HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 20, 2011 TAC-CAC-BPAC Joint Meeting Agenda PacketTransportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Telephone: 772/462-1593 Facsimile: 772/462-2549
ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION (TPO) TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) BICYCLE-PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) Joint Meeting Date:
Tuesday, September 20, 2011 Time: 10:30am Location: Fenn Center, Room 122 2000 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval
of Minutes ? November 16, 2010 TAC/CAC/BPAC Joint Meeting 5. Comments from the Public 6. Action Items 6a. Amendment to the FY 2011/12 – FY 2015/16 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP): An amendment to the FY 2011/12 – FY 2015/16 TIP to incorporate the FY 2011/12 Roll-Forward Report. Action: Recommend approval of the TIP amendment, recommend approval with conditions,
or do not recommend approval. 6b. Crosstown Parkway Extension Alignment Alternatives?????: A presentation on the alternatives for the Crosstown Parkway Extension Alignment. Action:
Recommend a preferred alignment, recommend a preferred alignment with conditions, or do not recommend a preferred alignment. 6c. Congestion Management Process (CMP) Major Update: A presentation
on the CMP Major Update including the Implementation Plan. Action: Recommend adoption of the CMP Major Update, recommend adoption with conditions, or do not recommend adoption.
St. Lucie TPO TAC/CAC/BPAC Joint Meeting Tuesday, September 20, 2011 Page 2 of 2 6d. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FY 2012/13 -FY 2016/17 Draft Tentative Work Program:
A presentation provided by FDOT on the Draft Tentative Work Program for FY 2012/13 – FY 2016/17. Action: Recommend endorsement of the Draft Work Program, recommend endorsement with conditions,
or do not recommend endorsement. 6e. US-1 Corridor Intersections Pedestrian Safety Study: A presentation on the results of the US-1 Corridor Intersections Pedestrian Safety Study. Action:
Recommend acceptance of the results, recommend acceptance with conditions, or do not recommend acceptance. 7. FDOT Comments 8. Recommendations/Comments by Members 9. Staff Comments 10.
Next Meetings: TAC Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 15, 2011, 10:30am Conference Room 3, St. Lucie County Administration Building, Fort Pierce CAC Regular Meeting Tuesday, November
15, 2011, 2:00pm Conference Room 3, St. Lucie County Administration Building, Fort Pierce BPAC Regular Meeting Thursday, November 17, 2011, 3:30pm Tourism Development Conference Room,
St. Lucie County Administration Building, Fort Pierce 11. Adjourn NOTICES Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to access the meeting facilities should contact Dan Lutzke,
St. Lucie County Risk Manager, at 772-462-1546 or TDD 772-462-1428, at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. Anyone with a disability requiring transit accommodation to attend the meeting
should contact Community Transit at 772-464-7433 (Fort Pierce) or 772-879-1287 (Port St. Lucie), at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. The St. Lucie TPO satisfies the requirements
of various non-discrimination laws and regulations including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Public participation is solicited without regard to race, color, national origin,
age, sex, religion, disability or family status. Persons wishing to express their concerns about Title VI please contact the St. Lucie TPO at 772-462-1593. Items not included on the
agenda may also be heard in consideration of the best interests of the public’s health, safety, welfare, and as necessary to protect every person’s right of access. If any person decides
to appeal any decision made by the St. Lucie TPO Advisory Committees with respect to any matter considered at this meeting, that person shall need a record of the proceedings, and for
such a purpose, that person may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Crèole:
Si ou ta rinmin recevoua information sa en crèole si l bous plait rèlè 772-462-1777. Español: Si usted desea recibir esta informaciòn en español, por favor llame al 772-462-1777.
Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Telephone: 772/462-1593 Facsimile: 772/462-2549
St. Lucie Joint Meeting Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) DATE:
Tuesday, November 16, 2010 TIME: 10:30 A.M. LOCATION: St. Lucie County Administration Building Conference Room 3 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida Members present: Representing:
Jack Andrews City of Fort Pierce-TAC Todd Cox St. Lucie County Airport-TAC Terry Davis St. Lucie-BPAC John Finizio City of Port St. Lucie-TAC Steve Fousek St. Lucie County Environ.-BPAC
Jennifer Gent City of Port St. Lucie -TAC Rogelio Gonzalez, Chair COASL/Community Transit-TAC Craig Hauschild, Vice Chair St. Lucie County Engineering-TAC Rachel Harris St. Lucie-BPAC
Bill Lindsey St. Lucie-CAC Shaun MacKenzie MacKenzie Eng. & Planning-BPAC Marvin Mendelson St. Lucie-CAC William McKenney St. Lucie-CAC John-Mark Palacios FDOT-BPAC Gus Schmidt FDOT-TAC
Arlene Tanis FDOT-TAC Capt. David Thompson St. Lucie County Sheriff-TAC Phil Vitale St. Lucie County School Board-TAC Corine Williams St. Lucie County Comm Svcs-TAC
Page 2 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 Others present: Representing: Antonette Adams FDOT Peter Buchwald St. Lucie TPO Etienne Bourgeois Public -CAPTEC Engineering
Michael Busha TCRPC Patrick Daman St. Lucie County Ed DeFini St. Lucie TPO Neelam Fatima St. Lucie TPO Marceia Lathou St. Lucie TPO Dana Little TCRPC Stacy Miller FDOT Jehane Myers Kimley-Horn
& Associates Jeff Weidner FDOT Leslie Wetherell FDOT RECORDING SPECIALIST Mary Holleran 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 10:42AM 2. ROLL CALL A sign-in sheet was provided
for all individuals present. A quorum was present for the TAC and BPAC members. A quorum was not present for the CAC. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Gus Schmidt to approve the agenda
SECONDED by Craig Hauschild SO VOTED -UNANIMOUS 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Jack Andrews to approve the minutes SECONDED BY Todd Cox SO VOTED -UNANIMOUS 5. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
There were no comments from the public.
Page 3 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 6. ACTION ITEMS 6a. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FY 2011/12 -FY 2015/16 Draft Tentative Work Program:
Mr. Buchwald welcomed members and attendees to the first Joint Meeting of the TPO TAC, CAC and BPAC. The Draft Tentative Work Program presented today to TPO’s Advisory Committees for
review and comment will be presented to the TPO Board for comments/endorsements at its regular meeting on December 1, 2010. He explained the annual process and asked members to look
at the listed projects and identify any changes between the adopted program, timing and scheduling and if the changes are consistent with the local agencies plans, expectations and timing.
Mr. Buchwald reviewed the 2010/11 List of Priority Projects (LOPP) adopted by the TPO Board on 8/4/10, which FDOT will use to develop its Work Program for FY 2011/12 -FY 2015/16 to fund
projects based on TPO priorities. In March 2011, the Final Tentative Work Program will be submitted submitted to the Governor and State Legislature and provided to the TPO for development
of its TIP for FY 2011/12-FY 2015/16. Upon the State Legislature’s approval of the budget in July 2011, the Tentative Work Program will become the Adopted Work Program and the TPO will
adopt the FY 2011/12-FY 2015/16 TIP. A PowerPoint presentation included an overview of the 2010/11 ranking of the List of Priority Projects: #1 -West Midway Road; #2-Crosstown Parkway;
#3-Kings Highway (SR-713); and #4 Indrio Road (SR-614). In addition to their ranking, project limits, description, status, inclusion on the RLRTP Needs List and Cost Feasible Plan, estimated
costs were provided. Priority rankings for Transit, Transportation Enhancement (TE), Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects were reviewed. The Status of Key Projects in St. Lucie County, Draft
Tentative Work Program Citizen’s Report, Draft Tentative Work Program Maps for FY 2011/12 -FY 2015/16 were reviewed. FDOT Representatives were introduced. Stacy Miller presented the
Status of of Key Projects in St Lucie County FY 11/12 -15/16, and reviewed the process by which the priority projects are determined. She explained funding through the various state
agencies, public hearings and local meetings for a better understanding of the opportunities for funding and final adoption. Ms. Miller addressed the priority ranking and FDOT’s higher
priorities, and explained that changes could occur if there is an economic downturn causing a decrease in the revenue stream since the last legislative session. The priority list included
money for the construction phase, and numbers #1 through #4 ranking of the priority projects listed in the FDOT Tentative Work Program were discussed. Further review included the SIS
Corridor, Sidewalks, St. Lucie County Enhancements, CIGP, Trip and Earmark projects. Discussion ensued on rail
Page 4 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 service, how to get funding help and assistance for passenger rail and the application for high speed rail, which was
not successful. Discussion ensued on the Citizen’s Report -2012-2016 Tentative Work Program. Mr. MacKenzie questioned the 2nd item (pg. 4) A1A from S. of Shorewinds Dr. to County line,
and asked if it was pushed back from 2011 to 2012. Ms. Miller promised to look into it and get back. Funding for the S.I.S program was questioned. Ms. Miller explained cycles of eligibility
for funding, refocusing on contingency funds and funding from savings that were not used, using a combination of funding. Rachel Harris questioned the basis for the year of priority
funding projects and multi-modal projects. Ms. Miller explained the different components used to determine funds for seaports, airports, roads, connectors, etc., and the inflationary
factor that’s used. Mr. Schmitt noted there are five MPO’’s, some have higher multi-modal priorities, i.e., Broward has its roads and 50% of the funding for Broward will convert to FTA,
and they will move their funding for their needs. The level of each county’s highway system determines if they can continue to spend for highway improvement, as Broward already has six-laned
their roadways. Mr. Buchwald explained that we have to determine whether you want to build more roads, widen every single road, or whether you want to go to multimodal with bike paths,
etc. Ms. Miller encouraged realistic amounts be provided versus expectations so that opportunities for funding not be lost. An opportunity for a workshop was discussed and schedules
will be checked for a convenient date. Motion by Craig Hauschild to recommend endorsement/approval of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FY 2011/12 -FY 2015/16 Draft Tentative
Work Program SECONDED by Jennifer Gent SO VOTED -UNANIMOUS Motion by Rachel Harris to recommend endorsement/approval of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FY 2011/12 -FY
2015/16 Draft Tentative Work Program SECONDED by Steve Fousek SO VOTED -UNANIMOUS Ms. Miller clarified that the motion was for endorsement of the program to the Board. *Ms. Harris removed
her original motion.
Page 5 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 Motion by Rachel Harris to recommend approval with conditions, that it should be discussed by the committees, and the
BPAC has its own meetings, and comments can be relayed to Mr. Buchwald‘s Office during the month of December SECONDED by John-Mark Palacious SO VOTED -UNANIMOUS Mr. Buchwald provided
the following available dates for a potential meeting of the BPAC so that a quorum can be available and comments provided: December 3, 10, 17 and 24. There were no comments from the
CAC. 7. Discussion Items 7a. 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP) Update Draft Cost Feasible Plan: A review of the Draft Cost Feasible Plan of the 2035 RLRTP Update.
Mr. Buchwald provided an update on the RLRTP Draft Cost Feasible Plan developed by Kimley-Horn & Associates as a technical sub-consultant to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(TCRPC). The agenda packets contained the base needs for plan development and methodology for rail, bus, train, and multimodal transportation needs for pedestrian and bicycle networks.
SIS Needs -the Martin/St. Lucie Needs plan identifies the need to widen I-95 and Florida Turnpike’s in Martin and St. Lucie County. FDOT’s current SIS/FIHS Long Range Highway Capacity
Plan Cost Feasible Plan only includes funding for the widening of I-95 from SR #70 to the Indian River County line. The remaining sections are considered Unfunded Needs for the purpose
of this 2035 RLRTP. Mr. Buchwald spoke of the Treasure Coast Loop Trail connecting the Florida East Coast Greenway, with improvements along A1A, seeking ways to connect sidewalks, bike
paths along a multi-purpose trail (Maps were provided). He asked that projects be identified, including year of implementation, what facilities are needed, what they want to see, what
to do about South Bridge and FDOT’s plans to retrofit. Comments: Ms. Harris: It doesn’t take into account using bikes for commuting vs. sidewalks, given the economic downturn more people
will be using bikes for work, shopping, etc., if the safety factor was established. She would rather see money used for bikes vs. signal enhancement vs. danger of feeder roads into subdivisions
with no sidewalks. We need to address other cities who have been successful and focus on safety, especially for children and reevaluate studies as far as bike corridors.
Page 6 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 Mr. Buchwald: Addressed Ms. Harris’ comments concerning re-evaluating the bike corridor studies. We have to prioritize
recreational needs and commuting needs based on commuting data, and we get that data by looking at where people are commuting to. A consensus is needed to determine the funding for bike
vs. signal enhancement. Michael Busha and Dana Little of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council were introduced. They can help with what we can do about subdivisions with no sidewalks,
that we might bring back the 5-year budgets and look at both sides vs. why we need roads, where they are, identify them and spend money on the gaps. Ms. Harris: Putting signs up on public
roads for general information about the paths and enforcement of rules would help. We should spend money on signs and public information on radio and TV. The availability of funding
for information was discussed. Mr. McKenney: Asked what priorities were proposed for retrofitting. Mr. Buchwald said they don’t know yet, this is the first time they are going through
this process and are asking the members for their comments as to what they want. Ms. Williams: There are locations where you can’t get on the sidewalk ramp or the sidewalk stops short
for getting on the bus, we need to look at different areas for ADA issues for compliance. Mr. Buchwald: If we need to do something other than widening roads, we need to set limits and
a cost to integrate improvements and specifics to get it done. Mr. Little: Spoke on U.S. #1, how the redevelopment of the CRAs, the blend of uses for business for the corridor was contrary
to the public mission, and not about widening only, but the use of all of it. If the strip malls re-develop, what will they be, will they be a new transition of uses for that corridor,
and how do we retrofit the blend of uses. Ms. Harris: Wanted to ratchet down the speed on US #1 between certain points (Virginia Ave. and Orange Ave.) Mr. Buchwald: We need to work through
the State Highway and the emergency vehicles used for Police and Fire and all uses that need to be looked at and factored in. Mr. MacKenzie: Had not seen the maps before and asked for
information about the Future Bus and Train Network, and Proposed Bicycle, Pedestrian, Greenways and Trails. Mr. Busha: Reviewed the information developed by the Regional Planning Council
on the data and consensus to support the studies on buses vs.
Page 7 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 building rail express lines, and connections to routes for jobs and services. Counties are working together along the
corridor, a super train network has not been measured, and plans are all on the website. Mr. Buchwald mentioned the possible need for an express bus line down the I-95 corridor. That
developers don’t want mass transportation, they want more roads developed to sell homes in subdivisions and to continue travel by car. Ms. Gent: Addressed the bus train network and said
Port St. Lucie has put Stops along Village Parkway and Crosstown Parkway, but these have not been included in the 25-year plan and there’s no fixed route and it would be easy to implement.
Mr. Buchwald noted the Transit Development Plan was a 10-year plan, and this is why they have to go back to the data to build upon deficiencies and provide for implementation. Mr. Lindsey:
Commented on safety at bus stops. Discussion ensued on safety issues, putting sidewalks around schools, and what needs to be prioritized. Mr. Busha said there is money in the retrofit
along U.S #1. Ms. Gent: Agreed we need to look at bus stops and bicycles together. We need to change our priority and our thinking that we list as a #1 priority the need for more bus
service. Mr. Gonzalez: Reviewed what started in 2002, that whenever they added new bus routes, that safety is their #1 priority, there are shelters at most of the stops, they have bike
racks, they look at what stops are no longer needed, and all of the routes interconnect and most operate on the hour. If there are safety issues that he needs to know where they exist.
The numbers of people using the buses are needed to develop stops. Mr. Weidner: Commented on the inability to see certain bus stops that are hidden because of large stores developed
along U.S. #1. That more people would use them if they could get to them. That the County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Codes need to be changed so that you are not going to
have a huge huge parking lot and then a store, that the bus stop should be able to take the people to the store from the major roadway. The redevelopment doesn’t cost much to have the
transit system make the land use worthwhile. Mr. Buchwald: We need money to have more transit, which would raise taxes. Mr. Schmidt: We are talking about a 20-year long range plan, and
we now have a chance to talk about the second level and a 5-year program. In order for you to make something a priority, it is necessary to have it as part of the long range plan as
something you would like to have funded. It needs to be translated into the cost feasible for the cost of the transit and transmitted as
Page 8 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 a priority. The process needs to be followed in the 5-year, 10-year and long range plans. Mr. MacKenzie: Along SR #70
and I-95 there seems to be a need for a proposed park/ride and bus into Fort Pierce. Mr. Cox: It seems that we are way outside of our means and this is only a wish list for everything
covered in the 2035 plan. All priorities should be considered and comments should be in there, what’s used and not, it’s the same as changing land use, everything is tied to it, all
comments solicited should be in the 2035 Plan. Mr. Buchwald said we won’t have this kind of discussions again. Mr. Cox said changes will come. Comments and thinking seemed to be jumping,
and not focused, and not related to a cost feasible plan and we‘re going outside the document. That we need to get back to the document. Mr. Buchwald: Thought the purpose of the meeting
was to go over the document because there would not be an opportunity to do this again. Mr. Weidner: In 3½ years we start all over again to set our goals and objectives to drive the
plan. We can’t change the plan and won’t lose ground by moving forward. Mr. Buchwald agreed that we need to define how to move into the right direction. All the details aren’t worked
out. Mr. Hauschild: It’s hard to retrofit when we are including bike lanes and multi-purpose paths and need ROW (right-of-way) how do we include that into the projects to continue. How
are these projects included in the cost feasible plan, such as the greenways, parkways, and other examples. Mr. Buchwald: Right now the County has to be coordinating the effort on ROW
protection and work with the Comp Plan with our land development program and get on the same page. We need to make some sense and provide accurate trails, then clean up the map and say
this is the map. It starts with 1) a good set of data and maps; and 2) coordination. There are nine different sets of data in the area that should be put on a GIS data base for coordination.
He cited examples of the difficulty in getting this data from the nine different areas for sidewalks, bike paths, greenways and multipurpose paths, etc. The question to be answered is
how to get data for the maps for planning. Mr. Hauschild & Mr. MacKenzie: Questioned the quality of the data on the present maps. They wanted to see the actual bicycle network proposed
in the maps and thought they represented more trails than how to commute to school and work, and asked where the bicycle lanes were. The maps were discussed at length, what funding was
included and where the information was coming from. You could ask for bicycle lanes, a bus stop, or a sidewalk but can’t ask for a greenway trail because it isn’t adopted.
Page 9 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 Mr. Buchwald: The TPO will have adopted it, but has the County adopted it and is it referenced in the Comp Plan or Code.
Mr. Fousek: Commented on three trails in the Master Plan refined with the TPO, but no funds for details. Mr. Hauschild said they have to determine a need and where they are to ask for
funding. Mr. Fousek said charettes were the most accurate way to get information and data published. Mr. Palacios: Said they want to see bike lanes used for multi-use paths, it’s nice
to have both but mentioned the crash data. Ms. Harris used the City of Amsterdam as a successful example that doesn’t have crash data. Mr. Buchwald indicated they needed to reach a consensus.
Mr. Hauschild: In the 2035 County Roadways, asked if he could change Jenkins Ave. to Orange Ave. to 4-lanes as funded through 2035, and for two exits changes, Orange to Angle, consistent
with the Land Development Code, asked for intersection improvements on Kings Highway, Indrio Rd, Orange to Angle and St. Lucie. (tape inaudible). To look at a cost feasible map for funding
of Kings Highway, no intersections at Indrio Road, to introduce them before 2035 and at what expense to other roads. Discussion ensued on the costs. Mr. Buchwald asked them to look at
Midway Road at the cost of $20 million. Ms. Gent: Said the City would like the Port St. Lucie Boulevard project to go forward. Discussion ensued on reducing the costs of segments for
doing intersections. Ms. Gent: Asked if Multi-purpose trails were concrete sidewalks, is the 4/5-ft. bike path attached to the roadway, if the greenways and bike paths were dirt through
the woods, and asked for definitions. She noticed a proposed greenway between I-95 and Becker Road and asked if it was really supposed to be there, and seemed counter-productive on the
other side of the canal. We don’t have the ROW on the east side and it needs to be checked. Discussion ensued on whether it was in the plan and parallel on the east side and were bike
paths on every road. Sidewalks were discussed showing Darwin Blvd. from Tulip Blvd. S. to (tape inaudible), on Tulip Blvd. a sidewalk is shown as proposed, and on Port St. Lucie Blvd.
W., to Tulip Blvd. to Cherry Hill Road. There was no further discussion and comments were ended. 7b. Congestion Management Process (CMP) -2010 Major Update: An introduction to the CMP
2010 Major Update. Action: None. Discussion and Comments. Mr. Buchwald provided an update on the CMP as outlined in the November 8, 2010 Memo. It will be coming to their advisory committees,
and to prioritize
Page 10 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 projects and identify areas with congestion and/or safety issues. Funds in the amount of $300,000 have been established
for 2014/15 in the TPO’s TIP. Kimley-Horn has been approved by the TPO Board to provide a Scope of Services for the 2010 CMP Major Update. Contact Neelam Fatima for further information.
There were no questions or comments on the presentation. 8. FDOT Comments: None 9. Recommendations/Comments by Members: Ms. Gent clarified the time to attend the next meeting for joint
discussion. Mr. Buchwald noted a list of all of the meetings through February 2011 were listed on the back page of the agenda (included below). 10. Staff Comments: Mr. Buchwald said
he looked forward to the next joint meeting in November 2011. 11. Next Meeting Dates: St. Lucie TPO/Martin MPO Joint CAC Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 10:00 a.m. Martin County Building
Department Conference Room, 900 SE Ruhnke St., Stuart St. Lucie TPO/Martin MPO Joint TAC Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 2:30 p.m. Martin County Building Department Conference Room, 900
SE Ruhnke St., Stuart TAC Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 18, 2011, 10:30 a.m. Conference Room 3, St. Lucie County Administration Building, Fort Pierce CAC Regular Meeting Tuesday,
January 18, 2011, 2:00 p.m. Conference Room 3, St. Lucie County Administration Building, Fort Pierce BPAC Regular Meeting Friday, February 25, 2011, 10:30 a.m. Conference Room 3, St.
Lucie County Administration Building, Fort Pierce 12. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 1:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: _________________________ Mary F. Holleran Specialist Consultant
Page 11 of 11 Joint TAC/CAC/BPAC Meeting Minutes November 16, 2010 Approved by: Approved by: _________________________ _________________________ Rogelio Gonzalez Shaun MacKenzie TAC
Chair BPAC Chair
Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Telephone: 772/462-1593 Facsimile: 772/462-2549
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Board/Committee: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting Date: September 20, 2011
Item Number: 6a Item Title: Amendment to the FY 2011/12 – FY 2015/16 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Item Origination: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District 4
Work Program UPWP Reference: Task 3.3– TIP Requested Action: Recommend approval of the TIP amendment to incorporate the FY 2011/12 Roll-Forward Report, recommend approval with conditions,
or do not recommend approval Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of the TIP amendment to incorporate the FY 2011/12 Roll-Forward Report Attachments ? FY 2011/12 Roll-Forward Report
07/06/11 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAGE 1 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TIPRFWD ** ST. LUCIE TPO ** ROLL-FORWARD REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2012 ADOPTED PLAN =================================
=== **HIGHWAYS** ===================================== ITEM NO OLD ITEM *********** DESCRIPTION ************************ COUNTY TYPE OF WORK RDWY ID PROJ LGTH EXIST/IMPROVE/ADD (LANES)
PRELIMINARY RAILROADS & GRANTS & FEDERAL AID NUMBER FISCALYR FUND ENGINEERING RIGHT-OF-WAY UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION MISC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------2314402 W. MIDWAY RD/CR-712 | | | | | | FROM S. 25TH ST/SR-615 TO SR-5/US-1 | | | | | | ST. LUCIE ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT | | | | | | 94530000
1.915 MI 2 2 0 | | | | | | 8887-824-A 2012 ACSA | 0| 8,606,830| 0| 0| 0| SA | 0| 10,472,876| 0| 0| 0| SU | 0| 2,237,304| 0| 0| 0| DDRF | 0| 246,723| 0| 0| 0| LFF | 0| 246,723| 0| 0|
0| ** ITEM TOTALS ** | 0| 21,810,456| 0| 0| 0| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4097313
PORT ST.LUCIE SIGNAL | | | | | | SYSTEM, ENHANCED OPERATIONS | | | | | | ST. LUCIE TRAFFIC SIGNAL UPDATE | | | | | | .000 0 0 0 |
| | | | | 2012 DIH | 1,000| 0| 0| 0| 0| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4289841 SR-70
| | | | | | FROM 550' W OF JENKINS RD TO 1800' E OF JENKINS RD | | | | | | ST. LUCIE ADD LANES & REHABILITATE PVMNT | | | | | | 94030000 1.486 MI 6 2 2 | | | | | | 2012 DIH | 1,000|
0| 0| 0| 0| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------============================================================
================================================================== HIGHWAYS TOTALS: 21,812,456 2,000 21,810,456 0 0 0 =================================================================================
==============================================
07/06/11 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAGE 2 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TIPRFWD ** ST. LUCIE TPO ** ROLL-FORWARD REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2012 ADOPTED PLAN =================================
=== **TURNPIKE** ===================================== ITEM NO OLD ITEM *********** DESCRIPTION ************************ COUNTY TYPE OF WORK RDWY ID PROJ LGTH EXIST/IMPROVE/ADD (LANES)
PRELIMINARY RAILROADS & GRANTS & FEDERAL AID NUMBER FISCALYR FUND ENGINEERING RIGHT-OF-WAY UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION MISC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------4196032 THERMOPLASTIC OF ST. | | | | | | LUCIE RESURFACING,MP169.3 -173.2, NB & SB | | | | | | ST. LUCIE SIGNING/PAVEMENT MARKINGS | |
| | | | 94470000 3.700 MI 0 0 0 | | | | | | 2012 PKYI | 1,100| 0| 0| 0| 0| ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--4224185 FT. PIERCE SERVICE | | | | | | PLAZA MODIFICATION (MP 144) | | | | | | ST. LUCIE REST AREA | | | | | | 94470000 .457 MI 0 0 0 | | | | | | 2012 PKYI | 0| 0| 0| 0| 3,594,500|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------========================================================================
====================================================== TURNPIKE TOTALS: 3,595,600 1,100 0 0 0 3,594,500 ===============================================================================================
================================
07/06/11 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PAGE 3 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TIPRFWD ** ST. LUCIE TPO ** ROLL-FORWARD REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2012 ADOPTED PLAN =================================
=== **PTO: TRANSIT** ===================================== ITEM NO OLD ITEM *********** DESCRIPTION ************************ COUNTY TYPE OF WORK RDWY ID PROJ LGTH EXIST/IMPROVE/ADD (LANES)
PRELIMINARY RAILROADS & GRANTS & FEDERAL AID NUMBER FISCALYR FUND ENGINEERING RIGHT-OF-WAY UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION MISC. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------4134941 ST.LUCIE COUNTY | | | | | | SECTION 5307 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE | | | | | | ST. LUCIE CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE | | | | | | .000 0 0
0 | | | | | | 2012 FTA | 0| 0| 0| 0| 1,441,627| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4268961
ST. LUCIE COUNTY | | | | | | JARC PROGRAM SECTION 5316 | | | | | | ST. LUCIE OPERATING FOR FIXED ROUTE | | | | | | .000 0 0 0 | | | | | | 2012 FTA | 0| 0| 0| 0| 92,892| LF | 0| 0| 0|
0| 92,892| ** ITEM TOTALS ** | 0| 0| 0| 0| 185,784| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4300251
ST. LUCIE COUNTY | | | | | | TRANSIT BUS REPLACEMENT SECTION 5309 | | | | | | ST. LUCIE CAPITAL FOR FIXED ROUTE | | | | | | .000 0 0 0 | | | | | | 2012 FTA | 0| 0| 0| 0| 4,550,000| ------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------===========================================================================================
=================================== TRANSIT TOTALS: 6,177,411 0 0 0 0 6,177,411 =======================================================================================================================
======= =============================================================================================================================== GRAND TOTALS: 31,585,467 3,100 21,810,456 0 0
9,771,911
Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Telephone: 772/462-1593 Facsimile: 772/462-2549
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Board/Committee: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting Date: September 20, 2011
Item Number: 6b Item Title: Crosstown Parkway Extension Alignment Alternatives Item Origination: CAC UPWP Reference: Task 3.3– TIP Task 6.1-Public Involvement Requested Action: After
a presentation is provided on the alignment alternatives for the Crosstown Parkway Extension, recommend a preferred alignment, recommend a preferred alignment with conditions, or do
not recommend a preferred alignment Staff Recommendation: Not applicable Attachments ? Crosstown Parkway Extension Public Hearing Summary Information
City of Port St Lucie Crosstown Parkway Extension Public Hearing Scheduled for September 22, 2011 A major milestone was reached on July 1, 2011 when the Federal Highway Administration
signed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and approved it for public availability. This important approval allows the City and FDOT to conduct a Public Hearing where the
public can once again provide their input on the project. The Public Hearing has been scheduled for September 22nd at the time and place shown below. Should a tropical storm or hurricane
result in postponement of the hearing, an alternate hearing date of October 6, 2011 at the same time and location has been established. The DEIS and associated technical reports can
be viewed on this website and will be available for public review from September 1, 2011 to October 3, 2011, at the Port St. Lucie City Hall (first floor) and at the City Engineer’s
office (Building B) at 121 S.W. Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Port St. Lucie, FL 34984, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. These documents will also be available at the Public
Hearing. The DEIS and associated technical reports provide over 4,000 pages of detailed analysis. This includes an evaluation of numerous alternatives and the environmental and community
impacts that are expected to result from each alternative. Once all input has been received and considered, a preferred alternative will be selected for inclusion in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Date: Thursday, September 22, 2011 Time: 6:00 p.m. – Open Forum and Review of Project Displays 7:00 p.m. – Formal Presentation, Public Comments and Testimony Place:
Port St. Lucie Civic Center 9221 S.E. Civic Center Place Port St. Lucie, FL 34852
City of Port St Lucie Crosstown Parkway Extension Build Alternatives /No Build Alternative Page 1 of 4 Six Build Alternatives
City of Port St Lucie Crosstown Parkway Extension Build Alternatives /No Build Alternative Page 2 of 4 Alternative 2A Connects Crosstown Parkway via Walters Terrace west of the NFSLR
to Midport Road east of the NFSLR, and ultimately connects with U.S. 1 at the intersection of Walton Road Alternative 2D Extends Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta
Drive, then connects to Walters Terrace via Floresta Drive. Traffic would be required to make right and left turn movements at the two intersections along Floresta Drive to make the
connection to U.S. 1 Alternative 1C Connects Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive west of the NFSLR to the existing intersection of U.S. 1 and Village Green Drive
City of Port St Lucie Crosstown Parkway Extension Build Alternatives /No Build Alternative Page 3 of 4 Alternative 1F Extends Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive, then curves
northeast between the river banks, and connects with U.S. 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard Alternative 6B Similar to 1F, this alternative
extends Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive. However, it curves northeast beginning at Floresta Drive, and crosses the NFSLR north of Alternative 1F. It connects
with U.S. 1 at a new intersection between Village Green Drive and Savanna Club Boulevard Alternative 6A Extends Crosstown Parkway along West Virginia Drive to Floresta Drive. From there
it curves north and then east across the NFSLR to the existing intersection of U.S. 1 and Savanna Club Boulevard
City of Port St Lucie Crosstown Parkway Extension Build Alternatives /No Build Alternative Page 4 of 4 No Build Alternative In the evaluation and screening of various alternatives for
meeting the purpose and need for a project, the No Build Alternative, sometimes referred to as the No Project Alternative, must be equally evaluated in the study process. The No Build
Alternative is generally a “do nothing” option that involves minimal or no construction. A No Build Alternative may sometimes include Transportation System Management Alternatives, which
may provide improvements such as: • adding turn lanes; • improving intersections and signalization; • improving signage and pavement markings; or • other techniques that require minimal
or no construction. The No Build Alternative is a viable alternative throughout the project development process.
Board/Meetin Item N Item T Item O UPWP Reque Staff R Attach ? Staf ? CMPTransportatio /Commit ng Date: Number: Title: Originatio Referenc sted Acti Recomme hments ff Report P Major Upon
Planning for A tee: on: ce: ion: endation: pdate Sumr Fort Pierce, P AGENDA I Technic Citizens Bicycle-Septem 6c Conges Update CMP Ma Task 3. Recomm recomm recomm : It is re be reco
mmary Nar Port St. Lucie, S ITEM SUM cal Adviso s Advisory -Pedestria mber 20, 2 stion Man ajor Updat 4– CMP mend ado mend ado mend adop ecommend ommended rrative St. Lucie Villag MMARY
ry Commi y Committ an Advisor 2011 nagement te Process option of t ption with ption ded that t d for adopge and St. Luc 2300 Fort Pierce Telepho Facsim ittee (TAC tee (CAC) ry Commit
Process sthe CMP M h conditio the CMP ption by thcie County Virginia Av e, FL 34982-one: 772/462 ile: 772/462-C) ttee (BPAC (CMP) M Major Upd ns, or do Major Upd he TPO Bovenue -5652
2-1593 -2549 C) Major date, not date oard
Tran TO: THROU FROM: DATE: SUBJE BACKG Task 3 FY 2010 the TPO The de eligible safety project identifie (LOPP) CMP Bo FY 2014 In addi $300,0 through subseq assista projectnsportation
PT UGH: T CT: GROUND 3.4 of the 0/2011 -O’s CMP. evelopmen for fede issues, p s based ed funding for future ox Funds 4/15 in th tion, 2035 00 in fun h 2035. T uent allo nce in dev prioritizaPlanning
for F Technical Citizens A Bicycle an Peter Buc Executive Neelam Fa Transport Septembe Congesti e Unified FY 2011/2 nt and im eral fundin provides on the C g sources e funding in the
a he TPO’s c 5 Regiona ding towa The CMP w cation of veloping t tion. Fort Pierce, P MEM Advisory Advisory C nd Pedestr hwald Director atima ation Syst er 12, 201 on Mana Planning 2012
inclu mplementa ng. The C strategies CMP rank may be a considera amount of urrent Tra l Long Ra ards the C will be uti f this fun the annuaPort St. Lucie, ORANDU Committe ommittee rian
Advis tems Man 11 gement P Work Pr udes the p ation of a CMP iden s to addr king crite added to t tions. f $300,00 ansportati nge Trans CMP on a lized for nding. Th l LOPP, TI, St. Lucie
Vill UM ee (TAC) e (CAC) ory Comm nager Process ( rogram (U preparatio CMP is tifies are ress the ria. The the TPO’s 00 have b ion Impro sportation yearly ba prioritizing he CMP w IP,
Work Plage and St. L 230 Fort Pierc Teleph Facsim mittee (BP CMP) Ma UPWP) of on of a ma a requir as with c issues a CMP proj List of Pr been rees vement P Plan (RLR asis startin g CMP
pr will also Programs,Lucie County 0 Virginia Av ce, FL 34982 hone: 772/462 mile: 772/462 PAC) ajor Upda the TPO ajor updat rement to congestion nd priorit jects with iority Proj stablished
rogram (T RTP) alloc ng from 2 ojects for be used , and ongyvenue 2-5652 2-1593 -2549 ate O for te of o be n or tizes hout jects d for TIP). cates 2016 r the for oing
September 12, 2011 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS Consistent with SAFETEA-LU guidelines, the CMP major update developed the project prioritization criteria, identified CMP projects and funding
sources, established multimodal system performance measures, and developed an Implementation Plan. TPO staff and the consultant’s staff visited each of the local jurisdictions to gather
the information regarding congestion and safety issues. Upon completion of the CMP, the results of the CMP Plan will be disseminated in an effective and accessible manner. Also, the
strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions including enhancement of intersection operations and promotion of alternative modes of transportation were explored
to be consistent with the 2035 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP)’s Goals, Objectives and Policies. A CMP toolbox with potential strategies is developed to achieve the aforementioned
goals and objectives. The CMP tool box includes Multimodal, Travel Demand Management, Utilizing Existing Capacity More Efficiently and Adding More Base Capacity categories. TIER I AND
TIER II ANALYSES During this CMP major update, a two-tiered approach was utilized to define the prioritization rankings. The Tier I analysis provides a system-wide screening evaluation
while the Tier II analysis evaluates the identified areas of concern using more in-depth performance evaluation measures. The Tier I analysis was completed, presented to and approved
by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the TPO Board. The Tier I analysis identified the areas of congestion based on segment level of
service and presented a snapshot of the overall system performance. The performance measures were developed and included Volume to Capacity (v/c) ratio, Safety, and Key Stakeholder Input.
Based on the results of the Tier I analysis and the input received from the local jurisdictions, the TPO advisory committees, and the TPO Board, a total of 13 intersections were selected
for the Tier II analysis. The Tier II analysis includes a detailed analysis of identified areas of congestion. The Tier II performance measures included Type of Project (multimodal,
safety, operational), Benefit, Cost, and Potential Issues (drainage, signal and landscaping, etc.).
September 12, 2011 Page 3 of 3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Based on the results of the Tier I and II analyses and the ranking criteria, a Draft Implementation Plan was developed and presented
to the TAC, CAC and BPAC at their meetings on July 19th and July 21st. The Draft Implementation Plan and proposed improvements were well received by the committees and the Draft Implementation
Plan was revised to incorporate the comments from the advisory committees. Incorporating the multimodal performance measures, the Implementation Plan utilizes both traditional and non-traditional
strategies to address the areas of concern and proposes improvements which support multimodal elements and safety. The proposed non-traditional strategies in the Implementation Plan
which promote walkable and sustainable communities include the addition of an all pedestrian signal phase and surface treatments at the intersection of US-1 and Orange Avenue, the extension
of the sidewalk along Bayshore Boulevard between Prima Vista Boulevard and Selvitz Road, and roundabouts at the intersections of Floresta Drive and Southbend Boulevard and at Selvitz
Road and Bayshore Boulevard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the CMP Major Update be recommended for adoption by the TPO Board.
Congestion Management Process St. Lucie Transportation ransportatio Planning Organization Major Update Prepared by 04250401.11
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 1 ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION (TPO) Congestion Management Process
(CMP) Major Update Summary Narrative Introduction The St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is the countywide agency responsible for transportation planning and prioritization
in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County. The TPO has retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) to update its Congestion Management Process (CMP) and identify
and prioritize potential CMP projects for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Five-Year Work Program, the TPO’s List of Priority Projects (LOPP) and the TPO’s Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Kimley-Horn has completed the draft report for the CMP Major Update. This summary narrative provides a brief explanation of the work performed, which is described
in more detail in the draft report. A project presentation will be given at the the September TPO advisory committees’ meeting. What is a CMP? The CMP is a key piece of the transportation
planning and prioritization responsibilities of the TPO. A CMP uses a number of analytic tools to define and identify congestion within a region, corridor, activity center, or project
area. A CMP identifies where congestion exists, what can be done about it, and a coordinated implementation plan for appropriate strategies to reduce congestion or mitigate the impacts
of congestion. A CMP is one component of the TPO’s planning toolbox for addressing travel mobility and safety. What are the Benefits of a CMP? Addressing traffic congestion through the
comprehensive process of the CMP provides the St. Lucie TPO with a framework to respond to congestion and other operational issues in a consistent and coordinated fashion. A CMP will
enable the TPO to pinpoint congestion management strategies that will provide the greatest amount of benefit to the region. Furthermore, reducing congestion on the region’s roadways
will likely result in a reduction of travel time delay for motorists and enhanced safety. Reducing travel time delay can improve air quality conditions and help to conserve fuel as motorists
spend less time idling in congested conditions.
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 2 Purpose, Goals, and Objectives The overall purpose of the St. Lucie Congestion
Management Process is to create a better quality of life for St. Lucie residents and visitors through lowering travel delay, reducing harmful emissions, and improving safety. The goal
of the St. Lucie TPO CMP Major Update is to identify, evaluate, and prioritize CMP projects as input to the FDOT Work Program, the TPO’s List of Priority Projects (LOPP), and the Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Objectives for the CMP Major Update include updating the traffic analysis, revising CMP prioritization criteria, prioritizing projects for the re-establishment
of the CMP Box Funds ($300,000 annually beginning in Fiscal Year 2014/15), and placing significant focus on expanding the current CMP to enhance environmental and sustainability components
such as strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and reducing air pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Local Government Outreach A series of kickoff meetings were held
with local government officials to obtain initial input on congestion management issues and concerns, discuss key intersections to consider for detailed study, discuss funding of congestion
management projects, and receive any other feedback that local government staff may have for the TPO related to congestion management. The following local government kickoff meetings
were held at the offices of the individual local governments and were conducted by TPO and Kimley-Horn staff: ?? St. Lucie County – Monday, December 13, 2010 ?? City of Fort Pierce –
Monday, December 13, 2010 ?? City of Port St. Lucie – Monday, January 24, 2011 Advisory Committee Presentations The TPO advisory committees are public forums affording citizens an opportunity
to participate in the planning process. The TPO’s TAC is composed of technically qualified representatives of local and state agencies responsible for all modes of transportation as
well as a broad-based set of inter-related disciplines such as land use and environmental protection within the TPO’s metropolitan planning area. The TPO’s CAC is composed entirely of
citizens who facilitate a broad range of public involvement and provide community reaction to planning proposals, provide comment with respect to the concerns of various segments of
the population, and recommend projects and funding allocations for consideration. The TPO’s BPAC provides recommendations regarding bicycle and pedestrian planning and programming activities
for the TPO and is a forum for coordination with local and state government agencies.
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 3 Two rounds of presentations were given to the TAC and CAC (one in March and one
in July) to receive input at key stages during the study process and to receive comments on the draft recommendations. In addition, a presentation was given to the BPAC in July to receive
comments on the draft recommendations. Project Prioritization Criteria This CMP update proposes a two-tiered approach to define prioritization rankings. Tier I is geared towards providing
a system-wide screening evaluation that quickly identifies corridors and/or intersections that warrant additional (Tier II) analysis. The Tier II analysis evaluates the identified areas
of concern using more in-depth performance evaluation measures. One key benefit to this approach is that the Tier I analysis can easily be applied on a system-wide basis to help narrow
the focus to high priority corridors and intersections. The Tier I performance measures are are shown in Table 1. The higher the score in the Tier I ranking, the more likely the roadway
segment is to move on to a more detailed Tier II analysis. Table 1 Tier I Prioritization Criteria Performance Measure V/C Ratio Safety Key Stakeholder Input Range of Points <= 0.80;
0 0.80 ?? 0.94; 4 0.94 ?? 1.00; 6 1.00 ?? 1.10; 8 > 1.10; 10 Spots; 3 Segments; 5 10 The Tier II performance measures are shown in Table 2. The higher the score in the Tier II ranking,
the more critical the project is to become funded for implementation. Table 2 Tier II Prioritization Criteria Performance Measure Project Type Benefits Cost Issues Range of Points Safety
& Multimodal; 8 Safety; 5 Multimodal; 3 Operational; 2 Very High; 6 High; 4 Moderate; 2 <$75K; 6 $75K ?? $150K; 4 >$150K; 2 None; 3 Drainage, signal/utilities, landscaping; 2 Public
opposition; 1 Right of Way; 0
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 4 Ongoing System Performance Monitoring Framework The use of performance measures
to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the transportation network and of operations has increased in recent years. Rather than using highly technical measures such as level of
service, measures such as speed, travel time, and person throughput are employed to describe mobility and access at various levels such as for an entire corridor or for a particular
intersection. As the St. Lucie TPO implements a more sustainable and ecologically conscious approach to transportation planning, which was initiated by adopting the 2035 Long Range Transportation
Plan, unique performance measures are necessary in addition to collecting traffic count data. Typically, performance measures should be derived from the vision, goals, and objectives
established for the region during the metropolitan transportation planning process. The vision vision established in the 2035 Martin – St. Lucie Long Range Transportation Plan as well
as in the TPO’s Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) incorporates sustainability and multi-modalism. Table 3 shows performance measures that this CMP Update recommends using in the future
for ongoing system performance monitoring as data collection techniques become more robust. Table 3 Performance Measures for Ongoing Monitoring Measure Definition Sample Unit of Measurement
Vehicle Throughput Number of vehicles traversing a roadway section or passing a point per unit time Vehicles per hour Person Throughput Number of persons (including private vehicle occupants,
transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists) traversing a roadway section per unit time Persons per hour Speed The average speed of vehicles measured in a single lane, for a single direction
of flow, at a specific location on a roadway Miles per hour Customer Satisfaction A qualitative measure of customers’ opinions related to the roadway management and operations services
provided in a specified region Very satisfied/Somewhat satisfied/Neutral/Somewhat dissatisfied/Very dissatisfied/Don’t know/Not applicable
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 5 CMP Toolbox Potential CMP implementation strategies (CMP Toolbox) were grouped
into the following four categories for purposes of the St. Lucie CMP Major Update. Each of these four categories can include several possible strategies, and some strategies can overlap
between categories. ?? Multimodal o Examples include improving sidewalk connectivity to bus stops, providing bus-only “queue jumper” lanes at congested intersections, providing enhanced
crosswalks and pedestrian refuge islands, filling in gaps in the sidewalk network, providing bicycle facilities and bicycle parking, and requiring new developments to support transit-oriented
design for project corridors. ?? Travel Demand Management o Examples include park-and-ride lots, flexible work hours and telecommuting programs, guaranteed ride-home programs for transit
patrons and registered car/vanpoolers, providing designated high occupancy vehicle (HOV) HOV) lanes, and providing dedicated lanes for transit operation. ?? Utilizing Existing Capacity
More Efficiently o Examples include improving signal timing and arterial signal progression, implementing intersection geometric improvements, converting intersections to roundabouts
for improving efficiency and safety, implementing turn restrictions at certain intersections during peak travel times, and providing travelers with real time traffic information (Advanced
Traveler Information Systems). ?? Adding More Base Capacity o Examples include constructing strategic intersection improvements such as new turn lanes, increasing capacity to an existing
transit system, closing gaps in the roadway network, and adding travel lanes along existing roadways. New roadway construction and adding travel lanes to roadway segments are typically
beyond the funding capacity of CMP programs, but are shown here for purposes of completeness.
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 6 150 250 350 450 550 650 750 850 950 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00
AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM Number of Vehicles Time (6:00am through 7:00pm) Port St. Lucie Blvd; from Floresta Drive to Midport Road Eastbound Traffic
Volumes (15-minute increments) 15-Minute Volumes Levelof Service 'D' Capacity Levelof Service 'C' Capacity Tier I Evaluation The Tier I analysis is geared towards providing a system-wide
screening evaluation that efficiently identifies corridors and/or intersections that warrant additional (Tier II) analysis. This evaluation was applied to the CMP roadway network, which
is comprised of the majority of arterial roadways within St. Lucie County. Roadways where no available traffic count data were available were omitted from the analysis. The detailed
Tier I Evaluation was presented for review at prior advisory committee meetings and is included in full in the draft report. The detailed Tier I evaluation includes maps illustrating
the extent of congestion and figures depicting the duration of congestion (examples below). The results of the Tier I evaluation are shown in Table 4 for all roadway segments that received
scores (the segments that scored zero points are not shown in this table).
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management
Process September 2011 P a g e | 7 Rank Roadway Name From To Tier I Prioritization Score 1 US Highway 1 Georgia Avenue Virginia Avenue 26 1 US Highway 1 Virginia Avenue Edwards Road
26 3 Kings Highway Angle Road Orange Avenue 25 4 US Highway 1 Old Dixie Highway South Bridge 18 4 US Highway 1 South Bridge Orange Avenue 18 4 US Highway 1 Port St. Lucie Boulevard Martin
County Line 18 4 Virginia Avenue US Highway 1 Oleander Avenue 18 4 Virginia Avenue 13th Street South 25th Street South 18 9 US Highway 1 Prima Vista Boulevard Savanna Club Boulevard
17 10 St. Lucie West Boulevard Cashmere Boulevard California Boulevard 16 11 Kings Highway Orange Avenue Picos Road 15 11 Okeechobee Road Kings Highway Crossroads Parkway 15 11 Okeechobee
Road Crossroads Parkway Interstate 95 15 11 Orange Avenue Shinn Road Kings Highway 15 15 Bayshore Boulevard Floresta Drive Prima Vista Boulevard 14 15 Kings Highway Winter Garden Parkway
Indrio Road 14 15 Kings Highway Indrio Road Grove Road 14 15 Prima Vista Boulevard US Highway 1 Riomar Drive 14 15 US Highway 1 Delaware Avenue Georgia Avenue 14 20 US Highway 1 Savanna
Club Boulevard Village Green Drive 11 21 Angle Road Johnston Road Kings Highway 10 21 Angle Road Kings Highway 53rd Street 10 21 Avenue A Indian River Drive US Highway 1 10 21 Avenue
A US Highway 1 7th Street North 10 21 Bayshore Boulevard St. James Drive Floresta Drive 10 21 California Boulevard University Drive St. Lucie West Boulevard 10 21 California Boulevard
St. Lucie West Boulevard Crosstown Parkway 10 21 California Boulevard Crosstown Parkway Del Rio Boulevard 10 21 California Boulevard Del Rio Boulevard Savona Boulevard 10 21 California
Boulevard Savona Boulevard Del Rio Boulevard 10 21 California Boulevard Del Rio Boulevard Cameo Boulevard 10 21 Cashmere Boulevard Peacock Boulevard St. Lucie West Boulevard 10 21 Cashmere
Boulevard St. Lucie West Boulevard Crosstown Parkway 10 21 Citrus Avenue US Highway 1 Indian River Drive 10 21 Floresta Drive Port St. Lucie Boulevard Southbend Boulevard 10 21 Georgia
Avenue US Highway 1 7th Street South 10 21 Glades Cut-Off Road Selvitz Road Jenkins Road 10 21 Indrio Road Emerson Avenue Kings Highway 10 21 Indrio Road Kings Highway US Highway 1 10
21 Kings Highway Grove Road St. Lucie Boulevard 10 21 Kings Highway St. Lucie Boulevard Angle Road 10 Table 4 Tier I Evaluation Results
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 8 Rank Roadway Name From To Tier I Prioritization Score 21 Orange Avenue Kings Highway
Interstate 95 10 21 Orange Avenue 7th Street US Highway 1 10 21 Orange Avenue US Highway 1 Indian River Drive 10 21 Port St. Lucie Boulevard Gatlin Boulevard Del Rio Boulevard 10 21
Port St. Lucie Boulevard Floresta Drive Midport Road 10 21 Southbend Boulevard Eagle Drive Floresta Drive 10 21 St. Lucie Boulevard Kings Highway Sapp Road 10 21 St. Lucie West Boulevard
Bayshore Boulevard Cashmere Boulevard 10 21 Sunrise Boulevard US Highway 1 Virginia Avenue 10 21 US Highway 1 North Bridge Old Dixie Highway 10 21 US Highway 1 Orange Avenue Delaware
Avenue 10 21 US Highway 1 Kitterman Road Prima Vista Boulevard 10 21 Westmoreland Boulevard Morningside Boulevard Martin County Line 10 55 Interstate 95 Orange Avenue Okeechobee Road
9 56 Port St. Lucie Boulevard Morningside Boulevard US Highway 1 8 56 Prima Vista Boulevard Riomar Riomar Drive Floresta Drive 8 56 State Road A1A US Highway 1 South Bridge 8 59 Floresta
Drive Crosstown Parkway Port St. Lucie Boulevard 6 59 Port St. Lucie Boulevard Paar Drive Darwin Boulevard 6 61 25th Street South Virginia Avenue Cortez Boulevard 5 61 Interstate 95
Indrio Road Orange Avenue 5 61 Interstate 95 Midway Road St. Lucie West Boulevard 5 61 Interstate 95 St. Lucie West Boulevard Crosstown Parkway 5 61 Interstate 95 Crosstown Parkway Gatlin
Boulevard 5 61 Orange Avenue Hartman Road Angle Road 5 61 Orange Avenue Angle Road 29th Street 5 61 Orange Avenue 29th Street 25th Street 5 61 Orange Avenue 25th Street 13th Street 5
61 Virginia Avenue 25th Street South 35th Street South 5 71 Floresta Drive Prima Vista Boulevard Crosstown Parkway 4 71 Indrio Road Interstate 95 Johnston Road 4 71 Indrio Road Johnston
Road Emerson Avenue 4 71 Midway Road Sunrise Boulevard 25th Street South 4 71 Midway Road Selvitz Road East Torino Parkway 4 71 Port St. Lucie Boulevard Darwin Boulevard Gatlin Boulevard
4 71 Port St. Lucie Boulevard Airoso Boulevard Floresta Drive 4 71 Prima Vista Boulevard Airoso Boulevard Bayshore Blvd 4 71 US Highway 1 Edwards Road Market Avenue 4 71 US Highway 1
Village Green Drive Walton Road 4 71 Westmoreland Boulevard Port St. Lucie Boulevard Morningside Boulevard 4 82 25th Street South Okeechobee Road Virginia Avenue 3 82 US Highway 1 Tiffany
Avenue Port St. Lucie Boulevard 3 Table 4, continued Tier I Evaluation Results
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 9 Tier II Evaluation The Tier II analysis evaluates the selected locations identified
in the Tier I evaluation using more indepth performance evaluation measures. A consensus list of intersections (as agreed upon by the St. Lucie TPO Board, the St. Lucie TPO Technical
Advisory Committee, and the St. Lucie TPO Citizens Advisory Committee) was developed for Tier II evaluation. Intersection capacity analyses were conducted utilizing detailed peak hour
turning movement counts at each intersection and recommended capacity enhancements were identified. The following intersections were evaluated in the Tier II analysis: ?? US Highway
1 @Old Dixie Highway ?? US Highway 1 @Orange Avenue ?? US Highway 1 @Georgia Avenue /Sunrise Boulevard ?? US Highway 1 @Virginia Avenue ?? US Highway 1 @Edwards Road ?? St. Lucie West
Boulevard @Peacock Boulevard ?? St. Lucie West Boulevard @Cashmere Boulevard ?? Prima Vista Boulevard Boulevard @Bayshore Boulevard ?? Port St. Lucie Boulevard @Gatlin Boulevard ?? Floresta
Drive /Oakridge Drive @Southbend Boulevard /Oaklyn Street ?? Selvitz Road @Bayshore Boulevard ?? Selvitz Road @Glades Cut-Off Road ?? Selvitz Road @Midway Road Table 5 Summary of Recommended
Improvements Intersection Recommended Improvement US Highway 1 @Old Dixie Highway Prohibit the ‘westbound to southbound’ left-turn movement US Highway 1 @SR A1A /North Causeway No improvements
recommended (intersection meets overall level of service) US Highway 1 @Orange Avenue Convert the westbound approach to one shared through/left-turn lane and one right-turn lane; consider
implementing an ‘all-pedestrian’ signal phase to accommodate additional pedestrians associated with the new courthouse US Highway 1 @Georgia Avenue /Sunrise Boulevard No improvements
recommended (intersection meets overall level of service)
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 10 Intersection Recommended Improvement US Highway 1 @Virginia Avenue Construct
a southbound right-turn lane US Highway 1 @Edwards Road No improvements recommended (intersection meets overall level of service) St. Lucie West Boulevard @Peacock Boulevard Option 1;
Implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound innermost leftturn lane Option 2; same improvements identified in option 1 and the construction of an
additional eastbound left-turn lane St. Lucie West Boulevard @Cashmere Boulevard No improvements recommended (intersection meets overall level of service) Prima Vista Boulevard @Bayshore
Boulevard Implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound right-turn lane towards the north to create additional queue storage; Construct a sidewalk
along Bayshore Boulevard between Prima Vista Boulevard and Selvitz Road Port St. Lucie Boulevard @Gatlin Gatlin Boulevard Signal timing adjustments Floresta Drive @Southbend Boulevard
Construct a roundabout Selvitz Road @Bayshore Boulevard Option 1; construct a southbound right-turn lane Option 2; construct a roundabout Selvitz Road @Glades Cut-Off Road No improvements
recommended (intersection meets overall level of service) Selvitz Road @Midway Road Intersection improvements already being design by the County including new turn lanes
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 11 Table 6 Summary of Post-Improvement LOS Signalized or Unsignalized ?? AM Peak
Hour Level of Service (1) PM Peak Hour Level of Service (1) Suggested Improvement AM Peak Hour Level of Service (1) PM Peak Hour Level of Service (1) Option 1 -Construct a southbound
right-turn lane D /C C /C Option 2 -Construct a roundabout (may require ROW purchases) B B 2) Glades Cut-Off Road & Selvitz Road Unsignalized C C No improvements required; intersection
meets level of service --3) US Highway 1 & Old Dixie Highway Unsignalized C F Close the westbound to southbound left-turn movement at this intersection and reroute these trips to US
Hwy 1 (2) (3) (2) (3) 4) US Highway 1 & Edwards Road Signalized C D No improvements required; intersection meets level of service --5) US Highway 1 & Orange Avenue Signalized C D Consider
converting westbound approach to one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane. In addition, consider an "all-pedestrian" signal phase to accommodate additional pedestrian
traffic that will result from new courthouse. D E 6) US Highway 1 & Virginia Avenue Signalized D D Construct southbound right-turn lane; City of Fort Pierce is collecting funds from
other sources for this improvement. D D 7) US Highway 1 & Georgia Ave/Sunrise Blvd Signalized B C No improvements required; intersection meets level of service --Option 1 -implement
a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound innermost left-turn lane D D Option 2 -implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound
innermost left-turn lane; construct an additional eastbound left-turn lane, which will require the removal of existing landscaping in median D D 9) St. Lucie West Blvd & Cashmere Blvd
Signalized D D No improvements required; intersection meets level of service --10) Port St. Lucie Blvd & Gatlin Blvd Signalized D F Optimize signal timing during the PM peak hour by
providing the northbound and southbound approaches more green time. This can be done by slightly decreasing the green times for the eastbound and westbound movements. In addition, removing
the southbound overlap phase may be justified because the southbound left-turn volume does not warrant the additional protected time. D E 11) Floresta Drive & Southbend Blvd Signalized
E E Construct a roundabout A A 12) Prima Vista Blvd & Bayshore Blvd Signalized F F Implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound right-turn lane towards
the north (up to Macedo Blvd); Construct sidewalk along Bayshore Blvd between Prima Vista Blvd and Selvitz Road E E 13) US Highway 1 & SR-A1A/North Causeway Signalized C C No improvements
required; intersection meets level of service --Notes:(1) Levels of service shown for unsignalized intersections represent the stop-controlled approach(es) level of service. Levels of
service shown for signalized intersections represent the overall level of service. (2) Closing the 'westbound to southbound' left-turn movement at this intersection will remove the only
approach that experiences delay. Therefore, no level of service is applicable. (3) Closing the 'westbound to southbound' left-turn movement at this intersection requires rerouting the
trips that used this segment to make westbound left-turns at the intersection of US Highway 1 & SR-A1A/North Causeway. Therefore, the intersection of US Highway 1 & SR-A1A/North Causeway
was analyzed during AM & PM peak hours (see intersection # 13 above). Existing Conditions Intersection Improved Conditions 1) Bayshore Blvd & Selvitz Road Unsignalized D /D C /E 8) St.
Lucie West Blvd & Peacock Blvd Signalized E E
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 12 Table 7 Tier II Detailed Scoring Evaluation Type of Level of Improvement Benefit
1a Bayshore Blvd @Selvitz Road Option 1 -Construct a southbound right-turn lane Operational 2 High 4 less than $75K 6 None 3 15 1b Bayshore Blvd @Selvitz Road Option 2 -Construct a roundabout
(may require ROW purchases) Operational 2 Very High 6 greater than $150K 2 Right of Way 0 10 2 US Highway 1 @Old Dixie Highway Close/prohibit the westbound to southbound left-turn movement
Safety 5 Very High 6 less than $75K 6 None 3 20 3 US Highway 1 @Orange Avenue Reconfigure the westbound approach to one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn lane. Consider
an "all-pedestrian" signal phase. Multimodal /Operational 3 High 4 greater than $150K 2 Signal/Utilities 2 11 4 US Highway 1 @Virginia Avenue Construct southbound right-turn lane Operational
2 Moderate 2 between $75K and $150K 4 Right of Way; Signal/Utilities 0 8 5a St. Lucie West Blvd @Peacock Blvd Option 1 -implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend
the southbound innermost left-turn lane Operational 2 Moderate 2 less than $75K 6 Lost Landscaping; Signal/Utilities 2 12 5b St. Lucie West Blvd @Peacock Blvd Option 2 -Option 1 improvements
plus the construction of an additional eastbound leftturn lane Operational 2 High 4 between $75K and $150K 4 Lost Landscaping; Signal/Utilities 2 12 6 Port St. Lucie Blvd @Gatlin Blvd
Signal timing optimization Operational 2 Moderate 2 less than $75K 6 None 3 13 7 Floresta Drive @Southbend Blvd Construct a roundabout Operational 2 Very High 6 greater than $150K 2
Right of Way 0 10 8a Prima Vista Blvd @Bayshore Blvd Implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound right-turn lane towards the north (up to Macedo
Blvd) Operational 2 High 4 less than $75K 6 Signal/Utilities 2 14 8b Prima Vista Blvd @Bayshore Blvd Construct sidewalk along Bayshore Blvd between Prima Vista Blvd and Selvitz Road
Safety and Multimodal 8 High 4 greater than $150K 2 Drainage 2 16 The following criteria were used to generate Tier II scores for each improvement: Criteria 1 -Type of Improvement Safety
and Multimodal = 8 points Safety = 5 points Multimodal = 3 points Operational = 2 points Criteria 2 -Level of Benefit Very High = 6 points High = 4 points Moderate = 2 points Criteria
3 -Cost less than $75K = 6 points between $75K and $150K = 4 points greater than $150K = 2 points Criteria 4 -Potential Issues None = 3 points Signal/Utilities = 2 points Lost Landscaping
= 2 points Drainage = 2 points Public Opposition = 1 point Right of Way = 0 points Tier II Prioritization Criteria Improvement ID Intersection Improvement Description Tier II Total Score
Criteria 3 Construction Cost Range Score Criteria 4 Potential Issues Score Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Score Score
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 13 Table 8 Tier II Scoring Evaluation Rankings 1 US Highway 1 @Old Dixie Highway
Close/prohibit the westbound to southbound left-turn movement 20 2 Prima Vista Blvd @Bayshore Blvd Construct sidewalk along Bayshore Blvd between Prima Vista Blvd and Selvitz Road 16
3 Bayshore Blvd @Selvitz Road Option 1 -Construct a southbound right-turn lane 15 4 Prima Vista Blvd @Bayshore Blvd Implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend
the southbound right-turn lane towards the north (up to Macedo Blvd) 14 5 Port St. Lucie Blvd @Gatlin Blvd Signal timing optimization 13 6 St. Lucie West Blvd @Peacock Blvd Option 1
-implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound innermost left-turn lane 12 6 St. Lucie West Blvd @Peacock Blvd Option 2 -Option 1 improvements plus
the construction of an additional eastbound leftturn lane 12 8 US Highway 1 @Orange Avenue Reconfigure the westbound approach to one shared left-turn/through lane and one right-turn
lane. Consider an "all-pedestrian" signal phase. 11 9 Bayshore Blvd @Selvitz Road Option 2 -Construct a roundabout 10 9 Floresta Drive @Southbend Blvd Construct a roundabout 10 11 US
Highway 1 @Virginia Avenue Construct southbound right-turn lane 8 Rank Intersection Improvement Description Tier II Total Score
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 14 TIER II EVALUATION SCORING Understanding where congestion occurs and identifying
strategies or improvements that can reduce or mitigate the impacts of congestion are critical steps in the development of a Congestion Management Process (CMP). However, these two steps
are followed by what is considered as the most integral step, which is the implementation of the CMP strategies. Implementing the identified strategies typically requires the following
steps: ?? Step 1 – Determine funding sources ?? Step 2 – Prioritizing strategies ?? Step 3 – Allocating funding in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) In terms of Step 1 (determining
funding sources) for implementing CMP strategies, District Four of the Florida Department of Transportation anticipates that approximately $300,000 per year will be available for St.
Lucie County beginning in Fiscal Year 2014/2015. Other funding sources should be considered as they become available. Step 2, the prioritization of strategies, was conducted by this
CMP Major Update. The CMP strategies and their associated rankings are detailed herein. In order to allocate the necessary funding within the TIP (Step 3), the estimated costs for each
of the identified improvements were developed. It should be noted that the costs that were developed are estimated based on current generalized construction costs and are not guaranteed
to be the actual cost at the time of construction. Based on the estimated costs, an implementation schedule of improvements was developed. Table 9 details this implementation plan, which
was set up in a format similar to a typical TIP table. It was assumed that the aforementioned $300,000 per year will be available for CMP improvements beginning in Fiscal Year 2014/2015.
Year 1, which is referenced in Table 9, refers to Fiscal Year 2014/2015. Note that any changes in the availability of funds will impact the implementation plan. While the St. Lucie TPO
will be the lead agency responsible for funding the CMP improvements, coordination with other public agencies (such as the City of Port St. Lucie, the City of Fort Pierce, St. Lucie
County, and FDOT) will be necessary to execute the process effectively and implement the improvements. Furthermore, public involvement will be an important step prior to the design phase
of the improvement projects.
St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Congestion Management Process September 2011 P a g e | 15 1 2 3 4 5 1 US Highway 1 @Old Dixie Highway Close/prohibit the westbound to southbound
left-turn movement $ 30,000 $ 30,000 ----2 Prima Vista Blvd @Bayshore Blvd Construct sidewalk along Bayshore Blvd between Prima Vista Blvd and Selvitz Road $ 160,000 $ 160,000 ----3
Prima Vista Blvd @Bayshore Blvd Implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound right-turn lane towards the north (up to Macedo Blvd) $ 40,000 $ 40,000
----4 Port St. Lucie Blvd @Gatlin Blvd Signal timing optimization ------5 St. Lucie West Blvd @Peacock Blvd Implement a southbound right-turn overlap signal phase and extend the southbound
innermost left-turn lane $ 45,000 $ 45,000 ----6 US Highway 1 @Orange Avenue Reconfigure the westbound approach to one exclusive left-turn lane and one shared through/right-turn lane.
Consider an "all-pedestrian" signal phase. $ 200,000 -$ 200,000 ---7 Bayshore Blvd @Selvitz Road Construct a roundabout $ 350,000 (2) --$ 350,000 --7 Floresta Drive @Southbend Blvd Construct
a roundabout $ 400,000 (2) ----$ 400,000 9 US Highway 1 @Virginia Avenue Construct southbound right-turn lane $ 75,000 -$ 75,000 ---$ 1,300,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 350,000 $ -$ 400,000
$ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ -$ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ -$ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 325,000 $ 350,000 $ 300,000 $ 600,000 $ 275,000 $ 275,000 $ 350,000 $ -$ 400,000 $ 25,000
$ 50,000 $ -$ 300,000 $ 200,000 Notes: (1) (2) TOTAL AVAILABLE REVENUE ?? REVENUE USED FOR IMPROVEMENTS ?? REMAINING BALANCE ?? The Engineer has no control over time, labor and material
cost furnished by others, methods of determining prices, or market conditions. All opinions rendered herein as to cost represent best judgement; the Engineer does not guarantee that
actual cost will not vary from opinion of cost. Right-of-Way purchases will likely be required. This reported cost accounts for an estimated $100,000 in right-of-way costs. SUBTOTALS
?? ESTIMATED AVAILABLE REVENUE (FROM CMP BOX FUNDS) ?? REVENUE ROLLOVER FROM PREVIOUS YEARS ?? Rank Intersection Improvement Description Estimated Construction Cost (1) Year Table 9
Implementation Plan
Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Telephone: 772/462-1593 Facsimile: 772/462-2549
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Board/Committee: Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting Date: September 20, 2011
Item Number: 6d Item Title: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FY 2012/13 – FY 2016/17 Draft Tentative Work Program Item Origination: FDOT UPWP Reference: Task 3.3– Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) Requested Action: Review and recommend endorsement, recommend endorsement with conditions, or do not recommend endorsement. Staff Recommendation: Because the
Draft Tentative Work Program was not completed by FDOT prior to the preparation of this agenda packet, an analysis of the Draft Tentative Work Program could not be completed by Staff.
It is recommended that the Draft Tentative Work Program be reviewed and discussed at the joint meeting and that recommendations be formed by the advisory committees based on the comments
provided by the TAC, CAC, BPAC, and TPO staff. Attachments ? Staff Report ? 2011/12 List of Priority Projects
Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Telephone: 772/462-1593 Facsimile: 772/462-2549
MEMORANDUM TO: St. Lucie TPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) St. Lucie TPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) St. Lucie TPO Bicycle-Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) FROM: Peter
Buchwald Executive Director DATE: September 15, 2011 SUBJECT: Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FY 2012/13 – FY 2016/17 Draft Tentative Work Program BACKGROUND The St. Lucie
TPO Board adopted the attached 2011/12 List of Priority Projects (LOPP) on August 3, 2011, which was submitted to FDOT. For the first time ever, the LOPP includes a Transportation Enhancement
(TE) LOPP which integrates all of the LOPPs other than the Master (Roadway) and the Transit LOPPs. The projects in the TE LOPP are prioritized based on a TE Project Prioritization Methodology
developed by the TAC, CAC, and BPAC. FDOT is using the 2011/12 LOPP to develop its Work Program for FY 2012/13 -FY 2016/17 and is to program and fund projects based on the St. Lucie
TPO’s priorities. FDOT has requested an opportunity to present the Draft Tentative Work Program to the TPO advisory committees for review and comment. FDOT subsequently will present
the Draft Tentative Work Program to the TPO Board for its comments and endorsement at its Regular Meeting on October 5, 2011. In addition, a Public Meeting will be conducted by FDOT
on October 3, 2011, at 6:30 pm to receive public comments regarding the Draft Tentative Work Program. The Public Meeting may be attended via webinar or in person at the FDOT District
4 Treasure Coast Operations Auditorium. In January 2012, the Final Tentative Work Program will be submitted to the Governor and the State Legislature and provided to the TPO for development
September 15, 2011 Page 2 of 2 of the TPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for FY 2012/13 -FY 2016/17. ANALYSIS In developing the Draft Tentative Work Program, FDOT attempts
to protect the projects in the existing Adopted Work Program. FDOT then allocates funding to the projects in the TPO’s LOPP to the extent that the funding is available. New projects
or project phases typically are allocated to the new fifth year of the Draft Tentative Work Program. The Work Program may include projects that are not in the TPO’s LOPP but are required
by FDOT for system preservation or safety, such as resurfacing, intersection improvements scheduled by the FDOT Traffic Operations Division, and bridge replacement projects. FDOT’s presentation
will address the extent to which projects from the TPO’s LOPP will be programmed (funded). The Draft Tentative Work Program should be reviewed by the local agencies and the public to
identify which projects in the TPO’s LOPP have been programmed and in which fiscal year the projects are scheduled. The local agencies should also identify any changes in projects that
are apparent between the Adopted Work Program and the Draft Tentative Work Program which are inconsistent with the plans, agreements, expectations, and/or understanding of the local
agencies. In addition, the Draft Tentative Work Program should be reviewed for consistency with the 2035 St. Lucie-Martin Regional Long Range Transportation Plan (RLRTP). Because the
Draft Tentative Work Program was not completed by FDOT prior to the preparation of this report, an analysis of the Draft Tentative Work Program could not be completed by Staff. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Draft Tentative Work Program be reviewed and discussed at the joint meeting and that recommendations be formed by the advisory committees based on the comments
provided by the TAC, CAC, BPAC, and TPO staff.
2011/1 Priorit Rankin 1 2 3 4 5 1RLRTP: 2 2Source: 3PD&E: Pr 4PE: Preli 5Project L12 ty ng Facil Crosstown Pa Kings Highwa (SR-713) Indrio Road ( Port St. Lucie Kings Highwa Intersection
2035 St. Lucie/Mar RLRTP, unless othe roject Developmen minary Engineering Limits of PD&E for P Transpo ity arkway Mant ay Okee Road SR-614) I-95 e Boulevard Parr ay At In rtin Regional
Long R erwise noted t & Environmental gPort St. Lucie Boule ortation Planning 2011/1 Project Lim From th Lane US echobee d (SR-70) I-9 Em (SR Drive5 Da Bou ndrio Road Range Transportati
Study evard shall be fromg for Fort Pierce, 2 List of P (adopted M mits P To -1 (SR-5) N 5 Overpass A merson Avenue R-607) A rwin ulevard AIn im ion Plan, February m Darwin Boulevard
Port St. Lucie, St Priority Pr d August 3, 2 aster List Project Descriptio New bridge (6 lanes Add lanes (2) Add lanes (2) Add lanes (2) ntersection mprovements 2011 d to Becker Road
t. Lucie Village an rojects (LO 2011) on Project Status/Not s) PD&E3 in proc PD&E in proce PE4 in in processnd St. Lucie Coun OPP) tes On RLRTP1 Needs List? cess Yes ess Yes s Yes Yes
Yes nty 23 Fort Pie Telep Fac In RLRTP Cost Feasible Plan? EstC Yes $170 Yes $25 Yes $19 Yes $22 Yes $12300 Virginia Aven erce, FL 34982-5 phone: 772/462-1 simile: 772/462-2 imated Cost2
2010/Prior Ranki ,000,000 2 ,700,000 3 ,300,000 4 ,200,000 NR ,500,000 NRnue 652 593 549 /11 ity ing RR
2011/12 LOPP (adopted August 3, 2011) Page 2 of 4 Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County Transit 2011/12 Priority Ranking Facility/Equipment
Project Location/Description Project Status/Notes In RLRTP1 or TDP2? Estimated Cost3 2010/11 Priority Ranking 1 Maintain Existing Level of Service Maintain span, frequency & number of
routes Yes $5,004,0164 1 2 Vehicle Purchases Replacement only vehicles specified by the TDP-Paratransit Cutaway Buses Yes $2,051,654 2 3 Enclosed Bus Shelters Miscellaneous locations
along fixed routes with priority at transit transfer locations Regional route shelters to include funding from Treasure Coast RTO Yes $15,7505 3 4 Park & Ride Infrastructure Miscellaneous
locations Yes Not available 4 5 Increase Span of Service Increase Weekday Span of Service to 6:00am to 8:00pm on TCC Routes 1,2,3 Yes $186,127 7 6 Implement New Routes Port St. Lucie
to Fort Pierce lntermodal Facility via US-1 Yes $209,455 8 7 Increase Frequency of Service Increase frequency to every 30 minutes weekdays on TCC Routes 1-6 Yes $1,412,328 9 8 Fort Pierce
Operations Facility Transit operations facility with bus storage Yes $7,250,000 5 9 Passenger Rail Station Downtown Fort Pierce Yes $4,000,0007 6 1RLRTP: 2035 Martin-St. Lucie Regional
Long Range Transportation
Plan, February 2011 2TDP: FY 2009/10 – FY 2018/19 Regional Transit Development Plan for the Port St. Lucie Urbanized Area 3Source: Tables 7-1 and 8-5 of TDP, unless otherwise noted
4St. Lucie Community Transit, September 2010 5Estimated cost is per enclosed bus shelter; Source: St. Lucie County Housing and Community Services Department, July 2009 7Source: City
of Fort Pierce Planning Department, July 2010
2011/12 LOPP (adopted August 3, 2011) Page 3 of 4 Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County Transportation Enhancement (TE) Projects
2011/12 Priority Ranking Score1 Facility Project Limits Project Description Project Source Estimated Cost 2010/11 Priority From To Ranking 1 ACP2 Cashmere Boulevard Del Rio Blvd SW Janette
Ave Sidewalk-0.7 miles 2011 TE Grant Application $374,0253 NR4 2 ACP 21st Street/Havana Avenue Nebraska Ave 13th Street Sidewalk-1.0 miles 2011 TE Grant Application $345,6023 NR 3 53.0
Del Rio Boulevard Port St. Lucie Blvd Cashmere Blvd Sidewalk-2.8 miles 2010/11 LOPP $771,0805 5 4 48.0 Savona Blvd Gatlin Blvd Parr Drive Sidewalk-2.8 miles Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List
$1,214,0205 NR 5 47.0 Cameo Boulevard Crosstown Pkwy Port St. Lucie Blvd Sidewalk-1.7 miles 2011 TE Grant Application $761,3193 NR 6 46.5 Tulip Boulevard Cherry Hill Drive Port St. Lucie
Blvd Sidewalk-3.3 miles 2010/11 LOPP $976,5405 3 6 46.5 Walton Road Lennard Rd Green River Pkwy Sidewalk-1.1 miles St. Lucie County School District $483,0006 NR 8 43.5 17th Street -portions
missing Georgia Avenue Avenue Q Sidewalk-1.7 miles 2010/11 LOPP $170,0007 8 9 43.0 East Torino Parkway Volucia Dr Conus St Sidewalk-0.4 miles St. Lucie County School District $168,0006
NR 10 42.0 East Torino Parkway Peacock Apts C-106 Canal Sidewalk-0.3 miles Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List $237,2205 NR 11 41.5 North Macedo Blvd Selvitz Road St. James Drive Sidewalk-1.0
miles Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List $525,2205 NR 11 41.5 Selvitz Road Milner Drive Peachtree Blvd Sidewalk-0.8 miles 2010/11 LOPP $337,9205 4 11 41.5 Selvitz Road Bayshore Blvd North
Macedo Sidewalk-0.4 miles St. Lucie County School District $189,0006 NR 14 40.0 Parr Drive Port St. Lucie Blvd Darwin Blvd Sidewalk-1.0 miles Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List $442,4205 NR
15 38.5 Thornhill Drive Bayshore Blvd Airoso Blvd Sidewalk-1.0 miles Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List $594,8205 NR 16 36.5 Parr Drive Savona Blvd Port St. Lucie Blvd Sidewalk-0.8 miles Port
Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List $344,0505 NR 16 36.5 29th Street -portions missing Avenue I Avenue Q Sidewalk-0.5 miles 2010/11 LOPP $50,0007 7 16 36.5 Boston Avenue 25th Street 13th Street
Sidewalk-0.8 miles 2010/11 LOPP $80,0007 9 19 36.0 Savona Blvd Parr Drive Becker Road Sidewalk-0.9 miles Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List $442,4205 NR 20 35.5 Curtis Street Prima Vista Blvd
Floresta Drive Sidewalk-0.5 miles Port St. Lucie Sidewalk List $461,6205 NR 21 34.5 Weatherbee Road US-1 Oleander Ave Sidewalk-0.5 miles St. Lucie County School District $226,0006 NR
2011/12 LOPP (adopted August 3, 2011) Page 4 of 4 Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2011/12 Priority Ranking Score1 Facility
Project Limits Project Description Project Source Estimated Cost 2010/11 Priority From To Ranking 22 34.0 Oleander Avenue Midway Rd S Market Ave Sidewalk-1.3 miles St. Lucie County School
District $554,4006 NR 22 34.0 Oleander Avenue Midway Rd Saeger Ave Sidewalk-1.5 miles St. Lucie County School District $672,0006 NR 22 34.0 Volucia Drive Blanton Blvd E Torino Pkwy Sidewalk-1.0
miles St. Lucie County School District $441,8406 NR 22 34.0 Darwin Boulevard Becker Road Paar Drive Sidewalk-1.1 miles 2010/11 LOPP $308,5805 10 26 32.5 29th Street Avenue Q Avenue T
Sidewalk-0.1 miles 2010/11 LOPP $10,0007 6 27 31.5 Alcantarra Boulevard PSL Blvd Savona Blvd Sidewalk-0.8 miles St. Lucie County School District $357,0006 NR 28 20.0 Traffic Signal Preemption
Technology Various Various 50 Intersections 55 Fire/EMS vehicles St. Lucie County Fire District $750,0008 NR 29 17.0 Bicycle Facilities Improvement Program Various Various Install various
bicycle facilities 2011 TE Grant Application $401,3533 NR 30 5.0 West Cedar Pedestrian Mall 2nd Street FEC Railroad Streetscape improvements 2011 TE Grant Application $440,7563 NR 1Scoring
is based on the St. Lucie TPO Transportation Enhancement Project Prioritization Methodology 2ACP: Construction is anticipated to be programmed in FDOT Tentative Work Program as a result
of 2011 TE Grant Cycle 3Source: TE grant applications for 2011 4NR: Not ranked 5Source: City of Port St. Lucie Engineering Department, July 2011 6Source: St. Lucie County School District,
January 2011 7Estimated cost is based on an assumed cost of $100,000 per mile 8Source: St. Lucie County Fire District, July 2011 Scoring Assumptions/Notes 1) All Bicycle and Pedestrian
Projects are assumed to Improve Accessibility for the Physically Disabled and are given 5 points (Project Need & Function). 2) All Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects are assumed to Connect
to School Bus Stops or Transit Facilities and are given 10 points (Project Need & Function). 3) All Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects are assumed to be Included in an adopted bicycle pedestrian
plan and are given 5 points (Project Need & Function). 4) All Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects are assumed to provide a Paved Pathway (Sidewalk) that Meets Applicable Requirements and
are given 2.5 points except Walton Road which is assumed to provide a bike lane and 8’ sidewalk (Project Details). 5) Existing speed limits and proposed intersection improvements were
not provided and were not considered in the scoring.
Board/Meetin Item N Item T Item O UPWP Reque Staff R Attach ? Staf ? StudTransportatio /Commit ng Date: Number: Title: Originatio Referenc sted Acti Recomme hments ff Report dy Present
on Planning for A tee: on: ce: ion: endation: tation r Fort Pierce, P AGENDA I St. Lu Citize Bicycl Septe 6e US-1 Study Unifie Task Pedes Recom study, or do : It is r Corrid recom BoardPort
St. Lucie, S ITEM SUM ucie Techn ns Adviso e Pedestr ember 20, Corridor yd Planning 4-1, strian Safe mmend ac , recomm not recom ecommen dor Inte mmended d. St. Lucie Villag MMARY nical
Advis ry Commi ian Adviso 2011 Intersect g Work Pr US-1 C ety Study cceptance end accep mmend ac nded that ersections for accege and St. Luc 2300 Fort Pierce Telepho Facsim sory Comm
ittee (CAC ory Comm ions Pede rogram (U Corridor e of the r ptance wi cceptance. the result Safety eptance cie County Virginia Av e, FL 34982-one: 772/462 ile: 772/462-mittee (TA C)
mittee (BPA estrian Sa UPWP) Intersect results of th conditi .ts of the U Study by the venue -5652 2-1593 -2549 AC) AC) afety tions the ons, US-1 be TPO
Transportation Planning for Fort Pierce, Port St. Lucie, St. Lucie Village and St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, FL 34982-5652 Telephone: 772/462-1593 Facsimile: 772/462-2549
MEMORANDUM TO: St. Lucie Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) THROUGH: Peter Buchwald Executive Director
FROM: Edward DeFini Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager DATE: September 15, 2011 SUBJECT: US-1 Corridor Intersections Pedestrian Safety Study BACKGROUND On March 11, 2010, USDOT Secretary
Ray LaHood announced new USDOT policy statements on bicycle and pedestrian regulations and recommendations. The USDOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling
facilities in order to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide, including
health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life. Transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards. FDOT has commenced a project consisting of
a triple left-hand turn lane for the intersection of Port St. Lucie Boulevard and US-1 (#4231151). The FDOT plans do not include pedestrian improvements as part of the project. Concerns
have been expressed relating to the current and future safety of pedestrians maneuvering across or through this intersection and others along US-1. Consistent with the above-summarized
USDOT policy, and after hearing citizen’s concerns expressed through public meetings, the TPO Board, at its meeting on October 6, 2010, approved the scope for a study of the intersection
of Port St. Lucie Boulevard and US-1 and other intersections within the US-1 corridor perceived as unsafe for pedestrians, especially those with disabilities.
September 15, 2011 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS While these intersections exhibit high vehicular traffic volume and vehicular traffic incidents, pedestrian incidents are very low due to the
low number of pedestrians crossing at these intersections. Due to the low pedestrian use, the low number of pedestrian incidents at these intersections, and the undetermined potential
for generating greater pedestrian activity at these intersections, only the following remedial improvements are recommended at the intersections: ? Install south leg of crosswalk on
US 1 at Port St. Lucie Boulevard. ? Install countdown pedestrian display on US 1 at Tiffany Avenue. ? Install missing detectable warning pad on SE corner of US 1 at Prima Vista Boulevard.
? Install missing detectable warning pads in the sidewalk on the NE and SE corners of the US 1 at Virginia Avenue intersection. RECOMMENDATION Based on the information provided by the
study, it is recommended that that the US-1 Corridor Intersections Safety Study be recommended for acceptance by the TPO Board.
US 1 Corridor Intersections Pedestrian Safety Study – Conclusions St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Sept. 2011 Presented by:
Study Objective ??Evaluate the conditions of each intersection with respect to pedestrian safety and identify opportunities for implementation of pedestrian safety improvements which
integrate walking and bicycling. Study Intersections ??US 1 at Port St Lucie Boulevard ??US 1 at Tiffany Avenue ??US 1 at Prima Vista Boulevard ??US 1 at Virginia Avenue St. Lucie TPO
– Conclusions -September 2011
St. Lucie TPO – US 1 Corridor Intersections Pedestrian Safety Study Virginia Avenue US 1 Prima Vista Blvd Tiffany Avenue Port St. Lucie Blvd.
St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Data Analysis ??Each of the study intersections, except the intersection of US 1 at Port St. Lucie Boulevard has standard pedestrian crossing features; such as crosswalks and pedestrian
crossing indicators on each leg of the intersection. ??The traffic along the US 1 corridor during the peak hours flows well. ??There is very little pedestrian/bike activity along the
US 1 corridor during the peak hours. ??The study intersections appear to operate at acceptable levels of service. ??There are many types of vehicular crashes at the intersections, but
very few ped/bike crashes. St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Intersection Count Summary Bike/Ped Trips* Vehicular Trips* Bike Crashes** Ped Crashes** Vehicle Crashes** Virginia Avenue 25 5,856 0 1 128 INTERSECTION Prima Vista Boulevard 28 9,717
0 0 101 Tiffany Avenue 21 8,367 1 0 36 Port St. Lucie Boulevard 10 10,756 1 0 67 84 34 696 2 1 332 US 1 T t l 34,696 * -Based on a summary of AM and PM peak hour counts (February 2011)
** -Based on 5-Year Crash History (2005 -2010) Total St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Level of Service Level Of Service Summary Table Vehicular Pedestrian Delay LOS Delay LOS Space ( ft2/ped)** LOS* Space ( ft2/ped)** LOS* PM Peak INTERSECTION AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak
p ) p ) Virginia Avenue 33.0 C 39.5 D 80.0 A 80.0 A Prima Vista Boulevard 52.3 D 55.2 E 80.0 A 80.0 A Tiffany Avenue 31.7 C 58.9 E 80.0 A 80.0 A US 1 Port St. Lucie Boulevard*** 63.6
E 76.5 E 80.0 A 80.0 A * -LOS is based upon Queuing Area LOS in the HCM 2000, assuming that an typical intersection corner is approximately 80 ft2 with 160 second cycle lengths. ** -Average
per corner of the intersection. ***-Intersection analysis performed with NB Triple Left Turn St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Crash Data Analysis ??Crash analysis performed for the years of 2005 through 2010 for the study intersections. ??335 crashes combined for the analysis period. Crash Summary Table – Years
2005 -2010 Crash Data Analysis Rear End Angle Left Turn Side Swipe Ped Fixed Obj. Bike Backed Parked Rt. Turn Others Fatality Night Wet Port St. Lucie Blvd 70 16 9 18 0 1 1 3 1 2 8 1
44 20 129 Tiffany Avenue 21 1 2 4 0 1 1 0 1 3 3 0 10 2 37 PrimaVistaBoulevard 61 16 4 7 0 2 0 1 0 6 4 0 38 19 101 US 1/SR 5 at Type of Crash Total Crashes PCrimraaVisstahBo uDlevaardta
6A1 naly16sis Virginia Avenue 24 8 3 16 1 7 0 1 0 3 5 1 12 9 68 Total 176 41 18 45 1 11 2 5 2 14 20 2 104 50 335 * Based on Data provided by FDOT. Only 1 pedestrian crash in 5 years
St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Crash Data Analysis Summary – All Crash Types Years 2005 -2010 Crash Summary ??Port St. Lucie Boulevard – 129 Total Crashes ??0 Pedestrian crash Pedestrian Crashes ??1 Bicycle Crashes
??Tiffany Avenue – 37 Total Crashes ??0 Pedestrian Crash ??1 Bicycle Crashes ??Prima Vista Boulevard – 101 Total Crashes ??0 Pedestrian Crashes ??0 Bicycle Crashes ??Virginia Avenue
– 68 Total Crashes ??1 Pedestrian Crash ??0 Bicycle Crashes St. Lucie TPO – Initial Findings -April 2011
140 Crash Data Analysis Summary Years 2005 -2010 120 128 80 100 101 shes 60 67 umber of Cras 20 40 36 Nu Port St. Lucie Blvd 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 St. Lucie TPO – Initial Findings -April 2011
Tiffany Avenue Prima Vista Boulevard Virginia Avenue 1 0 Ped Bike Veh. Crashes
Port St. Lucie Boulevard Bike Crash ??Crash was reported on 12/28/09 at 4:13 pm ??A 60 year old driver making a westbound right turn from the Paradise CarWash of the intersection struck
a 44 year old bicyclist N.T.S oulevard ??A 60 year old driver making a westbound right turn from the Paradise Car Wash driveway south of the intersection struck a 44 year old bicyclist
Car Wash driveway south strwuhocwkas t raave li4ng4sou tyhbeounad arlo nog UlSd1 who was traveling southbound along US 1 on a clear day during the daylight with a dry roadway surface.
The bicyclist suffered injuries. Saddle Club Road Bonaventure Bo STOP STOP who was traveling southbound along US 1 on a clear day during the daylight with a dry roadway surface. The
bicyclist suffered injuries. ??60 year old driver was cited at fault in the crash. ??60 year old driver was cited at fault in the crash. MEDIAN 2 STOP STOP 1 St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions
-September 2011 St. Lucie County TPO US 1 at Port St. Lucie Boulevard Collision Diagram Sheet No.
Tiffany Avenue Bicycle Crash ??Crash was reported on 1/11/08 at 3:21 pm ??A 16 year old bicyclist was struck by a 69 year old driver who was traveling approximately 20 feet south N.T.S
oulevard ??A 16 year old bicyclist was struck by a 69 year old driver who was traveling in the northbound direction approximately 20 feet south of the intersection in the lefttraveling
in the northbound direction approximaturtn leanelydur i2ng d0ay lifghet weithta dsryouth of the intersection in the left-turn lane during daylight with a dry roadway surface. 16 year
old bicyclist did not use crosswalk and was noted for injuries Saddle Club Road Bonaventure B STOP STOP turn lane during daylight with a dry roadway surface. 16 year old bicyclist did
not use crosswalk and was noted for injuries. ??69 year old driver was not cited in the crash. injuries. ??69 year old dMErDiIAvNer was not cited in the crash. 2 STOP STOP 1 St. Lucie
TPO – Conclusions -September 2011 St. Lucie County TPO US 1 at Tiffany Avenue Collision Diagram Sheet Sheet No.
Virginia Avenue Pedestrian Crash ??Crash was reported on 4/2/05 at 12:20 pm ??A 57 year old pedestrian was fatally struck by a 33 year old driver who was the northbound direction N.T.S
oulevard ??A 57 year old pedestrian was fatally struck by a 33 year old driver who was traveling in the northbound direction near the north crosswalk at the intersection in traveling
in ththeerig hnt laonerdutrihng dbdayolighut conndditio nds irection near the north crosswalk at the intersection in the right lane during daylight conditions with a rain. ??33 old was
not cited at fault in theSadcdlreaClsubh Road Bonaventure B STOP STOP the right lane during daylight conditions with a rain. ??33 year old driver was not cited at fault in the crash.
year driver the crash. MEDIAN 2 STOP STOP 1 St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011 St. Lucie County TPO US 1 at Tiffany Avenue Collision Diagram Sheet No.
Intersection Issues/Potential Improvements ?? Port St. Lucie Boulevard 1. No x-walk on south leg. 2. Ped crossing only activated by push button. 3. X-walk pavement markings are faded.
?? Tiffany Avenue 1. X-walk and push buttons present on each approach, no countdown display. 2. Ped crossing only activated by push button. ?? Prima Vista Avenue 1. Missing detectable
warning pad on SE corner for east-west crossing. 2. Ped crossing only activated by push button. ?? Virginia Avenue 1. East leg consist of sidewalk with no detectable warning pads to
cross CVS d/w. 2. Detectable warning pads present for each crossing, except east leg. 3. Ped crossing only activated by push button. St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Remedial Improvements ??Install south leg of crosswalk on US 1 at Port St. Lucie Boulevard. ??Install countdown pedestrian display on US 1 at Tiffany Avenue. ??Install missing detectable
warning pad on SE corner of US 1 at Prima Vista Boulevard. ??Install missing detectable warning pads in the sidewalk on the NE and SE corners of the US 1 at Virginia Avenue intersection.
St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Potential Improvements 1. Implement 2-stage pedestrian crossing with median refuge islands at the study intersections, with enhanced signage. Pros 1 Sh t d t i Cons 1. Shortens pedestrian
1 M i l t i l crossing distance. 2. Provides safe refuge for stranded pedestrians. 3 I ll 1. May require a larger typical section from existing conditions. 2. May require additional
3. Improves overall d t i i l h d intersection level of service, due to shorter pedestrian phases. 4 L t If i ht f i pedestrian signal head indications, deflection devices and signage.
3. High cost if right-of-way is 4. Low cost – right-of-way is t il bl C t i available. not available – Cost varies. St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Potential Improvements 2. Lighted crosswalks/traffic signal enhancements activated by pedestrian detection systems at all study intersections , with flashing pedestrian warning signage.
Pros 1. Alerts drivers of pedestrians in the lk Cons 1. Requires maintenance by local agency. crosswalk. h l 2. Provides safe indication to pedestrians to cross. 2. High cost – Approximately
$60,000 per intersection (equipment only), plus install. St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Potential Improvements 3. Install textured pavement crosswalks at all study intersections. Pros 1 Al t d i f lk Cons 1. Alerts drivers of crosswalk 1 R i i t b locations. 2. Directs
pedestrians to crossing location. 3 A th ti ll l i 1. Requires maintenance by local agency. 3. Aesthetically pleasing. 4. Low cost – Approximately $60,000 per intersection. St. Lucie
TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Potential Improvements 4. Accessible pedestrian signals with audible speakers/acoustic indicators (maintenance). Pros 1 Al t d t i h Cons 1. Alerts pedestrians when 1 R i i t b it’s
safe to cross, especially visually impaired. 2. Low cost – Approximately $3 000 i t ti 1. Requires maintenance by local agency. 3,000 per intersection. St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September
2011
Potential Improvements 5. Elevated crosswalk structure. Pros 1 P id f d t i Cons 1. Provides safe pedestrian 1 E t l hi h t C t crossing all hours of the day. 2. Improves overall roadway
d d t i f t 1. Extremely high cost – Cost varies by design. 2. Generally used for intersections with high and pedestrian safety. h hi t d hi h 3. Improves intersection delay. crash history
and high volumes. St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
US 1 at Port St. Lucie Boulevard Simulation
Recommended Cost-Effective Measures: 1. US 1 at Virginia Avenue -Preferred Alternative Improvements ?? Install missing detectable warning pads in the sidewalk on the NE and SE corners
of the US 1 at Virginia Avenue intersection -$3,000 ?? Install textured pavement crosswalks on the north, south and west legs of the intersection -$40,000 Approximate Total Intersection
Cost: $48,000 2. US 1 at Prima Vista Boulevard -Preferred Alternative Improvements ?? Install textured pavement crosswalks on each leg of the intersection -$60,000 Approximate Total
Intersection Cost: $60,000 3. US 1 at Tiffany Avenue -Preferred Alternative Improvements ?? Install countdown pedestrian display on US 1 at Tiffany Avenue -$5,000 ?? Install textured
pavement crosswalks on each leg of the intersection -$60,000 Approximate Total Estimated Cost: $65,000 St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions -September 2011
Recommended Cost-Effective Measures: 4. US 1 at Port St. Lucie Boulevard -Preferred Alternative Improvements ?? Install textured pavement crosswalks on each leg of the intersection,
including south leg where no existing crosswalk is present -$60,000 Approximate Total Estimated Cost: $60,000 5. Coordination with FDOT – District IV, Traffic Operations Division s ge
w/2 glks sswalks estrian swalk st Improvement Remedial Improvement Median Refug Stage Crossing Light Crosswa Textured Cros Accesible Ped Signals Elevated Cross Structure Estimated Cos
Vi i i A X X $43 000 US 1 at Virginia Avenue 43,000 Prima Vista Boulevard X $60,000 Tiffany Avenue X X $65,000 Port St. Lucie Boulevard X $60,000 Total: $228,000 St. Lucie TPO – Conclusions
-September 2011