COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Support Document TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT...... 1 INTRODUCTION...... 3 ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS...... 6 POPULATION/TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS...... 6 LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS...... 7 STREETS AND HIGHWAYS...... 10 PHYSICAL CONDITION OF ROADWAYS ...... 16 ROADWAY LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS...... 17 PUBLIC TRANSIT LOS ANALYSIS...... 27 BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS...... 29 TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS...... 32 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ANALYSIS...... 35 COASTAL EVACUATION ANALYSIS ...... 35 ANALAYIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS ...... 37 SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ROADWAY NETWORK PROJECTIONS ...... 37 THE FUTURE MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM...... 53 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES ...... 63 THE MOBILITY PLAN ...... 63 COST-FEASIBLE PLAN ...... 66 PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS ...... 70
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 – HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF “TD” POPULATIONS
TABLE 2 – ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND MILEAGE
TABLE 3 – FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DATA (2009)
TABLE 4 – DESIGNATED CONSTRAINED CORRIDORS (2009)
TABLE 5 – 2008-2009 TWO-WAY P.M. PEAK HOUR ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE
TABLE 6 – LOCATION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
TABLE 7 – 2005 ESTIMATED PORT ORANGE VOTRAN RIDERSHIP
TABLE 8 – MAJOR PUBLIC TRANSIT TRIP GENERATORS AND ATTRACTORS
TABLE 9 – EXISTING SIGNIFICANT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS
TABLE 10 – SIDEWALK GAPS ON COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADS
Page 2 - 1 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
TABLE 11 – IMPACT FEE-FUNDED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
TABLE 12 – PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE PROJECTS
TABLE 13 – ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR ROADWAYS IMPROVEMENTS 1998-2009
TABLE 14 – VOLUSIA COUNTY TPO LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN PORT
ORANGE
TABLE 15 – 2015 (SHORT-TERM) PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE ON THE PROGRAMMED
ROADWAY NETWORK
TABLE 16 – 2025 (LONG-TERM) PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE ON THE PROGRAMMED
ROADWAY NETWORK
TABLE 17 – NEEDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS (2025)
TABLE 18 – THRESHOLDS FOR FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT
TABLE 19 – TRANSPORTATION REVENUE AND EXPENSE PROJECTIONS ($)
TABLE 20 – PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2010-2015
TABLE 21 – PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2016-2025
Page 2 - 2 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Transportation Mobility Element is to establish the City’s mobility policies, which guide the City in making decisions on transportation system improvements. The City’s policies are required to comply with federal and state regulations and provide for effective coordination with other agencies. They must also be internally consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan.
The Transportation Mobility Element of the Comprehensive Plan is one of the most important elements because of its interrelationship with the Future Land Use Element. The transportation policies a city adopts are merely one component of its overall land use philosophy. The development path a city follows must be supported by its transportation system. By State law, the future transportation system is required to accommodate urban infill and redevelopment by providing “a range of transportation alternatives essential to satisfy mobility needs, reduce congestion and achieve healthy, vibrant centers,”1 as well as provide strategies for reducing green house gases. In order to achieve this, the land uses proposed by the Future Land Use Element and the transportation system must work together to give people a wide variety of choices in routes and travel modes to access destinations within short distances to their homes.
Since the late 1940s, much of the nation’s transportation investments have been prioritized toward roads and highways. Priority was given to maximizing roadway capacity, travel speed, and convenience, to enable the driving public to get from place to place quickly and easily. The State’s rules regarding transportation concurrency furthered this approach by mandating that road capacity be provided to support development. Although transportation networks built solely to accommodate the automobile afford a high degree of personal mobility, they also generate high levels of traffic congestion and air pollution, including greenhouse gases. Furthermore, poorly interconnected roadways increase the distance people travel, shifting traffic to only a few major roadways and not efficiently utilizing the existing capacity on the whole network.
The City has been successful at creating a well-connected, relatively compact urban form and walkable transportation system. The older east side of the city features a tightly gridded network of streets which disperses traffic enough to be safely walkable without sidewalks. The areas developed after 1970 are more loosely gridded, but are built with sidewalks on both sides of each street to accommodate walking. The City’s arterial and collector roads feature extra-wide sidewalks that are used by pedestrians and cyclists alike. Timely investments in roadway capacity have ensured that the state, county, and local roadways running through the City are free of congestion. The major corridors are also served by transit, including a “super stop” transfer point for five different routes. Overall, the City has been progressive with its planning and access management, especially along Dunlawton Avenue.
1 Section 163.3180(5)(a), Florida Statutes
Page 2 - 3 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Transportation and land use policies that emphasize alternative modes allow a city to develop more compactly. Such a pattern of development allows a city's resources to be utilized more efficiently. The efficiencies resulting from compact development produce economic savings to both a city and its tax-paying citizens. Because living, working, and shopping destinations are closer together, fewer large-capacity roads--and less money spent on roads--are required.
Higher densities also make alternative modes of transportation, such as walking, cycling, and transit buses more practical and cost-effective. Fewer automobile drivers reduces the need for parking, which further increases pedestrian access by allowing stores to be located closer to the street and sidewalk. Fewer automobiles enhances a community's health, safety, and welfare by reducing the number of automobile accidents, decreasing air pollution, allowing one to exercise, and lowering the stress associated with driving in congested traffic.
There has been growing recognition of these benefits at all levels of government. Since 2007, there have been significant changes to Florida’s growth management legislation, as well as to planning policies at the regional level. In 2007, community leaders throughout Central Florida conducted a visioning exercise and prepared an analysis of possible future growth trends in the region. Based on the results of the study and community input, these leaders adopted the “How Shall We Grow? A Shared Vision for Central Florida” Plan. The visioning process focused on four primary themes in an effort to protect sensitive lands, concentrate growth in select areas to slow urban sprawl, and create more efficient land use and transportation patterns. These four themes include Conservation, Countryside, Centers and Corridors. One of the priorities is to “provide a variety of transportation choices.” This would be achieved by providing: • Connectivity between centers and other regions • Congestion relief • Choices for moving people and goods, and • Concurrency with new development.
Transportation concurrency is counter-productive in urban centers and a range of mobility options are needed to “reduce congestion and achieve healthy, vibrant centers.” Accordingly, the City utilizes a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) within its central core redevelopment area, known as Port Orange Town Center.
State-mandated transportation concurrency requirements are utilized outside of the TCEA as an important tool to maintain transportation mobility. The TCEA in the Port Orange Town Center allows the City to focus on other mobility strategies instead of road-widening, with the goal of reducing urban sprawl. The City also promots and adopts complementary land use strategies that reflect the region’s shared vision for its future, such as east central Florida’s “How Shall We Grow?” Plan. In practical terms, this means bringing people closer to where they want to go and providing the connections to get them there.
The goals of the State’s transportation planning requirements dovetail with its requirements for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, as per 2008’s HB 697. The City intends to meet these requirements by maintaining levels of service, encouraging a greater distribution of commercial nodes and development of compact,
Page 2 - 4 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
mixed-use centers, creating efficient transportation designs and operating systems, and focusing efforts on Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs. By reducing the amount of miles people drive, a measure known as “vehicle miles traveled,” or “VMTs,” the emissions from vehicles are reduced. Together, these strategies are geared to give people greater choices in how they reach their destinations and reduce the distance to get there.
Following the lead of the Volusia County TPO's 2025 Transportation Plan Update, the City of Port Orange has continued to take steps to ensure that its transportation policies and future transportation programs reflect a balance between modes. Future transportation investments will focus on land use and mobility options while maintaining adopted concurrency standards. This emphasis will give the citizens of Port Orange the ability to get to and from their destinations using the modes that best suit their individual needs.
The first section of the Transportation Mobility Element is an analysis of the existing transportation system, including roadways, transit, rail, and bicycle-pedestrian facilities. This is followed by an analysis of these facilities in relation to the existing and projected transportation, and land use needs of Port Orange. The Implementation section summarizes how the City intends to meet its mobility needs, and discusses how system improvements will be funded. Finally, the Goals, Objectives, and Policies section outlines the City's future transportation mobility strategies, and provides measurable targets to help track the City's progress toward achieving them.
Page 2 - 5 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS
An analysis of existing transportation facilities, services and programs in Port Orange has been prepared to identify deficiencies, project needed improvements, and plan alternative facilities, services, and programs. The most significant transportation facilities in Port Orange are the state, county, and city roadways, the Florida East Coast Railway, the Intracoastal Waterway, the Volusia County Transit (VOTRAN) routes and the existing bikeways and sidewalk network, the Florida East Coast Railway, the Intracoastal Waterway, the Volusia County Transit (VOTRAN) routes and the existing sidewalk/bikepath system.
POPULATION/TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
For a City's transportation system to be considered truly effective it must meet the needs of all its population, especially those groups that may not have ready access to the system used by the majority of people. The VOTRAN bus system and City bikeways and sidewalk network are extremely useful to the economically disadvantaged, the handicapped, and the elderly, who either may not own a car, are unable to drive, or wish not to drive. Such people who depend on non-automotive transportation are referred to as "transportation disadvantaged" or “transit dependent” (TD). Chapter 427 of the Florida Statutes defines the TD population as:
"...those persons who because of physical or mental disability, income status, or age are unable to transport themselves or to purchase transportation and are, therefore, dependent upon others to obtain access to health care, employment, education, shopping, social activities..."
The Volusia County Transit Development Plan 2007-2016 shows that 233,893 people, or 46% of Volusia County's 2007 population, may be considered TD. In Port Orange, the TD populations are defined by age, income, and lack of personal vehicles. Three census tract block groups, located in the north half of the City, have populations in which more than 45% are over the age of 65. One tract, located in Town Center redevelopment district in the northeastern part of the City, has a block group population in which at least 30% of the households have incomes of less than $15,000 per year. Within this same block group, 20% of households are without a vehicle. According to the Transit Development Plan, three census tract block groups are considered a secondary Transit- Dependent area. Table1 shows the degree to which the population of various census tracts block groups in the City may be considered TD.
Page 2 - 6 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
TABLE 1 HIGH CONCENTRATIONS OF "TD" POPULATIONS
TD GROUP TRACT NO. BLOCK GROUP NO. % POPULATION
Over Age 65 824.08 *2 >45 824.09 *1 30-44 824.10 2 >45 825.01 *3 30-44 *4 30-44 5 30-44 6 30-44 825.03 3 >45 825.07 2 30-44 826.02 4 30-44 829.01 1 30-44
Income < $15,000 825.01 2 >30
Households w/ no vehicle available 825.01 2 >20
Census tract and block group boundaries that extend outside the city limits of Port Orange. * Secondary Transit-dependent block group Source: VOTRAN, Transit Development Plan
Of the census tracts listed above, only Tract No. 829.01, located east of I-95 and south of Spruce Creek, is not served by VOTRAN. It should be noted, however, that the census tract boundaries do not correspond with the city limits of Port Orange, and that the Port Orange portion of this census tract is entirely vacant except for a nature park. It can be assumed, therefore, that this tract's TD population lives outside the city limits of Port Orange.
LAND USE/TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
As explained in the Future Land Use Element, the City's economic and residential development has been supported and in some cases initiated by its transportation system and other infrastructure improvements. The extension of Dunlawton Avenue to I-95 in the late 1970s, for example, made much of the land west of Nova Road more accessible for development. For all intents and purposes, Dunlawton Avenue functions as the "Main Street" of Port Orange.
Consistency with Future Land Use Map The City's land uses are organized in such a way as to take advantage of the transportation system. As shown on the Future Land Use Map (please see Figure 1-11, Future Land Use Element) the various higher-density residential areas are located along major thoroughfares, with non-residential areas mostly concentrated at the intersections. The commercial nodes make logical stopping points for VOTRAN buses, simply because of the number of people concentrated there at any given time. The commercial nodes offer a mix of shops, services, and employment opportunities in one location, an important consideration for people that rely on VOTRAN to meet their transportation needs.
Page 2 - 7 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Consistent with the City's Future Land Use Map, the majority of residential development since 1990 has occurred west of I-95 along Airport Road, Williamson Boulevard, Taylor Road, and Town West Boulevard. Future residential development is proposed within the Planned Community-Westside area and the Woodhaven development. It is primarily these locations that are expected to accommodate the future population. With commercial development, the most recent and largest example is the Pavilion at Port Orange, located west of I-95 and north of Taylor Road. With approximately 500,000 square feet of retail space, it has become the largest commercial shopping development in the City. Together with the nearby Westport Shopping Center and the proposed commercial center on the Westside of Williamson Boulevard (across from the Pavilion at Port Orange), this area will be by far the City’s largest conglomeration of retail development. Other examples include a sub-regional commercial node (>500,000 s.f.) planned for the area on South Williamson Boulevard just north of the intersection of Pioneer Trail, and a community commercial node planned at the intersection of South Williamson Boulevard and Airport Road/Oakwater Lane. Residential developments west of I-95 are adequately served by the City's roadway network, but rely on a limited number of high-volume arterial roads. Since both I-95 and Spruce Creek act as physical barriers to travel, the number of connections with the rest of the area’s transportation system is limited. None of the new single-family developments west of I-95 are served by VOTRAN, although there are no concentrations of TD populations in that area to serve. South of Taylor Road, the limited mix of uses in close proximity to many homes means that residents of this area must drive relatively longer distances than others in Port Orange for shopping and other needs. Although the commercial future land uses exist to support a greater mix of development that would reduce trip lengths and VMTs, the physical development of these properties has not yet occurred.
Industrial growth continues to occur within the City's Eastport Redevelopment District, located east of the F.E.C. Railway, and at the Williamson Business Park, located west of I- 95. Both redevelopment areas, Eastport and Port Orange Town Center, are currently well served by the existing roadway network and VOTRAN public transit system. Development within the Eastport industrial area should encourage use of the underutilized FEC Railway.
Reinvestment in developed areas of the City continues bringing more jobs and people. This is expected to occur in the Riverwalk area, in the regional and sub-regional commercial nodes, and in other mixed-use centers throughout the city. As noted in the Analysis of Future Conditions section, most roadways will continue to have adequate capacity to support new development by 2025, although capacity and mobility enhancements are likely to be needed in the western part of the City. New roads, such as the four-lane extension of South Williamson Boulevard from Airport Road to Pioneer Trail will provide access and greater connectivity to existing and planned commercial nodes.
The City of Port Orange supports the improvement of these roadways, the extension of VOTRAN into these areas, and the development of other alternative transportation modes and programs. Although those segments of the City's population that depend on or are most likely to use public transit are currently well served, the areas that generate the most automobile traffic are not. The extension of alternative transportation modes to these areas
Page 2 - 8 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
will provide choices to those that do not necessarily depend on alternative modes, but would like to use them. The extension of VOTRAN bus routes into these areas would provide an immediate alternative to the automobile, but due to low densities and lack of substantial concentrations of TD populations, the financial feasibility for doing so is not likely to materialize.
More importantly, the City must continue to plan and organize its various land uses to make the most of its present transportation options, especially mass transit and pedestrian/ bikeway facilities, and explore other innovative options to reduce reliance on single-occupant motor vehicles. Concentrating commercial activities at prominent roadway intersections and permitting mixed-use development with higher densities, for example, creates ideal locations for transit stops. Siting new multi-family residential projects in close proximity to commercial, office and other employment centers reduces automobile traffic by lessening the need to drive to work and shopping. Conversely, the City can encourage developers to incorporate mixed-use commercial centers within or adjacent to their residential projects so that basic goods and services will be within reasonable bicycling and walking distance of most neighborhoods. Planning and coordinating land uses in advance reduces or eliminates the need to construct costly facilities after-the-fact.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Provisions The Comprehensive Plan is consistent internally with regard to transportation, land use, and availability of facilities and services. As explained in the Introduction to this Element, the City's development pattern is defined and guided primarily by natural features, land use, and transportation facilities. The availability of sewer, water, and recreation facilities also shape the City to a certain extent. The Future Land Use Map, transportation system, and Concurrency Management system have ensured that City facilities and services are available to serve projected growth at the appropriate time and place. The policies and guidelines that provide for orderly, managed growth are primarily found in the Future Land Use, Transportation Mobility, Public Facilities and Capital Improvements Elements.
The Future Land Use Element provides for the coordination of land use and transportation planning; requires land use designations to be based on accessibility to necessary infrastructure and public services; requires future development to be directed into appropriate areas based on availability of necessary infrastructure and public services; and ensures that new development is designed in a manner that enhances multi-modal access, circulation, and connections.
The Transportation Mobility Element requires proposed development to provide improvements to the transportation system to mitigate projected impacts, including unique strategies for each Mobility Improvement zone; provides for the coordination of land and transportation planning, such that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed to serve them; and provides for the coordination of new development with multi-modal alternatives, including the available mass transit system, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Page 2 - 9 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Finally, the Capital Improvements Element defines the City's strategies and programs and the adopted LOS standards for meeting future mobility needs.
STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
The City's roadway pattern has been influenced somewhat by natural barriers. Most of the major roads in the City run north and south, while the locally important roads generally run east and west. The major north-south roads are aligned roughly parallel to the Halifax River (which includes the Intracoastal Waterway). The Halifax River has limited the extension of the City's road system to the east with only Dunlawton Avenue crossing the river. Similarly, Spruce Creek and its surrounding environmentally sensitive lands have constricted access to the south.
As of 2009, there are a total of 351 miles of streets and highways within the City limits. The administrative and maintenance responsibility by mileage is indicated in Table 2 below.
TABLE 2 ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND MILEAGE
ADMINISTRATIVE CLASSIFICATION ROUTE MILES I-95 6.0 State Highways 12.5 County Arterials and Collectors 19.0 City Collectors and Local Streets 313.0 Unpaved roads 0.2 TOTAL 351.0 Source: FDOT, 2009
The existing arterial and collector roadway network is indicated in Table 3. The list of improvements made to the roadway network since the last Plan update in 1998 is shown in Table 13.
Roadway Networks The State Highway System is defined in Section 335, Florida Statutes to include the following: 1) the Interstate Highway System; 2) all roads in the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS)/Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) 3) all rural arterials and their extensions into and through urban areas; 4) all urban principal arterial routes; and 5) those urban minor arterial routes on the existing primary road system as of July 1, 1977.
Created in 1990, the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) is a statewide network of limited-access and controlled-access highways designed to accommodate Florida’s high- speed and high-volume highway traffic, especially for the purposes of interstate and regional commerce and long-distance trips. The FIHS makes up about 3% of the roads in the State
Page 2 - 10 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Highway System, but carries about 30% of the traffic2. The only FIHS facility in the City of Port Orange is I-95. The Florida Strategic Intermodal System (SIS)3 was created in 2003. This system is similar to the FIHS except that SIS was established specifically:
“to efficiently serve the mobility needs of Florida’s citizens, businesses, and visitors; and to help Florida become a worldwide economic leader, enhance economic prosperity and competitiveness, enrich quality of life and reflect responsible environmental stewardship.”
It consists exclusively of facilities of “statewide and interregional significance.” Within Port Orange, I-95, the FEC Railway and the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway are included in the SIS.
The County Road System is also defined in the State Statutes and consists of the following:
1) collector roads in unincorporated areas and all extensions into and through any incorporated area; 2) all local roads in unincorporated areas; and 3) all urban minor arterial roads not on the State Road System.
The local street system consists of non-state and county roadways and includes private streets. Local streets are classified primarily as collector and local roads and alley ways.
Functional Classification The City's roads are classified by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT hereafter) Roadway Functional Classification System. The FDOT classifies the major roads in Port Orange as either principal arterials, minor arterials (State Highway System), or collectors. The FDOT functional classification of the major roads is graphically depicted in the map in Figure 2-1. Many of the minor roads are not classified by the FDOT and have a city-established functional classification. Chapter 334 of the Florida Statutes provides the following definitions for major roads:
Limited Access Facilities (FIHS/SIS) These facilities carry regional trips between major metropolitan areas in the state. These are:
“streets or highways specially designed for through traffic, and over, from, or to which owners or occupants of abutting land or other persons have no right or easement or only a limited right or easement of access, light, air, or view by reason of the fact that their property abuts upon such limited-access facility or for any other reason. Such highways or streets may be parkways from which trucks, buses, and other commercial vehicles are excluded; or they may be freeways open to use by all
2 FDOT, 2009 3 Section 339.61, F.S. and Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System, FDOT, updated July 20, 2008
Page 2 - 11 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
customary forms of street and highway traffic.4”
Urban Principal Arterial Roads Routes which generally serve the major centers of activity of an urban area, on which the highest traffic volumes are carried and the longest distance trips are made. These roads carry a high proportion of the total urban area travel on a minimum of mileage. The routes are integrated, both internally and between major rural connections. The State Legislature has established a maximum amount of mileage in each county that can be classified as principal arterial. Because of this mileage limitation, many road segments which function as principal arterials cannot be included on the principal arterial system and are classified as minor arterials by the FDOT.
Urban Minor Arterial Roads Routes which generally interconnect with, and augment urban principal arterial routes and provide service for trips of shorter length and a lower level of travel mobility. Such routes include all arterials not classified as "principal."
Urban Collector Road A route that services moderate to average traffic volume, moderate to average trip length, and at moderate to average operating speeds. Such a route also collects and distributes traffic between local roads or arterial roads and serves as a linkage between land access and mobility needs.
Table 3 lists both the FDOT and City functional classification for existing major roads. Table 3 also lists the jurisdiction, right-of-way width, number of lanes, and type of facility for each of the major roads in Port Orange.
4 Section 334.03, F.S.
Page 2 - 12 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
TABLE 3 FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION DATA (2009)
ROAD/STREET SEGMENT JURISDICTION R.O.W NO. OF TYPE OF FROM TO WIDTH LANES FACILITY PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS Interstate 95 (SR 9) North City Limits South City Limits State 350 FT. 4 Limited-Access Clyde Morris Blvd. (C.R. 483) North City Limits Dunlawton Ave. County 100 FT. 4 Divided Dunlawton Ave. (S.R. A1A) East City Limits 1000 FT. West of Peninsula Dr. State 150 FT. 4 Divided 1000 FT. West of Peninsula Dr. Halifax Dr. State 300 FT. 4 Divided Halifax Dr. Ridgewood Ave. State 90 FT. 4 Divided Dunlawton Ave. (S.R. 421) Ridgewood Ave. Spruce Creek Rd. State 90 FT. 4 Divided Spruce Creek Rd. Nova Rd. State 200 FT. 4 Divided Nova Rd. Taylor Rd. State 200 FT. 6 Divided Nova Rd. (S.R. 5A) North City Limits Canal View Blvd. State 100-180 FT. 5 Divided Canal View Blvd. F.E.C. Railroad State 100 FT. 4 Divided F.E.C. Railroad Ridgewood Ave. State 100 FT. 4 Divided Ridgewood Ave. (U.S. 1) North City Limits South City Limits State 100 FT. 4 Divided Taylor Rd. (S.R. 421) Dunlawton Ave. Williamson Blvd. State 100 FT. 5 Divided Taylor Rd. (C.R. 421) Williamson Blvd. Summer Trees Rd. County 100 FT. 4 Divided Summer Trees Rd. West City Limits County 100 FT. 2 Undivided Williamson Blvd. (C.R. 4009) North City Limits North of Summer trees Rd. County 100-200 FT. 2 Undivided North of Summer Trees Rd. Airport Rd. County 100-200 FT. 4 Divided MINOR ARTERIALS Airport Road Williamson Blvd. Cypress Springs Pkwy. County 100 FT. 4 Divided Cypress Springs Pkwy. South City Limits County 100 FT. 2 Undivided Clyde Morris Blvd. (C.R. 483) Dunlawton Ave. Pines Plaza County 100 FT. 4 Divided Pines Plaza Taylor Rd County 100 FT. 2 Undivided Madeline Ave. McDonald Rd. Nova Rd. City 30-50 FT. 2 Undivided Nova Rd. Clyde Morris Blvd. City 50-70 FT. 2 Undivided Clyde Morris Blvd. Grove View Ln. County 100-200 FT. 4 Divided Grove View Ln. Town Park Dr. County 100-200 FT. 2 Undivided Town Park Dr. Williamson Blvd. County 100-200 FT. 4 Divided Peninsula Dr. (S.R. 441) North City Limits Dunlawton Ave. State 50 FT. 2 Undivided Spruce Creek Rd. Dunlawton Ave. Commonwealth Blvd. City 50-100 FT. 2 Undivided Commonwealth Blvd. Nova Rd. County/City 50-100 FT. 2 Undivided Nova Rd. Taylor Rd. County 100 FT. 4 Divided Taylor Rd. (C.R. 4086) Spruce Creek Rd. Clyde Morris Blvd. County 100 FT. 4 Divided
Page 2 - 13
Clyde Morris Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. County 50-60 FT. 2 Undivided COLLECTORS Canal View Blvd. Nova Rd. Spruce Creek Rd. City 40 FT. 2 Undivided Central Park Blvd. Spruce Creek Rd. Hensel Road City 80 FT. 2 Undivided Charles St. McDonald Rd. Ridgewood Ave. City 55 FT. 2 Undivided City Center Dunlawton Ave. Herbert Street/Clyde Morris City 100 FT. 2 Undivided Blvd./Dunlawton Ave. Commonwealth Blvd. Ridgewood Ave. F.E.C. Railway City 100 FT. 2 Undivided F.E.C. Railway Spruce Creek Rd. County 50 FT. 2 Undivided Coraci Blvd. Town West Blvd. Proposed Road “D” City 100 FT. 2 Divided Country Ln. Village Tr. Taylor Rd. City 70 FT. 2 Undivided Halifax Dr./ Riverside Dr. Dunlawton Ave. Main St. County 50 FT. 2 Undivided Hensel Rd. Taylor Rd. South Terminus City 60 FT. 2 Undivided Herbert St. Ridgewood Ave 5th St. City 40 FT. 2 Undivided 5th St. Clyde Morris Blvd. City 30-60 FT 2 Undivided Jackson St. Spruce Creek Rd. Madeline Ave City 60 FT. 2 Undivided McDonald Ave/6th St. Madeline Ave. Herbert Street City 60-80 FT. 2 Undivided McGinnis Ave. Williamson Blvd. Georgia Peach Ave. City 100 FT. 2 Undivided Main St. Riverside Dr. Ridgewood Ave. County 40-50 FT. 2 Undivided Oak St. Dunlawton Ave. Ridgewood Ave. City 50 FT. 2 Undivided Peninsula Dr. Dunlawton Ave. South City Limits County 50 FT. 2 Undivided Pioneer Trail Airport Road Turnbull Bay Road County 66-130 FT. 2 Undivided Reed Canal Road Nova Road Clyde Morris Blvd. County 100 FT. 2 Undivided Spruce Creek Rd Canal View Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. City 50-100 FT. 2 Undivided Taylor Rd Central Park Blvd. City 50-100 FT. 2 Undivided Central Park Blvd. South City Limits City 50-100 FT. 2 Undivided Summer Trees Rd. Taylor Rd Williamson Blvd. (N. of Taylor City 100 FT. 2 Undivided Rd.) Town West Blvd. Williamson Blvd. Tomoka Farms Rd. City 100 FT. 2 Divided Victoria Gardens Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. Clyde Morris Blvd. City 80 FT. 2 Undivided Village Trail Nova Rd. Dunlawton Ave. City 100 FT. 2 Undivided Water’s Edge Blvd. Airport Rd. Airport Rd. City 60-100 FT. 2 Undivided Willow Run Blvd. Clyde Morris Blvd Tracy Dr. City 200 FT. 2 Divided Tracy Dr. Williamson Blvd. City 200 FT. 2 Undivided Yorktowne Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. Hidden Lake Dr. City 100 FT. 2 Undivided Sources: Florida Department of Transportation, 2009, City of Port Orange, 2009
Page 2 - 14 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Administrative Jurisdiction and Maintenance Responsibility According to the Volusia County TPO's5 2025 Transportation Plan Update, each road in the county is assigned to a jurisdiction which is responsible for the maintenance of that road, known as the administrative jurisdiction. The administrative jurisdictions (and maintenance responsibilities) are shown in Figure 2-2. The number of lanes for each road as of 2009 is graphically depicted in Figure 2-3.
In Port Orange, the administrative jurisdiction is divided between the State, County and the City. There are also private local streets in the city. The administrative jurisdiction for arterial and collector streets is listed in Table 3. All other roads are City roads.
Existing Constrained Roadway Facilities The FDOT 2009 Quality/Level of Service Manual defines a constrained roadway facility as one in which the addition of two or more through lanes to meet current or future traffic needs is not possible due to physical or policy barriers. Physical barriers may include the existence of intensive land use adjacent to the roadway. Policy barriers include environmental, historical, archaeological, aesthetic, political, or social reasons that prevent the highway's expansion.
In Port Orange, there are several roadways that meet the definition of a constrained facility, either by physical or environmental conditions or policy. The physically and environmentally constrained roadways are those where natural features such as water bodies, unique vegetative communities, or dense urban development make it impractical or not financially feasible to widen a roadway. Policy-constrained roadways are those that the City Council has deemed to not be in the City’s interest to develop further because of possible disruption to the community. Constrained roadways will not be widened except to construct turn lanes, sidewalks or bicycle facilities. A listing of the designated constrained roadways is indicated in Table 4 below and in Figure 2-4. The City will work with FDOT and the County to explore ways to manage, maintain, and possibly improve the level of service of these facilities.
TABLE 4 DESIGNATED CONSTRAINED CORRIDORS (2009)
CONSTRAINED LIMITS OF CONSTRAINED DESIGNATION MAX.# OF ROADWAY LANES Charles Avenue McDonald Ave/6th Street to Ridgewood Avenue (US 1) 2 lanes Dunlawton Avenue Peninsula Drive to Spruce Creek Road 4 lanes Herbert Street Ridgewood Avenue to Clyde Morris Boulevard 2 lanes McDonald Ave/6th Street Madeline Avenue to Herbert Street 2 lanes Main Street Riverside Drive to Ridgewood Avenue 2 lanes Nova Road Dunlawton Avenue to Ridgewood Avenue (US 1) 4 lanes Peninsula Drive N. City Limits to south terminus 2 lanes Ridgewood Avenue(US 1) N. City Limits to Rose Bay 4 lanes Riverside Drive/Halifax Av. Dunlawton Avenue- Main Street 2 lanes
5 The Volusia County TPO was formerly known as the Volusia County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Page 2 - 15 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Spruce Creek Road Taylor Road to Nova Road 4 lanes Spruce Creek Road City Limits to Central Park Boulevard 2 lanes South Williamson Blvd. Taylor Road to Airport Road 4 lanes Taylor Road Clyde Morris Boulevard to Spruce Creek Road 4 lanes Source: City of Port Orange, 2009
PHYSICAL CONDITION OF ROADWAYS
Major threats to the structural integrity of the road system include deterioration caused by surface oxidation and excessive wear from high traffic volumes. Primary roads must be resurfaced more often than local roads because of the higher traffic volumes, heavier weights they support, and the greater degradation they incur. Most roadways are asphalt surfaces, with the exception of US 1, portions of which are concrete. Each governmental jurisdiction, including the state, county, or city, maintains its own roadways. The maintenance programs of the three jurisdictions are described below.
State The FDOT inspects road pavement conditions on federal and state roads in Port Orange. A flexible pavement condition survey is conducted annually to inspect raveling, rutting, cracking, and the overall "ride of the road." When pavement conditions do not meet state standards, resurfacing projects are advanced in the State Work Programs.
County Volusia County maintains a pavement inventory and rating system in which county roadways are evaluated in terms of resurfacing need. Pavement ratings range from 1-10 and correspond to the number of years remaining before resurfacing is required. Using this system, the county prioritizes resurfacing projects for roadway sections with a 1-3 year rating. County resurfacing projects are funded by the Local Option Gas Tax. A portion of these funds is also used for new road construction, which limits the money available for roadway maintenance.
City of Port Orange The City conducts maintenance on its street and drainage systems. This includes roadway resurfacing, sign and pavement markings, and related drainage improvements. The City periodically conducts reviews of roadway and sidewalk/bikeway facilities, and schedules maintenance. Maintenance scheduling on City roadways relies upon local knowledge and engineering judgment, and is prioritized based upon the roadway’s physical condition. For planning purposes, the City uses an average life expectancy schedule to maintain roadways based on each road’s usage and functional classification. Some of the obstacles the City must overcome in maintaining the physical integrity of its roadway network include:
Subdivision Roads Many of the local and subdivision streets were installed by developers rather than by the City. Prior to the 1990s, developer-built roadways were generally substandard in comparison with those built to current construction standards. During the early 2000s, the City made improvements to most of the substandard streets. This consisted mostly of removing corrugated drain pipes and making other stormwater improvements when the roadways were
Page 2 - 16 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
resurfaced.
Maintenance Scheduling The majority of the City's subdivision roadways were built over a short time frame during periods of rapid growth in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of these roads are on the same life cycle and could all potentially require maintenance at the same time. This would overburden the City's financial resources unless planned for well in advance. Declining revenues since 2007, combined with a greater mileage of roadways, have compelled the City to extend its resurfacing program cycle from 15 to 22 years.
Maintenance Funding Resurfacing and maintenance is funded through the local Gas Taxes. This funding source is also used to construct new local roads to service projected future growth and development. Because funding is not always available for construction and maintenance, the construction of new roads can delay the maintenance of existing roads.
Development in the City in the 1980s and through the late 2000s resulted in the construction of a large number of new City streets. The City requires new roads constructed as part of development projects to be built to City standards, whether these roads are to be dedicated to the public or remain under private ownership. This ensures that new roads will be durable and require maintenance less often. The City’s street construction standards are listed under Transportation Mobility Element Objective 2.14.
ROADWAY LEVEL-OF-SERVICE ANALYSIS
This Plan establishes the framework for the Port Orange Town Center TCEA designation adopted in 2006, along with the mobility strategies and standards that will be applied within the TCEA and the City’s Mobility Improvement Zones. Outside of the TCEA, the City will maintain adopted LOS standards on area roadways, but will also consider alternative strategies such as a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, anlong- term concurrency management area, etc., as may be appropriate. The mobility strategies for the city-wide Mobility Improvement Zones are described in policies under Objectives 1.1 through 1.4.
Roadway LOS Defined Level of service (LOS) for the roadway network is a qualitative measure which describes the operational conditions within a traffic stream for both single-occupancy and public transit vehicles (VOTRAN buses). Level-of-service categories rank these conditions in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The six levels of service are designated by the letters A through F. Level-of-service A represents the best operating conditions and F represents the worst. The six levels of service are described as follows:
Level-of-Service A Represents free flowing conditions. Individual vehicles are virtually unaffected by the presence of other vehicles in the traffic stream. Operators have a high degree of freedom to
Page 2 - 17 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
select desired speed and to change lanes. The level of comfort and convenience to the motorist or passenger is excellent.
Level-of-Service B Clearly in the range of stable flow, although other vehicles in the traffic stream are noticeable. Ability to select desired speed is relatively unaffected although there is a slight decline in the ability to change lanes over the conditions present in LOS A. The level of comfort and convenience to the motorist or passenger is very good although it is less than that of LOS A because the presence of other vehicles in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior.
Level-of-Service C Still in the range of stable flow, but the operation of individual users is significantly affected by interactions with other vehicles in the traffic stream. Ability to select and maintain a desired speed is affected by the presence of other vehicles and changing lanes becomes more difficult. The general level of comfort and convenience is good although it has declined considerably from LOS A. This is the LOS standard for roads in the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), which in Port Orange, includes I-95.
Level-of-Service D Consists of high-density yet stable flow. The ability to select a desired speed and to change lanes is severely restricted, although the driver or passenger still experiences a fair level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow can cause operational problems at this LOS. This is the City's LOS standard for all State principal arterial roads.
Level-of-Service E Represents unstable flow and indicates that the road is at or near capacity. Speeds are generally reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value during peak periods. Ability to change lanes is extremely difficult and is generally accomplished by forcing another vehicle to slow down to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience is poor and driver frustration is high. Small increases in traffic volume or other minor problems such as a stalled vehicle can cause traffic to come to a complete stop for relatively long periods. This is the City's LOS standard for all city and county arterial and collector roads.
Level-of-Service F Describes forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists when the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can be accommodated on the roadway. Lines of vehicles form behind such locations. Operating conditions within the line include stop-and- go cycles which are extremely unstable. Vehicles may move at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet, but then be required to stop for half a minute or more. The level of comfort and convenience to the driver or passenger is extremely poor.
Existing Roadway LOS A level-of-service analysis was conducted for major roads in the City by City staff in 2009. The evaluation used the two-way peak-hour volumes presented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8th edition, the 2009 FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook and
Page 2 - 18 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
special analyses using ARTPLAN and HIGHPLAN. The source of the data is from the latest counts from FDOT, Volusia County, and the City. The analysis for the roads was done by segment and utilized the roadway segment data in Table 3 (i.e. classification, number of lanes, type of facility). Table 5 below provides the results of this study, and shows the degree to which each segment is being utilized (volume/capacity ratio). This information is also shown in Figure 2-5.
Page 2 - 19
TABLE 5 2009 TWO-WAY P.M. PEAK HOUR ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE
ROADWAY SEGMENT 2009 EXISTING CAPACITY ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS LOS CAPACITY RATIO
I-95 N. City Limits SR 421 5,224 C 5,500 C 95% SR 421 Pioneer Trail 3,664 B 5,500 C 67% Airport Road Williamson Blvd. S. City Limits 514 B 1,656 E 31% Canal View Blvd. Spruce Creek Rd. Nova Road 166 B 1,040 E 16% Central Park Blvd. Spruce Creek Rd. Hensel Road 229 B 1,040 E 22% Charles Street Ridgewood Ave. F.E.C. Railway 232 B 1,040 E 22% F.E.C. Railway McDonald Rd. 137 B 1,040 E 13% City Center Pkwy. City Center Cir. Dunlawton Ave. 574 B 1,256 E 46% City Center Blvd. City Center Cir. Clyde Morris Blvd. 508 B 1,256 E 40% City Center Drive Herbert Street City Center Cir. 248 B 1,040 E 23% Clyde Morris Blvd. Madeline Ave. N. City Limits 2,087 B 3,204 E 65% Madeline Ave. Herbert Street 2,014 B 3,204 E 63% Herbert Street Willow Run Blvd. 2,014 B 3,204 E 63% Willow Run Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. 1,882 B 3,204 E 59% Dunlawton Ave. Taylor Road 978 B 1,512 E 58% Commonwealth Blvd. Ridgewood Ave. F.E.C. Railway 329 B 1,256 E 26% F.E.C. Railway Spruce Creek Rd. 495 B 1,256 E 39% Country Lane Village Trail Taylor Road 525 B 1,256 E 42% Dunlawton Ave. Peninsula Dr. Ridgewood Ave. 2,565 B 6,040 D 42% Ridgewood Ave. Spruce Creek Rd. 2,518 B 3,560 D 71% Spruce Creek Rd. Nova Road 2,803 B 3,560 D 79% Nova Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 2,945 B 5,360 D 55% Clyde Morris Blvd. Taylor Road 3,611 C 4,880 D 74% Halifax/Riverside Dr. Dunlawton Ave. Main Street 105 B 1,040 E 10% Hensel Road Taylor Road Central Park Blvd. 618 B 1,440 E 43% Herbert Street Ridgewood Ave. McDonald Rd./6th St. 258 B 1,040 E 25% McDonald Rd./6th St. Nova Road 676 B 1,040 E 65% Nova Road City Center Dr. 845 C 1,040 E 81% City Center Dr. Clyde Morris Blvd. 685 B 1,040 E 66%
Page 2 - 20
ROADWAY SEGMENT 2009 EXISTING CAPACITY ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS LOS CAPACITY RATIO
Jackson Street Spruce Creek Rd. Dunlawton Ave. 219 B 1,040 E 21% Dunlawton Ave. Canal View Blvd. 130 B 1,040 E 13% Canal View Blvd. Herbert Street 217 B 1,040 E 21% Herbert Street Madeline Ave. 180 B 1,040 E 17% McDonald Rd./6th St. Madeline Ave. Herbert Street 363 B 1,040 E 35% Madeline Avenue McDonald Rd. Nova Road 400 B 1,656 E 24% Nova Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 614 B 1,656 E 37% Clyde Morris Blvd. Long Grove Dr. 776 B 3,204 E 24% Long Grove Dr. Town Park Dr. 845 B 1,656 E 51% Town Park Dr. Williamson Blvd. 845 B 3,204 E 26% Nova Road N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 2,613 B 4,460 D 59% Madeline Ave. Herbert Street 2,518 B 5,360 D 47% Herbert Street Dunlawton Ave. 2,518 B 3,560 D 71% Dunlawton Ave. Spruce Creek Rd. 2,376 B 3,560 D 66% Spruce Creek Rd. Ridgewood Ave. 1,587 B 3,560 D 45% Oak Street Ridgewood Ave. Spruce Creek Rd. 173 B 1,040 E 16% Spruce Creek Rd. Dunlawton Ave. 116 B 1,040 E 11% Pioneer Trail Turnbull Bay Rd. Airport Road 271 B 1,656 E 16% Reed Canal Road Nova Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 556 B 1,440 E 39% Ridgewood Ave. N. City Limits Dunlawton Ave. 2,470 B 3,560 D 69% Dunlawton Ave. Commonwealth Blvd. 1,994 B 3,560 D 56% Commonwealth Blvd. Nova Road 1,444 B 3,560 D 41% Nova Road S. City Limits 1,986 B 3,560 D 56% Spruce Creek Rd. Canal View Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. 585 B 1,040 E 56% Dunlawton Ave. Commonwealth Blvd. 701 B 1,440 E 49% Commonwealth Blvd. Nova Road 994 C 1,440 E 69% Nova Road Taylor Road 1,677 B 3,204 E 52% Taylor Road Central Park Blvd. 1,141 C 1,656 E 69% Summer Trees Rd. Williamson Blvd. Taylor Road 281 B 1,656 E 17% Taylor Road Spruce Creek Rd. Devon Street 1,258 B 3,204 E 39% Devon Street Hensel Road 1,423 B 3,204 E 44% Hensel Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 1,868 B 3,204 E 58%
Page 2 - 21
ROADWAY SEGMENT 2009 EXISTING CAPACITY ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS LOS CAPACITY RATIO
Clyde Morris Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. 1,223 C 1,440 E 85% Dunlawton Ave. I-95 3,198 C 4,050 E 79% I-95 Williamson Blvd. 3,198 C 4,050 E 79% Williamson Blvd. Summer Trees Blvd. 1,552 B 3,204 E 48% Summer Trees Blvd. W. City Limits 1,318 C **2,570 E 51% Town West Blvd. Williamson Blvd. Tomoka Farms Rd. 268 B 1,739 E 15% Victoria Gardens Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. Clyde Morris Blvd. 224 B 1,256 E 13% Village Trail Nova Road Country Lane 680 B 1,256 E 54% Country Lane Dunlawton Ave. 400 B 1,256 E 32% Willow Run Blvd. Clyde Morris Blvd. Tracy Drive 978 B 2,314 E 11% Tracy Drive Williamson Blvd. 525 B 1,440 E 68% Williamson Blvd. N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 1,149 B *2,130 E 54% Madeline Ave. Willow Run Blvd. 1,172 B *2,050 E 57% Willow Run Blvd. Town West Blvd. 1,096 B *1,760 E 62% Town West Blvd. Summer Trees Rd. 1,023 B *1,890 E 54% Summer Trees Rd. Taylor Road 1,078 B 3,204 E 34% Taylor Road Airport Road 1,785 B 3,204 E 56% Airport Road Pioneer Trail 157 B 1,440 E 11% Yorktowne Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. Hidden Lakes Dr. 725 B 1,440 E 50% * Based on ARTPLAN Analysis, 2007 ** Based on HIGHPLAN Analysis, 2007
Source: 2009 Community Development Department VMPO Concurrency Data Management Tool Traffic Counts are based on FDOT, Volusia County 2009 counts, City of Port Orange 2009 Counts, and RR Farms TIA, KHA, 2009
Page 2 - 22 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Roadway LOS Deficiencies The analysis in Table 5 shows all roadway segments in the City are operating at or above the adopted level of service in 2009.
Roadway LOS Maintenance Since the implementation of the Concurrency Management System (CMS) in 1990, the City of Port Orange maintained its adopted roadway LOS through a process of annual evaluation and adjustment. The City's yearly Concurrency Management Report identifies the current-year LOS conditions by measuring traffic volumes and comparing these volumes to those listed in the FDOT Quality Level of Service Handbook or other LOS measurement tool. The City has been successful in maintaining the adopted LOS standard on its roadway network. The CMS is defined in the Capital Improvements Element.
The City's adopted roadway LOS standards continue to reflect and advance the purpose of this section, as well as the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Element and other Elements of the Comprehensive Plan, by providing a tool by which to measure and evaluate the potential of new growth to impact the City's infrastructure, services, facilities, and long-term planning goals. Such measurements provide the City with the ability to ensure that new development will occurr at the appropriate place, consistent with the Future Land Use Map, and that the public facilities and services necessary to support the proposed development will be available at the appropriate time.
For the purposes of LOS monitoring, the County has been divided into Traffic Analysis Zones, 44 71 of which are wholly or partially in Port Orange. Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) are small internally homogeneous aggregations of the entire urban area. TAZs can be as small as a single city block in a downtown area and as large as several square miles in a rural area on the urban periphery. The Volusia County TPO and Port Orange use TAZs to gather housing, employment, and traffic data to measure existing roadway LOS.
Although this system allows the City to identify, evaluate and possibly correct LOS problems on roads within its jurisdiction, potential problems may occur when attempting to maintain the adopted LOS on state and county roads. Under the concurrency management requirements, the City is responsible for ensuring and maintaining the adopted LOS on those roads, even though the timing of federal and state roadway improvements is out of the City's control. The City will also be using various mobility strategies to ensure service quality and maintenance of the transportation system. These include: greater emphasis on transit system improvements, bicycle/pedestrian improvements, Transportation Systems Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, and continuing to make capacity improvements to select roadways needed to comply with the adopted LOS standards.
Existing Significant Parking Facilities The City of Port Orange currently does not have significant public parking facilities of any kind, except for public on-street parking along US 1 and surface lots at the City municipal complex. Park-and-Ride lots do not exist in the greater Daytona Beach area. The closest such
Page 2 - 23 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
facilities are located along I-4 in the southwest portion of Volusia County, adjacent to the cities of Lake Helen, Orange City, Deltona, and Debary. There are private parking facilities that are informally used for ride-share and vanpool parking lots.
Traffic Control Devices/Signals Most of the intersections in Port Orange are controlled by stop signs. Traffic signals exist at 31 intersections in the City. The locations of these signalized intersections are listed below in Table 6.
TABLE 6 LOCATION OF SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
1. Airport Road and Williamson Blvd. 17. Spruce Creek Road & Commonwealth Blvd. 2. City Center Parkway and Dunlawton Avenue 18. Spruce Creek Road and Nova Road 3. Clyde Morris Blvd. and Dunlawton Ave. 19. Spruce Creek Road and Taylor Road 4. Dunlawton Avenue and Nova Road 20. Taylor Road and Hensel Road 5. Herbert Street and Nova Road 21. Taylor Road and Clyde Morris Blvd. 6. Herbert Street and Clyde Morris Blvd. 22. Taylor Road and Dunlawton Avenue 7. Herbert Street and Ridgewood Avenue (U.S. 1) 23. Taylor Road and I-95 8. Madeline Avenue and Nova Road 24. Taylor Road and Williamson Blvd. 9. Madeline Street and Clyde Morris Blvd. 25. Taylor Road and Summer Trees Rd. 10. Peninsula Drive and Dunlawton Avenue 26. Village Trail and Nova Road 11. Reed Canal Road and Clyde Morris Blvd 27. Village Trail and Dunlawton Avenue 12. Ridgewood Avenue and Dunlawton Avenue 28. Williamson Blvd. and Madeline Ave. 13. Ridgewood Avenue and Commonwealth Blvd. 29. Williamson Blvd. and Willow Run Blvd. 14. Ridgewood Ave. and Nova Road 30. Williamson Blvd. and Summer Trees Road 15. Spruce Creek Road and Dunlawton Avenue 31. Willow Run Blvd. and Clyde Morris Blvd. 16. Spruce Creek Rd. & Eastport Pkwy. Source: City of Port Orange, 2009
The City of Port Orange does not own or operate a mass transit system of its own. Rather, it is served by Volusia County Transit (VOTRAN), the county-wide public transit service that has been in operation since 1975.Planning for VOTRAN is provided by VOTRAN staff and the Volusia County TPO. Given VOTRAN's limited resources, planning efforts have focused on providing mass transit to those locations where the greatest benefit will be achieved and to those who need it most. The TPO has found that VOTRAN can serve as "an essential alternative mode of mobility to those who do not have access to driving a private automobile," and also as "an efficient alternative to the private automobile on congested corridors." VOTRAN's primary responsibility, therefore, is to provide transit service to the transportation- disadvantaged population and on congested roadway corridors.
According to the VOTRAN Transit Development Plan, Major Update 2007-2016, in 2005 VOTRAN provided 640 route miles of county-wide service on 26 fixed routes, with minimum one-hour headways. Ridership in 2005 averaged 55,990 passenger trips per week day, including the limited weekend and night service. As of 2006, VOTRAN employed over 200 people, and operated a fleet of 44 vehicles during peak-hour operation. In addition, VOTRAN operates four trolley buses, 44 para-transit vehicles and 29 vanpools, as well as three commuter buses from Orange City to Orlando.
Page 2 - 24 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
There are five routes presently serving the City of Port Orange, which include Route #s 4, 7, 12, 17B, and 406. The routes are located on existing major roadways, such as Clyde Morris Boulevard, Herbert Street, Ridgewood Avenue (U.S. 1), Nova Road (S.R. 5A), Dunlawton Avenue (S.R. 421 and S.R. A1A), and Taylor Road. The areas served are those within ¼ mile (walking distance) of the roadway corridor on either side. Areas outside the transit corridors are considered unserved. None of these routes are separated from automobile traffic through the use of exclusive transit corridors. Each route has stops at a number of major trip generators and attractors. Ridership and select operating characteristics on the five transit routes that serve Port Orange are indicated in Table 7. The Port Orange VOTRAN routes are shown in Figure 2-6. There is currently a transfer point located at the Dunlawton Square Shopping Center, but it contains no covered bus shelters or other amenities. There are signed stops and benches at select bus stops but no covered shelters, posted schedules, or other amenities. Limited night service is provided on Routes 4 and 17B on a truncated route, from the Daytona Beach transfer station to the Dunlawton/Ridgewood intersection and from the beachside to the Dunlawton-Orange-Herbert-Ridgewood loop.
As per the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), agencies that provide fixed-route bus services are required also to provide complementary para-transit services. VOTRAN routes feature buses equipped with wheelchair lifts. VOTRAN also operates a fleet of 44 para-transit vehicles. These vehicles are required to "shadow" the fixed-route service area and to provide a level of service comparable to the fixed-route system.
Ridership information for Port Orange in 2005 was calculated first determining the average daily number of riders for routes that serve the City and then multiplying that figure by the percentage of route miles for each route. Table 7 shows the estimated Port Orange ridership for 2005. Altogether, the annual ridership figures equate to 1,006 Port Orange transit trips per day, which is an increase of 208 riders per day since 1997.
TABLE 7 2005 ESTIMATED PORT ORANGE VOTRAN RIDERSHIP
ROUTE ROUTE NAME NO. ROUTE % MILES TOTAL NO. TOTAL ESTIMATED # TOTAL MILES IN IN PORT OF PASSENGERS PORT ROUTE PORT ORANGE PASSENGERS / TOTAL ORANGE MILES ORANGE REVENUE PASSENGERS MILES #4* South 21.78 11.26 51.7% 186,075 1.97 96,200 Ridgewood #7 South Nova 23.8 12.09 51.2% 183,570 1.48 93,988 #12 Clyde 25.7 14.34 55.8% 119,772 1.40 66,833 Morris/Westport #17B* Dunlawton 22 7.66 34.8% 260,997 1.29 90,827 #40 Port Orange 20.34 7.36 36.2% 54,119 .86 19,591 TOTAL 113.6 52.7 46.4% 804,533 1.40 Avg. 367,439 * Also operates a limited weekend and night service route
6 In addition, VOTRAN operates a specialized, night-time “trolley” service from the Port Orange Town Center area to the beachside during the peak tourist seasons that is used by tourists and employees of tourist destinations.
Page 2 - 25 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Source: VOTRAN Transit Development Plan, 2006 and VOTRAN East Side Transit Study, 2008
Major Public Transit Trip Generators and Attractors The City of Port Orange contains numerous of multi-family developments in close proximity to public transit routes. Because of their relatively compact design, multi-family developments afford their residents a greater opportunity to utilize public transit in urban and certain suburban environments than do single-family developments. From a practical standpoint, public transit systems can achieve greater ridership efficiency by targeting higher-density developments, because they offer the greatest number of potential riders in a given localized area.
Overall, Port Orange has an average residential density of over four units per residential acre7, and is thus technically able to support a minimum local bus system such as VOTRAN in locations where concentrations of population and commercial attractors exist. Outside of the existing transit corridors, the remaining areas of the City are relatively distant from commercial nodes and are currently unserved. However, there are no substantial TD populations that need service in these areas. Together, these factors preclude the unserved areas from being a service priority for VOTRAN.
The major public transit trip attractors in Port Orange are either commercial or institutional in nature. They are located along the City's primary roadway corridors, and most are served by bikeways and/or sidewalks. Almost all of the trip attractors are served directly by the VOTRAN bus system. The major trip generators and attractors in Port Orange are listed in Table 8 below, and are depicted graphically in Figure 2-6.
TABLE 8 MAJOR PUBLIC TRANSIT TRIP GENERATORS AND ATTRACTORS
GENERATORS NO. OF UNITS Multi-family Residential (>100 units) 1. Townhomes North 108 2. Townhomes West 120 3. The Groves Apartments 172 4. Springwood Square Quadrominiums 108 5. Canalview Place Townhomes 100 6. Admiralty Club 101 7. Countryside Lakes Assisted Living Facility 292 8. Trailwood Townhomes and Apartments 142 9. The Park at Countryside Apartments 120 10. Pier Point Apartments 208 11. Victoria Gardens Apartments 140 12. Regency Gardens Nursing Home 120 13. Ocean Oaks Apartments 296 14. Club at Sugar Mill Apartments 168 15. Ashton Pointe Apartments 268 16. Epiphany Apartments 72 17. Sunrise Pointe 236 18. Legacy at Crystal Lake Apartments 800
7 Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, 2006 and UF Bureau of Economic & Business Research
Page 2 - 26 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
19. LaVillagio (Village Trail) 223
ATTRACTORS SQUARE FOOTAGE Commercial (>20,000 sq.ft.) 1. Food Lion Shopping Center 48,977 2. Ravenwood Plaza 34,788 3. Wal-Mart Super Center 203,783 4. WestPort Square 57,062 5. Countryside Mall 134,971 6. Park Place Plaza 162,004 7. Dunlawton Square 187,383 8. Westbridge Plaza 19,005 9. Port Orange Plaza 55,187 10. Riverwood Plaza 102,200 11. Target/Lowe’s 301,245 12. Raydon, Inc. 148,500 13. Commonwealth Plaza 21,128 14. Tuscan Village Shoppes 31,432 15. Gulfstream Village 71,021 16. Pavilion at Port Orange 522,581 17. Westport Square Phase II (Kohl’s) 101,068 18. Pines Plaza 19,867 19. Shoppes at Yorktowne 23,105 20. Northstar (US Foods) 162,547
Municipal/Institutional Facilities 1. Port Orange City Hall/Port Orange Regional Library N/A 2. Halifax Medical Center 80 beds 3. Golf Club at Cypress Head (City) 18 holes 4. Atlantic High School 1,447student capacity 5. Spruce Creek High School 2,009 student capacity 6. Palmer College 988 student capacity
Source: City of Port Orange Department of Community Development, 2009
PUBLIC TRANSIT LOS ANALYSIS
Public Transit LOS Standards VOTRAN provides transit service through a limited local bus system, with an average headway of one hour per route. The buses operate on existing roadways, and are subject to the same driving conditions as single-occupancy vehicles. Transit LOS is measured using vehicle occupancy (ridership to bus capacity), headway times, and the provision of amenities such as marked bus stop locations, benches, shelters, posted schedules, etc. The Public Transportation Chapter of the TPO’s 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan Update identifies a variety of Transit Quality of Service (TQOS) measures which include hours of service, service frequency, service coverage, passenger loading and reliability. VOTRAN is scheduling improvements that will enhance its LOS.
Efficient Public Transit Service Rule 9J-5.019(4)(b)4. F.A.C. requires that local transportation plans “address the provision of efficient public transit service.” The City's adopted roadway LOS standards help to advance public transit by enabling the City to accommodate the operation of the VOTRAN
Page 2 - 27 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
system. By ensuring that the roads on which the bus system operates meet their respective adopted LOS standards, the City helps to ensure that the public transit LOS standards can be met. The existing LOS for the Port Orange roadway network is listed in Table 5, and is shown graphically in Figure 2-5.
Total yearly ridership in Port Orange in 2008 is estimated at 367,439. Block groups with “secondary” levels of transit dependent populations are identified in the Transit Development Plan (TDP). Existing routes serve most of the residential development within ¼ mile of these block groups. However, for VOTRAN to be able to serve the broader population, beyond its current mandate for the TD population, a greater number of potential riders must have convenient access to it. For this to happen, the City should provide higher density land uses along transit corridors, which enable more people to live in close proximity to existing routes. The routes need to have amenities with attractive shelters so that the stops are not seen as a choice of last resort. This will make the public transit service more efficient and improve total passenger revenue miles and other operational measures. In this way, the City's roadway network can be managed as a true multi-modal network of “complete streets,” accommodating the needs of single-occupancy vehicles, public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. Existing “complete streets” are shown in Figure 2-7.
Existing Public Transit LOS According to VOTRAN’s Transit Development Plan (TDP)8, the system provides excellent passenger loading level of service (LOS ‘A’), very good service coverage (LOS ‘B’), and ranges from LOS A to LOS F for the three other service measures. The deficiencies are due to the lack of extended hours of operation, the one-hour headways prevalent on most of the system, the greater transit travel time vs. automobile travel times, and reliability. As indicated in the TDP, enhancements to service frequency and span on select routes would improve these LOS measures. The TDP indicates that extending night service to Dunlawton Square would improve service on the system and to Port Orange. The recommendations for capital and service improvements on VOTRAN routes in the City are described further by the TDP and the VOTRAN East Side Transit Study, 2009.
Public Transit LOS Maintenance The City of Port Orange helps maintain public transit LOS through its roadway LOS maintenance efforts. The City is also able to influence VOTRAN indirectly through its intergovernmental coordination efforts, and through its land use planning activities and policies mentioned elsewhere in this Element. The formal mechanism available to local governments for mass transit service coordination is the TPO, since the TPO is required to plan for all modes of transportation. The City is also able to provide input to VOTRAN planning staff through an informal working relationship. In order to maintain the existing LOS, no operational changes will be needed, provided that roadway LOS remains constant and no vehicle delay results.
8 Volusia Transit Development Plan Major Update; 2007-2016, Dec. 2006
Page 2 - 28 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
BIKEWAYS AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS
Bikeways The use of bicycles for social, recreational, service and minor shopping trips is very popular in Port Orange. The City has an established bikeway plan, and has constructed bike facilities along major streets. The bikeways consist of bike lanes, paved shoulders, wider joint-use sidewalks (bikepaths), and designated trails. The City's off-street bikeways, known as bikepaths, are multi-use facilities that double as pedestrian sidewalks. They satisfy the needs of people who choose not to travel on busy main roads for short-distance trips. They are also an important component of the City's passive outdoor recreation system.
The system of eight-foot wide and five-foot wide off-street bikepaths/sidewalks, as well as on-street bike lanes and paved shoulders, is maintained by the City, State and County. Some corridors may have more than one kind of bikeway facility. The City's Land Development Code requires the construction of bikeways, usually in the form of bikepaths, as part of many new development plans. New developments with bicycle parking areas must also furnish bikeway connectors between the bikeway and the parking area. The location of the City's significant bikeway facilities are listed below in Table 9, and are shown on the map in Figure 2-8.
TABLE 9 EXISTING SIGNIFICANT BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN WAYS
Eight-foot wide off-street bikepath Five-foot wide off-street On-street bikelanes Sidewalk or paved shoulders
Clyde Morris Boulevard Clyde Morris Boulevard Herbert Street (EB only)* Willow Run Boulevard* Ridgewood Avenue Nova Road Spruce Creek Road* Spruce Creek Road Dunlawton Avenue Dunlawton Avenue Dunlawton Avenue Taylor Road (west) City Center* Hidden Lake Drive Williamson Blvd. (north) Country Lane Nova Road Victoria Garden Boulevard North* and South Swallowtail Yorktowne Boulevard Commonwealth Boulevard Madeline Avenue
(* Routes that are mostly shaded) Source: City of Port Orange, Department of Community Development, 1997
The standard design practice for bikeway construction is described in FDOT’s Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Handbook. Some bikepaths in the City are not designed to this standard and are not as conducive for efficient bicycle operations.
Sidewalks In addition to the bikeways mentioned above, the City of Port Orange maintains a network of sidewalks along most roads. The City's Code of Ordinances does not prohibit bicycle use on
Page 2 - 29 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
sidewalks, making them part of the slow-speed, multi-use bikeway network. The City has a well-connected sidewalk system, with sidewalks on both sides of most major roadways and in subdivisions constructed west of Nova Road. Those neighborhoods east of Nova Road, in the older section of town, are also conducive to pedestrian use, benefiting from a tight network of interconnected streets that disperse traffic.
The City places great emphasis on pedestrian systems and requires the construction of sidewalks on both sides of streets upon development of a subdivision or site. In addition, the land development code requires the construction of an eight-foot wide sidewalk/bikepath on at least one side of arterial and collector roadways and a five-foot wide sidewalk on the opposite side. Furthermore, the City's Land Development Code requires all new developments to provide sidewalks as along street frontages, to and from parking lots, within multi-family developments, within single-family subdivisions, and as connectors between different developments. New developments must also provide connections to the existing sidewalk network wherever possible.
Where gaps or substandard sidewalks in the network exist, the City will continue to prioritize its investments to benefit the greatest number of users and increase safety. Sidewalk facilities may also be provided in conjunction with development or redevelopment of property, as part of community improvement projects, and as part of new capital improvement projects. The standard design practice for the construction of sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities is described in FDOT’s Florida Pedestrian Facilities Planning and Design Handbook.
Figure 2-8 indicates major roadways which include sidewalks and bicycle ways. Missing sidewalk gaps in the significant corridors are listed in Table 10. Approximately 13 miles of additional sidewalk is needed in the City to complete the system.
TABLE 10 SIDEWALK GAPS ON COLLECTOR AND ARTERIAL ROADS ROADWAY SEGMENT FROM-TO DISTANCE Bruner Road Madeline Avenue- Clyde Morris Blvd. 2300’ Canal View Blvd. Nova Road – Spruce Creek Road 4000’ Clyde Morris Blvd.(west side) Dunlawton Avenue- 200’ south 200’ Halifax Drive Ocean Ave.- Dunlawton Avenue 1800’ Halifax Avenue/Riverside Drive White Place-Seminole Street 6600’ Herbert Street (north side) Nova Road- FEC Railway 6100’ Herbert Street (south side) Nova Road- FEC Railway. 6100’ Herbert Street (north side) Carya Circle- Nova Road 1350’ Herbert Street (south side) Golden Gate Dr.-Nova Road 3000’ Herbert Street (south side) Village Terrace Dr.-City Center Dr., 700’ Madeline Ave. Clyde Morris Blvd.-Bruner Road 1235’ Madeline Ave. Town Park Dr.- Sunset Cove Drive 2000’ Oak Street Dunlawton Avenue- FEC Ry. 3200’ Ocean Avenue Halifax Drive- Ridgewood Avenue 500’ Pioneer Trail East of Stonehealth Lane- Turnbull Bay Road 7800’ Reed Canal Road (north side) Red Sail Lane-East of Atlantic High School 2250’ Ridgewood Avenue Poinciana Avenue- Rose Bay (east side) 2000’ Seminole Street Riverside Drive- Ridgewood Avenue 400’
Page 2 - 30 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Spruce Creek Road Herbert Street- Dunlawton Avenue 1700’ Spruce Creek Road (east side) Oak Street- 200’ south 200’ Spruce Creek Road (west side) Selin Circle-Little Town Rd. 900’ Spruce Creek Road (east side) Nova Road –Angelina Court 1350’ Spruce Creek Road (west side) Taylor Road- Central Park Blvd. 5150’ Taylor Road (north side) Dunlawton Avenue- Clyde Morris Blvd. 2600’ Taylor Road Taylor Branch Road-Williamson Blvd. 1400’ Taylor Road Crane Lakes Blvd.- Forest Preserve Blvd. 875’ Taylor Branch Road Dunlawton Avenue- Journey’s End Way 350’ Williamson Blvd. (east side) Madeline Avenue to N. City Limits 1900’ Williamson Blvd. (east side) Hockney Court.-1200’ N. of Willow Run Blvd. 4600’ Williamson Blvd. (east side) Town West Blvd.-South 250’ 250’ Willow Run Blvd. Chardonnay Drive-Williamson Blvd. 980’ TOTAL 73,790’ Source: City of Port Orange, Department of Community Development, 2009
Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS Standards The 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook used by FDOT for on-street bicycle facilities focuses on three important factors for measuring LOS. These include the existence of a paved shoulder or bicycle lane, the volume of motorized vehicles in the outside travel lane, and the availability or percent coverage of a bicycle facility along a given roadway segment. Facility maintenance also plays an important part in providing an acceptable LOS. If a facility has poor surface quality, is littered with hazardous debris or with overgrown vegetation, then this can reduce the LOS. Bicycle LOS is not measured based on the number of bicycles using a facility, and there is no level-of- service measure for off-street facilities.
For pedestrian facilities, FDOT uses the Pedestrian LOS Model, which is also found in the 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. As with bikeway facilities, this model focuses on three variables of relative importance, which include the existence of a sidewalk, the volume of motorized vehicles in the outside travel lane, and the availability or percent coverage of a pedestrian facility along a given roadway segment. Other important factors include the lateral separation of pedestrians from motorized vehicles (sidewalk/roadway separation), the presence of a sidewalk/ roadway protective barrier, and motorized vehicle speeds. As with the bicycle LOS evaluation, the City can use the standards established in the FDOT LOS tables.
Bicycle/Pedestrian LOS Maintenance Bikeways and sidewalks are maintained by each respective jurisdiction that has roadway maintenance responsibilities, as indicated on Figure 2-2. The City also has a contract with FDOT to perform routine maintenance such as sweeping on State facilities.
PORTS, AVIATION, RAIL, AND INTERMODAL
Intracoastal Waterway, Ports, and Marinas As a major transportation route, the Intracoastal Waterway is not used much within Port Orange for commercial purposes. The waterway is maintained by the Florida Inland
Page 2 - 31 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Navigation District (FIND) and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Port Orange section of the Waterway is located along the Halifax River, a shallow, brackish estuary between the mainland and barrier island peninsula. The City's limited waterfront is dominated by residential uses, but does contain four marinas, along with the Port Orange Causeway Park, Riverside Pavilion Park, and some commercial uses. Traffic on the Halifax River is mostly limited to recreational craft and small chartered and commercial fishing craft. Plans for developing additional marinas are proposed in the Riverwalk and Seabird Island areas.
Aviation Facilities/Air Transportation Port Orange does not have its own public airport. General and commercial aviation are provided by the Daytona Beach International Airport (DBIA), located approximately five miles north of the city, while general service, fixed-based operations are available at DBIA, New Smyrna Beach Airport and Ormond Beach Airport. The private Spruce Creek Fly-in community is located just west of the City. Coordination with this private facility is necessary to ensure that the use and development of properties within the flight path does not create conflicts with flight approach and take-off zones. This airport is shown on Figures 2-1 through 2-6.
Florida East Coast Railway The only railroad operating in Port Orange is the Florida East Coast (F.E.C.) Railway, a class II freight line that extends from Jacksonville to Miami and travels north and south through the City, roughly parallel to Ridgewood Avenue. The single-track rail line is well maintained with centralized traffic control, and is rated as a Class 6 track. There are no major terminals or intermodal connections associated with this rail line within the City, and currently, no shippers use rail service in Port Orange. There are six railroad crossings in the City, each containing flashing signals with crossing gates. The historic Port Orange depot is located on private property adjacent to the railway right-of-way but is not used for public transportation purposes. Passenger service was last offered by FEC in the 1960’s. The Railway line is identified in Figures 2-1 through 2-11.
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) In 2006, the Port Orange Town Center (POTC) TCEA was established in order to:
“reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill development, redevelopment, and the achievement of the city’s redevelopment goals and implement and fund mobility, urban design, mixed uses, and network connectivity strategies to address transportation needs within the town center TCEA.”
To achieve this goal, objectives and polices were implemented to support mobility in the TCEA. These strategies are retained in this Plan since very little redevelopment has occurred in the POTC TCEA since it was created.
Page 2 - 32 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
In 2009, the City completed the POTC Transportation Demand Management/Transportation System Management (TDM/TSM) Program manual, which included an action plan of specific activities that the City should pursue to ensure multi- modal mobility. This manual is used as a basis to apply these strategies city wide in the Mobility Improvement Zones.
TSM/TDM Programs The City is exploring ways to make the most out of existing roadway facilities through Transportation System Management (TSM) or Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs. TSM programs are intended to enhance the capacity, safety, and efficiency of the existing transportation infrastructure. TDM programs are those that reduce the number (demand) of single-occupant vehicles during peak travel periods. TSM strategies employed within the City include optimized traffic signal operations maintained by Volusia County, turn-lane improvement programs, access management requirements, bikes on VOTRAN buses, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, signed transit stops, red-light indicators, and streetscape improvements. As of 2009, the only TDM activities in Port Orange are carpooling and vanpooling programs by VOTRAN. The City has prepared a TDM/TSM Program Manual for use in implementing these mobility strategies city-wide. The need for expanding these strategies and the possibility of their greater implementation are discussed more fully in the Future Mobility Programs and Land Use Considerations sections later in this Element.
Transportation Impact Fees Transportation impact fees have been collected by the City since 2005. Impact fees are used to construct additional capacity on the network that is needed as a result of new development. The new development is assessed a fee based on the magnitude of the development and its impact on the transportation system as determined by a formula specific to Port Orange.
Impact fee credits are provided for development that pays a fair-share contribution toward fair-share projects on City roads. Funds collected under this program have been allocated to new capacity projects such as the South Williamson widening and others those listed in Table 11 below.
TABLE 11 IMPACT FEE-FUNDED TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
IMPACT FEE PROJECT PROJECT IMPROVEMENT Williamson Boulevard (Taylor Roadway widening to 4 lanes Rd-Airport Rd.) Yorktowne Boulevard- middle New 4-lane road segment Yorktowne Boulevard- southern New 4-lane road segment Dunlawton Ave./Village Trail East-bound right turn lane from turn lane Dunlawton onto Village Trail
Page 2 - 33 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Willow Run Blvd. turn lane East-bound right turn lane onto Clyde Morris Blvd. Source: City of Port Orange, Department of Community Development, 2009
Proportionate Fair-Share Program In 2006, the City began a Proportionate Fair-share program in compliance with Section 163.3180 (5), Florida Statute. Proportionate fair-share is a method whereby the impacts of development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors. Proportionate fair-share is assessed to pay for specific deficiencies to the transportation network, enabling development to meet LOS requirements. It enables development to meet concurrency by proportionately paying for new capacity or operational improvements. City transportation impact fee credits are granted to developers that make fair-share contributions. As of 2009, the City established five fair-share improvement projects, as shown in Table 12. The City will continue to fund mobility improvements using the proportionate fair-share program.
TABLE 12 PROPORTIONATE FAIR-SHARE PROJECTS
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dunlawton Ave/Clyde Morris Intersection improvements Blvd. I-95/SR 421 Interchange Additional east-bound through-lane, turn lanes, and signals Summer Trees Road New 2-lane road Extension Williamson Blvd/Town West New 3-way mast-arm traffic signal Blvd. signal Taylor Road/Devon Street New 4-way mast-arm traffic signal signal Source: City of Port Orange, Department of Community Development, 2009
Improvements and New Programs since the Last Comprehensive Update The City, County, State and private developers have made many improvements to the City’s transportation system since the last update to the Comprehensive Plan in 1998. These improvements were made to improve the levels of service of deficient facilities and to accommodate trips from new growth. The City initiated the proportionate fair- share process during this time frame and several capacity improvement projects have been constructed as a result of this program. Facility improvements constructed between 1998 and 2009 are listed in Table 13.
TABLE 13 ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR ROADWAYS IMPROVEMENTS 1998-2009
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT TYPE LIMITS OF IMPROVEMENT DISTANC Clyde Morris Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes Dunlawton Ave. to Pines Plaza driveway 0.25 mile Clyde Morris Blvd./ Dunlawton Ave. Intersection improvement At Intersection Clyde Morris/ Intersection improvement Intersection Herbert St. Collector “D” * New 2-lane road Water’s Edge Blvd. to Pioneer Trail 1.5 miles
Page 2 - 34 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Coraci Blvd. New 2-lane road Town West Blvd. to ¼ mile north 0.25 mile Dunlawton Ave. Fill in sidewalk gaps Nova Road to Spruce Creek Road 0.75 mile Dunlawton Ave. Mast Arm signal installation All Dunlawton Avenue signals Herbert Street Sidewalk Clyde Morris Blvd. to Carya Circle 0.80 mile I-95/SR 421 Interchange improvement Intersection and additional lanes McGinnis Ave. New 2-lane road Williamson Blvd. to ¼ mile north 0.25 mile Madeline Ave. New 2-lane/4-lane road Grove View Lane to Williamson Blvd. 0.85 mile Nova Road Sidewalk/bike lanes N City limits to US 1 4 miles Nova Road Widen to 4 and 5 lanes N. City limits to US 1 4 miles Spruce Creek Rd. sidewalk Sidewalk construction Dunlawton Ave. to south of 1.1 miles Commonwealth Blvd. Spruce Creek Rd./ Eastport Parkway Install traffic signal Intersection improvement Spruce Creek Rd./ Commonwealth Install traffic signal Intersection improvement Blvd. Summer Trees Rd. Road extension Taylor Rd. to Williamson Blvd. 0.25 mile Taylor Road Sidewalks/bikepath Williamson Blvd. to Crane Lakes Blvd. 1.0 mile Taylor Road Widen to 4 lanes Williamson Blvd. to Summer Trees Rd. 0.25 mile Town West Blvd. New 2-lane divided road Williamson Blvd. to Tomoka Farms Rd. 2 miles Village Trail/ Intersection improvement Added turn lane Nova Road Water’s Edge Blvd. New 2-lane collector Airport Rd. to Airport Rd. .5 miles Williamson Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes w/ sidewalks Summer Trees Road to Airport Road 2.25 mile Note: All widened roadways included sidewalks * Collector Road “D” consists of Tributory Ln., Stonybrook Ln., Creekwater Blvd., and Stoneheath Ln.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
Air Quality For purposes of transportation planning, regional air quality assessment involves measuring level of ozone and particulate matter. Motor vehicles emit hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that contribute to ground-level ozone, which is the country’s most significant urban air quality problem9. Air quality is monitored by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which maintains a monitoring station located on Spruce Creek Road (Station AIRS-#127-2001).
Higher quality fuels and improvements in engine technology can help to reduce these pollutants, but changes in travel patterns and mode choices can have a more immediate impact. Providing alternative modes and reducing the time that vehicles idle due to congestion or inefficient signal coordination will decrease pollution levels.
COASTAL EVACUATION ANALYSIS
The ability of the City's transportation network to handle the increased regional traffic load during a hurricane evacuation now and in the future is described in the Coastal Zone Management Element of this Plan. The hurricane evacuation map is shown in Figure 2-9.
9 Florida Department of Environmental Protection website, 2009
Page 2 - 35 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Page 2 - 36 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
ANALAYIS OF FUTURE CONDITIONS
SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM ROADWAY NETWORK PROJECTIONS
Future street traffic was projected in order to determine the transportation improvements that will be required to meet the City's adopted level-of-service E for City and County arterials and collectors and level-of-service D for Federal and State principal arterials, including hurricane evacuation routes.
The Florida Administrative Code [Rules 9J-5.019(3)(g) and (4)(b)3] requires any community located within the jurisdiction of a Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) to consider the TPO's long-range transportation plan in the Transportation Element of the community's Comprehensive Plan. The outputs from the Volusia County TPO's Central Florida Regional Planning Model (latest version, 2025) have been used to project future needs on the area arterial and collector network. In 2009, the TPO began the process of updating this model for the year 2035. The 2025 TPO Long-Range Transportation Plan improvements to be made in the Port Orange area are listed in Table 14 below. These improvements are factored into the short- and long-term projections. It should be noted that the TPO model only projects volume for roads maintained by the County and/or State and on the Federal aid eligible system. That is, the TPO traffic model does not include many of the City-designated collector roads maintained solely by the City of Port Orange. For this reason, an alternative projection methodology was employed for certain roadways, which is described below.
TABLE 14 VOLUSIA COUNTY TPO LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS IN PORT ORANGE
FACILITY LOCATION(S) DISTANCE COST* Phase 1 2006-2010 Madeline Ave. Extension from McDonald Rd. to Ridgewood 0.5 miles $3,760,000 Ave. **** Williamson Blvd. Extension from Airport Road to Pioneer Trail 3.0 miles $13,660,020 Spruce Creek Road** Dunlawton Ave. to Commonwealth Ave. 1.5 miles $339,595 Phase 2 2011-2025 I-95 6-laning from I-4 to Brevard County line 25 miles $100,210,000 I-95 Pioneer Trail Interchange $20,000,000 Traffic Operations*** XU Traffic Operations/ITS/Safety $25,790,440 Transit Projects *** XU Transit Projects $19,342,830 Bicycle /Pedestrian Projects*** XU Bicycle/Pedestrian Projects $19,342,830 * Cost listed in the Long Range Transportation Plan ** Project mostly completed ***County-wide. Only a small portion of county-wide projects will apply to Port Orange **** Does not include a bridge over the FEC Railway.
Short-Term Projection Methodology Short-term traffic projections have been provided to justify the expenditures of the programmed roadway improvements, as well as to identify any other roadway improvements needed to maintain the adopted LOS between now and the year 2015. Recent traffic studies
Page 2 - 37 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
provided to the City as part of review for land use plan amendments10, along with adjusted historic growth rates, were used as the basis of determining short-term traffic projections. Those factors, combined with assumptions about development of specific properties by 2015, provide a segment-by-segment analysis in the short-term planning period.
The short-term projections include the additional capacity provided by the currently programmed roadway improvements. They also factor in a number of development projects in the western part of the City that were approved but not built as of 2009. The traffic projections are only meant to provide a rough measure of short-term future operating conditions and LOS. The projections assume that the development of properties will occur at a constant rate, that select development projects will be complete and generating traffic on the network by the prescribed year, and that all roads will be affected in the exact same way.
Given the uncertain economic conditions of 2009, the projection results are likely to differ somewhat from actual volumes in 2015. Nonetheless, the projections provide a very conservative assessment of future conditions, meaning that traffic may be over-projected based on the development schedule. However, using the more conservative or highest development potential will alert the City to where future capacity concerns are likely to occur by the end of the short-term planning period. The results of these projections are presented in tabular form, along with roadway volume/capacity ratios, in Table 15. The results of the short-term and long-term projections are described below.
TABLE 15 2015 (SHORT-TERM) PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE ON THE PROGRAMMED ROADWAY NETWORK
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
I-95 N. City Limits SR 421 6,485 D 5,500 C 118% SR 421 Pioneer Trail 4,086 C 5,500 C 74% Airport Road Williamson Cypress Creek 1,200 B 3,204 E 37% Blvd. Pkwy. Cypress S. City Limits 616 B 1,656 E 37% Creek Pkwy. Canal View Blvd. Spruce Creek Nova Road 226 B 1,040 E 21% Rd. Central Park Blvd. Spruce Creek Hensel Road 237 B 1,040 E 23% Rd. Charles Street Ridgewood F.E.C. Railway 237 B 1,040 E 23% Ave. F.E.C. McDonald Rd. 156 B 1,040 E 15% Railway City Center Pkwy. City Center Dunlawton 666 B 1,256 E 53% Cir. Ave.
10 Woodhaven TIA, Ghyabi & Associates, Inc. 2009 & Pioneer Trail/Airport Road Property TIA, KHA, Inc. 2009 and the Summit Golf Academy TIA, Lassiter Transportation Group, 2008
Page 2 - 38 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
City Center Blvd. City Center Clyde Morris 530 B 1,256 E 42% Cir. Blvd. City Center Drive Herbert Street City Center Cir. 239 B 1,040 E 23% Clyde Morris Blvd. N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 2,859 C 3,204 E 89% Madeline Herbert Street 2,664 C 3,204 E 83% Ave. Herbert Street Willow Run 2,893 C 3,204 E 90% Blvd. Willow Run Dunlawton 2,392 B 3,204 E 75% Blvd. Ave. Dunlawton Taylor Road 1,345 C 1,656 E 81% Ave. Commonwealth Ridgewood F.E.C. Railway 419 B 1,256 E 33% Blvd. Ave. F.E.C. Spruce Creek 653 B 1,256 E 52% Railway Rd. Coraci Blvd. Madeline Town West 190 B 1,656 E 11% Ave. Blvd. Town West Carmody Lakes 70 B 1,656 E 4% Blvd. Blvd. Country Lane Village Trail Taylor Road 562 B 1,256 E 45% Dunlawton Ave. Peninsula Dr. Ridgewood 3,005 B 6,040 D 50% Ave. Ridgewood Spruce Creek 2,648 B 3,560 D 74% Ave. Rd. Spruce Creek Nova Road 2,852 C 3,560 D 80% Rd. Nova Road Clyde Morris 3,557 B 5,360 D 63% Blvd. Clyde Morris Taylor Road 5,054 C 5,360 D 94% Blvd. Halifax/Riverside Dunlawton Main Street 109 B 1,040 E 10% Dr. Ave. Hensel Road Taylor Road Central Park 688 B 1,440 E 48% Blvd. Herbert Street Ridgewood McDonald 594 B 1,040 E 57% Ave. Rd./6th St. McDonald Nova Road 705 B 1,040 E 68% Rd./6th St. Nova Road City Center Dr. 888 B 1,040 E 85% City Center Clyde Morris 697 B 1,040 E 67% Dr. Blvd. Jackson Street Spruce Creek Dunlawton 256 B 1,040 E 25% Rd. Ave. Dunlawton Canal View 136 B 1,040 E 13% Ave. Blvd. Canal View Herbert Street 252 B 1,040 E 24% Blvd. Herbert Street Madeline Ave. 199 B 1,040 E 19%
Page 2 - 39 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
McDonald Rd./6th Madeline Herbert Street 284 B 1,040 E 27% St. Ave. McGinnis Blvd. Madeline Williamson 109 B 1,656 E 17% Ave. Blvd. Madeline Ave. McDonald Nova Road 495 B 1,656 E 33% Rd. Nova Road Clyde Morris 912 B 1,656 E 55% Blvd. Clyde Morris Long Grove Dr. 1,010 B 3,204 E 31% Blvd. Long Grove Town Park Dr. 1,010 C 1,656 E 61% Dr. Town Park Williamson 1,010 B 3,204 E 31% Dr. Blvd. Martin Road Williamson Williamson 179 B 1,656 E 11% Blvd. N. Blvd. S. Nova Road N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 2,648 B 4,460 D 59% Madeline Herbert Street 2,648 B 5,360 D 49% Ave. Herbert Street Dunlawton 2,648 B 3,560 D 74% Ave. Dunlawton Spruce Creek 2,495 B 3,560 D 70% Ave. Rd. Spruce Creek Ridgewood 1,721 B 3,560 D 48% Rd. Ave. Oak Street Ridgewood Spruce Creek 419 B 1,040 E 40% Ave. Rd. Spruce Creek Dunlawton 119 B 1,040 E 11% Rd. Ave. Pioneer Trail Turnbull Bay Williamson 686 B 1,656 E 41% Rd. Blvd. Williamson Airport Road 564 B 1,656 E 34% Blvd. Reed Canal Road Nova Road Clyde Morris 837 B 1,440 E 58% Blvd. Ridgewood Ave. N. City Limits Dunlawton 3,157 C 3,560 D 89% Ave. Dunlawton Commonwealth 2,291 B 3,560 D 64% Ave. Blvd. Commonweal Nova Road 1,731 B 3,560 D 48% th Blvd. Nova Road S. City Limits 2,241 B 3,560 D 63% Spruce Creek Rd. Canal View Dunlawton 513 B 1,440 E 36% Blvd. Ave. Dunlawton Commonwealth 837 B 1,440 E 58% Ave. Blvd. Commonweal Nova Road 1,240 C 1,440 E 82% th Blvd. Nova Road Taylor Road 2,051 B 3,204 E 64%
Page 2 - 40 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
Taylor Road Central Park 1,336 C 1,656 E 86% Blvd. Summer Trees Rd. Williamson Taylor Road 557 B 1,656 E 34% Blvd. Taylor Road Spruce Creek Devon Street 1,322 B 3,204 E 41% Rd. Devon Street Hensel Road 1,543 B 3,204 E 48% Hensel Road Clyde Morris 2,137 B 3,204 E 67% Blvd. Clyde Morris Yorktowne 1,537 F 1,440 E 107% Blvd. Blvd. Yorktowne Dunlawton 1,059 C 1,440 E 1173% Blvd. Ave. Dunlawton I-95 3,928 E E 97% Ave. *4,050 I-95 Williamson 3,928 E E 97% Blvd. *4,050 Williamson Summer Trees 2,479 B 3,204 E 77% Blvd. Blvd. Summer W. City Limits 1,961 D E 76% Trees Blvd. **2,570 Town West Blvd. Williamson Tomoka Farms 812 B 1,739 E 47% Blvd. Rd. Victoria Gardens Dunlawton Clyde Morris 366 B 1,256 E 29% Blvd. Ave. Blvd. Village Trail Nova Road Country Lane 712 B 1,256 E 57% Country Lane Dunlawton 416 B 1,256 E 33% Ave. Willow Run Blvd. Clyde Morris Tracy Drive 1,106 B 2,314 E 48% Blvd. Tracy Drive Yorktowne 716 B 1,440 E 50% Blvd. Yorktowne Williamson 1,340 B 3,043 E 44% Blvd. Blvd. Williamson Blvd. N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 2,099 E E 99% **2,130 Madeline Willow Run 1,838 D E 90% Ave. Blvd. **2,050 Willow Run Town West 1,731 E E 98% Blvd. Blvd. **1,760 Town West Summer Trees 1,431 B E 76% Blvd. Rd. **1,890 Summer Taylor Road 1,431 B 3,204 E 45% Trees Rd. Taylor Road Airport Road 1,933 B 3,204 E 60% Airport Road Pioneer Trail 2001 B 3,204 E 62%
11 Due to construction of the Yorktowne Blvd. extension from Dulawton Ave. to Taylor Rd., volume on this segment is reduced from 2008-09 count of 1,280.
Page 2 - 41 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
Yorktowne Blvd. Willow Run Hidden Lakes 1,226 B 3,204 E 38% Blvd. Dr. Hidden Lakes Dunlawton 1,383 D 1,440 E 96% Dr. Ave. Dunlawton Taylor Road 871 B 3,204 E 27% Ave. Notes: 1. The projections include segment-by-segment analysis for planning purposes. Intersection turning movements are not included. 2. Includes programmed network capacities. Capacity volumes based on 2009 Quality Level of Service Handbook and ARTPLAN OR HIGHPLAN for select roadway types. ** ARTPLAN Analysis from Willow Run Commercial TIA and HIGH PLAN 2007, Volusia County Sources: City of Port Orange, Department of Community Development, 2008-2009; Woodhaven Land Use Amendment TIA, 2009 for 2013 +2% growth rate; SEVRTS, 2008
Short-Term Projection Results The models utilized in the traffic projections make assumptions about traffic growth based on past trends and projected land use development rates. The roads most likely to experience traffic increases are those adjacent to new development and those major and minor arterials used equally by everyone. This may be especially true in areas with large tracts of vacant land and those with developments that have been approved but not yet built. In other cases, developed areas of the city have experienced little to no traffic volume growth and some have shown a decreasing trend. The projections are intended to be conservative by using theoretical maximum development densities and intensities. The results err on the side of projecting more traffic than might actually occur, given historic development trends showing that actual development is not approaching the maximum allowed. The methodology and assumptions produce results that are likely to be different from actual future conditions. They show that, even if such increases were to occur, all but three roads would be able to meet the City's LOS standards for 2015. The road segments shown to be approaching their designed capacity should be examined more closely for other ways to accommodate projected demand besides road widening, such as through TDM/TSM programs, enhanced transit service, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The short-term projections indicate that there will be two roadway segments that could potentially exceed the City’s LOS standards in 2015 unless additional improvements are made. These include: • I-95, from the north City limits to Dunlawton Avenue (SR 421) • Taylor Road, from Clyde Morris Blvd. to Yorktowne Blvd.
Projected volumes on these three roadways are only slightly higher than the maximum volumes at the adopted level of service, and as such, may not be part of the city’s immediate strategy for roadway transportation improvements, but may instead be the focus of TDM/TSM improvement strategies. Improvements needed during the short-term planning period to maintain the City’s LOS standard for the three roadways above are listed in Table 17.
Page 2 - 42 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Long-Term Projection Methodology Future p.m. peak-hour traffic for all roads in the City was projected using information from several long-range traffic studies provided to the City in 2009 as part of a review of land use plan amendments12. The projections include a segment-by-segment analysis for planning purposes, to which were applied historic growth rates, along with assumptions about rates of development of adjacent properties.
The long-term projections include the additional capacity provided by the roadway improvements programmed for 2010-2015. They also factor in a number of development projects in the western part of the City that were approved but not built as of 2009. The long- term traffic projections are only meant to provide a rough measure of long-term future operating conditions and LOS. The projections assume that the development of properties will occur at a constant rate, that select development projects will be complete and generating traffic on the network by the prescribed year, and that all roads will be affected in the exact same way. Given the uncertain economic conditions of 2009, the projections results are likely to differ from actual volumes in 2025. Regardless, the assumptions produce a very conservative assessment of future conditions, meaning that traffic could possibly be over-projected based on the development schedule. Using the more conservative or highest development potential will alert the City to where future capacity concerns are likely to occur.
The long-range projection results are presented in tabular form, along with roadway volume/capacity ratios, in Table 16. The roadway network to which the long-term projections have been applied includes all currently programmed roadway improvements that will be in various stages of planning, design, and construction between 2010 and 2015. The programmed roadway improvements are further described in Table 20 in the "Implementation Strategies" section of this Element and are illustrated on Figure 2-4. The projected 2025 LOS on the 2010 programmed roadway network is shown graphically on Figure 2-10.
12Woodhaven TIA, Ghyabi & Associates, Inc. ‘09; Pioneer Tr./Airport Rd. Property TIA, KHA, Inc. ‘09
Page 2 - 43
TABLE 16 2025 (LONG-TERM) PROJECTED LEVELS OF SERVICE ON THE PROGRAMMED ROADWAY NETWORK
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
I-95 N. City Limits SR 421 7,457 F 5,500 C 136% SR 421 Pioneer Trail 5,679 D 5,500 C 103% Airport Road Williamson Blvd. Cypress Creek Pkwy. 1,510 B 3,204 E 47% Cypress Creek Pkwy. S. City Limits 967 B 1,656 E 58% Canal View Blvd. Spruce Creek Rd. Nova Road 250 B 1,040 E 24% Central Park Blvd. Spruce Creek Rd. Hensel Road 262 B 1,040 E 25% Charles Street Ridgewood Ave. F.E.C. Railway 172 B 1,040 E 17% F.E.C. Railway McDonald Rd. 262 B 1,040 E 25% City Center Pkwy. City Center Cir. Dunlawton Ave. 735 B 1,256 E 59% City Center Blvd. City Center Cir. Clyde Morris Blvd. 618 B 1,256 E 49% City Center Drive Herbert Street City Center Cir. 264 B 1,040 E 25% Clyde Morris Blvd. N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 3,174 D 3,204 E 99% Madeline Ave. Herbert Street 2,857 C 3,204 E 89% Herbert Street Willow Run Blvd. 3,289 F 3,204 E 102% Willow Run Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. 2,458 B 3,204 E 77% Dunlawton Ave. Taylor Road 1,548 D 1,656 E 93% Commonwealth Blvd. Ridgewood Ave. F.E.C. Railway 463 B 1,256 E 55% F.E.C. Railway Spruce Creek Rd. 721 B 1,256 E 37% Coraci Blvd. Madeline Town West Blvd. 484 B 1,656 E 29% Town West Blvd. Taylor Road 845 B 1,656 E 51% Country Lane Village Trail Taylor Road 621 B 1,256 E 49% Dunlawton Ave. Peninsula Dr. Ridgewood Ave. 3,319 C 6,040 D 55% Ridgewood Ave. Spruce Creek Rd. 2,925 C 3,560 D 82% Spruce Creek Rd. Nova Road 3,150 C 3,560 D 88% Nova Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 4,168 D 5,360 D 78% Clyde Morris Blvd. Taylor Road 5,361 F 5,360 D 100% Halifax/Riverside Dr. Dunlawton Ave. Main Street 115 B 1,040 E 11% Hensel Road Taylor Road Central Park Blvd. 760 C 1,440 E 53% Herbert Street Ridgewood Ave. Spruce Creek Rd/6th St. 601 B 1,040 E 58% Spruce Creek Rd/6th St. Nova Road 780 C 1,040 E 75% Nova Road City Center Dr. 925 C 1,040 E 89%
Page 2 - 44
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
City Center Dr. Clyde Morris Blvd. 705 C 1,040 E 67% Jackson Street Spruce Creek Rd. Dunlawton Ave. 282 B 1,040 E 27% Dunlawton Ave. Canal View Blvd. 150 B 1,040 E 14% Canal View Blvd. Herbert Street 279 B 1,040 E 29% Herbert Street Madeline Ave. 219 B 1,040 E 27% McDonald Rd./6th St. Madeline Ave. Herbert Street 314 B 1,040 E 30% McGinnis Blvd. Madeline Ave. Williamson Blvd. 1,821 B 3,204 E 57% Madeline Ave. Ridgewood Ave. McDonald Rd. 1,197 C 1,656 E 72% McDonald Rd. Nova Road 1,197 C 1,656 E 72% Nova Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 1,344 C 1,656 E 81% Clyde Morris Blvd. Long Grove Dr. 1,397 B 3,204 E 44% Long Grove Dr. Town Park Dr. 1,397 C 1,656 E 84% Town Park Dr. Williamson Blvd. 1,397 B 3,204 E 44% Williamson Blvd. Tomoka Farms Rd. 1,069 C 1,656 E 64% Martin Road Williamson Blvd. N. Williamson Blvd. S. 229 B 1,656 E 14% Nova Road N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 2,925 B 4,460 D 66% Madeline Ave. Herbert Street 2,925 B 5,360 D 55% Herbert Street Dunlawton Ave. 2,925 C 3,560 D 82% Dunlawton Ave. Spruce Creek Rd. 2,756 B 3,560 D 77% Spruce Creek Rd. Ridgewood Ave. 1,901 B 3,560 D 54% Oak Street Ridgewood Ave. Spruce Creek Rd. 463 B 1,040 E 45% Spruce Creek Rd. Dunlawton Ave. 131 B 1,040 E 13% Pioneer Trail Turnbull Bay Rd. Williamson Blvd. 1,007 B 1,656 E 61% Williamson Blvd. Airport Road 828 B 1,656 E 50% Reed Canal Road Nova Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 1,022 C 1,440 E 71% Ridgewood Ave. N. City Limits Dunlawton Ave. 3,488 D 3,560 D 98% Dunlawton Ave. Commonwealth Blvd. 2,531 B 3,560 D 71% Commonwealth Blvd. Nova Road 1,913 B 3,560 D 53% Nova Road S. City Limits 2,475 B 3,560 D 70% Spruce Creek Rd. Herbert Street Dunlawton Ave. 539 B 1,440 E 37% Dunlawton Ave. Commonwealth Blvd. 924 B 1,440 E 64% Commonwealth Blvd. Nova Road 1,369 D 1,440 E 95%
Page 2 - 45
ROADWAY SEGMENT FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE ADOPTED VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME LOS CAPACITY LOS CAPACITY RATIO
Nova Road Taylor Road 2,266 B 3,204 E 71% Taylor Road Central Park Blvd. 1,476 D 1,656 E 89% Summer Trees Rd. Williamson Blvd. Taylor Road 908 B 1,656 E 55% Taylor Road Spruce Creek Rd. Devon Street 1,460 B 3,204 E 46% Devon Street Hensel Road 1,718 B 3,204 E 54% Hensel Road Clyde Morris Blvd. 2,616 B 3,204 E 81% Clyde Morris Blvd. Yorktowne Blvd. 1,830 F 1,440 E 127% Yorktowne Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. 1,279 C 1,440 E 89% Dunlawton Ave. I-95 5,957 F *4,880 E 122% I-95 Williamson Blvd. 4,454 F *4,050 E 110% Williamson Blvd. Summer Trees Blvd. 2,521 C 3,204 E 79% Summer Trees Blvd. W. City Limits 2,020 D **2,570 E 79% Town West Blvd. Williamson Blvd. Tomoka Farms Rd. 1,548 C 1,739 E 89% Victoria Gardens Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. Clyde Morris Blvd. 404 B 1,256 E 32% Village Trail Nova Road Country Lane 735 C 1,256 E 59% Country Lane Dunlawton Ave. 437 B 1,256 E 35% Willow Run Blvd. Clyde Morris Blvd. Tracy Drive 1,177 B 2,314 E 51% Tracy Drive Yorktowne Blvd. 751 B 1,440 E 52% Yorktowne Blvd. Williamson Blvd. 1,412 B 3,043 E 46% Williamson Blvd. Madeline Ave. 294 B 1,656 E 18% Williamson Blvd. N. City Limits Madeline Ave. 3,191 F **2,130 E 150% Madeline Ave. Willow Run Blvd. 3,060 F **2,050 E 149% Willow Run Blvd. Town West Blvd. 2,373 F **1,760 E 135% Town West Blvd. Summer Trees Rd. 2,768 B 3,204 E 86% Summer Trees Rd. Taylor Road 2,768 B 3,204 E 86% Taylor Road Airport Road 3,871 F 3,204 E/D 121% Airport Road Pioneer Trail 2,287 B 3,204 E 71% Yorktowne Blvd. Willow Run Blvd. Hidden Lakes Dr. 1,494 B 3,204 E 47% Hidden Lakes Dr. Dunlawton Ave. 1,686 F 1,440 E 117% Dunlawton Ave. Taylor Road 1,062 C 3,204 E 33%
Notes: 1. The projections include segment-by-segment analysis for planning purposes. Intersection turning movements are not included. 2. Includes 2015 programmed network capacities. Capacity volumes based on 2009 Quality Level of Service Handbook and ARTPLAN OR HIGHPLAN for select roadway types.
Page 2 - 46
Sources: City of Port Orange, Department of Community Development, 2009; Southeast Volusia Transportation Study, 2008; Woodhaven Land Use Amendment, 2009; SR 421/I- 95 Interchange Analysis, KHA, 2008; Yorktowne By-Pass Phase1 Concept Feasibility Assessment, GMB, 2008; FDOT Quality Level of Service Handbook (2009), and **HIGHPLAN 2007, Volusia County.
Page 2 - 47 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Long-Term Projection Results As with the short-term projections, the long-term traffic projections were estimated based on a combination of historic growth rates and projected land use development rates. The projections are intended to be conservative by using theoretical maximum development densities and intensities. The results err on the side of projecting more traffic than might actually occur, given historic development trends showing that actual development is not approaching the maximum allowed. Using the more conservative or highest development potential will alert the City to where future capacity concerns are likely to occur. The roads most likely to experience traffic increases are those adjacent to new development and those major and minor arterials used equally by everyone. Similar to the short-term projections, the analysis shows that the roadways projected to operate near the desired capacity are the ones most traveled (see Table 16). Those roadways with projected long-term (2025) volume projections in excess of the generalized service volumes are summarized below:
• I-95, from the north City limits to Dunlawton Ave. (SR 421) • I-95, from SR 421 to Pioneer Trail (LOS standard is C; will operate at LOS D) • Clyde Morris Blvd., from Herbert Street to Willow Run Blvd. • Dunlawton Ave. (SR421), from Clyde Morris Blvd. to Taylor Branch Rd. • Taylor Road, from Clyde Morris Blvd. to Yorktowne Blvd. • Taylor Road, from Dunlawton Ave./Taylor Branch Rd. to I-95 • Taylor Road, from I-95 to Williamson Blvd. • Williamson Blvd., from North City Limits to Town West Blvd. • Williamson Blvd., from Taylor Rd. to Airport Rd. • Yorktowne Blvd., from Dunlawton Ave. to Hidden Lakes Dr.
It is important to note that the projected volumes on these roadways in some cases are only slightly higher than the maximum volumes at the adopted level of service. Recognizing that the generalized service volumes are conservatively low and that often the true capacity of a roadway is ten to fifteen percent greater, the need to widen roadways that are marginally over capacity may be undesirable. Additionally, this analysis is based on the highest-volume hour of the day. However, the reality is that for the other 23 hours, these roadways on average are likely to operate well under capacity. This is critical, as motorists will learn to travel during off-peak times to avoid travel delays. In fact, the implementation of flexible work hours at offices that allow employees to avoid traveling during peak hours is a TDM tool that is becoming more common. Thus, for some of these roadways, the City’s solution is one that focuses on the implementation of TDM/TSM strategies to better utilize the existing capacity rather than the expensive venture of roadway widening. The proposed transportation solutions to those roadway sections listed above are discussed in more detail below.
I-95 is part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) and Strategic Intermodal System (SIS). According to the projection methodology used above, the north Port Orange segment of I-95 is likely to exceed its adopted LOS of C by 2025. The south segment could potentially exceed its adopted standard by 2025 as well. This situation could be addressed by the addition of one lane in each direction, at which point the highway would operate at 90%
Page 2 - 48 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
capacity north of SR 421 and at 68% capacity to the south. FDOT has prepared design plans to widen these segments, but construction is not slated until after 2030.
Clyde Morris Boulevard is currently a five-lane facility (including a two-way continuous center turn lane). It is one of the four north-south principal arterials extending the entire length of the greater Daytona Beach area, from Port Orange to Ormond Beach. Only a short ¼-mile segment of this street has the potential to exceed its capacity by 2025. This segment would operate at 102% of capacity, only slightly higher than the maximum volume at the adopted level of service. However, when the operating conditions of this segment are considered in the full context of the entire section from Dunlawton Avenue to the north City limits, the average volume-to-capacity ratio is approximately 92%. Therefore, rather than widen this ¼-mile section, the segment may benefit from TDM/TSM strategies to increase mobility.
Dunlawton Avenue today functions as the modern "Main Street" of Port Orange. It is between four and six lanes wide along its entire length. The traffic volume projection shows the six-lane segment between Clyde Morris Boulevard and Taylor Branch Road could operate below the adopted LOS by 2025, at 100.02% capacity (i.e. 1 trip). Because Dunlawton Avenue is an official Hurricane Evacuation Route, its capacity and level of service must be monitored closely. It is important to note that a roadway such as Dunlawton Avenue typically exhibits a true capacity that is ten to fifteen percent greater than the generalized service volume. Thus, given that this roadway section is projected to operate near the adopted level of service, increasing its operational efficiency through TDM/TSM strategies may provide a more cost-feasible alternative.
Taylor Road serves as an important east-west arterial through the city. The existing two- lane segment between Clyde Morris Boulevard and Dunlawton Avenue may need to be widened based on projected growth in background traffic. Once Yorktowne Boulevard is extended from Dunlawton Avenue to Taylor Road, the segment between Yorktowne Boulevard and Dunlawton Avenue/Taylor Branch should operate within an acceptable LOS due to changes in traffic patterns. However, the ¼-mile-long segment east of the extension could still operate below the adopted LOS at 127% of capacity unless it is widened to four lanes.
Taylor Road, from Taylor Branch Road to I-95, is projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard by 22% in 2025. From I-95 to Williamson Boulevard, it could exceed the adopted standard by ten percent. These two segments function as part of the Dunlawton Avenue corridor, albeit under a different name. Again, the conservative nature of the service volumes means that the true capacity of a roadway such as Taylor Road is typically ten to fifteen percent greater than the generalized service volume. Considering this, the segment west of I-95 may actually operate within the adopted level of service. Additional capacity may be needed on the segment east of I-95. Given their importance in connecting the east and west sides of the City, opportunities for increasing the capacity of these segments should be explored.
Page 2 - 49 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Williamson Boulevard is a four-lane divided facility from Summer Trees Road to Airport Road. To the north and south of this segment, it has two lanes with controlled access. It is one of four north-south principal arterials running the entire length of the greater Daytona Beach area, from Port Orange to Ormond Beach, and will eventually extend to Edgewater. For many Port Orange residents, it functions as an alternate route to I-95. As such, it is important that its capacity to carry both local and regional traffic be maintained. The segment between Taylor Road and Airport Road could operate below the adopted LOS by 2025 at 121% of capacity. This segment of the roadway is constrained, so additional widening will not occur. It is anticipated that development within the community-level and sub-regional commercial nodes along this corridor will reduce trip lengths and VMTs. This segment may also benefit from TDM/TSM strategies to increase mobility. The segment from Town West Boulevard to the north city limits would need to be widened before 2025 to maintain the adopted LOS. This segment of Williamson Boulevard is projected to operate at between 135% and 150% of its two-lane capacity. It is expected that the road will be widened incrementally in conjunction with development of the adjacent properties, and that the widening will be funded or constructed by those developments.
The two-lane segment of Yorktowne Boulevard from Dunlawton Avenue to Hidden Lakes Drive is projected to operate below the adopted LOS by 2025 at 117% of capacity. Four-lane extensions of Yorktowne Boulevard are programmed to the north and south of this segment, with the intention of creating a bypass around the I-95 interchange. Once the extensions are in place, the existing two-lane segment would need to be widened to maintain the adopted LOS.
Roadway Improvements Needed The FDOT's 2009 Quality/Level of Service Manual establishes general LOS capacities for roadways that exhibit design characteristics and administrative classifications. However, more specialized LOS analysis tools have been used on selected roadways in order to more accurately identify the roadway capacities. This information can be used to determine the number of lanes needed to achieve the adopted LOS standard for the City's future roadway network, beyond those already programmed. Table 17 lists the improvements needed for each facility. Improvements programmed for 2010-2015 are listed in Table 20 under the "Implementation Strategies" section. The schedule of future long-term transportation capacity improvements planned between 2016 - 2025 is listed in Table 21. This table also includes other mobility improvements not necessarily related to relieving projected congestion, such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and trails. Figures 2-4, 2-6 and 2-8 depict the future 2025 transportation mobility network, including the number of roadway lanes, location of transit facilities, and bicycle/pedestrian facilities.
Based on the long-term projections, the City may need to consider designating additional roadway segments as constrained facilities, since they likely will not be widened beyond what is currently planned or programmed. With the exception of Taylor Road, N. Williamson Boulevard, and Yorktowne Boulevard, any remaining congestion may have to be addressed through alternative mobility and traffic management strategies. For example, in 2025, a reduction of 85 trips on Clyde Morris Boulevard would achieve the adopted LOS
Page 2 - 50 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
standard on the segment from Willow Run Boulevard to Herbert Street. These trips could potentially be accommodated by providing alternatives such as improved transit service, and better bicycle/pedestrian connections in this area.
As part of the mobility strategies applied by the City, establishing constrained corridors is essential to promote alternative modes and to preserve the community character and built environment. Table 4 lists arterial and collector roadways designated as constrained by policy or physical condition. These roadways will not be widened beyond their present width and lane configurations as indicated. TSM improvements such as the addition of turn lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, accessory transit amenities, and exclusive transit lanes are exempt from the constrained corridor restrictions. TDM programs may also be appropriate for users of these roadways. In addition, redevelopment of properties along these corridors may present opportunities for land use changes to promote mixed-use development. Together, these transportation and land use strategies can help to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Page 2 - 51
TABLE 17 NEEDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS (2025)
ROADWAY SEGMENT PROJECTED VOL./CAP IMPROVEMENTS NEW NEW VOL./ FROM TO VOLUME RATIO NEEDED CAPACITY CAP. RATIO ADDITIONAL CAPACITY Transit Transfer Dunlawton Ave. /Nova Area N/A N/A New central bus transfer Station N/A N/A Station City-wide Bus Stops N/A N/A Bus stop enhancements (5) N/A N/A City-wide sidewalks N/A N/A Sidewalk enhancements N/A N/A Clyde Morris Blvd. Herbert St. Willow Run Blvd. 3,289 102% TSM/TDM N/A N/A Dunlawton Ave. Clyde Morris Blvd. Taylor Rd. 5,361 110% TSM/TDM or 8-lane divided N/A or 6,880 N/A or 78% I-95 Beville Road (SR Dunlawton Ave. 7,457 136% 6-lane divided 8,320 90% 400) Dunlawton Ave. Pioneer Trail 5,679 103% 6-lane divided 8,320 68% Taylor Rd. Clyde Morris Blvd. Yorktowne Blvd. 1,830 121% TSM/TDM N/A N/A Taylor Branch Rd. I-95 5,957 122% TSM/TDM or 8-lane divided 6,530 91% I-95 Williamson Blvd. 4,454 110% 7-lane divided 6,260 71% Williamson Blvd. N. City Limits Town West Blvd. 3,191 150% 4-lane divided 3,204 100% Taylor Rd. Airport Rd. 4,283 134% TDM N/A *134% Yorktowne Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. Hidden Lakes Dr. 1,686 122% 4-lane divided 3,204 53% DEVELOPMENT ACCESS & OTHER NEEDS Coraci Blvd. Madeline Ave. Road “D” 484 N/A New 2-lane 1,656 29% Town West Blvd Taylor Rd. 845 N/A New 2-lane 1,656 51% McGinnis Blvd. Madeline Ave. Williamson Blvd. 1,821 N/A New 4-lane divided 3,204 57% Madeline Ave. Ridgewood Ave. McDonald Rd. 1,197 N/A New 2-lane 1,656 72% Williamson Blvd. Tomoka Farms Rd. 1,069 N/A New 2-lane 1,656 64% Martin Rd. Williamson Blvd. N Williamson Blvd. S 229 N/A New 2-lane 1,656 14% Ridgewood Ave. N. City Limits Dunlawton Ave. 3,488 N/A TSM/TDM N/A N/A Herbert St. Dunlawton Ave. 3,488 N/A TSM/intersections N/A N/A Spruce Creek Rd. Canal View Blvd. Herbert St. 316 N/A New 2-lane 1,440 22% Williamson Blvd. Airport Rd. Pioneer Tr. 2,287 N/A New 4-lane divided 3,204 71% Willow Run Blvd. Williamson Blvd. Madeline Ave. ext. 294 N/A New 2-lane 1,656 18% Yorktowne Blvd. Taylor Rd. Dunlawton Ave. 1,062 N/A New 4-lane divided 3,204 33% Hidden Lakes Dr. Willow Run Blvd. 1,494 N/A New 4-lane divided 3,204 47% * Although volume may be higher, VMTs are expected to drop substantially, by approximately 38%, once development of new commercial nodes planned in the area occurs. Note: “Needed” refers to those improvements needed to maintain the City’s LOS standard or to provide access. Note: TSM/TDM improvements are proposed for designated constrained facilities on which capacity improvements are not feasible.
Page 2 - 52 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Future Functional Classification The Future Functional Classification Map for the City's major roads is illustrated in Figure 2-1, and includes the planned and programmed future roadway improvements. A complete list of these improvements is provided in the Implementation section of this Element. The functional classification of arterials and collectors roadways is listed in Table 3. All other roadways are considered local roadways.
THE FUTURE MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM
The City of Port Orange's existing transportation system is primarily focused on roads, including sidewalks and bikeway. The City recognizes that road construction will no longer be the only method for achieving its mobility goals. Public use of the VOTRAN bus system in Port Orange, however, is limited at the present time to five routes with one-hour headways. The City should continue to promote and encourage use of the VOTRAN system through the mechanisms at its disposal, which include land use planning, development review, amenities and operations funding, and intergovernmental coordination. The requirements for creating a successful transit system, and the mechanisms used to address those requirements, are discussed below.
Transit System Requirements The most successful transit systems share four important characteristics: 1) a transit-friendly land development pattern; 2) a dedicated public funding source; 3) an integrated region-wide transportation planning vision; and 4) support/use by the public.
Land Development Pattern The first essential ingredient of a successful transit system is a transit-friendly development pattern. A community's land development pattern and type determine the efficiency of its transit system. Development must be at a certain intensity/density and designed to be "transit-friendly" to generate and promote ridership. The combination of residential density and commercial floor space necessary to support the required ridership thresholds for different mass transit options is shown in Table 18, below.
Page 2 - 53 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
TABLE 18 THRESHOLDS FOR FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT MIN. DOWNTOWN2 TYPE OF SERVICE HEADWAY1 MIN. RES. DENSITY NON-RES.FLOOR SPACE (MINUTES) (UNITS/ACRE) (MILLION SQ. FEET)
Minimum Local Bus 60 4-5 3.5 Intermediate Local Bus 30 17 7 Frequent Local Bus 10 15 17 Express Bus (w/ ped access) 30 15 (avg. 2+ sq. mi.) 50 Express Bus (w/ car access) 20 3 (avg. 20+ sq. mi.) 20 Light Rail 5 9 (avg. 25-100 sq. mi.) 30 Rapid Rail 5 12 (avg. 100-150 sq. mi.) 50 Commuter Rail ~45 1.5 75
Notes: 1. "Headway" is defined as the time between transit vehicle stops. 2. "Downtown" is defined as a contiguous cluster of non-residential use that is larger than the more narrowly defined CBD.
Source: Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures, ITE 1993.
As described in the Housing Element, the average residential density in the urbanized areas of the City is approximately 4+ units per acre. This is the minimum necessary to support a minimum local bus system, in combination with the appropriate intensity of commercial uses. Even though Port Orange itself does not currently have the minimum amount of commercial square footage, it is important to note that it is not an isolated city, but is only one of eight nearly contiguous cities in the Daytona Beach metropolitan area. Together with neighboring cities, it is also within the threshold of supporting a regional express bus or commuter rail system, so long as car access/Park-and-Ride lots are provided.
Dedicated Funding The second critical component of any successful transit system is a dedicated funding source. Fluctuations in the amount of public funding available have created a sense of uncertainty for transit system improvements. For such a system to be operable well into the future, public funding would need to be increased beyond current levels, in conjunction with the appropriate fare rates, and made predictable from year to year. At the present time, the City of Port Orange does not dedicate transportation funds for mass transit, since transit service is provided county-wide by the VOTRAN system. Pursuit of a long-term dedicated funding source for VOTRAN is the primary recommended action of the VOTRAN Transit Development Plan. According to VOTRAN, passenger fare revenues (fare-box recovery) in 2004 funded about 17% of total operating expenses, while local contributions and other non- fare revenues comprised approximately 72%. One of VOTRAN’s goals is to attract discretionary riders. Attracting riders in addition to those that are dependent on the transit system would help to achieve more of a balance between revenues and operating costs.
Integrated Planning Vision Transportation planning takes place at all government levels. The ideas generated at each
Page 2 - 54 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
level take the written form of plans, policies, and special studies. Together, these documents express a shared vision for mobility - the continual movement of people and goods - to ensure the quality of life expected by businesses and residents. The most effective strategy towards maintaining and improving mobility is the development of an efficient and balanced multi-modal transportation system. This vision can be achieved through the coordinated planning efforts of the different jurisdictions and agencies responsible for transportation planning.
Support and Use by the Public The City continues to coordinate with VOTRAN regarding the location of future generators and attractors as development occurs. The instrument through which the City currently facilitates ridership of the VOTRAN system is the Land Development Code. The Code requires new residential developments greater than 200 hundred units or commercial developments over 50,000 square feet to incorporate space for bus stops. This requirement is enforced during the City's site development review process. Transit ridership to and from such developments can be further improved by including elements of "transit-friendly design." Specific design elements are contained in the VOTRAN Transit Development Guidelines, and may include:
Transit stops meeting ADA requirements; Parking lots and intersections designed with minimum corner turning radii for buses; Clearly delineated walkways from the building to the transit stop; Buildings and transit stop placed close to the street; and Transit amenities such as benches, shelters, lighting, shading, and route information.
According to the Transit Development Plan, in order to attract the discretionary rider, the
“transit systems must provide infrastructure and facilities that increase the riders’ ease of utilizing the system as well as their level of comfort. These amenities include shelters and benches, user-friendly route and schedule information, and community outreach/education programs.”
In addition, improving the frequency of transit service would also offer opportunities to increase ridership of discretionary users. Bike racks have been installed on buses, which has expanded opportunities to capture longer-distance commuters.
Future Public Transit LOS Analysis tools or performance measures include the average passengers carried per mile or average boardings per mile, passenger trips, revenue miles, hours of service, passenger miles, frequency of service and others. The capacity of a bus can be measured against the number of passengers per bus per route vs. the carrying capacity of the bus, known as the loading factor. This data is included in VOTRAN’s Transit Development Plan and more recently in the VOTRAN East Side Transit Study Final Report.
For LOS projection purposes, VOTRAN uses the 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook
Page 2 - 55 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
tables, which establish a LOS “E” based on one-hour headways in the peak hour/peak direction. VOTRAN does not propose new routes or shorter headways, due to lack of funding. For this reason, VOTRAN intends to maintain its current LOS standard of “E” into the future.
Future VOTRAN Demand The demand for public transit services is described in the Transit Development Plan and is based on socio-economic conditions identified for the census tract block groups discussed in the analysis section above. Transit demand is highest in the three secondary transit- dependent block groups previously noted. Between 2005 and 2007, ridership on the five routes serving the city increased by 1.6%. Applying this same growth rate into the future yields a projected 2025 annual demand of 504,729 trips, or 1,383 transit trips per day.
VOTRAN System Needs VOTRAN has expanded its local service and visibility since 1998. According to the VOTRAN East Side Transit Study report, VOTRAN will be able to meet its service obligations into the future, and will look for opportunities to improve the quality of service to attract new riders. In conjunction with the TDP, the East Side Study recommends several route/service improvements affecting Port Orange, which are listed below. Other system needs are described in the TDP. Increasing frequency of service on route 4 and route 17 from one hour to ½ hour headways (highest priority); Implementing night service and Sunday service on routes 7 and 12 (medium priority); Extending service on Route 12 to the Pavilion at Port Orange shopping center; and Increasing trolley service to year round and increasing the trolley service span on route 17B (medium priority).
In addition to transit vehicles, shelters and stops are also part of the VOTRAN system. As of 2009, VOTRAN had no shelters within the City. As part of its future growth plan, it will construct 74 shelters between 2007 and 2016. Seventeen shelters were installed in 2007, and five additional shelters will be installed each year after, as described in recommendation #16 of the TDP. In addition, VOTRAN plans to construct a new "super stop" at or near the intersection of Dunlawton Avenue and Nova Road in the year 2010. VOTRAN defines a “super stop” as "... a transfer point that can accommodate up to four buses at a time and includes, at a minimum, large passenger shelters, adequate lighting, route and fare information, seating, and landscaping."13
In addition to the proposed “super stop” and route changes noted above, VOTRAN’s future improvement efforts in Port Orange will be focused on serving the TD population. The TD population is expected to grow moderately over the next 20 years as the older cohort of the Baby Boom generation ages. Any future expansion of the present system would serve those
13 In contrast, a “primary stop” is one with 50 or more boardings per day and that has a sufficient passenger activity to warrant a higher level of improvements than is typical with local and secondary bus stops.
Page 2 - 56 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
that may increasingly need to use public transportation and would if service was available or more frequent. Service expansion, in conjunction with improvements to other modes and land-use changes (including more compact mixed-use areas), will help older persons who do not drive themselves maintain independence and remain in their community.
Rail Transportation Like the interstate highways, alternative forms of transportation such as express bus service, commuter rail, and light rail facilities have proven successful at moving large groups of people along a small number of heavily traveled routes. But just like Volusia's county-wide bus system, these facilities represent large-scale solutions to regional transportation problems, and are usually not undertaken by cities the size of Port Orange. This is not to say, however, that the City's population would not benefit from these additional facilities, especially in the context of a region-wide integrated system.
It is known that a large portion of the region's population commutes via I-4 to the Orlando area.14 Having designated HOV lanes or a high-speed commuter rail running parallel to I-4 would greatly add to the capacity of that transportation corridor. VOTRAN presently operates a commuter bus system to the Orlando area. With Park-and-Ride lots added near the intersection of I-95 and I-4, people commuting from the Daytona Beach area would be able to park their cars, and either board a train, a bus, or form a carpool to and from work. This would serve to not only increase the capacity of this transportation corridor, but would also reduce pollution and rush hour-associated stress.
The existing AMTRAK service on the CSX line through western Volusia County is the only passenger rail service available locally. In 2009, FDOT, the Central Florida MPO Alliance, and the Volusia TPO promoted the development of commuter rail (Sun Rail) along the CSX corridor from DeLand, through Orlando, to Poinciana in Osceola County. This service, if implemented, would provide an alternative to I-4 and other roadways to the Orlando area. While the proposed line would not directly serve Port Orange, it would provide Port Orange residents who commute to the Orlando area an alternative to driving.
Additionally, the FDOT I-4 Investment Study recommends that any improvements made to I-4 include the preparation of an "envelope" along the right-of-way to accommodate rail lines from the Orlando urban area. This envelope would provide a “transit-ready” corridor should the need arise for rail service in lieu of further road widening.
FDOT has also conducted feasibility studies for the construction and operation of AMTRAK service on the FEC Railway between Jacksonville and Miami. Funding at both the federal and state level has not materialized to initiate this service. If passenger service was provided along the FEC route, then a single centralized regional station would be able to serve the needs of rail passengers in the area, including those from Port Orange. Such a station is included in the TPO’s Transportation Improvements Program. The City of Daytona Beach has proposed to construct the station once service is established.
14 VOTRAN TDP, Pg. 1-36
Page 2 - 57 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
The FEC line could also be utilized to serve businesses within the Eastport industrial area. There is one property in Eastport that has a rail siding as of 2009, but the siding is not in active use. Provision of an additional rail siding is proposed as a potential project for a second property in Eastport with railway frontage. Development of the siding would require construction of an 80-90-foot long railway spur and necessary improvements for loading and unloading.
Exclusive High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Right-of-Way When congestion on principal arterials creates a serious problem for traffic flow, the concept of reserving exclusive rights-of-way for high-occupancy vehicles becomes valid. FDOT may, consider HOV lanes when widening I-95. HOV lanes would not be practical on city streets due to the short travel distances.
Future Mobility Programs and Land Use Considerations As noted in the Introduction, significant changes were made to Florida’s growth management legislation and regional planning policies in 2008 (HB 697). These changes created energy efficiency requirements that the City must address in its comprehensive plan.
House Bill 697 requires local governments to identify ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create “energy-efficient land use patterns.” The City promots and adopts complementary land use strategies that reflect the region’s shared vision for its future, such as east central Florida’s “How Shall We Grow?” Plan. The goals of the State’s transportation planning requirements dovetail with its requirements for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, as per 2008’s HB 697.
The potential mobility and compatible land use options that the City may consider to address these requirements are discussed below.
TSM/TDM Programs Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are the collective term for a wide range of measures to add roadway capacity and relieve traffic congestion without having to construct costly new facilities. The ultimate goal of TDM strategies is to influence people to shift to more efficient modes of transportation and to travel during off-peak hours. TSM strategies, on the other hand, aim to affect the actual supply of transportation services. The most effective policies integrate supply and demand strategies to create a transportation network that promotes efficient, low- polluting choices. Specific TSM/TDM strategies include: Ridesharing/carpooling/vanpooling and park-and-ride facilities High-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities Bicycle/pedestrian facilities Telecommuting Flex-time/alternative work schedules Compact, mixed-use development "Intelligent" highway systems Coordinated computerized traffic signals/optimization
Page 2 - 58 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Pricing schemes, such as higher gas taxes and parking fees Guaranteed ride home programs Fixed-route transit service enhancements Water taxis Turn lanes Access management Public outreach and education/marketing
In 2009, the City completed a TDM/TSM Program Manual, primarily directed to identify and establish alternative mobility strategies for the Port Orange Town Center TCEA. However, the manual also includes options that are appropriate to apply city-wide. This Plan will incorporate the mobility strategies identified in the manual for application in the TCEA and city-wide Mobility Improvement Zones and make them a part of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Plan.
Efficient Land Use Patterns As described in the Future Land Use Element, the City can take steps to improve the land use pattern by providing more opportunities for mixed-use development and creating commercial and mixed-use nodes to serve adjacent neighborhoods. These land use patterns should be supported by a variety of transportation options including efficient and well- connected street systems, transit service and amenities, and bicycle and pedestrian ways.
Variety of Mode Choices The City has been successful at creating a well-connected, relatively compact urban form and walkable transportation system. As the City becomes substantially built-out during the planning period, efforts to ensure that the transportation system operates as efficiently as possible will have greater importance. Declining revenues from state and local sources are likely to reduce funding for local large-scale capital infrastructure projects. The City should be able to utilize its existing roadways and well-connected sidewalk and bikeway system to greater advantage by expanding the role of alternative transportation modes to meet mobility needs. This would include completing the most critically needed roadways in the City and remaining segments of the bicycle and pedestrian network. It would also include transit system improvements that make using transit more accessible, comfortable and convenient.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled As part of HB 697, the City is required to reduce the environmental impact caused by vehicular emissions and greenhouse gases. Doing so can be expected to improve the air quality and health of its citizens, and help to slow climate change. As noted in the Future Land Use Element and other chapters of this Plan, bringing people closer to where they want to go and providing the connections to get them there will reduce the distance they must drive. By reducing the amount of “vehicle miles traveled,” or “VMTs,” the emissions from vehicles are also reduced.
Page 2 - 59 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
The “Lifelong Community” Creating opportunities for people of all ages to live, work, shop and recreate in close proximity to their homes is important to building a cohesive community, in which people can remain in their neighborhood as their lifestyles and needs change over time. The City’s transportation network should be able to accommodate the needs of residents at all stages of their lives, including children, adults, parents, “empty-nesters,” active retirees, and seniors. As noted above, this can be accomplished by providing a variety of transportation modes suited to people of different needs, and bringing uses together to reduce travel distance.
The elderly population is considered a transit-dependent socio-economic group. As described in the Analysis section above, there are several Census tract block groups with a large numbers of elderly persons. Many of these tracts are located along existing transit routes. Opportunities to expand transit service or increase frequency should focus on these areas and other locations where the elderly population is expected to increase and represent a significant portion of the population. This includes making improvements to transit stops, such as installing benches and shelters with schedule information and providing convenient pedestrian connections from residential areas and stores to bus stops.
The Walkable Community
The successful combination of innovative land use planning and urban design, alternative transportation networks and TDM/TSM programs is the “walkable community”. Walkable communities are defined as:
“desirable places to live, work, learn and play, and therefore a key component of smart growth. Their desirability comes from two factors. First, locating, within an easy and safe walk, goods (such as housing, offices and retail) and services (such as transportation, schools, libraries) that a community resident or employee needs on a regular basis. Second, by definition, walkable communities make pedestrian activity possible, thus expanding transportation options and creating a streetscape that better serves a range of users – pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and drivers. To foster walkability, communities must mix land uses and build compactly, and ensure safe and inviting corridors.” 15
The key ingredients to achieving a truly walkable community are as follows: 1. providing a mix of land use in close proximity to one another; 2. building at a pedestrian scale, including buildings and sidewalks; 3. providing compact residential and commercial development; 4. enabling the construction of a highly-connected, multi-modal circulation network built to the pedestrian scale; and
15 Context-Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, ITE, 2005.
Page 2 - 60 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
5. creating unique places or “placemaking,” which are compact, mixed-use and pedestrian and transit-oriented, and that have a strong civic character with lasting economic value.
The FDOT Safety Office16 further describes ways in which cities can create a more pedestrian-friendly urban fabric, including:
A System of Continuously Linked Walkways People should be able to get from one place to any other on foot. The walkway environment should include attractive landscaping, trash receptacles, lighting, and street furniture with comfortable places to sit. Successful downtowns, waterfronts, and entertainment districts contain a 50/50 ratio of walking space to vehicle space for spurring economic development.
Pedestrianized Intersections and Street Crossings The maximum crossing width should not be over 48 feet. Slip lanes, medians, and bulb-outs should be used to minimize pedestrian exposure to traffic. Pedestrian signalization and well-illuminated crosswalks should be provided, with signals timed to allow crossing at a rate of 3.5' per second. In areas with large elderly and handicapped populations, curb ramps and audio/tactile pedestrian signal systems should be provided in accordance with The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mid-block crossings should also be considered where needed, with bulb-outs, raised medians, median curb cuts, and proper signing.
Pedestrianized Commercial Areas Pedestrian access to commercial areas should be provided from adjacent neighborhoods. Walkways should be provided between the sidewalk and the storefront so that car and pedestrian traffic is kept separate. Vehicle traffic may be restricted to specific times of the day or night in areas of heavy pedestrian usage.
Transit/Pedestrian Linkages Transit stops should be created at trip origins and destinations, such as neighborhoods, mutli-family residential areas, commercial and employment centers, and hospitals. Transit stops should be easy to reach, and should be inviting and convenient to the pedestrian.
Walkable-Scale Land Use Planning New and infill development should favor walking over driving. Compact, mixed-use development, a gridded street pattern, neighborhood-scale stores, pedestrian-only connections between uses, and civic spaces should be allowed and encouraged in land use codes, ordinances, and regulations.
16 Walkable Communities: Twelve Steps for an Effective Program
Page 2 - 61 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
Port Orange has been able to incorporate many of these design elements into its urban fabric through the development review process. The City’s extensive bicycle and pedestrian system provides access between commercial and residential areas. The majority of the Dunlawton corridor features pedestrian-level lighting. New intersections constructed in the City meet ADA requirements and include tactile signal systems. Transit stops exist adjacent to sidewalks and bikeways to facilitate travel between modes.
Implementing substantial mobility improvements will be challenging due to existing constraints. The City is over 80% built out. Of the remaining vacant land, only approximately 911 acres is designated for commercial and industrial development, which leaves little opportunity for creating new commercial nodes within short distances to residential areas. This means that many of the City’s residents will have to continue to travel outside of the City to meet certain basic needs.
In the western half of the city, much of the land has been developed at low densities, with relatively few roadway connections. Although the infrastructure exists to support additional development and redevelopment, connecting this development to the residential areas will be difficult because of the manner in which the road network and lots were laid out. Physical constraints in the west side of the City include the reliance upon a small number of major roads to handle most of the traffic; a curvilinear street pattern with few interconnections; low densities to support transit and other modes; and I-95, which itself constricts movement between east and west.
Page 2 - 62 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
THE MOBILITY PLAN
The strategies of the past 20 years have served the City well in realizing its vision of becoming a progressive, high-quality community. For the next 20 years, the vision will evolve to ensure that the City’s quality can be maintained; so that it can continue to build on its success. With respect to transportation, the vision is for mobility - the continual movement of people and goods - to ensure the quality of life expected by Port Orange businesses and residents. The most effective strategy to maintaining and improving mobility is the development of an efficient and balanced multi-modal transportation system. This section discusses the Mobility Plan for Port Orange, how it will be implemented, and how it will be funded in a cost-feasible manner.
Mobility Improvement The City is embarking on a new program for implementing transportation mobility improvements. The City is adopting mobility strategies to support a wider variety of mobility strategies to be applied in designated Mobility Improvement (MI) Zones. These strategies are intended to encourage multi-modal transportation, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes, supported by appropriate facility design standards. The City’s overall mobility strategy is established herein by Goal 1, Objective 1 of this Element. This program focuses on the mobility improvement strategies that will apply in different areas of the City.
Within the city, three MI Zones are established. The Zone boundaries are defined by the development patterns and transportation network characteristics in different parts of the City. Because of different development patterns, the mobility needs and priorities are different in each Zone. In the older, built-out portions of the city, mobility needs are focused more on transportation systems management (TSM) and transportation demand management (TDM) programs, transit enhancement, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and maintaining the existing system. In the developing portions of the city, where the transportation system is still being created, the focus remains on roadway extensions and capacity improvements, along with TSM programs and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. The three MI Zones are shown on Figure 2-11. The characteristics and specific strategies in each MI Zone are described below.
MI Zones Three MI Zones are established. These include:
Zone 1 – The historic center of town, comprising the same properties as the Port Orange Town Center TCEA adopted in 2006. Zone 1 is a designated redevelopment area and thus presents opportunities for transportation improvements to be made on a site-by-site basis or with larger-scale redevelopment projects such as Riverwalk. The development pattern is relatively compact and features a gridded street network. Mobility strategies in
Page 2 - 63 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
this zone are geared toward maintaining and enhancing the existing transportation system as described in the TCEA and improving upon the characteristics of Ridgewood Avenue and Dunlawton Avenue as “complete streets”. Other strategies will encourage pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use development as part of Riverwalk, as well as bicycle, pedestrian and transit system improvements and TSM/TDM programs.
Zone 2 – That portion of the City located to the west and south of Zone 1, generally east of I-95 and Clyde Morris Boulevard. Zone 2 contains an interconnected suburban street pattern, with higher residential densities along the major roads serving as transit corridors, and medium to low densities elsewhere. This area is generally built-out and includes commercial development in nodes and along specific corridors. Mobility strategies in this zone are geared toward improving roadway intersections, completing gaps in the bicycle and pedestrian system, providing linkages and amenities for transit, implementing appropriate TSM and TDM programs, and maintaining the existing transportation system and adopted LOS standards.
Zone 3 – That portion of the City generally located west of I-95 and Clyde Morris Boulevard. Zone 3 contains a suburban street pattern with minimal transportation links/connections between adjacent developments. This area is still developing and includes several Planned Unit Developments, nodal commercial centers, an interstate interchange, as well as the Planned Community-Westside area and the proposed Woodhaven development. Mobility strategies in this zone are geared to constructing roadway capacity improvements necessary to maintain the adopted LOS; adding roadway extensions and connections; making bicycle and pedestrian improvements; providing transit service to commercial and employment nodes; utilizing TSM and TDM programs; and maintaining and enhancing the existing transportation system. Complementary land use strategies will help achieve a greater balance of uses to serve existing homes.
The specific mobility strategies for the three MI zones are described in Objectives 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4.
Levels of Service With the adoption of the city-wide Mobility Improvement program as part of this Comprehensive Plan, the traditional roadway level-of-service measure by a concurrency management system is retained The City will maintain these adopted standards, but will also consider alternative strategies, such as a Transportation Concurrency Management Area, a long-term concurrency management area, etc., as may be appropriate. The City will continue to measure and monitor the level of service on its roadways to gauge the demand on each facility. The City will then apply mitigation measures to meet the mobility needs particular to each part of the City, as identified in the three MI Zones. Mitigation may be in the form of physical improvements, payment of fair-share contributions and impact fees, and other funding sources necessary to ensure multimodal
Page 2 - 64 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
options and maintain concurrecy.
TSM/TDM Programs In 2009, the City conducted a study of mobility strategies that could be effective in the Port Orange Town Center TCEA. The results of this study are compiled in the Port Orange TDM/TSM Program Manual, which the City will use as a basis for applying appropriate multi-modal strategies within the TCEA and MI Zones. For the areas of the City outside of the TCEA/MI zone 1, the City may implement a TDM program and continue to require proportionate fair-share funding for traditional roadway capacity improvements needed to comply with the adopted LOS standards.
Transit The City will continue to support and participate in the transit system as planned by the TPO and operated by VOTRAN. The City will also continue to concentrate its high-density residential land uses along major roadways and transit corridors. In addition, the City will continue to concentrate commercial uses within the various commercial nodes throughout the City, many of which are visited by transit riders. These commercial nodes are shown on the Future Land Use Element Figure 1-9 and on Figure 2-6 of this Element.
The City will assist VOTRAN with its efforts to encourage ridership. In coordination with VOTRAN priorities, the City may require new development to provide safe, attractive and comfortable transit amenities such as benches, shelters, lighting, and access to transit stops. The City may assist, if possible, in providing access to system operations information at designated bus stop locations and through public information outlets. This would provide assurance to the public about the service, destination, and timeliness of the routes, and would instill confidence that the trip can be accomplished in a reasonable amount of time. The City also can provide coordination between VOTRAN and groups or individuals who rely on transit service in the city.
Pedestrian Orientation The City will continue to further improve its pedestrian system in support of the “walkable community” concept. The City will look for ways to enhance its existing “Complete Streets” to increase their use by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. This is part of a larger effort to create a “lifelong community” that is more sustainable and energy efficient. As part of the effort for making improvements to the transportation system, the City will include the evaluation of alternative technologies and facility design standards. This will ensure that these efforts will enhance multi-modal choice, increase energy efficiencies in the system, and create a more livable urban environment.
Implementation The City will continue to operate its concurrency management system and will implement the mobility improvement strategies based on a phased schedule, but may deviate from the schedule if warranted by economic conditions. Short-term efforts may include development of a Corridor Plan or Master Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan, which can then be implemented in prioritized locations. Mobility strategies within the city will retain the Proportionate Fair-share process in select areas and focus on the physical
Page 2 - 65 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
infrastructure needed for transit, bicycle and pedestrian modes. In future years, development and operation should receive more of the focus.
COST-FEASIBLE PLAN
Once the future needs were calculated, a cost-feasible plan and staging program were prepared to provide the improvements necessary to maintain the City's adopted LOS standards and mobility goals. The 2005 Growth Management Act requires the improvements schedule to be financially feasible. As defined by Chapter 163.3164(32) F.S., in order for a schedule to be financially feasible, it must demonstrate that sufficient revenues are currently available or will be available from committed funding sources for the first 3 years, or will be available from committed or planned funding sources for years 4 and 5. The revenue sources identified for these improvements include funds from the FDOT (Federal and State funds), Volusia County Transportation Impact Fees, City of Port Orange Transportation Impact Fees, Local Option Gas Tax revenues, the Constitutional Gas Tax, developer commitments such as proportionate fair-share fees, and other City and County funds. The various revenue sources and projects associated with them are explained in more detail below.
Several segments of the City of Port Orange's roadway network are on the State and County Highway System. Because these roadways are largely the financial responsibility of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Volusia County, the City is reliant on FDOT's 5-Year Transportation Plan and Volusia County's 5-Year Transportation Improvement Program. These plans will affect the capacity of the roadways, which will in turn affect the intensity of development or amount of financial commitment for which the City must plan.
FDOT The Florida Department of Transportation has financial resources to fund transportation improvements in the State, derived primarily from State and Federal fuel taxes. This revenue is received from Florida's portion of the federal gas tax to financial federal transportation improvements, the State's own fuel tax and the State Comprehensive Enhanced Transportation System (SCETS) Tax. Another revenue source for transportation improvements is available the federal transportation legislation known as SAFETEA-LU (2005). This Act gives states greater flexibility to allocate transportation funds for alternative modes of transportation, and to apply those funds for the improvement of non-state roads.
The FDOT's Work Plan includes several transportation improvements for Port Orange. For fiscal year 2010-2011, the work plan includes the projects listed below: Resurface SR A1A from US 1 (Ridgewood Ave.) to Davis Street – FY 2010/11 (FM#4117811) Resurface Nova Road (SR 5A) from Herbert St. to Beville Rd. (SR 400) – FY2010-01 (FM#4220321)
Page 2 - 66 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
The City and the County have also included a number of other projects in the Volusia County TPO’s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). These projects are eligible for state funding. Many of these projects are included on the Programmed Transportation Improvements list in Table 20.
Volusia County Volusia County collects more than $22 million a year to fund transportation improvements. The money collected annually includes that from the Constitutional fuel tax, the County Gas Tax, the first local option gas tax, the second local option gas tax, the Ninth Cent LOGT; County transportation impact fees, proportionate fair-share contributions, and from other miscellaneous sources. The revenues from these sources fluctuate from year to year depending upon economic conditions and development trends. A large portion of this money is required for maintenance and resurfacing of roads. However, some money is available each year for new construction. Future County road improvement projects are listed in Tables 20 and 21.
City of Port Orange In addition to transportation impact fees and proportionate fair-share contributions, the City receives gas tax revenues to fund transportation improvement projects. For FY 2008-2009, Port Orange received 8.76% of the 1 to 6-cent local option gas tax revenues collected in Volusia County, and 8.81% of the 1 to 5-cent fuel tax. The City uses this revenue to construct bikeways and road capacity improvements and for maintenance. Table 19 shows the City's projected revenue and expenses through FY 2015. Projects proposed by the year 2025 to be funded by the City to meet projected mobility needs are listed in Table 21. Other future mobility improvement projects not necessarily based on projected need are also listed in Table 21.
Private Sector In order to facilitate and accommodate impacts from new development, many roadway improvements will be financed and constructed by private developers as they build residential and commercial projects. In most cases developers are provided an impact fee credit for making improvements to city roadways. The County also issues credits for improvements on the county thoroughfare system, provided the facilities are designed and constructed to county standards. It is the City's policy to require of the private sector construct the future collector and sub-collector streets in the City that are needed to serve adjacent properties being developed as such development occurs. The City also may elect to participate in a joint venture with developers and other local governments to construct these roadways. Improvements projected to be financed and/or constructed by private developers are listed in Table 21.
Page 2 - 67
TABLE 19 TRANSPORTATION REVENUE AND EXPENSE PROJECTIONS ($) CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 301 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Prior Year Equity 4,889,716 4,889,716 5,490,708 6,092,393 6,694,424 7,296,422 Revenue 1,118,804 1,098,416 1,113,790 1,129,549 1,145,702 1,162,258 Expenditures-Concurrency Capital 502,287 - - - - - Expenditures-Debt Service ------Expenditures-Operating 279,623 293,604 308,284 323,699 339,884 356,878 Expenditures-Other Capital 336,894 203,820 203,820 203,820 203,820 197,820 Equity Balance 4,889,716 5,490,708 6,092,393 6,694,424 7,296,422 7,903,983 TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 306 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Prior Year Equity 4,067,952 1,627,824 1,627,824 1,627,824 1,627,824 1,627,824 Revenue 103,849 113,849 129,099 129,730 130,377 131,041 Expenditures-Concurrency Capital ------Expenditures-Debt Service ------Expenditures-Operating 103,849 113,849 129,099 129,730 130,377 131,041 Expenditures-Other Capital 2,440,128 - - - - - Equity Balance 1,627,824 1,627,824 1,627,824 1,627,824 1,627,824 1,627,824 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FUND 312 FY 09-10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 FY 12-13 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 Prior Year Equity 789,567 789,567 789,567 789,567 789,567 789,567 Revenue 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 185,000 Expenditures-Concurrency Capital 12,839 - 63,536 - - - Expenditures-Debt Service ------Expenditures-Operating 172,161 185,000 121,464 185,000 185,000 185,000 Expenditures-Other Capital ------Equity Balance 789,567 789,567 789,567 789,567 789,567 789,567
Notes: 301 Fund is the Capital Projects Fund for Transportation Projects 306 Fund is the Transportation Capital Projects Funds and includes Proportionate Fair-share revenues 312 Fund is the Transportation Impact Fee Fund See Capital Improvement Element, Table 16 for additional information. Source: City of Port Orange 2010 Capital Improvement Program
Page 2 - 68
Page 2 - 69
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
PROJECTED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
A number of transportation mobility improvements are currently programmed or planned for Port Orange between now and the year 2015. Transportation improvements programmed in the Transportation Planning Organization's (TPO's) Transportation Improvement Program, the Volusia County Five-Year Road Program, and the City's Capital Improvement Program are listed in Table 20. These programmed improvements include roadway, transit, bikeway, and pedestrian projects scheduled over the next five years. The cost estimates for these improvements include right-of-way acquisition, engineering, permitting, and construction costs. Table 21 lists the planned but as yet unprogrammed improvements needed between the years 2016 and 2025. The anticipated cost of each improvement and the funding source are also listed. In addition to the bicycle and pedestrian facilities listed under Table 10, additional improvements are planned for construction between the years 2010 and 2030. The individual segments are listed under Tables 20, and 21. The entire future bicycle and pedestrian system is shown on Figure 2-8.
Page 2 - 70
TABLE 20 PROGRAMMED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2010-2015
TRANSPORTATION SEGMENT CONSTRUCTION COST FUNDING FACILITY FROM TO IMPROVEMENT SOURCE BIKE/PED PROJECTS Clyde Morris Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. W. Pines Plaza Driveway Sidewalk $70,800 City/TPO Cross-Town Trail City Center Dr. Nova Rd. Trail $568,618 City/TPO Halifax Dr. Dunlawton Ave. Ocean Ave. Bike-ped facility $100,000 City/CRA Herbert St. Carriage Gate Dr. Nova Rd. Sidewalk & trail $483,617 City/TPO XU Herbert St. Nova Rd. Jackson St. Sidewalk/bike lanes $30,589 City/TPO XU Peninsula Dr. Dunlawton Ave. Demotte Ave. Sidewalk $43,400 City /TPO XU Ridgewood Ave. N. City Limits Dunlawton Ave. Streetscape improvements $3,982,500 FDOT/CRA Spruce Creek Rd. Dunlawtone Ave. Herbert St. Trail $250,000 City/TPO Taylor Rd. Central Park Blvd. Trail $226,600 City/TPO Taylor Rd. Williamson Blvd. Taylor Branch Rd. Pedestrian improvements $300,000 City/FDOT/ Developer TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT PROJECTS Clyde Morris Blvd. At Pines Plaza/Wal-Mart driveway Install traffic signal $345,000 City/Developer Dunlawton Ave. Ridgewood Ave I-95 Fiber optic addition $250,000 FDOT At Spruce Creek Rd. Intersection improvement $750,000 CRA At Village Trail Turn lane $175,500 City/TPO Halifax Ave. Ocean Ave. Dunlawton Ave. New roadway alignment $2,351,250 CRA Ocean Ave. Halifax Ave. Ridgewood Ave. New roadway alignment $2,351,250 CRA Pioneer Tr. At Turnbull Bay Rd. Intersection Improvement $1,550,000 VCO Ridgewood Ave. At Herbert St. and Dunlawton Ave. Intersection improvements $2,050,000 FDOT Taylor Rd. At Devon Street New traffic signal $247,217 City/FDOT At Dunlawton Ave. Traffic signal modification $200,000 Developer At I-95 Interchange WB left turn lane ext. $200,000 City/FDOT/Developer Williamson Blvd. At Town West Blvd. New traffic signal $273,000 Developer At Pioneer Trail Intersection improvements $490,000 Developer Willow Run Blvd. At Clyde Morris Blvd. Turn lane $130,000 City/TPO
ROADWAY WIDENING PROJECTS Coraci Blvd. Town West Blvd. ¼ mile south New 2-lane divided $850,000 Developer ¼ mile south of Town West Carmody Lakes Dr. New 2-lane $1,300,000 City/Developer
Page 2 - 71
TRANSPORTATION SEGMENT CONSTRUCTION COST FUNDING FACILITY FROM TO IMPROVEMENT SOURCE ROADWAY WIDENING PROJECTS CONTINUED Martin Rd. Williamson Blvd. N Williamson Blvd. S New 2-lane road $4,382,560 Developer Williamson Blvd. N. of Summer Trees Rd. Town West Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes $2,420,000 Developer Airport Rd. Pioneer Tr. New 4-lane road $16,990,796 Developer Willow Run Blvd. Yorktowne Blvd. Williamson Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes* $1,310,400 City Yorktowne Blvd. Willow Run Blvd. B-19 Canal New 4-lane road $2,909,000 Developer B-19 Canal Hidden Lakes Dr. New 4-lane road $1,840,000 Developer Dunlawton Ave. Taylor Rd. New 4-lane road $3,636,625 Developer TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Transit Improvements Dunlawton Ave. /Nova Area Transfer Station $125,000 VOTRAN Transit Improvements TBD Five Shelters $62,500 VOTRAN
Notes: Sources: PE = Preliminary Engineering FDOT’s 2008 Transportation Costs ROW = Right-of-way Volusia County TPO’s 2025 Transportation Plan Update Const. = Construction City of Port Orange Capital Improvement Program, 2009. FDOT = Florida Department of Transportation VCO = Volusia County SCSA= FDOT Surface Transportation Program, Any Area’’ City = City of Port Orange * Includes traffic circle TPO= Volusia County Transportation Planning Organization CRA = Community Redevelopment Agency
Page 2 - 72
TABLE 21 PLANNED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FISCAL YEARS 2016-2025
FISCAL TRANSPORTATION SEGMENT CONSTRUCTION COST IN FUNDING YEAR FACILITY FROM TO IMPROVEMENT $1,000s SOURCE 2016-2020 Bruner Road Terminus Clyde Morris Blvd. 2-lane road extension 800 Developer City-wide Bus stop improvements(5) 63 VOTRAN City-wide Sidewalk improvements 3,601 City Clyde Morris Blvd. At Wal-Mart/Pines Plaza driveway Traffic signal 345 City/Developer Cross Town Trail Ph 2 Jackson St. Nova Rd. Trail 120 City/TPO Dunlawton Ave. Halifax River West city limits Walklights rehabilitation 1,000 Developer/City/FDOT Halifax Dr. Ocean Ave. Ridgewood Ave. Boardwalk 15,450 City/CRA Herbert St. FEC Railway Jackson St. Sidewalk 147 City/Developer FEC Railway Clyde Morris Blvd. Bikeway improvements 1,012 City McGinnis Blvd. Road “D”. Williamson Blvd. New 4-lane road 4,533 Developer Madeline Ave. Ridgewood Ave. Sauls Rd./McDonald Rd. New 2-lane road 7,000 VCO At U.S. 1 Traffic signal 345 VCO/FDOT Nova Rd. Eagle Lake Tr. U.S. 1 Median landscaping 100 City/FDOT Ridgewood Ave. At Rose Bay and at north city limits Gateway landscaping 200 City At Fleming St. and at Rose Bay Median Landscaping 100 City/FDOT North city limits Rose Bay “Complete streets” 1,000 City/FDOT improvements Riverwalk Ridgewood Ave. Transit and mobility 125 CRA/City improvements Ridgewood Ave. Streetscape 3,983 CRA/City/FDOT Road “D” McGinnis Blvd. Coraci Blvd. New 3-lane road 1,260 City/Developer Spruce Creek Rd. At Taylor Rd. Install roundabout/traffic circle 1,000 City/FDOT Taylor Rd. Clyde Morris Blvd Yorktowne Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes 2,143 Developer
Summer Trees Rd. Forest Preserve Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes 4,000 VCO Crane Lakes Blvd. Forest Preserve Blvd. Bikepath gaps 38 City/TPO XU Williamson Blvd. North city limits Town West Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes w/median 23,000 Developer/VCO Yorktowne Blvd. Dunlawton Ave. Hidden Lakes Drive Widen to 4 lanes 7,800 City
Page 2 - 73
FISCAL TRANSPORTATION SEGMENT CONSTRUCTION COST IN FUNDING YEAR FACILITY FROM TO IMPROVEMENT $1,000s SOURCE 2021-2025 City-wide Bus Stop improvements 63 VOTRAN City-wide Sidewalk Improvements 1,052 City Airport Rd. Cypress Springs Pkwy. South city limits Widen to 4 lanes 8,800 VCO Coraci Blvd. Madeline Ave. Road “D’ New 2-lane road 3,122 Developer Carmody Lakes Dr. Taylor Road New 2-lane road 4,633 City/Developer Herbert St. At Spruce Creek Rd./6th St. Traffic Signal 250 City Madeline Ave. Clyde Morris Blvd. Williamson Blvd. Median Landscaping 25 Developer Williamson Blvd. Tomoka Farms Rd. New 2-lane road 13,400 VCO/FDOT/Developer McGinnis Ave. Madeline Ave. Road “D” New 4-lane road 4,533 Developer Oak St. At Spruce Creek Rd. Traffic Signal 250 City Spruce Creek Rd. Herbert St. Canal View Blvd. New 2-lane road 1,300 City Village Tr. At Country Ln. Roundabout/Traffic Circle 500 City Willow Run Blvd. Madeline Ave. Williamson Blvd. New 2-lane road 3,527 City/Developer At Yorktowne Blvd. Roundabout/Traffic Circle 1,000 City 2026-2035 (INFORMATION ONLY) Dunlawton Ave. Clyde Morris Blvd. Taylor Branch Rd. Widen to 8 lanes 3,340 FDOT I-95 Beville Rd. (SR 400) Pioneer Tr. Widen to 6-lanes 23,928 FDOT At Pioneer Tr. Interchange 20,000 FDOT Taylor Rd. Doris Leeper Spruce New Trail 480 City Creek Preserve Madeline Ave. Long Grove Ln. Town Park Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes 5,900 City/Developer Pioneer Tr. Turnbull Bay Rd. Williamson Blvd. Widen to 4 lanes 11,545 City/Developer Spruce Creek Rd. Dunlawton Ave. North of Nova Rd. Widen to 4 lanes 9,455 City Taylor Rd. Dunlawton Ave. Williamson Blvd. Widen to 8 lanes 6,500 City/FDOT Forest Preserve Blvd. Coraci Blvd. Extension Widen to 4 lanes 4,909 City/Developer Notes: FDOT = Florida Department of Transportation City = City of Port Orange VCO = Volusia County Devel = Developers Sources: FDOT's Transportation Costs, 2004, Volusia County TPO's 2025 Transportation Plan Update, City of Port Orange, 2009
Page 2 - 74 TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ELEMENT
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 2 - 75