Resolution 295-1995
RESOLUTION NO. 295-1995
'-
:- )
u
\0
~
~
~E~~, the Florida Keys contain the only living coral reef in the continental United
-
c:r: N ... '-
~$tates~ wel1a~rnany environmentally sensitive lands and nearshore waters, several of which
D ~ . ': -~ t'J:::
~ve ~n d;Sig~ted as federal and state conservation lands, including, but not limited to,
u_
Everglades National Park, Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Great White Heron
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE STATE OF FLORIDA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT) TO DESIGN
AND ANALYZE EXPANSION OF U.S. HIGHWAY ONE
BETWEEN KEY LARGO AND MAINLAND FLORIDA
LIMITED TO THREE (3) LANES AND TO REVIEW TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS UTILIZING THE EXISTING TWO
(2.) LANES AS PROPOSED IN THE FLORIDA BA Y
INfTIA TIVE STUDY.
c'
u'.
National Wildlife Refuge, National Key Deer Refuge, Key West National Refuge, Looe Key
National Marine Sanctuary, John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, Biscayne Bay - Card Sound
State Aquatic Preserve, Coupon Bight State Aquatic Preserve, and the North Key Largo
Hammock CARL Project; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Keys have been designated an Area of Critical State Concern
and the various governmental agencies and entities recognize that intergovernmental coordination
is necessary and essential to preserving the fragile ecology of the Florida Keys while maintaining
the area's viability; and
WHEREAS, the proposed expansion of U.S. Highway One between Key Largo and
mainland Florida will reduce clearance times in the event of a hurricane evacuation and improve
traffic safety; and
WHEREAS, the hurricane evacuation objective being served by the proposed Highway
expansion is jeopardized by the continued dependence on drawbridges (bascule) at Jewfish Creek
and Snake Creek, which should be replaced with fixed-span bridges; and
WHEREAS, the proposed expansion of U.S. Highway One may increase the volume of
visitors utilizing the limited infrastructure and fragile economy of the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, the increased volume of visitors which may be associated with the proposed
U.S. Highway One expansion may create secondary impacts on the environment and quality of
life in the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County considered the issue
of the proposed expansion of U.S. Highway One between Key Largo and mainland Florida on
May 17, 1995 and adopted Resolution No. 196 which requests the Army Corps of Engineers and
the South Florida Water Management District to condition any permit issued to the State of
Florida DOT for expansion of U.S. Highway One upon measures which would:
(1) establish a substantial toll to be levied on non-resident users of U.S. Highway One
entering the Florida Keys;
(2) fund and implement throughout Monroe County a modem sewage treatment system;
(3) fund Florida Keys local law enforcement activities associated with traffic on, and
response to criminal activities by persons utilizing, U.S Highway One;
(4) fund and implement an expanded land-acquisition program to purchase lands
unbuildable under the Rate of Growth Ordinance;
(5) replace the Snake Creek [and Jewfish Creek] bridge[s] with high-rise, fixed-span
bridge[ s]; and
(6) fund a carrying capacity study to quantify the sustainable human impacts on the
environment of the Florida Keys; and
WHEREAS, other state and federal regulatory agencies have also recognized the need
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any secondary impacts which may be associated with the
proposed expansion of U.S. Highway One; and
2
WHEREAS, Monroe County, desires that DOT conduct conceptual design and analysis
of the "three - lane alternative" described below; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Bay Initiative, Inc. has submitted a report to Monroe County
entitled "SR - 5/US - 1 SOUTH: Key Largo to Card Sound Road Proposed Widening Review"
by Ray Liberti at Zook, Moore and Associates, Inc., dated August 9, 1995 ("Florida Bay
Initiative Study"); and
WHEREAS, the Florida Bay Initiative Study proposes that by routing southbound traffic
to improved Card Sound Road and converting the existing 18 mile stretch to northbound traffic
only, 2 northbound lanes can be provided without widening U.S. Highway One to 3 or 4 lanes;
and
WHEREAS, the viability of the "2-lane" option recently proposed by the Florida Bay
Initiative has not yet been analyzed by the Florida Department of Transportation or Monroe
County Staff;
NOW THEREFORE it is RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County requests:
(1) that the State of Florida, Department of Transportation (DOT) conduct conceptual
design and analysis of an expansion of U.S. Highway One to three (3) lanes between Key Largo
and mainland Florida and prepare plans to construct three lanes within the same footprint as the
currently proposed four-lane project, as follows:
(a) two northbound lanes as currently designed; and
(b) one southbound paved lane, with an 8- foot paved shoulder capable of future
conversion to a fourth lane; and
(c) that any such widening of U.S. Highway One be contingent upon agency
3
approval of a Statement of Agency Commitments to be submitted to DOT within 30 days from
the date hereof; and
(2) that both DOT and Monroe County Staff review and analyze the feasibility of traffic
management options contained in the Florida Bay Initiative Study, attached hereto as Exhibit A,
to determine whether these options would meet traffic safety and hurricane evacuation
requirements, and DOT's statutory mandates, and that those findings be reported to the Board
of County Commissioners as soon as is feasible.
(3) that the DOT request both permitting agencies (Army Corps of Engineers and South
Florida Water Management District) to hold DOT's current applications in abeyance pending
completion of the actions referenced above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting of the Board held on the 15THday of AUGUST ,1995, A.D.
Mayor Freeman
Mayor Pro-tern London
Commissioner Harvey
Commissioner Douglass
Commissioner Reich
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
:::M~~
MA Y CHAIRMAN
(SEAL)
A TrEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
i1o..L....-L c. ~ IJ ~
,
DEPUTY CLERK
4
SR-S/US-l SOUTH
KEY LARGO TO CARD SOUND ROAD
PROPOSED WIDENING REVIEW
\
I .
BY:
RAY LIBERTI
, ." ,&
ZOOK, MOORE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
August 9, 1995
FOR FLORIDA BAY INITIATIVE, INC.
EXHIBIT It
.;'
ZOOK, MOORE
AND ASSOCIATES. INC
901 Norlhpoinl Parkway, Suite 200
West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 407683-4017
pn
ENGINEERS f PLANNERS
August ,10, 1995
4491T.00
James Harvey, Executive VP
Florida Bay Initiative, Inc.
Florida Government Relations
250 Australian Avenue South
Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Re: U.S. 1 - Key Largo
Dear Mr. Harvey:
Enclosed is a combined review of the proposed widening of U.S. 1 from Key Largo to
Card Sound Road. This is a combined review by Ray Liberti and Zook, Moore and Associates,
Inc.. Mr Liberti concentrated on the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan aspects while our
efforts concentrated on the transportation information included in the FDOT Technical
Memorandum.
Please contact me if you should have and questions or comments.
Very truly yours,
ZOOK, MOORE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
JMD/grb
Enclosure
. .
..,. .MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REVIEW
BY...
'I .. I '., .
RAY LIBERTI
. 'I .
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
U. s. 1 - KEY LARGO
INTRODUCTION
0" .... . t . II .
, The Monroe County Commisslon adopted a Comprehensive Plan on
April 15, 1993. The ,lan reviews ~he exi8~in9 and tu~ure
infrastructure needs pred~cated upon an intentionally planned low
growth rate. This synopsis has selected highlights of the Monroe
County Comprehensive Plan that will convey. the direction and
desired character of the county that the local officials adopted.
This indicator 'will therefore, be a snapshot of their plan.
FORMAT
The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is easily researohed dUe
1:ho ~he forma~ and, 8ubjeClt orient.ed volumes. One of t.he moet
important ingredients is the policy and objeotive section. These
sections are telling. in their development qf the community
character that the citizens desire.
Findings
\,
1. The current Level of Service for the studied 18 mile
section of U.S. 1 is at "B" and ~s predicted to reach "CD within
the next five y~ars. However, the Comp Plan has set a Level of
Service "0" as acceptable in Goal' 301. '
~. The .pia~ spe~ifically states ~hat the "environment is oUr
economy." There sh<;,uld not be any tampering with the environment
that makes Monroe County' unique and any major changes could
negatively impact their tourism industry.
3~ The Plan state the Monroe County ~should not allow for more
commercial development without justifying the need." The widening
of U.s. 1 will attract more cooonercial development.
4. The Plan calls for mixed use commercial development to have
no greater than a 0.10 to 0.45 floor area ratio. This extremely
low goal would not require road widening as proposed.
5. Comparatively, the residential policy has also called for
minimal development., This policy can be interpreted in the
following Comp Plan. policies:
a. The Plan acknowledges the overburdening potential of
~rowth ahd th~'plah supports considerations for ~
moratori,um.
b. There is. s ta ted a funding problem for growth even
under this limiting, Comp Plan. Elected officials
have placed independent letters stating this concern.
c. There are 2540 building permits anticipated over a ten
year period that would yi~ld only .1145 units.
d. Objective ff 101.4 calls for Monroe County to regulate
development in order to retain the character of the
Keys.
e. There are no .new transient dw~llings permitted until
September 1997.
f. 77 percent of households have only one or two
persons.
g. 34 per cent of the population of Monroe County are
not:. full tilt,e 2:'CII.id.tlt:..., And are out of the are..
during peak hurricane season.
II. 2.p~rcent.of households. have m~r~~han fo~r persons.
i. There has been some "upzoning" and also "downzonlng."
At,w~rst 1t appears .to.be a balance with no incre..e
in total' units. These zorting changes are not in
arehs that would effect traffic flow.
6. Objective 101.5 calls for:
1. Enoouraging redevelopment of blighted areas.
2. Maintain the present character of Monroe County.
3. Protect the natural resourpes.
4. Encourage a compact pattekn of development.
5. Encourage. development of affordable housing.
Hurricane Evacuation
The Plan 'haturally calls' f6r a'safe and efficient evacuation
program. The following represents highlights of the proposall
1. Hurricane evacuation goal is 12 to 16 hours.
2. Policy 101.2.9 adopted Card Sound Road as a hurricane
evacuation route. that will carry 40% of the northbound
vehicular traffic.
3. Policy 101.2.10 requires Monroe County to .1imit the number
of vehicles during a hurricane evacuation. This ITIay take
the form of limiting the ~ersons pe~ vehicle or any format
deemed appropriate by Monroe County. No RVs, trailers,
trucks permitted presently on U.S. 1 when the wind reaches
45 MPH.
Conclusion
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan for Monroe County is a
dooulnent that. i. sensitive t.o the environment, economy, and a
quality of life for the Keys. Monroe C~unty is so concerned about
overdevelopment that .there is a. thFee year program to develop a
discrepancy plan between the cities and the county, since the
county believes the cities are permitting overdevelopment.
" I
Understanding the undesirable consequences of overdevelopment
in t.he Keys" :the expansion of U _ S _ 1 J as proposed by t.he St.at.e
Department of Transpo~tation, constitutes improper planning_
Environmentally the widening would h~ve a negative effect Mbnroe
County's abi~ityto address abutting environmental problems. There
also has not be~n a plan developed for the water and electric lines
that would have to be moved.
Property development regulations cannot mitigate the negative
il1lpaot.s produoed by t.he widening of U _ s. 1. Therefore, t.he rat.e of
grow~h and its location would be the best insurance to a workable
evacuation plan. Combined with minimal improvements to u.s. 1 and
specific interiections and. utilizing southbound lanes for
evacuation, the present road system could meet the safe evacuation
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
. . "TRANSPORTATION
FACTS & FINDINGS-
~
BY
ZOOK, MOORE AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ . ',I
Introduction
The widening of U.S. 1 from Key Largo to Florida City is proposed by the
Florida Department of Transportation. Technical assistance was provided by Zook,
Moore and Associates in an effort to evaluate the need of widening U.S. 1 in the
proposed area. This report represents a preliminary "fact finding" data review of
available information that was found to be helpful in the effort.
The primary source of information used in this evaluation was the Florida
Department of Transpor~tion SR-5/US-l ~o~t~ Technical Memorandum dated May
1995. . This document discusses many issues related to the proposed widening of US 1
including safety, level of service, and passing zones. Our review of the memorandum
yielded three l;ireas of primary focus. " I
Summary of Findings
1. In August of 1991 the Monroe County Commission adop~ed a final
methodology for determining existIng levels of congestion and reserve Capacity
on US 1 'rithin the Colinty. This methodology is based on a comparison of
measured 'travel speeds against speed limits during peak: season conditions, and
was developed in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT), the Dep~rtment of Community Affairs (DCA), and a Monroe County
consultant.
The basis of the technique, according to the FDOT Technical Report, starts
with the measurement of average speed for 24 segments of tIs 1 beginning
approximately at MM 4 on Stock Island and ending in Florida City in Dade
County. The median non-directional trav~l speeds recorded during a peak six-
week portion of 1991 were determined by drivjng the entire length of the Keys
during midday periods when traffic counts indicated that the peak traffic
volume flows most typically occurred. The median measured travel speed was
then compared against the average posted speed for each segment.
In February 1991, the Monroe County Commission also adopted a policy to
raise the LOS standard for US 1 from LOS "D" to LOS "C". The level of
service "Cn speed criteria was set at a threshold value of 22 mph for
interrupted segments (only occurring in Marathon and on Stock Island) and a
threshold value of 4.5 mph below the posted speed limit on segments where
uninterrupted flow was assumed.
Based on the Monroe County Speed-based methodology for calculating LOS,
the DOT shows ~current LOS "B", and predicts LOS "c" to be reached
within the next 5 years if growth rates continue at 3.21 % per year. It is
important to note that under the Monroe County methodology traffic conditions
are acceptable unti'l they fall into'LOS "0". According to the Monroe'County
Zook, Moore & Associates, Inc.
2
methodology no pressing LOS constraints exist at the time that warrant
expansion of U. S. 1. In fact, it could be well past the year 2010 before
LOS constraints are reached on this section of U.S.
2. Table V-I in section 5.1 of the FDOT Technical Memorandum compares
accident rates for'the Monroe Couilty portlon of US 1" associated with the
existing Jewfish Creek Bascule Bridge with "State Average Rates." Monroe
County rates were calculated using the total number of accidents on this
particutir section 'of US 1 minus the rear 'end accidentS associated with the two
segments immediately adjacent to the bridge site. This was done to illustrate
the fact that if all rear end accidents (those attributable to the bridge opening)
were factored out, the Monroe County portion of US I would still exceed the
state accident rate from 1989 through 1993.
Additional research was conducted to determine the source of the state average
accident rates reported in Table V-I. The "Bureau of Statistics, FDOT,
Tallahass&, Florida" was listed as the source of the information provided but
telephone conversations with the FDOT indicated. that there :was no, "Bureau
of Statistics" but. rather referred us "to the FDOT Department of Transportation
Statistics. Gorda~ Morgan, with the Department of Transportation Statistics,
reported that the department only gathers data on statewide vehicle miles of
travel which an~ used in calculating- accident rateS. The Florida Department of
Highway Safety a"nd Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) was "said to be the source of
accident totals, also used in calculating accident rates.
. .
The DHSMV furnished us with their Traffic "Crash Facts Reports for 1989
through 1993 which we then used to calculate our own statewide accident
rates. The statewide rates calculated using DHSMV statewide VMT and
accident totals yielded higher statewide accident rates than were reported by
the state
(See Table 1).
Zook, Moore & Associates, Inc.
3
TABLE 1 Comparison of Statewide Accident Rat~s
, ,;
Vehicle State
Miles in Total Accident Total Accident Reported
Year Millions Crashes * Rate Accidents ** Rate Accident
Rate
_.
1989 108,876 252,439 2.32 183,137 1.68 1.203
1990 109,997 216,245 1.97 157,953 1.44 0.842
1991 113,484 195,312 1.72 142,189 1.25 0.756
1992 114,000 196,176 1.72 144,415 .1.27 0.721
1993 119.,768 199,C;>39 1.66. . 151,~18 1.26 0.692.
... Total Crashes includes all vehicles involved in an accident.
...... Total Accidents refer only to the first two vehicles involved in the an accident.
\,
It was'.first tho~ght that the lower rates may have been calculated based on
VMT's for 2- and 4-1ane highways rather than all public roads within the state.
Gordan Morgan mentioned, however, that F DOT does not separate VMT's
into 2- and 4-lane highway categories, but groups all classifications together.
He did mention that it is possible to determine VMT'-s for 2-and 4-lane state
highways via detailed computer programming ~ut that it was not possible for
all public roads within the state.
Based on this information it appears that this section of US 1 does not exceed
statewide accident rates for all five years, 1989 through 1993.
Wideninglreplacement of the bascule bridge structure~ additional passing
zones, and minimal geometric improvements (shoulders, rumble strips,
RRPM's) could result in significant safety improvements that would result in
yet lower accident rates, possibly reaching as much as a 40 percent reduction
in the Monroe County section.
3. The issue of adequate passing zones was also addressed by FDOT in the
Technical Memorandum. Currently there are two four-lane undivided passing
zone sections of U.S. I in Dade County (See Figure 1), each of which is
approximately one mile in length. In addition to these two sections, the DOT
makes mention of twelve others that have geometric and operational conditions
Zook, Moore & Associates, Inc.
4
" I
favorable to additional passing zones. . Four of these sections (6, 8, 9, 10) are
located within Monroe County 9J)d make up a total of 3.2 miles of highway
(Section 6: 1.416 mi., Sections 8-10: 1.796 mi.).
From 1989 to 1993, eight head-on 'accidents occurred on the Monroe County
section of US .1. Of these eight, two occurred within section six and one
occurred within sections 8-10. This represents 37.5 % of all head-on accidents
in the Monroe County portion of US 1. Additional accidents on these sections
can also be attributed to the current two-lane configuration.
The i985 and 1994 editions of the High~ay Capacity Manual make mention of
these short four-lane sections. They discuss how short sections may be
constructed along a primary two-lane highway to break up platoons, to provide
the desired frequency of safe passing zones, and to eliminate interference from
low~speed vehicles. It is mentioned that AASHTO suggests that these sections
be long 'enough to' permit several vehicles' in line behind a slow-moving vehicle
'to pass before reaching the normal section of two-lane highway. Therefore,
they state that four-lane sections of 1.0 to 1.5 miles should be sufficiently long
to dissipafe most queues formed. Section 6 of US 1 is 1.416 miles in length
while sections 8-10 are 1.796 miles in length.
. ,
It is for this reaso'n that the widening of these sections to include passing zones
is an option that should be addresse4.
4. The current hurricane evacuation time according to the May 12, 1995
Monroe County Memorandum is 23 hours. A significant reduction down to
17.0 hours can be established with some modifications. One of these
modifications includes 2 northbound lanes on"U.S. 1 from M.M. 106 to
Florida City. By routing southbourid traffic to .improved Card Sound Road
and converting the existing 18 mile stretch of U.S. 1 to northbound traffic
only, these 2 northbound lanes can be provided without the widening of U.S. 1
to 3 or 4 lanes. All hurricane evacuation times assUQ'le a diversion of up to 40
percent to improved Card Sound Road from U.S. 1. This diversion to Card
Sound Road is not addressed in the May 1995 FDOT Technicial
Memorandum.
., I
Zook, Moore & Associates, Inc.
5
Conclusion
Based 011 the preceeding observations, LOS and safety constraints seem to be
less pressing that originally identified. The addition of four-lane passing zones within
Monroe County may prove to be a viable 'alternative to widening the entire section
which, when done in conjunction with replacing the Jewfish Creek Bascule Bridge
structure and implementing other operational improvements (Le. shoulders, rumble
strips, etc...), could result in U.S. 1 operating at a safer and more efficient level than
currently exists without widening to 4 lanes.
1. Given the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the growth associated with
that plan, LOS on U.S. 1 north from Key Largo should continue to operate under
threshold levels until the year 2010 and later.
2. Accident rates (with the exception of Jewflsh Cr~k Bridge) have fallen on
U.S. 1 'in this area since 1984. These rates continue to below state averages and with
the improvement of the Jewfish Creek Bridge, the addition of passing zone(s)and
improvement at/near the Card Sound Road intersection and U.S. 1, the total number
of accidents could be reduced by as much as ~ in the Monroe County section of
U.S. 1 north of M.M. 106.
3. Hurricane evacuation times can be lowered to 17.0 hours without the widening
of U.S. 1 to 3 or 4 lanes. '
" I
Zook, Moore & Associates, Inc,
6
a
<(
Z ~
o a
~ N !5
~ ~ ~
o I 0
a..o$
II)gu
~ co ~
t g ~
o ld 3
I-' d f;j
~ g: ~
a 0
.11 c:
g ~ ~
a: en ~
3 ~
11. ~
en
..-.........-.--.. ~
C\lrJ
o
I--
()
~
..,
o
~
~
lJ
o
(I)
ffi ~
:E 0
w :::
> r.i ~ z
o z %! 0
a: 0 0 i=:
D.~~G ~
Z~~el~~~
~ ~ ~o c ~
_ . 0 pN t;
c( ~ g'~ 2 l!lol:i
~ B g~ ~ g:
~, 10 M@
I
\.............
....
....
\.
\
'.
\.....,.
'"
to
I
<0$
\\
~
1Il
" ,
FIGURE 1
d
z
W
0::
=>
C)
11.
N
I
~
~.
::.
C/)
z
,,8
~
.r.L1
8
C/)
z
o
u
~
o
N
CJ
~
(/)
(/)
~
~
f
..v
J:
f-
Z
o
~
>-
(I) <0
o
U),--
f-~
z~
10 ::::> ~
: og
... 0 0:
5, <(
u: W--1
(9)-
<{W
a:~
w
~
,--
I
U)
::>
-
/
:((
\ \
. \
~
:k ",1
i.. ':'
I
r
\\
dJ \
/ . /
j /
5/.-
/.
/
/
// .
/
\\
\
---
,
\ J
1
. I
j 'j
\
'\ '
. ,
\ ,
*~
//
I
..~A:
,/ \
,: . I
/
: \
! \
f \
[lJ \
\ '.
\
I
\
If.
,
.
G
/
. ,
,
/.
en
-0
C'
~I
01
'=1
____ I " ,
I '.'" .
b I . "\., ':',"".' '
<( , "'." '-, .
L-_-.-!__~_____L____--':-:~::.___,----_~ -~';___-L_
m ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~
N N N 'N' N ~ ~
u
Q.)
o
>
1 ~
'll OU
!
.
J a.
o <V
(f)
0>
:J
<(
:J
-,
c:
:J
-,
>.
(Ij
~
L-
a.
<(
L-
C'd
~
.a
- <V
LL
c
('Ij
~J
r-
.c
......
c
o
~
i
jJ
>.
C'd
-0
C
::J
(f)
+
>.
('Ij
-0
L-
::J
........
C'd
(f)
+
>.
C'd
-0
~
Q)
Q.)
3:
!
I
0)
co
0)
.-
-
"<t
(!)
.-
:tt:
c
o
.....
ro
(/)
I-
o
o
LL
.-
ill
o
L.-
:J
o
(/)
I
" I
Figure 4.2
US-1 USER PROFilE
MARCH - APRIL. 1905
Permanenl Reo/donto
64%
,
\
Source, P8SJ. 1990.
Tour/ata
26%
Other
2%
SeBoonai Reo/dents
8%
Figure 4.3
US-1 AVERAGE TRIP LENGTHS
MARCH - APRIL. 19.e5
Trip Length (mile8)
::r
35 i
15
30 -
25-
20 -
10
5
o
Tourle 1.
OUa,
Source, pnSJ, 199o.
---_._-----.._~~-----_._--
..
9...onel n.. Perm.n.nt "..
., .
All V..r.