metropolitan planning organizationvice chairman of mpocac, and bob keating and chris mora, mpotac...

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Sandra L. Bowden Sabin Abe!l-City ofVero Beach Vacant - City of Sebastian

Sal Neglia-City of Sebastian, Alternate Vacant - City of Sebastian

Ken Daige -City of V ero Beach Bill Fish -City of Vero Beach, Alternate

David Becker-Town oflndian River Shores (IRS) Frances Atchison-Town of IRS, Alternate

Susan Adams -City of Fellsmere Cheryl Hampton-City of Fellsmere, Alternate

Debbie MacKay-IRC School Board

Andrea Coy-City of Sebastian, Alternate Ann Reuter-IRC School Board, Alternate

Non-voting Ex-Officio Member Richard Dunlop-Town of Orchid Jim Wolfe-FDOT District 4

Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan, MPO Chairman

AGENDA·

THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) WILL MEET AT 2:00 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2007 IN FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM "A", COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1840 25™ STREET, VERO BEACH.

I. Call to Order

2. Approval of Minutes Aprilll, 2007

Action Required

3. Consideration of Regional Long Range Transportation Plan and Project Prioritization Criteria

Action Required

4. Consideration of the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP)/ Discussion of the the MPO's budget for 2007/08

Action Required

5. Discussion of Aviation Boulevard Extension (US 1- Indian River Boulevard) Action Required

F:IComrnunityDe\·e!opment\Users\Ml'OIMeetings\MP0\2007\05-09.{)7\AGENDA.doc:

6. Consideration of the Initial Component of the Draft Evaluation Appraisal Report of the County's Comprehensive Plan- Transportation Element

No Action Required

7. Consideration of Consultant Rankings for General Planning Consultants for the Indian River County MPO

Action Required

8. Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees No Action Required

9. Other Business

10. Comments From The Public

11. Adjournment

12. Next Meeting MPO: June 13, 2007; 10:00 am; Conference Room "A"

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA, PLEASE CONTACT MPO STAFF AT (772) 226-1455.

ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.

ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000, EXT. 223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

F:\CommunityD<:ve!opment\Users\MPO\M'eetings\MP0\2007105-09-07\AGENDAdoc

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

A meeting of the Iridian River County (IRC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, April11, 2007, in the First Floor Conference Room "A", County Administration Building, 1840 251

h Street, Vero Beach, Florida.

Present were: Chairman Peter O'Bryan; Sandra Bowden, Gary Wheeler, Wesley Davis and Joe Flescher, Commissioners, IRC; Vice Mayor Sabin Abell and Councilmember Ken Daige, City of Vero Beach; Council Member Susan Adams, City of Fellsmere (arrived at 10:08 a.m.); and Ann Reuter, Alternate IRC School Board Representative.

Absent were members: Vice Mayor David Becker, Town of Indian River Shores (unexcused) and Debbie MacKay, IRC School Board (excused). At this time the City of Sebastian has not designated its members to the MPO.

Also present was IRC staff: Bob Keating, Community Development Director; James W. Davis, Director; and Chris Mora, Assistant Director, Public Works; and Phil Matson, Staff Director, MPO. Others present were: Julie Young, David Wright, Charles Vogt, Clarence Korker, Walter Wright and Bob Johnson, MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC); Vicki Gatanier, Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT); Marlene Brunot, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; Monte Falls, Public Works Director, City of Vero Beach; Council Member Cheryl Hampton, Alternate City of Fellsmere MPO Representative and Jason Nunemaker, Fellsmere City Manager; Karen Wood, Transportation Director; Council on Aging; Kent Rice and David Wood, Turnpike Enterprise; Richard and Judith Martin, Herb Whittall, Robert Wright, Honey Minuse, Jennifer Cappelen, Dan Mcintyre and Vic DeMattia, Interested Citizens; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary.

CALL TO ORDER

Chairman O'Bryan called the meeting to order, at which time it was determined a quorum was present.

ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN

Chairman O'Bryan had the members introduce themselves around the table. He noted Council Member Susan Adams was not present at this

MPO-Unapproved 1 April 11 , 2007 F:\BCCIAII Committees\MP0\2007\Minutes\0411 07.doc

time, but he understood she would be the City of Fellsmere's representative on the MPO. This was confirmed by Council Member Cheryl Hampton, Fellsmere's alternate MPO designee.

Chairman O'Bryan related City of Sebastian representative Brian Burkeen had been elected MPO Vice Chairman at the meeting of February 14, 2007, but since he was not reelected to office we would need a new Vice Chairman.

ON MOTION BY Commissioner Davis, SECONDED BY Commissioner Bowden, the members voted unanimously (9-0) to elect Council Member Susan Adams as Vice Chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Organization for 2007.

Mr. Matson introduced Julia Young and Bob Johnson, Chairman and Vice Chairman of MPOCAC, and Bob Keating and Chris Mora, MPOTAC Chairman and Vice Chairman.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 14,2007

Chairman O'Bryan asked if there were any additions or corrections to the minutes of February 14, 2007. There were none.

ON MOTION BY Commissioner Bowden, SECONDED BY Commissioner Davis, the members voted unanimously (9-0) to approve the minutes of February 14, 2007, as presented.

REVIEW OF PROGRESS REPORT AND REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE #1 FOR THE 2006/07 TDLCB PLANNING GRANT

Mr. Matson reviewed the information contained in his memorandum dated April 3, 2007, located in the backup on file in the Commission Office.

MPO-Unapproved 2 April 11, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\2007\Minutes\0411 07.doc

ON MOTION BY Commissioner Bowden, SECONDED BY Commissioner Davis, the members voted unanimously (9-0) to approve the Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice #1 and directed staff to forward them to the State Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.

Chairman O'Bryan announced the new MPO Vice Chairman Susan Adams had just arrived, and welcomed her to the meeting at 10:08 a.m.

STATUS REPORT ON FLORIDA'S FUTURE CORRIDORS AND HEARTLAND COAST-TO-COAST CORRIDOR

Mr. Matson recalled last year he and then-MPO Chairman Vice Mayor Abell had attended a Statewide MPO Chairman's meeting, at which time they heard a presentation by the FOOT on Florida's Future Corridors. He outlined the information contained in his memorandum dated March 30, 2007, which is on file in the Commission Office, and introduced Mr. Kent Rice and Mr. David Wood of Florida's Turnpike Enterprise (TE).

Mr. Rice gave a PowerPoint presentation on the TE's Heartland Coast-to-Coast Corridor Study, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He explained the TE was part of FOOT and was the largest toll collection agency in the State, serving over two million customers per day. Mr. Rice advised the TE did not receive any revenues from taxes and all its revenues came from tolls, sales and service, with bonds being sold to fund most of its projects.

Mr. Wood related the TE had been asked to undertake a study of the Heartland Coast-to-Coast Corridor by stakeholders interested in a crossState corridor as a possible toll-funded facility. He confirmed the study had the corridor starting at Interstate 75 (1-75) in Port Manatee on the west · coast and they had looked at two possible terminus ends on the east coast, those being a 130 mile corridor ending at Fort Drum and a 150 mile corridor tying into Interstate 95 (1-95) just north of St. Lucie County.

Mr. Wood outlined the criteria used to determine the toll-funding feasibility of the Heartland Coast-to-Coast Corridor to project the gross revenue stream, subtracting the operating and maintenance costs and coming up with proposed net revenues. He reviewed the traffic profile for both corridors and pointed out the future year 2035 annual average daily


traffic numbers were very low and the model did not predict the corridor would generate much more traffic than State Road 60 or State Road 70 were carrying today.

A discussion followed about how truck traffic factored into the study.

Mr. Wood stated for the shorter corridor the construction costs would be approximately $4.6 billion and the longer corridor would cost $5.3. He continued the gross revenue estimate for a 30 year period showed the project would not support a bond issuance.

Mr. Wood outlined impacts to SR-60 and SR-70 traffic if the corridor was built, and concluded the Turnpike could not go forward with developing the Heartland Coast-to-Coast Corridor project as a toll road. He added that was not to say there were not still interests who could put together other funding sources, and pointed out areas around the country in which public-private partnerships had been done.

A lengthy discussion ensued.

Chairman O'Bryan thanked Mr. Rice and Mr. Wood for their presentation.

STATUS REPORT OF OTHER MPO ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Mr. Matson related there had been no meetings of the CAC or TAC since the last MPO meeting. He mentioned the next MPO meeting was scheduled for May 9, 2007, and the advisory committees leading up to the meeting were going to have quite a packed agenda because they would be discussing the MPO budget for 2007/08 and what studies we planned to undertake for next year, along with the Evaluation Appraisal Report of the Transportation Element of County's Comprehensive Plan.

Commissioner Davis inquired if U.S. Highway 1 (U.S. 1) would be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Keating advised staff had been working with developers to come up with a Developer's Agreement to widen U.S. 1 to six lanes, and hopefully he would have more information soon.


•.

OTHER BUSINESS

Aviation Boulevard Extension Update

Mr. Matson recapped he had been given the task of following up on the Aviation Boulevard Extension study to find out what the actual cost of such an extension would be. He related he and Mr. Vic DeMattia had attended a Building Committee Meeting held by Indian River Memorial Hospital, which was one of the chief landowners in the path of the potential extension. Mr. Matson said hospital staff had not been unreceptive to the idea, but they wanted to do a study of it in-house and would be hiring their own engineer and getting back to him. He acknowledged there was some concern expressed by the hospital about noise impacts, particularly at the Hospice House.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC

There were none.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10a.m.

MPO-Unapproved 5 April 11, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\2007\Minutes\041107.doc

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP f1_Vfk:.._ Community Development Director

FROM: Phillip J. Matson Vviu~. MPO Staff Director

DATE: April 30, 2007

SUBJECT: Consideration of Regional Long Range Transportation Plan and Project Prioritization Criteria

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at its meeting of May 9, 2007.

SUMMARY

One component of the recently enacted growth management legislation (Senate Bill 360) is the provision of new funding for regional roadway projects. In order to receive this new funding, the MPO must comply with a number of requirements. One of these requirements is to participate with the St. Lucie and Martin MPOs to develop a regional long range transportation plan and regional project prioritization criteria.

In July 2006, the MPO agreed to participate in a series of regional long range planning tasks and agreed to provide funding ($1 0,000) to the St. Lucie and Martin County MPOs for consultant expenses associated with those tasks. In response, the consultant developed a set of preliminary prioritization criteria for identifying projects for regional funds. This resulted in Indian River County receiving a $3.7 million grant for its top priority, SR 60 at 58th Avenue.

Since last year, the consultant has been engaged in a number of other regional long range planning activities. These activities include refining and finalizing plan objectives and priority criteria; developing a regional public involvement plan; and preparing a process for amending the regional long range plan. Drafts of these work products were presented to the MPO and its advisory committees in February of this year. Some of the comments provided to the consultant at those meetings were subsequently incorporated into a draft regional plan (Attachment 1 ). Staff recommends that MPO review the draft plan, provide the consultant with comments, and approve the draft plan.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

One component of the recently enacted growth management legislation (Senate Bill 360) is the provision of new funding for regional roadway projects. In order to receive this new funding, distributed through the TRIP program, the MPO must comply with a number of requirements. One requirement of the program is that each MPO must enter into an interlocal agreement with one or more adjacent MPOs and adopt multi-county regional long range plans and priorities. In the spring of 2006, the Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River MPOs agreed to form the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC).

At its first meeting, the TCTC approved a map of regional highways and a list of TRIP candidate projects from each county that were consistent with the regional map. While FDOT funded the top priorities from each county, officials of FDOT District IV indicated that single-county TRIP priority lists will not be accepted in the future. Instead, FDOT District IV is mandating. an approach whereby TRIP priorities will be taken from a universe of regional projects developed with a set of regional priority criteria applied to that list. Hence, projects from across the regi•Jn, from southern Martin County to northern Indian River County, will be evaluated by the TCTC and appear together on one list.

In July of 2006, the MPO agreed to provide funding ($1 0,000) to the St. Lucie and Martin County MPOs for consultant costs associated with producing a single three-county regional priority list and other elements of a three county regional plan. Shortly thereafter, the consultant developed preliminary evaluation criteria for ranking TRIP projects for funding. Because a list of projects had to be submitted by September 15'h, the Treasure Coast Transportation Council used the preliminary criteria and submitted a list of TRIP priority projects for consideration by FDOT. That effort resulted in Indian River County receiving $3.7 million for funding the top three-county regional priority, SR 60 at 58'h Avenue.

In February of 2007, the consultant, Renaissance Planning Group, presented a status report on a number of regional long range plan work products to the MPO and its advisory committees. The draft report presented to the MPO contained regional criteria; goals and objectives for regional transportation; a Regional Public Involvement Plan (PIP); and a Regional Plan Amendnle!i~· Process. At that time, comments were provided to the consultant with the understanding that these would be addressed and presented to the MPO at a later date.

ANALYSIS

Since February, the consultant has been engaged in updating elements of the regional transportation plan. Each of the major elements of the plan, along with concerns about the plan, is discussed in turn.

Regional Project Goals, Objectives, and Prioritization Criteria

As previously discussed, a draft report containing prioritization criteria, goals, and objectives for regional transportation was presented to the MPO and its advisory committees earlier this year. At the time, the MPO had a number of concerns about the report. For example, the MFO recommended that the preliminary criteria should be simplified and refocused on iss1\es appropriate for regional transportation on the Treasure Coast. In addition, the consultant we.i; directed to revise the plan objectives to be specific, measurable, and have an intermediate end. By

refocusing the plan's objectives, the TCTC will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of its strategies for improving regional transportation. Many of the comments of the MPO and its advisory committees have been at least partially incorporated into the draft report attached to this staff report. For example, Objective 1.1 in the February draft stated that "The regional system shall function at acceptable levels of service." Since February, the consultant has revised Objective 1.1 as follows: "Maintain or reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled under congested conditions each year through the year 2020." In so doing, the consultant has addressed staffs concern that objectives be specific and measurable. Other objectives in the draft have been revised in a similar manner.

In addition, changes have been made to make the criteria presented in the consultant's February draft more specific. For example, Criterion 1.1, which awards points to candidate projects bz,~ed on the degree that the project reduces congestion, was structured so that between I and 3 poirits could be assessed. No technical basis, however, was specified for awarding those points. The revised criteria (p. 32 of the draft) reduce the subjectivity of the scoring system. For example, Criterion 1.1 now assigns I point for projects on facilities with a v/c (vehicle/capacity) ratio of< .75, 2 points for projects on a facility operating at a v/c ratio of between .75 and 1.05, and 3 points for projects on facilities with ratios above 1.05.

Overall, the purpose of the criteria is to establish an objective set of standards to prioritize projects for TRIP and other regional funding. The process for prioritizing TRIP projects is illustrated on page 23. As shown on that flowchart, TRIP candidate projects will be identified by the TAC and CAC in each county and submitted to the three-county regional advisory committee (RAC). The RAC is a new committee composed of members of the staff of the Indian River County, St. Lucie County, and Martin County MPOs. Its purpose is to provide technical assistance and coordination between individual MPOs and the TCTC. The RAC will apply the priority criteria to the TRIP candidates and present the results to the individual MPOs and the TCTC for final approval. Ii is anticipated that the TCTC will consider issues such as equitable distribution of funding hilS coordination between counties in the course of approving the annual TRIP priority list.

Regional Public Involvement Plan

A regional transportation public involvement plan for the three Treasure Coast counties is included in the draft. The strategies contained in the draft plan include: developing a stand-alone TCTC logo and website; conducting regional transportation forums; creating a repository for GIS, socioeconomic, and other technical data; and forming a three-county Regional Advisory Committee (RAC). In addition, objectives for intergovernmental coordination and public involvement have been added to the plan. These appear on page 14.

Long Range Plan Amendment Process

The regional prioritization and plan amendment process is contained on pages 29-30 of the dr~.ft. The process for amending the long range plan closely mirrors the process for submitiing TRJP project candidates in that it relies on a combination of individual advisory commitiee and regioil·:t~ advisory commitiee actions followed by endorsement from elected officials.

The MPOTAC considered this item on April27111• At that time, MPO staff had identified a number

of concerns and recommended that the consultant address these concerns prior to a

recommendation of adoption. The consultant indicated that all concerns would be addressed in the final draft, and the MPOTAC unanimously recommended that the MPO approve the draft plan.

The MPOCAC considered this item on May 1 ". Their comments will be incorporated into the draft and reported to the MPO on May 9th.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that MPO review the draft plan, provide the consultant with comments, andapprove the draft plan.

ATTACHMENTS

I. Draft Regional Long Range Transportation Plan

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MP0\2007\05M09M07\RLRTP StaffReport.doc

Regional Transportation Planning and Coordination Processes

Regional Transportation Planning and Coordination Processes - Treasure Coast Transportation Plan Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin MPOs

April 19, 2007

April 19, 2007 DRAFT Indian River MPO 1

ATTACHMENT 1


Table of Contents

I. lntroduction .................................................................................................................... 3 II. Plan Development ......................................................................................................... 4 Ill. Regional Multimodal Transportation System ................................................................. 4 IV. Regional Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................... 7 V. Regional Project Needs and Prioritization ................................................................... 15 VI. Regional Public Involvement Plan (PIP) ...................................................................... 25 VII. Regional Plan Amendment Process ............................................................................ 30 VIII. Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 32

List of Tables

Table 1 Regional Multimodal System Designation Criteria ........................................................... 6 Table 2 Regional Goals ................................................................................................................ 7 Table 3 Technically Evaluated Regional Project Needs ............................................................. 16 Table 4 Regional Project Prioritization Scoring Tool ................................................................... 17 Table 5 Expanded Definitions of Project Prioritization Criteria ................................................... 33

List of Maps

Map 1 Regional Multimodal Transportation System ..................................................................... 5 Map 2 Treasure Coast Transportation Disadvantaged Populations ........................................... 37 Map 3 Treasure Coast Environmental Framework ..................................................................... 38 Map 4 Treasure Coast Employment Hubs and Community Redevelopment Areas ................... 39 Map 5 Treasure Coast Future Freight and Goods Movement Network ..................................... .40 Map 6 Treasure Coast Hurricane Evacuation Routes ............................................................... .41 Map 7 Treasure Coast High Crash Corridors ............................................................................. 42 Map 8 Existing and Planned Regional Bicycle Facilities and Greenways .................................. 43 Map 9 Existing and Planned Transit Facilities ............................................................................ 44 Map 10 Treasure Coast Regional Roadways- 2030 E+C Volume to Capacity Projections ....... 45

List of Figures

Figure 1 Regional Project Prioritization Process Flow Diagram ................................................. 21 Figure 2 Annual TRIP Project Prioritization Flow Diagram ......................................................... 23 Figure 3 Regional Amendment Process Flow Diagram......... .. ............................................. 31

Apri119, 2007 DRAFT Indian River MPO 2


I. Introduction Recognizing the increasing trends of cross county traffic flows, with a strong north to south pattern, coupled with growth pressures in all counties, the Treasure Coast MPOs have partnered to address transportation at a regional scale. The Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River MPOs are developing new processes and policies aimed at enhancing regional coordination to ensure better transportation decision-making. Following statewide trends, this entails establishing a strong regional framework, but also ensuring local autonomy for transportation issues of local concern. One of the biggest steps forward in regional coordination has been the efforts on behalf of the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs to develop a single regional long range transportation plan. In conjunction with these planning efforts, the two MPOs expanded their coordination efforts to include the Indian River MPO for regional-level goal setting, regional multimodal transportation system designation, regional public involvement and project prioritization purposes.

Defining what constitutes 'regional' from a transportation perspective sets the context for regional coordination activities. As such, the three MPOs endorsed the designation of a tricounty, regional multimodal transportation network. Identified in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plans adopted in 2005 and 2006, this network is comprised of major corridors and hubs deemed to be regionally significant across all three counties as shown in Map 1 and Table 1 included on the following pages.

The regional multimodal"transportation system is the primary focus of the regional coordination activities across the Treasure Coast. As such, the three counties have entered into an interlocal agreement and created the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC), which consist of six elected officials, two members from each jurisdiction. The TCTC's primary task is to advance regional coordination and regional project priorities in support of improving regional traffic flows and regional connectivity. To that end, the regional goals and objectives as outlined herein provides the basis for guiding future decision-making on regional project priorities. These regional goals and strategies are consistentwith the adopted goals, strategies and policies of each MPO and address key issues from public input received through the Destination 2030 (Regional LRTP) process for the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs, and from the summary recommendations identified by the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast' final report.

Regional transportation planning within the Treasure Coast is an evolving process that is anticipated to be refined over time as regional relationships are strengthened. As detailed in the following pages, the Treasure Coast Regional Transportation Planning and Coordination Processes define the basic elements and framework for these ongoing activities.

1 The Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast as initiated by Senator Pruitt issued their final report in September of 2005. It outlined a vision for the Treasure Coast Region, key principles and action strategies. Sustainable Treasure Coast, Inc. is a recently created non-profit that is focused on ensuring implementation of the Committee's recommendations. The Institute for a Sustainable Treasure Coast is an effort of Florida Atlantic University's Center for Urban & Environmental Solutions dedicated to tracking process of the Committee's recommendations

April19, 2007 DRAFT Indian River MPO 3


II. Plan Development The regional system designation, regional goals and objectives, project prioritization, public involvement and amendment processes outlined in this document emanate from the technical data and analysis conducted as part of the 2030 Regional LRTP for Martin and St. Lucie MPOs, and the 2030 Indian River MPO LRTP. This included travel demand forecasting and identification of major roadway deficiencies anticipated through the planning horizon year. In addition, several post-LRTP data gathering and analysis activities occurred to create the tricounty data set that will aid in the technical evaluation of project priorities.

Ill. Regional Multimodal Transportation System The regional multimodal transportation system includes corridors and hubs deemed to be regionally significant. The criteria utilized to designate this network rely both on the functional classification of roadways and their relation to regional development patterns and land uses. The designation of this network is intended to create strong connectivity with the state's Strategic lntermodal System (SIS). At its essence, the regional multimodal system represents the next tier of facilities feeding into the SIS, supporting regional economic and mobility goals.

It is envisioned that the regional multimodal system will be re-evaluated in conjunction with long range plan(s) and update(s) done at least every five years. Several new future corridors in the system are referred to as emerging or planned regional facilities and are designated as such on the map. The technical analysis associated with the development of long range transportation plans will aid in identifying new or emerging corridors within the network. The next round of long range transportation plans will set a planning horizon for 2035 and adopted by 2010.


I I I I I I I·

~~----------~~~~ I I

Corridor Types and Hubs---------,

Roadways

~SIS

Railways -SIS

II II II Emerging SIS

=Primary Regional

.. ,.., ·~ Emerging SIS Wate!Ways

UKaO SIS II 1111 Planned Primary Regional

= Secondary Regional

.u .u .~ Planned Secondary

SIS~ Strategic lntermodal System

Transit Primary ~ Mullimodal

Corridor

CD lnlennodal Hub

Regional Attractors

0 Beach Access

l1lil College I University

® Recreational Facilities

Regional Employment Centers

l\lll Existing Employment

f~~~ Future Employment

> 1% of Total Regional Employment or Reg/Onallnduslria/ Employment

Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Conservation Areas

Developments .. of Regional Impact [DRis]

'"d Community

Redevelopment Areas [CRAs]

t.2Zj DRI

c:JcRA *Approved & Proposed as of June 2005


Table 1 Regional Multimodal System Designation Criteria

The regional multimodal system includes regionally significant corridors and hubs in the tricounty area (Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin). The network identifies Primary and Secondary regional facilities. The network includes existing and future facilities based on the following criteria:

Primary Regional Facilities All Strategic lntermodal System (SIS) and Emerging SIS corridors and hubs. All Principal Arterial facilities that meet at least one (1) of the following criteria; and any Minor Arterial or Major Collector facilities that meet at least four (4) of the following criteria:

• Facilities that traverse more than one county

• Arterials and major collectors that connect a SIS highway to another SIS highway

• Freight and passenger hubs not on the SIS such as airports, bus terminals, ports, or rail yards that function as intermodal hubs.

• Arterials and major collectors that serve non-SIS freight and passenger intermodal hubs

• Arterials and major collectors that connect a SIS highway to another arterial or major collector

• Arterials or major collectors that are designated hurricane evacuation routes, per local comprehensive plans

• A facility that connects to a regional employment center (defined as a transportation analysis zone (TAZ) where the employment is one percent or greater of the region's or where the industrial employment is one percent or greater of the region's)

• Facilities that serve another regional facility such as a regional park, sports complex, beach, university, county fairgrounds, or intermodal hub

Secondary Regional Facilities Secondary Regional Facilities include all intermodal facilities and Arterials or Major Collectors that are not Principal Arterials and meet one (1) or more of the primary regional facility criteria.

Primarv Multimodal Corridors Primary and secondary regional corridors that currently support regional transit or have been identified as future transit corridors. These corridors are identified in current transit expansion plans and/or have been designated as transit supportive for future expansion opportunities.

Emerging Corridors are those planned corridors which are anticipated to meet the above criteria once operational.



IV. Regional Goals and Objectives2

Establishing regional goals and objectives sets the framework for directing transportation policies and prioritizing transportation investments of regional significance. These goals and objectives are not intended to replace the local goals, objectives, and policies of each MPO or member jurisdictions, but rather build upon them while emphasizing interest held in common.

The regional objectives provide the basis for measuring effectiveness in meeting the regional goals over time. In addition, the regional project prioritization process ties the evaluation of specific transportation improvements back to these regional goals and objectives.

Table 2 Reaional Goals

GOAL 1.0- Establish a seamless transportation system to serve the regional transportation needs of citizens and businesses in Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River counties.

GOAL 2.0- Support economic prosperity of the region by providing for the effective movement of people and goods to freight activity centers, regional employment areas, intermodal centers; and improving inter-county connectivity.

GOAL 3.0 -Improve transportation and land use linkages in support of better jobs to housing balance, increased transportation choices and development patterns that maximize use of existing transportation infrastructure, reduce the number and length of vehicle trips, and disperse traffic through improved regional connectivity.

GOAL 4.0- Invest in regional transportation projects that promote sustainable development practices, livable community design concepts, social and environmental goals.

GOAL 5.0 - Ensure greater regional transportation choices for all citizens

GOAL 6.0- Create a safe and secure regional multimodal transportation system.

GOAL 7.0- Create a premium regional transit network that serves the entire tri-county area with connections to adjacent jurisdictions.

GOAL 8.0- Create an effective and interconnected bicycle, pedestrian and greenways network

GOAL 9.0- Enhance coordination of public outreach, policy development and decision-making pertaining to land use and transportation issues of regional significance.

2 The regional goals and objectives contained herein address the major components of the regional goals, strategies and performance measures as developed and endorsed by the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs.



GOAL 1.0- Establish a seamless multimodal transportation system to serve the regional transportation needs of citizens and businesses in Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River, counties.

OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVE 1.1: Reduce or stabilize the percentage of vehicle miles traveled (vmt) under congested conditions on the regional network by 2020

OBJECTIVE 1.2: Fully fund at least one major new bridge crossing for the region by 2010

OBJECTIVE 1.3: Enhance at least 3 cross county road segments (capacity improvements, CMS, new roads, or new transit service) by 2030.

Goal 1.0 Project Evaluation Criteria

1. Will the project improve level of service on an existing or adjacent regional facility through a reduction in congestion?

2. Is the project a new bridge, bridge replacement or reconstruction connecting two regional facilities?

3. Does the project improve connectivity of existing roadway by creating a new link in the regional multimodal network? ·

4. How regional is the project? (i.e. primary, secondary or planned facility) 5. Is there a local funding match for the project?



GOAL 2.0- Support economic prosperity of the region by providing for the effective movement of people and goods to freight activity centers, regional employment areas, intermodal centers; and improvin inter-count connectivit .

OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVE 2.1: Adopt a tri-county, regional freight and goods mobility plan by 2010/2011

OBJECTIVE 2.2: Improve transportation facilities directly serving at least four regional Freight Activity Centers by 2015

OBJECTIVE 2.3: Advance at least three multi-jurisdictionally supported transportation projects in planning or design by 2015

Goal 2.0 Project Evaluation Criteria

1. Does the project improve or maintain acceptable levels of service on corridors that connect directly with regional employment hubs?

2. Does the project improve transit access to regional employment hubs? 3. Does the project enhance regional connectivity by improving mobility across county

lines? 4. Does the project improve freight access to a designated freight activity center?



GOAL 3.0 -Improve transportation and land use linkages in support of better jobs to housing balance, increased transportation choices and development patterns that maximize use of existing transportation infrastructure, reduce the number and length of vehicle trips, and disperse traffic through improved regional connectivity.

OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVE 3.1: Increase by 20% the amount of regional population living less than 1.5 miles from a regional (employment) activity center by 2020

OBJECTIVE 3.2: Coordinate with local jurisdictions to ensure that transit oriented or multimodal supportive land development codes or ordinances are adopted within at least 60% of the regional jurisdictions by 2015

Goal 3.0 Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Does the project provide improved access to (or within) existing village/city centers or

Community Redevelopment Areas (GRAs}?

2. Does the project provide improved access to regional activity centers?

GOAL 4.0 -Invest in regional transportation projects that·.promote sustainable · ,.., ' ' ' '"' '\ ' .J>

Clevelopment,practices, livable community design·concepts,'social and environmental . oals. . . . . . . . ; ... ' . . . . . . .

OBJECTIVES

OBJECTIVE 4.1: Enhance or increase by 10% the provision of fixed route bus service to transportation disadvantaged populations by 2015

OBJECTIVE 4.2: Increase by 15% the amount of new transportation improvement projects that entail design measures aimed at creating more livable roadways in the tri-county region by 2020.

Goal 4.0 Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Does the project provide new regional modes of transportation to areas with a concentration

of transportation disadvantaged populations?

2. Does the project decrease dependence on single occupant vehicle trips by reducing trips, expanding transit, ride sharing or other alternative travel options?

3. Does the project location minimize adverse impacts on contiguous natural systems currently preserved or identified as valuable habitat?



GOAL 5.0 - Ensure greater regional transportation choices for all citizens

OBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE 5.1: Increase by 15% the total number of regional lane miles with transit service by 2020.

OBJECTIVE 5.2: Establish at least six park and ride lots along regional roadways by 2015

Goal 5.0 Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Does the project introduce a new mode of travel within an existing regional corridor?

2. Does the project improve or create new linkages between transportation modes (i.e. park and ride lots, bus transfer centers, intermodal centers, etc.)



GOAL 6.0- Create a safe and secure re ional multimodal transportation system.

OBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE 6.1: Reduce by 15% the total number of lane miles qualifying as a "high crash density locations" by 2015.

OBJECTIVE 6.2: Improve capacity or add alternative modes of transportation to at least 3 regional evacuation routes by 2020.

Goal 6.0 Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Is the project located in a high crash location corridor and will the improvement help remove

hazards or reduce likelihood of accidents?

2. Is the project on a hurricane evacuation route or does it provide a new evacuation corridor?

GOAL 7.0- Create a ·premium i:egionaftralisit'network that serves the entire tri-county' · area witb.connections to adjacent region~ ..• "· :, __ .c ?:, .... ·:· ~'. ·.~. ':.. . ' ' '

OBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE 7.1: Establish a regional transit authority by 2015

OBJECTIVE 7.2: Ensure that at least one form of premium transit (Express Bus, Bus Rapid Transit, Light Rail or Commuter Rail} is operational in the region by 2015.

Goal 7.0 Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Does the project support the provision of new premium modes of transit (i.e. Bus Rapid

Transit, Light Rail or Commuter Rail).

2. Does the project create new inter-county transit connections? 3. Will the transit project connect at least two village centers, employment hubs or GRAs?



GOAL 8.0- Create an effective and interconnected bicycle, pedestrian and greenways network

OBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE 8.1: Establish at least one cross-county, multiuse greenway trail within the region by 2015

OBJECTIVE 8.2: Increase by 20% the total number of regional bicycle and pedestrian lane miles by 2020

Goal 8.0 Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Does. the project improve regional connectivity by closing a gap or creating a new link in the

regional bicycle, greenways or trails network? 2. Does the project provide parallel bicycle or pedestrian accessibility to an existing or new

regional corridor? 3. Does the project provide aesthetic or safety enhancements aimed at creating more livable

and walkable streets?



GOAL 9.0- Coordinate public outreach, policies and decision-making pertaining to land use and transportation issues of re ional si nificance.

OBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE 9.1: Establish a Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) in 2007 and meet at least twice a year through 2010

OBJECTIVE 9.2: Establish a regional GIS data users group by January 2008

OBJECTIVE 9.3: Ensure that the Treasure Coast Transportation Council meets at least twice per year

OBJECTIVE 9.4 Conduct annual regional transportation forums and increase the number of participants to at least 100 people from across the tri-county area.



V. Regional Project Needs and Prioritization

Each MPO has an adopted project prioritization process that aids in the development of the cost feasible plan elements of the LRTPs and in the annual project prioritization process associated with the five year Transportation Improvement Program" {TIP). The prioritization processes and criteria for each MPO relates to their locally adopted goals, strategies and policies.

The intent of the regional project prioritization process is to aid policy makers in establishing regional project priorities and meeting regional goals and objectives, thus positioning the entire Treasure Coast region for new sources of regional funds such as the state's Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). The regional prioritization process ties directly to the regional goals and objectives.

Identifying Regional Project Needs

Long term projects are identified by all three MPOs through the 2030 Long Range Transportation Planning processes. Focused primarily on roadways, but inclusive of transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, the 2030 LRTPs include project needs and cost feasible projects. It is from the long range cost feasible project lists that projects are advanced for state funding through the five year work program (TIP), or in some cases local capital improvement programs (CIPs). On an annual basis, each MPO reviews their respective TIPs and confirms or re-prioritizes projects for state funding. Regional project needs are therefore defined as those needs projects identified in the LRTP's that are also part of the regional multimodal transportation system for the three county area.

Technically Evaluating Regional Needs

As a starting point, all regional project needs will be technically scored against a set of project evaluation criteria that tie directly to the regional goals and objectives. It is anticipated that this regional technical ranking process will be completed as part of the long range transportation planning process associated with the development of the LRTP. The intent of doing so is to allow for the development of a single, technically evaluated list of regionally significant multimodal projects.

A project scoring tool (Table 4) will be used to technically evaluate how effectively individual projects meet the regional goals and strategies. The scoring tool and the specific criteria reference a set of tri-county data. This tri-county data set was developed through the long-range transportation planning process. As such, it is anticipated that this information will be updated, shared and maintained over time between the three counties in conjunction with regular updates to the long range plans. A regional map series and expanded definitions is included in the appendix and provides a reference for all of the qualifiers associated with each of the prioritization criteria.

The technical evaluation of regional projects will be conducted by the individual TACs/CACs of each MPO. Each will only evaluate the regionally significant projects (those that are part of the regional multi modal transportation system) of their respective jurisdictions. Once the TACs/CACs have scored each project, they will advance that scoring to the Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) for assessment and compilation into a single regional list. Once the technical



rankings are endorsed at the local and regional advisory committee levels, they will be advanced to the each individuai.MPO Board for endorsement. Once the MPOs have endorsed the technical ran kings, the project listing will be advanced to the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC) for final consideration and adoption. Figure 1 illustrates the regional process for identifying regional project priorities.

It is anticipated that over time, this regional project list will expand to include the full compliment of regional multimodal projects such as capital improvements related to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, investment in transportation demand management (TOM), congestion management strategies (CMS) and intelligent transportation systems (ITS).

Table 3 Technically Evaluated Regional Project Needs

(Note: This table will be developed and included as an amendment at a later date).


TABLE 4- PROJECT SCORING TOOL (CRITERIA, MEASURES AND WEIGHTS)

POSSIBLE PTS. FOR GOAL 1.0

bond referendum, Local funds can

DRAFT REVISED 4/20/07 17

TABLE 4 • PROJECT SCORING TOOL (CRITERIA, MEASURES AND WEIGHTS)

improve or maintain adopted level of service on corridors

improved access to (or within) a new or existing

centers?

6



Js the project on a hurricane evacuation route or does it provide a new corridor?


are currently

DRAFT REVISED 4!20/07 19



DRAFT REVISED 4/20/07 2 Q

FIGURE 1- Regional Project Prioritization Process Flow Diagram

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL COORDINATION PROCESSES Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin MPOs

• •

21


Prioritizing Regional Needs

The technically ranked list of tri-county projects serves as the basis for helping the three counties jointly establish regional priorities. Over time as projects are implemented, it is anticipated that they will result in systematic improvements to the regional multimodal transportation network, thus helping to fulfill regional goals.

Currently, the only source of regional revenues tied to the regional project prioritization process is the state funded Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP). As such, the following outlines the specific steps and additional considerations that will be followed to identify the annual list of TRIP candidate projects for the three MPOs.

Annual TRIP Process

The annual process for identifying TRIP priorities begins with a local review of the regional projects and the identification of candidate TRIP projects based on local preferences and the availability of the 50% local funding match. Given the requirement for a local funding match, it is likely that a small number of candidate projects will be advanced each year. These candidate projects will be pulled from the regionally scored list of project needs and taken through the local and regional advisory committees for endorsement. Once endorsed at the advisory committee level, a single tri-county list of projects will be advanced to the individual MPO Boards for endorsement. Once the final technically ranked list is endorsed by the local MPO Boards, it will be advanced to the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC} for further consideration (See Figure 2).

The TCTC will review the technical rankings and consider several other factors in order to determine a final list of prioritized projects to advance to the FOOT for TRIP funding. In particular, these considerations will include:

1. How are TRIP dollars being equitably shared across all jurisdictions within the Treasure Coast?

2. How are TRIP dollars being used to address project backlog and the near term project needs?

3. Are there immeasurable regional advantages to a particular project because it demonstrates regional cooperation or otherwise advances regional goals?

It is anticipated that the TCTC will equally consider the technical rankings and these other contributing factors when determining the final prioritized list of TRIP candidate projects.


FIGURE 2- Annual TRIP Project Prioritization Process Flow Diagram

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL COORDINATION PROCESSES Indian River, St. lucie and Martin MPOs

il. ~ ~

23


Regional Revenues Currently there are two primary sources of revenues that are intended for allocation at the regional and sub-regional levels: The state's Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) funds and the federal Transportation Management Area funds (XUfTMA). TRIP dollars are intended for distribution between all three MPOs, whereas XU funds are allocated to the St. Lucie and Martin MPOs who share a single urbanized transportation area (TMA). Should any new regional revenue sources become available in the future, it is envisioned that the regional goals, strategies and prioritization process identified by the Treasure Coast MPOs could be used as a framework to aid in decision-making concerning the allocation of these dollars as well.

XU/TMA Revenues and Allocation As a result of the 2000 census, the Port St. Lucie and Stuart Urbanized areas merged, creating a single TMA. As such, the TMNXU federal funds have been allocated to the single Port St. Lucie Urbanized Area that is governed by the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs. In development of the 2030 Regional LRTP for the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs, a joint policy decision was reached on October 31, 2006 to allocate the XU funds on a population based formula as follows:.

1. POPULATION BASED Population based formulas associated with Total XU dollars through Allocation of XU Funds the allocation of Federal transportation dollars 2030 is estimated at $76M. distributed to each MPO would rely on the 2000 census information. The population based based on a population Doing so will result in the distribution of 62% allocation will distribute based formula. 3 to St. Lucie eligible projects and 38% to approximately $28.9M to

Martin eligible projects. Allocation formula Martin; and $47.1 M to St. determined by FOOT and will be updated Lucie over the next 20 following the 201 0 census. years .

. . .. . . As a Jomt consideration by the two MPOs, 11 1s anticipated that th1s d1stnbul!on policy Will be revisited at a minimum of every five years in conjunction with the update to the long range transportation plan. During policy deliberations concerning the allocation of XU funds noted above, one option also discussed was to utilize the regional project prioritization process as a means for allocating XU funds to the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs. It is envisioned that this option will be reconsidered again during the next update of the Regional LRTP.

Transportation Regional Incentive Program ITRIPl Revenues For TRIP, The Florida Department of Transportation District 4 (04) has allocated approximately 15% of the total 04 funds to be shared among the Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River MPOs. TRIP eligible projects are those that are part of the Regional Multimodal Transportation Network and have a 50% local funding match. In FY 2006/2007, FOOT awarded the Treasure Coast Region over $25 million in TRIP dollars. This original list of six candidate projects (2 in Martin, 2 in St. Lucie and 2 in Indian River) was developed as a fair share distribution to the three MPOs. Each MPO identified and endorsed a first and second priority project from their respective LRTPs. A single list was compiled containing three first tier priorities, and three second tier priorities and submitted to the TCTC for endorsement and submission to FOOT. Since this first round of TRIP awards, the process has evolved to ensure that the annual TRIP candidate project listings reflect the regional goals, strategies and performance OBJECTIVEs as detailed herein.

3 The split of XU funds is an approximate based on long-term planning assumptions. Actual distribution of XU dollars beginning in 2011 is subject to change. The split noted above is an estimate based on the 2000 Census.



VI. Regional Public Involvement Plan (PIP)

Planning Context for the Regional PIP Metropolitan Planning Organizations are tasked with creating transportation policies and programs aimed at creating safe and efficient multimodal transportation systems for urbanized areas. The major planning efforts of the MPOs include the development of a Long Range Transportation Plan, the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), Project Priorities Lists, and special projects and studies as required by federal transportation legislation and the Florida Statutes.

Engaging the public in these transportation planning activities is an integral part of the decisionmaking process. As such, each MPO has a public involvement plan. Building upon these local public involvement plans, the regional PIP is aimed further Goal 9.0 which states "Coordinate public outreach, policies and decision-making pertaining to land use and transportation issues of regional significance." The Regional PIP is intended to serve as the framework and implementation tool for expanding these coordination activities beyond the context of the long range plans, providing a new tri-county platform for regional transportation discussions.

The latest federal transportation legislation, Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) provides a new context for public involvement in the development of plans and transportation policies. Specific use of visualization techniques, enhanced use of the web, visioning and scenario planning, targeting transportation disadvantaged populations and interacting with the traveling public are all encouraged. This public involvement plan documents the regional activities and efforts to actively engage the public in the multimodal transportation planning process; and the state's mandate to further enhance regional coordination efforts within the Treasure Coast region.

Regional Public Involvement Plan Goals

In concert with the individual MPO PIP goals, the Regional PIP seeks to:

Goal1: To establish an on-going process for regional coordination through which citizen input is regularly captured in order to guide the development of the regional Treasure Coast Transportation Plan element.

Goal 2: To educate and inform the public on issues of regional significance as they relate to the regional multimodal transportation planning process.

Regional Public Involvement Plan Process This Regional PIP describes a process for regional transportation planning activities in the Treasure Coast region, covering the Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River MPOs. It is the intent of this plan to build upon this framework in support of ongoing and continuous activities that aim to inform the public and elected officials of the regional context and issues surrounding transportation improvements. The ongoing public outreach campaign intends to raise awareness about challenges and options, and establish credibility in the process through effective listening, ultimately leading to more informed and transparent decision-making by



policy makers. This plan provides the public engagement framework for future regional plan amendments and initiatives.

The regional public involvement process defines new strategies and actions associated with involving the general public, agency staffs, elected officials and other stakeholders including:

• General Public (Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin Counties)

• Agency Staff (MPOs, Counties, Cities, FOOT, TCRPC, etc.)

• Stakeholders (business, environmental, agricultural, community service organizations, etc.)

• Elected Officials (MPOs, TCTC, Counties and Cities)

Enhancing regional coordination and outreach is a key goal for the Treasure Coast region. As such there are a series of suggested actions and strategies that the three MPOs within the Treasure Coast will undertake to expand upon previous efforts as follows:

Joint Martin and St. Lucie MPO Meetings- The Martin and St. Lucie MPOs share a single transportation management area and will meet at least twice per year jointly. The agendas for these meetings will focus regional planning efforts or initiatives of importance (i.e. 2030 RLRTP amendments, allocation of XU funds, etc.) These meetings shall be hosted alternately between the two MPOs, and the respective staffs of each will share responsibility for providing logistical support, public notification, preparation of agendas, documentation of meeting minutes and Board member briefings. Ex-officio members from the Indian River MPO and the Palm Beach MPOs will also be invited to attend these joint meetings.

Regional Advisory Committee (RAC)- During the course of the 2030 RLRTP development, a Project Oversight Committee (POC) was created that included members from all three MPOs, the public, FOOT, TCRPC and county/city technical staffs. Building upon the regional relationships built through this process, a Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) will be established through the appointment of individuals from the existing TAC/CACs. This RAC would function as a combined regional TAC/CAC, providing citizen and technical staff input on regional transportation planning activities, most notably the annual TRIP project prioritization process and regional plan amendment activities. It will be the responsibility of the RAC members to brieftheir respective TAC/CACs with information and actions addressed at the regional level. The committee would be comprised of a mixture of members from each local MPO's advisory committees, FOOT and the TCRPC as noted below:

Member types: 1 Representative - St. Lucie Citizens Advisory Committee 2 Representatives- St. Lucie Technical Advisory Committee 1 Representative- St. Lucie Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged 1 Representative - Martin Citizens Advisory Committee 2 Representatives- Martin Technical Advisory Committee 1 Representative- Martin Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged 1 Representative- Indian River Citizens Advisory Committee 2 Representatives -Indian River Technical Advisory Committee 1 Representative -Indian River Local Coordinating Board for the Transportation Disadvantaged 2 Representatives - Florida Department of Transportation 1 Representative- Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Total Members: 15



Meetings: The location of the meeting would alternate between the three counties and be scheduled to occur prior to any Treasure Coast Transportation Council meetings. These meetings will be hosted on a rotation schedule by the staffs of the three MPOs. The respective staffs of each will share responsibility for providing logistical support, public notification, and preparation of agendas and documentation of meeting minutes.

Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC) The TCTC was established on April 10, 2006 for the purpose of identifying regional project priorities for the Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River MPOs related to projects eligible for the state's new Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) and in response to the Governor's request for the establishment of a regional executive committee. In addition, this council provides an important venue for discussion of regional issues and initiatives. As such, this body has agreed to meet twice annually to develop and adopt regional project priorities. Figures 1 and 2 presented earlier in the document illustrate a flow chart showing the steps leading to adoption of regional priorities by the TCTC. These meetings shall be hosted on a rotation schedule by the three MPOs. The respective staffs of each will share responsibility for providing logistical support, public notification, and preparation of agendas and documentation of meeting minutes.

Six Members: Martin MPO Chairperson Martin MPO Vice Chairperson St. Lucie MPO Vice Chairperson St. Lucie MPO Chairperson Indian River County Commission Chairperson Indian River MPO Chairperson

Ex-officio members: FOOT District 4 Secretary Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Director

Treasure Coast GIS and Modeling Consortium The development and maintenance of technical data related to transportation planning is an ongoing and continuous effort. Currently there is no single repository or process defined for sharing data between the MPOs, TCRPC and FOOT. The Treasure Coast GIS and Modeling Consortium will be created for this purpose. At a minimum, this consortium would be tasked with:

• Defining a process and identifying staff resources to create composite tri-county GIS data sets. A baseline version of this data set has been created through the 2030 RLRTP process and the development of the Treasure Coast Transportation Plan. The ongoing maintenance, update and distribution of these files are critical to the ultimate decision-making regarding regional transportation needs. A single MPO, FOOT or the TCRPC, with the agreement of its partners, may take on this responsibility based on the institutional capability and staff resources available. Funding for this effort could be shared among the member agencies.

• Defining a process to update socioeconomic data (zdata) and model files associated with the regional transportation network. The 2030 Regional LRTP involved the development of new zdata for the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs. This zdata was used to



estimate travel demand through the year 2030 by utilizing the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model (TCRPM) v.3.2. Since the adoption of the plan, FOOT District 4 has begun to develop a new transportation demand model for the Treasure Coast known as the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model Ill (GTCRPM Ill). The estimated completion for a newly validated GTCRPM is July of 2007. FOOT has agreed to be the owner and operator of the model, however the respective MPOs will be responsible for creating annual updates to the socioeconomic (zdata), roadway networks (E+C) and providing this information to FOOT. The annual updates to zdata will consider factors such as comprehensive plan amendments, ORis, and other socioeconomic conditions that could influence travel demand within the region. FOOT has agreed to be responsible for initiating the update process, soliciting information from the respective MPOs and releasing new zdata sets as they are developed on an annual basis.

Annual Regional Transportation Planning Forums Regional planning forums are opportunities to engage stakeholders and the general public on a wide variety of MPO related issues. In July 2006, a regional forum was held to inform and solicit dialogue related to the regional scenario planning process. This event was well attended and taped by Martin County TV for rebroadcast at later dates. As part of ongoing regional outreach activities, additional regional forums will be organized. These forums could be jointly funded and sponsored by all three MPOs and involve discussion of key state and regional transportation issues. Guest speakers and interactive workshop techniques are encouraged to ensure two-way communication; and inform the public on issues, trends and innovations.

Treasure Coast Regional Transportation Council Logo and Website Each MPO in the region has its own logo and website containing information about the role of MPOs, copies of policies and plans, agendas and meeting notification. During the development of the 2030 Regional LRTP for the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs, a regional logo and website (www.destination2030.org) was created. The logo provided a recognizable icon for all things regional. Additionally, the project website served as a portal for composites of regional technical information on the development of the plan as well as a means for soliciting public comments. It is recommended that the region consider establishing a Regional Treasure Coast Transportation Council logo and website that would focus on items of regional interest. Support and maintenance of information on the website could be shared between the MPOs, or supported by a single MPO with the existing staff capacity and IT resources to do so through mutual agreement of its partners.

Treasure Coast Contact Network Efforts to develop the 2030 long range transportation plans resulted in the development of a comprehensive contacts database known as the plan information network (PIN). This contains names, addresses, email and phone numbers of regional stakeholders, agency staffs, elected officials and the general public who have signed up to be a part of the planning process. This database currently contains approximately 2,000 records and primarily includes Martin and St. Lucie contacts. It is recommended that this database be expanded to include more Indian River contacts and that it be maintained and updated over time. Support and maintenance of the excel database could be shared between the MPOs, or supported by a single MPO with the existing capacity to do so upon mutual agreement of its partners, This database can be used for disseminating information regarding regional forums, regional plans and policies and other items of interest to the public.



Treasure Coast Transportation Legislation Day One of the values of regionalism is that it has the potential to create a 'single voice' on issues of regional significance. In particular, it provides the opportunity to build consensus around issues of common concern. As the relationships across the region are strengthened and a process for identifying regional project priorities is implemented, influence of the respective Treasure Coast region within the state legislature will grow. The Treasure Coast transportation stakeholders could partner to send delegations to Tallahassee to further communicate issues of critical regional concern. Whether it is the Indian Street Bridge, a new Western Parkway or the creation of a tri-county transit system, there is tremendous value in pulling together the voices of the region when seeking investments in the Treasure Coast from limited state funding sources.



VII. Regional Plan Amendment Process

The Treasure Coast Regional Transportation Planning and Coordination Processes documentation (Treasure Coast Transportation Plan) as detailed herein will be adopted as an amendment to the Martin, St. Lucie .and Indian River MPOs respective Long Range Transportation Plans. Once adopted, any proposed amendments to this portion of the LRTPs will follow a similar process as outlined in previous sections and require action at both the local and regional advisory committee levels, the individual MPO levels, and at the TCTC level. This would include amendments covering the following: ·

1. Changes to the Regional Multimodal Transportation System (i.e. any proposed changes in corridor designation, inclusion or deletion of facilities from network)

2. Changes to the regional goals, objectives, strategies or performance measures 3. Changes to the project prioritization process and scoring tool 4. Changes to the annual TRIP prioritization process 5. Changes to the Regional Public Involvement Plan 6. Changes to the Amendment Process 7. Changes to the technically ranked list of regional projects

Amendments to the local elements of the respective long range transportation plans will not require a regional process. Figure 3 illustrates the proposed amendment process for the above noted actions.


FIGURE 3 -Regional Amendment Process

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL COORDINATION PROCESSES Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin MPOs

31


VIII. Appendix


Table 5 ·EXPANDED DEFINITION OF SCORING TOOL CRITERIA

bridge over a roadway, railroad, or body of water {200ft or more)- 3 points

over a roadway, railroad, or body of water (less than

' cross·street access to roadway -1..Q..Q!nt i enhancements to an existing

railroad or body of water (200ft ROW or

DRAFT REVISED ~/18/07 33

Table 5- EXPANDED DEFINITION OF SCORING TOOL CRITERIA

are considered connecUng if located within 112 mile of future regional job centers. Improvements to measured same as previous: Project improves congested facility with VIC >.1.05 • 3 point&

congested facility with VIC < .1.05

that ends an adjacent county corridor?-1..

~~~;~;:~~:;~,.~"~;nsidered connecting if located within 112 mite of le i center. Improvements to

as previous: Project Improves iii >.1.05 -3poinls

congested facility with V/C <

Village Center by

are areas with existing or projected 1 percent of total regional region. Data set is based

criteria should be applied for projects Ill at would link I cross county corridors. This criteria can QD1J' be

l•ppiied """'"' moe• discreet projects that are paired a single corridor (see Map 1). For instance, the i Blvd and Western Palm City Corridor projects

beoocobi;"d ;oto ,,;oglllo project that crosses county

are defined on Map 1 and include , regional recreation facilities,

DRAFT REVISED 4118107 34

Table 5- EXPANDED DEFINITION OF SCORING TOOL CRITERIA

TO areas by adding new

provides dedicated ROW for HOV lanes" lulc" l""'lcmi 3 points

provides for new bicycle lanes -2 points supports tri-county Travel Demand M<!nagement

disadvantaged populations are defined by

and ride, bicycle, pedestrian

l l:~:~~~;~f,;~ll;:~'":j'~'~'~''[ithose that have been identlfied for currently preserved or are identified as Projects that would receive the

this category would be those that do not idenijfied on the environmental framework

of travel can include the provision of sidewalks, i lines, HOV lanes, BRT lanes or

corridor. See maps 8 and

crash locations. Data

DRAFT REVISED 4/16107 35

Table 5 ·EXPANDED DEFINITION DF SCORING TOOL CRITERIA

improvements or ROW ''"'""''tioo llo I i i project (Commuter i Light

serve more than 1 enhanced

more than one county -i.

includes basic sidewalk and landscaping provisions -1.

i project that will cross county lines. Can include ""'"·'"''"'bus, or any range of premium transit

mgloo••lbloy••loood pedestrian facilities maps (Maps 8

I , multi-use trails, greenWays or bicycle I apply to off-


I

' ' I I I I I I

~~· ----------,-~~{~J~r¥~~~4 I I I ! ' I I

' I I I

I I

' :-------------------------fc·,.,..,,-"-'::'::"::'if-rr I

Criteria:

>21% Population 16 & under

>24% Population 60 & over

> 4% Housholds without a vehicle

Median household income at !east 50% less than median for the State of Florida

Sow·.;e: 2000 Censu~ 81uc~ Group 08!8

Number of Criteria met

0-1

2

3

4

MPA Boundary

Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Conservation Areas

• Save our Rivers Florida NationaiW<Idlife Refuge EnVironmentally Sensitive /Martin County

MPA Boundary

INDIAN_R_IVE;f[

ST. LUCIE

' ~~c----------,----,,---+ire f-Pc-.J¥'1~ ' '

: Treasure Coast and Community

Village Center

- Existing [2000]

~ Future [2030]

DcRA

MPA Boundary

Village Center defined as mixed usa areas w~h 25fiS to 75/25 split between residentlal and employment and a gross density of dwelling units greater than 3,

Source: Regional Transportation Model [ZDATA]

Regional Employment Centers

· '\ Existing Employment

Future Employment

,. 1% of Total Regional Employment or Regional Industrial Employment

' ~-----'

0 Existing & Future Freight Activity Centers

Regional Freight Corridors

Exis!lng SIS Highway

.. • Emerging SIS Highway

Existing SIS WaleiW3.y

Existing SIS Rail

Em~rging SIS Rail

+ Airport

~ Seaport

Soun:e: Slrnte~;, lnlerrTJO<Jal Sys\emPion,:.;(:(IS

MPA Boundary

~-----------------------'

Hurricane Evacuation Route

MPA Boundary

Source: State Emergency Response Team [SERn Disaster Preparedness Maps

41

.·.· ..

:----- ------------------ -·1;1-·• --"'.~,!=v="•

'

Coast High Crash Corridors

Crash Density Number of crashes per mile

Low (0.00- 24.40)

Medium (24.41 - 64.68)

High(24.69-126.07)

Note: The crash density is calculated with only crashes occured along the regional street network.

Source: st Lucie Counfy- Statewide Crash Dam (DHSMV) (Jar~, 2002- Dec, 2004) Martin County. County Crash Data (June, 2002 -July, 2005)

li:l CJ t\1 ~ MPA Boundary

3.23.2007

42

' I I

:----------------------·----lf,,.,-~..,-c-:;: I

'

Bicycle I Pedestrian Facilities

PEO BOTH BIKE ONLY 1 1 ONLY

~1?"'FZ

I PEO BOTH BIKE

ONLY ONLY

Existing or Committed t2000- 2010]

Needs

MPA Boundary

Greenway

' ' '

I' '-- '~' cJ

1---------------------------1

'

Unfunded Transit Need

~Potential Tri-Rail Extension

Cost Feasible Transit Projects

-Planned I Proposed Fixed Route Service

Planned I Proposed Port Sllucie Service Expansion Area

MuHimnd:>l Hubs

Existing Fixed Route I Shuttle Servh:::e

~Fixed Route Service

Existing Zone Route Service Areas

HobeSound

~y1:~i Indiantown

Jensen Beach

Palm City

Port Salerno

Sewans Point 1 Hutchinson Island

Stuart

_., f;> '~ MPA6oundary

Map 11: Treasure Roadway on

E+C Network

vc ~0-0.75

0.76-1.05

->1.05

.'; MPA Boundary

45


MEMORANDUM


THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP fV•-'1 K Community Development Director

FROM: Phillip J. Matson P/1Mvtl~ MPO Staff Director

DATE: April30, 2007

SUBJECT: Consideration of the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) I Discussion of the MPO's budget for 2007/08

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at its meeting of May 9, 2007.

SUMMARY

The Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) is the MPO's annual budget and description of upcoming planning activities. Each year, the MPO must submit a UPWP for approval by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The UPWP lists required and discretionary MPO planning activities and the funding required for each UPWP task.

Consistent with state and federal regulations, staff prepared a draft FY 2007/08 UPWP and submitted the draft to FDOT, FHWA, and FTA for their review. Comments from the above mentioned government agencies were recently received and reviewed by MPO staff.

The draft FY 2007/08 UPWP is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). Staff recommends that the MPO review the draft UPWP, suggest any necessary task revisions and/or additions, and approve the UPWP.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

One of the principal activities which every MPO must undertake on an annual basis is the preparation of a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP). The UPWP identifies the

1

planning budget and planning activities of the MPO for the upcoming July 1 to June 30 state fiscal year. Not only must the UPWP provide a project description and estimated cost for each planning task, it must also specify an overall budget that identifies the total funding amount requested and a breakdown of total funding by source.

The draft FY 2007/08 UPWP is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1 ). As indicated in the UPWP, the proposed total budget for the FY 2007/08 UPWP is $869,915. Of this amount, $601,032 is federal funding, $131,449 is state funding, and $137,434 is local funding. Those state and local funds are necessary to match the federal funding amounts. The primary source of federal funding for planning activities included in the UPWP is Section 112 PL (planning) funds from FHWA. For FY 2007/08, the UPWP proposes $401 ,D32 in PL funding.

According to federal and state regulations, the MPO must submit its FY 2007/08 UPWP to FDOT by May 15, 2007. FDOT will, in turn, transmit the UPWP to FHWA and FTA for final review.

ANALYSIS

With respect to format of the document, the FY 2007/08 UPWP is similar to the MPO's cunent adopted FY 2006/07 UPWP. Consisting of four categories of activities, the UPWP includes some tasks that are required by federal regulations, some tasks that are mandated by the state, and some tasks that are discretionary. It is within the section of discretionary tasks that the MPO has the greatest flexibility in adding, revising, or rescheduling tasks. Each of the four categories is discussed briefly below.

Program Administration - This section includes tasks related to the administration and management of the MPO. Staff is proposing to retain all tasks in this section.

Data Collection and Surveillance Activities -Because these tasks are ongoing, multiyear activities which provide technical data for use in other MPO activities, staff is proposing to retain all tasks in this category.

Systems Planning- This section includes transportation systems planning work tasks. Staff is proposing to retain all tasks in this section. One task, Task 3.1, has been revised to reflect a major new activity, the development of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP must be adopted by the MPO by December of 2010. Since LTRP preparation is a multiyear activity, a number of activities will begin in 2007/08. These activities include year 2005 travel demand forecast model validation and socio-economic data development. In addition, this task will require extensive consultant participation and, therefore, will require funding in the amount of$120,000 from each of three separate fiscal years beginning in FY 2007/08. Per FDOT guidelines, the reservation of funds for this purpose is accomplished via Table 2(a), the MPO Business Plan.

Project Planning- Staff has made a number of changes to the tasks in this section. Task descriptions that have been revised since last year include Task 4.7, Conidor Studies, which has been revised to reflect new conidor studies suggested by local planning agencies

2

and/or contained in the 2030 LRTP; Task 4.2, which has been revised to reflect the continued development of the Evaluation Appraisal Report of the Comprehensive Plan -Transportation Element; and Task 4.6, Greenway Planning, which has been revised to consider a north county plan as part of a phased approach to a countywide plan. Most of the other planning tasks have been maintained because they are continuous activities which are integral to the MPO's planning process. These tasks relate to transportation disadvantaged planning, regional long range planning, and coordination with FDOT.

In 2005, a new federal highway authorization bill, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Us.ers (SAFETEA-LU), was enacted. This bill replaced the previous bill, TEA-21. As a condition associated with providing funds, the federal government requires that all planning tasks be consistent with SAFETEA-LU planning provisions. Therefore, the UPWP has been changed throughout the document to reference the new legislation and planning requirements. For example, Task 3.4 has been changed from Congestion Management Systems to Congestion Management Process (CMP) as part ofSAFETEA-LU compliance.

The draft FY 2006/2007 UPWP was sent to FDOT, FHWA, and FTA for their review. Written comments were received from FDOT and have been addressed by staff. A summary of these comments, along with staffs response, appears in Attachment 2. Most comments are minor, and relate to clarification and enhancement of task descriptions.

The draft FY 2007/08 UPWP was presented to the MPOTAC on April27, 2007 and to the MPOCAC on May 1'1• Both the MPOTAC and MPOCAC recommended that the MPO approve the UPWP.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the MPO review the FY 2007/08 UPWP, suggest any necessary task revisions and/or additions, and approve the UPWP.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Indian River County MPO draft FY 2007/08 UPWP 2. Comments fromFDOT, FHWA, and FTA on the draftFY 2007/08 UPWP.

F:\CommunityDevelopment\Uscrs\MPO\MEETINGS\CAC\2007\050107\UPWP.doc

3

FY 2007/2008 UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FAP PL 0418 (45)

MPO Chairman

Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization

(Vero Beach-Sebastian Urbanized Area) http://www.ircgov.com/boards/mpo/mpo.htm

March 15, 2007

The preparation of this document was funded in part with FHWA PL funds. CFDA No. 20.205- Highway Planning and Construction

CFDA No. 20.505 -Federal Transit Technical Studies Grant (Metropolitan Planning)

Financial Project ID No. 414354-1-14-01

Indian River County MPO 1840 25'h Street

Vera Beach, FL 32960 (772) 226-1455 (772) 978-1806

ATTACHMENT l


FY 2007/2008

UNIFIED PLANNING WORK PROGRAM

DRAFT

In cooperation with:

Florida Department of Transportation- District Four

FDOT/MPO Program Management Handbook (5/23/06)

USDOT - FHW A and FT A

CFDA No. 20.205- Highway Planning and Construction CFDA No. 20.505- Federal Transit Technical Studies Grant (Metropolitan Planning)

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... v ORGANIZATION & MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... xii

WORK PROGRAM ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

1.1 Program Management 1.2 Program Development- UPWP 1.3 State Support/Match for FHW A PL Planning Program 1.4 State Support/Match for FTA Section 5303 Funds 1. 5 Training 1.6 Public Involvement

2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

3 5 7 8 9 11

2.1 Land Use & Socio-economic Data Analysis... 17 2.2 Traffic Count and Transportation Data Collection and Analysis 20 2.3 GIS Analysis 23

3.0 SYSTEMS PLANNING

3.1 Long Range Planning 27 3.2 Transit Planning 30 3.3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development 33 3.4 Congestion Management Process (CMP) 36

4.0 PROJECT PLANNING

4.1 Transportation Disadvantaged Program 4.2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency 4.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Program 4.4 FDOT Project Coordination 4.5 Intergovernmental Coordination 4.6 Greenways Plan 4. 7 Corridor Studies 4.8 Aviation Boulevard Extension 4.9 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan

iii

39 41 44 46 48 50 52 54 55

Appendix A DBE Certification Statement

AppendixB Certification of Restrictions On Lobbying

Appendix C Department and Suspension Certification

AppendixD Title VI Nondiscrimination Agreement (MPO Policy in Effect 111/07; Formal Agreement Not Yet available from FDOT)

Appendix E FDOT District Four Planning Activities

AppendixF MPO Certification Statement

Appendix G MPO Business Plan

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. Agency Participation Table 57

TABLE2. Funding Source Table 58

TABLE3. Estimate of Total Expenditures for Prior Fiscal Year UPWP 60

TABLE4. SAFETEALU Planning Factors Matrix 61

TABLES. Relationship ofUPWP Tasks 62

iv

INTRODUCTION

This Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) for the Vera Beach- Sebastian urbanized area identifies transportation related planning activities for the 2007/08 fiscal year. The objective of this work program is to ensure that the Indian River County MPO's continuing, cooperative and comprehensive (3-C) approach to planning for transportation needs is maintained and properly coordinated with other local govermnents, adjacent counties, other MPOs, FDOT, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.

UPWPFormat

The Fiscal Year 2007/08 UPWP covers the period from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. During preparation of this UPWP, input was obtained from a number of public entities, including: FDOT; FHWA; PTA; Indian River County; local municipalities; and members of the MPO, TAC, CAC and BAC. Input was also obtained from the St. Lucie, Martin, and Brevard MPOs.

In accordance with the latest edition of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Program Management Handbook (May 23, 2006), a number of planning tasks will be performed by the MPO using Title 23 U.S.C. and Title 49 C.P.R. Federal Transit Act funding. The specific transportation planning programs to be undertaken by MPO staff during this fiscal year are organized into four major categories. These are as follows:

• Program Administration:

Includes those functions necessary to administer and manage the transportation planning program on a continuing basis, including program administration, review, and reporting.

• Data Collection and Surveillance Activities:

Consists of those work tasks that are required to support other planning activities. This includes a continuous monitoring of travel characteristics and factors, such as land use data and transportation system data, affecting travel in the urbanized area.

• Systems Planning:

Involves transportation systems planning work tasks, such as long and short range highway and transit planning, which are supportive of the overall transportation planning effort.

• Project Planning:

Consists of projects that may be either one-time or continuing tasks that are of special interest to residents within the urbanized area. These include such tasks as corridor studies, local govermnent comprehensive plan reviews, and transportation disadvantaged planning activities. This section also includes all non-MPO planning studies, regardless of funding sources or responsible agencies.

v

A more detailed description of categorical tasks appears in the Work Program beginning on page one of this document.

SAFETEA-LU Consistency and Planning Factors

SAFETEA-LU, the federal highway authorization bill adopted in 2005, identified eight "planning factors" to be incorporated into the planning process. The relationship between the SAFETEALU planning factors and the proposed UPWP work tasks are illustrated in Table 4 of this UPWP. While the UPWP as a whole addresses all eight SAFETEA-LU factors, individual tasks may vary in the number of factors they address to. Overall, Table 4 demonstrates that the UPWP adequately addresses all of the SAFETEA-LU metropolitan planning factors.

FT A/FHW A Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs) for Fiscal Year 2007/08

In the past, FTA and FHWA have adopted PEA's to promote priority measures for consideration in the metropolitan transportation planning process. This year, the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration have not issued PEAs and have instead focused on updating the Code of Federal Regulations. The State of Florida has, however, issued nine PEAs. These are discussed in detail below.

State Planning Emphasis Areas (PEAs) for Fiscal Year 2007/08

FDOT recently identified nine State of Florida PEAs to promote priority measures for consideration in the metropolitan transportation planning process. The state PEAs are: Transit Quality of Service, Regional Planning, Public Involvement, the MPO Three-Year Business Plan, TIP Project Prioritization Process, Linking the Planning and NEPA processes, Consideration of Management and Operations within Planning Processes, Coordination of Human Services Transportation, and Consistency between Transportation Improvements and Planned Growth. In addition, District IV added an additional PEA, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Through Planning.

This UPWP has been developed to be consistent with and promote these ten PEAs where appropriate. For each specific UPWP work task that addresses one or more of the PEAs, that task's description identifies the PEA and explains how the PEA is addressed. Twelve tasks, in particular, have been structured to address the ten PEAs. These tasks, and the PEA(s) addressed by each, are as follows:

Task 1.1-Program Management MPO Three-Year Business Plan

Task 1.2- Program Development: UPWP MPO Three-Year Business Plan

Task I. 6- Public Involvement Public Involvement

vi

Task 2.I -Land Use and Socio-Economic Data Analysis Transit Quality of Service Consistency between Transportation and Growth

Task 3.I- Long Range Planning Regional Planning Linking the Planning and NEP A Processes Consideration of Management and Operations within Planning Processes

Task 3.2- Transit Planning Transit Quality of Service Regional Planning Consistency between Transportation and Growth Consideration of Management and Operations within Planning Processes Coordination of Human Services Transportation

Task 3.3- Transportation Improvement Program Development TIP Project Prioritization Process Linking the Planning and NEP A Processes

Task 4.I - Transportation Disadvantaged Program Coordination of Human Services Transportation

Task 4.3- Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Program Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Through Planning

Task 4.5 -Intergovernmental Coordination Regional Planning

Task 4. 6- Greenways Planning Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Through Planning

Task 4. 7- Corridor Studies Consistency between Transportation and Growth Regional Planning

Task 4. 9- Regional Planning Regional Planning

Included in the description of Task 4.9 are many regional coordination activities that the MPO committed to as part of its most recent re-designation. These activities are also listed in the MPO's 2007 certification statement (Appendix F).

In addition to the tasks indicated above, other tasks also incorporate, to lesser degrees, the ten PEAs.

vii

History/Background

Prior to being designated as an MPO, Indian River County and the municipalities within the County coordinated with each other and engaged in cooperative transportation planning. This was accomplished through the mechanism of the County's Transportation Planning Committee. Comprised of representatives from each of the local governments within the County, the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) coordinated transportation planning efforts within the County beginning in the early 1980s. Meeting on a monthly basis, the TPC focused on longrange transportation planning and intergovernmental coordination.

In 1991, the U.S. Census Bureau determined that the City of Vero Beach and the densely populated area surrounding it had a population greater than 50,000 and met the criteria to be designated as an urbanized area. This determination was based upon the results of the 1990 Census. The urbanized area designation was reconfirmed by the Census Bureau based on the results of the 2000 Census. In addition, the name of the urbanized area was changed from the "Vero Beach Urbanized Area" to the "Vero Beach-Sebastian Urbanized Area."

In 1993, the necessary interlocal agreements to formally establish the MPO were executed and recorded. Consequently, the Indian River County MPO was formally created at that time. New MPO interlocal agreements were executed and recorded in 2002 and in 2004 in order to reflect population changes from the year 2000 Census and reinforce the MPO's commitment to increase regional coordination.

Intergovernmental Coordination

To coordinate MPO planning activities with local government long range planning activities, MPO staff reviews comprehensive plan amendments and various transportation grant applications, discusses planning efforts with staff from local governments, the regional planning council, and state agencies, and provides technical assistance as needed. In addition, the MPO reviews and comments on projects that are subject to the Intergovernmental Coordination and Review process. These projects are primarily transportation related projects where federal funding is requested. When appropriate, the MPO transmits those comments to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. In recognition of the MPO' s extensive intergovernmental coordination efforts and activities not already accounted for in specific UPWP tasks, the FY 2007/08 UPWP continues to include an intergovernmental coordination task (Task 4.7) that was first incorporated in the FY 2001/02 UPWP.

Past UPWP Activities

During FY 2006/07, the MPO initiated activity on all tasks but did not fully complete the following tasks:

Task 2.3- Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analysis

During 2006/07, staff completed many of the sub-tasks identified in the task description, including updating its vacant parcel model and developing roadway characteristics GIS layers. One subtask, development of internet mapping services, was not completed. This

viii

is because the MPO has chosen to participate in a county-wide effort to establish unified GIS geodatabases and internet mapping services. Participation in this manner will spread the cost of this project to multiple users and County departments. It is anticipated that the project will be completed in late FY 2007/08.

Task 4.6- Greenways Planning

During 2006/07, staff completed the Central Indian River County Greenways Plan, as identified in the UPWP. Also in 2006/07, the MPO began development of a North Indian River County Green ways Plan, as identified in the UPWP. Due to the time and effort expended on the Central Indian River Greenways Plan and the decision to exercise the plan's optional follow-on design task, the MPO was late in beginning the north county plan. That study began in the latter part of 2006/07. MPO staff anticipates completing the North Indian River County Greenways plan in late 2007/08.

During FY 2006/07, the MPO completed all required activities on time. This included the UPWP, the TIP, and the priority projects report.

Metropolitan Area Planning Priorities

With a growth rate of about twenty-five percent between 1990 and 2000, Indian River Cotmty has experienced increasing traffic volumes and localized congestion. Appropriate planning priorities have included transportation system monitoring, congestion mitigation, and future transportation system planning. Through the activities represented in this UPWP, the MPO can address its priorities in a comprehensive manner.

Level of Effort

The level of effort represented by this UPWP is based upon several factors, the most important of which is the need to address transportation related issues in the MPO area.

As proposed, the level of effort described in this UPWP is consistent with the needs that must be addressed in the MPO area. Through MPO staff and consultant work, grant and in-kind support from FDOT, and support from various county and city departments, the MPO can undertake the technical studies, data collection activities, and administrative functions necessary to maintain a continuous, comprehensive and cooperative (3-C) transportation planning process in the Vero Beach-Sebastian Urbanized Area. The MPO can also conduct expanded regional coordination activities.

Pnblic Involvement

The UPWP was developed in accordance with the MPO's Public Involvement Plan (PIP), whereby numerous opportunities for public involvement were provided throughout the UPWP development process. Input regarding preparation of the UPWP was sought from both the MPO Technical Advisory Committee and the MPO Citizens Advisory Committee. In addition, the MPO developed a letter soliciting projects and activities to be included in the new UPWP and circulated that letter to general purpose local governments in Indian River County. Prior to approval of the UPWP, the MPO held a public meeting to review the proposed UPWP, consider

ix

comments from the CAC, T AC, BAC, and the public, and provide an opportunity for additional public input into the UPWP.

Consistent with FDOT's 2007/08 PEA regarding Public Involvement, the MPO provided opportunities for all segments of the community, including traditionally under-served and underrepresented persons, to participate in the plauning process. This was accomplished by following the MPO's PIP, presenting the UPWP to the CAC which has a minority community representative, making UPWP information available at the Coimty Plauning Division office (a location frequented by many members of the public), conducting meetings in communities with high transportation disadvantaged populations (as identified in the Community Profiles report), providing UPWP information on the MPO's web site, and through other means. In addition, the MPO in 2006/07 engaged in a number of new public outreach activities. These included providing translators at several public outreach meetings; providing Spanish-language versions of a survey targeted to a disadvantaged community; adopting a Regional Public Involvement Plan; and utilizing the publicly-owned utility's monthly billing process to disseminate information.

Consistency with Other Plans

This UPWP has been developed to be consistent with all applicable plans, including the approved growth management plans of the local governments within the MPO area, the Treasure Coast Regional Plauning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan, and the 2025 Florida Transportation Plan.

The work tasks contained in this UPWP are designed to assist local governments by providing valuable resource data that can be utilized in the comprehensive planning process. Through the individual work tasks incorporated within the UPWP, MPO staff will contribute to and support local, regional and state government planning efforts. Much of this coordination and support will occur through the Technical Advisory Committee.

Relationship of UPWP Tasks

Each planning task in this UPWP results in a set of identifiable products. Table 5 identifies how the work products of non-administrative UPWP tasks are used as inputs for other nonadministrative UPWP tasks. Some tasks, such as data collection activities, chiefly provide support information for other tasks. Tasks such as long range planning (Task 3.1) both receive input from other tasks and provide information used by other activities.

Consultant Expenditures and Local Match

Several tasks in this UPWP may be completed with the assistance of a consultant. These tasks are:

Task 1.5 - Training Task 1.6 -Public Involvement Task 2.1 -Land Use and Socio-economic Data Analysis Task 3.1- Long-Range Planning Task 3.2 - Transit Plauning Task 3.4- Congestion Management Process

X

Task 4.6- Greenways Plan Task 4. 7- Corridor Studies Task 4.8- Aviation Boulevard Extension Corridor Study Task 4.9- Regional Planning

Consultant expenditure amounts are identified in the text of each task where consultant services are proposed. The expenditure amounts are based on the estimated percentage of the total task work that will be undertaken by the consultant. The required local match for all consultant and equipment expenditures contained in this document will be met by utilizing FDOT' s toll revenue credits, as authorized by Title 23 U.S.C. (Section 120).

xi

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

The Indian River County MPO is the primary agency responsible for transportation planning in the urbanized area of Indian River County. Consisting of twelve voting members representing local governments within the county, a non-voting representative from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and a non-voting representative from the Town of Orchid, the MPO has the authority and responsibility to develop and adopt plans, and to set priorities for the programming of improvements to the transportation system. The current MPO governing board membership is as follows:

Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (5) City ofVero Beach (2) City of Sebastian (2) Town ofindian River Shores(!) City of Fellsmere (1) Indian River County School District (1) Florida Department of Transportation (1- Non-Voting) Town of Orchid (1- Non-Voting)

On June 11, 2003, the current (2003) MPO Apportionment Plan was adopted by the MPO. This plan added one member to the eleven voting member board established by the 2000 Apportionment Plan. The new member represents the Indian River County School District. Subsequent to adoption of the 2003 apportionment plan, the MPO obtained acceptance resolutions of the Plan from the general purpose local governments represented on the MPO Board, transmitted the Plan to FDOT and the governor's office, and received approval of the 2003 Apportionment Plan from FDOT and the governor's office. In FY 2004/05, the MPO developed a revised interlocal agreement and obtained acceptance of the revised interlocal agreement by all MPO voting member jurisdictions.

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

The MPO Technical Advisory Committee is appointed by the MPO and is composed of technically qualified representatives of agencies responsible for controlling, developing and improving the transportation system in the urbanized area oflndian River County. The TAC has nineteen voting members who are appointed by the MPO. Besides local government staff, TAC members include staff representatives from the Vero Beach and Sebastian Airports, the Indian River County School District, the transportation disadvantaged program (community transportation coordinator), FDOT, and others. TAC duties include the coordination of transportation p\anning and programming activities; the review of all transportation technical studies and reports; and the review of work programs and transportation improvement programs. The principal responsibility of the TAC is to provide technical recommendations to the MPO on transportation matters.

xii

The TAC membership includes the following:

(1) One regular voting and one alternate member from the following Indian River County departments/divisions: (a) Public Works Department (b) Community Development Department (c) Traffic Engineering Division (d) County Budget Office

(2) Members and alternates from each of the following City of Vero Beach and Sebastian departments as specified: (a) Engineering (I) (e) Planning (1) (f) Aviation (1)

(3) One member and alternate from the following agencies: (a) Town oflndian River Shores (b) City of Fellsmere (c) Town of Orchid (d) Indian River County Sheriffs Department (e) Indian River County School District (f) Indian River County Senior Resource Association, Inc. (public transportation and transportation disadvantaged provider) (g) FDEP

(4) Two members and alternates from FDOT District Four.

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)

The MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) consists of fourteen members. These members represent and reflect the demographic composition of the MPO area. Twelve members are appointed by MPO member local governments based on each government's voting representation on the MPO Board. Accordingly, five CAC members are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners; two each by the City of Vera Beach and the City of Sebastian; and one each from Fellsmere, Indian River Shores, and the Indian River County School District. The remaining two members represent racial minority interests and the transportation disadvantaged community, respectively, and are appointed directly by the MPO Board. The CAC is responsible for providing the MPO and MPO staff with citizen input regarding transportation related matters. It should be noted that the MPO continuously evaluates and/or revises the membership of the CAC to ensure that its membership adequately addresses the intent of the state statutes governing CAC membership. In the coming year, the MPO will continue to evaluate CAC membership.

Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BAC)

The BAC is a standing committee comprised of one representative from the County and one representative from each municipality, as well as a non-voting representative from FDOT. Among the representatives are bicycle store entrepreneurs; bicycle enthusiasts; law enforcement officers; competitive cyclists; and a citizen-liaison to the CAC. The BAC meets on the fourth

xiii

Friday of each month with additional meetings on ari as-needed basis to advise the MPO regarding bicycle and pedestrian issues.

Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board

Pursuant to Chapter 427, F.S. and Rule 41-2 of the F.A.C., the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) for the Transportation Disadvantaged program was established by the Board of County Commissioners in its then-current capacity as the Designated Official Plarming Agency (DOPA) for the transportation disadvantaged program. The purpose of this board is to carry out the duties described in Ru1e 41-2. During FY 1999/00, MPO staff coordinated with County staff to designate the MPO as the DOPA in accordance with state requirements. Even though the DOPA changed in 2000 from the Board of County Commissioners to the MPO, the TDLCB structure and membership remained the same.

The TDLCB is made up of representatives from various State and local agencies as well as citizen representatives. A member of the DOPA is armually appointed to serve as the LCB's Chairman.

Community Transportation Coordinator

The Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) is appointed by the DOPA and approved by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged pursuant to Chapter 427 F.S. and Rule 41-2 F.A.C. to deliver transportation services to transportation disadvantaged people in a coordinated and cost efficient marmer. The CTC works with the LCB and MPO staff to implement the TD service delivery plan for Indian River County. The Indian River County Senior Resource Association (formerly known as the Indian River County Council on Aging) currently serves as the CTC for Indian River County. The Senior Resource Association provides fixed route, dial-a-ride, and complementary paratransit (demand responsive) public transportation services in the County.

In FY 2007/08, the MPO will reevaluate advisory committee membership to ensure consistency with legislative intent for these committees.

Agreements

The MPO has in place various agreements with state and local governments and agencies that promote the 3-C planning process.

The following is a list of continuing agreements:

Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) for PL Funding- This agreement between FDOT and the Indian River County MPO provides for the distribution of PL funds to the MPO The agreement also identifies the administrative and program requirements that must be met by the MPO to receive the funds. This agreement was executed on April 23, 1993.

Interlocal Agreement - This is an agreement between FDOT and the local governments comprising the MPO. The purpose of this agreement is to formally establish the MPO,

xiv

ensure that the MPO is eligible to receive federal funds, and implement a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process. The original agreement was executed on April 12, 1993; a new Interlocal Agreement recognizing the 2003 MPO Apportionment Plan was executed in August of 2004.

Intergovernmental Coordination and Review Agreement - This is an agreement with FDOT, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), and the Indian River County MPO. The purpose of this agreement is to describe the process for coordinating MPO planning and progranuning activities and for fulfilling the clearinghouse requirements for federally funded activities. This agreement was executed in April1993.

Intergovernmental Coordination and Review and Public Transportation Coordination Joint Participation Agreement - This is an agreement between the Indian River County MPO, the local agencies responsible for the operation of mass transit and aviation transportation services, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and FDOT. The purpose of this agreement is to ensure a coordinated public transportation planning and conflict resolution process. This agreement was executed in March 1999.

Staff Services Agreement - This is an agreement between the Indian River County MPO and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. This agreement states the County will provide staff services to the MPO to support the MPO's functions. This agreement was executed in March 1995.

Interlocal Agreement for Creation of the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC)This is an agreement between the Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie MPOs. This agreement creates a regional transportation entity and provides for each MPO to cooperate through this entity on developing regional plans and work products. This agreement was executed in April 2006.

Operational Procedures and Bylaws

The MPO operates under a duly adopted set of bylaws (most recently revised on December 8, 2004). Staff, provided by Indian River County, operate under the rules and procedures oflndian River County. As a separate legal entity from the County, the MPO and MPO staff operate under statues, regulations and procedures set forth by the State of Florida and the federal government.

Official records of MPO business are maintained at the MPO Administrative Offices in the Indian River County Community Development Department, and in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. Both offices are located at the Indian River County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vera Beach, Florida, 32960-3365.

All MPO records are available for public inspection during normal business hours, currently 8:30 am to 5:00pm Monday through Friday. The Indian River County MPO operational procedures fully comply with the Public Records Laws and the Sunshine Laws of the State of Florida.

XV

Certification Review

The MPO's most recent annual certification review meeting was held in March, 2007. FDOT last certified the MPO in 2006 following a modified state review focused on progress being made in meeting enhanced regional planning and coordination commitments. The 2006 certification review package is included in the Appendix. Continuing work relating to recommendations from this review and findings from the 2007 state certification review are included in the tasks in the UPWP.

MPO Administration

Through a staff services agreement, Indian River County planning employees serve as staff to the Indian River County MPO. The present MPO organization consists of the MPO Staff Director; two full-time MPO Staff Planners; one full-time Administrative Assistant; and various other professional and support staff from the County's Community Development Department, as needed. Begi1ming in 2003/04, the MPO contracted with two General Planning Consultants to undertake specialized activities.

xvi

Indian River County MPO

FY 2007/2008

WORK PROGRAM

I

1.0 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

1.1 Program Management

1.2 Program Development: UPWP

1.3 State Support/Match for FHW A PL Planning Program

1.4 State Support/Match for FTA Section 5303 Funds

1.5 Training

1.6 Public Involvement

2

UPWP TASK NO: 1.1 -PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

OBJECTIVE:

To administer and manage the transportation planning process in Indian River County, ensuring that the process is continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive.

PREVIOUS WORK:

Since the formal creation of the Indian River County MPO in April 1993, staff has actively managed the MPO's transportation planning activities. Besides coordinating with FDOT and member local governments, staff have provided necessary administrative support to the MPO and its advisory committees. Staff has also managed personnel, kept records, prepared progress reports and invoices, prepared agreements and resolutions, and undertaken other necessary program administration activities.

METHODOLOGY:

The Indian River County Community Development Department will provide staff support to the MPO, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BAC). Specific administrative activities will include:

Providing technical assistance to the MPO, TAC, CAC and BAC;

Preparing and distributing meeting schedules, agendas, minutes, and staff reports for the MPO and its advisory committees;

Preparing, distributing, maintaining, and updating Agreements, Resolutions, JP As, and other documents;

Undertaking various personnel functions, including but not limited to managing staff, evaluating staff, and hiring new staff;

Maintaining record keeping for proper management of charges, performance of grant requirements, annual audits, indirect rates, and budgets in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-87;

Preparing progress reports and invoices for PL funds and other grant!JP A reimbursements;

Monitoring and administering the activities of the General Planning Consultants;

Maintaining and updating the MPO's web site; and

3

Attending quarterly staff directors' meetings and governing board meetings of the state Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Committee (MPOAC).

Financial Audit

The MPO's financial audit will be conducted concurrent with Indian River County's annual financial audit. The audit will commence in December 2007, and a report will be issued by March 2008. Indirect cost rates used by the MPO are determined in accordance with specifics referenced in the PL Funding Joint Patiicipation Agreement between the FDOT and the MPO. The annual audit will be conducted in accordance with 49 C.P.R. 18.26, 49 C.F.R part 90, OMB circular A133, and section 215.97, F.S.

Business Plan

Beginning in FY 2004/05, FDOT determined that MPOs will no longer be able to carry over Federal Highway (PL) funds in excess of 50% of each MPO's annual apportionment. In order to enable MPOs to plan for large, multi-year expenditures, such as development of Long Range Plans, FDOT established the Business Plan as the mechanism for carrying over and combining funds between multiple fiscal years. In FY 2007/08, the MPO will develop a business plan, if necessary, to fund future year expenditures. In so doing, this task incorporates the FDOT PEA, MPO three-year Business Plan.

Computer Supplies and Equipment

This task involves the purchase of computer supplies and equipment as required by staff. It is anticipated that these expenses will total less than $5,000 in the coming fiscal year.

END PRODUCTS:

Various administrative documents, including meeting agendas, minutes, and staff reports; quarterly progress reports and invoices; new and updated JPAs, resolutions, and agreements; and the annual financial audit; to be completed periodically throughout FY 2007/08.

Work products will be provided to FDOT and FHW A.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: FUNDING SOURCES:

Indian River County MPO FHW A (PL) $35,000 Local $ 0 Total $35,000

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES:

Indian River County Community Development Department Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Office Indian River County Office of Management and Budget Indian River County Finance Department

4

UPWP TASK NO. 1.2 - PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT: UPWP

OBJECTIVE:

To prepare a Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) that identifies the transportation planning efforts to be undertaken in FY 2008/09, including ongoing activities, multiyear tasks, and new activities.

PREVIOUS WORK:

MPO staff prepared and the MPO adopted UPWPs for the fiscal years 1992/93 through 2007/08.

METHODOLOGY:

Recently, FDOT has changed its requirement for UPWP preparation from annually to every two years. As a result, MPO staff will develop a UPWP that identifies the scope of work to be undertaken by the Indian River County MPO during FY 2008/09 and 2009110. This will include identification specific work tasks, end products, funding amounts and sources, and responsible and participating agencies. The UPWP will also identify work activities completed during FY 2007/08 as documented in the MPO's quarterly progress reports (Task 1.1). Development of the UPWP will be based upon state and federal regulations, local needs, public inputs, and activities required to ensure a 3-C planning process. One outreach activity will be the circulation of solicitation letters to local jurisdictions for input into planning tasks. Copies of the UPWP will be published and distributed pursuant to FDOT's MPO Program Management Handbook.

In addition, the MPO will identify tasks that carryover into future years, as v,rell as major tasks it will undertalce in the future. For each of these tasks, the MPO will estimate costs needed in the future years and allocate a portion of the current year's PL funds for use in the future year. This process will constitute the MPO's business plan, which will appear in the 2008/09 and 2009/10 UPWP. In so doing, this task will address FDOT's PEA on developing an MPO business plan. Finally, the MPO will perform all year-end closeout activities, including deobligation of fund balances, in a timely manner.

END PRODUCT:

Attendance at regional UPWP Kickoff Meeting, to be held in January 2008.

UPWP amendments and revisions, as needed.

The 2008/09 and 2009/10 UPWP, a draft of which will be completed March 15, 2008, and a final adopted document which will be completed May 15,2008.

The UPWP will be distributed to FDOT and FHWA, to MPO, TAC, CAC and BAC members, and will be available to all interested parties.

5

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:



Indian River County Indian River County municipalities FDOT

FUNDING SOURCES:

FHWA (PL) $10,000 Local $ 0 Total $10,000

6

UPWP TASK NO: 1.3 - STATE SUPPORT/MATCH FOR FHWA PL PLANNING PROGRAM

OBJECTIVE:

To provide guidance and technical assistance to the Indian River County MPO in support of the transportation planning process.

PREVIOUS WORK:

For the past several years, FDOT has coordinated with and provided technical assistance to MPO staff. Both FDOT District Four and Central Office staff have provided technical assistance in various forms. Besides training sessions and workshops on FSUTMS, TransCAD, LOS standards, GIS-TM, functional classification, and other matters, FDOT has also assisted the MPO by providing funding for past transportation studies.

In addition, FDOT has provided the required PL nonfederal match for most of the MPO's UPWP activities since the formation of the MPO.

METHODOLOGY:

In the FY 2007/08 UPWP, the required nonfederal share for FHW A Sec. 112 funds will be met through the use of Florida toll revenue credits as a "soft-match." FDOT will provide this match for all UPWP activities utilizing PL funds. FDOT will also provide various support services to the MPO in support of the transportation planning process. Support services will involve guidance, direction, and technical assistance to the MPO staff as well as attendance at meetings.

END PRODUCT:

Guidance, direction, and technical assistance to the MPO staff as well as attendance at meetings.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:

FDOT

7

FUNDING SOURCES:

FDOT Total

$88,449 $88,449

UPWP TASK NO: 1.4- STATE SUPPORT/MATCH FOR FTA SECTION 5303 FUNDS

OBJECTIVE:

To provide guidance and support to the MPO for Public Transportation Planning activities.

PREVIOUS WORK:

For the past several years, FDOT has coordinated with and provided technical assistance to MPO staff. Technical assistance has been provided in various forms by both FDOT District Four and Central Office staff. Examples of this form of assistance includes distributing training materials and coordinating with MPO staff on Transit Quality Level of Service (TQLOS), transit infrastructure inventories, and TDP guidance and preparation. In addition, FDOT has also assisted the MPO by providing funding for past transportation studies including TDP Major and Minor updates.

In addition, FDOT has provided the required Section 5303 nonfederal match for most of the MPO' s UPWP Public Transportation activities since the formation of the MPO.

METHODOLOGY:

In FY 2007/08, FDOT will continue to coordinate with MPO staff on a number of transit planning tasks, with an emphasis on detailed planning and implementation planning for Greenways Plan, TDP and LRTP - Transit Element projects. FDOT will also provide various support services to the MPO in support of the transportation planning process. Support services will involve guidance, direction, and technical assistance to the MPO staff as well as attendance at meetings.

END PRODUCT:

Guidance, direction, and technical assistance to the MPO staff as well as attendance at meetings.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:

FDOT

FUNDING SOURCES:

FDOT (07/08 Match) FDOT (06/07 Carryover Match) Total

8

$6,844 $18,156 $25,000

UPWP TASK NO: 1.5 -TRAINING

OBJECTIVE:

To provide continued staff and MPO member training in transportation planning, travel demand modeling, financial and technical administration, and FDOT/FHWA requirements.

PREVIOUS WORK:

For the past several years, MPO staff have attended various training conferences and workshops. These sessions have provided training on management system requirements, level of service analyses, transportation disadvantaged planning, travel demand modeling, UPWP /TIP development, revenue forecasting, access management, TEA-21, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM), Transit Quality of Service, (TQOS), and GIS in transportation planning.

METHODOLOGY:

MPO staff and MPO members will continue to attend training sessions in transportation planning, travel demand forecasting, and FDOT/FHW A requirements. Many of these training classes are sponsored by FDOT or FHWA, and are low-cost opportunities for the MPO to obtain ongoing professional training. Other training opportunities involve American Planning Association (AP A) conferences, Transportation Research Board (TRB) conferences, American Transit Association (ATA) conferences, and workshops conducted by other organizations. As part of this task, MPO staff will continue to obtain necessary additional training involving GIS in transportation, travel demand modeling, TEA-21 requirements, and other relevant topics.

One new activity anticipated in 2007/08 is regional MPO participation in MPOAC Institute training offered by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida. This training introduces new board members to MPO responsibilities as codified in State and Federal law and serves as a refresher for existing board members. It is anticipated that this training will be held in conjunction with the Martin, St. Lucie, and Brevard MPOs, in furtherance of regional coordination.

Since the MPO will participate in ongoing training opportunities in ETDM & TQOS, this task addresses the Environmental Streamlining and TQOS PEAs .

. END PRODUCT:

MPO staff and member attendance at training sessions and conferences, to be completed throughout FY 2007/08. Attendance will be documented as part of the MPO's quarterly PL status reports.

9

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:

Indian River County MPO Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)

* Task may involve consultant services

FUNDING SOURCES:

FHWA(PL) Local Total

10

$ 9,000 ($2,000 Consultant Exp) $0 $ 9,000*

UPWP TASK NO: 1.6- PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

OBJECTIVE:

To ensure that the MPO's public involvement process meets all federal and state regulations and provides opportunities for a well-informed public to contribute input into the transportation planning and decision-making processes.

PREVIOUS WORK:

The MPO's Public Involvement Plan (PIP) was adopted in 1995 and updated in 2002. The PIP provides strategies to ensure the public is given the opportunity to review and comment on all aspects of the MPO's planning process. The PIP also provides for community education about the MPO process; provides strategies to reach out and target underserved communities; and provides for the distribution of information to the public.

Consistent with the Public Involvement Plan, MPO staff conducted and participated in numerous public involvement and outreach activities related to several MPO projects during FY 2006/07. Activities included holding public workshops and charrettes, maintaining the MPO website, conducting surveys, publishing a newsletter, setting up a presentation display at public events, adding a standing public participation item to committee agendas, and other activities. These and other related activities are described below in more detail.

MPOWebsite

Throughout FY 2006/07, MPO staff coordinated with County staff to maintain the MPO section of the County's Internet web site. In addition to posting electronic versions ofMPO, TAC, CAC, and BAC meeting agendas, minutes, and staff reports, staff upgraded the web site to add a new link to the Community Profiles report and LRTP/visioning project.

MPO Handbook

During 2006/07, staff distributed the MPO's orientation and reference handbook to new MPO members and others. The handbook contains important information regarding MPO committee membership, local staff contacts, meeting schedules, and other useful information.

MPO Newsletter

A third major activity that continued in 2006/07 was writing, illustrating, editing, publishing, and distributing the MPOverview, the MPO's quarterly newsletter. The newsletter is distributed to over 1% of the county's population, including private non-profit organizations, civic and community associations, government agencies, and interested citizens. Additional newsletters are sent to households listed on a database of random addresses in the county. The MPO purchased this database to better reach traditionally under served (low income, minority, and elderly) households. Publications developed by MPO staff during the year and distributed in

II

conjunction with the newsletter included a revised transit system route map and the county's first ever bicycle/pedestrian guide.

Evaluation of the MPO's Public Involvement Plan (PIP)

Another activity continued in FY 2006/07 was the evaluation of public involvement practices. To complete this activity, staff compiled summary sheets of public involvement activities undertaken in conjunction with all major MPO projects and activities. The results were compared to objectives for public involvement identified in the Public Involvement Plan.

Participation in Studies and Surveys

Throughout the year, staff participated in several studies, surveys, and research projects. Among these projects was a survey designed to gather feedback from board members on regional transportation goal and prioritization criteria development.

Other Activities

MPO staff regularly responded to inquiries from citizens, local governments, business and community groups, the media, and other parties about MPO plans, actions, and activities. Through attendance at various meetings and through written and verbal correspondence, staff has provided informational and educational materials to the public. For the past several years, the MPO has provided copies of the MPO's major plans, studies, programs, traffic counts, socioeconomic data projections, and other transportation materials to the public. This information is available at the Indian River County Community Development Department reception desk. Some of these items have been made available at local city halls, libraries, and other community institutions, as well as on the MPO website.

In addition to the activities outlined in the PIP, two projects undertaken in 2006/07 involved significant public outreach. These were the three-MPO Regional Public Involvement Plan project and the Central Indian River County Greenways project. With respect to the Regional Public Involvement Plan, the MPO authorized an expenditure of $1 0,000, a portion of which was used by the Martin/St. Lucie LRTP consultant, Renaissance Planning Group, to develop a regional public involvement plan. This plan detailed activities that all three MPOs could engage in collectively to promote regional coordination, and identified a regional plan amendment public involvement process. The public involvement plan is one component of a regional long range plan, which is described in more detail in Task 4.9.

For the Central Indian River County Greenways project, public involvement activities consisted of holding general public and board meetings, preparing presentation materials, distributing draft and final work products, distributing meeting notices and staff reports, responding to questions from interested persons, advertising meetings, and establishing and maintaining project-specific web pages on the MPO web site. Two public workshops and six advisory committee meetings were held in conjunction with the plan. Additional sources of information distribution included newspaper advertisements and local cable access announcements.

12

METHODOLOGY:

Public Involvement Outreach Activities

MPO staff will continue to utilize, monitor, and implement the MPO's Public Involvement Plan. The PIP assists MPO staff in maintaining contact with business and connnunity groups, citizens, government agencies, private transportation providers, as well as traditionally under-served groups (such as minority, low income, and transportation disadvantaged populations) in order to foster public education and participation in the MPO's planning and decision making processes. This will include providing assistance to and/or accommodating those with disabilities in order to allow them to participate in MPO activities. MPO staff will also continue to utilize, expand, and promote the information contained in the MPO's orientation and reference manual, the quarterly newsletter; and the MPO's section of the County's Internet web site. To further the identity of the MPO as a distinct entity from the County, the MPO will develop a unique web address that will provide a direct link to the MPO web page. The MPO will also seek opportunities to participate in regional public involvement activities. Some examples include joint promotional opportunities and regional radio announcements.

To accomplish the activities identified above, MPO staff may attend meetings of community groups, government agencies, interested parties, social service providers, or neighboring MPOs. These are recurring activities that MPO staff will undertake when possible. Assistance such as bilingual materials and access for the disabled will continue to be provided

In FY 2007/08, MPO staff will develop new outreach materials as referenced in the Public Involvement Plan. These may include brochures, newspaper advertisements, maps, and reportsc Some of this material will require the expertise of specialized consultants.

Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM)

In furtherance of the state PEA on Linking the Planning and NEP A Processes, MPO staff will continue to include references to the ETDM process in its outreach materials. Consistent with that process, MPO staff will seek the "early and continuous" involvement of the public in the Planning and Project Development process by identifying and maintaining a database of key community contacts, organizations, and institutions.

MPO Newsletter

Throughout 2007/08, the MPO will continue to edit, publish, and distribute The MPOverview, the MPO's quarterly newsletter. Specific activities will include researching topics of interest to the general public, updating mailing lists, and identifying additional distribution outlets. A special emphasis will be placed on documenting the distribution of newsletters to those traditionally underserved in the transportation planning process.

13

Public Involvement Evaluation

The MPO will continue to undertake the evaluation techniques established in the updated Public Involvement Plan. Consistent with the plan, individual plan strategies will be evaluated using quantitative and qualitative standards, and the plan will be modified accordingly based on the results of the evaluation. By engaging in Public Involvement evaluation, the MPO will be addressing FDOT's PEA on improving Public Involvement.

Visualization Techniques

In 2007/08, the MPO will incorporate visualization techniques into its plans and documents to enable a better understanding of those documents by all sectors of the public. Visualization techniques will be specified in the scope of upcoming consultant studies where appropriate and may include alternative scenario planning; three dimensional imaging; full motion video simulations; and other techniques.

Regional Long Range Plan Public Involvement

During FY 2007/08, MPO staff will begin implementing strategies from the Regional Public Involvement Plan. These activities may include developing a Regional logo and website; participating in the Regional Advisory Committee (RAC), the successor organization to the Regional Long Range Plan - Project Oversight Committee (POC); attending regional forums; conducting joint meetings; contributing to regional GIS and modeling efforts; and contributing contact information to the regional public involvement network (PIN).

END PRODUCTS:

Report summarizing findings of an evaluation of the effectiveness of the MPO's public involvement efforts, to be completed prior to January 2008.

MPO website, to be redesigned and continuously updated.

Indian River MPO Website Address linking to the MPO Web Page of the County's Website.

MPO promotion on the local access/government TV channel, continuous/as needed.

Regional public involvement coordination with adjacent MPOs (continuous).

MPO Newsletter to be published quarterly; Bicycle Suitability, Greenways System, and other maps; MPO Web Site; Brochures; Newspaper Advertisements; Project-Specific Reports; and Presentation Displays; and MPO television and radio promotions, such as on public access television.

MPO staff attendance at conferences, meetings, workshops, community "open house" events, regional public involvement events with adjacent MPOs and organizations, community association meetings, and other public events, to be undertaken throughout FY 2007/08.

14

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:

Indian River County MPO*


Indian River County Indian River County municipalities Indian River County Chamber of Commerce St. Lucie and Martin MPOs

FUNDING SOURCES:

FHWA (PL) $25,000 (6,000 consultant exp.) Local $ 0 Total $25,000

Various community and special interest groups

* - May utilize consultant services

15

2.0 DATA COLLECTION AND SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES

2.1 Land Use and Socioeconomic Data Analysis

2.2 Traffic Count & Transportation Data Collection and Analysis

2.3 Geographic Information System (GIS) Analysis

16

UPWP TASK NO: 2.1 - LAND USE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA ANALYSIS, PROJECTION, AND RECONCILIATION

OBJECTIVE:

To collect, analyze, project and reconcile land use and socioeconomic data for input into the MPO's continuing long-range transportation planning process.

PREVIOUS WORK:

Land use and socioeconomic data have been collected for transportation planning purposes since 1985. In 1985, data from the 1980 census were updated with building permit information and compiled by traffic analysis zone. That information was updated with 1990 census data. It was used as the basis for developing the socio-economic data inputs into Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) travel demand models.

During FY 2005/06, a significant amount of land use and socioeconomic work was undertaken. Besides the database maintenance activities continually done by the MPO, staff developed its year 2000 FSUTMS model validation and year 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) databases. This latter activity involved inputting vacant parcel model and ULAM (Land Use Model) data into the Travel Demand Model (FSUTMS) in order to predict future deficiencies and capacity needs.

In 2006/07, the MPO continued to undertake a number of significant socio-economic data tasks. One task was completion of a major update to the MPO's vacant parcel model. This update, completed with the assistance of consultant services, added functionality to the model's reporting capabilities and also automated the process of updating major development trends through GIS linkages.

Another significant socio-economic data task was development of year 2005 validation databases for input into the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model (GTCRPM). Subtasks performed in the course of this activity including adjusting TAZ boundaries to accommodate new development in the 20 year horizon; providing vacant parcel model information on year 2005 development conditions to consultants; providing vacant land inventories to those consultants; and reviewing draft and final databases.

One new task undertaken during the year was the estimation of future roadway demand from all previously approved subdivisions. This effort was undertaken by the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division in response to a review of the County's Concurrency Management system performed by a consultant. To perform this estimation, MPO staff provided the County Traffic Engineering Division with data inputs from the vac.ant parcel model, including a listing of approved subdivisions; building permits and certificates of occupancy by subdivision; and vacant lots within subdivisions. Traffic to be generated from future households was then assigned to the roadway network.

17

Throughout 2006/07, MPO staff continued to review year 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) data. The CTPP makes detailed census data available to the MPO at the TAZ level.

METHODOLOGY:

Data Collection and Analysis

MPO staff will continue to collect, analyze, project, and reconcile land use and socioeconomic data in order to identify and assess the impacts on the transportation system. This will involve MPO staff working with County staff to update its inventory of vacant land parcels, track building permits, and collect certificate of occupancy data by T AZ. MPO staff will also coordinate with municipalities to collect and track data as necessary. This data collection activity will be continuous in order to reflect the constant changes within the urban area and the effect of these changes on the roadway network. Data analysis will involve the use of the MPO's vacant parcel and ULAM models. The data analysis will consider both socio-economic characteristics and physical/environmental characteristics of the subgeographic area.

Vacant Parcel Inventory/Development Potential Assessment Project

In FY 2007/08, staff will undertake a number of maintenance activities relating to the vacant parcel model. These will include updating the new projects GIS layer; installing new releases of the software; and conducting training in the application.

LRTPData

Since transportation modeling is an ongoing process, MPO staff will continue to analyze data from a number of sources and use those data to update appropriate LRTP input files. This will include undertaldng maintenance activities for the County's vacant parcel model, and developing new reports from the model. This task may be performed with the assistance of consultant servrces.

In addition, the MPO anticipates beginning the first phases of the development of its next (2035) Long Range Transportation Plan during the latter half of 2008. These phases involve collecting socioeconomic data for the validation year, reviewing long range population estimates, calibrating the appropriate ULAM or other land use model, developing alternative growth sce11arios, and projecting socioeconomic data for those scenarios. These tasks support activities contained in Task 3.1, Long Range Planning. It is anticipated that this activity will be incorporated in a unified Regional Long Range Plan Scenario consultant contract to be undertaken with the Martin and St. Lucie MPOs. Since LRTP development is a multi-year activity, it is anticipated that this task will be undertaken in both 2007/08 and 2008/09 (see Indian River County Business Plan, Table Appendix G).

18

TCQOS Analysis

Staff will also continue to analyze socio-economic data in order to identify the County's transitsupportive areas. This information will be used in performing TCQOS. This activity addresses FDOT's PEA on TCQOS.

END PRODUCTS:

Reports, to be completed periodically at various stages of data collection.

Updated vacant land parcel and socioeconomic databases, to be continuously maintained.

Work products will be available in hard copy and on CD. These work products will be distributed to FDOT, FHW A, and local municipalities.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:



FUNDING SOURCES:


$33,000 ($20,000 consultant expend.) $ 0 $33,000

Indian River County Community Development Department MartinMPO St. Lucie MPO BrevardMPO Indian River County Municipalities Indian River County Property Appraiser's Office


19

UPWP TASK NO: 2.2 -TRAFFIC COUNT & TRANSPORTATION DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVE:

To collect and analyze traffic volume data on all thoroughfare roads within the MPO area and to obtain roadway characteristics data for such roads consistent with SAFETEA-LU requirements.

PREVIOUS WORK:

For the past several years, MPO staff has conducted traffic counts for all thoroughfare plan roads within the MPO area, and has prepared and distributed traffic count reports to the MPO advisory committees, local governments, FDOT, interested citizens, and local business organizations. The MPO has also acquired additional traffic counting equipment during the past several years to expand the coverage of traffic counts in the MPO area and to increase the accuracy of data collected.

METHODOLOGY:

Traffic Count Data

MPO staff will continue its traffic count program. Traffic count and other roadway data will be collected by county Traffic Engineering staff at least annually for each thoroughfare plan road within the MPO area. This data collection effort will be coordinated with FDOT's traffic count activities, and data collected will be compatible with FDOT Survey Processing Software. Data collected will be analyzed to determine average annual daily traffic (AADT), peak season traffic, and peak hour/peak direction traffic volumes.

The County data will continue to be compiled into a report and distributed to local governments and other agencies. Applicable computer databases will be updated, and appropriate data will be converted· into a useable GIS format. In addition to using information obtained from its count stations, staff will compile data provided by other local agencies, FDOT, and development applicants through traffic analysis reports.

Accurate traffic county base data are essential components of a number of MPO activities, including the CMP Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan model validation, corridor studies, design traffic formulation for PD&E studies, priority list formulation, Highway, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Level of Service determinations, and Comprehensive Plan analysis. These data are also used for transportation-related activities conducted by other county departments. Examples of other departmental activities include maintaining the county's concurrency management database and evaluating development project required traffic studies.

Although the data are also used by other County departments, the County's traffic count program would be far less extensive without MPO participation and would not include 24-hour counts on all major roads. Therefore, this activity is undertaken in partnership with Indian River County on

20

an annual basis, with the MPO providing approximately 35% of the traffic count program expenses and the County providing 65%.

Crash Data

Besides collecting traffic count data, county Traffic Engineering staff will also collect crash data. These data will be compiled and maintained in a crash database. These crash data will be used in congestion management planning activities and long-range planning activities, two tasks which may result in the identification of needed safety enhancing roadway improvements.

Other Roadway Condition Data

In addition to traffic count and crash data, the MPO and county Traffic Engineering Departments maintain a large database of roadway condition information, including sign locations, signal timing plans, turning movement counts, and posted speed limits. MPO and county staff will coordinate with FDOT to ensure that these data can be used by FDOT, where appropriate, to supplement its Highway Performance Monitoring System data. In so doing, the MPO and county will establish its own version of a Highway Performance Monitoring System database applicable to county and locally maintained roads.

Transportation System Operation and Management

Besides data collection, this task will involve transportation system operation and management activities. In coordination with its data collection activities, Traffic Engineering staff will assess the operational characteristics of roadways in the MPO area. This will involve traffic signal system assessment, consideration of incident management procedures, and review of maintenance of traffic processes.

Additionally, Traffic Engineering staff and MPO staff, in conjunction with FDOT, will review the functional classification of the roadway system in Indian River County and identify any necessary additions or changes.

Finally, the County and FDOT will conduct an annual workshop to coordinate data collection activities.

Transportation data collected in this task will be used in other UPWP tasks to supplement the data needs of those other UPWP tasks. These include Task 2.3 (GIS Analysis), Task 3.1 (Long Range Planning), Task 3.4 (Congestion Management Process) and Task 4.7 (Corridor Studies).

Since these efforts result in more reliable and effective base data which are then inputted into other Tasks, this task also addresses the Enhancing the Technical Capacity of Planning Processes PEA.

21

END PRODUCTS:

Report of traffic volumes by link, to be completed February 2008.

FDOT/Indian River County Traffic data workshop, to be conducted before June 2008.

Traffic count map, to be completed by February 2008.

Computerized databases, to be continuously maintained and updated.

Transportation Data Reports (traffic volume and classification surveys, roadway inventories, railhighway crossing inventories, and speed monitoring surveys), to be continuously maintained and updated.

Indian River County Highway Performance Monitoring System database, to be developed by June 2008.

Work products will be available in hard copy and electronically and will be distributed to FDOT, FHW A, local governments, interested citizens, and business organizations.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:


PARTICIPATING AGENCY:

FUNDING SOURCES:


$ 50,000 $102,434 $152,434

Indian River County Traffic Engineering Dept.

22

UPWP TASK NO. 2.3 - GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS (GIS) ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVE:

To maintain, update, and expand the MPO's GIS database.

To perform GIS analysis as part of other MPO planning activities.

PREVIOUS WORK:

In the past, the MPO has utilized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in to streamline and improve a number of its major work products. For example, a vacant parcel GIS model developed by the MPO in 2004 has greatly improved the process of inputting data into FSUTMS travel demand forecasting models. In addition, GIS was used to automate various Indian River County maps, including maps in the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, Long and Short Range Transportation Plans, Transit Development Plans, Bicycle/Pedestrian Plans, and transit users guide.

Throughout FY 2006/07, the MPO participated in an ongoing countywide effort to develop an enterprise GIS system in Indian River County. As part of this process, MPO staff met with county staff and consultants to evaluate data layers, develop metadata standards, and share files with other departments.

Also in FY 2006/07, the MPO used GIS to develop a bicycle and pedestrian guide and brochure. This guide was widely distributed as part of the MPO's bike/ped activities and is described in more detail in Task 4.3.

During FY 2006/07, the MPO migrated its GIS platform to ESRI's AcrGIS 9, created a geodatabase for all of its spatial data and related numerous data sets to a street centerline dataset. Average annual daily traffic counts, federal functional classifications, bicycle and pedestrian data and roadway level of service were incorporated into the MPO' s geodatabase.

METHODOLOGY:

GIS Assessment

MPO staff will continue to cooperate with county staff in conducting an assessment of its GIS needs and capabilities. The MPO will also integrate its plans for on-line deployment of GIS maps into the County's GIS internet strategy.

GIS Base Data

MPO staff will continue to maintain, expand, and update its GIS database for use in MPO projects and planning activities. Also, the MPO will continue to update the attribute data and metadata files associated with the GIS database as well as the underlying street and multimodal transportation network.

23

Street Centerline Data

The MPO will continue to update its GIS street centerline data and update the attribute data for the centerline dataset as necessary. Updates to the data will include new roads, traffic count data, improvements to the spatial accuracy of the centerline network, and production of graphics and maps of the roadway network.

Roadway Characteristics Database and GIS Interface

Another activity to be performed will be the establishment of a roadway characteristics GIS database similar to FDOT's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). When completed, the database will provide Indian River County with a central source of comprehensive roadway characteristics for all segments of road in the County's major road network. As part of this process, an intuitive GIS-based program interface will be developed enabling a user to obtain a variety of roadway conditions and performance data by simply selecting roadway segments on a map. Real-time linkages will be established to GIS databases developed for other MPO and other agency systems, such as the Congestion Management System, the Accident Recording System, the Concurrency Management system; and the FDOT District IV Roadway Conditions Index database. This activity is also described in Task 2.2.

Spatial Analysis

Staff will continue to use ArcGIS to perform spatial analysis associated with applicable MPO projects. Such projects include updating the MPO's Transit Development Plan (Task 3.2), preparing the MPO's annual priority projects report and TIP (Task 3.3), performing a Congestion Management Process (CMP) analysis (Task 3.4), and undertaking other projects as appropriate.

Multimodal Data

The MPO will continuously update its multimodal data layers. These layers include pedestrian facilities and bicycle lanes on roadways.

END PRODUCTS:

GIS database and maps, to be continuously maintained and updated.

GIS street centerline network and database, to be continuously maintained and updated.

GIS multimodal network and database, to be continuously maintained and updated.

Spatial analysis for MPO planning projects and activities, to be performed and documented throughout FY 2007/08.

Work products will be available in selected digital formats and will be distributed to FDOT, FHW A, and local agencies.

24


Indian River County MPO FHWA (PL) $20,000 ($9,000 lic/maint fees) Total $20,000* (FY 2007/08)


Indian River County Community Development Department Indian River County Public Works Department Indian River County Property Appraiser's Office FDOT

*-Includes $7,500 in software license fees and $1,500 in software maintenance fees

25

3.0 SYSTEMS PLANNING

3.1 Long Range Planning

3.2 Transit Planning

3.3 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development

3.4 Congestion Management System

26

UPWP TASK NO: 3.1 - LONG RANGE PLANNING

OBJECTIVE:

To maintain, implement, and update the MPO's adopted 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and to maintain the MPO's travel demand forecasting model.

To ensure that the 2030 LRTP remains in compliance with all appropriate federal and state guidance, including the provisions of SAFETEA-LU.

PREVIOUS WORK:

The first MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (2020 LRTP) was adopted in 1995. The MPO adopted major updates to its LRTP in 2000 (the 2025 LRTP) and in 2005 (the 2030 LRTP). Updating the Long Range Transportation Plan is typically a multi-year task involving a number of activities. These activities include developing a base-year travel demand forecasting model; projecting future population estimates; developing socio-economic data; identifying future transportation needs; assessing financial resources; and adopting the final plan.

During 2006/07, the Indian River County MPO continued to engage in a number of activities related to its most recent (2030) LRTP. For example, the MPO, in late 2006, completed the process of uploading LRTP projects into the central ETDM website and initiating a planning screen review of those projects. Also during 2006/07, staff completed an update to its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. The purpose of that update was to ensure that the LRTP was fully compliant with SAFETEA-LU, the transportation authorization bill adopted in 2005. A and FDOT guidance.

MPO staff also initiated a number of regional long range planning activities in FY 2006/07. One such activity was the continued development of the 203 0 Regional Long Range Transportation Plan. These activities are described in more detail in Task 4.9. Activities completed included developing a regional public involvement plan and finalizing prioritization criteria for regional projects.

Finally, several travel demand forecasting model-related activities were completed during the fiscal year. These activities included assisting FDOT in migrating the year 2000 validation model to the CUBE Voyager software platform; participating in FSTUMS user groups; participating in the development of the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model; and coordinating modeling efforts with Brevard County.

METHODOLOGY:

MPO staff will coordinate with local and regional stakeholders to continue long-range transportation plan activities. This will involve several specific work activities. These are listed below.

27

ULAM Model Analysis

One ongoing long-range plan activity will be the refinement of the MPO's Urban Land Use Allocation Model (ULAM). In coordination with county and city staff, MPO staff will update various ULAM input variables as needed, including market index variables, activity center parameters, and vacant land availability by T AZ.

ITS Regional Architecture

In FY 2007/2008, MPO staff will continue to coordinate with FDOT in the development and implementation of an Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) regional architecture. This activity will involve coordinating with FDOT on future updates of the regional architecture work plan.

Long Range Transportation Plan Coordination

The MPO will continue to coordinate with the Brevard, Mmiin and St. Lucie MPOs to refine the system for prioritizing regionally significant projects. Specific activities will include participating in Treasure Coast Transportation Council and Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) meetings; developing long range regional plans; and prioritizing projects for funding. These activities are described in more detail under Task 4.9, Regional Planning.

Efficient Transportation Decision Making

Throughout FY 2007/08, the MPO will actively participate in FDOT's Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process, and will enter MPO Long Range Plan and TIP projects into the ETDM database as appropriate. The MPO will participate in planning and programming level screening analyses.

SAFETEA-LU Implementation

During FY 2007/08, the MPO will coordinate with FDOT with respect to implementation tasks pertaining to SAFETEA-LU. This activity may involve amendments to the LRTP as additional federal guidance warrants.

Travel Demand Model Maintenance and Updates

Using updated inputs from Task 2.1, the MPO will engage in regular model updates and alternatives analyses. In addition, the MPO will continue to coordinate with FDOT and the Brevard Cotmty MPO in the development of the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model (GTCRPM).

Various long-range planning work activities will address FDOT's PEAs. Since the MPO's participation in ETDM will improve environmental coordination and review with respect to proposed transportation projects, this task will directly address the Linldng the Planning and NEP A Processes PEA. These efforts will also contribute to a more reliable and effective planning process, thereby addressing the Consideration of Management and Operations within Planning Processes PEA. Because of the regional nature of travel demand modeling, this activity addresses FDOT's PEA on Regional Planning.

28

2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update

During FY 2007/08, the MPO will begin working on a 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan update. The update, due in December of 2010, will have a regional component consisting of regional growth planning, regional data development, and regional needs identification across a multi-county area as well as an Indian River County component consisting oflocal (Indian River County) needs and cost affordable projects. In 2007/08, the MPO will develop a scope of services for this project. Since LRTP development is a multi-year activity, it is anticipated that this task will be undertaken in 2007/08, 2008/09, and 2009/10 (see Indian River County Business Plan, Table Appendix G).

END PRODUCTS:

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:



Indian River County St. Lucie MPO MartinMPO BrevardMPO Indian River County Municipalities FDOT


FUNDING SOURCES:

FHWA (PL) $11,000 ($5,000 Consultant Exp.) Total $11,000

29

UPWP TASK NO: 3.2- TRANSIT PLANNING

OBJECTIVE:

To complete a minor update of the MPO's Transit Development Plan (TDP).

To provide technical assistance and guidance to the County in support of Public Transportation planning and transit grant administration activities.

PREVIOUS WORK:

In the past, the MPO has utilized Section 5303 funds to prepare major and minor updates of its Transit Development Plan (TDP). Major Updates were prepared in FY 2001102 and FY 2004/05 while minor updates were prepared in interim years. In FY 2006/07, the MPO, lacking guidance on the newly adopted TDP update rule, again prepared a TDP minor update. This activity involved collecting data, updating numerous transit system service and performance measures, measuring compliance with the TDP's goals and objectives, coordinating with other transit service providers in the region, and revising the five year transit financing plan.

In FY 2006/07, the MPO also engaged in a number of other transit planning activities. Among these were planning for new transit infrastructure in Gifford and on Aviation Boulevard; assisting the Senior Resource Association (formerly Council on Aging) with new route development through Fellsmere, Sebastian, and Barefoot Bay; and providing administrative support for federal and state transit grant funding.

In addition, MPO staff began the design of the Central Indian River County Greenway in 2006/07. Included as an optional task in the Green ways scope of services, the project began in the fourth quarter of FY 2006/07 and focused on the Vero Beach Airport Trails Network, the first phase of the overall project.

METHODOLOGY:

TDP Minor Update

In 2007/08, the MPO will complete a TDP minor update in accordance with guidance from FDOT. This activity will involve collecting data, updating numerous transit system service and performance measures, obtaining public input, and determining compliance with the TDP major update's goals and objectives. This task will also involve updating the transit service quality assessment performed as part of the TDP major update, thus directly addressing FDOT's Planning Emphasis Areas on Transit Quality Level of Service. This activity may utilize consultant services.

Boarding and Alighting Analysis

On a quarterly basis, the MPO will collect boarding and alighting data for all routes on the Indian River Transit system. This information will be used to analyze the productivity of various

30

segments on the IRT system, as well as prioritize locations for future transit infrastructure. This activity will be performed with consultant services.

Transit Infrastructure Database Maintenance/Transit Infrastructure Planning

On an ongoing basis, the MPO will survey transit routes, review hoardings and alightings at strategic locations, identify locations suitable for bus shelters or other transit infrastructure, and maintain and update the database of transit infrastructure developed by FDOT. Transit infrastructure to be monitored includes bus stop signage, benches, shelters, and transit passenger amenities. The MPO will also coordinate with FDOT, Indian River County, and Municipalities to identify new priority locations for future transit infrastructure. In addition, the MPO will assist Indian River County and the Indian River County- Senior Resource Association (SRA) in planning for the implementation of transit infrastructure. This may include reviewing available right-of-way and pedestrian connectivity to proposed infrastructure locations; developing design guidelines for transit infrastructure; reviewing local ordinances on signage, benches, and shelters; and assisting implementing agencies in meeting permit requirements.

New Route Development

One of the major enhancements to the transit system contained in the last TDP major update was the implementation of new routes and extended hours on existing routes. MPO staff will assist the transit provider in monitoring recently implemented new routes to Fellsmere and Barefoot Bay. In addition, MPO staff will work with SRA staff to identify and implement new routes and new service in accordance with the Transit Development Plan. Specific activities may include advertising the new routes and system changes, conducting public meetings, and assisting with operational planning for the new routes.

Intermodal Planning

Throughout the year, the MPO will assess the relationship of transit to other modes of transportation. Specifically, the MPO will examine the linkages between the transit and bike/ped networks and identify and improve locations where these modes intersect; will identify ways to coordinate fixed route and specialized transit service; and will examine "park and ride" opportunities on the existing transit routes.

Greenways Planning and Design

In 2007/08, the MPO will complete the design of the Central Indian River County Greenways Plan Airport Trails. In addition, the MPO may undertake additional Greenways studies and/or design projects as identified in Task 4.6. Greenways planning and design will utilize consultant servtces.

Other Transit Planning Activity

Other transit planning activities will be undertaken by MPO staff during FY 2007/08. One such activity will be to provide technical assistance to the County in order to maintain the County's eligibility for the continued receipt of Federal and State Mass Transit grant assistance. Other activities will include conducting quarterly meetings between the County and the Transit provider; conducting Transit Advisory Group meetings; monitoring the performance of the transit system on an ongoing basis; maintaining certifications for grant eligibility; and ensuring

31

compliance with FT A and FDOT directives, as appropriate. These monitoring activities address FTA's PEAs on Safety and Security in Transportation and Transportation Systems Management and Operations. In addition, the county will undertake other transit planning activities, such as coordinating transit planning activities with the St. Lucie, Martin, and Brevard County MPOs. In so doing, the MPO will address FDOT's PEA on Regional Planning.

END PRODUCTS:

TDP minor update or required report, to be completed June 2008.

Transit coordination meetings, to be held quarterly.

Airport Trails Greenways Design, to be completed January 2008.

Boarding and Alighting Analysis, to be performed quarterly.

TQLOS analysis, to be completed April 2008.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:


PARTICIPATING AGE;NCIES:

Indian River County Indian River County Municipalities

FUNDING SOURCES:

Local (FY 07/08 Match) Local (FY 06/07 Match) FTA (New FY 07/08 5303) FT A (FY 06/07 Carryover) Total

Indian River County- Senior Resource Association FDOT

* -May utilize consultant services

32

$ 6,844 $ 18,156 $ 54,752 $145,248 $225,000

($150,000 Consultant)

UPWP TASK NO: 3.3 - TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) DEVELOPMENT

OBJECTIVE:

To prepare the MPO's 2007 Priority Projects Report.

To review FDOT's FY 2008/09-2012/13 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program to assess its incorporation of the MPO's 2007 transportation priorities.

To prepare the MPO's FY 2008/09-2012/13 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which is to be consistent with FDOT's five-year work program and the MPO's transportation priorities.

To publish FDOT's annual obligations report for Indian River County.

To maintain and amend, as necessary, the MPO's adopted TIP.

PREVIOUS WORK:

The MPO has prepared a TIP and a priority projects report each fiscal year since FY 1992/93. The MPO has also annually reviewed FDOT's draft tentative five- year work program and has coordinated with FDOT to amend the TIP as needed.

In 2006/07, the MPO made changes to its TIP to comply with Federal and State SAFETEA-LU Guidance.

METHODOLOGY:

The MPO will prepare and adopt an FY 2008/09-2012/13 TIP that identifies all federal, state, and local funded transportation improvements within the MPO area. Preparation of the FY 2008/09-2012/13 TIP will involve three primary activities. The first activity will be to prepare a 2007 Priority Projects Report. That report will contain prioritized highway projects, enhancement projects (UPWP Task 4.3 and 4.6), CMP projects (UPWP Task 3 .4), transit projects, and aviation projects. The second activity will be to review FDOT's FY 2008/09-2012/13 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program to ensure that the MPO's adopted transportation priorities were incorporated into the program. The third activity will be to utilize FDOT's draft tentative work program and other inputs to prepare the TIP. Preparing the TIP will also involve coordinating with local governments and soliciting their highway, enhancement, and other priorities for consideration in future TIP development.

2007 Priority Projects Report

Preparation of the TIP (and FDOT's five year work program) is based on the MPO's annual priority projects report. That report, in turn, is based on several UPWP work products. These include the MPO's LRTP (Task 3.1), CMS program (Task 3.4), Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Program (Task 4.3), Transit Development Plan (Task 3 .2), and others.

One component of the priority projects report is an enhancement project priority list. With respect to the Enhancements priority list, MPO staff will develop a methodology, establish

33

criteria, and collect sufficient data to determine each candidate enhancement project's ability to meet the criteria. Additional sources used to prepare the priority projects report include local govermnent comprehensive plan transportation elements, the previous year's priority projects report, input from municipal and FDOT staff, and other components.

The MPO's 2007 priority projects report will be developed with input from the public and the MPO's advisory committees. After review and approval by the MPO, the priority projects report will be submitted to FDOT for use in preparing FDOT's FY 2008/09-2012/13 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program. Through this activity, and by including a summary of prioritization in the TIP document, the MPO will address the FDOT PEA on TIP Project Prioritization.

Tentative Work Program

In November, FDOT will submit the draft tentative work program to the MPO for review and approval. At that time, MPO staff will prepare and provide to the MPO and its advisory committees an analysis of the extent to which the work program incorporates the MPO's 2007 transportation priorities. After review and approval by the MPO in December, staff will send official notification to FDOT of the MPO's action regarding the draft tentative five-year work program.

2008/09-2012/13 TIP

In early 2008, FDOT will provide the MPO with an electronic version of its tentative five-year work program and related information for use in preparing the TIP. As required by FDOT, MPO staff will prepare the TIP's federal and state funded project listings based on this information.

Although not required by state or federal regulations, the MPO will continue to include locally funded project listings within the TIP. This list will be prepared using the MPO's current LRTP, local govermnent comprehensive plans and capital improvement programs, and other inputs.

Other tasks involved in TIP preparation include obtaining required certifications and assurances; developing GIS maps of TIP projects; formatting and laying out the document; and presenting the TIP for adoption by the MPO and its advisory committees. Upon adoption, the TIP will be distributed as required by the FDOT MPO Program Management Handbook and in a manner consistent with the MPO's Public Involvement Plan. This will include distribution through the MPO website, at community centers, at government offices, and at libraries.

Post-project activities include uploading appropriate TIP projects through the ETDM user interface tool for project level screening by the Environmental Technical Assessment (ETAT) team. In so doing, this task will address FDOT' s Linking the Planning and NEP A Processes PEA.

TIP Amendments

MPO staff will continue to coordinate with FDOT to amend the current adopted TIP as needed. Staff will also incorporate any implementation tasks specified in the provisions of SAFETEALU, as appropriate

34

Annual Obligations Report

MPO staff will coordinate with FDOT to develop a listing of projects for which federal funds were obligated in the previous year. This list will then be published, distributed ·at the MPO's office, posted on the MPO's website, and made available through other means.

Automated TIP Project

During the course of the Fiscal Year, the MPO will explore a number of automation options for making the TIP more user friendly and accessible. Options will include consideration of a number of widely available products, such as TEL US, or customized solutions, as deployed by other MPOs. After evaluating available products, the MPO will determine the costs and implementation complexity of the options and begin implementation, if feasible.

END PRODUCTS:

2007 Priority Projects Report, to be completed September 2007.

Analysis of FDOT's FY 2008/09-2012/13 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program, to be completed December 2007.

Annual Obligations Report, to be published by December 2007.

Solicitation, screening, and transmittal of calendar year 2007 Enhancement Cycle applications to FDOT per deadline established by FDOT.

FY 2008/09-2012/13 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a draft of which will be completed May 2007, and a final adopted document which will be completed by July 15, 2008. The TIP will be distributed to FDOT; FHWA; MPO, TAC, CAC and BAC members; and to other interested parties.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:


PARTICIPATING AGENCIES:.

Indian River County Indian River County municipalities

FUNDING SOURCES:


$10,000 $ 0 $10,000

Indian River County Senior Resource Association (transit provider) Treasure Coast Regional Plarming Council FDOT

35

UPWP TASK 3.4 - CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS

OBJECTIVE:.

To implement, update, and periodically monitor the MPO's congestion management process (CMP) by prioritizing and analyzing potential CMP corridors, and identifying needed improvements.

PREVIOUS WORK:

In FY 1996/97, the MPO hired a consultant to assist in developing the MPO's Congestion Management System (CMS). The CMS plan was completed and fully functional in FY 1997/98. The basic methodology of that plan involved two principal tasks. The first task was to assess the performance of the County's arterial and collector roadway system during the previous year. The second task was to perform a CMS analysis on selected priority corridors to identify potential physical improvements. Based on the results of the CMS corridor analysis, MPO staff developed a CMS priority projects list, which was included in the MPO's Priority Projects Report for 1998. Between 1998 and 2006, CMS analyses were performed each year on the county road network based on new data and current traffic conditions. Due to the nature of many CMS projects, which involve a multi-year investment of funds, priorities were not developed for years in which no funding was available. Finally, a new CMS plan was completed during 2005/06 and contained recommended strategies for input into the 2005 and 2006 Priority Projects reports.

METHODOLOGY:

Annual CMP Analysis

SAFETEA-LU, the federal highway authorization bill enacted in 2005, contained revisions to the existing Congestion Management System program requirements. In addition to changing the name of the process, SAFETEA-LU also revised a number of program guidelines. In 2007/08, MPO staff will undertake a CMP analysis of the County's transportation system based on the revised guidance contained in SAFETEA-LU. It is anticipated that this will involve four principal tasks. The first task will be to assess the performance of the County's arterial and collector roadway system during the previous year. The second task will involve performing a CMP analysis on selected priority corridors to identify potential physical multimodal improvements. The third task will involve preparing a CMP priority projects list based on the results of the CMP corridor analysis. The fourth task will involve preparing an annual CMP update report summarizing the results and products of the first three tasks. Upon identification of CMP priorities, MPO staff will meet with District. Traffic Operations staff to coordinate project development.

Since Congestion Management Process activities contribute to efficient transportation planning, this work addresses FDOT's PEA on Transportation Systems Management and Operations.

Data collected as part of Task 2.2, as well as other applicable data, will be used in preparing CMP analyses of selected corridors. The results of these CMP analyses will be used as inputs in developing the MPO's annual priority projects report and in preparing future TIPs and long range plans. Recommended CMP improvements may include intersection improvements, ITS

36

improvements, traffic operations improvements, and other small-scale, low cost transportation improvement strategies. Since some of these improvements will address roadways with high crash risks, this task addresses the Safety and Security in Transportation PEA:

END PRODUCTS:

CMP update activities, done continuously.

CMP Priority List, to be completed September 2007.


Indian River County MPO FHWA (PL) $ 15,000 ($10,000 consultant) Local $ 0 Total $ 15,000


Indian River County Traffic Engineering Department Indian River County municipalities FDOT

* this task may be performed by consultant services

37

4.0 PROJECT PLANNING

4.1 Transportation Disadvantaged Program

4.2 Comprehensive Plan Consistency

4.3 Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Program

4.4 FDOT Project Coordination

4.5 Intergovernmental Coordination

4.6 Greenways and Blueways Planning

4.7 Corridor Studies

4.8 Aviation Boulevard Extension Corridor Study

4.9 Regional Planning

38

UPWP TASK NO: 4.1- TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PROGRAM

OBJECTIVE:

To provide coordination and planning services for the Indian River County Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program, in accordance with Ch. 427 F.S., Rule 41-2 F.A.C.

PREVIOUS WORK:

When the Transportation Disadvantaged program was initially created at the state level, the Indian River County MPO had not yet been established. Consequently, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners became the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for the TD program in Indian River County. In that capacity, the county created a Local Coordinating Board, selected a Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC), prepared a Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP), developed operating policies, prepared grant applications, provided administrative services to the LCB, and provided technical assistance to the CTC. In FY 1999/00, MPO staff coordinated with County staff to transfer DOPA designation to the Indian River County MPO.

Since FY 1999/00, MPO staff has served as staff to the DOPA and TDLCB. This has involved undertaking necessary administrative functions as well as coordinating with the CTC. In FY 2003/04, MPO staff managed the process of selecting a CTC, an activity required to be undertaken every five years. In FY 2006/07, MPO staff managed the process of performing an annual CTC evaluation and also assisted in the development of the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) annual update.

METHODOLOGY:

In FY 2007/08, MPO staff will continue to assist the CTC in its role of providing safe, coordinated TD services to the elderly, disabled, and the economically disadvantaged citizens in all parts of Indian River County. MPO staff will also provide administrative services to the LCB. This will involve preparation of minutes, agendas, grant applications, progress reports, and other products. MPO staff will also assess any legislatively mandated changes to the state TD program and undertake any TD-related activities necessary to comply with any state legislation that may result from the 2007 legislative session. As in the past, MPO staff will continue to perform TD required tasks for Indian River County. These tasks include evaluating the performance of the CTC; developing a Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan; providing budget and expenditure estimates; and assisting in the annual TD Planning Grant application cycle.

Because this task involves planning to provide services to a vulnerable sector of the population, as well as extensive public participation activities to all areas of Indian River County, the task addresses the FDOT Planning Emphasis Areas (PEA) of Coordinating Human Services Transportation PEA.

END PRODUCTS:

Grant applications, prepared periodically.

39

Progress reports, prepared quarterly.

Agendas, completed quarterly.

Meeting minutes, completed continuously.

Annual CTC Evaluation, to be completed by December, 2007.

TDSP Service Plan, to be completed by May, 2008.

Work products will be distributed to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.


Indian River County MPO State TD Trust Fund $ 18,000 Local $ 0

PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Total $ 18,000

Indian River County Community Development Dept. Indian River County TDLCB Indian River County Senior Resource Association (transit provider) FDOT

40

UPWP TASK NO: 4.2- COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY

OBJECTIVE:

To review local comprehensive plan amendments for consistency with state and MPO plans.

To undertake periodic, small-scale planning reviews as part of the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Intergovernmental Coordination imd Review process.

PREVIOUS WORK:

In previous years, MPO staff reviewed local comprehensive plan amendments, assisted in the preparation of evaluation and appraisal reports (EAR), and helped prepare amendments for the transportation-related elements of comprehensive plans.

In FY 2005/06, MPO staff helped prepare a major amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. That amendment replaced all of the references to the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan with references to the newly adopted 2025 plan. In FY 2006/07, MPO staff prepared an amendment to incorporate the findings of a concurrency review analysis conducted by consultants into the Comprehensive Plan. With respect to plan amendments, staff collected data, updated maps, tables, and text, and reviewed all proposed changes for consistency with other elements of the plan and with state law. In addition, staff prepared agenda reports and presentation materials and responded to questions from the public and reviewing agencies.

During 2006/07, staff also participated in the development of the latest Indian River County Comprehensive Plan - Evaluation Appraisal Report (EAR) scheduled for completion in 2008. Specific activities undertaken included comparing current transportation indicators and conditions to baseline (1996) conditions; evaluating compliance with plan objectives; and conducting public meetings.

METHODOLOGY:

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review

MPO staff will review all proposed amendments to the comprehensive plans of Indian River County and each of the municipalities within the County for consistency with state, regional, and MPO plans. Where inconsistencies are identified, those inconsistencies will be compiled into a staff report, which will be submitted to the appropriate local government or review agency. MPO staff will then assist local government staff with revising their comprehensive plans to eliminate the inconsistencies.

Transportation Element Update

In 2007/08, MPO staff will assist county staff in amending the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. Activities involved may include providing data, making presentations, responding to comments from reviewing agencies, and providing map updates.

41

Evaluation Appraisal Report

MPO staff will continue to participate with County staff in completing the Evaluation Appraisal Report of the County's Comprehensive Plan, which will be submitted to DCA in 2008. This report, which is performed every ten years, is intended to evaluate the Transportation Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan for compliance with state law, measure compliance with comprehensive plan objectives, and identify changes to plan policies and objectives.

Other Comprehensive Plan Activities

MPO staff wiii undertake periodic, smaii-scale reviews of various transportation-related matters. These reviews, which are coordinated by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) through DCA's Intergovernmental Coordination and Review (!CAR) process, involve MPO staff review of local government transportation grant applications, capital purchases, and other programs and projects which may impact the Indian River County MPO area. Through the !CAR process, MPO staff will ensure that such programs and projects are consistent with MPO plans and policies. Written comments wiii be provided to the TCRPC as needed.

In addition, MPO staff wiii review transportation studies prepared in response to Question 21, Transportation Impacts, for Development of Regional Impact (DRI) projects affecting Indian River County. MPO staff wiii ensure that any proposed DRis are consistent with MPO plans and policies, and staff will provide written comments to the D RI Coordinator at TCRPC as needed.

END PRODUCTS:

Comprehensive Plan - Transportation Element amendment reviews, to be performed continuously through June 2008.

Comprehensive Plan- Land Use Element update technical support, to be completed as needed throughout 2007/08.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review, Staff reports, to be prepared periodicaiiy. Reports will be distributed to FDOT, FHW A, TCRPC, and MPO, TAC, CAC and BAC members.

ICAR written comments, to be prepared as necessary and distributed to local agencies, TCRPC, andFDOT.

DR! reviews, to be performed as necessary and distributed to local agencies, TCRPC, and FDOT.

42

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:



Indian River County municipalities Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council FDOT

FUNDING SOURCES:

43


$ 15,000 $ 0 $ 15,000

UPWP TASK NO: 4.3- BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN PLANNING PROGRAM

OBJECTIVE:

To continuously review, update, and implement the MPO's Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan.

PREVIOUS WORK:

The first Indian River County MPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan was completed in FY 1998/99. A major update of that plan was completed in 2004/05. Since its adoption, MPO staff has utilized the plan to coordinate with County staff to identify bicycle and pedestrian projects in the unincorporated County, which could be candidate projects for local option sales tax funding. Since FY 1999/2000, staff has also utilized the plan to assist in identifying potential transportation enhancement projects.

In FY 2006/07, the MPO developed a bicycle/pedestrian plan guide and brochure. The guide and brochure were distributed to a number of groups in the county, including bicycle shops and clubs, schools, and the general public.

METHODOLOGY:

Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Guide and Brochure

In FY 2007/08, the MPO will update its bicycle/pedestrian guide and brochure. Specific tasks include updating a map of appropriate bicycle and pedestrian facilities along with the major street network for reference; locating and including major bicycle and pedestrian trip generators (such as parks, schools, and shopping centers) on the map; locating newly completed Greenways on the map; formatting, laying out, and publishing the brochure; and distributing the brochure to schools, bicycle shops, and interested parties.

Other Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Activities

MPO staff will continue to periodically review the adopted bicycle and pedestrian plan and perform updates to the plan's system data and bicycle and pedestrian improvement prioritization tables.

MPO staff will also continue to coordinate bicycle and pedestrian improvements with FDOT, local governments, the Indian River County School District, and with the general public. This includes the prioritization and programming of projects for FDOT Sidewalk Box Funds. In so doing, the MPO will address FDOT District IV's PEA on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Through Planning.

END PRODUCTS:

Bicycle and Pedestrian Guide and Brochure, to be updated December 2007.

Staff reports concerning bicycle/pedestrian matters, as needed.

44

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:



Indian River Courity Indian River County municipalities FDOT

FUNDING SOURCES:


45

$5,000 $ 0 $5,000

UPWP TASK NO: 4.4- FDOT PROJECT COORDINATION

OBJECTIVE:

To coordinate with FDOT on its projects undertaken within Indian River County.

PREVIOUS WORK:

MPO staff regularly coordinates with FDOT on projects undertaken by FDOT within Indian River County. These involve both planning and roadway improvement projects. In recent years, MPO staff coordinated with FDOT on the S.R. 60 widening and resurfacing projects, the C.R. 510 PD&E study, the U.S. 1 widening and resurfacing projects, the 82nd Avenue PD&E study, the I-95 PD&E study, and on many other projects. Some of the activities performed included attending meetings, reviewing plans, providing information, making recommendations, and undertaking other activities. In addition, MPO staff attended meetings and reviewed drafts of several other FDOT work products, including functional classification studies and the Strategic Intermodal System Draft Report.

METHODOLOGY:

Road Improvement Project Coordination

In FY 2007/08, MPO staff will coordinate with FDOT on the planning, design, and construction of FDOT projects in Indian River County. In so doing, MPO staff will review plans, reports, and designs and will also assist FDOT in circulating its work products to the general public and interested parties. In addition, MPO staff will make available to FDOT its databases, community profile information, and GIS shape files. Finally, MPO staff will continue to participate in FDOT's formal project review processes, including its Electronic Review Comment (ERC) and ETDM systems.

Some examples of projects that may require MPO staff coordination in FY 2007/08 include the resurfacing ofUSl, from 510 to 26th Street; the widening of SR 60 from I-95 to Osceola County; the paving of82nd Avenue from S.R. 60 to C.R. 510; the resurfacing of US 1 from 6'h Street to 20'h Avenue; the widening of 16'h/17th Street from Dixie Highway to 11th Avenue; the widening ofi-95 in Indian River County; the PACE study of C.R.609 (82nd Avenue) from Oslo Road to Martin County; the Oslo Road Interchange IJR Study; and the widening of US 1 from 4'h Street to St. Lucie County.

Other FDOT Coordination Activities

In FY 2007/08, MPO staff will participate in a variety of other coordination activities with FDOT. MPO staff will attend meetings and teleconferences, review work products, collect and analyze data, and assist in the community outreach process as requested. Some examples of projects that may involve this kind of assistance are functional classification studies; regional intermodal studies; Florida Transportation Plan updates; and access management studies.

46

END PRODUCT:

Written comments to FDOT, MPO, and MPO advisory committees.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:


PARTICIPATING AGENCY: FDOT

FUNDING SOURCES:

47


$ 5,000 $ 0 $ 5,000

UPWP TASK NO: 4.5- INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION

OBJECTIVE:

To coordinate with Indian River County, Indian River County municipalities, other MPOs, and other public agencies on projects and activities undertaken within Indian River County that are not identified as specific tasks.

PREVIOUS WORK:

MPO staff regularly coordinates with local govermnents, other MPOs, and other public agencies on projects and activities undertaken within or affecting Indian River County. Some examples of local coordination. in FY 2006/07 included meeting with the City of Sebastian on Fleming Street and Laconia Street roadway extensions; assisting the City of Fellsmere on CR 507 corridor and sidewalk issues; and participating in Community Traffic Safety Team meetings with local law enforcement agencies.

In FY 2006/07, the MPO also coordinated with adjacent MPOs and regional govermnents. Examples of these activities included attending travel demand forecast model meetings; attending joint commission meetings with St. Lucie and Brevard Counties; and providing administrative support for the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC). A more detailed description of TCTC activities appears in Task 4.9.

In addition to the activities described, the MPO engaged in a number of onging coordination activities, including sending full MPO agenda packages to other MPOs; sending MPOverview newsletters to other MPOs, local govermnents, and regional planning councils; and providing comments on development of regional impact traffic studies to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC).

METHODOLOGY:

In FY 2007/08, MPO staff will continue to coordinate with various governmental and public agencies on transportation projects and activities affecting Indian River County. In so doing, MPO staff will attend meetings; review plans; provide information; and undertake other coordination activities as appropriate. Additional coordination with enviromnental review agencies may result from the MPO's participation in ETDM. This task will include increased emphasis on coordination with the St. Lucie, Martin, and Brevard MPOs, including attendance at advisory committee meetings and workshops; review of plans and programs; and participating in the development of local plans and programs. Finally, the MPO will monitor DRis and other developments in adjacent jurisdictions for possible impacts on MPO plans. Since this task involves regional plarrning and coordination on projects that extend outside of the urbanized area, the task addresses FDOT's PEA for Regional Planning.

In addition, MPO staff will participate in the activities of Sustainable Treasure Coast, Inc. and the Institute for a Sustainable Treasure Coast (CUES), successor organizations to the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast.

48

END PRODUCT:

Attendance at various meetings, done continuously.

Provision of data, information, and comments, done continuously.



PARTICIPATING AGENCIES: Indian River County Indian River County municipalities OtherMPOs Other public agencies

49

FHWA (PL) Local Total

$3,000 $ 0 $3,000

UPWP TASK NO: 4.6- GREENW A YS PLANNING

OBJECTIVE:

To develop an Indian River County Greenways Plan.

PREVIOUS WORK:

For the last several years, the State of Florida has been working on establishing a statewide system of greenways, blueways (waterways), and trails for transportation, recreation and conservation purposes. Two such facilities, the state-designated Jungle Trail Greenway and the Indian River Lagoon Blueway, are located wholly or partially in Indian River County and have been formally recognized and included into the state system of greenways and trails.

Apart from these two corridors, Indian River County has many other greenways, blueways, and trails candidates that have not been formally recognized by the State but that do function within the County as greenways and blueways as defined by the Department of Environmental Protection. These natural corridors represent a local opportunity similar to the statewide network being established by the State of Florida's Green ways and Trails Program.

To assess local resources and identify potential trail projects, the MPO selected a consultant team for development of a Central Indian River County Greenways plan. That plan, which began in July of 2006, was completed and adopted by the MPO in January of 2007. The Greenways Plan identified connection opportunities for recreation and conservation areas in the Central County area and also identified candidate corridors for greenway, blueway, and recreational trail enhancement projects. Upon completion of the project, the MPO began implementation planning and design for one of its selected corridors, the airport loop trail.

METHODOLOGY:

During FY 2007/08, the MPO will develop a North County Greenways plan. This plan will be closely coordinated with and seek contributions from the municipalities of Northern Indian River County and various environmental and non-profit stakeholders in the area. Like the Central County Greenways plan, the MPO and its consultants will identify corridors for non motorized travel within public rights of way, abandoned rail beds, airport right of way, and environmental lands. Other tasks include identifying greenways alignments; engaging in public involvement activities; developing greenways project priorities; and developing an implementation plan.

Throughout 2007/08, the MPO will participate in Green ways implementation planning. Consistent with the strategies contained in the plan, the MPO will identify new trails for implementation; coordinate the activities of bicycling and pedestrian groups through the bicycling advisory committee; and identify funding opportunities for construction alternatives. In so doing, the MPO will address FDOT District IV's PEA on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Through Planning.

END PRODUCTS:

50

Northern Indian River County Greenways Plan, to be completed by July, 2008

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:



Indian River County Indian River County Municipalities


FUNDING SOURCES:


51

$85,032 ($80,000 consultant exp.) $ 10,000 $95,032

UPWP TASK NO: 4. 7- CORRIDOR STUDIES

OBJECTIVE:

To provide detailed safety and traffic flow analyses along major corridors in Indian River County.

PREVIOUS WORK:

In the past, the MPO has participated in detailed studies to address congestion and safety issues in major travel corridors. One such study was the SR A 1 A corridor study from Ft. Pierce to Vero Beach completed in 1996. More recently, a study of the Royal Palm/Indian River Boulevard intersection was performed as part of the 2005 Congestion Management System plan update.

In FY 2005/06, the MPO completed its 2030 LRTP update. The LRTP identified a number of corridors appropriate for follow-on study. In 2006/07, the MPO undertook the study of one of these corridors, the extension of Aviation Boulevard (US 1 to Indian River Boulevard). Also in 2006/07, MPO staff participated in a citizen-sponsored workshop to develop a corridor plan for US 1 between V ero Beach and Sebastian.

METHODOLOGY:

Corridor Studies

In FY 2007/08, MPO staff will manage, coordinate with and/or assist local governments in developing detailed corridor studies for congested, unsafe, or multimodal corridors in Indian River County. Corridor studies may result in strategies that emphasize safety, congestion relief, intermodal facilities, and improved parking and access. In the process of identifying strategies and corridor alternatives, the MPO will collect and analyze data from a number of sources, including average daily traffic, turning movement, safety, rights-of-way, environmental, community, and intermodal data.

Potential corridors that may be evaluated in 2007/08 may include: the CR 507 corridor in Fellsmere; the Downtown/Twin Pairs corridor in Vero Beach; and the US l corridor between Vero Beach and Sebastian. It is anticipated that this task will require consultant services.

END PRODUCTS:

Corridor studies for various congested corridors in Indian River County, to be prepared throughout 2007/08.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:


FUNDING SOURCES:

52


$40,000 ($30,000 consult.) $ 0 $40,000




53

UPWP TASK NO: 4.8 -AVIATION BOULEY ARD EXTENSION CORRIDOR STUDY

OBJECTIVE:

To determine the feasibility of extending Aviation Boulevard and, if feasible, to identify a preferred alignment.

PREVIOUS WORK:

In FY 2005/06, the MPO completed its 2030 LRTP update. The LRTP identified a number of corridors appropriate for follow-on study. The MPO began the study of one such corridor, the Aviation Boulevard Extension, in late 2005/06. That study was organized into two phases. Phase I of the study, which began in late 2005/06, included the collection of data and identification of issues that might preclude further development of a future corridor alignment. In FY 2006/07, the MPO completed Phase I of the Aviation Boulevard Corridor Study. While it was determined that a number of alignments were constructible, a more precise estimate of costs would be necessary in order to determine whether the preferred alignment was cost feasible. Late in FY 2006/07, the MPO authorized Phase II of the study to obtain more accurate project costs.

METHODOLOGY:

During 2007/08, the MPO will complete Phase II of the Aviation Boulevard Corridor study. It is anticipated that the MPO and its consultants will collect additional data, analyze potential alternatives, conduct public outreach activities, and complete the corridor study by the end of the second quarter ofFY 2007/08.

END PRODUCTS:

Aviation Boulevard Extension Corridor Study Phase II, to be completed by December 2007.

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:




* -Will utilize consultant services

FUNDING SOURCES:

FHWA (PL) $20,000 ($15,000 consult.) Local $ 0 Total $20,000

54

UPWP TASK NO: 4.9 -REGIONAL LONG RANGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT

OBJECTIVE:

To participate in activities of the newly-created regional transportation planning entities and to engage in other regional transportation coordination activities

PREVIOUS WORK:

In response to state guidance on regional coordination, and in recognition of the increase in demand for travel across county lines and between population centers on the Treasure Coast, the MPO in 2003 proposed a series of strategies to better promote regional transportation planning. Examples of these activities included sending MPO agenda packages to other MPOs; attending regional meetings; and cooperating in the development of a regional long range transportation plan. Since 2003, the MPO has engaged in these and other strategies and, in 2006, joined with the St. Lucie and Martin MPOs in an interlocal agreement for regional transportation planning. The agreement formalized the planning process between the MPOs by establishing a regional planning entity, the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC).

In 2006/07, the MPO expanded on its regional activities and participated in the development of a number of elements of a regional long range plan. These included a regional facilities network; a regional public involvement plan; a set of regional project prioritization criteria; and an expanded five-county travel demand forecasting model known as the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model (GTCRPM).

METHODOLOGY:

MPO staff will continue to engage in a number of regional coordination activities as stipulated in the most recent MPO certification review checklist. Examples include developing regional public involvement strategies; attending TAC and CAC meetings in adjacent counties; and including adjacent county MPOs on the mailing list for agenda materials and draft and final work products.

The MPO will also continue to coordinate with the Brevard, Martin and St. Lucie County MPOs to improve planning across county lines, amend the regional long range plan and prioritize regionally significant projects. Specific activities may include participating in a formal technical advisory committee to the TCTC; creating a work plan for the TCTC; refining regional roadway prioritization criteria; and developing work products contained in the regional public involvement plan. Finally, the MPO will provide technical support for the GTCRPM, and will continue to participate in model support and upgrade activities. This task may require consultant services.

END PRODUCTS:

Regional transportation plan, to be updated throughout the year.

55

RESPONSIBLE AGENCY:


Indian River County MPO* St LucieMPO MartinMPO Brevard MPO FDOT


FUNDING SOURCES:

FHWA (PL) $ 10,000 (5,000 consultant) Local $ 0 Total $ 10,000

56

Local

Task Description MPO* Other**

1.1 Program Management 0 0

1.2 UPWP Devel 0 0

L3 St Match PL 112 0 0

1.4 St Match Sec 5303 0 0

1.5 StaffTraining 0 0

1.6 Public Involvement 0 0

2.1 LU/SE Data 0 0

2.2 Traffic Count!Transp Data Coil 102,434 0

2.3 GIS Data Analysis 0 0

3.1 Long Range Ping 0 0

3.2 Transit Ping 0 25,000

3.3 TIP Devel 0 0

3.4 CMP 0 0

4.1 Transp Disadvg 0 0

4.2 Camp Ping 0 0

4.3 Bike/Ped Ping 0 0

4.4 FDOT Project Coordination 0 0

4.5 Intergovernmental Coordination 0 0

4.6 Greenways and Blueways Planning 10,000 0

4.7 Corridor Studies 0 0

4.8 Aviation Blvd Ext Corridor Study 0 0

4.9 Regional LR Plan Development 0 0

TOTAL 112,434 1 25,ooo

Table 1 Agency Participation Table

Fiscal Year 2007/08 UPWP

State Federal

FDOT TDC FHWA FTA

0 0 35,000 0

0 0 !0,000 0

88,449 0 0 0

25,000 0 0 0

0 0 9,000 0

0 0 25,000 0

0 0 33,000 0

0 0 50,000 0

0 0 20,000 0

0 0 11,000 0

0 0 0 200,000

0 0 10,000 0

0 0 15,000 0

18,000 0 0 0

0 0 15,000 0

0 0 5,000 0

0 0 5,000 0

0 0 3,000 0

0 0 85,032 0

0 0 40,000 0

0 0 20,000 0

0 0 10,000 0

131,4491 0 401,032 1 2oo,ooo T

Summary FAA Federal State Local Total

0 35,000 0 0 35,000

0 10,000 0 0 10,000

0 0 88,449 0 88,449

0 0 25,000 0 25,000

0 9,000 0 0 9,000

0 25,000 0 0 25,000

0 33,000 0 0 33,000

0 50,000 0 102,434 152,434

0 20,000 0 0 20,000

0 11,000 0 0 11,000

0 200,000 0 25,000 225,000

0 10,000 0 0 10,000

0 15,000 0 0 15,000

0 0 18,000 0 18,000

0 15,000 0 0 15,000

0 5,000 0 0 5,000

0 5,000 0 0 5,000

0 3,000 0 0 3,000

0 85,032 0 10,000 95,032

0 40,000 0 0 40,000

0 20,000 0 0 20,000

0 10,000 0 0 10,000

0 601,0321 131,449 1 137,434 1 869,915

~ 1ne reqUireo roarcn ror J'L tunas ror t1sca1 year ..::vu /IVa wm oe mennrougn an .t'UV ll.t'tl w f\ agreement to use rou revenue expenamtres as a creolt rowara me non-reoerru marcmng snare.

4110/03 57

Consultant Expense

2,000

6,000

20,000

5,000

150,000

10,000

80,000

30,000

15,000

5,000

323,000

UPWPOl-l.XLW

.,ecuon <a

Task Federal State* Local* ~l.Y.lU% 1 ~.u /V'1o

1.1 35,000 0 0

0 0 0

1.2 10,000 0 0

1.3 0 88,449 0

1.4 0 0 0

1.5 9,000 0 0

1.6 25,000 0 0

2.1 33,000 0 0

2.2 50,000 0 102,434

0 0 0

2.3 20,000 0 0

3.1 11,000 0 0

3.2 0 0 0

3.3 10,000 0 0

3.4 15,000 0 0

4.1 0 0 0

4.2 15,000 0 0

4.3 5,000 0 0

4.4 5,000 0 0

4.5 3,000 0 0

4.6 85,032 0 10,000

4.7 40,000 0 0

4.8 20,000 0 0

4.9 10,000 0 0

TOTAL 401,0321 88,449 1 112,434

Table 2 Funding Source Table


~ 1 A "ecnon ~""-' ~AA, llJL, & umer

Federal State Local Federal State Local ~U'1o 1U'1o 1U'1o

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 25,000 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

2oo,ooo 1 25,ooo 1 25,ooo o 1 18,ooo 1 0

~ummary

Federal State Local

35,000 0 0

0 0 0 10,000 0 0

0 88,449 0 0 25,000 0

9,000 0 0 25,000 0 0

33,000 0 0 50,000 0 102,434

0 0 0 20,000 0 0

11,000 0 0 200,000 0 25,000

10,000 0 0 15,000 0 0

0 18,000 0 15,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 3,000 0 0

85,032 0 10,000

40,000 0 0 20,000 0 0 10,000 0 0

601,0321 131,4491137,4341

* The required match for PL funds for fiscal year 2007/08 will be met through an FDOT/FHWA agreement to use toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the non-Federal matching share.

5/112007 58

Total

35,000

0

10,000 88,449 25,000

9,000

25,000

33,000 152,434

0 20,000

11,000 225,000

10,000 15,000

18,000 15,000

5,000 5,000 3,000

95,032

40,000

20,000 10,000

869,915

UPWPOl-2.XLW

Task Description Federal ' oJ.,ju')'o

1.1 Program Mgmt 32,000

Computer Equipment 0

1.2 UPWP Devel 10,000

1.3 St Match PL 112 0

1.4 St Match Sec 5303 0

1.5 Training 8,000

1.6 Public Involvement 15,000

2.1 LU/SE Data 18,000

2.2 Traffic Count/Transp Data Coil 50,000

Traffic Counting Equipment 0

2.3 GIS Data Analysis 20,000

3.1 Long Range Ping 4,000

3.2 Transit Ping 0

3.3 TIP Devel 10,000

3.4 CMS 12,000

4.1 Transp Disadvg 0

4.2 Camp Ping 7,000

4.3 Bike/Ped Ping 5,000

4.4 FOOT Proj Coordination 5,000

4.5 Intergovernmental Coordination 5,000

4.6 Greenways Planning 130,000

4.7 Corridor Studies 30,000

4.8 Aviation Boulevard Extension 53,000

4.9 Regional LR Plan Development 3,000

TOTAL 417,ooo 1 ·-- ---

,ecnon tu

Table3 Estimate of Total Expenditures

for Prior Fiscal Year (2006/07) UPWP

• 1 A ,ecnon "-'"-' ··~, w~,"' Utner

State* Local* Federal State Local Federal State Local lo.u7u% lo.u7u'Yo """' IU'Yo lu'Yo

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100,793 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 8,271 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 97,556 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 66,169 0 8,271 .0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

100,7931 107,556 66,169 1 8,271 1 8,271 ol 18,ooo 1 0

.-:tummary

Federal State Local Total

32,000 0 0 32,000

0 0 0 0

10,000 0 0 10,000

0 100,793 0 100,793

0 8,271 0 8,271

8,000 0 0 8,000

15,000 0 0 15,000

18,000 0 0 18,000

50,000 0 97,556 147,556

0 0 0 0

20,000 0 0 20,000

4,000 0 0 4,000

66,169 0 8,271 74,440

10,000 0 0 10,000

12,000 0 0 12,000

0 18,000 0 18,000

7,000 0 0 7,000

5,000 0 0 5,000

5,000 0 0 5,000

5,000 0 0 5,000

130,000 0 10,000 140,000

30,000 0 0 30,000

53,000 0 0 53,000

3,000 0 0 3,000

483,169 1 127,064 1115,8271 726,o6o

* The required match for PL funds for fiscal year 2006/07 was met through an FDOT/FHWA agreement to use toll revenue expenditures as a credit toward the non-Federal matching share.

5/l/2007 59 UPWPOJ-3.XLW

X

X

State Match- PL 112 X

State Match- Sec 5303

Public Involvement

LU/SEData

Traff Count/Transp Data

X

Long Range Ping X

Transit Ping

X

X

Transp Disadvg

Coordination X

Coord X

Corridor Studies X

Aviation Blvd Corridor Study X

X

5/112007

Table 4

SAFETEA_LU Planning Factors Matrix


SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors

the environment/coordinate transportation and growth

i i of the transportation system for people and freight.

efficient system management and operation.

X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X x X

X

X

X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X

60 UPWPOI-4.XLW

Products developed through the tasks in the rows below are used in the tasks in the columns to the

right.

~ 2.1 LU/SEData = ~ 2.2 TraffCount/Transp Data d • " 2.3 GIS Data Analysis

'" 3.1 Long Range Ping 0 ·= 0

3.2 Transit Ping ;;

! 3.3 TIP Devel

~

3.4 CMP

4.1 Transp Disadvg

'" 4.2 Camp Ping 0 ·= 0

~ 4.3 Bike!Ped Ping

~ 4.4 FOOT Proj Coordination

l 4.5 Intergovernmental Coordin~tion

4.6 Greenways Ping

4.7 Corridor Studies

4.8 Aviation Blvd Corridor Study

4.9 Regional LR Plan Devel

Table 5

Relationship ofUPWP Tasks


Data Coii/Survelliance Systems Planning

• • Q

l J ~

£ ~ ~ ~ Q

~ ~ " ~ 8 "' J "' "' ~ 0 ~

• a 0 ~ " " .., "' .3 ~ u

- " - " ~ ' ~ " N " M M

X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X

This table shows the relationship of non-administrative UPWP tasks to other non-administrative UPWP tasks.

The "X" symbol denotes cases in which the products from the tasks listed by row are used in the tasks listed by column.

511/2007 61

Project Planning

~ '8' ~

.li ~ j ~ ~

i 5 g ~ ·E

"' 8 ] ·;; 8

I 5 i 12

1 .~ ~ go 0

1f 0 ~ ] l u • 5 '" ~ ·e- ~ 00 0

] f .. " ~ > .g :I ! ~ ~

0 0 ~

E 0 ·g .2 E 0

~ ~ 0 8 ~ ~ u <

- " ~ . ~ "· . .

" " . . " . . " X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X

X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

X X X X

UPWP01-5.XLW

Appendix A

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE UTILIZATION

It is the policy of the Indian River County MPO that disadvantaged businesses, as defined by 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, shall have an opportunity to participate in the performance of MPO contracts in a nondiscriminatory environment. The objectives of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program are to ensure non-discrimination in the award and administration of contracts, ensure firms fully meet eligibility standards, help remove barriers to participation, create a level playing field, assist in development of a firm so it can compete successfully outside of the program, provide flexibility, and ensure narrow tailoring of the program.

The Indian River County MPO, and its consultants shall take all necessary and reasonable steps to ensure that disadvantaged businesses have an opportunity to compete for and perform the contract work of the Indian River County MPO in a non-discriminatory environment.

The Indian River County MPO shall require its consultants to not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, or familial status in the award and performance of its contracts. This policy covers in part the applicable federal regulations and the applicable statutory references contained therein for the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan, Chapters 337 and 339, Florida Statutes, and Rule Chapter 14-78, Florida Administrative Code

May 9, 2007 Date

Chairperson


Name ofMPO

AppendixB

CERTIFICATION OF

RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING

I, Peter D. O'Bryan. IRC MPO Chairman, hereby certify on behalf of the Indian River Countv (name and title of grantee official) Metropolitan Planning Organization that: (name of grantee)

(I) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions.

(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person whO fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Executed this 9th day of May , 2007.

By:

Chairman, Indian River Countv Metropolitan Planning Organization (title of authorized official)

Appendix C

DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION

As required by U.S.D.O.T. regulations on Government wide Debarment and Suspension at 49 CFR 29.510

(1) The Indian River County MPO hereby certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:

(a) Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any federal department or agency;

(b) Have not, within a three-year period preceding this proposal, been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connecting with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (federal, state or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or state antitrust statutes; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;

(c) Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (federal, state or local) with commission of any of the offenses listed in paragraph (b) of this certification; and

(d) Have not, within a three-year period preceding this certification, had one or more public transactions (federal, state or local) terminated for cause or default.

(2) The Indian River County MPO also hereby certifies that if, later, it becomes aware of any information contradicting the statements of paragraphs (a) through (d) above, it will promptly provide that information to the U.S.D.O.T.

MPO Chairman

May9, 2007 Date

Appendix D

MPO Title VI Procednre

Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

Formal Complaints

1. Any person who believes that he or she, or any specific class of persons, has been subjected to discrimination or retaliation prohibited by the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and related statutes, may file a formal written complaint. All formal written complaints received by the MPO shall be referred immediately by the MPO's Title VI Specialist to FOOT District Four's Title VI Coordinator for processing in accordance with approved state procedures.

Informal Complaints

1 Oral complaints received by the MPO shall be resolved informally by the MPO's Title VI Specialist. If the allegation(s) raised is not satisfactorily resolved through informal means, or if at any time the complainant requests to file a formal written complaint, the MPO's Title VI Specialist shall refer the complainant to FOOT District's Four Title VI Coordinator for processing in accordance with approved state procedures.

2. The MPO's Title VI Specialist will advise FOOT District Four's Title VI Coordinator within five (5) calendar days of receipt of an oral complaint. The following information will be included in every notification:

(a) Name, address, and phone number of the complainant.

(b) Name(s) and address(es) of the respondent(s).

(c) Basis of the complaint (i.e., race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, religion, familial status or retaliation).

(d) Date of the alleged discriminatory act(s).

(e) Date the complaint was received by the MPO.

(f) A statement of the complaint.

(g) Other agencies (state, local or federal) where the complaint has been made.

(h) An explanation of the actions the MPO has taken or proposed to resolve the allegation(s) raised in the complaint.

3. Within ten (10) calendar days, the MPO's Title VI Specialist will acknowledge receipt of the allegation(s), inform the complainant of action taken or proposed to resolve the allegation(s), and advise the complainant of other avenues of redress available, such as FOOT's Equal Opportunity Office (EOO).

4. Within sixty (60) calendar days, the MPO's Title VI Specialist will conduct and complete a review of the allegation(s) and, based on the information obtained, will render a recommendation for action in a report of findings to the MPO chair or designee.

5. Within ninety (90) calendar days, the MPO chair or designee will notify the complainant in writing of the final decision reached, including the proposed disposition of the matter. The notification will advise the complainant of his or her right to file a formal written complaint with FOOT's EOO if dissatisfied with the

final decision reached by the MPO. The MPO's Title VI Specialist also will provide FOOT District's Four Title VI Coordinator with a copy of this decision and the report of findings.

6. The MPO's Title VI Specialist will maintain a log of all oral complaints received by the MPO. The log will include the following information:

a. Name of the complainant. b. Name of the respondent. c. Basis of the complaint (i.e., race, color, national origin; sex, age, disability, religion, familial status or

retaliation). d. Date the complaint was received by the MPO. e. Date the MPO notified FOOT District Four's Title VI Coordinator of the complaint. f. Explanation of the actions the recipient has taken or proposed to resolve the allegation(s) raised in

the complaint.

AppendixE

FDOT District Fonr Planning Activities

Air Quality Analysis Assist the MPOs in performing Air Quality Conformity Determination Analysis on their Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP), Transportation Improvements Programs, and associated amendments. Assist the MPOs in evaluating the air quality impacts of individual transportation improvements and programs, including proposed Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) projects.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Activities Develop a comprehensive database of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the State Road system. IdentifY and prioritize opportunities to add bicycle and sidewalk accommodations to resurfacing and capacity projects. Develop and submit priority bicycle and pedestrian needs for future funding under various state and federal grant programs.

Community/Government Liaison Provide policy direction, technical assistance, and administrative support to District Four MPOs, MPO Boards, MPO advisory committees, local governments, and communities. Assist MPOs in conducting effective, on-going transportation planning programs and processes to develop, implement, and maintain plans and programs that are consistent and meet state and federal requirements. Programs and plans include the Unified Planning Work Program, Transportation Improvement Priorities, Transportation Improvement Program, LRTP, Public Involvement Plan, and other plans and policy documents, as applicable. Conduct Joint Certification with the MPOs. Coordinate and ensure implementation of the Transportation Enhancement (SE) and CMAQ programs.

Corridor Planning Studies Conduct studies to identifY and evaluate travel issues on major travel corridors and the effectiveness and impacts of proposed alternatives to address those problems and issues. The results may range from a set of recommended improvements that address specific problems to a comprehensive action plan for improving the corridor.

On FIHS corridors, these studies include lhe development of strategies and plans for implementing and maintaining FIHS standards such as those for Level of Service, interchange spacing, and access management.

Design Traffic Forecast Develop and update traffic projections for state highway corridors and supporting regional roadways. These traffic projections are necessary to support the road design for capacity and operational improvements and the pavement design for resurfacing.

Developments of Regional Impact (DRl) Evaluate applications for proposed DRis to determine if proposed development causes significant and adverse impacts to regional roads in the DRI study area. Coordinate with the Department of Community Affairs, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the affected local government, and the developer regarding required mitigation for DRI impacts to regional roads. Evaluate proposed changes to approved DRis to determine the impacts of the proposal and whether additional mitigation is required. Coordinate with agencies and individuals regarding changes to mitigation plans and other DRI issues related to the multimodal transportation system. Coordinate regarding DRis with other Departments in the District Four office as needed.

Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process The Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process is designed to accomplish the streamlining objectives identified in Section 1309 of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century. The District ETDM Coordinator will coordinate training and provide guidance to the MPO's and District staff on the implementation of the ETDM process.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Planning The Department will coordinate with the MPOs to incorporate the ITS program in their plan and to structure ITS into their respective organizations. These ITS planning activities include developing an ITS Management Plan and an ITS Program Plan for each county, developing the MPOs capability to manage the Regional ITS Architecture, and developing ITS programs and projects for the MPOs' Long Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program. Further, this support includes integrating intra-regional ITS deployment and operations as well as assuring that intra-regional and inter-regional operations are coordinated.

Joint Participation Agreements and Local Agency Program Develop, coordinate, and review Joint Participation Agreements and Local Agency Program agreements with MPOs, local and county government staff.

Level of Service Identify state roadways that have a deficient Level-of-Service for existing and future conditions; determine the level of need and the timing of improvements. Assist county staff in the update of their Level-of-Service analysis to current conditions, Level-of-Service issues, and training. Review and participate in the development of Action Plans/Corridor studies to address Level-of-Service issues.

Local Government Comprehensive Plan Reviews Evaluate proposed local government comprehensive plans, plan amendments, and Evaluation and Appraisal Reports which determine the effectiveness of a comprehensive plan, in order to determine consistency with Florida growth management laws and rules related to multimodal transportation, with emphasis on protecting the Florida Intrastate Highway System and the Strategic Intermodal System. Coordinate with the Department of Community Affairs, the Regional Planning Councils, the Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and heal governments regarding issues related to comprehensive planning. Coordinate comprehensive plans and planning issues with other departments in the District Four office as needed.

Long Range Transportation Plan Update and Maintenance Provide technical assistance and policy direction to the District Four MPOs in developing, updating, and maintaining their LRTP through a coordinated and consistent effort using a single regional travel demand forecasting model, a single regional planning database, and a mutually agreed upon set of modeling and planning assumptions. Provide state and federal revenue forecasts and district transportation costs.

Conduct corridor studies, sub-area studies, and special transportation studies to support the ongoing maintenance, update, and implementation of the MPOs adopted LRTPs. This includes modeling support and other technical assistance, as heeded, for Project Development and Environment and other special studies.

Develop, validate, and maintain a set of systems planning models, land use allocation models, and other analytical tools needed by the Department and MPOs to maintain their LRTPs and other planning studies and analyses. Models are used to validate the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model, including initial design and development of enhancements and initial testing of model performance and also validate special modeling techniques and analysis methodologies, as needed, for corridor, sub-area, and special transportation studies.

Mapping/Database Development Create maps of the District's Highways and Bridges using a geographic information system (ARCview software) to produce specific projects and special projects on an ongoing basis.

Update and maintain the GIS database including the AADT's from 2001 to the 2002 count volumes and the recalculation of the associated k-factors, d-factors, and peak hour factors.

Review thematic GIS generated maps, including level of service, access management, lanes, posted speed limit, AADT, etc., and adjust the source data information. Create maps of the District's multi -modal facilities using GIS.

Multi-modal Systems The Multi-Modal Systems office provides policy guidance, technical assistance, and research to District agencies, MPOs, and other agencies regarding the administration of state and federal grants that support economic growth by providing various multi-modal opportunities. Monitors and provides input regarding state and federal legislative activity related to transportation and reviews and analyzes the availability of innovative financing methods and techniques.

Multi-modal Transportation Studies Conduct or provide technical assistance for corridor studies, sub-area studies, and other special transportation analysis needed to identify local travel patterns and transportation needs and to evaluate and recommend improvements to meet those needs. The specific studies will be identified as needs arise.

Coordinate District Public Involvement and participate in the development and implementation of the Strategic Intermodal System.

Regional Transportation Planning Coordination Support and participate in all levels of regional coordination and proposed act1V!tles among District Four's MPOs and provide on-going technical and policy advisory assistance to the MPOs in the development of regional planning products.

Maintain a database of existing (2000) socioeconomic and travel characteristics for District MPOs, including information on population, dwelling units, hotel/motel units, employment, current land uses, traffic counts, transit usage, special generators activity, and other variables essential to the validation and operation of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model. Also, monitor and conduct roadway jurisdictional transfers.

Travel Characteristics Prepare and conduct surveys and analyses to maintain a current set of travel characteristics of the District Four area needed to validate planning models and provide needed data for plan updates, corridor and sub-area studies, and special transportation studies.

AppendixF

Vero Beach-Sebastian Urbanized Area (UZA)

2006 State Certification Review Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

(as revised in August 2006) Enhanced Regional Coordination

Please respond to the following items.

1. In conjunction with its redesignation following the last decennial census, the Indian River County MPO proposed to undertake the activities listed below to address regional issues and the regional transportation system. For each activity and as applicable, describe in detail (a) progress made to date, (b) barriers encountered and how they have been or will be

overcome, and (c) next steps in relation to desired ultimate outcomes.

MPO progress (A), barriers (B) and next steps (C) with response to each activity are sunnnarized as follows:

MPO and Advisory Committee Activities

• Participate in the advisory committee meetings of the Martin, St. Lucie, and Brevard MPOs.

• Continue to send MPO and MPO advisory committee agenda packages to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), the St. Lucie MPO and the Martin MPO.

• Start sending agenda packages to the Brevard MPO.

o A. The MPO has engaged in each of these activities. o B. The Brevard MPO has reciprocated with regular agenda mailouts. The

Indian River County MPO has received occasional mailouts from Martin County and no mailouts from St. Lucie County. When needed, the Indian River County MPO has accessed agency websites to obtain agenda materials.

o C. The MPO will continue to engage in each ofthese activities.

• Offer to include representatives of the Martin, St. Lucie, and Brevard MPOs on the Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee in a non-voting, ex-officio capacity.

o A. Tbis has not occurred. The MPO, however, extended an invitation to the staff directors and chairs ofthe Martin, St. Lucie and Brevard MPO to serve on a new regional transportation entity.

o B. At the time this strategy was proposed, the 2000 urbanized area boundaries included small areas in Brevard and St. Lucie Counties. The preference of the MPO has been to agree to let the Brevard and St. Lucie MPO be responsible for planning in areas within the county line, rather than expand membership.

o C. The MPO has been an active member in other regional transportation committees, such as the regional model calibration effort and Regional LRTP Project Oversight Committee (POC). The MPO will continue to participate in these efforts. In addition, the newly created entities will have a technical committee advising them.

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)/Transit Development Plan (TDP) • Invite the Martin, St. Lucie and Brevard MPOs to participate in the Indian River County

MPO LRTP meetings and workshops. • Attend meetings and participate in the development of the Treasure Coast Regional

Planning Model. • Incorporate the study of regional highway development and provision of regional transit

service in the scope of services for future LRTPs and TDPs. • Continue to invite the Workforce Development Board of the Treasure Coast and other

regional human service agencies to participate in the development of annual Indian River County TDP updates.

o A. The MPO has engaged in each of these activities. o B. & C. The MPO will continue to participate on the POC and other

committees and will continue to invite the staff from adjacent MPOs to participate.

Public Involvement Activities

• Continue to send the MPOverview (Indian River County MPO's quarterly newsletter), press releases, and invitations to MPO events to FDOT, the TCRPC, and to other MPOs in the region.

• Develop advertisements and public service announcements jointly with the Martin, St. Lucie and Brevard MPOs for distribution through regional media outlets.

o A. The MPO has engaged in both of these activities. o B. & C. The MPO will continue to coordinate and send invitations to adjacent

MPOs.

Other Planning Activities

• Continue to seek feedback from other MPOs and FDOT District officials in developing scopes of service for MPO plans and work products.

• Continue to participate in MPOAC meetings and activities. • Attend Indian River Lagoon- National Scenic Highway corridor advocacy group meetings,

CF ASPP regional aviation committee meetings, UPWP kickoff meetings, and other significant regional transportation planning and coordination events.

o A. The MPO has engaged in both of these activities. o B. & C. The MPO will continue to engage in each of these activities.

2. Describe other efforts made to coordinate with the St. Lucie and Martin MPOs, which share the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model with the Indian River County MPO.

The Indian River County MPO attended all model validation meetings and has regularly attended POC meetings for the development of the Regional LRTP. At these meetings, Indian River County has engaged in a number of activities, such as quality checking data inputs, ensuring logical continuity of inter-county roads, commenting on regional criteria, etc. In addition to attending meetings, MPO staff provided comments on draft and final work products; quality checked data; and sent e-mail comments to St. Lucie- Martin staff and consultants.

MPO staff has engaged in the following other coordination activities with its counterparts in St. Lucie and Martin Counties since the last certification review:

• Attended a joint meeting between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners.

• Attended a joint meeting between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and the Martin County Board of County Commissioners.

• At these meetings, MPO staff presented regional transportation and land use plans to the joint boards. ·

• Developed a 2-county map of future development units in northern St. Lucie and southern Indian River Counties. Shared this map with the St. Lucie MPO, FDOT, and St. Lucie County staff.

• Attended a joint St. Lucie-Martin County MPO meeting. • Used the Vacant Land and Future Development research to improve upon the

RLRTP data sets. • In conjunction with St. Lucie County, identified a regional transit route as a

candidate for corridor funds and included the regional route in its TDP major update.

• Sponsored several conference calls between the Indian River County MPO's Consultant, Tindale-Oliver and Associates, and the RLRTP Consultant, Renaissance Planning Group.

• E-mailed full agenda packages to the St. Lucie and Martin MPO staff directors. • Sent a copy of the Greenways Plan Draft Scope of Services to David Kelly,

Plauning Director of St. Lucie County, for distribution to the Bicycle Coordinator.

3. Describe other key partners in the region with responsibilities relevant to those of the MPO and describe current and plauned collaborative efforts with them.

In addition to the activities undertaken with St. Lucie and Martin Counties, the MPO also engaged in a number of activities with Brevard County, the MPOAC, the Regional Planning Council, the Cities of V ero Beach, Sebastian, Fellsmere, neighborhood groups, and other agencies and jurisdictions. Some of the activities included:

• Attended meetings and/or reviewed information distributed by the Regional Planning Council on new Treasure Coast development, including DRI methodology meetings.

• Met several times with Brevard MPO staff to discuss traffic growth along US 1, CR 507, I-95, Roseland Road, and other regional facilities.

• Presented information to the MPO and drafted a resolution of support from the MPO for a new I-95 interchange in the Micco Road area of southern Brevard County.

• Met with the representatives ofthe Vero Beach and Sebastian Airports, and participated in regional Central Florida Airports Strategic Policy Planning (CFASPP) activities.

• Attended a coordination meeting to discuss preferred access locations, trip generations issues, and interstate access, and other transportation issues with the developers of Cloud Grove, a New Town to be located in St. Lucie County abutting the Indian River County border.

• Attended joint meetings between Indian River County and the Cities of Vero Beach, Sebastian, and Fellsmere to discuss growth management and transportation issues affecting local jurisdictions.

• Worked with local jurisdictions to improve transportation in these areas, including the Cities ofVero Beach, Sebastian, and Fellsmere and major neighborhood groups such as the Vero Isles Homeowners Association and the Gifford progressive Civic League to discuss growth management and transportation issues affecting these areas.

4. One charge to the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast (CSTC) from the Governor was to study and recommend actions to ensure that the tri-county area (Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin) is served by an intermodal transportation system. The final CSTC report identifies principles and action steps relevant to the three MPOs in the tri-county area (transportation principle and action steps attached). It also recommends establishment of two successor organizations to support implementation and wide dissemination of the final CSTC report (Sustainable Treasure Coast and Institute for a Sustainable Treasure Coast).

Describe how the Indian River County MPO, in coordination with the St. Lucie and Martin MPOs, will help implement the final CSTC report and ensure involvement of the MPOs in any future work of successor organizations.

Among all of the regional activities described in Sections 1, 2 and 3 above, one activity best embodies the Indian River MPO's intent to carry forward the spirit of the CSTC report and formalize regional coordination. Specifically, the MPO took the lead in developing, promoting, and contacting adjacent MPOs regarding inter local agreements for regional plan development and TRIP funding. Specific activities engaged in included surveying other jurisdictions about their regional cooperation procedures; reviewing agreements of other jurisdictions and statewide model agreements; drafting agreements with the St. Lucie/Martin and Brevard MPOs, respectively; and presenting these agreements to the MPO board. The agreements drafted contained provisions for regional plan development, regional planning boundary identification, and dispute resolution. The agreement establishing the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC) for the Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin MPOs was executed in April2006. Regional goals and objectives for the three MPOs will form the basis of the

prioritization methodology that will be used in determining priority regional projects and funding candidates.

Indian River County and the MPO also intend to participate in the activities ofthe successor organizations contained in the CSTC final report. These new entities, which will have a role in educating, implementing, and evaluating sustainable development techniques from a multidisciplinary perspective, will be focusing on transportation as a central strategy. The MPO will assist these efforts by providing data; establishing objectives; benchmarking system performance; and incorporating recommendations of the organizations into the MPO's plans, programs, and policies.

5. Describe current and planned efforts to improve technical support for regional planning and project prioritization efforts.

The MPO, as described earlier, has been a leader in regional model development and an active participant in the RLRTP development process. In addition, the MPO has taken the lead in developing, promoting, and contacting adjacent MPOs regarding an interlocal agreement for regional plan development and TRIP funding. The MPO has also taken the lead in a number of other regional plarming activities. One example is the MPO's participation as a pilot community in the "Paint the Region" scenario planning software demonstration sponsored by the Department of Community Affairs. After creating a scenario environment populated with Indian River County data, MPO staff, DCA staff, and consultants presented their findings in a workshop to the Committee for a Sustainable Treasure Coast held on the IRCC campus of Port St. Lucie.

The MPO plans to be an active participant in the new regional entity, TCTC, and to continue exploring possible establishment of a Brevard-Indian River Technical Committee (BIRTC). The MPO' s responsibilities with respect to these organizations under interlocal agreements will include hosting and providing staffing services to the committees (on a rotating basis with other MPOs); developing and updating regional plans and policies; facilitating the implementation of regional transportation projects; and prioritizing projects for TRIP funds and other funding opportunities.

Also, the MPO has initiated an attempt to develop a two-county regional model between the Indian River County and Brevard County MPOs. The MPO will continue model development activity throughout the year.

6. Describe how the MPO's UPWP addresses regional coordination on tasks involving interests or responsibilities shared with other MPOs.

Regional Plarming, a State Plarming Emphasis Area, is addressed throughout the UPWP. Specific references include:

Task 3.1 -Long Range Plarming. The MPO will coordinate with adjacent MPOs to ensure continuity of regional facilities and consistency in long range plarming efforts.

Task 3.2- Transit Planning. Regional transit planning activities include coordinating with adjacent MPOs in the development of the TDP, and participating in efforts to implement regional transit service in conjunction with other jurisdictions.

Task 4.3, Task 4.6- Bicycle Planning, Greenways Planning. The MPO will coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions to ensure continuity of its hiking and trails networks.

Task 4.4 - FDOT Project Coordination. The MPO will participate in regional activities sponsored by FDOT, including PD&E Studies for regional facilities; travel demand model development; and land use modeling, to name a few.

Task 4.5- Intergovernmental Coordination. This task includes a number ofMPO efforts to coordinate with local governments; regional governments; modal partners; and others on a variety of transportation planning tasks.

Task 4.8 - The Oslo Road IJR. The Oslo Road IJR is a study with significant regional impact that the MPO has been actively participating in since its start in 2005.

7. Describe efforts to conduct bicycle/pedestrian/greenway and freight and goods planning on a regional basis.

The MPO has in the past year coordinated extensively with a number of adjacent counties and regional entities regarding its Bike/Ped and Greenways Plan issues. These activities have included face-to-face meetings with the Brevard County and St. Lucie County bike/ped planners; coordination with the Sebastian River Greenways group; attendance at Indian River Lagoon scenic highway meetings held in Brevard County; and coordination with the state Office of Green ways and Trails.

With respect to freight movement, Indian River County adopted its Truck Traffic Routing Plan in 2002. That plan included coordination of, and designation of, truck routes connecting Indian River and St. Lucie Counties.

During the development of the St. Lucie/Martin Regional LRTP last fall, freight movement was considered by the Project Oversight Committee in the identification of regional roadways for the three-county plan.

8. Describe any current or planned regional-level initiatives to review and enhance the security of transit systems, airports, seaports and the movement of freight on the highway and rail networks.

The Indian River MPO staff director, at the request ofFHW A, participated as a speaker in a national teleconference on Continuity of Operations (COOP) Planning and disaster preparedness. The Indian River MPO is believed to have the only stand-alone COOP plan in the Country; this plan has been shared with the MPO' s regional partners directly and through theMPOAC.

With the elevated interest in safety and security in transportation planning, the MPO will participate in all future regional activities that might have a safety or security component,

including COOP plan updates; regional safety and security studies; and regional ITS architecture development.

9. Describe how regionally significant projects, including all projects defined as such in 23 CFR 450.104 and involving FHWA and PTA approval, are addressed in the MPO's current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Describe how the TIP will evolve with the development and implementation of regional products and processes involving or affecting the MPO.

After consulting 23 CFR 450.154, as well as engaging in an extensive regional coordination process (see answer 3 above), the MPO added a section to its annual project priority list addressing regionally significant projects. Most, if not all of the projects identified (such asCR 510, serving major planned developments and SR 60 from 66'h Avenue to I-95, serving a retail mall), have been moving backwards in the TIP. The prospect of funding these projects through the TIP process within a reasonable time frame, or perhaps ever, is increasingly dim. This is mainly due to cost increases and policy changes within FDOT. Current FDOT policy is to fund SIS facilities (none of which are within the Vero Beach-Sebastian Urbanized Area) at the expense of Other Arterials.

Some regionally significant projects have been funded in Indian River County. These include SIS projects such as the widening of SR 60 west ofl-95, the widening ofl-95 and the Oslo Road interchange. The MPO has participated in public meetings held in conjunction with these projects and made efforts to include these projects in the TIP. The MPO will continue to participate in the development of SIS and other regional facilities in Indian River County.

Long Range Transportation Plan

Please respond to the following questions as they relate to the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) approved by the MPO in December 2005.

1. How was each of the TEA-21 factors considered in the LRTP development process?

Each of the TEA-21 planning factors was considered throughout the LRTP process. The planning factors are addressed in the following LRTP Chapters:

Support the Economic Vitality of the area Increase the Safety, Security of the System Increase Accessibility and Mobility Options Protect the Environment Integrate/Connectivity Promote efficient system management and operation Emphasize preservation of existing transportation system

Chapters 4, 8, 9 Chapters 4,8 Chapters 4,8,9 Chapters 5,8,9 Chapters 6,8,9 Chapters 8,9 Chapters 7,8,9

The MPO will investigate changes that result from the recently enacted SAFETEA-LU legislation and make those changes accordingly.

2. What process was used to review and re-validate/revise the planning assumptions used in the LRTP? How and where could the public find out about this process?

Q. 1 Opportunities to revise planning assumptions in the LRTP began with two previous projectsthe Community Impact Assessment/Community Profile (Socio-Cultural Effects) project (2004/05) and the Vacant Parcel model. Both of these projects, and especially the SCE project, were designed to improve data assumptions and garner early and active public involvement in the process.

Other opportunities to re-validate planning assumptions occurred throughout the LRTP and Visioning process. These included obtaining public feedback on future land use assumptions; working with local planning agencies to validate future population growth assumptions; and preparing alternative transportation networks in response to perceived concerns of citizens comments.

Q. 2 There were dozens of opportunities for the public to comment on planning assumptions. The LRTP process was conducted in conjunction with a visioning process that began in June of 2004. Dozens of meetings were conducted as part of the visioning process, and each of these had public involvement opportunities, such as group discussions, workshops, and dot polling exercises. In all, over 500 different participants attended meetings of the LRTP. The MPO supplemented the usual public outreach strategies with specialized mailouts, television announcements, and press coverage.

3. How was the LRTP developed to be consistent with local government comprehensive plans (LGCPs)? How are LGCP goals and objectives reflected in the LRTP?

One of the tasks included in the scope of services of the 2030 LRTP was to maintain consistency with Local Government Comprehensive Plans and other plans. In Indian River County, LRTP Goals and Objectives are completely consistent with City and County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. In 2003, the Indian River County MPO adopted a sweeping Comprehensive Plan amendment to update all goals, objectives, maps, charts, and text in the Transportation and Capital Improvement elements to reflect the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan. In the recent LRTP update, the existing 2025 plan, the goals and objectives were evaluated and revised, if necessary, to reflect changing conditions. This effort will facilitate the next Comprehensive Plan update, to be performed in the upcoming amendment cycle.

4. How did the LRTP consider alternative land use scenarios?

Three alternative land use scenarios were modeled for the future of the county. These scenarios, and the outcome of the process, are summarized on the attached diagram.

5. How has the MPO utilized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in coordinating transportation and land use planning? Discuss any efforts.

The MPO has developed a GIS-based vacant parcel assessment model in order to ensure that the quality of the data being input into the transportation models is as accurate as possible. The MPO also used GIS to identify clusters of populations with similar characteristics and incorporated these

clusters into a community profile system. In addition, several maps, charts, and graphics were developed in GIS to illustrate the relationship between existing land use, alternative land use scenarios, and alternative transportation networks. Finally, the MPO will use GIS to analyze projects by neighborhood and geographic locations.

6. How were State programs, policies, and processes (such as the SIS, FIRS, other modal/master plans) coordinated and reconciled in the LRTP development process?

Many state long range plan elements, such as the widening ofl-95, are reflected in the LRTP. Other than this project, the major impact of the SIS program was its impact in reducing funds available in the Other Arterials funding category of the financial analysis section. A corresponding reduction the number of projects funded by FDOT was assumed and incorporated into the final plan.

Other elements of the state long range plauning process, such as the goals, objectives, and policies of the Florida Transportation Plan, were incorporated as appropriate into the LRTP. MPO staff also actively participated in the development of the FTP at regional workshops in Stuart and Orlando.

7. Has a strategy been developed to implement provisions of the LRTP? Have implementation priorities been established?

Q. 1 The entire MPO process, including the annual prioritization report development, work program adoption, and TIP adoptions, is the major implementation provision of the LRTP. In Indian River County, no project can be included on a priority list without first appearing on the LRTP.

Q. 2 Implementation priorities have been loosely established based on availability of funding, need for the project, and continuation of prior phases of a project. This is reflected in the final LRTP both in terms of priority score for each project listed and in the five- to ten-year project implementation sets developed by the consultant (for FY 2010,2020, and 2030).

8. How were cost and revenue estimates developed for the LRTP? Do they include operating and maintenance costs for transit and local facilities? What were the methods and sources of cost and revenue estimates?

Q. 1 Cost estimates were developed from a number of sources, including recent construction cost estimates for labor and materials from FDOT and the County; appraised land valuations from local property appraisers; and information gathered from consultant impact fee studies. Revenues were adjusted over time to account for the declining buying power of money.

Q. 2 Operating and Maintenance Costs are included.

Q. 3 See Question 8-1.

9. Were new funding sources proposed to address unmet transportation needs?

A number of new funding sources were proposed in the plan. Three of the proposed new sources were ultimately included. These are: increasing traffic impact fees, at an inflationary rate through 2030; adopting the second local option gas tax; and extending the local option sales tax from 2020 through 2030.

10. How was the disposition of comments and changes in the final LRTP documented, analyzed and reported if significant oral and written comments were submitted? How much additional time was provided for public review if the final document was significantly different from the draft originally made available for public review?

Q 1. The Public Involvement Element of the LRTP documents that comments solicited through the LRTP process were incorporated into the final plan. A response to the comments was returned when requested. Public acceptance of various plan alternatives and concepts was gauged through dot polling exercises and surveys, the results of which were published and incorporated into the plan. In addition, individualized meetings were held with interested persons and groups at the request of those persons, board members, and FDOT.

Q 2. There was only one minor change between the plan advertised in October to begin the 45-day public comment period and the plan adopted in December. That change was the inclusion of a truck route/corridor study on CR 507 in Fellsmere. That change carne about as a result of comments received during the comment period and discussion with the City of Fellsmere.

11. What in-house technical expertise is available relating to applications of and updates to the travel demand forecast model used by the MPO (Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model)?

As indicated in response to section 1, question 2, MPO staff was an active participant in the regional model validation effort. Also, MPO staff has, in the past year, modeled several network alternatives using the TCRPM II model/FSUTMS platform. These model runs were performed inhouse by MPO staff. The platform for the current 2030 model has been developed by consultants and is being migrated to CUBE Voyager. When this transition is complete, MPO staff will obtain training in the new software and once again resume in-house modeling capabilities.

Title VI

Does the MPO have its own procedure for processing Title VI complaints? If so, please attach a copy to the completed checklist. If not, when will the MPO have one in place? A MPO has the option of developing a procedure or adopting the FDOT Title VI procedure updated in November 2005 (No. 275-010-010-e).

Yes. In March of2003, the MPO was found in compliance with all Title VI requirements by the USDOT Regional Civil Rights Officer. That certification remains in effect through 2006. In order to comply, the MPO undertook a series of measures recommended by the Civil Rights Officer, including:

• Establishing a process for responding to lawsuits or complaints which allege discrimination;

• Summarizing all civil rights compliance review activities conducted over a threeyear period;

• Reading, Complying with and Signing Civil Rights and Title VI Assurances; and • Developing a fixed facility impact analysis for construction projects.

Disadvantaged Business Enterprises

Describe how the MPO promotes and tracks participation of disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs) in planning projects. MPOs have the option of adopting the FDOT DBE Program Plan instead of developing one of their own (subject to USDOT approval).

The MPO has been following Indian River County DBE procedures. It plans to adopt the FDOT DBE Program Plan.

Noteworthy Practices or Achievements

One purpose of MPO certification reviews is to promote improvements in the metropolitan transportation planning process through recognition and sharing of noteworthy practices. Please provide a list and description of any noteworthy practices or achievements to highlight from the Indian River County MPO.

l) Public involvement. The MPO has experienced dramatic increases in MPO meeting attendance and participation by the public. 600+ participated in the visioning process in 2004 and 2005. The MPO also performs an annual evaluation of public involvement strategies and objectives.

2) Intergovernmental coordination with adjacent MPOs. The Indian River County MPO actively participates in, shares with, and is cognizant of relevant issues in adjacent MPO jurisdictions and cooperates with public agencies on an everyday basis. Some examples include MPO participation on the St. Lucie/Martin Project Oversight Committee; and MPO sponsorship of quarterly transit meetings.

3) Regional Planning & Coordination. The Indian River County MPO has spearheaded efforts to draft a suitable tri-party TRIP agreement and has actively participated in the Regional Long Range Transportation Plan development.

4) Transit planning. Close coordination between agencies has led to a very successful transit system in Indian River County. This type of system & operation is a prototype for other small urbanized areas.

5) Continuity of Operations (COOP) plan. The Indian River County MPO was the first MPO in the state and among the first nationwide to develop an MPO-specific COOP plan for continuing MPO activities during emergencies.

6) Land Use Alternative development. The MPO modeled three land use alternatives during the course of developing its 2030 LRTP. The alternatives emerged from an extensive visioning/public workshop process held at various locations throughout the county. For each alternative, MPO staff

identified a complete set of socio-economic data; modeled each alternative; and considered the alternatives analysis in the process of adopting its LRTP and updating its Comprehensive Plan.

7) Efficient use of PL funds. Where possible, the MPO has attempted to minimize the expenditure ofPL funds through harnessing existing planning data. For instance, the MPO has recently attempted to reduce the number of items in the scope of services for a corridor study by replacing these items with ETDM and other available data sources. Also, the MPO has joined in partnership with Indian River County to study web-based GIS services, rather than initiate those services with its own funding.

Appendix G

Three- Year Business Plan

This UPWP addresses multi-year plarming tasks and carryover funds from previous fiscal years. Carryover funds are accumulated when an MPO does not expend all available PL funds in the current year. Carryover funds are combined with the new armual allocations to determine the available funds for the upcoming fiscal year. FDOT policy limits the PL fund carryover to 50 percent of the armual allocation. A business plan can cover up to three fiscal years.

As depicted on the table, the Indian River County MPO FY 2007-2008 PL fund allocation is $429,414 and its estimated PL carryover from previous fiscal years is $91,618.

PL Fund Carryover (from previous fiscal $91,618

years) FY 2007/08 PL Fund Allocation $429,414

Total FY 2007/08 Available $401,032 FY 2007/08 Reservation for 2035 RLRTP * $120,000

FY 2007/08 UPWP Expenses $401,032

* $120,000 of FY 2007/08 PL funds will be combined with $120,000 in each of 2008/09 and 2009110 to meet anticipated expenses associated with the various phases of the 2035 LRTP.

Total estimated cost of2035 LRTP Development, 2007/08- 2009/10; $360.000

COMMITTEE FOR A SUSTAINABLE TREASURE COAST Final Report (publication pending)

V. CREATING A SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

PRINCIPLE 4- Communities and the region are served by an interconnected, multi-modal transportation system that maximizes access and mobility, supports sustainable forms of development, and promotes economic prosperity.

Reliance in the region on the automobile as the primary mode of transportation has promoted sprawling development, proven to be very costly, and left significant segments of the population (e.g., the young, the elderly, the disabled and low-income residents) with limited transportation choices. New development and redevelopment need to provide for various interconnected modes of transportation. Intraregional and interregional mobility needs to be assured through effective, well-coordinated and adequately funded transportation planning and programming efforts. The linkages between land use and transportation need to be better understood to promote mutually beneficial land use and transportation investment decisions.

Transportation planning and programming responsibilities relevant to the region currently fall to local governments, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) designated for urbanized areas (UZAs), the TCRPC, and the state. The MPOs and the TCRPC, in particular, are charged with addressing transportation from a regional perspective and in relation to land use. The two MPOs for the UZA in eastern St. Lucie and Martin counties are developing a single 2030 regional long range transportation plan and related regional-level plans addressing transit, bicycles/pedestrians/greenways, freight and goods movement, and congestion management. The third MPO in the region, serving the UZA in eastern Indian River County, will join the other two MPOs in identifying a regional (tricounty) multimodal transportation system and prioritizing projects on the system. All three MPOs are exploring transportation/land use alternatives as part of their long range planning efforts. The state is leading implementation of the Strategic Interrnodal System (SIS) designed to provide for interregional and statewide mobility.

ACTION STEPS

a. Have the MPOs in the region continue to work together to identify and effectively address local and regional multimodal transportation needs through their planning, programming and public involvement functions.

b. Further efforts to improve transportation and land use linkages, particularly in support of increased transportation choices, through enhanced MPO partnerships with local governments and theTCRPC.

c. Continue the evolution of transportation planning structures, products and processes so they are ·able to meet challenges and opportunities in the region while ensuring efficient and effective utilization of available resources. The Port St. Lucie UZA MPOs have already committed to exploring formation of a Regional Transit/Transportation Authority.

d. Increase public and private efforts to close the large gap between funding required and funding available to meet local and regional transportation needs while ensuring equitable generation and distribution of funding.

e. Use a combination of local govermnent comprehensive plan and land development regulation requirements and incentives to ensure provision of a full range of interconnected transportation modes (walking, biking and public transit) and protection of transportation investments.-

f. Promote development forms and designs that maximize use of existing transportation infrastructure, reduce the number and length of vehicle trips, and disperse traffic through interconnections among developments and retention or establishment of grid street networks.

g. Plan for and implement a fixed route public transit system for the region and ensure that development and redevelopment around stations and along corridors where appropriate has transitsupportive characteristics (e.g., adjacent compact, higher density/intensity and mixed land uses with emphasis on workforce housing and surrounded by a fine-grained network of streets usable by pedestrians and bicyclists).

h. Secure access to the FEC Railway Corridor as part of a regional corridor redevelopment initiative through purchase, lease or negotiated use.

i. Design neighborhoods to provide for housing, schools, services and facilities conducive to meeting special access and mobility needs of the young, the elderly, the disabled and low-income residents.

j. Employ innovative approaches to meeting transportation needs associated with accessing jobs, educational services and health care (e.g., transportation demand management and school pools).

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\UPWP\0708\0708 Indian River County UPWP Draft.doc

Attachment 2.

Indian River County MPO 2007/08 UPWP

Agency Comment Summary Sheet

AGENCY COMMENT MPO RESPONSE

FDOT- 1. Cover Page - Please put the MPO's contact Will revise text.

Office of information on the cover page (it is currently on the

Modal second page).

Development

2. Table of Contents- Appendix D- Please change the Will revise text. description from "not yet prepared by FDOT" to "not yet available from FDOT."

3. Introduction- State Planning Emphasis for Fiscal Will revise text. Year 2007/08- The District IV Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Through Planning PEA should be noted.

4. Organization and Management- CAC No revision necessary. Consider increasing minority representation on CAC.

5. Organization and Management- Agreements JP As in this section relate Add multi-year JPA for Section 5303 funding to list of to organization and JPAs. management, not individual

grants. No action taken.

6. Operational Procedures and Bylaws - The wording in Will revise text. this section should make it clear that the MPO, as a

separate legal entity, operates under federal and state laws, statutes, regulations, and procedures.

7. Certification Review - The following wording is Will revise text. suggested as a replacement text for this section:

"FDOT last certified the MPO in 2006 following a modified state review focused on progress being made in meeting enhanced regional planning and coordination commitments. The 2006 certification review package is included in the Appendix. Continuing work relating to recommendations form this review and findings from the 2007 state certification review under way is included in tasks in the UPWP."

8. Task 1.1 Program Management- Separate business Will revise text. plan from work tasks.

9. Task 1.2 Program Development UPWP-The task Will revise text. should be updated to reflect development of a two-year UPWP (FY2008/09- FY 2009/1 0).

I 0. Task 1.4 and Summary Budget Tables I & 2- Amount in document

Revise amount to reflect the FY 2007/08 allocation of correct- 07/08 allocation

Section 5303 funds. will be separated from funding totals in description. No change required.

11. Task 1.6 - Public Involvement Discuss regional Will revise text, as public involvement efforts, regional public involvement appropriate. plan; delete word "Counties" after "MPOs"; establish regional TCTC website; etc.

12. Task 3.1, Long Range Planning- Make wording Coordinating with other

consistent with other MPOs. Indicate plan for next MPOs. No changes

LRTP is preliminary. needed.

13. Task 3.2 - Transit Planning- replace TDP Minor No change necessary until Update" with progress report. final rule published.

14. Task 3.4 - Congestion Management Process - Will revise text, as include multimodal improvements. Establish link to appropriate. LRTP.

15. Task 4.2- Comprehensive Planning- Establish role Will Revise text, as of the MPO (coordination, technical assistance, appropriate. consistency review) for cities and county and distinguish from local governments (production) of comp plan amendments.

16. Task 4.3 - Bike/Ped Planning - Explain role of No change necessary. bike/ped advisory committee (BAC). Introduction explains role

ofBAC.

17. Task 4.9 - Move regional tasks from 4.5 Will partially revise. (intergovernmental coordination) to 4.9 (Regional Long Regional LRTP tasks will Range Plan Development}. be moved.

18. Task 4.6- Greenways Planning- mention Will revise text. contributions of municipalities in Green ways Plan development.

19. Task 4.7- Corridor Studies- is $40,000 adequate MPO will attempt to for corridor study? contain costs on this

activity. If necessary, MPO will carry over funds, add to business plan, or deobligate as necessary. No change required.

20. Cover- Remove reference to procedure# 525-0 I 0- Removed. 025

FHWA& I. Introduction -Review and update older MPO Will review. No change FTA agreements. needed.

2. Task 1.6 -Public Involvement- mention SAFETEA No change needed. LU provisions, visualization techniques, internet. Methodology contains

whole section on visualization.

3. Page 14- Write out acronym "POC." Will revise text.

4. Various- Revise text to reflect that Federal PEAs no Will revise text. longer exist.

5. Task 3.4- Remove references to "CMS"; replace Methodology section with "CMP." already refers to CMP.

Previous work appropriately refers to CMS. No change needed.

6. Table 3.1- Insert column or footnote with consultant Will revise table. dollars broken out.

7. Table 4- Change "increase the safety of the transit Will revise table. system" to "increase the security of the transit system."

FTA Comments

FHWA I. Agreements may be out of date. The MPO will review. No

Comments change necessary.

2. Task 1.1- How much of total task will be used for Revised text. computer supplies & equipment?

3. Task 1.5- Training and conference attendance should The MPO will restrict be directly related to transportation. attendance at conferences

and workshops to transportation-related activities.

4. Task 2.2- Is there equipment associated with this No equipment is proposed task? under this task.

5. Please review and ensure that all consultant dollars Consultant dollars are shown and separated out in all applicable UPWP identified. No action taken. tasks.

6. Please include a breakout of state match for each task State match is included in under the funding sources portion of each task and in its entirety in Task 1.3. No the appropriate funding tables. action taken.

7. Tasks that involve consultant services should contain MPO will comply. No detail about work to be performed or a scope of services action taken. should be provided prior to initiating project.

8. Document should include references to SAFETEA- MPO will comply wih all LU provisions of SAFETEA-

LU. No action taken.

9. The MPO should consult FDOt to make sure the MPO has used latest totals. latest funding totals are reflected. No action taken.


MEMORANDUM


THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP /l.fl11(

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson ,C~ MPO Staff Directb'r .

April 26, 2007

Discussion of Aviation Boulevard Extension (US 1- Indian River Boulevard)


SUMMARY

In March of 2006, the MPO issued its Highway General Planning Consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, a work order to determine whether a proposed extension of Aviation Boulevard between US I and Indian River Boulevard was feasible and to identify a preferred alignment for the new road. In November, phase I of the study was concluded, and the MPO declined initiating Phase II due to concerns about the project's cost. The MPO did, however, direct staff to keep open the option of studying future alignments. In February of 2007, a study by concerned citizens was presented to the MPO. At the conclusion of that presentation, the MPO determined that additional environmental and cost data would be needed in order to make an accurate determination of the feasibility of the alignment. Also at that meeting, concerns were raised by some members of the medical community about noise and other environmental impacts from the alignment. The MPO, in turn, recommended that staff coordinate with the Indian River Memorial Hospital and determine the hospital's position on the project. While the hospital's board of directors has not taken a position with respect to the facility, the hospital is in the process of hiring an engineering firm to evaluate the impacts of the alignment to the hospitaL Staff recommends that the MPO authorize MPO staff to initiate Phase II of the study and focus Phase II on collecting sufficient data to determine the cost feasibility of the project. In addition, staff recommends that the MPO authorize staff to begin Phase II of the study, at a cost not to exceed $70,000.

1

DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS

One of the projects included in the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan is an extension of 26th Street/ Aviation Boulevard. That extension would lengthen Aviation Boulevard by approximately one mile to the east of US 1, providing a continuous highway from 66th Avenue to Indian River Boulevard. According to the LRTP, the new project would provide relief for a number of congested facilities and could also forestall the need to widen parts oflndian River Boulevard.

Since the proposed extension is a completely new alignment, and not the paving or widening of an existing alignment, the LRTP indicated that a feasibility study of the underlying corridor would be necessary. In March of 2006, the MPO issued a work order to its Highway General Planning Consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates. The purpose of that work order was for the consultant to assess the financial, environmental, and construction feasibility of the proposed extension and to identify a preferred alignment for the new road.

In November, phase I of that study was completed. The study concluded that, while two alternatives were possible, neither alignment was cost feasible and, therefore, the more detailed analysis proposed under phase II of the study should not be undertaken. The MPO did, however, direct staff to keep open the option of studying future alignments. In February of 2007, a study by concerned citizens reassessing the extension was presented to the MPO. At the conclusion of that presentation, the MPO determined that additional data would be needed in order to make a determination of the feasibility of the alignment. Also at that time, concerns were raised by some members of the medical community about noise and other environmental impacts of a new alignment. The MPO, in turn, directed staff to coordinate with Indian River Memorial Hospital, to determine the hospital's position on the project. Since February, several meetings have occurred between MPO staff, Hospital staff, and the Hospital District. As of this time, however, the board of directors has not taken a position with respect to the project. The hospital is, however, in the process of hiring an engineering firm to evaluate the impacts of the alignment to the hospital.

ANALYSIS

In undertaking its feasibility analysis of the proposed Aviation Boulevard Extension Project, Kimley-Horn undertook a number of detailed tasks. One of those tasks was identification of four potential alignments for the new corridor. Next, an environmental impact review of the four corridors was performed. This analysis, which involved review of both GIS databases and previous studies, considered generalized impacts to:

• wetlands and drainage; • soils; • floodplains; • endangered species; • cultural and community resources; • hazardous materials sites; and • noise sensitive receptors.

2

The consultants provided a preliminary estimate of both the mitigation and construction costs of each of the proposed alignments. It should be emphasized that the estimates were based on a review of existing studies and average costs, not a detailed design or field data review. Those estimates indicated that the cost of the canal alignment ranged from $4 7 Million to over $60 Million. While the facility would be successful in reducing traffic, its cost would result in severe impacts to the cost affordable long range plan; therefore, this alternative was determined to not be feasible.

After submittal of the initial study, a report was produced by concerned citizens and reviewed by staff. That report revisited many of the assumptions in the Kimley-Horn study and concluded that several of the costs can be reduced through alternative designs. For.instance, the report indicated that a four-way intersection at the Merrill Barber Bridge and Indian River Boulevard is possible, with the Aviation Extension then curving notthward around wetlands areas before extending west. The citizens' report also assumed a four-lane section to be constructed in 80 feet of right-of-way which, while efficient, violates widely- accepted engineering standards and county policies on lane widths, sidewalks, median widths, bicycle paths and landscaping in many locations.

Although proposed design changes could impact total project costs, a number of data will need to be collected in order to confirm the total costs. These data include wetlands locations; drainage capacity; and soil data.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the MPO authorize MPO staff to initiate Phase II of tl1e study and focus Phase II on collecting sufficient data to determine the cost feasibility of the project. In addition, staff recommends that the MPO authorize staff to begin Phase II of the study, at a cost not to exceed $70,000.

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Ivleetings\MP0\2007\05-9-07\A viation Boulevard Extension Update.doc

3

TO:

THROUGH:


MEMORANDUM

Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)

Robert M. Keating, AICP A..fVI({ Community Development Direct&

Phil Matson iJ A/p-MPO StaffDirector

FROM: Sutapa Chatterjee MPO Planner


SUBJECT: Consideration of the Initial Component of the Draft Evaluation Appraisal Report of the County's Comprehensive Plan- Transportation Element

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) at its regular meeting of May 9, 2007.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:

Recognizing that an effective comprehensive plan cannot remain static, Section 163.3191, F.S. requires that local planning be a continuous and ongoing process. As part of this process, each local government in the state must periodically assess the success or failure of its comprehensive plan, address changing conditions, and update its plan to reflect changes in state policy on planning and growth management. In Florida, those activities are undertaken as part of the local government's evaluation and appraisal report process. As part of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), each local government must also identifY major unresolved issues in its jurisdiction. Based on its EAR assessment, a local government must then update and revise its comprehensive plan to ensure that the plan continues to provide sufficient guidance for the local government to make appropriate land development decisions.

The Transportation Element (TE) of the EAR evaluates the effectiveness of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. As structured, the EAR has three components - an examination of the changes in travel conditions within the county; an evaluation of the achievement of objectives; and an identification of changes to the Comprehensive Plan necessary in light of changing conditions and achievement of objectives. To date, staff has prepared an initial draft of the first component of the TE section of the EAR. It includes a description of travel conditions at

the time of the last major Comprehensive Plan update (1996), a description of existing conditions (2005), and an analysis of changes in conditions over the time period.

ANALYSIS:

A comparison of the conditions at the time of the County's last major plan update to current conditions shows that the County's population has increased by 27%, with an increase in daily vehicle miles traveled of 38%. Consistent with national trends, the length of trips grew at a higher rate than the number of trips, reflecting increasing separation between trip originations and destinations.

Since the last major plan update in 1996, the county completed one major road-widening projectthe widening of 58th Ave between SR 60 and Oslo Rd from 2lanes to 4lanes. In addition, 14 new centerline miles of roadway were added to the county road network. While the capacity of roadways has increased, there is evidence of umnet demand. This is reflected in lower levels-of-service throughout the roadway network. In fact, a few roadways, such as SR AlA in Vero Beach and SR 60 from 66th Ave to 82"d Ave, have actually exceeded their level of service "D" capacity. A number of new construction projects, however, including CR 512, Oslo Rd, CR 510, 66th Ave, SR 60, and US 1, will add substantial capacity in the next five years and address many facilities approaching deficiencies.

Traffic safety, in terms of countywide crash rates and fatality rates, has remained constant since 1996, but the number of high-crash intersections is increasing with the growth in population and travel. Those intersections with the worst crash rates in 1996 have improved, while a number of new intersections have been added to the list of most dangerous intersections. Bike/ped crash rates have increased since 1996 and two new high crash locations have been identified (SR 60 from 58th Ave to 43'd Ave and CR 512 in Sebastian). Both of these areas are high growth areas with lowwage retail employees and are popular destinations for younger populations. The county is utilizing a number of grant programs, as well as the assistance of FDOT and local law enforcement to mitigate identified safety problems.

With respect to non-motorized transportation, the county has experienced an increase in 76 miles of new bike lanes (61%) and 57 miles of new sidewalks (136%) between 1996 and 2005. In spite of the new construction, there has been an overall decline in bike/ped level-of-service. Much of the decline is due to the growth in traffic on roadways adjacent to bike/ped facilities. The county plans to address many deficiencies through new initiatives such as the Greenways Plan, which will explore safe off-road alternatives to on-road bike/ped travel.

Transit service in the county is provided through demand response and fixed-route systems. Demand response service experienced a 27.8% decrease in passenger trips from 1996 to 2005, while the fixed route system experienced a 2,813% increase in ridership during the same time. This transition demonstrates the success that the county's transit provider, the Council on Aging (COA), has had in transferring ridership to the less costly fixed route system. Since 1996, the fixed route system has gained two new transit transfer points (at the Gifford Health Center and the Food Court at the Indian River Mall); three new routes; and increased efficiencies through large increases in ridership compared to a marginal increase in cost. Part of the increase in ridership is due to the

expansion of system hours of operation, an extension of service to new areas (such as Fellsmere and Wabasso), and provision of service on Saturdays. All of these improvements have led to a corresponding improvement in transit levels of service since 1996.

The County's airports have experienced an overall reduction in total operations (takeoffs and landing by all aircraft) since 1996, including a 12% (25,000) decrease at the Vero Beach airport, and a 45% (17,200) decrease at the New Hibiscus Airport. These were partially offset by a 40% (13,952) increase at the Sebastian Airport. The reduction is attributed to a number of factors, including the decrease in trainees at the Flight Safety International training center in Vero Beach, the elimination of commercial aviation service, and a decline in agricultural spraying operations. Other transportation conditions, such as the right-of-way availability, roadway aesthetics, and rail service are also analyzed in the attached document.

As the EAR process continues, subsequent staff reports will address a number of issues. These will include an evaluation of the achievement of the objectives of the transportation element and a determination of why certain objectives were not achieved. With respect to those objectives not achieved, a determination will be made as to whether the objective should be eliminated, retained, or modified. Other issues that will be considered include an evaluation of transportation policies; an identification of major issues related to transportation; an identification of necessary future actions; and an identification of anticipated amendments to the Transportation Element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the MPO review the draft data and analysis and provide general comments and direction to staff.

ATTACHMENTS:

l. EAR Transportation Element Data and Analysis Section

B:\Meetings~0\2007\05-1-07\Data & Analysis- Staff Report -EAR.doc

EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT FOR THE

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

(5/1/07 DRAFT)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

(772) 567-8000

This Rev.: 05/1/07

EAR TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this portion of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report is to assess the effectiveness of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This assessment must exarnine changes in travel conditions within the county, evaluate achievement of objectives, and identifY changes in state requirements affecting the transportation element. Based on this evaluation and appraisal, the element may need to be updated and revised. In performing this assessment, the county has taken the following steps:

• Identified transportation conditions (Including traffic circulation, mass transit, port, aviation, and related facility conditions) at the time oflast major plan update (1996)

• Identified existing transportation conditions (2005/2006)

• Analyzed conditions on the county's transportation system and identified problems related to that system

• Evaluated the achievement of the objectives of the transportation element, determined why certain objectives were not achieved, and assessed implementation of policies under each objective

• Identified major issues related to transportation

• Identified necessary future actions

• Identified anticipated amendments

In its 1990 Comprehensive Plan, Indian River County had separate elements for traffic circulation, mass transit, and ports, aviation, and related facilities. Since that time, those elements have been incorporated into a consolidated transportation element.

CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE LAST MAJOR PLAN UPDATE (1996)

The sunrmary of transportation conditions within the county at the time of the last major plan update is provided in Appendix A. These data are provided so that they can be compared to existing conditions data. This comparison will enable the county to identifY changes in transportation conditions within the county and make appropriate revisions to the transportation element as needed.

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE 3


This section identifies transportation conditions at the time of the last major plan update. While that plan update was adopted on March 17, 1998, the best available data used within the update was from 199511996. These data are shown in Appendix A. The transportation conditions analyzed within the plan update relate to traffic circulation, public transportation (formerly mass transit), aviation, ports, and related facilities.

Traffic Circulation

The traffic circulation data table (Attachment 1 in Appendix A) lists pertinent traffic data from 1996. As indicated on the Attachment, the county population at the time of the last major plan update was 100,261, and persons using the county's roadways produced an average of 431,965 trips per day. The number of daily vehicle miles traveled was 1,620,400 for Indian River County, compared to 214,381,600 for the state as .a whole. The average commute time for workers in Indian River County was 20.02 minutes, according to a report published in May of 1993 by the Center for University Transportation Research (CUTR).

Attachments 2 and 4 in Appendix A depict the laneage and functional classification of the county's roadways at the time of the last major plan update. At that time, US 1, SR 60, CR 512 (in Sebastian) and I-95 were the County's multi-lane arterials. Access to the barrier island was provided by three fixed-span bridges, County Road 510 (two lanes) in the northern part of the county and the 17th Street and Merrill Barber bridges (four lanes) in the Vero Beach area. Between US 1 and I-95, the county was served by a number of two-lane north-south collector roads located at approximately one mile intervals. One of these, 66th A venue, served the no.rth county area from SR 60 to Sebastian; two collectors, 43'd and 27th Avenues, connected central Indian River County with St. Lucie County while a fourth two-lane collector, 58th Avenue, connected Oslo Road to CR 510. Several east-west collector roads were located at 'lz mile intervals on a grid between 49th Street and Oslo Road. Three of these collectors extended for only 1 mile: 1st Street Southwest; 5th Street Southwest; and 26th Street.

Attachment 6 depicts Peak Season Daily and Peak Hour Directional traffic volumes for all facilities in the county in 1996. It also depicts capacities at the adopted level of service for each of those facilities. In 1996, all roadways were operating at or above their minimum levels of service.

Traffic crash data by location at the time of the last major plan update are provided in Attachments 7 and 8 in Appendix A. On these attachments, there are thirty-seven intersections depicted. That represents those intersections with five or more crashes in 1996. At that time, the intersection of 17th Street and US 1 had 24 crashes, the highest number in the county. Because that was also one of the busiest intersections for traffic, the relative crash rate was low, with 1.6 crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection within the year (also known as the rate per "MEV"). As may be expected, intersections with the highest traffic volumes tend to have the highest number of crashes. Those intersections, however, do not necessarily have the highest crash rates. For example, the



intersection of 41st Street and Old Dixie Highway had the highest relative crash rate (3.75), in 1996. Because of its relatively low traffic volume, however, the number of crashes at that intersection was less than half of that at intersections with lower crash rates.

In addition to traffic crash data by location, systemwide crash data were obtained for 1996. At that time, there were 1,215 crashes and 25 fatalities on Indian River County's roadways. Compared to vehicle miles traveled in that year, the rate is equal to approximately one crash per 2,800 vehicle miles traveled. The per capita crash rate in 1996 was .012. In addition, roughly 2% of all crashes that occurred in 1996 resulted in a fatality.

Bicycle and Pedestrian crash location data were not included in the Comprehensive Plan at the time of the last major plan update. Those data, however, were obtained for 1996 from the first MPO Bike/Ped plan, which was adopted in 1998. These data are depicted in map form on Attachments 9( a) and 9(b ). In 1996, the highest bicycle and pedestrian crash locations in the county (with an average of 1 or more crashes/year over a two-year period) were US 1 (17'h Street- 26th Street); SR 60 (US!- 20th Avenue); SR 60 (43'd Avenue- 27th Avenue); and 45th Street (US1-43'd Avenue).

Projected Traffic Demand

In 1995, the newly-formed MPO completed its first (2020) Long Range Transportation Plan. In developing the plan, the MPO identified both future deficiencies on the road network and a cost affordable set of improvements needed to accommodate future demand. Facilities that were anticipated to exceed capacity by the year 2010 are contained in Attachment ll(a) and include portions of three roadways (SR AlA, CR 512, and 16th Street). Roadway improvement projects in the cost affordable plan can be found on Attachment 12. Major 2020 plan roadway improvements included the widening of SR 60 (66th Avenue- I-95); the widening of Oslo Road (Old Dixie to I-95); and the widening ofCR 510 (US 1 to CR 512).

Right-of-Way and Corridor Protection

In 1996, the adopted Traffic Circulation Element acknowledged that right-of-way deficiency was a problem on many of the county's roadways. In the Traffic Circulation Element, Table 4.5 identifies existing right-of-way and minimum standards. At the time of the last major plan update, the county also engaged in other right-of-way protection practices, such as developing an inventory of all parcels subject to Murphy Act right-of-way reservations and coordinating with developers and other agencies, through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process, to acquire rights-of-way from new development projects.

Non-Motorized Transportation

At the time of the last major plan update, the Indian River County MPO was finalizing its first bicycle/pedestrian plan. Therefore, no information on bicycle or pedestrian level of service information was included in the comprehensive plan. Subsequently, level of service information



was identified for 1996 and is included in Attachments 16 and 17. In 1996, 4.3% of the roadway network had a bicycle level of service (BLOS) of "E" or "F", while 11.7% of the roadway network had a pedestrian level of service (PLOS) of"E" or "F". At the time of the last major plan update, approximately 124 miles of the county's thoroughfare plan roadways had a combined outside lane/paved shoulder width of at least fourteen feet. In addition, 43 miles of roadways contained adjacent sidewalk.

Demand Responsive Transportation

Prior to 1994, Indian River County was exclusively serviced by a demand-responsive service transportation system. In 1996, the Council on Aging (COA) was the primary transit operator, providing 91,7 41 annual passenger trips. The demand response fleet consisted of fifteen high top vans, eight of which were equipped with wheel chair lifts, two station wagons and two minivans. Service was provided on a zone of operation basis. These zones are depicted m Attachment 18. As indicated in Attachment 21, there were thirteen additional providers of paratransit service at the time of the last major plan update.

Transit Service

With a combination of local, state, and federal grants, the Council on Aging (COA) was able to launch the County's first fixed route transit service in 1994. By 1996, there were six fixed routes in operation. Maps of the bus routes are provided in Attachments 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 38. For four of the routes, the Vero Beach Municipal Airport served as the main terminal and transfer point, while the Council on Aging's office on US I served as the point of origin for the remaining two routes. Hours of operation were 8 am to 3 pm, Monday through Friday. In its first year of operation, the CO A's Community Coach provided an average of 48 daily fixed-route trips. Three cutaway buses, two twenty-eight foot trolleys, and one hightop van were used for the fixed route service. Attachment 22 shows there were 8,605 fixed route trips at the time of the last major plan update. Performance, effectiveness and efficiency indicators of the transit system were not included at the time of the last major plan update since the service had only recently been initiated. These data were obtained for 1996, and are included in Attachment 22. According to information available at the time, ridership per capita was 0.29, cost per mile was $2.80, and riders per mile were 0.13. Finally, data from a 1993 report published by the Center for University Transportation Research at the University of South Florida showed that .04% of residents traveled to work using public transportation.

Transit Need Indicators

Generally, age, income, race, mobility and auto availability are indicators of the need for transit services. A listing of transit need indicators can be found in Attachment 23. At the time of the last major plan update, 27.3% of the county's population was elderly (aged 65 and older). The per capita personal income was $27,220 in 1996. At that time, approximately 9% of the population was considered living below the poverty level, while 9.8% of residents were



unemployed. In 1996, 8.5% of the overall population was black, while 3% of the population was Iatino. At that time, twenty three percent of residents were mentally or physically disabled, and approximately 6% of county residents had no access to a vehicle.

Locations that produce or attract significant numbers of people are potential transit service destinations or generators. These areas include large residential subdivisions, shopping complexes, government agencies, and medical, educational and recreational facilities. Major trip generators and attractors in 1996 are illustrated on Attachment 24. The main shopping areas in the county were Vero Mall, Miracle Mile, Lauria's Plaza, K-Mart Shopping Center, Ryanwood Plaza, Home Depot, Horizon Outlet Center in Vero Beach and Wal-Mart Supercenter in Sebastian.

Coordination and Transit Planning

The Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was formed in 1993 as the transportation planning board in Indian River County. In addition to developing long and short range transportation plans for the county, the MPO undertook a number of significant coordination activities, particularly through its advisory connnittees. For example, the MPO was the primary forum for discussion of transportation topics between the cities and the county and between these entities and FDOT. In addition, the MPO was tasked with planning and coordinating the county's fixed route transit needs. As a result, the MPO received $789,850 in transit grants by 1996. These funds were used to establish fixed route transit service. The amount of grant funding for transit is an indicator of the level of service provision, Attachment 20 of Appendix A lists the types and amounts of transit funding in 1996.

Transit Oualitv of Service

Transit quality of service (TQOS) was an emerging concept in 1996. At that time, it had not been formally recognized by the FTA or FDOT. Prior to 2002, TQOS was not performed in Indian River County. For purposes of this analysis, transit quality of service conditions at the time of the last major plan update have been developed, applying TQOS standards as identified in the 2002 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook to operating conditions on the 1996 transit network. Two components ofTQOS, Transit Frequency (1 hour headways) and Hours of Service (8 am~ 3 pm), performed at level of service (LOS) E. In 1996, the Average Load LOS was A, since systemwide total ridership was below 30% of capacity. For the same year, an analysis of transit service coverage revealed that many of the county's highest concentrations of transit oriented populations were served by fixed route transit. Other areas, such as Wabasso and Fellsmere, were not served by transit. At the time of the last major plan update, the resulting system-wide Service Coverage LOS was D. Two of the other indicators of TQOS, On-time Performance (Reliability) and Vehicle Travel Time, require actual field observations and are therefore not included in the base year conditions analysis. The TQOS indicators are depicted on Attachment 56.



Aviation, Port, and Related Facilities

In 1996, there were no rail yards, rail terminals, or commercial seaport facilities within the county. There were, however, three airports in the county, the largest one being the Vero Beach Municipal Airport. Data showing general characteristics for all three airports are contained in Attachment 49. At the Vero Beach Municipal Airport, total operations were 204,524, while the Sebastian Municipal Airport and New Hibiscus Airpark had about 35,000 operations each. Vero Beach Airport provided the only commercial service in the county through a regional commuter airline using turboprop aircraft. Air shuttle service was provided by American Eagle to Miami, where passengers could transfer to national and international flights. Charter flights were also available at Vero Beach Airport. Sebastian and V ero Beach Municipal Airports, both publicly owned, provided local general aviation services. New Hibiscus Airpark, a privately owned facility, was primarily used for agricultural spraying services. As indicated in Attachment 52, the land uses around Vero Beach Airport were single and multi-family residential, agricultural, commercial, instructional, and industrial. At the time of the last major plan update, there were still significant vacant parcels of land around the airport. The surrounding land uses at the Sebastian Airport (Attachment 54) were a combination of single-family residential, mobile homes, institutional, industrial, agricultural and undeveloped areas.

Attachment 41 in Appendix A depicts the location of the county's aviation facilities. Attachments 43 and 45 are maps showing access to Vero Beach Municipal Airport and the Sebastian Municipal Airport. The locations of rail, water and other transportation facilities are illustrated in Attachment 47. In 1996, Aviation Boulevard, a two-lane undivided roadway with a signalized intersection at US I, opened to traffic. This new roadway provided direct access to the airport from US I. It also allowed improved east-west automobile and commercial truck travel within the county, from US 1 to 43rd Avenue.

Energy Efficiency

In the process of developing the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan, a validation year travel demand model was developed for 1996. A summary of the air quality and energy efficiency impacts is developed based on the total number of trips, trip lengths, and travel speeds in the model. Three indicators of air quality and energy efficiency, CO Emissions, HC Emissions, and NO Emissions, are identified in the model output. These are shown on Attachment 51.

EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS (2005- 2006)

Appendix "A" also provides information on the county's existing transportation conditions. This information will be compared to the conditions at the time of the last major plan update. In so doing, the county will assess changes to transportation conditions within the county.



Traffic Circulation

In 2005, the county population was 130,043. Since no validated travel demand model analysis was performed for that year, daily person-trips for the county are not available. The closest year information available was for 2000. In 2005, the number of daily person trips was 480,246. The number of daily vehicle miles traveled in the county was 2,244,900, compared to 292,239,300 statewide. According to the 2000 Census, the average commute time for residents of the county was 21.85 minutes ..

Attachment 6 depicts Peak Season Daily and Peak Hour Directional traffic volumes for all facilities in the county in 2005. As shown in Attachment 6, several links on the county highway network have volumes that exceeded their level of service capacities in 2006, with many more links within one or two percent of exceeding capaci,7. Examples of overcapacity links include SR AlA in the City of Vero Beach; SR 60 between 82" and 66th Avenues; and 27th A venue from 161h Street to the St. Lucie County line.

In 2000, the United States Census Bureau expanded the Vero Beach-Sebastian area's Urban Area Boundaiy. As depicted on Attachment 3, virtually all paved highways in the county east ofi-95 are classified as urban, with the exception of 66th Avenue (451h Street- CR 510); Oslo Road (west of 581h Avenue); and 82"d Avenue (south of 8th Street). In 2004, Indian River County and FDOT changed the functional classification of several roads. Roads that were changed from collectors to minor arterials include 27'h Avenue (St. Lucie County to Oslo Road); 43'd Avenue (St. Lucie County to 53'd Street); 581h Avenue (SW 13th Street to CR 510); Oslo Road (58th Avenue to 82"d Avenue); and 82"d Avenue (Oslo Road to 26tl' Street). In addition, Indian River Boulevard was designated a principal arterial.

In 2005, a number of roadway construction projects were completed and are reflected in the map of current roadway laneage (Attachment 5). Recently completed projects include the widening of 58th Avenue between SR 60 and Oslo Road and the construction of both I st Street Southwest and 5th Street Southwest from 58th Avenue to 43'd Avenue.


In 2005, the MPO completed its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan update. As was the case in previous plans, the MPO identified both future deficiencies on the road network and a cost affordable set of improvements needed to accommodate future demand. In 2030, the vast majority of roadways are expected to operate at LOS "D" or better, with the majority actually operating at LOS "B" or above. At that time, a small number of roadways are expected to operate below LOS "D." These are shown in Attachment 15 and include Indian River Boulevard (Merrill Barber Bridge- Royal Palm Point); SR AlA (17tl' Street- Vero Beach City Limits); parts of US 1 in the City of Sebastian and in the City ofVero Beach; and the Wabasso Causeway.

Roadway improvement projects in the cost affordable plan can be found on Attachment 13. Major 2030 plarmed roadway improvements include the widening of SR 60 (82nd Avenue- 98th



Avenue); the construction of 58th Avenue (Oslo Road to Koblegard Road in St. Lucie County); the construction of 82"d Avenue (26th Street to Laconia Street and south of Oslo Road to St. Lucie County); the widening of 66th Avenue (Barber Street to St. Lucie County); the widening of USI (Roseland Road to Brevard County, CR 510 to Aviation Boulevard, and Oslo Road to St. Lucie County); and the extension of Aviation Boulevard (US 1 to Indian River Boulevard).


Indian River County through the Comprehensive Plan continues to identifY existing right-of-way and minimum standards. The County also engages in other right-of-way protection practices, such as maintaining an inventory of parcels subject to Murphy Act right-of-way reservations and coordinating with developers and other agencies, through the Technical Review Committee (TRC) process, to acquire rights-of-way from new development projects. Since the last major plan update, the county has developed a map of road rights-of-way to be dedicated at time of platting for new development. That inventory, known as the Extended Grid Network, is shown on Attachment 14. Through the Extended Grid Network, future road rights-of-way are identified on a grid that covers the entire urban service area of the county and extends to the conservation lands of western Indian River County. Collectors and arterials are maintained at approximately the same intervals as presently exist, meaning that east-west roadways extend at \12 mile intervals and north-south roadways extend at 1-mile intervals.


In 2004, the MPO completed a major Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan update. According to that plan, 37% of the roadway network had a bicycle level of service (BLOS) of "E" or "F," while 20% of the roadway network had a pedestrian level of service (PLOS) of "E" or "F". At that time, approximately 200.44 miles of the county's thoroughfare plan roadways had a combined outside lane/paved shoulder width of at least fourteen feet. In addition, 101.84 miles of roadways contained an adjacent sidewalk.

Traffic data for existing conditions are included in Attachment 8 (a) and 8 (b) in Appendix A. In 2005, the intersection of 17th Street and US 1 had the highest number of crashes, with 23 crashes recorded. The locations with the highest relative crash rates were 21st Street at 8th Street (6.25 crashes per MEV) and 21st Street at 5th Ave (4.37 per MEV).

In 2005, there were 1,522 crashes and 32 fatalities on Indian River County's roadways. Crash rates for 2005 were approximately one crash per 2,800 vehicle miles traveled. The per capita crash rate was .012. Approximately 2% of all crashes resulted in a fatality.

With respect to bicycle and pedestrian safety, data from the 2004 bike/ped plan update are included as attachment IO(a) and IO(b). As depicted on the maps, seven roadways averaged one or more



bicycle crashes per year. These included SR 60 (581h- 43'd Avenue); SR 60 (271h Avenue to 14th Avenue); 161h/171h Street (201h Avenue to Indian River Boulevard); 12th Street (20th Avenue to Old Dixie Highway); US 1 (12'h Street to SR 60 and 261h Street to 41st Street); Royal Palm Point at Indian River Boulevard; and CR 512 (Roseland Road to Fleming Street).

Demand Responsive Transportation

In 2005, The Council on Aging continued to provide demand response service in Indian River County. This service was available throughout the entire county between 6:30am and 5:30pm. Clients were asked to make reservations from 24 to 48 hours in advance, depending on the nature of the trip. For the same year, there were 66,245 passenger trips. As indicated in Attachment 21, there were 18 demand service transit and paratransit providers, countywide.

Transit Service

In 2005, the Indian River County Council on Aging also operated a fixed route system six days per week, through its Indian River Transit division. Service was free and available to all riders. There were nine routes that operated countywide. Services are depicted in Attachments 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 40. The system operated between 8 am and 5 pm, Monday to Friday, at one hour headway on all nine routes. Five routes had limited service on Saturdays. In downtown Vero Beach, Pocahontas Park, was the transfer facility for five of the nine routes: By 2005, there were 250,661 annual passenger trips, on the fixed route system. A dial a ride program was also available for residents living more than Y. mile or more from a bus stop. It operated from 6:30am to 5:30pm, five days a week. Ridership per capita was 1.27; cost per mile was at $2.83, and riders per mile were 0.68.


Indicators of transit need such as age, income, race, mobility and auto availability for 2005 are summarized in Attachment 23. At that time, the county's elderly (age 65 and older) population was 29.2%, while the per capita personal income for the county was $40,677. 2000 census figures showed 9.3% of the population living below the poverty level. Blacks (8.2%) and Latinos (6.5%) were the largest minority groups in the county according to the census, 23% of residents were disabled, and approximately 6% of county residents had no vehicle. Census data from 2000 showed .37% of residents used public transportation to commute to work.

Attachment 25 shows major trip production and attraction locations in the county for 2005. The major shopping areas for the county were located in the central county area. These included the Miracle Mile and Treasure Coast Plazas east of downtown Vero Beach and a number of centers west of Vero Beach. Centers in the west-central portion of the county included the Prime Outlet Center (formerly Horizon Outlet Mall), the Indian River Mall, Ryanwood shopping center, Target, Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-Mart Superstore and Sam's Club. South Vero and Oslo Shopping Centers were located in the southern part of the county. North County retail centers



included the Roseland Shopping Center, the Wal-Mart Superstore and the downtown Sebastian area.


The MPO continues to provide transportation planning, including transit and transportation disadvantaged planning services, for the county. In addition to its longstanding interagency coordination functions, the MPO in 2006 became an active participant in regional planning activities along the Treasure Coast. This occurred with the MPO's execution of an interlocal agreement for regional coordination with Martin and St. Lucie Counties and its participation in a regional transportation board, the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC).

Since 1996, the MPO has secured $8,994,892 in local, state and federal transit funding. In 2005 alone, that total was over $2.7 million. Some of the funds were used to secure additional vehicles and cover operating expenses. At the same time, planning grants allowed the MPO to hire transportation consultants to conduct studies, write plans and provide much needed expertise.

Transit Qualitv of Service

In 2005, consultants performed a transit quality of service analysis as part of a TDP major update. Transit Frequency and Hours of Service (8 am to 5 pm) operated at LOS E. There was variation in the Travel Time level of service measure between different routes on the system, ranging from "A" on routes with little traffic and few stops to "D" in the Vero Beach area; the average system-wide score was LOS B. The other components ofTQOS are: Passenger Loading of transit vehicles, which was at LOS A; Reliability, which was at LOS C; and Service Coverage, which was at LOS B.

Port, Aviation, and Related Facilities

In 2006, there were no rail yards, rail terminals, commercial seaport facilities, or commercial airport services within Indian River County. Scheduled commuter service at Vero Beach Municipal Airport no longer existed, having been discontinued in 1997, due to low ridership. Non-scheduled charter flights were still available, but the number or passengers taking advantage of this service was low. Total operations at Vero Beach Airpmt, Sebastian Airport, and New Hibiscus Airpark were 179,664, 48,684, and 20,300 respectively.

The location of Indian River County Airports can be found on Attachment 42. Attachments 53 and 55 show land uses surrounding the airports. Attachment 42, also depicts the existing locations of the county's waterway, aviation, and related facilities. Attachments 44 and 46 show access to Vero Beach and Sebastian Municipal Airports. Data showing general characteristics for all three airports are contained in Attachment 49. In 2005, the land uses surrounding Vero Beach airport included park land, mobile home parks, conservation areas, commercial,



government, industrial, residential, and mixed uses. Surrounding land uses at Sebastian Airport were mobile home parks, conservation, commercial, industrial, institutional, single and multifamily residential, recreational and riverfront mixed uses.

A Truck Traffic Routing Plan was adopted in Indian River County in 2003. That plan designated approximately 70 centerline miles of roadways as either primary or secondary truck routes in Indian River County.

Energy Efficiency

As an output of travel demand models, a summary of air quality and energy efficiency impacts is produced. Year 2005 energy efficiency data derived from the adopted Long Range Plan is contained in Attachment 51.

ANALYSIS

Population Growth

Population growth and growth in the number and length of trips are the primary contributors to increased transportation demand. Attachment 1 of Appendix A indicates that the county population increased by 29.7% from 1996 to 2005, a higher overall population growth rate than for the State of Florida as a whole over that time. While the population growth was high, daily vehicle miles traveled increased even more substantially (38.5%). With respect to total person trips, growth in person trips for the period 1995-2000 (11.17%) slightly exceeded population growth in Indian River County over that same time frame (10%). These figures demonstrate continuation of an ongoing trend in Indian River County. While the number of trips made per person grew over the study period, the length of trips grew at a much faster rate. This is indicative of the increasing distance between trip production locations (homes) and trip attraction locations (shopping and employment). In Indian River County, population growth since the last major plan update has occurred throughout the county, with much of it concentrated in newly platted subdivisions in western portions of the urban service area. Commercial activity, meanwhile, was largely concentrated along only two major corridors (the US 1 corridor and, more recently, the SR 60 corridor). While the expansion of commercial establishments along SR 60 has brought commercial centers closer to some of the new development, many of the newer subdivisions remain several miles away from commercial centers. In the future, Oslo Road and CR 512 commercial development will generate additional trips but will have the overall effect of reducing trip lengths due to their proximity to new residential development. In addition, since the last update, the county has actively encouraged Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) principles in the planning process. TND commtmities are characterized by residential, commercial, and employment centers in close proximity to one another. Although the number of the communities is small, proposed new TND developments such as Liberty Park and the Pointe West Town Center will impact trip lengths in those respective areas.



· Although trip making by individuals is still outpacing overall growth in population, the rate of increase in tripmaking relative to population appears to be slowing when compared to previous years. This can partially be explained by the increasing number of retirees in Indian River County and nationally (see Transportation Disadvantaged Populations) and the increase in telecommuting and home-based employment.

As stated, population growth and growth in the number and length of trips are the primary contributors to increased transportation demand. In order to maintain the existing quality of life in the community, this demand must be identified and met by providing appropriate roadway and transit capacity, by maximizing the efficient use of the transportation system, and through coordinating land use and transportation.

Roadway Capacitv and Laneage

A comparison of the 1996 and 2006 roadway networks reveals a number of new and improved roadway facilities. The county has completed one major road widening project (the four-laning of 581

h Avenue between SR 60 to Oslo Road) and has added 13.94 centerline miles of new roadways during this same period. While the roadway improvements have resulted in new capacity, level of service (which is based on the ratio of volume to capacity) has decreased throughout most of the county, as evidenced by comparing 1996 and 2005 levels of service (Attachment 6). The primary cause of the lower service levels is that the demand for the transportation system (as reflected in growth in population, trips, and miles traveled) has increased faster than the supply of new transportation facilities. One indication of new capacity, roadway system centerline mileage, has increased only 4.5% in the study period, far below the growth in population or daily person trips. Increased congestion is also reflected in increased commuter travel times. Between 1990 and 2000, the average commute time has increased 9.1% in Indian River Cmmty.

One reason for the lack of growth in the supply of transportation facilities is the increase in cost in providing those facilities. For example, the cost of widening SR 60 from 661

h Ave to 82nd Ave, was estimated by FDOT at $3,491,600 in 1996. The estimated cost of construction has risen over 1,000% during this time to $37 million. During the same period, many of the transportation revenue sources, particularly at the state and federal level, have experienced stagnant growth. The Federal Gas Tax, for example, has remained constant at 18.4 cents/gallon since 1982. Recognizing that revenue shortfalls were jeopardizing the implementation of the county's long range transportation plans, the county has increased transportation revenues locally. These increases have enabled the county to make substantial progress in delivering new roadway capacity in Indian River County. As shown on Attachment 12, construction is underway or scheduled to begin shortly on a number of road projects, including CR 512; Oslo Road; CR 510; 66th Avenue; SR 60; and US I. When complete, these projects will forestall any additional LOS deficiencies on those roads through the near term. These capacity increases have been made possible by a substantial increase in traffic impact fees imposed in 2004 and by other techniques such as proportionate share

INDIAN RNER COUNTY PAGE 14


ordinances. The county has not, however, imposed other transportation revenue sources at its disposal, such as the ELMS five cent local option gas tax.

Demand exceeding supply alone does not account for all of the decreases in LOS exhibited on Attachment 6. With the publication of the latest (2002) FDOT Quality and Level of Service Handbook, Level of Service capacities on the generalized tables decreased for nearly all classifications of roadways. For example, the peak hour directional capacity at LOS "D" for a 4-lane roadway with between 2 and 4.5 signals/mile dropped from 1,890 vehicles to 1,710 vehicles. The generalized tables are the basis of most of the LOS capacity determinations. Therefore, lower capacities result in lower levels of service at the same traffic volume.

Despite the trend toward lower Levels of Service, only a very small number of roadways actually exceed the adopted LOS standard in Indian River County. Currently, the only roadways exceeding capacity in Indian River County are SR AlA in Vero Beach and SR 60 from 66'h Avenue to 82nd Avenue. A number of other roadways exceed Level of Service "D" standards, but are within their adopted standard. That is because the county has lowered the level of service standard to "E+20%" on portions of those roadways. Those roadways are 43'd Avenue and 27'h Avenue in south Indian River County. It is anticipated that this reduction in adopted level of service will be a temporary measure until those roadways can be widened.


Typically, total future year travel demand is based on population projections published by the State Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). Total future year population is then allocated to individual transportation analysis zones (TAZs) based on the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Employment, schools, recreation, and shopping facilities are also allocated based on the Future Land Use Element, at levels proportionate to future population.

In the past, many BEBR forecasts underestimated future growth, and, consequently, led to an underestimation of travel demand. As shown in table II (b), a number of roadways that were deficient in 2006 were not anticipated to be deficient in the 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. To ensure that future forecasts are as accurate as possible, the MPO developed its own population forecast for the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan update. This forecast took into consideration recent development trends and resulted in a 2030 population projection between the BEBR midrange and high forecasts. To improve the accuracy of projecting how much future development would occur, while the MPO recently developed a specialized vacant parcel and future development GIS model. Using this model, the MPO was able to identifY available vacant land by T AZ; vacant lots in existing platted subdivisions; and total future units by T AZ. By incorporating this information in the Long Range Plan development process, the MPO was able to avoid errors such as assigning future development to built-out zones. Through the MPO visioning process, the MPO also modeled the transportation impacts of alternative land use scenarios.



Because of those efforts, the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan identified a number of new deficiencies and projects not appearing on earlier plans. Examples of these new projects include the widening of US 1 from 26th Street to CR 51 0; the widening of US 1 from Roseland Road to Brevard County; and the widening of 58th Avenue from 261

h Street to 53'd Street. Projected future levels of service on the County's roadways is shown in Attachment 15.

Since 1996, the county has routinely examined its crash records to identify those locations with high crash occurrences. The county also seeks opportunities to improve safety in future roadway projects and routinely exanrines the system to improve deficiencies that may not yet be reflected in crash statistics. As a result, both the crash rate per capita (.012) and the crash rate per vehicle miles traveled (1 per 2,800 VMT) remained constant between 1996 and 2005. While this does not indicate improved safety, these rates have remained constant in a climate of increasing congestion and population growth. In addition, the percentage of crashes resulting in fatalities has also remained constant (2% of all crashes), indicating no increase in the severity of crashes in Indian River County.

While overall crash rates have remained constant since 1996, the number of intersections with five or more crashes has nearly doubled, from 3 7 in 1995 to 70 in 2005. Eight intersections in 1994 had crash rates of 2.0 per MEV or greater, the same number as in 2005. These intersections are shown on Attachment 8 (b). While the number of high-crash intersections is increasing in absolute terms, this is not necessarily indicative of a worsening safety situation. Rather, it is to be expected that the number of crashes will increase, given recent growth in population and travel. A better indication of safety can be developed by overall examining crash rates and severity of crashes.

It should be noted that many of the intersections with the worst crash rates in 1996 had improved significantly by 2005. For example, safety at the intersection of Royal Palm Boulevard and Indian River Boulevard improved dramatically despite a tremendous increase in traffic. Since the last major plan update, the county undertook a number of safety improvements at this location, including intersection geometry improvements, access management and landscaping on Royal Palm Point, the installation of "signal ahead" warnings on Indian River Boulevard, and the construction of the "Causeway Connector" over the main relief canal. Another intersection that experienced a significant decrease in crashes was 121

h Street at Old Dixie Highway, which decreased from 19 crashes in 1996 to 4 crashes in 2005. Part of this reduction was due to a widening of l21

h Street, sidewalk installation, and miscellaneous intersection improvements in the vicinity.

Crash rates have declined on nearly the entire SR 60 corridor from I-95 to downtown Vero Beach and on many of the intersections on US 1 in Indian River County. Part of the decline can be attributed to FDOT' s safety management techniques, including the installation of mast arm signalization and backlit street identification signs; access management improvements, including the installation of center medians; and the use of ITS technologies (including fiber optic cables, traffic cameras, and white enforcement lights.) Decreased crash rates have also been noted on US!



in Sebastian, especially at the intersection of CR 512. At the request of local officials, FDOT incorporated a number of traffic calming techniques into a recent resurfacing. These techniques included landscaped medians, paver block sidewalks and on-street parking. As more information on the effectiveness of FDOT's techniques is obtained, some or all of these may be incorporated into the county's roadway design and safety procedures.

Since 1995, the county traffic engineering department has coordinated its activities with municipalities, law enforcement officials, and FDOT through interlocal agreements and through membership on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ofthe MPO. Information is also shared with the Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST). In the past, however, the emphasis of the CTST has been on coordinating traffic safety from a law enforcement perspective. In addition, the county incorporates safety into its bike/ped plan, long range plan, and enhancement prioritization methodology. In so doing, the county directly addresses a number of high-crash locations through near-term construction projects. Despite these efforts, the county lacks an effective forum with a primary emphasis on safety that also has participation from state and municipal organizations.

Overall, there were more segments of roadway exceeding 1.0 bike/ped crashes per year in the county in 2005 than there were in 1996. Most of these high-crash facilities were concentrated in the same general vicinity as in 1996, with two exceptions. One of the new high crash locations, SR 60 from 58th Avenue to 43'd Avenue, is in the SR 60 corridor, an area that saw significant growth in retail activity since 1996. Bicycle and pedestrian activity has increased in this area since many of the low-wage and younger employees of these retail establishments do not have access to automobiles. The other new high crash location is along CR 512 in Sebastian, which is to be expected in light of the high recent growth in the Sebastian and North County areas relative to the county as a whole.

As safety issues become an increasingly visible problem in the county, the county must look to improve more facilities and increase awareness through programs targeted at appropriate stakeholders. This will involve incorporating new technologies and safety techniques, and providing additional coordination opportunities.


While virtually all of the cost components of roadway construction have escalated dramatically in recent years, some of the most dramatic increases have been in the cost of right-of-way acquisition. One practice implemented since the last major plan update has resulted in the identification of hundreds of miles of potential right -of-way aligmnent. This practice is the adoption of the Extended Grid Network (Attachment 14). Through the network, the county is assured of a coordinated thoroughfare grid of 80-foot (minimum) road rights-of-way at one mile (north-south) and 'l2 mile (east-west) intervals. First adopted in 1998 to encompass areas inside the urban service area, the Grid Network was enlarged in 2002 to protect rights-of-way inside of the I-95 corridor. It was expanded again in 2005 to its current status, which terminates at the conservation lands in the western portion of the county.



The county is also exploring other innovations in right-of-way acquisition in light of the escalation in land costs since 1996. For example, the county has revisited its traffic impact fees twice since 1996, each time reevaluating the cost of right-of-way acquisition in the context of the cost of road provision and incorporating these costs into the fee. The county passed a Proportionate Share ordinance in 2005, which provides a mechauism for developers to share in the cost of right-of-way acquisition and roadway improvements. Finally, the county has hired a full-time right-of-way acquisition manager and is in the process of adopting right-of-way acquisition maps for all major roadways.


Since 1996, the county has adopted a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and has performed a major updated to that plan. That plan established goals, objectives, and policies that malce the County's transportation network safer and more accessible for bicyclists and pedestrians. The plan identifies needed facilities and defines a network of bicycle paths and sidewalks to meet the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians. In addition, the plan sets guidelines and direction for bikeway and sidewalk facility design and construction.

Several components of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan have ensured achievement of the plan's goals and objectives. One component is a set of projects and prioritization of those projects to address deficiencies on the county's non-motorized network. In addition, through the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and associated land development regulations, the county requires that developers of all non-residential property and residential property over a certain threshold install or escrow funds for bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The county is responsible for improvements in existing developed areas where safety hazards exist. To fulfill its responsibility, the county has budgeted a portion of its local option sales tax to fund bike paths and sidewalks, and has applied for and received several SAFETEA-LU 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. In 2006, these funding sources were supplemented by $270,000 in Safe Route to School grants from FDOT.

Finally, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan sets forth design criteria for facilities. These criteria were established by consensus-building among plarmers, engineers, cyclists, school officials, recreational users, commuters, the elderly, and citizens. Through these criteria, the county's sidewalks and bike paths serve the community.

One new component of the Bicycle and Pedestrian plans first incorporated in 1998 were detailed facility inventories and level of service analyses. An analysis of conditions at the time of the last major plan update and of existing conditions reveals a number of trends. The supply of bicycle and pedestrian facilities has increased dramatically since the time of the last major plan update. The mileage of thoroughfare plan roadway with wide shoulders or designated bike lanes has increased 61% (76 miles) during this time frame, with only 14 miles of this increase accountable to new



roadway construction. In the course of roadway widening and resurfacing projects, the county and FDOT have provided bicycle and pedestrian improvements wherever physically possible. For example, in the period between 2000- 2003, most of SR AlA was resurfaced by FDOT, with expanded shoulders and bicycle lanes provided in both directions. Fifty seven miles of new sidewalk was provided between 1994-2005, an increase of 136%.

The presence of dedicated facilities is one component of bicycle and pedestrian level of service. Other components include the speed and volume of adjacent traffic; the presence of heavy or oversize vehicles on the adjacent roadway; intersection geometry; dedicated crossings; and crash histories. According to the 2004 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, each of these conditions have worsened in the county since 1996. The result is an overall decline in bicycle and pedestrian levels of service, as shown in Attachments 16 and 17. Between 1996 and 2005, the percentage of the roadway network with a bicycle level of service (BLOS) of "E" or "F" increased from 4.3% to 3 7%. In the same timeframe, the percentage of the roadway network with a pedestrian level of service (PLOS) of"E" or "F" increased from 11.7% to 37%.

As indicated in the current bicycle and pedestrian plan, there are significant needs for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the county. In addition to facility construction, there is also a need to ensure that sidewalks and bicycle paths provide for continuous movement arid provide access from trip generators such as housing areas to trip attractor areas such as shopping, employment, and recreation. One new way the county is addressing these issues is through development of North, Central, and South County Greenways Plans. Through these plans, the county is seeking to identifY opportunities for non-motorized travel through and along various off-road facilities such as abandoned rail corridors, public rights-of-way, and along canal easements. The first of these plans, the Central Indian River County Greenways Plan, was adopted by the MPO in 2006. This plan identifies a number of off-road alternatives for non-motorized travel. The highest priority alternative, the Airport/Aviation Boulevard loop, will provide a safe off-road travel alternative to several facilities with low Bike/Ped levels of service, including US 1, 41'1 Street, and 43'd Avenue.

Over the past ten years, non-motorized transportation has taken on greater importance as road and highway funding more limited. The federal and state transportation entities are providing localities greater opportunities to initiate maintain and expand intermodal facilities. Cities throughout the United States have realized they can not build their way out of congestion. Additionally, environmental concerns such as reliance on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions have made greenway development more viable alternatives.

Neighborhood Impacts and Aesthetics

Roadways have a strong relationship with the areas surrounding them. Neighborhoods may use the roadway as a gathering place and means of travel, or the roadway may act as a noisy barrier dividing neighbors. Roadways may also serve as attractive corridors promoting a community's identity, or they may be unsightly lengths of pavement on which only cars are welcome.



Since the time of the last major plan update, Indian River County has enacted measures and programmed roadway improvements that are designed to make roadways aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses. Two measures, in particular, have been enacted specifically for this purpose: the adoption of corridor plans and the development of Community Profiles.

The first county corridor plan, the Wabasso corridor plan, was adopted in November of 1995. Since that time, other corridor plans have been enacted that apply to all of the county's principal arterials and many of its other major roadways. While the details of these corridor plans vary by corridor, all of the plans contain regulations on permitted activities, landscaping, architectural guidelines, outdoor advertising, and other elements that may improve upon a neighborhood's overall aesthetics.

The Community Outreach/Community Profile project was undertaken in response to an FDOT initiative known as Efficient Transportation Decision Making. By automating the environmental review process and posting environmental and socio-economic data to the internet, FDOT attempted to obtain "early and proactive" public involvement and agency review in future transportation project development. The County's Community Profile project involved identifYing major demographic groupings of citizens, with an emphasis on the traditionally underserved and underrepresented populations; collecting GIS layers of demographic information for use in the planning process; identifYing major community features and institutions; and establishing a database of key community contacts.

In addition to these formal measures, other practices have been undertaken since 1996. These include public workshops; design charrettes; context sensitive designs and typical sections; and the 2030 Long Range Plan Visioning process. With respect to the visioning process, feedback was obtained through a number of community-wide workshops as well as through regional consensusbuilding workshops. Feedback was obtained and evaluated on transportation and other aspects of future growth, such as land use, and economic development. Where appropriate, these issues are discussed in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The most frequently mentioned public comments were as follows:

• Roadways need to catch up with current demands and needs; • The public not wanting major road construction is an obstacle that needs to be overcome; • Traffic calming measures should be implemented through aesthetic improvements; • A street paving program for unimproved streets should be implemented; and • The County needs to better address bicycle and pedestrian needs.

Demand Response Transportation

Although the Council on Aging is the primary demand response operator in the county, there are a growing number of alternate providers. The COA continues to provide transportation for ambulatory and non-ambulatory residents. The fare for demand service ranges from $5.99 per person for group trips to $16.07 per person for wheelchair trips. Costs are usually reimbursable in insurance. Demand service experienced a 27.8% decrease in passenger trips from 1996 to



2005. While demand response service continues to serve riders who for various reasons are unable to use the fixed route system, the county has been able to transfer thousands of rides to the less costly fixed route system by expanding and publicizing that system and concentrating routes in traditionally underserved areas.

Fixed-Route Transit

Fixed route transit appears to have successfully met the needs of its users by providing, efficient and accessible public transportation, as evidenced by a marked increase in fixed route ridership. Because of the magnitude of the increase, the increase cannot be attributed to population growth alone. The creation and marketing of the IRT system in 1998 helped to increase brand recognition, and change negative perceptions about transit. Routes were modified to provide better access to major trip attractors. The transfer hub was relocated from V ero Beach Airport to Pocahontas Park. There are now two additional transit station transfer points: the Gifford Health Center and the Food Court at the Indian River Mall.

Fixed route transit has grown steadily over the years and has expanded to meet the growing needs of its riders. In 1996 there were six bus routes. By 2005 there were nine routes, with two more routes scheduled to begin operation in 2007. There has been a 2,813% increase in fixed route ridership, from 8,605 in 1996 to 250,661 in 2005. This marked increase attests to the growing demand for transit service in Indian River County.

In addition to an increase in absolute ridership numbers, there has been a corresponding increase in transit efficiency. Ridership per capita and ridership per route mile have both increased by 500% since 1996. This indicates both a higher percentage of the public using transit and increased use of buses on the road. The cost per mile has only increased marginally since 1996 which shows both efficient use of resources and savings by switching passengers to fixed route serv1ces.

The percentage of persons commuting to work by transit has also grown by 300% from 1990 to 2000. For many workers, such as those on a conventional 9am to 5pm schedule, round trip commuting via the transit system is not yet possible. Often, those riders can travel to work on the bus but have to find a different mode of travel to get home. In 2006, a service development grant from FDOT was obtained that will address this deficiency by extending the hours or operation on several fixed routes.

Fixed route transit demand is expected to increase as the transit-dependent population, overall population, funding, and major trip attractors increases. Government agencies like FDOT and USDOT have increased transportation allocations for transit and transit infrastructure relative to highway funding. Localities are expected under state and federal guidance to maintain greater coordination between land use and transportation in an attempt to limit sprawl and promote transit. In the state of Florida, many counties have looked to transit in order to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. In addition, transit holds potential a lifestyle choice for



retirees, persons with diminishing skills, enviromnentally conscious populations, and tourists. Since plan adoption, transit routes to major employment centers have been requested by a number of major employers and the workforce development board of the Treasure Coast. Finally, Indian River Transit will continue to be relied upon in emergency evacuation situations.


Factors such as population growth, age, race, income, unemployment, mobility/health, and auto availability continue be indictors of transit need. Transportation Disadvantaged is defined by the State of Florida as "persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or inability to drive due to age or disability are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and have no other form of transportation available. They are dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, or medically necessary or life-sustaining activities."

Indian River County has a considerable share of residents who fall under the transportationdisadvantaged category as shown by the above-mentioned indicators. From 24,592 in 1990 to 32,972 in 2000, there has been a 34.1% increase in residents aged 65 and older. The elderly tend to have a greater reliance on fixed route and demand response transit due to deteriorating health and safety issues like diminished reaction times, loss of mobility and vision. There has been a steady increase in Indian River County's elderly population. As the current population ages, there will be a higher demand for transit. Seniors will continue to need access to health care and shopping centers. There are many benefits for seniors who use transit. For example, transit enables these residents to retain their sense of independence, live in their homes longer, and be functioning members of the community. Younger populations, especially those below age 18 and without their own transportation, also have difficulty accessing shopping and recreational facilities on their own.

Depending on the type of disability, many handicapped residents are physically not able to drive. The percent ofindian River County's population that is disabled has remained steady since 1994 at 23%. Low-income residents are less likely to be able to purchase vehicles. If they currently own cars, many cannot afford to insure or replace them. In addition, recent escalations in the price of gasoline are more likely to hinder the mobility of low-income residents, who are more sensitive to price fluctuations. The percent of residents living below poverty increased by 33.3% from 7,745 in 1989 to I 0,325 in 1999. While the Black population has increased by 19.4% from 7,660 in 1990 to 9,143 in 2000, the percentage of the total population that is black has decreased. The number of Latinos has seen a dramatic increase of 173%, from 2,704 in 1990 'to 7,391 as more immigrants move to the county.

Current and future land use patterns have a substantial influence on the characteristics of transit systems. Land use characteristics such as development type and density provide an indication of present and future transit demand. In terms of population density, Indian River County remains a relatively low-density community. With 347,520 acres in the county as a whole, the overall



population density was approximately 0.37 persons per acre in 2005. Since most of the development has taken place in the eastern one-third of the county, the population density of the urbanized area increased slightly but overall is still relatively low. In 1995, there were approximately 1.4 persons per acre and 1.63 persons per acre in 2005.

The identification of major trip generators and attractors helps determine the demand for transit. Trip production areas are those portions of the county where major residential developments are located. These developments produce 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.

Lack of adequate transportation is a barrier to accessing health care, governmental agencies, recreational facilities, retail and educational, employment, and social opportunities. Although Indian River County has incomes at or above the state average of $31,469 there are populations who require public transportation. As the current adult population ages and the number of other transportation disadvantaged groups grows, the need for transit services will grow. Transit service will continue to be a combination of fixed route and demand response service due to low population density and dispersed developments patterns. Blended transit will likely continue until higher population densities are achieved and development patterns become more compact.

Transit Quality of Service

A comparison of transit quality of service between time of the last major plan update in 1996 and 2005 reveals no observable changes in three of the level of service measures that were identified: Service Frequency (LOS E), Hours of Service (LOS E) and Average Loading (LOS A). Indian River Transit has made strides in improving its hours of operation. Since 1996, the fixed route system has expanded its evening hours from 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Nonetheless, the TQOS indicators do not rate a system at LOS D or above for hours of operation until that system operates on a 12-hour a day basis. A service development grant received by the MPO in 2006 will enable IRT to provide some 12-hr. service on a demonstration basis.

With respect to service frequency, it has been mentioned that one priority for service expansion is to adopt 30-minute headways on all routes. Instead, the county has chosen to invest its transit resources in another identified priority, expanding into previously unserved areas of the county, such as Fellsmere and Wabasso. In making this tradeoff, the county has experienced improvement in service coverage from level of service D in 1995 to B in 2005. Specifically, the county has added three new routes and extended its six existing routes. This LOS improvement demonstrates that the county considers areas of high transit-oriented populations in its route planning process. In the future, as service coverage has been extended to all areas of high demand, the county may concentrate on its service frequency LOS.

Finally, two other indicators, Travel Time and Reliability, are not available for 1996. Therefore, no meaningful level of comparison is possible for these indicators.




While there have been slight changes to the composition of the MPO and its advisory committees since the last major plan update, there have been no significant changes to the MPO regarding its organization, membership, or planning functions. One major change in the MPO's responsibilities occurred in 2006 with the development of the TCTC interlocal agreement. Through this agreement, the MPO committed to developing a regional transportation plan and priorities with the two other MPOs on the Treasure Coast. Development of that plan and priorities is now underway.

The transit plarming and service development activities in Indian River County have grown considerably since the formation of the MPO in 1993. For example, TDP Major or Minor updates have been performed each year by the MPO since 1998. One purpose of the TDP is to establish objectives for transit in Indian River County and monitor progress towards those objectives. In addition, the MPO has met quarterly with the transit operator, the Council on Aging, to ensure continuing control and oversight over the transit system. In 1996, the MPO was responsible for obtaining $789,850 in transit service grants and $17,691 in planning grants. The MPO successfully applied for $2,497,000 in transit service grants and over $200,000 in transit plarming funds in 2005. This represents a 216.2% and 1,144.7% increase in transit services and plarming funding respectively. Since the time of last plan update, the county has received over $9,000,000 in transit grants. Some of the increase in transit funding is due to two six-year highway reauthorization bills passed since 1996. Each of these bills, which determine the allocation of highway and transit funds, both increased the percentage of funds dedicated to transit projects. In addition, FDOT has provided incentives for local transit service provision in the form of a number of new matching grant programs.

In the immediate future, the IRCMPO will work closely with the COA to improve ridership. The following service improvements are plarmed for 2010 on the fixed route system, as funding permits: Sunday service; extended weekday service (to 6:30pm); and 30-minute headways on all routes.

Port. Aviation, and Related Facilities

Indian River County Airports

Two of the County's three General Aviation airports have experienced reductions in total operations (takeoffs and landings by all aircraft) since 1996. Total operations at the Vero Beach Airport fell by nearly 25,000, or 12%, in the reporting period. Airport officials attribute this reduction to a number of trends, including the reduction in trainees at the airport's Flight Safety International training center. Operations fell at New Hibiscus Airport by 17,200 (-45%) and increased at the Sebastian Airport by 13,952 (40%). Commercial aviation service is no longer available in the county, since commuter flights to Miami were discontinued at Vero Beach



Municipal Airport. There are no immediate plans to resume shuttle service. Melbourne, Palm Beach or Orlando Airports are within a half hour to hour and half drive.

The land uses surrounding the counties airports reflect changing development patterns in the County. The land uses around Vera Beach Municipal Airport have evolved to include conservation, government, residences, mixed use, commercial/industrial zones, and park lands. The uses surrounding Sebastian Municipal Airport are now conservation areas, riverfront mixed use areas, institutional, commercial, single and multi-family residential and recreational. Other than conservation areas, there are no longer large tracts of vacant or undeveloped land surrounding both airports. Since the land surrounding airports often cannot be developed for residential purposes due to noise restrictions, airports have become ideal locations for industrial development.

Vera Beach and Sebastian Airports have recently completed Master Plans to determine future development and operations. The Vera Beach Municipal Airport is in the process of renovating its terminals and hangers. The airport is also participating with the county on a number of trail and road widening projects that will improve access to those locations. Aviation Boulevard is slated for widening between US 1 and 43'd Avenue and is currently under design. It will be expanded from a two-lane road (one lane in each direction) to a four-lane road. As shown on Attachment 50, Level of Service on roadways access and both major Indian River County airports are currently at "D" of better. This plarmed construction project includes a multimodal component. There will be new bus stops, airport access points, sidewalks, and recreational paths. Other areas of the airport and surrounding property will be incorporated into a green ways trail to provide recreational and travel opportunities.

Waterways and Ports

Although the Intracoastal Waterway runs through the county, there continues to be no need for future port facilities. Both passenger traffic and cargo needs are adequately met through existing means of transportation, and port facilities in nearby F art Pierce are proposed for expansion. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan's Conservation Element and Coastal Zone Element policies preclude dredging new charmels and other activities associated with port development.

Rail

The Florida East Coast Railway is a single-track class II rail line and is the only rail facility in Indian River County. It is currently being double-tracked throughout Indian River County to improve freight mobility and minimize delays at crossings. A proposal to provide high-speed rail in the state of Florida, and another proposal to provide Amtrak service on the FEC corridor, have both been halted due to funding concerns.

Freight and Goods Movement



Prior to 2003, one roadway, 82"d Avenue south of SR 60, was posted as a truck route in Indian River County. This segment, along with Oslo Road from 82"d to US!, constituted approximately 10 miles of identified truck routes. Since 2003, the county has identified an additional 70 miles of truck routes. This designation was intended to streamline the flow of freight and goods and keep truck traffic out of residential corridors. Preliminary indications are the plan has been successful in reducing the number of truck complaints on several county corridors, including 43'd Avenue south ofSR60.

Intercity Bus

The Greyhound Bus Line provides service to West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami, Titusville and Orlando, where connecting routes are available. It embarks several times a week from the Texaco Gas Station, on US1 in Vero Beach.

Energy Efficiency

A comparison of the changes in emissions between 1996 and 2000 reveals that each of the pollutants identified (CO, HC, and NO) have increased between 19 and 23% in the 4-year period. Between 2000 and 2030, the increase is in the 90 - 92% range. When interpolated for five-year intervals, the 2000 - 2005 increases for CO, HC and NO were 15.5%, 15.23% and 15.01% respectively.


2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element, Traffic Section

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

APPENDIX A Data & Analysis

PAGE AI


Attachment 1. General Travel and Roadway Characteristics Comparison of Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996) and Existing Conditions (2005)

CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF

DATA ELEMENT THE LAST MAJOR PLAN UPDATE

DATA YEAR CITATION

Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on State System (thousands)

Indian River County 1,620.4 1994 FDOT

Florida 214,381.6 1994 FDOT

Total Daily Person-Trips for County 431,965 1995 FSUTMS

Average Travel Time to Work 20.02 (min.) 1993 CUTR

Population

Indian River County 100,261 1995 BEBR

Florida 14,162,331 1995 BEBR

Roadway System Centerline Mileage (includes all Thoroughfare Plan 307.08 1997 FDOT Roads)

Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities

Mileage of Thoroughfare Plan Roadway with Adjacent 43 1995 MPO Bike/ Sidewalk PedPlan Mileage of Thoroughfare Plan Roadway with Paved

1995 MPO Bike/

Shoulder/Wide Curb Lane 124 Ped Plan

Sources: CUTR- Center for University Transportation Research, US Census Bureau, County Data Book BEBR -Bureau of Economic and Business Research FDOT -FDOT, State Highway System Mileage Report FSUTMS -Indian River County FSUTMS Validated Travel Demand Model (1995, 2000). MPO -Indian River County MPO Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan (1995, 2004)

EXISTING CONDITIONS

DATA YEAR SOURCE

2,244.9 . 2005 FDOT

292,239.3 2005 FDOT

480,246 2005 FSUTMS

21.85 (min.) 2004 CUTR

130,043 2005 BEBR

17,918,227 2005 BEBR

321.022 2005 FDOT

101.84 2004 MPOBike/

Ped Plan

200.44 2004 MPOBike/

Ped Plan

PERCENT CHANGE

38.5%

36.3%

11.2%

9.1%

29.7%

26.5%

4.5%

136%

61%

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE A2


Attachment 2. Roadway Functional Classification Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996)

I ---------~-·---- -·--- ---:---

1 I (L.~.F.)

~· ! ~ 1 ~. I ~ I I

t

\

~.

, • --

I ~~$d

""'~ I ':::fi tn 1:) u ..

.... ii'T ••

,, ...... 1' ••

INDIAN RIVER EXISTING TRAFFIC CII!CIJLATION MAP

SEAII:S

""'-......... . l.o3iJ 80UIII~atlea

t j

lm 7 wru.u(,, tm __ _ 111.uu• \' I 1 i l ~ ----'""'"""''--'c' : !I • • .. ""' !I ~ .. ..

Sc::ale: ~--·

Det• : O•c. 18811 R•v•••d: Oct. 1980

• • ..,__ _,, ..

Soutce: FJorlde 68PI. of Transportation, July 1988

. . . ' . -• •

STATE HJOHWAY SYSTEM

- Urban P1lnclpa1 Art•ri"J

Urban Minor ljr1erlal ;pocx Aurat Prlr.clp•t A.rtedat

,.._._ Rur•l Mll\01' A.rt•rlat

COUNYY ROAD 4Y4ttul

-··- Minot AttefiU


Attachment 3. Roadway Functional Classification Existing Conditions (2005)

"'-.. ... ,'{..,

BREVARD COUNTY

"

g 5

g ~!JNDIANRfVER COUNTY

~ _, "

'\;;:;lr---.... ....._ \\~1/'%~

\ I ~i., " - I :l "I ~ ~ II \\ ~~\~--- r @ [ft{ -1 ! 1 \\ I ~~ ·~-ij~ .\t.

\. ,T".,

(151 \~_1,·

OKEEC,:iQ~EE coUNTY ' ' \ \,..._

\ --..--:...._ Florida Turnpike {M'<c__, __ _ \ - --~;. .......... ------:-----. ' ' '• ' ......

" A 1:1 PublicAirport

"C.~'~=i' ...... ~' • Miles !RC Roadway

Functional Classification

Horizon Outlet Mall Indian River Mall

~to ~

: Public Schools K~i2

~~ Hospital -t-1 Railroad

Cj 2000 FHWAUrban Boundary -Urban local Streets =Rural Principal Arterial interstate Lakes -Rural Principal Arterial other

Rdwy Functional Classification <=Rural Minor Arterial - Urban Principal Arteria! Interstate-- Rural Major Collector - UriJan Principal Arterial other -- R Minor Collector

'i!..d:. .... R:...... ... c"""<lf

Source - !ndian River County MPO & FOOT

Map adopted June 2, 2004 -- State Roads outside IRC -- Urban Minor Arterial -- Rural Local - Urban Collector



Attachment 4. Roadway Network Laneage Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996)

r-----~-

1

I I

~ . I

~ -.

I '.

I L._t'H:tlti....%.tlililllc.

sc.le; 0 ' :1 ;I ......

Oat_'! ; Oee_ IU.AA aat ;ed: Jan. I996

Source: lndjan Rh,.•r Cqounty P•anntno O.lvtaton, Aug..188A

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

.. '•I IJ .... r---'\. ..... ,.~ ••~n

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

EXISTING TRAFFIC

CIRCULATION MAP

SERIES

""'· ......... . ~ill aounditM•

I

PAGE A5

Source- IRC MPO 2030 LRTP

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report- Transportation Element, Traffic Section

Attachment 5. Roadway Network Laneage Existing Conditions (2005)

Number ofLanes &. Road Type Brevard County

PAGE A6


Attachment 6. Traffic Volume and Roadway Level-of-Service Comparison of Conditions at the Time of the Last Ma.ior Plan Update 1996) and Existing Conditions (2005)

Peak Season Established Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction

From Roadway Type

Daily Volume LOS Traffic

Roadway To Standard Capacity Volume LOS Study

1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006

SRAIA S. COUNTY LINE S. VB CITYL 2L 2L 5,000 7,999 D D 1,680 950 352 412 A c SRAIA S. VB CITYL 17TI! STREET 2L 2L 12,700 20,029 D D 1,640 860 785 907 c F

SRAIA 17TI! STREET SR60 2L 2L 13,900 13,960 D D 1,060 860 719 640 B c SRAIA SR60 N. VBCITYL 2L 2L 16,000 19,887 D D 1,120 860 878 916 c F

SRAIA N. VBCITYL FRED TUERK RD 2L 2L 16,000 19,887 D D 1,240 860 835 911 c F

SRAIA FRED TUERK RD OLD WINTER BCH RD 2L 2L 8,800 11,142 D D 1,310 860 570 581 B c SRAIA OLD WINTER BCH RD N. IRS L 2L 2L 6,100 10,117 D D 1,310 860 413 539 B c SRAIA N. IRS L CR510 2L 2L 6,100 10,117 D D 1,310 860 448 587 B c SRAIA CR510 N. COUNTY LINE 2L 2L 4,900 7,727 c c 1,340 998 257 606 A c INDIAN RIVER BLVD 4THST@US I 12TH STREET 4L 4L 17,100 23,124 D D 1,890 1,860 660 1,394 B B

INDIAN RIVER BLVD 12TH STREET S. VB CITYL 4L 4L 20,900 26,556 D D 1,890 1,860 846 1,420 B B

INDIAN RIVER BLVD S. VB CITYL 17TH STREET 4L 4L 20,900 26,556 D D 1,890 1,860 834 1,400 B B

INDIAN RIVER BLVD 17TH STREET TARPON 4L 4L 21,100 26,868 D D 1,890 1,860 918 1,384 B B

INDIAN RIVER BLVD TARPON 21ST STREET 4L 4L 21,100 26,868 D D 1,890 1,860 918 1,384 B B

INDIAN RIVER BLVD 21ST STREET SR 60/ROY AL PALM 4L 4L 22,600 34,983 D D 1,890 1,860 1,035 1,650 B c INDIAN RIVER BLVD SR 60/ROY ALP ALM M.B.BRIDGE 4L 4L 22,600 34,161 D D 1,890 1,860 1,035 1,650 B c INDIAN RIVER BLVD M.B.BRIDGE W. VB CITY L/37TH ST 4L 4L 25,000 26,475 D D 1,890 1,860 1,223 1,095 B B

INDIAN RIVER BLVD W. VB CITY L/37TI! ST US I @53RD ST 4L 4L 7,700 16,153 D D 1,890 1,860 450 947 B B

l-95 N. COUNTY LINE CR512 4L 4L 27,600 0 c c 2,700 2,740 1,280 1,524 B B

l-95 CR512 SR60 4L 4L 28,300 0 c c 2,700 2,740 1,324 1,549 B B

I-95 SR60 OSLORD 4L 4L 26,600 0 c c 2,640 2,890 1,319 1,770 B B

I-95 OSLORD S. COUNTY LINE 4L 4L 26,600 0 c c 2,640 2,890 1,300 1,751 B B

US! S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 4L 4L 28,300 31,034 D D 2,300 1,860 1,143 1,641 B c US! OSLORD 4TH ST@ IRBLVD 4L 4L 38,700 35,966 D D 2,220 2,790 1,464 1,442 B B 2/27/2004

US! OSLORD 4TH ST@ IRBLVD 4L 4L 38,700 35,966 D D 2,220 2,790 1,464 1,803 B B 2/27/2004

US I 4TI! ST@ IRBLVD 8TH STREET 4L 4L 27,100 22,120 D D 2,270 1,860 1,142 1,503 c B

US I 8TI! STREET 12TI! STREET 4L 4L 29,200 23,722 D D 2,270 1,860 1,308 1,505 D B

US I 12TI! STREET S. VB CITYL 4L 4L 30,900 26,599 D D 2,370 1,710 1,399 1,348 B c INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE A7

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element. Traffic Section


Roadway Type Daily Volume

LOS Traffic Roadway From To Standard Capacity Volume LOS Study

1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006

US! S. VB CITYL !7TII STREET . 4L 4L 30,900 26,518 D D 2,270 1,710 1,457 1,378 D D

US! 17TII STREET SR60 4L 4L 33,700 25,947 D D 2,270 1,510 1,666 1,278 D D

US! SR60 ROYALPALMPL 4L 4L 16,600 20,988 D D 2,300 1,510 797 1,299 c D

US! ROYALPALMPL ATLANTIC BLVD 4L 4L 25,300 . 0 D D 2,300 1,710 998 1,192 B c US! ATLANTIC BLVD N. VBC!TYL 4L 4L 27,200 27,469 D D 2,300 2,010 1,213 1,785 B D 3/31/2006

US! N. VBCITYL OLD DIXIE HWY 4L 4L 27,200 28,834 D D 2,300 2,010 1,178 1,795 D D 3/31/2006

US! OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 4L 4L 21,600 27,566 D D 2,300 2,010 1,098 1,876 c D 3/31/2006

US! 41ST STREET 45TII STREET 4L 4L 21,300 24,846 D D 2,650 2,010 1,066 1,637 c D 3/31/2006

US! 4 5TII STREET 49TII STREET 4L 4L 18,800 22,367 D D 2,650 2,010 953 1,616 B D 3/31/2006

US! 49TH STREET 65TH STREET 4L 4L 22,300 27,742 c c 2,650 2,010 1,175 1,996 A D 3/31/2006

US I 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 4L 4L 22,!00 27,113 c c 2,650 2,232 1,109 1,884 B D 1!/14/2005

US! 69TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY 4L 4L 21,400 26,588 D D 2,650 2,232 1,114 1,840 B D 11/14/2005

US! OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN DR 4L 4L 24,700 25,643 D D 2,370 2,210 1,247 1,565 B D 11/14/2005

US I SCHUMANN DR CR512 4L 4L 23,600 25,643 D D 2,370 1,860 1,206 1,383 B B

US! CR512 N. SEB C!TYL 4L 4L 25,500 0 D D 2,300 1,710 1,167 1,331 B c US! N. SEBC!TYL ROSELANDRD 4L 4L 25,500 24,044 D D 2,300 1,860 1,246 1,359 B B

US I ROSELANDRD N. COUNTY LINE 4L 4L 26,800 24,044 D D 2,320 1,860 1,419 1,166 B B

SCHUMANN DR CR510 66TH AVE/ S.SEB 2L 2L 6,400 10,133 D D 680 860 275 715 c c SCHUMANN DR S. SEB CITY L US! 2L 2L 6,400 2,087 D D 680 860 275 125 c B

ROSELANDRD CR 512 N. SEB C!TYL 2L 2L 6,400 6,979 D D 680 860 275 351 c c ROSELANDRD N. SEB CITYL US! 2L 2L 9,700 7,362 D D 680 860 439 383 c c CR512 SR60 !~95 2L 2L 5,600 0 D D 600 860 287 718 c c CR512 1-95 CR 510 2L 2L 8,800 15,388 D D 680 1,860 537 853 c B

CR512 CR510 W. SEB C!TYL 2L 2L 8,600 0 D D 680 1,860 447 771 c B

CR512 W. SEB CITYL ROSELANDRD 2L 2L 8,600 0 D D 680 1,860 436 992 c B

CR512 ROSELANDRD US I 2L 2L 12 700 0 D D 680 1,860 484 724 c B

CR 510 CR512 66TH AVE 2L 2L 5,200 D D 680 1,860 402 880 c B

CR510 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 2L 2L 10,300 11,368 D D 680 1,860 422 834 c B

CR510 58TH AVE US! 2L 2L 9,700 13,597 D D 680 1,860 416 896 c B

CR 510 US! SRAIA 2L 2L 9,100 14,246 D D 680 1,900 454 1,231 c B

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE AS

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element, Traffic Section -


Roadway From Roadway Type

Daily Volume LOS Traffic

To Standard Capacity Volume LOS Study

1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006

SR60 CR512 IOOTHAVE 2L 2L 7,900 0 c c 460 1,810 291 259 B B

SR60 CR 512 IOOTHAVE 2L 2L 6,800 0 c c 460 1,810 273 260 B B

SR60 IOOTHAVE I-95 2L 2L 8,400 0 D D 1,280 1,860 521 463 A B

SR60 I-95 82NDAVE 4L 4L 22,700 32,486 D D 1,890 2,000 1,558 1,854 B D

SR60 82NDAVE 66TH AVE 4L 4L 27,900 33,860 D D 3,110 2,120 1,711 2,222 B F 1/31105

SR60 6611-IAVE 58TH AVE 6L 6L 28,400 39,840 D D 2,840 2,790 2,336 2,034 B B

SR60 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 6L 6L 29,200 32,079 D D 2,840 2,790 2,145 1,875 B B

SR60 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 6L 6L 26,300 31,939 D D 2,840 2,790 1,768 1,889 B B

SR60 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 6L 6L 19,900 27,654 D D 2,510 2,790 1,380 1,653 c B

SR60 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 30/30 30/30 22,100 25,274 D D 2,328 3,252 1,384 1,454 D c SR60 OLD DIXIE HWY lOTH AVE 30/30 30/30 21,100 24,029 D D 2,328 3,252 1,402 1,337 D c SR60 lOTH AVE US! 30/30 30/30 16,500 19,559 D D 2,328 3,252 1,273 1,178 D c SR60 US I INDIAN RIVER BLVD 30/30 30/30 10,800 13,019 D D 2,328 3,252 630 806 D c SR60 INDIAN RIVER BLVD ICWW 4L 4L 20,400 17,255 D D 1,640 1,860 1,045 1,266 c B

SR60 ICWW SRAIA 4L 4L 15,100 17,057 D D 1,640 1,860 802 996 c B

16TH STREET 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 2L 2L 3,000 3,847 D D 880 860 293 402 B c 16TH STREET 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 2L 2L 7,700 8,218 D D 880 860 437 589 B c 16TH STREET 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 2L 2L 10,200 9,222 D D 880 860 488 596 B c 16TH STREET 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 13,700 12,639 D D 970 810 677 775 B D

16TH/17TH ST OLD DIXIE HWY US! 4L 4L 11,300 0 D D 970 1,710 679 814 B c 17TH ST US! INDIAN RIVER BLVD 41 41 13,700 11,401 D D 1,990 1,710 633 777 B c 17TH ST INDIAN RIVER BLVD SRAIA 4L 4L 25,100 22,141 D D 1,890 1,860 1,123 1,314 B B

12TH STREET 82NDAVENUE 58TH AVE 2L 21 2,300 0 D D 880 870 134 98 B B

12TH STREET 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 21 2L 2,300 0 D D 880 860 134 290 B c 12TH STREET 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 21 2L 6,300 0 D D 880 860 257 399 B c 12TH STREET 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 2L 21 7,800 0 D D 880 860 326 544 B c 12TH STREET 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 9,600 0 D D 880 860 432 706 B c 12TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY US I 4L 4L 12,900 0 D D 1,890 1,368 622 701 B B

OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 2L 21 4,100 7,790 D D 880 860 433 512 B c OLD DIXIE HWY OSLORD 4THST 21 2L 10,500 7,399 D D 880 860 462 519 B c



Peak Season Established

Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Roadway Type

Daily Volume LOS Traffic Roadway From To Standard Capacity Volume LOS Study

1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006

OLD DIXIE HWY 4THST 8TH ST 2L 2L 11,500 10,471 D D 880 810 448 645 B D OLD DIXIE HWY 8THST 12TH ST 2L 2L 11,800 11,977 D D 880 810 576 714 B D

OLD DIXIE HWY 12TH ST S. VB CITY L 2L 2L 11,300 7,269 D D 880 810 554 395 B c OLD DIXIE HWY S. VB CITYL 16TH ST 2L 2L 11,300 7,269 D D 880 850 590 396 B c OLD DIXIE HWY 16TH ST SR60 2L 2L 3,800 5,098 D D 880 850 276 311 B c OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST ST 45TH ST 2L 2L 11,300 4,300 D D 880 860 590 215 B B OLD DIXIE HWY 45TH ST 49TH ST 2L 2L 11,300 2,445 D D 880 860 590 197 B B OLD DIXIE HWY 49TH ST 65TH ST 2L 2L 11,300 2,756 D D 880 860 590 241 B c OLD DIXIE HWY 65TH ST 69TH ST 2L 2L 11,300 2,133 D D 880 860 590 248 B c OLD DIXIE HWY 69TH ST CR510 2L 2L 1,500 1,318 D D 880 860 90 162 B B OLD DIXIE HWY 69TH ST CR510 2L 2L 1,500 1,318 D D 880 860 90 141 B B

27TH AVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 2L 2L 7,500 13,932 D E+20 880 1,068 513 1,267 B F 27TH AVENUE OSLORD 4THST 2L 2L 8,800 13,765 D E+20 880 1,068 452 1,075 B F 27TH AVENUE 4THST 8THST 2L 2L 10,100 13,086 D E+20 880 1,020 339 1,039 B F 27TH AVENUE 8THST 12TH ST 2L 2L 10,400 12,736 D E+20 880 1,020 349 959 B E

I 27TH AVENUE 12TH ST S. VB CITY L 2L 2L 9,800 13,183 D E+20 880 1,020 322 1,393 B F 27TH AVENUE S. VB CITYL 16TH ST 2L 2L 9,800 13,183 D E+20 880 1,020 356 918 B E 27TH AVENUE 16TH ST SR60 2L 2L 9,900 10,910 D E+20 880 1,020 365 772 B D

27TH AVENUE SR60 ATLANTIC BLVD 2L 2L 2,400 6,381 D D 880 810 88 466 B c 27TH AVENUE ATLANTIC BLVD AVIATION BLVD 2L 2L 2,400 12,326 D D 880 810 69 768 B D

OSLORD 82NDAVE 58TH AVE 2L 2L 4,800 4,115 D D 600 870 261 239 c c OSLORD 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 2L 2L 7,300 10,475 D D 880 1,953 385 803 B B OSLORD 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 2L 2L 7,400 14,585 D D 880 1,953 392 958 B B

OSLORD 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 2L 2L 7,500 12,717 D D 880 1,953 348 789 B B OSLORD 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 10,100 12,515 D D 880 1,953 499 989 B B

OSLORD OLD DIXIE HWY us 1 4L 4L 10,600 12,057 D D 1,890 1,953 51! 712 B B

6TH AVENUE 17TH STREET S. VB CITYL 2L 2L 10,100 0 D D 880 860 499 488 B c 6TH AVENUE S. VBCITYL S.R.60 2L 2L 10,100 0 D D 880 850 499 369 B c 10TH AVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD 2L 2L 6,900 723 D D 760 810 375 100 c c 10TH AVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD 17TH STREET 2L 2L 6,900 0 D D 760 810 375 395 c c

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE AIO

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element. Traffic Section -



LOS Traffic Roadway From To Standard Capacity Volume Study LOS

1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006

20TH AVENUE OSLO RD. 4THST 2L 2L 6,700 0 D D 760 860 261 589 c c 20TH AVENUE 4THST 8TH ST 2L 2L 7.700 0 D D 760 810 265 710 c D

20TH AVENUE STHST 12TH ST 2L 2L 9,900 0 D D 760 810 292 683 c D

20TH AVENUE 12TH ST S. VB CITYL 4L 4L 8,400 0 D D 1,890 1,710 315 658 B c 20TH AVENUE S. VB CITYL 16TH ST 4L 4L 8,400 0 D D 1,890 1,800 316 657 B c 20TH AVENUE 16TH ST SR60 4L 4L 6,400 0 D D 1,890 1,800 261 466 B c 20TH AVENUE SR60 ATLANTIC BLVD 2L 2L 3,400 0 D D 730 850 !55 216 c B

43RDAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 2L 2L 4,500 6,874 D E+20 760 950 235 558 c c 43RDAVENUE OSLORD 4THST 2L 2L 6,200 10,213 D E+20 730 1,068 320 823 c D

43RDAVENUE 4THST STHST 2L 2L 9,000 12,412 D E+20 760 1,020 357 908 c E

43RDAVENUE 8THST 12TH ST 2L 2L 10,700 12,940 D E+20 760 1,071 443 872 c E 11122/2005

43RDAVENUE 12TH ST 16TH ST 2L 2L 12,300 13,363 D E+20 880 1,071 497 847 B E 11122/2005

43RDAVENUE 16TH ST SR60 2L 2L 14,700 14,531 D E+20 880 1,796 628 889 B E

43RDAVENUE SR60 26TH ST 2L 2L 11,100 10,557 D D 880 1,796 494 743 B D

43RDAVENUE 26TH ST 41ST ST 2L 2L 7,800 10,288 D D 760 860 394 706 c c 43RDAVENUE 41ST ST 45TH ST 2L 2L 4,900 6,125 D D 760 860 226 452 c c 43RDAVENUE 45TH ST 49TH ST 2L 2L 2,200 3,258 D D 760 860 127 400 c c 58TH AVENUE OSLORD 4THST 2L 4L 5,200 8,299 D D 600 1,860 267 540 c B

58TH AVENUE 4THST 8THST 2L 4L 7,900 15,076 D D 760 1,710 364 808 c c 58TH AVENUE 8THST 12TH ST 2L 4L 8,600 20,711 D D 760 1,710 53! 1,254 c c 58TH AVENUE 12TH ST 16TH ST 2L 4L 11,400 21,768 D D 760 1,710 605 1,204 c c 58TH AVENUE 16TH ST SR60 4L 4L 13,600 24,807 D D 1,890 1,710 901 1,281 B c 58TH AVENUE SR60 41ST ST 2L 2L 10,300 0 D D 1,890 1,860 705 1,381 B B

58TH AVENUE 41ST ST 45TH ST 2L 2L 9,400 11,585 D D 760 860 51! 792 c D

58TH AVENUE 45TH ST 49TH ST 2L 2L 9,000 10,390 D D 760 860 451 725 c D

58TH AVENUE 49TH ST 65TH ST 2L 2L 8,600 9,097 D D 1,230 860 428 625 A c 58TH AVENUE 65TH ST 69TH ST 2L 2L 7,500 8,040 D D 1,230 860 348 521 A c 58TH AVENUE 69TH ST CR510 2L 2L 6,200 6,881 D D 820 860 353 443 B c 66TH AVENUE SR60 26TH ST 2L 2L 4,600 9,663 D D 760 860 260 625 c c 66TH AVENUE 26TH ST 41ST ST 2L 2L 4,300 9,717 D D 1,230 860 273 702 A c

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE All


Peak Season Established

Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Roadway Type

Daily Volume LOS Traffic Roadway From To Standard Capacity Volume LOS Study

1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006

66TH AVENUE 41ST ST 45TH ST 2L 2L 4,700 9,389 D D 760 950 200 628 c c 66TH AVENUE 45TH ST 65TH ST 2L 2L 4,000 8,682 D D 600 870 215 610 c c 66TH AVENUE 65TH ST 69TH ST 2L 2L 3,900 7,145 D D 600 870 212 578 c c 66TH AVENUE 69TH ST CR510 2L 2L 4,200 8,503 D D 600 870 243 617 c c 82NDAVENUE OSLORD 4TH ST 2L 2L 2,000 3,151 D D 680 950 125 176 c B 82NDAVENUE 4THST 12TH ST 2L 2L 2,400 3,989 D D 760 139 c A 82NDAVENUE 4THST 12TH ST 2L 2L 4,500 3,989 D D 760 950 231 210 c B 82NDAVENUE 12TH ST SR60 2L 2L 4,500 3,894 D D 760 860 231 303 c B 82NDAVENUE SR60 65TH ST 2L 2L 1,000 275 D D 600 410 78 84 B c 82NDAVENUE 65TH ST 69TH ST 2L 2L 200 204 D D 600 410 15 23 B c 98TH AVENUE 8THST 12TH STREET 2L 2L 1,000 0 D D 600 860 78 13 B B

98TH AVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH ST 2L 2L 1,000 0 D D 600 860 78 72 B B 98TH AVENUE 16TH ST SR60 2L 2L 1,000 0 D D 600 860 78 73 B B 98TH AVENUE SR60 26TH ST 2L 2L 1,000 0 D D 600 860 78 143 B B

77TH ST 66TH AVENUE US! 2L 2L 800 D D 820 820 28 183 B B

69TH STREET 82NDAVENUE 66TH AVE 2L 2L 400 410 D D 600 410 29 66 B c 69TH STREET 66TH AVENUE 58TH AVE 2L 2L 1,000 829 D D 680 870 48 86 c B

69TH STREET 58TH AVENUE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 800 1,042 D D 1,230 870 47 88 A B

I 69TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY US! 2L 2L 800 885 D D 1,230 870 48 72 A B

65TH ST 66TH AVENUE 58TH AVENUE 2L 2L 800 724 D D 1,230 870 36 65 A B !

65TH ST 58TH AVENUE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 1,300 1,611 D D 1,230 870 74 112 A B 65TH ST OLD DIXIE HWY US! 2L 2L 1 100 1,066 D D 1,230 870 59 76 A B 49TH ST 66TH AVENUE 58TH AVENUE 2L 2L 400 497 D D 1,230 860 30 50 A B 49TH ST 58TH AVENUE 43RDAVENUE 2L 2L 2,100 3,494 D D 760 860 127 219 c B 49TH ST 43RDAVENUE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 2,600 3,784 D D 760 810 196 329 c c 49TH ST OLD DIXIE HWY US! 2L 2L 2,100 3,518 D D 760 810 106 251 c c 45TH ST 66TH AVENUE 58TH AVENUE 2L 2L 1,600 2,419 D D 1,230 860 98 178 A B

45TH ST 58TH AVENUE 43RDAVENUE 2L 2L 3,600 3,898 D D 760 860 232 249 c c 45TH ST 43RDAVENUE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 6,100 8,559 D D 760 860 355 511 c c 45TH ST OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIV BD 2L 2L 4,500 0 D D 760 860 250 354 c c

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE Al2

~ ~ ~

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element. Traffic Section



LOS Traffic Roadway From To Standard Capacity Volume LOS Study

1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006 1995 2006

41ST ST 66TH AVENUE 58TH AVENUE 2L 2L 2,600 2,015 D D 820 870 186 !54 B B 41ST ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 2L 2L 2,600 3,658 D D 880 860 186 330 B c 41ST ST 43RDAVE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 3,900 4,062 D D 880 860 238 258 B c 41ST ST OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIV BD 2L 2L 1,600 0 D D 880 860 92 !51 B B

37TH ST us 1 INDIAN RIV BLVD 2L 2L 7,200 10,423 D D 880 860 267 658 B c 26TH ST 66TH AVENUE 58TH AVENUE 2L 2L 500 7,888 D D 880 860 102 537 B c 26TH ST 58TH AVENUE 43RDAVENUE 2L 2L 2,700 8,808 D D 880 860 180 595 B c 26TH ST 43RDAVE AVIATION BLVD 2L 2L 4,000 0 D D 880 860 182 669 B c 26TH ST AVIATION BLVD 27TH AVENUE 2L 2L 5,100 0 D D 880 860 280 219 B B

8Tl-I ST 58TH AVENUE 43RDAVENUE 2L 2L 3,000 0 D D 880 860 196 128 B B

8TH sT 43RDAVENUE 27TH AVENUE 2L 2L 5,300 0 D D 880 860 297 416 B c 8TH ST 27TH AVENUE 20TH AVENUE 2L 2L 8,700 0 D D 880 860 447 557 B c 8THST 20TH AVENUE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 8,500 0 D D 880 810 359 657 B D

8THST OLD DIXIE HWY US! 2L 2L 10,100 0 D D 880 810 486 575 B c 8THST US! INDIAN RIVER BLVD 2L 2L 5,200 0 D D 880 860 160 246 B c 4THST 82NDAVE 58TH AVE 2L 2L 1,600 0 D D 820 870 75 104 B B

4TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 2L 2L 3,000 0 D D 880 860 203 273 B c 4TH ST 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 2L 2L 4,800 0 D D 880 860 254 303 B c 4THST 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 2L 2L 6,700 0 D D 880 860 357 320 B c 4THST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 2L 2L 8,000 0 D D 880 860 372 526 B c 4THST OLD DIXIE HWY US! 2L 2L 9,300 0 D D 880 860 376 479 B c FRED TUERK DR AlA W OF COCONUT DR 2L 2L 1,600 0 D D 630 860 75 110 B B

WINTER BEACH RD AlA JUNGLE TRAIL 2L 2L 1,600 0 D D 630 860 75 62 B B

ATLANTIC BLVD 27TH AVENUE 20TH AVENUE 2L 05 4,000 3,003 D D 630 860 232 264 c c ATLANTIC BLVD 20TH AVENUE US! 2L 0.5 5,100 2,832 D D 630 860 254 275 c c AVIATION BLVD 26TH STREET 27TH AVENUE 2L 0.5 5,100 0 D D 630 1,280 216 654 c c ROYAL PALM BLVD ROYALPALMPL INDIAN RIVER BLVD 2L 1 4,400 0 D D 630 880 119 272 c c ROYALPALMPL US! INDIAN RIVER BLVD 2L 1 5,200 0 D D 630 880 331 368 c c

Source- IRC MPO; IRC Community Development Department; IRC Traffic Engmeermg Notes: Definitions: 2U: 2-lane undivided (some roads may have center tum lanes), 4D: 4-Iane divided, 6D: 6-lane divided, 30/30: paired 3-lane one-way roads INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE Al3

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element, Traffic Section Attachment 7. Traffic Crash Rates by Number of Crashes,

Comparison of Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996) and Existing Conditions (2005)

Crash Location Number of Crash Rate per

Relative Rate Crashes MEV*

East/West Street North/South Street 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005 17th St us 1 24 23 1.57 1.6 Low Low

SR60 58thAv 23 14 1.68 0.59 Low Low

23rd St us 1 22 7 2.52 0.61 Moderate Low

SR60EB us 1 21 17 2.37 1.13 Moderate Low

SR60 27thAv 21 15 2.15 1.01 Moderate Low

SR60 lOthAv 20 10 2.81 2.76 Moderate Moderate

12th St Old Dixie Hwy 19 4 2.24 0.45 Moderate Low

RoselandRd us 1 18 10 1.61 0.92 Low Low

8th St us 1 18 6 1.59 0.46 Low . Low

21st St 10thAv 18 6 2.88 4.43 Moderate High

Oslo Rd us 1 17 10 1.17 0.68 Low Low

Royal Palm Blvd IRB!vd 17 9 2.86 0.65 Moderate Low

SR60 43rdAv 17 11 1.24 0.63 Low Low

SR60WB us 1 16 18 1.76 1.65 Low Low

CR510 us 1 14 7 1.32 0.47 Low Low

17th St IRBlvd 14 20 1.03 1.26 Low Low

12th St us 1 13 10 0.97 0.77 Low Low

16th St Old Dixie Hwy 13 3 1.68 0.41 Low Low

E Causeway SRA1A 12 7 0.93 0.48 Low Low

15th PI us 1 11 2 0.91 0.21 Low Low

CR512 us 1 10 4 0.79 0.41 Low Low

41st St Old Dixie Hwv 10 0 3.75 0 High Low

SR60 82ndAv 10 6 1.10 0.5 Low Low

SR60 66th Av 10 15 1.02 0.9 Low Low

16th St 14thAv 10 5 1.22 0.71 Low Low

SR60 20thAv 8 10 0.99 1.46 Low Low

Highland Dr us 1 7 18 0.66 1.31 Low Low

4thSt Old Dixie Hwy 7 4 1.04 0.64 Low Low

16th St 43rdAv 7 3 0.99 0.4 Low Low

Oslo Rd 27thAv 7 9 1.18 0.99 Low Low

16th St 27th Av 7 4 1.04 0.53 Low Low

45th St us 1 6 6 0.71 0.3 Low Low INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGE Al4


Crash Location Number of Crash Rate per

Relative Rate Crashes MEV*

4th St Old Dixie Hwy 7 4 1.04

16th St 27thAv 7 4 1.04

17th St RBlvd 14 20 1.03

SR60 66thAv 10 15 1.02

4th St 27thAv 6 0 1.01

SR60 20thAvE/B 8 10 0.99

16th St 43rdAv 7 3 0.99

12th St 27thAv 6 5 0.98

12th St us 1 13 10 0.97

E Causeway SRA1A 12 7 0.93

15th PI us 1 11 2 0.91

Oslo Rd Old Dixie Hwy 5 3 0.83

CR512 us 1 10 4 0.79

45th St us 1 6 6 0.71

8th St Old Dixie Hwy 5 0 0.70

Highland Dr us 1 7 18 0.66 .. *MEV- M1lhon Entenng Vehicles (traffic entermg the mtersectwn) Source- IRC Traffic Engineering Dept., 2007

0.64 Low Low

0.53 Low Low

1.26 Low Low

0.9 T.ow Low

0 Low Low

1.46 Low Low

0.4 Low Low

0.68 Low Low

0.77 Low Low

0.48 Low Low

0.21 Low Low

0.6 Low Low

0.41 Low Low

0.3 Low Low

0 Low Low

1.31 Low Low

Attachment S(b ). Locations with Crash Rates > 2.0 per entering vehicles (By Crash Rate)

21st St

21st St

21st St

21st St

SR60 49th St

CR512

SR60

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

For Intersections with 5 or more Crashes January 1, 2005 Through December 31, 2005

Intersections 2005 #of Crashes

8th St 10 lOth Ave 6 11th Ave 5 5th Ave 7 lOth Ave 10

Old Dixie Hwy 6

I-95 22 20th Ave W/B 10

2005 Crash Rate

6.25

3.75

3.12

4.37

2.76

2.59

2.28

2.12

PAGE A16

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element Traffic Section I

Crash Location Number of Crash Rate per Relative Rate

Crashes MEV*

East/West Street North/South Street 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005 8th St 43rdAv 6 2 1.28 0.4 Low Low

4th St 27thAv 6 0 1.01 0 Low Low

12th St 27th Av 6 5 0.98 0.68 Low Low - -----

OsloRd Old Dixie Hwy 5 3 0.83 0.6 Low Low 8th St Old Dixie Hwy 5 0 0.70 0 Low Low .. *MEV- Million Entenng Vehicles (traffic entermg the mtersect10n) Source- IRC Traffic Engineering Dept., 2007

Attachment 8(a). Traffic Crash Rates by Crash Rates, Comparison of Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996) and Existing

Conditions (2005)

Crash Location Number of Crash Rate per Relative Rate

Crashes MEV*

East/West Street North/South Street 1994 2005 1994 2005 1994 2005 41st St Old Dixie Hwy 10 0 3.75 0 High Low 21st St 10thAv 18 6 2.88 3.75 Moderate Low Royal Palm Blvd RB!vd 17 9 2.86 0.65 Moderate Low SR60 10thAv 20 10 2.81 2.76 Moderate Moderate 23rd St JS 1 22 7 2.52 0.61 Moderate Low

SR60EB tus1 21 17 2.37 1.13 Moderate Low 12th St Old Dixie Hwy 19 4 2.24 0.45 Moderate Low SR60 27thAv 21 15 2.15 1.01 Moderate Low SR60WB JS 1 16 18 1.76 1.65 Low Low SR60 58thAv 23 14 1.68 0.59 Low Low

16th St Old Dixie Hwy 13 3 1.68 0.41 Low Low RoselandRd JS 1 18 10 1.61 0.92 Low Low 8th St JS 1 18 6 1.59 0.46 Low Low 17th St JS 1 24 23 1.57 1.6 Low Low CR510 JS 1 14 7 1.32 0.47 Low Low 8th St 43rdAv 6 2 1.28 0.4 Low Low

SR60 43rdAv 17 11 1.24 0.63 Low Low 16th St 14thAv 10 5 1.22 0.71 Low Low Oslo Rd 27thAv 7 9 1.18 0.99 Low Low Oslo Rd JS 1 17 10 1.17 0.68 Low Low

SR60 82ndAv 10 6 1.10 0.5 Low Low



Attachment 9 A. Bike Safety- Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update

' . ··~

.. ...-1;1 ... -,.u...< 11. __ ..., .. ..,=-1 Cbo•~lll:t- \Z, 'l .. oeoa:o.&t!M<tr.IU«<

i~5ooo....,...,~ ·u..--all><l .. -B<I!I-u.od t(. --IIU<Iolldtod 1. o=""ol•>lor.O!UIJ$ol<d' IS. v..o:aoo;~r.ukdfi>:O:tt.o~

.. ~ ........... - Ill- f>I<--1<1Jioticll ...

r.--M-~- "·"---111>'>._Ptl...,,_~.rJ.!oJw.xl , .. _ .. _ .... _

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

'·-""·--I'M< :l..ti>H-:l.O<dlil~""'"-

... ~~-... ~ed>t a, US!~...stdtho\ .. __ _ 1.,. .. -,.., ... ..,..,,~"",..... ~ ... ..-...-. ..... ......... --

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

BICYCLE CRASHES (1993 -1995)

~--111.~-P>Jo: ta.-~I'Odl IJ.,...,~~t,_.,

''f~Rou-l'lllr 11>.$<1-'fo<NCU ~W..\<do> .....

·--~···~·

a .~~,.,.w,_,....

~-~""" ~~~ .... .... ~~. QIII)O,Itf!JMl .... IIO.-

ff.~ ».~-, ..... ,, ... ~~" ... 15--.,.... ~

"· ~

., ___ _ . ·~c-.llll!tl'lol<

Q.'lllli-W.Io!' ... __ ~5,--... ~olwtral>

•r .... ....o~rc-•-. 4l.H~~""" IV..IooS.:~I'>olc

;.;~1"

PAGE Al7


Attachment 9B. Pedestrian Safety..:. Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update

. '

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

PEDESTRIAN CRASHES (1993 -1995)

"· ..._...,e .... .....,-~--r-,-_-_--,,-~-----.. -~--_:'•"-'""'-"';'';.'!~~;~; ___ .,_..,.., :t ll.!t-.,.P>o\ 15. E""l'o;><o'"-

11. v ... -~- ~ Q:tuN-'oo!c If; -U..-lf.~ol>.--1.<6.1!U~

tJ. VMI!a>dt.;>;or.lo<t!IP-

10.~---,. ... -....... - .... ~ ..... ... .............. ~ .... ...

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

11. ""'"""'~·- !1, l,blo·~.'~OOI""" !1. USt~-.ololtP... >& f~•!)oo<l,61.~.!l't'" ........... -. ...... ,._ ___ _ I.W.II_...... .._...._, __

a. ell£">-•""" n ---~. "'"--·- ... Odr>ol""* ».G<U-$lnolol'al< lf.-..RU

~ .. ~ .... -~-

PAGE Al8


Attachment lOA. Bike Safety- Existing Conditions

Bicycle Crashes per Mile by Segment

~Between 1996 and 2002

W.,.,.-B s

Source- IRC MPO, 2004 BikePed Plan



Attachment lOB. Pedestrian Safety- Existing Conditions (1996)

Pedestrian Crashes per Mile by Segment N

W.EBetween 1996 and 2002

s

Source- IRC MPO, 2004 BikePed Plan



inkiD On Street

1020 S.R. AlA

1040 S.R. AlA

1750 CR512

2050 16th St

2060 16th St. Source- IRC MPO, 2007

Attachment llA. Forecast LOS vs. Existing LOSRoadways that were predicted to be Overcapacity in 2010 Forecasts

2006 2010 No. of Exist Road

From Street To Street Length Lanes ROW Type

Existing Forecast LOS LOS

S. VB CityL 17th St 1.30 2 120 D D* F

S.R. 60 N. VB CityL 1.50 2 50 D E E

RoselandRd us 1 3.80 2 120 D D F

20th Ave Old Dixie Hwy 0.50 2 100 u D E

Old Dixie Highway us 1 0.50 2 100 u D F

Attachment liB. Forecast LOS vs. Existing LOS-

Functional Class

MA

MA

PA

MA

MA

2006 Overcapacity Roadways that were not predicted to be Overcapacity in 2010 Forecasts

Link No. of Exist Road 2006 2010

Functional ID

On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes ROW Type

Existing Forecast Class

LOS LOS 1040 S.R.AIA S.R. 60 N. VB CityL 1.50 2 50 u F B MA

1050 S.R.AIA N. VB CityL Fred Tuerk Rd 1.00 2 100 D F B MA

1150 Indian River Bd. 21st St Royal Palm 0.37 4 150 D D* c PA

1375 U.S. 1 49th St 65th St 3.00 4 70 D D* B PA

1920 S.R. 60 82ndAve 66th Ave 2.00 4 136 D F B PA

2410 27th Ave S. County Line OsloRd 2.00 2 50 u F c MA

2420 27th Ave OsloRd 4th St 2.00 2 80 u E B MA

2430 27th Ave 4th St 8th St 0.50 2 80 u E B MA

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

LOS Standard

D

D

D

D

D

LOS Standard

D

D

D

D

D

E+20% E+20%

E+20%

PAGE A21


Link No. of Exist ID

On Street From Street To Street Length Lanes ROW

2440 27th Ave 8th St 12th St 0.50 2 80

2915 43'ct Ave 4th St gth St .50 2 80

2920 43'd Ave gth St 12'h St .50 2 80

2925 43'ct Ave 12'h St 16th St .50 2 80

2930 43'ct Ave 16th St S.R. 60 .50 2 80

*-Roadway segment within 5% of peak hour/peak direction/peak season capacity Source- IRC MPO, 2007

Road 2006 2010 Functional LOS

Type Existing Forecast

Class Standard LOS LOS

u E B MA E+20%

u E c MA E=20%

u E c MA E=20%

u E c MA E=20%

u E c MA E=20%

Attachment 12. Status of2020 Cost Feasible Plan Improvements in 2006 -

Facility From To Distance #of Lanes 2020 Plan

Current Status (2006) (miles) (1994) Improvement

In current Transportation Improvement Program (Committed)

C.R. 512 I-95 C.R. 510 2.6 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

C.R. 510 C.R. 512 66th Avenue 4.2 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

53rd Street U.S. 1 58th Avenue 2 0 New4lanes Under Construction

Barber Street C.R. 512 U.S.l 3.7 2 Add 2lanes Changed to 3 Lanes in 2030 Plan

66th Avenue S.R. 60 Oslo Rd. 3.15 2 New2lanes Under Construction

North I South Facilities

82nd Avenue St. Lucie County Line C.R. 510 9 2 New2lanes No change

S.R. AlA S.R. 60 N. Vero Beach City Limits 1.50 2 Add 2lanes Removed from 2030 Plan

!u.s. 1 Brevard County Line C.R. 512 3.7 4 Add 2lanes No change

ru.s. 1 Old Dixie Hwy. Atlantic Blvd. 1.2 4 Add 2lanes No change

ru.s.l 4th Street St. LucieCounty Line 4.3 4 Add 2lanes Partially Under Construction


Facility From

Old Dixie Hwy. S.R. 60

Old Dixie Hwy. 12th Street

27th Avenue S.R. 60

Roseland Rd. U.S. I

66th Avenue u.s. 1

66th Avenue Barber Street

66th Avenue C.R. 510

East (West Facilities

C.R. 512 C.R. 510

C.R. 510 66th Avenue

C.R. 510 U.S. I

53 'd Street 58th Avenue

26th Street 43 'd Avenue

26th Street 58th Avenue

S.R. 60 66th Avenue

S.R. 60 82 nd Avenue

5th Street SW U.S. 1

5th Street SW 43 'd Avenue

Oslo Rd. Old Dixie Hwy.

Oslo Rd. 27th Avenue

I-95 Interchange at Oslo Road

Oslo Rd. 82nd Avenue Source- IRC MPO, 2007

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

2006 Comprehensi_"~Plan EvaluatLon and Appraisal Report- Transportation Element. Traffic Section

To Distance #of Lanes 2020 Plan

Current Status (2006) (miles) (1994) Improvement

12th Street 1.1 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

St. Lucie County Line 3.6 2 Add 2lanes Removed

St. Lucie County Line 5.4 2 Add 2lanes No change

C.R. 512 3.7 2 Add 2lanes Changed to 3 Lanes in 2030 Plan

Barber Street 1.9 2 Add 2lanes Removed

C.R. 510 0.8 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

S.R. 60 7.6 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

Roseland Rd. 1.4 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

U.S. I 1.6 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

1st Bridge 0.75 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction

82nd Avenue 3 0 New4lane No change

58th Avenue 1 2 Add 2lanes Design Underway; Construction 2009.

66th Avenue 1 0 New 4lane Completed as 2-Lane Rd.

82nd Avenue 2 4 Add 2lanes Under Construction

I-95 1.5 4 Add 2lanes Under Construction

20th Avenue 1.5 0 New2lanes Removed

58th Avenue 1.1 0 New2lanes Completed

27th Avenue 2 2 Add 2lanes Under Construction Partially Under Construction

82nd Avenue 5.1 2 Add 2lanes (27th Ave.- 43'd Ave)

NIA NIA New Interchange IJR Study underway

I-95 Interchange 0.5 2 Add 2lanes No change

PAGE A23


Attachment 13. 2030 Cost Mfordable Plan

Phase 1: 2011 to 2020

On Street From To 2011 Road Type 2020 Road Type Total Cost

1-95 S. COUNTY LINE N. COUNTY LINE 4 Lane Freeway 6 Lane Freeway $109,919 SIS

Total State SIS (Strategic Intermodal System) $109,919

SR60 1-95 82NDAVE 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,120 ~ US! S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $12,065 ~

.5 Congestion Management System Projects ($500 thousand per year) $5,000 "' Total Other State Roads $25,185

12TH ST 90TH AVE 82NDAVE None 2 Lane Undivided $3,782

12TH ST 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $2,855

26TH ST 66TH AVE 43RDAVE 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $13,006

AVIATION BLVD 43RDAVE U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,538 I

27TH AVE S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $9,561 !

27TH AVE OSLORD S.R. 60 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,331

43RD AVE OSLORD 8THST 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $8,311

~ 58TH AVE S COUNTY LINE/KOBLEGARD RD OSLORD 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $11,850

"' 66TH AVE SR60 C.R. 510 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,173 ' ~

~ AVIATION BLVD EXT US! INDIAN RIVER BLVD None 4 Lane Divided $14,388 I ... ~

C.R. 510 C.R. 512 U.S. I 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36,369 = = <0 C.R. 510 U.S. I ICWW 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,719 u C.R. 512 FELLSMERE CITY LIMITS 1-95 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $19,193

C.R. 512 1-95 C.R. 510 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $13,317

C.R. 512 C.R. 510 ROSELANDRD 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $6,674

8TH ST 82NDAVE 74TH AVE None 2 Lane Undivided $3,955

OSLORD 1-95 58TH AVE 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $19,485

Congestion Management System Projects ($500 thousand per year) $5,000

County Roads $228,507

City Roads $0

Total All Roads ---- $363,611



Phase 2: 2021 to 2030

On Street From To 2021 Road Type 2030 Road Type Total Cost

(x1,000)

SR60 98TH AVE 1-95 4-Lane Divided 6-Lane Divided $2,544

SR60 6TIIAVE INDIAN RIVER BLVD 4-Lane Divided 6-Lane Divided $1,865 SIS us 1 AVIATION BLVD OLD DIXIE HWY (N) 4-Lane Divided 6-Lane Divided $44,372

US! ROSELANDRD N. COUNTY LINE 4-Lane Divided 6-Lane Divided $5,256 Congestion Management System Projects ($500,000 per year) $5,000,000 4TI! ST

13TI! ST SW 13TH STSW 13TI! ST SW 13TH STSW 17TI! ST SW 26TII ST 43RDAVE

00 ., 53RD ST "' a 66TH AVE

€ 66TH AVE ~ 0 66TH AVE u

82NDAVE 82NDAVE LACONIAST INDIAN RIVER BLVD ROSELANDRD SCHUMANN DR

00 BARBERST -g a BARBERST

0 FLEMINGST u

Source- IRC MPO, 2007

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

98TI!AVE

66TI!AVE 43RDAVE 34TI!AVE 27TH AVE 66TH AVE 82NDAVE S COUNTY LINE 82NDAVE S COUNTY LINE OSLORD 4THST S COUNTY LINE 26TH ST C.R. 510 ROYAL PALM C.R. 512 C.R. 510

SCHUMANN DR

C.R. 512 EASYST

66TH AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $16,262

58TI!AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $4,041 34TI!AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $1,561 27TI!AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $3,360 20TI!AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $1,922 58TH AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $4,020 74TH AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $3,850 OSLORD 2-Lane Undivided 4-Lane Divided $12,975 66TH AVE None 2-Lane Undivided $9,600 OSLORD None 2-Lane Undivided $8,562 4THST 2-Lane Undivided 4-Lane Divided $8,887 SR60 2-Lane Divided 4-Lane Divided $8,854 OSLORD None 2-Lane Undivided $7,303 C.R. 510 None 2-Lane Undivided $28,174 C.R.5!2 None 2-Lane Undivided $2,680 37TH ST 4-Lane Divided 6-Lane Divided $8,678 U.S. I 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Divided $12,848 BARBERST 2-Lane Undivided 4-Lane Divided $3,974

Congestion Management System Projects ($500,000 per year) 5,000,000 County Roads Total $381,058

u.s. 1 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Divided $3,622

SCHUMANN DR 2-Lane Undivided 2-Lane Divided $7,596 SCHUMANN DR None 2-Lane Undivided $4,839

City Roads Total $16,057 Total All Roads $591,256

PAGE A25


Attachment 14. 2030 Extended Grid Network

c.~:'" lT'''"'O' .. '''.d: w ]"' d''t+ii ·~~

~

Extended Roadw<~y Grid NetworK-- Urban Collector& Local Road

Functional Clt~ss ~ Urban P tincipal Arterial

~ Utban Principal Arterial ~Interstate

=-=-::: Rural Major Coil ector

"'''''" RuraiMinor.arterial

=•=" Rural Principal Arterial" Interstate

Source- IRC Comp Plan, Transportation Element, 2006

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

====t Rural Principal Meriel

- Utban Minor Meriel

f_·,_.,_--_,·.f Munidpslities

~ ~ ~ ~

II~ II """'-,....c.,..,. 1

,_c::::;'!""r:::::~---'!Miles 0 1.5 3 6

PAGE A26

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report- Transportation Element, Transit Section

Attachment 15. Level-of-Service of Roadways in 2030 Cost Affordable Plan

20:3-0 Adopted Cost .Affurdalb[,e Plat1 IL.eve;J,olf servrce

Brevard

Facility Level of S·eiVice

--------- LOS Not Cak<Jiated

--- .". --- C....- E

--- !J;

Source- IRC MPO 2030 LRTP, 2006

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

D.....,.....,F

Interchanges

• New • Existing

PAGE A27

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element, Transit Section

Attachment 16. Comparison of Bicycle Level-of-Service between the Time of the Last Major Plan Update and Existing Conditions

50%

45%

40%,

-"' 35% ~

l 30% "' z - 25% 0 -;: "' 20% 1:! "' 0.. 15%

10%

5%

0%

A B

Source- IRC MPO 2004 BikePed Plan

c D

Bicycle Level of Service

E F

li!ll1997 02003

Attachment 17. Comparison of Pedestrian Level-of-Service between the Time of the Last Major Plan Update and Existing Conditions

50%

45%

40% -"' ~

35% 0 :;: 4i 30% z .... 25% 0 -c 20% .. ~

15% .. 0..

10%

5%

0% A 8

Source- IRC MPO 2004 BikePed Plan

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

c 0 E

Pedestrian Level of Service F

llil1997 02003

PAGE A28


Attachment 18. Zones of Trip Origin- Existing Conditions

••• ••

•·••·r.c•~ •••._• Jtt••t C-••!N•JI • C.O.IIIuO U ....... l ••

MASS 'fRAI-ISIT IIIV11Nf(l!A y . OF INDIAN OliVER cOUNTY

COUNCIL ·ON AllliiiiG %ONE$ OF TAll> ORIGINS

0 '"ZOIII. lt1U.ft'lll'6~ •-IIi!- ~,. .... ., lto-'lfn4>~

~ N

I


Attachment 19. Transit System Service Area- Existing Conditions- 2006 '

(.-_, '1.

------,,' "' ~ Okeechobee·c.oumy ··

lill Follsma-o

~~~~jln<flll~ River Shores '·'';.? .,_,,, Orchid ff!&~~ Sebastian ~ VeroBench

- Tro.nsit Routes

!mlf~ MPO Plarming Bouru!ary

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

Fixed Bus Routes and Transit Service Area

Zones of Trip Origin for Fixed Route SystemMPO Planning Area Zones of Trip Origin for the Demand Response System- IR County Source- IRC MPO 2005 TDP

PAGE A30


Attachment 20. Mass.Transit Grants Comparison of Conditions at Time of Last Major Plan Update and Existing Conditions

TYPE OF GRANTS

&fil'iitzr<i~::Transits¢l:Vice~-······

CONDITIONS AT TIME OF LAST MAJOR PLAN UPDATE

AMOUNTJ YEAR -,·:,~:f;{{'0;~i\~~-;;:\;<:;:({\:_~~::_,:>!{~)ff·:):::,:;:·.,'':-o

Transportati_on Disadvantaged Capital Grants $185,6501 1994 -1995 15310 FTA CapitaVOperating Grant (prev Set 16) $180,0001 1994-1995

:5311 FTA Capital Grant (prev Set 18) $23,4001 1994 -1995

15311 FTA Operating Grant (prev Set 18) $100,8001 1994 -1995

15307 FTA Operating Grant (prev Set. 9) $300,0001 1994 -1995

FDOT Corridor Grant for Saturday Service I n/al n/a

FDOT Intermoda1- Gifford Health Center n/al n/a

PTBG Grant I n!al n/a

FDOT Urban Transit Grant I n/al n/a Service Development Grant- Evening Service I n/al n/a

Corridor Grant -Brevard I n/a I n/a

5303 FTA Grant (prev Set 7)

TD P1arming

TOTAL TRANSIT PLANNING FUNDING

Source- IRC MPO, 2007 n/a- not applicable

n/al n/a $17,6911 1994-1995

$17,691

*Average yearly funding is shown where exact funding amounts are not available.

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

SOURCE

1996 Mass Transit Element

1996 Mass Transit Element

EXISTING CONDITIONS

AMOUNTI YEAR I SOURCE ::;;:.-:-:~'':_: .. ·_;{~?r -~-:~·.:., .. -._-:: .. c:-r-? :/-:/--:):_\: .... <::: -- < ... :_, __ :·:··<;.):; .- ~ -_,- , -- .,. ,, · .__,. ,~-:~i-!'

$377,161 2005-2006 $250,000 2005-2006

n!al 2005-2006

$97,5281 2005-2006 $1,114,202 2005-2006

$100,000 2005-2006

$53,000 * 2005-2006

$228,846* 2005-2006 $50,000 * 2005-2006

$92,0001 2005-2006

05/06-09/10 TIP

n/a

05/06-09110 TIP

IRC MPO Grant Log

05/06-09110 TIP

$134,571 *12005-2006 I IRCMPO Grant Log

$2:~;~~.3,.~.!12.~~~;~0-~?;·.1;.···.··.····· .· ·•·•··.··.·

$202,2041 2003-2006 I IRC MPO Grant Log $18,0001 2005-2006

$220,204

PAGE A31


Attachment 21. Indian River County Transit/Para-transit Service Providers Comparison of Conditions at Time of Last Major Plan Update and Existing Conditions

CONDITIONS AT TIME LAST MAJOR EXISTING CONDITIONS

PLAN UPDATE AGENCY NAME YEAR AGENCY NAME YEAR . SOURCE

Able Transport Able Transport 2006 http://indian-

river.fl.us/health/transnortation/index.html All Florida Medical Transport Klub Kar Transportation 2006 www.switchboard.com

American Cancer Society ACTS oflndiau River Estates

American Red Cross American Caucer Society 2005 IRC MPO 2005 Transit Development

Piau City Cab ofVero Beach Association for Retarded Citizens

Economic Opportunity Council Busy Traveler Transportation 2006 www.switchboard.com

Indiau River Association for Retarded Citizens City Cab ofVero Beach 2006 http://indian-

river.fl.us/health/transnortation/index.html Indian River County Council on Aging Economic Opportunity Council 2006 IRC MPO 2005 TDP

Indiau River County School District Greyhound Bus Lines 2006 -1995 Healthsouth Treasure Coast Rehabilitation http://indian-

Indiau River County Veterans Council Hospital

2005 river.fl.us/health/transnortation/index.htrnl

Indian River Yellow Cab Indian River County Council on Aging

New Horizons of the Treasure Coast Indiau River County School District 2005 IRC MPO 2005 TDP

Volunteer Ambulance Squad Indiau River County Volunteer Ambulance Squad

Yellow Cab of Sebastian Indian River Memorial Hospital 2006 http://indiau-

river .fl. us/health/transnortation/index.html Indiau River Yellow Cab

2005 IRC MPO 2005 TDP New Horizons of the Treasure Coast

Sebastian River Medical Center 2006 http://indian-

river.fl.us/health/transgortation/index.html

Veterans Council of Indian River County 2005 IRC MPO 2005 TDP

Total= 14 Providers Total = 18 Providers

Source- !RC MPO, 2007



Attachment 22. Public Transportation Data Comparison of Conditions at Time of Last Major Plan Update and Existing Conditions

TYPE OF TRIPS

Paratransit Passenger Trips -yearly

Fixed-Route Passenger Trips- yearly

P'~~~enil~rjfrill$~'BY':m!':iiliP'iih···· Medical

Education

Employment

CONDITIONS AT TIME OF LAST MAJOR PLAN UPDATE

EXISTING CONDITIONS

DATA I YEAR I SOURCE I DATA I YEAR I SOURCE ::"(},~:r-ii;~:: ,.;_'::\.: -":'::~>,~:?',;.:,~;(:;- _-_::,?~_:,:_ >-_,---:·-~~:;:J>i -: : ·.-·:.,.;.-_:.;_ .-:·:-._'> ' .. _~:~::·:·:: :.-

91,741 66,245 2004 1995 COA COA

8,605 250,661 2005

32% 41%

11% 1995 1999 IRC MPO TDP 24% 2006 I 2005 IRC MPO TDP

4%

~vi~!~~,~t:;~i~~~,~E,ff~~~¥~:2~\~~r~ ,i'@ J;j~i,\ ( :,~" '~h,,::;; 1,,,;:,.>,,;;,, '<' .. Passenger Tripsl'er Capita

Passenger Trips Per Revenue Mile

Operating Expense Per Revenue Mile

Source- IRC MPO & COA NIA- not available

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

0.20

0.13

$2.80

1.27 1996 1999 IRC MPO TDP 0.68 2005 2005 IRC MPO TDP

$2.83

PAGE A33


Attachment 23. Mass Transit Demographic and Automobile Data, Comparison of Conditions at Time of Last Major Plan Update and Existing Conditions

CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF EXISTING CONDITIONS

TRANSIT NEED INDICATORS LAST MAJOR PLAN UPDATE DATA YEAR CITATION DATA YEAR SOURCE

County Population 100,261 1995 US Census 130,043 2005 BEBR Urbanized Area Resident & Seasonal Population

1.4 persons/acre 1995 IRC 1.6 persons/acre 2005 IRC Density

Elderly Population 27.3% 1990 CENSUS 29.2% 2000 CENSUS

Disabled Population 23% 1990 CENSUS 23% 2000 CENSUS

Race

Black 8.5% 1990 CENSUS 8.2% 2000 CENSUS

Latino 3.0% 1990 CENSUS 6.5% 2000 CENSUS

Per Capita Personal Income lodian River County $27,220 1993 BEBR $40,677 2004 BEBR

Florida $20,650 1993 CUTR $31,469 2004 BEBR

Poverty 8.7% 1990 CENSUS 9.3% 2000 CENSUS

Auto Ownership Vehicles Per Household 1.57 1990 CUTR 1.58 2000 CUTR

Vehicle Registrations (Car Tags Sold) 59,979 1993 BEBR 88,120 2006 BEBR

_ Households without Vehicles 5.98% 1990 CUTR 6.03% 20 CUTR

• BEBR- Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida • CUTR- Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of Southern Florida



Attachment 24. Major Trip Generators- Conditions at Time of Last Major Plan Update (1996)

MAJOR TRI~ GENERATOR-S

Of

INOtAN RIVER: COUNTY

. . . _L ____ ···- ··------·· ---··· .. -·

-A~ f/ t)

'j--'-~~ {

s •• , •• ; •••••• ,.,.,., C:.•••'" ~~~'••••~•· D••••

.I

.... - ---------------~---:JT'o'

..... } ........ ,"'""tl.-,-~,--..-.... _ _. "rdP' ~at;.oe•

lo llf(ilolt4 ..,. .. ,. ~, W.t..CA IW>y,al• C:.or .... I. Vt.H• ·i-th"' '· .~ ... ~ •f-.: h ... , •• i-- flU~ c .. _, _..., ... ~~J.,M ,, ...... .-11 a.. • r..c~ ...... h•'ll Oll:fol•r 't. M'--".1.• .lJi•

1Q, ·l-UI ll. ~ u. ,;:-Mart ...... l«<Q: OW;.r.•.: ll • .....,. .. ..u...utRz:a;,:l-u.. ~)I' ~·ltU:'.II'UOA 4l4g.; n. ,_ -" Cley -....u !;: = =~='llllldU ...,...,,,., 1&. ,...,._.»-~ 1/11 • .,__.,_~ =~ lt.a. HM on~ ... ...a.

*"'- Ol:rlc>lo :u. - __.., ai.111io --l :.a. ~---.11 u~ .....,.,_ o.t.I.M; ...u. a".~ u- •1P ~ u.~~--..-:n. •t....-.rt ......,.__. .,-....... ~~ :.. .. ~ ... -~ u. a&.aWo .. ..,..

lR·----~--;u..-.... ~- x.ou.- u_.- ___...

Updated' Jan.l996 Mare-t! 4, •••r

·EIOLJie -~~~Of ~- lliWtC1M. ~MfC:II! f'(lA loW'" ,..,.N\UICII!It ~ In' l'\..CINOA r:Df. (# COMIU«t't ,-.. • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

•Nt:IET MQ, Mil••

0 1 2 3 4 SCALE fLORIDA ffCJ"tl't

INDIAN RNER COUNTY PAGE A35


Attachment 25. Major Trip Generators and Attractors- Existing Conditions (2006)

z:. " " 0

0 2 Mites

~·.~-~----Vera Beach Inset c -"' " "' 0

Okeechobee County

Generators and Attractors 8 Dowlapments of R<Jgionai Impact

Cl "'-tajor Reskkmtia!Aroas

® Major Retail Shopping Centers

0 Maja· Setvico Cantu-s

·~, ' ~ -,

® t..1obilo Homo Parks aod DoWJiopmonts e Public SchoolS

Source- IRC MPO 2005 TDP

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

Fclismct.o

Indian River Sh¢res

Otehid Scbasliatt Vlf!lo Bcadl

Tta1lsit Ro-ules

PAGE A36


1)

2)

3)

4)

~)

"' 11

ROUTE #1

Community CQ~ch Te~~inal

OQgfiGil ofi ~g\n9

Llbraty/Cvld:rt !HO;u.liJe

l.rtdlan 1\J.vc:[' i'la.:c-lll Publirc

Source -IRC EAR 1995

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

/ ·~

.!

\

t . J

. ,..:t .• ' :.

9t vero ttall

lll) Saut.h Beach

12) Saxton P!aza

~.l) P.IEHit!an ~);u•.•• AlA

1") lHU:~l.cipal tlr1 .. .rina

; ' ,,

J.S) c._.fllty O:.'<>«<•h 1'1tr•1m>f

PAGEA37

-""""' llli 1,11.M_SCnlo:.k~ollRat.o1 Mr~dp,;,JtiCG

GCITWI':I~ ~nd A1;im<lt>r~

• Ol:rd~C·d ~en;;~.~ e M;;jcc~~.=· /<rCSJa;

® "'IQI'"~fSt~..Q~ 0 M;ljU:Scr\llcc:r~~ @ PJi:tolloHomoP~.:w-..::!Cklld~ lfi A.OIIc$4-.:l!:ll:l;

Tl'Oin'i:iitOrkrnt:l.'liO.n

1_,_ =~ '""' :b.>- ~lp;,:M'~C:tna<.~><

~ ~.·#. w r,.·,;~ai~Oli""'' 1·.'~ I'.~~Jo:li'IIC~ Ill~.

~ .......... .,._ ~ . -li----


INDIAN RlVER COUNTY


Attachment 27. Fixed Route Service Route 1 Existing Conditions (2005)

PAGE A38


Attachment 28. Fixed Route Service - Route 2

--~-:z:-

SOTHAV!t

ROUTE- #2 Wli:ST GO'JWl'Y

t

® @

::1 ·20~i!r!Ullltv Co-ach Te.rOJinal 2 J Airv-:.t·t: t,l .... . _/Dodger Rd

J 0) Count.rysid"' Narrh

3.: :·iai :r..:r..r-1: - l.'~<-.:.st.bound 4; ?~-:r"ar.w-:-.:;-:::;-d - .... ~estbound S- I Villag~ Gre:.:n -5 I : :-.dia~ R:i ...... e:--.. Estates "'1 J H.;):ci zo::, ou·t:~.et C&nte-r 8) Lakewood Village 9) Heron Cay

Source -JRC EAR 1995

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

11.~ CoUnt:ryg.iQe S<nJ.t.h 12 l' Heritage Village 131 Ryanwood - eastbound !4) Wa lmart - eastitound 15) Winn Dixie 16) cantel:bury E'l·'t<"e Apts. 1 '7) Saridlewood Apts. lSl Lei~ure Square 19} Community Coach ~erminal

PAGE A39

~. ~ w TOmlai~Clli'I'J:r ,,., ,'\.,;;l<lx:ir~l~~- In~.

~-~1:"- -··· ............. ....,..,...._

Source- IRC MPO 2005 TDP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY


Attachment 29. Fixed Route Service- Route 2

•

1111 """"' ~ 1t'4Ml.~a:.Ar~~~2

M\.r'Jd~~

Gan<~r.sl.ot'1:r; ;:~nd Ai'lt.:ldot$

• ~od~on.i"~ .,. Moll«~~~ @ !o1.3ja-~:St~t'f<1~ 0 ~ccSec.oko~~ @ f.l.oblfct-lomclF...XS iV'ldt:ta.cb~ e ~k:·ScbXI~

Tr.mll:iiil Qil(lrt'l~t:ion

I v"'""' ""' -~ '""' ~~...-.:aRCiiiP~C ...... ~

•

PAGE A40


Attachment 30. Fixed Route Service - Route 3 Conditions at the Time of Last Major Plan Update (1996)

' j

ROUTE 4i3 SO~lT!t BOUW.D

,~)

...... @

l) commuttl. ty coach TermHtal 2). Orl'>n9e !Ho:ssom. Village J) South Ve~:o Squ.are - southbound 4} Mid•,,ay Estates 5) Gard<Jcn Gcove 51 Grov~ Isle 7) Sot!th ver~' Squ<~r<> - northbound 8) Vista Roy<>hl - Pine Arbor 9) Vi~;,;a Royale - Roy.ale Palm

10] Vls~a Royale - r.akev lm• 11 f V~~;<,a ROV<Jle - Royale Oi!tk 12t Vi~ta Gardens 13) T.n>piC ()t'O'N~ 14) AlbeJ:tson' s 15} Orange Blossom Village 16) Community coach 'l'e;rminal

Source -IRC EAR 1995

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

If-·~

PAGE A41


IIIII """"

Attachment 31. Fixed Route Service- Route 3 Existing Conditions (2005) ·

- 1f4JIA.:S.:f'.IIOOJ..fO:~ci;:.c._s:e3 IV.u:"ic'ipo:!l~

Gon.urat~ ~ndAt~t~

• l:k'..o~dR~~ fD LV~ ~den'i.t AA:-a:s 0 ~R«ollllS~~s 0 P.".;p- :!:or.!ce C«<~ €) fJ:d:<lcHor.':'.oP~~~d~~

8 Ft.tllo::Sc:~ T~ rtf: it Oi1"kln1o:rtlan.

•

'>i«'jHg"l

H"' .;tt.:t,:-\~ P.l.cdrn





:tl ;0

~ ..,. .z: 0

. ·B '·' /

:'® -· .

@

®~ (()

t6 ® '.----:--rn~= ....... @ LAKE DR

Source - IRC EAR, 199 5

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

1. Council on Ag~rP,J' U.S.tll/Dnvia S~ ..

2. Roselan~ Plaz~

J. zal""' Pl""" it,. Say Street Square 5- Physicidr~·s Medical center a. sebaatlan "ospital 'I. Ro,;eian<l fld ./133r<i Pl.. 8 .• R-t":<.!3".~land. nd ~I s~.u\!:J.t•t- D.t:. 9. Roseland ·Rd •. /Ftob.in I.n.

10. North county kib~ary 11. Dempsey 1\'lle ./? le.min .. tJ St .. 12. Dempsey Ave./araddock St. 1 J. D"l;'bar st _ /Uaverh ill Rd. U. Glen Cove S t, /Will iams<H'I Ave 15. Barber st./Lalc:.e Dr. 16. Lake Dr./Flaming St. 17. Lake Dr./Eaay st. JB; Eaay St./Orang~ Ave 19. !o1anqo Aw;/Delm<lr St. 20. Easy st./Main St. 21. Grey .Hound flus 'i'f:rr.d nal 22. council on 1\g!ll<J

t;.S.Jl/D<IVl" St

PAGE A43


il!l\ll """" 4

Attachment 33. Fixed Route Service - Route 4 Existing Conditions (2005)

B ·1,'4-t't.'l.~..!ok"o.'l~~.ixi4

t.\.1-i<::ip.li!ios.

Gc:uWtrt.tots; iu~A1.t.t.!tutots

• Oci.o~ct~OJ"'d~{ e l\'b,\'x"P.o:s~.ll·~il$ @ M~ Picf..:it$hWng Cort(r-1. 0 1\.~~'koC".ort:ior.f. ® 1'..\00!o ~ P.¥ie .T'od Oo·.d~ 0 AJ:lio&~

Tt:&t¥.1:it Orl.t~J~bUon

I Vor-.rH1tl

~ !.aN

8




Attachment 34. Fixed Route Service - Route 5 Conditions at the Time of Last Plan Update (1996)

RCH..J"T' E ~~ 5

l. Couf...:..:il (;•Ji fl.gl.n'\l u.s. 1/0avia SL.

2. ;!:;G"~lH~P;qiHU\ G_;c~.liJ.el•.=-r~-~ St.~

.J ~ S!:_:h"t~mtann. Or .. ltl--al ore.B S'l: .. ~. Sdmnuum D!:. /caprol AV(• '!t-~ 8-:~ri!J.ar St .. /f!.':miH'i!'SB Ave (,. Con<::ha. Dr, /Glen try L<L. I. Concha o:r' I.Horl~l)ill! 1'urr. 8. Clli'.arbrook St, /Dix.L.w J.t•liitrr, 9. C.t"~f~l:.al t•Hst Avf~A ./Pe-nlylilln .5t _

10. ChE;d t~n.h ... 1m st .• /BE!'.l fa~H_: 1f!<ilr-t·, 11. Be..:!icd.h;tin-a To.!::"~ /Clea.t""broQK :St.. l:l, c lea.:r"'onL :St. 1'-'"P"'" 'l'err aJ. c:I<>·~£"'""t st.JTulio' l.>oc. 14. 'l"ul:lp Dr.lllarb<;r St. tS. B-a:r:ber -st.Pla.:!.lt:/C.~R .. 512 !6. U.S.~}/R.tVelf',tlt-w Tr~·l.lBr Park 17. CapLaln H1ram~ te. Courrcil ~n Ag.ln9

L.J-5. 1/DiJ'Jl.S ~7::-t L9. Publix A~~~rwalk :2(1. K -Ma.ct Ri.•vcH"'....r·d k 21. \t.J.£:1 l m.;J.Ift :=.iUp€:I" c(~ni:..c-r j@

i -4'. !)

Source- IRC EAR, 1995

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

SEBASTIAN tiiOHk.r.NOS

t @

PAGE A45


Attachment 35. Fixed Route Service- Route 5 Existing Conditions (2005)

Source- IRC MPO 2005 TOP

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

IIIIJ Rat.:c5

~ 1{4 P.IL :!;g•(l(ckcll ci Ra.e~~

!'J.iSIIdpafillo:;

Gurt.urnl~ ~nd At.tr.:lirtott:

8 OQI"doptt:ern; oi!~oJC"DDI~t {!)- Y~«~l.::l.nM!Al'ISa @ Molj«~I:S-.op;lif"l!;~

0 Yol(or:Sei"oltoo C«1icr"' -@ IIJ.oblii:r HQn(H'"~k-. .ti'..d De-;d~ • Pl.blll: ;Schoo[~

Tr:ut~lt 0ll''kmt:dkm

1~:~.-..... ~ ""'

PAGE A46

..

...... ~ 1::4ML~Ate..adRru~6

Getterators andAttractors

• DEl-\~ otRt;.g~ooa 1~ $ MaJOf ~11a1Are-a.s ® )..'\alOI" Relai ~Coo1iml 0 Maj<lt -Se-Nioe cemara. ® MobieHoo'lil'PartsSild Developmet'l~ 0 Pub{ie School;;

Transit Orientation

~~~ \teJYHi;Jii

~~~~m LON

so-..oro>c2«1J :a:: I.IJ'o.'l001 c-, ...

~~ w Tindai~Oiiv..:-r

,. As~U.Cl:lli..">, ~11..:. R:. .. ~ G.....,, ~ ' ' ~-.,..,.,---z.

0.5 025 0


0.5 UBe'!>



I I ®

®

""~

®

®

~N::!'S.Bi

PAGE A47

D·;

~ Rou1e7

JB. 1!4.MI.&m.~NeadR.:u1e7 MJnk:l;:aliUes

Generators and Attractors

• Oeve!cpl'!'lali\Sl of~ lnlpa:-t @ Maj.Of RK!den1al Areas ® f.1a!or R£.ul SlopplngCii11ef'8 0 Major Sefvioe.Cenlera ® MobleHomePartssll<l ~~1.'1 e Publk SdlOOs

Tr.lnl>lt O·rieDtatlon

I :;;Hi;Fii Mod•m l.O"N

SW!oo:2~~ •RCII'IKll'l~OO c...., .....

I ~· ~ Tindai~Oli\lcr g-n;...~~ ...... ~:f ~<W!~~.!.%

0.25 0




®

'" ~ ~

OBlORD

\'1)

PAGE A48



i \ ~.

:n J J 4) 5) (>) 7) 9) :; )

::)

ROUTE# S

Source- IRC EAR, 1995 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

ll) 12) 13) 1-4} 15] 16) 1"1) l8) 19)

DQ.;:tor'a Clinic and Annex 'o'lalo;rreens-us !11 Mectical CenteJ>t.u:ria.s J?laza HRS St. Fl'anci" Mano~ Honte Heal r.h Forty· 'l"hird Parke ~·.est Medica} Docter's Clinic West Corf.tfRun i ty Coach ·Ter~uinal

PAGE A49


0.5 0.25


IB~tea ~ 1.14 Mi. Servi:::<i!- Art'!.a of Ro•.rE- S

M.mk:[pa rnes

Generntors :and Atlrae-tors

e O.WO:!~t:lofREq.\onsllrrpa.ct

@ Ma{Ol ~l:la~'tiaJArt!'as @ Major R-l:1.-:it$h~gCe!!~S

0 Ml!or Sw\k.<:C;;n~ 0 ,..~<! HornePaticsan.j D;,v«!opll.m1s

• PutlicScflods

Transit Orientation

Source- JRC MPO 2005 TDP



/

0

Attachment 40. Fixed Route Service - Route 9 Existing Conditions (2005)

Ill RCJ:o9

~ "1f4YL~a·.-sc:oArmotRa.tc9 M.,ridp.1li!Cdi

Gtin1lr.:d¢.til 01t1d Attr.:tcto.t!:i

8 ocv~~mct~o.-.:l~t • Ph!«cRe-:.'lld~:!ill Are.t<S 0- f,/..;jorRo'~l S".o;:9lf"l!il<:;o.~'5 0 Y>.1j.Y:SC>"'~1CO~:S @ U.oOIIO Hal-1¢1?->lrltS .:ll'Vd IJ:.'A:I~""t$ • Flbl>: Sd"~:!ll

Tti!lt\'!lil: OrlanMion

I V«-jHg"o

.~~.m ~:l.rn "'"

Source- IRC MPO 2005 TOP


2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report- Transportation Element, Port, Aviation & Related Facilities

Attachment 41. Map Showing Location oflndian River County Airports Conditions at the Time of Last Major Plan Update (1996)

' ;·'--·- ·-·- ----1, ..u"""Mac• R -------:~..-· _,.. ( ancb ~- --· 1\ PVT) -·-·-·-----• -----~-1 --~---

' I d . ,...---._ i[_ l 0 • ! -~:.. l ~~1.:''./' \ ~

I . \__~

.I

Felian'l•r• (PVT)

\

""'t -= -·- .... 8oare•1 ••tl.llla Al••f C•II•1J 11'1•••••• DIIJ'I,

BOLJ/e e"> ...... WIW>W kJ Cot(XIIot/JtOU#O

REMI<RID av l'fJfiMIUIOirol 011 LiOOT 'lfU.NCW. ASSISl'AHa' rOf'IU»I>Rti'NUinatt l'ftO'VIOfO 6Yf~OFIOI.Cifn OIC.OW..UNIN

'"""' •· PJUA Hi

l 2 :II 4 tl IULIU

&CAt.&

AIRPORTS IN

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA

$1111U;l litO.


Attachment 42. Map Showing Location of Major Transportation Facilities in Indian River County Existing Conditions (2006)

t_~

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

BREVA.'ID COUNTY

fEllS~IEREA!RPOR!

+ §

"fNDIANRIVER COUNTY

NE'Io' JilBlSCUS AIRPARK I

IWD!AW Rt','ER AEROORO~I!\

UI<R:Itl AIR:!iiRIP

+

~ri Ll...lf..;lt::. COUNTY

N

A Airports & Heliports in Indian River County

~ UJ; :!.S SV'~=-

Source-- Indian River(A)unt)' .'\o!PO & SeniorResourve-Asso::ia!ia.n

Map cre..=ted March 26, 2007

Atlantic Ocean

C Airport Public. -- sta.ta Roads

+ Airport. Private -1-- Railroad

T Heliport. Private !l'e Airport Propert}•

-- lrrterstat.:s Lakes

_._,.. 7oll Reads Cnty/City Rds PAGE A53


w1.uca:•

-T• t•••

tt. o•n:o~~ro liD.

e-.11111 .. •os -;--.,

" . . ' ,.-----..J 1,.....

' ' ' • ' ' I

' I I

' I L-----~

S.h ... ~1J

I I

Attachment 43. Map Showing Access to V ero Beach Airport Conditions at the Time of Last Major Plan Update (1996)

~

~- ...... - .. -...-..--...-• • ' .

-~ : V•r~_ B••ch \ L.:..iM"'DtcoJp•l Afi',port \'

~ 1.!' ?' ~ . ·~ G

~

----------~----~

r ' I I I I

' ' ' I ' I I

-, I I I I I ._ _______ ,.._,.li

.. ~

:1--i• '0

1: ~~ ~~ \

T• P••t

•• _ f'l ... l•rc•

••v••r-""'~•r• •••.:.ill lllllliflllct••~ --••••t't tlla•t.•" •••• u."" .. •-

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

VERO BEACH

MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Access To Alte>ort

&

Other Modes Of

Transportation

0 -1/1 l SCALE Mil•

~

~ .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. ~ .. ! I

••• , .. -.; .••• I'

RetMied J ... ~ow 1996

PAGE A54

~_~

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY


ST

N

A

Attachment 44. Map Showing Access to Vero Beach Airport Existing Conditions (2006}

'" " I

Access to Vero Beach Airport & Other Modes of Transportation

= ;.Jrpon, f'ubli:. "'!' H=l"port. Pfiv-l>'!e m Hospital

--State Reads .. ~ 0, u -

Souro=- ·Indian Ri•Je:r CountyMPO & CittofVero Beach

M:ap created March 26, 2007 -- CnJy/City Rds

Atlantic Ocean

-6 't· ,r---:. ' .,.., '--''L'

~ <:;:

cyeo •,

'-· " -+- Ra'<fca::l Ill lnterC<Iastaf Vlfatenvay D Mrpo::_-Cpe~ionArei. ~ Airpo:t Prop.;;~·

, lakes --- \lB A:rocrt A~s, Stree1s

PAGE A55

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report - Transportation Element, Port, Aviation & Related Facilities

........ ,. Attachment 45. Map Showing Access to Sebastian Airport Conditions at the Time of Last Major Plan Update (1996)

I

8•b•• tl.fl.fl ioh.lf.IIC.fg-at .l\lr-p~trt

Ctt)'

•• Sebastian

__ ILR. 81D

SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

Acces-s. T(l Ai.rport & Other Moct.o.a Of Tt"anspoTtaUon

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAGEA56

t~ -~-~=.:·:_"_.__._·:~'!


Attachment 46. Map Showing Access to Sebastian Airport

BREVARD COUNTY

,<;..,:...

~ .$ f'.

r...,"&

f i '

~ ~

? ~·

1. ~.:...

"' oc. 0

9;, - ~----------'

of Fellsmere

N

A ~ •t..

Access to Sebastian Airport & Other Modes of Transportation

Source - Indian River County MPO l\llap created March 26, 2007

'" \ - - ...

-~ ~ lj-11", ;:;' GJ ... . --.

\ ~-.

Atlantic Ocean

C Airport, Public--- SebastianAirportAccessStreets r::J Hospital II IIIII Inter Coastal Waterway ~ Interstates -t- Railroad

-- State Roads ~Airport Property -- Cnty/City Rds Lakes



Attachment 47. Map Showing Location of Rail & Water Transportation Facilities Conditions at Time of Last Major Plan Update (1996)

aourc•: fiJOrlda HIOh Sp••d Hall Corporatlotl Application Indian Rlwer County Ptennlns Oeparlm,nt Ex~sting Conditions (1995)

biW f.l!:_ ._

• > ~

RAIL & WATER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES

SCALE

Wlllllllli Proposed Hlgb Speed Rail Route

012 3-4Mll ..

INDIAN RIVER COUNTI

•••u•u• FEC· Railroad --- lntr~coasta~ Waterway

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

PAGE A58

I~ I I---" i

L I

~ ~·


Attachment 48. Map Showing Location of Rail & Water Transportation Facilities Existing Conditions (2005)

!5121

s"':·.-~~ i-~ .. ,¢-.

"•' - :I F~l/fip~ 1

!' I- ,_-'It,

I 1'' Li_:\' -:··-~j\

'\'\,

'

\ ·~.

6091

Atlantic Ocean

'>,> 1. '?

:Oq; $

N

~.~ A ~1.-

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

Rail and Water Transportation Facilities Source - Indian River County MPO

Map created March 26, 2007

\ '':"'"

\-,

''""

-~

&Ill Inter Coastal Waterway -- State Roads -+- Railroad --County Road =Toil Roads Lakes = Interstates

PAGE A59


Attachment 49. General Characteristics of Public Airports Comparison of Conditions at Time of Last Plan Update (1996) and Existing Conditions (2006)

CONDITIONS AT THE TIME LAST EXISTING CONDITIONS DATA ELEMENT MAJOR PLAN UPDATE

DATA YEAR DATA YEAR

V ero Beach Municipal Airport

Ownership City ofVero Beach 1995 City ofVero Beach 2006

Type of Service Provided General Aviation, Commuter, Fixed 1995 General Aviation, Fixed Base 2006 Base Operators

Land Area 1,707 acres 1995 1660 acres 2006

Hours of Service 24 hours; ATCT 7 AM- 9 PM 1995 24 hours; ATCT 7 AM - 9 PM 2006

Operations (# oflandings 204,524 1995 179,664 2005 and takeoffs)

Number/Type of Runways 3 asphalt 1995 3 asphalt 2006

Length of Longest Runway 7,396 ft 1995 . 7,314 ft 2006

Surrounding Land Use Aviation-related commercial, industrial, 1995 Aviation-related commercial, industrial, 2006 residential residential, conservation

Annual Trips Via Scheduled 2,500 (ESTIMATED, SERVICE FOR 1995 0 2006 Airline 4TH QUARTER 1995)

Roadway Access Offered See map in Appendix A See map in Appendix A 2006

Sebastian Municipal Airport

Ownership l<:;ity of Sebastian 1 1995 City of Sebastian 2006 ·--

INDIAN RNER COUNTY PAGE A60



DATA YEAR DATA YEAR

Type of Service Provided General aviation, fixed base 1995 General aviation, fixed base 2006

Land Area 601 acres 1995 601 acres 2006

Hours of Service 8 AM till 5 PM Mon-Sat 1995 8 AM till 5 PM Mon-Sun 2006

Number/Type of Runways 2 asphalt 1995 2 asphalt 2006

Operations ( # of!andings & 34,732 1995 48,684 2005 takeoffs)

Length of Longest Runway 4,000 ft 1995 4,000 ft 2006

Surrounding Land Use Residential, limited commercial, 1995 Residential, limited commercial, 2006 agricultural industrial

Roadway Access Offered See map in Appendix A See map in Appendix A 2006

New Hibiscus Airpark

Ownership Private 1995 Private 2006

Type of Service Provided Agricultural aviation 1995 Transient training aircraft, agricultural 2006 aviation

Hours of Service Daylight hours 1995 Daylight hours 2006

Operations ( # of landings & 37,500 1995 20,300 2005 takeoffs)

Number/Type ofRunways 1 grass 1995 l grass 2006

Length of Longest Runway 3,300 1995 3,120 2006

INDIAN RIVER COUN1Y PAGE A6!

2006 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report- Transportation Element, Port, Aviation & Related Facilities ---- -----------


DATA YEAR DATA YEAR

Surrounding Land Use Industrial, agricultural, residential 1995 Industrial, agricultural, residential 2006 (within commercial node) (within commercial node)

Roadway Access Offered 98th Ave offSR 60 1995 98th Ave off SR 60 2006 [1] Florida Aviation System Plan, Treasure Coast Regwn

Source- IRC MPO, City ofVero Beach Aviation Dept, Sebastian Aviation Dept., FDOT- Florida Aviation Systems Plan



Attachment 50. Level of Service on Roadways Providing Airport Access Comparison of Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update and Existing

Conditions

Airport Roadway Segments Adjacent to Airport

Facility Facilities

Vero Beach 43rd Avenue (SR 60 to 26th Municipal St.) Airport

Atlantic Blvd. (271h Ave. to

20th Ave.)

27th Ave. (Atlantic Blvd. to Aviation Blvd)

US 1 (Royal Palm to Atlantic Blvd.)

Aviation Blvd. (26th St. to 27th Ave.)

Sebastian Roseland Road (CR 512 to Municipal Sebastian City Limits) Airport

County Road 512 (US I to CR510)

US 1 (CR 512 to Sebastian City Limits)

NA- denotes that data were not avmlable for 1995

Source: IRC Camp Plan, Table 4.7.1, Traffic Circulation Element, 1995 Indian River County Concurrency Management System, 2006

Existing Level of Service

1995 2006

B D

c c

B D

B c

N/A c

c c

c B

B c

Attachment 51. Energy Efficiency

1996 2005 Percent Increase

CO Emissions (kg) 26,485 37,011 15.5% HC Emissions (kg) 3,418 4,750 15.32% NO Emissions (kg) 4,021 5,515 15.01%


Source: TCRI


Attachment 52. Map Showing Surrounding Land Use of Vero Beach Airport Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996)

M

J. S'~

I if .(. I iltg. ~

J.. ~.

tii -----\ !i \

s

18 l AG .....,. :!

! ID

h \ ~<i · · I ~[ I ~ • I FWPCJY ,__ . .

"' I V I ---!;;' I 1 7 5 I I /. ... I t

:l: I ----• I .- <•1?' 'I' .--:-- i___....:. -···

g "'

EXISTING LAND USE AND

v

/1 '(t' \\ • l AG

IS·*

AG

s

8 -Single Family Residential M -Mulci-Family Residential

AG. -Agricultural c -commercial 10 -Industrial IS -Ins tul:ional V -Vancant * -Noise Sensitive Sites

-- -Municipal Boundary -:- -Airport Boundary

A64


L-2

Attachment 53. Map Showing Surrounding Land Use ofVero Beach Airport Existing Conditions (2005)

RL City of Vera Beach L-1

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

N

A "·' "' OA

l.~les

I~ I 'II~~c..-

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

Existing Land Use Surrounding

Vero Beach Airport Source- Indian River County MPO

& Vero Beach Planning Dept Map created March 26, 2007

1::1 Airport, Public 5111 GU: GovUinst.iPublic {RC Land Use

-t- Railroad - 1: Industrial B C-2: conseNation 1du/40 ac -- County Road ~ MR Mixed Residential [ill Cll: Commereia!llndustrial

=~ 'JtAirport Property !fml MX: Mixed Use C L-1: SF Residentla13dUiac

. _ Lakes I!!'BJ MHP: Mobile Home Park C~ L-2: SF Residentlal6du/ac

~·. :lcn:y of Vero Beach a P: Pari< D M.-1: MF Residential Sdu/ac

Vero Beach Land Use C2J RH: Residential High [27] M-2: MF ReSidential 1 Odu/ac

B C: Commercial RL: Residential Low mm! PUB: Govt./lnstJPublic ~ cv: Conservation RM: Residential Medium ~ RC: Regional COmmercial

PAGE A65


Attachment 54. Map Showing Surrounding Land Use of Sebastian Airport Conditions at the Time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996)

LEGEND

fa Single F~mny • Hob1le KCftle

liS! lnst1tvt1onll

from Sebastian Comprehensive

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

§Sf'€

lZJ lnd.ustrhl • Agrtcu1t\lrl1 m Ul'ldeve10I)e4

~991

PAGE A66


Attachment SS. Map Showing Surrounding Land Use of Sebastian Airport Existing Conditions (2006)

. ..::..6 ~

.ij . ,;>·

BREVARD COUNTY .,1'. 0"'

Existing Land Use Surrounding

Sebastian Airport

Somne-- Indian Ri\'er County MPO & City of Sr:hastian Planning Dept.

Map created March 26, 2007

~~ -=~&~

N

A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

RS4dufaore-

&2 Airport, Pul:i.ic Sebastian Land Use -+- Railroad D Af- Aviation lndustrta!

-- County Road ~ C- Co1-..servu.tion

~~~~ ~Ai.rport Property ~ C512- Comercial512 -·--- > Lakes g CG- Commercial General

ifii'li:-ity of Sebastian c=J COUNTY- IRC La1x! Use IRC Land Use IN- Industrial B) C-1: Conservation 0/Acre lEI PS-In:stitutfonat

g C-2: Conser/ation 1 du/40 acres :=] RE- Residential Estate

C-3-: Conser1ation 1dui25 acres @JM#J CJI: COmmercia!/lndustrial

~-J L-2: SF Residentia1 6dw'acre

D M-1: r ... tulti-Fami[y Residentilli

M REC: Recreation

RFM- Riverfront Mixed Use

r:"':?J RMH- Residential Mob1le Home · __ _j Rr'>~t- Residential Multi-Family

RS- Residential Sfngte-Family

PAGE A67


Attachment 56 Transit Quality and Level of Service (TQOS)

Comparison of Conditions at the time of the Last Major Plan Update (1996) and Existing Conditions (2006)

TQOS Indicator Existing Level of Service

1996 2006

Transit Frequency E E

Hours of Operation E E

Average Load A A

Service Coverage D B

Reliability N/A c Vehicle Travel Time N/A B

Source: IRC 2005 TDP Major Update; IRC MPO



MEMORANDUM


THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP /l.M !(

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson fl~ MPO StaffDirec&f'1

May 1, 2007

CONSIDERATION OF CONSULTANT RANKINGS FOR GENERAL PLANNING CONSULTANTS FOR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MPO


SUMMARY

At its December 13, 2006 meeting, the MPO authorized staff to begin the consultant selection process for obtaining General Planning Consultant (GPC) services for the Indian River County MPO. By using GPCs, much of the administrative time and cost associated with soliciting and obtaining consultants for MPO projects can be reduced or eliminated. As authorized, staff developed and advertised a Request for Letters of Interest (RLI) for General Planning Consultant Services. The RLI included both highway planning tasks and transit planning tasks. By the closing date, six consultant firms had responded to the RLI. MPO staff asked each of the proposers to return on May 2, 2007 to make in-depth presentations as candidates for the MPO's General Planning Consultants. After considering the presentations, the selection committee ranked the consultants. The committee chose Kimley-Horn Associates as the top ranked Highway and Systems GPC and Stanley Consultants as the top ranked Transit, Intermodal and Special Studies GPC. Staff recommends that the MPO approve the Consultant Selection Committee's rankings; authorize staff to negotiate contracts with the top ranked consultants; and authorize the MPO Chairman to execute the contracts with the top-ranked firms.

DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS, AND ANALYSIS

Begi1ming in 2003, the MPO employed General Planning Consultants (GPCs) to reduce the administrative time and cost associated with soliciting and obtaining consultants for MPO projects. At that time, the MPO hired two consultants, a GPC firm that specialized in Highway

and Systems Planning tasks and a GPC firm that specialized in Transit, Intermodal and Special Studies tasks. Those contracts recently expired.

Consultant Responses

At its December 13, 2006 meeting, the MPO authorized staff to begin the selection process for obtaining General Planning Consultant (GPC) services for the Indian River County MPO. As authorized, staff developed and advertised a Request for Letters of Interest (RLI) for General Planning Consultant Services. By the closing date, six (6) consultant firms had responded to the RLI. Four of the firms expressed an interest in performing both the Highway and Systems Planning tasks and the Transit, Intermodal and Special Studies tasks. These responding firms are:

• The Corradino Group • Ghyabi & Associates • Stanley Consultants • Kimley-Horn and Associates

In addition, one firm (Neel-Schaffer and Associates) expressed interest in performing only the Highway and Systems Planning tasks, and one firm (Kittelson & Associates) expressed interest in performing only the Transit, Intermodal and Special Studies Planning Tasks. MPO staff asked the proposers to return on May 2, 2007 to malce in-depth presentations as candidates for the MPO's GPC for Highway and Transit Planning Tasks.

Final Rankings

After considering the presentations, the selection committee ranked the consultants. The rankings are as follows:

Highway and Systems Planning I. Kimley-Horn and Associates 2. Ghyabi & Associates 3. Stanley Consultants 4. The Corradino Group 5. Neel-Schaffer Inc.

Transit, Intcrmodal and Special Studies Planning 1. Stanley Consultants 2. Kimley-Horn and Associates 3. Kittelson & Associates 4. Ghyabi & Associates 5. The Corradino Group

Staff is seeking the MPO's authorization to negotiate a contract with the top ranked Highway consultant. Staff is also seeking the MPO's authorization to negotiate a contract with the top ranked Transit consultant. If negotiations with the top ranked consultants are unsuccessful, staff

will then negotiate with the second ranked firms. This procedure is mandated by the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA), a law with which the MPO must comply.

Contract Execution and Work Order Issuance

Staff is also seeking authorization for the Chairman of the MPO to execute the contracts. Legally, the Chairman of the MPO can be authorized to execute contracts if drafts of the contracts have been approved by the MPO. The attached draft MPO contracts will form the basis for the contracts to be executed with the consultants.

As stated in the contract, specific work tasks to be performed, time frames, and costs will be identified in individual Work Orders to be approved by the MPO. With respect to minor planning tasks that have already been approved by the MPO in the UPWP, MPO staff is seeking authorization for the MPO Staff Director to issue Work Orders to the General Planning Consultants up to the amount of $10,000.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that the MPO approve the Consultant Selection Committee's rankings; authorize staff to negotiate contracts with the top ranked consultants; authorize the MPO Chairman to execute the contracts with the top ranked consultants; and authorize the MPO Staff Director to issue Work Orders up to the amount of$10,000.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Contract for a General Planning Consultant for the Indian River County MPO -Highway and Systems Planning Tasks

2. Draft Contract for a General Planning Consultant for the Indian River County MPO -Transit, Intermodal and Special Studies Planning Tasks

1\FJLESERVER\Public\Communily Dcvclopmcm\Uscrs\Mpo\MEET!NGS\MP0\2007\050907\GPC.doc

AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAY AND SYSTEMS GENERAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES

by and between

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION and

KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

THIS AGREEMENT FOR IDGHW A Y AND SYSTEMS GENERAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES ("Agreement") entered into this __ day of __ _ 2007, by and between the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as the "MPO," and , hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant."

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, the MPO has entered into an agreement with the State of Florida, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "Department," providing for financial assistance for transportation planning purposes; and

WHEREAS, the MPO desires to engage the Consultant to render such assistance and advice necessary to complete the responsibilities of the MPO under the foregoing agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:

I. GENERAL IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

I. All professional services provided by the Consultant for the MPO shall be identified in Work Orders and performed in a timely, efficient, cost effective manner, and in accordance with the current professional standards of the applicable discipline. Work Orders shall include a description of services to be performed, a statement of fees, proposed schedule for compensation and a projected schedule for completion of the work to be performed by the Consultant.

2. Whenever the term "Work Order" is used herein, it is intended to mean that formal document that is dated; serially numbered; and executed by both the MPO and the Consultant by which the MPO accepts Consultant's proposal for specific services and Consultant indicates a willingness to perform such specific services for the terms and under the conditions specified in this Agreement.

Indian River County MPO Page 1

ATTACHMENT 1.

3. A Work Order shall not give rise to any contractual rights until it meets the foregoing requirements. Each written Notice to Proceed and specific Work Order, as approved by the MPO, shall constitute an addendum to this Agreement. Nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of this Agreement, and the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth therein.

II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT

1. The Consultant shall abide by all agreements between the MPO and the Department. The executed Indian River County MPO/Florida Department of Transportation Planning Agreement for Urbanized Area Transportation is hereby attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A" and made part of this Agreement by reference.

2. The services rendered by the Consultant shall be commenced upon written notice from the MPO. The Consultant agrees to complete the Project within the time frame specified in the Work Order.

3. The Consultant shall not commence work under any Work Order until it receives a written Notice to Proceed from the MPO. A separate Notice to Proceed may, at the sole option of the MPO, be given for each phase of the services contained in any Work Order hereunder.

4. The Consultant shall submit copies of all proposed changes to the project scope of services for review and approval by the MPO staff before authorization of any contract change order. After said review and approval by the MPO, changes shall not be effective unless in writing and properly executed by the parties.

5. The Consultant, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree that: 1) in connection with the furnishing of services to the MPO hereunder, no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in regard to the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement on the grounds of such person's race, color, creed, national origin, religion, physical disability, age or sex; and 2) the Consultant shall comply with all existing requirements concerning discrimination imposed by any and all applicable local, state, and federal rules, regulations, or guidelines, as such rules, regulations, or guidelines may be from time to time amended ..

6. The Consultant shall designate a representative to keep MPO staff informed as to all aspects of the project work. The name and address of consultant's designated representative is:

7. The Consultant shall have all records and project work accessible for inspection and review by MPO staff at such time as is mutually agreeable to all parties.

8. The Consultant shall keep and maintain financial, invoice, and employment records

Indian River County MPO Page2

pertaining to the contractual obligation between the MPO and the Consultant for pre-audit and post-audit purposes for a period of three (3) years following the completion of all project work, or until all claims and audit findings involving the records have been received, whichever is later. The MPO, the Department, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Consultant which are directly pertinent to this Agreement, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcription.

9. The Consultant shall forward all documentation as it pertains to the project to the designated MPO Project Manager. Name: Phillip J Matson Address: Indian River County MPO, 1840 25'h Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.

10. It is understood and agreed that all documents, including reports and other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant in connection with its services hereunder, shall be delivered to, and become the property of, the MPO prior to final payment to the Consultant.

11. In connection with professional services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the Consultant further agrees to:

A. Maintain an adequate staff of qualified personnel. B. Ensure that plans meet all current federal, state and local laws, rules, or

ordinances applicable to the work. C. Cooperate fully with the MPO in the scheduling and coordination of all

phases of the work. D. Cooperate and coordinate with other MPO consultants, as directed by the

MPO. E. Report the status of the work to the MPO upon request and hold pertinent

data, calculations, field notes, records, sketches and other projects open to the inspection of the MPO or its authorized agent at any time.

F. Confer with the MPO during the further development and implementation of improvements for which the Consultant has provided design or other services.

G. Interpret plans and other documents; correct errors and omissions and prepare any necessary plan revisions not involving a change in the scope of the work required, at no additional cost within thirty (30) calendar days of notice by the MPO, or upon a determination of the Consultant of the existence of such errors or omissions, whichever event shall first occur.

12. The Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, procure and keep in full force, effect, and good standing any and all necessary licenses, registrations, certificates, permits, and any and all other authorizations as are required by local, state, or federal law, in order for the Consultant to render its services as described in this Agreement. · The Consultant shall also require all sub-consultants to comply by contract with the provisions of this section


III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MPO

1. The MPO shall provide the Consultant access to appropriate records, documents, and other materials necessary to complete the project.

2. The MPO Project Manager shall represent the MPO in all technical matters pertaining to the work and performance of this Agreement, and his responsibilities shall include:

A. Examination of all reports, surveys, and other documents presented by the Consultant and rendering, in writing, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to materially delay the work of the Consultant. For purposes of this agreement, reasonable period of time will mean four ( 4 )weeks from receipt of applicable materiaL

B. Transmission of instructions, receipt of information, interpretation and definition ofMPO policies and decisions with regard to the work covered by this Agreement.

C. Transmission of prompt written notice to the Consultant whenever the MPO observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defects or changes necessary in the project.

IV. TIME OF COMPLETION

1. The services to be rendered by the Consultant for each Work Order shall be completed within the time stated in the Work Order. The Consultant shall commence work within ten (10) days after receiving the Notice to Proceed, unless the Notice to Proceed indicates otherwise.

2. As additional consideration for this Agreement, the Consultant agrees that a reasonable extension of time shall be granted by and at the discretion of the MPO in the event there is a delay on the part of the MPO in fulfilling its part of the Agreement or should weather conditions, acts of God or hidden conditions delay performance of the Consultant's duties, · and such. Extensions of time shall be the sole remedy of the Consultant for such delays, and the Consultant will not be entitled to any damages or any claim for extra compensation.

V. TERMINATION

1. This Agreement may be terminated: 1) by the MPO, for any reason, upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the Consultant; or 2) by the Consultant, for any reason following thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the MPO; or 3) by the mutual agreement of the parties; or 4) as may otherwise be provided below. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, any liability of one party to the other arising out of any Services rendered, or for


any act or event occurring prior to the termination, shall not be terminated or released.

2. In the event of termination by the MPO, the MPO's sole obligation to the Consultant shall be payment for those portions of satisfactorily completed performed work previously authorized by approved Work Order. Such payment shall be determined on the basis of the hours of work performed by the Consultant, or the percentage of work complete as estimated by the Consultant and agreed upon by the MPO up to the time of termination. In the event of such termination, the MPO may, without penalty or other obligation to the Consultant, elect to employ other persons to perform the same or similar services.

3. The obligation to provide services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days prior written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party.

4. In the event that the Consultant merges with another company, becomes a subsidiary or makes any other substantial change in structure or in the following principals or project

manag~s·----------------------------~--~------------~----------~-------c------:-:--------'' the MPO reserves the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with its terms.

5. In the event of termination of this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to surrender any and all documents prepared by the Consultant for the MPO in connection with this Agreement, of which the MPO will shall have full ownership thereof. The Consultant shall retain copies of such documents for record purposes.

6. In the event that this Agreement is terminated by either party prior to the Consultant's satisfactory completion of all work as described in any individual Work Orders, the project will be deemed abandoned, and no compensation will be paid by the MPO to the Consultant for tasks or portions thereof not yet satisfactorily completed.

7. The MPO may unilaterally cancel this Agreement for refusal by the Consultant to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119 Florida Statutes and made or received by the Consultant in conjunction with this Agreement.

8. The MPO may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part if the Consultant submits a false invoice to the MPO.

VI. DURATION OF AGREEMENT

This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of three (3) years after its date of execution, although actual completion of the services hereunder may extend beyond such term, unless this Agreement is terminated by mutual consent of the parties as otherwise provided herein. The performance of specially and properly authorized projects may extend beyond the Agreement's

lndian River County MPO Page 5

three-year effective term and shall be compensated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. In addition, subject to the MPO's sole discretion, this Agreement may be extended by the MPO Staff Director or designee in for an additional one (1) year beyond the initial three (3) year period of the Agreement, if specifically delegated this authority by the MPO.

VII. AUDIT RIGHTS

The MPO reserves the right to audit the records of the Consultant related to this Agreement at any time during the execution of the work included herein and for a period of three years after final payment is made. Bills for fees or other compensation for services or expenses shall be submitted to the MPO in detail sufficient for a proper pre-audit and post audit thereof.

VIII. CCNA WARRANTY AND TRUTH-IN-NEGOTIATION CERTIFICATE

1. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant to solicit or secure this Agreement and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant any fee, commission, percentage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach of violation of this warranty, the MPO shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability.

2. Execution of this Agreement by the Consultant shall act as the execution of a truth-innegotiation certificate certifying that the wage rates and costs used to determine the compensation provided for in this Agreement are accurate, complete and current as of the date of the Agreement and no higher than those charged the Consultant's most favored customer for the same or substantially similar service. The wage rates and costs shall be adjusted to exclude any significant sums should the MPO determine that the wage rates and costs were increased due to inaccurate, incomplete or noncurrent wage rates or due to inaccurate representations of fees paid to outside consultants, if any such outside consultants are used with the prior written approval of the MPO. The MPO shall exercise its rights under this "Certificate" within one (1) year following final payment. The MPO has the authority and right to audit Consultant's records under this prvision. The MPO does not hereby waive any other right it may have pursuant to Florida Statutes section 287.055, as it may be from time-to-time amended.

IX. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement and its Attachments hereto embody the whole agreement of the parties, and there are no provisions, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein. This agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations, or oral agreements between the parties, and no amendment hereto shall be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto.


X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

It is specifically understood and aclmowledged by the parties hereto that the Consultant or employees or subcontractors of the Consultant are in no way to be considered employees of the MPO, but are independent contractors performing solely under the terms of the Agreement and not otherwise.

XI. SUBCONTRACTING

Services assigned to sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the MPO. The sub-consultants must be qualified by the MPO to perform all work assigned to them.

XII. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT

1. The MPO shall pay to the Consultant a mutually agreed upon lump sum professional fee for each work order activity, to be paid in monthly installments as invoiced by the Consultant. Each monthly invoice will document the work performed. Upon submittal of an invoice documenting the completion of all or a portion of one or more of the Tasks listed in the Work Order, the MPO Project Manager will determine if the Tasks or portions thereof have been satisfactorily completed. Upon a determination of satisfactory completion, the MPO Project Manager will authorize payment to be made for the Task, Tasks, or portions thereof. All payments for services shall be made to the Consultant by the MPO in accordance with the Florida Prompt Payment Act (Florida Statutes §218.70 et seq.)

2. The MPO Project Manager shall have the sole right to reduce (or eliminate, in whole or in part) any portion of the services under any Work Order at any time and for any reason, upon written notice to the Consultant specifying the nature and extent of the reduction. In such event, the Consultant shall be fully compensated for the services already performed and also for the services remaining to be done and not reduced or eliminated.

3. The MPO Project Manager may, at any time and for any reason, direct the Consultant to suspend services (in whole or in part) under this Agreement. Such direction shall be in writing, and shall specify the period during which services shall be stopped. The Consultant shall resume its Services upon the date specified, or upon such other date as the MPO Project Manager may thereafter specify in writing. Where the MPO has suspended the services under this Agreement for a period in excess of six ( 6) months, the compensation of Consultant for such suspended services may be subject to modification. The period during which the services are stopped by the MPO shall be added to the time of performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that any stoppage of services not approved or caused by the actions or inactions of the MPO shall not give rise to any claim against the MPO by the Consultant.

4. The MPO, during any fiscal year, shall not expend money, incur any liability, or enter into any contract which, by its terms, involves the expenditure of money in excess of the amounts budgeted as available for expenditure during such fiscal year. Accordingly, the MPO's

Indian River County MPO Page?

performance and obligation to pay nnder this Agreement t is contingent upon any annual appropriation by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the State of Florida, and the Indian River County Board of Connty Commissioners.

XIII. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

1. The Consultant shall not commence work on this Agreement nntil it has obtained all insurance required nnder this paragraph and such insurance has been approved by the MPO's representative.

2. The Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless the MPO, its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the consultant and other persons employed or utilized by the consultant in the performance of this Agreement.

3. The Consultant shall maintain during the term of this Agreement the following insurance:

A. Business Automobile Liability Insurance covering all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles with minimum limits of liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence Combined Single Limit for bodily injury and property damage.

B. Commercial General Liability Insurance for premises/operations, products/completed operations, contractual liability, and independent contractors with minimum limits of liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence Combined Single Limit for bodily injury and property damage.

C. Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as presently written or hereinafter amended. The policy must include Employers Liability with a limit of $100,000 for each accident, $500,000 for disease (policy limit), and $100,000 for disease (employee limit).

4. All insurance policies shall be issued by companies authorized to do business nnderthe laws of the State of Florida. All such insurers must have an A.M. Best rating of no less than A+VII.

5. The Consultant shall furnish certificates of insurance to the MPO prior to the commencement of operations, which certificates shall clearly indicate that the Consultant has obtained insurance in the type, amount, and classification as required for strict compliance with this section and that no material change or cancellation of this insurance shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the MPO.

6. Compliance with the foregoing requirements shall not relieve the Consultant of its liability and obligations under this section or under any other portion of this Agreement.


XIV. PROHIBITED INTERESTS

No member, officer, or employee of the MPO or of the member governments during his/her tenure or for two years thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. This requirement also applies to any subcontract entered into by the Consultant concerning this project.

XV. MISCELLANOUS PROVISIONS

1. The terms of this Agreement may be modified upon the mutual agreement of the Consultant and the MPO as confirmed in writing.

2. It is mutually agreed between the MPO and Consultant that this Agreement, including all attachments to it, constitutes an agreement, made in Florida, and that it shall be constmed according to the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any lawsuit brought by either party against the other party or otherwise arising out of this agreement shall be in Indian River County, Florida, or, in the event of federal jurisdiction, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

3. All remedies provided in this Agreement shall be deemed cumulative and additional, and not in lieu or exclusive of each other or of any other remedy available to either party, at law or in equity. If any legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any provisions of this Agreement, each party shall bear its own costs.

4. If any term ot provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable for the remainder of this Agreement, then the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected, and every other term and provision of this Agreement shall be deemed valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by law.


IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have read this Agreement and attachments to it and have affixed their signatures, effective on the date first appearing above.

ATTEST:

BY: ____ ~~---------Darcy Vasilas

ATTEST:

BY: __________________ __

Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency

William G. Collins County Attorney

B:\Admin\GPC\Highway CNTRCT Revised by Atty


INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

BY:~~-c~~~~--------Peter O'Brien, Chairman

NAME OF CONSULTANT

BY: ______________________ __

Page 10

'

AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT, INTERMODAL, AND SPECIAL STUDIES GENERAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES

by and between

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION and

STANLEY CONSULTANTS

THIS AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT, INTERMODAL, AND SPECIAL STUDIES GENERAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES ("Agreement") entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as the "MPO," and. _________ _ hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant"

WITNESSETH THAT:

WHEREAS, the MPO has entered into an agreement with the State ofFlorida, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "Department," providing for financial assistance for transportation planning purposes; and

WHEREAS, the MPO desires to engage the Consultant to render such assistance and advice necessary to complete the responsibilities of the MPO under the foregoing agreement

NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:

I. GENERAL IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES

1. All professional services provided by the Consultant for the MPO shall be identified in Work Orders and performed in a timely, efficient, cost effective manner, and in accordance with the current professional standards of the applicable discipline. Work Orders shall include a description of services to be performed, a statement of fees, proposed schedule for compensation and a projected schedule for completion of the work to be performed by the Consultant

2. Whenever the term "Work Order" is used herein, it is intended to mean that formal document that is dated; serially munbered; and executed by both the MPO and the Consultant by which the MPO accepts Consultant's proposal for specific services and Consultant indicates a willingness to perform such specific services for the terms and under the conditions specified in this Agreement

Indian River County MPO Page I

3. A Work Order shall not give rise to any contractual rights until it meets the foregoing requirements. Each written Notice to Proceed and specific Work Order, as approved by the MPO, shall constitute an addendum to this Agreement. Nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of this Agreement, and the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as if fully set forth therein.

II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT

1. The Consultant shall abide by all agreements between the MPO and the Department. The executed Indian River County MPO/Florida Department of Transportation Planning Agreement for Urbanized Area Transportation is hereby attached to this Agreement as Exhibit "A" and made part of this Agreement by reference.

2. The services rendered by the Consultant shall be commenced upon written notice from the MPO. The Consultant agrees to complete the Project within the time frame specified in the Work Order.

3. The Consultant shall not commence work under any Work Order until it receives a written Notice to Proceed from the MPO. A separate Notice to Proceed may, at the sole option of the MPO, be given for each phase of the services contained in any Work Order hereunder.

4. The Consultant shall submit copies of all proposed changes to the project scope of services for review and approval by the MPO staff before authorization of any contract change order. After said review and approval by the MPO, changes shall not be effective unless in writing and properly executed by the parties.

5. The Consultant, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree that: 1) in connection with the furnishing of services to the MPO hereunder, no person shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination in regard to the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement on the grounds of such person's race, color, creed, national origin, religion, physical disability, age or sex; and 2) the Consultant shall comply with all existing requirements concerning discrimination imposed by any and all applicable local, state, and federal rules, regulations, or guidelines, as such rules, regulations, or guidelines may be from time to time amended ..

6. The Consultant shall designate a representative to keep MPO staff informed as to all aspects of the project work. The name and address of consultant's designated representative is:

7. The Consultant shall have all records and project work accessible for inspection and review by MPO staff at such time as is mutually agreeable to all parties.

8. The Consultant shall keep and maintain financial, invoice, and employment records


pertaining to the contractual obligation between the MPO and the Consultant for pre-audit and post-audit purposes for a period of three (3) years following the completion of all project work, or until all claims and audit findings involving the records have been received, whichever is later. The MPO, the Department, or any of their duly authorized representatives shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of the Consultant which are directly pertinent to this Agreement, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcription.

9. The Consultant shall forward all documentation as it pertains to the project to the designated MPO Project Manager. Name: Address: Indian River County MPO, 1840 25'h Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960.

10. It is understood and agreed that all documents, including reports and other data prepared or obtained by the Consultant in connection with its services hereunder, shall be delivered to, and become the property of, the MPO prior to final payment to the Consultant.

11. In connection with professional services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, the Consultant further agrees to:

A. Maintain an adequate staff of qualified personnel. B. Ensure that plans meet all current federal, state and local laws, rules, or

ordinances applicable to the work. C. Cooperate fully with the MPO in the scheduling and coordination of all

phases of the work. D. Cooperate and coordinate with other MPO consultants, as directed by the

MPO. E. Report the status of the work to the MPO upon request and hold pertinent

data, calculations, field notes, records, sketches and other projects open to the inspection of the MPO or its authorized agent at any time.

F. Confer with the MPO during the further development and implementation of improvements for which the Consultant has provided design or other services.

G. Interpret plans and other documents; correct errors and omissions and prepare any necessary plan revisions not involving a change in the scope of the work required, at no additional cost within thirty (30) calendar days of notice by the MPO, or upon a determination of the Consultant of the existence of such errors or omissions, whichever event shall first occur.

12. The Consultant shall, during the entire term of this Agreement, procure and keep in full force, effect, and good standing any and all necessary licenses, registrations, certificates, permits, and any and all other authorizations as are required by local, state, or federal law, in order for the Consultant to render its services as described in this Agreement. The Consultant shall also require all sub-consultants to comply by contract with the provisions of this section


III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MPO

1. The MPO shall provide the Consultant access to appropriate records, documents, and other materials necessary to complete the project.

2. The.MPO Project Manager shall represent the MPO in all technical matters pertaining to the work and performance ofthis Agreement, and his responsibilities shall include:

A. Examination of all reports, surveys, and other documents presented by the Consultant and rendering, in writing, decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to materially delay the work of the Consultant. For purposes of this agreement, reasonable period of time will mean four ( 4)weeks from receipt of applicable material.

B. Transmission of instructions, receipt of information, interpretation and definition ofMPO policies and decisions with regard to the work covered by this Agreement.

C. Transmission of prompt written notice to the Consultant whenever the MPO observes or otherwise becomes aware of any defects or changes necessary in the project.

IV. TIME OF COMPLETION

1. The services to be rendered by the Consultant for each Work Order shall be completed within the time stated in the Work Order. The Consultant shall commence work within ten (10) days after receiving the Notice to Proceed, unless the Notice to Proceed indicates otherwise.

2. As additional consideration for this Agreement, the Consultant agrees that a reasonable extension of time shall be granted by and at the discretion of the MPO in the event there is a delay on the part of the MPO in fulfilling its part of the Agreement or should weather conditions, acts of God or hidden conditions delay performance of the Consultant's duties, and such. Extensions of time shall be the sole remedy of the Consultant for such delays, and the Consultant will not be entitled to any damages or any claim for extra compensation.

V. TERMINATION

1. This Agreement may be terminated: 1) by the MPO, for any reason, upon thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the Consultant; or 2) by the Consultant, for any reason following thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the MPO; or 3) by the mutual agreement of the parties; or 4) as may otherwise be provided below. In the event of the termination of this Agreement, any liability of one party to the other arising out of any Services rendered, or for


any act or event occurring prior to the termination, shall not be terminated or released.

2. In the event of termination by the MPO, the MPO's sole obligation to the Consultant shall be payment for those portions of satisfactorily completed performed work previously authorized by approved Work Order. Such payment shall be determined on the basis of the hours of work performed by the Consultant, or the percentage of work complete as estimated by the Consultant and agreed upon by the MPO up to the time of termination. In the event of such termination, the MPO may, without penalty or other obligation to the Consultant, elect to employ other persons to perform the same or similar services.

3. The obligation to provide services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon seven (7) days prior written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereofthrough no fault of the terminating party.

4. In the event that the Consultant merges with another company, becomes a subsidiary or makes any other substantial change in structure or in the following principals or project

managers ______________ ~~~~------~--~~----~~--~~~------~---------------------' the MPO reserves the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with its terms.

5. In the event of termination of this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to surrender any and all documents prepared by the Consultant for the MPO in connection with this Agreement, of which the MPO will shall have full ownership thereof. The Consultant shall retain copies of such documents for record purposes.

6. In the event that this Agreement is terminated by either party prior to the Consultant's satisfactory completion of all work as described in any individual Work Orders, the project will be deemed abandoned, and no compensation will be paid by the MPO to the Consultant for tasks or portions thereof not yet satisfactorily completed.

7. The MPO may unilaterally cancel this Agreement for refusal by the Consultant to allow public access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to the provisions of Chapter 119 Florida Statutes and made or received by the Consultant in conjunction with this Agreement.

8. The MPO may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part if the Consultant submits a false invoice to the MPO.

VI. DURATION OF AGREEMENT

This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period of three (3) years after its date of execution, although actual completion of the services hereunder may extend beyond such term, unless this Agreement is terminated by mutual consent of the parties as otherwise provided herein. The performance of specially and properly authorized projects may extend beyond the Agreement's


three-year effective term and shall be compensated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. In addition, subject to the MPO's sole discretion, this Agreement may be extended by the MPO Staff Director or designee in for an additional one (I) year beyond the initial three (3) year period of the Agreement, if specifically delegated this authority by the MPO.

VII. AUDIT RIGHTS

The MPO reserves the right to audit the records of the Consultant related to this Agreement at any time during the execution of the work included herein and for a period of three years after final payment is made. Bills for fees or other compensation for services or expenses shall be submitted to the MPO in detail sufficient for a proper pre-audit and post audit thereof.

VIII. CCNA WARRANTY AND TRUTH-IN-NEGOTIATION CERTIFICATE

I. The Consultant warrants that he has not employed or retained any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant to solicit or secure this Agreement and that he has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person other than a bona fide employee working solely for the Consultant any fee, commission, percentage fee, gifts or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award of making of this Agreement. For breach of violation of this warranty, the MPO shall have the right to

" terminate this Agreement without liability.

2. Execution of this Agreement by the Consultant shall act as the execution of a truth-innegotiation certificate certifying that the wage rates and costs used to determine the compensation provided for in this Agreement are accurate, complete and current as of the date of the Agreement and no higher than those charged the Consultant's most favored customer for the same or substantially similar service. The wage rates and costs shall be adjusted to exclude any significant sums should the MPO determine that the wage rates and costs were increased due to inaccurate, incomplete or noncurrent wage rates or due to inaccurate representations of fees paid to outside consultants, if any such outside consultants are used with the prior written approval of the MPO. The MPO shall exercise its rights under this "Certificate" within one (I) year following final payment. The MPO has the authority and right to audit Consultant's records under this prvision. The MPO does not hereby waive any other right it may have pursuant to Florida Statutes section 287.055, as it may be from time-to-time amended.

IX. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

This Agreement and its Attachments hereto embody the whole agreement of the parties, and there are no provisions, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein. This agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations, or oral agreements between the parties, and no amendment hereto shall be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by the parties hereto.

Indian River County :MPO Page6

X. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

It is specifically understood and acknowledged by the parties hereto that the Consultant or employees or subcontractors of the Consultant are in no way to be considered employees of the MPO, but are independent contractors performing solely under the terms of the Agreement and not otherwise.

XI. SUBCONTRACTING

Services assigned to sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the MPO. The sub-consultants must be qualified by the MPO to perform all work assigned to them.

XII. COMPENSATION AND METHOD OF PAYMENT

1. The MPO shall pay to the Consultant a mutually agreed upon lump sum professional fee for each work order activity, to be paid in monthly installments as invoiced by the Consultant. Each monthly invoice will document the work performed. Upon submittal of an invoice documenting the completion of all or a portion of one or more of the Tasks listed in the Work Order, the MPO Project Manager will determine if the Tasks or portions thereof have been satisfactorily completed. Upon a determination of satisfactory completion, the MPO Project Manager will authorize payment to be made for the Task, Tasks, or portions thereof. All payments for services shall be made to the Consultant by the MPO in accordance with the Florida Prompt Payment Act (Florida Statutes §218.70 et seq.)

2. The MPO Project Manager shall have the sole right to reduce (or eliminate, in whole or in part) any portion of the services under any Work Order at any time and for any reason, upon written notice to the Consultant specifying the nature and extent of the reduction. In such event, the Consultant shall be fully compensated for the services already performed and also for the services remaining to be done and not reduced or eliminated.

3. The MPO Project Manager may, at any time and for any reason, direct the Consultant to suspend services (in whole or in part) under this Agreement. Such direction shall be in writing, and shall specify the period during which services shall be stopped. The Consultant shall resume its Services upon the date specified, or upon such other date as the MPO Project Manager may thereafter specify in writing. Where the MPO has suspended the services under this Agreement for a period in excess of six ( 6) months, the compensation of Consultant for such suspended services may be subject to modification. The period during which the services are stopped by the MPO shall be added to the time of performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that any stoppage of services not approved or caused by the actions or inactions of the MPO shall not give rise to any claim against the MPO by the Consultant.

4. The MPO, during any fiscal year, shall not expend money, incur any liability, or enter into any contract which, by its terms, involves the expenditure of money in excess of the amounts budgeted as available for expenditure during such fiscal year. Accordingly, the MPO's


performance and obligation to pay under this Agreement t is contingent upon any annual appropriation by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the State of Florida, and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners.

XIII. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

1. The Consultant shall not commence work on this Agreement until it has obtained all insurance required under this paragraph and such insurance has been approved by the MPO's representative.

2. The Consultant shall indemnifY and hold harmless the MPO, its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses, and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the consultant and other persons employed or utilized by the consultant in the performance ofthis Agreement.

3. The Consultant shall maintain during the term of this Agreement the following insurance:

A. Business Automobile Liability Insurance covering all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles with minimum limits of liability of $1,000,000 per occurrence Combined Single Limit for bodily injury and property damage.

B. Commercial General Liability Insurance for premises/operations, products/completed operations, contractual liability, and independent contractors with minimum limits of liability of$1,000,000 per occurrence Combined Single Limit for bodily injury and property damage.

C. Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, as presently written or hereinafter amended. The policy must include Employers Liability with a limit of $100,000 for each accident, $500,000 for disease (policy limit), and $100,000 for disease (employee limit).

4. All insurance policies shall be issued by companies authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Florida. All such insurers must have an A.M. Best rating of no less than A+VII.

5. The Consultant shall furnish certificates of insurance to the MPO prior to the commencement of operations, which certificates shall clearly indicate that the Consultant has obtained insurance in the type, amount, and classification as required for strict compliance with this section and that no material change or cancellation of this insurance shall be effective without thirty (30) days prior written notice to the MPO.

6. Compliance with the foregoing requirements shall not relieve the Consultant of its liability and obligations under this section or under any other portion of this Agreement.

Indian River County MPO PageS

XIV. PROHIBITED INTERESTS

No member, officer, or employee of the MPO or of the member governments during his/her tenure or for two years thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. This requirement also applies to any subcontract entered into by the Consultant concerning this project.

XV. MISCELLANOUS PROVISIONS

1. The terms of this Agreement may be modified upon the mutual agreement of the Consultant and the MPO as confirmed in writing.

2. It is mutually agreed between the MPO and Consultant that this Agreement, including all attachments to it, constitutes an agreement, made in Florida, and that it shall be construed according to the laws of the State of Florida. Venue for any lawsuit brought by either party against the other party or otherwise arising out of this agreement shall be in Indian River County, Florida, or, in the event offederaljurisdiction, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

3. All remedies provided in this Agreement shall be deemed cumulative and additional, and not in lieu or exclusive of each other or of any other remedy available to either party, at law or in equity. If ariy legal action or other proceeding is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute, breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with any provisions of this Agreement, each party shall bear its own costs.

4. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held invalid or unenforceable for the remainder of this Agreement, then the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected, and every other term and provision of this Agreement shall be deemed valid and enforceable to the extent permitted by law.


IN WITNESS OF THE FOREGOING, the parties have read this Agreement and attachments to it and have affixed their signatures, effective on the date first appearing above.

ATTEST:

BY: ______ ~--------Darcy V asilas

ATTEST:

BY: __________________ __

Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency

William G. Collins County Attorney

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

BY: ____________ ~----------Peter O'Brien, Chairman

NAME OF CONSULTANT

BY: ______________________ __

B:\Admin\GPC\Transit CNTRCT Revised by Atty.doc



MEMORANDUM


THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP JlM K Community Development Director

FROM: Phillip J. Matson;OfWl~ MPO Staff Director


SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT OF MPO ADVISORY COMMITTEES

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting of May 9, 2007.

MPOTAC MEETING The MPOTAC met on April 27, 2007. The main topic of discussion was the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO budget for 2007/08. After discussion of the UPWP, the MPOTAC recommended that the MPO approve the UPWP.

MPOCAC MEETING The MPOCAC met on May 1, 2007. The main topic of discussion was the Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) and MPO budget for 2007/08. After discussion of the UPWP, the MPOCAC recommended that the MPO approve the UPWP.

MPOBAC MEETING There have been no meetings of the MPO Bike/Ped Advisory Committee (MPOBAC) since the February 14, 2007 MPO meeting. The MPOBAC will meet in the near future to discuss the next phase ofthe County's Greenways Plan, which will identify greenways in the north county area.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

The MPO and its advisory committees will next meet as follows: MPO Meeting: June 13, 2007 -10:00 am MPOTAC: May 25,2007-10:00 am MPOCAC: June 5, 2007- 2:00 pm MPOBAC: To be determined

metropolitan planning organizationvice chairman of mpocac, and bob keating and chris mora, mpotac...

Documents