sr 60 “twin pairs” - City of Vero Beach

SR 60 “TWIN PAIRS” 

TRAFFIC CALMING FEASIBILITY STUDY 

VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 

Prepared for: 

Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization 

City of Vero Beach 

Prepared by: 

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

December 2012 (Revised January 2013)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 

CONCEPTUAL PLAN, TYPICAL SECTIONS, AND COST ESTIMATE .............................4 

ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS ...................................8 

INTERSECTION EVALUATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS ............................................11 

TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS .......................................................................................12 

ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION – 2035 CONDITIONS ..........................................15 

INTERSECTION EVALUATION - 2035 CONDITIONS ......................................................16 

CRASH ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................18 

TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES ................................................................21 

EVACUATION ........................................................................................................................23 

SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................25 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Opinion of Probable Cost 

Appendix B: Synchro Analysis – Existing Conditions 

Appendix C: GTCRPM Model Output 

Appendix D: Synchro Analysis – 2035 Conditions 

SR 60 “Twin Pairs” Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page i

Tables 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES 

Table 1: Historical AADT Data ....................................................................................... 8 

Table 2: Existing Conditions Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service ....................... 9 

Table 3: Existing Peak Hour Directional Volumes and Concurrency (Vested) Trips .... 10 

Table 4: P.M. Peak Level of Service - Existing Conditions ........................................... 11 

Table 5: GTCRPM Traffic Volume Forecasts and Growth Rates ................................. 13 

Table 6: Traffic Volume Diversion Analysis ................................................................... 14 

Table 7: 2035 Roadway Segment Volumes and Level of Service ................................ 15 

Table 8: P.M. Peak Level of Service – 2035 No Build Conditions ................................ 16 

Table 9: P.M. Peak Level of Service – 2035 Build Conditions ...................................... 17 

Table 10: Crashes by Intersection ................................................................................ 18 

Table 11: Crashes by Roadway Segment .................................................................... 19 

Figures 

Figure 1: Study Area Map ............................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2: Plan View of Conceptual Alternative ................................................................ 5 

Figure 3: Typical Section of Conceptual Alternative ........................................................ 6 

Figure 4: GoLine Transit Routes ................................................................................... 21 

SR 60 “Twin Pairs” Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page ii

INTRODUCTION 

The City of Vero Beach Vision Plan adopted on February 24, 2005, sets forth a future direction for Vero 

Beach. The Vision Plan states “Downtown should be reinforced as a mixed-use office and governmental 

center, as well as a unique cultural, arts, entertainment, and residential enclave, with shopping and dining 

opportunities that support the district and its surrounding neighborhoods. Addressing the "twin pair" 

arterials that bisect downtown is a key strategy to enhance the pedestrian nature of the district.” 

Subsequently, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (2010) also affirmed the need for developing 

measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of SR 60 “Twin Pairs” on pedestrian-oriented mixed-use 

development in Downtown Vero Beach. On September 20, 2011, the Vero Beach City Council requested 

the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to conduct a traffic calming feasibility 

study on the SR 60 “Twin Pairs.” 

SR 60 is the main east-west arterial in Indian River County. As SR 60 enters Downtown, it splits into two 

one-way streets. Eastbound SR 60 consists of three lanes and westbound SR 60 consists of four lanes. 

The eastbound and westbound one-way streets are separated by a city block. SR 60 within Downtown 

has undergone transformations over the years to serve varying mobility needs. Before I-95 was 

constructed between SR 60 and Palm Beach Gardens, SR 60 also supported regional travel by serving 

as a connector between I-95 and US 1. The missing segment of I-95 between SR 60 and Palm Beach 

Gardens was constructed in several phases between 1978 and 1987. Until the early 1990s, SR 60 within 

Downtown consisted of a two-way, four-lane segment, which followed the alignment of present-day, 

westbound one-way portion of the bifurcated segment. Thereafter, SR 60 was reconfigured into the 

present configuration of two one-way streets in anticipation of traffic growth. While SR 60 still serves as 

the connector between Downtown Vero Beach and I-95, current traffic volumes show excess capacity 

within the one-way segment. 

Based on the present configuration and functionality, the SR 60 “Twin Pairs” can be characterized as 

more of a facilitator of through traffic rather than promoting Downtown as a destination. Typical elements 

of a street through a downtown such as gateway signs, landscaping, on-street parking, and pedestrian 

and bicycle friendly features are not present along SR 60. The posted speed on SR 60 within Downtown 

is 40 miles per hour (mph). In order to provide a functional downtown street, the City of Vero Beach 

wishes to examine the feasibility of reducing the number of through travel lanes on SR 60 between 20 th 

Avenue and Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad. 

The Indian River County MPO retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to evaluate potential changes to 

SR 60 “Twin Pairs” Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 1

lane configuration of SR 60 between 20 Avenue and the FEC Railroad and potential impacts to level of 

service on SR 60 and other roadways in the vicinity. While the SR 60 “Twin Pairs” extends between 20 th 

Avenue and 6 th Avenue, the scope of this study is limited to the Downtown segment of SR 60. The 

primary considerations of the traffic calming feasibility study are listed below. 

Provision of two through travel lanes for both the eastbound and westbound segments 

Placement of parallel or angled on-street parking 

Provision of street furniture, landscaping, and other decorative treatments 

Improvement in pedestrian safety by reducing crossing distance and increasing separation 

between sidewalks and travel lanes 

Reduction in posted speed limit, if appropriate 

Accommodation of improvements without removal of existing curb, except for landscaped islands 

This report summarizes the development of conceptual plans and typical sections, traffic volume 

projections, level of service and crash data analysis, multimodal considerations, and stakeholder 

coordination to determine the feasibility of the lane reduction. 

An aerial of the overall corridor is provided in Figure 1. 


Begin 

Project 

Figure 1: SR 60 "Twin Pairs" Traffic Calming Feasibility Study 

20 Avenue 

26 Street 

21 Street 

SR 60 Westbound 

SR 60 Eastbound 

19 Street 

16 Street 

14 Avenue 

SR 5/US 1 

Old Dixie Highway 

FEC Railroad 

End 

Project 

Commerce Avenue 

11 Avenue 

J

CONCEPTUAL PLAN, TYPICAL SECTIONS, AND COST 

ESTIMATE 

The Kimley-Horn team developed four preliminary conceptual plan alternatives for consideration. After 

obtaining input from City and MPO staff, the conceptual plan shown in Figure 2 was selected as the 

preferred alternative. The proposed concept plan will maintain the existing curb except at 14 th Avenue, 

16 th Avenue, and 18 th Avenue, where curb extensions are proposed to reduce pedestrian crossing 

distance and provide landscaping. On-street parking is proposed on the north side of eastbound SR 60 

and both sides of westbound SR 60. Approximately 80 on-street parking spaces are proposed along the 

SR 60 “Twin Pairs.” Adequate clearance is maintained at intersections to provide required sight distance. 

As shown in Figure 3, while the number of travel lanes is reduced, the width of the remaining through 

travel lanes is proposed to be increased from 11 feet to 12 feet. The width of the existing bicycle lanes is 

proposed to be increased from four feet to five feet. As part of the implementation of the lane reduction, 

reducing the posted speed from 40 mph to 35 mph may be appropriated based on changes to the 

roadway environment. 

An opinion of probable cost (OPC) was developed for the proposed lane reduction. Cost estimates were 

developed for the following three alternatives: 

Alternative 1 – restriping only (with milling and resurfacing) - $680,000 

Alternative 2 – restriping (with milling and resurfacing) and delineate parking spaces with 

stamped asphalt - $890,000 

Alternative 3 - restriping (with milling and resurfacing), delineate parking spaces with stamped 

asphalt, and landscaping knuckles at 14 Avenue, 16 Avenue, and 18 Avenue - $1,090,000 

Detailed cost estimates are included in Appendix A. 


20 th Avenue 

19 th Avenue 

19 th Avenue 

1835 – Matheson & 

Horowitz 

18 th Avenue 

Flower Box 

18 th Avenue 

18 th Avenue 

17 th Avenue 

Margaret Anderson Atty 

Bookkeeping/Tax 

Services 

Island Arbo 

Tree Service 

17 th Avenue 

TC Prosthetic 

Pieczynski Dentistry 

Clark Atty. 

Sullivan & Sullivan 

16 th Avenue 

16 th Avenue 

ABC Schumann Printing 

Meadows Atty. 

Vacant 

Substance Awareness 

Action Answering 

Vero Vineyard church 

15 th Avenue 

United for Families 

15 th Avenue 

Nick’s Restaurant 

Natalie Holtom 

Interiors 

Brennan & Kretschmer 

Pipe Den 

Statewide 

Condominium 

Insurance (Maher Bldg.) 

Hatch 

Accounting 

IRC Democrats 

Non-Lawyer 

Solutions 

Carla Klein 

Insurance 

Scott’s 

Sporting Goods 

Jetson 

Dale Sorensen Real Estate 

14 th Avenue 

14 th Avenue 

Zumba Fitness 

Furniture Mart 

Melody Inn 

Highwaymen 

Gallery 

Irish American Society 

Kata Restaurant 

Green & 

Metcalf 

Jetson 

12 th Court

SR 60 Lane Reduction Study 

Conceptual Alternatives 

Existing Section - Eastbound 

Proposed Section - Eastbound

SR 60 Lane Reduction Study 

Conceptual Alternatives 

Existing Section - Westbound 

Proposed Section - Westbound

ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The roadway segment evaluation consisted of the following: 

A review of historical Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data 

Level of service (LOS) determination based on daily traffic volumes 

Level of service determination based on peak hour and concurrency data 

Historical Traffic Data 

The purpose of reviewing historical data was to identify trends in traffic volume growth and fluctuation. 

This analysis helps to identify the roadways (and roadway segments) within the study area that have 

experienced increases/decreases in traffic volume. Table 1 provides a summary of historical AADT data 

available from the FDOT database. Overall, historical data shows traffic volumes on the one-way segment 

of SR 60 have remained relatively constant over the last 10 years. While historical traffic data are limited 

on the primary minor streets within the study area, the trends for the available data are similar to that of 

SR 60. 

LINK 

DESCRIPTION 

SR 60 from 

27 Ave to 20 Ave 

SR 60 EB from 20 

Ave and Old Dixie 

Hwy 

SR 60 WB from 20 

Ave and Old Dixie 

Hwy 

SR 60 EB from Old 

Dixie Hwy to 10 

Ave 

SR 60 WB from 

Old Dixie Hwy to 

10 Ave 

21 St from 20 Ave 

to US 1 

20 Ave south of 

SR 60 

Old Dixie Hwy 

south of SR 60 

Table 1: Historical AADT Data 

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

n.a. 26,000 27,500 29,500 25,500 27,500 n.a. 24,000 19,900 23,000 

14,000 13,000 13,500 14,000 14,000 15,500 n.a. n.a. 11,500 12,500 

11,000 11,000 11,500 12,000 11,500 12,000 9,600 9,400 11,000 11,500 

13,000 13,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 12,500 n.a. 13,000 11,000 12,000 

13,000 12,000 12,500 9,600 11,000 11,000 n.a. 10,500 10,000 12,000 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4,100 4,400 4,000 4,000 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 5,800 4,800 5,300 4,300 

n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 4,400 4,600 4,000 4,000 


Level of Service 

Kimley-Horn compiled 2011 traffic counts to calculate the existing level of service on the SR 60 “Twin 

Pairs” and roadways in the vicinity. The peak-hour data and concurrency volumes were provided by the 

Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division, and the daily traffic volumes were obtained from the 

FDOT and the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division. 

The adopted level of service standard in the City of Vero Beach is LOS ‘D.’ The level of service volume 

for each roadway segment was determined per Generalized Level of Service Volumes tables contained in 

the FDOT’s Quality/Level of Service Handbook. As presented in Tables 2 and 3, the existing daily and 

peak hour volumes on the major roadways in the study area are less than the LOS ‘D’ volume threshold; 

therefore, the segments are operating at an acceptable level of service with reserve capacity. 

Table 2: Existing Conditions Daily Traffic Volumes and Level of Service 

LINK DESCRIPTION AADT/ ADT LOS 

LOS D 

Volume 

SR 60 between 27 Avenue and 20 Avenue 23,000 C 50,300 

SR 60 EB between 20 Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 12,500 C 30,180 

SR 60 WB between 20 Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 11,500 C 40,380 

SR 60 EB between Old Dixie Highway and 10 Avenue 12,000 C 30,180 

SR 60 WB between Old Dixie Highway and 10 Avenue 12,000 C 40,380 

21 Street between 20 th Avenue and Old Dixie Highway 4,000 C 13,680 

14 Avenue between SR 60 and 16 Street 6,900 C 13,680 

14 Avenue between SR 60 and US 1 5,800 C 13,680 

20 Avenue between SR 60 and 16 Street 4,300 C 13,680 

20 Avenue between SR 60 and Atlantic Boulevard 1,600 C 13,680 

Old Dixie Highway between SR 60 and 16 Street 4,000 C 13,680 

16 Street between Old Dixie Highway and 20 Avenue 9,300 D 10,710 

US 1 north of 21 Street 20,000 C 33,200 

US 1 east of FEC Railroad 18,300 C 33,200 


Table 3: Existing Peak Hour Directional Volumes and Concurrency (Vested) Trips 

Link Description Volume Vested Trips Total Demand LOS 

SR 60 EB from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue 987 104 1,091 C 

SR 60 WB from 27 Avenue to 20 Avenue 1,075 205 1,280 C 

SR 60 EB from 20 Avenue to Old Dixie Hwy 1,056 104 1,160 C 

SR 60 WB from 20 Avenue to Old Dixie Hwy 1,056 142 1,198 C 

SR 60 EB from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue 1,031 50 1,081 C 

SR 60 WB from Old Dixie Hwy to 10 Avenue 891 77 968 C 

SR 60 EB from 10 Ave to US 1 909 42 951 C 

SR 60 WB from 10 Ave to US 1 645 48 693 C 

16 Street EB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 341 27 368 D 

16 Street WB from 27 Ave to 20 Avenue 436 41 477 D 

16 EB Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 417 18 435 D 

16 WB Street from 20 Ave to Old Dixie Hwy 525 34 559 D 

16/17 Street EB from Old Dixie Hwy to US 1 694 36 730 D 

16/17 Street WB from Old Dixie Hwy to US 1 644 32 676 D 

Old Dixie Hwy NB from 16 Street to SR 60 225 16 241 C 

Old Dixie Hwy SB from 16 Street to SR 60 250 14 264 C 

20 Avenue NB from 16 Street to SR 60 214 11 225 C 

20 Avenue SB from 16 Street to SR 60 287 11 298 C 

20 Avenue NB from SR 60 to Atlantic Blvd 119 7 126 C 

20 Avenue SB from SR 60 to Atlantic Blvd 148 12 160 C 


INTERSECTION EVALUATION – EXISTING CONDITIONS 

The intersection evaluation focused on signalized intersections within the corridor. Intersection turning 

movement counts were obtained from the Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division for the 

signalized intersections in the study area. These traffic counts were collected in 2011 or 2012 between 

4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., which represents the peak traffic conditions in the study area. Please note that 

turning movements counts for unsignalized intersections were not available from the County, and hence 

those intersections were not evaluated. 

Kimley-Horn adjusted traffic volumes to reflect peak season conditions of the year by applying peak 

season conversion factors. The study area intersections were analyzed using Synchro software to 

determine the intersection LOS during the p.m. peak hour, which reflects the highest traffic conditions of 

the typical day. Synchro is an operational analysis tool based on the Highway Capacity Manual. It has 

the capability to model actuated and coordinated networks, calculate intersection delay, and define level 

of service based on the input traffic volumes, signal timings and phasing, and corridor offsets. A summary 

of the level of service analysis is provided in Table 3, and the detailed Synchro analysis results are 

included in Appendix B. As shown in Table 4, all intersections and individual approaches to the 

intersections operate satisfactorily. 

Intersection 

Table 4: P.M. Peak Level of Service - Existing Conditions 

Intersection 

LOS/Delay 

Approach LOS and Delay (seconds) 

NB SB EB WB 

SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue SB B/14.5 - A/7.0 B/16.4 - 

SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue NB A/9.4 D/41.5 - A/0.1 - 

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue SB B/18.8 - D/51.8 - B/12.3 

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue NB B/18.9 A/1.6 - - C/21.3 

SR 60 EB & 14 Avenue B/14.5 C/21.6 B/19.3 B/10.5 - 

SR 60 WB & 14 Avenue B/19.2 A/9.5 C/29.6 - B/17.3 

SR 60 EB & Commerce Avenue A/3.1 C/25.1 C/20.5 A/1.2 - 

SR 60 WB & US 1/Commerce Avenue A/6.6 C/27.9 C/24.0 - A/4.1 

SR 60 WB & 11 Avenue A/7.8 B/18.8 C/22.6 - A/4.8 

SR 60 EB & 10 Avenue A/9.2 C/22.3 C/20.8 A/5.1 - 

SR 60 WB & 10 Avenue A/9.9 C/20.1 C/22.1 - A/3.9 


TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS 

To determine if the proposed cross-section would accommodate future volumes and to determine the 

impacts to other roadways and intersections in the study area, we projected traffic data to reflect the 2035 

conditions. The 2035 conditions correspond to the horizon year used in the latest Indian River County 

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Greater Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model 

(GTCRPM) was utilized to forecast future volumes. The following model scenarios were used in this 

analysis: 

2005 baseline model 

2035 model, which reflects the traffic and roadway conditions based on anticipated demographic 

conditions and roadway network improvements identified in the 2035 LRTP (referred to as the “no 

build conditions”). 

2035 model modified to reflect the reduction of lanes on the SR 60 “Twin Pairs” (referred to as the 

“build conditions”). 

Model Calibration 

The roadway network coding was reviewed to ensure the characteristics of the roadway network within 

the study area are accurately reflected in the GTCRPM. This review included an assessment of traffic 

analysis zones (TAZs) centroid connectors, laneage, speed, facility type, and projected volumes. Where 

necessary, adjustments were made to the model network attributes, including modification of centroid 

connectors. The network adjustments were made iteratively until the model network and volumes were 

deemed to reflect actual roadway network conditions. The GTCRPM model output files are included in 

Appendix C. 

Growth Rate 

We calculated growth rates by comparing the traffic volumes forecast in the 2005 GTCRPM and 2035 

GTCRMP (no-build and build models). The purpose of estimating these growth rates was to establish 

future year (2035) traffic volumes with and without the SR 60 “Twin Pairs” lane reduction. A summary of 

model-based traffic volumes that were used to develop growth rates is included in Table 5. Based on the 

review of traffic volumes, separate aggregate growth rates were applied for SR 60, 21 st Street, and the 

north-south minor streets within the study area. These growth rates were applied to the existing traffic 

volumes to determine future year 2035 traffic volumes for the study area roadway segments and 

intersections. 


Segment 

Table 5: GTCRPM Traffic Volume Forecasts and Growth Rates 

2005 

Conditions 

(1) 

2035 w/o 

Lane 

Reduction (2) 

2035 with 

Lane 

Reduction (3) 

Annual 

Growth 

Rate 

(1) to (2) 

SR 60 “Twin Pairs” Traffic Calming Feasibility Study Page 13 

Annual 

Growth 

Rate 

(1) to (3) 

SR 60 – West of 20 Avenue 34,000 41,000 40,500 0.6 0.6 

SR 60 EB – 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 15,800 18,750 18,150 0.6 0.5 

SR 60 WB – 20 Avenue to 14 

Avenue 

SR 60 EB – 14 Avenue to Commerce 

Avenue 

SR 60 WB – 14 Avenue to 


13,300 17,200 15,700 0.9 0.6 

14,950 16,200 15,800 0.3 0.2 

10,800 13,300 12,700 0.7 0.5 

SR 60 EB – Commerce Ave to US 1 13,100 14,400 13,750 0.3 0.2 

SR 60 WB – Commerce Ave to US 1 12,900 15,500 15,250 0.6 0.6 

20 Avenue – south of SR 60 4,750 4,750 4,650 0.0 -0.1 

20 Avenue – north of SR 60 8,700 10,900 10,300 0.8 0.6 

14 Avenue – south of SR 60 8,200 10,050 9,950 0.7 0.6 


10 Avenue – south of SR 60 4,150 9,000 9,400 2.6 2.8 


21 Street – West of 20 Avenue 4,700 7,900 8,000 1.7 1.8 

21 Street – 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 3,300 7,300 8,400 2.7 3.2 

21 Street – 14 Avenue to Commerce 

Avenue 

US 1 – Commerce Avenue to E of 10 

Avenue 

5,000 8,100 9,200 1.6 2.1 

16,500 17,050 17,250 0.1 0.1 

US 1 – south of SR 60 24,950 25,250 25,150 0.0 0.0 

US 1 – north of SR 60 13,300 12,100 12,100 -0.3 -0.3 

Aggregate Growth Rates 

SR 60 (one-way pair) 0.6 0.4 

21 Street 2.0 2.3 

North-south minor streets 0.8 0.8 

Diversions 

The potential diversion of traffic from the SR 60 “Twin Pairs” to other roads due to the reduction of 

capacity was estimated by comparing the GTCRPM model output from the 2035 “build” and “no build” 

scenarios. The traffic diversion analysis was used to assess if any adjacent streets would be adversely

impacted by the SR 60 lane reduction, including potential impacts to residential areas. Table 6 compares 

the model volumes with and without the proposed lane reduction. 

The most noticeable diversion of traffic is from SR 60 to 21 Street, which is a parallel street serving 

Downtown Vero Beach. An estimated increase of 1,100 vehicles per day on 21 Street (or approximately 

110 vehicles during the peak hour) is indicated in the GTCRPM analysis. As shown in Table 6, minimal 

impacts are expected on the north-south local streets such as 10 Avenue, 14 Avenue, and 20 Avenue. 

Intersection and roadway segment level of service analyses for the 2035 conditions are presented in the 

next sections. 

Segment 

Table 6: Traffic Volume Diversion Analysis 

2005 

Conditions 

(1) 

2035 w/o 

Lane 

Reduction 

(2) 

2035 with 

Lane 

Reduction 

(3) 

Traffic 

Volume 

Differential 

(4) = (3)-(2) 

% Change 

(4)/(2) 

SR 60 – West of 20 Avenue 34,000 41,000 40,500 -500 -1.2% 

SR 60 EB – 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 15,800 18,750 18,150 -600 -3.2% 


Avenue 


Avenue 



13,300 17,200 15,700 -1,500 -8.7% 

14,950 16,200 15,800 -400 -2.5% 

10,800 13,300 12,700 -600 -4.5% 

SR 60 EB – Commerce Ave to US 1 13,100 14,400 13,750 -650 -4.5% 

SR 60 WB – Commerce Ave to US 1 12,900 15,500 15,250 -250 -1.6% 

20 Avenue – south of SR 60 4,750 4,750 4,650 -100 -2.1% 

20 Avenue – north of SR 60 8,700 10,900 10,300 -600 -5.5% 

14 Avenue – south of SR 60 8,200 10,050 9,950 -100 -1.0% 

14 Avenue – north of SR 60 12,100 12,200 12,100 -100 -0.8% 

10 Avenue – south of SR 60 4,150 9,000 9,400 400 4.4% 

10 Avenue – north of SR 60 7,800 9,800 9,900 100 1.0% 

21 Street – West of 20 Avenue 4,700 7,900 8,000 100 1.3% 

21 Street – 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 3,300 7,300 8,400 1,100 15.1% 


Avenue 


Avenue 

5,000 8,100 9,200 1,100 13.6% 

16,500 17,050 17,250 200 1.2% 

US 1 – south of SR 60 24,950 25,250 25,150 -100 -0.4% 

US 1 – north of SR 60 13,300 12,100 12,100 0 0.0% 


ROADWAY SEGMENT EVALUATION – 2035 CONDITIONS 

To evaluate the roadway segments for 2035 traffic conditions, we utilized the GTCRPM traffic volume 

forecasts, rather than the extrapolation of existing conditions traffic counts based on historic growth 

trends, since the GTCRPM volumes are higher and hence provide for a conservative analysis. Further, 

the GTCRPM volumes consider potential traffic diversion resulting from the reduction of lanes on SR 60 

“Twin Pairs.” As shown in Table 7, all roadway segments, including the SR 60 “Twin Pairs”, are 

expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better in 2035 with the proposed lane reduction. 

Segment 

Table 7: 2035 Roadway Segment Volumes and Level of Service 

Without SR 60 Lane Reduction With SR 60 Lane Reduction 

Lanes 

Daily 

Volume 

Level of 

Service 

Lanes 

Daily 

Volume 

SR 60 – West of 20 Avenue 6 41,000 D 6 40,500 D 

SR 60 EB – 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 3 18,750 C 2 18,150 D 


Avenue 


Avenue 




Level of 

Service 

4 17,200 C 2 15,700 D 

3 16,200 C 2 15,800 D 

4 13,300 C 2 12,700 C 

SR 60 EB – Commerce Ave to US 1 3 14,400 C 3 13,750 C 

SR 60 WB – Commerce Ave to US 1 4 15,500 C 4 15,250 C 

20 Avenue – south of SR 60 4 4,750 C 4 4,650 C 

20 Avenue – north of SR 60 2 10,900 C 2 10,300 C 

14 Avenue – south of SR 60 2 10,050 D 2 9,950 D 

14 Avenue – north of SR 60 2 12,200 D 2 12,100 D 

10 Avenue – south of SR 60 2 9,000 D 2 9,400 D 

10 Avenue – north of SR 60 2 9,800 D 2 9,900 D 

21 Street – West of 20 Avenue 2 7,900 C 2 8,000 C 

21 Street – 20 Avenue to 14 Avenue 2 7,300 C 2 8,400 C 


Avenue 


Avenue 

2 8,100 C 2 9,200 D 

4 17,050 C 4 17,250 C 

US 1 – south of SR 60 4 25,250 D 4 25,150 D 

US 1 – north of SR 60 4 12,100 C 4 12,100 C

INTERSECTION EVALUATION - 2035 CONDITIONS 

To evaluate signalized intersections under 2035 conditions (no build and build), we extrapolated existing 

peak hour intersection volumes by applying the growth rates developed from the GTCRPM forecasts. 

The future peak hour volumes at the study area intersections were analyzed using Synchro software to 

determine the intersection level of service during the peak hour. As shown in the concept plan, the 

proposed geometric modifications were incorporated into the “build scenario” operational analysis. The 

signal timing splits were optimized to adjust for future volumes and the proposed laneage modifications. 

The resulting levels of service at each intersection are summarized in Tables 8 and 9. The Synchro 

output is included in Appendix D. 

Level of Service 

All of the intersections are expected to operate at an overall LOS C or better without or with the proposed 

lane reduction. The individual approaches to the intersections are also expected to operate at LOS D or 

better. The signalized intersections at SR 60 and 14 th Avenue exhibit an increase in overall intersection 

delay between 5-10 seconds. In general, the impact of the lane reductions on intersections within the 

study area appears to be minimal. 

Intersection 

Table 8: P.M. Peak Level of Service – 2035 No Build Conditions 

Intersection 

LOS/Delay 


NB SB EB WB 

SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue SB B/19.0 - A/7.1 C/22.4 - 


SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue SB C/24.3 - D/51.5 - B/18.4 

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue NB C/25.5 A/1.6 - - C/29.1 

SR 60 EB & 14 Avenue B/16.9 C/22.2 B/19.1 B/14.2 - 

SR 60 WB & 14 Avenue C/23.4 A/9.1 D/44.1 - B/17.8 




SR 60 EB & 10 Avenue A/9.8 C/22.3 B/19.4 A/5.6 - 

SR 60 WB & 10 Avenue B/11.0 C/21.7 C/20.8 - A/4.9 


Intersection 

Table 9: P.M. Peak Level of Service – 2035 Build Conditions 

Intersection 

LOS/Delay 


NB SB EB WB 

SR 60 EB & 20 Avenue SB B/17.7 - B/10.4 B/19.8 - 


SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue SB C/22.9 - D/53.0 - B/16.3 

SR 60 WB & 20 Avenue NB C/20.9 A/1.8 - - C/23.8 

SR 60 EB & 14 Avenue C/21.7 C/22.1 B/19.3 C/22.8 - 

SR 60 WB & 14 Avenue C/33.7 A/9.1 D/44.1 - D/36.7 




SR 60 EB & 10 Avenue B/11.2 C/22.6 C/21.1 A/4.7 - 

SR 60 WB & 10 Avenue B/11.0 C/21.7 C/20.8 - A/4.9 


CRASH ANALYSIS 

Crash data for major roads within the study limits for years 2009 through 2011 (the last available full year 

of data) were provided by Indian River County Traffic Engineering Division. The data were tabulated to 

identify crash types by intersection and by roadway segment. Please note police crash reports were not 

reviewed to verify the accuracy of the electronic crash data. The results of the crash analysis are 

discussed below. 

Crashes by Roadway Location 

The intersection of SR 60 and 20 th Avenue experienced the highest number of crashes. Approximately 

55 percent (16 out of 29) of crashes were angle. During stakeholder coordination meetings, the Indian 

River County Traffic Engineering Division requested that the present lane configuration be maintained at 

the subject intersection. Therefore, potential operational and signage improvements may be appropriate, 

such as advance flashers, retroreflective tapes on backplates, and increased all red clearance time to 

mitigate angle crashes. In general, crash data at other intersections do not indicate discernable patterns 

that warrant further assessment. Further, FDOT’s High Crash Location list for 2010 does not identify any 

intersections within the study limits as high crash locations. 

INTERSECTION 

Table 10: Crashes by Intersection 

SR 60 and 20 Avenue 4 16 1 3 1 4 29 

SR 60 EB and 14 Avenue 7 8 1 3 1 1 1 22 

SR 60 WB and 14 Avenue 3 7 2 2 1 15 

SR 60 EB and Commerce Avenue 8 2 2 2 2 16 

SR 60 WB and Commerce Avenue 2 4 4 2 12 

SR 60 EB and 10 Avenue 2 3 1 1 7 

SR 60 WBand 10 Avenue 1 2 1 3 1 8 

SR 60 WBand 11 Avenue 2 1 1 4 

21 Street and 14 Avenue 3 2 2 1 8 

21 Street and US 1/Commerce Avenue 4 3 6 5 18 


Rear end 

Angle 

Left turn 

Right turn 

Sideswipe 

Backed into 

Parked 

Pedestrian 

Bicycle 

Other 

Total

Crashes by Roadway Segment 

A review of corridor-specific crash data shows that angle, rear end and sideswipe are the most frequent 

crash types. However, the majority of these crashes occurred in proximity to the signalized intersections. 

A noticeable crash pattern is sideswipe crashes on westbound SR 60 between east of 20 th Avenue and 

Commerce Avenue. The presence of four lanes may be contributory to a higher number of sideswipe 

crashes. The proposed reduction of westbound lanes from four to two may help to reduce the sideswipe 

crashes. A review of FDOT’s High Crash Segment list for 2010 did not identify any high crash segments 

within study limits. 

LINK DESCRIPTION 

SR 60 EB between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue 1 

SR 60 WB between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue 1 

Table 11: Crashes by Roadway Segment 


Rear end 

Angle 

Left turn 

Right turn 

Sideswipe 

Backed into 

Parked 

Pedestrian 

Bicycle 

Other 

Total 

19 14 7 7 1 1 1 6 56 

5 10 8 15 4 42 

SR 60 EB between E of Commerce Avenue and W of US 1 2 6 1 2 1 12 

SR 60 WB between E of Commerce Avenue and W of US 1 1 5 3 5 2 16 

21 Street between 20 Avenue and Commerce Avenue\US 1 6 10 1 9 1 6 33 

14 Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street 14 19 5 6 1 1 2 48 

20 Avenue between 19 Street and 21 Street 4 18 2 4 1 4 33 

Old Dixie Highway between SR 60 WB and 19 Street 4 4 

Note 1: Does not include crashes at 20 Avenue 

Safety Benefits of Lane Reduction 

“Road Diets” (lane reduction) has been identified by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as one 

of the nine proven countermeasures to reduce crashes. Based on the information presented at a recent 

webinar (Road Diets and Pedestrian Safety, November 20, 2012) conducted by the Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Information Center (PBIC), before versus after studies have shown that road diet projects result in 

both crash and speed reductions. The degree of crash and speed reduction varies by local conditions. 

According to Libby Thomas (University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center), the most 

robust studies show a reduction of total crashes between 19 percent and 48 percent. Another 

observation is that higher severity crashes may also be significantly reduced. Further, the 85 th percentile 

speed and top end speeds have typically decreased. Due to the small number of crashes and the lack of 

exposure data, the effects on pedestrians have not been quantified. However, before versus after safety 

data presented by Mile Sallaberry (San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency) shows 35 percent

eduction of total crashes and 60 percent reduction of pedestrian crashes for one corridor (Alemany 

Boulevard). Finally, Gina Coffman (Toole Design Group) provided the following detailed breakdown of 

safety data for a road diet project in Seattle. 

As shown above, the majority of crash types decreased after the implementation of a road diet project. 

However, congestion-related crashes such as rear end crashes may increase due to reduced capacity. 

Overall, road diet projects have shown the ability to reduce (1) frequency of total crashes, (2) severity of 

crashes, and (3) vehicular speeds. 


Transit 

TRANSIT AND NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES 

As shown in Figure 4, Indian River County’s transit service, GoLine, does not operate along the SR 60 

“Twin Pairs.” GoLine Route 2, which operates between Indian River Mall and the Main Transit Hub, uses 

SR 60 between 58 th Avenue and 20 th Avenue. GoLine routes operate along 14 th Avenue, 16 th Avenue, 

and 20 th Avenue, which intersect the SR 60 “Twin Pairs.” The Indian River County MPO’s Transit 

Development Plan (TDP) does not identify transit service expansions along the SR 60 “Twin Pairs.” 

Therefore, transit facilities are not expected to be impacted. 

The Florida East Coast (FEC) railroad corridor is being considered for future intercity passenger rail 

service between Miami and Jacksonville. A station in Vero Beach is envisioned in the preliminarily plans. 

Pedestrian facility enhancements may be identified for SR 60 in the design phase at locations that 

complement pedestrian flow to and from the proposed station. 

Figure 4: GoLine Transit Routes 


Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 

A primary objective of the lane reduction project is to create a safer environment for pedestrians and 

bicyclists in Downtown. Creating a pedestrian friendly environment is of utmost importance for Downtown 

redevelopment efforts. With seven one-way lanes and a 40 mph posted speed, SR 60 presents a barrier 

for pedestrians. The only signalized crossing within Downtown is provided at 14 th Avenue. The provision 

of on-street parking is expected to increase pedestrian activities along SR 60. The study 

recommendations for improving pedestrian safety and encouraging walking within Downtown are listed 

below. 

Reduce crossing distance (across SR 60) at 14 th Avenue by adding curb extensions 

Reduce exposure time for pedestrians crossing at mid-block locations through lane reduction 

Increase lateral separation between the sidewalk and travel lanes by converting travel lanes into 

on-street parking and landscaping spaces 

Reduce speed limit from 40 mph to 35 mph within the project limits 

Reconstruct sub-standard ADA facilities within the project limits 

Currently four-foot bicycle lanes (plus curb and gutter width) are provided along SR 60. As part of this 

project, the existing bicycle lanes are proposed to be widened from four feet to five feet. On eastbound 

SR 60, bicycle lanes will remain on the south side, and on-street parking will be introduced on the north 

side. On westbound SR 60, bicycle lanes will remain on the north side, and on-street parking will be 

introduced on both sides. The proposed width of the parking lane on westbound SR 60 is 11.5 feet 

(measured from curb), which is greater than the eight-foot minimum width specified in the FDOT Plans 

Preparations Manual (PPM). The increased width of the parking lane should help to minimize conflicts 

between bicycle and parking maneuvers. Overall, the provision of five-foot bicycle lanes and the 

proposed speed limit reduction are expected to improve safety for bicyclists and encourage the use of 

bicycle facilities. 


Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 

A primary objective of the lane reduction project is to create a safer environment for pedestrians and 

bicyclists in Downtown. Creating a pedestrian friendly environment is of utmost importance for Downtown 

redevelopment efforts. With seven one-way lanes and a 40 mph posted speed, SR 60 presents a barrier 

for pedestrians. The only signalized crossing within Downtown is provided at 14 th Avenue. The provision 

of on-street parking is expected to increase pedestrian activities along SR 60. The study 

recommendations for improving pedestrian safety and encouraging walking within Downtown are listed 

below. 

Reduce crossing distance (across SR 60) at 14 th Avenue by adding curb extensions 

Reduce exposure time for pedestrians crossing at mid-block locations through lane reduction 

Increase lateral separation between the sidewalk and travel lanes by converting travel lanes into 

on-street parking and landscaping spaces 

Reduce speed limit from 40 mph to 35 mph within the project limits 

Reconstruct sub-standard ADA facilities within the project limits 

Currently four-foot bicycle lanes (plus curb and gutter width) are provided along SR 60. As part of this 

project, the existing bicycle lanes are proposed to be widened from four feet to five feet. On eastbound 

SR 60, bicycle lanes will remain on the south side, and on-street parking will be introduced on the north 

side. On westbound SR 60, bicycle lanes will remain on the north side, and on-street parking will be 

introduced on both sides. The proposed width of the parking lane on westbound SR 60 is 11.5 feet 

(measured from curb), which is greater than the eight-foot minimum width specified in the FDOT Plans 

Preparations Manual (PPM). The increased width of the parking lane should help to minimize conflicts 

between bicycle and parking maneuvers. Overall, the provision of five-foot bicycle lanes and the 

proposed speed limit reduction are expected to improve safety for bicyclists and encourage the use of 

bicycle facilities. 


EVACUATION 

SR 60, which provides access to I-95 and interior parts of Florida from the Barrier Island and Vero Beach, 

is a designated evacuation route in Indian River County. Figure 5 identifies designated evacuation zones, 

routes, and shelters. Out of the three evacuation routes from the Barrier Island, two routes feed into SR 

60. The present lane configuration of SR 60 between Indian River Boulevard and I-95 is summarized 

below. 

Indian River Boulevard to 8 th Avenue – 4 lanes 

8 th Avenue to 20 th Avenue – 7 lanes (3 lanes eastbound and 4 lanes westbound) 

20 th Avenue to I-95 – 6 lanes 

The proposed project will reduce the number of lanes between the FEC Railroad and 20 th Avenue from 

seven lanes to four lanes. In particular, westbound travel lanes will be reduced from four lanes to two 

lanes. With the proposed lane reduction, the study segment will have the same number of lanes in the 

westbound direction as the segment between Indian River Boulevard and 8 th Avenue. A limited 

qualitative assessment of potential impacts of lane reduction on emergency evacuations was performed, 

and the results are summarized below. 

First, the results of Statewide Regional Evacuation Study (SRES) for the Treasure Coast Region (2010) 

were reviewed. This study estimated county-wide evacuation times using Transportation Interface for 

Modeling Evacuations (TIME) for 2010 and 2015. The “clearance time to shelter” for Indian River County 

during a 100 percent evacuation of at-risk population in different evacuation zones varies between 12.5 to 

19.0 hours for year 2015. During such an evacuation, the estimated traffic volume on SR 60 within Vero 

Beach varies from 4,800 to 17,400. According to FDOT’s Generalized Peak Hour Directional Volume 

table, a two-lane, one-way street could carry up to 2,240 vehicles per hour (LOS E volume for a Class II 

road adjusted for a one-way facility). During an evacuation, it can be inferred that the LOS E volumes 

can be maintained until the evacuation is complete. Therefore, hypothetically, up to 53,760 (2,240 x 24) 

vehicles can be accommodated on a two-lane, one-way street. 

Second, Indian River County’s grid roadway network offers alternative routes for travel between two 

points. 16 th Street, which was recently widened to four lanes between US 1 and 14 th Avenue, could serve 

as an alternative route to bypass the one-way segment of SR 60 during an evacuation. 16 th Street aligns 

with the 17 th Street Causeway Bridge, thus providing a direct connection to the Barrier Island. 


Third, the Indian River County MPO’s 2035 LRTP identifies a new interchange at Oslo Road and I-95. 

Further, Oslo Road is planned to be widened to four lanes between 58 th Avenue and I-95. These two 

projects are currently included in the FDOT Work Program for preliminary engineering and could result in 

a new evacuation route in the future. 

The above qualitative assessment shows that the reduction of lanes on SR 60 between the FEC Railroad 

and 20 th Avenue is not expected to have an adverse impact on evacuation. 

Figure 5: Evacuation Routes and Shelters 


SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS 

The City of Vero Beach requested that the Indian River County MPO conduct a traffic calming feasibility 

study to develop measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of the SR 60 “Twin Pairs” on pedestrian- 

oriented mixed-use development in Downtown Vero Beach. This study evaluated the feasibility of 

reducing eastbound travel lanes from three to two and westbound travel lanes from four to two between 

20 th Avenue and FEC railroad. 

As demonstrated in this report, the existing and forecast traffic volumes on the roadway network support 

the proposed lane reduction. Further, a qualitative assessment shows that the proposed lane reduction is 

not expected to have an adverse impact on evacuations. The draft concept plans and traffic analysis 

were submitted to the FDOT for review and comment. The study results were presented at a public 

workshop on November 15, 2012, and to the City of Vero Beach’s Planning and Zoning Board on 

December 20, 2012. Further, the proposed concepts will be presented to the following committees: 

Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advisory Committee - Indian River County MPO 

Governing Board - Indian River County MPO 

City of Vero Beach Council 

If the proposed lane reduction concept is approved by these stakeholders, the project sponsor will be 

required to submit a formal Lane Elimination Request to FDOT District Four. Further coordination will be 

required for identifying potential funding sources for project implementation. 


Opinion of Probable Cost 

APPENDIX A

PROJECT: SR 60 TRAFFIC CALMING 

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 

OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - CONCEPTUAL STRIPING 

"The Engineer has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the Contractor's methods of 

determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions. Opinions of probable costs provided herein are based on the information known to 

the Engineer at this time and represent only the Engineer's judgment as a design professional familiar with the construction industry. The Engineer 

cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from its opinion of probable costs." 

PAY DESCRIPTION UNIT PROJECT UNIT PROJECT 

ITEM NO. QUANTITY PRICE COST 

ROADWAY 

101-1 MOBILIZATION LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 

50,000 

102-1 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 

50,000 

104-10-3 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 

15,000 

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 

50,000 

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION LS 1 $ 50,000 $ 

50,000 

108-1 AS-BUILTS LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 

10,000 

327-70-6 MILLING EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1 1/2" AVG DEPTH SY 29,255 $ 2.25 $ 

65,824 

334-1-13 SUPERPAVE ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (TRAFFIC C) 9.5 TN 2,415 $ 110.00 $ 

265,650 

SIGNING AND MARKING 

700-20-11 SINGLE POST SIGN (F&I) (



OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - CONCEPTUAL STRIPING WITH STAMPED ASPHALT 







ROADWAY 


50,000 


50,000 

104-10-3 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 15,000 $ 

15,000 


65,000 


50,000 

108-1 AS-BUILTS LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 

10,000 


65,824 


265,650 

523-1 PATTERNED PAVEMENT (COLOR) (PARKING AREAS) SY 2,475 $ 70.00 $ 

173,250 





OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS - CONCEPTUAL KNUCKLES 







ROADWAY 


50,000 


50,000 

104-10-3 EROSION CONTROL LS 1 $ 15,000.00 $ 

15,000 


90,000 


75,000 

108-1 AS-BUILTS LS 1 $ 10,000 $ 

10,000 


65,824 


265,650 

523-1 PATTERNED PAVEMENT (COLOR) (PARKING AREAS) SY 2,475 $ 70.00 $ 

173,250 

KNUCKLEING AT 6 INTERSECTIONS LS 1 $ 135,000 $ 

135,000 



SYNCHRO Analysis – Existing Conditions 

APPENDIX B

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 

1: 20 Avenue SB & SR 60 EB 

11/13/2012 

Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR 

Lane Configurations 

Volume (vph) 0 690 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 135 0 

Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 

Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Total Lost time (s) 4.3 4.0 

Lane Util. Factor 0.91 0.95 

Frt 0.99 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.99 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4374 3168 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.99 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4374 3168 

Peak-hour factor, PHF 1.00 0.71 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.58 1.00 

Adj. Flow (vph) 0 972 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 233 0 

RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 

Lane Group Flow (vph) 0 1045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 201 0 

Turn Type NA Split NA 

Protected Phases 2 3 3 

Permitted Phases 

Actuated Green, G (s) 65.3 15.6 

Effective Green, g (s) 66.3 16.6 

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.55 0.14 

Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.0 

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2416 438 

v/s Ratio Prot c0.24 c0.06 

v/s Ratio Perm 

v/c Ratio 0.43 0.46 

Uniform Delay, d1 15.8 47.6 

Progression Factor 1.00 0.13 

Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 0.7 

Delay (s) 16.4 7.0 

Level of Service B A 

Approach Delay (s) 16.4 0.0 0.0 7.0 

Approach LOS B A A A 

Intersection Summary 

HCM 2000 Control Delay 14.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service B 

HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.34 

Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 14.8 

Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.1% ICU Level of Service A 

Analysis Period (min) 15 

c Critical Lane Group 

PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/9/2012 2012 Existing Conditions Synchro 8 Report 

Page 1


2: 20 Avenue NB & SR 60 EB 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 7 705 0 0 0 0 0 135 41 0 0 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Total Lost time (s) 4.3 4.3 4.5 

Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.91 0.95 

Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 4424 3078 

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 1593 4424 3078 


Adj. Flow (vph) 12 839 0 0 0 0 0 190 55 0 0 0 



Turn Type Split NA NA 

Protected Phases 2 3 2 3 4 


Actuated Green, G (s) 86.2 86.2 23.3 

Effective Green, g (s) 87.2 87.2 24.3 

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.20 

Clearance Time (s) 5.5 

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 1157 3214 623 

v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.19 c0.07 


v/c Ratio 0.01 0.26 0.36 

Uniform Delay, d1 4.5 5.5 41.1 

Progression Factor 0.00 0.02 1.00 

Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 0.0 0.4 

Delay (s) 0.0 0.1 41.5 

Level of Service A A D 


Approach LOS A A D A 


HCM 2000 Control Delay 9.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service A 







Page 2


3: 20 Avenue SB & SR 60 WB 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 38 981 0 0 0 0 0 119 52 




Frt 1.00 0.96 






Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 54 1326 0 0 0 0 0 205 67 



Turn Type Prot NA NA 

Protected Phases 4! 4 6! 7! 









v/s Ratio Perm 0.22 

v/c Ratio 0.38 0.60 


Progression Factor 2.60 1.00 


Delay (s) 12.3 51.8 

Level of Service B D 


Approach LOS A B A D 







! Phase conflict between lane groups. 



Page 3


4: 20 Avenue NB & SR 60 WB 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 966 45 53 89 0 0 0 0 




Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 


Satd. Flow (prot) 4577 1425 3133 


Satd. Flow (perm) 4577 1425 3133 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1323 59 62 125 0 0 0 0 



Turn Type NA Perm Split NA 


Permitted Phases 6 




Clearance Time (s) 5.3 5.3 5.0 

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 




v/c Ratio 0.52 0.04 0.19 




Delay (s) 21.0 26.8 1.6 

Level of Service C C A 


Approach LOS A C A A 









Page 4


5: 14 Avenue & SR 60 EB 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 47 578 43 0 0 0 0 164 34 40 249 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Total Lost time (s) 4.2 4.1 4.1 3.6 4.1 

Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frt 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4347 1676 1400 1590 1676 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.44 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4347 1676 1400 738 1676 


Adj. Flow (vph) 73 741 61 0 0 0 0 191 47 70 315 0 



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 

Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm pm+pt NA 

Protected Phases 2 8 7 4 

Permitted Phases 2 8 4 

Actuated Green, G (s) 27.0 11.9 11.9 22.7 22.7 

Effective Green, g (s) 28.0 12.9 12.9 23.7 23.7 

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.47 0.22 0.22 0.39 0.39 

Clearance Time (s) 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.6 5.1 

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2028 360 301 393 662 

v/s Ratio Prot 0.11 0.02 c0.19 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.20 0.01 0.05 

v/c Ratio 0.43 0.53 0.03 0.18 0.48 

Uniform Delay, d1 10.6 20.9 18.6 11.7 13.5 

Progression Factor 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.61 1.41 

Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 

Delay (s) 10.5 22.4 18.7 19.0 19.4 

Level of Service B C B B B 


Approach LOS B A C B 




Actuated Cycle Length (s) 60.0 Sum of lost time (s) 11.9 





Page 5


6: 14 Avenue & SR 60 WB 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 47 764 29 70 153 0 0 301 76 


Lane Width 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Flpb, ped/bikes 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 1526 4392 1592 1676 1618 

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.20 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 1526 4392 337 1676 1618 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 66 910 39 88 212 0 0 350 106 



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 5 5 5 5 

Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA NA 


Permitted Phases 6 8 






Lane Grp Cap (vph) 577 1661 280 815 525 

v/s Ratio Prot c0.21 c0.03 0.13 c0.27 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.12 

v/c Ratio 0.11 0.57 0.31 0.26 0.83 




Delay (s) 12.5 17.7 12.4 8.4 29.6 

Level of Service B B B A C 


Approach LOS A B A C 









Page 6


7: Commerce Ave & SR 60 EB 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 28 956 25 0 0 0 0 16 13 24 23 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 

Total Lost time (s) 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 

Lane Util. Factor 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4395 1571 1593 1676 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.73 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4395 1571 1222 1676 


Adj. Flow (vph) 43 1074 36 0 0 0 0 23 20 36 35 0 



Turn Type Perm NA NA Perm NA 



Actuated Green, G (s) 44.8 5.1 5.1 5.1 

Effective Green, g (s) 45.8 6.1 6.1 6.1 

Actuated g/C Ratio 0.76 0.10 0.10 0.10 

Clearance Time (s) 5.1 5.0 5.0 5.0 

Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 

Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3354 159 124 170 

v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.02 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.26 c0.03 

v/c Ratio 0.34 0.16 0.29 0.21 

Uniform Delay, d1 2.3 24.6 24.9 24.7 

Progression Factor 0.42 1.00 0.79 0.79 

Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.5 1.3 0.6 

Delay (s) 1.2 25.1 21.0 20.0 

Level of Service A C C C 


Approach LOS A A C C 









Page 7


8: Commerce Ave & SR 60 WB 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 34 1140 3 40 31 0 0 28 40 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 5558 1593 1676 1567 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.69 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 5558 1164 1676 1567 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 67 1443 8 51 46 0 0 50 47 



Turn Type Perm NA Perm NA NA 











v/c Ratio 0.37 0.32 0.20 0.27 




Delay (s) 4.1 28.5 27.2 24.0 












Page 8


9: SR 60 WB & 11 Avenue 

11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 15 748 46 19 97 0 0 34 35 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 6124 1770 1863 1863 1583 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 6124 925 1863 1863 1583 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 21 860 65 25 133 0 0 37 38 



Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA NA Perm 








Lane Grp Cap (vph) 3786 261 459 260 221 

v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.07 0.02 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.15 0.02 0.00 

v/c Ratio 0.25 0.10 0.29 0.14 0.02 




Delay (s) 4.8 18.1 18.9 22.9 22.3 

Level of Service A B B C C 


Approach LOS A A B C 









Page 9



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 12 594 19 80 96 0 0 94 55 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 6161 1770 1863 1771 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.55 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 6161 1017 1863 1771 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 18 733 22 105 119 0 0 124 71 














v/c Ratio 0.19 0.53 0.33 0.44 




Delay (s) 3.9 21.6 18.7 22.1 

Level of Service A C B C 











Page 10



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 41 591 40 0 0 0 0 114 14 10 63 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4856 1833 1770 1863 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.42 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4856 1833 777 1863 


Adj. Flow (vph) 49 748 53 0 0 0 0 165 22 18 76 0 



Turn Type Perm NA NA pm+pt NA 









v/s Ratio Prot c0.10 0.00 c0.04 


v/c Ratio 0.31 0.49 0.06 0.13 




Delay (s) 5.1 22.3 22.1 20.5 












Page 11

GTCRPM Model Output 

APPENDIX C

Licensed to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 

11/6/2012 

MODEL DAILY VOLUMES 

2005 GTCRPM MODEL RUN 

1800 

6100 

00 

5000 

5000 

4900 

4900 

0 

0 

15500 

15500 

7000 

7000 

6700 

6700 

0 

0 

8200 

8200 

4400 

4400 

200 

200 

4500 

4500 

2100 

2100 

1700 

1700 

5200 

5200 

5000 

5000 

9500 

9500 

0 

0 

10000 

10000 

1300 

1300 

4300 

4300 

9900 

9900 

0 

0 

5200 

5200 

0 

0 

300 

300 

1100 

1100 

1500 

1500 

900 

900 

2600 


0 

0 

1000 

1000 

0 

0 

1300 

1300 

2100 

2100 

4200 

4200 

8800 

8800 

100 

100 

800 

800 

200 

200 

5700 

5700 

100 

100 

900 

900 

1400 

1400 

300 

300 



0 

0 

600 


7800 

7800 

10400 

10400 

0 

4200 

4200 

36900 

36900 

6300 

6300 

12000 

12000 

12000 

12000 

10700 

10700 

11100 

11100 

11100 

11100 

14500 

14500 

11700 

11700 

3500 

3500 

10300 

10300 

34300 

34300 

9300 

9300 

9300 

9300 

10300 

10300 

7100 

7100 

4100 

4100 

4700 

4700 

7100 

7100 

34000 

34000 

4700 

4700 

7100 

7100 

0 

0 

4700 

4700 

700 

700 

0 

0 

700 

700 

800 

80010700 

10700 

3300 

3300 

3500 

3500 

0 

0 

2100 

2100 



8700 

8700 

3300 

3300 

7400 

7400 

15800 

13300 



7400 

7400 

28000 

28000 

30700 

30700 

14400 

14400 

30700 

30700 

3300 

3300 



30700 

30700 

10000 

10000 

15300 

10800 

10800 


3500 

3500 

27300 

27300 

13300 

12100 

12100 

10400 

10400 

7200 

7200 



17800 

17800 

20900 

20900 

2400 

2400 

5000 

5000 

3000 

3000 


14400 

14400 

21000 

21000 

200 

200 

8700 

8700 

8100 

8100 

3000 

3000 

0 

0 

18700 

18700 

10800 

0 

0 



8800 

8800 

5800 

5800 





11700 

11700 

14100 

14100 

6800 

6800 

16300 

10800 

9800 

9800 

5200 

5200 

3100 

3100 

15700 7800 

7800 

5100 

5100 

11200 

11200 

17500 

17500 

11400 

9800 

9800 

13300 

13300 

8800 

8800 

3900 

3900 

5200 

5200 

4700 

4700 

15800 

15800 

2500 

2500 

13300 

13300 

3900 

3900 

26400 

26400 

2500 

2500 

26400 

26400 



23100 

23100 

5700 

12200 

26800 

26800 

11700 

11700 

5200 

5200 

8700 

8700 

3500 

3500 

2500 

2500 

6100 

2200 

2200 

3900 

5400 

5400 

4800 

4800 

6200 

6200 

3900 

8900 

8900 

35900 

35900 

37700 

37700 

8700 

8700 

4700 

4700 

25000 

25000 

18700 

18700 

0 

0 

22400 

22400 

27000 

27000 

23300 

23300 

22800 

22800 

15800 

10000 



5200 

5200 

5200 

5200 

8700 

8700 

4700 

4700 

4700 

4700 

3500 

3500 

3500 

3500 

3500 

3500


11/8/2012 


-- WITHOUT SR 60 LANE REDUCTIONS -- 


24700 

700 

4700 

4700 



0 

0 

15700 

15700 

10400 

10400 

1700 

1700 

300 

300 

10500 

10500 

3400 

3400 

700 

700 

6200 

6200 

4300 

4300 

2100 

2100 

8900 

8900 

12500 

12500 

9800 

9800 

0 

0 

11400 

11400 

1000 

1000 

4000 

4000 

10000 

10000 

100 

100 



300 

300 

400 

400 1500 

1500 

1000 

1000 

2000 

2000 

4800 

4800 

0 

0 

1700 

1700 

0 

0 

1900 

1900 

500 

5700 

5700 

7800 

7800 

2900 

2900 





4900 

4900 

100 

100 

2100 

2100 

2300 

2300 

300 

300 

1400 

1400 

0 

500 

500 

9000 

9000 

12000 

12000 

0 

14700 

14700 

42300 

42300 

12800 

12800 

13200 

13200 

13200 

13200 

10700 

10700 

11200 

11200 

11200 

11200 

15400 

15400 

9300 

9300 

18100 

18100 

6700 

6700 

10400 

10400 

41400 

41400 

9400 

9400 

9400 

9400 

10400 

10400 



6500 

6500 

7700 

7700 

1900 

1900 

9300 

9300 

41000 

41000 

7900 

7900 



0 

0 

7700 

7700 

3000 

3000 

0 

0 

3000 

3000 

2700 

270013000 

13000 



6100 

6100 

0 

0 

2000 

2000 

13200 

13200 

10900 

10900 

7300 

7300 

7500 

7500 

18700 

17200 

13200 

13200 

8100 

8100 

48300 

48300 

7300 

7300 

30200 

30200 

8500 

8500 

7800 

7800 

8700 

8700 

30200 

30200 

12300 

12300 

30200 

30200 

10800 

10800 

12300 

12300 

17000 

26300 

26300 

3900 

3900 

17200 

12200 

12200 

11300 

11300 



7700 

7700 

14400 

14400 

18700 

18700 

2200 

2200 

8100 

8100 

2200 

2200 

16200 

18200 

18200 

400 

400 



12300 

12300 

2200 

2200 

700 

700 

19500 

19500 

13300 

700 

700 

5000 

5000 

11300 

11300 

5000 

5000 

2700 

2700 

12800 

12800 

17100 

17100 

6900 

6900 

18700 

13300 

11500 

11500 

11200 

11200 

6800 

6800 

19200 9800 

9800 

7500 

7500 

9500 

9500 

16800 

16800 

12000 

20300 

20300 

16900 

16900 

7400 

7400 

4000 

4000 

6300 

6300 

14700 

14700 



12100 

12100 

7400 

7400 

26300 

26300 



26300 

26300 

21500 

21500 

21700 

21700 

4800 

14000 

28800 

28800 

25100 

25100 

4000 

4000 

9700 

9700 

5700 

5700 



5700 



3100 

7900 

7900 

3300 

3300 



9000 

9000 

3100 

4900 

4900 

55000 

55000 

56300 

56300 

9700 

9700 

6300 

6300 

40800 

40800 



0 

0 

31900 

31900 

38100 

38100 

34700 

34700 

31300 

31300 

18800 

9900 

9700 

9700 

6300 

6300 

6300 

6300 

3900 

3900 

5700 

5700 

5700 

5700 

8700 

8700


11/6/2012 


-- WITH SR 60 LANE REDUCTIONS BETWEEN 20TH AVENUE & COMMERCE AVENUE -- 


4400 

24700 

24700 

4700 

4700 



0 

0 

15800 

15800 

10200 

10200 

1700 

1700 

400 

400 

10400 

10400 

3400 

3400 

700 

700 

6200 

6200 

4400 

4400 

2100 

2100 

9000 

9000 

12400 

12400 

9900 

9900 

0 

0 

11300 

11300 

1000 

1000 

4000 

4000 

10100 

10100 

0 

0 

4500 

4500 

300 

300 

400 

400 1500 

1500 

1000 

1000 

2000 

2000 

4800 

4800 

0 

0 



0 

0 

1900 

1900 

500 

500 

5700 

5700 

8100 

8100 







4900 

4900 

100 

100 

1900 

1900 

2400 

2400 

300 

300 

1400 

1400 

0 

0 

500 

500 

9200 

9200 

11900 

11900 

800 

00 

0 

0 14700 

14700 

42100 

42100 

12700 

12700 

13300 

13300 

13300 

13300 



11200 

11200 

11200 

11200 

15800 

15800 

9000 

9000 

18200 

18200 

6700 

6700 

10300 

10300 

40900 

40900 





10300 

10300 

1800 

1800 

6700 

6700 

7700 

7700 

2100 

2100 

9000 

9000 

40500 

40500 

8000 

8000 



0 

0 

7700 

7700 

2900 

2900 

0 

0 

2900 

2900 



13200 



6100 

6100 

0 

0 

1900 

1900 

13500 

13500 

10300 

10300 

8400 

8400 

7400 

7400 

18100 

15700 

13500 

13500 

8200 

8200 

48300 

48300 

8400 

8400 

30200 

30200 

8700 

8700 

7700 

7700 



30200 

30200 

12500 

12500 

30200 

30200 

11000 

11000 

12200 

12200 


26300 

26300 

3900 

3900 

15700 

12100 

12100 

11200 

11200 

8400 

8400 

7800 

7800 

14300 

14300 



2100 

2100 

9200 

9200 

2300 

2300 

15800 

18500 

18500 

400 

400 



12300 

12300 

2300 

2300 

800 

800 

20100 

20100 

12700 

800 

800 

5200 

5200 



5200 

5200 

2900 

2900 

13100 

13100 

17300 

17300 

6700 

6700 

18200 

12700 

11500 

11500 



7200 

7200 

19100 9900 

9900 

7700 

7700 

9500 

9500 

16900 

16900 




17300 

17300 

7700 

7700 

4000 

4000 

6300 

6300 

14700 

14700 



12100 

12100 

7700 

7700 

26400 

26400 



26400 

26400 

21700 

21700 



4800 

14000 

28700 

28700 

25100 

25100 

4000 

4000 










3000 

7800 

7800 

3300 

3300 

22700 

22700 

9000 

9000 

3000 

4800 

4800 

55000 

55000 

56300 

56300 



6300 

6300 

40700 

40700 

30500 

30500 

0 

0 

31700 

31700 

37900 

37900 

34400 

34400 

31300 

31300 

18200 

9400 



6300 

6300 

6300 

6300 

3900 

3900 






8600

SYNCHRO Analysis – 2035 Conditions 

APPENDIX D

No Build Conditions



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 792 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 170 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 1.00 






Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1115 91 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 293 0 














v/c Ratio 0.56 0.51 




Delay (s) 22.4 7.1 

Level of Service C A 


Approach LOS C A A A 








PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 no-build conditions Synchro 8 Report 

Page 1



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 8 809 0 0 0 0 0 170 52 0 0 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 


Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 4424 3078 


Satd. Flow (perm) 1593 4424 3078 


Adj. Flow (vph) 14 963 0 0 0 0 0 239 69 0 0 0 














v/c Ratio 0.01 0.31 0.40 




Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 39.3 








Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.2% ICU Level of Service B 




Page 2



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 44 1126 0 0 0 0 0 150 65 




Frt 1.00 0.96 






Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 62 1522 0 0 0 0 0 259 83 














v/c Ratio 0.45 0.67 




Delay (s) 18.4 51.5 





HCM 2000 Control Delay 24.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C 








Page 3



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 1108 52 67 112 0 0 0 0 




Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 


Satd. Flow (prot) 4577 1425 3133 


Satd. Flow (perm) 4577 1425 3133 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1518 68 79 158 0 0 0 0 














v/c Ratio 0.67 0.05 0.23 




Delay (s) 29.1 29.8 1.6 












Page 4



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 54 663 49 0 0 0 0 206 43 50 313 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frt 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4341 1676 1391 1589 1676 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4341 1676 1391 642 1676 


Adj. Flow (vph) 84 850 69 0 0 0 0 240 60 88 396 0 



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 










v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.03 c0.24 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.23 0.01 0.07 

v/c Ratio 0.51 0.61 0.04 0.23 0.57 




Delay (s) 14.2 23.3 17.8 18.4 19.2 

Level of Service B C B B B 


Approach LOS B A C B 





Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service C 




Page 5



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 54 877 33 88 192 0 0 378 96 


Lane Width 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Flpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 1512 4391 1592 1676 1616 

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 1512 4391 266 1676 1616 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 76 1044 44 110 267 0 0 440 133 



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 












v/c Ratio 0.15 0.72 0.47 0.30 0.95 


Progression Factor 0.74 0.90 1.60 0.56 1.00 


Delay (s) 10.7 18.3 19.6 4.8 44.1 

Level of Service B B B A D 











Page 6



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 32 1097 29 0 0 0 0 20 16 30 29 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4396 1572 1593 1676 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4396 1572 1210 1676 


Adj. Flow (vph) 49 1233 41 0 0 0 0 29 25 45 45 0 














v/c Ratio 0.40 0.19 0.34 0.25 




Delay (s) 1.2 24.9 21.0 19.9 

Level of Service A C C B 











Page 7



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 39 1308 3 50 39 0 0 35 50 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 5559 1593 1676 1567 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 5559 1140 1676 1567 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 76 1656 8 63 57 0 0 62 58 












v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.06 


v/c Ratio 0.43 0.38 0.23 0.40 




Delay (s) 5.3 26.8 25.3 24.4 












Page 8



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 17 858 53 24 122 0 0 43 44 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 6123 1770 1863 1863 1583 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 6123 913 1863 1863 1583 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 24 986 75 32 167 0 0 47 48 








Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.14 




v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.09 0.03 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.18 0.02 0.00 

v/c Ratio 0.29 0.11 0.33 0.18 0.03 




Delay (s) 5.6 16.7 18.0 23.2 22.4 












Page 9



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 14 682 22 101 121 0 0 118 69 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 6160 1770 1863 1772 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 6160 891 1863 1772 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 21 842 26 133 149 0 0 155 88 














v/c Ratio 0.23 0.64 0.34 0.49 




Delay (s) 4.9 25.8 18.0 20.8 












Page 10



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 47 678 46 0 0 0 0 143 18 13 79 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4856 1833 1770 1863 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4856 1833 682 1863 


Adj. Flow (vph) 56 858 61 0 0 0 0 207 28 23 95 0 











Lane Grp Cap (vph) 2606 409 271 617 



v/c Ratio 0.37 0.55 0.08 0.15 




Delay (s) 5.6 22.3 20.3 19.2 



Approach LOS A A C B 









Page 11

Build Conditions



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 756 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 166 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 1.00 






Adj. Flow (vph) 0 1065 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 286 0 














v/c Ratio 0.51 0.59 




Delay (s) 19.8 10.4 

Level of Service B B 


Approach LOS B A A B 








PM Peak 5:00 pm 11/7/2012 2035 build conditions Synchro 7 - Report 

Page 1



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 8 773 0 0 0 0 0 166 50 0 0 0 




Frt 1.00 1.00 0.97 


Satd. Flow (prot) 1593 4577 3079 


Satd. Flow (perm) 1593 4577 3079 


Adj. Flow (vph) 14 920 0 0 0 0 0 234 67 0 0 0 














v/c Ratio 0.01 0.29 0.38 




Delay (s) 0.0 0.2 38.8 












Page 2



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 42 1075 0 0 0 0 0 146 64 




Frt 1.00 0.96 






Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 59 1453 0 0 0 0 0 252 82 














v/c Ratio 0.42 0.69 




Delay (s) 16.3 53.0 













Page 3



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 0 1059 49 65 109 0 0 0 0 




Frt 1.00 0.85 1.00 


Satd. Flow (prot) 4577 1425 3134 


Satd. Flow (perm) 4577 1425 3134 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 0 1451 64 76 154 0 0 0 0 














v/c Ratio 0.61 0.04 0.23 




Delay (s) 23.7 25.9 1.8 












Page 4



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 52 634 47 0 0 0 0 202 42 49 306 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 

Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frt 0.99 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 3021 1676 1391 1589 1676 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.39 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 3021 1676 1391 651 1676 


Adj. Flow (vph) 81 813 66 0 0 0 0 235 58 86 387 0 



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 

Parking (#/hr) 10 










v/s Ratio Prot 0.14 0.03 c0.23 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.32 0.01 0.07 

v/c Ratio 0.70 0.60 0.04 0.23 0.56 




Delay (s) 22.8 23.1 17.9 18.7 19.4 

Level of Service C C B B B 


Approach LOS C A C B 









Page 5



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 52 837 32 86 188 0 0 370 93 


Lane Width 12 12 12 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Flpb, ped/bikes 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 0.97 

Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 1286 3055 1592 1676 1616 

Flt Permitted 0.95 1.00 0.16 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 1286 3055 271 1676 1616 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 73 996 43 108 261 0 0 430 129 



Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 10 10 10 10 

Parking (#/hr) 10 10 












v/c Ratio 0.16 0.97 0.46 0.30 0.95 




Delay (s) 10.9 38.5 19.7 4.7 44.1 

Level of Service B D B A D 


Approach LOS A D A D 









Page 6



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 31 1048 27 0 0 0 0 20 16 29 28 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 0.94 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4395 1572 1593 1676 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.72 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4395 1572 1210 1676 


Adj. Flow (vph) 48 1178 39 0 0 0 0 29 25 44 43 0 














v/c Ratio 0.38 0.19 0.34 0.24 




Delay (s) 1.4 25.0 21.3 20.1 












Page 7



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 37 1250 3 49 38 0 0 34 49 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 5559 1593 1676 1567 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.68 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 5559 1142 1676 1567 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 73 1582 8 62 56 0 0 61 57 












v/s Ratio Prot 0.03 c0.05 


v/c Ratio 0.41 0.38 0.23 0.38 




Delay (s) 4.5 27.1 25.7 24.2 












Page 8



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 16 820 50 23 119 0 0 42 43 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 6125 1770 1863 1863 1583 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.49 1.00 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 6125 910 1863 1863 1583 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 23 943 70 31 163 0 0 46 47 








Actuated g/C Ratio 0.60 0.27 0.27 0.14 0.14 




v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.09 0.02 

v/s Ratio Perm 0.17 0.02 0.00 

v/c Ratio 0.28 0.10 0.33 0.18 0.03 




Delay (s) 5.5 16.7 18.1 23.3 22.5 












Page 9



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 0 0 0 13 651 21 98 118 0 0 116 68 


Lane Width 12 12 12 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 

Flt Protected 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 6160 1770 1863 1772 

Flt Permitted 1.00 0.48 1.00 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 6160 893 1863 1772 


Adj. Flow (vph) 0 0 0 19 804 25 129 146 0 0 153 87 














v/c Ratio 0.21 0.64 0.34 0.49 




Delay (s) 4.7 26.5 19.1 21.1 












Page 10



11/13/2012 



Volume (vph) 45 648 44 0 0 0 0 140 17 12 77 0 


Lane Width 12 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 



Frt 0.99 0.98 1.00 1.00 

Flt Protected 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 

Satd. Flow (prot) 4855 1834 1770 1863 

Flt Permitted 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 

Satd. Flow (perm) 4855 1834 696 1863 


Adj. Flow (vph) 54 820 59 0 0 0 0 203 26 21 93 0 














v/c Ratio 0.35 0.54 0.08 0.15 




Delay (s) 5.3 22.1 20.8 19.4 



Approach LOS A A C B 









Page 11

sr 60 “twin pairs” - City of Vero Beach

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?