Information provided in this Macro Elements section is a compilation of recognized and/or approved planning and design manuals, computer programs, definitions, and so forth, used in traffic and transportation planning/engineering. The formal adoption of this document by the City Commission establishes the city's recognition/confirmation of these items for use by developers and city staff.
(A) Design manuals. The following design manuals shall be used when preparing conceptual and final design plans for the transportation elements of a project:
(1) 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
(2) 1984 AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highway and streets.
(3) 1984 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.
(4) 1978 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
(5) 1984 Florida Department of Transportation Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and Maintenance for Streets and Highways.
(6) ITE Trip Generation, Third Edition.
(7) Site Planning Design, Chiaro and Koppelman.
(8) NCHRP, Report 187, Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters - Users Guide.
Any design or planning manual, report, paper, or the like that a developer or staff member wishes to use in addition to those listed must have the document approved by the city.
(B) Planning and design computer programs. The following programs are acceptable for uses in the planning and design of transportation facilities.
(1) Intersection Capacity Analysis (CAPCALC, Ver. 2) based on Circular 212.
(2) Quick Response System prepared for US DOT/FHWA, January, 1984.
(3) Min UTP.
(4) Micro Trips.
(5) Traffic Signal Timing Operation: TRANSYT 7F.
(6) McTRANS Package for Traffic Engineering.
(7) Coordinate Geometry (COGO) for roadway geometry.
(8) CALINE 3 Calif. State Dept. of Transportation, 1979 for FHWA. A versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets.
(9) TEXIN Texas Transportation Institute, State Department of Highways and Public Transportation Cooperative Research, 1982 (in cooperation with FHWA). Estimates of Air Pollution Near Simple Signalized Intersections.
(10) PAL Environmental Protection Agency, 1978 A Gaussian-Plume Algorithm for Point, Area, and Line Sources (model usually accepted for use in urban areas for parking lots, shopping areas, industrial complexes, and the like).
(11) MOBILE 3 - EPA, 1984 Mobile Source Emissions Model. Calculates emission factors for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen from highway motor vehicles (is required if CALINE 3 is used).
(12) STAMINA 2. O/OPTIMA FHWA, 1982 Noise Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure (BCR). The BCR procedure is a computer process employed to predict highway noise and design noise barriers. The BRC procedure requires the use of two separate computer programs.
(13) FLAMOD FDOT's revised noise model (approved for use in FL by FHWA). Noise model calculates noise levels from roads.
(14) EPA Guidelines - 1978 "Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 9 (Revised): Evaluating Indirect Sources." The guidelines are designed to evaluate the impact of an indirect source on the air quality. Indirect sources include:
(a) Highways and roads;
(b) Parking lots and garages;
(c) Airports;
(d) Office and government buildings;
(e) Apartment, condo, and housing projects; and
(f) Retail, commercial, industrial, educational, amusement, sport, and entertainment facilities,
Any program that a developer or staff member wishes to use in addition to or in lieu of the programs listed must have the program approved by the city. A request for approval must be accompanied by the program name, a general description of the logic and an example of the output to be used with description of the information shown.
(C) Land use and zoning. An adopted land use plan is one of the single most important tools available to direct development growth in a positive manner. A well conceived plan takes into consideration existing land uses, the regional transportation network, available and planned public services and utilities and the goals of the controlling government entity to establish the best and highest land use without overtaxing the infrastructure. Zoning ordinances complement a land use plan in that they provide more specific guidance on the development of a piece of property.
(1) Adopted land use plan. The land use plan adopted by this city represents the city's goal for directing land development and shall be used by developers when a development program is being considered. The adopted land use plan is available to the public through the City Administrator.
(2) Lake Mary Boulevard Land Use Corridor. It is the goal of this city to direct land use activity adjacent to Lake Mary Boulevard in such a manner as to minimize the adverse impacts associated with land development that will affect the service capabilities of the roadway. A two-block corridor width has been established by the city along Lake Mary Boulevard as a special study area to correlate to the Lake Mary Boulevard Corridor Study completed in December, 1985. Figure 4-1 shows the land uses established for this corridor.
[See hard copy of Code for Figure 4-1.]
(3) Zoning and subdivision regulations. This city updated its zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations in 1985 (incorporated into the 1985 Land Development Code) and these are to be used by a developer unless otherwise directed by the city.
(D) Traffic and parking laws, rules, ordinances. The following laws, rules and ordinances have been adopted by the city to prevent the breakdown of a roadway's serviceability and minimize property damage and loss of life due to unacceptable driving practices by the motorist:
(1) Acknowledgment of federal, state, and county laws, rules and ordinances regarding the use of the roadway system.
(2) Ordinance 221, passed 4-18-85.
(E) Functional classification. The following information defines the functional classification of roadways which are applicable to the roadway network locally and regionally associated with this city. These definitions will be used when planning and designing roadway improvements:
(1) Arterial roadways.
(a) A route providing service which is relatively continuous and with relatively high traffic volume, long average trip length, high operating speed and/or high mobility importance.
(b) The following roadways are classified as arterial roadways:
1. Interstate 4;
2. Lake Mary Boulevard;
3. State Road 17-92.
(2) Collector roadway.
(a) A route providing service which is of relatively moderate average traffic volume, moderately average trip length, and moderately average operating speed. Such a route also collects and distributes traffic between local roads and/or arterial roads and serves as a linkage between land access and mobility needs.
(b) The following roadways are classified as collector roadways:
1. Lake Emma Road;
2. Longwood-lake Mary Road;
3. Old Lake Mary Road;
4. Country Club Road;
5. Rinehart Road.
(3) Local roadway.
(a) A route providing service which is of relatively low average traffic volume, short average trip length or minimum through-traffic movements, and high land access for abutting property.
(b) All roadways not listed above will be considered local roads.
(F) Defined levels of service. The following generalized definitions for Level of Service (LOS), shown on Table 4-1, will apply when evaluating the operational characteristics and serviceability of a roadway. A roadway will exhibit lighting values of capacity and speed relative to its cross-sectional elements, horizontal and vertical geometry, signalization, and the like. Table 4-2 provides generalized highway capacities as a function of Level of Service, functional classification, and number of through lanes. The 1985 Highway Capacity Manual shall be used to defined the capacity of a specific roadway.
TABLE 4-1
LEVEL OF SERVICE PARAMETERS
LEVEL OF SERVICE PARAMETERS
(1) Uninterrupted Flow conditions:
Level of Service A - a condition of free flow, accompanied by low volumes and high speeds. Traffic density will be low, with uninterrupted flow speeds controlled by driver desires, speed limits, and physical roadway conditions. There is little or no restriction in maneuverability due to the presence of other vehicles, and drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. This level of service represents under 0.76 volume/design capacity ratio.
Level of Service B - in the zone of stable flow with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speed and lane of operation. Reduction in speed is not unreasonable, with a low probability of traffic flow being restricted. The low limit (lowest speed, highest volume) of this level of service has been associated with service volumes used in the design of rural highways. This level of service represents a range of 0.76 - 0.875 volume/design capacity ratio.
Level of Service C - still in the zone of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. Most of the drivers are restricted in their freedom to select their own speed, change lanes, or pass. A relatively satisfactory operating speed is still obtained, with service volumes suitable for urban design practice. This level of service represents approximately a range of 0.876 to 1.00 volume/design capacity ratio.
Level of Service D - approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds being maintained, though considerably affected by changes in operating conditions. Fluctuations in volume and temporary restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops in operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, and comfort and convenience are low. These conditions can be tolerated, however, for short periods of time. This level of service represents approximately a range of 1.01 to 1.125 volume/design capacity ratio.
Level of Service E - cannot be described by speed alone, but represents operation at even lower operating speeds typically, but not always, in the neighborhood of 30 m.p.h. with volumes at or near the capacity of the highway. Flow is unstable, and there may be stoppage of momentary duration. This level of service represents a range of 1.125 to 1.25 volume/design capacity ratio.
Level of Service F - describes a forced flow operation at low speeds, where volumes are below capacity. This level of service does not have a meaningful volume/design capacity ratio.
(2) At-Grade Intersections:
Level of Service A - a condition of "free flow" (occasional stop on a red phase, otherwise unrestricted) with a green signal time/signal cycle ratio below 0.76.
Level of Service B - a condition of the "stable flow" (an occasional intersection approach may be fully utilized, restrictions caused by platooning effect only) with a green signal time/signal cycle ratio from 0.76 to 0.875.
Level of Service C - a condition of "stable flow" (drivers usually are not detained more than one red signal indication; back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles) with a green signal cycle time/signal cycle ratio from 0.876 to 1.00.
Level of Service D - a condition approaching "unstable flow" (delays to approaching vehicle may be substantial during short peaks within the peak period, but enough signal cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of developing queues, thus preventing excessive back-ups) with a green signal cycle time/signal ratio from 1.0 to 1.125.
Level of Service E - a condition of "unstable flow" or capacity (the greatest volume the intersection can accommodate; at capacity there may be long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection and delays may be great, up to several signal cycles) with a green signal cycle time/signal cycle ratio from 1.126 to 1.25.
Level of Service F - a condition of "forced flow" (jammed conditions, back-ups from location downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of intersection approaches) with a green cycle time/signal cycle ratio not being meaningful.
Source: Planning Guidelines
(Transportation), Seminole County, Florida
TABLE 4-2A GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE MAXIMUM VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBAN/URBANIZED (5,000+) AREAS (valid for use from January 1989 through December 1990) | |||||
CLASS I TWO-WAY ARTERIALS |
TABLE 4-2A GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE MAXIMUM VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBAN/URBANIZED (5,000+) AREAS (valid for use from January 1989 through December 1990) | |||||
CLASS I TWO-WAY ARTERIALS | |||||
Group A (0.0 to 0.75 signalized intersections per mile)
| |||||
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
2 Undiv.
| 1,310
| 1,440
| 1,490
| 1,580
| 1,670
|
4 Div.
| 2,880
| 3,070
| 3,170
| 3,360
| 3,530
|
6 Div.
| 4,360
| 4,620
| 4,770
| 5,000
| 5,300
|
Group B (0.76 to 1.5 signalized intersections per mile)
| |||||
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
2 Undiv.
| 870
| 1,310
| 1,390
| 1,470
| 1,540
|
4 Div.
| 1,920
| 2,850
| 2,970
| 3,120
| 3,270
|
6 Div.
| 2,930
| 4,330
| 4,480
| 4,700
| 4,910
|
Group C (1.6 to 2.5 signalized intersections per mile)
| |||||
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B | C | D | E | |
2 Undiv.
| --
| 980
| 1,290
| 1,420
| 1,510
|
4 Div.
| --
| 2,190
| 2,830
| 3,040
| 3,210
|
6 Div.
| --
| 3,370
| 4,320
| 4,600
| 4,830
|
Group D (2.6 to 3.5 signalized intersections per mile)
| |||||
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B** | C | D | E | |
2 Undiv.
| --
| --
| 880
| 1,310
| 1,470
|
4 Div.
| --
| --
| 1,930
| 2,900
| 3,180
|
6 Div.
| --
| --
| 2,940
| 4,440
| 4,820
|
Group E (3.6 to 4.5 signalized intersections per mile)
| |||||
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B** | C** | D | E | |
2 Undiv.
| --
| --
| --
| 1,180
| 1,410
|
4 Div.
| --
| --
| --
| 2,530
| 3,080
|
6 Div.
| --
| --
| --
| 3,790
| 4,690
|
CLASS II
Group F (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B** | C** | D | E | |
2 Undiv. | -- | -- | -- | 990 | 1,400 |
4 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 2,180 | 3,080 |
6 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 3,360 | 4,710 |
CLASS III
Group G (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B** | C** | D | E | |
2 Undiv. | -- | -- | -- | 1,260 | 1,480 |
4 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 2,810 | 3,230 |
6 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 4,340 | 4,920 |
DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED ADJUSTMENTS
(alter corresponding two-way arterial volume indicated percent)
Lanes | Median | Left Turn Bays | Adjustment Factor |
2 | Divided | Yes | + 5% |
2 | Undivided | No | - 15% |
Multi | Undivided | Yes | - 5% |
Multi | Undivided | No | - 20% |
FREEWAYS
Group 1 (within urbanized area over 500,000 and leading to or within 5 miles of primary city central business district)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
4 | 2,470 | 3,810 | 5,440 | 6,570 | 7,060 |
6 | 3,710 | 5,720 | 8,160 | 9,850 | 10,590 |
8 | 4,940 | 7,630 | 10,880 | 13,140 | 14,120 |
10 | 6,180 | 9,530 | 13,590 | 16,420 | 17,650 |
Group 2 (within urbanized area over 50,000 and not in Group 1)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
4 | 2,350 | 3,630 | 5,180 | 6,250 | 6,390 |
6 | 3,530 | 5,450 | 7,770 | 9,360 | 10,090 |
8 | 4,710 | 7,280 | 10,360 | 12,510 | 13,450 |
10 | 5,880 | 9,080 | 12,950 | 15,640 | 16,810 |
Group 3 (within non-urbanized areas)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
4 | 2,240 | 3,450 | 4,940 | 5,940 | 6,390 |
6 | 3,350 | 5,180 | 7,380 | 6,910 | 9,580 |
8 | 4,470 | 6,900 | 9,840 | 11,880 | 12,780 |
CLASS I
ONE-WAY ARTERIALS
ONE-WAY ARTERIALS
Group D (less than 3.6 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B | C | D | E | |
2 | -- | 1,080 | 1,600 | 1,830 | 1,950 |
3 | -- | 2,450 | 2,770 | 2,940 | |
4 | -- | 2,1501,610 | 3,320 | 3,710 | 3,930 |
Group E (3.6 to 4.5 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 1,440 | 1,750 | 1,900 |
3 | -- | -- | 2,190 | 2,670 | 2,870 |
4 | -- | -- | 2,920 | 3,600 | 3,850 |
CLASS II
Group F (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 1,180 | 1,680 | 1,910 |
3 | -- | -- | 1,790 | 2,590 | 2,890 |
4 | -- | -- | 2,410 | 3,500 | 3,870 |
CLASS III
Group G (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 1,440 | 1,880 | 1,960 |
3 | -- | -- | 2,210 | 2,830 | 2,990 |
4 | -- | -- | 2,980 | 3,800 | 4,000 |
TWO-WAY COLLECTORS AND LOCAL STREETS
(signalized intersection analysis)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 730 | 1,110 | 1,240 |
3 | -- | -- | 1,560 | 2,330 | 2,540 |
4 | -- | -- | 2,390 | 3,570 | 3,850 |
*The table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Values shown are average daily traffic maximum volumes (based on peak hour volumes) for levels of service and are based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and Florida traffic data. Roadways with more than the number of lanes shown should be treated on a case by case basis. The table's input value assumptions and level of service criteria appear on the back.
**Cannot be achieved.
Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 1988.
TABLE 4-2B
GENERALIZED DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAXIMUM VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBAN/URBANIZED (5,000+) AREAS
GENERALIZED DAILY LEVEL OF SERVICE MAXIMUM VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBAN/URBANIZED (5,000+) AREAS
(valid for use from January 1989 through December 1990)
CLASS I
TWO-WAY ARTERIALS
TWO-WAY ARTERIALS
Group A (0.0 to 0.75 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
2 Undiv. | 13,700 | 15,000 | 16,600 | 16,500 | 17,400 |
4 Div. | 29,800 | 31,900 | 33,000 | 34,900 | 36,700 |
6 Div. | 45,400 | 48,100 | 49,700 | 52,400 | 55,200 |
Group B (0.76 to 1.5 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
2 Undiv. | 9,000 | 13,700 | 14,500 | 15,300 | 16,100 |
4 Div. | 20,000 | 29,700 | 31,000 | 32,500 | 34,000 |
6 Div. | 30,600 | 45,100 | 46,700 | 48,900 | 51,200 |
Group C (1.6 to 2.5 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A*
| B | C | D | E | |
2 Undiv. | -- | 10,200 | 13,500 | 14,800 | 15,700 |
4 Div. | -- | 22,800 | 29,500 | 31,700 | 33,400 |
6 Div. | -- | 35,100 | 45,000 | 47,900 | 50,300 |
Group D (2.6 to 3.5 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C | D | E | |
2 Undiv. | -- | -- | 9,200 | 13,700 | 15,400 |
4 Div. | -- | -- | 20,100 | 30,200 | 33,200 |
6 Div. | -- | -- | 30,700 | 46,300 | 50,200 |
Group E (3.6 to 4.5 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C**
| D | E | |
2 Undiv. | -- | -- | -- | 12,300 | 14,600 |
4 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 26,300 | 32,100 |
6 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 39,500 | 48,800 |
CLASS II
Group F (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C**
| D | E | |
2 Undiv. | -- | -- | -- | 10,300 | 14,600 |
4 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 22,800 | 32,100 |
6 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 34,900 | 49,000 |
CLASS III
Group G (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes/Divided | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B**
| C**
| D | E | |
2 Undiv. | -- | -- | -- | 13,100 | 15,400 |
4 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 29,300 | 33,700 |
6 Div. | -- | -- | -- | 45,200 | 51,200 |
DIVIDED/UNDIVIDED ADJUSTMENTS
(alter corresponding two-way arterial volume indicated percent)
Lanes | Median | Left Turn Bays | Adjustment Factor |
2 | Divided | Yes | + 5% |
2 | Undivided | No | - 15% |
Multi | Undivided | Yes | - 5% |
Multi | Undivided | No | - 20% |
FREEWAYS
Group 1 (within urbanized area over 500,000 and leading to or within 5 miles of primary city central business distract)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
4 | 27,800 | 42,800 | 61,100 | 73,800 | 79,300 |
6 | 41,700 | 64,300 | 91,600 | 110,700 | 119,000 |
8 | 55,500 | 85,700 | 122,200 | 147,600 | 158,700 |
10 | 69,400 | 107,100 | 152,700 | 184,500 | 198,400 |
Group 2 (within urbanized area over 50,000 and not in Group 1)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
4 | 21,400 | 33,000 | 47,100 | 56,900 | 61,100 |
6 | 32,100 | 49,500 | 70,600 | 85,300 | 91,700 |
8 | 42,800 | 66,000 | 94,200 | 113,700 | 122,300 |
10 | 53,500 | 82,500 | 117,700 | 142,200 | 152,900 |
Group 3 (within non-urbanized areas)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A | B | C | D | E | |
4 | 17,100 | 26,300 | 37,600 | 45,400 | 48,800 |
6 | 25,600 | 39,500 | 56,300 | 68,000 | 73,200 |
8 | 34,100 | 52,700 | 75,100 | 90,700 | 97,500 |
CLASS I
ONE-WAY ARTERIALS
ONE-WAY ARTERIALS
Group D (less than 3.6 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B | C | D | E | |
2 | -- | 9,800 | 14,800 | 16,900 | 18,000 |
3 | -- | 14,900 | 22,700 | 25,600 | 27,200 |
4 | -- | 19,900 | 30,800 | 34,300 | 36,300 |
Group E (3.6 to 4.5 signalized intersections per mile)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A**
| B** | C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 13,300 | 16,200 | 17,600 |
3 | -- | -- | 20,300 | 24,800 | 26,600 |
4 | -- | -- | 27,100 | 33,300 | 35,600 |
CLASS II
Group F (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B** | C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 10,900 | 15,600 | 17,700 |
3 | -- | -- | 16,600 | 23,900 | 26,800 |
4 | -- | -- | 22,400 | 32,400 | 35,900 |
CLASS III
Group G (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within primary city central business district of urbanized area over 500,000)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B** | C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 13,300 | 17,200 | 18,300 |
3 | -- | -- | 20,400 | 26,200 | 27,700 |
4 | -- | -- | 27,600 | 35,200 | 37,100 |
TWO-WAY COLLECTORS AND LOCAL STREETS
(signalized intersection analysis)
Lanes | Level of Service | ||||
A** | B** | C | D | E | |
2 | -- | -- | 7,700 | 11,600 | 12,900 |
6 | -- | -- | 16,200 | 24,300 | 26,400 |
6 | -- | -- | 24,900 | 37,200 | 40,100 |
*The table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Values shown are average daily traffic maximum volumes (based on peak hour volumes) for levels of service and are based on the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual and Florida traffic data. Roadways with more than the number of lanes shown should be treated on a case by case basis. The table's input value assumptions and level of service criteria appear on the back.
**Cannot be achieved.
Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 1988.
(G) Trip generation. This city currently recognizes the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (ITE), 1979, and Trip Ends Generation Research, FDOT Annual Reports, for purposes of projecting traffic impacts of land development requests. Applicants who wish to provide additional traffic projections based on more complete, more current or otherwise superior analysis may do so. For uses not included in the ITE or FDOT documents, the applicant will provide the city with projections. All projections submitted that differ from the ITE or FDOT data will be used at the discretion of the city. Applicants are also advised that trip rates are regularly updated by ITE and FDOT. Use of the most current rates is highly recommended.
(Res. 343, passed 12-21-89)