HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem K03COUNTY of MONROE
The Florida Keys
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Michelle Lincoln,
District 2
Mayor Pro Tem David
Rice, District 4
Craig Cates, District 1
James K. Scholl, District
3
Holly Merrill Raschein,
District 5
Regular Meeting
February 18, 2026
Agenda Item Number: K3
26-0404
BULK ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Emily Schemper
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a Resolution Approving Updates to the BOCC's U.S. 1
Level of Service (LOS) Methodology Based on the Recommendations of the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS
Task Force, Which Evaluated Considerations Identified by the BOCC at the BOCC's September 10,
2025, Regular Public Meeting.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code (LDC) require that all
development and redevelopment taping place within unincorporated Monroe County do not result in a
reduction of the level of service requirements. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and LDC
have adopted a level of service (LOS) standard of "C" for U.S. 1, as measured by the methodology
established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force (the "Task Force") and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC). The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan also requires the Task Force to
periodically review and update the methodology when new data is available.
Policy 301.1.2
For U.S. 1, Monroe County hereby adopts a level of service (LOS) standard of C, as measured by the
methodology established by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in February 2021 (BOCC Resolution 064-2021). The level of service on U.S. 1 shall
be maintained within five percent (5%) of LOS C.
Policy 301.2.1
Monroe County, in coordination with the FDOT, shall continue the systematic traffic monitoring
program initiated in March 1991, to monitor peak season traffic volumes at permanent count stations
and travel speeds on the overall length of U.S.1 and on each of 24 study segments of U.S. 1, and to
determine the cumulative impact of development and through traffic. Monroe County shall use the
methodology developed by the U.S. 1 LOS Task Force composed of representatives from Monroe
County, FDOT, and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for conducting this analysis and
shall request that the Task Force update and refine the methodology's assumptions on a periodic basis
when new data becomes available.
The original Task Force was formed and adopted by the BOCC on August 6, 1991 and consisted of
Monroe County staff, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), which is now Department of Commerce (FloridaCommerce) (formally Department of
Economic Opportunity). This original task force developed a unique methodology to assess level of
service for the Florida Keys to cover both its overall arterial length from Key West to the Florida
mainland, and 24 roadway segments, based on an average travel speed formula. This methodology was
adopted by the BOCC in 1991.
The Task Force met again in 1997 to evaluate the methodology, and the recommended update was
approved by the BOCC on December 10, 1997. This 1997 review focused on 10 potential adjustments;
but the task force recommended one update: to the signal delay for LOS C which was to increases to
25 seconds from 15 seconds to account for changes in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
The Task Force last met in 2020/2021 evaluating the LOS Methodology and potential updates to it
based on the considerations identified in the 2019 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (ATTDs). The
Task Force considered and voted to recommend updates to the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology, summarized
below adopted by the BOCC through Resolution No. 064-2021:
1. Signal Delay: Increase to 35 seconds (to be consistent with the current Highway Capacity
Manual);
2. Signal Delay: Continue to apply to only uninterrupted segments (not overall US-1 LOS
calculations);
3. Drawbridge Delay: Deduct delays due to drawbridge openings from the time run calculations for
both affected segments and overall US-1, using a delay time of 6 minutes (average gate closure
time based on FDOT data for drawbridge delays), and applying to only those travel runs which
were impacted by bridge openings;
4. Overall LOS calculation methodology for segments versus overall US-1 will stay the same;
5. Travel Time Schedule: Conduct 2021 travel time runs based on current schedule. Also, conduct
supplemental runs in the southbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during AM peak (7-8 am)
on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. Additionally, conduct supplemental
runs in the northbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during the PM Peak (5-6pm) on
Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second week. The results of the supplemental runs will
be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report for informational purposes only and will not be used in
overall LOS calculations. This information will be reviewed to decide if supplemental runs
should be incorporated into future ATTDS and LOS calculations, as directed by the Monroe
County BOCC; and
6. Include by reference the Data Collection Methodology into the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology
document.
On September 10, 2025, the following discussion that occurred during the presentation of and
acceptance of the 2025 U.S.1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, the BOCC directed Planning and
Environmental Resources Department staff to reconvene the U.S.1 LOS Task Force. The primary
objectives identified by the BOCC are detailed below:
• As per the current methodology, data collection occurs during the peak season
(defined by FDOT as the 13 consecutive weeks of the year with the highest traffic
volume, typically occurs between February to April). The BOCC requested the Task
Force to consider specifying the six -week window between the second week of
February and the fourth week of March ("the six -week window") for data collection.
• The BOCC requested the Task Force to review other aspects of the methodology to
determine if other changes should be made_ This shall include a review and
recommendation as to whether construction delays should be included or excluded
as part of travel time calculations, as some construction projects are expected to last
several years. According to the current methodology, delays due to roadway
construction should be excluded from the segment and overall travel times.
Task Force Meetings were held as follows:
1. November 17, 2025 - Initial Task Force meeting to review the current methodology and findings
from transportation consultant concerning historic peak season reports and a review of historic
construction delays. The Task Force decided on potential updates to the methodology.
2. December 18, 2025 - Second Task Force meeting to review the first draft of the updated
methodology.
3. January 8, 2026 - Community Meeting to gather public input on draft methodology update.
4. January 21, 2026- Third Task Force meeting to present the final methodology and gain consensus
from all members.
As requested by the BOCC, the Task Force reviewed and considered specifying the six -week
window for data collection and specifically discussed whether construction delays should be
included or excluded as part of travel time calculations. The Task Force considered and voted
to recommend updates to the U.S. 1 LOS Methodology, pictured below (highlighted), and,
more specifically, as shown in "US-1 LOS Methodology Update Final Draft," attached to this
agenda item and incorporated as Exhibit A to the proposed resolution. The Task Force
recommended updates do not change how construction delays are calculated- more
specifically, construction delays will continue to be excluded from the travel time calculations.
The next step In the process was to determine the number of travel time runs and how, when
and to/from where. Runs were started at both ends of US-1. For example, one run started on
Stock Island (Key West City limits) and proceeded to the mainland (Dade County). After
reaching this point, the vehicle turned back and proceeded to end the run where it started, on
Stock Island. On another day the reverse was true (i.e., the run started in Dade County instead
of Stock Island). It was decided to perform a total of fourteen two-way runs or twenty-eight in
each direction covering the 174 km (108 mi) study portion of US-1. Twenty-eight runs provide
enough data for statistical significance. Control points were established at each of the 24
segments to record travel time and speed data specific to each one of those segments. Seven
runs were started at Stock Island and seven In Dade County. Each began at staggered hours
to cover the varied trip purposes and time frames within the Keys. The surveys were conducted
during March, reflecting the area's peak traffic season. The travel time runs shall be conducted
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
See Background.
INSURANCE REQUIRED: No
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
Resolutionfinaldraft
US-1 LOS Methodology_Update—Final—Draff—strikethough-2-2-26
US-1 LOS Methodology_Update—Final—Draft—clean copy_2-2-26
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue If yes, amount:
Producing:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
K3. Approval of a Resolution Approving Updates to the BOCC's U.S. 1 Level of Service (LOS)
Methodology Based on the Recommendations of the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force,
Which Evaluated Considerations Identified by the BOCC at the BOCC's September 10,
2025, Regular Public Meeting. TIME APPROXIMATE 11:30 A.M.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
J
...... ....
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. -2026
A RESOLUTION OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) APPROVING
UPDATES TO THE BOCC'S U.S. 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE
(LOS) METHODOLOGY BASED UPON THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOCC'S U.S. 1 LOS TASK
FORCE, WHICH EVALUATED CONSIDERATIONS
IDENTIFIED BY THE BOCC AT THE BOCC'S
SEPTEMBER LOTH, 2025, PUBLIC MEETING.
WHEREAS, in August 1991, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
("Monroe County", "Board", `BOCC", or the "County") adopted the U.S. 1 Level of Service C.
on behalf of the public interest as measured by the BOCC's U.S. 1 Level of Service ("LOS")
Methodology as established by the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force; and
WHEREAS, on December loth, 1997, the BOCC approved an amendment to its U.S. 1
LOS Methodology based upon recommendations of the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force; and
WHEREAS, on February 17th, 2021, the BOCC adopted BOCC Resolution No. 064-2021
which adopted and approved the recommendations made by the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force
and the BOCC's 2021 Updated Methodology Document entitled "A Methodology To Assess Level -
Of -Service On US-1 In The Florida Kevs" for use by the BOCC; and
WHEREAS, at the BOCC's September loth, 2025, public meeting, the BOCC directed its
professional staff to re-engage the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force to review the BOCC's LOS
methodology and to consider (as needed) whether including a required time -period for data
collection is warranted and whether or not to exclude construction delays from the BOCC's traffic
data calculation methods; and
WHEREAS, the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force met on November 17th, 2025, December
18th, 2025, and January 21", 2026, to evaluate the BOCC's LOS methodology and to update the
BOCC's LOS methodology based upon the above considerations identified by the BOCC; and
40 WHEREAS, through the above -referenced Task Force meetings, the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS
41 Task Force determined that a required time period for data collection in the BOCC's methodology
42 document is warranted; and
1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, through the aforesaid Task Force meetings the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force
considered whether or not to include construction delays in the BOCC's traffic data collection, and
the U.S. I LOS Task Force has determined and is of the view that construction delays should
continue to be excluded from the BOCC's traffic data calculation methods; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these meeting discussions the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force
agreed' to the following recommended item(s) for the BOCC's update to the BOCC's LOS
methodology at the Task Force's January 21', 2026, meeting:
1. Inclusion of the following statement:
"The travel time runs shall be conducted during the six -week period including the
last two weeks of February and the first four -weeks of March. If there are
unforeseen situations that prevent data collection during this period, then the data
may be collected during the first two weeks of April."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if
fully stated herein.
Section 2. The BOCC hereby approves and adopts the recommendations of the
BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force and the 2026 Updated Methodology
Document entitled "A Methodology To Assess Level -Of -Service On US-1 In
The Florida Keys" (attached as Exhibit A.) for use by the BOCC.
Section 3. Effectiveness. This Resolution shall become effective as provided by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular public meeting of the Board held on this 181h day of February, 2026.
Mayor Michelle Lincoln
Mayor Pro Tem David Rice
Commissioner Craig Cates
Commissioner James Scholl
Commissioner Holly Merrill Raschein
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
MAYOR MICHELLE LINCOLN
' With no dissent or objection from any member of the BOCC's U.S. 1 LOS Task Force.
2 of 3
4 (SEAL)
6 ATTEST: KEVfN MADOK, CLERK MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
7
APJ�?VeD 4UOFORM
8 Date,
10 AS DEPUTY CLERK
3 of 3
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S.MaCleod
A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
By
Rafael E. De Arazoza
Florida Department of Transportation
District 6
602 South Miami Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 377-5910
And
Douglas S. McLeod
Florida Department of Transportation
Mail Station 19
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (904) 922-0449
For Presentation at the
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting
January 1993
UPDATE January 2021 (Resolution 064-2021)
Updated by AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Based on input from the 2020/2021 US-1 LOS Task Force
UPDATE January 2026
Updated by AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Based on input from the 2025/2026 US-1 LOS Task Force
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the methodology developed to assess level -of -service (LOS) on US-1
in the Florida Keys. Although predominantly an uninterrupted flow two-lane roadway in the
Keys, US-1's uniqueness warrants all alternative LOS evaluation process to that found
in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
U.S.-1 extends from the Key West to the Florida mainland with no major roads
intersecting it. Furthermore, no other principal arterial serves the Keys or the Keys' resident
and tourist population, over 100,000. Its unique geography, land use patterns, trip making
characteristics presented a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable
method to assess its LOS.
A uniform method was developed to assess LOS on U.S.-1 to cover both its overall arterial
length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 roadway segments delineated. The
methodology employs average travel speed as the main measure of effectiveness. It was
developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapters 7 (Rural Multilane
Highways), 8 (Rural Two -Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual.
The results of the study correlate well with perceived operating conditions on US-1 and over a
two- year period the methodology appears to have a good level of reliability. The authors
recommend that for uninterrupted flow conditions in developed areas, Chapters 7 and 8
of the Highway Capacity Manual incorporates average travel speed as the main measure of
effectiveness to determine LOS.
Page 2 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
A METHOD TO ASSESS LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to present the methodology developed by the Monroe County US-
1 level- of -service (LOS) Task Force to assess LOS on US-1 (the Overseas Highway) in the
Florida Keys (1). The authors are members of the referenced task force.
US-1 which is mostly two -lanes, has unique geographic and trip characteristics. It extends
through the Florida Keys covering approximately 180 kilometers (112 miles) from the City of
Key West to the Florida mainland (Figure 1). There are 48 bridges crossing water for a total
length of 35 km (22 mi), with the longest bridge approximately 11 km (7 mi) long. There is no
other road, to provide vehicular access to the Florida Keys from the rest of Florida or
anywhere else. Few local roads are 5 km (3 mi) in length. Consequently, US-1 serves not only
as a regional principal arterial which serves intra as well as interstate travel, but also serves
as the local road for most of the trips within the Keys. US-1 Annual average daily traffic
(AADT) volumes range from a low of 4700 to a high of 34200. The road serves a large tourist
demand and is one of the most scenic in the United States. The linear geography with the
narrow land width of most of the Florida Keys are further characteristics.
Most of the surrounding land use is rural developed and suburban in nature; however, some
areas are totally rural and others are urban, such as the Key West and its suburbs. With the
exception of the few completely rural segments and the bridges, strip commercial stores,
motels and restaurants are very common throughout the Keys along US-1. Numerous
driveways and intersecting local roads provide access to the surrounding residential areas.
The US-1 LOS study encompassed approximately 174 km (108 mi) of US-1 from Key
West/Stock Island to the Monroe/Dade County Line, broken down as follows:
0 129 km (80 mi) (74%) two-lane uninterrupted flow;
0 32 km (20 mi) (19 %) four -lane uninterrupted flow; and
0 13 km (8 mi) (7%) four -lane urban/suburban interrupted flow.
Page 3 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
Part of the growth management process in Florida is to assess roadway LOS to determine if
roadway facilities meet standards established by state regulations. The Transportation
Research Board Special Report 209 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2) is extensively used
throughout Florida as the source document to determine highway capacities and LOS.
HCM Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), 8 (Rural Two -Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and
Suburban Arterials) were consulted to determine applicability to the unique conditions and
vehicular traffic operations and characteristics of the Florida Keys. Only the 13 km (8
mi) of urban/suburban interrupted flow and the small percentage of the two-lane truly rural
portions correlate directly to the HCM Chapters 11 and 8.
Thus, the challenge was to develop a methodology to assess arterial LOS along US-1 without
deviating from the principles of the HCM. Towards that end a task force was created
consisting of representatives from State and local agencies and an engineering consulting
firm.
Page 4 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
THE NEED TO DEVELOP A LOS MEASUREMENT METHOD
From a state transportation perspective, the overall operating condition of US-1 is important,
not the condition of any smaller segment. With Key West as a major tourist destination at the
southern end of the Keys and no alternative routes, the logical analysis section of highway
extends from Key West to the mainland. From local transportation and development approval
perspectives, shorter segments for analysis are desirable.
Chapter 8 of the HCM presents a methodology which applies to typical rural two-lane highways
with basically long stretches of roads, and few side intersecting streets and driveways directly
connecting to the roads. Chapter 8 methodology relies mainly on "percent time delay" to
assess LOS. The HCM further states that "Percent time delay ... is defined as the average
percent of time that all vehicles are delayed while traveling in platoons due to inability to pass.
Percent time delay is difficult to measure directly in the field. The percent of vehicles traveling
at headways less than 5 seconds can be used as a surrogate measure in field studies."
Chapter 8 of the HCM also uses average travel speed and capacity utilization as additional
measures of effectiveness to assess LOS. However, the HCM states clearly that percent time
delay is the primary measure of service quality. Further inspection of the average speeds
for level terrain depicted by Table 8-1 of the HCM do not correspond well with the typical
operating speeds of US-1 in the Florida Keys. For instance, Table 8-1 shows average speeds
ranging from 58 mph (93 kmh) (LOS A) to 45 mph (72 kmh) (LOS D).
The overall weighted posted speed limit for US-1 in the Florida Keys is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph).
The overall median operating speeds along US-1 according to the 1991 and 1992 field studies
(3, 4) were 76.8 and 75.5 kmh (47.7 and 46.9 mph), respectively. The field studies showed, for
the most part, the survey vehicle(s) was traveling close to the posted speed limit.
It is believed the average motorist in the Florida Keys is mostly concerned with operating
at an acceptable average travel speed rather than being concerned about the ability to
pass. This is supported by the physical and traffic characteristics of the Keys (e.g.,
adjacent land development, sight-seeing tourists), local knowledge, and discussions with
motorists.
Page 5 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
From the above statements, it was clear to the task team that HCM Chapter 8 methodology
could not be applied to US-1 for analysis of its two-lane sections.
With regards to the four -lane uninterrupted flow portions of US-1, a similar dilemma occurred.
HCM Chapter 7 methodology applies to multi -lane highways with operating characteristics
generally unlike those of US-1 through the Florida Keys. For instance, average travel speeds
depicted by Table 7-1 of the HCM are also higher than those encountered in the Keys. Further,
the methodology inherent in equations (7-1), (7-2) and (7-3)are closely related to those of
freeways with their higher service flow rates, which again neither simulate nor resemble those
of US-1 in the Keys. The Four -lane portion is found mostly in Key Largo (the northeastern end
of the Keys) which has a weighted posted speed limit of 72.5 kmh (45 mph). Key largo is
developed with strip commercial and residential development. It has numerous driveway
connections and side streets directly accessing US-1.
The remaining 7% of the total US-1 mileage is four -lane interrupted flow. These are the
portions encompassing Marathon (in the middle of the Keys) and Stock Island (near Key West).
The operating characteristics here are truly urban/suburban and interrupted flow in nature
resembling those of HCM Chapter 11. Thus, the methodology of Chapter 11 was employed in
assessing LOS on these segments.
From the preceding discussion, it was evident that a distinct method to assess LOS on US-1
had to be developed. The task team's efforts concentrated on keeping consistency with the
basic philosophy of the HCM, and yet be sensitive to the Keys uniqueness. Thus, the proposed
methodology correlates measured travel speeds along US-1 with LOS speed thresholds
developed as part of this study. This is in line with the concept behind the HCM of average
travel speed being the main parameter to measure arterial LOS.
Page 6 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. MaCleod
METHODOLOGY
Considering the types of trips served by US-1, it was decided to conduct travel time and delay
runs to cover both the entire length of US-1 from Key West to the Monroe/Dade County Line
(mainland) and for each segment of the highway along the way. Twenty-four segments were
selected as depicted by Table 1. Each segment is fairly homogeneous in nature having a
uniform roadway cross section and traffic flow.
Travel speeds for the overall length (from Key West to the mainland) provide an indication of
the LOS for the regional trips. Travel speeds for each segment also provides an opportunity
to assess the impact of local trips. Establishing speed criteria for both the overall length
and for each roadway segment satisfies the requirements of the Florida growth management
process.
The next step in the process was to determine the number of travel time runs and how, when
and to/from where. Runs were started at both ends of US-1. For example, one run started on
Stock Island (Key West City limits) and proceeded to the mainland (Dade County). After
reaching this point, the vehicle turned back and proceeded to end the run where it started, on
Stock Island. On another day the reverse was true (i.e., the run started in Dade County instead
of Stock Island). It was decided to perform a total of fourteen two-way runs or twenty-eight in
each direction covering the 174 km (108 mi) study portion of US-1. Twenty-eight runs provide
enough data for statistical significance. Control points were established at each of the 24
segments to record travel time and speed data specific to each one of those segments. Seven
runs were started at Stock Island and seven in Dade County. Each began at staggered hours
to cover the varied trip purposes and time frames within the Keys. The surveys were conducted
during March, reflecting the area's peak traffic season. The travel time runs shall be conducted
during the six -week period including the last two weeks of February and the first four weeks
of March. If there are unforeseen situations that prevent data collection during this period, then
the data may be collected during the first two weeks of April.
The 2021 travel time runs shall be conducted based on the current schedule. In addition,
supplemental runs shall be conducted in the southbound direction within Segments 1 to 4
during AM peak (7-8 am) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. Also,
conduct supplemental runs in the northbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during the PM
Peak (5-6pm) on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second week. The results of the
supplemental runs will be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report for informational purposes only
Page 7 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
and will not be used in overall or segment LOS calculations. This information will be reviewed
to decide if supplemental runs should be incorporated into future ATTDS and LOS
calculations, as directed by the Monroe County BOCC.
For each run the process provided data (see Exhibit 1, Data Collection Methodology), such as
running speed and travel speed, in each direction of US-1. Vehicular traffic counts were also
collected at three locations covering seven days.
The travel time runs yielded a total of 28 one-way travel speed values for the overall length of
US-1 and for each of the 24 segments. The value selected for analysis was the median speed
which would reflect a "typical peak period during the peak season." In other developed parts
of Florida the typical peak hour of the peak season approximates the 100th highest hour of
the year (5). The median value was also selected, instead of the average, to avoid the influence
of extremely high or low speed value at either end of the survey population. The process up
to this point provided median travel speeds. The question then became, what LOS do these
speeds represent.
The next step was to develop a set of LOS/Speed threshold values for both the overall length
of US-1 and the pertinent segments of the highway. Towards this end, the speed ratios
between LOS thresholds from Tables 7-1, 8-1 and 11-1 of the HCM were used in the analysis.
These ratios were weighted against actual mileage of US-1 in the Florida Keys to represent
the prevailing type of flow; two-lane uninterrupted flow, four -lane uninterrupted flow and four -
lane interrupted flow. For example, from the level terrain portion of HCM Table 8-1, the ratio
between LOS B speed and LOS A speed is 55/58 = 0.948. The ratio between LOS C/LOS A =
52/58 = 0.897; the ratio between LOS D/LOS A = 50/58 = 0.862 and so on. The same process
was applied to Tables 7-1 (96.6 kmh) (60 mph) and 11-1. Then each ratio was weighted to take
into account the length of the section of US-1 to which that type of traffic flow applied. Once
all the ratios were developed, the weight criteria was applied as in the following example:
TYPE OF FLOW LOS C/LOS A RATIO WEIGHT
Two-lane uninterrupted 52/58 = 0.897 74
Four -lane uninterrupted 44/50 = 0.880 19
Four -lane interrupted 22/35 = 0.629 07
Therefore, the overall speed ratio between LOS C and LOS A is:
Page 8 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
[74(0.897)+19(0.880)+7(0.629)]+100=0.875
The above process was applied to develop all the required ratios. Further observations with
reference to Tables 8-1, 7-1 and 11-1 yielded the following. From Table 8-1 the difference
between LOS A and LOS B speeds is 4.8 kmh (3 mph), or 4.8 kmh (3 mph) above an assumed
posted speed limit of 88 kmh (55 mph). From Tables 7-1 and 11-1 the differences are 3.2 kmh
and 11.3 kmh (2 mph and 7 mph), respectively, with LOS lower than assumed speed limits.
Therefore, from these observations plus local knowledge, it was determined that the overall
US-1 posted speed limit is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) reasonably fell between the LOS A and B
thresholds.
This assumption is not far away from the premise that if a vehicle is able to sustain a travel
speed equal to the posted speed limit, then it will correspond typically with the upper ranges
of LOS (i.e., LOS A or B).
With the above speed differentials and LOS range premise in mind, the US-1 overall speed
thresholds for LOS A and B became 82.1 kmh (51 mph) (2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above 79.7 kmh
(49.5) and 77.3 kmh (48 mph), respectively. Applying the developed ratio between LOS
C/LOS A to the LOS A speed resulted in 72.5 kmh (45 mph), rounded off (i.e., 0.875 x 82.1
kmh (51 mph) = 71.8 kmh (44.6 mph)), which then became the threshold for LOS C. After
applying all the ratios the overall LOS criteria for US-1 became:
LOS Speed
A >_ 82 kmh (51 mph)
B >_ 77 kmh (48 mph)
C >_ 72 kmh (45 mph)
D >_ 68 kmh (42 mph)
E >_ 58 kmh (36 mph)
F < 58 kmh (36 mph)
Inspection of the criteria above indicates a close relationship with the speed differentials
of both Tables 8-1 and 7-1 of the HCM. Comparing the median speed data for US-1 from the
1991 and 1992 field studies to the above criteria resulted in an overall LOS of C for both years,
i.e., 76.8 kmh (47.7 mph) for 1991 and 75.5 kmh (46.9 mph) for 1992. These speeds are 2.9 kmh
Page 9 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
(1.8 mph) and 4.2 kmh (2.6 mph) below the overall weighted 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) speed limit,
which would correspond to the upper range of LOS C. The authors also believe that LOS C
is the appropriate LOS designation for the whole of US-1 from Key West to the mainland.
A final step was still needed to complete the task of developing LOS/Speed threshold values
for the segments of US-1. No further work was needed to cover the 7% mileage of the
interrupted portions of US-1 found on Marathon and Stock Island, adjacent to Key West.
As discussed earlier, these segments correlate with Chapter 11 of the HCM. Therefore, direct
application of Table 11-1 LOS/speed criteria for a Class I arterial was made.
The remaining segments fell within the two-lane and four lane uninterrupted flow criteria.
It was decided to make LOS A speed criterion 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the weighted posted
speed limit in order to keep consistency with the overall criteria. LOS C speed was set 9.7
kmh (6 mph) below LOS A speed consistent with Tables 7-1 and 8-1 of the HCM. LOS B and D
speed criteria were set to provide equal increments between LOS A and LOS D (i.e., LOS B 4.8
kmh (3 mph) below LOS A speed and LOS D 4.8 kmh (3 mph) below LOS C speed). LOS E was
set 9.7 kmh (6 mph) below the LOS D Speed. This makes the segmental speed differential
between LOS thresholds consistent with the differentials in the overall criteria, except for
one consideration. On any uninterrupted flow segment, signalized intersection delay would
be deducted from the segment's travel time to account for the influence of the traffic signals
(i.e., signal delay = 1.0 x 35 seconds average stopped delay). This corresponds to an LOS C
delay due to isolated signals. LOS C delay was chosen because LOS C is the state LOS
standard for US-1 in the Florida Keys. The rationale behind deducting signal delay from the
segment analysis was to recognize the impact of signals in reducing travel time. This provides
the required sensitivity in the segment which is not only to assess the impact of regional
vehicular trips, but also those that are local in nature. The following illustrates the concept
plus one example for the US-1 Segmental LOS/speed relationship.
o The uninterrupted flow segment criteria are:
LOS SPEED
A >_ 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the posted speed limit
B >_ 4.8 kmh (3.0 mph) below LOS A
C >_ 9.7 kmh (6.0 mph) below LOS A
D >_ 14.5 kmh (9.0 mph) below LOS A
E >_ 24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A
Page 10 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
F < 24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A
o A segment having a weighted posted speed limit of 72 kmh (45 mph) would then have
this criteria:
LOS
SPEED
A
>_ 74.9 kmh (46.5 mph)
B
>_ 70.0 kmh (43.5 mph)
C
>_ 65.2 kmh (40.5 mph)
D
>_ 60.4 kmh (37.5 mph)
E
>_ 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph)
F
< 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph)
o The LOS/Speed criteria for interrupted flow segments (marathon and Stock
Island) are based directly on a Class I arterial from Table 11-1 of the HCM.
LOS
SPEED
A
>_ 56.4 kmh (35 mph)
B
>_ 45.1 kmh (28 mph)
C
>_ 35.4 kmh (22 mph)
D
>_ 27.4 kmh (17 mph)
E
>_ 20.9 kmh (13 mph)
F
< 20.9 kmh (13 mph)
Speed data from both the overall length of US-1 and the individual segments were compared
against the applicable LOS/speed thresholds. This provided for an assessment of the facility
LOS plus an indication of reserve speed, if any.
Under Florida's and Monroe County's growth management process if the overall LOS for
US-1 fell below the LOS C standard, then no additional land development would be allowed
to proceed in the Florida Keys. Unless the proposed new development traffic impact were
mitigated. If the overall LOS for US-1 was C or better, then additional development could take
place in those segments where there was reserve speed available (i.e., segment's speed was
higher than the standard threshold).
Besides meeting highway LOS standards there are numerous other considerations in Florida's
growth management process pertaining to the Florida Keys that are beyond the scope of
Page 11 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. MaCleod
this paper. As mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this study was to present the
methodology to assess LOS on US-1.
Page 12 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S.MaCleod
A METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
By
Rafael E. De Arazoza
Florida Department of Transportation
District 6
602 South Miami Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130
(305) 377-5910
And
Douglas S. McLeod
Florida Department of Transportation
Mail Station 19
605 Suwannee Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (904) 922-0449
For Presentation at the
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting
January 1993
UPDATE January 2021 (Resolution 064-2021)
Updated by AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Based on input from the 2020/2021 US-1 LOS Task Force
UPDATE January 2026
Updated by AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Based on input from the 2025/2026 US-1 LOS Task Force
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the methodology developed to assess level -of -service (LOS) on US-1
in the Florida Keys. Although predominantly an uninterrupted flow two-lane roadway in the
Keys, US-1's uniqueness warrants all alternative LOS evaluation process to that found
in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
U.S.-1 extends from the Key West to the Florida mainland with no major roads
intersecting it. Furthermore, no other principal arterial serves the Keys or the Keys' resident
and tourist population, over 100,000. Its unique geography, land use patterns, trip making
characteristics presented a challenge in developing and applying a reasonable and acceptable
method to assess its LOS.
A uniform method was developed to assess LOS on U.S.-1 to cover both its overall arterial
length from Key West to the Florida mainland, and 24 roadway segments delineated. The
methodology employs average travel speed as the main measure of effectiveness. It was
developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapters 7 (Rural Multilane
Highways), 8 (Rural Two -Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual.
The results of the study correlate well with perceived operating conditions on US-1 and over a
two- year period the methodology appears to have a good level of reliability. The authors
recommend that for uninterrupted flow conditions in developed areas, Chapters 7 and 8
of the Highway Capacity Manual incorporates average travel speed as the main measure of
effectiveness to determine LOS.
Page 2 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
A METHOD TO ASSESS LEVEL -OF -SERVICE
ON US-1 IN THE FLORIDA KEYS
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to present the methodology developed by the Monroe County US-
1 level- of -service (LOS) Task Force to assess LOS on US-1 (the Overseas Highway) in the
Florida Keys (1). The authors are members of the referenced task force.
US-1 which is mostly two -lanes, has unique geographic and trip characteristics. It extends
through the Florida Keys covering approximately 180 kilometers (112 miles) from the City of
Key West to the Florida mainland (Figure 1). There are 48 bridges crossing water for a total
length of 35 km (22 mi), with the longest bridge approximately 11 km (7 mi) long. There is no
other road, to provide vehicular access to the Florida Keys from the rest of Florida or
anywhere else. Few local roads are 5 km (3 mi) in length. Consequently, US-1 serves not only
as a regional principal arterial which serves intra as well as interstate travel, but also serves
as the local road for most of the trips within the Keys. US-1 Annual average daily traffic
(AADT) volumes range from a low of 4700 to a high of 34200. The road serves a large tourist
demand and is one of the most scenic in the United States. The linear geography with the
narrow land width of most of the Florida Keys are further characteristics.
Most of the surrounding land use is rural developed and suburban in nature; however, some
areas are totally rural and others are urban, such as the Key West and its suburbs. With the
exception of the few completely rural segments and the bridges, strip commercial stores,
motels and restaurants are very common throughout the Keys along US-1. Numerous
driveways and intersecting local roads provide access to the surrounding residential areas.
The US-1 LOS study encompassed approximately 174 km (108 mi) of US-1 from Key
West/Stock Island to the Monroe/Dade County Line, broken down as follows:
0 129 km (80 mi) (74%) two-lane uninterrupted flow;
0 32 km (20 mi) (19 %) four -lane uninterrupted flow; and
0 13 km (8 mi) (7%) four -lane urban/suburban interrupted flow.
Page 3 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
Part of the growth management process in Florida is to assess roadway LOS to determine if
roadway facilities meet standards established by state regulations. The Transportation
Research Board Special Report 209 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (2) is extensively used
throughout Florida as the source document to determine highway capacities and LOS.
HCM Chapter 7 (Rural Multilane Highways), 8 (Rural Two -Lane Highways) and 11 (Urban and
Suburban Arterials) were consulted to determine applicability to the unique conditions and
vehicular traffic operations and characteristics of the Florida Keys. Only the 13 km (8
mi) of urban/suburban interrupted flow and the small percentage of the two-lane truly rural
portions correlate directly to the HCM Chapters 11 and 8.
Thus, the challenge was to develop a methodology to assess arterial LOS along US-1 without
deviating from the principles of the HCM. Towards that end a task force was created
consisting of representatives from State and local agencies and an engineering consulting
firm.
Page 4 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
THE NEED TO DEVELOP A LOS MEASUREMENT METHOD
From a state transportation perspective, the overall operating condition of US-1 is important,
not the condition of any smaller segment. With Key West as a major tourist destination at the
southern end of the Keys and no alternative routes, the logical analysis section of highway
extends from Key West to the mainland. From local transportation and development approval
perspectives, shorter segments for analysis are desirable.
Chapter 8 of the HCM presents a methodology which applies to typical rural two-lane highways
with basically long stretches of roads, and few side intersecting streets and driveways directly
connecting to the roads. Chapter 8 methodology relies mainly on "percent time delay" to
assess LOS. The HCM further states that "Percent time delay ... is defined as the average
percent of time that all vehicles are delayed while traveling in platoons due to inability to pass.
Percent time delay is difficult to measure directly in the field. The percent of vehicles traveling
at headways less than 5 seconds can be used as a surrogate measure in field studies."
Chapter 8 of the HCM also uses average travel speed and capacity utilization as additional
measures of effectiveness to assess LOS. However, the HCM states clearly that percent time
delay is the primary measure of service quality. Further inspection of the average speeds
for level terrain depicted by Table 8-1 of the HCM do not correspond well with the typical
operating speeds of US-1 in the Florida Keys. For instance, Table 8-1 shows average speeds
ranging from 58 mph (93 kmh) (LOS A) to 45 mph (72 kmh) (LOS D).
The overall weighted posted speed limit for US-1 in the Florida Keys is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph).
The overall median operating speeds along US-1 according to the 1991 and 1992 field studies
(3, 4) were 76.8 and 75.5 kmh (47.7 and 46.9 mph), respectively. The field studies showed, for
the most part, the survey vehicle(s) was traveling close to the posted speed limit.
It is believed the average motorist in the Florida Keys is mostly concerned with operating
at an acceptable average travel speed rather than being concerned about the ability to
pass. This is supported by the physical and traffic characteristics of the Keys (e.g.,
adjacent land development, sight-seeing tourists), local knowledge, and discussions with
motorists.
Page 5 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. Macleod
From the above statements, it was clear to the task team that HCM Chapter 8 methodology
could not be applied to US-1 for analysis of its two-lane sections.
With regards to the four -lane uninterrupted flow portions of US-1, a similar dilemma occurred.
HCM Chapter 7 methodology applies to multi -lane highways with operating characteristics
generally unlike those of US-1 through the Florida Keys. For instance, average travel speeds
depicted by Table 7-1 of the HCM are also higher than those encountered in the Keys. Further,
the methodology inherent in equations (7-1), (7-2) and (7-3)are closely related to those of
freeways with their higher service flow rates, which again neither simulate nor resemble those
of US-1 in the Keys. The Four -lane portion is found mostly in Key Largo (the northeastern end
of the Keys) which has a weighted posted speed limit of 72.5 kmh (45 mph). Key largo is
developed with strip commercial and residential development. It has numerous driveway
connections and side streets directly accessing US-1.
The remaining 7% of the total US-1 mileage is four -lane interrupted flow. These are the
portions encompassing Marathon (in the middle of the Keys) and Stock Island (near Key West).
The operating characteristics here are truly urban/suburban and interrupted flow in nature
resembling those of HCM Chapter 11. Thus, the methodology of Chapter 11 was employed in
assessing LOS on these segments.
From the preceding discussion, it was evident that a distinct method to assess LOS on US-1
had to be developed. The task team's efforts concentrated on keeping consistency with the
basic philosophy of the HCM, and yet be sensitive to the Keys uniqueness. Thus, the proposed
methodology correlates measured travel speeds along US-1 with LOS speed thresholds
developed as part of this study. This is in line with the concept behind the HCM of average
travel speed being the main parameter to measure arterial LOS.
Page 6 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. MaCleod
METHODOLOGY
Considering the types of trips served by US-1, it was decided to conduct travel time and delay
runs to cover both the entire length of US-1 from Key West to the Monroe/Dade County Line
(mainland) and for each segment of the highway along the way. Twenty-four segments were
selected as depicted by Table 1. Each segment is fairly homogeneous in nature having a
uniform roadway cross section and traffic flow.
Travel speeds for the overall length (from Key West to the mainland) provide an indication of
the LOS for the regional trips. Travel speeds for each segment also provides an opportunity
to assess the impact of local trips. Establishing speed criteria for both the overall length
and for each roadway segment satisfies the requirements of the Florida growth management
process.
The next step in the process was to determine the number of travel time runs and how, when
and to/from where. Runs were started at both ends of US-1. For example, one run started on
Stock Island (Key West City limits) and proceeded to the mainland (Dade County). After
reaching this point, the vehicle turned back and proceeded to end the run where it started, on
Stock Island. On another day the reverse was true (i.e., the run started in Dade County instead
of Stock Island). It was decided to perform a total of fourteen two-way runs or twenty-eight in
each direction covering the 174 km (108 mi) study portion of US-1. Twenty-eight runs provide
enough data for statistical significance. Control points were established at each of the 24
segments to record travel time and speed data specific to each one of those segments. Seven
runs were started at Stock Island and seven in Dade County. Each began at staggered hours
to cover the varied trip purposes and time frames within the Keys. The surveys were
conducted during March, reflecting the area's peak traffic season. The travel time runs shall
be conducted during the six -week period including the last two weeks of February and the
first four weeks of March. If there are unforeseen situations that prevent data collection
during this period, then the data may be collected during the first two weeks of April.
The 2021 travel time runs shall be conducted based on the current schedule. In addition,
supplemental runs shall be conducted in the southbound direction within Segments 1 to 4
during AM peak (7-8 am) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the second week. Also,
conduct supplemental runs in the northbound direction within Segments 1 to 4 during the PM
Peak (5-6pm) on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of the second week. The results of the
supplemental runs will be included in the 2021 ATTDS Report for informational purposes only
Page 7 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
and will not be used in overall or segment LOS calculations. This information will be reviewed
to decide if supplemental runs should be incorporated into future ATTDS and LOS
calculations, as directed by the Monroe County BOCC.
For each run the process provided data (see Exhibit 1, Data Collection Methodology), such as
running speed and travel speed, in each direction of US-1. Vehicular traffic counts were also
collected at three locations covering seven days.
The travel time runs yielded a total of 28 one-way travel speed values for the overall length of
US-1 and for each of the 24 segments. The value selected for analysis was the median speed
which would reflect a "typical peak period during the peak season." In other developed parts
of Florida the typical peak hour of the peak season approximates the 100th highest hour of
the year (5). The median value was also selected, instead of the average, to avoid the influence
of extremely high or low speed value at either end of the survey population. The process up
to this point provided median travel speeds. The question then became, what LOS do these
speeds represent.
The next step was to develop a set of LOS/Speed threshold values for both the overall length
of US-1 and the pertinent segments of the highway. Towards this end, the speed ratios
between LOS thresholds from Tables 7-1, 8-1 and 11-1 of the HCM were used in the analysis.
These ratios were weighted against actual mileage of US-1 in the Florida Keys to represent
the prevailing type of flow; two-lane uninterrupted flow, four -lane uninterrupted flow and four -
lane interrupted flow. For example, from the level terrain portion of HCM Table 8-1, the ratio
between LOS B speed and LOS A speed is 55/58 = 0.948. The ratio between LOS C/LOS A =
52/58 = 0.897; the ratio between LOS D/LOS A = 50/58 = 0.862 and so on. The same process
was applied to Tables 7-1 (96.6 kmh) (60 mph) and 11-1. Then each ratio was weighted to take
into account the length of the section of US-1 to which that type of traffic flow applied. Once
all the ratios were developed, the weight criteria was applied as in the following example:
TYPE OF FLOW LOS C/LOS A RATIO WEIGHT
Two-lane uninterrupted 52/58 = 0.897 74
Four -lane uninterrupted 44/50 = 0.880 19
Four -lane interrupted 22/35 = 0.629 07
Therefore, the overall speed ratio between LOS C and LOS A is:
Page 8 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
[74(0.897)+19(0.880)+7(0.629)]+100=0.875
The above process was applied to develop all the required ratios. Further observations with
reference to Tables 8-1, 7-1 and 11-1 yielded the following. From Table 8-1 the difference
between LOS A and LOS B speeds is 4.8 kmh (3 mph), or 4.8 kmh (3 mph) above an assumed
posted speed limit of 88 kmh (55 mph). From Tables 7-1 and 11-1 the differences are 3.2 kmh
and 11.3 kmh (2 mph and 7 mph), respectively, with LOS lower than assumed speed limits.
Therefore, from these observations plus local knowledge, it was determined that the overall
US-1 posted speed limit is 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) reasonably fell between the LOS A and B
thresholds.
This assumption is not far away from the premise that if a vehicle is able to sustain a travel
speed equal to the posted speed limit, then it will correspond typically with the upper ranges
of LOS (i.e., LOS A or B).
With the above speed differentials and LOS range premise in mind, the US-1 overall speed
thresholds for LOS A and B became 82.1 kmh (51 mph) (2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above 79.7 kmh
(49.5) and 77.3 kmh (48 mph), respectively. Applying the developed ratio between LOS
C/LOS A to the LOS A speed resulted in 72.5 kmh (45 mph), rounded off (i.e., 0.875 x 82.1
kmh (51 mph) = 71.8 kmh (44.6 mph)), which then became the threshold for LOS C. After
applying all the ratios the overall LOS criteria for US-1 became:
LOS Speed
A >_ 82 kmh (51 mph)
B >_ 77 kmh (48 mph)
C >_ 72 kmh (45 mph)
D >_ 68 kmh (42 mph)
E >_ 58 kmh (36 mph)
F < 58 kmh (36 mph)
Inspection of the criteria above indicates a close relationship with the speed differentials
of both Tables 8-1 and 7-1 of the HCM. Comparing the median speed data for US-1 from the
1991 and 1992 field studies to the above criteria resulted in an overall LOS of C for both years,
i.e., 76.8 kmh (47.7 mph) for 1991 and 75.5 kmh (46.9 mph) for 1992. These speeds are 2.9 kmh
Page 9 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
(1.8 mph) and 4.2 kmh (2.6 mph) below the overall weighted 79.7 kmh (49.5 mph) speed limit,
which would correspond to the upper range of LOS C. The authors also believe that LOS C
is the appropriate LOS designation for the whole of US-1 from Key West to the mainland.
A final step was still needed to complete the task of developing LOS/Speed threshold values
for the segments of US-1. No further work was needed to cover the 7% mileage of the
interrupted portions of US-1 found on Marathon and Stock Island, adjacent to Key West.
As discussed earlier, these segments correlate with Chapter 11 of the HCM. Therefore, direct
application of Table 11-1 LOS/speed criteria for a Class I arterial was made.
The remaining segments fell within the two-lane and four lane uninterrupted flow criteria.
It was decided to make LOS A speed criterion 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the weighted posted
speed limit in order to keep consistency with the overall criteria. LOS C speed was set 9.7
kmh (6 mph) below LOS A speed consistent with Tables 7-1 and 8-1 of the HCM. LOS B and D
speed criteria were set to provide equal increments between LOS A and LOS D (i.e., LOS B 4.8
kmh (3 mph) below LOS A speed and LOS D 4.8 kmh (3 mph) below LOS C speed). LOS E was
set 9.7 kmh (6 mph) below the LOS D Speed. This makes the segmental speed differential
between LOS thresholds consistent with the differentials in the overall criteria, except for
one consideration. On any uninterrupted flow segment, signalized intersection delay would
be deducted from the segment's travel time to account for the influence of the traffic signals
(i.e., signal delay = 1.0 x 35 seconds average stopped delay). This corresponds to an LOS C
delay due to isolated signals. LOS C delay was chosen because LOS C is the state LOS
standard for US-1 in the Florida Keys. The rationale behind deducting signal delay from the
segment analysis was to recognize the impact of signals in reducing travel time. This provides
the required sensitivity in the segment which is not only to assess the impact of regional
vehicular trips, but also those that are local in nature. The following illustrates the concept
plus one example for the US-1 Segmental LOS/speed relationship.
o The uninterrupted flow segment criteria are:
LOS SPEED
A >_ 2.4 kmh (1.5 mph) above the posted speed limit
B >_ 4.8 kmh (3.0 mph) below LOS A
C >_ 9.7 kmh (6.0 mph) below LOS A
D >_ 14.5 kmh (9.0 mph) below LOS A
E >_ 24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A
Page 10 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D.S. Macleod
F < 24 kmh (15.0 mph) below LOS A
o A segment having a weighted posted speed limit of 72 kmh (45 mph) would then have
this criteria:
LOS
SPEED
A
>_ 74.9 kmh (46.5 mph)
B
>_ 70.0 kmh (43.5 mph)
C
>_ 65.2 kmh (40.5 mph)
D
>_ 60.4 kmh (37.5 mph)
E
>_ 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph)
F
< 50.7 kmh (31.5 mph)
o The LOS/Speed criteria for interrupted flow segments (marathon and Stock
Island) are based directly on a Class I arterial from Table 11-1 of the HCM.
LOS
SPEED
A
>_ 56.4 kmh (35 mph)
B
>_ 45.1 kmh (28 mph)
C
>_ 35.4 kmh (22 mph)
D
>_ 27.4 kmh (17 mph)
E
>_ 20.9 kmh (13 mph)
F
< 20.9 kmh (13 mph)
Speed data from both the overall length of US-1 and the individual segments were compared
against the applicable LOS/speed thresholds. This provided for an assessment of the facility
LOS plus an indication of reserve speed, if any.
Under Florida's and Monroe County's growth management process if the overall LOS for
US-1 fell below the LOS C standard, then no additional land development would be allowed
to proceed in the Florida Keys. Unless the proposed new development traffic impact were
mitigated. If the overall LOS for US-1 was C or better, then additional development could take
place in those segments where there was reserve speed available (i.e., segment's speed was
higher than the standard threshold).
Besides meeting highway LOS standards there are numerous other considerations in Florida's
growth management process pertaining to the Florida Keys that are beyond the scope of
Page 11 of 12
R.E. De Arazoza
D. S. MaCleod
this paper. As mentioned in the introduction, the purpose of this study was to present the
methodology to assess LOS on US-1.
Page 12 of 12
Liz Yongue
From: Hunt-Kacey <Hunt-Kacey@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 10:35 AM
To: Liz Yongue
Subject: FW: SSPOA Comments on the Recommendations of the US 1 Level of Service Task
Force
Good morning, Liz!
Here is an email for the record, regarding agenda item K3 for the upcoming BOCC Meeting on 2/18/26.
Thankyou,
Lacey Hunt, Executive Assistant
Michelle Lincoln
Mayor
Monroe County, District 2
7280 Overseas Hwy, #2
Marathon, FL 33050
Courier Stop#14A
(305) 292-4512
Monroe County, Florida
"The Florida Keys"
PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE COUNTY
REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL
COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
From: Stuart<sfschaffer@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 12, 2026 10:25 AM
To: Cates-Craig<Cates-Craig@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS2<boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>; BOCCDIS3
<BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS4<BOCCDIS4@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS5
<BOCCDIS5@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>
Cc: Schemper-Emily<Schemper-Emily@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>;Tolpin-Devin <Tolpin-Devin@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Subject: SSPOA Comments on the Recommendations of the US 1 Level of Service Task Force
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County. Whether you know the sender or not, do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
1
This note contains comments of the Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association (SSPOA) on agenda
item K3 for the February 18 BOCC meeting, which contains the recommendations of the US 1 Level of
Service Task Force for updating the Level of Service (LOS) methodologies.
1. Measurement Period
The Task Force is recommending a 6-week window for traffic speed measurements, beginning the third
week in February and ending the fourth week in March, but that in case of an "unforeseen situation," the
window may be extended by County staff in its discretion to as late as the second week in April.
SSPOA supports a strict 6-week measurement window. We oppose allowing staff the discretion to
extend the measurement window beyond this 6-week period. This is exactly the situation that arose in
2025 which resulted in measurements being taken at a later time when traffic on the highway was
thinning out as we exited the peak season.
However, if you decide to allow an extension of the 6-week measurement window in certain cases, we
propose the following requirements:
1. The situations in which an extension is permitted should be more clearly specified. For example,
the ability to extend should be limited to the occurrence of a natural disaster or Act of God event(such as
the 2025 wildfires). The LOS methodology should explicitly state that the measurement period should
not be allowed to be extended due to the consultant's scheduling issues.
2. If the 6-week measurement window is extended, the testing results should be adjusted to account
for differences in average traffic volumes between the 6-week measurement period and the actual
measurement dates. The County's traffic consultant has confirmed that such an adjustment can be
made based on average traffic measurements by FDOT from previous years.
2. Construction Delays
The Task Force is recommending that the LOS methodology continue to exclude substantial construction
delays from the calculations in determining both individual segment grades and the overall highway
grade.
The County's traffic consultant has stated that the reasons why most Florida jurisdictions exclude
substantial construction delays from their speed measurements are that(i) such delays are considered
nonrecurring events and (ii)there are usually alternative routes that may be taken by drivers to avoid
such delays. This rationale does not apply to the Keys. We experience substantial construction delays
somewhere on the highway nearly all the time, and, because of the water pipeline reconstruction
project, this situation will continue for decades.Also, unlike other Florida jurisdictions, US 1 is the only
road that can be used to exit the Keys.
We understand the rationale for excluding substantial construction delays in performing individual
segment calculations—that the situation likely will not continue for a long time in the particular
segment and thus should be considered nonrecurring from the standpoint of each individual
segment. However, construction delays should not be excluded in calculating overall highway speeds
because construction projects (such as the water pipeline project) are an everyday occurrence
somewhere on the highway—a part of the Keys way of life—and thus should be considered a recurring
2
event for the highway as a whole. The County's traffic consultant has confirmed that it is feasible to
exclude construction delays from measuring average speeds for individual segments while including
construction delays in measuring speeds on the overall highway.
For these reasons, we urge you to require that all construction delays be included in determining average
speeds over the overall highway.
Respectfully submitted:
Stuart Schaffer, on behalf of the
Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association
3
Liz Yongue
From: Hunt-Kacey <Hunt-Kacey@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:13 PM
To: Liz Yongue
Subject: FW: Agenda Item K3 US 1 Level of Service Task Force Recommendation
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Liz,
Here is an email for the record on agenda item K3 for the upcoming BOCC meeting on 2/18/26.
Thankyou,
Lacey Hunt, Executive Assistant
Michelle Lincoln
Mayor
Monroe County, District 2
7280 Overseas Hwy, #2
Marathon, FL 33050
Courier Stop#14A
(305) 292-4512
Monroe County, Florida
"The Florida Keys"
PLEASE NOTE: FLORIDA HAS A VERY BROAD RECORDS LAW. MOST WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS TO OR FROM THE COUNTY
REGARDING COUNTY BUSINESS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND MEDIA UPON REQUEST. YOUR EMAIL
COMMUNICATION MAY BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.
From: Edith Primavera <emprimavera@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:10 PM
To: Cates-Craig<Cates-Craig@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS2<boccdis2@monroecounty-fl.gov>; BOCCDIS3
<BOCCDIS3@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; 130CCDIS4<BOCCDIS4@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>; BOCCDIS5
<BOCCDIS5@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>
Cc: Schemper-Emily<Schemper-Emily@ Mon roeCounty-FL.Gov>;Tolpin-Devin <Tolpin-Devin@MonroeCounty-FL.Gov>;
Me Gmail <emprimavera@gmail.com>
Subject: Re:Agenda Item K3 US 1 Level of Service Task Force Recommendation
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County. Whether you know the sender or not, do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
1
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
Thank you to your staff for allowing public participation in their task force meetings. Unfortunately, I will not be present
at the BOCC to address this important issue in person.
Regarding Construction Delays, my position remains that these delays must be included in the overall LOS on US 1. The
intent of the traffic study, mandated in the Comp Plan, is to provide meaningful data for decision-making. Without
complete information, the report falls short.
I appreciate the complexity of the consultant's report, as our Key's US 1 highway is unique. After spending many hours
researching other counties' approach to level of service, I found a commonality;their approach to addressing
construction delays was to ensure that their Department of Transportation had plans for highways DETOURS. We have
no options for detours, except perhaps for minor bike path lanes and off highway neighborhoods. We have accepted this
as a way of life here and add the ongoing construction delays into our travel time for medical provider appointments,
airport check in, etc.
To remove ongoing construction delays from the overall highway level of service sanitizes the output. The results are
not based upon reality. Ongoing construction projects cause congestion to shift rather than disappear. Each phase of a
project can impact different locations, underscoring the importance of comprehensive reporting to include construction
delays to capture the overall effects on community mobility.
At the final task force meeting, the consultant did state that it was possible to exclude construction delays from
individual segments performance while including construction delays in the overall highway speed performance.
For that reason, I respectfully ask that construction delays be included in the overall LOS performance on US 1.
Thank you for your consideration,
Edie Primavera
Ramrod Key
2