agenda - ircgov.com · us 1 53rd ave cr 510 widen to 6 lanes pd&e $4,915,000 pe staff...

MPO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)

Chris Mora, IRC Public Works Patrick Washington, FDEP Jason Brown, IRC Office of Management

and Budget Sgt. Albert Iovino, IRC Sheriffs Department Karen Deigl, Senior Resource Association George Millar, IRC School Board William Schauman, Town of Indian River Shores Deb Bran well, Town of Orchid

Tim McGarry, City ofVero Beach Planning Monte Falls, City ofVero Beach Engineering Eric Menger, Vero Beach Municipal Airport Jan King, City of Sebastian Planning AI Minner, City of Sebastian Joseph Griffin, City of Sebastian Bob Keating, Community Development Director Marjorie Hilaire, FOOT, District 4 Gustavo Schmidt, FOOT, District 4

Jason Nunemaker, City of Fellsmere- Chairman

AGENDA

The MPO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) will meet at 10:00 AM on FRIDAY, AUGUST 24, 2012 in CONFERENCE ROOM B1-501 in County Administration Building B, 1800 27th Street, Vero Beach, FL.

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of Minutes May 25,2012 Action Required

3. Consideration of the MPO's 2012 Priority Projects Report Action Required

4. Consideration of the 2012 Transit Development Plan (TDP) Annual Update Action Required

5. Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees No Action Required

6. Other Business

7. Comments from the Public

8. Adjournment

Next Meeting September 28, 2012; 10:00 AM; Conference Room B1-501.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ITEMS ON TiffS AGENDA, PLEASE CONTACT MPO STAFF AT (772) 226-1455.

ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.

ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000, EXTI223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

To view the T AC Agenda packet on-line please go to the following link:

http://www .ircgov .com/boards/tac/2012/agendas/T AC082412A. pdf

2

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Ac!visory Committee (MPOTAC) was held at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, May 25, 2012 in Conference Room B1-501, Building B, of the County Administration Complex, 1800 2ih Street, Vero Beach, Florida.

Note: Audio and video recordings of the meeting can be found at http://www.ircgov.com/Boards/TAC/2012.htm

Present were members: Vice Chairman Chris Mora, IRC Public Works Director; Ruth Bommarito, (Alternate) IRC Management and Budget; Sgt. Albert Iovino, IRC Sheriff's Office; Eric Menger, COVB Airport; Terri Wallace, Town of Orchid; George Millar, IRC School Board, Transportation Director; Marjorie Hilaire, Chon Wong, FOOT; Tim McGarry, City of Vero Beach, Planning Department; Ralf Heseler (Alternate), Senior Resource Association; Chief Scott Melanson, (Alternate) City of Fellsmere, Police Department; and Patrick Washington, Department of Environmental Protection.

Absent were: Chairman Jason Nunemaker, City Manager, City of Fellsmere; Robert Keating, IRC Community Development Director Jeanne Bresett, IRC Traffic Engineer; Joseph Griffin, City of Sebastian Community Development Director; Jan King, Planning, City of Sebastian; Jason Brown, IRC Management and Budget Director; AI Minner, City of Sebastian; Bill Schauman, Town of Indian River Shores; Don Dexter, COVB Public Works;Lt. John Burdock, IRC Sheriff's Department; and Monte Falls, COVB Public Works (all excused).

Also present was IRC staff: Phil Matson, MPO Staff Director; Brian Freeman, MPO Senior Planner; Sharon Schalm, MPO Staff Assistant Ill; and Laura E. Vasquez, Commissioner Assistant, District 2.

Call to Order

Vice Chairman Chris Mora Chairman called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

1 MPOTAC -UN-APPROVED May 25, 2012 F:IBCC\AII Committees\MPOTAC\2011 Minutes\MPOTAC05.25.12.doc

Approval of the April 27, 2012 Meeting Minutes- (Action Required)

ON MOTION by Mr. Menger, SECONDED by Mr. Millar, the members voted unanimously (12-0) to approve the minutes of the April 27, 2012 Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee as presented.

Consideration of the Fiscal Year 2012/13 - 2016/17 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (Action Required)

Mr. Matson provided a brief description of the Consideration of the Fiscal Year 2012/13 - 2016/17 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), a copy of which is on file in the Commission office. He indicated the TIP listed all the state and federally funded transportation improvement projects programmed for the County over a five-year period. He said all the projects included in the TIP were consistent with all local and regional comprehensive plans applicable to the MPO.

Mr. Matson introduced Mr. Brian Freeman who gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission office. He said the TIP was a staged, multi-year, intermodal program of transportation improvements that was required by federal regulations and was done every year consistent with the MPO's Long Range Transportation Plan.

Mr. Freeman reviewed the project selection and project prioritization process for the TIP. He said that in June, 2011 the MPO staff, FOOT, and local government officials met to discuss the MPO's priorities. Subsequently, the MPO submitted its lists of priorities to FOOT. That list was developed using interim year ranking of roadways improvements contained in the Long Range Plan. He said that based on that list the FOOT developed its Tentative Five Year Work Program, which was a principal part of the TIP.

Mr. Freeman stated the progression of the TIP project phases. He said the phases included planning, project development and environmental, design, right of way acquisition, construction, and maintenance.

Mr. Freeman said that in terms of funding the 2012/13 TIP included approximately $170 million for transportation projects over a five year period, this compared to approximately $221 million in the 2011/12 TIP. Committee members reviewed the TIP Roadway Project Index, which included the following:

2 MPOTAC -UN-APPROVED May 25, 2012 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MPOTAC\2011 Minutes\MPOTAC05.25.12.doc

Roadway Projects ' '>. , >·.>.· ...... · •·••'•·. · • ••••· •· Projetttillli~S .:> ,.···

[> ;Work Qe~criptioij, •. ' r~~~s~(si·. :•·.·.>··.•·~oad\'Jay .> .

L•· ~~t~~gr~~ii>••••:, > .. > ........ ••• From); <::.:" ,To . \. > •> ... ...

Alma Lee Loy Bridge Bridge Rehabilitation CST $300,047 17th St PE us 1 Indian River Resurface

CST $907,758

43rd Ave @ SR 60 (Intersection) Widen/Resurface ROW $9,395,262

82nd Ave 26th St CR 510 Construct New 2-Lane ROW

$15,871,375 Road CST (Rsv.)

CR 512 Roseland Rd. Easy St. Resurface CST $1,576,520

SR 60 Brevard Co. Line Widen to 6 Lanes CST $61,931,736 1-95

@Oslo Rd. New Interchange PE $3,400,000

Old Dixie Hwy N Relief Canal ?1st St Resurface CST $1,900,000

71st St CR 510 Resurface CST $1,900,000 --

Oslo Rd 58th Ave 1-95 Widen to 4 Lanes PD&E

$3,820,000 PE

Schumann Dr @ Barber Street (Intersection) Widen/Resurface CST $3,380,000

Wabasso Causeway Bridge Rehabilitation PE

$3,343,867 SR 510 CST

us 1 Indian River Resurface $522,119

SR 60 Merrill Barber Bridge Bridge Rehabilitation CST $1,176,395

us 1 53rd Ave CR 510 Widen to 6 Lanes PD&E

$4,915,000 PE

Staff recommends the TAC review and recommends that the MPO approve the FY 2012/13-2016/17 TIP.

A discussion ensued regarding the Road Closure I Construction Map interactive link on the County's webpage.

ON MOTION by Mr. Millar, SECONDED by Mr. McGarry, the members voted unanimously (12-0) to approve the Consideration of the Fiscal Year 2012/13 2016/17 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as presented.

3 MPOTAC -UN-APPROVED F:\BCC\AII Committees\MPOTAC\2011 Minutes\MPOTAC05.25.12.doc

May 25, 2012

Consideration of Scope of Services for SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study (Action Required)

Mr. Matson reviewed his Memorandum dated May 16, 2012 regarding a request from the City of Vero Beach requesting MPO assistance in conducting a Traffic Calming Feasibility Study - Scope of Services to study the traffic impact on the SR 60 Twin Pairs. A copy is on file the Commission office.

Mr. Matson introduced Mr. McGarry, wherein Mr. McGarry reiterated points regarding issues raised by previous efforts and the need for traffic calming measures.

Mr. Matson stated the total cost for the study was $81,768. And would include the following:

• Purpose, Objectives, and Study Area a. Purpose b. Objectives Study Area

• Traffic Calming Option to be Evaluated

• Work Tasks- organized into eight major tasks such as: a. FOOT Coordination Meeting b. Data Collection

Roadway Segment and Diversion Traffic Volumes Operating Levels of Service Crash Data Turning Movement Traffic

• Preparation of Preliminary Conceptual Typical Sections & Costs

• Analysis of Transportation Mobility

• Preparation of Preliminary Report

• Public and policy Level Involvement

• Preparation of Lane Elimination Application (Optional Task)

• Utilize Digital 3-D Simulation Model (Optional Task)

4 MPOTAC -UN-APPROVED May 25, 2012 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MPOTAC\2011 Minutes\MPOTAC05.25.12.doc

ON MOTION by Mr. McGarry, SECONDED by Mr. Menger, the members voted unanimously (14-0) to approve the Consideration of Scope of services for SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study as presented.

Status Report of Other MPO Advisory Committees- (No Action Required)

Mr. Matson reviewed his report dated May 17, 2012 included in the agenda packet and on file in the Commission office.

He mentioned the next MPO TAC meeting was scheduled for June 22, 2012.

Other Business

There was none

Comments from the Public

There were none.

Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

5 MPOTAC -UN-APPROVED May 25,2012 F:\BCCIAII Committees\MPOTAC\2011 Minutes\MPOTAC05.25.12.doc

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Indian River County MPO- Technical Advisory Committee (T AC)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP ~M \( Community Development Director

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Phillip J. Matson r/7 /1/1 MPO Staff DirectQr

August 1, 2012

Consideration of the MPO's 2012 Priority Projects Report

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at its meeting of August 24, 2012.

SUMMARY

The MPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan includes an adopted cost feasible list of improvements that will meet the projected needs of the county through the year 2035. To implement those improvements, the MPO each year must rank and place improvements in an annual Priority Projects Report and submit that report to FDOT. FDOT then uses the MPO's lists of unfunded priorities in developing the next five year work program. MPO staff recommends that the TAC review the attached information as well as information to be presented at the August 24 TAC meeting, make any necessary changes, and recommend that the MPO approve the 2012 Priority Projects Report.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

Each year, all Florida MPOs are required to submit to FDOT a priority projects report which lists the MPO's highway, enhancement, congestion management process (formerly congestion management system), transit, and airport priority projects. FDOT uses these priority lists as the basis for developing its five year work program. When developing its work program, FDOT considers projects in the first three years of its work program as committed. Most new projects are added to the new fifth year of the five year work program.

1

The MPO's annual priority projects report is important because it is the means by which transportation improvement projects are funded through FDOT's five year work program. Since funding for transportation improvements is limited, only a few new projects are added to the new fifth year of FDOT's work program each year. Consequently, the priority projects report does not contain exhaustive lists of all long range plan improvements, but instead represents those improvements needed the soonest.

Generally, improvements included in a highway priority list are road widenings, new roadways, and substantial intersection improvements. While a major improvement may be listed as a high priority, that does not necessarily mean that the improvement will be constructed in the next work program cycle. Implementing a highway improvement, for instance, usually requires several steps, including Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) studies, right-of-way acquisition, engineering and design, and actual construction. Although the conventional wisdom has always held that it may take thirteen years to see a high priority project constructed, recent cost increases and difficulty obtaining right-of-way have resulted in even greater delays.

ANALYSIS

Many inputs were used in developing the priority projects lists contained in the MPO's 2012 Priority Projects Report (Attachment 1). That report identifies those inputs and includes a detailed description of the specific methodologies utilized to prepare the priority highway, enhancement, congestion management process (CMP), transit, and airport project lists. A summary of the results of the 2012 priority projects analysis is presented below.

PRIORITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

The federal Enhancements program provides funding for improvements, such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping, that complement the transportation system. While the Enhancement program is not specifically identified in the new federal highway bill (known as MAP-21), a new program in the bill, the Transportation Alternatives program, provides funding for Enhancement activities. Since the details on the Transportation Alternatives program will be released later in the year, FDOT has requested that the MPO again adopt an Enhancement Priority List.

For 2012, the MPO is requesting funding for the Trans-Florida Rail Trail project as its sole Enhancement priority.

1. Trans-Florida Railroad Trail- The Trans-Florida Railroad Trail is located north of CR 512 along the abandoned right-of-way of the Trans-Florida Central Railroad. When complete, the trail will span nearly 17 miles between the cities of Sebastian and Fellsmere. Funding is requested for trail construction.

Currently, Indian River County has an agreement with FDOT to construct the trail between North County Regional Park and 104th Avenue using federal Enhancement

2

funds. FDOT has offered to undertake construction of that segment and the remaining portions of the trail east of I-95, as well as a pedestrian overpass at I-95. In return, the MPO must reallocate the funds from three older Enhancement priorities to the Rail-Trail project. Those older priorities are the South Sebastian Greenway; 43rd A venue sidewalks near the Vero Beach Airport; and Indian River Drive sidewalks north of the Sebastian City Limits. According to FDOT, those priorities can again receive funding beginning in 2017. Construction of the trail and overpass will also require the allocation of $700,000 in flexible Surface Transportation funds (see Priority Highway Projects below).

PRIORITY HIGHWAY PROJECTS

A variety of data and inputs were utilized to develop and rank the MPO's highway priority projects. The primary data and inputs included:

• the 2035 MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP); • coordination with municipal, County, and FDOT staff; • status review of the MPO's 2011 priority highway projects list; and • FDOT's current five year work program (FY 2012/13-2016117)

In order to adopt a priority list that more closely approximates the major classifications of the roadway network, the MPO has once again divided its highway priority list into three categories: SIS Highways, Regional Highways, and Other Highways.

SIS Highways include the Interstate Highway System and major limited access highways such as SR 60 west of I-95. This year's top SIS project in Indian River County remains the Oslo Road Interchange at I-95. Right-of-Way acquisition and Construction funding is requested at this time.

Regional Highways are funded through the TRIP program, which requires the approval of the three Treasure Coast T/MPOs through the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC). In 2011, FDOT did not fund any Regional priority projects. Therefore, the MPO is again requesting funding for last year's top Regional Highway priority, the widening of 66th A venue (SR 60 - CR 51 0). The MPO is also requesting the reallocation of FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Station TRIP funding ($189,527) to the 66th Avenue widening project. That request is being made because there is no specific timeframe for the resumption of Amtrak service on the FEC corridor, and FDOT has expressed concern that funds allocated for station construction could lapse if not expended.

Non-SIS roadways for which the MPO is seeking federal and state funding are included on the Other Highways priority list. This year's top Other Highways priority project in Indian River County remains the two Ianing of 82nd A venue from CR 510 to SR 60.

For 2012, the MPO is adding the Trans-Florida Rail Trail project to the Other Highways priority list and is also requesting that FDOT allocate $700,000 in flexible Surface Transportation Funds to that project. Surface Transportation funds, which are normally used in Indian River County for Other Highway Priorities, can also be applied to bicycle

3

and pedestrian projects. In conjunction with Enhancement funds, the $700,000 in Surface Transportation Funds reflects the amount identified by FDOT as necessary to complete trail construction east of I-95 and construct an I-95 trail overpass. It should be noted that this amount ($700,000) represents a relatively small percentage of the MPO's total5-year highway fund allocation, which is currently more than $120,000,000.

The MPO's top unfunded highway priorities are as follows:

2012 List of Priority Highway Projects -SIS

1. Oslo Road Interchange at Interstate 95- The project was included in the MPO's 2035 LRTP- Cost Feasible Plan based on anticipated future travel demand in the Oslo Road corridor. Not only will the project help meet demand, but the project will also assist in generating commercial/industrial activity. Finally, this interchange will enhance hurricane evacuation capabilities in the county. Right-ofway and Construction funding is requested for this project.

2012 List of Candidate TRIP Grant Priority Highway Projects- Regional

1. 66th Avenue from SR 60 to CR 510 - The project involves four Ianing 66th Avenue from CR 510 to SR 60. This roadway serves as the primary connector between Sebastian and the SR 60 area near the Indian River Mall, one of the County's largest employers. The MPO is also requesting the reallocation of $189,527 in TRIP funds previously programmed for the construction of the FEC AMTRAK Passenger Rail facility. Construction funding is requested for this project.

2012 List of Priority Highway Projects- Other

1. 82nd Avenue, two Ianing from 26th Street to CR 510- The MPO's 2035 LRTP includes a project to construct 82nd Avenue as a two lane facility from its current terminus near 26th Street to CR 510. Right-of-way acquisition funds have been allocated in 2013114, and some construction funding has been allocated in 2015116 -2016117. Construction funding is requested to complete the project.

2. Trans-Florida Railroad Trail- The Trans-Florida Railroad Trail is located north ofCR 512 along the abandoned right-of-way ofthe Trans-Florida Central Railroad. When complete, the trail will span nearly 17 miles between the cities of Sebastian and Fellsmere. $700,000 in flexible Surface Transportation Funding is requested for trail and pedestrian overpass construction at I-95.

3. Oslo Road, four Ianing from 58th Avenue to I-95- This project is a continuation of two widening projects (the four-laning of Oslo Road from 2ih Avenue to 43rd Avenue and the four-laning of Oslo Road from 43rd Avenue to 58th Avenue) currently being undertaken by the County. The widening of Oslo Road from 58th Avenue to I-95, in conjunction with a proposed I-95 interchange at Oslo Road, will

4

alleviate anticipated congestion and capacity issues on Oslo Road. Design funds have been allocated in 2015/16. Right-of-way and Construction funding is requested for this project.

4. US 1, six Ianing from 53rd Street to CR 510 - The widening of US 1 from 53rd Street to CR 510 addresses a future capacity deficiency and appears in the 203 5 Long Range Transportation Plan as a near term (2016 - 2020) priority. Design funds have been allocated in 2016/17. Right-of-way and Construction funding is requested for this project.

PRIORITY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP) PROJECTS

In 2012, the MPO reviewed uncompleted CMP priorities from previous CMP priority lists. Based on that review, Indian River Boulevard (3ih Street - 4th Street) and 3ih Street from US 1 to Indian River Boulevard were identified as uncompleted CMP priorities. To identify additional CMP priorities, the MPO also performed a new CMP analysis. That analysis involved evaluating a new congested corridor, the Highway AlA corridor between S.R. 60 and the southern limit of the City ofVero Beach.

With the addition of Highway AlA to the previously identified Indian River Boulevard and 37th Street corridors, the resulting 2012 CMP priorities are as follows:

Corridor Strategy Highway A1A between S.R. 6o Intersection improvements at A1A and 17th Street and the southern limit of the ritv of Vero Beach Evaluate the need for a new transit route on A1A Indian River Boulevard from Add turn lanes on Indian River Boulevard at 3lh Street 4th Street to 37th Street &

37th Street from Indian River Connect 5th Avenue to the Miracle Mile Shopping Center Boulevard to US 1.

PRIORITY TRANSIT PROJECTS

A transit project priority list was developed based on the MPO's 2008 Transit Development Plan (TDP) major Update and input from Senior Resource Association transportation staff. The top transit priority projects are:

Ranking Project Unit Cost Funding Source

I Make Vero Beach lntermodal Hub Improvements $I,I50,000 Federal

2 Expand Operating hours to 7 pm on Routes I - 4 & 8 $IOI,794/yr State/Federal

3 Construct Shelters and Benches $60,000/yr Federal

5

PRIORITY AIRPORT PROJECTS

An airport project priority list was developed and is included in the 2012 Priority Projects report. The basis for developing the airport list was the adopted Joint Automated Capital Improvement Program (JACIP) and input from airport staff. The complete list of airport priority projects is provided in the attached report.

RECOMMENDATION

MPO staff recommends that the T AC review the attached information, as well as information to be presented at the August 24 TAC meeting, make any necessary changes, and recommend that the MPO approve the 2012 Priority Projects Report.

ATTACHMENT

1. Indian River County MPO 2012 Priority Projects Report

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TAC\20 12\8-24-12\2012 Priority Staff Report. doc

6

2012

PRIORITY PROJEC'TS REPO,RT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

This document was produced in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation and

the Federal Highway Administration

Attachment 1

2012 List of Priority Projects

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Priority Highway Projects ................................................................................................................ 3 Priority Congestion Management Process (CMP) Projects ............................................................. 7 Priority Enhancement Projects ......................................................................................................... 8 Priority Transit Projects ..................................................................................... : ............................ 8 Priority Airport Projects ................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 1 0

Appendix Summary Tables and Reference Material

Table A-1 -Priority Highway Projects, SIS Highways ................................................................ 11 Table A-2 -Priority Highways Projects, Other Highways ............................................................ II Table A-3 -Priority Highways Projects, Regional Highways ...................................................... 11 Table A-4- CMP Priority Projects ................................................................................................ 12 Table A-5- Priority Enhancement Projects .................................................................................. 12 Table A -6 - 2012 Enhancement Prioritization .............................................................................. 13 Table A-7- Priority Transit Projects ............................................................................................ .l4 Table A-8- Priority Aviation Projects for Vero Beach Airport .................................................... l4 Table A-9- Priority Aviation Projects for Sebastian Airport ....................................................... 14 Table A-1 0- Long Range Transportation Plan, 2035 Cost Affordable Plan ................................ 15 Table A-ll -Regional Long Range Transportation Plan, 2035 Needs Plan ................................ 16 Table A-12- IRC Greenways Project Prioritization ..................................................................... 17 Table A-13 -MAP-21Planning Factors ......................................................................................... 18 Table A-14- Definitions used in the 2012 Priority Projects Report ............................................. 18

Indian River County MPO 2


INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METRO PO LIT AN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

2012 PRIORITY PROJECTS REPORT

INTRODUCTION

In September of each year, MPOs in Florida are required to submit priority projects lists to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The September priority projects submittal date allows FDOT time to incorporate MPO priorities in a new draft tentative Five Year Work Program, transmit the draft tentative work program to MPOs in November, present the work program to MPOs in early December, and hold public hearings in mid-December. The Five Year Work Program is then submitted to the Legislature in January, sixty days prior to the start ofthe legislative session.

This report contains the Indian River County MPO's 2012 priority projects lists. The MPO priority lists are used by FDOT as the basis for developing its annual five year work program. The projects included in this report will be considered for funding by FDOT, primarily in the fifth year (FY 20 17118) of its FY 2013114-2017/18 Five Year Work Program.

As it did in 2011, the MPO has developed lists for priority highway, congestion management process, enhancement, transit, and aviation projects. With respect to highway projects, the MPO divided the highway priorities list into three categories, roughly mirroring three major available funding sources: Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) projects; Regional Highway projects; and Other Highway projects.

PRIORITY HIGHWAY PROJECTS

This section explains the specific methodology utilized to prepare the MPO's 2012 Priority Highway Projects List. In this section, the inputs and data used to develop and rank the projects are explained, and a brief explanation of each project and its rank are also provided.

The primary input used in developing the 2012 list of priority highway projects was the MPO's adopted 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Besides the 2035 LRTP, routine system monitoring and discussions with staff from other MPOs, local governments, and FDOT were also used as inputs in developing the list.

As in past years, the 2035 LRTP (Table A-10 ofthe Appendix) was used as the primary basis in developing the 2012 priority highway projects list. The reasons for this include:

• federal and state regulations require projects funded through FDOT to be consistent with the MPO's adopted LRTP;

• the LRTP's recommended roadway improvement projects are consistent with adopted local government comprehensive plans, including the Transportation Element of the County's adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan;



• the improvements listed in the MPO's adopted LRTP were analyzed for need using sound transportation planning and engineering practices; and

• the MPO's LRTP was adopted after considerable involvement of citizens, technical experts, and elected officials.

In addition to using the LRTP, MPO staff reviewed the status of the projects listed in the MPO's 2011 priority highway projects list and compared those projects to FDOT's current (FY 2012/13- 2016/17) adopted Five Year Work Program. Finally, meetings and discussions with municipal, County, and FDOT staff provided additional information utilized in preparing the 2012 list. In those meetings, local government staff familiar with localized capacity and safety problems provided additional information regarding needed projects, while FDOT staff provided input regarding potential projects based on the results and recommendations of numerous FDOT corridor studies undertaken within the County.

In order to adopt a priority list that more closely approximates the major classifications of the roadway network, the MPO has divided its highway priority list into three categories: SIS Highways, Regional Highways and Other Highways.

SIS Highways

In Indian River County, the Strategic Intermodal System consists of I-95, the Florida Turnpike, and SR 60 West of I-95 to Osceola County. Generally, projects on the SIS serve an interstate and inter-regional function and carry high volumes of traffic and goods across long distances. Through its five year work program, FDOT allocates funding specifically for Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) projects based on various factors, including local input into the SIS funding prioritization process. This year's top SIS project in Indian River County remains the Oslo Road Interchange at I-95.

Regional Highways

Regional roadways serve a function of connecting major population or activity concentrations that are separated by some distance. With the Growth Management Legislation that was signed into law in July of 2006, regional roadways became more important, because that legislation established a new grant program, known as the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP), for use on roadways determined to be regional in nature.

In order to qualify for TRIP funding, the MPO engaged in a number of actions. Those included establishing a new regional entity, the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC), with Martin and St. Lucie Counties; developing a regional roadway network map; and developing a set of interim criteria for prioritizing TRIP project candidates on a regional basis. In 2008, the interim prioritization criteria were applied to the list of regional projects identified in the Long Range Plans of the individual counties. The results of that prioritization, which were subsequently adopted by the TCTC and all three MPOs, are contained in Table All of this report.



According to state regulations, a TRIP funded project phase may not begin until the TRIP funds have been allocated by FDOT. In addition, the project must be at least 50% funded with local money. Unlike every other priority list in this document, the Regional priorities list is not adopted solely by the MPO. After approval of Indian River County's regional priority candidates by the MPO, the candidate projects from all three counties will be ranked and approved by the TCTC. After approval, the TCTC regional priorities will be submitted to FDOT. According to FDOT, funds will be awarded to eligible priority projects that are construction ready. If none of the top priorities are construction ready, then funds will be allocated for the right-of-way and design phases of the top-ranked priorities.

In each of the last several years, the amount of funding allocated by the State of Florida to the TRIP program in the three-county Treasure Coast area has declined. In fact, FDOT District IV did not fund any Regional Highway priorities last year. Therefore, the MPO is once again requesting funding for last year's top Regional Highway priority, the 66th Avenue widening project.

The MPO is also requesting the reallocation of FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail Station TRIP funding ($189,527) to the 66th Avenue widening project. This request is being made because there is no specific timeframe for the resumption of Amtrak service on the FEC corridor, and FDOT has expressed concern that funds allocated for· station construction could lapse if not expended.

Other Highways

Non-SIS roadways for which the MPO is seeking federal and state funding are included on the Other Highways priority list. This year's top Other Highways priority project in Indian River County remains the two Ianing of 82nd Avenue from CR 510 to SR 60.

For 2012, the MPO has added the Trans-Florida Rail Trail project to the Other Highways priority list and has requested that FDOT allocate $700,000 in flexible Surface Transportation Funds to that project. Surface Transportation funds, which are typically used in Indian River County for Other Highways priorities, can also be applied to bicycle and pedestrian projects. In conjunction with Enhancement funds, the $700,000 requested has been identified by FDOT as the amount necessary to complete trail construction east of I-95 and construct an I-95 trail overpass. It should be noted that this amount ($700,000) represents a relatively small percentage of the MPO's total 5-year highway fund allocation, currently $120,000,000.

The complete list of highway priorities is included as Tables A-1 through A-3 in the Appendix. That list is consistent with the 2035 LRTP interim year project sets, as well as local comprehensive plans, MPO plans, and FDOT's work program. A summary description of each project in order of priority ranking and an explanation of its ranking is presented below.

2012 List of Priority Highway Projects- SIS

1. Oslo Road Interchange at Interstate 95- The project was included in the MPO's 2035 LRTP- Cost Feasible Plan based on anticipated future travel demand in the Oslo Road corridor. Not only will the project help meet demand, but the project will also assist in



generating commercial/industrial activity. Finally, this interchange will enhance hurricane evacuation capabilities in the county. Right-of-way and Construction funding is requested for this project.

2012 List of Candidate TRIP Grant Priority Highway Projects- Regional

1. 66th Avenue from SR 60 to CR 510 - This project involves four Ianing 66th Avenue from CR 510 to SR 60. This roadway serves as the primary connector between Sebastian and the SR 60 area near the Indian River Mall, one of the County's largest employers. Construction funding is requested for the project. The MPO is also requesting the reallocation of $189,527 in TRIP funds previously programmed for the construction of the FEC Amtrak Passenger Rail facility to this project.

2012 List of Priority Highway Projects- Other

1. 82nd Avenue, two Ianing from 26th Street to CR 510 - The MPO's 2035 LRTP includes a project to construct 82nd A venue as a two lane facility from its current terminus near 26th Street to CR 510. Right-of-way acquisition funds have been allocated in 2013114, and some construction funding has been allocated in 2015116 -2016/17. Construction funding is requested to complete the project.

2. Trans-Florida Railroad Trail - This project involves the construction of a paved multi-purpose path located north ofCR 512 between the North County Park and I-95. This multi-modal project will provide a means for safe, off road travel in the CR 512 corridor. $700,000 in flexible Surface Transportation Funding for trail and I-95 trail overpass construction is requested at this time.

3. Oslo Road, four Ianing from 58th Avenue to 1-95 -This project is a continuation of two widening projects (the four-laning of Oslo Road from 2i11 Avenue to 43rd Avenue and the four-laning of Oslo Road from 43rd Avenue to 58th Avenue) currently being undertaken by the County. The widening of Oslo Road from 58th Avenue to I-95, in conjunction with a proposed I-95 interchange at Oslo Road, will alleviate anticipated congestion and capacity issues on Oslo Road. Design funds have been allocated in 2015116. Right-of-way and Construction funding is requested for this project.

4. US 1, six Ianing from 53rd Street to CR 510- The widening of US 1 from 53rd Street to CR 510 addresses a future capacity deficiert<;y and appears in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan as a near term (20 16 - 2020) priority. Design funds have been allocated in 2016/17. Right-of-way and Construction funding is requested for this project.

Conclusion

As structured, the MPO's 2012 List of Priority Highway Projects identifies only those projects for which state and/or federal funding is requested. As indicated in the MPO's 2035 LRTP, many of the plan's cost-feasible roadway improvements will be funded with local revenues



and constructed by the County or local municipalities. Because locally funded roadway improvement projects can generally be completed in shorter timeframes than state or federally funded projects, it is often preferable not to include projects on the MPO's priority highways list where local funding is available for those projects. Therefore, the priority highway projects list includes only roadway projects which require state or federal funds and which are not needed for several years.

PRIORITY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP) PROJECTS

Beginning with the 1998 Priority Projects Report, MPO staff utilized the MPO's Congestion Management System (CMS) plan to identify and prioritize improvement strategies for the county's most congested corridors. In 2004, the MPO prepared a CMS Plan Major Update. With the 2006 passage of SAFETEA-LU, the new federal highway authorization bill, the Congestion Management System was renamed the "Congestion Management Process," or CMP.

In 2012, the MPO reviewed uncompleted CMP ~riorities from previous CMP priority lists. Based on that review, Indian River Boulevard (3i Street- 4th Street) and 3ih Street from US 1 to Indian River Boulevard were identified as uncompleted CMP priorities. To identify additional CMP priorities, the MPO also performed a new CMP analysis. That analysis involved evaluating a new congested corridor, the Highway AlA corridor between S.R. 60 and the southern limit of the City ofVero Beach.

The Highway AlA corridor was analyzed using the MPO's adopted CMP methodology. Under that methodology, staff identified the most congested corridors in the county based on existing and vested trips; eliminated those corridors which are programmed in the short term for widening; and eliminated those corridors which have already been evaluated through the CMP process. Highway AlA was then subjected to a screening process to identify appropriate CMP strategies and projects.

With the addition of Highway AlA to the previously identified Indian River Boulevard and 3ih Street corridors, the resulting 2012 CMP priorities ;:tre as follows:

Corridor Strategy Highway A1A between S.R. 6o Intersection improvements at A1A and 17th Street and the southern limit of the ritv of 'Lero Beach Evaluate the need for a new transit route on A1A Indian River Boulevard from Add turn lanes on Indian River Boulevard at 3lh Street 4th Street to 37th Street &

37th Street from Indian River Connect 5th Avenue to the Miracle Mile Shopping Center Boulevard to US 1.

Although there is no specific allocation of FDOT funding reserved exclusively for CMP projects, MPOs have the option to program CMP projects for funding with federal highway money. Since MPO formula highway funding has been significantly curtailed in recent years,



the MPO will not request the allocation of funds that would otherwise be used for MPO highway priorities, but will instead seek alternative funding sources (such as County Incentive Grant, Intermodal, and ITS funding) for the construction of CMP projects.

PRIORITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS

The federal Enhancements program focuses on improvements, such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and landscaping, that complement the transportation system. While the Enhancement program is not specifically identified in the new federal highway bill (known as MAP-21 ), a new program in the bill, known as the Transportation Alternatives program, provides funding for Enhancement activities. Since the details on the Transportation Alternatives program will be released later in the year, FDOT has requested that the MPO again adopt an Enhancement Priority List.

Since 2007, the MPO has utilized Indian River County's Greenways Plans to identify enhancement priorities. Greenways projects in those plans were identified and ranked according to criteria that include connectivity, constructability, quality of life benefits, agency support, and cost. Those criteria are contained in Table A-12 of this report.

Through the Enhancement program, the MPO has funded a number of Greenways projects. For 2012, the MPO is seeking funding for the Trans-Florida Railroad project. Currently, Indian River County has an agreement with FDOT to construct the trail between North County Regional Park and 1 04th A venue using Enhancement funds. FDOT has offered to undertake construction of that segment and the remaining portions of the trail east of I-95, as well as a pedestrian overpass at I-95. In return, the MPO must reallocate the funds from three older Enhancement priorities to the Rail-Trail project. Those older priorities are the South Sebastian Greenway; 43rd Avenue sidewalks near the Vero Beach Airport; and Indian River Drive sidewalks north of the Sebastian City Limits. According to FDOT, those priorities can again receive funding beginning in 2017.

2012 List of Priority Enhancement Projects

1. Trans-Florida Railroad Trail- The Trans-Florida Railroad Trail is located north of CR 512 along the abandoned right-of-way of the Trans-Florida Central Railroad. When complete, the trail will span nearly 17 miles between the cities of Sebastian and Fellsmere. Funding is requested for construction.

PRIORITY TRANSIT PROJECTS

Because of the way that transit projects are funded, transit priorities were not included in the MPO's priority projects list until the year 2000. Prior to that time, the MPO had not considered it necessary to develop transit priority lists, because transit capital and transit operations are funded by FT A and because a separate grant application is submitted directly to FT A. In the last several years, however, the MPO has obtained funds from a variety of sources, including discretionary state grants. In order to apply for many federal and state grant programs, proposed projects must be included on an adopted MPO priority list. In addition,



fixed route transit travel has gained in popularity in recent years, which has made it necessary to prioritize available resources in order to meet demand. For those reasons, FDOT encouraged the MPO to develop a transit priority list as a mechanism to implement the MPO's transit plans.

For 2012, the primary source of projects in the transit priority list was the MPO's Transit Development Plan (TDP) - Major Update. Since a major update of the TDP in 2008, the county has been implementing a number of TDP strategies, including new service, new facilities, and adjustments to existing routes. In fact, the county has implemented three of the MPO's top priorities in recent years. Two of these priorities, providing new service in the west SR 60 corridor and expanding Saturday service to seven additional routes (12 of 14 routes now operate on Saturdays), were made possible by FDOT grants. The third priority that has been implemented was providing a new route south along Indian River Boulevard. That was also a CMP priority.

Many of the projects identified in the 2008 TDP, however, have not been implemented. Those projects form the basis of the transit priority list.

Priority Transit Projects

Ranking Project Unit Cost Funding Source

1 Make Vero Beach Intermodal Hub Improvements $1,150,000 Federal

2 Expand Operating hours to 7 pm on Routes I - 4 & 8 $10 I ,794/yr State/Federal

3 Construct Shelters and Benches $60,000/yr Federal

PRIORITY AIRPORT PROJECTS

In Indian River County, there are two publicly owned general aviation airports, each of which qualifies for state and federal funding. Separate priority project lists have been established for each airport. This report includes a Vero Beach Airport priority projects list and a Sebastian Airport priority projects list.

To develop the airport priority projects list, MPO staff reviewed the current JACIPs (Joint Automated Capital Improvement Programs) for each of the two public airports in the county, identified which projects in the JACIPs were unfunded, and coordinated with respective airport staffs. The following airport priority projects were identified for 2013/14 - 201 7118.

Vero Beach Airport Priority Projects

1 Airport Master Plan 2 Rehabilitate Taxiway A and E 3 Airport Access Improvements, Phase 2 4 Redevelop Core Commercial Park



5 Airport Access Improvements, Phase 3 6 Rehabilitate Taxiway C 7 Repair I Replace Security Fence 8 Reconstruct Center Apron

Sebastian Airport Priority Projects

1 Security Camera Upgrades 2 Construct Main Street I Airport Drive East-West Access 3 Construct Taxiway C,D,E and install lighting

Conclusion

The five components of the Indian River County MPO's 2012 Priority Projects Report-the priority highway projects list, the priority CMP projects list, the priority enhancement projects list, the priority transit projects list, and the priority airport projects list-were reviewed by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (T AC), the MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and by the MPO Board. Opportunities for public comment were available at the T AC, CAC, and MPO meetings. Before making decisions regarding the five priority projects lists, the MPO and its advisory committees considered public input.

At its meeting of September 12, 2012, the Indian River County MPO considered the 2012 Priority Projects Report. The MPO also reviewed the accompanying staff report, considered the recommendations of the T AC and CAC, and discussed various issues. The MPO then adopted the priority projects report containing the MPO's 2012lists of priority highway, CMP, enhancement, transit, and airport projects.



APPENDIX Summary Tables and Reference Material

Table A-1 Priority Highway Projects, SIS Highways

Project Rank Location FOOT FY 2012/J3- 2016/17

Roadway Length Improvement

Jurisdiction Five Year Work Program Funding Source

2012 2011 2010 2009 From To (miles) Type

Fl/FM # Programmed Requested

Improvements ($000s)

Oslo Road I I I I Interchange at - - n/a Add interchange Federal 4130482 FY I 4/15 PE $3,400 State/Federal

Interstate 95

Table A-2 Priority Highway Projects, Other Highways

Project Rank Location FOOT FY 2012/13-2016/17

Roadway Length Improvement


(miles) Type Programmed Requested 2012 2011 2010 2009 From To FI/FM#


I 2 3 4 82nd Ave 26m St CR510 7.0 New Road two lane undivided County 2308791 FY !6/17CST$2,683 State/Federal

2 Trans-Florida North County

I-95 2 Paved multi-purpose trail with

County/City 427661 FY 12/J3 CST $722 State/Federal - - -Railroad Trail Park Pedestrian Overpass at I-95

3 2 - - US! 53ro Street CR510 4 Widen to 6 lane divided Hwy State N/A N/A State/Federal

4 3 - - Oslo Road 1-95 58°' Avenue 3.0 Widening to four lane divided County N/A N/A State/Federal

Table A-3 Priority Regional Highways

Project Rank Location FOOT FY 2012/J3- 2016/17

Project Length Improvement


2012 201 I 2010 2009 From To (miles) Type

Fl/FM# Programmed Requested


I I 2 I 66th Avenue CR 510 SR60 7.5 Widen from two to four lanes County 4258831 FY I I/12 CST $2,000 State only

I ··-

(TRIPS)



Table A-4 CMP Priority Projects

Corridor Strategy Highway AlA between S.R. 60 and the Intersection Improvements on AlA at 17th Street southern city limits of Vera Beach

Evaluate the need for a new transit route on AlA

Indian River Boulevard from 4th Add turn lanes on Indian River Boulevard at 37'11 Street Street to 37th Street & 37th Street

lfi·om Indian River Boulevard to US I. Connect 5th Avenue to the Miracle Mile Shopping Center

Table A-5 Priority Enhancement Project

FOOT FY 2012113-2016/17 Project Rank Location Five Year Work Program Funding Source Prioritiz- Length Improvement

Jurisdiction Roadway Requested ation Score (miles) Type

Programmed 2012 2011 From To F!IFM # Improvements ($000s)

T rans-Fiorida North County 1-95 2

Paved MultipurposeTrail with County/City 4276661 FY 12/13 CST $722 State/Federal I - I

Railroad Trail Park Pedestrian Overpass at 1-95 L___ -- -- ----

Table A-6 2012 Enhancement Prioritization

Criteria

Projects Transportation System Regional Multiple Agency Constructability Total

(15) Connectivity Benefits

Use (10) Support Cost (10)

(10) (100) (20) (15) (20)

Trans-Florida Rail Trail - -

15 20 ... _ ___!i_ 8 20_ ~

10 5 93 - - ----------



Ranking

1

2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1

2 3

Table A-7 Priority Transit Projects

Project Unit Cost

Make Vero Beach Intermoda1 Hub Improvements $1,150,000

Expand Operating hours to 7 pm on Routes 1 - 4 & 8 $101 ,794/yr

Construct Shelters and Benches $60,000/yr

Table A-8

Funding Source

Federal

State/Federal

Federal

Priority Aviation Projects for Vero Beach Airport

Airport Master Plan Rehabilitate Taxiway A and E Airport Access Improvements, Phase 2 Redevelop Core Commercial Park Airport Access Improvements, Phase 3 Rehabilitate Taxiway C Repair I Replace Security Fence Reconstruct Center Apron

Table A-9 Priority Aviation Projects for Sebastian Airport

Security Camera Upgrades Construct Main Street I Airport Drive East-West Access Construct Taxiway C,D,E and install lighting



Table A-10 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, Cost Affordable Plan

Table 9-15. Cost Feasible Roadway Projects and Implementation Plan

US.l

us 1

CR510

66th Avenue

i-95

Oslo Road

CR510

CR 512

4th Street

12th Street

53rd Street

66th Avenue

74th Avenue

indian River Boulevard

CR 510

5th Street SW

25th Street SW

43rd Avenue

53rd Street

58th Avenue

82nd Avenue

Indian River Boulevard

Roseland Road

26th Street

27th Avenue

69th Street

82ncl Avenue

1-95 lnterchange1

Indian River County MPO

53rd Street to CR 510 Widen to 6 lanes

H!gh!and Dr. to S.t Lucie C.L. Widen to 6 lanes

CR 512 to 66th Avenue Widen to 4 lanes

41st Street to 69th Street Widen to 4 lanes

St. lucie C.L. to Brevard Cl. Widen to 6 lanes

1-95 to 58th Avenue Widen to 4 lanes

66th Avenue to US 1 Widen to 4 lanes

1-95 to 'JVHiow Street Widen to 4 lanes

66th Avenue to 98th Avenue Extend as 2-!ane road

58th Avenue to 66th Avenue Extend as 2-!ane road

58th Avenue to 66th Avenue Extend as 2-!ane roa.d

69th Street to Barber Street Widen to 4 lanes

Oslo Road to 8th Street Extend as 2-!ane road

2oth Street to Merrl! Barber Bridge Widen to.6lanes

U.S .1 to tCWW Widen to 4 lanes

Old Dixie Hwyto 20th Avenue Extend as 2-lane road

27th Avenue to 58th Avenue Improved 2-!ane road

St. lucie C.L. to 16th Street Widen to 4 lanes

66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue Extend as 2-~ane road

Oslo Road to St. Lucie C. L. Extend as 2.-lane road

26th Street to 69th Street Extend as 2-lane road

CR 510 to laconia Street Extetid as 2-lane road

Merril BarberSrldgeto 45th Street Widen to 6lanes

CR 512 to US 1 Widen to 4 lanes

43rd Avenue to 58th Avenue Widen to 4 lanes

St. lucie C.L. to Oslo Road Widen to 4 lanes

66th Avenue to Fellsmere N-S Rd 1 Extend as 2-lane road

69tll Street to CR 510 Extend as 2-lane road

At Oslo Road Ne>w Interchange

14


Table A-ll Regionally Ranked 2030 Needs Projects R&gional Project Prioritization Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin MPOs Tallie 3 (SUI!IIi11ary Hillel



Transportation: Increases the use of non-motorized travel to destinations within 0.5 mile of the proposed corridor.

System Connectivity: Provides an essential link in creating a continuous greenway system within the study area.

Quality of Life Benefits: Project will provide quality of life benefits to the residents, visitors and businesses of Indian River County.

Multiple Use: Allows for a variety oftrail users

Agency Support: Project is supported by the organization(s) responsible for its implementation and management

Cost: Project can be implemented within the unit costs provided based on identified opportunities and constraints

Constructability: Project is ready to be advanced to design and construction


Table A-12

Access to Schools: 0-3 points max Access to Employment and Retail: 0-3 Access to Parks & Recreation: 0-3 Access to Transit: 0-3 Access to Residential Ne" borhoods: 0-3 Provides an essential link in the proposed network; without this link, the system could not be completed: 15-20 points

Important as a 'stand alone project, but not critical to the overall system: 5-15 points

A long-term element and potential future link in the : 0-5 · Increases Tourism visits from outside of the County: 0-3 points max Connects people to Conservation Lands: 0-3 Potential to attract I retain businesses: 0-3 Increases Public Health I Fitness: 0-3 ml"•r"'"P"- Traffic . 0-3

uestrian: 0-2 Project has full agency support ( 15-20 points)

Project has potential to receive agency support (5-15)

Less than $200k I mile (8-1 0 points max) $200k- $500k I mile (3-7 points) Greater than $500k I mile (0-2 points)

Project presents significant constraints to construction (0-2 points)

Project requires further study but has the potential to be advanced (3-7 points)

Project is feasible and ready for implementation ( 8-10 points m

15

20

15

10

20

10

10

16


Table A-13 MAP-21 Planning Factors

MAP-21 lists eight metropolitan planning areas that must be considered as part of the planning process for all MPOs. The following eight areas have been explicitly considered, analyzed as appropriate, and reflected in the Indian River County MPO's 2010 Priority Projects Report:

(1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency;

(2) Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

(3) Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

( 4) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;

(5) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns;

( 6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight;

(7) Promote efficient system management and operation; and

(8) Emphasize the preservation ofthe existing transportation system.

Table A-14

Definitions Used in the 2012 Priority Projects Report Project Phases CST DES PD&E PE ROW

Other Terms FDOT LOS LRTP PLEMO

MAP-21


Construction Design Project Development and Environmental Study Preliminary Engineering Right of Way

Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service (measure of roadway traffic congestion) Long Range Transportation Plan Planning and Environmental Management Office (FDOT planning study) Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century (federal highway bill)

17


MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Indian River County MPO- Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP ~ tt1 K Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AICP{)f'Y1 MPO StaffDirector ~~

FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP \)~ Senior Transportation Planner

DATE: August 11,2012

SUBJECT: Consideration of the 2012 Transit Development Plan (TDP) Annual Update

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) at the meeting of August 24,2012.

SUMMARY

To receive funding through the Florida Public Transit Block Grant program, applicants must prepare and adopt a Transit Development Plan (TDP). According to Florida regulations, the TDP must be revised annually and updated as necessary. Consistent with state requirements that major TDP updates must be done every five years and annual updates be done in interim years, the MPO prepared and adopted a major TDP update in 2008. For interim years between TDP major updates, FDOT has developed streamlined reporting requirements. Attached to this staff report is the 2012 TDP annual update. As indicated in the attached TDP annual update, Indian River County has implemented all recommended service improvements as listed in the 2008 TDP major update. MPO staff recommends that the TAC review the attached information, make any necessary changes, and recommend that the MPO approve the 2012 TDP annual update.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

Since 1995, Indian River County has annually applied for and received a Public Transit Block Grant (PTBG) from FDOT. Those block grant funds are then forwarded by the county to the Senior Resource Association, which uses them in combination with other federal, state, and local funds to

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\T AC\20 12\8-24-12\TDP staff report. doc

provide fixed route and demand response transit service within the county.

To receive funding through the Florida PTBG program, applicants must prepare and adopt a Transit Development Plan (TDP). The state requires that major TDP updates must be completed every five years and minor updates in the interim years. Recently, the State of Florida made a minor change to that requirement. As a result, the TDP Minor Update is now referred to as the TDP Annual Update. A draft of the TDP Annual Update is attached to this staff report.

ANALYSIS

The 2012 Transit Development Plan Annual Update contains information on current transit service, an evaluation of transit performance, a discussion of transit goals, objectives, and policies, and a tenyear financial plan. Within these sections, the following elements are required by Florida state regulations 14-73.001 FAC:

• A discussion of the past year's accomplishments; • An analysis of discrepancies, if any, between the plan and its implementation for the past

year and actions that will be taken to attain original goals and objectives; • An updated list of projects and service needed to meet the plan goals and objectives; • Revisions to the implementation plan since the last update; • Addition of a new tenth year of the financial plan; and • Changes to the financial plan.

In the past year, Indian River County continued to experience substantial increases in fixed-route ridership. For the most recent reporting year ending June 30, 2012, ridership was 1 ,060,465, an 18% increase over 2011 ridership.

RECOMMENDATION

MPO staff recommends that the TAC review the attached information, make any necessary changes, and recommend that the MPO approve the 2012 Transit Development Plan Annual Update.

ATTACHMENT

1. The 2012 Transit Development Plan Annual Update

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\T AC\20 12\8-24-12\TDP staff report.doc 2

ln;dian R.iver County

Transit Devel~opm:ent Pl.an

20l2 Annual: Uipdate

Prepared By:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION

180127th Street, Vera Beach, Florida, 32960

Tel (772}226-1672, Fax (772}-978-1806

August 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••....••••••••••••••••••.••.•••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••.•.••••••••••••••••....•••••• 1-1

Section 2: CURRENT TRANSIT SERVICE ••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••••••..•...•••••••••••...••••••••••••••...•••••••••••••• 2-1

Fixed-Route Service .......................................................................................................... 2-1

Demand Response/Paratransit Service ............................................................................ 2-3

ADA Complementary Paratransit Service ........................................................................ 2-5

Analysis of Existing Service ............................................................................................... 2-5

Ridership ............................................................................................................. 2-6

Performance Standards ....................................................................................... 2-6

Transit Vehicle Inventory ................................................................................................. 2-7

Section 3: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION .•.•••••••••..•.•.•...•••••••••••••••.•.•..•••••••••••.•...•••••••••••••....•...•• 3-1

Section 4: TRANSIT GOAL, OBJECTIVES, SUB-OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES .................................. 4-1

Evaluation of Sub-Objectives ........................................................................................... 4-3

Section 5: FINANCIAL PLAN ..................................................................................................... S-1

Appendix A: FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ANNUAL UPDATE REQUIREMENTS ....................... A-1

Appendix B: 2010 ANNUAL UPDATE REVIEW COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ B-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Goline Routes ........................................................................................................................... 2-3

Table 2-2. Ridership by Route .................................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2-3. Passenger Trips, Revenue Miles, and Revenue Hours by Route ............................................... 2-7

Table 2-4. Vehicle Inventory (2012) ........................................................................................................... 2-8

Table 3-1. Past Year's Accomplishments (FY 2011/12) .............................................................................. 3-1

Table 3-2. Staged Implementation Plan for FY 2012/13- 2021/22 ........................................................... 3-2

Table 4-1. Transit Goal, Objectives, Sub-Objectives, and Policies ............................................................. 4-1

Table 4-2. Evaluation of Sub-Objectives .................................................................................................... A-3

Table 5-1. Planning Estimates of Costs & Revenues .............................................. ., .................................. 5-2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Go-Line System Map ................................................................................................................... 2-2

Figure 2. Fixed Route Ridership (FY 2002/03- 2011/12) ........................................................................... 2-6

ii

Section 1

INTRODUCTION

In 1995, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) prepared its first Transit

Development Plan (TDP), which covered Fiscal Years 1995/1996 through 1999/2000. That TDP described

the area's transit needs for the next five years. The 1995 TDP was prepared to comply with section

341.052, Florida Statutes, which requires that transit providers who receive a Public Transit Block Grant

(PTBG) must complete a Transit Development Plan.

In order to remain eligible for PTBG funds, the MPO prepared either a major or minor update to the

adopted TDP each year beginning in 1996. A major update is required every five years, with annual (or

minor) updates in the interim years. The last major update to the TDP was prepared in 2008.

This year, in response to guidance from FDOT, the MPO is using a streamlined format for its TDP update.

While background information on routes, ridership, and fares continues to be provided, the emphasis of

this report is on the essential requirements of 14-73.001 F.A.C. Those are:

• Listing of past year's accomplishments;

• Analysis of discrepancies, if any, between the plan and its implementation for the past year and

steps that will be taken to attain original goals and objectives;

• Identification of any revisions to the implementation program in the past year;

• Addition of a new tenth year of the financial plan;

• Identification of any revisions to the financial plan; and

• Development of a revised list of projects or services needed to meet the goals and objectives.


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

1-1

Section 2

CURRENT TRANSIT SERVICE

This section summarizes the current transit services provided by the Senior Resource Association (SRA),

formerly known as the Indian River County Council on Aging. Having served as the Community

Transportation Coordinator (CTC) and as a transit operator for Indian River County since 1990, the SRA

provides and coordinates paratransit services and fixed-route transit services in the county. Prior to

1994, the demand-response service had been the primary method of providing transportation for the

transportation disadvantaged (TD) population of the county. In 1994, a fixed-route service with point

deviation was established.

Since 2007, the Senior Resource Association has operated its fixed-route services under the name of the

Go Line. This renaming of the fixed-route system was undertaken to differentiate the fixed-route service

from demand-response service and to minimize the perception that services are for only the elderly. In

the last five years, several key changes were made to the fixed route service. Those included changing

the appearance of buses, adding new routes, and increasing the hours of operation. Currently, fixed

route bus service is provided on Saturdays on twelve routes, and service is still free to riders of all ages.

FIXED-ROUTE SERVICE

Recently, five new routes were added to the system. In 2007, two new routes were established. One

provides service to Fellsmere (Route 10), while the other provides regional service to southern Brevard

County (Route 11). In early 2010, three additional routes were established. Two of those routes provide

expanded service in Sebastian (Route 12) and Vero Beach (Route 14), while the third new route provides

regional service to the Indian River State College Main Campus in Fort Pierce (Route 13). As a result of

the addition ofthese new routes, there are now fourteen fixed routes operating in the county.

The Go Line system map appears as Figure 1. A description of each of those routes and hours of

operations is provided in Table 2-1.


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

2-1

Figure 1. Go-Line System Map


August 2012

-o--· ROIIIIt9

--4!>- Rous-10

-.-a-ll

-®-Rou .. l2

-4)-R.-13

-G)-~tcov~~~lA

f-·--l·opa;ialbusslop

772-~

TDP Annual Update

2-2

Table 2-1. Goline Routes

Route Route Description Days/Hours of Service Connecting Major Destinations

No. Routes

1 Main Transit Hub to 8 AM - 6 PM (Mon - Fri) 2, 3, 4, 8, 11, Miracle Mile, Vero Beach City

Humiston Park 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) & 14 Marina

2 Main Transit Hub to Indian 8 AM - 6 PM (Mon - Fri) 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, Courthouse, Wai-Mart (Vero

River Mall 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) 11, 13, & 14 Beach), SR 60 commercial area

3 Main Transit Hub to 8 AM -6 PM (Mon- Fri) 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, Indian River Medical Center,

Gifford Health Center 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) & 14 37th Street Medical Offices,

East Gifford

4 Main Transit Hub to South 8 AM - 6 PM (Mon - Fri) 1, 2, 3, 8, 11, Downtown Vero Beach, US 1

Vero Square 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) & 14 Corridor

5 North County Transit Hub 8 AM - 6 PM (Mon - Fri) 9, 10, 11, & Wai-Mart (Sebastian), North

to Riverwalk Plaza 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) 12 Sebastian

6 South Vero Square to Oslo 7 AM- 6 PM (Mon- Fri) 4, 7, & 14 Vero Beach Highlands, Oslo

Plaza 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) Park

7 Indian River Mall to Oslo 7:30AM - 6 PM (Mon - 2, 6,9, 13, & IRSC Mueller Campus, Indian

Plaza Fri) 14 River Charter High School

9 AM - 3 PM (Sat)

8 Main Transit Hub to 8 AM -6 PM (Mon- Fri) 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, Health Dept., West Gifford

Gifford Health Center 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) & 14

9 North County Transit Hub 8:30AM-5:30PM 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, Sebastian River HS, Wabasso

to Indian River Mall (Mon- Fri) &13

9 AM - 3 PM (Sat)

10 North County Transit Hub 8 AM- 6 PM (Mon- Fri) 5, 9, & 12 Fellsmere

to Sonrise Apts. 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat)

11 Main Transit Hub to 7:30AM-5:30PM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, Indian River Medical Center,

Barefoot Bay (Mon -Fri) 12, & 14 Sebastian River Medical

Center, Wai-Mart (Sebastian),

Publix

12 North County Transit Hub 8 AM - 6 PM (Mon - Fri) 5,9, 10, & 11 Winn-Dixie, Publix, South

to Publix (US 1/Barber St.) 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) Sebastian

13 Indian River Mall to IRSC 6:50AM-5:00PM 2, 7, & 9 Vero Beach Outlets

Main Campus (Ft. Pierce) (Mon- Fri)

14 Main Transit Hub to Oslo 8 AM - 6 PM (Mon - Fri) 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, Indian River. Blvd., Oslo Road

Plaza 9 AM - 3 PM (Sat) 8, & 11

DEMAND RESPONSE/PARA TRANSIT SERVICE

Paratransit services meet numerous transportation needs, including the provision of access to adult day

care, congregate meal sites, nutrition sites, medical facilities, as well as social, employment, and

recreational appointments. Throughout Indian River County, door-to-door service is provided Monday

Indian River County MPO TOP Annual Update

August 2012 2-3

through Friday, from 5:30AM to 6:30PM. The paratransit service is available to eligible TD and/or ADA

paratransit-eligible persons in Indian River County. Prior to receiving service for the first time, persons

must register with SRA. The registration process is used to determine the client's eligibility to receive

this service. Sponsored TD trips and ADA trips are provided free of charge. In addition, coordinated

services, which are services provided through contracted transportation providers, are available 24

hours a day, seven days a week to eligible individuals. Those extended services are generally used by

Medicaid patients. To reduce costs and increase efficiency, clients are often asked to share a van.

Two wheelchairs can be accommodated in each of the SRA's lift-equipped vehicles. For wheelchair trips,

clients are asked to make reservations for shopping two days in advance and for medical trips three to

seven days in advance. Medical appointments, however, may be scheduled up to two months in

advance. Demand response trips are scheduled as follows:

• When demand response requests are received, the scheduler determines the need for a lift

equipped vehicle. If necessary, a patient's appointment is changed to conform to transportation

availability. The scheduler will notify a client of any changes in appointment times.

• Clients are assigned to the appropriate vehicle in accordance with their geographic location and

zone.

• Trips are scheduled by computer. Vehicle manifests are printed out each afternoon for the

following day's schedule.

• Medicaid appointments for transportation after 5:30 PM are scheduled on vehicles under

contract for mid-day overflow, after hours, and weekend service.

Drivers are given the daily manifests, which are then returned at the end of the day to the data entry

clerk for trip validation purposes. The following information is recorded on each manifest:

• Beginning and ending mileage

• Beginning and ending hours

• First passenger pickup time and mileage

• Last passenger drop off time and mileage

• Gallons of gas purchased and cost

• Verification of service for each client, including:

o Each one-way trip

o No-show clients

o Not ready

o Cancellations

o Denials

o . Fare collection (Medicaid co-payment)


August 2012

TOP Annual Update

2-4

In December 1995, SRA became the sole authority for approving, coordinating, scheduling, invoicing,

and paying for non-emergency Medicaid service for Indian River County residents. Those services were,

in the past, provided by Indian River Medical Center under contract to SRA.

ADA COMPLIMENTARY PARA TRANSIT SERVICE

Currently, the SRA operates a complimentary paratransit service for residents who live within three

quarters of a mile of a fixed route, but are unable to access the fixed route system because of a

disability. That connector service is a fixed-route transit feeder service and requires a minimum notice of

24 hours for guaranteed service. The SRA makes an effort to use the complimentary paratransit service

to feed the fixed bus routes by picking up riders at their homes and dropping them off at the nearest

fixed-route bus stop for free. In certain instances (e.g. inclement weather), Americans with Disabilities

Act (ADA) paratransit-eligible persons can use that service in a door-to-door fashion at no additional

cost.

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING SERVICE

Table 2-2 presents ridership for FY 2011/12 for the Go line fixed-route transit system.

Table 2-2. Ridership by Route

Route 1

1 18,164

2 43,235

3 25,509

4 34,839

5 12,600

6 10,924

7 13,665

8 25,133

9 13,562

10 21,945

11 6,098

12 9,169

13 4,607

14 15,223

Total 254,673


August 2012

Quarter (FY 11/12)

2 3

22,956 21,348

50,384 50,115

25,346 23,490

37,548 35,246

12,921 12,829

12,201 12,332

14,841 15,411

24,560 20,990

15,208 15,304

18,460 19,926

6,486 7,087

9,889 9,960

5,544 5,756

17,562 19,334

273,906 269,128

FY 11/12

4 Total

18,794 81,262

47,380 191,114

24,132 98,477

34,802 142,435

12,613 50,963

12,155 47,612

14,568 58,485

22,336 93,019

14,998 59,072

21,447 81,778

7,161 26,832

9,681 38,699

5,087 20,994

17,604 69,723

262,758 1,060,465

FY 10/11 Percent Ridership Change

79,711 1.9%

158,851 20.3%

92,047 7.0%

131,626 8.2%

41,560 22.6%

39,864 19.4%

43,456 34.6%

91,501 1.7%

37,814 56.2%

75,739 8.0%

20,066 33.7%

26,302 47.1%

11,825 77.5%

45,100 54.6%

895,462 18.4%

TDP Annual Update

2-5

Ridership

As is illustrated in Figure 2, fixed-route transit ridership has grown steadily over the years. From 2002/03

to 2011/12, passenger trips increased from 205,328 per year to 1,060,465 per year, an increase of over

400%.

Figure 2. Fixed Route Ridership (FV 2002/03- 2011/12)

1,200,000

1,000,000

II) 800,000 a.

·;:: 1-... cu

600,000 ti.O c cu II) II)

IU 400,000 Q.

200,000

rt\ ¢ 0 0 ...... ...... N rt\ 0 0 0 0 N N

Performance Standards

Growth in Fixed Route Ridership

Indian River County (Goline)

r.n 1.0 ..... co 0 0 0 0 ...... ...... ...... ...... ¢ r.n 1.0 ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N

Fiscal Year

en 0 .-1 N 0 .-1 .-1 .-1 ...... ...... ...... ...... co en 0 .-1 0 0 .-1 .-1 0 0 0 0 N N N N

Throughout the transit industry, passenger trips per revenue mile is a common performance measure

used to assess the performance of individual routes and services. Based on the goals, objectives, and

policies from the last major update of the TDP, the standard for that measure is 0.25 passenger trips per

revenue mile for fixed-route bus service. For FV 2012/13, all routes exceeded that standard. In fact,

Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 14 exceeded 0.25 passenger trips per revenue mile standard by a significant

margin. Last year, Route 13 was the only route to not comply with the standard. That route, which

provides regional service to the Indian River State College main campus in Fort Pierce, began service in


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

2-6

January 2010. Due to ridership growth, Route 13 exceeded the performance standard for FY 2011/12

with 0.36 passenger trips per revenue mile.

Table 2-3 summarizes the ridership, revenue miles and passenger trips per revenue mile for state fiscal

year 2011/12.

Table 2-3. Passenger Trips, Revenue Miles, and Revenue Hours by Route

Passenger Revenue Passenger Trips per Met

Revenue Passenger

Route Trips Miles

Trips. per Mile- Standard Hours

Trips per Revenue Mile Standard (Y/N) Revenue Hour

1 81,262 36,242 2.24 0.25 y 2,918 27.85

2 191,114 32,652 5.85 0.25 y 2,918 65.49

3 98,477 39,802 2.47 0.25 y 2,918 33.75

4 142,435 34,841 4.09 0.25 y 2,918 48.81

5 50,963 57,697 0.88 0.25 y 2,820 18.07

6 47,612 47,155 1.01 0.25 y 3,078 15.47

7 58,485 52,154 1.12 0.25 y 2,949 19.83

8 93,019 49,664 1.87 0.25 y 2,918 31.88

9 59,072 71,019 0.83 0.25 y 2,562 23.06

10 81,778 58,487 1.40 0.25 y 2,820 29.00

11 26,832 54,407 0.49 0.25 y 2,520 10.65

12 38,699 47,658 0.81 0.25 y 2,820 13.72

13 20,994 58,071 0.36 0.25 y 2,079 10.10

14 69,723 49,801 1.40 0.25 y 2,820 24.72

Total 1,060,465 689,649 1.54 0.25 y 39,058 27.15

TRANSIT VEHICLE INVENTORY

In order to operate fixed-route and paratransit services, the SRA maintains a fleet of minivans, modified

high-top vans, 25-foot cutaway buses, and 31-foot cutaway buses. The 25-foot and 31-foot cutaway

buses and four of the modified high-top vans are used to provide fixed-route service, while the

remaining vehicles are used for the demand response and ADA complementary paratransit services. All

of the buses are fully accessible for patrons in wheelchairs. An inventory of vehicles is provided in Table

2-4.


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

2-7

Table 2-4. Vehicle Inventory (2011)

Vehicle# Year Make

101-SRA 2002-

Dodge c 156 -IRC

1999-Ford c

162- 1999-Ford

SRA/IRC G

164- SRA 2002-

Ford G

166- SRA 2002-

Ford c 168- SRA

2002-Ford

G 172- 2002-

Ford SRA/IRC c

174- 2002-Ford

SRA/IRC G

175 -IRC 2003-

Ford G

176- IRC 2003-

Ford G

177- 2003-Ford

SRA/IRC c 178- SRA

2003-Ford c

179- SRA 2003-

Ford c 180- TD

2004-Ford c

182- TD 2004-

Ford c 183- SRA

2004-Ford c

184- SRA 2004-

Ford G

186- SRA 2004-

Ford c 187- SRA

2005-Ford c

188- SRA 2005-

Ford c 189 -IRC

2006-Ford c

190 -IRC 2006-

Ford c 191- IRC

2005-Ford c


August 2012

Model

CARAVAN -16'

25' CUTAWAY BUS

25' CUTAWAY BUS

3500 CONV. VAN -18'

3500 CONV. VAN-18'

3500 CONV. VAN-18'

3500 CONV. VAN -18'

25' CUTAWAY BUS

25' CUTAWAY BUS

25' CUTAWAY BUS

3500 CONV. VAN-18'

3500 CONV. VAN-18'

3500 CONV. VAN-18'

FREESTAR MINI VAN -16'

FREESTAR MINI VAN -16'

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA -18'

Passengers Mileage (Ambulatory/

Wheelchair)

133,596 7

183,603 18-2

213,134 20-2

117,846 9-2

100,280 9-2

139,341 9-2

130,896 9-2

220,560 20-2

209,344 20-2

194,617 20-2

141,527 9-2

159,656 9-2

158,087 9-2

129,699 7

148,639 7

144,778 11-2

185,277 11-2

146,285 11-2

89,012 11-2

103,873 11-2

101,147 11-2

94,505 11-2

104,031 11-2

Start Service Cost($) (Mo/Yr)

4/03 18,826

8/99 31,000

7/00 31,000

10/02 38,000

10/02 38,000

10/02 38,000

10/02 32,000

8/02 44,000

7/03 44,000

7/03 44,000

10/03 38,210.80

10/03 40,328.80

10/03 40,328.80

03/04 19,500

03/04 19,500

04/04 42,000

04/04 42,000

04/04 42,000

10/05 47,525

10/05 47,525

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

TDP Annual Update

2-8

Vehicle# Year Make

192 -IRC 2006-

Ford c 193 -IRC

2006-Ford c

194 -IRC 2006-

Ford c 195 -IRC

2005-Ford c

196 -IRC 2005-

Ford c 197 -IRC

2005-Ford c

198 -IRC 2006- Ford c

199 -IRC 2006-

Chev. G

200 -IRC 2006-

Chev. G

201-IRC 2006-

Chev. G

202 -IRC 2007-

Chev. G

203 -IRC 2007-

Chev. G

204 -IRC 2007-

Chev. G

205- SRA 2007-

Chev. c 206- SRA

2007-Chev. c

207- SRA 2007-

Chev. c 208 -IRC

2007-Chev.

G

209 -IRC 2007-

Chev. G

210 -IRC 2009-

GMC G

211-IRC 2009-

GMC G

212 -IRC 2009-

GMC G

213- SRA 2009-

Chev. c 214- SRA

2009-Chev. c

215- SRA 2009-

Chev. c


August 2012

Model

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA -18'

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA -18'

VAN TERRA- 18'

VAN TERRA -18'

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus

VAN TERRA

VAN TERRA

VAN TERRA

Passengers Mileage (Ambulatory/

Wheelchair)

115,694 11-2

98,644 11-2

104,359 11-2

93,054 11-2

123,184 11-2

106,530 11-2

75,928 11-2

157,700 24-2

158,606 24-2

158,485 24-2

147,147 11-2

164,592 11-2

173,422 11-2

92,463 11-2

134,294 11-2

124,300 11-2

128,211 24-2

109,662 24-2

59,382 24-2

73,660 24-2

69,010 2016

33,897 11-2

31,939 11-2

31,614 11-2

Start Service Cost($) (Mo/Vr)

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

10/05 47,000

2/06 85,000

2/06 85,000

2/06 85,000

1/07 56,000

1/07 56,000

1/07 56,000

4/07 56,000

4/07 56,000

4/07 56,000

11/07 86,000

11/07 86,000

3/09 86,000

3/09 86,000

3/09 86,000

11/09 66,426

11/09 66,426

11/09 66,426

TDP Annual Update

2-9

Vehicle# Year Make

216- SRA 2009-

Chev. c 217- SRA

2009-Chev. c

218 -IRC 2009-

GMC G

219 -IRC 2009-

GMC G

220 -IRC 2009-

GMC G

221-IRC 2009-

GMC G

222- SRA 2009-

GMC G

223-SRA 2010-

Dodge c 224-SRA

2010-Dodge c

225-IRC 2010-

Dodge c 226-IRC

2010-Dodge c

227-IRC 2010-

Dodge c


August 2012

Passengers Model Mileage (Ambulatory/

Wheelchair)

VAN TERRA 39,074

11-2

VAN TERRA 36,581

11-2

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus 74,747

24-2

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus 58,979

24-2

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus 76,479

24-2

5550 (Dis) 31'- Bus 70,330

24-2

5550 {Dis) 31'- Bus 59,203

24-2

CARAVAN -16' 38,713

6-2

CARAVAN- 16' 31,051

6-2

CARAVAN- 16' 36,516

6-2

CARAVAN- 16' 34,016

6-2

CARAVAN- 16' 30,287

6-2

Start Service Cost($) (Mo/Yr).

11/09 66,426

11/09 66,426

1/10 86,000

1/10 86,000

1/10 86,000

1/10 86,000

1/10 86,000

4/10 40,877

4/10 40,877

4/10 40,877

4/10 40,877

4/10 40,877

TDP Annual Update

2-10

Section 3

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

In the adopted 2008 TDP Major Update, recommended enhancements were organized into a staged

implementation plan over the next ten years. Table 3-1 addresses 14-73.001 F.A.c.'s requirement to

summarize the past year's accomplishments in comparison to the original implementation plan.

With the exception of increasing the frequency of service on Routes 2 and 4, all action items for FY

2011/12 were accomplished. Increasing the frequency of service involves both capital and operating

costs, since it requires both the acquisition and operation of new vehicles. Due to the current economic

situation, funding is not available at this time to increase the frequency of service beyond present levels.

Service improvements, including increasing the frequency of service as well as increasing the hours of

service, will be examined in depth as part of the 2013 TDP Major Update, which is already underway.

Table 3-1. Past Year's Accomplishments (FY 2011/12) "" " " "" """ """

Ser\lice Improvements Responsible Entity Status

Achieved: Service maintained on all Continue Operating Existing Fixed Bus Routes.

Adjust Existing Fixed Routes as Appropriate/Necessary.

Extend Saturday Service to Routes 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, & 14

Operate Routes 2 & 4 at Y, Hour Headways

>'·""""•""""""" """ > """""" " lijfrast~~~~~re lmpi'Qv~m~nts" • "' < """'" " . "":""

Continue vehicle replacement and acquisition


August 2012

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

RE!spori~ibl.e·""Efltity

IRT

existing routes.

Achieved: Minor adjustments

made as needed.

Achieved: Through an FOOT Service

Development grant, Saturday

service was expanded from 5

routes to 12 routes.

Not Achieved: At this time, funding

is not available to decrease

headways. Service improvements

will be studied during the 2013 TOP

Major Update, which is already

underway.

"" >. ,";"• ~i~ius

"' ...... .. ' . Ongoing: Existing vehicles are

replaced as needed; new vehicles

acquired for expanded service as

needed.

TDP Annual Update

3-1

"""

Continue Bus Stop Signs, Benches, and Shelters Program.

Purchase New Technologies/Equipment

Establish New Bus Stops

Construct Admin Building (Carry-over from FY 10/11)

Other llllpr:ovements/A(tion Items

Continue Performance Monitoring Program.

Continue Marketing and Public Education.

Meet Quarterly to Review Status of Implementation Plan.

Meet with Transit Systems in Neighboring Counties to

Coordinate Services as Appropriate.

Prepare Minor TDP Update.


August 2012

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT / MPO

Ongoing: Phase 2 of shelter

program completed during FY

11/12; additional bus shelters to be

installed during future phases.

Achieved: During FY 11/12, video

monitors were installed on buses.

Ongoing: New bus stops added as

needed during FY 11/12.

Achieved: A new transit admin.

facility was completed during

spring 2012. This facility was

constructed with funding through

the Recovery Act.

Status

Ongoing: Performance monitored

on a continuous basis.

Ongoing: In addition to local

marketing/education efforts, SRA

and the MPO are participating in

the IM4Transit campaign.

Ongoing: Meetings conducted

quarterly between MPO/County

staff, SRA, and FDOT to review

progress of implementation plan.

Ongoing: MPO and SRA attend

quarterly Treasure Coast Transit

Meetings to coordinate with

Martin and St. Lucie counties.

Achieved: 2011 TDP Annual Update

completed during FY 11/12.

TDP Annual Update

3-2

Table 3-2 summarizes this implementation plan, including action items for each of the next ten years

and the entities responsible for ensuring that the action items are implemented.

Table 3-2

Staged Implementation Plan for FY 2012/13 - 2021/22

YEAR 1 (FY 2012/13)

Service Improvements

Continue Operating Existing Fixed Bus Routes.


Infrastructure Improvements



Purchase new technologies/equipment


Other Improvements/ Action Items




Meet with Transit Systems in Neighboring Counties to Coordinate Services as

Appropriate.

Prepare Major TDP Update.

Year 2 (2013/14)

Service hnprovements








August 2012

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT /MPO

Responsi~le ·Entity

IRT

IRT

Resp~msible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

TDP Annual Update

3-3

Table 3-2

Staged Implementation Plan for FV 2012/13 - 2021/22







Appropriate.


Year 3 (2014/15)

Se.rvice Improvements



Extend operating hours on Routes 1-4,6,8, and 9 to 8pm










Meet with Transit Systems in Neighboring

Appropriate.



August 2012

Counties to Coordinate Services as

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT /MPO

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT / MPO

TDP Annual Update

3-4

Table 3-2


Year 4 (2015/16)




Extend operating hours on Routes 5, 7 and 11 to 7pm











Appropriate.


Year 5 (2016/17)




Infrastructure Improvements ..






August 2012

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT / MPO

Responsible. Entity

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

TOP Annual Update

3-5

Table 3-2







Appropriate.


Year 6 (2017 /18}

Servi.ce Improvements



Expand operating hours of routes 5, 7, 10, and 11 to 8pm

Infrastructure lmpr9vements










Appropriate.

Prepare Major TDP Update.

Year 7 (2018/19)

Service Improvements ' . '



August 2012

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT /MPO

IRT

IRT / MPO

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT /MPO

IRT

IRT / MPO

Responsible Entity

IRT

TDP Annual Update

3-6

Table 3-2













Appropriate.


YEAR 8 (2019/20)














August 2012

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT /MPO

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

TDP Annual Update

3-7

Table 3-2



Appropriate.

Prepare Minor TOP Update.

YEAR 9 (FY 2020/21)














Appropriate.

Prepare TOP Minor Update

YEAR 10 {FY 2021/22)

Service lmprov. eme. nts . ·.··. .








August 2012

IRT

IRT /MPO

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT /MPO

·Respoosible Entity

IRT

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT

TDP Annual Update

3-8

Table 3-2







Meet with Transit Systems in Neighboring Counties to

Appropriate.

Prepare TDP Minor Update


August 2012

Coordinate Services as

IRT

Responsible Entity

IRT

IRT

IRT / MPO

IRT

IRT / MPO

TDP Annual Update

3-9

Section 4

TRANSIT GOAL, OBJECTIVES, SUB-OBJECTIVES & POLICIES

This section contains a summary of the transit goals, objectives and policies for the County as well as an

evaluation of the sub-objectives contained in the 2008 TDP Major Update. Table 4-1 provides IRT's goal,

objectives, sub-objectives, and policies as reflected in the 2008 TDP Major Update.

Table4-1 Transit Goal, Objectives, Sub-objectives, and Policies

Sub-objective 1.1 - Increase the number of fixed route passenger trips by an average of 5 percent annually, from 326,391 in fiscal year 2007 to 558,239 in fiscal year 2018.

Sub-objective 1.2 -Attract a minimum of 0.25 one-way passenger trips per revenue mile on all fiXed routes.

Policies for Objective 1

that do not achieve Sub-Objective 1.2 the service.

Ride Guides, and maintain

Policy 1.3 - Post and maintain current and easily accessible Go Line route and schedule information on the SRA and MPO websites, and maintain a minimum of 10 distribution outlets for informational materials.

routes with

Policy 1.5- Provide limited Saturday bus service as identified in the 2009-2018 TDP.

Policy2.1-Years.

Limit any increases to the annual cost per passenger trip to no


an average age

Policy 2.2 - Perform schedule maintenance activities for all transit vehicles.


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

4-1

Table 4·1 (cont'd) Transit Goal, Objectives, Sub-objectives, and Policies


Policy 3.2 - Incorporate safety awards in the ongoing employee recognition Program.

Sub-Qbjective 4.1 - Maintain local support and leverage grant support, to the maximum extent feasible, for fiXed route bus service consistent with the financial plan in the Major

of the TOP


""~'u"::nfinancial support from municipalities and private sources on an annual basis. ao1nat10n boxes on all fixed route vehicles and promote the fare

m..rtcAitinn outreach activities.

Policy 4.1 -Submit grant applications for additional funding through applicable FTA and FOOT Grant Programs.

Sub-objective 5.2 - Establish public transit connections to neighboring counties.

Sub-objective 5.3- Maintain connectivity among fixed routes throughout the county.

to identify suitable bike on the fixed


plan

input prior to making significant changes to


Policy 6.1 - Prepare quarterly performance report.

Policy 6.2 -Monitor performance standards on quarterly basis.

Policy 6.3 -Conduct a triennial Transit Capacity and Quality of Service analysis.

Policy 6.4 -Conduct an on-board survey every five years as part of major TOP updates to monitor chan es in user demo ra hies, travel behavior characteristics, and user satisfaction.


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

4-2

EVALUATION OF SUB-OBJECTIVES

As part of this TOP annual update, each of the adopted TOP sub-objectives was reviewed and evaluated.

The following table, Table 4-2, indicates whether or not each objective was achieved, any related

comments about the achievement of a particular sub-objective, and the modification, if any, that is

being applied to a particular sub-objective.

Table 4-2. Evaluation of Sub-Objectives

Sub- Sub-Objective

Objective Achieved

1.1 Yes

1.2 Yes

2.1 Yes

3.1 Yes

3.2 Yes

3.3 Yes

4.1 Yes


August 2012

Status

Objective

accomplished

Objective

accomplished

Objective

accomplished

Objective

accomplished

Objective

accomplished

Objective

accomplished

Objective

accomplished

Modification

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

Comments

FY 11/12 ridership: 1,060,465.

Since 2008, ridership increases have

resulted from adding new routes,

increasing hours of service,

realigning routes/hubs, and

expanding marketing efforts.

All routes exceed 0.25 passengers

per trip mile.

Cost per passenger trip data are

available from the National Transit

Database (NTD). From 2009/10 to

2010/11, the number of passenger

trips increased by 26%, while

operating costs increased by 11%. As

a result, the cost per passenger trip

decreased by 12%.

Objective accomplished through

compliance with safety procedures.

Objective accomplished through

adequate preventive maintenance.

Annual Systems Safety Program Plan

updated.

System costs maintained consistent

with the TOP financial plan. Federal

transit funds are matched with state

and local funds. During FY 2011/12,

the local match was provided by

Indian River County, the City of

Fellsmere, and the City of Sebastian.

TOP Annual Update

4-3

Sub- Sub-Objective Status Modification Comments

Objective Achieved

5.1 Yes Objective None New Route 13 provides service to

accomplished multi-family developments and

outlet mall.

5.2 Yes Objective None Service to Barefoot Bay in Brevard

accomplished County began in 2007; service to

IRSC main campus in St. Lucie

County began in early 2010.

5.3 Yes Objective None Fixed route connectivity is provided

accomplished via multiple hubs. In addition to the

Main Transit Hub near Downtown

Vero Beach, other hubs include the

North County Transit Hub, Indian

River Mall, South Vero Square, and

Oslo Plaza.

5.4 Yes Objective None Bike racks will be installed at the

accomplished new transit hub near downtown

Vero Beach. In addition, new buses

recently ordered will include bike

racks.

6.1 Not due N/A None A quality of service survey will be

until2013 conducted as part of the next TOP

Major Update.

As indicated in Table 4-2, all of the TOP sub-objectives were achieved. This was due in part to a number

of major new initiatives launched by Indian River County in the past several years. Those initiatives

. include new service to Fellsmere; the addition of evening service; the expansion of Saturday service;

new regional service to Brevard County and St. Lucie County; establishment of new hubs; and a bus

wrap and marketing program.


August 2012

TOP Annual Update

4-4

Section 5

FINANCIAL PLAN

One of the requirements of a Transit Development Plan is a financial plan which identifies the amount

and sources of funding necessary to implement the plan's recommendations over the next ten years.

While the improvements plan component of a TDP is allowed to be a listing of needs rather than a

financially constrained plan, the improvements plan in this TDP Annual Update is based upon a realistic

estimate of future transit funding for Indian River County. That approach produces a financially feasible

improvement plan, the results of which may be readily evaluated in future TDPs to determine what

additional resources are needed to provide transit service to the County. Table 5-1 lists the projected

capital and operation costs as well as funding available to Indian River County for the period from

2012/13 through 2021/22.

Added revisions to the financial plan {14-73.001 F.A.C.)

This financial plan has been revised to add a new tenth year to the Financial Plan in the TDP major

update. That tenth year contains sufficient funding for all improvements included in the staged

implementation plan (Table 3-2), including changes to that plan introduced this year.


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

5-1

Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service

Weekday Span Improvements Rts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8

Weekday Span Rts 6, 9 I New IRSC Route

Sat Span Improvements Rts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

Weekday Freq. Improvements Rts 2, 4

Weekday Freq. Improvements Rts 1, 3, 10

Weekday Freq. Improvements Rt 8

Weekday Span Improvements Rts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

Weekday Span Improvements Rts S, 7, 11

Saturday Span Improvements Rts 5, 7, 10

Weekday Span Improvements Rts 5, 7, 10, 11

Strategic Initiatives

Paratransit Operating

Total Operating Cost

Fixed Route Buses

Paratransit Vehicles

Expansion Vehicles

Bus related, preventive maintenance, Associated capital, Vans, Trucks, Support Vehicles & Engine

Rebuilds, etc.

Shelters and Benches Program

Miscellaneous Capital (replacement of computers,

software, security equip., etc.)

lntermodal Hub

Admin I Operation Base Improvements

Total Capital Cost

Federal Section 5307 for Capitalized Operating

Federal Section 5311 for Op I Admin

Existing FOOT Block Grant

FOOT Corridor Service

FOOT Service Development

Farebox - Existing Services

County General Funds

County Other- Fellsmere, Sebastian

County/SRA Paratransit Revenues

Table 5-1

Planning Estimates of Costs & Revenues

2012-2016

1,326,005 222,034 228,695 235,556 111,233 114,570 118,007 121,062 124,694 128,435

266,9S8 274,967 283,216 303,109 312,202 321,568

na 137,483 141,608

na na 16S,209

na na na

na na na na na na

643,642 765,851

1,874,830 1,931,075 1,989,007

4,149,113 5,054,711 5,474,462

225,000 150,000 280,000

240,000 280,000

150,000 150,000 75,000

100,000 200,000 200,000

60,000 200,000 200,000

100,000 200,000 200,000

100,000 100,000 250,000

so,ooo 50,000

975,000 1,330,000 1,255,000

735,000 735,000 735,000

46,000 47,380 48,801

306,403 2SO,OOO 250,000

200,000 200,000 200,000

100,000 200,000 200,000

11,255 11,S93 11,941

519,038 534,609 550,648

58,380 60,132 61,935

1,874,830 1,931,075 1,989,007

1,365,785 1,406,758

242,623 249,901

121,547 125,193

132,288 136,257

291,712 300,464

331,215 341,152

145,856 150,232

170,166 175,271

167,127 172,141

na 90,838

na na

500,000 500,000

2,048,677 2,110,137

5,516,996 5,758,344 25,953,626

75,000 150,000

315,000 120,000

200,000 200,000

200,000 200,000

200,000 200,000

50,000

50,000 50,000

1,090,000 920,000 5,570,000

735,000 735,000

50,265 51,773

250,000 250,000

200,000' 200,000

200,000 200,000

12,299 12,668

567,167 584,182

63,794 65,707

2,048,677 2,110,137

Total Operating Revenues 3,850,906 3,969,789 4,047,332 4,127,202 4,209,467 20,204,696

,~';;!~~i?!?~t~~r~~K~C3el:l]Ifi~~~~¥!0[~~i?~"r .~;;~5\;,,~r;z;, :;;.~Et'~;'::';~ :f.;i.~.''• ~··••··;]f;!~~~1~:9;7;f'~'''. ····z't:i,~9S,:i1.2~~#)'t:.~ ;, ?·) ... <~:~~?iSJ!~9J', ,,;cfi~:.l :1l.'j~~~;z?~3f5E!~ ,,; ,, f@1J~~~)~J:Zil: ,.,;~~ 'i:!\fr£Kl?:i~~~;,~~§ii

Federal Section 5307 for Capital

Federal Section 5309- SAFETEA-LU

Federal Section 5317 New Freedom

FOOT Capital Match


August 2012

720,000

250,000

154,000

125,000

720,000

300,000

154,000

150,000

720,000

300,000

154,000

150,000

720,000

300,000

154,000

150,000

TOP Annual Update

5-2

Maintain Existing Fixed Route Service

Weekday Span Improvements Rts 1, 2, 3, 4, 8

Weekday Span Rts 6, 9 I New IRSC Route

Sat Span Improvements Rts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

Weekday Freq. Improvements Rts 2, 4

Weekday Freq. Improvements Rts 1, 3, 10

Weekday Freq. Improvements Rt 8

Weekday Span Improvements Rts 1, 2 ... 3, 4, 6, 8, 9

Weekday Span Improvements Rts 5, 7, 11

Saturday Span Improvements Rts 5, 7, 10

Weekday Span Improvements Rts 5, 7, 10, 11

Strategic Initiatives

Paratransit Operating

Total Operating Cost

Fixed Route Buses

Paratransit Vehicles

Expansion Vehicles

Bus related, preventive maintenance, Associated

capital, Vans, Trucks, Support Vehicles & Engine Rebuilds, etc.

Shelters and Benches Program

Miscellaneous Capital (replacement of computers, software, security equip., etc.)

lntermodal Hub

Admin I Operation Base Improvements

Total Capital Cost

Federal Section 5307 for Capitalized Operating

Federal Section 5311 for Op I Admin

Existing FOOT Block Grant

FOOT Corridor Service

FOOT Service Development

Farebox - Existing Services

County General Funds

County Other- Fellsmere, Sebastian

County/SRA Paratransit Revenues

Total Operating Revenues

!·.~it::·.~.li~~~Ii6Jt!C::?ll~.(~~~6I~~Zf:~;€~~.¥ .iid';•·· Federal Section 5307 for Capital

Federal Section 5309 - SAFETEA-LU

Federal Section 5317 New Freedom

FOOT Capital Match

Revenues


August 2012

Table 5-1 (cont.)

Planning Estimates of Costs & Revenues

2017-2021

1,448,961

257,398

128,949

140,345

309,478

351,386

154,739

180,529

177,305

93,563

103,159

500,000

2,173,442

6,019,254

120,000

80,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

so,ooo 850,000

735,000

53,327

250,000

200,000

200,000

13,048

601,708

67,679

2,173,442

4,294,204

. d~!t~~~P~'i?)t 720,000

300,000

154,000

1SO,OOO

· .: F~.'~il!~ ·· 1,485,185

263,832

132,172

143,853

317,214

360,170

158,607

185,042

181,737

95,902

105,737

500,000

2,227,778

6,157,229

120,000

80,000

200,000

200,000

200,000

50,000

850,000

735,000

54,660

250,000

200,000

200,000

13,374

616,104

69,371

2,227,775

4,366,284

•. ·.m?t~(i);~~~>·····. 720,000

300,000

154,000

150,000

1,324,000

.. • .... ~34.;;q§q;t•·····

1,522,315 1,560,372 1,599,382

270,428 277,188 284,118

13S,476 138,863 142,335

147,449 151,136 154,914

325,144 333,273 341,605

369,174 378,404 387,864

162,S72 166,636 170,802

189,668 194,410 199,270

186,280 190,937 195,711

98,300 100,757 103,276

108,380 111,090 113,867

500,000 500,000 500,000

2,283,472 2,340,559 2,399,073

6,298,660 6,443,626 6,592,217 57,464,612

120,000 120,000 120,000

80,000 80,000 80,000

200,000 200,000 200,000

200,000 200,000 200,000

200,000 200,000 200,000

50,000 50,000 50,000

850,000 850,000 850,000 9,820,000

735,000 735,000

S6,027 57,427 58,863

250,000 250,000 250,000

200,000 200,000 200,000

200,000 200,000 200,000

13,708 14,051 14,402

631,507 647,294 663,477

71,105 72,883 74,705

2,283,469 2,340,556 2,399,070

4,440,816 4,517,212 4,595,517 42,418,728

•• (:L{S:!i.~£~.~~))i. • . :.: ··~¥.!ji~.~~~~§~;;;.: \~ ;·t~f~~~~g;?:;qg}; f) ";i£ :~:\\(~§}.£'!.~.~~~~~))

720,000

300,000

154,000

150,000

720,000

300,000

154,000

150,000

720,000

300,000

154,000

150,000

1,324,000 13,165,000

TDP Annual Update

5-3

Appendix A

FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

ANNUAL UPDATE REQUIREMENTS

Rule 14-73.001(4) F.A.C. requires annual updates to be in the form of a progress report on the TDP and

to address the following elements:

(a) Past year's accomplishments compared to the original implementation program;

An evaluation of the past year's accomplishments is in Table 3-1.

(b) Analysis of any discrepancies between the plan and its implementation for the past year and steps

that will be taken to attain original goals and objectives;

With the exception of increasing the frequency of service on Routes 2 and 4, all action items for FY

2011/12 were accomplished. Increasing the frequency of service involves both capital and operating

costs, since it requires both the acquisition and operation of new vehicles. Due to the current economic

situation, funding is not available at this time to increase the frequency of service beyond present levels.

Service improvements, including increasing the frequency of service as well as increasing the hours of

service, will be examined in depth as part of the 2013 TDP Major Update, which is already underway.

(c) Any revisions to the implementation program for the coming year;

The implementation program for the coming year has been modified by removing programmed service

improvements for Routes 1 and 3. The programmed improvements would have decreased headways

from one hour to a ~ hour. As discussed above, the current financial climate will not support increasing

the frequency of service. An implementation plan for service improvements will be a component of the

2013 TDP Major Update, which is already underway.

{d) Revised implementation program for the tenth year;

(e) Added recommendations for the new tenth year of the updated plan;

New tenth year strategies are noted in Table 3-2 and labeled as "FY 2021/22". For this report, MPO staff

analyzed improvements reflected in the Major Update and included those strategies that were

appropriate for inclusion in the new tenth year.

(f) A revised financial plan; and


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

A-1

Table 5-1 contains a revised financial plan.

(g) A revised list of projects or services needed to meet the goals and objectives, including projects for

which funding may not have been identified.

There are no revisions to the projects or services contained in the adopted TDP.


August 2012

TDP Annual Update

A-2


MEMORANDUM

TO: Members ofthe Indian River County MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP MIt(_. FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

Community Development Director

Phillip J. Matson, AIC~IlA MPO Staff Director \ I v '-'

August 15,2012

STATUS REPORT OF MPO ADVISORY COMMITTEES

It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the TAC meeting of August 24, 2012.

CACMEETING

The CAC met on June 5, 2012 and considered the 2012113 - 2016117 Indian River County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). After discussing the TIP, and seeking clarification from staff on several TIP items, the CAC recommended that the MPO approve the TIP.

Also on June 5, the CAC considered the Scope of Services for the SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study. After considering the Scope of Services, the CAC recommended that the MPO approve the Scope of Services and issue a Work Order to the MPO's Highway and Special Studies General Planning Consultant.

MPOMEETING

At its June 13, 2012 meeting, the MPO also considered the 2012113 - 2016/17 Indian River County TIP and the Scope of Services for the SR 60 Twin Pairs Traffic Calming Feasibility Study. After providing comments to staff on those items, the MPO approved the items. With respect to the SR 60 Scope of Services, the MPO also authorized staff to issue a Work Order to the MPO's Highway and Special Studies General Planning Consultant in order to begin the study.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

The MPO and its advisory committees will next meet as follows:

MPO Meeting: September 12, 2012- 10:00 am TAC Meeting: September 28,2012-10:00 am BAC Meeting: October 23, 2012- 2:00 pm CAC Meeting: September 4, 2012- 2:00 pm

F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\T AC\20 12\8-24-12\Status Other Committees.doc

agenda - ircgov.com · us 1 53rd ave cr 510 widen to 6 lanes pd&e $4,915,000 pe staff...

Documents