The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Workshop_Tab 03_03/30/1994 T' R �► pF �U� o �� - ,o �., •h � �� * �MMiillj .. '� � � 1925 " , � , . ! p R � p�' JOINT : LOCAL GOVERNMENT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STUDY MARCH 1994 � 8 � q 4 f a a x � • . , . .. �'o , N r r BACKGROUND This Study was prepared at the request of the Mayor and Town Council of the Town of Jupiter, Martin County Board of County Commissioners, Palm Beach County Commissioner, District One, and =^e Village Council of the Village of Tequesta, who met in ioin* session on October 27, 1993, for the purpose of reviewing issues o� �egional concern. Of regional importance is the roadway network and the resultant levels of traffic. The elected offic:als requested a jointly prepared traffic engineering study with the hope of enabling agreement to be reached as to the findings. Specif ically, the purpose of the Study was to determine existing traffic patterns crossing the Martin/Palm Beach County Line in the vicinity of Jupiter and Tequesta for todays travel and to make a zeasonable projection of probable future traffic patterns when the area reaches build-out that the engineering professionals of the affected jurisdictions could agree upon. Elected officials would then be able to look at regional roadway issues and needs required to meet the projected levels of traffic. This Study was prepared by the staff and/or traffic engineering consultants of the respective governments including: • Kurt Cooper, P.E., �iutcheon Engineers (Jupiter Consultant) • Jim Davis, Director of Public Services, Town of Jupiter • Wes Millard, P.E., Traffic Engineer, Martin County • Joe Pollock, P.E., Rimley-Hotn (Jupiter Consultant) . Fred Schwartz, P.E., Rimley-Horn (Tequesta Consultant) • Charles walker, P.E., Traffic Engineer, Palm Beach County • Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager, Village of Tequesta In order to produce the Study, the staff and/or consultants met on at least five occasions from November 22, 1993, to February 23, 1994. All meetings were held at the facilities of the Village of Tequesta due to its central location. Work assignments were distributed as follows: • Martin County was responsible for the production of all necessary maps indicating the boundaries of the local governments in question, primary road network, developed and undeveloped areas, and delineating the Study area into ten different sub-areas referred to as traffic zones. Please refer to the attached marked as Exhibit "A" and entitled oin Local Government Traffic Engineering Study Area. Martin County was also responsible for coordinating receipt of development/zoning information from the different local governments in order to provide the necessary traffic generation calculations for each traffic zone of interest. 1 / i Martin County also coordinated the Study Group's decisions regarding traffic assignments upon the road network. See Exhibit "B" for the distribution of trips by specific route crossing the County Line. • Palm Beach County was responsible for conducting the necessary traffic counts throughout the region in order to provide accurate data relative to existing conditions. These findings are indicated on the attached map marked as Exhibit "C", entitled Existinq Traffic (24 Hr) North County Corridor Study • The Town of Jupiter was responsible for delineatinq the type of development anticipated within that currently undeveloped area shown as Zone 1, so that reliable traffic generation rates could be provided for that area. • The Village of Tequesta was responsible for conducting a turning movement analysis at the intersection of Concourse Drive (shown as Turtle Creek Drive on some maps) and Country Club Drive. Additionally, Tequesta was responsible for conducting an Origin and Destination Study in the vicinity of the Island Way Bridge. Both activities were necessary for traffic engineers to better understand cross-county traffic patterns. The Origin and Destination Study is attached and marked as Exhibit "D". Tequesta was also responsible for producing this Report. METHODOIAGY The Joint Local Government Traffic Enqineering Study work effort outline was as follows: lj Mapping and Delineating the Study area and sub-areas referred to as traffic zones. See Exhibit "A". 2) Establishing existing conditions by counting vehicular trips within the Study area on key roadways. See Exhibit "C". 3) Forecasting future vehicular trips per day, plus existing conditions, based upon development already approved but not yet built. 4) Assignment of the forecasted future vehicular trips using four different roadway network scenarios referred to as Assumptions 1 through 4. See Exhibit "E". Daily trips were developed by: 1) Establishing the number of dwelling units at build-out by either actual count of vacant lots or application of land use densities furnished by Martin County. 2 , _ 23 The number of dwelling units was multiplied by 10 trips,�d�elling u�it to gi�e the total trips for ea�h area. The �r��s ��r� �h�n d,istgi��ed t� �� r�adway n��wQr� a��ng four ��; �tffere�t ��ar�os��s�m�t��: Assumption 1) Without the wCSLo=� c�nriector Without Long Shore/NorthforK �v�znection This represents the existing as-built roadway network Assumption 2) Without westerly connector With Long Shore/Northfork Connection Assumption 3) With westerly connector Without Long Shore/Northfork Connection Assumption 4} With westerly connector With Long Shore/Northfork Connection This represents the current Palm Heach County Thoroughfare Protection Plaa. The trips for each applicable Zone were then distributed usinq the following guidelines: 1) Initially, general destination trips from the zones north of the County Line were distributed by decision of the Study Group. Attempts to analyze the attraction end of the trips was outside the scope of this effort. The two exceptions were Zones 1 and 7, where the value of the zones as producer, as well as an attractor of trips, was significant for this Study. 2) All trips from Zone 1 would be distributed southward for Assumptions 1& 2 and in Assumptions 3& 4, with the westerly connection route, 5� would be distributed to the north and 95$ to the south. 3) The general distribution of the trips was determined by the Study Group. 4) All trips from Zone 7 would be distributed 90$ to the south and 10$ to the north. 5) Present traffic would remain the same on all routes except Loxahatchee River Road, which would be adjusted as follows: Split 50/50 with Lonq ShorefNorthfork connection only or Split 10/40/50 with the westerlp connection, Long Shore/Northfork and Loxahatchee respectively. 3 , , The trips were then distributed to the roadway network from each Zone, as indicated below. The traffic count impact of each of the `_our Assumptions appearing below are indicated graphically upon tre four attached maps marked as Exhibit "E". Assumption l: (the existinq as-built roadway network) Trips from Zone �- all distributed to the south Trips from Zone 2- trips from the area abutting Northfork Drive were assigned to Northfork. Ali others were distributed to the south. Trips from Zone 3- 10$ to Island Way 90$ to Loxahatchee River Road, except Islands of Jupiter - assigned per Origin and Destination Study Trips from Zone 4- 50$ to Country Club Drive � 40$ to Loxahatchee River Road 10$ to County Line Road Trips from Zone 5 100$ of Turtle Creek trips to Country Club Drive Heritage Oaks 90$ east on County Line Road 10$ west on County Line Road split 50/50 between Island Way and Country Club Drive Trips from Zone 6- 90$ east on County Line Road 10$ west on County Line Road split 50f50 between Island Way and Country Club Drive Trips from Zone 7- 10$ north, 90� south Assumption 2: (without westerly connector; with Lonq Shore/Northfork connection) Trips from Zone 1- All distributed to south Trips from Zone 2- Trips from area abutting Northfork were assigned to Northfork. All others were distributed to the south. (10$ north; 90$ south) Trips from Zone 3- 10$ to Island Way divided 50/50 to Country Club Drive and County Line Road 45$ to Loxahatchee River Road 45$ to North Fork Drive except Islands of . Jupiter which were assigned per the Oriqin and Destination Study a Trips from Zone 4- 50$ to Country Club Drive ' 20$ to Loxahatchee River Road 20$ to Northfork Drive 10$ to County L;ne Road Trips f rom Zone 5- Turtle Creek - 100 $ to Country Club Drive Heritage Oaks - 90�5 east on County Line Road; 10$ west on County Line Road, split 50/50 between Islar.d Way and Country Club Drive Trips from Zone 6- 90$ east on County Line Road 10$ west on County Line Road split 50/50 at Island Way and Country Club Drive Island Way traffic split 50/50 between Loxahatchee River Road and Northfork Drive Trips from Zone 7- 10$ north, 90$ south Assumption 3: (with westerly connector; without Long Shore/Northfork connection) Trips from Zone 1- 95$ south ' 5$ north Trips from Zone 2- 80$ south 20� north Trips from Zone 3- 10$ to Island way, divided 50/50 to Country Club Drive and County Line Road 45$ to Loxahatchee River Road 45$ to westerly connection, except Islands of Jupiter which were assigned per the origin and destination study Trips from Zone 4- 50� to Country Club Drive 20� to Loxahatchee River Road 20� to westerly connection 10$ to County Line Road Trips from Zone 5- Turtle Creek - 100$ to Country Club Drive Heritage Oaks - 90$ to east on County Line Road; 10$ west on County Line Road split 50/50 between Island Way and � Country Club Drive 5 � , � � Trips from 2one 6- 90$ east on County Line Road 10$ west on County Line Road to be split 50/50 on Island Way and Country Club Drive Island Way traffic was split 50/50 between Loxahatchee River Road and the westerly connectior. Trips from Zone 7- 90$ south 10$ north Assumption 4: (the current Palm Beach County Thoroughfare Protection Plan) with both the Long Shore/Northfork and the western corridor connection opened. Trips from Zone 1- 95$ south 5$ north Trips from Zone 2- Trips from area abutting Northfork were assigned to Northfork, 5$ north, 95$ south All others were distributed to the westerly connection, 95$ south, 5$ north Trips from 2one 3- 10$ to Island Way divided 50/50 between Country Club Drive and County Line Road. 90$ divided 10/40/50 between westerly connection, Northfork Drive and Loxahatchee River Road respectively Trips from Zone 4- 50� to Country Club Drive 20$ to Loxahatchee River Road 15$ to Northfork Drive 5$ to westerly connection � 10$ to County Line Road Trips from Zone 5- Turtle Creek - 100$ to Country Club Drive Heritage Oaks - 90� east on County Line Road - 10� west on County Line Road split 50/50 between Island Way and County Line Road Trips from Zone 6- 90$ east on County Line Road 10$ west on county Line Road split 50/50 at Island Way and Country Club Drive. Island Way traff ic split 50/40/10 between Louahatchee River Road, Northfork Drive and westerly connection respectively. Trips from Zone 7- 10$ north 90$ south 6 , � CONCLUSIONS It was the consensus of the Study Group to present the conclusic::s of the Study in a two-fold manner, namely, conclusions for ea:h listed Assumption would be provided, as well as a stater.:e:t regarding overall general conclusions of the Study. According'_y, the conclusions of each Assumption and a statement regard�ng overall general conclusions appears below. Asswnption l: (the existing as-built roadway network) • There appears to be no problem at the crossinq of the cou:�y line in terms of traffic impact upon existing adopted roadway capacities. • Traffic loading on Loxahatchee River Road would exceed tne stated level of service (LOS) standard for the southern portion of the road. � � LOS standards on Center Street would be exceeded from Loxahatchee River Road to Indiantown Road. • Central Boulevard LOS standard is exceeded. Assumption 2: (without westerly connector; with Long Shore/Northfork Connection) • This scenario shifts traffic from Loxahatchee River Road to Long Shore/Northfork Drive, siqnificantly increasinq the projected traffic on Long Shore/Northfork- Drive while decreasing the projected traffic on Loxahatchee River Road. • Long Shore/Northfork Drive would be close to its LOS standard. • Loxahatchee River Road stays within its current LOS standard. • Central Boulevard would exceed its current LOS standard. • There would be less impact on Center Street. Assumptioa 3: (with westerly connector; without Long Shore/Northfork connection) • This scenario allows the traffic impact from the high traffic generation in 2one 1 to impact the residential areas of Martin County .and Tequesta. 7 . . s This scenario distributes traffic most evenly of any of the four assumptions between Long Shore/Nortrfork Drive and Loxahatchee River Road. • This is the roadway assumption used by Tequesta's traffic engineer in his Report of February, 1993. • Lo•r.a'.:atchee River Road stays within i�s current LOS standard. • Central Boulevard exceeds its current LOS standard. • This Assumption has the greatest impact on Country Club Drive. • This Assumption has the greatest impact on Island Way. Assumption 4: (the current Palm Beach County Thorouqhfare Protection Plan) with both the Long Shore/Northfork and the western corridor connection opened. • This Assumption distributes traffic similarly to Assumption 2 between Loxahatchee River Road and Long Shore/Northfork Drive, with a slight decrease on Long Shore Drive. • Central Boulevard exceeds its current LOS standard. • This Assumption has a similar impact on Country Club Drive and Island Way as Assumption 3. Tbe overall general conclusions of the Study Group ars as follows: • The existing roadway network and the Palm Beach County Thoroughfare Protection Plan are both inadequate for the proposed development within Traffic Zone 1. The 60' right-of- way existing for Church Street will not accommodate the � proposed development. . No roadway crossing at the County Line fails under any Assumption. This means that the roadways would continue to operate within their existing adopted LOS standards. If no additional crossings are constructed it will be necessary to make some improvements to Loxahatchee River Road at its southern end. • The Origin and Destination Study, in conjunction with the Turning Movement Analysis, revealed that: A) In the peak hours, traffic on Island Way demonstrates def inite con�nuting travel patterns : 74.3$ of westbound traffic in the morning peak is destined outside the area: 8 • b0.1$ from Martin County, 2ones 4, 5 and 6 • :4.2� from Villaqe of Te^.�lesra 61.3� of eastbound traffic ir. the afternoon peak originated outside the area: • 39.0� to Martin County, Zones 4, 5 and 6 • 22.3� to Tequesta, Zones 8& 9 B) The total �raffic on Island Way has one end of the trip ir. the following areas east of the Loxahatchee River: • Martin County, Zones 4, 5& 6 - 57$ • Tequesta, Zones 8& 9 - 36$ • Outside immediate area - 7$ C) 40� of the total traffic on Island Way has one end of the trip in the areas west of Loxahatchee River (Zone 7, 10) and the other end in the following zones: . Martin County, Zones 4, 5& 6 - 22$ • Tequesta, Zones 8& 9 - 18$ D) Confirmed Tequesta's contentions regarding the composition of traffic on Country Club Drive. • Central Boulevard, south of Long Shore Drive, will require widening under all scenarios. • Center Street will exceed the adopted LOS in the future. Assumption 1, the existing road, network, has the greatest impact on Center Street. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those persons referenced, and others, for their patience and hard work exhibited in the completion of this Study. The traffic engineers of each jurisdiction will be present at the next meeting of the elected off icials. We stand ready to answer any and all questions that you may have regarding this important Study in order to assist you in the policy-making process. � Respectfully.submitted, � �`"7 � � s-Yi� Thomas G. Bradford Village Manager Village of Tequesta TGB/krb Attachments 9 \ � D � � � � �' • � �:� ■ � � y� � � �. t � � '��.� ■ P� :,.; . - ��r= - � .. : _� - ; �.: , , 1 . �, — i : f-- ��`�, �= = � / � ;,''` ; =__�—_ . _ � � -- — — M ► ........:.:... :.:.:� �..--,.:� — — — — — — .. � 1� ....�.�ii1��2.--.:� : iui1�=� `�r1Vi111�:1. • �I , +�__^ J � � �:°.i;',.,._.�..�Z'� `:�t�xSY'• �� `�� n� / ` /��1p Y ��n� � 61� :�, �1 _ � � � ,• •' \ill � _ I .�' .�.�, �.. .. ... . � ��i� �:l I i �q �.� i � • � � _� / � � ;.• ,,,� ,..,: . � � u e..` , �' '�'� - — � �'�� '\ . ..,-1:�;� t' �.. _ „��:� � �d i •: � L,r`I/ ��.�_�=� � � �� ♦ _ = = � \1 •._!,�� _ �, � �� • � , ��1� :• ',�� i i�t ii.�� .:ii�� . � � w�i� nini�. wni� �unu ui n �i � � � ��\ '_ _ � �IU�llll/�i , � � i�'� y :u � ii 4��' �� Ilnili nlllllltli IIUIIlili�lnuli i ui u �� i � • _� � �� \ III IU��i` , �' � �Sii�'i` i� �. � � �� .,:'� �/� i 1 � ~ `, ` ♦ �`` • ��'•�..• .� O ��.�� ' - � ` = �� •� y ' \ ' f .. 1 � � ��r:� ,, i� ! ��:. �. __ �� ►� � � 1� .;��///baw_'U � � •�I� �A�iiii i�T.i.l� -_ : L �'�iy�/;� �,, •u : G. � \ �I� ��` 1�. ��i � �Zi ' , � !'. '-'� �� /��O�N!��IIIIIIIII��!.� -�/ /_ �� •� �� r�" �[� \= ' � �� `�\� � � nii �Ii %i • � O�iu�� +..�` �,�- �_ � �� ull \.♦ �� i I� I • 1 � - �'�, .4�•�y�+V.�fj�� C =; ��."�i• �I .�� innn _ �, — C �_.� 1'��'�y .�/ �i,�y u• nn�umi�.. !� ��. � I :�-- �� ' ' �.' � i��:�"�� :��I :,:'�� r`.:� .''��•!' .!� �:!'�, EI'i I_?:=:j. t.�; 1� �,s =�' _ _-- �� _ '�= 'o .• : ti;y i 4,•i., �� ., •�r.:�;� �1 =,=2'-';;,' � ��e�, , l �i I/� �_. ::-__=. ::. \'�qy;�' •.;\�/�.\ �� ' - m�-n.�uu�� i �� , • t I°.�.•. :h / '/ ■ ' �-' j � � � �ti� . _ ::.;,. : . �_ �:� � . . ��i�►�,�.�..� � ��J :•ie81i'I? �'.l� �..;�•. �...� �: .� ' / I � �°: ��I�1�� -- • �o� �o:. �;" �_ = � .,,., - �� 1 _ . .. , •iiil�i iii��—�� L , �,��~,, L � .%�, . F / •t': _ �Ir. _ • :� , 7 y, � �'ii ,; i.,-� - ..: ; ��; � y .:. ;�i $ ?� E! E; ,.� � � � ' w �� '��3 ;1 // i; : ' ' .. f I I I � I- � � ��,� `� '' �,■ ��\� � i�:: ��: �� ;: t •s', '� ° �► �r � �� .x � ■ � ;:\, •�:� I ., �;; , lE:l;�ll� ��:�1�!';. i;; ��_ � � +.�� I%\I\/�� i � ni� �.. .■ .�� '.• �l � ` _'�■ ��.�:� �� '�•'�: �� i�u� �i��7��,':,'.�.:;�"�' _, � ,,,...• \� �� 1= �� '�•::�.�n„ 0 u.,�:., �' ��' ;1.�� 1\ ' • � �� ` 1 � , � • � % �� ■ _ �►� ::i...:: ,uin� .p //I � i =},., , �?,-�,� � i •`'' �.'� �� ' � ��i �t_ �lU�u� 1. ,,,, , ` �■��---�� .� /��+ ��:;.; � u�iiiii :'= r.�u ::r•�. BP�- �1�• � ' l \�� r/ �111�I Ini �� = Y� "::►: �qUl/ v��i�,�� `;'i; • ;��ii��i:' . �„T: 1 � Ji� ' � 1_1 �� i ♦ � � i I ♦ 5:.. �` �,� � i��I��ll� � ��II �1\� % �'' �':li .'�ai'� : �� I� �//� Illlll�� If pll/I � ��:� • ' �r�; � .�� In 1\��` � �I��'_.:n//, r �.,� � �� • , J / i � :� 1 �� I/IIhU�J��_ � �i�.:i��♦ •`� I , . '%i �-�'� ,��o. � �.�. iwtiir� .•� : �.;��1��►/��\� , ��'%i� _. ,��1s ;��y .�: .;;;�:i.� q1�D• � .� ` �� d�i�,�L ; �y i�ipi i� ��Illl/ji�� '�� :� � :.:/ �\�e•��• :�; V � :Yii��1G� �I, I � �� a��s� yti %` u � \�. �I�.�� ;'�,......_ .� t it�.e�e' ;�.�::I:S'e'�,��,��',�,:\L •1� � ,� �j�uu� ��is�: ./��.•' �d.,4� �hani� �� ►��11��`��i I�• �� w '::::�' ��,�� . Oii � � jC ',•� :�� I J �:Y• . : ;C�� ?,�:�': . ��t//�1tiI r .��\�i� � %�:�� „ �� r: � '/_ \. �":l.'�,�:1�. C.�,� t' :��IIIq �� ',��..�:= ��i��;_1= �� "r '_,, ,.y� • :>•`.?• \• ■' I \�►� ♦ I��'i : ,: _ �9?� ... _ s � sr.j i� �. �t. ,f ..•.':� ,. �� •: � ��i\�'� i �' • I�tl' . •�C1 � '�� , f? �; \.. i o� i I��.I - � e �� , .,1;f.��:�: 1: i: 'F.'; c E�:• _ �� 'a �: `, :°e� ..� .��:;;,t:�n�n�u�nu�i� �� ;.�, .;';:E °- • 7 - '�: ;,. �: 'I„"" n�un�uu�.� i .;:. ��•::i II ( �., , : �' � �„� : _ � .. :'---- ��ii `u�iuuiui�.�.�i � ':;•: •��= '� _ I ,'l•j I ,�"1��1',', ��,: ��u11111111iU��► � ��III�� : ,.,,: �r .. � -�: �n ° �Illlll�uu�nu� � ;� �/��: / � _ `:\ .. . . ■��'ii;r' �/�� T� hnii , ' 1 •��-- ��nuu ` � , - � �iii� � • '•t��. ui=�� . ��i` - �. �� L .. . �,. e� �� ■. ..� �� _:�:: - Ti � n� n �� 11 �a�^ ui�T� ��'i�� i��•• : ; iitnli ini��. t�� i �IIIICIII!%� •I��j�� \` � ' ' �� ,,, iI1Ni�lii:iii'. ��. __ " I= - ■� � �� • `\\\``\ 1 _ ' `�, i�iiii:� ., =o �: u�,v,. � � � i : r s'�� II � l� �n�N � 1 � � � � r�� " :�F `G•'-�'��1�i.T=,��►.�:�� 1111111�� ,� �i�il�'� �/ ��; �'I''�' �.nn�q��, � -�i"in ' 11►� ��lu. uv� 1 � II ��II I a;S C i�� =�=°Il��i.��LJ! 4e �2~: ��- ��;11P�'�� R�:�a'�le;l �lel=�e ' '.� • ��'�m:�ri��i � .�.�i;JC��I► I�•: - '• � \'''• i \ =n ai �� •` i'� : � = � � iuunumron i • L A�11■� =1:�ES11 � � t �i�� 111 �■ t 'II♦��,e �i: � •: �= I IIIJ � ��-' ', ��I�I�11�"°','I'i't' �ifi., di�l=:��:C%:;�.s. , � 1 �1 } 1 �1 � m�� I �!i ur �, : •... � i'.. `- � � ' � ` \\ �j��{��Bll�f��` �:.-'�'1'�'�r � •�lf�•�}� ��, �� ` n i � � nnw. I�mlx�Wiii,u,�u� , q�'tSGji:�.•;� = allill l lll. 111 �1111 �! - ;i'�IAii.liii'14iii�� f �1�",�� i i� _ ' 1. � ___ __ � �:, ' J � _ , � � ___ _ _ .,,, - _ '„a • -_ ' "�IAnr� ('` '°:"';.- 1 �" �► t.� s'--==i�-�:=�,_,: � , ,...;, �,,,.,- �� ' 1111111�. _1 �,' I�' � ��.� - _ ..� • � • +ti7j�� ;�� 7G7{�' - , ii�nTr. �� im , nl� i:i \ �: � � �r E3�Z - I� ��./ -� y' / ii.'• - uwu• • '� ! .� �� ( \ J � ��'E��r■ ■ �.,�1/ �/ • ��%"'l�� = — .� IIiA%� • '1- `�\�,` � � 17� - . �� 1�. '�' � ` � ' l � �� 1;�,1-� = u�.. � �'iif �'un i 1 �'_ , , � / � �, �;:,° r� �i�i ,,,�„- - ,�_'.,;�,. ''r _ �'u,�, ��111h-�. 1 ��. ►� �\ � ��► i � .. �3: �� . . ■ ��. � �I' - � - ... 1�` j ■ �r iri•�Iill'I;.�� :y � ��,�,�.■ i � ��1�11f�1, �,`, `� ■ �_ �ini,�nn..�' _ -�7{ - wim,� �� , a_ : �� =��:� ; �' � � ��_ _:�, . .,,, ,,,, „ ,,, �. . �= i: ;,��..::-: :� .: �:��.,,. . . �. ._.:_. � ..a � . °,::",;,;:, � . :.. .. � i::. . . �. �. � �.,. , ,. : , r � i��l ` � � ��,,� ,,, ,. � � � =�i.� 24 19`34 13� 3S f'. vi , , E!(I(IBIT ��B DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS BY SPECIFIC ROUTE CROSSINC THE COUNTY L1NE A33UMPTION 1 WI'IHOUT WESi'ERLY CONN�'Cf10h WrniDUT NORT'EffORK CONNECTI�N ZONE NORT�'ORK LOXAHATCHE iS[.�►ND wAY COUNTRY Q,B CIY WN� RD � 0 0 a a a 2 1200 0 0 0 0 3 0 9096 344 172 172 4 0 399 344 627 114 5 0 21 21 �1 420 g Q 4�2 83 83 1485 7 0 a73 373 187 186 TOTALS 1200 4232 1165 , 1360 2377 DZSTRIBUTION OF TRIPS BY SP�CiFIC ROUTE CROSSING THE COUNTY LINE ASSUNIP'IION 2 WI'IHOUT WF�"IERLY CONNEC'TION WTITi NOR'TEiFORK CONNECTIOV ZANE NORTHFORK LOXAHA'1'C� ISLNU. WAY CA[1N'IRY CLB C0. LINE RD � Q p 0 0 0 2 1200 0 0 0 0 3 1548 1548 344 172 172 4 228 228 456 570 114 5 11 11 22 282 378 g 42 42 84 84 14$5 � 157 216 373 187 186 TOTALS 3t86 2045 12T9 1295 2335 Pbst-it" txand fax ttat�rab� memo 7�671 +� ��► .� � F�w /�"1 � Y' lr, .�. � , � " �• � $ � � � �`' �7 - �O �"• a .5 SS FE�-24-19'94 13� �t, i •. �;�_ ° ' DISTRIBUTION OF TRIPS BY SPECIF'IC RpUTE CROSSINC TFiE COUNTY LINE ASSUMP7'ION 3 W1TH WESTERLY CONNECTtON WITHOUT NORTHFORK CONNECTION Zp(� WESTERI,Y CNORTH�'ORK IAXAHATCNflSLND. WAYCOUNTRY CLCO- UNE RD � 1250 0 0 1250 625 625 2 928 0 0 232 116 116 3 1548 0 1548 344 172 172 4 228 0 228 456 570 114 5 11 0 11 22 ?.82 37H g 42 0 42 84 84 1485 7 0 0 373 373 187 186 TOTALS 4007 0 2Q22 2761 2036 3Q76 pISTl2IBUTION OF TR[PS BY SPEC[FIC ROUTE CROSSING THE COUNTY L1NE ASSUMP'IlON 4 WITH WESTFRLY CONNECTIUN WITH NORTF�ORK CONNECTION zpNE WFS'IFRI.Y C.NORTHFORK LOXAHATCtII ISLND. WAY COUNIRY CL�O. LiNE RD 1 1250 0 0 i250 625 625 2 680 1200 0 188 94 94 ' 3 310 1236 1548 344 172 172 4 46 182 228 456 570 114 � 2 9 11 22 282 378 6 8 34 42 84 84 1485 7 0 157 216 373 187 186 TOTALS 2296 2818 20�45 2717 201 a 305� . TOTAL P.02 �J . EXHIBI'I' ��Cn � COUNT , s p � � IINE RD. y ITTIE CLY� Muqf M. �r �O + O^ ��\ � 9 iP� ^ - � � I�If( _ ) � p '� �� . V `/ � �� s O 9� a� y �6 M z 105 • 'p EXI STING TRAFFIC ( 24 HR ) "�,� � ; o 0 NORTH COUNTY C�RRIDOR STUDY =� "f �� ; 9 _ ` `" 0 9 ��•.�� '��' ° � Y° �` � �x n � ��,. � o Q Q :�o� 0 29 y j 4�26 COUNTY ��Ne ROAO 651• MARTI N COUNTY s � � :�� C�u6 r e��• _ •6 = �C � � ri.�ce roa: �s �� o � PALM BEACH COUNTY - � �� f' �, 6+7S9i �06♦ � t0 f � !� . s �Y7�, ` � �0 3� 'Pi�, �^ M �° c, !', 9s,0E 1 p � �EGENO y �. � X t w�v COUNT �.p� 9 0 �o Z. I y c � ' �i^, D n�i � M fc . . ( y� p� < I/ 16 � 14 IIY�t � p czod �»� OR VE TEOU_ TA ( MA RTIN COUN TY m . y ��y 'y ql� c ', 9, a�, ,� P A L M B E A C H C 0 U N T Y � D,�� ,y� 9 ��0� 0 n 0 �� \ �' � � � u�os / � � �o, sy s . . . G 9 y q F ROEBUCK ROAD ° = I I,OXAHATCMEE RIVER f� �� 6717 !t 6 � !4 � . 26 �p (('' - . t •9 � � a`v � t � - NPt pR c . s ��' �tN f � �n4xs zo 5� - CHURCH STREET m CENTER STREET { �p z 4493 � s ♦ 9J0� / � � zs Zs �l 32 y ,�, �ir O v iN01 �~ zs ANT �wN ROA 1�24• H 4 � 9�0• INDIANTOWN ROAD _ 0 EXfIIBIT "D" , . Kim/ey.Horn SU1�Il1�fARY OF TRAFFIC SURVEYS VII�LAGE OF TEQUESTA TEQUESTA, FLORIDA Prepared for: Vitlage of Tequesta Tequesta, Florida Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. VVest Palm Beach, Florida . � Frederick W. Scha�artz Fiorida Registration No. 28403 March 1994 ° Kimley-Horn And Associates, Inc. 4428T.02 Kim/ey.Horn T.-�BLE OF COtiTEtiTS SECTIO:V PAGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i SURVEY DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Link Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Intersection Counts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Origin Destination Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 , INTERPRETING T'HE COUNT DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IIv'TERPRETING TI� O�D DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 COMPOSITION OF TRAFFIC VOLtIMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B ' u2fT'02•R039�-TOC -1- P:\TOC Kim/eyHorn LIST OF F(GURES Figure Na Title Page 1 Site Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3 Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . A-1 Daily Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 A-2 AM Tr�c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 A-3 PM Tr�c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 A-4 AM Tr�c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 A-S Noon Tr�c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . .16 A-6 PM Tr�c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 LIST OF TABLES Tabie No. Tide Page 1 Composition of Traffic Volumes 11 3i2iI'02•R0394-TOC -11- Y:\1'OC Klrt�leyNorn INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of recent tr�c surveys conducted in the County Club Drive Corridor in and near ihe Village of Tequesta. These studies include the following: • 24-hour roadway link counts ' • Peak period intersection turning movement counts • Origin Destination Study These surveys and analyses have been conducted on behalf of the �llage of Tequesta in conjunction with the Joint Local Government Tr�c Study being prepared by Palm Beach County, Martin County, Town of Jupiter and the Village of Tequesta. The study area for t6is Joint Local Governmeat Traffic Study is generally defined by I-95 an the west, U.S. i on the eas� Jonathan Dickinson Park on the north and Indiantown Road on the south. It is illustrated in Figure l. The mai.n purpose of the study is to�identify long term roadway needs in this area. ,szs�oz-x�� -1- r:,� ,, , �� ( � 1 �t � �� ' li �^�!'iQ�;N tNsj ....�...�� _.. � (�, v ; , � - � �, ,; t .:� � � .�,� � , � .,o� - {.jj _ — � ` ? �, '��\ �i . � �i ! � :�• � .+nn£w .�,µ,` r � . I . �wS�. �!I� I l� I � U ii - - - -� .:� � �Ti. r • •STa �1I � o < 5 I �n i � l�11 �i42 ��1 _ ' �`�"' � ��_-°°� ~ � � M.ar " � � � � r ' � � : /� �.. .�o•ru�� o �„ ► Myy �� /,� � � w�ti \ � � ' Wt" - . � W�11 wn� �wj. _ 'r � . , qL� Y r • i � ;' . ; � � ^ Q � • • , �./ � ' � Z b � � , � # " ' , ,� < � i •��,� _ i' . ►' � � N . R � � '^ S / ^ ^� ..-_.� t = y NO ; � � , : , „� - � ,�;.�. : i " Z V C.1�1� a � wv, ,.. �� . �� c •` �S� w� _ -' ll'� �rS _ . _ � � Q O � _"_�. � \/� - 0 ` ' n � (' R �„ �� _ ic w�e «) a W � Z lV � �. �� ` t 1 J � �" �'.�. . MiO��n n" i�j n i � �" < � � � � =� \ , r _' � ll� � ' _ ' ',!� ,r«;:. ,�.. ^ _ . W o i * � n �- _. ' � 0 � r � I ,� / = - � ; � � �� 1, � f � ,��. �� _ �g�'`*'� , " 3 '� --- -- " i� N � 3 •�a�...�i_ - •��aa - f f �.. ��.y �� 4 �i � �i �� S� � � W W r.+o. �i� r .� Q � j � . ; �s��_ _ � �wnA . ... I.. • � � ` Q �� f 1 ' �• '."_ o S Z r �i..�i ^� ��' .� I + �,.� h ... 1 y I N C � . K . + ��,� ` Y • ' 4�E .".... �J.,,, „"�� ----� rr � � ZN �( � �� +�y.�� r• uw+r��ro�aio • r y n - . �� / .. , � .i ' � ` 'TT"Ti.s Y .�..�.m. �w ..� 'T'` ' � ' . n, . ». r� Y• ' Yi � ♦ iT��w{ OTiFin�iint � �� ' ', . 0 =�'.� ;' � ��^, �� ^� �: I � � �I , `� ., � O �� !' O � •' ` ` � \ � V�i MMl' ��-.�� n ( � � y J � ) !Ma•�� w :w�...: � \ ! �� ♦ ,,�,{ %� � . . A � � � li � p � . . . �� / \ , .• �;� ; �'� ��: �`_/C.'7� .�}I'•�J . � � C ' ' :.: - su ' .� • �r�3�'' " lJ � � \ [, �� 1 �. � �. � .,�. 't. _ ` - � - �r^ , n+� .\ _ < n' � ___ . ��,�•� '� \ 7�� ' �3 �� S � '/ - �r,w► •' . �� i - TvT'� 1 � - i .� � . �. , t . ! .y� ... no ' . A .. . n ? ` �j:. � .. . � � " = � � i . ,`�;:; � = `�i=;. �, �l 1 N O ' s , ►, � �- _ � ro •itK+o�� .� �� '^�;i i � ' :. �� _ c . • :,.� rp ^ , .' � • �:�'Lu. r�w • 'r,J. �,. ,,,�,.� - � • � i' :_•`�"r r .I ♦('_ � sr, ,; j `� n{f t .j � j ••v � � � �E � � r ( � , + � � Z l � � � t � � � � , �IF ..� ��5. �) �'� C _r-- �' � � � � � � � �� _ � � � � � . . � o� `t � � - 1• � b a7 1 ( I '� i,� °K �r' r.�� ``' � � � < <'� � ' �' � ' �'-• ` ... !�J1r � � e� , , �j I � � •� j��' "" �,' ..� `� ♦�' „a 9;�1 I� �� n �w ��" .�:. i• � �� O'� I •� + �.,�. ��_ . P � �T.� ; � . : -�•"� �� • . .�r�: l . . � 1 b , �.i�J � Iif ...., . M � y� .r� 1 � , .a S� ,/ . ��` w+ . _..`;; ��`` � Q� „�-{�:ti�. �., i � i � N OJ �� ►.3 e ��„_�� a , � 1 irdr��r�iH � ��: � � �1e.. 7� + •!-.,N � q� , - . vn. -• . . �� ' t L7!'ioY`, \ �J' � ' ♦ � Fj�n�d!r� � , ,`o \ ' 'r i.. Ywar. ' . . .. .... __ , _. � I M � YO�'� .. � . ' • � . . � 1 I F � � 4 L� I ' _ . 1 \ . � ��`� 3�viiin �"i. ;,. � • � .�td.4. ;� `� :�' ' > � ,�,�.,. .* , N3 `- r 3ut�nt '•• ,- .� � �9 1 �M � ' �� 'f\ .. _. ._._ay,._..� ___ - 2 � � ! t ) I y � . �, . 6= � • . � u, �� • 1 ' vl$IA' _ �M312 f .•,'I�.) '.\\ � f � '.� ',•rt � . .,,.� , �� ,,r •. • _ MI uMby 1 �.� ,� ;�� s `=j� t , �V ��. \ � � �r � � R ` �'�►� MH♦ IJNf �V�ip MYJ �\ '•N �q�' a� ,' � 7Tj ��t��Ol �^� ��\. < � •,� \� , "`- "'' . � !:=a z;:, I �. u `\ � ��yj� � i: � \ \ \�\_.. a�� . r � �•� _ �,1 .��-�� s.� `�. � � .. � � \ ' � , �' i ,�� ,'ti.., { � 1 � .� \ ..// li-= �„� -.�.. � ` � �` ?��M�\ _� +� � '�� \ iC � � � � \'�� `\ "� sl�'��H3J�d ir�, a�°`I'�� \`\; ��' �,�' '3�VSSV � N � 3� 1 � � ��•_ � Q ..� / ` Y i� �� ♦�� 't{ ��"^, J � �'� I � � �\ , ' � � . ..� 13AIF1 ' •1 �,_ . " ; ! t ! ti ! - " � I Mrl. l 1 y __' ��..ti .1 ,� ' �m __ ^ _ � � ' __�L�3 _YiliA � h • • ;� � O � A'i. . . � ' . � ,.') � . � ___ , _ ,'` '`` 1 �. \ . �tiw`..:�'. 1 1 �'._ .. .____. ._.. �$� � � �G.../� .`_ '\ _ ` i �. -- 6 _. _ . _ _. . . � �- - - � . � i�� Kim/ey.Horn SURVEY DESCRIPTION Each of the surveys was performed in an effort to better understand vavel patterns through the study area. Each of the surveys was co�ducted within generally acceptab(e study guidelines including those presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Manual on Tr�c En�ine_ e_ �dies. Link Counts As a part of the Palm Beach County input to the tr�c study link counts throughout the area were collected. These resulted in 24-hour average daily traffic volumes. Concentration in this report will be on those 24-hour traf�ic counts which were taken on the intersection approaches to Country Club Drive, the north entrance to the Tequesta Country Club and the entrance to Turtle Creek. � �This is denoted as location "A" on the figure. Intersection Counts Kimley-Horn conducted peak period turni.ng movement counts at two intersections: u28'Im•x39t —3— p:ut:yocc Klnr/eyNorn • Countrv Club Dri��e and the north entrance �o Tequesta Countrv Club and entrance to Turtle Creek intersection counts ��ere conducted in conjunction with the :-�-hour link counts descr�bed above (Location "A"). • Country Club Drive and Island Way (Location "B':) intersection counts were conducted in conjunction with the Origin Destination Study. All raw count data are summarized in figures found in Appendix A. Origin Destination StudX In order to understand the dynamics of travel in and through the northem end of the study area an origin destination survey was performed on Island Way west of Country Club Drive as denoted by Location "C" on the figure. Three periods were studied including the momi.ng, noon and aftemoon peak periods. Drivers were interviewed to determine the origin of their trip and their destination. T'he zone configuration shown in Figure 1 was used to record drirers' responses. Any trip with one end outside the ten designated zones was recorded separately. Origin destination data are summarized in tables found in Appendix B. �1Z8'I'U2-A391 -4— P:VteQoR Kim/eyHorn I�ITERPRETING THE C4tJ1v'T DATA Data from the link counu and intersection counu were combined to identify trends which described travel in and ihrough the study area. As mentioned earlier, raw data are summarized in Appendix A. Especially for purposes of the Joint Local Government Traffic Study, average � daily traffic (ADT) was considered. Therefore, the following figures present the combination of all count data into daily turning movements and link counts. Figure 2 shows daily tuming movements at Country Club Drive, and the north entrance to Tequesta Country Club and the entrance w Turtle Creek. Figure 3 showsn daily turning movements at Country Club Drive and Island Way. �428'i'02-R394 'S— P:�Repatt . 0 � J V Y � W Q O U � W N � ' a � � .� .-. � O ap � �. „ N ^ � '� � t� 1107(41 j � � m .- f� 1395(52} SE. COUNTRY CLU! OR. � � j�' � 9��7� 5 3 8 4 3596 �7��30 -: (78)1395 �♦ t � (1 S)273 �"'S. A m � N ^ � �-. N .-. N � m if� �' t+f v � W q � S d � � � C � O Z LEGEND 1395 DAILY TRAFFIC (78) APPROACH PERCENTAGE FIGURE 2 3596 TOTAL DAILY TRAFFIC N VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DAILY TRAFFIC xi..ar�..., NOT TO 3CALE ��t�1Ai /:\I�l�H�� tR•C tOAr �M �O G, �9 � °� G 0, 9 's � �� s /�� d � 1471 � � SE. ISLANO WAY ♦� � � • �, (44j643 �� d� 1471 �ss�aza --z �� s� � �� LEGEND 828 �DAILY TRAFFIC {44) APPROACH PERCENTAGE 1471 TOTAL DAiLY TRAFFIC FIGURE 3 I`' VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DAlLY TRAFFIC . R�r, �.r.H.n. NOT TO SCALE . ui�ui •:� �usn: � w-e io wv Kim/eyHorn [NTERPEZETING THE 0•D D�TA The origin destination (O�D) data reveal several trends which are of note. Some of these vends support previously stated assumptions about travel patterns in the area and some reveal other patterns. The best u to describe the make up of tr�c in the area is to identify the location of each end of a vip. Generally, the following points can be made: • In the peak hours, traffic on Island Way demonstrates definite commuting travel patterns: • 74.3 percent of westbound traffic in the noming peak is destined outside the azea: • 60.1 percent from Martin Counry, Zones 4, 5, 6 • 14.2 percent from Village of Tequesta • 61.3 percent of eastbound traf'fic in the aftemoon peak originated outside the area: • 39.0 percent to Martin County Zones 4, 5, 6 • 22.3 percent to Tequesta Zones 8, 9 • The total tr�c on Island Way has one end of the trip in the followi.ng areas east of the Loxahatchee River: • Martin County, Zones 4, 5, 6 - 57% • Tequesta, Zones 8, 9 - 36% • Outside immediate area - 7% ,.zaim-x3�s+ -8- r:�«c Kim/eyHorn � Fortv percent (-�0°�0) of thc: total traftic on lsland Wav has one end of the trip in the areas west of L��ahatchee River IZone'. 10) and the other end in the followin� zones: • Martin County, Zones 4, S. 6 - ?2°% • Tequesta, Zones 8, 9 - 18°�0 Extreme care should be taken when using these data. The conclusions in the first three bullets are made from calculating weighted averages from peak hour directional percentages. And in all cases, the denominator, or what is being ' divided by when calculating the percentages, is critical to understaading its meaning. Statements all need to reflect that these are percentages of traffic oa Island Way. Statements which �g� be made include those about the percentage of trips from a given zone since the demoninator would be the total number of trips from the zone and that information was g� collected. ..ss�mi-x3� -9- p:�x�«c S � Klmley.Norn COMPOSITION OF TRAFFIC VOLU�IES Of interest to the Village of Tequesta is the composition of tr�c (existing and in the future) using Village streets. The data presented in this report allow the ctassification of v�c at certain locations. Turning movement counts and origin destination data were combined to calculate the make up of vaffic on Villa¢e streets. For instance, Table 1 shows the composition of existing and future tr�c volumes at Country Club Drive north of Tequesta Drive. Existing volumes and percentages have been calculated. Future volumes are based on the Joint Local Govemment Tr�c Study. ..z�z.��. � -ia P:� ^ Table 1 � -- - -- . �' Composition of Future Traffic Volumes Country Club D�ive in Village of Tequesta in vehicles per day Existing Assumption A Assumption B Assumption C Assumption D Outside � South and west 259 4% 259 3% 259 3% 259 3% 259 3% Jupiter -- Palm 8ch Counry 338 S�k b25 7% 525 7Wo 1,150 14�0 �,� 50� 149�0 Martin County - _ _--- _ ._____ 4,133 679/0 5,296 709�6 5,241 70% 5,357 65% 5,335 65% Village Tequesta " . ------ - Palm Bch COUnty 1,475 249�0 1,475 20% 1,475 20% 1,475 1 S% t,475 18% 6,205 7�555 7,500 8,241 8,219 Kln�leyHorn APPENDIX A Rsw Count Data • Link Counts at Country Club Drive, north entrance to Tequesta Coantry Cinb and entrance to Tartle Creek • Intersection Coants at Country Clnb Drive, aorth entrance to Tequesta Country Club and entrance to Turtle Creek • Intersection Coants at Country Club Drive and Island Way 0 � J U Y W W Q U W J h� Q � H � 0 � N SF. COUNTqr CLUB GR. 5 �+ � 4 3596 �r � 0 � r- U S d � e 0 z LEGEND - 3596 DAILY TWO-WAY IINK COUNT FIGURE A-1 N VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA DAILY LINK VOLUMES I[ln,�.r•tl.n. NOT TO iCAIE 11t�fA! •:��:sna� �w.ctu+� r . O ] J V Y W W 2 U W J H Q � H ^ (' �� m � ° o L 19(46j � O N f-� 21(51) SE. COUNTRY ClUB OR. � � � j�� (,o)3_j , 90 28 �♦ � I � ( ) ( �Z = ' = ^ � o � � � W U � 4 � � O 2 LECEND 28 AM TRAFFIC � (90j APPROACH PERCENTAGE FIGURE A•2 N VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA AM TRAFFIC i[rw �.r.M.n. NOT TO SCALE 1�t�TA2 r:vu�wa�u•er... e � J U r W W Q U W J N Q � � r � � � Of O � 'L,� �2��9� fp O N f� 148(61j SE. COUNTRY ClU6 OR. ♦ � j� 25�� 0� (9)13 �S t (77j105 �� 1 � (14)19 �Z ^ � ^ m " o � � V W U � L � a 0 z LEGENO 121 PM TRAFFIC (85) APPROACH PERCENTAGE FIGURE A•3 N VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA � PM TRAFFIC K�, �.r.H..� NOT TO SCAIE •�t�TAt /:\1�l�Wt\T�•G1/M a � � ° o G �9 � n� G� �9 �s r� 4 O� � � � S.E. �suND w�r � � � (50)57 �: "� s {50j58 �Z ��r�, �"�� J LEGEND 58 AM TRAFFIC (50) APPROACH PERCENTAGE FIGURE A-4 N VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA AM TRAFFIC Kw.ar.H..� NOT TO SCALE 1rt�TA2 s��:�»a�a•e wr , s � c o G, r 9 < �� G� 0, r� s /� �j J �� i sF. su►NC w�r � � � (57)56 �t � �� (43)43 ��i ��r �� t J J LEGEND 43 NOON TRAFFlC (43) APPROACH PERCENTAGE FIGURE A-5 N VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA NOON TRAFFIC IrLn r. y�f.n� NOT TO sCAIE 11l�TAt -�:\��10�\Y•GtNN s F �'o �� < �'! G d 0, 9 /f � r� J � �� sF. suNO w�r �i �� (53)82 �� o� (47)72 �-Z o /� �m J LEGEND 72 PM TRAFFIC (47) APPROACH PERCENTAGE FIGURE A-6 N VILLAG E OF TEQ U ESTA PM TRAFFIC KM ar1/.,w NOT TO SCALE 11tfiA2 �� I?�107\ M•C lIM , . K/m/ey.Horn APPENDiX B Origin Destination Tables Island Way west of Country Ctub Drive • A111 Peak Hour � Noon Peak Honr • PM Peak Hour O�IG�f� DESTINATION SURVEY - ISLAND WAY A.M. EAST BOUND PERCENTAGES -156 OBSERVATIONS - TO 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OUT TOTAL FROM 1 2 3 2.6 0.6 0.6 2.6 1.3 1.9 5.8 15.4 4 0.6 0.6 5 6 � 0.6 3.8 3.2 1.9 9.1 3.8 22.4 8 9 �� 7.2 4.5 3.2 3.8 3.8 0.6 23.1 OUT 23.2 7.7 1.9 3.8 1.9 38.5 TOTAL 93.6 16.6 8.9 t 2.1 16.7 1.9 10. 2, t 00.0 Klm I c ► y - Horn Table B-2 ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY - ISLAND WAY A.M. WEST BOUND PERCENTAGIES - 176 OBSERVATIONS TO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OUT TOTAL FROM1 2 3 4 1.7 2 .8 2.8 40.2 47.5 5 0.8 0.6 2.3 1.7 18.2 23.4 6 0.6 1.7 2.3 7 . 8 1.1 0.6 2.3 1.1 i3.t t8.2 - 9 4.0 2.3 1.1 7.4 10 OUT 0.6 0.6 1.2 TOTAL 1,7 7.5 10.3 6.2 74.3 t 00.0 K/m/e y- Noe�n Table B-3 � ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY - ISLAND WAY NOON EAST BOUND PERCENTAGES -131 OBSERVATIONS TO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7• 8 9 10 OUT TOTAL FROM1 � 0.8 0.8 2 3 1.5 1.5 3.1 6.1 4 5 6 � 0.8 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.8 0.8 t4.7 8 9 10 8., 14.5 2.3 8.4 2.3 35.9 O� 12.1 12.1 1.5 10.7 4.6 1.5 42.5 TOTAL 21.8 28.7 6.9 24.5 12.2 5.4 t 00.0 Klmfey-Horn � Table B-4 � ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY - ISLAND WAY NOON WEST BOUND PERCENTAGES -185 OBSERVATIONS TO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OUT TOTAL FROMt 2 8 4 0.5 1.6 2.2 7.6 11.5 23.4 6 1.6 1.6 10.3 6.5 20.0 6 0.5 3.2 - -- 1•1 1.6 6.4 � ---- 8 0.5 O.S 3.2 _ 4.3 5.4 t3.9 9 1.6 14.2 _. 7.0 4.3 27.1 10 _. OUT 9.2 2.2 _ _ 2.7 1.1 9.2 TOTAL 1.0 9A 26.6 33.0 30.4 100.0 Klmley-H��rn ,� Table B-5 ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY - ISLAND WAY P.M. EAST BOUNO PERCENTAQES - 298 OBSERVATIONS TO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OU7 TOTAL FROM1 OA 0.4 2 � 0.4� 0.4 1.3 2.1 4.2 4 0.4 0.4 5 6 7 0.4 0.4 2.1 1.7 5.5 2.1 12.2 8 9 14 5.5 3.4 3.4 5.5 2.9 0.4 21.1 O�T 16.9 13.4 9.7 12.6 9.7 0.4 61.7 TOTAL 22.2 17.2 15.2 20.2 18.8 5.4 100.0 Klmle.y-Norn . Table B-6 ORIGIN DESTINATION SURVEY - ISLAND WAY P.M. WEST BOUND PERCENTAGES -169 OBSERVATIONS TO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 OUT T c.�TAL FROM1 2 3 4 0 •g 1•8 0.6 23.0 26.0 � 5 1.8 3.6 1.2 10.0 16.6 6 0.6 4.7 3.6 8.9 7 8 1.8 1.8 0.6 3.0 7. 7 14.9 9 0.8 7.1 11.1 1.2 6.5 26.5 10 OUT 4.7 1.8 0.6 7.1 TOTAL 2.4 16.6 23.6 . 6.0 51.4 100.0 KlMltly-NOrn ,. ��f l� 1 �� °f � "�./ . : COUHT .�p �INE R0. 1 � �O u - lliT4[ CLY• MAT Il W 9 O $ �� r � � O '` � a 9 t � � S w �+ Z p TRAFFlC ASSIGNMENT � � � o a NORTH COUNTY CORRIDOR STUDY �� 41�0 ��"�,, �*� � � =� t �' p � A v' �! 0 �` S► V ic ASSUMPTION 1 �` `" �'' W 6500 counrr ��NC p�AO �` MARTI N COUNTY •WITHOUT WESTERLY CONNECTION : ' , � 432� ` � s � 67 "' ; •WITHOUT NORTHFORK CONNECTION , N PALM BEACH COUNTY T 690 �°+ � 3 � .�.�E ° f �:� p (EXISTING CONDITION) - +, � � q , ` ,� �, r� P . ti � LEGEN� � q �''°E s� `� ' � �_ � x tx�� CwMT • y o o `s ( 9 '� 1200 9 'r. ' � 1 : z a � � I � �� ^ A � '` < 9� � A T860� T OR V t MAR TIN COUNTY � ��y �'��. PALM BEACH COUNTY � q �'� ? o �,� q,�,� � o �� „ ' sy � D , �9 q f' ROEBUCK ROAD d * � 13,680 LO%AMATCMEE p��ER� � . n p��' 9160 i x'N' f O pK . � �� OV� S CHURCM STREET v CENTER STREET � � r x . 29 560 ° 11.58 0 Q y1 . � v rNOr,M*Q Ro ,� a 43 �3�0 ��' INOIANTOWN pOAO `�v \ , El��'� � couar i y \ LIHE R0. 7 111T�L CIY� MAI/ K � �7 �� , A � O �� c'1 b '~ � O 1� C � y TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT " = p �i� c J o v NORTH COUNTY CORRIDOR STUDY a22o � �� yr �S `' ` �` �y �� 0 ��+� '� S ''"�, " p s` ASSUMPTION 2 �,.�' `� e 4280 o N 6460 �ouNrr �iNa no�o �'` MARTI N COUNTY •WITHOUT WESTERLY CONNECTION �� ' � C1 '� � PALM BEACH COUNTY • WITH NORTHFORK CONNECTION 3 . T . p c � , P �'.0 a� � � �y� � �,� q� p � ' p IEGEND 4910 �yf 6680 �'��', s,� p � � � X ! M�� COVMT y 0, p � _ ( �' 9 0 ,a c .� ' �t ^ y ^ o � fe . ( ' � � � < , � � 75 T� O U T 0 R V E �"� A `� ( MARTIN COUNTY � y �'�y�� rc ��`� .� PAIM BEACH COUNTY � v�n+�q, 9 ��°� I 0 0 �, I . !�� ; � ,p Oq' y f � O, � �, s o . , � �'y q F NOEBUCK ROAO � I t� o,� 9920 LOXAMATCMEE p�VE� � , I n a`Vf,P " �2�44� � ox N �,tG� D i � � pN N f CMURCN STREET v CEHTER STREET � 29.560 ° 8570 Q � � � �� . �! ' `' I DI, � T �� +o,� 46�800 �� INOIANTOWN ROAD T - �'�f L•Xtllisll ''� . s COUNT '� LINE RD. 7 LIiTLL CIY� MtAr M, � �� a ' t� � A � E � '< � a 9 : � � y • Z TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT " = p v C '� O v 4r� � r � . , O NORTH COUNTY CORRIDOR STUDY 5700 "'',` �'�� o � f °�;; �S � y �� '� �'� i ASSUMPTION 3 '�,�' � a � � 5020 U8 � h T202 couMTr LINE p0A0 �� MART1 N COUNTY •WITH WESTERLY CONNECTION -- pALM BEACH COUNTY •WITHOUT NORTHFORK CONNECTION c � �:u o - �' 3930 +�, �° q � �� p .�, � ' ��y� 7 420 � = a j 0 LEGEND � �� x t r�r COVNT �� o s � � �� ' � o , � ' � �c - . ( � `�* ^ � m si < !� m � ORIVE 5730 < ` 82 0 T MARTIN COUN TY ' � tio9 y � ' � c '`� PALM BEACH COUNT o`�F q `�'o ? � '°+ '°�� ' �y� ; � A �9 O y f � � � o s ��s q �' ROEBUCK NOAO � ''� 9920 l.0%AMATCMEE RIVE� .* o� �^ . � p��P 9160 - H► pP� . � �� o � t N f S CNURCH STREET a CENTER STREET x � o � 31,860 � 8570 Q x y ,�. P � 1� �Df4 ROAO +�4�SOO �� INOIAHTOWN p0A0 . ' . I , v� � t�l�tilbll �� . ' COUNT ,� p �iHe no. � ��1T�c ctw w�r K � �° '�' O� � 9 iA� !^ � O �� m f O � C 1 � M W TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT = p ✓4 ►.�, ° o G Y a o NORTH COUNTY CORRIDOR STUDY o ssso "''.,` �*�� ; ;� ��r '` �,� " � ASSUMPTION 4 ��,, o� o N 71e0 �OVNTY ��NE ROAO MARTI N COUNTY •W1TH WESTERLY CONNECTION `+ � � 5000LUe t '� .�,�, o N PALM BEACH COUNTY •WITH NORTHFORK CONNECTION 3770 ��' � , p R � E f �' N (THOROUGHFARE PLAN) ti +,. ` '% '" � '•' 3200 cy �' T400 f �s, oE s� �9 0 IEGENO � y ,c < X t ��r tou�� .P o Z I � � � � p � C . . I � '4 ^ A � �� 1� � � v BZZO ORIVE 7 D TEQU TA � 2640 MA RTIN COUNTY � y �'�y y 4r c �'a�, .? PALM BEACH COUNTY � �y��, ��'o�, � � � 0 ` � � o � ' � F A � �d .1',�, O G9 y q � ROEBUCK ROAO ° � p 9920 LO%AMATCNEE R�VE O � � 11,7 2 0 � a ��E a . � - Z i N►. ��N pP � • r �� pV�� S CNURCN STREET a CENTER STNEET -' x 29�630 ° 8570 � � Q � �,'`' � � rkol pNT ROAp 45,100 �� INOIANTOWN NOAO