Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Documentation_Miscellaneous_Tab 4_12/5/1996
Memorandum To: Finance & Administration Committee Members From: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager.-7 Date: November 25, 1996 Subject: Increasing the Cost of Holding Vacant Land; Cost Estimates for Various Projects; Agenda Item At the last meeting of the Finance & Administration Committee, the Committee Members requested that staff prepare cost estimates for certain projects in order to ascertain the cost of assessments for each. In this regard, staff prepared cost estimates for the following projects : • New roadway and landscaping from Village Boulevard to Tequesta Drive, primarily on Dorner Land - $911, 533 • Streetlights for Old Dixie Highway - $4,000 • Streetscape for Old Dixie Highway - $329, 000 • Water Main Extension - none needed • Tri-Rail Passenger Station (land for station and parking) - $697,500 If the Village were successful in proving a direct benefit to the vacant property owners in question, those primarily abutting the east side of Old Dixie Highway, on a per acre basis the cost to the applicable landowners would be as follows : 1 . New roadway and landscaping - $27,216. 44 per acre. Lr - If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including 2% estimated issuance cost, the cost per acre would be $2,858 . 33 per acre per year. Landowners : Dorner Trust - 30.884 acres Post Office Property - 1 .069 acres Tequesta Branch Library - 1. 069 acres The Flame Restaurant- .47 acres . 2 . Streetlights for Old Dixie Highway - not feasible for assessment. 3. Streetscape for Old Dixie Highway - $5, 330 . 35 . ✓ If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including estimated 2% issuance cost - $559 . 80 per acre per year. rs , r r1L cut ��cu�C Landowners : Dorner Trust - 44 .58 acres Tequesta .Branch Library__- _-1 . 069 acres Post Office Property - 1 . 069 acres - Tequesta Water Treatment Plant - 15 acres apprx. 4. Water Main Extension - not applicable for assessment. 5 . Tri-Rail Passenger Station* - $14, 928 . 73 per acre. If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including estimated 2% issuance cost, the cost per acre per year would be $1,567 . 85 . Landowners: Dorner Trust - 44 .584 acres-", Post Office Property - 1 . 069 acres Tequesta Branch Library - 1 .069 acres . * State law -requires, _assessnient6 - for ' parking facilities to - be approved by those property owners proposed for assessment. This project should be - recalculated at $3 . 75 :-- - - 7 per acre and 'at =a total of 5 5 acres: (239,--580 square feet) ` pursuant to Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority letter dated November 4, 1996, copy attached. If, somehow, all of the above projects could be shown to benefit all of the above referenced properties, the one-time per acre assessment would be $31, 162 . 09 . If financed for 15 years at 6% interest, including estimated 2% issuance cost, the cost would be $3,272 . 71 per acre per year. In this scenario, the property owners would be: Tequesta Water Department - 15 acres apprx. ; Dorner Trust - 44 .484 acres; Post Office Property - 1 . 069 acres; Tequesta Branch Library - 1 . 069 acres; The Flame Restaurant - .47 acres . When analyzing these scenarios, the reader should keep in mind that Section 4 . 02(4) of the Village Charter only allows the Village to temporarily borrow up to 80% of a project cost in anticipation of the levying of assessments. Therefore, since the Village would not necessarily have the funds available to finance these projects, the timing of the projects would be critical relative to the 80% borrowing limitation referenced above and the estimated date of receipt of the assessments from the tax collector or other source chosen by the Village Council. We will be happy to answer any questions that you have in regard to these cost estimates . TGB/krb council/112596.sam 2 r -/�/ t . V LAGE OF TEQUESTA 1` s . . Thomas G. Bradford�� �R tillage Manager I y / ,) AP') G J ,,,A-tyz-,2-..-oi.s-,..--p . 1_::7-_-: i...e..,..././7 4,,--e---,--e-e----y2_ ,4,6 p A..---to0 (1)j L). S / / (4 d l."..-..,a ,->; 77-4.-A2-e- .-6-,..*-..-7--le-- "."11-`1"'''-`'-7 .: 76 (1, 7 ? Y3z ?-1;1 Alk)° Iv v, •st,a) .-.4.04-7. dft.:-4,4:114gl '--:7 3 4 "...----__ .• _. ,52..._,..-/--37 c-..-e.-p4-e. 4.-5re ifr.---- (.ice, /�1--- '1-. v. 4 / ,/, ,,2a.,,, "..-,91-,, ..d--142.--.1.-.7 410/te h-te ------e) �- -;( 9 fib _ !c �*--� T �` 4 -47-644j1-7 - - - -----4.- 0 r — e,-J-144-( (/-6-----7 7--- 7_, Ii -,,L 1),Fc-P,-„e_„/-4-7 4-i, IA.,,_ , ,__ • a . S . , / • S? g 5,1 , 905 J.70 / ece I. 069 , SO 0 PoSY r-r-7 I. . 0 6 y 0 da4y. •• V 7 6 (3.3 . V9 Atc. 4.*d. 56 , iaq . 2 . v ee,v -r6 .1-4) PO4).-r-___tottocsezy • /4(.1205 _„sN5.. • .1 3 . 2 9 6, 65 •ClieiooK. m‘se- 1.. _ p7--; t• . . • _ . 1+ _ . r- ylj��22 k' 1 \--..... • a Vio d , ®-307 3.95A C K.) Z. 1 • V /- C (!/ram \ l_.s,l A(. F.'J In l - Illf Tu. ®- C- • '� Flo,60� 2-11 i V. • \ 1 . ,,,644 , 101 \ S v 05 \ • Ill-- - 27.54AG : A.. \0 - 0; f 1 > � � //. Soy "`'' k� I93TApE$ s a 99.?, y°V/ VI „. Mw • lW1S� 0 • \ fir• M,M�� TEQUE�TP - L •s COMMERCE ;..s. .- .>, - CTR CONE) 1 115. ..... -, ' 7� sa011 - Will. q� BISHOP OF THE ;_il tol- 1,: , i.g.;;, - OF wE- t rA L me tea . Its ' \ , 1.Qb T- f o. 07 �. Wc % `ram z QQf�;� "--S rITA Itici.10,, ,i,..-,0‘ .z., er," • .. , iiiirs 1103- ..•••• i''',.....:c\ ...t.\ TA. @ '704.1 ,r ►�:., 02 \ 8 s2,9� © 704.6 r-.:�1 w.a .c A CIRCLE 100 .Q Q �A"T- ; ZIO rk.;,:. ipir ECM" Q cam v t :?.,2VPhkirf . 11211.c;‘, I: :i Y `,Q rtltMN�or ~ W O 0411- 14-1.t.itift:11 iiir"- maw I .....,u '' .•••• 6� _ ik....... 10, came ,.. ,, ,.. I' 0 zYra :,,,, 4 ., ,p. • .0 ! • rk: il • • • ,-- --- ' • BLA/R HOUSEZ.% ft D c, PARCEL A • �.. CONDO „wis / 10IA ?1► •i e l r \ 7�.E ®-704.5 1 �/ J ^�o .. T1T 1� o z s�o SUES I A c� "" ' _ ,r ._ •.. -ten L , .� Interest Vision Amortization Schedule Loan or Annuity Variables : Start Date: Nov 4, 1996 End Date: Nov 4, 2011 Start Payment: Nov 4, 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest:. - - Nov A, 1996 :Interest Rate: 6. 000% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal : $929764 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: $95731 . 07 ✓ Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. , Balloon: $0 . 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. Payment Interest Interest - No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 4, 1996 _.- . 0 . 00_ 0.00 .: 0.000 0 . 0.0 929764.00 1 Nov 4, 1997 95731 . 07 55785 .-84 6 .000 39945 .23 ' 889818.7.7 '= _ 2 Nov 4, 1998 95731 . 07 53389 . 13 6 .000 42341 . 95 847476.82 3 Nov 4, 1999 95,7311.:07. 0848 1 . 2= 6 .000'; ;. ,44882 . 4-6• 802594-.36- - - - 4 Nov 4, 2000 95731 . 07 -.48155=:66' :. ' 6 . 000 _ 47575.41 -,-' 755018.95 5 Nov 4, 2001 95731 . 07 45301 . 14 6 . 000 50429 . 93 704589 .02 6 Nov 4, 2002 95731. 07 42275 . 34 6.000 53455 . 73 651133.29 . 7 Nov 4, 2003 95731.07 39068.00 6.000 56663 . 07 594470.21 8 Nov 4, 2004 95731.07 35668. 21 6 . 000 60062 . 86 534407 . 36 9 Nov 4, 2005 95731 . 07 32064.44 6 . 000 63666 . 63 470740.73 10 Nov 4, 2006 95731 . 07 28244.44 6 . 000 67486. 63 403254. 10 11 Nov 4, 2007 95731 . 07 24195 .25 6 . 000 71535 . 83 331718.27 12 Nov 4, 2008 95731. 07 19903 . 10 6 . 000 75827 . 97 255890.30 13 Nov 4, 2009 95731 . 07 15353 .42 6 . 000 80377 . 65 175512 . 64 14 Nov 4, 2010• 95731 . 07 10530 . 76 6 .000 85200 . 31 90312 . 33 15 Nov 4, 2011 95731 . 07 5418 . 74 6. 000 90312 . 33 0. 00 I Interest Vision Amortization Schedule Loan or Annuity Variables : . Start Date: Nov 4, 1996 End Date: Nov 4, 2011 Start Payment: Nov 4, 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest: Nov . 4, 1996 Interest .Rate: - 6...0.00% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal: $335580 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: $34552 . 24 ✓ Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0 . 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. • Payment Interest.-Interest - No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 4, 1996 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 .000 0 . 00 335580 . 00 . .. -. 1 Nov 4, 1997 , 3,4552 .24 _20134.80.` R;6.000 ^14.417 . 44 •321162:56 -- • 2 Nov 4, 1998 34552 . 24 19269 . 75 6 .000 15282 . 49 305880 .06 3 Nov 4, 1999 __ 54552 .24 _ 18352 ._80 ._ _ _ .6 .000 . .. _16199 . 44 - 289680:o-42 4 Nov 4, 2000 34552 ._242: .:17380._$4`- _6 . 000. : 17171 . 41 ` 272509...2:2 5 Nov 4, 2001 34552 .24 16350 .55. 6 . 000 18201 . 69 254307 .53 6 Nov 4, 2002 34552 .24 15258 .45 6. 000 19293 . 79 235013 . 73 7 Nov 4, 2003 34552 . 24 14100. 82 6 . 000 20451 .42 214562 . 31 8 Nov 4, 2004 34552 .24 12873 . 74 6 . 000 21678 .51 192883 . 81 9 Nov 44, 2005 34552 .24 11573 . 03 6 .000 22979 . 22 169904 .59 10 Nov 4, 2006 34552 .24 10194 .28 ' 6. 000 24357 . 97 145546 . 62 11 Nov 4, 2007 34552 .24 8732 . 80 6 . 000 25819 .45 119727 . 18 12 Nov 4, 2008 34552 . 24 7183 . 63 6 . 000 27368 . 61 92358 . 56 13 Nov 4, 2009 34552 . 24 5541 .51 6 .000 29010 . 73 63347 . 83 14 Nov 4; 2010 34552 . 24 3800 . 87 6 . 000 30751 . 37 32596 . 46 15 Nov 4, 2011 34552 .24 1955 . 79 6.000 32596 . 46 0 . 00 Interest Vision Amortization Schedule Loan or Annuity Variables : - Start Date: Nov 4, 1996 End Date: Nov 4, 2011 Start Payment: Nov 4, 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest:- Nov 4, 1996 Interest.: Rate: . 6..000% Payment Freq. : Annual Initial Principal: $711450 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: .. $73252 . 86 .--- Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0 . 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. Payment Interest-Interest - =- No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 4, 1996 - - .0 .00- - 0 . 00 0.000 0 . 00 711450 . 00 1 Nov 4, 1997 73252 .86 4268'7-. 00 ' 6. 0=00'1 30565 . 86• .68088.4;..14. .2_ .. - 2 Nov 4, 1998 73252 . 86 40853 .05 6 .000 32399 . 81 648484 . 33 3 Nov 4, 1999 ,. '73'252:.B6--- 389-0=9=..0-6- • - - 6.-000 -.. 34343 . 80 614140 .53 4 Nov 4, 2000 :73252 . 86- =- 36848 .43- 6.=000'-'=- 16404. 43- `'`577736.3-1_ 5 Nov 4, 2001 73252 . 86 34664. 17 6. 000 38588 . 69 539147 .41 6 Nov 4, 2002 73252 . 86 32348.84 6.000 40904. 01 498243 .40 7 Nov 4, 2003 73252 .86 29894 . 60 6 .000 43358 . 25 454885 . 15 8 Nov 4, 2004 73252 . 86 27293 . 11 6. 000 45959 . 75 408925 .40 9 Nov 4, 2005 73252 . 86 24535 .52 6. 000 48717 . 33 360208. 06 10 Nov 4, 2006 73252 .86 21612 .48 6 .000 51640 . 37 308567 . 69 11 Nov 4, 2007 73252 . 86 18514 . 06 6. 000 54738 . 80 253828 . 89 12 Nov 4, 2008 73252 . 86 15229 . 73 6 . 000 58023 . 12 195805 . 77 13 Nov 4, 2009 73252 .86 11748 . 35 6 .000 61504 . 51 134301 . 25 14 Nov 4, 2010 73252 . 86 8058 . 08 6 .000 65194 . 78 69106. 47 15 Nov 4, 2011 73252 . 86 4146. 39 6. 000 69106 .47 0 . 00 Interest Vision Amortization Schedule Loan or Annuity Variablesf .. Start Date: Nov 22, 1996 End Date: Nov 22, 2011 Start Payment: Nov 22, 1996 No. of Payments : 15 Start Interest: Nov 22, 1996 Interest Rate: 6 . 000% Payment Freq. : , Annual Initial Principal : $1976794 . 00 Compound Freq. : Annually Payment Amount: $203536 . 17 ✓ Days in Mo./Yr. : Actual No. Balloon: $0. 00 Payment Mode: In Arrears Amortization Method: Simple Int. r'`' Payment `-"- Interest' Interest No. Date Amount Amount Rate/Yr. Principal Balance Nov 22, 1996 0 . 00 0 .00 0 . 000 0 . 00 1976794 . 00 1 Nov 22, 1997 203536. 17 118607 . 64 6 . 000 84928 .53 1891865 . 47 2 Nov 22, 1998 203536 . 17 113511. 93 6 . 000 90024 . 25 1801841 . 22 3 Nov 22, 1999 203536 . 17 108110.47 6 .000 95425 . 70 1706415 . 52 4 Nov 22, 2000 203536 . 17 102384.93 6 . 000 101151 . 24 1605264 . 28 5 Nov 22, 2001 203536 . 17 96315.86 6.000 107220. 32 1498043 . 96 6 Nov 22, 2002 203536 . 17 89882 . 64 6.000 113653. 54 1384390 . 42 7 Nov 22, 2003 203536. 17 83063 .43 6 .000 120472 . 75 1263917 . 67 8 Nov 22, 2004 203536 . 17 75835 .06 6 . 000 127701 . 11 1136216 .56 9 Nov 22, 2005 203536. 17 68172 .99 6 . 000 135363 . 18 1000853 . 38 10 Nov 22, 2006 203536 . 17 60051 .20 6 . 000 143484. 97 857368 . 41 11 Nov 22, 2007 203536 . 17 51442 . 10 6 . 000 152094. 07 705274 . 34 12 Nov 22, 2008 203536. 17 42316.46 6 . 000 161219 . 71 544054. 63 13 Nov 22, 2009 203536 . 17 32643 .28 6. 000 170892 . 90 373161 . 73 14 Nov 22, 2010 203536 . 17 22389 .70 6 . 000 181146.47 192015 . 26 15 Nov 22, 2011 203536 . 17 11520 . 92 6 . 000 192015 . 26 0 .00 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager 0 FROM: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works 4/• DATE: October 31,- 1996-_- _--. SUBJECT: Preliminary Cost Estimates for Potential Special Assessment Projects in Central Business District On October 2, you requested that I prepare a preliminary cost estimate for five (5) potential projects in the Tequesta Central Business District . For each of the five (5) attached projects, I have as follows: 1) Provided your request as written in the October 2 Memorandum 2) Provided a brief written response to your request and; 3) Provided the preliminary cost estimate for each project. Per the attached Memorandum, Al Oslund has provided all roadway proposals in item one (1) and all Tri-Rail information in item five (5) ; Tom Hall has provided a memorandum for item four (4) . - PROJECTS - (See Attached Pages) Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996 Page 2 - 1) Cost Estimates for New Roadway and Landscaping Your directive per- the October- 2 Memorandum: Cost estimate for building a road from the southern terminus of St . Jude Drive to Tequesta Drive with a roadway link connecting to the same running from Old Dixie Highway to this roadway located immediately south of the Tequesta Branch Library. I would estimate the right-of-way for this roadway to be 60 feet to include all appropriate sidewalks, curb, gutter, striping, reflectors, sigrnage:='and 'Jappropriarte�.streetscape plan. For streetscape cost estimates, duplicate that used on Tequesta Drive from U.S. One to Old Dixie on a linear foot basis, less the Royal Palms. Response: Per our recent discussion, I have also included land acquisition cost, estimated condemnation expenses, engineering fees and contingency. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST 1) Land Acquisition 99, 000 sq. ft. @$3.50/sq. ft. $346,500 2) Condemnation Expenses $ 40, 000 3) 5 Ft. Sidewalk, 2300/lineal ft. @$10.00/lineal ft. $ 23,000 4) Type F. Curb & Gutter, $8.00/lineal ft. x 4600 $ 36, 800 5) Storm Sewer, 2,000 lineal ft. @$30.00 $ 60, 000 6) Compacted Subgrade, 10,000 sq. yard @$2.00/sq. ft. $ 20,000 7) 8" Lime Rock or Cocina Rock, 10, 000/sq. yard @$7.00 $ 70, 000 8) Left Turn Lane (Old Dixie Hwy.) , 110' Storage Lane $ 20,000 9) 1-1/2" Asphalt, 523 tons @$75.00/ton $ 39,233 10) Signage, Striping, etc. , Lump Sum $ 10,000 11) 5400' x 4' Landscaping (Trees, shrubs, sod, clearing/ grubbing and irrigation system) $136,000 12) 12 Streetlights (No fee per FP&L) 0 13) Engineering and Permitting $ 42, 000 14) Contingencies $ 68,000 TOTAL $911, 533 Thomas G. Bradford - October 31, 1996 Page 3 - 2) Streetlights for Old Dixie Highway Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Streetlights for the east side of Old Dixie Highway from Tequesta Drive to the northern Village. boundary. Response: Florida Power and Light (FPL) advises that eighteen (18) Cobra Head Luminaire would be required for this project. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST 18 Cobra Head Luminaire $4, 000 Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996 Page 4 - 3) Streetscape for Old Dixie Highway Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Streetscape from Tequesta Drive to -County_Line Road using the. Tequesta Drive Design from U.S. Highway One to-Ola Dixie Highway-oa-iber linear foot basis. Response: The Old Dixie Highway_ has sufficient right7of-way _ for an extensive streetscape plan. Due to the speed limit for - Old Dixie Highway (40 MPH) a total of 2,000 feet of F curb must be installed for driver's safety. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST 1) 2, 000' F Curb @$8 .00 per foot $ 16, 000 2) 8,400' x 6' (Average) Landscaping (Trees, shrubs, clearing/grubbing, sod and irrigation system $248, 000 3) Landscape Plans $ 25, 000 4) Contingencies $ 40, 000 TOTAL $329,000 Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996 Page 5 - 4) Water Main Extension Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Check with the Water System Manager to determine if there are, epy_ water main extensions or replicOrients -Oat _are rieeded --th4"Ticp.ieitita" cl - Central Business District, primarily along the Old Dixie • Highway corridor or the Village Boulevard corridor which are potential assessment projects. If such water main extensions or replacements exist, . please have;detailed -ctibtelkithates --- _ provided for the same. Response: see see Thomas C. Hall attached memorandum dated - October 31, 1996. • COST ESTIMATE ITEM • COST No Extension or Replacement Required 0 Thomas G. Bradford October 31, 1996._ Page 6 - 5) Tri-Rail Passenger Station Your directive per October 2 Memorandum: Contact appropriate officials of-the Tri-Rail Organization to request' brmation indicating to you the amount of land needed to accommodate a standard Tri-Rail passenger station. Additionally, ascertain the amount of land-needed--for a..traditional Tri-Rail passenger station for parking of`pass—iiger-'vehic'les. Upon ascertaining the referenced square footage for the passenger train station and for parking, provide me with the same and I will advise the Committee of ,the -cost :of this concept- at-current Fly-ida= =--; East Coast Railway land sale quotes ($3 .50 per square foot) . Response: Per the attached * Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority Transit Development Plan 1995-1999, the north extension (Jupiter/Tequesta) would require a 400' x 20' passenger station with parking for 500 vehicles. (*) Plan is presently being revised. COST ESTIMATE ITEM COST Station & Parking (Land Acquisition Only) 185, 000 sq. ft. @$3 . 50/sq. ft. $657, 500 Condemnation Expenses $ 40, 000 TOTAL $697, 500 GP/mk Attachs. c : Al Oglund,�aCoordinator Stormwater Utility Thomas C: Hall7 Water S-ystem MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works FROM: Al Oslund, Coordinator Stormwater Utility c ..... DATE: October 28, 1996 SUBJECT: Extension of St. Jude Drive to Tequesta Drive And Link Westerly to Old Dixie Highway I have completed my review of the costs 'associated with the above referenced project, the assumptions being: 44 ft. Pavement width 1650 L.F. of new pavement - 650 L.F. of Pavement Widening 8" of Rock Base 12" Stabilized subgrade , _ , ; _ Following is the cost estimate excluding streetscape, right-of-way acquisition, water and sewer. At such time as the land use and density is determined, a lift station and force main will need to be installed at the Developer's expense. 1) 5 ft. Sidewalk 2300/lineal ft. @$10.00/ lineal ft. $23,000 2) Type F Curb and Gutter $8.00/lineal foot x 4600 $36,800 3) Storm Sewer 2,000 lineal ft. @$30.00 $60,000 4) Compacted Subgrade 10,000 sq. yard @$2.00 $20,000 5) 8" Lime Rock or Cocina rock 10,000 sq. yard @$7.00 $70,000 6) Left turn lane (Old Dixie Hwy) 110' storage lane $20,000 7) 1-1/2" Asphalt 523 tons @$75.00/ton $39,233 8) Signage, striping, etc. Lump Sum $10,000 9) Engineering, Permitting Lump Sum $40,000 10) Contingencies at 15% $45,000 TOTAL $3 64;'03 3 USE $365,000 AO/mk T71 C.0 C- /G ,D,J O L e}/ 1 �fc-7-/O/t-/S it ,Ejtl J T/../I j - ✓�i0�/IME�/Y ._.—_._ AL wi0Ea.;..., %c .0 • .-i WioE,v..i�` TPC u ' '� s:' � b 2 % C 7r)P ) . • i arf7 B,•dps'G.; B O.as.i:: 7L �•SvQ�,r,o o� / E Aspr�. I z "•sc.v�a.v qt /bifti/i.vh T"yP/Gs4 L LSD • , N R ;' -- C r7►P) ` gyp D c. ---- IZ ',SU /U4E14.J golle!lF.td7' 7 P,404 Gr /Gsai Memorandum To: Gary Preston, Director of Public Works & Recreation From: Thomas C. Hall, Water System Manager Date: October 31, 1996 Subject: Central Business District Projects The following is in response to Item No. 4 of the Village Manager' s Memo to you dated'bctober '2..' 1996' regarding the above. At the present time, no extensions or replacements are planned for the two corridors indicated in Mr. -Bradford' s memo. We are, however, planning to upgrade the water main from Village Blvd. to the Water Treatment Plant _along._ .the_Old_.Dixie._ Highway when independence from Town of Jupiter is achieved. This section of water main will be enlarged to meet the hydraulic needs of our entire system and not specifically related to the Central Business District . Water main extensions to serve the downtown area will be the responsibility of those developing within that area and sizing can only be determined when the water demand and specific uses are established. Should you have any questions, please let me know. TCH/mk Board of Directors Village of Tequesta Rick Chesser Trl-County Betty T. Ferguson Commuter Rail Authority NpV_ 0 6 1996 Allen C. Harper Village Manager's Office Marie Horenburger November 4, 1996 Ed Kennedy Wendy U. Larsen Lori Nance Parrish Carol A. Roberts Mr. Thomas G. Bradford,Village Manager Village of Tequesta David Rush PO Box 3273 357 Tequesta Drive Gilbert M. Robert Tequesta, FL 33469-0273 Executive Director RE: Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority(Tri-Rail) Planning ActivitieslTri-Rail Station Dear Mr. Bradford: In response to your letter dated October 28, 1996, regarding Tri-Rail future planning activities, in particular, dimensions and/or amount of land needed to accommodate a typical Tri-Rail station, the following is a breakdown of the approximate land required: Parking: approximately 5 acres(allotment of 500 spaces at 100 spaces/acre) Station: 0.5 acres for a double track station Please note that site situations may vary, and that Tri-Rail is actively pursuing joint development partnerships at its station sites. Should you need any additional information, please contact me or Fran Jones of my staff. Sincerely, Beth :-Itran Director of Planning and Development BB/frj cc: Gilbert Robert 305 South Executive Director Andrews Avenue Suite 200 Jeffrey Jackson Fort Lauderdale Florida 33301 Deputy Executive Director Customer Information A. James Nadaskay 1-800-874-7245 Director of Engineering &Construction Executive Offices PBCo/iettersrrequesta.ltr (954) 728-8512 i : , TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT. PLAN . 1995 - 1999 • Prepared for: ' Tri'County Commuter:Rail Authority._ _ . • Fort Lauderdale,Florida - - sof% . Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida "' Tampa, Florida F ::AL ,: z s CQ vi i l I CUTS i • I • I o k 3 k i i ' In conjunction with: P. N ' • Wilbur Smith Associated a W in Columbia, South Carolina m a . . i z 3 +n i w c1- July 1994 `� -- - '— TO' d ZOO' oN ZS: 6 96, 02 100 917VL-989-2.Ob: QI NOSN3f1339 4 • Trl-County Commuter Rail Authority . (Tri-Rail) • 305 S. Andrews Avenue Suite 200 •. . Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33.301 (305) 728-8445; (305) 728-8512 Fax (305) 763-1345 .. •• . Executive Director. Gilbert Robert Project Manager. Jeffrey Jackson • • • Center for Urban Transportation Research • -University ofSouth Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 • • Tampa,-Florida_33-620-5350-- =_ - __ _- (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 974-5168 Director. Gary L. Brosch Project Manager. Daniel K. Boyle • Project Staff: Ronald Sheck • Suzanne Dieringer Shelly Happel Denis Hinebaugh • Nitgun Kamp Perry Maull , Rebecca Rahimi • . Tiffany Turner Wilbur Smith AssoJlate0: ! 1301 Ge&ais Strieet . • • National Bank Tower, 13th Floor ! • Columbia, Soli, Carolina 29201 . • (803).7i38-0580 Fax (803) 251-2922 • Project Director. Richard S. Taylor •• Z0' d Z00• °N 2S: 6 96, 02 100 967L-989-. 0V: GI NOSN3f1339 TABLE OF CONTENTS • • TABLE OF CONTENTS • • • List of Figures , , vii • List of Tables xiii Preface - . • xvii . . . .. . Executive Summary xix Recommendations := xxii Actions to be Taken Immediately xxii: Actions to be Taken within the Next One-to-Two Years xxv Actions to be Taken within the Next Two-to-Three Years xxviii Actions to be Taken within the Next Four-to-Five Years xxix ' Chapter One: Introduction 1 • History 1 Commuter Rail Market and Demand 2 The Transit Development Plan : 3 Organization of this;Report • 4 Chapter Two: Demographics • 7 Population and Population Density • 7 Population Age Characteristics 11 Transportation Disadvantaged Population 15 Income Characteristics 16 Vehicle Availability . . , i . . . . .f . . .I. 21 • Employment Characteristics I . ' 25 Travel to Work _ • :25 Travel Time-to Work • 26 :, •• Means of •Travel to or � -- � � � - -- 33 1 20' d ZOO' ON , 2S:6 96,02 100 9b172.-989-Mb: QI NOSN3C1339 TRI•RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Chapter Three: Goals and Objectives 37 Introduction 37 Agency Goals i 39 . Departmental Objectives 47 Administration and Finance 47 Marketing 48 • Operations 50 Planning and Development 51 Operations Planning- . ._ . .- . , ., .... .. 51 Transportation Planning 52 Grants Development/Administration 53 Capital Improvement Program,- ,;: 54 . Project Development Management 54 Security • 59 Security 59 Training and Safety 59 Risk Management 59 General 60 Transit-Related Goals Identified In Other Sources 80 • • Land Use Element • 61 Traffic Circulation Element 62 Mass Transit Element • 63 Intergovernmental Coordination Element 65 Traffic Circulation 65 Mass Transit , . 68 • Capital Improvement Element 69 Mass Transit Element 70 r Land Use 77 j • Transportation ; I 7,7 I, ' j . i i Chapter Four: Trl-Rail Service Evaluation -, • - 61 • Tourist and Visitor Activity ' , 81 • . CBD Parking Supply and Cost 82 Fort Lauderdale • 82 Miami .• • 83 Identification of Deficient Roadways • 84 • Ell b0' d z00' °N bS: 6 96. 02 130 9bbZ-989-LOB; 11I N0SN3L"8339 . _ 1 ._. _ TABLE OF CONTENTS Palm debch County 85 • Browatd County 85 Local Officials/Community Leader interviews 85 Percepiiins 86 i Improvbthents 87 Policy Issues 88 . Interview Summary 88 • Citizen Aduisbry Committee Focus Groups 89 • Focus broup Assessments. .. . ... . ... . . ._ .. . • 90 Focus Orloup Suggestions- . , . 91 On-Board Survey 91 Systerrl dvervtew 92 survey alysis ' - 92 • • Summa of Survey Results -Demographic Information _ 97 • Age = 97 Gender 97 • Ethni Origin 98 • Anhu61 Household Income 98 Auto Ownership 98 Educational Attainment 99 . • Summatll of Survey Results -Travel Behavior 99 ' Average Trip Length 99 Station Activity . 99 Trip Purpose 100 • Modes of Aocess and Egress 100 + Fare Type by County of Boarding 100. ;Patron Assessment of the System 100, Summary of Performance Assessment 104 I CQmparlson of User Satisfaction Ratings . 113 j i .Conclusions and Summary 114 • i Td-Rail Peer and Trend Review • - 1.15 , introduction : j 115 j ; Commuter Rail Systems 1, . . 116: System Profiles - • 116 i Peer Review 120 t Performance Indicators .. 124' i . , . , , S0' d Z00' oN bS: 6 96, 02 100 9t7tZ-989-2.0t7:Q I N0SN3t1339 , • I i 0 TR1-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1996-1999 Effectiveness Measures . ` 130 Efficiency Measures 134 1`ri-Rail Operating Trend Analysis, 1989.1992 140 oerformance Indicators -. :. : ..... .. . . . .-. .. . . ‘:140 Effectiveness Measures 144 Efficiency4 Measures 146 Summary.of Peer and;Trend Findings 150 Feeder Bus gtirvice Evaluation - • 150 gvaluatiof of Feeder Bus Service - ;•-- 150 • . Feeder Bias System Performance 151 Feeder Sdrvice Alternatives 155 Taxi N 155 Vanpldols 158 Results of Ong-9oard Survey Related to Feeder Bus Service . . . .. . . . . . . • 159 • - • - - Demogradhics 159 User Satisfaction, Fare Type, and Frequency of Use 159 Tri-Rail P 'k-n-Ride Lots 162 II . Chapter Five: Ddfnand Estimation and Needs Assessment 165 . • Populatiori Gr3wth, Trends and Forecasts 165 Tri-Ralf and Local Transit Ridership Trends 167 Peer System Population, Service, and Ridership 169 • Tri-Rail Gbwth Potential 170 ' Chapter Six: Trl;all Scenarios 177 Status Quo . Id 178 . Core Corridor!Pocus . . ; 180 , • Service Extension 182 I Summary . . h. I l 184 . •• i .Chapter Seven: t'ri-Rail Transit Development Plan: . : Direction and Pecommendations , 185 Direction and Vision 185 • Findings and hecommeridations -- - • 187 . Actions toe Taken Imfnediately 187 • Actions toi6e Taken within the Next One-to-Two Yeare 190 • I iv i) 90. d Z00' °N SS: 6 96,02 130 9b171-989-2.017: QI N0SN3t1339 TABLE OR CONTENTS Actions to be Taken within the Next Two-to-Three Years 193 • Actions to be Taken within the Next Four-to-Five Years 194 • Chapter Eight: Capital Improvement Program Cost t Estimates .-- 197 A. Corridor Track Improvements 198 B. Signal/Train Control 202 C. Stations . . . • 204 D. TCRA Staff Planning and Engineering / '. 211 E. Service Extensions 211 • F. Maintenance Facilities.. . . . . . . , , 214 G. Rolling Stock • 215 H. Miscellaneous Items • 218 • I. Feeder Service . • 219 . J. Grade Crossing improvements • 219 • - K. Right-of-Way Maintenance • 220 • L. Airport Intermodai Connections 220 M. Capital Improvement Program Contingencies • • • 221 • Capital Improvement Cost Summary 221 • Chapter Nine: Future Options 227 Capital Improvement Program Funding Options 227 Existing Sources of Tri=Rail Improvement Funds 228 Federal Funding Sources 232 State Transportation Trust Fund Revenue Sources 235 • Sufficiency of State Transportation Trust Fund Revenues 237 • • State-wide Motor Fuel Taxation i 239 State General Fund Revenues 242 State of Florida; General Fund Revenue Sources 243 i Anticipated (post f'Tri-Rall Services Extensicin and.irnprovement Options 243 -Potehtiai Fu 'ding1 ptions for the Proposed Capital improvement Program 245 Passenger Fars . 245 • Federal Assistance•Funds 247 t • , State Assistance Funds } ' 248 f Local Option Taxes • i , 248 Fun • ding of Other Commuter Railroads 254 • Identification'of Funding Options ` . 255 • • Ira • z0' d Z00' °N SS:6 96, 02 100 9VVZ-989-z0ti: I N0SN3C1339 TRJ-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT. PLAN, 1995.1999. • • • • Option A: Traditional STTF Sources , I 256 Option B: Increase State-wide Sales and Use Tax .. 257 Option C: Dedicated State Lottery Receipts ', - 257 - Option D: Contribution from Local Option Taxes 257 Option B: Increased Passenger Fares • - - 258 Option F: Metropolitan Transportation Authority 260 •.Financing the Tri-Rail Capital Improvement Program } 261 Pay-as-you-go Basis of Financing the Capital Improvement Program • 261 Accelerated Program Phasing through Revenue Bonding . • ,262 _ _ • Summary of Tri-Rail Funding and Capital Expenditures (1989-2000+): Funding Conclusions 264 • Appendices 267 • Appendix A: Interview Questions -- 269 • • • . Appendix B: Focus Groups Guide 273 Appendix C: List of Definitions: Peer and Trend Measures 279 • • • :. • • I r% II I.° • . :L.: ..• . .. ',.. .. ') .t : i'•• • Vi 80. d Z00' °N 9S: 6 ' 96, 02 130 917b1-989-1O17: QI N0SN3C'8339 • CHAPTER EIGHT: CAPITAL.IMPROVEMENT COSTS CHAPTER EIGHT , •, •• • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM . COST ESTIMATES • . • • • • • •• • • • •• -• • •• • • • The Tri-Rail Transit Development Plan--Identifiet-pierinediie'rv(ce developments and a . . number of capital improvements or investments anticipated between FY 1995 and 1999. The planned service developments include: • Extension of commuter rail service at both ends of the current West palm Beach-Miami route. • • •: : ; )•-•` ' • '. .:; • 1. North on CSX to the site of the new Veterans Administration Hospital. .•: ,T• • • • . • . b.- • -• • . • ': • • 2. • South from the existing Miami Airport terminal to a new site which Is anticipated .. to be a shared facility with Amtrak.. . : • : . • Minimum hourly service for a maximum 50 trains per'day: • ••• • • Increase in service frequency upon completion of the currently programmed signal and double-tracking.efforts,- plus whatever additional sidings.are needed to permit peak- hour..service. at 30-minute intervals.-and hourly:service during„the balance,of.the • I • •weekday. • , •• • • • ';•• • . I . • .• • . ' . : ••• : ." . 77 ...;:7! 6., ' •': . ' • Opening of new stations on the existing route.and oa the proposed route extension . • I . i ! ! • • I " Cost estimates were prepared, for both the piann d and/ r needed capital Improvements based on the service assumrons presented a60je that iticlude:thel following items: . , • ; • • I • • A. Corridor Trick Improverrtents; ' B. Signal/Train Control; • C. Stations/Parliing Expansion; • .! "• •:• ••, . .;.: ;...:1!":••1;••1. i•••'•;•.t1;11 t.!rtrs 4. •• • • 197 60' d C:10' IDN 9S: 6 96, 02 130 91717 -989-2_0V: G1 N0SN3f1339 • TRI-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN; 1995-1999 • • D, Station improvement Design, Engineering, and Planning; • E. Service Extensions; • F. Maintenance Facilities; : • . I • • . G. Rolling Stock; • H. Miscellaneous Items; I. Feeder Services; J. Grade Crossing Improvements; • K. Right-of-Way Improvements; • • L. Airport Intermodal Connections; and M. Capital Improvement Program Contingencies. : . . These items are described, assumptions presented, and costs developed in the following sections. • A. CORRIDOR TRACK IMPROVEMENTS • In 1992 Deleuw, Cather and Company prepared a Master Plan for Double-Tracking the state-owned corridor between West Palm Beach arid Miami for FDOT that addressed many of the planned service developments anticipated byi'rri-Rail in the future;••The resultant plan ' subdivided the corridor between milepost(MP)969.7(northeast of the passing track at West Palm Beach)and MP 1037.70 (the location of the proposed new Miami Airport station) Into nine segments based on planned'end of double-track and/or universal crossover interlocking locations (see Figure 8-1). These segments are numbered from south to north beginning • with the planned extension to the new Miami Airport station:•For this study, a segment has been added(Segment 10)for the track segment from West Palm Beach to the proposed VA Hospital extension. The segments -and' their associated mileposts are'presented in • Table 8-1. These segments and the Improvements identified In the master plan' form the basis for the corridor's.track improvenientsi - :i • • t • • :'` I • ; • ' ' • ..• • c;'ire Jr)? !.! 1 ! I r I • r • ir. •:..:r' :! !.;,,'`•:!'C: lift;►.::� .� • 'Master Plan for Double Tracking West Palm to Miami, prepared by DeLeuw, Cattier and Company, 1992. • • ' 198 • 0T ' d z00' °N 2.S:6 96, 02 130 917bL-989-Mi: QI N0SN3C1339 • . .. Figure,8-1 .. . r -- -- Mr • 969.7 Track, Signal and Station r' „ West Palm Beach Station • Improvements ,,, Palm Beads Airport Station • . MP 977.C6- like Worth Station • I • �- Boynton Beach Station } ' • • _. . _ :--- -: - -ice= ——•• �'. Delray BeadiStatioti • ' .., ,t1 ve ICongress Awl. • _ . ... Boca RatonS aticc r - __ _ (rin,eto Resd)' • :MP9S619• • " Baea RatonLJpythStation PALM BEACH 000NTY -- -_-_----t- Ara =_ . BUOWARO COUNTY • ^ �.... 7 Deerfield Brah Station � c � • . . .. • • M13100333 Y'Pompano Beach Station .ierc •. •• • r^:\'\6,• ' I • • • ey-CypressCieeicStatics',- Legend . I • � � lMPlo11I5• . I • =•*...— Existing Tri hail �� Pi.taudtrdale Station Route I New River t !;.:.• • ', :..•• • • ,•.::.• • . . . In .. ; .1t Bridge It:.;rt•!.7r,;.") ••t•.: : . •I II-,FL Lauderdale Airport Ration "--�-- •Planned Extension'' ' • • • • .. . - •. . . . . , f� •1• •..•., , ,•• eon •• • to Minml Airport•-}• • • . . i.•. • • . I • idan Sercet., . .— Mu1ti-Modal Center . 1 1•` - ::� ;. •• ,; l., •...••:• •! . •:•r' MP1019.9 V.; :�'HOIIysigoodSttttiort':'.;;•' • • •• er; nowaeoCOUNTY•' — .1 1• Bxutin5StatioM :lt')'rl _ .�• ',r•'. �... ;•t.. . .. �'•`rr•.. . �'�� DAoiio-u iY COUPS!. '' t l ! i�tU1�• :) .:i s fl:lill.:i•/i;l?�.� :,'��(4�I :•il: (' (At..." �erlC ei�iEtORli�r��!•) ?,� 1 Bp 'Mileposts `� . I. : i s., t1L.;. Met 1;.•••/: •vFt ti- -• :.) ''. Ar i•�ti: •,' ".' i- `•'i CSX Sy,rem . MP• 103Ll2_ • ►�Mitroralt Radii I • Boca Raton Yamato I • , • .t - .. Road Station to be, • •1 I ! Replaced by MP 1036.s4 1,•:3 A�aml w+trpon Station Boca Raton North ; and South Stations I i . i 6 O Mam1 AI /Muitlmoda1 Cat J.'r= ' 199 Tt ' d Z00• °N 8S: 6 96. 09 130 9bb2.-989—ZOV:GI N0SN3C'8330 TRI-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995.1999 • • • • - Table 8-1 , ; . Master Plan Segments . ssyment'-�k. :*;;,t;• 13eglnning Y' sc • ending: I . . .. ''if:•c'•. Mileposn. •::•,:.' y`' Milepost .. 1 1037.40 1038.54 • . 2 1036.54 1031.42 • 1 3 1031.4/ 1019.90 • 4 • 1019.90 1012.15 . • • _ 5 1012.15_ 1003.53 8 1003.53 998,45 . • • 7 998.45 988.29 0 : 977.05 • • . 989.70 • • • 10 • • -- = 969.70 .:- - 983.00 - - _ . • - Source: Deleuw, Cather and Company,Corridor Master Plan 1 • • Track Improvement Scheduling. It • is understood that FOOT plans to begin double-tracking. - the corridor with Segment 5 between MP 1012.15 (southeast of Carman) and MP 1003.53 (northeast of Pompano) in 1994. Table 8-2A Includes the trabk segments expected to be ' double-tracked by the year 1999. The other segments will be addressed In the raid-range time period in the year 2000 and beyond, as noted In Table 8-2B. Track Configuration: The location of the second track, alignment, and construction • • materials are as proposed in the Master Plan for Double-Tracking West Palm Beach to Miami. ` prepared for FOOT in 1992 by DeLeuw, Cather and Company,"with; the exception 'of ' ' I • •.r„•.t. • . ••• I crossovers. The master plan recommended Universal No. 20 crossovers every 10 miles. I However,'for this effort; Universal No. 20'crossovers would be Installed.every five miles:. • . ': : Midlevel Bridgeii,In addition to the track improvements discussed above, a new midlevel' ; 1 two-track'drawbridge.would be constructed at the New River crosssig•to replaee ttie existing I i'l ' ' 1 at-grade drawbridge as presented'in.the master plan. 1 . I i ' i . . l . .. . ': .. .a.:; : ... i •i f 1 .. ! r:I1': . II,.. i ' I 200 n ' d Z00' °N 8S: 6 96. 02 100 917b1.-989-10b: aI N0SN3t'8339 CHAPTER EIGHT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS Cost Estimates. Cost estimates for each double-track segment were prepared based on a quantity take-off of the costs shown onihe DeLeuw, Cather and Company master plan modified, as described above.. Because the unit costs were In 1992 dollars, a 4-percent • inflation factor was applied to the unit costs. • in addition,-as.there-are numerous details neceesary for construction that are not fdentifiable at this level of planning, a contingency of - 30 percent has been added. Design,'construction management, and project management are also factored into the estimate at i percent, 8 percent, and 3 percent respectively. The •estimated cost of implementing each of the segments Is summarized In Tables 8-2A and 8-28 .:: :. • . . .• Table 8-ZA ' Estimated Cost of Corridor-Track Improvement • ' - 1995.19.99 Capital-Costs —rive-Nest n ear Pla .._.--,,,_ .'Se meets="y. :- --�..� •. Mllo Qstsu' 9rar Date��w jai.EsUma bd.Cost- . 3 • MP 1019.90 to 1031.42 1995 . 28,971,273 5 MP 1003,53 to 1012.18 :. • 1995 - • •' • • 925,518,029' - . � • • 1 MP 1038.54 to 1037.4 1995 3,238,923 ' i • 10' •MP 983:0 to 969.7 1995 • 3,000,000 . 2 MP 1031.42 to 1038.54 . 1998. • .. 14,694,718 - I '• 8 , MP 998.45 to 1003.53 1998 • . •.. 19,513,043 i • • : • Total • '• i•• • • "' :' S94,333,980 • .Includes track and signal. . • Source: Complied by Wilbur Smith;Assodates,January 1994 , • : •:, r • I ' , ' r I .;,•i.I- �. •ri :t• �111 'MI (l:.'i.ti�^..i. .. .. • 1 _ t.: t..'' ; 'r:!; ::', liVr.,. qr.,:'!•. -.(,',:):) nv:.. • .t. .(1 .. . i•:',; . • .. • • . .. ..r./:.•5 v.:it1 -1..-..., '•,!' .. i.. ' .. . . . • i • 201 EI ' d Z00' °N 6S:6 96, 02 130 917b1-989-1O17:GI N0SN3C1339 • • Ira-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN,.1995-1999 •• • • • ' Table 8-28 • Estimated Cost of Corridor Track Improvement Year 2000+ Capital Costs ' Midrange Plan: ..• .. _.-._ .._ 9esi ent' • .�"Ailll�p`a ef�Iy' """ "Stan Da ::�'c' ettmated.Cost 4 _ MP 1012.15 to 1019.90 - • 2000+ $ 19,587,671 7 MP 988.29 to 996.45 2060+ 21,775,456 • tl MP 977.05 to 988.29 . • 2000+ 31,043,231 9 MP 989.10 t0 977.05 - . 2000+ - 24,355,069 • New River Midlevel Bridge 2000+ 49,517,984 $146,279,311 _ Source: Compiled by Wilbur Smith Associate6.January 1994 • • • • • . • . -rlr • ' . • . B:•: SIGNAUTRAiN CONTROL • •• ••••: .__ ... • • Description. A new microwave transmitted signal system adaptable for future cab signaling In locomotives to allow train speeds in excess of 79 mph would be installed.--This includes new wayside signals as needed and additional crassover`'signals as previously discussed. In addition, approach circuits at grade crossings would be lengthened to,permit the higher speed of operation, the interlocking at Ida would be improved:to allow better on-time train • performance, and a train annunciator system would be Installed to,improve passenger safety • at each station. •. ',9I:, , . :I . . . Assumptions I y • 1 • • Although th$ conridor mLster plan proposes to.signalize all crossings within the corridor, it was assumedir the purposeslof this estimate that only thoee crossings • identified in the FDO.T's 1993 request for ISTEA Section 1010 Stage 2 funding for the • next six years would have new warning devices Installed. Stage 2 funding refers to • crossing signal installation and enhancements. -I -. _ • A new control center would be constructed: -- • A new communication system would be installed. • A new midlevel drawbridge over New River would be constructed, 202 t7 V d Z00' °N 6S: 6 96,02 130 9bb�-989-z0t7: QI N0SN3C1339 CHAPTER EIGHT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS • D. Ti CRA STAFF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING I �• i Currently, Tri-Rail staff members are spending a great deal of time planning and securing engineering plans and estimates for current and planned capita! improvement programs. Based on existing plans and those projected for the future, funding would be required to address capital improvement planning and engineering'efforts. Thus, it Is proposed that funding for such efforts be included in the capital improvement program estimate,. • Cost Estimates. Estimates for station planning, engineering, and design needs were assumed at 8 percent of station and parking expansion costs. • . • . E. SERVICE EXTENSIONS - . • __._�. s_ 1 The following assumptions were"made concerning the three proposed service extensions. VA Hospital'Extension ' • • Station-The new station would initially cost$1.5 million to open In 1995. This cost.has been included in the station improvement section:and in Table 8-4A. Future upgrades to the station are scheduled beyond the five-year timeframe of this study and are estimated at $2.28 million. This midrange cost item is shown in Table 8-5. • • Land Acquisition - Tri-Rail has estimated that a site large enough, to acconiMorlate-600 parking spaass-WoUld,t>ave tobc ite red,'at a,cost of$6.4 • million. This cost has been Inciuded'in Table • • ~Track:i The main track.between MP 069: •and MP 9831.0 andjboth tiie sidings l• ,at Northwood •and1 Dyer wottid be ii' 'ra at'an initial cdst'of $3 million, as ' previously shown in'Table -3A. a cost of future.track,upgrade would be ti•. • it �iF+�� s' = ,i rn' , $11,29•miliion, shown in Ta a 8-5.•OuEure�norii would include grade crossing upgrades to eliminate the need to sound engine warning horns and converting ' !: .I �i•' �iI 1�'• . v• `I'1 .1:�" 1,.� i � ,.1 Ill/r('��� ��I` •, .' ... ,! , , r r , .. crossing urfaces iliiibber=ype 159 els: Ttie-storage track•i urreftty used by CSX on'the east side of'tile mainline'at'the'northeast,of Dyer would be • • •1, ..1 • :.�1 .�':% �: "1�`. .:+ .. ' :_:>!i E:.,. .. •.• %ter •' , • ,. 211 ST' d Z00' °N OO: OT 96, 02 130 91717L-989-LOV: GI NOSN3C' 339 TRi-RAIL. TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 �♦�� • • upgraded and extended to provide for a station platform and storage of one train set, • • Signals - The same signal logic and methodology as presented by DeLeuw would be used for the service extension. These costs are included in Table 8-5. i • • 11 Airport Extension., • The airport extension has been included to the track, signatization and station costs presented above, since this extension is considered part of Tri-Rail's core ' corridor. • Jupiter Extension • Stations • Four single 400-foot fully covered platform stations would be . constructed along the route. , • • Land Acquisitions - Four sites would be acquired for station and parking facility construction. . • Parking - Parking facilities that would accommodate 500 vehicles would be constructed at each station. • • Connection C struction•-The existing connection track between the siding at Northwood ad the FEC would be upgraded with•136#.CWR and concrete ties. Approximately 1,000 feet of new 136#CWR track on concrete ties would be constructed to. provide a._ northbound.. connectio with;•the FEC at • approximately MM 297.38, ing a_wjle with therxisting racks Tri-Rail would) • . then make.use of FEC's west track for 4.83 mil s to Lae Park'(MP 292.55), currently;the end of double-tack. • G, i. • I. • �.,►,, I . •ii , :',II.. a.+ilia:; ;; • • • • •'•,:• . • :il + �: .. . : .,, I elr fit .' ' (IT ••:.�I:it..'u • Main Track Construction.-From Lake. Park, a;second main track would be constructed 15 feet from.th existing main,on'the,old roadbdd of the now • •.removed second!track to Camp Murphy South;l(MP 280.9) at Jupiter. Main' track constructed on the FEC right-of-way would be constructed of concrete • :1E1 9T ' d Z00' °N TOOT 96, 02 130 9VV1-989-2.Ob:QI N0SN3f'8339 • CHAPTER EIGHT: CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT:COSTS • • c rossties spaced 24 inches on center and new 136#CWR. Construction would - ---- - ---- - -- — - --—deice-place on the other side of the existing main track, depending•on which.--....- ;side the former second track was removed when this segment was converted • -. to single track. At least ten inches of crushed stone ballast would be installed • beneath the ties. • *Turnouts and Crossovers - Currently, the FEC has No. 20 turnouts at both • ' • Lake Park and Camp Murphy South. The proposed_track conflguration.would ' `convert Lake Park to a'universal No; 20 crossover location.` South Camp Murphy would be converted to a single No, 20 crossover. In addition, at the ' • h6lfway point, approximately 6.86 miles, another universal No. 20 crossover would be installed. Ali turnouts would b®-oonsirueted of new 136#material on concrete switch ties.. • • • • Bridges - There are six locations where new bridges would be required, provided the FEC would permit usage of the now unused west side of the - double-track drawbridge over the Loxahatchie River at Jupiter. it was assumed for the purpose of this estimate that the FEC wouldpermit the use of.this • structure and that'no repairs would be needed for the proposed operation. • Five of the remaining six locations would be short, low-level fixed-span bridges. It was assumed that concrete balast deck structures like those proposed by DeLeuw in the corridor would be used. The remaining bridge;'approximately 100 feet in length, spans the Ear man River: This bridge was assumed to be a deck plate girder structure like its single-track counterpart. • Right-of-Way - Throughout the length of the corridor, the right-of-way is sufficient for the proposed work as it is presented. Thus,,.no..right-of-way purchase was anticipated at this time, except for thei 1,O0Q foot:segment of dew '• track needed to construct the northbound connection with the'PEG.' Howe'er, ' • some allowances•may, be required if.the fiber-optio cable installed d)acent to - tha.track has to be relocated. • . •;:,.,,, i • r • Earthwork - Earthwork should bd minimal biliween Lake. Park and C2mp ' Murphy South,unless some widening is needed to permit 15-foot track centers. • The connection segment at Northwood wouki require a new roadbed. . Asy. 1T ' d Z00• °N TO:0T 96, 02 130 9VV1-989-10b:QI N0SN3C 339 • S•1 • TRi-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995.1999 • • • • Grade Crossings- Grade crossings would be upgraded to eliminate the need to sound engine warning horns, and crossing surfaces would be a rubber-panel type extending two feet(minimum) beyond the edge of pavement at each'end. An additional three feet of crossing would be added for pedestrian use when no • paved walkway is present. • Layover Track-A layover track would be constructed on the west side of the track at Jupiter to provide storage for one train set. The track would be of • timber construction with a No. 10 turnout on concrete switch ties in the main line. It should be understood that all materials and construction on FEC right-of-way would have to conform to FEC standards or be approved by the FEC. • Signals - The same signal logic and methodology as presented by DeLeuw would be used for the extensions. . Cost Estimates. Cost estimates were prepared for each of the service extensions based on the assumptions discussed previously. Tri-Rail sources provided costs related to stations, land acquisition, and parking facilities. Track and signal estimates were prepared based on unit costs taken from the DeLeuw estimates and adjusted for inflation. A 30-percent factor for contingencies and additives was also included, The short-tern0 costs far the Miami Airport .and VA Hospital extensions have been included in previous sections. The midrange cost for the VA Hospital and Jupiter extensions is summarized in Table 8-5. F. MAiNTENANCE FACILITIES Capital improvements to the maintenance facility at Hialeah yard were identified frorrj three .. sources: ' . ' • . I • A list of short-term capital improvements that Tri Rail.committ4d to perform for Herzog;• ...:.. , . • • . :'. :: .. • The FOOT Southeast Florida Rail Corridor Project Master Plan.list for the years • • . • • 1992-1997; and, • . . . • . . . ! 214 8I ' d Z00' 0N ZO: OI 96, 02 100 9tt L-989-LOb:QI NOSN3C8339 • GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P_ O1 f ill - - Tri-County Commute ail Authority it ig:6 11 l'ig 1 g•I 1 P ''J MAR 0 8 IS% • GEE & iEN Existing . ;-. cv.,1`: Corridor Evaluation SFRC to FEC • Summary Report I I I I '- . I , . February 1994 I • Post-It°Fax Note 7671 Det$ Ipag s. I . 1b A u O$Lu as v From W A wAri BE e.3 Ort' Q -i°41• -Tectu r'5-r a o°. G + 3 ' • Phone# Phone* Faxq (gat) tS-�e239 FaXx , • !II I HARRIS • Frederic R. Harris, Inc. 1 GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P. 02 CONTENTS Page i Introduction i • 1.0 Purpose of Evaluation 1-0 2.0 Description of Corridor Alternatives-. . . 2-0 3.0. Corridor Evaluation - 3-0 4.0 F.E.C. Negotiations -Future- . . . . 4-0 'Tables 1.1 Snn rnary of Alternatives _ _ - - • 2-4 3.1 Positive and Negative Attributes 3-2 • Figures 1.1 Location Map 1-3 2.1 Downtown 2-5 2.2 Northwood 2-6 2.3 Lewis Terminals _ . . 2-7 • • • • • , • i • 1 • • r• 1 ; 1 1 1 1 ' conidoi E►vfuatirm -SFRC b F.R L 1l GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P. 03 4. _j Innoductioa -71 I. INTRODUCTION This evaluation report considers three existing railroad corridors in Palm Beach County which would allow the Tri-Rail system to expand service onto the F.E.C. railroad tracks north of First Street. This expansion would allow Tri-Rail to pervice traffic generators . north of the West Palm Beach central business district as well as the.populous corridor, parallel to Dixie Highway, Alt. AlA and 1-95. This report is organized into the following sections. 1 Section 1.0 Purpose of Evaluation This section discusses the current Tri-Rail system, potential northerly extensions from the existing northern terminus and potential railroad corridor connections between the 1 SFRC and the F.E.C. Section 2.0 Description of Corridor Alternatives This section provides an I illustrated photographic aerial and analysis of the operational considerations of the three SFRC to F.E.C. corridor alternatives. 1 Section 3.0 Corridor Evaluation This section evaluates the positive and negative attributes of the Downtown, Northwood and Lewis Terminal corridors. I RECOMMENDATION I . • • The findings of this evaluation study indicate that the Downtown and Northwood corridor are the most feasible alternatives for connecting the SFRC to the F.E.C. I railroad corridor. This conclusion is based on the availability of the existing railroad ROW and the operational considerations involved in transversing the connector corridor. Future actions beyond the scope of this study include: • Obtain detailed information on the two preferred corridor alternatives. This I information should include land use, environmental considerations, utility data ' and traffic impacts. t . • Prepare conceptual plans depicting the modifications to. the existing corridor i alignment required to accommodate Tri-Rail's operations. These conceptual plans should be accompanied by order of magnitude costs. j . I 1 Corridor E&w+don —SFRC to P.E.C. i 1 • GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 6199 P. 04 bmixtuCtioa • Evaluate the two preferred corridors as the relate to the goals of the City of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plans and the Northwood Community Redevelopment Area. • Obtain consensus from TCRA, FDOT, the Florida East Coast Railroad, City of West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County on a preferred alternative. • November. 18, 1993 MPO - encouraged Northwood crossing. • November 29, 1993 City of West Palm Beach - encouraged Northwood crossing. • • • • E 1 , . I � ; • • • • • • • Corridor£,sZ ion —SFRC to F.E.C. I GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 911 756 6199 P_05 Section 1 1.0 PURPOSE OF EVALUATION 1.1 _Current Tri-Rail System • • Tri-Rail Is currently a 67-mile coinwuter rail line:serving the Dade-Broward-Pain Beach tri-county area. The rail line utilizes the CSX railroad tracks,_acquired by the Florida Department of Transportation in 1989,which roughly parallel I-95. This rail corridor is now referred to as the South Florida Rail Corridor (SFRC)- • The present northern terminus of the system is the West Palm BeacII Station sharing .the site with Amtrak. The present southern terminus is in the City of 5 Mimi Hialeah at Okeechobee Road and State Road 112 just north of the a International Airport (MIA). In the near future the system will be expanded in the north approximately seven miles to the new V.A: Hospital located•iii Palm ,;. Beach County at the Bee Line Highway and Blue Heron Boulevard and south approximately. one mile to Miami International Airport at NW21st Street. - Presently fifteen stations exist within'the-Tri-bail--system,"this--number-will- —--a-_; increase to nineteen stations once the approved extensions and new stations are complete. - .- . : . . - , - 1.2 Long Range Extensions - Pala Beach County ; Two possible extensions of the Tri-Rail system in Palm Beach County which ; involve existing railroad corridors include: ; 1. Extending service north westerly along the CSX railroad tracks to • traffic generators such as the North Palm Beach County Airport '. and Pratt & Whitney. 2. Extending service north easterly along the F.E.C. railroad tracks to traffic generators such as the Port of Palm Beach, regional • hospitals and commercial development in northeast Palm Beach r, . County and potentially to southern Martin County. This report discusses only the extension�lon�y the F.E.C. railroad right of way. I -4 ti f i 1.3 SFRC to F.E.C. - Corridor Evaluation ►. '< i • Three existing rail corridors have'been identified between First Street and Blue , Heron Boulevard for providing access for Tri--Rail from the SFRC to F.E.C.. All three corridors are existing railroad rights-of-iv/ay. The three corridors are °• r, listed below and are shown on Figure 1.1. . 1 - 1 , C'o,,h,r EmIuaJion -SFRC to F.E.C. . i GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 6199 P.06 Sectbn t 1) Downtown (parallel to,First'Street)2) Northwood (approximately two blocks north of 25th Street) 3) Lewis Terminals (In the area of 8th Street to 15th Street in Riviera Beach) • There are several objectives and anticipated benefits which together define the purpose of the proposed corridor connection between the SFRC and the F.E.C.. • To provide a rail corridor connection that allows Tri-Rail to gain access to traffic generators in northeast Palm Beach County and • • Martin County. • • • To utilize an existing railroad ROW to accommodate the proposed corridor connection. • To provide a safe corridor connection which minimizes.travel time for Tri-Rail. • To minimize traffic impacts to the local collector and arterial _ streets. • •. To minimize impacts to the adjacent land uses by offering potential development incentives, that support transit. • To provide northern Palm Beach County with a North/South commuter system through rail, •,linking a East/West feeder bus system. • • • To allow the implementation of "Node" development patterns, • stressed in the recent North County Growth Development forum. • To assist in potentially tieing the Port of Palm Beach with the intertnodal center through surface rail. • f f • • Corridor Eral..adoa —SFRC fo F.E.C. l - 2 GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P.07 TOi MEW BRAVE! YTA I.* i R j► NEW PAX. C EEACH H{G9PSTAL IT 1 4 ; — (L.1 �i 1Gh M�.1.1. _.... .. _ -.-...__ P t A : a . 7 \PALM BEACH I OARDENS 1 , • c� � ' , wwaw T. wo.R � r,� O r NMI., . \illitespollitilt : 7r %..t 0 4� � • PARK "•�� . . illft R. A{A PROPOSED VA mir -: .__HOSPITAL STATIO `., R -tA =EAC` � `,:� ---------- -�WIS TERMINALS 0 RT CP um ! t • }� • — is •' o EEE. gi x 45th � 1 —IJ - / �Piii NORTHWOOD- 4 25th/27th ST. a ti w s IIIIII i 1-$1 PA, .W!! "Ili:ii.L Oil �_` 1 trilio,4, \ � I • 11� QA ,: ', 11,�IbLIT ; - DOWNTOWN . ---",I 'Ns§ , !� l W.P.B. STATION LOCATION MAP P — CQFPRIDDP EVALUATION — SFRC to FED PALM BEACH COUNTY I.FLORIDA (1) . linTO611i GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 9199 P. 09 Scafon 2 I 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES The three corridors are shown conceptually on the following aerials (Figure 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3). The design criteria which was used to analyze these corridors included the minimal allowable radius and travel speeds for.Ttti-Rail's trains. The design criteria'is as follows: • Minimum radius of a curve: 350' • Travel time estimates based on 15 m.p.h. • Push/pull "turnaround" movement for Tri-Rail system takes 10 minutes A summary of the alternatives appears in Table 2.1. 1 2.1 Downtown Corridor This is an abandoned corridor which use to service the City of West Palm Beach Water Plant and Flo Gas Corporation. Portions -of the railroad track has been removed from this corridor. •The Downtown corridor, which is a roximatel 47 'Mile in'Tin h, is the Most'. -` J southerly of the three corridors under consideration. It is located on the north side of Furst Street and joins the SFRC just north of the Tamarind Ave. and First Street intersection. The connection of this corridor with the F.E.C. is north of first Street in the vicinity of new Palm Beach Courthouse. • The land uses south of the corridor are commercial and office relating to the central business district. The land uses north of the corridor arc general commercial and multiple family residential with significant areas of land that are vacant. The alignment of the railroad within this corridor follows the previous railroad alignment. This railroad alignment consists of three grade crossings. These are located at Tamarind Ave. and First St., Sapodilla Ave. and Rosemary Ave. . There arc two curves within this alignment. The radius of.the two curves are 375'and proposed at 450' where it would join the SFRC track. This alignment allows maximum capture of'ridership. ' , • 2.2 Northwood.Corridor This corridor is located in an older established industrial arca. The use of the railroad to service this industrial;area appears to be minimal with the exception of a parked railroad car on the western terminus at the SFRC. • Corridor Bualualfon -SFRC to f-E.0 • 2 - 1 GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P. 09 I • Segioa The Northwood corridor, which is approximately .47 mile in length, is located • approximately 1.5 miles north of the Downtown corridor. The connection of this corridor to the SFRC is by two wyes located north of 25th Street. tie existing corridor connection to the F.E.C. is by a wyc to the south located at 25th Street and the F.E.C.. The land uses adjacent to corridor are industrial. The Evergreen Cemetery is located northwest of a proposed wyc that would be necessary to connect this corridor to the F.E.C. in a northern direction. The corridor area is also`within the limits of the proposed City of West Palm Beach Northwood Community Redevelopment Area. . The alignment of this corridor follows the established wyes for the SFRC. In the area of Tamarind Ave,the alignment would have to be shifted to the south to allow for a 350'radius around the southeast corner of the Evergreen Cemetery. The wye heading north to the F.E.C. is a new railroad alignment. There are six grade crossings with the alignment connecting the SFRC to the F.E.C. in a northerly direction. It appears that the only grade crossing having some impact would be the one located at Tamarind Avenue. The minimum radius of the two curves is 350'. This alternative would not provide uninterrupted service to the 7 million square feet of office space downtown and the Good Samaritan Hospital. 23 Lewis Terminals Corridor • This railroad corridor connects the SFRC to the F.E.C. through an established • industrial area which consist of large parcel developments. This existing railroad • corridor is maintained and used to service the fronting industrial users. • The-Lewis Terminals corridor,which is approximately 2.26 miles in length,is located approximately 4 miles north of the Downtown corridor. The connection tp the SFRC . is by the wyes at the Mission spur and the connection to the F.E.C.I would be by a proposed wye located at 17th Street and Old Dixie Highway. • The laud uses adjacent to the majority of the corridor are industrial uses with a significant amount of undeveloped parcels. 'here is an area which abuts the railroad tracks that is community facilities. This area consist of a neighborhood park and school. Corridor Evaluation -SFRC ro.F'.E.C. .. 2 - 2 GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 0199 P. 10 Sal too 2 The alignment of this corridor follows the established railroad all except for the wye tying the corridor to the F.E.C.. The arca needed to accommodate this wyc would involve the taking,of commercial parcels with frontage on Old Dixie Highway. There are six grade crossings along this corridor. Three of the six crossings arc minor grade crossings. The three major crossings include Old Dixie Highway, Australian Avenue and inlet Boulevard (8th Street). The minimum radius of the six curves is 45Q'. • This option would further decrease uninterrupted service to the Port of Palm Beach. • • • • • • • • • • • Ii • • i • • Conidar Evaluation SFRC to F.,6.0 2 - 3 - - Figure 2.1 Summary of Alternatives Issues _ Alternatives 3 Downtown Northwood 1 Lewis Terminal Right of Way • Existing railroad corridor I • Existing railroad corridor •. • Existing R.O.W. for railroad Corridor Alignment • Length of corridor 0.47 mi • Non—active Railroad corridor • Non—active railroad ,, • 700' of relocated railroad • Activc railroad . corridor • 600' of new railroad corridor . • 600' of new railroad corridor • Length of corridor 2.16 ml Length of corridor 0.47 mi m j ' m , • Land Availability • 400' of new railroad corridor • 600' of new railroad corridor • 600' of new railroad corridor L, • .. _. .__ connecting to the north is is zoned for industrial use is zoned for industrial use m z zoned.General Commercial Presently vacant. Presently occupied. N (GC) ' .. z 77 Operational -= . -- Travel Time: 1.88 min . Travel Time: 1.88 min • Travel Time: 8.64 min D 07 Considerations • 3 at—grade crossing (if • 5 at—grade crossing • 6 at—grade crossing o push/pull movement to north 5 • Push/pull movement to north • Push/pull movement to south a .grade crossings adds 10 min. to travel time adds 10 min. to travel time ' • Push/pull movement to north adds 10 min. to travel time . A A rban—Area ' U • Residential area zoned MF 20 • Existing Industrial Corridor • Existing Industrial m Interface just to the north of corridor ' . Old Northwood Industrial 07 - • • --- — Park.district (Proposed I o Northwood CRA) - 0 Environmental ._ •. . --Property takings - • Evergreen Cemetery • Property takings Considerations • Residential area • Property takings 1 Notes: Travel Time based on 15 m.p.h. . __ 2 - 4 i .. .. . , . , ..•t• . . ._ GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P_ 12 — Sea loa 3 , 1 0 CORRIDOR EVALUATION , The evaluation criteria for this study is based on the following: j • The,availability of existing railroad ROW • The land availability for additional required ROW l 'a- .. • Operational considerations including travel time,grade crossings and push/pull movements t I • Potential service area - - < 1" f • Urban—Area interface (Land use impacts) _ -_ - _ - T. • Maximizing ridership potential This conceptual evaluation did not include adetailed technical investigation, Therefore no. comparison 4 of costs or detailed operational issues are considered as evaluation criteria. ' i 'T Thit;evaluation establishes positive and negative attributes which were derived from material summarized f for each conidor in Section 2. These attributes are presented in Table 3.1. The Downtown and Northwood corridors stand out as Iikely candidates for connecting the SFRC to the I F.E.C.. The three outstanding positive attributes of these corridors are: t 1) Travel Time of 1.88 minutes for crossing from the SFRC to P.E.C. 2) Service area includes traffic generators such as Good Samaritan Hospital, St. Mary's • Hospital and Port of Palm Beach , 3) No or little existing railroad operations within the corridor 4) Maximizes ridership/without effecting travel time , . t Corridor$►+aluatioa —SFRC I KEG ••• • 3 - 1 I a. • 4. 0 • Table 3.1 • A Corridor Evaluation — SFRC to FEC o 0. Positive an Negative Attributes s`E a ... .. .- -- - .. — s on - rxis m n _ _ .. Downtown__ -• Northwood Lewis Termisai rn s4 B. Positive Positive Positive L. 8.M. Service to mu north of Blue Iierua Blvd. i • Normal push/pull:operation• — • Normal push/pull operation w/imprdnrcmerns I . Convenient travel lime • Gntveaimt travel time w!improvements o mac'c . Service to Good Samaritan Amp.arm • Service to St.hhlryn&Pori area Z 4°. • Atnac*ivo.asea ". .. .. . " • Vacant laid available construct northern Wye D �' • No additional private real caste acquisition • au ImpactsA v� a a Negative Negative . Negative o g.:: .. Tamarind Traffic Impacts • Reverse move required . Reverse move required D -g.8 , . 3 grade crossings • Inconvenient travel bane • Inconvenient travel lime ii • Residential/Business impacts •- Private real elate.cquisitioa • Unattractive area R-g •• Parking garage Issue • Uaattmctivc arcs • Freight conflicts ,a - a P . • S gratde crossintgs - • 6 grade crossings .. -' • Private seat estate ae quisitian required f�c - — • Reduced service area u ro do PC 0 a. coo .. m 0 w 0 A •. . .. .- m r Tri-County Mil man n I Cor$ Commuter Rail AutItorily R. Frederic R.Harris, Inc. a cmuor&s -SFACaorite 4- 1 GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 V. 14 TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1995 -I 1999 • Prepared for: Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority Fort Lauderdale, Florida - • Prepared by: Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida -. Tampa, Florida 1 I • { CUTR I • • . In conjunction with: Wilbur Smith Associates Columbia, South Carolina j - July 1994 GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 9199 P. 15 Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) 305 S. Andrews Avenue ' • Suite 200 • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (305) 728-8445; (305) 728-8512 Fax (305) 763-1345 • • Executive Director: Gilbert Robert Project Manager. Jeffrey Jackson Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 • Tampa._:Florida:`3382075-350_-;:= = . . .- (813) 974-3120 Suncom 574-3120 Fax (813) 9745168 • . • Director. Gary L. Brosch Project Manager. Daniel K. Boyle Project Staff. • Ronald Sheck • Suzanne Dieringer Shelly Happel • Dennis Hinebaugh Nilgun Kamp Perry Maui! • Rebecca Rahimi . Tiffany Turner • • WilburSmith Associate0• . 1301 Gervais Striet National Bank Tower, 1�3th Floor • Columbia, South Carolina 29201 • 1 ! (803) ?38-058D • . • Fax (803) 251-2922 Project Director: Richard S. Taylor } • •, . GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P. 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF- CONTENTS • List of Figures • vii • List of Tables ' .- xiii Preface XVii Executive Summary xix Recommendations xxii Actions to be Taken immediately xxii, Actions to be Taken ;:�.; ,.:� .. 'within the Next One-to-Two Years xxv Actions to be Taken within the Next.Two-to-Three Years xxviii' Actions to be Taken within the Next Four-to-Five Years xxix Chapter One: Introduction 1 History • 1 : Commuter Rail Market and Demand 2 The Transit Development Plan 3 Organization of this:Report + • 4 Chapter Two: Demographics • 7 Population and Population Density 7 Population Age Characteristics 11 Transportation Disadvantaged Population _ • 15 Income Characteristics , • 16 Vehicle Availability � � . . . . l . . . f . . �.i. 21 Employment Characteristics 25 Travel to Work • 25 Travel Time to Work 26 Means of Travel to Work 33 GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P. 17 TRI-RAIL TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 1995-1999 Chapter Three: Goals and Objectives 37 Introduction 37 Agency Goals i 39 Departmental Objectives 47 Administration and Finance 47 Marketing 48 Operations 50 Planning and Development 51 Operations Planning ._,,, 51 Transportation Planning 52 Grants Development/Adminlstration 53 Capital Improvement,Program._ i 54 • Project Development Management 54 Security I 59 Security 59 Training and Safety 59 • Risk Management ' 59 General 60 Transit-Related Goals identified in Other Sources 60 Land Use Element 61 Traffic Circulation Element B2 Mass Transit Element 63 Intergovernmental Coordination Element 85 Traffic Circulation 65 Mass Transit . . B8 • Capital Improvement Element • 69 Mass Transit Element 70 ; Land Use 77 Transportation . . , _ i ; • 77 • • I Chapter Four: Tri-Rail Service evaluation - 81 ' Tourist and Visitor Activity ! l 81 . CBD Parking Supply and Cost.,, .;_x . 82 Fort Lauderdale . .. . i •. 8,2 . Miami 83 Identification of Deficient Roadways 84 II GEE & JENSON SARASOTA 941 756 8199 P. 18 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Palm Beach County 85 Broward County 85 Local Officials/Community Leader Interviews 85 Perceptions 86 i Improvements 87 Policy Issues 88 Interview Summary $8 Citizen Advisory Committee Focus Groups 89 Focus Group Assessments 90 Focus Group Suggestions 91 On-Board Survey 91 System Overview 92 Survey Analysis 92 Summary of Survey Results - Demographic Information 97 Age 97 Gender 97 Ethnic Origin 98 • Annual Household Income 98 Auto Ownership 98 Educational Attainment 99 Summary of Survey Results- Travel Behavior 99 • Average Trip Length 99 Station Activity , 99 • , Trip Purpose 100 • Modes of Access and Egress 100 Fare Type by County of Boarding 100• Patron Assessment of the System 100 • Summary of Performance Assessment 104 Cpmparison of User Satisfaction Ratings 113' i ,Conclusions and Summary i 114. Tri-Rail Peer and Trend Review 115 , Introduction. 115 Commuter Rail Systems f, . . 116 System Profiles 116 Peer Review 120 Performance Indicators I 124 • El • 1