11/18/2014 (7) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 2 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences The majority of the existing environmental conditions and impacts are summarized in Sections 4 and 5 of the DEIS, and CDM Smith's review of those two sections is presented below. 2.1. Traffic and Transportation Impacts 2.1.1 Railroad Ctossings Selected The DEIS failed to consider a representative sample of railroad crossings in Indian River County and thus the impact has not adequately been analyzed or addressed. Two out of 30 crossings in Indian River County were selected based on the largest 2012 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on roads crossing the rail line. Oslo Road had a 2012 AADT of 14,400 and 191h Place an AADT of 11,500. Although these roads have the largest AADT, they may not necessarily have the longest delay and queue caused by train activity. Two out of 30 intersections represents an inadequate sample size. 2. 1.2 Traffic Projections The DEIS failed to follow FDOT guidance by not conducting actual intersection turning movement counts and not conducting an analysis using those actual counts The DEIS estimated peak hour intersection traffic at the two Indian River County crossings by applying a K (daily traffic occurring in the peak hour) and D (directional distribution) factor to the AADT values. AAF then applied a turning movement volume distribution (left, through, and right) to the PM peak hour traffic to estimate intersection traffic. The DEIS failed to calculate AM peak hour conditions completely. This methodology, according to the Railroad Crossing Analysis report for All -Aboard -Florida, is found in the 2009 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Quality/Level of Service Handbook, CDM Smith's concern with this methodology is that the estimated peak hour intersection traffic volumes could be significantly different than actual traffic, and that the differences are compounded when a growth rate is applied. It would be more appropriate to conduct actual intersection turning movement counts and conduct analysis using those actual counts (see FDOT 2014 Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook Ch.6, Section 6.5 paragraph). Year 2016 and 2036 traffic projections were based on a one percent annual growth rate. The report states this was based on historical traffic data and is conservative because much of the corridor has seen negative growth over the last several years. It would be more appropriate to utilize the regional Travel Demand Model to project future traffic conditions. 2.1.3 Delay and t: twuing AnalyJ,, The DEIS does not properly analyze the delay and queuing calculations. Table 3-10 in the rail crossing report presents some confusing information. First, the automobile delay and queue calculations caused by a passenger and freight train are almost the same, but CDM Smith understands that a freight train is much longer and will create a longer "gate down" condition. Second, CDM Smith is not sure how the delay and queue calculations are done. At Oslo Road and US 1 the eastbound delay and queue at the intersection is CDM 301 3(0 Smith 2 i