Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-041 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 041 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT TO STATE AND REGIONAL REVIEW AGENCIES. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS,the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2019 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS,the Local Planning Agency,after due public notice,held a public hearing on these comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 25, 2019, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency, after receiving public comments, made a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 11, 2019, after due public notice; and WHEREAS,The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to State and Regional Review Agencies (Appendix A): F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments\2019 Transportation and CIE\Transmittal Resolution and Ordinances\Transmittal Text Resolution June 2019.doc 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 041 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MODIFY CERTAIN CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS, MODIFY CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS, MODIFY AND ADD NEW POLICIES TO ALLOW FOR MORE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT;AND TO UPDATE THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT TO MODIFY CERTAIN TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS,AND TO REMOVE AND REPLACE OUTDATED TEXT, DATA, AND MAPS; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Joseph Flescher and seconded by Commissioner Susan Adams and upon being put to a vote,the vote was as follows: Bob Solari, Chairman AYE Susan Adams, Vice Chairman AYE Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner AYE Tim Zorc, Commissioner AYE Peter D. O'Bryan, Commissioner AYE The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 11th day of June 2019. ••y co•����ss''.• BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION a'• INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA i lr , � ▪�• ' .:*'s BY: �2 y�.c�c. �•o �'� S. :9 : � ;'• roe: Bob Solari, Chairman ••:t ttE •• ATTEST: UV(at iko Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller APPROVED j TO D LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William K. II eBraal, Deputy County Attorney F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments\2019 Transportation and CIE\Transmittal Resolution and Ordinances\Transmittal Text Resolution June 2019.doc 2 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 041 APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Zi& Stan Boling, AICP Community Develo t Director F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments\2019 Transportation and CIE\Transmittal Resolution and Ordinances\Transmittal Text Resolution June 2019.doc 3 of 3 Com i rehensive Plan j \ \;,._J j ) J r J � �' (,J11 �' � J ) J;I, ._.J. improvements program.For. J J;1,1 P'L ;\%C;1 111` 1 1'. ; 1 ] ] `J.J'.� list, the total estimated cost i= overall general fund revenu J.1 . I I��_.J.J ' j,J C•`(_-) � ( j.1(1-rf.c. Concurrency Management Plan To ensure that level-of-service standards are maintained, it is necessary to have a system in place that provides the criteria for measuring facility capacity, assessing development demand on applicable facilities,and monitoring service levels for applicable facilities. That system will set the parameters for issuing development orders consistent with level-of-service standards. While this concurrency management plan sets policies and establishes a process, the specific application of this system is through the County's land development regulations. As per state requirements, those regulations define the details of the concurrency management system and establish its administrative requirements. The major purpose of the concurrency management system is to detail the specifics of implementing the County's level-of-service standards. For that reason,the concurrency management system must apply to all development activity in the County. The system must then identify the applicable standards for each facility, the geographic scope of each facility, and the method of monitoring facility capacity changes. Most importantly,this system must specify when facilities are considered available. Project Applicability All development orders issued by the County and identified below must comply with the concurrency management plan and meet level-of-service standards. Development orders are County approvals for construction and/or land development activity. Specifically, development orders consist of the following: comprehensive plan amendments, rezonings, site plan approvals, preliminary plat approvals, development of regional impact (DRI) approvals, planned development preliminary approvals, and building permit approvals for multi aingle'family projects. . _ .. co Within Indian River County,the impact from the construction of a single family home on an existing subdivision platted lot or legally created single-family parcel may—will constitute a de minimus impact on public facilities and thus be exempt from the concurrency requirement. Concurrency traffic impacts for single-family homes will be accounted for through tracking single-family trips and an annual traffic count update of the County's Concurrency Management System. Single—family Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted �'I( ,2019,Ordinance 2019-01 40 • Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element trips tracked through this accounting system will be considered in development project traffic studies. ...- I I Service Standards Level-of-service standards for concurrency related facilities are established in this plan for the following facilities:sanitary sewer,potable water,solid waste,stormwater management,recreation, public schools, and transportation. Those are explained in detail in the applicable comprehensive plan elements. For each facility,level-of-service is a measure of the relationship between demand for the service and the capacity of the facility. Capacity, however, is measured differently for each type of facility. Table 6.16 identifies both the capacity and demand measures for each public facility. Those measures are addressed in detail, and existing capacities are identified in the applicable Comprehensive Plan Elements. Table 6.16:Service Level Measures for Concurrency Related Facilities Public Facility Category Specific Facility Capacity Measure Demand Measure Geographic Scope Transportation Roadway Volume of cars Peak Season/Peak Affected Roadways accommodated over time Direction/Peak Hour Trips Sanitary Sewer Treatment Plant Treatment design capacity Generation Rate(GPD) Service Area i - Potable Water Treatment Plant Treatment design capacity Generation Rate(GPD) Service Area Volume in active cell(cubic Generation Rate(tons per Entire County Solid Waste Landfill yards) capita per year) Recreation Parks Acres of park land Acres of parks per Entire County thousand population Stormwater Management Drainage Volume of water Volume of stormwater Basin conveyances outfalling for design storm Education" Public Schools(K- Number of students Enrolled Students/Future Service Area 12) accommodated over time Student Generation *Limited to participating Schools owned and operated by the Indian River County School District Concurrency requires that each facility within the geographic scope of a proposed project's impact area have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's demand. If that capacity is not available, the project cannot be approved. The principal function of the concurrency management system then is to provide a mechanism whereby demand and capacity measures can be compared on a project by project basis. Community Development Department • Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-TI 41 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Table 6.16 provides the criteria for establishing a demand to capacity comparison for a proposed project. While most of the characteristics are self-explanatory, one needs clarification; that is the geographic scope for the traffic public facility category. For concurrency purposes, affected roadways are those roadways impacted by a project's traffic. Regardless of size,all projects impact the roadway on which the project fronts. In addition, other roadways further removed from the project may be impacted. For concurrency purposes, two lane roadways which are assigned 8 or more peak hour/peak season/peak direction project trips and four or more lane roadways that are assigned 15 or more peak hour/peak season/peak direction project trips are considered impacted roadways. For transportation concurrency related facilities,level-of-service standards are applied to all impacted roadways. Those level-of-service standards range from A to F and are associated with peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips. Demand Demand is an important component of the concurrency management system. Essentially,demand is a measure of facility use. When compared to facility capacity,demand can indicate the level-of-service for the facility. As depicted in Table 6.16,demand can be measured quantitatively for each public facility category. While the demand function for each facility consists of applying a rate to the number of facility users, estimation of total demand is more complex. For concurrency management purposes,demand can be divided into three types:existing,committed,and projected. Each must be considered separately for purposes of concurrency management. Existing Demand Existing demand is simply the current level of use for a facility. For a roadway, it is the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips; for a school, it is the number of full-time enrolled P p students; for water and wastewater treatment plants, it is the existing flow volume measured in gallons per day. Those figures are included within applicable plan elements. Existing demand then reflects the use of a facility by the current population. When compared to capacity, existing demand can show if the facility has unused capacity or if it is functioning over capacity. Existing demand,however, is not static. As population increases and dwelling units come on-line, existing demand increases. Those increases in existing demand can be identified through facility use measurements. For example,regular traffic counts done on roads or treatment plant flow records are Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-1/ 42 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element examples of facility use measurements indicating existing demand levels. As existing demand levels for facilities are updated, committed demand levels must be reduced if projects representing committed demand have come on-line. Committed Demand Committed demand is a measure of the impact that approved development projects with reserved capacity will have on facilities. When added to existing demand for a facility,the committed demand for that facility will produce a more accurate estimate of unused capacity. That estimate of unused capacity represents the amount of capacity that can realistically be allocated to new projects. Committed demand must be determined by identifying all projects for which capacity has been reserved through issuance of initial concurrency certificates which are still valid. Then the specific facilities that will be impacted by those projects with reserved capacities must be determined;those facilities will be roadways and the landfill,and they may be treatment plants,drainage conveyances, and recreation facilities. Finally,the total demand on each facility attributable to committed demand will be determined. Applicable elements of the plan identify the rates to be applied to each project to determine facility demand. Traffic volumes, for example, can be derived by applying a trip rate to the size of the project. Sanitary sewer and potable water both have rates of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. Other public facility rates are discussed fully in their applicable Comprehensive Plan Element. Like existing demand, committed demand must be determined on a facility by facility basis. For example,both existing demand and committed demand must be determined for each major roadway, each school,each treatment plant,each major drainage conveyance,and the active cell in the landfill. Also, like existing demand, committed demand estimates must be modified as projects are completed; committed demand estimates must also be modified as new development orders are approved and old development orders are terminated. Projected Demand The third type of demand is projected demand. This consists of two types. One is non- committed/non-reserved, single-family lot demand for all subdivisions, , 1990,while the other is new project demand. Non-committed/non-reserved single-family lot projected demand relates to the facility impacts associated with construction on individual single-family lots in platted subdivisions platted-aftef February 13, 1990 and construction on legally established individual single-family unplatted lots and Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-4) 43 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element acreage will constitute a de minimus impact on public facilities and thus be exempt from concurrency review.Single-family home traffic impacts will be accounted for through tracking single-family trips for use in development project traffic studies and annual traffic count updates.-Sin � ee-of The second type of projected demand is new project demand. For each new project, demand estimates must be made on a facility by facility basis. Only if sufficient available capacity exists for each facility to be impacted can the project be approved and a development order issued. Upon issuance of a development order, the estimated impacts on each facility would be considered as committed demand. Availability of Capacity Facility capacity can be assessed two different ways. First, facility capacity can be determined by facilities that are existing and available; examples would be existing treatment plants and existing roadways with a set number of lanes. The second manner for assessing facility capacity is to consider both existing, in-the-ground facilities as well as facility expansions or new facilities which are programmed but not yet existing. As part of the concurrency review process,the capacity of existing, in-the-ground facilities will be considered in all cases. Programmed facilities will be considered in assessing capacity for each public facility category when the following conditions are met: ➢ For sanitary sewer,potable water, solid waste and drainage facilities: 1. A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent,the necessary facilities and services are in place and available to serve the new development; or 2. At the time the development order or permit is issued,the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement to be in place and available to serve new development at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. ➢ For parks and recreation facilities: 1. At the time the development order or permit is issued,the necessary facilities and services are in place or under actual construction; or Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-41 44 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element 2. A development order or permit is issued subject to the condition that, at the time of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent, the acreage for the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development is dedicated or acquired by the local government,or funds in the amount of the developer's fair share are committed; and a. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the necessary facilities and services needed to serve the new development are in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or b. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the necessary facilities and services to serve the new development to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent; or c. At the time the development order or permit is issued, the necessary facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement, to be in place or under actual construction not more than one year after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent. ➢ Transportation supply(capacity). Transportation supply shall be determined on a segment by segment basis.For concurrency purposes,all segments on the county's thoroughfare plan shall be considered. Capacity for segments will be based either on FDOT's generalized capacity tables or individual segment capacity studies approved by the public works director pursuant to the criteria specified in Chapter 952, Traffic. Transportation supply for each segment is: 1. The segment's existing peak hour,peak season,peak direction capacity; or 2. The segment's new roadway capacity if facility expansion for the segment is proposed and if: a. At the time a development order or permit is issued,the necessary facilities and services are in place or under construction; or b. A development order or permit is issued subject to a condition that the facility expansion needed to serve the new development is included in the county's adopted five-year schedule of capital improvements and is scheduled to be in place or under Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019- 41 45 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element actual construction not more than three years after issuance of the project's first building permit or its functional equivalent. The schedule of capital improvements may recognize and include transportation projects included in the first three years of the adopted Florida Department of Transportation five year work program. In order to apply this provision to a facility expansion project, the Capital Improvements Element must include the following policies: i. The estimated date of commencement of actual construction and the estimated date of project completion. ii. A provision that a plan amendment is required to eliminate,defer,or delay construction of any road or mass transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard and which is listed in the five-year schedule of capital improvements(for Indian River County,this is included in Policy 1.2 of this Element); or 3. The segment's new roadway capacity if, at the time a development order or permit is issued, the facility is the subject of a binding executed agreement which requires the facility to be in place or under actual construction no more than three years after the issuance of the project's first building permit or its functional equivalent; or 4. The segment's new roadway capacity if, at the time a development order or permit is issued,the facility is guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement,to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a building permit or its functional equivalent. 5. The segment's new roadway capacity if facility expansion for the segment is the subject of a proportionate fair-share agreement. In such case, the segment capacity increase reflected in the proportionate fair share agreement shall be available only to the party or parties to the proportionate fair share agreement. ➢ For school facilities: A residential development order or permit shall be issued only if the needed capacity for the particular service area is available in one or more contiguous service areas. Regulation No development order shall be issued for any project where the project's demand in conjunction with existing demand and committed demand will exceed the capacity of a facility at the service level established in this plan. Level-of-service analysis will be undertaken during the review of each project for which development order approval is required. Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-91 46 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Monitoring System To effectively implement the concurrency requirement, it is necessary to maintain an estimate of available capacity for each public facility subject to level-of-service requirements. By maintaining an accurate and current available capacity' estimate for each facility, projected demand from development applications can be compared to the available capacity for the facility to determine if the project can be approved. The purpose of the monitoring program is to maintain a current estimate of available capacity for each facility. With the exception of public schools,the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan is maintained by the county's planning division. Effective July 1, 2008, the School District initiated and now maintains the monitoring system portion of the concurrency management plan for public schools. Using a network computer system and database management software,records were developed and are maintained for each specific facility. Based upon information in the specific comprehensive plan elements,total capacity figures for each applicable facility are maintained in database files established for each public facility category. Capacity figures are modified as facilities are expanded or as criteria specified in the availability of capacity section are met, thereby allowing a programmed expansion to be considered for capacity determination purposes. Through contact with other county departments,planning staff are able to modify capacity estimates as soon as facility characteristics are changed. Table 6.17 depicts the general structure of the monitoring system database file for each public facility category. That table shows that available capacity for each specific facility is a function of total capacity less existing demand and less committed demand. The demand section of this concurrency management plan identifies the methodology for assessing demand. Table 6.17: Monitoring System Design Public Facility Specific Total Capacity Existing Demand Committed Demand Available Capacity Category Facilities Peak season/peak Annual count(average) Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)-(Existing Traffic Roadways direction/peak (peak season/peak approved Development Demand)-(Committed Demand) hour(LOS D) direction/peak hour) Orders(DO) Sanitary Sewer Treatment Design flows Existing flows Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)-(Existing Plants approved DO's Demand)-(Committed Demand) Potable Water Treatment Design flows Existing flows Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)-(Existing Plants approved DO's Demand)-(Committed Demand) Solid Waste Landfill Active cell design Active cell volume used Volume estimated from (Total Capacity)-(Existing capacity approved DO's Demand)-(Committed Demand) (Acres per thousand (Acres per thousand (Total Capacity)-(Existing Recreation Parks Park Acreage population)X(existing population)X(projected Demand)-(Committed Demand) population) population for approved Community Development Department River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-/I 47 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Table 6.17: Monitoring System Design Public Facility Specific Total Capacity Existing Demand Committed Demand Available Capacity Category Facilities DO's) Drainage Volume of stormwater , (Total Capacity)-(Existing Drainage conveyances Volume Existing flows allowed to outfall for Demand)-(Committed Demand) approved DO's Public Permanent Annual Enrollment Students estimated from (Total Capacity)-(Existing Student Stations approved residential Education Schools(K-12) (FISH) Count(FTE) Development Orders) Demand)-(Committed Demand) To implement the monitoring system, the following actions shown in table 6.18 will be necessary. Table 6.18: Monitoring System Tasks Action Responsible Department Timing Do quarterly traffic counts for thoroughfare plan roads to determine existing demand Engineering Annually Compile quarterly ridership statistics for all fixed routes MPO Annually Identify existing flows for each water and sewer treatment plant Utilities Annually Estimate Landfill(active cell)volume used Utilities Annually Estimate population and apply park standard to determine park existing demand Planning Annually Estimate existing flows for drainage conveyances Engineering Annually Enter data received from other departments into computer Planning Ongoing Do annual student counts(FTE)for public schools to determine existing demand School District Annually Add estimated demand for new projects to committed demand total upon issuance of DO Planning Ongoing Maintain records of units/projects receiving a certificate of occupancy,maintain demand Planning Ongoing estimates from those units/projects,subtract estimated demand for those units/projects for committed demand once existing demand is updated Applicability The concurrency management plan monitoring system has applicability to more than just level-of- service measurement. It also provides the basis for assessing facility expansion needs and therefore capital improvements programming. By maintaining an accurate and up-to-date estimate of available capacity, the need for facility expansion can be recognized before all capacity is used. By Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-1'1 48 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element incorporating the monitoring system into the capital improvements programming process, capital budgets can be prepared based on reliable information and valid estimates of need. Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-4 49 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Goal, Objectives and Policies Goal It is the goal of Indian River County to provide needed capital improvements through the use of sound fiscal decision making. Objectives and Policies Objective 1: Construction of Capital Facilities By 2023,the county will have completed those capital improvements schedule projects that replace obsolete or worn-out facilities,eliminate existing deficiencies or accommodate desired future growth. Policy 1.1: The countyshall maintain a five-year capital improvement program and pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(b) F.S. evaluate and update that program every year to reflect existing and future public facility needs of the county. This capital improvement program will ensure that the plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standards are achieved and maintained. Policy 1.2: The county and the School District shall undertake only those capital improvements included within this element's adopted capital improvements program. Pursuant to Section 163.3177(3)(b)F.S.,the Capital Improvements Element will be reviewed every year. If any facility identified in the Schedule of Capital Improvements is delayed or deferred in construction, or is eliminated from the capital improvements program,and this delay,deferral,or elimination will cause the level-of-service to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level of service standard for the facility, a comprehensive plan amendment will be required to adjust the Schedule of Capital Improvements. The annual update of the capital improvement element shall be done with a single public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and a copy of the ordinance amending the Capital Improvements Element shall be transmitted to DEO. Policy 1.3: The county shall evaluate and prioritize its capital improvement projects based on following criteria. These criteria are ranked in order of importance. ➢ Preservation of the health and safety of the public by eliminating public hazards; ➢ Compliance with all mandates and prior commitments; ➢ Elimination of existing deficiencies; ➢ Maintenance of adopted level-of-service standards; ➢ Provision of infrastructure concurrent with the impact of new development; ➢ Protection of prior infrastructure investments; ➢ Consistency with the county plan and plans of other agencies; ➢ Accommodation of new development and redevelopment facility demands; Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-41 50 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element ➢ Consistency with plans of state agencies and water management districts that provide public facilities within the local government's jurisdiction; ➢ Promotion of compact development by discouraging growth outside of urban service areas; ➢ Demonstration of linkages between projected growth and facility location; ➢ Utilization of the economies of scale and timing of other improvements; ➢ Reduction of operating costs; ➢ Adjustment for unseen opportunities, situations, and disasters. Policy 1.4:The county shall implement the policies of the Potable Water,Sanitary Sewer,and Solid Waste sub-elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Since these are enterprise account funded elements, capital expenditures identified in these elements shall be funded principally from revenues derived from the applicable systems. Policy 1.5:The county shall prioritize and implement the programs identified in the Transportation, Recreation and Open Space,Stormwater Management,Conservation,and Future Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.6: The county shall not eliminate or reallocate budgeted appropriations for road improvement projects required to meet the adopted level-of-service standards unless the applicable projects will be constructed by other means and remain concurrent with the county's Schedule of Capital Improvements. Policy 1.7: The county shall continue to allocate funds for the replacement and the renewal of infrastructure in an amount which will minimize the operating costs of the infrastructure and maximize the life of the infrastructure. Policy 1.8: The county shall manage its long-term general obligation debt in such a manner that the ratio of the debt service millage to the countywide operating millage does not exceed 20%. Policy 1.9: The county hereby defines a capital improvement as an improvement with a cost that exceeds $100,000. Policy 1.10: The Schedule of Capital Improvements shall contain a mix of capital expenditures, including projects to eliminate existing deficiencies,to upgrade and replace existing facilities,and to construct new facilities. Policy 1.11: The county shall maintain a procedure in its annual budget review requiring each county department to include in its annual budget request applicable expenditures as identified in the capital Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-If 51 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element improvements program of the appropriate Comprehensive Plan Element as well as department's capital improvements. Policy 1.12: The county hereby adopts the 2018—201$9 through 2022-2023 Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan.The Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan will be evaluated and updated annually to reflect existing and future public school facility needs of the county. This will ensure that the Indian River County School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan is financially feasible and that the adopted level-of-service standard for public schools is achieved and maintained. Objective 2: Development in Coastal High Hazard Areas Through 2030, development in coastal high hazard areas will not increase beyond the density or intensity levels indicated on the current Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.1: The coastal high hazard area is defined as the area of the county designated as evacuation zones for a category one hurricane. Policy 2.2: The county shall not increase land use density and intensity, in the coastal high hazard area, beyond that reflected in the county's current Future Land Use Map. Policy 2.3: The county shall make appropriations for infrastructure in coastal high hazard areas only to maintain the adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 2.4: The county shall ensure that the replacement of infrastructure in the coastal high hazard area will be limited to maintaining the adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 2.5: The county shall require that all developments and all single-family units in coastal high hazard areas fully pay the cost for required infrastructure improvements through impact fees,capacity charges, developer dedications, assessments, and contributions. Policy 2.6: The county shall not use public funds to subsidize increased density or intensity of urban development in coastal high hazard areas; however, public beach, shoreline access, resource restoration, or similar projects may be constructed. Objective 3: Maintenance of Established Level-of-Service Standards Through 2030, adopted levels-of-service will be maintained for all concurrency facilities. Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-4( 52 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.1: The county hereby adopts the concurrency management system as described within this element. The county shall maintain Land Development Regulation (LDR) Chapter 910, Concurrency Management System,which implements the plan's concurrency management system.In accordance with the concurrency management system of this plan and LDR Ch. 910,the county will not approve any development project where the impacts of such a project would lower the existing level-of-service on any facility below that facility's adopted minimum level-of-service standard. Policy 3.2: The county shall approve development only in accordance with the utility connection matrix identified in the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub-Elements. Policy 3.3: The county shall, concurrent with the impact of new development, provide the infrastructure necessary to maintain the levels-of-service identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Where development is proposed and is consistent with all applicable regulations but one or more public facilities is/are operating at an inadequate service level, the applicant may at his expense make facility improvements to increase facility capacity when such improvements are consistent with county plans and receive county approval. Policy 3.4:The county shall make land use decisions based on the planned availability of facilities to maintain adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 3.5:The county hereby adopts Concurrency Management level-of-service standards for public facilities that are established in the other Comprehensive Plan Elements and which are stated below: ➢ Stormwater Management: The county hereby adopts the following level-of-service standard for all new drainage systems within the unincorporated county: ➢ New development requiring major site plan approval or subdivision platting shall construct a complete drainage system to mitigate the impacts of a 25 year/24 hour design rainfall event using the soil conservation service type 2 modified rainfall curves. ➢ Post development runoff for any drainage basin shall not exceed pre-development runoff unless a maximum discharge rate has been adopted and the discharge does not exceed that rate. If a maximum discharge rate has not been adopted for a basin,post development discharge may not exceed pre-development discharge. By 2023,all existing roadways in the county shall be improved to meet the following level-of-service standards: Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ 53 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element ➢ Minimum road crown elevation for existing roads shall be raised during resurfacing/rebuilding to the flood elevation resulting from the 2 year/24 hour storm event on local streets. ➢ The center two lanes of rebuilt roads must be at or above flood levels resulting from a 10Y ear 24 hour storm event on Arterial and Collector roads. ➢ All drainage basins will meet the following level of service standard: 10-Year/24 Hour Storm Event The county hereby adopts the following water quality level-of-service standard: ➢ As a minimum, retention of the first one inch of rainfall is required prior to offsite discharge. An additional 50%treatment is required for all direct discharge into the Sebastian River and into the Indian River Lagoon due to its designation as an outstanding Florida water, as required by state law. ➢ Potable Water The following level-of-service standard is adopted for the county's potable water facilities,and shall be utilized for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development: ➢ Countywide level-of-service standard of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit. ➢ Solid Waste The following level-of-service standard is adopted for solid waste facilities in the county,and shall be used as the basis for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development: ➢ Countywide level-of-service standard of 2.2 tons or 3.67 cubic yards per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population per year. ➢ Sanitary Sewer The following level-of-service standard is adopted for the county's sanitary sewer facilities,and shall be utilized for determining the availability of facility capacity and demand generated by a development: ➢ Countywide level-of-service standard of 250 gallons per day per equivalent residential unit with a peak monthly flow factor of 1.25. Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019- 54 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element ➢ Recreation& Open Space The county adoptsfollowing the recreation level-of-service standard: ➢ County wide level-of-service standard of 6.61 recreation acres/1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population. ➢ Transportation The county adopts traffic circulation level-of-service standards as follows: ➢ Level-of-Service"D"during peak hour,peak season,peak direction conditions,on all TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway,arterial,and collector roadways,with the exception of the following two, which will operate at level of service "E" plus 20%. • 27th Ave—South County Line to SR 60 • 43rd Ave—Oslo Road to 16th Street ➢ Level-of-Service "D" plus 20% during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions on the following roads until such time that a major capacity improvement, as specified below, is constructed.At such time that the major capacity improvement is constructed,the level of service for that road shall be"D"during peak hour,peak season,peak direction conditions. • CR 510—66th Avenue to US Highway 1 (scheduled for widening) • 37th Street—US Highway 1 to Indian River Boulevard(scheduled for widening or alternatively mitigated by extension of Aviation Boulevard from US 1 to 37th Street) During the time period before major capacity improvements are provided for these two roads,proposed major development projects approved by the planning and zoning commission or board of county commissioners that will impact either or both of the roads may, based on a traffic study approved by the Public Works Director, be approved with conditions related to provisions for interim roadway improvements that mitigate project impacts on one or both roads. For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways,level of service"B"is adopted for rural areas, and level of service "C" is adopted for urban areas. Policy 3.6: The county hereby adopts level-of-service standards for selected public facilities as follows: Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ 55 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element ➢ Correctional Facilities The county adopts the following correctional facilities level-of-service standard: ➢ County wide level-of-service standard of 4.5 beds/1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population ➢ Fire/EMS The county adopts the following Fire/EMS level-of-service standard: ➢ County wide (excluding Indian River Shores) level-of-service standard of .089 Stations per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population ➢ Law Enforcement The county adopts the following Law Enforcement level-of-service standard: ➢ Unincorporated County level-of-service standard of 2.09 officers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population ➢ Libraries The county adopts the following Libraries level-of-service standards: ➢ County wide level-of-service standard of 580 building square feet per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population ➢ County wide level-of-service standard of 3,200 library material items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population ➢ County wide level-of-service standard of 0.7 computers per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population ➢ County wide level-of-service standard of 0.2 other library equipment items per 1,000 permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population ➢ Public Buildings The county adopts the following Public Buildings level-of-service standard: ➢ County wide level-of-service standard of 1.99 building square feet per capita for permanent plus weighted peak seasonal population. ➢ Schools The county adopts the following Schools level-of-service standard: Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019- 56 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Schools (School Service Areas): ➢ 100 percent of Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity for each public school type (elementary, middle, and high). ➢ Transit The County adopts the following transit level-of-service standard: ➢ One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes. Objective 4: Future Development's Share of Capital Costs Through 2030, new developments will bear a proportionate share of the cost required to maintain adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 4.1: The county shall use impact fees,capacity charges,assessments,developer dedications and contributions,to pay for infrastructure improvements and services needed to satisfy future needs while maintaining adopted level-of-service standards. Policy 4.2:The county shall conduct research to identify new sources of revenue for funding capital improvement projects. Objective 5: Local Government's Ability to Provide Required Services and Facilities Through 2030, the county will ensure that it is able to fund and provide required services and facilities. Policy 5.1: The county shall not approve land use amendment requests unless those requests are consistent with the concurrency management system requirements of this element. Policy 5.2: In the event that the planned capacity of public facilities is insufficient to serve all applicants for development orders, the county shall schedule capital improvements to serve developments in the following order of priority: ➢ Single-family units in existing platted subdivisions or on existing legal, buildable parcels ➢ Affordable housing projects ➢ New development orders permitting redevelopment Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019- 57 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element ➢ New development orders permitting new developments where the applicant funds the infrastructure expansion in exchange for future reimbursement ➢ New development orders permitting new developments without developer participation Policy 5.3: The county shall extend facilities and services to serve areas only within the existing Urban Service Area or as allowed by Policy 5.7 of the Potable Water Sub-Element and Policy 5.8 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 5.4: The county shall coordinate with other local,state,and federal agencies as well as private entities to create an efficient capital improvements schedule that provides the following general benefits while minimizing the financial burden of providing facilities and services: ➢ Reduction of overall capital and operating expenditures by the development of multi-use facilities; ➢ More efficient land use patterns and phasing; ➢ Reduction of overlapping, duplicating, and administrative procedures; ➢ Implementation of adopted physical, social, and economic goals and policies in a least-cost manner; ➢ Better coordination of public capital investment with private capital expenditures. Policy 5.5: The county shall continue utilizing enterprise funds for the provision of Sanitary Sewer, Potable Water, and Solid Waste facilities. The debt for enterprise funds is to be paid by user fees, capacity charges, and other appropriate sources. Policy 5.6: The county shall finance the capital cost of non-enterprise fund supported public facilities (e.g., roads, stormwater management, and parks) from current revenue, bond issues, impact fees, capacity charges, assessments, and other appropriate sources. Policy 5.7: The county shall use general obligation bonds and other sources to raise the funding required to provide those public facilities that cannot be constructed with user fees,revenue bonds, impact fees, capacity charges, or other dedicated revenue sources. Policy 5.8: Developments, which require public facility infrastructure improvements that will be financed by county debt, shall have their development orders conditioned on the issuance of the county debt or the substitution of a comparable amount of non-debt revenue. Policy 5.9: Pursuant to state law, the Schedule of Capital Improvements may be adjusted by ordinance and not deemed to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan when the amendment relates to corrections, updates, or modifications concerning costs, revenue sources, acceptance of facilities pursuant to dedications which are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, or the date of construction of any facility except transportation facilities enumerated in the Schedule of Capital Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ 58 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element Improvements. For transportation facilities, a delay in construction of a facility which causes the level-of-service of that facility to deteriorate below the adopted minimum level-of-service standard for the roadway will require a comprehensive plan amendment. Policy 5.10:The county shall ensure that all capital improvements identified in the various elements of the Comprehensive Plan are completed according to schedule. The only acceptable delays will be those which are subject to one of the following: ➢ Projects providing capacity equal to, or greater than, the delayed project are accelerated within or added to the Schedule of Capital Improvements; ➢ Modification of development orders issued conditionally or subject to the concurrent availability of public facility capacity provided by the delayed project. Such modification shall restrict the allowable amount and schedule of development to that which can be served by the capacity of public facilities according to the revised schedule; or ➢ Amendment of the plan to reduce the adopted standard for the level-of-service for public facilities until the fiscal year in which the delayed project is scheduled to be completed. Implementation, Evaluation, and Monitoring Implementation An important part of any plan is its implementation. Implementation involves execution of the plan's policies. It involves taking actions and achieving results. For the Capital Improvements Element, implementation involves various activities. While some of these actions will be ongoing, others are activities that will be taken by certain points in time. For each policy in this element,table 6.20 identifies the type of action required,the responsible entity for taking the action,the timing, and whether or not the policy necessitates a capital expenditure. To implement the Capital Improvements Element, several different types of actions must be taken. These include:development of mechanisms for funding new facilities,adoption of land development regulations and ordinances, execution of interlocal agreements, coordination, and preparation of studies and evaluation and monitoring reports. Overall,the Capital Improvements Element implementation responsibility will rest with the Office of Management and Budget. Besides its responsibilities as identified in table 6.18, the planning department has the additional responsibility of ensuring that other entities discharge their responsibilities. This will entail notifying other applicable departments of capital expenditures to be included in their budgets,notifying other departments and groups of actions that must be taken,and assisting other departments and agencies in their plan implementation responsibilities. Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ 59 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element As part of the Capital Improvements Element,the county has developed a Concurrency Management Plan, which ensures the maintenance of the adopted level-of-service standards. Through the Concurrency Management Plan, the county will measure facility capacity, assess development demand, and maintain a Capital Improvements Program which ensures that the level-of-service standards are maintained. Table 6.19: Capital Improvement Element Implementation Matrix Policy Type of Action Responsibility Timing Capital Expenditure 1.1 Maintain the CIP OMB/PD Ongoing No 1.2 Follow the CIP PD Ongoing No 1.3 Prioritize capital improvement projects OMB/PD/SD Ongoing No 1.4 Implement recommendations Appropriate County Ongoing Yes Departments/SD 1.5 Prioritize and implement programs Appropriate County Ongoing Yes Departments/SD 1.6 Maintain previous commitments BCC/PWD/SD Ongoing No 1.7 Replacement and renewal of infrastructure Appropriate County Ongoing No Departments/SD 1.8 Budget Management OMB/SD Ongoing No 1.9 Define capital improvement PD/OMB Ongoing No 1.10 Capital Budget Management OMB/SD Ongoing No 1.11 Capital Improvements Management OMB/SD Ongoing No 1.12 School District Five-Year Facilities Work Plan Ongoing Yes 2.1 Define costal high hazard area DCA Ongoing No 2.2 Map Maintain density and intensity levels of current FLU PD Ongoing No 2.3 Budget management Appropriate County Ongoing Yes Departments 2.4 Maintain LOS standards Appropriate County Ongoing Yes Departments 2.5 Funding mechanisms BCC/Private Developers Ongoing No 2.6 Infrastructure replacement strategy Appropriate County Ongoing No Departments Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ 60 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element • Table 6.19: Capital Improvement Element Implementation Matrix Policy Type of Action Responsibility Timing Capital Expenditure 3.1 Maintain concurrency management system PD Ongoing No 3 2 Follow connection matrix of Comprehensive Plan Sub- Appropriate County Ongoing No Elements Departments 3.3 Maintain adopted LOS standards PD Ongoing No 3.4 Land use decisions BCC Ongoing No BCC/SD/Appropriate 3.5 Adopt LOS standards County Departments Ongoing No 4.1 Impose regulations Appropriate County Ongoing Yes Departments 4.2 Conduct research OMB/PD Ongoing No 4.3 Work with municipalities BCC/SD/Other Local Ongoing No Governments in IRC 5 1 Approve land use changes only if infrastructure can BCC Ongoing No support land use change 5.2 Prioritize capital improvements BCC/SD/Appropriate Ongoing No County Departments 5.3 Extension of facilities and services BCC/Appropriate County Ongoing No Departments Appropriate County 5.4 Create an efficient capital improvements schedule Departments/Other Ongoing No Government Agencies 5.5 Utilize enterprise funds OMB Ongoing No 5.6 Finance non-enterprise fund supported projects OMB Ongoing No 5.7 Fund the construction of public facilities OMB/SD Ongoing Yes 5.8 Permitting Requirements BCC/Appropriate County Ongoing No Departments 5.9 Amending the Schedule of Capital Improvements BCC/OMB/PD/SD Ongoing No 5.10 Complete the Schedule of Capital Improvements BCC/SD/Appropriate 2023 No County Departments 5 11 Adopt a Priority Transportation Capital Improvements BCC/PWD/MPO Ongoing No Schedule BCC=Board of County Commissioners DCA=Department of Community Affairs FDOT=Florida Department of Transportation MPO=Metropolitan Planning Organization OMB=Office of Management and Budget PD=Planning Department PWD=Public Works Department SD=School District Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ 61 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan • Capital Improvements Element • Evaluation and Monitoring Procedures To be effective, a plan must not only provide a means for implementation; it must also provide a mechanism for assessing the plan's effectiveness. Generally,a plan's effectiveness can be judged by the degree to which the plan's objectives have been met. Since objectives are structured,as much as possible,to be measurable and to have specific timeframes,the plan's objectives are the benchmarks used as a basis to evaluate the plan. Table 6.20 identifies each of the objectives of the Capital Improvements Element. It also identifies the measures to be used to evaluate progress in achieving these objectives. Most of these measures are quantitative,such as adopting land development requirements,which ensure the maintenance of the level-of-service standards, adopting a capacity monitoring system and others. Besides the measures, table 6.20 also identifies timeframes associated with meeting the objectives. The Planning Department staff will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the Capital Improvement Element. This will involve collection of data and compilation of information regarding facility capacity, expansion,and new development permitted. This will be done on a regular basis. As part of the county's Concurrency Management System,the Planning Department will continually monitor the facility capacity to ensure that level-of-service standards will be maintained. Table 6.20:Capital Improvements Element Evaluation Matrix Objective Measure Timeframe 1 Existing deficiencies in county services and/or obsolete or worn-out facilities 2023 2 Land use density and intensity in Coastal High Hazard Area 2030 3 Level-of-service provided for county services 2030 4 Existence of appropriate Land Development Regulations 2030 5 Completion of the Schedule of Capital Improvements 2030 While monitoring will occur on a continual basis, formal evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will occur annually. The formal evaluation and appraisal of the entire Comprehensive Plan will occur every ten years (dependent upon the schedule adopted by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). Besides assessing progress,the evaluation and appraisal process will also be used to determine whether the Capital Improvements Element objectives should be modified or expanded based on revisions to state statutes and changing conditions not identified and addressed as part of the annual CIE update. In this way, the monitoring and evaluation of the Capital Improvements Element will not only provide a means of determining the degree of success of the Community Development Department Indian River County Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ 62 Appendix A - CIE Amendment Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element plan's implementation; it will also provide a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element not otherwise addressed in the yearly update of the Capital Improvements Element. As discussed in the above paragraphs, the evaluation and monitoring procedures identified for the Capital Improvements Element are basically the same for the entire Comprehensive Plan. These procedures have been used in the past to prepare the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used by the county in subsequent Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. The monitoring and evaluation of this plan is critical to ensure that the policies are effective in achieving the plan's goals and objectives. Each individual element of the plan contains provisions and measures to be used in the review of the element. Each element contains an Implementation and Evaluation Matrix and monitoring procedures,which are currently being used to prepare the current Evaluation and Appraisal Report and will be used to prepare future Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. In addition, a great portion of the plan monitoring will be in conjunction with the concurrency management system which is designed to ensure that approved level-of-service standards are maintained and that sufficient capacity exists in the various services and facilities. Other evaluation of the plan or plan elements is likely to occur in the day to day application of the mandated regulations,which will result in plan amendments. The formal Evaluation and Appraisal Report required by law is currently providing and in subsequent versions will provide a complete review of the plan and be conducted in compliance with the public participation procedures adopted for the development of this plan. As part of the monitoring system,all appropriate baseline data is currently being updated and will be updated. Besides assessing progress,the evaluation and appraisal process is and will also be used to determine whether the objectives should be modified or expanded. In this way the monitoring and evaluation of the Comprehensive Plan Elements not only provides a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation;it also provides a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element. F:\Community Development\Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments\2019 Transportation and CIE\CIE\Attachment 3-2018 Capital Improvements Element-Concurrency Edits April 2019.doc Community Development Department Indian River County 63 Adopted ,2019,Ordinance 2019-_ Appendix A - CIE Amendment ,/÷ \\ \ .-FT7' \if\ �aR Op V Indian River County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 Transportation Element Indian River County Community Development Department Adopted:.0Gteber---1-2-r20-10 Supplement#44; Adopted , Ordinance 2014408 Appendix A Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 5 BACKGROUND 5 EXISTING CONDITIONS 67 Traffic Circulation 7 Bicycle & Pedestrian System 2627 Transit 2728 Aviation Rail & Intermodal Facilities 4632 Land Use and Transportation 4237 Regional Travel Demand 442 Transportation Costs & Revenues 4643 System Preservation 4946 Intergovernmental Coordination 4946 ANALYSIS 5047 Bicycle & Pedestrian System 111579 Transit 4-0680 Aviation, Rail & Intermodal Facilities X82 Land Use/Transportation Analysis 44 .87 Regional Travel Demand 11791 Energy Efficiency -14492 Transportation Costs and Revenue 44493 System Preservation 12195 Intergovernmental Coordination 12296 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & POLICIES 12397 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 46111 Community Development Department Indian River County 1 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element LIST OF FIGURES 4.1 Urbanized Area 6 4.1.1 Number of Lanes and Road Type 7-43 4.2 Existing& Committed Roadway Laneage 4411 4.2.1 Jurisdictional Responsibility 44-12 4.2.2 Existing Roadway Level of Service 4-213 4.3 Critical Evacuation Routes 2422 4.3.1 Existing Roadway Functional Classification 2223 4.3.2 Future Roadway Functional Classification 2324 4.4 2001 Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts 2425 1.5A Transit Route I .. 30 4.5B Transit Route 2 30 4:5C t-Route .. 3-1- 1.5D Transit Route 1 31 4.5E TranJit Route 5 .. 32 4.5F Transit Route 6 .. 32 1.5G Transit Route 7 .. 33 4.5H Transit Route S 33 4.51 Tran-it Route 9 31 1.5J Transit Route 10 .. 31 4.5K _Transit Reuse ',Transit Routes Map 3531 4.6 Existing& Future Air, Rail, & Water Transportation Facilities 33g 4.6.1 Vero Beach Airport Land Uses 3934 4.6.2 Sebastian Airport Land Uses 4035 4.6.3. Rail and Water Transportation Facilities 41-336 4.7 Major Trip Generators and Attractors 11 10 4.8 2030 2040 Cost Affordable Plan Improvement Map 6855 1.9 1 2030 Cost Affordable Plan Network Laneage 59 1.9A 2030 Adopted Cost Affordable Plan Level of Service 60 4.9.1 Subdivision Collector Map $573 Community Development Department Indian River County 2 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 4.10 Extended Roadway Grid Network a 74 4.11A Existing &Future Bicycle Facilities 44485 4.11B Existing & Future Pedestrian Facilities 11186 4.12 2030 2040 Adopted Needs Plan Transit Needs 11287 Community Development Department Indian River County 3 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element LIST OF TABLES 4.1 Existing and Committed Roadways 4-314 4.2 Crash Data 46I7 4.3A 2001 Transit Performance by Route 293+ 4.3B Indian River Transit/Community Coach System Performance 3632 4.1 Transportation Service Providers .36 4.5 Journey-to-Work Characteristics 442 4.6 Socioeconomic Data Summary 5754 4.7 2030 2040 Potentially Deficit Roadways 6157 4.7.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics 7360 4.7.2 2038-2040 Needs Plan Improvements 8069 4.8A Capital Revenues by Planning Horizon 8876 4.8B Operating& Maintenance Revenues by Planning Horizon 8876 4.9.1 2030 2040 Improvements &Needed Right-of-Way 8877 4.9.2 Highway Evaluation Table 9678 4.9.3 Cost Affordable Projects Listing 979 4.9.1 Programmed Capital Improvement Projects 99 4.10 Transportation Element Implementation Matrix 136 4CommunihDevelopment Department Indian River County APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element INTRODUCTION Transportation is a key component of every community's infrastructure. While a community's transportation system connects land uses within the community, it also connects the community to other areas in the state, country, and world. The transportation system itself consists of several components. These components include: the roadway or traffic circulation system; the transit system; the pedestrian/bicycle system; and the air/water port system. Each plays a vital role in creating a coordinated transportation system. In Indian River County, as in most jurisdictions, the traffic circulation system is the most visible component of the transportation system. The traffic circulation system is particularly significant because it not only provides for travel needs within and through the county, but it also provides direct access to land parcels, residences and businesses. Consequently, the relationship between land use and transportation is of great consequence. Generally, travel patterns and transportation demand result from land use patterns. For that reason, the location and intensity of development determine the number, length, and routing of trips which determine the need for transportation system improvements. On the other hand, transportation improvements, themselves, can influence development patterns. For example, building roads and providing access to undeveloped areas can increase the development potential of an area. For these reasons, coordination between transportation planning and land use planning is important. The intent of this element is to recognize these travel patterns and effectively address transportation issues in Indian River County. BACKGROUND In 1990, the Census Bureau designated the city of Vero Beach and the densely populated area around the city as an urbanized area. By definition, an urbanized area is a census designation determined by concentrations of population. In 2004, the Indian River County urbanized area changed as a result of the 2000 census. Now known as the Vero Beach/Sebastian urbanized area, this area is defined by the Urbanized Area Boundary(UAB) shown in Figure 4.1. Within Indian River County, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the organization responsible for regional transportation planning. Although the MPO is a separate organization, the MPO shares staff members and other resources with the county. As a result, coordination between the county and the MPO in the preparation and implementation of this element and other plans is truly cooperative. In carrying out its role as the regional transportation planning agency in the county, the MPO has used county staff and resources to produce many plans. These plans include a 2030 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (adopted December 200-52015), a Congestion Management System Plan (adopted May 2004October 2009), a Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan (adopted July-2004Febrt y 2015), and a Transit Development Plan (adopted September--2408August 2017 and revised annually). The MPO has also developed and calibrated a countywide transportation planning model. Community Development Department Indian River County 5 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Since its formation in 1993, the Indian River County MPO has been the principal transportation planning agency in the county. As such, much of its work has applicability to this plan. In fact, much of this plan is based upon work completed by the MPO. Existing Transportation Map Series Figure 4.1 Indian River County Urbanized Area Boundary . i 1j \ N W+E .• .. : L.I.) :44F\ \ '''. ( :. . i \‘ —\\ 4, , t e� , . • . .. „, . . . , hh il ... . ��11���R tus� lgr��alal: iii ;, 111=111111111113 - I ,_ .i i • 1 I Legend Roads Urbanized Area County Community Development Department Indian River County 6 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element \A\ A Brevard County 4 • Atlantic A.I66,, Ocean • ; :Air% TSe&stun. .41,,,,R.,„ mit -812 Jill*I . .1 ‘0%.1.#1.•L\ Cklak km • t' i r' • : ' t • : lli�\ 't'•Fegsinere: ".'i •. . .• • ••�,:; : '��'•; : ..:..t 't h 'fl 'fl V 1 ier.Shores _ f,- :>. €� 53RD Wil♦ , i !!ii ! EMI ' aill; %i::::: :::::: )rte: um Vero acti::,: mumilii 41.1111ffilimarf ` ` W 1G O�t■�11 n .LORD ,lbu i e C o _i--NN\,..* ? I . L i •,'t t. Legend • Urban Service Area 1 I tJ Kiln,? )Horn Indian River County ..... . 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Update Community Development Department Indian River County APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element EXISTING CONDITIONS For traffic circulation purposes, existing conditions relate not only to roadway system characteristics, but to the county's land use pattern and population/demographic profile, as well. While these are discussed in detail in the Future Land Use Element and the Introductory Element, respectively, they also must be discussed in this element. Overall, the county's land use and demographic characteristics relate to the various components of the transportation system. With respect to those components, this section identifies the existing conditions of the county's traffic circulation system, the bicycle/pedestrian system, the ports/aviation system, and the transit system. Traffic Circulation System The traffic circulation system is the most important part of the county's transportation system. Not only does the traffic circulation system accommodate the vast majority of trips within the county; it also provides access to land uses within the area. According to the 2000 Census, the average commute time for residents of the county was 21.85 minutes. The travel mode of choice in the county is the automobile. As shown in Table 4.5, 80% of commute trips consist of single occupancy vehicles. Almost half, 45.9%, of all commutes fall between 10 and 19 minutes. When compared to average journey to work times across the state of Florida, commute times in Indian River County are shorter than most other areas in the state. Inventory and Level-of-Service Figure 4.1.1 shows the current roadway network laneage, while Table 4.7.1 contains a comprehensive listing of all roadway facilities in the county, along with each roadway's laneage, ownership, functional classification, adopted level-of-service and actual level-of-service. For planning purposes, a roadway's capacity and level-of-service (LOS) are generally based on the number of through lanes. While Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure, describing motorists' perceptions of operating conditions within a traffic stream, capacity, on the other hand, is a quantitative measure of the ultimate number of motor vehicles which can travel over a particular roadway segment during a particular time period (either hourly or daily). These conditions are generally described in terms such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, interruptions to traffic flow, comfort and convenience, and safety. As shown on Table 4.7.1, no roadway in unincorporated Indian River County currently exceeds its adopted level-of-service. Community Development Department Indian River County 8 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element N -- --- Z Fes,„; N'u tber of Lanes & Road Type iA Brevard County if 6.;:sCe?Xi'' 1 ! \ V ` • 3 1 / .1 I\/ . r. \. it. i ,a r { J I. I Mal { { ' I I MS MI { 1 .•xr ' vR •ams Existing Interchanges� � _ _ 1 - - __ . 1 \ NUMBER OFt ES — .v.,1 111 { t 1 2 3 4 e a a . upt It t 'c $t--{i-- il i F—i '\ } U.,d. '� ® .111 11ii ' + ,xnn , i aner. Ci id _d is 4 ', Rif ME = 1 ± 0 T 2 _ i I i {I i \ 1,- Mites St. Lucie County id 14 Community Development Department Indian River County 9 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.1.1 B045BRE4045 Number of Lanes/One Way BREVARD LN .w . EVER N LAGOON , $ ' t ,I.fripm P411 q4� ,. °fit dttfiitl " s. COLA ROAD512 41111% �y , A2LA T C OCEAV COUNTY ROAD 5 s ' ` 1. OWV4 SBNCki '' ` . III l:, • ST 1' 1 R Shores ., ri ', S y QST ' ,.OF : L FeUsnere SiII t ' � z a l - , 26-111Av�c�rr - ST Z:. BLVD x •TE RO'•80 s- Vt _ 'ST �. >''' 16TH • ':• im i. + a MK r MST CO 1 2 = aill=Mr. MIN iN • Mile Y ' ROAD DESIGNATION FOF : :wAY yOSLO-D W 7 C• ..nn S,OKG NAY =i6NL WAYCW4 '5 *. STL CIE STiA4 STL4idE i Levels of service are generally designated by letters A through F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow) and LOS F the worst (forced or breakdown flow). Characteristics of each level of service are listed below: Community Development Department Indian River County 10 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Level of Service A Level of Service D - Uninterrupted flow - Low speeds - No restriction on maneuverability - Major delays at signal - Few or no delays - Little freedom to maneuver Level of Service B Level of Service E - Stable flow conditions - Lower operating speeds - Operating speed beginning - Major delays and stoppages to be restricted - Volumes at or near capacity Level of Service C Level of Service F - Speed and maneuverability - Low speeds restricted by higher traffic volumes - Stoppages for long periods - Satisfactory operating speed because of downstream congestion - Delay at signals For planning purposes, the level of service for a roadway link is determined by comparing the link's traffic volume to its roadway capacity. Generally, level of service calculations are determined using guidelines established in the latest edition of FDOT's Level of Service Handbook. Alternatively, level of service can be determined using other methodologies, including ART-Plan analyses, speed-delay studies or the Highway Capacity Manual method. In Indian River County, level of service "D" is the minimum accepted standard during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions. The peak hour/peak season parameter is considered the 100th highest hour of traffic activity during a year. In 2005, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) changed the level of service standard to "E+20%" on 27th Avenue (from the south county line to SR 60) and on 43`d Avenue (from Oslo Road to 16th street). This was done in response to citizen opposition to proposed widening projects on those roads. Since level of service "D" on those roads was not possible without the widening, the county instead reduced the level of service standard on those roads. Since that time, the board has determined that LOS "D" should be maintained on those roads, and the road widening projects are now included in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the "E+20%" standard will be changed back to LOS "D" when the four lanings are programmed in the first three years of the Capital Improvements Program. Safety Crash data for 2005 are included in Table 4.2. In 2005,the intersection of 17th Street and US 1 had the highest,number of crashes, with 23 crashes recorded. At that time, the locations with the highest relative crash rates were 21' Street at 8th Avenue with 6.25 crashes per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV)and 21St Street at 5th Ave(4.37 crashes per MEV). In 2005, there were 1,522 crashes and 32 fatalities on Indian River County's roadways. That corresponds to a rate of approximately one crash per 2,800 vehicle miles traveled. In per capita 11Communi CommunityDevelopment Department Indian River County APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element - r_- F terms,the 1,522 crashes resulted in a rate of.012. Approximately 2%of all crashes in 2005 resulted in a fatality. 2030-2040 Long Range Transportation Plan In 20052015, the MPO completed its 2030-2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) update. As was the case in previous plans, the MPO identified both future deficiencies on the road network and a cost affordable set of improvements needed to accommodate future demand. According to the 2030 2040 LRTP, the vast majority of roadways are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better in 20342040, with the majority actually operating at LOS "B" or above. A small number of roadways, however, are expected to operate below LOS "D." These are shown on Table 4.7 and include Indian River Boulevard (Merrill Barber Bridge — Royal Palm Point); SR AlA (17th Street — Vero Beach City Limits); parts of US 1 in the City of Sebastian and in the City of Vero Beach; and the Wabasso Causeway. In the course of developing the 2030 2040 LRTP update, the MPO identified roadway projects that were underway or expected to be completed within five years of adoption of the LRTP. These projects, known as committed roadway projects, were added to the inventory of existing roadway projects in Indian River County to form the Existing plus Committed (E+C) roadway network. The E+C roadway network deficiencies can be found in Table 1 and in Figure 4.2, while proposed new roadway improvement projects can be found in Figure 4.8. In the 2030 2040 Cost Feasible Plan, major planned roadway improvements include—the - : • - • . - • :t • . . :d► ► - Avenue (26th Street t.. r : s .. • '.. ..• : : . - .. . construction of a new interchange at Oslo Road and 1-95;the widening of 66th Avenue(49th Street—CR 510); the widening of CR 510(CR 512— 66th Avenue);the construction of 82"d Avenue(69th Street—CR 510); the widening of Oslo Road (58th Avenue —1-95); the widening of US 1 (53rd Street=CR 510); and the construction of 82"d Avenue(26th Street—69th Street). • • Community Development Department Indian River County 12 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments n 0 o 5 . , _ , Ei . _ _ Brevard County 2�. D 277:137 *` I no C b t I ! ash 'C r �sT„sr I I , to co l.?�r 444$ I .f-- 1"/J \k-' 511115$} 1_ - 114 9r i, 1 IH$T IN I._ _. , -- s I 2Vero Beach Inset y CD 1 \ .. w IRI I 0 1 2 L._ + ..1- lr-i • y • I �. Miles .. t cn O. o .... -.---r....---- St. Lucie County o• XI = "L"E"'L 110=I Improved Rods2000-2010 Indian River County o 1 1 a 5 2. n hty _-.. l'a" Comprehensive Plan y Q p Interchanges . C u•anuea — 11� ." eJ — = • Existing' Figure 4.2 Cd co ,7 Fteewap ! M • 2010 Existing+Committed til• • Network Laneage es • 0 Lk) Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 1 : 2040 E+C Roadway Deficiencies N Brevard • unty 1 Atlantic Ocean . Ilk 4. a ip e(_ 5 A 4 e . �, s—E-L, fir'. - i tp. .-. ii _ i ._ Ili A \ 11\ . ii -1O i�" 9s; mkt \ q ...... \ j, > 't a t ST t4 65 Thsr 1/2 h s 49TH sr u 49 tt i �1� 4 ST ` \\3, MA i 1 26IH ST EN _Ai 1 r12311111012 ti MI s EiMir t 4TH \\t W i ..r . Ro , i R t � � U 4+ t\i \.Y La L---\---)\__A ,,i Legend St. Lucie County � yDeceives Community Development Department Indian River County 14 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments • n o n 3 9 =, Existing Transportation Map Series ; q Figure 4.2.1 Existing Jurisdictional Responsibility - a'`, -- ty �'l � . c �. w _�`� 1 fCD o qb '* w - , _ 1:: \ s,e'•• ••`.."' WD8 ta .ii, . a -: 0 cp K �..,_5T.LAMTICVD �P QPM o�' qi) o �$•b p$ sf •tyC� �, o c w�. s u a p CD S R 90 - � 11Q \ 1 d q ,od 1S 9t. '�Iy' y � �+ 1 TH ST W, .5.1247 °j 'd`` C "� m ic rk • .,.. . BTHST \11 ...:, Ink • til En ° �� _ '44 'Z \11 T.fr.,1 ti }j a ',: � 11 A - MINA 1 . p Q. M-7 i w = 1 i •' V' a y O "A S.R.BO / .►.. .� .:•.� Pi ! 74 "O .r. •••••••nmmm.....a•nonnn..mm�. on.mmm.numa.•a•••a..aa Hamm.... ..n.. �. .THS m . O Ito o Jurisdictional Responsibility -� sT �.�' ... p 0 HST O D cityCD =II 0 n . Count' til o o.......n. State Roads _ almo �, o Fej�k: S g5 x w xx eD ° '14' N n o g Existing Transportation Map Series \ a \ o g -Figure 4.2.1 Existing-Jurisdictional--ResQonstbili 1' r'•'= .� s ; � fD • N � y n O • to • 3 '•i F ' • ' : ik fD """.; 5.r ,i6 <`‘ ' •• 'meq gyp;. `: . «.rrrra t I= Q°P41. ' COUNTY ROAD 510 •2 1, •%'. NO • 71>1 ST 4. • 9 ;11.01%4.- 00 S g _ I co d+ �nr.•a.•+rr. �• 6TH ST I'�, 1 •• r r••h .4\I.. 2641 ST A 4 StTH ST •G a � S ed < t •21ST ST 1., HiST q a, °'...d,; Z > ROADtiD...�ii •�rJ } :w.... % I 53'.sr , .w.•s 16TH oT cQia• •�• 1 .H ST a > 49TH ST 0 in 0 45T ST P ,, x 12TH ST rn i ¢ 41', ST V Z 1 I ,; ; 37TH S? I a ,-3 ty • ,-t ,, 0 0 33RD ST p�1A�1O : S n;+��' E �. EQ6TH ST 28T ST _+C' ,el U % ! o a STAT ROAD 60�.+'4imi. •�,. ...r� / l+s .,n W °Q itLI: 8THS Sat .."r s� I :1 12TH ;� •� k 14 10 Jurisdictional Responsibility H ,8TH ST 8TH ST ° `; ,rn > Road Designation ''itt• 4TH ST > > .�. �p n State • 1ST- SW q v 1 ® ... la la I N C County ... :� H ST W I o,a i ' co .7 _cih 'fi n OSLO'_t a -: N `'}. a 1rH h*ch, `I '" p 0 9a IN•WO,• ' • aIS ••• fD HI ,.� ON `•+ 6 ~�t -. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element A yt/ n , 1.. r �� ��� I Q� o e v °. r c f 14 -4,.-0 g� K i __.,, '''''''1-‘-1011W; . O_1-.— SRn ! 0,t W C 3Atl H l[Z 00/ _F9 ri. N r C 3A--V 021E1, 1 S` ~3A11 HISS .- I Ili tt ,a s i- 3Atl HIM I I )) ..., _../..1 te•4:,II ve,•?.. JO. tt s�,,........4..0. 3Atl ON r 1 oQ, 6 AYE' o.. ,w0 o di ' n- P..--E''''' eis a .p 1 in . o , ':.o.s�'0 goU .p L . . — !, 0 TK . N :'LOS 113 ., • • MI i m te cid ,_ o Oa IHDIAN RIVER - i.i N• - 4_ Z cN...M 8TH 70.VE Ot f' 4 v�_ O • -i g a sn (0 �' r ------ _ �' 9 > m�' Jm 3_ �.. U 020TH A - 'fm w o I -0 • 27TH AVE o Q m U O I� I reI ! . I • Community Development Department Indian River County 17 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive PlanTransportation Element iiiiir:f.,t..- ,1 k '" . d ....,:jS''''' lee:: 1........e-.0 -..,. • 64, . 4 .,40,7,7,,,,tit,' r-__ ,10 -0 - 7 411111.111spp iii4e'''. C'"' 10 rr :11�k ♦p, `• f,'�'�"�r� l/ NP �! 't f' ►$ et* R�Rf*i al.. .r. „,, ti*�?~tea• „� - �+ III ,,,_11,..:...4„:„.:,..1.0;7,,,...' 0214^ iiiiiiii , , �ti! ter•• e x 4 , .:� 9... 41 9 a 4 ar a1 tlIllEFIBEIRL'Ema a ;, ,, 3. 4.� $ $Trjpill ri e 1 V4 _.. n n4 , a s. . .. q►t+ v 1 Mr r WI ,„ • f is Q u a,�N. >'i M1 aSr ''•a a • '.. O 0 r3 rx:3 ta 414, l i s o a d ..etN143.a w •>ii t o 0p � (Id .11 a4 d Q ,ij as o e ; g 0 . • 14"; + £43 WW1 ALNII1,3 [f ea e t W Rt 4j_ r pp al II b u 3aI .: t 18 Community Development Department Indian River County . APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element • Community Development Department Indian River County 19 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element may Frain Te 200Fisting-& 444-Avenue 25th-Stfeet -Sl 444 43�..1� -16t11-Street 8t{tStfeet 20 C.R.512 1-95 Reseland-Road 444 S.R.60 Osceela County 1-9S 4D 82ndAvenue 66th 6D U.S. 1 614 Osloead LothAvti nue U.S. 1 4D Aviation-Blvd 43rd-Avenue U.S. 1 444 661 venue meet &R 60 2U 16 et 82nd-Avenue 66th-Avenue 2D 46t1114-7th-Street W of 14thAvenue U.S. 1 4D 4 a� t 58th Avenue U.S. 1 2213 53'4 Street 5e-Avenue U.S. 1 413 17th 43 venue 2-7thAvenue 1 12 et 90thAvenue 5Q�i7i7c2rA`v'enue +211 37h S eet 66th-Avenue 58th. 211 Legend: 2U 2 lane undivided 2D 2 lane divided 1U 4 lane undivided 'ID 'I lane divided r Community Development Department Indian River County 20 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.1 Existing and Committed Roadways Roadway From To 2018 Existing and Committed Conditions County Road 512 Fellsmere 1-95 2U County Road 512 1-95 Roseland Road 4D Roseland Road County Road 512 US-1 2U US-1 Roseland Road Sebastian Blvd. 4U Barber Street Periwinkle Schumann Drive 2U Schumann Drive Barber Street County Road 510 2U County Road 510 County Road 512 US-1 2U US-1 Barber Street 53'd Street 4D State Road 510 US-1 Highway AlA 2U 66th Avenue County Road 510 49th Street 2U 58th Avenue 53`d Street 26th Street 2U US-1 Old Dixie Highway Aviation Blvd. 4U Aviation Blvd. 43rd Avenue US-1 2U 43rd Avenue 26th Street South County 2U Line Indian River Blvd 20th Street US-1 4D 12th Street Old Dixie Highway US-1 2U 27th Avenue Oslo Road 1:t Street SW 2U US-1 4th Street Oslo Road 4U Legend: 2U-2-lane undivided 20-2-lane divided 4U-4-lane undivided 4D-4-lane divided Jurisdictional Administration Like virtually every other area throughout the nation, Indian River County has roadways that are under the jurisdiction of one of several different units of government. In Florida, the applicable jurisdiction was initially established based on how the roadway was functionally classified. Generally, major inter-county roadways, such as 1-95, the Turnpike, SR AlA, US 1, and SR 60, are designated as state roads. Similarly, major intra-county roads, such as CR 512, CR 510, Indian River Boulevard, and others, are county roads. Finally, those roads which are entirely within a municipality are generally city roads. In 1995, the state revised Chapter 335, F.S. to establish specific jurisdictional ownership criteria. As now written, 335 F.S. establishes the roadway jurisdictional responsibility as that which existed on July 1, 1995. Further, 335, F.S. now provides that the jurisdictional responsibilities of roadways may be transferred from one jurisdiction to another only by mutual consent of both jurisdictions. Community Development Department Indian River County 21 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element For roadways, the agency with jurisdiction is generally responsible for maintaining or improving the facility. Therefore, a pothole in a local .road in Vero Beach would be the City of Vero Beach's responsibility to repair, while congestion on US 1 might require the State Department of Transportation to construct additional lanes for traffic. Under ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and subsequent Federal Highway bills, funding for roadway improvements, whether widening or re-surfacing, is less dependent on jurisdictional responsibility than on functional classification. With ISTEA, federal Surface Transportation Program funds can be used on any federally classified road, except for local roads and rural collectors, regardless of jurisdictional responsibility. While Table 4.7.1 identifies the jurisdictional responsibility of each thoroughfare plan roadway within the county, Figure 4.2.1 graphically depicts the jurisdictional responsibility for each road on the major roadway network. As these indicate, the major inter-county roadways, including Al A, SR60, I-95, and US 1, are state roads. Similarly, roads such as Indian River Boulevard, CR 512, Roseland Road and others that extend through a municipality into the unincorporated area are generally county roads. I-95, SR 60 west of I-95, and the Florida Turnpike are Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) roads. Functional Classification Functional classification is the process by which roads are grouped into different categories. Generally, roads are classified according to the degree of mobility and/or land access provided, with different roadway facilities providing different levels of mobility and accessibility. Generally, roads with a lower functional classification provide access to adjacent land uses, such as residential areas, employment centers, and commercial centers, with low levels of mobility. Roads with a higher functional classification are considered limited access facilities with high levels of mobility. For example, the Interstate Highway System is a sub classification of the highest functional class, principal arterials, and is characterized by long distance travel patterns and relatively high speeds. Since interstates are limited access facilities, provisions are not made for direct land use access from the Interstate system itself. Instead, interchanges with other highways are provided at discrete intervals, and land access is generally provided from those highways. According to state law, comprehensive plans must depict the existing FDOT roadway functional classification on the existing traffic circulation map or map series. For roadways in Indian River County, existing and future functional classifications are depicted in Figures 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 respectively. From a planning standpoint, functional classification is important for four reasons: 1. Functional classification groups together those facilities requiring the same level of technical, managerial and financial competence for design, construction, maintenance and operation; Community Development Department Indian River County 22 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2. It provides for the integrated and systematic planning as well as the orderly development of highway construction and improvement programs in accordance with actual needs; 4. It permits the clear and logical application of funding policies to specific types of highways in that functional classification is used to determine which roadways are eligible for federal funding; 5. It provides stability in system responsibilities, since functional characteristics do not fluctuate significantly over time. As adopted, the Transportation Element uses the federal functional classification system which the Florida Department of Transportation also uses. Table 4.7.1 lists each thoroughfare plan roadway by its functional classification, name, existing functional type, and other characteristics. In 2004, Indian River County and FDOT undertook a reclassification study of the roadway network in Indian River County. As a result of that study, the functional classification of several roadways was changed. At present, virtually all paved highways in the county east of 1-95 are classified as urban, with the exception of 66th Avenue (45th Street— CR 510); Oslo Road (west of 58th Avenue); and 82nd Avenue(south of 8th Street). As shown in Figure 4.3.1,minor arterials include 27th Avenue(St. Lucie County to Oslo Road); 43`d Avenue (St. Lucie County to 53`d Street); 58th Avenue (SW 13th Street to CR 510); Oslo Road (58th Avenue to 82nd Avenue); and 82nd Avenue (Oslo Road to 26th Street). In addition, Indian River Boulevard is designated a principal arterial. Right-of-Way and Corridor Protection Like many other local governments in Florida, Indian River County maintains minimum right-of- way standards. The County also engages in right-of-way protection practices, such as maintaining an inventory of parcels subject to Murphy Act right-of-way reservations and coordinating with developers and other agencies, through the county's Technical Review Committee (TRC) process, to acquire right-of-way from new development projects. The county also maintains a map of future road rights-of-way. That inventory, known as the Extended Grid Network, is shown on Figure 4.10. Through the Extended Grid Network, future road rights-of-way are identified on a grid that covers the entire urban service area of the county and extends to the conservation lands of western Indian River County. The Extended Grid Network map depicts collector and arterial rights-of-way on existing roadways, as well as logical extensions of those roadways to undeveloped portions of the county. With respect to right-of-way acquisition, Indian River County, in 2006, expended approximately $4,025,999 on road right-of-way acquisition. That right-of way was acquired in anticipation of a number of roadway widening projects, such as CR 512; Oslo Road; CR 510; 66th Avenue; and 43'•d Avenue. In 2006, FDOT expended$6,951,851 on roadway right-of-way acquisition in Indian River County, with approximately $6 million being used to acquire right-of-way on US1 south of 4th Street. Community Development Department Indian River County 23 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.2. Crash Data(By Number of Crashes), 1994 - 2005 RCrash Location Number of Crashes Cras `t*per Relative Rate East/West Street North/South Street 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005 17th St US 1 24 23 1.57 1.6 Low Low 17th St IR Blvd 14 20 1.03 1.26 Low Low Highland Dr US 1 7 18 0.66 1.31 Low 'Low SR 60 WB US 1 16 18 1.76 1.65 Low Low SR 60 EB US 1 21 17 2.37 1.13 Moderate Low SR 60 27th Av 21 15 2.15 1.01 Moderate Low SR 60 66th Av 10 15 1.02 0.9 Low Low SR 60 _43rd Av 17 11. 1.24 0.63 Low Low Roseland Rd US 1 18 10 1.61 0.92 Low Low 12th St US 1 13 10 0.97 0.77 Low Low Oslo Rd US 1 17 10 1.17 0.68 Low Low SR 60 20th Av 8 10 0.99 1.46 Low Low Royal Palm Blvd IR Blvd 17 9 2.86 0.65 Moderate Low Oslo Rd 27th Av 7 9 1.18 0.99 Low Low CR 510 US 1 14 7 1.32 0.47 Low Low E Causeway SR AlA 12 7 0.93 0.48 Low Low 45th St US 1 6 6 0.71 0.3 Low Low Access Management Access management is a method of controlling connections to roadways. Through access management, the number and location of public roadways, private roadways, driveways, median openings, and traffic signals are subject to certain state and locally mandated guidelines. In Indian River County, existing land development regulations provide restriction/access controls for roadways that are not on the state highway system. Some of the most important county restrictions are summarized below. • Sites located at intersections shall access onto the roadway having the lower functional classification. • Provisions for circulation between adjacent parcels shall be provided. • The minimum number of driveways necessary to adequately accommodate access will be provided. • Driveways on opposite sides of any undivided collector or arterial shall either be aligned or offset a minimum of 200 feet. • Driveways serving major developments must be located at minimum distances from Community Development Department Indian River County 24 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element intersections. These distances are based on functional classification and type of movements served(right turn vs. left turn). These restrictions and controls apply only to new development or proposed access changes to existing development. Because existing land uses which do not conform to these standards are grandfathered in, there is a profusion of driveways in the already developed areas along the county's key thoroughfares, including US 1, SR 60 and portions of SR Al A. These access conditions reduce the traffic carrying capacity of the thoroughfares by creating "side friction" as vehicles enter and exit the driveways. This side friction is increased on divided roadways (such as portions of US 1 and SR 60) where there are either no medians at all or medians with a large number of median openings. Those conditions allow vehicles to make left turns across the flow of traffic. On State maintained roadways, special permits must be obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in order to create median openings where none currently exist. Because of the negative impact that an excessive number of median openings have on arterial capacity and motorist safety, FDOT applies strict criteria in issuing such permits. Until the construction of Indian River Boulevard and CR 512, the County did not have any divided arterials under its jurisdiction, and thus did not have any special regulations on median openings in its land development regulations. While limiting the number and location of driveways and median openings is an effective means of preserving an arterial's traffic capacity, the most effective means of limiting side friction is through the use of frontage (or marginal access) roadways. These roads act as buffers between arterials and adjacent land uses. Where frontage roads are used, land uses have direct access to the marginal access road (which may be either a one or two way facility), and the access road typically has connections provided to the arterial at discreet intervals. In Indian River County, the County's land development regulations state that non-residential developments fronting major and minor arterials shall establish frontage/marginal access roads by interconnecting parking areas. Existing Right of Way Right-of-way is that land on which a roadway is located. Besides accommodating the roadway itself, the right-of-way must also accommodate various other improvements, including drainage swales/canals, utility lines, sidewalks, bike paths, landscaping, and traffic control signs. In the 2010 Comprehensive Plan adopted in 1990, Indian River County established minimum right-of-way requirements for all roadways identified on the Thoroughfare Plan map. These requirements were organized according to functional classification and are listed below: Type of Facility Urban Rural U.S. 1 Corridor- 6LD 130 240 U.S. 1 Corridor-,4LD w/frontage roads 140 240 6LD Principal Arterial 130 240 4LD Principal Arterial 100 200 Community Development Department Indian River County 25 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 4LD Minor Arterial 100 200 Collector 80 80 Subdivision Collector Roads 60 60 Local, Minor or Residential 60 60 Local, Minor or Residential 50 (with closed drainage as well as curb and gutter) Marginal Access Roads 40* 40* *Easement or ROW In the past, right-of-way protection requirements applied only to roadways within the urban service area (USA). An exception to that was major arterial roads in the urban service area that extended into or through rural areas of the county. Because urban type of growth is not allowed outside of the urban service area, there had been no need to reflect an extension of the county's grid system outside of the USA. Consequently, the county's thoroughfare plan maps have depicted most roadways stopping at the urban service area boundary. Recently, there has been an increase in low intensity, non-urban uses locating in non-USA areas. These include golf courses and large lot residential subdivisions. While these uses do not create the demand for extending the county's grid system of thoroughfare plan roadways out into rural areas, these uses do have the potential to preclude extension of the grid system in the future if the land use plan is subsequently changed to allow higher densities outside of the current urban service area. For that reason,the County adopted its extended grid network map. In order to define the precise right-of-way deficiency on each thoroughfare route, it is necessary to perform more detailed land surveys. These surveys must identify existing right-of-way limits, as well as the adjoining land uses, structures and easements which could prove a barrier to right- of-way acquisition. Without a detailed knowledge of existing rights-of-way, it is impossible to determine need or to begin an advanced right-of-way acquisition process. Currently, the county acquires right-of-way through dedication or reservation at the time of site plan approval or through fee simple acquisition or condemnation as part of preliminary and final roadway design for specific projects. Neither of these methods is entirely satisfactory because of the piecemeal nature of the former and the high cost associated with the latter. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) In some cases, new techniques and technologies that allow for a more effective use of the existing roadway system enable an area to comply with Highway Level-of-Service Standards through alternatives to highway widening. Known as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), these initiatives employ computer, video and communications technologies to monitor and control traffic on a real-time basis, usually from one central facility. Many ITS solutions, such as entrance ramp controls, automatic toll collection, and variable message signs, are more applicable to large urban areas with high levels of freeway travel. Some Community Development Department Indian River County 26 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element solutions, such as traffic signal synchronization, are appropriate for Indian River County and are actively being planned for and deployed. Currently, the Indian River County Computerized Traffic Signal System initiative is an ongoing project jointly engineered, designed, installed and maintained by the Florida Department of Transportation - District 4 Traffic Operations Office and the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division. The purpose of the project is to provide enhanced countywide traffic signal timing and coordination, central monitoring, increased signal efficiency, reduced traffic congestion and increased safety. The project consists of the installation of overhead & underground signal interconnect cable, video surveillance cameras, traffic signal hardware & software, and a variety of communications equipment. The project is organized into the following four groups: • Group 1 (Major Corridors) - Completed in 1995, the area includes S.R. 60 between 20th Avenue and Indian River Boulevard, and U.S. 1 between 38th Lane and 4th Street. Cost = $1.5 million. • Group 2 (Central County) - Completed in 2002,this improvement expanded the system's boundaries to 53rd Street (north) and 58th Avenue (west). Cost= $2.0 million. • Group 3 (North County) — Expected to be completed in 2010, this improvement will expand the system north to the City of Sebastian. Cost= $ 4.4 million. • Group 4 (Central/South County) — This project is expected to begin after the completion of Group 3. When complete, this phase will expand the system throughout the south county. Cost= $ 8.2 million. In 2006, there were 128 signalized intersections in the county, with an additional 14 in the design and construction phase. In addition,there were 32 flashing beacons. Currently, surveillance cameras are deployed at 30 of the signalized intersections. While 132 of the traffic signals are owned by the county, 24 are owned by the City of Vero Beach, and 4 are owned by the City of Sebastian. All of the signals are operated by the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division. Currently, ITS is integrated in 100 of the signalized intersections (79% of all signalized intersections), 86 of which are controlled through closed-loop communication systems, and 14 through radios or pager-programmable time-switch systems. Most of the closed-loop signals are now interconnected through fiber-optic cables to increase efficiency. At present,the county owns 77 of the ITS-integrated signals, most of which are in unincorporated parts of the county. In addition, the City of Vero Beach owns 19 ITS-integrated signals, and the City of Sebastian owns 3. All of the intersections have coordinated signal- timing phases from 7:15 am to 7:30 pm, and fully-actuated timing phases from 7:30 pm to 7:15 am. While roadside information is displayed during periods of construction or emergency, the county does not employ any other ITS technology, such as internet-based travel advisories, variable message signs, or telephone alerts. With respect to transit systems in Indian River County, ITS is limited to radio communications and dispatching. Community Development Department Indian River County 27 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Other Highway Systems Within Indian River County, certain roads or portions of roads are designated as scenic and historic. These roads have special value from a cultural or environmental perspective and, as such, warrant preservation. The most well known of these special facilities is Jungle Trail, a roadway which parallels SR AlA through parts of the unincorporated county and through the Towns of Orchid and Indian River Shores. Presently, this facility is a narrow, unpaved two-lane road wandering through citrus groves and providing panoramic views of the Indian River Lagoon. It is ideal for recreational purposes such as walking,jogging, or bicycling. In addition to Jungle Trail, the other scenic/historic roads are Old Winter Beach Road, Quay Dock Road, Fellsmere Grade, and Gifford Dock Road. These are discussed in more detail in the Land Use, Coastal Management and Recreation and Open Space Elements of the plan. Hurricane Evacuation In Indian River County, as in all coastal counties, hurricane evacuation is important. While all residents of the County need not evacuate in the event of a hurricane, those residents living on the barrier island and those living in mobile homes are required to evacuate even in the event of a Category I hurricane, the least severe type of hurricane. The Coastal Management Element of this plan addresses hurricane evacuation in detail. As indicated in the Coastal Management Element, several hurricane evacuation studies have been done for the Treasure Coast area, including Indian River County, by the Regional Planning Council. The last hurricane evacuation study update was done in 1994. Those studies showed that the County's clearance time ranged from 5 %2 hours for a summer season, rapid response Category 1 or 2 storm event to 10 '/2 hours for a late fall season, long response Category 3 - 5 storm event. Clearance time is defined as the time required to clear roadways of all vehicles evacuating in response to a hurricane or other severe weather event. There are three components of clearance time. These are mobilization time, travel time, and delay time. From a transportation system perspective, travel time and delay time are important, because those times are to a great extent dependent upon roadway characteristics. Figure 4.3 depicts the principal evacuation routes in the County. Community Development Department Indian River County 28 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element • Existing Transportation Map Series ! Figure 4.3 Critical Evacuation Routes )A • . /4, ... , k 0:4",,N, 4$1. 1 ':::.:::::::: ::::�::�:.......: ::: ::'::::...E ..._ �..•..•.•..........i»........"""!...,.,., :,. i.�' � %-r , We:•,2,,, ,+, A 1 1 +• ...»:..(::.:::::..f_....o:_r.... .....-...1 ::&'Ip.......9,.---...:?:"..0 .,t.j g I tj , vt w 1_- E I 1 t 1 .-1 ' '' ..7.-rr '4' i1.1!1!---;i-.. i ...__.. _ it. 1. . Luz; :. : ..:.:.r. .,.. ..:.: ... _:.._1 __..._...._.... r._......:I jYi•c:•sp- 1t r ' .• m» lEn a_:3::.' EIh:da. ....11 . •.1 • ..i,.....1.h.. /+:I � ._,., : _ :L . ,::.,„:rr.� , if} tl :, . „ ...„,\ , . ,i-:-.,...- i. ,.,:„1 •••+, •. .11 ..1.1 iii _ j 7•.�..; Iw `1 �:, .i�lCV2•. -•.....:� ::: : � . rrty � . ( r .....t........................................_................_...__'...........141 ;7f.;: -1 .....i.RI:'.i•..... i 1111MII 11t_•X1M.WII rI1 I/,E i r (_. E d LLrf.:,� I:':•'• ;•t;T�;:i. .".:L_..: ...._.ftilr l6OWItt..'y',,:I......V ..__..i.. F.: «..rw- 'I•.< •,'• .»•: "[.._."I N:C: y.i._ •t,.:' 81” �• ..,. f • rt ' /,::""":: W'%/J'//2'CIrrela j s � r#:,,4,::-:. ittl . t , + !- iTs !»p-; .; t'ytl� i ' 1!#i � r I .—[..,•::..,:...1.....:: . » _ ..! ' Y s . c: I t. i_ - il$tt • F xii\‘ , ...-.__..... :rte• .,.. .... .,,,,,„. . _ r 1 :�:('r'4a':i';1. ri i f r.::} 1_ ...9 [-1 .J...1.).. --.L.:.: ,.. +:,,t.t: ,mir:::F 11 °�2..ii .... -�d �77 .,•t' t;r .i 1. ..d ....:... •-f._:...._.. _... .. I_."i.:r .}.... 1'dI ;r:4t:R.:..�s' :':i .�. •:C,• ...t IfP ''. 'l::...r... ••1 ::•6_......_.."1— :j:..:.'.. '"L.:" : ..1-,1..•••y-• .t.iw.......•.r_ 3r• _ ..:• r '•',•,.. t j �t)C 41:;.•4 }I Z J � I,_,...• , ,,.! ._.W. E � :-.--.1--.^_.:. s» I [ --•..... :-..,_.. •{,.: '-:,SI:'^"s!"�,;ti' '�1 '�,.w, U•Al . Legend ieyEvacuation Routes ®Cities Water L/`•�•l�All Roads A/Major Roads I I County Community Development Department Indian River County 29 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments • Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.3.1 5. \ .. &REVARD COUNTY !\``` �. 1.• 1 . ;.\ a v j A3antic Ocean 7.) 11 Its.: ., 441 tb, f i \• \1 fro �9 so} •,: ' `+ �t$, 1'� 4. CA 41A.@4T11 GT 3 h'-� L.. ' . _ _ _....�.� —i 95 1 4971-1 474& :MEL ech .Z! t 25 • \- \'' �.� ' 1ND(ANRIVER COUNTY 9. 7 t Q !1 1 `t a t../ 'ii'RIr -(-`�ice{ t �� \. \ `� j _ • =�NC,ill ZM= 141 4 g; ` 4 \v \v� I ¢ I ' \A 1s 'v y 91 F''' 1 f 11\ opo nt 5T U1'i . OKEECH$EE C JL/NTY , • 1' • i •\� Florida TwnpiBe rr1� � i •\ ` l • � I. b_ Si `\ �`� STLUCIE COUNTY \ ) ,:"':1" I 4 1. \,i . az Public Airport C.7;2000 FHWA Urban Boundary —urban Local A IRC Roadway Outlet Mall Streets =Rural Principal Arterial interstate o I 2 6M Y • Indian River Mall f Lakes Rural Principal Arterial Other CIMMINIMMiles Functional Classification : Public Schools K-12 RdwyFunctional Classification •••••Rural Minot Arterial C1 Hospital —Urban Principal Anenal Interstate—'Rural Mayor Collector Source-Indian River County MPO&FDOT -t—i Railroad —Urban Principal Anerlat Other —R Minor Collector tr-,....ra,v.4-,...... Map adopted June 2,2004 —State Roads outside IRC....Urban Minor Arterial —Rural Local —Urban Collector Community Development Department Indian River County 30 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ' _ ,�' Figure 4.3.2 / INDIAN RIVER COUNTY /,•,e• FUTURE TRANSPORTATION _ _. , �_.. —1 i ::. •. MAP SERIES I 7800ndarl R t -#114,0‘:.4; • I i... >:Y:::}. �.• 1: "'-'01444% •1``;.;..•'�::: is •� .lr^.: ,} �` ...rt 1 . 1: - *;•':444% l_r -I ,;..? moi•, 11,41iiiiar1111e1 0•i'... z .. iN,:i" k % 1. ':�' li . `�'a,,�,!�il �r'� _�� ._. rrls 1/ 1 1.A- AI . S .w�► it. "s ` tau PO c p kililk rrar» N.>: 1111 111r e11/al ^., rD wsns!!e '' •let e11 1 - 1 :`. '. • rrrr r *W.. \ - I:L;:1., v+s. • �''e . - - - ••-•_�y r rile rr•' 1111 V qq�.:rf er 1- r.•1•.i- `11n In, - C•... ♦ r »a 1/a •.1111• rk::..Y;:, ';z«, Li:. to i - - • - '. (i:NJY:J;F?'• y�� , r•. •e •rr. fru a• ler "' t Vie."• j :.:•AI 'i34ii 1 • &•It.60 ►_. I�erf�1E As is t i • L•ser- e,„.,..,.• .-- -e e ee i - •1e rt.OS ._� Tww —_ ■.. 1 :S '� a •, 1iirlr. ry~.1� a!n. i.1 V i 4 ., .., ��r:,t • aim Ss• 10;•11111 ' ...la I , •.e at 1 - e1111' M 51 (LAX. .rle ST es . - -_ __Ir V 1t !tn.rr 110, •'1 1� _ 11.91C I'Mastuseakkgilligga6612L * N♦A1111 �tur1a111- • _, oi e w e • ,r . $ e Scale: r - UTA URE UOAOWAY fUNCTiONAL CLA$SIFLCATJO. Date: Die,99 Mill Urban Principal AtterisI(U•PA) mum Urban Minor ArterialtU•MA) ars Urban CurieclorlU,C011,1 Updated: Feb.1888 ]O(J[ Rural Principal ArleriatUR-PA) arra Rural Minot ArtetiaUR•MA) Rural MOD CenectorlRMAi1 Source: Florida Dept el Transportation It.A,i,)limited Access Padilla Community Development Department Indian River County 31 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element • Existing Transportation Map Series Figure 4.4 2001 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts • 1I . \ . „�� tk.8 ::.''- rte ,R‘ 0 _ k • v .. '''.:::•;•:: 4,00: 30t o r o w : 1` C a e SI ft L'. a f:.:-!..:::::::i:::.. . . 1re• r .- 51 °.- • i.:,,i:::::A . -..:i:::.*:. .MM;.-'; I MIL ..:::, :. ‘,.\... U) '.11, :.,, - ....k . 4 :i!1:`. 1 ; .A, • �l�i�iiilllo,= ` _um State Road 60 =`T° - ":"'' i 23682 4871 . a ..iiii�r �'.. E ti? r 12th St m�mmenim m4111 r; 8th at ����m#E"rite ;:. mmir 4th a � � ,1;,. ...1 magim A , `r Ge A .._ -1- 03 Legend Major Roads F71 Cities Water n County All Roads XXXX AADT Community Development Department Indian River County 32 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element With a maximum estimated clearance time of 10 '/2 hours for worst case conditions in the most severe storm event, the County's clearance time is within the generally accepted standard of 12 hours. Recently, a SR AIA Corridor Study was done for the south part of the County's barrier island, and that study addressed hurricane evacuation issues. Using conservative assumptions, that study confirmed that existing evacuation times were adequate. Since the hurricane study update, several actions have been taken which enhance evacuation even more. Most importantly, the old two lane, movable span Merrill Barber Bridge was replaced with a four lane, high rise, fixed span facility. This has significantly improved barrier island evacuation travel and delay times. Also, improvements have been made to SR 60 both east and west of I-95. East of I-95, SR 60 is in the process of being widened to 6 lanes between 66th Avenue and I-95. This will result in a continuous 6 lane facility from Indian River Boulevard to I-95. West of I-95, SR 60 has been widened to a four-lane divided facility between I-95 and the Florida Turnpike entrance in Yeehaw Junction. Landscaping and Aesthetic Improvements in Transportation Corridors In order to make roadways aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses, Indian River County has enacted various regulatory measures and programmed roadway landscape improvements One such measure was the adoption of corridor plans. Since approval of the original county corridor plans (which applied to SR 60 and CR 510), the county has expanded the number of corridor plans to include most of the county's major arterial corridors. These corridor plans include architectural standards (such as acceptable roof materials and exterior colors), buffering requirements, landscaping requirements, and signage provisions. Finally, the county has amended its Land Development Regulations to ensure that private developments feature extensive landscape improvements fronting public roadways. Currently,there are a number of landscaped transportation corridors in the county. Generally, state corridors contain more landscaping than county corridors. For example, SR60 is landscaped at the entrance to I-95, has trees on berms west of I-95, and has landscaped medians between 20th and 58th Avenues. Proposed projects such as the widening of SR 60 between 66th Avenue and J-95 and the resurfacing of SR 60 from 20th Avenue to SR A 1 A will also involve installation of extensive median and shoulder landscaping. Probably the longest corridor within Indian River County with near-continuous landscaping treatments is SR AIA. Along that corridor, much of the landscaping was provided by private developers on public or private rights-of-way through agreements with FDOT. Other state roadways in Indian River County have been redesigned with decorative pedestrian amenities to further enhance aesthetics. Along US 1 within the Sebastian city limits, for example, landscaping is complemented with paver block crossings,decorative lighting, and matching street furniture. Currently, several major county roadways are being designed to accommodate landscaping treatments. These include CR 510, 66th Avenue, and 43rd Avenue, all of which are being designed to include landscaped medians and curb and gutter sections to accommodate landscaped shoulders. In the city of Sebastian, the county's recently completed CR 512 widening project included an Community Development Department Indian River County 33 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element extensively landscaped 15' buffer and trail from Iekind-Rd-I-95 to the Sebastian Elementary School. In the past, the City of Vero Beach has undertaken a number of noteworthy roadway landscaping and beautification projects, including Royal Palm Pointe (which features decorative streetlights, signs, a fountain, and benches) and 21' St from Indian River Blvd to US 1/8th Ave (which includes landscaped medians, landscaped shoulders and pedestrian-friendly street improvements). Finally, 14th Street in downtown Vero Beach was improved with fountains, benches, paver blocks, and playground equipment. L . ' p - - Bicycle/Pedestrian System In Indian River County, the bicycle and pedestrian network is composed of the sidewalks and bicycle lanes adjacent to the existing collector and arterial roadway system. While 72 62% of the county's road mileage has bicycle lanes or paved shoulders; only 3-733% of the road centerline mileage has sidewalks. Road segments with existing pedestrian facilities are defined as those roadways having a sidewalk along at least one side for the total length of the segment. Currently, there are 200-321 centerline miles of bike lanes or paved shoulders and 102 169 miles of sidewalks in Indian River County. In October of 1997, the MPO adopted its first countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. The plan, which was updated in 20042015, focuses not only on facility needs, but also on educational programs. With respect to bicycle and sidewalk facilities, the plan indicates that the ideal bicycle/pedestrian system would be five foot paved shoulders and five foot sidewalks on each side of all thoroughfare plan roadways. Because of various constraints, including canals, existing curbing, and lack of right-of-way, the plan recommends different cross sections for various roadways. In 20042015, 37%9%of the roadway network had a bicycle level of service(BLOS) of"E"or"F," while 20% of the roadway network had a pedestrian level of service (PLOS) of "E" or "F". According to the MPO plan, .. - .., . . ._. . .. - - . .. . . . . ... ; .. . . .. . ,: ..• . . • ,f f ,t it The costs of sidewalk projects and bike lane projects, excluding the projects that are expected to be implemented in conjunction with cost feasible highway projects, are around $10 million and$15 million, respectively. The county's bicycle and pedestrian facilities are illustrated in Figures 4.11A and 4.11B, Existing and Future Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities. Existing facilities include on-road facilities such as bike lanes, wide shoulders, and sidewalks. Currently, the County implements its Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan through various means. One way is by regulation. Through its land development regulations, the county requires developers to install sidewalks and bike paths in conjunction with development projects. Community Development Department Indian River County 34 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Another way in which the county implements the Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan is byconstruction. Y Not only has the county installed sidewalks and bike paths as part of its road construction projects, but it has also budgeted a portion of its local option sales tax revenue to fund bike paths and sidewalks, and has applied for and received several SAFETEA LU FAST Act, Transportation Alternatives Program enhancements, Safe Routes to School, and Recreational Trails Program grants to construct bike paths and sidewalks. Currently, the county spends about $100,000 per year of local option sales tax funds-x,$200,000 per year of gas tax revenues., willand will be spending approximately $1,500,000 over the next five years in enhancement funds for sidewalks and bike paths. In Indian River County, the number of off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities is relatively small. Notable facilities include a boardwalk trail to the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge observation tower; a trail atfrom Kitching Station along CR 512 to downtown Felismere along the Trans-Florida Railroad; and a trail on Old Winter Beach road. In order to connect major destinations in the Vero Beach/Central County area, the Indian River County MPO, in 2006, developed a Central County Greenways Plan. That plan identified a number of off-road bicycle and pedestrian projects that will, when complete, produce a system of connected greenways in the central county area. Those projects will be located along railroad, canal, airport, and other publicly owned rights-of-way. In 2008, the MPO developed a North County Greenways Plan to produce a system of greenways in the North County area. With respect to bicycle and pedestrian safety, seven roadways in the county averaged one or more bicycle crashes per year from 1996 to 2006. These included SR 60 (58th — 43rd Avenue); SR 60 (27th Avenue to 14th Avenue); 16th/17th Street (20th Avenue to Indian River Boulevard); 12th Street (20th Avenue to Old Dixie Highway); US 1 (12th Street to SR 60 and 26th Street to 41st Street); Royal Palm Point at Indian River Boulevard; and CR 512 (Roseland Road to Fleming Street). In 2006, FDOT reported a bike/ped fatality rate of 2.96 per 100,000 persons in Indian River County. Transit According to research findings, indicators of transit need include high elderly populations, low household income, and low auto availability. _.. : .- . ... - e�� - . .. - e, - In 20052016, the county's elderly (age 65 and older) population was 29.2%, while the per capita personal income for the county was $40,677. According to 2000-2010 census figures, 948.9% of the population lived below the poverty level, while Blacks (&294%) and Latinos (66511.2%) were the largest minority groups in the county; 23% of residents were disabled, and approximately 6% of county residents had no vehicle. Census data from 2000 also showed that .37 % of residents used public transportation to commute to work. Figure 4-7 shows major trip production and attraction locations in the county in 20082018. At that time, the major shopping areas for the county were located in the central county area. These included the Miracle Mile and Treasure Coast Plazas east of downtown Vero Beach and a number of centers west of Vero Beach. Centers in the west-central portion of the county included the Vero Fashion Outlet (formerly Horizon Outlet Mall), the Indian River Mall, Community Development Department Indian River County 35 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Ryanwood shopping center, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, the Wal-Mart Superstore and Sam's Club. South Vero Square and Oslo Plaza shopping centers were located in the southern part of the county. North County retail centers included the Riverwalk Shopping Center, the Sebastian Wal-Mart Superstore and the downtown Sebastian area. Through its Indian River Transit division, the Senior Resource Association operates a fixed route transit system six days per week. The fixed route service, which in 2007 became formally known as the GoLine, is free and available to all riders. There are currently eleve -fifteen routes that operate countywide. These routes are depicted in Figures 4.5A 4.5K. ,Five of those routes have limited service on Saturdays. - • w -; •, ' , .. ••n ' .. • • .. • •. • • In April 2017, the Main Transit Hub moved into its new permanent facility, located in Vero Beach on the south side of 16th Street adjacent to the FEC Railroad. Seven GoLine routes connect at the Main Transit Hub, and the hub facility is used by approximately 800 passengers each day. Since the county's transit system was established, ridership has increased each year. In 2006, • I1 - ,. • .. E e - .` ; • w , ... , - - •• s.; :. From 2010/11 to 2015/16, passenger trips increased from 895,462 per year to 1,156,034 per year, an increase of nearly 30%over five years To enable a wider user group to access the transit system, the SRA offers complementary dial-a-ride service for those persons who live more than 1/4 mile from a bus stop and wish to use the fixed route service. In 20082013, the county performed a transit quality level of service (TQLOS) analysis as part of its Transit Development Plan (TDP) major update. As shown on Table 4.3B, two TQLOS indicators, Transit Frequency and Hours of Operation, were both at LOS E and LOS F. In terms of the Travel Time level of service measure, there were variations between different routes on the system, ranging from "B" on routes with little traffic and few-a couple of stops to "D" for routes in the Vero Beach area; the average system-wide score was LOS B. The other components of TQLOS are: Passenger Loading of transit vehicles, which was at ranged from LOS A to LOS C; Reliability, which was at LOS CLOS A. and Service Coverage, which was at LOS A. • . \, '. • ! .0 .n w • e , -, • •. w w • • • • ens - w• • • • 0 • • • w • ... • -• .• - -- •. .. •. • • n • t-Stfeeh-betweenPd 0 - • .* Community Development Department Indian River County 36 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Besides providing fixed route transit, the Senior Resource Association provides demand- response service in Indian River County. This service, which is known as the Community Coach, is available throughout the entire county Monday through Friday between 6 :00am and 7:OOpm and on Saturdays from 8:00am and 5:00pm. To use the system, clients are asked to make reservations from 24 to 48 hours in advance, depending on the nature of the trip. In 20952015, there were 66around 97,000 demand-response passenger trips. A partial list of organizations served includes New Horizons Mental Health Services, the Florida Department of Children and Families, the YMCA, the Coalition for the Homeless, Job Services of Florida, welfare services, and county administration services, as well as several adult day care centers, nursing homes, medical facilities, and'nutrition sites. Clients served include Social Security recipients, the unemployed, and the elderly, disabled, minority and poor populations. These people are provided with trips for medical, shopping, social and employment purposes. As • - I1 . . . 2006-LOS Transit-Re cy € Hour eration E Average-Lead A Service Co erage l Reliability E Vehicle T.vel Time .B Community Development Department Indian River County 37 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments • Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 43A 2013 Transit Quality and Level of Service Hours of Average Transit vs Auto LOS Frequency Reliability Service Loading Travel Time A 0 0 14 16 0 B 0 0 0 0 6 C 0 0 2 0 8 D 0 0 0 0 2 E 14 16 0 0 0 F 2 0 0 0 0 Tours From Activity To ActivityTravel Average Frequency of Reliability Center Time Loading Service Sebastian Sebastian Wal- Highlands Mart E E B A A Sebastian Wal- Sebastian Mart Highlands E E B A A Original Town Miracle Mile E E B B A Vero Beach Shopping Plaza Miracle Mile Original Town Shopping Plaza Vero Beach E E C B A • Original Town Gifford E E D A A Vero Beach Orig inal Town Gifford Vero Beach E E C A A Miracle Mile Gifford E E D A A Shopping Plaza Miracle Mile Gifford Shopping Plaza E E C A A Indian River Mall Original Town D E B A A Vero Beach Original Town Indian River Mall D E B A A Vero Beach Indian River Mall SR 60 West E E C A A SR 60 West Indian River Mall E E C A A Indian River Original Town E E B A A Medical Center Vero Beach Original Town Indian River E E C A A Vero Beach Medical Center Indian River Downtown Vero E E C A A Medical Center Beach Downtown Vero Indian River E E C A A Beach Medical Center Community Development Department Indian River County 38 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Community Development Department Indian River County 39 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element itzinmsportatienrisiement Figure 4.5A IRT Route 1 Figure 4.511 IRT Route-2 Indian River County Transit Fdf.edMow Meer f k '\j •t Route t \ M\ ` ! • l O stAT a•. .1 \ ( ,� fa era•• . -1sr1, 141202111km:sm r : Rah 1 E`.f0: memokllilr 4t•SJ17p ( ' AM... .1M.Y rm�al L �•l _ \1 1•41a.Cvr lir +a Palms4. "..._-,-T ■212'44Etc& ` N`f . \ ' Mt ..1? lrtes ) i` i, s.. i ft 1 \ i f Una..,Y�.11h1.*$2.1 R \ , 1 1 iiI*2e.,awal•flab fes..•...a.1x:. i 1 R ..+..Y 1.[. �1 e ' t J - '•...4't. —w=.""" a,. sRMF7G:./R1Y&i cowry t 1r: }{ at. _ 1 • 1 01•11 11.4 •R." / 1 M r Indian '' r ,\ 14a CZ/ofYeaEreA it to River Lagoon Onus 1 3 � 1 • lit 1.1 411. 1 1 - 1 \ ' _ ....,.. \ ' .1 / \ It �.. �l i 1t • Indian River County Transit °M"'"`" { Route 2 _ S =nrt Mat Rat*2 1 . f,1 i is ...1.V.a RM."TCD ` Peals 3Sax •••••14.12nze12r.11.r A1412,-..44.-...1 Tat.......2.1%*r tattry,US,Ur.-•Pati= ■:no Serb l.tT Tato 1......_ . rw•....I....I 3..! 0 \ •M E.$.r..s..l.dm••••40 t..v.. 11.E M9u�deQM/311 t�(� •tS o emu-*CM o. e1eqS 1 w.. } Cry d aelo Beat „ L/.. 1 • A0L N RIVER COUNTY • •. �>aeatm f.4.11P.1 j :km. H IV a.. H 1/•sa. - f�ta • CPU r • _ e. Ht St.M - . Community Development Department Indian River County 40 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.SC IRT Route 3 Figure 431)IRT Route 4 Community Development Department Indian River County 41 ' APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments • Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element • Indian River County Transit 34 Route 3 • gi PubicAi'Fa:Rage 3 d FbeOti ria•tl:YaY•Fosx ATdp N 2 Rate 3&lops au l-%ay.Reitrn Trip ry 16 S ®44vwf +-r Rehoad • Sheets + • takes • Pi :a •« • r_.. }T els/ET >1 RreatdR u&-'farrtrtlsMtAte&Mt 9nScorta:DesWow ramanetto!W ebrQ e. • LfzpR d on Ct-tote,2a7 Salmi-RCWO&&mix RemviceAtscdafan Fa at once,tmtaa(77Zr E•'- O3 ^ >N C t 111,3+? 343 3•f0 11s ryt.: 114 177 TrEar Rat ' • RCN Hitt •CeFt Man W 113 Megan }:i"rOST - , ttccp•l City of Wm Beach S -" PCtr Scat • i arnry • AmrMssaton • &Ya g N. xtrxtate= • 341 • Omit .4 tie Efar p t • -.. -- - --- ---- Community Development Department Indian River County 42 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Transportationcientent T ...... • 4 5 Indian River County Transit 6airtr'r IMM can Route 4 SUM 3 • waitron •P am 4,-1 ie Q Puli4444wt Rtwr•• 10611.-• 4-14 • • In 1.4npit,t .....Im y.=aswtrd'FPO el 416Ci7 Cr L'@7C 9eadO weap bte4�w% ....2.-244y Yy 6 2-Y - RaTna 2 { 7 Kir G g. t,4t.fc lakes =iv] na Q4�� k A < .m .a • •Aft - roan 412 . • @n aTrnlr'bllfa rsverrert of tushilz-veut. �6ear ej +�cVroiff - *Demerol Mop prssaredonOcdrerZC7 Sane-RC LSO&Seas'Ressu xAssoastsn ,�..r. k Fara$ssarce.aa..act;Tf2:f6A{90. C ...: _ cat - 01 C • • Indian safes .� River • ei Iagoo •i 1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY • ' oft.? . � • • wm 141 44 • 14112 ' . .as .amens 11 Raft • • ). ^ \\lilt Q 1/41) \ WM \\ I_ 4.I Community Development Department Indian River County 43 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.5E IRT Route 5 Figure 43F IRT Route 6 Community Development Department Indian River County 44 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Indian River County Transit Krum 1%.* 5Route 5 ""C"' • ' � SE O mo0Atr..a•: Hwtr! ©Handal mm.WBY.Faxad Trip \ / .. 0,4 Rade 5Shdf 1y �dan naerr am a C. 1 • H,eay,Wnta ttidp-I—►Ratted • Q Hd sy.Rr]rn Trip 9-srh ,ytrro U :Wray lasts Hata dirt • .• r , .ay°nY mcta {^S1t\ Radew-'Mt>LSI 6,KM S tlny. SMt.-Q'atSaCud, nSmna:dr Wm essenert at ter ecnv.se S Same-R 5 O L SMa Retw:eAsts;aat Watt 'mann, 5t ..4i a`v�a616 krl .coax,PM YC klaVa I3 143 c °• t (rik""-\ a C '., au: N L7 isi il►9M to - • awt 4-' _.a�� a tea ;e *II� : \ %Adian River Lagdia I MI Q ��-fiie s•N RNY R COUNTY % OV•al SSs:m.0in 06+� ' s s ' �*ism aoamt weir \\ i *Nrj . rove 4,1s1 , u. ' a OA:kk as 5,16 ..:'° eaatan , ,, a I *� • **6-17 1149 • p„ su sm ew 1 • etenu e • *II ao e 6a -Sl—.,e.0 a1R do :11.2.Vm .Cam 1 • Part 1 • v • Community Development Department Indian River County 45 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments • Comprehensive Nan Transportation Element ThiaspertittiostAketent • Ruffen River minty Transit l'4, i _ i• 1 r ` 1 r !1 1 !1 •k---A' ' ` , Route t 1 I L.1..,..--�-,,4 i . --1,-I , Y 40 ®Flak Ural {vY2E rihttl � .1 t ! _ 1 • ! _r .\1 -. ! ' •IDS'!i=I .1•Sw`a'FaultBO- ' I ? Th ..l_, .. , l f ?fir. r r ►g • ®my -rx.- _, I..1r,s {.0`'' • Aa . . °a ! Vit--- ,� Mt. lle �,- 'y• ; `.;1 5 Ifb• ..1f.,- .aRb •mt+a 01.6g.e '-'-.•— 4 --• _ _- -... -.4,-„ -.'i ' .,V -�4i &watch VIMaB4OOMPIS en WA 'rib--• •.,,�,_,,,....1,-.1,,_ #••i } Vete' , -. roamt4 r (�- 4 moi. *cm,,11C d1... na.,..r-c:ear �{++\' • "' 1eroime.WWI 1:tarel'bf y ' I.1�" 'II k .1.: .f ,626 I i-i 1 4?4 AP. '-"f a lip _ • 01'A,: i,'ERPOLI 'Y--- *` �' ..a.t.,.�..,� lil. • Q:b• 1`r.7,-1,ei 1 1''TS r ,- 'i `-1 '1/4.1_'• . s4 i { ix4�.-..,? 4 .�.._..i,__._____.•*__ __1.,•..Q iM,_6uarxi,: 641 - a� nom. - L i -1, ' _�f .--.--i14 - - ,• it! !,,. ..p ..------1 r VS Di! ` , 6s i I ' - 1 1....LA 1 ;1.,._ '. _m_ '...? _."- In' Ilisn V Community Development Department Indian River County 46 • APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.5C IRT Route 7 Figure 4.51I IRT Route 8 Indian River County Transit w. it.,.. •°i'aOa • Router hie INI •il`.a. elhelle • C Feet At i%eel **/ •Siele a raid e• Yaoc l w }MS �,pp;a Fw•• tat 0.» ®6Tay UMr.» r•x r.s u *ewe P.�•fl.MY•nr•o Vel I amble Bs�`ti+Ynfbomreelello elm"Y W.} lee.aar•clQlre4]1C _ 4!• r1 • Sone-SI MJ•/y6Rmzcr a 6•n/a . MO AVER C r1 • 11 14a F a • Indian River County Transit ..r, SOONerY.a e \ Route B \i liI p wnm� cmMalt• lee C/4301/* ••11/12.••lall \ lie.MX* -H4Daff • W it • O'`leaf fa ..i r ®dear Ie•L .i u.y •.• I - t fi •. 0 . , • . ; r\ men su Afters -best.rasa•fen w len Om maaii.aumee_b•[>•te av wew•«rsm».* c t ' IN...K.r'9•:Wax 4ern nems roams ma 0121:1•461 et cc _ l a. Was .. , CycilWoBead: • • a- • r I - wyria r ru;:n ii H. I i •i♦ A3 Or.UN 1 • • P1- fl 5 y �� ul.a.w r r Ar•.M.l.', 1 t M..1i •rl•lr 6..1•.. •s WO ..a .. • Community Development Department Indian River County 47 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 431 IRT Route 9 Figure 4.5.1 IRT Route 10 Community Development Department Indian River County 48 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element emwtar ."‘•. , •K" eM etre cite Sebazftao s ase SO '� • . `-• F ;` Indian River County Transit •e o°at `v o � Route 9 si x Tta \ t = FlPoar aagmm:Atm,g .s sine r � �. © aiaspoi s�Sysbq ' • Ig° �.. Ftwae9 Snags +r Relioa41 Ps^ ;pp4lyy1' \^-,. ■ 245br Sheets lti ' 1i1 - COMM River Stot 'Lakes A . .a .s . t sa 1r :.* .ise-"wads peen Mee . 11 E!•.Ste Malte!S kg.nv rw.:4'bus:erg',se &n.a-l4."AWS 6 Sent.Resolve . Fin mistal:4 ea6aC fTTS:Po eao • earntA1014tta RIVER CO .t is et A �. t} . 141 IAA iNa...." o-ie e•a i— — le. ...M..' 1 E� '..t e\..r us.. • p usewl east t gi lent dts=1p..-a414I44 e'ie A * Pars • • ¢ i Msto As ane e11 i 4'.n — a+a ' ! mmau � i { g ! LI gins + V i { i 1 t E i I .: "7 1. s acre t aft N - se. - - --- -i _ . I 142 Q _ CO of Nero Beach row # —.Poacaa"..r.,4 a Pp. P,-aan arw sin ' IOC •casae • ata .. orb t '-j_ • ,b'+ 1 1 a • • oOn ' •:".M. acre''' • , • • •Um - Community Development Department Indian River County 49 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element TranspertationTAement • Indian River County Transit etA .1e ,c. .,w.4 ,. 114 �} , Route 10 I �. . ' ` • 1...•••• I a PttttAI at ¢a•t: a • 11 i /" - ' 1y s ,. �w 1Fti Haw • 11 t•L4b1,FaaLt V-1–t C-ax.1 • taut """"" p A. eaaave rt t • �„ t * 7S r w e. w 1F7i3 t i carr j ti F • Pal I rr Sit OM 4= 7aatt ae atr • 2rcexPnC•acsraa,ttlra:tetet U. i • Fut • • 11saeac1v^xtc]aXX , Ci Pass-FM MI l EEttrPmi aA=R$'f • 11►ii iwdl q exam • ar • -- - - - - - - tel Otte • • e amain !i z Fere* •!ttYnt E + Cala Ida • a8l3ta. Fat . ' ..4NRY COUNTY . • • jA. r &Mar .1 r' + Mile f m'- 1 54 — • 161•1Wt _WN x..11 X11`] ii '. L to -la as • _ . g 1 1� QSf'Of 77Ef2 it . •'chat i , efts. 1."441' »rem in • "0' • • Community Development Department Indian River County 50 . APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Transportationciement 1`' . 'iiN 1 11-2 i , ` t - C'' '!").12.\ Atlantic Ocean Indian River County Transit J Route 11 FlJbticAirpori Route 1 - •14.0 ,/r 'P.1 f lampttel —2..4, celtbr ° \\\, Route11 Stops -HI-Raihoad J t1 ` pi 1-Way.Forward Trip Srotts / - - Y S ` N t-W y.Return Trip : _)f..aeos •a. \` ja 2-Way �Sueenaore\,S ao.\ �u P oa Slum 91121T21 ,•, f 11, ('1• /\k �. .CON�r'Rcut -Towards 9rQ�'.f1��'e 2ts$16^. ,, ('\!-e�'-' trSan.RyerC urc V "•,•t SSS 'w numbefs�fcRaw II e'nenta bis aang row*. $AJae RIla prepared on October 21107 \; 4. ,,. Source-tRC Itt.0&Senea ResouloeAsecdarronL For assistance.co na f,7f2)5%-021SS - • of Sebasban Inset Af '\ of aft w t4 "' 1 C\—_1-r; •11-1C ,11-15 t 11-14 ,n 11-1 I T l/ • ' ' . ' \ 51�•�i\- \` 1-111 ..w..,. I 11.12■11-11. 11-1m ` ' �INDIAN RIVER COUNTY \ 1 OW of Vero Beach r I r 1 r' t I + , t ir-- { i •.- 1 + *f T t' 1 i- -- • L p w ! • Ger i i I t i I , -- + i' --,Iii: ' 1 t C� •. ' t 'f \ i i .r'1t. .rc-fr 'I '` �t:N' '.1,..f r , , :A \i -- ,- - , 1 r L- t -F+�r ° • l - L © LL " -"""l—} •. – } 1 G X11-+7 • 1 1 1 i' "1 Gaya Vero Bea mann: • 1 'f' - .3 , T- �'Q'j I. ,. r_r 1.:___L-7 te _____i_._—:1!._ ±i- y' = --- -•. 11-1 p Memo a 11 --r7r'.ti 'T'y_ —1 Iii. raeF_ Figure 4.5 Transit Routes • • Community Development Department Indian River County 51 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element t Fr;. +s `GOLine c .-_,,.. , ; :, ,., 'Y' 11 \--*** : -11 k\''.. .,,, ..Xi .. .� s.. '1 ..-©—tnm a ••••11:1-.tollao E' �' ,► ,�t :. w }, ll -- -Q- ms .12_- }- rttt ...ti .. f4.. '"---i,� 7; V ...• /I , '.: . 12w4 42 ,_ � .II ` e *- �- I a'. -n'nma -n-twru \ak.v. Vrnii 4..41-.) ,tee.,.IS 1a..,. �, ,,. Mrs ac�attridnn'P�IP L \ \u---,.. a ,, '�4�,'/ #hM 4 .-,,, as . a Fir-""�.' :, -.4%--. .. ., 1\1-0 � P�kriWi AsMii�itl ci 7.'„a«° tie tf+rdiir+ti*WMYMPIIM Mwd� • a `, sYasrsutitbsilm. ` I '" F '1'- ..�.t-..+r..sm.mmai 1......[�1+ F F F ! y �__.{\r s �Sers,I j t ;A V, , 'r�i. L.—n_-- f t _ i. ICe."'.-f. cu rte.. ._ 1 ° I i. �u ` i 1V it r —• �� .. r J � ., es c. 17 Ifs ` -. ,,, .,,.. _ F baa r a..wa... r ..rL/ 4, r r:...,7 i I • -- .10--� .r.fiR!� . r-r ".'- ara.wa S. 4 .4,. I f '' 1 " 0r.—, ', f S r ..� '.,‘=tips 4*.I. *421 It ,+3tir+e».a ly t � l a 1' C_-fit "'t M a-.:a,.�pi 7 7�'"". y' ,,,,....j,.... , ariarra s\ri. , t i •-•••,1 f \ �t ; Community Development Department Indian River County 52 • APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.3B Indian River Transit/Go Line System Performance Indicator FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 Percent Change (2001-2006) Passenger Trips 155,058 153,255 205,571 235,216 329,312 112.4% Revenue Miles 227,040 225,930 250,646 243,120 243,941 7.4% Operating Expenses 588,561 639,715 718,036 756,167 845,193 43.6% Operating Exp/Rev Mi $2.59 $2.83 $2.86 $3.11 $3.46 33.7% Vehicles Available 12 13 14 - 16 13 8.3% Source: Indian River County MPO . .. . ... . . . . . . - • •, • . . . . _ ... . . .:, ..• . . • . • . . . OperatiEnIST OperatorVehicles Days-91 Oper tion Contracted 3-7 &30-AM-5-0: 9-PM Monday-through-Friday Able Transport 3 a i i Thufsday .. .. ' - .. 6440-AM-3-0: 0-PM Menday-threttgir-Friday ��f YY 6440-AM-5410-PM Indian-River-Gounty-SehooIHoard 4-5 24-HvUPS UnicteE} N/A 1 /A NIA 1/A 3 RAO-AM-440-PM Mondwthrough-Friday Healthsouth a $.410-AM-4440-PM Menday-through-Friday N/A 1�1/A _ 1/A India,,Rive..Shore..911 Service 2 24-Hour& 3 , 24-Hours Monday-through-Sunday Aviation, Rail, and Intermodal Facilities In 2006, there were no rail yards, rail terminals, commercial seaport facilities, or commercial airport services within Indian River County. Scheduled commuter service at Vero Beach Community Development Department Indian River County 53 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Municipal Airport no longer existed, having been discontinued in 1996 due to low demand. While non-scheduled charter flights were still available, the number of passengers taking advantage of this service was low. Total operations at Vero Beach Airport, Sebastian Airport, and New Hibiscus Airpark were 179,664, 48,684, and 20,300,respectively, in 2006. Figure 4.6 depicts the location of Indian River County's Airports, while Figures 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 show current land uses surrounding the airports. In 20052019, the land uses surrounding the Vero Beach airport included parkland, mobile home parks, and conservation areas, as well as commercial, government, industrial, residential, and mixed uses. Surrounding land uses at the Sebastian Airport were mobile home parks, as well as conservation, commercial, industrial, institutional, single and multifamily residential, recreational and riverfront mixed uses. The roadways accessing these airports all operate at level-of-service "D" or above. In 2019 Tthe existing locations of the county's waterway and railway networks are depicted on Figure 4.6.3:, although improvements to Aviation Blvd. intersections are being planned and segments of Aviation Blvd.are being considered by the city of Vero Beach for expansion. Community Development Department Indian River County 54 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing & Future Transportation Map Series Figure 4.6 Existing & Future Airports, Rail, & Wate Transportation Facilities1‘, - - - 0,:,..,..„ •Mace Ranch (PVT) ae ,��� !,i� w a °;.e.(1 c .xtcoat . i % ...•-.." "114111111L.::*i::::' 4;4 . 7% . R. e DFellsmere (PVT F. ... .. s Broo Ice PVT ;, .t, . r;. _,. .,Fs),,,,...1. ,.,..., v, r ■til.iw vi,X ,,,, . _ _ .-, IE.. -Ali ma lataiaitAz)31 '. �„ w�■ Indian - f\h_=_____t__F.:i_r___.in - . . -a . V. ) I -___ \ .i 2 'F425151.1111_11‘. \ f ti Legend Water • Air Facilities Height Notification Zones Roads Rail&water �2o0HN Cities Aj 1 �1o0HN ( ] County j\ 2 NSOHN NProposed High Speed Rail Route A/25HN Community Development Department Indian River County 55 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.6.1. Vero Beach Airport Land Uses tUB111 ; . na z �Illllfif I • - Lz _ _ti © Vero Beach Municipal Airport 1 ., 7,;,*, i___\___T— • A mew i City of Vero Beach a ��4a1!► /� • e•-7..„ MR;* L-1 41?-_h . it 1 • b i e13, ##A1•Ifi :fi + ��� •Ieeeree e� ��'>�( 1flf�i#1> us1GUISO . '' "cp _ Ai mx � • ID Eld'ii ii INDIAN RIVER I - ��►���571-'t]�1fl�mLl1®`l , km_ 4. �� i RL a all WO1WQ]ID®► 1 --- covNrY - - _ ® t err am ;�o RH �fi� ___ ��,/...'/V, ./.,0/11:1alp 93�0M� " RC � I rel ` .,�tM��w`i�nr�r-IrinP� �//� ��.--. � �,-" ,. NExistin Land Use a Airport,Public QGU:Govt./inst./Public IRC Land Use ASurrounding -+--Railroad J I:Industrial 0 C-2:Conservation 1du/44 ac r,� `—County Road n MR:Nixed Residential {'I Cit:Commercial/Industrial o c.; 0.2 0.4. r e�tAIrport Property Q MX:Mixed Use f1 L-1:SF Residential 3du/ac Vero Beach Airport i ,Lakes ®MHP:Mobile Home Park J L-2:SF Residential 6du/ac r��City of Vero Beach P:Park i i M-1:MF Residential 8du/ac . Source-Indian River County MPO n &Vero Beach Planning Dept. Vero Beach Land Use 1=1RH:Residential High r1 M-2:MF Residential 1UdWac rr».�,+_r.,......s w Map created March 26,2007 ®C:Commercial i I RL:Residential Low Q PUB:Govtiinst./Pubflc • ©CV:Conservation f'7 RM:Residential Medium 1-1 RC:Regional Commercial Community Development Department Indian River County 56 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 'Figure 4.6.2 Sebastian Airport Land Uses s: 4!s \t; BREVA RD COUNTY 'a' L-2Aiii'a,9 i' • ,.: - ' _. PS , NPS . ' ..t" ' ry ` .6-..„ rteR -_3011';"•• RF".t'. .i r��,i RE .#e r - •• • 0 � `Of ��;: --f . x2 ps ■�- ...."—i- IN Sebastian Muni pal Air,..r, �J— - -J Al nA1S • INDIAN RIVER or L� R.t edrwraor. COUNTY - • �► City -' Se' 4.0 C-1 ~-- - C 4dursa YPS ilike RS 4duraQM 4durao,•1 -" _ 4, y,� RS adufnor* . SOG rOl - x 12 Y, P=a C-3 �y P5 --` Re.AgarJ,nore �� - 1 Yti� 'dulacre Q Airport,Public Sebastian Land Use Existing Land Use Railroad r"1 Al-AviatiionIndustriial Sul'I^ourad in —County County Road QCcConsservation ,7.'Airport Property r—i CS12-Cornerctal 612 Sebastian Airport [ ■{�Lakes 1 r 00-Commercial General 4I cof Sebastian I I COUNTY- IRC Land Use Ss-uros-Indian iRivsr County MPO IRC Land Use r7 IN-'Industrial I 8,City of Sebastian iPtenning Capt.. r"--3 C-1:Conservation OfAcre I— I PS. Institutional I • Map created March 26,2007 1-1 0-2:Conservation tdul40 acres L_,.,]RE-Residential Estate F""1 C-3:Conservation 1dul2-5 acres r-1 RFM-River3'ront'.Mixed use N CIi:Commercial/lnduatttal =Rival-Residential tvlot Ole Home ,� r-,L-2::SF Residential 6du{acre r—I RM-Residential Multi-Family ^'-- /ti. r-1 M-1:Multi-Family Residential I I RS-Resldenaa1 Singte-Family II-1 REG':Recreation Community Development Department Indian River County 57 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.6.3 Rail and Water Transportation Facilities e , SA, / 4 hQ ,..,`;.`,1• ., -so r •< Atlantic Ocean I . l505j • t S„A1* T 9 day. 1 Seba lien L \, m. 15071 ._t _,3„,-?,, . ,� �l.. t .;:(7`.. � ` n"" �• \ LSCC e �. Is10•. j, 510i. y . (Ism e'ce • 1sio " s iih 613I , .. t1 • i�i� • \C�' i Is��, �.p — '1 . ti 697` `'Sh,es 616 \-` 1173 .� r- 1 0' t . - \-eo ' ' 'I'1' \'', 162-'9' _ gailM,c , t-, , . d�y ;124� 1 0` k•• G — p 194 \,;619; N J 606 606; it t A Y 1611; I�7` N• ,,, ct R N Rail and Water Transportation Facilities III Inter Coastal Waterway—State Roads ASource-Indian River County M30 -t—Ra oad —County Road Map created March 26,2007 =Toll Roads r-1 Lakes TT 404-116"A-4 a en ee 14 -Interstates /-� p Community LGVGIUpu1Glll ilvpi 11,111G111 1111112U1 i�ver County 58 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments • • • Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element \, 4 d ^ , Atlantic OST �545i ' i�' �f:k•1. T r f Sebasian � 'r 1 Ava j5O7 ' . 1 isr r ` u' F. 15T , �;" \ ;510; fismeie +5�0 _ 613j `5 s ' - i. _ 512' L__.....24U`(` i 1II , °----'• 1 °832 \, l 1 'V 'Sf t eSx, 811 1601 \`:\r- r ��l 1ef4+ed' tA 412' 0.,,i;:,,,10.1:1‘.., ' 1 9 L, ' w, •,\ /� 1614 �.. `1-' i � ah ,1:0 c QY '611 0., r, R� -\ V a 4 N Rail and Water Transp ortation Facilities iii Inter Coastal Waterway—State Roads ASource-Inctan RiverCounty MPO -I--Raioad . —County Road. Map aeated March 2007 =Toll Roads r;Lakes "`'` O4t0 e Interstates /1 Community Dei O v� tdian River County 59 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Rail and Intermodal Planning While Indian River County is served by the FEC rail corridor, the County currently does not have passenger rail service. In 2006, the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast (CSTC) adopted a series of action steps aimed at promoting intermodal transportation. Most of the recommended actions concerned regional intermodal transportation improvements. Among the specific recommended steps were securing access to the FEC rail corridor for future rail passenger transportation; planning for regional intermodal public transportation, with mixed land uses around stations and high-intensity corridors; and establishing additional regional cooperation between MPOs and the Regional Planning Council, particularly with respect to funding and intermodal planning. Truck Route Planning In 2003, a Truck Traffic Routing Plan was adopted in Indian River County. That plan designated approximately 70 centerline miles of roadways as either primary or secondary truck routes. Land Use and Transportation Current and future land use patterns have a substantial influence on the characteristics of the transportation system. Overall, the location of major trip generators and attractors influences roadway improvement needs as well as the demand for transit. Trip generation areas are those portions of the county where major residential developments are located. These developments generate trips. Trip attraction areas are locations with shopping, recreation, medical, employment, and other facilities. People are attracted to these areas by the services or facilities available there. Figure 4.7 shows major trip generation and attraction areas in the county. In 200- 2019, the county's land-use pattern consisted primarily of low-density residential development, commercial uses in a few major corridors, relatively littlesome mixed use ec-and downtown development/redevelopment, and dispersed employment centers. New residential areas have now expanded to the western edge of the urban service area on several corridors, including CR 510, 5th Street Southwest, 1st Street Southwest, Oslo Road, and 58th Avenue. as well as infill areas on both sides of US 1. In terms of attractors, the SR 60 corridor and the Sebastian area in the vicinity of Roseland Road have emerged as the County's major shopping areas, replacing older strip-type shopping centers along US 1. Other attractors include county and state government offices and the County Courthouse, as well as a branch of the Indian River State College, all located in Vero Beach; city government offices and post offices located in each city; and major medical services which are located at Indian River Memorial Hospital and the County Health Department, all located in the Vero Beach area; as well as the Sebastian River Medical Center located in the Sebastian/Roseland area. Community Development Department Indian River County 60 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Recreational and cultural facilities are also trip attractors. On the barrier island, South Beach Park, Humiston Park, Sexton Plaza, Jaycee Beach Park, Wabasso Beach Park, Golden Sands Park, Treasure Shores Park, Round Island Park, and Sebastian Inlet State Park are recreation areas that attract many visitors. On the mainland, the North County Library in Sebastian and the Main Library in Vero Beach are trip attractors. The Municipal Marina, located on the barrier island north of SR 60, actually produces many trips, since out-of-town boaters dock there and use the transportation system for shopping and other purposes. While employment is somewhat dispersed throughout the county, there are areas with concentrations of employment. The area near downtown Vero Beach, for example, has many city and county government offices, while Piper Aircraft near the Vero Beach Airport has a large number of employees. Near the Sebastian River Medical Center and the Indian River Memorial Hospital, there are a large number of employees resulting from the agglomeration of medical services proximate to those hospitals. Overall, the number of jobs relative to the number of houses in an area greatly influences the number and length of automobile trips within that area. An analysis of 2005 jobs-to-household data for the three major subareas of the county indicates that the North County jobs-to-housing ratio was 0.7714 jobs per household; the Central County ratio was 1.3063 jobs per household; and the South County ratio was 0.6974 jobs per household. In 2006, the population density in the county's urbanized area was 2.36 persons/acre, while the density of unincorporated Indian River County within the urban service area was 0.52 persons/ acre. Several subareas of the urbanized area, however, had higher population densities. For example, the City of Vero Beach had a population density of 2.19 persons / acre in 2006. Based on estimates contained in the Indian River County Community Profile report adopted in December of 2003, the Gifford community had a population density of 2.63 persons/acre. Other communities with high population densities included several retirement communities (Orange Heights: 6.44 persons/acre; Village Green/Lake of the Woods/Indian River Estates: 4.44 persons/acre) and older communities within Vero Beach (North Beach, McAnsh Park). To determine if adequate Commercial and Industrial acreage exists in the county to improve the future jobs/housing balance, the MPO performed a preliminary analysis of the adopted future land use plan map. While most of the county appears to have sufficient quantities of undeveloped commercial and industrial land to achieve a desirable balance, there is evidence that the south county area may lack commercial and industrial land. In the recent past, much of the residential development in the county occurred as self-contained subdivisions that lack local neighborhood connectivity. This preference among homebuyers for privacy and security continues to dominate new residential development patterns, with most of the growth that has occurred since 2000-the 1990's having taken place in small and medium- sized communities with limited roadway and pedestrian access and little intra- or inter- neighborhood connectivity. Community Development Department Indian River County 61 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Through its land development regulations, the countyrequires developers to incorporate connectivity strategies into new development projects. These strategies include requiring internal street connections between adjacent subdivisions; requiring multiple entranceways to adjacent thoroughfare roadways; requiring marginal access roadways along arterials; and requiring pedestrian connections between neighborhoods. Examples of new developments that incorporate connectivity improvements include Vero Lago; Waterway Village; the South county initiative neighborhoods; . Such as Falcon Trace and Millstone Landing, Pointe West, and the Reserve of Vero Beach. In many instances, efforts to improve neighborhood connectivity meet with opposition from neighboring residents. Residential opposition is most often due to concerns about crime, traffic, noise and other environmental impacts. By 2006, the county had adopted a TND ordinance, and a number of new urbanist/traditional neighborhood design communities had been developed or were proposed. These developments are characterized by a mixture of uses, small residential blocks, streets and sidewalks connecting neighborhoods to each other, as well as schools and other institutional uses. Though these projects contained a relatively small percentage of all new residential units in the county, there is evidence that interest in TND projects has expanded throughout the county. • , • .� 1 0 2 `� Mies I. — `—— O,e Br�+vrrd County f�$'' /U e/r1J7I/IIIvF 0 0,1 1 i �1 f (AVM, k 4,4 , . , ` 4 y i r Al. '- O..f R LS' �1 7 ® 1 f .r fT Oa I • +� I ..0 ri , _/ 4 s / , . 14TNfT t[• --t{� :-!' i�3 ,s,.., 4_11 . 1 r '++� �� i____ ... , + nTw fT _._. .._ .. -Vero Beach Inset- .. -J m _ . F, LA "; • ..A', ri --------\ _ _ h Okeechobee County ^® t• S'. ®{ SWp w`ry.1- ". lit ' L ai,. 'I r.....-„ I, - }; ..t.. T— ' ,. �.. .v....eeeA,tar then St,1_11rjn r.,,,,nh. 1 ) • Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element • Figure 4.7 Major Trip Generators and Attractors • Community Development Department Indian River County 63 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element A Legend BREVARD COUNTY 8 . Major Ttip Generators J. 9 ® Educational �� l 11o,o % a ® Medical �1 5 J Other I 0, • Residential I `� U. O Retail ,;' I \w —GoLine Routes %D G 38 , 'r 37 21 IF4 1 111 10 II - O. _,. ...) i ,i, Atlantic `AiOcean ° I o• o40 \ 0, • Illft ‘il 4 ‘ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY _1;cV • l33 %‘ 'A a 30.ok IiiiL `"R • Y .ii.14 t 111, 11111111112%911111111111.12.0-0,.. Q a o ami m t: 5II © f1. ii ilk oa 1 IIN o: + Er. 20 14 �� n asz 1 a l Ionics \ Q - j i ittIPTI - . . AN • ST LUCIE COUNTY g Community Development Department • Indian River County 64 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Key:Major Trip Generators/Attractors Map# I Name Type of Facility Location 1 Indian River Mall Shopping Mall 16200 20th.Street,Vero Beach 2 Walmart Supercenter Retail 5555 20th Street,Vero Beach 3 Indian River Square Shopping Center 5800 20th Street,Vero Beach 4 Ryanwood Shopping Center Shopping Center 2040 58th Avenue,Vero Beach 5 Vero Beach Outlets _ Shopping Center __ 1700 94th Drive,Vero Beach 6 Treasure Coast Plaza Shopping Center 415 21st Street,Vero Beach 7 Miracle Mile Plaza Shopping Center 500 21st Street,Vero Beach 8 Indian River Plaza(Kmart) Shopping Center 1501 US 1,Vero Beach 9 Sebastian River Medical Center Hospital 13695 US 1,Sebastian 10 Publix at Indian River Shopping Center 9621 US 1,Sebastian 11 Walmart Supercenter Retail 2001 US 1,Sebastian 12 Riverwalk Plaza Shopping Center 13435 US 1,Sebastian 13 Goodwill Retail 3535 9th Street SW,Vero Beach 14 South Vero Square Shopping Center 810 S US 1,Vero Beach 15 Oslo Plaza(Winn-Dixie) Shopping Center 2950 9th Street SW,Vero Beach 16 South Pointe Plaza Shopping Center 4145 9th Street SW,Vero Beach 17 Health Department Medical 1900 27th Street,Vero Beach 18 Indian River Medical Center Hospital 1000 36th Street,Vero Beach 19 Gifford Health CenterMedical 4675 28th Court,Vero Beach 20 Treasure Coast Community Health Medical 1545 9th Street SW,Vero Beach 21 Treasure Coast Community Health Medical 12196 CR 512,Fellsmere (Fellsmere) 22 Indian River State College(Mueller Educational 6155 College Lane,Vero Beach Cam sus 23 Indian River Charter High School Educational 6055 College Lane,Vero Beach 24 Vero Beach High School Educational 1707 16th Street,Vero.Beach 25 VBHS Freshman Learning Center Educational 1507 19th Street,Vero Beach 26 Sebastian River High School Educational 9001 90th Avenue,Sebastian 27 Vero Beach City Marina Marina 3611 Rio Vista Blvd.,Vero Beach 28 Taylor Pointe Apartments Multi-family Residential 49th Street,Vero Beach 29 Victory Park Apartments Multi-family Residential 49th Street,Vero Beach 30 Sunset Apartments Multi-family Residential 45th Street,Vero Beach 31 Heritage Villas Multi-family Residential 43rd Avenue,Vero Beach _ 32 Orangewood Park Apartments Multi-family Residential 38th Avenue,Vero Beach 33 Pinnacle Grove Apartments Multi-family Residential 45th Street,Vero Beach 34 Palms at Vero Beach Multi-family Residential 12th Street,Vero Beach - 35 Indian River Apartments Multi-family Residential Indian River Blvd.,Vero Beach 36 Pemberly Palms Multi-family Residential 8th Street,Vero Beach 37 Sonrise Apartments Multi-family Residential Willow Street,Fellsmere 38 Whispering Pines Apartments Multi-family Residential 101st Street,Fellsmere 39 Pelican Isle Apartments Multi-family Residential Powerline Road,Sebastian 40 Harbor Point Shopping Center 5230 US 1,Vero Beach Community Development Department Indian River County 65 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Map# Name Tyne of Facility Location 41 12th Street Plaza(Publix) , Shopping Center 1255 US L Vero Beach 42 Shoppes of Sebastian Shopping Center 1451 Sebastian Blvd.,Sebastian Regional Travel Demand In Indian River County, commuter flows provide insight into areas of current employment travel and potential regional travel demand. .Of the county's /17,73754,944 workers in 20002017, 845,383 worked in - : :-- than River County. While large numbers of Indian River County workers commuted to St. Lucie County employment destinations, only a small number of county residents worked in Brevard, Martin, and other area counties. In 2006 (excluding traffic on I-95), the total daily number of vehicle trips crossing the Brevard and St. Lucie county lines was 90,600. Of these trips, 54,600 were made at the south county line crossings; 29,400 were made at the north county line, and 6,600 trips were made at the west county line. Table 4.5 Journey to Work Characteristics Journey-to-work Characteristic IRC Florida Place of Work Worked inside county of residence 8-4882.6% 85.98% Worked outside county of residence 11.8215.4% 13.47% _ Worked outside State of residence 0,982.1% 0.55% Means of Transportation to Work Drive Alone 884479.6% 77.11% Carpool 13.029.6% 14.13% Public Transit 8,090.03% 2.01% Walk 1.71% 2.51% Work at Home 2.86% 2.28% Other 2.20% 1.97% Travel Time to Work <10 minutes -1.83815.3% 13.26% 10- 19 minutes 45.9438.5% 32.93% 20-29 minutes 17.0520.3% 21.34% 30-44 minutes 11.6115.5% 20.23% 45+minutes 5.1410.3% 9.95% Work at Home 1.73% 2.28% Departure Time to Work 6 AM to 9 AM 74.3667.7% 69.56% Other Times 25.6432.3% 30.44% Private Vehicle Occupancy Dive-Alone N.11% 77.11% 2-person-earpeel 9.97% 11.39% 3 pe ool 1.89% 4,n% Community Development Department Indian River County 66 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Journey-to-work Characteristic IRC Florida 4-peraon ea 446% 4:0-244 means 6474 84744 Source: Indian River County MPO,United States Census Bureau Transportation Costs and Revenues In any plan, it is important to identify the financial resources necessary for plan implementation. Because of the transportation system's importance for development of the county, it is even more important to identify the financial resources available for transportation system improvements. Besides the information incorporated within this section, detailed financial data applicable to all elements of the comprehensive plan are provided in the capital improvements element. With respect to transportation, there are various funding sources whose revenues are earmarked for transportation system improvements. In Florida, conventional transportation funding comes from a system of taxes and fees imposed by federal, state, and local governments. With the exception of some discretionary federal grant programs, the distribution of transportation funds is primarily governed by federal and state statutory formulas. For highway construction and maintenance, the primary sources of funding are motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees and other automobile related "user fees." In Florida, both the federal and state governments tax gasoline. Gasoline taxes are also collected by the State of Florida on behalf of local governments, either as determined by State legislation or through optional taxes legislated at the local government level. In addition to those taxes and fees, Indian River County collects a traffic impact fee from new development. • Federal Gasoline Tax The federal tax on highway fuels is currently 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and gasohol and 24.1 cents per gallon on diesel. Currently, 2.86 cents is designated for the mass transit account of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Federal fuel taxes are deposited in the Federal Highway Trust Fund and distributed by the Federal Highway Administration to each state through a system of formula grants and discretionary allocations. In Florida, federal highway funds are distributed by FDOT first for highway and bridge construction, with the remainder distributed to eight FDOT districts using a formula based on population, gas tax collections in each district, and needs assessments. • State Motor Fuel Taxes Highway fuel taxes constitute the oldest continuous source of dedicated transportation revenues in the state. These state fuel taxes can be categorized as "retained," those that are collected by the State for State use, and "shared," those that are distributed to counties and municipalities. The retained state fuel sales tax is currently 12.1 cents per gallon. Shared gasoline taxes include the State Constitutional Gas Tax (2 cents/gallon), the County Gas Tax (1 cent/gallon), and the Community Development Department Indian River County 67 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Municipal Gas Tax (1 cent/gallon). The State Comprehensive Enhanced Transportation System (SCETS) Tax is collected and used by the State, but must be used in the district where it was generated. The SCETS is currently 6.7 cents per gallon. • Local Gas Tax The Florida Legislature has authorized a series of locally based gasoline taxes for use by local governments to meet their infrastructure needs. These local gas taxes include the Local Option Gas Tax and the Ninth-cent Gas Tax. o Local Option Gas Tax The State of Florida authorizes local governments to levy two separate local Option Gas Taxes. The first is a tax of 1 cent to 6 cents on every gallon of motor fuel and special fuel sold at the retail level. The second tax is referred to as the ELMS gas tax. This tax is a 1 to 5 cent levy upon every gallon of motor fuel sold at retail in a county. Indian River County imposes the first of the two authorized local option gas taxes. In 1986, Indian River County increased the per-gallon Local Option Gas Tax to 6 cents per gallon. The County does not currently impose any of the ELMS 1 to 5 cent second local option gas tax. o Ninth-cent Gas Tax This state fuel excise tax is also called the "Voted Gas Tax", even though the 1993 Legislature removed the requirement for a voter referendum to impose the tax. This tax is limited to 1 cent per gallon on highway fuels, has no time limit, and can be imposed by an extraordinary vote of the Board of County Commissioners. Indian River County does not impose this tax. • Local Option Discretionary Sales Surtax The State of Florida authorizes local governments to levy six types of Local Option Discretionary Sales Surtaxes. Of these, Indian River County imposes only the Local Government Infrastructure Surtax. Approved by County Referendum in November 2006 2016 for a duration of 15 years, this surtax is levied at a rate of 1 percent and is applicable to all transactions subject to the state sales tax, with the exception of single transactions in excess of $5,000, which are exempt from the tax. The 2005 FY 2016/17 revenue from this surtax was approximately $12$17.6 million. Although aportion of this revenue source is dedicated to transportation, the Countyuses mestmuch of this p revenue for other capital improvements besides transportation. In the county's current five-year capital improvements program, approximately X0 63/ of the total revenue generated by this tax is earmarked for transportation improvements. • Transportation Impact Fees Community Development Department Indian River County 68 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Transportation impact fees are county fees imposed on new development to cover the costs of anticipated roadway capacity improvements. Enacted in 1986, the County's traffic impact fee ordinance establishes a traffic impact fee that is based on a formula related to the projected traffic impacts of proposed developments. Originally, the county established nine (9) separate impact fee districts. Each of the nine districts imposed a different impact fee for each different type of development. Currently, there is one county traffic impact fee for each different type of development, and fees are now collected within three (3) traffic impact fee districts. According to county regulations, the revenue must be spent for transportation system capacity producing improvements in the district from which it was obtained. During the FY 2005/06 development "boom", total impact fee revenue collected was $32,844,618.21$36,297,000.00. Since After that time; during the "great recession",however, new revenue has-declined significantly but has stabilized to a modest level of$5,704,000.00 in FY 2016/17. Tables 4.8A and 4.8B summarize transportation capital and operating revenues for all state and local financing mechanisms through the planning time horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. Through 2030, state and federal capital revenue is expected to be $195 million, while total capital revenues for the county are estimated at $461 million. This includes all impact fee and gas tax revenue sources for the county. It also includes enhanced revenues through 2030 in the form of revised impact fees, continuation of the 1-cent sales tax, and, beginning in 2010, imposition of the second local option gas tax. Operating and maintenance revenues for the county total an estimated $251.7 million through this same time horizon. • Transit Revenues With respect to the transit system, grant funding remains the most significant source of revenue. In 20052018, the MPO and County were awarded over $2,700,000$4,300,000 for transit operating and capital expenses from federal and state grants. This total included assistance from the FTA Section 5303 (planning), 5307 (operating and capital), 5310 (paratransit) and 5311 (rural pubic transportation) programs and the state Public Transportation Block Grant, Intermodal Grant, Service Development Grant, and-Transportation Disadvantaged Trust Fund programs, and Indian River County. External Costs Included in each MPO Long Range Transportation Plan are projected costs related to construction, operation, and maintenance of proposed roadway facilities over a 25-year period. Not all of the costs of the transportation system, however, are considered in the long range plan. Costs which are the indirect result of a project or activity areknown by economists as externalities. With respect to transportation, externalities are the costs generated by automobile travel, but paid for by sources other than gas taxes and transportation impact fees. Taken together, the cost of externalities may exceed the actual cost of building and maintaining roadways. Externalities Community Development Department Indian River County 69 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element include the cost of accidents and injuries; lost productivity and lost work time due to congestion; pollution; enforcement costs, including costs of adjudication; parking lot construction; and costs related to automobile purchase and operation. Although the true cost of externalities is difficult to quantify, recent research has provided multipliers that calculate estimated external costs of roadways relative to construction costs. Under this methodology, it is estimated that over $32-43 million/year is the external cost of the roadway system in Indian River County. System Preservation On a continuous basis, FDOT and Indian River County maintain the roadways in the county. In 2006, the centerline roadway mileage considered deficient on the FDOT network in the county was 34.8 miles. Deficient roadways are defined as those roadways which achieve a rating of less than 3.0 on the 5-point FHWA pavement rating scale. Most of deficient roadways will be addressed by a number of programmed and/or underway projects. These include the resurfacing of US 1from 37th Street to CR 510; the resurfacing of SR 60 from 20th Avenue to Beachland Boulevard; the resurfacing of the Wabasso Causeway (SR 510); and the widening of SR 60 from I-95 to Yeehaw Junction. Upon completion of these projects, it is anticipated that the total number of deficient centerline miles will be less than 10, or roughly 9% of the state highway system roads in Indian River County. In 2006, the cost to maintain all functionally classified roadways in Indian River County (including resurfacing, traffic operations, bridge maintenance, mowing, drainage maintenance and unpaved road grading)was approximately$8,000,000. Intergovernmental Coordination While the MPO continues to provide transportation planning services for the county, its level of planning, grant administration, coordination, and public outreach activity has greatly expanded since 1996. Over the years, the MPO has undertaken a number of studies and prepared a number of plans at the request of its member jurisdictions and agencies. These include a countywide signage and guidance study; a vacant parcel land use model; Fleming Street and Aviation Boulevard corridor studies; and a Greenways Plan. As a consequence, MPO meetings are now longer in duration and have sometimes involved up to 16 agenda items. Due to the complexity of the agenda topics, the MPO occasionally establishes an ad-hoc subcommittee, such as the Greenways project steering committee, to assist in the development of MPO projects. In 2003, the MPO added a standing agenda item for public comment to all of its agendas, an action which has resulted in substantial discussions on a wide variety of county transportation issues. In addition to its longstanding interagency coordination functions, the MPO is now an active participant in regional planning activities along the Treasure Coast. For example, MPO staff participated in the activities of the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast (CSTC). The MPO has also coordinated extensively with St. Lucie County and is ensuring that sufficient inter- county connections, such as the proposed new roadway linking 58th Avenue (in southern Indian River County) and Kobelgard Road (in the Towns, Villages, and Countryside area of St. Lucie County) are included in the respective 2035 2040 LRTP updates of each county. Also, the MPO Community Development Department Indian River County 70 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element executed an interlocal agreement for regional coordination with the Martin and St. Lucie County MPOs and for participation in a regional transportation board, the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC). In so doing, the MPO helped the state achieve the Florida Transportation Plan objective of having 100%of MPOs being parties to regional agreements-by-2$I0. Since the initiation of transit services in Indian River County, the MPO has provided transit and transportation-disadvantaged planning services for the county. As a result of the 2001 Federal Transit Administration's Triennial Review, the MPO began meeting quarterly with the County's Community Transportation Coordinator, the Senior Resource Association. These meetings have been instrumental in coordinating transit planning in the county and in managing the increasing amount of federal and state grant funding. ANALYSIS This analysis section consists of several components. These components include separate sections for each of the different transportation systems. The first component is the traffic circulation system. That component is an assessment of present and future traffic flows, including roadway level of service. Other components contained in this section include an analysis of the bicycle/pedestrian, transit, aviation, rail, and other modal systems; an analysis of the energy efficiency of the transportation system and the maintenance and preservation of the system; an analysis of the relationship between transportation and land use; and other analyses. Much of the transportation system analysis is based on the MPO's 2030 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan that was approved in 20052016. Traffic Circulation System Because of the county's relatively low density and dispersed land use patterns, the traffic circulation system will continue to be the principal component of the county's transportation system through 20302040. For that reason, travel demand must be assessed to determine traffic circulation system needs through the plan's time horizon. Based upon travel demand analysis and needs assessment, future roadway improvements can be identified and programmed. Travel Demand In Indian River County, the two primary contributors to the long term growth in traffic volumes are population growth and growth in the number and length of trips. Over the 'ast decadeSince 2010, the county's population increased by 29.79.1%, a highcra moderate but equivalent growth rate compared to the 9.5%tori-growth rate the State of Florida experienced over t at tin esince 2010. While the population growth was highrobust, daily vehicle miles traveled and total person trips grew even faster. For daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT), the increase was 38.520% through 2017,-and while-the person trips increase was'11.7%39%over mea period from 2000 to 2015. This is explained in part by the fact that many new households in the area have located in residences at the edges of developed areas, resulting in an increase in miles traveled higher than population growth. Meanwhile, commercial activity has largely concentrated along only two major corridors (the US 1 corridor and, more recently, the SR 60 corridor). While the expansion of commercial' Community Development Department Indian River County 71 • APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element establishments along SR 60 brought commercial centers closer to some of the new development, many of the newer subdivisions remain several miles away from commercial centers. .Y . ... Overall, population growth and growth in the number and length of trips are the primary contributors to increased transportation demand. In order to maintain the existing quality of life in the community,this demand must be met by providing appropriate roadway and transit capacity, by maximizing the efficient use of the transportation system, and by coordinating land use and transportation. Roadway Capacity Overall, roadway levels-of-service have declined in recent years in Indian River County. The primary cause of the lower service levels is that the demand for the transportation system (as reflected in growth in population, trips, and miles traveled) has increased faster than the supply of new transportation facilities. One indication of new capacity is the increase in roadway system centerline miles. Ike-past-decadeSince 2010, roadway centerline mileage increased only 4.5%, far below the growth in population and the growth of daily person trips. Consequently, the average commute time increased 9.1%in Indian River County. One reason for the lack of growth in the supply of transportation facilities is the increase in cost in providing those facilities. At the same time, many of the transportation revenue sources, particularly at the state and federal level, have experienced stagnant or negative growth. For example, the federal gas tax has remained constant at 18.4 cents/gallon since 1982. Recognizing that revenue shortfalls were jeopardizing the implementation of the county's long range transportation plan, the county took the initiative to increase transportation revenues locally. These increases have enabled the county to make substantial progress in delivering new roadway capacity. Level of Service Assessment According to Rule 9-J5, each local government in the state must establish a roadway level of service in its comprehensive plan. As indicated in the FDOT Quality and Level of Service Manual, roadway level of service is a measure of user satisfaction of a roadway expressed in letter-grade format, from "A" to "F", based on travel speed and volume of traffic on various classifications of roadways. Adopted and actual levels of service on the Indian River County roadway network appear in Table 4.7.1. • Level of Service Standard Throughout Florida, most local governments have adopted Level of Service "D" peak season/peak hour as their roadway system standard. In the urbanized areas of the state, a level of Community Development Department Indian River County 72 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element service higher than "C" is not even achievable on roadways other than freeways and multi-lane highways that have few signals. Therefore, LOS "C" is the highest achievable level of service for roadways that carry most of the traffic in Indian River County. While "C" is in many—some instances possible to achieve, the County (as well as all of the municipalities in the county) have p established"D" peak season/peak hour as the adopted level of service standard. Although level of service "D" implies acceptance of sub-standard roadway operating conditions, there is, in actuality, little difference to the user between roadway level of service "C" and "D". For example, the difference between LOS "C" and "D" on a typical arterial roadway with more than 2 signals/mile (such as US1 in Vero Beach) equates to an increase in travel speed of 4 miles per hour. From a traffic volume perspective, the differences between the service volumes of LOS "C" and LOS "D" may also be minimal. On a 4-lane divided arterial with fewer than 2 signalized intersections per mile, the difference between LOS "C" and LOS "D" -iswas 50 peak- hour directional vehicles. Currently, many roadways in the county operate at LOS "D." This is true of most of the county's north-south roadways, which are generally spaced farther apart than east-west roadways. Currently, all of US 1 is operating at LOS "D", except for small segments adjacent to the St. Lucie County and Brevard County lines. LI_ • $0 ,. • "s" Y. .,_ , . . .. .. I° , . . - -- . .. . In 2019, none of the links on the County roadway network are over their adopted LOS capacity, with the exception of 37th Street and the CR 510 Segments as described below, even when including vested traffic. Further, only 23 of 465 roadway links (or 5%) of the roadway network is at 80% capacity. 80 links, or 17% of the roadway network, are at 20% capacity. These links are operating at the equivalent of LOS "A" or"B", depending on their individual classifications. The majority of the roadway network in Indian River County is operating at LOS "C" or better in accordance with 2012 FDOT Level of Service Standards. Some of the major roadways operating at LOS "D" include Indian River Boulevard in the City of Vero Beach; Old Dixie Hwy from 4th St to 12th St; 20th Ave from 4th St to 12th St; 27th Ave from the South County Line to Aviation Blvd; 43`d Ave from Oslo Rd to 26th St; 58th Ave from 41st St to 49th St; 8th St from 20th Ave to Old Dixie Hwy; and 16th St from 20th Ave to Old Dixie Hwy. As shown in Figure 4.2.2, two roadways, 37th Street (U.S. 1 — Indian River Boulevard) and CR510 (66th Ave to U.S. 1) have slightly exceeded LOS "D". Major capacity improvements are planned and at least partially funded for those improvements and an interim LOS of "D+20%" has been adopted for these roads until completion for major capacity improvements. . . 0 • • .. . . . " » "s,, __ . on the MPO's 2030 Long Range Plan(such as US 1 from 12th . - -- - - : t -: -- : . ., . - II III II! . . „ ' *'. • P tail: Community Development Department Indian River County 73 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element To promote economic development, improve air quality, and improve mobility for all of its citizens, the county should adopt the highest possible level of service that is practical given the existing conditions on the roadway network. Since large portions of the system already operate at level of service "D" and since there is very little perceptual difference between "C" and "D" on several classifications of roadways, the county should not attempt to raise its overall level of service standard to "C". • Roadway Levels of Service In Indian River County, construction is underway or scheduled to begin shortly on a number of major road projects, including widenings on CR 512; Oslo Road; 66th Avenue; SR 60; and US1. When complete,these projects will forestall any additional LOS deficiencies on those roads through the near term. These capacity increases were made possible by a substantial increase in traffic impact fees imposed in 2004, by extension of the 1 cent local option sales tax, and by public/private coordination in constructing transportation improvements. The county has not, however, imposed other transportation revenue sources, such as the ELMS five cent local option gas tax. Over the past decade, demand exceeding supply alone does not account for all of the decreases in LOS in the county With the publication of the (2002)(2009) FDOT Quality and Level-of-Service Handbook, Level-of-Service capacities in the generalized tables decreased for nearly all classifications of roadways. While many of the capacities increased in the latest (2009)012) FDOT handbook, the overall trend remains lower. For example,the peak hour directional capacity at LOS "D" for a 4-lane roadway with between 2 and 4.5 signals/mile dropped from 1,890 vehicle„ in he '994 handbook 1,770 vehicles in the 2009 handbook to 477701630 vehicles in the 2009 2012 handbook. Because the generalized tables are the basis of most of the county's LOS capacity determinations,lower capacity volumes result in lower levels of service at the same traffic volume. Despite the trend toward lower levels-of-service, no roadway segments in unincorporated Indian River County actually exceed their adopted LOS standard. While several roadway segments exceed Level of Service"D",those roadways are within their adopted standard. That is because the county lowered the level of service standard to "E+20%" on portions of those roadways. Referenced in Figure 4.2.2,Tthose roadways are 43rd Avenue and 27th Avenue in south Indian River County. It is anticipated that this reduction in the adopted level-of-service standard will be a temporary measure until those roadways can be widened or alternate road capacity provided. Safety On a regular basis,the county examines its crash records to identify those locations with high crash occurrences. The county also seeks opportunities to improve safety in future roadway projects and routinely examines existing travel conditions in order to improve deficiencies that may not yet be reflected in crash statistics. As a result, both the crash rate per capita (.012) and the crash rate per vehicle miles traveled(1 per 2,800 VMT)have remained constant over time in Indian River County. While this does not indicate improved safety, it does indicate that safety is not getting worse. This is significant in a climate of increasing congestion and population growth. Because the percentage of Community Development Department Indian River County 74 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element crashes resulting in fatalities has also remained constant (2% of all crashes), this indicates that no increase in the severity of crashes has occurred in Indian River County. While overall crash rates have remained constant in Indian River County in the past decade, the number of intersections with five or more crashes has increased over time. This is not, however, necessarily indicative of a worsening safety situation. Rather, it is to be expected that the number of crashes will increase, given recent growth in population,travel, and the number of new intersections that result from new roadway construction. A better indication of safety can be determined by examining overall crash rates and the severity of crashes, a technique utilized in the 2025 Florida Transportation Plan. It should be noted that safety on many of the major corridors in the county has improved dramatically despite a significant increase in traffic. This can be attributed to the fact that FDOT and the county routinely undertake a number of safety improvements in the course of roadway widening projects. For example, part of the decline on US1 and SR 60 can be attributed to FDOT's safety management techniques, including the installation of mast arm signalization and backlit street identification signs; access management improvements, including the installation of center medians; and the use of ITS technologies (including fiber optic cables, traffic cameras, and white enforcement lights). As more information on the effectiveness of FDOT's techniques is obtained, some or all of these improvements may be incorporated into the county's roadway design and safety procedures. In the future, the county should review and revise its regulations and add new regulations, where warranted, that provide for developer-provided safety improvements at intersections and project entrances. In addition,the county should adopt a comprehensive plan policy to evaluate and provide for new techniques in its departmental operations. Examples of such techniques include installing camera monitoring at unsafe intersections; participating in statewide ITS initiatives such as the "511" informational system; deploying white enforcement lights at major intersections; creating a subcommittee of the MPO to address safety and operational issues; and improving the visibility of signage and traffic control devices. At the state level, the Florida Transportation Plan contains a number of techniques applicable to Indian River County, including the adoption of construction and incident notification systems and engineering techniques that promote safety and discourage aggressive driving (such as raised center medians and access management techniques). These and other techniques have been applied in Indian River County during recent FDOT construction projects on US 1, SR 60, and Indian River Boulevard. In addition to level of service, the County also considers safety when prioritizing intersection improvements. Together with the intersections listed above, other intersections will be considered as candidates for improvements based on the annual crash data collected. Multi-Jurisdiction Transportation Impact methodology Assessment Within all six of the jurisdictions in Indian River County, compliance with adopted roadway level of service standards is monitored through local concurrency management systems. Two of CommunityDevelopment Department Indian River County 75 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element the jurisdictions in the county, the Town of Orchid (pop. 307) and the Town of Indian River Shores (pop. 3,722), have virtually no vacant developable land and do not plan to grow through annexation. In addition, these communities have few county roadway links within their boundaries. Therefore, concurrency management is relatively straightforward in these areas. The County's concurrency management system utilizes adopted City of Vero Beach Levels of Service. For the Unincorporated area, the County continuously monitors concurrency through an automated system that assigns background traffic and future trips to impacted roadway links. The system is linked to the county's permitting system and is updated whenever new permits are issued. Since the County issues building permits for the City of Vero Beach, projects within Vero Beach are also included in the County's concurrency management system. Recently, county staff and City of Sebastian staff initiated the process of evaluating the feasibility of integrating the city's transportation concurrency management system with the county's system. Although there are logistical obstacles to implementing a coordinated transportation concurrency management system with Sebastian, the county and the city have already begun the process of resolving those obstacles. Besides the county/City of Sebastian transportation concurrency coordination initiative, a countywide transportation concurrency system initiative has also been discussed. This discussion has occurred during the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement(ISBA) development process,a process involving the county and all five municipalities in the county. Senate Bill 360, Florida's recently enacted Growth Management legislation, removes state- mandated transportation concurrency requirements in targeted areas designated as Dense Urban Land Areas (DULAs). Dense Urban Land Areas are cities and counties that have a minimum population density of 1,000 persons per square mile. Pursuant to SB 360, each of the designated jurisdictions becomes a Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area(TCEA) and can, if it desires, amend its local comprehensive plan to eliminate its concurrency requirements. In Indian River County, two cities, Sebastian and Vero Beach, qualify for the concurrency exemption provisions. To ensure that the county adequately coordinates with cities on transportation concurrency issues, the county should adopt a policy to coordinate with the municipalities to develop a common methodology for measuring transportation impacts across jurisdictional boundaries. In recent years, several proposed development projects in adjacent counties were large enough to have significant traffic impacts on Indian River County. Those projects were all located in St. Lucie and Brevard counties. Currently, there is little formal traffic impact coordination between Indian River,Brevard, and St. Lucie counties, except with respect to Developments of Regional Impact. For the last few years, Indian River County has informally discussed traffic study methodologies, LOS standards, traffic count programs, and concurrency methodologies with Brevard and St. Lucie counties. Through these discussions,the county has determined that there are substantial differences in methodologies between the three counties, particularly with respect to their concurrency management systems. Regardless, the county should adopt a policy to work with St. Lucie and Brevard Counties to develop a common methodology for measuring transportation impacts among all three counties. Community Development Department Indian River County 76 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element There are two other counties adjacent to Indian River. These are Okeechobee and Osceola. Both of those counties are located contiguous to environmental or low density agricultural areas of Indian River County and therefore pose no significant impact to maintaining levels of service in the county. Long Range Transportation Plan Development and Future Needs According to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, each MPO must develop a long range transportation plan to address the transportation needs of its area. In addition, ISTEA requires that long range plans consider a horizon of at least 20 years. In 20052015, the Indian River County MPO completed its most recent Long Range Plan update. The horizon year for that plan is 20302040. It should be noted that the MPO is in the process of updating its LRTP to the year 20352045. After the 2035 2045 update is completed, Indian River County will amend its Comprehensive Plan to ensure consistency with the adopted LRTP. As indicated in the MPO's long-range plan, the analysis of projected traffic needs involves three primary steps: Model Validation,Needs Analysis, and Cost Feasible Analysis. • Model Validation Prior to its use as a tool for projecting needs,the Indian River County traffic model was validated using 2000-2010 base year data. The traffic model is the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) traffic model that, when run with the Indian River County highway network and socioeconomic data as inputs, predicts future traffic on area roads for desired projection years. In validating the traffic model, Census records, state labor department employment statistics, and other sources to estimate Indian River County's population and employment data for 2000-2010 were used. The 2000-2010 data were then projected through 20302040. These data are summarized in Table 4.6. The socioeconomic data were then used in the model validation process and in the prediction of future traffic levels for the long range plan needs analysis. The 2030 2040 socioeconomic data projections used in the travel demand forecasting model were based on the County's future land use map. Using the map as a control, the MPO projected single and multi family dwelling units, hotel/motel units, school enrollment, and employment for 2030 2040 by traffic analysis zones. While this methodology is standard, the results do not reflect the impact of some of the land use initiatives incorporated within this plan. To the extent that traditional neighborhood development (TND) projects are built, other mixed use projects are developed, land uses are connected, bike/ped facilities are built, and transit service is enhanced, the model results may overestimate the number of vehicle trips that the socioeconomic data projections suggest. Community Development Department Indian River County 77 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Overall, the model validation process involved running the FSUTMS model to obtain predicted 2000-2010 roadway traffic volumes and then comparing those model-predicted roadway volumes to actual -2010 field-collected traffic counts. Based upon the comparison of predicted to observed volumes, minor changes were made to the model's parameters. This change in parameters allowed the model to approximate predicted roadway volumes to actual roadway volumes. Through this process, an acceptable projected-to-actual ratio was obtained. With this process complete, the model was then considered valid for the purpose of predicting future traffic levels using future-year socioeconomic data projections. • Needs Analysis The validated model was then run using 2039-2040 socioeconomic data and the existing and committed road network. This model run was performed to develop 2030 2040 traffic demand projections under the assumption that no capacity-producing roadway improvements would be made from 2010 2020 to 28382040. In other words, this model run assessed the impact of 20 years of growth on the existing and committed roadway network. This model run also identified roadway deficiencies resulting from the growth in travel demand over this 20-year time period. A deficient roadway is defined as any roadway having a level of service condition that exceeds the adopted roadway performance standard. With this process, all deficient roadways became candidates for potential future road widening projects and were tested to determine whether improvements were needed to maintain the adopted level of service standards through the year 20382040. In terms of output, the traffic model projects future year traffic volumes on all major roads in the county. For each roadway on the network, the model uses the projected traffic volume ("v") for the road (produced by the model) and the maximum acceptable capacity ("c") of the road to transform each of these raw volume projections into more understandable volume to acceptable capacity ("v/c") ratio. If the v/c ratio exceeds 1.0, the traffic volume of a roadway segment is projected to exceed the acceptable capacity of that roadway segment. While a v/c of 1.0 indicates that the traffic volume is just at the acceptable level of service, a roadway with a v/c much less than 1.0 has excess traffic capacity. In the latter case, more traffic could be accommodated, and the road would still function at an adequate level of service. 2000 2039 40283 55962 23201 28917 Hotel-Units2135 3-832 82973 159921 33183 48557 Hotel-Population 2135 3432 23673 38444 15625 28044 23824 42760 Community Development Department Indian River County 78 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 947,91 170131 ..-. Y . .. .. ... .. .. .I. 4 1 ... 1 Table 4.6 . .., . . . Year Population Empkoyrnent 20+10 135,02,3 65,244 2040 202,295, 90,96a 30-year,growith 4 3 Source:2040 Long range Transportation Plan Table 4.7 shows the results of running the model with 2030 2040 socioeconomic data projections and the existing and committed road network. That table lists the roadways predicted to exceed capacity under this scenario. These over capacity roadways are links expected to have a v/c ratio over 1 by 20302040. Generally, roads shown to experience more traffic than their acceptable capacity in 2030 2040 are in four areas of the county. These areas include the north county area near Sebastian; the State Road 60 corridor; I-95; and the Indian River Blvd/south Indian River County area. Based on these results, a Needs Plan was developed for the county road network. The Needs Plan lists the road improvements that will need to be in place in order to accommodate future demand for road facilities. The resulting road widening improvements for the 2030 2040 Needs Plan are summarized in Table 4.7.2.- Community Development Department Indian River County 79 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element N .tae,of Brevard County / ,.:fi'i ,><tc xi . ........--..— A 1 mt._ , r .... �_, r (/scan r HETf / 1. .. . . - ,, "'" •,,R,'S..„„.....- i --).---.". ,t. . 7"-- t ' IL - �,�/ i —'I - '2 \ MK sr _ {\ j «'1 TN 4 r -- i 12tH;ICR 5O Trudy Study ' err t Vero Beach inset , I I*, Aviation Bove yard E�tentbn "'F' A4gnment To 8e Dete rdned sa F \ :. ± . 1.4., ,_ Mri- _ ;_ . IS i r. ' r,• t ,.e. E •: ,. S, o 1 2 L -1..... •.11 C. . rMiles " . „ 'i �\ . St. Lucie County -.11 •..n.n NIMER LAWS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Improved Roads 2010-2030 Indian River County 2 2 ° 6 Interchanges Comprehensive Plan tib — OM • Existing 9 Mined — == C) Figure 4.8 E Remo, MilEM2 New 2030 Cost Aftbrdab".e Plan Improvement Map • Community Development Department Indian River County 80 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 41ars< Brevard Countyt N „..r-:›Anti.0 A .,, 0 . r i 1 271H ST i i al/Pt \ ms, r ig - . - =eit-1 -- r3 J// 117 = _L SeSM GP i t -SM ST CR E87 Tnizk Stuei , { — , \ _i III _ ., 1111 i } 1 Vero Beach Inset • Av:�Ion Boulevard Eidemion "� , �r i Afigmnent To Be Determined 1 _ t �t .`fill. RICA P 0 1 2 '` Miles �_ - tL y I...., Elkt . v St. Lucie County Iii i, WISER C1=LA•E, Intersections Indian River County 2 'n 4 6 Comprehensive___- ® Plan a New 2 . — = Figure 4.9 """'y — M • Existing 2030 Cost Affordable Plan Network Laneage • c Community Development Department Indian River County 81 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element `, % N .rarer 1• Brevard County ,' ' r, +\ i — ,. � �rrst yrs __ ..,....r__. 1 ) 4.- N, rceerm i' p + u14.I\ `� �:p� r," T _.,/ s �. L. `Ili _ I .�WNW' I. 1. ` MST i , . Vero Beach Inset ��, —r Amon Bculevasd Extenloo, i i y ,-,i{.4Afgnrosel To Be Dote 'mired " -- - I- "1 )L� i `� — _L_________\— a T,., ; =•It7 1, _ __j` . �I UUN1I 4...�. NMI■t . • 0 1 2 . __ C) • !---- , - - \\)\ Miles _ , •�.i .[ � St. Lucie County Level of Service Interchanges Indian River County LOS Not Calculates! D Comprehensive Plan A ti E C) New B, F Figure 4.9a • exist ng 2030 Adopted Cost Afferdable Plan —C Level of Service Figure 4.8 Cost Feasible Improvement Map Community Development Department Indian River County 82 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element N 4k Brevard . unty Atlantic \ r t' Ocean 4 . wpb c, 0 10 tr v•':it,, ilk NM' CR 510 1► `,]' El&T .\,, 1 - JEW.II8'T \ r. \ pew -11 b x49TH ST L) IIE 45' .ST WI�1'\ 1 c ��' moi, �. 1 li J2STHSTUII :, m 'li CITH `T �h iSill"ky aEZE ill li a ' IP '' t, \ \ egend I a Partially Funded ,a0 Year of Implementation n 2021-2025 St. LUci - Count 1 mom 2021-2025 N 2026-2030 2031-2040 Indian River County ale »)H(�'�' 1 ..... 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Update Community Development Department Indian River County 83 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element t t 1 . . . . . . 2030-WC--Ratio On-Street &em-Street To-Street (YIN'•) 4th-St 98tH-Ave 82nd-Ave N � 4"�t 82nd Ave 66th-Ave N 4th-StAve 38th-Ave N 4th-St 58th-Ave 43rd Ave N 4th-St 43rd Ave 2-7th-Ave N _4t St Nth-Ave 20th-Ave N 4t..St 20th Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 4th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 N Ph-Street-SW 66th-Ave 58th-Ave N Ph-Street-SW 38th-Ave 43rd--Ave N 5th Street SW 43rd Ave 2-701-Ave N 3t"Street SW 27th-Ave U.B. 1 N 6th-Ave U.S. 1 8th-St N 6t"-Ave 8th-St 4.2thSt N Ph-Ave 12th St 17th St N 6thAve 17th St 4.8t11-St N Ph-Ave 48th,St 21st St N Ph-St Ave 82nd-Ave N 8th St 82nd Ave 71th Ave N 8th-St 74th-Ave 66th-Ave N 8th-St 66th Ave 58th-Ave N 8th-St 58th-Ave 43rd Ave N _8t"-Bt 43rd-Ave 27th Ave N 8th-St 27th Ave 20th-Ave N 8th-St 20th Ave 01E1-Dixie-Hwy * 8th-StOld-Dixie Hwy U.B. 1 * W11-St U.S. 1 6th-Ave Ph-St 6t13 Ave N 10th4.0thAve 17th St S.R.60(WB) N 4-0th-Ave S.R.60-(W13) N -12th-St 38th-Ave 43rd-Ave N 12th St 43rd-Ave 27th Ave N -12th-St 27th Ave 20 e N 12th St 82nd-Ave 74th Ave N 12h St 20« AA ve 014-Dixie-Hwy N 1#h-St Old-Dixie-levy U.S. 1 N 12th-St U.S. 1 6th-Ave N 1-2th-St 6th-Ave N lath-St-SW 66th-Ave 38th-Ave N -13th-St-SW 58M-Ave 43rd Ave N 13 W 43rd-Ave 34th Ave N 13th-St-SW 34t"-Ave 2e N 13th-St SW 2-7th-Ave 20th Ave N 16th-St 96th-Ave82nd Ave N Community Development Department Indian River County 84 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element t,+_,,�(a��,� 21}39-V/C Ratio On-Street From Street To St iit (YI') 416th-St 82Nd-Ave e N 46th-St 744h-Ave -Ave N 1616th-St 66th Ave 58th-Ave N 16th-St 58th 4-3441-Ave N 46t St 43rd Ave eve N 4.6th-St 27th-Ave 20t1 Ove N 16th-St 20t14-Ave Old-Bixie-Hwy N 46411-1-7444-St 01 a-Hwy 10th-Ave N loth ^ye U.S. 1 N 17th St U.S. 1 N 17th St S.R.Ala N 4-7th-St-SW 66th-Ave 38tAve N 17th St SW 38th-Ave 4-34d-Ave N 17th St SW 4-3rd-Ave 27th Ave Al 20th-Ave 21st Ln SW 17inn-S::'- N 204h-Ave 4-74h-Ln-SW Osla-Rd Y 20t a Osle-Rd 4th-St AL 20th-Ave 4th-St 8th-St AL 20th-Ave 8th-St 12th-St A'- 20tt-Ave 12th St S VB City Limit N 20th-Ave S VB City Limit 46d}St N 20th Ave' 4-6th-St S.R.60 N 20th-Ave S:R.60 N 21st St 20th Ave U.S. 1 Y 21st St U.S. 1 N 21st St SW 58th-Ave 43rd-Ave N 21st St SW 43rd Ave 27th Ave N 21st St SW 27th Ave 20t1-Ave N 23rd St 20th-AvenueU.S. 1 N 23rd St U.S. 1 N 2626th St 82nd-Aye 74th-Ave 7N1 266th-St '774A''!'T 66th-Ave 66th Ave - N 26th St 66th-Ave 58th-Ave 7N 26th-St 58th-Ave43rN d-Ave 27th Ave 8Geeilty amine 13th St SW 3F 27th Ave 13t4-St- Osle�-�Rd AAL 27th-4w Osle-Rd 4th-St 't 27th Ave 4th-St 814t-St Y 27th Ave 8th-St 12th St N 27th Ave 12th St S VB City L N 27th-Ave S VB City L -lit N 27th Ave 46th-St S.R.- 0 Y 274h-Aye 84t-,60 Y 27th-Ave AtlantiecBlvd Aviatien-Blvd Y 33rd St 66th-Ave 58th-Ave N Community Development Department Indian River County 85 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 Ratle On-Street From-Street To Street (YIN?) 3'', st U.S.1 V list St 58th-Ave 43rd-Ave N 41st St 43rd-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy N 41st-St Old Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 N St U.S.. _1� (: Indite D om' 43 zAi-v'e S Countyl-Line Osle-Rd 7 43rd-Ave Osle-Rd 4th-St V 43-rd-Ave 4th-St 8th-St V 43rd-Ave 8th-St -lath-St V l3 d-rove 12th St ,,36t4-St N 13rd Avo 14thSt S.R.60 V 43rd-Ave S.R.60 t V 43rd Ave 26thSt 41-st-St N 43-rd-Ave 4 l st st 45th-St N lard Ave 45th-St 49th-St N 43rd Ave 49th-St 53rd-St N 45th,St 66th-Ave 58th-Ave N 45 58th-Ave Ave 43rd-♦, ve N 45t St 43A-Ave Old Ty Y 15th St Old-Dixie U.S. 1 3F 45th St U.S.-1 3F 49th St 66th-Ave 58t1 Ove N 49th-St, 58th-Ave 43rd-Ave N ' 49th St AT rd Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy N 49th-St Old-Dixie U.S. 1 N 53rd St 824M-Ave 66th-Ave N 53rd St 66th-Ave 5804-Ave N 53rd St 58th Ave .Old N 53rd St Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 N 584h-Ave 17th St 3F `8 ve 17th St -12th-St-SW V 5803-Ave 13th St SW Osle-Rd V 58 1ve Osle-Rd 4th St N 58th-Ave 4th-St 8th-St N 5803-Ave 8th-St 12th St N C4 :e 12th St 1-6th-St N 5804-Ave46th-St S.R.60 N 58th-Ave 8,R,60 26th-St N 58th-Ave 26th-St 41st St N 38t11-Ave 41st St 45th St N 58 ve 45th-St 49th-St N 58th-Ave 49th St 53rd-fit N 58th-Ave 531d-St 65th St V 58 ve 65t-St I69th-St V 5804-Ave 69th-St .C.R.5141 N Community Development Department Indian River County 86 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 t On-Street Frofo-Street To-Street (YIN?) 6-5th-St 66th-Ave 38th-Ave 14 65th-St 58&Ave Old DD.xie H y N 65th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 N 66th-Ave °S County-Line 17th St N 6641-Ave 47&St 4-3th-St N 66t11-Ave 3-3' St 0s1e-Rd N 66th-Ave 0310-Rd 4th-St N 66th-A ve 4th-St 8th-St N 66th-Ave 8th-St 12th St N 66th-Ave -l2t'-St 1-6th-St N 6661 Ave 46t-St S.R.60 N 66th-Ave 84C-60 26th-St Y 66th--Ave 26th St 413t-St Y 6641-Ave 4- -St 45th St Y 66thAve 45'"-St 53rd-St Y 66th-Ave 5V-St 65th-St Y. 66th-Ave 65'"-St 69th-St 31 66th-Ave 69t St C. 0 31 69th-St 82nd-Are 66 e N 6941-St 66th-Ave 58th Ave N 69th St 540-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy N 69th-St ^ldte-Dimie-Hwy U.S. 1 N 70th-Ave C.R.510 Barber St N 74th-Ave 8th-St 12th St N 74th-Ave 12th St S.R.60 N 77th St 66th-Ave U.B. 1 3z 82nd-Aver Coin Asle-Rd N 82nd-Ave 0310-Rd 4th-St N 82nd Ave 4th-St 12th St N 82nd Ave 12th St S.R.60 3z 82nd-Ave 84660 26th St N 82nd Ave 26th-St 53rd St N 82nd-Ave 53rd St 65th St N 82nd-Ave 65th St 69th-St N 42nd Ave 69th-St C.R.510 N 90th-Ave 8th-St S .66l0� IL 98 tAveive 4th-St S.R.R60 N Atlantis-Blvd 41-Ave 27th Ave N Atlantie-Blvd 27th Avo 20th Ave N 20th-Ave U.S. 1 N Aviation-Blvd lard-Ave 27th Avo N Aviation-Blvd 27th-Ave U.S. 1 IL U.B. 1- N Barber-St C.R.512 Engler Dr 3F Barber-St £nglarDr 70th Ave Y Community Development Department Indian River County 87 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 203041/C Betio Oa-Stmt tem-Street T St:eet (YIN?) Barber-St e Sehumana-Dr N Iffier-St Selumam-0r U.S. 1 N C.R.507 S.Carolina Coup * N C.R.510 C.R.512 86th-St V C.R.510 86th-St 66th-Ave GR-340 66t Ave 58th-Ave V C.R.510 5844t-Ave U.S. 1 V C.R.510 U.S. t- ICWW V C.R.510 IC-WW S.R. n V C.R.512 S.R.60 AL C.R.512 1-95 Y C.R.512 I-95 C.R.510 V C.R.512 C.R.510 Roseland Rd V C.R.512 Roseland-Rd Barber St At C.R.512 Barber-St Fleming-St 3i C.R.512 Fleming-St Easy-St Y C.R.512 Eas'fSt Delaware-St V C.R.512 Delaware-St U.S. 1 V Fleming-St C.R.512 Easy-St N Fleming-St Easy St Schumann Dr N Highlands-Df OW-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 N I-95 Stene Oslo-Rd V I 95 Osle-Rd S.R.60 Y I-95 S.R.60 C.R.512 N I 95 C.R.512 N ne N U.S. 1(S) 8th-St N 8th-St St 31 -2th-St 17th St V 17th St S.R.60(5) V S.R.60(S) 21st St Y 21st St Royal-Palm Y Indian-River-Blvd ) een ) V Indian-River-Blvd Aviatieft-Blvd-Ext 37th St Y 3-7th-St 53rd St N Old Diiie vy S Coanty-Line Osla-Rd V Old-Dixie-Hwy Oslo-Rd 1st St N Old-Dixie-Hwy 4-st-St 4th-St N 4th-St 8th-St N Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 4-1-st St N 8th-St 12th St V Old-Dixie-Hwy 41st-St 45th St Y Old-Dixie-Hwy 4-2'h-St S V13 City L V Old-Dixie-Hwy 45th-St 49th St V Old-Dixie S VB City L 44th-St AL Community Development Department Indian River County 88 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 Ratio On-Street From-Street TSR Greater-Theo-IA (Y/N?) Glv ry 49th St V Old-Dixie-Iwy -1-0-84 S-R.60(-es) V 04-Dixie-Hwy 64th-Stn /1 V Old 69th-St CR.7�c0 V 9sle-Rd 1-95Ave 14 Acle-Rd 82"4-Aye 3.8thAve V 0310 nd WI—Ave 444—Ave N Osle-Rd 4 -Ave 27.E Aye Oslo Dd 2 Avee 2'0aVrxvM-AyeT'ne NV Oslo Rd 20th-Ave Timber-Ridge V Oslo-Rd Timber Ridge Old-Dinie4twy V 9sle-Rd Old-Dixie-14wy U.S. I V Roseland-Rd C.R.512 N.Seb City L V Roseland-Rd N.Seb City L U.S. 1 V n Indian-River-Blvd V Royal-Palm-PI U.S. 1 N S-R-60 .vine C.R.512 V 87R,60 `oma Indian Blvd Y 8,.11,-60 C.R.512 9844Ave A< 60 Indian-River-Blvd I WW N 5-R-60 98th Ave 195 &R,60 4 WW S.R.AIA N SR,60 195 82nd-Ave Y &R-60 82"{1Ave 66414-Ave N S-R-60 66ei-Ave 5-8M-Ave N £-1 -69 38'413rd Ave N 0 4r—Ave 27th Ave N SR-60 274 Ave S-R.60-( BIER) N S.R.60(EB) S.R.60(W) 044-Dixie-Hwy N &R-60Old ,T (-0M-Me N S.R.60(EB) -1-0th-Ave U.S. 1 N S-.R.60-(EB) U.S. 1 S.R.60(E) N &-R60-( ) &R,60-(41.) N &R,-60-(-WB) Old y -I-Oth-AveN S.R.A1A S-,Gounty Castaway—Blvd N S.R.A1A Castaway-MA 17th St V QRZ 4-74-St S,R,6/0 Y cn.AlA S.R.-0 N.VBCity L V S.R.A1A N.VB City L Fred'Tu*erk Rd V S.R.A1A d cd Winter --Rd N S.R.A1A Winter Beach Ud N.IRS L N Cwt N.IRS L C.R.510 V S.R.Al C.R.510 N N Sehemann-Dr €,R-54-0 t V Sohemann-Dr BeFber-St 1 D V Community Development Department Indian River County 89 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element /���i� tn.�-�_�W t��a�,,,, 2030 V/C ilio On StFeet From Street To Street Greater-Than-h0 0 (1/N?) Schumann Df Engler-Dr Flemming-St V Schumann-14f Flemming-St U.S. 1 N U.S. 1 SCot=hi.e Osla-Rd V U.S. 1 Oslo-Rd 4th-St N U.S. 1 4th-St 8th-St V U.B. 1 8th-St 12th St V U.S. 1 -1-2th4St 14th St V U.S. 1 44°-St S.VB City L V U.B. 1 S.VB City L 17th St V U.S. 1 47°-St S.R-60-(WB) V U.S. 1 S.R.60-(WB) 23rd St N U.S. 1 230-St Atlantic-Blvd N U.S. 1 Aviation-Blvd V U.S. 1 Aviation-Blvd POI-St V U.B. 1 3-7th-St nu nixie Haw,(S) A, U.S. 1 Old-Dixie) /1st St V _ U.S. 1 444-St 45th-St V U.S. 1 43°-St 49th St V U.S. 1 49°-St 65th-St V U.S. 1 63"'-St 69t St V U.S. 1 60-St Old-Dixie-Hwy-(N) V U.S. 1 Old-Dixie 4 Barber-St N U.S. 1 Barber-St Schumann-Dr N______ U.S. 1 Schumann-Df C.R.5A V U.S. 1 C.R.5A C.R.512 V U.S. 1 C.R.512 N.Seb City L V U.S. 1 N.Seb City L Roseland-Rd N U.S. 1 Roseland-Rd N ,e V Victim Atlantic Cordova N Victory Cordova 20th-Ave N Table 4.7 2040 Potentially Deficient Roadways Community Development Department Indian River County 90 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Facility From To Roseland Road CR 512 US 1 US 1 Roseland Road CR 512 US 1 Barber Street 53rd Street CR 512 Roseland Road CR 507 CR510 CR512 SRAIA 66th Avenue 49th Street :arber Street 58th Avenue 26th Street 53rd Street SR A1A 2 miles north of SR 60 1 mile south of 17th Street Indian River Boulevard 37th Street US 1 I 4th Street Aviation Boulevard/26t Street 43rd Avenue US 1 43rd Avenue 26th Street St. Lucie County Line 27th Avenue Oslo Road St. Lucie County Line • 2030 2040 Cost Feasible Plan The final product of the MPO LRTP process was the 2030 2040 Cost Feasible Plan. The Cost Feasible Plan matches the financial resources that will become available through the year 2030 2040 with a prioritized listing of transportation improvement projects and includes those projects that are affordable. Under federal law, the final cost feasible plan must also address a number of other issues, including right of way and maintenance considerations. In essence, the projects contained on the Cost Feasible Plan are those projects needed to address roadway deficiencies in the county and maintain the county's adopted level of service throughout the forseeable future. In this respect, the implementation of the Cost Feasible Plan helps the county maintain an adequate transportation system. As such, the county should, incorporate the 2030 2040 Cost Feasible Plan projects list (Table 4.9.3) in the transportation capital improvements program. o Financial Resources In order to develop a financially feasible transportation plan, it is necessary to project the amount of revenue that will be available to construct transportation system improvements. Using historic data, present trends, reasonable assumptions, and FDOT input, the MPO projected transportation capital improvement revenue amounts by five year increments through 20302040. These amounts are shown on Tables 4.8a and 4.8b. Not included on Tables 4.8a and 4.8b are potential revenue sources that could be implemented to provide enhancements over and above the basic road widening improvements specified in the plan. These enhancements might include bike paths, sidewalks, landscaping, streetscaping, and lighting. Community Development Department Indian River County 91 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element . . e- . _ _ . - A . ! ' . cent gaa tax by 2011. o Prioritization of Needs Plan Improvements To rank the Needs Plan roadway improvements, the MPO developed project prioritization criteria. These criteria provided the basis for determining which roadway projects would be included in the 2030 2040 Cost Feasible Plan. The road widening projects that are identified in the LRTP 2030 2040 Cost Feasible Plan are shown in Table 4.9.11_8. As shown in Table 4 9.4-4_8, the total cost of the Cost Feasible Plan improvements is $581.3616.87 million. The following observations can be made about the final 2030 2040 roadway network: • Major state road improvements include 195 (from N. County Line to S. County Line), . ' :! • . . . .. • •• • . :; Mc), and US 1 (from S. County Line to 4th eet @ •. - • • •- ! US-i from CR510 to 53rd Street and the new Oslo Road interchange with 1-95. Y. . •- -• - - ., '. ' : • - - ' ., : -- ' :•- - th eett) a -lanes Beach. • Major road improvements in the southern and central portion of the county include Oslo Road (from I-95 to Old Dixie Hwy66th Avenue) to four lanes, the I-95/Oslo Road interchange, east/west roads (8th-12th Street, 16th Street, 26th Street, 53rd Street, Aviation Blvd), and north/south roads (43rd Avenue, 58th Avenue, 66th Avenue). • Major road improvements in the northern portion of the county include CR 512 (from I- 95 to Roseland Road)to four-six lanes, CR 510 (from CR512 to US 1)to four lanes, 510 @ 66th • . : :. . . , - - - „ ,. --82nd Avenue from 26th Street to CR510, and the extension of Laconia St to CR 510. An analysis of the system-wide impacts of the adopted Cost Feasible Plan appears in Table 4.9.2. These statistics represent system-wide comparisons, and include volume/capacity ratios, and total accidents;, Community Development Department Indian River County 92 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Currently, the county explores alternatives to widening major thoroughfares when those thoroughfares would intrude into existing residential neighborhoods. While the county will consider reasonable mitigation and/or alternatives to road widening, it is also the policy of the county to maintain its adopted level of service standards. When deemed necessary, the plan may establish a reduced level of service for a roadway facility if it is determined that capacity producing improvements would create an unacceptable adverse neighborhood impact. Also, a reduced interim level of service may be established due to the timing of construction for major projects that increase roadway capacity. projects the 1-3 "venue and 27th Avenue arose. Both 43'Avenue and 27th Avenue are two • lig-4 and 27th : .. . ,.• ., . _ • . . : , .••• .., .. _ and 27'1' -•.. . • . - .. . . . • -; ., . . . - - . - . . -, ., . - . , - . • - - - 43 and 27th Avenues. According to the Generalized Level of Service Tables contained in . .' ..,• - . . . . . - - • . al and 27th Avenues. Two of these facilities Avenue and 20th • . ., :• . .. . - Community Development Department Indian River County 93 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element amt - _.. . .,. -. . , , . •i. a ! . , deft 27thand430 • . • • . . • .. • , •.- - . :. - - . • - - • . That was the extension of 5gth Avenue to Indrio Road in St. Lucie County. Located .: • . - • . - , .rd Avenue, 5gth • . • • ., , • ,• •. . _: • . . • „• • • , . • . , • •- -• • .. - . .• . • . - • HI and 27th-Avenues:- - 7thes- - - !to Avenue and Old Dixie Highway, are severely • _• • :.. • • : ., • • - • .. °'••and 43f • ., .. - • ., - ,, , •.• . . - . .•, • - I! Avenue - . . 4-PI Avenue and 27th • - •- • . .. .. . , . . - . •, -_ • - . '.and 13'd Avenues)., As indicated in the LRTP report, this . I. • • • o Transit Alternatives With respect to transit, the Indian River County MPO modeled expanded transit service on the 43rd Avenue Corridor as part of the recently completed five-year Transit Development Plan — Major Update. According to consultant estimates, expanded transit service on 43r1 Avenue operating at the system standard one-hour headways would result in 10,843 riders/year. On a peak-hour basis, this would translate into approximately 1,000 riders. Divided out over 250 annual service days, the impact of expanded service on the 43rd Avenue corridor would equal approximately 4 peak hour trips. Even if the route were operated at one-half hour headways, the TDP analysis indicates that the route would not carry nearly enough riders to mitigate sufficient trips to maintain level of service "D" on 43rd Avenue. Community Development Department Indian River County 94 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element o Level of Service Alternatives Given the absence of viable roadway or transit alternatives in the 43`d Avenue/27th Avenue and 37th Street/County Road 510 corridor, the county adopted Level of Service "E" plus 20% and "D"+20%as the minimum acceptable level of service standard for the following roadways: Level of Service"E"+20%: - 27th Avenue—South County Line to SR 60 -43rd Avenue—Oslo Road to 16th Street Level of Service"D"+20%: - 37th Street—US1 to Indian River Blvd. - County Road 510—66th Avenue to U.S. 1 - .. .-' . .•.. .. _ . . . - . . . .. th and 43-fd - . - ... . ., . . "- o " th-and--43"1 • . . .. ., .. . level of service "D" when these roadways are in the first three years of the county's capital . . _ _ - - th—andel-4-3d • • .. ., .. . . . . -- - - • ".» • - • Intersection Analysis Even after all 2030 2040 LRTP improvements are constructed in Indian River County, a small number of corridors will exceed their adopted levels of service. To address this issue, the MPO identified corridors with v/c ratios in the range of 0.98 and 1.2 for additional analysis to determine if any corridor improvements, other than widening, could improve level of service. Since signals are almost always the constraint points in urban area corridors, improvements to intersections within constrained corridors can sometimes mitigate congestion within the corridor. Potentially congested intersection locations include: - SR Al A @ 17th Street -US 1 (Sebastian) @: Barber Street Schumann Drive CR512 SR 60 @: US 1 58th Avenue - Indian River Boulevard @: Royal Palm Point The Merrill Barber Bridge Community Development Department Indian River County 95 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Through the LRTP and CMP processes, the MPO identified potential future intersection improvements at many of these locations. These potential intersection improvements include adding turn lanes; adjusting signal timing; and making ITS improvements. • Advanced Right-of-Way Acquisition , . s - :. Thoroughfare Plan roadways will eventually require additional right-of-way acquisition by the county. According to the 2030 LRTP, right of way costs to . - - ! ! ' .. . . . . .. . . . -- . To ensure that sufficient right-of-way is available for future construction projects, the county should develop a balanced capital improvement program that includes advanced right-of-way acquisition funding along with construction funding. Because of the increase of low intensity, non-urban uses outside of the urban service area, the county needs to ensure that this kind of development does not preclude the eventual extension of the roadway grid system. If the future land use map is eventually amended or if the urban service area is extended, maintaining adequate access in these areas will be critical in connecting the county system of roads. For identifying and protecting essential right-of-way, the primary mechanism is the Extended Roadway Grid Network (Figure 4.10). As development continues, this grid network should be protected by requiring appropriate land dedication through the site plan and subdivision approval process. • Other Needs Besides the Cost Feasible Plan roadway capacity improvements and intersection and right-of- way needs, there are other traffic circulation system needs that must be addressed. These other needs include bridge improvements, resurfacings, and safety projects. Cost estimates for these improvements were obtained from programmed and proposed project listings; from historic costs per lane mile; and from growth projections. These costs are listed alongside Cost Feasible Plan improvements-in the transportation capital improvements program(Table 4.9.4). • Cost Feasible Plan Improvements The MPO's 20-30 cost feasible roadway improvements plan is depicted in Figure 4.8 (Table 4.9.3). When all cost feasible improvements are completed, the roadway network laneage in Indian River County will have increased substantially, as shown in Figure 4.9. Because of this additional capacity, future roadway level of service will be maintained above the adopted level of service as for those roadways. This is demonstrated on figure 4.9A. Table 4.7.1 Existing Roadway Characteristics Link On Street From Street To Street Len th No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard S.R.AlA S.County Line S.VB City L 4.70 2 100 U A SR MA D Community Development Department Indian River County 96 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Len th No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 1020 S.R.AlA S.VB City L 17th St 1.30 2 120 D F SR MA D 1030 S.R.AlA 17th St S.R.60 1.50 2 80 D D SR MA D 1040 S.R.AlA S.R.60 N.VB City L 1.50 2 50 D F SR MA D 1050 •S.R.A1A N.VB City L Fred Tuerk Rd 1.00 2 100 D D SR MA D 1060 S.R.AlA Fred Tuerk Rd Old Winter Bch Rd 3.00 2 100 U B SR MA D 1070 S.R.A1A Old Winter Bch Rd N.IRS L 1.00 2 100 U B SR MA D 1080 S.R.A1A N.IRS L C.R.510 1.50 2 100 U B SR MA D 1090 S.R.AlA C.R.510 N.County Line 7.30 2 100 U A SR MA D 1110 Indian River Bd. 4th St @ Us 1 12th St 1.00 4 150 D B CR MA D 20 Indian River Bd. 8th St 12th St 0.50 4 150 D C CR MA D 1130 Indian River Bd. 12th St 17th St 0.50 4 150 D C CR MA D 1140 Indian River Bd. 17th St 20th St 0.39 4 150 D B CR MA D 1145 Indian River Bd. 20th St 21st St 0.19 4 150 D B CR MA D 1150 Indian River Bd. 21st St Royal Palm 0.37 4 150 D C CR MA D 1155 Indian River Bd. Royal Palm MB Bridge 0.46 4 150 D C CR . MA D • 1160 Indian River Bd. MB Bridge 37th St. 0.71 4 150 D B CR MA D 1170 Indian River Bd. 37th St. U.S. 1 @53rd St 2.60 4 150 D B CR MA D 1210 I-95 N.County Line C.R.512 4.00 4 300 F B SR I B 1220 I-95 C.R.512 S.R.60 11.00 4 300 F B SR I B 1230 I-95 S.R.60 Oslo Rd 4.00 4 300 F B SR I C 1240 1-95 Oslo Rd S.County Line 2.00 4 300 F B SR I B 1305 U.S. 1 S.County Line Oslo Rd 2.30 4 160 D B SR PA D 1310 U.S. 1 Oslo Rd 4th St @ IR Blvd 1.56 4 200 D E SR PA D 1315 U.S. 1 4th St @ IR Blvd 8th St 0.50 4 80 D D SR PA D 1320 U.S. 1 8th St 12th St 0.50 4 80 D D SR PA D 1325 U.S.1 12th St S.VB City L 0.50 4 80 D B SR PA D 1330 U.S. 1 S.VB City L 17th St 0.50 4 80 D D SR PA D 1335 U.S. 1 17th St S.R.60 0.50 4 80 D D SR PA D 1340 U.S. 1 S.R.60 Royal Palm PI 0.50 4 70 D D SR PA D 1345 U.S. 1 Royal Palm PI Atlantic Blvd 0.50 4 120 D B SR PA D 1350 U.S. 1 Atlantic Blvd 37th St. 0.50 4 120 D B SR PA D 1355 U.S. 1 37th St. Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 4 120 D D SR PA D 1360 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy 41st St 0.50 4 120 D D SR PA D 1365 U.S. 1 41st St 45th St 0.50 4 120 D D SR PA D 1370 U.S. 1 45th St 49th St 0.50 4 120 D B SR PA D CommunityDevelopment Department Indian River County APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Length No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 1375 U.S. 1 49th St 65th St 3.00 4 120 D B SR PA D 1380 U.S. 1 65th St 69th St 0.50 4 120 D B SR PA D 1385 U.S. 1 69th St Old Dixie Hwy 2.00 4 120 D B SR PA D 1390 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy Schumann Dr 3.50 4 120 D B SR PA D 1395 U.S. 1 Schumann Dr C.R.512 1.50 4 120 D B SR PA D 1400 U.S. 1 C.R.512 N.Seb City L 2.00 4 100 D B SR PA D 1405 U.S. 1 N.Seb City L Roseland Rd 0.50 4 100 D B SR PA D 1410 U.S. 1 Roseland Rd N.County Line 1.00 4 100 D B SR PA D C.R.510 @ 66th 1510 Schumann Dr Ave Barber St 0.82 2 100 U D CR MA D 1515 Schumann Dr Barber St Englar Dr 1.31 2 100 U C CI COL D 1520 Schumann Dr Englar Dr U.S. 1 1.18 2 100 U C CI COL D 1610 Roseland Rd C.R.512 N.Seb City L 3.00 2 80 U C CR COL D 1620 Roseland Rd N.Seb City L U.S. 1 2.00 2 80 U C CR COL D Fellsmere City 1710 C.R.512 Limits I-95 3.60 2 80 U C CR COL D 1720 C.R.512 I-95 C.R.510 3.00 2 100 U B CR COL D 1730 C.R.512 C.R.510 Roseland Rd 1.25 2 100 U B CR COL D 1740 C.R.512 Roseland Rd Barber St 0.39 4 100 D B CR COL D 1741 C.R.512 Barber St Fleming St 0.72 4 100 D C CR COL D 1742 C.R.512 Fleming St Easy St 0.60 4 100 D C CR COL D 1743 C.R.512 Easy St Delaware St 0.21 4 100 D C CR COL D 1750 C.R.512 Delaware St U.S. 1 0.86 4 100 D C CR COL D 1805 C.R.510 C.R.512 87th St 1.73 2 80 U B CR COL D 1810 C.R.510 87th St 66th Ave 2.51 2 80 U B CR COL D 1820 C.R.510 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 80 U B CR COL D 1830 C.R.510 58th Ave U.S. 1 0.50 2 80 U C CR COL D 1840 C.R.510 U.S. 1 S.R.AlA 2.50 2 100 U B CR COL D 1905 S.R.60 W.County Line C.R.512 14.00 2 100 U A SR PA B 1907 S.R.60 C.R.512 98th Ave 6.52 2 100 U A SR PA B 1910 S.R.60 98th Ave I-95 1.19 2 100 U B SR PA B 1915 S.R.60 I-95 82nd Ave 2.00 4 234 D B SR PA D 1920 S.R.60 82nd Ave 66th Ave 2.00 4 136 D B SR PA D 1925 S.R.60 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 6 100 D B SR PA D 1930 S.R.60 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 6 100 D B SR PA D 1935 S.R.60 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1.00 6 100 D B SR PA D 1940 S.R.60 27th Ave W.of 20th Ave 0.50 6 100 D C SR PA D Community Development Department Indian River County 98 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Len th No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 1945 S.R.60(EB) W.of 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 3 70 0 D SR PA D 1950 S.R.60(EB) Old Dixie Hwy 10th Ave 0.30 3 70 0 D SR PA D 1955 S.R.60(EB) 10th Ave U.S. 1 0.30 3 70 0 D SR PA D 1960 S.R.60(EB) U.S. 1 W.of 6th Ave 0.50 3 70 0 D SR PA D 1962 S.R.60 W.of 6th Ave Indian River Blvd 0.34 4 140 D D SR MA D 1965 S.R.60 Indian River Blvd ICWW 1.10 4 140 D D SR MA D 1970 S.R.60 ICWW S.R.AlA 0.50 4 80 D C SR MA D 1975 S.R.60(WB) W.of 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 0.43 4 N/A 0 D SR PA D 1980 S.R.60(WB) Old Dixie Hwy 10th Ave 0.35 4 N/A 0 D SR PA D 1985 S.R.60(WB) 10th Ave U.S. 1 0.25 4 N/A 0 D SR PA D 1990 S.R.60(WB) U.S. 1 W.of 6th Ave 0.24 4 N/A 0 D SR PA D 2020 16th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 50 U B CR MA D 2030 16th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1.00 2 50 U B CR MA D 2040 16th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 100 U B CR MA D 2050 16th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 2 100 U B CR MA D 2060 16th/17th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 4 100 D C CR MA D 2110 17th St U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 0.50 4 100 D B CR MA D 2120 17th St Indian River Blvd S.R.A1A 2.00 4 100 D B CR MA D 2210 12th St 82nd Avenue 58th Ave 3.00 2 40 U B CR MA D 2220 12th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 40 U B CR MA D 2230 12th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1.00 2 40 U B CR MA D 2240 12th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA D 2250 12th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 1.00 2 80 U B CR MA D 2260 12th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 4 80 U B CR MA D 2270 12th St U.S. 1 IR Blvd. 0.62 4 D U B CR MA D 2305 Old Dixie Hwy S.County Line Oslo Rd 2.20 2 35 U B CR COL D 2310 Old Dixie Hwy Oslo Rd 4th St 2.10 2 35 U B CR MA D 2315 Old Dixie Hwy 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 60 U B CR MA D 2320 Old Dixie Hwy 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 60 U B CR MA D 2325 Old Dixie Hwy 12th St S.VB City L 0.30 2 60 U B CR MA D 2330 Old Dixie Hwy S.VB City L 16th St 0.50 2 60 U B CR MA D 2335 Old Dixie Hwy 16th St S.R.60 0.50 2 60 U B CR MA D 2340 Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 41st Ave 0.35 2 D U B CR MA D 2345 Old Dixie Hwy 41st St 45th St ! 0.52 2 , 60 U B CR COL D • 4 I 2350 Old Dixie Hwy 45th St 49th St j 0.50 ' 2 I 60 U I B CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 99 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Len th No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 2355 Old Dixie Hwy 49th St . 65th St 2.00 2 60 U B CR COL D 2360 Old Dixie Hwy 65th St 69th St 0.50 2 60 U B CR COL D 2365 Old Dixie Hwy 69th St C.R.510 2.50 2 60 U B CR COL D 2410 27th Ave S.County Line Oslo Rd 2.00 2 50 U B CR COL D 2420 27th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 80 U B CR MA D 2430 27th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA D 2440 27th Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA D 2450 27th Ave 12th St S.VB City L 0.30 2 80 U B CR MA D 2460 27th Ave S.VB City L 16th St 0.40 2 80 U B CR MA D 2470 27th Ave 16th St S.R.60 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA D 2480 27th Ave S.R.60 Atlantic Blvd 0.30 2 80 U B CR MA D 2510 27th Ave Atlantic Blvd Aviation Blvd 0.30 2 80 U B CR MA D 2520 Oslo Rd I-95 82nd Avenue 0.23 2 60 U C CR COL D 2530 Oslo Rd 82nd Ave 58th Ave 2.00 2 60 U C CR COL D 2540 Oslo Rd 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 60 U B CR COL D 2550 Oslo Rd 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1.00 2 60 U B CR COL D 2560 Oslo Rd 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 30 U B CR MA D 2570 Oslo Rd 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 2.00 2 30 U B CR MA D 2580 Oslo Rd Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.30 4 30 D B CR MA D 2610 6th Ave 12th St 17th St 0.64 2 60 U B CR MA D 2615 6th Ave 17th St S.VB City L 0.13 2 60 U B CR MA D 2620 6th Ave S.VB City L S.R.60 0.50 2 60 U B CR MA D 2710 10th Ave 17th St S.R.60 0.43 2 60 U C CI COL D 2720 10th Ave S.R.60 Royal Palm Blvd 0.21 2 60 U C CI COL D 20th AVE S.County Line 17"'St.SW 2.00 1 30 U C CR LOC D 2805 20th Ave 17th St.SW Oslo Rd. 1.00 2 60 U C CR LOC D 2810 20th Ave Oslo Rd. 4th St 2.00 2 60 U C CR LOC D 2820 20th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 60 U C CR LOC D 2830 20th Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 60 U C CR LOC D 2840 20th Ave 12th St S.VB City L 0.50 4 80 D B CR MA D 2850 20th Ave S.VB City L 16th St 0.50 4 80 D B CR MA D 2860 20th Ave 16th St S.R.60 0.50 4 80 D B CR MA D 2870 20th Ave S.R.60 Atlantic Blvd 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA D 2905 43rd Ave S.County Line Oslo Rd 2.00 2 50 U B CR COL D 2910 43rd Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 50 U B CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 100 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Len th No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 2915 43rd Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 50 U B CR COL D 2920 43rd Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 50 U B CR COL D 2925 43rd Ave 12th St 16th St 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA D 2930 43rd Ave 16th St S.R.60 0.50 2 80 U C CR MA D 2935 43rd Ave S.R.60 26th St 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA D 2940 43rd Ave 26th St 41st St 2.00 2 80 U B CR COL D 2945 43rd Ave 41st St 45th St 0.50 2 80 U C CR COL D 2950 43rd Ave 45th St 49th St 0.50 2 80 U C CR COL D 3005 58th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 50 U C CR COL D 3010 58th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 50 U C CR COL D 3015 58th Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 50 U D CR COL D 3020 58th Ave 12th St 16th St 0.50 2 50 U B CR COL D 3025 58th Ave 16th St S.R.60 0.50 4 50 D B CR MA D 3030 58th Ave S.R.60 26th St 0.51 4 50 D B CR MA D 3033 58th Ave 26th St 41st St 1.50 2 50 U C CR MA D 3035 58th Ave 41st St 45th St 0.50 2 80 U C CR COL D 3040 58th Ave 45th St 49th St 0.50 2 80 U C CR COL D 3045 58th Ave 49th St 53rd St 0.48 2 80 U A CR COL D 3047 58th Ave 53rd St 65th St 1.54 2 80 U A CR COL D 3050 58th Ave 65th St 69th St 0.50 2 80 U A CR COL D 3055 58th Ave 69th St C.R.510 2.50 2 80 U B CR COL D 3110 66th Ave Oslo Road 4th St 1.51 2 50 U C CR COL D 3120 66th Ave S.R.60 26th St 0.50 2 50 U C CR COL D 3130 66th Ave 26th St 41st St 1.50 2 50 U A CR COL D 3140 66th Ave 41st St 45th St 0.50 2 50 U C CR COL D 3150 66th Ave 45th St 53rd St 0.98 2 50 U C CR COL D 3155 66th Ave 53rd St 65th St 1.53 2 50 U C CR COL D 3160 66th Ave 65th St 69th St 0.52 2 50 U C CR COL D 3170 66th Ave 69th St C.R.510 2.00 2 50 U C CR COL D 3310 82nd Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 50 U B CR COL D 3320 82nd Ave 4th St 12th St 1.00 2 50 U C CR COL D 3330 82nd Ave 12th St S.R.60 0.50 2 50 U C CR COL D 3340 82nd Ave S.R.60 26th St 0.49 2 D U B CR COL D 3610 77th St 66th Ave U.S. 1 5.00 2 50 U B CR LOC D 3710 69th St 82nd Ave 66th Ave 2.00 2 50 U B CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 101 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Length No.of Exist Road Existing, Juris- Functional LOS ID Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 3720 69th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 50 U A CR COL D 3730 69th St 58th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.00 2 50 U A CR COL D 3740 69th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 2 50 U A CR COL D 3820 65th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 35 U A CR LOC D 3830 65th St 58th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.00 2 35 U A CR LOC D 3840 65th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 2 35 U A CR LOC D 4220 49th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 35 U A CR LOC D 4230 49th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 35 U C CR LOC D 4240 49th St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.50 2 35 U C CR LOC D 4250 49th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 1.00 2 35 U C CR LOC D 4320 45th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 D U B CR COL D 4330 45th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 D U C CR COL D 4340 45th St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.50 2 D U C CR COL D 4350 45th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.09 2 D U B CR COL D 4355 45th St U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 0.24 2 D U B CR COL D 4420 41st St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 30 U B CR COL D 4430 41st St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 30 U B CR COL D 4440 41st St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.50 2 30 U B CR COL D 4450 41st St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.07 2 30 U B CR COL D 4455 41st St U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 0.55 2 30 U B CR COL D 4460 37th St U.S.1 Indian River Blvd 1.10 2 D U B CR COL D 4710 26th St 74th Ave 66th Ave 1.00 2 50 U B CR LOC D 4720 26th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 50 U B CR LOC D 4730 26th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 50 U B CR LOC D 4740 26th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1.05 2 50 U B CR LOC D 4760 26th St U.S. 1 Country Club Drive 0.65 2 50 U B CR LOC D 4816 8th St 90th Ave 82nd Ave 1.00 2 50 U C CR LOC D 4820 8th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 50 U C CR LOC D 4830 8th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 50 U B CR LOC D 4840 8th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1.00 2 50 U B CR LOC D 4850 8th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 50 U B CR MA D 4860 8th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 1.00 2 50 U B CR MA D 4870 8th St s Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.30 2 50 U B CR MA D 4880 8th St U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 1.00 2 50 U B CR MA D 4910 4th St 82nd Ave 58th Ave 1.00 2 30 U B CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 102 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Length No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 4930 4th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1.00 2 30 U B CR COL D 4940 4th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave _ 1.00 2 30 U B CR COL D 4950 4th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 30 U B CR COL D 4960 4th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 1.00 2 30 U B CR COL D 4970 4th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 2 30 U B CR COL D 5610 Fred Tuerk Dr A l A W of Coconut Dr 1.00 2 60 U A CI COL D 5710 Winter Beach Rd AlA Jungle Trail 0.50 2 60 U A CR COL D 5805 Atlantic Blvd S.R.60 27th Ave 1.07 2 60 U A CI COL D 5810 Atlantic Blvd 27th Avenue 20th Avenue 0.50 2 60 U A CI COL D 5820 Atlantic Blvd 20th Avenue U.S. 1 0.50 2 60 U B CI COL D 5910 Aviation Blvd U.S. 1 27th Avenue 0.91 2 60 U A CI COL D 6010 Royal Palm Blvd Royal Palm PI Indian River Blvd 1.00 2 60 U B CI COL D 6110 Royal Palm PI U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 1.00 2 60 U B CI COL D 8100 53rd St U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy 0.06 2 N/A U B CR COL D 9005 90th Ave Sr.60 8th Street 1.54 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9010 C.R.507 S.Carolina County Line 4.20 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9015 74th Ave Oslo Rd Landfill 0.76 2 N/A U C CR LOC D 9035 1st Street SW 27th Ave 43rd Ave 1.02 2 N/A U C CR LOC D 9036 1st Street SW 43rd Ave 58th Ave 1.02 2 N/A U C CR LOC D 9040 1st Street U.S.1 Old Dixie 0.28 2 N/A U C CR LOC D 9050 Highlands Dr. 6th Ave SW Old Dixie 0.65 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9055 Highlands Dr. Old Dixie U.S. 1 0.08 2 N/A U D CR COL D 9060 17th Ln.SW. 27th Ave SW Highlands Dr.SW 0.75 2 N/A U C CR LOC D 9065 17th Ln.SW Highlands Dr.SW 6th Ave SW 1.00 2 N/A U C CR LOC D 9080 C.R.512 S.R.60 Fellsmere City Limits 9.59 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9085 I.R.Drive North U.S.1 Main Street 2.62 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9090 I.R.Drive South U.S.1 Main Street 1.44 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9110 Englar Dr Barber St George St 0.40 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9120 Englar Dr George St Schumann Dr 0.83 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9130 Fleming St Easy St C.R.512 0.61 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9140 Fleming St C.R.512 Main St 1.21 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9150 Main St Fleming St Wimbrow 0.67 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9160 Main St U.S. 1 Fleming St 1.33 2 N/A U D CI COL D 9170 Barber St U.S. I Schumann Dr 1.36 2 N/A U C CI COL D I 9180 Barber St Schumann Dr Englar Dr I 1.93 2 N/A U D CI COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 103 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Len th No.of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional 1 LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 9190 Barber St Englar Dr C.R.512 0.81 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9195 Barber St C.R.512 Wimbrow 1.25 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9200 Ocean Dr Greytwig Beachland 0.44 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9210 Ocean Dr Beachland Riomar 0.63 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9220 21st St Indian River Blvd U.S. 1 0.52 2 N/A U D CI COL D 9230 21st St U.S. 1 20th Avenue 0.54 2 N/A U D CI COL D 9240 23rd St 20th Avenue U.S. 1 0.47 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9250 23rd St U.S. 1 Royal Palm Blvd 0.38 2 N/A U D CI COL D 9260 14th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 16th Street 0.31 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9270 14th Ave 16th Street S.R.60 0.51 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9280 14th Ave S.R.60 U.S. 1 0.48 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9290 Victory Atlantic Cordova 0.30 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9300 Victory Cordova 20th Avenue 0.26 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9305 5th Street SW 27th Ave 43rd Ave 1.02 2 80 U C CR COL D 9307 5th Street SW 20th Ave 27th Ave 0.50 2 80 U C CR COL D 9975 S.R.60 S.R.A1A Ocean Dr 0.24 4 N/A D C CI COL D Source—Indian River County 2030 On-Street Frew Te a Needs , Read-Type Read-Type SIS-Reads I95 S.Ceunty-Line N,Geunty-Line 4F 6F S.R-60 98thAve 1 95 413 613 State-Reads S.R.60 1-93 82nd-Ave 4D 61) S.R.-60 &I-Ave 4D 613 U.S. I S.Ceunty-Line Oslo-Rd 4D 60 U.S. 1 Aviation-Blvd Old-Dixie 40 60 U.S. I Roseland Rd N.County Line 4D 6D Counnty-Reads 4th-St 910-Ave 66th-Ave 00 " 98th-Ave 66th Ave 00 214 12th St 43dAve Ave 214 2D 13th St SW 664-Ave 38th-Ave 00 21.113tt. A 2Av `Nth-Ave 00 21,1 13thSt S W 34th-Ave 27th-Ave 00 2L1 13th-St-SW 2 -eve00 214Win. CommunityDevelopment Department Indian River County 104 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 On-Street From To 20tH Needs _ �L /� ad Type Ro 77th St SW 66th-Ave 558th-Ave 00 214 26th St 667-Ave 43rd-Ave 214 413 26th St 8214-Ave 14th-Ave 00 214 Aviation-Blvd "3-Yvrd Ave U.S. 1 214 4D Nth-Ave S. ettnty-Line Osle-Rd 2U4{D 2 7A-Ave Osle-Rd S.R..60 214 4D 43dAve S-Ceunt -I a Osla-Rd 214 4D 43� a Oslo-Rd 8th-St 214 413 53rd St 82nd-Ave 66th-Ave 00 214 cow Osla-Rd. 214 4D 66th-Ave S-Eeunty-Line Osle-Rd 00 214 66th-eve Osle-Rd 4th-St 214 4D 66th-Ave 4th-St SR-60 213 414 66th-Ave cve SR60 C.R.3t0 214 4D 82nd-Ave S-Gount-f Line Osle-Rd 00 214 82nd-Ave 26th St C.R.510 00 214 C.R.510 C.R.512 U.S. 1 2U 4D C.R.510 U.S. 1 ICWW 2U 4D C.R. 512 1-95 2U 414 C.R.512 I95 C.R.510 413 614 C.R.512 C.R. 510 Roseland 4D 614 8th-St 82nd Ave 74th-Ave 00 214 Reyal-Palm 37th St 414 6D Osla-Rd I95 58th-Ave 214 413 Reseland-Rd C.R.512 U.S. 1 214 2D Sehamann-Dr C.R. 510 Barber St 214 4D Other-Reads Bar-bef-St Sehumann-Dr U.S. 1 244 4D Berner-St C.R. 512 Sehumann-Dr 213 414 Fleming-St Easy-St Schumann-Dr 00 213 Community Development Department Indian River County 105 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.7.2 2040 Needs Plan Improvements II Community Development Department Indian River County 106 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Facility From To Rrnprovement New Interchange I--95 1 At Oslo Road 1 New Interchange Wlliden from 2 to 4 Lane(or equivalent capacity)" CR 510 CR 512 Intracoastal Waterway Widen to 4L from 2L CR 512 Willow Street I-95 Widen to 41 from 2L 27th Avenue Oslo Road St.Lucie County Line Widen to 4L from 2L 4r Avenue St Lucie County Line 26'Street Widen to 41 from 2L 66°1 Avenue 49¢'Street Barber Street Widen to 41 from 2L 26th Street/Aviation Blvd 66th Avenue US 1 Widen to 41 from 2L Oslo Road 1-95 5E0 Avenue Widen to 4L from 2L Roseland Road CR 512 US 1 Widen to 4L from 2L Widen from 4 to 6 Lane(or equivalent capa r . US 1 CR 510 53"i Street Widen to 6L from 4L CR 512 1-95 CR 510 Widen to 61 from 4L Indian River Boulevard US 1/4'"Street 37Th Street Widen to 6L from 4L New 2 Lanes 5r Street 58th Avenue 82114 Avenue New 2L 82T'Avenue 26m Street Laconia Street New 2L 5th Street SW Old Dixie Highway 20th Avenue New 2L 12th Street 58"Avenue 74z Avenue New 2L 58"Avenue Oslo Road St Lucie County Line . New 2L 74t Avenue 12th Street Oslo Road New 2L ' Aspirational Interchange I-951 At 53 'Street New Interchange Aspirational Roads 4"Street 66°Avenue 98Th Avenue New 2L 13th Street SW 27th Avenue 58°'Avenue New 2L 17Th Street SW 27th Avenue 58 °Avenue New 2L 21th Street SW 27th Avenue 58Th Avenue New 2L 25th Street SW 27th Avenue 58th Avenue New 21 26m Street 82n°Avenue CR 507 New 2L 4r Avenue 49Th Street 53t°Street New 2L 5r Street • 82m Avenue Fellsmere N-S Road 1 New 21 69th Street 82Tn Avenue CR 512 New 2L 98th Avenue 12th Street 4th Street New 2L Fellsmere N-S Road 1 CR 512 SR 60 New 2L Fellsmere N S Road 2 CR 512 69'"Street New 21 St.John Heritage Parkway! CR 512 Brevard County Line New 21 CR 512 Extension ' If?when the projects advance to the Project Deveropment and Environment(PD&E)or design phase, determine if alternative strategies such as two-way left-turn lanes, intersection improvements,operational enhancements, or multimodal solutions would effectively address level of service and mobility needs in lieu of the recommended road widening. Source:Indian River County MPO Access Management& Traffic Control Median types, median widths, and the number and spacing of driveways are all factors that influence capacity on a roadway. In Indian River County, several of the older roadways, Community Development Department Indian River County 107 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element including SR 60, US 1, and SR Al A, have experienced carrying capacity deficiencies from the profusion of side friction by vehicles entering and exiting from multiple driveways along each road and from mid-block left turns across travel lanes. In order to maximize traffic capacity and flow on major arterial roadways, traffic control and access management measures outlined by the Florida Department of Transportation and the Indian River County Land Development Regulations need to be closely adhered to. In the future, the county should continue to review on-site traffic flows, access driveways, and new roadway connections during the site plan and subdivision approval process. The County's land development regulations provide the basis for these reviews. In addition, the land development regulations outline guidelines for minimum parking requirements, adequate storage bays, spacing and design of median openings, and driveway and spacing access. Any amendments to the county land development regulations need to be consistent with this element of the IRC Comprehensive Plan. Hurricane Evacuation As indicated in the existing conditions section of this element, the existing hurricane evacuation system in the County is adequate. With the recent widening of SR 60 west of 1-95, the roadway evacuation system has been further improved, and travel and delay time has been reduced. According to hurricane evacuation studies, the hurricane evacuation system will continue to be adequate through 20302040. Generally, a clearance time of 12 hours is considered acceptable for hurricane evacuation, although the lower the time the better. Besides the hurricane evacuation studies, other analyses have addressed future year evacuation needs. As a component of the SR AIA Corridor Study, future evacuation conditions for the County's south barrier island were analyzed using buildout conditions and conservative assumptions. That study determined that, with one recommended improvement, evacuation clearance times will be acceptable in the future. That improvement, adding one lane on SR AIA from Seagull Dr. to 17th St. (Causeway Boulevard), is now ..•. .. . - • . cempleted-by-20-l.0completed. In addition, a Wabasso Causeway Study determined that north barrier island evacuation times will be acceptable at buildout without any major roadway improvements. The focus of that study was the causeway, itself, and the analysis indicated that the causeway would not need improvement,by 2020. There are several reasons why hurricane evacuation clearance times will remain adequate through 20302040. Most of these reasons are land use related. First, the barrier island portion of the City of Vero Beach is primarily built out; the Town of Indian River Shores is mostly built out, and the unincorporated south barrier island area is nearing build out. Second, the north portion of the barrier island is developing at much lower densities than allowed by the 1990 comprehensive plan. Not only are some large projects, like Windsor and the Town of Orchid, developing at only about one unit per acre, but the County, the Community Development Department Indian River County 108 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element state, and the federal government have purchased hundreds of acres on the north barrier island for conservation purposes. This land will have zero density. A third reason hurricane evacuation clearance times will remain adequate is that many of the new units to be constructed on the north barrier island will be in developments like Windsor and Orchid, which have a high number of seasonal residents. Many of these property owners will not be in residence nor contribute to the evacuation population during the peak hurricane season of late summer and early fall. The final reason that future hurricane evacuation clearance times will be adequate is that the Merrill Barber Bridge improvement provided significant additional evacuation capacity. One additional assurance that hurricane evacuation needs will not increase by 2030-2040 is that the Future Land Use Element and the Coastal Management Element of this plan prohibit any increase in allowable density or intensity for land within the designated coastal high hazard area. These elements also prohibit nursing home type facilities in the coastal high hazard area. While • these policy initiatives ensure that the at-risk evacuation population will not increase significantly and that evacuation facilities will remain adequate, the county should consider evacuation routes as priorities when awarding funding for new infrastructure such as roadway widening and ITS projects. Concurrency One of theost important issues with respect to the timing of transportation improvements is Concurrency. Concurrency is a principle established by the state's 1985 Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, which was relaxed at the state level in 2011 and remains a local requirement. • . . _ • - . . . •- • .. . project unless Generally, concurrency requirements together with effective capital projects planning and implementation ensure that the services and facilities needed to accommodate that a development project are available concurrent with the project's impacts. The Capital Improvements element of this plan establishes the County's concurrency management system. Of all the facilities subject to the concurrency requirement, transportation is the most important. It is transportation system deficiencies, more so than problems with other concurrency facilities, that have been responsible for :- : _ . . . • • • . •- ., affecting development project reviews and approvals throughout the state. Over the years, the state changed the concurrency law to make the transportation concurrency requirements more flexible. Besides establishing several flexible transportation concurrency options applicable under certain conditions, there are the tom- ed e timeframe options for when development project required transportation facilities must be available to comply with the concurrency requirement. Current local concurrency regulations allow development projects to be approved subject to a condition that the necessary facilities needed to serve new development are scheduled to be in place or under actual • construction not more than three years after issuance of a building permit -or its functional equivalent. Community Development Department Indian River County 109 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element - _ - - • S . • - . . . . - • - Subdivision Collector Roadways Besides the capacity needs of the transportation system, there is a need in some areas of the county to provide access ways which ensure a well designed local road pattern. To address this need, the county has established subdivision collector roadways. While subdivision collectors are not major roads on the county's thoroughfare system, they do function at a higher level than regular local roads. As with local roads generally, subdivision collectors are not funded with traffic impact fees, nor can traffic impact fee credit be given for their construction. As indicated in the existing conditions section of this element, subdivision collector roadways require a minimum of 50' to 60' feet of right of way. Figure 4.9.1 of this element depicts the county's subdivision collector roadways. • Critical Transportation Areas Throughout the County, there are "critical transportation areas" that need additional review to ensure that level of service standards will be maintained. These "critical transportation areas" are areas which have roadways that are currently operating at or above the county's minimum adopted level of service standard but, as future impending development occurs, may operate below the established minimum level of service standard. These areas usually are experiencing rapid development and could have existing roadway physical constraints, such as drainage canals located alongside the roadway. A recent plan adopted by the MPO provides a method to identify these critical transportation areas. Required by state law, the MPO's Congestion Management Process includes a set of prioritization criteria, which are the criteria used to identify critical transportation areas. Once critical transportation area roadways are identified, they are analyzed using the system level and corridor level criteria in the plan. As structured, the congestion management system described in the MPO's CMP Plan is implemented on an annual basis by MPO staff The result of the MPO's annual CMP analyses is a set of proposed improvement projects to address the congestion problems on critical Community Development Department Indian River County 110 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element transportation area roadways. These proposed improvements are then programmed for implementation. Since the CMP program is an efficient way to address critical transportation issues, it is important that the County coordinate with the MPO in this process. That coordination involves county staff participating in the CMP analysis as well as the county programming recommended CMP improvements with county transportation funds where warranted. Community Development Department Indian River County 111 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element oFigureRIV4.9.1 ER P ., _ . , INDIAN COUNTY /k.` FUTURE TRANSPORTATION / -.1\ MAP SERIES 1,.,.. ,.: ,...i\ rn_Municipal iiia: • L;Ii Boundaries !? -' `4y FIV`_,4'µm k ' ' x, - Z �• IJ • •!,.lt., .y._1. o w lam. i N 1101 et Iii- ` •'y,firf 1 OM.!i 11\ ��f4C�'-gin+ L' A M■ur k`J: • ua 11, Y2fi". .. a . a • Ila.!!t: •••1k sr 9 - b fJYM� 111.!T 0 Tot St *TO ST L �A A.?n.'. '..,1-1..•-.•- ,.'' '..kR tYY>A: �i 3 .y. 11111 1.Ie n !!° St v. 1 ,110 0♦ n./t • > u.n 111 a \1 n en 1. w t 1110■1 1 a\\` > 1110,1? 1. - t t1.,1t 1W - \`\e1001e-.9. _ 1•10 AT}21 r -.. 0 11 0 a ! ! . 1 .Y ! . Scale: ° ..---•� --.-r ".. SUBDIVISION COLLECTOR MAP Updated September 2010 Subdivision Collector Source: Indian River Planning Division Community Development Department" Indian Kiver County 112 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element .\\\i. il :1-1 1 i ' IN\ • ' , ,.., # 1 \116 3,', I , ' -'N \ ft CR 612 onn ------- - r I 1 I 1 1'asTH s :4lii l _ 1�� ilk, i 9rers %it�1i!! �1 1�_, __tom: •-_ �{ iii,' IiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNsbillii Mi.‘ 77TH s 1=1� _ ,�1l,M��1�� '� ,i 73RD ST - 1——i _I_,ii_I_ '� '�� 65TH ST. - 1 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Landscaping and Aesthetic Improvements in Transportation Corridors Acknowledging the significance of landscaping to the quality of life of the traveling public and to surrounding neighborhoods, the county has begun to expend significant funds on landscaping for county roadway projects. In fact, the county's commitment to landscaping its roadways is almost 3% of total project cost, close to what FDOT's landscaping costs average on roadway construction and resurfacing projects. In much the same way as developers provide sidewalks, many private developers provide landscaping improvements adjacent to major road rights-of-way. In most cases, these improvements are required by Indian River County's adopted Land Development Regulations and Corridor Plans. In addition to landscaping, other factors (such as buffering, adjacent land uses, and architectural styles) affect the appearance and functionality of a roadway. One technique for improving the appearance of corridors is the adoption of corridor plans. In November of 1995, the county adopted its first corridor plan, the Wabasso corridor plan. Since that time, other corridor plans have been enacted. Now, corridor plans apply to all of the county's principal arterials and many of its other major roadways. While the details of these plans vary by corridor, all of the plans contain regulations on permitted activities, landscaping, architectural guidelines, outdoor advertising, and other elements that may improve a neighborhood's overall aesthetics. At this time, landscaping is now a standard feature of the county's roadway improvement projects. In Indian River County, the cost of landscaping (including plant materials, irrigation hardware, and installation) varies between $100,000/mile for a minimal installation of trees and paver blocks to $250,000/mile for a design that includes trees, understory plantings, and turf grass. It should be noted, however, that the true cost of landscaping is usually much higher, depending on the availability of right-of-way necessary to support the landscaping. For example, the standard minimum FDOT urban roadside typical section for a four-lane roadway specifies that, in addition to right-of-way needed for sidewalks, utility easements, and horizontal clearance, a minimum of 8 feet of right-of-way (2.4 meters) is needed for roadside trees within road rights-of-way. Hence, the cost of right of way needed for landscaped shoulders adjacent to roadways could cost between $100,000 and $1,000,000 per mile (based on right of way costs of $2 sq. ft. in rural areas to $26 sq. ft. in urban commercial areas). According to the 2030 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan, there will be approximately 40 centerline miles of new roadway needing right-of-way in the next twenty years. The Florida Highway Landscape Guide, an FDOT publication authorized by 339.24, F.S., states that "Local Government Comprehensive Plans should include a section on aesthetic treatments of streets and highways." The 2025 Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) further recommends that the landscaping materials used on projects be compatible with adjacent landscaping on nearby parcels. Going forward, the county's policy should be to establish minimum expenditure levels on landscaping in conjunction with roadway projects where ample right-of-way can be easily obtained; incorporate idealized typical sections into roadway designs; and establish a procedure for roadway and transit facility aesthetic design review. Community Development Department Indian River County 114 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element In the future, the county will need to consider the full costs of landscaping (including acquiring additional right- of-way and ongoing maintenance) prior to programming landscaping in conjunction with a project. . Funding-Sour-ft " 2030--Revenues-04-00) $1.09,93.9 $44-21463 State-Revenues .$414,060 $20435-32 �Q Q 142g $27--Sg5 w. .. $44,940 $2-832-58 $27967 $5,935 $3-385059 $488469 $30,823 $94,895 $20,980 $37,952 • rale,.Tax(2021 t,.2030) $0 $43,334 $517802 $176,208 $3&1786-1 $656;578 Table 4.8A Capital Revenues by Planning Horizon Revenue Sources Type 2021 to 2026 to 2031 to Total 2025 2030 2040 Other Arterials(OA)(1) $27.10 $25.70 $56.20 $109.00 Transportation Alternatives(TALL)(2) Federal/ $0.90 $0.90 $1.80 $3.60 State Transportation Alternatives(TALT)(3) Revenues $0.89 $0.89 $1.77 $3.54 TRIP(4) $0.35 $0.35 $0.69 $1.38 6-Cent Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT)K5) $9.88 $10.51 $23.08 $43.47 Constitutional Gas Tax(5) $5.12 $5.45 $11.96 $22.52 County Gas Tax(5) Local Revenues $2.27 $2.42 $5.31 $10.01 Traffic Impact Fee(6) $22.47 $22.47 $44.94 $89.88 1-Cent Local Option Sales Tax (LOST)(7) $55.95 $65.81 $168.45 $290.21 Developer Funds(8) $0.00 $5.41 _ $0.00 $5.41 Non-SIS ElibTotal Sub-Total $124.92 $139.91 $314.22 $579.04 Strategic Intermodal System(9) Fed/State $37.83 $0.00 $0.00 $37.83 (1) Provided in Supplement to the 2040 Forecast Handbook. (2) Provided in Supplement to the 2040 Forecast Handbook. (3) Provided in Supplement to the 2040 Forecast Handbook.Utilized 4%of District 4 population for projections (4) Provided in Supplement to the 2040 Forecast Handbook.Utilized 4%of District 4 population for projections (5) Gas Taxes:Assumes 60%of revenues are for capital(what is shown above)and 40%for operations/maintenance-per County staff • (6) Impact Fees:Assumes 80%of collections are residential,20%non-residential (7) Local Option Sales Tax:2 scenarios are included with and without the sales tax(depending on a future referendum).Assumed 75% of projected revenues for transportation,with 95%of the transportation total for roadway capacity.Utilized FDOT inflation factors. (8) Developer funding commitment for 53`'Street from 58''Avenue to 66''Avenue (9) Developed from the SIS Cost Feasible Plan(2013 Edition)per FDOT's direction Community Development Department Indian River County 115 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element r (-241-1-4020)-A41-Modes (201-1-20-30)-Mt-Medes Percentage.centag. Differe Pereentage Costs Revenue Costs Difference Made-of-Travel ef-Tetal nee ef-Teta4 10007 04- 007Gest (4000) -'vvv7 l-rvvv7 Gest 'vvvl Reads-(4) $102394 $1023-394 .-70% �vv$ $24-5$24-530-5-8� $221�r1,00588 CO5 O—% $0 $137066 $43 4-440% ;066 $0 $36;660 $36;660 14:60% $9 Total $4-1-57460 $1.15,460 100.40% $9 $251,718 S4-54774-8 400.00% $8 . I t . r• Table 4.8B Operating and Maintenance Revenues by Planning Horizon 2021 to 2026 to 2031 to Revenue Sources Type Total 2025 2030 2040 State Highway Districtwide SHS $ a $$3x$1,566 1 716 770 $7r 052 System 6-Cent Local Option Gas Tax(LOGT) $6.58 $7.01 $15.39 $28.98 Constitutional Gas Tax $3.41 $3.63 $7.97 $15.02 CountyGas Tax LocalRevenues $1.61 $3.54 $1.52 $6.67 Traffic Impact Fee 1-Cent Local Option Sales Tax(LOST) $2.94 $3.46 $8.87 $15.27 Local ab Total $14.46 i MOW $65.94 Source:Indian River County MPO Link Ne-of Road &Iris- Functional Esist Needed Improvements IB 9n S# eseet FreStreet To-Street Length Lanes Type diction Glass ROW RACK 2030 4010 8,R.—rill i 8,-Geunty-Li;e S.VB-City-L 478 2 U SR MA 9 -1.00 4-20 4-020 ea R.Al S.VB City L -lath-St 4-30 2 9 SR MA 9 4-20 440 4-030 S.R.- AlA 14411-St S.R.60 4-50 2 9 SR MA 19 80 420 4-040 S.R.AI-A S.R.60 N.VB-CityL -140 2 9 SR MA 9 50 440 4-050 S.R. lA N ity-L Fred-Tuerk-Rd 4-00 2 9 SR MA 9 4-00 4-20 4-060 SSPMA Fred Tuerk-Rd 300 2 U SR MA 9 4-00 420 -1070 S IA N.IRS L 4,00 2 U SR MA 1) 4-00 4.20 4-080 S.R. s NIRS-L C 10 4-30 2 U SR MA 9 400 4-20 4090 S A C.R. 10 N.County Line 7-30 2 U SR MA 9 400 4-20 4440 IndianaRiiverBd 4th-SE@-4.1Sl 12th-St 4-00 4 9 Cly MA 9 440 440 4120 Indian-River-Bit 8111-84 -12t#-St 030 4 9 CR MA 9 440 4-50 4130 Indian-River-13d: 12t11 St Oath-St 0:30 4 9 GR MA 9 4-50 4-50 4440 Indian-River-Mt 4-7M-St 20th-St 0:39 4 9 CR MA 9 4-50 450 Community Development Department Indian River County 116 APPENDIX A-Transportation Amendments i Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On-Street F eel Te-Street p No:of Rend naris- F'unetional ist Needed imp ID Limes Type dietion Mass 1°8X030 4-145 Indian-River-Bd. 20th-St 21st St 049 4 13 OR MA D 4-50 4-50 4430 Indian River-Ed. 24et-St Royal-Palm 0:37 4 0 CR MA 0 440 140 1155 Ind Royal Palm Mb-Bridge 046 4 0 CR MA 0 4-50 200 Adr14•Lanes 4460 Indian-River-1d. MB-Bridge 37t4r-St: 0:7-1- 4 0 CR MA 0 430 200 Add-2-Lanes 4-1-70 Indian-River-134k 37th-St: US-1@53rd St 2:60 4 0 CR MA 14 440 200 4240 1-95 N. ine C.R.512 4:98 4 F SR 1 B 300 300 Add4-Lanes 4.220 1-95 C.R.542 S:R.-60 4-1:00 4 F SR 1 B 300 300 Add 2 Lanes -1230 1-95 S:R.60 Oslo-Rd 4:00 4 F SR I C 300 300 Add-2-Lanes 4240 1-95 Osle-Rd S.Con Line 2:88 4 F SR 1 C 300 300 Add-2-Lones 4305 U.S. 1 S.County-Line Gsle-Rd 240 4 0 SR PA 13 460 200 Add4-Lanes +319 44-&4 Osle-Rd 4t1-St-@4R1--Blvd 446 4 O SR PA B 200 200 1315 U.S. 1 4thS1@4R41lvd 8th-St 040 4 0 SR PA D 80 420 4320 U.S. 1 8th-St 44th-St 040 4 14 SR PA O 80 420 1325 U.S. 1 12th St S.VB City L 030 4 D SR PA 0 80 4-20 4-330 U.S.1 S.VB City L 47th-St 040 4 0 SR PA 0 80 420 1335 U.S. ! 4-7th-St S4R-69 040 4 D SR PA D 80 420 4-340 U.S.1 S.R.60 Royal-Palm-P1 040 4 1) SR PA O 70 70 1315 U.S.1 Royal-Palm-P4 mitis-Blvd 040 4 0 SR PA 0 70 70 4-350 U.S. 1 Atlantie-Blvd 37thSt: 040 4 0 SR PA 0 70 460 Lanes 1355 U.S.1 37th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy 040 4 0 SR PA O 70 460 "da- anes 4-360 U.S. ! Old-Dixie-Hwy 44-st-St 040 4 0 SR PA 14 70 4-60 Add-2-Lanes 1365 U.S.1 44-st-St 45d-St 040 4 O SR PA 0 70 460 4370 U.S. 1 45th-St 49th-St 040 4 0 SR PA B 70 460 des 1375 U.S. 1 49th-St 65th-St3.00 4 0 SR PA D 70 4-20- Add-2-Lanes Lanes 460 4380 U:-S:-1 65th St 69th-St 040 4 O SR PA B 420 120 Add-2-Lanes 160 4385 U.S. 1 69th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy 200 4 D SR PA D 420 des 4-60 4390 U.S. 1 Old--Dixie Hwy Sehumenn-Dr 340 4 D SR PA D 420 120 440 4395 U.S.1 SehamnneDr C.R.512 4.30 4 D SR PA D 420 420- 460 4400 U.S. 1 C.R.512 N.Seb City L 2:00 4 D SR PA D 400 48 460 4405 U.S. 1 N.Ste, C Roseland-Rd 040 4 D SR PA D 400 460 I4440 I&4- Roseland-Rd N.CounefLine 400 4 D SR PA D 480 460 I4340 Sehumann-Dr C.R.510-@ 66th Ave Barber-St 0:82 2 U CR MA D 400 462 des I1515 Schumann Dr Barber St Engler-Dr 44-1 2 U Cl COL D 400 400 I4520 Schumann-Dr Engler-Dr U.S. ! 4:18 2 U Cl COL D 400 400 4-64-0 Roseland-Rd C.R.512 N.Seb-City L 3:00 2 U CR COL D 80 420 Community Development Department Indian River County 117 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link set bead as- Fonekenal Needed kntwevements0e-Street #em-Street Banes Tste dietien Class MIS ROW ROW by 2030 4620 Reseland-Rd N:-SebCity-L U.S.I 240 2 13 ER COL 14 80 440 1710 C.R.512 1-93 3,60 2 U CR COL D 80 200 Add-2-Lanes Limits 4728 C.R.512 1-95 C.R.510 390 2 43 ER COL D 400 200 Addy-Lanes I4438 C.R.512 C-R.510 Reseland-Rd 4.25 2 U ER COL O 400 200 Add-2-lanes I4740 C.R.512 Reselend-Rd t 0.39 4 O ER COL O 400 200 4744 C.R.512 Barber-St Fleeting-St 042 4 D ER COL 13 480 200 I4-742 C.R.512 Fleming-St 0:60 4 D ER COL D 480 280 1743 C.R.512 Easy-St Delaware-St 0:24 4 O CR COL D 100 200 4750 C.R.512 Delaware-St U.S. 1 0,86 4 O CR COL 13 480 200 4805 C.R.510 C.R.512 87th-St 4-73 2 13 ER COL U 80 462 Add-2-Lanes 4540 C.R.510 87th-St 66th-Ave 2.51 2 U CR COL U 80 462 s 4820 C.R.510 66thAAve 58thAve ve 4,00 2 U CR COL O 80 162 Addles 4530 C.R.510 58th Ave U.S. 1 030 2 U CR COL D 80 462 Addles 4-840 GAL-54-0 U.S. 1 °R.AlA 230 2 U CR COL O 400 460 1905 S:44-60 W.C ine C.R.512 44,00 2 U SR PA B 400 200 Add-2-Lenes 4-907 &R.60 C.R.512 98th-Ave 6.32 2 U SR PA B 4-00 200 Addles 4948 S.R.60 98th-Ave 195 449 2 U SR PA C 400 200 Add-4- enes 1915 S,R-60 1-95 82nd-Ave 2:80 4 D SR PA D 234 234 des 4920 S.R. 0 82nd-Ave 66th Ave 2:00 4 13 SR PA O 136 200 Add-2-benes 1925 8,14,60 66th-Ave 58th-Ave 4.00 6 O SR PA O 400 200 4-930 S:R:-60 58� a 43rd-Ave 4-00 6 13 SR PA U 400 4-30 1935 S:1E60 4-3M-Ave 27th-Ave 4,00 6 O SR PA D 400 430 4940 S.R.60 27thAve W.of :e 0.30 6 O SR PA O 400 430 1915 S.R-60(EB) W OF.r :e Olde ::y 040 3 0 SR PA B 70 440 4930 S.R.60(EB) Old-Dixie-Hwy 10th-Ave 0.30 3 0 SR PA O 70 440 1955 S:R-60-(EB) -10th-Ave U.S. 1 030 3 0 SR PA 13 70 440 4-960 S (EB) U.S. I W.of Ave 0.30 3 0 SR PA D 70 4-40 4062 S.R.60 W,ef--6thAve IndianRiver431vd 0,34 4 D SR MA D -1-40 440 4965 S.R.60 1C-WW 440 4 D SR MA 13 4-40 440 4-970 S-R-60 IC-WW SK-A4-4 030 4 13 SR MA 13 80 430 1975 S:R.60-(WB) W.Of 20th-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 0:43 4 0 SR PA O N/A NFA 4980 S.R-60(WE) Old-Dixie-Hwy 10th-Ave 0.35 4 0 SR PA I) NFA NFA 4985 S.R-60-(1B) 40thAve U.S. 1 0:25 4 0 SR PA D NFA NFA 4990 &R.60-(WD) U.S. 1 W efr f 6' :e 0,24 4 0 SR PA D NFA N/A 46th-St 90th-Ave 66th-Ave 3,04- 0 NFA CR MA NFA 50 4-10 New-2-Lanes 2020 4-6th-St 58th-Ave 43 "ve 4340 2 U ER MA D 50 80 Community Development Department Indian River County 118 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link Neva stead duris- Fanetienal Exist Needed hapnivetnents m OnS4t eeE Te 8"eet fines Type dielien Class 1296 ROW ROW by-2039 2030 46th-St 43rd,Ave 27th-Ave 4.00 2 U CR MA D 50 80 2040 46th-St 2-7th-Ave 20thAve 040 2 U CR MA D +00 +00 2038 16th-St 20th-Ave gid-Dixie-Hwy 030 2 U CR MA D 400 +00 2060 Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 030 4 D CR MA D 100 420 2440 47th-St U.S. 1 040 4 D CR MA B 400 420 24-20 47th-St Indian-River-13W &W-MA 2:90 4 D CR MA D 400 420 2200 12th-St 90th-Ave 82nd-Ave 4-00 2 U CR MA D IRNA 400 New-2-Lanes 2240 42thSt 82nd-Avenue 58th-Ave 3:00 2 U CR MA D 40 400 2220 47th-St 58th-Ave 43rd Ave 4.80 2 U CR MA D 40 480 2230 42th-St 43rd Ave 27th-Ave 4,00 2 U CR MA D 40 480 2240 42thSt 27th-Ave 20th-Ave 040 2 U CR MA D 80 400 2250 47th-St 20th-Ave Old Dixie Hwy -600 2 U GR MA D 80 400 2260 nth-St Oki-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 030 4 U CR MA D 80 400 2270 42thSt U.S. 1 116131vd, 0:62 4 U CR MA D 80 400 2305 Ola' ::y S-EeuntyLine Osle-Rd 2,20 2 U C-it COL D 33 400 2310 Old-Dixie-Hwy Osle-Rd 4th-St 240 2 U CR MA D 33 400 2315 Old-Dixie4 4th-St 8th-St 030 2 U CR MA B 60 480 2320 Old-Dixie-Hwy 8th-St 42th-St 8.30 2 U CR MA B 60 400 2325 Old 42th-St S.VB City L 0:30 2 U CR MA B 60 4-00 2330 Old-Dixie-Hwy S.VB City L 46th-St 030 2 U CR MA B 60 400 2335 Oki-Dixie-Hwy 4-6th-St S.R.60 040 2 U CR MA B 60 400 2340 OM-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 44st-Ave 0.35 2 U CR MA B 60 400 2315 Old Dixie-Hwy 4-1st-St 45th-St 042 2 U CR COL B 60 400 2350 Old-Dixie-Hwy 45th-St 49th-St 030 2 U CR COL B 60 400 2355 Old-Dixie-Hwy 49th-St 65th-St 2,00 2 U CR COL B 60 490 2360 014-Dix-ie-Hwy 65th-St 69th-St 040 2 U CR COL B 60 400 2365 Old-Dixie-liwy 69th-St C-46310 240 2 U CR COL B 60 400 2440 27th-Ave S,Geunty-Line Os1e-Rd 2:80 2 U CR COL B 50 80 Addy.-Lanes 2420 27th-Ave Osla-Rd 4th-St 100 2 U CR MA B 80 80 Add-2-Lanes 2430 27thAve 4th-St 8th-St 040 2 U CR MA B 80 80 Addy-Lanes 2440 2ve 8th-St nth-St 040 2 U CR MA B 80 80 Add-2-banes 2450 27th Ave 42thSt S.VB City L 0.30 2 U CR MA B 80 80 Add-2-6anes 2460 27th-Ave S.VB City L 46th-St 0:40 2 U CR MA B 80 80 des 2470 27th-Ave 46th-St S46-60 040 2 U CR MA B 80 80 Add-2-Lanes 2480 27th Ave S.R.60 Atlantic-Blvd 0.30 2 U CR MA B 80 2540 27th—Ave Atlantis-Blvd Aviatien-Blvd 0.30 2 U CR MA B 80 Community Development Department Indian River County 119 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Lime Ne of Road awls- Fondlexel € ist Needed Improvements LOS 1D From-Street 3 oSt et manes Type diction Class ROW ROW 2520 Osla-Rd 1-95 8 -Avenue 0,23 2 U CR COL 43 60 4-74 Add-2--Lanes 3530 Osle-Rd 82ndyAve 58th-Ave 2:00 2 U CR COL 14 60 -1.74 2549 Osle-Rd 58th-Ave 43rd-Ave 4410 2 U ER COL 9 60 4-74 Add-2-Lanes 2550 Osle-Rd 43rd A e 27th-Ave 4,00 2 13 OR COL O 60 -1-74 Add es 2560 Osle-Rd 27th Ave 20th-Ave 030 2 U CR MA B 30 462 2370 Osle-Rd 20thAve Old-Dixie-Hwy 2:00 2 U CR MA 9 30 4-62 Add-2-Lanes 2380 Osie-Rd Old U.S. 1 0-30 4 B CR MA B 30 4-30 2610 6th-Ave 42t -St 4-7th-St 0:64 2 U CR MA 0 60 80 2615 6th-Ave 4-7th-St &."�z 943 2 U CR MA 9 60 80 2620 6th-Ave S.VB City L S.R.60 0.30 2 U CR MA B 60 80 2710 10th-Ave 4-7th-St SdC60 0.43 2 43 Cl COL B 60 NFA 2720 10th-Ave S.Z-60 Reyal-Paltm-Blvd 0:24 2 U Cl COL 9 60 NFA 20thAve 47t St.SW 200 4 U CR COL B 30 60 Add-1-Lane 2805 20th-Ave 1'"� T' 031e-Rd, 4:00 2 U CR LOC B 60 80 2810 20th-Ave Osle-Rd, 4th-St 2:00 2 U CR LOC B 60 80 2820 20th-Ave 4th-St 8th-St 040 2 U CR LOC B 60 80 2830 20th-Ave 8th-St 42th-St 0,50 2 U CR LOC B 60 80 2840 20th Ave -12th-St S.VB City L 9.40 4 B CR MA B 80 4-00 2850 20th-Ave S--VB-City-L 46th-St 030 4 B OR MA B 80 4-00 2860 20th Ave 46th-St S:R.60 0,50 4 B CR MA B 80 4-00 2870 20th-Ave S.R.60 Atlantic-Blvd 930 2 U CR MA B 80 We 2905 43rd-Ave S Line Osle-Rd 2:00 2 U CR COL B 50 400 Add -banes 2940 43rd-Ave Osle-Rd 4th-St 290 2 U OR COL B 30 -1-00 Add--Lanes 2915 43ted-Ave 4th-St 8th-St 040 2 U CR COL B 50 490 Add-2-Lanes 2920 43. Ave 8th-St 12th-St 040 2 U OR COL B 50 490 Add-2-Lanes 2925 43rd-Ave 12th St 46th-St 040 2 U CR MA B 80 490 2930 43rd Ave 4-6th-St S-R.60 0:30 2 U CR MA B 80 4-00 Add-2-Lanes 2935 "'. :e S.R.60 26th-St 030 2 U OR MA B 80 4-00 Add-2-Lanes 2940 l3 d Ave 26th-St 41st-St 2,00 2 U CR COL B 80 100 2945 43rd-Ave 44-st-St 45th-St 0.40 2 13 CR COL B 80 400 2950 43r�.d�cve 45th-St 49th-St 950 2 13 OR COL B 80 100 3003 58th-Ave Osle-Rd 4th-St 290 4 U C41 COL B 50 4-30 3010 58th Ave 4th-St 8th-St 040 4 U CR COL B 50 430 3015 58th-Ave 8th-St 12th-St 030 4 U CR COL B 50 4-30 3020 58th-Ave -12th-St 46th-St 939 4 U CR COL B 50 4-30 3025 58th Ave 4-6th-St SA,60 040 4 B CR MA B 50 430 Community Development Department Indian River County 120 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On-Street mem StFeet Tef4 et N%of Rend dawis- Funetienai LAS -Mist Needed movements f9 Lanes Type diction Glass ROW ROW by-2030 3030 58th Owe 8,11,-69 26th-St 044 4 9 CR MA 4) 50 430 3033 58th-Ave 26th-St 41•st St 439 2 13 CR MA 14 50 430 Addles 3035 58th-Ave 44stSt 45th St 030 2 U CR COL 1) 80 439 Add-2-Lanes 3049 58th Ave 45th-St 49th-St 030 2 U C-R COL 4) 80 439 Add-2-Lanes 3045 58th-Ave 49th-St 53rd St 0:48 2 U CR COL 1) 80 4.39 3047 58th-Ave 53rd-St 65th-St 434 2 U CR COL D 80 4-30 3050 58th-Ave 65th-St 69th-St 039 2 13 CR COL 1) 80 430 3055 58th-Ave 69th-St OR-.54-9 240 2 U CR COL D 80 440 66th-Ave "' 5Line 4-9!1d 240 2 U GR COL B N/A 436 New-2-Lanes 3440 66th-Ave Osle-Read 4th-St 4,54- 2 U CR COL 1) 50 1.36 Ad4-2-Lanes 66th-Ave 4th-St 531:-60 2.03 0 AIA CR N/A IFA 0 4-30 Nr. es 3420 66th-Ave S.R.60 26th-St 030 2 U C-R COL 9 50 4-74 3430 66th-Ave 26th-St 41st St -I 30 2 13 CR COL O 50 4-74 3-140 66th-Ave 41st St 45th St 030 2 U GR COL 1) 50 4-74 Add-2-Lanes 3-1-50 66th-Ave 45th-St 53rd St 0:98 2 U GR COL D 30 4-74 Addles 3155 66th-Ave 53rd St 65th-St 4-33 2 U GR COL 9 50 4-74 Add 2 Lanes 3460 66th-Ave 65th-St 69th-St 0.52 2 U GR COL 19 50 -1-74 Add manes 34-70 66th-Ave 69th St G,R44.0 2,00 2 U GR COL 1) 50 4-74 Add 2 Lanes 3340 82nd-Ave Osle-Rd 4th St 2,09 2 U GR COL O 50 436 3320 82nd-Ave 4th-St 44th-St 400 2 U GR COL D 50 436 3330 82nd Ave 44th-St &R-60 030 2 U CR COL D 50 436 3340 82nd-Ave 531-60 26th-St 049 2 U CR COL D 50 436 82nd-Ave 26th-St CR 510 7.05 0 AIA CR MA AIA 0 440 New 2 Lanes 364-0 77th-St 66th-Ave U.S. 1 3:00 2 U CR LOC 9 5O 80400 3740 69th-St 82nd-Ave 66thAve 2.00 2 44 CR COL D 50 400 3720 69th-St 66th-Ave 58th Ave 4-00 2 U CR COL 1) 50 400 3730 69th-St 58th-Ave Old-Dixie-PAT 3:00 2 U CR COL 9 50 4-00 3740 69th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 040 2 U CR COL O 50 490 3820 65th-St 66thyAve 58t Ave 4,00 2 U CR LOC 9 35 80 3830 65th-St 58th-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 3:00 2 13 CR LOC O 35 80 3840 65th-St U.S. 1 030 2 U CR LOG 1) 35 80 4220 49th-St 66thAve 58thAve 4.00 2 U CR LOC 9 35 80 4230 49th-St SSA-Ave 43rd-Ave 4-00 2 13 CR LOC O 35 80 4240 49th-St 43rd-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 350 2 U CR LOC 1) 35 80 42:50 49th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 4,00 2 U CR LOC 1) 35 8O '1320 45th St 66th-eve 58th-Ave 4-00 2 U CR COL 13 B 80 Community Development Department Indian River County 121 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments 1 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link Ne,of Read duels- Funetionel , eiat Needed improvements LOS ID t �t oStreet banes Type dieden Mass ROW ROW by-2030 4330 45th-St 58th-Ave 43rd-Ave 400 2 U CR COL D D 80 4340 45th-St 43rd-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 340 2 13 CR COL 14 ) 80 4350 46th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy U4:4 0:99 2 U C-R COL O O 80 4355 45th-St U.S. 1 044 2 44 CR COL D D 80 4420 44stS1 66th-Ave 58th-Ave 4,00 2 14 CR COL fl 30 100 • 4430 41st-St 58th-Ave lard Ave 490 2 U CR COL O 30 -1-00 4440 4-4st-St 43rd Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 330 2 14 CR COL 13 30 180 4450 444-St Old-Brie-Hwy U.S. 1 0:87 2 14 ER COL D 30 480 4155 4-14-St U.S.1 035 2 U CR COL B 30 400 4460 3-7th-St U.S.1 440 2 U CR COL O 1) 440 26th-St 82nd-Ave 74th-Ave 4-80 0 U ER LOC D N/A 80 New-2-Lanes 4748 26th-St 74th-Ave 66th-Ave 4.90 2 13 ER LOC B 50 80 4720 26th-St 66t1-Ave 58th-Ave 4.00 2 14 Cil LOC D 50 4-62 Addy-Lanes 4730 26th-St 58thAve 43-rd-Ave 4.00 2 U ER LOC B 50 4-62 Add 2 Lanes 4740 26th-St 43rd-Ave 27th-Ave L95 2 U CR LOC D 50 4-62 Add-2-lanes 4-760 26th-St U.S. 1 Country-Club-Drive 0:65 2 U C8 LOC B 50 80 484-6 8th-St 90th-Ave 82nd-Ave 4,00 2 14 CR LOC 13 50 80 8th-St 82nd-Ave 66thAve 2.04- 0 N/A CR LOC NFA 30 440 New anes 4820 8th-St 66thAve 58thAve 4.00 2 14 CR LOC D 50 80 4830 8th-St 58th-Ave 43rd-Ave 4.90 2 U ER LOC B 50 80 4840 8th-St 43-td-Ave Ave 27th-Ave 4,00 2 U CP LOC D 50 80 4850 8th-St 27th Ave 20th-Ave 040 2 U CR MA D 50 80 4860 8th-St 20th-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 400 2 14 CR MA B 50 80 4870 8th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 040 2 14 GR MA D 50 80 4880 8th-St U.S. 1 400 2 U Cit MA D 50 80 4th-St 98thAve 22nd-Ave 3:00 2 U CFS COL D N/A 400 N=. 4940 4th-St 82nd-Ave 58th-Ave 4-00 2 13 CRS COL D 30 400 4930 4th-St 58th-Ave 43rd Ave 4.00 2 U ER COL D 30 4-00 4940 4411-St 434-Ave 27th Ave 4-00 2 U GR COL D 30 400 4950 4th-St 27thAve 20thAve 040 2 U ER COL D 30 4-00 4960 4th-St 20th-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 400 2 U ER COL D 30 4-00 4970 4th-St Old-Dixie-Hwy U.S. 1 040 2 U ER COL D 30 480 5640 Fredr AlA W o€Ceeenut-Dr 4.80 2 U Cl COL D 60 N/A 3740 MA Jungle Trail ' 030 2 14 GR COL D 60 N/A 5895 Atlantis-Blvd 841,60 60 27rrm�e"ve 4,07 2 U Cl COL D 60 N/A 5810 Atlantis-Blvd 27th-Avenue 20thAvenue 040 2 U Cl COL D 60 N/A Community Development Department Indian River County 122 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link Nm.-of Read loris- Donal €,dst Needed Improvements ID � bones Type dietion Gass 12es ROW ROW by-2030 5820 die-Blvd 20th-Avenue U.S. I 0:30 2 44 C1 COL U 60 N/A 5910 Aviation-Blvd U.S. 1 27thAvenue 0:91 2 44 CI COL B 60 162 Add-2-Lanes Aviation-Blvd IR-Blvd U.S. 1 4-00 0 U CR COL O NFA 1.30 New-4-lanes 6010 Royal-Palm Blvd Royal-Paha-PI 1-:00 2 14 CI COL 1) 68 NFA 6440 Royal-Palm-P.1 U.S. 1 Indian-River-Blvd 4:00 2 14 CI COL 14 60 NFA 53rd St 66th-Ave O''1 ::y 300 0 N/A NFA NFA NFA 0-30 4-62 New-4-lanes 8400 5-3M-St Old Dixi,�iellwy U.S. I 0:06 2 43 CR COL O 80 462 Add4-Lanes 9005 90th-Ave &RHO 8th-Street 434 2 13 CR COL U 9018 C.R.507 S-Carolina County-Line 40 2 14 CR COL U 80 9013 74th-Ave Osle-Rd Landfill 0:76 2 i3 CR LOC U 9035 1st—Street—SW, 27thAve 43rd Ave 3:82 2 U CR LOC U 9036 1s t SW. 43M-Ave 58th-Ave 4-02 2 U CR LOC U 9040 4M-Street U.S.! Old-Dixie 0-28 2 14 CR LOC U 9050 6`kAve-SW Old-Dixie 065 2 U CR COL U 9055 Highlands-Df, Old-Dixie U.S. 1 088 2 LI CR COL U 9060 17th Ln.SW. 27th-Ave-SW Highla D s r.SW 045 2 U CR LOC D 9065 17th Ln.SW. Highlands-Dr.SW 6th-Ave-SW 4-00 2 U CR LOC U 9080 C.R.512 S.R.60 Fel tyLiras 939 2 U CR COL U 9085 1rive NoS4 Main-Street 2.62 2 13 CR COL U 9090 1.R.Drive South44,8.1 Main-Street 1-44 2 U CR COL U 9410 Englar Dr Barber St George St 040 2 U GI COL U 94-20 Englar-Dr George-St Schumann Dr 083 2 U CI COL U Fleming-St U.S. 1 Easy-St 1.24 0 NFA CI COL NFA 0 4-10 New-2-Lanes 9430 Fleming-St Easy St C.R.512 064- 2 U CI COL U 9440 Fleming-St C.R.512 Main-St 4,21 2 U Cl COL U 9150 Main-St Fleming-St Wimbrew 0617 2 l3 Cl COL U 9160 Main-St U.S. ! Fleming-St 4-33 2 U Cl COL U 94-70 Barber-St U.S. 1 Schumann-Dr 4,36 2 U GI COL U -162 Add-2-Lanes 94-80 Barber-St Schumann Dr Englar Dr 4-93 2 U GI COL U 9490 Barber-St Engler-Dr C.R.512 8:84- 2 U CI COL U 9195 Barber-St C.R.512 Wimbrew 4,25 2 LI CI COL U 9200 Ocean-Dr Greytwig Beachland 044 2 U GI COL U 9210 Oeean-Dr Beaehland Rimer 063 2 U GI COL U 9220 21st St 135-1 8.32 2 U CI COL U 9230 21st St U.S.1 20th-Avenue 834 2 U CI COL U 9240 23rd-St Nth-Avenue U.S. 1 047 2 U Cl COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 123 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link Ne:-o€ Read duds- Functional Exist Needed Improvements ID On-Street To Street izeagh 4Atnes Type diction Class L°S ROW RAW 0y-2030 9250 23rd-St U.S. Royal-Palm-Blvd 038 2 14 CI COL IB 9260 44t1-Ave Old-Dixie-Hwy 044- 2 43 C4 COL B 92.70 44th-Ave 46thStreet &P-60 0:M 2 U Ci COI. B 9280 44th Ave S R.60 U.S. 1 048 2 U El COL B 9290 Victory Atlantic Cordova 0.30 2 14 Cl COL B 9300 Victory Cordova 20th-Avenue 0:26 2 U Ci CAL B 9305 5th SaRcvT 27th-Ave 43rd Ave 4402 2 U CR COL B 80 80 9307 Rh-Street-SW 20M-Ave 27h-Ave 040 2 U CR COL B 80 80 9975 S.R.60 S lA Ocean-Br 0;24 4 D Cl COL B 13th St S:'r 38th-Ave 66th-Ave 1-00 2 U CR COL B N/A 80 New-2-Lanes 4-7th-St-SW 58th-Ave 66th Ave 4-00 . 2 U CR COL B N/A 80 New es '• Community Development Department Indian River County 124 • APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.9.1 2040 Needs Projects Facility From To Improvement New Interchange 1-95 At Oslo Road New Interchange Widen from 2 to 4 Lane(or equivalent capacity)* _ _ CR 510 CR 512 Intracoastal Waterway Widen to 4L from 2L CR 512 Willow Street 1-95 Widen to 4L from 21 27t Avenue Oslo Road St.Lucie County Line Widen to 4L from 21 43rd Avenue St.Lucie County Line 26th Street Widen to 4L from 21 66th Avenue 49°i Street Barber Street Widen to 41 from 2L 26th Street/Aviation Blvd 6611 Avenue US 1 Widen to 41_from 2L Oslo Road 1-95 58t°Avenue Widen to 4L from 2L Roseland Road CR 512 US 1 Widen to 41 from 2L Widen from 4 to 6 Lane(or equivalent capacity)* US 1 CR 510 53rd Street Widen to 6L from 41 CR 512 1-95 CR 510 Widen to 6L from 4L Indian River Boulevard US 1/4°1 Street 37°l Street Widen to 6L from 4L New 2 Lanes 53rd Street 58°1 Avenue 82nd Avenue New 2L 82nd Avenue 26°1 Street Laconia Street New 2L 5th Street SW Old Dixie Highway 20°1 Avenue New 2L 12°1 Street 5811 Avenue 74°t Avenue New 2L 58°1 Avenue Oslo Road St. Lucie County Line New 2L 74°1 Avenue 12'"Street Oslo Road New 2L Aspirational interchange 1-95 I At 531d Street New Interchange Aspirational Roads 4th Street 66f1 Avenue 98i1 Avenue New 2L 13°1 Street SW 27°'Avenue 58°l Avenue New 2L 17°1 Street SW 27°'Avenue 58th Avenue New 2L 21st Street SW 27°1 Avenue 58th Avenue New 2L 25t°Street SW 27°1 Avenue 5811 Avenue New 2L 26°1 Street 82nd Avenue CR 507 New 2L 43rd Avenue 49°1 Street 53rd Street New 2L 53rd Street 82nd Avenue Fellsmere N-S Road 1 New 2L 69°1 Street 82nd Avenue CR 512 New 2L 98°1 Avenue 12°1 Street 4'"Street New 21 Fellsmere N-S Road 1 CR 512 SR 60 New 2L Fellsmere N-S Road 2 CR 512 6911 Street New 2L St.John Heritage Barkway/ CR 512 Brevard County Line New 21 CR 512 Extension • IfAvhen the projects advance to the Project Development and Environment (PD&E)or design phase, determine if alternative strategies such as two-way left-turn lanes, intersection improvements,operational enhancements,or multimodal solutions would effectively address level of service and mobility needs in lieu of the recommended road widening. • ons 95246 Vehicle Mile..Traveled 33240R-1-2,00 240'717 00 6 17p 39� 'J"ZTv�l"IZ':vv tl�IY0��7"rtlA 637596.00 1-35490.00 Community Development Department Indian River County 125 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Total tcs 3-7-45 Tom-Indies �5.�95 10.28 Total-Fatties 008 p 0�/4 ,�,3't,044..00 6�.1;88433.0��0 Total-HC---Emissions-(kg) 4,119..00 7,90640 4,795.00 97143,00 Fuel Use(gal) 300;956,000 57,5228.0 Congestion Delay(vee 1 rs) 2,695.62 23,r Ar�s06 Total Original Speed(mph) 4769 4844 ... -; . d 6.52 43786 Table 4.9.2 Highway Evaluation Table MOE 2040 E+C 2040 CFP Centerline (Miles)I 735 762 Centerline miles over LOS D 16.2 5.1 % Centerline miles over LOS D 2% 1% Vehicles Mile Traveled (VMT) 5,337,412 5,325,664 VMT over LOS D 346,203 96,816 % VMT over LOS D 6% 2% Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) 115,584 112,224 VHT over LOS D 12,685 4,776 % VHT over LOS D 11% 4% Total Accident Costs $ 211,155 $ 212,309 1 • Y • 1 .. On-Street From To Base-Read-Type Future-Road-Type Total Cost 1-95 S. 1ne N. ine 4-Lane-Freeway 6 e-Freeway $18959-197000 I SR-69 98th-Ave 1-95 4-Lane-Divided 6-Lane-Divided $2,543,812 SIS-Tetal $14234623842 � Rhe 95 82n. Ave A- ane-Nvide d 6-Lone-Divided $8,119,115 Community Development Department Indian River County 126 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element On-Street Front To Base-Road-ype lie-ReadTypeTOW-Cost SR-60 6th-Ave 4-Lane-Div6-hone-Divided $4464468 US 1 5.County Line Osle-Rd 4-Lane-Divided 6-Lane-Divided I2 64 3 , Us 1 Aviation-Blvd Oldiftie-14wy 4-bane-Divided 6-Lane-Divided $44;3 ;84 (444 US 1 Roseland-Rd N.Count= ,e 4-Lane-Divided 6-lone-Divided $5,255,518 . _ .. .. _ .,. .. 0;909 $8076494 4th-St 98th-Ave 66th-Ave 00 $16,262,035 12th-St 90th-Ave 82nd-Ave 00 $3487'86 D 12th-St 43rd Ave 27th Ave _ fie-Divided $2,854;64.8 -th St SW 66th Ave 58th-Ave 00 $43041,388 13.w,� S, t SSW 43�e 34th-Ave 00 $1499 13th St SW 34th-Ave 27th Ave 00 S-373-59;684 13tr.>•h St-SW 2-7414-Ave 20th-Ave 00 $1,922,225 17th St SW 66th-Ave 58th Ave 00 2-Lane-Undivided $1,019,319 2604-St 66th-Ave 43. ve I Lane-Divided $13,006,154 26th-St 82nd-Ave 74th-Ave00 $3450;484 Aviation-Blvd 444-Ave U.S. 1 4-Lane-Divided $8,537,828 2-7th-Ave S.County-Line Osle-Rd _ 4-Lane-Divided $97560,909 27th Ave Osle-Rd SA,60 2-Lane-Divided S4-273405699 43rd Ave S-County-Line Oslo-Rd 4-Lane-Divided $12,974,563 43rd Ave Asle-Rd 8th-St 2-bane-Divided $8,311,038 53rd St 82nd-Ave 66th-Ave 00 $9,599,620 S-Geunt38th-Ave Oslo-Rd $11,850,325 66th-Ave S County Line Oslo-Rd 00 $8,562,123 66th-Ave As1e-Rd 4th St 4-Lane-Divided $5,887466 6 4th-St SR-60 2-Lane-Divided 4-Lane-Divided $8,853,565 66o A:e SR-60 C.R.510 4bane-Divided $36,173,189 82nd-Ave S-Gounty-Line Oslo-Rd 00 $7,302,911 82nd-Ave 26th-St C.R.510 00 $28,1 7o-X74,165 Laconia St C.R.510 C.R.512 00 $2,679,879 U.S. 1 00 4-bane-Divided $11,387,771 C.R.510 C.R.512 U.S. 1 _ 4-Lane-Divided $36,369480 C.R.510 U.S. 1 IGW--W 2 Lane Undivided 4-Lane-Divided $3,718,539 C.R.512 I 95 4-Lane-Divided $19,192,929 C.R.512 4-95 C.R.510 4-Lane-Divided 6-bane-Divided $13,317,010 C.R.512 C.R. l9 Roseland-Rd 4-Lane-Divided 6-Lane-Divided $6;674,370 8th-St 87�e 74th-Ave S3795-5496 Royal-Palm 37th St 4-Lane-Divided 6-Lane-Divided $8,678,255 Oslo-Rd 195 58th-Ave 4-Lane-Divided Roseland-Rd C.R.512 U.S. 1 ' ;e-Divided $12,817,897 Sehtnnann-Dr C.R. l0 BaFber-St 4-Lane-Divided $3,971,335 $40700000 Community Development Department Indian River County 127 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element On Street From Te Base-Road ype Roadype TOM-Cost ids-Total $3S9S-75970 Barber-St Schumann-9F USA- 2-Lane-Divided $4362448; Barber-St C.R.512 Schumann-Dr 2-Lane-Divided $7,596,306 Fleming-St Easy St Schumann-Dr 00 $4;838,861 City-RoadsTotal $46,0563-754 Total $e81�- - Table 4.9.3 Cost Affordable Projects Listing Timmefram enta Facility From To Improvement('} Ti e SIS Funds 1-95 1 At Oslo Road New interchange 2021-25 Other Arterials(non-SIS)Funds CR 510121 CR 512 66t Avenue ' Widen from 2L to 4L 2021-25 43i0 Avenue) 2601 Street 160'Street Widen from 2L to 4L 2021-30 US 1 (Partially Funded) 53t°Street CR 510 Widen from 4L to 6L 2026-40 26th Street/Aviation Blvd(2) At US 1/SR 5 Intersection 2026-30 Improvement CR 510(�) At US 1/SR 5 Intersection 2021-25 Improvement Local Funds CR 510(2) CR 512 66"Avenue Widen from 21 to 4L 2021-25 CR 510 66'"Avenue 5501 Avenue Widen from 2L to 4L 2021-25 CR 510(2) 55"Avenue Intracoastal Waterway Widen from 21 to 4L 2021-25 CR 512 Willow Street 1-95 Widen from 21 to 4L 2031-40 CR 512 1-95 CR 510 Widen from 41 to 6L 2031-40 4310 Avenuet2l 260'Street 160i Street Widen from 2L to 4L 2026-30 4310 Avenue(Partially Funded) 160i Street Oslo Road Widen from 2L to 4L 2031-40 660 Avenue 49•"Street 810 Street Widen from 2L to 4L 2021-30 6601 Avenue 816'Street Barber Street Widen from 2L to 4L 2026-30 120i Street(Partially Funded) 580'Avenue 74'"Avenue New 2L Facility 2031-40 26th Street/Aviation Blvd(2) 6601 Avenue US 1 Widen from 2L to 4L 2026-30 53ro Street(3) 58'"Avenue 660i Avenue New 21 Facility 2026-30 53n°Street 66"Avenue 82"0 Avenue New 2L Facility 2031-40 74'"Avenue(Partially Funded) 12d1 Street Oslo Road New 2L Facility 2031-40 82"Avenue 26M Street 69'"Street New 2L Facility 2031-40 82"Avenue 6901 Street Laconia Street New 2L Facility 2026-30 Oslo Road(2) 1-95 580i Avenue Widen from 2L to 4L 2031-40 "'When the projects advance to the PD&E or design phase,determine if alternative strategies such as two-way left-turn lanes, intersection improvements,operational enhancements, or multimodal solutions would effectively address level of service and mobility needs in lieu of the recommended road widening. (2)Funded through Other Arterials and Local Funds. (3)Funded through Developer Fund and Local Funds. Community Development Department Indian River County 128 APPENDIX A—Transportation Amendments Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Project FY-2006/07 FY4007/08 FY 2008199 FY: . 2009/10 Ti Yr X010/11 MV Yfuu CR 510 East of Indian River&North AlA Turn Lanes $270001-000 $e $0 $0 $0 Trafficmpaet-Fees • ! $0 $400;000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic 1mpaet-fees ::..1-: _ •• $0 $4346;000 $43467000 $0 $0 Gas-X M- AWR C 510 61st Drive to Indian River $1300,400 $0 $8465414 00 $0 Traffic Impaet Fees $4380,000 $43003000 $•1,500;000 $4300;000 $0 6 ates CR 510 61st Drive to Indian River $1,6007000 $0 $0 $8 $0 Gas Tax - ! . e ' _ . . . $0 $e $1,581,089 $0 $8 - !, .• .. . . e . :. :.•_ . •• _ $178,613 $0 $1,00;080 $121,387 $400480 Traffe-Impaet-Fees CR 510,75th Court to 61st Drive,four lanes (1.5 miles) $0 $0 $0 $43807000 $0 CR 510,75th Court to 61st Drive,four lanes (1.5 miles) $8 $0 $1.88;000 $8 $0 CR 510,75th Court to 61st Drive,four lanes (1.5 miles) $8003000 $0 $0 $34907000 $0 Gas-X CR 510,CR 512 to 75th Court,four lanes (1.5 miles) $43300;900 $2,000400 $44;390;000 $10,757,752 $0 Trafge-impaet-Fees CR 510,CR 512 to 75th Court,four lanes (1.5 miles) $e $0 $480;000 $0 $A _ ., _ _:. :. $e $0 $500.000 $9,242,248 $0 Gas Tax ._.._ $27000;880 $8 $8 $8 $8 6ts4PAN • - - . ._.._ .. .. _ n $2,533,672 3,672 $8 $8 $8 4✓reffie4mpaet••Pees $125,705 $9 $0 $0 $e Gas-X CR 512 Phase 1,Sebastian Middle School to I 95,four lanes (2 miles) $3 088;4188 $1,'a, 30 800 $8 $8 $8 Tr n paetFees —':: , ....•:: -. $2705000 $500;880 $0 $0 $0 Aptienal-gales-T-ax • - $4-504)00 $0 $0 $0 $0 T-Faffte44npuet-Fees $3307000 $0 $0 $0 $O Gas Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 129 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Preieet ILV-2006/07 i-20/066//007 F 20007/08 FY-2008/09@� FY-2409/141 'Y 2a 2010/1@ice Reveaue-Seareef- e - .- , • - -- • - • - --, .. :.•-• •'• _ $3,000,000 $1,058,000 $9 $0 $9 Traffic-zmpeet"Fees Oslo Road,Old Dixie Hwy.to 27th Avenue,five lanes (2.5 miles) $1,915,704 $9 $e $9 Traffic—impact-Fees e ..:, e . e' _ . . . . - ._, :.•:. . ••• - $0 $150,529 $9 $e $8 Oslo Road,Old Dixie Hwy.to 27th Avenue,five lanes (2.5 miles) $1488,888 $9 $9 $e $0 Gas—TF x e :.:, e . e' _ $1,194,896 $0 $0 $0 $9 Optional-Sales-Ts* ! :, :. $1-500,000 $A $A $9 $0 Gas Ta e . • :. , • • :•.: . . • • _ . , .. .. - •• _ $300,000 $1,000;000 $e $9 $9 est-fees • $e $e $9 $e $9 Gas-X e . •• -- - • -. .- . . - • _ .-, :. :. _ ••• _ $988,000 $11-1-88;000 $8 $0 $8 Optional-Sales-Tax ! • :::, . " • -•-- - -- " • .-_•..-_, -. • • - $9 $8 $0 $e $400,000 Tr.�s i 4mpaet-Fees • $380;088 $300,008 $9 $e $9 Gas• ax • • •-_ _ . .: . ::. _ .. - .. _ $4457080 $e $9 $9 $0 Traffic Impact Fees SQ119999/,00/��0�0 $1,801,000 SO $0Q/ $.9 Tapaet-Fees .. . • ' _- ... _ - _ $700,00 $0 $0 $0 $O Traffie-impaet-Fees -, __, - • _ ._ . •e. • . - ._, - ••• _ $9 $0 $28429 $17000;900 $0 Optional-Sales Tax 13th Street SW,27th Avenue SW to 13rd Avenue SW,two lanes (1 miles) $112,691 $387,309 $0 $0 $e Traffic'-~pact Fees _ , _ e- _ --_ _ $4,008,800 $9 $e $e $0 3reffie-Itttpaet-Bees 2011/12 . . _ • _ • _ . ..• • _ 9: _ :: __ -: 1-----• $300;080 SB $e $e $8 2011/12 ., _ • _ _. $600,000 Q. ���ASO $0 SO $0 TT r,,n,�FFi:..,.-Im act Fee ' _ _ ' _ , .. _ •• _ $4 $1,50, 0,0000 SOV Q.� ���ASO $0 GasTax $9 $9 $9 $1;008,000 $9 Optional-Sales4s* Community Development Department Indian River County 130 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Project 2006/07 444007/08 FY 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY2010/11 Revenue-Seuteet, .• ., __, , • • _ ._ • • _ , . .. _ . - _ $700;000 $0 $0 $0 $e Traffic-Impaet•Fees :, . •- - • - . `!• • - .- $0 $0 $0 $0 $O Gasp-Tax 17th Street SW 58th Avenue to 43rdth Avenue and 13rd to 27th $0 $0 $250,000 $230;000 $0 17th Street SW 58th Avenue to 43rdth Avenue and 43rd to 27th $2-50,000 $0 $0 $2307000 $0 Gas-X -• -- - _ _ $285,107 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic mpaet-Fees $211,893 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $44007000 Traffic t» act Fe $$0 g0040 $7.550,n0n00 $0 $0 $9 Gas•Tx $8 0,00!01 00 $0 0 $$00 Traffic 7... .pct Fees $•QQ1.50/,00/��00/1 $0@ $0Q $0 $0QGas-Tx __ , _ ... _ _, .. _ .• _ $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $200;000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax $0 $2,230,000 $0 $0 $0 Treffie4apaet-yes _ _ _- - __ •. _ $140440 $0 $600;000 $0 $0 , $37430,000 $4,000;900 $0 $0 $0 Traffie-Impael-Fees $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas-X 41st Street,58th Avenue to 43rd Avenue,three lanes (1 mile) $27-7-$0;000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200;000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gases : ...• :: _. , ::: :. $64647634 $0 $5,085,597 $219,770 $0 Traffic-Itpaet•Fees 53rd Street 58th Avenue to US 1,add four lanes $0 $0 $3,'y�770,230 $0 $0 . $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact-Fees _:, :- • • _ ._ . . • - _ ._, . :.-: . -- _ $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 Gas-Tax - -• _ - - -- _ $380,000 $4007000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 131 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Project lam'3006/07 14 2007108 1^Y-2008f09 1l`Y 2009/10 14401044 Revenue See feet 27th Avenue,5th St.SW to 13th St.SW,four lanes(2 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,800;000 Tra€te-htveet-Fees 27th Avenue,5th St.SW to 13th St. SW,four lanes(2 miles) $0 $0 $0 $2;000,000 $0 27th Avenue, 12th Street to 5th St.SW,four lanes(2 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,0007000 Gas-Tax • •• - $0 $4-,-2-500300 $472-50;000 $6x30(400 $0 Tr €e••Impaet-Fees • . • .-..•.-.., : - _ __ - e .. , .. .. . ••• _ $5677094 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,800 malas-f=ax e S274-32-5906 S4-4400;000 S314)04;000 $0 $0 r_ cr _r«. . • $500;000 $400;000 $500;000 $5007000 $500400 Traffic-1 tet•Fees • . • .., • •.- . -- . - _ ---, • _- - . • - $0 $0 $1,000,800 $0 $0 Gas-Tax $2803000 $0 $0 ,$3.000-800, $4700,000 Traffie-impaet-Fees ., • - , . -^ - . • - -.:.• -. :,•:. --' , $0 $0 $0 $1-00;080 $0 - - $0 $0 $0 $0 $2 Qyr 67,831 Traffie-Impaet-Fees :.• • .., _. __ . . _ •:, .. •• _ . • - $0 $900;080 $0 $0 $0 Optimal-Sales-Tax 58th Avenue,77th Street to 53rd Street,four lanes (3 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $232,169 • ! $0 $0 $0 $0 $3;380,800 Optional-Sales :J.- • _, • • - .-. _ _• : ::: . :.•_ $1,3007000 $10,539,710 $0 $0 $0 Tra€8e4mpeet-Fees - -• $660,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 6fants,,TRIlrs :.. • - _ . - :!, :.. • . .. _ $3,500,290 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas-Tax :: • • .-.•...•., •• ..- ,- . _• :!, .. _ . • _ $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $5;000,000 Traffie-Impaet-Fees • ! $4400000 $1500,000 $1300;808 $750;000 $0 Optional Sales ::.• • _•._, •... _ __ . _• :!, :. _ : ••• _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 Gas Tax :.. _ . _, __ $0 $300;000 $M4000 $0 $1,008;000 Fraffie•impaet-Fees 66th Avenue 77th Street to Barber St.,four lanes,(2 miles) $_308;880 $1000,008 $0 $0 $760;000 Tra€8e4mpaet Pees .. • - •- - -- . :.^ ._ - , -- ., .' - $800;000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gases Community Development Department Indian River County 132 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Project FY 2006/97 1 2007/08 FY4008/09 FY 2009/1E0 1W-401044 Revenue-Sergent $e $9 $2;000,000 $270007000 $0 Optional-Sales T $Q150,0000 $Q0 $Q0 0 SO C�le��TTax Traffic Fiber Optic $315,000 $0 $0 $8 $0 tlat Traffic Fiiber Optic $113,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Read-Resurfae4ng $1,7807000 $9 $8 $9 $8 Gas Read-Reser€acing $9 $0 $0 $300;000 $9 Aptienel-Sales • .-, .- -- : e : • :::, - . - . •• - $202,962 $0 $0 $0 $1,797,038 Tra€fic-Impaet-Fees -• __ - .. __ $2007000 $0 $e $0 $0 Gases $0 $0 $0 $0 $2700000 Traffie-Impact-Fees _ • :.•.:, • ! . .- ..• •: • _ .. _ - _ $e $0 $0 $0 $7007088 GM:4544414 12t1.Street/27tti, Ave«..e $Q70/10/1 0/10/100 Q.��/�/�$0 $0 $0 SSV Traffic pact Fees �Q���$100,000 $150,0Qt/�tlj �� �p� p$0 $0 $0 Gas Tat SD-;000;080 $0 $4,684;807 $0 $0 Trafrci...waet Cees 58t1. Avenue/SD 60 Intersection $90;000 $0 0 $0 0 Gas-Te* $292,5Q9�n7 $22^92,59[7 ��pp����$$�0 �� pp�1����$��0 $0 t+i,,, tiens • - • _ ._ :t ••- .• '- .. . - • .. ' $0 $7023@2/9 $270700 00 $8 Tref 4mpeet-Fees • • • .: _• .t ••• - - - •- • •• - $0 $0 $0 $9,,700,000 SSO•C $398436 $398,836 $0 $0 $9 $190,000 $0 $150,990 $0 $0 Traffic pact•.1:ees $8 $230,000 $0 $0 $0 Tra�paet-Fees $900;000 $1;000•;909 $0 $0 $0.Taffle-Impact ees $3007800 $307000 $9 SO $0 Traffic pact-Fees Community Development Department Indian River County 133 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Prejeet 14-2006107 FY-200-740g PV-3008/09 1a-2009/140 FY-241041 Revenue-Seureet 53903500 Se $0 S0 S0 Traffic eet-Fees $380;000 SA SA SA S9 Gas-X 5$Q200�0,00�00 $0 $0 Qsoo $9 Gas et �+ 4tl.St.eet/19th Avenue $50CC00 SO $0 Se $0 met-Fees $2041.94 $390;000 $1050;000 $380;000 $8 Optional-Sales-TSF $200;000 SA $0 $0 S0 fact Fees • - :.-,.. :.•: ..: _ _. ,••-• • __ .. . , _ • . .. . . SA $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic r.., act Fees • _ .. _ .. . _ __ . .__ _ • .. _. .. . • _ • _ .. . . S0 $0 Se $0 $0 males-Tax S-Relief•C-anal ���� Q����� Q/� 2'7t1. Avenue/I6tt.Street QQ�'$5500,00n000 $75,0000 $12255-,^0^0^0 $0 $0 Trafe'1mpeet_Fees ta700- 00 $0 $ $0 $0 Traffic impact Fees 6 Gption 9/� Q�c/�/S/�($0 Q����$0 Q.C/�n/SSS $17040;00^0 Op mna� �Q.��/�5����$0� $500,000� $500;00/0 ;000 $0 Gas Tax tp-100;000 $0 SO $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 51.00;000 $A SA SA SA • f__mr= t Fees Petition De eS $200400 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas-Tax 10th Ave.SW 7th St.SW to 9th St.SW $0 $757900 SA ����LSSA $0 Gas Tax $283;6'1'1• $300;500• $950;500 $300;000 $1,55n00,00�0�0.,Optional @1 24L 202 $1 89C 202 $696;202 Gtes4" Q�cn nSB $1,412,5Q9n1 zaz+vzv>= �•.-,-�P Qom.^ Qin ���T��� $ 0,0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Ges Te 13th St.SW 25th Avo to 31st Ave $490;500 $o S0 So $A Gas Tax 24th Ave. 1st St SW to 4th St. Se SA $130;000 $0 SA Gas Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 134 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Project 1 2006/07 FY 2007/08 FY-2008/09 1 8091.18 FY-2010444 liew nne-Seer•Fe j' Roads East of U.S. 1 7 Miles $200;000 $200400 $100400 $0 $0 Optional Sales T-wt 34 Ave. 1-28h—S't-te-14 t: $8 $480400 $8 $8 $0 Gas-X 41st Ave. 6th St.to 8th Street $0 $350400 $e $0 $0 Gas-Tax leges 4 St/35 Av Canal $567,058 $0 $e $0 $0 9ptienal-Sales-Tax $0 $69'3;588 $0 $0 $0 Optional-Sales-Tali S-3-7-7;40-3. $0 $e $0 $0 Optieeal-Sales $0 $1,122,597 $0 $0 $0 bas Tax• -:, • - .- '::•'•:. •- .-- t-':: • , ,• , , , , • •: - . $300;000 $0 $0 $0 $0 T-Faffie-Impaet-Fees _: : : "•" $0 $1,209,307 $0 $0 $0 Widening _ • _ ._ e • -. : : "•" _:•: .. _ ' • . __. . •. . - _ -- $0 $0 $0 $2,110,693 $0 Gas Widening • - . - - • - - - .::: • :.••. $0 $2,191,335 $0 $0 $0 Ira ie,.....,. Fees . $3.58,665 $e $8 $0 $0 Optional—Sales—Tait $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas $0 $e $0 $0 $0 Optional-Sales Bike-Paths $.�260,0008 $0 $$Q $0 $0$0 SOOn $Q00� Grants TRI s Indi....D iver Drive NQ6L� orth $81 $0 6�►ts�s $567,,495 SO, $0 $0 $0 Optional CR 512 $230,000 $0/ $0 $0 $0 $87;04-278-74 $54,320,711 $63,335665 $62,928,052 $49,153,210 Community Development Department Indian River County 135 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Bicycle/Pedestrian System In 1997, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was completed. It was then updated in 200320 15. That plan contains a number of innovative methodologies, including a BLOS (Bicycle level of service), a PLOS (Pedestrian level of service), and an interactive hazards analysis. These tools enable the MPO to precisely identify bike/ped needs throughout the area. As structured, the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan identifies a set of proposed improvements to meet the bike/ped needs of the MPO area. Those improvements are proposed in both the municipalities and the unincorporated county. For the unincorporated county, the bicycle and pedestrian system improvements programmed by 2030 2040 are shown in Figures 4.11A and 4.11B. These cost-feasible improvements were derived from the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian plan and are based on priority rankings using the BLOS and PLOS analysis. With the objective of providing a continuous bicycle system throughout the MPO area, that plan calls for five foot wide paved shoulders on each side of all collector and arterial roads where no major constraints exist. The plan also calls for a pedestrian system along major roads. The ideal pedestrian improvement is a five foot wide sidewalk on each side of major roadways. Since the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan adequately addresses the county's major bicycle and pedestrian issues, the county needs to formally adopt all portions of the MPO plan that are applicable to the county. While that plan focuses on bike/ped facilities along major roadways, it does not address pedestrian circulation on local roads. With narrow pavement (20 to 22 feet) width, local roads without sidewalks constitute a safety problem even with their low design speeds. For that reason, the county must maintain its current requirement for sidewalks to be installed in new subdivisions with a density exceeding lunit per four acres. It should be noted that current county policies, including adoption of the Bike/Ped plan and the sidewalk provision requirements, have resulted in a significant increase in the number of new sidewalks and bike lanes throughout the county. At the same time, however, several other components of bike/ped level of service (including the speed and volume of adjacent traffic; the presence of heavy or oversize vehicles on the adjacent roadway; intersection geometry; dedicated crossings; and crash histories) have worsened in the county in recent years. At present, 37% of roadways have a bicycle or pedestrian level of service of"E"or"F". Improving bike/ped safety in Indian River County will require a number of policy initiatives. To increase safety for non-motorized vehicles (particularly at intersections), the county needs to install bike-ped signals at all signalized intersections. Newer technologies, such as count-down indicators for waiting pedestrians, illuminated crosswalk markings, mid-block pedestrian crossings on collector level roadways, and access management measures (such as driveway consolidation) to reduce the number of potential traffic conflict points, must also be considered. Other county policies and regulations need to address installing bike racks on buses; requiring bike racks at apartment complexes and all shopping centers; and encouraging other bike/ped amenities (such as locker rooms and showers)at parks and major employment centers. Community Development Department Indian River County 136 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element In order to fund these improvements, the County will have to increase its level of local commitment to bike/ped improvements to at least $200,000 a year In addition, the County needs to use available AST Act en aneement funds for bike/ped facility construction. Finally, the County should commit to incorporate bike/ped improvements in all roadway improvement projects when feasible. While previous planning efforts have focused on new on-road bike/ped facility construction, the purpose of all bike/ped planning efforts is to provide for continuous movement and access from trip generators such as housing areas to trip attractor areas such as shopping, employment, and recreation. One new way that the county can increase mobility for cyclists and pedestrians is through development of Greenway networks. Greenway facilities such as the proposed Airport/Aviation Boulevard loop will provide a safe off-road travel alternative in corridors with low Bike/Ped levels of service such as US 1, 41st Street, and 43rd Avenue. Going forward, the county should adopt a policy to encourage the development of its greenways, such as by requiring construction of greenway segments adjacent to future development. Transit As evidenced by the recent marked increase in fixed route transit ridership, the county's fixed route transit system appears to be successfully meeting the needs of its users by providing efficient and accessible public transportation. One factor responsible for this increase was the decision to separate transit service in Indian River County into two distinct components: Indian River Transit, which offers scheduled fixed-route services along established routes for all interested riders; and Community Coach, which offers paratransit services to qualified riders. This initiative increased brand recognition and helped change perceptions about transit as a disabled-only service. In addition, routes have been modified to provide better access to major trip attractors. Besides relocating the transit hub from the Vero Beach Airport to Pocahontas Park, the county's transit provider (the SRA) established two additional transit station transfer points: one at the Gifford Health Center and the other at the Food Court in the Indian River Mall. Besides an increase in absolute transit ridership numbers, there has also been a corresponding increase in transit efficiency. Since transit service was first initiated, both ridership per capita and ridership per route mile have increased by 500%. This indicates that a higher percentage of the public is using transit, and there is increased use of buses on the road. At the same time, the cost per mile has increased only marginally, indicating both an efficient use of resources and a savings by switching passengers to fixed route services. Another aspect of public transportation that has seen improvement is regional transit service. Since 2007,the county has been providing service between southern Brevard and northern Indian River counties. Surveys conducted as part of the TDP update indicate that there may be some demand for expanded regional service. In the future, the county should expand its regional transit offerings, especially to St. Lucie and Martin counties. The county should also consider coordinating with adjacent counties in order to solve the problem of paying for service that crosses jurisdictional boundaries. That coordination could involve entering into interlocal agreements or establishing a regional authority. Community Development Department Indian River County 137 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Recently, the county began identifying transit mode split on major transit corridors. These mode split data will be used by the county to project transit trip potential during the trip assignment phase of traffic studies. The mode split on a facility will also be used by the county as a basis for identifying potential transit corridors. • With respect to transit's share of all trips in the county, transit in 2005 attracted only 0.169% of all person-trips. Since automobile riders do not routinely experience congestion or have difficulty finding free parking,there are few disincentives to driving in the county. Additionally,the county's land use patterns, which feature large setbacks, single family residences, gated communities, and generally low densities, make large-scale transit access and service inconvenient. While the share of transit trips as a percentage of all trips (transit mode split) is small on a countywide basis, the share of trips made by transit is substantially higher in a few corridors. Mode split on these corridors ranges from approximately 1%on major arterials such as parts of SR 60 and US 1 to 7.8% on 45th Street in the Gifford area. One ongoing deficiency in the fixed route system is the lack of evening service. For many workers, such as those on a conventional 9am to 5pm schedule, round trip commuting via the transit system is not yet possible. Often, those riders can travel to work on the bus, but have to find a different mode of travel to get home. Recently, Indian River Transit extended the hours of operation to 6:00 pm on four routes. Overall ridership on these routes during extended hours has been good, which indicates that there is a need for additional extended hour service. In 20022010, Indian River County amended its Comprehensive Plan to include its first Transit System Level of Service. That level of service focused on one of the six identified adopted Transit Quality and Level of Service indicators, Service Frequency. As its adopted standard, the county adopted TQLOS "E", or 1-hour headways. In its last two Transit Development Plan (TDP) — Major Updates, the MPO assessed its level of service in several major categories. Recently, Indian River County made significant strides in improving TQLOS in two categories: Service Coverage and Hours of Operation. By carefully identifying areas of greatest need and serving those areas, the county has improved its LOS for coverage from "D" in 1996 to "A" in 2008. In order to achieve and maintain TQLOS "A" for service coverage, the MPO identified and incorporated a number of new routes into the 2030 2040 LRTP. These new routes are shown on Figure 4.12. In terms of hours of operation, the fixed route system has, since 1996, expanded its evening hours from 3:00 pm to 6:307:00 pm. Nonetheless, the TQLOS indicators do not rate a system at LOS D or above for hours of operation until the system operates on a 12-hour a day basis. Adopted in 20082017, the most recent Transit Development Plan Major Update contains a 10-year set of programmed transit improvements, including new routes, expanded hours, and service improvements, designed to meet demand through 20452027. In the future, the county should apply for grants, prioritize transit projects, implement projects in accordance with that plan, and update that plan on an annual basis. Although the Senior Resource Association(SRA) is the primary demand response operator in the county, there are a growing number of alternative providers. Currently, the SRA provides Community Development Department Indian River County 138 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element transportation for ambulatory and non-ambulatory residents, with the fare for service ranging from $5.99 per person for group trips to $16.07 per person for wheelchair trips. These costs are usually reimbursable by insurance. From 1996 to 2005, demand response service experienced a 27.8% decrease in passenger trips. While demand response service continues to serve riders who for various reasons are unable to use the fixed route system, the county, has successfully transferred thousands of riders to the less costly fixed route system by expanding and publicizing the fixed route system and concentrating routes in traditionally underserved areas. Proposed improvements to the demand response transportation system are contained in the 2008 TDP Major update and the most recent Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan. Going forward, the county needs to implement the strategies contained in these plans to improve its transportation disadvantaged transportation system and needs to revise and update those plans as necessary. Aviation,Rail, & Intermodal Facilities Echoing a national trend, total operations at local general aviation airports have declined in recent years. Even though commercial aviation service is no longer available in the county,there are no plans to resume scheduled passenger service. A principal reason for that is that the Melbourne, Palm Beach and Orlando Airports are all within a half hour to an hour and half drive from the county. With respect to access to the airports, the roadways accessing both major Indian River County airports currently function at level of service "D" or better. Although neighborhood opposition resulted in the deletion of a proposed four-laning of Roseland Road (which is the primary entrance to the Sebastian Airport) several years ago, access to the Sebastian Airport remains consistent with adopted standards. Recently, both the Vero Beach and Sebastian Airports completed Master Plans to guide future development and operations. Consistent with its master plan, the Vero Beach Municipal Airport recently renovated its terminals and hangers. The airport is also participating with the county on a number of trail and road widening projects that will improve access to those locations. One such project is the widening of Aviation Boulevard from two to four lanes between US 1 and 43rd Avenue. This planned construction project includes a multimodal component. These multimodal improvements will include new bus stops, airport access points, sidewalks, and recreational paths. Other areas of the airport and surrounding property will be incorporated into a greenways trail to provide recreational and travel opportunities. Although there are no public, general aviation airports within the unincorporated area and, therefore, under County jurisdiction, there are private airports and airstrips. In addition, there are, within the unincorporated county, clear zones, height limitation zones, and noise impact zones associated with the municipal airports. In the future, the County must not only address those issues, but also address roadway access to the airports. Community Development Department Indian River County 139 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element For airports then, the County must maintain its airport zoning regulations which address airport height and noise impacts on new development. As structured, the future land use map provides for compatible land uses in areas close to airports. By programming the roadway improvements incorporated within this element, the County can ensure that adequate access to public use airports will be maintained. It is also important that the County continue to coordinate with the municipal airports with respect to industrial development on airport properties and encourage intermodal management of surface and water transportation within these facilities. Rail and Intermodal Planning In Indian River County, the Florida East Coast Railway is a single-track class II rail line and is the only rail facility in the county. Currently, it is being double-tracked throughout Indian River County to accommodate a proposed high speed rail project and to potentially improve freight mobility and minimize delays at crossings. Reeentlyln years past, a number of statewide and/or regional initiatives, including the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast, the 2025 Florida Transportation Plan, and the FDOT Future Corridors Action Plan, have-all-recommended that local governments work with FDOT to secure access to the FEC corridor for future rail passenger service. Consistent with the recommendation, the state has-submitted an application for Federal Stimulus funding to provide Amtrak passenger rail service along the FEC corridor between Jacksonville and Miami. , . . . - •- - .. . - . • - . : ;. . . . .. -, • - . .. - . ,. . • . _ . Based on that plan for local Amtrak service, in the past the County considered working with FDOT rail passenger station development in - anticipation of future traditional passenger rail service. 'N• • : .. . . . . .. • .. . . - : : •: • •- • _ . to ensure smooth rail, auto, and transit connections. More recently, the County has opposed use of the existing FEC railway corridor for high speed rail service. Truck and Goods Movement Prior to 2003, one roadway, 82nd Avenue south of SR 60, was posted as a truck route in Indian River County. This segment, along with Oslo Road from 82nd to US1, constituted approximately 10 miles of identified truck routes. In 2003, the county developed a truck traffic routing plan to identify locations for truck routes and truck restrictions. Through this study, the county identified an additional 70 miles of truck routes. That plan was developed to streamline the flow of freight and goods and keep truck traffic out of residential corridors. Preliminary indications are that the plan has been successful in reducing the number of truck complaints on several county corridors, including 43rd Avenue south of SR 60. In the future, the county should maintain the Truck Traffic Routing Plan and evaluate the suitability of new truck routes as roads are constructed and widened in Indian River County. Intercity Bus In terms of regional transportation, the Greyhound Bus Line provides service to West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Titusville and Orlando, where connecting routes are available. It embarks several times a week from the Texaco Gas Station on US 1 in Vero Beach. Community Development Department Indian River County 140 • Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element '‘ — N *S\ i N. Brevard County \i ..�__ _ - 4 r i r 1 tie II L_ i _.7 ' _ . , tIlk"i It el .�..4....... � acs l•;- Baa tiiii ..... rikk . , ,,4 1 -- --i,- -S t ate W.illa :ILL 1 1 . , . . --Ir t 1. \ i 'MN mil %1 - _ _ 4.45 SiI 4\ a.�s-F.�R_ .... - 'r ._ ,.. _ ems++ «+...�'`»w }. Miles St. Lucie County ttit Existing,Bicycle Facilities and tnterchanges IrmilEm MOT COMM? Bicycle Fealties Constructed by 2010 283(1 Long Range Transportation Plan Bicycle Facilites Constructed with {!�J flew -- ——-- CostAffordable Improvements 2011-2030 `✓ T Roads Without Bicycle Facilities • Existing 2030 Adopted Cost Affordable Plan e 1 Improved Roads 2011-2030 Bicycle Facilities Figure 4.11A 2040 Future Bicycle Facilities Community Development Department Indian River County 141 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element r , N Brevard . unty \ 3 Atlantic A, \ Ocean N 1 1 iii p ! q;!7 U 1 111* 7:-;„, gi , 0 z i dopto,r lir\ - .S r _,r �� 111 AIN471 til % .‘&t,, ,,,., 95,. Milk \ . • 1rii:Li. \\ 1 d 65TH S 1' 4 X 49TH ST t ill ST IX 7 1112111k ' J1 1 Lii. 5 I � ,•art- -- 1_ 1 , � llI r'!w► mairall2111111.01111 =MN Mri Mail MallIk1 Mil 5TH .---E �. Ilk a Legend Luci Coupyr 8.:. -- Proposed Bike Lanes MINI Bike Lanes in Conjunction with Road Projects - - x Community Development Department Indian River County 142 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Community Development Department Indian River County 143 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element w**%, N A Brevard County / 1 ,R — : F4,, I 1 t IN. \raj.. \ ! It \ . i 14 it Ell Mlirl\ _ I \: orilliMA _ _._.L____-__ ..._...._. g - ��I� r L'Im � irminalill —a��I r i = 1 _;fir • oat. I 411 5 .: . •�. ` ' 0 1 2 ` -- j Miles St. Lucie County Existing Sidewalks and Interchanges Man Favor County misommi Sidewalks Constructed by 2010 21130 Long Range Transportation Plan Sidewalks Constructed wAh 0 NEW Cost Affordable Improvements 2011-2030 Roads Without Sidewalks 2030 Adopted Cast Affordable Plan r i improved Roads 2011-2020 4, ExistingSidewalk Improvements Figure 4.11B 2040 Future Pedestrian Facilities Community Development Department Indian River County 144 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element .4k Brevard until Atlantic 6' Ocean A v4 ] Pi '� qa 1 '. eC%‘. of U 5 4 :rig ° % , • 11.1 0 slil Gq" 4111. - L A A, ot.mic 'i" ) 85• 1111 1 ` _ \ , !•141. -'''ra, \ z M IF � -_-_ _ AIA M —.'"'' '---1,-, \ c � IrlIn � T .jimpiL‘ \,,.%. — ' 49 NIL1......,Liiiikak:1, �. `� L. 1=1.10 imaa pmil.r4r-tri mainuami 1 'lli_ i- —moi conIF Q ill 1ST i A 1 1 5TH = S a O,dO RD a Y a •5 11 \ m k \ n 4 Legend St Loci - Cou y On. =NM Proposed Sidewalks Sidewalks in Conjunction with Road Projects ` N. Community Development Department Indian River County 145 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element N Sts,si _0 '---11___. Brevard County \. c,, ?A.,rss - A1 ., : .____ „\JL.1„,_zu,,,,, , ci.__c_i_ , __,_,. • ,..\ , t \ P l . ,... I !........____/ i \\ ,. ____._. „ 251146T .' 'r SL'T i s_lii TMST 1...,-\ i21H SI N l' \ �� �,� Vero Beach Inset 1 i •._...,..,___ A :-----7----\ .�. .� III.i• _ t'.= . 3-. timmorm r'.... 7:1-1 � ._;t`=1 I _r te' . 0 1 2 m '. :. ' Other Transit'Needs Not Shown On Map m =MO -I ... g ••■•� Expand Weekday Tours Of Service:6:30 AM to 6:30 PM C./ i IME['Minim Miles Amt 31 Minute Headway PPc Cyon All PRoutes ..,. Min Saturday Service:8:00 AM to 4:00 PM ( Add Limited Sunday Ssntice:9 }0 AM to 2:00 PM St, Lucie County ► — \ s Interchanges Indian River County c a Existing Transit Routes Comprehensiive plan 0 New iimmiNI New Transit Routes Figure 4.12 • Existing 2030 Adopted Needs Plan Transit Needs Community Development Department Indian River County 146 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.12 2040 Adopted Needs Plan Transit Needs N Brevard County f 4 S^ ,f, R # larr # ic , ,,\,..:41,. • It Ocean P\ eP. \ 5 a %. ti or \ 1 -. 0 i 111 '"Y _ &I : '� cR s�. � }#` • is .,T jui • 1Q IE , ..5,.,1 ; R 10 a , krT Q -„Y: —== 1 697 I k, 4 65TH s N ef- 11 °4 —___1- 95 \\111111\kv• 41"11219TH ST r. • 45 i 1. i J H'sr . r w.� ,.E i 17T1 1ST 1 TR ST mow- Lr' 1 BTHST I `�` CI V Orn S z 1S ST SW j 0 e i IMP • . RD O fp Legend of p Q busting GoLine Routes Proposed Aspirational Routes X p mom=Route 1 wRoute 9 • Pot:NMI 8m Meer I•rj A=r3vonai Route 1 Ilkiiiiii 2 -Route 2—Route 111 l_ J Improve HexWal.to EO Mtrtutec -Awtrs0aeat Route 2 - - - --- -Route 3—Route 11 Fe•:mere-BmsKhn•ester Aspizitonal Fetamere Village Circulator MP OM tent Cateettcr wwwww ROute 4 wwwww Route 12 -Route 6 Route 13 O 0 £RAUOorvetlOr ®Rot&11 Ret; 'tore //I •fir Mini Route 6 mi Route 14 -Route 7 Route 16 Route 6 Route 16 i Community Development Department Indian River County 147 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Land Use/Transportation Analysis Both nationally and locally, land use patterns have a substantial influence on the characteristics of transportation systems. Overall, land use characteristics, such as development type, location, and density, affect trip length,mode choice, and transit demand. In terms of population density, Indian River County remains a relatively low-density community. With 3 , eihe cunle polatn density s ppxil 0,3743W 0 47 .39 persons000acrs pern tacre oin ty 20052010. asawhoe, Sincethoverall virtuallypuall ioresidentialensitwaaa commercial development in Indian River County occurs inside the urban service area, most development can be characterized as "infill" in nature. This has resulted in an increase in density in the urban service area. As a result of the 2000 census, the census urbanized area itself was revised to include the rapidly growing cities of Sebastian and Fellsmere. Consequently, the census urbanized area density was 2.62 persons/acre in 2006. While higher than it has been in the past, a density of 2.62 persons per acre is substantially less than what researchers have identified as transit-supportive density. One of the more notable transit studies (Pushkarev and Zupan, Institute of Traffic Engineers 1982) indicates that population densities of approximately 8.8 persons per acre, or 4 dwelling units per acre, are the minimum needed to support regular fixed-route bus service at 1-hour headways. Consistent with what would be expected given the results of that research, the highest transit ridership in Indian River County occurs in those areas of the county (eg Vero Beach/Central Beach and Gifford)with higher residential densities. Despite the fact that urban development has not spread beyond the urban service area and that density has increased countywide, the residential and commercial land use patterns in the county remain low density in nature, with little mixed-use development. With the overall low densities in the county and with developers' tendencies to build at even lower than allowed densities, the predominant transportation mode will continue to be the single occupant vehicle. Overall, the separation of uses and the low density development produce more and longer automobile trips. • Jobs/Housing Balance The balance between jobs and housing in an area has a significant influence on that area's commuting patterns. Research indicates that the average trip in areas with a balanced jobs- housing"relationship (meaning those areas that have a jobs/household ratio between 0.8 and 1.2) is 29% shorter than in other areas. In fact, these t ese same studies indicate that the jobs-housing g balance is a more significant contributor to reduced trip lengths than mixed land uses within a community. In Indian River County, none of the major geographic divisions of the county (including the north county/Sebastian area, the central county/Vero Beach area, and the south county area) can be considered to have a "balanced" jobs-to-housing ratio. In recent years, however, there has been a correction in the size of the imbalance in each area. Development trends explain the slight improvements. While there have been a large number of new residential developments in the north county,area, employment and shopping opportunities have grown even faster. New Community Development Department Indian River County 148 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element employment centers include several schools, neighborhood commercial shopping centers, "big box" retail centers, and industrial facilities in the I-95 corridor and Airport areas. Hence, the employment base increased at a slightly greater rate than the general population. An analysis of available commercial and industrial land on the adopted future land use map indicates that there is opportunity for even more employment growth relative to population growth in the future. There is evidence, however, that the south county area may lack sufficient commercial and industrial land to improve its jobs-housing balance significantly. The central county/Vero Beach area contains most of the County's largest single-site employers (including Piper Aviation, Indian River Memorial Hospital, Dodgertown, the Vero Beach Airport, the Indian River Mall, and Downtown Vero Beach) and is the only sub-area with a ratio greater than one job per household. As a result, most of the congested corridors in the county are north-south corridors connecting the north and south(residential) subareas to the central subarea. Consequently, congested corridors, such as US 1, 66th Avenue, 43rd Avenue, and 58th Avenue, all carry large volumes of AM and PM peak hour commuters. In the three study areas, there is evidence that the improvement in the jobs-housing balance has had a positive impact on the length and number of trips made by the residents in those areas. For example, new warehouse stores, home improvement centers, and grocers in Sebastian have enabled north county residents to avoid much longer trips to the central and south county areas. Despite this trend, total traffic and the number of congested links in the county have increased. This is because the increase in total trips from new development in the county has more than offset the benefits of the improved jobs-housing balance. In addition, all three primary areas of the county are still considered outside of the acceptable range for jobs-housing balance, while the county has retained its overall character of trips originating in the south and north areas of the county and traveling to destinations in the central area of the county. As a result, most of the congested facilities in the county are north-south arterials. As the various areas of the county continue to develop, the land use plan of the county itself will have an impact on improving jobs-housing balance. For example, the presence of commercial/industrial corridors on Oslo Road and CR 512 will generate additional trips but will have the overall effect of reducing trip lengths due to their proximity to existing residential development. At the same time, the presence of agriculturally designated land in the western portions of the county discourages sprawl by restricting growth to a compact urban services area. In the future, the county should consider the impact that any proposed future land use changes will have on trip lengths and in particular discourage land use plan amendments that add residential growth on existing agricultural lands in the western portions of the county. The implementation of projects in the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan could also have an impact on correcting the jobs-housing balance. Several projects in the LRTP could facilitate business development in the north and south county area. The proposed Oslo Road I-95 interchange, in particular, could have a sizeable impact on job creation in the South County area, given the propensity of businesses to locate at high volume traffic locations. Community Development Department Indian River County 149 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element As reflected in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the county actively encourages Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) principles in the planning process. Unlike traditional sprawl development, TND communities are characterized by residential, commercial, and employment centers in close proximity to one another. Although the number of these communities is small, proposed new TND developments, such as Liberty Park, may reduce trip lengths in those areas. To facilitate increased development of TND projects, the county will need to remove the impediments that make approval of TND projects more arduous than conventional development. As an initial step, the county should adopt a new policy in the Land Use Element permitting TND development as an allowable use in existing zoning districts. By encouraging mixed use development such as Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) projects, infill development, Transit Oriented Development projects, and residential projects near employment centers, the county can improve the jobs/housing ratio. In addition, the county should adopt a new policy in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan that ensures that the jobs-housing balance by subarea (north, central, and southern county) is not lowered beyond 2005 baseline values when land use changes are made to the county's Future Land Use Map. This will provide a means to gauge the county's overall success in the creation of jobs in close proximity to housing and the resulting decrease in trip lengths. • Connectivity Currently, the county requires developers to incorporate connectivity strategies into new development projects. These strategies include requiring internal street connections between adjacent subdivisions; requiring multiple entranceways to adjacent thoroughfare roadways; requiring marginal access roadways along arterials; and requiring pedestrian connections between neighborhoods and within commercial development. Several factors, however, limit the creation of interconnected roadway systems. These include: • Physical constraints such as canals, FDOT outfall ditches, existing development, and other factors that physically preclude connections. • Opportunity constraints relating to "piece-meal" development of individual projects over time vs. the opportunity to coordinate individual projects at the same time (e.g. South County Initiative). • Opportunity constraints relating to the "funneling effect", whereby there is only one potential inter-connection that leads through a small existing neighborhood from a large project. Such situations, where significant traffic from a large project would be funneled through a street serving a few residences, should be avoided. • Objections from existing residents potentially affected by proposed connections. Such objections and concerns are widely reported in localities across the nation and stem from fears of increased traffic, "cut-through" traffic, and attendant nuisance and safety concerns. Existing residents rarely perceive that a proposed interconnection will provide access benefits that outweigh the potential adverse impacts. Consequently, connectivity requirements are easier to implement in areas with few or no existing residents. Because interconnections between adjacent developments are beneficial for the reasons identified above, the county should adopt new comprehensive plan policies in the Land Use Community Development Department Indian River County 150 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Element promoting interconnections. Such policies could require that all new subdivision streets be either public or private with public access allowed. Exceptions could be allowed for roadway segments that would channelize traffic through an existing neighborhood, of-have no potential for providing interconnectivity or through-street benefits (e.g. segments that dead-end into waterbodies, developed properties, or environmentally sensitive areas), or that would inter- connect private local streets within smaller subdivisions (subdivisions 40 acres or less). In conjunction with policies promoting connectivity, the county should adopt new policies requiring the county to develop traffic calming standards and designs to address concerns about the speed of"cut-through"traffic. • Other Land Use Issues In summarizing the county's existing land use pattern, several issues or problems can be identified, and various opportunities can be noted. One such issue is that there is little mixed use development in the county. Coupled with the division of land uses, this results in auto dependence, produces more trips, results in longer trips, and increases total vehicle miles traveled. Another issue is low densities and vacant land. With the overall low densities in the county, developers' tendencies to build at even lower than allowed densities, and vacant parcels within the existing USA, it is difficult to establish a viable transit system. A third issue is existing strip commercial development. This type of development disperses uses, reduces the efficiency of the roadway system by requiring more curb cuts, limits transit system options, and makes pedestrian trips more difficult. These issues and problems are the result of historic development patterns and not reflective of the policies and initiatives in the county's comprehensive plan. In the future, there is an opportunity to address these issues. Probably the most significant opportunity to address these issues is the continued growth and development projected for the county through this plan's 20-30 2040 horizon year. The 2030 2040 land use pattern for Indian River County is reflected in the Future Land Use Element of this plan. As shown on the Future Land Use Map, the 2030 2040 land use pattern is a continuation of the existing development pattern in the county. Both the existing and future land use patterns are characterized by low density, low rise development, commercial/industrial nodes, higher density residential development along high volume roadway corridors, an urban service boundary limiting westward expansion, and a continuation of the current coast- paralleling development pattern. As structured, the future land use plan will have a significant effect on the future transportation system. With the location of the urban service boundary, the future land use plan ensures a compact development pattern that will limit urban sprawl, promote infill development, and manage future growth. From a transportation perspective, the future land use plan can be expected to have various impacts. By limiting westward expansion, limiting urban sprawl, promoting infill development, and encouraging mixed use development, trip lengths will not substantially increase. These shorter trip lengths will•result in lower overall system demand, fewer miles of impacted Community Development Department Indian River County 151 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element roadways, and more opportunity for trip demand to be satisfied by means other than single occupancy vehicles. Several other characteristics of the future land use pattern will also affect transportation. With higher residential densities programmed for various corridors, there is an opportunity for increased transit use, since transit systems experience greater ridership under these kinds of conditions. Similarly, the future land use plan's clustering of commercial/industrial development within nodes ensures that trip attractions will be. located together in clusters, a pattern which promotes viable transit use as well as pedestrian/bicycle use. Even more important for transportation planning are some of the future land use plan initiatives that are not reflected on the future land use plan map. One of these is the allowance of mixed use development. As provided for in the future land use element, commercial uses can be established on a limited basis in residential areas. By so doing, trip lengths can be reduced, and transportation system impacts can be lessened. Another important consideration is the future land use element's policies encouraging traditional neighborhood development (TND). Through incentives, the future land use element promotes TND as an alternative to typical sprawl development patterns. Characterized by grid streets, mixed uses, accessible recreation, pedestrian systems, and other design features, TND projects relate to the transportation system in several ways. By locating housing close to work, shopping, and recreation, TND projects can reduce trip lengths, reduce vehicle trips, and increase bicycle and pedestrian trips. Also, TND projects can enhance transit possibilities. Regional Travel Demand Recently, residential development in the western portions of St. Lucie County progressed more quickly than residential development in western Indian River County. Since Indian River County contains multiple regional shopping, entertainment, and/or employment centers, traffic increased substantially from northern St. Lucie County into south and central Indian River County in this time frame. This trend will likely continue until new commercial and employment centers in St. Lucie County provide local destinations for that county's residents. Several proposed new developments in eastern Osceola County will also lead to increased demand for travel to Indian River County. Responding to the growing demand for regional al travel requires improved coordination with regional partners as well as the provision of more regional transportation facilities and travel options. One strategy for improving regional coordination is expanding existing formal planning efforts. For example, the county should consider entering into interlocal agreements for transportation planning with Brevard, Okeechobee and Osceola counties in order to study future regional corridor alignments, notify other jurisdictions of new development projects and transportation impacts, and maintain the regional travel demand model. Community Development Department Indian River County 152 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element The county should also monitor and/or accelerate the implementation of planned regional transportation facilities, such as the 58th Avenue/Kobelgard Road extension in St. Lucie County, and participate in regional transportation operational programs. This could involve setting aside county funding specifically for regional priorities; establishing regional connectivity as a ranking criterion in the MPO project prioritization process; participating in established FDOT ridesharing and vanpooling programs; and implementing regional transit routes. In terms of regional transportation, the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast (CSTC) adopted the following recommendations which the county should incorporate in this plan: improve transportation and land use linkages; implement a fixed route public transit system for the region; ensure that development and redevelopment around transit stations and along regional transit corridors has transit-supportive characteristics; and secure access to the FEC Railway Corridor as part of a regional corridor redevelopment initiative. Finally, during 2019, both the Indian River and St. Lucie MPOs are in the process of updating their respective 2035 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs). It is anticipated that the St. Lucie LRTP will contain one new inter-county roadway facility within the Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVC) planning area. That new roadway is the Kobelgard Road extension, which will align with 58th Avenue in Indian River County. The Indian River County Comprehensive Plan will be amended after both 2035 2045 LRTPs are adopted and will reflect this and all other inter-county roadway connections. Energy Efficiency Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act,the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is required to set national air quality standards for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The law also requires EPA to periodically review the standards to ensure that they provide adequate health and environmental protection, and to update those standards as necessary. While there has been a consistent increase in all major categories of air pollutants in Indian River County proportionate to the increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled, the county has never exceeded national air quality standards. This is mainly because geological and atmospheric conditions in Indian River County (and in most of the rest of the state of Florida) are not conducive to the formation and retention of these pollutants over long periods of time. In the past, the county's policies on developing and implementing long range plans that minimize the growth in air pollution by minimizing congestion have been effective in maintaining low levels of pollution growth. It is not clear,however,that pollution levels in an area are attributable solely to the energy efficiency of the transportation system, since much of the pollution in an area is caused by atmospheric conditions and industry. Nonetheless, the county should continue to monitor air quality and energy consumption and promote clean and efficient techniques and alternative transportation modes where possible. Techniques could include purchasing alternative fuel vehicles and buses for public fleets; incentivizing alternative fuel vehicles and carpools through reserved parking spaces at public facilities; and implementing Congestion Management Process (CMP) projects to help reduce intersection congestion. It should be noted that the county has also identified Community Development Department Indian River County 153 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element an Energy Conservation Area. That area is depicted on Map 2.34 in the Land Use Element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. Transportation Costs and Revenue An analysis of transportation funding in Indian River County reveals a number of trends. The most significant trend is the decline in the share of gas tax, a user-based tax, as a source of funding roadway improvement projects. While total gas tax receipts in the county have increased due to a larger overall population and a trend toward less fuel-efficient vehicles, gas taxes at all levels are effectively yielding less revenue when adjusted for inflation. While other revenue sources, such as impact fees and the 1-cent local option sales tax, have resulted in a large amount of additional transportation revenue for the county, there are a number of problems associated with these sources as well. For example, each of these sources is highly dependent on local economic conditions. Since there is so much variation in revenue from year to year, this impacts the ability of the county to make long range capital improvement plans. In addition, recent research indicates that neither of these approaches assesses transportation charges directly to consumption of transportation resources by current users. Therefore, neither of these sources encourages efficient trip making decisions by individual drivers. In recent years, the gap between the gas tax and long range transportation plan highway construction costs has been steadily widening. When external costs, such as the cost of pollution, lost productivity due to congestion, and traffic enforcement, are added, user charges constitute an even smaller share of actual costs. Increasingly, additional fees and policies targeted at users are being proposed around the country, with some practices targeting congestion-inducing behavior, such as single-occupant vehicle travel and peak hour travel. Some of these practices and their applicability to Indian River County are discussed below. • Gas Tax Gas taxes and tolls constitute the two major revenue sources directly tied to consumption of the transportation system that are available to counties in the state of Florida. When the Indian River County gas tax is compared to other counties in the state, it is evident that motorists in Indian River County pay a lower share of transportation system construction and operation costs than do motorists in most other counties. The reasons for that are that Indian River County has no toll roads and that Indian River County imposes lower local option gas taxes than most other counties. Of the state's 27 urbanized counties, 24, including several neighboring counties (St. Lucie, Martin, and Okeechobee), impose a higher local option gas tax than Indian River County. Imposing all of the remaining local option gas tax remains a viable strategy for raising transportation revenue and passing those costs to the actual users of the system and should be implemented as soon as practical. • Congestion Pricing Congestion pricing takes a variety of forms, and new technologies are making congestion pricing even more viable. In some large cities,travelers must pay a special daily fee to drive in the most Community Development Department Indian River County 154 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element congested areas. In addition, tolls and parking charges are electronically adjusted for changing travel conditions. Finally, "on-board" monitors are being deployed on an experimental basis and will enable real-time billing for the use of transportation facilities at peak and off-peak hours. None of the congestion pricing strategies, however, are applicable to Indian River County due primarily to technical limitations. • Per-Mile Charges Many research institutions are recommending a shift from a gas-tax based funding approach to a cost-per-mile approach, whereby drivers receive bills tied to periodic odometer readings. This approach reduces the total administrative cost of collecting transportation revenue and more closely reconciles use, but introduces many new problems. For example, it removes part of the incentive, which now exists, to drive fuel-efficient vehicles. It also opens up the potential for fraud and still does not address peak-hour pricing any better than the gas tax. While the issue has been widely discussed at the national level and implemented through pilot programs in a number of jurisdictions, a per-mile charge system is beyond the capabilities of Indian River County to implement without a state or federal mandate. • Parking Provision and Management Many land development policies used throughout the country create expenses that are born by citizens at large, but are of disproportionate benefit to drivers in general and drivers of single occupant automobiles, in particular. For example, private off-street parking requirements in Indian River County's land development regulations create an expense paid for by developers and passed along to all consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Hence, persons walking, taking public transportation, or carpooling to businesses are subsidizing single- occupant vehicle travel, when just the opposite is the preferred policy in terms of congestion management. Due to Indian River County's almost exclusive dependence on the automobile, however, it, is difficult to justify waiving the parking requirement except in a downtown or shared parking setting. • Transportation Demand Management contributions(TDM) Adequately pricing the supply of transportation is one alternative for discouraging inefficient use of the transportation system. Yet another alternative is to reward efficient practices. Currently, Indian River County engages in some of these practices, such as subsidizing transit fares and requiring the construction of sidewalks and bicycle lanes as part of all new development. Those and other TDM strategies were recommended as action steps by the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast. Some of the TDM strategies that could result in policy initiatives in Indian River County include developing employer carpooling or ridesharing programs; encouraging employers to stagger work hours; and providing facilities for bicycle and pedestrian commuting. • Transit Grant Funding In recent years, the MPO has applied for and received a substantial increase in transit operating and capital grant funding. Since the Vero Beach-Sebastian urbanized area contains fewer than Community Development Department Indian River County 155 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 200,000 people, grant funds can be used for operating expenses as well as capital expenses. These funds, however, are contingent upon the county identifying local matching funds. Therefore, the county should continue to provide local matching funds and should seek partnerships with the cities and other entities (such as the state college) to provide the required local match. • Summary of Transportation Cost and Revenue Strategies Research by economists indicates that adequately considering all costs of providing transportation and passing those costs to motorists represents the best long-term solution for congestion relief. The easiest way for the county to accomplish this is by imposing all 12 cents of its local option gas tax. Also, the county should dedicate funding to transit or other non- roadway transportation modes to ensure continuity in the provision and operation of those modes. While congestion pricing, per-mile usage fees, and parking charges are not applicable in Indian River County, the county should monitor changes in technology or local travel conditions that might make these applicable over time. Since every dollar of local funding provided to the transit system for operations results in $3 in federal and state matching funds, the county should continue to make a contribution to match these grants with local funds. Finally, the county should encourage the private sector to adopt TDM techniques. The county could do this by supporting employer carpooling and ridesharing programs, encouraging staggered work hours, and requiring transit facilities at new developments. External Costs In recent years, the external costs of the transportation system, including the costs due to pollution, congestion delays, parking provision and roadway injuries, have been growing dramatically nationally as well as locally. It is estimated that the external costs of the transportation system are approximately equivalent to the construction costs of the system. While the gas tax remains the only viable consumption-based transportation funding source in Indian River County, the share of the gas tax in Indian River County relative to all transportation costs (including externalities) has fallen dramatically over time. Locally, the gas tax now represents only 5% of all construction, operational, and external transportation costs. This can be remedied in part by rapid implementation of all of the remaining local option gas tax. System Preservation Due to some recent high-profile infrastructure failures, the state of transportation infrastructure has become a national topic of discussion. Those failures also illustrate that it is essential that resurfacing and other systemwide maintenance is performed in Indian River County to avoid costlier reconstruction at a future date. In Indian River County, maintenance and other highway operating costs are increasing at a rapid rate. Those increases are attributable to a number of factors, including increased wear and tear on the roads from higher travel; more landscaping on the roadways; and more and increasingly Community Development Department Indian River County 156 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element sophisticated signal operations. Despite increasing costs, the vast majority of highways in Indian River County have been maintained in acceptable condition, achieving a rating of 3.0 or better on the 5-point FHWA pavement rating scale. Continuing to maintain the transportation system will be essential and will become a challenge in a climate of increasing costs and limited resources. Therefore, the county should adopt a formal policy to continuously monitor and evaluate its bridges and roadways and to perform all maintenance as warranted to ensure that the majority of the system remains safe and in good condition. Intergovernmental Coordination Since its inception in 1993, the MPO has continuously coordinated transportation planning functions in Indian River County. As a result of the 2000 Census, one School Board Member and one additional City of Sebastian member was added to the MPO governing board. Other than these, there have been no significant changes to the MPO's organization or planning functions. One major change in the MPO's responsibilities, however, occurred in 2006 with the adoption of the TCTC interlocal agreement. Through this agreement, the MPO committed to developing a regional transportation plan and setting regional priorities with the two other MPOs on the Treasure Coast. Because the MPOprovides a forum for thepublic and elected officials to discuss transportation p topics, a number of non-agenda topics are often discussed at MPO meetings. These topics usually pertain to short-range or operational issues, such as safety and maintenance. On an informal basis, these issues are referred to the appropriate implementing agency. There is, however, no formal mechanism for discussing and resolving operational issues. Since 1993, the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been the primary means for the county traffic engineering department to coordinate its activities with municipalities, law enforcement officials, and FDOT. Another means for the county and law enforcement agencies to share information is through the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST). In addition, the county incorporates safety into its bike/ped plan, long range plan, and enhancement prioritization methodology. In so doing, the county directly addresses a number of high-crash locations through near-term construction projects. Despite these efforts, the county lacks an effective forum with a primary emphasis on safety. To address the lack of an effective forum to discuss short range and operational deficiencies, the county should create and participate in a safety and operational subcommittee. Such a committee, which could function within the MPO board structure, would provide a mechanism for addressing short-range issues across multiple jurisdictions without detracting from conventional MPO agenda topics. To improve regional transportation planning, the county should formalize its transportation planning process with adjacent counties, particularly Brevard County, that are not currently members of the TCTC. Community Development Department Indian River County 157 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element P P GOALS, OBJECTIVES & POLICIES The goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of each comprehensive plan element. This section identifies the transportation element goals, objectives, and policies. Transportation Element Goal Indian River County shall have a safe, efficient, and accessible transportation system which provides for mobility of all residents and visitors, encourages freedom of choice among alternative modes of travel, respects the natural and built environment, meets the stated needs of local jurisdictions, and is determined to be financially feasible. Traffic Circulation OBJECTIVE 1 ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The county acknowledges that there are no existing roadway capacity deficiencies within the County. Through 20302040, the county traffic circulation system will continue to operate at or above the minimum service levels specified in policy 1.1. POLICY 1.1: The county hereby adopts traffic circulation level of service standards as follows:.- • - - .:. ::. : :, : Level of service "D" or better shall be maintained on all TRIP grant funded roads as well as all freeway, arterial and collector roadways with the exception of the following two, which will operate at 20% in excess of level of service «E,,: • 27th Ave— South County Line to SR 60 o • 13rd Ave—Oslo Road to 16th Street • Level-of-Service"D"plus 20%during peak hour, peak season,peak direction conditions on the following roads until such time that a major capacity improvement, as specified below, is constructed. At such time that the major capacity improvement is constructed, the level of service for that improved road shall be "D"during peak hour,peak season, peak direction conditions, o CR510—66th Avenue to US Highway 1 (scheduled for widening) o 37th Street—US Highway 1 to Indian River Boulevard(scheduled for widening or alternately mitigated by extension of Aviation Boulevard from US 1 to 37th Street) During the time period before major capacity improvements are provided for these two roads,proposed major development projects approved by the planning and zoning commission or board of county commissioners that will impact either or both of the roads Community Development Department Indian River County 158 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element may, based on a traffic study approved by the Public Works Director, be approved with conditions related to provisions for interim roadway improvements that mitigate project impacts on one or both roads. For SIS/Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service "B" is adopted for rural areas, and level of service "C"is adopted for urban areas. POLICY 1.2: Proposed roadway projects shall be evaluated and ranked in order of priority according to the following guidelines: a. Whether the project is needed to protect public health and safety, to fulfill the county's legal commitment to provide facilities and services, or to preserve or achieve full use of existing facilities; b. Whether the project increases efficiency of use of existing facilities, protects interregional and intrastate functions of the Florida Intrastate Highway System, prevents or reduces future improvement cost, provides service to developed areas lacking full service, or promotes in-fill development; c. Whether the project represents a logical extension of facilities and services within a designated urban service area; d. Whether the project is the most cost effective alternative; and e. Whether the project provides the least adverse impact to the environment of the options. POLICY 1.3: The county hereby adopts the transportation capital improvements program (TCIP) incorporated as Table 4.9.4 within this element. This TCIP shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. POLICY 1.4: No development project shall be approved if the projected impacts of the project would serve to reduce service levels of any roadway on the traffic circulation system below the standards identified in Policy 1.1. Conditions applicable to this policy are as follows: ° Development project shall be defined as any activity, which requires issuance of a development order. This includes: comprehensive plan amendment, rezonings, site plan approval, preliminary plat approval, preliminary PD approval, DRI development order approval, preliminary PD approval, and DRI development order approval, . : . .. . . -- . .. . - - ., • •• . ° Projected project traffic shall be based on the application of ITE trip rates (Trip Generation, 7th Edition or subsequent editions), Indian River County trip rates, or applicant derived/county approved trip rates for the proposed use(s)to the project. Community Development Department Indian River County 159 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element o Existing service level will be derived by using the peak hour/peak season/peak direction traffic volume ranges. Volume shall be the sum of existing demand plus committed demand. This is described in the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. o Capacity shall be calculated as specified in the state road category of the appropriate table in the most current version of Florida's Level of Service Handbook, using peak hour/peak season/peak direction default table assumptions and appropriate adjustment factors. As an alternative, capacity may be determined by ART-PLAN analysis, HCM analysis, ec-speed delay studies or other generally accepted capacity determiniation methodology approved by the Public Works Director. For capacity determination purposes, a roadway improvement may be considered to be in place and the capacity to be provided by the improvement may be counted as available if the referenced improvement is listed in the first five three years of the county's adopted -five Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (appendix A of the Capital Improvements Element) or in the first three years of the adopted Florida Department of Transportation five year work program, is scheduled to be under construction not more than three years after issuance of the project's first building permit, and where the county issues a development order for the project needing the improvement approving this allowance. If based on the above analysis the proposed development does not meet approval requirements, the developer may choose to conduct a more detailed traffic impact analysis as described in Policy 1.5. POLICY 1.5: The county, through its land development regulations, shall require submission of a traffic impact study for all projects projected to generate/attract 1OO400 or more average daily trips. The traffic impact study will be the basis for identifying site-related improvements required by a project as well as for assessing consistency with adopted level of service standards. Minimum requirements for traffic impact studies are described below: All traffic impact studies shall be performed by registered professional engineers who specialize in transportation engineering and/or by qualified professionals in the field of transportation planning who specialize in traffic impact studies. The study area boundary shall include all intersections within 8 miles of the project where the project generated peak hour traffic meets or exceeds 8 trips on a 2-lane road or 15 trips on a 4 or more lane road. Community Development Department Indian River County 160 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Projected project traffic shall be based on the application of ITE trip rates (Trip Generation, Current Edition), Indian River County trip rates, or applicant derived/county approved trip rates for the proposed use(s) in the project. Trip distribution and assignment shall be based on one of the following techniques: a) Trip distributions based on studies of existing similar developments in proximity to the proposed site. b) Experienced judgment and knowledge of local condition. This method requires approval and concurrence from the county. c) A combination of"a" and "b". d) Special zip code analysis for a representative land use in proximity to the proposed site. e) FSUTMS travel model results including trip tables by trip purpose. f) Gravity model. Existing levels of service shall be calculated for all signalized and major unsignalized intersections within the study area for afternoon peak hours during the peak season. Existing peak hours will be identified from traffic counts between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m., and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m., using 15-minute,intervals. Counts not taken during the peak season shall be factored, based on county traffic counts in the project area, to represent peak season conditions. Level of service calculations shall be based on the Operational Analysis methodology described in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. Future levels of service shall be calculated for the buildout date of the proposed project, as well as for any intermediate development phases. Conditions with and without the proposed development shall be evaluated and documented. Conditions with the development shall be based on a combined traffic volume of the projected peak hour/peak season traffic generated by the site and the projected peak hour/peak season { background traffic. The background traffic shall be calculated based on one of the following methods: a) Increase the existing peak season traffic to the buildout date based on historical growth trends over a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 10 years. Traffic generated by committed developments, which would impact the study area, shall also be included subject to appeal to reviewing agencies. b) Increase the existing peak season traffic to the buildout date based on an interpolation using traffic volumes projected by the county. The county reserves Community Development Department Indian River County 161 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element the right to require method "a" to be used if it feels traffic projections may be inaccurate due to recent changes in land use or roadway improvements. Roadway improvements which are committed and scheduled to be complete at or before the project buildout, or development phase date, may be included when calculating future levels of service. Roadway improvements, which are necessary to maintain projected peak hour-peak season peak direction conditions at a level of service consistent with Policy 1.1, shall be identified. POLICY 1.6: The county shall maintain its traffic impact fee process and shall review update the fee schedule at least once every three-five years. If necessary, changes to the POLICY 1.7: By 20152023, the county shall consider imposing part or all of the ELMS one to five cent local option gas tax. POLICY 1.8: The county hereby adopts the MPO's Congestion Management Process Plan. In so doing, the county recognizes that the MPO is responsible for conducting an annual congestion management system analysis, and the county commits to programming those safety improvements identified as necessary in the CMP analysis. Such recommended improvements may include signalization improvements, channelization measures,turn lane restrictions, and other strategies. POLICY 1.9: The county will collect traffic count data on all thoroughfare roads on an annual basis. These data will be utilized to develop an annual report on the Level of Service provided on major area roads. These findings will then be used to identify improvement needs and associated costs required to maintain the Levels of Service identified in Policy 1.1. POLICY 1.10: The county will, through its land development regulations, establish design standards providing, at minimum, for the following: • Adequate storage and turning bays; • Spacing and design of median openings and curb cuts; 0 Provision of service roads or other means of shared access and interconnections; o Driveway access and spacing; and o Traffic operations. POLICY 1.11: The county will, through its land development regulations, continue to require that all development projects provide a sufficient number of parking spaces for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles. Sufficient parking will be based upon information from ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) parking data and parking studies regarding demand by use category. The county will periodically review its off-street parking requirements, identifying minimum spaces per land use category, delineating Community Development Department Indian River County 162 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element space size, providing for shared parking, setting internal circulation standards, and addressing other parking characteristics. POLICY 1.12: The county hereby adopts the 2030 2040 Cost Feasible Plan projects list (Table 4.9.3) and, in so doing, acknowledges the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan as the means of maintaining level of service and mobility in the county. OBJECTIVE 2 SAFETY For the period from 2009 to 2030, crash and fatality rates per vehicle mile traveled will be reduced at least by 1% each year. POLICY 2.1: The county will maintain an accurate crash database. POLICY 2.2: The county will on an ongoing basis review crash records to determine if intersection, operational, or other improvements, including bike/ped improvements, are necessary to enhance safety and will program necessary improvements. POLICY 2.3: In conjunction with the Indian River County School District, the MPO, and municipalities in Indian River County, the county will assess pedestrian access conditions at schools and participate in the Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) grant program. POLICY 2.4: The county will develop its ITSITS (Intelligent Transportation System) infrastructure in a manner consistent with FDOT and national ITS architectural standards and will participate with FDOT in deploying emerging ITS technologies. POLICY 2.5: The county shall review all proposed development projects to ensure that all shared or private access driveways, new roadway connections, and on-site traffic flow will be provided in a safe manner and that frontage/marginal access roads or other means of shared access and interconnections will be provided along arterials. POLICY 2.6: The county will ensure that the installation of all traffic control devices is consistent with the standards contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The MUTCD will be the standard used by the county to determine the need for traffic control improvements, including signalization. POLICY 2.7: The county will review on-site traffic flow for all proposed development projects to ensure that circulation for motorized and non-motorized vehicles and pedestrians can be accommodated safely. OBJECTIVE 3 RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION Community Development Department ' Indian River County 163 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element By 20252035, the county will have acquired the right-of-way needed for all county collector and arterial roads and all mass transit corridors within the urban area where improvements are identified in the 2030-2040 Cost Feasible Long Range Transportation Plan. POLICY 3.1: The county recognizes that road right-of-way must accommodate the travel way, roadside recovery areas, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, drainage facilities, and utility lines. Accordingly, the county hereby adopts minimum right-of-way standards as defined below. Type Of Facility Urban Rural U.S. 1 Corridor- 8LD 200 --- U.S. 1 Corridor- 6LD 140 240 U.S. 1 Corridor- 4LD w/frontage roads 200 280 6LD Principal Arterial 140 240 4LD Principal Arterial 120 200 4LD Minor Arterial 120 200 2LD Minor Arterial 100 100 Collector 90 90 Subdivision Collector Roads 60 60 Local, Minor or Residential 60 60 Local, Minor or Residential 50 (with closed drainage as well as curb and gutter) Marginal Access Roads 40* 40* * Easement or ROW These minimum standards may be reduced based upon a roadway design, approved or used by the public works director,or by FDOT,that adequately handles drainage within a narrower right-of-way corridor. POLICY 3.2: The county shall continue to eliminate existing right-of-way deficiencies, preserve existing right-of-way, and acquire future right-of-way for all collector and arterial roadways as necessary to meet the right-of-way requirements for programmed improvements. These standards will be met by requiring appropriate land dedication through the plat and site plan review and approval processes. Dedication for right-of-way exceeding local road standards shall be compensated through traffic impact fee credits, density transfers, or purchase. POLICY 3.3: The county shall acquire additional right-of-way at intersections to provide for the construction or expansion of turning lanes as needed to improve safety and traffic flow, and reduce congestion. li POLICY 3.4: The county shall acquire right-of-way, consistent with the standards identified in Policy 3.1, to allow for landscaped open space adjacent to all rural arterial roadways and applicable urban arterial roadways. Where substantial amounts of right-of- way are required to accommodate landscaping, the county shall evaluate the need for that landscaping and/or seek lower cost alternatives such as providing landscaping incentives for adjacent property owners. Community Development Department Indian River County 164 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 3.5: The county shall use available funds, such as one cent local option sales tax revenue,to pursue advance right-of-way acquisition. POLICY 3.6: The county shall continue to enforce the existing Subdivision Collector Map, Figure 4.9.1 to ensure that proposed development provides for the extension of subdivision collector roadways to parcels which are presently landlocked. POLICY 3.7: To the extent allowed by law, the county shall charge fees to utility companies and other entities for use of road right-of-ways. POLICY 3.8: The county hereby adopts and shall enforce the Extended Roadway Grid Network Map(Figure 4.10.) In so doing, the County shall protect right-of-way beyond the urban service area boundary by requiring appropriate land dedication through the plat and site plan review and approval process. POLICY 3.9: With respect to right-of-way purchases, the county shall deliver a Notice To Owner of the county's intent to complete a voluntary purchase, along with a written purchase offer, and attempt to negotiate a voluntary purchase for 120 days prior to assigning the matter to outside eminent domain counsel. OBJECTIVE 4 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE SYSTEM Through 2030, 80% percent of roadways in Indian River County will operate at Bike/Ped LOS "D"or above. POLICY 4.1: The county hereby adopts the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. Implementation of the plan in the unincorporated county will occur through the incorporation of improvements identified in that plan in its TCIP. The plan will be used as a basis for applying for and programming federal enhancement project funds. Funds will be used to program improvements such as the construction of new bicycle and pedestrian lanes and paths, and the retrofit of existing lanes and paths. The implementation schedule will be determined by the priority ranking of each roadway segment,as contained in the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. The following programs shall also be implemented by the county according to the plan: an off-road facilities program, a safety improvement program, and a mode shift program. These programs will be implemented as the funding, right-of-way, or other necessary resources become available. POLICY 4.2: By 2020, the county shall evaluate utility easements, railroad rights-of- way and drainage canal rights-of-way as locations for off road trails. This evaluation will be based upon safety and cost considerations as well as negotiations with appropriate agencies which control these easements and rights-of-way. Community Development Department Indian River County 165 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 4.3: Periodically, the county will assess all thoroughfare plan roadways to identify hazards to bicyclists. Where hazards are identified, improvements to correct them will be programmed. POLICY 4.4: The county will use at least $200,000 per year of 1 cent local option sales tax revenue for bike/pedestrian system improvements. POLICY 4.5: The county will continue to apply for federal non-motorized transportation funds to construct bike/ped improvements. POLICY 4.6: The county will,through its land development regulations, require that all developments fronting on thoroughfare plan roadways provide for construction of bicycle and pedestrian improvements as identified in the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and MPO Greenways Plan. POLICY 4.7: The county will, through its land development regulations, require that internal sidewalks are provided in all residential subdivisions with densities higher than 1 unit per four acres. POLICY 4.8: The county will install bike-ped signals at all new signalized intersections and will install bike racks on its buses. POLICY 4.9: The county will annually consider funding a program for construction of sidewalks in residential areas. POLICY 4.10: Where practical and to the extent possible, and where such design is in compliance with the Florida Green Book and County Typical Design Standards, the County will implement "complete streets" principles such as the inclusion of bike lanes and sidewalks for new roadways, widening projects, and roadway redesigns to address the needs of public transportation vehicles and patrons, bicyclists, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities in planning, programming, design, construction and maintenance of County roadways. These principles will be applied to reconstruction and maintenance projects to the extent state or federal statute, economic and environmental considerations, and existing development will allow. The County will view all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access and mobility for all travelers and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system. OBJECTIVE 5 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Throughout the time horizon of this plan, traffic circulation system will be compatible and compliment adjacent land uses. p J POLICY 5.1: The county shall design and locate to the extent possible major roadways (i.e. minor and principal arterials) and intersections such ,as to not adversely affect Community Development Department Indian River County 166 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element existing neighborhoods nor produce excessive traffic on local roads through residential areas. The following are some of the characteristics by which the county will determine whether neighborhoods are adversely impacted: severs existing neighborhoods, more traffic other than local traffic using roadways, widening of roadways which results in roadways constructed closer to residential homes, and other similar characteristics. In areas where minor and principal arterial roadways and their intersections adversely affect existing neighborhoods, the county may provide buffers as stated in the above Policy 7.1. The county will also review the feasibility of relocating roadways and intersections and limit the number of roadway connections and accesses. Where appropriate, the county will implement traffic calming improvements. POLICY 5.2: The county shall locate and design roadways to minimize adverse environmental impacts. Where sensitive environmental areas will be impacted by roadway construction, the county will mitigate those impacts by taking action as provided for in the Conservation Element of the plan. POLICY 5.3: The county shall not fund transportation improvements which will allow increased development in coastal high-hazard areas. POLICY 5.4: The county hereby designates as historic and scenic roads the following: o Jungle Trail ° Old Winter Beach Road o Fellsmere Grade ° Quay Dock Road o Gifford Dock Road The county will prepare, adopt, and implement management plans for each of these roads in order to protect and enhance their scenic/historic character. POLICY 5.5: The county will coordinate the mitigation of adverse structural and non- structural impacts from_airports, and related facilities, upon natural resources and land uses with the expansion of and development of those facilities consistent with the future land use, coastal management and conservation elements. POLICY 5.6: The county will, within allowable budget constraints, allocate a minimum of 2% of total construction expenditures for all roadway projects to landscaping improvements. POLICY 5.7: The county will develop beautification plans at all interstate interchanges and will seek private participation in the implementation of landscaping improvements. OBJECTIVE 6 COORDINATION By 2015, the county will have a system which ensures that all transportation requirements, procedures, and improvements are coordinated with all applicable governmental entities and will have entered into two new formal coordination agreements,with adjacent local governments. Community Development Department Indian River County 167 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLIC Y 6.1: The county will coordinate with the Indian River County MPO, FDOT, Local Municipalities, and Adjacent Counties in its transportation planning activities. This coordination will involve serving as staff to the MPO, having staff and commissioners serve on MPO committees, sharing information, reviewing plans and programs, and assessing the impacts of development projects across jurisdictions. POLICY 6.2: The county will coordinate with FDOT to review its standards for sidewalk placement, access control, median cuts, signage, drainage, and other related physical roadway development activities. The county's Planning and Public Works Departments will schedule regular-meetings as needed with appropriate FDOT officials to review and discuss these issues and develop written standards agreeable to both entities. POLICY 6.3: The county acknowledges that it is in compliance and will continue to comply with the level of service standards for roadways as identified in the 1983 "Hutchinson Island Resource Planning & Management Plan", Policy C.1, page 33. This policy states that roadways on the barrier island and connecting roadways that link the island to the mainland will maintain a minimum level of service of "C" on an average annual basis and level of service "D" for peak season traffic. • 4. • . . s. • - , . • POLICY 6.34: The county will coordinate with . . -- .. . • - TreasureCareerSource Research Coast, the Sebastian and Vero Beach Chambers of Commerce, local businesses, other MPOs and FDOT to develop regional TDM programs. POLICY 6.65: The county will participate in Regional Transit Authority activities with other Treasure Coast T/MPOs and the Brevard MPO. POLICY 6.76: The county will coordinate with FDOT and the Florida East Coast Railroad(FEC) on future passenger rail service. OBJECTIVE 7 ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICES Through 2030, the county's transit system will continue to operate at or above the minimum service level specified in policy 1.1. POLICY 7.1: The county hereby adopts transit quality and level of service (TQLOS): "B" for Service Coverage in Indian River County. POLICY 7.2: The county will continue to maintain its fixed route transit system. Community Development Department Indian River County 168 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 7.3: The county hereby adopts the MPO's Transit Development Plan. POLICY 7.4: The county will continue to apply for state and federal mass transit grant funds and use those funds to provide transit service in the county. POLICY 7.5: The county will on an annual basis coordinate with the MPO to assess whether transit improvements should be included in the project priorities submitted to FDOT for state and federal funding. POLICY 7.6: The county will continue to provide funding for transit services. Currently, that funding is provided to the Indian River County Senior Resource Association. POLICY 7.7: Through the County's CTC, the County will ensure that transportation disadvantaged trips are provided through the coordinated system, whereby all providers and purchasers have contracts and fully allocated cost amounts. In so doing, the County will ensure that the CTC: o Compiles information on routes, schedules, facilities and vehicles for each provider; o Assesses this information and schedules trips to avoid duplication; and • Regularly coordinates with providers to serve as a forum for discussing paratransit service OBJECTIVE 8 LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION By 2030, all three geographic sub-areas of Indian River County will have a jobs-housing balance between .8 and 1.2 POLICY 8.1: The county will implement Future Land Use Element policies which restrict urban sprawl, limit strip commercial development, promote infill, encourage TND projects, promote public transportation, and encourage higher intensity uses in major corridors. POLICY 8.2: The county shall review all proposed land development projects in order to ensure consistency between those projects and with the goals, objectives and policies of this plan, and the county shall require coordination of traffic circulation plans and improvements with land use and infrastructure plans before development approval. POLICY 8.3: The county will, as much as possible, protect the character of existing neighborhoods from the intrusion of major thoroughfares (i.e. minor and principal Community Development Department Indian River County 169 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element arterials). The criteria used to determine whether major thoroughfares will be allowed to intrude in existing neighborhoods are whether there are problems maintaining level of service standards on the applicable roadways, whether there are safety problems, whether there is right-of-way availability, and whether there are viable alternatives to intruding into an existing neighborhood. In areas where minor and principal arterial roadways intrude into existing neighborhoods, the county may provide buffers such as concrete walls, landscaped buffers, berms, and other similar buffers alongside the roadway(s). The county will also review the feasibility of relocating roadways when intrusion is proposed. POLICY 8.4: The county shall establish land use guidelines for development in exclusive public transit corridors to ensure accessibility to public transit, in the event such corridors are established. POLICY 8.5: The county shall encourage connectivity between all new residential and commercial developments except where such connectivity strategies are impeded by physical or safety constraints. Where there are concerns for nuisance impacts such as cut-through traffic, the county may provide buffering, traffic calming, or other appropriate treatments. OBJECTIVE 9 ADEQUATE INTERMODAL FACILITIES Through 2030, all future county aviation and intermodal facility expansion will be developed in a manner consistent with existing and future land use. POLICY 9.1: The county will continue to implement and enforce its airport zoning regulations. These regulations address height, noise, emergency, clear zone and land requirements. POLICY 9.2: The county will ensure adequate access to the three public use airports, passenger rail station, transit transfer points, and other intermodal facilities by making the roadway and transit improvements identified in this element. POLICY 9.3: County staff will support the City of Vero Beach in its effort to establish scheduled commuter airline or air taxi service. POLICY 9.4: The county will review airport master plans, transit development plans, and intermodal facility plans to ensure adequate bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and auto access and circulation within airports and related facilities. OBJECTIVE 10 ENERGY EFFICIENCY Between 2009 and 2030, the total number of vehicle miles traveled in Indian River County will increase by no more than the rate of growth of the overall population of Indian River County. Community Development Department Indian River County 170 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 10.1: The County will implement the transportation improvements identified in the 2030-2040 Cost Feasible Plan. OBJECTIVE 11 SYSTEM PRESERVATION Through 2030, the County will ensure that all bridges on major roads have a structurally safe rating and at least 80% of major roads have a pavement maintenance rating of 3.0 on the 5-point Federal Highway Administration scale. POLICY 11.1: The County will continuously evaluate both pavement condition and the structural integrity of bridges on the major road network and will implement improvements as warranted. Community Development Department Indian River County 171 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element PLAN IMPLEMENTATION An important part of any plan is its implementation. Implementation involves execution of the plan's policies. It involves taking actions and achieving results. For the Transportation Element, implementation involves various activities. While some of these actions will be ongoing, others are activities that will be taken by certain points in time. For each policy in this element, Table 4.10 identifies the type of action required, the responsible entity for taking the action,the timing, and whether or not the policy necessitates a capital expenditure. To implement the Transportation Element, several different types of actions must be taken. These include: capital improvements, collection of data, enforcement of land development regulations and ordinances, execution of interlocal agreements, coordination, and preparation of studies and evaluation and monitoring reports. Overall plan implementation responsibility will rest with the planning department. Besides its responsibilities as identified in Table 4.10, the planningdepartment has the additional p � p responsibility of ensuring that other entities discharge their responsibilities. This will entail notifying other applicable departments of capital expenditures to be included in their budgets, notifying other departments and groups of actions that must be taken, and assisting other departments and agencies in their plan implementation responsibilities. Table 4.10 Transportation Element Implementation Matrix P P Policy# Type Of Action Responsibility Timing Capital Expend. 1.1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 1.2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 1.3 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 1.4 Monitoring Procedures Planning Ongoing No 1.5 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 1.6 System Evaluation Planning As Needed No 1.7 System Evaluation Budget Ongoing No 1.8 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 1.9 Monitoring Procedures Public Works Ongoing No 1.10 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 1.11 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 1.12 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 2.1 Monitoring Procedures Planning Ongoing No 2.2 System Evaluation Planning Ongoing No 2.3 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 2.4 Coordination Public Works Ongoing No 2.5 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 2.6 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No ` Community Development Department Indian River County 172 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Policy# Type Of Action Responsibility Timing Capital Expend. 2.7 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 3.1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 3.2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 3.3 System Provision Public Works Ongoing Yes 3.4 System Provision Public Works Ongoing Yes 3.5 System Provision Public Works Ongoing Yes 3.6 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 3.7 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 3.8 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 3.9 Implementation Procedures Public Works Ongoing No 4.1 Plan Adoption/Implementation Planning Ongoing No 4.2 System Evaluation Planning By 2020 No 4.3 System Evaluation Planning By 2020 No 4.4 Service Provision Planning Ongoing Yes 4.5 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No 4.6 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4.7 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4.8 Implementation Procedures CTC-SRA Ongoing No 4.9 Implementation Procedures Public Works By 2015 No 5.1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 5.2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 5.3 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 5.4 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 5.5 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 5.6 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 5.7 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 6.1 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 6.2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 6.3 System Evaluation Planning Ongoing No 6.4 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 6.5 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 6.6 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 6.7 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 7.1 System Evaluation CTC-SRA Ongoing No 7.2 System Provision CTC-SRA Ongoing No 7.3 Implementation Procedures Planning Ongoing No 7.4 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No 7.5 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No 7.6 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 7.7 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No Community Development Department Indian River County 173 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element I Policy# Type Of Action Responsibility Timing Capital Expend. 7.8 Service Provision CTC-SRA Ongoing No 8.1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 8.2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 8.3 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 8.4 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 8.5 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 9.1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 9.2 Service Provision Planning Ongoing Yes 9.3 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 9.4 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 10.1 Monitoring Procedures Planning _Ongoing No 11.1 Monitoring Procedures Public Works Ongoing No I i F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Comp Plan\2018 Comp Plan update\Chapter 4 Transportation Element Draft.doc Community Development Department Indian River County 174