HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem K3 COUNTY of MONROE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Michelle Lincoln,District 2
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tem David Rice,District 4
a
e
Craig Cates,District 1
e' Tames K. Scholl,District 3
� Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
Regular Meeting
January 28, 2026
Agenda Item Number: K3
26-0208
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Planning and Environmental
Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Devin Tolpin
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a Resolution Making a Recommendation to the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) for Approval Per the County Prioritization of the
Transportation Alternatives Applications Submitted for the FDOT 2026 Transportation Alternatives
Grant Program as follows: Priority (1) City of Key West - Crosstown Connector Improvements,
Requesting $300,000; and Priority (2) Monroe County - Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan, Requesting $3 85,000.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Historically, the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) District 6 opens an application cycle
for Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding when federal funds are available to local governments to
fund improvements that create transportation alternatives for the non-motorized user. The TA is
federal funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, which includes
planning, design or construction of on and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure
projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, and similar
projects.
The process for obtaining TA funding is competitive in nature. Proposed projects are evaluated and
ranked based on a specific set of criteria developed by FDOT. Part of the criteria includes local
prioritization. Monroe County is an area outside of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO);
therefore, the County is responsible for establishing priorities for projects within the Florida Keys.
Therefore, all applications submitted by jurisdictions within Monroe County must be evaluated and
ranked by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.
A committee consisting of representatives from Monroe County and Key West reviewed the
applications submitted for consideration and ranked the applications based on criteria found within the
FDOT application guidelines. This year, FDOT invited the local jurisdictions to submit applications
for projects that can be developed for Fiscal Year 2032.
Two applications were submitted for local prioritization. A summary of the projects follows:
2026 TA Applications
1. Monroe County—Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
2026 TA Request: $385,000
Jurisdiction Match: $0
Total Project Cost: $ 385,000
Application Proposal:
US 1 is the primary transportation corridor through the Florida Keys, linking neighborhoods,
businesses, and destinations across the region. Its central role makes it vital for expanding safe,
accessible alternatives to motor vehicle travel. Running parallel US 1, the Florida Keys Overseas
Heritage Trail serves as the main multi-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists, supporting recreation,
commuting, and essential trips. However, gaps in the trail, deteriorated segments, and crossings at US
1 create significant safety and connectivity challenges. Monroe County currently ranks 4th out of 18
comparable Florida counties in serious pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and fatalities, with crash data
showing an upward trend over the past five years. The Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan will assess existing conditions, identify system gaps, and recommend improvements that enhance
safety and access from MM 4 (Roosevelt Blvd.) in Key West to MM 106.4 (Garden Cove Dr.) in Key
Largo. The plan will also incorporate robust public engagement to reflect community priorities and
align with existing local and regional plans. Ultimately, the Master Plan will provide a framework for
reducing injuries and fatalities and expanding safe, reliable, and convenient non-motorized
transportation throughout the Keys. See attached Scope of Work.
2. City of Key West— Crosstown Connector Improvements 2025
TA Request: $237,000
Jurisdiction Match: $63,000
Total Project Cost: $300,000
Application Proposal:
Crosstown Connector Improvements East of 14th St will improve connectivity for pedestrian and
bicycle users, linking commuters who reside on the east side of Key West and Stock Island with
businesses on the west side of the city. The connection to the east would link to the Florida Keys
Overseas Heritage Trail (FKOHT). With the current configuration, non-motorized users contend with
an unsignalized crossing at South Roosevelt Blvd. The connection to the west would link with
programmed improvements at the Wickers Complex and continue to the Crosstown Greenway, a
neighborhood route currently monitored as part of the Statewide Non-Motorized Traffic Monitoring
Program. Existing ridership along the Crosstown Greenway is 990 ADT, while counts along the
FKOHT show 1,455 ADT. Approximately 2.6 miles of the existing FKOHT along North Roosevelt
Blvd in Key West consists of a wide sidewalk currently identified as part of the High Injury Network
within the ongoing City of Key West Safety Action Plan. These Crosstown Connector improvements
would provide a safer, more comfortable alternative to the North Roosevelt Blvd route.
Committee Rankings
The applications were assessed by each member of the committee based on the six FDOT criteria
provided below:
1. Project safety improvements for bicycles riders and/or pedestrians;
2. Intermodal transportation linkages improvements, including those that provide access to
transit stations and/or facilities;
3. Mobility enhancement or community development for disadvantaged groups (i.e., children,
the elderly, the poor, those with limited transportation options, and the disabled);
4. Local funding contribution or the completion of previous phases of project development;
5. Neighborhood or community quality of life improvements, improving environmental air,
noise, water quality, and/or reducing the need for single occupancy vehicle trips;
6. Community support, including minutes of public meetings, newspaper clippings, petitions,
letters of support from local business owners, property owners, nonprofit organizations,
political leaders and other groups;
Prioritization: Monroe County will prioritize projects and award points based on prioritization.
A maximum of 25 points will be assigned. The top ranked project from each county agency
receives 25 points, the second ranked receives 24 points, the third ranked receives 23 points,
etc.
The scoring committee rankings are depicted in the table below:
Monroe County Bicycle and City of Key West Crosstown
Pedestrian Master Plan Improvement Connector
Average Points 66.7 69.0
Criteria 1-6
Prioritization 25 24
Points
Total Points 91.7 93.0
The projects will also be presented to FDOT for review and consideration on January 22nd or January
23rd, 2026. FDOT will determine the feasibility of the projects.
Recommendation
The City of Key West Crosstown Improvement Connector Project received an overall average score of
69.0 and a final score of 93.0 with final prioritization points; the Monroe County Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan Project received an overall average score of 66.7 and a final score of 91.7 with
final prioritization points;
Based on the Total Points, the recommended prioritization of the 2026 TA application cycle is as
follows:
1. City of Key West Crosstown Improvement Connector Project—requesting $300,000;
2. Monroe County Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan - requesting $385,000
Upon approval of the resolution by the BOCC, the decision will be transmitted to FDOT to be
included as part of the agency application review process. If selected for TA funding the project will
be included in the fifth year of FDOT District Six Department's Tentative Work Program (2032).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
July 20, 2011 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2011 TAP application cycle;
August 21, 2013 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2013 TAP application cycle.;
June I I, 2014 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2014 TAP application cycle;
May 20, 2015 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2015 TAP application cycle;
June 15, 2016 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2016 TAP application cycle;
May 17, 2017 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2017 TAP application cycle;
March 21, 2018 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2018 TAP application cycle;
March 21, 2019 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2019 TA application cycle;
March 17, 2021 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2021 TA application cycle;
March 16, 2022 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2022 TA application cycle;
March 22, 2023 - Approval of staff recommendations for the 2023 TA application cycle.
January 31, 2024- Approval of staff recommendations for the 2024 TA application cycle.
INSURANCE REQUIRED: No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval, based on the total points, of the recommended
prioritization of the 2026 TA application cycle as follows:
1. City of Key West Crosstown Improvement Connector Project—requesting $300,000;
2. Monroe County Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan—requesting $385,000
DOCUMENTATION:
Staff Report
Package_KW
Package_MC
TAP FINAL TOTAL SCORE—TAP 2026
Resolution Draft
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
{
18 93 �
MEMORANDUM
Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department
We strive to be caring, professional, and fair.
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
From: Devin Tolpin, AICP, CFM, Senior Director, Planning and Environmental Resources
Department
Date: January 6, 2026
Subject: Prioritizing of Applications Received as Part of the 2026 Transportation Alternatives
Grant Program.
BOCC Meeting: January 28, 2026
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Background:
Historically,the Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) District 6 opens an application cycle for
Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding when federal funds are available to local governments to fund
improvements that create transportation alternatives for the non-motorized user. The TA is federal
funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, which includes planning,
design or construction of on and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for
improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, and similar projects. The
process for obtaining TA funding is competitive in nature. Proposed projects are evaluated and ranked
based on a specific set of criteria developed by FDOT. Part of the criteria includes local prioritization.
Monroe County is an area outside of a Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO);therefore,the County
is responsible for establishing priorities for projects within the Florida Keys. Therefore, all applications
submitted by jurisdictions within Monroe County must be evaluated and ranked by the Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners. A committee consisting of representatives from Monroe County and
Key West reviewed the applications submitted for consideration and ranked the applications based on
criteria found within the FDOT application guidelines.
This year, FDOT invited the local jurisdictions to submit applications for projects that can be developed
for Fiscal Year 2032.Two applications were submitted for local prioritization.Asummary of the projects
follows:
2026 TA Applications
1. Monroe County—Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
2026 TA Request: $385,000
Jurisdiction Match: $0
Total Project Cost $ 385,000
Application Proposal:
1
US 1 is the primary transportation corridor through the Florida Keys, linking neighborhoods,
businesses, and destinations across the region. Its central role makes it vital for expanding safe,
accessible alternatives to motor vehicle travel. Running parallel US 1,the Florida Keys Overseas
Heritage Trail serves as the main multi-use path for pedestrians and bicyclists, supporting
recreation, commuting, and essential trips. However, gaps in the trail, deteriorated segments, and
crossings at US 1 create significant safety and connectivity challenges. Monroe County currently
ranks 4th out of 18 comparable Florida counties in serious pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and
fatalities, with crash data showing an upward trend over the past five years. The Monroe County
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will assess existing conditions, identify system gaps, and
recommend improvements that enhance safety and access from MM 4 (Roosevelt Blvd.) in Key
West to MM 106.4(Garden Cove Dr.) in Key Largo. The plan will also incorporate robust public
engagement to reflect community priorities and align with existing local and regional plans.
Ultimately, the Master Plan will provide a framework for reducing injuries and fatalities and
expanding safe, reliable, and convenient non-motorized transportation throughout the Keys. See
attached Scope of Work.
2. City of Key West— Crosstown Connector Improvements
2025 TA Request: $237,000
Jurisdiction Match: $63,000
Total Project Cost $ 300,000
Application Proposal:
Crosstown Connector Improvements East of 14th St will improve connectivity for pedestrian and
bicycle users, linking commuters who reside on the east side of Key West and Stock Island with
businesses on the west side of the city.
The connection to the east would link to the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail (FKOHT).
With the current configuration, non-motorized users contend with an unsignalized crossing at
South Roosevelt Blvd.
The connection to the west would link with programmed improvements at the Wickers Complex
and continue to the Crosstown Greenway, a neighborhood route currently monitored as part of
the Statewide Non-Motorized Traffic Monitoring Program.
Existing ridership along the Crosstown Greenway is 990 ADT, while counts along the FKOHT
show 1,455 ADT. Approximately 2.6 miles of the existing FKOHT along North Roosevelt Blvd
in Key West consists of a wide sidewalk currently identified as part of the High Injury Network
within the ongoing City of Key West Safety Action Plan. These Crosstown Connector
improvements would provide a safer, more comfortable alternative to the North Roosevelt Blvd
route.
Review
The projects will be presented to FDOT for review and consideration on January 22nd or January 23ra�
2026. FDOT will determine the feasibility of the projects. As part of the review process, the projects
were reviewed by a committee of representatives from Monroe County to rank the submitted projects.
The applications were assessed by each member of the committee based on the six criteria provided
below:
2
1. Project safety improvements for bicycles riders and/or pedestrians;
2. Intermodal transportation linkages improvements, including those that provide access to transit
stations and/or facilities;
3. Mobility enhancement or community development for disadvantaged groups (i.e., children, the
elderly, the poor, those with limited transportation options, and the disabled);
4. Local funding contribution or the completion of previous phases of project development;
5. Neighborhood or community quality of life improvements, improving environmental air, noise,
water quality, and/or reducing the need for single occupancy vehicle trips;
6. Community support,including minutes of public meetings,newspaper clippings,petitions,letters
of support from local business owners,property owners,nonprofit organizations,political leaders
and other groups;
7. Prioritization: Monroe County will prioritize projects and award points based on prioritization.
A maximum of 25 points will be assigned. The top ranked project from each county agency
receives 25 points, the second ranked receives 24 points, the third ranked receives 23 points, etc.
The final ranking is submitted to the TPO TA Coordinator and to Monroe County for Board
Approval. All applicants will be notified of the results.
The overall score is based on a 125-point scale. Each committee member scored each project based on
the six criteria listed above, assigning points as allowed for each measure. This accounted for 100 points.
In accordance with criteria number seven, the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources
Department Senior Director assigned the remaining 25 prioritization points. The total scores from each
committee member based on the six criteria were averaged and the final score for number seven assigned
by the Senior Director was then added to the individual scores from each committee member.
The scoring committee rankings are depicted in the table below:
Monroe County Bicycle and City of Key West Crosstown
Pedestrian Master Plan Improvement Connector
Average Points 66.7 69.0
Criteria 1-6
Prioritization 25 24
Points
Total Points 91.7 93.0
Recommendation
The City of Key West Crosstown Improvement Connector Pro j ect received an overall average score of
69.0 and a final score of 93.0 with final prioritization points; the Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan Project received an overall average score of 66.7 and a final score of 91.7 with final
prioritization points; Based on the average score, the recommended prioritization of the 2026 TA
application cycle is as follows:
1. City of Key West Crosstown Improvement Connector Project—requesting $ 300,000;
2. Monroe County Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan- requesting $3 85,000
Upon approval of the resolution by the BOCC, the decision will be transmitted to FDOT to be included
as part of the agency application review process. If selected for TA funding the project will be included
in the fifth year of FDOT District Six Department's Tentative Work Program (2032).
3
3
Yh l!cavn Wvukraiunuri milu' � ��„
" i °NMI
6
7 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
8
9 RESOLUTION NO. - 2026
10
11 A RESOLUTION BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
12 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
13 APPROVING THE PRIORITIZATION OF THE
14 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES APPLICATIONS
15 SUBMITTED FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
16 TRANSPORTATION - 2026 TRANSPORTATION
17 ALTERNATIVES GRANT PROGRAM.
18
19
20 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation ("FDOT") opened the 2026
21 Transportation Alternatives grant program and announced the application cycle on October 31,
22 2025; and
23
24 WHEREAS, the Transportation Alternatives ("TA") grant program provides federal
25 funding available for non-motorized transportation and is administered by the FDOT; and
26
27 WHEREAS, the FDOT requires local priority rankings be approved by the Monroe
28 County Board of County Commissioners as part of the application process; and
29
30 WHEREAS, two applications were submitted for consideration for funding by FDOT:
31 Monroe County- Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, requesting $385,000; and
32 City of Key west- Crosstown Connector Improvements, requesting $300.00; and
33
34 WHEREAS, a committee consisting of representatives from Monroe County and the
35 City of Key West, evaluated the application(s)based on the FDOT's required criteria; and
36
37 WHEREAS, the score of the 2026 application is based on an overall 125-point scale.
38 The City of Key West Crosstown Improvement Connector Project received an overall average
39 score of 69.0 and a final score of 93.0 with final prioritization points; the Monroe County
40 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Project received an overall average score of 66.7 and a final
41 score of 91.7 with final prioritization points; and
42
43 WHEREAS,based on committee scoring the recommended rankings are as follows:
44
45 1. City of Key West Crosstown Improvement Connector Project—Requesting $ 300,000;
46
47 2. Monroe County Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan—Requesting $3 85,000
48
1 of 2
I WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled duly noticed public hearing, the Monroe County
2 Board of County Commissioners ("Monroe County", "Board", "BOCC", or the "County")
3 considered comments from person(s) wishing to speak on the matter; and
4
5 WHEREAS,the Board fully supports the funding of the application(s);
6
7 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
8 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
9
10 Section 1. The foregoing recitals, findings of fact, and conclusions of law are true and
11 correct and are hereby incorporated as if fully stated herein.
12
13 Section 2. Monroe County hereby approves prioritization of the 2026 Transportation
14 Alternatives applications as follows:
15
16 1. City of Key Nest Crosstown Improvement Connector Project — Requesting
17 $3001000;
18
19 2. Monroe County Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan—Requesting $385,000.
20
21 Section 3. Monroe County requests that the Florida Department of Transportation provide
22 Transportation Alternative funds to the subject projects in the fifth year of the
23 upcoming FDOT District Six Tentative Work Program (2032) for Monroe County
24 as requested by the applicants.
25
26 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
27 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of January, 2026.
28
29 Mayor Michelle Lincoln, District 2
30 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice, District 4
31 Commissioner Craig Cates, District 1
32 Commissioner James K. Scholl, District 3
33 Commissioner Holly Merrill Raschein, District 5
34
35 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
36 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
37
38
39 By:
40 Mayor Michelle Lincoln
41MONME COUNTY ATTORNEY
EVE T- a;i�
42 (SEAL) .
43
44 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
45
46
47
48 AS DEPUTY CLERK
2 of 2
FDOT� TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
SET-ASIDE PROGRAM (TA) FUNDING
�-- •• APPLICATION
A continuation of the Surface Transportation Block Grant, TA funding is by contract authority from the Highway
Trust Fund, subject to the overall federal-aid obligation limitation determined by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Projects must support surface transportation, be competitively solicited, and comply with the provisions
of the FDOT Work Program Instructions and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) [§ 11109; 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 133(h)]. District representatives may be
contacted for guidance.
PART 1 -APPLICANT INFORMATION
1. Applicant Agency Sponsor Type. Select the box indicating the agency of the person who can answer questions
about this project proposal. Then complete applicable text fields. Note: State-recognized non-profit agencies may
partner with an eligible governmental entity but are not eligible as a direct grant recipient.
Checkbox next to each of the following types of agencies that do not indicate text field. Document allows one
selection.
• Local government (e.g., county, city, village, town, etc.).
Regional transportation authority or transit agency.
Natural resource or public land agency.
School district, local education agency, or school (may include any public or nonprofit private school). Projects
should benefit the public and not just a private entity.
Recognized Tribal Government.
Other local or regional governmental entity with oversight responsibility for transportation or recreational trails,
consistent with the goals of 23 U.S.C. 133(h).
Metropolitan I Transportation Planning Organization /Agency (collectively MPO) (only for urbanized areas with
less than 200,000 population).
FDOT(only by request of another eligible entity, then enter the requesting entity). If"checked", enter the
requesting entity in the space provided.
2. Agency name of the applicant.
City of Key West
3. Agency contact person's name and title.
Ryan Stachurski, Multimodal Transportation Coordinator
4. Agency contact person's telephone number and email address.
305-509-3867
FDOT
PART 2 - LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) CERTIFICATION
LAP is FDOT's primary mechanism to provide governmental subrecipients with federal funds to develop
transportation infrastructure facilities through cost-reimbursement(grant) agreements. This legal instrument (the
grant agreement) will describe intergovernmental tasks to be accomplished and the funds to be reimbursed for
selected projects. The FDOT Local Programs Manual and FDOT Procedure 525-010-300 provides details for
local agencies to complete a certification process that is a risk-based assessment evaluating whether they have
sufficient qualifications and abilities "to undertake and satisfactorily complete the work"for infrastructure projects.
Non-profit organizations are not eligible for LAP certification, local agencies are not eligible for certification of Project
Development and Environment (PD&E) or Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisition phases. FDOT is required to provide
oversight on fee-simple and less-than-fee ROW acquisition phases, including license agreements, encroachment
agreements, perpetual easements, temporary construction easements, and donations.
LAP Full Certification
Provide:
Approval Date: 7/25/2022 and Expiration Date: 7/24i2025
Responsible Charge Name: Ryan Stachurski
LAP Project Specific Certification
Provide:
Approval Date: Project FM(s) Number:
Responsible Charge Name:
Not LAP Certified —A LAP Certified Agency will deliver the project on behalf of the uncertified Agency.
Provide:
Sponsoring Contact
Agency Name: Name:
Address: Phone:
Not LAP Certified - FDOT District will administer the project.
Provide:
FDOT Contact Name: Phone:
� Not LAP Certified—the Agency will become LAP certified 1 year prior to the delivery of the LAP project.
Not Applicable—this is a Non —Infrastructure Project.
FDOT
PART 3 - PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Name/Title:. Crosstown Connector Improvements
2. Is this a resubmittal of a previously unfunded project? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the year(s) of submittal(s) and include project title(s), if different, in the
space provided.
Yes • No N/A
3. Does this project connect a previously funded project(s)? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the Financial Management (FM) number(s) and provide a brief
description of the other related FDOT-funded phases that are complete, underway, or in the FDOT 5-year Work
Program.
• Yes No 438687-1-18-01 Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan (complete), 451629-1 Wickers Realign (program)
4. Is funding requested for this same project from another source administered by FDOT? If not, select
"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate funding source(s) /application(s)
submitted. NOTE: Contact your district representative to discuss if this same project is partially funded in the
5-year Work Program or if FDOT has received another application for funding it.
Yes • No N/A
5. What are you proposing in this application? In 200 words or less, provide a description of the project and
what it will accomplish. The description should allow a person without prior knowledge of the project to clearly
understand it. Summarize the purpose, need, project attributes, the relationship to surface transportation, how
the project improves safety, and expected benefits.
Crosstown Connector Improvements East of 14th St will improve connectivity for pedestrian and bicycle users, linking
commuters who reside on the east side of Key West and Stock Island with businesses on the west side of the city.
The connection to the east would link to the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail (FKOHT). With the current
configuration, non-motorized users contend with an unsignalized crossing at South Roosevelt Blvd.
The connection to the west would link with programmed improvements at the Wickers Complex and continue to the
Crosstown Greenway, a neighborhood route currently monitored as part of the Statewide Non-Motorized Traffic
Monitoring Program.
Existing ridership along the Crosstown Greenway is 990 ADT, while counts along the FKOHT show 1,455 ADT.
Approximately 2.6 miles of the existing FKOHT along North Roosevelt Blvd in Key West consists of a wide sidewalk
currently identified as part of the High Injury Network within the ongoing City of Key West Safety Action Plan. These
Crosstown Connector improvements would provide a safer, more comfortable alternative to the North Roosevelt Blvd
route.
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PROJECT INFORMATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION including 1) Scope
of Work clearly describing the purpose and need for this project and the desired outcome; detailed description of the
existing conditions; and detailed description of the proposed project and major work item improvements (e.g., project
limits (begin /end), width of sidewalks or trails and other components, materials, drainage, lighting, signing and
pavement markings, etc.). 2) Intent to enter into a cost reimbursement agreement for delivering the project. 3) Signed
PROJECT CERTIFICATION from the maintaining agency confirming the applicant is authorized to submit the proposal,
the information is accurate, intent to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement for ongoing
operations and maintenance of the improved facility, and compliance with all federal and state requirements.
FDOT
PART 4 - PROJECT LOCATION
1. Indicate the municipality(ies) of the project location.
City of Key West
2. Indicate the county(ies) of the project location.
Monroe County
3. Roadway Classification
• Yes No State roadway (on-system)
Yes • No Federal roadway
• Yes No Local roadway (off-system)
4. Indicate the roadway name(s) [including applicable state, federal, county road number(s), local roadway
name, and roadway identification number (e.g., SR 5/ US 1 / CR 904/ Overseas Highway I ID number:
90040000)].
South Roosevelt Blvd Roadway: 90003000, and Duck Ave
5. Indicate the roadway beginning project limits (south or west termini), mile points, and crossroads at each
end of each listed segment.
West terminus: Duck Ave at 14th St
6. Indicate the roadway ending project limits (north or east termini), mile points, and crossroads at each
end of each listed segment.
East terminus: South Roosevelt Blvd (north of intersection with Duck Ave)
7. Indicate the total project length, in miles and linear feet.
approximately 1 mi. /5280 fl
8. Does the project involve the Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail network? If not, select"no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the trailway identification number, beginning
and ending mile points.
• Yes No The project would connect to the SUN Trail Network at ID: 90931001, approx. mile post 3.46
9. Within the next five years, are non-FDOT funds being expended within the limits or adjacent to the
proposed project? If not, select "no" and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and briefly
explain.
• Yes No Local share funds are expected to support construction of the adjacent Wickers project FM
4516291
FDDOT
PART 5 - PROJECT TYPE
NOTE: Certain areas may not be prioritizing Non-infrastructure (NI) proposals or all eligible infrastructure activities (or
may recommend bundling activities together). Contact your district representative for guidance.
1. PROJECT CATEGORY Select one box that best represents the project proposal. Then, complete either the
"Infrastructure" or"NI" selections.
� A. Infrastructure. If so, select "yes", B. Non-infrastructure (NI). If so, select "yes", then
then select the most appropriate select the most appropriate NI eligible activity from
"infrastructure" eligible activity from the listing following the Infrastructure activities.
listing below. (Pages range 5-6) (Page range 7)
5-A. INFRASTRUCTURE ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY
Select one box that best represents the project proposal.As applicable, complete infrastructure eligible text fields.
• Pedestrian and /or Bicycle facilities (Select this box for construction, planning, and design of off-road trail
facilities or on-road facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation).
Safe Routes for Non-Drivers (Select this box for construction, planning, and design of infrastructure
related projects and systems that provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and
individuals with disabilities to access daily needs).
Conversion of Abandoned Railway Corridors to Trails (Select this box for conversion and use of
abandoned railroad corridors into trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users).
Scenic Turnouts and Overlooks (Select this box for construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing
areas). If"yes", list any Florida Scenic Byways visible from the project or indicate N/A in text field.
Outdoor Advertising Management (Select this box for inventory, control, or removal of outdoor
advertising). If"yes", list any Florida Scenic Byways within the project limits or indicate N/A in text field.
Historic Preservation and Rehabilitation of Historic Transportation Facilities (Select this box for
historic preservation or rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities). If"yes", list any locally designated
or National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible resources or indicate N/A in the text field.
Vegetation Management (Select this box for vegetation management in public transportation ROW to
improve roadway safety, prevent invasive species, and erosion control). If"yes", list any Florida Scenic
Byways within the project limits, or indicate N/A in text field.
Part 5-A Infrastructure Eligible Activity continued... F��T
Archaeological Activities (Select this box for archaeological activities related to impacts from
transportation projects funded by FHWA). If"yes", list the State Site Number (aka Site File Number)for
the archaeological site, or indicate N/A in the text field.
Stormwater Mitigation (Select this box for environmental mitigation activities addressing stormwater
management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to transportation projects).
Wildlife Management (Select this box for wildlife mitigation and reduction of wildlife mortality, or to
restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats).
Boulevards (Select this box for boulevards, defined as a walkable, low speed (35 mph or less)
divided arterial thoroughfares in urban environments designed to carry both through and local traffic,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. These may be high ridership transit corridors; serve as primary goods
movement and emergency response routes; and use vehicular and pedestrian access management
techniques that promote economic revitalization and follow FDOT Context-Based Solutions). If"yes", list
any Florida Main Street communities or Florida Trail Towns within the project limits, or indicate N/A in text
field.
Recreational Trails Program (Select this box for recreational trails compliant with 62-S-2, Florida
Administrative Code, and 23 U.S.C. 104 (b)). If"yes", list the parks / recreational areas within the project
limits, or indicate N/A in the text field.
Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) [Select this box for SRTS projects, codified as 23 U.S.C. 208, that
substantially improves the ability of kindergarten through 12th grade students (vulnerable road users)
to walk and /or bicycle to school]. Traditionally includes sidewalks, traffic calming and speed reduction,
traffic diversion improvements, pedestrian and bicycle crossings, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street
bicycle facilities, and bicycle parking facilities at public schools. If"yes", list the benefiting schools that are
within two miles of the project limits; total student enrollment; approximate number of students living along
the route; and the percentage of students eligible for reduced meal programs, or indicate N/A in the space
provided.
Other surface transportation eligible purpose (Only if within urbanized areas with a population greater
than 200,000). If"yes", list the eligible activity or indicate N/A in the space provided.
FDOT�
5-B. NI ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY *** Note: For Infrastructure projects, skip this page.*** '''-
Select one box that represents the project proposal. Checkbox indicating NI eligible activity. Document allows
one selection.
Vulnerable road user safety assessment as defined by Section 316.027 (b), F.S.
Workforce development, training and education activities that are eligible uses of TA funds.
SRTS projects, codified as 23 U.S.C. 208. This NI activity must be primarily based at the school and
benefit students and /or their parents and have documented support from the school(s). If"yes", list
the benefiting schools; total student enrollment and students served by project; approximate number of
students living along the route; and the percentage of students eligible for reduced meal programs, or
indicate N/A in space provided.
NI COMPONENTS As applicable, insert the number of each type of proposed activity. Numerical field
indicating total number NI program would provide.
Number of walk or bicycle audits. Number of after school programs receiving
/
Number of bicycle skills /safety classes. pedestrian / bicycle safety instructioneducation.
Number of pedestrian skills /safety classes.
Number of bicycle rodeos.
Number of community demonstration projects.
Number of pedestrian safety skills events.
Number of community encouragement activities.
Number of schools with walking school
Number of community challenges. bus programs (defined as planned route
Number of community workshops /stakeholder with meeting points, a timetable, and a
meetings. schedule of trained volunteers).
Number of classroom /educational classes Number of schools with bicycle train
receiving pedestrian / bicycle safety instruction / programs (defined as a planned route
education. with meeting points, a timetable, and a
schedule of trained volunteers).
Number of school assemblies receiving pedestrian /
bicycle safety instruction /education. Number of student-led leadership
initiatives (e.g., student patrols, peer-led
Number of training sessions to implement the SRTS learning, etc.).
program (e.g., training for volunteer walking school
bus leaders, training for bicycle train leaders, etc.).
FDDOT
PART 6 -AREA CONDITIONS
Select applicable boxes describing the area and complete applicable text fields. Then, upload supporting documentation.
1. Select one box that describes the geographic population size of the project area.
Non-Urban Area with a population of 5,000 or less
• Urban Area with a population greater than 5,000 but no more than 50,000
Urban Area with a population greater than 50,000 but no more than 200,000
Urban Area with a population greater than 200,000
2. Is the project within the boundary of an MPO*? If not, select " "no , and indicate N/A in the space provided. If
so, select "yes", and indicate the MPO in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
3. Is the project within the boundary of a Transportation Management Area (TMA)? If not, select "no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select"yes", and indicate the TMA in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
4. Is the project within a Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI) community or designated as a
Rural Area of Opportunity (RAO) as defined pursuant to Section 288.0656, F.S.? If not, select "no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes" and indicate the REDI / RAO in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
5. Indicate the United States Congressional District number(s) of the project location.
28th Congressional district of Florida
6. Will the project address transportation access by improving conditions and /or address solutions by
providing mobility improvements for disadvantaged groups, underserved communities, and / or non-
drivers (e.g., children, older adults, those with limited / restricted transportation options, people with
health conditions or impairments, or vulnerable road users)? If not, select "no" and indicate N/A in the
space provided. If so, select "yes" and briefly explain how the project improves conditions (e.g., community
access point(s) and destinations the project benefits, free or reduced-priced school meals, and how SRTS
projects benefit the students, etc.).
• Yes No The project would improve ADA curb ramps while providing anon-motorized connection for
vulnerable road users and those from underserved communities.
7. Are there transit stops /shelters /support facilities within the project limits? If not, select"no", and indicate
N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the identification number.
0 Yes No Stop Codes: 174891, 174925, 174926, 174890, 037, 038, 174888, 174928
8. Is the project within ahigh-crash pedestrian corridor (or an area with a history of crashes involving
pedestrians)?
• Yes No
*Metropolitan/Transportation Planning Organization/Agency(MPO)
FDOT�
Part 6-Area Conditions continued... --�°°'-
9. Is the project within ahigh-crash bicycle corridor (or an area with a history of crashes involving
bicyclists)?
• Yes No
10.Would the project implement a bicycle or pedestrian action plan(s)? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in
the space provided. If so, select"yes", and specify the name of the plan and date of adoption.
• Yes No Only that this would provide connectivity and updating to an existing feature
REQUIRED UPLOAD: AREA CONDITIONS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g., excerpt pages from
adopted plans or studies, maps illustrating transit facilities and connectivity to the improvement, short statement of support
with a signature of the school official and their contact information for SRTS projects, collision heat maps/ crash data for
area surrounding project limits, etc.).
PART 7 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement, engagement, and collaboration is a key component of the federal project development process and
must be conducted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations in the event the project is selected for funding.
Indicate which of the following are applicable (Select all that apply). Complete the text field or indicate N/A in the space
provided. Then, upload supporting documentation.
1. Does the greater community support the project, as demonstrated by recently adopted proclamations
or resolutions expressing commitment and public engagement? If"yes", explain the engagement and
how the concept evolved based on public involvement. Indicate the resolution number, adoption date, and
participating parties in the space provided. If"no", indicate N/A in the space provided.
• Yes No City Commission Res 25-318 (11/05/25)
2. Was the project discussed at a regularly scheduled meeting of an advisory board of an appointed
group of citizens, such as bicycle pedestrian advisory groups or similar committee that provides
support toward the project? If"yes", provide meeting information, including the date and type of advisory
board meeting, and the input received. If"no", indicate N/A in the space provided.
• Yes No Sustainability Advisory Board Res 25-03 (10/14/25)
3. Was there an advertised public meeting to discuss the project? If"yes", provide a brief description,
including the input received, how the concept evolved based on public involvement, date, and type of meeting.
If"no", indicate N/A in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
4. Do recent community surveys indicate both need and support for the project and stakeholders will
continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project? If"yes", briefly explain. If"no", indicate N/A in
the space provided.
• Yes No As received as feedback from the ongoing Safety Action Plan, Local news stories
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g., resolution,
proclamation, regularly scheduled meeting agenda and minutes, public meeting advertisement, community survey, letters
of support, etc.).
PART 8 - CONCURRENCY / CONSISTENCY F�o..........
T
Is the project consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan(s), transportation plan(s), capital
improvement plan(s), and /or the long-term management plan(s)? [Note: Board of County Commissioners
functions as MPO in nonmetropolitan areas (Section 339.135(4)(c)1, F.S.)]. If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in
the space provided. If so, select"yes", and use the text field to explain consistency, include MPO prioritization number.
If a modification is required, indicate the meeting date for adoption.
Yes • No N/A
REQUIRED UPLOAD: CONCURRENCY / CONSISTENCY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g.,
supporting resolution(s), excerpt from comprehensive plan(s), transportation plan(s), capital improvement plan(s),
management plan(s), prioritization list, etc.).
PART 9 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Select the boxes describing the Environmental Conditions.As applicable, complete the text field or indicate N/A in
the space provided. Then, upload supporting documentation.Applicants for NI proposals may skip the Environmental
Conditions section.
1. Does the project involve lands identified by the Florida Wildlife Corridor Act of 2021 [Section 259.1055,
Florida Statutes (F.S.)]?
Yes • No
2. Does the project involve state-owned conservation lands? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the state-owned conservation lands. NOTE: Use of state-owned
conservation lands is subject to coordination by the managing entity.
Yes • No N/A
3. Does a railway facility exist within 1,000 feet of the project limits? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in
the space provided. If so, select"yes", and indicate railway facility.
Yes • No N/A
4. Does the project physically cross a railway facility? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the crossings railway identification number, and beginning and ending
mile points.
Yes • No N/A
5. Would the project provide lighting at locations with nighttime crashes? If not, select"no", and indicate
N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and describe the proposed lighting in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
6. Would the project implement an adopted Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan? If
not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and describe proposed ADA
improvements in the space provided.
Yes 0 No N/A
Part 9-Environmental Conditions continued... FD�oT
7. Is an Environmental Assessment for the project complete? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and describe any specific issues in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
8. Is the project adjacent to locally designated or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed or
eligible resources? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and list
resources, indicate if the resources have received Florida Department of State Historic Preservation Grant funds,
and explain any preservation agreements, covenants, or easements in the space provided. If applicable, select
"unknown".
Yes No • Unknown N/A
9. Are there any archaeological sites or Native American sites located within or adjacent to the project
boundary? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and list State Site
Number (aka Site File Number)for the sites. If applicable, select "unknown".
Yes No • Unknown N/A
10.Are there any parks, recreation areas, or wildlife/waterfowl refuges within or adjacent to the project
boundary? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and list the facilities in
the space provided.
• Yes No Wickers project is adjacent
11.Are there any navigable waterways adjacent to or within the project boundary? If not, select "no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select"yes", and list the navigable waterways.
Yes • No N/A
12.Are there any wetlands within or adjacent to the project limits? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the
space provided. If so, select "yes", and describe in the space provided. Include permit types required and any
obtained for the project.
Yes • No N/A
13.Is it likely that there are protected /endangered /threatened species and /or critical habitat impacts
within the project limits? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and
describe in the space provided. If applicable, select "unknown".
Yes • No Unknown N/A
14.Are there any potential contamination / hazardous waste areas within or adjacent to the project limits?
If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select"yes", and describe in the space
provided. If applicable, select "unknown".
Yes No • Unknown N/A
15.Are there any noise-sensitive areas near the project area? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and describe in the space provided. If applicable, select"unknown"
Yes No • Unknown N/A
REQUIRED UPLOAD for Infrastructure (not applicable for NI): ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g., labeled photographs on maps depicting conditions, permits, copy of the
entire study or environmental assessment, excerpt pages from adopted plans, etc.).
PART 10 - DESIGN / TYPICAL SECTIONS FDo`T�
Select the boxes describing the design status and complete the text fields. Then, upload supporting documentation.
Applicants for NI proposals may skip the Design /Typical Section.
1. Are signed and sealed design plans available for this project?
Yes • No
2. If design plans are not at 100 percent, or do not meet current standards and I or reflect existing
conditions, select the box identifying the status and briefly describe in the space provided.
• No design plans 30% design plans 60% design plans 90% design plans
Other:
3. If design is at 100 percent, indicate the date of the plans. Then, briefly describe in the space provided.
NIA
REQUIRED UPLOAD for Infrastructure (not applicable for NI): Typical Section(s) depicting existing and
proposed features, dimensions, and ROW lines. If there are multiple segments, provide typical sections for each. If
available, provide design plans.
PART 11 - OWNERSHIP / ROW STATUS F�o..........
T
Select the boxes describing the Ownership / ROW Status and complete applicable text fields. Then, upload supporting
documentation.Applicants for NI proposals may skip the Ownership/ ROW Status section.
1. Is ROW acquisition, defined as obtaining property not currently owned by the Local Agency through any
means (e.g., deed, easement, dedication, donation, etc.), necessary to complete this project?
• Yes No
2. Explain the ROW status (owned /fee simple, leased / less-than fee, and / or needs) along the project
boundary, including when ROW was obtained and how ownership is documented (e.g., plats, deeds,
prescriptions, certified surveys, transfers, easements). Provide information for verifying ownership
(e.g., book/ page number, transfer agreements, dates, etc.). If ROW acquisition is necessary before
constructing the proposed project and /or the applicant agency is not the landowner, indicate the
necessary coordination with other owners for all fee-simple purchases and /or any less-than fee/
lease needs (including temporary construction and / or other easements and /or permits for drainage,
railroad, utilities, etc.) necessary to secure ROW certification. Indicate the proposed acquisition
timeline, expected funding source, the total number of parcels, type of acquisition, limitations on fund
use or availability, and who will acquire and retain ownership of proposed land.
Duck Ave is identified as City of Key West right of way.
The easternmost terminus of Duck Ave intersects with South Roosevelt Blvd, part of the State Highway System,
Roadway: 90003000.
REQUIRED UPLOAD for Infrastructure (not applicable for NI): OWNERSHIP / ROW STATUS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION including applicable ROW Certification including ownership verification
documenting site control and related landowner supporting documentation. Site control documents must include an
adequate legal description of the parcel(s) comprising the project site, such that staff can compare it to the boundary map
submitted with the application and evaluate whether there is control of the project site (e.g., ROW Certification, ROW
maps, plats, warranty deeds, prescriptions, certified surveys, easements, use agreement, etc.). Maps should clearly show
the location of each ownership in relation to the project boundary and /or limits. NOTE: provide map documentation
on 8.5" x 11" scale. DO NOT provide reduced copies of original plats and or maps that cannot be read at scale. If
applicable, an exhibit visually depicting the new ROW anticipated for the project, together with a spreadsheet providing
the tax identification number(s) of each impacted parcel and the approximate size of the new acquisition area for each
impacted parcel.
FDOT
PART 12 - PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS
Complete either the Infrastructure Table Summary with the overall project programming (phases, schedule, and
estimated costs for the proposed work) or the NI Cost Narrative Table. Then, upload supporting documentation.
Not all phase types may be eligible for TA funds, and not all areas prioritize all phases. Local agencies are responsi-
ble for covering all unanticipated cost increases, including but not limited to price inflation and increases in the cost of
construction; account for them using local funds. FDOT does not allow programming TA funds for contingency costs.
The local agency must have the ability to pay for non-participating costs (e.g., utility relocation). Chapter 337.14, F.S.
prohibits an entity from performing both design services and construction engineering inspection services (CEI) for a
project wholly or partially funded by the FDOT and administered by a local government entity.
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
1) Either provide a detailed engineer cost estimate if the project is designed or if the project has not been designed or is a
NI project, provide a detailed opinion of probable costs (including all pay items and a timeline for deliverable).
2)As applicable, letter from local agency budget office committing local funds to the project.
*" Note: Applications for NI Projects to skip to page 15."*
111,101,111,, 'lie, is=III,
Planning Development
8 o.00
(Corridor or Feasibility)
PD&E $o.00
Preliminary Engineering) / 07r32 0ei33 gz7s,soo.00 g737500.0i gsso,000.00
Design (PE) r
Environmental
Assessment $a.oa
(associated with PE)
Permits
$o.00
(associated with PE)
ROW $a.oa
Construction ✓ 07i33 asisa gsoe,sao.aa gzai sooA gt,tso,000.oa
CEI $o.oa
Other costs (describe) $o.oa
$ 1,500,000.00
Part 12-Project Implementation and Costs continued... --aiiii.X.FDOT�
*** Note: applications for infrastructure projects do not need to fill out this page***
NI Cost Narrative Table
Below each item, explain how the item will support the program, and other appropriate details.
RD
RD
Narrative:
Narrative:
Narrative:
Materials and Supplies:
Educational items:
Promotional Items:
Other Expenses:
Equipment:
$o.00
RESOURCES Foo..........
`r
FDOT Transportation Alternatives Program:
htto s://www.fd ot.gov/ola n n i n g/systems/systems-man age me nVta a
FDOT Local Programs Manual:
httos:l/www.fdoLgov/orogrammanagementlla Ip lap-toc.shtm
FDOT Office of Environmental Management PD&E Manual:
htto s://www.fd ot.aov/envi ro n menUo u bs/od ern a n/odeman-current
FDOT Context-Based Solutions
http s://www.fd ot.gov/roadway/co ntext-based-solution s
Florida Safe Routes to School Guidelines:
httos://www.fd ot.
ms/aov/safety/2A-Proa ra Safe-Routes.shtm
I I I)11 1 I 1111 1 / rrii ii //,// ml 111 I 1 Jl,!!!,//!1 111111111J1,1111111 1 J J J 1 JJ 1 1 JJI,IJI./. f1//r%// ..l.. ...LJ J J1 7 J 1„111 II W7 I ��NA,1141iGIll11YIVNVIo}N19114)1141➢1ll1llN1UA)))1119fl41WIWIWIWIWIWN14S47NS4ryND4119114119114119llS 1 I'U1 V V �4V V V I I I I 11111111141ll}UJD)�,'NNTli4,.f � 1 J, l7YP,Y�'10 14'UI�'I111WIY!kNILvAkWJAIV!kUVlk�lld Va Va Va IN IN IN IN INIAIVIXIVIXIVIXI ,G fl ) J W)1 1 )1. JJJNNNNN 1 1 1) 1 I l )))))))?�))),))D))))iV)Yli�)9iaX Jl��1i,J�;J��,r��ril���r���y��y�y,�1��y)�)��� �9)�y)y)��tg�I�`,�'l��l��„)��J��J��)JJJy��,������1�1'�11����)y�)��J�.y�t�
_ ��J��J�JY�Jy������J�I)���l��i�l��l��)))y))��I��,/��i/1������%.,,�1�)_. ,
m. IIIIIINI�uuduu, III
Ili
IIlluuly,,,,,°°luui I IIIIIIII
�uyVu�IuVI �.
� r
NATIVES PROG"'RAM
TRANSPORTATION ALTERrq
1 :
'JI!NIUIUIUIUIWIuwpwwnrT,;,,,. ,,,Ury FD
CERTIFICATION OF
PROJECT NAME:E: Crosstown Connector Improvements
LOCATION: Ivey West, Monroe County
PROJECT LIMITS: (from south or west limit) west terminus: Duck Ave at 14th St
(to Wort )h or east limit south Roosevelt Blvd (north of intersection with Duck Ave)
By checking the box you agree to do the following:
Enter into a maintenance agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as necessary,
prior to the design phase.
Comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Acquisition Policies Act for any Right of
Way actions required for the project.
Provide any required funding match, incur any additional expenses beyond the approved project costs in the LAP
agreement, and are responsible for any non-participating items (e.g. utility relocations).
Pursue or retain LAP certification and enter into a LAP agreement with 1=DOT.
Comply with NEPA process prior to construction, including any necessary involvement with the .Mate Historic
Preservation Officer(SHPO), and other State and/or Federal agencies, prior to construction.
I further certify that the estimated costs included herein are reasonable and agree to follow through on the project
once in the FD T's Work Program. I fully understand that significant increases in these costs could
programmed
cause the project to be removed from the FDOT's work Program.
!
Signatu
Brian.......... L. Barroso
Dame (please type or print)
City Manager
Title
12/04/2b25
Date
*This should be executed by person who has signatory authority for
sponsor and is authorized to obligate services and funds for that entity
(generally chairman of the board or council).
I
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PROJECT 1NFORMATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Scope rfWork
Purpose and Need
Many workers in the City of Key West commute to the west side of the island of Key West from more affordable housing
located on the eastern side and Stock Island. Approximately 1,000 non-motorist trips per day are counted.These
commuters entering Key West from Stock Island must traverse an injury hot-spot at The Triangle where the Florida Keys
Overseas Heritage Trail (FKOHT)forks.Those continuing along the route on the north must then traverse another injury
hot spot along North Roosevelt Blvd where severe outcomes affect vulnerable road users disproportionately. Many
commuters prefer to use a safer and more comfortable route, however a gap in the connectivity from the partially
constructed neighborhood Crosstown connector route to the FKOHT discourages use.
Desired outcome City and State funded projects have improved the condition of the Crosstown Connector over recent
years, but improving the condition of the connector east of 14th St and closing the gap at the Florida Keys Overseas
Heritage Trail, will provide a safe and comfortable route to ease congestion along the North Roosevelt Blvd corridor and
help to reduce roadway injuries.
Existing Condition Duck Ave currently has a partially marked ll' travel lane, 5' bicycle lane, and variable size parking
lane.The unsignalized intersection of Duck Ave and South Roosevelt Blvd/FKOHT includes stop control for Duck Ave
only.There are no curb ramps connecting Duck Ave to the FKOHT and the nearest pedestrian crossings are 900'to the
north or 600' to the south. Long pedestrian wait times at the nearest crossings discourage use.
Description of Project& Major Work Improvements Crosstown Connector Improvements would incorporate elements
to the bicycle lane along Duck Ave from 14th St to South Roosevelt Blvd
m VVavfindingsigns
m Consistent bicycle lane pavement markings
w Green color highlighting conflict areas
Crosstown Connector Improvements would provide a permissible crossing,through partnership with FDOT ROW
ownership at South Roosevelt Blvd, with:
w Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
m Widened side path
or other FDOT approved alternative.
18of53
I I I)11 1 I 1111 1 / rrii ii //,// ml 111 I 1 Jl,!!!,//!1 111111111J1,1111111 1 J J J 1 JJ 1 1 JJI,IJI./. f1//r%// ..l.. ...LJ J J1 7 J 1„111 II W7 I ��NA,1141iGIll11YIVNVIo}N19114)1141➢1ll1llN1UA)))1119fl41WIWIWIWIWIWN14S47NS4ryND4119114119114119llS 1 I'U1 V V �4V V V I I I I 11111111141ll}UJD)�,'NNTli4,.f � 1 J, l7YP,Y�'10 14'UI�'I111WIY!kNILvAkWJAIV!kUVlk�lld Va Va Va IN IN IN IN INIAIVIXIVIXIVIXI ,G fl ) J W)1 1 )1. JJJNNNNN 1 1 1) 1 I l )))))))?�))),))D))))iV)Yli�)9iaX Jl��1i,J�;J��,r��ril���r���y��y�y,�1��y)�)��� �9)�y)y)��tg�I�`,�'l��l��„)��J��J��)JJJy��,������1�1'�11����)y�)��J�.y�t�
_ ��J��J�JY�Jy������J�I)���l��i�l��l��)))y))��I��,/��i/1������%.,,�1�)_. ,
m. IIIIIINI�uuduu, III
Ili
IIlluuly,,,,,°°luui I IIIIIIII
�uyVu�IuVI �.
� r
NATIVES PROG"'RAM
TRANSPORTATION ALTERrq
1 :
'JI!NIUIUIUIUIWIuwpwwnrT,;,,,. ,,,Ury FD
CERTIFICATION OF
PROJECT NAME:E: Crosstown Connector Improvements
LOCATION: Ivey West, Monroe County
PROJECT LIMITS: (from south or west limit) west terminus: Duck Ave at 14th St
(to Wort )h or east limit south Roosevelt Blvd (north of intersection with Duck Ave)
By checking the box you agree to do the following:
Enter into a maintenance agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as necessary,
prior to the design phase.
Comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Acquisition Policies Act for any Right of
Way actions required for the project.
Provide any required funding match, incur any additional expenses beyond the approved project costs in the LAP
agreement, and are responsible for any non-participating items (e.g. utility relocations).
Pursue or retain LAP certification and enter into a LAP agreement with 1=DOT.
Comply with NEPA process prior to construction, including any necessary involvement with the .Mate Historic
Preservation Officer(SHPO), and other State and/or Federal agencies, prior to construction.
I further certify that the estimated costs included herein are reasonable and agree to follow through on the project
once in the FD T's Work Program. I fully understand that significant increases in these costs could
programmed
cause the project to be removed from the FDOT's work Program.
!
Signatu
Brian.......... L. Barroso
Dame (please type or print)
City Manager
Title
12/04/2b25
Date
*This should be executed by person who has signatory authority for
sponsor and is authorized to obligate services and funds for that entity
(generally chairman of the board or council).
I
REQUIRED UPLOAD:AREA CONDITIONS S,U PPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e,g,exicerpt pagel$froml
adlopted miaps illustrathg transit facilities,and coinnectivity to the improvernent shart,statemant io�f soup o p rt
wiffi, ,a signiaturs of thie,schooIII offildal and their contact in,formatliolin far SRT$proj"lect's median houlsehold [Incame by
censusn'tract for community benefiting coill'Ision hoot maps I crash diatia for area s t 11 m its r,O ).
,oirrounding proj 'ec
Enclosures:
• Key West Bicycle Routes Map
o Describes connection of Crosstown Connector Route (blue)with Florida Keys Overseas
Heritage Trail/ Beach Route (green)
• Transit Stop Map
o Describes bus stops along project area (yellow circle)
• Safety Action Plan Crash Data Analysis
• Excerpts showing crashes along project area
• "The third area, located on the eastern side of Key West, does not itself have a high
volume of crashes within its boundary but lies directly adjacent to major hotspots.,
including the Triangle and North Roosevelt Boulevard."
20 of 53
Uf�k off V,DrI,
rnJ �r�,,�
/f N / // `
r %% 44
i
�F
v0 /
f� r
Ik
fir `
14
/ /
°^ Nu
r
/fA/
QV Jai
i/
cO
'y
♦ / ed,
i'/1
/ F
2�0
♦ �i�� r %
♦ ���
♦♦��i� ,
/ IS
0 NOW
`,. ♦� fie' �" I�' W `�N����k '�j �w�D�
I" � l♦ �j P ♦ �%i rw�aNv
iiN'�f H;�lq yrry i �� A�
ry rJJf 4F IW Jrv%,Li/ %/ h�I! i wiry '�a'grtlN
r WIN
/Sol if
N� /
co
r
N}� r
r
i
Oil
® UO
4:':.. IMP ��� ITV'
r
O
,r uu d,(u1,6
r
1` 4-+
N
to U)
i ?
., ,
Of
III
k f,
rtn,ru, 7/
IfIII AkNBD ''„G I;nyll' v�J I :r/j� ,; Wn
fy J "N /�
WJ.,I' j
N ' I
n 'Ri
u I f%
tiP.
Ogyn� n nay k / '�
co
%/go
, `J,l
IIIIINNulllllll� f ,����� � �
Ab
l yll' J
,�,, >„D
Wale 'r!%/
IIIllLJJyyyiii ///nl li,�.,
N�yn 4�f'v,
/ /
y
mi W Ii�O /ir e
/ �/
Ohl
IIIIIIICW� �''JI�
WYW�i
y U,., /fir //'i
War r,
Up°. d/� r"" %„�,,,,p��, iiJl iCfU /fir/ �/9/ �
Illll�llllllllllllf. f n , "/d, //////�V ///� ///
v"
YL
dt me
67
I • %////i` / //% 7 re v r11
OiI,,r hit
IgF
Mi
U id
2 of 4
1
I
Ir / f
JI rj r �j
n
tl
my a
rd
r i
LeI
Sovore'Cras,Ls,
f
6, 11MI .r it r
r
6
i
r ,
r
i
1,, �, y• c �rruyxyura
s ao ,
l r
m �y
.w
Figure 22. Key West Census Block Groups highlighted for income related considerations
Three Census Block Groups were identified as underserved based on income thresholds, shown
in blue in Figure 22. Two adjacent areas on the western side of Key West (Old Town) contain a
relatively high density of incapacitating injury crashes and one fatal crash, in addition to notable
sidewalk gaps in and around the neighborhood (Figure 23). However, the distribution of severe
crashes in these areas is comparable to the rest of Old Town, including more affluent blocks,
suggesting that broader systemic issues such as narrow cross-sections, high pedestrian volumes,
and limited separation between modes, may be influencing crash risk.
36
23 of 53
o-x&V er�geteiqr oveidnme
'I%..
opt/
1%�,.,^%i/w'wy:. Sri: , //// �;'""r""' yip//or !i,�/�/!%
% t211
';
y
/
Pal
140
/... wl'Y "N// w"w�w u'^��,.nr 'h
OPP
r / r " , 'ly,,'00// �'//fir/ J�ll'V "all
// ///r////�/, �%/D
,.
50 01,
Fr 11k,
01/0
//% r, h, i%f h a W
0110
00
r/ /%r
./01 /
% l //i,r
r
� /k"Io
OP
Nl
r
%�0 / 0011,
/r/ r i,
Severe CrOshes
.v
Incapacitati
ch
r;,lr�ni� �v
Fatal � �j / ,� �^w, CasaCasa �,tmquA'71atal(within
30 d'a s
Sidewalk'Street South Beae"h
M11 21 5
None
Underserved
Area
,1
Miles,
Figure 23. Sidewalk Gaps around the Bahama Village neighborhood in Old Town, Key West
The third area, located on the eastern side of Key West, does not itself have a high volume of
crashes within its boundary but lies directly adjacent to major hotspots, including the Triangle
and North Roosevelt Boulevard. Its proximity to these corridors makes it relevant when
considering equity and safety convergence.
4.4.2.2 Transportation
37
24 of 53
REQUIRED J IIPUBLICl I I I INT SUPPORTING IIDOCUMENTATION (e.g., resolution,
sr , l , u li �ee nd e lso e��, e� �o�iu m u ,Illet ers
,s,j,Ujp11 I pm , 0C.).0
Enclosures:
Local news/columnists:
• "Do We Need A Traffic Light At Duck Avenue and S. Roosevelt?"—Konk Life, 2/08/2023
• "The Crosstown Greenway—The Locals' Not-So-Secret Bikeway"—Friends of Car Free Key West, 11/07/2025
25of53
You
DUCK AVENUE AND S . M 'V RM Ck
ROOSEVELT9.
KONK LIFE EDITOR FEBRUARY 8, 2023 SHARE ON: f W S' 9 t in q��
"'YOKIM1010101
gl
Hill
MOM
/1"Nom-
0"'........
q/
"MIN
...........
J MEN
/d/a/m/1111
'MA! MOMMMMOMM/M
rG7
ggg
"M
kc
Streets for People Do We Need a Traffic Light at Duck Avenue and S. Roosevelt?
FDOT is busy in Key West this month starting three new projects. A 2-year $24M rebuild of S. Roosevelt between
Bertha and the end of Smathers Beach. A 6-month $2.6M rebuild of Whitehead Street between Truman and
Fleming. And a $1 M repaving and repainting of S. Roosevelt between Flagler and the Triangle. In each case,
opportunities to put in new and safer bicycle infrastructure will be ignored in favor of existing car convenience.
26 of 53
ToLy we bring you the case of the smallest of these projects, where the City's Crosstowf. Gr1twa icyqjp faci -ty
on Duck Avenue meets four lanes of fast-moving traffic on S. Roosevelt Boulevard. We ask the ques ion, could this
facility use a traffic light or HAWK Light to get bicyclists across the highway and make travel safer and more
convenient between Key West and Stock Island?And while we're looking at this from the perspective of people on
bikes- hey, cause that's what we do - it would seem that people in cars have difficulty at this intersection and
could use some help too.
JEW,,
"Ok
'a
/C
,A
n
A
w/0,
,j,
POOR,,
AL N if IN/0"ON/
A
FT
/i/h
A Al
toom ommao",'
1111710
WON
ar
41
SOON
11/0
121 A/I
f
,of
0",
//P
/000
"11,30 4Y,
1 400011
"All A
5P
J
4/0%
%
*//JD
......... Trail
S paratx*r/di Rtkt),ILano
20
r
sjimt
9
0/
At,,!v S iko@r Lai,,,tv
>""r vl'it
fe
peop* "I'Orilfy
p
4/3111011400
The,3_5 t7,iJ/fP., Grre,�enwc,,t cuts through thehealrtofthe island a
'y I. nd the C"qy, It ais t;,,'he r717,,r,,v-n ecz,st�
wes,-t bicycle rot"),ft,"e, becau,5.e ft,, tha"O N,
aj
lcig', rAventw.
The City Encourages People to Use the Crosstown Greenway
The Crosstown Greenway is a designated bicycle route identified in the City's 2013 Comprehensive Plan and 2019
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan stretching from Reynolds Street on one end along VonPhister to Staples and
Duck and ending at S. Roosevelt where it meets 4 lanes of fast-moving traffic. Over the last few years, the City has
been doing pilot projects and planning safer segments, like the Wickers Trail, because this facility is the safe and
27 of 53
quiLk alternative for bicyclists to get from one end of the island to the other instead of t ffic 0 av Roq�sevel
0
Bo7uevard or Flagler Avenue. The Crosstown Greenway provides a wonderfully quiet, safe, an0'ireyC*tpassage rig t
through the heart of the City.
An yet the bike lane on Duck simply dead ends at four lanes of traffic. Shouldn't there be a safe way to cross here?
More People Are Using Bikes Between Key West and Stock Island
Traffic volume is up over the Cheryl Cates Bridge between Stock Island and Key West and that includes people on
bicycles. This is especially true as the 240 units of workforce housing at Wreckers Cay are about half occupied now
and more units are on the way at the Garden View Apartments (104), Roy's Trailer Park(132) and the Key West
Harbor Yacht Club (151). According to FDOT data more than 1,000 bicyclists a day use the inbound side of the
bridge where the official Multi-Use Trail is that flows into the Promenade on N. Roosevelt Boulevard. While we
don't have good data at the moment on the bicycle volume on the outbound side, we do know that more than 700
bicyclists a day cross the middle point of the Crosstown Greenway on the Staples Avenue Bike/Ped Bridge.
I bike past this intersection about six times a week on my daily travels and can attest that lots of people on bicycles
use the sidewalk on the outbound/south side of the road. It makes sense. For the many people coming around the
Triangle on the outbound side, if they aren't going to stay on what becomes the Low Stress Promenade and go all
the way around the island by the Airport and Smathers Beach to get downtown (an extra 1.3 miles out of the way),
they'll cut across S. Roosevelt to Duck Avenue and use the Crosstown Greenway. Trying to cross 4 lanes of high-
speed traffic-two lanes in each direction - is the very definition of High Stress. There's no acknowledgement in the
roadway that that this is the crossing to the City's official Crosstown Greenway. For the Greenway to be useful for
people coming and going to Stock Island the intersection should be treated accordingly and made safer by
demarcating it as a crossing and slowing the cars down.
Does that mean a HAWK light like the five we have on N. Roosevelt Boulevard that are only activated when a
person requests a crossing? Or does it mean a full blown 3-way traffic light? Or perhaps something else like speed
bumps or paint and signage indicating that people and bikes are crossing here?
28 of 53
.....................................
r9MEM/1
7' fF
Miasma=!
.............
A/
2-
ASAIIA
ING i
/0,
J�l 1,
M,
M
the Crosstown, Grefenway
Bil cywc)e s, m us,t crasss', at./a n of"'tra ff- 1 c on S. R o as eve It,Blvd.A,t top 10,0 k' toward'
f
bikel"arni es ion,Duck,Aventie.At bottom, on Duck-Aven,ule as you foppi ,roo-C.17, th-e 4,1 es of,S. Roosevelt. You,must
e an
V
cross the 4 lane,,s, togze t to the Sidewalk on,, the oth er sl ,e andm,ake ur,wqyarounidthe narrow,S wia
'YO
41
6 L),�e is part,
s walk''Ito, sart o �-k
ide, g et to Stock Istand. There,sh ouldbe,-,,S,�,ome f c110051's"Wol , here, espeo ally,a's Duck"Alven
of the Cityps- official Crosst�ow,,,n ,,,G,,"r,ee,,n,wq,,,y,,,,
FDOT Says Nothing Is Needed
We asked FDOT officials if they had considered some sort of crosswalk at Duck Avenue. Here's their response in
fu 11:
29 of 53
"DLLdng the Design phase of this project, the Traffic Operations Office performed a review of reWst fpr a
crosswalk from Duck Avenue across South Roosevelt Boulevard. This review cleterminelthat i was not
warranted.11
We don't exactly know what 11not warrantedif means. Do not enough people cross here? Of course, even that might
be a chicken and egg question as if there was a crossing, would more people use it? Or does FDOT think it makes
sense to get on the narrow-side sidewalk and go two blocks down to Flagler, cross with that light and then come
two blocks back?Which, given human nature no one would do, so...
We just don't know how FDOT squares a major bicycle facility just dead ending at their road and ignoring it. This
surprises us because on other projects like the rebuilding of S. Roosevelt in front of Smathers Beach it was actually
FDOT that had the safer more progressive recommendations that were turned down by the City.
While We're At It Let's Widen Sidewalks Around the Triangle
Most of residents of Stock Island live on the south/outbound or County side. So, many never navigate the long light
to get over U.S. Route 1 at Cross Street and take the bike path to N. Roosevelt. Rather they simply stay on the
narrow sidewalk past the retail, over Cow Key Bridge, around the bend at the Triangle and then use the Crosstown
Greenway to get into town. The problem is the sidewalk is a narrow 5 feet for much of the way and is less when
you encounter poles and foliage. This makes it difficult when pedestrians are present, when bikes are coming in
another direction or when faster bikes need to pass. There's plenty of room to make the sidewalk wider. Especially
if the Navy gives up a few feet of unused grassland behind their big chain link fence. Time for the City, County,
FDOT and Navy to talk.
When we asked FDOT about this they said:
"The section of sidewalk that you mention (along the south side of the road from the bridge to the triangle) is
outside our project limits.11
30 of 53
aam/
aaai/
im/a/m/wo)
Home Streets for People Column Key West Voices About Getting Around Key West
Downtown Historic District Reports
The Crosstown S arc Site Go
Greenway �� The
Locals Not� So Subscribe
Secret Bikeway Follow Us
...........I 1111111111111�1,, �,,Ii,
01,
WINN/ Al"
Blog Archives
Select Month
Friend's Facebook
Posts
31 of 53
More wayfinding signage is coming as well as a study on the crossing at Duck Wa I ki ng i n Key West
Ave. and S. Roosevelt. November 19,2021
What's Next for the Greenway Streets for People/ City
Fails, Again, to Make
South Roosevelt
The Crosstown Greenway is a sprawling, evolving Boulevard and
project with many moving parts. According to Ryan Promenade Safer for
Stachurski's April report, several key initiatives are Bikes, Pedestrians and
Vehicles November 12,
on the horizon: 2021
Streets for People/ It's
Completing wayfinding confirmation signage Time to Eliminate Free
across the entire route to help users navigate On-Street Parking for
more easily. Visitors Downtown
November 5,2021
Installing complete street features, some Streets for People/ It's
embedded or funded within the Von Phister Official - Uber-Like On-
Street resurfacing project, though not all details Demand Transit
have been finalized. Coming to Key West in
December October 29,
Continuing progress on the roundabout at 2021
4th Street and Staples Avenue and the Wickers Streets for People/ D.C.
Path, both covered earlier in this page. Baseball, Key West,
Tattoos and the World
Where Duck Avenue Meets S. Roosevelt Series October22,2021
Streets for People
Additionally, the City is actively pursuing grant Meet Local Ryan
funding to study improvements at the Duck Avenue Stachurski - The City's
and S. Roosevelt intersection, a critical entry point to New"Bike Guy"October
the Greenway. Advocates have long called for 8)2021
enhanced safety measures here, including a traffic Streets for People
Duval Street
32 of 53
light or pushbutton flashing beacons, as detailed in Revitalization Back on
our previous coverage here: "Do We Need a Traffic Track October 1,2021
Light at Duck Avenue and S, Roosevelt?". The Streets for People
Airport Expansion
Sustainability Advisory Board supports this grant Means Fewer Cars on
effort, and the City is open to community input. While Our Island September
construction may be years away, securing early 24Y 2021
design funding could accelerate the timeline. Streets for People
Reimagining Key West-
10 Goals for a Better
We'll point out that Tom Thiesen suggests that Eagle Future and 10 Actions
Avenue is a safer alternative than busier and more to Get There September
congested Duck Avenue. We agree and often use 17,2021
Eagle ourselves when getting to S. Roosevelt from the Serious Bikeshare in the
Greenway. But the problem of safely crossing the U.S.A. is 11 Years Old.
Its Success Shows Cities
four lanes of traffic on S. Roosevelt would still need to
Can Do Innovative Work
be overcome. So we applaud studying options. September 10,2021
Other Intersections That Need Safety Features Streets for People/ Can
We Save Key West
Transit from a Death
From a safety perspective, there are other busy S p i ra I? September 3,2021
crossings along the Greenway that need attention, Streets for People/We
including White Street, First Street, and 5th Street and Need to Increase the
Kennedy Street. In addition to the crossing why oh Quantity and Quality of
Bicycle Parking
why does Kennedy Street need four lanes of vehicle Downtown August 27,
traffic? 2021
Streets for People/ City
Both the Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan and Ryan's to Make It Easier to Bike
recent updates highlight White Street as a priority for to the Lower Keys
33 of 53
improvements. For example, bulb-outs could shorten Shuttle Bus August 20,
crossing distances and enhance pedestrian safety 2021
where sidewalk expansion is limited. And green paint Streets for People/ It's
Time to Put an Hourly
could be applied across the street to alert cars to the Limit on the Free On-
presence of the Greenway. Street Parking Spaces
and Institute a Zone
Von Phister Targeted Next System for Residential
Parking Permits
The Von Phister Street resurfacing project is backed Downtown August 13,
2021
by $500,000 in grant funding. It primarily involves mill
and pave work and shoulder restoration but aims to Streets for People/We
Need to Encourage
lock in some of the temporary improvements from Efforts Like the
the original pilot project, such as sharrows and Proposed Lama Electric
wayfinding signage. Sidewalk improvements may be Scooter August 6,2021
limited due to space constraints, but safety Streets for People
Uber-Like Transit
enhancements like bulb-outs at White Street are
Coming to Key West?
under consideration. The project design is expected July 30,2021
to be done mostly in-house, with construction Streets for People/ Our
planned for this year. Official project documents are Top 7 Bike, Walk,
available here. Transit and Streets for
People Articles of 2021
July 24,2021
Streets for People
With the Duval Street
Revitalization Plan Way
Behind Schedule, Here's
3 Quick Wins for
Peclestrianizing Duval
St re et N ow July 16,2021
34 of 53
REQUIRED UPLOAD: CONCURKENCY/CO��NSI�,,,S�T,EN��CY,,,S,,U��PP,ORTI��NG DOCUMENTATION (eI.,g.,,
su pporti nig rew Ilution(s,"I iarpvt from ooimprehensive,plan(s),transpirtation plan(s spitall improvement plan(s),
W exc
priodtilati'lon H'Isst,atc.),
mianagament,plian(
Enclosures:
• Sustainability Advisory Board Resolution 25-03
• City Commission Resolution 25-318
• Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan
o Network Map excerpt depicting project area (yellow circled)
35 of 53
RESOLUTION NO, 25-03
owl
A RESOLUTION OF THE SUSTAINABILITY
ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF KEY WEST,
FLORIDA,r SUPPORTING AND RECOMMENDING
CROSSTOWN CONNECTOR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
CITY OF KEY WEST; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, Resolution 09-024 created the Sustainability
Advisory Board to advise and assist the City Commission in
efforts to make City operations and the community as a whole
more sustainable; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 19-085 directed staff to implement
complete street features along the Crosstown Connector as
part of the Key West Bicycle And Pedestrian Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 20-009 directed staff to work with
the County and State to create policies and goals for right-
of-way projects to incorporate "'Complete and Sustainable
Streets" and the target of "'Vision Zero", setting a "'Vision
Zero" goal to achieve zero colli s ion-caused right-of-way
fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2035; and
WHEREAS, The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
administers federal funding known as Transportation
Alternative Set-Aside program (TA) funaing for improving
bicycle and pedestrian facilities through a competitive
process; and
WHEREAS., competitive TA grant application submissions
Page 1 of 3
36 of 53
benefit from demonstrating public awareness, involvement, and
support; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SUSTAINABILITY
ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS.-
Section 1: That the ustainability Advisory Board
finds that complete street improvements to the Crosstown
Connector bicycle route east of 14th Street, including an
improved connection to South Roosevelt Blvd for non-motorized
users, will enhance the health and safety of residents of the
City of Key West.
Section 2 : That the ustainability Advisory Board
recommends the City Commission of the City of Key West support
and advance improvements to the Crosstown Connector bicycle
route east of 14th Street where feasible.
Section 3 : That this Resolution shall go into effect
immediately upon its passage and adoption and authentication
by the signature of the Presiding Officer and the Clerk of
the Sustainability Advisory Board.
Passed and adopted by the Sustainabi l-1 ity Advisory Board
at a meeting held this 14th _ day of October 2025.
.........................................................................................................
Page 2 of 3
37 of 53
Authenticated. by the Presiding Officer and Clerk of the
M �Sustainability Advisory board on I O�
day of
2025 .
r
Filed with the Clerk on 01CA-%.*!��MiArjj�ll1 � 0 2 5.
PNmiip W F � "'�W MuwW�. 'r m�fYd
v
SHELL CHAIR
AT
F ' D' B IE 1, CITY CLERK
Page 3 o f 3
38 of 53
RESOLUTION' 25-3
,A RESOLUTION OF' THE CITY COMUSSION OF
THE I ,ll FLORI APPROVING
APPLYAM AUTHORIZING STAFF 'TO FOR
e r. N FROM,
THE
DEPARTMENT' OF TRANSPORTATION AT
TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGTUW
FOR CROSSTOWIN CONNECTOR
FOR AN EFFECTIVE,i
CI E the Key 'West Forward Strategic Plans Key WeSt Bicycle
Pedestrian. seer Plan too Transit Development Man all call
fox increased alte , lve t a. s o ,tion am&ni,ties,; and,
WHEREAS,, staff has ldent'llfiled grant. lo the Florida
T Prof g r ax.Ti a
WHEREAS, the DOT TA grant a, 1 .ion is r. �, r � l
of sport
for any pro,jectsme - and
Improvements o3 ct alon,g Duck, strong cznd id
NOW,,, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TH,E CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF KEY WEST/ L IDA AS FOLLOWS
Sect,lo T , City Commi.s,si.on approves o the project
directs pl for h 'grant
Se c° of i s Res,ollut ion3 ha 11 go i nto et fec
m. ely upons a e and ado, tion d autbent,i.catdon by, the
s,ign o 'the, officer and the C,],,.e,,rk ot the Commission.
39 of 53
Passed and adopted by the City CO-mmmiis'siom at a meeting, held
th 1,s, 5,th day of November, 2025
...............
t,i ca t e d, b y le, P r e sJ11L di i c e r a n,d C1,er k o f the
Commiss-loin on, 5th d,,a,y 0,f,, Novembar 2 02 5.
Filed wil"th the C1,,,erk, on, November 5 2025.
Mayor Danise Hienriquez, Yes ...........
V3.ce Mayor Dona-ld "Doni'Le" Lee Yes
Yes
Commaissione!r Lissette Garey ..........
A "Yes
Commissilloner Aaron, Cast 1111 11,111,0
Y'es
co-mmis',si,loner, Monica Haskell
...........
Yes
icommisss,ione,r Mary Liou Hoover
commissioiner, Siam Kaufman Yies,
01 0
� ._ �� �a my «« �
1 0 OR`�..................�m mDANISE HENRP-, "TEZ1, MAY
,A T TE S'T
................ BRIEN KERI C IT Y GI E R f
P ale 2 of 2,
40 of 53
w
- 1 vaaW 1°O1 prr rrrf iovi ury i "v,
I �f
o
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 5, 12
o H`bnorable ;a r any °C !,`n i� iss,�ilo `rs,
Via.: Brian L.Barroso,,City Maj,ilager
Doug Rradshaw,Engintering Director,
Fro
Stachursk I
uIfimodal oaoa �"for
,L Responsible Charge
Subjecto,
2 Y 29SupportingCrosstown m
o °�° o ' a , ors e, I
o bra � ` Trans art io �o a � Pran't aTmfica
i annual gran n e , to b government, �o . sod.resolutions.
o �4
Xo o " s 5-year plann"ng horizon.
n, ro ects areusually
o a f � �� � � ",[annd � � ° �
(BPMR) the,Final Mille improvetnents for Bus Stops.
Traffic � � f ` � no o .
goals, f o Key West-Strategic . he
Bicycle and Pedestrillan,M&,ster `an,Idenfifie Crosstown Connector' poi sari
improvements, r fitni tl , evaluation, o ie of the ongoing Sa,fety,Actiori Plat e idemfified
(Ducky benefitting niany ,,sldo is and non-motorizedusers.
The TCT ran,,,ked BPMP projects that might, sco well against otli,er candidates .for TAfunding ajn,d the
11
ity
Crosstown Connecter emtrged as, the most desirable, The Sustainabili Advisory Board also, supports
lye , :for C os o o is oc or unpimovementsvila Resolution, SAB 25 o .
o
'ant
There s, n000 , of er n ,'a so TA grant application. Upon, award, local Match, o
approxill"nately 20%off the pr, l ccost is,aii c l a e 'Total n cost estimated 0,00 .o .,
`omm n
,taffrecommend ong the Crosstown Co,;oe w o l �i-ore , o o ect as,ati,apphicationto, IT
Transportation logo .,
41 of 53
Grant Evaluation Form
Instructions:Before applying for a grant,complete thisform submit to the Senior Grants Administrator.
Mimi
.................
Hi.................. .................................................................................................mimic...................................... 711-1`71 1. ..................... ................ ..
'Today�s Da te �M'l 70120 ,025
Department . Engineering
.......... .......
P oll nt Of contact,,(PO'C) Ryan,Stachurskil
I.#of'projects currently,mianaging." 4,,
pocs workloid/capac"ty
..............
2.W the above how,many are,grant4unded-, 3,
....................... .................
....................
.................................................................
1.14 ''.4 2'�eiwx Date,,,, 1012V 2025
DepartmentDilrector apprDval, Slgmatmre:
List all departments this grant can;
Englneeringl,,Community Services,,Planning
potentially Impatt
Fu n ding Sours r Nf a m e FDOT Transportafion AMrnafl ves,
................... ............
�itlWApplIcatilon Due Dole; 12/04/2025
............................... wmuum Tn'Mi .......... ..................
mKw""ww wmrfrYlfr4l
hfttp,, ;-.,,/Iw",,fdot.�igiov/pla,nining,tsyste�ms,/sys teem s-manMagementt/ta,p,
Online,link togr ant in f ormation i
......
Grant/Project Name Crosstow nf Comector East of,1141 hf St
........... Crosse ........- .1-----------
Total Project Estimate $30010M,001
............................ ........................
Grant Request: $231117,000.00479%)
............................ ......
$6 ol�r vt vvJ core
Match Required(Yes[No) 3, 1 00.00!(211%)[N ,equlred,,b, , All s, hilgher.,
............................................................... ............. ...........--"i i ..............
7
In Kind(Yes/INo) Ol
"wwwwwww................... ..........
Projed construrt nor i,pl,,anring,and design, of facifitles f6r pedestdans,bitycAlsts,and
nan,,-Imotorized usersalong the Crosstown Connector east of 114th St.
F
I Ig irst phase,Is,proposed io,be,planning and deal np
Project Description
Crosstown Connector Is,idenllfibd withln the Bicaydle,Pedestrian Master Plan("Res,
19-085).
Additional Inform, atlan Grant appl, fion,ro'cornmendedl by,Sufstainabil Ity,Advisory Board(Res 25uwuwu 1-003www )0'
.......... ................ ..........
uuuuuwwwwwummmmmu wwa wwwuuwwwwww mR'
Cur r ly eted(Yes/No) No, but coulld be proposed for future(FY TAFallcoahon.ent B,,ud,g
S
ty Manager Approval lgnatu re,:,.
�llwpl(o fR
_115/2,024,
42 of 53
RESOLWIXON "V
ununuvulol y
ADVISORY
OF T'EM CITY OF
i t v
FLORIDA, SUPPORTING AND RRCOMMUMMING
CROSSTOWN CONM' CTOfR I)WROVEMEMS IN THE
CITY
OF KEY O �V
I v PROVIDING
I'
I` o I,,, Resolution ' "II w,9.....,.,N-I 4, created, t h u ta �w.�r,1.t
Advisory s the City commission inefflorts tiol mlake, City operations and the community as a whole
more sustainabl,e; ,
WHERII9 Implement
complete street fea,ture"s along theCrosstown Connootor, a
art: o e,,st Bl" Icycle
W
'o u dLon 20® 109 ected staff to o w
the County and State to create P `1 ide and goals for r,,l'gh,t,-
of-way prollec,tso incorpOrate '%"Complete , Sustainable
St e s" and the age of '"Vilsiofn Zero"IF, sett a "Vi o
Zero" goal to, achieve zero c oan' s� o caus e r i ght�;;;;;;;;of-wa,�.
f tolit e and o .s injurJ Les, the year, 2035, and
The For Department o f Transpoxtati,on FDOT
Alternatilves r T fund 2'ng f'or improving
iLoyo d, try ` o col �. �
process; and
WHEREAS., c om .ve; ion,
Page I o
43 of 53
benefit from demonstrating pub,131L,c awareness, involvement, and,
support,f and
NOW1 T1 EREFORE,j, B�E IT RESOLVED 'BY THE SUSTMINABILITY
ADVTS,OfR,Y BOARD OF' THE CITY' OF KEY WEST, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS,-",
S,ection 1, 'That, the SiustaInability, Advisory Board
f-inds 'that complete strelet improvements to the Crosstown
M In #� i ng an
Conne�ctor bicycle route east of 14th Street includi
A f'or no -med
improved corm,ect.J..,on tof South Roosevelt, Blvd n otord z
users,, will enhance the health, and safety of resi'dents of 'the
Clity of Key West.
S
lity Advis Board ection 2 That 'the Sustainabi, 1, ory
"t,y Of Key West, support
recommends the Ci ty Commission of the C1
and adance Improvements to, the Crosstown Connector bicycle
route east, of 14,th Sitreet where feasible,
S,ection 3 That this Resolution, sha,11 go irito ef fect
immedi*.&tely u,pon it , assage and adopt,ion, and authentication
p
by the si,ignature, of the Presiding Officer and the Clerk of"
the Sust,ailinability Advilso'ry,
if
Plassed and adopted 'by, the Sust ai,na,bility Advisory Board
41
meeting, held tbis, 14th day o,f Octobex.,, 2025.,
Page 2 of' 3
44 of 53
Authenticated by the Presi'di"ng Of ficer and, Clerk, o,f the:
11111,ty visoxy, day of
Sust a,i"'nab Ad B,oar�d on
2:0 25
wiwit_. e Clerk on Or 2012S.
............... .........................
GER CHAIR
SHELLY XR
(P0
............
............................................)� ...............................................................................BR I EN KER" CITY CLERK
Page 3 of 3
45 of 53
............... .............. .......... ................ .............................. ............... .......... ............... .......................................................................................................... ..................................................................... .....................................................................................................................................................................................
"3" 1fb
Zm
P IN(
IM 145
III
36
IW
rr
Al'
"S
l �,
sz
wv Pf
41�nl' I K
Joe
A
vof r 10
4
I"V
'OR
Orl
00
A K
'10
00
k,
V C',
Al
J
010
000 Jig'J11111
mn
OW
PAO,
'All
'W
LmLif
NJ
a��
s"
I
Au,ma, 4-1
CIO 0
4. itu r
f ICLIJI oil
5
j 5 C7
m, 04
cv C15 (X1
,
OfL C7 I)
w- C"q
J1 11"n CD
07 C1011) %CY ffl-- 'l 0", q`
V1 il
ILOOOOO�f
mmmm
W Z),
10 E mo''
UO) M11 ("'), 0 W
I"' N A.................. UI)
JM, 10
42") ic-ll��:M
I................
C=
10 IM, C:L IlOw 'M t-,CZ,, "- V)
471141 lr U l Y �3,,`, CD C14 irr"; ll
lc)
ITO
44 z r; 'll
a OL
C)
j. k 119
"ID
10 - JA C
14 ) v
z 1) %l CID
CL (;w
4,
0
CIL
t
1 `2
10 0 10.)
CIO
>m
C-71
w, cui
C) 0
a
j"z M
1111 1 ..J —1
C 0 cl M
0
CL
-to Qj
vo ;Jzz
CQ < z z Q- 09
46 of 53
................... .................. -—------------------------ ..............---.....................................----................ .................. --,-------1
REQ U I RE D U IIP LOAD for I nf rasIr uclure, appi Icable,for N Q r.: IIE NVI ROINM EN TAL, CO,N DIT 10 NS
I � , � parimits,
SU PPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e,g., 116belb,dl p�hotogra#hs on maps-deplotinig conditions copy of the,
entilre stuldy or environmental asses,Srnent,,exoetpt,paigies from adopted plansn',Otc.),.
No Enclosures
Proposed project would be constructed within existing constructed roadway. No significant
environmental conditions have been identified at this time.
47 of 53
KEQUIKED UPLOAD for lnftast'tuclurea(not a�ppltc,alblo for Nl)(.:OWNERSMIP/ROW STATUS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION iiincluldin,g appli'icable R.OW Gerfification I'iin�c11luldii�ngolwi�ners,,,hip verification
fto,umentMg site contr6l and relataid la�ndaw-narsuppo 'I mieiinta tiOn.Si cont te, rofdocumiont's st iintludle aiin
irtl ng doic,Iu
adle,quate, the,proJieot,site, sach,that slaffoan compare i'iit to,th IlbolunAAri, miap
y
stu bmJtte,dI'Yv'I"Ih the,applicatilion a'nA evaluiate,'whiether the re,i"Is oonttol at'the projact site(e g.9 ROW Ge�rtffibaflbn, 1 0W R
maps,,plAwrraye ,,p�rori pflion rtifisues,esoments,u ) rem ant,etc..).Mapsm hould till earlyshow
the Ida catitin of each lowuniership I'In�relatllone to the,projiect IIbounidary and JorIlliilmits'. Ili OTE,provide,mop dooamentation
on 8,.5"x1l P s,,ca III e,, GO NOT providle reduced copiesolf origibal plliats;anidor miaps,that cannot be read,at sciallo. If
applicable,an�exhibit'visulia III y depicting thie,now ROW anl,icipated for the project,together with a spreadsheet providIng
If I
the tax idle lint fli'lcatioln number(s),of ealch,impacted pa��rceIII and the,app��r�oxi'�'Imiate, ,size,,o,: 'the n1avv'a1cqju[sJt'J1o,n area"for II
1"ImpacteA paroell,.
Enclosures:
• City of Key West ROW map depicting Duck Ave ROW(yellow circled)
• FDOT GIS map indicating South Roosevelt Blvd Roadway 90003000
48 of 53
I�IYII
IIII
X�
,NN I�r rX
. YY� YM NX d N 8ry , X"
.,'MX ���r�,7 Y�qAu YX �"-NFL°+•, i "�i.
�b ,�"M•qY Yr°Wu "al
r„ ...;�, � I����vu��X J
;
o N.
—fin
j(
��
III a ll � `I.,r
X � G ..0 i
"r "aX
Y-
I
r V! II w JV
p� �,
�s IY F N NM
" Y u
a XN �Ly
wMar,r� P �r >� ;a vw F•����e-ter 'N� Y X� XX�, � � ,
Win
r
XuN �X ,. e177w•R. XN
Md X "'� •� X
N%i
wrXq 7 w"h. rdwla w,4 ) ., ,, , yNu YN „V �� yY" y,W+o
� �e�� �Y
plye
h��r 'm� �'�i° � �Mr-P`' Poky N" N "N� w"17r B X reb
� ub w✓�
4vf � I wN
'w;y w 9q "TMu'�I' rf-��^
�X a � p.�
� u
r
q,,r'a
XgrN�wM' wx ^ivJdlAr q �Y `�YN��." qa yymY wr pYX I � q, Y`'VNX@
Xu
1 r%r"
ql Ygrro r `> if r''
IL
a
'* W, w'JyNylumw All,N w jjilo
" r
J F W
i
s v
�d
o r Iw �
All � ��
b, ..41
AN4,
q Yir
lo
ol
e
P
I A
r' d
srr-
t
� " r
.� .
2..., X
�R.y�� ,IY•,.. �,�� ,fir Ir�adrrtrnrrrt"dJ�YI"v,Y�,�ywr�ub�uwYawaN�r�INuuw,9 „, 5�(".rf'���ij
9 m� 1XII
XX f lLZZ "'Irr � r .+r'✓"� W ... "x�' "''''� r'' N Y a"
ZZ
- ,.
Alt
r"ryYr ,r °Ie m 'ryw 11era. '' q:" ,� �, r,,'",'" ��:. � ,
d NO el �
c17
i
Nn,
w
rYX
,.wr.L ar,eu� ���dop '.✓�� � "� I�w"I@ wd� � w � I r° !
Al
OOW
91
I �
y �
1Ie
1 �
IV'YYXYY
4. ��IX 00NII'�
} ,lw yy
N
uN
,0
i
I b' m t
UL
,,
z
pil
a .
r .a
r
9 �" �Vf IXds
49 of 53
J�
f� m_ � ��«rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr7r7 «r7r7rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr7r7r «rrrr7r7rr U) �
Y
'I
�C �-
D
`
�
i
r
�i
ro
d„Jl�lrr»r� ". ,,,,r,vr»rei»rrroii/;ravriiKoiirmi
1151"
r;PL
i
Jr N
Vi "% cri
VA /, z
�pr
ui
®r��j ui
r,,, �
;i' Q
f
W
r �
LD
,
�r
ii %l�(�+r+lKryfF�rJ/l�i��
O
jy, wi�n�urvnr�uyrfion�rxrfroJafm���iill�!/n�%�rr 7,,,y .�
l�r l9J/K(JIC(Ill(r%((l(f l 'f %1 9 11(('((111(( 6 J (6
L
' 9�foUNIDf1 ,,,,T,i
POPOO rKF"f✓n'1.�,,�� N
frp/ li ia�6brJP�f;fl�P"��r%Jf cu
J CD mo,
y 11Yn,1 /r 0 rlGl1
O
o
LLJ coI—
U) t
O
W
Ir
O O
� �
= O CY)Ln o cO II,,,, —
L-LJ I O
J co
O d L Lo
y"" 6
Q d o C)
b O N
fr
Z LL N �
y
O
>+ E J O
iOn O U)
HQ OR O ca
4 t it (_CNn
LOL
0 w o O
rod
ooi°Kri ur 70 oa'TMT-Kp u F.
L LU
/
J Y U—
i
g,
, OiK O
�r
0
sa U
fir, Uj
t +JIf O
f
y
�� o� C)
co
,
r
» O
�r
Itui
�
k ,n f rf r
nib vial
aJl ILli
�I f
�ilJ� ri i f rr<, N
N
rr , 1� r .
"f�r�" ..
rrVy" i r1" /n !!
C)
—
ii
���K�IJIrKH ���1�J( ,�,,,ri rJir rrK,✓,K"r,r, .._!
I�i��lf��WdbVl » ou f�fYrr»rm"v¢r,7"' f
yt r
We
Ow
rK i
r' i rr r
9J
0
,aJ,L�
1 r, C
a
�d����KKY ��L�r'rrr rn voia mi1
"W mavK /J�p
O
(/riioK�ri,°
"�V���y /e freprmlr'rnrJ. i
���fir �a�,n� ✓,. .. �
//
OP
41.7
CD
rvr
r
�rK �f�n99k
v:
� O
Y 01 �KVV4,,146,
�rpr�1)4li _0
IICS 'V
V GV i
Q
//➢q Iw kh(
y
�.. ��.,
L mr V�K p Q
1 `
50 of 53
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PROJECT IMPILEMENTATIDN I GOSTS, SUPPORTING DOCUMENTANIGN.
1),Either provilde,a detailerd eng"iniaer cost estism ate"ifthe or I"(the projed hasnot been dies"Jigned or"[s a
N 11 projeott,P rovide,a d etai led op lb ion of"probab le,cosls, arb a tlmollhe for de,lIlive�ria,ble,),,,,,""UtiIll�ize the,
(Inicluding 6111 pay Ili )ructlion phase tI'�mate,,S,,,,,
OO T Basi� i s,of Est'Mates-,Manu ll ia 'to develop ad eta lled asfim �t iate,'wih 1�i pay 'temsfb r canst j,
appIll iicable,,,, lefter from IIIllocal agiency buldgeto ff'iceclm �m �mi tti��ng local funds,to the proje
C
Enclosure:
• Preliminary Probable Cost Estimate
51 of 53
4, O O O O 0 I:t 0 lD 0 00 0 w O O O O O ' 1* 1 p
O O O N O lD Ol O Zt O Ln O O Ln O O N p
O O O O N Cl 61 lD rV Ln O Ln O Lrl lD O Lrl p
U O O O rN Zt a) 00 m Ln lD 0 Lrl O N O n O
in (:: LCl O N O lD 00 ri m r" 00 rl O lD m Lf1 Ln N O
O N 0 w 0 IZT Lr) 00 d1 r-I 0 00 m N I�t O 00 N O
Ln m Ln r-I r-I Ln Ln It rn I- n 01 0
m N It R*
r-I
J �
Q W
H -
O 4�
r-I r-I r-I Orr) 00 N r-I00 r-I N 00 0 Lr) fM 00 0000 0
}' ri N O N
a ::I-
CO � r-I I� r-I
ct
N t/?
t
U
a--1
lC6
G
O
U
L
H O
Ln
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1
O
a--1 C: 00
-0 =3 Ln
HQJ O
= C 4-
m •7
al O
w U
_3 � •cn •ch •vt � to •ch •ln •ch •vt •crt � •ch •cn � � •crt � � �
U
— In 4-
++ i to ..
LA y
U vi o
C 4, O Ln
.... '1]O
CA c as
w
c �
3
� ao
aL a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a •-
L w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O y
t }' LL
c
� O �
� 3
� v
L.L4-0
C
Q 0
H Q N c E
'Q u
CL 0 0 0 0 0 o lD 0 00 0 lD 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q H cu o O O N o lD rn o Izzl: O Ln O O Ln o o o
} O 0 O N 0) Ql w I- N Ln O Ln 0 Ln w O Ln O
�..� NJ ;- Z 0 O O N 't Ql 00 m Ln lD O Ln O N O
=i W O Ln O N O lD 00 r-I m rl 00 rl O lD m Lr Ln N O
� � O N 0 w 0 't Ln 00 m r-I 0 00 m (V � 0 00 1� 0
N O 4- un M l m U r-q r� f� U l Ln M N r" al O
-0 LLI
(-I) u E >
0 a� +'I
aA
c Q c
w_ z a
}
Q d O O O Ql N O 01 l0 0o O 00 O O O Ln O M
_� }, o 0 o I� oo o o Ln Ln Ln Ln
O L 0 O 0 O O O Ql tD w Ln O n m O 0 Ln n y H
O to 0 � CL
� � O O 0 Ln o rn 00 m rn r- Ln m m m .� m O �
, O Ln O Ln .� m 00 O N � Ln m r� r-I m 3 i
Q V OA b.� Ln O (Nn O N Ln r N � N a) O
Z W w � Z) m CC N LL
2
w Ca
i/} i/? i/? i!? i/} i/} i/} i/? i/} i!} VII -Ln i/? in• �, i/} N
o � z ~ a a a ¢ a a a ¢ a a LL z a
Q J 0 w w w p Ln w w w ul w w w w Ln c/1 l/1 w O
LL to
NLLJ ,TO 4� —
V Z H 3 v
Hbn
.� 0 -W
i— r-I r-I r-I O O N r-I 0 r-I lD N O 0 m O 00 U O Q
tA rn O 0 r-I O Ln m O r-I y "0
0
� W
O
V Cf Q
U U w
C � �
O O 4O
U Nu cr
CO E a) aJ W
L o
� aJ V
b.0 z
C: =; w
o
ra H
t= 0 � Z
O O
C: O
Q 4 H
v J QLn
Ln �
a) = t CA
p In
Ln
(6
E S= i V) 3 i
ai a� 0
}, L > al
U to - GO m
co X L U L E c Ln� ai c � a £
E a) H L bA LL Y Q � 0) w
Qa 0) C — L O r0 L L to
}.1 CO a U O C7 �_ C7 D_ O
O x � � p C �i c i c_i n0 CL _V
O c 4- cn a ca +� in In In c
Ln s= r0 r0
> � a u o 0 0 4, m
U C C — Q
O QJ U U � a)Eb i i i � s a)
a, (11
0 m a c o rL° } t n Q
U H in H H H Q Ln
L
a,
E
z H N m Ln 00 m H r-I cn r-I Ln
E
a)
CO
D-
52 of 53
REQ U I RE D U��P LOAD for I nf mstltuclure, (not"appi Icable,for N 1),21 Ty p existilng aiind
proposed festures, dimensians,,aiind ROW llin�es, If there are,multiples ogments pr ovid e typicall sections for each.IIf
availiable, Provide des,"iign plansia
No Enclosures
Proposed typical sections would remain similar to existing conditions.
53 of 53
FDOT� TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES
SET-ASIDE PROGRAM (TA) FUNDING
�-- •• APPLICATION
A continuation of the Surface Transportation Block Grant, TA funding is by contract authority from the Highway
Trust Fund, subject to the overall federal-aid obligation limitation determined by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). Projects must support surface transportation, be competitively solicited, and comply with the provisions
of the FDOT Work Program Instructions and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) [§ 11109; 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) 133(h)]. District representatives may be
contacted for guidance.
PART 1 -APPLICANT INFORMATION
1. Applicant Agency Sponsor Type. Select the box indicating the agency of the person who can answer questions
about this project proposal. Then complete applicable text fields. Note: State-recognized non-profit agencies may
partner with an eligible governmental entity but are not eligible as a direct grant recipient.
Checkbox next to each of the following types of agencies that do not indicate text field. Document allows one
selection.
• Local government (e.g., county, city, village, town, etc.).
Regional transportation authority or transit agency.
Natural resource or public land agency.
School district, local education agency, or school (may include any public or nonprofit private school). Projects
should benefit the public and not just a private entity.
Recognized Tribal Government.
Other local or regional governmental entity with oversight responsibility for transportation or recreational trails,
consistent with the goals of 23 U.S.C. 133(h).
Metropolitan I Transportation Planning Organization /Agency (collectively MPO) (only for urbanized areas with
less than 200,000 population).
FDOT(only by request of another eligible entity, then enter the requesting entity). If"checked", enter the
requesting entity in the space provided.
2. Agency name of the applicant.
Monroe County
3. Agency contact person's name and title.
Janene Sdafani, Transportation Planner
4. Agency contact person's telephone number and email address.
305.998.8810, Sclafani-Janene@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov
FDOT
PART 2 - LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM (LAP) CERTIFICATION
LAP is FDOT's primary mechanism to provide governmental subrecipients with federal funds to develop
transportation infrastructure facilities through cost-reimbursement(grant) agreements. This legal instrument (the
grant agreement) will describe intergovernmental tasks to be accomplished and the funds to be reimbursed for
selected projects. The FDOT Local Programs Manual and FDOT Procedure 525-010-300 provides details for
local agencies to complete a certification process that is a risk-based assessment evaluating whether they have
sufficient qualifications and abilities "to undertake and satisfactorily complete the work"for infrastructure projects.
Non-profit organizations are not eligible for LAP certification, local agencies are not eligible for certification of Project
Development and Environment (PD&E) or Right-of-Way (ROW) acquisition phases. FDOT is required to provide
oversight on fee-simple and less-than-fee ROW acquisition phases, including license agreements, encroachment
agreements, perpetual easements, temporary construction easements, and donations.
• LAP Full Certification
Provide:
Approval Date: duly 16, 2023 and Expiration Date: duly 16, 2026
Responsible Charge Name: Judith S. Clarke
LAP Project Specific Certification
Provide:
Approval Date: Project FM(s) Number:
Responsible Charge Name:
Not LAP Certified —A LAP Certified Agency will deliver the project on behalf of the uncertified Agency.
Provide:
Sponsoring Contact
Agency Name: Name:
Address: Phone:
Not LAP Certified - FDOT District will administer the project.
Provide:
FDOT Contact Name: Phone:
Not LAP Certified—the Agency will become LAP certified 1 year prior to the delivery of the LAP project.
Not Applicable—this is a Non —Infrastructure Project.
FDOT
PART 3 - PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Name/Title:. Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
2. Is this a resubmittal of a previously unfunded project? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the year(s) of submittal(s) and include project title(s), if different, in the
space provided.
Yes • No N/A
3. Does this project connect a previously funded project(s)? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the Financial Management (FM) number(s) and provide a brief
description of the other related FDOT-funded phases that are complete, underway, or in the FDOT 5-year Work
Program.
Yes • No N/A
4. Is funding requested for this same project from another source administered by FDOT? If not, select
"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate funding source(s) /application(s)
submitted. NOTE: Contact your district representative to discuss if this same project is partially funded in the
5-year Work Program or if FDOT has received another application for funding it.
Yes • No N/A
5. What are you proposing in this application? In 200 words or less, provide a description of the project and
what it will accomplish. The description should allow a person without prior knowledge of the project to clearly
understand it. Summarize the purpose, need, project attributes, the relationship to surface transportation, how
the project improves safety, and expected benefits.
US 1 is the primary transportation corridor through the Florida Keys, linking neighborhoods, businesses, and destinations
across the region. Its central role makes it vital for expanding safe, accessible alternatives to motor vehicle travel.
Running parallel US 1, the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail serves as the main multi-use path for pedestrians and
bicyclists, supporting recreation, commuting, and essential trips. However, gaps in the trail, deteriorated segments, and
crossings at US 1 create significant safety and connectivity challenges. Monroe County currently ranks 4th out of 18
comparable Florida counties in serious pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and fatalities, with crash data showing an upward
trend over the past five years. The Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will assess existing conditions,
identify system gaps, and recommend improvements that enhance safety and access from MM 4 (Roosevelt Blvd.) in
Key West to MM 106.4 (Garden Cove Dr.) in Key Largo. The plan will also incorporate robust public engagement to
reflect community priorities and align with existing local and regional plans. Ultimately, the Master Plan will provide a
framework for reducing injuries and fatalities and expanding safe, reliable, and convenient non-motorized transportation
throughout the Keys. See attached Scope of Work.
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PROJECT INFORMATION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION including 1) Scope
of Work clearly describing the purpose and need for this project and the desired outcome; detailed description of the
existing conditions; and detailed description of the proposed project and major work item improvements (e.g., project
limits (begin /end), width of sidewalks or trails and other components, materials, drainage, lighting, signing and
pavement markings, etc.). 2) Intent to enter into a cost reimbursement agreement for delivering the project. 3) Signed
PROJECT CERTIFICATION from the maintaining agency confirming the applicant is authorized to submit the proposal,
the information is accurate, intent to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding or Interagency Agreement for ongoing
operations and maintenance of the improved facility, and compliance with all federal and state requirements.
FDOT
PART 4 - PROJECT LOCATION
1. Indicate the municipality(ies) of the project location.
Unincorporated Monroe County
2. Indicate the county(ies) of the project location.
Monroe County
3. Roadway Classification
• Yes No State roadway (on-system)
Yes No Federal roadway
Yes No Local roadway (off-system)
4. Indicate the roadway name(s) [including applicable state, federal, county road number(s), local roadway
name, and roadway identification number (e.g., SR 5/ US 1 / CR 904/ Overseas Highway I ID number:
90040000)].
SR 5/US 1l Overseas Highway I ID number: 90040000
5. Indicate the roadway beginning project limits (south or west termini), mile points, and crossroads at each
end of each listed segment.
MM 4 (Roosevelt Blvd.)
6. Indicate the roadway ending project limits (north or east termini), mile points, and crossroads at each
end of each listed segment.
MM 106.4(Garden Cove Dr.)
7. Indicate the total project length, in miles and linear feet.
Approximately 108 miles
8. Does the project involve the Florida Shared-Use Nonmotorized (SUN) Trail network? If not, select"no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the trailway identification number, beginning
and ending mile points.
• Yes No Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail and East Coast Greenway
9. Within the next five years, are non-FDOT funds being expended within the limits or adjacent to the
proposed project? If not, select "no" and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and briefly
explain.
• Yes No The TA Program has funded over$30 million in projects within the project area, including planning,
preliminary engineering, and construction projects for bicycle and pedestrian initiatives. See
hops://www.arcg is.com/apps/dash boards/4679ec8273bb42ba9bfb29ec8bb82 bf0
FDDOT
PART 5 - PROJECT TYPE
NOTE: Certain areas may not be prioritizing Non-infrastructure (NI) proposals or all eligible infrastructure activities (or
may recommend bundling activities together). Contact your district representative for guidance.
1. PROJECT CATEGORY Select one box that best represents the project proposal. Then, complete either the
"Infrastructure" or"NI" selections.
� A. Infrastructure. If so, select "yes", B. Non-infrastructure (NI). If so, select "yes", then
then select the most appropriate select the most appropriate NI eligible activity from
"infrastructure" eligible activity from the listing following the Infrastructure activities.
listing below. (Pages range 5-6) (Page range 7)
5-A. INFRASTRUCTURE ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY
Select one box that best represents the project proposal.As applicable, complete infrastructure eligible text fields.
Pedestrian and /or Bicycle facilities (Select this box for construction, planning, and design of off-road trail
facilities or on-road facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation).
Safe Routes for Non-Drivers (Select this box for construction, planning, and design of infrastructure
related projects and systems that provide safe routes for non-drivers, including children, older adults, and
individuals with disabilities to access daily needs).
Conversion of Abandoned Railway Corridors to Trails (Select this box for conversion and use of
abandoned railroad corridors into trails for pedestrians, bicyclists, or other nonmotorized transportation users).
Scenic Turnouts and Overlooks (Select this box for construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing
areas). If"yes", list any Florida Scenic Byways visible from the project or indicate N/A in text field.
N/A
Outdoor Advertising Management (Select this box for inventory, control, or removal of outdoor
advertising). If"yes", list any Florida Scenic Byways within the project limits or indicate N/A in text field.
N/A
Historic Preservation and Rehabilitation of Historic Transportation Facilities (Select this box for
historic preservation or rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities). If"yes", list any locally designated
or National Register of Historic Places listed or eligible resources or indicate N/A in the text field.
N/A
Vegetation Management (Select this box for vegetation management in public transportation ROW to
improve roadway safety, prevent invasive species, and erosion control). If"yes", list any Florida Scenic
Byways within the project limits, or indicate N/A in text field.
N/A
Part 5-A Infrastructure Eligible Activity continued... F��T
Archaeological Activities (Select this box for archaeological activities related to impacts from
transportation projects funded by FHWA). If"yes", list the State Site Number (aka Site File Number)for
the archaeological site, or indicate N/A in the text field.
N/A
Stormwater Mitigation (Select this box for environmental mitigation activities addressing stormwater
management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to transportation projects).
Wildlife Management (Select this box for wildlife mitigation and reduction of wildlife mortality, or to
restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats).
Boulevards (Select this box for boulevards, defined as a walkable, low speed (35 mph or less)
divided arterial thoroughfares in urban environments designed to carry both through and local traffic,
pedestrians, and bicyclists. These may be high ridership transit corridors; serve as primary goods
movement and emergency response routes; and use vehicular and pedestrian access management
techniques that promote economic revitalization and follow FDOT Context-Based Solutions). If"yes", list
any Florida Main Street communities or Florida Trail Towns within the project limits, or indicate N/A in text
field.
N/A
• Recreational Trails Program (Select this box for recreational trails compliant with 62-S-2, Florida
Administrative Code, and 23 U.S.C. 104 (b)). If"yes", list the parks / recreational areas within the project
limits, or indicate N/A in the text field.
Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail and East Coast Greenway
Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) [Select this box for SRTS projects, codified as 23 U.S.C. 208, that
substantially improves the ability of kindergarten through 12th grade students (vulnerable road users)
to walk and /or bicycle to school]. Traditionally includes sidewalks, traffic calming and speed reduction,
traffic diversion improvements, pedestrian and bicycle crossings, on-street bicycle facilities, off-street
bicycle facilities, and bicycle parking facilities at public schools. If"yes", list the benefiting schools that are
within two miles of the project limits; total student enrollment; approximate number of students living along
the route; and the percentage of students eligible for reduced meal programs, or indicate N/A in the space
provided.
NA
Other surface transportation eligible purpose (Only if within urbanized areas with a population greater
than 200,000). If"yes", list the eligible activity or indicate N/A in the space provided.
N/A
FDOT�
5-B. NI ELIGIBLE ACTIVITY *** Note: For Infrastructure projects, skip this page.*** '''-
Select one box that represents the project proposal. Checkbox indicating NI eligible activity. Document allows
one selection.
Vulnerable road user safety assessment as defined by Section 316.027 (b), F.S.
Workforce development, training and education activities that are eligible uses of TA funds.
SRTS projects, codified as 23 U.S.C. 208. This NI activity must be primarily based at the school and
benefit students and /or their parents and have documented support from the school(s). If"yes", list
the benefiting schools; total student enrollment and students served by project; approximate number of
students living along the route; and the percentage of students eligible for reduced meal programs, or
indicate N/A in space provided.
NI COMPONENTS As applicable, insert the number of each type of proposed activity. Numerical field
indicating total number NI program would provide.
Number of walk or bicycle audits. Number of after school programs receiving
/
Number of bicycle skills /safety classes. pedestrian / bicycle safety instructioneducation.
Number of pedestrian skills /safety classes.
Number of bicycle rodeos.
Number of community demonstration projects.
Number of pedestrian safety skills events.
Number of community encouragement activities.
Number of schools with walking school
Number of community challenges. bus programs (defined as planned route
Number of community workshops /stakeholder with meeting points, a timetable, and a
meetings. schedule of trained volunteers).
Number of classroom /educational classes Number of schools with bicycle train
receiving pedestrian / bicycle safety instruction / programs (defined as a planned route
education. with meeting points, a timetable, and a
schedule of trained volunteers).
Number of school assemblies receiving pedestrian /
bicycle safety instruction /education. Number of student-led leadership
initiatives (e.g., student patrols, peer-led
Number of training sessions to implement the SRTS learning, etc.).
program (e.g., training for volunteer walking school
bus leaders, training for bicycle train leaders, etc.).
FDDOT
PART 6 -AREA CONDITIONS
Select applicable boxes describing the area and complete applicable text fields. Then, upload supporting documentation.
1. Select one box that describes the geographic population size of the project area.
Non-Urban Area with a population of 5,000 or less
Urban Area with a population greater than 5,000 but no more than 50,000
• Urban Area with a population greater than 50,000 but no more than 200,000
Urban Area with a population greater than 200,000
2. Is the project within the boundary of an MPO*? If not, select " "no , and indicate N/A in the space provided. If
so, select "yes", and indicate the MPO in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
3. Is the project within the boundary of a Transportation Management Area (TMA)? If not, select "no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select"yes", and indicate the TMA in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
4. Is the project within a Rural Economic Development Initiative (REDI) community or designated as a
Rural Area of Opportunity (RAO) as defined pursuant to Section 288.0656, F.S.? If not, select "no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes" and indicate the REDI / RAO in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
5. Indicate the United States Congressional District number(s) of the project location.
28th Congressional District
6. Will the project address transportation access by improving conditions and /or address solutions by
providing mobility improvements for disadvantaged groups, underserved communities, and / or non-
drivers (e.g., children, older adults, those with limited / restricted transportation options, people with
health conditions or impairments, or vulnerable road users)? If not, select"no" and indicate N/A in the
space provided. If so, select"yes" and briefly explain how the project improves conditions (e.g., community
access point(s) and destinations the project benefits, free or reduced-priced school meals, and how SRTS
projects benefit the students, etc.).
• Yes No The Project will directly benefit individuals without access to a vehicle by improving alternative
modes of transportation such as walking or biking. Additionally, Census tracts 9713 and 9712,
two Areas of Persistent Poverty as defined by the United States Census. fall within the Project
7. Are there transit stops /shelters /support facilities within the project limits? If not, select"no", and indicate
N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the identification number.
• Yes No See attached.
8. Is the project within ahigh-crash pedestrian corridor(or an area with a history of crashes involving
pedestrians)?
• Yes No
*Metropolitan/Transportation Planning Organization/Agency(MPO)
FDOT�
Part 6-Area Conditions continued... --�°°'-
9. Is the project within ahigh-crash bicycle corridor (or an area with a history of crashes involving
bicyclists)?
• Yes No
10.Would the project implement a bicycle or pedestrian action plan(s)? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in
the space provided. If so, select"yes", and specify the name of the plan and date of adoption.
Yes • No NA
REQUIRED UPLOAD: AREA CONDITIONS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g., excerpt pages from
adopted plans or studies, maps illustrating transit facilities and connectivity to the improvement, short statement of support
with a signature of the school official and their contact information for SRTS projects, collision heat maps/ crash data for
area surrounding project limits, etc.).
PART 7 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public involvement, engagement, and collaboration is a key component of the federal project development process and
must be conducted in accordance with applicable rules and regulations in the event the project is selected for funding.
Indicate which of the following are applicable (Select all that apply). Complete the text field or indicate N/A in the space
provided. Then, upload supporting documentation.
1. Does the greater community support the project, as demonstrated by recently adopted proclamations
or resolutions expressing commitment and public engagement? If"yes", explain the engagement and
how the concept evolved based on public involvement. Indicate the resolution number, adoption date, and
participating parties in the space provided. If"no", indicate N/A in the space provided.
• Yes No See attached County and Municipal resolutions, all passed at public meetings
2. Was the project discussed at a regularly scheduled meeting of an advisory board of an appointed
group of citizens, such as bicycle pedestrian advisory groups or similar committee that provides
support toward the project? If"yes", provide meeting information, including the date and type of advisory
board meeting, and the input received. If"no", indicate N/A in the space provided.
Yes • No The Master Plan will include these groups in the outreach for the plan.
3. Was there an advertised public meeting to discuss the project? If"yes", provide a brief description,
including the input received, how the concept evolved based on public involvement, date, and type of meeting.
If"no", indicate N/A in the space provided.
• Yes No During COVID online input was gathered for the TMP that led to this project. See attached.
4. Do recent community surveys indicate both need and support for the project and stakeholders will
continue to be engaged in the implementation of the project? If"yes", briefly explain. If"no", indicate N/A in
the space provided.
• Yes No Initial public engagement in TMP. Further public engagement will occur as part of the Master Plan
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g., resolution,
proclamation, regularly scheduled meeting agenda and minutes, public meeting advertisement, community survey, letters
of support, etc.).
PART 8 - CONCURRENCY / CONSISTENCY F�o..........
T
Is the project consistent with the applicable comprehensive plan(s), transportation plan(s), capital
improvement plan(s), and / or the long-term management plan(s)? [Note: Board of County Commissioners
functions as MPO in nonmetropolitan areas (Section 339.135(4)(c)1, F.S.)]. If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in
the space provided. If so, select"yes", and use the text field to explain consistency, include MPO prioritization number.
If a modification is required, indicate the meeting date for adoption.
• Yes No The Master Plan is consistent with a number of other plans. See attached.
REQUIRED UPLOAD: CONCURRENCY / CONSISTENCY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g.,
supporting resolution(s), excerpt from comprehensive plan(s), transportation plan(s), capital improvement plan(s),
management plan(s), prioritization list, etc.).
PART 9 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Select the boxes describing the Environmental Conditions.As applicable, complete the text field or indicate N/A in
the space provided. Then, upload supporting documentation.Applicants for NI proposals may skip the Environmental
Conditions section.
1. Does the project involve lands identified by the Florida Wildlife Corridor Act of 2021 [Section 259.1055,
Florida Statutes (F.S.)]?
Yes • No
2. Does the project involve state-owned conservation lands? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the state-owned conservation lands. NOTE: Use of state-owned
conservation lands is subject to coordination by the managing entity.
Yes • No N/A
3. Does a railway facility exist within 1,000 feet of the project limits? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in
the space provided. If so, select"yes", and indicate railway facility.
Yes • No N/A
4. Does the project physically cross a railway facility? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and indicate the crossings railway identification number, and beginning and ending
mile points.
Yes • No N/A
5. Would the project provide lighting at locations with nighttime crashes? If not, select"no", and indicate
N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and describe the proposed lighting in the space provided.
• Yes No The Master Plan will consider lighting as necessary
6. Would the project implement an adopted Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan? If
not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and describe proposed ADA
improvements in the space provided.
0 Yes No The Master Plan will consider ADA. Monroe County is currently updating their ADA Plan
Part 9-Environmental Conditions continued... FD�oT
7. Is an Environmental Assessment for the project complete? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and describe any specific issues in the space provided.
Yes • No N/A
8. Is the project adjacent to locally designated or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) listed or
eligible resources? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and list
resources, indicate if the resources have received Florida Department of State Historic Preservation Grant funds,
and explain any preservation agreements, covenants, or easements in the space provided. If applicable, select
"unknown".
• Yes No Unknown Overseas Highway and Railroad Bridges on the NRHP. See attached
9. Are there any archaeological sites or Native American sites located within or adjacent to the project
boundary? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and list State Site
Number (aka Site File Number)for the sites. If applicable, select"unknown".
Yes No • Unknown
10.Are there any parks, recreation areas, or wildlife/waterfowl refuges within or adjacent to the project
boundary? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and list the facilities in
the space provided.
• Yes No See attached. The Master Plan will coordinate with staff from impacted units
11.Are there any navigable waterways adjacent to or within the project boundary? If not, select "no", and
indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select"yes", and list the navigable waterways.
• Yes No See attached
12.Are there any wetlands within or adjacent to the project limits? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the
space provided. If so, select "yes", and describe in the space provided. Include permit types required and any
obtained for the project.
• Yes No Not applicable for Master Plan
13.Is it likely that there are protected /endangered /threatened species and /or critical habitat impacts
within the project limits? If not, select "no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select "yes", and
describe in the space provided. If applicable, select "unknown".
(� Yes No Unknown Not applicable for Master Plan
14.Are there any potential contamination / hazardous waste areas within or adjacent to the project limits?
If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space provided. If so, select"yes", and describe in the space
provided. If applicable, select "unknown".
Yes • No Unknown Not applicable for Master Plan
15.Are there any noise-sensitive areas near the project area? If not, select"no", and indicate N/A in the space
provided. If so, select "yes", and describe in the space provided. If applicable, select"unknown"
Yes No • Unknown Not applicable for Master Plan
REQUIRED UPLOAD for Infrastructure (not applicable for NI): ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (e.g., labeled photographs on maps depicting conditions, permits, copy of the
entire study or environmental assessment, excerpt pages from adopted plans, etc.).
PART 10 - DESIGN / TYPICAL SECTIONS FDo`T�
Select the boxes describing the design status and complete the text fields. Then, upload supporting documentation.
Applicants for NI proposals may skip the Design /Typical Section.
1. Are signed and sealed design plans available for this project?
Yes • No
2. If design plans are not at 100 percent, or do not meet current standards and I or reflect existing
conditions, select the box identifying the status and briefly describe in the space provided.
• No design plans 30% design plans 60% design plans 90% design plans
Other:
Not applicable for Master Plan.
3. If design is at 100 percent, indicate the date of the plans. Then, briefly describe in the space provided.
Not applicable for Master Plan.
REQUIRED UPLOAD for Infrastructure (not applicable for NI): Typical Section(s) depicting existing and
proposed features, dimensions, and ROW lines. If there are multiple segments, provide typical sections for each. If
available, provide design plans.
PART 11 - OWNERSHIP / ROW STATUS F�o..........
T
Select the boxes describing the Ownership / ROW Status and complete applicable text fields. Then, upload supporting
documentation.Applicants for NI proposals may skip the Ownership/ ROW Status section.
1. Is ROW acquisition, defined as obtaining property not currently owned by the Local Agency through any
means (e.g., deed, easement, dedication, donation, etc.), necessary to complete this project?
Yes • No
2. Explain the ROW status (owned /fee simple, leased / less-than fee, and / or needs) along the project
boundary, including when ROW was obtained and how ownership is documented (e.g., plats, deeds,
prescriptions, certified surveys, transfers, easements). Provide information for verifying ownership
(e.g., book/ page number, transfer agreements, dates, etc.). If ROW acquisition is necessary before
constructing the proposed project and /or the applicant agency is not the landowner, indicate the
necessary coordination with other owners for all fee-simple purchases and /or any less-than fee/
lease needs (including temporary construction and / or other easements and /or permits for drainage,
railroad, utilities, etc.) necessary to secure ROW certification. Indicate the proposed acquisition
timeline, expected funding source, the total number of parcels, type of acquisition, limitations on fund
use or availability, and who will acquire and retain ownership of proposed land.
Not applicable for Master Plan.
REQUIRED UPLOAD for Infrastructure (not applicable for NI): OWNERSHIP / ROW STATUS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION including applicable ROW Certification including ownership verification
documenting site control and related landowner supporting documentation. Site control documents must include an
adequate legal description of the parcel(s) comprising the project site, such that staff can compare it to the boundary map
submitted with the application and evaluate whether there is control of the project site (e.g., ROW Certification, ROW
maps, plats, warranty deeds, prescriptions, certified surveys, easements, use agreement, etc.). Maps should clearly show
the location of each ownership in relation to the project boundary and /or limits. NOTE: provide map documentation
on 8.5" x 11" scale. DO NOT provide reduced copies of original plats and or maps that cannot be read at scale. If
applicable, an exhibit visually depicting the new ROW anticipated for the project, together with a spreadsheet providing
the tax identification number(s) of each impacted parcel and the approximate size of the new acquisition area for each
impacted parcel.
FDOT
PART 12 — PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS
Complete either the Infrastructure Table Summary with the overall project programming (phases, schedule, and
estimated costs for the proposed work) or the NI Cost Narrative Table. Then, upload supporting documentation.
Not all phase types may be eligible for TA funds, and not all areas prioritize all phases. Local agencies are responsi-
ble for covering all unanticipated cost increases, including but not limited to price inflation and increases in the cost of
construction; account for them using local funds. FDOT does not allow programming TA funds for contingency costs.
The local agency must have the ability to pay for non-participating costs (e.g., utility relocation). Chapter 337.14, F.S.
prohibits an entity from performing both design services and construction engineering inspection services (CEI) for a
project wholly or partially funded by the FDOT and administered by a local government entity.
REQUIRED UPLOAD: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND COSTS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION.
1) Either provide a detailed engineer cost estimate if the project is designed or if the project has not been designed or is a
NI project, provide a detailed opinion of probable costs (including all pay items and a timeline for deliverable).
2)As applicable, letter from local agency budget office committing local funds to the project.
*" Note: Applications for NI Projects to skip to page 15."*
111,101,111,, 'lie, is=III,
Planning Development / oarza 03i30 $aes,000.oc $o 00 $0.0o $o.00 8 385,000.00
(Corridor or Feasibility) r
PD&E $o.00
Preliminary Engineering
8 o.oa
Design (PE)
Environmental
Assessment $a.oa
(associated with PE)
Permits
$o.00
(associated with PE)
ROW $a.oa
Construction $o.oa
CEI $o.oa
Other costs (describe) $o.oa
$ses.000.00
Part 12-Project Implementation and Costs continued... --aiiii.X.FDOT�
*** Note: applications for infrastructure projects do not need to fill out this page***
NI Cost Narrative Table
Below each item, explain how the item will support the program, and other appropriate details.
RD
RD
Narrative:
Narrative:
Narrative:
Materials and Supplies:
Educational items:
Promotional Items:
Other Expenses:
Equipment:
$o.00
RESOURCES Foo..........
`r
FDOT Transportation Alternatives Program:
htto s://www.fd ot.gov/ola n n i n g/systems/systems-man age me nVta a
FDOT Local Programs Manual:
httos:l/www.fdoLgov/orogrammanagementlla Ip lap-toc.shtm
FDOT Office of Environmental Management PD&E Manual:
htto s://www.fd ot.aov/envi ro n menUo u bs/od ern a n/odeman-current
FDOT Context-Based Solutions
http s://www.fd ot.gov/roadway/co ntext-based-solution s
Florida Safe Routes to School Guidelines:
httos://www.fd ot.
ms/aov/safety/2A-Proa ra Safe-Routes.shtm
FD PiT7') TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM
CERTIFICATION OF PROJECT SPONSOR
PROJECT NAME: Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
LOCATION: Monroe County
PROJECT LIMITS: (from south or west limit) MM 4 (Roosevelt Blvd.)
(to north or east limit) MM 106.4 (Garden Cove Dr.)
By checking the box you agree to do the following:
V/ Enter into a maintenance agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), as necessary,
prior to the design phase.
Comply with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Acquisition Policies Act for any Right of
lov/ Way actions required for the project.
Provide any required funding match, incur any additional expenses beyond the approved project costs in the LAP
r agreement, and are responsible for any non-participating items (e.g. utility relocations).
Pursue or retain LAP certification and enter into a LAP agreement with FDOT.
Comply with NEPA process prior to construction, including any necessary involvement with the State Historic
r Preservation Officer (SHPO), and other State and/or Federal agencies, prior to construction.
further certify that the estimated costs included herein are reasonable and agree to follow through on the project
once programmed in the FDOT's Work Program. I fully understand that significant increases in these costs could
cause the project to be removed from the FDOT's Work Program.
Christine HurleyDigitally signed by Christine Hurley
* Signature
Christine Hurley
Name (please type or print)
Monroe County Administrator
Title
1214/2025
Date
*This should be executed by person who has signatory authority for
sponsor and is authorized to obligate services and funds for that entity
(generally chairman of the board or council).
M
u �. u
NROE
Monium,oe
CouiAy � e andN � u • i i n Master Plan� COU14TY
FLOP D,A
A.Scope
Scope of Work
Project Certification (see finaL page of appLication)
Letter of Intent to enter into a cost reimbursement agreement
18 of 46
Scope of Work
For Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
Monroe County, Florida
A. INTRODUCTION
Monroe County is a string of islands (known as the Florida Keys) that are connected to each
other and mainland by US 1. Monroe County is home to several popular tourist destinations,
including beaches and parks, which generate significant pedestrian/bicycle activity. Most key
destinations are located along US 1, making alternative transportation options for
commuting/recreation such as biking and walking essential for residents and tourists.
Considering good weather in this area, pedestrian/bicycle activity occurs throughout the year.
The County has a limited number of crosswalks, forcing residents to cross multiple lanes of traffic
where vehicles often travel at speeds exceeding 45-50 mph. In addition, there are numerous
gaps in pedestrian/bicycle facilities (such as sidewalks and bicycle lanes)and in the Florida Keys
Overseas Heritage Trail. This trail runs parallel to the US 1 corridor. Monroe County is currently
ranked 4t" out of 18 Florida Counties (with population from 50,001 to 300,000 people) in serious
pedestrian or bicycle injuries and fatalities. Also, the pedestrian/bicycle crash data for the latest
five-year period (Source: Signal Four Analytics), indicates an increasing trend. An average of
183 pedestrian/bicycle crashes occur annually in Monroe County. Approximately 77% of these
crashes result in injuries/fatalities. Thirty-two (32) pedestrian/bicycle fatalities were reported
between 2019 and 2024. Pedestrian/bicycle crashes may continue to increase without a well-
connected bicycle and pedestrian network providing access to schools, parks, bus stops,
shopping centers, and recreation/tourist attractions. A Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
(Master Plan) is a critical component to enhance safety and improve access.
The limits of this Master Plan will be approximately 108 miles along US 1 from Mile Marker 4.0
(Roosevelt Blvd.) in Key West to Mile Marker 106.4 (Garden Cove Dr.) in Key Largo.
B. SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of work for the Master Plan consists of the following key tasks:
Project Management &Administration: This task involves internal coordination, management
of the project schedule and budget.
Public Outreach & Engagement: This task is essential for gathering community input and
building consensus. The components of this task include public workshops, surveys, steering
committee meetings, and working with stakeholders to develop a shared vision.
Identification of Existing Conditions: This involves a comprehensive review of the current
pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
Data Collection &Analysis:Gather data on existing infrastructure (sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle
lanes, lighting, etc.), demographics, travel speeds, pedestrian/bicycle volumes and crash history.
Network Gap Analysis: Identify missing links and barriers in the existing pedestrian/bicycle
network that limit access to key destinations like schools, parks, shops, and transit.
Policy Review: Review existing local policies, plans, and legislation that affect pedestrian/bicycle
safety and access.
1/5
19 of 46
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Development of Goals and Objectives: Use the data and public input to formulate clear goals
and objectives for the master plan.
Prioritization of Infrastructure Projects: Develop a data-driven methodology for prioritizing
capital improvement projects based on safety, connectivity, funding opportunities and schedule.
Implementation & Funding Strategy: Develop a concrete framework for implementation,
including conceptual designs for priority projects, estimated costs, and potential federal, state,
and local funding sources and partners.
Plan Review and Adoption: Present the final plan to the Board of County Commissioners.
Activities for each of the tasks listed above are described below:
Task 1 — Meeting with Stakeholders
The purpose of this task is to meet with key stakeholders to get their input on pedestrian/bicycle
issues. A survey questionnaire will be prepared and used to obtain input from stakeholders.
Additionally, real-time input on potential issues will be obtained during stakeholder meeting using
interactive collaboration software such as Miro or Mentimeter.
Activities
Identify key stakeholders and coordinate one meeting to obtain input. It is anticipated that the
following agencies will be invited to the stakeholder meeting.
- Monroe County (MC) Planning and - FDOT District 6 Office of Modal
Environmental Resources Dept. Development
- MC Engineering Services Dept. - FDOT District 6 Transportation
- MC Sustainability Dept. Management Center
- MC Tourism Development Council - FDOT Bridge Maintenance
- MC Chamber of Commerce - Miami-Dade County Transportation and
- MC Sheriff's Office Public Works Dept.
- MC School Board - Florida Dept of Environmental
- MC Emergency Operations Center Protection
- FDOT District 6 Transportation Planning - Florida State Parks
Office - Miami-Dade Transit
- FDOT District 6 Maintenance Office - Key West Transit
- Local Municipalities
Deliverables
• Meeting Minutes
• Meeting Materials
Task 2 — Initial Public Meeting
The purpose of this task is to conduct a public meeting to inform the public about the study and
to get their input on pedestrian/bicycle issues. To ensure that ample opportunities for input are
provided to the community, a project website will be created and maintained, including a survey
questionnaire. A response period (to be determined during the study) will be provided, in which
the community members can submit input via the project website. Additionally, real-time input
on potential issues will be obtained using interactive collaboration software such as Miro or
Mentimeter.
Deliverables
• Meeting Minutes Project Survey
2/5
20 of 46
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
• Project Survey Summary Report • Project Website
• Public Outreach Materials
Task 3 — Gather Existing Pedestrian/Bicycle Data
The purpose of this task is to collect necessary pedestrian/bicycle data from the data sources
listed below and analyze pedestrian/bicycle travel patterns, identify hot spots (in terms of
pedestrian bicycle crashes and generators) and identify potential opportunities for
improvements.
Activities
As part of this task, available data will be gathered to assess the existing pedestrian/bicycle
network and identify gaps. It is envisioned that the data will primarily be collected from the
following existing data sources.
a. Travel patterns from completed Origin-Destination (0-D) Studies.
b. Pedestrian/bicycle activity data using big data (STRAVA, Streetlight, etc.)
c. FDOT Non-Motorized Traffic Data
d. FDOT Roadway Characteristics Inventory Data
e. Comprehensive Plans of Monroe County and Municipalities within Monroe County
f. Information from the FDOT/Local Agency Safe Routes to School Programs
g. Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail Master Plan
h. Census Data (socio-economic data, auto ownership, etc.)
i. Pedestrian/Bicycle Crash Data from Signal Four Analytics
j. Monroe County Transportation Improvement Plan
k. FDOT/Local Agency GIS Data (sidewalks, bike lanes, shared use paths, etc.)
I. FDOT Work Program
m. Any studies or plans related to trails, pedestrian/bicycle projects
n. Transit related data/information from Miami-Dade Bus Services Section, Key West
Transit and ongoing Bus Stop Improvement Study
o. Traffic Impact Studies, especially related to affordable housing
Deliverables
• Draft Data Collection Memorandum
• Final Data Collection Memorandum
Task 4— Data Analysis and Evaluation
The purpose of this task is to analyze the data collected in Task 3 and identify the needs for the
study area.
Activities
A review of the most recent 5-year pedestrian/bicycle crash data will be conducted to identify the
segments/intersections that are experiencing pedestrian/bicycle crashes.
An assessment of the existing pedestrian/bicycle network will be conducted to identify potential
deficiencies (such as missing sidewalks, crosswalks, narrow sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.).
The socio-economic and auto ownership data from Census and Big Data will be analyzed to
identify areas for potential pedestrian/bicycle activity and associated needs.
Other relevant data from Task 3, including the input received from stakeholders and the public
will be reviewed to identify potential needs for pedestrian/bicycle facilities.
Potential needs such as wayfinding signage opportunities, traffic-safety campaigns, enforcement
campaigns targeting specific behaviors (such as speeding, distracted driving and cyclists
ignoring traffic controls), potential impacts and local legislation recommendations associated with
3/5
21 of 46
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
new and emerging technologies involving motorized scooters and a-bike access issues will also
be reviewed.
If needed, field reviews will be conducted at critical locations to identify potential
pedestrian/bicycle issues and identify opportunities for improvement.
Deliverables
• Draft Needs Assessment Memorandum
• Final Needs Assessment Memorandum
Task 5— Development of Master Plan Goals/Objectives
The purpose of this task is to develop attainable goals and solutions to address existing and
anticipated pedestrian/bicycle needs in the study area.
Activities
Based on a review of needs identified in Task 4, specific goals and objectives will be developed.
The results of the data collection and analysis and public outreach activities (Tasks 1, 2, 3, 4)
will be used in developing the Master Plan goals and objectives.
Deliverables
• Draft Goals/Objectives Memorandum
• Final Goals/Objectives Memorandum
Task 6— Development of Improvements
The purpose of this task is to develop practical solutions to address existing and anticipated
pedestrian/bicycle needs for the study area.
Activities
A list of potential improvements to address issues, such as gaps in pedestrian or bicycle facilities,
unsafe conditions along sidewalks/crosswalks, lack of lighting, etc. will be developed. These
improvements will be presented to the public at the second outreach meeting (Task 7) for input.
The proposed improvements will be finalized based on input from the public, FDOT and other
stakeholders.
Deliverables
• Draft Improvements Memorandum
• Final Improvements Memorandum
Task 7 — Second Public Meeting
The purpose of this task is to conduct a second public meeting to gather public input on the
proposed improvements (Task 6). This meeting will use interactive collaboration software such
as Miro or Mentimeter to garner feedback about potential improvements.
Deliverables
• Meeting Minutes
• Public Outreach Meeting Materials
• Public Outreach Meeting Summary
Task 8 — Funding Analysis and Prioritization of Improvements
The purpose of this task is to prepare high-level cost estimates to determine the funding needs
for proposed improvements developed as part of Task 6.
4/5
22 of 46
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Activities
This task involves the development of approximate cost estimates or probable costs for proposed
improvements, identification of available funding opportunities (State, Local, or Federal level),
and development of a prioritized project list based on safety, connectivity, potential funding
opportunities, nature of the proposed improvements, implementation timeframe, etc.
Deliverables
• Draft Funding Analysis and Prioritized Project List
• Final Funding Analysis and Prioritized Project List
Task 9 — Prepare a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
The purpose of this task is to prepare a report summarizing the study findings/proposed
improvements.
Activities
As part of this task, a report documenting the study findings and results from project activities
(data collection/analysis, goals/objectives, public/stakeholder outreach, development of
improvements, funding analysis, prioritization project list)will be prepared.
Deliverables
• Draft Report
• Final Report
Task 10 — Presentation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
As part of this task, a PowerPoint presentation will be prepared to present the findings and
recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to the Board of County
Commissioners for adoption.
Task 11 — Project Management
The purpose of this task is to perform all project management related activities that are required
as part of this study.
Activities
Project Management will include managing and coordinating interfaces, attendance at project
meetings, documentation of meeting notes, and Quality Assurance/Quality Control reviews of
project deliverables and managing project schedule.
Project Schedule
It is anticipated that this study will take 24 months to be completed.
5/5
23 of 46
jfll� M0" INIRGE
Monimm,oe Coui Ay B*Icycle and Pedestrian Masteill'', Plan COUNTY
�F I ORIDA
B.Area Conditions
1 . Answer to Question 7 regarding transit stops
2. •
BicycList Crash Map
3. Pedestrian Crash Map
4. Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
Objective 101.16, Objective 101.16, Objective 301.3
5. Monroe County US 1 Transportation Master Ran
The word pedestrians is mentioned 497 times, the word bicycle is
mentioned 335 times, and the word bike is mentioned 406 times.
Executive summary starts on page 7.
6. Monroe County CapitaL Improvement Ran
Pages 13-14
7. Florida Greenways &Trails System Plan 2019-2023
Page 17
8. Florida Keys Scenic Highway Interpretive Master Ran March 2006
Pages 3-4
24 of 46
Monroe County Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan M"NROE
FLOP A
Question 7 Are there transit stops/ shelters/ support facilities with the project
To/From Operated by PDF with stops
Lower Key West to City of Key West
Keys Marathon m iiii iii iii iiir iiii III
Shuttle i u 1:t I. % . b iiii
M et ro b u s Florida City Miami-Dade
(Route to Key County s III
#301) La rgo,
(Dade/ Tavernier,
Monroe Islamorada,
Express) and
Marathon
25 of 46
Project Crash History— Bicyclist and Pedestrian
Source: iii ii Four ii tiics
I..........m
Figure 1: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes within Project Area (2014-2024)
1,
J f
p ir
Note: Figure 1 indicates all pedestrian and bicyclist related crashes which occurred within the project area between
mile markers 4 and 106.4 on U.S. Route 1. Data is sourced for the years 2014-2024.
Figure 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes within Project Area by Year(2014-2024)
8,2
3 73W
" ,.
69
N
Note: Figure 2 indicates all pedestrian and bicyclist related crashes which occurred within the project area between
mile markers 4 and 106.4 on U.S. Route 1. Data is sourced for the years 2014-2024 and tabulated by year.
26 of 46
M0" INIR GE
Moni��,oe Coui�Ay B*Icycle and Pedestrian Masteill'', Plan COUNTY
�F I ORIDA
C. ResoLutions
1 . Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
ResoLution No. 244-2025 (IncLuded)
2. Monroe County Board of County Commissioners July 15 2025 Agenda
(IncLuded) Video and Agenda Packet are avalLabLe here.
Due to page 11*rn*1ts, the follow*lng are avaRable upon request
3. Ronda Keys Transportation Coordination Committee (FKTCC)
ResoLution No. 001-2025 IncLuded)
4. Appendix A- FKTCC 2025 Priority Projects for US1 List
5. Appendix B Municipalities Support Resolutions-2025
a. Istamorada Village Council, ResoLution 25-06-42
b. City of Layton ResoLution No. 2025-06-01
c. City Commission of Key Colony Beach ResoLution No. 2025-04
d. City Council, of the City of Marathon ResoLution No.2025-52
e. City Commission of the city of Key West ResoLution No.25-112
PubLic InvoLvement
Due to page 11*rn*1ts, the follow*lng are avaRable upon request or at the 1*1nk.
6. Agenda, Minutes &ad for pubLic meetings heLd on 8-24-20 & 11-12-20
7. Agenda, Minutes & invitation List for stakehoLder meeting on 8-20-20
8. Due to COVID-1 9 Pandemic, Mentimeter was used to survey meeting
attendees to gather input. This data was incLuded in aLL the meeting
minutes. Meeting specific data is avaiLabLe upon request.
9. US 1 Transportation Master Plan has a description of the outreach
efforts on Page 38 and the PubLic Input Presentations, Surveys and
Resufts begin on Page 273 and continue through Page 535.
27 of 46
a� 1
I
rw�1
I 1
R
/ r
u I �
M"-
/
Eli, ,
Y
r,
I
�,II
/
uuuul
. I 1
I
/
/
i /
I
I i
IYYYYYYYf
( i
/
II I�I(f
I a i
i i
o
/
(
d
r
I
1 M II I
i
,..of /. .. .. I
^M
I ,
l i I I
a
u / I, f I I I 1
I.
P
I
I II VI I I
�II I
/
/
r-
I
I
/
/
/
i
/
/
/
/
/
i
� / I
I�
0 l
i
t /rr
/I
II
� I
I�
I
I I
I
II
i
III I,,I�II
III
i
/ u
�I
ro,
i
/,
�I
i
LI
I IIII III I
p II
K ,
�I
/ II
I
Y
II
r
I,I
r rl
u � t
I I,
I I
I d u r h//
r,
,I
I
(
I
/(II /„
n I I w /„
(I
I I'I I ii
II I�
/
/
/
0
/
r
,
i
M
I
I
V wY 6 r
III II'
/ I,
� I
�a a 1,f t r, (y
er
u 4
r
(
/ r
( r
I
r
Illll i I I
g, U >
` RIM, ,
r�
r
,.` uuuuuull
/ IIIIII IIIII
/ I� IIIIIIIIIIIIVI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII !IIIIIIIIIIIIIIN
Vullrlu'm uullrl�'u+ cull w', �i
I I I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I,Ilum lllllllll�" olllll,�����' �l��liflllll„iuuu IIII Wu„olllllll,lil
IVII�
r,
(wl//C r /✓/.. Ill,.r, L /
r l r Gl,ICI
� 1
I'
P
h
I
I
r' f
�r�' �:� IIIIIII. ICI IIII,IIIIIIII. ,IIIIIII
" III
l ,
y r
r
/
!
I
24�
t
I� r ar /
I
� r G
/ n /
r, ( r ,
r � z,
rl r°
r;
v} i r
r.
1 �
r �
4 r �
Ir
I;✓, W
w
m
ry rr
r 1f o
/
I
r /
r%
r
ill
4 Public Involvement
Public and stakeholder input are critical components for any planning process. Initial outreach
efforts in a planning process are important to ensure that the public is informed about the purpose
of the plan and provided with ample opportunities to contribute "blank-slate" input on where and
what types of improvements are needed. This initial outreach was supplemented with another
round of public outreach which allowed the public to provide input on potential project-based
solutions.
4.1 Public Outreach Efforts
The public and stakeholder involvement processes for the development of this US 1
Transportation Master Plan included a variety of communication and outreach means. Due to the
ongoing global pandemic, the primary means of engagement with the public and stakeholders for
the development of this plan included digital meetings/presentations supplemented by a widely
distributed online survey and mapping application provided as part of the project website. Monroe
County took extraordinary outreach efforts to ensure that the public outreach meetings are well-
attended and that the project website was well-distributed with invitations for the public to directly
provide input on the project's development. As a result, a large public input database was
developed to categorize and analyze the input received from various sources. The following
sections summarize the various outreach efforts used along with a synopsis of major themes
noted from the 800 recorded input responses. Summaries of the input received through all
outreach sources are provided in Appendix D.
4.1.1 Stakeholder Meeting
After kicking-off the planning effort internally with Monroe County's project management team, a
meeting with key stakeholders was convened in order to obtain input on: the scope of the project,
the proposed public involvement platform options, the proposed public survey questions, project
goals, and problem areas to be addressed along US 1 in Monroe County. This initial meeting was
held via Zoom on Thursday, August 20, 2020 at 1 PM. Fifty-eight(58) attendees were invited, and
33 respondents actively participated at various points during the meeting. Participants in the
meeting included representatives from Monroe County, FDOT District 6, City of Key West, City of
Layton, Key Colon Beach, Village of Islamorada, Key Largo Chamber of Commerce, Ocean Reef
Chamber of Commerce, Lower Keys Chamber of Commerce, Department of Environmental
Protection's Office of Greenways&Trails, Miami-Dade Transit, Miami-Dade County Public Works,
and AECOM.
3�9 of 46
M0" INIR GE
Moni��,oe Coui�Ay B*Icycle and Pedestrian Masteill'', Plan COUNTY
�F I ORIDA
C. ResoLutions
1 . Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
ResoLution No. 244-2025 (IncLuded)
2. Monroe County Board of County Commissioners July 16 9 2025 Agenda
(IncLuded) Video and Agenda Packet are avalLabLe here.
Due to page 11*rn*1ts, the follow*lng are avaRable upon request
3. Ronda Keys Transportation Coordination Committee (FKTCC)
ResoLution No. 001-2025 IncLuded)
4. Appendix A- FKTCC 2025 Priority Projects for US1 List
5. Appendix B Municipalities Support Resolutions-2025
a. Istamorada Village Council, ResoLution 25-06-42
b. City of Layton ResoLution No. 2025-06-01
c. City Commission of Key Colony Beach ResoLution No. 2025-04
d. City Council, of the City of Marathon ResoLution No.2025-52
e. City Commission of the city of Key West ResoLution No.25-112
PubLic InvoLvement
Due to page 11*rn*1ts, the follow*lng are avaRable upon request or at the 1*1nk.
6. Agenda, Minutes &ad for pubLic meetings heLd on 8-24-20 & 11-12-20
7. Agenda, Minutes & invitation List for stakehoLder meeting on 8-20-20
8. Due to COVID-1 9 Pandemic, Mentimeter was used to survey meeting
attendees to gather input. This data was incLuded in aLL the meeting
minutes. Meeting specific data is avaiLabLe upon request.
9. US 1 Transportation Master Plan has a description of the outreach
efforts on Page 38 and the PubLic Input Presentations, Surveys and
Resufts begin on Page 273 and continue through Page 535.
30 of 46
RESOLUTION NO. 244 - 2025
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONR+OOE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PRIORITIZING TRAFFIC FLOW IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS FROM THE POTENTIAL SOLUTION LIST OF PROJECTS
WITHIN APPENDIX G OF THE APPROVED U.S. l TRANSPORTATION
MASTER PLAN THAT COULD ALLEVIATE CONGESTION ON U.S. 1
AND ASSIST IN IMPROVING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE ON U.S. 1;AND
FORWARDING THE PRIORITIZED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, Monroe County policies and regulations adopted in the Monroe County
Comprehensive flan and Land Development Code are to maintain public health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and to strengthen our local government capability to
manage land use and development; and
WHEREAS, Policy 301.4.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires Monroe
County to complete a Transportation Strategy Master Plan,through its Long-Range Transportation
Plan, by May 2021, incorporating an intermodal transportation system and considerations of
climate change implications; and
WHEREAS, Policy 301.5.2 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan requires by May
2021, Monroe County shall complete the County 1)s Long Range Transportation Plan incorporating
the considerations of climate change implications; and
WHEREAS, Policy 401.3.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan states by May
2021, Monroe County shall complete a Transportation Strategy Master Plan, through its Long-
Range Transportation Plan, to enhance mass transit for all residents and visitors, in coordination
with municipalities and Miami-Dade County; and
WHEREAS,Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 301.1.2 and Land Development
Code Sections 114-2 and. 114-200 adopt the overall and segment level of service (LOS) standard
for U.S. 1 as LOS "C," represented by a median speed of 45 mph; and.
WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) adopted the recommendations of the U.S. 1 LOSS Task Force and the 2021 Updated
Methodology Document, A Methodology To Assess Level-of-Service On US-1 In The Florida
Keys for County use; and
31 of 46
WHEREAS.) the 2021 U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (ATTDS) reports an
overall LOS C on U.S. I with a median speed of 45.5 mph and two (2) segments within the
Islamorada,, Village of Islands operate below the adopted LOS standard (LOS D for Windley,
Segment 20 and LOS E for Upper Matecumbe, Segment 19),, and
WHEREAS.) the ATTDS has continually identified one or more segments within the
Islamorada,, Village of Islands as operating below the adopted LOS standard for the County-, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Keys are a chain of islands that are connected to each other and
the mainland by 112 miles of U.S. Highway I {U.S. 1), extending from Key Largo to Key West;
and
WHEREAS, traffic issues on U.S. I affect the health., safety, welfare, economic
sustainability and quality of life of the residents and visitors to the Florida Keys-, and
WHEREAS, the Florida Keys are dependent on a safe, attractive, resilient, sustainable,
and efficient access and travel along U.S. I throughout Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2020, the Monroe County BOCC approved the completion of
a Transportation Master Plan to provide recommendations for U.S. I improvements to remedy
Level of Service issues and to improve traffic flow within Monroe County and multimodal
improvements; and
WHEREAS,the development of the U.S. I Transportation Master Plan includes reviewing
relevant existing data, such as traffic volumes, crash data, transit information-, meetings with
stakeholders to get input on transportation issues and improvement opportunities-, public input
from numerous sources and public meeting-, analyzing these factors to identify potential issues and
develop potential high-level solutions, including roadway and multi-modal solutions to address
the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists public transit, and vehicular traffic-, and
WHEREAS, on October 20, 2021, at their regular meeting, the Monroe County BOCC
adopted the U.S. I Transportation Master Plan-, and
WHEREAS, the U.S. I Transportation Master Plan recommended potential project list
will be further reviewed by the Monroe County BOCC to evaluate the opportunities constraints
and to select and prioritize the projects at future meetings; and
WHEREAS, the municipal jurisdictions provided Monroe County BOCC with
recommendations from U.S. I Transportation Master Plan recommended potential project list-, and
32 of 46
WHEREAS, the compiled list of potential projects from the County and municipalities
were prioritized through the review and input from the Florida Keys Transportation Coordination
Committee (FKTCC) at a meeting on January 24, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the FKTCC provided an overall recommendation to the Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners via FKTCC Resolution 01-2022: and
WHEREAS,the Monroe County BOCC considered the recommendations of the FKTCC
at a meeting on February 16, 2022, provided for public input and prioritized the potential project
list with the coordinated submission to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT); and
WHEREAS, following public input and board discussion at the February 16, 2022
meeting, the Monroe County BOCC passed and adopted BOCC Resolution 075- 2022 providing
primary priority recommendations to the FDOT; and
WHEREAS, the FKTCC met on May 6,2025 and voted unanimously to adopt the new
priority project list and provided recommendations for second phase priority projects to the
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS.) the FKTCC met on June I Ith and unanimously approved a resolution in
support of the new priority proj ect list via FKTCC Resolution 0 1-2025-. and
WHEREAS,the Monroe County BOCC considered the recommendations of the FKTCC
at a meeting on July 16, 2025, provided for public input and prioritized the potential project list
with the coordinated submission to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)-, and
WHEREAS, coordinated and comprehensive solutions are necessary for the traffic flow,
congestion, safety and other transportation issues that affect the Florida Keys-, and
WHEREAS.) the FDOT is tasked with providing a safe statewide transportation system
that ensures the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic prosperity, and preserves the
quality of our environment and communities, and
WHEREAS, the partnership with FDOT is important to address and solve transportation
issues affecting the Florida Keys and recognizing the importance of and support for maintaining a
safe, resilient and efficient access and travel along U.S. 1.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
33 of 46
Section 1. Pursuant to the oals of improving traffic flow, alleviatin cong estion, improving
g p g g g
and maintaining the level of service far U.S, 1, enhancing safety and irripraving
intermodal transportation systems, the: Board, of County Commissioners has
identified recommendations for.second phase priority projects from the potential
solution list for the traffic goals listed above.
Section 2. The Board of 'County Commissioners do' s. hereby provide the following
recommendations listed in Exhibit I and incorporated herein.
Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners recornmeridations are.projects that benefit
and serve all Monroe County residents, enhancing their quality of life, wh I also
considering visitors and'fostering economic sustain ability for the Florida:Keys.
Section 4. The Board of County Commissioners authorizes staff to forward this list of Primary
Priority:Recommendations addressing the predefined Potential Solutions List of
concerns defined in the TMP as ranked and notated by the County.-..-and the
municipalities, to the FDOT.
'PASSEL)ANT)ADOPTED by the Board: of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
F orida; at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 1 bth day of July 2025.
Mayor
James I�.SchollYes
Mayor Pro Ter'Mac e e Linco n Yes
I
Commissioner.Craig Cates Absent
Commissioner David Rice Yes
Commissioner Holly Merrill Raschein Yes
t
L 4r a BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
,
VIN MADOK, CLERK OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
� IJ I.,frfirrr6 rti t✓`fr / 1�Y.Ix�i ..
4i""-m ter .•Y" � d� h 7-k.}1 .ARm. x ..
�{�
BY
"7.1 `41.,E ._.v '"u-,s�� ✓;.c''
As De ty Clerk. Yay'or James K. Schell
NROE COUNTY ATMnNEY
ASSI, UNTY AT RMEY . .
- 25
Date
6I1IMI�Y/13
MNI Iq.IY�.II I I III. IYMIMIYip.14MW ..
34 of 46
2 mmf
AGENDA
w
f MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
July 16, 2025
9:00 AM
The Board will convene at the Marathon Government Center
2798 Overseas Hwy, Marathon
The meeting is open to the public.
Members of the public can also attend via Communications Media Technology at:
Zoom webinar: https:Hmcbocc.zoom.us/i/89204098700
This meeting will be conducted in person. Remote participation is available as a courtesy but is
not guaranteed.
ADA ASSISTANCE: If you are a person with a disability who needs special accommodations in
order to participate in this proceeding,please contact the County Administrator's Office, by phoning
(305) 292-4441, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., prior to the scheduled meeting; if you
are hearing or voice impaired, call "711". Live Closed Captioning is available via the MCTV portal
a@ htWs://cloud.castus.tv/vod/monroe/video/60832c9dcf67bb 7acOc21791?page HOME&Vpe=live for
meetings of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners.
A person may submit written comments or other physical evidence on a particular agenda item for
consideration at the BOCC meeting via email to Lindsey Ballard*ballard-lindsey*monroecounty-
flgov County Administrator's Office, no later than 3:00 P.M. on the Monday prior to the meeting.
The email must include the submitter's name, address, phone number and email address and the
agenda item number the documents/comments are regarding. Any intellectual property submitted
must include the appropriate authorization for use.Any person who wishes to be heard shall,prior to
an item being called, provide the Clerk with his/her name and residence, and the agenda item on
which he or she wishes to be heard. An individual has three minutes to address the Commission.
However, the first person representing an organization has five minutes to address the Commission.
Subsequent speakers for the same organization have three minutes to address the Commission. For
land use items, the petitioner and, if the owner is different than the petitioner, then the owner of the
property that is the subject of the land use item, will be allowed 20 minutes to address the
Commission. Other people are allowed five minutes to address the Commission. Speakers appearing
remotely via communications media technology may speak under the same time constraints as those
speakers appearing live before the Commission. Remote speakers need not fill in a speaker card
before speaking but must identify themselves and their addresses at the beginning of their remarks.
Failure to do so may result in early termination of their speaking privileges for that item. For
additional assistance, please call (305) 292-4441 or email your inquiry to: ballard-
lindsey('#?nonroecounty flgov.
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the board with respect to any matter considered at
such meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings, and that,for such purpose,
he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
1
35 of 46
Please note that all time approximate items are listed in bold.
9:00 A.M. Regular Meeting
9:25 A.M. Land Authority Governing Board
9:30 A.M. Fire & Ambulance District 1 Board of Governors
TIME APPROXIMATE REGULAR MEETING
9:00 A.M. Call to Order
Salute to Flag
CALL TO ORDER
SALUTE TO FLAG
A. ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS AND DELETIONS
Al. Approval of agenda
B. PRESENTATION OF AWARDS
B 1. Recognition of Commissioner Lincoln as the newly inducted president of the Florida
Association of Counties (FAC), as presented by FAC Executive Director, Ginger Delegal.
B2. Presentation of$2,500 FAC Presidential Scholarship to recipient Elina Sweeting of Key West
High School by Commissioner Michelle Lincoln.
B3. Recognition of Lieutenant Frank Gonzalez for 10 years of service with Monroe County Fire
Rescue.
B4. Recognition of Lieutenant John Hamburger for 20 years of service with Monroe County Fire
Rescue.
B5. BOCC Recognition for County Attorney Robert Shillinger for receiving the Florida Bar 2025
Claude Pepper Outstanding Government Lawyer Award for exemplifying the highest ideals
of dedication, professionalism and ethics in serving the public as a government lawyer.
B6. BOCC recognition for County Attorney Robert Shillinger, who received the Florida
Association of County Attorneys 2025 "Robert L. "Bob" Nabors President's Award". The
award is the Floridaa€TMs Association of County Attorneys highest honor and is given
annually to an attorney who demonstrates outstanding dedication, skill, and service.
B7. Presentation of an Honorary Conch Certificate to Representative Jim Mooney. TIME
APPROXIMATE 10:00 A.M.
B8. Presentation of an Honorary Conch Certificate to Lee Young. TIME APPROXIMATE 10:00
A.M.
C. BULK APPROVALS -MAYOR SCHOLL
C I. Renewal of an AT&T Fiber Private Network contract extending for 3 years at $205,932.00
per year(total contract cost of$617,796.00) maintaining the significantly discounted cost per
2
36 of 46
C 11.Approval of Amendment One to the Agreement with Kisinger Campo and Associates for
Construction Engineering Inspection(CEI) services for the Key Largo III Roadway and
Drainage Project to revise the compensation section of the contract to allow for an adjustment
of estimated hours of job classifications and soil tests as needed. These adjustments will not
change the total original contract amount of$393,582.87.
C 12.Approval of changes to the Monroe County Purchasing Policy to update language relating to
Change Orders and granting that approval retroactively to July 1, 2025 to comply with newly
enacted F.S. 218.755.
C 13.Approval to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for qualified and licensed Florida Pool
Contractors to provide comprehensive services including engineering, permitting, and full
installation of activity pool equipment selected by the Parks and Beaches staff and repair of
the pool surfacing. The work will be paid for by TDC during FY26.
C 14.Approval to award a Contract between Monroe County and RS&H, Inc. for Construction
Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services for the Mosquito Creek Bridge Replacement
Project in the not to exceed amount of$629,162.50. This project is partially funded by a
Local Agency Program (LAP) grant from the Florida Department of Transportation.
C 15.Approval to award a Contract between Monroe County and RS&H, Inc. for Construction
Engineering and Inspection (CEI) Services for the Tubby's Creek Bridge Replacement
Project in the not to exceed amount of$629,227.50. This project is partially funded by a
Local Agency Program (LAP) grant from the Florida Department of Transportation.
C 16.Approval of a Resolution by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
prioritizing traffic flow improvement projects from the potential solution list of projects
within Appendix G of the approved U.S. 1 Transportation Master Plan that could alleviate
congestion on U.S. 1 and assist in improving the level of service on U.S. 1; and direction to
forward the prioritized recommendations to the Florida Department of Transportation.
C 17.Approval of renewal of a one (1) year Residential Lease with a County employee for
Location 41 Judy Place, Key Largo, FL, commencing August 1, 2025, through July 31, 2026.
The monthly rental amount is $1,8 9 0.2 8.
C 18.Approval of Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT) Public Transportation Grant
Agreement (PTGA) for service on Stock Island and Key West. Year 2 of a grant for
$426,000 with a 50%match. The match is budgeted in the 2025-2026 budget.
C 19.Approval of various resolutions for the transfer of funds and resolutions for the receipt of
unanticipated revenue.
C20.Report of monthly change orders for the month of June 2025, reviewed by the County
Administrator/Assistant County Administrator.
C21.Approval of revisions to the Monroe County Public Library policy manual.
C22.Approval of an Agreement with Pedro Falcon Contractors, Inc. in the amount of
$2,918,545.00, for the Rowell's Waterfront Park Phase II Reduced Scope project contingent
upon approval of the Florida Department of Commerce's issuance of the Authority to Use
Grant Funds. This project is 100% funded by a Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG-CV grant).
C23.Approval of a resolution authorizing Erica Charrin to act as an authorized agent of Animal
Control to enforce Chapter 4, Monroe County Code, and Chapter 828, Florida Statutes, to
issue citations for violation of the Monroe County Code, and/or attend court.
4
37 of 46
M0" INIR GE
Moni��,oe Coui�Ay Wicycle and Pedestrian Masteill'', Plan COUNTY
�F I ORIDA
D. EnvironmentaL
1 . Parks, recreation areas, or wildlife /waterfowl refuges
2. Navigable waterways
3. National Register of Historic Places Listings
4. Florida Division of Historic Resources Grants
5. Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail 2024 Park Facts,
Florida State Parks Foundation
38 of 46
Environmental Conditions
1. Parks, recreation areas, or wildlife /waterfowl refuges within or
adjacent to the project boundary
The national and state parks listed below are accessible by way of US Route 1. Where the
Project intersects with a park, recreation area, or refuge, input from and coordination with
the appropriate professional staff will be included in the Project.
The Florida Keys sits within a National Marine Sanctuary.
Everglades National Park encompasses the freshwater wetlands at the southern tip of the Florida
peninsula and the shallow waters of Florida Bay.
John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park is 70 square nautical miles of coral reefs, mangrove
islands and shallow waters.The park's land base is located at mile-maker 102.5 on the ocean side
of the Florida Keys Scenic Highway.
Dagny Johnson Key Largo Hammock State Park includes the largest contiguous tract of West
Indian Mahogany tropical hardwood hammock in the U.S. and offers approximately 6 miles of trails
to explore.
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge protects approximately 6700 acres of tropical hardwood
hammock, mangrove forest, salt marsh and shallow open waters in North Key Largo.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary protects 2900 square nautical miles of marine waters
surrounding the Florida Keys Island chain.
Indian Key Historic State Park is an island state park that can be seen from the scenic highway on
the ocean side at mm 78.5.
Lignumvitae Key Botanical State Park is an island park that preserves rare tropical hardwood
hammock habitat and a historic Keys homestead that serves as the park's visitor center.
Long Key State Park protects five natural plant communities found in the middle Keys, including
mangrove swamps,tropical hardwood hammock and shallow nearshore waters.
Curry Hammock State Park protects a mosaic of mangrove swamps, seagrass beds, shoreline
and tropical hardwood hammock.
Bahia Honda State Park has several sandy beaches to enjoy and is known for its crystal blue
waters and magnificent sunsets.
National Key Deer Refuge was established to protect and preserve the endangered Key deer, and
other wildlife species in the Florida Keys.
Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge__consists of about 200,000 acres of open waters and
islands on the Gulfside or"backcountry"of the Keys from Marathon to Key West.
39 of 46
Key West National Wildlife Refuge__encompasses more than 200,000 acres of shallow waters with
2,000 acres of low-lying mangrove islands.
Florida Keys Eco-Discovery Center__features 6,000 square feet of interactive and dynamic
exhibits describing the plants and animals of the Florida Keys, including both land and marine life.
Fort Zachary Taylor Historic State Park is Florida's southernmost state park and is home to
Fort Zachary Taylor, a US military fort built in the mid-1800s.
2. Are there any navigable waterways adjacent to or within the project
boundary?
The Project will improve walking and biking access for the length of US Route 1 through the
Florida Keys. US Route 1 is also known as the Overseas Highway, and the adjacent
bike/hike trail is called the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail. Consequently, the entire
project is bound by water and intersects with the Ftofida ____ ir _ tl_Yri -tio/7-al S-a-1111vater
a- _ _1_, the___ uwic 1-n-te-rco-Stal Waterwaj, and is adjacent to numerous boat ramps
and marinas for recreational boating and commercial fishing.
3. N w its" " 11 i n it " 1: s ListiFig.sin F iti1 a en Monroe
" n-4. F'Lorida
Name on the Register Date Listed Location City or Town
i� _s [-Iigbway aUridAugust 13, 1979 Bridges on_ i_ _w [ _ w it _ : ---
wu )
l _ i� _ -------------- _ between_ --i -� and _iu _�w.
_1 nJ h_ and i _1
and i
iu and - ii s - - a Is o
parallel to U.S. Route 1
(approximately between mile
markers 9.8 and 72.8)
40 of 46
4. Florida Division of Historic Resources Grants
Fiscal Applicant Project Name Grant Cumulative
Year/ Amount Grant
Program Amount
FY2926 City of Key West Sustainability Assessment of $50,000 $100,000
Sm. City of Key West Historic
Match Structures
FY2025 City of Key West Sustainability Assessment of $509000 $191989531
Sm. City of Key West Historic
Match Structures
FY2025 Reef Environmental Blue History: Exploring the $50,000 $21175,636
Sm. Education Florida Keys through Time
Match Foundation, Inc.
FY2025 Mel Fisher Maritime Key West Naval Storehouse $1849850 $292989470
Sp. Cat. Heritage Society, Inc. Shed Roof Restoration
FY2024 Monroe County Design Guideline Update for $259000 $198469104
Sm. Board of County the Tavernier Historic District
Match Commissioners and Publicly owned Historic
Structures in Unincorporated
Monroe County
FY2024 Pigeon Key Pigeon Key Historic District $2189425 $6,9249307
Sp. Cat. Foundation Inc. Preservation &Accessibility
Project
FY2023 Key West H a rry S The Key West Harry S.Truman $259000 $6269189
Sm. Truman Foundation, Foundation Catalogue&
Match Inc. Collection Plan
Fy2023 Monroe County Historic Monroe County $4829825 $495539450
Sp. Cat. Board of County Courthouse Exterior Masonry
Commissioners Restoration
Fy2023 Historic Florida Keys Restoration and Protection of $1579000 $59585,361
Sp. Cat. Foundation Old City Hall, Phase III, Final
FY2021- Key West Botanical Cuban Chug Collection $129500 $291509005
2022 Sm. Garden Society, Inc Restoration Phase II
Match
FY2021 Historic Markers, Key West Marker Tour and $169360 $190129472
Sm. Incorporated Open-Air Museum
Match
41 of 46
M
u �. u
NROE
Monium,oe
CouiAy Bicycle andN � u s i i n Master Plaiii� COU14TY
FLOP D,A
F. Right
applicableNot
42 of 46
M
u �. u
NROE
Monium,oe
CouiAy I e andN � u s i i n Master Plan� COU14TY
FLOP D,A
G. Cost Estimate
Estimate
• Cost
43 of 46
Schedule and Costs
Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 5 Quarter 6 Quarter 7 Quarter 8 Budget
Task 1-Meeting with Stakeholders Q $ 15,000.00
Task 2-Initial Public Meeting Q $ 25,000.00
Task 3-Gather Existing Pedestrian/Bicycle Data Q Q $ 45,000.00
Task 4-Data Analysis and Evaluation Q Q $ 50,000.00
Task 5-Development of PBMP Goals/Objectives Q Q $ 20,000.00
Task 6-Development of Improvements Q Q $ 80,000.00
Task 7-Second Public Meeting Q $ 20,000.00
Task 8-Funding Analysis and Prioritization of Improvements Q $ 35,000.00
Task 9-Prepare a Pedestrian/Bicycle Master Plan Q Q $ 60,000.00
Task 10-Presentation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Q $ 20,000.00
Task 11-Project Management Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q $ 15,000.00
Total Budget $ 385,000.00
44 of 46
M
u �. u
NROE
Monium,oe
CouiAy Bicycle andN � u s i i n Master Plaiii� COU14TY
FLOP D,A
applicableE. TypicaL Section
Not
45 of 46
M
u �. u
NROE
Monium,oe
i Bicycle andN � u s i i n Master Plaili�� COU14TY
FLOP D,A
Power Point
46 of 46