Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-322 NOTE : Complete Copy of the CIE is on File in the Board of � � County Commissioners Office 6 " 302 Indian River County 2020 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 4 'Transportation - Indian River County Community Development Department Adopted : September 13 , 200 i , 2006 Supplemental # 7_( Entire Element) Ordinance 20056-_039 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 its 1990 comprehensive plan, Indian River County had separate plan elements for traffic circulation, mass transit, and ports, aviation, and related facilities . Since 1990, state regulations have changed. Now, local governments must incorporate all of those elements in a consolidated transportation element. This element does that. Another change since 1990 is that 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. Recently, 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 . The UAB relates to several different aspects of transportation planning, including whether roadway segments will have an urban or rural functional classification designation and what Level of Service (LOS) standard each roadway segment must meet. 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. Community Development Department Indian River County 1 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 2022030 Long Range Transportation Plan (adopted December 2000)-,2005 ), a Congestion Management System Plan (adopted September ').May 2004), a Bicycle-Pedestrian Plan (adopted Oetober '�JL11v 2004 . and a Transit Development Plan (adopted July 449-51. 005 and revised annually). The MPO has also developed and calibrated a countywide transportation planning model. GuffeyAly, the NOO : in the pr-eeess .,f updating its Bi 1 d Pedestrian Dl .. and T.. sit Development Plan. 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. 7 Indian River County Urbanized Area Boundary v • x WE • .Q � 6 a i • � � a 4 Legend Roads Urbanized Area 0 County Community Development Department Indian River County 2 4 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. 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 for 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. Inventory As illustrated in Figure 4 . 2, the county is served by an extensive network of highways and roadways . Three north-south routes that are continuous through the county are I-95 , US 1 , and State Road AIA. Indian River Boulevard is a four-lane divided county roadway running parallel to US 1 in Vero Beach and the unincorporated areas adjacent to the city. This facility, which extends from the 4th Street/US 1 intersection to the 53rd Street/US 1 intersection, relieves congestion and facilitates infill land development east of US 1 . Because of interchanges with I-95 as well as other regionally significant characteristics, SR 60 and the CR 512/CR 510 corridor are the most heavily utilized east-west facilities . SR 60 is the main gateway into Vero Beach, providing access to both I-95 and Florida's Turnpike (in neighboring Osceola County), as well as access to the barrier island. CR 512 connects the communities of Fellsmere and Sebastian to I-95 , US 1 , and SR 60. In addition, CR 510 intersects CR 512 and provides access to the barrier island via the Wabasso Bridge . These major facilities are supplemented by a series of less heavily utilized roadways . All together, these roadways form a grid system, which relieves traffic congestion on major routes by providing alternative corridors of travel in both the east-west and north-south directions. Particularly important in Indian River County is access from the barrier island to the mainland. Currently, three bridges, two in the Vero Beach area and one in Sebastian, provide that access . All three bridges are fixed span facilities, with the Merrill Barber and 17`h St. Bridges having four lanes and the Wabasso Bridge having two lanes. Community Development Department Indian River County 3 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element •y • st 9TH S 'typ ._ •x ' y tt 45TH S ••z • 21, Q 41 STS : �� a CCCIAt• ......... ..... .l P fD4 1 a 60... 99:99.. AVIATIC BLVD ' e ? i T.Ts i :16TH SP, Q ¢ 77TH ST 09TH ST .•r'u r ..9999 's �m sr 12TH5 o? # < e 8TH STI I m . tq t �2 ••••••••••••••••••••9999.,,• City of Vero Beach 4 THS 9,STa •t i lu m •'.,4 zsm IT wen 4 eixo •........................................................ ...............................0............ ...... ............. 90 s. rH S R4 y S ax Sr\ Q . HSTS OSLORDS • OSLORD . a t chi Figure 4.2 Existing and Committed Roadway Network Laneage - - - Number of Lanes Municipalities n .% a 0 1 p�ati Miles 2 : Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element N Brevard Citint 37TH 5w.• i it arra ar ( � t P { Vero Beach Inset LM 14 x ^t 0 S 2 Miles S#. Lucie Gr cirty * ` i3 J ?! !t rl 'Ir� J?'1 ] y� NWEER [lf' LANES Re t t, improved Pads2000-2014 5 6 Comprehensive Plan al Interchanges Fi ure 4.2 Exiting 2010 Ex'ting + Committed ® = Network: Laneage Community Development Department Indian River County 5 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element E3dsting Transportation Map Series Figure 4. 2. 1 Existing Jurisdictional Responsibility �� a♦ y ° .... ' '- �•. .• yyi R o big L O L\ \ r' ATLAIVTICuyvp '4 4p4M 4 � . aw ' o a� A& BL � '�' Q aNGLS•� r '' �' rY \ . Y IAC. ANNA17 _ i biSTC. 512E PJ � • 1 TH ST o Q ti `AS} y . ... e.o•" w m 12 HSGR. . f TIiT 64H ST Ii A o S 6 5 TH TH S TH ST 4 Ln, TH ST � y w w H ST q , w 6 ST ST t C F 93 7H T ` O ....... . . .R.«.. .. ........... ... ............. .... .......... . .........w.. ........................ .................. ........ r. .. .. ... .. .«x .....S1 .:. -- ••• 5 1 TH 5 MANAMA i^2TH T 37 A. Jurisdictional Responsibility 81� w a H ST a c o s city county -•••• State Roads m o Community Development Department Indian River County 6 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Ebdsting Transportation Map Series Figure 4.2.2 E)dsting Roadway Level of Service Yf Cl 1 317H Sl,. Wt yN71C BVVD y— o R ' 1 � V` few HHjTH t xit t7 HST - max<• .° S a �g s CR , 51�..�Y � ' St +� �. J _ ieT 5T ThTso < > 1 12T 5 to = _ �tH S stir` i to 7H 0 { S TH ST tj5 1 � : r a ',4 w • •• 45f��'�4.0 pT h <t > ?a.1....4ST TH�5 t. t 1 P S.R. eo A53 1 TH SSTi 1S`{STE ET SA RD t z 5 R L W w• • e v _ Roadway Level of Service :> a } � ' � . . .._.. < < a B . D Community Development Department Indian River County 7 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing and Committed System Besides the current inventory of roadways, the existing system, there are various roadways programmed for construction in the near future. In some cases, these programmed improvements may be underway. Improvements that are budgeted and programmed for construction within five years are considered committed improvements. For travel demand forecasting and transportation planning purposes, committed improvements are considered in place and existing. Table 4 . 1 , identifies the County' s committed roadway projects . Table 4. 1 Committed Rood., ay Prof , ets Faedity Froin To #Lanes TvPe 2 Divvtted A * -6 --S1 4 D -2 R-& �4a..,,,d-nna Divided Wivide l S - R_ 60 1-95 4 Di' S. R 60 66A A1 ,P 6 Divide Divided iN47N`-S� � nom. , Ps 1 4 Divide Table 4. 1 Proposed Modifications for Existing and Committed Model Roadway From To 2009 Existing & Committed Condition 3rd Avenue 26th Street 16th Street 4D 3rd Avenue 16th Street 8th Street 4D C.R. 512 1-95 Roseland Road 4D S . R. 60 Osceola Count 1-95 4D S .R. 60 =82ndAvenueue 66th Avenue 6D U . S . IIndian River Blvd 6D Oslo Roade U .S. 1 4D Aviation Blvdue U. S. I 4D 66th AvenueS .R . 60 2U 16th Streetue 66th Avenue 2D 16th/ 17th Street W of 14th Avenue U . S . I 4D 1 st Street 58th Avenue U .S. I 2D 53'a Street 58� Avenue U .S. 1 4D 17th Street SW 43rd Avenue 27th Avenue 2U 12th Street 90th Avenue 58th Avenue 2U 37th Street 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 2U Source: Indian River County MPO Community Development Department Indian River County 8 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Legend: 2U - 2-1ane undivided 2D - 2-1ane divided 411 - 4-lane undivided 4D - 4-1ane 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 I-95 , the Turnpike, SR AIA, US 1 , and SR 60, were 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, the revisions to 335 , F. S . provided that the jurisdictional responsibilities of roadways may be transferred from one jurisdiction to another only by mutual consent of both jurisdictions . In Indian River County, the state and county have agreed to transfer the jurisdictional responsibility for 27th Avenue from the state to the county in the near future. 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 nd-- FPS-424-, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 and the-21 $FCeritsubscguent 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. 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 AlA, SR60, 1-95 , 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 1-95 , 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 . Roads are classified according to the degree of mobility and/or land access provided. Different roadway facilities provide different levels of mobility and accessibility . Roads with a lower functional classification provide access to adjacent land uses, such as residential areas, Community Development Department Indian River County 9 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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. 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 off of those highways, making the Interstate a limited-access facility. According to Florida Administrative Code Section 9J- 5 . 019(5b), comprehensive plans must depict the existing FDOT roadway functional classification on the existing traffic circulation map or map series. Existing and future functional classification for roadways in Indian River County are depicted in Figures 4 . 3 . 1 and 4 . 3 . 2 respectively. From a planning standpoint, functional classification is important for five reasons : 1 . Functional classification groups together those facilities requiring the same level of technical, managerial and financial competence for design, construction, maintenance and operation; 2 . It achieves a high degree of intergovernmental coordination by delineating jurisdictional responsibilities; 3 . 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. In the past, FDOT maintained two functional classification systems, state and federal, which differed in the way roadways were classified. While the state system classified roadways based on existing conditions , the federal functional classification was based on a roadway' s function about ten years into the future . In 1993 , the federal functional classification system was revised to represent current roadway conditions, thus making the state and federal systems similar. 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 . Roadway Volumes Community Development Department Indian River County 10 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element On an annual basis, Indian River County conducts traffic counts for each thoroughfare plan roadway in the County. These counts measure the number of vehicles traveling on the roadway over a given period of time . Counts are taken over a three-day period on weekdays to control for variation that may occur with a single day count. The raw counts taken on roadways are factored using accepted methodologies to obtain more usable data. The counts are then converted to average annual daily volumes, peak season daily volumes, and peak hour, peak season, peak direction volumes. Traffic counts are important for a number of reasons. Not only do they indicate system demand ; they also indicate congestion on roadways. Roadway volumes are illustrated in Figure 4.4 . As indicated, traffic volumes are highest on US 1 , SR 60, and I-95 . Counts are most useful when compared to roadway capacity. Using a volume to capacity measure (v/c), roadway level-of-service (LOS) can be determined. Table 4. 7 . 1 and Figure 4 .2 .2 identify peak hour roadway LOS on the county' s roadway network. Lane Geometry The number of through lanes for each facility on the Indian River County roadway network is summarized in Figure 4 .2 . As shown in that figure, I-95 is the only four lane expressway serving the county. Other north-south travel is provided on US I and Indian River Boulevard, both of which are four lane divided facilities. In the east-west direction, the widest road is SR 60, which exists as a four and six lane roadway east of I-95 . County Road 512 in the Sebastian area is also four-laned, providing east-west travel in the northern portion of the county. For planning purposes, a roadway's capacity and level-of-service (LOS) are generally based on the number of through lanes . 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. 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: 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 Community Development Department Indian River County 11 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 for urban conditions congestion - Delay at signals The level of service for roadway links is determined by comparing the traffic volume to the roadway capacity . The result is used to identify the LOS . Level of service calculations are determined using guidelines established in the latest edition of FDOT'S Level of Service Handbook. Generalized tables used in this element also are derived from 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 BCC changed the level of service standard to "E+20%" on 27th Avenue (from the south county line to SR 60) and on 43rd Avenue (from Oslo Road to 16th street) . This was done in response to citizen opposition against 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 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. More analysis is contained in later sections of this plan. Recently the Board of Getm� Commissioners (BCC) eensidered sever-al programmed roadway amount of eitizen opposition arose against ove of n . ,e.,. . e a � � n ae., :., ,. .� Herb nz n . .e.,., e a - 4h@-43'd�-roewulv-isd27h -. venue dr"xcscx:a�s^px'^c7c.^. ..,. .� ., ... -Z-cvcrs�andtwe c-r -cvcncic-cac 1ane undivided Areilities hiat were proposed to he , 4dened to fettr lane divided Fee: l :tie.. The Y Y .1 ' A b pfejeets were Ye a o.ed as leading to higher Nrol fees of t«.,FF, ,. highef tfavel speeds, increased noise levels and reduee,l safety, rrvcxxcHnfl � r 4 b rd Pl b> d . .. vridividual raadw�r segments (43 t-venue acsouthbound- .o+a, , ve. 16 Street and Rd 1 , er12thQth Street) Ail! soon exeeed the tQs. e .. 7 A . »� e�' 'A. 4 . ,, _ t. cui fiet � et vested, it is antieipated that these segments will CaMr 921 trips in the ftear term t1itur 7addition to these two feadway segments., a number of ether road segments on beth 43 h Community Development Department Indian River County 12 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element a ef level of sefviee "D', standafds and wald e*eeed the standard in +1 Los D near R .+. . «e when additional trips ., placed on these links in or-der to maintain the adepted level of service while also maintaining the quality of life a residents in seuth Indian River- Ge�ii4y, the eottn4y expler-ed a number of to 4;�l lz3i3i-Ag43dand 27 th r and-2.7�'-Avenues ; estab -y aligmnei4s ; ojid 3Aidening parallel facilities, in addition, an analysis was eon"eted to determine the feasibility of maintaining adequate levels of service throu,gh ernpleyed a atimber of quantitative teehniques, ineluding regional travel demand modeling PSVT- AC on the adopted T«e., sufe Coast De ..: . nal Ul ..fhiing Model network. De..d. . ,... , A1te4!« ..ti . .o.. A ., analysis wase«F«... ed of the : aet of three 1 .,., :., :. sed to f ,e 1 .,..:.. .. A3 ,d�� , , 0 Handbook,Avenues. Aeeofding to the Generalized Level of SeFviee Tables eafytained in PPOT' s 2002 ..:r. . Applying +1.: .. : et.. +lee two 1 .,., e .. ..a. , of 43 A . .,.... . .. ..«ee 1 .,,. .. ,. iseineapa While helping to mitigate !eNrel of serviee eencerns, this seltitien alene do Fkq ilBt P&S ffi these 1... . e«. . pea _ _ _ _ _ Avenue !071 t«.Ys\ it. . . . n e .eee» th«ee .»._e »Y »eity (0! 3 +«.Ys) . Nonetheless, »ffee _» _ _tea - eens ' d d paftof the nea« 4e-... s ..l. .t; e.. .... d will 1.e implemented in live , of five lapin g. withia distanee of ape.-e..: ... ..tel. , F. . .e ... .1 �� �F � 3�._ n2�� A . .e... . e.. T.. .., of these f.. ..; l : tie.. while t., e o. he«.. / C4���T A . .e... .e\ .,-e I : ...aed t.. ,...1 . T.. d ; .. « D : . .e« (`... ...t. . in =Z�=ss either- not feasible and�er- Y411 not result in ade"ate levels of serviee o 4q Aceording te preliminary made! i=uns PeFfOFmed as paft ef the MPO ' s 2030 Leng Range T ,.t: .. Dl .. «deers tee .: de RA . ..FTTQ 1 G„,.tl.F .. •,- to laftes will still esult in ley l . . of sef : ..e AeF. ..: ,... 7 ^1 � .e a A .. e« roadway she«...,+: . ,e rl. .,r ., exp! u. s the e..+ens: en 459th A . e e to ind-; .. Read in Qt T . e Cohere+. . Located ., ..hate! . . 1 ...ae .. ,e..t eFA3 Avenge CQ� A . ,e..hhe : .. .. .. e.. F. .« lane d : . .: ded « ..«th s... .A. Faa: Ur. . mile wccrox-T> Trrcna�v , Ace rd : .. g to medeled output, extending 54"' Avenue sheet!. to 1,. d«: a Dead in Qt T u a Ceunt. , ,: 11 also net adequately address 1 ,.. .,.1 ,.f s . .: ..e R4; 43fd .th—Avon . The «ema: ..; h. g e..th south «ead., .a. .a 70'4' A , erwe and Old Dbde High.. ,a . , .. srained 1.. . «: aThr ,.F .. .a. , Both «ead., .a. .s ., els.. alas: f: ed a ..heat..«s ...hore .A�_-_ ,=,2, , ,-3nEl `tom A 1 ' F' d here«: al T addition land ad ' a ent to 2A h -rrcnaco-m ccisiricmzs-iiriiavtancrxcasT. riraamrrou-arc ..j » !. edea several publie and private aaheels and seheel efessing zones . Conseque«,tly, fleithef businesses ; , ,either option i .est feasible. Community Development Department Indian River County 13 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element parallelNo ether- largely built out nefth of Oslo Read, no new parallel reads eould be built without displaeem Fn, satin .. no: ..T.l.n«1, ..ods T h eoufse F p gn-20 T DTD toe MPO . n nla newal : v .gin an 1 s to address R. n AZA A�. .n_x�xcic Fi"- 'xn-c-�'h MPO A ..»e level .,f . . ._ _ _ " d __ "__ _ ___ . D 1 ' model analysis indieaten tl. a4 a new ` n ....: .7 .,« LGA Avenue /.. adela.l J J a, � roadway �� as a new, Five 1ane f ' 1 ' FFern QD 60 to Oslo DnaA and as a new three lane fa : l:ty C,. llal .. Read cvSt. ncsciczociin.T"rfc.. ... relieve een . ....... .... W A�venue if developed in :j ».... ...,.. VAtIq fliFk. P&Pmg.fives deseribed above. The travel demand model indioates that around 700 p�k hour direetional tfips would be assigned frem other nefth south readways, ... i I th _ lh�p, major EIl 1 1 1 nt cannot be iaeorpora4ed inie the eempreheesive plan at ihis time, bw may be ineefpei;ated inte a future eemprehensk @ plan update—upen r•• ter-az ncc study . 0 Transit A ltn«natives. Y J mr + a n Maj Update. A .7 ' t eans .ltant estimates expanded } a A � � O annualopefating at the system standard ofte hE)uf headways would result in 10,8 4 3 riders�year. On a peak hettf basis, this would trans!Ae into appfeximately 1 ,000 fidefs. Divided out ever 25 -0 senziee dE�ys, the impae4 of expanded a o n the 43rd Avenue n idor- a .aia t 1J peak A hetff trips . routeEven if the route were ere rated at ,. a half l. nn« hea,l.. .a, .a tT. o trips to maintain level oF sci` ie. "D" n..... 424 Ar r'cn»e Level.al ..f Ser3Ann A ltn«.. atiyes Given h bsenee F a viable ead aJ or t«n.. n : t altemative :n - " pius 0 must be established- as the minimum aeeeptable. lexrel F qef .7a..,1 for the F 11 .,.. .: .. ,. «..a .7n .a, . . 0 270zA ve;iue South t�xh C'linty Lifi t, SR 60 EstablishmeE4 of Level ef Service "FA plas 0 eapaeities til alta ati _ t« o ftalio ets _(sueh a 0 a4ter-nati7q,e is 1 020 peak hew directiefial trips fef a twe lane faeilit-y. This eapaeky is facilities, 4P .411d P7 ' Avenuesave peakotir .1will h h ' «nnerti nal nn nit. of 1071 trips . .nde f "p- Community Development Department Indian River County 14 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2117/_ ^' . . ,t, i eh ' . : 11 preyid„ ample ,... . aeit. . for new ..rojeeks in the short ♦.,r Existing Roadway Deficiencies • Level of Service In order to determine if there are any existing roadway deficiencies in the county, the following procedure was followed . Traffic counts were done for each roadway on the county' s network. These counts were then converted to peak hour\peak season\peak direction volumes for each roadway link using the FDOT default tables. These tables volumes can be found in Appendix A and are based on the latest edition of Florida's Qualit \ Level of Service Handbook, 4999 2002 . Each roadway link and its corresponding capacity were then compared to determine the existing level of service for the roadway. Table 4 .7 . 1 shows the existing level of service for each roadway on the network. As indicated in that table, there are no existing deficiencies on the county' s traffic circulation system. • Crash Data Crash data (using 2001 data) are included in Table 4. 2 . In 2001 , the intersection of SR 60 & 66ffi Ave . had more accidents than any other intersection in the county, with 20 accidents recorded. Intersections with the highest accident rates (MEV — accidents per million entering vehicles) were 41st Street & Old Dixie, 49th Street & Old Dixie, and 69 h Street & Old Dixie . For planning purposes, crash rates are more important than the gross number of crashes. Even where the number of crashes may seem high, the rate may be low if the roadway or intersection volume is high. Overall, crash rates provide an indication of which roadways or intersections require detailed safety analyses. Table 4.2 Crash Data ADT ADT Accident Rate Relative Intersection # of Accidents (MEV) Rate E!W N/S SR 60 & 66th Avenue 20 32080 3493 1 .54 Low SR 60 & 58th Avenue Is 29233 16172 1 .09 Low SR 60 (Tarpon) & IR. Blvd 16 3874 24956 1 . 52 Low 12th Street & US # 1 16 9273 34501 1 1 .00 1 Low 17th Street & US #1 14 14026 23431 1 .02 Low SR 60 & 20th Avenue 13 24687 4280 1 .23 Low CR 510 & US 41 13 10654 23851 1 .03 Low SR 60 & 82nd Avenue 12 23740 2251 1 .26 Low SR 60 & 43rd Avenue 12 24639 14426 0.84 Low Jackson Street & US# 1 12 2420 24862 1 .21 Low EB SR60 & US # 1 12 11671 22245 0 .97 Low 17th Street & IR. Blvd 12 21554 22095 0.75 Low Oslo Road & US# 1 11 10044 31252 0.73 Low 53rd Street & US 41 10 3540 25591 0.94 Low Community Development Department Indian River County 15 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ADT ADT Accident Rate Relative Intersection # of Accidents (MEV) Rate E/W N/S 41 st Street & Old Dixie 10 3045 3858 3 .97 High WB SR60 & US # 1 9 5487 22245 0.89 Low WB SR60 & 10th Avenue 9 7611 3913 2. 14 Medium Highlands Dr. & US# 1 9 3263 28320 1 0.78 Low Oslo Road & 27th Avenue 8 10606 9167 1 . 11 Low North Central & US# 1 8 1500 24542 - 0.84 Low 37th Street & US # 1 8 4657 30140 0.63 Low 26th Street & US # 1 8 2298 27295 0. 74 Low SR60 & Heddin Place 7 34095 2520 0. 52 Low SR60 & 27th Avenue 7 27718 6555 0. 56 Low Roseland Rd. & US# 1 7 5612 24238 0.64 Low CR 512 WB & US # 1 7 0 24542 0.78 Low 49th Street & Old Dixie 7 2799 1617 4. 34 High 16th Street & Old Dixie 7 12045 6283 1 .05 Low SR 60 & 53rd Avenue 6 26422 1500 0. 59 Low Oslo Road & 43rd Avenue 6 9719 7529 0.95 Low MB. Bridge & IR. Blvd 6 14133 27060 0.40 Low Main Street & US# 1 6 E2178P12336 0. 60 Low CR 512 EB & US # 1 6 0.54 Low 4th Street & Old Dixie 6 0.81 Low 21st Street & 20th Avenue 6 1 .83 Low 21st Street & 10th Avenue 6 0.68 Low 15th PI. & US # 1 6 3000 30608 0.49 Low SR 60 & 195 NB Exit Rarnp 5 20326 3000 0.59 Low Royal Palm & IR. Blvd 5 6462 32606 0.35 Low EB SR 60 & 14th Avenue 5 14096 6268 0.67 Low CR 512 & 130th Avenue 5 10606 1360 1 . 14 Low Beachland & SR AIA 5 15525 20724 0. 38 Low Barber Street & Schumann Drive 5 6631 5651 1 . 12 Low 8th Street & Old Dixie 5 8484 10649 0.72 Low 69th Street & Old Dixie 5 1208 1182 5 .73 High 41st Street & US # 1 5 1605 21538 0. 59 Low 23rd Street & US # 1 5 6494 15255 0. 63 Low Vista Royale & US# 1 4 3000 34476 0.29 Low SR 60 & 74th Avenue 4 27803 1000 0.38 Low SR 60 & 34th Avenue 4 27001N5285 0.38 Low EB SR 60 & l Oth Avenue 4 12414 0.67 Low E. Causeway & SR AIA 4 26208 0.25 Low CR 512 & Roseland 4 7403 0.86 Low Ram 4 8663 0.94 Low CR 512 & Eas Street 4 12435 0.80 Low Community Development Department Indian River County 16 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ADT ADT Accident Rate Relative Intersection # of Accidents (MEV) Rate E/W N/S CR 512 & Blue Island 4 10070 1500 0 .95 Low CR 510 & Old Dixie 4 10654 678 0.97 Low Bahia Mar & SR.AIA 4 2000 24077 0. 42 Low 5th Street SW & 27th Avenue 4 1363 10629 0.91 Low 5th Street SW & 20th Avenue 4 687 6143 1 .60 Low 4th Street & 27th Avenue 4 6953 10384 0.63 Low 46th Pl. & SR ALN 4 1500 24077 0.43 Low 21st Street & 5th Avenue 4 8860 3000 0. 92 Low 21st Street & 11th Avenue 4 10782 3790 0.75 Low 16th Street & 14th Avenue 4 12310 4789 0.64 Low 12th Street & 6th Avenue 4 7143 6304 0.81 Low Source: Indian River County Traffic Engineering Access Managementt Access management is the 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 should 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 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. Existing land uses which do not conform to these standards are exempt from these provisions . Thus, there is a profusion of driveways in the already developed areas along the county' s key thoroughfares; these include US 1 , SR 60 and portions of SR A- 1 -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 median openings which permit vehicles to make left turns across the flow of traffic. Community Development Department Indian River County 17 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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. FDOT applies strict criteria in issuing such permits because of the negative impact that an excessive number of median openings have on arterial capacity and motorist safety. 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. 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. The 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. Indian River 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 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 have applied only to roadways within the urban service area (USA). An exception to that has been major arterial roads which exist in the urban service area and extend into or through rural areas of the county. Because urban type of growth is not allowed outside of the urban service area, there has been no need to reflect an extension of Community Development Department Indian River County 18 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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. 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 should 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. Clearly, 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. While actions are being taken to ensure neighborhood compatibility and aesthetic appeal of roadway improvements, population and commercial development along major roadways will continue to increase. Recently, Indian River County enacted measures and programmed roadway improvements that are designed to make roadways aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses . Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSI New techniques and technologies that enable more effective use of the existing roadway system may enable an area to comply with Highway Level-of-Service Standards through alternatives to highway widening. Known as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), this approach employs computer, video and communications technologies to monitor and control traffic on a real-time basis, usually from one central facility. Many of the 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 solutions, such as traffic signal synchronization, are appropriate for Indian River County and are actively being planned for and deployed . The Indian River County Computerized Traffic Signal System 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 county-wide 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 : Community Development Department Indian River County 19 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element • 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) - Currently under construction with completion expected in late 2002 . Expands system boundaries to 53rd Street (north) and 58th Avenue (west). Cost = $2 .0 million. • Group 3 (North County) - Expands system north to City of Sebastian . Cost = $ 3 . 0 million. • Group 4 (Central/South County) - Expands system throughout south county. Cost = $3 . 0 million. Finally, it is important to note that, because it is a new technology, reductions in traffic congestion as a result of ITS were not taken into account during the development of the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan. The impact of ITS projects will be closely monitored to determine the effectiveness of future ITS deployment in the County. Other Highway ystems In addition to thoroughfare plan facilities, Indian River County has designated certain roads or portions of roads as scenic and historic roads . These roads have special value from cultural or environmental perspectives and, as such, warrant preservation. The most well known of these special facilities is Jungle Trail, a roadway which parallels SR A- 1 -A 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 intra coastal waterway. 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 Recreation and Open Space Element 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 during a Category 1 or 2 storm event to 10 '/3 hours for a late fall season, long response to a Community Development Department Indian River County 20 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Category 3 - 5 storm event. Clearance time is defined as the time required to clear the roadway 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. 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 last Regional Planning Council 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 west of I-95 to widen shoulders and reduce flooding, two improvements that should enhance evacuation. Community Development Department Indian River County 21 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing Transportation Map Series Figure 4. 3 Critical Evacuation Routes b6 P r i� n v = 9 P a a S Rd 1 ,. p t } b 7 {y .. I I f y ! y >* I a. kzIld. J. l"llplll T'"7 I ' kds — .. i §34 14Ol i Legend Evacuation Routes ® Cities Water C%, All Roads Major Roads E= County Community Development Department Indian River County 22 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Figure 4.3. 1 f y INDIAN RIVER COUNTY f• , TRANSPORTATION �- - - -- - --- - -- -- - r -- - _ MAP SERIES 1 ( L . A .F .) +� of 4 ° Municipal Vol { L, Bountleriea ]� s 'i�• 1y R ; NNM.Na y l n J a ...r.. . .aYNjeNa, .. F U4 a ,NNa.N rolls a y$so 1 ..^ a 414 NNN a n of N NNa • < a u0 pff uM N Moat ( f`11tt\ S Ii 60 • aeN +"..� iws,Mills, I '�;V% . _...i.. moss - t "I Or _ � 01611 (L .A .F .) . , � . . . . . . rill. • a • Mastroaaaerr. .. 61 SW aua.._ -- mea 00 e a ar. Seale: ROADWAY FUNCTIDNAL CLASSIRCATIDN Dole: pec, Illy Urban Principal AreerlallU-PAI Nsolose Urban Minor ArterlallifMA) moss — Urban ColleclafID'LDQI Updated: Fat\ Iwo XXX floral Principal Artniegft PAI Auui Minor RrladellAMAI NaN Rural Maine LalleelodRMAJI Seerce: Florida Dept of Transportation U.ARd United Acceaz Facility Community Development Department Indian River County 23 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element �_ _ •..' Figure 4.3.2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FUTURE TRANSPORTATION MAP SERIES I-- F Munielpal i' IY ,W ; Sk Boundaries 9 1 "WN ,eCa..i:abre«re.. K.- SAM 11 case � .. N LI . « sales sorN AT «. ease see ann «, a a" w«>ir«aaunu OUT Oa aaaee�seaaa �". s +a•a a „,, ar., a Aria a Bases «a«` .� { SR.ao V Ark ase ase. W0149 asset40 `s I *T #141Asia a..as s a w . AM .t . a aa« uu. AT e * a«a area OaareLl•ss ` * 946 ...o- se.ea:Awaa scala: I >< ""' FUTURE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION 0410; Dec, wall A Utban Pdrlcipal Arlmlalb PAI enswer Urban Minor Aalede1111-MA1 r Asia urban CallecloW Cold Updaladl fab. tall JOCK Aural Principal AT terfdpt?AI Rural Minor Ar¢daIIR-MAI Assisi Aural Mala CelleclntlR MAJI Source: Florid, Dept of Transportation IL.All Limiled Access facility Community Development Department Indian River County 24 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing Transportation Map Series Figure 4� 4 2001 Average Annual Daily Traffic Counts u -- - - v .. w : o , C L m CRS .r N M U) 6 o o 0 ° v p � ° 1 28594 Ofd a State Road so 23682 4871 12th St 2 30 ath at p W ... . 4th t r N e 9 O i Oslo Rd - 3364 11 a 762 :. _ ._..__ _.._...._ ___ b O 1- Legend Major Roads Cities Water 0 County All Roads XXXX AADT Community Development Department Indian River County 25 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Bicycle/Pedestrian System The bicycle and pedestrian network is composed of the sidewalks and bicycle lanes adjacent to the existing roadway collector and arterial network. Approximately 40% of the county' s road mileage has bicycle lanes or paved shoulders; approximately 14% 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) There are currently 109 centerline miles of bike lanes or paved shoulders and 38 miles of sidewalks in Indian River County. In 1988 , the County adopted a Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan, which established the County's bicycle/pedestrian policies and addressed non-motorized transportation. That plan established goals, objectives, and policies that make the County's transportation network safer and more accessible for bicyclists and pedestrians. The plan identified needed facilities and defined a network of bikeways and sidewalks to meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians . In addition, the plan set guidelines and direction for bikeway and sidewalk facility design and construction. In October of 1997, the MPO adopted its countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan. That plan 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 . According to the MPO plan, the cost to install bicycle and pedestrian facilities on all thoroughfare plan roads countywide would be $3 ,300,000 and $27,600,000 , 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. Another way in which the county implements the Bikeway/Sidewalk Plan is by construction. 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 to fund bike paths and sidewalks, and has applied for and received several ISTEA/TEA-21 enhancement grants to construct bike paths and sidewalks. Currently, the county spends about $ 100,000 per year of sales tax funds and will be spending approximately $ 1 ,500,000 over the next five years in enhancement funds for sidewalks and bike paths . Transit Inventory of Current Transit Service The Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc . is the designated Community Transportation Coordinator, the provider of fixed route transit services , and the provider of paratransit services Community Development Department Indian River County 26 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element in the County. As such, the Council on Aging operates both fixed-route and paratransit vehicles and serves as the broker of rides through a coordinated organization of paratransit providers . Three types of transit service are provided through the Council on Aging. These are fixed route; demand response, and dial-a-ride. Historically, demand response service was the customary means of providing service for transportation disadvantaged individuals in the county. In 1994, the county began offering fixed route service to all county residents and visitors, with the expectation that some of the more able paratransit clients would prefer to utilize the more convenient and less costly fixed route service. Finally, the Council on Aging offers complementary dial-a-ride service for those persons who wish to use the fixed route service and live more than '/a mile from a bus stop. Through dial-a-ride, fixed route and demand response service, the transit system serves the transportation needs of clients of a variety of social service, public health and mental health providers and organizations . 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. Transportation Disadvantaged Like many counties, Indian River County has a significant number of transportation disadvantaged individuals. Generally, a person is considered transportation disadvantaged if, because of age, income, or handicap, the person does not have access to transportation. For these people, lack of transportation is a barrier to receiving needed social and medical services; to having access to employment centers and educational facilities; and to having access to other life-sustaining activities. In March 1992, Indian River County developed a Coordinated Transportation Disadvantaged Development Plan to assess the need for transportation disadvantaged service and to establish a program for serving the identified need. The plan included an analysis of the county' s transportation disadvantaged population, considering age, income, and economic factors. In 2002, the County prepared its most recent Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan, which updated the transportation disadvantaged population estimates and projections . In 2001 , it was estimated that about 26% of the county' s population was transportation disadvantaged. That equated to 29, 899 county residents being transportation disadvantaged. Projections for 2005 , 2010 and 2020 were 31 ,902, 34,606 , and 40,352 , respectively. The transportation disadvantaged estimate and projection methodology is detailed in the county' s adopted FY 2002/03 Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan. Community Development Department Indian River County 27 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Demand Response Service Medical demand response is provided throughout the county between 6 : 30 AM and 5 : 30 PM. Pick-ups are scheduled every half-hour. Transportation services for medical clients are multiple- client pick-ups whenever scheduling permits, but single passenger escort service is provided when needed. Due to the nature of regular doctor visits, more than one client may be asked to share a van, and two wheelchairs can be accommodated in the lift equipped vehicles . Clients are asked to make reservations for shopping trips seven days in advance, and reservations for medical trips are requested three to seven days in advance. Medical appointments can be scheduled up to two months in advance. Services provided by the Community Coach fit the context of a coordinated transportation service system. These services are accessible to all client groups, regardless of disability, age, race, religion, or ethnic background. Efforts are constantly made through door-to-door outreach and group meetings to improve the level of service to all ages, especially low-income, minority, and disabled persons . Fixed Route From November 1992 to October 1994, flexible fixed route public transportation was provided through funding by a private foundation. This seed money was given to establish a pilot program with one vehicle. The pilot program was established to ensure that transportation alternatives of a fixed route nature could become established in the county . Beginning in October 1994, seven of these flexible fixed routes were established in the county . Through Federal Transit Administration Section 9/Section 5307 funding, FDOT Public Transportation Block Grant funding, and local funding, these seven routes have become eight permanent fixed routes operating from 8 : 00 AM — 5 : 00 PM, five days per week . Unlike the flexible service, the permanent fixed routes maintain fixed schedules that do not include diversions to accommodate individual passengers . The permanent, fixed-route service was renamed Indian River Transit in 2000, to distinguish it from the Community Coach demand response service. Figures 4. 5A — 4. 5H depict the eight existing fixed transit routes in the county. Six of the Indian River Transit routes operate hourly from the County' s Central Transportation Hub at Pocahontas Park in Downtown Vero Beach and serve destinations such as the beach area, the Indian River Mall, the Gifford Community and South Indian River County. A seventh route connects the South County Route Terminus at South Oslo Plaza with the Indian River Mall and Indian River Community College, effectively supplying coverage throughout the populated areas of South Indian River County. An eighth route serves the Sebastian area. Table 4 . 3A shows the number of trips provided by route for the one year period from July 1 , 2001 to June 30, 2002 . The net effect of adding fixed route service has been an overall increase in transit service in Indian River County without a major increase in the operating system budget. An important aspect of the Indian River Transit system is that the fixed route service is more efficient at serving the mobility needs of county residents than the demand responsive service . This is illustrated by the statistics in Table 4. 3B . Community Development Department Indian River County 28 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element In 2000/01 , Community Coach/IRT vehicles traveled 899,673 miles and carried 304,081 passengers . This reflected an increase of 79% in passenger trips provided since 1996/97, while vehicle miles traveled decreased 9 .98% in that same time period. Although the fixed route service has seen improvements in performance since its inception, the system has been operating without an established level of service standard. Newly established guidelines require adoption of a level of service standard in order to guide funding needs and strategies. Dial-a-Ride The Council on Aging provides a complementary Dial-a-Ride service . Through this service, COA will provide a ride to the nearest bus stop for anyone living beyond Y< mile of a fixed Indian River Transit route. Table 4.3A 2001 Transit Performance by Route Route 1 Route 2 Route 3 Route 4 Route 5 1 Route 6 Route 7 Route 8 1 Total Length of Route (miles) 6.5 7.48 6. 51 5 .79 17 .75 10 .53 7.49 8.57 70.62 % Route Miles 9.20% 10.59% 9.22% 8.20% 25 . 13% 14.91 % 10.61 % 12. 14% 1 Total Revenue Miles 20,897 24,048 20,929 18,615 57,065 335853 24,080 27,552 227,039 Total Ridership 35,679 33,322 21 ,851 22,063 53989 7, 122 5,906 30,223 162, 155 Passengers per Mile 1 .71 1 .39 1 .04 1 . 19 0. 1 0.21 0.25 1 . 1 1 .71 Passengers per Mile - Standard 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 % From Standard 583% 454% 318% 374% -58% - 16% -2% 339% 1861% Ridership - FY 2001 First Two 20,820 17,380 95793 10,224 25953 3 ,573 2,984 13 ,683 81 ,410 Quarters Ridership - FY 2002 First Two 19,974 18,410 12,772 12,232 3, 112 4,012 2,430 16,678 89,620 Quarters % Change (FY 01 - 02) -4.24% 5 . 59% 23 .32% 16.42% 5. 11 % 10.94% -2 2.80% Source: Indian River County MPO Table 4.3B Indian River Transit/Community Coach System Performance Indicator FY1997 FY1998 FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 Percent Change ( 1997-2001) Passenger Trips 170288 225762 293299 314259 304081 78.57% Vehicle Miles 999451 796728 964744 939548 899673 -9 .98% Revenue Miles 822315 638639 883837 868316 852962 3 .73% Operating Expenses 1131381 1291664 1605574 1800600 1749804 54.66% Operating Revenues 1131381 1291664 1605574 1800600 . 1749804 54.66% Total Fleet 152 60 141 150 155 1 .94% Source: Indian River County MPO Community Development Department Indian River County 29 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Inventory of Transportation Service Providers Table 4 .4 provides a listing of transportation service providers operating within Indian River County. These providers include public agencies, non-profit organizations, and private for-profit operations. Table 4.4 Transportation Service Providers Operator Number of Hours of Operation Days of Operation Vehicles Contracted Indian River County Council on Aging 37 6 :30 AM - 5 :00 PM Monday through Frida Able Transport 3 24 Hours Monday through Friday Indian River Memorial Hospital 2 24 Hours Monday, Tuesday, Thursday Veteran's council of Indian River County 2 6:00 AM - 3 :00 PM Monday through Friday Association of Retarded Citizens 12 6:00 AM - 5 :00 PM Monday through Friday Indian River County School Board 15 24 Hours Monday through Friday Non-Contracted ACTS of Indian River Coun 3 Unrestricted Monday through Sunda All County Ambulance N/A N/A N/A Coastal Health Systems N/A N/A N/A Florida Baptist Retiree Center 3 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM Monday through Frida Healthsouth 3 8 :00 AM - 4:00 PM Monday through Friday Indian River Countv EMS N/A N/A N/A Indian River Shores 911 Service 2 24 Hours Monday through Sunday We Care Treasure Coast 5 24 Hours Monday through Sunday Source: Indian River County MPO Community Development Department Indian River County 30 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 37ttr St _ ! a l s I p + - ROY lriyBlvd Bea& lad Ivd— I + 30ttT St1-14 _. -- ��� j - p I Obi Legend A/ftoutel Route 1 Leve ' of Service: Transportation Map Series Q 114 Mile Buffer Major Activity C enters O Transit Centers Currently operating at Figure 4.5A `A DRI 0 Major Retail Centers Adopted LOS Standard Mobile Home Palls O Public School, (1 Hour Headway) Existing Transit Route 1 * Major Residential Areas + Major Service C enters Community Development Department Indian River County 31 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element -i 45 > S CID _1 (D + - - th St � I � r P t ah S _. . . f � IV f t 1 — i dt S ;. ^ t v II t : i EfI I I r3 d 16th St I I I _ • 12t Sl` I I mC0 r - -. to _ Legend Route2 Route 2 Level of Service: Transportation Map Series O 114 Mile Butter Major Activity C enters QTra ns it Cente rs Currently Operating at . DRI ■ Major RetaiiCenters Adopted LOS Standard Map4.5B ■ Mobile Home Palk$ Qi Public Schools (t Hour Headway) Existing Transit Route 2 * Major R esidential Areas 1 T Major Se mice Centers Community Development Department Indian River County 32 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element v , _. j it — _ _... N 1 I } — 4� )� - _ t - 1 z - j —�— _ _ (_ 7µ'S t . ■ � bc _ I � iI -1 x � fI 21stSt Legend #v Route 3 Route 3 Level of Service: Transportation Map Series 0 114 Mile Buffer Major Activity Centers O Transit Centers Currently operating at Map 4e5C Adopted LOS Standard A DRI Major Retail Centers (1 Hour Headways) Existing Transit Route 3 10 Mobile Home Palls O Public School * Major Residential Areas + Major Service Centers Community Development Department Indian River County 33 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element T , I , TdI a lit st J i ( - .�. il 1 l L u 1I I S L - ii T2, L m ! as — L Ti � r, �[ it ntn-S,_ , - II 1 - I � > 77 RhSUSW � r T F I cIm, , - —r— Legend dVRoute4 Route 4 Level of Service: Transportation Map Series 0 114 Mile Buffer Major Activity Centers O Transit Centers Currently Operating at Map 4. 50 DRI 0 Major Retail Centers Adopted LOS Standard Existing Transit Route 4 . Mobile Home Packs Q Public Schools ( 1 Hour Hea dway) * Major R esidential Areas + Major Service Centers Community Development Department Indian River County 34 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element r l N y Coq`, Q Q� V 0 71I f- T L 11 r Q � C, � C� f r _ eIISmere Rd h- � . . � r P� u - - Legend "Route 5 Route 5 Level of Service: Transportation Map Series E3 1 /4 Mile Buffer Major Activity Centers Currently Operating at Map 4. 5E A DRI 0 Major R etail Centers Adopted LOS Standard Mobile Home ParksQi Public schools (1 Hour Headway) Existing Transit Route 5 * Major Residential Areas + Major Service Centers Community Development Department Indian River County 35 , Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ! i4m ST If I ! { JU1W1L, J T37 �I I- 5th St SW I L1 9th , i I I I I =, �-- _ I ril _., n 1 jI 1_t IT, '_t �J HI hlanrl Dr SW i �t,` It Legend Route 6 Route Level of Service : Transportation Map Series 1 /4 Mile Buffer Major Activity Centers - Currently Operating at Map 4.5F . DRI ■ Major Retail C enters Adopted LOS Standard Mobile Home Palks QPublic schools ('I Hour H eadway) Existing Transit Route 6 * Major R esidential Areas + Major Service C enters Community Development Department Indian River County 36 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element i \ �Dt h f , S -� i - - rail; �I i i CL 16th St i 12t St OT _4-I1 - r - .,�j_ I i 1. 11 atn s s =1 4th St ��1 C t i t lJ 9 h St 1a � IC - I I I � Legend " Route 7 Route 7 Level of Service: Transportation Map Series M 114 Mile Buffer Major Activity Centers Currently Operating at Map 4. 5G ` DRI Major R eta it Centers Adopted LOS Standard Ii Mobile Home Pa Ms1QPublic Schools (1 Hour Headway) Existing Transit Route 7 * major Residential Areas T Major Service Centers Community Development Department Indian River County 37 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element . I . ._ 49th St ' • 1 I r t I 45th' St 1 i S I I S T 1 �1L i'�•�..� ■ n ( l __ i 1 I oraYt� pTPS � .,�. 26th St r �_ f > �1 2Qth t T - 1 Tri Legend - �. ., '• _. " Route l3 Transportation Map Series Q 1 /4 Mile Buffer RouteB Level of Service : MajorActivity Centers Q Tra nsit Ce me rs Currently Operating at Map4. SH DRI . Major Retail Centers Adopted LOS Standard Mobile Home Parks 5. Public Schools (1 Hour Headway) Existing Transit Route 8 Major Residential Areas+ Major Service C enters Community Development Department Indian River County 38 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Aviation and Intermodal Elements Indian River County has no railyards nor seaport facilities. There are three publicly accessible airports in the county. The New Hibiscus Airport is located just west of I-95 in the unincorporated part of the county, while the City of Vero Beach and the City of Sebastian each own and operate their own airports. Figure 4. 6 identifies the location of and access to the airports . • New Hibiscus Airport New Hibiscus Airport is a privately owned airport which is located west of Vero Beach. It is situated west of I-95 and south of SR 60 . It consists of 90 acres and has an elevation of 25 feet above mean sea level . Although it is privately owned, it is open to the public on a year-round basis for daylight use only . It has one runway that is 3 ,300 feet long and 160 feet wide . New Hibiscus Airport is used primarily by agricultural flying services. There are no cargo operations, commuter passenger or charter services at the airport. Access to the airport is provided by Interstate 95 , State Road 60, and 98th Avenue. Interstate 95 and SR 60 are maintained by the state. 98th Avenue is an urban collector maintained by the county. • City of Vero Beach Municipal Airport The Vero Beach Municipal Airport is located in the northwest portion of the City of Vero Beach, The 1 ,707 acre airport, with an elevation of 25 feet above mean sea level, is owned and operated by the City and occupies approximately one quarter of the total land area of the City of Vero Beach. The airport is open to the flying public twenty-four (24) hours per day every day of the year, with air traffic control services provided by a FAA control tower operated from 7 : 00 a.m. until 9 :00 p .m. every day . Three asphalt runways and their supporting taxiway systems are in operation. The primary runway, I IR/29L, is 7,314 feet long and 100 feet wide, and of sufficient length to accommodate a Gulfstream V . The secondary or crosswind runway, 4/22 , is 4,975 feet long and 100 feet wide . The third runway, 11L/29R, is 3 ,504 foot long and 75 foot wide, and runs parallel to the primary runway. Although no regularly scheduled commercial airline service is provided at this time, a full range of general aviation services are made available to the public by several local Fixed Base Operators. In addition, The New Piper Aircraft Corp. (aircraft manufacturing) and Flight Safety International, Inc . (flight training), as well as a variety of non-aviation businesses offering a wide range of products and services to the community, are located at the Vero Beach Airport . The Vero Beach Municipal Airport can be accessed through U . S . 1 , Aviation Blvd, 43 `d Ave, 34th Avenue and 27th Avenue . Primary access to the Vero Beach Municipal Airport is provided at U. S . 1 and Aviation Boulevard. Twenty-seventh Avenue is a county and city maintained Community Development Department Indian River County 39 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element urban collector that runs north-south and connects the airport to SR 60 . SR 60 , located one half mile south of the airport, is a state maintained east-west arterial that provides access to both US I and Interstate 95 . U . S . 1 is situated one mile to the east, and 1-95 is located seven miles to the west. • City of Sebastian Municipal Airport The Sebastian Municipal Airport is located in the northwest portion of the City of Sebastian. It is owned and operated by the City of Sebastian. The airport occupies approximately 601 acres with an elevation of approximately 23 feet above mean sea level . The airport is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The airport has two asphalt runways, which are 4000 feet long and 150 feet wide . The majority of the aircraft that use the airport are privately owned, single engine aircraft. The Sebastian Airport is accessed by Main Street in the City of Sebastian and by Roseland Road. Main Street is a city street and connects to US 1 , approximately one mile east of the airport. US 1 is a state maintained major arterial. Intersecting US 1 approximately one mile south of the intersection of US I and Main Street, County Road 512 (CR 512) provides access to I-95 at a distance of seven miles to the west. CR 512 is a county maintained major arterial roadway. Roseland Road is a county maintained rural major collector, connecting to both US 1 and CR 512 . High Speed Rail In November of 2000, Florida voters approved an amendment to the state Constitution requiring the construction of a High-Speed Rail transportation system. The amendment requires the use of train technologies that operate at speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour and consist of dedicated rails or guideways separated from motor vehicle traffic. The new high speed rail system is to link the five largest urban areas in Florida, and construction must begin by November 1 , 2003 . Indian River County is not intended to be one of the major stopping points on the system. Community Development Department Indian River County 40 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing & Future Transportation Map Series Figure 4A Existing & Future Airports , Rail , & Water Transportation Facilities \ 4 WE • Mace Ranch (PVT) . eapQ � x A : 9 Fellsmere (PVT • 9 a Q a IRC ma Ve u icil y • IF I e Indian erAe e n Filpin }� — Legend Water • Air Facilities Height Notification Zones Roads Rail & water A/200HN CltleS 6®,/% t X /10OHN 0 County V V 2 �50HN Atroposed High Speed Rail Route nV25HN Community Development Department Indian River County 41 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Land Use 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 production 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. Figures 4 .7 a-d show major trip production and attraction areas in the county. The major shopping areas for the county are considered trip attractors. Most of these major shopping areas are located in the Vero Beach area. Shopping locations include US 1 south of the downtown Vero Beach area, SR 60 east of the downtown area and the south county area. Another developing shopping area is the SR 60 corridor from 58th Avenue westward to I-95 . The recent addition of the Indian River Mall to this area has made it a major retail and shopping destination for the county. The Sebastian area is served by shops in the Sebastian downtown area, the Roseland Shopping Center, and a Wal-Mart Superstore. Convenience shopping facilities are located throughout the county along major roadways . Other attractions include county and state government offices and the County Courthouse, as well as a branch of the Indian River Community College, all located in Vero Beach; city government offices and post offices located in each city; and the 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. 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 near 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 need transportation for shopping and to purchase supplies. Employment is somewhat dispersed throughout the county, but there are areas with concentrations of employment. The area near downtown Vero Beach has many city and county government offices, and 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 near those hospitals. Current and future land use characteristics such as development type and density provide an indication of present and future roadway and transit demand. Figure 4 . 7 . 1 depicts the present and future land use patterns in Indian River County. For transportation planning purposes, land uses are represented by the number of dwelling units by type, the number of hotel/motel units, Community Development Department Indian River County 42 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element school enrollment, and employment by type . These data are aggregated by geographic units known as traffic analysis zones (TAZs) . Traffic analysis zones are the basic geographic units used in conventional travel demand analysis . Generally, TAZ boundaries are structured such that land uses within TAZs are compatible to the extent practical. In Indian River County, there are 444-154 TA-Z' s. Community Development Department Indian River County 43 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing Transportation Map Series - Generators & Attractors Figure 4.7A Major Residential Areas wx om +fie ,an Hi� ;, Reflecs V a o 0 4 Indsor Legend oil int Generators & Attractors eroLak i Residential a oaks Water a f Roads [� Municipalities m County Bent P' nes hn's Island . f a fl a G rbor ° Pa Paradise Pa� Ind n FRUve r E e di "ver Apt ne . re Pap r astawaycov S e sta ens a Ista als whi a ng s e Moorings Di 'e ove 1 d a ve Vero Beach Highlands Community Development Department Indian River County 44 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing Transportation Map Series ' Generators & Attractors Figure 4.713 Major Retail Shopping Centers lowland a • rUvalk art Su tare Sebastian N W E �.p 1 6 on o a4 A. gob p $ e6as. quake s Fpppi . . rater Sebastian Legend ° Generators & Attractars ° • Retail a t Water a Roads o n Cities 0 County a o ing;Center rstore/Sam's an er Co mo a Plaza o soh Busines District CoastPlaza Horizon Out! M N Plaza . brlii § P Ho D Ce e .,..:olon uOd Di de Plaz oPt 3za au `V are . e Community Development Department Indian River County 45 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing Transportation Map Series = Generators & Attractors Figure 4.7C Major Service Centers p mana H pital o Office J1 s ice ° a o ° °ate 9• a Legend • ffic ° Generators & Attrectors ❑ ° ° • Service Centers ° 4 ° ° • 5t 'U is 0 Water A /� 1Roads Cities County • o a St Office ® ° house e as ice Publ c H ep , n iver Memori hospital Post ffice ' ost Office r Clinic 9 ou ' 1 on Aging " as e e 5 P Community Development Department Indian River County 46 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Existing Transportation Map Series - Generator & Attractors Figure 4. 71) Mobile Home Parks & Developments P H ebile Villa • basttan Inlet Coral Gem Mobile Home P ark Indi2n verlanil ntltan Rivar Twin Esta sW y Shady Best Mobile Home Pr Inlet Trailer Park Haven V ' Karr River Land Mobil Home Park S El Capitan Mobile Hom Park Dona W tO �d Park e �i 4 a 1 or 4 o eQ ^ Qo.G P ¢ V "n9 TrailerA aW Fells t7 sky Kole el stages . . o s. , VVO VVy ob p AsPe hi mg Imer He railer Re of EtTrailerP Ase hi Perin al II • P ar r M i me Park sTraile ishees or railer Park by Lan "Tr it Park Suns me titer r vo lue,Cypre . Carlan it 0 e O New • .A'. RV P rk f.. KitYs Traded k c r La zY. i . 9e Palm Paradise P it M les of Pines Wabasse Mobile T alter Park ❑ Tam 5 gwyer Park Hilltop Frazier Park 9 Saga Palm Trailer Par OG Wilkers n 4 Orchard Park Chesser rail r arf Connecticut Traile Park VA It ailer v • igh Rt a obi Home Park Tranquil alldl D D • • Trai r • • ark Palm Gardens Sub ivisio 0 Pic e a Park Ranchland Mobile Home ark 0 \ West ate Trailer ark • Lakewood Villageo • • oun yside orth T ere a m es • n South Village • P rk G Hob Park . . - = C aehla • Wss ed Ma 6 HolidayVi age is T glewoo e o Squire Villa e • 15 d Legend Generators & Attractors Homes 0 Water Roads o Cities 0 County Community Development Department Indian River County 47 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Population Characteristics Affecting Transportation Compared to other areas, Indian River County is generally affluent, with a high degree of access to automobile transportation. In 2000, the median household income for the county was $39,635, compared to $38,819 overall in Florida. The percentage of the population living below the poverty level in the County was 9 .3 %. In the county, there are 1 . 80 vehicles per household, with only 6% of households having no vehicles. Florida overall has an average of 1 . 58 vehicles per household, with 9% of households having no vehicles . According to the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), the 2002 countywide permanent resident population was 118 , 149 . In 1987, the latest year for which there is an estimate, there were an estimated 18 , 374 seasonal residents in the county. In terms of population density, Indian River County is a low-density community. With 313 , 100 acres in the county as a whole, the overall population density, including both permanent and seasonal residents, is approximately 0 . 36 persons per acre. Journey to Work The average travel time to work is 20. 3 minutes for county residents . 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 joumey to work times across the state of Florida, shorter commutes can be found in Indian River County. Commuter flows for Indian River County provide insight into areas of current employment travel and potential transit demand. Of the county' s 47,737 workers in 2000, 8, 166 worked in the City of Vero Beach. A large number of Indian River County workers commute to St. Lucie County employment destinations, while a small number of county residents work in Brevard, Martin, and other area counties. Table 4.5 Journey to Work Characteristics Journey-to-work Characteristic IRC Florida Place of Work Worked inside county of residence 87 .28% 85 .98% Worked outside county of residence 11 .82% 13 .47% Worked outside State of residence 0.90% 0.55% Means of Transportation to Work Drive Alone 80. 11 % 77. 11 % Carpool 13 .02% 14. 13% Public Transit 0.09% 2.01 % Walk 1 .71 % 2. 51 % Work at Home 2.86% 2 .28% Other 2.20% 1 .97% Community Development Department Indian River County 48 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Journey-to-work Characteristic IRC Florida Travel Time to Work < 10 minutes 18. 50% 13 .26% 10 - 19 minutes 45 .94% 32 .93% 20 - 29 minutes 17 . 05% 21 .34% 30 - 44 minutes 11 .64% 20.23% 45+ minutes 5 . 14% 9.95% Work at Home 1 .73 % 2.28% Departure Time to Work 6 AM to 9 AM 74.36% 69 .56% Other Times 25 .64% 30.44% Private Vehicle Occupancy Drive Alone 80. 11 % 77 . 11 % 2-person carpool 9 .97% 11 .39% 3-person carpool 1 .89% 1 .72% 4-person carpool 1 . 16% 1 .02% Other means 6 .87% 8.77% Source : Indian River County MPO Finance 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 . The primary sources of funding for highway construction and maintenance are motor fuel taxes, motor vehicle fees and other automobile related "user fees. " Gasoline taxes are collected at the federal and state levels . In addition, the State of Florida collects gasoline taxes 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 13 . 1 cents per gallon on gasohol . Currently, 2 . 5 cents of the gasohol tax only is designated for deficit reduction, and 2 . 86 cents is designated for the mass transit account of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Community Development Department Indian River County 49 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 . 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 9 . 9 cents per gallon. Shared gasoline taxes include the State Constitutional Gas Tax (2 cents/gallon), the County Gas Tax ( 1 cent/gallon) , and the 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 4 . 6 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. • 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 I 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. • 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 . 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 Community Development Department Indian River County 50 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Government Infrastructure Surtax. Approved by County Referendum in November 2002 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 2002/03 revenue from this surtax was $ 11 . 7 million. Although a portion of this revenue source is dedicated to transportation, the County uses most of this revenue for other capital improvements besides transportation. Transportation improvements in the current five-year transportation capital improvements program account for approximately 228% of the total revenue generated by this tax. • Transportation Impact Fees Transportation impact fees are county fees imposed on new development to cover the costs of anticipated roadway capacity improvements. The County' s traffic impact fee ordinance was enacted in 1986 . The fee 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 collected a different impact fee for each different type of development. There is now one county impact fee for each different type of development collected over three (3) traffic impact fee districts . The revenue must be spent for transportation system capacity producing improvements in the district from which it was obtained. Total impact fee revenue collected during FY 200VOA /05 was $3 ,994 ,582 . 39 32,844,618 .21 . Tables 4 . 8A and 4 . 813 summarize capital and operating revenues for all state and local financing mechanisms through the planning time horizon of the Comprehensive Plan. Total state and federal capital revenues through 202-530 are expected to be $201195 million. Total capital revenues for the county through 202530 are estimated at $24-1-461 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 $44251 .7 million through this same time horizon. ANALYSIS The transportation element analysis consists of several components . These components include separate sections for each of the different transportation systems. The first component of the analysis is the land use/transportation analysis. That component is an assessment of the present and future land use and transportation relationship. Other components contained in the transportation element analysis include: the traffic circulation system analysis, the bicycle/pedestrian system analysis, the aviation and related systems analysis , and the transit analysis. Much of the analysis of the transportation systems in Indian River County was performed for the development of the MPO ' s Long Range Transportation Plan approved in 20892005 . The results from the LRTP are incorporated here in order to ensure consistency between the LRTP and this Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Department Indian River County 51 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Land Use/Transportation Analysis Currently, the county' s land use pattern is low density and low intensity, with single-family residential development being the predominant land use. Although the county does not have a central core with a large employment base, urban development is limited to the eastern third of the county by the established urban service area (USA) boundary. Within the USA boundary, there is a substantial amount of vacant land, many unbuilt-on platted lots, and existing strip commercial development along some of the major roadway corridors such as US 1 . This land use pattern, along with the county ' s socioeconomic characteristics (high incomes, small households, many retirees, high percentage of automobile ownership), has resulted in an auto-dominated environment. Because of the separation of land uses, most trips must be made by automobile instead of by walking, and the land use dispersion results in longer work, shopping, social/recreation, and other types of trips. For those reasons, as well as others (including schedule, time of service, geographic coverage), transit is also not a viable alternative to the automobile. In assessing the county' s existing land use pattern, several issues or problems can be identified, and various opportunities can be noted. With respect to issues, one is that there is little mixed use development in the county. Coupled with the diverision 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, and the Future Land Use Element incorporates many initiatives relating to transportation/land use issues . Probably the most significant opportunity to address these issues is the continued growth and development projected for the county through this plan ' s 2020 horizon year. The 2020 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 2020 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 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. Community Development Department Indian River County 52 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element From a transportation perspective , the future land use plan has several transportation implications. By limiting westward expansion, limiting urban sprawl, and promoting infill, trip lengths will not substantially increase . Shorter trip lengths result in lower overall system demand, fewer miles of impacted 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 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 neighborhood commercial nodes . These nodes can be established in residential areas to provide convenient commercial uses. By so doing, trip lengths can be reduced, and transportation system impacts can be lessened . Even more important 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. Traffic Circulation System Even with the land use initiatives referenced above, the traffic circulation system will continue to be the principal component of the county' s transportation system through 2020 . 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. Travel Demand Analysis To determine projected transportation needs, the County uses the long range transportation plan development process established by the Indian River County MPO . According to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 , every MPO must develop a long range 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 . The Indian River County MPO completed its most recent Long Range Plan update in 20F .2005 . The horizon year for this plan is -2025 .2030 . Community Development Department Indian River County 53 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 1996 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 population and employment data for 49%2000 were used. The 499(2000 data were then projected through 292 2030. These data are summarized in Table 4. 6 . The socioeconomic data were used in the model validation process and in the prediction of future traffic levels for the long range plan needs analysis . The -2 2-52030 socioeconomic data projections used in the travel demand forecasting model were based on the County' s fixture land use map . Using the map as a control, single and multi family dwelling units, hotel/motel units, school enrollment, and employment were projected for 28252030 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 built, and transit service enhanced, the model results may overestimate the number of vehicle trips that the socioeconomic data projections suggest. The model validation process involves running the FSUTMS model to obtain predicted 19962000 roadway traffic volumes and then comparing those model-predicted roadway volumes to actual 4-9%2000 field-collected traffic counts . Based upon the comparison of predicted to observed volumes, minor changes are made to the model's parameters . This change in parameters allows the model to approximate predicted roadway volumes to actual roadway volumes . Through this process, an acceptable projected-to-actual ratio is obtained. With this process complete, the model is then considered valid for the purpose of predicting future traffic levels using future-year socioeconomic data projections. • Needs Analysis The validated model was run using 282§2030 socioeconomic data and the existing and committed road network. This model run was performed to develop 28232030 traffic demand projections under the assumption that no capacity-producing roadway improvements would be made from "' ^"�B25 . 2010 to 2030 . In other words, this model ran 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. Community Development Department Indian River County 54 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element A deficient roadway is defined as any roadway having a level of service condition that exceeds the adopted roadway performance standard. 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 3825.2030. The traffic model makes its projections of future year traffic in the form of traffic volumes on roads . 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 ") ratios . 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. Community Development Department Indian River County 55 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Future Transportation Map Series 9 Figure 4. 8 2025 Roadway Improvements , aAIN t 4P > Q• r s 0 � n s w e . 0 d xeA�i � t O �h 9 0 1211 St p 4 0 w u N q A51 Vero Bea nset 1�A lob o : CIAS, a ib Re e< e 2 11 2 Miles p o° Legend Improved Roads 1999- 2005 Nlmproved Road 2005-2025 �/ Unimproved Roads A Existing Intemhanges Community Development Department Indian River County 56 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element N a,srSreuarcit County 37TH ST 1 1 p IL aus'iw . TMai�I, 46TH ai - ' ._ Ae- i21'W 6T 1 _ Vero Beach Inset - kwaWn amkneard Extenton flROWA,hgnn*A Ta Be Determined � rt MW 1 w Miles v r St. Lucie County s NA15ERG- LANES i11111111111110i ! Improved Roads 2010-2030 2 1s Interchanges Comprehensive Plan WIN, Existing Figure 4.8 ® — . New 2030 Cost Affordable Plan improvement Map Community Development Department Indian River County 57 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element '• f 1 9TH ST •' : 2Q g 1 45TH S 2 • .1 M.(: 41ST �i`F'P oT 11 m. AVIATIC q BLVD 60 i 777H :16TH SY: ¢ Q 17TH ST •• 697n ST •. j •: zcw ST ;12TH S 8TH ST 19TH 51 City of Vero Beac 45THS t 41ST 5 •.ti •• xrn sT awn ieiw w z. +a*Hsd r , Hs >4- g 0 ST _ TH s* € : E H STs osm Ho s ' OSLO RD • • mHO ST Sv F -y� T Figure 4.9 Future Roadway Network Laneage Number of Lanes Municipalities ' /N/ z I_ 7 aka' 3 1 ms' s Miles y'`J, 0 1 2 4 Community Development Department Indian River County 58 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element N Brevard Caunly 7TH SF iii 'S Y '' .�'; ` � 4 � ;• gT G � 1 „ THAT „ AY .. . _..._____ ` ..' t G� 507 Trick ' Y .. 121k ST _. ,•Y . ,: .__.�..: , .� Vero Beach Inset I Avenun Boulevard DelenBon Aligns iTo Be Determined Y ps a - 1 2 Miles . J . - St. Lucie County NJhEER Cr LANES Intersections I . vdi11r] jvv.f CrJurilty z s Comprehensive Plan Ffu::,, a — �� 1 / New o _ _ Figure 4.9 Affordable Plan cmn� G Existing 2630 Costanea Network Laneage Community Development Department Indian River County 59 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 4 au a do 6� ,� C�tlnl-I`ic L 9 47sT2t IL 60 f 1 VIATIO q Bt1+ f .-A _ 'T t 6TH < '• d n ' t1 THSY': 1 � t 74TH s 8TH sT � � � A ity of Vero Beach t b n - �or�rY i i 1 Figure4.$a .Y, •� {, Future Roadway Level of Service Level of Service Municipalities / A6. orD 1 0 1 2 4 ' LL Community Development Department Indian River County 60 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element NBr£.varCl 'County P Y A '8A w� I y. �y Z yA vP t hi r2TH Sr � Ver© Beach Inset AVdtIDn Boulevard Ulentmn PJignnwM To Be Detemnined t gw tl 2- - 0 1 2ssnn e Mlles " :? 1.p. . l.. cl$ ts3 'IAw 'Fan ,• j, t?, Level of Service Itadj �'n F.'I 'vf �.: *���It'jf Interchanges - ---- LOSNotCalmlatedD Comprehensive Plan A iiiiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIE 0 New Figure 4.9a 6 — F Existing 2030 Adapted Cost Affordable Plan ...�.� Level of Service C Community Development Department Indian River County 61 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element T-able ,1 .6 indian River County Planning Dat Ratio 202,& planning Pat.. Variable 096 2823 19% c .gle Fam l; 27, 192 46,,403 4-.71 Miflfi c 439?? 23889 8 wet.,l rHotel 2-. 0, 4-#5-7 4s6 Populatie Singh-le Family 71037 44?8;44H 440 Multi FafAily 30, 427 4 5,007 111 Tetal 4011-5464 183:-153 4-40 u..� aa. etoi ct 46 8;845 4 -.62 AvaJ Aa4es pet: Dwelling Unit c : .- 'tir19 ed 1-99 4-14 4 - sing4e Multi Fami!54.63 4 -48 4-.Qs Tela4 4-M 4-^84' 4�}2 CnISehe lm t Y$'YB.9 26;JI1 449 Table 4.6 Socioeconomic Data Summary 2000 2030 Single Family Dwelling Units 40283 55962 Multi-Fam l , Dwelling Units 23201 28917 Hotel Units 2135 3832 Single Family Population - 82973 159921 Multi-Family Population 33183 48557 Hotel Po ulation 2135 3432 School Enrollment 23673 38114 Commercial Em to mens 15625 28044 Service Em to Ment 23824 42760 Industrial Employment 9479 17013 Source: FSP.TtiS LUC UXX program output or 2000 and 2030 socioeconomic data .- Table 4. 7 shows the results of running the model with 242-32030 socioeconomic data projections and using the existing and committed road network. The table lists the roadways predicted to exceed capacity under this scenario . Nralumes and . . ie r t. , s pr-,,dieted F t eaeh ..,... a.. ay se eRl : n team=T. Those roadway links having a We ratio over 1 in Table 4.7 will exceed capacity by 2023-2030. Roads shown to experience more traffic than their acceptable capacity in 2422030 Community Development Department Indian River County 62 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element are in four general areas of the county. These areas include the north county area near Sebastian ; the State Road 60 corridor; I-95 ; and Indian River Blvd/south Indian River County . 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 2025 Needs Plan are summarized in Table 4. 7 .2 . • Revenues 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, transportation capital improvement revenue amounts were projected by five year increments through 2022030 . 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 . Currently, 40 of Florida' s 67 counties impose all or part of the ELMS (Environmental Land Management Study) one to five cent local option gas tax. Among those counties imposing the tax are Brevard and St Lucie Because the cost feasible plan is subject to unforeseen interruptions in the traditional transportation revenue stream, the county could consider implementing part or all of the ELMS one to five cent local option gas tax To impose this tax an extraordinary vote of the county commission or a countywide referendum initiated by the commission is required. Table 4.7 n . _ a Volumes & v1n n .,.c,.s for 1015 Link Roa& as €rem TO y rte,,: Vek3+ne 101 _ k ! A cc C,01 Tw T cc VB GATv i 97$3 n�an 8- R . A 1A L 17TH STR CGT _1.896.$ 72 4430 Chi 1 'lT�CTDGFT S . . 6 45385 HA 1 1049 SSG . Al C . R. 60 N VW GWi y 1 23688 354 R ASA �' -VB-C-I-T-y--b €- ED-T10-� !\lin ,W4? TC�_r-ER-BCQC9 1060 co_A n FRED TGRID oo RD 4976 0 . go n1 nl11 \lire S.R._ AIi M1+ r- nein N . COUNTY l 8609 0 74 1110 1 niATl �n 4TllCTT@ US 1 ] IT-P� STD�CT 3i65i ITTPI AI ' Rl{ /ED p4. 11TLIT_,T, CTDL_PT & > Y L 332463 ggg Y4' popp T1 RDTFR14P 17T-CTRRET TARPON 70847 Community Development Department Indian River County 63 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Rea"Zay From TO 2424 V IC Ratio \ I0' ..Mp 11455 INDIAN RI D. TARPON n1cTST-R yTRcF 32 -13 1 164 IND I AN R1 /CDRlD911 CT C TTRCCT B (\V Al RAI T,1 240299 1(3 IT f)l R4V-BTI RRV A 1 P A I AA MB BRIDGE 40562 1 .22 4469 INDIAN RIVERTBrlB rl M13 BRIDGE �74Tw ST-RPF 30629 095 T fl ATIT fl AAI R ��p\ ICR RIl\ / CR OIl _ OT1J�T'r'RCCT' us 1 t : Rfl CT 20226 424-0 4-9-5 N . COUNTY�i Ncm c G. R . 512 47443 1 02 42-2-9 4-9s C . R. 512 S - R. 60 52704 1 45 1230 1-93 SK 60 OSLO RD 422'14 1 03 1240 4-95 OSLO RD 5; (2,0114sq)44 PIF 55999 4-.�6 130 Us . i c COUNTY i 1T1C1 lnic OSLO RD 4141 Q_75Q U. S. F OSLO RD ATIS CT v 1D BI ilii 49534 4Z4-5 US. 1 'ITH CT @ IR BLVD 8TH STRFET �5885 0. 805I 1 VTLIVT4C TR CCTCCT 12THCTRECT 271177 080 } 12TH STDCTLT Cc VB OTV TT 25208 0 . 805 4330 1 iii C IIB�TTTV I PTH STREET 24745 0764 4340 U.C . 1 S .R. 0 ROYAL PALM DT :21129 4345 0351 U . S. { ROYAL PALM RI ATT AT4ic BLVD 26717 0 444 )_ ATLANTIC BI rrnBl xrn N. i !B QPr 1441T 45890 1 . 448 4355 U . S. i N. \ !B CITY IPA1q: OLD DIXIE_ WY 455653 075 WS I OLD DIVEIAV 41 STT STREET 2@332 0 4 :74 1265 .T 44941 STMET ACTL TUCCT 30262 1 4 $:P4 9TRrET 49TH STRCCT IimCSl 49:F 25455 0 . 58 14,n_I_ STR944 6 :'1'LiTR99TR99Ti- �T 29121 082 4380 U .S . 1 ACTll TRE-ET f'9T44-STREL'T 3569„10, 76 - 4-385 U . S. I 6()T-H STRCCTCCT GR . 5 ! g 32994 1983 U . .. 1 CR54 SGHUM1�T N DR 2214.9 43P5 U & i Saul Txn T DRDR rD.cl2 5.9.242- i . 198 14,88 i - S . 1I T SEBCITV 5 1 . 09 4445 1111 TI CCB CATY 11 RROCSE1 AND RRilit 291 0 F ROSFLAND R N . COUNTY UNE 24 " 1 0-7 454-0 CCH ITITA DNN rl DD C.R. 5104@ A 66TH VL C` CCB CITY f Q717 CGH iT .1�A-i_�,i�__1)iTiTi r)D C QCRI�TV i I � S; 1 R232 0 44P 1610 #{OSELAND RD CR. 5in N . SEB uCITY cV II RF A 0 67 n OSELA In RD Ta CCB CITY 1 U .S . i x,0648 0.F47 1710 C .nc1n DDr r—cnecDE 1-9-5 422 039 C .R. 4-9-5 CR,cin 24609 a 27 1720 G. R . C . R . 510 RnSELA . m RD 17252 0 . 621 1740 C. R. 512 ROSELA to Rn BARBER CT 1954 Q fig 4744 G .R. 512514 B ARB TB STCT c1 R�elwrG 22928 0. 49 G.R. 12 Rr R_No41N9 RAS 24570 0 424 1742 C. R.R.512 EASY DF A vn Rc 2708.9 0. 47 G.R. c lnc in I\DI A W RR us .i 414759 0 44 L-5.310 G.R. 512 / %"1'I�P A { IC{ IC 130:79 4 Q4 r R_51414 66THA VCz ( 4TLIo A _�llL 1 9 11 1830 C.R�1n c4T14 ,At '❑ ILS. 1 �3 1z21 184 f` R_GI (1 U . S . 9R IA 1�a 8�5 4905 S . R. .60 N.V.GOl N 4 V i rT• P r� R,crn 3 �1 Community Development Department Indian River County 64 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 14„I_ Rem Freta TO 2024 a S .R. c F P ggT14 A�Lr 9 36 8 29 S. R. 60 9 °T—r VF� 444 i946 S . R.1445 60 1-93 °o_-'r D :� tea` 063 V92S .R. 60 o7T.I�AAIr 66T�m i 7F.. 43497 IA25 S. R. 60 66TH AVE 58TH 52658 0 AQ 4430 S. R. 60 CPTH AAUP A ” Rp A [ l , 57i Ami 0. 94 cSrn .1 ? D�Allz 77TH 45443 Q 94 1,945 c�<n 20TH AST/r OLD DIMEE HWY 20093 C) 271 SK 6060 Ol nDIV��1r�A'k� I OT44 AIr 139:72 cg 6 1OTH AVE U.S . 4-204 9 . 07 14969 S. R. 60 U.S . Ilrnm1AT1 RPA PR Tal AIn 54510 gym.-�. . . INDIAN RIVVR 4$65 SR 60 BLUR 1CvlW 3262'e 1-970 S. R. 60 4CAVW S . DAIAA1A 74767 076 1 ! '1'LJHrL�' 1� = 4:i4 VI; 'PROtl12, 7248 G& 2939 161:11c�ocrT 43RD-AVP 2�-AAr-F 9698 0. 797 IST, 717TA 4VP 20T44 AVE x-0606 1) 8AR 1GTIJ� STREET 7/1T� nl D DIVIC 11TVY 134nfi 0 . 88 2868 116TL�TD FF-.T Of flI WNW 41AZY US 1 19579 0 . 38 244-9 16TI P ! 7TH ST U . S . i PIPJAM B.1111FR PI- W) 15149 0. 46 P IDIATSDIVER 242-0 Tl11 CTCT 9-Irt[D S . R. A AIA I A . 3988.'1- 2210 1�74:14 CTD r_PF 9 �:WD� 4 [ITFNUF 58TH 2e.9 64V 1 0, � 22-2-Q17Tll�'IP= V- WT 58TH 1 R 7599 p2 0438 2230 r -iH STT Cc�1 43RD V42 97T-14AA7P, nn. c4t� AA 2244) 17411 1)7:PW 20THA V_c + g7 yyyy 2-240 1 'ITLf�rFT NTP 4 VP OLP DME� PAZY 7-6o 0 524 r � � _CSTII r , E nr D DI 1�V � 92y4 0. 17 2270 � Hr TRF U . S . 4 INPIAN onrco uT crn inn 2305 nL-D4)4 l E�4uA>.IT c Cn NP 1I INPOSLO R 134-30 0 .66 01 D PIXIV uWY nc�n RD 4T44-ST 9750 0 7A nhF) DIXI�TRI'V ATI ST gTI4CT 44373 9, 987 2320 01 n DINIF HIV,T' OTHC' T -ST 4 11 0. 88 232-5 OF 1) HWY7� C Vo�'c 11971 0 88 OL- - IXIF HWV c VB CITY 14TH S 4-2354 a -04 9 n1 n nr I,T 1671ST S. R . 60 14 47 072 2345 �I n n >�n 14AV ' 4 1� .ICT—u c r 34470- 42 n1 D DIXIE WXT AST 49TH ST 2403 91 n DIXIF PWY 494: 1 S 65TH S r�449 nr nr 1 ) ili VST (. <� 69:PH ST 2959 0 14 I 2365 OLD TDIX 1r�TA� 69TH sem' c-R � }0 3644 C) 484 2410 77TH WFNI -rr c CAA INTTY I WE 091 9--RB 40790 27TH ^WPNUF 99I( RB 4T41-&T'1 41643 0 72 7T1J�kT1 C N UE 4TH ST UTA 4 0 7r440796 2440 -- 1zTrr�-RN IIIc STI4-ST 42TH S 90-K 2450 i H � A T NUP t IT14 ST Q V� 1 10901 Community Development Department Indian River County 65 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element L44— Rea &)' Prom TO nom` I „ , Rati . �ekxr�e 2460 77TH AVENUE O C NIB GiTV T 16:PW ST 10449 062 247 77T14 1 1-6TH SSR 60 &959 0 . 63 2480 27TH A IC .II CC S . R . 60 ATLANTIC!' QI V 5051 0 . 41 2510 27TH VENUEC ATLANTIC; OI VilOI Vll A VIM1TI(TQI llPQl Vfl 4$54 0 ow 2-530 nS1�D[lD 49TI�AVE 58 PHAVL' 94-7-f 2-54 ( CI�DD IIII 58T�U�AVC 13 RD AVC 5926 2569 lIS�IDI '33RDVCVC 77T�LA VCVC 11422 0 . 63 2460 J[ O RD -27TH AVE 20TI1 AVE 5y42 981=9_R.9 270TL�VC OLD1XIrrr W)r 42179 n 80 2569 OgLO RD 01 Ll L1TY C CI\Lr VilZY U .S . i 14 :742 0 44 2454-9 6TH AAVEN IC 17T�TST 17TF14 D:F 8983 0.64 2528 66u A V EN c 1 aT�e•r SA. 68 854-2 071- 1rc -M A-V IIU ROYAL PALM BLVD SR 68 10216 0 V41 2-72-9 111TH ADVICl.IT TCCT.II TC 8 8 60 17T�TCT 10271 n F;22 -20T4+AVEI c AS1 inn . Amyl ST Aq33 0 752 2&20 onTHA� >nhnro 4T�CT 8TH 17Q1 . 9839 2 &30 2011 A� >z'nIi r 8TH Sc r QTH S 4798 GA3 2840 20TT4 AVENUE 1 '1T-" CTCT Q&NIB CIT4 71729 071 285911T14 AVENUE & 3 E GITV 1 16T-W C 3ni9 071 2964) 'V1T1_I'V1TH AVENUE CC 46:44 CTAT SK 60 24021 0 . 71 Z7-0 ;-!nO:Pk S. R . 68 ATT nwrrin nI ATn 1_14fifi 2995 43RD AVENUE c,rnl >` TIT m1c OSLO _ ,,on_RD 40395 052 2949 4 3 RD 4AVENUE 4SbA-R-0 4T14 ST 96$7 0 48 291 f; 3RD AVENUE ! TP ST 8'P4 ST 4-02-2-4022 2492-G43RD ALS FNUF QT�CTL 7TH STST 1-9531 0 . 903 ,43RD A mN OF WTw S 16TH SST 1.49 7 875,}83 2920 43RDA SET 6441 ST SR 60 Q729 0 . 385 2936 419D AVPN41F S. R. 60 26:P14 S 11429 0 . 34 2949 43RD AVENUE 16:ywS AIQST' Q'P 42379 8_999 2-945 4qRP Ili R��C A l C�.�.S _D,r!• QT A CTP1 D_ rI C T 9649 Q 70 13 RD AVENUE 45:PPrC 49TH S' 3578 012 2005 58TH AVENUE OSLO R ?14:w q'F 8W4 38.1.9 58T-W AVENUE ATHST 9TWCT 11394 0. 18 2045 58Tu VIEN H o'r4ST 12TH 963J 015 2020 58T4A EN IL' 12TT4 o.T 16T�CT 40632 017 3925 58TH AICULIfa 16TH ST S. R. 60 29233 033 2030 58TH AVENUE S R 60 26TH X86 020 2023 587TH AA V��TIL ICIC 2/T1�r8T 11 ST ST 11ARF 060 2025 C5 STH AA \�aEN is 1111 STCT 45THDrQT 4945,7 0 . 643 2040 n' 4TIIn' 4TH A�4LlCT111E 15T��OT 49TH S 48437 052 3045 SQTTS 4ArP ITIC 49T-14S" - 65THST 429 .-77 0 . 69 54TH�TVCAII�I�C 65T-14 SCT 69T�ST 9954 0 F;24 58TH A Divw1U 691''145 G .._ I0 41224 0.60 34-2-0 664:14 A TICT I ICI IC S . R . 26TM CT 8948 065 4W 661TH AVR1UF 76T-14 41CTST 48-965 31-4-0 66THAVENUE/ CUIIC/ CAl11C 11 CBCT A :TWrT- 1-1-988 3459 666-14 A�NU) CL. I ' CCT. I ' C 45T�CT 65TH ST 9989 9-766 26TH AA VEN E 65TH SS 'r 69-I'M DS 1 9445 9�6 Community Development Department Indian River County 66 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Roadway Ff a 4a TO 2415 NUG Ratie 66TH A U jl i>n 69TH S GR 1-8 11761 4 . 413 3340 8-2441) ANIPNUE OM 0 E , 4THCT 3399 0. 17 c'1T.] D , 1F�1,)c .I TACT 12T� ST 7499 037 3330 g��IoTI AAZCAl1olE I IT-14 S. R . 5-747 046 oPnmA ^ 'F^" '-tiF, SA. 68 65TH 9 2&9 3640 �7T�1 ST 666TH A ❑lnr - P' 1 6717 3749 694-14 92ND AVE 66TH AAA AT d2i 006 972-0 69TrrOTR -ET 66TH AMEN r 59TH-AVE 7-24 03 ' 37x0 69TH STREET � 4Tll WP OLD PEXIE 14W1045 3749 69TH STREET nl it DIMP 44NAIV U .S. i 3209 047 3750 6cA�SST 664:WAA�tr- Nt- 59TH 1- --�r�l-r.�11' 9 0 . 000 3929 64�TH SS iter, AVENUE 01 n DIXIE HH +Y 334 65TH ST e�x U-.- A + a&M 024 3849 49TH Sl rr AVG'TN C -584 if ,397PN OF $1$7 0-440 4. 2-20 19TH ST --l�M4_4"L€N)JE 43R-D AVENUF 7T7 9 . 94 1 42-30 , o�T 3$T"-��.0 1i P—AAq.''.L� x-7-95 9-9$a 4240 , 9 PR-DAVAVENUIi OLD HM4 4&7-4. 49T-k-�T OLD DIXF€ }#WY U . S . i 516313 4420 ,, 5IN S;' lwTT , Al rn-cV V NUE FT 1 AUPC I t IF 22999 [24 :70 0 181 349 45T14 S: JIRD n , Tn ,n nl n TAMP WAZY 1.0470 0 . 76 350 , cTH QST 91 rA DIMP, 141N4 IN [)] A . Z AD 904-7 8:2 9. 8:2 4355 , :TY ST HT1JA;Q DI_.��I _I L4 f) U .S . q-7 3 2Q1 1 A 1 S-r C'1C'1' 66T 66TH 78A\IL C4T�A VL 4-54-23 0021 4440 A1� 11R�E 04DP1VITOFH r�V 6� 3'&CB^ 4450 � OLD DiMC al.Y U .S. 1754 � - a OR A ICTCT US I I1lT�Al1DcOEB ] l / . 195 006 4449 _ 7� I1(Ci I4lAN-RAJL E gg$.7 966 41 :74 Q 26T�r T 71Tu hr hTH�TVENUFl 2973 OAO 4720 26TI ! ceT 66T14 -A-ItPN44E � H ^P^ v1PL 593g 0436 4720 T 48TT'-I AV�',^:L - 43:?.-D ,414�Tl JR 4153 21 '1644�nDV U, IP T 4 A Vryr 6144�H SrT <,HH c'T• � ;,FH VIP U .S . 2999 0 101 29 9TTk CT 66TH AAVF N ' - : oT�r tUF 2749 0- 4940 8TH 43RD-AimcEN IC 17TH AVENUE 5�,3��OC n 2Q4 pT�CT 27T _E X)TH i1C, 938v 9 . 76 4860 8TH CSTT I-OTH ATFM:oc OLD IAME HWY &746 052 RT�CT 01-D DIXIT;-, HIAZY U .S . } 11-645 4990 8T-14-ST 11c 4- INI-AA r uA ZF.R 144 vn 4655 0 . 63 4910 TJ�CT 82ND AE 59TIl Avg GYO 0 12 4930 YY14 1 58T�AUP ZRpAVW, 4494 494-0 4TH 41PUD VIP 7RT14 W, 744 IQ 1 4950 THCT -_7-T-tA CWF. 20TH 91,72 4-9Q 4TH ST ;1()']' '-H-n-ir'E, OLD nlXlcIPAO. 6792 n D nl�n 141VY U . S . i 9440 0. 551 Community Development Department Indian River County 67 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.7 2030 Potentially Deficient Roadways 2030 V/C Ratio On Street From Street To Street Greater than 1 .0 (Y/N ? I 4th St 98th Ave 82nd Ave N 4tlt Si 82nd .Ave 66th Ave N_ 4th St 66th Ave 58th Ave N 4th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave N 4th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave N 4th St 271h Ave 20th Ave N 4th St 20tH Ave Old Dixie Hwy Y 4th St Old Dixie Hwv U. S. I N 5th Street SW 66th Ave 58th Ave N 5th Street SW 58thAve 43rd Ave N 5th Street SW 43rd Ave 27th Ave N 5th Street SW 27dt Ave U . S. I N 6th Ave U. S. I 8th St N 6th Ave 8th St 12th St N 6th .Ave 12th St 17th St N 01h Ave 171h St 18th St N 6th .Ave 1801 St 21 ;1 St N 8th St 901h Ave 82nd Ave -N 8th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave- ti 80 St 741h Ave 66th Ave N 8th St 66th Ave 58th Ave N 8t'li St 58th Ave 43rd Ave N_ 8th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave N 8th St 27th Ave 20th Ave N_ 8th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwv Y 8th St Old Dixie Hwv U. S . 1 Y_ 8th St U.S. 1 Ave Y 8th St 6' Ave Indian River Blvd N I Odt .Ave 17th St S.R. 60 (W13 N 10th Ave S.R. 60 (WBl lioval Palni BIN N 12th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave N 12th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave- N 12th Si 27th Ave 20th Ave N 12th St 82nd .Ave 74th Ave N 12th St 201h Ave Old Dive Iuv N 12th St Old Dixie Hwv U.S. 1 N 12dt St U .S . 1 6th Ave N 121h St Lith Ave Indian River Blvd N 13th St SW' 66th Aye 58th Ave 13th St SW 58th Ave 43rd Ave N 13th St SW' 43rd Ave 34th Ave N Community Development Department Indian River County 68 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 V/C Ratio On Street From Street To Street Greater than LO Y( !ti ? ) I th St SW 34th Ave 27th Ave N '13th St SW 27th Ave 20th Ave N 16th St 90th Ave 82nd Ave N 16th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave N 16th St 74th Ave 66th Ave N 16th Si 661h Ave 58t1t Ave N 16th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave N 16th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave N 16th St 271h Ave 30th Ave N 16th St 20t'h Ave Old DMe 11 %N N 161h' 17ih St Old Dixie Nwv I Oth Avc N 16t>I77th St_ 10th .Ave U . S. I N _] 7th St U .S_ 1 Indian River Blvd N 17th St Indian River Blvd S.R. Ala N 17th St SW 66th Ave 58th Ave N 17th Si SW 58th Ave 4Ird Ave N 17th St SW 43rd Ave 27th Ave N 20th Ave 21st Ln SW 17th hi SW N 20th Ave 17th Ln SW Oslo Rd Y 20th Ave Oslo Rd - 4th St Y 201h .Ave 4th Se 8th St Y 70th Ave 8th St 12th St 1_0th Ave 12th St S VB City Limit N_ 201h Ave S VB Cit , Limit - 16th St N Nth Ave 16th St S:R. 60 N 20th Ave S.R. 60 Atlantic Blvd N - 21st S1 20th Ave U.S. I 2lstSt U.S_ 1 Indim River Blvd N 21 :t St SW 58th Ave 43" Ave N 21 st St SW 43rd Ave 27th Ave N 21st St SW 271h Ave 20th Ace N 23rd Si 20th Avenue U.S. I N 33rd St U . S. I Roxal Palm Bhd N 26th St 82nd .Ave 74th Ave N 36th St 74th Ave 66th .Ave N 26th St 66th Ave 58dh Ave N 26th St 58th Axe 43rd Ave N 27th Ave S. County Line 13th St SW Y 27th Ave 13th St SW Oslo Rd Y 77th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St Y 27th Ave 4th St 8tlt St N 'Mh Ave 8th St 121h St N 37th Ave 12th St S VB City L N 27th Ave S VB Cit I L 16th St N 27th Ave 16th St IS.R. 60 1 Y Community Development Department Indian River County 69 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 VIC Ratio On Street From Street To Street Greater than 1 .0 ( YIN ' 1 271h Ave S .R. 60 Atlantic Blvd Y 27th Ave Atlantic Blvd Aviation Blvd Y 33rd St 66th Ave 58th Ave N 371h Si U. S. I Indian River Bl% d Y 41st St 58th Ave 43rd Ave N 41st St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Hw'y N 41stSt Old Dixie ]-hvv U .S. I N_ 41st St U . S I Indian River Blvd Y- 4' 43rd Ave S Cotlna l:.ine Oslo Rd Y 43rd Ave Oslo Rd 4th St Y 43rd Ave 4th St 8th St Y 43rd Ave 8th St 12th St Y_ 43rd Ave 121h St 16th St N_ 43rd Ave 16th St S . R. 60 Y 43rd Ave S.R. 60 26th St Y 43rd Ave 26th St 41st St N_ 43rd Ave 41st St 45th St N_ 431d Ave 45th St 4th St N 43rd Ave 49th St 53rd St N 45th St 66th Ave 58th .Ace N 451h Si 58th Ave 43rd Ave N lith St 443rd Ave Old Dixie Htvv Y 45th St Old Dixie Hwv U.S. I Y 45th St U . S . I Indian River Blvd Y 49th St 661h Ave 581h Ave N 49th Si 58th Ave 43rd Ave N_ 49th St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Hw � N 49th St Old Dixie Ilwv U. S, 1 N 53rd St 82nd Ave 66th Ave N 53rd St 66th Ave 581h Ave N 53rd St 58Th Ave Old Dixie Hwy N 53rd St Old Dixie H%NN U . S. I N 58th Ave S Countv LineiKoble and Rd 17th St Y 58th Ave 17th St 13th St SW Y_ 58th Ave 13th St SW Oslo Rd Y 58th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St N 58th Ave 4th St 8th St N 58th Ave 8th St 12th St N 58th Ave 19th St 16th St N 58th Ave 16th St S. R. 60 N 581h Ave S.R. 60 26th St N 58th Ave 26th St 41 st St N 58th Ave 41st St 45th St N 58th Ave 45th St 490 St N 581h Ace 49th St 53rd St N Community Development Department Indian River County 70 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 V/C Ratio On Street From Street To Street Greater than 1 .0 Y( !N ') 58th Ave 53rd St 65th St Y 58th Ave 65th St 69th St Y 58th Ave 69th St C.R. 510 N 65th St 66th Ave 58th Ave N 65th St 581h Ave Old Dixie HNN-Y N 65th St Old Dixie FINw U .S. I N 66th Ave S County Lino 1701 St N 66th Ave 17th St 13th St N _ 66th Ave 13th St Oslo Rd N 66th Ave Oslo R 4111 St N 661h Ave 41 St 8th St N 661h AO'e 8th St 12111 St N 66th Ave 12th St. 16th St N_ 66th Ave 16th Si S. R. 60 N 66th Ave S. R. 60 26th St Y 66th Ave 226th St 41st St Y 66th Ave 41st St 45th St Y 66th Ave 45th St 53rd St Y 661h Ave 53rd St 65th St Y 66th Ave 65th St 69th St Y 66th Ave 69th St C.R. 510 Y 69th Sl 82nd Ave 66th Ave N 69th St 66th Ave 58th Ave N 69th St 58th Ave Old Dixia 1{1vv N 69th St Old Dixie 1-lvvv _ U .S. I y 701h Ave C. R. 510 Barber St N 741h Ave 8th St 12th St N 74th Ave 12th St S.R. 60 N 77th St 66th Ave U 'S. I Y 82nd Ave S County Line Oslo Rd N 82nd Ave OS10 Rd 4th St N 82nd Ave 4th St 1201 St N 82nd Ave I ^_th St S. R. 60 Y 82nd Ave S.R. 60 26th St N 82nd Ave 26th St 53rd St N 82nd Ave 53rd St 65th St N 82nd Ave 65th St 69t11 S[ N 82nd Ave 69th St C . R. i10 N 90th Ave 8th St S . R. 60 Y 98th Ave 4th St S.R. 60 N Attantic Blvd 43rd Ave 27th Ave N Atlantic Blvd 27th Ave 20th Ave N Adsnric Blvd 2001 Ave U.S. 1 N Aviation Blvd 4311 Ave 27th Ave N Aviation Blvd 27th Ave U . S. 1. Y Community Development Department Indian River County 71 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 VIC Ratio On Street From Street To Street Greater than 1 .0 Y( iN °) Aviation Blvd ( Ext U . S. 1 Indian River Blvd N Barbar St C. R. 512 Enelar Dr Y Barber St Enelar Dr 70th Ave Y Barber St 70th Ave Schumann Dr N Barber St Schumann Dr U. S. 1 N C.R. 507 S. Carolina Countv Line N C.R. 510 C.R. 512 86th St Y C. R. 5t0 86th St 66th. Ave Y C.R. 510 66th Ave 58th Ave Y C. R. 510 58th Ave U.S. 1 Y C. R. 510 U.S . I ICWW Y C. R. 510 ICW1br S.R. AlA Y C.R. 512 S. R. 60 FellsmereCity Limits Y CR. 512 Feltsmere City Limits 1-95 Y C.R. 512 1-95 C.R. 510 Y C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd Y C.R. 512 Roseland Rd Barber St Y C.R. 512 Barber St Flemin¢ St Y C.R. 512 Flemine St Easy St Y C. R. 512 Easy Sl Delahvare St Y C. R. 512 Delaware S1 t S. I Y Fleming St C.R. 512 Easy St N_ Flemino St Easy St Schumann Dr N_ Hiehlands Dr Old Dixie ll vv U. S. 1 N 1-95 S . Couuty Line Oslo Rd Y 1-95 Oslo Rd S . R. 60 Y I-95 S.R. 60 C.R. 512 N_ 1-95 C.R. 512 N . Count , Line N Indian River Blvd U. S. ] S) 8th St N Indian River Blvd 8th St 12th St Y Indian River Blvd 12th St 17th St Y Indian River Blvd 17th St S.R. 60 ( S) Y Indian River Blvd S.R. 60 ( S) 21 st St Y Indian River Blvd 21st St Royal Palm Y Indian River Blvd Royal Palm S .R. 60 (N ) Y Indian River Blvd S. R. 60 (N) Aviation Blvd Ext Y Indian Riyer Bled Aviation Blvd Ext 37th St Y Indian River Blvd 37th St 53rd St N Old Dixie Flrhv S. COLmty Line Oslo Rd N Old Dixie HtiA Oslo Rd Ist St N Old Dixie Ihvv I A St 4th St N Old Dixie HN v 41h St 8111 St N Old Dixie Hwv U. S. 1 41stSt N Old Dixie llv, y 8th St 12201 St Y Old Dixie I Nw 41st St 45th St Y Community Development Department Indian River County 72 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 VIC Ratio On Street From Street To Street Greater than 1 .0 (YIN ?) Old Dixie Hwy 12th St S VB City L Y Old Dixie Hwv 451h Si 49th St Y Old Dixie Hwv S VB Cit% L 16th St Y Old Dixie Hwv 49th St 65th St Y Old__Dwe 16th St S.R. 60 (WB) Y Old Dixie Hwv 65th St 69th St Y Old Dixie Hwv 69th Si C.R. 510 Y Oslo Rd I -95 82nd Ave N_ Oslo Rd 82nd Ave 58th Ave Y Oslo Rd 58th Ave 43rd Ave N Oslo Rd 431d Ave 27Th A%c N Oslo Rd 271h Ave 20t1t Aac Y Oslo Rd 20th .Ave Timbci Ridvc Y Oslo Rd Timber Ride OldDixie I lwy Y Oslo Rd Old Dixie Hwv U.S. 1 Y Roseland Rd C. R512 N. Seb Citv L Y Roseland Rd N. Seb Citv L U . S. 1 Y Royal Palm Blvd Roval Palm Pt Indian River Blvd N Roval Palm PI U . S. 1 Indian River Blvd N S. R. 60 W. County Line C.R. 512 Y S.R. 60 6th Ave Indian River Blvd N S.R. 60 C.R. 512 98th Ave Y S .R. 60 Indian River Blvd ICW W N S. R. 60 98th Ave 1-95 Y S. R . 60 IC W W S . R. AIA N S.R. 60 1-95 82nd Ave Y S.R. 60 82nd AN 66th Ave N S . R. 60 66th Ave 58th Ave N S. R. 60 581h Ave 43rd Ave N S. R . 00 43rd Ave 117th .Ave N S.R. 60 1_7th Ave S 1260 ( RB/EBl N 511 00 (EB ) S R-60 ( Wl Old Dime Hw% N S R 60 ( EB) Old Dixie Hwv 101h Ave N S.R, 60 (LB ) 10th Ave U .S. 1 N SB. 60 LFBl U .S. I S.R. 60 (El N SR. 60 ( WB1 S. R. 60 f W) Old Dixie Hero N_ Old Dixie Huy 10th Ave N S.R. AIA S . County Line Castawav Blvd N S.R. AJA Castaway Blvd 17th St Y S . R. AIA 17th St S.K. 60 Y S.R. A ] A S .R. 60 N. VB Ciry h Y SR . Al A N . VB City' L Fred 'i'uerk Rd Y S.R. AIA Fred Tuerk Rd Winter Beach Rd N S R. AIA Winter Beach Rd N, IRS L N_ S.R. A]A. N . IRS L C.R. 510 Y Community Development Department Indian River County 73 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2030 V/C Ratio On Street From Street 'to Street Greater than 1 .0 Y( /N :' ) S. R. AIA C.R. 510 N. County Line N Schuman Dr C.R. 510 Barber St Y Schumann Dr Barber St Ei�ola Dr Y Schumann Dr Eualar Dr Flemmine St Y Schumann Dr Flemming St U . S. I N U.S. 1 S. County Line Oslo Rd Y IJ. S. I Oslo Rd 4th St N U S. I 4th St 8th St Y U . S. 1 8th St Lth St Y U. S. I 12th St 14th St Y U . S. I 14th St S. VB City L Y U .S. 1 S. VB City L 17th St Y U.S. 1 17th St Saw60 (WB1 Y U.S_ 1 S.R. 60 WB 23rd St N U . S. I 23rd St Atlantic Blvd N. U.S. I Atlantic Blvd Aviation Blvd Y U.S. I Aviation Blvd 37th St Y U. S . 1 37th SC Old Diaie Hwv S Y U.S . 1 Old Diaie Hwy Sl 41St St Y U .S . 1 41st St 45th St Y U . S . I 45th St 49th St Y U . S.. 1 49th St 6501 St Y U. S. 1 65th St 69th St Y U . S. 1 69th St Old Dixie 1-1wy (NI Y U .S. 1 Old Dixie I I\vv (N) Barber St N U. S. 1 Barber St Schumann Dr N U-S. 1 Schumann Dr C-R. 5A Y U.S . I C.R. 5A C. R. 512 Y U. S. 1 C.R. 512 N. Seb City L Y U. S. t N. Seb Citv 1, Roseland Rd N U . S. 1 Roseland Rd N. Couu � Linz Y Victory Atlantic Cordova N Victoty Cordova 20th Ave N Source : Indian River County MPO • 202430 Cost Feasible Plan In order to determine which roadway improvements on the 2030 Needs Plan can be funded, a Cost Feasible Plan was prepared. The Cost Feasible Plan matches the financial resources that will become available through the year 20?-530 with a prioritized listing of roadway improvement projects and includes those projects that are affordable . Project prioritization criteria were developed to rank the Needs Plan roadway improvements . These criteria provide the basis for determining which roadway projects will be included in the 202-530 Cost Feasible Plan. Community Development Department Indian River County 74 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element E=,ven though the NPed- c; Plnii identifies the readway improvements that -are feqb4ed to maintain an ade"ate level of , there are soine eirEamstanees whereby polie- , no!allow an impfavemeirt to be uridertaken. 9 r in the case of these t�Ate readways, proposed widening projeets geoemted conqiderable oppe ition. The proposed imprevemems were pefeeived as leading to higher volumes of tm higher tra;,rel speeds, increased noise levels, and reduced safaty . Af4er eensidering4he4fa4eeffs-. the BGC detemined that eengestiort on these roadways was an aeeeptable alternative to them. Beeause a ! formed seetions of these twoc raoa o . _.roads, some F i � � r, , That ligtea cccm_ c w h t- een exet a a from the 2025 Cost Feasible ot ., ,, Road widening projects in the LRTP 3025200 Cost Feasible Plan are identified in Table 4 . 9 . 1 . The total cost of the road improvements in Table 4 .9 . 1 is $38-""581 . 3 million. The following observations can be made about the final 3025200 roadway network: • Major state road improvements include I-95 (from N. County Line to S . County Line), SR 60 (from W. County Line to 66h Ave), and US 1 (from S . County Line to 4th Street @ Indian River 13I3,-d.Blvd and from Aviation Blvd to CR 510). • The improvement to Indian River Blvd (from 4"' Street Palm Point to 37' Street) to six lanes coupled with the extension of Aviation Blvd from US I to Indian River Blvd provides significant new roadway capacity to relieve projected traffic on US 1 through Vero Beach. • Major road improvements in the southern portion of the county include Oslo Road (from I-95 to Old Dixie Hwyto four lanes, the I-95/Oslo Road interchange, cast/west roads (81h Street, 16th Street, 26 Street, 53rd Street, Aviation Blvd), and north/south roads (43 `d Avenue, 58h Avenue, 66th Avenue) . • Major road improvements in the northern portion of the county include CR 512 (from I- 95 to Roseland Road) , CR 510 (from CR512 to US 1 ), Barber Street (from US I to Schumann Drive) to four lanes , Schumann Drive (from CR 510 @ 66`h Avenue to Barber Street) to four lanes, the extension of Laconia St to CR 510, and the extension of Fleming Street to US 1 . 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, total accidents , and pollutant emissions. During the course of developing the Cost Feasible planthe county considered several alternatives to road widening in response to public comments and potential impacts to surrounding neighborhoods Two examples of this were the consideration of alternatives to widening 27th and 43 '0 Avenues . Community Development Department Indian River County 75 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Policy 7 . 1 of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan — Transportation Element indicates that the county will explore alternatives to widening major thoroughfares when those thoroughfares intrude into an existing residential neighborhood. 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. In the fall of 2004, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) considered several programmed roadway improvement projects. During the public involvement phase of the roadway development process, a considerable amount of citizen opposition arose against two of those roadway projects — the 43 `d Avenue and 27th Avenue widening proiects . Both 43`d Avenue and 27th Avenue are two-lane undivided facilities that were proposed to be widened to five-lane facilities. The proposed widening Projects were perceived as leading to higher volumes of traffic higher travel speeds, increased noise levels, and reduced safety. In order to maintain the adopted level of service while also maintaining the quality of life of the residents in south Indian River County, the county explored a number of alternatives to five- laning 43`d and 27th Avenues. These alternatives included three-laning 43`d and 27th Avenues; establishing new roadway alignments ; and widening parallel facilities. In addition, an analysis was conducted to determine the feasibility of maintaining adequate levels of service through expanded transit service on the facilities. In performing the analysis of alternatives, the county employed a number of quantitative techniques, including regional travel demand modeling using FSUTMS on the adopted Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model network. • Roadway Alternatives An analysis was performed of the impact of three-laning as opposed to five-laning, 43`d and 27h Avenues. According to the Generalized Level of Service Tables contained in FDOT ' s 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, dividing an undivided facility generally results in a 5% increase in capacity. Applying this increase to the two lane capacity of 43d Avenue, three-laning these facilities would result in a new capacity of approximately 903 vehicle trips/hour/direction. While helping to mitigate level of service problems, this solution alone does not fully address these concerns, since peak hour directional demand from proposed traffic projects on 43 `d Avenue (921 trips) will soon exceed three-lane capacity (903 trips). With respect to new roadways and parallel roadways, a number of north/south facilities exist within a distance of approximately five miles of 43 `d and 27th Avenues. Two of these facilities (US 1 and Old Dixie Highway) connect residents in both Indian River and St. Lucie counties, while two others (58th Avenue and 20th Avenue) are limited to only Indian River County. In analyzing improvement options for north/south alternatives, it was determined that widening parallel facilities is either not feasible and/or will not result in adequate levels of service on 43 `d and 27th s . Avenue According to preliminary model runs performed as part of the MPO ' s 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan update, the widening of US 1 from four to six lanes will still result in level of service deficiencies on 27th and 43 `d Avenues. Consequently, another roadway alternative was explored. That was the extension of 58h Avenue to Indrio Road in St. Lucie County. Community Development Department Indian River County 76 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Located approximately 1 mile west of 43 `d Avenue, 58`h Avenue is a new, four lane divided north-south facility. According to modeled output extending 58`h Avenue south to Indrio Road in St Lucie County will also not adequately address level of service on 43 `d and 27`h Avenues. The remaining north-south roadways 20`h Avenue and Old Dixie Highway, are severely constrained by right of way. Both roadways are also classified as collectors , whereas 27`h and 43 `d Avenues are classified as minor arterials. In addition, land use adjacent to 20`h Avenue includes several public and private schools and school crossing zones. Consequently, neither facility can be widened without massive disruption to neighborhoods and businesses • therefore neither option is cost feasible. No other parallel facilities exist within the corridor. Since the surrounding neighborhoods are largely built out north of Oslo Road no new parallel roads could be built without displacement of existing neighborhoods. In the course of preparing its 2030 LRTP the MPO explored new alignments and other alternatives to address the 43`d Avenue and 27`h Avenue level of service considerations . Model analysis indicated that a major new roadway corridor, 66' Avenue (modeled as a new, five-lane facility from SR 60 to Oslo Road and as a new three-lane facility from Oslo Road to St. Lucie County), could relieve conditions on 43`d Avenue if developed in conjunction with the alternatives described above As indicated in the LRTP report. this relief would come about in year 2030 after all parallel and feeder routes are already constructed. and only if the MPO ' s future assumptions on growth and travel demand are realized . • Transit Alternatives With respect to transit the Indian River County MPO modeled expanded transit service on the 43 `d Avenue Corridor as part of the recently completed five-year Transit Development Plan — Major Update According to consultant estimates expanded transit service on 43 `d 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 43 `a Avenue corridor equals 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 43`d Avenue. • Level of Service Alternatives Given the absence of a viable roadway or transit alternative in the 43`d Avenue/27`h Avenue corridor, the county adopted Level of Service "E" plus 20% as the minimum acceptable level of service standard for the following roadways: • 27`h Avenue — South County Line to SR 60 • 43 `d Avenue — Oslo Road to 16`h Street Community Development Department Indian River County 77 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Since this decision, subsequent analysis determined that a four-lane section (as opposed to the original five-lanes) on these roadways would enable the county to maintain its LOS "D" standard while minimizing the impacts to surrounding properties. Consequently, both 27th and 43rd Avenues have been added to the county' s roadway network as future four-lane divided facilities . Therefore, level of service "E+20%" can be chanced back to level of service "D" when these roads are in the first three years of the county' s capital improvement program. ° Intersection Analysis Based on the results of the model run produced as a part of the Needs Analysis, corridors with v/c ratios in the range of 0 .98 and 1 .2 were identified for additional intersection analysis . Since signals are almost always the constraint points in urban area corridors, the intersection analysis of these corridors began with an analysis of peak hour operating conditions at these signals. Signal layout information, signal timing information, and P .M. peak hour turning movement counts were obtained from the Indian River County traffic engineering division to complete the analysis. Seasonal factors and growth factors were then applied to project growth rates for each intersection through the planning horizon of the plan. The results of the analysis indicate that three signalized intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service. These three locations are : • 43'd Avenue & SR 60 • US 1 & 32nd Street (Aviation Way) • CR 510 & 66th Avenue In addition to level of service, the County should also consider safety when prioritizing intersection improvements . Together with the intersections listed above, the county should include other intersections as candidates for improvements based on the annual crash data collected. Crash data for 2001 are listed on Table 4. 2 . ° Access Management & Traffic Control In order to preserve traffic capacity 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 . SR 60, US 1 , and SR AIA have experienced carrying capacity deficiencies from the profusion of side friction by vehicles entering and exiting from the multiple driveways along each road. Deficiencies in these roadways exist because existing development is exempt from the access management standards found in the land development regulations. Review of on-site traffic flows, access driveways, and new roadway connections should continue to be conducted during the site plan and subdivision approval process. The County' s land development regulations provide the basis for these reviews. The land development regulations outline guidelines for minimum parking requirements, adequate storage bays , spacing and design Community Development Department Indian River County 78 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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. Advanced Right-of-Way Acquisition Table 4 . 9 . 1 identifies the county's additional estimated advanced right-of-way needs for roadways through the year 2025.200 . As indicated, almost all roadways included on the county Thoroughfare Plan will eventually require additional right-of-way acquisition by the county . Right of way costs to complete the 2:0"_'52030 Roadway Improvements Plan are approximately $6&_' �128 . 8 million. Because of the increase of low intensity, non-urban uses outside of the urban service area, the county needs to enact measures to ensure that this kind of development does not preclude the eventual extension of the roadway grid system. The extended roadway grid system is needed to support the future connectivity and continuity of the road network. If the future land use map is eventually amended or if the urban service area is extended, maintaining adequate access to development in these areas will be critical in connecting the county system of roads. The extended roadway grid network is illustrated in Figure 4 . 10 , Extended Roadway Grid Network. The right-of-way necessary to maintain this grid network should be protected by requiring appropriate land dedication through the site plan and subdivision approval process. Other Needs Supplemental to the roadway capacity improvements identified in the Cost Feasible Plan, and intersection and right-of-way needs, there are other traffic circulation system needs that must be addressed. These other needs include bridge improvements and resurfacings . To preserve the existing roadway system, regular maintenance and repair projects must be undertaken in addition to capacity producing projects . Table 4. 9 .4 lists transportation improvements identified through the Capital Improvements Element of the IRC Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the MPO ' s 202-32030 cost-feasible roadway improvements plan is depicted in Figure 4 . 8 . Figure 4 .9 illustrates the 30232030 roadway network laneage that will result from the implementation of all cost-feasible roadway improvements. Figure 4 . 9A depicts the future roadway level of service. The County' s future grid network is illustrated in Figure 4. 10. Table 4 . 9 . 3 is the County' s 29232030 Roadway Improvement Plan. iia tal�nsts read F yesdfor five , to fifteen, and t t her-izafts through T Table 4.7. 1 Existing Roadway Characteristics LinkOn Street From Sheet To Street Length No. or Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS to g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 10 SRAIA S . County Line S. VB City L 4.70 2 100 U A SR MA D 1020 S .R. ALA S. VB City L 17th St 1 .30 2 120 D D SR MA D Community Development Department Indian River County 79 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS On Street From Street To Street Length ID Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 1030 S .R. At 17th St S.R. 60 1 .50 2 80 D C SR MA D 1040 S.R. AIA S.R. 60 N. VB CityL 1 .50 2 50 D D SR MA D 1050 S.R. AIA N. VB City L Fred Tuerk Rd 1 .00 2 100 D D SR MA D 1060 S .R. AIA Fred Tuerk Rd Old Winter Bch Rd 3.00 2 100 U B SR MA D 1070 S.R. AIA Old Winter Bch Rd N. IRS L 1 .00 2 100 U B SR MA D 1080 S.R. AIA N. IRS L C.R. 510 1 .50 2 100 U B SR MA D 1090 S.R. AIA 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 1120 Indian River Be. 8th St 12th St 0.50 4 150 D C CR NIA D 1130 Indian River Bd. 12th St - 17th St 0. 50 4 150 1 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 1-95 N. County Line C.R. 512 4.00 4 300 F B SR I B 122011-95 C.R 512 S.R. 60 11 .00 4 300 F B SR I B 1230 1-95 S.R. 60 Oslo Rd 4.00 4 300 F B SR I C 1240 495 Oslo Rd S. County Line 2.00 4 300 F B SR I C 1305 U. S. I 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. I 4th St @ IR Blvd 8th St 0.50 4 80 D D SR PA D 1320 U.S. 1 8th Sl 12th Sl 0.50 4 80 D D SR PA D 1325 U.S. I 12th St S . VB City L 0.50 4 80 D B SR PA D 1330 U.S. I S. VB City L 17th St 0. 50 1 4 1 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 Pl 0. 50 4 70 D D SR PA D 1345 U.S. 1 Royal Palm PI Atlantic Blvd 0.50 4 70 D B SR PA D 1350 U.S . 1 Atlantic Blvd 37th St. 0.50 4 70 D B SR PA D 1355 U.S. 1 37th St. Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 4 70 D D SR PA D 1360 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy 41st St 0.50 4 70 D D SR PA D 1365 U. S. 1 41 st St 45th St 0.50 4 70 D D SR PA D 1370 U.S. I 45th St 49th St 0. 50 4 70 D B SR PA D 1375 U.S. 1 49th St 65th St 1 3.00 1 4 70 1 D I B I SR I PA I D Community Development Department Indian River County 80 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Length No. of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 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. I 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 MN. County Line L00 4 100 D B SR PA D 1510 Schumann Dr azber St 0.82 2 100 U D CR M.4 D 1515 Schumann Dr nglar Or 1 .31 2 100 U C CI COL D 1520 Schumann Dr .S. 1 1 . 18 2 100 U C CI COL D 1610 Roseland Rd . 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 1710 C.R. 512 Fellsmere City Limits 1-95 3 .60 2 80 U C CR COL D 1720 C.R. 512 1-95 C.R. 510 3 .00 2 t00 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 Sc 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 BCR 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 EB 1907 S.R. 60 C.R. 512 98th Ave 6.52 2 1 100 U A SR PA GB 1910 S.R. 60 98th Ave I-95 1 . 19 2 100 U B SR PA D 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 1945 S.R. 60 (EB) W. of 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 1 0.50 3 70 O D SR PA D Community Development Department Indian River County 81 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 1950 S.R. 60 (EB) Old Dixie Hwy 10th Ave 0.30 3 70 O D SR PA D 1955 S.R. 60 (EB) IOth Ave U.S. 1 0.30 3 70 O D SR PA D 1960 S.R. 60 (EB) U.S. 1 W. of 6th Ave 0.50 3 70 O 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. AIA 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 O D SR PA D 1980 S.R. 60 (WB) Old Dixie Hwy 10th Ave 0.35 4 N/A O D SR PA D 1985 S.R. 60 (WB) 10th Ave U.S. 1 0.25 4 N/A O D SR PA D 1990 S.R. 60 (WB) U.S . I W. of 6th Ave 0.24 4 N/A O 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 SO 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. AlA 2.00 4 100 D B CR MA D 2210 12th St 82nd Avenue 58th Ave 3 .00 2 1 40 U B CR MA D 2220 12th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 40 U B CR i 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 8o 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 41 st 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 2350 Old Dixie Hwy 45th St 49th St 0.50 2 60 U B CR COL D 2355 Old Dixie Hwy 49th St 65th St 2.00 2 60 U B CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 82 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Length Vo• of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 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 1-,, 20-D 2420 27th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 80 U B CR MA F -20-1) 2430 27th Ave 4th St 8th St 0. 50 2 80 U B CR MA F--44 D 2440 27th Ave 8th St - 12th St 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA F,-=8-D 2450 27th Ave 12th St S. VB City L 0.30 2 80 U B CR MA 2460 27th Ave S. VB City L 16th St 0.40 2 80 U B CR MA `&1) 2470 27th Ave 16th St S.R. 60 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA Lam" D 2480 27th Ave S.R. 60 Atlantic Blvd 0.30 2 tOU B CR MA D 2510 27th Ave Atlantic Blvd Aviation Blvd 0.30 2 B CR MA D 2520 Oslo Rd 1-95 82nd Avenue 0.23 2 C CR COL D 2530 Oslo Rd 82nd Ave 58th Ave 2.00 2 C CR COL D 2540 Oslo Rd 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 B CR COL D 2550 Oslo Rd 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .00 2 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 C1 COL D 2720 10th Ave S.R. 60 Royal Palm Blvd 0.21 2 60 U C Cl COL D 2& AVE S. Counry Line 17m 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 CRflLOC D 2810 20th Ave Oslo Rd. 4th St 2.00 2 60 U C CRD 2820 20th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 60 U C CRD 2830 20th Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 60 U C CRD 2840 20th Ave 12th St S. VB City L 0.50 4 80 D B CR MA D MAU�tic ve S. VB City L 16th St 0.50 4 80 D B CR MA D ve 16th St S.R. 60 0.50 4 80 D B CR MA D ve S.R. 60 Atlantic Blvd 0.50 2 80 U B CRAMADve S. County Line Oslo Rd 2.00 2 50 U B CRve Oslo Rd 4th St 200 2 50 U B CRve 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 50 U B CR Community Development Department Indian River County 83 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 2920 43rd Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 50 U B CR COL &�20-D 2925 43rd Ave 12th St 16th St 0.50 2 80 U B CR MA €-2&D 2930 43rd Ave 16th St S.R. 60 0.50 2 80 U C CR MA D 2935 143rd Ave S.R. 60 26th St O.SD 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 1 2 1 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 41 st St 45th St OSO 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 3720 69th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 50 U A CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 84 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element LinkOn Street From Street To Street Length No. of Exist Road Existing duris- Functional LOS ID Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 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. I 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 hidian 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. I 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 CRLOC 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 Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.30 2 50 U B CR MA D 4880 8th St U.S. l 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 4930 4th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave IJ 2 30 U B CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 85 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 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 AIA W of Coconut Or 1 .00 2 60 U A CI COL D 5710 Winter Beach Rd AIA 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 Cl COL D 5820 Atlantic Blvd 20th Avenue U.S. I 0.50 2 60 U B Cl COL D 5910 Aviation Blvd U. S. I 27th Avenue 0.91 2 60 U A Cl 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 NIA U C CR COL D 9015 74th Ave Osla 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 NIA 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 LR. Drive North U.S. I Main Street 2.62 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9090 LR. Drive South U.S. 1 Main Street 1 44 2 N/A U C CR COL D 9110 Englar Dr Barber St George St 040 2 N/A U C Cl COL D 9120 EnglarDr George St Schumann Or 0.83 2 N/A U C Cl 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 C1 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. 1 Schumann Dr 1 .36 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9180 Barber St Schumann Dr Englar Dr 1 .93 2 N/A U D Cl COL D 9190 Barber St Englaz Or C.R. 512 0.81 2 N/A U C CI COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 86 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link On Street From Street To Street Length No. of Exist Road Existing Juris- Functional LOS Ip g Lanes ROW Type LOS diction Class Standard 9195 Barber St C.R. 512 Wimbrow 1 .25 2 N/A U C Cl COL D 9200 Ocean Dr Greytwig Beaebland 0.44 2 N/A U C C1 COL D 9210 Ocean Or Beachland Rlomar 0.63 2 N/A U C Cl 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. I 20th Avenue 0.54 2 N/A U D Cl COL D $924023rd St 20th Avenue U.S. 1 0.47 2 N/A U C CI COL D St U.S. 1 Royal Palm Blvd 0.38 2 N/A U D CI COL D Ave Old Dixie Hwy 16th Street 0.31 2 N/A U C CI COL D Ave 16th Street S .R. 60 0.51 2 NIA U C CI COL D Ave S.R. 60 U.S. 1 0.48 2 N/A U C Cl COL D 9290 Victory Atlantic CordgAvenue 030 2 N/A U C Cl COL D 9300 Victory Cordova 20th0.26 2 N/A U C CI COL D 9305 5th Street SW 27th Ave 43rd1 .02 2 80 U C CR9307 5th Street SW 20th Ave 27th0.50 2 80 U C CR COL D 9975 S.R. 60 S.R. AIA Ocean Dr 0.24 4 N/A D C CI COL D Source — ]ndian Rivet' County Table r s . . ,;.MS o,.. .. On-SEreei Fwurs.f+'reE TtrSEretM 4499 41 i •esand+vpe 3025 ft L..,. ., s-*wVlvpe +;t U$F 2 U 4 D 8+h�A192ttd-Ave 6th Aw 0 0 2 t1 0 0 226th St U _ g P a J4 2 ti 4 D 2-79)-lr-e S. ' to :4o-hd 3 44 4 D h-r4va krFd Aviation 4> 4 1D 3 t? 4 D KRA A 0 0 4 D �R—c. 0 0 4 D -3rcl St 1d-Dim+vv a U 4 D _ h-:1':a ?:4o-Rd th�vt 2 IJ 4 D 0 0 2 t e6th—.R,e 0 0 2 1 U 2 1 4 D ed-Ave e cl .3. 1 Av-iatienBlvd 1-F,-1 - •e ?. lJ 4 D 2 4 k .. 1 selmo ? L+ 4 D 3 1+ 4 D Community Development Department Indian River County 87 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element GR SO Felismere k95t ? U 2 9 PR 54 ;t P.9 Rowlafi4Rd 2 N 4 9 i 6S 1 0 0 ? U E-ybN. ("31M.1" I ne 8-C- my Line 4 F 6 F }ndian-Rixcr431vd - h444i,U& l 1 -1-; ?-a?rd-Ft 4 A 6 D H 4 9 2 4 4 U SR-60 -!R. 512 2 8 4 D sip 60 664t-A� 4 A 6 9 2 9 4 9 S ehuffla in Pi B4FWI—, Fes} 2 N 4 9 .. .`—;;- S�t3w51}7.:uae fk.tii.,'ik;.{}Z13 4 l> 6 k3 hilw zge 1-96 SVn Rd r'A K;.1 t. \ •pv Table 4.7.2 2030 Needs Plan Improvements 2010 2030 On Street From To Needs Road Type Road Tv e SIS Roads 11-95 IS. County Line 14F 6F S .R. 60 198th Ave 1-95 14D 6D State Roads S .R. 60 1195 82nd Ave 41) 6D S .R . 60 6th Ave Indian River Blvd 4D 613 U.S. 1 S . Coun Line Oslo Rd 4D 6D U .S. I Aviation Blvd Old Dixie Hvvy LN) 4D 6D U.S. 1 Roseland Rd M Countv Line 4D 6D County Roads 4th St 98th Ave 66th Ave 00 2U 12th St 90th Ave 66th Ave 00 2U 12th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 2U 2D 13th St SW 66th Ave Mth Ave 00 2U 13th St SW 43rd .Ave 34th Ave 00 2U 13th St SW 34th Ave 27th Ave 00 2U 13th St SW 27th Ave 20th Ave 00 2U 17th St SW 66th Ave 58th Ave 00 2U 261h St 66th Ave - 43rd Ave 2U 4D 26th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 00 2U Aviation Blvd 43rd Ave U. S . 1 2U 4D 27th Ave S. County Line Oslo Rd 2U 4D 27th Ave Oslo Rd S.R. 60 2U 4D 43rd Ave S Counri Line Oslo Rd 2U 4D 43rd Ave Oslo Rd 8th St 2U 4D 53rd Se 82nd Ave 66th Ave o0 2U 58th Ave S Countv Line/Koblegard Rd jQslo Rd 2U 4D Community Development Department Indian River County 88 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 2010 2030 On Street From To Needs Road Tvue Road Tv e 66th Ave S County Line Oslo Rd 00 2U 66th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2U 4D 66th Ave 4th St SR 60 2D 4D 66th Ave ISR 60 IC. R. 510 2U 4D 82nd Ave S County Line Oslo Rd 00 2U 82nd Ave 26th St CR. 510 00 2U C .R. 510 Q . . 512 U .S. I 2U 4D C .R. 510 U . S . 1 ICWW 2U 4D C.R. 512 Fellsmere City Limits 1-95 2U 4D C.R . 512 1 -95 C.R. 5t0 4D 6D C. R. 512 C. R. 510 Roseland Rd 4D 6D 8th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 00 2U Indian River Blvd Roval Palm 37th St 4D 6D Oslo Rd 1-95 58th Ave 2U 4D Roseland Rd C.R. 512 U . S. 1 2U 2D Schumann Dr C.R. 510 Barber St 2U 4D Other Roads Barber Sr Schumann Dr U . S. I 2U 4D Barber St IC . R. 512 Schumann Dr 12U 14D Fleming St Easv St lSchuniarm Dr 002U Source: Indian River County MPO ° 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 replacement of the Merrill Barber Bridge, the roadway evacuation system has been further improved, and travel and delay time have been enhanced. Hurricane evacuation studies indicate that the hurricane evacuation system will continue to be adequate through 2020. Generally, a clearance time of 12 hours is considered acceptable for hurricane evacuation, although the lower the time the better. Besides the Regional Planning Council' s 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 is adding one lane on SR AIA from Seagull Dr. to 17"' St. (Causeway Boulevard) . 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 Community Development Department Indian River County 89 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 2025 . 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 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. As indicated, no specific roadway improvements are needed by 2025 to accommodate hurricane evacuation. One additional assurance that hurricane evacuation needs will not increase by 2025 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. Together, these policy initiatives ensure that the at-risk evacuation population will not increase significantly and that evacuation facilities will remain adequate. Concurrency One of the most 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. According to the provisions of the Act, codified as Chapter 163 . 3161 of Florida Statutes, no local government may approve a development project unless the services and facilities needed to serve that project are available concurrently 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 delaying development projects throughout the state. Recently, the state changed the concurrency law to make the transportation concurrency requirements more flexible. Besides establishing several flexible transportation concurrency Community Development Department Indian River County 90 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element options applicable under certain conditions, it also modified the timeframe when development project required transportation facilities must be available to comply with the concurrency requirement. State law now allows development projects to be approved subject to the conditions that the necessary facilities needed to serve the new development are scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not more than three years after issuance of a certificate of occupancy or its functional equivalent as provided in the adopted local government five-year schedule of capital improvements. This concurrency allowance was considered by the Board of County Commissioners in 1995 . At that time, the Board agreed to apply the concurrency rule more conservatively than allowed by the state. Instead of allowing development projects to be approved if the needed improvements will be in place pfier--teno later than three years after issuance of athe first certificate of occupancy (CO) for the project, the Board opted to apply a two year after CO requirement. That allowance iwas reflected in this element and in the Capital Improvements Element of the plan. Subsequently, the Board of County Commissioners revisited the concurrenev issue and changed its policy . Consistent with state concurrency_allowances the Board opted for a three-year period instead of a two-year period Then in 2005 the legislative made another modification to state law, changing the three-year trigger from certificate of occupancy to building permit. That change is now reflected in the concurrency management plan section of the capital improvements element. Subdivision Collector Roadways Besides the capacity needs of the transportation system which are met by major roadways in the county, 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 . These roadways are usually private roadways, built by developers as a condition of development order issuance. While subdivision collectors are not major roads on the county' s thoroughfare system, they do function at a higher level than regular local roads . 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 right of way 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 proposed 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 the roadway may operate below the established minimum level of service standard. These areas usually are Community Development Department Indian River County 91 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element experiencing recent 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 Plan includes a set of prioritization criteria, which will identify critical transportation areas. Once the critical transportation area roadways have been identified, they will be analyzed using the system level and corridor level criteria in the plan. As structured, the congestion management system described in the MPO ' s CMS Plan will be implemented on an annual basis by MPO staff. The result of the MPO CMS analysis will be a set of proposed improvement projects to address the congestion problems on critical transportation area roadways. These proposed improvements will then be programmed for implementation. Since the CMS 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 will include participating in the CMS analysis as well as programming recommended improvements with county transportation funds where warranted. Neighborhood Impacts and Aesthetics Roadways have a strong relationship with the areas surrounding them. While neighborhoods may use a roadway as a gathering place and as a means of travel, the roadway may also act as a noisy barrier, dividing neighbors. If properly planned, however, roadways may save as attractive corridors promoting a community's identity. For those reasons, it is important to ensure that new roadways and expansion of existing roadways least impact existing residential neighborhoods . Public involvement activities, consideration of alternatives to roadway widening such as development of parallel or adjacent facilities, and reliance on the county' s grid-pattern road system with many alternatives for travel make it possible to ensure compatibility between roadways and land use. While actions are being taken to ensure neighborhood compatibility and aesthetic appeal of roadway improvements, population and commercial development along major roadways will continue to increase . Recently, Indian River County enacted measures and programmed roadway improvements that are designed to make roadways aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. In the future, additional corridor specific plans and policies must be developed and maintained to continue to preserve and enhance the attractiveness and compatibility of the county's thoroughfares. Community Development Department Indian River County 92 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ea Figure 4.9.1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY J;T FUTURE TRANSPORTATION MAP SERIES Municipal „ Boundaries L , be ., 2 �tr 77 It at Todd or 0 Todd or doo my ,r., IT In or 1u i— , 6 od at gold T n, n r a� , 010 of I ,, grow I •. anuT• • Y� f1 er N_. t .roel. • a *� na Tw + + .d u.+ SUBDIVISION COLLECTOR MAP Scale : pate: Jan 1990 Updated: July 1997 admitted Subdivision Collector Source : Indian River Planning Division Community Development Department Indian River County 93 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element ! ;a Q Q �i CR512 um olio II 85TH S1 y. CL 1. 81STS 77HS .i�� 73RD ST kc:' SBTH ST oll 65TH ST 57TH ST _. SJRD ST` . ;46rHSTRP � t Conservation land & . ' 43rH ST ' or ` �5n. msr5 I s7r7d�S'.. s3repsi srH ST 11 so 10060 16TH ST ir= Till, 12TH STit i t r 8TH 6T • ' 4TH§TNiglio, poll, gi agglirw alsol "I'll N's so YST $T.SW� STH ST SW 9TH ST aN•u •• p•• 13TH ST SW 17TH ST SW 21 STffi SW I i lu I' la =1 la �t of tan : W �, n u I � s o "_ Figure 4.10 '< m m m m m m o �r Extended Roadway Grid Network — Urban Collector E Local Road rssx Rural Principal Arterial Functional Class >z Rural Major Collector r_ Urban Minor Arterial Axa Urban Principal Arterial •••••••• Rural Minor Arterial E.L] Municipalities sagagis Urban Principal Arterial - Interstate ®•=•= Rural Principal Arterial - Interstate Mlles 0 1 .5 3 6 Community Development Department Indian River County 14 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.8A Capital Revenues by Planning Horizon (* 1 ,000) Tt44120046 Ttual'^2896-toTNtal-2(11-the T4+n"1444o TA-0tal202l-to P-•'-.c.�rs "Snur` =865 2819 5 3830 2921 ;'Hutt r�„ee�re<t Rena syt� I State - - - - - - RES $11!1913 "I SO $44.100 So --S 29;4+i $0 $515 $960 $1-938 $-1-042 €FAHerial $9366 $14-,W $44383 $14;668 $15;000 1$65222 sate $4-19:357 $1-a?2-6 $13 14 Pi ,M6 &16;FI�F2 County C-efxiN�fia+Ta SF3:130 $14-:635 $19.63-7 $4594 $8.706 $53;9¢5 $-1(1:463 $8 $B $8 $8 $65-875 m t'�alat $9,548 $9 $0 $01 $9 $918 •• c $1&,574 $43;442 $18,986 $9, 1841 °''r, ,737 $34=93+ Gount� Sales $4-1A84 $8 $8 5H $9 Fenntvl--.. i1-F++aA+n $0 $0 $9 $8 $0 $f .,;�;on :aR r,. . Pie gran a. $1-98e $8 $0 $9 $9 $76; 041 $38,833 $3i ,758 [ $3Ha3 $2A33H $211141 fetal . Classified Rand $497,75-1 $38392 $66;0281 $4'1,398 $412,664 $386 $254 $2*3 &34 $344 $+379 $-356 $f' S1 'x" - $-334 $3=13 $1- - Vota1(-;tan $0 $8 $9 $9 $8 $1 $3" $234 $233 $3331 $ Aau $1280 $1X299 $7�k10 $1,2+;9 $13410 woi fetal-E=ounth` ;Ol $9 $0 { ' -, -Iplpedes3tlan $4,299 $1;289 $1180 $i ,200 $1;299 $H-009 .�,�,, to - $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 ltital-Aviatian $0 $?_694 V-M-71 $8139 - $Me444_9;:;,g;a;;;a ein $6 341 $58,(}51 $7:4,6113CCA qQ11 0441 GA1 Source; Indian River County MPO Funding Source 2020 Revenues (* 1 ,000) 2030 Revenues (* 11000) Strategic Tntermodal Svstem $ 109.919 $ 112.463 State Revenues 24569 $48,659 lmpactFee Revenues (Base) $ 118.060 $204,533 Ist Local Option Gas Tax $23 . 151 '41 914 9th Cent ( Diesel) Gas Tax $ 1$ 1528 $2 585 Local Option Sales Tax 20 ( I ?020 $36.025 $36.025 o� Transit Revenues $ 13 ,940 528,258 Bievcle/Pedestrian Revenues $2 967 55 ,935 Total Base Funding $330,059 $480369 [m act Fees Enhanced SJO,8231 594.895 1 2nd Local Option Gas Tax $20.980 1 S37.982 Community Development Department Indian River County 95 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Sales Tax (2021 to 2030) $0 4$ 3 ,331 Total Enhanced Funding $51 802 1 $176 208 Total Cost Affordable Plan Funding $�3818611 $656,578 Table 4 811 Operafing & Maintenance Revenues by b 1 000) Toti• 1-ry< d 1004toUW4006-to Total td T..f.J 40 T.,bJ MI to R-na�euree 20" 3010 204-5 2020 2025 Total State FIHS MS'S NMA NIA N -A N-A CtheF A#eKiel N,14 WA Nt A Nl h NIA N-A Potal �� WA NSA NTA N+A NWA //�� `- Ou Hty C-Owlt5 Gas Tax $70 61 $7,392 $ 7,343 S7378 *77394 SJ6 ,70 GonsdtLAO]Ial Gas YHc $� 55 $3 , 467 $3 , 149 $3.492 53;499 $ 17541 - $ 42-763 SP?737 $ 12;712 $ 12,686 $12.713 Total couRt�, $23-079 $23 ,386 $23;604 S23 ,556 $23-606 17 431 t bSA N-4 4A NIA 4A Sebastian N, A NSA N/A NFA N!A WA TO Road 5� $23,079 $23586 $233.6104 $2'r§)6 X686 Statp and Federal FTA T+ansi $2:858 $3;2899 $}65.3 &1;088 $4;149 Q$ 1- 4425 Q � �n $.2,6650 $-i 0 XP SIGN 82,�75 W89 Total State And Federal $4 ,274 $ 4 ,949 $5 , 480 $6 ,014 S6 .224 S26 ,93978 88979 4:etal Gow+ y4 e 81 ,425 $ ! 1650 P .82:7 $2,075 ry0'.-97 Total Public $5.699 $6350 S7 .307 99,015 $8,298 Bievel . Pedesiriaii N!A N.A NtA N+A N-A $."3(1,9-10 $34-15n $31,903 $153347 Table 4.813 Operating & Maintenance Revenues by Planning Horizon (* 1 ,000) (2011 - 2020) All Modes (2011 - 20 0 All Modes Revenue Costs Percentage Difference Revenue Costs Perceuta2e Difference Mode of Travel of Total * 1( Q00) *( 1000) of Total Cost *( 1000) ( 10001 * 1000 Cost 1 Roads—(I $ 102,394 $ 102,39 88.704 $0 5215.058 $215058 85 .400/ So Public Transportation 2 $ 13.066 $ 13 .06 11 . 30% $0 36.660 536.66 14 .60°/ SO otal5115 ,46 $ 115,46C 100.00% $0 S251 ,718 $251 .718100.00N( $0 f 11 Roads bike and pedestrian operating and maintenance costs ire funded with gas tax revenues: costs balanced to revenues. (° 1 Public Transportation includes $ 1 . 1 million in local aws tax revenues to balance and match capital costs and $2.8 million in local gas tax revenues to balmce operating and maintenance crows for 2011 -2020 Public Transportation includes $ 1 .9 million in local gas tax revenues to balance and match capital costs and $ 15 .8 million in local gas tax revenues to balance operating and maintenance costs for 2011 -2030 Community Development Department Indian River County 96 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Source: Indian River County MPO Table 4.9. 1 2030 Improvements & Needed Right-of-Way Link No. of Road Juris- Functional Exist Needed Improve ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW nts by 202130 1010 S.R. Al S . County Line S. VB City L 4.70 2 U SR MA D 100 120 1020 S.R. Al S. VB City L 17th St 1 .30 2 D SR MA D 120 120 1030 S.R. AIA 17th St S.R. 60 1 .50 2 D SR MA D 80 120 1040 S.R. AIA S.R. 60 N. VB City L 1 .50 2 D SR MA D 50 120 1050 S.R. AIA N. VB City L Fred Tuerk Rd 1 .00 2 D SR MA D 100 120 1060 S.R. AlA Fred Tuerk Rd Old Winter Bch 3.00 2 U SR MA D 100 120 Rd 1070 S.R. AIA Old Winter Bch Rd N. IRS L 1 .00 2 U SR MA D 100 120 1080 S.R. AIA N. IRS L C.R. 510 1 .50 2 U SR MA D 100 120 1090 S.A. AIA C.R. 510 N. County Line 7.30 2 U SR MA D 100 120 1110 Indian River Bd. 4th St @ US 1 12th St 1 .00 4 D CR MA D 150 300 150 .` dd 1120 Indian River Bd. 8th St 12th St 0.50 4 D CR MA D 150 200-150 ." I no, 1130 Indian River Bd. 12th St 17th St 0.50 4 D CR MA D 150 200 150 :Wd ' Imaswsi 1140 Indian River Bd. 17th St 20th St 0.39 4 D CR MA D 150 20(� 150 Add-2 !lanes 1145 Indian River Bd. 20th St 21st St 0. 19 4 D CR MA D 150 200-150 Add-2- ,in 1150 Indian River Bd. 21st St Royal Palm 0.37 4 D CR MA D 150 244- 150 Add 2 Lo..- 1155 Indian River Bd. Royal Palm Mb Bridge 0.46 4 D CR MA D 150 200 Add 2 Lanes 1160 Indian River Bd. MB Bridge 37th St. 0.71 4 D CR MA D 150 200 Add 2 Lanes 1170 Indian River Bd. 37th St. US 1 @53rd St 2.60 4 D CR MA D 150 200 1210 1-95 N. County Line C.R. 512 4.00 4 F SR I CB 300 300 Add 2 Lanes 1220 1-95 C.R. 512 S.R. 60 11 .004 F SR I CB 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 1240 I-95 Oslo Rd S. County Line 2.00 4 F SR I C 300 300 Add 2 Lanes 1305 U.S . I S. County Line Oslo Rd 2.30 4 D SR PA D 160 200 Add 2 Lanes 1310 U. S. 1 Oslo Rd 4th St @ IR Blvd 1 .56 4 D SR PA D 200 200 Add 2 Lanes 1315 U.S. 1 4th St @ IR Blvd 8th St 0.50 4 D SR PA D 80 120 1320 U. S. 1 8th St 12th St 0.50 4 D SR PA D 80 120 1325 U. S. I 12th St S. VB City L 0. 50 4 D SR PA D 80 120 1330 U.S. 1 S. VB City L 17th St 0.50 4 D SR PA D 80 120 1335 U.S. 1 17th St S.R. 60 0.50 4 D SR PA D 80 120 1340 U.S. I S .R. 60 Royal Palm PI 0.50 4 D SR PA D 70 70 1345 U. S. I Royal Palm PI Atlantic Blvd 0.50 4 D SR PA D 47071160 1350 U.S. 1 Atlantic Blvd 37th St. 0.50 4 D SR PA D Add 2 Lmes 1355 U.S. I 37th St. Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 4 D SR PA D Add 2 Lanes Community Development Department Indian River County 97 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Road Juris- Functional Exist Needed Improveme ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW uts by 20M0 1360 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy 41st St 0.50 4 D SR PA D 70 70-160 Add 2 Lanes 1365 U.S. 1 41st St 45th St 0.50 4 D SR PA D 70 160 Add 2 Lanes 1370 U.S. 1 45th St 49th St 0.50 4 D SR PA D 70 160 Add 2 Lanes 1375 U.S. 1 49th St 65th St 3 .00 4 D SR PA D 70 120-160 Add 2 Lames 1380 U.& I 65th St 69th St 0. 50 4 D SR PA D 120 120-160 Add 2 Lanes 1385 U.S. 1 69th St Old Dixie Hwy 2.00 4 D SR PA D 120 120- 160 Add 2 Lancs 1390 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy Schumann Dr 3.50 4 D SR PA D 120 120- 160 1395 U .S. 1 Schumann Dr C.R. 512 1 .50 4 D SR PA D 120 120-160 1400 U.S. 1 C.R. 512 N. Seb City L 2.00 4 D SR PA D 100 120-160 1405 U.S. l N. Seb City L Roseland Rd 0.50 4 D SR PA D 100 160 1410 U.S. 1 Roseland Rd N. County Line 1 .00 4 D SR PA D 100 160 Add 2 Lanes 1510 Schumann Dr C.R. 510 @ 66th Ave Barber St 0.82 2 U CR MA D 100 162 Add 2 Lanes 1515 Schumann Dr Barber St Englar Dr 1 .31 2 U CI COL D 100 NFA 100 1520 Schumann Dr Englar Dr U.S. 1 1 . 18 2 U CI COL D 100 NFAI00 1610 Roseland Rd C.R. 512 N. Seb City L 3.00 2 U CR COL D 80 120 1620 Roseland Rd N. Seb City L U.S. 1 2.00 2 U CR COL D 80 120 1710 C.R 512 Fellsmere City Limits I-95 3.60 2 U CR COL D 80 200 Add 22 Laflcs, 1720 C.A. 512 I-95 C.R. 510 3 .00 2 U CR COL D 100 200 Add 2 Lanes 1730 C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd 1 .25 2 U CR COL D 100 200 Add 2 Lanes 1740 C.R. 512 Roseland Rd Barber St 0.39 4 D CR COL D 100 200 1741 C .R. 512 Barber St Fleming St 0.72 4 D CR COL D 100 200 1742 C.R. 512 Fleming St Easy St 0.60 4 D CR COL D 100 200 1743 C.R. 512 Easy St Delaware St 0.21 4 D CR COL D 100 200 1750 C.R. 512 Delaware St U.S. 1 0.86 4 D CR COL D 100 200 1805 C.R. 510 C.R. 512 87th St 1 .73 2 U CR COL D 80 162 Add 2 Lanes 1810 C.R. 510 87th St 66th Ave 2.51 2 U CR COL D 80 162 Add 2 Lanes 1820 C.R. 510 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 80 162 Add 2 Lanes 1830 C.R. 510 58th Ave U.S. 1 0.50 2 U CR COL D 80 162 Add 2 Lanes 1840 C.P. 510 U.S. 1 S.R. AIA 2.50 2 U CR COL D 100 160 1905 S.R. 60 W. County Line C.R. 512 14.00 2 U SR PA GB 100 200 Add 2 Lanes 1907 S.R. 60 C.R. 512 98th Ave 6.52 2 U SR PA GB 100 200 Add 2 Lanes 1910 S.R. 60 98th Ave 1-95 1 . 19 2 U SR PA D 100 200 Add 4 Lanes 1915 S .R. 60 I-95 82nd Ave 2.00 4 D SR PA D 234 234 Add 2 Lanes 1920 S.R. 60 82nd Ave 66th Ave 2.00 4 D SR PA D 136 200 Add 2 Lanes 1925 S.R. 60 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 6 D SR PA D 100 200 1930 S.R. 60 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 6 D SR PA D 100 130 Community Development Department Indian River County 98 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Road Juris- Functional Exist Needed Improveme ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW nts by 202530 1935 S.R. 60 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .00 6 D SR PA D 100 130 1940 S.R. 60 27th Ave W. of 20th Ave 0.50 6 D SR PA D 100 130 1945 S.R. 60 (EB) W. Of 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 3 0 SR PA D 70 140 1950 S.R. 60 (EB) Old Dixie Hwy 10th Ave 0 .30 3 0 SR PA D 70 140 1955 S.R. 60 (EB) 10th Ave U.S. 1 0.30 3 0 SR PA D 70 140 1960 S.R. 60 (EB) U.S. I W. of 6th Ave 0.50 3 O SR PA D 70 140 1962 S .R. 60 W. of 6th Ave Indian River Blvd 0.34 4 D SR MA D 140 140 1965 S.R. 60 Indian River Blvd 1CWW 1 . 10 4 D SR MA D 140 140 1970 S.R. 60 1CWW S.R. AIA 0.50 4 D SR MA D 80 130 1975 S.R. 60 (WB) W. Of 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 0.43 4 0 SR PA D N/A N/A 1980 S .R. 60 (WB) Old Dixie Hwy 10th Ave 0.35 4 O SR PA D N/A N/A 1985 S.R. 60 (WB) 10th Ave U.S. 1 0.25 4 0 SR PA D N/A N/A 1990 S.R. 60 (WB) U.S . 1 W. of 6th Ave 0.24 4 O SR PA D N/A N/A 16th St 90th Ave 66th Ave 3.01 0 N/A CR MA N/A 50 110 New 2 Lanes 2020 16th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 _UC R MA D 50 80 2030 16th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .00 2 R MA D 50 80 2040 16th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 U CR MA D 100 100 2050 16th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 2 U CR MA D 100 100 2060 16dVl7th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 4 D CR MA D 100 120 2110 17th St U.S . 1 IndianRiver Blvd 0.50 4 D CR MA D 100 120 2120 17th St Indian River Blvd S.R. AlA 2.00 4 D CR MA D 100 120 2200 12th St 90th Ave 82nd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR MA D N/A 100 New 2 Lank 2210 12th St 82nd Avenue 58th Ave 3 .00 2 U CR MA D 40 100 2220 12th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR MA D 40 100 2230 12th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR MA D 40 100 2240 12th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 U CR MA D 80 100 2250 12th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 1 .00 2 U CR MA D 80 100 2260 12th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 4 U CR MA D 80 100 2270 12th St U.S. 1 IR Blvd. 0.62 4 U CR MA D 80 100 2305 Old Dixie Hwy S. County Line Oslo Rd 2.20 2 U CR COL D 35 80 2310 Old Dixie Hwy Oslo Rd 4th St 2. 10 2 U CR MA D 35 80 2315 Old Dixie Hwy 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 U CR MA D 60 80 2320 Old Dixie Hwy 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 U CR MA D 60 80 2325 Old Dixie Hwy 12th St S. VB City L 0.30 2 U CR MA D 60 80 2330 Old Dixie Hwy S. VB City L 16th St 0.50 2 U CR MA D 60 80 2335 Old Dixie Hwy 16th St S .R. 60 0.50 2 U CR MA D 60 80 Community Development Department Indian River County 99 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Road Juris- Functional Exist Needed Improveme ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW nts by 202530 2340 Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 41 st Ave 0.35 2 U CR MA D D D 2345 Old Dixie Hwy 41st St 45th St 0.52 2 U CR COL D 60 80 2350 Old Dixie Hwy 45th St 49th St 0.50 2 U CR COL D 60 80 2355 Old Dixie Hwy 49th St 65th St 2.00 2 U CR COL D 60 80 2360 Old Dixie Hwy 65th St 69th St 0.50 2 U CR COL D 60 80 2365 Old Dixie Hwy 69th St C.R. 510 2.50 2 U CR COL D 60 80 2410 27th Ave S. County Line Oslo Rd 2.00 2 U CR COL E+20 50 80 Add 2 Lanes 2420 27th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 U CR MA E+20 80 80 Add +_ Lanes 2430 27th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 U CR MA E+20 80 80 Add 4 2 Lanes 2440 27th Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 U CR MA E+20 80 80 Add 4 2 Lanes 2450 27th Ave 12th St S. VB City L 0.30 2 U CR MA E+20 80 80 Add 4_ Lanes 2460 27th Ave S. VB City L 16th St 0.40 2 U CR MA E+20 80 80 Add k2 Lanes 2470 27th Ave 16th St S.R. 60 0. 50 2 U CR MA E+20 80 80 Add 4 2 Lanes 2480 27th Ave S.R. 60 Atlantic Blvd 0.30 2 U CR MA D 80 2510 27th Ave Atlantic Blvd Aviation Blvd 0.30 2 U CR MA D 80 2520 Oslo Rd I-95 82nd Avenue 0.23 2 U CR COL D 60 174 Add 2 Lanes 2530 Oslo Rd 82nd Ave 58th Ave 2.00 2 U CR COL D 60 174 Add 2 Lanes 2540 Oslo Rd 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 60 174 Add 2 Lanes 2550 Oslo Rd 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 60 174 Add 2 Lanes 2560 Oslo Rd 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 U CR MA D 30 162 Add 2 Lanes 2570 Oslo Rd 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 2.00 2 U CR MA D 30 162 Add 2 Lanes 2580 Oslo Rd Old Dixie Hwy U.S. I 0 .30 4 D CR MA D 30 130 2610 6th Ave 12th St 17th St 0.64 2 U CR MA D 60 80 2615 6th Ave 17th St S. VB City L 0. 13 2 U CR MA D 60 80 2620 6th Ave S. VB City L S.R. 60 0. 50 2 U CR MA D 60 80 2710 10th Ave 17th St S.R. 60 0.43 2 U CI COL D 60 N/A 2720 10th Ave S.R. 60 Royal Palm Blvd 0.21 2 U CI COL D 60 N/A 20" Ave S. County Line 17a St. SW 2.00 1 U CR COL D 30 60 Add 1 Lane 2805 20th Ave 17th St. SW Oslo Rd. 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 60 80 2810 20th Ave Oslo Rd. 4th St 2.00 2 U CR LOC D 60 80 2820 20th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 U CR LOC D 60 80 2830 20th Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 U CR LOC D 60 80 2840 20th Ave 12th St S. VB City L 0.50 4 D CR MA D 80 100 28501 20th Ave S. VB City L 16th St 0.50 4 D CR MA D 80 100 2860 20th Ave 16th St S.R. 60 0.50 4 D CR MA D 80 100 Community Development Department Indian River County 100 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Road Juris- FunctionalExist Needed Improveme ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW nts by 202530 2870 20th Ave S.R. 60 Atlantic Blvd 0.50 2 U CR MA D 80 n/a 2905 43rd Ave S. County Line Oslo Rd 2.00 2 U CR COL D 50 100 Add 2 Lanes 2910 43rd Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 U CR COL E+20 50 100 Add 2 Lanes 2915 43rd Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 U CR COL E+20 50 100 Add 2 Lanes 2920 43rd Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 U CR COL E+20 50 100 . Add b 3 Lanes 2925 43rd Ave 12th St 16th St 0.50 2 U CR MA E+20 80 100 Add 1-2 Lanes 2930 43rd Ave 16th St S.R. 60 0.50 2 U CR MA D 80 100 Add 2 Lanes 2935 43rd Ave S.R. 60 26th St 0.50 2 U CR MA D 80 100 Add 2 Lanes 2940 43rd Ave 26th St 41st St 2.00 2 U CR COL D 80 100 2945 43rd Ave 41 st St 45th St 0.50 2 U CR COL D 80 100 2950 43rd Ave 45th St 49th St 0. 50 2 U CR COL D 80 100 3005 58th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 24 U CR COL D 50 130 , 'd I I in - 3010 58th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 24 U CR COL D 50 130 A4d-24, » s 3015 58th Ave 81h St 12th St 0. 50 24 U CR COL D 50 130 Add 2 Inane!, 3020 58th Ave 12th St 16th St 0.50 24 U CR COL D 50 130 Add-2-banes 3025 58th Ave 16th St S.R. 60 0.50 4 D CR MA D 50 130 3030 58th Ave S.R. 60 26th St 0.51 4 D CR MA D 50 130 3033 58th Ave 26th St 41st St 1 .50 2 U CR MA D 50 130 Add 2 Lancs 3035 58th Ave 41st St 45th St 0.50 2 U CR COL D 80 130 Add 2 Lanes 3040 58th Ave 45th St 49th St 0.50 2 U CR COL D 80 130 Add 2 Lanes 3045 58th Ave 49th St 53rd St 0.48 2 U CR COL D 80 130 Add 2 Lanes 3047 58th Ave 53rd St 65th St 1 .54 2 U CR COL D 80 130 3050 58th Ave 65th St 69th St 0.50 2 U CR COL D 80 130 3055 58th Ave 69th St C.R.510 2.50 2 ju CR COL D 80 130 66th Ave St Lucie County Oslo Rd 2.50 2 CR COL D N/A 136 New 2 lanes L ne - 3110 66th Ave Oslo Road 4th St 1 .51 2 CR COL D 50 136 Add 2 Lanes 66th Ave 4th St S.R. 60 2.03 0 NIA CR N/A N/A 0 4+(1-130 New 3 4 Lanes 3120 66th Ave S.R. 60 26th St 0. 50 2 U CR COL D 50 174 Add 2 Lanes 3130 66th Ave 26th St 41st St 1 .50 2 U CR COL D 50 174 Add 2 Lanes 3140 66th Ave 41st St 45th St 0.50 2 U CR COL D 50 174 Add 2 Lanes 3150 66th Ave 45th St 53rd St 0.98 2 U CR COL D 50 174 Add 2 Lanes 3155 66th Ave 53rd St 65th St 1 .53 2 U CR COL D 50 174 Add 2 Lanes 3160 66th Ave 65th St 691h St 0.52 2 U CR COL D 50 174 Add 2 Lanes 3170 66th Ave 69th St C.R. 510 2.00 2 U CR COL D 50 174 Add 2 Lanes 3310 82nd Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2.00 2 U CR COL D 50 136 Community Development Department Indian River County 101 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Road Juris- Functional Exist Needed Improveme ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW nts by 203130 3320 82nd Ave 4th St 12th St 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 50 136 3330 82nd Ave 12th St S.R. 60 0.50 2 U CR COL D 50 136 3340 82nd Ave S.R. 60 26th St 0.49 2 U CR COL D 50 136 82nd Ave 26th St CR 510 7.05 0 N/A CR MA N/A - 0 110 New 2 Lanes 3610 77th St 66th Ave U.S. 1 5.00 2 U CR LOC D 50 80-100 3710 69th St 82nd Ave 66th Ave 2.00 2 U CR COL D 50 100 3720 69th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 50 100 3730 69th St 58th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.00 2 U CR COL D 50 100 3740 69th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 2 U CR COL D . 50 100 3820 65th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 35 80 3830 65th St 58th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.00 2 U CR LOC D 35 80 3840 65th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.50 2 U CR LOC D 35 80 4220 49th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 35 80 4230 49th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 35 80 4240 49th St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Huy 3 .50 2 U CR LOC D 35 80 4250 49th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 35 80 4320 45th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D D 80 4330 45th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D D 80 4340 45th St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.50 2 U CR COL D D 80 4350 45th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.09 2 U CR COL D D 80 4355 45th St U. S. 1 Indian River Blvd 0.24 2 U CR COL D D 80 4420 41st St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4430 41st St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4440 41st St 43rd Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3.50 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4450 41 st St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.07 2 U CR COL rD 30 100 4455 41st St U.S. I Indian River Blvd 0.55 2 U CR COL 30 100 4460 37th St U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 1 . 10 2 U CR COL D 11026th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 1 .00 0 U CR LOC N A 80 New 2 Lanes 4710 26th St 74th Ave 66th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC 50 80 4720 26th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 50 162 Add 2 Lanes 4730 26th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 50 162 Add 2 Lanes 4740 26th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .05 2 U CR LOC D 50 162 Add 2 Lanes 4760 26th St U.S. I Country Club 0.65 2 U CR LOC D 50 80 Drive 4816 8th St 90th Ave 82nd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 50 80 8th St 82nd Ave 66th Ave 2.01 0 N/A CR LOC N/A 30 110 New 2 Lanes 4820 8th St 66th Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 50 80 Community Development Department Indian River County 102 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Link No. of Road Juris- Functional Exist Needed Improveme ID On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW nts by 202430 4830 8th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 50 80 4840 8th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 50 80 4850 8th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 U. CR MA D 50 80 4860 8th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 1 .00 2 U CR MA D 50 SO 4870 8th St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.30 2 U CR MA D 50 80 4880 8th St U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 1 .00 2 U CR MA D 50 80 4th St 98th Ave 82nd :Ave 3.00 2 U CR COI, D NSA. 100 New 2 Lanes 4910 4th St 82nd Ave 58th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4930 4th St 58th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4940 4th St 43rd Ave 27th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4950 4th St 27th Ave 20th Ave 0.50 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4960 4th St 20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 1 .00 2 U CR COL D 30 100 4970 4th St Old Dixie Hwy U. S. 1 0.50 2 U CR COL D 30 100 5610 Fred Tuerk Or ALA W of Coconut Dr 1 .00 2 U CI COL D 60 N/A 5710 Winter Beach Rd AIA Jungle Trail 0.50 2 U CR COL D 60 N/A 5805 Atlantic Blvd S.R. 60 27th Ave 1 .07 2 U CI COL D 60 N/A 5810 Atlantic Blvd 27th Avenue 20th Avenue 0.50 2 U CI COL D 60 N/A 5820 Atlantic Blvd 20th Avenue U.S. 1 0.50 2 U Cl COL D 60 N/A 5910 Aviation Blvd U.S. 1 27th Avenue 0.91 2 U CI COL D 60 162 Add 2 Lanes .Aviation $Il'd IR F31vd U.S. 1 1 ,00 U 11 CR COL, n NIA 130 Neu_4 lanes 6010 Royal Palm Blvd Royal Palm PI Indian River Blvd 1 .00 2 U Cl COL D 60 N/A 6110 Royal Palm PI U.S. 1 Indian River Blvd 1 .00 2 U Cl COL D 60 N/A 53rd St 66th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 3 .00 0 N/A N/A NIA N/A 0-30 162 New 4 Lanes 8100 53rd St Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 0.06 2 U CR COL D 80 162 Add 2 Lanes 9005 90th Ave S.R.60 8th Street 1 .54 2 U CR COL D 9010 C.R. 507 S. Carolina County Line 4.20 2 U CR COL D 80 9015 74th Ave Oslo Rd Landfill 0.76 2 U CR LOC D 9035 1st Street SW. 27th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .02 2 U CR LOC D 9036 1st Street SW. 43rd Ave 58th Ave 1 .02 2 U CR LOC D 9040 1st Street U.S. 1 Old Dixie 0.28 2 U CR LOC D 9050 Highlands Dr. 6th Ave SW Old Dixie 0.65 2 U CR COL D 9055 Highlands Dr. Old Dixie U.S. 1 0.08 2 U CR COL D 9060 17th Ln. SW. 27th Ave SW Highlands Dr. SW 0.75 2 U CR LOC D 9065 17th Ln. SW. Highlands Dr. SW 6th Ave SW 1 .00 2 U CR LOC D 9080 C.R. 512 S.R. 60 Fellsmere City 9.59 2 U CR COL D Limits 9085 I.R. Drive North U.S. 1 Main Street 2.62 2 U CR COL D Community Development Department Indian River County 103 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element [ID No. of Road Juris- Functional Ezis[ Needed Improveme On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes Type diction Class LOS ROW ROW nts by 202530 I.R. Drive South U. S . 1 Main Street 1 .44 2 U CR COL D Englar Dr Barber St George St 0.40 2 U CI COL D Englar Or George St Schumann Dr 0.83 2 U CI COL D Fleming St U.S. l Easy St L24 0 N/A CI COL N/A 0 110 New 2 Lanes 9130 Fleming St Easy St C.R. 512 0.61 2 U Cl COL D 9140 Fleming St C.R. 512 Main St 1 .21 2 U CI COL D 9150 Main St Fleming St Wimbrow 0.67 2 U Cl COL D 9160 Main St U.S. 1 Fleming St 1 .33 2 U Cl COL D 9170 Barber St U.S. 1 Schumann Dr 1 .36 2 U CI COL D 162 Add 2 Lanes 9180 Barber St Schumann Dr Englar Dr 1 .93 2 U Cl COL D 9190 Barber St Englar Dr C.R. 512 0.81 2 U CI COL D 9195 Barber St C.R. 512 Wimbrow 1 .25 2 U CI COL D 9200 Ocean Dr Greytwig Beachland 0.44 2 U Cl COL D 9210 Ocean Dr Beachland Riomar 0.63 2 U CI COL D 9220 21st St Indian River Blvd U.S. 1 0.52 2 U Cl COL D 9230 21st St U.S. I 20th Avenue 0.54 2 U CI COL D 9240 23rd St 20th Avenue U.S. 1 0.47 2 U Cl COL D 9250 23rd St U. S. 1 Royal Palm Blvd 0.38 2 U Cl COL D 9260 14th Ave Old Dixie Huy 16th Street 0.31 2 U CI COL D 9270 14th Ave 16th Street S.R. 60 0.51 2 U CI COL D 9280 14th Ave S.R. 60 U.S. 1 0.48 2 U CI COL D 9290 Victory Atlantic Cordova 0.30 2 U Cl COL D 9300 Victory Cordova 20th Avenue 0.26 2 U CI COL D 9305 5th Street SW 27th Ave 43rd Ave 1 .02 2 U CR COL D 80 80 9307 5th Street SW 20th Ave 27th Ave O.SO 2 U CR COL D 80 80 9975 S.R. 60 S.R. AlA Ocean Dr 0.24 4 D CI COL D 13th St, S W 58th Ave 66th Ave 1.00 2 U CR COL D NLA 80 New 2 Lanes 17th St. Sw 58th Ave 66th Ave 1 .00 2 U CR COL D V/A RO Neva 2 Lanes Source: Indian River County MPO = oma .._ ._ . . . .. _ _ .__ ..) .. ___ _ _ . __ . ..._.. _ _ Total T vncnr. )4,, _ 16 ,496 Community Development Department ] Indian River County 104 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4.9.2 Highwav Evaluation Table 2000 Validation 2030 Cost Affordable Plan Total Lane Miles 801 .29 952. 16 Vehicle Miles Traveled 3 ,240.712 .00 6, 178.394.00 Vehicle Hours Traveled 63 .596.00 135 ,800.00 Total Crashes 3795 61 .90 Total Injuries 5 .95 10.28 Total Fatalities 0.08 0 . 15 Total CO Emissions (kr,) 32.044 .00 61 .843 .00 Total HC Emissions tkel 4. 119 . 00 7.906.00 Total NO Emissions (fie) 4-795 .00 9, 1 13 .00 Fuel Use .,al 300 955 .00 572.528.00 Congestion Delay veh-hrs 2.695.62 23.482 . 06 Total Orieinal S eed m h 47.691 48 . 14 Total Comeested Speed (mph) 46 . 52 43 .86 Source: Indian River County MPO Table 1 .9.3 202-5 Roadway impraventent Plan T4StreeE 4-434 3(1?5 Project C_n t # L-a Phase , 1999fO2005 30 4 3rdAw ie St- P -61"t- 2 Undivided 4 Divided g0 2 Undivide9 4 Di+:idcKl 2-10 2 1=+tdividsd 4 Eltviderl 220 FS-A-60 —.a:5}2 8tlrhve: 2 1- MWi -d 4 Divided U3-.ss 230 3 L-'ndividod 6 Divided ;0 0 ?:eine 4 14V44ed - >3 '-. rd �:t- )ld-I?ixie-liw} UZS-} 2 Undivided 4 Divided $493 430 CR il ( 1Indw dea 4 P , ded };g914 4 `Divided 4 Divided _ 232 .-w 4 Divided 6 Divided 240 . 44nniann-Dn '.:R Sao -.Wbath-Av - Barber-;t- 3 144d" ided 4 Di*ided 230 ..a . e.-o rz� 4 P+"ded 6 Di"04 Rha"--40t I to-2015 34 90 32nd�Ave: tbSt- . . -8. -544 8 '-ane '_ ndivided $1 . _ ivided 4 494 2 "%&ide4 4 Divided Phase «�_.. w16 to MO .., nen 90 66t1a-Avg 'R-69 -0 3 r , a vii d 1 4 Divided $20888 440 - .- 2 r -,.,a, T.," 4 Divided 4W 4 FFeemM H 490 Oslo Rd. 27dyAvc, 2 1 F,andivided 4 1 Divided 260 linterchaff'" WA XWA W,W 4A NAA X00 i'hese3---2(121-to 2OU 49 2 Undivided 4 Divided 7i1 0 None 2 Undivided : - a30 IgtiASt. -Avt- (adt-Aae- 0 none 2 Z-Fnt4i Community Development Department Indian River County 105 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element e 1ojna� 2 >r 44 1 did $4414 � 233 Flwah" 'b U-s1--1 a Me3 k3nvfAod 7409 Table 4.9.3 Cost Affordable Proiects Listing On Street From To Base Road Tvpe Future Road Tvpe Total Cost 1-95 S. County Line ' . Countv Line 4 Lane F'reewav 6 Lane Freeway $ 109.919.000 SR 60 98th Ave 1-95 4 ]..,ane Divided 6 Lane Divided $2.543.842 SIS Total $1129461842 SR 60 1-95 82nd Ave 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8. 119.345 SR 60 6th Ave Indian River Blvd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $ 1 .864,7&S M US 1 S. Countv Line Oslo Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Late Divided $ 11064,823 Old Dixie Hwy x US t Aviation Blvd N 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $44372.047 s US t Roseland Rd N. Countv Line 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $5.255.518 ConLtest'ion Management System Projects ( $500,000 Per Year) $ 10 000,000 Other State Roads Total $81 ,676,591 4th St 98th Ave 06th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $ 16.262.035 12th St 90th Ave 82nd Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3.781 .786 12th St 431d Ave 27th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $2,854,618 13th St SW 66th Ave 58th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $4.041388 13th St SW 43rd Ave 341h Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $ 1 .560,899 13th St SW 34th Ave 27th Ave 00 2 Lana Undivided $3 ,359,684 13th St SW 27th Ave 20th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided 51 ,922 225 17th St SW 66th Ave 58th Ave OU 2 Lane Undivided $4.019.519 26th St66111 Ave 43rd Ave 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided 513,006.154 261h St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3.850,481 Aviation Blvd 43rd Ave U. S. 1 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8537.828 27th Ave S. Countv Line Oslo Rd 2 Late Undivided 4 Lane Divided $9.560.909 a 27th Ave Oslo Rd S.R. 60 2 Lane Undivided 2 Late Divided $ 12,330.699 43rd .AY'c S Countv Line Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $ 12.974563 cl 43rd Ave Oslo Rd 8th St 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $8.311 .058 of 53rd St 82nd Ave 66th Ave 00 2 Late Undivided $9599,620 58th Ave S Countv Oslo Rd 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $ 11 .850325 Line/Kobleeard Rd 66th Ave S Comriv Line Oslo Rd 00 2 Lane Undivided $8.562.423 66th Ave Oslo Rd 4th St 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8.887.466 66th Ave 4th St SR 60 2 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided $8.853,565 66th Ave SR 60 C,R. 510 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36, 173.489 82nd Ave S Countv Line Oslo Rd 00 2 Lane Undivided $7.302.941 82nd Ave 261h St C. R. 510 00 2 Late Undivided $28. 174. 165 Laconia St C. R. 510 C. R. 512 00 2 Lane Undivided $2,679.879 Aviation Btvd Est U.S. I Indian River Blvd 00 4 Lane Divided $ 14.387.771 C. R. 510 C.R. 512 U .S. I 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36369.280 C. R . 510 U . S. 1 1CWW 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3.718.539 C. R. 512 Fellsmere Citv Limit's 1-95 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided S ( 2192,929 Community Development Department Indian River County 106 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element On Street From To Base Road Tvpe Future Road Type Total Cost C.R. 512 1-95 C.R. 510 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $ 1-3317,010 CR- 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Rd 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $6.674,370 8th St 82nd Ave 74th Ave 00 2 Lane Undivided $3.955. 196 hidian River Blvd Roval Palm 37th St 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8.678.255 Oslo Rd 1-95 58th Ave 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $ 19,484.669 Roseland Rd C.R. 512U. S. 1 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,847,897 Schumann Dr C.R. 510 artier it 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3.974335 Coneestim Manaeemeat System Projects l $500,000 Per Year) $ 10,000,000 County Roads Total $381 ,057,970 Barber St Schumann Dr U .S . 1 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $3 .621 .587 x� Barber Sl C .R. 512 Schumtmn Dr ? Lanc Undivided 2 Lane Divided $7.596.306 =) Flamini SI l-asvSL JSLhumnn Dr 1 00 2 Lane Undivided $4838.861 Cih' Roads Total $ 16.056.754 Total $581 .254, 157 Source: Indian River County N1 PO Community Development Department Indian River County 107 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Fv..aolVO ra= 2006E07 rr210074" raa+wrua FY2009/10 ra M10114 €va(rsu Ea 44-°SVCL} WldenIll I)f31A8,E-43`x-AVl'Nii@44-.US4 $2,(;()9l)0Q 4S'444@eEl*+tHEkfh'.iltkNl $i200:000 (.',.-5 �x..;- ! $2-:770.000 044 GR' 144 ,too Indian Rivie Nonh MA $ 000{)OB + E3slo-Rsad-�4'" nom, . 4 A I pmw PA00-000 f� nam-Aviv te-10 WbANewle &�0(hU00 4 Oslwf"d-38'"�v@lwe-to-P-9 ${7,4�" F RM-Witk;niag- .Hnn,... . , . . g 1 24:" ghte "" 27"'.Av we4f U"'y4venae X00 } -1T6 $6: x4iA4A4 .- • wetion S900,Iw $4;000=000 { -54re StF�..ee � w, 4 , �It 11 �S I $i ;�. 00 .,.�� nnn 3.>;000-000 OB:FH)EI 3 Old- 0wip High, .t c. .., c.OV 10 1-0 street X100;000 $2�000,000 } 43rdA- +Hs— V' Street to �!" Strei4 $2zOOUN00 ) 4;5 �-fwe �1n?.Htti4-VaY, 444fe , . X0007000 $b;000.F100 NFA'{= G �Uk uo---SR 00 to 4".%4iwt IaEN�� 5000,000 $1 { G,Ow kFIiF1 lH"�ir€eE-44"-Ave,. ew OS i ${00;000 $500000 t 17' JS4cro4S41'—>R A*cnueto27"' Avewiw $250;000 X250;000 $300:000 I 33'^ tree+-(-]'riNium$i+" w�'^-,4venae £300:000 a- Awe+we-ta77a'-Awwwe $354.000 ."i ^.Snu;+ YJ-Wcvt.>f27'"��venuo{c*:3An'.Avenuo %400,000 T1 $1'404 ". $?-00:000 4-O Community Development Department Indian River County 108 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element )-3lI45!!A6 k'1'=3(WilU7k2A(17/US kk' 2UIFY/69 k'1=-3({U3f411 " 'r ..n.," 1 /}2 Aevemmte Snorer# W-Slxwt ,9W-43" AvcnaeiN-S"-Avenue S-IA0;0FH) T 5S3'"-Avenue--25'"31reeFSW'�(�til<j-ftuad SIUO;()l1U £=�A(N1;PUA f 2e c wt U .S. to -1-4�-Aatnne VwOA0A "01"w I g'".Str��nk—St2'"-Avenuein-Fi(in'-Avenue W)")00 VW.G U $2r-W),AW } 14'"-Aa . ��,,..o—r, �W <�ue1e-8"'�Efetll $LBQ,AUO $38A;AF1U 1. 5200, 00 S24000 24'x-Avenin47!"..{,,'uxiSkV-ta-23'n-8tre..d-Rh4 $2Uomo I 27"' �.r.;�r� g .,,.� °r• -ttaAs7e-{ieas# Wk." $1-A00{lUN ) c ,Stteet 44"'P interspetoons $100:009 WO." T Mig)tland4)vA o/Al(I-Dim, S5A,009 &200,000 SFS-6FN3&"'-Aveuue-fBev-50';tiU $ 1 .1 1811 e"BIEWF3 IaA0;A00 �= E I+ 43w-Rveime/SR-60 C-R�d11(FiHn' tlwentw $d�OAf)OU ) $250.UUA ). +7'"-SFfe."[SW/43`°-Av� $250;000 ) 3P SyeeU,(ifin'-Avenue $,00;0()0 } -I(i{'SlreeU20'n-Avenue $200;4)00 1 $30(1000 + 23m-AvexxeNFfmSkeei $125-9F� $+�A00 } Indian Rive Bol levy d/53"�-Strcv^t $23 (100 $I2-6;000 } 94w Sjteetr4%( $50,040 $399099 I &5"N $300;4" I 45"'3iucNf+Fi'n-Aveiwe b3ff1000 $300;000 I CR-54•(YU-" 4x 09{310 I 58'4 Awmue/4+9"'Streel 550,000 S2AW )0() I. Community Development Department Indian River County 109 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 4'enlex'd Fk-3005/0(i FY -20&61#7 41- - t7m FV 20(j& 19 k=Y�w N"' ^_"�-0;.,nn A FN -11(Wlf " Rrvenue 5g!' .Avcmue^/W-94Ir 4 S$( 30P 3?{ 1N#0 4 SK'"-A�=enu�kl9'��,kcetiL Sc(l.()00 $2("00 1 M11 A , ,,,11-1 114 C/A C4Strent 4ilfdfakFRi�4a'i�+ll'eef $a# 99# A auAi'in 3e 4eA,w6!41"-8tme4 ;:m I Reff9mit-ReNing 42 A . --0, st.--to 9'o.,St-F W' $!4{4#00 A ...� .. rvx S4 -8w $75;000 A 3.59=089 A m " tea,-4vatt>3-F"-Ave 5#41;080 A 34-Ave.-1.20'S4.(4..43'x_5(- $)Of1,#439 A y1w ,e_ a � ., um cam. .. 37. 99y A ;'"S[.5w/-13rJ-Avemuet anal WON (1 33'04;droeBHvo� 60' �1{1,atermM"i $704,900 4494 $70#:000 H 4-V-S4aeet{3wr- 6" Avewue-Canal-(-Lateral-A" 874300-030 O 43"'-Aw4W,E V000,000 F) 4 'x Suaet Owy-6(3 ' Avow (;ana144,oW41=,A-) $44)004)00 E) 82"' ,. m.._ ,4 Laol =4)zC44.a4 $ 043=#00 $500;008 A 444(4-[toad/74-Avon ic44nal $790,000 C4 waba tio (-,aasowayBw1geRgmui 34;9004300 .1 1a0ian-Ri e. n : c . . . Community Development Department Indian River County 110 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Projeel ILY_211"A6 k'P3(IOHNi7 FY-,al( W48 ICY 210940 ILA, �� �" Revenue £iuurea�`- Indian-River [-)4 - Nnnill $260:000 G ('R313 $24t1o00 G TOTAL $3a5-S3.o00 S3?7-7Eia)00 ,$ 16;3704400 S+l '36g'000 'V'ww4},000 so $o M}Special-RsSessx+eers (k=}6ayucH)'L-haeery (I la)16e6r©n up i ae 4.,au& F3wW IPdvi'3-IAitinleMibg.kiarv-1"vixd9 fG)' Gran[v (1}{.rafYio-}nryoWaees Q3V13isryusnl-6ser-Rees— ns (12) Vaile-Impact-Pees (N)....:Rend-Fe-PF+dge Dept:{-unAv "T"""" ' ""•`gym (R�4L ake-lWnd 1uuti 7lav (=R7ia�eve�nenk 4£.,—.,_ �' • .-",alst+ixK Comity 2 (7-ySiIHlNiwaierl)filir_y{;ai[w�CR � •� public 1119 Utilities, AI Table 4.9.4: Programmed Capital Im rovement Projects Project FY 2006101 FY 2007108I ' 2009110 FY 2010/11r Fbetwecn�'O]rchid of Indian River & North AlA Tum Lanes $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees of USI , left tum at Wabasso Island lane, three lanes and Jungle Trail (.5miles) $0 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees coastal Waterway Bridge (Transfer to FDOT) (1 .5 IR $0 $1,546,000 $1 ,546,000 $0 $0 Gas Tax ,v . v.xr s t' g CRSJ9, 61Stnfo In han RrveY ,° ' 4 , v $8 465911 $1,000,0 $2 SOd,000 � � $0 =t , ' 00 0` f%0ffic Imp ct Fees , s i °rFl a ,�''Sw 000 � is` °� $1,540 $ ''60,000 q$L500,000 0 Is/TRSPk , F Ci�`510-s�1 )t7rlvb�to�av4. . , � �' T^ *4n a , w ' s .. " '`•„fid s '( vd R.a x,r- {, e a t ;xs r C +"1$1"a4i. x?pve W.Indtan ,;trer .'. .r ,r 'k3' f600,01f0, '. < n " '� $0 € i, S * vk(! i§ $0 ,ti . $0 Gss .Tax xss :S7A' • 0De velopenu` os0 ,C CR 510, 75th Court to 61st Drive, four lanes (1 .5 miles) $ 178,613 $0 $ 1 ,000,000 $421 ,387 $9,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees CR 510, 75th Court to 61st Drive, four lanes (1 .5 miles) $0 $0 $0 $ 1 ,500,000 $0 Granls/TRIPS Community Development Department Indian River County 111 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element II II I : 11 : I 1 I7� $ CR 510, 75th Court to 61st Drive, four lanes (1 .5 miles) $0 $0 $ 100,000 $011 Developer ContributionsCR 510, 75th Court to 61st Drive, four lanes (L5 miles) $800,000 $0 $0 $3,500,000Gas Tax777 CR �51-0, CR 512 to57.Sth Court. foar lanes^ 4.5t ( miles) 3 .�. ..$T,500,000 $,'0'0000 $ 17,590,000iaffic Tmpaot Fees v, ry ,,�^ ,.' w , CIf ..Q CR 512.to 75th Court, foul lanes 4fln7{ and „'� ,. . , 'c,$0 ,. $0, $100,000 ', F „ v $0 $0 Developer Contributions 'fiN 3 4 'Pr9 s ` ri '* 3X"s CR 510, G 1� 'tq 75th Court, Your lanes lesj " .. s s °, $0 .=: .. ,,. $0 $500,000 �I . . i $9> :'Ysl?J8 :. 0 Ga;;•I'ax CR 512 Phase 3, Roseland Rd. to Sebastian Middle, 4 lanes (1 .5 miles) $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants/TRIPs CR 512 Phase 3, Roseland Rd. to Sebastian Middle, 4 lanes (1 .5 miles) $8,340,623 $2,533,672 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees CR 512 Phase 3, Roseland Rd. to Sebastian Middle, 4 lanes (1.5 miles) $125,705 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax y . EJ:' A .d31 .r A .b I CR'512�h 4, Sebastian Middle Sch to I s9 , 'put�es (2 v 't p " 3asl` t„ S3,00 1, 0000°.,a"'?,`$1,230,000 $0 d3� . . y .. $01Yaffla!'lmpaot Pees CR_512,Phs"'uA,,Sebastian Middle Schd I-951s°.f4ur?y.,le5 (2 - 7" .t ^ ; . t �, ,5��,�' � t. mules) x,,:: w. • r + 4 ' -.,k $2.7-0,000 , s r '. `$500,00;0. .$0 s* , 7. ,.,$0 ri ,..,.. - �$0 'tlional Sales Tax Old Dixie Hwy., 16th Street to 1st Street SW, three lanes (two miles) $ 150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Old Dixie Hwy., 16th Street to 1st Street SW, three lanes (two miles) $550,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Oslo Road, 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, four lanes (1 mile) $3,000,000 $1,050,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees )4 IF mPsiilesRoadR Old Dixie Hwy. to 27thA`yenue� ,fi .� r :.% ' 7JI anit °" $4,945,IF x 1 IF 94 y. 'd . 53,359,400 `$0 "k 1f� ISP I , '.IF III , , ;`t„ $0 TofficImpact Fees -�Ix yV$7o toad dD,ixie Hwy. 1027th AvedaO $veI�(2"5 r J" Ay� t,' .� I "„' • f, �x � '. ' .^�" `+." miles') 11 "„ s v a r FFFFSO t $i5{1,52Q $0 ;<` ayt$0 v;,,p " $avaloger C,outributtons # " OsloRoadtOjd])ixieHwy to27fhAvenu �Valaq. '"4 SAi! . , ;, E. rs .p, , r t" t '* ,,l ° miles) , _ ,,, :` , :,`'_• r , . <. r,,„i. $1 200" d60. $0 `' 5' s IIA $0Q Ges Tax , Oslo?Roi d; Old Dixie Hwy. to 27th avenue rV anes I{ ' f FN FJ F' % s ' r I ' 3! . , ,yrs x '?. $1#r?W,896 = :. , , $0 '"x.3$0 k . . o` $0 ,:7^" ,„�0 Opton`a1'Sales Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 112 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Ili I II 1 : 11 : I ' FI ' I I I Oslo Road, 27th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, four lanes (I mile) $ 1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax :F '?moi: .t . .� ^t§ dslo Road,,43fd Avepue t 58tti. venuc, four I I6i 1 ile $300 000 ' $i'-0Q� A ( ) ` " ,. " p�0 _ $0 ' .rx. $0 $Q; Traffic Smpact FaeS I L k Qslo RoAdr43rd yepue to58th Avenue fourkanes 61mile,), $0 zr#�5,.. $0 K*r $'0 : = $0 $0 (ias', 'arc Oslo Road 43f0"Qvanua5$tl .,��v`arue; four7aneS (litlile) $900,000 ""^ $1,100,-0,60 * ' " '' '$0 $0 =.�$0 Optional Sales,TaX Oslo Road, 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue, four lanes (I mile) $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 Traffic Impact Fees Powerline Rd., Barber St. to CR 510, in City of Sebastian, two lanes (.5 mile) $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax SR At Widening — Castaway Boulevard to Moorings $445,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees SR AIA , 17th Street to Sea Gull, add two lanes $ 199,000 $ 1 ,801 ,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees South SR ALA Left Tum Lane Not on design list $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 12th Street, 82nd Avenue to 90th Avenue, two lanes (1 mile) $0 $0 $287,829 $11000,000 $0 Optional Sales Tax 13th Street SW, 27th Avenue SW to 43rd Avenue SW, two lanes $ 112,691 $387,309 $0 $0 $O Traffic Impact Fees (l miles) S4 SW3�d Aveto . & veto �6ndge L �. , re�1C'eme�tt•l/17w€ ' r ' t' 'if " y� '^rrsr n $1OOb,000 P $0 ,:�+� 4yr $0 .,t $0 $Ll Trafficdmpac[ Fees ', . 1" "vN�#:dfS'� th; e�„,tDeveloge[id d ,e :' = s y0. raplaoemeny20)ll12 S .t sY Frr ., r § rryr $500,0(j0 kx "" ' , �„ ,y . b. ' , ,',� $0 +$D:- AaveiopacContrtbutlons - 16th Street — 14th Avenue to US 1 $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees IN In 14 1 49 g u q V:.. ;� dw 'zr iG treat (anugtg7 . P , S " .' + tl{3 , epue;tWo lanes"r,'{1 mr1e) $0 . $1500090r $0 f rti�r ' ` $0 -3f' $0 G'z'�a% '7a) s:� A 4I I I , . 'SY ayf t Y dy f u;, ' ' '. { �d `ff t rs3y .4 1f �' . xue ipr `t f ') hStreeF (>^66t}4; venUeto74th�Avenue;TWdrlanes:(Y mile) ' $0 .0 $1000,000 " '$Q 'Optional ales 16th Street, 74th Avenue to Pointe West, two lanes (.5 mile) $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Community Development Department Indian River County 113 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element II . 1 I . low II ' IFY1010/11 16th Street 82nd Avenue to 90th Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 17th"SfSeetSW =-68th Avenue to�43rdthAvGplican . rd, to'$1h' , 7 - ,;„$0 '#x= $0 $250000 , .;, x$250000 :;,` $4 eyel9pe'xConVtbutions.; a 17th StreetSW' 8th Avenue to-43rdth Avenuo and 43rd Co' 7tit $250,000 ' , =$6 . $0 " �, 5250,0� $0 Gas 1`ax 2lst Street SW, 20th Avenue SW to 27th Avenue SW, two lanes (.5 mile) $285, 107 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 21st Street SW, 20th Avenue SW to 27th Avenue SW, two lanes (.5 mile) $214,893 $0 $0 $0 $0 Developer Contributions 26th Street, 43rd Avenue to 66th Avenue, four/five lanes (2 mile) $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 1 ,500,000 Traffic Impact Fees 26th Street, 74th Avenune to 82nd Avenue, two lanes $0 $750,000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 26th Street, 43rd Avenue to US 91 , four/five lanes (2 miles) $800,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 33rd Street, West of 66th Avenue, two lanes (.25 mile) $ 150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 33rd Street, West of 66th Avenue, two lanes (.25 mile) $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Developer Contributions 37th Street, 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue, two lanes (I mile) $500,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax iq ry� x i5 "14 'aw x " r i d '� Nfi ',WPM . � I�I�a'� v �- ' k + `. IY ry 41�rreet, 43rd :venuctoUS # L threelana5.(;(1Mtletj TX� v "='tII ; ias ,$0 � ' '3 ', ,l$0 � ' h +�, , 0 t!'raffic�"�P.acc�'ees , �". ` , th " s + wLL wi ' Ohffiadoad 0 $0 Fund,03 , .4st5trcet, }3rd { venLemUS {l, threelnestl �, 1, : . $i5n , _ l>rprov. 41st Street, 58th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, three lanes (I mile) $3,450,000 $ 1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 41st Street, 58th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, three lanes (1 mile) $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Gifford Road Improv. 41st Street, 58th Avenue to 43rd Avenue, three lanes (I mile) $2,750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fund Oa- 45th $treat Beantifoation , . Gal Community Development Department Indian River County 114 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Project 1 II 2008/09 FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11i 53rd Street — 58th Avenue to US 1 , add four lanes $6,664,633 $0 $5,085,597 $219,770 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 53rd Street — 58th Avenue to US 1 , add four lanes $0 $0 $3,770,230 $0 $0 Developer Contributions 77th Sveek 90da Avenue td166thSAvcnue, two I"apes (3 miles) $50,000 ^-' ? $0 =Ys-r $0 $0 $0 traffic Lnpact Fees ix' 81st Street, 66th Avenue to 58th Avenue, two lane (.5 mile) $0 $0 $400,000 $0 $0 Gas Tax 20th Avenue SW, 17th Street SW to 25th Street SW, two lanes (1 mile) $300,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 77777777 fi. KK 1 „_4M wl�u"t#+ lu• n r . ^ .,t 27th AvenuehdfnT31fi St SW, "fOti es (2 miles) '. ,°$© " a.$0 �'-' . - ' $0 ! , - $0 $3;QOO,OOQ ;Traffic 'Inipac{ my .� Gk rot w'' � � nz r '. a.' ' yy Row land 2 $ s'4' +`, ,$0 t $0 . , ;x$2,000,000 ^` $0 �Developet: Gontjcibuvons 27th Avenu�' tjyt3SW to I ih $% ( mi)esj i x 27th Avenue, 12th Street to 5th St. SW, four lanes (2 miles). $0 $0 $0 $0 $7,000,000 Gas Tax 43rd Avenue, 8th Street to 19th Street, four lanes (1 mile) $0 $ 1 ,250,000 $ 1 ,250,000 $6,500,000 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 's zf 7 �' " ' 4 :~ T �� "' `<' $0 $S 000 000 Op ttonal Sales fax .43rd%!A O8,1a'koad, fourapb>: (2 miles), $567,094 ' � .2^ r.,.t,q $0 K,,,, ry. 0 , ' i� ridr + ^r` ,t rX,. r ;2' ": , t : n i '�rT r ^ t x . , ..max • v ',Pti „ .� �' ` 000,000 . r '` $0 $0 �Traffie°Tmpaet ees ., 43rd-At+eque,.$thTStreetto Oslo Road fowJaztes 2.5Tin es) ., $2,432,906 . , $1,OOA,000 .(a' I $3,, 43rd Ave, Oslo Road to County Line 4 lanes $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 Traffic Impact Fees 43rd Avenue, 49th Street to 53rd Street, three lanes (.5 miles) $0 $0 $ 1,000,000 $0 $0 Gas Tax 5$th Avenue„20d�i" heatto 53rd. StrCet }plii").rynes (3 m4ios) : $200,000 ASF $0 ,x- '6 �. .0 E $31()00,000 $1,700,91 000Faffio impact Fees k x �, gp� SSth1,S;e�ru „ 6[t $�treeffp33i, I�Sveet,-.four lane „miles $O :r, 61 ' '',1 $0 e $0 - :,s .,$IOO,p00 s $0 Develop e�t-Contri66�ions ' _ 58th Avenue, 77th Street to 53rd Street, four lanes (3 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,867,831 Traffic Impact Fees 58th Avenue, 77th Street to 53rd Street, four lanes (3 miles) $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 115 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element FY2006107 FY2007/08 ll : l ll l FY 2010/11r 58th Avenue, 77th Street to 53rd Street, four lanes (3 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $232, 169 Developer Contributions $0 $0 . " $0 a�=�. $3 500 00 • ho ales.Tax 5$th.Avenue, CR5¢0 to 77th Streat, Ebur lanes (1 mtle :,„;��,. , $0 s >:r,�• 9p p 66th Ave, 4th Street to SR 60, add two lanes $ 1,300,000 $ 10,539,710 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 66th Ave, 4th Street to SR 60, add two lanes $660,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 GrantsMPs 66th Ave, 4tb Street to SR 60, add two lanes $3,500,290 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 Gas Tax uIV qk� ' L y. <q 4fll ver14e�5Qttt'Street to SR 60, fourlanes `(6 mde§ ,r m ' $0 $40(!;000 $0 ". SO �y s 'u$5 0Q0,000 '�ra'tXic impact }F K E r} $SA bo $1,500 666tjrAveme 59th Str tiro SR 6Q, four lanes : 6 miles " ,000 - $1,300,000 •+ 1 �"zr$7,5.(1' 000 a a �, .,tr $0 Opuonal Sales. Tax 4V x bb thrvegue,$9th;Stree to SR 60, four lanes ry(6.mi1 n $0 ' xi $0 ,$3 0004{1Q0 Gas 1a 66th Avenue from 77th St. to 59th Street $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $ 1,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees 11 �„,gg t b,. . " 613 ,+VVI P ., bthAN hC, 77i[hStreettoBa berSt , fou laces (20001 t ^ g $300000 ,$IOOb,000 $0 €ty$ $760O Cf TraffoIutpactFees , yy' w ids s t � b. M $06iA - 77ii �teto atier St., foutlne , $0 GasT 6Vp rz e "; , "• S. enuc '77th Street toBazber St, four laps (2mrle9) ' , �.'.,." $0. :r xtn1 ,$Q $2,000,000 $2,000,04. t ., p .,; $P UPhonal8ales Tax 66thAF Traffic controllers $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Traffic Fiber Optic $345,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Traffic Fiber Optic $ 113,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax Road Resurfacing $ 1,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Road Resurfacing T $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 1 Optional Sales Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 116 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 7 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/092009/10 1 1 74th Avenue, 12th Street to Oslo Road, two lanes (2.5 miles) Fllllllllllllllllllllllll`$202,962 $0 $0P $0 $ 1 ,797,038 Traffic Impact Fees 74th Avenue, 77th Street to 26th Street, two lanes (5 miles) $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 82nd Avenue, 77th Street to 26th Street, two lanes (5 miles) $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 Traffic Impact Fees 82nd Avenue, CR 510 to 77th Street, two lanes (1 mile) $0 $0 $0 $0 $700,000 Grants/TRIFS Misc. Intersections 12th Street/27th Avenue $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Highland Drive/Old Dixie $ 100,000 $ 150,0001 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 3 ur - " 4 $S,OW,b00 S 0 r{$46$'4„%8,07 ' r r„ $0 $O, TrBffiC p8C ees .::, SAdenRb41nterserbon t e x °rn ” s a all Yak, { iYry ryy.. i 58th,A.venue'/ SI�bOiStttergeonotr s $900,000 ' t ids" $0� M 3 r ° $0 $0 (3as . .c '�4z`° , t m : x Y 11 ei 58th Avenup✓nSR �O &. e * . t r ` r ,� , . .. . $292,597 , ` $241Q? -'i ,„ $0. ^ ",- = $0 $0. Deve1 per' d"ntr)buttons ' 43rd Avenue/SR 60 - 19th Street to 26th Street - 4 lanes $0 $702,329 $2,000,000 $1 ,800,000 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 43rd Avenue/SR 60 - 19th Street to 26th Street - 4Imes $0 $0 $0 $9,700,000 $0 Gas Tax 43rd Avenue/SR 60 - 19th Street to 26th Street - 4 lanes $398,836 $398,836 $0 $0 $0 Developer Contributions 21st StreetSW/43tdA enue ?'" ' u ' �' s `'" r $ 100,000 ,,.;s "�` , $0 ,,'e, '$150, 00' " t $0 $0 :'mtt'iclmpact..F„gesI U lf 17th Street SW/43rd Avenue $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 17th Street/AI A Intersection $900,000 $ 1 ,000,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees 1st Street SW/43rd Avenue $500,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Community Development Department Indian River County 117 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Prqject FY 2006/07 2007/08 FY 2008/09200 9/10 FY 2010/11 A ' ' 4 � ' `4°r$300000 '��� �'>� $0 r '$0� $0 si• �m t „.$O Ikaffic Impact Fees 33rd Street/QhtAvenUe..: + tea = 3 d`$tteet166th Avenue sr r. . Y $30b,000 S`.-:".:: , $0 $0 fit. ' ,$ ,„. _' $6 Gas-Tax ,*•"''�' SR 60/ 90th Avenue Intersection $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 4th Street/27th Avenue $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Mise. Intersection Improvements $204, 194 $300,000 $ 1,050,000 $300,000 $0 Optional Sales Tax 16th Street/20th Avenue $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees c k ~Mt„ ,. 43rd AVe <3 lane and Bridge Replacements 5th'$,"t and 4`ird ;A `" ` "' � X4 ._ " v „ eE" _ ;` 0 Traffic Ln aciFees A'dP�nUeoverS 'RgLefCanal „� _ / :.. ''a $0 y, $0 $0 '`., ,iw$0 , �, y, .,$ p 9M h} > 43rd va�'�11 e=and'j3'"dge Replacements 5th Street au 43rd "`v ` . ` 7,. ' ! too . $Q , , . ' ' $0 Dptional Sales Avehue,ovei',' r", 'olie£ aual $0 ,. . $b `' Wzer 27th Avenue/16th Street $50,000 $75,000 $ 125,000 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Indian River Boulevard/53rd Street $100,000 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees a . . t '£,141, . $494 $9b'*'` ,fix 5a $0 $0• " ,x {r �. l xk$0 -v ° 1000 Q00 'l7pho�lal$ales Tax ' Iv}reo Y(t�ttt�9#'.W�ay/'p,ogt4,ts�tion y x 7 $ 0,000 000 ° $q Gas Tax$500,0' Ri91pofWaYAeVisition k Indian River Boulevard/45th Street $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Indian River Boulevard/41st Street $ 100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees °r a ,-%M7 . ' =r xu ,fir a^ . ORon'Aa'Ytng* `�, ` ' 7. 12 Ave. - 8th St. to 9th St. SW $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax I Oth Ave. SW - 7th St. SW to 9th St. SW $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 118 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element II . I I 1 : I I9]z FY2009110 FY 2010/11 Vero Lake Estates Paving Program $283,611 $500,000 $950,000 $300,000 $ 1 ,500,000 Optional Sales Tax Vero Lake Estates Paving Program $0 $ 1 ,412,591 $1 ,246,202 $ 1,896,202 $696,202 Gas Tax 13th SL SW - West of Grove S/D $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 13th St. SW - 25th Ave to 31st Ave $ 100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 24th Ave. - 1 st St SW to 4th St. $0 $0 $ 150,000 $0 $0 Gas Tax Roads East of U.S. I — 7 Miles $200,000 $200,000 $ 100,000 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax 34 Ave. - 12th St. to 14th St. $0 $ 100,000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 41st Ave. - 6th St. to 8th Street $0 $ 150,000 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax ii P S . Bridgoat 4 St/35 Av Canal $567,058 $o $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax 16th Street Bridge at Lateral A $0 $693,500 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax 5th St. SW/43rd Avenue Canal $377,403 $0 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax 5th St. SW/43rd Avenue Canal $0 $1, 122,597 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax 66th Avenue Widening Includes Bridges at 33,37,41,45,53,57, Approx. $ 1 ,500,000/hridge Also Replacing 3 Bridges at South end $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact pets of 66th 82nd Avenue Over Lateral "D" Canal and 4th Street/82nd Ave. Intersection Widening $0 $ 1,209,307 $0 $0 $01 Optional Sales Tax 82nd Avenue Over Lateral "D" Canal and 4th Street/82nd Ave. Intersection Widening $0 $0 $0 $2,440,693 $0 Gas Tax Community Development Department Indian River County 119 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element FY 2007/08 FY2008/09 FY2009/10 FY 2010/11 Revenue Soureet Old Dixie Hwy/SRC - included in 3 lane $0 $2, 191,335 $0 $0 $0 Traffic Impact Fees Old Dixie Hwy/SRC - included in 3 lane $558,665 $0 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax Oslo Road/74 Avenue Canal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Gas Tax Oslo Road/74 Avenue Canal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax .YH 58i r PAM s s� � a% ou'•0; Br pths t, �} §' t Indian River Drive - South $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants/TRIPs Indian River Drive - North $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants/TRIPs Misc. Sidewalk Program $567,495 $0 $0 $0 $0 Optional Sales Tax CR 512 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grams/TRIPs Transportation TOTAL $87,012,871 $54,320,711 $63,335,665 $62,928,052 $49, 153,240 Sources: Indian River County Public Works, Utilities, Management and Budget, Solid Waste Disposal District Community Development Department Indian River County 120 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Bicycle/Pedestrian System The Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was completed in 1997 . Using innovative bike/ped analysis methodologies, including a BLOS (Bicycle level of service) analysis technique and an interactive hazards analysis, that plan identified bike/ped needs throughout the MPO area. As structured, the MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan includes a set of proposed improvements to meet the bike/ped needs of the MPO area. Improvements are proposed for both the municipalities and for the unincorporated county. The bicycle and pedestrian system improvements programmed by 2025 for the unincorporated county are shown in Figures 4 . 11A and 4. 11B. These cost-feasible improvements are derived from the MPO plan and are based on priority rankings using the BLOS 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 the 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 should 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 should maintain its current requirement for sidewalks to be installed in new subdivisions with a density exceeding 3 units per acre . Consistent with the MPO ' s Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, the County should continue to earmark at least $ 100,000 a year in 1 cent local option sales tax revenue for bike/ped improvements . In addition, the County should use available ISTEA/TEA-21 enhancement funds for bike/ped facility construction. Finally, the County should commit to incorporate bike/ped improvements in all roadway improvement projects when feasible . Aviation & Intermodal Elements 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. The County must not only address those issues, but also address roadway access to the airports. For airports then, the County must maintain its airport zoning regulations which address airport height and noise impact on new development. As structured, the future land use map provides for compatible land uses in areas close to airports . Height requirements are incorporated within the airport zoning ordinance which should continue to be implemented and enforced. Community Development Department Indian River County 121 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 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. In addition, the County should coordinate with the City of Vero Beach to attract a commuter airline to its airport. From a rail standpoint, it seems that the County will be little affected by high-speed rail. Currently, there are no scheduled stops in Indian River County on any of the proposed alignments for the train. More important is that the FEC and AMTRAK may come to agreement on passenger rail service along Florida' s east coast. The State of Florida has committed funds to make improvements to the FEC rail line on the east coast of Florida in anticipation of a resumption in passenger rail service. These improvements may include a passenger rail station in Indian River County. However, financial pressures nationwide have curtailed AMTRAK expansion activities. With respect to both high-speed rail and passenger rail service, it is important that the County continue to coordinate with the MPO and support its activities on these matters in the event that either proposal becomes a reality. Community Development Department Indian River County 122 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Future Transportation Map Series r 3 Figure 4. 11A Existing & Future Bicycle Facilities f s e sigPo ;o'i. . 95 . R w x, stst7 v L A xoofrl d SR soffitiSt Q eQ D ' ,2i1 st n ° rn N � 6 ° Vero Beach Inset a n ; r o ,ern Mon 1 0 an 5, _ a Oa b Rd O S Legend ' mprouemuY W nl Road (1999 -2005) I4 PS1alG Able Imp Nxemel6 (1999 .005) .N StnId Able Impmemelu 8006-2025) �VExatllg F30111 / No Facllly Community Development Department Indian River County 123 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Future Transportation Map Series 9 Map 4. 118 Existing & Future Pedestrian Facilities a 17, 41st St � � � a � ❑ � v I a is F 8 a M i14 � N' 17th St O z m @ n , 2z7�� Vero Beach Inset a 1 ° 1L. 1 421A 1 OW oab Ra — 1 l 2 0 2 Miles Legend .PStakd Able Imp mNemekZ (1999-2005) fmpmdemelts W AI Roads (1999-2005) aWa lnprouemel4 W rtl Roadt (2bb6-2025) p N� Stald Able Impmuemeltt 8006-202S) AN axial ExlSmg Faclmy Afc. umpleh Exlatllg Facllk Community Development Department Indian River County 124 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Transit Transit can serve two principal functions. One is providing transportation services to the transportation disadvantaged, while the other is mitigating roadway congestion by reducing single occupancy vehicle trips. The transportation disadvantaged function can involve both demand/response service and fired route service. Reducing congestion is primarily accomplished through a fixed route system. Through the Council on Aging (COA), the County has had a successful transportation disadvantaged program. As the County' s Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC), the COA has brokered trips between purchasers of transportation disadvantaged service and providers of transportation services. At the same time, the COA has performed well as the principal provider in the transportation disadvantaged system. Since FY 93 /94, the COA has also run the County' s fixed route transit system. While increasing ridership each year since its establishment, the fixed route system still almost exclusively serves the transportation disadvantaged. As part of its transit planning activities, the County has prepared a Transit Development Plan and a Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan. The County has also worked with the Council On Aging to develop a transit system marketing plan and to conduct focus group sessions with potential transit users . Based upon the results of those planning efforts, it appears unlikely that the County' s fixed route system will be a viable alternative to the automobile for most County residents in the near future . Consequently, the fixed route system will not reduce roadway volumes nor serve as a congestion mitigation alternative . There are a variety of reasons for that. Among those reasons are the County' s size , density, household income, lack of congestion, dispersed employment, and other characteristics . Without high parking costs , a lack of parking, and a fixed route system that serves a large geographic area with low headways and extended hours, fixed route transit will not be an alternative to the private automobile. Even where those conditions exist, fixed route systems seldom serve as an alternative to the automobile unless the system is a fixed rail system or uses exclusive bus lanes. Although transit is not currently a viable option for most County residents, there is a possibility that transit can have an expanded role in the future. As indicated in the land use section, it is important to ensure that new development complements future transit use. The Future Land Use Element does that by setting urban growth limits, promoting infill, encouraging higher intensity development along major roadway corridors, inter-connecting uses, promoting TND developments, and encouraging other transit-friendly development. Prior to completion of the MPO ' s next long-range transit plan, there will be some changes to the County' s existing fixed route transit system as a result of the 2002 TDP major update. As the operator of the County ' s fixed route transit system, the Council on Aging, has proposed to significantly change the system. The purpose of these changes is to increase ridership and enhance the transit service provided. Proposed future transit facilities are noted in Figure 4 . 12 , Future Transit Facilities . Community Development Department Indian River County 125 N C � I a r L )�T•� i .' cV1�§ U < } n � � a M Y b L �^�'_ 'L m My F'1 x 't IC ie igg 5 `e L` LL it�� r7 � � }„6.._, � ,�..,� ' .,..�. �•' i p � r m A r- � a Y i � 0 7 � t U U Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element S , «8,T &T Brevard County tI , , iii; E2�"TKSN . .: ...0 Vero Beach Inset 1 tw. JAIL a a R t 0 1 2 t i other Transit needs Not Shown on. Map } ® Expand Weekday Hours Of Service: 5.30 AM M 5:30 Ptd Miles Addopi 30-Minute Headway Fccyon All Routes Expand Saturday Service: 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Add Umded Sunday Sewirz: 9A4 AM to 2:40 PM St. Lucre IIIIIOUnty T � Interchanges 9ta � i 1f� rill 1 � �9t1 r Existing Transit Routes C o m p r e h e n s i V e P l a o New New Transit Figure 4.12 Routes Existing 203D Adopted Needs Pian Transit Needs Community Development Department Indian River County 127 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element In accordance with the MPO ' s adopted TDP, the COA will re-align Route 5 in Sebastian to provide service to the Wabasso area; provide limited Saturday service; re-align Route 6 to better serve the residents of south Indian River County; and implement marketing, operational and maintenance improvements systemwide. In addition, the county will , in conjunction with COA, provide bus benches, shelters, and transfer facilities at major stops and transfer points. In order to improve the analysis of the transit system and guide funding needs and strategies, the county needs to establish an effective level of service standard for its fixed route transit service. The adopted level of service standard established by the county is one-hour headways on all routes. This one-hour headway standard is to be maintained on all fixed transit routes . 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 . This plan uses the following definitions of a goal, an objective, and a policy. Goal : Long term end toward which programs or activities are directed . Objective: A specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal . Policy: The course of action or way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal or objective. 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 2020, 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 . These standards are 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": Community Development Department Indian River County 128 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 27th Ave — South County Line to SR 60 43rd Ave — Oslo Road to 16th Street 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 C . 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 . 3 and 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 I . I . 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, DRI development order approval, and building permit approval for single family structures. ° Projected project traffic shall be based on the application of ITE trip rates (Trip Generation, 5th 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 129 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element be the sum of existing demand and committed demand. This is described in the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. ° 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. As an alternative, capacity may be determined by ART-PLAN analysis, HCM analysis, or speed delay studies. 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 years of the county' s adopted Seven 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 twahree years after issuance of the project ' s first building �he development project Reeding , 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 analysis for all projects projected to generate/attract 1000 or more average daily trips, or 54 or more peak hour trips. A traffic impact analysis will also be required of any development projected to generate/attract 500 or more average daily trips, or 27 or more peak hour trips, located within a " critical transportation area" , as defined in the analysis section of this element and designated by the public works director. The traffic impact analysis 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. Specific requirements for the traffic impact analysis are described below: Minimum requirements for the traffic impact analysis are described below : All traffic impact analyses 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 analysis . The study area boundary shall include all intersections within 1/2 mile of the project site as well as any intersection beyond '/2 mile where the projects generated daily traffic would Community Development Department Indian River County 130 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element account for 5 percent or more of the existing plus project traffic volumes . (Reviewing agencies may require larger study boundaries on a case by case basis) . 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 judgement 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 both morning and afternoon peak hours during the peak season. If the proposed development contains retail only, the analysis will be limited to the afternoon peak hour. 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 2000 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 . Community Development Department Indian River County 131 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 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 the fee schedule at least once every two years. If necessary, changes to the fee schedule shall be made based upon the results of the fee schedule review. POLICY 1 . 7 : By 2005 , the county shall consider imposing part or all of the ELMS one to five cent local option gas tax. OBJECTIVE 2 SAFETY By 2010, the number of intersections with a high relative crash rate (over 2 .0 accidents per million entering vehicles) will be less than the five high relative crash rate intersections identified in 2001 . POLICY 2 . 1 : The county will maintain an accurate crash database. POLICY 2 .2 : The county will review crash records to determine if intersection improvements are necessary to enhance safety and will program necessary improvements . POLICY 2 . 3 : The county hereby adopts the MPO' s Congestion Management System 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 CMS analysis . Such recommended improvements may include signalization improvements, channelization measures, turn lane restrictions, and other strategies. OBJECTIVE 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REVIEW The county will have a transportation system review and evaluation prepared on an annual basis. POLICY 3 . 1 : Traffic count data will be collected on all thoroughfare roads on an annual basis. These data will be utilized to develop an annual report on the Level of Service Community Development Department Indian River County 132 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 . OBJECTIVE 4 RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION By 2015 , the county will have protected the right-of-way needed to maintain the grid network of roads in Indian River County, and in so doing 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 programmed. POLICY 4. 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 130 240 U . S . 1 Corridor - 4LD w/frontage 140 240 roads 6LD Principal Arterial 130 240 4LD Principal Arterial 100 200 4LD Minor Arterial 100 200 2LD Minor Arterial 100 100 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 POLICY 4 .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 . Community Development Department Indian River County 133 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 4. 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. POLICY 4 .4 : The county shall acquire right-of-way, consistent with the standards identified in Policy 4. 1 , to allow for landscaped open space adjacent to all rural arterial roadways and applicable urban arterial roadways. POLICY 4 . 5 : The county shall use available funds , such as one cent local option sales tax revenue, to pursue advance right-of-way acquisition. POLICY 4. 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 4. 7 : By 2005 , the county will prepare and adopt right-of-way reservation maps (ref. Ch. 336. 02, F. S .) for all county collector and arterial roads . POLICY 4 . 8 : 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 4. 9 : The county hereby adopts and shall enforce the Extended Roadway Grid Network Map, Figure 4 . 10 . POLICY 4. 10 : The county shall enforce the Extended Roadway Grid Network Map and 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. OBJECTIVE 5 TRAFFIC CONTROL Through 2020, all development projects approved by the county will provide for adequate traffic control . POLICY 5 . 1 : 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 ; ° Provision of service roads; ° Driveway access and spacing; and ° Traffic operations. POLICY 5 .2 : The county shall review all proposed land developments in order to ensure consistency 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. Community Development Department Indian River County 134 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 5 . 3 : The county shall review all access driveways and new roadway connections associated with redevelopment or new development to ensure safety, preserve roadway capacity, and ensure compatibility with the long range transportation plan. POLICY 5 .4 : The county shall 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 5 . 5 : 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. POLICY 5 . 6 : 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 will be based upon information from 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 space size, providing for shared parking, setting internal circulation standards, and addressing other parking characteristics . POLICY 5 . 7 : The county shall require that all developments fronting arterial roadways provide for frontage/marginal access roads or drives, as appropriate. These marginal access roads may be parking lot access drives. POLICY 5 . 8 : The county shall, through its land development regulations, provide for the use of shared driveway facilities. OBJECTIVE 6 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE SYSTEM During each five-year period between 2001 to-2825 .and 2030, a minimum of 20 miles of sidewalk facilities and 10 miles of bicycle facilities will be added to the functionally classified roadway system. POLICY 6 . 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 Community Development Department Indian River County 135 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element 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 6 . 2 : By 2005 , the county shall evaluate utility easements, railroad rights-of- way and drainage canal rights-of-way as locations 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. POLICY 6 . 3 : By 2005 , 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 6 .4 : The county will ensure that pedestrian and bicycle access is provided to all park areas. POLICY 6. 5 : The county will continue to use at least $ 100,000 per year of I cent local option sales tax revenue for bike/pedestrian system improvements . POLICY 6 .6 : The county will continue to apply for ISTEA enhancement funds to construct bike/ped improvements. POLICY 6.7 : 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. POLICY 6 . 8 : The county will, through its land development regulations, require that internal sidewalks are provided in residential subdivisions with densities of three units per acre or higher and in non-residential subdivisions where pedestrian activity can be expected . OBJECTIVE 7 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The traffic circulation system will be compatible with the land use element and other elements of the comprehensive plan. POLICY 7 . 1 : The county will, as much as possible, protect the character of existing neighborhoods from the intrusion of major thoroughfares (i.e. minor and principal 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. Community Development Department Indian River County 136 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 7 .2 : Major roadways (i .e. minor and principal arterials) and intersections shall, to the extent possible, be located and designed such as to not adversely affect 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 7 . 3 : 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 7 .4 : The county shall not fund transportation improvements which will allow increased development in coastal high-hazard areas . POLICY 7 . 5 : The county hereby designates as historic and scenic roads the following : ° Jungle Trail ° Old Winter Beach Road ° Fellsmere Grade ° Quay Dock Road ° 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 7 . 6 : The county shall establish land use guidelines for development in exclusive public transit corridors to assure accessibility to public transit, in the event such corridors are established. POLICY 7 .7 : The county will coordinate the mitigation of adverse structural and non- structural impacts form 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 . OBJECTIVE 8 COORDINATION The county will have a system which ensures that all transportation requirements, procedures, and improvements are coordinated with all applicable governmental entities responsible for transportation activities and with the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. Community Development Department Indian River County 137 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 8 . 1 : The county will coordinate with the Indian River County MPO in its transportation planning activities. This coordination will involve serving as staff to the MPO and having staff and commissioners serve on MPO committees. POLICY 8 . 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 with appropriate FDOT officials to review and discuss these issues and develop written standards agreeable to both entities . POLICY 8 . 3 : The county will participate on the MPO Technical Advisory Committee to promote intergovernmental coordination with the municipalities in the county. POLICY 8 .4 : The county, through the MPO, will establish a mechanism to share information with the municipalities in the county and with adjacent counties regarding proposed projects and their potential traffic system impacts on other jurisdictions . POLICY 8 . 5 : The county, through the MPO, will continue to coordinate its plans with the plans and programs of all transportation facility providers, especially FDOT. transportation plans . POLICY 8 .6 : 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. OBJECTIVE 9 ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICES Between 2001 /02 and 2006/07, the number of one-way, fixed route passenger trips will increase by an average of ten percent annually, from 167,782 to more than 270,000. POLICY 9 . 1 : The county hereby adopts the following mass transit level of service standard : One-hour headways shall be maintained on all fixed transit routes . POLICY 9 .2 : The county will continue to maintain its fixed route transit system. POLICY 9 .3 : The county hereby adopts the MPO' s Long Range Transit Plan. POLICY 9 .4 : The county will continue to financially support and provide technical assistance to the county ' s community transportation coordinator (CTC), currently the Indian River County Council On Aging, for transportation disadvantaged service . POLICY 9 . 5 : 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. Community Development Department Indian River County 138 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 9 . 6 : 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 MOT for state and federal funding. POLICY 9 . 7 : The county will continue to provide funding for transit services . Currently, that funding is provided to the Indian River County Council On Aging . OBJECTIVE 10 LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION By 2010, the county ' s population density in the urbanized area will increase from 1 .4 persons per acre to 1 . 7 persons per acre in order to make transit more feasible . POLICY 10 . 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 . OBJECTIVE 11 TRANSIT COORDINATION Through 2020, the county will have a coordinated transit system. POLICY 11 . 1 : 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 : Compiles information on routes, schedules, facilities and vehicles for each provider; Assesses this information and schedules trips to avoid duplication; and ° Regularly coordinates with providers to serve as a forum for discussing paratransit service OBJECTIVE 12 ADEQUATE INTERMODAL FACILITIES Through 2020, county aviation and intermodal facility demand will be met in a manner consistent with existing and future land use. POLICY 12 . 1 : The county will continue to implement and enforce its airport zoning regulations . These regulations address height, noise, emergency, clear zone and land requirements. Community Development Department Indian River County 139 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element POLICY 12. 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 12 . 3 : County staff will attend meetings with state and local aviation officials and provide information to support the City of Vero Beach in its effort to re-establish commuter airline service . POLICY 12.4 : 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 13 ENERGY EFFICIENCY Between 2001 to-202-5-.and2030CO, HC, and NO emissions will increase to no more than 15 percent during each five-year period. POLICY 13 . 1 : The County will implement the transportation improvements identified in the 29252030 Cost Feasible Plan. 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 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 140 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Table 4. 10 Transportation Element Implementation Matrix 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 2 . 1 Monitoring Procedures Planning Ongoing No 2 .2 System Evaluation Planning Ongoing No 2.3 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 3 . 1 Monitoring Procedures Planning Ongoing No 4. 1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4 .2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4 .3 System Provision Public Works Ongoing Yes 4 .4 System Provision Public Works Ongoing Yes 4 . 5 System Provision Public Works Ongoing Yes 4 .6 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4 .7 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4. 8 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4.9 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 4. 10 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing 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 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 5 . 8 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 6 . 1 Plan Adoption/Implementation Planning Ongoing No 6 .2 System Evaluation Planning By 2005 No 6 .3 System Evaluation Planning By 2005 No 6 .4 Monitoring Procedures Planning Ongoing No 6 . 5 Service Provision Planning Ongoing Yes 6 .6 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No 6 .7 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 6 . 8 Land Development Regulations Planning jOngoing No 7 . 1 Land Development Regulations Planning jOngoing No Community Development Department Indian River County 141 . w Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Policy # Type Of Action Responsibility Timing Capital Expend. 7 .2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 7.3 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 7 .4 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 7 . 5 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 7 . 6 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 7 . 7 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 8 . 1 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 8 .2 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 8 .3 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 8 .4 Information Sharing Planning Ongoing No 8 . 5 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 8 .6 System Evaluation Planning Ongoing No 9 . 1 System Evaluation CTC-COA Ongoing No 9 .2 System Provision CTC-COA Ongoing No 9. 3 Implementation Procedures Planning Ongoing No 9 . 4 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No 9 .5 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No 9 .6 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 9 . 7 Service Provision Planning Ongoing No 10 . 1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 11 . 1 Monitoring Procedures Planning Ongoing No 12 . 1 Land Development Regulations Planning Ongoing No 12 .2 Service Provision Planning Ongoing Yes 12 .3 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 12.4 Coordination Planning Ongoing No 13 . 1 Monitoring Procedures I Planning 10ngoing No 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 measurable and have specific timeframes, the plan' s objectives are the benchmarks used as a basis to evaluate the plan. Table 4 . 11 identifies each of the objectives of the Transportation Element. It also identifies the measures to be used to evaluate progress in achieving these objectives . Most of these measures are quantitative . Besides the measures, Table 4 . 11 also identifies timeframes associated with meeting the objectives . Community Development Department Indian River County 142 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element The planning department staff will be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the Transportation 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 county will continually monitor facility capacity to ensure that transportation level-of-service standards will be maintained. While monitoring will occur on a continual basis, formal evaluation of the Transportation Element will occur every five years in conjunction with the formal evaluation and appraisal of the entire comprehensive plan. Besides assessing progress, the evaluation and appraisal process will also be used to determine whether the Transportation Element objectives should be modified or expanded . In this way the monitoring and evaluation of the Transportation Element will not only provide a means of determining the degree of success of the plan's implementation; it will also provide a mechanism for evaluating needed changes to the plan element. Table 4. 11 Transportation Element Evaluation Matrix Objective # Measure Timeframe 1 # of capacity deficiencies Through 2020 2 # of high relative accident rate intersections By 2010 3 Completion of transportation system review Annually 4 Acquisition of all ultimate rights-of-way 2015 5 Traffic control provision Through 2020 6 Miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities By 2030 7 # of traffic circulation system/land use incompatibilities Through 2020 8 Coordination Through 2020 9 # of fixed route passenger trips By 2007 10 Density of the urbanized area By 2010 11 Existence of a coordinated transportation system Through 2020 12 Instances of unmet aviation demand Through 2020 13 Increases of CO , HC, and NO emissions IThrough2030 BiCamP PlanllOC6 Camp Ph Up�mATrmsP tion6le=c Mar 2C Cwnpv Community Development Department Indian River County 143 APPENDIX A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Directional volumes for State and Non-State Two-way Arterials in the Urbanized Area Class I (>0.00 to 1 .99 signalized Adopted Level of Service Volume Standard intersections per mile 1 Lane Undivided D 860 2 Lane Divided D 1860 3 Lane Divided D 2790 4 Lane Divided D 3540 Class II (2.00 to 4.50 Adopted Level of Service Volume Standard signalized intersections per mile 1 Lane Undivided D 810 2 Lane Divided D 1710 3 Lane Divided D 2570 4 Lane Divided D 3330 Class III (more than 4.5 Adopted Level of Service Volume Standard signalized intersections per mile 1 Lane Undivided D 660 2 Lane Divided D 1510 __3 Lane Divided D 2330 4 Lane Divided D 3070 Freeway (no signatized Adopted Level of Service Volume Standard intersections 2 lane C 2940 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Directional volumes for State and Non-State Two-way Arterials in Rural Areas Uninterrupted Flow Adopted Level of Service Volume Standard Highway 1 Lane Undivided B 250 Freeway (no signalized Adopted Level of Service Volume Standard intersections) 21ane B 2020