METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Craig Fletcher -City of Vero Beach Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Tracy Carroll -City of Vera Beach, Alternate Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Frances Atchison-Town of Indian River Shores Commissioner Bob Solari Jerry Weick-Town ofIRS, Alternate Commissioner Peter D. O'Bryan Susan Adams -City of Fellsmere Eugene Wolff- City of Sebastian Sara Savage-City ofFellsmere, Alternate Don Wright -City ofSebastian, Alternate Non-voting Ex-Officio Member Brian Heady -City of Vero Beach Richard Dunlop-Town of Orchid JeffPegler-IRC School Board FDOT District 4 Representative Matt McCain -IRC School Board, Alternate
Richard Gillmor, City of Sebastian- MPO Chairman
AGENDA
THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) WILL MEET AT 10:00 AM ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2010 IN CONFERENCE ROOM B1-501, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING B, 1800 27TH STREET, VERO BEACH.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes October 13,2010
3. Status Report of MPO Advisory Committees No Action Required
4. Review of Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice #1 for the 2010/11 Planning Grant Action Required 5. Request to Approve Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Annual Evaluation Report for FY 2009-2010 Action Required
6. Review of FDOT Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program for Fiscal Years 2011/12 through 2015/16 Action Required
F:\Community Dcv~lopment\UsersiMPO\Mcctings\MPO\lOJ0\12-08-IOI.r\genda.doc 1 7. Consideration of the Final Indian River County 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Action Required
8. Consideration of Amendments to the Adopted Indian River County Transportation Improvement Program {TIP) Action Required
9. Presentation by Indian River County Health Department on Walking School Buses No Action Required
10. Status Report on Florida High Speed Rail Grant Applications No Action Required
11. Quarterly Status Report of MPO Staff Activities No Action Required
12. 2011 MPO Meeting Schedule
13. Other Business
14. Comments from the Public
15. Adjournment
Next Meeting MPO: January 12, 2011; 10:00 AM; Conference Room B1-501.
To view the MPO Agenda packet on-line please go to the following link: http://www.ircgov.com/Boards/MP0/2010/agendas/MP0120810A.pdf
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE ITEMS ON THIS AGENDA, PLEASE CONTACT MPO STAFF AT (772) 226-1455.
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THiS MEETING WILL NEED TO CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000, EXT. 223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS JN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
F:\Communily Dcvdopm~nt\U~cr$1MPOIM~ctings1MPOUOIOIJ2.08-JO\Agcndll..doc 2 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION A meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) was held at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, October 13, 2010, in the County Administration Building, 1800 2ih Street, Building B, Room B1-501, Vero Beach, Florida.
Present were: Chairman Richard Gillmor, Mayor, City of Sebastian; Peter O'Bryan, Bob Solari, Wesley Davis, Joe Flescher, and Gary Wheeler, Commissioners, IRC; Frannie Atchison, Councilmember, Town of Indian River Shores; Sabin Abell, Councilmember, City of Vero Beach; Don Wright, Council Member, City of Sebastian; Susan Adams (arrived at 10:20 a.m.), Mayor, City of Fellsmere; and Tykus Holloway, FOOT District 4 Representative.
Absent were: Kevin Sawnick, Councilmember, City of Vero Beach; Debbie MacKay, IRC School Board; and Richard Dunlop, Councilmember, Non-voting member, Town of Orchid, (all excused).
Also present were IRC staff: Joe Baird, County Administrator; Alan Polackwich, County Attorney; Jason Brown, Director of Management and Budget; Phil Matson, IRC MPO Director; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Chris Mora, Public Works Director; Brian Freeman, MPO Senior Planner; Sharon Schalm, Staff Assistant Ill, MPO; and Darcy Vasilas, Commissioner Assistant, District 3.
Others present: Monte Falls, Public Works Director, City of Vero Beach; Nathan McCollum, Community and Government Liaison, Indian River Medical Center; Claudia DeWitt, Transfield Services; Gregory Kyle and Ravi Wijesundera, Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.; Bob Johnson, Interested Citizen; and James Henry Davey, Future Interested Citizen.
Call to Order
Chairman Gillmor called the meeting to order at 10:07 a.m., at which time it was determined a quorum was present. All stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Approval of Minutes of September 8, 2010 MPO meeting
ON MOTION BY Commissioner O'Bryan, SECONDED BY Commissioner Davis, the members voted unanimously (9-0) to approve the minutes of September 8, 2010 as presented.
MPO- Unapproved 1 October 13, 2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Status Report of MPO Advisory Committees- No Action Required
Mr. Phil Matson, IRC MPO Director, reviewed his memorandum dated October 6, 2010, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.
Consideration of 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP - Draft Cost Feasible Plan -Action Required
Mr. Matson explained after the presentation of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan at the September 8, 2010 MPO meeting, the members expressed a preference for network Alternative "A", and requested staff and its consultants develop a new network alternative. The new alternative, which does not assume adoption of any additional local option gas taxes within the 25-year LRTP horizon, is identified as Alternative "C."
Since Alternative "C" was developed with less available revenue, there were a number of projects that appear in Alternative "A" that were eliminated from Alternative "C." The most significant of the projects excluded from Alternative "C" are the widening of 2th Avenue (St. Lucie County Line to Oslo Road) and the extension of 69th Street (66th Avenue to the Fellsmere North-South Grid Roadway).
Because there were fewer roadway improvements included in Alternative "C", the adoption of Alternative "C" would have adverse capacity and mobility impacts on the future travel network. There were more total Vehicle Miles and Vehicle Hours traveled under Alternative "C", this is because there were fewer grid roadways provided under that scenario. Also, under Alternative "C", a higher percentage of total travel will occur under congested conditions, and overall travel speeds will diminish.
The two alternatives also differ with respect to many individual travel corridors. In the south county area, for example, portions of 20th Avenue and 43rd Avenue will be approaching congested conditions under Alternative "C." Those roadways, however, do not demonstrate future deficiencies under Alternative "A", since there are more inter-county travel options with that alternative.
Another noticeable difference between the alternatives appears in the CR 512 corridor. Without 69th Street, east-west travel across 1-95 in the north county area will occur solely on CR 512, resulting in congested conditions on CR 512, particularly west of 1-95.
Mr. Matson introduced Mr. Gregory Kyle, and Mr. Ravi Wijesundera, consultants from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. Kyle proceeded to give a
MPO- Unapproved 2 October 13,2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. Highlights of this presentation were as follows:
The Cost Feasible Plan was built off the Adopted Needs Plan which was developed earlier in the process from a hybrid alternative that was developed by widening key roadway corridors as well as densifying the roadway grid within the county.
The 2035 Needs Plan Modeling Deficient Roadway Segments were identified as:
• 1-95 • us 1 • SRA1A • CR 510 • CR 507 • CR512 • Roseland Road • Indian River Boulevard • SR60 • Oslo Road • 82nd Avenue • 66th Avenue • 58th Avenue • 43rd Avenue • 2ih Avenue • 20th Avenue
Adopted Needs Plan Enhanced Grid Alternative:
• Combines construction of a denser grid network with widening of key corridors • Eliminates the need to widen a number of roadways
Financial Resources Analyses:
• New Federal requirement for LRTP's • Converting revenues and costs to Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars more accurate method - accounts for effects of inflation on costs of transportation projects
MPO- Unapproved 3 October 13,2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Mr. Kyle pointed out approximately $55 million of funds were predicated upon the adoption of additional local option gas tax funds. Based on some concerns that were raised at previous meetings, Alternative "C" has been developed without the $55 million of funds.
Mr. Kyle continued, the gap in funding was something new to IRC; when the 2030 LRTP was prepared, there was enough funding available to fund all the projects that were in the needs plan. The gap reflects the increase in cost of transportation improvements, some of that related to the new way of preparing LRTP's where we have to factor in the effects of inflation over time on construction costs. It also reflected somewhat the way revenue streams are beginning to erode over time, such as the federal gas tax which has been at 18- cents a gallon since early 1990's. The value of that gas tax was eroding and is delivering less in terms of transportation infrastructure improvements.
Commissioner Davis asked if the decrease in the value of gas tax was due to more fuel efficient cars. Mr. Kyle responded the trend of more fuel efficient cars does impact the gas tax and that the cost of road construction was three to four times the cost of what it was in 1990.
Commissioner O'Bryan interjected the cost of purchasing right-of-way has also contributed to the increase of road construction.
Mr. Kyle moved on to the Goals, Objectives and Policies which were identified as:
• A connected, responsive, aesthetically pleasing and efficient transportation system that meets the needs of Indian River County residents, visitors, and businesses • A transportation system that provides travel alternatives which enhance mobility for people and freight • A transportation system that is sensitive to the natural and social environment • A safe transportation system for Indian River County residents, visitors, and businesses • A transportation system that is preserved and maintained through adequate investment and management of infrastructure
Mayor Adams arrived at 10:20 a.m.
M PO - Unapproved 4 October 13,2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Public Input Received in the LRTP Update Process:
• Land Use vision workshop in March 2009 • Five Alternatives Workshops around the County in May 2010 • Two Cost Feasible Plan Workshops in August/September 2010 • Received approximately 500 surveys and comment cards
Cost Feasible Plan Alternatives:
• Cost of Adopted Need Plan exceeds revenue forecast to fund projects • Two alternative CFPs developed o Set of "core" projects common to both alternatives o CFP Alternative "A" • Includes widening of key corridors exhibiting greatest travel demand o CFP Alternative "C" • Reduced revenue scenario
Core Cost Feasible Roadway Projects:
Roadway : ··Project Limits ..... Project Description 1-95 St. Lucie County Line to Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Brevard County Line US-1 St. Lucie County Line to Widen from 4 to 6 lanes Highland Drive US-1 53ro Street to CR 510 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes CR 510 CR 512 to ICWW Widen from 2 to 4 lanes CR 512 Willow Street to 1-95 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Oslo Road 1-95 to 58th Avenue Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 43ro Avenue St. Lucie County Line to 16th Widen from 2 to 4 lines Street 66th Avenue 41st Street to Barber Street Widen from 2 to 4 lines 82no Avenue 26th Street to Laconia Street New 2-lane road
MPO- Unapproved 5 October 13,2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Alternative "A- Roadway Projects
Roadway ·Project. Limits ···.· .. Project·.Description.···•·.•··· .. Roseland Road CR 512 to US-1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Indian River Blvd. 20th Street to 45th Street Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 26m Street 43rd Ave to 58th Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 25m Street SW 2ih Ave to 58th Ave New 2-lane road 27m Avenue St. Lucie County line to Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Oslo Road 4th Street 66m Ave to gam Ave New 2-lane road 1ih Street sam Ave to 66m Ave New 2-lane road 53rd Street sam Avenue to 82na Ave New 2-lane road 69th Street 66m Ave to Fellsmere New 2-lane road 58th Avenue 23th Street SW to Oslo New 2-lane road Road 74m Avenue Oslo Road to 8th Street New 2-lane road gam Avenue 4th Street to S R 60 New 2-lane road stn Street SW Old Dixie Hwy. to 20m New 2-lane road Ave Oslo Road 1-95 to Oslo Road New Interchange Interchange
Alternative "C" - Roadway Projects:
Roadway Project Limits Project DescriR_tion Roseland Road CR 512 to US-1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Indian River Blvd. 20th Street to 45th Street Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 25th Street, SW 2th Ave to 58th Ave New 2-lane road 26th Street 43rd Ave to 58th Ave Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 4th Street 66th Ave to 98th Ave New 2-lane road 53rd Street 58th Ave to 66th Ave New 2-lane road 98th Avenue 4th Street to SR 60 New 2-lane road Oslo Road 1-95 to Oslo Road New Interchange Interchange
Council Member Wright inquired about the projects identified with blue lines with no funding and wondered the purpose of having them on list. Mr. Kyle responded the purpose of leaving the blue-lined projects on the list was those projects were part of the adopted Needs Plan. When beginning the evaluation, they had to determine what projects progressed from the Needs Plan into the Cost Feasible Plan; the projects were still under consideration.
MPO- Unapproved 6 October 13, 2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Mr. Kyle then reviewed comparisons between Alternatives "A" and "C" by showing the projects not included in Alternative "C":
.... ~ Roadway . . Project Limits . ··ProjecfDescripti6h. 27m Avenue Oslo Road to St. Lucie Widen from 2 to 4 lanes County Line 69th Street 66th Avenue to Fellsmere New 2-lane Road N-S Road 53ra Street 66th Avenue to 82nd Ave New 2-lane road 74m Avenue ath Street to Oslo Road New 2-lane road 12m Street ath Avenue to 66th Ave New 2-lane road 5th Street SW Old Dixie Hwy. to 20th New 2-lane road Avenue
Commissioner Wheeler asked if on the plans for widening 2ih Avenue from the St. Lucie County line to Oslo Road; were there plans for St. Lucie County as well so there would be widening all the way through St. Lucie County. Mr. Kyle responded currently St. Lucie County was behind IRC in their plan development process. Their Needs Plan does include 4-lanes on the Emerson corridor which becomes 2ih Avenue in IRC; so basically it would match up with the St. Lucie County plan with 4-lanes.
Mr. Kyle related with either Alternative "A" or "C", there were going to be some corridors that are going to have a Level of Service deficiency, or exhibit congestion. Some of those areas include US-1 in Sebastian, where previously there was a decision made that no more than four-lanes were desired in that part of the county through the City of Sebastian. Also along SR 60 there were portions of the corridor that were shown to be over capacity, even with six-lanes in 2035. Portions of SR A 1A were shown to be over capacity so those were not being addressed in either option.
Mr. Kyle continued areas where Alternative "A" was doing a better job of addressing the deficiencies than Alternative "C" include along CR 512 to the west of 1-95, in particular. What was shown there was the effectiveness of having another travel option by having 69th Street extended across 1-95 which is part of Alternative "A", by reducing the demand on CR 512 by providing another travel option for that area.
Alternative "A" does a better job of addressing congestion in the south part of the county, particularly the area south of Oslo Road where there were additional improvements. The 2ih Avenue widening helps relieve not only the demand in the 2ih Avenue Corridor, but also generally on the north-south roads to the south of Oslo Road. MPO- Unapproved 7 October 13,2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Commissioner Davis opined instead of taking 69th Street from 66th Avenue to Fellsmere N-S Road where it would run through conservation land, it would make more sense to come across 7ih Street straight west, coming out on the south side of Vero Lake Estates, and cut across 1-95 coming into the north side of Fellsmere to Willow Street.
Mr. Kyle agreed that initially the roadway Commissioner Davis described had been considered, but eventually it moved to 69th Street. He said eventually an environmental analysis would have to be done to determine which corridor was appropriate out of 7ih Street and 69th Streets to take across 1-95, and which one would have the least significant environmental impact.
Mr. Kyle reviewed the Causes of Congestion:
• Slow growth in supply of transportation infrastructure versus: o Population growth o More trips going from one county or suburb to another o Heavy demand during peak periods of day
Adverse Impacts of Congestion:
• Environmental o Wasted fuel o Increased emissions degrade air quality • Quality of Life o Travel delay takes away from family/discretionary time o Increased emergency response time • Economy o Additional costs to businesses passed on to consumers • Safety o Increased frequency of crashes
Traffic simulations were shown using US-1 and Roseland Road both today and in the year 2035 with the same road network in place. A simulation was also shown for 2035 with the widening of Roseland Road as well the addition of some turn lanes along US-1.
Commissioner Davis left the meeting at 10:50 a.m.
MPO- Unapproved 8 October 13, 2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Alternative Mobility Options were reviewed:
• Adopted Needs Plan did not address capacity deficiencies in several corridors o US-1 in Sebastian, SR A1A • Lack of revenue to fund all Adopted Needs Plan roadway improvements • Alternative mobility strategies include transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities improvements
Transit Improvements:
• Strategic Transit Plan outlined in TOP • Service improvements are highest priority o Extend operations over longer portion of day o Increased frequency to achieve 30-foot headways • Extend Route 4 along US-1 into St. Lucie County • Identify transit priority corridors
Transit Supportive Land Use Patterns:
• Intense/dense use • Mixed use with multiple destinations within close proximity • Interconnected street networks • Pedestrian friendly - convenient and direct connections • Street-oriented design
Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: • LRTP identifies "complete streets" o Sidewalks, bike lanes, transit stops, etc. • County allocates $200k annually of gas tax revenues • Approximately $400k annually of State enhancement funds • Improvements are identified through MPO planning process o Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan o Greenways Plan
Mr. Kyle identified the next steps were:
• Adoption of Draft Cost Feasible Plan • 45-day Public Comment Period • Ongoing Regional Coordination • 2035 LRTP Update Adoption MPO- Unapproved 9 October 13,2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Mr. Matson summarized in the agenda package, staff recommended Alternative "A" and that was the one that contained more projects and does impose the additional 6-cents of local option gas tax. He opined the decision to not build the best and highest mobility oriented transportation system possible really has implications for the future congestion such as at US-1 and Roseland Road, or SR 60.
Mayor Gillmor asked if Alternative "A" were to be selected and the gas tax did not materialize, could we fall back to Alternative "C". Mr. Matson responded that could be possible.
Councilmember Abell wondered why Alternative "C" could not be selected and then adding projects to it later down the road. Mr. Matson replied Alternative "C" had a lot of projects on it which meant fewer less projects we could ask FOOT to start working on. Accepting Alternative "C" also acknowledges we are willing to accept fairly high levels of congestion.
Mr. Mora inquired if a project was not on our Long Range Plan would that disallow the use of grant funding. Mr. Matson replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Adams asked if it would be better to have everything in the plan then figure out how to pay for it as opposed to having the money and figuring out how to spend it.
Mr. Mora replied if we approve Alternative "A" we are keeping our options open in the future.
Commissioner Wheeler figured with the current gas tax at 6-cents, and another 6-cents slated for 2013, that would give us 12-cents. He asked Jason Brown, IRC Department of Management and Budget Director, how much the County currently collected in gas tax revenue per year. Mr. Brown replied $3 million per year.
Commissioner Wheeler felt this was one of the few appropriate taxes the government levies because it was designated to go toward transportation and it comes from gas tax for transportation. At some point in time, as a local government, we must start looking at what we were taxing for and how we were spending the money and not just keep adding on new taxes. He opined an average person was going to spend between $50 to $100 per year minimum for that additional 6-cents tax. His concern was what people could afford.
Mr. Joe Baird, IRC County Administrator, interjected one thing that needed to be looked at was that gas was essentially supply and demand, and the price
M PO - Unapproved 10 October 13, 2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc was based on that fact. He continued the actual gas tax was only a small component of the price for gas. He felt it was important to have the additional 6- cents of gas tax in the LRTP. In order to impose the increase in gas tax, there would have to be public hearings at the time to obtain public input, so he thought we should not close the door and opined it was important to have that revenue included so we could obtain grants and have more money towards roads.
Mr. Kyle pointed out the average cost per year to commuters resulting from congestion in small urban areas similar to IRC, was $384. At 6-cents a gallon gas tax increase you could buy a lot of gas for $384.
Mr. Brown stated the Budget Office had been conducting a survey of Indian River, Brevard, St. Lucie and Martin Counties for gas tax prices. St. Lucie and Martin Counties have 12-cents gas tax; Indian River and Brevard have 6- cents. The survey is done once a week of four gas stations in each county; two in the US-1 corridor and two in the 1-95 corridor and the same gas brand in similar locations. The result of the survey was the average for the third quarter of 2010, Brevard County was almost 6.5-cents cheaper than Indian River County; St. Lucie County was one-tenth of a cent more that Indian River County, even though they levy 6-cents more in gas tax; and Martin County was 3.5-cents more than us.
Mr. Brown related the gas price was directly related to supply and demand; you have higher incomes in Martin County and Indian River County than in St. Lucie County, so the prices that can be extracted from the drivers would be higher. He opined that the gas distributors figure depending on where the gas was going, more money could be made.
Commissioner Solari reported he would be supporting Alternative "A", and because realistically in the world when you are buying things, such as in 1990 gas may have been $1 per gallon and at a S-cents gas tax, 5% of the $1 was going toward gas tax. Today, gas is $3 per gallon, with a 6-cents gas tax, and 1.66% of the $3 going toward the gas tax. In 2020, at a $4 per gallon cost, the gas tax would be 1.25%. He opined if the inflation factors were provided in real numbers, it would make it easier to make an informed decision when the time comes.
Mayor Adams suggested we may be doing ourselves a great disservice by limiting our options. She understood we may not have the money depending upon whether or not the gas tax was increased, but if we limited the list, and we were to get money through a grant or an increase in gas tax, we would already be behind the eight ball because the improvements were not in the LRTP. She also supported Alternative "A" because it provides options moving forward.
MPO- Unapproved 11 October 13, 2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Council Member Wright noted some of the projects were slated for 2021, 2026, and 2031. He wondered what a realistic timeframe would be when FOOT would become involved or when we would begin looking for grants. Mr. Kyle responded the process would start in terms of funding and applications to FOOT approximately 15 years in advance.
Commissioner Solari interjected it was important to show as much as possible in advance, some of the roads that may occur, such as 43rd Avenue, as a main thoroughfare that would eventually have to be widened as traffic and growth increased. Since he first came to IRC in 1980, people come have come into the community in the last five to ten years and do not accept that 43rd Avenue needed to be 4-laned. It was incumbent on us to show as early as possible in the process where we may be building roads to at least let the public know if you buy here, maybe in 20 years there may be a road closer to your house.
Commissioner O'Bryan felt we needed to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, whereby we have taken a population projection and said how could we jam this many people in an area. He thought we should instead look at the resources we had to handle a certain number of people and that should be our projection. He did not find anything innovative in Alternatives "A" or "C", other than laying down more asphalt, while we were currently struggling to maintain the roads we have, and we're talking about building more roads. Park & Rides and more transit should be considered instead.
Discussion ensued regarding various methods of transit.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Commissioner Solari, the members voted (6-3) to approve the staff-consultant recommendation of Alternative "A" of the Draft Cost Feasible Plan Summary Report. Commissioner O'Bryan, Councilmember Abell, and Council Member Wright opposed.
Other Business:
Mr. Matson announced at the next MPO meeting, scheduled for December 8, 2010, Mr. Jim Wolfe, District Secretary of FOOT, District 4, would be present. Mr. Wolfe would be discussing the FOOT Work Program.
MPO- Unapproved 12 October 13, 2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc Comments from the Public
There were none.
Adjournment
Chairman Gillmore adjourned the meeting at 11 :24 a.m.
MPO - Unapproved 13 October 13, 2010 F:\BCC\AII Committees\MP0\201 0 Minutes\1 0.13.1 O.doc INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP { FROM: Phillip J. Matson MPO Staff DirectorOt' DATE: November 30,2010 SUBJECT: Status Report of MPO Advisory Committees It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting of December 8, 2010. TACMEETING The TAC met on November 19, 2010. At that meeting, the TAC considered the FY 2011/12- FY 2015116 FDOT Five Year Draft Tentative Work Program (TWP). After considering the TWP, the TAC recommended that the MPO approve the TWP. Also on November 19th, the TAC considered the 2035 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Summary Report and recommended that the MPO approve the LRTP at its December 8th MPO Meeting. CACMEETING The CAC met on November 30, 2010 to consider the FY 2011/12 - FY 2015/16 FDOT Five Year Draft Tentative Work Program (TWP) and the 2035 Draft Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Summary Report. At that time, the CAC recommended that the MPO approve both the LRTP and TWP at its December 8th MPO Meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS The MPO and its advisory committees will next meet as follows: MPO Meeting: January 12, 2011 - 10:00 am TAC Meeting: December 17,2010-10:00 am BAC Meeting: January 25,2011-2:00 pm CAC Meeting: January 4, 2011 - 2:00 pm F:\Community Dcvclopmcnt\U~crli\MPO\M~ting•IMP0\2010112.08·10\Stahu Other Committcc~.doc INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP ft.M'( Community Development Director Phillip J. Matson /7[ MPO Staff Directo~ ~ FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP (1. 'F Senior Transportation Planner DATE: November 24,2010 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PROGRESS REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE #1 FOR 2010/11 PLANNING GRANT It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting ofDecember 8, 2010. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS It is required, as part of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Planning Grant contract between the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) and the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), that periodic progress reports and reimbursement invoices be submitted. To comply with the CTD's requirements, staff has prepared a progress report and invoice for the period from July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010. The attached invoice and progress report represent the first quarter of the 2010/11 planning grant period. This progress report and applicable finished products, such as the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) meeting agenda items, CTC reports, etc., are required to accompany all reimbursement InVOICeS. Attached is a copy of draft invoice #1 and the quarterly progress report. This report, along with the appropriate supporting documents, will be submitted to the CTD upon Metropolitan Planning Organization/DOPA approval. F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MP0\20 I 0\12-08-1 0\Progress Staff Report. doc 1 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the MPO approve the Planning Grant Progress Report and Invoice #1 and direct staff to submit the report and invoice to the State Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. ATTACHMENTS 1. Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice #1, 2010/11 Planning Grant. F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MP0\20 10\12-08-1 0\Progress Staff Report. doc 2 INVOICE Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization 1801 27th Street Vera Beach, FL 32960-3365 (772) 226-1237 BILL TO: Invoice Number: Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged Invoice Date: ------11/8/2010 605 Suwannee Street, MS 49 Vendor FEID Number: ------2::-:3'""7,_,;,0..;,;40~2:-:1:.;;4~0-=-1 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Grant Execution Dates of Services Contract# Project# Date CSFA# Grant Termination Date 7/01/10-09/30/10 AQ040 55.002 6/30/2010 Budget Year to Date Type of Budgeted Expenditure Amount Total This Billing ~. ! f;:•,.;,;:·•,\.; ;:i~'•·'' :;;;,; ,.. ;;,:;-•:\;-'.• ,•::::":' >c:,,;· .. •:!·,•>; :>,·; ,:';:.i\,: .;,···"'·· ::.· . ; : ;:.,,,;:~:>/': 1:;c:"e;>••iii'',: ~:,•'m%1%) IY''):c~:?!• ''·"'~''""'''""'' -''i Personnel (salaries) $ 12,324.00 $ 3,178.83 $ 3,178.83 Fringe Benefits $ 7,551.00 $ 1,792.17 $ 1,792.17 Contractual $ - $ - $ - Travel $ - $ - One Day Travel/Meals $ - $ - $ - Other Travel $ - $ - $ - Supplies $ - $ - $ - Other $ - $ - $ - 2. Indirect Costs $ - $ - $ - 3.1n Kind $ - $ - $ - Total Project Cost $ 4,971.00 Less: Amount over Exhibit "B" of Contract $ - Subtotal $ 4,971.00 Add: Justification or explanation $ - TOTAL $ 4,971.00 Remit To:flndian River County Page 1 of 1 ______.180127th Street Vera Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 226-1237 Attachment 1 PLANNING RELATED GRANT AGREEMENT TASKS QUARTERLYPROGRESSREPORT IRC Metropolitan Planning Organization Invoice#------=-- 1 (Agency N arne) FDOTFM # 23 704021401 Indian River County (County) Contract # AQ040 Reporting Period: ___O.:;c_;7:...:..._/0..::....;1::.:.../=-20=-=1:....::0 ___ to _____::0:...::..9.;....::/3;._;:0c.:...:/2::....:0=--=1'""'0_ I. Program Management A. Where necessary and in cooperation with the Local Coordinating Board, solicit and recommend a community transportation coordinator, in conformity with Chapter 287 and 427, Florida Statutes. N/A B. Develop and maintain a process for the appointment and reappointment of voting and non-voting members to the Local Coordinating Board (LCB). Reporting Period and Year to Date: Consistent with the requirements of Rule 41-2, F.A.C. the county maintained its TDLCB appointment and reappointment process. C. Prepare agendas for local coordinating board meetings consistent with the Local Coordinating Board and Planning Agency Operating Guidelines. Ensure that operator payments are addressed as standard agenda item. Reporting Period: In this period, staff prepared the agenda and agenda items for the August 26, 2010 TDLCB meeting. Year to Date: 1 In this period, staff prepared the agenda and agenda items for the August 26, 2010 TDLCB meeting. D. Prepare official minutes of Local Coordinating Board meetings. For committee meetings, prepare minutes in the form of a brief summary of basic points, discussions, decisions, and recommendations to the full board. Keep records of all meetings for at least three years. Reporting Period: Official minutes for the August 26, 2010 TDLCB meeting were prepared. Year to Date: Official minutes for the August 26,2010 TDLCB meetings were prepared. E. Provide at least one public hearing annually by each Local Coordinating Board, and assist the Commission, as requested, in co-sponsoring public hearings. Reporting Period and Year to Date: NA F. Provide staff support for committees of the Local Coordinating Board. Reporting Period and Year to Date: Staff support was provided as needed. Staff closely worked with and supported the CTC evaluation sub-committee. G. Annually develop and update by-laws for Local Coordinating Board approval. Reporting Period and Year to Date: N/A H. Develop, annually update, and implement Local Coordinating Board grievance procedures in accordance with the Commission guidelines, which includes a step within the local complaint and/or grievance procedure that advises a dissatisfied 2 person about the Commission's Ombudsman Program. Reporting Period and year to date: N/A I. Maintain a current membership roster and mailing list of local coordinating board members. Reporting Period: TDLCB membership list was updated as needed. Year to Date: The TDLCB membership list was updated as needed. J. Provide public notice of local coordinating board meetings and local public hearings in accordance with the Coordinating Board and Planning Agency Operating Guidelines. Reporting Period: Public notices were provided. For this period, the TDLCB meeting date was published in the local newspaper in August 2010. Year to Date: Public notice was published in the local newspaper (Press-Journal) in August 2010. K. Review and comment on the Annual Operating Report for submittal to the Local Coordinating Board, and forward comments/concerns to the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Reporting Period and Year to Date: The Community Transportation Coordinator Annual Operation Report was submitted for approval at the TDLCB meeting of August 26, 2010. 3 L. Review the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP), and recommend action to the Local Coordinating Board. Reporting Period and Year to Date: N/A M. Report the actual expenditures of direct federal and local government transportation funds to the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged no later than September 15th. Reporting Period and Year to Date: Report of actual expenditures was prepared and submitted to the CTD during the reporting period. N. Report the annual budget estimates of direct federal and local government transportation funds to the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged no later than September 15th and as required by Chapter 427, Florida Statutes. Reporting Period and Year to Date: Annual budget estimates were reported to the CTD during the reporting period. II. Service Development The planning agency shall develop the following service development items. A. Jointly, with the Community Transportation Coordinator and the Local Coordinating Board, develop the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan (TDSP) by preparing the planning section following Commission guidelines. Reporting Period and Year to Date: N/A B. Encourage integration of "transportation disadvantaged" issues into local and regional comprehensive plans. Ensure activities of the Local Coordinating Board and Community Transportation Coordinator are consistent with local and state comprehensive planning activities including the Florida Transportation Plan. 4 Reporting Period and Year to Date: Staff ensured integration of "transportation disadvantaged" issues into planning documents. Staff also ensured activities of the TDLCB and the CTC were consistent with local and state comprehensive planning activities. C. Encourage the local Community Transportation Coordinator to work cooperatively with local WAGES coalitions established in Chapter 414, Florida Statutes, and provide assistance in the development of innovative transportation services for WAGES participants. Staff encouraged the CTC to work with local WAGES coalition. III. Technical Assistance, Training, and Evaluation The planning agency shall provide technical assistance and training for the Local Coordinating Board, and shall assist the Local Coordinating Board in monitoring and evaluating the Community Transportation Coordinator. A. Provide the Local Coordinating Board with quarterly reports of Transportation Disadvantaged planning accomplishments and expenditures as outlined in the planning grant agreement or any other activities related to the Transportation Disadvantaged program including but not limited to, consultant contracts, special studies, and marketing efforts. Reporting Period: The LCB was provided with quarterly reports of TD planning accomplishments and activities. Year to Date: The LCB was provided with quarterly reports of TD planning accomplishments and activities. B. Attend at least one Commission-sponsored training, including but not limited to, the Commission's quarterly regional meetings, and the Commission's annual training workshop, or other sponsored training. 5 Reporting Period and Year to Date: N/A C. Attend at least one Commission meeting each year within budget/staff/schedule availability. Reporting Period and Year to Date: Staff attended a quarterly CTD Meeting July 2010. D. Notify Commission staff of local Transportation Disadvantaged concerns that may require special investigations. Reporting Period and Year to Date: Planning Staff coordinated with the CTD staff as needed. E. Provide training for newly-appointed Local Coordinating Board members. Reporting Period and Year to Date: N/A F. Provide assistance to the Community Transportation Coordinator, purchasing agencies, and others, as needed, which may include participation in, and initiating when necessary, local or regional meetings to discuss Transportation Disadvantaged needs, service evaluation and opportunities for service improvement. Reporting Period and Year to Date: Planning staff coordinated with the CTC on a regular basis and provided technical assistance as needed. G. To the extent feasible, collect and review proposed funding applications involving "Transportation Disadvantaged" funds consistent with Chapter 427, Florida 6 Statutes, and Rule 41-2 of the Florida Administrative Code, and provide recommendation to the Local Coordinating Board. Reporting Period and Year to Date: Applicable TD funding applications completed and submitted to the appropriate agencies. H. Ensure the Local Coordinating Board conducts, at a minimum, an annual evaluation of the Community Transportation Coordinator. The Local Coordinating Board shall evaluate the coordinator using the Commission's Evaluation Workbook for Community Transportation Coordinators and Providers in Florida (at a minimum, using the modules concerning Competition in Use of Operators, Cost-Effectiveness and Efficiency, and Availability of Service) and local standards as defined in the Transportation Disadvantaged Service Plan. Reporting Period and Year to Date: The TDLCB designated a CTC Evaluation Subcommittee at its February 25, 2010 meeting. The CTC evaluation subcommittee met on August 26, 2010 and conducted a review of the CTC's performance during FY 2009/10. I. Assist the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged in joint reviews of the Community Transportation Coordinator. Reporting Period: N/A Year to Date: N/A J. Ensure the Local Coordinating Board annually reviews coordination contracts to advise the Coordinator whether the continuation of said contract provides the most cost effective and efficient transportation available, consistent with Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code. Reporting period and Year to Date: 7 Coordination contracts have been reviewed by the TDLCB as needed. K. Implement recommendations identified in the Commission's QAPE reviews. Reporting period and Year to Date: N/A IV. Special Consideration by Planning Agency: V. Special Consideration by Commission: Other Items of Development and Update in accordance with Laws, Rules, and Commission policyp J.1\iV----- 11/8/2010 Signature of Individual Submitting Report Date Phillip J. Matson Typed name of Individual Submitting Report F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\TD\Progress Reports\Invoices 2011 \Invoice I \Progress Report 1.doc 8 \. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, Arcp/tM\( Community Development Director Phillip J. Matson PjV} MPO Staff Director FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP j:Jy Senior Transportation Planner DATE: November 30, 2010 SUBJECT: Request to Approve Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) Annual Evaluation Report for FY 2009-2010 It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting ofDecember 8, 2010. SUMMARY On an annual basis, the county's Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) and the MPO must evaluate the performance of the county Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC). Recently, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board completed its performance evaluation of the Senior Resource Association (SRA), the county's CTC, and recommended that the MPO retain the SRA as the county's CTC. Staff recommends that the MPO approve the attached CTC annual evaluation report, retain the Senior Resource Association as the county's CTC, and direct staff to forward the report to the State Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS One requirement of the county's transportation disadvantaged service plan is that "the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) shall evaluate the performance of the Community Transportation Coordinator and provide a recommendation to the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for continuation or replacement of the Community Transportation Coordinator". To facilitate this evaluation process, the TDLCB developed a set of criteria for the coordinator evaluation. On September 11, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the F:\Community Development\U sers\MPO\Meetings\MP0\20 I 0\12-08-1 0\CTC Eval Staff Report. doc 1 county's Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA), approved the CTC's evaluation procedures and standards. While the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is now the DOPA, the approved CTC evaluation procedures and standards have not changed. To conduct this year's CTC evaluation, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) established a subcommittee whose purpose was to meet with the coordinator and evaluate the coordinator's performance. Using the criteria established by the TDLCB as well as the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged's required evaluation criteria, the subcommittee assessed the performance of the Community Transportation Coordinator and prepared a report addressing the coordinator's performance in relation to each of the evaluation criteria. A copy ofthat report is attached. ANALYSIS The Indian River County Senior Resource Association, formerly known as the Indian River County Council on Aging, was designated the County's Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) in October 1990. Since then, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) has reviewed the CTC performance each year and has consistently recommended that the DOPA retain the Senior Resource Association as the county's CTC. This year, evaluation of the CTC was performed by an evaluation subcommittee appointed by the Local Coordinating Board. This evaluation was conducted according to the CTD's evaluation criteria, the CTC' s evaluation procedures and criteria approved by the TDLCB and the DOPA. Based upon its assessment, the committee gave good marks to the Senior Resource Association, the county's CTC, and recommends that the Senior Resource Association be retained as the county's CTC. On November 18,2010, the TDLCB approved the CTC annual evaluation report, recommended that the MPO retain the Senior Resource Association as the county's CTC, and directed staff to forward the annual evaluation report to the MPO for its approval prior to submittal of the report to the state Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the MPO approve the attached CTC annual evaluation report, retain the Senior Resource Association as the county's CTC, and direct staff to forward the report to the State Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Attachment 1. Community Transportation Coordinator's (CTC) Annual Evaluation Report 2009-2010 F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MP0\20 I 0\12-08-1 0\CTC Eva! Staff Report. doc 2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board FROM: Harry Hurst, Chairperson ~ Community Transportation Coordinator Evaluation Sub-Committee DATE: August 27, 2010 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOREVALUATION (FY2009- 2010) The CTC sub-committee evaluation of the county's Transportation Disadvantaged Community Transportation Coordinator was conducted on August 26, 2010. The committee was comprised of Dr. Harry Hurst, Cathy Viggiano, Dalia Dillon and Katherine Geyer. To aid in the completion of their evaluation, the committee members were given copies ofthe MPO's Evaluation Procedures and Standards for Community Transportation Coordinators and the CTC's Evaluation Workbook from the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. The Evaluation Criteria were divided into four sections; (1) Coordination/Planning, (2) Operation, (3) Cost/Financial Management, (4) Utilization Review. Karen Wood, Transportation Director of the Senior Resources Association, was asked questions from all four evaluation areas. The committee members ranked the performance of the SRA as excellent, good, average, or poor, based on supporting documents provided and Ms. Wood's responses. The last part of the evaluation process consisted of on-board bus observations by TDLCB Board members Katherine Geyer and Dalia Dillon. They volunteered to ride-along on a medical trip and document their experience. The committee members were extremely impressed with the efficiency and excellence ofthe SRA's performance. They were also very appreciative of the efforts of Karen Wood, Karen Deigl, Executive Director and the entire SRA transportation staff. The CTC evaluation sub-committee recommends that the TDLCB approve the attached CTC annual evaluation report and to recommend that the MPO/DOPA retain the Senior Resource Associations as the county's CTC. F:\Community Dev.:lopment1Um1<\.\i.P0\1teclings\TDLCB\2010111-IIt-IO\Evaluntion Conunittcc Transmittal 20IO.doc Attachment 1 EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Florida Rule Chapter 41-2, implementing the provisions of Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, places upon the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) the responsibility for the overall planning, administration, monitoring, coordination, arrangement and delivery of transportation disadvantaged (TD) services within its designated service area. This rule also requires that the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) on a continuous basis evaluate the services provided by the County Transportation Coordinator and provide an evaluation of the Coordinator's performance in general and relative to Transportation Disadvantaged Commission's standards. The state is requiring that the following modules from the CTD's evaluation workbook be used as part of CTC performance evaluation. • Competition • Cost effectiveness • Availability of Services RESPONSIBILITIES AND TIMEFRAME The Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) must evaluate the performance of the Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) on an annual basis and provide a recommendation to the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for continuation or replacement of the Community Transportation Coordinator. EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE The TDLCB shall designate an Evaluation Subcommittee on an annual basis consisting of three voting members of the TDLCB to evaluate the previous year's (July 1- June 30) performance of the Community Transportation Coordinator and to provide a written report to the TDLCB. TIMEFRAME a) The evaluation report must cover the period from July 1 to June 30, corresponding to the timeframe ofthe Annual Operating Report (AOR). The evaluation subcommittee's report must be submitted for the TDLCB's consideration at the August meeting of the TDLCB. b) One additional evaluation report per year may be requested by the TDLCB members. The request for additional evaluation reports must be approved by the majority vote of the TDLCB members. EVALUATION CRITERIA The following evaluation standards have been developed to allow the Local Coordinating Board to assess the performance of the Coordinator using locally developed criteria, which incorporate those performance criteria provided by the Transportation Disadvantaged Commission. These standards address four areas: coordination/planning, operation, costs/financial management, and utilization. Attached also is a copy of the state evaluation modules for competition, cost effectiveness and efficiency, and availability of services. F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TDLCB\2010\11-18-10\2010 CTC Evaluation Completed Version.doc 1 COORDINATION/PLANNING Coordination is defined by Chapter 427, Florida Statutes, as "the arrangement for the prov1s1on of transportation service to the transportation disadvantaged in a manner that is cost effective, efficient, and reduces fragmentation and duplication of services". These standards are intended to measure how well the County Transportation Coordinator (CTC) manages to bring together operators and consumers to ensure quality transportation for transportation disadvantaged persons at a reasonable cost. Performance Ranking Criteria Excellent Good Average Poor Comments 1) CTC's work toward implementation xxxx of the County's Transportation Disadvantaged Service plan 2) CTC's effort toward expansion of xxxx The CTC works with the MPO the coordinated system (signing to identify funding additional contract with providers) opportunities which would enable the CTC to expand services 3) CTC's effort to make the most xxxx effective use of existing TD services 4) CTC's effort for obtaining additional xxxx The CTC obtains additional funding funding from cities of Fellsmere and Sebastian, by installing donation boxes in buses, and by selling advertising space on their buses. 5) CTC's reservation and scheduling xxxx The CTC is updating its system scheduling software. 6) CTC's promotional and marketing xxxx The CTC uses buses for campaign marketing via bus wraps and advertising. 7) CTC's effort to coordinate xxxx The CTC worked with participation in inter-county trips Brevard County to initiate service to Barefoot Bay. The CTC is the sole provider of trips into Brevard Co. and will be doing same into St. Lucie Co. 8) Others (please specify) xxxx The CTC has discussed future coordination efforts with Volunteer Ambulance. Reporting Period: July 1, 2009- June 30, 2010 Date: 08/26/10 CTC evaluation sub-committee's chairman initials:~ F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TDLCB\2010\11-18-10\2010 CTC Evaluation Completed Version. doc 2 OPERATION Operation involves the actual delivery of services to the transportation disadvantaged. It is considered to be the aspect of the overall evaluation most indicative of the coordinator's performance. The standards in this area measure what service is available to the TD public and how well it is provided. Many of the standards in this section are specific requirements required within Rule Chapter 41-2. Performance Ranking Criteria Excellent Good Average Poor Comments 1) CTC's safety plan as measured xxxx The CTC met safety goal. Less annually by a declining number of no than 1 per 100,000 miles fault accidents per mile 2) CTC's effort to provide services on xxxx The CTC is able to provide 24- a 24 hours per day, seven days per hour service for medical trips week basis as needed. 3) CTC's available insurance xxxx All vehicles insured. 4) CTC's accessibility (how easy it is to The CTC is easily accessible. contact CTC) The CTC uses Language Line for translation services. 5) CTC's method of recording, xxxx resolving complaints and reporting to the TDLCB 6) CTC's system to ensure that all xxxx Most equipment is purchased equipment used complies with through the State contract. federal, state, TD Commission and Recently reviewed by the local policies Feds. 7) CTC's system to ensure that xxxx Annual monitoring- yearly contractors' performance meets reviews performed by CTC. required specifications 8) CTC's system of performing client xxxx The CTC conducts surveys satisfaction surveys and reporting to plus extensive surveying for the TDLCB TDP. 9) CTC's effort on reducing the clients xxxx The CTC uses floating drivers. waiting time consistent with the plan 10) CTC's on time performance record xxxx New ADA bus helps keep fixed route buses on schedule. 11) CTC's effort to avoid missing xxxx Trip manifests are double scheduled trips checked. 12) CTC's system of recording all xxxx Less than 1% of requests refusals caused by system limitation denied. The CTC coordinates and reporting to the TDLCB with Volunteer Ambulance in such cases. F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TDLCB\2010\11-18-10\2010 CTC Evaluation Completed Version.doc 3 Performance Ranking Criteria Excellent Good Average Poor Comments 13) CTC's employee training program xxxx Drivers receive complete retraining every 2 years. 14) CTC's system to ensure that xxxx Medical trips are top priority. service is provided on a non- All other trips on first come, discriminatory basis first served basis. 15) CTC's effort to prioritize trips xxxx Medical trips are top priority. 16) CTC's data base regarding routes, xxxx A master file w/ all data, schedules, facilities, vehicles, vehicles and employees is locations, and number of clients maintained electronically by the CTC. 17} CTC's effort to identify unmet xxxx The CTC coordinates with needs Volunteer Ambulance and medical providers. 18} CTC's vehicle inventory and xxxx Detailed files are kept. maintenance system Maintenance coordinated with county. 19} CTC's record for submittal of the xxxx Always on time. MOA to the CDT on time 20) Others (please specify) CTC makes good use of technology Reporting Period: July 1. 2009 -June 30, 2010 Date: 08/26/10 CTC evaluation sub-committee's chairman initials:~ F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TDLCB\2010\11-18-10\2010 CTC Evaluation Completed Version.doc 4 COST/FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Costs and Financial Management standards reflect requirements for proper methods of calculating, recording and reporting of service costs. Standards contained in this section reflect guidance contained in Rule Chapter 41-2. Performance Ranking Criteria Excellent Good Average Poor Comments 1) CTC's fully allocated one-way xxxx Cost increase due to CTD passenger trip cost compared to the formula; cost increase due to previous year fuel, insurance, and maintenance. 2) CTC's system of cost/revenue xxxx CTD provides a rate template. allocation and reporting to the TDLCB 3) CTC's account system concurrence xxxx CTC is changing software with a uniform accounting system for (both old and new software rural and specialized transportation compliant). providers 4) CTC's effort to raise local funds xxxx Local funds from contributions by cities of Fellsmere and Sebastian, donations, and advertising revenues 5) CTC's effort to develop an xxxx No one denied if they can't equitable fare structure and solicit pay, $2.00 fare for door-to- client contributions as appropriate door (free fixed route service). 6) CTC's effort to utilize all federal, xxxx Federal, state, and local state, and local funds funding sources utilized. 7) CTC's effort to reduce one-way xxxx New software will cut costs passenger trip cost up to 20% due to increased efficiency. 8) Others (please specify) xxxx Federal funds "capitalized" where allowed. Reporting Period: July 1. 2009- June 30, 2010 Date: 08/26/10 CTC evaluation sub-committee's chairman initials: ~ F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TDLCB\2010\11-18-10\2010 CTC Evaluation Completed Version.doc 5 UTILIZATION REVIEW Utilization, like Operation, represents the practical aspect of the Coordinator's responsibilities. These standards are intended to measure the degree to which the Coordinator has provided coordinated transportation services, which include the greatest possible involvement of local agencies and the most effective use of resources and funding. Performance Ranking Criteria Excellent Good Average Poor Comments 1) CTC's system to ensure provision of xxxx Service efficiency and most effective and efficient service effectiveness recognized through DOPA of Year award for 2010. 2} CTC's effort to utilize volunteers' xxxx Volunteers assist in office time and vehicles where allowed by HIPPA; insurance does not permit volunteer drivers. 3) CTC's effort to utilize the vehicles of xxxx The CTC coordinates with ARC. all non-profit organizations 4) CTC's system of matching clients xxxx All vehicles have lifts with appropriate vehicles 5) CTC's flexibility to rotate vehicles xxxx Vehicle assignments scheduled based on the number of reservations in advance. and the clients' origins and the destinations 6) CTC's system for regular review of xxxx The County conducts a yearly its organization and equipment inventory of CTC equipment. 7) CTC's efforts to utilize school buses - Prohibited by insurance (CTC vehicles not rated for exclusive child service). 8) Others (please specify) xxxx Excellent overall effort Reporting Period: July 1, 2009- June 30. 2010 Date: 08/26/10 CTC evaluation sub-committee's chairman initials:~ F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\TDLCB\2010\11-18-10\2010 CTC Evaluation Completed Version. doc 6 ON-SITE OBSERVATION OF THE SYSTEM RIDE A VEHICLE WITIN THE COORDINATED SYSTEM. REQUEST A COPY OF THE MANIFEST PAGE THAT CONTAINS THIS TRIP. Date of Observation: I 2.-- N -/ 0 I Please list any special guests 1hat were present I(A 19 &:: i Q... (;;re~g_r .I- P Location lt(?\&h& ~@1M IS[~] I Number of Passengers picked up/dropped off: If.... ______. Ambulatory '-I.... \------' Non-Ambulatory'._------' Was the driver on time? Yes 0 No, how many minutes late/early? Did the driver provide any passenger assistance? I Yes 0 No Was the driver wearing any identification? Yes: duniform 0 Name Tag DID Badge 0 No Did the dyiVer render an appropriate greeting? ..:/J Yes 0 No 0 Driver regularly transports the rider, not necessary If CTC has a policy on seat belts, did the driver ensure the passengers were properly belted? ·~ Yes 0 No Was the vehicle neat and clean, and free from dirt, torn upholstery, damaged or broken seats, protruding metal or other objects? Yes 0 No Is there a sign posted on the interior of the vehicle with both a local phone number and the TD Helpline for comments/complaints/commendations? 0 Yes ~ No Does the vehicle have working heat and air conditioning? Yes 0 No Does the vehicle have two-way communications in good working order?~ Yes 0 No If used, was the lift in good working order? Yes 0 No tJ/f<' Was there safe and appropriate seating for all passengers? Yes 0 No Did the driver properly use the lift and secure the passenger? 0 Yes 0 No N'/~ If no, please explain: Revised January 2010 Page 39 II ON-SITE OBSERVATION OF THE SYSTEM II RIDE A VEHICLE WITIN THE COORDINATED SYSTEM. REQUEST A COPY OF THE MANIFEST PAGE THAT CONTAINS THIS TRIP. Date of Observation: Please list any special guests that were present: I ~tp ;If 1> tv -'"f.- fA5!e ¥C Location: lllckiu•'&Jkf; I;/I!_Cc_ ]i?w~§_ Number of Passengers picked up/dropped off: I I I Ambulatory Non-Ambulatory Was the driver on time? Yes 0 No, how many minutes late/early? lft-t Did the driver provide any passenger assistance? 0 Yes ~No~"~~ Was the driver wearing any identification? Yes: 0 Did the driver render an appropriate greeting? cY Yes 0 No 0 Driver regularly transports the rider, not necessary If CTC has a policy on seat belts, did the driver ensure the passengers were _w:operly belted? · ~ Yes 0 No Was the vehicle neat and clean, and free from dirt, tom upholstery, damaged or broken seats, protruding ~m~~~ / ~ Yes 0 No Is there a sign posted on the interior of the vehicle with both a local phone number and the TD Helpline for comments/complaints/commendations? 0 Yes No Does the vehicle have working heat and air conditioning? Yes 0 No Does the vehicle have two-way communications in good working order? t\:1" Yes 0 No If used, was the lift in good working order? tJ JA 0 Yes 0 No Was there safe and appropriate seating for all passengers? Yes 0 No Did the driver properly use the lift and secure the passenger? ~fvr 0 Yes 0 No If no, please explain: Revised January 2010 Page 39 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP- ~M k Community Development Director FROM: Phillip J. Matson {\ {Y\ MPO Staff Directo'W DATE: November 30,2010 SUBJECT: Review of FDOT Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program for Fiscal Years 2011/12 through 2015/16 It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting of December 8, 2010. SUMMARY Recently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) completed preparation of FDOT's FY 2011/12-2015/16 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program. The work program, which is FDOT's project programming and financing schedule for transportation projects within the MPO area, must be developed with consideration of the MPO's 2010 highway, enhancement, congestion management system, transit and aviation priorities. Prior to FDOT transmitting the tentative work program to the state legislature for ultimate approval next spring, the MPO must approve the work program. Accordingly, the MPO must take action regarding the work program at its December 8, 2010 meeting. Staff recommends that the MPO review the work program, consider the FDOT presentation, and approve the tentative work program. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Recently, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) District Four staff completed preparation of the District's Fiscal Year (FY) 201112012 - 2015/16 Draft Tentative Five-Year Work Program (Attachment 1). According to state and federal requirements, FDOT's work program must be developed cooperatively with the MPO and local governments. This coordination requirement results in short timeframes for FDOT to prepare and the MPO to review and approve the Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program. F:\Community Dcvclopmcni\Uscr~\MPO\Mccting•IMP0\201011 2.08·10\TWP sLD.ffrcport.doc 1 The MPO's input into FDOT's process of developing its FY 2011/12- 2015/16 Tentative Five Year Work Program actually began with the MPO's September submittal to FDOT of its 2010 Priority Projects Report. That report contains the MPO's 2010 priority lists for highway, enhancement, congestion management process (CMP), transit, and aviation projects. According to established procedures, FDOT had to consider the MPO's project priorities in developing a new fifth year of its Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program. In accordance with state law, MPOs must approve the work program prior to the District office sending it to Tallahassee for ultimate approval by the legislature at the upcoming legislative session. Accordingly, FDOT will present its work program to the MPO at its December 8, 2010 meeting. On December 1st, FDOT held a public hearing on the work program at the Fort Pierce City Commission Chambers, 100 North U.S. Highway 1, Fort Pierce, Florida. Like last year, the public hearing covered all three Treasure Coast counties, not just Indian River County. ANALYSIS FDOT's FY 2011112-2015116 Draft Tentative Five Year Work Program is an important document. Not only is it the basis for the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) that the MPO must prepare annually, it is also the FDOT's schedule for expending transportation funds and undertaking transportation projects within the MPO area. Since FDOT's work program is the mechanism by which the MPO's priority projects are implemented, it is important to compare the proposed work program to the MPO's 2010 adopted highway, enhancement, CMP, transit, and aviation priority projects list. Attachment 2 is a status report of key projects in the work program. Contained in that report is each funded project's MPO Priority ranking. For convenience, a copy of the 2010 MPO Priority Projects Report (Attachment 3) is also attached. 2010 Priority Highway Projects While financial resources for transportation have declined statewide over the past several years, FDOT has been able to maintain funding in Indian River County and has even been able to advance a number of MPO priorities. These include the MPO's top highway priority, the widening ofUSl from Oslo Road to Highlands Drive, which has been advanced from 2012/13 to 2011/12; the widening of US 1 from Highlands Drive to St. Lucie County, which has received full construction funding in 2014115; and the Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) phase of the Oslo Road Interchange, which has advanced from 2014/15 to 2011112. Perhaps the most significant activity in this year's Work Program is the acceleration of the I-95 widening project. The first phase of the project, from the St. Lucie County Line to SR 60, was advanced from 2014115 to the current Fiscal Year (2010/11). In fact, it is anticipated that construction of this project will begin later this year. Other phases of the project (SR 60 to CR 512 and CR 512 to the Brevard County Line) have received construction funding in the work program for the first time. F:\Community Dcvclopmcnt\Users\MPOIM«tings\MP0\20 10\12-08-10\TWP !taffrcport.doc 2 The following Table identifies the MPO's priority projects that are funded m the work program. Roadway Segment Limits Improvement Phase(s) Funded1 us 1 S. of Oslo Rd. to Six laning CST (Full Funding) Highlands Dr us 1 Highlands Dr to St. Six laning CST (Full Funding) Lucie County Line Oslo Road @I-95 New Interchange PE Interchange I-95 St. Lucie County Line Six laning CST (Full Funding) to SR 60 I-95 SR 60 to CR 512 Six laning CST (Full Funding) I-95 CR 512 to the Brevard Six laning CST (Full Funding) C/L 66th Avenue SR 60 to 41 '1 Street Four laning CST (Partial Funding) 82nd Avenue 26th Street - CR 510 New two-lane ROW I . . . .. Project phases: POE- Project Development and Environmental study; ROW- Right-of-Way AcqUisitiOn; PE- Prehmmary Engmeering; CST - Construction 2010 Priority Enhancement Projects In the attached work program, FDOT has allocated new Enhancement funding to the MPO's top Enhancement priority, the South Sebastian Greenway. That funding appears in Fiscal Year 2013/14. 2010 Priority Congestion Management Process (CMP) Projects Each year, the MPO is required to identify congestion mitigation projects that can forestall major roadway widening through strategies such as intersection improvements and alternative modal treatments. If it chooses, the MPO may allocate a small portion of its Federal highway funding to implement these projects. In the past, several longstanding CMP priorities, including the Traffic Signal Synchronization system and the Five Points intersection, were programmed for funding from the MPO's fund allocations. Other CMP priorities, such as the Schumann A venue/Barber Street Intersection and Transit Service on 17th Street, received funding through matching grant programs. In 2010, the MPO's top CMP priorities (Miracle Mile access improvements, 37th Street Access Improvements) did not involve major construction and, therefore, no federal highway funding was allocated to these projects this year. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the MPO review the attached work program, consider the FDOT staff presentation, and approve the draft tentative work program. F:\Community Dcvclopment\Usen:\MPO\Mc.:tinSJiiMP0\2010112..08·10\TWP $\llffreportdoc 3 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft FDOT Tentative Five Year Work Program for FY 2011112-2015/16 2. FDOT Status of Key Projects in Indian River County FY 2011/12-2015/16 3. MPO 2010 Priority Projects Report F:\Community D~v~lopmcnt\U~cr~IMPO\Me.ltings\MP0\2010112-0H-10\TWP slalTrcport.doc 4 Citizen's Report 2012- 2016 Tentative Work Program INDIAN RIVER County Prepared by FOOT - District 4 Program Management and Work Program Offices - 11/08/2010 Attachment 1 County: INDIAN RIVER { 88 ) HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 01 INTRASTATE INTERSTATE 413048.2 1·95/SR-9 @ OSLO ROAD INTERCHANGE PM: Beatriz caicedo Work Mix: INTERCHANGE (NEW) Extra Description: NEW INTERCHANGE @ OSLO ROAD PD&E UNDER 413064-1 GROWTH MGMNT PRIORITY #13 10 MPO SIS PRIORITY#! PM CHANGE TO CAICEDO ON Cont. Class: TO BE LET 2/11/09; Fund Codes: ACNH DIH GMR Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 ______FY 2014 ______!'! 20~~------FY 20~------Unfunded ___ _ 5-Yr Program Total P.E. 000 054 PDE $2,325,000 $2,325,000 413049.1 1·95/SR-9 FROM SR·60/0SCEOLA BLVD TO N. OF CR·512 PM: Scott Peterson City: FELLSMERE Work Mix: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Extra Description: 4L TO 6L / PD&E UNDER 413064-1 PE BY INHOUSE STAFF & IN HOUSE STRUCTURES FOR 2 BRIDGES+ 1 OVERPASS/PH 32 FOR LANDSCAPING BY Cont. Class: TO BE LET 0/W CONSULTANT CONTRACT PROJECT ADVANCED FROM 2022 TO 2015 10/29/2010 Fund Codes: ACNH DS NHAC Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI $5,745,404 $5,745,404 $5,745,404 '~-~··- ····----~-.-~-----·-,------~------~·--·~----·----··-·--·---···~------·--·--·--~-~----~~-·---~----·-··------·· _C:::On~cti~------·-···-··-··----·--·------·· ·---·-··-···----·-·······------·······-----··--·-·····------·····- __ ?_1~o':!__ o~~--- __ • .3~~!-~-~~-~:------·-··--·-----~~~~~~----~4~_.__3~~~72_ ENV $2,300,000 ______.:$2, 300.:..,_o_o_o __ $2,300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 ••>-·~---~-~~-~---·-··------~-~----- ·------~------.-.------~~--~---.. -~------P.E. $35,306 $1,000,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 $1,235,306 413050.1 I·95/SR·9 FROM N. OF CR-512 TO BREVARD CO/UNE PM: Vanita Sharma Work Mix: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Extra Description: PD&E CONTRACT INCLUDES OS PORTION UNDER 413072-1/ 4L TO 6L PD&E PROGRAMMED W/ 05 BUDGET CONS! ADVANCED TO FY2015 Cont. Class: TO BE LET 10/29/2010 Fund Codes: ACNH DI DIH NHAC Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI $3,425,427 COnstruction 624 624 _ENV------··------·-·---·--·-----~_l:~~~~~_(l_Oo ______------·----·------~! oo!_(l__CI_(l______$~~~_1l.!__D_Il_!l__ $100,000 ••- •-••e-••"-·~··-•·---·--~~- <'•---• ______--···-·····-··· ------~~-~~L~?_Cl..._ ___ ----- ..£~_0_0.!~~- P.E. $5,960 $3,587,356 $3,587,356 $3' 593' 316 November. 08 2010 Page 2 of 19 '.··~.--· HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 01 INTRASTATE INTERSTATE 425193.1 I-95/SR-9 FROM MP 6.500 TO MP 19.198 PM: Nadir Rodrigues City: FELLSMERE Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: .SAFElY COMMITTEE APPROVAL ON 03/02/09, GUARDRAIL, SIGNING & MARKING IMPROVEMENTS, INSTALL CLOSELY SPACED RPM'S INN & S BOUND Cont. Class: TO BE LET DIRECTIONS, WIDEN OUT/INSIDE PAVED SHOULDERS AT CURVE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, REWORK DAMAGED SHOULDERS, EUMINATE UBDERSIGNATED MEDIAN CROSSOVER LOCATED SOUTH OF PAVED CROSS- OVER, COORDINATED WITH OS ON SB OVERHEAD SIGNS AT CURVE Fund Codes: ACIM DIH HSP IMAC Phase Prior to 2012 FY2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total "~-~-~-~---.------·--·-- ·--·------~---~---··------··------·-····------.i~-~~~~!.~---· --~'-~~-8.!.~~~------~~-!!_4~:~~~- Construction $9,903,170 $9,903,170 $9,903,no 429736.1 SR-9/I-95 FROM ST.LUCIE/IR COUNTYLN TO S OF SR-60 PM: Felix Delgado Work Mix: UGHTING Extra Description: INSTALL UGHTING CHEVRONS AND CURVE AHEAD SIGNS, WIDEN INSIDE PAVED SHOULDERS, INSTALL "DRIVER FEEDBACK SIGNS" Cont. Class: TO BE LET Fund Codes: DIH HSP NHAC Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI $446' 670 $446.670 $446.670 ---~------~--~------.·--··----~---- ·---~---··---~------~·------~-··--·---~---~----·----··-~~----·----- Construction ·------···-··--!~~-~... 2~~---·-·-·--·-·------····------·-- ---~.!~8. 200 ----~-~2~~~ P.E. $575,000 $575,000 $575,000 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 01 Total $42,320 $20,039,349 $200,000 $4,900,000 $73,937,897 $99,077,246 $99,077,246 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 05 NON-INTRASTATE STATE HIGHWAY 228583.2 SR-5/US-1 FROM ST. LUCIE CO. UNE TO S OF HIGHLAND DRIVE PM: Betsy Jeffers Work Mix: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Extra Description: INCLUDES BRIDGE @ COUNTY UNE/10 MPO PRIORITY#1B STUDY UNDER 228583-1 G/W 230368·1 PROJECT UMITS EXTEND .063 Ml S. OF Cont. Class: TO BE LET COUNTY UNE LANDSCAPING/UGHTING/SIGNING/SIDEWALKS/MAST ARM SIGNAUZATN Fund Codes: BNDS DDR DIH OS SL Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI $1,969,731 $1,969,731 $1,969,731 -----· Construction $18,799,394 $18,799,394 $18,799,394 228583.4 SR-5/US-1 FROM S OF HIGHLAND DR TO S OF OSLO ROAD PM: Betsy Jeffers Work Mix: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Extra Description: PROJECT SPUT/10 MPO PRIORITY#1A INCLUDES LANDSCAPING/UGHTING/SIGNS/SIDEWALKS/MAST ARM .SIGNAliZATION • SAFETEA·LU EARMARK Cont. Class: DESIGN BUILD HPP 1288 CST RESERVE FORMERLY UNDER 425150-1 Fund Codes: BNDS DDR DIH DS HPP MG SA SL November. 08 2010 Page3 of19 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 05 NON-INTRASTATE STATE HIGHWAY Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2014 FY2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr _Program Total CEI ·------·------·-·--··· ··-··--········· ···------· -----~~2.~~~-----___?_1_._~2:.·~::~. Construction $9,838,850 $9,838,850 '""""~-"·~-~----·-··--···------~~---~.,-- ·------~------_.------~------~------~------~-~---k·------~------P.E. $197,082 $75,000 $75,000 $272,082 228613.2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENHANCE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM PM: Jonathan M Overton Work Mix: lRAFFIC SIGNALS Extra Description: JPA TO ENHANCE lRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DDR Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Construction $629,000 $220,000 $220,000 $849,000 228613.3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENHANCE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM PM: Jonathan M Overton Work Mix: lRAFFIC SIGNALS Extra Description: JPA TO ENHANCE lRAFFICE SIGNAL SYSTEM Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DDR Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr P_rogram Total Construction $220,000 $258,000 $258,000 $258,000 $516,000 $994,000 $1,510,000 228628.1 SR-60/0SCEOLA BLVD FROM W. OF I-95 TOW OF 82ND AVE/CR-609 PM: Scott Peterson Work Mix: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Extra Description: 4L TO 6l./06MPO PRIORITY# l/PH32=LANDSCAPE. DESIGN PD& E UNDER 4115459/ R/W COVERED UNDER 228627-1, CURB & Cont. Class: TO BE LET GUTIERjUGHTIG/LANDSCAPING/MAST ARMS/DRAINAGE/SIDEWLK/REMOVE GUARD RAIL/P52-Q2 NOT PART OF LETTING-FOR OVERRUNS.CONTINGCY APPROVED BY SEC 6/15/06 LFRF PROjECT@ $30M/PH5A=B5 I/D AS PAYBACK 5M PER YR 2012>2014/ SAFETEA LU Fund Codes: ACSA DDR DIH EB HPP LFRF EARMARK HPP FUNDS Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Admin $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,432,006 $14,432,006 $14,432,006 422869.1 INDIAN RIVER CO PED/SIDEWALK BOX PM: John-Mark Palacios Work Mix: SIDEWALK Extra Description: PROJECTS TO BE IDENTIFED BY MPO lOOK EVERY OTHER ODD YEAR OF SfATE FUNDS Cont. Class: BOX ITEM Fund Codes: DS · November; 08201 o Page4of19 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 05 NON-INTRASTATE STATE HIGHWAY Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY2013__ _ FY2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-YrP~ram Total JPNFHP $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 423913.1 SR-5/US-1 BRIDGE 880025 NB OVER OLD DIXIE & FEC PM: Brian O'Donoghue Work Mix: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Extra Description: BRIDGE#880025/ PAINT STRUCTIJRAL STEEL BEAMS Cont. Class: DISTRICT CONTRACT Fund Codes: BRRP DIH Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI 565 565 565 Construction $434,785 $434,785 $434,785 424431.1 SR-60/MERRILL BARBER BRIDGE # 880087 PM: Brian O'Donoghue City: VERO BEACH Work Mix: BRIDGE-REPAIR/REHABILITATION Extra Description: VARIOUS REPAIRS ON FIXED BRIDGE OVER THE ICWW Cont. Class: DISTRICT CONTRACT Fund Codes: BRRP DIH Phase Prior to 2012 FY FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI $211,258 $211,258 _____c$_~1, 258 ------~--~--- ~-----·--··---~ ---·-·------·------Construction $485,460 $485,460 $485,460 424638.1 SR-60/0CSEOLA BLVD FROM WEST OF 66TH AVE TO 58TH AVE PM: James Hughes Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: Cont. Class: TO BE LET Fund Codes: DDR DIH DS Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI 425775.1 SR-5 FROM 37TH PLACE TO 45TH STREET PM: James E Ford City: VERO BEACH Work Mix: SIDEWALK Extra Description: CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS Cont. Class: DISTRICT CONTRACT Fund Codes: DIH DS Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded S·Yr Total ------·---··----~------··------~------··---"---~-·-·----~---~~·-·-···~----~-~--~-·------·-·~---~--~~-- -··-·~·-· .. ···---·-·-····· CEI 049 049 049 Construction $91,550 $91,550 $91,550 426362.1 SR-510 WABASSO CSWY OVER THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, BRIDGE REPAIR PM: Brian O'Donoghue City: ORCHID Work Mix: BRIDGE REHABILITATION Extra Description: BRIDGE #880050,0051,0052,0053; REPAIR SPALLED, CRACKED AND DELAMINATED AREAS, REPAIR PILE JACKETS, CLEAN & RESEAL JOINTS AND Cont. Class: DISTRICT CONTRACT OVERLAY DECK Fund Codes: BRRP DIH Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total CEI ______..1:'~~:-~7.2______,______$5 97' 977 ------~!_7_~::::. Construction $2,752,714 $2,752,714 -----~----·------··------;;-o·,-~o-;;------·- ···-~-~------$2,752,714 --· ··-· ----~------P.E. $30,000 $30,000 427022.1 SR-510/WABASSO RD FROM US-1 TO ICWW PM: Joseph Marzi Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: Cont. Class: TO BE LET Fund Codes: DDR DIH DS Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr CEI 890 890 Construction $20,000 $334,599 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: OS Total $826,082 $18,967,853 $6,998,156 $4,690,006 $24,477,816 $258,000 $516,000 $55,391,831 $55,907,831 HIGHWAY sysTEM: 06 NON-INTRASTATE OFF STATE HIWAY 230879.1 82 AVE FROM 26TH STREET TO CR-510 PM: Donovan Pessoa Work Mix: NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION Extra Description: CITRUS HWY; NEW ROAD-APPROX 6.5 MILES 10 MPO PRIORITY#02 2 LANE Cont. Class: RIGHT OF WAY ONLY Fund Codes: DIH EB SA SL SN Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total RW Land $2,947,986 $2,187,739 $2,187,739 $7,323,464 $7,323,464 ---~--~------·-··-~·------~-----.-~---><------··----~----·------~------RW Support $618,600 $463,950 $463,950 $1,546,500 $1,546,500 ·' < November. os 2010 Page 6of19 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 06 NON-INTRASTATE OFF SJATE HIWAY 425624.1 27TH AVENUE FROM OSLO ROAD CR-606 TO 8TH STREET CR-612 PM: Kadian Mclean Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: SMALL COUNTY OUTREACH PROGRAM, SCOP 75/25 SPLIT, TOTAL CONSTCOST 1,473,565 JPA W/ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: GRSC LFSCOP Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total JPA/FHP $1,473,565 $1,473,565 $1,473,565 425710.1 OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY FROM 8TH STREET TO 20TH STREET PM: Kadian Mclean City: VERO BEACH Work Mix: SAFElY PROJECT Extra Description: SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOLS-SAFElY PROJECT/VERO BEACH ELEMENTARY LAP W/ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Cont. Class: LOCAL AGCY PGM (LAP) Fund Codes: SR2E SR2S Phase Prior---- to 2012 _____~'!_ 201~ ______1!_3~13______~-~~1_4______f'!_~~~------_!Y 201_~------Unfund~------~:!!_Progra!'_l ______!o_!a_!_ ____ CEI 700 700 700 JPA/FHP $934,375 $934,375 $934,375 425864.1 SCHUMANN DRIVE @ BARBER STREET PM: Kadian Mclean City: SEBASITAN Work Mix: WIDEN/RESURFACE EXIST LANES Extra Description: CIGP, COUNTY INCENTIVE GRANT PROGRAM PROJECT TO BE MANAGED BY THE COUNlY 50/50 SPLIT JPA W/ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: CIGP LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total JPA/FHP $3,380,000 $3,380,000 $3.380.000 425883.1 66TH AVE FROM SR-60 TO 41ST STREET PM: Kadian Mclean Work Mix: ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Extra Description: TRIP AGREEMENTW/ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: LFTRIP Phase Prior to 2012 FY2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total JPA/FHP $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 P~ge7bf19 :r HIGHWAY SVSJEM: 06 NON-INTRASTATE OFF STATE HIWAY 427572.1 CR-512 EASTBOUND FROM ROSELAND ROAD TO EASY STREET PM: Kadian Mclean City: SEBASTIAN Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: SMALL COUNTY OUTREACH PROGRAM JPA W/ CITY OF SEBASTIAN 75/25 MATCH Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: GRSC LFSCOP Phase Prior to 2012 FY2012 FY 2013 ____ r=Y 2014 ______!"' 2015 ______FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program Total JPNFHP $621,225 $621,225 $621,225 427573.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD FROM 41ST STREET TO 53RD STREET PM: Kadian Mclean Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: SMALL COUNTY OUTREACH PROGRAM JPA W/ INDIAN RNER COUNTY 75/25 MATCH Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: LF SCOP ------~~~~------__!'_!;ior to 201~------___!!_~~~------"!-~~!~------!! ..~~~----······------~-20~------~_!0~------_l:l_'::'~nd~------~~!~!_r~-·~~------~~~------751 427666.1 TRANS_FLORIDA CRRCG. FROM CR-512 TO 104TH AVE. PM: Kadian Mclean Work Mix: BIKE PATH/TRAIL Extra Description: 2009 MPO ENHANCEMENT PRIORITY #1 SPONSOR: INDIAN RNER COUNTY Cont. Class: LOCAL AGCY PGM (LAP) Fund Codes: SE Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr CEI 060 060 JPNFHP $703,000 $703' 000 $703' 000 429566.1 CR-605/0LD DIXIE HWY FR. IRFWCD N RELIEF CANAL TO 71ST STREET PM: Kadian Mclean Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: SMALL COUNTY. OUTREACH PROGRAM 75/25 MATCH JPA WITH INDIAN RNER CO Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: GRSC LFSCOP Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr 572 000 November. 08 2010 Page 8of19 HIGHWAY 5YSIEM: 06 NON-INTRASTATE OFF STATE HIWAY 429567.1 CR·605/0LD DIXIE HWY FROM 71ST STREET TO CR·510 PM: Kadian McLean Work Mix: RESURFACING Extra Description: SMALL COUNTY OUTREACH PROGRAM 75/25 MATCH JPA WITH INDIAN RNER CO Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: GRSC LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5·Yr Total JPA/FHP $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 429658.1 S SEBASTIAN GREENWAY FROM THUNDERBIRD DRIVE TO KILDARE DRIVE PM: Kadian McLean Work Mix: BIKE PATH/TRAIL Extra Description: 2010 .MPO ENHANCEMENT PRIORITY #1 SPONSOR • INDIAN RNER COUNTY LAP. PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE LOCALS SOUTH SEBASTIAN Cont. Class: LOCAL AGCY PGM (LAP) GREENWAY CORRIDOR Fund Codes: SE Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 2013 FY FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5·Yr Total CEI $7.324 $7.324 876 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 06 Total $7' 674,616 $5,517,488 $4,412,358 $4,551,689 $2,651,689 $24,807,840 $24,807,840 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 08 TRANSIT 407182.1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SECTION 5311, SMALL URBAN /RURAL PM: Jaclyn Meli Work Mix: OPERATING/ADMIN. ASSISTANCE Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DU LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5·Yr Program Total Capital Improvement/Operating $1,168,878 $160,278 $168' 292 $176,706 $505,276 407182.2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SECTION 5311 SMALL URBAN/RURAL PM: Jaclyn Meli Work Mix: OPERATING/ADMIN. ASSISTANCE Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DU LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5·Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $185' 542 $194, 818 $380,360 $380' 360 November. 08 2010 Page9of19 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 08 TRANSIT 407190.1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BLOCK GRANT & 5307 GA OPERATING ASSISTANCE PM: Jaclyn Meli Work Mix: OPERATING/ADMIN. ASSISTANCE Extra Description: FTA GRANT APPROVED IN.FY 2006/Fl"90-X611 FTA GRANT FY 08 Fl-90-X669. Cont. Class: MISCELlANEOUS Fund Codes: DDR DPTO DS FTA LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY~ FY~ FY~ FY~ FY~ Unfunded_.___ 5-Yr_!'~ran~_ Total ------~'~'"~--~--··-·---~---,~-~----·------~------· Capital Improvement/Operating $8,711,716 $1,446,332 $1,535,914 $1,587,470 $4,569,716 $13,281,432 407190.2 INDIAN RIVER SECTION 5307 CAPITAL ASSISTANCE PM: Jaclyn Meli Work Mix: PURCHASE VEHICLES/EQUIPMENT Extra Description: SECTION 5307 - GOVERNOR'S ALLOCATED FUNDS SEGMENT 2 = FY 05/06 Cont. Class: MISCELlANEOUS Fund Codes: FTA Phase ------Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $888,700 $900,000 $925,000 $950,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $4,775,000 $5,663,700 407190.4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BLOCK GRANT & 5307 GA OPERATING ASSISTANCE PM: Jaclyn Meli Work Mix: OPERATING/ADMIN. ASSISTANCE Extra Description: FTA GRANT APpROVED IN FY 2006/FL-90-X611 Cont. Class: MISCELlANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO FTA LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $1,593' 694 $1,609,252 $3' 202' 946 $3,202,946 413731.1 INDIAN RIVER MPO SECTION 5303 TRANSIT PLANNING PM: Tykus Holloway Work Mix: PTO STUDIES Extra Description: TRANSIT PlANNING STUDIES Cont. Class: MISCELlANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO DS DU LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program Total Planning $541,716 $73,005 $73,005 $72,735 $73, 005 $291,750 $833,466 ':;:. November; os 201 o Page 10 of 19 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 08 TRANSIT 413731.2 INDIAN RIVER MPO SECTION 5303 TRANSIT PLANNING PM: Tykus Holloway Work Mix: PTOSTUDIES Extra Description: TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO DU LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2~E______. ------FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program Total Planning $73,005 $73,005 $73' 005 425138.1 INDIAN RIVER TRANSIT CORRIDOR FOR NEW TRANSIT ROUTE PM: Jadyn Meli Work Mix: TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT Extra Description: NEW TRANSIT ROUTE FROM IRC TO IRC COLLEGE IN SLC. Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY2016 ___u::.;:n:::fu;nded 5-Yr Program Total Capital Improvement/Operating $390' 525 $157,200 $157,200 $547,725 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 08 Total $11,701,535 $2,736,815 $2,702,211 $2,786,911 $2,852,241 $2,877,075 $13,955,253 $13,955,253 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 09 AVIATION 422489.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT C/M/L (MilL) GA APRON W··PHASE 3 PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF -----·-·---~~----·-·--·----- Prior to 2012 _____---.!:!_2012 ______!!.~~~~----·- .... ______f! 2~~~--·---· _ •.•'!.~01~-·-····--· ____':! 201·~------~~fundec:t______~_:-!!:_~r~J~~~------~~~------Capital Improvement/Operating $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 422490.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ACCESS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: ACCESS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS FROM BOX 236079·1 Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 '·''/November. 08 ·201 0 Page 11 of 19 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 09 AVIATION 423942.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL FOR RW4/22 PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT Extra Description: VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL FOR. RW4/22 EXT Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012----- FY2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program Total Capital Improvement/Operating $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 423952.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT MASTER PLAN PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO FAA LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr 000 423987.1 SEBASTAIN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CONSTRUCT TAXIWAY C,D, & E PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: INSTALL TAXIWAY AND REILS UGHTING Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO FAA LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $3,200,000 $3,200,000 $3,200,000 425720.1 SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CONSTRUCT HANGARS PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION REVENUE/OPERATIONAL Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded ----< 5-Yr Progra~------!~------Capital Improvement/Operatin $915,000 $915,000 $915,000 ;;;>}'November. o82010 \Page 12oh9 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 09 AVIATION 425722.1 SEBASTIAN MUNINCIPAL AIRPORT REHAB APRON F PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO FAA LF Phase _:_c_:.:.:_:::::..::=----~_:::.c..Prior to 2012 FY 2012 ______FY-_- _--_::-.::c_2013 ______FY_2_0_1_4 ______FY_2_01_5_ ___ _ FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program Total Capital Improvement/Operating $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 425744.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REHAB RUNWAY 4/22 PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO FAA LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr 000 425746.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT AIRPORT INDUSTRIAL PARK PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION REVENUE/OPERATIONAL Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000.000 425749.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REHAB TAXIWAY A/E PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO FAA LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Bl!lilii0tr: i_;; November. 08 2010 Page 13 of 19 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 09 AVIATION 425751.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REHAB/MARK TAXIWAY B PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO FAA LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program Total capital Improvement/Operating $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 425753.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REHAB, MARK & LIGHT APRON PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase ----··Prior to 2012 FY 2012______FY 2~~----~-----~ 201~-----··-··----.-:!.!0lS _____FY 201!______Unfunded ·---- 5-Yr Prog~l!!._ ____...... !_otal ______capital Improvement/Operating $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000 427882.1 SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CONSTRUCT ACCESS ROAD WEST PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total capital Improvement/Operating $800,000 $800' 000 $800,000 427886.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CONSTRUCT NORTH APRON EXTENSION,PH1 PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2_~_!~------_!!~~~-----·-·FY ~014______:.-:!_~015______FY 20~!_---~~~---2:Yr Program___ ~tal ---··------~------~- capital Improvement/Operating $1,800,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 · ., ; November. 08 2010 Page 14 of19 HIGHWAY SysTEM: 09 AVIATION 429692.1 SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CONSTRUCT INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION REVENUE/OPERATIONAL Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $840,000 $840,000 $840,000 429695.1 SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MAIN STREET ACCESS RD IMPROVEMENTS PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION CAPACilY PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 201::..:6:..._ ___ Un~~~-----~:!!_!rogra~ ____T_otal ____ Capital Improvement/Operating $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 429707.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT REDEVELOP COMMERCIAL PARK PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION PRESERVATION PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr 429722.1 SEBASTIAN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CONSTRUCT HANGARS PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION REVENUE/OPERATIONAL Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO LF ·------Phase Prior to·----- 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 ':fic;&N()vember. 08 2010 Page 15 of 19 ;;,:-;::;,_'-; HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 09 AVIATION 429724.1 VERO BEACH MUNICIPAL AIRPORT CONSTRUCT NORTH APRON EXTENSION • PH 2 PM: Nicole Notz Work Mix: AVIATION CAPACITY PROJECT Extra Description: Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DPTO DS LF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program ------·-·· ·------Total Capital Improvement/Operating $1,950,000 $1,950,000 $1,950,000 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 09 Total $5,400,000 $7,740,000 $5,690,000 $3,600,000 $2,950,000 $25,380,000 $25,380,000 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 10 RAIL 429787.3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TCTC PM: Kadian Mclean Work Mix: RAIL CAPACITY PROJECT Extra Description: FEC PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: LFTRIP Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total ---···-·-······------·········-·- JPNFHP $379,054 $379,054 $379,054 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 10 Total $379,054 $379,054 $379,054 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 13 NON-SYSTEM SPECIFIC 427804.1 INDIAN RIVER CTY JPA SIGNAL MAINTENANCE & OPS ON SHS PM: THOMAS Work Mix: TRAFFIC SIGNALS Extra Description: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JPA FOR SIGNAL MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ON SHS Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DDR Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $104,802 $108,000 $111,200 $114,600 $118,000 $451,800 $556,602 427804.2 INDIAN RIVER CTY JPA SIGNAL MAINTENANCE & OPS ON SHS PM: THOMAS Work Mix: TRAFFIC SIGNALS Extra Description: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JPA FOR SIGNAL MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS ON SHS Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: DDR '';'November.·os 2010 Page 16 of 19 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 13 NON.SVSTEM SPECIFIC Phase Prior to 2012 FY2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Program Total Capital Improvement/Operating $121,600 $486,400 $121,600 $608,000 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 13 Total $104,802 $108,000 $111,200 $114,600 $118,000 $121,600 $486,400 $573,400 $1,059,800 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 14 TRANSPORTATION DISAPVANJAGEP 237040.1 INDIAN RIVER CO. TO COMMISSION TRIP AND EQUIPMENT GRANT PM: BOBBY JERNIGAN Work Mix: TD COMMISSION - CAPITAL Extra Description: T/E GRANT Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: LFTDDR TDTF Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total Capital Improvement/Operating $3,500,141 $282,425 $284,269 $285,327 $311,090 $311,090 $1,474,201 $4,974,342 237040.2 INDIAN RIVER CO. LCB ASSISTANCE COMMISSION TO PM: BOBBY JERNIGAN Work Mix: TD COMMISSION - CAPITAL Extra Description: PLANNING GRANT Cont. Class: MISCELLANEOUS Fund Codes: TDTF Phase FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FY2016 ···------··------Prior to 2012 ------···----·------···------~~_!!~ ____5-Yr Prog~_!!l____ _!otal ----- Planning $178,153 $21,208 $21,208 $21,208 $19,875 $19,875 $103,374 $281,527 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 14 Total $3,678,294 $303.633 $305,477 $306,535 $330,965 $330,965 $1,577,575 $1,577,575 HIGHWAY SVSTEM: 16 OFF STATE HWV SVS/OFF FEP SVS 427615.1 THOMPSON MAGNET ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PM: Kadian McLean Work Mix: SAFETY PROJECT Extra Description: SAFETY PROJECT- _SAFE ROUTE TO SCHOOL LAP AGREEMENT WITH: INDIAN RNER COUNTY Cont. Class: LOCAL AGCY PGM (LAP) Fund Codes: SR2ESR2S Phase Prior to 2012 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 Unfunded 5-Yr Total 000 $5,000 -~---·-···-----··-----~--~-----~------~~------,---·------·-~ -~~~~ JPA/FHP 967 967 HIGHWAY SYSTEM: 16 Total $251,967 $251,967 $251,967 County Total $16,353,033 $55,230,266 $23,574,532 $23,531,431 $109,868,608 $9,189,329 $1,002,400 $221,394,166 $222,396,566 '"' /November. os 201 o Page17of19 0>..... '0 CX)..... Q) l 0 ~ CX) 0 lii .0 E z~ Total Total 5 Year Program: $221,394,166.00 Total Unfunded: $1,002,400.00 Total: $238,749,599.00 Contract Class Code Box Box dollars for supplementals, overruns, litigation, AC Tallahassee Let To Be Let (Contract Let in Tallahassee) conversions, Contract Class 8. Force Account Force Account/External Capital Improvement I Capital Improvements and/or Operating Costs Studies Studies Operating Misc. (JPA,PD&E,etc) Miscellaneous (Planning Studies/Grants, CEI Construction Engineering Inspection General Consultants, PD&E Studies, PTO Grants, Dist-wide RIW Supports)- Projects Design Build Design Build Contract Type, includes all phases, let as one that will not have a Letting contract for PE, Construction, CEI for FCO and Bridge LAP Local Agency Program (LAP Contracts Inspection. Generally let in the District's , Contract class 9 ROW Adv. Acq. Advanced Acquisition of Right of Way Only District Let Contracts let in the District's, contract class 7 District Let District Contracts (Contracts Let in Districts) FM Financial Management (system name) Box (SA, etc) Box (Supplementals, Overruns, Litigation, FM# Financial Management Number, aka Financial Project ID AC Conversions) Force Account Force account I external, Contract Class 2 Design Build Design Build (All phases Let as one contract Joint Particiapation Agreement- Interagency method to for PE, Construction , CEI for FCO and JPA Bridge Programs exchange funds LAP Local Agency Program - Interagency method to exchange funds PD&E Project Development and Environmental (studies) PE Preliminary Engineering, includes Planning, PD&E and Design. RIW RightofWay ROW RightofWay ROW Adv. Acq. Advanced Acquisition of Right of Way only. RW Right of Way SA Supplemental Agreement . Tallahassee Let To be let with contract executed in Tallahassee . / ':,Nbvember; 08 2010 Page 19 of19 FOOT TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 11/12 - 15/16 STATUS OF KEY PROJECTS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY As of 11/02/2011 MPO ADOPTED TENTATIVE FM Project Phase Prior!!Y_# (10/11 -14/15) (11/12 -15/16) #1a 228583-4 SR-5/US-1 from N. of Highland Dr. to S. of Oslo Rd CST 12/13 11/12 SR-5/US-1 from St. Lucie Countyline to S of Highland #1b 228583-2 CST 14/15 Drive --- #2 230879-1 82nd Avenue from 26th Street to CR-510 RMJ --- 13/14- 15/16 SR-60 from W. of 1-95 to W. of 82nd Ave (4 lanes to 6 228628-1 ADM 11/12-13/14 11/12 -13/14 --- lanes) (Local Gov't Advancement) --- 228613-2 Indian River County Enhanced Signal System (JPA) CST 08/09-11/12 08/09- 11/12 --- 228613-3 Indian River County Enhanced Signal System (JPA) CST 13/14- 14/15 13/14- 15/16 Indian River County Signal Maintenance & OPS on SHS 427804-1 OPS 10/11 - 14/15 10/11- 14/15 --- ll_JPA)_ Indian River County Signal Maintenance & OPS on SHS 427804-2 OPS 15/16 [(JPA) --- SIS CORRIDOR PROJECTS 1-95 --- 413048-1 1-95/SR-9 from IR/ST·Lucie Countyline to SR-60 CST 14/15 Underway PD&E 14/15 11/12 SIS#1 413048-2 1-95/SR-9 @ Oslo Road Interchange PE 16/17 14/15 PE Underway Underway 413049-1 1-95/SR-9 from SR-60 toN. of CR-512 -- CST --- 14/15 PE 13/14 11/12 413050-1 1-95/SR-9 from N of CR-512 to Brevard C/L -- CST .. --- 14/15 SIDEWALK PROJECTS --- 422869-1 Indian River County Sidewalk!Ped Box CST 14/15 14/15 --- 425775-1 SR-5 from 37th Place to 45th Street CST 12/13 12/13 RESURFACING PROGRAM 2 Resurfacing Projects 7.6 Lane Miles Improved 11/12- 15/16 (Construction) LEGEND: PLN = Planning PD&E = Project Development & Environment PE = Preliminary Engineering RIW = Right of Way CST = Construction GR = Grant OPS = Operations CAP = Capital ADM = Payback Attachment 2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCOP PROJECTS Item Segment Description Work Mix Phase Fund 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total GRSC 313,260 0 0 0 0 313,260 27TH AVENUE FROM OSLO ROAD CR 425624-1 RESURFACING Construction 606 TO 8TH STREET CR-612 SCOP 791,914 0 0 0 0 791,914 LF 368,391 0 0 0 0 368,391 GRSC 399,313 0 0 0 0 399,313 CR-512 EASTBOUND FROM 427572-1 RESURFACING Construction ROSELAND ROAD TO EASY STREET SCOP 66,606 0 0 0 0 66,606 LF 155,306 0 0 0 0 155,306 INDIAN RIVER BLVD FROM 41ST SCOP 470,063 0 0 0 0 470,063 427573-1 RESURFACING Construction STREET TO 53RD STREET LF 156,688 0 0 0 0 156,688 GRSC 0 867,007 0 0 0 867,007 CR-605/0LD DIXIE HWY FR. IRFWCD 429566-1 RESURFACING Construction SCOP 0 78,421 479,572 N RELIEF CANAL TO 71ST STREET 0 0 557,993 LF 0 475,000 0 0 0 475,000 CR-605/0LD DIXIE HWY FROM 71ST GRSC 0 0 0 1,425,000 0 1,425,000 429567-1 RESURFACING Construction STREET TO CR-510 LF 0 0 0 475,000 0 475,000 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TRIP PROJECTS Item Segment Description Work Mix Phase Fund 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 66TH AVE FROM SR-60 TO 41ST ADD LANES& TRIP 1,520,058 479,942 0 0 0 2,000,000 425883-1 Construction STREET RECONSTRUCT LF 1,520,058 479,942 0 0 0 2,000,000 RAIL CAPACITY TRIP 0 0 189,527 0 0 189,527 429787-3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TCTC Construction PROJECT LF 0 0 189,527 0 0 189,527 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS Item Segment Description Work Mix Phase Fund 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total TRANS_FLORIDA CRRCG. FROM CR- Construction SE 0 703,000 0 0 0 703,000 427666-1 BIKE PATH/TRAIL 512 TO 104TH AVE. CEI SE 0 14,060 0 0 0 14,060 S SEBASTIAN GREENWAY FROM Construction SE 0 0 358,876 0 0 358,876 429658-1 BIKE PATH/TRAIL THUNDERBIRD DRIVE TO KILDARE CEI SE 0 0 7,324 0 0 7,324 i i ! j • r®I i i i i i i i ' t·osor:tv t"£:6tSlv 0::: w > w 0::: u ::::l z ....I <( 1- 0 en z P'RIORITY PROJE~CTS REPORT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION llll/R)9...wt- 'll:.wv,. C#.q.H..(if I This document was produced in cooperation with the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration Attachment 3 2010 List of Priority Projects TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...... 3 Priority Highway Projects ...... 3 Priority Congestion Management Process (CMP) Projects ...... 7 Priority Enhancement Projects ...... 8 Priority Transit Projects ...... 9 Priority Airport Projects ...... I 0 Conclusion ...... 11 Appendix Summary Tables and Reference Material Table A-1- Priority Highway Projects, SIS Highways ...... 12 Table A-2- Priority Highways Projects, Other Highways ...... l2 Table A-3- Regional/Intermodal Priority Projects ...... 12 Table A-4- CMP Priority Projects ...... l3 Table A-5 -Priority Enhancement Projects ...... 13 Table A-6- 2010 Enhancement Prioritization ...... 14 Table A-7- Priority Transit Projects ...... l5 Table A-8- Priority Aviation Projects for Vera Beach Airport ...... 15 Table A-9- Priority Aviation Projects for Sebastian Airport ...... 15 Table A-10- Long Range Transportation Plan, 2030 Cost Affordable Plan ...... 16 Table A-ll -Regional Long Range Transportation Plan, 2030 Needs Plan ...... 17 Table A-12- IRC Greenways Project Prioritization ...... 18 Table A-13 - SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors ...... 19 Table A-14- Definitions used in the 2010 Priority Projects Reports ...... 20 Indian River County MPO 2 2010 List of Priority Projects INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2010 PRIORITY PROJECTS REPORT INTRODUCTION In September of each year, MPOs in Florida are required to submit priority projects lists to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The September priority projects submittal date allows FDOT time to incorporate MPO priorities in a new draft tentative Five Year Work Program, transmit the draft tentative work program to MPOs in November, present the work program to MPOs in early December, and hold public hearings in mid-December. The Five Year Work Program is then submitted to the Legislature in January, sixty days prior to the start of the legislative session. This report contains the Indian River County MPO's 2010 priority projects lists. The MPO priority lists are used by FDOT as the basis for developing its annual five year work program. The projects included in this report will be considered for funding by FDOT, primarily in the fifth year (FY 2015/20 16) of its FY 2011112-2015116 Five Year Work Program. The component lists of the MPO's 2010 Priority Projects Report are similar to those in the 2009 report. In 2009, however, the MPO opted to divide the highway priorities list into three categories, roughly mirroring three major available funding sources: Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) projects; Regional Highway projects; and Other Highways. This year, the MPO has eliminated the Regional Highway list and developed a new list, known as the Regionai/Intermodal Priorities list, for TRIP-grant eligible projects. This action was taken because alternative modal projects, as well as roadway projects, are eligible for funding under the TRIP program. Since approximately $500,000 will be made available in TRIP funding in the three-county Treasure Coast area, it is more likely that an alternative modal project could be constructed, given the limited amount of available funding. As it did in 2009, the MPO has also developed lists for priority Congestion Management Process projects, Enhancement projects, Transit projects, and Aviation projects. PRIORITY HIGHWAY PROJECTS This section explains the specific methodology utilized to prepare the MPO's 2010 Priority Highway Projects List. In this section, the inputs and data used to develop and rank the projects are explained, and a brief explanation of each project and its rank are also provided. The primary input used in developing the 2010 list of priority highway projects was the MPO's adopted 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Besides the 2030 LRTP, routine system monitoring and discussions with staff from other MPOs, local governments, and FDOT were also used as inputs in developing the list. Indian River County MPO 3 2010 List of Priority Projects The 2030 LRTP (Table A-10 of the Appendix) was used as the primary basis in developing the priority highway projects list. The reasons for this include: • SAFETEA-LU and state regulations require projects funded through FDOT to be consistent with the MPO's adopted LRTP; • the LRTP's recommended roadway improvement projects are consistent with adopted local government comprehensive plans, including the Transportation Element of the County's adopted 2020 Comprehensive Plan; • the improvements listed in the MPO' s adopted LRTP were analyzed for need using sound transportation planning and engineering practices; and • the MPO's LRTP was adopted after considerable involvement of citizens, technical experts, and elected officials. In addition to using the LRTP, MPO staff reviewed the status of the projects listed in the MPO's 2009 priority highway projects list and compared those projects to FDOT's current (FY 2010/11 - 2014/15) adopted Five Year Work Program. Finally, meetings and discussions with municipal, County, and FDOT staff provided additional information utilized in preparing the 2010 list. In those meetings, local government staff familiar with localized capacity and safety problems provided additional information regarding needed projects, while FDOT staff provided input regarding potential projects based on the results and recommendations of numerous FDOT corridor studies undertaken within the County. In order to adopt a priority list that more closely approximates the major classifications of the roadway network, the MPO has divided its highway priority list into two categories: SIS Highways and Other Highways. SIS Highways The Strategic Intermodal System in Indian River County consists of I-95, the Florida Turnpike, and SR 60 West ofl-95 to Osceola County. Projects on the SIS generally serve an interstate and inter-regional function and carry high volumes of traffic and goods across long distances. FDOT allocates funding specifically for Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) projects and has requested local input into the SIS funding prioritization process. This year's top SIS project in Indian River County remains the Oslo Road Interchange. That project is programmed for $2,300,000 in Project Developmental and Environmental (PD&E) funding in 2014/15 in the current TIP, but still needs Right-of-Way acquisition and Construction funding. Other Highways Non-SIS roadways for which the MPO is seeking federal and state funding are included on the Other Highways priority list. Last year, the MPO's top priority was US 1 from Oslo Road to Highlands Drive. That project is programmed for approximately $11,000,000 in construction funding in FY 2012/13 in the current TIP, and is now considered fully funded for construction. Indian River County MPO 4 2010 List of Priority Projects The second ranked priority from 2009, the widening of US 1 from Highlands Drive to the St. Lucie County Line, has now become the MPO's top unfunded priority. The complete list of highway priorities is included as Tables A-1 and A-2 in the Appendix. That list is consistent with the 2030 LRTP interim year project sets, as well as local comprehensive plans, MPO plans, and FDOT' s work program. A summary description of each project in order of priority ranking and an explanation of its ranking is presented below. 2010 List ofPriority Highway Projects- SIS 1. Oslo Road Interchange at Interstate 95- The project was included in the MPO's 2030 LRTP- Cost Feasible Plan based on anticipated future travel demand in the Oslo Road corridor. Not only will the project help meet demand, but the project will also assist in generating commercial/industrial activity. Finally, this interchange will enhance hurricane evacuation capabilities in the county. Right of Way and construction funding is requested for this project. 2010 List ofPriority Highway Projects - Other 1. US 1, six Ianing from the St. Lucie County Line to Highlands Drive - This project is a follow-on to last year's top priority, six laning US 1 from south of Oslo Road to Highlands Drive. The St. Lucie County Line to Highlands Drive segment experiences congestion that needs to be addressed in the intermediate (5-15 year) term. This project will alleviate the congestion and capacity issues on that road segment. Construction funding is requested for this project. 2. 82nd Avenue, two Ianing from 26th Street to CR 510 - The MPO's 2030 LRTP includes a project to construct 82nd A venue as a two lane facility from its current terminus near 26th Street to CR 510. This segment of roadway is identified as a multi use corridor with Greenways for non-motorized transportation. As currently proposed, the project involves paving 82nd A venue from 26th Street to CR 510. Design of the project is nearly complete. Right-of-way acquisition and construction funding are requested for this project. Conclusion As structured, the MPO's 2010 List of Priority Highway Projects identifies only those projects for which state and/or federal funding is requested. As indicated in the MPO's 2030 LRTP, many of the plan's cost-feasible roadway improvements will be funded with local revenues and constructed by the County or local municipalities. Because locally funded roadway improvement projects can generally be completed in shorter timeframes than state or federally funded projects, it is often preferable not to include projects on the MPO's priority highways list where local funding is available for those projects. Therefore, the priority highway projects list includes only roadway projects which require state or federal funds and which are not needed for several years. Indian River County MPO 5 2010 List of Priority Projects PRIORITY REGIONALIINTERMODAL PROJECTS Regional transportation projects serve a function of connecting major population or activity concentrations that are separated by some distance. With the 2006 Growth Management Legislation, regional projects became more important, because that legislation established a new grant program, known as the Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP), for use on transportation projects determined to be regional in nature. In order to qualify for TRIP funding, the MPO engaged in a number of actions. Tho5se included establishing a new regional entity, the Treasure Coast Transportation Council (TCTC), with Martin and St. Lucie Counties; developing a regional roadway network map; and developing a set of interim criteria for prioritizing TRIP project candidates on a regional basis. In 2008, the interim prioritization criteria were applied to the list of regional projects identified in the Long Range Plans of the individual counties. In 2010, the MPO removed Regional Highways as a category of the Highway Priorities list and developed a new list, known as the Regional/lntermodal Priorities list, for TRIP-grant eligible projects. This action was taken because alternative modal projects, as well as roadway projects, are eligible for funding under the TRIP program. Since only about $500,000 will be made available in TRIP funding in the three-county Treasure Coast area, the Treasure Coast MPOs have determined that this year's TRIP funding allocation would be best utilized to partially satisfy the local matching fund requirement for passenger rail corridor improvements on the FEC rail corridor. Indian River County has also identified a number of regional roadway projects to be funded in the event that the FEC rail corridor improvements project is found ineligible. Those projects include segments of 66th A venue and County Road 510, which were first identified on last year's TRIP priority list. Those projects are the top unfunded or partially-funded Indian River County projects on the 2008 TCTC regional priority list. The announced level of TRIP funding available, however, would be sufficient to fund only a small portion of one of those projects. Unlike every other priority list in this document, the Regional priorities list is not adopted solely by the MPO. After approval of Indian River County's regional priority candidates by the MPO, the candidate projects from all three counties will be ranked and approved by the TCTC. After approval, the TCTC regional priorities will be submitted to FDOT. PRIORITY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROCESS (CMP) PROJECTS Beginning with the 1998 Priority Projects Report, MPO staff utilized the MPO's Congestion Management System (CMS) plan to identify and prioritize improvement strategies for the county's most congested corridors. In 2003, the MPO prepared a CMS Plan Major Update. With the 2006 passage of SAFETEA-LU, the new federal highway authorization bill, the Indian River County MPO 6 2010 List of Priority Projects Congestion Management System was renamed the "Congestion Management Process," or CMP. The most recent CMP project in Indian River County, improvement of the intersection of Royal Palm Pointe and Indian River Boulevard, was completed earlier this year. That project, which resulted in significant efficiency improvements, demonstrates the potential successes of the CMP approach to congested corridors. In 2010, MPO staff completed a new CMP analysis. Using the CMP methodology adopted by the MPO in 2003, staff identified the most congested corridors in the county based on existing and vested trips; eliminated those corridors which are programmed for widening; and eliminated those corridors which have already been evaluated through the CMP process. The remaining corridors were then subject to a screening process to identify appropriate CMP strategies and projects. The resulting CMP priorities are as follows: CORRIDOR STRATEGY 37th Street (US 1 Add right tum lanes at major intersections and driveways to Indian River Boulevard) Add bus shelters Provide intersection improvements at 3ih and Indian River Boulevard Indian River Extend right tum lanes at V ero Isles and other driveways Boulevard (1 ih Connect 5th Avenue to the Miracle Mile Shopping Center Street to Merrill Barber Bridge) Increase transit headways on Route 1 Although there is no specific allocation of FDOT funding reserved exclusively for CMP projects, MPOs have the option to program CMP projects for funding with federal highway money. Since MPO formula highway funding has been significantly curtailed in recent years, the MPO will not request the allocation of funds that would otherwise be used for MPO highway priorities but will instead seek alternative funding sources (such as County Incentive Grant, Intermodal, and ITS funding) for the construction of CMP projects. PRIORITY ENHANCEMENT PROJECTS One important component of SAFETEA-LU, the federal highway act, is the federal enhancements program. Funded with ten percent of Surface Transportation Program allocations, the enhancement program focuses on improvements that complement the transportation system. In Florida, enhancement funds are allocated to each FDOT district, which then determines how these funds will be distributed among the MPOs in its jurisdiction. Indian River County MPO 7 2010 List of Priority Projects In 2007 and 2008, the MPO suspended the enhancement prioritization cycle, since a single year of enhancement funding in Indian River County has proven to be insufficient to construct a project of significant impact. In 2009, the MPO indicated that its top-ranked Enhancement priority was the Trans-Florida Railway Corridor Greenway in Northern Indian River County. That project was the highest ranked priority contained in the MPO's first ever Greenways Plan, which was adopted in 2006. Subsequently, FDOT District Four allocated $717,060 in year 2012 of the most recent TIP for construction of that priority. For 2010, FDOT will no longer allow MPOs to suspend Enhancement cycles to accumulate funding. Therefore, the MPO must submit priorities for approximately $350,000 in Enhancement Funds. Those funds will be available in FY 2013/14. To identify new priorities, the MPO once again identified unfunded projects in the County's Greenways Master Plan. Two projects have been ranked according to the criteria contained in the County's Greenways Master Plan. Those criteria, including connectivity, constructability, quality of life benefits, agency support and cost, are summarized in A-9 of the Appendix. The highest ranked Greenways projects based on the criteria are shown in Table A-5 and Table A-6, and are described in detail below. 2010 List ofPriority Enhancement Projects 1. South Sebastian Greenway Corridor- The South Sebastian Greenway corridor is a north-south connector, traversing between Barber Street and CR 512. It runs within the City of Sebastian, with the right-of-way under City of Sebastian or Indian River County ownership. The corridor provides access to two elementary schools, the Sebastian Stormwater Park, the Sebastian Harbor Preserve Conservation Area, Sebastian City hall, Schumann Drive Park, Easy Street Park, shopping centers, and residential neighborhoods in the City of Sebastian. The corridor is 4 miles long, with an estimated cost of $1,840,000 for construction of a paved surface trail. For the 2010 Enhancement cycle, the MPO is requesting funds for construction of 1 mile of the corridor, from Thunderbird Drive to Kildare Drive. The estimated cost of the project is $366,200. 2. Ai7ort Loop Greenway Trail- The Vero Beach Airport Greenway trail runs along 43r A venue, 41st Street, Aviation Boulevard/26th Street, and the FEC Railroad corridor parallel to US 1. It is planned as a 10' wide shared-use path, approximately 6.6 miles in length. The MPO is currently requesting funds for the construction of the trail that runs along Aviation Boulevard. This segment is 1.5 miles long and has an estimated cost of $1,000,000. PRIORITY TRANSIT PROJECTS Because of the way that transit projects are funded, transit priorities were not included in the MPO's priority projects list until the year 2000. Prior to that time, the MPO had not considered it necessary to develop transit priority lists, because transit capital and transit operations are funded by FTA and because a separate grant application is submitted directly to FTA. In the last several years, however, the MPO obtained funds from a variety of sources, including discretionary state grants. In order to apply for many federal and state grant Indian River County MPO 8 2010 List of Priority Projects programs, proposed projects must be included on an adopted MPO priority list. In addition, fixed route transit travel has gained in popularity in recent years, which has made the need to prioritize available resources in order to meet demand even greater. For those reasons, FDOT encouraged the MPO to develop a transit priority list as a mechanism to implement the MPO's transit plans. For 2010, the primary source of projects in the transit priority list was the MPO's Transit Development Plan (TDP) - Major Update. Since a major update of the TDP in 2008, the county has been implementing a number of TDP strategies, such as new service, new facilities, a bus wrap program, and adjustments to existing routes. In fact, the county recently implemented two of the MPO's top three priorities: providing new service in the West SR 60 corridor, which was made possible by an FDOT grant; and providing service on South Indian River Boulevard, which was also a CMP priority. Many of the projects in the 2008 TDP, however, have not been implemented. Those projects form the basis of the transit priority list. Priority Transit Projects Ranking Project Unit Cost Funding Source I Expand Operating hours to 7pm on Routes I - 4 & 8 $IOI,794/yr State/Federal 2 Make Vero Beach Intermodal Hub Improvements $50,000 State/Federal 3 Construct Shelters and Benches $60,000/yr State/Federal 4 Expand Saturday Service Hours $II4,I13/yr State/Federal PRIORITY AIRPORT PROJECTS In Indian River County, there are two publicly owned general aviation airports, each of which qualifies for state and federal funding. Separate priority project lists have been established for each airport. This report includes a Vero Beach Airport priority projects list and a Sebastian Airport priority projects list. To develop the airport priority projects list, MPO staff reviewed the current JACIPs (Joint Automated Capital Improvement Programs) for each of the two public airports in the county, identified which projects in the JACIPs were unfunded, and coordinated with respective airport staffs. The following airport priority projects were identified for 2010/11-2015/16. Vero Beach Airport Priority Projects 1 Clear Part 77 Obstructions, Phase 2 2 Construct Operations Facility 3 Rehabilitate Runway 4/22 4 Airport Drive Improvements Indian River County MPO 9 2010 List of Priority Projects 5 Construct/Mark/Light West GA A_l}ron, Phase 3 6 Airport Security Improvements, Phase 3 7 Airport Master Plan 8 Environmental Assessment Runway 4/22 Extension 9 Rehabilitate Taxiway AlE 10 Rehabilitate Taxiway B 11 Reconstruct/Mark/Light GA Apron 12 Construct North Apron Extension, Phase 1 13 Airport Business Park Improvements Sebastian Airport Priority Projects 1 A!!"Port Master Plan Update 2 Construct Corporate Hangers 3 Construct Main Street I Airport Drive East-West Access 4 Construct Taxiway C,D,E and install lighting Conclusion The six components of the Indian River County MPO's 2010 Priority Projects Report-the priority highway projects list, the priority regional/intermodal projects list, the priority CMP projects list, the priority enhancement projects list, the priority transit projects list, and the priority airport projects list-were reviewed by the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), the MPO Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and by the MPO Board. Opportunities for public comment were available at the TAC, CAC, and MPO meetings. Before making decisions regarding the five priority projects lists, the MPO and its advisory committees considered public input. At its meeting of September 8, 2010, the Indian River County MPO considered the 2010 Priority Projects Report. The MPO also reviewed the accompanying staff report, considered the recommendations of the TAC and CAC, and discussed various issues. The MPO then adopted the priority projects report containing the MPO's 2010 lists of priority highway, regional/intermodal, CMP, enhancement, transit, and airport projects. Indian River County MPO 10 2010 List ofPriority Projects APPENDIX Summary Tables and Reference Material Table A-1 Priority Highway Projects, SIS Highways FDOT FY 2009/10 - 2013/14 Project Rank Location Length Improvement Five Year Work Program Funding Source Roadway Jurisdiction (miles) Type Programmed Requested 2010 2009 2008 2007 From To FIIFM# Improvements ($000s) Oslo Road I I I I Interchange at -- n/a Add interchange Federal 4130482 FY 12113 PE $2,200 State/Federal Interstate 95 L______. -- Table A-2 Priority Highway Projects, Other Highways FDOT FY 2009/10- 2013114 Project Rank Location Length Improvement Five Year Work Program Funding Source Roadway Jurisdiction (miles) Type Programmed Requested 2010 2009 2008 2007 From To FIIFM# Improvements ($000s) I 2 3 4 US I Highlands Drive S. County Line 0.5 Widen from four to six lanes State 2285832 FY 09/10 ROW $3,694 State/Federal 2 3 4 - 82nd Ave 26th St CR510 7.0 New Road two lane undivided County 2308791 FY 06/07 PE $ 1,550 State/Federal TableA-3 Priority Regionalllntermodal Projects FDOT FY 2009/10- 2013/14 Project Rank Location Length Improvement Five Year Work Program Funding Source Project Jurisdiction (miles) Type Programmed Requested 2010 2009 2008 2007 From To FIIFM# Improvements ($000s) Station and Platform State only I FECRR Countywide N/A FEC n/a No Phase Programmed --- Improvements (TRIPS) State only 2 2 66th Avenue CR510 SR60 7.5 Widen from two to four lanes County 4258831 FY 11112 CST $2,000 I 5 (TRIPS) 3 2 3 1 CR510 CR512 us 1 5.82 Widen from two to four lanes County n/a No Phase Programmed State/Federal Indian River County MPO 11 2010 List of Priority Projects Table A-4 CMP Priority Projects 37th Street (US 1 Add right tum lanes at major intersections and driveways to Indian River Boulevard) Add bus shelters Intersection improvements at 37th and Indian River Boulevard Indian River Extend right tum lanes at V ero Isles and other driveways Boulevard (17th Connect 5th A venue to the Miracle Mile Shopping Center Street to Merrill Barber Bridge) Increase transit headways on Route 1 Table A-5 Priority Enhancement Projects Project FDOT FY 2009/10-2013/14 Prioriti- Location Rank Length Improvement Five Year Work Program Funding Source zation Roadway Jurisdiction (miles) Type Requested Score Programmed 2010 From To FIIFM# Improvements ($000s) Thunderbird Pave Trails, Add Trail 1 83 South Sebastian Kildare Drive 1 City n/a No Phase Programmed State/Federal Drive Infrastructure Airport Loop Pave Trails, Add Trail 2 77.29 Trail I Aviation 1 43'd Ave 1.5 City n/a No Phase Programmed State/Federal us Infrastructure Blvd TableA-6 Indian River County MPO 12 2010 List of Priority Projects 2010 Enhancement Prioritization Criteria System Regional Agency Projects Transportation Multiple Constructability Total Connectivity Benefits Support Cost (10) (15) Use (10) (10) (100) (20) (15) (20) South Sebastian Trail 15 20 15 8 10 10 5 83 Airport Loop Trail 11 18.57 10.14 6.86 16.57 7.14 7 77.29 Indian River County MPO 13 2010 List of Priority Projects TableA-7 Priority Transit Projects Ranking Project Unit Cost Funding Source 1 Expand Operating hours to 7pm on Routes 1 - 4 & 8 $101,794/yr State/Federal 2 Provide service on South Indian River Boulevard $294,512/yr State/Federal 3 Vero Beach lntermodal Hub Improvements $50,000 State/Federal 4 Shelters and Benches Program $60,000/yr State/Federal 5 Expand Saturday Service Hours $114,113/yr State/Federal Table A-8 Priority Aviation Projects for Vero Beach Airport 1 Clear Part 77 Obstructions, Phase 2 2 Construct Operations Facility 3 Rehabilitate Runway 4/22 4 Airport Drive Improvements 5 Construct/Mark/Light West GA Apron, Phase 3 6 Airport Security Improvements, Phase 3 7 Airport Master Plan 8 Environmental Assessment Runway 4/22 Extension 9 Rehabilitate Taxiway_ AlE 10 Rehabilitate Taxiway B 11 Reconstruct/Mark/Light GA Apron 12 Construct North Apron Extension, Phase 1 13 Airport Business Park Improvements TableA-9 Priority Aviation Projects for Sebastian Airport 1 Airport Master Plan Update 2 Construct Corporate Hangers 3 Construct Main Street I Airport Drive East-West Access 4 Construct Taxiway C,D,E and install lighting Indian River County MPO 14 2010 List of Priority Projects Table A-10 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, Cost Affordable Plan Phase 1: 2011 to 2020 on street From To 2011 Road Type 2020 Road Type Total Cost SIS 1-95 S. COUNTY LINE N. COUNTY LINE 4 Lane Freeway 6 Lane Freeway $10991900 s SROO 1-95 82NDAVE 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8119445 a us 1 S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $12064823 (/) Coooestion Manaoement Swtem Proiects , $500 thousand cer vear $5000000 12TH ST 90TH AVE 2ND AVE NIA 2 Lane Undivided S3 781 786 12THST 43RDAVE 7TH AVE 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided S2,854,618 20TH ST 66TH AVE 3RDAVE 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $13,006,154 AVIATION BLVD 43RDAVE .S.1 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8,537,828 27TH AVE S. COUNTY LINE OSLORD 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $9,500,909 27TH AVE OSLORD S.R60 2 Lane undivided 2 Lane Divided $12 33069 43RDAVE OSLORD BTHST 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $8 311 058 -8.. 58TH AVE S COUNTY LINE!~ OSLORD 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $11850 325 {i 66TH AVE SR60 .R510 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36173 489 b ~IATION BLVD EXT US1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD NIA 4Lane Divided $14 387 771 c C.R. 510 C.R.512 U.S.1 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $36.369.280 8" C.R. 510 U.S.1 CW-N 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $3,718,539 C.R. 512 FRLSMERE CITY 95 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $19,192,929 C.R.512 1-95 .R510 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $13,317,010 C.R.512 C.R.510 ROSELANDRD 4 Lane DiVided 6 Lane Divided 56,674,370 BTHST 82NDAVE 74TH AVE NIA 2 Lane Undivided $3.955196 OSLORD 1-95 58TH AVE 2 Lane Undivided 4Lane Divided $19484 669 SCHUMANN DR C.R. 510 BARBERST 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided S3 974 335 Coroestion Management Svstem Projects $500 thousand per year) $5000000 SI::IIPSIS, ISvotAm1 IS:111!H11Qnnr ()th<>r SI::IIP Rn:>rlo s;,.; 1lld ')f ~ 0 Countv Roads ~~~?<1!!fl()f .... CitvRoads 0 T( rAI I s;~:• !iPA ?• Phase 2: 2021 to 2030 On Street From To 2021 Road Type 2030 Road Type Total Cost SIS SR60 98TH AVE -95 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $2,543,842 SR60 6TH AVE NOlAN RIVER BLVD 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $1,864,758 ~ us 1 AVIATION BLVD OLD DIXIE HWY (N) 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $44 372 047 tiS us 1 ROSELAND RD N. COUNTY LINE 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $5 255 518 Conaestion Management System Pr<>.il!_cls $500 thousand per year $5000000 THST 98TH AVE 6TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $16 262 035 nTHSTSW 66TH AVE 8TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $4041388 13TH STSW li3RDAVE 34TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $1 560 899 13TH STSW 34TH AVE 27TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $3359684 13THSTSW 27TH AVE 20TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $1,922,225 17THSTSW 66TH AVE 58TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $4,019,519 .. 26THST 82NDAVE 74TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $3,850,481 -g 43RDAVE SCOUNTYLINE OSLO RD 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $12,974,563 0 0:: 53RDST 82NDAVE 66TH AVE N/A 2 Lane Undivided $9 599620 ~ 66TH AVE S COUNTY LINE OSLO RD NIA 2 Lane Undivided $8562423 0 66TH AVE OSLO RD ~THST 2 Lane Undivided 4 Lane Divided $8 887 466 0" 66TH AVE 4THST ~R60 2 Lane Divided 4 Lane Divided $8 853 565 S2NDAVE SCOUNTYUNE OSLO RD N/A 2 Lane Undivided $7 302 941 82NDAVE 26TH ST C.R. 510 N/A 2 Lane Undivided $28174165 LACONIAST C.R.510 ONCHADR N/A 2 Lane Undivided $11 076 344 INDIAN RIVER BLVD ROYAL PALM 37THST 4 Lane Divided 6 Lane Divided $8,678,255 ROSELAND RD C.R. 512 u.s.1 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided $12,847,897 Congestion Management System Projects ($500 thousand per year) $5,000,000 ,.. 13ARBER ST ~CHUMANNDR u.s.1 2Lane Undiviaed 2 Lane Divided $3,621,587 ;!:1 $7,596,306 0 ~RBERST C.R.512 ~CHUMANNDR 2 Lane Undivided 2 Lane Divided FLEMINGST EASYST SCHUMANN DR N/A 2 Lane Undivided $4 838 86 I Removed from State SIS IStrateaic lntermlldal Sl stem I $2.543.842 LRTP in2008 .l!! Other State toads !f;.J;fi .4()? ,,, I I a !§1'ifl !I'M .470 ~ r.ilvl !n!ltl~ 5.111 O'il)_754 rA 11.? ORR 1.AQ Indian River County MPO 15 2010 List of Priority Projects Table A-ll Regionally Ranked 2030 Needs Projects Regional Project Prioritization Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin MPOs Tallie 3 (Summary Tlllll&) Indian River County MPO 16 2010 List of Priority Projects Table A-12 Transportation: Increases the Access to Schools: 0-3 points max use of non-motorized travel to Access to Employment and Retail: 0-3 destinations within 0.5 mile of Access to Parks & Recreation: 0-3 15 the proposed corridor. Access to Transit: 0-3 Access to Residential :0-3 System Connectivity: Provides an essential link in the proposed Provides an essential link in network; without this link, the system could not creating a continuous be completed: 15-20 points greenway system within the study area. Important as a 'stand alone project, but not 20 critical to the overall system: 5-15 points A long-term element and potential future link in the · 0-5 Quality of Life Benefits: Increases Tourism visits from outside ofthe Project will provide quality of County: 0-3 points max life benefits to the residents, Connects people to Conservation Lands: 0-3 15 visitors and businesses of Potential to attract I retain businesses: 0-3 Indian River County. Increases Public Health I Fitness: 0-3 0-3 Multiple Use: Allows for a variety of trail users 10 Agency Support: Project is Project has full agency support (15-20 points) supported by the organization(s) responsible for Project has potential to receive agency support 20 its implementation and (5-15) management Cost: Project can be implemented within the unit costs provided based on identified opportunities and Less than $200k I mile (8-1 0 points max) 10 constraints $200k- $500k I mile (3-7 points) Greater than $500k I mile (0-2 points) Constructability: Project is Project presents significant constraints to ready to be advanced to design construction (0-2 points) and construction Project requires further study but has the 10 potential to be advanced (3-7 points) Project is feasible and ready for implementation 10 Indian River County MPO 17 2010 List of Priority Projects TableA-13 SAFETEA LU Planning Factors Subtitle B, Section 1203(f) ofSAFETEA lists eight metropolitan planning areas that must be considered as part of the planning process for all MPOs. The following eight areas have been explicitly considered, analyzed as appropriate, and reflected in the Indian River County MPO's 2009 Priority Projects Report: (1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; (2) Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (3) Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (4) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight; (5) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and state and local planned growth and economic development patterns; ( 6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; (7) Promote efficient system management and operation; and (8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. Table A-14 Definitions Used in the 2010 Priority Projects Report Project Phases CST Construction DES Design PD&E Project Development and Environmental Study PE Preliminary Engineering ROW RightofWay Other Terms FDOT Florida Department of Transportation LOS Level of Service (measure of roadway traffic congestion) LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan PLEMO Planning and Environmental Management Office (FDOT planning study) SAFETEA-LU Safe, Efficient Transportation Equity Act- a Legacy for Users Indian River County MPO 18 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP /L~ K, Community Development Director FROM: PhillipJ. Matson ~ MPO Staff DirectoV' DATE: November 30, 2010 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting of December 8, 2010. SUMMARY Attached to this staff report is a copy of the final MPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) summary report. The LRTP is a multi-modal transportation plan which meets Indian River County's transportation needs through 2035. The plan is now presented for adoption by the MPO. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS According to state and federal regulations, the Indian River County MPO must prepare and adopt an updated long range transportation plan (LRTP) by January 1, 2011. That plan has been under preparation now for almost two years. During that time, MPO staff and the MPO's LRTP consultants, Kimley-Hom and Associates/Stanley Consultants, have undertaken research, collected data, initiated public involvement activities, developed alternative roadway networks, completed socio-economic data projections, coordinated with FDOT and the other Treasure Coast MPO's, and developed preliminary goals. Using the Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model (GTCRPM), the MPO and its consultants prepared a forecast of future travel demand and compared that demand to the current capacity of the county's transportation system. That GTCRPM analysis provided the basis for development of the draft 2035 Needs Plan. 1 With the Needs Plan providing an indication of future year transportation improvement needs, MPO staff and the consultant prepared a detailed financial analysis, projected future revenues, and estimated Needs Plan improvements costs. Based upon this analysis, staff and the consultant developed a draft cost feasible plan. At the MPO meeting of October 13, 2010, the MPO approved both the draft needs and cost feasible plans and authorized staff to begin a required 45-day public comment period. ANALYSIS Attached to this staff report is the draft final MPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) summary report. Page 12 of the summary report constitutes the MPO's cost feasible listing of roadway projects that are required to meet the MPO's needs through the year 2035. This is the same list of projects that was approved by the MPO, the TAC, and the CAC in October of2010. Contained in the Summary Report are the MPO's Adopted Needs and Cost Feasible Roadway Networks; a summary of the land use/visioning process, public involvement activities, and financial resources analysis; and a discussion of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. In addition to the Summary Report, the MPO has prepared an LRTP Final Report and Technical Appendix. Those documents contain an in-depth analysis of the topics contained in the Summary Report, and contain data, technical specifications, and draft plan alternatives. Both the Final Report and Technical Appendix are available for review in the MPO offices. As structured, the 2035 LRTP accommodates travel demand projected through the year 2035. The plan is multi-modal, incorporating highway, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. Accordingly, the plan will be the basis for developing the MPO's future priority projects lists and transportation improvement programs. It will also serve as a guide for programming federal, state, and local transportation funds through 2035. On November 19th, 2010, the TAC considered the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan and recommended that the MPO approve the plan. On November 30, 2010, the CAC also considered the plan and recommended approval by the MPO. At this time, the MPO must adopt the final 2035 LRTP. Once adopted, the plan will be sent to the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the MPO consider the final2035 Long Range Transportation Plan, provide staff with any questions or comments regarding that plan, and approve the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. ATTACHMENTS 1. Final MPO 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Summary Report !':\Community Dcvelopmcnt\U~cr51MPO\Mccting.'\MP0\2010112..08·101LRTP Final.doc 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Indian River Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the federally designated transportation planning authority serving Indian River County. As such, the MPO is required by federal law to update its long range transportation plan (LRTP) every five years. In Indian River County, the LRTP serves as a mechanism for identifying and prioritizing multi-modal transportation improvements over a 20-year planning horizon. Periodically updating the LRTP is necessary to identify appropriate transportation system improvements in light of changing socio-economic conditions, thereby supporting the county's economic vitality, enhancing mobility, and improving quality of life. Consistent with the federal transportation planning guidelines provided in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), and applicable state, county, and local plans, policies, and guidelines, the 2035 LRTP was developed through a comprehensive analysis of the county's multi-modal transportation system, including highways, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. During the 21-month plan development process, input was obtained from local residents, public agencies, state agencies, and MPOs of neighboring counties. Contained in the Summary Report are the MPO's Adopted Needs and Cost Feasible Roadway Networks; a summary of the land use/visioning process, public involvement activities, and financial resources analysis; and a discussion of the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. Goals. Objectives, Policies and Measures of Effectiveness The goals, objectives, policies, and measures of effectiveness (GOPMs) for the 2035 LRTP Update were developed after reviewing GOPMs from the 2030 LRTP Update, comprehensive plans of the County and municipalities, and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Regional Policy Plan. Further, the 2035 LRTP Update goals were developed consistent 1 Attachment 1 with the SAFETEA-LU guidelines. The goals, which formed the basis for the development and evaluation of transportation improvement alternatives, include: • Goal 1: To provide a connected, responsive, aesthetically pleasing and efficient transportation system that meets the needs of Indian River County residents, visitors, and businesses. • Goal 2: To provide a transportation system with travel alternatives to enhance mobility for people and freight. • Goal 3: To provide a transportation system that is sensitive to the natural and social environment. • Goal 4: To provide a safe transportation system for Indian County residents, visitors, and businesses. • Goal 5: To provide a transportation system that is preserved and maintained through adequate investment and management of the infrastructure. Public Participation Plan At the outset of the 2035 LRTP Update, a public participation plan was developed consistent with the guidelines provided in the SAFETEA-LU and the MPO's adopted public involvement process. SAFETEA-LU, which is the successor to the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), emphasizes utilization of visualization techniques to describe transportation plans and presentation of public information, such as reports and meeting notices, in electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide Web. Outreach tools used during the 2035 LRTP Update are listed below. • MPO newsletters • LRTP website • Public meetings/workshops • MPO advisory committees and boards • Online surveys • Mass media (newspapers, radio and television stations, online media) • Meeting notices, flyers, posters, and comment cards • Chambers of Commerce 2 Teo '""' oo ~, .... -··~""""' ...,"""l "''''''"""~ " ', .. ,'<~"'A"' '""'""""-'""' ""'"""'"~ .,~..,.,.., .• ~ """'" ~•ooo><'"~"'"'",._",..''·''"""'""o) ""_... .. P'_...... ~ ... -L#.. -..Ir.... ~ ...... -- ~-~ ...... _.,,_ ...... _...... ,...... , ...... _,_ .... , n..NI_IO ___,..,_.,. O<>II~>A'\1...,.,..,.,..,...,,,,.,...,,....,,....,.....,...~:1<'""'<..,...... ,-._ ... -...... _,"'"'"" ...... """"'"",_.;"'tl''"-" ...... ,. .... "'"''" ...... -... -b.-~ ..~ A dedicated website was developed for the 2035 LRTP Update During LRTP development, a series of public workshops was conducted to obtain input for key components of the plan, such as the land use vision, needs plan alternatives, and the cost feasible plan. Powerpoint presentations, simulations, display boards, interactive spreadsheets, breakout groups, facilitated discussions, comment cards, and question and answer sessions were used during public workshops. An online survey was conducted to obtain input during the development of Needs Plan. Over 200 people attended LRTP public workshops, and approximately 500 comment cards/online surveys were completed during the plan update. That input was utilized to develop and refine multi-modal transportation improvements. In fact, public input on the Needs Plan projects was a criterion for prioritizing projects in the Cost Feasible Plan. Throughout the plan development, presentations were made to the MPO Board, Citizens Advisory Committee, and Technical Advisory Committee. These meetings were publicly advertised and provided additional opportunities for feedback. Between October and December of 2010, the plan documents were made available for public review before final adoption. Land Use Vision The Preferred Land Use Vision developed for the LRTP Update sets policy direction to manage how and where future growth and development are accommodated in Indian River County. The 3 general location, timing and pace of growth are vital to determining when and where to build transportation infrastructure. Two land use alternatives, an Existing Trends Alternative and an lnfill Alternative, were considered during the land use visioning process. The Existing Trends Alternative would maintain the land uses, intensities, and densities in current local comprehensive plans. The county's current land-use pattern consists primarily of low-density residential development, commercial uses in a few major corridors, relatively little mixed use development, and dispersed employment centers. New residential areas have now expanded to the western edge of the urban service area along several corridors. Existing Trends Alternative would maintain status quo in the county regarding land use The lnfill Alternative was based on public input received at the land use workshop and was developed with the objective of incorporating the time-tested principles of traditional town planning and urban design. The lnfill Alternative proposes new neighborhood, corridor, and district areas that will become the focus of infill redevelopment and business recruitment. The majority of new developments will occur within the Urban Service Area. The MPO adopted lnfill Alternative as the preferred land use vision. 4 The input received during the community visioning workshop and stakeholder meeting indicated a general consensus that far-reaching changes to the County's comprehensive plan are not desired or necessary. That consensus, however, indicated that adjustments to the current County comprehensive plan and land development regulations should be considered to: • Increase workplace, residential and retail infill opportunities • Improve the mix and proximity of complementary land uses • Improve street network interconnectivity • Discourage sprawling patterns of development • Encourage the development and redevelopment of compact, complete and connected mixed-use neighborhoods within the County's urban service area, especially within the Fellsmere annexation areas and the US 1 corridor. The Infill Alternative, which identifies several areas for redevelopment, was selected as the Preferred Land Use Vision for the 2035 LRTP Update 5 Socio-Economic Data The lnfill Alternative was the basis of the socio-economic data developed for travel demand modeling. Several sources, including the Bureau of Economic and Business Research's (BEBR) population forecasts, U.S. Census Bureau's household and employment data, and Indian River MPO's vacant land inventory, provided information that was vital in the development of the socio-economic data. BEBR's mid-range population estimates were used as the total population control totals. The following table summarizes base year (2005) and horizon year (2035) population, household, and employment data for Indian River County. Socio-economic Data Year Total Population Total Households Total Employment 2005 145,486 62,618 54,429 2035 208,993 96,480 82,474 30-year growth 44% 54% 52% Needs Plan A Needs Plan identifies required improvements to an area's transportation network above and beyond projects for which funding has already been committed (i.e., included in the Transportation improvement Program) to maintain satisfactory mobility conditions. These needs are identified without consideration of project costs or potential revenue streams available to fund the improvements. The needs assessment involved an evaluation of several alternatives through travel demand modeling. During alternatives analysis, both the widening of existing roadways and the construction of new grid roadways were considered. A well-connected and dense grid network increases travel route choices and also provides opportunities to accommodate shorter distance trips on minor roads, thus preserving capacity on major roads for longer distance trips. The Needs Plan alternatives were presented to the public and MPO committees at several workshops and meetings. After several iterations, the Enhanced Grid Alternative was selected as the Adopted Needs Plan. 6 Note: Roadway improvements in Brevard and St. Lucie Counties that were assumed as part of the Indian River County Needs Plan development are also illustrated in this figure. Needs Plan Projects Capacity Improvements Grid Improvements Roadways (No. of 1.---2 4 6 2035 Adopted Needs Plan indian River County ~=~ 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update I~y~:~-~~ Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Regional Coordination This plan recognizes the importance of regional connectivity. The location of jobs, housing, and recreational centers often induces travel between counties. Therefore, throughout the LRTP update process, Indian River County coordinated with ongoing long range transportation planning efforts in St. Lucie and Brevard Counties. The Needs Plans of these adjacent counties were reviewed to ensure that major roadways are planned in a consistent manner at the county lines. Financial Plan A new aspect in the financial plan component of this LRTP Update is that both costs and revenues are presented in year of expenditure (YOE) dollars rather than base year dollars. The YOE approach provides a more realistic estimation of available revenue streams and the costs of improvements. In the LRTP financial component, revenues for future transportation improvements were estimated for Indian River County through 2035. The revenue forecast assumed that the County would adopt the discretionary five-cent 2"d local option gas tax and the ninth-cent gas tax by year 2013. A reduced revenue scenario, which assumed that no new local option gas taxes would be adopted, was also considered. The cost estimate of the Needs Plan projects indicates that the cost of highway improvements exceeds the projected capital revenue, even if additional local option gas taxes are adopted. The $565 million projected highway funding over the 20-year period is less than the projected cost of the Needs Plan, which varies between $610 million and $983 million depending on the implementation timeframe. 8 Projected Highway Funding (in millions) FY 2016-20 FY 2021-25 FY 2026-30 FY 2031-35 20-Year Total Capital Revenues FOOT- SIS/FIHS $0.3 $150.8 $0.0 $0.0 $151.1 Other Arterial $20.8 $23.5 $25.3 $27.7 $97.3 Construction/ROW State Total $21.1 $174.3 $25.3 $27.7 $248.4 1 cent Local Option Sales $18.2 $20.0 $22.4 $25.1 $85.7 Taxes (LOST) 6-Cent Local Option Gas $10.6 $11.3 $12.6 $14.0 $48.5 Taxes (LOGT) S-Cent 2"d LOGT and 9th $12.1 $13.0 $14.1 $15.3 $54.5 Cent Gas Tax Transportation Impact $33.1 $33.1 $30.9 $30.9 $128.0 Fees County Total $74.0 $77.4 $80.0 $85.3 $316.7 State and County Total $95.1 $251.7 $105.3 $113.0 $565.1 Operating Revenues Constitutional Gas Tax $7.5 $7.8 $8.5 $9.2 $33.0 County Gas Tax $3.3 $3.4 $3.7 $4.1 $14.5 6-Cent LOGT $4.3 $4.3 $4.3 $4.3 $17.2 County Total $15.2 $15.5 $16.5 $17.6 $64.7 Projected Multi-modal Funding (in millions) FY 2016-20 FY 2021-25 FY 2026-30 FY 2031-35 20-Year Total Capital Revenues Transit $11.8 $13.3 $14.8 $16.2 $56.1 Enhancement Funds $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $2.0 $10.0 County Bicycle/ $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.0 $5.0 Pedestrian Total $74.0 $77.4 $80.0 $85.3 $316.7 Operating Revenues Transit $21.2 $21.5 $21.5 $21.5 $85.7 9 Cost of Needs Plan Highway Projects in YOE Dollars (millions) FY 2016-20 FY 2021-25 FY 2026-30 FY 2031-35 SIS/FIHS $145 $170 $200 $235 Other arterial $110 $130 $152 $179 County $354 $415 $486 $569 Total YOE cost $610 $714 $838 $983 Cost Feasible Plan Through the Cost Feasible Plan development process, the Needs Plan projects were evaluated to determine which projects should be prioritized. The Cost Feasible Plan roadway improvement projects were then prioritized based on the following criteria. • Volume to capacity (V/C) ratio • Project benefit • Connectivity • Project location • Emergency evacuation routes • Truck routes • lntermodal/transit routes • Regionalism • Environmental impacts • Public input A number of Cost Feasible Plan alternatives were considered. Ultimately, the MPO Board selected Alternative A, an option which includes roadway widening along key travel corridors exhibiting the greatest travel demand along with the construction of a denser grid network, as the preferred cost feasible plan for the 2035 LRTP Update. During the LRTP Update, policy decisions were made not to widen several corridors which exhibited travel demand exceeding their adopted level of service standards. Those policy decisions are summarized below. 10 • Arterial roadways should not exceed six lanes. Therefore, a decision was made not to widen portions of SR 60 and US 1 to eight lanes. • Due to lack of right-of-way and environmental concerns, a decision was made not to widen SR AlA to four lanes. • US 1 will not be widened to six lanes between CR 512 and Roseland Road in the City of Sebastian's downtown core. • Oslo Road will not be widened to six lanes until the need for widening beyond four lanes is assessed after a new 1-95 interchange is constructed at Oslo Road. In addition to the above corridors, small segments of several corridors are expected to exceed the capacity. Those segments are candidates for the Congestion Management Process (CMP) projects that typically examine intersection improvement strategies such as constructing turn lanes, optimizing signal timing, and using Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications to reduce congestion. Transit improvements will continue to be guided through the Transit Development Plan (TDP) process. Service improvements outlined in the TDP include (1) extending weekday and Saturday operations to provide service over a longer portion of the day and (2) implementing frequency improvements to achieve headways of thirty minutes on high performing routes. These service improvements are the highest priority transit improvements in Indian River County. Based on the adopted lnfill Alternative, corridors which offer the highest potential for transit ridership and may be targeted as transit priority corridors include US 1, SR 60, and CR 512. The Cost Feasible Plan allocates approximately $600,000 annually for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The MPO has already developed greenways master plans for north and central Indian River County and is planning to develop a greenways plan for the south county by 2012 and a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update by 2011. In addition, roadway improvement projects will incorporate pedestrian and bicycle features as "complete streets" including sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), comfortable and accessible transit stops, and crossing opportunities. 11 Cost Feasible Plan Projects!1l Roadway Project Limits Project Description 1-95 St. lucie C.l. to Brevard C.l. Widen from 4 to 6 lanes us 1 St. lucie C.l. to Highland Drive Widen from 4 to 6 lanes us 1 53'd Street to CR 510 Widen from 4 to 6 lanes CR 510 CR 512 to Intracoastal Waterway Widen from 2 to 4 lanes CR512 Willow Street to 1-95 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Oslo Road 1-95 to 58tn Avenue Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 43'd Avenue St. lucie C.l. to 16th Street Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 66th Avenue 41st Street to Barber Street Widen from 2 to 41anes 82"d Avenue 26th Street to laconia Street New 2-lane road Roseland Road CR 512 to US 1 Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Indian River Boulevard 20th Street to 45th Street Widen from 4 to 6 lanes 26th Street 43'd Avenue to 58th Avenue Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 2th Avenue St. lucie C.l. to Oslo Road Widen from 2 to 4 lanes 4tn Street 66th Avenue to 98th Avenue New 2-lane road 5th Street SW Old Dixie Hwy to 20th Avenue New 2-lane road 12th Street 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue New 2-lane road 25th Street SW 2th Avenue to 58th Avenue New 2-lane road 53'd Street 58th Avenue to 82"d Avenue New 2-lane road 58th Avenue 25tn Street SW to Oslo Road New 2-lane road 69th Street 66th Avenue to Fellsmere N-S Rd 1 New 2-lane road 74th Avenue Oslo Road to 8th Street New 2-lane road 98th Avenue 4th Street to SR 60 New 2-lane road 2 Oslo Road Interchange l J 1-95 at Oslo Road New Interchange Notes: (I) Some ofthe above projects may be implemented in phases (2) This project is contingent upon FHWA permitting and approval; funding source needs to be identified. Estimated Cost of Cost Feasible Plan Roadway Projects (millions of YOE dollars) Funding Source FYs 2016-20 FYs 2021-25 FYs 2026-30 FYs 2031-35 SIS/FIHS $0 $141,000,000 $0 $0 Other arterial $21,000,000 $12,000,000 $35,000,000 $28,000,000 County $70,000,000 $75,000,000 $82,000,000 $85,000,000 Total $91,000,000 $228,000,000 $117,000,000 $113,000,000 12 Cost Feasible Projects ~-- Oslo Interchange :--- 2Lanes ~--4Lanes :--- 6Lanes (Other li--- 2 li--- 4 1---6 2035 Cost Feasible Plan Indian River County ~=~ 2035 long Range Transportation Plan Update Kimley-ttlm and Associates, Inc. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP /).,tv{((_ Community Development Director FROM: Phillip J. Matson Pill\ MPO Staff Directcfr DATE: November 30, 2010 SUBJECT: Consideration of Amendments to the Adopted Indian River County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting of December 8, 2010. SUMMARY Recently, FDOT submitted a series of amendments to the adopted FY 2010111 - 2014115 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for consideration and approval by the MPO. These amendments relate to a number of projects that FDOT was able to accelerate into the current fiscal year (20 10111) of the adopted TIP. Approval of the attached amendments is necessary to ensure that funding is available to begin those projects. Staff recommends that the MPO consider the attached TIP amendments and approve the amendments. DESCRIPTION, CONDITIONS & ANALYSIS Recently, FDOT submitted a series of amendments to the adopted FY 2010/11 - 2014115 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for consideration and approval by the MPO. Approval of the attached amendments by the MPO board is necessary to ensure that funding is available in the current fiscal year (2010/11) for a number of transportation projects. The first of the proposed TIP amendments advances the six-laning of I-95 (St. Lucie County Line to SR 60) from FY 2014/15 to FY 2010/11 in the current TIP. The project, which includes both Design and Construction, can begin as early as the Spring of 2011. When complete, the project will remove the last remaining four-lane section of I-95 on the East Coast of Florida between Daytona Beach and Miami. The second TIP amendment is a change to the scope and description of the US 1 widening project in South Indian River County. The proposed amendment modifies the project limits !':\Community Devdopmcnt\U5crsiMPO\McctillVIMP0\2010\12·08·10\TIP Roll·forward Amcndmcnl!l.doc 1 from "North of Highlands Drive to St. Lucie County" to "South of Highlands Drive to St. Lucie County." The change is being made to reflect the actual construction project limits. The final TIP amendment is needed so that an FDOT -sponsored comprehensive safety program can begin in Indian River County Schools starting later this year. The program will include the purchase of safety equipment as well as in-class instruction. Once approved by the MPO, the proposed TIP amendments will be forwarded to FDOT for inclusion in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Following inclusion in the STIP, FDOT District IV can begin the projects. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the MPO consider the attached TIP amendments, approve the amendments, and authorize the chairman to sign the attached TIP amendment forms. Attachments: 1. Amendment to Project# 413048-1, I -95 Widening (SLC - SR 60) 2. Amendment to Project# 228583-2, US 1 Widening (SLC- Highlands Dr.) 3. Amendment to Project# 428-766-1, Safe Routes to School Program !':\Community Deve\opmcnt\Uficrs\MPO\Mcctings\MP0\2010112..08·10\TIP Roll-Forward Amcndmen\.:l.doc 2 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment TIP Amendment Number FY 2010/11 -2014/15 TIP Page Number 34 w Is a STIP amendment needed for this project? (check if yes) On December 8, 2010, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization amended the Transportation Improvement Program that was developed and adopted in compliance with Title 23 and Title 49 in a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition to the receipt of federal assistance. The TIP Amendment is consistent with the Adopted Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP Page Number Goal1, Pg .8-7, Pg. 9-8 and remains financially constrained. Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman or Designee FOOT District Representative TIP amendment criteria: The change adds new individual projects to the current TIP The change adversely impacts financial constraint The change results in major scope changes The change removes or deletes an individually listed project from the TIP I The change results in a cost increase that is greater than 20% AND greater than $2 million. Project Name: 1-95 (SR-9) WTIP Criteria Note: Project being advanced Status FPN Limits Description Fund Phase FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 1-95/SR-9 FROM IRIST ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT Current 413048-1 LUCIE CO/LINE TO SR- 60/0SCEOLA BLVD DIH CST $ 602,290.00 GMR CST $ 87,947,876.00 GMR INC $ 1,000,000.00 GMR RRU $ 1,000,000.00 Proposed 413048-1 1-95/SR-9 FROM IRIST ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT ACNH CST $ 56,960,935.00 LUCIE CO/LINE TO SR- ACNH CST $ 25,000.00 60/0SCEOLA BLVD ACNH CST $ 350,000.00 ACNH CST $ 7,029,290.00 ACNH CST $ 150,000.00 Net Change $ 64,515,225.00 $ (89,550,166.00) Attachment 1 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment TIP Amendment Number 2 FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 TIP Page Number 35 ~ Is a STIP amendment needed for this project? (check if yes) On December 8, 2010, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization amended the Transportation Improvement Program that was developed and adopted in compliance with Title 23 and Title 49 in a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition to the receipt of federal assistance. The TIP Amendment is consistent with the Adopted Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP Page Number Goal1, Pg .8-7 and remains financially constrained. Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman or Designee FOOT District Representative TIP amendment criteria: The change adds new individual projects to the current TIP The change adversely impacts financial constraint The change results in major scope changes The change removes or deletes an individually listed project from the TIP I The change results in a cost increase that is greater than 20% AND greater than $2 million. Project Name: US-1 (SR-5) WTIP Criteria Note: Status FPN Limits Description Fund Phase FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY2014 FY 2015 FROM ST. LUCIE CO. LINE Current 228583-2 ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT DDR CST $ 3,957,032.00 TON OF HIGHLAND DRIVE Proposed 228583-2 FROM ST. LUCIE CO. LINE ADD LANES & RECONSTRUCT DDR CST $ 3,957,032.00 TO S OF HIGHLAND DRIVE Net Change $0.00 Attachment 2 Transportation Improvement Program Amendment TIP Amendment Number 3 FY 2010111 -2014115 TIP Page Number 36 ~ Is a STIP amendment needed for this project? (check if yes) On December 8, 2010, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization amended the Transportation Improvement Program that was developed and adopted in compliance with Title 23 and Title 49 in a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process as a condition to the receipt of federal assistance. The TIP Amendment is consistent with the Adopted Long Range Transportation Plan LRTP Page Number Goal4, Pg .8-9 and remains financially constrained. Metropolitan Planning Organization Chairman or Designee FOOT District Representative TIP amendment criteria: The change adds new individual projects to the current TIP The change adversely impacts financial constraint The change results in major scope changes The change removes or deletes an individually listed project from the TIP I The change results in a cost increase that is greater than 20% AND greater than $2 million. Project Name: SR2N PROGRAM PURCHASE MATERIALS DISTRIBUTION TO SCHOOLS 0 TIP Criteria Note: Status FPN Limits Description Fund Phase FY 2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014 FY 2015 Current Countywide Proposed 428766-1 SR2N PROGRAM PURCHASE MATERIALS SR2N 84 (Ops Grant) $ 71,360.00 DISTRIBUTION TO SCHOOLS Net Change $ 71,360.00 Attachment 3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICPfiM/( Community Development Director FROM: Phillip J. Matson 0 MPO Staff Director DATE: November 30, 2010 SUBJECT: Presentation by Indian River County Health Department on Walking School Buses It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting of December 8, 2010. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) is an FDOT-sponsored committee composed of local Planners, Engineers, Law Enforcement, and Education Professionals. At the November 18th, 2010 CTST meeting, representatives from the Indian River County Health Department presented the results of its recent Walking School Bus project to the CTST. A Walking School Bus is an organized effort to encourage children to walk to school in a safe and supervised manner in order to eliminate concerns over safety and crime. In one of the most successful Walking School Buses in the state, 83 children travel each day between Fellsmere Elementary School and the Boys and Girls Club in Fellsmere. The children travel with parental oversight and supervision to their destination each day, thereby eliminating transportation costs and providing an additional recreational opportunity. A similar effort is underway in the Gifford area in conjunction with the Indian River County Sheriffs Office. At the December gth, 2010 MPO meeting, representatives from the Indian River County Health Department will present the results of its Walking School Bus project. ACTION This is an informational item only. No action is required. F:\Community Development\Users\MPO\Meetings\MP0\201 0\12-08-10\Walking School Buses.doc INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP ~M \( Community Development Director FROM: Phillip J. Matson f7;v'\ MPO Staff DirectM'' DATE: November 30, 2010 SUBJECT: Status Report on Florida High Speed Rail Grant Applications It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration at the MPO meeting ofDecember 8, 2010. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS At the October 28th, 2010 MPOAC meeting, Kevin Thibault, Executive Director of the Florida Rail Enterprise, provided a status report on Florida's 2010 High Speed Rail Program (HISPR) grant applications. During the presentation, he announced that two applications for high speed rail funds submitted to the Federal Rail Administration by FDOT received funding. He indicated, however, that the FEC Rail Corridor Amtrak project was not funded. A press release from US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, along with a link to the list of all funded projects, is contained in Attachment 1. In the near term, the Florida projects that received funding will have substantial impacts on travel in the Central Florida region and could also benefit Indian River County over the long term. The projects funded in Florida were a study to select an Orlando to Miami High Speed Rail corridor; and construction of an Orlando to Tampa High Speed Rail System. ANALYSIS With respect to the Orlando to Miami High Speed Rail corridor study, FDOT received $8 million for a Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) study that will result in a preferred alignment for a proposed future rail line. In order to make high speed rail cost effective, any future high speed rail system will utilize available public rights-of-way. Therefore, FDOT has proposed that the new system utilize either Florida Turnpike right of-way or SR 528 and I-95 right-of-way (Attachment 2). In addition to a preferred F:ICommunity Dcvclopmcnt\U~crs\MPOIMcctingsiMP0\2010\12-0it·IOIHiSpccd Rail.doc 1 alignment, the High Speed Rail PD&E study will address issues such as the number and location of potential stations, operating speed, headways, and preferred rail technology. An overview ofthe Orlando-to-Tampa High Speed Rail project is depicted in Attachment 3. The attachment also describes a number of unique aspects of the project. While construction of the project will be paid for by State and Federal funds, the system will be operated and maintained on a for-profit basis by the private sector and will require no ongoing public operations or maintenance subsidies. Also, the proposed project will operate at a top speed of 186 miles per hour, making it the first true high-speed rail project in North America. Finally, it is anticipated that the Design-Build-Operate contract will be awarded as early as 2011, and the system could be operational by 2014. RECOMMENDATION This is an informational item. No recommendation is needed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Press release from Secretary Ray LaHood and Map of Funded Projects 2. Proposed Orlando-to-Miami High Speed Rail alignments 3. Summary of Orlando-to-Tampa High Speed Rail Project F;\Communily Development\U't!f~IMPO\M«:tiogs\MP0\2010112.0H-IO\JliSpeed Rail.doc 2 U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces $2.4 Billion for High Speed Rail ... Page 1 of 2 DOT Home About DOT DOT Jobs News Services L?C Federal Railroad U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Administration Announces $2.4 Billion for High Speed Rail Projects U.S.Department of Transportation Office of Public Affairs Washington, D.C. www.dot.gov/affairs/briefing.htm News DOT 192-10 Thursday, October 28, 2010 Contact: Olivia Alair Tel.: 202-366-4570 Public Demand for High-Speed Rail Continues to Exceed Available Dollars in Latest Round of Awards WASHINGTON- U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that 54 high-speed rail projects in 23 states will share in $2.4 billion to continue developing America's first nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service The Department's Federal Railroad Administration received 132 applications from 32 states totaling . $8.8 billion, more than three times the $2.4 billion available. During the first round of awards in the fall of 2009, applicants submitted more than $55 billion in project proposals for the initial $8 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. "Demand for high-speed rail dollars is intense and it demonstrates just how important this historic initiative is," said Secretary LaHood. "States understand that high-speed rail represents a unique opportunity to create jobs, revitalize our manufacturing base, spur economic development and provide people with an environmentally friendly transportation option." More than 30 rail manufacturers and suppliers, both domestic and foreign, have agreed to establish or expand their bases of operations in the United States if they are hired to build America's next generation high-speed lines, a commitment the Obama Administration secured to help ensure new jobs are created here at home. Some award examples include: Attachment 1 http://www.fra.dot. gov/Pages/press- releases/22 7. shtml 11/4/2010 U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood Announces $2.4 Billion for High Speed Rail... Page 2 of2 California received more than $901 million, including $715 million for the construction of new high speed rail lines in the Central Valley. The state has made significant investments in passenger rail that have led to remarkable ridership growth; Florida received $800 million for the Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail corridor. The state's long term vision is for a high-speed rail line that connects Tampa, Orlando, Miami and other communities; Iowa received $230 million to create a new intercity passenger rail service between Iowa City and Chicago through the Quad Cities. When completed, the service will form an integral part of the existing efforts to develop the Chicago Hub intercity rail system in the Midwest; and Michigan received $161 million for a high-speed rail corridor connecting Detroit and Chicago, the two largest cities in the Midwest. The long-term vision for this corridor includes doubling the number of daily round trips between Detroit and Chicago. The money is being awarded for a range of activities, such as construction of track and stations, purchase of new passenger equipment, and planning studies to develop new high-speed rail service. "In the 20th century, our vision led to the interstate highway system," said FRA Administrator Joe Szabo. "In the 21st century, our vision will give us a world-class network of high-speed passenger rail corridors." In addition to the $8 billion down payment from the Recovery Act, additional funding for high-speed rail has come from several sources. These include $95 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation's FY 2009 appropriations and remaining money from a related FY 2008 appropriations program, and from the Department's FY 2010 appropriations, which included at least $2.125 billion for high-speed rail service development programs, $245 million for individual projects and $50 million for planning and multi-state proposal activities. A complete project list can be viewed at http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/2243.shtml (http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/2243.shtml) #### http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/227.shtml 11/4/2010 ~Vancouver High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program 1\\ Summary of Investments Sa~ \ .eacramento FranCISc~~ ~ \ San Jose\~~~Merced~ • • Fresno (KS·1st$0.3M) •.. LasVegas San Luis Obispo~•(,.~.~oW • • ~ •. (OK·2nd:$2.6M) e !t • •••Victorville ee I • • "'""' • . "d • Oklahoma City ~ • •Tulsa •Rivers1 e e . ! 9 Los Angele~ e...'ll. ••.• •• • :.Phoemx Oklahoma City- • \ bgo \ Dallas/Ft. Worth • $4MI$2MII$6M • California- Existing Corridors-----..... erucson Dallas/F.t. W0r'tn $99MI$167MII$266M / $1.2 .• (TX-2nd:$5.6M) •7 Austin • ~----.. !'fl... San Antonio Hou~ton LEGEND Corridor Name Summary of Corridor Investments • • • • • • • • • Corridor Planning Studies 1st Round I2nd Round II Total (includes corridor development programs and individual projects) (several alignments under study) • • • • • • • • • DOT-led Planning Studies Corridor Development Programs (several alignments under study) Projects Laying Foundation for STATE- 1st Round:$ M Summary of Planning Investments I •••••• I High-Speed Passenger Rail 2nd Round: SM (by state; total excludes DOT-led planning studies) Long-Term Vision for High-Speed Passenger Rail e $X.XM Amtrak Long-Distance Service Improvements Note: •7 st Round" refers to Recovery Act & FY 2009 investments, announced in January 201 0; "2nd Round" refers to FY 2010 & remaining FY 2009 investments, announced in October 2010. Information is current as of October 28,2010 ATTACHMENT 2- SYSTEM MAP Fast Facts - Florida High Speed Rail Page 1 of4 Fast Facts Background Home What's New Florida has a long Fast Facts HSR Connections history with Jobs & Florida's Future HSR. Florida has Procurement & Contracting FLHSR News been studying FAQs Nov Industry Forum high speed rail About Us since 1976. Our Resource Library Links of Interest flat terrain, high Meetings & Industry Forums growth rates, large RSS Feed numbers of tourists and distance between our major cities are ideal for HSR. In 1992, President Bush selected Tampa Orlando-Miami as one of the nation's first federally designated HSR corridors. In April 2009, the federal government unveiled A New Vision for High Speed Rail in America that called for new investments in intercity passenger rail. This includes a commitment of $11.5 billion in federal funding over a three-year period. On October 2, 2009, Florida Governor Charlie Crist applied for funding to build the Tampa-Orlando line. On January 28, 2010, President Obama announced Florida was awarded $1.25 billion in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds to start construction of the Tampa-Orlando leg of the federally designated Tampa-Orlando-Miami HSR corridor. The federal government announced on June 28, 2010, a new round of competition for $2.1 billion for HSR systems. Florida applied for $1.12 billion of these funds, which would largely complete the capital funding program for the Tampa-Orlando HSR project. The federal government expects to announce these awards later in 2010. Tampa-Orlando Basics Phase 1 of Florida's high speed rail program extends from Orlando International Airport to downtown Tampa. The Tampa-Orlando line will run 84 miles from downtown Tampa to Orlando International Airport. The cost to build this line is projected to be $2.7 billion. The project will be built in the median of Interstate 4, where a 44-foot envelope has been preserved for this purpose. Right of way was preserved in the 1990s, and bridges were built higher and wider to accommodate high speed trains. Other portions of the project outside the 1-4 corridor will primarily follow existing public rights of way. Design is not complete on the corridor, but these are early aerial Attachment 3 http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/fast- facts/ 11/4/2010 Fast Facts- Florida High Speed Rail Page 2 of4 views of the proposed rail alignments and below is a sketch of the 1-4 © 2010. Florida Department of Transportation. All rights reserved. configuration. Our initial projection is that run time between Tampa and Orlando with station stops would be about 55 minutes. These times are based on year 2004 high speed train technologies, which have since improved performance. The time travel chart for 2004 technologies between all stations is shown below. These travel times may be reduced depending upon station stops, final rail line geometry and the final selected technology. Express trips between Tampa and OIA would be even less, with the current express trip travel time estimated to be under 50 minutes. TPA LKL DSN occ MCO TPA I / ... 23:00 37:30 46:00 55:30 LKL 23:00 12:30 21:00 30:30 ·····•·····••·.·.·.·• DSN 37:30 12:30 .··· .. 06:30 16:00 occ 46:00 21:00 06:30 07:30 MCO 55:30 30:30 16:00 07:30 .. Funding High Speed Rail ·············-········-·--·-···-····-········- FDOT's financial plan for HSR assumes approximately $2.2 billion of the projected $2.7 billion cost will come from federal funding, with the balance coming from a combination of state and private sources. State funding would come from the Florida Rail Enterprise fund established by the Florida Legislature in 2009. FDOT further projects and expects the private sector operator of the system will pay all operating costs from system operating revenues. Ridership Forecasts Two independent ridership forecasts were conducted in 2002 and updated with more recent demographic information in 2009. The forecasts estimates approximately 2.4 million riders will use the system in its first year of operation. Forecasts were based upon ticket prices ranging between $15 and $30 for a one way ticket between Tampa and Orlando International Airport (OIA) depending upon the nature of the trip and frequency of the ticket purchases. Revenues are projected to be approximately $49 million in the first year of operation. The FDOT will be performing updated market and ridership surveys in 2010. Technology -······················-········ Florida will select an existing high speed rail technology for this service. The trains in this corridor will operate at speeds of at least 168 mph, though speeds will be less along portions of the corridor because of curves, grades and station stops. The technology options are plentiful, with more than 7,800 miles of high speed rail service in more than a dozen countries. Stations & HSR Connections ...... ,...... ,_,,,...... ·········-······ ···········-··················-····· Florida is planning five HSR stations along the Tampa-Orlando corridor. All stations will feature parking and http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/fast-facts/ 1114/2010 Fast Facts- Florida High Speed Rail Page 3 of4 rental car facilities and will have a full set of rail passenger services available. Each station also will have air conditioned waiting areas and convenience services for ticketed passengers. The Tampa-Orlando line will have strong connectivity with existing road, bus and transit systems. For example, plans at OIA call for HSR to stop at a new southern terminal, which it would share with a proposed extension of Sun Rail and a future light rail system. The International Drive stop is located at the southern end of the 1-Ride trolley route and is served by Lynx. The Lakeland station will be served directly by the Citrus Connection. The Tampa station is at the north end of the HART bus transit mall. Proposed light rail service in Tampa would run directly to the HSR station. Building High Speed Rail ...... ,,,_,,,,, ...... ,,,,,,,_, __ _ FOOT, through the Florida Rail Enterprise (FRE), is responsible for building the project with oversight by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Project construction will likely occur in two phases. The first phase on the Tampa to Orlando segment is a proposed Early Works Project, which is expected to begin in early 2011. FOOT also is planning to solicit bids for the main part of the project early next year. Private firms will be asked to submit bids to complete the design of the system, then build, operate and maintain it. This is known as a design, build, operate, maintain and finance, or DBOM/F. FOOT's goal is to secure firm construction bids and have the private sector cover operating costs. FOOT expects to select a DMBOM/F team in 2011. Construction is projected to start in late 2012, and system operation is expected to begin in 2015. These schedules are subject to approval by the FRA. You can go directly to the Procurement and Contracting section to learn more about the procurement process and how your company can be involved. In addition, the FRE held a series of meetings for small businesses and disadvantaged business enterprises in late AugusUearly September 2010. These will be followed by a major Industry Forum in November 2010 to inform major vendors and subcontractors about the status of the project, gather final input from members of the industry prior to finalizing the procurement http://www. floridahighspeedrail.org/fast-facts/ 11/4/2010 Fast Facts - Florida High Speed Rail Page4 of4 process, and provide an opportunity for local companies to interact with potential bid teams. Orlando-Miami ...... ················-·····---·-···-·······-·······""'''''' FDOT also has started the evaluation of the costs and environmental impacts of various alignments in the Miami-Orlando corridor, the first step toward moving forward with this project. This planning work is expected to take approximately 30 months. FOOT has allocated $2 million to start this planning work in 2010. It also has submitted a grant application for an additional $8 million from the FRA. Florida High Speed Rail Florida Department ofTransportation Florida Rail Enterprise 605 Suwannee Street MS 57 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 [email protected] http://www .floridahighspeedrail.org/fast-facts/ 1114/2010 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Quarterly Status Report July 1, 2010- September 30, 2010 INTRODUCTION This status report for the first quarter of FY 2010/2011 identifies the activities undertaken by the Indian River County MPO during the reporting period. WORK PROGRAM STATUS During the first quarter of FY 2010/2011, MPO staff completed various activities related to the approved UPWP. These are identified below. • Task 1.1 - Program Management From July 1, 2010 to September 30, 201 0, MPO staff undertook all applicable MPO program management functions. This involved general administration and financial management activities, as well as coordination with various local governments and with FDOT. Specific activities included: attendance at two MPO meetings, one T AC meeting, two CAC meetings, and one BAC meeting. provision of technical assistance to the MPO, TAC, CAC and BAC. development of agendas, staff reports, and minutes for MPO, TAC, CAC and BAC meetings. attendance at one MPOAC advisory council meeting and one MPOAC policy subcommittee meeting. preparation of various MPO-related correspondence. supervision of MPO staff activities. coordination ofMPO activities with local governments and FDOT. maintenance ofthe MPO's web site. reproduction and distribution of the MPO newsletter, the MPOverview. circulation of orientation materials to new MPO and advisory board members. preparation of the quarterly progress report and the MPO's fourth invoice of2009/1 0. • Task 1.2 - Program Development: UPWP There were no activities related to this task completed during the quarter. • Task 1.3 and Task 1.4 Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page I These are FDOT tasks relating to support/match for the PL fund program and the Section 5303 program, respectively. No MPO activities are associated with these tasks. • Task 1.5 - Training During the quarter, MPO staff attended a workshop on transportation disadvantaged service coordination sponsored by the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged in Orlando, Florida. At that workshop, MPO staff participated in a discussion on obstacles to greater regional coordination and obtained information on upcoming legislation affecting TD services. MPO staff also attended a Small and Medium-sized Urbanized Areas conference conducted by the Transportation Research Board and held in Williamsburg, Virginia. While at the conference, MPO staff obtained information on a variety of topics, including pending Air Quality standards and legislation affecting MPOs; costs/benefits evaluation techniques; travel demand modeling techniques; and public involvement trends. • Task 1.6 - Public Involvement During the reporting period, MPO staff responded to inquiries from citizens, local governments, business and community groups, and other parties about MPO plans, actions, and activities. Through attendance at various meetings and through written and verbal correspondence, staff provided informational and educational materials to the public. Throughout the quarter, staff made the MPO's major plans, studies, and programs available for public distribution at a number of outlets, including the Indian River County Main Library, Sebastian Branch Library, and the Indian River County Community Development Department reception desk. In addition, MPO staff sent agenda materials and newsletters to the Brevard, St. Lucie, and Martin County MPOs. Also throughout the quarter, staff maintained the MPO web site. That site is structured as part of the County's general web site. Among the regularly updated information items on the web site are meeting dates, agenda minutes, staff reports, newsletters, and other information. This web site also has MPO staff e-mail addresses. During the first quarter of 2010111, a number of public involvement activities were conducted in conjunction with the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan update. For example, the MPO presented Draft Needs and Cost Affordable Plan networks to the Citizens Advisory Committee for review and comment. The MPO also held a series of public workshops to help set Goals and Objectives for the plan and to select Cost Feasible Plan project alternatives. Those workshops were attended by public officials, community organization representatives, citizens, and members of the Indian River County business community. The MPO also tabulated the results of surveys conducted earlier in the LRTP process. Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page2 Early in the first quarter, staff published the MPO's first ever annual report. Developing the annual report required reviewing and analyzing transportation and demographic trends of the past year; writing report content; and developing a layout for the report. After publication of the report, MPO staff distributed the report to partner agencies and the general public. Finally, MPO staff published and distributed the summer edition of its quarterly MPO newsletter. This newsletter edition addressed a variety of topics in Indian River County, with an emphasis on obtaining public input into the LRTP. To complete this task, MPO staff added to and maintained mailing lists of interested individuals and community representatives; wrote a number of articles pertaining to transportation activities in the county; designed a layout for the newsletter; and managed publication and mail out. • Task 2.1- Land Use and Socioeconomic Data Analysis During the quarter, MPO staff met with representatives from the Space Coast and St. Lucie TPOs and the Martin MPO and reviewed final socioeconomic data sets developed by those agencies. Staff also provided north county and Fellsmere area data to the Space Coast TPO for use in developing its LRTP. Finally, MPO staff reviewed demographic data from the Community Profile/Socio-Cultural Effects study for applicability to the LRTP network alternatives. • Task 2.2 - Traffic Count and Transportation Data Collection and Analysis In the fourth quarter of FY 20 I 0/20 II, MPO staff undertook several traffic count data collection and analysis activities. These included: o conducting 69 24-hour, I5-minute interval, automatic machine classification counts, as part of the Indian River County Annual Traffic Count Program o conducting 3 special counts, including approach counts and speed studies o conducting 28 intersection turning movement counts This information was compiled and is maintained in a computer database. • Task 2.3 - Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Analysis During the quarter, MPO staff created or modified a number of GIS transportation geodatabase layers and shape files. GIS products developed and/or produced throughout this quarter included: • Potential transit shelter location maps; • Capital improvement budget boundary maps; • Potential transit hub location maps; • Long Range Bike/Ped and Transit maps; • Interim Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2035) Roadway Deficiencies maps; and • Cost Affordable Plan network alternative maps. Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page 3 Also during the quarter, MPO staff assisted its transit operator in calculating passenger miles traveled using a GIS-based model developed by the MPO. • Task 3.1 - Long Range Planning Throughout the quarter, the MPO undertook a number of tasks related to the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan update. These tasks included meeting with consultants, local government staff, and stakeholders on plan-related issues; reviewing consultant work products; developing draft goals, objectives, and policies for the plan; identifying project costs and financial resources; and developing a series of draft cost affordable plan alternatives. With respect to the Cost Affordable Long Range Plan, MPO staff coordinated with FDOT, Public Works staff, county right-of-way agents, and municipal officials to develop cost estimates for all Needs Plan projects. Developing cost estimates entailed a number of sub activities. These included identifying recent cost estimates; applying FDOT standardized per-mile construction estimates; and analyzing actual right-of-way and construction cost estimates on current projects. The MPO also finalized revenue estimates from data provided by FDOT Central Office and the County's Budget Office. To assist the MPO in prioritizing projects, the MPO developed a set of evaluation criteria and applied the criteria to projects. The criteria, which were closely coordinated with the Planning Areas specified in SAFETEA-LU, included congestion relief as well as considerations of safety, security, and environmental impact. The MPO then used the prioritized list of ranked projects, as well as year-of-expenditure (YOE) funding constraints, to develop its plan alternatives. During the quarter, the MPO developed its Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs) for the 2035 LRTP Update. To complete this task, the MPO reviewed the GOPs contained in the 2030 LRTP Update, local Comprehensive Plans, Transit Development Plan, State of Florida Transportation Plan, and other plans and documents. The MPO also reviewed the draft GOPs of the St. Lucie/Martin LRTP developed by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. The MPO also developed measures of effectiveness for its proposed Objectives by analyzing appropriate model output, such as network laneage and air quality data. Finally, MPO staff coordinated extensively with the Space Coast and St. Lucie TPOs and the Martin MPO on their respective LRTP activities. In so doing, MPO staff attended steering committee meetings; reviewed preliminary model runs; and reviewed financial information. These activities are described in greater detail in Task 4.8. Task 3.2 - Transit Planning Throughout the quarter, MPO staff coordinated with City ofVero Beach, County, Senior Resource Association and FDOT staff on a number of intermodal project planning activities. Specifically, MPO staff participated in a quarterly meeting with County, FDOT, and SRA staff to discuss transit operations and related issues, and assisted in administering federal and Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010111 Page 4 state capital, operating and intermodal grant funds. As part of the intermodal grant administration and development process, MPO staff conducted Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meetings to update FDOT on the status of its corridor and intermodal grants. Staff also updated its quarterly report on the status of these grants. With respect to grant administration activities, MPO staff coordinated with FDOT staff, prepared BCC and MPO agenda items, and took necessary actions to ensure the continuation of a number of federal and state grants. These activities included: • Executing the 2009/10 5307 Transit Operations and Capital grant application; • Writing a quarterly status update of all active transit and intermodal grants; • Assisting in the preparation ofNTD operational and financial data; and • Conducting Quarterly TEAM/ECHO activities. MPO staff also updated its FTA certifications in order to renew its TEAM and ECHO registration information. In the first quarter, MPO staff continued planning activities related to the construction of a new transit administrative and bus parking facility funded through the federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Stimulus) program. Specific activities included attending meetings with the architectural/engineering team for the facility; coordinating with state and federal officials; and providing project administration services. When complete, the proposed facility will enable transit vehicles to be parked at a secured location in close proximity to the vehicle maintenance facility and will enable all administrative and dispatch activities to occur at a single location. Throughout the first quarter, MPO staff coordinated with SRA staff on several activities. The first activity was the planning of a new transit hub to be located in Vero Beach at the site of the former county administration building. In undertaking this activity, MPO staff coordinated with SRA staff, county Public Works staff, and City of V ero Beach Planning staff in the development of a site plan for this facility. When complete, the facility will provide a central hub for 7 routes in the GoLine's growing fixed route system. A second activity was the development of a bus shelter program. For this activity, MPO staff coordinated with SRA staff in location selection and implementation activities for the shelters. • Task 3.3 - Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Development During the quarter, MPO staff presented the draft 2010/11 - 2014/15 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) to the MPO for its approval. In so doing, staff developed staff reports, incorporated advisory board comments in the TIP document, and customized Powerpoint presentations. Once approved, the adopted TIP was sent to FDOT, the state clearinghouse, and other agencies. Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page 5 Also during the quarter, staff undertook a number of activities related to developing the MPO's FY 2011112- 2015116 TIP. One such activity was the preparation of the MPO's 2010 Priority Projects Report. The 2010 Priority Projects Report incorporates separate priority lists for highway, enhancement, congestion management process (CMP), transit, and airport projects. To identify Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and other arterial roadway highway priorities, staff reviewed the status of previous priorities; reviewed interim year improvement sets contained in the LRTP; and coordinated extensively with local, county and FDOT staff. To identify regional highway priorities, MPO staff met with the staff of the other Treasure Coast T/MPOs and identified production-ready projects from the Regional Long Range Plan. To identify CMP priorities, MPO staff reviewed the results ofthe most recent CMP analysis. To develop new transit priorities, MPO staff reviewed the adopted Transit Development Plan and also consulted Senior Resource Association (SRA) staff. The airport project priority list was developed through consultation with airport officials in Vero Beach and Sebastian. With respect to Enhancement priorities, the MPO adopted the prioritization methodology and projects contained in the North and Central County Greenways plans and ranked Greenways candidates for enhancement funding beginning in 2012. Prior to the development of the Annual Project Priorities report, MPO staff and the staff of several municipalities and Indian River County met with officials from FDOT to discuss the priority process. Comments from FDOT and the other agencies were incorporated into the priority projects report. After corridor selection, MPO staff presented the 2010 Priority Projects Report to the TAC, CAC, and MPO for their approval. As part of this process, staff completed a number of subtasks, including development of staff reports; promotion of public involvement opportunities; creation of customized powerpoint presentations for the MPO and its advisory committees; and incorporation of advisory board comments into the final report. • Task 3.4 - Congestion Management Process (CMP) During the quarter, MPO staff completed a 201 0 CMP analysis. Specific tasks undertaken by the MPO included conducting a corridor prioritization analysis; eliminating segments from the priority corridors list where improvements are programmed within the next five years; and developing a final list of priority CMP corridors. Two priority CMP corridors were selected for further study through this analysis: Indian River Boulevard and 3ih Street. MPO staff met with county Public Works and City ofVero Beach staff to identify congestion mitigation techniques that were applicable to these corridors. The resulting projects were incorporated into the 2010 priority projects report and presented to the MPO, TAC, and CAC for approval. • Task 4.1 - Transportation Disadvantaged Program Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page 6 MPO staff expenses for the provlSlon of administrative support for the County's transportation disadvantaged program are incurred against the County's approved year 2010 TD grant as indicated in the MPO's UPWP. These TD activities are reported separately to the Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. • Task 4.2 - Comprehensive Plan Consistency During the first quarter, MPO staff continued the process of assisting county staff in preparing Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) - based amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element. Specifically, MPO staff updated a number of maps and provided additional information in response to concerns and comments by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The revised Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element will be resubmitted to DCA in the next quarter. Also during the quarter, MPO staff reviewed and/or assisted other jurisdictions in the preparation of transportation element comprehensive plan amendments. This included providing information to Sebastian, Fellsmere, Brevard County, and the City ofVero Beach Planning and Zoning Commission. • Task 4.3 - Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning Program During the quarter, the MPO engaged in a number of bicycle/pedestrian activities. For example, MPO staff attended and staffed a Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Meeting (BAC). At that meeting, staff discussed upcoming bicycle/pedestrian projects and the Indian River County segment of the East Coast Greenway project with the BAC. MPO staff also coordinated with FDOT and County Staff regarding Safe Routes to School grants funded during the previous quarter. This involved staff providing information to county Public Works staff. Finally, MPO staff attended a Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) meeting. At that meeting, MPO staff discussed bicycle and pedestrian safety with members of local law enforcement, city and county officials, and FDOT. In addition, MPO staff coordinated with the CTST and assisted in the delivery and procurement of bicycles, a bicycle trailer, bicycle education materials, and bike racks for schools. • Task 4.4 - FDOT Project Coordination Throughout the reporting period, MPO and County engineering staff met with FDOT staff and consultants regarding resurfacing and widening projects on US 1, SR 60, Barber Street, 20th Street, and Old Dixie Highway. Tasks performed during the quarter included assisting with public involvement and notification issues, attending public meetings, and/or coordinating with various partner agencies. Also during the quarter, MPO staff attended a workshop on FDOT's 2060 Plan. Staff provided FDOT with comments to assist in the development of the plan. Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page 7 • Task 4.5 - Intergovernmental Coordination During the quarter, MPO staff reviewed plans, collected data, and/or met with several adjacent jurisdictions regarding MPO plans and programs. Specific activities undertaken during the quarter included attending an FEC corridor workshop sponsored by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC); presenting informational items to the City of Fellsmere and City of Sebastian City Councils; and coordinating with the TCRPC on regional Greenway alignments. • Task 4.6 -Greenways Planning Throughout the quarter, MPO staff coordinated with the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT) regarding the MPO's application for Recreational Trails Program (RTP) funding. One major activity undertaken during the quarter consisted of assisting the county's Public Works department with the development of Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) information. Another activity involved MPO staff assisting Public Works staff with mapping, with a land use inventory, and with cultural and historic resource identification. MPO staff also helped to coordinate responses on wetlands and endangered species questions in the PD&E process. Finally, MPO staff submitted commencement documentation to OGT and anticipates receiving authorization to begin constructing the project in the next quarter. • Task 4. 7 - Corridor Studies During the quarter, MPO staff continued to coordinate with FDOT, County, and City ofVero Beach staff on a number of projects, including the Aviation Boulevard intermodal project, the Five Points Intersection on Indian River Boulevard, and the US 1 widening project. MPO staff reviewed plans, maps, and/or public comments associated with these projects and provided comments to FDOT. MPO staff also coordinated with FDOT on its FEC corridor development plans. During the quarter, the MPO adopted a resolution of support of the resumption of passenger service along the FEC rail line. In addition, MPO staff coordinated with TCRPC staff and the City of V ero Beach regarding passenger rail station location and other corridor issues. • Task 4.8- Regional Long Range Tr=!nsportation Plan During the quarter, MPO staff worked with staff from the St. Lucie, Martin, and Brevard County MPOs to coordinate Long Range Planning efforts. Those activities included participation in several discussions regarding the current long range plan cycle. One major activity undertaken during the quarter was participation in a Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) grant application and prioritization cycle with the Martin and St. Lucie T/MPOs. This activity involved assembling agenda information, developing grant applications, and prioritizing new candidate regional projects using criteria in the Regional Long Range Plan. Finally, MPO staff and board members attended a TCTC Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page 8 meeting in St. Lucie County with members of the Martin and St. Lucie T/MPOs. At that meeting, the TCTC adopted the ranked list of TRIP priorities and forwarded the list to FDOT. Also during the quarter, MPO staff participated in committee activities as part of the Southeast Florida Regional Partnership Working Group. Specific activities included attending several group teleconferences and assisting with grant writing for a proposed Housing and Urban Development Sustainable Communities Initiative grant. It is anticipated that a decision on grant funding will occur in the upcoming quarter. With respect to the Martin and St. Lucie County T/MPOs long range transportation plans, MPO staff attended several technical committee meetings, reviewed model output, and coordinated the inclusion of several projects, including Kobelgard Road and the four-laning of2ih Avenue/Emerson Avenue, into the Draft St. Lucie Needs Plan. Regional LRTP activities performed in conjunction with Brevard County included serving on the Space Coast TPO 2035 LRTP technical committee; reviewing draft Space Coast needs plan networks; and providing updates on the status of the Indian River LRTP. TASK END PRODUCTS PRODUCED THIS QUARTER End Products completed on or ahead of schedule (as indicated in the 2010111 -2011112 UPWP) during the quarter included: • 2010 Priority Projects Report, completed on schedule; • TCTC Meeting and Priority List, completed on schedule; • Transit Development Plan- Minor Update, completed on schedule; and • 2010 Congestion Management Process analysis, completed on schedule. It should be noted that, during the first quarter of FY 2010/11, MPO staff completed all required plans and work products on schedule. UNCOMPLETED TASK END PRODUCTS There were no uncompleted work tasks as of the end of the first quarter. CONCLUSION From July 1, 2010 to September 30,2010, several UPWP work tasks progressed. MPO staff expects the level of activity on programmed work activities to increase during the second quarter of FY 2010111. Progress Report for First Quarter FY 2010/11 Page 9 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) AND MPO ADVISORY COMMITTEES JANUARY- DECEMBER 2011 MEETING SCHEDULE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) Meetings are held the second Wednesday of each month Dates: Jan. 12th, Feb. 9th, Mar. 9th, April13t\ May 11th, June st\ July 13th, Aug. lOt\ Sept. 14th, Oct. 12th, Nov. 9t\ Dec. 14th. Time: 1O:OOAM for all meetings Place: Conference Room Bl-501 for all meetings TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC) Meetings are held the fourth Friday of each month Dates: Jan. 28th, Feb. 25 t\ Mar. 25t\ April15th, May 27th, June 24th, July 22 nct, Aug. 26 t\ Sept. 23 rct, Oct. 28th, Nov. 18 t\ Dec. 16th Time: I O:OOAM for all meetings except those held on April 15th, Nov 18th and Dec 16th Those meetings will be held at 2:00PM. Place: Conference Room Bl-501 for all meetings. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CAC) Meetings are held the first Tuesday of each month Dates: Jan. 4th, Feb. 1st, Mar. 1st, April 5 t\ May 3 rct, June 7th, July 5th, Aug. 2nct, Sept. 6th, Oct. 4th, Nov. 1 st, Dec.6 th Time: 2:00PM for all meetings Place: Conference Room Bl-501 for all meetings. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BAC) Meetings are held quarterly on the fourth Tuesday of the month Dates: Jan. 25th, April26 th, July 26th, Oct. 25th. Time: 2:00 PM for all meetings Place: Conference Room Bl-501 for all meetings.