HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Miscellaneous_Tab 4_10/11/1995 lGmley-Non j
and Associates, Inc.
Engivoiv
Ruin
and
6rKoar entd
armitare A
4431 EmtlaxIKitr0Drna
Vdg6t Pt}n Bach Florida
33407
October 5, 1995
Mr. Tom Bradford
Village Manager
Village of Tequesta
P.O. Box 3273
Tequesta, FL 33469
Dear Tom;
At the request of the Country Club Drive Task Force, I am hereby responding
to your September 27, 1995 letter regarding establishing Country Club Drive
as a one-way street.
From the information you gave me, I can only assume that you are considering
converting Country Club Drive to one-way operation for its entire length in the
Village. Therefore, I have assumed that from Tequesta Drive north and west
to the County line would be convened to one-way operation and that the
approximate length is 10.000 feet.
Generally speaking, I believe that the Village can, by ordinance, change the
operation of their Village owned streets. The fact that the Village
Comprehensive Plan designates Country Club Drive as a collector may require
that the Florida Department of Transportation and, possibly, Palm Beach
County review the change, especially since it is on the Thoroughfare Plan. I
have not explored the details of the legal process and so I hope that Skip
Randolph has done so.
The one-waying of Country Club Drive will create inconvenience to all drivers.
Alternative routes will be sought and other roadways in the area will be
impacted by traffic going in the direction opposite the one chosen for one-way
operation. This could have a significant impact on County Line Road,
Loxahatchee River Road and Golfview Drive or River Drive within the
Tequesta Country Club area. In some cases the impacts to these other roads
could be very significant if the one-way operation involves circuitous travel
through the area.
■
TEL 407 645 0665
FAX 407 663 6175
C00/Z00fn flak/ARlOH-N.TIXIX SLT9 C99 Lob Yv3 90:LI S6/SO/OT
1:2:11:1, Kmley-Hon Mr.Torn Bradford.Oceohc.S.19gi.rate 2
and Associates,Inc.
Another significant consideration should be the cost of implementation. Based
on one-waying the entire 10,000 foot length, I have estimated the cost to be in
excess of$50,000.00. This includes the appropriate intersection signing and
pavement markings which would result in one lane one way operation on
Country Club Drive.
Another alternative which might be considered would be one-waying only a
short section of Country Club Drive. The few hundred feet between Tequesta
Circle and North Place would be a strategic area for this. It would allow
Tequesta residents south of this area to enter and exit their homes without
inconvenience. However, the impacts to Golfvicw Drive and River Drive in
the Tequesta Country Club could be severe. The costs associated with this
alternative would be significantly lower than a full one way conversion.
The inconvenience and creation of the need for circuitous travel is not an issue
which should be underestimated. Emergency vehicles as well as periodic
deliveries and the like could be severely impacted. Travel times for all drivers,
including Tequesta residents, would be increased.
Please keep me informed as consideration of this concept is refined. As always
it is a pleasure to serve the Village of Tequesta.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY-HORN A D ASSOCIATES, INC.
vtr,r_
q„,,,,,,...,/,
Frederick W. chwartz, P.E.
Vice President
FWS_jsl
4428104-106495th
COO/COOK Hai/NHOH-AH'INIH SLT9 C99 L0P IVA 90:LT S6/SO/OT
TEQUESTA COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
I. The Task Force Resolutions states "Even though the estimated trip increases on
Country Club Drive remain under the Tequesta Comprehensive Plan figure of 10,900
trips per day, the estimated increase in trips is unacceptable and action must be
initiated to reduce traffic trips on Country Club Drive, Tequesta Drive and throughout
Tequesta."
If plans are not initiated to force a reduction of traffic on Country Club Drive and
throughout Tequesta, even with major changes in the surrounding road
infrastructure, daily traffic trips will continue to increase at a rate of 48% to 63% over
the next 5 - 7 years, rising to approximately 10,000 trips per day on Country Club Drive.
Sections of Tequesta Drive will increase to over 16,000 daily trips, which could lead to
four lanes on sections of Tequesta Drive. The task force recommends that the Village
Council, after reviewing all the information, officially accept or reject the task force
resolution. This will set the tone for future action.
II. A sampling of Tequesta businesses and a few in Jupiter yielded the following facts
regarding the traffic situation:
10% had no knowledge of the situation;
45% had knowledge but little interest;
34% had knowledge and showed some concern but did not consider it a major factor;
10% had knowledge but no interest at all.
The conclusion was that most felt their customers would find them no matter what,
and did not seem very concerned.
III. Heavy truck traffic over the Tequesta Loxahatchee bridge is taking its toll on the life
span of the bridge and based on DOT statistics, it will have to be replaced in the next
10- 20 years at a cost of well over $7 million, much of this borne by the Tequesta
taxpayers.
I V. Waiting for support and assistance from Martin County, Jupiter and Palm Beach
County to help alleviate Tequesta's traffic problem has not been a viable option,based
on past history. Developments already on the planning boards will impact Tequesta,
regardless of what our neighbors do! With or without the Western Connector, either
the Church Street or Longshore Connector, the Martin County Connector Road or a
second entrance above the county line for Turtle Creek, the traffic still increases
through Tequesta at a rate of 40- 50% over the next 5 - 7 years.
1
V. The Task Force recommends that a concerted effort still be made to encourage the
following infrastructure road changes with our neighbors to help minimize traffic trip
increases:
• A Western Connector Road from Northfork south, via Church Street, Longshore
Drive or any other connection to Indiantown Road that can be agreed upon. The
Western Connector Road will help reduce the traffic out of Northfork traveling
through Tequesta, but, on the downside, it will also offer a shortcut from I - 95 to
U.S. 1.
• The establishment of County Line Road as an alternative east/west road link from
U.S. 1 to Island Way, especially for truck traffic. Support from Martin County is
essential to the success of this point. Four-laning of County Line Road should be
studied for implementation as traffic increases. County Line Road is the "path of
least resistance" and has far fewer frontage homes than Country Club Drive and
Tequesta Drive.
• The Martin County Connector Road will eliminate two 90° turns through The Little
Club residential area and allow a smoother, safer flow of truck traffic to Country
Club Drive north and reduce traffic on Country Club Drive south. Special Note:
While Country Club Drive was closed for repairs, traffic on County Line Road
increased 51.8% (2138 trips). Of those 2138 trips, 1104(51.6%) went all the way to
U.S. 1.
• Martin County must post the correct legal weight limits on the County Line Road
and Island Way bridges and simplify their permit process so trucks will be
encouraged to use County Line Road.
• Martin County must continue to appeal the Sec. 28 decision on housing density and
arrive at an agreement with the developer closer to the 128 single family home
development rather than the 640 homes now planned. A north and south entrance
into the development must be negotiated.
• A second Turtle Creek electronically controlled gate entrance on Country Club Drive
just north of the Tequesta village limits in Martin County. This would reduce the
traffic on Country Club Drive by 100 - 300 daily trips and provide an entrance/exit to
Turtle Creek that will be very important if Country Club Drive becomes a one-way
street north or is closed at the Martin County line.
• A third Turtle Creek gate entrance to County Line Road, while difficult and
expensive to implement, should be explored. This could be a "one way out"
electronic gate that opens automatically to let residents out. This would also be
important to Turtle Creek residents if Country Club Drive becomes one-way.
The Task Force recommends that the Council initiate another series of meetings as
soon as possible, with Martin County, Jupiter and Palm Beach County officials and
again explain our situation and ask for their decision on the above recommendations.
A simple yes or no will be fine. Similar meetings should be held with the
representative of the Turtle Creek Association concerning the addition of two gate
entrances.
2
Special Note:
The task force insists that there be no "strings" attached to implementation of any of
the above recommendations in point V, i.e., the Tequesta Village Council must not
agree to "never close Country Club Drive or any other Tequesta street." Our options
must remain open.
The Task Force recomments that the Village Council give serious consideration to
having all the applicable local governments particpate in a mediation process with the
hope of appropriate govermental repsonse to the findings/report of the mediator
pertaining to recommended actions to address regional roadway/traffic concerns.
January 31, 1996 is the recommended deadline date for their decisions, so that
Tequesta can move ahead with their own plans to reduce and minimize the traffic
through our community.
V I. It is the consensus of the task force after studying all the information available that
initiating action to form one or more Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts in
Tequesta is a viable and legal option and should be pursued. The first step would be the
creation of a planning ordinance by the Village Council authorizing the formation of
Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts in Tequesta. Incorporated into the
construct of this ordinance should be the requirement that the Village Council employ
the services of a recognized professional Urban Planner to make recommendations to
the Council on matters related to the construct of Safe Neighborhood Districts, and to
review and make recommendations appropriate to the items delineated in Section
VIII, Category 2.
The task force recommends that the Council also consult a lawyer with expertise and
success in implementing the Safe Neighborhood Districts and options such as closing
and/or gating roads under the Safe Neighborhood Act.
This ordinance does not authorize specific action to be taken, i.e., the closing of
Country Club Drive, but does pave the way for numerous options to be implemented.
The task force recommends that the planning ordinance be in place by January 31,
1996.
VII. The task force recommends the traffic reduction and management options listed in
this report be studied by the Council Committee on Public Works. An implementation
plan for each option should be studied and outlined on paper for the Council to review,
prioritize and vote to implement or reject by February 1, 1996. Legal and fiscal
implications must be considered for each option; task force representatives should
participate in these discussions.
3
Two questions for future consideration are:
1. Should the Village Council participate and be a partner in forming and supporting
the Safe Neighborhood Improvement Districts or should it be left up to individual
citizens to decide whether to form and support the districts?
2. All options will cost money; the question must be answered: How much and where
should the money come from - the taxpayers or individuals or a combination of both?
V I I I. Options available for consideration:
Some options will help minimize and manage the traffic problem, but will reduce the
daily traffic trips only to the degree that travelers avoid the streets due to the hassle and
inconvenience the option presents. Others, such as road closures, toll gates should
definitely reduce the traffic counts. All options must be reviewed from a legal and
fiscal point of view and specific plans committed to paper as to how they can be
implemented.
It is the opinion of the task force that, after reviewing the facts, all of the listed options
can be implemented legally if carefully crafted to fit various Village and State laws and
ordinances. I must add that some options do offer risk and possible lawsuits. The
options are broken into two categories: One, options to be implemented that keep
Country Club Drive open but tend to reduce the traffic flow and slow it down; and two,
options that close or gate Country Club Drive.
Category 1
1. Determine the legality and develop an implementation plan to test the feasibility of
making Country Club Drive a one-way street north from the following points:
• Country Club Drive at Turtle Creek entrance to Martin County line
• Tequesta Drive to Martin County line
• The last 100 yards of Country Club Drive to Martin County line
Special Note:
Making Country Club Drive one-way north from the Turtle Creek entrance to the
Martin County line offers the fewest disruptions to the fewest number of Tequesta and
Turtle Creek residents. Tequesta must work with Martin County and the Turtle Creek
Condos and Homeowners Associations to open a new entrance/exit just north of the
Tequesta village limits and the Martin County line. It could be a private road owned by
the Associations; it could be electronically controlled so that it opens automatically for
Turtle Creek residents to exit onto Country Club Drive. Electronic openers could be
sold or given to Turtle Creek residents so that the gate could be opened to enter Turtle
Creek before the one-way section begins.
Note: The 31 Country Club Drive residents living on the one-way section should be
•
allowed to purchase the electronic openers so they can come back through Turtle
4
Creek and go south on Country Club Drive to Tequesta. (The added out of the way
distance is 0.9 miles.)
The estimated daily traffic count reduction would be a minimum of 1800 trips from the
current daily trip count of 6205, and would drastically reduce the increase in trips
estimated due to the Section 28 and other South Martin County developments. Add to
this scenario traffic humps and strict enforcement of the "no through truck"
ordinance and there should be a major reduction of noise and traffic on Country Club
Drive and Tequesta Drive. The traffic will be redistributed down County Line Road
with over 50% of the south Martin County traffic moving east going all the way to U.S.
1.
If the option making Country Club Drive one-way from Tequesta Drive to the Martin
County line is implemented, then a median approximately 80-100 feet long must be
placed in the middle of Country Club Drive in front of the entrance to Turtle Creek and
the Tequesta Country Club Community North gate. This will allow the residents of
south Country Club Drive to turn left on North Place and go south through the Country
Club Community and exit out the South gate. The Turtle Creek residents, due to the
median, will only be able to turn right out of their entrance and go north on Country
Club Drive.
Special Note:
An alternative to the median is making North Place one-way north.
2. Install as soon as possible, speed humps on Country Club Drive, possibly Riverside
Drive, and if traffic continues to speed, on Golfview Drive and River Drive.
3. Reduce right-of-way on Country Club Drive.
4. Consider an ordinance change for Country Club Drive to measure easement footage
from the beginning of the easement rather that the back edge; allowing room for
structures such as fences to be built to shield homes from traffic and noise.
Landscaping could be placed in front of the fences.
5. Post Tequesta Drive bridge at 8 tons; require bonding/permits for through trucks.
6. Increase police presence/enforcement of speed limit and the "no through truck"
ordinance.
Special Note:
If a Safe Neighborhood District is formed, money from an assessment with possibly
-some help-from-the-Village could be used to station a motereyele policeman
permanently at Tequesta Drive and Country Club Drive to stop any through trucks
and to run a continuous radar speed check.
7. Install traffic signals or 4 - way stop signs at south end of Country Club Drive and
at the entrance to Turtle Creek.
8. Construct roundabout(s) on Country Club Drive.
9. Establish Tequesta Drive bridge as a "toll bridge."
10. Plant trees and add landscaping along Country Club Drive to create a tunnel effect.
11. Designate Country Club Drive an "historical place."
5
Category 2
12. Gate Country Club Drive at one or both ends.
13. Abandon Country Club Drive (privatization of road), with possible gating, guards,
etc.
14. Close Country Club Drive to all traffic except emergency vehicles.
Options in Category 2 become top priority options recommended by the task force if the
requests and actions are refused by Jupiter, Martin County, Palm Beach County and
the Turtle Creek residents; and if Category 1 options implemented do not reduce the
traffic counts to an acceptable level. The process to form Safe Neighborhood Districts
should then begin; the recommended date for this decision is April 1, 1996. The task
force should stay intact throughout the entire process to monitor results and perhaps
quarterly review progress with the Village.
In closing, I would like to thank the task force members for the time and effort they contributed
to try to come up with some reasonable recommendations to a very complex problem. In reading
through the reams of data, dating back to the early 80's, it is evident that Tequesta's traffic
problems have been building for a number of years and regardless of the reasons, very little help
and understanding or offers to participate in reaching reasonable solutions have come forth
from our surrounding neighbors.
Traffic is going to increase at a considerable rate throughout Tequesta in the next five years.
Tequesta needs to accept that or make some tough decisions on action to be taken. You are not
going to be able to please everyone. The decisions must be made based on what is best for all of
Tequesta. A referendum may have to be held next March to let the citizens decide, if the Council
feels it's necessary. If we don't act now the traffic problem will continue to grow and fester.
Decision time is NOW.
6
i A rL•i Lap,% =
•
C < o __�..1Nto , 8J JO.. ,IUPITER RD `� I� I�
tYL �+ 19F. d 'Jtl0' pN c� \ -T .red,7m0 0-' `m
Crrlr(y 3*d1 =/ / 9jSyy 7: A- oa CIz l,�ER\/rP �y Gb^/�lj��);.-,� -� z /
\ 'tF c9 •c -A 9 L'F R < ,.,,,,:a
�`' Li,. 'fit' r /'\f0 ( �� HSDNO s n z v '0 r '11� ZO 1- -Dm 9 J �+ / •
�' .nF +a0 0� mssa d a s Z \ac `� s
1,-,-.5,.___.,�� coN p',/ Erq. O:`O —� n'el N EARLWOOD•-DR //*,�'a �a�y�� • ` GO{ /,�j, OI ^' /
+ O/1yD 9 q � L.� \PaRuieNe.CriEsw78 1m /^ � >\ \ ��� i% ‘ ' rh L S /
mi a 'a^ �`D �•` �I 7DC �-9'1'd� Jy-�� �(9y0 ;B° fsa o• � a�c�itn ��y�� /� aG)-I'ON3B 1rr�� LAKE °BEND DR 9t, 0 z Dr �s-4iv �V/� ���1
L V D O c CL ��`�p p 00 V �O (�O NI tt�E N '•� 9
Flayahip w = a0 HOP 1I/ T s \7� /i' O \/ �� I\l1\
tr
a LOBLOL Y PON CYPRESS CT RUM I x `+ °` p9t�/i`=Y ' \ Q _
.,, rter Landin s P c ° pA 9r00 C� m MI cx Q a+o�1ny , L -fie _ p _wo•• �i . --
c+ SWEE CTM ism; Sr
q ty x 0 3t a S` * 1� r.
C _
., pp A A tP D D �w c �r m AIN EDL F `EAF CT o' • • O `t• �0I
O f Om T ' z nR yy0 s +/' w"S,o��+ o`' ,�. m < .1. _- 7oYt
y.cOak Leaf x �. w n1 y o, O p •1ERr
rE A n . q 4° , 4. a T o O a 1• M •.
r:Eiii� z_ F k Ter p�0 ÷'d v O CY �'''. ("p 4
RQuail Run 0n� m3� FH _i ,. g Y -a o a -O r1�• �. D� !.L ^y O !�� T E SWAY
OAKS CIR Dr ... `Lro <, A ♦ ,;.1] 9600 0t POO Lfr- VAY_
rn 9 C r CGolde •ir N s s 0 •
` CLU R'WAY.
T nZ 0 E 0 < m_ Hawk Golden .y C Cf . e ,"" c9•'G9 2 PAR c WAY -
Z F. m D -1 m S Tr Ha k r 3tr ��
m Hark :. >,�:.• 0 �I- E�� BIRDJE WAY.
D Z S MOWER,N C1 p _1
•
O o' 7D x S S WaY0W" 6 0 ,° • \ 9-'P EAGLE,WAY '
DR d : 0 00 0 9 � � g °
1:..-1;7...
,0OH _Q 6 HO WOO N'BRIDGE WA Cr
I Cn= m �j c �SS� 9^" 2
Cocos Plumose 0 ,o Z 1.111 9, Z y r 2../ •} �q sL<
a . p vt
I-
0 < C) m L s }� r e f m N o �/ Cq
a ,Qxo`\'1 luso A/Py �o i s o m n Ca...., 1(..,
G4' ri
N '10 r.a� swi 0 , s0 a.1`�� T. • •OC m 1 LAB / `+7 Z
�f •90• m 9 - s2'1' p m• A. a t� rR 7sd•da�,d'�°' •et�D d3N y^R�.
-o D •'' 9 .t 7t yy^r \. .• ay�C/RC�R D L ���'�° IZ �`Ddl` v
o t M o
O)i D F yam i,'(. �` �'al �� ``;-41
,F¢Mtte3 *,c9�. y.E rC D AV�AC �� t! n
ty °• 0 Oa d. oor .4, �` is 1` 1L : m a'• vor ,„�q ��v e,
°'- ( - -' M/ YI„r' ` ° ' :.T`bi/ �� T6 _ / RIVED ISLAND f c
Or 'ortI ¢J�� ' . Pr I • Oat �' i s•ineIr7it— 10800ccc < O n� C C Z m m D
;atl ' "' mDa•Caribbean Ct . �f1r �^ o �It>•- o m o 3 x
N. / �eS L
N 171- m II x LA Z •ay h v�D Cm �s�Indies La a °> `a 'a l/ ' z H O -.-
ROW.. 0:-1 O m s O,,/ ., , . . u, m` rn
dside Tr k \ e0 -y1 ulfstream Dr 11 a.:* i•-; i -� : n4 D m
Ai• \ r D itr .90 Q do n� s -� o
ti„' • Qa�' moo` I tO tl au.' �/ Jasmine Dr 3 _
liner 7 i,;= r
ton Way �` P. 100,0� / ‘a-Hibiscus D SOUTHGATE DRs-;Ti. n x , 'c I
�Tr rD ' A ' 3 ••5S'- - FERNWOOD DR! j ,a = i
ier Quay (' Ot. tly p O�5 •�/,Ni ardeniaDIHILLCRESTDR - .R s
c oCL -
nf
_� _1y ,HOME WOOD AVE
.—oar--Dr m K. '<�r,OO Dover • ° aa9 IFE ARN LEV DR° •
? L
O
�'�� 1 av s - ' F aCNAPELt BARDS DR m �N
S ,; °11 N. folk Av o z po° - CIR l �ET°
T .•.,O m 1 D• rt ICNAPEI ROBERT DR -,'
- s - m co*iMa•IeS.ortAve-•-Coletta_O�• 'cole°bx CT -C 4011111111 -BRYANT DR sA,
ti y Dr 1. 4°`Z. \'t'OCHAP N �pRE
then Dr 'sr 30 / 0�0 �•v * w� °a �y 0,a-,,Q° LA MAYO DR 4 z v
\o Er ; / 4m . A c� q 4�/s o F 01 }.� i D s
M rlin-�_ ' > J ;flak Av„� Q;° -ARNOLD l
Garden St •_ 4 y � M
�Ir lam' •b a oI o- o �A eD :°� / V.= DR �5� d LSa
d Dr Sylvia Av 3 a s edar�, �'d?D o y r�i i, p tik, o > 0d. �'\'d r
'tarlm m - v
D ��SEABROOKa =RD •--• � �' 1P na� EABROeK ' Ra �s- =t W.u, H'd1 iS
6 f�)
`Au r /^ - =ZI % • i em •s: E. ®o ^ _e;TA E LATepkwoo• .3,, I _
n v� e ; ^R• c o 'e o ii 'c �,e II R7__ 12000
me H,I —_
'^R 42 E t ,AVe <ley Rd •J, a n f A Tr �ti:i°R n r
II. Ave Venus •ZAv." i�-TSd�a r• e`n.: �I 9-.l\ R 43 E; z ' 5.; a n • m.� s' Ti,o o /
\� :0. TreemontW Av-� ' of = s pa v�No o » ,A-- .c :„„4—�.c -n 0 • c " m n N ..O o 0 < , 6' 'r.,'9�' a mnteF•��•f II m tieri�ea � 55d x z r,` '.^.ci
:erke hir n Av et p �.�```� aQa 9•o.• a ptl0• `O ■O o °s iS Mp1 .AY' '`:;'
1 f OCOS �� '�` j„.000010(162 d1 xi Na
cn`.r• v c q u° R I .O =
-ell 1 ri'
. 44'(IP
FACTS i FIGURES RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC CONCERNS
ON COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND THROUGHOUT TEQUESTA
Reference Material,
• Northfork Development ( Section 28 ) Traffic Impact Review Study;
February 1992
• Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive Corridor Analysis;
February 1993
• Summary of Traffic Surveys for Village of Tequesta; March 1994
• Joint Local Government Traffic Engineering Study; March 1994
• Miscellaneous Studies and Correspondence
EXISTING TRAFFIC COURTS - PEAR StASV++ - TIQUESTti VILLM3y J D PJ'.J',YIN MINTY 5-7 7ZAB_PROJETIOX
FEB 92 MAY 92 FEB/APR 91 MARCH 94 % /TRIPS % 'TRIPS '
COUNTRY CLUB DRIB
• North of Island Way 3, 131 ,
• Island Way to County Line 3,608 3, 119 `
• County Line to Tequesta Drive 5,958 6, 107
T
• Country Club Drive to Tequesta Drive 6,205 ! 63 10, 124 48 9, 182
i
.
!�
East of Country Club Drive 8, 818
63 14,373 48 13,051
1,
• East of Seabrook 11, 355 i 35 15,329 20 13,626
»
•+ • West of Dixie Highway 14,962 35 20, 199 20 17,954
• y
• Dixie Highway to Riverside Drive 8,857 40 12,400 25 11,071
.i
• Riverside Drive to Country Club Drive 11,240 63 18,321 48 16,635
e
4,
Data Source:Traffic Impact Study; Northfork
Development, Page 12,
Vehicle Trips per Day
I Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
! Corridor Analysis, Page 7 , •
Uses current Northfork plan calling for 640 dwellings,
27 hole golf course, one exit north C. 40% impact.
• Uses current Northfork plan, with Westerly exit, no `
Longshore Connection i 20% impact on Tequesta
1 5PZCIAL MOT : Figures do not consider development of •
downtown Tequesta, Abacoa or U.S. One North (Mobil) or
take into consideration action taken to reduce traffic
through Tequesta. ,
.' `
IMPACT OF CLOSING COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
TO ALTERNATE NORTH COUNTY ROADS
COMPARISON OF NORTH COUNTY ROADWAYS
DAILY TRAFFIC BEFORE AND DURING THE
CLOSURE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
AVG. DAILY TRAFFIC CHANGE
Before During
C1gzure Closure #
COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE 5, 948 3 , 585 2, 363 39 . 7
LOXAHATCHEE RIVER ROAD 3 , 712 2 , 849 863 23 . 2
+ +
RIVERSIDE DRIVE 1, 117 1 , 737 620 55 . 5
OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY 6, 183 6, 705 522 8 . 4
SEABROOK ROAD 2, 798 2 , 690 108 3 . 9
COUNTY LINE ROAD 4, 126 6 , 264 2, 138 51 . 8
Riverside Dr.+ Old Dixie - Seabrook 6 '0 + 522 - 108 = 1 , 034 48 . 4
County Line to U.S. One 2 , 138 - 1 , 034 = 1, 104 51 . 6
Data Source: Kimley-Horn/Palm Beach Traffic Surveys
•
-
i
0 ® • • • • • • • • .4. ` `I. .,. .. .. ft. .. .. .. .. .. Oa, .. .. .. up 40
1
r
q Ii OINI oixer T Mond Co , E w!
R
y 1:
1 L
.I sae oe�.a aw Pore 411
:.:%::voorrArrairo;,..........rim,„::„.......,...4.4 •.., ,,
rows* .•- ti
;ir1t
'
L � z w.. I
l v
.
S Y7 rt . j
U ; . telj
•ifGNFIA AMt . Carew Simi I.
•
. ....-..:e•• g
PsINANTOWN ROAD
tea+. •
7'"1-iniummpommill. i" NORT/-/FOR/K
er.M_ Atm Location Map
J
U
Y M
W
S O
U CO
CV
co
• I
o v 0
L-� 1107(41 )
1395(52)
9E. COUNTRY CLOD OR. 1 90(7) (5_ 384
it
3596 (7)130(78)1395
(15)273 �-Z n to 1 in rn
(14
irt
tn
t''R e*a +
R41411 Wet; 0 PI
tU
J
ci
a s
O t'
z J3
LEGEND
t,
1395 DAILY TRAFFIC 5;
(78) APPROACH PERCENTAGE
3596 TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC FIGURE 2
VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA +°
DAILY TRAFFIC
NOT TO SCALE
f Krnar-Horn
44211.02
to a r•-c towr