 1401.4.9. 31 1.Potable Water—The County shall not render a final concurrency determination unless the quantity 32 of water available under the FKAA Consumptive Use Permit meets or exceeds the estimated water C 33 demand of the proposed development together with the estimated water demand of all existing and a 34 committed development. m 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 estimated 38 daily solid waste generation of all existing and committed development for a period of three (3) v) 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 43 system permitted by the DOH. 44 4. Drainage—The County shall not render a final concurrency determination unless the proposed i 45 development will be served by stormwater management facilities approved by the South Florida 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 `V 49 District,such permit must be obtained prior to the final concurrency determination or the applicant's m 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. 1869 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 ry 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 7 estimated trip generation rate of more than 10 trips per day shall be based on a traffic impact report 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 CL CL 10 home) shall be limited to the segment of U.S. 1 most directly impacted by the development. U 11 � 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 o 16 principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be 0 17 construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other 18 provisions. E 19 v) 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 22 designation. U) 23 (b) Protecting shoreline and benthic resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass Z 24 beds,wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. 25 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical CL 26 vegetation(for example,hardwood hammocks and pinelands),dune ridges and beaches,wildlife,and 27 their habitat. eC� 28 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic U 29 development. U 30 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. i 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. 33 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. c 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; U) 39 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; i 40 5. Transportation facilities; 0 41 6. Federal parks,wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 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. Ui 45 (1) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, 46 and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and N 47 disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage N 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. et 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. 1870 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 ry 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. 0 9 CL 10 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute 11 (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: 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 2 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, 18 promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort good order, appearance, E 19 convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and v) 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 T' 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 conformityCL 26 with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof,prepared and adopted in conformity with 0 27 this act. 28 cap 29 163.3177(l), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and 0 30 strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal 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 'a 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, 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 0 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 v) 39 development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan 40 and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will 0 41 be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and 42 development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land 4-- 43 development and use regulations. 44 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 N 47 transportation routes, including bicycle and pedestrian ways. Transportation corridors, as defined in N 48 s.334.03,may be designated in the transportation element pursuant to s.337.273.If the transportation 49 corridors are designated, the local government may adopt a transportation corridor management m E 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. 1871 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. ry 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. 7 e. How the local government will correct existing facility deficiencies, meet the identified needs 8 of the projected transportation system,and advance the purpose of this paragraph and the other 9 elements of the comprehensive plan. c- CL 10 11 163.3180, F.S.—Concurrency.— � 12 (5)(a) If concurrency is applied to transportation facilities, the local government comprehensive plan 13 must provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies,including adopted levels of service 14 to guide its application. 15 (b) Local governments shall use professionally accepted studies to evaluate the appropriate levels of o 16 service. Local governments should consider the number of facilities that will be necessary to meet 6 17 level-of-service demands when determining the appropriate levels of service. The schedule of 0 18 facilities that are necessary to meet the adopted level of service shall be reflected in the capital 19 improvement element. 20 (c) Local governments shall use professionally accepted techniques for measuring levels of service v) 0 21 when evaluating potential impacts of a proposed development. 22 (d) The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and v) 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 0 26 element shall identify facilities necessary to meet adopted levels of service during a 5-year period. c- 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 eti 29 development: 30 1. In urban infill and redevelopment, and urban service areas. 31 2. With special part-time demands on the transportation system. 32 3. With de minimis impacts. 33 4. On community desired types of development, such as redevelopment,or job creation projects. 34 (f)Local governments are encouraged to develop tools and techniques to complement the application 35 of transportation concurrency such as: E 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. 38 2. Adoption of an areawide level of service not dependent on any single road segment function. 39 3. Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development, such as development in i 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. 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 i 45 mobility. 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 m 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. 1872 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. ry 5 6 VI. PROCESS 7 8 Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the CL c 9 Planning Commission,the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual CL tL 10 interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review 11 and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review 12 Committee and the Planning Commission. 13 14 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall o 15 review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & 0 16 Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the 0 17 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the 18 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the v) 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 T_ 21 recommend transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to State U)_ 22 Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, z 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 0. 25 amendment. 26 i 27 VIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION 28 29 Staff recommends APPROVAL. 30 31 VIII.EXHIBITS c 32 E 33 1. A Methodology To Assess Level-Of-Service On US-1 In The Florida Keys, updated January 34 2021 by AECOM Technical Services, Inc., based on input from the 2020/2021 US-1 LOS Task 35 Force (strike-though and underline version). 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- 0 38 1 In The Florida Keys. 39 3. BOCC agenda item N3 for the December 10, 1997 BOCC meeting, for the approval of ; 40 modification to the U.S. 1 Level of Service Methodology based on recommendations of the U.S. v) 41 1 Level of Service Task Force. cv cv BOCC SR Page 13 of 13 File 2020-193 Packet Pg. 1873 P.6.d R.E.De Arazoza D.S.MaCleod Exhibit 1 cv CL CL r9 A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE o 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. 1874 P.6.d 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. 0 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 o characteristics presented a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable 0 method to assess its LOS. o 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. 0 0 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 o� of the Highway Capacity Manual incorporates average travel speed as the main measure of effectiveness to determine LOS. i 0 0 0 i 0 Page 2 of 11 Packet Pg. 1875 P.6.d R.E.De Arazoza D.S.Macleod N A METHOD TO ASSESS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS 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 through the Florida Keys covering approximately 180 kilometers (112 miles) from the City of o Key West to the Florida mainland (Figure 1). There are 48 bridges crossing water for a total o 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 0 narrow land width of most of the Florida Keys are further characteristics. 0 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. 0 0 The US-1 LOS study encompassed approximately 174 km (108 mi)of US-1 from Key o 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. m Page 3 of 11 Packet Pg. 1876 P.6.d 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 0 i 0 0 i 0 i i 0 0 0 i m Page 4 of 11 Packet Pg. 1877 P.6.d R.E.De Arazoza D.S.Macleod THE NEED TO DEVELOP A LOS MEASUREMENT METHOD r9 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 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 .2 the most part, the survey vehicle(s) was traveling close to the posted speed limit. c 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. 1878 P.6.d 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 0 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 0 i m Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 1879 P.6.d 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 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 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 0 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, 0 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 ' 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. 1880 P.6.d 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 CL collected at three locations covering seven days. 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 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: CD 0 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. 1881 P.6.d 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 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. ° This assumption is not far away from the premise that if a vehicle is able to sustain a travel ° ° 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 ° 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: ° LOS Speed ni A >_ 82 kmh (51 mph) B >_ 77 kmh (48 mph) C >_ 72 kmh (45 mph) D >_ 68 kmh (42 mph) E >_ 58 kmh (36 mph) 0 F < 58 kmh (36 mph) ° 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. 1882 P.6.d 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 o 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 segerEt 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 0 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. 1883 P.6.d R.E.De Arazoza D.S.Macleod N T� 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 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 o Island) are based directly on a Class I arterial from Table 11-1 of the HCM. m 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) 0 0 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 0 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 0 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 0 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. 1884 P.6.d 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. 1885 P.6.d 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. 1886 P.6.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. 1887 P.6.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. 1888 P.6.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. 1889 P.6.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. 1890 P.6.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. 1891 P.6.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. 1892 P.6.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. 1893 P.6.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. 1894 P.6.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. 1895 P.6.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. 1896 P.6.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. 1897 P.6.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. 1898 P.6.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. 1899 P.6.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. 1900 P.6.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. 1901 P.6.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. 1902 P.6.f 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. 1903 P.6.f n! 'J. MCGRM, ® Nowriber ,. ' CL t l at Swim 2 i. , c i � * . affi Departmd a to b k VS:. 1# , a bwwpwb °on waft G3 S"ffwft of * and ", 1 l , '. ■ kWtdng ' ; - ir*Uco wI , • R I swvico •' f. IKXCadv*W Ow T r ®I M U.S. t 04mm'*Woni E - (J Packet Pg. 1904 P.6.f tJ , 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.It Packet Pg. 1905 P.6.f 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. 1906 P.6.f �f WITTE :19 SWW COWEAERVALMO-WM LAUKNDALC PLUM MAI M-1245—f4l, U.S. i LEVEL OF SERVICE U 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. 1907 P.6.f r 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. 1908 P.6.f ® 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 t 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. 1909 P.6.f OFSFAWF r . . 1 i A 1S . gownsbpd mdm to ft volum-104voiCL _Cdculmdon Mgbm how) t 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 dwAft _addride t io signal$WINS �, • #a s no ne To* Form c ' in i ` r . apply two-Ism . . $ r doy am mile te b • i i T-i LOS 1 • X • l . ! 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. 1910 P.6.f 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 volum ` . 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. 1911 P.6.f a ®A&Ivmkt a f 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. 1912 P.6.f 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 1913 e I I LI I ( I is Mc e 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 6P ,.nr _ _-.:: ' - Ili• ® e.. ` e 1 rl g, v m rt 1 ) � u 7711 I 1 ry 1 •ut � �a•nt,tl', � la 4 �, s r-, s 4 'i> t 1 eITI gmrjI + _ Ii ^ x j • P.6.f R"PPMORWF SUMMA , t gh1t 2 Nmba f CL c� DeNdo f Inumpted Plow SWIM" . l r c if 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. 1917 P.6.f 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 . . 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. 1918 � e I, Ifl. r s Zr rr — 77 „al'e rt41 tf, u it ti r: ! ',:' 'tltiM�f,i T I 1 1 ( S �r ] _ r t 5 17 y^r I pp ii � {_a I,s J fey_['::'❑ I.. 1 r I f 4 '�.. t I i r.V-1 Y r7 ^^ jl . k 5.... I AI t IL ✓IN m *. I P.6.f r p. CL c CL } 1. M r ® ` N tOn As �%- j t g N E Packet Pg. 1920 P.6.f s CTIM CONCLUSIONS FROM Awrat * E M&AI LEVIEL eirsERVICE TASK _ c� U 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. 1921 P.6.f 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. 1922 P.6.f 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. 1923 P.6.f ® r ®•r , c� 0 00000 low, CL Cn NINO 0 swum now, INFO 0 ♦ +. 10 i` !o F N • r Alk r a i ■ Packet Pg. 1924 P.6.f 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. 1925 e 1 � i l hr b t • *p rt 4 d _ f I M � y e r P Mr� � s 2 t I i I +I" P.6.f ... . .. .... .2 CIL CIL 00 71 m c g m J ` " i i c� Pro E Soma Em i s M womb Packet Pg. 1927 P.6.f .2 0 CL CL �' to CD 0 CD "Pot kwob ' w (L � . • � . R PRIM WAA - r r a _ r Packet Pg. 1928 P.6.f 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. 1929 P.6.f . 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. 1930 P.6.f end r r+r r ■• -�� • tv • r r r • • 40 CIL CIL r Poll loll �g'm ._. avow"off*wrooft �k a .► 3i it Im x Cal N LU XW via I r Packet Pg. 1931 P.6.f 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 ■ Q Packet Pg. 1932 P.6.f • °2 - - CL ILI RON �, to 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. 1933 P.6.f y � " N r ow 0 U 6 gmmrw 'a 0 _ s W 6 i J tJ • �I i N LU to ®I ._-- -- Packet Pg. 1934 P.6.f k 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. 1935 e s 7 IL I n �4 a .!h I 1ba� h r � 4 m S i Y4 A x 4 F n v m. M M 4 � ♦a I " F. I' a P.6.f • N ® PWAMWAF CL + OWLIwill (h � � r w 0 . •' J _ CJ ■ T- M I p - Alli LU C k 131 .N o ■ Packet Pg. 1937 P.6.f • 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. 1938 P.6.f r9 . m ®. ca SOWN smile, 6 Oki julep WaShwisir test 1par imm to Cram- W c Now w A WNW*" 77777 ism, v tJ ca i ® .r �► A1060OW - B Packet Pg. 1939 e I � Q of AI it- Rom VIM 717 'm a t-. � I Ym 5 tl -i r i I � � I I +, NA27 :2 e i tN ka s e e: � I• m p r All LL l Aj 77 it lza _A Y_7 All II � Rj 4 A ` I p , r m a I 1 i r � g � sae; 0 am � p r I , p P.6.f 9 � - left t: ry 2 0 CL CL c c J c 0 0 J ca i ca C44 i w c� m u Packet Pg. 1942 P.6.g County of Monroe 1t •\o BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS l y 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. 1943 P.6.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. 1944 P.6.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. 1945 P.6.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. 1946 P.6.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. 1947 P.6.g The following is a list of considerations for review: 1) The US 1 Levell of Service Task Force was formal �ira IW2 to develop a methodology for US 1 that utillizes are ermpiricall relati hip bet eery the Il rr --based capacities and the speed-based Level of;service (L e 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 US 1.The members of the Task Forte met again in 1997 to re,-evalluate the LOS metbodiology and made, some rminar changes. The s gnall delay for LOS C was T- increased to 25 seconds from 15 secondia to, account for changes in the 14.iQhw ay Capacity Manual,t(,HCM),, Considerinig that the last meeting of the Task Force was hel-d 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,, Review the signal delay threshold for LOS C hayed on the current Highway Capacity � Ida mial (delay threshold increaser) 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. Irrdlividual segrment LOS is determined by comparing the median travell speed with the weighted poster) 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 1 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 clue 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 cram-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. 1948 P.6.g Review the tra ell time schedule (Le. departure tin*sand staggered c.he allle) and adjust as needed to reflect current traffiic condiitilum . Under,the adopted growAh, management process, if the overalil LOS for US 1 fallfs below tlrie LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed a,rnie e nniti ation, 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 al 1) 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 1,. Some examples include: Upgrade the traffic si nall infrastru•ctUre ands r signall timing at signallized -- intersections allong US 1 to enhance t affiic flog. Evaluate the feasibillity of irnpllementing adaptive signall control systems to ir'rrprc e traffic flow. Provide or iimprc e transit service cr other muliti-rn ddall transportation alternatives,. Ilmplement; active traffic management and Transportation System °anagen 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 1. lir prove local roads to rniinilmize US 1 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 vehielles using US 1 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. 1949 P.6.g 3 OPTIONS for BOICC Consideration: 1. CCDINIPLETE PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT WITH 2,019 ATTD STUDY l°ltY -- APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY ?1IITIGATIO- WITH COUNTY& F©OT 0 Dii°ecf staff to prepare the Biennial Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity Report with the€raft "019 US 1 Arterial Travel Tirrre and Delav Study. K m • The draft 2019 LJS 1 Axterial Travel Time and Delay Stndy 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 1-DOT and the County. and may include adding dedicated trrm lanes. consolidating driveways/access points.providing ancl%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 UIS 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 5D-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.(1D.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 4D..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 4D..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 4D..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 4D..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,47.0-54.0i 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. 1950 P.6.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. 1951 P.6.g 3. (COMPLETE PUBLIC FACILITIES REPORT WITI`I 0,17 A`.0 1 D STUDY — RE-ENGAGE US I LEVEL Of SERVICE: TASK FORCE TO EVALUATE AEC ?li; PROVIDED CONSI ERATIONS TO UPDATING TIN THE -METHODOLOGY T1Ol OGY APPLICANTS NT 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 US I Level of Sevvice 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. 1952 P.6.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. 1953 P.6.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. 1954 P.6.g STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 3. COMPLETE PUBLIC FACILITIES TIES REPORT WITH 201; A l ft 'l 1. DY-- RE-ENGAGE US I LEVEL OF SERVICE TASTE FORCE TO EVALUATE AEC:'O ',I PROVIDED CON SIDE RATIQ TO C�P'D�iTING THE METHOI OI�OGY APPLICANTS TO IDENTIFY MITIGATION FOR SEGMENTS NNVIT I COUNTY& FDOT 0 E Direct staff to prepare the Biennia[ Assessrntni of Public Facilities C'rapmily Report Nvith the m curr-ent 201 7 US I Arterial Travel Time arid Delay; Studr , rand direct sitaff to request to the US l F;Tel of Ser-Oce Task Force to s-ralrr to The LOS rraethottology irrrd rousider° updates,to-. Review tilt s4urbal delay thrreshold for LOS C" b aged oii flat eurrrerut Highway C"aalmcity Manual al (Aelay tlrn°eshaold irrciv4as cl from 2� seconds to 35 seconds) arid adjust thin a,au�'rll+�tl��lo;g� �a�;c�arcliaagl�. `.� Rew,ie9w, r:lae iuu�tluoclt,los tc, cl rel�ru ue the L. fc�r° filie 2l rndv,,° cluaarl ro.achs ra ,." rurs (corrtlaatim,. The rlaediaa,rl travel speed with. tlae wei latcd l?osted sl.ueetl htait for the sc rructrt;t vs. the overall US l t:a:orrrlaarirag tlae ruacdiAarr lire-e}talalrslued heed rlrrcslroldl s�for different leek f service)_ In orlaer ww•ords, the o",'er-11 LOS caireraaa. does ruot corasrder tlac posted speed lirffit, -a Re -ieww� draaw,wbrid-c delays. ;kccordira . to rlrc �rrTeat methodolog-,., delay, (lire to � d wwaatr lg ola rr�a �.li ttld be excluded friotia the ss?gilroiafi fir aw°el tiaras. bur irlcluraled in as tine overall travel allies, t"orlside irlg drat deli s associated with drawbridge ol)°earings ale r:uoru-Tecrurrirtg arud irlalract tine overall t,:s l level, ofi Se.t6 e. this l.rbart of tile raactlrodolouv slrotticl be rew'i ww°eel analacljursted acc,oidiragly. Review the travaw'e°l tirrre scheduule t,i e, departttre tirares and staaggered sclreclarleri arad ;adjtt.sl � as rweded to reflect current trraalAfic coutditioaas. Crarrerutiv the daataa is collected over foorreen i141 rotind trips for- as Loral oaf 2 travel rirrre raurrs wirlr a -,raggered scliecltrle of delxarnur'e tunes ( erier:ally betww%ecrr aaarr and 41)rrr,l: `I'lhe task fcx°`e caara ew°;alaraate taliefir:lg the ,raagger-ed schedule of depa111ttre tiuLreS. T_ # The OCC earl ciansider a.uatl alaprow°e or al) rove with ratodificatiorrs the assesstrieilt Of lmblic faacilitics talxacity atrd make specific tiuudirags of f Qi as to rile rcrasotrs fir rrtilizirrg rile 201 i„!S l ="a serial °ra%el Three at,rral Delav Stttd . : c * According to the policies ;arid rcgnlations- in rile ',\lorixoc Colin e Year 20'0 t"'oirrpr°heursive Pharr alrrd Loutd Dew'elolaarrerrt Code. Tire Coullry r X.V arot perinit iiew clu+.`*lctimrarrexrr. other Than siargle laarraily Morales, rrtalcs tlae Proposed traffic irrrpract rs trritizatcal. Deterinirtirag dare i aalalaropriate araitigarkmt for wgxraerrts is as coor`clirr:at d effort ww irla I°DOT orrd the Couaarry, aancl nurly c irrcluade Laddirig dedicated niter lasses: corrsolhdaafiirrg lizcess j)oirrrs, 'diarg :7rtd'oa° y m irral row irrg tiorutage roads, etc.° � Direct staet to to"a°re'ww' dew'elolarl.rerir°lar"opo�,ahs =a.tad l)rovide a pi,elrrrlrra'ary coradutrorlal colrcurr'ency detett airualtiorr leased ors thue 2tll.' 1v,' l Arterial Travel Tittle ;stud Delta- Stud, Direct staff to provide a final coitcaaur°reticy deter'rll llatiora for to fir al develovillerrt order t;a LO to building lacr-rrlil or any other developilrcrrt laenalit atrtlrori irrg tlae constrltzctio`a or expaarasiorr of a "rrarctrare, all ivae Las ir:r cleveloprrlerrt ilrterus ni, Or ga c h auge of trsa r`clarirtrag ua new Cevlfkdara ail- occtrpaurcy) based,ors rile 2017 -S l Arieriaal Travel Terra* aaad Delaay Stulcl ' 4,see Poliches 1 it 1. -6 atad l 01-4, h m DOCUMENTATION: cv Draft 2019 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study MONROE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND CONCURRENCY t` PROVISIONS 2019 FDOT Work Program Citizen's Report- Monroe County 09.27.19 Packet Pg. 1955 P.6.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. 1956 P.6.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. 1957 P.6.h 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. 1958 P.6.h The follow i mg i,s,a list of con s.ideratiions for review, 1 p The U S 1 Level of Service Task Force was formulated irr 1,9,92 to develop a methodology for,U S 1 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 US 1 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'rnit. 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.asss.ociated with drawbridge openings are nor-recuurTing and impact the overalll US 1 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. 1959 P.6.h 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. 1960 P.6.h • 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. 1961 P.6.h 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. 1962 P.6.h 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. 1963