CHAPTER 6

TRANSPORTATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION

• INTRODUCTION AND PLANNING.......... 6-5
• INVENTORY.......... 6-12
• ANALYSIS.......... 6-15

PUBLIC TRANSIT

• INTRODUCTION.......... 6-39
• PLANNING.......... 6-40
• HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION.......... 6-41
• ANALYSIS.......... 6-52
• FUTURE NEEDS .......... 6-61

AVIATION

• INTRODUCTION .......... 6-65
• SARASOTA-BRADENTON PLANNING .......... 6-67
• SARASOTA-BRADENTON INVENTORY .......... 6-68
• SARASOTA-BRADENTON ANALYSIS .......... 6-72
• VENICE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT INVENTORY .......... 6-77
• VENICE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ANALYSIS .......... 6-79
• BUCHAN AIRPORT INVENTORY .......... 6-81
• BUCHAN AIRPORT ANALYSIS .......... 6-84

 
PORT AND RAIL

• INTRODUCTION .......... 6-85
• INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS .......... 6-85

TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS .......... 6-90

TRANSPORTATION GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES .......... 6-103

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-2

TRAFFIC CIRCULATION SUB-ELEMENT

INTRODUCTION

The transportation network established the pattern of settlement and growth of Sarasota County. Communities were settled along the coast and on the keys and through the area now served by U.S. 41. By 1930, when the population of Sarasota County was only 12,000, the road network was fairly well established, see Figure 6-1, "1927 Road Map". The east-west roads, Bahia Vista, Bee Ridge and Center Road, linked the rural agricultural areas to the east with the coastal population centers to the west. These urban connector roads served as a basis for the location and allocation of subsequent urban growth in a grid system within the County.

The relationship between land use and highway function is also evident with Interstate I-75, which was completed in the mid-1980's to serve as a primary route for through traffic from Tampa to Miami. Although I-75 was intended to function as a limited access facility providing for inter-regional and interstate travel both to and through Sarasota, it also serves suburban employment centers along its corridors. Continued demand for development along I-75 will increase the amount of interlocal travel on the Interstate thus contributing to the congestion and circulation problems not only on I-75, but other facilities as well.

Periods of rapid population growth and seasonal fluctuations in population, with the resulting increase in the number of automobiles, have combined in Sarasota to produce traffic congestion. This has been manifested not only in the conditions found on thoroughfares but also in the spillover of heavy traffic into residential neighborhoods as drivers sought to avoid the thoroughfares. In addition to congestion, traffic circulation issues include the need for adequate hurricane evacuation routes, and provision for police and fire emergency services.

PLANNING

Sarasota County grew with the automobile, which provided the mobility to accommodate the low-density urban growth that spread inland from the coast. New roads were built to supplement the early road system and to satisfy transportation needs in those areas east of the urban corridor along U.S. 41.

The County developed plans not only to accommodate future growth, but also to coordinate the development of an adequate road network to serve the desired land uses. A "Comprehensive Road Plan" developed in 1960 depicted a road system based upon urban expansion radiating inland and away from the Cities of Sarasota and Venice. This 1960 plan provided for the reservation of right-of-way for future roads in areas that had not yet developed. Additionally, this 1960 plan depicted an interstate located as much as 10 miles east of the coastline. The right-of-way requirements specified by the 1960 road plan were later incorporated into the 1978 "Subdivision General Land Development and Road Construction Regulations for Sarasota County." However the

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-5

Figure 6-1, "1927 Road Map"

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-6

plan itself was not implemented as a general road construction program throughout the County.

The adoption of the "1975 Sarasota County Thoroughfare Plan," as part of the Land Use Plan provided for the development of a major thoroughfare system to serve the urban areas of the County. The 1975 thoroughfare plan was significantly different from the 1960 plan. It depicted I-75 in its current alignment. The road system was consistent with the urban containment policy and was generally designed to serve the areas west and south of the interstate. This plan also introduced the concept of planning for roadways with different functional classifications to serve the urban areas.

In 1974, the Sarasota-Manatee Area Transportation Study (SMATS) was created to coordinate all transportation planning (local, County, State, and Federal) within the two-county area. Its emphasis is on planning for urban areas, as determined by federal regulations. The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), formerly SMATS, is composed of elected officials representing the various governmental entities located in the two counties. It is charged with preparing transportation plans and programming activities within the study area for Sarasota County as shown on Figure 6-2, "MPO Study Area." More significantly, MPO approval is required for all non-local transportation programs within the prescribed area in order to be eligible for federal and State urban area transportation funds. Thus the MPO is and will continue to be a local forum available to Sarasota County for ensuring that transportation plans of neighboring communities are not in conflict with its own.

The MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is composed of representatives of the various planning and engineering departments within the MPO area. Its function is to provide technical advice and support to the MPO. In 1979 the MPO adopted a Year 2000 Needs Plan for the entire study area from the City of Palmetto to Englewood. The Needs Plan identified major improvements and additions to the thoroughfare system which were projected to be necessary by the year 2000. It was based on the projected transportation needs related to anticipated population growth and land use patterns as well as political, environmental and financial considerations.

The MPO has completed the process of updating the long range plan for the two-county study area to identify the thoroughfare system that will be needed through the year 2020. The Sarasota County Planning Department has worked closely with the MPO to ensure that the year 2020 land use patterns were adequately represented in the MPO's Year 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Update, including the Year 2020 Financially Feasible Transportation Plan. As a result, the land use data and population projections utilized in the MPO update are consistent with the land use and population projections used in the updated Apoxsee Future Land Use Plan and Map.

In addition to the long range Needs Plan, the MPO is responsible for the annual preparation of a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP identifies State, County and municipal projects which are programmed for implementation within the next five-year period. The TIP is developed from data supplied by the Florida Department of Transportation, in the form of its Adopted Work Program, and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) members from the Counties and Cities. The TIP includes information on the type of construction, sources of funding, implementation schedule,

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-7

Figure 6-2, "MPO Study Area"

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-8

and the agencies responsible for implementation. One goal for the County, in working closely with the MPO in the formation of its TIP, is to ensure compatibility among policies and guidelines of the various transportation plans.

In 1986 the MPO adopted a Comprehensive Bicycle Plan for Manatee and Sarasota Counties. This plan represents the only comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan for Sarasota County to date. However, better data on bicycle and pedestrian transportation is available, including inventories of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities. This data is being used for identifying bicycle and pedestrian facility needs to determine future bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. The purpose of the MPO plan was to provide physical improvements to existing facilities, educate cyclists and motorists on road safety and efficiency, improve traffic behavior through encouraging police intervention, promote increased use of bicycles as an alternative form of transportation, and institutionalize and interrelate bicycle programs and policies within routine government operations and funding mechanisms.

An agreement was signed in 1991 between the County and the MPO which obligates the County to complete bicycle and pedestrian planning responsibilities for a Sarasota Bicycle Program including: 1) the adoption of a comprehensive Bicycle Plan and separate Pedestrian Plan; 2) the continuous monitoring of transportation improvements and development projects for bicycle/pedestrian consideration; 3) continued bicycle/pedestrian safety programs; 4) the coordination of bicycle/pedestrian policies with land development policies; 5) the development and maintenance of a map of bicycle lanes, wide curb lanes, separate paths and sidewalks; and, 6) the development of a prioritized list of candidate bicycle/pedestrian projects to be considered for inclusion in the next TIP. Figure 6-3, "Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities" presents the County's Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities consistent with the Sarasota County Bicycle/Pedestrian Program.

For several years now the County has included a separate line item in the Capital Improvements Program solely intended for the design and construction of sidewalks. The County has adopted a standard policy of including sidewalks and bicycle lanes in the construction of new arterial and collector roads, as well as establishing annual funding for a sidewalk construction program to retrofit sidewalks along existing roads where pedestrian demand is evident, particularly in close proximity to schools. The Sidewalk Program has included a limited number of projects along major arterials which generally have higher speeds and traffic volumes and which pose a greater threat to safety of pedestrians and bicyclists compared to most neighborhood streets. The program to date is shown on Figure 6-4, "Existing and Future Pedestrian Facilities."

In conjunction with the MPO's Year 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan Update is the Freight Movement analysis of truck, rail, and boat activity for Sarasota and Manatee Counties. The objective of this study is to use the data in highway and transit planning, as well as in the preparation of the Congestion Management System. The end product will be the implementation of a Freight Movement Efficiency Plan. The timeframe for completion of the study is mid-1998.

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-9

Figure 6-3, "Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities"

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-10

Figure 6-4, "Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities"

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-11

INVENTORY

The existing traffic circulation network within Sarasota County consists of road segments which are classified according to their functional relationship with adjacent land uses (see Figure 6-5: "FDOT Functional Classification" and Appendix F, Section 1, "FDOT Roadway Functional Classification." This hierarchical classification of road segments is based on the relationship between two primary functions of road networks, the movement of traffic and the degree of access to surrounding land uses. For example, an expressway, or interstate highway, with controlled limited access at interchanges provides for rapid free-flowing vehicular movement, whereas, the virtually unlimited access provided on local roads results in a restricted traffic flow.

Functional Classification of Roads

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) originally adopted a functional classification system pursuant to Ch. 335.04, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and defined under Rule 14-12, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). This system was used to categorize the roads on the State Highway System and included arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads. With the repeal of Ch. 335.04, F.S. and Rule 14-12, the State began using the Highway Classification System as adopted by the U.S. Department of Transportation, but has allowed local governments to adopt their own standards for roadway classification. Sarasota County classifies roadways according to this system used by FDOT as shown in Appendix F, Section 1, AFDOT Functional Classification, but has chosen to utilize roadway standards which parallel those used by FDOT for comprehensive planning purposes.

Florida Intrastate Highway System

Although not a part of the functional classification system used by the State, many roads on the State Highway System have the added distinction of being designated on the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS). The FIHS is intended to provide high-speed and high-volume traffic movement within the State of Florida with direct access being prohibited or highly regulated. FIHS roads include: Interstate highways (e.g. I-75, I-4); the Florida Turnpike System; and existing or future limited access arterial roads. Roads designated on the FIHS have rigorous level of service and access management standards, in addition to the various geometric design and construction standards that guide the designation and construction of all the roads on the State Highway System.

FDOT Functional Classification of Roads

The roadway functional classification system, in use by FDOT, classifies roadways according to their function and use. This system incorporates a list of uses upon which each roadway is judged. Appendix F, Section 1, "FDOT Functional Classification," lists Sarasota County roadways and their functional classification according to the following roadway functional classification system.

Principal Arterial roads must serve at least two and Minor Arterial roads at least one of the following seven purposes:

1. Travel to and through urbanized areas.

2. Travel to and through small urban areas.

3. National Defense.

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-12

4. Interstate and regional commerce.

5. Access to airports, seaports, and major rail terminals or intermodal transfer facilities.

6. Access to major public facilities.

7. Interconnection of principal arterials.

Major Collector roads must address one of the following criteria:

1. Access to a minor public facility.

2. Interconnection of minor arterials.

3. Access to concentrated land use areas.

Minor Collector roads must address access to diffuse land use areas.

Urban Collector roads are those roads located inside the urbanized or the urban area, while Rural Collector roads are those roads located outside the urbanized or urban area.

Local roads provide for travel between home, work, entertainment, and shopping destinations with the nearest road on the primary road network composed of arterial and collector roads.

Sarasota County Functional Classification of Roads

The roadway functional classification system employed by the County, and used in the County's Year 2020 Future Thoroughfare Plan, utilizes a classification system designed to recognize the unique road system found in Sarasota County. Each of the roadway categories is discussed below:

• Freeways/Expressways are controlled access facilities with grade separated intersections providing for interregional and/or interstate travel at high operating speeds. Typically, expressways accommodate high volumes of traffic.
• Major Arterials facilitate relatively long trip lengths at moderate to high operating speeds with somewhat limited access to adjacent properties. Major arterials generally serve major centers of activity in urban areas and have the highest traffic volume corridors.
• Minor Arterials provide somewhat shorter trip lengths than major arterials and generally interconnect with and augment major arterial routes at moderate operating speeds, and allowing somewhat greater access to adjacent properties than major arterials.
• Major Collectors collect and distribute significant amounts of traffic between arterials, minor collectors and local roads at moderate to low operating speeds. Major collectors provide for more accessibility to adjacent properties than arterials.
• Minor Collectors collect and distribute moderate amounts of traffic between arterials, major collectors and local roads at relatively low operating speeds with greater accessibility than major collectors.
• Local Roads generally provide access to abutting properties. Local roads possess relatively low traffic volumes, operating speeds and trip lengths and minimal through traffic movements.

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-13

Figure 6-5, "FDOT Functional Classification"

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-14

With the exception of local roads, these roads are shown on Figure 6-9, Year 2020 Future Thoroughfare Plan (Functional Classifications) and are discussed under the section entitled "Year 2020 Future Thoroughfare Plan" at the end of this section.

Sarasota County is currently responsible for the maintenance of 2,040 lane-miles of roadways of all types, of which 580 lane-miles are on the Thoroughfare Plan. Lane-miles are defined as the total mileage of each lane of roadway. For example, a two-lane roadway which is four miles long equals 8 lane miles of roadway. This total lane mileage includes all County-maintained roadways within the County, including a small amount of lane mileage within the municipalities. Generally, though, this lane mileage excludes those roadways under the municipal jurisdictional responsibility of the Cities of Sarasota, Venice, North Port and the Town of Longboat Key and the 577 lane miles within the Florida Department of Transportation's jurisdiction. Figure 6-6: "Existing Road Network (Number of Lanes)" depicts the lane characteristics of the existing roadway network.

Significant Parking Structures.

A significant parking structure is defined as one which is in public ownership, is intended to provide general-use parking to members of the public-at-large, and has the capacity to provide greater than 100 parking spaces. To date, the only structure meeting these requirements is the Sarasota County Parking Garage located at 2150 Ringling Boulevard in the City of Sarasota. This parking facility is shown on Figures 6-5, 6-9, and 6-10.

This parking garage is a 4-story structure which has 956 parking spaces and is designed to provide parking opportunities to County law enforcement, judicial, and administrative centers, as well as private offices and businesses located near the intersection of U.S. 301 (Washington Boulevard) and Ringling Boulevard. There is a charge of $2.00 per vehicle with a time restriction of 24 hours. The long-term parking structure operates pursuant to Ch. 713.78, Florida Statutes .

ANALYSIS

The 1989 Traffic Circulation Plan

The 1989 Apoxsee Traffic Circulation Plan had as its goal the development of a thoroughfare system which integrates roadways, bikeways and pedestrian ways; is compatible with the environmental and aesthetic qualities of the community; meets the existing and future needs of the population; is economically feasible to construct; and, provides for the efficient provision of alternative modes of transportation. In order to accomplish this goal, the Plan required a Countywide construction program, maintenance program, and bikeway plan. The Plan also required a traffic analysis system to assess the traffic and road conditions, a traffic management system to identify needed intersection improvements, and coordination of all local transportation planning efforts with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).

The County implements the multi-modal policies as stated in the 2020 Florida Transportation Plan: "The Department (FDOT) will take a leadership role in building and maintaining a statewide, interconnected transportation system to strengthen our economy...(and)...will act as a full partner

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-15

Figure 6-6, "Existing Road Network (Number of Lanes)"

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-16

with other transportation interests to help them provide travel choices that will ensure safety and mobility, sustain the quality of our environment and preserve community values." In order to achieve such an efficiently operating thoroughfare system, the road network must be coordinated with surrounding land uses and with a complementary mix of other transportation modes such as transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Since the adoption of the Revised and Update Apoxsee in 1989, the County has made substantial progress towards a multimodal transportation network, although the complete integration of all of these modes has yet to be accomplished.

Each year the County road program is amended to be consistent with the adopted Capital Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvements Program. This road construction program is presented in Capital Improvements Chapter Table 10-3 "Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements." Projects tentatively scheduled subsequent to the adopted CIP are presented in Capital Improvements Chapter Table 10-4 "Future Capital Improvements - 2020." Programmed new construction is reviewed annually for consistency with the Apoxsee Traffic Circulation Map in terms of the location of the new roadways and extensions of existing roadways. Similarly, a road maintenance program exists and is funded through the CIP.

The 1981 Traffic Circulation Plan called for a program to protect planned rights-of-way from future development and to that end, a comprehensive program to protect planned rights-of-way has been initiated and included in the annual CIP. The road construction program has been greatly strengthened by this program protecting existing and future rights-of-way, as well as an advanced rights-of-way acquisition program. These programs have helped assured the ability to construct new or expanded existing facilities by protecting future needed rights-of-way (ROW) from development.

With regard to road construction and maintenance programs, the Plan encouraged the use of interdisciplinary design teams to prepare special highway studies which incorporate local environmental and aesthetic concerns. Additionally, the Plan addresses the need to ensure that the integrity of existing neighborhoods is protected in the course of road construction and maintenance activities.

The Plan also required development of a program to maintain substandard roads, since it is the policy of the County to only accept roads for maintenance which are built to County standards. Currently, there are approximately 200 miles of County owned but not maintained, substandard roads which are carry-overs from previous policies which permitted substandard roads to be deeded to the County without being included in the maintenance program. Recognizing this problem, the County established the Non-Maintained Road Program and adopted Ordinance No. 90-67 for improving the condition of non-maintained public roads. Under this ordinance, property owners on the affected road may establish a Public Improvement District (PID) and pay for the construction costs of the necessary improvements through a special levy.

To date, Sarasota County has not adopted a Countywide bikeway plan which was called for in the 1981 Plan. However, the Sarasota County Transportation Department has signed a Memorandum

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-17

of Agreement with the Sarasota-Manatee Metropolitan Planning Organization relating to the County's Bicycle/Pedestrian Program which calls, in part, for the County to adopt a comprehensive Bicycle plan and a separate comprehensive pedestrian plan to become an element of the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan. Where possible, in new construction or reconstruction of roadways functioning as collectors or greater, outside lanes have been widened to accommodate bicycle traffic consistent with standards set by the Florida Transportation Plan. However, there continues to be a need to integrate bicycle traffic into the overall transportation network.

Just as the need to recognize and integrate bicycle travel, there is a need to incorporate pedestrian needs into the overall County transportation network. As mentioned above, a separate comprehensive pedestrian plan is being developed in order to provide for pedestrian access in the design of roadways and residential and nonresidential developments.

The 1981 Traffic Circulation Plan also required the ongoing analysis of road and traffic conditions, the identification of needed intersection improvements, and the coordination of all transportation planning with MPO. With regard to a traffic analysis program, the Sarasota County Transportation Department assesses the impacts of development proposals on the thoroughfare system and identifies needed system improvements. However, traffic system management techniques useful in identifying needed intersection improvements have not yet been incorporated into the traffic analysis program. Since the creation of the MPO in 1975, all local transportation plans and programming activities have been coordinated with the plans of the MPO, particularly the Year 2020 Financially Feasible Transportation Plan. For added discussion, see section "Year 2020 Future Thoroughfare Plan."

Existing Roadways

Level of Service

The determination as to whether the existing roadways can adequately serve the existing and future demands is predicated on the ability to estimate the maximum amount of traffic a roadway can safely accommodate. The establishment of threshold standards for roadway types or levels of service (LOS) are used to identify needed system improvements, either by the expansion of existing facilities, constructing new facilities, creating parallel facilities, or the use of alternative modes of travel.

The principal objective of capacity analysis is to estimate the maximum amount of traffic that can be accommodated by a given roadway. However, capacity analysis is best used to estimate the traffic-carrying ability of a given roadway over a range of defined operational conditions, using level of service criteria. Roadways generally operate poorly near capacity and are rarely planned or designed to operate near or at capacity.

The concept of level of service is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a stream of traffic and the perception of those conditions by motorists and passengers. A level of service category generally describes these conditions in terms of speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety.

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-18

Six levels of service have been defined, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Operating conditions under these levels of service (as defined in Special Report No. 209: Highway Capacity Manual, 1985, Transportation Research Board) are:

LOS A: Motorists are unaffected by the presence of others in the stream of traffic. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the stream of traffic is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience is excellent.

LOS B: Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a reduction in the freedom to maneuver within the stream of traffic. The level of comfort and convenience is less, because the presence of others in the stream of traffic begins to affect individual motorist behavior.

LOS C: Motorists become significantly affected by the interactions with others within the stream of traffic. The selection of speed is affected, and maneuvering within the stream of traffic requires substantial effort on the part of the motorist. Comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.

LOS D: Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and a poor level of comfort and convenience is experienced by the motorist. Small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems at this level.

LOS E: Operating conditions are at or near capacity. All speeds are significantly reduced. Freedom to maneuver is difficult. Comfort and convenience is extremely poor, and motorist frustration is generally high.

LOS F: Operating conditions at this level are forced or have broken down. This condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point. Queues typically form at such locations. Operations are characterized by stop-and-go waves; vehicles may proceed at reasonable speeds for short distances, and then be required to stop in a cyclical fashion. Comfort and convenience are extremely poor, and frustration is high.

These definitions are general and apply primarily to roadway facilities having uninterrupted traffic flows, such as freeways. For each type of roadway facility, levels of service activities are based on one or more operational parameters or "measures of effectiveness." Basic measures of effectiveness used to define levels of service for different types of roadway facilities include: (a) average travel speed; (b) density; (c) delay; and (d) volume.

State Highway System Levels of Service

In March, 1992, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) adopted revised level of service standards for roads on the State highway System. These standards are to be used by the FDOT to determine system deficiencies, assist in determining work program priorities, review local government and metropolitan planning organization comprehensive transportation plans, and review traffic circulation impacts related to Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's) and other development affecting the State Highway System.

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-19

The 1992 State Highway System level of service standards are intended to further the overall concept of growth management. Relative to the previous level of service standards, these standards (along with the service or "capacity" volumes associated with the various level of service designations) promote or encourage development in existing urban areas, the use of public transit, bicycling, or other alternative modes of transportation, and the efficient use of existing highway facilities. These standards more clearly recognize the importance of the different functions (i.e. mobility versus access) provided by roads on the State Highway System, and the importance of exclusive transit facilities within the State Highway System. The 1992 standards recognize or acknowledge the acceptance of some highway congestion as a trade-off for other urban area amenities, and the fact that necessary improvements to many roads on the State Highway System are constrained due to physical or policy barriers or are backlogged beyond current 5-Year Work Programs.

Due to the complexity of the 1992 level of service standards, minimum levels of service for roads on the State Highway System cannot be characterized by a single level of service designation (such as LOS "C"). Under these standards, levels of service for roads on the State Highway System are determined based upon a number of factors, including: the location of the road in relation to the general character of adjacent land use development (i.e. rural vs. urban); whether or not the road is designated on the Florida Intrastate Highway System; the degree to which property access to the road is limited or controlled; number of lanes; whether or not the road includes or is parallel to an exclusive transit facility; whether or not the road is located within a designated Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA); and finally, whether or not improvements to the road are constrained or backlogged.

Notwithstanding the above, when applied to State roads located in rural or "urbanizing" areas or communities, these LOS standards are generally more stringent (i.e. have a higher level of service) than the standards for similar roads located in urban communities and municipalities. Under the 1992 standards, the minimum level of service for multi-lane roads in rural areas is LOS "B" (two-lane highways have a minimum LOS "C"). The minimum level of service for all roads in urbanizing or "transition" areas is LOS "C". The minimum level of service for roads designated on the FIHS in urbanized areas with a population under 500,000 is LOS "C" and LOS "D" for non-intrastate roads in such areas. The minimum level of service for all roads in urbanized areas with a population over 500,000 is LOS "D". The minimum level of service for all roads that include or are parallel to exclusive transit facilities (generally located in urbanized areas over 500,000 population) is LOS "E".

The minimum level of service for roads located in designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas, compact geographic areas within which intensive development is allowed along with the acceptance of higher levels of traffic congestion as a trade-off for achieving non-level of service goals and policies and other urban amenities, is LOS "E", or, as set forth in an optional Transportation Mobility Element in the Comprehensive Plan. Finally, the minimum level of service for all roads requiring an existing improvement where such improvement is either backlogged, i.e. currently unfunded in FDOT's 5-Year Work Program, or constrained, i.e. prohibited due to physical or other policy limitations, is to maintain the current level of service with minimal degradation.

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-20

A copy of Chapter 14-94, Florida Administrative Code, the Minimum Level of Service Standards for the State Highway System, is provided in Appendix F, Section 3.

While these revised, 1992, level of service standards reflect a greater refinement in the methodology to more greatly reflect actual roadway conditions, the Florida Department of Transportation is in the process of amending the 1992 level of service standards for District One (which includes Sarasota County). The 1992 Level of Service workbooks are scheduled to be released in late summer, 1996. Workshops will be held by FDOT District One throughout the district beginning sometime in late 1996. Adoption will be subsequent to the workshop series at a date to be determined.

Analysis of Existing Conditions

An analysis of the existing levels of service (LOS) using the 1992 LOS methodology was performed for all State and County roadways in Sarasota County as well as selected municipal roadways determined to be key elements of the County road network. The analysis took into consideration traffic counts adjusted to 1996 levels, as well as all State, County, and other roadway improvement projects which, according to the MPO's TIP, were underway by the end of 1996. Support documentation for the LOS analysis is compiled in a series of seven technical reports and nine technical memoranda published by the Sarasota County Planning Department in August, 1988. Using updated, 1996 traffic count data, and applying the LOS methodology developed in the previously mentioned technical reports and memoranda, an analysis was performed which provides a segment-by-segment evaluation of the existing road network, as shown on Figure 6-6: "Existing Road Network (Number of Lanes)" and Figure 6-7: "Existing Level of Service," and also provides the technical background for determining an acceptable LOS standard for Sarasota County. A summary of the methodology used in preparing the LOS analysis can be found in Appendix F, Section 2, "Level of Service Methodology." The analysis of existing levels of service indicates that approximately 191 lane miles, are currently operating at Level of Service "D" peak hour or lower. This represents approximately 14.2 percent of the current road network of arterials and collectors. Only 67 lane miles, or approximately 29 linear miles, of these road segments are within the jurisdictional responsibility of Sarasota County.

Included in this analysis is the incorporation of peak direction levels of service for roads. Sarasota County's LOS methodology includes a somewhat simplified version of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual signalized intersection and urban arterial analysis procedures. In specific applications, actual traffic conditions, signal characteristics, and roadway geometry are taken into consideration. In the County's generalized LOS tables, the County uses average values for each facility type. This results in LOS tables based on uniform and individually symmetrical road segments. While the current analysis procedures rely on 1996 traffic data and 1994 Highway Capacity Manual methods, the County will continue to update the analysis procedures as necessary to incorporate the best available data and professionally accepted practices.

The peak direction LOS is handled implicitly in the calculation of the generalized LOS tables. Whereas FDOT develops a one-way peak-hour base table; divides the values by the direction factor

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-21

Figure 6-7, "Existing Level of Service

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-22

to obtain a two-way peak table; and then divides the two-way table values by the K-factor (a peak to daily ratio) to obtain the two-way daily tables, the County uses a more simplified procedure. The County LOS methodology is based on one-way calculations that are extrapolated to two-way LOS using a system-wide default directional factor of 0.56. This is very similar to the FDOT procedure, with the exception that the County's LOS tables are not as numerous, thus eliminating those situations not applicable within the County.

Table 6-1, "Peak-Hour Roadway LOS by Jurisdiction" presents a comparison between the State and County systems, displaying the total lane miles operating below LOS "D" peak hour and LOS "E" peak hour for each jurisdiction. A list of deficient road segments, based on a LOS standard of "C" peak hour for County roadways and the adopted FDOT LOS for State roads, is provided in Table 6-2, "Deficient Roadways, 1996."

Adoption of Roadway Levels of Service

The adoption of LOS for roadways in Sarasota County will provide a basis for assessing the impacts of land use decisions and identify needed roadway system improvements. The analysis provided in Appendix F, Section 2, "Level of Service Methodology" supplies the rationale for Sarasota County to adopt a minimum operating level of service standard of "C", peak hour, based on a 100th highest hour design criteria as its goal for roadways under its jurisdiction.

The achievement of the above standard would provide a balance between economic efficiency and the availability of adequate service levels throughout most of the year, with roadways functioning at a level of service below "C", for no more than 100 hours during the year. This factor takes into account the unique nature of Sarasota County's seasonal population fluctuations and the resulting peak periods of traffic volumes. It represents a community tolerance level that equates, for example, to accepting congested conditions for approximately two hours per day either: a) every Friday afternoon throughout the year at suburban locations such as Venice Avenue west of the intersection

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-23

at Jacaranda Boulevard; or b) every Wednesday through Friday afternoon during the "winter season" at urbanized locations such as U.S. 41 south of Bee Ridge Road.

Although the level of service standard described above provides an overall goal toward which the County can strive, the adoption of a level of service as high as "C" peak hour, based on a 100th highest hour design criteria, for constrained and backlogged roadways would not be environmentally or economically feasible. Constrained County roadways are defined as exhibiting a level of service lower than the adopted standard and not being able to attain the adopted standard because prohibitive costs or environmental limitations prevent the construction of at least two additional through lanes. Backlogged County facilities are defined as roadways operating below the adopted standard which do not have prohibitive financial or environmental constraints but are not scheduled for major capacity improvement in the County's Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements. Thus, the LOS for constrained facilities, i.e. prohibited due to physical or other policy limitations or backlogged facilities, i.e. currently un-funded in 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, is to maintain the current level of service with minimal degradation.

The adoption of a level of service standard for State facilities must consider the standard adopted by FDOT. If the County were to adopt a higher level of service standard on State facilities, the burden would rest on the County to prove that such a LOS could be maintained. The County's acceptance of constrained and backlogged roadways on both the State and County systems, however, presumes an additional responsibility on the part of the County in its review and approval of development orders: to base such decisions on maintaining the existing level of service of such roadways and to not allow the existing operating conditions to be degraded.

One strategy for maintaining roadway conditions on constrained and backlogged facilities is the adoption of Impact Management Plans developed in coordination with FDOT, the MPO, the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC), and other affected jurisdictions. The County's adoption of Impact Management Plans would provide for intergovernmental coordination and would address the following:

• guidelines to be utilized by the private sector to address the impacts of proposed development;
• the establishment of funding contributions if necessary for improvements to the deficient roadway;
• the identification of needed system improvements such as access control or intersection improvements necessary to mitigate or improve the LOS on the deficient roadway;
• commitments for providing alternate transportation modes, such as mass transit; and
• identification and commitment of long range system improvements to eliminate LOS deficiencies.

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-24

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-25

Accident Frequency Data

Accident frequency data have been available since the late 1980's. For calendar years 1989 through 1991, accident data have been collected and analyzed which provide, on an intersection basis, total accidents and the number of injuries and fatalities. More importantly, these data also provide an accident rate frequency by determining the number of accidents per million entering vehicles (MEV) per intersection. Data from later years, 1993 through 1995, have been collected which also report total numbers of accidents, injuries, and fatalities. To date, these data have not been interpreted to provide the MEV accident frequency statistic. The complete data sets are available for public inspection at the County Transportation Department during normal working hours.

Selected data are shown on Table 6-3 "Accident Frequency Data at Intersections." The first section of the table identifies the top twenty intersections in the County which have the largest number of accidents for both 1989-1991 and 1993-1995 data sets. Additional data provide information regarding injuries and fatalities for these intersections. The second section of the table presents the top 10 intersections using injuries and fatalities as one statistic and Accidents per Million Entering Vehicles (MEV) as another statistic. These applicable accident frequency data provide only one factor in the analysis used to identify needed roadway or intersection improvements.

Future Roadway Levels of Service

A projection of future LOS was performed for the year 2002. In addition to the existing road network, road projects which are scheduled for completion by the end of 2002 were incorporated in the analysis. These additions included those projects in the road construction program listed in the County's adopted FY1996-FY2000 Capital Improvements Program; other projects identified in the MPO's adopted Transportation Improvement Program; and State projects in FDOT's adopted 5-Year Work Program. Future traffic volumes were projected for this 2002 road network by applying growth factors based on future population projections.

If all of the assumptions made in this 2002 evaluation procedure hold true, roadways listed in Table 6-4 "Projected Deficient Roadways, 2002" and shown on Figure 6-8: "Projected Deficient Roadways, 2002" will be deficient in 2002. Some of the projected 2002 deficient roadways are currently operating at or above LOS "C" peak hour, based on a 100th hour design criteria, or, where applicable, the adopted FDOT LOS standard. At this time, these roadways do not warrant special consideration as constrained or backlogged facilities. The roadways which are listed in both Table 6-2, ADeficient Roadways, 1996" and in Table 6-4 "Projected Deficient Roadways, 2002" are the only ones that meet the definition of constrained or backlogged facilities, see Table 6-5 "Designated Constrained and Backlogged Facilities in Sarasota County."

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-26

Transportation Chapter
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan
Page 6-27