The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDocumentation_Workshop_Tab 02_09/22/1988id • COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC STUDY FOR VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Pal^ Beach County, Florida July, 1987 l . INTRODUCTION For several years the V 1 I i age of Teq uesta has expressed concern for improved traffic flow within Tequesta and in particular about ' US 1 . Therefore the purpose of th 1 s report i s to provide a detailed oval uatton of the exl stl ng and f uture trafThe studyshasn and accessibility within the Village of Tequesta. measured the existing traff Ic impact on existing roadway conditions (number of lanes, stgnat timing, left turn lanes, etc.) and has done the same for f uture traffic proJectlons. Recommendations have addressed the roadway improvements to facl l state future traffic protections. Growth of surrounding areas outside the Y i I i age proper have been revh i nethesV i I i ageaofaTequestatandtcont~ i buteetoi theb impactsof wit the existing roadway systems. The primary routes serving the V i i i age of Teq uesta are dep 1 cted on Figure "A", Location Map 6 Study Area, and are defined separately for traffic analysis. _ II. TRIP GENERATION Growth within the study area is mostly comprised °Basedgupon the family, multi-family and commercial development. analysts of the previous Palm Beach County traffic generation studies, a list of traffic generation rates have been developed and they are depicted below. (Trip generation rates are based on trip °GFA)nsdwedllingtuniti(D.Ue),1oDrOotheraspecefledfunitsoffloor area ( , measure). Condominium Untts .........................7 Trips/Occupied D.U. (Intl uding quadplex/townhouses) 4 Trips/Occupied D.U. Condominium Units (retired) ............... Single Family Up to 2,000 square feet ..................10 Tries/Occupied DO: U• Over 2,000 square feet ...................13 Tri s/Occu ied Neighborhood Shopping Center ...............100 Trips/1,000 S. F. (10,000 to 80,000 square feet) Large Scale Shopping Center............ 25,886 x (A-80)e + 8,000 (over 80,000 square feet) Office ................................. ......18 Trips/1,000 S. F. Financial Institutions (Including Drive-ups) Bank ..............370 Trips/1,000 S. F. or 500 Trips/Drive-up Lane Savings b Loan....200 Trips/1,000 S. F. or 170 Trips/Drive-up Lane Light Industry ......................... .....5.46 Trips/1,000 S. F. Gasoline Service Stations .............. .....99.5 Trips/1,000 S. F. Restaurant ............................. ......200 Trips/1,000 S. F. Golf Course ............................ ...........45.3 Trips/Hole Medical Office or Clinic ............... .......93 Trips/1,000 S. F. eA Floor Area in 1,000 Square Feet The above factors are presented primarily for future traffic protections as related to Individual land uses. The study has developed future traffic protections from past growth statistics (census numbers) for the study area. The V 11 1 age of Tequesta popul atlon records from 1 977 to 1986 ( ses below) indicate a growth factor of 7>j during the past 10 years. Year Pooul~ anon 1977 3,812 1978 3,814 1979 3,842 1980 3,685 1981 3,750 1982 3,828 1983 3,810 1984 3,870 1985 3,928 1986 4,077 I~ ~• Based on the above stated growth factor for the V i I 1 age an annual growth factor of 1.2R was established to derive "background tratf is for a bui I dout condition. The growth in the population of Tequesta is marginal as well as the areas surrounding Tequesta. The area in southern Martin County provides the greatest potential for future sources of traffic which will come to Tequesta. Even this area Is not explosive to population growth as a state park and natural waterways bi ock expansion. The Link Analysis (Ref. Figure "G" and Appendix "A") has determined that 36~ of the trips that pass through the intersection of Tequesta Drive and Country Club Orive are Martin County generated. 111. TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION The study area is primarily residential with a concentration of shopping centers and public services along Tequesta Drive, Old Dixie Hfghw ay and U.S. 1 A d i sir i but i on ana l y s i s has been performed for th a study area based on existing land patterns and the existing roadway ' network. The following directional distribution ras established: North - 5f East - 3Sf South - 1sf Mast - 40~ Meekday traffic distribution by direction during peak hours is generally consistent and expected to fl uctuate thru bui 1 dout of the area. The results of the traffic distribution indicates that the pr Imary attraction for the V I I I age of Tequesta i s w i th i n a 1/2 tulle radius of US 1 and Tequesta Drive. itl. TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The i ntersections were ana I yzed by incorporation of CAPCAL C-85 to determine average delay t(me (signalized int.) or reserve capacity (unsignaltzed int.) for existing and protected traffic conditions. The links were also analyzed for the same conditions and then compared to capacity ranges. The following represents average delay time criteria and reserve capacity per the Highway Capacity Ma n ua I '~ Level of Stopped Delay Service Per Yehtcle, Sec. A < 5.0 8 5.1 to 15.0 C 15.1 to 25.0 D 25.1 to 40.0 E 40.1 to 60.0 F > 60.0 Reserve Capacity Lav•1 of Expected Delay to (PCPH) Serrica Minor Straat Traffic >_ 400 A L i tt l e or no de I ay 300 - 399 B Short Traffic delays 200 - 299 C Average Traf f i c de I ay s 100 - 1 99 D L ong Traf f i c de i ay s 0 - 99 E Very long traffic delays The following PHV capacities were incorporated from Treasure Coast Planning Council criteria to determine IFnk level of service (using Peak Hour Factor of 9S): 4-Lane 6-Lane Expr. L,Q~ 2-Lane 4-Lana Divided DivFdad ~-Lana A 882 1,881 2,025 3,132 6,390 8 1,035 2,196 2,367 3,654 7,524 C 1,179 2,502 2,700 4,167 8,550 D 1,422 3,015 3,240 5,022 10,260 E 1,566 3,339 3,600 5,571 11,403 A traffic flow diagram for each intersection under each of the above traffic conditions is presented in the Appendix. Y. LEVEL OF SERY 1 CE Roadway capacities are calculated to determine operating efficiency of ~"Level of Service C" during the peak hour traffic flocs. "Level of Service C" is In the range of flow in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. It has been determined that the greatest peak throughout the day occurs within 4 hours (7-9 AM and 4-6 PM). Using these parameters, manual 15 minute directional traffic counts were collected (March 1987) during the above stated hours to determine the AM and PM peak hour Levei of Service at the most critical i ntersectlons and designated (inks as listed below: Country CI ub Drive b Tequesta Drive Riverside Drive b Tequesta Drive Seabrook Drive b Tequesta Drive Cypress Drive b Tequesta Drive Old Dixie Highway b Tequesta Drive US 1 b Tequesta Drive U. S. i b A- I-A A- I-A b Colony Road Country CI ub Drive Country CI ub Orive Tequesta Drive Teq ue sta Dr I v e Riverside Drive Riverside Drive Seabrook Dr the Tequesta Drive Seabrook Drive Tequesta Orive Cypress Drive Cypress Drive Old Dixie Highway OI d Dixie Highway Teq ue sta Or t v e Tequesta Drive U. S. 1 U. S. 1 A-1-A a-~-a Tequesta Drtve Golf CI ub Circle to Country Line Tequesta Drtve to Golf Club Circle Yacht CI ub Drive to Country CI ub Drive Country CI ub Drive to Riverside Drtve North Drtve to Tequesta Drive Tequesta Drtve to Norfolk Road Dover Road to Tequesta Drive Riverside Drive to Seabrook Drive Teq uesta Dr the to Ch urch Street Seabrook Drive to Cypress Orive Dead End to Tequesta Drive Teq ue sta Drive to Jupiter Line Teq uesta Dr Ive to Ocean Boulevard Town L twits to Tequesta Drive Cypress Drive to Old Dtxie Highway Old Otxie Highway to U. S. 1 Town Limits to Tequesta Drive Tequesta Drive to A-1-A U. S. 1 to Colony Road Colony Road to Town L twits U. S. 1 to Seav lew Road The following data represents the Level of Service for the above intersections based on the Highway Capacity Manual criteria presented in the Traffic Assignment Section of this report: li i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ ti i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ it L R~SERYE C. Peak INSIGNALIZE /-_PAGITY/LEV Traffic D INTERSE EL Of SE Exist CTIONS RY i CES ( L 1990 0 S ) 1995 2000 Intersection Hour Direction L.O.S. L.O.S. L.O.S. L.O.S. Country CI ub AM EB 944/A 933/A 91 8/A 902/A Drive d SB 403/A 407/A 377/A 344/8 Tequesta Orive PM EB 779/A 763/A 741/A 716/A 335/8 309/8 274/C 234/C Riverside AM EB 1006/A 996/A 986/A 973/A Oriv• t WB 721/A 703/A 678/A 653/A Tequesta Drive NB 259/C 231/ C 194/0 155/0 SB 395/6 374/6 343/8 309/8 PM EB 860/A 845/A 827/A 806/A WB 791/A 773/A 752/A 729/A NB 130/D 99/E 60/E 16/E --------------- ------ SB -------- 393/8 -------- 367/8 336/6 301/B Cypress Drive AM EB -- 752/A --------- 736/A -------- 711/A --------- 687/A d Tequesta WB 700/A 681/A 655/A 627/A Drive NB 217/C 185/0 144/0 100/0 --------------- ------ SB -------- ~ 243/ C --- - 218/ C 189/0 158/0 A-1-A AM EB -- ---- 1092/A --------- 1088/A -------- 1081/A -------- 1074/A d Colony Road WB -- -- -- -- NB 621/A 607/A 590/A 570/A SB 656/A 645/A 629/A 612/A PM EB 960/A 950/A 936/A 919/A WB 862/A 852/A 839/A 823/A NB 813/A 798/A 777/A 753/A SB 346/A 324/8 292/C 257/C i~ i~ L'~1 i~ Signalized intersection Peak Traffic Exist 1990 1995 2000 Hour Directloa Delay Delay Delay Delay Seabrook Drive AM 6.8/8 6.9/8 7.1/8 7.3/8 i Tequesta Drive ------- PM ------ - 5.7/8 --------- 5.8/B 5.8/8 6.0/8 -------- Old Dixi• - -- AM ----- 8.2/8 --------- 8.3/8 -------- 8.3/8 --------- 8.4/8 Highray i Tequesta PN 9.3/8 9.5/8 9.7/8 10.1/8 Dries --------------- Tequesta Drive ---------- AM -------------- 9.0/8 --------- 9.1/8 -------- 9.3/8 --------- 9.6/8 t U. S. i PM 13.2/8 15.0/8 18.2/C 25.6/D --------------- A-I-A d ---------- AM -------------- 15.4/C --------- 16.7/C -------- 18.9/C --------- 22.8/C U. S. 1 PM 21.0/C 25.5/D 33.5ID 46.9/E The results of the link analysis are presented in Appendix "A" and show two way traffic with the resulting Level of Service. The overall results of the intersection and Zink analysis are favorable under existing conditions. During future traffic protection analysis some areas begin to become unfavorable. These I ocat (one are f urther addressed under the fol I ow i ng recommendations section: ~i. RECOMNENDATIONS; Based on the results of the traffic analysis and engineering review, the f of I ow I ng i of ormati on i s presented as proposed roadway improvements to mat ntai n f uture acceptable I evel s of service (Items A, B b Care also represented in Figure "F"): A. Tequesta Drive a~ynress Drive It is proposed that the eastbound approach be widen to 3 lanes, a left turn, thru, and right turn lanes. The Westbound approach shout d be w t den to 3 I anes, a I eft turn I ane and 2 thru I anes. Cypress Dr the be widened to 3 I anes south of Tequesta Drive to provide left turn lane to Tequesta Orive westbound. Close curb opening nearest intersection (southeast corner) and el lminate parking on the west sl de of Cypress Drive Just south of Teq uesta Drive thereby el imi nati ng exl sti ng hazards and al i ow i ng traffic to use the intersection safely. a ti ,. ~ ~. The above improvements will increase the capacity available at the intersection but not necessarily alleviate the congestion on delays associated with nearby railroad crossing and the proximity of Old Dixie Highway intersection. The traf f 1 c v of ume on Teq uesta Drive (s so heavy at times that traffic on northbound Cypress Drive suffers excessive delays or hazards in entering and crossing Tequesta Drive. It is therefore recommended that this t ntersect i on be si gna I ized and properly coordinated with railroad traffic control signals and the signals at Old Dixie Highway thereby /~ reducing delays, congestion and improve safety of V movement thru the intersection. Transition from a two lane roadway to a divided 4-lane roadway wil I occur west of Cypress Drive. The 4-lane section will be developed before reaching the western side of the Cypress Drive and Tequesta Drive intersection. West of Old Dixie Highway, widen the westbound roadway approach to the railroad to be 2 lanes an the eastbound approach to the intersection 3 I anes (I eft turn, thru and right turn lanes). This wil I required railroad grade crossing repl acement and rei ocati on of ra I I road signals for traffic control. Inter section improvements wout d add a I eft turn I ane on the west bound approach to Old Dixie Highway with 2 thru lanes thereby el iminating the confusion and delays associated with miss-al tgnment and storage for turning movements. Left turn I anes w 1 I I be developed at the entrance to L t ght House PI aza and Teq uesta PI aza. Close existing median opening between the two existing traff lc separators to allow development of 3 lanes (left turn, thru and right turn lanes) at the intersection of U. S. i. Additional right-of-way will be required on the south side of Teq uesta Drive to prov f de the proposed right turn I ane. The roadway lanes w i I I be widen along Tequesta Drive to conform with current standards and the south side of Tequesta Drive wil I have a side walk from Just east of Old Dixie Highway to U. S. 1. a r It is also recommended that Waterway Road east U. S. 1 be w(den to 3 lanes providing a separate turn I ane for southbound U. S. 1 traffic, and a lane aligning with the Yillage entrance. These improvements to Waterway Road w i l 1 rel (eve the congestion at the entrance to the new shopping north of Waterway Road. of I of t thru center Improvements to the intersection of Tequesta Drive, Waterway Road and U. S. 1 will require signal modification and pole relocation to add an additional lane to Waterway Road. p. Rl~rerside Drive ~ Teauesta Drive The northbound approach of this intersection falls to Level of Service "E" by 1990. The intersection on the whole Is operating at a n acceptable LOS. However, to improve the northbound app roach; the addition of a signal is recommended. Future peak hour traffic counts should be considered to determine if a signal is warran ted. E, Alternate A-1-A d t1S 1 This intersection will require traffic signal adJustment in the future to bring the intersection back to proper LOS ranges. F. ber RoadraXs BY Others A new road i s bel ng proposed by the developer of "The PI aza of Tequesta" that connects U. S. 1 and Oid Dlxte Highway and w i i I reduce demands on Teq uesta Drive and U. S. 1 . Th 1 s connection occurs north of Tequesta Drive. Recent roadway Improvements committed to by Palm Beach County include the 5 laving of Old Dixie Highway from S.R. 81 1 to County L f ne Road. Both of the above protects are recommended for completion under this study as they will serve to distribute Tequesta i Traffic as wel I as provide add i ti one I access. 6. Martin Countx Considerations Country CI ub Or ive pre sent I y provides access to Marti n County and 1 s operating at an existing high Level of Service. Future traffic protections for this Tequesta Link are also got ng to remat n at a very acceptable Level of Service. However, to provide better fire and police protection services to Little Ciub Condominiums, Little Club Villas and future development; it is recommended that Martin County consider opening Girl Scout Road. ~~ "'" - \ ,, ~ ~ ~', ' ~'/ ~ y w •-' !.~ \~~ j / i'": . *. '~N ° /-%\ .•i ~~ s 1. I ,~~ _ ~~~. /~ ',' o i~ . ~ , v~o j I ' 1 ~ , /~ ~ . - ~_~ 'I - / 1~ " i~ ~I 'I ~' ~ I ~ 1 1 1 1 ~~ ~ t ~~` `` 1 1 ~~ ~ / ~ ',L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ >~ ~ .%-~ / ~ `, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.,lo „ow / ` `~ ~~ ~ -- i ~ ~ ~ \ ~ i ~ , ,_ r1 - - ~ \`- \ 1 ~, ~p•Y ~ ~ _ _ - 1- 111 ' 1 ~ ' ,J t ~ ` r a ~ 1 ~ ~; t ~ a_ • VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33469-0273 • (407) 746-7457 MEMORANDUM: TO: Thomas G. Bradford, Village Manager FROM: Wendy K. Harrison;" ~~inistrative Assistant DATE: September 1, 1988 SUBJECT: Tequesta Drive Improvement Project As you requested, this is to update you on the status of the Tequesta Drive Improvement Project. The estimated costs of the project are as follows: Construction (including contingency) $ 550,000 • Right-of-Way Purchase $ 200,000 Engineering and Associated Expenses $ 125,000 Associated Right-of-Way Expenses $ 60,000 Total . $ 935, 000 Contingency for Condemnation $ 225,000 The estimated cost of construction works out to be $251 per linear foot ($550,000/2189 ft.). This compares favorably to the Indiantown Road (Center St. to I-95) project which is currently projected by the DOT to cost $476 per linear foot ($2.7 million/5671 ft.). It should be noted that the DOT project is adding 4 lanes to a 2 lane road for a total of 6 lanes. Even with an adjustment for these characteristics, however, the Village project seems to be reasonably priced. As you know, Palm Beach County will reimburse the Village for up to $650,000 for expenses relative to the project. As of today, we have spent $74,446.78 and have received reimbursement from Palm Beach County for the same amount. Land acquisition costs have increasers dramatically since the project was conceived. This is a result of the design change to preserve the landscaping along the road. It was • necessary to obtain appraisals of the 17 parcels to be taken and attorney fees will proportionally increase. Further, Florida Statute 73.091 requires in cases of condemnation Memorandum: • Thomas G. Bradford September 1, 1988 Page 2 - --------------------------- resolved by a jury, that the Village is responsible for the legal costs of the property owner if the amount awarded by the jury is 10$ or more than the amount offered by the Village. I included estimated costs of 5 such occurrences. The project is currently on-schedule. Engineering design is essentially complete, with the notable absence of detail Railroad crossing plans. Florida East Coast Railway has refused to review our plans for the crossing until the suit between the Village, FEC and Palm Beach County is settled. As you know, our attorney is working towards a speedy settlement of that suit. The drainage design of the project is dependent on the Cypress Drive project. The additional runoff created by the Tequesta Drive project (from a larger paved area aril the replacement of grass swales with curbs) can not be handled by the existing drainage structures. As you know, South Florida Water Management District is the permitting agency for projects • affecting drainage patterns and flow levels. Our initial understanding was that conceptual approval of the Cypress Drive project would satisfy SFWMD and would allow us to get a construction permit for Tequesta Drive. However, correspondence from SFWMD indicates now that the Cypress Drive project needs to have a construction permit before SFWMD can grant a permit for Tequesta Drive. This situation could pose a serious scheduling problem for our project. The engineers have suggested meeting with SFWMD officials, and so we have scheduled a meeting for next Wednesday, September 7. WKH/mk r1 LJ 4 I F- m Z K W ~' ~. ("i ~ i yNlj +~. ~~ ..~ ~. i t' ! j ?'i,+. ~ ~ :~ i `~ ~ ~ ` ~ Ilti .'« ~-~ .. ~ ~ r .. l _. ' ., I .. ~-, ~~ ~ ~ i