Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009 02 18 Transportation Element Handed out by Eloise Sahlstrom• City of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Draft EAR-Based Amendments, January 2009 Prepared For: City of Winter Springs Community Development Department 1 126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, Florida 32708-2799 Prepared By: Planning Communities, LLC 2510 Wild Tamarind Blvd. Orlando, FL 32828 Revised from the Original Text Prepared By: Land Design Innovations, Inc • TABLE OF CONTENTS A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES .................................................................................... 4 B. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................15 C. INVENTORY ........................................................................................................................15 1. Road System ..................................................................................................................15 a. Jurisdiction and Maintenance Responsibility ..........................................................................16 b. Functional Classification .............................................................................................................16 c. Constrained Facilities ..................................................................................................................22 d. Crash Locations ............................................................................................................................22 e. Signalized Intersections ..............................................................................................................24 f. Evacuation Routes ........................................................................................................................24 2. Public Transit System ................................................... .................................................25 3. Parking System ............................................................. .................................................27 4. Bicycle System .............................................................. .................................................27 5. Pedestrian System ........................................................ .................................................28 6. Intermodal Facilities .................................................... ..................................................29 D. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................30 1. Growth Trends ...............................................................................................................30 2. Roadway Current Performance .....................................................................................31 3. Future Roadway Performance .......................................................................................37 4. Model Development and Validation .............................................................................42 a. OUATS Model Set .......................................................................................................................42 b. Trip Generation ...........................................................................................................................42 c. Trip Distribution ............................................................................................................................42 II-1 d. Modal Split~Auto Occupancy ...................................................................................................42 e. Traffic Assignment .......................................................................................................................43 f. Trip Generation Modifications ..................................................................................................43 g. Use of OUATS 1 1 Trip Purpose Models .................................................................................43 5. Public Transit Performance ............................................................................................43 6. Other Transportation Systems .......................................................................................44 7. Future Transportation Planning .....................................................................................44 p p ........................................................................................................ a. Future Trans ortation Ma 45 b. Transportation Concurrency Alternatives ................................................................................48 c. Future Public Transit Plan ...........................................................................................................48 d. Pedestrian Plannin .......................•-•••48 g ....................................................................................... e. Bicycle Planning ...........................................................................................................................49 f. TSM~TDM Strategies ..................................................................................................................49 II-2 LIST OF TABLES -TABLE NAMES, eJRDER AND PAGE, NUMBERS WILL BE UPDATED Table II - 1: Historic Daily Volumes and Year 2008 Roadway Link Levels of Service (LOS) ..............Error! Bookmark not defined.l9 Table II - 2: Historic Daily Volumes and Roadway Link Levels of Service with Existing Network (City Streets)..Error! Bookmark not defined.20 Table II - 3: Crash Locations with Greater than 5 Crashes, 2007 .................................................................................................... 2424 Table II - 4: Public Transit Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................2525 Table II - 5: TAZ ProjeNed Development .............................................................................................................................................50 Table II - 6: Statewide Minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards for the State Highway System as Determined by ADT (total volume ................................................ 34 Table II - 7: Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas .................................................................35 Table II - 8: 2012 Projected Traffic Conditions ......................................................................................................................................38 Table II - 9: Programmed and Planned Highway System Improvements ...........................................................................................41 Table II - 10: Programmed City of Winter Springs Improvements .......................................................................................................41 Table II - 11: Year 2010 Road Needs/Projects (City Funding) ............................................................................................................ 45 Table II - 12: State and County Road Projects Adjacent to or Within Winter Springs ............................. ........................................576 Table II - 13: Year 2010 Road Needs (County and State Funding) ........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.? LIST OF MAPS -CURRENTLY BEING UPDATED Map II- 1: Existing Roadway Classification, Jurisdiction, and Number of Lanes ..............................................................................18 Map II- 2: Signalized Intersections and Crash Locations, 2007 .......................................................................................................... 23 Map II- 3: Public Transit System and Major Traffic Generators/Aftradors .........................................................................................26 'ap II- 4: City of Winter Springs TAZs .................................................................................................................................................32 ~Jlap II- 5: Year 2008 DeFiciencies and LOS ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Map II- 6: Future Transportation Map (Year 2010 Transportation Plan) ............................................................................................46 Map II- 7: Transportation Improvements .............................................................................................................................................47 II-3 CHAPTER II TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES GOAL i To develop a safe, convenient, efficient and coordinated system of motorized and non-motorized transportation facilities which ensure adequate movement of people and goods through and within the City and which incorporates transportation strategies to address reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Objective 1.1: Level of Service. Throughout the planning period, the City shall enforce the Level of Service (LOS) standard on all arterial and collector roads. (Cross Reference: See Capital Improvement Element, Policy 1.2.1.a.) Policy 1.i.1: Adopt the minimum daily LOS standard for transportation facilities based on annual average daily trips (AADT) as follows: • Limited Access Roads + Arterials ~ ~ ~~ • Collectors as prescribed by FDOT D D Policy 1.1.2: Coordinate with the MPO and LYNX to assist the County in maintaining the County's adopted LOS standard for mass transit - 1.03 revenue miles per capita per year based on the estimated functional population within the transit service area. (Ord. 2005-1 l; 09- 12-05) Policy 1.1.3: Monitor the functioning of the arterial and collector road system by use of the TRANPLAN~FSUTMS model updated by the City's traffic consultant so that collector road improvements may be scheduled according to valid priorities. Policy 1.1.4: Require a traffic study for all new development generating more than 300 Daily Trips. Such study shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures provided by the City. Policy 1.1.5: Evaluate proposed development for transportation concurrency using established criteria. Policy 1.1.6: Annually monitor the LOS status of arterials, collectors, and a!I state roadways within the City by obtaining from the State and County their most recent traffic counts at points along alt roadways that would be affected by development in the City. Policy 1.1.7: Continue to use standards and guidelines for permitting the payment of proportionate fair-share contributions to mitigate locally and regionally significant transportation impacts consistent with Subsection 163.3180(16), Florida Statutes. Such standards and guidelines shall provide that the City shall not rely on transportation facilities in place or under actual II-4 construction more than three years after the issuance of a building permit, except as provided in Subsection 163.3180(16), Florida Statutes. (Ord. 2006-20, 1 1-27-06) Policy 1.1.8: Coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation regarding methods by which the pedestrian orientation of the Town Center can be achieved. This coordination may include the possible reclassification of S.R. 434 through the Town Center as a Class II or Class III arterial, the potential designation of the facility west of Vistawilla Drive as one where it would be appropriate to apply a policy constraint prohibiting future widening of the roadway, and~or examining the appropriateness of lowering the speed limit along a portion of the roadway. Objective 1.2: Roadway Network. To provide an attractive, safe, convenient, and efficient arterial, collector and local roadway system that serves travel demands and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, through establishment of criteria to be enforced during site plan review, concurrency management and. access management. Policy 1.2.1: Design the arterial roadway system, through cooperation with the FDOT and Seminole County to provide high-volume, multi-lane facilities with access controls, where appropriate, to preserve the through traffic carrying capacity of the facility. (Ord. 2005-1 l; 09-12-05) Policy 1.2.2: Require joint use access and cross access easements, except where they would be infeasible, to encourage interconnectivity between developments and to reduce congestion on arterials and collector roads. Policy 1.2.3: Encourage the interconnection of collector roads on the street network to provide residents with alternative routes and the potential for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Policy 1.2.4: Fund the collector road system by transportation impact fees. (Ord. 2005-10; 2005-30 and 2006-23) Policy 1.2.5: Develop the collector road system according to the Future Transportation Map (Map II-b) and design standards derived under the auspices of the City, to coordinate the construction of segments of the system by both the public and the private sectors. Policy 1.2.6: Continue to address through the Future Transportation Map and periodic review, these factors: • Current and projected deficiencies of arterial roads under other jurisdictions; and • Existing deficiencies of City collector streets. Policy 1.2.7: Utilize appropriate access management alternative techniques to control arterial road access, reduce congestion, and preserve LOS. These techniques include but are not limited to the following: • II-5 • Limit access to roads by controlling the number and location of site access driveways; (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) • Cross access easements to adjacent properties where feasible; and • Use of frontage or back-lot parallel access roads where feasible. Policy 1.2.8: Design all major roadways as complete transportation corridors, incorporating bicycle lanes, pedestrian and transit features to achieve a true multimodal system with the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As funding becomes available, retrofit existing corridors to accommodate multimodal options. Policy 1.2.9: Maintain LOS and projected traffic circulation system demand through the year 2030 by undertaking the projects listed in this element and future transportation studies conducted for the City as well as by encouraging the State, County, and MPO to implement projects on the State/County highway system. Policy 1.2.10: Cooperate and extensively coordinate with the State, the County and the MPO to ensure that their improvements are implemented by the dates indicated, and as the need develops. Monitor proposed developments within the City to determine if roadway infrastructure will be adequate to service projected demand, and development approvals will be dependent upon these criteria. Policy 1.2.11: Create intersections of the new City collector roads with arterials where they will coordinate with the functioning of arterials. Policy 1.2.12: Design and engineer the collector road system to minimize traffic impact on arterial roads. Policy 1.2.13: Limit individual driveway cuts to local roads or alleys. Prohibit new residential driveway cuts onto arterial or collector roadways, unless absolutely warranted. Prohibit existing lots that have access to local roads from creating new driveway cuts onto arterial and collector roads. Policy 1.2.14: Coordinate with FDOT to appropriately re-classify S.R. 434 within the Winter Springs Town Center Corridor as a Class II or Class III arterial based on the increased density of traffic signals along S.R. 434. (Cross Reference: Policy 1.1.7) Policy 1.2.15: Support the widening of S.R. 434 to 4-lanes from S.R. 417 to S.R. 426 in the City of Oviedo. Objective i.3: Roadway Connectivity. The City shall, through configuration of the City-wide collector road system, create the interaction and cohesiveness that have been lacking among the residential neighborhoods of Winter Springs, but do so in a manner that does not diminish the quality of life within each neighborhood. Policy 1.3.1: Utilize design cross-sections for collector and local roads that accommodate narrower rights-of-way and roadway widths within developments that meet the definition of traditional neighborhood development. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) t II-6 Policy 1.3.2: Require that roadways be dedicated to the public when there is a compelling public interest for the roadways to connect with existing public roadways. Policy 1.3.3: Require new development and substantial redevelopment to connect to existing adjacent roadways, bicycle facilities, and sidewalks or otherwise "stub-out" to future development sites, except when such connections would be patently inappropriate. Policy 1.3.4: Utilize access management standards to ensure appropriate access to the City's transportation system. Standards may include the requirement of joint-use driveways and~or cross access easements to access sites. Policy 1.3.5: Preserve the movement function of the major thoroughfare system by requiring development of parallel roads or cross access easements to connect developments as they are permitted along major roads. Policy 1.3.6: Review through the development review process, all proposed development for consistency with future transportation projects listed in this element, and for the implementation of the planned bicycle and trail system. Policy 1.3.7: When designing extensions of existing collector roads to their logical arterial connection, choose road designs that naturally slow traffic, so that improved circulation and opportunities for a reduction in vehicle miles traveled is not at the expense of peaceful habitation. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) Policy 1.3.8: Prohibit the creation of landlocked parcels. Non-residential parcels shall be required to have right-of-way frontage or an adequate access easement (such as in out-parcels in shopping centers). Policy 1.3.9: Require new development and redevelopment to provide adequate emergency access on- site and as necessary to adjacent properties. Objective 1.4: Rights-of--way. The City shall coordinate with the County and the State to protect existing rights-of-way, and to prioritize and acquire future rights-of-way in accordance with the Future Transportation Map. Policy 1.4.1: Update the Future Transportation Map when appropriate to ensure the protection of future rights-of-way. Policy 1.4.2: Do not vacate rights-of-way that are needed to maintain an efficient and adequate transportation system. Policy 1.4.3: Require the provision of adequate setbacks and dedications necessary to implement the Future Transportation Map. Policy 1.4.4: Continue requiring the dedication of needed rights-of-way from new development where applicable. II-7 Policy 1.4.5: Amend setback requirements, zoning restrictions and right-of-way protection requirements, if necessary, to make the City's land development regulations consistent with all elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy 1.4.6: Require adequate right-of-way protection for intersections, interchanges and future park- and-ride sites in order to retain flexibility for future growth and expansion. Policy 1.4.7: Require development in the Town Center to provide the necessary right-of-way dedications for the proposed public street network. Policy 1.4.8: Maintain minimum right-of-way requirements for new roadways. Policy i.4.9: Pursue grant opportunities for median landscaping and road beautification. Policy i.4.i0: Require the dedication of all needed rights-of-way and necessary roadway improvements for all new development, and adopt provisions to protect dedication of roads to the City. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) Policy 1.4.11: Acquire rights-of-way for future transportation needs as funds become available. (Ord. 2005-1 l; 09-12-05) Policy 1.4.12: Designate U.S. Highway 1792 as a mass transit corridor. Objective 1.5: Mu/iimodal System. The City shall promote alternative modes of transportation to provide 7 safe and efficient multimodal system. Policy 1.5.1: Support safe and convenient on-site motorized and non-motorized traffic flow, adequate pedestrian facilities and connections, and sufficient parking for both motorized and non- motorized vehicles. Policy 1.5.2: Develop standards for access to public transit. Such standards shall apply to new development, substantial improvements of existing development, and to road improvements. Policy 1.5.3: Require both new development and redevelopment to provide adequate safe pedestrian facilities on-site, to adjacent sites as practical, and in adjacent right-of-way. Such facilities shall include lighted sidewalks along both sides of all internal roadways and, as appropriate, on the development side of adjacent roadways. Additionally, mitigation or elimination of existing pedestrian hazards (e.g. upgrading pn intersection} may be required, as needed and dependent upon the magnitude of the development or redevelopment project. In lieu of providing these systems, the developer may contribute funds quid pro quo for use by the City for funding expansion of similar systems. (Cross reference: Capital Improvements Element 1.4.5) Policy 1.5.4: Require both new development and redevelopment to provide adequate safe bicycle facilities on-site, to adjacent sites as practical, and in adjacent right-of-way. Such facilities shall include the provision of bicycle parking, as appropriate. Additionally, mitigation or elimination of existing bicycle hazards (e.g. installing bicycle detectors at signalized intersections) may be required, as needed and dependent upon the magnitude II-8 of the development or redevelopment project. In lieu of providing these systems, the developer may contribute funds quid pro quo for use by the City for funding expansion of similar Systems. (Cross reference: Capital Improvements Element 1.4.5) Policy 1.5.5: Promote context-sensitive parking design to encourage walking, bicycling, ridesharing, and transit use. Shared parking is encouraged where feasible. Policy 1.5.6: Require new development and redevelopment #o provide adequate on-site handicap accessible facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and, as appropriate, transit facilities to promote safe and efficient intermodal movement options. Policy 1.5.7: Require new development and redevelopment to provide safe and efficient on-site motorized and non-motorized Traffic movements, parking, and, as applicable, connections to adjacent sites and rights-of-way. Policy 1.5.8: Encourage increased land use densities and mixed uses, consistent with the Future Land Use Element to enhance the feasibility of transit and promote alternative transportation modes. Policy 1.5.9: Require that new development be compatible with and further the achievement of the Transportation Element. Requirements for compatibility may include, but are not limited to providing clearly delineated routes through parking lots to safely accommodate pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Policy 1.5.10: Include landscaping and streetscaping as roadway design components in order to enhance the function of the road for all users. Policy 1.5.11: Prepare, adopt and implement a pedestrian circulation plan. Priority will be given to those walkways for which heavy recreational usage is projected, as well as those along roadways between residential areas and schools, which can be implemented concurrently with other roadway improvements. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) Policy 1.5.12: Require an effective and safe pedestrian circulation system as a part of any new public or private roadway design and construction. Such a system sha(I be given major consideration in any substantial road improvement project. Policy 1.5.13: Require that interconnected sidewalks be constructed concurrently with new development, by the developer (including sidewalks required to connect the development to schools, parks, bus stops, or other activity areas functioning as pedestrian generators). Policy 1.5.14: Implement bicycle lanes on both sides of every arterial and collector street where feasible, except in the Town Center where travel lanes are also utilized as bicycle lanes. Coordinate with the MPO, the County and the State to expand the current bicycle lane system. Implement sidewalks on both sides of all arterial and collector streets. Policy 1.5.15: Make intersections pedestrian-friendly whenever possible, by limiting the crossing width to 48 feet; use of adequate lighting; adequate timing for traffic signals; and the provision of facilities for the handicapped. Coordinate with FDOT and the County to implement this policy. • II-9 Policy 1.5.16: Continue to work with other jurisdictions to convert the former railroad right-of-way into a corridor for alternative modes of travel within the City -walking trails, bicycle paths, equestrian and recreation. Policy 1.5.17: Establish a monitoring system to measure the achievement of the City's multimodal transportation goals. (Ord. 2005-1 1; 09-12-05) Policy 1.5.18: Adopt a Greenway Interchange District (GID) Master Circulation Plan prior to the issuance of any development approval in the portion of the GID west of S.R. 417. Policy 1.5.19: Encourage the implementation of the S.R. 434 Crosstown bus route and linkage to the planned Central Florida Commuter Rail (SunRail). Policy 1.5.20: Establish a Trails Advisory Committee comprised of residents who will work together to pursue the planning and implementation of an interconnected trail and bicycle system and make appropriate recommendations to the City Commission. Policy 1.5.21: Consider the feasibility of a transportation route along S.R. 434 connecting the Town Center and the Greenway Interchange District, with the proposed facility to be limited to transit, bicycle, and~or pedestrian access. Environmental feasibility and traffic circulation would be the primary effort of the initial consideration. If permitting issues are not found to be insurmountable, astudy may be performed to address issues such as potential routes and potential funding sources for capital and operating costs, and additional factors for a transit component such as operating agency, headways, hours of operation, projected ridership, and pricing. Objective 1.6: Public Transit. The City shall work to enhance the mobility of its traveling residents by improving access to public transit, including LYNX and the planned Central Florida Commuter Rail (SunRail). Policy 1.6.1: To help achieve ridership and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy 1.6.2: Including LYNX routes and the planned Central Florida Commuter Rail (SunRail). And to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Policy 1.6.3: Help achieve ridership by supporting use and with LYNX to provide a safe and efficient public transit system, based on existing and proposed major trip generators and attractors and land uses. Policy 1.6.4: Encourage land uses and site development that promotes public transit within designated public transit corridors, with priority given to those projects that will bring the greatest increase in transit ridership and reduction to greenhouse gas emissions, traffic congestions and air pollution. Policy 1.6.5: Require residential development with greater than 200 units or commercial developments over 50,000 square feet to incorporate a transit shelter, benches, and bicycle parking into their site plan, if located along a transit route, or if not located along a transit route, to II-10 contribute fees in lieu of these facilities to be used by the City specifically for transit related facilities. Transit ridership to and from such developments shall be encouraged and further improved by including elements, such as: Clearly delineated walkways from the building to the transit stop; and Commercial buildings placed closer to the street with access and windows directed to the street. (Cross reference Future Land Use Element Policy 5.2.4) Policy 1.6.6: Ensure that all roads serviced by public transit routes function at a LOS sufficient to support the bus service. Policy 1.6.7: Notify LYNX of any proposed traffic generators~attractors submitted to the City for review. Policy 1.6.8: Work with LYNX to improve existing bus stops, and to design new ones to include benches, bicycle parking, signage, lights, and protection from the elements. Bus stops shall also be accessible for the handicapped and elderly. Policy 1.6.9: Coordinate with LYNX to accommodate the special needs of the transportation disadvantaged. Policy 1.6.10: Inventory sidewalks within one-quarter to one-half mile of the new LYNX Crosstown bus route to identify missing links in the pedestrian system. Implement new sidewalks where sidewalks do not exist or where sidewalks are in diS.R.epair and are hazardous, as funding becomes available to provide access to transit and promote ridership. Objective 1.7: Land Use Coordination. Throughout the planning period, the City shall coordinate the transportation system needs with land use designations, and ensure that existing and proposed population densities, housing and employment patterns, and land uses are consistent with the transportation modes and services proposed for these areas. Policy 1.7.1: Establish standards that promote the location of affordable housing in close proximity to employment opportunities and transit services. Policy 1.7.2: Continue to adopt and enforce regulations and standards that require that the design and function of the roadway be adequate for the type, size, and location of the land uses they serve. Policy 1.7.3: Encourage land uses that generate high traffic counts to locate adjacent to arterial roads and mass transit corridors. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) Policy 1.7.4: Update the traffic study portion of this Transportation Element periodically to reflect the most current population projections. (Ord. 2005-1 1; 09-12-05). Policy 1.7.5: Develop standards to ensure that development in the Town Center consists of pedestrian- sized blocks. (Cross reference: Future Land Use Policy ^) • II-11 7bjective 1.8: Environment. The City should conserve the natural environment and augment open space ~s functions of road development. Policy 1.8.1: Choose rights-of-way for the City's collector road system, where valid options are available, distant enough from natural drainage features and upland habitats to allow coexistence with these natural areas. Policy 1.8.2: Allow the incursion of a roadway through natural drainage features and upland habitats only when its public benefit outweighs other concerns. Policy 1.8.3: Include in all new road and trail plans, adequate right-of-way for potential landscaping, where feasible, and provide in the annual budget of the City, adequate funds for maintenance. Policy 1.8.4: Designate scenic guidelines to preserve existing vegetation and canopy, as much as possible. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) Objective 1.9: Intergovernmentol Coordination. Traffic circulation planning will be coordinated with the MPO, FDOT, Seminole County, neighboring jurisdictions and other transportation related agencies. Policy 1.9.1: Keep appraised of the schedules for improvements and ongoing policies of all jurisdictions whose transportation responsibilities within the City limits affect the quality of life and the LOS on which Winter Springs citizens depend. Policy 1.9.2: Review subsequent versions of the FDOT Five-Year Transportation Plan, in order to update or modify this element, as necessary. Policy 1.9.3: Keep abreast and review updates to the Transportation Element of the Seminole County Comprehensive Plan, in order to update or modify the City' element, as necessary. Policy 1.9.4: Promote a comprehensive transportation planning process that coordinates state, regional, and local transportation plans. Policy 1.9.5: Support the State and the County on the establishment of alternative transportation systems, including high speed, commuter, and~or light rail line systems connecting Seminole County with other areas in Florida. Policy 1.9.6: Work with FDOT and Seminole County to make low speed urban street design the normal, default practice for street construction, reconstruction, or modification within the Town Center. These urban street design features shall include, but not be limited to, wide sidewalks, narrow motor-vehicle lanes, street trees, prominent crosswalks, tight turning radii, and very limited use of turn lanes. The City shall encourage the same policy be adopted and implemented by these entities for their roadway segments within the Town Center. Policy 1.9.7: Coordinate development of all property in the City adjacent to Tuskawilla Road with County requirements for laneage and intersection improvements to lessen development impact until the road is improved. II-12 Policy 1.9.8: Coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation regarding a reduction in the speed limit on S.R. 434 in the Town Center, when warranted, to better reflect the pedestrian-friendly environment being created in the Town Center. (Cross reference: Policy 1.1.7) Policy 1.9.9: Discourage the widening of S.R. 434 west of Vistawilla Drive. (Cross reference: Policy 1.1.7) Objective 1.10: Traffic Management Systems. The City shall evaluate the need and feasibility of implementing traffic management systems. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) Policy 1.10.1: Consider adopting and~or promoting Transportation System Management (TSM) or Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to enhance traffic capacity, movement and safety, if needed. Consider additional 7SM~TDM strategies, such as staggered work hours, transit, trail, ridesharing~carpooling incentives, guaranteed ride home and other TSM~TDM measures. Objective 1.11: Concurrency Management System. The City shall maintain a Concurrency Management System to ensure that transportation facilities and services needed to support development and redevelopment are available concurrent with the impacts of such development. Policy 1.11.1: Continue requiring that adequate transportation facilities to maintain the City's LOS standards be available to meet the traffic demands of atl new development prior to the issuance of a final development order, in accordance with the Concurrency Management Provisions set forth in the Capital Improvements Element of this Plan. Policy 1.11.2: Require that all new developments anticipated to generate 300 or more daily trips be required to submit a Transportation Impact Study. (Ord. 2005-11; 09-12-05) (Cross reference: Policy 1.1.3) Policy 1.11.3: Require new development, regardless of size, to provide operational improvements to the City' transportation system to mitigate their impacts on the system, to ensure smooth traffic flow, and to aid in the elimination of hazards. Improvements may include, but are not limited to: providing added connectivity, the addition of turn lanes, deceleration lanes, signage, signals and pavement markings, and contributions to the City~s multimodal system. (Ord. 2005-1 1; 09-12-05) Policy 1.11.4: Require that transportation facilities needed to serve new development are in place, or under actual construction, within 3 years after the approval of a building permit, or its functional equivalent that results in traffic generation. The only exceptions to this policy are those described in Subsection 163.3180 of the Florida Statutes. Policy 1.11.5: Maintain records to determine whether any 1 10% de minimus transportation impact threshold pursuant to Subsection 163.3180(6) of the Florida Statutes is reached. A summary of these records shall be submitted with the annual Capital Improvements Element update. Policy i.l i.6: Consider conducting a study to determine the feasibility of implementing a Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD), or similar II-13 concurrency management alternative(s) for the Town Center, Greenway Interchange District, and the developable land between the two areas, to encourage urban infill development. Such a study, following coordination with FDOT regarding the methodology, may include: Establishing whether concurrency management alternatives are appropriate to help achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, Investigating the implementation of similar systems in jurisdictions with similar characteristics and issues, Establishing guidelines for granting exceptions to transportation concurrency for urban infill development, urban redevelopment, downtown revitalization, or similar purpose allowed by Florida Statutes, Evaluating possible mobility strategies that promote the purposes for which an exception may be proposed, and Determining specific steps that would need to be undertaken by the City. ~~ II-14 8. INTRODUCTION The City of Winter Springs is located within an urbanized portion of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - METROPLAN ORLANDO. Therefore, the City is required by the State to adopt a Transportation Element, as opposed to a Traffic Circulation Element, and to coordinate the element with the long-range transportation plan of the MPO. The purpose of the Transportation Element is to plan for a multimodal transportation system that emphasizes accessibility by placing emphasis on public transportation systems; encourages the development of compact, pedestrian-oriented urban areas; promotes energy efficient development patterns; and protects air quality. An essential base for planning a transportation system is the Future Land Use Element. The Future Land Use Map will determine where new or improved transportation facilities may be needed. The Transportation Element will assess the condition and capacity of the existing transportation facilities, project future needs, set Levels of Service (LOS) standards for roads and determine future system improvements. Roadway LOS standards will be established to ensure that adequate facility capacity for future development is concurrently sufficient with the issuance of development orders and development permits. These standards will be established for each roadway link consistent with the facility type, and current Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) LOS guidelines. The transportation planning process in Seminole County is a joint effort among various federal, state, regional, county and municipal agencies working together with the MPO. This agency ensures that highways, public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and other transportation facilities are coordinated and planned consistent with planned development in the urbanized area. September 2004, METROPLAN ORLANDO adopted the 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Orlando Urban Area, a 20-year multimodal plan for guiding transportation improvements in the Orlando urban area (Orange, Osceola, and Seminole Counties). The plan is based on regional needs identified through the process of forecasting future travel demand, evaluating system alternatives, and selecting those options which best meet the mobility needs of the region. The plan recommends road, highway, beltway, rail, and transit system improvements to be implemented by 2025. The plan represents the best combination of financial resources and improvements to meet the goals and objectives of the study. C. INVENTORY An efficient transportation system should provide access to various land uses through alternative transportation modes. The overview of the existing multimodal transportation system within the City of Winter Springs provides the basis for analyzing existing transportation deficiencies and needs within the City. This section will identify existing roadway and transit facilities, availability of public parking facilities, airport and rail line systems, availability of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and other ancillary services and programs. 1. Road System Historically, the City of Winter Springs, Florida has been an auto dependent, suburban community served by one major north-south County road, Tuskawilla Road, and one major east-west route, S.R. 434, which is primarily a 4- lane arterial highway. Other major roads in the City and vicinity are S.R. 417 (Seminole Expressway), S.R. 419, U.S. 17-92, Red Bug Lake Road, and East Lake Drive. The City's roadway network is displayed on Map II-1. • II-15 • S.R. 417 (Seminole Expressway): A north-south four-lane divided expressway located along the eastern boundary of the City, which provides access to Sanford to the north and Orange County to the south. • U.S. 17-92; North-south principal arterial located along the west boundary of the City. It connects with Sanford to the north and Orange County to the south. The route passes through Orlando, Winter Park, Maitland, Casselberry, Longwood, Winter Springs, Lake Mary and Sanford. It is currently asix-lane undivided facility where adjacent to the City of Winter Springs, and four lanes north of Shepard Road. • S.R. 434: A principle arterial that runs from south of Altamonte Springs north to Longwood, then east through the center of Winter Springs to Oviedo, then south past the University of Central Florida to S.R. 50 east of Orlando. S.R. 434 within the City of Winter Springs is primarily afour- lane facility, with a portion of the road east of S.R. 417 consisting of a two-lane segment. S.R. 434 passes through the Town Center, the City of Winter Springs' concentrated mixed-use downtown urban center. Because the Town Center is apedestrian-oriented environment, the posted speed of 45 miles per hour on S.R. 434 poses safety and other issues for pedestrian crossings. • S.R. 419: A minor arterial that runs from S.R. 434 in Winter Springs to U.S. 17-92 near Lake Mary. Within the City of Winter Springs, it is a two-lane undivided facility. • Tuskawilla Road: A four-lane County minor arterial that runs from S.R. 434 in Winter Springs to S.R. 426 near the Orange County line. • Red Bug Lake Road: A four-lane County principal arterial that runs from S.R. 436 in Casselberry east to S.R. 426 in Oviedo where it aligns with Mitchell Hammock Road. • East Lake Drive: A realignment and widening of this facility was completed in 2008. !t presently functions as a four-lane County minor arterial that runs from Tuskawilla Road west to Seminola Boulevard which provides easy access to U.S. 17-92. The recent improvements to the facility provide a convenient alternative for many trips that would otherwise utilize S.R. 434. a. Jurisdiction and Maintenance Responsibility Map II-1 shows the jurisdictional responsibility of each roadway in the City of Winter Springs. The road system includes one limited access facility (S.R. 417), three state arterials (U.S. 17-92, S.R. 434 and S.R. 419) and two County arterials, Tuskawilla Road and East Lake Drive. There is also one County collector (a portion of Shepard Road), nineteen (19) City collectors, and three local roads included in the classification. b. Functional Classification Tables II-2 and Map II-1 show the functional classification of major roads in the City of Winter Springs. The functional classification of public roads in this element is based on FDOT criteria, which consider quantitative and qualitative factors such as jurisdiction, land access, route length, and trip lengths. A road hierarchy is used to identify relative importance of roads within the system, provide guidance for LOS and design standards, aid in establishing improvement priorities, identify maintenance responsibility, and assist in determining funding and financing policies. The hierarchy used in this element includes: II-16 (l) Limited Access Facilities: Designed to provide regional mobility via uninterrupted flow at high travel speeds for regional trips. Access spacing is generally on the order of one mile or more, and average travel speeds are above 40 miles per hour. There is no direct land access, and urban freeways are multi-lane, divided facilities. Lane access is always via ramps to major arterials or frontage roads. S.R. 417 (Seminole Expressway) is part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIRS) and the only limited access facility within the City of Winter Springs. (2) Arterials: Provide regional mobility via both uninterrupted flow and interrupted flow segments. Arterials provide mobility around and through urban and community cores, and accommodate relatively long trip lengths as opposed to providing access to adjacent properties. Arterials are sometimes further classified for performance as Class 1, I1, and III based on the number of signals per mile, access controls, geometric cross sections, and speed limits. (3) Collectors: Provide for movement between local streets and the arterial network. Collectors serve residential, commercial and industrial areas. (4j Local Roads: Provide direct access to abutting properties. Local roads accommodate traffic originating in or traveling to properties within a neighborhood, commercial or industrial development. Local roads are not considered part of the major thoroughfare system. • II-17 Map ~i- 1: Existing Roadway Classification, Jurisdiction, and Number of Lanes • Map updates will be prepared - 1 change =realignment and widening of East Lake Drive. Potentially add new facilities added to Table 11-2 (McLeod's Way, Doran Dr., C)range Ave.). Change Highlander Rd. to McLeods Wy.; Giff Rose Dr. to Roberts Family Ln.; Spine Rd to Michael Blake Blvd. S LEGEND: 9 ~ ------------ 2W5/2CC8 PRUPUSED ALK3NMCNi e 3 a e ~ S ' ^ ^)• ^ ^ PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL {STATE) i ~ ^ ~ y N « URBluV ARTERIAL /MAJOR CGLLECTUR (COUNTY) ~ r ~ ,,\;~1',~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINOR COLLECT"OR (COUNTY) V" n ~ ~ C 0' ~ ^ MUNIC.IPAI. COLLECTOR (CITY) ~ 3 ~ 4L } 2L NUMBER OF LAN ES S ~ ~ HEPARU Xp,.^A aF CENTRAL WINDS * PI<OPOSED CI'T'Y CULLECTUR k~o : ~~ ~ . ~ * ~ PARKWAY 3 d ~ ~$ ~ 2L m 2L ~ 2L OXAA• DORAN DR. d Oyy ~ 41 ~' S' BUlA1BERG DR. ~f \ • 71.. €, Q 8 ^ 0 ^ f ,` ~ ^ 1M + TCIWN CENTER TOWNHUUSE RD. it HIGV~ 6 n ^ i 4L ~f 2L 2 ~ D LANDER SPINE RD. ;NORTH ANO SOUTH OF B.R a34j d' ~ i. ~ ~ Y' z ^ S.N. au .z -` O ~ ^ ^ ^ t ^ ~~ a ii m RD.*- ~ ----TREE 9WALLOIr' •* . F ~~ s u m ^ 4L o tb4 2L w z 2L ZL ~4L ~ ui ^ 2L yi `n d ~ *SOUTFiYlESTLWP n > ~ N N . ~ ~ 7L = '^ ~t CLIfF ROSE DR.J 2`+M ^^^^^^ a^^^^^~^^ A a° • 2L B AM1IA RD~* it SOUTHEAST LOOP-/`~14L OQe4 ?L ,~P O¢ Z In ~~ ~ (~ PANAM1IARO. TROT VJCb~yi q CAN a9 3 ^' ~ X FA 2L BL~lb. ~ NO4nH' yj 2L ^ ,r ~r 2L Y ~ ., n ~ Z ~ f SEAt1NOLA 2L N,y ~. 2L WIN7 EgSp/i1, Rj. ?,L ^ ~ p D { ~ (7 • BL'v0. - z~ f,S, 21 ~ YGS ^ ~ FV 1p ~+ zp o s ~W 2L ~. ^~ Z ~G 3 D s/~ EL a1 ,`~ 1t` 1L 2 2 LO ^ ~ z m g ~ • E. `LAK.zc." R. zL ~ y`3~~~ ~ C~ ^ C ~ ;D Y vi ~ ¢ 21 ~ 41 ~h c~ -- A ~ ~ Imo- ~ 8L Q_Pyo ~~~ 4L ~ Or 'D,y WAY zL aL ~ 41 ~ N N T ••~~ WA ~ ~/ EA~F g V9 ~ DP. ?L 3y~. ~r. ~ A ~ C,n s 2L ~ 2L 41 ~ ,f N s N N 6L ~ RED DUG LAKE RD. a { o~ , j ~ A) C \aJ o ' 2L A~ a1 m II-18 Tab~e II - 1: Historic Daily Volumes and Year 2008 Roadway LinK Levels of Service (LOS) ROADWAY FROM TO US 17-92 SEMINOLA BLVD SR 434 US 17-92 SR 434 SR 419 SR 434 US 17-92 BELLE AVENUE SR 434 BELLE AVENUE SR 419 SR 434 SR 419 TUSKAWILLA RD SR 434 TUSKAWILLA RD SPRING AVENUE SR 434 SPRING AVENUE SR 417 SR 434 SR 417 DELEON STREET SR 419 US 17-92 EDGEMON AVENUE SR 419 EDGEMON AVENUE SR 434 E LAKE (see Note 1) SEMINOLA BLVD PARK DR E LAKE (see Note 1) PARK DR STERLING. OAKS DR E LAKE (see Note 1) STERLING OAKS DR AZALEA RD E LAKE (see Note 1) AZALEA RD TUSKAWILLA RD TUSKAWILLA RD RED BUG LAKE RD EAGLE BLVD TUSKAWILLA RD EAGLE BLVD E LAKE DR TUSKAWILLA RD EAST LAKE DR DYSON DR TUSKAWILLA RD DYSON DR WINTER SPRINGS BLVD 7USKAWILLA RD WINTER SPRINGS BLVD TROTWOOD BLVD TUSKAWILLA RD TROTWOOD BLVD SR 434 SHEPARD RD SR 434 SR 419 " Updated to 2007 Florida LOS Values " SR 434 to Shepard is 6 lanes. Cdlection point is north of Shepard LOS D" DAILY DAILY DAILY DAILY NO. OF ROADWAY DAILY VOLUME VOLUME VOLUME V/C RATIO LOS LANES CLASS CAPACITY 2008 2004 2001 2008 2008 6 ARTERIAL 53500 47429 51190 36959 0.89 C 4 ARTERIAL 35700 33832 39579 36959 0.95 C 4 ARTERIAL 35700 35370 25731 24988 0.99 D 4 ARTERIAL 35700 27726 24410 23788 0.78 B 4 ARTERIAL 35700 36952 29983 32418 1.04 F 4 ARTERIAL 35700 26130 21008 18720 0.73 B 4 ARTERIAL 35700 22743 22091 19394. 0.64 B 2 ARTERIAL 16400 19500 NA NA 1.19 F 2 ARTERIAL 16400 17085 19265 21090 1.04 F 2 ARTERIAL 16400 15995 16888 18417 0.98 D 4 ARTERIAL 14600 12441 NA NA 0.85 D 4 ARTERIAL 14600 13140 NA NA 0.90 D 4 ARTERIAL 14600 10809 NA NA 0.74 D 4 ARTERIAL 14600 14362 NA NA 0.98 D 4 ARTERIAL 35700 34237 31981 27583 0.96 C 4 ARTERIAL 35700 31517 30532. 27844 0.88 C 4 ARTERIAL 35700 26256 NA NA 0.74 B 4 ARTERIAL 35700 20155. NA NA 0.56 B 4 ARTERIAL 35700 19183 23044 14226 0.54 B 4 ARTERIAL 35700 19582 20294 13822 0.55 B 2 COLLECTOR 10000 4542 5226 0.45 C NA =direct comparison not available for segment Note 1: A realignment and widening of Eest Lake Drive to 4 lanes was completed in 2008. 2008 traffic counts for this roadway are not yet available, so the recent data in the table are2007 counts when the roadway was 2 lanes. Level of service shown in this table is based one 2-lane segment. The Number of Lanes column reflects that the roadway is now 4 lanes, end the Roadway Class coumn reflects that the roadway is now functioning es an arterial. Note. 2: 2008 daily volumes are based on Seminole County traffic counts for the first quarter of 2008. SOURCES: Seminole County Traffic Engineering, City of Winter Springs, CPH Engineering, Sievers & Associates LLC • II-19 • • Table II - 2: Historic Daity Volumes and Roadway Link Levels of Service with Existing Network (City Streets) LOS D' NO. OF ROADWAY DAILY DAILY V/C DAILY ROADWAY FROM TO LANES GLASS YEAR CAPACITY VOLUME RATIO LOS SHEOAH BLVD SHEPARD RD SR 434 2 COLLECTOR. 2004 10000 2676 0.27 C BAHAMA RD MOSS RD SHORE RD 2 COLLECTOR 10000 NA NA NA MOSS RD PANAMA RD 5R 434 2 COLLECTOR 2004 10000 3932 0.39 C MOSS RD'" 5R 434 5R 419 2 COLLECTOR 2004 10500 2594 0.26 C NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRINGS BLVD TROTWOOD BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 2761 0.28 C NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD VISTA WILLA DR 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 2942 0.29 C NORTHERN WAY VISTA WILLA DR SHETLAND AVE 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 3012 0.30 C NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN WINTER SPRINGS BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 2713 0.27 C TROTWOOD BLVD TUSKAVNLLA RD NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 4190 0.42. C TROTWOOD-BLVD TUSKAVVILLA RD WEST 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 1647 0.16 C WINTER SPRINGS BLVD TUSKAIMLLA RD NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10500 7647 -0.76 D WINTERSPRINGS BLVD NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10500 5280 0.53 D WINTER SPRINGS BLVD NORTHERN WAY NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10500 7647 0.76 D WINTERSPRINGS BLVD NORTHERN WAY SR 426 4 COLLECTOR 20D1 22600 11152 0.50 C SHORE RD PANAMA RD SR 434 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 436 0.04 C HAYES RD PANAMA RD SR 434 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10D00 5671 0.57 D DOLPHIN RD SHORES RD HAYES RD 2 LOCAL 2001 10D00 2455 0.25 C FISHER RD EAST LAKE DR PANAMA RD 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 944 0.09 C TUSCORA DR NORTHERN WAY 5R 434 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 2242 0.22 C VISTAWILLA DR NORTHERN WAY SENECA BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 3840 0.38 C GREENBRIAR LN NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRINGS BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 1569 0.16 C DYSON DR TUSKAWILLA RD SHETLAND AVE 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 1221 0.12. C SHETLAND AVE CITRUS DYSON DR 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 5575 0.56 C • II-20 • • • Table II-2: Historic Daily Volumes and Roadway Link Levels of Service with Existing Network (City Streets) -continued ROADWAY FROM TO EDGEMON AVE SEMINOLA BLVD PANAMA RD EDGEMON AVE PANAMA RD SR 434 EDGEMON AVE SR 434 SR 419 WADE ST SR 434 SR 419 MCLEODS WAY ROBERTS FAMILY LANE SR 434 DORAN DRIVE SR 434 WS HIGH SCHOOL ORANGE AVENUE TUSKAIMLLA ROAD CENTRAL WINDS PARK ALTON RD HAYES RD SHORE RD SENECA BLVD 1MNTER SPRINGS BLVD. 112 WAY SENECA BLVD 112 WAY VISTAWILLA LOS D" NO. OF ROADWAY DAILY DAILY V/C DAILY LANES CLASS YEAR CAPACITY VOLUME RATIO LOS 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 3250 A.33 C 2 COLLECTOR- 2001 10000 2930 0.29 C 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 3281 0.33 C 2 COLLECTOR 2001 10000 623 0.06 C 2 COLLECTOR 10000 NA NA NA 2 COLLECTOR 2005 10000 1270 0.13 C 2 COLLECTOR. 10000 NA NA NA 2 LOCAL 2001 10000 1246 0.12 C 2 LOCAL 2001 10000 2115 0.21 C 2 LOCAL 2001 10000 1642 0.16 C "Updated to 2002 LOS Values "* Tum Lanes Included Note: 2001 daily volumes are based on City of Winter Springs traffic counts conducted In February 2001. Sources: CPH Engineering, City of 1Mnter Springs II-21 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN c. Constrained Facilities Subsection 339.155, Florida Statutes, makes governmental police powers available to preserve and protect property necessary for transportation corridors and recommends that needed rights-of-way be acquired as far in advance of construction as possible. FDOT requests that local governments identify constrained roadways in their comprehensive plans to ensure maintenance of the operating conditions, so that significant degradation in the LOS does not occur. A constrained roadway is one in which adding two or more through lanes to meet current or future needs is not possible due to physical, environmental or policy barriers. With the development of the Town Center and its pedestrian orientation, the conflicts and potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians continue to increase. To assist in maintaining the pedestrian orientation of the Town Center, the City of Winter Springs will coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation to see if a variance to Rule 14-94, F.A.C. can be obtained. d. Crash Locations Crash analysis is critical because it provides a tool for City and State officials to recommend appropriate safety measures. Crash frequency along with roadway performance can be used to prioritize future roadway needs. Table II-3 shows crash data for 2007, compiled by Seminole County Traffic Engineering from reports provided by the Winter Springs Police Department. It shows those road segments with 5 crashes or more during that year, and Map II-2 visually depicts those areas. The road segment with the largest number of incidents was S.R. 434 at Tuskawilla Road with 29 crashes. ~_~ II-22 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Map II- 2: Signalized Intersections and Crash Locations, 2007 UPDATE AND INSERT `MAP Il -2 HERE r-~ • II-23 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Table II - 3: Crash Locations with Greater than 5 Crashes, 2007 Number of Crashes • Intersection Fatalities Injuries 29 S.R. 434 @Tuskawilla Rd. 0 5 19 S.R. 434 @ Fountain Tree Dr. '' 0 2 18 S.R. 434 @ Timberline Tr. 0 5 17 S.R. 434 @ Parkstone Blvd. 0 8 17 S.R. 434 @ Doran Dr. 0 5 15 S.R. 434 @ Moss Rd. 0 2 13 S.R. 419 @ Wade St. 0 5 l0 S.R. 434 @ VistawiHa Dr. 0 7 10 Tuskawilla Rd. @ Trotwood Blvd. 0 5 10 S.R.`434 @ Edgemon Ave. 0 3 10 S.R. 434 @ S.R. 419 0 3 9 Tuskawilla Rd. @ Winter Springs Blvd. 0 0 g S.R. 434 p0 Hayes Rd. 0 4 8 S.R. 419 @ Edgemon' Ave. 0 3 7 S.R. 434 @ Central Winds Dr. 0 1 6 S.R. 434 @ Cortez Ave. 0 3 5 S.R. 434 @ Consolidated Service 0 4 5 S.R. 434 @ Belle Ave. 0 3 5 S.R. 434 @ Sheoah Blvd. 0 0 5 Winter Springs Blvd. @ Northern Way 0 0 Note: The crashes listed above were crashes that the City of Winter Springs Police Department responded to in 2007. Source: Seminole County Traffic Engineering, Sievers 8~ Associates LLC e. Signalized Intersections The location of signalized intersections is shown on Map II-2. Most of the intersections in the City use stop signs rather than traffic signals. Traffic lights are located mainly along S.R. 434, S.R. 419, and Tuskawilla Road. f. Evacuation Routes The City of Winter Springs adopted the Peace Time Emergency Plan in 1997. The plan outlines responsibilities for all departments in the City in the case of a man- made or natural disaster of local scale. For large-scale disasters, the City follows ~~ ~J II-24 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN the County's Comprehensive Emergency Plan. This plan does not identify evacuation routes, as Seminole County is a "receiving area", but lists the shelters available. All schools in Winter Springs can serve as shelter sites. 2. Public Transit System • • The fixed route bus transit system in Seminole County is operated by LYNX, which focuses its service on Orange, Seminole, and Osceola counties, with some service to Polk, Volusia and Lake Counties (see Map II-3). Table II-4 shows the public transit characteristics and ridership figures for 2003 through the first three quarters of 2008. Table II - 4: Public Transit Characteristics Route Service Area Days Frequency Hours U.S. 17-92 Mon. to Sat. 30 min. 5:02 AM to 1 1:05 PM 103 Casselberr to Sanford ( Y ) Sunday 60 min. 6:24 AM to 8:05 PM 323 S.R. 434 Mon. to Sat. 60 min. 5:00 AM to 9:54 PM 47 Oviedo - UCF Mon. to Sat. 60 min. 5:00 AM to 9:54 PM Source: LYNX Website, October 2008. Ridership* Year Route 39 Route 103 Route 47 2003 652,765 - --- --- - 52,081 -- 2004 -- - - - 698,917 45,786 2005 739,886 --- ----...---------- 46,946 --- --- 2006 -- ------ -- -- 736,273 52,618 2007 765,245 50,049 2008 (Jan -Sep) ** 488,623 48,178 38,534 * Does not include S.R.434 Crosstown route #323, which did not become operational until April 2009. ** In mid-August 2008, Route 39 was split into two. The northern portion of the old Route 39 is now Route 103 which follows the same path from Casselberry to Sanford. Source: LYNX II-25 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Map II- 3: Public Transit System and Major Traffic Generators/Attractors MAP NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.. WITH S.R. 434 CROSSTOWN. TRAFFIC GENERATORS ARE THE SAME • • II-26 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Presently, LYNX buses serve two routes adjacent to the City. Route 103 generally follows the U.S. 17-92 corridor from Sanford to Casselberry. Route 47 primarily serves Oviedo from the University of Central Florida to Oviedo Marketplace. Neither link provides any service on S.R. 434 in the vicinity of the Town Center. A new east-west route (Link 323), also known as the S.R. 434 Crosstown, connects Routes 103 and 47. The Crosstown service begins at Oviedo Marketplace, and runs along S.R. 417 to S.R. 434, then follows the S.R. 434 corridor through Longwood and Altamonte Springs terminating at the Rosemont Superstop in northwest Orlando. This service, funded by FDOT and Seminole County, is to be a 2-year demonstration project beginning in April 2009. It will provide the City with a much needed bus route to the City's major traffic generators. The route will be a feeder route, providing connecting service to the planned Longwood Commuter Rail (SunRail) Station. SunRail is scheduled to begin service in 201 1. As public transit service is implemented to serve the City of Winter Springs, the City will coordinate with METROPLAN ORLANDO and LYNX to assist in maintaining the County's adopted LOS of 1.03 revenue miles per capita per year. 3. Parking System At this time, the City of Winter Springs does not have any significant public parking facilities. Major events which demand additional public parking are accommodated by a coordinated and cooperative effort between the City and private landowners. 4. Bicycle System The Florida Department of Environmental Protection's Office of Greenways and Trails owns, and has sub-leased to Seminole County, the Cross Seminole Trail, a portion of which is located in Winter Springs. The Seminole County Parks and Recreation Department is in charge of maintaining the trail. An Interlocal Agreement exists between the City of Winter Springs and Seminole County regarding use and maintenance of the Cross Seminole Trail. The City of Winter Springs Parks and Recreation Department assisted with the design of the restroom facility located at the Black Hammock trailhead, located within the jurisdictional limits of the City, and is responsible for the maintenance and cleaning of the restroom facility. A 1.8-mile section of the trail corridor along S.R. 426 (south of Red Bug Lake Road) is owned by FDOT. The trail currently runs from Layer Elementary School in Winter Springs to the intersection of S.R. 434 and S.R. 426 in downtown Oviedo. Other built sections of the trail include from CR 46A south to Greenway Boulevard in Lake Mary and from Mikler Road to the Orange County Line. The Cross Seminole Trail connects with the Seminole Wekiva Trail via the I-4 Pedestrian Bridge in Lake Mary. Upon completion, the Cross Seminole Trail will be a 34.5 mile long continuous trail linking Altamonte Springs, Longwood, Lake Mary, Winter Springs, and Oviedo and connecting to the Cady Way Trail and the Orange County Trail System. The trail will run from Spring Hammock Preserve in Winter Springs to Howell Branch Road at the Orange County Line and will connect several parks including: Central Winds Park, Soldier's Creek Park, Big Tree Park, Greenwood Lakes Park, Sweetwater Creek Park, Torcaso Park, Lawton House Park, and Spring Hammock. The trail will also connect seven schools: Layer Elementary, Winter Springs High School, Indian Trails Middle School, Keeth Elementary, Trinity Preparatory School, Oviedo High School, and Lawton Elementary. • II-27 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Cross Seminole Trail is currently under construction from the Oviedo Mall to S.R. 434. Design is complete on the segment from Mikler to Red Bug Lake Road and construction is scheduled to begin in late 2008. A pedestrian overpass is programmed to be constructed over Red Bug Lake Road beginning in the fall 2008, with a connection to S.R. 426 near the Oviedo Mall. The trail will also be realigned by the FDOT S.R. 426 widening project. The trail will cross at the signalized intersection of Marketplace Blvd & S.R. 426 and connect with the trail corridor along Aulin Avenue. Existing and future portions of the Cross Seminole Trail are depicted in the Recreation and Open Space Element. The Conceptual City Trails Network Map, located in the Recreation and Open Space Element, identifies opportunities for increased bicycle. and pedestrian connectivity in the City. The City has had recent success in securing funding for bicycle and pedestrian amenities through FDOT grants and the "Safe Routes to School" program. The City should continue to explore opportunities for implementing additional interconnecting bike routes and trails. As the Town Center and GID develop, there may be an opportunity to provide shorter and easier bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between these activity centers. The configuration of the Cross Seminole Trail will take the trail from the Town Center south across S.R. 434 via an overpass, then east to the Black Hammock Trailhead where a second S.R. 434 crossing would be necessary to provide access to the GID to the north. Options for a more direct bicycle pedestrian route north of S.R. 434 linking the two centers could be considered by the City, but is should be noted that a wetland crossing would be required and undeveloped property might need to be purchased. The City could explore provision of pedestrian and~or bicycle accommodations along S.R. 434 that would provide a less direct route, but would likely minimize additional right-of-way needs. As noted above, the corridor could be shared with local transit service linking the Town Center and the GID. 5. Pedestrian System The analysis of existing pedestrian conditions found that the City was well served by sidewalks, but encouraged identification of missing links and prioritization of improvements to enhance pedestrian connectivity. The Cross Seminole Trail discussed in the Recreation and Open Space Element offers alternate pedestrian and bicycle paths into the heart of the Town Center and equestrian ~ hiking trails around the periphery. The City has coordinated with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOTj regarding various issues concerning S.R. 434 and general agreement has been reached on resolving many of the issues such as access involving the pedestrian-oriented Town Center area. However, the issue of posted roadway speed limits on S.R. 434 through the Town Center has not yet been resolved. FDOT will require a detailed engineering study to justify the City's request for a lower speed limit, in accordance with the applicable Florida Statutes. A speed study for S.R. 434 was conducted by FDOT in 2008 which resulted in reducing the posted speed limit from 50 mph to 45 mph from Central Winds Parkway to 7uskawilla Road. Further reductions may be achievable in conjunction with development of the Town Center. Approximately 1.5 miles of S.R. 434 passes through the area designated on the Future Land Use Map as Town Center. Presently, this portion of the highway is part of a segment considered a Class i arterial with less than two signalized intersections per mile. At least one additional traffic II-28 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN signal within the Town Center area is planned at Michael Blake Blvd., which would result in more than two intersections per mile. As the Town Center continues to develop, it will be appropriate to readdress how the Town Center area is viewed in terms of roadway class and to work with FDOT to determine if the Town Center segment's characteristics should result in the segment being designated a Class II arterial with 2 to 4.5 signals per mile. The designation of the segment as a Class II arterial would allow for a change in the speed limit (currently 45 mph) to as low as 35 mph according to FDOT's generalized characteristics of arterial classes. A reduction of vehicle speeds on S.R. 434 through the Town Center would result in an environment much more conducive to the high levels of pedestrian activity anticipated for the Town Center at buildout. Such a reduction in vehicle speeds would be supported by FDOT's mission, the four key components of which are safety, mobility, economic prosperity, and the quality of the environment and communities. Although the Class II arterial designation would be based on an approximately 1.5 mile segment (FDOT guidelines for arterial facility analysis have a general recommended length of at least one mile), it might be appropriate to have a reduced speed limit only in the core of the downtown area. The City has identified the key corridor as being a 0.6 mile segment from Doran Drive to the Cross Seminole Trail Bridge. It should be noted that a 35 mph speed limit is currently in effect on S.R. 434 for an approximately 0.3 mile distance in downtown Longwood. To create a central core downtown pedestrian friendly district in the Town Center, retrofits to S.R. 434 will be essential to the existing streetscape. Coordination will be necessary with the Florida Department of Transportation to address proposed hardscape and landscaping alternatives including the narrowing of vehicular travel lanes, the demarcation of bicycle lanes, the addition of landscaped medians, on-street parking, and pedestrian crosswalks. Coordination with FDOT will also be required to determine if a policy constraint to prohibit the widening of S.R. 434 in the Town Center area is appropriate. 6. Intermodal Facilities Intermodal facilities are those transportation elements that accommodate and interconnect different modes of transportation and serve interstate, intrastate and international movement of people and goods. Some facilities considered Intermodal include ports, airports, bus stations and train terminals. The Intermodal Surface Efficiency Act (ISTEA) legislation encourages the provision of efficient access to these Intermodal facilities. There are no public airports within the City limits. The closest public airport is Orlando Sanford International Airport in Sanford. In late 2008, the facility was served by five airlines with regularly scheduled service along with several charter airlines. Direct flights are available to 31 destinations in the United States as well as four European cities. The City of Winter Springs has only one active rail line within the City limits. It is operated by CSX and runs along S.R. 419 and terminates just east of Wade Street, within the Winter Springs Industrial Park. It is currently used for freight trains only. The Florida Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the federal and local governments, is planning to implement a commuter rail project (SunRail) that will follow a generally north-south route along 61 miles of existing track. The first phase, to consist of a 32.5-mile segment, will run from Orlando to DeBary and is anticipated to be operational in 2011. Twelve stations are • II-29 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN planned for the first phase, with the nearest one to Winter Springs to be located in Longwood. LYNX's planned 434 Crosstown route will be a feeder route, connecting the City of Winter Springs with the SunRail system. Until very recently, Seminole County was serviced by Greyhound Transportation Services with a bus terminal in Sanford. That facility is no longer included on the list of stations shown on the company's website. The City of Winter Springs is located along the south shore of Lake Jesup. The lake is currently used for recreational boating and fishing. Although it was used for steamboat transport services in the late 1800's, the lake is no longer used for transportation purposes. D. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS Transportation can have a major role shaping the spatial and functional organization of a community. It can determine the size, scale, status and identity of a community. However, there are other contributing factors that need to be considered, such as the personal, social, physical, environmental, economic and cultural attributes of the community. This section will analyze existing conditions of the transportation system to provide a comprehensive assessment of the various transportation facilities and services, and their relationship with existing land uses. This section will also address growth trends, travel patterns, and interactions between land use and transportation, including the compatibility between future land uses and transportation systems. Winter Springs is an integral part of the Orlando Urban Area. Additionally, the City is one of the larger municipalities within Seminole County and is located primarily between two principal arterials, S.R. 434 and Red Bug Lake Road. As such, transportation planning for Winter Springs requires close cooperation with other planning efforts within the Orlando region and Seminole County. For this reason, the transportation planning methodology used to develop the transportation plan must necessarily be compatible with transportation methodologies in adjacent jurisdictions. In order to accomplish this requirement, extensive use of data sources and planning models from the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study (OUATS) and the Seminole County Transportation Management Program (TMP) were used in the development of the Winter Springs Transportation Plan. Existing deficiencies on City, County and State systems were defined and Capital Improvement Programs identified to resolve these transportation deficiencies. Forecasts of anticipated land use/soci-economic activities for 2010 were made and the validated transportation models applied against them. This allowed the definition of future capacity deficiencies so that funding sources can be developed to correct these deficiencies. 1. Growth Trends • The 2000 U. S. Census reported a City population of 30,860, and a total of 12,296 dwelling units. The population projections used in this Comprehensive Plan anticipate a population of 35,857 for the year 2010, 40,319 for 2020, and 44,538 for 2030. These figures are lower than corresponding figures from the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing (36,929, 43,1 14, and 47,921, respectively). The projections reflect somewhat slower growth than anticipated earlier which will assist the City in ensuring transportation facilities can be provided concurrent II-30 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN with development. Table II-5 at the end of the Transportation Element shows the existing and projected development by traffic analysis zone prepared by the City and included in the 2008 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. 2. Roadway Current Performance The 1985 Growth Management Act established two important responsibilities for local governments. The first was to set LOS standards for public facilities within the jurisdiction as part of the comprehensive plan. The second was to ensure that the public facilities and services proposed in the Capital Improvements Element of the local comprehensive plan were available concurrent with the development. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) requires that adopted LOS standards be achievable and financially feasible. The standards set a minimum service level that the City must maintain for each of the public facilities, including roadways. The roadway LOS concept is defined in the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Quality~Level of Service Standards Handbook (2002) as a qualitative assessment of the road user's perception of the quality of flow, and is measured by a scale of driver satisfaction. The scale ranges from ~~A~~ to "F", with "A'~ representing the most favorable driving conditions and ~~F~~ representing the least favorable. FDOT adopted statewide minimum LOS standards for the State highway system. The minimum LOS standards are used for planning applications, including the review of local government plans. The generalized maximum volume tables provided by FDOT are guidelines recommended for broad planning applications. They are to be used as a general guide to determine highway LOS and through-lane requirements. • For the purpose of LOS maintenance, the County has been divided into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), twenty of which are in Winter Springs. TAZs are small, internally homogeneous aggregations of the entire urban area. They range from a city block to areas encompassing several square miles. Demographic data, such as population, housing, employment and traffic, is maintained at the TAZ level to measure existing roadway LOS. Map II-4 shows the TAZs within the City of Winter Springs. II-31 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Map II- 4: City of Winter Springs TAZs MAP NEEDS TO BE EDITED, MAY MOVE TO END OF ELEMENT ~_ ~r-~ ~: ~ ~J ~ j~ I r M ' '! ! f} ' I ~ I I ; 'r LL "~ ~. I J L ~~' ~~ _ LL Q ~ -~- I ¢t~yt''S Q ~ ~ m ,Cp ° i--i~ sV 7 ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ . ~ .S\\ , V __ ~ ~~ ~ 2 t= ~f ~ - ~~ X ~~ >, s =: 110• ~~ . l ~ a II ~~ ~ u -_ } {- ~ U x- _ ~. ~ ~` ~~ 444~~~+ -'L W j ! suFn~.~vrr'\~r:'u Sao. s _ _.. __ _... a Scale: NONE 20f}4 TR 4FFIC ZCSI~cS ~~': , FIGURE Imadscxer Ar~tix¢ta pare: 2-15.20p5 ~ Srn~eyorx ca~e~r~aa~r.~x s ram i ,~~#,~~,;yd~4~za CITYflFWINTERSF'RItdGS . crr r mw a~. r~ tag xexos~s:xnn~e.ckiuaa..n mrs Pisw~: M3.L'ie4: f pf.'r#i11F rr,,~.;s.aa,rr.:.~us.raaa. Xw Rli TRANSRORTATION STUDY -REVISED 2-20D5r _ F>a~ ~. • II-32 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Minimum LOS standards recommended for the state system are shown in Table II-6. Tables II-1 a and II-1 b show the most recent traffic count results and projected 2012 Levels of Service are presented in Table II-2. The standardized descriptions of service levels used in transportation planning are as follows: • LOS A - A condition of road performance where traffic density is very low, with little or no restrictions in maneuverability. Drivers can maintain their desired speed with little or no delay. • LOS B - A condition of road performance where traffic density is low and vehicles travel with operating speeds somewhat restricted by other vehicles. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speeds. • LOS C - A performance condition where operating speeds are determined by other vehicles, permitting a stable traffic flow. Drivers might have limitations to maneuver and to increase speeds. • LOS D - A condition of road performance where traffic density is high but tolerable. Fluctuations in traffic volumes may cause reductions in operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver. In some instances, traffic flows approach unstable conditions. • LOS E -Represents traffic operation near the roadway capacity or maximum service volume. Vehicles flow at unstable conditions. Stop-and-go situations may happen. In freeways or limited access roads, speeds are near thirty (30) miles per hour and traffic density is high. • LOS F -This condition usually results from long lines of vehicles backing up because the traffic volume exceeds the roadway capacity. The vehicles are forced to operate at very low speeds. Stop-and-go situations are frequent and in extreme cases, vehicles stop for long periods of time. The 2002 FDOT Generalized Tables were used in 2005 to evaluate roadway performance in the City of Winter Springs. These tables have since been updated to 2007 FDOT Generalized Tables, which were used for more recent general analysis (see Table II-7). A LOS analysis was performed to determine existing deficiencies. The capacity analysis was based on the FDOT Generalized Peak Hour Directional Maximum Service Volumes for different roadway types. U.S. 17-92 showed deficiencies in the 2012 forecast north of Shepard Road, where U.S. 17-92 is a four-lane section. Seminole County is planning to widen this segment of U.S. 17-92 to 6 lanes; however, the construction phase of the project is not funded and the schedule for construction is uncertain. Deficiencies were also identified in the 2012 forecast for S.R. 419 from U.S. 17-92 to S.R. 434, S.R. 434 from U.S. 17-92 to Moss Road, and from S.R. 419 to Tuskawilla Road. However, the forecast did not account for additional collector roads added within the Town Center. In 2005, a traffic corridor study was prepared to analyze the Town Center and it showed that S.R. 434 could accept the traffic from the Town Center at build-out for the developments. In addition to the planned widening of U.S. 17-92, METROPLAN ORLANDO'S 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) includes widening of S.R. 426 to 4 lanes from Pine Street to S.R. 434 in 2010 and widening of Seminola Boulevard to 6 lanes from U.S. 17-92 to Lake Drive (a widening to 4 lanes was completed in 2008). The improvements within Winter Springs and the surrounding roadway network may alleviate or delay deficiencies identified in the 2012 forecast. ~....~ II-33 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Additionally, while use of the 2007 FDOT generalized tables may indicate that certain facilities may not be operating at an acceptable LOS, a detailed analysis of those facilities might show that they are in fact, operating at an acceptable LOS. Map 11-5 shows the most recent LOS data available for the primary links in the Winter Springs network. Table II - 5: Statewide Minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standards for the State Highway System as Determined by ADT (total volume) Transitioning Urbanized :Areas, Urban Areas, or Communities Urbanized Areas Under 500,000 Urbanized Areas 3 Over 500,000 Roadways.. Parallel to Exclusive Transit Facilities .'.Inside Transportation Concurrency Management Areas nside TCEAs and MMTDs Constrained and Backlogged Roadways INTRASTATE Limited Access Highway (Freeway) C C(D) D(E) D(E) D(E) ** Maintain Controlled Access Highways C C D E E ** Maintain OTHER STATE ROADS Two-Lane C D D E * ** Maintain Multilanes C D D E * ** Maintain * Means the LOS standard will be set in a transportation monlllTy elemenr Tnar meers me requirements of Rule 9J-5.0057, F.A.C. ** Means the Florida Department of Transportation must be consulted. Note: LOS standards inside of parentheses apply to general use lanes only when exclusive through lanes exists. SOURCES: FDOT 2002 Level of Service Handbook; Rule 14-94, Florida Administrative Code An unfunded County project need identified in the 2025 LRTP is the widening of Red Bug Lake Road from S.R. 436 to Eagle Circle. The City has completed numerous capacity and safety projects on City streets including turn lanes, paving and drainage improvements and construction of the Town Center collector roads. • II-34 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • • Table II - 6: Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS FREEWAY5 Level of Service Interchange spacing > 2 mi. spot [.arms Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided 2,200 7,600 15,000 21,300 27,100 Lanes A S G D E 4 Divided 20,400 33,000 47,800 61.,800 70,20p 4 23,800 39,600 55,200 67,100 74,600 6 Divided 30 440 71600 .700 105400 6 36,900 61,100 85,300 103,600 115,300 STATETWO-WAYARTERIAIS 8 44,900 82,700 115,300 !40,200 156,000 Class I (>0.00 >b 1.99 signalized iraersections per mile) 10 6'3,0011 104,200 145,500 175,900 196,400 Level ofScrvix 12 75,900 125,800 175,500 213,500 237,100 Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided *s 4,200 13,800 16,400 16,900 Irrterchange spacing.<2 mi. apart 4 Divided 4,800 29,300 34,700 35,700 sss Level of Service b Divided 7,300 44,700 52,100 53,500 sss Callas A B C D E S Divided 9,400 58,000 66,100 b7,800 sss 4 22,000 36,000 52,000 67,200 76,500 6 34,800 56,500 81,700 105,800 120,200 Cass R (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) 8 47,500 77,000 111,400 144,300 163,900 [.eve! of Suvice 10 60,2W 97,500 141,200 182,600 207,600 Lanes Divided A B G D E 12 72,900 118,100 170,900 231,100 2sI,ZOQ 2 Undivided ss [,900 11,200 15,400 16,300 4 Divided ss 4,100 2b,000 32,700 34,500 6 Divided ss 6,500 40,300 49,200 51,800 BICYCLE MODE 8 Divided *s 8,500 53,300 63,800 67,000 (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geomebics at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not. number of bicyclists Class Ili (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and Trot using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number within primary city central business district of an of directional roadway lanes to determine two-waymaximum service volumes.) urbanized area over 750,000) Paved Shoulder! i,eve! of Service Bicycle [,acre Level of Service [axs Divided A B C D E Coverage A B C D E 2 Undivided s' s• 5,300 12,600 15,500 0-49°!e •• •• 3,200 13,800 >13,800 4 Divided ss s* 12,400 28,900 32,800 50-84°fo s• 2,500 4,100 >4,I00 •ss 6 Divided a ss 19,500 44,700 49,300 85-]00°h 3,100 7,200 >7,200 sss sss 8 Divided ss •« 25,800 58,700 63,800 PEDESTRIAN MODE Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intetsections per mile and within (Notes LevE1 of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on toadwey primary city central business district of an urbanized area geo at 40 mph. posed spced and iraftic tbtlditions, not number of pedestrians.: over 7s0,000) using the Facility.) {Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown blow by ntunbet of Level of Service directional roadway larxa to determine.two-waymaximtml servce voltunes.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of'Service 2 Undivided ss ss 5,200 13,700 15,000 Sidewalk Covtxage A B C D E 4 Divided ss sr 12,300 30,300 31,700 0.499'° ss •s ss 6,400 15,500 6 Divided ss •s 19,100 45,800 47,600 50-84% •s s• so 9,900 19,000 8 Divided ss ss 25,900 54,900 b2,~0 85-100^!0 ss 2,200 11,300 }11,300 sss NONSTATE ROADWAYS BU5 MODE (Scheduled fiixed Route) Major City/Cornny Roadways Level of Service (Buses pet hour) Level Of Sef V ICC (Melt awe t~ ~d~ ae oNY for the pklev iu the 1is~sKe~See d14e kgha traffic flaw) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ss •+ 9,100 14,600 15,600 Sidewalk Coveiage A B C D E 4 Divided a rr 21,400 31,}00 32,900 0-84% ss >5 ?4 ?3 >2 6 Divided *s ss 33,4D0 4!5,800 49,300 55-100% >6 >4 ?3 ?2 ?t ARTERIAIi/NUN$I'ATE ROADWAY ADdUSTMEh"rS ether $ignalized ltasdwsys (alter t~rregpotrditlg Yolume by 111E rndlCeted percem) (SlgnallZed lntetSECtIOn. Sna1y31s1 Level of Service Lanes Median Lett Tum Lanes Adjtrstrt~mt Factors Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Divided Yes +5% 2 Undivided ss ss 4,800 10,000 12,600 2 Utdivided No -20% 4 Divided ss ss 11100 21700 25 Multi Undivided. Yes -59'0 Source: Floiida Deparbnetlt of Transportation Os/17K)7 Multi Utdivided No -25°!0 Systrms Planning Office 605 Suwarrnce Stroct, MS 19 ONE-WAY FACILITIES Tattahassee, FL 32399-04s0 Multiply thecorrespondingtwo-directional volumes in this tablo by 0.6. ht~J/www.dotstate.fl.us/planning/sysrerrs/srnllos/default.tNn • Vduec shows ea Praeraed a two•wtx soma! avantpe dilly vdudr fa Leda oraariasaadaea atr ma ~ ntlda radar aPY deed i1116agh pasated a ddyvahma. stn' ~Y P~ hoadmrlAm ooti&riaa with applinde K aodD from epF1Ld 7hie ode ttoanamtmin,e aahodad atddoeid 6speeawlS for imedptrtrena epdiwliom.lbamo~utr madda amwtidt &is uNe b aeri*af ehodd he sad for teoasyxaRe pllmutgrEplialtoa, the tale and derisitra mmpv~ modda atotdd to tie tread fdrmaida Of:ielenmfYa6 denip6 ertiaeoiae aerrioedditfaawmWainlooxone mail! redtaN ladoTtaeixta trot reea~mded Ciatldiotrr--ae 6eaedm Plaa4,~a~4ardif~hw~'CyettY •~."~~~d. lkdatriae [.Da Mudd am TmdltSpdteatrdQtdM of Soria Metal. mspatrvdrfathe ®Lmob'tlahrtrJr. ttieyda pedrtrtat and ha mods. •'Ceanot tie Ktiwe4 urine tilde traps ralnedafitia r"l'I"t'f~L far the kvd o(tarics lean• jade Forammobilnrntrd; mode, whata pegrnte Lrd oreenre D bemrtre f beurae mwac6m wpd6a Rave boa rem Fa hiryrYe std Pedavim soda. the lad araaviee Ltra 6nde C~t~as F) is ttaacltiazbk, passe tltae o wmasitreaa te6ide rataoe aamlold usitq ttdtb inpat vdtredafada. SOURCE: Florida Department of Transportation, 2007 Generalized Q/LOS Tables II-35 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Map II- 5: Year 2008 Deficiencies and LOS MAP TO BE INSERTED Update {from Tables II-1 and II-2j • • II-36 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3. Future Roadway Performance The Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) was used for all of the City's travel demand forecasting. The traffic simulation process was accomplished as noted in Section 4 which follows. Consistency with the METROPLAN ORLANDO model (OUATS) data and traffic zone structure was maintained through the process in forecasting the city's travel demand. Table II-8 shows the 2012 traffic conditions as projected. Deficiencies are projected for U.S. 17-92 north of Shepard Road, S.R. 434 from S.R. 419 to Tuskawilla Road, S.R. 434 from U.S. 17-92 to Moss Road, and S.R. 419 from U.S. 17-92 to S.R. 434. The projection does not take into consideration the additional collector roads added within the Town Center, which will help to alleviate the projected deficiency. Improvements to U.S. 17-92, S.R. 419, S.R. 434, and S.R. 417 are the responsibility of the State. ~~ • II-37 CITY OF Vv ~IJTER SPRINGS TRANSPC~KTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II - 7: 2012 Projected Traffic Conditions ROADWAY FROM ?O NO.,OF' LANES ROADWAY CLA55 LOS D DAIIY VOLUME 2012 PROJECTED DAILY VOLUME V/C RATIO PROJECTED DAILY LOS U.S. 17-92 S.R. 434 SHEPARD RD. 6 ARTERIAL 53 500 44 076 0.82 D U.S. 17-92 SHEPARD RD. S.R. 419 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 36 326 1.02 F S.R. 434 U.S. 17-92 MOSS RD. 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 36 519 1.02 F S.R. 434 MOSS RD. S.R. 419 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 31 882 0.89 D S.R. 434 S.R. 419 TUSKAWILLA RD 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 44 669 1.25 F S.R. 434 TUSKAWILLA RD SPRING AVENUE 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 33 581 0.94 D S.R. 434 SPRING AVENUE EASTERN BELTWAY 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 24 482 0.69 C S.R. 419 U.S. 17-92 EDGEMON AVE. 2 ARTERIAL 16 400 19 096 1.16 F S.R. 419 EDGEMON AVE. S.R. 434 2 ARTERIAL 16 400 17 721 1.08 F S.R. 417 RED BUG LAKE RD S.R. 434 4 FREEWAY 67 200 49 800 0.74 C E. LAKE DRIVE SEMINOLA BLVD FISHER ROAD 4 COLLECTOR 35 700 22 360 0.63 C E. LAKE DRIVE FISHER ROAD TUSKAWILLA RD. 4 COLLECTOR 35 700 23 500 0.66 C TUSKAWILLA RED BUG LK RD EAGLE BLVD. 6 ARTERIAL 53 500 41 080 0.77 D TUSKAWILLA RD. EAGLE BLVD. E. LAKE DRIVE 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 36 920 1.03 F TUSKAWILLA RD. E. LAKE DRIVE WINTER SPRINGS 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 26 200 0.73 D TUSKAWILLA RD. WINTER SPGS TROTWOOD BLVD 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 21 500 0.60 C TUSKAWILLA RD. TROTWOOD BLVD. S.R. 434 4 ARTERIAL 35 700 21 000 0.59 C SHEPARD RD. U.S. 17-92 SHEOAH BLVD. 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 5 680 0.57 D SHEPARD RD. SHEOAH BLVD. EDGEMON AVE. 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 8,216 0.82 D II-38 s CITY OF VvINTER SPRINGS t TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX RbADWAY_ FROM TO NO. OF LANE5 -ROADWAY CLA55 LOS D DAILY VOLUME 2012 PROJECTED DAILY VOLUME V/C RATIO PROJECTED DAILY LOS BANANA ROAD MOSS ROAD SHORE ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 104 0.01 C MOSS ROAD PANAMA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 7 072 0.71 D MOSS ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 7 592 0.76 D NORTHERN WAY VISTAWILLA DR. WINTER SPG BLVD -E 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 3 744 0.37 C NORTHERN WAY TROTWOOD BLVD WINTER SPG BLVD-S 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 2 600 0.26 C NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPG BLVD SHETLAND AVE. 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 3 600 0.36 C NORTHERN WAY SHETLAND AVE. GREENBRIAR LN. 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 4 056 0.41 C NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN. WINTER SPRG BLVD 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 2 288 0.23 C TROTWOOD BLVD TUSKAWILLA RD. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 4 680 0.47 C WINTER SPG BLVD ** TUSKAWILLA RD. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 8 840 0.88 D WINTER SPG BLVD.** NORTHERN WAY GREENBRIAR LN. 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 5 824 0.58 D WINTER SPG BLVD** GREENBRIAR LN. NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 5 200 0.52 D WINTER SPG BLVD** NORTHERN WAY NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 8 300 0.83 D WINTER SPG BL** NORTHERN WAY S.R. 426 4 COLLECTOR 22 600 1 1 900 0.50 C PANAMA ROAD EDGEMON AVE. MOSS ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 9 464 0.95 D PANAMA ROAD MOSS ROAD SHORE ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 1 352 0.14 C HAYES ROAD BANANA ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 2 080 0.21 C II-39 • CITY OF VvII~TER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX ROADWAY FROM 70 NO. OF '.LANES ROADWAY CLA55 LOS D DAILY VOLUME 2012 PROJECTED DAILY VOLUME V/C RATIO PROJECTED DAILY LOS' HAYES ROAD DOLPHIN ROAD S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 6,864 0.69 D DOLPHIN ROAD MOSS ROAD HAYES ROAD 2 LOCAL 10,000 2,800 0.28 C FISHER ROAD EAST LAKE DRIVE PANAMA ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 1,456 0.15 C TUSCORA NORTHERN WAY S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 2 800 0.28 C VISTAWILLA NORTHERN WAY S.R. 434 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 4,160 0.42 C GREENBRIAR NORTHERN WAY WINTER SPRG 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 1,560 0.16 C DYSON DRIVE TUSKAWILLA RD. SHETLAND AVENUE 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 2 700 0.27 C SHETLAND AVE. RED BUG LAKE DYSON DRIVE 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 3,640 0.36 C SHETLAND AVE. DYSON DRIVE NORTHERN WAY 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 5 200 0.52 D EDGEMON SEMINOLA BLVD. PANAMA ROAD 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 9 464 0.95 D EDGEMON SHEPARD ROAD S.R. 419 2 COLLECTOR 10 000 4 470 0.45 C EDGEMON S.R. 434 SHEPARD ROAD. 2 COLLECTOR 10,000 5,820 0.58 D II-40 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Winter Springs has limited financial resources to address all of the potential traffic circulation system needs identified in its Transportation Element. Therefore, intergovernmental coordination is critical. The MPO provided a list of committed roadway projects and transportation studies impacting the City of Winter Springs. Table II-9 shows the applicable road projects contained in the MPO Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), as well road improvements planned by the MPO. In addition to the improvements contained in the TIP, the City of Winter Springs has additional improvements, including those shown in Table II-10, in its FY 08 - FY 13 Capital Improvements Program. Table II - 8: Programmed and Planned Highway System Improvements Roadway Segment Improvement Programmed. * Planned ** Shepard Rd. to Lake Mary widen to b lanes 2010/2013 US 17-92 Blvd. Mitchell Hammock Rd. to widen to 4 lanes 2008/2009 S.R. 426 Pine Ave. Orange/Seminole County widen to 6 lanes 2008/2013 S.R. 417 line to S.R. 434 S.R. 426 Pine Ave. to S.R. 434 widen to 4 lanes 2010 *** Seminola Blvd. US 17/92 to Lake Dr. widen to 6 lanes 2010 *** * Contained in construction program of FDC~T, Seminole Lounty, or rlonaa s iurnp~Ke cnrerpnse (METROPLAN ORLANDO Transportation Improvement Program 200809 - 201 21 3) ** 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan *** Latest data based on need (from 2005 CPH Engineers transportation study) SOURCES: METROPLAN ORLANDO, CPH Engineers ~~ Table II - 9: Programmed City of Winter Springs Improvements Roadway Segment Improvement Programmed * S.R. 434 at S.R. 419 traffic signal improvements 2008/2009 Michael Blake Blvd. (Spine Rd.) S.R. 434 to Tuskawilla Blvd. new Town Center roadway 20082009 Orange Ave. Loop Central Winds Park to S.R. 434 new Town Center roadway 2012/2013 S.R. 434 at Hayes Rd. add deceleration lane 2008/2009 S.R. 434 at Vistawilla Dr. add deceleration lane 2008/2009 Bahama Rd. Shore Rd. to Hayes Rd. paving 201 1 2012 * Contained in the City of Winter Springs FY Ot3 - fY I ~ Capital Improvements rrogram SOURCE: City of Winter Springs, January 2009 II-41 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 4. Model Development and Validation To adequately forecast future traffic conditions in a rapidly urbanizing area such as the City of Winter Springs, a set of transportation planning models must be developed and validated. In the case of the City of Winter Springs, such models exist and these models have been previously used to develop City, regional and county wide plans. These models are contained in the model set documented for the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study. In order to provide the more detailed analysis required for the City of Winter Springs, this model set was modified. These modifications include the development of a more detailed TAZ set (microzones), a more detailed highway network, and the use of TRANSPLAN~FSUTMS model structure. These changes require the validation of the model set used in this process even though this model set is derived from and closely resembles the OUATS model set. This model set has been modified as detailed below. a. OUATS Model Set The transportation planning models used in the Orlando Urban Area Transportation Study have evolved from a set of models developed in the mid- sixties and based upon extensive home interviews conducted at that time. The model set is divided into four general functions and modifications to each of these functions have occurred over the last twenty-five years. b. Trip Generation The existing OUATS trip generation model is across-classification person trip production model with attractions calculated using expressions derived from regression analysis. This model currently uses 11 purposes including special generator purposed for the major tourist attractions, the various universities and colleges in the region, and Orlando International Airport. The model requires extensive data not generally available such as the forecast of the median income and car ownership by zone for the calculation of home-based productions. c. Trip Distribution The OUATS trip distribution model utilizes each of the 11 purposes for which productions and attractions are generated. Friction factors for each of these 11 purposes have been developed, although the special generator purposes generally borrow friction factors from other purposes. There are not K-factors utilized in the model. d. Modal Split~Auto Occupancy The OUATS model set includes amulti-nominal logit expression for calculation of splits of trips to the transit sector. Auto occupancy is calculated with simple rates by purpose. The modal split is system-sensitive in that it requires the coded description of a transit system. • II-42 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN e. Traffic Assignment The current OUATS traffic assignment procedure consists of a four-iteration equilibrium assignment with capacity restraint. This process is applied using network descriptions in accordance with the 1979 version of the Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) developed by the US Department of Transportation. f. Trip Generation Modifications In order to make use of the data available from Seminole County and to avoid the necessity to forecast income and car ownership as required by the OUATS trip generation model, modifications were made to this model. The trip generation models used are based upon the OUATS models, but these models incorporate simpler rate expressions instead of the more complex cross-classification models. These models have successfully been used numerous times in Winter Springs and in the greater Orlando area including Seminole County. The models were used to forecast trip generation for the Winter Springs 2005 Transportation Study and the 2007 Impact Fee Study. The models forecast vehicle trips instead of person trips so they additionally do not require a separate auto occupancy model. g. Use of OUATS 1 1 Trip Purpose Models Since trip generation expressions were available for each of the OUATS non- special generator purposes, it was decided to use the entire 1 1 purpose models available in OUATS. This required incorporating the special generator expressions available from OUATS into the Winter Springs Model Set. This use of the full OUATS model purposes additionally permitted use of the OUATS friction factors. 5. Public Transit Performance • The new LYNX route offers the potential to significantly increase the capacity of the City's transportation network while reducing traffic congestion, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. One average size bus at capacity can carry as many passengers (approximately 40 persons) as 10 or more private automobiles. However, any impact in LOS for S.R. 434 will not be apparent (or documented) for several years. Successful transit systems emphasize the land use and travel demand relationship necessary to address congestion problems. The most important factors in encouraging transit use are mixed land uses and an urban form, which provides street connectivity and access to the pedestrian, transit and bikeway systems. Transit facilities and multimodal terminals also are important for the success of the transit system. These facilities allow for transfers among the various modes within the transportation system. Public transit LOS criteria are based on the operational and service characteristics of the transit system. Operational characteristics include the number of vehicles operated in maximum service, the amount of service supplied, the average speed, and the number of days the service is provided. Service characteristics include geographic location and service area population. These characteristics are monitored by the local transit provider, but the City could be monitoring LOS II-43 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN for transit performance based on headway standards. Headway is the time that separates vehicles moving in the same direction on the same route or track. The emphasis should be on reducing headways to encourage public transit ridership. The new LYNX Crosstown bus route now serves all of the City's major traffic generators~attractors identified on Map II-3. In analyzing access to transit service, national planning studies consider one-quarter to one-half mile on either side of the route the maximum distance that people would be willing to walk to use transit. 6. Other Transportation Systems The City's current transportation network is based primarily on a road network serving vehicular traffic, with very little attention given to other means of transportation. The City needs to start establishing facilities that will encourage the use of alternative transportation systems. Parking is an essential component of the overall transportation system. The decision of a commuter to drive alone or to use alternative transportation modes such as ride-sharing or public transit depends to a large extent on the cost, accessibility and availability of parking. As the City grows the need for these types of facilities will increase. Bicycling is a viable mobility alternative. Bicycle networks provide a commuting alternative as well as a recreational asset. The City has made efforts to establish a bicycle system. However, the adopted five-year plan was not achieved within that timeframe. The existing bicycle plan will need to be updated to plan for the expansion of the current system. Subsection 335.065, Florida Statutes, requires with only a few exceptions, that bicycle and pedestrian ways be established in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any state transportation facility. Pedestrian mobility is greatly influenced by the mix and proximity of land uses as well as the availability of adequate sidewalks and other pedestrian facilities. Adequate land uses and appropriate urban design would encourage walking for short trips and for accessing transit facilities and services. The City Code currently requires developers to provide sidewalks in new subdivisions. 7. Future Transportation Planning • This section provides recommendations for creating a safe, convenient, and energy efficient multimodal transportation system, coordinated with future land uses, plans and programs of the Seminole County, the MPO, and FDOT. Since World War II, roadways have been designed primarily for automobiles. Very little attention has been given to accommodating other modes of transportation such as bicycles, pedestrians, and transit. The goal of this Transportation Element is to look at roads as multimodal interconnected transportation corridors, and design them accordingly. Intergovernmental coordination is essential for the most cost-effective provision of transportation system improvements. Clearly, the City of Winter Springs does not possess the resources nor is it fiscally responsible for the entire transportation system within the City. Seminole County and FDOT have financial responsibility for County roads and State highway system roads, respectively. Therefore, it is necessary for the City to review the transportation improvement plans and programs prepared by the County and FDOT. In this way, the effort and dollars II-44 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN expended by the City to improve its traffic circulation system may be complemented and perhaps enhanced by the activities of the County and FDOT. One area of coordination should include the preservation and protection of rights-of-way for identified future roadway improvements and construction. With the escalating value of land and costs entailed in right-of-way acquisition, it is essential that the City protect roadway corridors in advance of development. Increased right-of-way costs reduce the funds available for actual construction. The City needs to utilize such techniques as setback requirements, zoning restrictions, right-of-way protection regulations and official transportation maps to preserve and protect existing and future rights-of-way. Other measures are discussed in the policy section. a. Future Transportation Map The purpose of a Transportation Map is to graphically depict the location of all proposed collector and arterial roadways and any limited access facilities, airports, rail lines, and other related facilities. Map II-6 presents the proposed Future Transportation Map for the City of Winter Springs. This map shows the proposed roadway functional classification and number of lanes for each roadway segment. Roadway capacity is based on the functional classification and number of lanes. The LOS standard selected for each roadway was based either on its present or forecasted performance. The map shows the network as it is planned for the year 2010, with several roads at a LOS D, which is an acceptable standard. Map II-7 shows the needed improvements. Tables II-1 1, II-12, and II-1 3 at the end of the Transportation Element show the roadway improvement needs by State, County, City or developer funding. • II-45 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Map II- 6: Future Transportation Map (Year 2010 Transportation Plan) MAP NEEDS TO BE INSERTE© (UPDATED?) • II-46 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Map II- 7: Transportation Improvements MAP TO BE 1NSERTE©~UPDATEd • ~~ II-47 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • Future roadway design will need to incorporate bicycle, pedestrian, and transit features to achieve a true multimodal system. In addition to incorporating roadway design standards in the City Code, the City will start requiring that new developments be interconnected to enhance the transportation network. Development design must provide connectivity and access between adjacent residential developments and nearby land uses. Traffic calming techniques can be used to protect neighborhoods, although street design that utilizes curving streets and on-street parking will naturally reduce speed and the need for other traffic calming methods. b. Transportation Concurrenc~Alternatives Several alternatives are available to the City to assist in meeting Florida's concurrency management requirements in the Urban Central Business District (Town Center) and elsewhere in the community. These alternatives are provided for in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The statute recognizes that planning and public policy goals may conflict with the requirement that transportation facilities and services be available concurrent with the impacts of development, and it provides for exceptions from the concurrency requirement for transportation facilities if certain criteria are met. Available alternatives include a Transportation concurrency Exception Area (TCEA), a Transportation concurrency Management Area (TCMA), a Long-term Transportation concurrency Management System (LTTCMS), a Multimodal Transportation District (MMTD), a Transportation concurrency Backlog Area (TCBA), and an Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area. An extensive discussion of each alternative and some of the requirements that must be met appears in the 2008 City of Winter Springs Evaluation and Appraisal Report. c. Future Public Transit Plan A transportation system that offers multimodal opportunities has the potential to absorb a significantly higher number of person trips than a system that focuses solely on accommodating vehicle trips. Improved transit service frequencies and new routes offer a viable transportation alternative and promote transit use. With the new LYNX Crosstown route, the City will need to work closely with the MPO, LYNX, and Seminole County to coordinate its support and participation in the transit system. The City will help achieve increased ridership by improving pedestrian access, encouraging compact development, and requiring the provision of transit facilities and amenities where warranted. d. Pedestrian Planning In order to develop a pedestrian improvement construction program to address City streets lacking sidewalks, aCity-wide inventory of sidewalks, crosswalks and other pedestrian facilities must be completed. By identifying missing links in the pedestrian system, the inventory will allow prioritization of improvements. Implementation of these improvements will provide pedestrian connectivity to the ~~ ~__J II-48 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN overall transportation system. Particularly important will be an inventory of sidewalks within one-quarter to one-half mile of the new LYNX Crosstown bus route. e. Bicycle Plannina An important action needed by the City in the immediate future is the planning of a City trail system to interconnect with the LYNX Crosstown bus route and the Cross Seminole Trail. Such a system could result in reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing bus ridership by providing alternative transportation options. The City currently owns a substantial portion of FP8~L easement which could be the beginnings of this network. In order to accomplish this, several policies relating to trails have been added to the Recreation and Open Space Element. Bicycle lanes should be implemented on existing roadways, where right-of-way allows. f. TSM~TDM Strategies Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) are options for communities trying to add roadway capacity without having to construct costly new facilities. The ultimate goal of the TDM program 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 choices. The City of Winter Springs does not currently offer any of these programs. However, they are options to consider in the future. • II-49 CITY OF V, ~iJTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II - 10: 2005 Existing and Projected Development by Traffic Zone enmtie y anuar x pect" omp etr on y Sut?zone Developments 53r~1e 1'anuly 'Units Mdlti-Fam31y Units 'Carron. tnd. 5tngle Family Units N1uti-Family ; Units Comm. 5 ante Feet in~1.~ 71 ICi 5chrinuher d80 71 Gascelfs 6©© 700000 71 Marne 2t]6 71 8arcta Woods 88 71 Banin tat 1 t© 71 CarrotNVeavef 11 f7 71 5 rr Landin 80 170 0 4 0 1484 0 700000 0 2 Tuscawilfa Unit 11 8b 72 Chelsea Woods 222 72 Bear Creek Estates 87 7 Ea es Wat 1 t0 72 HoweCl Creek 153 72 Creeks Run 82 72 Courine S tin s 252 72 Kash n' Ka Center 1 72 Yea er Comrnercial 700 252 1 0 D 0 10000 10000 0 73 Greenew Commefeial 20000 21FOfl0 74 Chesnut Estates Phase l aril 0 51 74 Chelsea Woods 73 12b 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 82 Tuscawiila Unit 118 28 82 Tucawilla Unit 12 r30 82 82 fravrhea Unit { arcels d & 5} Fainva Oaks 7 72 _. 2 82 Greentxiaf 189 82 Chesea Parc Phase 2 3& 8Z Chesea Parc Phase 3 Fax Gtern 62 82 Chesea Pare Phased Fox Glen II 41 82 Bentle Green 44 82 Ben0e Club 41 82 Glen Ea le Uflits 'I, 2 &. 3 257 82 Carri nton Woods 7fi 82 Claven vrt Glen 70 82 Chestnut Ridge 52 82 _. Tuscawilta Unit #13 3$ 82 Braewick 85 82 Tucscav.~lla Unit 7 74 12G0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 II-50 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS TRANSP Kl-ATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II-9: Conf. $3 Tusca Oaks 136 $3 Wicklow Greens d8 $3 lhroodstream 32 83 Arbor Isn 38 83 Tuscawilla Uni[ G 89 _._ $3 St. Ste .lens _ 1 $3 Kir~derCare 1 - 83 Seven Eleven 1 8 uscawlla Rea 1 83 Tuscawi8a t}ffice Com lex I 83 Tuscawilla Unit 1 t't1 83 TuscawiNa Unit 2 65 83 Tuscawilla. Unit 4 379 83 4V wood Unrfs 1, R 3 t28 83 Count Club Y8a e 1, 2 & 3 2d5 83 Arrowhead Unit 2 28 $3 Arrovrhead Unit 1 Parcel 2 & 3 12 83 Tuscawilla Coun Club 1 83 Winters ri Unit3 17.9 1440 d 2 0 0 0 D 8d Tuscawilla Unit 8 78 _ - -- ' uscawilla Unit 9 & 98 16 Bd Casa Park Villas 316 8d Tuscan Place 79 65 8d IndanTrails Middle School 1 Bd Keeth FJementa 1 84 L.D. Plante uninco orated 84 Schrismsher Town Center 235000 $4 The Reserve at Tuscawilla 92 84 Ge fown Units 1, 2 8 3 229 84 Wed ewoad Tennis Villas 233 796 39.5 ?_ 0 D $5 235000 0 5 St. Johns Landis 31 ,_ 85 McDonalds 1 5 . clarimsher owns Center ~~ - D00 85 En le 430 31 1 0 0 780 0 53DD0 4 a er $6 Parkstone 353 88 Parkstone II 10d 86 Parkstone Commercial 290D0 86 Seminole Count Facilities Maint. 1 86 JD Phase IIt E00000 86 JDC Phase [and II BG Barcla Woods Il 207 86 ROY Pro rt 100 B6 4Y.S. ixlunic' I Baiildl i~ 1 _ ` .S. Hi t Si 'drool 1 $6 Bills Landsca in 1 $$ Kin sbu Tract l 5Dfl00 88 Bfwvttre Tract 1 200000 88 Central Winds Park 1 355 0 4 1 41i 0 379 DOD II-51 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPC~RfATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II-9: Cont. 87 Oak Forest Uarit 5 lots 468 to 561 94 87 Oak Foresi Unit 6 kats 562 to 715 15~ _ 87 Oak f=orest Unit 7 716 to 8tl$ rJ3 87 Oak FOlESt Unit 8 tots 8p9 tr, 94p 1.32 87 lMinter S rii s Post 0lfice 1 87 Hi trlarrder 17p 87 Car Center t 87 Ondidc r ~ SpOtHl 87 Tuscawilta Traits Phase I 147_ 3 87 Tuseawilta Trails Phase II 4 2d 87 SR 434Townhornes t67 87 Leerdom 7p 87 Auer Park Ca~mnrere€al 1 87 Windin Hollow 392 7 87 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 9 1fl9 87 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 10 112 87 rtiDa io 87 Stogie Gable 5p 87 Slane Gable Commercial 75flp 1449 0 3 0 358 0 57,500 0 88 Oak Forest Urtit 1 t14 88 k Forest nit 2, 2A & 2l3 163 88 Oak Forest Uaif 3 12p 88 Oak Forest Unit 4 75 @8 Tuscawilla Unit 5 10 88 Grand Reserve 18 Seville Chase 110 88 Ounmar ESLatpS 2p 630 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 y ort a anc es c. 89 North Orlando Ranches Sr_c. to & 1 55 3 89 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 6 37 2 89 North Orianda Bandies Sec. 7 43 3 150 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 9p North Orlando Ranches Sec. 2 52 90 North Orlando Raraches Sec.2A 196 ~ North Orlando Ranches Sec. 5 24 1 ort r rtanda anclres Sec. 8 71 90 North Orladno Ranches Sec. t 39 3 90 North Orlanda ranches Sec. 4 1p 2 9p North Orlando Ranches Sec. 4 Start ht t3a fist Church l 9U Mosswood rtrnerrts 147 90 Moss Glen Townhomes 10 9p The Vine rds 171 9fl The Seasons 144 90 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 4 5 2 90 HacrerrdaY[t e 4 I 6 Pinewood Terrace 90 3? _ 9p ~ Scale Fann Insurance l 90 Cumlaerland Farms 2 1151 '184 4 6 8 0 0 0 II-52 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS TRANSP KfATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II-9: Cont. 91 Ydalden Terrace fi3 91 North Orlando 2nd Addiction _ 170 91 Garden Ctub artnaerrts 40 . 1 N.O. Terrance Section 1 fid __ 91 N.O. Terrance SecGrni 2 41 9'I N.O. Terrance Section 3 77 91 N.O. Tercance Section 4 72 91 N.O. Terrance Setion 5 4B 91 N.O. Terrance Section 6 48 91 N.O. Terrance Section $ 64 _ 91 N.O. Terrance Section 9 5B 91 Foxnx>or Unit 1 t}d 91 Foxnxxx Unit 2 2 __ - - -z1T __ ax~~lnit 3 --1~4 91 Foxmoor East 34 91 North Orlando Ranches Sec. 3 3f 91 Winter ` ri Elen~nta t 91 VYaI teens 1 91 Dr. Martins 1 91 Winter 5 rip ngs Ftx~dtT3sed AnpEances ------. - - --- 2 -, ------ -----,- 91 Cahi11 Pro e . 91 Tfie Atrium 91 WI[7te! S it s Plaza inter rn s et 1 91 Stor _ World 1 9fi2 40 7 0 0 0 0 0 i a s dron 92 North Orlando td1 42 North Chlando 1st Adddaon t30 92 North Orlando 4th Addition 2d'2 92 North Orlando 5th Addition 34 92 North rlando Bth Addition 22 _ _ 92 Lori Ann Acres 92 Dou 's Unit 14 55 92 Mass Road Quads 7.0 92 Moss Rond Tmvnhorrres ~ 92 ndian Ride 84 92 Deer Snn 152 92 Fairfax A artments 16 92 La Petite Nurse 1 92 Mr. Bubbles Car Wash t 92 Dr. ete oram t 92 Barfield Funeral Roma I 92 Excelsitx Park 1 92 Winter S tin s Cerd~r 1 92 Barnett Bank 1 92 Villa a arket Center 1 92 Atrtor;motive One 1 92 Circle K 1 92 Public Works Com lex i 92 Fare Station 1 92 Public Safer Com lex 1 G33 392 13 0 84 0 0 0 II-53 • CITY OF , . ,i~TER SPRINGS TRANSPuRTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II-9: Cont. 93 1M`inter5 rin s Industrial Park 95 D 0 15 0 8d 0 0 D r r an s eciort . 94 Hi (ands Section 2 41 94 Hi hlands Section 4 75 _ 94 Hi hlands Section 7 & 8 58 94 Hi hands @lades girt 8 94 H' hlands East Quadra exes 16 9d Hi lands Patio Homes 25 94 C res Glub 75 94 C ress Villa e 22 heoah Section 14 94 Sheoah Secion 3 2fl 94 H" bland Villa a Qne fit 94 Hi bland Villa a Two 74 34 Hi bland Lakes 41 94 Hi bland Elements School 1' 94 @a ree 182 94 The C3aks 27 d88 492 1 0 0 D 0 0 . ieoa 'ffe 1 95 Gold Terrace A artments 63D 95 Watdvrood 120 170 95 Seville on the Green 2D0 95 Green int 116 95 H' hlands Section 5 41 95 lh'inter S ri s Gaff Course I 95 Hi hlands Glen 29 95 Hi hlands artments 42 95 .lorrison Townhomes 95 Sheoah Sec.1 d4 95 GoHside Villas 2D 95 KialMitsubishi t 35D 1046 2 0 94 62 0 0 TataEs 90,697 2,811 54 7 3,326 127 1,434,500 U Source: CPH Engineers, Inc. February 2005 II-54 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT APPENDIX Table 11 - 11: Year 2010 Road Needs/Projects (City Funding) Phase 1 1. improve Panama Raad from Moss Road to Edgemon Avenue. (Comp(eted) 2. improve Hayes Road north of Bahama Raad to existing paving on Hayes. (Completed) 3. Improve Moss Road from Panama Road narttt to existing paving on Moss Raad. (Completed') 4. Replace Hayes Raad bridge. (Carnpl'eted} 5. Replace Mass Road bridge. (Completed) Phase I1 1. Paving and dralnage improvements to Bahama Road from Shore Road to Hayes Road. 2. Paving and drainage improvements to Panama Raad from Share Road fo Moss Raad. (Completed} 3. Paving and drainage improvements to Fisher Raad from Panama Raad to City Limits. (Campleted'~ 4. Add' stacking lanes #o Hayes Raad at the S.R. 434 intersection. {Completed} • Phase 111 1. Upgrade Mass Road from SR 434 to SR 419 from tyro lanes to four lanes."` Nat Required#C3eleted) 2. Improve TuskawiCla Raad north of SR 434 (formerly Brantley Avenue}. (Gampleted) 3. Construct. Taman Center ca((ectar road to accommodate nevi development. Roads ~n~iil connect SR 434 and Tuskawilla Raad far collection of traffic from this area. (Completed. Road's include TusKa~stiiia Road', Da-ran drive and Blumberg Blvd.) II-55 • • t CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II - 12: State and County Road Projects Adjacent to or Within Winter Springs State - f~istriet Fine Funded Projects 1. SR 434 fram US 17-92 to SR 419 - improve the traffic contra( deviceslsystem. {City and State Joint. Project} 2. SR 426 -Four-lane fram Mitchell Hammock Raad to Pine Street. {Design} State - Metrapfan Ortanda 2Q25 Lang Range Transportation Plan {Source: Table 5-2; Summary Report, Technical Report No. 5} 1. SR 426 fram Pine Street to S.R. 434 -Widen to 4 lanes. 2. US 17-92 from Shepard Road to Lake Mary Boulevard -Widen to 6 lanes. 3. Aestheticltraftic improvement project on SR 434 from U.S. 1'7-92 to SR 419. (U'nder Construction} 4. Resurface U.S. 17-92 from Shepard Road to Airport Blud. {Bids 20x6{2007} {Does not add' capacity.} 5. Skid' hazard overlay of SR 419 from SR 434 to U.S. i7-92. {Bids 200512006} (Does not add capacity.} 6. Grant {$100,000} to Winter Springs to pay for westbound left turn lane at Moss Road. {tJnd'er construction} {May add only minor capacity.} Coun - Flf 2t704J2QQ5 1. Lake Drive from Semino[a Boulevard to Tuskawilla Road -Reconstruct to 4 lanes. Caun - Metraplan Orlando 2U25 Long Range Transportation Plan {Source: Table 5-2; Summary Report, Technical Report Na. 5) 1. Seminola Boulevard from U'S 1'7-92 to Lake Drive -Widen to 6 lanes. Goun - Metrop[an 8rlando 2Q25 Long Range Transportation Plan Unfunded Gritieal Needs {Source:: Table- 5-2 Summary Report, Technical Report Na. 5} 1. Red Bug Lake Raad from SR 436 to Eagle Circle - Widen to 6 lanes. Source: CPH Engineers, Inc., February 2005. II-56 CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ELEMENT APPENDIX Table II - 133: Year 2010 Road Needs (County and State Funding) Caun 1. Emprave Lake give from terra {2) lanes to four (4) lanes from Tuska~~Jiila to Seminala. (Under design) (,Bids. 2.005) State'" 1. [mprave U.S. 17-92 from Shepard to Lake Mary Boulevard from four (4) lanes to six {6) lanes, (Und'er environmental review} 2. Improve SR 419 from SR 434 to U.S. 17-92 from tyro (2} lanes to faun (4) lanes. gate. This project is not funded or planned by the State. NOTE: It appears that the City should start lobbying far improvements to SR 4.19 as current counts equal and/or exceed the existing roadvray capacity. `See also Table 15A for additional information. Source: CPH Engineers, Inc., January 2005 ~..~ II-57