HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Miscellaneous_Tab C1-3_10/27/1993 1 •
►� z - r
� �, �- 1�'.�
1
1
' TEQUESTA DP;IVE/COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
,
� C�RRID�R ANALYSIS
►
i VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
►
►
�
►
� Prepared for:
►
Mr. Thomas Bradford
, Village Manager
� Village of Tequesta
357 Tequesta Drive
� Tequesta, Florida 33469
�
i �
)
�
�
�
� Prepared by:
� �
�
� Traffjc Englneering, /nc.
� One Clearlake Centre, Suite 501
� � 250 Australian Avenue South
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
� 407-659-8328
)
� � r
TEQUESTA DRIVE/COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
Prepared for:
Mr. Thomas Bradford
Village Manager
- Village of Tequesta
357 Tequesta Drive
Tequesta, Florida 33469
�
)
� Prepared February 1993 by:
� TraYfic Engineering, Inc.
)
i
� ��� - - ---- -
� rederick W. Schwartz, .E.
Florida Registration # 28403
1
�
�
�
�
� � }
INTRODUCTION
This is an analysis performed at the request of the Village of Tequesta to assess the existing
and future traf�c demands along the Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive corridor in the
Village of Tequesta, Florida. Figure 1 shows the study area in northern Palm Beach County
and Southern Martin County.
Defining the existing and future traffic impacts for the Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
corridor was based on input from various sources. The results of the analysis identified
speci�c travel patterns within the corridor based on trip productions and attractions as well
as an assessment of the corridor's operating levels of service. The collection of existing
traffic count data allowed assessment of the amount of tra�c that originates in Martin
County and travels through the Village of Tequesta street system
This report is the final version of a report which was developed throughout the end of 1992.
Traffic count data and many of the analyses were prepared in September 1992. The
revisions and final documentation was completed in January and February 1993 for this
report.
� SUMMARY
�
1'he results of the analysis indicate that . roadway segments along the Tequesta
1 Drive/Country Club Drive corridor are projected to operate within acceptable levels of
� service. However, the section of Tequesta Drive between Riverside Drive and Country
Club Drive will be nearing the two lane capacity defined in the Village Comprehensive Plan.
�
� A cost sharing mechanism is presented to spread the cost of operating and maintaining the
streets within the Village of Tequesta. Among the many users including Martin County and
� unincorporated Palm Beach County.
�
A roadway designation is presented which would serve to maintain the residential lifestyles
� as well as to meet the objectives of the Village's Comprehensive Plan Traf£c Element.
� Mechanisms should be introduced to allow for the monitoring of future tr�c conditions
� along the corridor concurrent with development.
�
� 1
�
�
� �11/ V '� r/ '1M �YI � +✓ V V 'r► �► .. �
,Y. F?i. ."1(�I�� u�. f ��M:�� � ' '� ' ', `., �A � i� Tq�7 s„�j � 6 C� ry .
Y V ,� . �.�! �� �' ' � �. � . � , y � , � u Taw�r tr a 6/t Ea �°Y SE
'�+� � 15, � '} ��.�K r a{J'4� w a •i' P,': , � ,. . r+ • Twn T� Et CoEr Mh M . I
�+ � ��'r *� 5F.*i'�.t� Y' d: i � ' 'r - � � �. ��;`.� , . t�7hlFrTrE7 Cn�lrooAC !
E�tO
.�;�i�lp�� r �.t�e,, a�: �e . ...'�� is s� Y t, : N� . .:y �titi� a �o� em ° �„ a i+-s I
a �4 ,,�, '� , r�,.� �.. � ' lNt ti - �, rr 7ArKW CE N.�. CA fup� IW 0•t0
t� '��"�����t ��� rS�'ti• � LO�Ntl�1C�M1'EtAQ0A11C 1 'p,� � � �. . .� .ir� , '� , �� � _ _' _ ?n�r�11GJ Kunwr Q
�y� , ,
s r ��r�y �d�o��� �y � �,: i �r.ni.td;,�. . ' , � ; � ' T�r�MDr Dt�
' d � T1�rrIwMK-11 �ibYy WyK.s
�f�` in��.xa'� �'" . � }. . }� y j p� Y �y � r +n n �/7 lYiOa�GrOi
,.6., � � G� MMW la C•11
+�'' �Lm :(/ �,
� : T� �� J�r x;� '� • '� ��t �, }fi . ' y7'''n" . .: �,( ' M�nOw� M�
� '� , �` ,• �.J, . ' n.w.,rac-��
W � . .� .a t"�V'�.� y ' ,. VM
?`� �. , "i . �, •�At,." ;, ;' ' ?*o C7 7a te p
♦ �c. .� � . -- ' �j, Pa�eworlb
r`' ��°� �� � � r• � t ,y� •, . i j �' / `� 3 �� T� .. a� . ��° E Q1arM d O-1
� �, ! �/( Y :. n� � � , t � °- ;A � S�b0�00w
' '�2 � r � .C.i �' � rf••� . ., g � � ! ' . � �` T��w N.2 '
��,',� � 1 �� �N�'�.'_'t, ` �hMnAM/y
'�`� eit •'. OOVOOtlU� i Q
'�;q� � � , �t y . ,� '�lx.; 5 Yf �� 4 �� � , •r;s.rw - � � � 3rww vw�p� 7rr
� ',}'} r' - � . `' ,�, ; _ f; �I � �� ' � � t3
� . ; �t�'h. S �.f a y, � � _51� � ��; � � / _� � . 5, � � � t H TAe�OV Re PN .
� ��': , � n . 1� O � 1 Or •
i .,� �fyf4'ka,�� p '"^e, rni p.�� _ ��, �o�w«w�yvtiw
f � f i � i .+ Gi •.' � � /��tt'�� � . "' , T�aO�wr�O li
�a��3i�t���''"' . �iI"c : �'� , r�� ��`*�' � _ �, T < .r�
T•M1e".
� f � t � x 1 �M �t M wM'C�N� �
� y,, � i 1 7 1 7 ♦ r �. � E-7
:�."\� jfr ���1 � _ 4 e � j ii i i�
�� � -
..�...a..1L'L:r► ra. _.�
� y P LM,! CM "
�'� �7 �� � O { r r� d •
�y Y � y l pMM�a�i�
� �.aio.+wa w
'M M• iw[�iwoaiw
���:. A.y � � . . . � � � :�`T�c+
.
� d a oouKt�T, •
; ' 1! . p,tl� . � �o�� •• i� � o
� �' � ' � � � ' � '°` ITE
� + � � ` � LET
00 �� .
� �� �s w� M � � � � ACH
�° � ' ` 0 N
.�. -� �
- ,
;� : �r
� � � � ' � � ��F��0�00 �
0 e R . ` g ix_.
i � �xa
� 0 � � � w�n
7( `�� • � w�+� w
. 72 J.t �� �S . M � •
R i
� 1 f� ucw �M1�I
g � � �� iron�o�w�n ' ���� t
' �3458 � ., ,, d , , �°
�. ; 3 � ..�e
� A• � � � r.a .
� lAN t �
t�' w
_ ' j,_� aw� �
�. � ' VL�Y� �awn ��
�
+'� t, � � 1 � M C ! � 1 1� _ { , T _ Ms�ee t � . � ,���Y - .. ~_ _ ..._.
U�
1//LLAGE OF TEQUESTA
r�� E,�,,� � Study Area Map
,��.�.� Figure 1
t 1
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The existing conditions within the Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive corridor are defined
by the traffic count data collected within the corridor. A number of data collection activities
were undertaken.
jZ�jys'ra�c .o �n T)ata
Daily tra�c count data were collected along the corridor for a two-day period. The
following seven locations were surveyed:
• Tequesta Drive - east of Seabrook Road,
• Tequesta Drive - west of Seabrook Road,
• Tequesta Drive - between Pinetree and Riverside Drives,
• Tequesta Drive - east of Country Club Drive,
• Country Club Drive - north of Tequesta Drive,
• Country Club Drive - north of Club northerly access, and
• Country Club Drive - north of Martin County line.
►
These counts reflect data for two 24-hour periods summarized in 15 minute increments by
► d'uection. A copy of the daily traffic data can be found in Appendix A.
i
pPati u�„r Tnrnin� Movement ('oLnt Data
t —
� Peak hour turning movement data were collected for three intersections along the corridor:
� • Tequesta Drive @ Seabrook Road,
• Tequesta Dive @ Riverside Drive, and
�
• Tequesta Drive @ Country Club Drive.
�
� These counts reflect data for the peak activity during the morning peak hour and the
� afternoon peak period. A copy of the peak hour turning movement count data can be found
, in Appendix B.
�
� A graphical summation of both the daily and peak hour turning movement count data can
be found in Figure 2.
�
� 3
�
)
� rll rl► 1r �11r �W► �r �r �r rr .r w.r � � � � � _ .
�� .
200 � LEGEND
112 112 1 -
___�.___._._.__._ _.__._._..._ ��E___. 1
6,123 Average Daily Traif'ic on Link
366 531 AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic on Link
4,377 �3 �41 g� AM (PM) Peak Hour Directional Tra�ic on Link °
.
305 35 j ,� �� � qM (pM) Peak Hour Tuming Movement �
192 211 i � III
�
m
J
V TEQUESTA CIRCLE
�
� 7,685 9,525 6,123 7,506
p 525 641 661 762 366 531 469 16
5,175 V 327 (3�4 413 (� 207 (315) 273 (419)
340 454
205 278 � ^ � �4 � �
o� � �
�� z,�� ..�� z�a4� �g� L��,�
o iG � („� � 1 �► ~,s, � R {: �.—.,� �2ss)
� 1 ►. �, , � 3 �,8> � 1 � � 2, (28)
� ��� � 13 ��� � � � ��� � �
�rr� (� --► � t � �a4 ���tj �e� ��a� �
wA o �� o fi o �� �� tl e��8� N��
188 213 � Q ���g
124 (12� ^ � � Q
o �
W W 382 392 �
� � Zfi3 246 � _
� Z �
l//LLAGE OF TEQUESTA
T� E�,,�.� ,� May 1992 Raw Traffic Count Data
,��.�-� F�9�re 2
�- , ,
i
,
� Fxisti4 Travel Patter�
� A review of the existing count data identi�es certain tra�c patterns which reflect the travel
� desires of the motorists using the corridor.
� The typical pattern includes tpe directional trend which occurs. As expected, the morning
� peak hour favors the southbo�nd and eastbound direction while the afternoon peak hour
favors the westbound and northbound directions. This is due to the land uses adjacent to
► the conidor. The morning activity reflects work and shopping opportunities to the Dixie
Highway and US 1 areas. The afternoon pattern reflects the trips back into the residential
� communities.
!
� The existing count data identi�ed another trend termed as "cut through" traffic. This trend
occurs when adjacent roadways are used to circumvent congested travel areas or to reduce
► trip lengths and/or impedances.
�
This activity occurs along Riverside Drive between Tequesta Drive and Old Dixie Highway.
� It is evident by the unusually high eastbound right turns in the morning and the heavy
; northbound left turns in the afternoon at Tequesta Drive and Riverside Drive. Figure 3
shows this trend.
i
� In all likelihood, this pattern occurs for two reasons:
, • The use of Riverside Drive to gain access to and from Dixie Highway
allows the driver to avoid a heavier travelled intersection at Dixie
� Highway and Tequesta Drive, and
� • The distance to and from Dixie Highway via Riverside Drive provides
slightly shorter travel distances than accessing Dixie Highway from
� Tequesta Drive east of Riverside Drive.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
' S
�
� � V V V � '� il '�l �rI '1d V w �.. w w ... ... �. ... ... . .
1
0
,
� `
� ���
m m
U � V �
CC ,
� - � � - 1 !
U - Q - -
123 '-�'� 413 207 's 117 � 384 ' 463 , 266 �
- - - - -
� W
� �" Z
� � ! , l p o
W W v w W
{U � W �
� � 2 y
z Z z Z
a oc a ¢
206 182
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
Y/LLAGE 4F TEQUESTA
Existing Travel Patterns
Ti�/ylfc Eny�ih�p, �biw
�o�-e�-axta Figure 3
-i > >
,
, F_xisting .anaci , nalyClC
' Generalized Daily and Two Way Service Volumes and Capacities are found in Section 7.9
� of the Palm Beach County Uni�ed Land Development Code, The Traffic Performance
Standard. The Code stipulates that a two lane roadway will have a daily carrying capacity of
� 13,700 vehicles per da�+ (vpd) under Level of Service D conditions on an average annual
basis. Level of Service D is deemed acceptable according to County Standards.
t
� However, the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan identifes roadway capacities slightly
different than those in the County Code. Both Tequesta Drive and Country Club Drive are
� determined to be Village collectors. Tfie Comprehensive Plan deHnes a two lane daily
� Level of Service D capacity of 15,300 vpd for Village collectors which reflects peak season
conditions. As the Comprehensive Plan identifes capacities associated with the
1 characteristics of the Village of Tequesta, the capacities as found in the Village
� Comprehensive Plan will be used in the analysis.
� Table 1 illustrates the corridor's level of service based on volumes which were adjusted to
� reflect peak season activity. The column on Table 1 labeled "v!c" is an indication of the
volume to capacity ratio. If the v/c is 1.00 or less than the roadway is expected to operate at
� an acceptable level of service.
1 `
� Table 1
� Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
� Existing Trat'fic Conditions
�
� May
1992 Fxisting
� Existing Peak Link
� -----------------------------------------------------=------- Volumes__ Season _---- Capacity ------���
� Tequesta Drive
Dixie Highway to Riverside Drive 7,506 8,857 �5,300 0.58
� Riverside Drive to Country Club Drive 9,525 11,240 15,300 0.73
� �
� Country Club Drive
Tequesta Drive to County Line 5,175 6,107 15,300 0.40
� County Line to Island Way 2,b43 3,119 15,300 0.20
�
7
�
�
i �
"� � k
�
� DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
� The assessment of future traffic conditions along the corridor is determined by the tra�c
� generation potential of future development utilizing the corridor coupled with the existing
traffic conditions, as previously discussed.
►
► In order to estimate traf�c generation activity from futwe development, three geogTaphic
areas were researched:
►
• Village of Tequesta
� • Northern Palm Beach County
� • Southern Martin County
)
� Each of these areas was researched to measure the effect of traffic generation from
proposed development and/or development based on zoning.
1
� Aj�nroved Develonment
� Approved development is de�ned as those developments which have been given
� preliminary development approval, but have yet to be built. It also includes vacant areas
within approved developments.
)
� Figure 4 illustrates all the approved developments in the three geographic areas as noted
above. Data from each of these areas were furnished by the Village of Tequesta, Palm
) Beach County and Martin County staffs.
�
Where applicable, a multitude of developments were aggregated into one large
� development area for analysis purposes.
�
� Develonment Rased On 7�n�
� Development based on zoning is defined as those areas which have not been given
development approval, but based on current and future zoning, have the potential to impact
� the corridor with future traffic generation.
�
�
�
�
� 8
�
, '
� ' `
i
, Figure 5 illustrates the development potendal based on zoning. One area platted as "Ranch
Colony" holds development potential if it were to be subdivided and built out at four
� dwelling units per acre. This area encompasses approximately 24.25 acres along Country �
►
Club Drive just north of the Vitlage limit. This is indicated as Zone 15.
' The largest specific area of development potential which could significantly impact the
� Viliage of Tequesta is situated due west of the Village. This area encompasses
approximately 640 acres in Land Section 28 which are currently zoned A-1 (agricultural).
� Based on zoning trends it was assumed, however, that actual development of this area would
be at one dwelling unit per five acres. Future scenarios could include significant changes in
� development intensity. The area would be most likely to be developed as PUD type
� development which would include mixed uses and some roadway improvements. This area
� is Zone 16 on Figure 5.
f .
f
)
)
)
)
�
�
I � .
)
�
)
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
9
�
�
� � � � � 'r � 'r 'r � �II r/ r rr r► r► r �r w rr \r w v w w �. �. �.r � .. ,,�r �
DevAlOpmeM List �, � � ♦
1 Tequssta Vlllep� Centsr � �
2 TequeNt Pinss
3 � � ... F
a dupteer in tns Pfns. � D i
5 Wwrsids on the Lo)taf�alchss ..... •. �
e Ndt c3sae�nt sarw.w T«tioe, edy H�bo� ..� � E
lelend o :
7 Tequsshi. Ea�lwkids landinp. Ca�ntry aub Pdnt �., .. yy� u q o
8 Filvst Fiidps ^ �
9 Isierc�d. af JuplEsr� hlend county Esta�es ;: t � � A �
�o worn� rasesqs. ums c�ub. F�vers Edfl. / � : L (I I
11 Herita8� Oeb � .: r ;.-.---•-•- -- --GUb�rh(e�.__._.__�_ , �xY Lk�s Fioed
•., �.. .
•. '•..•°:
....__ _ --
13 T Un�kaory�orafsd Palm Bwch Courriy : ` . L ... Q -
14 UnMoorponded Palm Bssch Ca+nlY ��� i ' . � K T. S
� \ � �•...:..: � � O G
. �
� , `�� � .` ` .� 'v�[uoE o� r�ou�Tw . H
� �uRr�iv co�v�vrr
' '� 4 W
i � i � RI
R ; " j � `6 . ... T°y"� °`�° Y
, ,�
1 O �
. � ����. . : .
. ...
_.____�_�•�►_�. ._._______l _ _ _._._._-.-.---.- .--I_.___._.__._.__.; ; � .. _. ,
D � � � '
' � i : '
A � � � .. _..........
� , � o e � .............
$ � ^
�
� s Roebucic Roed
0
T � e 1
U � �r `..': .' -
„ ..
.. . ... . .. _.
R. .................. . .......::
PALM BE.fCH CO(//�7�7'..''.........., .........._...... •
P Church 3frset , CeMx Strset �
� / .
n '• m
K c. .�s
0
: ... ,
INDIANTOWN ROAD
: 2 •� Q
....C-.16..:� m F- Q
� TOIYN OlF ✓UP/TEN �
� �
� � �
a
-J' 1//LLAGE OF TEQUESTA
r� E�,,� ,� Committed Developments
' Figure 4
�V 'V 'V V V r► �/ i► +r► w w �.r .. �. .r .. - - - - �- - - - - - - - - -
� = AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL � �
_ c«�� u� Ra. �o.e. �,r
, • ; ----------------------------- -- ----------------------
� �
� � �
� � . 1
, ,
, � F
; � .
� � E
� �
� � 1��,' � D
f .Aar�rt�l�a, Afa�hua�, � �-� c
i SdN Arrt � o E o
� � • � R �
i i � n �
� � ;� c A
� � `��,'�
� � • r
� � •`;... / ;,
, ..,.: . � r , .
A
' � III
' � � � . . �. �IuhDrht�._.__._._::.;: CouMy Lk,e Road
--------------------------'
- ----�T-----•------�-- --
.� .::::::::::: ........ � •._: ; ------
..,,..,,,• Lo_..
................. •.
•.`_..
::.................::.� .
AiGi/77I6Y CAVMTY ............... .::. � ..... .... . .. A[T.S
; . H
�' ' s G
� �,� �' t e Y/LUIiE OF TEO!/ES7A �.,�
F :�:;Yr� ' ?'; ° yy
� � �� i �� Tequests Drhis A
R � ._... Y
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .
..................... .
....................... . .
::..:::: :.: .......... , , -�
........... .......... �.. .. �.
...........:::::::::.: � , . . ..... :
. . . ...
_._.__� �__._.____.__._l_ _ ._ .__--.-.---.-.-.--.--'-.-.-_--.-.-.__.__._: ; b ..
Uns D - -- ' � ' � r
� i i
,
� �� _. ..
A � � o e .,, .,
$ � �
�
9 � s Roebucic Roed
0
b ° 1
U � or . ' ' ' . •-
R...........: ,_.. ;... . .... - , . .
PALA/ EACN COUN1�"�';. . _ . .............._.
P CAurch Street . _.. Center Street �
I .•;; % .. a�
K .Cs . • � �
INDIANTOWN ROAD
- ti •� Q
.� 2 Q
� . C.-. fO; � m F-
row�v o,� ✓uP�R �
� c�
. � � c
� Q
Y/LLAGE OF TEQUESTA
,�,� �,� ,�„� Development Potential
'O Figure 5
� • •
1
,
TRAFFIC GENERATION
� Traffic generation is the method by which the amount of traffic, or the number of trips to
, and from a proposed development is estimated. The authoritative source used to estimate .
traf�c generation is the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report Tri�n CeneratiorL
� 1fie latest edition is the Fifth Edition.
�
ADnroved Develo m n Trin Ceneration
►
� Future trip generation for approved development was calculated based on the TTE data.
Table 2 summarizes the trip generation activity for the approved developments as found on
� Figure 4.
� Table 2
� Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
1
Trip Generation
1 Approved Development
►
� Development Development Size Daily
Location Name Trips
� --------=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
� 1 Tequesta Village Center Mix 8,633
2 Tequesta Pines 3 DU 30
1 3 �rpress Ridge 47 DU 470
, 4 Jupiter in the Pines 4 DU 40
5 Riverside on the Loxahatchee 1 DU 10
� 6 Noit Gedacht, Bayview Terrace, Bay Harbor 10 DU 100
' 7 Tequesta, Eastwinds Landing, Country Club Point 30 DU 300
8 River Ridge 72 DU 720
� 9 Isl. of Jupiter, Isl. County Estates, River's Edge 320 DU 3,200
10 North Passage, Little Club 172 DUs 1,438• •
� 11 Heritage Oaks 34 DU 340
, 12 Turtle Creek 10 DU 100
13 Unincorporated Palm Beach County 282 DU 2,820
� 14 Unincorporated Palm Beach County 9 DU 90
�
� * 172 DU = 64 MF = 358 TRIPSs"
108 SF = 1,080 TRIPS• s
�
12
�
�
1 '
� _ .�
�
� I?evelonment B�ed On Zoning Trin Ceneration
� Future trip generation for development based on zoning was also calculated based on the
� TTE data. As noted, Figure 5 illustrates the areas of consideration. The acreage in Zone 15
was also estimated to allow four dwelling units per acre for a total of 970 residential trips
� per day.
�
In Zone 16, the future zoning was estimated to allow one dwelling unit per five acres. It was
� assumed that this area could generate 1,280 daily trips from residential single family
� development.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
)
�
�
�
�
� �
�
�
�
13
�
�
i �
i ' '
i
i TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
� The distribution and assignment phase of the analysis involves allocating traffic generated as
� a result of proposed development.
� DistribLti�n
�
, Traffic distribution is the pairing of trip ends from a proposed development with other land
uses in the area It is based on a gravity model which considers attractiveness and ease of
� travel from the residential communities to attractors, such as shopping trips and
employment centers.
�
i ASSj .n
� The distribution of project traffic to surrounding areas is used as the basis for assigning
� traffic to specific roadway segments.
� A breakdown of each of the development's assignment can be found in Appendix C..
�
�
�
�
)
�
�
�
�
� �
�
�
�
�
�
� 14
)
i -
i t �
i
FUTURE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
�
i Utilizing the results of the traffic generation data and the distribution and assignment
� phases of this analysis allows the assessment of future tra�c conditions for the corridor.
� Table 3 presents the results of the future traffic analysis by adding the results of the
� development potential for approved developments and developments based on zoning to
the existing .traffic volumes as found in the first part of this report.
I
� Like the existing conditions analysis, a v/c ratio of 1.00 or less indicates that the roadway
' segment is expected to operate within an acceptable level of service.
i Table 3 indicates that all roadway segments along the corridor are projected to operate
� within acceptable levels of service as now defined by the Village Comprehensive Plan
However, the segment on Tequesta Drive between Riverside Drive and Country Club Drive
� is nearing its two lane capacity.
�
� Table 3
� Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
� Total 'h�affic
� Total
� Peak Season
Traffic Capacity v/c
� ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
� Tequesta Drive
Dixie Highway to Riverside Drive 12,265 15,300 0.80
� Riverside Drive to Country Club Drive 14,613 15,300 0.96
� Country Club Drive
� Tequesta Drive to County Line 9,222 15,300 � 0.60
� County Line to Island Way 5,742 15,300 0.38
� The imbalance between v/c ratios on adjacent roadways (Tequesta Drive 0.96, Country Club
Drive 0.60) illustrates the need to readdress the roadway designation on Country Club Drive
� and the concern of the residents along Country Club Drive and of the Village of Tequesta.
�
�
15
�
)
� �
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES
The foregoing analysis in this report leads to a reassessment of the provisions of the Traffic
Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, especially as they relate to acceptable level
of service thresholds and development intensity. In �rder to control growth in the Village of
Tequesta and in adjacent govemment jurisdictions, a balance of v/c ratios and levels of
service should be maintained on adjacent roadways. A couple of approaches can be used to
' accomplish this:
• Adjust the level of service standards, and
� • Refine the level of service thresholds.
, These two approaches will be addressed individually in this section of the report.
)
�vel of Service Standard
1
The authoritative document for selecting level of service standards is the Florida's evel �f
� �enrice Standards and Cuidelines Manual for Plannine. A section of this document
� entitled "Statewide Minimum Level of Service Standards" is reproduced in Appendix D.
This demonstrates that for sections of Country Club Drive it is appropriate to incorporate a
1 change from Level of Service D to Level of Service C.
)
Because of the different travel patterns and roadway characteristics on Tequesta Drive, it is
� advisable to maintain the Level of Service D.
I �
T pvPl of Service Threshold
)
� The traffic element of the Village of Tequesta Comprehensive Plan identifies certain level
of service thresholds (for example 15,300 for Levels of Service D for two lane roadways).
� These were based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and the Florida's Level of Service
� Standards and Guidelines Manual for Planning. However, these sources are continually
being updated and interpretations and applications for local governments to refine.
�
� Fl�rida't LPVeI of Sen^ce Stand�rdc and C3Lidelines Man�ai for Pl�nnin� has been updated
by the FDOT on April 12, 1992. It outlines several key points to assessing level of service
� thresholds for collectors in the Village of Tequesta. Section 5.8 Non-State Roadways,
, reminds that:
There is no acceptable technique to evaluate collectors. The
� 1985 HCM addresses arterials and signalized intersections, not
� collectors and local streets.
� 16
�
�
t �
This statement leads one to believe that the FDOT guidelines do not address local
government needs. However, the guidelines go on to say that some of the tables may be
� used. It is a decision that the traffic engineering and planning professionals must make
� along with representatives of the Village. Again, from Section 5.8:
Speci�cally, FDOT considers it appropriate for local
government to decide whether to analyze these roads as "major
� city/county roadways"....
,
The term "major city/county roadways" refers to entries on the Generalized Annual Average
Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas. Because the Village of Tequesta is located
� within the West Palm Beach urbanized area, the use of this table is appropriate. It is
reproduced on the Table 4. Note that on the right side, half way down ihe table, is a section
� entitled "Non-State Roadways". The appropriate level of service standards for city and
county roadways are as follows:
1
• Level of Service C-10,900 vehicles per day
� • Level of Service D-13,400 vehicles per day.
)
� These level of service thresholds are much more appropriate for the local collector streets in
the Village of Tequesta, especially Country Club Drive. If the Level of Service "C" threshold
) defined above is used, the resulting v/c ratios and levels of service for Country Club Drive
are shown on Table 5.
�
� Goals and Objectives
� Selected goals and objectives from the Tra�c Element of the Village Comprehensive Plan
� are presented on Table 6. They illustrate that choosing new roadway designations, level of
service standards and level of service thresholds is appropriate as it serves to meet the
� intentions of the Village in relations to roadways and their impact on the residential
� lifestyles.
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
17
�
�
� �g����8 r#�� r�� i��
� i�Ad�� ��t �� ;�
�
� �tst� � ���� � �i
� o�$� �� ,�$���g p �� a� � ���
� ss���� ss�ss� � �a� � sd � � � � af
�` ` � � ����
s y � �
y x � �������� = ����8�8� �� ��� �� �� �
� � �� � t, � � ORBAit� O� � S�� � �w � � <� � ���, �s
i ..�. � 8 � ^ �� � � �,!i.�i �� s .��• j ��
� � � � �� .� 8. � .������ � ; . . . ; • . ' � � � ��
A � � 3 ��s��� � cr:.aa� � � �
,� ^ � � o � � ��
' ° � � < ��� 8 <���8�� "� _ . . . � _ . . � � ����
� A a� � �.a=��Z � xxas�c - � � ����� � ,� ���'�
d _ �� � �
� � � � � w `� w��� j ��
a ��
/� O � � � � tr���i � � •Y�.�.�� ���OQ �•��� �NNI� Q�•�
N� �
F a _ y - ��
�,<.. �.,<... �,<..:
L G � ��
o � '� : M���� ����� • . "���$ "���� "#��� e��� �
o � �: � xa . � � .� � .�
. N � � l p 3: � Q Q ���I :
"� i � iJ� Yi�ii �$��Y ���ii � Oi�F d� j p7f��F, ���"i � .
P � �r �� i1 i� i3 .. •3 �' `��ii �!
� ; .� � � �ti � ��s� !
� � � a ; �����R � � �°�ass � '`�An�s �� Yb.... Y�,... � �
� _x�t . �i� � �
� �� � � � �y � �i i� � �� � � 1
� ��� 8 § � ,1�� �
�� ��a� .��da � � '�WSS � �.... � �,... 1�� �.... ����
• D �
� �� � � • � �$ � �� � 5 ��
���� < �$� ;, �.... 3 �... �� ;... �� :.... ����i�
�
� ��i� ^ A E � ��; ��3 ���R���
:
� ��a�s� � ���s^� � ��ak�a � ����as � ����a� �
lSwn�• �3«.�� w��• � «.+� a3w ♦. g
�
�
�r�, � w w i•► �. w�+ �+ � i+ w w w�► w w w� A w I�1 P1 �� A► Ai A A A A A A
' � .
�� .
i
�
�
�
� Table 5
� j Tequesta Drive/Country Club Drive
� �
Total Traflic
i
' Total
� Peak Season
� Traffic Capacity v/c
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
� Tequesta Drive
i Dixie Highway to Riverside Drive 12,265 15,300 0.80
Riverside Drive to Country Club Drive 14,613 15,300 0.96
�
� Country Club Drive
Tequesta Drive to County Line 9,222 10,900 0.85
�
� I
� I
� �
�
�
� �
�
�
� ;
�
�
�
�
� Trattic Enpineering, Inc.
�
�
1 �
f f ----�
i
i
� Table 6
) .
� Tequesta DrivelCountry Club Drive
)
� Traflic Circulation Element
) I
� � Goal: 1.0.0 Strive to establish the long term end toward which tra�c circulation
� programs and activities are ultimately directed.
) �
,
� � Objective: 1.1.0 Provide a transportation system by 1995 which circulates tra�c safety
and conveniently within the Village and which separates vehicular and
� � non-vehicular traf�c.
) �
� Policies: 1.1.2 Construct pathways in the planning of upgraded transportation
facilities and require sidewalks in areas of new development.
�. i
� 1.1.3 Promote traffic safety by proper traffic control devices and street
design improvements.
�
� I 1.1.4 Restrict fast through traffic to major or minor arterial roads.
i �
Objective: 1.2.0 The traffic circulation system shall be consistent with the future land
� ' uses shown on the Future Land Use Map and concurrent with the
' I traf�c circulation improvements provided for in the 5-year Schedule of
Improvements.
� 1
� � Policies: 1.2.2 The Village shall construct road and street improvements and/or
expansions which are consistent with the 5-Year Schedule of
� Improvements, and the Village shall require developers to develop
, other roads not designated in the Village's 5-Year Plan or other
' jurisdictions' plans which will facilitate additional development and
� I remain consistent with desired growth.
�
�
�
�
Trattic Etyineerin9,tnc•
� �
�
1 '
� � � �
�
r
IMPLEMENTATION
� In order to implement the changes in level of service standard and level of service
� thresholds which were discussed in the previous section, a change in roadway designation is
advisable. Country Club Drive should be redesignated in the Village of Teqnesta
► Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the revised level of service standard and level of
service threshold.
1
► T ncal Neighborhood C'_orridor .
1
One way to accomplish this is to designate this roadway as a Local Neighborhood Corridor.
► This would reflect special considerations for the rural, residential flavor of the area.
t
Several concepts were developed for this Local Neighborhood Corridor which include the
► following design characteristics:
1 • A two lane collector roadway,
� • Pedestrian walkway of between 5 and 8 feet in width,
� • Bike path of between 5 and 8 feet in width,
� • Landscaping in the swale area which would be accomplished by the
Village, and
� � Landscaping at the property line to be coordinated between the Village
, and property owners.
� Actual Local Neighborhood Corridor design could be a mixing and matching of any or all of
� these characteristics.
� Rig t of W y Reduction
�
' Another approach to make levels of service consistent and balanced would be to reduce the
right of way width on Country Club Drive. This would involve dedicating ten feet of right of
� way to property owners on each side to reduce the existing 80 feet to 60 feet of right of way.
Then the roadway could be designated in such a way as to adopt level of service standards
� and thresholds discussed previously.
�
1
�
�
21
�
�
, � � �
COST SHARING MECHANISM
It is very clear from analyzing the existing tra�c count data and future traffic projects that a �
signi�cant proportion of the tra�c in the Country Club Drive/Tequesta Drive corridor
originates in Martin County. This is especially evident since the only public access from
these areas of Martin County is down Country Club Drive to Tequesta Drive. It is also
supported by the fact there are very few attractors of residential trips in this part of the study
area, thereby, requiring that all residential trip productions travel all the way east through
the Tequesta Drive corridor.
F.xis in _onditions
Referring to Figure 2, "May 1992 Raw Traffic Count Data", the proportion of the Martin
County tr�c impact can be quanti�ed for existing conditions. As shown on Figure b, the
proportion of the traffic stream made up of Martin Country trips varies along the Country
Club Drive/'fequesta Drive corridor from a high of 51 percent to 28 percent west of
Riverside Drive.
F»mre Conditions
�
� Analyzing the future tr�c volumes presented on Table 5, reveals that these percentages
increase as future development in Tequesta, Palm Beach County and especially Martin
� County progresses. Figure 6 also shows the future percentages which range from 62 percent
to 39 percent throughout the corridor.
)
1 Palm Beach CoLnt;
� The relative impacts from Martin County are simply defined by those vehicles crossing the
� County Line. The relative impacts from Palm Beach County on Village streets is much
harder to accurately quantify. It is di�cult to condon off the area and isolate trips coming
� from the unincorporated areas. Refined turning movement traffic counts are required.
�
� For purposes of the cost sharing mechanism, estimates were made based on the number of
residential units in unincorporated Palm Beach County and their probable travel patterns.
, From these estimates, it was deternuned that up to 14 percent of Tequesta Drive volume is
made up of traffic from unincorporated Palm Beach County.
�
�
�
� 22
�
�
�' r r � � � � �P 'r �I rl► � w w �.► w � ... �. �. �.. �. � � ... ..
� � � � � f
2 � V�TV
5,742
���
1
~--•-.-•-.-.-.-•-• --.__._._.�PALA/BEAGYILIAUN7Y ._.__.�.__ o
♦
W �
� h
� III
m 5,175 51 �o
3 9,222 �62:��
U
�
�
O
U
9,525 28%
Tequesta Drive >4,6>3 �39°0�
7,685 34% W
»,732 �49ib� '-�
0
W
0
�
�
5,175 51 % � Exhtlnp Trafflc wNh Pe►cent of Martin CouMy T►dflc In Streem �
9,222 �62 � Futuro TraHc wkh Psrosnt of Mertln CouMy Traffio M Sbsem
Y/LLAGE OF TEQUESTA
r�.� E�,�, ,h,� Martin County Traffic Proportions
*o Figure 6
�
� _
� � � J�
�
;�' � ; VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA
, Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive
`' Tequesta, F1orida 33469-0273 • {407) 575-6200
.-
� � Fax: (407) 575-6203
.
; o
g 4
f ��M COUN�
MEMORANDUM:
TO: Village Council
�
FROM Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager " `%� �-
_ f
DATE: October 21, 1993
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting with Jupiter, Martin County, Palm
Beach County; Transportation Issues Information;
Agenda Item
Appearing below is information for your consideration relative to
Tequesta's concern about Martin County's lack of provision of
transportation infrastructure and specifically, the missing link,
aka, Connector Road.
o Population:
Tequesta 4,543* �
South Martin County 4,647*�
* University of Florida, April 1993
** Martin County indiGates population to be 3,587 in 1990.
Estimated permanent population is 4,647 when multiplying
housing units served by ,7upiter and Tequesta Water
Departments x multiplier of 2.2 persons per household,
the same multiplier used by the U.S. Census Bureau x.85
to account for seasonal population.
o Housing Units:
Tequesta: Single-Family = 1,422
Multi-Family = 963
Total = 2,385
South Martin County:
Single-Family = 1,512
Multi-Family = 973
Total = 2,485*
* Per Jupiter and Tequesta water accounts analysis
Recycled Paper
!
,
Page 2-
o Total Land Area:
Tequesta: 2 square miles approx.
South Martin County: 5 square miles approx.
o Lane Miles of Roadway:
Tequesta: 45 lane miles
South Martin County: 93.4 lane miles
Lane Miles per Square Mile - Tequesta: 22.50
Martin County: 18.68
o Taxable Value:
Tequesta: $345,672,916
South Martin County*: $281,114,972
Palm Beach County**: $171,573,175
Town of Jupiter**: $ 65,791,758
Jupiter Inlet Colony: $ 76,982,783
* South Martin County data as of March, 1990
** Jupiter property north of Loxahatchee River,
unincorporated Palm Beach County within the Tequesta
Annexation Reserve Area
o Tax Rate & Tax Revenues
Tequesta: 5.9140 - $1,944,595
South Martin County*: 5.9570 - $1,674,602
Palm Beach County**: 4.55 -$ 780,658
* Based on value as of March, 1990 for South Martin County
Sections 19, 21, 22, 23, 24
** For area in Tequesta Reserve Annexation Area
o Revenue and Expenditure Analysis
Revenue:
_ FY 94 Local Option Gas Tax - Tequesta Total: $110,000
FY 94 Local Option Gas Tax from Tequesta Drive:
$9,362
FY 94 Local Option Gas Tax from Country Club Drive:
$7,382
Expenditures FY 89 - FY 93:
Tequesta Drive $1,641,880
Country Club Drive $ 23,350
Total $1,665,230
�
s
Paqe 3-
Local Government Direct Expenditures on Tequesta and
Country Club Drive:
Tequesta: $1,081,430
Palm Beach County: $ 630,000
South Martin County: 0
Tequesta is the full-service municipality north of the Loxahatchee
River. We provide police service, fire service and water service.
Water service is currently provided to South Martin County. Police
and fire services could be provided as well.
Tequesta maintains ownership of the primary north-south urban
collector (Country Club Drive) and the primary east-west urban
collector (Tequesta Drive) serving the residential areas for this
region. The information provided above shows that South Martin
County has a disproportionate population and land area for this
region and provides less than the average number of lane miles of
roadway for its citizens, which is indicative of the fact that
South Martin County over-utilizes Tequesta's roadway infrastructure
(Country Club Drive and Teguesta Drive). Accordingly, Tequesta has
sought for years to have Martin County provide the Connector Road
to help off-set traffic on its roadways and provide destination
alternatives for South Martin County residents seeking to utilize
the commercial district within Tequesta along the U.S. Highway One
corridor. If Martin County is set against providing the Connector
Road, then the evidence suggests that they should provide for
maintenance expenses associated with Country Club Drive and
Tequesta Drive on a proportionate basis by virtue of the fact that
a recent professional traffic study conducted by Tequesta indicates
that 51� of the traffic on Country Club Drive in Tequesta emanates
from South Martin County and is projected to be 62$ in the future
upon build-out of the South Martin County land areas.
TGB/krb