final project traffic report road 769 (kings highway) final project traffic report january 2015...

County Road 769 (Kings Highway) Final Project Traffic Report December 2014

Final Project Traffic Report County Road 769 (Kings Highway) from 0.5 Miles South of the Charlotte/DeSoto County Line to Peace River Street, Desoto County, FL Prepared For: FDOT District 1 – Bartow FIN: 431297-1-22-01 Prepared By: RK&K 101 West Main Street, Suite 240 Lakeland, Florida 33815

January 2015

County Road 769 (Kings Highway) Final Project Traffic Report January 2015

Project Traffic Report Certification

For

CR 769 (Kings Highway) from approximately 2,700 feet south of the Charlotte/Desoto County Line to Peace River Street, Desoto County, Florida

Financial Project ID No. 431297-1-22-01

I, Richard M. Oujevolk (FL PE No. 40205), certify that the Project Traffic Report for CR 769 (Kings Highway) from approximately 0.5 miles south of the Charlotte/DeSoto County Line to Peace River Street in DeSoto County has been prepared in accordance with FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Procedure Topic Number 525-030-120h (April 17, 2012) and supplemental guidance as provided within the FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook (2014 edition). All information as provided within Project Traffic Report has been prepared using current information (available at the time of document preparation), transportation planning and traffic engineering practices and procedures.

Richard M. Oujevolk, PE No. 40205

Date

Rummel, Klepper and Kahl, LLP

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 2 | P a g e


Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................................................... 5 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Traffic Count Information .......................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Existing Lane Configuration ....................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Existing (2014) Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................. 9 3.4 Design Characteristics ............................................................................................................... 9 3.5 Existing (2014) Directional Design Hour Volumes & Turning Movement Counts ................... 12 3.6 Existing (2014) Traffic Operations/ Level of Service ............................................................... 12

3.6.1 Existing (2014) Intersection LOS Analysis .................................................................... 12 3.6.2 Existing (2014) Roadway Operational Analysis ............................................................ 12

4.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................. 17 4.1 Historical Crash Data ............................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Potential Mitigation Strategies ............................................................................................... 20 4.3 Crash Reduction and Benefit Cost Analysis ............................................................................. 20

5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTS ........................................................................................................... 21 5.1 Model Validation ..................................................................................................................... 21 5.2 Growth Factor ......................................................................................................................... 24 5.3 Future Year Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 25

6.0 FUTURE YEAR NO-BUILD OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................... 25 6.1 Future Year No-Build Intersection LOS Analysis ...................................................................... 25 6.2 Future Year No-Build Roadway Operational LOS Analysis ...................................................... 30

7.0 FUTURE BUILD OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 32 7.1 Build Alternative 1 ................................................................................................................... 36 7.2 Build Alternative 1-A ............................................................................................................... 40 7.3 Build Alternative 1-B................................................................................................................ 40 7.4 Queue Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 44

8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 47

Appendices Appendix A - Traffic Counts Appendix B - TURNS5 Output Sheets Appendix C - Existing Condition Analysis Worksheets Appendix D - CR 769 Safety Predictive Analysis Worksheets Appendix E - Future Year No-Build Condition Analysis Worksheets Appendix F - Future Year Build Condition Analysis Worksheets Appendix G - Other FDOT Information

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 3 | P a g e


List of Figures Figure 1: Project Site Map ............................................................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: Charlotte County 2035 Long Range Plan ....................................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Traffic Count Locations by Type ..................................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Existing Lane Configuration ......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5: Existing Intersection Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................................... 14 Figure 6: Crash Summaries for CR 769 from Sandhill Boulevard to Peace River Street ............................. 18 Figure 7: Crash Summaries for CR 769 from Peace River Street to SR 72 ................................................... 19 Figure 8: FSUTMS Highway Network Screenlines ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 9: Opening Year Turning Movement Volumes................................................................................. 26 Figure 10: Interim Year Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................ 27 Figure 11: Design Year Turning Movement Volumes ................................................................................. 28 Figure 12: Build Alternative 1 Conceptual layout ....................................................................................... 33 Figure 13: Build Alternative 1-A Conceptual layout .................................................................................... 34 Figure 14: Build Alternative 1-B Conceptual layout .................................................................................... 35

List of Tables

Table 1. Existing Year (2014) AADT Estimates ............................................................................................ 11 Table 2. Summary of Traffic Factors ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 3. Future Year AADT Estimates ......................................................................................................... 13 Table 4. Existing Intersection Design Hour Operations .............................................................................. 15 Table 5. LOS Criteria for Class-III Two-Lane Highways ................................................................................ 16 Table 6. HCS Two-Lane Highway Analysis Results ...................................................................................... 16 Table 7. FDOT’s LOS Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 16 Table 8. CR 769 Segment Analyses between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place ............................... 17 Table 9. Crash Mitigation Strategies & Benefits ......................................................................................... 20 Table 10. Volume and Count Comparisons by Screenlines ........................................................................ 24 Table 11. Future Year No-Build Intersection Analysis Results .................................................................... 29 Table 12. Design Year No-Build Queue Analysis Results ............................................................................. 31 Table 13. HCS 2010 Future Year No-Build Analysis Results ........................................................................ 31 Table 14. CR 769 Future Year Segment Analyses between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place ......... 32 Table 15: Build Alternative 1 Intersection Analysis Results ........................................................................ 37 Table 16: LOS Criteria for Multilane Highways ........................................................................................... 38 Table 17: HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1 Analysis Results ............................................................................ 39 Table 18. Build Alternative 1-A Intersection Analysis Results .................................................................... 41 Table 19: HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1-A Analysis Results ........................................................................ 42 Table 20: Build Alternative 1-B Intersection Analysis Results .................................................................... 43 Table 21: HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1-B Analysis Results ........................................................................ 44 Table 22: Design Year Build Queue Analysis Results .................................................................................. 45

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 4 | P a g e


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is evaluating the proposed widening of County Road (CR) 769 from the existing two- lane undivided facility to a four- lane divided facility.

CR 769 (Kings Highway) is a north-south corridor running through DeSoto and Charlotte Counties. Within the project area, CR 769 is located in southwest DeSoto County with a small portion of the project extending into Charlotte County to Sandhill Boulevard. The project location and limits are shown in Figure 1. Additionally, CR 769 is a secondary state route which is a federal funding eligible non-state highway extending from US 41 in Punta Gorda to State Road (SR) 72 in DeSoto County.

The project study area shown in Figure 1 is approximately 2.77 miles (mi) along CR 769 from approximately 0.5 mi south of the Charlotte/DeSoto County Line to Peace River Street. This study evaluates AM and PM peak hour existing conditions as well as the future Opening (2020) and Design year (2040) for the proposed widening project.

2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION

DeSoto is a rural county which is not contained within any Metropolitan or Transportation Planning Organization boundary. In order to help identify future transportation needs, FDOT District 1 has been assisting rural counties in the preparation of Transportation Needs Assessment Reports. Per the report prepared for DeSoto County in February 2011, CR 769 has been identified as a facility needing to be upgraded from the existing undivided two-lane facility to a four-lane divided facility for the horizon year of 2035 for a total length of approximately 13.7 mi from 0.5 mi south of the Charlotte/DeSoto County Line to SR 72. The objective of this study is to determine travel demand within the project area, feasibility of widening, future year traffic analysis and document any safety concerns along CR 769.

The southernmost portion of the project (Sandhill Boulevard) to just north of the Lake Suzy community (approximately 1.10 mi) is within the Charlotte County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) service area although it is in DeSoto County. The project is shown within the Charlotte County Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a cost affordable project. The extracted pages from the Charlotte County LRTP (map) are shown in Figure 2.

3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Within the project area, CR 769 is a two-lane undivided roadway and is classified as a minor arterial. The posted limit for CR 769 within the study area is 55 and 45 miles per hour (mph) north and south of Agnes Street respectively. All the intersections along CR 769 within the study area are unsignalized.

3.1 Traffic Count Information

Location and type of traffic count data collected for the study is illustrated in Figure 3. The data collected includes:

• Turning Movement Counts • 24-hour bi-directional volume counts • 72-hour classification counts

Intersection turning movement counts were collected during the weekdays (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday) during AM, Noon and PM peak periods. Traffic count sheets are included in Appendix A.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 5 | P a g e


Figure 1: Project Site Map

N

Sandhill Boulevard

PD&E Study Limits0.5 miles South of Charlotte/Desoto C/L

ToPeace River Street

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 6 | P a g e


Figure 2: Charlotte County 2035 Long Range Plan

PD&E Study Limits 0.5 miles South of Charlotte/Desoto

C/L To

Peace River Street

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 7 | P a g e


Figure 3: Traffic Count Locations by Type

769

761

Peace River St.

Sandhill Blvd.

Charlotte Co. DeSoto Co.

NN

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.

So. Kingsway Cr.

St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtly Manor Dr.

Legend Turning Movement Count (Times vary)

72

72

24 Hour Bi-Directional Volume

72 Hour Bi-Directional Classification 72

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 8 | P a g e


3.2 Existing Lane Configuration

CR 769 is a two-lane undivided facility with turn lane provisions at some of the intersections. Figure 4 illustrates the existing lane configuration. The following intersections (all unsignalized) along CR 769 were analyzed:

• CR 769 at St. James Place • CR 769 at S. Kingsway Circle • CR 769 at Courtly Manor • CR 769 at N. Kingsway Circle • CR 769 at SW Glenadine Avenue • CR 769 at Spring Lake Drive • CR 769 at Agnes Street • CR 769 at Peace River Street

3.3 Existing (2014) Traffic Volumes

The 2014 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes were estimated by applying the appropriate seasonal and axle adjustment factors to the 24 hour traffic counts. The seasonal factors for DeSoto County were obtained from FDOT’s Florida Traffic Online website and are provided in Appendix A. The 2013 seasonal factor provided for the 8th week of 2013 is 0.88. Specific axle factor computations for this segment of CR 769 were developed using 72-hour classification counts from the data collection efforts. Classification counts collected along CR 769 at a point south of CR 761 were used, which resulted in an axle adjustment factor of 0.98. The estimated 2014 AADT volumes for CR 769 and the cross streets are presented in Table 1.

3.4 Design Characteristics

Traffic count data collected for the study area and information from FDOT’s traffic count database was reviewed to determine applicable traffic characteristics. Table 2 provides an overview of traffic factors for the study area. As shown in Table 2, at locations south of CR 761, FDOT stations (014105 and 044002) provided K-factors of 0.090 and 0.095, while actual traffic counts at the same locations provided K factors of 0.082 and 0.085. An average of all the K-factors yielded a value of 0.088. However, a maximum of all the K factor values of 0.095 was used for the analysis. Similarly, a D-value, daily truck factor (Tdaily) and peak truck factor (Tpeak) values were calculated and their averages were used for the analysis. A Peak Hour Factor of 0.85, used in suburban areas, was used for traffic operation analysis. Additionally, a D-Factor of 0.538 was used for CR 769, while the values of D-Factor for cross streets varied but were generally 0.58. It should be noted that a review of the Turns5 spreadsheet will show a rounded value of 0.54 (rounded from 0.538) was used in the Turns5 spreadsheets for the CR 769 mainline.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 9 | P a g e


Figure 4: Existing Lane Configuration

769

Peace River St.

Sandhill Blvd.


NN

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.

So. Kingsway Cr.

St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtly Manor Dr.

Legend

Existing Traffic Lanes

Commercial Drive(s)

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 10 | P a g e


Table 1. Existing Year (2014) AADT Estimates

ADT to AADT

Location Along CR 769 2014 ADT (Field Counts)

Seasonal Factor

Axle Factor

2014 AADT

2014 AADT

Rounded

Mainline Characteristics (CR 769) South of St James Pl 17,106 0.88 0.98 14,752 14,800 Between S Kingsway and St James Pl 16,358 0.88 0.98 14,107 14,100 North of S Kingsway and Courtly Manor 14,412 0.88 0.98 12,429 12,400 South of N Kingsway 14,369 0.88 0.98 12,392 12,400 North of N Kingsway 12,662 0.88 0.98 10,920 10,900 South of SW Glenadine Ave 12,102 0.88 0.98 10,437 10,400 Between Spring Lake and SW Glenadine Ave 11,945 0.88 0.98 10,301 10,300 Between Agnes St and Spring Lake Dr 11,810 0.88 0.98 10,185 10,200 North of Agnes Street 11,705 0.88 0.98 10,094 10,100 South of Peace River Street 11,643 0.88 0.98 10,041 10,000 North of Peace River Street 10,746 0.88 0.98 9,267 9,300 South Of CR 761 9,631 0.88 0.98 8,306 8,300 North of CR 761 5,066 0.88 0.98 4,369 4,400

Side Street Characteristics St James Pl West of CR 769 727 0.88 0.98 627 600 S Kingsway West of CR 769 1,848 0.88 0.98 1,594 1,600 Courtly Manor East of CR 769 469 0.88 0.98 404 400 N Kingsway West of CR 769 1,995 0.88 0.98 1,720 1,700 SW Glenadine Ave East of CR 769 276 0.88 0.98 238 200 Spring Lake Dr East of CR 769 143 0.88 0.98 123 100 Agnes St East of CR 769 165 0.88 0.98 142 100 Peace River St East of CR 769 1,434 0.88 0.98 1,237 1,200

Table 2. Summary of Traffic Factors

Count Type/ Station Location along CR 769

Measured ‘K’

Measured ‘D’

Measured Tdaily (%)

Measured Tpeak (%)

FDOT - 014105 South of Sandhill Blvd. 0.090 0.531 7.1% NA

3 Day Classification CR 769 at County Line 0.082 0.541 6.9% 5.9%

FDOT - 044002 0.36 mile South of CR

761 0.095 0.540 8.9% NA

3 Day Classification CR 769 South of CR 761 0.085 0.539 6.7% 5.9% Average of all South of CR 761 NA 0.088 0.538 7.4% 5.9%

Use South of CR 761 along CR 769 NA 0.095 (1) 0.538 (2,3) 7.4% 5.9% (1) Use of Standard FDOT K Value is recommended. Rural area value. (2) Values for cross street D Values varied. See Turns5 spreadsheets in Appendix B. (3) 0.538 value rounded to 0.54 for turns spreadsheet for mainline. 0.58 used for cross streets.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 11 | P a g e


3.5 Existing (2014) Directional Design Hour Volumes & Turning Movement Counts

Directional Design Hour Volumes (DDHV) and design hour intersection turning movement volumes were developed using traffic factors as shown in Table 2 (K x D = DDHV) and FDOT’s TURNS5 program, respectively. AADT, existing turning movement counts and design characteristics shown in Tables 1 and 2 were used as inputs to TURNS5 program. Future year AADT projections are presented in Table 3. Intersection turning movement volumes generated by the TURNS5 program were compared to the existing turning movement counts collected for this project and minor adjustments were made both manually and through minor manipulation of the cross street D-factors. TURNS5 outputs are presented in Appendix B, while the existing year 2014 intersection turning movement volumes used for traffic operation analysis are shown in Figure 5. Mainline and cross street DDHVs provided in Table 3 were developed using K=0.095 and D = 0.538. It should be noted that this represents only a 0.4% difference (4 vehicle per 1,000) then use of the D values used to generate actual turning movements, but provided a better balance of values for side street values shown in Table 3 and those generated with the Turns5 spreadsheet do to peak and off-peak conditions during the am and pm peak hours.

3.6 Existing (2014) Traffic Operations/ Level of Service

Intersection operations were evaluated using the volumes presented in Figure 5, the existing intersection lane geometry and traffic control. Intersection capacity analyses were performed utilizing techniques consistent with the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) from Synchro traffic analysis software (Version 8, Build 804, Revision 795) for all the unsignalized intersections within the study area. The results are shown as a level-of-service (LOS) rating, which is a qualitative assessment of the traffic flow characteristics described by a letter designation ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing the best possible operating conditions and LOS F representing congested conditions. Roadway operational analyses were performed using Highway Capacity Software (HCS) 2010 (Version 5.10).

3.6.1 Existing (2014) Intersection LOS Analysis

Synchro/SimTraffic was used to perform intersection analyses for all the unsignalized intersections in the study area. For unsignalized intersections, a control delay less than 10 seconds is considered LOS A, while control delay of 35-50 seconds and greater than 50 seconds are considered LOS E and F, respectively. Unsignalized capacity analysis produces an LOS result only for each yielding vehicle movement since free-flowing movements are not constrained. Thus, the intersection LOS is controlled by the movement with the highest delay.

Table 4 presents the delay and LOS results from the unsignalized intersection analysis. Based on the analysis results, CR 769 intersection with St. James Place is currently operating at LOS E, while CR 769 intersections with S. Kingsway Circle and Courtly Manor are currently operating at LOS D during both peak periods. Additionally, CR 769 intersections with N. Kingsway Circle, SW Glenadine Avenue, Spring Lake Drive, Agnes Street and Peace River Street are currently operating at LOS C during both peak periods.

Synchro analysis worksheets for the existing conditions are included in Appendix C.

3.6.2 Existing (2014) Roadway Operational Analysis

A two-lane highway analysis in HCS 2010 was performed to evaluate the existing traffic operations along CR 769. As two-lane highways serve a wide range of functions, HCM 2010 categorizes two-lane highways into three different classes, and based on these definitions, CR 769 would be categorized as a Class-III two-lane highway.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 12 | P a g e


Table 3. Future Year AADT Estimates

Location Along CR 769 2014

Estimated AADT

Growth Rate

(Linear)

Growth Factor AADT K * D (0.095 x 0.538)

DDHV 2014 to

2020 2014 to

2030 2014 to

2040 2020 2030 2040 2014 2020 2030 2040

Mainline Characteristics (CR 769)

South of St James Pl 14,800 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 18,400 24,400 30,400 0.05111 755 940 1,245 1,555

Between S Kingsway and St James Pl 14,100 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 17,500 23,200 28,900 0.05111 720 895 1,185 1,475

North of S Kingsway and Courtly Manor 12,400 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 15,400 20,400 25,500 0.05111 635 785 1,045 1,305

South of N Kingsway 12,400 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 15,400 20,400 25,500 0.05111 635 785 1,045 1,305

North of N Kingsway 10,900 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 13,500 18,000 22,400 0.05111 555 690 920 1,145

South of SW Glenadine Ave 10,400 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 12,900 17,100 21,400 0.05111 530 660 875 1,095

Between Spring Lake and SW Glenadine Ave 10,300 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 12,800 17,000 21,100 0.05111 525 655 870 1,080

Between Agnes St and Spring Lake Dr 10,200 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 12,700 16,800 20,900 0.05111 520 650 860 1,070

North of Agnes Street 10,100 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 12,600 16,600 20,700 0.05111 515 645 850 1,060

South of Peace River Street 10,000 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 12,400 16,500 20,500 0.05111 510 635 845 1,050

North of Peace River Street 9,300 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 11,600 15,300 19,100 0.05111 475 595 780 975

South Of CR 761 8,300 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 10,300 13,700 17,000 0.05111 425 525 700 870

North of CR 761 4,400 4.05% 1.2430 1.6480 2.0530 5,500 7,300 9,000 0.05111 225 280 375 460

Side Street Characteristics

St James Pl West of CR 769 600 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 600 700 800 0.05111 30 30 35 40

S Kingsway West of CR 769 1,600 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 1,700 1,900 2,000 0.05111 80 85 95 100

Courtly Manor East of CR 769 400 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 400 500 500 0.05111 20 20 25 25

N Kingsway West of CR 769 1,700 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 1,800 2,000 2,100 0.05111 85 90 100 105

SW Glenadine Ave East of CR 769 200 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 200 200 300 0.05111 10 10 10 15

Spring Lake Dr East of CR 769 100 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 100 100 100 0.05111 5 5 5 5

Agnes St East of CR 769 100 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 100 100 100 0.05111 5 5 5 5

Peace River St East of CR 769 1,200 1.00% 1.0600 1.1600 1.2600 1,300 1,400 1,500 0.05111 60 65 70 75

Note: DDHV estimates are based on CR 769 mainline K*D versus side street. The difference is 0.4% in estimate volumes (4 per 1,000 vehicles)

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 13 | P a g e


Figure 5: Existing Intersection Turning Movement Volumes

769

Peace River St.

Charlotte Co.Desoto Co.

N

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.

So. Kingsway Cr.

St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtly Manor Dr.

LegendTurning Movement

CommercialDrive(s)

14,800755

14,100720

12,400635

10,900555

10,300525

10,200520

10,100515

9,300475

10,400530

10,000510

1,20060

20010

1,70085

400201,600

80

60030

1005

1005

31 (24)

24 (31)

616 (723)2

(2)

2 (2)

723

(616

)538 (661)

12 (15)

15 (15)82 (49)

631

(538

)

8 (9

)

14 (19)82 (49)

528 (450)

49 (82)

15 (12)9 (8)

450

(528

)19

(14

)

5 (4)4 (4)

446 (523)450 (528)

4 (5)52

8 (4

50)

4 (4

)

4 (5)52

3 (4

46)

2 (2

)51

8 (4

41)

2 (2

)

4 (5)

441 (518)

2 (2)

5 (4)

44 (51)

398 (467)

467

(398

)

8 (9

) 9 (8)51 (44)

2 (2)5 (4)

49 (82)

15 (

15)

15 (15) AM (PM) Traffic Volume

12,400635

CR 769AADTDDHV

1,60060

Cross StreetAADTDDHV

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 14 | P a g e


Table 4. Existing Intersection Design Hour Operations

Intersection Movement

Existing Condition HCM 2010 Analysis Results AM PM

Delay (s/veh) v/c LOS Delay

(s/veh) v/c LOS

CR 769/ St James Pl

EBL 40.1 0.02 E 41.1 0.02 E EBR 16.3 0.10 C 14.2 0.07 B NBL 9.9 0.03 A 9.37 0.04 A NBT - - - - SBT - - - - SBR - - - -

CR 769/ S Kingsway Circle EB L/R 25.2 0.39 D 26.0 0.31 D NB L/T 9.7 0.07 A 9.4 0.10 A SB T/R - - - -

CR 769/ Courtly Manor WB L/R 26.1 0.14 D 25.6 0.12 D NB T/R - - - - SB L/T 8.9 0.01 A 9.3 0.01 A

CR 769/ N Kingsway Circle

EB L/R 19.7 0.32 C 21.8 0.27 C NBL 9.3 0.06 A 9.0 0.10 A NBT - - - -

SB L/T - - - -

CR 769/ SW Glenadine Ave WB L/R 18.0 0.04 C 17.8 0.03 C NB T/R - - - - SB L/T 8.6 0.01 A 8.9 0.01 A

CR 769/ Spring Lake Dr WB L/R 19.3 0.03 C 19 0.03 C NB T/R - - - - SB L/T 8.6 0.01 A 8.8 0.01 A

CR 769/ Agnes St WB L/R 19.1 0.03 C 18.8 0.03 C NB T/R - - - SB L/T 8.5 0.01 A 8.8 0.01 A

CR 769/ Peace River Street

WB L/R 22.6 0.26 C 21.7 0.21 C NBT - - - - NBR - - - - SBL 8.4 0.01 A 8.6 0.01 A SBT - - - -

Two-lane highway analysis involves an estimation of Free Flow Speed (FFS). In the absence of speed studies conducted in the field to determine FFS, a Base Free Flow Speed (BFFS) is estimated and adjusted for lane width, shoulder width and access point density to arrive at FFS. HCM 2010 recommends using a BFFS equal to posted speed limit plus 10 mph. Throughout HCS 2010 two-lane highway analysis for CR 769, for sections north of Agnes Street where posted speed limit is 55 mph, a BFFS of 65 mph has been assumed, while for sections south of Agnes Street, where posted speed limit is 45 mph, a BFFS of 55 mph has been assumed for analysis. Once FFS is estimated, the Average Travel Speed (ATS) within the segment is calculated. LOS for Class-III two-lane highways is determined based on Percent of Free Flow Speed (PFFS), which represents the ability of vehicles to travel at or near the FFS. Table 5 presents the HCM 2010 LOS criteria for Class-III two-lane highways. LOS A indicates an average travel speed greater than 91.7% of the FFS while LOS E indicates an average travel speed lesser than 66.7% of the FFS.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 15 | P a g e


Table 5. LOS Criteria for Class-III Two-Lane Highways

LOS Class III Highways PFFS (%)

A >91.7 B >83.3-91.7 C >75.0–83.3 D >66.7–75.0 E ≤66.7

Note: PFFS= Percent of Free Flow Speed

Existing condition HCS 2010 analysis results are presented in Table 6. Based on the results, the roadway segment along CR 769 between St. James Place and S. Kingsway Circle is currently operating at LOS D during both peak periods in both directions, while the segment between Courtly Manor and N. Kingsway Circle is operating at LOS D during at least one of the peak periods in one of the directions. CR 769 roadway segments between N. Kingsway Circle & SW Glenadine Avenue and Agnes Street & Peace River Street are operating at LOS C during both peak periods in both the directions, per HCS 2010 results.

HCS 2010 analysis worksheets for the Existing conditions are presented in Appendix C.

Table 6. HCS Two-Lane Highway Analysis Results

Along CR 769 Analysis Direction

AM PM

From To PFFS (%) LOS PFFS (%) LOS

St. James Pl S. Kingsway Cir NB 73.3 D 72.8 D SB 72.8 D 73.3 D

Courtly Manor N. Kingsway Cir NB 75.6 C 74.5 D SB 74.5 D 75.6 C

N. Kingsway Cir SW Glenadine Ave NB 77.4 C 76.3 C SB 76.3 C 77.4 C

Agnes St Peace River St NB 81.9 C 80.7 C SB 80.7 C 81.9 C

Note: PFFS-Percent of Free-Flow Speed

The segment of CR 769 between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place has the characteristics of an arterial. Thus, LOS measure for this segment is based on Table-8 in the FDOT’s Quality and Level of Service Handbook. Table 7 presents LOS thresholds as per FDOT’s handbook.

Table 7. FDOT’s LOS Criteria

Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volumes

Lanes Median LOS Thresholds For Class 1 Non State Signalized Roadways

B C D E 1 Undivided * 640 720 *

2 Divided * 1,570 1,640 *

Currently, CR 769 is a four-lane divided roadway at Sandhill Boulevard and transitions to a two-lane undivided segment north of Sandhill Boulevard. Table 8 presents both two-lane and multilane arterial analysis results for the roadway segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place. Per analysis

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 16 | P a g e


results, the multi-lane portion of the segment is currently operating at LOS C during both peak periods in both the directions, while the two-lane portion of the segment is operating at LOS F during both the peak periods in at least one of the directions.

Table 8. CR 769 Segment Analyses between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place

Along CR 769 Facility Type

Analysis Direction

AM PM From To DDHV LOS DDHV LOS

Sandhill Boulevard St. James Pl Multi-Lane NB 650 C 755 C SB 755 C 650 C

St. James Pl Sandhill Boulevard Two-Lane NB 650 D 755 F SB 755 F 650 D

Note: LOS is based on FDOT's Quality and Level of Service handbook Generalized Service Volume Table-8 DDHV= Directional Design Hourly Volume

4.0 SAFETY ANALYSIS

To fully capture the impact of a longer corridor on the safety impacts for this project, the study limits for safety analysis along CR 769 extends beyond Peace River Street to SR 72. Therefore, the complete study area for the safety review extends from Sandhill Boulevard northward to SR 72. Potential strategies outside the study area for this Project Traffic Report could be considered as short term improvements for potential implementation under safety funding programs.

4.1 Historical Crash Data

FDOT provided five (5) years of crash data for analysis between 2009 and 2014 for CR 769 from the Charlotte County Line to Peace River Street and for the intersection of CR 769 and CR 761 located north of Lake Suzy. During the analysis period, 56 crashes occurred along CR 769 within the study area, with 15 additional crashes at the intersection with CR 761. The total crashes were further analyzed based on severity, type, daylight conditions, and roadway surface conditions. This analysis was used for determining cost-efficient modifications to the roadway and intersection that would be expected to reduce crashes within the Study Area. Figure 6 provides an overall summary of crashes for the area between Sandhill Boulevard to Peace River Street. Figure 7 provides the same information for the remaining segment from Peace River Street to SR 72.

Based on the information provided in the crash reports, the following are some of the key trends in the study area:

CR 769 from Charlotte County Line to Peace River Street:

• A total of 56 crashes in the five year study period • Crash rate: 128.70 crashes per 100 Million Vehicle Miles Travelled (MVMT) • Four fatalities during the study period • Rear end type collisions are predominant (25%) followed by off-road (16%) and left turn (11%)

collisions. • Most of the crashes reported are non-junction collisions (64%). Intersection crashes along the

study corridor account for 32% of all the crashes.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 17 | P a g e


Figure 6: Crash Summaries for CR 769 from Sandhill Boulevard to Peace River Street

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 18 | P a g e


Figure 7: Crash Summaries for CR 769 from Peace River Street to SR 72

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 19 | P a g e


CR 769 from Peace River Street to SR 72:

• A total of 119 crashes in the study period. • Crash rate: 79.39 crashes per 100 MVMT • Three fatalities during the study period. • Off-road collisions are predominant (34%), followed by rear end (14%) and left turn (11%)

collisions. • Most of the crashes reported are non-junction collisions (65%). Intersection crashes along the

study corridor account for 31% of all the crashes.

4.2 Potential Mitigation Strategies

Based on crash information, potential mitigation strategies were evaluated for both crash reduction and benefit-cost. The only analyzed mitigation strategy for the segment of CR 769 from Sandhill Boulevard to Peace River Street, was the proposed widening from the existing two-lane undivided roadway to a four lane divided roadway. At the intersection of CR 769 and CR 761, possible mitigation strategies to reduce crashes include signalizing the intersection, installation of flashing beacons, and lengthening/improving the acceleration lane for the channelized right turn from CR 761.

4.3 Crash Reduction and Benefit Cost Analysis

To determine total crash reduction, crash reduction factors for each of the proposed modifications from the Florida Department of Transportation 2014 Crash Reduction Factors Table (CRF) were applied to the total number of crashes for the mainline and intersection separately. This information was also used for benefit-cost analysis in accordance with Florida's Transportation Engineers Roadway Design Benefit-Cost form for the proposed modifications. Results from both analyses are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Crash Mitigation Strategies & Benefits

Improvement ID

Improvement Description (Options)

No-Build Historical Crashes

Approximate Crash Reduction

Factors

Approximate Crash

Reduction

Benefit- Cost Ratio

1 Lanes added to travel way 56 13% 7 1.26

2 New signal at channelized

intersection 15 12% 2 5.91

3 Install flashing warning signal (flashing beacon) 15 -29% -4 -25.95

4 Lengthen acceleration/ deceleration lanes 15 0% 0 0.00

5 Option 2 + 4 15 12% 2 3.88

6 Option 3 + 4 15 -29% -4 -12.97 Notes: Improvement ID #1: CR 769 from Sandhill Boulevard to Peace River Street Improvement ID's # 2-6: CR 769 at CR 761 intersection

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 20 | P a g e


A crash rate reduction factor was calculated for the proposed widening from the existing two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway along CR 769 from Sandhill Boulevard to Peace River Street. The proposed improvement is expected to provide an approximate crash rate reduction of 13% or 7 crashes per year and yields a benefit-cost ratio of 1.26.

The intersection of CR 769 and CR 761 is expected to benefit from the analyzed safety improvements. As shown in Table 9, the intersection will benefit the most from the installation of a traffic signal. This improvement yields a benefit-cost ratio of 5.91 and could reduce crashes by 12%. It should be noted that using FDOT’s 2010 CRF data, the lengthening of Acceleration or Deceleration lanes registered a notable crash reduction but in the 2014 update these values were changed to 0. The predictive analysis for CR 769 is included in Appendix D.

5.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC FORECASTS

The DeSoto County Travel Demand Model was used to develop future year traffic forecasts. Future year traffic volumes were developed for the Opening year (2020), Interim year (2030) and Design year (2040). CR 769 is the primary route from the City of North Port (Charlotte County) to SR 72 in Desoto County. Just east of CR 769 is the Peace River. Based on this being the only travel route to this area, future demand was assumed to stay constant under a no build or build scenario. One alternative route, US 17, is located further east (of the Peace River) and crossings are provided at CR 760 and CR 761. This assumption was confirmed through the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) corridor modeling process (2-Lane versus 4-lane divided) showing minimal changes.

5.1 Model Validation

This study used the same model application and performed a model evaluation update (mini- validation) for the entire DeSoto County travel demand model due to the following factors:

• A relatively small size of the DeSoto County model • Both local and regional traffic circulation along CR 769

This methodology was reviewed and approved by FDOT District 1 staff. Based on the last 5-6 years of economic recession, discussions with FDOT D1 staff and past experience, the validation used recent year (2012 FDOT and project 2014) traffic counts in mini-validation efforts.

There are 99 internal traffic zones and 11 cordon stations in the DeSoto County travel demand model. The model was evaluated by examining the volumes across five screenlines and cordon stations. Figure 8 depicts the Cube Voyager Highway Network with the location of the screenlines used in this evaluation.

The base year model was originally validated for the year 2007. No major highway improvements have been implemented since the model validation. The only network coding modification was the addition of Peace River Street, along the corridor, for this project. As Peace River Street carries traffic to and from a boat ramp to the Peace River, a restaurant and approximately 150 residential units, it is considered to be a minor collector.

The traffic analysis zones (TAZs) were examined in order to determine if there is sufficient zone detail for the analysis of the CR 769 corridor. A review of the current zonal structure indicates it is sufficient to properly load the facility.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 21 | P a g e


Figure 8: FSUTMS Highway Network Screenlines

Screenline 1Screenline 2Screenline 3Screenline 4Screenline 5FTYPE 51 – Centroid ConnectorsScreenline 99 - External Cordon Stations

SR 70SR 72

CR 769

Arcadia

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 22 | P a g e


The assigned volumes from the DeSoto County travel demand model were compared against the most recent (available at the time of the analysis) 2012 FDOT traffic counts and 72 hour traffic counts collected for this study in February 2014. This evaluation was to determine if the need existed to modify/increase trip tables to improve validation efforts. The evaluation indicated that some roads had experienced minor growth since 2007. However, the majority of roads had shown very little, no growth and in some cases shown declines in traffic volumes. Based on this review and consultation with D1 staff, the travel demand trip table was held constant for the validation efforts. One cordon station did show enough growth to justify a manual modification. The cordon station at the Charlotte/DeSoto County Line has shown enough growth since 2008 to manually modify the traffic count volume. The modeled volume for that cordon station was approximately 17.8 percent below the most recent 2012 FDOT and 2014 (adjusted) project traffic count. The CR 769 model volume of 11,290 from the 2007 validation year model was updated to 13,295.

The results of the mini-validation efforts are shown in Table 10 for the five screenlines and the cordon stations. The peak season weekday average traffic volumes (PSWADT) are either adjusted from the FDOT traffic count database or adjusted recent 2014 traffic count data collected for this project.

The comparison of travel demand model output versus counts is favorable. In many cases, the current validation is good or improved over the original year 2007 validation results. Criteria for screenlines are as follows:

• links should be within 10 percent of the total assigned volumes, and • the root mean square error (RMSE) is a standard statistical test for model validity and should be

30 percent or less.

Screenlines 2, 3 and 4 fall within these criteria without any adjustments. Screenlines 1 and 5 do not meet the criteria for specific reasons and required additional evaluation. Screenline 5 includes CR 760 (east of 31), has very low traffic volumes. The numerical difference of 93 vehicles PSWADT versus actual count volume of 288 is a relatively small difference. The percentage difference is very high. As a result of this discrepancy the entire screenline is off. If CR 760 is removed from the analysis, the remaining two links along SR 31 and SR 70 meet the validation criteria.

US 17 along screenline 1 did not validate well with the 2007 traffic counts. The original year 2007 validation indicated the US 17 location was approximately 28 percent higher than actual traffic counts. The newer traffic counts from 2012 indicate that the US 17 traffic counts has decreased from 2007, increasing the difference to approximately 58 percent. The exact differences as noted in Table 10 Screenline 1 for US 17 are a model projected volume of 13,247 PSWADT versus 8,380 PSWADT count or a difference of approximately 4,867 PSWADT between model projected and count value. Although the value may seem significant, US 17 is a four-lane rural multilane highway in this area and the capacity is approximately 69,600 vehicles per day. The difference, although appearing large, has minimal impact to model assignments when considering impacts as related to volume to capacity or shifting of traffic due to congested road segments as they do not exist. Excluding this location, the remaining locations along SW Hull Avenue, CR 769 and SR 31 meet the validation requirements. CR 769 performs well at this location, as do the three cordon stations along the Charlotte/DeSoto County Line with the one adjustment at the County Line for CR 769 as mentioned previously. Based on this analysis, no further adjustments to the travel demand model were made.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 23 | P a g e


Table 10. Volume and Count Comparisons by Screenlines

Route Total PSWADT Model Output Total PSWADT Count Volume/Count Ratio

Screenline 1 SW Hull Ave 212 306 0.692

CR 769 4745 4401 1.078 SR 31 3441 4070 0.845 US 17 13247 8380 1.581 TOTAL 21645 17157 1.262 %RMSE - - 60.4%

w/o US 17 8398 8777 0.957 %RMSE - - 9.2%

Screenline 2 CR 760 368 2020 0.182 SR 70 5904 4884 1.209 SR 72 5088 4652 1.094

TOTAL 11360 11556 0.983 %RMSE - - 3.6%

Screenline 3 Turner Ave. 6150 7138 0.862

US 17 16234 17093 0.950 Other Streets 5803 4122 1.408

TOTAL 28186 28353 0.994 %RMSE - - 1.5%

Screenline 4 US 17 13940 11700 1.191 SR 661 1613 2570 0.628

Other Streets 2060 2644 0.779 TOTAL 17613 16914 1.041 %RMSE - - 10.3%

Screenline 5 CR 760 93 288 0.322 SR 31 4124 4186 0.985 SR 70 10884 12280 0.886

TOTAL 15101 16754 0.901 %RMSE 31.4%

w/o CR760 4217 4474 0.943 %RMSE 11.5%

Screenline 99 Cordon Stations CR 769 Charlotte County Line) 13278 13295 0.999 US 17 (Charlotte County Line) 7261 6640 1.093

Other Stations 24420 21424 1.140 TOTAL 48401 44463 1.089 %RMSE - - 28.2

w/o Other Stations (Charlotte County Cordons Only) 23981 23039 1.041

%RMSE - - 8.7

5.2 Growth Factor

DeSoto County’s Travel Demand Model (TDM) was used to estimate growth factors which were utilized to develop future year traffic volumes. In order to develop a growth factor, growth in traffic volumes between the 2008 TDM trips, which are assumed to be valid for 2014, and future year 2035 travel demand forecasts were calculated, which resulted in a growth factor of 4.05% along CR 769. This growth

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 24 | P a g e


factor was used to grow future volumes along CR 769 from Charlotte County Line to Peace River Street. Growth factors for all other minor streets within the study area were evaluated and the average overall growth rate was approximately 1%.

5.3 Future Year Traffic Volumes

Future year traffic volumes were developed using the TURNS5 program. Existing link volumes (shown previously in Table 3) and growth factors were used in TURNS5 program to estimate future year intersection turning moment volumes. Future year intersection turning movement volume outputs from TURNS5 are included in Appendix B.

The turning movement volumes estimated by TURNS5 program for the Existing (2014) year were comparatively lower than actual traffic count data, a manual adjustment was made to the TURNS5 output during the development of 2014 traffic volumes. The adjustment involved adding 80 vehicles per hour to TURNS5 volumes in the northbound and southbound directions throughout CR 769 between Sandhill Boulevard and Peace River Street. Similar adjustments were made to Opening, Interim and Design Year traffic volumes.

Opening Year (2020), Interim Year (2030) and Design year (2040) intersection turning movement volumes are shown in Figures 9, 10 and 11.

6.0 FUTURE YEAR NO-BUILD OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

In order to evaluate future year no-build traffic operations, intersection and roadway analysis using Synchro and HCS 2010, respectively were performed. No-Build analysis was performed for the following future year scenarios:

a) Opening Year 2020 b) Design Year 2040

6.1 Future Year No-Build Intersection LOS Analysis

HCM analysis results for the no-build scenarios are presented in Table 11.

Opening year analysis results indicate an increase in delay in comparison to existing conditions at all the study intersections. At CR 769 intersections with St. James Place and S. Kingsway Circle, the LOS is expected to degrade from E and D, respectively to F at both the intersections during both peak periods. At the intersection of CR 769 and Courtly Manor, the LOS is expected to degrade from D to E during both peak periods. Additionally, at CR 769 intersections with N. Kingsway Circle, SW Glenadine Avenue, Spring Lake Drive and Agnes Street, the LOS is expected to degrade from C to D during both periods. LOS at the intersection of CR 769 and Peace River Street is expected to degrade from C to E and D in the AM and PM period, respectively.

Design year no-build analysis results indicate an increase in delay and further degradation in LOS. For the Design year, all the intersections along CR 769 within the study area are expected to operate at LOS F.

Synchro analysis worksheets for the no-build conditions are included in Appendix E.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 25 | P a g e


Figure 9: Opening Year Turning Movement Volumes

769

Peace River St.


N

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.

So. Kingsway Cr.

St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtly Manor Dr.


CommercialDrive(s)

18,400940

17,500720

15,400635

13,500690

12,800655

12,700650

12,600650

11,600595

12,900660

12,400635

1,30065

20010

1,80090

400201,700

85

60030

1005

1005

31 (24)

24 (31)

769 (903)2

(2)

2 (2)

903

(769

)667 (805)

12 (15)

19 (16)87 (52)

785

(669

)

8 (9

)

16 (20)87 (52)

582 (698)

52 (87)

15 (12)9 (8)

698

(582

)20

(16

)

10 (8)5 (6)

555(652)554 (657)

8 (10)65

7 (5

54)

6 (5

)

4 (5)65

2 (5

55)

2 (2

)64

6 (5

51)

2 (2

)

4 (5)

551 (646)

2 (2)

5 (4)

44 (56)

498 585)58

5 (4

98)

8 (9

) 9 (8)56 (44)

2 (2)5 (4)

52 (87)

16 (

19)


12,400635

CR 769AADTDDHV

1,60080


FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 26 | P a g e


Figure 10: Interim Year Turning Movement Volumes

769

Peace River St.


N

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.

So. Kingsway Cr.

St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtly Manor Dr.


CommercialDrive(s)

24,4001245

23,2001185

20,4001045

18,000920

17,000870

16,800860

16,600850

15,300780

17,100875

16,500845

1,40070

20010

2000100

500251900

95

70035

1005

1005

36 (28)

28 (36)

1027 (1206)3

(3)

3 (3)

1206

(102

7)893 (1077)

12 (15)

25 (17)97 (59)

1040

(88

7)

8 (9

)

20 (21)97 (59)

779 (934)

59 (97)

15 (12)9 (8)

934

(779

)21

(20

)

10 (8)8 (8)

734 (862)739 (867)

8 (10)86

7 (7

39)

8 (8

)

4 (5)86

2 (7

34))

3 (3

)85

7 (7

30)

3 (3

)4 (5)

730 (857)

3 (3)

5 (4)

52 (67)

664 (780)

780

(664

)

8 (9

) 9 (8)67 (52)

3 (3)5 (4)

59 (97)

17 (

25)


12,400635

CR 769AADTDDHV

1,60060


FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 27 | P a g e


Figure 11: Design Year Turning Movement Volumes

769

Peace River St.


N

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.

So. Kingsway Cr.

St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtly Manor Dr.


CommercialDrive(s)

30,4001555

28,9001474

25,5001305

22,4001145

21,1001080

20,9001070

20,7001060

19,100975

21,4001095

20,5001050

1,50075

30015

2,100105

500252,000

100

80040

1005

1005

41 (32)

32 (41)

1280 (1503)4

(4)

4 (4)

1503

(128

0)

1114 (1344)

16 (21)

31 (19)103 (61)

1298

(110

6)

8 (9

)

24 (23)108 (63)

976 (1170)

63 (108)

21 (16)9 (8)

1170

(97

6)

23 (2

4)

10 (8)10 (10

918 (1077)922 (1082)

8 (10)

1082

(92

2)10

(10)

4 (5)

1077

(91

8)

4(4

)10

67 (

909)

4 (4

)

4 (5)

909 (1067)

4 (4)

5 (4)

60 (77)

835 (980)98

0 (8

35)

8 (9

) 9 (8)77 (60)

4 (4)5 (4)

61 (103)19

(31)


12,400635

CR 769AADTDDHV

1,60060


FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 28 | P a g e


Table 11. Future Year No-Build Intersection Analysis Results

HCM 2010 Results

Intersection Movement Opening Year (2020) Design Year (2040)

AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Delay* (v/c) LOS Delay* (v/c) LOS Delay* (v/c) LOS Delay* (v/c) LOS

CR 769/ St James Pl

EBL 68.5 (0.04) F 69.7 (0.04) F 719 (0.59) F 846.0 (0.67) F EBR 20.6 (0.14) C 17.0 (0.09) C 69.6 (0.48) F 38.0 (0.26) E NBL 10.9 (0.04) B 10.2 (0.05) B 16.8 (0.11) C 14.4 (0.11) B NBT - - - - - - - - SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -

CR 769/ S Kingsway Circle

EB L/R 56.7 (0.67) F 54.2 (0.54) F 3681.0 (8.30) F 775.0 (2.20) F NB L/T 10.6 (0.09) B 10.2 (0.13) B 16.1 (0.18) C 14.5 (0.24) B SB T/R - - - - - - - -

CR 769/ Courtly Manor

WB L/R 40.6 (0.22) E 40.0 (0.19) E 674.2 (1.60) F 511.2 (1.30) F NB T/R - - - - - - - - SB L/T 9.5 (0.01) A 10.1 (0.02) B 12.1 (0.02) B 13.9 (0.03) B

CR 769/ N Kingsway Circle

EB L/R 30.9 (0.47) D 34.9 (0.42) D 686.0 (2.20) F 651.0 (2.00) F NBL 10.1 (0.08) B 9.7 (0.12) A 13.9 (0.15) B 12.9 (0.20) B NBT - - - - - - - -

SB L/T - - - - - - - -

CR 769/ SW Glenadine Ave

WB L/R 26.8 (0.09) D 25.3 (0.09) D 99.4 (0.39) F 88.7 (0.34) F NB T/R - - - - - - - - SB L/T 8.9 (0.01) A 9.4 (0.01) A 10.9 (0.02) B 11.9 (0.02) B

CR 769/ Spring Lake Dr

WB L/R 26.0 (0.05) D 25.3 (0.04) D 77.4 (0.18) F 73.2 (0.15) F NB T/R - - - - - - - - SB L/T 8.9 (0.01) A 9.4 (0.01) A 10.8 (0.01) B 11.8 (0.01) B

CR 769/ Agnes St WB L/R 25.6 (0.05) D 25.1 (0.04) D 76.0 (0.17) F 70.7 (0.15) F NB T/R - - - - - - - - SB L/T 8.9 (0.01) A 9.4 (0.01) A 10.7 (0.01) B 11.7 (0.01) B


WB L/R 35.9 (0.4) E 32.3 (0.32) D 559.0 (1.80) F 403.6 (1.5) F NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 8.7 (0.01) A 9.1 (0.01) A 10.3 (0.01) B 11.2 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - -

*Expressed in seconds per vehicle

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 29 | P a g e


Queue length for CR 769 within the study area was calculated using three methods:

a) FDOT Plans Preparation Manual Equation: where queue length is given by,

Queue Length = [2*25*Movement Volume*(1+ Truck %)]/ (N*L), where N= number off cycles per hour (FDOT’s Plans Preparation Manual, revised January 2012, recommends using N=30 as a default

value for estimating queue lengths), L= number of lanes

b) Red Time Equation: where queue length is given by,

Queue Length = [2*25*Movement Volume*(1+ Truck %)]* (1-g/c)/ (N*L), where, g/c= green time to cycle length ratio (assumed g/c for thru= 0.44, left turns= 0.12)

c) SimTraffic 95th percentile Queue Lengths.

The longest of the queue lengths from the three methods are recommended for design purposes. Based on the analysis results shown in Table 12, the available storage lengths for all the turn lanes within the study area along CR 769 during the Design year are expected to be acceptable, except for the northbound left turn storage length at CR 769 and N. Kingsway Cir, where PM peak hour queue lengths of 220 feet are expected to exceed the available storage capacity.

At the intersections of S. Kingsway and Courtly Manor, queueing is expected in the northbound and southbound thru and left shared lanes. Additionally, at the intersections of SW Glenadine Avenue, Spring Lake Drive and Agnes Street, queueing is expected in southbound thru and left shared lanes.

6.2 Future Year No-Build Roadway Operational LOS Analysis

HCS 2010 analysis results for the future year no-build scenarios are presented in Table 13.

Opening year analysis results indicate that LOS is expected to remain consistent with Existing (2014) conditions for the roadway segments between St. James Place and S. Kingsway Circle and between Agnes Street and Peace River Street. The roadway segment between Courtly Manor and N. Kingsway Circle is expected to degrade from LOS C to D in the northbound and southbound directions during AM and PM periods, respectively. Additionally, CR 769 segment between N. Kingsway Circle and SW Glenadine Avenue is expected to degrade from LOS C to D in both directions during both peak periods.

Design year analysis results indicate that the CR 769 segment between St. James Place and S. Kingsway Circle is expected to degrade from LOS D to F, while the segment between Agnes Street and Peace River Street is expected to degrade from C to D in both directions during both peak periods. Additionally, CR 769 segments between Courtly Manor and N. Kingsway Circle and between N. Kingsway Circle and SW Glenadine Avenue are expected to operate at LOS E in the Design year in both directions during both peak periods.

HCS 2010 analysis worksheets for the no-build conditions are included in Appendix E.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 30 | P a g e


Table 12. Design Year No-Build Queue Analysis Results

Design Year No-Build Queue Lengths Available Storage

(ft.) Intersection Movement Volume Truck

% N L g/c FDOT PPM Red Time SimTraffic

95th Recommended Queue Length

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

CR 769/ St. James Pl

EBL 4 4

5.9% 30

1 0.12 5 5 5 5 70 55 70 55 - EBR 41 32 1 0.12 70 55 65 50 150 85 150 85 - NBL 32 41 1 0.12 55 70 50 65 120 135 120 135 175 NBT 1280 1503 1 0.44 2260 2655 1265 1485 1440 1395 - - - SBT 1503 1280 1 0.44 2655 2260 1485 1265 5 - - - - SBR 4 4 1 0.44 5 5 5 5 - - - - 175

CR 769/ S. Kingsway

Cir

EB L/R 134 80 5.9% 30

1 0.12 235 140 210 125 475 540 475 540 - NB L/T 1175 1447 1 0.12 2075 2555 1825 2250 1990 1960 2075 2555 - SB T/R 1363 1145 1 0.44 2410 2025 1350 1135 10 10 - - -

CR 769/ Courtly Manor

WB L/R 30 24 5.9% 30

1 0.12 55 40 45 35 415 155 415 155 - NB T/R 1122 1319 1 0.44 1980 2330 1110 1305 5 5 - - - SB L/T 1306 1115 1 0.12 2305 1970 2030 1735 1400 1275 2305 1970 -

CR 769/ N. Kingsway

Cir

EB L/R 132 86

5.9% 30

1 0.12 235 150 205 135 520 170 520 170 - NBL 63 108 1 0.12 110 190 100 170 70 70 110 190 175 NBT 976 1170 1 0.44 1725 2065 965 1160 - - - - -

SB T/R 1193 1000 1 0.44 2110 1765 1180 990 210 185 - - - CR 769/ SW Glenadine

Ave

WB L/R 20 18 5.9% 30

1 0.12 35 30 30 30 50 45 50 45 - NB T/R 930 1092 1 0.44 1645 1930 920 1080 - - - - - SB L/T 1092 932 1 0.12 1930 1645 1700 1450 125 105 1930 1645 -

CR 769/ Spring Lake

Dr

WB L/R 9 8 5.9% 30

1 0.12 15 15 15 10 25 25 25 25 - NB T/R 922 1082 1 0.44 1630 1910 910 1070 - - - - - SB L/T 1081 922 1 0.12 1910 1630 1680 1435 55 65 1910 1630 -

CR 769/ Agnes St

WB L/R 9 8 5.9% 30

1 0.12 15 15 15 10 30 25 30 25 - NB T/R 913 1072 1 0.44 1615 1895 905 1060 - - - - - SB L/T 1071 913 1 0.12 1890 1615 1665 1420 50 45 1890 1615 -

CR 769/ Peace River

St

WB L/R 86 68

5.9% 30

1 0.12 150 120 135 105 195 120 195 120 - NBT 835 980 1 0.44 1475 1730 825 970 - - - - 350 NBR 60 77 1 0.44 105 135 60 75 - - - - - SBL 8 9 1 0.12 15 15 10 15 15 - 15 15 375 SBT 980 835 1 0.44 1730 1475 970 825 - - - - -

Table 13. HCS 2010 Future Year No-Build Analysis Results

CR 769 Two-Lane Operational Analysis


Opening Year (2020) Design Year (2040) AM PM AM PM

From To PFFS (%) LOS PFFS (%) LOS PFFS (%) LOS PFFS (%) LOS

St. James Pl S. Kingsway Cir NB 68.0 D 67.7 D 49.6 F 49.3 F SB 67.7 D 68.0 D 49.3 F 49.6 F

Courtly Manor N. Kingsway Cir NB 71.0 D 70.2 D 54.8 E 53.3 E SB 70.2 D 71.0 D 53.3 E 54.8 E

N. Kingsway Cir

SW Glenadine Ave

NB 73.7 D 72.5 D 59.2 E 57.8 E SB 72.5 D 73.7 D 57.8 E 56.9 E

Agnes St Peace River St NB 79.1 C 79.1 C 68.1 D 67.7 D SB 78.3 C 78.3 C 67.7 D 68.1 D

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 31 | P a g e


As the segment of CR 769 between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place has the characteristics of an arterial, the LOS measure for this segment is based on Table-8 in the FDOT’s Quality and Level of Service Handbook.

Table 14 presents both two-lane and multilane future year no-build arterial analysis results for the roadway segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place. Based on the analysis results, the LOS for the multi-lane portion of the segment are expected to remain consistent with existing conditions at LOS C during both peak periods in both directions. However, the two-lane portion of this segment is expected to degrade in the Opening and Design years with LOS degrading from D to F in the northbound and southbound directions during the AM and PM periods, respectively.

Table 14. CR 769 Future Year Segment Analyses between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place

Along CR 769 Facility Type

Analysis Direction


From To DDHV LOS DDHV LOS DDHV LOS DDHV LOS Sandhill

Boulevard St. James

Pl Multi-Lane

NB 810 C 940 C 1,335 C 1,555 C SB 940 C 810 C 1,555 C 1,335 C

St. James Pl Sandhill Boulevard

Two-Lane

NB 810 F 940 F 1,335 F 1,555 F SB 940 F 810 F 1,555 F 1,335 F

Note: LOS is based on FDOT's Quality and Level of Service handbook Generalized Service Volume Table-8 DDHV= Directional Design Hourly Volume

7.0 FUTURE BUILD OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS

Build traffic operations analyses for Opening and Design years were performed to determine potential alternatives that will be evaluated for the Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Study. Based on the No-Build analysis, the following alternatives were analyzed:

Alternative 1: End widening with a transition north of Peace River Street (Drop and Add lanes). An additional recommendation as part of this alternative is to convert the existing full access opening at Spring Lake Drive to a right-in right-out access. Based on this alternative, vehicles performing a southbound and westbound left turn maneuver at Spring Lake Drive will now be using Agnes Street to perform those maneuvers. A conceptual layout of this alternative is shown in Figure 12.

Alternative 1-A: End widening with a transition north of N. Kingsway Circle (Drop and Add lanes). North of this transition, roadway geometry would remain consistent with existing conditions, as shown in Figure 13.

Alternative 1-B: End widening with a transition north of Peace River Street (Drop and Add lanes). As part of this alternative, the existing roadway between SW Glenadine Avenue and Agnes Street would serve as a frontage road, and CR 769 will be realigned to the west of the existing alignment. The frontage road would then connect Spring Lake Road to Agnes Street and SW Glenadine Avenue. A conceptual layout of this alternative is shown in Figure 14.

Additionally, the following geometric changes along CR 769 within the study area were assumed for the build alternatives:

• Realign S. Kingsway Circle and Courtly Manor to form a four legged intersection • N. Kingsway Circle and realign Ben Drive/ Sheri Avenue to form a four legged intersection

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 32 | P a g e


Figure 12: Build Alternative 1 Conceptual layout

769

Peace River St.

Sandhill Blvd.


NN

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.

Relocated So. Kingsway Cr.

St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtley Manor Dr.

Legend

Future Traffic Lanes

Commercial Drive(s)

Relocated Ben Drive/Sherri Ave

Potential Traffic Signal Location (Note: Traffic Signals Must Meet MUTCD Warrants)

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 33 | P a g e


Figure 13: Build Alternative 1-A Conceptual layout

769

Peace River St.

Sandhill Blvd.


NN

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.


St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtley Manor Dr.

Legend


Commercial Drive(s)



FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 34 | P a g e


Figure 14: Build Alternative 1-B Conceptual layout

769

Peace River St.

Sandhill Blvd.


NN

Spring Lake Rd.

Glenadine Ave.


St. James Pl.

No. Kingsway Cr.

Agnes St.

Courtley Manor Dr.

Legend


Commercial Drive(s)



Old CR 769 (CR 769 Shifted To West)

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 35 | P a g e


Traffic signal warrant analyses were performed to check if the existing traffic volumes satisfied signal warrants at the intersections of CR 769 at S. Kingsway Circle, and at N. Kingsway Circle. Warrant analysis worksheets are presented in Appendix F. Based on the analysis results; existing traffic volumes do not satisfy warrants for traffic signal installation. However, the proposed build alternatives have been analyzed with and without the installation of traffic signals at CR 769 intersections with North and South Kingsway Circle. Intersections and roadway operation analysis were performed using Synchro and HCS 2010, respectively.

7.1 Build Alternative 1

HCM analysis results for Build Alternative 1 are presented in Table 15.

As indicated within Table 15 for 2020 opening year, the proposed realigned unsignalized intersection of CR 769 and S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor is expected to operate at LOS F during both peak periods. Installation of a traffic signal at this intersection is expected to improve traffic operations with the intersection LOS improving from F to A. Similarly, the realigned unsignalized intersection of CR 769 and N. Kingsway Circle/Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue is expected to operate at LOS E and F during AM and PM peak periods, respectively, while installation of a traffic signal is expected to improve intersection operations with LOS improving from E and F to A in both peak periods. Comparison of no-build and Build Alternative-1 Opening year analysis results indicates an improvement in traffic operations at the intersection of CR 769 and St. James Place with LOS improving from F to E during both peak periods. LOS at CR 769 intersections with SW Glenadine Avenue and Agnes Street is expected to improve from D to C during both the peak periods, while LOS at CR 769 intersection with Spring Lake Drive is expected to improve from D to B. At CR 769 intersection with Peace River Street, LOS is expected to improve from E and D in the AM and PM period, respectively to C in both the peak periods.

The 2040 design year analysis indicates that without the installation of a traffic signal at the realigned CR 769 intersections of S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor and N. Kingsway Circle/Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue, the expected LOS is F. Installation of a signal at CR 769 and S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor intersection is expected to improve LOS from F to B and A in the AM and PM periods, respectively, while installation of a traffic signal at CR 769 and N. Kingsway Circle/Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue is expected to improve LOS from F to A during both peak periods. Comparison of Design year no-build and Build Alternative-1 Design year analysis results indicates a reduction in delay at the intersection of CR 769 and St. James Place; however, LOS is expected to remain consistent with no-build conditions at F. The LOS at CR 769 intersections with SW Glenadine Avenue and Spring Lake Drive is expected to improve from F to E and B, respectively. At the intersection of CR 769 and Agnes Street LOS is expected to improve in the AM period from F to E, while LOS during the PM period is expected to remain consistent with no-build conditions at F. Minor street delay at CR 769 intersection with Peace River Street is expected to reduce in both periods, however intersection LOS is expected to remain consistent with no-build conditions at F.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 36 | P a g e


Table 15: Build Alternative 1 Intersection Analysis Results

HCM 2010 Results



CR 769 at St James Pl

EBL 44.7 (0.03) E 41.1 (0.02) E 284 (0.28) F 233.5 (0.24) F EBR 13.1 (0.08) B 12.0 (0.05) B 20.4 (0.17) C 16.7 (0.10) C NBL 11.0 (0.05) B 10.2 (0.05) B 17.3 (0.11) C 14.7 (0.12) B NBT - - - - - - - - SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -

CR 769 at S Kingsway Circle/ Courtly Manor (Unsignalized)

EBL 73.5 (0.30) F 75.7 (0.27) F 2506.0 (4.6) F 3761(5.00) F EB T/R 18.2 (0.28) C 19.3 (0.21) C 130.4 (0.90) F 204.9 (1.00) F WBL 73.0 (0.25) F 91.7 (0.26) F 2572.0 (4.1) F 4581.0 (6.20) F

WB T/R 31.9 (0.11) D 39.0 (0.13) E 261.1 (0.60) F 449.8 (0.90) F NBL 10.6 (0.09) B 10.1 (0.13) B 15.9 (0.18) C 14.2 (0.24) B NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.4 (0.01) A 10.1 (0.02) B 12.2 (0.02) B 14.2 (0.03) B SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -

CR 769 at S Kingsway Circle/ Courtly Manor

(Signalized)

EBL 17.7 (0.07) B 18.2 (0.07) B 21.6 (0.12) C 25.6 (0.09) C EB T/R 21.5 (0.60) C 22.2 (0.60) C 25.2 (0.62) C 29.5 (0.56) C WBL 20.1 (0.08) C 19.4 (0.06) B 25.0 (0.13) C 28.0 (0.10) C

WB T/R 17.4 (0.09) B 18.0 (0.12) B 20.8 (0.08) C 25.1 (0.10) C NBL 33.0 (0.75) C 29.8 (0.80) C 39.5 (0.79) D 34.7 (0.78) C NBT 4.7 (0.40) A 4.3 (0.40) A 6.3 (0.60) A 5.7 (0.65) A NBR 3.5 (0.02) A 3.0 (0.02) A 3.7 (0.02) A 2.8 (0.02) A SBL 48.1 (0.56) D 42.9 (0.56) D 54.5 (0.56) D 53.8 (0.58) D SBT 6.0 (0.49) A 5.4 (0.41) A 10.1 (0.77) B 7.4 (0.61) A SBR 4.3 (0.02) A 4.1 (0.03) A 4.6 (0.02) A 4.5 (0.06) A

Overall 7.7 A 7.2 A 10.1 B 8.6 A

CR 769 at N Kingsway Circle/ Ben Drive (Unsignalized)

EBL 47.6 (0.18) E 54.9 (0.25) F 676.2 (1.50) F 827.6 (1.70) F EB T/R 15.5 (0.24) C 16.1 (0.17) C 51.2 (0.70) F 62.8 (0.59) F WBL 50.2 (0.18) F 60.2 (0.18) F 836.8 (1.70) F 1019.0 (1.70) F

WB T/R 24.4 (0.08) C 29.2 (0.09) D 118.3 (0.40) F 178.0 (0.50) F NBL 9.9 (0.07) A 9.6 (0.12) A 13.8 (0.15) B 12.7 (0.22) B NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.1 (0.01) A 9.6 (0.01) A 11.2 (0.02) B 12.6 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -

CR 769 at N Kingsway Circle/ Ben Drive (Signalized)

EBL 15.7 (0.06) B 16.2 (0.08) B 21.3 (0.09) C 24.3 (0.11) C EB T/R 19.4 (0.6) B 19.8 (0.54) B 25.4 (0.63) C 27.9 (0.56) C WBL 17.8 (0.07) B 17.2 (0.06) B 25.2 (0.13) C 26.5 (0.10) C

WB T/R 15.5 (0.09) B 16.0 (0.12) B 20.7 (0.08) C 23.7 (0.10) C NBL 28.9 (0.7) C 28.2 (0.80) C 39.2 (0.79) D 32.9 (0.78) C NBT 4.7 (0.35) A 4.4 (0.40) A 5.7 (0.52) A 5.0 (0.58) A NBR 3.7 (0.01) A 3.3 (0.02) A 3.7 (0.02) A 2.9 (0.02) A SBL 45.3 (0.56) D 40.3 (0.56) D 54.6 (0.56) D 52.0 (0.57) D SBT 5.9 (0.45) A 5.4 (0.38) A 8.4 (0.68) A 7.0 (0.55) A SBR 4.5 (0.03) A 4.3 (0.02) A 4.7 (0.03) A 4.6 (0.03) A

Overall 7.6 A 7.3 A 9.4 A 8.3 A


WB L/R 19.0 (0.06) C 18.9 (0.06) C 39.7 (0.19) E 41.7 (0.18) E NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.0 (0.01) A 9.5 (0.01) A 10.9 (0.02) B 12.1 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - -


WBR 10.5 (0.01) B 11.0 (0.01) B 12.6 (0.01) B 13.8 (0.01) B NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBT - - - - - - - -

CR 769/ Agnes St

WB L/R 20.4 (0.06) C 21.3 (0.05) C 47.5 (0.16) E 51.1 (0.15) F NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.0 (0.01) A 9.4 (0.01) A 10.9 (0.02) B 11.9 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - -


WB L/R 23.1 (0.28) C 23.6 (0.24) C 156.8 (0.97) F 145.4 (0.90) F NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 8.8 (0.01) A 9.2 (0.01) A 10.4 (0.01) B 11.3 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - -


FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 37 | P a g e


Synchro analysis worksheets for Build Alternative-1 are included in Appendix F.

A multilane highway analysis in HCS 2010 was performed to evaluate future year Build Alternative-1 traffic operations with the proposed widening along CR 769.

Capacity of a multilane highway segment under base conditions varies with FFS. Since speeds are constant through a broad range of flow rates, LOS is defined on the basis of density, which is a measure of the proximity of vehicles to each other in the traffic stream. Table 16 presents the LOS criteria for multilane highways.

Table 16: LOS Criteria for Multilane Highways

LOS FFS (mi/h) Density (pc/mi/ln)

A All >0-11 B All >11-18 C All >18-26 D All >26-35

E

60 >35-40 55 >35-41 50 >35-43 45 >35-45

F (Demand Exceeds Capacity)

60 >40 55 >41 50 >43 45 >45

BFFS is an important input in multilane highway analysis which is used to estimate FFS. HCM 2010 recommends using a BFFS equal to posted speed limit plus 5 mph for multilane highways analysis. Throughout the HCS 2010 multilane highway analysis for CR 769, BFFS along CR 769 has been assumed to be equal to posted speed plus 5 mph.

Future year Build Alternative-1 HCS 2010 analysis results are presented in Table 17.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 38 | P a g e


Table 17: HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1 Analysis Results

CR 769 Multi-Lane Operational Analysis



From To Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Multi-Lane Highway Analysis

St. James Pl S. Kingsway Cir

NB 9.3 A 10.8 A 15.4 B 17.9 B SB 10.8 A 9.3 A 17.9 B 15.4 B

S. Kingsway Cir

N. Kingsway Cir

NB 8.2 A 10.6 A 13.6 B 17.6 B SB 10.6 A 8.2 A 17.6 B 13.6 B

N. Kingsway Cir

SW Glenadine Ave

NB 7.2 A 9.3 A 11.9 B 15.4 B SB 9.3 A 7.2 A 15.4 B 11.9 B

Agnes St Peace River St NB 5.6 A 6.5 A 9.1 A 10.7 A SB 6.5 A 5.6 A 10.7 A 9.1 A

Multi-Lane Arterial Analysis From To Direction DDHV LOS DDHV LOS DDHV LOS DDHV LOS

Sandhill Boulevard St. James Pl NB 810 C 940 C 1,335 C 1,555 C

SB 940 C 810 C 1,555 C 1,335 C Note: LOS for Arterial Analysis is based on FDOT's Quality and LOS handbook Generalized Service Volume Table-8

DDHV= Directional Design Hourly Volume

Comparison of Opening year no-build and Build Alternative-1 analysis results indicate an improvement in traffic operations with LOS for CR 769 roadway segments between St. James Place/S. Kingsway Circle; S. Kingsway Circle/N. Kingsway Circle; and N. Kingsway Circle/SW Glenadine Avenue improving from D to A. Additionally, the CR 769 segment between Agnes Avenue and Peace River Street is also expected to improve from C to A.

Comparison of Design year no-build and Build Alternative-1 analysis results indicate an improvement in traffic operations with all the CR 769 roadway segments within the study area expected to operate at LOS B, except for the segment between Agnes and Peace River Street which is expected to operate at LOS A.

The segment of CR 769 between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place has the characteristics of an arterial; therefore LOS measures for this segment are based on Table-8 in the FDOT’s Quality and Level of Service Handbook.

Table 17 presents multilane future year build arterial analysis results for the roadway segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place. In the no-build analysis, the segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place consisted of both multi-lane and two-lane segments. With the proposed build alternatives, the entire segment would serve as a multi-lane roadway. As all the various build alternatives recommend widening this portion of CR 769, build analysis results for Alternatives 1, 1-A and 1-B for the segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Pl shall remain consistent. As shown in Table 17, this segment is expected to operate at LOS C in the Opening and Design years in both directions during both peak periods.

HCS 2010 Build Alternative-1 analysis worksheets are included in Appendix F.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 39 | P a g e


7.2 Build Alternative 1-A

As shown in Figure 13, the Alternative 1-A recommends widening CR 769 from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway from 0.5 mi south of Charlotte County line to north of N. Kingsway Circle/Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue. Beyond the transition point, roadway geometry of CR 769 would remain consistent with existing conditions.

HCM analysis results for Build Alternative 1-A are presented in Table 18.

As this alternative proposes CR 769 widening from 0.5 mi south of Charlotte County Line to north of N. Kingsway Circle, delay and LOS parameters for CR 769 intersections with St. James Place, S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor and N. Kingsway Circle/Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue are expected to remain consistent with Build Alternative-1 conditions.

As the roadway geometry in this alternative is kept consistent with existing conditions from north of N. Kingsway Circle, delay and LOS parameters for CR 769 intersections with SW Glenadine Avenue, Spring Lake Drive, Agnes Street and Peace River Street is expected to remain consistent with no-build conditions during the Opening and Design years.

Synchro analysis worksheets for Build Alternative 1-A are included in Appendix F.

Future year Build Alternative 1-A HCS 2010 analysis results are presented in Table 19.

Comparison of Opening year no-build and Build Alternative 1-A analysis results indicate an improvement in traffic operations with LOS for CR 769 roadway segments between St. James Place and N. Kingsway Circle improving from D to A in both directions during both peak periods. Also, CR 769 segments of N. Kingsway Circle to SW Glenadine Ave and Agnes Street to Peace River Street is expected to operate at LOS D and C, respectively in both directions during both peak periods, consistent with no-build conditions.

Comparison of Design year no-build and Build Alternative 1-A analysis results indicate an improvement in traffic operations with LOS for CR 769 roadway segments between St. James Place/S. Kingsway Circle and S. Kingsway Circle/N. Kingsway Circle improving from F and E, respectively to B in both directions during both peak periods. Also, CR 769 segments of N. Kingsway Circle to SW Glenadine Avenue and Agnes Street to Peace River Street is expected to operate at LOS E and D, respectively in both directions during both peak periods, consistent with no-build conditions.

HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1-A analysis worksheets are included in Appendix F.

7.3 Build Alternative 1-B

As shown in Figure 14, the Alternative 1-B recommends widening CR 769 from a two-lane undivided roadway to a four-lane divided roadway from 0.5 mi south of Charlotte County line to north of Peace River Street.

HCM analysis results for build Alternative 1-B are presented in Table 20.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 40 | P a g e


Table 18. Build Alternative 1-A Intersection Analysis Results

HCM 2010 Results




EBL 44.7 (0.03) E 41.1 (0.02) E 284.0 (0.28) F 233.5 (0.24) F EBR 13.1 (0.08) B 12.0 (0.05) B 20.4 (0.17) C 16.7 (0.10) C NBL 11.0 (0.05) B 10.2 (0.05) B 17.3 (0.11) C 14.7 (0.12) B NBT - - - - - - - - SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -


EBL 73.5 (0.30) F 75.7 (0.27) F 2506.0 (4.60) F 3761.0 (5.00) F EB T/R 18.2 (0.28) C 19.3 (0.21) C 130.4 (0.90) F 204.9 (1.00) F WBL 73.0 (0.25) F 91.7 (0.26) F 2572.0 (4.10) F 4581.0 (6.20) F

WB T/R 31.9 (0.11) D 39.0 (0.13) E 261.1 (0.60) F 449.8 (0.9) F NBL 10.6 (0.09) B 10.1 (0.13) B 15.9 (0.18) C 14.2 (0.24) B NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.4 (0.01) A 10.1 (0.02) B 12.2 (0.02) B 14.2 (0.03) B SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -


(Signalized)



Overall 7.7 A 7.2 A 10.1 B 8.6 A

CR 769 at N Kingsway Circle/ Ben Drive (Unsignalized)

EBL 47.6 (0.18) E 54.9 (0.25) F 676.2 (1.50) F 827.6 (1.70) F EB T/R 15.5 (0.24) C 16.1 (0.17) C 51.2 (0.70) F 62.8 (0.59) F WBL 50.2 (0.18) F 60.2 (0.18) F 836.8 (1.70) F 1019.0 (1.70) F

WB T/R 24.4 (0.08) C 29.2 (0.09) D 118.3 (0.40) F 178.0 (0.50) F NBL 9.9 (0.07) A 9.6 (0.12) A 13.8 (0.15) B 12.7 (0.22) B NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.1 (0.01) A 9.6 (0.01) A 11.2 (0.02) B 12.6 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -

CR 769 at N Kingsway Circle/ Ben Drive (Signalized)



Overall 7.6 A 7.3 A 9.4 A 8.3 A

CR 769/ SW Glenadine Ave WB L/R 26.8 (0.09) D 25.3 (0.09) D 99.4 (0.39) F 88.7 (0.34) F NB T/R - - - - - - - - SB L/T 8.9 (0.01) A 9.4 (0.01) A 10.9 (0.02) B 11.9 (0.02) B

CR 769/ Spring Lake Dr WB L/R 26.0 (0.05) D 25.3 (0.04) D 77.4 (0.18) F 73.2 (0.15) F NB T/R - - - - - - - - SB L/T 8.9 (0.01) A 9.4 (0.01) A 10.8 (0.01) B 11.8 (0.01) B

CR 769/ Agnes St WB L/R 25.6 (0.05) D 25.1 (0.04) D 76.0 (0.17) F 70.7 (0.15) F NB T/R - - - - - - - - SB L/T 8.9 (0.01) A 9.4 (0.01) A 10.7 (0.01) B 11.7 (0.01) B


WB L/R 35.9 (0.40) E 32.3 (0.32) D 559.0 (1.80) F 403.6 (1.50) F NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 8.7 (0.01) A 9.1 (0.01) A 10.3 (0.01) B 11.2 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - -


FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 41 | P a g e


Table 19: HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1-A Analysis Results

CR 769 Operational Analysis



From To Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Multi-Lane

St. James Pl S. Kingsway Cir NB 9.3 A 10.8 A 15.4 B 17.9 B SB 10.8 A 9.3 A 17.9 B 15.4 B

S. Kingsway Cir N. Kingsway Cir

NB 8.2 A 10.6 A 13.6 B 17.6 B SB 10.6 A 8.2 A 17.6 B 13.6 B

Two-Lane

From To Analysis Direction PFFS (%) LOS PFFS (%) LOS PFFS (%) LOS PFFS (%) LOS

N. Kingsway Cir

SW Glenadine Ave

NB 74.0 D 72.5 D 59.6 E 57.8 E SB 72.5 D 74.0 D 57.8 E 59.6 E

Agnes St Peace River St NB 79.1 C 79.1 C 68.1 D 67.8 D SB 78.3 C 78.3 C 67.8 D 68.1 D

Note: Density in pc/mi/ln PFFS- Percent of Free Flow Speed

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 42 | P a g e


Table 20: Build Alternative 1-B Intersection Analysis Results

HCM 2010 Results




EBL 44.7 (0.03) E 41.1 (0.02) E 284 (0.28) F 233.5 (0.24) F EBR 13.1 (0.08) B 12 (0.05) B 20.4 (0.17) C 16.7 (0.1) C NBL 11.0 (0.05) B 10.2 (0.05) B 17.3 (0.11) C 14.7 (0.12) B NBT - - - - - - - - SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -


EBL 73.5 (0.3) F 75.7 (0.27) F 2506 (4.6) F 3761(5) F EB T/R 18.2 (0.28) C 19.3 (0.21) C 130.4 (0.9) F 204.9 (1.0) F WBL 73.0 (0.25) F 91.7 (0.26) F 2572 (4.1) F 4581 (6.2) F

WB T/R 31.9 (0.11) D 39 (0.13) E 261.1 (0.6) F 449.8 (0.9) F NBL 10.6 (0.09) B 10.1 (0.13) B 15.9 (0.18) C 14.2 (0.24) B NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.4 (0.01) A 10.1 (0.02) B 12.2 (0.02) B 14.2 (0.03) B SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -


(Signalized)



Overall 7.7 A 7.2 A 10.1 B 8.6 A

CR 769 at N Kingsway Circle/ Ben Drive

(Unsignalized)

EBL 47.6 (0.18) E 54.9 (0.25) F 676.2 (1.5) F 827.6 (1.7) F EB T/R 15.5 (.24) C 16.1 (0.17) C 51.2 (0.7) F 62.8 (0.59) F WBL 50.2 (0.18) F 60.2 (0.18) F 836.8 (1.7) F 1019 (1.7) F

WB T/R 24.4 (0.08) C 29.2 (0.09) D 118.3 (0.4) F 178 (0.5) F NBL 9.9 (0.07) A 9.6 (0.12) A 13.8 (0.15) B 12.7 (0.22) B NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 9.1 (0.01) A 9.6 (0.01) A 11.2 (0.02) B 12.6 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - - SBR - - - - - - - -

CR 769 at N Kingsway Circle/ Ben Drive

(Signalized)



Overall 7.6 A 7.3 A 9.4 A 8.3 A



CR 769/ Agnes St



WB L/R 23.1 (0.28) C 23.6 (0.24) C 156.8 (0.97) F 145.4 (0.9) F NBT - - - - - - - - NBR - - - - - - - - SBL 8.8 (0.01) A 9.2 (0.01) A 10.4 (0.01) B 11.3 (0.02) B SBT - - - - - - - -


FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 43 | P a g e


As this alternative proposes CR 769 widening from 0.5 mi south of Charlotte County Line to north of Peace River Street, delay and LOS parameters for CR 769 intersections with St. James Place, S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor, N. Kingsway Circle/Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue, SW Glenadine Avenue and Peace River Street is expected to remain consistent with build Alternative 1 analysis results. The only change in the analysis results will be for the intersection of CR 769 and Agnes Street, as traffic volumes from Spring Lake Drive will be diverted to Agnes Street as per this alternative, however, the change in delay is slight enough that LOS remains unchanged from Alternative-1 results.

Synchro analysis worksheets for build Alternative 1-B are included in Appendix F.

Future year Build Alternative 1-B HCS 2010 analysis results are presented in Table 21.

LOS for roadway segments in this alternative is consistent with the results from Alternative 1. HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1-B analysis worksheets are included in Appendix F.

Table 21: HCS 2010 Build Alternative 1-B Analysis Results

CR 769 Multi-Lane Operational Analysis



From To Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS Density LOS

St. James Pl S. Kingsway Cir

NB 9.3 A 10.8 A 15.4 B 17.9 B SB 10.8 A 9.3 A 17.9 B 15.4 B

S. Kingsway Cir

N. Kingsway Cir

NB 8.2 A 10.6 A 13.6 B 17.6 B SB 10.6 A 8.2 A 17.6 B 13.6 B

N. Kingsway Cir

SW Glenadine

Ave

NB 7.2 A 9.3 A 11.9 B 15.4 B

SB 9.3 A 7.2 A 15.4 B 11.9 B

Agnes St Peace River St

NB 5.6 A 6.5 A 9.1 A 10.7 A SB 6.5 A 5.6 A 10.7 A 9.1 A

7.4 Queue Analysis

Queue analysis results for the various build alternatives are presented in Table 22. In the following discussion regarding queue lengths for the various alternatives, a queue length reduction greater than 50% is considered substantial.

In comparison to Design year no-build queue lengths, Build Alternative 1 is expected to reduce queue lengths at the intersection of CR 769 and St. James Place. At the intersection of CR 769 & S. Kingsway Circle and CR 769 and N. Kingsway Circle, the addition of a left turn lane in the eastbound and westbound directions is expected to reduce overall queueing at these approaches. Additionally, the provision of exclusive northbound and southbound left turn lanes at CR 769 and S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor is expected to substantially reduce queueing in the through lanes. Provision of exclusive southbound left turn lanes at CR 769 intersections of SW Glenadine Avenue, Spring Lake Drive and Agnes Street is expected to substantially reduce queueing in the southbound through lanes. At CR 769 intersection with Peace River Street, Alternative 1 is expected to cause minor variations in queue lengths.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 44 | P a g e

County Road 769 (Kings Highway) Final Project Traffic Report January 2015 Table 22: Design Year Build Queue Analysis Results

Design Year Build Queue Lengths Available Storage

(ft.) Intersection Movement Volume

Truck % N L g/c FDOT PPM* Red Time**

Alternative 1 Alternative 1-A Alternative 1-B

SimTraffic 95th Recommended SimTraffic 95th Recommended SimTraffic 95th Recommended AM PM AM PM AM AM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

CR 769 at St. James Pl

EBL 4 4

5.9% 30

1 0.12 5 5 5 5 20 20 20 20 30 20 30 20 20 20 20 20 - EBR 41 32 1 0.12 70 55 65 50 45 40 70 55 45 35 70 55 50 40 70 55 - NBL 32 41 1 0.12 55 70 50 65 50 55 55 70 50 50 55 70 50 50 55 70 175 NBT 1280 1503 2 0.44 1130 1330 635 745 - - - - - - - - - - - - - SBT 1503 1280 2 0.44 1330 1130 745 635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - SBR 4 4 1 0.44 5 5 5 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - 175

CR 769 at S. Kingsway Cir/ Courtly Manor

EBL 31 19

5.9% 30

1 0.12 55 35 50 30 140 95 140 95 180 100 180 100 190 95 190 95 150 EB T/R 108 66 1 0.12 190 115 170 105 195 205 195 205 350 190 350 190 315 160 315 160 - WBL 21 16 1 0.12 35 30 35 25 75 80 75 80 100 95 100 95 95 90 95 90 150

WB T/R 14 13 1 0.12 25 25 20 20 40 40 40 40 60 40 60 40 55 60 55 60 - NBL 61 103 1 0.12 110 180 95 160 45 60 110 180 45 65 110 180 40 60 110 180 150 NBT 1098 1323 2 0.44 970 1170 545 655 - - - - - - - - - - - - - NBR 16 21 1 0.44 30 35 15 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - 150 SBL 8 9 1 0.12 15 15 10 15 10 15 15 15 10 10 15 15 10 10 15 15 150 SBT 1323 1098 2 0.44 1170 970 655 545 - - - - - - - - - - - - - SBR 19 31 1 0.44 35 55 20 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - 150

CR 769 at N. Kingsway Cir/ Ben

Drive

EBL 24 23

5.9% 30

1 0.12 40 40 35 35 60 50 60 50 65 50 65 50 50 45 50 45 150 EB T/R 113 68 1 0.12 200 120 175 105 95 75 200 120 180 70 200 120 95 75 200 120 - WBL 21 16 1 0.12 35 30 35 25 50 40 50 40 55 45 55 45 50 35 50 35 150

WB T/R 14 13 1 0.12 25 25 20 20 30 25 30 25 40 25 40 25 25 25 25 25 - NBL 63 108 1 0.12 110 190 100 170 60 75 110 190 60 75 110 190 60 75 110 190 150 NBT 960 1149 2 0.44 850 1015 475 570 - - - - - - - - - - - - - NBR 16 21 1 0.44 30 35 15 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - 150 SBL 8 9 1 0.12 15 15 10 15 20 20 20 20 25 25 25 25 20 20 20 20 150 SBT 1149 960 2 0.44 1015 850 570 475 - - - - - - - - - - - - - SBR 23 24 1 0.44 40 40 25 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - 150


WB L/R 20 18

5.9% 30

1 0.12 35 30 30 30 45 45 45 45 50 45 50 45 50 45 50 45 - NBT 922 1082 2 0.44 1645 1930 920 1080 - - - - - - - - - - - - - NBR 8 10 1 0.44 15 20 10 10 - - - - n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - - 150 SBL 10 10 1 0.12 20 20 15 15 20 20 20 20 n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 25 20 20 150 SBT 1082 922 2 0.44 1930 1645 1700 1450 - - - - 90 120 1930 1645 - - - - -


WBR 4 4

5.9% 30

1 0.12 5 5 5 5 20 20 20 20 30 25 30 25 n/a n/a n/a n/a - NBT 918 1077 2 0.44 1620 1905 910 1065 - - - - - - - - n/a n/a n/a n/a - NBR 4 5 1 0.44 5 10 5 5 - - - - n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 150 SBT 1077 918 2 0.44 1910 1630 1680 1435 - - - - 45 80 1910 1630 n/a n/a n/a n/a -

CR 769/ Agnes St

WB L/R 14 12

5.9% 30

1 0.12 25 20 20 20 45 35 45 35 30 25 30 25 40 40 40 40 - NBT 909 1067 2 0.44 1605 1885 900 1055 - - - - - - - - - - - - - NBR 4 5 1 0.44 5 10 5 5 - - - - n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - - 150 SBL 8 8 1 0.12 15 15 10 10 20 20 20 20 n/a n/a n/a n/a 20 20 20 20 150 SBT 1063 905 2 0.44 1885 1615 1660 1420 - - - - 50 60 1885 1615 - - - - -

CR 769/ Peace River St

WB L/R 86 68

5.9% 30

1 0.12 150 120 135 105 110 90 150 120 250 145 250 145 120 95 150 120 - NBT 835 980 2 0.44 1475 1730 825 970 - - - - - - - - - - - - 350 NBR 60 77 1 0.44 105 135 60 75 - - - - - - - - - - - - - SBL 8 9 1 0.12 15 15 10 15 20 20 20 20 20 25 20 25 20 20 20 20 375 SBT 980 835 2 0.44 1730 1475 970 825 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* FDOT PPM Equation: Queue Length= 2*[Movement Volume x 25 x (1+T %)]/ (N x L) ** Red Time Equation: Queue Length= 2* [Movement Volume x 25 x (1+T %) x (1-g/c)]/ (N x L) Where, N= no. of cycles per hour; L= no. of lanes; g/c= green to cycle ratio

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 45 | P a g e

County Road 769 (Kings Highway) Final Project Traffic Report January 2015 Table 22 Continued: Design Year Build Queue Analysis Results

Design Year Build Queue Lengths

Intersection Movement Volume

Truck % N L g/c FDOT PPM* Red Time**

Alternative 1 Alternative 1-A Alternative 1-B Available Storage (ft.) SimTraffic 95th Recommended SimTraffic 95th Recommended SimTraffic 95th Recommended

AM PM AM PM AM PM AM AM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM

CR 769 at S. Kingsway Cir/ Courtly Manor

(Signalized)

EBL 31 19

5.9% 30

1 0.12 0.12 55 35 50 30 50 40 55 40 50 40 55 35 50 40 55 35 150 EB T/R 108 66 1 0.12 0.12 190 115 170 105 90 65 190 115 85 65 190 115 85 70 190 115 - WBL 21 16 1 0.12 0.12 35 30 35 25 40 35 40 35 35 35 35 35 40 35 40 35 150

WB T/R 14 13 1 0.12 0.12 25 25 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 - NBL 61 103 1 0.14 0.16 110 180 95 155 60 80 110 180 60 85 110 180 55 80 110 180 150 NBT 1098 1323 2 0.76 0.78 970 1170 235 255 80 80 970 1170 75 80 970 1170 80 85 970 1170 - NBR 16 21 1 0.76 0.78 30 35 5 10 0 0 30 35 0 0 30 35 15 0 30 35 150 SBL 8 9 1 0.10 0.11 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 20 15 20 15 15 15 15 15 150 SBT 1323 1098 2 0.67 0.63 1170 970 385 360 160 120 1170 970 160 125 1170 970 145 120 1170 970 - SBR 19 31 1 0.67 0.63 35 55 10 20 20 15 35 55 15 25 35 55 25 15 35 55 150

CR 769 at N. Kingsway Cir/

Ben Drive (Signalized)

EBL 24 23

5.9% 30

1 0.14 0.14 40 40 35 35 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 150 EB T/R 113 68 1 0.14 0.14 200 120 170 105 75 55 200 120 80 55 200 120 75 50 200 120 - WBL 21 16 1 0.14 0.14 35 30 30 25 40 30 40 30 35 30 35 30 40 35 40 35 150

WB T/R 14 13 1 0.14 0.14 25 25 20 20 25 20 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 20 25 25 - NBL 63 108 1 0.15 0.17 110 190 95 160 70 100 110 190 70 100 110 190 75 95 110 190 150 NBT 960 1149 2 0.76 0.76 845 1015 205 245 100 110 845 1015 100 105 845 1015 95 105 845 1015 - NBR 16 21 1 0.76 0.76 30 35 5 10 15 20 30 35 15 25 30 35 20 15 30 35 150 SBL 8 9 1 0.12 0.12 15 15 10 15 25 35 25 35 25 30 25 30 30 30 30 30 150 SBT 1149 960 2 0.66 0.60 1015 845 345 340 150 135 1015 845 145 140 1015 845 155 140 1015 845 - SBR 23 24 1 0.66 0.60 40 40 15 15 40 25 40 40 30 30 40 40 30 25 40 40 150

* FDOT PPM Equation: Queue Length= 2*[Movement Volume x 25 x (1+T %)]/ (N x L) ** Red Time Equation: Queue Length= 2* [Movement Volume x 25 x (1+T %) x (1-g/c)]/ (N x L) Where, N= no. of cycles per hour; L= no. of lanes; g/c= green to cycle ratio

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 46 | P a g e


Since Alternative 1-A involves improvements similar to Alternative 1 up to N. Kingsway Circle, queue length reductions are expected to be consistent with Alternative 1 results. However, as no improvements are recommended for segments north of N. Kingsway Circle, queue lengths at intersections north of N. Kingsway Circle are expected to be consistent with no-build results. Build Alternative 1-A is expected to reduce queue lengths at the intersection of CR 769 and St. James Place. At the intersection of CR 769 & S. Kingsway Circle and CR 769 and N. Kingsway Circle, the addition of a left turn lane in the eastbound and westbound directions is expected to reduce overall queueing at these approaches. Additionally, the provision of exclusive northbound and southbound left turn lanes at CR 769 and S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor is expected to substantially reduce queueing in the thru lanes. At the CR 769 intersections of SW Glenadine Avenue, Spring Lake Drive and Agnes Street, the lack of exclusive southbound left turn lanes is expected to result in queueing along the shared through and left turn lane, potentially obstructing through traffic along CR 769. Queue lengths at the intersection of CR 769 and Peace River Street are expected to remain consistent with no-build conditions.

As Alternative 1-B involves improvements similar to Alternative 1 with the exception of a frontage road between SW Glenadine Avenue and Agnes Street, queue length reductions are consistent with Alternative 1 results.

Table 22 presents queue analysis results for the signalization option at the CR 769 intersections of S. Kingsway Circle/Courtly Manor and N. Kingsway Circle/Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue, as well. Installation of a traffic signal is expected to slightly reduce queue lengths for minor street approaches, whereas queue lengths for northbound and southbound thru lanes are expected to increase.

8.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the traffic operation and safety analysis presented throughout this report, the following are some of the key findings.

• Existing intersection analysis results indicate that the intersection of CR 769 and St. James Place is currently operating at LOS E, while CR 769 intersections with S. Kingsway Circle and N. Kingsway Circle are currently operating at LOS D during both peak periods. The remaining study intersections are operating at LOS C during both peak periods. Existing roadway operational analysis results indicate that all the study segments along CR 769 within the study area are currently operating at either LOS D or C, with the exception of the segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place, which is operating at LOS F in at least one of the two directions.

• A five year historic crash data analysis showed a total of 175 collisions along CR 769 between Sandhill Boulevard and SR 72. Seven fatalities occurred along CR 769 between Sandhill Boulevard and SR 72, with four of them occurring along CR 769 between Sandhill Boulevard and Peace River Street. Off-road collisions were the predominant collision type followed by rear end and left turn collisions.

• The proposed widening of CR 769 is expected to have the potential to reduce crashes by 3% yielding a benefit-cost ratio of 1.26. Furthermore, safety improvements at the intersection of CR 769 and CR 761 are expected to have the potential to reduce crashes from 23-43% depending on the implementation of any of the proposed mitigation strategies.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 47 | P a g e


• Future year no-build intersection analysis results indicate that during Design year (2040), all the study intersections are expected to fail (LOS F), during both peak periods. Future year no-build roadway operational analysis results indicate that at the Design Year (2040), two of the study segments are expected to operate at LOS F during both peak periods along both northbound and southbound directions. Also, Design year no-build queue analysis results indicate excessive queuing due to the absence of exclusive turn lanes, potentially obstructing thru traffic at most of the study intersections.

• Three different build alternatives were analyzed for future year scenarios:

a) Alternative 1 recommends widening CR 769 from 0.5 mi south of Charlotte County Line to north of Peace River Street;

b) Alternative 1-A recommends widening CR 769 from 0.5 mi south of Charlotte County Line to north of N. Kingsway Circle, and retaining the existing geometry beyond the transition; and

c) Alternative 1-B recommends widening CR 769 from 0.5 mi south of Charlotte County Line to north of Peace River Street, and realigning CR 769 with the provision of a frontage road between SW Glenadine and Agnes Street.

• To provide better management of corridor accesses, the following geometric changes along CR 769 were also recommended:

a) Realign S. Kingsway Circle and Courtly Manor to serve as a four legged intersection; and

b) N. Kingsway Circle and realign Ben Drive/Sheri Avenue to serve as a four legged intersection.

These intersections were also analyzed with the installation of a traffic signal to improve the LOS and evaluate queuing. However, it should be noted that installation of traffic signals should meet Traffic Signal Warrants as described within the current Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and procedures as outlined in the FDOT Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies (MUTS).

• Future year build analysis for Alternative 1 indicate improved intersection operations at all the intersections, except CR 769 intersections with S. Kingsway and N. Kingsway Circles. Installation of traffic signals is expected to improve traffic operations at the aforementioned intersections. Additionally, segment analysis results indicated all the study segments are expected to operate at LOS B or better at Design Year, except the segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place which is expected to operate at LOS C at Design year.

• Future year build analysis for Alternative 1-A indicate improved intersection operations at the intersection of CR 769 and St. James Place, while installation of a traffic signal is expected to improve operations at CR 769 intersections with S. Kingsway and N. Kingsway Circle. Additionally, segment analysis results indicated segments up to N. Kingsway Circle are expected to operate at LOS B or better in the Design Year, except the segment between Sandhill Boulevard and St. James Place which is expected to operate at LOS C for the 2040 design year. North of the four-lane divided to two-lane undivided transition, intersection and segment operations are expected to remain consistent with no-build conditions.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 48 | P a g e


• Future year build analysis for Alternative 1-B indicates improved intersection operations at all the intersections, except CR 769 intersections with S. Kingsway and N. Kingsway Circles. Installation of traffic signals is expected to improve traffic operations at the aforementioned intersections. Additionally, segment analysis results indicated all the study segments are expected to operate at LOS B or better at Design Year, except the segment between Sandhill and St. James Pl which is expected to operate at LOS C at Design year.

Based upon the analysis of potential alternatives (1 and 1-B), improvements should be considered for the full project extent (0.5 mi south of the Charlotte/DeSoto County Line to Peace River Street). Alternatives 1 and 1-B provide operational improvements consistent with minimum LOS thresholds (LOS C for rural/suburban areas) and provide a Benefit/Cost of approximately 1.26. The final alternative should be established after proper vetting through the PD&E process.

FIN ID # 431297-1-22-01 49 | P a g e

APPENDICES (Provided Electronically)

A) Traffic Counts B) TURNS5 Output Sheets C) Existing Conditions Analysis Worksheets D) CR 769 Safety Predictive Analysis Worksheets E) Future Year No-Build Condition Analysis Worksheets F) Future Year Build Condition Analysis Worksheets G) Other FDOT Information

APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNTS

APPENDIX B TURNS5 OUTPUT SHEETS

APPENDIX C EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX D CR 769 SAFETY PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX E FUTURE YEAR NO-BUILD CONDITION

ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX F FUTURE YEAR BUILD CONDITION ANALYSIS

WORKSHEETS

APPENDIX G OTHER FDOT INFORMATION

final project traffic report road 769 (kings highway) final project traffic report january 2015...

Documents