Item 04 Traffic CirculationMonroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
Table of Contents
Item Page
4.0 Traffic Circulation Element..............................................................1
4.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................1
4.2 Definitions of Terms and Concepts.......................................................................
2
4.2.1 Classification of Major Thoroughfares................................................................................................2
4.2.2 Level of Service...............................................................................................................................................3
4.3 Analysis of Existing Transportation System .......................................................
4
4.3.1 Existing Roadway System Overview.....................................................................................................4
4.3.2 Traffic Performance on County Roads..............................................................................................12
4.3.3 Existing U.S. 1/SR 5 Corridor.................................................................................................................13
4.3.4 Traffic Performance on U.S. 1 Overseas Highway)
16
4.3.5 2009 Operational Assessment of SR A-1-A.......................................................................................28
4.3.6 Existing Modal Split and Vehicle Occupancy Rates......................................................................28
4.3.7 Significant Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities................................................................29
4.3.8 Capacity of Significant Public Parking Facilities..........................................................................29
4.3.9 Availability of Transportation Facilities and Services for Existing Uses ............................30
4.3.10 Adequacy to Evacuate Population.....................................................................................................30
4.3.11 FDOT - Five -Year Work Program......................................................................................................33
4.4 Future Traffic Circulation.......................................................................................
3S
4.4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................35
4.4.2 Trip Forecasts for Monroe County.......................................................................................................35
4.4.3 Trip Forecasts for Incorporated Urban Areas................................................................................37
4.4.4 Future Traffic Forecasts...........................................................................................................................42
4.4.5 Traffic Monitoring Program....................................................................................................................52
Tables
Item
Page
Table 4.1: Monroe County Public Road Mileage and Miles Traveled, 2009.................5
Table 4.2: Functional Classification of State Roads in Monroe County ..........................7
Table 4.3: FDOT Bridges in Monroe County...............................................................................9
Table 4.4: Monroe County Arterial and Collector Roads...................................................10
Table 4.5: Monroe County Maintained Bridges.....................................................................11
Table 4.6: 2009 Monroe County Paved Roadway Inventory...........................................12
Table 4.7: 2009 County Roads Level of Service.....................................................................14
Table 4.8: 2009 Operational Assessment of U.S. 1 in the City of Key West...............15
Traffic Circulation i Technical Document: May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monroe county Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.9:
U.S. 1 Signalized Intersection/Crossing Locations
...........................
Table 4.10: U.S. 1 Overseas Roadway••....•...•.. 16
Table 4.11:
Segments .................... .....................18
U.S. 1 Overseas HighwayThresholds ""." ...
Level of Service Thresholds
Table 4.12:
................................. 29
2006 through 2010 U.
g S. 1 Level of Service
Table 4.13:
.....................................
2010 U.S. 1 Reserve Capacity ...................................................................
...................20
................22
1999 to 2009 Average Annual Daily Traffic on U.S. 1
Table 4.15:
..................................23
2009 Two-way and Peak Direction Peak Hour Volumes on U.S. 1..........25
Table 4.16:
2004 to 2008 Monthly Average Daily Traffic on U.S. 1
Table 4.17:
................................27
2009 Operational Assessment of SR A-1-A in the City of Key West
Table 4.18:
.......28
Evacuation Clearance Times
Table 4.19:
............
FDOT's Five -Year Work
Table 4.20:
Program (2010 - 2014
Functional Population and Household Estimates for the ""' 33
Unincorporated County ""' " .............................................
Table 4.21:
Forecast of Unincorporated Monroe County36
0
Table 4.22:
Forecasted Household and Daily Trip Growth for theCityof
Marathon ..........................:
Table 4.23:
................... ...........................................................
Forecasted Population Household, and Daily Trip Growth for the 8
City of Key Colony Beach, 2010-20
Table 4.24:
Forecasted Residential Dwelling Unit Growth for the Cityof """..39
Layton.....................
Table 4.25:
.......... ............................................................................
Forecasted Dwelling Units and Daily Trip Growth for Islamorada, 0
Village of Islands, 2010-20301
Table 4.26:
................
Summary of Daily Trip and Residential Unit Forecasts
Table 4.27:
............................... 41
2010-2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Forecasts for U.S. 1
Table 4.28:
..................43
2010-2030 Reserve Speed Forecast for U.S. 1
Table 4.29:
..................................................45
2010-2030 Reserve Volume and Residential Unit Capacity
Forecast per Segment of U.S. 1....
Table 4.30:
..................................................................
Projected U.S. 1 Level of Service, 2010 - 6
Traffic Circulation ii Technical Document: May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.0 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
j9J-5.019(1), (2), and (3)]
The Traffic Circulation Element of the Monroe County (County) Comprehensive Plan
addresses the data inventory requirements of 9J-5.019(1), (2), and (3) of the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The data inventory requirement will support the
development of goals, objectives, policies, and implementation programs for the Traffic
Circulation Element.
4.1 Introduction
Pursuant to Rule 9J-5.019, F.A.C., local -governments not located within the urban area of a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with population in excess of 50,000, shall adopt
a traffic circulation, mass transit, ports, aviation, and related facilities elements consistent
with the provisions of this rule and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. The County is not located
within an urban area of a MPO, but has a population in excess of 50,000.
The purpose of the Traffic Circulation Element Data Inventory and Analysis is to describe
and analyze the existing traffic conditions, project future conditions, and prepare a
foundation for the formulation of goals, objectives, and policies for the County. Data has
been gathered, analyzed, and portrayed in textual, tabular, and graphic form, including a
series of transportation maps. An additional focus of this element is to further multimodal
opportunities within the County, adhering to requirements outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 360
and House Bill (HB) 697 that revise Chapter 163, F.S. The Traffic Circulation Element and
Data and Inventory Analysis presents:
1. An analysis of the existing transportation system, including the ability of transportation
facilities and services to serve existing land uses, and the adequacy of the existing and
projected transportation system to provide emergency evacuations;
2. Growth trends and travel patterns, including relationships between land uses and the
transportation system;
3. Projected transportation system level of service;
4. An analysis of local and state programs;
5. Maintenance of adopted levels of service standards; and
6. Land use policy implications of transportation management programs necessary to
promote public transportation.
Traffic Circulation 1 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U
4.2 Definitions of Terms and Concepts
4.2.1 Classification of Major Thoroughfares
Major thoroughfares are categorized into functional classification groups according to the
character of service they provide. The four functional classification groups for urban areas
are principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local streets. The extent and degree
of access control is a significant factor in defining the functional classification of a roadway.
Regulated limitation of access is necessary on arterials to enhance their primary function of
mobility, while the primary function of local streets is to provide access. The functional
classifications of major thoroughfares are defined in A Policy on Geometric Design of
Highways and Streets (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
2004), and provided below:
• Principal Arterials. The principal arterial system serves the major centers of activity
and the highest volume traffic corridors of urbanized areas. Principal arterials typically
serve longer distance trips. Although they constitute a small percentage of the total
roadway network, principal arterials carry a high portion of the total urban area traffic.
The principal arterial system also carries most of the trips entering and exiting the
urban area. Service on principal arterials is normally continuous with relatively high
traffic volumes, long average trip lengths, and high operating speeds. Service to
abutting lands is typically subordinate to the provision of travel service and major
traffic movements.
• Rural Principal Arterials. The rural principal arterial system consists of a network of
routes that provide for movements between urban areas. The system provides for
corridor movement with trip density suitable for substantial statewide travel. In more
densely populated states, this class of highway includes most of the heavily traveled
routes that might warrant multilane improvements. The rural principal arterial system
includes most existing rural freeways, and is stratified into two design groups
consisting of freeways and other principal arterials.
• Minor Arterials. The minor arterial system interconnects and supports the principal
arterial system. It accommodates trips of moderate lengths at a lower level of mobility
than provided by principal arterials. Minor arterials provide continuity among
communities and, ideally, do not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. Generally, the
spacing of minor arterials is not greater than one mile in developed areas. Currently,
there are no minor arterials in the County.
• Collectors. The collector streets stem
y provides vehicular access to and mobility
within residential neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial areas. It differs from the
arterial system by penetrating neighborhoods and distributing trips from arterials to
their ultimate destinations. Collector streets also channelize vehicular traffic from local
streets onto the arterial system, and have moderate operating speeds and shorter travel
distances than arterials.
Traffic Circulation 2
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Local Streets. The local street system comprises all roadways not in one of the higher
systems. It provides direct access to abutting land uses and connections to the higher
order systems. Local streets offer the lowest level of vehicular mobility and service,
through traffic is often discouraged.
4.2.2 Level of Service [9J-5. 019 (3) (a)]
Level of Service (LOS) standards can be determined for various public facilities. For
roadways, it is defined in the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (Transportation Research
Board, 2000) as:
"A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within
a traffic stream, based on service measures such as speed and
travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort,
and convenience."
There are six different LOS classifications that represent a range of operating conditions
and the driver's perception of those conditions. They are described below.
• Level of Service A. This LOS generally describes free -flow traffic operations where
motorists are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic
stream. Drivers are able to travel at their desired speed, and delays at intersections are
minimal.
• Level of Service B. This LOS also describes free -flow traffic conditions, although the
presence of other vehicles within the traffic stream is noticeable. The ability to
maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted and stopped delays are not
significant.
• Level of Service C. For LOS C conditions, traffic flow is generally stable, although the
driver's choice of speeds and ability to maneuver are increasingly restricted. Longer
queues at signalized intersections characterize this level of service.
• Level of Service D. Traffic flow is generally unstable where minor increases in flow
result in substantial delay. Driving speeds are tolerable for short periods, but are
subject to sudden variance. The ability to maneuver and select a travel speed is
severely restricted.
• Level of Service E. Large traffic volumes and significant delay typify this LOS traffic
flow is unstable and is generally maintained by a low speed. Driver comfort is low due
to limited space between vehicles and rapidly changing speeds, and extensive delays
are typically experienced at critical intersections.
Traffic Circulation 3 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Level of Service F. Traffic flow is characterized by extremely low speeds. Driving
comfort is low and motorists incur significant delays. Substantial queuing also occurs at
critical intersections.
Traffic performance calculations are generally based upon a methodology obtained from
acity M
the latest edition of the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capanual.
However, since U.S. 1 is the only principal arterial serving the people and visitors of the
Florida Keys, a task force was established in the early 1990s to develop a methodology to
assess LOS and capacity of U.S. 1 in this unique setting.
As noted in the 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study by the County, the
methodology is a procedure for using travel speeds as a means to assess LOS and reserve
capacity on U.S. 1. "The method.... considers both the overall level of service from Key West
to the mainland, and the level of service on 24 selected segments. [It] was developed from
basic criteria and principles in Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural
Two -Lane Highways), and Chapter 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the Highway
Capacity Manual." Summarized in detail in the Analysis of Existing Transportation System
section, the approach is based on a comparison of posted speed limits and median travel
speeds that are measured in the field.
For other roadways within the County, the LOS shall be determined based on the
Generalized Service Volume Tables as published in the most recent Quality/Level of Service
Handbook by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). These tables list the
maximum service volumes based upon various roadway characteristics including, but not
limited to, number of lanes, presence of a divided median, number of traffic signals per
mile, and provision of turn lanes at intersections.
4.3 Analysis of Existing Transportation System [9J-5.019(3) (a), (b)J
4.3.1 Existing Roadway System Overview
4.3.1.1 Overview
The roadway network in the County, particularly the Florida Keys, is unique. The Harry S.
Truman Blue Star Memorial Overseas Highway (U.S. 1 and S.R. 5), functions as an arterial,
collector, and "Main Street" all rolled into one. Nowhere else is there a 112 miles -plus long
archipelago connected by over 40 bridges along a single roadway.
While U.S. 1 is the principal highway in Monroe County, it is by no means the only road.
Branching off from U.S. 1 are numerous local and collector roads serving the many
subdivisions and the five incorporated cities throughout the Keys.
Roadway access to and from Monroe County is provided by only two roads: U.S. 1 and Card
Sound Road (CR 905A). These two facilities serve the Florida Keys as economic and public
safety lifelines. It cannot be overstated the need to assess the operation of U.S. 1 within a
Traffic Circulation 4 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
regional context to ensure the Florida Keys' only continuous roadway link will continue to
function properly.
The total 2009 Monroe County roadway centerline mileage and daily vehicle miles traveled
(DVMT) distributions by functional classification (for all state, county, local/city roads) are
presented in Table 4.11. As shown in the table, as of the end of 2009, the county has a total
of 801.445 centerline miles of roadways. Of this total, 583.453 miles are in designated
small urban areas and 217.992 miles are in designated rural areas.
Table 4.1- Monroe County Public Road Mileage and Miles Traveled, 2009
Source: Florida Department of Transportation
Notes:
1. Length of a roadway without regard to number of lanes.
2. DVMT: The product of a road's centerline miles and its annual average daily traffic, AADT.
3. In an area with population 5,000 to 49,999.
4. In an area with less than 5,000.
The daily vehicle miles traveled averaged 3,193,243 DVMT. The County's designated small
urban areasz account for approximately 2,322,449 DVMT, or 72.7 percent of the County's
total DVMT. The rural areas account for 870,794 DVMT or 27.3 percent of the total DVMT.
1 Source: Florida Department of Transportation.
z The designated urban areas are Key West, Marathon, Village of Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, and the City
of Layton. These cities/town maintain all local streets within each corespondiong jurisdiction.
Traffic Circulation 5 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
As of June 30, 2010, the FDOT has estimated that state roadways in Monroe County,
comprised of U.S. 1/S.R. 5 and S.R. A-1-A, totaled 119.3 centerline miles: 79.1 miles in
urban areas and 40.2 miles in rural areas. The corresponding DVMT are 1,668,100 DVMT
for urban areas and 583,000 DVMT in the rural areas.
4.3.1.2 State Maintained Roads and -rid es
The Florida Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining and improving
State roads. The FDOT's Five Year Work Program, which is updated annually, provides a
schedule of major roadway improvements. Funding for these improvements comes from
fuel taxes, vehicle license fees, federal aid, and occasionally from bond sales.
U.S. 1 and South Roosevelt Boulevard/S.R. A1A are the only state roads in the County. U.S.
1 originates in the City of Key West on Whitehead Street at the corner of Fleming Street
(MM 0.0). The route traverses approximately four miles within Key West via Truman
Avenue and North Roosevelt Boulevard before converting to the Overseas Highway at MM
4.5 and extending 112 miles to the Miami -Dade County Line.
SR A1A begins at the intersection of Bertha Street and Roosevelt Boulevard as a four lane
undivided roadway, extending eastward past the Key West International Airport before
terminating at the intersection with U.S. 1 at the east end of the island.
Roadways are generally classified based on their role meeting travel demand needs,
assisting in defining land use relationships, and the jurisdiction responsible for its
maintenance. The functional classification for U.S. 1 in the County is a principal arterial.
Within some areas, U.S. 1 is classified as a rural principal arterial while in others, such as
the cities of Marathon and Key West, it is classified as an urban principal arterial. Table
4.2 presents the designated functional classifications for U.S. 1 and SR A1A by segments
within Monroe County.
Table 4.3 presents the listing of the 57 bridges under FDOT jurisdiction as of October
2010. These bridges represent over 19 miles of structures primarily along the U.S. 1/SR 5
Corridor. The only non-U.S. 1 related bridge structure is the South Roosevelt Boulevard
(SR A1A) bridge over the Riviera Canal in Key West.
4.3.1.3 County Maintained Roads
While the geography of the Keys precludes the typical roadway grid found in other
developed areas of Florida, there are a significant number of local and collector roads
throughout the archipelago. The County maintained roadways are generally considered to
be collectors, while the remaining roadways are local streets. Both types of facilities
ultimately channel traffic towards U.S. 1.
The Monroe County Division of Public Works, Roads and Bridges Department, is
responsible for maintaining and improving county roads and rights of way, bike paths, and
Traffic Circulation 6
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
county bridges. The department follows the Seven Year Roadway and Bicycle Path Plan as a
guide when repairing and resurfacing roads and bridges throughout the county. Proposed
roadway improvements are evaluated and prioritized based on a point system developed
by the County. The primary funding sources for improvements to County roads are the
constitutional and local option gas taxes. This funding is supplemented by Card Sound
tolls, impact fees, right-of-way permit fees, and joint participation funding.
Table 4.2 - Functional Classification of State Roads in Monroe County
Functional
Roadway Name
SegmentCounty/
State/ Roadway
Federal
Whitehead St. /
Truman Ave. / N.
U.S. 1 / Fleming Street to
FDOT U-PA 4.531
SR 5 Stock Island
Roosevelt Blvd.
Overseas Highway
U.S.1 /
Stock Island to Boca
FDOT
U-PA
13.655
SR 5
Chica
U.S.
Boca Chica to 0.947
Overseas Highway
1/SR 5
mile west of Parrish
FDOT
R-PA
28.593
Avenue
U.S. 1 /
Palm Island Drive to
Overseas Highway
SR 5
0.947 mile east of
FDOT
U-PA
6.220
122°d Street
0.947 mile east of
Overseas Highway
U.S.
122nd Street to 0.814
FDOT
R-PA
42.843
1/SR 5
mile west of Estall
Street
U.S. 1 /
0.814 mile north of
Overseas Highway
SR 5
Estall Street to 0.303
FDOT
U-PA
9.324
mile north of CR 905
0.303 mile west of
Overseas Highway
U.S.
junction CR 905 to
FDOT
R-PA
5.870
1/SR 5
Miami -Dade County
Line
South Roosevelt
SR A1A
Bertha Street to U.S. 1
FDOT
U-PA
2.935
Boulevard
Source: FDOT's 2009 Florida Traffic Information and Highway Data CD
Notes: 1. U-PA -- Urban, Principal Arterial; R-PA -- Rural, Principal Arterial
The County maintains over 600 miles of secondary roads, in addition to 25 bridges totaling
less than one mile in length. The County is therefore responsible for a roadway system
roughly five times the length of U.S. 1. These secondary roads are vital to Monroe County in
that these roads link U.S. 1 to residential, commercial, and recreational areas.
Traffic Circulation 7 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Tables 4.4 and 4.5 provide an inventory of county maintained major roads and bridges,
respectively. Included in these totals are CR-905 through North Key Largo and Card Sound
Road (CR-905A), which combined provide an alternate route to the mainland. The County
collects tolls at Card Sound Bridge, the longest County -maintained bridge, through an
enterprise fund for the Card Sound Road and Toll District. The tolls provide operation and
improvement funding for CR-905A within the district, which extends from the Miami -Dade
County line to CR-905.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 8
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.3 - FDOT Bridges in Monroe County
Bridge
ID
900003
BridgeName/Location Bridge t
I
Boca Chica Channel SR 5 U.S. 1 SB 900105
Bridge Name/Location
Ohio Bahia Honda Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900016
Bahia Honda SR 5 U.S. 1 SB
900106
Spanish Harbor Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900045
Bahia Honda SR 5 U.S. 1 NB
900107
Harris Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900054
Riviera Canal SR-AlA Key West
900108
Harris Gap SR 5 U.S. 1
900073
Key Largo Cut SR 5 U.S. 1 NB
900109
North Harris Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900074
Boca Chica Channel SR 5 U.S. 1 NB
900110
North Pine Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900076
Whale Harbor U.S. 1 SR 5
900111
South Pine Channel U.S. 1 SR 5
900077
U.S. 1 & Snake Creek Canal SR 5 U.S. 1
900112
Park Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900078
Tavernier Creek SR 5 NB U.S. 1
900113
Torch Channel SR 5 U.S. -1
900080
Rockland Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900114
Torch Ramrod Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900081
Shark Channel U.S. 1 SR 5
900115
Bow Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900086
Cow Key Channel U.S. 1 SR 5
900116
Kemp Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900088
Tea Table Relief SR 5 (U.S. 1)
900117
Niles Channel Comp SR 5
900089
Tea Table Channel SR 5 U.S. 1)_
900125
Cow Key Channel U.S. 1 (SR 5) SB
900090
Saddle Bunch #5 SR 5 U.S. 1
900126
Vaca Cut U.S. 1 SR 5
900091
Saddle Bunch # 4 SR 5 U.S. 1
900127
Tavernier Creek SR 5 SB U.S. i
900092
Saddle Bunch #3 Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900128
Salt Run SR 5 U.S. 1
900093
Saddle Bunch #2 SR 5 U.S. 1
900129
NAS Overpass Boca Chica SR 5 U.S. 1
900094
Dante B. Fascel (Long Key Channel) SR
5
900130
Key Largo Cut SR 5 U.S. 1 SB
900095
Indian Key Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900131
jewfish Creek Bridge SR 5 U.S. 1
900096
Li num Vitae Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900132
jewfish Creek Bridge Ramp A SR 5 (U.S.
1
900097
Channel No. 2 SR 5 U.S. 1
900133
jewfish Crk Bridge Ramp B SR 5 U.S. 1
900098
Channel Five U.S. 1 SR 5
900134
jewfish Crk Bridge Ramp C To NB U.S. 1
900099
Tom's Harbor Cut U.S. 1 SR 5
900135
jewfish Creek Bridge Ramp D SR 5 (U.S.
1
900100
Tom's Harbor Channel U.S. 1 (SR 5)
900136
Crocodile Crossing Bridge SR 5 U.S. 1
900101
Seven Mile Bridge SR 5 U.S. 1
900137
First Deer Crossing SR 5 U.S. 1)
900102
Lower Sugarloaf Channel SR 5 U.S. 1
900138
Second Deer Crossing SR 5 U.S. 1
900103
Missouri Little Duck Channel SR 5 (U.S.
900139
Manatee Creek Bridge U.S. 1 (N.B. &
900104 1
Ohio Missouri Channel SR 5 (U.S. 1
Source: Florida Bridge Information, FDOT, Office of Maintenance, October 1, 2010.
Traffic Circulation 9 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe Co
Table 4.4 - Monroe County Arterial and Collector Roads
Comprehensive Plan Update
Duval Street
Truman Avenue to Eaton Street
Flagler Avenue CR-5
( )
White Street to S. Roosevelt
U-mA
0.483
Key West
Whitehead Street
Fleming Street to Eaton Street
U mA
1.981
Key West
Eaton Street
WhiteheaAvenue
d Street to Palm
U-mA
0.100
Key West
Palm Avenue
Eaton Street to N. Roosevelt Blvd.
U-mA
0.832
Key West
First Street
Flagler Avenue to N. Roosevelt Blvd.
U-mA
0.429
Key West
Bertha Street
Flagler Avenue to S. Roosevelt Blvd.
U-mA
0.385
Key West
Fifth Street
McDonald Avenue to Cow Key
U-mA
0.387
Key West
McDonald/ Mahoney Avenue
Peninsular Avenue to U.S. 1
5
U C
0.896
Stock Island
(CR 941)
Key Haven Road
U.S. 1 to Evergreen Avenue
5
U-C
1.149
Stock Island
Boca Chica Road CR 941
( )
U.S. 1 to Boundary Lane
6
U-C
0.684
Racoon
Cross Street
U.S. 1 to 12th Avenue
11
U-C
5.600
Boca Chica
Ocean Bay Drive
U.S. 1 to Atlantic Ocean
4
U-C
0.516
St
ock Island
Atlantic Boulevard
U.S. 1 to Caribbean Drive
99
U-C
0.510
Key Largo
Sugarloaf Boulevard (CR 939)
U.S. 1 to Atlantic Ocean
100
U-C
0.350
Key Largo
Blimp Road/Dump Road
U.S. 1 to Kemp Channel
17
R-MC
6.600
Lower
Sugarloaf
Middle Torch Road
U.S. 1 to Big Torch Key Road
21
R-mC
1.948
Cudjoe
Little Torch Key Road
U.S. 1 to Lobster Tail Road
28
R-mC
2.992
Middle Torch
Key Deer Boulevard (CR 940)
U.S. 1 to Big Spanish Channel
28
R-mC
1.61823
Little Torch
Watson Boulevard (CR 940)
Channel to Avenue B
30
R-mC
3.4
Big Pine
Duck Key/Bimini
U.S. 1 to Toms Harbor Cut
31
R-mC
4.470
Big Pine
CR 905
U.S. i to Ocean Reef Club
61
R mC
0.508
Duck
Card Sound Road (CR 905A)
U.S. 1 to Miami -Dade County Line
106
R-mC
10.909
Kev Largo
Bluewater Drive (CR 9617)
U.S. 1 and U.S. 1
R-mC
5.000
Key Largo
CR 939A
Su arloaf Channel to CR 939
R-MC
0.917
Saddlebunch
Sources: FDOT's 2009 Florida
Traffic Information
R MC
2.480
Bridges Division.
and Highway
Data CD and Monroe
ty, Roadsandaf
Coung
Notes: Classifications: U-mA -
mC — Rural, Minor Collector.
Urban, Minor Arterial; U-C - Urban Collector; R-MC — Rural, Major Collector;
R-
Traffic Circulation 10
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.5 - Monroe County Maintained Bridges
Bridge ID •
904025
Location
Palm Avenue at Garrison Bight 117 Key West 2
904110
Boca Chica (CR-941) at Geiger Key Cut
125
Geiger Key
2
904120
Boca Chica (CR-941) at Similar Sound
51
Boca Chica
2
904140
Palm Drive at Bay Point Canal
25
Saddlebunch
2
904151
Shore Drive over un-named canal
N/A
Sugarloaf
2
904152
Shore Drive at canal
25
Sugarloaf
2
904153
Sugarloaf Boulevard (CR-939) at un-named canal
123
Sugarloaf
2
904155
Old State Road 4A at Sugarloaf Creek
200
Sugarloaf
2
904160
CR-938B at Sugarloaf Creek
N/A
Sugarloaf
904165
Tarpon Creek
46
Sugarloaf
2
904250
Caribbean Drive
24
Summerland
2
904305
Watson Boulevard at un-named canal
28
Big Pine
2
904307
Fern Avenue at Joe's Canal
28
Big Pine
2
904310
Watson Boulevard at un-named canal
28
Big Pine
2
904320
Watson Road at Bogie Channel
N/A
Big Pine
904600
Duck Key Drive at Tom's Harbor Channel
245
Duck
2
904602
Truman Bridge/Duck Key Drive
76
Duck
904603
Bimini Drive at Sam's Canal
42
Duck
2
904604
Harbor Drive at Joe's Canal
55
Duck
2
904606
Seaview Drive at un-named canal
55
Duck
2
904608
Valois Boulevard at Canal
N/A
Largo
2
904910
Bahama Drive
31
Duck
2
904916
Ocean Bay Drive
18
Largo
2
904980
CR-905A at Steamboat Creek
312
Largo
2
904982
Card Sound Road (CR-905A) at Tubby's Creek
100
Largo
2
904984
Card Sound Road (CR-905A) at Mosquito Creek
100
Largo
2
904986
Card Sound Road (CR-905A) at Saunder's Creek
100
Largo
2
904990
Card Sound Road (CR-905A) at I.C.W.W.
2,775
Largo
2
Source: Monroe County, Hoacls and triages Division, December 6U1U.
Table 4.6 presents the Monroe County paved roadway inventory, including the
incorporated cities. Approximately 85 percent of the County's roadways are paved.
Mainland Monroe County consists primarily of government -owned parks and preserves,
and consequently has very few roads. The only road in the area that was County -
maintained is Loop Road (CR-94), a 16-mile excursion off US 41 crossing the Miami -Dade
Dade and Collier County lines. Loop Road can be found on most maps as CR 94, although
Traffic Circulation 11 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
the roadway no longer has a numbered designation and is now managed by the National
Park Service (NPS). The Flamingo Lodge Highway is a mainland Monroe County road that
is also under NPS administration.
Table 4.6 - 2009 Monroe County Paved Roadway Inventory
Monroe County Roads in
unincorporated areas
Incorporated City Roads
Islamorada
Key Colony Beach
Key West
Layton
Marathon
Total C' M'1
306.1 i 91.411 397.5
64.5
7.3
64.1
2.0 j
66.5
0.0
7.3
0.0 80.2
0.0
1.8
0.0 !
64.1
ity i eage 217.9 2.0 219.9
Total County and City Roads 524.0 93.4 617.4
Source: Florida Department of Transportation. Data as of September 30, 2009.
Map Series 4-1 depicts the current roadway network and jurisdiction within the County
and Map Series 4-2 depicts the current roadway functional classification.
4.3.2 Traffic Performance on County Roads
For County roadways, the maximum service volume threshold standard is established as
LOS D. This LOS standard shall be determined based on the Generalized Service Volume
Tables as published in the most recent Quality/Level of Service Handbook by the FDOT.
Table 4.7 and Map Series 4-4 summarizes the LOS for the County roadways where data is
available.
As summarized in Table 4.7 and according to the 2008 Monroe County Public Facilities
Capacity Assessment Report, almost all county roadways currently operate at or better than
LOS D. The one exception is Palm Avenue between White Street and U.S. 1 (N. Roosevelt
Boulevard) which has a peak hour LOS of F based on 2009 traffic data.
Traffic Circulation 12 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.3.3 Existing U.S. 1/SR 5 Corridor
U.S. 1/SR 5 in the County is defined between MM 0.00 and 112.6. It generally consists of a
cross-section varying between two and four lanes. The posted speed limits also vary from
35 miles per hour in urban areas, such as in the cities of Marathon and Key West, to 55
miles per hour in rural segments. Of its 112 total miles, approximately 80 miles (74%) are
two-lane segments that are undivided. The 4-lane sections are located on Key Largo,
Tavernier (MM 90 to 106), the Marathon area (MM 48 to 54), Bahia Honda (MM 35 to 37),
and from Key West to Boca Chica (MM 2 to 9). Map Series 4-3 depicts the number of
through lanes for U.S. 1 and the County maintained roadways.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 13 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County comer he gv Plan Update
u
Traffic Circua§o 14
Technical Docume§ Na 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.8 presents a summary of the operational evaluation of U.S. 1 within the City of Key
West (MM 0.0 to MM 4.0). As shown in the table, several segments of Truman Avenue (two
lanes) and North Roosevelt Boulevard (four lane divided facility) are at or over capacity.
Table 4.8- 2009 Operational Assessment of U.S. 1 in the City of Key West
US-1
Segment
in Key
West
FDOT
From 0 Count Posted
Station Speed
Nuin-
ber of'
Lanes
Peak Peak
TWO Hour Hour
Wily Peak Peak 1,
2009 Peak Direc- Direc- 0
AADT Hour tion tion S
Volurne Volume MSV
Whitehead
Street (MM
Fleming Truman
5013 30
2LU
6,700 685 387 570 D
Avenue
0.0)Street
Truman
White-
head
Simonton
5011
30
2LU
9,300
951
538
570
D
Street
Street
Street
Truman
Simonton
White
5008
30
2LU
16,800
1,719
972
880
F
Street
Street
Street
Jose
Truman
White
Marti
5004
25
2LU
16,800
1,719
972
880
F
Street
Street
Drive
North
Jose
First
Roosevelt
Marti
5004
30
4LU
19,600
2,005
1,134
1,960
B
Street
Boulevard
I Drive
North
Roosevelt
First
Kennedy
5034
35
4LU
34,500
3,529
1,996
1,960
F
Street
Drive
Boulevard
North
Kennedy
US 1/S.
Roosevelt
Roosevelt
0105
35
4LU
33,500
3,427
1,938
1,960
D
Boulevard
Drive
I
Blvd.
Notes:
1. Traffic information obtained from FDOT's 2009 Florida Traffic Information and Highway Data CD.
2. Two-way Peak hour peak hour, peak direction volumes derived through the application of corresponding
K and D factors provided in the preceding source.
3. Maximum Service Volumes (MSV) based on LOS D value as obtained from FDOT's Generalized Peak Hour
Directional Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas, 2009 FDOT Quality / Level of Service Handbook,
Table 7.
Many sections of U.S. 1 in urban Monroe County contain parallel frontage roads. In several
cases, these frontage roads are the old U.S. 1 segments. Pursuant to A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and Local Streets (American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials, 2004), frontage roads serve numerous functions, depending upon
the type of arterial they serve and the character of the surrounding area. Such roads may
be used to control access to an arterial highway; to function as a street facility serving
adjoining property; and to maintain circulation of traffic on each side of the arterial. The
frontage roads generally separate local traffic from the higher speed through traffic on U.S.
1 in the County. By serving local traffic, these roads assist in reducing traffic volumes on
U.S. 1 thereby facilitating an increase in level of service. Typically, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities are located on or adjacent to frontage roads in urban areas.
Traffic Circulation 15 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Eighteen traffic signals are located along U.S. 1 (Overseas Highway) within the Florida
Keys. These locations include pedestrian signals at MM 48.5, MM 53.0 in the City of
Marathon, and MM 105 in Key Largo. Table 4.9 identifies the traffic signals along U.S. 1
(excluding those found on Key West).
Table 4.9 - U.S. 1 Signalized Intersection/Crossing Locations
4.4
Stock Island
College Road
Fully signalized
4.6
Stock Island
Cross Street
Fully signalized
4.8
Stock Island
MacDonald Avenue
Fully signalized
19.5
Upper Sugarloaf
Crane Blvd
Fully signalized
30.3
Big Pine
Key Deer Blvd
Fully signalized
48.5
Marathon
33rd Street/School Crossing
Fully signalized)
50.0
Marathon
Sombrero Beach Blvd
Fully signalized
52.4
Marathon
107th Street
Fully signalized
52.5
Marathon
109th Street
Fully signalized
53.0
Marathon
Pedestrian Crossing
Pedestrian Crossing
53.5
Fat Deer
Key Colony Causeway
Fully signalized
54.0
Fat Deer
Coco Plum Drive
Fully signalized
90.0
Plantation
Woods Avenue/School Crossing
Fully signali7ed2
90.5
Plantation
Sunshine Road
Fully signalized
91.5
Tavernier
Ocean Blvd
Fully signalized
99.5
Key Largo
Atlantic Blvd
Fully signalized
101.0
Ke Lar o
Y g
Tradewinds
Fully signalized
105.0
Key Largo
Pedestrian Crossing
Pedestrian Crossing
Notes:
1.. Fisherman's
Hospital Campus.
- Coral Shores High School (only
during school times).
4.3.4
Traffic Performance
on U.S. 1(Overseas Highway)
4.3.4.1
Methodology
The U.S. 1 Level of Service Task Force, a multi -agency group comprised of the County,
FDOT, and Florida Department of Community Affairs, prepared the methodology used for
monitoring conditions on U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys. The Task Force formulated the
methodology in 1993 and amended in 1997 (U.S. 1 Methodology).
The U.S. 1 Methodology developed utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume -
based capacities and the speed -based LOS methodology. It established a procedure for
using travel speeds on U.S. 1 as a means of assessing LOS and reserve capacity. The method
Traffic Circulation 16
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
considers both the overall LOS of the entire 108-mile stretch of U.S. 1 from Key West to the
mainland, as well as the LOS for 24 smaller roadway segments3 as shown in Table 4.10.
Based on the current methodology to assess LOS on U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys, LOS is based
on a comparison between average posted speed limits and average travel speeds for
individual segments along U.S. 1. Data collected annually during the spring (peak seasonal
population) to assess the LOS on U.S. 1 is compiled and analyzed in accordance with the
Task Force's methodology that has been vetted and approved by many agencies, including
FDOT. The methodology and the resultant analysis do not include peak hour, peak
direction data or analysis.
Measurements of the travel speeds on U.S. 1 are established by conducting travel time runs
from Key West to the mainland during peak tourist season, defined as the 6-week period
beginning the second week of February and ending the fourth week of March each year.
The minimum acceptable LOS for U.S. 1 is C, while the overall (108-miles) travel speed on
U.S. 1 is established as 45 miles per hour to equate to LOS C, regardless of the posted speed
limit of a segment. As noted in the 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study by the
County: "Under the adopted growth management process if the overall LOS for U.S. 1 falls
below the LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed in the
Florida Keys."
U.S. 1 in some sections of the County is considered to be an uninterrupted flow facility.
However, in more urban settings, U.S. 1 functions as an interrupted flow facility given the
number of closely spaced traffic signals within a segment. Table 4.11 summarizes the LOS
thresholds for interrupted and uninterrupted flow segments of U.S. 1 utilizing the U.S. 1
Task Force methodology, which are based on travel speeds. Table 4.11 also summarizes
the LOS thresholds for the overall U.S. 1 108-mile corridor.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
12010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study
Traffic Circulation 17 Technical Document: May 2011
Table 4.10 - U.S. 1 Overseas Roadway Segments
1 Cow Key Bridge (N)
2
1 Key Haven Boulevard
3
Rockland Drive
4
Boca Chica Road
5
Harris Channel Bridge (N
6
Bow Channel Bridge (N)
7
! Spanish Main Drive
8
1 East Shore Drive
9 ! Torch -Ramrod Bridge (S)
10 N. Pine Channel Bridge fN
11 � Long Beach Drive
12 11 7-Mile Bri
13 17-Mile Bridge (N)
14 I Coco Plum Drive
15 1 Toms Harbor Ch Bridge (S
16 Long Key Bridge (S)
17 Channel #2 Bride N)
18 Lignum Vitae Bridge (S)
19 Tea Table Relief Bridge (N'
20 Whale Harbor Bride S
21 Snake Creek Bridge (N)
22 Ocean Boulevard
23 Atlantic Boulevard
24 1 C-905
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Key Haven Boulevard
Rockland Drive
Boca Chica Road
Harris Channel Bridge (]
Bow Channel Bridge (N)
Spanish Main Drive
East Shore Drive
Torch -Ramrod Bridge (S
N. Pine Channel Bridge
Beach Drive
7-Mile Bridge (S)
7-Mile
Cocoa Plum Drive
Toms Harbor Ch Bridge
(Cl
Long Key Bridge (S)
Channel #2 Bridge (N)
Lignum Vitae Bridge (S
Tea Table Relief Bridge
Whale Harbor Bric
Snake Creek Brid
Ocean Boulevard
Atlantic Boulevard
C-905
County Line Sign
4.0
5.0
II 4LD
30/35/
45
5.0
9.0
4LD
55/45
9.0
10.5
2LU
45/55
1 10.5
16.5
2LU
45/55
16.5
20.5
2LU
45/55
20.5
23.0
i 2LU
45/55
23.0
25.0
2LU
45
25.0
! 27.5
2LU
45
27.5
29.5
2LU
45
29.5
33.0
2LU
45
2LU
33.0
40.0
(70%)
45/50/
4LD
' 55
30%
40.0
47.0
2LU
55
j
2LU
47.0
54.0
0
(4LD)
35/45
87%
I 54.0
60.5
2LU
45/55
60.5
63 0
2LU
55
63.0 j
73.0
2LU
55 45
73.0
77.5
2LU
55
77.5
79.5
2LU
55/45
79.5
84.0
2LU
45
84.0
86.0
2LU
45
86.0
91.5
2LU
45
91.5
99.5 1
4LD
45 50
99.5
106.0
4LD
35 45
106.0
112.6
2LD
35/45/
55
Traffic Circulation 18 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.11- U.S.1 Overseas Highway Level of Service Thresholds
LOS
Interrupted
Flow
Uninterrupted
Flow
Segments
A
>_ 35 mph
1.5 mph above speed limit
B
>_ 28 mph
1.5 mph below speed limit
C
>_ 22 mph
4.5 mph below speed limit
D
>_ 17 mph
7.5 mph below speed limit
E
>_ 13 mph
13.5 mph below speed limit
F
< 13 mph
More than 13.5 mph below speed limit
Overall 108-mile Corridor
A
51.0 mph
or above
B
50.9m
hto48m h
C
147.9m
hto45m h
D
44.9m
hto42m h
E
41.9m
hto36m h
F
Below 36 mph
Source: DRAFT 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial rravel rime ana ueiay �)tuay tjtuy /-uiuj.
The adopted LOS standard for U.S. 1 in the County is LOS C, as defined in the U.S. 1 Task
Force methodology which provides that the LOS shall be maintained with 5 percent of LOS
C. For County roadways, the adopted LOS standard is D, utilizing the methodology
described in the latest edition of the Quality Level of Service Handbook prepared by FDOT.
In particular, the Generalized Service Volume tables are used to assign LOS peak hour, peak
direction volume thresholds.
4.3.4.2 Level of Service on U.S. 1
The existing (2010) LOS analysis for the 24 roadway segments of U.S. 1 from Key West to
the mainland is summarized in Table 4.12 and depicted in Map Series 4-4.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 19 Technical Document: May 2011
r-4
C
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
m < v v
< m m <
LPN
U
< m < < <
''
MU
3 N
to d"
d' d, 'd•' M
V
m
• '.
< U U
�
U U
y U
< U < C < U N
A
MLiOn
i. LN
Ln Ln Ln Ln
- d0"
N O� W
Lr;
x
< < w U
Ln
MLnd.
L1'1<
�O h �p i#'1Y1 N �p [�
.
O d' N
d' V' d' d' ak.,. vi M u] Ln Ln
m <
J U U
< m'
< < U Q
N N Ib
Ln
Ln CO d"
0.7 O� L� ;y..� <
d0„ Li 1 !�
d' d' d" M Ln Ln M In In Ln Ln
LO :l`�'.: L n `^
<
:J U U < m m < U < m Q U m
m
N
N
.. '�--,i. V:
d'
MLnrY'
00 CO d' N
to d' rF'
N O 0� O a C].
F
Ln Ln Ln ',S ,; LLn
LI Ln �' Llj
Ln
r a�Vi
\
Ln
v�
O
In LP,
Ln Ln LT, Ln \
L
N V
\ \Ln
L
\ \ \ \ U% d' Ln
Ln Ln LI") Ln \ \ \ \
O L.n LL\
U) �'
M LP,
Ln Ln Ln In
dr d' d d- d•
rj.
Lr; CC
d' Ln M d- Ln Ln Ln Ln
Ln Ln Ln Ln
�'
< II
V U U U U U
y
U
>> N
oc
t
U
v
q q
L h
c
v v a� m a. a.
Ln c ? ° x x E
q u
a, C C
O ya D CS
y " '� G "6 bn 0 0 L'LD—
'C7 Y
x"L:.,
u V ,- r
_�
m
^• _^ J
N
> J
O U U L L
Z
0
-0>
'C v v 'o
y
>
MC a
cII
> a
Y M>
v
•=,
0. �- x
C O C
o a> o
o 3
y G) Y
c y B m_ _ o 0 on a4 ? r�
..:
xq
cL m Tim Z
va Iz
v rn
W Eo�Za� o� 0a a
.a
N
O < v
—.
d' Ln �
t\ 07 � 0� O�
� �
Y�•-I '-•I .--L � .-i � NO
N N N N O �4i.
Ln Z
Traffic Circulation 20
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Based upon measured speeds and travel times for the various segments as reported in the
DRAFT 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, four segments of U.S. 1 currently
fail to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e. below LOS Q. They are:
• U.S.1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3);
U.S.1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14);
U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17); and
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18).
Table 4.12 also provides a summary of the historic LOS analysis between years 2006 and
2010. The data shows that segments 3 and 18 may need capacity improvements to
maintain the adopted LOS C standard. Segment 3 is at LOS D for the two most recent
consecutive years, 2009 and 2010. Segment 18 is at LOS D for four consecutive years, 2007
through 2010.
4.3.4.3 U.S. 1 Reserve Capacity
The difference between segment travel speeds and the LOS C standard is known as the
Reserve Speed. Based upon the U.S. 1 Task Force methodology, Reserve Speed is converted
into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volumes and corresponding
additional development. If the LOS C standard is exceeded, a fixed number of additional
trips for land development are allowed as calculated based on the U.S. 1 Methodology until
the next update of the U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study or until mitigation
actions are implemented.
According to the 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (August 2010), segments
3, 17, and 18 have reserve capacity within the 5 percent allocation. No reserve capacity
exists on U.S. 1 on segment 14 due to the deficiency magnitude. However, a portion of U.S.
1 in segment 14 (Grassy Key) is under construction, and is expected to have better LOS
once the construction is complete.
The remaining 20 segments on U.S. 1 currently operate at an acceptable LOS. Additionally,
U.S. 1 overall currently has a measured travel speed of 46.9 miles per hour which equates
to LOS C with a reserve speed of 1.9 miles per hour or 35,240 daily trips as reserve volume.
The 2010 available capacity for each segment on U.S. 1 is summarized in Table 4.13. The
individual segments reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed
by the overall reserve volume.
Traffic Circulation 21 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.13 - 2010 U.S. 1 Reserve Capacity
1
Cow KeyBride N
g f )
Key Haven Boulevard
21186 j
N/A
2
I Key Haven Boulevard
Rockland Drive
4,973
N/A
3
Rockland Drive
Boca Chica Road
0 i
549
4
Boca Chica Road
Harris Channel Bridge (N)
21593
N/A
5
Harris Channel Bridge (N)
Bow Channel Bridge (N)
265
N/A
/
6
Bow Channel Bridge (N)
Spanish Main Drive
2,525
N/A
7
Spanish Main Drive
East Shore Drive
11967 '
N/A
8
East Shore Drive
Torch -Ramrod Bridge (S)
1,866
N/A
/
9
Torch -Ramrod Bridge (S)
N. Pine Channel Bridge'
fN ) I
2,087 ,
N/A
10
N. Pine Channel Bridge (N)
Long Beach Drive
1,520 i
N/A
11
12
Long Beach Drive
7-Mile Bridge (S)
i 7-Mile BridgeS
f) I
7-Mile
7,187 1
N/A
13
7-Mile Bridge (N)
Bridge (N)
3,716
N/A
Cocoa Plum Drive
17,771
N/A
14
1 Cocoa Plum Drive
Toms Harbor Ch Bridge (S)
0
0
15
Toms Harbor Ch Bridge (S)
Long Key Bridge (S)
16
Long Key Bridge (S)
j Channel #2 Bridge (N)
1,565
6,722
N/A
17
1 Channel #2 Bridge (N)
Lignum Vitae Bridge (S)
0
N/A
940
18
Lignum Vitae Bridge (S)
Tea Table Relief Bridge (N)
0
19
Tea Table Relief Bridge (N)
Whale Harbor Bridge (S)
611
727
20
Whale Harbor Bridge (S)
Snake Creek Bridge (N)
4,468
N/A
N/A
21
Snake Creek Bridge (N)
Ocean Boulevard
2,881
N/A
22
Ocean Boulevard
Atlantic Boulevard
9,539
N/A
23
Atlantic Boulevard
C-905
9,121
N/A
24
C-905
County Line Sign
7,187
N/A
Source: DRAFT
2010 U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time
and Delay Study (July 2010).
4.3.4.4
Traffic Volumes on U.S.
1
Traffic volumes along U.S. 1 were obtained from FDOT's count stations. Table 4.14
summarizes the Historic Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on U.S. 1 between 1999 and
2009. The historic AADT between 1999 and 2008 were obtained from the 2008 Florida
Traffic Information CD published by FDOT. The 2009 AADT was estimated by adjusting the
24-hour daily traffic counts obtained from FDOT synopsis reports with seasonal and axle
factors. Table 4.15 summarizes the 2009 two-way and peak direction peak hour volumes
on U.S. 1.
Traffic Circulation 22 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
It
t"I
CLtii
o
i
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
M
rn
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
d'
0
0
4,
0
0
0
0
t`
0
0
u'i
T
d'
Ln
L1'i
Ln
Lri
.--i
Ln
C
LPi
C
O
N
O
O
-
O,
M
M
�-+
d'
M
M
M
N
N
N
•--I
�-1
'-I
.-a
.-i
.--I
M
M
'-1
O
N
C
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
C
O
O
i
CLn
00
�D
d'
Lfi
en
O
c
O
Ln
�O
IL
�O
Ln
�0
c-i
t,
CO
Ln
d'
N
O
N
Lr)
N
O
Lfi
t,
N
O
0
O
O7
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
C
O
O
Ln
IL
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
M
O
O
O
M
0
O
O
lTi
O
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
�O
N
M
L�
'1
O
O
d'
n
M
CIZ
C,
0
O
00
O
h
C
N
�O
00
M
t�
.--i
M
C
N
Lf'i
e-i
M
p
O
f7�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C)O
O
N
t�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C:)
O
C
O
O
O
O
O
C
C
CZ)O
O
N
Ln
Ln
m
vi
t\
rn
\O
Ln
o
Ln
M
Ln
o
c
Ln
d'
M
M
N
M
N
h
r-I
.-1 !
I
N
�6
�--1
OJ
.--1
M
c-I
.--1
N
N
M
N
N
C
0
n
M
p
O
p
C
j 0
O
O
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
C
I
O
O
O
O
C
O
Q
—
O
O
O
C
O
O
O
C
Lri
.-
O
C
N
C
O
O
C
07
Ln
O
Ln
Z
CC)
O
Ln
O
M
h
M
M
t-
Ln
CO
M
Ili
.--i
Ln
O
--I
M
�--I
O
N
W
N
d'
M
N i
N
C)N
O
O
O
O
O
0
O
O
O
C
C:,O
O
C:)O
Q
CDO
C:)O
O
O
O
Ln
C
Ln
N
O
O
Z
Ln
OJ
C,
C
e-1
h
M
d'
Cb
D7
h
l0
N
Ln
!�
N
N
d'
M
N
N
o
0
M
0
o
0
c
0
O
0
C
0
o !I
o
r
rn
O
o
o
0
C
o
l o
C
o
C)o
Q
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
'd'
O
Ili
O
Ln
O
Ln
Ln
O
o
O
Ln
Z
Ln
O
O
IP1
1.0
C:)
r,
r,
-
Ln
O,
e-a
d'
ti
M
M
�O
I
N
1-
N
.--i
c-.
O
00
C
O
O
CDO
O
O
O
CO
00
O
C
O
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
Q
O
O
I
O
C)
O
O
C
O
O
d'
Ln
In
07
N
Q,
M
r-
O
(T
Ln
Lli
z
O
tf'i
L7
O
C
d'
C
r-
N
N
C
M
d'
N
M
O
N
t\
N
M
M
N
N
p
O
C)
O
C
O
O
C
O
O
O
C
CDd'
O
O
O
O
O
C
Q
o
O
o
O
C
O
O
O
O
L*
O
Ln
d'
O
M
Ln
10
O
O
Z
t�
N
Lr .
O
N
t-
N
N
H
.--I
d'
.-+
O
N
L1i
N
I
O
CD
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
N
CO
O
C)
O
C)
o
C)
O
C)
O
C:)
Q
O
C
O
O
O
O
O
O
L'
d'
Ln
Ili
O
Ln
c
Z
d'
M
N
Ln
N
N
Ln
M
Lf�
h
W
M
d'
O
N
d'
N
Ln
O
M
O
O
00O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O!
O
0�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
Q
\
C
C:)O
C)O
C,O
O
O
00
O
L1i
N
Lfl
O
c-i
L!i
C
t,
C
O
Z
M
N
-
Ln
O
C
d'
O
O7
4
07
L�
h
M
M
.-i
o,
a'
d'
•-i
CD
N
O
O
rz
U
cOC
ai
O
O
OCt
O
n
O
O
to
co
L
O.
O
O
C
c
C
L
bA
O
bD
D
i
h_A
h_0
b_-0
C6
M
C4
Cz
CC
M
U
U
Cz
O
C
[6
C
O
O
O
O
'a
2
2
Vi
t]
Ln
C n
M
d'
Ll;
\O
N
d.
Ln
N
l0
N
lfi
d
O
d
Lq
n„i
in
Lli
N
[-
Lf�
'0
r..!
CT
LO
Ln
I
.�
Lr)
O
CD�--�
O
"
C
00
O
(0`
C:)N
t-
z
.--i
\O
�O
N
d'
O
�--�
Llj
d"
C)
d'
L � L1 i
�O
M
N
�--�
0
N
O
O
CD
C
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
�O
O
c-+
O
O
O
C)
Ln
CO 0,O
0
0 (T
O
O
N
M
d'
L�
C
O
I
O
i--1
N
.--I
M
e-i
M
i--�
e--I
i--1
�--�
C
N
N
Traffic Circulation 23 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2i
Traffic Circulation 24
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.15 -2009 Two-way and Peak Direction Peak Hour Volumes on U.S.1
Segment
1
•.. Peak Hour
��Two-WaPeak
eak Hour
NIM NIM Station Volume' Direction
0201 3,228 71,N/A
4.0 5.0 0165 N/A
2
5.0
9.0
0009
2,076
3
9.0
10.5
0010
2,014
4
10.5 16.5
0106
1,734
1,068
5
16.5 20.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
20.5
23.0
N/A
N/A
7
j 23.0
25.0
0108
1,417
���7/64�
8
25.0
27.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
9
27.5
29.5
0109
1,476
843
10
29.5
33.0
0227
N/A
N/A
0016
1,893
1,063
11
33.0
40.0
! N/A
N/A
N/A
12
40.0
47.0
0066
1,139
599
13
47.0
54.0
0642
1,338
728
0110
2,533
1,305
0045
2,334
1,207
14
54.0
60.5
5040
1,253
665
15
60.5
63.0 j N/A
N/A
N/A
16
63.0
73.0
0065/9065
744
393
17
73.0
77.5
0623
1,046
528
18
77.5
79.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
19
79.5
84.0
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
20
84.0
86.0
0101/9101
1,089
570
21
86.0
91.5
0102
2,724
1,417
22
91.5
1 99.5
5043&0062
2,159
1,107
5041
1,949
1,067
23
99.5
106.0
0064
2,816
1,552
j 0094
2,753
1,537
24
106.0
1 112.6
0164
N/A
N/A
0200
1,707
906
0001
1,391
848
Traffic Circulation 25 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
located 200 feet south of County road 905 on Key Largo, Station #227 is located
FDOT has three permanent count stations on U.S. 1 in Monroe County. Station #ocated fee
164 is feet
200
northeast of North Pine Channel Bridge on Big Pine Key, and Station #165 is l feet east of Cow Key Bridge on Stock Island200
. Table 4.16 summarizes the monthly average
daily traffic between 2004 and 2008 at the three permanent count stations.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 26 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.16 - 2004 to 2008 Monthly Average Daily Traffic on U.S.1
FDOT Count Station 0165 (Stock Island
anuar
38,800
39,600 1
*38,250 136,900
36,700
190,250
Februar
41,000
40,500
41,300
39,200
41,500 138,800
38,700
38,300
L 39,300
36,700
201,900
193,400
A ril
may
38,400
38,300
37,100
36,500
35,100
185,400
June
37,900
36,900
36,000
35,500
34,300
180,600
July
38,000
33,900
35,600
35,100
33,300
175,900
A t
34,800
33,500
33,400
34,700
32,200
168,600
A
October ..
37,000
, ... N 32,000
35,100 1
34,700
32,600
171,400
November
37,300
40,300
34,400
33,900
32,200
178,100
December
36,600
*36,000
35,400
35.200
34,000
177,200
FDOT Count Station 0227(Big
Pine Ke
anuar
18,800
18,700
18,500
17,700
17,100
90,800
February
21,100
20,600
20,000
19,300
19,400
100,400
April
19,200
18,200
18,400
18,100
17,300
91,200
May
17,400
17,300
16,700
16,500
15,800
83,700
June
1 17,200
16,500
16,100
16,100
15,400
81,300
July
18,200
16,700
1 16,400
16,700
15,800
83,800
August
15,700
15,300
14,400
15,800
14400
75,600
October
15,800
12,300
14,900
14,700
14,000
71,700
November
16,400
16,300
15,500
15,100
14,500
77,800
December
17,000
17,300
16,000
15,800
15,500
81,600
FDOT Count Station 0164(Key Largo
January
24,800
24,300
24,000
23,800
22,700
119,600
iFebbruar
April
27,400
26,800
26,400
25,400
25,700
" , 26,400
25,100
26,100
24,900
24,600
129,500
129,300
May
26,200
26,200
25,300
24,700
23,800
126,200
June
25,300
24,200
24,100
23,800
i 22,900
1 120,300
July
27,300
26,200
25,000
25,700
24,100
128,300
Au ust
22,700
25,600
21,700
23,500
21,600
115,100
October
21,900
18,300
21,100
20,200
19,300
100,800
November
23,300
21,900
22,500
21,900
21,100
110,700
December
22,700
23,100
21,800
21,600
21,800
111,000
*Denotes average between the two adjacent years. Data was not available.
Traffic Circulation 27 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The data indicates that March is the peak month and September is the low month for traffic
at the three locations of the Keys.
On Big Pine Key, the peak season fluctuations are more extreme on a percentage basis. At
this location, March traffic is 19 percent higher than the annual average, and September
traffic is 37 percent less than the average traffic. On Stock Island, the same months are 13
percent above and 20 percent below the annual average. On Key Largo, the same months
are 13 percent above and 28 percent below the annual average.
It should be noted that the drop in traffic during the month of September corresponds
almost directly with the drop in hotel occupancy for the Keys. The Trend Report, published
annually by Smith Travel Research for the Monroe County Tourist Development Council,
documents the monthly hotel/guest quarters occupancy rates for Monroe County and,
separately, the City of Key West. A review of the rates for the year 2009 reveals a
significant reduction in the Monroe County occupancy rate during the month of September
(-38 percent) with respect to the 2009 average occupancy rate of 61.9 percent. In a simialr
fashion, the maximum hotel/guest quarters occupancy tends to occur during the months of
February and March with an increase of as much as 20 percent above the average annual
rate. As such, it appears that the transient population directly impacts the rise aqnd fall of
traffic flow in Monroe County.
4.3.5 2009 Operational Assessment of SR A-1-A
Table 4.17 presents a summary of the operational evaluation of SR A-1-A within the City of
Key West. As shown in the table, SR A-1-A operates at LOS B or C throughout its length.
Table 4.17 - 2009 Operational Assessment of SR A-1-A in the City of Key West
Bertha Key
Street West 5028 30 4LU
Air ort
7,200 1,961 1,183 1470
,C
Key West Flagler
Airport Avenue 5027 30 4LU
11,200 1,046 558 1,470 B
Flagler
Avenue US-1 0049 30 4LU
19,400 1,783 1,085 1,470 B
Sources: (1) 2009 Florida Traffic Information DVD,
Florida Department of Transportation
FDOPT Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
and (2) 2009
4.3.6 Existing Modal Split and Vehicle Occupancy Rates
The automobile is typically the most convenient mode of transportation because of the
ability to travel instantaneously as needed for the individual. Alternative modes of
Traffic Circulation 28 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
transportation often incur delay associated with waiting for a bus, train, airplane, etc., in
addition to the actual travel time on that mode to a particular destination. Thus, alternate
modes often have difficulty competing against the automobile. Transportation options
currently available in the County include the automobile, airplane, bus, bicycle, boat, and as
a pedestrian.
Information regarding modal split and vehicle occupancy rates for the County is not
available. However, the modal split is likely to significantly favor the automobile due to the
lack of an extensive transit system, lack of population density, and a lack of connectivity of
bicycle/pedestrian paths at the present time.
4.3.7 Significant Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
In general, the existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities throughout the County parallel U.S.
1 (non -continuous). These facilities are part of The Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail
Master Plan. The Master Plan will incorporate the existing trail segments to create a
continuous pedestrian and bicycle facility from Key Largo at MM 106 to Key West at MM 0
that will connect communities, school, and businesses, along U.S. 1. Most of the trail is
currently in existence, while a portion of it is still under construction. There are 60 miles of
existing bike paths spread throughout the Keys and an additional 40 miles of new trail
started construction in 2010. Map Series 4-5 depicts the significant bicycle and pedestrian
ways in the County.
4.3.8 Capacity of Significant Public Parking Facilities
There are two significant (i.e. public parking is in excess of 100 spaces) County -owned
public parking facilities in the County and one owned by the City of Key West. One of the
County facilities is located at the Key West International Airport while the other is at the
Florida Keys Marathon Airport as shown in Map Series 4-7. The parking facility located at
the Key West International Airport, was completed in 2009 and provides approximately
200 parking spaces at a cost of $10 per day and $50 for 5 to 7 days. This parking facility,
which is managed by Republic Parking, Inc., has no separation for short term or long term
parking.
The Florida Keys Marathon Airport parking facility offers 182 parking spaces, including five
handicap accessible spaces at no charge.
The Key West Department of Transportation owns and operates the 300-space Old Town
Garage, Park-N-Ride, in the Old Town Historic District. The 24-hour access garage is
located at the intersection of Grinnell and Caroline Streets. Parking rates are $2.00 per
hour with a maximum of $13.00 per day. A monthly permit costs $99.75. A Park-N-Ride
Garage ticket entitles the bearer to ride public transportation in the City of Key West for
free. Map Series 4-7 also show the location of the Old Town Garage.
Traffic Circulation 29 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.3.9 Availability of Transportation Facilities and Services for Existing Uses
[9J-5.019(3)(b)J
As previously noted, U.S. 1 is the main arterial roadway within the Florida Keys and the
County. County and local roadways, including frontage roads, generally serve shorter trip
lengths while providing direct access to adjacent land uses. These current facilities
effectively funnel traffic towards U.S. 1. Currently, existing land uses are adequately served
by this roadway network since they are either adjacent to or within a few hundred feet of
U.S. 1 and the collector roadways. Further supporting the roadway network is an
interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian paths. These bicycle and pedestrian
paths generally parallel U.S. 1 providing multimodal access to existing land uses within the
County.
In addition to U.S. 1, there are more than 600 miles of county (secondary) roads. The
Monroe County Division of Public Works is charged with maintaining and improving
secondary roads which are located within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe
County. The FDOT is responsible for maintaining U.S. 14 and SR A1A.
Pursuant to Sections 15.4.7of the Land Development Code, the Growth Management
Department will not issue building permits for all traffic generating developments that
would impact roadways with inadequate LOS.
4.3.10 Adequacy to Evacuate Population [9J-5.019(3)(c)J
U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road/CR-905 are designated as the evacuation routes for the Florida
Keys as depicted in Map Series 4-6. U.S. 1 is the only land -based connection to the
mainland with a variable roadway cross-section of two and four travel lanes throughout its
length. Northeast of Key Largo, the U.S. 1 corridor splits into two roadways. U.S. 1 veers
northwest connecting to Miami -Dade County, while Card Sound Road/CR-905 continues in
the northeast direction. U.S. 1 specifically between MM 106 and MM 126 varies between a
2-lane divided roadway and a 4-lane divided roadway. In Florida City, U.S. 1 becomes a 4-
lane divided facility.
Evacuation clearance times are used as emergency management tools throughout the State
of Florida. However, in the County, they are also utilized for regulatory purposes.
Specifically, since 1992, the County has implemented policies to ensure that clearance
times shall not exceed 24 hours. Table 4.18 summarizes the evacuation clearance times.
The 2006 South Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation Traffic Study, prepared by the South
Florida Regional Planning Council, provides a summary and analysis of evacuation of the
population of the County via U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road/CR-905. This analysis includes an
estimate of the clearance times required to evacuate the County using these two roadways.
12008 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report
Traffic Circulation 30 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The study identifies evacuation zones, critical roadway segments, and clearance times
based on development patterns, functional population, and behavioral analysis.
Based on a Category 4-5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale, analysis indicates that an
early, phased evacuation of tourists and mobile home residents prior to the evacuation of
permanent residents would result in evacuation clearance times for the County population
of less than 24-hours. It was assumed in the analysis that the evacuation of tourists would
begin approximately 48 hours in advance, followed by a 36-hour advance evacuation of
mobile home residents, and a 30-hour advance evacuation of permanent residents.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 31 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
o V)
C0
�o
o�
Z.,
u
2 U
w
Cl7 N
L �
� N
N
L C
O O
CYi
i 0
M N
d' O
00
O U
U
TS
OJ �
C
CO
�
o
`c c
CIZ
O
cc v
C
Ln
'
C
c0
•- o
O U
:�
u
v
0. N U n
u
U O
O
f6 r
'
•i
o
4
Vi L.
O
U
C N ^ O
cC U
Ln
O
U
K+ O cG
Ct
. U
o O
M i
x
o
3 "
0 0 0 Ln
CO CO
C
��
�c�LO
; M
y
• •
_°���
M
o
y
M
V)
°
i
Cam'•' rC
CU
O •'O C Vi
VI •�
i
O
a
^
ca a� C)
_°
CC
O
N
Vi E
V) co
O
.0
N
CG U
i .� U> N
>
W
Lr) Lr)ti
NO N ] 0
O
O O
a
N
N W
.O
U 0
ti C
n V)
'�
O _O
H
O • •
vCD
.)
Cq
)
0
z
— rj M
Traffic Circulation 32
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.3.11 FDOT - Five -Year Work Program [9J-5.019(3)(g)J
The current County's Capital Improvement Program list does not include roadway
improvements. Also, the City of Key West, City of Key Colony Beach, and City of Islamorada
do not have future transportation improvements. The City of Marathon and City of Layton
transportation improvements are limited to maintenance and resurfacing. However, major
improvements scheduled for U.S. 1 are outlined in the FDOT Five -Year Work Program
(2010 - 2014) as summarized in Table 4.19 below:
Table 4.19 - FDOT's Five -Year Work Program (2010 - 2014)
Florida Overseas
• The segment from MM 60.5-Craig Key to 62.9-Long Key
• The segment from MM 16.5-Lower Sugarloaf to MM 24.5-Summerland Key
• The segment from MM 47 to MM 54 for safety improvements
• The segment from MM 106 (new trailhead) between U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road
• The segment from MM 83.5-Windley Key to MM 84.8
• The segment from MM 92 to MM 96 (safety improvements)
• The segment from MM 15 to MM 16.5- Lower Sugarloaf Key
• The segment from MM 96 to MM 106- Key Largo
• The segment from City of Layton to Channel 5 Bridge
• The segment from MM 33.3-Spanish Harbor to MM 40.5-7 mile bridge
• The segment from MM 5.2-Key Haven to MM 11-Big Coppitt Key
HistoricBridges Reconstruction
Overseasof the
• The Ohio -Missouri Historic Bridge (MM 39.1)
• The Kemp Channel Bridge (MM 23.6)
• The Spanish Harbor Historic Bridge (MM 33)
• The Historic South Pine Channel Bridge (MM 29)
Other Bike Path Trails
• Atlantic Boulevard from Bertha Street to White Street
• College Road from Florida Keys Community College to SR 5/U.S. 1
• Glenn Archer Drive from SR 5/N Roosevelt Boulevard to Flagler Avenue
Bridge Repairs and Rehabilitations
• Baypoint Bridge #904140 at Palm Drive (Saddlebunch Key)
• Geiger Key Bride #904110 on Boca Chica Road
• SR 5/Indian Key Channel Bridge #900095 substructure repairs
• SR 5/Overseas Highway Big Spanish channel (Bahia Honda)
• SR 5/Spanish Harbor Big Pine Key at Bahia Honda
• SR 5/Toms Harbor Channel in Little Duck Key
• SR A1A/S. Roosevelt Boulevard Bridge #90054 over Thompson Creek
• SR A1A/S. Roosevelt Boulevard from Bertha Street to SR 5/U.S. 1
SR 5/Channel 2 Bridge substructure repairs
Traffic Circulation 33 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.19 - FDOT's Five -Year Work Program (2010 - 2014) (Continued)
• SR 5 From Ships Way To Sands Rd And From Sands Rd To W Of Key Deer Crossing
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From N Of 37 St./MM49.1 To N Of Cocoplum Dr/MM 54.6
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From Knights Key, MM 47.0 To Coast Guard Entrance, MM 48.0 The Kemp
Channel Bridge (MM 23.6) (Hurricane Evacuation)
• SR S/Overseas Hwy. From MM 93 To MM 97 (Hurricane Evacuation)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From MM 103/Hialeah Lane To MM 107/Lake Surprise Rd (Hurricane
Evacuation)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From MM 86.8/S Of East Ridge Rd To MM 90/Poinciana Blvd (Hurricane
Evacuation)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From MM 99.7/S Of Laguna Ave To MM 103.1/Hialeah Ln (Hurricane
Evacuation)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From N Jo -Jean Way/MM 92 To S Of Camelot Dr/MM 93 (Hurricane
Evacuation)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From Tavernier Creek Bridge/MM 91 To Jo -Jean Way/MM 92 (Hurricane
Evacuation)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From Travel Trailer Town/MM 96 To 175' N-Sunset Blvd/MM 99
(Hurricane Evacuation)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From 950' E Of Jade Drive To 680' E Of Shark Key
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From 50' S Of Fontaine Dr To S Of Tavernier Creek Bridge
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From Blue Isle Blvd, MM 59.9 To N Of Beach Entrance, MM 73.4
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From Jerome Ave MM 81.4 To Whale Harbor Channel, MM 84.0
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From MM 11.7/Shark Key Entrance To MM 14.6/West Circle Dr
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From Whale Harbor, MM 84.0 To Smugglers Cove Entrance, MM 85.6
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy, From 270'S Of Harbor View To 760' N Of MM 93 (S/B)
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From 490'E Of West Indies Dr To 150' W Of Palmetto Ave
• SR 5/Overseas Hwy. From 2580' S Of MM 97 To 2000'S Of MM 100(S/B Only)
• SR 5/Big Coppitt Key From Rockland Channel Bridge To Old Boca Chica Channel (2L to 3L -
Center Turn Lane)
• SR 5 from Ships Way to Sands Road and from Sands Road to west of Key Deer Crossing in
Big Pine Key (2L to 3L - Center Turn Lane).
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 34 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.4 Future Traffic Circulation
4.4.1 Introduction
This section of the Traffic Circulation Element describes the procedures developed to
forecast future traffic growth in the County through 2030, provides an analysis of the
future traffic conditions and presents transportation system improvements necessary to
address those deficiencies.
Trip forecasts were developed based upon projected household or occupied dwelling unit
estimated for the County and the incorporated urban areas: City of Marathon, City of Key
West, City of Layton, City of Key Colony Beach, and Islamorada, Village of Islands. Future
household estimates for the incorporated urban areas were derived from each of the
corresponding jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and/or planning documents. Future
household estimates for the County were derived as described in Section 2.6 of the Future
Land Use Element.
A key traffic capacity limitation in the County is the ability of various segments of U.S. 1 to
accommodate traffic volume increases at LOS C. The ability of the County to accommodate
traffic volume growth varies by segment of U.S. 1 and by collector roadway. Thus, the
distribution of potential residential growth by segment of U.S. 1 (and by Planning Area) will
be the critical factor in determining the future roadway segments which are over capacity.
4.4.2 Trip Forecasts for Monroe County
Table 4.20 presents the projected functional (seasonal plus permanent) population and
household growth for the unincorporated areas of the County from 2010 to 2030. The
functional population estimates reflect the County's current general policies regarding
limited and controlled growth (see Section 2.6 of the Future Land Use Element). The
projected annual population growth rate between 2010 and 2030 is about 0.218 percent
per year. The functional households were estimated based upon persons per household
factors of 2.2 for the permanent population and 2.7 for the seasonal population.
Table 4.21 presents the estimated daily trips per five year period for each of the three
Planning Areas (PA). The daily household trips were determined based on the trip
generation rate of 8 daily trips per household unit.5 The total new unincorporated County
generated daily trips by 2030 are estimated at 8,912. Of this total, the Upper Keys PA is
forecast to generate 3,632 of daily trips or 40.8 percent of the total. The Middle Keys PA
would generate about 272 daily trips or 3.1 percent of the total; whereas, the Lower Keys
PA would generate 5,008 trips or 56.2 percent of the total.
5 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, URS, August 2010.
Traffic Circulation 35 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.20 - Functional Population and Household Estimates for the Unincorporated
County
2,183 28,980 70,808
16,350 900
11,952
29,202
2,212 29,370 71,763
16,564 912
12,107
29,584
,234 29,668 72,494
A41,414
16,701 919
12,207
29,827
,256 29,966 73,225
16,838 926
12,306
30,071
,278 30,265 73,957
16,976 934
12,40630,315ource:
Keith and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind & Associates,
Projections, February 2011
Inc., Unincorporated Monroe County
Population
Table 4.21- Forecast of Unincorporated Monroe County Trips, 2010-2030
2010 16,350 --
--
900
11,952
--
--
2015 16,564 214
1,712
912
12
96
12,107
155
1,240
3,048
2020 16,701 137
11096
919
7
56
12,207
100
800
1,952
2025 16,838 137
1,096
926
7
56
12,306
99
792
1,944
2030 16,976 138
1,104
934
8
64
12,406
100
800
1,968
Totals 2010-
2030 626
5,008
34
272
454
3,632
8,912
Source: Keith and Schnars, P.A. and Fishkind & Associates, Inc., Unincorporated Monroe County Population
Projections, February 2011
Traffic Circulation 36 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.4.3 Trip Forecasts for Incorporated Urban Areas
4.4.3.1 City of Key West
The City of Key West is preparing a new Building Permit Allocation System Ordinance. This
ordinance, commonly referred to as the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) allocates units
for new development within the City as part of a growth management process mandated by
the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The original 1993 plan was devised to tie new growth to
hurricane evacuation clearance times. New development would only be allowed if
hurricane evacuation stayed under 24 hours. In the beginning, a limited number of new
units were allocated and assigned to specific developments. In time, however, almost all
the available allocations were exhausted. A small pool of units dedicated to affordable
housing and for "beneficial use" (the minimum use needed to provide owners with
reasonable use of their land) were reserved.
Since February 2008, the City of Key West instituted a "zoning in progress" doctrine during
the preparation of the new ordinance. The City will only allocate new units for workforce
housing. Because so few new units existed in the system anyway, the zoning in progress
resolution has had little impact on actual development in the City. Most development
continues to be redevelopment of existing units which are either acknowledged as lawfully
established prior to the institution of the Building Permit Allocation System or can
demonstrate that they have valid allocations.
Due to the inability to project the demand volumes for workforce housing for the City of
Key West, for planning purposes, it has been assumed that the City has a minimal housing
unit impact with respect to traffic.
4.4.3.2 City of Marathon
Housing projections for the City of Marathon were obtained from the City of Marathon
Comprehensive Plan, Adopted March 8, 2005. Currently, under the ROGO, the City of
Marathon is allocated 30 residential units per each ROGO allocation year by the State of
Florida. Based on the housing information from the 2000 U. S. Census, and highlighted in
the City's comprehensive plan, the City will have added 600 units by 2020 for a projected
total of 7,391 permanent housing units.6
The number of permanent occupied units, 4,996 units, was determined by multiplying the
total projected units by 67.59 percent. The number of persons per occupied dwelling unit
(or household) is 2.19. The number of seasonal units projected for 2020 is estimated at
3,090. The occupancy is estimated at 59.7 percent with 2.92 persons per unit.
6 Source: Table I-7: Population Estimates and Projections, 2000-2020, page 11 of 218, Chapter I Future Land
Use Data Inventory and Analysis, City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan, March 8, 2005.
Traffic Circulation 37 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.22 presents the 2010-2030 forecasts for both the permanent and seasonal
occupied units as well as estimated daily trips per 5-year forecast period.
4.4.3.3 Cit of Kev Colony Beach
The City of Key Colony Beach's housing stock is predominantly duplex and multifamily.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey, approximately 80
percent of the City's housing units are multi -family with less than 20 percent being single
family units. Table 4.23 presents the forecasted population, household, and daily trip
estimates for the City of Key Colony Beach between 2010 and 2030. Projections beyond
2020 were estimated based on the estimated yearly growth rate through 2020. Daily trips
were determined by applying the rate of 8 trips per dwelling unit as per the 2010 U.S. 1
Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, URS, August 2010.
Table 4.22 - Forecasted Household and Daily Trip Growth for the City of Marathon,
2010-2030
Permanent Occupied Units 4,692 4,793
4,895
4,996
5,097
5,198
Seasonal Occupied Units 2,829 2,913
3,000
3,090
3,180
3,270
Total Occupied Units 7,521 7,706
7,895
8,086
8,277
8,468
Change per 5-Year Period
185
189
191
191
191
Daily Trips s -- 1,480
1,512
1,528
1,528
1,528
1. Source: City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan, March 2005.
2. Projections beyond 2020 are estimated based on yearly growth estimate.
3. Daily trips determined by applying rate of 8 trips per dwelling unit as per 2010 U.S.
Time and Delay Study, URS, August 2010.
1 Arterial
Travel
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 38 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.23 - Forecasted Population, Household, and Daily Trip Growth
for the City of Key Colony Beach, 2010-2030
Permanent Population 836 832 819 808 795 783
Seasonal Population
1,726
1,768
1,810
1,852
1,897
1,943
Total Peak Population
2,562
2,600
2,629
2,660
2,692
2,726
Change in Population
--
38
29
31
32
34
Dwelling Units 3
20
16
17
17
18
Daily Trips 4
160
128
136
136
144
r;r„ of Kav Cnlnnv Raarh Cnmprehensive Plan.
Adonted luly 2007 and amended
November 2008, and LaRue Planning and Management Services, Inc., 2005.
Projected population based on annual growth rates, 2005-2020.
Assumed a factor of 1.87 persons per dwelling unit among both permanent and seasonal
populations.
Daily trips determined by applying rate of 8 trips per dwelling unit as per 2010 U.S. 1
Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, URS, August 2010.
4.4.3.4 City of Layton
As the smallest incorporated area, the City of Layton is nearing full residential build -out.
Forecasted single and multi -unit residential dwelling unit estimates for the City of Layton
were determined based on the information provided in the City's 2020 Comprehensive
Plan, Adopted November 16, 1990, amended March 12, 2009. In 2007, a capacity for a
projected 22 single family dwelling units was determined.
Table 4.24 presents the estimated incremental five-year period residential unit growth for
the City of Layton, as well as the estimated daily trips for each period. It was assumed that
residential build -out of 205 units will be achieved by 2020 and no or negligible growth
beyond that period.
Traffic Circulation 39 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.24 - Forecasted Residential Dwelling Unit Growth for the City of Layton,
2010-2030
Single Family 130 139 147 152 152 152
Multifamily 54 54 55 58 58
58
Total 184 193 202 210 210 210
Incremental Growth
2010-2030 -- 9 9 g p 0
Daily Trips 3 -- 72 72 64 0
0
1. Dwelling unit estimate based on assessment of Figure 3-3, Existing Land Use Map, May 2007
and Figure 3-4, Future Land Use Map 2020, City of Layton, Florida, Comprehensive Plan,
Adopted November 16, 1990, Amended March 12, 2009.
2. Residential development build -out assumed by 2020.
3. Daily trips determined by applying rate of 8 trips per dwelling unit as per 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study, URS, August 2010.
4.4.3.5 Islamorada Village of Islands
The previous ROGO program for Islamorada allows up to 22 residential units (18 market
rate and 4 affordable units) to be constructed each year within the Village. If the Village
adheres to this growth rate through the horizon date of its Comprehensive Plan (2020),
then 440 new units would be constructed above the 2001 housing stock. The land use plan
parameters allows for a residential and commercial mix equal in impact to 396 residential
dwelling units, its maximum build -out conditions. After 2003, the annual allotment was set
at 14 units per year through year 2020. New residential development should not exceed
302 units over the twenty year (2001-2020) planning period.
Table 4.25 presents the forecasted dwelling units and daily trips through 2030 for Islamorada.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 40 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.25 - Forecasted Dwelling Units and Daily Trip Growth
for Islamorada, Village of Islands, 2010-20301
1. Islamorada, Village of Islands, Comprehensive Plan, Data Inventory and
Data Analysis, January 2001.
2. No more than 14 residential units per year can be constructed under the
proposed program through year 2020. New residential development
should not exceed 302 units over the twenty year (2001-2020) planning
period.
3. Build -out assumed by 2020.
4. Daily trips determined by applying rate of 8 trips per dwelling unit as
per 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, URS, August 2010.
4 4 3 6 Summary of Daily Trips and Residential Units
Table 4.26 shows a summary of the County and incorporated areas forecasted dwelling
units and new daily trips per five-year forecast period through 2030. The overall growth
trend of future residential units is expected to gradually decrease up through 2025 and
reverse upward by 2030. Most of the traffic increase beyond 2020 will be associated with
the development of potential residential units in the cities (e.g. Marathon), an upward
change in the County's functional population before 2030, and a possible increase in
dwelling unit occupancies (Key West and Key Colony Beach). The cities of Layton and Key
Colony Beach are expected to have been build -out by 2020.
Table 4.26 - Summary of Daily Trip and Residential Unit Forecasts
Year
2015
Daily Trips
5,320
Residential
Units
665
2020
4,240
530
2025
3,608
451
2030
3,640
455
20-Year Totals
16,808
2,101
Traffic Circulation 41 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.4.4 Future Traffic Forecasts
4.4.4.1 AADT Forecast
Estimates of future AADT along the U.S. 1 corridor were made based upon a combination of
the historic AADT volumes and growth rates at each of the FDOT count stations and the
estimated daily trips for the forecasted residential development for the county and cities
through 2030. The following is a summary of the procedure applied to estimate the
forecasted AADT for each of the 24 segments of the U.S. 1 corridor:
• An annual system -wide background or ambient growth rate of 0.31 percent per year
was applied to all future estimates through 2030 at each of the count stations.? This
rate was determined from the weighted average of the 2000=2009 growth rates at the
following key stations, located at or near the Keys Planning Area limits:
- Station #0009 and Station #0066 which are located at the western and eastern
limits, respectively, of the Lower Keys Planning Area;
- Station #0066 and Station #0065 which are located at the western and eastern
limits, respectively, of the Middle Keys Planning Area; and
- Station #0065 and Stations #0001 (U.S. 1) and #0002 (Card Sound Road) which are
located at the western and northern limits, respectively, of the Upper Keys Planning
Area.
• The estimated daily trips generated by the planned or permitted residential units for
both the unincorporated county areas and cities, were added to each five-year forecast
period at each of the count stations.
• Where there were more than one count station within a U.S. 1 segment, the average
value of the stations was determined and applied to the segment analysis (Segments 1
(Stock Island), 10 (Big Pine), 12 (7-Mile Bridge), 22 (Travernier), and 23 (Key Largo).
• In Segment 13 (Marathon) the station with the highest recorded volume was selected
for the analysis (FDOT Station 0064, MM 100).
Table 4.27 presents the estimated 2010-2030 AADT forecasts for each of the U.S. 1 segments.
The 2000-2009 AADT growth rate parallels the Monroe County functional population growth rate of 0.3
percent per year.
Traffic Circulation 42 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.27 - 2010-2030 Annual Average Daily Traffic Forecasts for U.S. 1
U.S.
AverageAnnual Daily Traffic Forecasts
1 Segment Begin MM - Area
Stock Island 4.0 - 5.0 Monroe 37,883 39,651 40,807 41,964 43,131
1
2
Boca Chica
5.0 - 9.0
Monroe
25,589
27,685 29,196
30,730
32,295
3
Big Coppitt
9.0 - 10.5
Monroe
21,659
23,696
25,147
26,621
28,124
4
Saddlebunch
10.5 - 16.5
Monroe
20,846
22,871
24,310
25,770
27,261
5
Sugarloaf
16.5 - 20.5
Monroe
19,488
21,492
22,911
24,350
25,820
6
Cudjoe
20.5 - 23.0
Monroe
19,488
21,492
22,911
24,350
25,820
7
Summerland
23.0 - 25.0
Monroe
18,129
20,113
21,511
22,929
24,377
8
Ramrod
25.0 - 27.5
Monroe
18,484
20,473
21,876
23,301
24,754
9
Torch
27.5 - 29.5
Monroe
18,838
20,833
22,241
23,671
25,130
10
Big Pine
29.5 - 33.0
Monroe
18,027
20,009
21,406
22,823
24,269
11
Bahia Honda
33.0 - 40.0
Monroe
17,387
19,360
20,746
22,153
23,590
12
7-Mile
Bridge
40.0 - 47.0
Monroe
15,087
17,073
18,641
20,187
21,755
13
Marathon
47.0 - 54.0
Marathon &
Key Colony
Beach
32,502
34,798
36,582
38,302
40,038
14
Grassy
54.0 - 60.5
Marathon &
Key Colony
Beach
16,482
18,537
20,321
22,041
23,777
15
Duck
60.5 - 63.0
Monroe
13,208
15,214
16,998
18,718
20,454
16
Long
63.0 - 73.0
Monroe
9,933
11,890
13,674
15,394
17,130
17
Lower
Matecumbe
73.0 - 77.5
Islamorada
13,751
15,757
17,794
19,861
21,958
18
Tea Table
77.5 - 79.5
Islamorada
13,793
15,800
17,837
19,904
22,003
19
Upper Matecumbe
79.5 - 84.0
Islamorada
13,793
15,800
17,837
19,904
22,003
20
Windley
84.0 - 86.0
Islamorada
13,834
15,842
17,879
19,948
22,047
21
Plantation
86.0 - 91.5
Islamorada
34,045
37,371
39,731
42,127
44,559
22
Tavernier
91.5 - 99.5
Monroe
26,701
28,902
31,135
33,402
35,703
23
Key Largo
99.5 - 106.0
Monroe
28,738
30,538
33,233
35,532
37,865
24
Cross
106.0 - 112.5
Monroe
17,787
19,854
21,952
24,081
26,242
Traffic Circulation 43 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.4.4.2 Forecast of Reserve S eed and Residential Ca acit
As previously described in Section 4.3.4.4, the difference between segment travel speeds
and the LOS C standard is known as the "Reserve Speed". Reserve speed is converted into
an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic volumes and corresponding additional
development. If the LOS C standard is exceeded, a fixed number of additional trips for land
development are allowed as calculated based on the U.S. 1 Methodology until the next
update of the U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (the "Study") or until mitigation
actions are implemented.
Whereas the reserve speeds are derived from the annual travel time and delay studies, a
methodology to determine future reserve speeds (and thus, future reserve volumes and
residential capacities for each segment) was developed based on the forecasted AADT
volumes and median speeds.
• The incremental increase in forecast AADT between each 5-year period was determined
and a factor of 1,656 trips/mph8 was applied, yielding an estimated reduction factor for
the median speed for the segment.
• The speed reduction was then applied to the previous 5-year period's median speed to
determine the forecast period's median speed.
• The difference between the forecast period's median speed and the LOS C value
established for each segment provides the reserve speed for that segment.
Table 4.28 presents the estimated 2015-2030 forecasts of reserve speeds for each of the
U.S. 1 segments. The reserve speeds for 2010 were obtained from the recently completed
Study.
Table 4.29 presents the estimated 2015-2030 forecasts of reserve volumes and residential
capacities for each of the U.S. 1 segments. These were derived through the application of
the U.S. 1 Methodology as described in Section 4.3.4.4. The individual reserve volumes
may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve volume of
35,240 daily trips as determined in the Study. For planning purposes, the 5 percent
allocation for future timeframes was not determined.
It is important to note that the median speed, reserve volume, and residential capacity
projections are based upon the reserve speeds for 2010 as established in the Study; and as
such are valid until the next update of the Study or until mitigation actions are
implemented.
8 Source: 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, August 2010
Traffic Circulation 44 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.28 - 2010-2030 Reserve Speed Forecast for U.S. 1
U.S.
1 Segment
Stock Island
LengthSegment Reserve
2010
1.1 12.0
Speed Forecast
2015 2020 202S 2030
10.9 10.2 9.5 8.8
1
2
Boca Chica
3.9
7.7
6.4
5.5
4.6
3.7
3
Big Coppitt
1.5
0.0
-2.6
-3.5
-4.4
-5.3
4
Saddlebunch
5.8
2.7
1.5
0.6
-0.3
-1.2
5
Sugarloaf
4
0.4
-0.8
-1.7
-2.5
-3.4
6
Cudjoe
2.5
6.1
4.9
4.0
3.2
2.3
7
Summerland
2.2
5.4
4.2
3.4
2.5
1.6
8
Ramrod
2.3
4.9
3.7
2.9
2.0
1.1
9
Torch
2.1
6.0
4.8
3.9
3.1
2.2
10
Big Pine
3.4
2.7
1.5
0.7
-0.2
-1.1
11
Bahia Honda
7
6.2
5.0
4.2
3.3
2.5
12
7-Mile Bridge
6.8
3.3
2.1
1.2
0.2
-0.7
13
Marathon
7.3
14.7
13.3
12.2
11.2
10.1
14
Grassy
6.4
-2.7
-3.9
-5.0
-6.1
-7.1
15
Duck
2.7
3.5
2.3
1.2
0.2
-0.9
16
Long
9.9
4.1
2.9
1.8
0.8
-0.2
17
Lower Matecumbe
4.5
-1.3
-2.5
-3.7
-5.0
-6.3
18
Tea Table
2.2
-0.5
-1.7
-2.9
-4.2
-5.5
19
Upper Matecumbe
4.1
0.9
-0.3
-1.5
-2.8
-4.1
20
Windley
1.9
14.2
13.0
11.8
10.5
9.2
21
Plantation
5.8
3.0
1.0
-0.4
-1.9
-3.3
22
Tavernier
8
7.2
5.9
4.5
3.2
1.8
23
Key Largo
6.8
8.1
7.0
5.4
4.0
2.6
24
Cross
6.2
7.0
5.8
4.5
3.2
1.9
Traffic Circulation 45 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.29 - 2010-2030 Reserve Volume and Residential
Unit Capacity Forecast
Segment
of U.S. 1
2010
per
1 Stock Island
2,186 342
1,991
311
1,864
291
1,737
271
1,609
251
2 Boca Chica
4,973 777
4,156
649
3,566
557
2,968
464
2,358
3 Big Coppitt
5492 86
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
368
4 Saddlebunch
2,593 405
1,419
222
584
91
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
3
Note 3
5 Sugarloaf
265 41
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Not3
Note 3
Note
3
Note
3
3
Note 3
6 Cudjoe
2,525 395
2,024
316
1,670
261
1,310
205
942
3
7 Summerland
1,967 307
1,531
239
1,223
191
911
147
142
593
93
8 Ramrod
1,866 292
1,409
220
1,086
170
758
119
424
9 Torch
2,087 326
1,668
261
1,372
214
1,072
167
765
66
10 Big Pine
1,520 238
846
132
371
58
Note 3
Note
Note 3
120
Note
11 Bahia Honda
7,187 1,123
51806
907
4,836
756
3,851
3
602
7-Mile
2,845
445
12
Brid e
3,716 581
2,366
370
1,299
203
248
39
Note 3
Note
13 Marathon
17,771 2,777
16,094
2,515
14.792
2,311
13,537
2,115
12,269
1,917
14 Grassy
02 0
Note 3
Not3
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note
3
3
Note 3
15 Duck
1,565 245
1,023
160
542
85
77
12
Note 3
3
Note
16 Long
6,722 1,050
4,784
748
3,018
472
1,315
206
Note 3
3
Note
Lower
17
Matecumbe
9402 147
Note 3
Note
3
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
3
Note
3
3
3
18 Tea Table
7272 114
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note
Upper
3
3
3
Note 3
3
19
Matecumbe
611 95
Note 3
Note
3
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
20 Windley
4,468 698
41086
638
3,699
3
578
31306
3
517
3
2,907
454
21 Plantation
2,881 450
952
149
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
22 Tavernier
9,539 1,490
7,778 1,215
5,991
3
936
4,178
3
653
2,337
3
23 Key Largo
9,121 1,425
7,897 1,234
6,065
948
4,501
703
2,915
365
24 Cross
7,187 1,123
5,906
923
4,605
719
3,285
513
1,945
455
304
1. These individual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed
reserve volume.
by
the overall
Traffic Circulation
46
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.29 notes (continued):
2. Value shown is 5% Allocation for 2010. County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to
meet LOS C standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. The
resulting flexibility allows a limited amount of additional land development (number of residential units
as shown) to continue until traffic speeds are measured the following year or until remedial actions are
implemented.
3. Residential capacity not determined for future years where forecast reserve capacity is negative.
4.4.4.3 Projected U.S. 1 Level of Service
The information presented in Tables 4.28 and 4.29 provides a "snapshot" of the current
(2010) segments where there is potential for significant residential development
restrictions notwithstanding any restrictions regarding local development, redevelopment,
or hurricane evacuation restrictions. These segments are candidates for being designated
as either "backlogged" or "constrained" by FDOT.
Based upon the measured and forecasted speeds, reserve volumes and residential
capacities for all of the U.S. 1 segments, the following segments are projected to operate
below the acceptable LOS C:
Year 2010 (Current):
• U.S.1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS D; and
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS D.
Year 2015:
• U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S.1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS D; and
• U.S.1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS D.
Year 2020:
• U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS D;
• U.S.1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS D; and
• U.S. 1 on Plantation Key from MM 86.0 to 91.5 (Segment 21), LOS D.
Year 2025:
• U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Saddlebunch Key from MM 10.5 to 16.5 (segment 4), LOS D;
Traffic Circulation 47 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• U.S. 1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key from MM 29.5 to 33.0 (segment 10), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS D; and
• U.S. 1 on Plantation Key from MM 86.0 to 91.5 (Segment 21), LOS D.
Year 2030:
• U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Saddlebunch Key from MM 10.5 to 16.5 (segment 4), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS E-
• U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key from MM 29.5 to 33.0 (segment 10), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on 7-Mile Bridge from MM 40.0 to 47.0 (segment 11), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Duck Key from MM 60.5 to 63.0 (segment 15), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Long Key from MM 63.0 to 73.0 (segment 16), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS E; and
• U.S. 1 on Plantation Key from MM 86.0 to 91.5 (Segment 21), LOS E.
The projected 2010-2030 levels of service for each of the U.S. 1 corridor segments are
presented in Table 4.30. The LOS for each segment per forecast period was derived from
the application of the LOS criteria as per the Study as presented previously in Table 4.12.
Those segments that that have the potential to achieve LOS E prior to 2020 should be more
closely monitored and given a higher priority for improvements.
Segments that have used -up the 5 percent reserve trips are restricted from new
development or redevelopment, except where redevelopment has no net increase in trips.
A portion of US 1 in the Grassy Key segment was under construction at the time of the
Study and was expected to improve operationally once the construction was completed.
Therefore, the restrictions cannot be imposed on this segment until such time that the
impact of the improvements are validated.
Traffic Circulation 48 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 4.30 - Projected U.S.1 Level of Service, 2010 - 2030
Level of Service for Forecast Tears
1.2
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
1 Stock Island 4.0 - 5.0 B B B B B
2
Boca Chica
5.0 - 9.0
A
A
A
A
A
3
Big Coppitt
9.0 - 10.5
D
D
D
E
E
4
Saddlebunch
10.5 - 16.5
C
C
C
D
D
5
Sugarloaf
16.5 - 20.5
C
D
D
D
E
6
Cudjoe
20.5 - 23.0
A
A
B
B
C
7
Summerland
23.0 - 25.0
B
B
B
B
C
8
Ramrod
25.0 - 27.5
B
B
B
B
C
9
Torch
27.5 - 29.5
A
A
B
B
C
10
Big Pine
29.5 - 33.0
C
C
C
E
E
11
Bahia Honda
33.0 - 40.0
A
A
A
A
C
12
7-Mile
Bridge
40.0 - 47.0
B
B
B
B
D
13
Marathon
47.0 - 54.0
A
A
B
B
B
14
Grassy
54.0 - 60.5
D
E
E
E
E
15
Duck
60.5 - 63.0
B
B
C
C
D
16
Long
63.0 - 73.0
B
B
C
C
D
17
Lower
Matecumbe
73.0 - 77.5
D
D
D
E
E
18
Tea Table
77.5 - 79.5
D
D
D
E
E
19
Upper
Matecumbe
79.5 - 84.0
C
D
D
D
E
20
Windley
84.0 - 86.0
A
B
B
B
C
21
Plantation
86.0 - 91.5
B
C
D
D
E
22
Tavernier
91.5 - 99.5
A
B
B
B
B
23
Key Largo
99.5 - 106.0
A
A
A
B
B
24
Cross
106.0 - 112.5
A
A
A
B
B
Notes:
1. Both Monroe County and Florida Department of Transportation have adopted a LOS C standard for
U.S. 1.
2. Determination of segment LOS based on criteria and procedures presented in 2010 -- U.S. 1 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study, Monroe County, Florida; URS Corporation; August 2010.
3. Bold text indicates LOS below C.
Traffic Circulation 49 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The critical segments (LOS D or E) within County jurisdiction include:
• Big Coppitt Key (Segment 3), 2010-2030;
• Saddlebunch Key (Segment 4), 2025-2030;
• Sugarloaf Key (Segment 5), 2015-2030;
• Big Pine Key (Segment 10), 2025-2030;
• 7-Mile Bridge Key (Segment 12), 2030;
• Duck Key (Segment 15), 2030; and
• Long Key (Segment 16), 2030.
The segments traversing the cities of Marathon (Grassy Key, Segment 14) and Islamorada
(Lower Matecumbe, Tea Table, Upper Matecumbe, and Plantation Keys, Segments 17, 18,
19, and 21, respectively) are the most impacted by future residential and traffic growth.
4.4.4.4 Alternative Miti anon Measures
If traditional roadway capacity techniques were to be applied to the potentially failing
segments, the constrained segments would have to rely primarily on roadway widenings
for relief. However, County and FDOT policies for U.S. 1 and the speed -based methodology
do not necessarily depend upon the provision of additional traffic lanes to correct capacity
deficiencies. Since level of service (degree of congestion) is measured by median travel
speeds, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) techniques have been and should
continue to be considered as effective as roadway widening in increasing median travel
speeds, and, thereby increasing reserve capacity. Where such TSM techniques are
determined to be ineffective at relieving the localized congestion, other, more costly
options, including roadway widening may then be considered.
Specific TSM actions directly applicable to U.S. 1 include:
• Traffic Management Activities (traffic operations, traffic control and access
management techniques);
• Transit Management Actions (transit operations, transit marketing and inter -modal
coordination);
• Demand Reduction Activities (carpools/vanpools, dial -a -ride, work hours changes); and
• Restraint Measures (parking management, restricted areas, pricing/tolls, time period
restrictions on commercial vehicles).
Since most of U.S. 1 in the Florida Keys operates as an uninterrupted flow facility; there are
few traffic signals on U.S. 1; the public transit service is very limited; and U.S. 1 serves as a
local access road for a large portion of the population, the most effective of these TSM
techniques to improve travel speeds are those associated with access management. The
following four specific access management techniques are considered to have the greatest
potential impact:
Traffic Circulation 50 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• limiting the number of conflict points;
• separating basic conflict areas;
• limiting deceleration requirements; and
• removing turning vehicles from through lanes.
The following access management techniques are most appropriate for application to
uninterrupted flow segments of U.S. 1:
• provide a center, two-way left turn lane within a two-lane section;
• limit the number of access drives between U.S. 1 and the existing frontage road (Old U.S.
1) to encourage the use of the frontage road for local access;
• provide a non -mountable median on U.S. 1 in two-lane sections to prevent left turn
access to and from adjacent property where widening is impractical due to proximity of
adjacent land uses;
• provide adjacent one-way left turn lanes in sections where driveway spacing is great
enough to allow for it;
• provide right turn acceleration lanes on high speed sections to facilitate turning
movements onto U.S. 1 while reducing the speed differential with through traffic;
• provide right turn deceleration lanes on U.S. 1 to allow for vehicles to safely decelerate
before entering driveways serving adjacent land uses;
• increase turn lane storage lengths at signalized intersections so that vehicles in adjacent
through lanes are not impeded;
• convert closely -spaced shared driveways to inbound/outbound (one-way) operation;
• provide channelizing islands which prevent left turn inbound and outbound
movements at driveways;
• consolidate access drives to serve adjacent properties; and
• construct continuous right turn lanes to serve closely -spaced driveways.
Specific measures of site -specific effectiveness will vary depending on such factors as the
number of turning vehicles at individual intersections and driveways, driveway spacing
and specific traffic signal operations.
The current FDOT Five -Year Work Program previously shown in Table 4.19 includes
roadway widening with the addition of a center turn lane on two U.S. 1 sections at Big
Coppitt Key (Segment 3) and Big Pine Key (Segment 10). The programmed improvement
on Big Coppitt Key, which has been identified as one of the four 2010 segments with LOS
below C, should help to improve travel speed on Big Coppitt Key, eventually increasing the
reserve volume and subsequently increase the residential capacity. Although Big Pine Key
(Segment 10) is not expected to have a LOS problem until sometime beyond 2020, the
impact of the widening may extend to other segments and push back the date of potential
segment failure.
Traffic Circulation 51 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
4.4.5 Traffic Monitoring Program
The currently established U.S. 1 Methodology for determining level of service serves to
make a determination as to which segments of US 1 will require improvement in the future
and which segments have available reserve volumes and residential capacity for future
development and growth. The County should continue the travel speed runs along U.S. 1
every year to determine the cumulative effects of new development along with background
growth along U.S. 1, based on the County -adopted speed -based methodology in conjunction
with yearly updates of the forecast methodology presented herein. If segments are found
to be over capacity, proposed development approvals that would impact these segments
would be halted until the necessary capacity improvements are implemented.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Traffic Circulation 52
Technical Document: May 2011
E
9
cz
W
i-
a
V
0!
F
� �
ai
II �
C] O
cz iC
C n
cu
v an
V) O
ti L
��"+
a)
C +4
C
O
O fC O
p 6)
c0
y
�
U
4 w
> ¢ O
E
0
0 0
0 o
C
ai
d
S
O
3-0
a>
O
C
c4
O
ca
d O C
L
O CZ V
r cu O
y
cz
O
O E m
O O 00 �.
[
n
N
'O cC
� .n �
°
Q
>
N aU
O p Qi
� •fC
y
R'
CY
"O
'C L: L;1
�y VI �
L
Q
"O
y
y
O Q
U
1tx
sue.
Q O
c.� > v
Q
z�ca
L
c
cu
m
>,
cu
n.
fN
O
C
In y
7
to
O
O
"Q
�
>
C
^G
cu
E ,
G
v)
Q)
-vi
c
cu °
cu
+J
U
T5
O
O
Qii
cu
u , G
a�
tL4
O
U0.
y
..
CVI
Ln ja
Q
7.
Ld
"� O
U c
O
a
a�
cu
�
`n
Ln
¢
cttko "'
s
�•i
G
RS �•-'
O
y e•I
O
O
r
N
cu
c�a
O N
�� p
m
V,
y
ea u
E
r�o
a c
Q
v p
N
ll�
4u
tC
w .p
O +� w0 2
iv W .0
V) O U
°wCL oO U
p O a.)o c C
p O ., N .O
C) U U
Ln
-
U p O OO N
U 4: ° 'O O
r S QQ.)
'O m °O U ..O i 3
C) O ^ U C6
ct
v '1-> C! •U 'L5
Qt%Fcnp o
m r-I
O U
O � �
NN N 00 r^
UCn� a)xLr)
t\
ra CUj M
C4 c•-� d• CL Cn �' er
0)
N u
O
L w0
Gs ZL
Q rC p U
OO
>, O
O
i
-�
O O U
+�.a C)
fi+ii
C) ruco
+�.� U 1
o
y a o
O
m G
+Z U
O Lx.n
+.•' '�'•� yr U
U
Olu
c-U, C1,
L) O
a c0 i z
O W CJ O O
L' ZZ O y' O
O 00 Q N
v Q
c
a)o
"a � c� W o
a' a
V) Q
yrz
� ca
O p H
C ry
U ..0 CU U i
p✓ U> U L O O
a)
s: 'J o m° m o o z
X i
C
w
O
U
U O ..O
U
C n• 3
tn
C) c6
O O m
C)
O U
U
^ U Q
rn u
N U n•
v ti
V)
ay
O
C)
bn
�)
r 3 C)
'y
C) �..+ O O C) i
O
i O U J, CO
CC L
L;
cC V) — O Vn N
O Q) U _O
w
y Cu
U C) y^U� M O L
m
Ln
p O O U
U
h
U
0 Ln
0 U
t\
Ln
n L.
o L
cn U .�
U
•�
M
U
._, -0 O I c0 O ,C
0 3
U CQ
-a �' o
�
f4 .�' � � c6 CE � n•
n,
U
° °
NO
cz O
C E CO) L . U C)
G
O
N crOi Or T CG CG E-"
c°)
M ^Te�
�w Ow7
cu CDZ
Uto > U C7
b�D �pp Q �
U
� In. x a s
N
M