HomeMy WebLinkAboutSection 03 - Mass Transit ST. LIICI E COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT
, Prepared by:
St. Lucie County
Board of County Commissioners
St. Lucie County
Department of Community Development
January 9, 1990 MASS TRANSIT
MASS TR.ANSIT ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCTI ON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 1
EXS STI NG TRANSI T SERVI CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 2
EXI STI NG NEEDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 4
FUTURE TRANSIT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 8
POTENTIAL FOR MASS TRANSIT SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 8
THOROUGHFARE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 13
LEVEL OF SERVI CE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 13
HI GH SPEED RAI L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 15
GOALS, OBJECTI VES, AND POLI CI ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 17
LI ST OF FI GURES
Figure Paae
3- 1 Existing Council on Aging Service Areas. 3- 3
3- 2 Existing Transit Trip Generators & Attractors. 3- 5
3- 3 Future (Year 2010) Transit Trip Generators
& Attractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 11
3 - 4 Transit Corridor Plan - Year 2000 . . . . . . . . 3 - 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paae
3 - 1 Existing Trip Generators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 6
3 - 2 Existing Trip Attractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 7
3 - 3 Future Transit Trip Generators . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 9
3 - 4 Future Transit Trip Attractors . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 10
3- 5 St. Lucie County Profile Data - 1986 3- 12
i
MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
INTRODIICTIOH
Rule 9J5. 008, F. A. C. , requires that all local communities with a
population in excess of 50,000 persons address the needs for Mass
Transit within that community. St. Lucie County's current
population is estimated to be 135,715 (April, 1988). For the
purpose of this Element, and as further identified in Table 3-5,
a base year population of 124,296 (April, 1986) has been
utilized.
The number of 124,296 which includes the population of the entire
County in the base count April, 1986, was selected as base
population for the Mass Transit and Traffic Circulation
Elements, as the ma~ority of trips crosses municipality lines
within the County. Trips generated by the population are
also adjusted for aeasonal influence with adjustment
factors as provided by the Florida DOT for St. Lucie County.
St. Lucie County currently does not directly operate any form of
public mass transit. Aside from limited para-transit services
provided by the St. Lucie County Council on Aging (the FDOT/UMTA
designated Coordinated Community Transportation Provider) and
several other privately operated on-demand transit services,
there are no forms of public or semi-public transit available to
the community. At present, there are no immediate prospects of
St. Lucie County, or any other governmental agency within the
County of either establishing or operating a community-wide mass
transit system. This position is expected to hold for at least
the the current five year capital facility planning period.
Typical of most young and transitioning counties, the primary
reason that no centralized mass transit system has yet developed
is the low overall population density. In April, 1986, the total
County population was determined to be 124,296. The population of
the Ft. Pierce/Pt. St. Lucie urban area was estimated at about
120,000. With the urban area comprising approximately 150 square
miles, the urban population density is about 1. 2 persons per
acre. Since the population density for the remainder of the
County is significantly less than .1 person per acre, all
further attention in this element will be towards the needs of
January 9, 1990 3- 1 MASS TRANSIT
the urban area only.
It is recognized that as the County continues to grow there will
likely be a population density high enough to support the
establishment and operation of a community-wide mass transit
system. This is particularly true for the areas in and around Ft.
Pierce and the East/Central (Prima Vista/Port St. Lucie
Boulevard) areas of the City of Port St. Lucie. It is also very
conceivable that a community-wide mass transit system would
provide for greater inter-county mobility if the urban areas of
Northern Martin and Southern Indian River County's were
included. Including these areas in any transit service network
would recognize the strong, and continually growing, econoinic
ties between the three Counties.
BSISTING TRANSIT SRRVIC$
The St. Lucie County Council on Aging (COA) provides a demand
responsive transportation service to the transportation
disadvantaged population group of St. Lucie County. Specific
service areas, all of which lie east of the Turnpike, have been
delineated for service for each day and time of day. For
example, on Monday morning the COA provides service to the area
bounded by Midway Road, Prima Vista Boulevard, Oleander Avenue
and Indian River Drive; on Monday afternoon service is provided
to the area south of Prima Vista Boulevard and north of Port St.
Lucie Boulevard between U.S. #1 and Airoso Boulevard. The
individual areas are shown on Figure 3-1. The areas indicated
are generalized service areas and a degree of overlap exists.
The COA operates four (4) vans each day. Reimbursement by users
is strictly on a donation basis. The COA receives Section 3(b)
funding (Older American Act) and Section 18 (Small Urban and
Rural Transit) funding from the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration (UMTA) to support their operation. One van is
equipped with a wheelchair lift with a wheelchair lift and is
available on a daily basis to serve the special medical needs of
clients. Two vans are available for trips to any one of five
special meal sites: 17th Street Circle, Helping Hands, White
City, Port St. Lucie, and the COA. The remaining van operates to
bring clients to the Ft. Pierce area to satisfy their shopping
needs. In the outlying areas of the County, a minimum of three
passengers is required for shopping transportation services to be
provided.
Ridership counts are totaled monthly and are tabulated on a
one-way basis. A count of 200 trips therefore represents 100
round trips. Trip destinations vary with clients and service
areas, but the most common destinations are hospital, medical
clinics and offices, adult day care services and shopping
services. The monthly ridership counts (one way) for the last
calendar year are listed below:
January 9, 1990 3- 2 MASS TRANSIT
1 1 1 1 A A Y E A 6 0 tl ~ T I 1
P 7 E A 3A F A]9 P 1~ E
~ , EXISTING
( ' COUNCIL ON AGING
a
' SERUICE AREAS
_ ~ o
~ ~ ~ THURSDAY A. M.
~ ~ _ UD. ~ ,
= 1 ~J 8~ THURSDAY P. M.
I 1/~
~ WEDNESDAY
~
a ~ ~
_ _ , ~
° TUESDAY P.M.
~ ~
~
I
I z
m ~ ~
I '
r ~ ~ FRIDAY
• I ~
TUESDAY A.M.
~ ~ ~ S MaNDAY A. M.
~
~
~ n ~ MONDAY P. M.
: ~i o ~
. , ~ r
Yj
~
, ~ ; 9
~ ~ ~
A II E
1
F I~ T$ .
I ~
i s~~~~ ~NJ(~~f~ (~ON~~~~(
+ " 6lORIDA
I , I
~ - FIGURE 3-1
A]i E A 3B f A 39 E A 1 E
Y A e t t N c o u ~ r r
page 3 - 3
November 1988: 2, 224 May 1989: 2, 509
December 1988: 2, 399 June 1989: 2, 272
January 1989: 2, 292 July 1989: 1, 934
February 1989: 2, 176 August 1989: 2, 095
March 1989: 2, 358 September 1989: 1, 681
April 1989: 1, 053 October 1989: 2, p97
The points of most frequent trip generation and attraction are
shown on Figure 3-2 and Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Generators and
attractors presently served by the COA are marked with an
asterisk The other areas indicate existing expansion
possibilities for the COA services.
~ STING NS$DS
Other than the para-transit services provided by the COA, there
is no existing traneit service in St. Lucie County. Since the
COA only identifies service areas on a demand-responsive basis,
no specific transit routes have been identified. Quantifying
additional existing demand will require compiling detailed and
accurate socio-economic data by preselected geographic area.
Rapid growth in St. Lucie County since the 1980 Census has led to
the current situation in which the Census data are inadequate as
a basis for updated demographic estimates. The 1980 Census also
does not provide data for geographic areas as would be necessary
for a transit demand and needs analysis. The transit development
study as described below under "Potential for Mass Transit
Services" will provide the needed data.
A qualitative assessment of the transportation services by the
Council on Aging shows that they serve a need in the population.
The system, however, offers little flexibility: trips must be
scheduled in advance, areas are only served once a week, and no
service is provided in the evenings or on weekends. The COA has
indicated that the requests for services go beyond their
capability to serve. In 1983, shopping services were provided
twice a week for each area. Funding cuts caused the trips to be
reduced to once a week.
No specific data or information has been collected in the past to
determine whether a demand for transit service other than para-
transit exists in the County. Only recently have some areas in
the County started to show a trend toward more dense and
continuous development with the characteristic traffic problems
and therefore sparked an interest in the possibility of
introducing a transit service to St. Lucie County in the future.
January 9, 1990 3- 4 MASS TRANSIT
I N D I A N A ~ 1 E A ~ 0 Y A T 1 ~
e;t E e z~~ a~s [ ~ R~a [
( , ~ MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT~
~e ~ EXISTING TRANSIT
I t ~ • ~ oo ~ b
~ TRIP GENERATORS
. ; ~ ~ ~6 AND AITRACTORS
~ ~ ~
~ ( ~ ' Uv 9
e I tl
e ~ ~ ~
~ ~
i rp~r nua
e
P a~ v~i
I ~ -I i
A-10
i ~.15 G-4
~ 3
I, ~ a„ o Z A- A~ LEGEND
„ ~ ~ A-3 0
p ~a A_ ¦ ~ GENERATOR
fi ? 4
' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a A-~ AITRACTOP,
~ ~ ~ -
~
W I 9 2
tl I ~ n a
~ I d
° ~'I~
a ~ 'y^
~ V G-12 A-17
u ~
u e I :w. ~-n
~ a P
~ . ~ r
~ ~ ~ 6 I ~ 8 G
Y I G-13
I `~u
e I G'14 „ P
f G IS ~
i A-7
1 ~
I fi; ~ A1
1
I ~'tr
1
G~IB
P. 11 E
.n ~.i1
N I
A I= i S. lUC1E
~ A-IB s. {~lf
I q I V~ • ~~V U~ VOVIIU~ II .
F ~ ~1 Y~ ,O4e9~~ \ II,, IIII,, IIII~~1~ 1'
i ~9 i 6L~~HD~
~ ~
~-n
A
~.E ...-~A 39 E R ~ E
- FIGURE 3-2
A Si E
~ A A T ~ p L 0 U M Y 1
page 3 - 5
TABLE 3 - 1
EXI STI NG TRI P GENERATORS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Generator Map (Figure 3 - 2)
Symbol
* Ft. Pierce (north of Orange Ave) G-1
* Ft. Pierce (south of Okeechobee Rd) G-2
* Ft. Pierce (btwn Orange and Okeechobee) G-3
* Seaway Drive Corridor G-4
* South Ocean Drive Corridor G-5
* St. Lucie Village G-6
* Lakewood Park G-7
* Spanish Lakes G-8
Gator Trace PUD G-9
* White City G-10
* Port St. Lucie (north of Prima Vista Blvd) G-11
* Port St. Lucie Convalescent Home G-12
Savannah Club PUD G-13
* Port St. Lucie {south of Prima Vista Blvd) G-14
Port St. Lucie (south of Juliet Ave) G-15
Port St. Lucie (south of C-24 Canal, east of Turnpike) G-16
Port St. Lucie (south of C-24 Canal, west of Turnpike) G-17
Rivergate G-18
North Beaches (Ft. Pierce Shores) G-19
* part of Council on Aging service areas
January 9, 1990 3- 6 MASS TRANSIT
TABLE 3 - 2
EXI STI NG TRI P ATTRACTORS
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
Attractor Map (Figure 3 - 2)
Symbol
* Sabal Palm Shopping Plaza (Ft. Pierce) A-1
Shoppes of Ft. Pierce (Ft. Pierce) A-2
Orange Blossom Mall (Ft. Pierce) A-3
Town Centre (Port St. Lucie) A-4
St. Lucie County International Airport A-5
Indian River Community College A-6
Village Green Shopping Center A-7
US #1 and Port St. Lucie Blvd Commercial Node A-8
Lawnwood Recreation Complex A-9
Beach A-10
Jai-Alai Fronton (Ft. Pierae) A-11
Government Complex (Port St. Lucie) A-12
Indian River Corridor (Cultural/Government) A-13
* Ft. Pierce Memorial Hospital A-14
* Health Department A-15
* Medical Center of Port St. Lucie A-16
FP&L St. Lucie Power Plant A-17
Commercial Node on SR 70 between I-95 and Turnpike A-18
Ft. Pierce Port Facility A-19
* part of existing Council on Aging service area
January 9, 1990 3- 7 MASS TRANSIT
FDTORE TR~NSI T SI~RVI CI~S
The MPO in coordination with the County has recognized the need
for an extensive transit study for St. Lucie County to establish
existing and future demand for transit and system needs based on
existing and future land use and population characteristics. As
a part of a transit planning study, a cost-benefit analysis
should be undertaken to determine the feasibility of providing
existing and future COA transit services on a more convenient
schedule and to determine the potential for expanding services.
Figure 3-2 and Table 3-1 show existing generators and
attractors, but only those marked with an asterisk are
presently served. The others indicate which areas should be
served should an expansion become feasible. Specifically lacking
from the current service list are education and entertainment
opportunities. Such an analysis should also determine whether
fixed transit routes should be established for the COA or other
potential transit services in addition to serving areas on a
demand responsive basis.
POTSN~.'lAL FOR I~SS TR~TSI T Sl3RVI CES
The potential for a community-wide mass transit service is
currently being explored by the MPO in coordination with the
County in a detailed transit development .study. The transit
development study will consist of two phases: phase I will
consist of a transit needs analysis, and phase II will consist of
a trans i t pl anni ng s tudy.
Since there is no existing transit system as well as no up-to-
date geographic specific data collection to determine propensity
for a transit system, phase I includes several tasks. Included
within this effort will be the following activities: identifying
the existing and pro~ected needs for transit in the County,
identifying the nature of those needs, and providing a data base
for transit planni.ng by compiling information on geographic and
socio-economic characteristics, travel patterns, travel needs,
and travel attitudes.
Phase II of the transit study includes the tasks of identifying
existing and future system needs based on land use and population
characteristics as determined in phase I and developing a 5-year
implementation plan for transit. Should specific transit routes
be identified during this phase, the transit study will also
determine the location of route specific transit stops to
maximize ridership and efficiency of the proposed system.
Tables 3-3 and 3-4 and Figure 3-3 show future trip generators
and attractors in the form of proposed major developments
which will significantly contribute to transit system demand and
needs in the County.
January 9, 1990 3- 8 MASS TRANSIT
TABLE 3 - 3
FUTURE TRANSIT TRIP GENER.ATORS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Generator Map (Figure 3 - 2)
Symbol
* Ft. Pierce (north of Orange Ave) FG-1
* Ft. Pierce (south of Okeechobee Rd) FG-2
* Ft. Pierce (between Orange and Okeechobee) FG-3
* Seaway Drive Corridor FG-4
* South Ocean Drive Corridor FG-5
* St. Lucie Village FG-6
* Lakewood Park FG-7
* Spanish Lakes FG-8
Gator Trace PUD FG-9
* White City FG-10
* Port St. Lucie (north of Prima Vista Blvd) FG-il
* Port St. Lucie Convalescent Home FG-12
Savannah Club PUD FG-13
* Port St. Lucie (south of Prima Vista Blvd) FG-14
Port St. Lucie (south of Juliet Ave) FG-15
Port St. Lucie (south of C-24 Canal, east of Turnpike) FG-16
Port St. Lucie (south of G24 Canal, west of Turnpike) FG-17
Rivergate FG-18
North Beaches (Ft. Pierce Shores) , FG-19
Sharrett DRI FG-20
St. Lucie West DRI FG-21
The Reserve DRI FG-22
St. Lucie County (south of Glades Cut-off Rd) FG-23
* part of existing Council on Aging service area
January 9, 1990 3- 9 MASS TRANSIT
TABLE 3 - 4
FUTURE TRANSIT TRIP ATTRACTORS
ST. LUCI E COUNTY
Attractor Map (Figure 3 - 2)
Symbol
* Sabal Palm Shopping Plaza (Ft. Pierce) FA-1
Shoppes of Ft. Pierce (Ft. Pierce} FA-2
Orange Blossom Mall (Ft. Pierce) FA-3
Town Centre (Port St. Lucie) FA-4
St. Lucie County International Airport FA-5
Indian River Community College FA-6
Village Green Shopping Center FA-7
US #1 and Port St. Lucie Blvd Commercial Node FA-8
Lawnwood Recreation Complex FA-9
Beach FA-10
Jai-Alai Fronton (Ft. Pierce) FA-11
Government Complex (Port St. Lucie) FA-12
Indian River Corridor (Cultural/Government) FA-13
* Ft. Pierce Memorial Hospital FA-14
* Health Department FA-15
* Medical Center of Port St. Lucie FA-16
FP&L St. Lucie Power Plant FA-17
Commercial Node on SR 70 between I-95 and Turnpike FA-18
Ft. Pierce Port Facility FA-19
St. Lucie West DRI FA-20
St. Lucie County Sports & Education Complex FA-21
* part of existing Council on Aging service area
January 9, 1990 3- 10 MASS TRANSIT
I 1 p I A A R f I E R C 0 ~ A 1 I `
p~+ E A:E F P 39 E A 10 E
~ - MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT~
~-8 ~
~ FllTURE (YEAR 2010) 1RANSIT
I ~ o °a
TRIP GENERATORS
, :I ~ ~ AND AIIRACIORS
` I ~ °~~a tt~ w .
_ ~ ^ e
. ~
' I -i
a j r ,B F~uit~~
~ ._!dl1... ' ~
i ~ ~
~ ~ ~ -I ~I
~ G"4 90
A-IS
G 3
A ~ LEGEND
. . i A~-II -2
A3 A1
+ ~ GENERATOR
~ A 18 6 s ~ ~
~ ~a ' ~ FUTURE GENERAIOR
~ ~ ' n-i T R
~ ~ . , ~ _ y AT RACTO
" I ~e a-~ FUTURE ATTRACTOR
a i ° ~ ~
o ~
• G-i0
a 1 S
FG-I A-17
G-17 ~
u ~
.
-
~ n ~ ° FG~2 ~ P
Y ~I ~ r
~ FA_Z F~~~ G~~II -i A-8 ~
6-13
/ FC ~
e I f G II ~ N
/ ~
G-75
A-7
1 C~, ~
I f e 'N A-4
~ t~
I
~ G-19 q ~I E
~ G-Il
~ ~
9 S . IUCIH
.I q
~ 78 s~ ~p pp
~ ' ~ay ~`~E''t~ ~U~~r~ ~oVa~~
' fflosdoa
~ ° ~
- R 39 F - R~ E FIGURE 3-3
- R
3, E - A
~-E
m A A T i p ~ o u e T r page 3- 11
Table 3-5 gives a general indication of population
characteristics and potential transit users in St. Lucie County:
T~BLE 3 - 5
ST. LUCIE COUNTY PROFILE DATA - 1986
percent of
whole
Total population 124, 296 100. 0~
Male 60, 408 48. 6~
Female 63, 888 51. 4~
Age 0- 14 25, 854 20. 8~
Age 15 - 24 17, 277 13. 9~
Age 25 - 44 32, 316 26. 0~
Age 45 - 65 26, 102 21. 0~
Age over 65 22, 746 18. 3~
Median Income $13,878 (1980 Census)
Number of passenger car tags 73,039
Dwelling uni.ts 57, 000 (est. )
Average car tags/unit 1.28
Source: 1987 Florida Statistical Abstract
St. Lucie County Dept. of Community Development
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Females who are not employed outside the house, lower income
households, homes without vehicles, school children, and the
elderly are population groups which have traditionally shown a
high potential to use transit. Table 3-5 shows that there is a
high percentage of elderly and school age children which would
indicate a potentially high demand for a transit system, but it ~
also shows that more than one car is available for each
household, which would indicate a low demand for transit
services. These issues will need to be reviewed in more detail
by geographic location to be true indicators of the potential
ridership of a transit system.
January 9, 1990 3- 12 MASS TRANSIT
Should a future transit need be identified, this document will be
updated within the plan amendment process to include a
description of the identified demand, needs and proposed service,
and to provide the required mapping showing service areas, ro~tes
and terminals.
THOROIIGHF'AR$ PLAN
An efficient and comprehensive Mass Transit service contributes
to the overall operation of the community's roadway network.
Communities that have existing transit operation divert some
percentage of automobile trips from the roads and experience
improved traffic flow to some degree.
The existing level of ridership handled by the COA in St. Lucie
County does not have an effect on the overall roadway facility
needs as identified in the Traffic Circulation Element of the St.
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The County will, however,
through its land development regulations, include provisions for
the design and construction of roadways to include analysis of
transit services, routes, HOV lanes, and park and ride
facilities. Based on the results from the MPO Transit Development
Study, the County's Thoroughfare Plan will be amended at that
time to show right-of-way needs for future transit routes and
stops.
The only proposed transit corridor presently is for the year 2000
planned High Speed Rail corridor and its station. The right-of-
way corridor for this route is shown on Figure 3-4, the Transit
Corridor Plan.
Identification and implementation of a future transit service
with connections to the proposed High Speed Rail system may play
an important role in alleviating traffic impacts in areas with
heavy congestion by attracting a higher share of ridership.
L$VSL OF SSRVIC$:
A quantifiable Level of Service (LOS) standard necessary to meet
the mass transit needs of the general population of St. Lucie
County cannot be established as a part of this Comprehensive
Plan. It is not possible to set such a"standard" since the
County neither operates any form of mass transit nor has it
conducted the necessary feasibility/demand reviews that would
provide the guidance to establish a measurable level of service.
Noting the absence of this material, it may inferred that the
existing level of service, which is effectively none, is adequate
to meet the present and near term (five years) transit demands of
the populace at large.
January 9, 1990 3- 13 MASS TRANSIT
a N e i A A p~ r¢ ~ c a u ~ r r ,
P y E _ p~ E _ A~ F R,p E 1RANSIT CORRIDOR PLAN
~ z • YEAR 2000
~ ~
I p'~
' " ~ c° PR~P~SE~
~ ° ST. LUCIE COUNIY
° r.I ~ p~ ALIGNMENT
t i ~ ~ B ~ 9 u~ .
P" HIGH-SPEED RAiL
i -
~
V ~ I ~mt ntau
fulµ ci5 n a 1Mff
D
ou
I ~ ~
~ ~ I I~ t
e
I ° IIERtF~r' ~
~i PR~P~SE~ ~ ~ ~ - !t ~
~ F1. PIERCE ~ ° ~ `
I °
~ STATT_ON ~ I_ ~
y I ° y 9
1 ~ ~ t Z
Y I ~ II
O
O ~ ~
~
6
~
Y ~
~ I Wlll. u
~
4 ~
YI ~ I ~ 'P
N ( , / ~ a m~
e ~ ~ I I
1 h
~ ~ ~ ~ t ~
i ~ ~ ~x
~p ~ A 11 [
T s ~uc~rt
n I ~
~ ~ ~ g dNJ(~~C~ (~O~~~d
~ ~ti, ~
~ ~ ~I ffLORHDA
~
~ ~ ~ ,5 ~
L._ q,a - - w,9 E w, t ~ F I GURE 3-4
A 37 f
N A A e e c o u M r r page 3- 14
As mentioned, in order to adequately define a quantifiable level
of service standard for the community, it must first be
determined what the extent of the demand is, the operational
efficiency of the system and the commitment from the County to
operate such a system. If this review indicates operation is not
feasible, then it should also provide guidance as to what
population and density thresholds may make such a system viable.
In reviewing the feasibility for such a system the following
guidelines should be used to assist in the creation of a level of
service standard:
Service Coverage - Total population and density within a
five (5) minute walking radius of a proposed transit
route
System Concept - Type of transit system and level of
transit serviae to minimize operational loss.
Servioe Characteristics - Hours and Days of operation,
frequency of service, and travel cost to maximize
efficiency and potential ridership.
Operating Efficiency - Level of funding required to
implement transit operation.
HI GH SPB~D RgI L:
In 1991, the State of Florida is expected to award a franchise
contract for the construction and operation of a High Speed Rail
system connecting the cities of Miami, Orlando and Tampa. Future
extensions of this system could include Jacksonville and
Tallahassee. At the present (Spring 1989), there are two
remaining bidders for the pro~ect. One of these bidders, Florida
High Speed Rail Corp., is proposing a rail alignment that would
pass through the west/central portions of St. Lucie County
(Figure 3-4). Included with this proposal, is the possibility of
a transit station to be constructed in St. Lucie County between
the years 2000 and 2005.
The implications of such a system on any community are
significant. However, because of the overall uncertainty of both
the exact location of the High Speed Rail Line and the whether
its is economically feasible to construct and operate, it is not
possible to adequately assess the impacts of such a system on the
Mass Transit needs of St. Lucie County at this time.
Since the construction of any local station or acess facility
would be a minimum of 10 years distant from the date of adoption
of this Comprehensive Plan, it is recommended that St. Lucie
County not undertake any specific policies relative to
development in association with this rail network, other than
acknowledging its possibilities, until the overall
transportation impacts upon the County system can be assessed.
January 9, 1990 3- 15 MASS TRANSIT
It is recommended that the progress of the high speed rail
system be monitored and, when appropriate, amendments to this
element and the other elements of the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan be implemented.
January 9, 1990 3- 16 MASS TRANSIT
GO~LS, OBJ8C7.'I VSS, ~ID POLI Q$S
GQAL 3. 1: PROVI DI~ PDBLI C TRANSPORT~TI ON FOR TH$
Z'RBNSPORTATI OH DI S~ADVBNT~GI~D POPULATI ON OF
ST. LQQ $ COONTY I N A SAF$ AND CONVS~TI SNT
MANNER
Obj ective 3. 1. 1: Bncourage the local Coordinated Comaunity
Designated Provider to eapauad paratransit
8ervices to meet the service needs of the
transportation disadvantaged of residents
of St. Lucie County.
Policy 3. 1. 1. 1: St. Lucie County shall, by August, 1990, in
cooperation with the St. Lucie MPO and
the St. Lucie County Council on Aging
collect the data on socio-economic
characteristics of the population
necessary to analyze existing transit
levels of service and system needs.
Policy 3. 1. 1. 2: St. Lucie County shall, by December, 1990,
in cooperation with the St. Lucie MPO, the
St. Lucie County Council on Aging, and
other appropriate agencies, analyze the
, existing transit levels of service in
St. Lucie County and determine future
system needs and transit right-of-way
needs for the area based on the future
land use and projected population
characteristics.
Policy 3. 1.. 1. 3: Amend through the plan amendment process
the mass transit element of the St. Lucie
County Comprehensive Plan to reflect land
use and population characteristics and
analytical findings resulting from the
actions in Policies 3. 1. 1. 1 and 3. 1. 1. 2.
Policy 3. 1. 1.4: Monitor transit services in St. Lucie
County, and in coordination with the MPO
and the COA evaluate all passenger requests
to determine when new services are needed.
Policy 3. 1. 1.5: Develop and utilize a public transit
performance and evaluation system to ensure
system efficiency.
Policy 3. 1. 1.6: Assist the local coordinated community
provider in seeking additional state and
federal assistance funds in order to
provide additional services.
January 9, 1990 3- 17 MASS TRANSIT
Obj ective 1. 2: Assist the Coordinated Co~~*+~ ty Designated
provider to add vans or other vehicles to
handle work trips for the transportation
disadvantaged as demand increases.
Policy 3. 1.2. 1: Promote the availability of transportation
to all transportation disadvantaged,
throughout St. Lucie County through sound
marketing and public information efforts.
Policy 3. 1.2.2: Assist the local Coordinated Community
Provider in seeking additional State and
or Federal assistance funds in order to
provide additional services.
Ob~ ective 3. 1. 3: Kaintain coordination and com~unication
amonq aqencies involved in providinq
transportation to the transportati.on
disadvantaged includinq Florida Department
of Transportation, St. Lucie lrietropolitan
Planninq Organization, S~ Lucie County,
Fort Pierce, St. Lucie Village and Port St.
~ Lucie.
Policy 3. 1. 3. 1: Prepare a mailing list of the above to
convey information on existing affairs and
plans for future activities.
GQAL 3.2: INCORPORATS THE POT~AL FOR MASS TRAASIT
I~P1~0 LONG B~TGE TRANSPORTATION NS]3DS.
Obj ective 3. 2. 1: ~~tonitor and evaluate the deaand for a
coaauntty-~3.de aass transit systea through
the co=pletion of a Transit
Fessibility/Development Study by August,
1991 and update this study every three
years.
Policy 3.2. 1. 1: Support the results of the monitoring and
evaluation of transit demand through
transit-incentive policy.
Poli cy 3. 2. 1. 2 Coordi nate wi th Marti n and I ndi an Ri ver
Counties, any transit needs evaluation to
determine if a regional transit network
would be more cost effective and service
the overall community more efficiently than
separate transit systems within each local
j uri s di c ti on.
January 9, 1990 3- 18 MASS TRANSIT
Obj ective 3. 2. 2: Provide for the protection of future mass
transit rights-of-way and eaclusive mass
transit corridors.
Policy 3.2.2. 1: Within the Traffic Ciraulation Plans in
the Development Review process, review
future development plans for
compatibility with transit and identify
those areas which have a high probability
for being served by transit.
Pol i cy 3. 2. 2. 2: I n coordi nati on wi th the MPO expl ore i n
which cases and what types of incentives
could be provided to encourage the use of
high occupancy vehicles and alternative
modes of transportation during the
planning of transportation system
i mprovements .
Policy 3. 2.2. 3: Analyze the need and locations for HOV
lanes and park and ride lots, including
right-of-way considerations for all new
major arterials and limited access roads to
be constructed based on future land uses,
pro~ected population distribution and the
potential impact of such facilities on the
transportation network.
Policy 3. 2. 2. 4: Include in the County' s Land Development
Regulations by August, 1990, design
criteria for the construction of mass
transit stops.
Obj ective 3. 2. 3: St. Lucie County shall continue to work
with the Florida Hiqh Speed Rail Comaission
in the developaent of a high speed rail
corridor between Orlando and Miasi.,
scheduled to comaence operation by 1995.
Policy 3.2.3. 1: St. Lucie County shall encourage the
Florida High Speed Rail Commission to
authorize the construction of a station
facility in St. Lucie County by the year
2005.
Policy 3.2.3.2: Any ancillary development activities in
conjunction with the High Speed Rail System
shall be carried out in accordance with all
elements of the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan.
January 9, 1990 3- 19 MASS TRANSIT