The URL can be used to link to this page

Item C30 C30 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY of MONROE �� i Mayor Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5 The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tern James K.Scholl,District 3 Craig Cates,District 1 Michelle Lincoln,District 2 ' David Rice,District 4 Board of County Commissioners Meeting October 16, 2024 Agenda Item Number: C30 2023-3166 BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Transit TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Richard Clark AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of Letter of Support accepting and supporting the proposed improvements in the Monroe County Freight Mobility Improvement Study created by FDOT that was presented by FDOT at the September 11, 2024 BOCC meeting. ITEM BACKGROUND: At the September 11, 2024, BOCC meeting the FDOT presented the Monroe County Freight Mobility Improvement Study consisting of 10 traffic signal improvements and 26 segment improvements that would improve traffic flow along US1/Overseas Highway. FDOT has requested a Letter of Support from the BOCC which supports the proposed US 1 improvement recommendations in the study. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: Presentation was given at the September 11, 2024 BOCC meeting by FDOT. INSURANCE REQUIRED: No CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval DOCUMENTATION: Monroe County® Study Summary v3 Monroe County Freight Improvement Plan Powerpoint Summary Monroe County Freight Improvement Plan Study Report from FDOT FreightSupportLterl 0042024.docx FINANCIAL IMPACT: None at this time. 1751 �Uu llll i L L =1111milli, ME IIIIN I III IIIII ''IV dill 1 Freight and logistics are essential to functioning of our communities and regional economies. The purpose of this study by the Florida Department of Transportation FDOT — District Six was to investigate freight mobility conditions today and into the ry III g g Y Y future along US 1 in Monroe County and to identify actions to preserve and enhance q I.JIII�"4 II that freight mobility. This purpose was accomplished by addressing these elements: • Assess existing conditions and future traffic scenarios. • Evaluate traffic level of service in each scenario for: o Existing and future 2045 conditions. o 10 signalized intersections and 110 roadway segments. • Identify proposed improvement actions and costs. • Coordinate this analysis with the Monroe County 2018 US 1 Transportation Master Plan and the 2023 Arterial Travel Time Delay Study. =I,," IIIIIII��IIIII1M-II111,11i Monroe County occupies a unique setting within Florida. It is known worldwide for its Florida Keys extending for over 100 miles, connected by the US 1 Overseas Highway, as well as for Everglades National Park on the mainland. The county economy is centered on tourism, offering a vast array of parks and preserves — both marine and land-based — as well as recreational fishing, historical sites, boating and diving, and eclectic shopping and dining. Over half of residents ,� o are involved with tourism, with others in the commercial fishing, military, construction, and service trades such as retail, professional, military, health care, and education. The current Monroe County population is near 83,000 persons,with 62% situated I � in Key West and the Lower Keys. Tourism nearly doubles the base population in G peak season,with over 5.2 million seasonal residents and visitors,whose visits follow a distribution pattern similar to that of permanent population. Underpinning this tropical paradise setting is the freight and logistics sector, supplying all the foods, goods, fuel, commodities, and materials needed to sustain the communities, business END OFTHE R sectors, and general economy of the island chain. Essentially all of these I EY WEST FLORIDA supplies are delivered by trucks traversing US 1 to and from the mainland, along with trucks working within the Keys, supplying businesses and ROPICA'LVACATION AND residences, and delivering all the commodities, consumables, materials, equipment, and everything else that drives the economy. Key transportation characteristics include these: • Existing daily traffic ranges from 15,000 vehicles at MM 65 on Long Key to 40,000 vehicles on Stock Island, 33,000 in Marathon, and 30,000 in Key Largo. ` • About 26% of all trips to and from the mainland travel as far south as the Lower Keys. Most trip interaction with the mainland happens in Key Largo and Islamorada. • Daily truck volumes range from 3,100 in Key Largo to 1,700 in the Lower Keys. �1 About 1.4 million tons of goods worth $2 billion pass through Long Key annually. • There are about 2,500 daily truck trips between the mainland and the Upper Keys. • There are about 500 daily truck trips between the mainland and the Lower Keys. uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilI aISTSi T6 1752 � �. � DEVELOPMENT uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii N� �✓ I 1 i II II IIM19111111111111911111111 no,,, ii The traffic service analysis methodology utilized these parameters: • This study used the same traffic growth scenarios as the 2018 US1 Transportation Master Plan for consistency: No growth, historic growth trend, and 1% growth to 2045. The historic trend was used for recommendations. • Segment capacity thresholds were defined per the FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, tailored to segment characteristics, utilizing new traffic ° growth and truck percentage growth patterns. • Analysis examined existing and 2045 traffic conditions against the County standard of Level of Service C. • The findings were compared to the Monroe County 2023 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (ATTDS) and the 2018 US 1 Transportation Master Plan (US1TMP). III III I IIIIIIIIIII IIII III IIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIII1III IIIiA1=1III IIIIII �r The analysis covered 10 intersections and 110 roadway segments for existing and future 2045 traffic conditions. Existing intersection traffic service was found acceptable; improvement actions consisted of signal timing adjustments and new side street turning lanes at five locations. Traffic improvements on the roadway segments considered new right turn and left turn lanes, left turn lanes, and extended right turn lanes. Traffic service 'oaltl� ' on the roadway segments in 2045 was found to be deficient for over 50 miles of the corridor, while the US1TMP found about 40 miles of roadway deficient in 2040. The 2023 ATTDS found 12 miles in Islamorada with deficient traffic service— below level of service C. IIIIII =11111161111 II II I�ni; IIIII III IIII III�II11�1IIIIIIIII IIIIII Improvements were identified for 26 roadway segments. These were prioritized into three implementation phases, with Phase 1 involving 10 projects in the Upper Keys covering 2024 to 2030, as follows: No. Mile Marker Key Street Limits Improvement Type #13 MM 59.7 Grassy Key Blue Isle BI. NB and SB right turn lanes #14 MM 63.2 Conch Key Conch Ave. NB and SB right turn lanes #15A MM 68.1-68.5 Long Key Long Key Lake Dr. - Layton Dr. NB and SB right turn lanes #15B MM 70.0 Fiesta Key Gulf Shores BI. NB left turn lane #16 MM 74.8-76.4 Lower Matecumbe Sandy Cove Ave. - Leserra Lane NB and SB left turn lanes #17 MM 80.4 Upper Matecumbe Key CR 4A NB right turn lane #18 MM 80.4-83.7 Upper Matecumbe Key CR 4A-Whale Harbor Ch. Bridge NB and SB right turn lanes #19 MM 84.8-85.5 Windley Key 84800-85500 blocks 5 NB right turn lanes, 2 SB left turn lanes, 1 NB left turn lane #20 MM 86.0 Marathon Key Venetian BI. SB downstream right turn lane #21 MM 86.3-86.6 Plantation Key 86300-86600 blocks SB extended right turn lane #22 MM 87.4-89.1 Plantation Key Palm Lane - Seminole BI. NB extended right turn lane II II III�II�II III III�II�II IIIIII IIII IIII IIII IIIIII Ills IIII Traffic signal timing modifications: Four locations have been implemented; the remainder are planned for implementation in Fall 2024. Roadway segment turning lane improvements: FDOT District 6 is coordinating with its internal units and its Project Scoping Committee to assess inclusion or addition of these proposed US 1 improvements into future Resurfacing, Restoration and Rehabilitation (RRR) Program projects or the creation of new stand-alone projects in the District's Work Program. Implementation timelines are dependent on these determinations. uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilI IaISTSi T6 1753 � �. � DEVELOPMENT uiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii dq i� LO Ado p CRO fir �; iIIIn�Ul�llluuiilililililiiiiulu�i / uo mumuuu � � P �rrrrrrrrr�, sc r�llllllllll IIII�I III Illl�,rrrrrrrrr;, �fffff Y(innnno.... Ifmuuun ��, �irav�l II Qr"ll� I ilVuuu%� ��uuiX� �rrrrrrrr V�� Ifmuuuu I '00 r uirw �I P ` � (�olllllu � Krr • � ,�� f0ouulll � 0 r � fmuuuu �i� YjO� �m 0 I�IIIU (�/py V�0 � • � VI IIInM�l9" �IIulY�ullll4 d,�(�' e e e c ti u in 0 0 is is 0 0 i (D LO Q) Q) LM C) fw' M ;i % w i j ti LO LM ton 7-3 IIIIIIIII I y %a� is �I I �jf I tN^ luW'ta'W;f NI�MIIIIIIUI �I I p' a 1 I 7- D i -C 0 CD CD w Is mum CL 4-9 7- 000i 4-0 Lloo1111 o000000000i j II�� co LO ti fw' M ;i % w �frl cl: �r r� LUUJ LU LU f fj L LAJ LLJ f i o n Vo ti I Mf d % ��'' m ✓` 0 ?v^ , ✓ m �✓ Of 9r A in a NO � M CL LU ✓ 1 1 ,✓✓ r a ✓�� r o Ji i I mom 20 IE c 0 cn m 0 w in o 0 MU S ��% CL IL 0 cfl ti a 0 p��uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu w � •�, ainioomumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumumuoiK � o IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Allw o ' uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu�rmniouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuimi to o � � � � uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu �' � 'a � �^VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIm un � � � �IUIIIVIIIVOIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIV 3 � o �j rn �� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP II CD u IIIIIIIIIIII om � '�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, �. ryi IIIII��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII o c o 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 0 0 spaesnoq1 safslf�,a ra[;#S CA CA Cc CA CA Cc CA CA C CS tin (A u a wwwww a wwwww 0 > u,,.... mmuuu9m um�;" a www 0 unLAI a wwwww VIE, C11 a wwwww M a wuwww �� wuawwmj CO w a ww � u w II u c, II�� _ cfl ti ry jl� O �•.�,; mru.w� h N »,, rJ CG I¢ 9tl, o of YI m y/ 0) °�. ... ..., ^" � I w i r r a 4+; n,04 c I f p i OiR rW i 10 r C a� rr G � li � u O2° el Q 42 r ry wr i /J/J/J/J/J�JJjJ/J�J'JJ�J�J%J�J/JJ�JJ� 94Lam .... 4d �, LO ke d _J wuwwumuj CL � u �wauuwum � uumumy� u -wuumi�w u u > CL 'A u wuwwum /f umuum wuwwum u wuwwum wuwwum II o� jLL N tG Lam Fft Lam ti h u�i d �1� Bu✓V.Y rr�Il w wuuuuuu � �"+ ��" uuuuuuuuum w wuuuuuu 1 4— jo m �wuuuuuu mu u uuum w wuuuuuu wuu wuu muuuuuuuum muuuuom IIIIIIIIII muuuuu uuu IIIIIIIIII wuuuuuu o o ulluu o u ul tI o wuuuuuu muuuuuuuu m o �wuuuuuu �i� muuu u i muuu u i jLL WWI M «� tG a E EAU CL co 4-, U�U�U�UU�U�U�U�U�U�U�U�U O 0 O L cn ICI ��UVUUnUnUnUnUB ,, N III u o a ai Lam O III III3 p ,6 OPINION a O III III° "` N rn r„ �► uuu IIIII N w IIIII ry ..^ ion„ IIII IIIII M U��VU��UUI� �•� E o u ; o 0 1 s 00 10 1 1 m ril ra. ,-i r o 0 0 o 0 0 0 4= Lf1 V1 to to75 M CO N 00 V1 K�.1 "� lD lD CO lD f� W lD M lD O EN N N N N N M d' l0 Ol --------------------------- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 1 tD - O ArT 'C 7) 61 Ql Q1 e-i tI1 61 Ym lD lD C.D lD I� � 00 N l0 i.rl lD N N u� ...........................�.. ._,,, ... O Q Q Q 0 0 �O O O O 0 F� Z Z Z N ct 4G r M co Q1 N 0 C Ol N N N O I� O to q J G 0 0 0 O N O w 0 0' � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4- r, r q m m c-i ni �o Lri Lr Ci ® N l0 M to I� N r- to N �n 00 CL ro T oLLJ 0 N N (6 lD 0 Y Y N O O to 0.0 N L L L v a v o 0 0 0 J Q O Q Lam C tin N to 4J 41 rl N M Lr) lD n 00 Ol 0 -1 J cm LLL Nol `"' / 4i, t u m, a p- I muououomi�,uoumuuuuuu uuuuoumuou uuuuuuumou ioo� all, a9 Vm^" i�,{o .'`mmuuou uumuuumofii uuuuoim� c w, 6 CAM Lam 4fta Cc " WOO Lam O L w � wCo as as I � j LO cfl ti 5�N f E I f' �P j k r II / J7 'WININWP�iI M µN NNNN r s .,.. u� i' II r.aaaaaa a `— ow II 10000 00001 f 1 cfl cfl ti r ♦' r%/,,,,, radii//%//rr%/////r/ii// r„ w Y Y P � f (/ I � I r / j II�� 2 tr,ll� r� iLti co m r\j Li- Se m m m m LA vi 7- RI- T aj Po 7 tea Po j co cfl CL ti 0 Lam Lam �. uuuuuu,� 0""'' Woo CL , , m u � fuo uuuuuu, ° �w-0 II u �wuwwum uioilll,,,,,� III u II u wuwwum u uuuuuo,,. u u �wuwwum wuwwum wuwwum 'wuwwum ti wawwum ®� .................. v� A-, • V,,6 79..... ti • ,�„ ro�4r "v,a� �rprl n n rqF"° +ss �� y,� P a • r u�• �r/l s,� t _. � ® � � m ',;,gip,�� rJf, yy f � p v J/ I f p , u' c� a' tin Ul N 0 VA ail�/i� Dl i rvli It • �� n"�'~;�°/19 �i0 � Y "w a� "�"9�„�, d � N/ r�/ d'� �• 1 f l/ r a I � I � %� � �r,"�� • IY11 ailN^ '� "r i J �// ti ti >O tin II ii, CIL Woo 4 uj% fta co: 73 a 4 115 0 W ou Ln sm W C: CL oil Gi A C) CU C4 0 T E c-' 0 cn C mma Q +ya wuwwwva 4. +a CC uj 0 C ou co S wya V) a wxuwxu iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii, r cu wxuwxu S: o- t4 -1 LA -0 LLJ L 0 w I>al Lu L- a: 0 C) 0 > 2 vv) 0 0 0 0 0 ol .................. u IVA .... ......... ....... ....... CL 01, 11 «' In iry Loft a is t 0 "JI 4-J 9wti"'M I47 II?!d; ;x 'MYo" uj e dl LU J M 0 0 IlL h i CAR+ j jw Lx CN 4Q Ln 4-J 0 ti ti 1701 0 :�e c: 0 Yo� Q) 'CIO, C: Q �he tA I rT- 'O"o- m 'I QD 4-J cri :5 Q 0 w 0 TIN, 0— I;p E E Ul) 14, 0 IN ro $ *141 Lam ................... cc LamvJ N Q) I Qp NA 40 ta .......................... cl, LU rb I'lo 71" 0 LU lllb� N w113 CO N UP LL .................. IJ M Hill Ln Lam ti r i III IA �I co j 1z I ro Q) r— 0 0 7-) JE 2) V) till he cr) cr") Cs 4,11 2 C) 2 t�. 1`,m c i co, I............................1.................................... ......... ..... rw "I'll"..........."I,,,"............... ................................."I'll......................11.............................................................................. ................................................................ "S4 wr Irl Ln jam lima COW, wool lot ,4"A CL Sir -J co 117, 1., 1 1101 1 6 111valmaill 8J,,,,, f � � ,, � ✓a i ro�spy � °`'�� ""i.",c � �� '�� gilt! / Y(l((�lll��fl�fr�fl�fr�fllYllfl�fr�flrfr>f�lfr�fl�fr�fl�flfl�fr�fl�fr�fllYllfl�fr�flrfr>f�lfr�fl�fr�fl�flfl�fr�fl�fr�fllYllfl�fr�flrfr>f�lfr�fl�fr�fl�flfl�fr�fl�fr�fllYl„,,Y,,,„,,Y,,,,„ KIT LO A o[ P N w Sul ,' W IIY o V O, 41 LA CA 0[ um � J�'411uwu19 to M i u o � .. �gq 'U, 1'wi I% Y) m R v u P��G 'i 'N�f @. ', h� ;' "1 III 0 e hAll LU / oini 1101,111 1. i w wl 71II' C 'r"i'lu " I rid? owd ii mr!>!'+v 0 CL jo 11 , w ��w w( . ns "' n�j n✓�^. m m m j II�� - All tG ti CL 0 u vi Vi .0 .0 Q0 0 V) 0 co .�2 L r- tt:ift I.V -3 m m m 4-J L- Fftft M LL 0 o o °2 0 4- JwAi 0 4 4-J a) I aj C vm) E E �3 4-j aj E E E w 4-1 E a2 2 u cp . a '@ Z -C C) 0 0 u L F- N F- a) +j o .0 4-j 0 41 41 0 Q0 — 0 0 0 'E C: 4-J 4-1 4-j +j w LL 0 4-J 4-1 0 4� M 0 0 4 4- 4� 4-1 0 0 z 3 -2 u u wAr 0 4-1 �E 48 0 W 0 0 0 VI a ro a u Lam L- z'CL 0 u w 00 o O .E UJ — M q c en rq Rn en 4-1 4-j C 0 0 04-0 0 LU CL r4 Ln C14 V) > 0 D o cm L- ol ................. ti ti Qti (03) 0 y W.j 0 -10 vi Qj (03) Woo 4-J — L1. V) am vj% vi 4ma flu u (0: 4-J 4-J 0 0) tin Qj 40 4-J fo 4-J :L cil D Of 5:1 N kj LLJ <: 0 0 0 ti ti .. ............._........................._.................................................. ij IN 0 j n� au CL ar r�a rr c � r to GI � w w uuuuuuuuu � � w uuuuuuw ` `µ ca '... E Q Lam +U pp c �tI q, ' ii N iti 00 m Q C3 O Lam to h CL 0. 0. C) cu LML m tF b v UJt ' CF� UYNNNNIW 's ®CRI k' IWNWIW.gIN9. � r r LU i uwuuxum o 'I �4 C f iLU �uuwurxu IL fl {{ r i �� ti ti i f i ., u u e iLli lui e u q q LU a a m cc cc %r r co ti CA "I 1: 1- "d I "A '-p C, .......................................................................uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.. ..................................................................................................... P, 3rp is LO �wj rub V,2 2 r I, g, ILI 1,4 .......... 23 en Kr im iM 7�—"R Id 1". op 19 It ko 0 11 17d IS a 8 8 59 P3 8 IS 1 p 1� p 21 1-1 -Ng rww ir ............... A a V e,4 f, 0 uj 7-7- 7W CL .2 2' 1, 5 T A 2 .2" F. m 61: 1Z ............... .......... ................... ............... j �� d LU 0 uj 4fta U LL ................ ti Jr tam �,CD r IL i (lima - / i /�� / f Fill sw co un ay e III II II IIIA&M . II II 7. µ ' T,' / mo-w.mmmw a m�mmmwmmmw wm.wwonm�mn m�mnm�mnmwo wemnrom�mnmon nm�nwon om_.�wom�wommwowwmmmmmmmmmwmmmvu wowoo��rnonmmm !!�YAi1��m�nv.. iMroim�mwm� �mnn� /,R F .� Ill11tl\VY p� CN co Aillllltl\NpY r4 0 r,Ll k d i. I uwanr Z ugnlliwa"j� nflliw,�o��u 4!w miueoi '"mlll4w� �� °� w ;1,lUw!ua oownm p�� mwiw�NQ z, ro u V�'MaIN�" npnon np u�no.�. ((�� a ,,, �p �NNNfljNnlvi alnf�OpY �Ik1I'� !SP'. wiwumukaww 4-0 uh �% tull /. 0 r> CL nl , a" Lq ILL. Gbh.. 91L y� m l�mi/m/o �I„ pu Yfc f l r�� ., �u�ll�l��'Y �HU�II� Crya,l{��idlil wuwwum Woo E wuwwum �I ft Eftft rn LL k j II�� - co ON wi imum as *0 ul uI AI 1 'dim um CL V w'wHill III III .......... n an a " lp l u - — O O O � , � r i i •rrr m 0— W co a► j Vryi """" �--I CL " O co ti e 0 J; CL r 5 Ott 00 QD oil „ O CLO Lei y I � CIO W u � is 0 0 L �--I z 0002 L4 CL j �� ilia,% LO �( OL LM C> imp j. o to (D 7 1 if 73 ff 4y; r O � ,,,,, CD ^� y, N 0 mmwN Y n4"w'`p m L n z A CL Ln i r j �w'µnowuuuln!: i II�� to 00 D I CL *0 10 Jill illif illif 01 II III i 06 w m ! 00 II I 1 u JS�j � l��// % �iwuioU u, O i Cp .® V" 0 -0 r M 00 N C. -Ir N W im Lim O 0 • fi awj"p 111� � ti co ti 0 m �;= 0 m Cal) 0 _0 4- 0) U) —m E 4- co W. _0 EE -0 m . 11 -0 0 (D (D M am 7: w (=-- 0 (D cr) Q) cc 0 Lt- 0 -57 E m am c) c) U) 0 (1) (1) :D 0 (D mmm" CIL E m Q E *3 0 M 0 w. c L. Cal) :3 D m1o: w CO IA �I mm (D D CNJ , es lu 0 uw Leal m M -0 M CL CL 11 0 0 0 LL .................. co co ti fw' M ;i % w �frl i j i i , w c 0 c v w Q J CJ L.L v Q ol� r-I r) H � w MMM*i � O ol� � a ( J CL Ln r/ V If as UIR O iiiii a r L� v u6 � �IIIII IIIII OOII �O J 4d o ._ ul i I� L W 1 (D ai ............ 1'0 a3 U< C: E 'A ®R 061 , .2 Eli ON j�/ 0 0 SO r I N ti i'l Suw mu i r CL is a( an ii .......... n an I P v d >N �.' I► xf, O O ap ,i O O ,wi✓ k O 4dm m uum .N .— L m W co LU (D �� U Q ak r 0 CL 0CLr I Oct 00 QD O // %%.. Ln On Qo Ln ul 0 V L , , � V) W Oo , � ` CD 06 W QC. W C. cn CD W ui N� uC U4mf 4mO 0r Q Ln G � r si wy ANIMM-011 yF O. LM imp u 1m' i ml uu�, V. O i Me imp Ln d i% ° F. F. W L 1 ) 1� LUAv L4 UW Q Ln CL j �m'µm' nowuuuln!: i II�� IIII� ti LO } 4i CL q" V.` w _O �P 4wool.im lollLn � � p�® s► o i O ( � O W a) O " AA QJ «� O U.J (3) (3) (3) Q , � ' LU u C V M 'r— O p Y J C ? �.. qa y , U -� Q � % 41 d 4j 0 �t n h' i l um uw IN mU y may,' us OD 000 ,r a- k �l + 41 = r 4d O O I �lµ aw •� x w I.m 04 IT L(i 6 W Z 00 L4 U oe w IIIIIIIIIU l r� fI0/ � fI,f✓ W1► 0 . � m CLw IIIWpj;: � .0 im wu iiii �I CL t CJ s /i& O AM', ii� 1 V !f r Q r yf O Q00 N u v ,ter/ i n 60 All 101f 1011 a C O cow � � iouoiRm NNi�V "ud C y O If 00 O �Ilui, 4d c - L .... W . a CL 4- IS i E co W il ' Q-( � � m . a C� y Qm ant .. .. co 0) O v a% c o CL 0 a ... m � U �1 III om IN omi xl' �Ln W V _O f iNi 0 Co 0 ii iu uu uu Lf) 00 ILI �w�ouu imi um 9 O r - W D O c CLO C , r as C • 4-M O u LnLn v m CCS CU CLJ W CD rr rr I Lrl Ln 2 4-1 Ln 4-1 CD LU Co CD ro En rn En CD Co co ". V) (D Co CoLn Ln C w➢ 0 Qm • • • • • jai � N O' ; Olk c f6 �C L co �,may, � IF III All�� iiiiii (■ All fff +I v 0 111 m m 1011 All ro 4- O ��_ o� 9 0 m sil i m, O f,n loo ")E r (" 'r,t N .� O w W � ul a LU I � W m co > ) ' O VI i/W C) i r) 00 ♦W � C u CO w sr 00 -C loll uuv vI }r iip All iu iui lool 00 y 1'• 1 `G; r'„ r'fl N ^V .= ri W W 0 -0 W V) m j I co Ilk �. / 06 C: O�� w C: O � i -C / O N u Cp I. ,,, OF. V) 0 -0 W w 1 , U 1 " uj jo Lim UWill - Q 1 r> ,r I � l / l i 0 IIIV� t„ r V � � s oi. 1802 Monroe County Freight Mobility Improvement Study Final Report S TRICT6 FDOT 1uu..,,Moe Florida Department of Transportation - District Six Modal Development Office Contract C-A148 I FM #443625-1-22-01 Task Work Order#8 Amendment 1 February 2024 1803 10,00,0100, IIIIIIIOIIIIIuuumni��.�. � �IIIIIIOOi luuuuu �� .. pilu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Table of Contents Executivea .................................................................................................................. 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1.1 Study Background........................................................................................................................................3 1.2 Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................4 1.3 Document Organization.............................................................................................................................4 2.0 Study Context................................................................................................................ 2.1 FDOT District 6 Freight Planning Activities.........................................................................................5 2.2 Literature Review...........................................................................................................................................6 Study3.0 Area Characteristics........................................................................................... 36 3.1 Roadway Network.....................................................................................................................................36 3.2 Transit Services...........................................................................................................................................40 3.3 Paved Pathways and Bike Facilities.....................................................................................................42 3.4 Land Use........................................................................................................................................................43 3.5 Freight Activity Areas................................................................................................................................47 3.6 Population and Visitors...........................................................................................................................48 4.0 Existing a s tat t s............................................................................ 51 4.1 Historic Traffic Growth............................................................................................................................. 51 4.2 Historic Safety Review.............................................................................................................................. 55 4.3 Existing Traffic Data and System Performance...............................................................................60 Purpose5.0 a ....................................................................................................... 69 5.1 Background..................................................................................................................................................69 5.2 Purpose..........................................................................................................................................................70 5.3 Need ...............................................................................................................................................................70 6.0 Roadway Network Analysis......................................................................................... 72 6.1 Approach.......................................................................................................................................................72 6.2 Network LOS Analysis..............................................................................................................................81 6.3 Relation to Other Analyses for Segment LOS...............................................................................111 7.0 Other Improvement Actions ..................................................................................... 122 7.1 TSM&O and COAST................................................................................................................................122 u w�.,FDOT(, Page 1804 10,00,0100, Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 7.2 FDOT Five Year (Fiscal Year 24-28) Transportation Improvement Program — Monroe County.......................................................................................................................................................................124 8.0 Truck Parking Analysis.............................................................................................. 125 8.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................................................125 8.2 Truck Deliveries.........................................................................................................................................125 8.3 Overnight Truck Parking Needs Along US 1 .................................................................................133 9.0 Stakeholder Outreach and Feedback........................................................................ 140 10.0 Recommendations..................................................................................................... 142 10.1 Prioritization of Proposed Improvement Actions........................................................................142 10.2 Prioritized Improvement Actions.......................................................................................................143 10.3 Truck Deliveries and Parking...............................................................................................................151 10.4 Other Recommendations......................................................................................................................152 10.5 Potential Funding Sources....................................................................................................................152 10.6 Conclusions................................................................................................................................................153 Appendices # Appendix A: Traffic Count and Signal Timing Data # Appendix B: Project Cost Estimate Information # Appendix C: US 1 Transportation Master Plan Priority Recommendations # Appendix D: FDOT Monroe County Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program # Appendix E: Weigh Station Data # Appendix F: Presentations to the FKTCC FDOu w�.,T(, Page 1805 10,00,0100, IIIIIIIOIIIIIuuumni��.�. � �IIIIIIOOi luuuuu �� .. pilu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 List of Figures Figure1-1 Study Area....................................................................................................................................................4 Figure 2-1 D6 Subarea Freight Studies...................................................................................................................5 Figure 3-1 Strategic Intermodal System..............................................................................................................36 Figure 3-2 Functional Classification......................................................................................................................37 Figure 3-3 Context Classification...........................................................................................................................38 Figure 3-4 Traffic Signal Locations........................................................................................................................39 Figure 3-5 Key West Transit Routes......................................................................................................................40 Figure3-6 Metrobus Routes....................................................................................................................................41 Figure 3-7 Paved Pathways and Bike Facilities..................................................................................................42 Figure3-8 Existing Land Use...................................................................................................................................43 Figure3-9 Monroe County Zoning.......................................................................................................................44 Figure 3-10 City of Key West Zoning Map.........................................................................................................45 Figure 3-11 Monroe County Future Land Use..................................................................................................46 Figure3-12 Freight Activity Areas.........................................................................................................................47 Figure 3-13 Key West Population History...........................................................................................................48 Figure 3-14 Permanent Population Distribution..............................................................................................48 Figure 3-15 Florida Keys Visitation (2018).......................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4-1 Average of Peak Daily Volume by Month..................................................................................... 51 Figure 4-2 Traffic Monitoring Site Locations..................................................................................................... 53 Figure 4-3 Class History Monitoring Site............................................................................................................ 54 Figure4-4 Crash Density........................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure4-5 Crash Severity.......................................................................................................................................... 56 Figure 4-6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes......................................................................................................... 57 Figure4-7 Crashes by Type...................................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 4-8 Crash Lighting Conditions................................................................................................................... 58 Figure 4-9 Crash Weather Condition.................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4-10 Crash Road Surface Condition........................................................................................................ 59 Figure4-11 AADT (2019)...........................................................................................................................................60 Figure4-12 Truck AADT (2019)...............................................................................................................................61 Figure 4-13 Truck Percentage, 2019.....................................................................................................................62 Figure 4-14 Journey-to-Work Analysis Zones...................................................................................................64 Figure4-15 Mainland Trip Summary....................................................................................................................66 Figure 4-16 Truck Trips to/from The Keys (2018)............................................................................................67 Figure 4-17 US 1 Bidirectional Daily Travel Demand Patterns....................................................................68 Figure 6-1 Intersection Traffic Count Locations...............................................................................................82 Figure 6-2 Potential Improvement Actions......................................................................................................101 Figure 6-3 Segments with LOS D or Lower......................................................................................................110 Figure 6-4 Segments with LOS D or Lower— 2018 TMP and 2023 MCFP............................................111 Figure 6-5 Segments with LOS D or Lower—All Three Reports...............................................................113 u w�.,FDOT(, Page 1806 10,00,0100, IIIIIIIOIIIIIuuumni��.�. � �IIIIIIOOi luuuuu �� .. pilu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Figure 6-6 LOS Results Comparison by Mileage............................................................................................114 Figure 6-7 LOS Results Comparison by Number of Segments.................................................................114 Figure 6-8 2023 ATTDS Deficient Segments....................................................................................................115 Figure 7-1 COAST Project Deployment Elements..........................................................................................123 Figure8-1 Freight Generators...............................................................................................................................126 Figure 8-2 Truck Parking Along the US 1 Corridor........................................................................................127 Figure 8-3 Typical Truck Deliveries in Key West.............................................................................................128 Figure 8-4 Identified Truck Routes and Restrictions in St. Augustine....................................................131 Figure 8-5 Truck Zone Time Restrictions..........................................................................................................131 Figure 8-6 FDOT Weigh Station at Mile Marker 86.......................................................................................135 Figure 8-7 Snake Creek Bridge Replacement Alternatives.........................................................................136 Figure 8-8 Option 1: Modify Existing Weigh Station Ramp......................................................................137 Figure 8-9 Option 2: Extend Weigh Station Ramp to the North ............................................................138 Figure 10-1 Intersection and Segment Priorities — Lower Keys................................................................148 Figure 10-2 Intersection and Road Segment Priorities — Middle and Upper Keys............................149 a w�.,FDOT(, Page 1807 10,00,0100, IIIIIIIOIIIIIuuumni��.�. � �IIIIIIOOi luuuuu �� .. pilu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 LISP of Tables Table2-1 Literature Review Summary....................................................................................................................8 Table3-1 Traffic Signals............................................................................................................................................39 Table 4-1 Historic Traffic Growth (AADT)............................................................................................................ 52 Table 4-2 Total Monroe County Journey-to-Work Flow...............................................................................64 Table 4-3 Monroe County Origin-Destination (2017)....................................................................................65 Table 4-4 Florida Keys Trip Distribution..............................................................................................................65 Table4-5 Mainland Trips..........................................................................................................................................65 Table4-6 Mainland Trips..........................................................................................................................................66 Table6-1 2021 Intersection LOS............................................................................................................................82 Table 6-2 2021 Segment LOS Summary..............................................................................................................85 Table 6-3 2045 Intersection LOS Without Improvements............................................................................90 Table 6-4 2045 Intersection Failing Movements..............................................................................................91 Table 6-5 Historical Truck Percentage Growth and Projected 2045 Growth.........................................92 Table 6-6 2045 Segment LOS Without Improvements..................................................................................93 Table 6-7 Intersection LOS with Recommended Improvements...............................................................99 Table 6-8 Intersection Recommended Improvements (Moderate-High Growth Scenarios)........100 Table 6-9 Segment Recommendations.............................................................................................................102 Table 6-10 Segment LOS with Recommended Improvement Comparison.........................................105 Table 6-11 Mileage for Each LOS and Scenario - No-Build and Build Comparison.........................108 Table 6-12 Miles for Each Level of Service — No-Build ................................................................................112 Table 6-13 Miles for Each LOS - No-Build and Build Comparison..........................................................112 Table 6-14 2023 ATTDS Level of Service and Reserve Capacity...............................................................117 Table 6-15 Priority Project List Comparison ....................................................................................................118 Table 8-1 Parking Permit Fees and Fines (St. Augustine) ...........................................................................132 Table8-2 Option 1 Cost Estimate........................................................................................................................139 Table 8-3 Option 2 Cost Estimate........................................................................................................................139 Table 10-1 Priority Intersection Improvements.............................................................................................144 Table 10-2 Priority 1 Road Segments.................................................................................................................145 Table 10-3 Priority 2 Intersection and Road Segments...............................................................................146 Table 10-4 Priority 3 Intersection and Road Segments...............................................................................147 a w�.,FDOT(, Page 1808 10,00,0100, IIIIIIIOIIIIIuuumni .. � �IIIIIIOOi luuuuu .. pilu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Acronyms AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AADTT Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic ATTDS Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research BOCC Board of County Commissioners COAST Connecting Overseas to Advance Safe Travel FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FHWA Federal Highway Administration FLSWM Florida Statewide Model FLZ Freight Logistics Zone FMTP Freight Mobility and Trade Plan FTAC Freight Transportation Advisory Committee HCM Highway Capacity Manual LOS Level of Service LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MCFS Monroe County Freight Study MIA Miami International Airport PTMS Portable Traffic Monitoring Sites Signal 4 Analytics SERPM Southeast Regional Planning Model SIS Strategic Intermodal System TDM Travel Demand Model TPO Transportation Planning Organization TTMS Telemetered Traffic Monitoring Sites QLOS Quality Level of Service u w�.,FDOT( Page 1809 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Executive Summary Overview The Monroe County Freight Improvement Study is one of several freight subarea studies that have been conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation - District 6. The aim of this plan is to enhance freight mobility across Monroe County along the US 1 corridor connecting the Florida Keys from Key Largo to Key West. The US 1 corridor study area in Monroe County possesses a diverse and extensive freight and logistics presence. It supports both inputs and outputs of the seafood and agricultural industry, business and commercial sites, construction projects and material suppliers, institutional, military and governmental facilities, the tourism industry, and, of course, the consumer-based goods and foodstuff distribution chain. This freight and logistics presence is not as visible and dominant as the multimodal freight-centric districts of neighboring Miami-Dade County, but it is just as vital to the Monroe County economy on a proportional basis. The Monroe County freight and logistics network is reliant solely on trucking for the movement of goods and commodities and is further solely dependent upon US 1 as its lifeline to support a population base of 80,000 persons which nearly doubles during the peak tourism season (February through March). In addition, the US 1 Overseas Highway is known as one of the most scenic drives in the country, connecting tourists to a myriad of tropical vistas and attractions known worldwide. The US 1 corridor in Monroe County is unique as it is the only route serving the length of the Florida Keys. The roadway is subject to Monroe County growth management regulations which stipulate that no additional through travel lanes can be constructed along US 1. Other actions including left and right turn lanes, access management, and upgrades to intersection street approaches and signalized intersection timing and phasing are permitted. Traffic concurrency along the corridor to the stipulated level of service (LOS) standard of LOS C is monitored by the periodic Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study which utilizes travel time runs along the corridor following a specified methodology to assess segment and corridor travel time, delays, and resulting travel speeds to assess compliance with the LOS C standard. Monroe County also completed the US 1 Transportation Master Plan, a multimodal analysis of transportation needs and recommendations across the length of US 1. The traffic analyses of this study were correlated to the findings of both these studies to put its recommendations in proper context. This study examines the existing and planned transportation infrastructure with an emphasis on how effectively the study area road network accommodates the existing and forecasted vehicular and truck traffic volumes. The transportation network was tested by applying various travel demand of growth scenarios. �FD Page [ ' 1810 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Project Recommendations The study formulates a set of proposed improvement actions centered around roadway improvements and supported by other recommendations. Recommendations were formulated through the review of other prior and relevant studies, roadway network analysis, field reviews, and outreach to key stakeholders in the study area. This integrated approach was crucial in formulating the recommendations. The plan recommendations were prioritized into three implementation time frames (short, intermediate, and long-term). The list of recommended projects and actions by implementation time frame can be found in Section 10 of this report. Improvements were proposed at nine of the 10 intersections studied, and 26 improvements were identified for segments of the corridor roadway. The study also reviewed truck parking needs and identified a potential truck parking facility at the existing FDOT weigh station at Mile Marker 86. As freight and logistics providers and users evolve in how they plan for efficiency in their distribution of goods, materials, and food stuffs,there is one constant—the need for reliable travel times along the US 1 corridor under the traffic concurrency requirements embodied in the County's growth management regulations. The implementation of the intersection and road segment improvements identified by the network analysis in this study will contribute to addressing areas of traffic friction affecting operational speeds and helping to maintain the LOS C standard generally experienced today. Pursuit of the study recommendations will further complement the advancement of freight mobility and general community mobility along the US 1 corridor in the Florida Keys into the future. �FD Page 1811 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 1 .0 Introduction 1.1 Study Background Developed and updated by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the 2019 Freight Mobility and Trade Plan (FMTP) documents a comprehensive strategy for guiding freight investments throughout the State of Florida. This plan identifies transportation facilities that are critical for the State's economic growth and promotes innovations in transportation planning to provide a safe, efficient, and resilient freight system. Using the strategy documented by the FMTP, FDOT District Six developed a program of freight mobility improvement studies to assess the unique freight communities within the counties of Miami-Dade and Monroe. This program focuses on partnering with local communities to determine local needs by evaluating different freight growth scenarios. Using these results, each study within the program recommends a list of projects to improve the freight infrastructure of each community to ensure regional resiliency. Each subarea study within the program develops independent improvements that, once aggregated, will result in regional significance and improve freight connectivity, accessibility, safety, and mobility within FDOT District Six. FDOT is analyzing the existing freight infrastructure, operations, and characteristics in Monroe Countyto develop a list of viable projects that prepares the county for increases in freight volumes and improves current conditions where needed. Since freight-related decisions may have a wide- range of impacts beyond the limits of their implementation, a regional perspective to all analyses shall be considered. Objectives for this study include: # Examining freight movements throughout the study area with an emphasis on impacts to the area roadway system. # Describing products and markets in terms of their relation to Monroe County and the South Florida regional economy. # Determining the origin and destination of truck traffic moving through the study area. # Determining appropriate facilities needed to meet current and future freight needs. # Identifying specific recommendations to match roadway capacities with future demand. # Broadly assessing the need for truck parking facilities within the study area. �FD Page L ? 1812 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 1.2 Study Area The study area includes the county limits of Monroe County, excluding the Everglades National Park. The focus of the study is the US 1/SR 5 corridor between Key West and the Miami- Dade/Monroe County Line (see Figure 1-1). Figure 1-1 Study Area Ev glade Nm nai Pais + Miami-Dade i = (' County ii END Mainland Monroe STUDY "I County i AREA ro<`9 <a �o \S`a BEGIN Lower Keys aq�tho STUDY M AREA I d r,:_...:;...Key West Monroe County Freight Legend Improvement Study US I 2021 Park �Mils 1.3 IDocuwument Organization This document is organized into the following sections: # 1.0Introduction # 2.0 Study Context # 3.0 Study Area Characteristics # 4.0 Purpose and Need # 5.0 Roadway Network Analysis # 6.0 Other Improvement Actions # 7.0 Truck Parking Analysis # 8.0 Stakeholder Outreach and Feedback # 9.0 Recommendations �FD Page L�' 1813 111llfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 2.0 Study context 2.1 IFIDOT District 6 Freight Planning Activities A critical part of the overall FDOT agency mission is the advancement of freight mobility. Each district office of FDOT has a District Freight Coordinator whose role is to monitor and support freight mobility needs within the district. The position facilitates incorporation of freight- supportive projects within the FDOT project work program, works with partner agencies in identification and advancement of priority freight initiatives, collaborates with freight stakeholders in a variety of coordination and outreach efforts, and conducts relevant studies that investigate and characterize freight needs across the district. District 6 also coordinates with District 4 to the north and District 1 to the west on matters of mutual interest. In addition, District Freight Coordinators coordinate on projects that span District boundaries. Furthermore, at the state level, FDOT performs a variety of freight program functions, including enhancing multimodal networks that drive commerce, leveraging funding opportunities, implementing effective countermeasures that improve rail and motor carrier safety, developing system planning documents including the Florida Mobility and Trade Plan, and partnering with industry to support innovation. To guide its efforts, the Florida Freight Advisory Committee comprising public and private sector representatives provides input and guidance into freight improvement needs. More specifically, District 6 has conducted a series of freight subarea studies within the district to conduct analyses tailored to the various freight and logistics areas, focusing on identification of specific freight mobility needs affecting these localities as listed in Figure 2-1. In addition to the eight studies, including this one which has concluded, a county-wide freight plan is being developed to capture the findings of the preceding studies, and to address broader freight needs confronting the major transportation nodes and network links in Florida's principal international freight and logistics hub. Figure -1 D6 Subarea Freight Studies District 6 Subarea Freight Studies TOWN OF MEDLEY FREIGHT PLAN IFII oT I11:: " 2015..2616 {SPA®Lod A FREIGHT IMPROVEMENT A MIA MI RIVER FREIGHT IMPROVEMENT PLAN IRAL FREIGHT IMPROVEMENT PLAN MIA MI GARDENS FREIGHT IMPROVEMENT T PLAN 2aa'1 a 2�1 ' HIALEAH FREIGHT IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2016.2023 HOMESTEAD FREIGHT IMPROVEMENT PLAN 2016-2026 Illp IIIII IIIII � oN of COUNTY FREIGHT PLANI� ••• 2021 -20z2 SY.,airted IA I-DADE COUNTY FREIGHT PLAN 262',:3 26'24 �FD Page G 5 1814 ollfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 2.2 I....iteratuwure If eeview As part of this study, previous goods movement studies and study area-related reports that were conducted by the County, the FDOT and other agencies were reviewed. The purpose of this research was to obtain relevant freight movement information, with special attention paid to freight movement data, identified areas of need, major freight generators, and projects identified by the private industry to facilitate the movement of freight. These reports are listed below and summarized on the following pages. Statewide Plans and s: # FDOT Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2021) # FDOT— Freight Mobility and Trade Plan (FMTP) (2020) # FDOT— Seaport and Waterways System Plan (2016) # FDOT -Florida Cruise Industry: A Statewide Perspective (2013) Study Area-Related and RegionalPlans and s: # Southeast Florida Regional Freight Plan (2014) # Miami-Dade County 2017/2018 Freight Plan Update (2017) # Miami-Dade TPO 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan/Freight Plan Update # PortMiami Strategic Plan # FDOT District 6 Connecting Overseas to Advance Safe Travel (COAST) Project (TSM&O) # Florida Keys Scenic Highway Interpretive Master Plan # Miami-Dade County Freight Logistics Zone Designation Strategic Plan (2018) District 6 Subarea Freight Plannings: # City of Doral Subarea Freight Plan (2017) # Town of Medley Freight Mobility Improvement Plan (2017) # City of Opa-Locka Freight Implementation Plan (2017) # Miami River Freight Improvement Plan (2018) # Miami Gardens Freight Improvement Plan (2018) # Hialeah Freight Mobility Implementation Plan (2023) # Homestead Freight Improvement Plan (2023) Monroe County Plansa s: # Capacity Improvements Feasibility Study— Monroe County # US 1 Travel Time and Delay Study (2019, 2021) — Monroe County # O-D Study (2018) — Monroe County # Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan # US 1 Transportation Master Plan — Monroe County (2021) �FDO' Page L F 1815 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Commercial t isle/Truck ParkingLiterature # Miami-Dade TPO —Comprehensive Parking Study for Freight # Miami-Dade TPO— Development of Truck Parking Facilities in Miami-Dade County (Phase II) # FDOT, District 6 — Assessment for Potential Truck Parking Locations within Miami-Dade County (FM#439150-1-12-01) # Miami-Dade Regulations for Parking &Storing Commercial Vehicles in Residential Districts The matrix on the following page in Table 2-1 provides an overview of the key topics covered in each of the documents reviewed. The key topics are color coded and tagged for quick reference throughout this section and are defined as follows: Key Topic Tag Description Policy Guidance Offers freight-related policy guidance. puim 1111 11puui will ul11p� Identified areas where freight Identified Areas of Need �f '- ' ' "°"""°"' improvements are needed. Major Freight Generators Generators Includes information on freight generators in the area. Private Industry Projects Provides details on private industry projects. Implementation Guidance „"® - ', "�'� ® ® Provides example freight solutions and implementation guidance. �/ iia r Includes information on freight Freight Movement Data „p,;r„°;,rlr �r�� i�rVV11 movement. �FD Page L 7 1816 ti co 00 xx xx x x xxxxxx x x x x � M� +- (3) E (3) > x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 0 LL x x x x x xx x Z) 0 L 0 L S 0 M. L x x X X X X x x x x x x x x x x LL C IIIII i I G, IIIIIIIII L,u',i I III IIIIIIIIIIIIII slll ull IIII III �� I IIIII, I� xxxxxx �. xxxxx xxxx x x x x x x x x x uuluu III; ll .. ;... .. u IIII� u11111. III IIIII° X X X X X X X X X IP!; mill X X X X X X u I�IIIII uwu�l Iluuiiiolil! m s I I. , Oil, g 4Z c > � a U a O V + + a `° ° `° -0 N ° a° Z5 o u cep N N C LL N N j +, C O C LL CLL > O O _ in IX� LL LL O — N U- O a LL nN • • N - .LL V LL IQ c ia) a > a1 LL N a in ma o o E E 0 E E i � o o N ° M °' o N a °' ° E °' a o m LL E u L2 o° ° in o � ' °Q) , N � o O O • o a C N I- �N LL In LL N ON J m Li N N J CJ V N V Ln o V ° °' mall Tllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Florida Strategic Highway Document Safety Plan Cover: Agency: FDOT Geography: State of Florida STRAA LGIC 11 G1 WAY SAFETY PLAN Document Year: 2021 TARGET //1111Vj w. Tags: Document Summary: The vision of the Florida Strategic Highway Plan (2021) is to eliminate all transportation-related fatalities and serious injuries for all modes of travel. The plan provides a framework for how Florida's traffic safety partners will move toward the vision of a fatality-free transportation system during the next five years. Key Findings: The plan introduces a Safe System approach with new priorities and strategies for the state of Florida. This approach includes: # Safe road users TARGET # Safe vehicles IS # Safe speeds # Safe roads Post-crash care '&SERIOUS RQUR1ES The plan also identifies three emphasis areas to focus safety Lane clepartures initiatives and specific strategies: represent # Roadways: lane departures and intersections ,scl / 0If a N'I /�s� �/ a % / ��ll i Road users: bikes and pedestrians, aging road users, a'�/ f, 1,, � �� motorcycles and motor scooters, commercial motor yet result Ara vehicle operators, and teen driversI # User behavior: impaired driving, occupant protection, 42% of old � speeding and aggressive driving, and distracted DEATHS driving The following evolving emphasis Pedestrians occaunt for morethan areas were highlighted: oftroffic° fatalities # Work zones 22% in Florida # Drowsy and ill driving # Rail grade crossings Notio o� y' Horido had ter" � Roadway transit HIGHEST NUMBER OF # Mlcromoblllty 1%� L I %%%s� �- �,� � �� + Connected and automated Various crash and fatality statistics.Source:Florida Strategic vehicles High way Safe tyPlan,2021. FOOT , Page L 9 1818 Mwou Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Freight Mobility and Trade Document Plan (FMTP) Cover: Agency: FDOT Geography: State of Florida J air, / g Document Year: 2020 % !„ ��, Fatoroht Mobility Trade Plan Tags: p Generators, d 11 11 Document Summary:A comprehensive plan that identifies freight transportation facilities critical to the state's economic growth and guides multimodal freight investments in the state. The FMTP develops objectives from the goals in the Florida Transportation Plan. Key Findings: Developed qualitative and quantitative performance measures and criteria Pensacola ,: y d cksooville to be used in project prioritization Panacea � t- . '0.„_ Gauneswille such as: Freight Hotsp®ts Daytona # Truck injuries/fatalities �. Beach L—Fe,iightA�lAty Rail. 11 # Vicinity to hubs Md FriFfntA{ay %> h parking �� Orlan a, pz"yi # Truck parkin? IIII� �anF encaewer sis�ienwgr a f e # Labor force size o # Safety or security ��' a enhancements -09[ p. # Alternative fuels corridors., 'a;m # Technology driven F. ', Beach FREIGHT FLOOR AREA HY LANEI USE CODE Myrecs 1 r The top 3 issues and challenges to 4 ,h0,;�7a a , freight mobility in the state are: rV ,y.rfi I r �lrh 'Miami !t f df'..1 Y ' # Congestion/bottlenecks r °I # Truck parking (identified as more than 100% utilized in .--.the,Fnrd F+onccss..9 uuuuuu 096S.—ge,SefidWrte Key ,Q� arts c erle Betters,etc � FPo 092 ning Westa aro 'ni.so va Monroe County) # Empty backhaul Technology trends in goods movement include: # Drone/robot delivery: currently being tested to fulfil last-mile delivery needs # Alternative fuels:as battery and quick charging technology improves,trucking companies may explore shifting from diesel to electric + Connected and automated vehicles: by synchronizing multiple truck operations, trucks run closely together resulting in fuel savings and increased safety. FOOT , Page L 10 1819 oPllfmiim". ,.. Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Florida Seaport & Waterways Document SystemPlan Executive Summary Cover: Geography: FDOT Jurisdiction: State of Florida Document Year: 2016Da err Ip�i Tags: Generators, Document Summary: Covers both the Seaport System Plan and the Waterways System Plan. Highlights of both plans are included illustrating the seaport and waterways conditions, challenges, trends, strategies, initiatives, and areas of focus for the FDOT Seaport and Waterways office. Key Findings: Port of Key West is Po,aor Frnrroanduna classified as a Cruise and Other Seaport; PortMiami is a Cruise and °°� JAXPCWT Cargo Seaport Pandp-,—.1a Port Panl The top constraints to growtha� Port of Pmre 5t..lroe identified by the stakeholder POttCitftl � '" °, �'�, P.t outreach included: ��ama ,a� � ph� Po rt TAmpa bay v 'a, # Highway access or bottlenecks; ' Part��Sr.PatrKe�„ sal 11\ Pta00 iw��tnc 9,y Fort N.— Local Funding (Matching a,� , �r , Requirements) Port maratee® ��° PNlrri ort fh # Navigation issues; Gate ,gyp�o daaG at�d u�Hw a r P ` °�� ftSwraC Va �T �®re°rtgi��s� Operations; SecurityAccess �w w�o „'�� # Highway (Cruise and Cargo Traffic ray W� :, njPOAtmB l Interaction) l° �l��li�snvl)'��rcrrsr�asro4 ��;�ti�l�Gf,�>'The top issues or needs identified by i�� K the stakeholder outreach included: � .........L......''.. PaMoE fey WY.wf Increased bulkhead and berthing infrastructure Cargo handling equipment needs; Site Expansion Development Needs Studies, Plans, Economic Analysis; Education of Law Makers and Public Seaport Program Focus Areas include: Seaport Access Enhancement; Seaport Capacity Expansion Seaport Efficiency Improvement; Waterborne Freight Supply Chain Optimization Waterway Focus Areas include: Maintenance of current waterway network; Encouragement of appropriate uses Explore needs and benefits of additional data acquisition to better understand the range of impact of non-freight users of the waterways FOOT , Page L 11 1820 1ifllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Florida Cruise Industry: A Document Statewide Perspective Cover: Geography: FDOT Jurisdiction: State of Florida Document Year: 2013 Florida's Statewide Perspective Ta g s• 11' .. ° III � 11 Bill i uimui OWN Document Summary: Provides a framework for actions to ensure that Florida retains and enhances its longstanding position as the nation's leading cruise state. The intent of the report is to furnish extensive background information and provide possible implementation actions that encourage cruise-related economic growth within Florida. Key Findings: + The four primary considerations of cruise line decision-makers in positioning vessels are: port infrastructure availability, airlift capabilities, marketing of the home port as a destination, and proximity of ports of call and regulation. + Florida ports have many ships in them based on a year-round basis, but activity level is P g increased with seasonal home- ortin s in winter months + As cruise lines build and deploy larger vessels, it is essential that facilities keep pace so that the industry continues to position its newest and biggest cruise ships in Florida + Sufficient landside and waterside capacity are essential to state's growth + Florida should start working to determine how to best capture the upcoming River Cruise market, particularly in Key West + Port of Key West received 832,887 port-of-call passengers in 2012 + Port of Key West also hosts ships and ferry activities + Port of Key West required infrastructure improvements (widening and deepening of the channel) as of 2013 to continue to be competitive in the cruising industry.The City of Key West has not committed to those improvements. + Port-of-call expenditures are the primary source of industry for Key West as no ships are home ported there. o Port-of-call passengers spend an average of $123.58 per visit including tours and excursions FOOT Page L 12 1821 1illfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 22 you. dy,,,Air II'ZOate i and II`Z ioi4l Il'Illans and yft6es Document Title: Southeast Florida Regional Document ^Sn'.ii' ilf-' F'.mm i,o, I( i 7d F I (k 1i71 l t�!U'd Freight Plan Cover: Agency: Broward MPO, Miami-Dade MPO, Palm FinalR'epo�rt Beach MPO, FDOT Geography: Region Document Year: 2014 U�' °1° °IIIII III"' Tags: Generators, Document Summary: Provides an overview of the freight transportation system and key logistics infrastructure elements, identifies key state, national, and international developments and initiatives impacting the region, documents the economic impacts of the freight industry in Southeast Florida, includes a list of prioritized freight needs, and strategies with key next steps. Key Findings: The most concentrated truck commodity "" , flows in the region are concentrated around PortMiami, MIA, Port Everglades, and theµ u' Port of Palm Beach t # US 1 in southern Miami-Dade and near ; Everglades National Park experience tE heavier than anticipated truck tonnage ,° f # Interregional trade accounts for 50% of movement # Traffic along the Atlantic Intracoastal }� i Waterway (Jacksonville to Key West) fluctuate annually, largely driven by petroleum movements Jy _ # Available land for development of industrial " capacity is a key factor impacting future , dyyH� p Y Y p g growth in trade and logistics # Truck parking continues to be a significant f , ...... concern for the region; parking must become a focal point within the region's identity # Freight system needs and priorities include: Truck commodity flows, Transearch2011. < Additional investments in highway and rail corridors and connectors C1 Warehouse and distribution infrastructure < Truck parking and service facilities < Work force development c Maintenance and enhancements to existing facilities FOOT Page L 13 1822 11Illfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: 2018 Miami-Dade Freight Plan Document N' Update Cover: MIA ti iHUIAA Agency: Miami-Dade TPO 'a Geography: Miami-Dade County Document Year: 2018 Tags: Generators, • • • � udrmvorcan., Document Summary:The purpose of the report is to highlight the importance of freight mobility in Miami-Dade County, to update the County Freight Plan from 2014 to 2018, to develop an application for a county-designated Freight Logistics Zone (FLZ) and to coordinate with freight stakeholders to prepare an updated list of transportation needs. The list of projects developed in this update will be considered for funding in the development of the TPO's Year 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (2045 TPO LRTP). Key Findings: The TPO Goals from the 2040 LRTP and the State Freight Plan Goals are similar. The FDOT State Freight Plan — Motor Carrier System Plan Goals are specific to freight include: # Safety and Security: Identify, support, and implement freight highway safety improvements and initiatives, # Agile, Resilient, and Quality Infrastructure: Continue to invest in quality infrastructure that can be adapted to meet the needs of future freight vehicles and technology, # Efficient and Reliable Mobility: Increase operational efficiency of goods movement and maintain reliable mobility for trucks, # Economic Competitiveness: Support Florida's global competitiveness and increase the flow of domestic and international trade, # More Transportation Choices: Increase the number of quality options for moving freight to, from, and within Florida, # Environment and Conserve Energy: Balance the need for environmental protection and conservation with seeking motor carrier efficiencies, # Quality Places:Coordinate early and often with local communities to ensure mobility for trucks that is consistent with local and regional priorities. The 2040 TPO LRTP Goals cover all modes and freight-specific objectives are included in the plan as a subset of the Goals. The 2040 TPO Goals include: # Improve the Transportation System and Travel # Increase the Safety of the Transportation System for All Users # Support Economic Vitality # Protect and Preserve the Environment and Quality of Life # Promote Energy Conservation # Enhance the Integration & Connectivity of the System for People and Freight Across and Between Modes of Transportation # Optimize Sound Investment Strategies for System Improvement and Management/Operation Maximize and Preserve the Existing Transportation System FOOT , Page L 14 1823 1illfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: 2045 Miami-Dade Freight Plan Document +� Y Update Cover: Agency: Miami-Dade TPO ;, I 1. F e Geography: Miami-Dade County �" m 9 Document Year: 2019 Tags: Generators, Document Summary: The existing transportation system was analyzed with the projected increased population in 2045 to identify deficiencies in the transportation system for the 26-year period from 2020 to 2045. Over 300 improvement projects were identified to meet the desired mobility conditions. These projects were reviewed and evaluated to develop the 2045 Cost Feasible Plan. The 2045 LRTP highlights changes in transportation over the last five years, from focus areas and policy changes to innovative and emerging technologies: the SMART Plan, Bus Express Rapid Transit (BERT), and rapid transit corridors; a standardized built environment classification system; rideshare services, scooters and mobile applications to increase mobility and connectivity; and the emergence of connected, autonomous and electric vehicles. Key Findings: Since the adoption of the 2040 LRTP, the TPO Governing Board adopted a series of resolutions that were incorporated into the development of the LRTP. 1. Resolution # 06-16 of February 16, 2016, set as "highest priority' the advancement of rapid transit corridors and transit supportive projects for the County. 2. Resolution #26-16 of April 21, 2016, adopted and endorsed the proposed Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan consisting in the development of six (6) rapid transit corridors and a Bus Express Rapid Transit (BERT) Network. 3. Resolution # 41-17 of September 26, 2017, establishing the financial plan framework for the SMART Plan which includes the commitment of local funds and the pursuit of federal, state, and additional local funds. 4. Resolution # 47-17 of October 19, 2017, advancing the North and South Dade Transitway Corridors of the SMART Plan to Priority I in the LRTP and the TIP for the development of said corridors. 5. Resolution # 14-18 of April 26, 2018, endorsing the identification and implementation of demonstration projects that advance elements of the SMART Plan. 6. Resolution # 23-18 of June 21, 2018, approving the financial plan of the BERT Network. 7. Resolution # 29-18 of June 21, 2018, endorsing the SMART Plan Demonstration Projects and approving identified funding framework to advance said demonstration projects for inclusion in the 2020-2024 TPO Program Priorities. 8. Resolution # 31-18 of August 30, 2018, selecting bus rapid transit (BRT) with the conversion to at-grade Metrorail upon reaching an average weekday ridership of 35,000 daily trips as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the South Dade Transitway Corridor of the SMART Plan. 9. TPO Governing Board Resolution # 52-18 of December 6, 2018, selecting elevated fixed guideway transit as the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the North Corridor of the SMART Plan. FOOT , Page L 15 1824 11fllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Document Title: PortMiami 2035 Master Plan Document Cover: Agency: Miami-Dade County Geography: Miami-Dade County Document Year: 2010 Tags: • umuu luuum m '8m oii iiiiii®m1 Generators Document Summary: This document is a planning tool used to update the Port of Miami Master Plan Sub element of Miami-Dade County's CDMP.Included was a market analysis for both cruise and cargo and a financial analysis of capital infrastructure. The document also proposes projects and a phased implementation plan. Key Findings: The three main components to the Port's future progress are cargo, cruise, and commercial with an overarching theme of sustainability: # Sustainability progress through shore power (cold ironing), electrification of cranes, LEED buildings, green energy initiatives, and other sustainable projects # Cargo progress through three major projects: construction of the PortMiami tunnel, dredging the main channel, and the rehabilitation of rail on Port # Cruise progress by investing in new, larger terminal complexes and multimocaltcente serial # Commercial progress by providing commercial development onsite including a cruise ferry, marina, hotel and commercial, trans-shipment, and utilities # Additionally, cargo movements are limited to ship-to-truck transfers and vice versa since the rail had not been used in several years. # Port Miami is a general cargo port with strict limitations on handling certain types of bulk products. Main cargos passing through the port include: fruits and vegetables, apparel and textiles, non-refrigerated food products/ groceries, paper, electronic equipment, stone, clay and cement tiles, construction and industrial equipment, trucks, buses, and automobiles. # There are three major terminal operators at the port: Seaboard Marine, South Florida Container Terminal, and Port of Miami Terminal Operating Company # The main distribution center locations from the port are: Hialeah, Medley, Orlando, and Jacksonville + Continuing with the tunnel implementation to provide interstate access for trucks is a key cargo strategy FOOT , Page L 16 1825 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Connecting Overseas to Document Advance Safe Travel (Keys COAST Project) Cover: Agency: FDOT aw Geography: FDOT District Six Document Year: 2019 Ta s: lim u�umuu Imium,M ��i��r��f��f��R 11 Document Summary: This document is the Project Systems Engineering Management Plan (PSEMP) for the Connecting Overseas to Advance Safe Travel (Keys COAST) project. A PSEMP is a plan that helps manage and control a project by using systems engineering processes (SEP). The PSEMP identifies what items are to be developed, delivered, integrated, installed, verified, and supported. The rest of this document is organized as follows: # Section 2 — Need for a PSEMP # Section 3 —Applicable Documents # Section 4 — Systems Engineering Processes # Section 5 — Project Management and Control This document serves as the PSEMP for the District 6, Florida Keys, US 1 Connected Vehicle and Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (CV/ATSPM) Project. Key Findings: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) requires high-risk intelligent transportation systems (ITS) in projects using federal funds. FDOT policy maintains that non- federal aid ITS projects also follow a SEP for the project to be eligible for federal aid in the future. The PSEMP documents how systems engineering will be used for ITS project management. Florida's Statewide Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) was used as a reference guide in the creation of this PSEMP. It provides planning guidance for the technical management, procurement, installation, and acceptance of the project. This project falls within the District 6 Regional Traffic Management Center's (RTMC) operations and within FDOT District 6 in Monroe County. It should be noted that District 6 Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O) will be expanding operations and maintenance in Monroe County to include State traffic signals in the City of Key West starting July 1, 2020 since the City has decided to opt out from the Traffic Signal Maintenance and Compensation Agreement (TSMCA). The FDOT plans to create a CV corridor consisting of 50 traffic control elements involving traffic signals (intersections; mid-block, emergency), pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs), one drawbridge signal; and a weigh station along 112.5 miles of US 1 from mile marker (MM) 0.0. in Key West to MM 112.5 at Monroe County and the Miami Dade County line. Additionally, the project will deploy ATSPM software in the RTMC. FOOT , Page L 17 1826 ollfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Florida Keys Scenic Highway Document Cover: Interpretative Master Plan oll Agency: Florida Scenic Highways Advisory Group Geography: Monroe County r� Document Year: 2006 r1J� Tags: ON srr � Document Summary: Provides a comprehensive set of planning and design strategies to create a unique interpretative experience for the residents and visitors of the Florida Keys. The mission for the plan is to create a unifying orientation and visitation framework for the interpretation of the scenic, ecological, historical, cultural, and recreational resources of the Keys. Key Findings: This plan did not speak to truck movements, freight, truck parking, or the movement of goods. However, it did provided insight on the overall vision and local and tourism use of the US 1 corridor along the Keys. # Almost 90% of users visit the Keys CORRIDOR'A D COMMUNITY Key by motor vehicle categorized into EXPERIENCE Largo week-long, one day, or two hour � C1RGAr I ATIO AL � J"" trips "RAM WOR'�' o�N�n7�r��" �� ' # Land reservation and restoration' p A Marathion of natural habitats is of utmost Lower West importance, especially on Big Pine Key Keys Bike and the Lower Keys y �� n, Boat # Tension exists between a Roadwaiy .... Resources preservation/conservation and '� � '� � � �° Bxustung Reso , 11 f Rnterprefis+o Regions � development visitor orientation centers # As this is an interpretative plan, New hterpretwve Sites y� Community Interpretive Sites are planned along the US 1 corridor to allow travelers to stop and learn about the unique aspects of the community # There are 16 total rest areas proposed along US 1 # Visitors to the Keys go directly to one of these five locations: Key Largo,Islamorada, Marathon, Lower Keys, and Key West. Very fewjourney the entire length leisurely # The plan includes three levels of their interpretive structure: 1) Story of the Keys Landscape level, 2) Community Specific level, and 3) Existing intrinsic resources throughout the Keys # Implementation of this plan includes five elements: governance, administration, marketing, construction, and funding # Six facility types are proposed: corridor trailhead stations, visitor orientation centers, community interpretative sites, rest areas, bike stops, and airport kiosks # The total facilities cost is estimated to be $58 million and implemented over two phases over 15 years FOOT Page L 18 1827 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Miami-Dade County Freight Document lililililililililililililili�4�� {A I LJ4hICIL.C0.']IYIWd'1"d Logistics Zone Designation Strategic Plan Cover: IM l Agency: Miami-Dade TPO Geography: Miami-Dade County f Document Year: 2018 II IIIII�III Tags: �JJJ iiiiu®m Generators, � � II�III�II�AI((lIIIII�III��IfI��IIII�IIIIIIfPf( Document Summary: In 2015, the Florida Legislature created a new section in Florida Statutes Chapter 311, "Designation of state freight logistics zones (FLZs)". FLZs provide a framework for directing potential funding to freight projects within the defined boundaries. These designations have the potential to qualify projects for funding or incentive programs, and ultimately compete for available funding. A proposed Freight Logistics Zone designation has been prepared as part of the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) 2018 Update to the Miami-Dade County Freight Plan. The findings and recommendations for this designation are supported by the Freight Plan, the designation has been vetted through the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee (FTAC) and the Miami-Dade TPO reached out to all municipalities informing them of the proposed designation. Key Findings: Strategic Plan Requirements: 1. Map identifying the area to be included 2. Identification of existing or planned freight facilities or logistics clusters 3. Identification of existing transportation infrastructure within or in close proximity to the proposed FLZ 4. Identification of existing workforce availability 5. Identification of existing or planned local, state, or federal workforce training capabilities available 6. Identification of existing or planned local, state, or federal plans concerning the movement of freight 7. Identification of financial or other local government incentives to encourage new development, expansion of existing development, or redevelopment within the proposed zone 8. Documentation that the plan is consistent with applicable local government comprehensive plans and adopted long-range transportation plans of a metropolitan planning organization, where applicable 1.3 Freight Facilities or Logistics Clusters Available land use data helps to illustrate the location of freight and industrial operations in Miami-Dade County. Four categories of land use data illustrate freight intensive areas, as follows: •Transportation land uses(e.g., airports, seaports, railroads/rail terminals, roadways).Transportation land uses capture the major freight terminals as well as key roadway and rail corridors. Several of these terminals represent intermodal logistics centers. • Industrial land uses (e.g., warehousing/distribution centers). Industrial land uses represent warehouses, distribution centers, foreign trade zones, light manufacturing, and other light and heavy industrial uses. Based on the operation, several of these facilities also represent intermodal logistics centers. •Agricultural land uses (e.g., farms, packing facilities). Miami-Dade County is home to an established and historic agricultural community, located largely to the south and west.These operations vary by season but represent significant freight activity. • Mining land uses (e.g., aggregate mining). Aggregate mining has long existed in Miami-Dade County, generating significant truck and rail traffic throughout the region.These operations are concentrated in the Lake Belt in northwestern Miami-Dade County. FOOT Page L 19 1828 �� 1�� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� VW�Illfmuy�umuwo��„_ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 2,23 N SLflbairea 1=.Ir iiglh IlDlan ping Sft6es Document Title: City of Doral Subarea Freight Document CITY OFDoRAL SU,AiRFA FFRI ICH I IvAQLiRLI FY Mobility Improvement Plan Cover: I � � �� aN� Agency: FDOT Geography: City of Doral Document Year: 2017 4 m Generators, MR00 Document Summary: This study was part of a series of Subarea Freight Mobility Plans prepared by FDOT D6. This plan documents existing conditions, challenges and opportunities, evaluates a range of growth scenarios, and provides a list of improvements to enhance freight mobility. Key Findings: The Doral stud resents the largest Y area re P g J „f ,r concentration of industrial, warehousing, and distribution center locations in Florida with 65 million square feet of freight- related uses. # Traffic is highly congested in this area,with S yi travel speeds as slow as 6-10 mph during ��3 � o��, �w� u �� P�� peak periods 1 t�Wi o m� # Freight continues to grow in the area, 1 / N along with residential, commercial, and ' hotel/resort development. # Recommendations include the following: < Advancing 6 corridor projects to n I� PD&E: Hialeah Expressway to f Okeechobee Boulevard, NW 2511 extensions to MIC and NW 82n1 y ^ 1' Avenue, NW 11711 extension to �:BY NW 7411 Street reconstruction �� a^�� --,Ik� V° " "" INY PI iNu' of NW 7411 Street interchange at -- ---- I d� aA""O^ the HEFT, and NW 72nd to U laotl.r fa ^1�6 "d,.If I I tl.I Okeechobee Road �m�Ma. p"I0yvn,raN 'I r ulr�M n"r 4 I X rr;�iwdr+ , In Iluvi�a d wri i Nd IV in 1) Coordinatingwith PortMiami on ��b�y�- �a Doral the locations for an Inland "AN 11,101 study Terminal 3 are in or near the "'r"I�i area. „reps%,k r�nM,x' FllI Nvr�a�s N",aclfir,� .tidn tr an�r 4`C'FC Doral project area (see table) S,� FOOT , Page L 20 1829 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: City of Miami Gardens Freight Document Cover: Mobility Improvement Plan n Agency: FDOT Geography: City of Miami GardensMOTION PRO Document Year: 2018 �, . Tags: Generators Document Summary: This study was part of a series of Subarea Freight Mobility Plans prepared by FDOT D6. The focus of this subarea plan was the City of Miami Gardens with the purpose of partnering with the community to develop strategies that advance freight and logistic systems and identifies viable freight improvement projects. A truck parking feasibility study was also performed. Key Findings: # The city is located with direct access to I-95, SR 826, and Florida's Turnpike providing north-south and east-west movements A ,, # The city's local roadway system is a grid with connectivity issues such as one-way roads and dead-end streets # The commercial and industrial areas are focused on three corridors: NW 27t", NW 2nd, and SR 826 # The freight hotspots are the Golden Glades Interchange and the area north of Opa-Locka Airportwd , # Major freight generators: <� Identified based on space available within . an the study area < Currently contains over 177 facilities of 50,000 square feet, with 135 facilities with at least 5 permitted dock positions < 75 properties have at least 10 dock positions; 20 Miami Gardens study area. properties have at least 30 dock positions # The top freight generators include: Public Super Markets, Con-Way/XPO Logistics, Flowers Foods, Inc„ Sun Electronics, and Miami Freight Solutions # There is only one truck parking location within the city and it is equipped with 8 parking spaces # The main considerations for the truck parking locations were: ownership/management, amenities, study boundary, and creative opportunities FOOT Page L 21 1830 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Town of Medley Freight Document The Town of Medley Mobility Improvement Plan Cover: Frel;thtMobility]Improvement Plan Final Remo Agency: FDOT Geography: Town of Medley Document Year: 2017 . JWne 13`n,20117 �III�I IIIIIIIII III��IIII III IIIII IIIII II�IIII��IIIIII I IIII�IIIIII lIII0/R�II�R1�III�r��/r�0I0Ta s. Generators, f "'•'.^,: - Document Summary: This study was part of a series of Subarea Freight Mobility Plans prepared by FDOT D6. The purpose of this study is to improve freight movement and circulation in and around the Town's existing transportation system, investigate freight corridors within the Medley area, and develop a plan to enhance freight connectivity and minimize conflicts. Key Findings: , s The Town of Medley is an 8-square mile / � municipality in northwest Miami- �� I �'T /��, � • , ri7J)F MrAP @"..OJT a Dade Count AN / � � Medley is home to i� a � �� , over 1,800 business, a large majority are warehouse and distribution Centers # Due to proximity to freight logistics facilities and key infrastructure, Medley has been Med/eystudyarea. established as a prime location for industrial development resulting in a high concentration of industrial and freight-logistic related activities.As a result, congestion is high and impacting the town's aging infrastructure # Using different growth scenarios, recommendations were developed based on an alternatives analysis # The plan was developed in coordination with the Town ofMed/eyMobi/ityP/an and recognizes the value of reducing single occupant vehicle trips as benefiting the Town's mobility as well as local freight mobility and connectivity # Several of the recommendations include the following: < Resurfacing to fix potholes and flood retention issues < Use of Traffic Adaptive Signal System throughout the corridor < Widening roadways and bridges < Building new roadways < Enhancing ITS systems such as CCTV devices and dynamic message systems FOOT , Page L 22 1831 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Miami River Freight Document Cover: Improvement Plan a- Agency: FDOT Geography: Miami River Subarea r. y, f Document Year: 2018 Ft ghY nprawament pIan J�u III d rr Jllafl Generators, Document Summary: This study was part of a series of Subarea Freight Mobility Plans prepared by FDOT D6. This study focuses on the subarea surrounding the western reach of the federally navigable section of the Miami River with a secondary study area following the Downtown Lead rail spur. The study examines the existing and planned transportation infrastructure along the Miami Riverwith an emphasis on howthe existing network accommodates existing and forecasted traffic volumes. Key Findings: # Current shipping volumes are Lo atk n Map , nearly 400,000 tons per year # Marine shipping movements are much lower in number � r � than the recreational boat movements on the lower river # The study area has growth potential, but is confronted with older, smaller, and less modern industrial building stock and a somewhat } 0 deteriorated marine and upland infrastructure # The closest truck parking , facility to the study area is rvn�^>tiv�✓� ��91��fiamnrvNorw.wwvw [ m iw n Yuo�wooYY mow, irii approximately 6 miles away # Dolphin Expressway between NW 121" Avenue and NW 271" Avenue has the highest number of daily trucks within the project area (between 4,000-5,500 daily trucks) # The five largest freight generators within the study area are:Antillean Marine Shipping, Beruth Marine Shipping, Air Marine Terminal, Betty K, and Bimini shipping # Warehousing and truck terminal uses account for 71% of the industrial sites # Recommendations include: 1) Improvements to roadways, rail crossings, and supporting facilities < Improved connectivity to the regional network < Preservation of the marine industrial land uses < Develop a truck staging area and truck travel center FOOT , Page L 23 1832 ollfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Document Title: City of Opa-locka Freight Document Cover: Coy oll r'pa I n°ka R, �ghl Implementation Plan Agency: FDOT Geography: City of Opa-locka w Document Year: 2017 Tags: �III�I out ®I ratOrS,Gene .. ' ° u�Ndhufmm�ffmdffmum�m�rmiiirm�mVt Document Summary: This study was part of a series of Subarea Freight Mobility Plans prepared by FDOT D6.This plan documents existing conditions, identifies key challenges and opportunities, evaluates a range of growth scenarios, and provides recommendations to support the efficient movement of freight into, out of, and within Opa-Locka. Key Findings: # Existing warehousing and distribution sites within the city primarily have older building configurations and experience g p tight road access and/or floodingissues The city allows heavy industrial ','i uses that are not always allowed in other municipalities which has p led to recycling, salvage, and industrial businesses to concentrate there # The city also faces institutional stability challenges, high tax Opa-locka study area. rates, security concerns, and limited supply of developable land # A recent major freight opportunity is the location of an Amazon distribution center at the Miami-Opa-Locka Airport. Many of the short-term recommendations in this plan are focused on ensuring efficient access for this facility and to its markets # Redevelopment and reuse of existing properties within Opa-Locka will likely occur after development in more competitive areas like Doral and Medley # Recommendations include: < Capacity and operational improvements close to the Miami-Opa Locka Executive Airport to handle traffic generated by the new Amazon fulfillment center < Corridor-level operational improvements < Access management improvements near the new Amazon facility < Long-term improvements include new lanes, interchange reconstruction, and corridor level improvements < Develop a designated truck route network < Incentivize and support new truck parking facilities FOOT , Page L 24 ' , . 1833 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Hialeah Freight Mobility Document `" Implementation Plan Cover: Agency: FDOT 1 Geography: City of Hialeah 11 Document Year: 2023 6ag! • �IIIs• � • " ° ® Generators, ,a Document Summary: This study began in January 2019 as part of a series of Subarea Freight Mobility Plans prepared by FDOT D6. This study focuses on the subarea of the City of Hialeah as well as surrounding areas of interest. The study includes recommendations to enhance connectivity, mobility, and minimize conflicts for freight transportation for the subarea. Key Findings:# In Hialeah, 10-20% of the vehicles on major roadways are trucks # The Hialeah industrial building market currently totals 55.4 million square feet # Employment in freight-based y sectors is 26% of Hialeah's total employment # Connections to international air and seaports primary rail lines and major arterial roadways and highways create an optimal industrial position for Hialeah # Affordability in the industrial market is a key advantage for Hialeah # A sizeable portion of Hialeah is located within Miami-Dade wellfield areas due to the proximity Legend to the Biscayne Aquifer A f # Aging industrial structures as well 6 If1 as the repurposing/gentrification of industrial uses are challenges to r, ,„ ,,,,,, / if%//% !%%/; %1 industrial growth within the area Hialeah study area. # Multiple gateway and TOD districts are bringing more pedestrian and entertainment-oriented uses to the area—specifically along the north/south industrial corridor between the residential areas and CSX tracks FOOT , Page 25 1834 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Homestead Freight Document Improvement Plan Cover: n I Agency: FDOT Geography: Homestead Subarea Document Year: 2023 �Ui'i 1° °IIII Tags: 1' - M ° 11I11 t ® Generators, f ' //,�//////////��/////y%//fir u�Ru�u fmw�ffoufffmu�m m�fmiw(u m f� Document Summary: This study was part of a series of Subarea Freight Mobility Plans prepared by FDOT D6. This study focuses on the subarea of southern Miami-Dade County, with a primary study area lying south of SW 2681" Street and encompassing the cities of Homestead and Florida City, surrounded by a secondary study area lying south of SW 1841" Street. The study examines the existing and planned transportation infrastructure with an emphasis on how effectively the study area road network accommodates the existing and forecast vehicular and truck traffic volumes. Key Findings: # Recommendations were centered around roadway traffic signal and capacity improvements supported }%��/ •;'4if".1 T f ll 1.11 � IWk V qy S by other types of recommendations such as monitoring other studies and programs and exploring the t, implementation of future truck , parking sites # The study area includes a diverse i VM2 d � j SJUfP I and extensive freight and logistics g g presence # Legacies of industrial land exist �ANN V M14MF4ifi.L1 UI J 41 tt �,r along the south ends of the CSX and former FEC railroad corridors # A new area of industrial concentration is emerging in the southeastern sector of the stud y , area near the Homestead Air Reserve ,, moi/ /1l�zA; tiM"'7i5INo'St.. ,� Base and the Homestead Miami Speedway were there are larger tracts of land inside the UDB with 6b x ndary StudM AM YJabanIDWOOP111010 H31wip+d'mry separation from residential areas # The newly approved UDB expansion Homestead study area. for an industrial park adjacent to the Turnpike at the SW 112t" Avenue interchange is another sign of industry recognition of the market # The forecasted population and employment across the two study areas exceeds 70% by 2045 FOOT , Page L 26 1835 nmllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Document 21321 US,ARTERIAL TRAVEL TIME Delay Study Cover: AND DELAY STUDY MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA Agency: Monroe County Planning Department Mainome Gounfy Plennling.0epehment. Geography: Monroe County Document Year: 2021 plrl HIH H IIIIP°I I Vi' I E'8 A,.. W Tags: �� • I �� • �. „.P u�Ndhu�iurhou fff fouu(u�m�ufloui�u�Ni�ui�i Document Summary: The primary objective of this study was to determine the LOS on US 1 for concurrency management purposes. The methodology established a procedure for using travel speed as a means of assessing the LOS and reserve capacity for US 1. Key Findings: # Both Monroe County and FDOT have adopted a LOS C standard for US 1 # 45 mph has been adopted as the LOS C standard for the entire length of US 1 regardless of posted speed limits # Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for US 1 falls below the LOS C standard, then no additional land development will be allowed in the Florida Keys, unless Hmnomf Beohunlmq, IEMrdnq L LOS LDS me&m ivadian madim, mitigation Segrm d t g rrn4ng CalfWlnnl Mint End g Calffinm11F1ai1mt N& Mile 2017 29%2221 SPW D 6 Splai sagrrmf Mallow 2017 ZD19 2921' measures are 11 5IXX 1531112 Camr KIp Bilge II KFe hilren I50aWFearL 9.0 501 5 H9 A 29A 33.0 49.9 proposed to 2 IShc.a SCflic.a Ke,p FOvern Sculeyare fOacU3m31DIrrP 5.0 3)], A IB A. 59.6 55J3 59.9 3 ai i"' .h F.Xflav2I Exa Chita Wrl i�3' 9r.E 105 5 199 13 45.6 45.1 47.5 address the 8 S,a1CW7delW,avch 150ca0, ka 17,0,19 Hamra IISndge KI hoa5 165 B C l3 513 52.5 5�3.5 LOS 5: 50.1 aA3Sa1' KniTia Channel Srisdlgw(H7 Brow Channel Ham: (Ni, h55 1MIS A A A 02 .1 45.0 51 iCw,C- SOvr Ch3TA Bari e II 5waisn:lair Ewa 20C 5 23,C... A A A. 02 47:2 47.9 deficiencies 7 54.1mnelaid 993nish I&xr Drwe EzilWareElia 25E 259 S IS a 45.5 45-2 4&1 # The 2019 study E Pumnrcd E'ae:51^mre CMve TurhE mrra4 Bridge f8h 25.0 1275 S A A. 45:1 46.7 85f5 9, Tbrch TDn:n,-F3nnd Brkge N.Fine Cnnnllel Sur e(N) 2,7 5 In'„i A A A. 47:7 .1 45.8 was not 10, N,Pine ChonrA lBn NV Long Beach lDrtiae 295 33d} C�. IS A. 39A 42A 42.7 Su Pine l i � adopted or 'I 1 S3nroa,HFrM13 Lang Beach Drcde 7-We,BriS3y II S-^Y.WC 42103 S A A. 53:7 54:2 5415 used for 12 7-I roe 95'h:�e F-Hfhlw Erkge(5) 7Mle ge,vj(1 1E5 470 S 195 l3 53:3 534 53.2 '13 1(NI) L"'yz IP0U7,,Dn% 47 2 54L A A A, 37.9 37..9 316 development '14 Grp RLIIF Driv,* 77!7';H ar r iE:h R3ddp?d�1 54.0 5�I's C C C 51.6 1 50.:7 SIA review. IS I'xk Tea^rrtsi H3r"r Eh Sfl4ge(IS;1 iLarfg Key Stidge S;l 605 63)} C. C C 53:3 53.3 503.2 16 I-D LongKele Ham -(5) iE1*o.,mme1e, 63E 73Z C IS C 511:5 52D 89,9 Therefore, the 17I Lmar Ch3nr#4Q 3 - Vj IJgnbmrrvrle aft?v;5,1 7'S C 775 C C C 49,5 49.6 40.2 HJatleauimfGe 2017 results 1151-10 7en73bie Li irwizeBfi f5;1 Two,MdeRelwff EM f9I 77.5 79(,S D D A 47.6 _9 85f5 were used for lip' Upper TW 1 �ROW&qetNj mde Haw, 79a W D E E 392 MA X3 i u✓lar�e ' comparison 'I '.: 'f7Andwr VftL-Hyu Cn (5) a'p,A C-relets I S4.0 WD C E. D MID 37A '.341u3 i 2101" RI r"okee creo.S4 _.e,N o;u mu Sfio3 915 R D, C 317:5 353 343 purposes in 22 T3rwrnier OCE3n 130111W?Dry W13nt BrAevrard 915 '9'9a- A A A 47.A .'9 8,9,4 this report 2a X4er I�x AlbnkcSG Wizr5' 3455 �Wr.5 1©&0 A A A. �44A :2 M0 4.d iCrCsrl I CJ3dll'1'y IJlre 5i5i n hES.0 11:2Fi 5 IS C 52.7 50.:2 411 # The overall oEw•'mraD 4,E... 112E. C ID C 45.0 4di.6 M5 travel speed I16 orMammida IDfflpraa[IW11lfhIN.9Cp Rearm C4114,967 1�1�mm,mmanlm wllfY 3Pamal Llmmlk Cfriamunarc was 45.5 mph FOOT Page L 27 1836 mall i wllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Document Document Title: Origin-Destination Study Cover: Agency: Monroe County Geography: Monroe County Document Year: 2018 �Ul�l °111 11iII l IIII lq "' p : ® Tags �� Document Summary: Summarizes the results of a comprehensive study to identify travel patterns along US 1 in Monroe County. Types of analysis in this study included: Census data, origin-destination, zone activity, visitor home-work analysis, FDOT traffic data, RITIS data, and Monroe County Tourism Development Council (TDC) data. Key Findings: # The major destinations for work related travel are Key West, Stock Island, and Marathon # The origin-destination data revealed that internal trips within Key West accounted for approximately 40% of the total trips. Other major destinations were Islamorada, Key Largo, and Marathon. 2� 20Il6 Diff # Internal trips within a 111"(,, 1 I'V" +1-c�h,gi single zone and trips 1Q'E-How did you g to tlhw IKeysforthis trip? to/from neighboring Sample&Ze 3152 36010 zones were consistently Drivelpersonal vehizle 31151 0 706 6 16.91% ranked among the top 51„; � 9, o wr lr null wr haiicl 14a,�r% 17 G'R`� i, �^^m 10/o # With the exception of Corms by Tour IfBues, 25 �107 1294a morning peak hours, a majority (60%-80%) of the F° intoMarathonl 1,2.7',i1x �,1�^. "' 9 ,,9a travelers appear to be FII1w into Key West: 450 621 3.09� tourists from mainland 1$.39Va 17 3md Florida or out of state FIIy to II aniii and rent a car ��2 � 3 6. 03 # In Key Largo, southbound 61 Other,F�IL„aii�ort1t,„artnd dlrli�re rental -��„59� US 1 experiences higher 1.9%, 2"''� volumes on other 2 35 -013% Fridays/Saturdays and Monroe County TDC traveler survey results. northbound US-1 experiences higher volumes on Sundays # The most common mode of travel in 2017 shifted from "fly to Miami and rent a car' to "drive personal vehicle" # 60% of travelers surveyed also visited other parts of Florida, with Orlando being the most common destination # The average speed is around 40 mph with the exception of a few mid-day periods where the speeds drop to 30-40 mph # This study did not includespecific data for truck or freight travel. FOOT Page L 28 1837 3ifllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Monroe County Year 2030 Document Comprehensive Plan Cover: Agency: Monroe County, Florida Geography: Monroe County, Florida Document Year: June 20, 2016 Rev.S ��Ipi uiou� IIIIPm f� I WI�I ! Tags:, uuluillu® , •u �;;�• . u�umuu Imium m 'um um uuu umuu __ Document Summary: The Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study and Work Program: In 1996, the Governor issued Rule 28.20-100 (the"Rule"), a five-year work program for Monroe County(Florida Administration Commission Rule 28.20-100, 1996). The Rule required the completion of the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS) and its companion, the Carrying Capacity Impact Analysis Model (CCIAM). According to the Rule, the CCIAM was to be designed ". . . to determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem and the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development activities." The FKCCS provided four main guidelines for future development in the Florida Keys: 1. Prevent encroachment into native habitat. 2. Continue and intensify existing programs. 3. If further development is to occur, focus on redevelopment and infill. 4. Increase efforts to manage the resources. Key Findings: 380.0552(7), F. S. — PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT. State, regional, and local agencies and units of government in the Florida Keys Area shall coordinate their plans and conduct their programs and regulatory activities consistent with the principles for guiding development as specified in chapter 27F-8, Florida Administrative Code, as amended effective August 23, 1984, which is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. For the purposes of reviewing the consistency of the adopted plan, or any amendments to that plan, with the principles for guiding development, and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and specific provisions may not be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. However, the principles for guiding development are repealed 18 months from July 1, 1986. After repeal, any plan amendments must be consistent with the following principles: (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the Area of Critical State Concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development.I Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, [remainder omitted] FOOT , Page L 29 1838 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Document Title: US 1 Transportation Master Document �� 1�1 Plan Cover: �;og� :. Agency: Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Geography: Monroe County Document Year: 2021 ,� I� Tags: 1pll Imiiiiii m" - II IIIP �i IIIIIII m g : Illl iliii u Document Summary: A transportation master plan for the US 1 corridor in Monroe County. The master plan identifies transportation needs, goals/objectives, and an action plan to meet those goals. The recommendations emphasize technology trends to address traffic safety, operations, and roadway improvement projects. Key Findings: # Technology trends identified for freight management improve delivery times, inventory management, and customer satisfaction. The plan proposes implementing the following: < Consider freight signal priority at select signals along the US 1 corridor < Promote eCommerce by considering to form a coalition of freight companies modeled after Transportation Demand Management programs < Coordinate with FDOT D6 on the upcoming deployment of the Keys COAST project as well as future needs to address Monroe County's connected vehicle needs and system requirements for traffic signal optimization # Other recommendations include: <� Coordinate with FDOT D6 to "Ji R, identify gaps in existing ITS infrastructure and field devices (e.g., CCTV devices, vehicle detectors) and tie into existing microwave communications <� Consider installing workstations at Monroe County Sheriff's Office � to provide a higher level of 1, incident management in the Keys �'� °` 1) Promote more active use of the Rapid Incident Scene Clearance (RISC) program to address severe incidents < Have qualified Traffic Homicide Investigators (THI) located within Monroe County to help expedite traffic homicide investigations and thus reduce the impact of major lane/road closures on traffic flow and secondary crashes Three new bridge options were identified to provide alternative routes to help improve traffic flow in three critical areas: Stock Island to/from Key West Bridge; Big Pine Key Bridge; Upper Matecumbe. Feasibility studies still need to be conducted for each of these options. FOOT , Page L 30 1839 nllfm Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: US 1 (Overseas Highway) Document Uy.I gavev,a:ra;�M,ryhw;a,yN Capacity Improvements Feasibility Study Cover: ��ady—t3,�'Y��tltlm�105Bdg��u ,tttK"y� Se®menf 3,MM gA��ttl.5,Brig CappitY Hey Sc4menl4,MM 19.5-,6.5,Satldlnt,urivh 94d�1venl�9,MM 19.3-33.d,No K,vFY Agency Monroe County Planning Department Segnoent l5,MM 66.5-ti3.W,lpuck Mey �egm,en„tl.MM s}tl_,3tl tio„��y Geography: Monroe County Document Year: 2014 Tags. �� umuu Vliiiiii li im iiiii ®I vvx I olll Document Summary: Identifies appropriate improvements to address the capacity deficiencies along US 1 and to evaluate their implementation feasibility in five segments along the corridor. Key Findings: # The five segments evaluated in this study are listed below.Three of the segments were chosen based on the US 1 Travel Time Delay Study (TTDS) and the other two were selected based on historical trends: < Segment 3, MM 9.0 — 10.5, Big Coppitt Key (Historical Trend) < Segment 4, MM 10.5 — 16.5, Saddlebunch Key (2013 TTDS) < Segment 10, MM 29.5 — 33.0, Big Pine Key (Historical Trend) < Segment 15, MM 60.5 — 63.0, Duck Key (2013 TTDS) < Segment 16, MM 63.0—73.0, Long Key (2013 TTDS) # Road widening along US 1 in Monroe County is restricted by the adopted comprehensive plan policies with the intent to preserve and protect the fragile ecological conditions # Other, less intrusive remedies to improve traffic flow include: < Adding turn lanes at strategic locations < Enhancing signal timing < Consolidating driveways/access points < Conduct speed studies to confirm/correct posted speed limits < Not allowing new signalized intersection if there is alternative safe access < Improve conditions along the county maintained local streets # The plan includes a list of specific improvements to the US 1 corridor as Phase 1 improvements to mitigate existing and projected LOS S OWNT y ; U."QUENY11,3 M V hS.ly . M99910 fa-5 4��+!y6kdnwNu'y�y Nuuam:y„rePw��r ti,`� U�NGeq'IGIry a No km,0 Key MAIM �y ;i uurvou ledRO ;y10 ' deU lWhiY tlbl'C ,mpnlranery LMoagRacey Oasml, up r ivyVubTYrne^P{>t"y rry�na r�rP ^�v,rrrzusriarCemamul;.",y, f^��uPr Vhnur ie v /`auiY^i Keay o n eacYgip? b y 'ny;"Ywy@'WW 10 NN 29,0—US F,o m r Waerosw tlyua.;+ Saddle Hunch KMy FOOT Page L 31 1840 w� mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 5 Coirnirneirc4l IIMotoirVehiidle/11rUd< Il airking Il...itelr tUre Document Title: Comprehensive Parking Study Document for Freight Transport Cover: Agency: Miami-Dade TPO � r Geography: Miami-Dade County, Florida Document Year: September 30, 2010 a , Ta s' F-Ami uuuuugipuuuq!! uiu ul111�llll�lll Ilpm g . I, �°° �� Generators, Document Summary: Miami-Dade County relies heavily on trucks for the movement of its freight. Major load centers, like the Port of Miami,the Miami International Airport, and the Florida East Coast Railway's intermodal terminal in Hialeah, generate significant truck traffic. The trucks service local and regional consumption markets, as well as customers located outside of the region and state. In addition, there is a dense network of warehouses and distribution centers in western Miami-Dade County that rely upon truck service. The type of trucking operation directly impacts parking demand. Local delivery services transport relatively small quantities of goods to a variety of customers throughout the region.These drivers pick up their truck and trailer at a centralized terminal that provides its own overnight parking. However, local independent dray operators hauling containers back and forth between major hubs like the Port of Miami and a rail intermodal terminal or warehouse are generally responsible for their own overnight, local parking accommodations. Finally, long haul interstate drivers who transport loads into and out of the region require an overnight parking facility between loads that provides amenities such as showers and truck washing equipment. Often, due to a lack of these long haul truck parking facilities, drivers coordinate their deliveries within the urbanized area to end their trip along the Interstate and Turnpike rest areas and entrance/exit ramps, using them as substitute overnight parking facilities. Key Findings: The parking demand and supply analyses conducted substantiates a severe truck parking shortage in Miami-Dade County. Results indicate that woefully inadequate truck parking supplies exists throughout the county. In total, Miami-Dade County currently provides only 293 truck parking spaces for local, independent operators and long haul interstate drivers. However, it is estimated that the overall parking demand for these trucks exceeds 12,000 spaces, indicating that the current supply meets less than 3 percent of the demand. To fully satisfy the estimated truck parking demand of 12,000 spaces in Miami-Dade County, an additional 1,177 acres of property would need to be identified, purchased, and developed as truck parking facilities. These properties would need to be located throughout the county. Ideally, long haul truck parking sites that provide amenities such as showers, food, and mechanical repair services would be larger parcels in excess of 10 acres located near highway interchanges. Local truck parking sites would be smaller, provide few amenities besides security, and would be strategically located throughout Miami-Dade County. FOOT , Page L 32 1841 ollfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Development of Truck Parking Document Facilities in Miami-Dade County Phase II Cover: a�u��s", Agency: Miami-Dade MPO (now TPO) �""'°' Geography: Miami-Dade County, Florida Illlt Document Year: August 2012 Tags: ' . �IIU�� „„ u�uulllllll ®gym Generators, r:Sri rn e Document Summary: The Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) conducted the Development of Truck Parking Facilities in Miami-Dade County Phase II to serve as a guide for implementing truck parking facilities it builds upon the Comprehensive Parking Study for Freight Transport Phase I. The potential truck parking locations identified in Phase I were examined in greater detail and additional truck parking locations were identified. These locations were analyzed in a detailed screen analysis. Three (3) screening processes were used to analyze the potential truck parking locations. The screening process included a preliminary screen, initial detailed screen, and in-depth detailed screen. The preliminary screen concentrated on distinguishing between local trucking and interstate trucking, focusing on interstate trucking and identifying parcels where truck parking is allowed that are within 1-mile of interstate interchanges and greater than 10 acres. The initial detailed screen verified folio numbers, assessed adjacent land uses, identified usable site acreage, and determined truck routes in relation to truck parking locations, and limited potential locations to sites north of S`"8th Street within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) and with paved access. The in-depth detailed screen assessed the neighborhood impacts, parcel distance from freeways, site visibility from freeway, freeway truck percentages, property proximity to terminal- major hubs/industrial-commercial truck generators, site accessibility, and developed a land cost feasibility threshold. Prototype sites were developed to assist developers and landowners in determining truck parking layouts and amenities for the facilities. Local and national overnight truck parking facilities were also examined and used to determine the specific amenities to be considered in the conceptual/prototype design. Order of magnitude costs were prepared to estimate the financial capital required for site development. Key Findings:This study developed options for implementing overnight truck parking for Miami- Dade County due to the shortage of overnight truck parking within the County. Input was obtained from the Freight Transportation Advisory Committee which served as the study advisory committee, Miami-Dade County DTPW and FDOT. This study is a unique effort for the MPO, as the target audience for this study is not the typical public agency but rather the private sector, specifically landowners and potential developers of truck parking facilities. This study provides information that may facilitate the partnerships likely to be required to advance the development of truck parking facilities in Miami-Dade County. FOOT , Page L 33 1842 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Document Title: Miami-Dade County Document Preliminary Truck Parking Assessment Cover: „s..f Maml-made County Agency: FDOT Preliminary Truck Parkingi Assessment Parcel Naming Convention d Folio Numbers: Parcel No..1:05-301a-00]0010 Geography: Miami-Dade County, Florida Parcel Na.2:30-4935.000-0400 Parcel No.a:ao•s9asaoo.aoal Porcei n.°.n:aa-M2.000.Ma Document Year: 2019 "°"°'N""X11.°°°°°" ��p� u� III° 3/12/2019 Tags: ° ® Generators, 7y��I /aaaiaaii/ Document Summary: Miami-Dade County faces a severe shortage of truck parking spaces. Understanding this issue, the county has identified five (5) parcels for potential truck parking development. This document provides a preliminary assessment of the viability of truck parking development at these locations. Key Findings: The assessment including three tiers: + Tier 1: Documented each parcel's legal, geometric, and geographical characteristics such as zoning, land use, and accessibility. + Tier 2: Environmental assessment focusing on eight environmental issues (e.g., flood zones) + Tier 3: Evaluated freight transportation demand based on existing literature and engineering judgement. Of the five parcels evaluated, two were determined to be suitable locations (parcels 2 and 3). Both of these parcels are in the Homestead Base census-designated area. However, this area has a very small estimated truck parking demand as compared to the rest of the county. Parcels 2 and 3 are anticipated to provide a minimum of 303 and 466 parking spaces, respectivelywr (assuming 10 truck spaces FIDOT v 3 05 s r" Trio,[k;r rr per acre). The risks with these parcels is that they are located near residential areas (approximately 50% of the land use within a 1- __ rjv, ,,, , mile buffer of Parcel 2 and : 41% within Parcel 3 are a; residential). 1.1 111 v'b'i f(Y ('.rP f.'nl lf!(f � n Map of the five parcels. FOOT Page L 34 1843 o1llfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Document Title: Parking & Storing Commercial Document Vehicles in Residential Districts Cover: id ply ki Agency: Miami-Dade Government Geography: Miami-Dade County, Florida Document Year: Current code " • mpfm�umuu Imiuui m"„iim Illll ll lui I II Tags: . � ..., Document Summary: A summary of the current Miami-Dade regulations for truck parking in residential districts. Key Findings: Storage or parking of certain commercial vehicles is allowed on private property in residential zones, while certain vehicles are prohibited. Permitted uses: C. ;t.e', _[y 1 _r H ijc,lle 5 . :::2." . 1y:.... .....y H�„iid.�'.sR.......F.�'.r:porary:.....F..2..L ii_n.g. Prohibited uses:_ . :fie.,o..y:..... .....r H„ii ll.. .5..:. Category 1 Vehicles: No more than two Category 1 vehicles may be parked at a residence. Category 1 vehicles include: Taxicabs, Limousines less than 20 feet in length; any passenger vehicle less than 8 feet in height marked with a sign, letters, emblem advertising or any association with a commercial enterprise • Category 2 Vehicles: Only one Category 2 vehicle may be stored or parked, provided it is kept within an enclosed garage or behind the front building line with a completely enclosed, opaque fence, screening wall or landscaping six feet in height, at least 10 feet from the rear property line.Category 2 vehicles include:Vehicles eight feet or less in height that display, either fixed or temporary, externally-mounted equipment such as ladders, lawn care equipment or fixtures, and brackets necessary to carry such items; Enclosed or open trailers or utility trailers less than 20 feet in length • Temporary parking: The temporary parking of a Category 2 or Category 3 vehicle in front of the building line, or on a right-of-way, is only permitted for the purpose of loading or unloading materials, or while actively engaged in providing commercial service at the premises. A convenience store is permitted so long as it does not exceed one hour in any 24-hour period. + All Category 3 vehicles are prohibited in all residential zoned districts. Category 3 vehicles include: Vehicles exceeding 20 feet in length and more than eight feet in height. They include: Tow trucks, dump trucks, construction or earth-moving vehicles or equipment, Semi-tractors, Trailers + Enforcement: Violations are subject to the issuance of a Courtesy Warning Notice. Both the tenant and property owner may receive notices in connection with enforcement. However, the property owner is ultimately responsible for compliance. Citations: + First offense - $500 + Second offense within five years - $1,000 + Third or subsequent offense within five years - $2,500 FOOT , Page L 35 1844 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3.0 Study Area Characteristics 3.1 If ooa way INetwork �'�.'�1, 1 L..II��'�OT Sfira egj Iln eunllrnedaeI yysteurn A majority of the study area is not within the FDOT Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). However, the approximate 7.3 mile stretch between Key Largo and the mainland is part of the SIS (see Figure 3-1). Figure 3-1 Strategic Interco octal System Evxet;Par.Yes I PYrgiarul °,,ro,r. y P".cirk r Miami-Dade d;r County Y n 1 zd ii END r, Mainland Monroe STUDY County AREA n {C' f e BEGIN °° „ STUDY Lawer Keys , ? , VA10% O AREA 1 Key West Monroe County Freight. Legend) Improvement Study WWWWWWw 515 Highway System 2021 us I ©Miles Data source:FDOT Open Data Hub, SIS Highway shapefile, 2021. FOOT , Page L 36 1845 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 The FDOT functional classification is either 04PrincipalArterial—Other RURAL shown in red or 14 Principa/Arterial—OtherURBANshown in orange (see Figure 3-2). Figure -2 Functional Classification F..v�^ePPr�ries iw4 +„e Park j Miami©aide I 6 County END Mainland Monroe , IV County STUDY AREA ti a rot o� J �41W r. BEGIN � STUDY arno° AREA , a r Key West Legend Monroe County Freight mPrOVi'Yi'Yent Study m 04-Principal Arterial-Other RURAL 08-Minor Collector RURAL 17-Major Collector URBAN 06-Minor Arterial RURAL 14-Principal Arterial-Ocher URBAN --- 19-Local URBAN 2021 ©nii= 07-Major Collector RURAL 16-Minor Arterial/URBAN Data source:FDOT Open Data Hub, Functional Classification TDA shapefile,2021. FOOT Page L 37 1846 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 As shown in Figure 3-3, the context classification ranges from C1 Natural (green) to C4 Urban General (purple). Key West, Marathon, Islamorada, and Key Largo have the higher concentrations of suburban/urban context classifications. The Lower Keys and the areas between the keys are generally classified as natural or rural. Figure 3-3 Context Classification wergdeadaz //�" ¢ Netharouf w, , Durk r r r p: am Miami-Dade County ,k , rl ru,rV aoa /y i END ° Mainland IMoniroe r,`STUDY County I AREA h j 19 o< "E" BEGIN rd, LowerKe s n STUDY t �� y ' xar�t" AREAa,,�� Key West Context Classification Monroe County Freight Improvement Study "CI-Natural -CA-Suburban Residential C2-Rural C3C-Suburban Commercial 2021 a a �C2TRural Town Cal-Urban General ©Miles Data source:District 6 Context Classification shapefile,2019. FOOT Page L 38 1847 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3, �A 11r ffiic Siigi4s There are 50 traffic signal locations within the project corridor. Table 3-1 displays the signal type and quantity, and Figure 3-4 displays the signal location.There are 30 intersection control signals, 9 emergency signals, 6 school signals, 4 midblock pedestrian controls, and 1 flashing beacon. Nearly half of the signals (21 total) are on Key West alone, 9 of the signals are on Marathon Key, 6 are on Plantation Key, and 9 are on Key Largo. Table -l Traffic Signals Location Signal Type 77777 o Other Total Intersection Signal 1 30 Emergency Signal 2 9 School Signal - 6 Mid-Block Pedestrian 1 1 2 4 Flashing Beacon 1 1 Total 21 10 6 9 4 SO Figure 3-4 Traffic Signal Locations r ' Everglades 3 Marathon Inset i lu"° INcr¢oGmrrl RA V P P� Miami-Dader, �'' z County o 00 or. F Plantation Key Inset END STUDY .d AREA;I � it i l Inset e ro g 0 m Ml �R©(75E4FCT BLVD Soy N s �o� a 0 I I �Mnes �y I Key Largo Inset BEGIN . STUDY ,Lowe Keys AREA OL r �I. 0 Key West a z �M'iles Legend Monroe County Freight Improvement Study a Flashing Beacon 'Wy Emergency Signal E Traffic Signal School Signal a iU 2021 _ �Mnes Mid-block Pedestrian Control US I Data source:FDOT Open Data Hub, Traffic Signal Locations TDA shapefile,2021. FOOT , Page L 39 1848 Mwou Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3.2 Transit Services Transit services include services provided by the City of Key West from Key West to Marathon and service from Miami-Dade County to the Upper and Middle Keys. Key West Transit The Key West transit system includes city routes and the Lower Keys shuttle. The city routes are shown in Figure 3-5 and include the North Line (green), the South Line (blue), and the Duval Loop (purple). The Lower Keys Shuttle operates along US 1 from Key West to Marathon (shown in pink in Figure 3-5). All routes operate seven days a week from generally 5:30 AM to 10 PM. Figure 3-5 Key West transit Routes o-71,r,,Ja Kc'y'; D,cadgens Key u S�cwk jr eaoa' k 0 1 IN r 11 A ITV A V 19"�(nrYitl�j r''l 9 P,Y H i ;iw r K r'Vho whir a0" n, Of l R l 'y°d '"I"r°3 kf l l'rtl auau Y�m I'I Y I' E C jl('1 KII (Ue k aawi r"" ' rMcrlirh.n"d a4nF awx North Line KEY 'Ah P •. rr ,r V N W V V p 1' ,n�mr le,lir=,µR K iir T 'u,r 11r l N ,.srrli f[aian �rrwE r' �� 1Np� well South Line as :A 5, ki m0000001111°00o Duval Loop 1-t:vI Zachary P R 1)H:1A r �I pf1,I'Ct� fw r flNirrc 1 vcli Key 9uCrr v al Y41�![Yr.,. MvkwVridm,,, tiawm "� I,„r rC i4lr W;a',y. lr afi IYr��irfwa wwamw' `;[r[ 1 7 wm r�"'sw0 ri l,r, @ w Iwo r ,r,rr a "sar,arOa wf IM ruy ra..o r vo= M1w^ramwsaddlebunch, Yw „� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Lower Keys Shuttle tl,p IY,"G1 MraeW iriY Data source:kwtransit.com/map, October2021. FOOT Page L 40 1849 nMllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Metrobus Metrobus is operated by Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) and operates Route 301 and Route 302 along the corridor (Figure 3-6). Route 301 Dade-Monroe Express (Florida City to Key Largo, Tavernier, Islamorada, and Marathon):Provides express bus service seven days a week traveling from the Park and Ride Lot at the 344 Street Transit Way station in Florida City to Key Largo at Mile Marker 98, Tavernier at Mile Marker 87, Islamorada at Mile Marker 74, and Marathon at Mile Marker 50 along US1. Service runs from approximately 5:00 AM to 1:00 AM. Route 302 Card Sound Express(CardSound to Ocean Reeo:Provides express service seven days a week, two trips in the morning (6:20 AM and 7:55 AM) and afternoon (3:25 PM and 5:00 PM). Travels from Florida City Hall to Ocean Reef Club (only employees are admitted beyond the entrance to the club) in North Key Largo along W. Palm Dr, US 1, and Card Sound Road d. Figure 3-6 Metrobus Routes �lil�iMiiiOppllWyy� 0301 SW ara swlL , t��sE atp R h�i x;lrfPd umol�� w'�wlk.,� VVV 'iNN'iVi RIaa Ou C3 lEAE N4RfJINIRi IE aura 344 s Florida FLORIDA . (EXPRESS PA K HILL Ciity CITY + HALL • • 344 St F + Palm Dr Trug errdrr n�ird dx�iirs nt �. . � + • P Tdmmn T'Irounrrutr r raps start rl � _ here Lrn M � ..... . w _ n ua 0 Y ;C'00 '4°$$ 111 «• OCEAN Hv_AU REEF uLlTta CLUB j,ra• BUS HhNGk: � �C Turn,mxr h St. Key(Largo v afM1e,R.h''h D, 'Aile M�aakrer gE Cp `w Tie,l'+i�eiri -North orth 1), G` w? k3 rei c5'" E.Ridge Rd TX fSf.s,I Vrl. �, °e./Mill.■ g 7an�eymismker 87Islarnorad CARD NORTH r /W.hN.riker 7.4. SOUND KEY LARG2d + w �g aihyixrar cu.h GUM Vkw�r Dr t&nd a�n;r4l coin■ IWla�tnmra rn'rr,b (N) M1.hlhoile M.0,,211ud Mlinaa NdRcurker fa�0,# r,w ,.r. r .�,�.. Card SouncJ'., NORTH ;'�,f �PuLliu rtanP•oV rcr<<"atnu& PECK � riuvrarre r� G (Pr EohrliamilcDade �� GO Nliainu-¢wade TransiiL irn�i i�utuat aatr,u,pn art i�1a� is l Titl !�rl II r lash Iilil��l I�sl4 nitl) real Irlr UUUUUUUUUUU, .�q�� IA�M4CiJ4: R':'Y 7NTI .. "' ,v hJ MNirTVrh' o,.ataurr miamodade.p,,ovitramant miiM""T"iw 377 or 3d'5�.45d.5�900'TTWfria lPtelay:7t1 � Its. ,� �r.�, er,,u fU I I„,I"IH1 '' FOOT Page L 41 1850 w� mWou Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3.3 IPaved (Pathways and Bike (Facilities The Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail is a multi-use bicycle and pedestrian resource that serves as a recreational and alternative transportation corridor for the Florida Keys. There are more than 90 linear miles of existing paved trail segments along the planned 106-mile corridor from Key Largo to Key West. More information about this trail system can be found at the following website: H�:: :// .fB lida :a:e �a2.±s .. a N< ....and...: alill fB lida....N<e .... ire ea ....H�e a:a...c... aull. .1........................................................................................................./.................................................................. ...................................................................................................................... ......................................... Figure 3-7 displays the existing trail segments (green), programmed/funded trail segments (blue), and the unfunded trail gaps (yellow). The largest unfunded gap is between the Lower Keys and Marathon. Figure -7 Paved Pathways and Bike Facilities Everglades j National Park `t a Miami Dade Ax' County ao IT END Mainland Monroe t STUDY County J AREA "i r- 1 40 hr� BEGIN � �.. Lowe`rey Ks STUDY at AREA td„rwP Key West Legend Monroe County Freight Existing Trail Improvement Study Programmed(Funded Tmil o i0 2021 <I I..Unfunded Trail Gap �nnes Data source:FDEP Office of Greenways and Trails, SUN Trail Status shapefile,August 2021. FOOT , Page L 42 1851 ollfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3.4 Il...and Use 3A Exiishng Il. and Use The existing land use along the US 1 corridor is displayed in Figure 3-8. Generally, the existing land uses are either Commercial (red), Public/Semi-Public (pink), Residential (yellow), or Recreation (green). The existing land use data was created by the Florida Department of Revenue, County Property Appraisers and the GeoPlan Center and was downloaded from the Florida Graphic Data Library (FGDL). This dataset contains generalized land use derived from 2019 parcel specific land use for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).The original 99 land use classes from the parcel data have been collapsed into 15 generalized classes. Please Note: As of 2015 there has been a change to the original FDOR 99 Land Use Values. Value 080 is now 'Vacant Governmental' this land use value does not maintain the same Generalized Land Use code-7 - OTHER, instead it is now classified as Generalized Land Use Code 8 - PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC. Figure 3-8 Existing Land Use Ewergdeadaz l Marathon Inset � I Miami-Dade ,O �� , e er 1 r k � �;I County � f Plantation Key lnset '' END Ilk Mies lq STUDY RIN J17 Key West Inse (f%/ AREA t .. i0l&. aIV tw � w.r R %yRpvt"P 4�wst �2 a mde, . Miles � A Key Largo Inset 1 l BEGIN STUDY ,� h j 41, LpwerKeys �ym�, Mt on i !', N x ��e0 r,� V AREA d ° °y�°i� gf/ r Key West `4 p 0 , .,, IVry ©Mlles Monroe County Freight IIII IIIIIIppIpplopp AGRICULTURAL MINING RECREATION ROW Improvement Study INDUSTRIAL % PARCELSWITH NOVALUES RESIDENTIAL VACANT NONRESIDENTIAL 2021 INSTITUTIONAL PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC RETAILlOFFICE VACANT RESIDENTIAL No WATER ©Miles Data source:FGDL, lu gen 2019 shapefile,2019. FOOT , Page L 43 1852 ou Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 The generalized zoning for unincorporated Monroe County and the municipalities near the US 1 corridor is Residential, Commercial, Mixed-Use or Conservation/Native Area/Park. Figure 3-9 displays the generalized zoning districts for unincorporated Monroe County and Figure 3-10 displays the zoning for the City of Key West. More detailed and interactive zoning maps for Monroe County and the municipalities are available on their respective public websites. Figure 3-9 Monroe County Zoning 1fv�r��mc�er 'F ft7r7,2Parotv,rd " Marathon,Inset � ✓` �� r rr ry P tk `�h��, +PN�J r, oN� �rlr xl r,� il, tila Miaml Dade H uy �,- Cd �l fY County A"� JJd A P - eR � �y.r/�o�-. + " F v+ �r 4 ' � as f ^n` �,°'ap8li rplantatlon Key Inset i�r END °Mies STUDY n AREA w Key West lose[ psi r �yatgS��T/lf d�Miles �a �O 0 Miles \SNa m Key Largo Inset ,A BEGIN O r e lr i ll �, o� STUDY ,Lower Keys AREAS P keo; Key West Commercial rlsh,q D mtt Residential M ed Use Monroe County Freight �� Airport DistrictDestination Resort industrial Offshore Island Area Improvement Study Commercial Industrial �, „M-I-mry Fadlines i Recreational Vehicle p�IIIryryry��Q�p 0 IO 2021 ConservationlNatdve Areall ark�� Incorporated tl '@ Marldrne Industries Research ©Mlles Data source:Monroe County L UD Zoning shapefile, obtained in October 2021. FOOT , Page L 44 1853 nllfm umuwo -. Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 The zoning within the City of Key West (Figure 3-10) along the US 1 corridor is primarily General Commercial (red) or Historic Neighborhood Commercial-1 (brown). Figure -10 City of Key West Zoning Map r �100 „"qm � smmHmw�� J �ir�ram"' � 9 /i/ 41 % C_nservaton f Ia�grcve _..,,tal IJr.6—Deoslty Re ic„r is Res clentieI Off- Hlstorc R_„certia:Commend al C,s-e-'3 12-olic Service, ;:food Commercial Tou,-:st H;"port H'.storc Res certia=Commen-alCcs-e-4 C-m;ervaton D..tstand'.n I fthe Sing e=gmlPy H D—.ty I7-dent ial Hls,orcSpecial'e1ed um Density Re.,iceoti al state. C_n;arvaton Tidel NJet7en6s of the State- C-nser•,at sn U le nc'Hacy rryor'r; Hy r,,,'ty Res,dent ial-'S Vedi urn Density Res i cerci al-"I H or- l)=ghLor�nod C--rn -,I-2 C--al Cr-r—ciel H_torn Ccrrym_i_al To,.ri a Hanred Redevelopment D strict I'AItar, Hlstorc Hicth Denz itv Resice^-ial H tor,c NeJghV or-noel Ccnimrerc'.al-1 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu us Doestal Lcw Den 1 Re,-,dent'.al H stor'c Panne i 7.ede,eloprnent H stc,, Nl-ghV ornood C—nne e,al-3 H StOr c Pul:rl'.c enc3emi-oi licS. ,-__., HstorcPri-Dranc Serni-paVlic.e,r ces-'I H tor-c N.-ghVor-oed C cnimrerc'.al-4 Cgn ervat'c-n Fre hmrater,✓V tlar t H.stor c Resicertie,`Crtfice Hst0f C Pul:rl c anc Semri-ou lic_en,c_.s-'S. HstorcMed m Dens,,Res dent a l H stork Residertie Comma lalGore-'S. H:tor 1c Resicertia=Corr -ialCc„e I''Jlei um Density Rezice,al IIIIIIIIIII : mited Corramerdal H:ter lc Resicertia=Comm i-ialC,-,re-'I Data source:Key West Land Use Map, City of Key West website, October 202 1. FOOT Page L 45 1854 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3,43 :L. ftulr II...and Use Consistent with the existing land use and zoning characteristics of the corridor, the future land use designations are primarily Residential (yellow), Commercial (red), Conservation/Recreation (green) or Mixed-Use (pink). Figure 3-11 displays the future land use for unincorporated Monroe County. More detailed and interactive zoning maps for Monroe County and the municipalities are available on their respective public websites. Figure -11 Monroe County Future Land Use Marathon Inset d Miami 1 ; County ,,aai l ri r �x �rr Plantation Key Inset END � 0Mae� r� STUDY AREA h ` N Key West Inset %r %�©° .,eau. i 0 I y '- < Miles \S` Key Largo inset oil STUDY t Lower KeysuN�tt�0YVut' 11,Y41 sxatho^ Po n r /(/r ti AR 'EA 06 V ... Eat op" �` West biro " Y z Ko Monroe County Freight Agn uiture Education Military Recreation Improvement Study Airport District Incorporated Mixed UselCommercial Residential ��Y Commercial Industrial Mixed UselCommercial Fishing��l��l��l��!Undesignated ip Conservation ! Institutional ty j Public ©Mk Data source:Monroe County Future Land Use shapefile, obtained in October 2021. FOOT , Page L 46 1855 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3.5 Freight Activity Areas As defined by the FHWA Freight and Land Use Handbook, traditional freight generating land uses include agriculture, natural resources and mining, construction, warehousing, manufacturing, logistics, and port and harbor operations (FHWA Freight and Land Use Handbook Section 1.2). However, due to the unique geography of the Florida Keys, many of these traditional major freight generators are not present within the project area. Therefore, the freight activity generators within the project area include mainly industrial, commercial, and military operations. Using the existing land use data from the Florida Department of Revenue, these land uses are displayed in Figure 3-12 to highlight areas where trucks are most likely to be making deliveries. The higher concentrations of commercial land uses (red) are found at the southern end of Key West, Marathon, Islamorada, and Key Largo.There are a few industrial (dark grey) land uses along the eastern end of Key West and central Key Largo (boat repair/marina uses). Additionally, the Naval Air Station Key West represents a concentration of military land uses. Figure 3-12 Freight Activity Areas Fverglodes �. s Ncvrrorwul ��, Marathon Inset e V, Miami-Dade County 9 t, az iomrul„,u � r `;yr I i StiPS IslannoradaInset END STUDY � AREA 4 IKey We Inset man �B' III yi wu""a' VE Oo�� Jk �J Yiww ,y°3° j0` u i ��5t,�opinaNt ao�y. lu ��y P I I�IVINv a sn stvti�r a v� l' m ties i a �md" Key Largnllnset r BEGIN STUDY Lower keys", r AREA Big Jk Miles -4 �Milcs Monroe County Freight Freight Generators Improvement Study commercial 2021,. M=Industrial a w Military Mlles Data source:FGDL, lu gen 2019 shapefile,2019. FOOT , Page L 47 1856 1i Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 3.6 Population and Visitors The population for Monroe County was determined using the functional population, which is the sum of permanent year-round residents and seasonal residents. According to the 2010 Census Monroe County had a permanent population of 73,090, rising to 82,874 according to the 2020 Census. The seasonal population is defined as part-time and overnight visitors, which on a given peak season (late February—early March) evening is approximately 80,000 persons.Therefore, the functional population of Monroe County is 160,000 persons. Permanent Population Distribution Figure -13 Key West Population History According to the US Census, in terms of permanent population, Key West has a total of Key West Population History approximately 26,000 persons with an overall 35,000 growth trend of 0.5% per year (see Figure 3- 33,o�a 13). 0 The following is the population distribution of . z.,man CL Monroe County (see Figure 3-14): ° SaaQ 45 Key Largo 17.9% 3a�o 45 Islamorada 7.7% s,oao 45 Marathon 13.6% 45 Lower Keys 20.4% Q 45 Key West/Stock Island 40.3% YEAR : Figure -l Permanent Population Distribution Source US Census, Atkins htdanni-C) ac C*Uoty r a.I rs tT> END Mainland Mon,me STUIIDY County s AREA /fir 1 q fr wu KvyWest FOOT , 'I Page L 48 , . 1857 ollfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Seasonal Population Accordingto the c2rc2rr ;, rr ac t of 1our� r�rr tf� l for I� report from the Monroe County ........ .. . .......... .... Tourist Development Council, seasonal (part-time) residents total approximately 50,000 persons, peak season visitors total 20,000 persons, and 10,000 persons are classified as other and apply to neither category of resident. For Monroe County, the seasonal (part-time) residency pattern is more pronounced than the visitor pattern. Visitor Distribution The following is the visitor distribution and lodging type of Monroe County (see Figure 3-15): # Key Largo < Share of non-airport visitors: 16% < Share of airport visitors: 2% < Dwellings make up more than half of the lodging properties (52%) in Key Largo < Key Largo and Marathon both have 21% of all motels in the Florida Keys and 11% of the hotels # Islamorada < Share of non-airport visitors: 13% < Share of airport visitors: 2% < Islamorada has the largest share of motels in the Florida Keys (28%) < Dwellings make close to two thirds of all the lodging properties (63%) in Isla Morada # Marathon < Share of non-airport visitors: 17% < Share of airport visitors: 5% < Marathon has the largest share of dwellings in the Florida Keys (41%) < Marathon has the second largest number of total properties, second only to Key West # Lower Keys < Share of non-airport visitors: 2% < Share of airport visitors: 2% < The Lower Keys have the smallest share of motels (4%) and apartments and condos (4%) in the Florida Keys < Nearly 8 in 10 of all the properties in the Lower Keys are dwellings # Key West < Share of non-airport visitors: 52% < Share of airport visitors: 89% < About 36% of the properties in Key West are apartments and condos < Key West has the second largest share of motels in the Florida Keys (26%) FOOT , Page L 49 1858 Man Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Figure -15 Florida Keys IVisita don( l ) III/ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 121'°°, uuuuuul N u�,ul�I-Ai r Ip,')r�t ��.0ia � iA�� rf 0 10% 1111111111 A f n°°po r"t; _ ; 9,°u o i � 69/1iv 69, .01% 0'.0a Jan Feb Malr Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Deo Month of Vis,it Source:Economic Impact of Tourism in the Florida Keys Visitors Impact on Roadways Also accordingto the ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_�;,,, n act of Tour&m �n tl7e Dior-1da� Keys report from the Monroe :or�or��..... .. County Tourist Development Council, Monroe County is a destination, receiving around 5.2 million visitors annually with 11,200 net average daily driving arrivals. This population varies significantly by month. During the peak season the over average is +30%, and in the off-peak season the under average is reported at -40%. Below is an estimate for the road count on US 1 at Key Largo: # Average peak daily traffic: 30,000 of//r # 90/o of visitors drive in: 10,000 # Allow for round-trip (x2): 20,000 # Estimated vehicle occupancy: 2.5 ,# Average day visitor vehicles: 8000 � # Peak day visitor vehicle count: 10,400 � # Peak day share of total traffic: 30% # Average day share of total traffic: 26% # Off peak day share of total traffic: 20% F0 Page L 50 1859 1i1llfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 4.0 Existing Transportation Conditions Transportation conditions evaluated in this section include the following: + Historic Traffic Growth (using Annual + Existing Traffic Data and System Average Daily Traffic - AADT) Performance + Seasonal AADT + Origin-Destination Analysis + Historic Truck Percentage Growth + SERPM Truck Trips + Historic Safety Review 4.1 IHistoric Traffic Growth Historic traffic growth was analyzed using the AADTs on FDOT's Florida Traffic Online database. There are 30 traffic monitoring count sites along US 1 in Monroe County; 27 of the sites are Portable Traffic Monitoring Sites (PTMS) and three are Telemetered Traffic Monitoring Sites (TTMS). A map of the site locations is included in Figure 4-2. Data was analyzed for the previous six available years, from 2015 through 2020 (Table 4-1). Data from 2020 may not be the most indicative of historic traffic trends due to the impact on travel and commuting behaviors from the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, trend data from 2015- 2019 was included and may be more representative of typical traffic conditions along the corridor in addition to trend data extending through 2020. Corridor-wide trends were determined based on an average of growth change among the count sites along the corridor: + 2015-2019 AADT trend: 10% growth in overall traffic + 2015-2020 AADT trend: -10% decrease in overall traffic 4 „1 „1 S a s o Ii a II IE)1 Figure -l Average of Peak Daily IV lrr e by Month Seasonal AADT was analyzed using average Average of IPA-calk IDalHy Vollulrne 1by Morntlh (2019) peak daily volume from 120,000 the Hourly Continuous 100,000 Counts Final Reports 80,000 for the three TTMS for 60,000 , 2n",,,unuraraWraraWiim i, _ �mmw.um¢um �W.�, ammmma 2019 (Figure 4-1). � 40,000 �Wo.N.WmuiWN.WMIOIONNINI�WWImmt Peak Daily Volume was 20,000 highest in January, March-May, August Jan Feb IMair Aplr IMay Juln dull Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec and October and were the lowest in February, &,.0 165 (Key Wes ) 9&..0227 (��ig Piine Key) June, and September. rs&016d (Key �ai-go) FOOT Page L 51 1860 nllfm umuwo Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Table 4-1 Historic Traffic Growth( DT) 908100 3,400 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 4,200 �� 24% 50% _______ 905013 7,700 7,100 7,500 8,200 7,600 6,500 -1% -16% -8% 905011 10,200 9,100 9,300 11,200 11,900 9,200 17% -10% 3% 905008 16,700 15,700 15,700 15,700 17,300 14,600 4% -13% -4% 905004 18,100 21,000 23,000 22,500 26,500 23,700 46% 31% 39% 905034 36,000 34,500 39,000 40,000 41,000 35,000 14% -3% 6% 900105 33,000 32,500 34,000 36,000 39,500 34,500 20% 5% 12% 900201 41,000 41,000 43,500 47,000 51,500 49,500 26% 21% 23% 900165* 39,909 42,403 35,525 40,284 40,837 35,408 2% -11% -4% 900009 27,500 26,500 25,000 25,000 29,000 22,000 5% -20% -7% 900010 22,500 23,500 24,000 24,000 25,500 21,200 13% -6% 4% .. ° 19% 900106 19,800 19,400 16,800 17,800 18,600 13,500 -6/0 900108 16,800 15,300 19,100 17,500 18,400 14,200 10% -15% -3% 900109 20,000 20,000 18,000 19,900 19,100 14,200 -5% 17% 900227* 18,496 18,143 18,590 17,513 18,355 15,134 -1% -18% -9% 900016 20,400 18,100 19,600 17,600 15,900 10,300 22% 900066 17,900 15,500 12,800 11,900 12,800 10,600 900642 19,700 22,000 18,300 18,500 19,300 16,500 -2% -16% -9% 900110 32,000 31,500 30,000 28,000 29,000 24,000 -9% -25% -17% ......... 900045 27,000 27,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 18,700 -11o/o i/ a �1 t ;;; 21/° 905040 15,700 16,200 15,400 14,200 14,900 13,700 -5% -13% -9% 900623 14,200 14,900 14,300 15,100 14,600 13,600 3% -4% -1% 905043 16,000 15,000 14,000 15,500 16,000 13,500 0% -16% -8% 900062 14,500 15,000 15,500 15,000 15,000 13,000 3% -10% -3% 905041 29,500 24,000 29,500 28,500 31,000 26,500 5% -10% -3% 905042 13,500 16,500 15,500 16,500 19,500 16,500 44% 22% 33% --------------- 900094 28,500 34,000 32,000 34,500 40,500 30,500 42% 7% 25% 900164* 28,162 29,175 29,001 29,304 29,617 25,578 5% -9% -2% j900200 23,500 20,400 27,000 27,500 33,000 24,500 40% 4% 22% 01 23,500 20,500 23,500 24,000 24,500 22,500 4% -4% 0% Z *Te%metered Site. **Count sites in order from west to east. Data source:FDOT Florida Traffic Online. FOOT , Page L 52 1861 04 co co ry") TMI r\j Ln C) co 4- L/) O vo LU 0 u LLI 0 E 0 0 La 10 G 11"S His 2 0 0 2 S� 0G, t4 41 LL z v 5— j3 U w > �132 0 U 0 LLI IMP E M co co m (V Ln C) co Vol N O ppd a W O V � I eua 4--j ray E I ` � o s a 7 I Q Y � L N O n 'c � O O 1 F u T u ` Y ) e y+m L/,fir � •O � L C a u FQ d P ..I (U LL v Ln y c W — �_ ' o ELU p LU. v 'o W Q 2 L a c E r ! d nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 4.2 Historic Safety If evi w A historical safety review was conducted in the form of a crash analysis using the Signal 4 Analytics (S4) database to summarize crashes within the 500-foot buffer of the US 1 corridor (250 feet on either side of the centerline) from the previous three years of available data (2018 through 2020). General crash trends are summarized below and further detailed in this section. Furthermore, historic crash data from 2014 to 2018 was documented and is available in the US 1 Transportation MasterP/an for Monroe County that was published in 2021. + 4,493 total crashes ranging from 1,200 to 1,645 crashes each year + Approximately 27% of the crashes occurred on Key Largo, 19% occurred in Marathon, and 24% occurred in unincorporated Monroe County (see Figure 4-4 for crash density) + 32 of the crashes were fatal (<1%) and 228 resulted in incapacitating injuries (5%) + 81 crashes involved a bicycle (2%) and 40 crashes involved a pedestrian (1%). Three of the bicycle crashes were fatal and 8 of the pedestrian crashes were fatal. + Most crashes occurred during Daylight (79%) and Clear (83%) weather conditions + The most common type of known crash was Rear End (35%) Figure 4-4 Crash Density A<I9CfFIJT(R iy t P.rk - i Munn-Dade County ' a �.� END Mainland Monroe tiF County 9 STUDY AREA '9J� ca ///%lrio� BEGINS M � Ct• n Lower Key, iil!///1�� A STUDY /fi>ut� � `o-",��i/,/% AREA b/> th.._;..Key West Crash Density,2018-2020 Monroe County Freight Improvement Study High o io 2021 Low ©nue Data source:Signal Analytics database, obtained in September 2021. FDOTI Page L 55 1864 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Of the 4,493 crashes, 32 resulted in fatalities, 1,019 resulted in injuries, 228 of which were classified as incapacitating injuries (Figure 4-5). # The most common type of fatal crash was pedestrian, with 8 total. Other common fatal crash types were Head On (4 crashes), Left Turn (4 crashes), Angle (3 crashes), and Bicycle (3 crashes) # 10 of the crashes occurred in unincorporated Monroe County, 8 in Marathon, 7 Key Largo, and 6 Islamorada # US 1/Knights Key Boulevard and US 1/ Mile Marker 77 both had 2 fatalities each # Most of the fatal crashes (84%) did not occur at an intersection # Nearly half of the fatal crashes (47%) were determined to be related to alcohol, drugs, or distracted driving # 11 fatal crashes occurred during Dark— Not Lighted conditions Figure 4-5 Crash Severity Evergiodes Now ''•,a.. Park (� Miami-Dade County ; a Wf �a I ' END 04 Mainland Monroe 0 f' County �, "`STU DY q.. AREA � eA 'a 0 +Ja to �o o 01 o I BEGIN STUDY I Lowe;rKeys �� o M�atiyo AREA Key West Incapacitating Injuries Fatalities Monroe County Freight. o 1 Improvement Study dl z z. o io 2021 0 3-5 ©nu Data source:Signal 4 Anaiytics database, obtained in September 202 1. FDOTI Page L 56 1865 .,,. nllfm Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 121 of the crashes involved either a bicycle (81 crashes) or a pedestrian (40 crashes) (Figure 4-6). + Three bicycle crashes and eight pedestrian crashes were fatal. None of these fatal crashes were classified as alcohol, distraction, or drug-related. + All three bicycle crashes occurred during daylight conditions. One occurred in Key Largo, one in Marathon, and one in unincorporated Monroe County. Two of these crashes occurred when the bicyclist failed to yield at a midblock or sign-controlled intersection. + Five of the pedestrian crashes occurred during dark — not lighted conditions; two during dark — lighted conditions, and one at dusk. Two occurred in the rain. The pedestrian failed to yield during four of the crashes. One crash was the result of a speeding vehicle. + Key Largo had the most bicycle and pedestrian crashes (34%) followed by Marathon with 28 crashes (23%) Figure 4-6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes EvergbdeS H Marathon Inset O �WVD m y Pc rk i .x Miami-Dade �1 6 County p yyv" PJ u 1 , Islamorada Inset END °�Mtss STUDY 4y 01/1 AREA Key West Inset w0 r� �Y ,s u �.o l t,,LO � aVEF45EA V r bL SAVE Wes ? pry, N� Key Largo Inset u BEGIN STUDY Lower Keys AREA r , I Key West , Miles Monroe County Freight BikelPed Crashes Improvement Study 6 Pedestrian Crash 41 Pedestrian Fatality 2021 Bike Crash Bike Fatality o to :=Mlles Data source:Signal Analytics database, obtained in September 2021. FDOTI Page L 57 1866 nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 ,23 GeIr1&4l Ir sh Chairacteirishcs Crash Type The most common type of crash was rear ends comprising about 35% of total crashes. Off-road and sideswipes were also common crash types with 9% of the crashes each. The least frequent crash types were animal, rollover, and pedestrian (see Figure 4-7). Figure -7 Crashes by Type Rear End 35% Other 1 26% Off Road NONE= 9% S deswilpe =MEN 9% I-eft l-ulnn 8% AIng11e 4% C3ilryde 2% Unknown 2% Head C)In N= 1% NghtlWurin Em 1% Pedestidaln = 1% RcrlHover N1 >1% Alnilimall E >1% n 200 460 660 800 1000 1200 1460 1660 1800 Lighting Conditions Most of the crashes occurred during daylight conditions (79%).Approximately 16% of the crashes occurred in either dark— not lighted or dark— lighted conditions (see Figure 4-8). Figure 4-8 Crash Lighting Conditions Dayllight 79% Dairk- I..ighted 8% Dusk 11 3% LJlniklnowln/C)tIher/Dairk-LJlniklnowln I..igh61ng 1 1% Dawln 1 1% n 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 FDOTI Page L 58 1867 nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Weather Condition A majority of the crashes occurred during clear weather conditions (83%). Approximately 11% of the crashes occurred during cloudy weather conditions, and 5% of the crashes occurred in the rain (see Figure 4-9). Figure 4-9 Crash Weather Condition Gear 83% IIoudy 11% Rain ® 5% Other >1% n 390 1000 1390 2000 2500 3000 3390 4900 Road Surface Condition Most of the crashes occurred during dry road surface conditions (91%). Approximately 8% of the crashes occurred during wet road conditions (see Figure 4-10). Figure -10 Crash Road Surface Condition DryNEENEENNEENEENEENEEM 91% Wet = 8% Uniklnowln/Other 1% IMud, Mrt,Gravd I >1% n 390 1000 1390 2000 2500 3000 3390 4900 4390 FDOTI�7 Page L 59 1868 1if Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 4.3 lExisting Traffic IData andSystem Performance 43,'i A III III L�all Aveer e II:')aiily .Lure(Ific The annual average daily traffic (AADT) data was derived using FDOT's AADT data from 2019. As shown in Figure 4-11, the AADT along US 1 varies between 10,000 and 50,000 vehicles per day depending on the segment. The segments with the heaviest AADT are the ones between Islamorada and Key Largo and on Key West. Figure -11 AADT(2019) o � Now Jd y P.rk r a" �g Miami-Dade �yS Gay t a County r a� .�. END $ Mainland Monroe ,,,' STUDY County t AREA ��ow, o� '�aep4" eia� 1 4�p BEGIN 0 ��'': n STUDY 'i Lnvver Keys aao AREA a�XaA� rv�` Key West Annual Average Daily Traffic(2019) Monroe County Freight 0-5,000 P��w 15,001-20,000 Improvement Study ......................5,001-10,000 20,001-30,000 o io 2021 10,001-15.000 30,001-51.500 ©n'i Data source:FDOT Open Data Hub Annual Average Daily Traffic TDA shapefile, obtained October 2021. FDOTI�7 Page L 60 1869 nllfm Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 4.3,2 A III III L�all Aveer e II:')eiilly 1111uC': T ra(Ific The annual average daily truck traffic data was derived using FDOT's Truck AADT data from 2019. As shown in Figure 4-12, the truck AADT along US 1 primarily ranges between 1,501 — 3,500 trucks (purple).There is a segment in Key Largo that experiences slightly higher truck traffic (3,524, shown in pink). Figure -12 Truck AA DT(2019) I dx�rapbi Miami-Dade County p END Mainland Monroe , . STUDY County =I AREA k 5ti A Q. MN �4 C„ �O BEGIN a4 STUDY LOW21 I�BYS m5267 "'A6 y 3P At„�Y AREA 12yti.y 1 Key West Trutk AADT(2019) Monroe County Freight Improvement Study ............`..0-Soo -1„501-3,500 2021 -501-1,500 3.501-6,000 10M11 s Data source:FDOT Open Data Hub Truck Volume TDA shapefile, obtained in October 2021. FDOTI Page L 61 1870 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 ,33 1.IIRuCk 11'Ieircentage The truck percentage was determined using the T Factor from the 2019 AADT data. As shown in Figure 4-13, truck percentage ranges from about 3% to 17.9%. The segments with the highest truck percentage are between the Lower Keys and Marathon and between Marathon and Islamorada. Figure -13 Truck Percentage,2019 �'d�iTIlAJ5fA1 Su;r {ul'CS n Miami-Dade County � as r END Mainland lMonroe „t,{STUDY County c AREA �19 r 011 0 p, BEGIN Lower Keys r ��on STUDY AREA Key West Percent Trucks(2019 AADT) Monroe County Freight Improvement Study — 1%-49 10.01%-13% •°-•--4.01% 7% *TM^13,01%-17.9% 2021 o a ^^®7.01%-10% ©Miles Data source:FDOT Open Data Hub Truck Volume TDA shapefile, obtained in October 2021. FDOTI Page L 62 1871 nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 43A 1.I1-UCk 11r vO II ttelrins Truck travel patterns can be summarized by the following purposes: # Commercial/Retail Product Deliveries <� Company fleet � Contract trucking Rental truck # Construction < Bulk distribution < Job site delivery < Equipment delivery Trades vehicles y, U # Service Provision ^ �� < Utilities < Emergency (fire, rescue) < Trash < Street cleaning < Home/business repair Truck cargo types can be summarized as the following: # Food and beverages <> Grocers and retail outlets < Restaurants and hotels # Mail and parcels # Fuel (gasoline, diesel, gas) x # Waste (liquid, solid) # Construction r" 1fls��%"01 <� Materials <� Equipment # General retail products # Movers (households, businesses) mt� # Automobiles and boats In 2018, the Monroe County Planning and Environment Resources Department, acting on a Board of County Commissioners resolution, commissioned the Origin-Destination Study, completed in October 2018. Data from that study are summarized in Sections 4.3.5 and 4.3.6 and provide useful insights into the travel and traffic patterns along the US 1 corridor. FDOTI Page L 63 1872 nI wllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 43,5 JOUinney to Work Data The Monroe County Journey-to-Work data is displayed in Figure 4-14 and Table 4-2 below.Zone 1 (Key West) had the most from/to trips with 6,287 trips total comprising approximately 30% of the trips. Most of these trips were within Key West. Zone 2 (Stock Island) had the second highest from/to trips with 2,715 trips, which was about 13% of the total trips. The least frequent from/to trips were Zones 17 (Palm Beach County) with 30 trips and Zone 13 (Miami-Dade County West) with 44 trips. Figure 4-14 Journey-to-Work Analysis Zones Zone 10 Zone tame 1 Key,West a.. 2 Stock Ward ,eeeeeew e...n eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeem 3 Low er .1- �I"71 w, 4 wvwwe^(K s 5 Lower 1 6 Marathon n 8 1MAcram,m1.�'ada..1 5 Key Largo,I IS 1�2 r4orth 13 rw amx -Dade County,-'W t 14 ua a l2,Ltt 22 my Q0tlw .... ... M� aicmo iDad eCa w 8 ¢4arrtl» 16 Brrr,VaUd Bounty, �7 F VmBeachColGn _ ......... 13 OltKBpr 4 rea Table 4-2 Total Monroe CountyJourney-t -Work Flow Frorm/To* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 715 16 17 18 Total 1 5155 554 0 0 10 435 0 35 0 4 0 10 0 0 0 4 0 80 6287 2 1485 1055 0 0 15 50 0 25 10 20 10 0 0 0 20 0 0 25 2715 3 395 270 120 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 10 830 4 264 15 0 80 4 10 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 388 5 654 160 0 40 450 185 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 10 65 1594 6 145 35 0 15 25 1285 185 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 15 0 70 1805 7 14 10 0 10 0 144 235 14 0 14 0 0 0 15 15 35 0 92 598 8 4 30 0 0 0 75 0 780 20 45 15 4 0 120 55 29 10 185 1372. 9 19 25 0 0 0 0 0 275 320 85 0 0 0 60 20 50 4 180 1038 10 0 0 0 0 10 20 0 200 160 720 105 125 0 199 89 100 0 204 1932 11 20 0 0 0 4 30 0 60 49 70 100 70 0 178 35 45 0 20 681 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 235 0 0 0 0 0 114 379 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 30 0 10 44 14 35 65 0 0 0 95 0 65 25 150 14 289 738 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 40 15 90 16 90 20 0 0 15 0 0 15 0 0 01 0 - 140 El7 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 30 8 14 14 0 0 0 25 0 25 0 25 0 0 tal 8329 22531 1201 145 5331 23691 4351 15191 6331 11731 2841 773 0 572 279 278FDOTI 24 1045 20764 �7Page L 64 1873 Mwou Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Origin-Destination (O-D) data analysis was based on navigation- Global Positioning System (GPS) /Location Based Services data provided by a national data vendor. This data source provides access to a vast data set much quicker than any of the traditional data collection methods. The O- D data was derived using 2017 winter GPS data for an average day (Table 4-3). The green cells show the top 10% origin/destinations. The top destinations include Key West (38%), Key Largo (6.2%) and Islamorada 1 (5.4%). Table 4-3 Monroe County Origin-Destination( 17) 2017'M rear GPS IS y(M 5, )AllD,W K. z X,pY VA,YI YiGI/ 1"Fji IX,1,f" 0.44 OBYUI 11.k,� f,V 17", 00`b, 00'*6� CM4"X4 lB f7"n fl}'1., P.4NI 004, ...II 0% CB 0% CI OW {i Mk, Cn£'M�. 0Y0% (CON, 4)M, (l YiWiY 435A STOCK ISflAND C 5l ICr' 01N,� 0..1 00m 00% 00X"0 0Cro4 0Yy"d Y10W, GI]M, COWh 67 TI rv" ?A.fPYr C'.'Ym�....170°N fl rJtlnl 00rh OCVp 009U Y7 YP70 C1 CD'.i 00DIu MPNM .. ... o " 40W'Ep q".EM5ll 7l 02uG 02`4,"1 0:fl9r 0V7'£n On" 00w`"; CY CrY 0Ci"A( l7(t4V 00W,� 040➢k IXCJO 0.0'k 004u 0K0V, 0001 00%, OCafh 170M" ...YY alm 00Bi,� 00YIv 00Wi� q{M!r O.IIOVWIER Mp5P . 1 !" O1W, 0llhi" Y..YX 4YM1 ✓11dr dC.UO'. 00% O'YN4� 0d'vp... WY„uE fP P1% 0?1M 0.C0& OCUN ...OYCK, Cp01,0 rm% 0CV n:I% 0Y7 ITa w qON, GS:A IN,,PINE KIEV )i3',` OCK, CI 0% 01.% IP% 11S 0Cr`I 0991, 0LEN, DC'M 111ON 00% 00 41_.€6K CI u*m1..,fr 0%, N9^fVi� 0O ^7.M7r 006 X0 O'N" D096III, Cl CM 0Cl%; 311%, OWdIR.AdIWf7M,1 PYW' GCAI, 0014,1 0_➢% 0Bred, 1d I2;Y� 02% 0,r AJ 0I% 00% 00% 100 rl d.TM 00,WI 0o% 0C.06� 001% 0 CM 0ON fa TAi 0OTr_,,i, 00% 0CrA, 78%, tlA4RATHON2 u1 PHfr 0OX Owl" C"D% aJ"¢ 1t 1 I"+/.{ 021U ,y YDN' V71'i 0QW,� 00%, 0Y"7 0.(d16 0CY4V1....00% 0f1N'�I Dix" rL r0%, 00Wi ....0 OMj 00%, 13ox, and :e2%. GLAMORACAAI 0.2%, CI 0%, 00% 0,0% P3196 ..v6,2 X, 0IN r,4A 0 rt, Lr TAf .. �i....... ° % OCNffQ G,crmry 884£i , � (V Cb4V"I lb J7C 7 7"U JJ Pac. 0 1 W" 0 vS!4 Cb t106, J 0"1V 0 LM)„ 0 CY4p" ...0 Y}a;' 0 J OSLAMORA0A2 01hP 30�1% 0W(6 0,In a096 ....04]W L1R,; t % Day, 0cv" P01% 00'kl.._LI tM, 0C^foil OCIA, fj.py„�;, LA OM" ...0 lDz 1)0% 0104n (Cff,; 32%' 11J,61 G 1W lJ t"M1r, 914 % 1 A7"r,I Ilt l V i)I"i of3 0UN, 77'N01""I 01%Li 0f,14ur Y ADW 10 w1% KKEM LABCdwrO .. 11Yr, Y.l o+!., nfo4u, �.YBW" noA,, N1rY, arW; nclm��l AUW� 0C:7m urx4G ra lr,r� Y1 nM,. n<rrb � 0d+,1RY4W Kfk LAR yCO 0GK C101�, GCV 4usY 01.&Y 00%f"I 110£6 11 G"rvf1 0dY)V, 00'1, U3"bi mlr", tuGri -H"'l" 0.th, 00H'� fC✓,")h YB f)M� 6t YJh« 00ry," IA Gw, Yy Cn, YC OW,i P1 G46 a'DWI 31'!h s- MMoNlOE CVaW 00"d' 0o'Kj 0fly 0ax' ra0Y Ucw"""r 0( � Ow"I 0n' 0U.4, 0n' uC1N` 0.:Prx" 0D%!" a0% 0f6% 70A'r; 00% 0o%' Jvrn, oo'q, aWY6, aPJ^fYZ r,V.A'✓" tlWIAM�W DADS IP)', u0"%r 0fDW fl'.C@'M 01",$ 0B4Y WBwFg 0wl", ".VrN 1V1'l, 0" wPo% .� A3%f 0AN9Wh�`APo'0 _ 11 P 00Y, Uio YV� vFLru fX OM"I 00M 0C7W, 06Hr 01A4 OJ'"f, 08)b� 0OA _ � � _ � Ct le4" PVALp4tB£AI:IW 0�1# 00M1E OdDN.i 0.(CW u?Yryry fit LYN 1y 09f,: 0dU74 4P01si LYOk, 00N"� 00'W � 1 � J � 0J"N. 00rLrE9� - - era+£ 00M aWwi arr�=w rl awm"f WAH cu aE1` u4N" Usw, acM: - rvYaAI"1 VkE PC Lwf 90R OfDW 0.0W, q0%,� YC01 C96, 00M,` fyCM, 00`, 1, O"J% I.. J _l � a0% CHARIIOTTE _ ovw' JU% 9ux'. lar% aowa JV]if Cuo% 00% tV(Y"P,i G0^N"_ OYJNv td(714 � � i f 010% SARtAAC19A 00"M 00Wf 0u%) C'm ULHI 00w 0 o") 0dU)a 11 MfKI 0. K,C'YAk 004G �_ _� - - 0.11.Ma tlWAUNFu6EE _ 0,1014 0 IN, Ol t.rw� v1.tWM" AR 4Wid 71w� " WOW, OdUL a✓ru C}yo b 0 " d➢Y.¢As_ "� 0J'k00U" TAhPFA AREA 00% U)NI U0W' Pk 1".'4h 0 0"TI G an CI CWl4` L10Po 0(3WCb01R i_ 7 001K DIXECIA 470f 0UK 00%) 0En' aa5" Ya ax 0M'6 00% aaw, 013W" aOW 0ax � 1 � OCYuh DI _ _ 0Ji 0U4 0LVJ aall aAI% Uflf 0M%; L1D Ur% 0L7"A, _ 00% 00f4 � � � _ � _ _ J � J go% CYTH€13'fL 00R 0OV^ 00141 albW 007AI Y00 OL:L; 000% UON,! 0L:W, LU Xtbi UCMi£ - aM Tyr _4A A;L aCG 054Wi P_0h 30M Fd9, 31'"1 8&`A" B.UOI IU i'W" _ aB% 037f CR`?w G_aN6 UU',I. CIS%8 00'411 0CI'M, 0M)5, f.YOM _Iw C3WI 00Mi 0LA96 0F:'0's lEMN 00f 10% _ _ Florida Keys Trip Distribution Table 4-4 displays the distribution of trips ending in each of the Florida Keys zones. As far as airport connections, 3% of external trips were to the Miami airport and 1.5% of external trips were to the Ft. Lauderdale airport. Furthermore, mainland trip share declines with Mile Marker value. Winter 2017 Average Daly Summer 2017. Average Daly Percent of Percent of Trips Percent of Percent of Trips Percent of Percent of within Trips from Trips from within Trips from Trips from Trip Ending Zone Zone Other(Keys Mainland Zone Other Keys. Mainland KEYWEST 85.9% 13.2°% �� 0.9% 84.7% 1.19% � 1.4% STOCK ISLAND 30.2% 69.0% 0.8% 24.3% 74„5% 1.1% LOWER KEYS 1 25.8% 71,4% 2.9% 21,2% 75,2% 16% LOWER KEYS 2 50.3% 47.5% 2.2% 42.9% 543% 2.8% BVG PINE IKEY 61.9% 35,2% 2.9% 51,2% 44,6% 41% MARATHON 1 68.0% 28.2% r7.3 65.2% 30.,9✓0 3.9% MARATHON 2 39.7% 53.0% " 35.7% 54.0% 10.3% ISLAMORADA 1 61.4% 27,2% 57,6% 29.0% 13,4% ISILAMORADA 2 34.2% 54.2% . 31.5% 53.,4% 15.1% FDOTI Page L 65 1874 111 Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Trips To/From the Mainland Trips to/from the mainland are displayed in Table 4-6 and Figure 4-15 below. Approximately 6,900 daily trips were between the mainland and Key West. Few trips were between the Lower Keys and the mainland. The balance of trips were between the area from Marathon northward and the mainland. Table 4-6 Mainland Trips Winter 2017 Average Day Percent of Cumulative Trip Zone Trips Cumulative Percent of Ending Zone from Trips from Trips from Trips from Zone Zone Traffic Mainland Mainland Mainland Mainland 1 Key West 767,000 0.9% 6,900 6,900 26.5% 2 Stock Island 112,000 0.0% 0 6,900 26.5% 3 Lower Keys 1 36,000 0.0% 0 6,900 26.5% 4 Lower Keys 2 69,000 0.0% 0 6,900 26.5% 5 Big Pine Key 73,000 0.2% 200 7,100 27.3% 6 Marathon 1 211,000 0.2% 400 7,500 28.8% 7 Marathon 2 72,000 0.2% 1,400 8,900 34.2% 8 Islamorada 1 156,000 2.0% 31200 12,100 46.5% 9 Islamorada 2 65,000 0.7% 4,500 16,600 63.8% 10 Key Largo 214,000 4.0% 8,500 25,100 96.5% 11 N. Key Largo 55,000 1.6% 900 26,000 100.0% TOTAL 1,830,000 26,000 Figure -l5 Mainland aria Summary Cumulative Trips from Mainland 120.ar Cumulative Percent of Trips from Mainland 30,000 , �tri p� �,�� 1000% 25,0oa All ,9° 20,000 ii Oi ll, 26, % 6,900 trips 0/1 a'/ 60,0% 15,000 oe Upper Keys 40,(r'/ 10,000 ll(' ,; ..�,.. er'Of" 1Ke 5,000 �' 1�" oo�frlliddle Keys L_crwer ,,,,�� tc�cfc Key West Keys o.or 1 z n �� c� a �, �� 1.0 1�. �7Page L 66 1875 1i1 Ilfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Daily Truck Trips to/from The Keys Using 2018 FDOT Streetlight Origin-Destination data, truck trips to/from the Keys and are summarized in the figure below. There were approximately 2,450 truck trips to/from the Keys, 1,404 of which were to/from the Lower Keys. The trip distribution from the mainland was approximately 83%to/from the Upper Keys and 17% to/from the Lower Keys. Mainland truck trips began and ended mostly in Miami-Dade County. There were also 981 truck trips between the Lower and Upper Keys (see Figure 4-16). Figure -16 truck Trips to/from tolfrom the Key, (2018) MONROE COUNTY FREIr HT PLAN-2W8 Dail Truck llri s to North ICe vs District by oriL�in District 0 t 5, i Legend 50 f`EI ,l11,000 .v, CT 10 lull i d / �r lulu iiu uui iiuu iui oiui iiu iuu`il'i oiu luau iui uvuvuvu alai iiii uii i(uiii mm ..vc. ......... ......................................................................... _✓L. .. ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ........... .� ........... ..E...... 43,7 OveiraHHl 1ureffic II atteunlln A prior FDOT District Six study investigated travel patterns on US 1 in Monroe County. That analysis used daily traffic volumes at several locations along US 1 as "control volumes", cross checked by the data utilized in Figure 4-17. The US 1 traffic profile comprises ten overlapping travel demand patterns, as displayed in Figure 4-18. Truck travel patterns generally follow total traffic patterns. The diagram is helpful in understanding the traffic volume contributions of the mainland multiple urban settlements along US 1. Although only an approximation, the pattern map provides insight as to how travelers use US 1. Given that there are approximately 5,000 estimated daily trips between the mainland and Key West, then there are about 500 daily truck trips between the mainland and Key West. FDOTI Page L 67 1876 1itllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Figure -17 US l Bidirectional Daily Travel Demand Patterns MaiiMand Ivey West MatiMand —Key Largoll lla,rnorada 8 MatiMand —IMalrathainl83iig Piilne Ivey 4 Marathion/Ng IPme, IkKey— Key Lalrgoll llarnorada Whey'blest= Ivey Lalrgolt llarnorada, 6 Key Vilest— Marathon 7 Key Vilest= Big Pine Frey 8 Key Vilest - Stoop lMand/ ig Coppitt IKey Lg Marathion/ ig (Pine, KeyIlooall traffic i0 Whey Largloll lalmlorada Ilooall traffic Daily Traffic � ,� �. oue ,,,,,�� .a . �. t I 31 „ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,o ., a , 8 20100001 ill l � N4NMWWWp . tau 10 20, 30 401 50 60 70 80 90 1100 110 12,0 Mile Lmarker FDOT Page L 68 1877 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 5.0 Purpose and Need 5.1 Background The State of Florida has embraced the importance of freight and logistics to the economy of the State. This vision addresses the need for an improved freight infrastructure and logistics system that ensures the mobility of goods and enhancement of the economic prosperity of the State. The Florida Department of Transportation has led the pursuit of this opportunity with major investments in the first-ever statewide Freight Mobility and Trade Plan (FMTP) fully adopted in 2014 and its subsequent 2020 update, innovative programs for employer-driven training and company-specific export developments (Florida: Made for Trade — Florida Trade and Logistics Study 2.0, 2013), the Statewide Truck Parking Study, implementation of strategic transportation infrastructure projects, and multiple other efforts. This subarea freight study is an important step in identifying specific needs and improvements that support the State's vision in elevating its role as a global transportation hub. Monroe County is one of the least populous of Florida's 67 counties with a population near 82,000 people, essentially all of whom reside in the Florida Keys island chain extending from Key Largo to Key West. This population base is entirely depending on goods and commodity movement supported by trucks traversing the US 1 Overseas Highway. The freight logistics scene in Monroe County is a small part of the County's overall economic picture which is dominated by tourism in the form of short-term visitors, seasonal visitors, ecological and natural attractions, sport fishing and marine activity, and a military presence at Naval Air Station Key West. However, freight movements along US 1 are a vital part to the daily lives and commerce of the permanent residents and visiting population. This non-redundant transportation link crucially sustains the services-oriented economy of the Florida Keys. Furthermore, the Miami-Dade 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) has forecast that South County will grow 60% in population and 40% in employment. Per the 2045 LRTP, the City of Homestead is forecast to grow from 66,900 persons in 2015 to 118,900 persons in 2045, an increase of 77.6%, nearly a 2% compounded annual growth rate. Essentially all goods and commodities consumed within the Florida Keys are supplied by trucking from the mainland. Data indicates that the vast majority of those truck trips have their origins or destinations in Miami-Dade County. There is a very small level of package delivery occurring through the Key West International Airport. To guide the study efforts, this purpose and need statement was defined early in the study process. This statement was informed by review of relevant studies and findings, initial input from study area stakeholders, and the team familiarity of the study area. FDOTI Page L 69 1878 oIllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 5.2 IPuwu rpos The aim of this plan is to develop a set of viable improvement concepts to enhance freight connectivity and mobility. To accomplish that, the improvements to be proposed should broadly address these purposes: # Examine freight movement patterns in the study area. # Assess existing and future freight mobility needs. # Identify opportunities for intermodal connectivity. # Mitigate traffic congestion and safety risks. # Investigate opportunities for truck parking sites. # Develop a prioritized list of freight improvement projects. 5.3 INeed The study area is situated along the US 1 corridor in the Florida Keys of Monroe County. Transportation forecasts show that the background traffic volumes are expected to continue to grow at a slow pace, and gradually consuming the latent capacity of the transportation network of today, and over the long-term put further stress on the transportation network. Associated with this growth will be a proportionate growth in truck traffic volumes. The primary freight mobility needs of the study area are to maintain and improve acceptable traffic service along US 1 to facilitate the continued efficient movement of trucks to and from the Florida Keys. The following points expand upon this need statement: # Need to maintain and enhance connectivity to the regional highway system: The principal portals for the study area to and from Miami-Dade County are US 1 and Card Sound Road,with US 1 carrying nearly 90%of the traffic from the mainland. As the primary access corridor for most of the Florida Keys, preserving a quality connection to the mainland for residents and visitors is vital. So doing will benefit the efficient movement of both general traffic and truck traffic. # Congestion is expected to begin to affect traffic operations along US 1. Continued growth in population, employment and visitors to the study area will lead to gradual increases in traffic volumes across the study corridor. Fortunately, the study area does not experience high-volume through traffic. The Monroe County Rate of Growth Ordinance and the traffic concurrency policy work together to manage the pace of new development projects and will mitigate the adverse impact to traffic capacity and service. However, both the travel time analysis and the US 1 Master Plan study identified emerging areas of deficient traffic service that should be addressed. # Infrastructure condition, operations,and safety need to be maintained with growing freight demands. The US 1 roadway corridor serves multiple functions: through traffic, local area traffic circulation, and property access. A key objective should be to maintain these functions with acceptable traffic service, freight demand, and safety conditions within the constraints of Monroe County growth management and traffic concurrency regulations. FDOTI Page L 70 1879 ollfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 # Need to address improved trucking operations. As the study area develops, it is anticipated that the roadway network will become increasingly stressed. It is critical to plan for the companion freight network mobility requirements. There is an opportunity to identify strategic freight mobility projects that will preserve efficiency in trucking movements into the future. It is critical to plan for freight mobility needs within the US 1 corridor. # Need to support the Florida Keys economy and freight efficiency for the tourism- focused economy. The study area relies nearly entirely on trucking for transport of products and supplies. Monitoring of traffic service quality will provide for operational efficiency of trucking movements supporting the Florida Keys economy. FDOTI Page L 71 1880 ollfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 6.0 Roadway Network Analysis The Florida Keys presents an unusual situation from a network scenario analysis standpoint. Under Monroe County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan, growth management provisions stipulate that the level of service standard along US 1 shall be speed-based at 45 mph, as monitored by biennial travel time studies and documented in a report assessing the traffic performance along US 1 as is discussed in further detail in this section. 6.1 Approach The network analysis process for the Monroe County Freight Improvement Plan is to consider existing conditions and future freight growth conditions within the study area. Sources of background information for the scenario analysis include historical traffic count data, data compiled for the Existing Conditions Report; the Southeast Florida Regional Planning Model (SERPM, Version 8.0), the Florida Statewide Model (FLSWM), referred to herein as the Travel Demand Model (TDM) and whose coverage includes the Florida Keys; and the recently completed US 1 Master Plan, performed for Monroe County with the participation of FDOT. The SERPM provides information in terms of external stations in its networkjust south of Florida City on US 1 and Card Sound Road, while the FLSWM included Monroe County in its network coding. This background data will be used to assess traffic service conditions in the primary study area, in terms of existing and future peak period traffic volumes. The intent of the analysis is to test the network with alternative freight-related conditions to identify the extent of capacity needs for the transportation roadway network and to test prospective improvements that would address linkages that would enhance freight mobility or reduce congestion that would otherwise restrict the movement of goods. The study area is focused on US 1 throughout Monroe County, between Roosevelt Blvd. and the Miami-Dade County Line. Per the scope of services, 10 turning movement counts and 10 classification counts were performed along this segment at locations outside of the City of Key West. To supplement this analysis, intersections along US 1 within the City of Key West were examined in the recently completed US 1 Master Plan and are generally highly constrained in terms of opportunities for capacity improvements. FDOTI Page L 72 1881 ollfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 The count locations are listed below: Turning Movement Counts Count No. Location Mile Marker 1 US1 @ Cross Street 4.4 2 US1 @ MacDonald Avenue 4.5 3 US1 @ Crane Boulevard 19.5 4 US1 @ Key Deer Boulevard/Wilder Road 30.5 5 US1 @ 107th Street Gulf 52.6 6 US1 @ 109th Street Gulf 52.7 7 US1 @ Bessie Drive 90.5 8 US1 @ Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue 99.5 9 US1 @ Tarpon Basin Drive 101.4 10 US1 @ Key Largo School 105.0 Classification Counts Count No. Location Mile Marker 1 US1 West of Boca Chica Channel Bridge 5.9 2 US1 East of Big Coppitt Key 11.0 3 US1 West of Cudjoe Key/Pirates Cove Bridge 20.5 4 US1 East of Big Pine Key 33.5 5 US1 West of Aviation Boulevard 51.0 6 US1 Over Key Vaca Cut/North of Marathon 53.2 7 US1 East of Duck Key 62.0 8 US1 East of South Islamorada 84.0 9 US1 East of North Islamorada/Tavernier Creek 90.8 10 US1 over Marvin D. Adams Waterway/Cut 103.6 The freight planning scenarios and resource planning documents produced by Monroe County are described in the following sections. FDOTI Page L 73 1882 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 6 'i "i Monroe COU111ty 11r ((iic 0111 :u. iri-envy Il'ZegL llafiions It is important to understand the context of traffic service and traffic concurrency evaluation in Monroe County on US 1. The following narrative is an excerpt from the 2023 US l Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County, Florida: This report contains the results and findings of the 2023Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (ATTDS). The primary objective of this study is to determine the Level of Service (LOS) on US 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Monroe County Land Development Regulations and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. US 1 (Overseas Highway) is the only principal arterial serving residents and visitors in the Keys.The unique geography, land use patterns and trip making characteristics of the Florida Keys present a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable method to assess LOS. Although US 1 in the Florida Keys is predominantly an uninterrupted, two- lane roadway, its uniqueness warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process to the methodology provided in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The study methodology was developed by the US 1 Level of Service Task Force in 1993. The methodology established a procedure for using travel speed as a means of assessing the LOS and reserve capacity for US 1. The study methodology was modified by the US 1 LOS Task Force in 1997 and 2021 (see Monroe County Resolution 64-2021) to account for the latest changes in the HCM. Both Monroe County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C Standard for US 1. Further,45 miles per hour(mph) has been adopted as the LOS C Standard for the entire length of US 1 regardless of the posted speed limits. Under the adopted growth management process, if the overall LOS for US 1 falls below the LOS C Standard, then no additional land development will be allowed in the Florida Keys, unless mitigation measures are proposed to address the LOS deficiencies. Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies along US 1 on an annual basis from 1991 to 2013; and on a biennial basis since 2013. The data collection for years 1991 through 1996 was conducted by the Monroe County Planning Department, with assistance from the Monroe County Engineering Department, and the FDOT. Consulting firm URS and later AECOM have collected the data for years 1997 through 2021, on behalf of the Monroe County Planning Department with assistance from the agencies identified above.This report contains the travel time/delay data and findings for the year 2021.The US 1 ATTDS's primary objective is to monitor the level of service on US 1 for concurrency management purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Section 114 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations and the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Although US 1 is predominantly an uninterrupted two-lane roadway, the US 1 Level of Service Task Force felt that due to US 1's uniqueness, it warrants an alternative LOS evaluation process to that found in the HCM. The US 1 Level of Service Task Force was formulated in 1992 to develop a methodology for US 1 that utilizes an empirical relationship between the volume-based capacities and the speed-based LOS. The US 1 Level of Service FDOTI Page L 74 1883 nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Task Force was a multi-agency group with members from Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Department of Economic Opportunity (formerly known as Florida Department of Community Affairs - DCA). The methodology established by the task force is a procedure for using travel speed as a means of assessing the level of service and reserve capacity for US 1. Each member organization of the Task Force has endorsed the methodology. The US 1 Level of Service Task Force met in 1997 to re-evaluate the LOS procedure. After several meetings, the Task Force concluded that the speed-based LOS methodology should be used to assess the LOS along US 1 in Monroe County, with a minor change. The signal delay for LOS C was increased to 25 seconds from 15 seconds to account for changes in the HCM. The study methodology was modified again by the US 1 LOS Task Force in 2021 and the signal delay for LOS C was increased to 35 seconds from 25 seconds to account for the latest changes in the HCM. Another change made by the 2021 US 1 Level of Service Task Force includes how the drawbridge delay is considered in the LOS calculations. Pursuant to Section 114-2(a)(1)(a) of the Land Development Code (LDC), US 1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C for the overall length and the 24 roadway segments of US 1, as measured by the US 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology. Both Monroe County and the FDOT have adopted a LOS C standard for US 1. The Level of Service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on US 1 in Monroe County, as adopted by the Task Force, is as follows: # LOS A: 51.0 mph or above # LOS B: 50.9 mph to 48 mph # LOS C: 47.9 mph to 45 mph # LOS D: 44.9 mph to 42 mph # LOSE: 41.9 mph to 36 mph # LOS F: Below 36 mph In addition, all segments of US 1, as identified in the US 1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be impacted by a proposed development's access to US 1, shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at LOS C. Section 114-2(a)(1)(b) of the LDC states, development may be approved, provided that the development in combination with all other permitted developments will not decrease travel speed by more than five percent (5%) below LOS C, as measured by the US 1 Level ofService Task Force Methodology. While development may be approved within 5% of LOS C, the proposed development shall be considered to have an impact that needs mitigation. Development mitigation may be in the form of specific improvements or proportioned shared contribution towards improvements and strategies identified by 2021 —US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study Monroe County, the County, and/or FDOT to address any level of service degradation beyond LOS C and/or other potential deficiencies. FDOTI Page L 75 1884 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Although there has never been a countywide development restriction, Big Pine Key experienced a localized development restriction between 1994 and 2002. Following the 2012 LOS evaluation,the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners(BOCC) directed the planning staff to re-write the LDC to remove the segment-based development restriction, but after further consideration between the BOCC and County staff, it was not implemented. In 2016 Monroe County adopted the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and its implementing Land Development Code which maintained the overall and segment-based LOS for transportation concurrency. It is recommended that the methodology for the Monroe County Freight Improvement Plan should consider this growth management framework as it relates to scenario analysis and potential improvement strategies. 6,. ,2 US "i II asteur IlDlan The US 1 Transportation MasterP/an for Monroe County was completed in July 2021. The master plan identifies transportation needs, goals/objectives, and an action plan to meet those goals. The recommendations incorporate physical and technology-based actions to address traffic safety, operations, and roadway improvement projects. The study evaluated existing conditions using 2019 traffic data from FDOT count stations and the 2020 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, on a segment LOS basis. For future year conditions, the plan evaluated other traffic forecasts including the SERPM external station on US 1 south of Florida City, the FLSWM US 1 traffic assignments (for 2015 and 2045), and the FDOT traffic trend analysis tool (Version 03) applied to historic traffic count station data. The plan also reviewed the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population projections for Monroe County to 2045 which includes low, medium, and high forecasts ranging from -0.5% to 0.6% annual growth rate. These various sources found annual long-term growth rates ranging from flat to approximately 0.6%/year. The plan determined that the "adjusted" Decaying Exponential Growth rate from the traffic trend analysis tool was appropriate for the base forecast condition, and which varied over groups of road segments based on the individual segment growth rate results. To provide a contrasting stress test of the network, the plan also assumed a higher 1%/year growth rate to 2045 for all road segments. For each growth situation, the daily segment traffic volume was compared to LOS thresholds from the Quality/Level of Service Handbook to determine the nominal resulting LOS. Segments with underperforming LOS (relative to the standard of LOS C), along with field observations of existing operational problem areas, were then considered for potential improvement actions. This approach was considered as a way to identify where LOS degradation could be expected to occur in the future, and then to determine what operational improvements could be considered to remedy those situations. In effect, it is a surrogate to identify more geographically specific target locations for operational actions that should in turn ameliorate forecasted reductions in the FDOTI Page L 76 1885 mallu Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 effective travel speeds over that segment of roadway. It is noted that this was a multimodal plan, so proposed corridor improvement actions consider transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes, as well as other safety and operational actions like lighting, drainage, and landscaping. The County has reviewed and prioritized with its jurisdictional partners the study's nearly 200 improvement proposals to a priority list of 36 projects. This list has 12 Primary Priority Recommendations and 24 Secondary Priority Recommendations. This list of projects is provided in Appendix C. The nature of these priorities is summarized below: • Primary Priority Recommendations: o Roadway-related: 3 projects o Traffic operations and management: 5 projects o Transit and multimodal: 4 projects o Total 12 projects • Secondary Priority Recommendations: o Roadway-related: 5 projects o Traffic operations and management: 5 projects o Transit and multimodal: 14 projects o Total 24 projects It is observed that the methodology for the Monroe County Freight Improvement Plan should consider the analysis of this plan as it relates to network scenario analysis and potential improvement strategies. 6, l3 Network Ai4ysis �'Illanning Approach and Scelnairr os This section describes the approach to conducting the roadway network analysis, including the freight planning scenarios, basic assumptions, and methodology. The analysis includes 2021 existing conditions and 2045 future conditions. This approach builds on the analysis and findings of the US 1 Transportation Master Plan and has these features: # Maintains consistency with the analysis methodology of the recent US 1 Transportation Master Plan which confirmed the relatively low-growth setting of US 1 in the Florida Keys, resulting from the traffic concurrency regulation and growth management policies. # Avoids unnecessary duplication of analysis so resources can be directed toward extending the analysis from 2019-2040 period to the 2021-2045 timeframe. # Allows more detailed analysis of selected signalized intersections and coordination with the priority recommendations derived from the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. # Permits additional consideration of improvement actions with freight-related benefits. The purpose of this section is to present the approach to performing this analysis of the roadway network within the study area. Specifically, this methodology for roadway network analysis FDOTI Page L 77 1886 ollfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 addresses the scope requirements in terms of travel demand analysis and associated network deficiencies. The unique nature of US 1 in Monroe County means that truck traffic is mixed within general traffic for the length of the corridor, with no real freight districts along the corridor. For this reason, consideration of freight movements is necessarily embedded within the analysis of the general traffic analysis. The future planning conditions are developed around the following three scenarios per the scope of services, in terms of increasing impact on the transportation network: Growthcea : # Overview: Assumes no growth in traffic volumes over the planning period. # Demand: Assumes no change in traffic volumes (0%/year growth rate). # Network: Existing and committed roadway improvement projects per the FDOT Five-Year Work Program. 2. Trend GrowthScenario: # Overview: Assumes growth in traffic volumes over the planning period follows the historical patterns of growth using an adjusted Decaying Exponential Growth trend that varies by section of roadway. # Demand: Assumes trend growth change in traffic volumes as growth rate varies by segment per the US 1 Master P/an analysis. Truck traffic growth taken to be proportional to general traffic growth (% trucks remains fixed). # Network: Existing and committed roadway improvement projects from the FDOT Five- Year Work Program. Potential improvement actions. Growth3. High cea : # Overview: Assumes growth in traffic volumes over the planning period is stipulated at 1%/year across all segments. Includes existing and committed roadway improvement projects per the FDOT Five-Year Work Program. # Demand: Assumes a flat 1%/year change in traffic volumes across all segments (1%/year growth rate) from the US 1 Master Plan analysis. Truck traffic growth taken to be proportional to general traffic growth whereas the % trucks remains fixed). # Network: Existing and committed roadway improvement projects from the FDOT Five- Year Work Program. Potential improvement actions. FDOTI Page L 78 1887 nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 6.'°�A 'Zoa way INetwork Ai4ysis Il ethoddl g This section describes the approach to conducting the roadway network analysis, including the basic methodology, and a summary of the additional truck trip volumes to be tested on the network according to the methodology. This methodology for roadway network analysis addresses the scope requirements in terms of travel demand analysis and associated network deficiencies. The roadway network analysis methodology was developed to support the definition of the freight planning scenarios described in Section 6.1.3. Travel a ( ) and OtherData Collection The following information was compiled for use in the analysis process: 1. Base year and forecast year traffic volumes on roadway segments. 2. Traffic volume growth (base year and forecast year) information. 3. Review of relevant information in the FLSWM and the SERPM. 4. Strategic Intermodal System cost-feasible and unfunded network. 5. Other projects in planning by public agencies but not yet programmed. 6. Total volume, truck volume, percent trucks. 7. Segment level volume/capacity and level of service. 8. Other report and data sources as may be identified. Networka yss Methodology 1. Base Year Network Performance Evaluation (2021) a. Utilize a segment-based capacity analysis patterned after the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. b. Utilize the 10 new 2021 study traffic classification counts where applicable, and the latest available Florida Traffic Online count data, adjusted as needed to 2021. c. Evaluate segment LOS using updated traffic data and based on the use of the 2020 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, as applied in the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. d. Identify any underperforming segments (less than LOS C). e. Compare congestion/delay/LOS issues between the US 1 Transportation Master Plan volume-based LOS analysis and the speed-based LOS concurrency methodology in the 2023 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study(ATTDS) to assess the extent of consistency between the two. Formulate appropriate observations on the comparison. FDOTI Page L 79 1888 nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 f. Perform SYNCHRO analysis of 10 signalized intersections with 2021 AM and PM peak period traffic counts, using traffic signal timing data obtained from FDOT. g. For any resulting intersection operational deficiencies, identify potential improvement actions, correlated with proposals from the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. 2. No Growth Scenario (2045): a. Utilize a segment-based capacity analysis patterned after the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. b. Accept 2021 volumes as 2045 daily traffic volumes (an assumed 0%/year growth factor). c. Evaluate segment LOS using the 2045 daily traffic volumes and based on the use of the 2020 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, as applied in the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. d. Identify any underperforming segments (less than LOS Q. e. Perform SYNCHRO analysis of 10 signalized intersections with 2045 AM and PM peak period traffic counts. f. For any resulting operational deficiencies, identify and test potential improvement actions correlated with proposals from the US 1 Transportation Master Plan, 3. Trend Growth Scenario (2045): a. Utilize a segment-based capacity analysis patterned after the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. b. Apply the trend growth factors as developed in the US 1 Transportation Master Plan to the base year segment volumes to derive 2045 volumes. c. Evaluate segment LOS using the 2045 forecast daily traffic volume and based on the application of the 2020 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, as applied in the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. d. Identify any underperforming segments (less than LOS Q. e. Perform SYNCHRO analysis of 10 signalized intersections with extrapolated 2045 AM and PM peak period traffic counts, based on corridor growth factors. f. For any resulting operational deficiencies, identify and test potential improvement actions correlated with proposals from the US 1 Transportation Master Plan, FDOTI�7 Page L 80 1889 o1llfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 4. High Growth Scenario (2045): a. Utilize a segment-based capacity analysis patterned after the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. b. Apply 1%/year growth factor to the base year segment volumes to derive 2045 volumes. c. Evaluate segment LOS using the 2045 forecast daily traffic volume and based on the application of the 2020 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, as applied in the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. d. Identify any underperforming segments (less than LOS Q. e. Perform SYNCHRO analysis of 10 signalized intersections with extrapolated 2045 AM and PM peak period traffic counts. f. For any resulting operational deficiencies, identify and test potential improvement actions correlated with proposals from the US 1 Transportation Master Plan. Matrices were developed to summarize the segment analysis for each scenario, and to present proposed improvements to provide project-related information, project impacts and costs to illustrate the importance of alternatives for ultimate recommendation. 6.2 INetwork II...OS Analysis 6 �ExiisV:ing C II"1dffions Ai4ysis Intersection Analysis The following ten intersections were analyzed using the SYNCHRO 11 traffic analysis software. All intersections below are signalized except for the last one in the list. # US 1 at Cross Street # US 1 at MacDonald Avenue # US 1 at Crane Boulevard # US 1 at Key Deer Boulevard # US 1 at 107' Street # US 1 at 109' Street # US 1 at Bessie Drive/Sunshine Avenue # US 1 at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue # US 1 at Tarpon Basin Drive # US 1 at Key Largo School Exit (unsignalized intersection) The 10 intersections are depicted in Figure 6-1. FDOTI Page 4 81 1890 n Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Figure '-l Intersection Traffic Count Locations Ir i � N " l° mniJu ylllla p9ir Vlao 7 /u,< �"/. " �muv�Pf✓vlJ%�jfjffr✓yJJI / � �✓9' � � / � �"w ,,,,, r rf,' / ✓�'0 a d4 ° /ol Y - ✓ yr ,a, �11�(�l/lll�0/P��f�p'b'MVJ��/O/�r�i✓�1Y1� ✓ j � '�,,^ /� j/ ,� _ w //%/i/gR✓IIHa✓ �a //� f �ty51 � r P, wl✓ /j��' `rh� w��, y� f� NI 1%�'�/ ''!� /�, ., Po'a �ti, 4 r mP 2Y Veil Ipi�/ f Ol a��0 FYI � // �`�� uN I✓ � � .;� ��di: n Y low i r%✓/ M' mlt'a W" �� ON // / , �rI INN "Vq wo-.N✓v rGrl✓/Pi„//f yir i "�fo ,J; �XVr :'.. -err I .. � � �� , r a" ,,;,� M°d➢r r ri I� �✓ r Source:Google maps. AM and PM peak hour counts were adjusted using the appropriate seasonal factors and signal timings from FDOT were input in the Synchro model. The LOS results for these intersections are summarized in Table 6-1. Traffic counts and signal timing data are provided in Appendix A. Table 6-12021 Intersection LOS A US 1 at Cross Street EB/WB C B US 1 at MacDonald Avenue EB/WB B� B US 1 at Crane Boulevard EB/WB B� B US 1 at Key Deer Boulevard EB/WB B� B US 1 at 107th Street EB/WB A B US 1 at 109th Street EB/WB B� B US 1 at Bessie Drive/Sunshine Avenue NB/SB C B US 1 at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue NB/SB US 1 at Tarpon Basin Drive NB/SB B� B US 1 at Key Largo School Exit (unsignalized intersection) NB/SB All of the signalized locations demonstrated very good LOS results except for the US 1 at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue intersection with a more complex layout, where LOS D was found for the PM peak period. The US 1 at Key Largo School Exit location has LOS F due to excessive delays for exiting traffic attempting to make left turns. FDOTI Page L 82 1891 1illfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Segment Analysis The segment analysis consisted of analyzing the daily capacity compared to the 2021 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADTs) for 110 segments in the US 1 corridor.The segments were assigned a base capacity using values from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 2020 Quality Level of Service(QLOS) Handbook The capacities were then adjusted for each segment based on its facility characteristics, truck percentages, and speed. The 2021 AADTs used for each segment were based on growing the 2019 AADTs from the US 1 Transportation Master Plan or, if applicable, using the 2021 AADTs for the ten locations where daily vehicle classification counts were collected for this study. Depending on the facility characteristics of each segment,the QLOS Handbook assumed a posted speed limit. The adjusted capacities were modified based on the difference between the default speed from the QLOS Handbook and the posted speed limit for each segment. The impact to capacity was based on Exhibit 12-38, the "Maximum Service Flow Rates for Multilane Highway Segments Under Base Conditions" table, from the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM) 6t" Edition. Truck percentages were adjusted based on the difference between the default truck percentage assumed by the QLOS Handbook and the truck percentage for each segment. Capacity for segments with a higher truck percentage than the default value from the QLOS Handbook was decreased. The impact to capacity was based on calculations from the Simplified Highway Capacity Calculation Method for the Highway Performance Monitoring System by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). A summary of the 2021 LOS analysis for the 110 segments is provided in Table 6-2. The results of this analysis methodology shows LOS results alternating between acceptable and unacceptable values over the length of the corridor. In some cases, the LOS is only marginally LOS D but is so reported. The main areas of unacceptable LOS are summarized as follows: Mile Marker Range Location LOS Results # MM 0.0 — 10.7 Central Key West and part of Stock Island Mostly LOS E and F # MM 10.7— 27.8 Coppitt and Torch Key Mostly LOS D # MM 27.8— 31.1 Torch and Big Pine Key Mostly LOS F # MM 38.6—48.4 Ohio Key to Marathon LOS D # MM 56.4— 65.7 Grass, Duck and Conch Keys LOS D # MM 67.3 — 73.7 Long, Fiesta and Craig Keys LOS D # MM 79.7— 90.1 Upper Matecumbe and Windley Keys Mostly LOS D # MM 87.7— 90.1 Plantation Key LOS E # MM 96.4— 99.5 Key Largo near Atlantic Blvd. LOS D # MM 106.3 — 112.5 Key Largo and Cross Key LOS E and F Traffic service on US 1 in Key West is generally problematic due to the level of traffic and constraints to adding traffic capacity. Similarly, the southern part of US 1 on Stock Island carries heavier traffic with widening not permitted under growth management regulations. The two-lane sections on the final two segments are critical segments where capacity is inadequate for the FDOTI Page L 83 1892 ollfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 traffic demands at times. It is further noted that this analysis is performed on a daily traffic capacity basis. Variations in how traffic is distributed over a typical day when compared to the analysis input parameters utilized can affect the resulting LOS values calculated and observed. FDOTI�7 Page L 84 1893 co Y:°7a w w w w w w w w w w U u w uu uu M°Yd M°Yd M°Yd M°Yd M°Yd l.n 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O O O o O O O O O O O o o O O O O O O O O O O O N � o v_ r- r- r- m m m rn m N Lo Lo Lo Lo v v v v v v v � O �f Lo Lo Lo Lri Lri Lri Lri Lri (v � N N N N N N N N � m N N O N In In Iq m m Ul N N N O N N U. a-'' O O O O O O O O O m O O O O O O m O O O N a--+ NC C O V M m U,) lD I- r- M N Ln - N U,) CO I" Cl m m U. I� � O O O N nm V V 00 0l 0l 0i O O V V V L O i C L LL m 00 V V n n o o O m o_ o o O O O O O O O O U O U 72 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � N (p a N O \ p O L O w CO C m m d -j > p7 p7 O O p` p C w � � N j, a>i a>i a L O ZZ -� -o o o ; O °c O O a D Q E O w t o o Q o C Y o 0 O pc > O n mo) C o o o O m O O i mC w° � o � � m cn 0:: w w 0:: w w c�j 72 � m 0 72 ° o 72 \ O V C m L w w c C hh G O i � 0) � a � — - O ? a�i �n NO C Q � 0' (>p i N V OO OO > D 'O C CL Y ° Y w ° V V t o o c t ° ° m Q m 0) N ° o o o V m o 0 0 0 } O O o m o 0 E L C L N E O ° o o -o ® Ll a n cn V cn � w m w w w 0 a> a> a> > > > > > L C C C E 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N E E O O O O O L 7 7 7 0' d' N N N > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > F Z Z Z Z Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl U,) lfl lfl lfl L\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 l\1 lfl l\1 co 00 (1) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O co m (v 0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 M M M M M M M M M 6l 6l 6l CO CO CO CO CO CO N N l0 N U. CO I� N N Cl M M M lq Ul U. N N N l.fl a-'' O N O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N a--+ 2 .... ... CN C lD N lfl O I- m O M N Lr) CO lD lfl lD N lD CO N N �6 of of o o ryi rri v v Lf� r-_: r-_: r-_: co co 0; 0; o 6 6 6 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M O i C a--+ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N � e L LL 4' O N 2 V O O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O i O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N m O d _ _ t Q p 0 w �Q O Oo Q c o� 2 � 0:: d m J V Q 2 O O �n > V m C W > C m C 0 0 C V O7 0::t ° o m o ° Q o o o ° O Q ° Q c o ° N o o Q 5) co E V c co co co co co co t > co o co co c w V) w` w > w w O w m > m a' w V m > a J w V V) N N L _ N N O � O � O w 0:: V >� i 72 N L N N m t Q p° w 72 Q o O Q ) n V) m V) j O O 2 cn Z E -O cn V Q 2 O O V) W V m C O °' t O o m U V) U ?> w w c ° > m T o U ) c �� w cn w w w > w m d J w V cn N " _� 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 L _� _� 27 27 27 27 2 7 2 7 27 27 N N N N N N N N N N N N N (p N N N N N N N N N N > > > > > > > > > > > > O O O O O O O O O O O O O > O O O O O O O O O O — — 0 — Un Un I I I I I I I I Un vn Un Un Un Un Un Un Un Un co 00 (.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o co m (v N N N N 6l 6l t t t tr O O O O O O N N N N N N 6i 6i 6i 6i u) u) u) Lfn Lfn Lfn 00 00 00 00 00 00 N N N nl rn m co O v N N N O co rl� co rl� m O nl N O v v a-'' O O O O 6l O O O O O N O O N a--+ N E co O nl Lo co O v Lo 0 0 co Lo v v v r- rn rn m N r`i ryi Lfi Lfi r; r-.: co co co co co 0; o �* n v Lo Lo r; 0; 0; o nl nl nl nl nl nl nl nl Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Lo Lo O E 4- a® ® N N m N N N N N N N N N N N N L LL 0 N O Lo � in in V in O O V V OU') V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 m m m m m m m m Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn 0) o o 5) .° ii o O C m �6 Y C .� W \ C o > w V> Z �_ N Y O O O 'O 'O > m Y O d E > > C a v n i w E m m O m O d > V z t o O T Y o Y 2 C N O O L Y L 0) t6 V V) 0) V d O O Q c`o LL `° d "' :o V O o c `o Oo t t o o o m V E o T o c V O 2 Q co O O c c p O p Y m p cn Z w t n m o c c L� V O Oo N O .cO W c0 � > O pO o a o cn w a _ a Lo m nw m n w w V Z a o vO V 0) CIE O C o °E O E w t z E Y Q O L O Ln LE d C C C m Y C w \>. W C > > �_ V N L N O O 'O > 'O Y t6 V d E O °' V O O d o -V oL i7o C O L � Y- V m - V — oo O O O m m cn > cZ�no - 0) 0) m C ° _ o o i 2 - 0 � Y 0 0 = 0o O> c E oi4E E LU V nL nLL LU N mcn c L cn > cn CT >> c LL cn L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L 27 _T _T _T _T _T _T _T _T _T _T _T _T T 27 27 27 27 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Lr) Lr) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl L.fl do do do do V) V) co 00 00 (.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o co m N -- -- C rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO CO N N CO CO CO V V V V V V V V V O O O O O O O N N m N m N m m Lo m N rl� �q U-) U-) N m a-'' O N O O LO O O O O O O O N O m O O O O O O N a--+ CN C CO Ol I— LT m lD lD I— Lfl lD Ol m lD N U') I— V CO O LD O U') I— (1) N N Ln Ln r r m m V V V l6 t6 r r 0l O m V V Ln Ln Ln > L9 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 I— r r r r CO CO CO CO CO CO CO Q i C a--+ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � e L m N n fl w Lei O V Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln �D �D Lfl Lfl Lfl Lfl �D �D �D �D �D �D �D �D �D �D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z U O O in w C O O 2 co co N LU Y LU ° V 0 x O 2 V C 0 w t> LU : t LU w > J Y `° Y Y a °' ,y >, V tp ° tp tp m O 'O LU cn Y co 0 0) m � �' t > V V c o uo ° 2 �_ a n z J J V n n C p > > ° G O ° n cy cy > o > 0 o c 0 o m o o o c O ° c c o o ° o ° o Y N in O C .� in in °' O J N O O ° O C m incr V -O CO N in p N in N -O Y Ln 'O 6l 'O -p 07 m 'O m in p in N N V �6 C �6 l.fl (p O 6l N L C L �p �6 L �6 w w a LD w a V w l7 w �j a m e m o m V w V w w w .� �j m w 72 m o m C u o w 0 m Y w V O X N 2 O LU O LC O \ , N N m LC > 'O L 2 N N a > LU � o Luc , u p o m c a V 2 > V) O > O a Y Y LU >� m LUO) V V O p) L > V N in m N 2 -O C Y V C N O O (p ° _ O m _ O O O O ° _ NO t6 0 O C N ate+ O C C 0 t6 p t6 ° N N O N N N Q J N in -O W in O 0 N in N � y� Lfl 6l -p cp -O in 0 in Ln cp ® > (p C l.fl > (p C (p (p > I� 6l — N L C L (p (p >> C xl LU LU lD > Lu a V w > LU > H r r O m V Lu V LU w Lu O > Ln 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 _ _ _ _ _ O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> O> Will > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > co a) co 0 0 uu g co co O O 0 0 U U U U U w uuu� r 00 (., O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O co m c c O O o o O O o 0 0 0 0 ov Ov Oro NO 0 o M M r o - of rn rn v N N N N m m m m m m m m N N N U. V cq c0 m O O v Lq cq N N O a-'' O N N O O m m m O O m N o O �0 N a--+ NC C O N I— N U') O V In J) 00 m m U. N � � r O (V M l0 l0 6i 6i 6i M l0 l0 l0 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 m m O O O O Q i C � e L LL N m N O V V V LL O 00 LL 00 O O O V O O � V bpi bpi bpi bpi � 6pi bpi Q O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Z V a 0 w O O M w c w w m O V) m V V N 2 � (p C >' >' V Lr) -O 27) j .V N N O O > > o o m > m t o Q 0 3 3 O E ® C cp -2 � o` _ = m m a am � m a m V C w tp Y V a o � w > >, m z Ln c M w m w Q -O O -O °] � _ zT p7 ate+ m t6 V (p � V Z 0 Ln C C V T V w p J J O m OCDLu 4 o > J o > m >O m > m t 0 O O O O C O N O O w N C cp N N C O C CD �n N J 0 O M7 6�l 7 O i 7 w C ® w o` 2 a m a a) v m a J w 0 t t t t t t t t t t s s s s t t d tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT tT 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o — — — — — ai V O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 C l.fl l.fl l.fl l.fl l.fl l.fl l.fl l.fl lr) lr) lfl lfl lfl U') U') U') 0 V cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn � N nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Intersection Analysis Traffic analysis was completed for the same three future growth scenarios that were assumed for the segment analysis.. The Synchro models were used to analyze these three scenarios and the LOS results are summarized in Table 6-3. Table 6-4 tabulates the 2045 intersection failing movements. Table 6-3 2045Intersection LOS Without improvements J e� bJB - b b US 1 at Cross Street Egg B US 1 at MacDonald Avenue Eg/Wg B B B B B B US 1 at Crane Boulevard Eg/Wg B B B B B B US 1 at Key Deer Boulevard Eg/Wg B B B B B B US 1 at 107th Street Eg/Wg A B A B B B US 1 at 109th Street Eg/Wg B B B B B B US 1 at Bessie Drive/Sunshine Avenue NB/SB B B B B B B US 1 at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue Ng/Sg B B B US 1 at Tarpon Basin Drive NB/SB B B B B B B US 1 at Key Largo School Exit F. F F F F F (unsignalized intersection) NB/SB In summary, across all intersections for all scenarios: >� n # AM peak: Overall intersection remains at LOS C or better. d # PM peak: Overall intersection remains at LOS C or better, except for PM peak at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue in Key Largo. # LOS remains acceptable LOS on US 1 approaches 'l # Some traffic delay issues occur on US 1 left turn lanes and side street approaches.FDRT Page 90 1899 a E 0 0 0 J m m m N ® J J 6l 0 ® m m .........., cv z co � a 4- +, J m m O m J J L In co >m C a--+ 2 L LL � J m m 0 ? 5 5 U ® m J J In >m> >m> O 0 m m m * m * m m m m z z m m N N m m � m � m m a s m m m m in in m m N N d in d in. N m ® m m Z Z J J ED ED N N COv m m m m N m m J J >> >> m m 6 0 z z m � CO CO m z Z Z -i -i cm Z co m m m m w w w w w w ® c cl� J � � ® co m m CO CO m J m m ® m � � N m m � m � m � m � m m ® z J m m m m m m m N N a N a N N t m m t ® Z m Z Z m m m m N N z Z ~ m ~ m m � m N m m m ® v) v) m m � m � � m � z LU m ® z J J cp Z 06 m m m W W W W W 14 J m CO CO CO ? CO co mm � mm � m � m � m � � - mm m m m m in n m i m m in in d in d in in m C ® Z Z z z J J N m In In cp cp J J J Nco co C6 O J J J m m Z N Z Z m LU m 3: m 3: Z 3: 3: 3 ® m Z m m m m W W W V W W N e � s ® Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a Q a o y p m p r r N w Q C > Q.'X G.� t p � Q � � cn c� w � Y CO +� c a of in ++ p y N > > > > I.- cn p A p Y > > r p p p m y ® N M � co O Q m nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Segment Analysis The AADTs for all 110 segments were projected for three future scenarios: 2045 No Growth Scenario, 2045 Moderate Growth Scenario, and 2045 High Growth Scenario. The 2045 No Growth Scenario did not assume any general traffic growth but did assume growth in truck percentages for the segments. Trends in truck traffic were analyzed for several count locations along US 1 and are summarized below in Table 6-5. For the locations that showed a negative growth trend in truck percentage, it was assumed that truck percentages would not change in the future. The Moderate Growth Scenario assumed the percent growth as calculated by the previous US 1 Transportation Master Plan and assumed growth in truck percentages. The High Growth Scenario assumed one percent traffic growth and assumed growth in truck percentages. The LOS analysis for the three future growth scenarios for the segments without any improvements is summarized in Table 6-6. Kahle 5-5 Historical Truk ercenta e Growth and Projected 2045 Growth w w 900165 4.13% n/a n/a 4.22% 4.24% 3.66% 900109 9.44% 9.48% 7.58% 2.85% 10.91% 8.92% 16% '3/6„ 5% 3% 900227 6.46% 6.87% 7.77% 8.87% 8.85% 9.30% 37% 44% 40% 4% 900642 n/a 7% 905040 9.19% 7.71% 8.98% 11.15% 13.02% 11.76% 42% 28% 35% 4% 900623 n/a �5% 900101 5.75% 9.75% 8.94% 8.86% 8.92% 13.31% 5 5% �j'j/'' 93% � 11,916 905043 6.57% 5.95% 7.79% 9.79% 7.13% 6.51% 9% -1% 4% 2% 905041 8.84% 8.15% 9.14% 8.93% 10.01% 8.72% 13% -1% 6% -4% 905042 7.24% 8.95% 8.05% 10.49% 9.79% 10.39% 35% 44% 39% 14% 900164 9.05% 9.12% 8.36% 9.06% 9.26% 10.69% 2% 18% 10% 20% 900200 11.91%.... 7.86%... 7.50% 9.72% 9.13% 9.05%.... 1 19% 22% 20% 2% *Growth rate based on linear regression trend from 2005161819 to 2019 �FE) Pagel 92 1901 N O O LLI V V LLI LLI r r..1 r r..1 r r..1 O O O O O O O O O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O O O IDO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m ® O of V V V r- r- r- a V M V V V V V V V V m ifi M M M N N N N O O O O O O O O (Y) N M M M �fl �fl �fl l0 �fl M M M M M N N N N N N N N (V N O 6l C'V r::, V V L-I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a--+ O O O O O O rn rn rn Lr� v a v v v v in Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr N ^d M of of of of V V V l0 I T OJ N N NLfl N N N N N r..1 OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V r- r- r- M M M Ol M N lC lC lC lC E N r l0 l0 l0 - - - - Lfl l0 T l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 _ N N N Lfl N N N N N 4- N M N N O N M M L M M M N N N O N N O O O O O O O O O M O O O O O O M O O (D LL a ...., ...., .... ..., ... .., .. ., ...., Z) O V co M L(1 l0 r- r- m N L(1 N L(1 co m M M L(1 r- O O O O N M - co m O O V V V V L 50 e ® O O O O O N O ift ift ift ift ift o O o V O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N > O O � � K K Q co � N Y > Y >Of Of �_ N -O V V L O N V m d p 2 °' Q °' a o o 0 o m o ° V m mo ° a i Hn in V in cC w m w w w Y Q 6 Y C C V N m Y m N C 6 o V o � C � > CC \ �° ate+ m i V @eq Vl CC �n CC > N Q CC (6 C N Y V Of CC O of o o m o ° V mo ° d V to CC w m w w w m o o o o "0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Ih, E E E �° of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > z z z z z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of of of of of of of of - - O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V V V V V V V V V V V V V I I N N N N N N O O O O l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 V V V M M M M M M L(1 L(1 L(1 (Y) N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V N O m N ® d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O }, Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr Lr r- r- r- r- r- r- O O O N r r r r V V V V V V V V V O O O 6t 6t 6t 6t 6t 6t r N N N M M 2 4- OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M 61 61 61 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ N N N N l0 N O N O LL ,fl m m-r of V N N M M M l0 �fl N N N �fl M a � a O O N O O O — O O O O O O O O O O O O O l0 " - O r oo O — M N L(1 of l0 L(1 l0 N l0 of N of Q m O O M M ift r- r r of of M M O O O O N V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N N N N N b V O O V V m m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N Y O ~ m d L Q O w Y p Of m m t C p O u CC V m N m L N Vl N N C[ > O N m co N O O O O Y Q co O C p V V m S p w m O J V p� -O JO t O O O O O O O O N O NO 0 O C Oo N O O p N N p m Y o Y O ~ m d L N d O 6 L � O O C N m u d in i i N u m L N Vl N N CC > O m J m - Q Z m E O C C C > Q Ol O ca co N O o O O Y Q O to m p V V m S p w >j C m N O o V O1 O N L O O p O O -o O O O O N .Q 0 .Q o 0 .E O ® Y o rn a o ° co co o co ca O W W W m W V m d W V Vl N t S S S S S S S S S S S S S = S S S S S S S S S S S a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� a� > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > O O O O O O O O O O O O O > O O O O O O O O O O O Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of `^ of of of of of of of Cc Cc of of um 0 0 .. Cl ra ra Cl O o" O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o o O o 0 o O O O O O o O O O O O O O (D O O O O M M M M Ol cc cc cc cc cc LIl LIl LIl LIl LIl LIl Lll Lll Lll l0 l0 l0 l0 V V V V l0 OJ OJ OJ OJ co N N N N N N (y') N N N N M N — — — O 6l uj N ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O O O a--+ O O O � � � � � � � � � O O O O O M M M M M M N M M M M M M M O O o o l0 M l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 61 61 61 61 61 61 N N N N N N E OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N 6t 6t 6t 6t Ln � Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln of of of of of of N N N 4- N of O V N N N O of I- co r M O M N O V V N CO O O M O O O O O N O — O O N LL rn M a O. .. ...., ...., Z O M l0 CO O V l0 O O CO l0 V V V I- m m M of m O M n n I- r co co co co co m O M V 0 0 I- M M O N N M M M M M M M V V V V L(1 L(1 L(1 L(1 L(1 L(1 L(1 L(1 L(1 l0 l0 l0 l0 V C ..,.. W ..,.. W Lfl LL LL e ® o o V V V V m m m O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M M M M M M V V V V V V V V V V V Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln O O O O O O O O O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD O O O ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m Y � � C O V N i C O i — O W W > Z V N U Y O a E -> C N n E m ° C N N -6 ° T Y O OfC m d > m 4 Q > V 0 ° � Y w c�a Vm 5 VN3° 0w0 0 ' m Q oVZ,asLO m Y Y -O 0 V Y C OO u um U m 1 YO QEJ ou 4EJ o C E a Y N o Y Vl W y W V Z m d N M V Vl Vl W d S W Q W O W W d w Z � Y O a O O C N O n a O a� .� V � -° > 0 m Y V � c -° m 0 a >, Z W m V K >+ N N C -O _ -6 -> S O n L .6 Y = > C= Lo Y > Y oJ a o a o oO O lZC O jm O O u -0 CNN iO O N j o o o o° Q 0 ® M o °° M m ° Q � � o 0 Y a, m Lo o m W m Vl W m W V m � d N %00 W / a S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of of of of of of of of of of of of of of um ID (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD Lri Lri Lri Lr Lr cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc 0') co co co co co co co co co rn r\j (1) C) CY) uj uj uj uj uj uj uj (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD 4m, Ln E Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl u u u u u u u u Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl WWI 0 (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D �D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D r-, r-, r-, r-, r-, r-, r-, r-, r-, C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� C� n E CO of of of of (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D l0 (D (D (D (D (D (D (D N (D M (D (D (D (D CD CD (D LL 4' C: Z) r- m M l0 l0 r- ift l0 M M l0 N ift r- V CO (D l0 (D ift r- (D N r- 0 r- r- M M V T l0 l0 r- r- M (D - T T - ift - l0 l0 r- r- r- r r- r- r- r- r- r- r- of of of of of of of of of of u a) (D (D m (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D o (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD (D (D (D (D (D (D (D 3 of 4EJ x 4EJ m 0 m m x 4EJ m 4EJ W C C u u 0 c c w 0 0 E m u m m 0 0 > "6 0) 0 is 0 W W 0) .2 0 -0 E is 0 4EJ V m co M 0) m m 4EJ _0 0 o -2 4EJ > 0 0 x 4EJ -0 c 19 u > C > > 0 0) o 4EJ W u 0 > 4EJ > > 0 o 0 0 0 m 0 0 w 4 c m E 6 6 4EJ 6 u of 0 -0 r- mro-, 0 �n 6 o %.00�o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Of "f "f "f Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of Of um cfl 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I� 61 N lc lc lc lc l0 l0 l0 l0 Ol m In of O M V CO CO CO of of (D (y") '° M N M N M M M M M - � M .......... N N O N ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O_ 4 lc Ol Ol M M M M M Ol Ol N Lfl of V N In In In In In I- r CO M M N M M M M M M M N N OO O O O O O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O M N M r- V V cc E OJ L(1 l0 M M M V _ N M M M M M M M M N 4- N CO CO M O O V n CO N N O L N O O M M M O O M N O O l LL a ... N...., O...., .., �... M.., M.., �.... co ' M l0 l0 l0 V e O 0.... ® Oo O O O V o 0 O O O O O O m m m m m m O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl lfl O O O O O O O O O O O O O ® O O O O O O O O O O O O O V EJ (6 Q ° C C > N m V V � T T U N ( Of a a o o y— y— O o m u 0 m t Of O Q 3 3 O — o S E E ° S S m m Q rn m to m Q It: to m V 6 E V Q O > o O > ° m Q � m o Y„ E Q N N W (O H H m O m > C m ® a O 0 0 CD a� O V m o 0 5 E a ® > a a m -o E E j o 3 cc° _ Q m Q m n m° Q ' n o 6 J y �o t t t t t t t t t t t t t a O Q m m m m m m m m m m m m m m a a a a a a a a a a a a a O O O O O O O O O O O O O \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ u O _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ° - - - - - - - - - - - - - i 4,� - - - - C E m CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC N nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 The LOS results in Table 6-6 informs these summary observations: # The 2045 No Growth LOS deficiencies will be identical to the 2021 existing results by definition. # The Moderate Growth scenario yields LOS values which worsen incrementally compared to the No Growth scenario, given the associated growth in traffic: < 8 segments degrade from LOS C to LOS D or worse. This change means that the total mileage of segments with deficient LOS increases. < 9 segments degrade from LOS D to LOS E or F. < 1 segment degrades from LOS E to LOS F. < At total of 18 segments experience a lower LOS. # The High Growth scenario yields LOS values which worsen incrementally compared to the Moderate Growth scenario, given the associated growth in traffic: < 17 segments degrade from LOS C to LOS D or worse. This change means that the total mileage of segments with deficient LOS increases. < 12 segments degrade from LOS D to LOS E or F. < 1 segment degrades from LOS E to LOS F. < At total of 30 segments experience a lower LOS. # As noted, before,these results demonstrate the sensitivity of LOS results to small increases in traffic volumes under the Moderate Growth and High Growth scenarios. The following section compares the LOS results of this study, the US 1 Transportation Master Plan, and the 2023 ATTDS, adding further context to the sensitivity of the US 1 LOS values to increases in traffic, which affects both the volume-to-capacity ratio and the travel speed metrics used to gauge traffic service. Cost estimate information is found in Appendix B. Intersection Improvement Recommendations Based on the LOS results of the 2021 existing conditions and the three 2045 growth scenarios, recommended improvements were evaluated for each intersection. The types of improvements evaluated for the intersections included signal timing improvements, turn lane extensions or additions for US 1, and turn lane additions for the side streets. The LOS resulting from the recommended intersection improvements is shown in Table 6-7. The recommended intersection improvements are summarized in Table 6-8. The effect of recommended intersection improvements is summarized as follows: # Signal timing adjustments are proposed to reduce side street delays. # New turn lanes on side streets are proposed to reduce side street delays. # Improvements proposed for the short-term conditions are sufficient for the long-term. < The exception is at Location 8— US 1 at the Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue intersection. < An added southbound left turn lane is needed for Moderate and High Growth scenarios. # The resulting LOS for the 2045 Build conditions are good except for the High-Growth scenario, which is much less likely to occur given growth management regulations. �FE) Page 98 1907 a E nllfm umuw Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Table 6-71ntersection LOS with RecommendedImprovements e b e b b e b . b - b - b US 1 at Cross Street EB/WB B B B B C B US 1 at MacDonald Avenue EB/WB B B B B B B US 1 at Crane Boulevard EB/WB B B B B C B US 1 at Ke Deer Boulevard EB/WB B B B B C B US 1 at 107th Street EB/WB A B A B A B US 1 at 109th Street EB/WB B B B B B B US 1 at Bessie Drive/Sunshine Avenue NB/SB C B C B C C US 1 at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue NB/SB C �� C �� C l.. US 1 at Tarpon Basin Drive NB/SB B B B C B C US 1 at Key Largo School Exit B B B (as signalized intersection) NB/SB The estimated 2023 costs for the identified intersection improvement actions presented in Table 6-8 are common to all scenarios and are summarized as follows: # No Growth Scenario: $420,820 # Moderate Growth Scenario: $750,220 # High Growth Scenario: $750,220 The US 1 at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Avenue intersection has an additional recommendation for the Moderate and High Growth Scenarios to account for the cost differences. �FE) Pagel 99 1908 a E v � � � � o a) rn (V 1.0 c0 c0 O r N C � � 0 M rn O rn M M (V N 64 64 M (V m C) O ou -C M a) u � .� o +r C M C a D a� E E '� + O N n3 a-1 N a) — �l N + O O m 0 - .� N 0 O 0 0 + C t�i1 7 J J .X .o V m m a) u 7 O In In N o m C O O -6 -Q) N N N O O N Q Q) V U � O .� •X Ol Ol Ol O � Ol � O in J O Ol Ol Q -6 in L L L t +�-� N +�-' Ln m t t i i N V V V V 67 E V V X p C O O 0 'p C -p C 0 0 0 c5 7 O 0 O W C LA Z Z Z Q Q Z J 67 t Z Z E 0 0 M O 0 0 — o o �, ° � ® E t rn t a o E °' o t n3 n3 0 0 0 0 " -6 Cp •C O -6 O -6 o C ? coo j c`�o ® Fa C C > Fa C C i a) c a) o C C C C °' m C E C Z5 C Z5 C Q) Z5 C -0 N o o) O E 0 a, 0 O 0 0 0 0 o m - o C a) E a) a) a) E a) a) a) 0 6 N a) a) V p E ° E C E C E N E - �' E o E E a-- a-- a-- a-- a-- O C ? 7 +- C C C j C m • w `} 0 in in tO in o C) � 2 _0 C a) aN)a) Ln a) p a) >, p a) In a) In a) a) a) p p a -0 In C M m + O 0 V V p V ,} 0 V O V O V ,} V $ O E O C V C z C a) � C C +� C a) C a) C C mE in — — zt � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co M co M � v r— 0') Q0 rn r— .D rn co co r-- � v rn O M rn O r co o Ln r 1.0 M 1.0 0) N r- M M cl C\ic0 c0 M 0') 0') c0 C2 (V CD � � N 0) CD 0')rn M Lf rn N Lf V 1 — O CD '-o u 1 cc Lr cc M " (V M (V (V (V (V (V (V (V (V (V (V (V (V (V C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C s a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a X w c p a c" s s as o L. aL c J V V 1 m IAO Q H L w a >, > > m m > > > G m a CO W a Vf ® N M Itt LM l0 r 00 C1 MANE I�IIII�uul a mouuw wwryw . I Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Segment Improvement Recommendations Based on the LOS results of the 2021 existing conditions and the three 2045 growth scenarios, recommended improvements were identified and evaluated for the segments. The types of improvements evaluated for the segments using the LOS analysis methodology included new left turn or right turn lanes on US 1, or access management strategies on US 1, such as consolidation of driveways or new frontage roads. For the turn lane improvements, the capacity of the segment was increased to reflect the increased capacity that the turn lanes will provide to the segment. For the access management strategies, it was assumed that the speed on US 1 would be increased by 5 mph and the resulting increase in capacity was applied to the entire segment. For consistency with Monroe County's growth management regulations, no new through travel lanes on US 1 were proposed. The approach utilized was to reduce interruptions to uniform travel speeds along US 1 by removing turns from through lanes and managing other points of friction. Examples of potential improvement actions are shown in Figure 6-2. No segment improvements were recommended for the Key West segments due to restrictions in right-of-way (ROW). The recommended improvements for the segments north of Key West are generalized and do not provide the specific location of the turn-lanes or access management strategies cannot be specified, pending further analysis. The effect on capacity for each recommended improvement is applied to the entire segment. The recommended segment improvements are summarized in Table 6-9. The LOS results with the recommended segment improvements are shown in Table 6-10 below. Figure 6-2 Po ten tial Impro une ent A ction T T I n Traffic�� UpgradesMedian Turn Lanes r fro+ Left and Right Turn �� ,,,, 1, rvt�,«o�l�, �mlr�l�rollsl /rrfi!a0llrrr r Ir,W�iiirrryrrrr/ir/�rr�raryi/��jpiN/,pii��/our/�rndy�l,1,,rrp U, >rfbs l !Y�i/I�/+a//i/ ! ��i 1rll,� ,Stirn � urfi P WyhifJ n �p ioiiwri�. r ,noiioiiierrlvu.//ionl/Gilfti°l /i a urriGl'41 ��YYJ�YNfoi�lVY991➢YVgP1NWD19UpPVlri� uW- i r r� e ., Extended Left or Right Turn Lane y. fnui'uuViouu w�J,.. r"Yi»arriri,rrdrNrririii/ii iv„/ilia rill. uYV owwwViwoio� A,.,V i N'1.7,i i(i!rnr ;arrrr,,;r�riq,t` wo - /aiao.�iniliainnimil/n/oitrmr� uuwobiimiwfm i 1w1NN' N�9NYY�➢1 rir rnnn ��o,oofVui n u iwwno w�a �o7 i d n rmrnt Pr, " i r'tu ^"imyuPuoiiyi��;N� Prwl),rd Ni%�i0ir��ioiiirrN/rrrr//r�l�fl y / +P� `• -; ( c . ,er Source:Google Maps. �FE) Page101 1910 m a N0 0 0N O as as as as as as � m m o m n o ry w N as as N.. � a O > O � � Q t T � � N O V O O - 0 o - o o ._ o o o 0 0 oz _ v� mw.� xmw ww v3 m •• _ _ E .. mw o v '" — - - -— - wm 3 — wm wm _ Boyul L _- z � V- tf ® v m m w w w ? v v v v v N N N m N N v v •� _ C 'V w�` �O O N O w Q C N N It O O IN _ Q 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s 0 s o s N_ o .o N o ^ a o o a N m m N v O o ^ a N o n m o io O � � o ry as as m �j as as as �j as � N ° as as as as v j v m v v O � m Q ii T C O V N O 3 K Q 3 a a .3 x �.3 O v 3 3 0 .3,2 O,t m x V_ �-v ? z O .3,2 .3,2 z s It 0 2 s 2It It °z ¢ V— r a N V O i V Im ° z v v � v a wl Im z 3 33 03 — E z z.� z o E 0 a m o o `o v m b ® V Q w w m V Q— a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zl V V ® V V V V V V V V N N N N N N N V V V V °m 'V w m rOo Q w V Q Q w O S S V O o¢ O-O IN N N N 2 N T A N T Mw.W N O._ N O._ N O._ N O._ N O._ N O._ N O._ cc O O - O._ mo^ v._ N � 2 2 2 2 2 2 —2 —2 in S 2 M M v m v N w m w n O w io n io n m V O N N m �n as as � m v w as It N as as as N v > N cl, m Q - E E t 2) T x m O - V N O v m o E- v - w`c o.3 v a v ° E - z o Q o o a zz v t �Ow `--�°0 o E v =mow cc .°. °-° 3 �n.� ._ m 8 E �n._ m 8 E z m `o->cc�, z " m z o cc z Im _ z° � E m E - E 1E w- V c F V - ° c° Q".��a E>.E Q"ln E ,,oo m o v m v m ° ° N o m -ml ? m m N m _ V V aj tf v 3 O ° w 3 � _ V 3 0 � m ° v � V o .. °'o o v > wf0,>m O cc ° w am mm ¢mm Q — - O - O� w o v C N C T m Tl.. v � cc O.s N O.s z O.s N O.s N O.s N O.s N O.s N O i Q N m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U U O O O - - - - - - - - - - - U U ii O O O O -------------- - I- ------------ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v v . . . . . . . ---------------------------- re > ic El El E 2 7 7 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S t t t :z :z :z :z :z :z :z :z E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 N � C, U a T .. O O O ur ur t::i ur t::i m m ur ur ur ur ur ur t::i ur ur ur ur ur ur ur ur t::i t::i t::i t::i t::i t::i t::i t ii T ur ur t::i ur t::i ur ur ur ur t::i t::i c, ur ur ur ur ur ur ur ur 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O V O O O u u u u u m m u u u u u u 0 u u u u u u u u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u u u u u m m u u u u 0 0 c, u u u u u u u u c, c, c, c, c, c, c, c, v v v v v v v ic v v v v m v N N v v v v v v v N N v g V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V Z Z — � E _ p N _ In Z Z d z z - - 2 ic — V — _ K — \ C vmi ¢ z v E _ 2 _ z z v 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cc cc N N z cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc N z N z cc cc N N N z cc cc cc ELI 0 N ID T .. u u u u u v v O t::i t::i t::i ur t::i ur ur ur t::i ur ur t::i t::i t::i WW WW t::i t::i ur ur t::i ur ur ur ur ur t T x t::i t::i t::i ur t::i ur t::i ur t::i ur ur t::i t::i t::i WW WW WW ur ur t::i ur ur ur t::i ur x O V N O O v v v v v v v v v v v v N N v v v v v v v v v v v N V V K y 2 O lm V � V Q — V MW E O O E _ O i�o i� > > > 3 3lw O z 3 2 Olw _ 3 V V Q OO V \ ¢ _ > v ? 2 2 O C76 _ V 2 V m kn It O O i`w > > 3 O O i� v m d 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O cc cc N N z cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc cc N z cc N z cc cc cc cc cc cc N N z cc cc cc cc cc m i� uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� w�wow ._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2024 The proposed segment improvements per Table 6-9 are summarized as follows: Treatment Number of Segments Extended Left Turn Lanes 5 segments for all growth scenarios Right Turn Lanes 2 intersections for all growth scenarios 1 intersection for Moderate Growth and High Growth scenarios Extended Right Turn Lane 12 segments for all growth scenarios 2 more segments for Moderate Growth scenario 4 more segments for High Growth scenario Build actions improve LOS, but not always enough to change the LOS letter grade. With the proposed improvements, these results were observed as tabulated in Table 6-11: # % Deficient (LOS D-F) Mileage < 4-5 miles fewer miles per Build scenario. < 3-4% fewer miles per Build scenario. # % Deficient (LOS E-F) Mileage s <� 4-5 miles fewer per Build scenario. <� 4-5% miles fewer per Build scenario. # With increasing traffic through the scenarios: y <� Number of segments with LOS B/C decline while LOS E/F segments increase <� Number of segments with LOS D decline somewhat. Table '-11 Mileage for Each L OS and Scenario - No-Build and Build Comparison NU=M=MMWffifflffiiffl 2045 No Growth 9 47 43 10 8 60 52% 15% 2045 No Growth Build 9 49 41 10 8 58 50% 15% 2045 Moderate Growth 4 46 43 10 13 67 57% 20% 2045 Moderate Growth 6.. 50 42.... 9 10 60 52% 16% Build 2045 High Growth 3 27 35 30 21 86 74% 44% 2045 High Growth Build 3 33 40 21 20 81 69% 35% Note that there are rounding differences in the above table. �FE)PT Page108 1917 a E uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� w�wow ._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2024 From Table 6-11, these conclusions can be drawn regarding LOS results: # For the 2045 No Growth scenario with the Build condition, LOS D miles are reduced by 2 miles and LOS C miles increase by 2 miles. Thus, there is a reduction in the miles of LOS D to F segments of 2 miles. There is greater operational benefit of the improvements, but the traffic service changes did not trigger more changes in LOS letter grades. # For the 2045 Moderate Growth scenario with the Build condition, LOS F miles are reduced by 3 miles, LOS E miles are reduced by 1 mile, and LOS D miles are reduced by 1 mile. These reductions result in an increase in LOS C miles increase by 4 miles. Therefore, there is a reduction in the miles of LOS D to F segments of 7 miles. There is greater operational benefit of the improvements, but the traffic service changes did not trigger more changes in LOS letter grades. # For the 2045 High Growth scenario with the Build condition, LOS F miles are reduced by 1 mile, LOS E miles are reduced by 9 miles, and LOS D miles are increased by 5 miles. These reductions result in an increase in LOS C by 6 miles. Therefore, there is a reduction in the miles of LOS D to F segments of 5 miles. There is greater operational benefit of the improvements, but the traffic service changes did not trigger more changes in LOS letter grades. Based on the LOS analysis in this study, the deficient segments under the No Growth scenario with LOS D, E or F are summarized below and as shown in Figure 6-3: # MM 0 to 4.5 — Key West/Stock Island LOS F # MM 9.2 to 10.7— Big Coppitt Key LOS E and F # MM 10.7 to 27.8 — Shark to Ramrod Keys LOS D # MM 27.8 to 31.1 —Torch and Big Pine Key LOS F # MM 48.0 to 49.0 — Marathon LOS D # MM 59.7 to 73.7 — Duck, Conch, Long, Fiesta, and Craig Keys LOS D # MM 79.7 to 87.7 — Upper Matecumbe and Windley Keys LOS D # MM 96.4 to 99.5 — Key Largo near Atlantic Blvd. LOS D # MM 106.3 to 112.5 — Key Largo and Cross Key LOS E and F These results suggest that LOS conditions on US 1 in Monroe County across all the segments collectively are in the vicinity of the LOS C threshold for acceptable traffic service. This is borne out by the results of the 2023 ATTDS and prior iterations which show the overall travel speed for the corridor hovering near the 45 mph LOS C traffic service standard. �FE)PT Page109 1918 a E uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� ��w��wo�w�._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2024 Figure - e e with LOS D or Lower tlil'Y°illlilJlly7-i%Il 7i °°%7railJl i °liY"/ilr"JyI"lJlly7lilr"JyI"lli "lli °i °ilr"Jy7Jlly7lilYllil°l l"lli °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i °i i i ............................................................... i i i i i i i i �?'W0,MM,i °i ,..� f. ---- --------------------- i i.;.— ----—-------------— Segments with LOS D or Lower Y"' � ryp 4✓ SA � ' �%I er I�, q y;py ( 1 rory a wM ry gc�+s am, ad .ary � i a .r9 ".... ` ,,�rYv. S III Ili IVfq„.W,W nm n ;` ` „a' 'NNr d�' ,�#t RU i y f '4 a n k a. '� ...ms rras . w u e a r;+a r .�ry s rs m _""^" 'n r. Monroe ,..L, n, net^ �,uao ,f rr w mwa n n wow1111 ....., +ea awu 23 u' m ra ,aarcwwn n as rt, a �i as n~'nx rw, ,•.ewn�;gym x Mara u y as mxr. i s f 9., .. n* er rw m xw n n+,i a J rq n r m�nm awn + n s m rw r nxa xrsm 19 t� m✓ mow.,+ �xn n ,ern w M M G IvV/ffidk q tlxv &1 G JXl !YY �" d 19i ��N 4 ,a n o w ea 1R n' ''n A3 Nr NY . �CYOY . . P5 RAiItS rvy � +VAVIE d 4YS K riM9 x nMLI Ap c rr n x f S 15 nd4 u 1 w n49,9pp '2 ,u 14 nI^ w " 121t9 1AB x�te.ra1' uarMlCnr , b ) ' �aGV r.17a0"Wertto Iry -apamrm�' ia.� �'1 :w IL�J /r�Xm�i1r1 �'r; r.>I 1 l Source:��1��'..ATTZ),5.,82" The estimated costs in 2023 for the identified segment improvement actions presented in Table 6-9 are summarized as follows: # No Growth Scenario: $22,028,005 # Moderate Growth Scenario: $28,738,937 # High Growth Scenario: $34,776,767 FDRT Page110 1919 a E uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� w�wr��w�._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2024 6, If eelation to Other Analyses for Segment I. OS This section of the report compares the traffic service results of this Monroe County Freight Improvement Study to the: # US 1 Transportation Master Plan(TM P) (2018) # 2023 US 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study(ATTDS) From the two analyses for 2045, the mileages at LOS D or lower are: # Monroe County Freight Improvement Plan (No Growth) 75 miles — 64% # US 1 Transportation Master Plan 65 miles — 57% These results are shown graphically in Figure 6-4. As noted in the discussion, there are areas of similarity and differences in the traffic service deficiency coverages. Figure 6-4 Segmentswith LOS D or Lower--2018 AMP and 2023 MCAP Segm �w NW W+ NM wn M'rcd" T Jl e174S with qC rx wP.+. rwmnry'uvgv rA4ya w.r..e.�„ .v rvvW Mx � onroe p Study "vi w. as v ,t 1 C r 11 ,74 �a , . US I Master Plan N'NABWp"QYk" .......... r / _ m Wr s w nWrv,_ Wz ' ^" mm n m +, ip ran e lF ea a n aw., sx✓w ce e w+ra w dam s yr a x wm ., , .x r e.o�n Wsn ✓u+ .c { as $1 'i^� w,ww ,�. w 2En�d ,v7, w. eq, raw. m e ro oar y w, wmww n. vw«rawn arwwn a a q m 31 h m re r r mwm r c air xx '19 owra asrx rt '','"d c r araa r mx aer n s wro � ff7 w x� vacua wa.rtwwm ui,..+r rroa.. �' _rrw <«; � .. ff t ' -wn r r4 w ww;w pgWAaF' "'� r''flr W I�4 n:, k vi ine 'kt ti n sM�a � Cr a10 .'r �Segment NUMbew "•• �0N B 05/mer'o" 5peruV� r J 202 .OS uar, Sp—d �im a ZV�i f "M'�u�l�,Mrs„"',��'?,"�l�//Ol/a'r'�IU;a ;;na.a.. ..... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ....... ..... ....... /�7Glia�ar�iTi?ii�/fa Source:��1��'..�..TTZ),a„" The tables below provide a summary of the miles for each level of service compared to the US 1 Transportation Master Plan as well as the no-build and build scenarios. �FE)PT Page111 1920 a rE uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� w�wow ._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2024 Table '-12 Miles for Each Level of Service--No-Build . . 2019 US 1 Master Plan 9 55 22 20 10 52 45% 26% 2021 9 47 43 10 8 60 52% 15% 2045 No Growth 9 47 43 10 8 60 52% 15% 2045 Moderate Growth 4 46 43 10 13 67 57% 20% 2045 High Growth 3 27 35 30 21 86 74% 44% 2040 High Growth from US 1 MP 4 46 27 25 14 66 57% 34% Table 6-13 Miles for Each L - - rrlld rrd Build Comparison NW=1M=M1E1M1fflffliffl 2045 No Growth 9 47 43 10 8 60 52% 15% 2045 No Growth Build 9 49 41 10 8 58 50% 15% 2045 Moderate Growth 4 46 43 10 13 67 57% 20% 2045 Moderate Growth 6 50 42 9 10 60 52% 16% Build 2045 High Growth 3 27 35 30 21 86 74% 44% 2045 High Growth Build 3 33 40 21 20 81 69% 35% �FDOTPage112 1921 a E uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIIII ��w��wo�w�._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2024 Figure 6-5 Segments with LOS D or Lower--AY Three Reports w � *Segments with LOS D or Lower �.. : « . iiuL � r i g tMonroe _ G"�,r,;i Master iwi r v M k E Snm G4 uMrv« N a" ;i P ... pwp �y ;.MS �... 22 03 TT23 DS 1 fi4 Y ma / .. � o � r xk npm S+Y Y.. 40 ;,ew + �. attr iM A r xaa m.n rr n%� Fl[ u a a ... ..... � W "" 00 °.. erx�� aMre'a�••r w,em,mx��uw� ...� Mra..... �. a ry a 21 c rxa mma +mu a'd'°I g 7,5 VV nip fm nw�d A Pks i till Segmeml NraiV�ier ra x�d..5 J Q,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,� n, l,(�lu � %,,l�A"�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�7�11�7�11�71�J�7�ll�TilllAlrTi"�rr�'I�JrTi"�lJr�7)7�;� Source:��1��'..ATTZ),5..82" These results are presented graphically in Figure 6-6 which shows in terms of segment mileage the distribution of LOS grades for each growth scenario, for existing conditions, and for the 2019 US 1 Transportation Master Plan. It is seen that with increasing traffic through the three scenarios, the number of LOS E and F segments increases, and the number of LOS D/E/F segments (all deficient) increases. Relative to the Existing Conditions, the 2045 No Growth scenario is by definition the same. The results of the US 1 Transportation Master Plan (2019) show, in comparison to the No Growth and Moderate Growth scenarios, more LOS E and F segments and significantly fewer LOS D segments, and more acceptable LOS B and C segments. These differences are considered to be the result of methodological differences and the proximity of many segments to the LOS C threshold regardless of the specific metrics employed. Figure 6-7 depicts the deficiencies in terms of the number of segments. �FE) Page113 1922 a E uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� ��w��wo��w�._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2024 Figure 6-6 LOS ResultsComparison by Mileage IL, S Results III Scenario 2,014 III°fi Ihi Growth �lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll �O�\�\�\��0�� 2045 Moderate GiiI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII��lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll II�0�0�\�\�0�� 2021. 2,011.,9 US 1 Masteir Plain IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� ll��\0�\�0�\�� IIIIIIIIII 1 13 IIIIIIIII I.OS w...; 1111116 I,OS I....$.:.S E.. III I.O 1::: Figure 6-7LOS Results Comparison by Number of Segments Percent Deficient Segments � " 5'High Growth II 2045 0 ow der to Growth 2045 No Growth 0 2021 0,1 U'S 11 Plain �I�II II�II�II III III III III III III III III III�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�II�I� �FDOTPage 1923 a�E uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� w�wow ._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2024 The 2023 ATTDS report identified, using its definition of 24 segments, three segments with LOS at D or below and two additional segments where the reserve speed as calculated by its methodology was below the target margin of 3 mph. These segments are listed below, shown in Figure 6-8, and listed in Table 6-14, which provides the 2023 ATTDS level of service and reserve capacity table developed for the latest Monroe County traffic concurrency analysis. # Segment 16 — Long Key 0 MM 63-73 LOS C, but reserve speed is less than 3 mph # Segment 19 — Upper Matecumbe Key < MM 79.5-84 LOS E # Segment 20 —Windley Key 0 MM 84-86 LOS E # Segment 21 — Plantation Key < MM 86-91.5 LOS D # Segment 24 — Key Largo/Cross Key < MM 106-112.5 LOS C, but reserve speed is less than 3 mph Figure 6-8 2023 A TTDS Deficient Segments iWWWWW r n at Segments with LOS D or Lower � ¢ � m tic s �s �s �.C, p � ATTDS Aft, t J Pmm Deficient ISOµ W lq N YY �:,. ATTDS ati,t,.,,�.,,`. ......�CY 4r OW ma r` o .. — .. .. a�. ,... 1... ..I � Low Reserve,Speed {.r... a W a 31 t,41° � t 221{{I^M1 ,Yi ypyp'' u rvrx . 1 L'�% S ��"1] 71 Nz C psi F is ry f €��r a .ui k� Bpi k,wb a a4I � H2iv 7 11s'm ...i1eiM17 attadma N G ,.,., d.' .� VI L,.� ✓Yt.diw 8M1 gun KD 141 .."�. .:� li'f��°an�h� Gdti�k 1..47�7�+1ww.lYnr5 0 M1 + '� �,?r�7"/T/ /�"//J/%///TT ,,,..ii' Ti7"/T/ /T Source:��1��'..�..TTl;).a& �:� �f'. The improvement findings of this study were compared to the recommendations of the US 1 Transportation MasterP/an which had a total of 186 multimodal recommendations. Of those, 43 were identified as relating to roadway, bridge, safety or traffic operations actions. Those actions which were identified as Primary Priority Recommendations were flagged in the table with a "1" �FE)PT Page115 1924 a E uu �� IIIIIIIII�IIII�IIIII� w�.ow ._ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2024 code and those identified as Secondary Priority Recommendations were flagged in the table with a "2" code. There were 12 Primary Priority Recommendations and 24 Secondary Priority Recommendations, for a total of 36, gleaned from the entire set of recommendations in the US 1 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (see Appendix Q. There were five Primary Priority Recommendations and 8 Secondary Priority Recommendations for a total of 13; other recommendations in that study did not relate to roadway capacity or operational elements directly. The comparison is presented in Table 6-15, and yields these observations: # For the identified 43 US 1 Transportation Master Plan recommendations relating directly to the US 1 roadway, the comparative breakdown is as follows: < No specific freight study recommendation was made, either because the item was not considered, or no data was available to consider: 21 TMP recommendations < US 1 widening not considered by the freight study due to County policy on not widening US 1: 4 TMP recommendations < Recommendations were generally consistent between the two studies: 13 TMP recommendations < Recommendations were similar but different between the two studies: 5 TMP recommendations # Of the five identified TMP Primary Priority Recommendations in Table 6-15: < No specific freight study recommendation was made, either because the item was not considered, or no data was available to consider: 2 TMP recommendations < Recommendations were generally consistent between the two studies: 3 TMP recommendations # Of the eight identified TMP Primary Priority Recommendations in Table 6-15: < No specific freight study recommendation was made, either because the item was not considered, or no data was available to consider: 4 TMP recommendations < US 1 widening not considered by the freight study due to County policy on not widening US 1: 1 TMP recommendation < Recommendations were generally consistent between the two studies: 2 TMP recommendations < Recommendations were similar but different between the two studies: 1 TMP recommendation Those TMP recommendations which were consistent or "similar but different" between the two studies are shaded in the right-most column of Table 6-15. Of the 13 TMP Priority Recommendations, the freight study in its recommendations was consistent, similar but different, or did not consider. No recommendations of this freight improvement study were found to be inherently inconsistent with the TMP Primary or Secondary Priority Recommendations. FDRT Page116 1925 a E LU 04 (n LU m 0 - 0 C4 a 4 w co Aw m AD m wd 0 m V 0 0 . -. -,, v ",4 AM AN -i fi, N, 11 111:, p1t, R, ri, IR, AM ri, IRI �t ri, in 17L C!, wa ri to 'Ar Am An r4 r4 r4 v IZ' *1 co z rn r\j C) O uu 4- Ln 4- c: (3) An ch (3) An cpm, In> N Wi M N N N N t- W) vi ti oal > UA W1'I," M 14 40 0 M IWO 14 N AD m 0 0- m vo rb va ob ow) iwL aE F,: # duiIli w 4 F-z bi w -i "i 6 C4 -i 4, v; "� ad cd uj W w w 0 u 'Z J (1) 49C W> o 0 w d9 11: 1� 1� � W 0 1� CO dad10,c! � V M 0 75 W uj qx E 0 iw 0 LU 40 Ad) U) N Mt M L) r� Ad) M It Ad) U) 40 L) M M . . . . . . . . . . . :b 1, C�) 4n ALD ej Ad, Lb tb CIA go 0 0 - ej tj Adj AIJ -1 w CA in A Nt .d, dr AIA It Nt N "t :,t "t 't AMA 411 01 -t An U, fst c, An in in 0 V 4D d�A '0 10 10 ALO 'Lo 10 AD �T N 'T '0 MA 10 ALO 'Lo 10 10 'Lo - w t 8z Ad') AM Aw) T) wn tqt, 0 An AP 0 0. Ect A'd'� Ad) sue„ Lu CD ej Pl DL 4r.1 4 4 dA N N 4 N N zr N N N N Cq N N N 4 4 N q) db d) D� L� AP OA CO U7 co 0� Ad') CIA L� �b CD OD OA z q -4 Lu o m N ArA cq c� V) AAD l�,. w N m cq An w AD TI j Wj AS cl� Q R b vi di to AT, a, F z (9, w >ra L5 11 2 j coo m Zq, L5 g 0 a m f9 0 17 m o n N M �,t Adj to t- ob �b An ob �b tj - N m N N AN AN IWO A I I I I I A A I I 01 cl uw I N v LLw mvvv Z o Z o Z. c .. — v " a co >m E E E v E o C E v Y v Y v Y v Y a+ YO y N N N N p E E E E a a te. ° o E o o o a N o o f > `o > `o v `o v `o `o +C. K O a O a ° a O a E .. v L E -O '0 3 E 3 E 3 E E C'V c Q a a a a E v c o v o vai _ _ _ E v _ vai 0 E E w 0 E E E ° E o v E E v a w a w a w o f a w E v C'V m o o o f o f v v 3 o > 2i v :Q o .� o .� o .� v v v o v .Q O v O t . 9 'o 9 a E 3 ¢ ° ¢ ° ¢ ° ¢ SO v a ¢ V ¢ ¢ _ ¢ _ ¢ _ ¢ V utn :z v z v z v Y c N y v c v Z o v v v 4-1 v v N $4 vv v ovc d 4-1 as s a o O ._ V ac u — ° a L u u c „ ° d° � Eu ° Eu c o � V v O O v 1 UM v 0 0 Y �� d o V � V � a .m o v ai i° v E ° c Y o E o E ° T °1 a-M $ 0 s p a y O o ° 9 o O 0 c ° O w Li a q N rI N rl, Q c U o 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 C y O O O O O a O O O O a a C Y Y Y jp 41 v v v E r E E V V v E V E E E E E F Y F Y F Y O O O -o -o O — O p > p > o p > c F 0-o -o O v Y O v Y s m O v o 0 0 0 o 0 N N V V w V V w tvt V V w N N N tvt tvt 0 N v c v `— O° E —° a " v °'tt O > tt OE � O v v o °' � ; � +' O O a+ O m � v rl VYY EN a"Q Y x aY ajc3 o S _ v E ° o v ° mv m° ° o m 0 O a MU v tF— o v a o vt o o 0 N 9 v v t Y a ", .. DO OFp v v 0F v w v t o O°- y > 2 > a a a v v v v v a a a a a n Y N N N N y y y y 0 wB .+. Y Y Y Y N N N O O O O V N N m rl N N N m N m N N G N N IIIII� �' E m ON N N N N N N az ° ro xx w m m o N N m o n m �n c '" 0 w I M W N a a a a m o v m ` o f ovn ` o ovn ` o 0 >v v >v v >v E s c', = v ' v E Y o o = v v E 0 v v E O O Y O Y O Y O Yco v m >O v v m >O E v E E v m >O v m >O d v = v cvi > E -o cvi > E `o v cvi > E cvi > E °« > v m> v m> v m> v ¢ L 3 w v ¢ L o 3 w �L. v E ¢ L o 3 u ¢ L o 3 u m o o o o -o °D E Y V o f -0 0D E Y V -o w a N a 0D E Y V E Y V v v v v v v C'V E E E E E 'o `v -O -O ° E 'o `v -O E _ E ,. E 'O `v -O E 'O `v -O O KF v ,. v , v E 0 ° v° E 0 ° E E - E E E 0 0 E 0 E 0 ° ° V ° ,. v Yvi � E o ,. N YN o o YN o ,. N NN w a w a w a o v o v o v o v v v v v v `v v v v > v v v `v v v `v v _ _ ci ai v o v v V ci ai v o v ci E v ci E ci ai v o 20 v ci ai v o v v z$ z$ z$ z$ _. ° x a>i L. z.� _. ° x a>i L. ._ p ._ _. ° x v L. _- ° x v L. 4- O O LO O ° — N N a+ �o on E N v ' ° o = m u ,. L L o ,. ,. E v v E '� _ v E ° -O o 0 v E ° `o a o o O> V o o E V E 0 1 E m ° ° Lo I` E° O o s ` LoL 0 O Y$ o o Ey m v a+ a v v �vo O O O 0? O O° ° ° -0 L E a °° L L L N rd 4' 09, v,w O N `o `o `o `0 3 3 3 `o `O `O O o 0 o v `v O O O O m m m O O O O T T KG v v E E E y � E E a 0 - 2 p > 2 `o `o p > s a ara E E E y E E E y Y E E I ~ C OD OD ~ C 0 I IY _ O O p O O L L > > N N N N N C V w N M M C V w rl ci N N fo VI = = ovn fo N O N -O on 7 O m a v u 7 O v p N N v N a = 7 v T Z T O Y m° v uu ` ° 0 Ia ° vy v ET -ms o 3 O v Y E Y a m°O . Ty N N a+ T Y a v ¢ O O N O DO Oo E o _ °o o . - - y0vv = - - v 0 u � w 0 v a y - v O m L on o on o v v 0 `_° ¢> w 0 w y -O w ' E m u w 0 a ti O O N L O N O N 6-O v _ T C O 6 E N '° O " O " 0 0 = p v O O O O p v v O " O O V V V Y Y 0 qy ° N N N N N O O O d d m a N N N N T T T> O C C C C �. V V N Y E OD OD OD OD m Do ol a " uw c c � o ti ti ti ti 0 o O m m m Q N N N N N N N N N N tD r M W N M a a W O M m m a �n m m m 00 00 m m m I u w y w y w y w y [u w y E, E R11 �11 LA N NI Yy- L04 dY !AI N Y g 1 w "-y' W N W "-y' w W -y' w w "-y' w m 41 N u v W C W �1 L -? L N v rco ma w C w vi ry .fit F "p`� ul tl a 5W C� 41a u 4Y 41a 4Y 41 4 � 4a u @ M- 4Y 4Ala u M [j E r7 W w LJ i u-I W vl 4 LJ CuN W vl W r q-a w O � E p u N u n i t u + a .. ai ru u w E a ^O^ " fY L,1 N fi fY N to Y 8 C4 C4 f LL MY N N �y RI cV N "Y'1 N V LL r,9 ra p p ra p c7 O O (4 (N iN i+ CN I Map:...... w IS Wr w 'IN w w w IN al cJ M V' W w N rrY cJ cW N N ct J .d9 31 .� 4 u rA E m 4 vl - ra w �+ m * 'u � L Lc a .1 m y "M asIN w p ea IL` '.:a a .ra ss N i°ui �u +u a u N r., rA N 4a <u u c a S a Pi u z rJ i a C Y C U MW ry f1 NZT, J" 1 M [4 wry+ N _""A ' w 4 'o �a Ga © S C7 Ga u. i,J - :' 0 �. N N N N N a IS cYl M [tiY T T L1 L1 [L "� ' H W W ti ti ti IWO ol cl uw Cwl � a CC I Y Y O O E a E a u u u CV) > a m o m., m o m.. > 2 2 w 'R > ° w ° 2 E v E v a s a s ro m a s O $ u v v " o f o Y :' o o .; .. ._ o v o U c m ° u v m ° v u " _ Y u -- ° ° ° m a a E m p E u �n ° ro u �n = > o >O 0 G p > n o p > v y N �o mV ° aLL m a a oQ- a oQ a v Ya o a a.°o , o� os co E WE a � � v 3 E E E E E E E o E o° E W. o E 0 o o E E o o v o> > v > > v � o o Q 0 o ry) O O a - o v a a O a O v , Y V U s > s> EN O l N a T E o a — E 'Y° Y v c u_ aEi 3 u_ v v v — ° t o ° o E u o a v a o t E n rpo u p o o v u v u o N c a ° ° ., ° o ° '�° ° v o E ° v " a° E z " E u n ° z V v °u _ _ _ — 4 y a rl N LL �+ 4 c ^L T O T O O O O O O O a � E O O O O O O O O O L L T p O m m v v E L 3 O i T i a E E E E E E E V `^ ° E p H O m O m LL o w Jo C E E ' E d °1 E E E E E E E H a` O a Y 1° > > ° ° LL _ a V w �n 3 m o p o 3 °' a a Y v a a Q a Q aEi 'o a m a Y v — Vmu om L a =O Y Fu u v a T o E ,a, d o o E ou ° = > Y o E "' o .' E E T o a ou o ° ° a o N b� m° T a y a� E E T vai O T L v m T a a �a a C >. -O O a y o a .. a s >' a '^ J a = a °p_ E o ° a p a n o a EQ LO Ov 9 O CO T >fl w iO T U E Wp OIt > m o ° Q tYY Ya N"Ui a> =T 0 vt Q o v Yo > o vE .o p a o 0O p o p p ° 0 Yo N v 0Tp 'o a Tp oo E T a0 °v ao p O o 0 Im a Y a m m m m m m m m m m n E - 7 T T T T T T T T T T Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y j m m a �� ti ry m ry � ry � ry ry ry ry 4 L ry ry o m a m ry a ol a " uw E c 'a a � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlllzlllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 7.0 Other Improvement Actions 7.1 TSIM&.O and COAST 1.„i ,i T S III O The FDOT District Six Transportation Systems Management and Operations (TSM&O) office oversees the traffic signals through its Advanced Traffic Management System (ATMS) software. ATMS is a primary subfield within the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) domain in the United States. The ATMS view is a top-down management perspective that integrates technology primarily to improve the flow of vehicle traffic and improve safety. Real-time traffic data from cameras, speed sensors, etc. flows into a Transportation Management Center (TMC) where it is integrated and processed (e.g., for incident detection), and may result in actions taken (e.g., traffic routing, dynamic message signs (DMS) messaging) with the goal of improving traffic flow. The National ITS Architecture defines the following primary goals and metrics for ITS applications like ATMS: # Increase transportation system efficiency, # Enhance mobility, # Improve safety, # Reduce fuel consumption and environmental cost, # Increase economic productivity, and # Promote an integrated ITS operating environment. The Florida Keys Connecting Overseas to Advance Safe Travel (Keys COAST) will be the first of its kind connected and automated vehicle (CAV) project being led by FDOT District 6.The project will be located on the US 1 in Monroe County from MM 0.0 to MM 112.5. The project will establish connectivity between various modes (cars, trucks, buses, pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency vehicles) and a connected vehicle traffic signal system (CVTSS) along with other systems such as mid-block pedestrian crossings, weigh-in-motion (WIM), drawbridge, and emergency signals. The project concept includes roadside units (RSUs) capable of Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) and cellular communications, a cloud-based information dissemination platform, customized software applications, a real-time traffic signal performance monitoring system, on-board units (OBUs), smartphone on-board units, and bike-ped safety applications. Automated Traffic Signal Performance Measures (ATSPM) will be established to determine the effectiveness of the project and to allow for real-time performance monitoring. The COAST project is being deployed as a design-build project which has been awarded. After the design phase is completed, field construction will follow. The project has an evaluation component, including data collection and analysis as part of a "before-and-after' assessment of the multiple applications to be deployed. It was noted that this evaluation will cover traffic safety as well as operational conditions. FDOT 'i Page L 122 1931 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlrlllllllllll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 The project includes a freight and transit traffic signal priority pilot project. This application will use roadside wireless detection devices. The plan includes up to 250 vehicles to have corresponding onboard units. Business rules will be defined for signal priority activation. Trucking participants will be identified along with transit services provided by Miami-Dade County and City of Key West. Depending on the results of the pilot program, the long-term goal would be for all subject vehicles to be "connected". The US 1 corridor is a good candidate for this trial application because FDOT is under agreement to operate and maintain the traffic signals in Monroe County since local agencies opted out of this responsibility and US 1 is a relatively simple corridor, linear with no parallel routes and periodic cross-street signals. Figure 7-1 shows the general deployment plan for the COAST project, Figure 7-1 COAST Project Deployment Elements ..................................... ............................................ ,o o✓kI(N Moyr�v, y 0 n9% ,,,7 j b!WrMu ,ldryp Podftadsn M -Old Owsiing( ) Traffic Signal(3 1) r , .... ..... _...., Source: 7 � � � fi let�� f „re � Co �to ......: . . .. ... ... „ „ FDOT 'i Page L 123 1932 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo IIIIIIIIIIIII�II Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 7.2 IFIDOT (Five Year (Fiscal Year 4- 8) Transportation Improvement Program IMonroe County FDOT has identified a variety of multimodal projects in its Five Year (Fiscal Year 24-28) Transportation Improvement Program for Monroe County. These projects are listed in the table found in Appendix D. Highlights of the recent approved program include the following. # Bridge replacements: < Five bridge replacements off of US 1. # US 1 bridge repair/rehabilitation projects. < 13 bridge maintenance projects include one for the Seven Mile Bridge. # Resurfacing projects. < 12 projects, mostly on US 1. # Monroe County Coastal Storm Risk Study # US 1 at North College Road —Traffic signal improvements. # Keys COAST project (described in Section 7.1) # Traffic operations improvements. < US 1 — MM 70-80 < SR A1A - La Brisa to Key West of the Sea (near airport) # Bridge replacement: < Long Key Bridge —Construction programmed for FY 27. 0 Seven Mile Bridge — No capital funding in this program. PD&E Study begun. Bridges such as the Long Key Bridge and Seven Mile Bridge were opened in the early 1980's and are experiencing increasing maintenance requirements. Life cycle cost analyses for both have shown replacement to be the cost-effective action. However, that work is dependent on identifying additional funding for these costly projects. Other resurfacing and bridge rehabilitation projects are necessary state-of-good-repair projects as part of ongoing maintenance. Other projects relate to bicycle/pedestrian, aviation, and transit modes, as well as landscaping and other transportation planning and support efforts. Conventional US 1 capacity projects that directly add through travel lanes to US 1 are absent since adding capacity is not permitted by the County growth management ordinance. The planning work under this study has considered the programmed transportation projects in the five-year program. FDOT 'i Page L 124 1933 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlrlllllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 8.0 Truck Parking Analysis The truck parking analysis conducted as part of this study consisted of the following: an overview of truck delivery conditions, and a high-level assessment of needs for enroute, overnight truck parking needs. This work was conducted based on review of available truck travel pattern and weigh station data, field reviews, and an assessment of issues and needs. .1 Introduction Freight generating land uses, including commercial, industrial, and institutional uses, are spread across the Florida Keys, mostly in five clusters as shown in Figure 8-1 with the note that commercial properties are scattered along much of the length of US 1.These uses further include: # Retail and businesses # Lodging and resorts # Construction and equipment # Marine industry # Fishing industry # Naval Air Station Key West These types of land uses generally follow"roof tops and pillows". There are no real concentrations of warehousing and distribution facilities in the corridor as is prevalent in Miami-Dade County, due to the cost of land, the dominance of higher and greater land uses, and the lack of a critical population mass necessitating a more aggregated distribution strategy for goods and commodities. Businesses tend to manage their own supply of products, supplies and inventory onsite with these resources being delivered by trucks or package delivery services via truck. The Port of Key West sees cruise ships on a port-of-call basis, but no reprovisioning or fueling of these ships occurs at this port. 8.2 Truck Deliveries . ..'i T 11-UCk IDelhveuriies Abing the US i Coinu-dour Along the US 1 corridor for larger retailers and shopping centers, trucks primarily provide goods delivery through access points at the rear of the buildings. For freestanding businesses orjobsites, deliveries are primarily performed on the roadway shoulder or border, the front of the business in driveway aisles, or in an adjacent parking lot/side lot. Examples of these various truck delivery configurations along the US 1 corridor are shown in Figure 8-2. As seen in the figure, roadside deliveries along US 1, in constrained conditions often and in the road right-of-way in some cases, can be unsafe for the delivery operation, and can temporarily restrict sight distance for vehicles accessing adjacent driveways, or can block parking spaces during the delivery. FDOT 'i Page L 125 1934 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� IIIIIIIIIIIII�II Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Figure -1 Freight Generators p awseB�rma!nspa rug n�ml "6 �tlyva'v�p° 1 c'u, Qr lanarrioradiia Inset �p. END STUDY #10) AREA IKoyWesrc INaxaart W r 4n 01, r r k �a r"A d§ T ;N ,fck. W%"II)ulVr ��uA o H IU yy 4k � 544 �rrrrrrrrwr� lr�7r�k; K' " way Largo Inset A u l JOIN IBEGIIN AREA SAXJCo "Op � MMM�IMYJuv�... Monroe county height� hinpruvenlent Study --------------------------------- Data source:FGDL, lu gen 2019 shapefile,2019. FDOT 'i Page L 126 1935 I , � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIIIDI Illlllvlllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Figure 8-2 truck Parking Along the US l Corridor �� sM ewr rurr°i7umn✓a�"'�im u.,, � ,✓," 4 e w, ry Y IN " /r•�li/ '�Ils Wa J��l1�1��r✓I rr««�r��/arrrl//%/O;;r�iri� ,,,+ �i x 11 (! '�%%; � „ ti l/�/lag/�/,/��//�� / rr'ti/�`/rg�rtUxrn«�,,tiL/�rrid�rarrr/rn�r, JJfr,�irrt�iUFt u'Grlar // rj/�ll lllffr 1/Illr/ii r f h'^d I�OrfRlr�f,jJ y r i �iA�Arw uWb I sir � o�aWIV' �� l�� '� �� ,_„�,��"i�1�'➢"lYj iuiuiu�iuiu�i�skWiuiuWwu>�uui r "r ur i a Data source:Google maps and streetview. FDOT ', Page L 127 1936 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlrlllllllllll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 22 1irUd< ID Ihveiries in Key West Overview Many truck deliveries in central Key West are mostly performed on-street with shorter "straight" trucks. However, semi-trailer deliveries occur as well, as many suppliers make multiple deliveries along US 1 from mainland warehouses in Miami-Dade County, and for operational efficiency by using the larger delivery trucks. Deliveries with this vehicle type can be difficult if drivers are not familiar with the narrow street system, workable intersection turns, and designated loading zone locations. Anecdotally, it was noted during the study process that more than one delivery truck has needed police assistance from a "no way forward" situation. Figure 8-3 shows several representative truck delivery situations in central Key West. The City has designated truck loading zones in the historic commercial district with a time window of 6 am to 2 pm. After 2 pm these zones are used as vehicle "pay to park" spaces. Therefore, deliveries with large trucks may be problematic after 2 pm. Figure 8-3 Typical truck Deliveries in Key West r 6mldp ii�� r / y a, i, Vn ,filar r , Data source:Google maps and streetview. FDOT 'i Page L 128 1937 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlllzlllllllll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 During the study process, it was noted that delivery trucks on occasion have been found to park in travel lanes, double-park, and park in other unauthorized locations. Some park in a street travel lane temporarily to make deliveries, or pick-ups. Truck deliveries after 2 pm time limit for designated curb parking are made in some fashion, risking citations as a necessary cost of doing business. The delivery issues encountered in Key West are not unlike other popular tourist destinations in Florida: St. Augustine, Miami Beach, Cedar Key, Clearwater Beach, Tarpon Springs, Destin, in addition to Savannah, Charleston, or many other small historic coastal communities. The difference is that Key West is located is nearly 130 miles from the nearest mainland retail, warehouse, and distribution centers in Homestead, or 150 miles or more to locations in central Miami-Dade County. Those distances often make truck deliveries a long-distance proposition, affecting scheduling and dispatch of critical time-sensitive delivery items (frozen and refrigerated foods; flowers; meats and seafood; medicines). Deadhead return trips with no cargo exacerbate the transport economics of the long distances involved. The economic vitality of the thriving Key West business district is thoroughly dependent on the trucking logistics industry and must be served to support continued economic viability. St. Augustine as a Comparison City The City of St. Augustine historic/tourism district was examined as a comparison community to Key West in terms of central district truck deliveries. St. Augustine is situated on a long, narrow peninsula between the Matanzas and San Sabastian Rivers, with US 1 as the one major north- south thoroughfare. The central business district is a lively tourist destination revolving around the historic district and the old Spanish fort Castillo de San Marcos. The grid of narrow streets is prohibitive for large truck access although the same retail, business, service, and household delivery needs exist as in Key West. St.Augustine has worked to solve some of the tourist personal auto and tour bus traffic with a major multimodal transportation parking facility on the north side of the central business district. This area serves as a hub for tours, trams, trolleys, and tour buses, which have the benefit of removing from the streets much of the associated traffic searching for parking. This area is also the home of the Flagler College campus with all the parking on campus dedicated to faculty, students, staff who also use on-street parking. Truck parking for all purposes has remained an issue. The North Florida Transportation Planning Organization (NFTPO) in 2015 studied the truck parking and management issue in St. Augustine. The St. Augustine Truck Parking and Management Study gathered and analyzed data and provided findings and recommendations. The study collected data on traffic counts, truck parking use and occupancy, and truck routes, and surveyed business owners, residents, and delivery companies; it also mapped the parking inventory of spaces by type within the city and provided information from a number of truck parking case studies from a wide range of communities. The case studies compared parking permit costs, time limits, and parking enforcement ticket charges. FDOT 'i Page L 129 1938 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlrlllllllllll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 The study distinguished four types of trucks: delivery trucks under 20-feet long; medium trucks 20- to 30-feet long; and heavy trucks 30-feet or longer. An inventory of 41 parking areas determined there are 520 automobile spaces available and spaces for 2 delivery vehicles, 21 medium trucks, and 4 heavy trucks. The parking area data was mapped and categorized by "proposed delivery zones" with hours of operation. A survey of 3,577 individual business addresses were sent post cards requesting the type, size, and hours of delivery to each address. Responses were divided by "delivery companies" (37 responses), or "local residents or businesses" (84 responses). A key finding is that 88 percent of respondents were unwilling to pay for parking. A Purpose and Needs statement was identified in the plan document.The Purpose was identified: Develop a commercial vehicle management plan for the City of St.Augustine 0 Propose strategies to reconfiguring parking spaces to balance truck and automobile parking needs 0 Parking management plan 0 Policies and procedures The Needs identified in the study included the following: + Meet truck parking demand 0 Demand exceeds capacity today 0 Trucks circulate causing congestion 0 Unneeded wear on pavements + Serve businesses + Preserve historic resources + Reduce congestion + Enhance safety identified needs Identified Truck Routes and Restrictions The study also identified truck routes with specific regulatory criteria for each route (see Figure 8-4). The truck routes (identified in yellow highlight in this map) are the preferred truck routes into and through town. Restricted routes allowing no vehicles over 8-feet wide x 8-feet high x 24- feet long are allowed. FDOT 'i Page L 130 1939 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� Illlrlllllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Figure - 1dentifled truck Routes andRestrictionsin St.Augustine a 1 GI +n a Cc� ti 9•, yY d r Tw r>, J �"'X Wig �q��."iti FJ�"'" �4 �,. 'mun"mw�w+ p. n �" �� %„✓+,, iwiww^i 6� P ,� .weµ +y. FA A.I'�1 YSMf�ifel tYn AknO''.�Nl.J'b VIW' m +Iuunxt ulf He uA n'.pin V�� ea nn h 4'UR&I a411 ram• 1 125 250 Soo 750 1 DOO The Study analyzed policy and design Figure 5 truck Zone Time Restrictions alternatives, rejecting three and considering pragxaasa pwdWrtay hu'Wlrvy Xm.ea eight further: .rz 1 s ati w Considered but eliminated: ( Alternative 1 —Truck Waiting Areas ��`� �� N, ,.,..�.,.,,.n + Alternative 2—Central Distribution Center NINE + Alternative 3—Centralized LoadingZones for __ ��4 C n 5010a NO Can4 a00 Extended Times Recommended: + Alternative 4—Time Restrictions in Loading { j ; Zones (per Figure 8-5) + Alternative 5— Smart Parking Management Systems + Alternative 6— Redesign of Existing Lots + Alternative 7— Restructuring Permits, Fines and Fees �..; .._. + Alternative 8—Truck Routes Time restrictions were also recommended: ' Small Delivery Trucks: � 24-hour use �.�.: Larger Trucks: 10 + 5:00 a.m.to 8:00 a.m. near Old City + 5:00 a.m.to 10:00 a.m.typical + 5:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m. remote lots for extended duration FDOT 'i Page L 131 1940 I , � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIIIDI usllw�„wo Illlllzlllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Proposed permit fees and fines were analyzed and recommended per Table 8-1: Table -l Parking Permit Fees and Flrre, (St.Augustine) '""AAtl aII1VaIV lullu a I^.uJU�Pwwrrepre nA,"d �".Ilu1u9 uNNN Nry A puivgq N NNMre y".Rre rp "repP"�i�u;A��r��tlre�l �rearel u u. lAAllll IA "I� lulu � ��Alllupre Illll"" II re NN " u I A l �u�u�u�u�u��l��l��l��u��uluuluuluuluulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulllulll� � ��uIu�lii ��u� i��,�„��,�I„„�„,�I,I,��rrrrrr�unuuuullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullullulluliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliuliul N"�NI u�0l glill@1l�Il� uA"11 p N . � , � u uu ,,ur Annual fee $950 plug "dl p llllub°Vu AA"r a Att AI Iu1V"lu UlpUlu buy AdpAvOo)u IunlluY�rq q rA wpBr P 11 y�i N p Ala Annual fee plus pay meter $275 $r per 30 minutes �uuiu iiva iu i�uuaui a i��uiiva i"a�u�iiaui�u iiva�iiu �uaiiu''�a�iva �� 1��111��1�11��111� Fr per 30, minutes Annual tee $27 Ixr Anryp"y,N"q" rN"N"d @ul W°"IiA 1pulWwllpll aulllu„Y'�IVupuuNNpNi�N1 q� MilpiuN"p➢uIgIIV)s Ndry pAl@V N�ux ,o wi ulu u"uNN��pO�VU ulul°"Iare µ V,�BV,ll�lsn<w� u,�,��Yuh��re�n�N��I�;��,lullu,M�W��u,�iu�d�G,lu,rtu,��ul6�lliu,��u,'M�INV,�w,�u�G1d4,l;u�nw��?wIre,n�N� ��u;�lu,�Nlu16�,NIN�uu�ul6ulh�l� � � III Annual fee $275 Annual�� ,fee $27 pp pppppp gpppp ry� pp��ryggq pp�ryryryry��p p��ryry ppppppp p�i uqugqu°NN aAwrc^nn�lumllub�IluuurysA y/�// // /�/ �p NNNNIN�NNNlNNNNNNINNNNNN��NN�NNN�NNN�IVINIIIIIIUIIIINIIIVVUI�UU��N�N��N��N�NNN��N�NNN�IVURIllUIIV�IVUUlYk1yYN1�� NNtip�l��8N8RtiYfl�f��Hr��Vre� t� t�i�wlrN�n��,lulA,dut ��IIVI��II��II��II��IIVI��N�N�N�NVININININININNNINININININININININININININININININININININININININININININ� lulluu AUAI""IlwluAll"u" "Au �v�lvlullluy Wry AA Am uuualyuluuUA uu NAA.uuulAlu u�Aau�+A GN Am lluuAlA preuv " A Annual fee �M h...ANre"rvr Abu " kd ' NN AA IIIGJI IIIU@GPNN "AulVU IWlkR "A @I lulu Vol Aoi u��,uu iu.. 91W�: tl , ��1 N N , duA7rere g ,�I�u o uA>j�A�dH AANrvIAt�"�91"y� v avre�0 Annual fee plus pair meter fee $950 $�5 per3p minutes �I IIIIlpIVA NNNN riP NAgA u�NRNi(tt gP611�&V1NIr°N +Afar GAi Atl IVN Nhi�p III@IWW�,AJ qp ulglGpplll V+i II�u4ulle pIII��IV""µN Free Free WMM "ioI IIAI�IIAI,VIO;Iq IV9 11i1NI 01 1kldMfiA IIIIQIIt11�l��INNIGI��lll@SIIIIQl�A n��'I�I(VI@0yuNgkpN'rua NpA�iJIA�ddd'h%7,'AV'Nk "�u dAAA(Al lull)�NNNNH Aitl IfAD ��IUll��pllI IIIRAkk,N Permit plus all other applicable fees $1 5 per 3C7 u�g iN��ulhii uu � w�� n��N�ii�ii�i�u�N� . t� � u�� f a� n� u�u: N �� y;�u� �u�u� lh�°°U, �� /�//%Or�%� minutes �II IIIAA-, II-- A""" IlAllllll �u��puuu 'MgV°li� U1111 i knn DIIIIIIIIIIVVIILuUull Nq Nq�N"I IlUV14RN NY NN"fl p^rAAliBlydggp� �300 300 p�N" l%lnitlalr",UIIIII��IIIII�J i°IIIIIII I°lllilp p �°lu Nfltllff IIVIV�UuIV flNN1N� �1 25 IAI(Ilr II NN II dN IA If �,glul�ouul ��, dKl1q�9111)I!��1 Sul!II" �a� 1�r�nuull iil�{ill a uuu�Ndl �� 12 uuu P Nu % "lpN !ANNd ppfl Hl° w IN k WC N�flIVAq °[�MA�N�fl Dnl�°�wj�8dnitl kklk "Vlq�1°8N f� 1141!IIIIINIIIVIIPoMHh�lN"I�Illl��lllu M" Jfl UYI N "NN Iltl kRN!A l 12 IIIVV�P��yp �Us��t� Ns� l�lu��P�IPI�IUk'�IR��VI�IIV�urr�lU�IRVfi��IIGu�IUk��lUu��U�IIPUA<IU�IVIA<IPA!IU��IU��U�IIVV��Vk�RA(�IP�IIUTA�UkfR��lUkfR��I��IR�IV��rVk��VV�I��I��Uk�IV��IV��lII�IIRU�IUkfRfPV�ll�u�lV�IfV�r&'b�I��IYV��I��IIVV �� l u A m IVY dal The analyses and findings of the St.Augustine study are included here to demonstrate the extent to which the issues and solutions can be identified and further studied. This sample is intended to suggest alternative policy options that can be considered by the City of Key West but are not the only options. Although the City of St. Augustine is an analogous city in form and function, further study in Key West could tailor recommendations specific to the locational and access needs of Key West. Source: ht �a // w a ya �� .�c inr7l/V.'o u inneirArtB::eirA c irNiiew/63 9/V. e einr711beir-201 r. Ilru��ruck, PairlldirA� PJ��irA��,�,einr7erArt-P�a arA.::.: ...............PQE ....... FDOT 'i Page 132 1941 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo IIIIIIIIIIIII�II Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 8.3 Overnight Truck Parking INeeds Along US 1 53. Exiishng Condffions This study scope did not inventory existing overnight or extended truck parking along the US 1 corridor. Where there are delivery schedule delays requiring an overnight stay, some drivers may arrange with the point of delivery to safely park overnight. Other drivers who made deliveries to the Lower Keys and were enroute back to the mainland may not have that option, in the event of a mechanical issue or an hours-of-service compliance issue. Because of the regularity of truck deliveries to the Lower Keys by many businesses, it is anticipated that the frequency of truckers needing overnight truck parking is relatively low. During field visits, no significant circumstances of many trucks parked on shoulders, empty lots, or along frontage roads was observed. There are a number of recreational vehicles parks along US 1, but these typically do not cater to tractor trailers. During field reviews, a few trucks were observed parked at service stations along the corridor as a solution. Other drivers in this situation may park on a wide shoulder area or on one the frontage roads parallel to northbound US 1. An alternative option would be to provide a designated parking facility for trucks at a safe, convenient location for truckers forced to overnight with their vehicles. This section of the report explores that situation further. 53,2 T11- uCk II'Iairkng Needs According to data analysis throughout this report, there are an estimated 250 average daily round trip truck deliveries to the Key West area from the mainland and a total of 500 average daily round trip truck deliveries to all of the Keys from the mainland. Given the population and traffic forecasts, these figures are not expected to grow significantly. Based on traffic count variations over the year and tourism visitation patterns, it is expected that these average figures could vary by +/- 20% seasonally. Information suggests that there is very little truck travel to and from Key West and the Lower Keys involving overnight stays due to the operational costs of doing so. As a result, the common practice for firms or delivery services making freight deliveries to the Lower Keys opt to have drivers pull a full or long day as opposed to an overnight stay. Further,some long-distance truck movements with deliveries may require special arrangements, such as truck parking at the destination overnight, because of the delays or the nature of the delivery. In terms of overnight truck parking needs in Monroe County, the greatest need was observed to be northbound in the Middle to Upper Keys which would be especially beneficial for those "caught"with hours of service limitations as they return northbound to the mainland after making deliveries in the Lower Keys. Deliveries to the Middle Keys destinations like Marathon are more easily accomplished within a normal working day and do not require overnight parking. Truck driver hours of service rules are Federal regulations that limit the amount of time drivers can be on duty and driving, and require rest periods, to ensure safety. The main rules are: # A driver must have 10 consecutive hours off-duty before beginning a shift. FDOT 'i Page L 133 1942 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 A driver can only be on-duty for 14 consecutive hours, which includes driving and other tasks. A driver can only drive for 11 hours within the 14-hour period. A driver cannot drive for more than 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. A driver must use an electronic logging device to track duty status and driving hours. While a driver can operate for up to 11 hours on any given day, considering the 7- and 8-day restriction yields an average over a week of about 8-1/2 hours a day of operating time. Therefore, a driver making a delivery from the central Miami-Dade County warehousing district to Key West would require from 2 hours, 40 minutes to perhaps 3 hours from Florida City southward to cover 120 miles, and perhaps another 40 minutes outside of peak hour traffic between Florida City and a warehouse in Medley, for a total of about 3-1/2 hours each way, or 7 hours driving time round trip. However, it is possible that Miami traffic, US 1 traffic incidents, or heavy rainstorms somewhere along the trip could add an hour or more to the overall travel time, approaching the daily average limit. Depending on how the driver's weekly operating hours are scheduled, this may or may not be an issue. Alternatively, prudent freight dispatchers might reserve more time in the operator's schedule for the Key West run or book the trip earlier in the driver's weekly schedule when an 11- hour operating day could more readily be accommodated. Additionally, depending on the number and average duration of delivery stops (or unexpected delivery delays) along with rest and meal breaks, the daily total on-duty limitation of 14 hours could also apply. While a quantitative estimate of potential truck parking demand cannot be derived mathematically from the preceding discussion, based on the available information, it is estimated that from 3% to 5% of the truck deliveries to the Lower Keys might have the periodic need for overnight truck parking. This would yield a demand range in the off-season of 6-10 truck parking spaces, and a demand range of 9-15 truck parking spaces in the peak season. Expressed as a low-end to high-end need over the year, the low-end estimate would be 6-9 spaces and the high-end estimate would be 10- 15 spaces. , 3 F)urep osed T11-UCk Il airking IF.'eciilfty In terms of location, it is assumed that truckers needing overnight parking would be outbound from the Lower Keys traveling northbound on US 1, and that a point north of Marathon, at least halfway back to Florida City would be more feasible. Locations along US 1 were reviewed for FDOT right-of-way conditions favorable to development of a truck parking site that would be suitably located and compatible with adjacent land uses,with enough room for 6-15 truck parking spaces. Few workable locations were identified. The most promising site that was found was the existing FDOT truck weigh station located at MM 86. This facility is situated on an 80-foot-wide strip of FDOT right-of-way (ROW) on the east side of US 1. This swath of land extends from the FDOT 'i Page L 134 1943 Illlrlllllllllll � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 85700 block of the Overseas Highway at Snake Creek to the south to the 86400 block to the north, a distance of about 4,200 feet. The weigh station's role historically has been to monitor the weight of trucks and loads for conformance with FDOT operating regulations (see Appendix E for weigh station data). In recent years, some of its functions have been automated, freeing many southbound trucks properly equipped to interface with the weigh station to have their weight checked by an in-pavement weigh-in-motion devise north of the weigh station. Northbound trucks are also monitored, but most of these are longer-distance trucks traveling light as their loads have been delivered and they are making empty haul runs back to Miami-Dade County. Since the weigh station is focused on truck movements, placing truck parking spaces there seemed like a logical alternative. Figure 8-6 shows the existing weigh station location and associated ROW. Figure -6 FDO T Weigh Stad at bile Marker°86 y n • ter" .�; �� 5,; .� w ✓✓ a It is also noted that one of Monroe County's priority recommendations from the recent US 1 Transportation Master Plan is a modification to the weigh station, in part perhaps because its proximity to Snake Creek may be incompatible with a desired high-level fixed span bridge over Snake Creek. However, a review of proposed Snake Creek bridge replacement alternatives at the FDOT project website (!I..!.. Sus 1 overseas H ,%..Ohway mnmn 8 mnmn 8i.h:mr�ll showed that three options would preserve the southerly access to the weight station, while a fourth option would relocate the weigh station into the median of US 1. These options are presented in Figure 8-7. FDOT 'i Page L 135 1944 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo IIIIIIIIIIIII�II Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Figure -7Sn ke Creek fid e Replace errt ltern tine, Option 1 — Modified the south weigh station access as a 41" leg of an intersection with Venetian Blvd. also serving a new looping frontage road. Option 2 — Maintained the intersection with Venetian Blvd. but replaced the weigh station in the median of US 1. u m tla pY r„� a it 'i 4 in r 9 vti Option 3 - Extended the bridge to the north over Venetian Blvd. with an at-grade roundabout for the south access to the weigh station (FDOT ROW along the prior weigh station site could still be used for truck parking.). t J- ,, //%/ 1ffo,rf�/��l�.r..,.irit� / ✓ �r�imui rrvirnrmmN r i iirrlla 1 d 611f(& '(r"'-'p �. Option 4 - Converts south weigh station access to 41" leg of Venetian Blvd. intersection, also serving a 2-way access road. its 111,1,1111111� 11JJrrr(lr fJf�l��f�llll/a �/ ,,, ra �%�%fr`' r� %//e Wr l��y�rj��rrlrrlrr�rrn,/�lar,,,,, i , rr Three options keep the weigh station footprint and south access intact. Option 2 relocates the weigh station in the median of US 1. These options are all subject refinement and/or revision in the planned PD&E Study and FDOT's decision on the weigh station's future. Source:FDOT FDOT 'i Page L 136 1945 1 , � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIIIDI uw�wo � Illlrlllllll'lll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 999 The feasibility study confirms except for Option 2 that the weigh station and its south access would remain functional. With this background addressed, three truck parking options at the FDOT weigh station site were identified as shown in Figures 8-8 and 8-9: Option 1: Modify Existing Weigh Station Ramp: < Widen the roadway north of the weigh station on its west side and restripe the roadway to provide truck parking spaces on the existing northbound ramp lane. < Provides seven truck parking spaces. < Cost - $340,000, or $48,600 per space; no new ROW needed. Figure 8-8 Option 14 Modify Existing Weigh Station Ramp i d�➢'1` � �, TM, � r ,.,, w � rr ':.s P ' ''„ G,! � 0„, J �'� � I r �k� /r/ ✓ry�fA!%,�� i� �.. 1� rd ✓ x z rv�" Ili n /11��n� Ip✓,F } �i a J� f i urr, � ✓ � / X pa J�J i r � r„ 1� i rr 4�� l r . � � 2 , �i"d� � rti �ov4�� 4�P��r/J�e,�rr d .✓, // / �/� a�.,„� � �� a�w US i AWL Q),Llt 1 M i� i�,y'�0','✓ �1 rrr �,r r�/r�'�/ � ��>�a'•. /Jiiu"'�J�� i1V � �',�n';' �' rt '/, g ��,„ `�.„.,,.�-'� 75'"x u��a�w, ✓>Hr'. 0��, � ..�w,�,)�� „ ,;,, ,�ku,�J��„J/,,✓,,./�� r��'� % ?,,�, r�'dl.„�, lr� Oa v�,�� „„✓i„'RYA 110 /r i/ / 1�,�/l/, c,/ ��✓i//�i%//� a� �� y � � � �F �,� F �ar, /Il��iier ,,; �,,:�,. �✓'�,��, �J r✓rc,, „� �, riff J>" J„a,�',� �1 a� �� n✓�O�iw �i��✓'ri. r +� r�» ✓�,�Fii "�11//,�� D�U,/i i� o / % 9 / . � 1 oUlnd P „ parr ! p 3 r ' �� ri / ��✓ ry /lii/� I� -, � � n alb 1✓ 1/�'` ��r l�f��%a//i!/a�/ � °/i �,/ ,�� !i i,(i%� �, / l/ f� i'� i It /� „� �l��i✓'�I�l� I / /i, iv 0 Source:Atkins # Option 2: Extend Weigh Station Ramp to the North: 1) Construct an extension to the north of the weigh station ramp connecting to US 1 to the north, with truck parking spaces on either side of the travel lane. < Provides 16 truck parking spaces. < Cost - $1,012,000, or $63,250 per space due to additional travel lane paving involved; no new ROW needed. # Options 1 and 2 Combined: < Provides 23 truck parking spaces. < Cost - $1,352,000, or $58,800 per space; no new ROW needed. FDOT 'i Page L 137 1946 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlllzlllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 Figure 8-9 Option 2. Extend Weigh Station Ramp to the North �h,�ii y o v��(^ eyi rrVrr rrer P""'"�' rri iurrinpyl z i ,i. PU wn ie �,,.�� `.� �o,,, r�amuw�aui��u�i�i�ur��uu!�uiy�Gum � 8�rrla➢ 9w�lli�I�S1'°l' '�K'J�i a�%'l ."�', � � ai ,, ,�i� � ro ��lah�...i r�G .,,e�.�' ", fir �p�,. h,,, „l, �,.:� %li i/!A)�a '/7r Jl MSG„ xk, DNS fl ,G / g // G //i/11� �«611 / iJl CGS Wll11 fl1y y r `"w„ / U ✓ ��IAYt nNir nDOem i //!Y/J/yi" /Jli ;� � r a niv i Nor 3, w?, '� ,+ ran lowuromwvmmwum r.,µ, �d�uw uD'��w�" " °.''"''�Yan�fMupp 'V'M' �N'M ;f1!'F4'V'i;!�Vi➢UNf011N9 (U'��,,.nr ,,u�rv�w.wnw,�mo,rwa Yw w�or�r, , ,�aw�,w omPdu4W01JIOW'�U9�'�'!I'd ""e9a uDuwl mi iN !��Nwo uwwo nee n HwJ r.womirv,sr idi uvuY � ^�� I, Outbound r r � Source:Atkins Based on the estimated potential truck parking demand and the tradeoffs between the options, the following observations are provided: # Option 1 is relatively low in cost and should be considered as the first step should the decision to provide truck parking at this location be pursued. # Option 2 could be considered as incremental next step in providing truck parking, in the event that the utilization of the constructed Option 1 spaces is significant. # A variation of Option 2 would be to construct the travel lane and one lane of truck parking spaces, providing an increment of eight more spaces over Option 1, for a total of 15 truck parking spaces, for a cost of $708,000, or $88,500 per space. The last increment of eight more spaces could be added later at a cost of $304,000, or $38,000 per space. Breakdown of the costs for Options 1 and 2 are provided in Tables 8-2 and 8-3. FDOT 'i Page L 138 1947 I , � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIIIDI Illlllzlllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Table 8-2 Optionl Cost Estimate eI h rt flloin Truck Pairkiiing Opflloin I Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 110-1-1 Clearing&Grubbing AC 0.30 $ 22,S08.69 $ 6,701.4S 28S-709 Optional Base Group 09 SY 1441.00 $ 49.7S $ 71,689.7S 334-1-13 Superpave Asphalt Conc,Traffic C TN 118.83 $ 20S.84 $ 24,4S9.97 337-7-82 Asphalt Concrete FC,Traffic C,FC-9.S,PG 76-22 TN 4S1.77 $ 23S.79 $ 106,S22.8S S70-1-2 Performance Turf,Sod SY 212.78 $ 6.60 $ 1,404.33 711-16-101 Thermoplastic,Std-other surfaces,White,Solid 6" GM 0.61 $ S,39S.80 $ 3,284.49 711-16-201 Thermoplastic,Std-other surfaces,yellow,Solid 6" GM 0.31 $ 1,72S.00 $ S33.S1 711-11-12S Thermoplastic,Standard,White,Solid 18" LF 4S0.00 $ 7.19 $ 3,23S.S0 711-11-141 Thermoplastic,Standard,White,Solid 24" LF 12.00 $ 7.19 $ 86.28 711-11-170 Thermoplastic,Standard,White,Arrow EA 6.00 $ 148.6S $ 891.90 700-1-11 Single Post Sign,F&I GM,<12 EA 4.00 $ 499.10 $ 1,996.40 Subtotal $ 220,806.43 Design(20%) $ 44,161.29 Geotech(1S%of Design) $ 6,624.19 Survey(1S%of Design) $ 6,624.19 CEI(10%) $ 22,080.64 Mobilization(10%) $ 22,080.64 MOT(8%) $ 17,664.S1 Grand Total $ 340,041.90 Source:Atkins Table 8-3 Option , t Estimate eI h rt flloin Truck Pairkiiing Opflloin 2 Item Description Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 110-1-1 Clearing&Grubbing AC 1.91 $ 22,S08.69 $ 42,968.04 28S-709 Optional Base Group 09 SY 6609.S6 $ 49.7S $ 328,82S.39 334-1-13 Superpave Asphalt Conc,Traffic C TN S4S.28 $ 20S.84 $ 112,240.44 337-7-82 Asphalt Concrete FC,Traffic C,FC-9.S,PG 76-22 TN 636.44 $ 23S.79 $ 1S0,066.19 S70-1-2 Performance Turf,Sod SY 3764.00 $ 6.60 $ 24,842.40 711-16-101 Thermoplastic,Std-other surfaces,White,Solid 6" GM 1.00 $ S,39S.80 $ S,398.87 711-11-160 Thermoplastic,Standard,White,Message EA 3.00 $ 177.73 $ S33.19 711-11-170 Thermoplastic,Standard,White,Arrow EA 9.00 $ 148.65 $ 1,337.8S 700-1-11 Single Post Sign,F&I GM,<12 EA 4.00 $ 499.10 $ 1,996.40 Subtotal $ 668,208.7S Design(20%) $ 133,641.7S Geotech(1S%of Design) $ 20,046.26 Survey(1S%of Design) $ 3,006.94 CEI(10%) $ 66,820.88 Mobilization(10%) $ 66,820.88 MOT(8%) $ S3,4S6.70 Grand Total $ 1,012,002.16 Source:Atkins This discussion has characterized the level of potential truck parking need northbound along US 1 and developed options that could be implemented at the existing FDOT weigh station site at MM 86. However, implementation of a selected concept is dependent on FDOT's determination of the preferred Snake Creek bridge replacement concept which has to be validated and refined through a pending PD&E Study. Truck parking implementation is also somewhat dependent upon FDOT's approach to how the weigh station functions will be executed in the future, which has not yet been determined. Based on these two contingencies, it is considered that implementation of truck parking at the weigh station site should be deferred until further information is available about the bridge replacement and the weigh station's future. FDOT 'i Page L 139 1948 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo IIIIIIIIIIIII�II Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 9.0 Stakeholder Outreach and Feedback The primary point of contact for coordinating this study with Monroe County was the Florida Keys Transportation Coordination Committee (FKTCC), comprising staff and officials from jurisdictions along US 1 in the Keys. This body generally meets quarterly to discuss and consider matters relating to mobility and the quality of multimodal transportation options across the length of US 1 in the Florida Keys. The assigned Monroe County Staff Lead coordinating the efforts of the FKTCC was the primary point of contact for study requests, discussing technical matters, arranging periodic study updates, and exchanging other information. Updates on the status and progress of this plan were presented virtually using videoconferencing, at the study onset, two intermediate points, and at the study conclusion. Copies of the presentations are provided in Appendix F. Membership of the FKTCC covered all jurisdictions in the US 1 corridor and included the following: # Key West < Commissioner Mary Lou Hoover: m,r_1 o verC c,ij�„y ;f„R< ffl c ar < Alternate: Commissioner/Vice Mayor Sam Kaufman: skaufman@cityofkeywest- fl.gov < Director of Transportation Rod Delostrinos rdelostrinos@cityofkeywest-fl.gov (did attend at least one of the meetings). # Islamorada < Vice Mayor Pete Bacheler: pete.bacheler@islamorada.fl.us < Alternate: Councilman Mark Gregg: mark.gregg@islamorada.fl.us < Acting Director of Planning Hank Flores H ar. N<,ffl_ ,re s.2, Jsll „r]nor. d a;ffl a„s, < (Include: Clerk Kelly Toth in communications:. „II, _r,N<,,,a�,,ii,s,11, _m;norac, ,,.f;,fl,,;,,u_s) # Layton < Mayor Bruce Halle: brucehalle@aol.com < Alternate: Greg Lewis: mfd354@aol.com < Mimi Young: City Clerk/Assistant to the Building Official/Public Information Officer/Asst. to the Emergency Manager m;r, umi...C c."t.y fBayt: mi.c rn # Marathon < Council Member Daniel Zieg: z�;ijer Or d,rnara t.ho �.f].us < Alternate: Planning Director Brain Shea: Sheab@ci.marathon.fl.us # Key Colony Beach < (Ms.) Kimmeron Lisle: kcblisle@gmail.com, cell: 917-523-0791 < Alternate: Gerard Roussin, Building Official: building2@keycolonybeach.net, PH: 305.434.0804 In addition, communications occurred with other stakeholders and information sources. These included: Monroe County - Mayor Michelle Coldiron < Briefing on the study scope and objectives. FDOT 'i Page L 140 1949 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlllzlllllllll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study 2023 # Naval Air Base Key West < Wallace R. Moore, Jr - CIV USN NAVFAC SE 1AX FL (USA) < Information regarding freight needs of the base. # City of Key West < Commissioner Mary Lou Hoover— District 5 < Coordination on naval base contact and discussion of general freight issues. # FDOT Office of Maintenance — Motor Carrier Size and Weight (Central Office) < Statewide Scale Operations Manager - Paul Clark < Data for the US 1 weigh station at MM 86. # AECOM < Vivek Reddy, PE < Coordination on the growth management traffic analysis. < Coordination on the US Transportation Master Plan. These coordination efforts provided opportunities to share the approach and status of this study as well as to receive input and technical guidance which was incorporated into study analyses and findings. A final presentation to the Monroe County Commission is planned to provide an overview of the study findings and recommendations for further coordination between FDOT and County technical staff. FDOT 'i Page L 141 1950 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlrlllllllll�ll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 10.0 Recommendations 10.1 lPrioritization of (Proposed Improvement Actions This section of the report presents the proposed improvement recommendations within the study area that would enhance freight mobility and the mobility of general traffic, since they operate together in mixed flow. This study has identified a variety of transportation improvements that, if implemented, would incrementally contribute to reduced traffic friction and improved traffic conditions. The recommendations are categorized into three implementation phases based on the results of the intersection and segment traffic service analyses performed in Section 6 of the report. Those phases are: # Priority 1: Short-Term Improvements 2023-2030 # Priority 2: Intermediate-Term Improvements 2031-2040 # Priority 3: Long-Term Improvements 2041 and beyond There is also a set of Other Project Recommendations focusing on planning and policy efforts that can be taken. �0, �, � Il ur p sed Inteirsecfii in iiirnp it v iirnen s Considerations in prioritizing intersections improvements, shown in Figure 10-1, were as follows: # Location 3 (US 1 at Crane Blvd.) has no signal timing or capacity improvement recommendation and is not prioritized. # Four locations (2, 4, 7 and 9) have signal timing recommendations only and were given a Priority 1 rating. # Three locations (1, 5, and 6) has signal timing recommendations and minor turn lane improvements and were given a Priority 1 rating. # Location 8 (US 1 at Ocean Bay Drive/Atlantic Ave.) has: < Signal timing recommendation and a turn lane improvement that applies under the No Growth Scenario; this package was assigned a Priority 1 rating. < Moderate and High Growth Scenario recommendation calling for a more costly additional turn lane; this element was assigned a Priority 3 rating, given the need is dependent on higher traffic growth that would occur over a longer period of time. # Location 10 (US 1 at Pompano Ave./Key Largo Elementary School Exit Drive) is proposed for a traffic signal due to queuing issues on the school exit drive. It was considered that since this location was one of the US 1 Transportation Master Plan Priority recommendations, it should be assigned a Priority 1 rating. Based on the above, all proposed intersection improvements are rated as Priority 1 in Table 10- 1, except for the Priority 3 element for intersection Location 8. FDOT 'i Page L 142 1951 � �� IIIII�IIIIII�IIIII� w�wo Illlrlllllllllll Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 � ,` ,2 Il ur p sed egiirnen iiirnp it v iirnents Considerations in prioritizing segment improvements, shown in Figure 10-2, were as follows: # Segment improvements (8) that aligned with the US 1 Transportation MasterP/an and/or the 2023 ATTDS were assigned a Priority 1 rating and where LOS per this freight study was below LOS C. These segments have high traffic volume and high truck percentage. These locations are: < Locations 15-22 # Isolated improvements (3)where right turn lanes would address delays on segments which have high traffic volume and high truck percentage and with LOS D were assigned Priority 1 ratings. These locations include: < Locations 10, 13, and 14 # Several isolated improvements (8) located on segments with LOS below C and/or the action yielded improvement in the LOS letter grade, with some segments having high traffic volume and/or high truck percentage, were assigned Priority 2. These locations include: < Locations 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 23 and 26 # Several isolated improvements (7) located on segments with LOS below C and/or the action did not yield an improvement in the LOS letter grade were assigned Priority 3. These locations: < Locations 3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 24 and 25 Based on the above, proposed intersection improvements are prioritized into three groups with a similar number of projects and similar estimated costs, as shown in Tables 10-2 through 10-4. 10.2 Prioritized Improvement Actions Tables 10-1 through 10-4 display the prioritized intersection improvements and segment improvements. In addition, both intersection and segment improvement projects with their priority rating are presented in Figure 10-1 for the Lower Keys and in Figure 10-2 for the Middle and Upper Keys. FDOT 'i Page L 143 1952 M m (V O co 7 I J Ol lD to 00 01 00 O 'r N O Ln r- M I� L n D M O Ql Q 7! N CY) b4 b4 b4 yMq H4 sN4 O O O O N m m uW' Io c c Q N N Ui.l %i� N N C v C N w N E - c c c co 7 tp mO w m 3 N N v v m o N m -E N O N O O O1 m in Ot O V X E E c CD O m O c Nn an •'' N CO CO O O N Ln M N N N cm) cm) N N O1 Q N N 1 � U O N Ot Ot Ot Ot N O O E O O1 O1 7 O •N V V V V Ol- N V V V f i Ly wm N O O O O c N M V O ZOX U Z Z ZQ Z Vm Z P1pU1 III -O -O -O -O C C c c C c N C C In -O � l 7 7 7 7 7 L 7 7 O c m N w IO O O O O O O 'O 7 Ln N c E v v o -0 E m ? V) o m "U?1M, alffl m �E poo o O o c p oLn m oc -�ac m oc -�ac .° oLn cv U c c > N ao O c E E c 7 N c 7 O O W O O oo c o o O OOo 03c O0 l E O uc 2 v � � ' E ENS � 3E E E E•' •' cv cvv O O •c' mvv + O c c j c v v W v E Ln c •cv' p o v � Q vv v ^ 'Eo cm vc c c o " v o E o -0 m m O v m II vOi In O c m N� N N Ln N E vOi Ln a--' c - c X`� N m N m p — t m Y t m m coo m p a� m p c 'O m o c v O v V c V v v ^ vcy) v > v v c v 2— v N V V m .m O V '-' V O V O ,--, V O V +' N m V m 7 Ol W Ln a, Lq w m 00 m � V r- rn �o rn r.- � �o rn w w r- � Ql O M Ql O I- 00 O U') r- to M to to N to MM M 00 00 O L O 00 00 OVl r\jry) D ( O 00 U 00 N M N N N N N N N N N N N N N I lull a " el 0 U G u Y +r s o _ a L N ; a+ a+ N m'� x N L el V V1. 'IOJJ a+ a+ 0 a+ 00 a+ a+ LA a+ LA a+ a+ m a+ ma V a+ R e VI u J R y m at+ at+ 3 R a+ R C 3 M R Q Y lCJ C N Q Q•— d i m VI D C a : lJ D m Q � C Q : H m W d Q J M .. -T .. Ln .. .... P, .... co .... ....ON .. 0.... m N Ln N r r r r r r r r r r r tp N w O O w N m N N O O m w N m r m O O m roco r m N N m m N w N w w w w w w w w w O O O O O O O O N O 4- s� 0 0 V_ O O O O O L LL E E N N Q U1 i U1 O E U v v y, v E E a• a• Y Y N Y N N C N ' Y Y Z �O X X 'X C 'X C L U v 'axi °' m m 'axi 1 v 3 m m C m w 0 0 � ,� C o C o N Q N o > t6 C v 3 o v 0.� v w w w w n u o m O in O tea° , - a w ,n m �l7 KEY v v v v E o' w N N i i Ul Ul u :. Wu w Wu O o a a � � �� _ E : uN0 a� O �'� �Q � m o Q Q Q cC° v 3 in ou ° vi : E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O r m m m m m N N N N r N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a r r O O O O of co co 06 0 0 0 0 ro N N N N N o m 0 m �o m a m O O r of of N a 0 c6 of ni r a of o a � r 7 N N r m O O O tp O m O O � N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O-q O O O w w w w w w w O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O pp)� u `"k I O O N U 0 �hh �... -6 L i O C C N Ul O _6 �' T.2 L O O C-6 m >..0-6 O C U O C — U C O— _ N _ uw � mm a wu O= � m = m O clam Q Q �� w > m v o v o m z > o o -oa v o > o= o Nw m vm- m. Nog v v v o y =3 m 3 v v 2 y t v v s �� U w�1a wing r0= O w = �>m inu > > > > > > > > > > > u 3 3ow 3 ow 3 ow 3 ow 3 ow 3 ow 3 ow 3 ow 3 TO 3 in0 = in0= in0 = in0 = in0= in0= in0 = in0 = in0= in0= in0= Z ® �R :2 N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 N co ro N 0 0 0 m w o co o co co n m m 0 o N 0 0 0 0 N v ro m v m o O i E -- O O O O a--+ O O O n O m N � m v N X 2X w U ° m as— as m rn0 Y s m s a a 3 E m m v,o m v u m 0 m 30 v m m ° >t E X EE E-U0° Q o x °E o ° ° oo E °i ma 0 m0 o 3 0 3 Q O m 0 0 m 0 E ma m m 0 0 0- s � y y xX . Om U 0 m rnE"E s m m «',Y � 3 v 3,'^ � 3 v Y m ' y a m m t o m E,O .> m U $ �um3 oQ o �Eu Ys m aom wE NE K0) 7 " a— �',Uvumvm ouuamvO Et O 0 0 a 0 0 z > •, Gc m 6 t usUX w w a m ` mZ m E0 0 � mo Q O Oys ° N C° o Y-N u o m Cm0 %Nm° ° ° D o o E 0 12 E ° ° Y'3 E . s m 0= a o o ` .3Us o=w U U m s E E0 vo 0 -0 ems' 0 � D 0 o° O O_ O O o o O O_ N m m 0 v of 0 co of of O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O vi co co m m m m 0 c0 V t0 ift 0 u? O O O N m' t0 t0 O V V m v of O co co co co N m v v m O 14 m m ift N V N N O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O F) O w O O O O O O O 0 0 N N N V V t0 t0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Sj m m m m m m m m m O W m s ° rn m m 0 0 s `m.Q 0 E �_ o m u E m m m m ° E-0 > 00 U m > 3 l0 O 3 m 3 U m K a U E N m m m m Q Q w, ,a m E m in m E m N i L m 3 m Sj U U m m m W U a N ,. m m F U Q Q qq� 7 m m 7 m m 7 m m 7 m m 7 m m 7 m m 7 m m 7 m m t t v 0 t t t t t v v v v v v v m 0= m 0 = m O= m 0 = m 0 = m O= m 0= m 0= I" ® - N V w c0 0N N un co N M M M M M M M 0 N v r O h N r io �n m n w w w > co � o 0 0 m O v L i u v m C C v b m 7 a f0 Z �, o'�Z v -° o_o v °-o v O o m.3 o E �' �, o N �,,� ` ° m O m o v Qs a U vo � p0003m > o u `° C L'— `° c, 0 0 L d o v f0 v m m o m° o ai of p .. o f w v j� o 0 o mLo `°_o `m m N �.'°m v " °' N N=� o� Eo-° � ��om��o I ° O >> 3 O >> 0 3 >m v v m N o n a `°L C E > 0 C > v L m O C ` N N U mcc O N C N Z ° C 'C w o ow v - p m-0Z T m N J _y, m' �L �� N m -0 p N� u N D�tn�_ 0 p "O u '1' ovv u'3av v w3,� '3 -ow33i vm E of�;mE v o m o w o� o,�w v y o v v v o oZ � o c v - L S s Q °m ` m a S v f0 m Q o u o v,L 0 0 o'� o o a �' m E o v ` ° v m b '�o lj— s U o Q U 3 v U ul oq'm O m m �� f0 �� tn�Otnw °u K-0 m ozSln 0 O oo a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -o o m o ro vm o v m vI o a` 30 v � O O O O O O O at+ C LL O O O O O O O p U ro Q £ N m io ry ro � in N t0 v v � O c a � O v a+ — N � O p OU > o O O O v O 3 � O O O O O O O O N pp a N O O O O O O O fp E O O O O O O O N p N N s a � u ' w m m-o 0 c . o v o a in v °m '�� L C N p , T 0 ° W �c -0 -0 Y 0 y N yvi > i O N N -� L u 0 O U N N y 4 0 > O w0 to v°io >Q om oQ O O v Wm \ \ vi 4 ��@@ '> N "xx VI T N T N ImT N ImT N ImT N ImT VI CC >.� CC >.� CC >.� CC >.� CC >.� CC >.� CC >.� ` a+ vI O= vI O= vI O= vI O= vI O= vI O= vI O= f0 s E m cl u° � e N N ��%ad r4 O O N li un ti m (V 4-4 00 aj P, {� tu 0 0 0 � CL CL V 1 LM k r WOOD !g; fw ,. ,r p j a 1P, 3 04 Nw p� RW If � n4� fey A eym Ri � � 1p4�nr,� 19 r, 1A ,, f p , 7 , N w , d % dhG 7 .m... n�oNONONONONON oNONNa,�NN�uNNNNNNnMr �� „�nonono�o� nonan�oN�� no uw .A�M ��p�wu��p��p�wu�v� co m (V O N 7 N 6l a--+ co Lf) to co cu N r r m if Sj n CbCL�. . I , r, Imo`; ivoc) ikj 21, Ji -aGyursif, ��udh��lkkk�k,rl�l�""U sue„ Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 Conceptual cost estimates were developed for proposed improvements, both segment-related and intersection-related. For intersections, improvement actions for lane modifications and additions, as well as traffic signal control actions, were quantified and estimated for each location. For segments, improvement actions consisted of new or extended left and right turn lanes, including tapers as applicable. These were estimated for the taper and lane configurations based on assumed lengths, allowing adjustment to the actual lengths as proposed for each location. Current FDOT unit prices and pay items were utilized, and included additives for design, survey, geotechnical, mobilization, and maintenance of traffic components. Cost estimate information is provided in Appendix B. The proposed project costs are summarized as follows: # Priority 1: Short-Term Improvements 2024-2030 < Intersections $ 420,820 < Segments $ 13,295,414 < Subtotal $ 13,716,234 # Priority 2: Intermediate-Term Improvements 2031-2040 < Intersections $ 329,400 < Segments $ 8,652,254 < Subtotal $ 8,981,654 # Priority 3: Long-Term Improvements 2041 and beyond 1) Intersections $ 0 < Segments $12,435,349 < Subtotal $12,435,349 # TOTAL of All Phases < Intersections $ 750,220 < Segments $34,383,017 < Subtotal $35,133,237 FDOT 'i Page L 1959 Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 10.3 Truck Deliveries and IParkin This study reviewed truck parking conditions across Monroe County. These were the key observations: # Deliveries and shipment to and from Florida Keys businesses along US 1 and in the urban clusters in the corridor are the lifeline of these businesses, since trucking is the only mode of freight. # At larger commercial areas, there are often designated truck delivery zones off-street on the side or rear of the buildings. At small and freestanding businesses along the corridor, truck loading zones are largely absent and truck deliveries were observed occurring in parking aisles or along the US 1 roadway, often temporarily blocking traffic and visibility temporarily. # In the central Key West historic/tourism district, designated loading zones were observed with 2 pm end times, at which the space reverted to automobile parking for pay. A case study of a truck parking analysis in St.Augustine was recapped should the City of Key West consider the need for further analysis of truck parking conditions and issues to be necessary. # The need for overnight truck parking for truck deliveries travelling to the Lower Keys was considered. It was noted that there was no significant need or demand in the southbound direction. In the northbound direction, there could be instances of regular delivery routes or special deliveries where truck operators might encounter federal hours-of-service or other operating constraints that would require them to park overnight. This was judged to be more problematic in the Upper Keys as truckers were departing after completed deliveries. The potential for truck parking spaces at the existing FDOT Weight Station at MM 86 was identified and developed. It was estimated that the daily range of overnight truck parking demand in the off-season was 6-10 truck parking spaces and was 9-15 truck parking spaces in the peak season. Expressed as a low-end to high-end need over the year, the low-end estimate would be 6-9 spaces and the high-end estimate would be 10- 15 spaces. Two truck parking options providing seven and 15 spaces each with costs of $340,000 and $1,012,000, respectively, were identified. However, this potential truck parking project is presently affected by two conditions. The first is that FDOT is refining its longerterm strategyfor truck weight enforcement statewide and at the MM 86 weigh station, where weigh-in-motion technology has already been implemented in the southbound for qualifying truckers. However, further weigh station management options are not fully defined. Secondly, FDOT is evaluating replacement options for the Snake Creek Bridge just to the south of the MM 86 weigh station. The initial options presented in Section 8.0 preserve the southern access point to the weigh station except for one option which places it in the median of US 1 just west of its present locations. A preferred bridge replacement option is subject to the results of a Project Development and Environmental Study yet to be conducted. For these two reasons, it is considered that the implementation of the potential truck parking options be deferred until further decisions affecting the MM 86 weigh station are made. FDOT 'i Page L 151960 Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 10.4 Other If eecommen ations An important part of the study findings is the identification of other additional actions, including ongoing and follow-up activities relating to the advancement of freight mobility across the study area. The ownership of conducting these actions is across the hierarchy of agencies and entities with responsibility for transportation facilities and/or a governance role. These actions include: # Continue to coordinate findings of this study with the County's regular Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, and with implementation of the Monroe County US 1 Transportation Master Plan. # Coordinate the results of this study with the next cycle of the Monroe County Long Range Transportation Plan. # Monitor the interface between this study's traffic signal timing recommendations with the ongoing FDOT COAST project and with FDOT's management role for traffic signals along US 1 in Monroe County. # Coordinate FDOT's Target Zero traffic safety initiative in the implementation of study recommendations which should provide traffic safety mitigation. # Monitor truck delivery operations along the US 1 corridor for unsafe conditions. Monroe County should consider truck loading zone requirements for retail businesses dealing in goods and commodities, although retrofitting older properties is a challenge. 10.5 (Potential Funding Sources This freight subarea study examined freight mobility needs of the unique US 1 corridor traversing the Florida Keys in Monroe County, as well as several municipalities and unincorporated development. Recommendations are focused on maintaining and enhancing traffic operations on US 1 for the benefit of both freight and general traffic movements, as they both share this single link between Key Largo and Key West over a distance of 112.6 miles in Monroe County. The roadway system can be categorized by governmental jurisdiction. On-system roads refer to those maintained by FDOT, and off-system refers to roads maintained by Monroe County or municipalities. This study made only on-system improvement recommendations, for both intersections and roadway segments. FDOT is primarily focused on on-system roadway projects and applies various State and Federal funds to its on-system projects. Considering the funding resources and programs of FDOT and the Federal Highway Administration, including the National Highway Freight Program (NHFP) and federal traffic safety programs, there are a variety of potential funding sources for proposed projects. Depending on the jurisdictional responsibilities for a given project, municipal and county funds could also be involved. For on-system projects where FDOT would be the lead agency, projects would need to be recognized in the current FDOT's Monroe County Five-Year Transportation Improvement Program. In general, however, FDOT on-system projects would first be presented to and accepted by the FDOT District Six Scoping Committee for eventual inclusion on the FDOT Five Year Work Program. FDOT 'i Page 4 151961 Monroe County Freight Improvement Study � 2023 In addition, FDOT coordinates with Monroe County on the preparation of a Long Range Transportation Plan to the TPO's 2050 LRTP in progress, Miami-Dade County has embarked on its own Transportation Plan. The findings of this study should be communicated to and coordinated with Monroe County and affected municipalities, as is FDOT's standard practice in consideration in their infrastructure planning efforts, and towards funding of worthy projects. 10.6 Conclusions The US 1 corridor study area in Monroe County possesses a diverse and extensive freight and logistics presence. It supports the inputs and outputs of the seafood and agricultural industry, business and commercial sites, construction projects and material suppliers, institutional, military and governmental facilities, the tourism industry, and, of course, the consumer-based goods and foodstuff distribution chain. This freight and logistics presence is not as visible and dominant as the multimodal freight-centric districts of neighboring Miami-Dade County, but it is just as vital to the Monroe County economy on a proportional basis. The Monroe County freight and logistics network is reliant solely on trucking for the movement of goods and commodities and is further solely dependent upon US 1 as its lifeline to support a population base of 80,000 persons which nearly doubles during the peak tourism season. In addition, the US 1 Overseas Highway is known as one of the most scenic drives in the country, connecting tourists to a myriad of tropical vistas and attractions known worldwide. As freight and logistics providers and users evolve in how they plan for efficiency in their distribution of goods, materials, and food stuffs,there is one constant—the need for reliable travel times along the US 1 corridor under the traffic concurrency requirements embodied in the County's growth management regulations. The implementation of the intersection and road segment improvements identified by the network analysis in this study will contribute to addressing areas of traffic friction affecting operational speeds, helping to maintain the LOS C standard generally experienced today. Pursuit of the study recommendations will further complement the advancement of freight mobility and general community mobility along the US 1 corridor in the Florida Keys into the future. FDOT 'i Page L 15 1962 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS %-Iounty of Monroe Mayor Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5 The Florida Keys ( ' Mayor Pro Tem James K.Scholl,District 3 t Craig Cates,District 1 Michelle Lincoln,District 2 David Rice,District 4 October ,2024 Ms. Stacy Miller,PE District Secretary Florida Department of Transportation—District Six 1000 NW I I I'll Avenue Miami,FL 33172 Subject: Monroe County Freight Mobility Improvement Study Implementation of Plan Recommendations for US 1 Dear Secretary Miller: On behalf of the Monroe County Board of Commissioners,I am pleased to submit this letter of support for the proposed US 1 improvement recommendations within Unincorporated Monroe County developed in the FDOT District Six Monroe County Freight Mobility Improvement Study. Our Commission was provided an informative summary presentation of this plan on September 11,2024 and they were extremely interested in seeing these improvements completed within the County. After the presentation we coordinated with District 6 staff and they informed us these improvements would not be implemented until FDOT adds repaving projects to the Work Plan. Upon checking with FDOT staff for programmed re- pavement,we learned there is only one repaving project programmed in the next 5 years. We respectfully request FDOT determine whether they can program these improvements prior to the programming of re- pavement projects to improve our level of service on US1. The proposed roadway geometric improvement recommendations consisting of additional left turn lanes,right turn lanes,and extended right turn lanes at various locations along the US 1 corridor. The proposed improvements will reduce the traffic friction arising from vehicles turning from US 1 to intersecting streets and driveways,reducing delays to traffic along US 1. We acknowledge FDOT's coordination with Monroe County as well as our continued partnership on transportation and multimodal projects of mutual interest.It is our understanding that FDOT is coordinating with its internal offices and the District's Scoping Committee to assess possible inclusion or addition of these proposed improvements on US 1 in the District's Work Program,and that Implementation timelines are dependent on these determinations. We request these improvements be programmed in advance of the repaving projects. The County stands ready to support and assist FDOT in the implementation of these proposed US 1 improvements. We also encourage the FDOT to formally present the findings to the individual municipalities in which improvements are recommended as well as the TCC. Thank you for your consideration, Holly Rashcein Mayor Monroe County,Fl 1963