USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Functional classification study

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Functional classification study fiscal impact analysis of proposed revised roadway ownership criteria
Portion of title:
Fiscal impact analysis of proposed revised roadway ownership criteria
Physical Description:
xi, 28, A-76 leaves : 1 map ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Florida Transportation Commission
USF Faculty and University Publications
Publisher:
CUTR
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Roads -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Roads -- Finance -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for the Florida Transportation Commision by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
"July 1993."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028797609
oclc - 226244221
usfldc doi - C01-00309
usfldc handle - c1.309
System ID:
SFS0032383:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200229Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028797609
005 20110824153738.0
008 080424s1993 flub 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00309
035
(OCoLC)226244221
040
FHM
c FHM
090
HE356.F6
b F86 1993
0 245
Functional classification study :
fiscal impact analysis of proposed revised roadway ownership criteria /
prepared for the Florida Transportation Commision by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
3 246
Fiscal impact analysis of proposed revised roadway ownership criteria
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
CUTR,
[1993].
300
xi, 28, A-76 leaves :
1 map ;
28 cm.
500
"July 1993."
5 FTS
530
Also available online.
FTS
650
Roads
z Florida.
Roads
Florida
x Finance.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Florida Transportation Commission.
USF Faculty and University Publications.
FTS
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.309
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001935512;
FTS



PAGE 1

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION STUDY: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REVISED ROADWAY OWNERSHIP CRITERIA

PAGE 2

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION STUDY: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED .REVISED ROADWAY OWNERSIDP CRITERIA Prepared for the Florida Transportation Commission 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL by the Center for U rban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida CUTR July 1993

PAGE 3

Florida Transportation Commission 695 Suwannee Street, MS-9 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 (904) 488-8995 Executiv e Director: Jane R Mathis Center for Urban Transportation Research Univ ersity of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, ENG 118 Tampa, Florida 33620 (813) 974-3120 Director: Project Director: Project Manager (Functional Classification): Project Manager (Fiscal Impacts): Project Staff: ii Gary L Brosch Edward A. Mierzejewski Mike Pietrzyk Patrick J Griffith Lori L. Bums Joseph Hagge Laura C. Lachance Steven E. Maas Michael Neidhart Rebecca Rahimi Diane Shannon

PAGE 4

FUNCTIONAL CLASSD'ICATION STUDY: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REVISED ROADWAY OWNERSIDP CRITERIA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY S.B. 1316 of the 1990 session of the Florida legislature directed the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) to perform a study for the purpose of developing criteria to determine the functional classification and jurisdictional responsibility of public roads throughout the state. During the first phase of the study, CUTR researched various criteria for functional classification and jurisdictional determination (i.e roadway ownership) and in April 1991 presented detailed criteria to the Florida Transportation Commission. The Commission reviewed CUTR s proposed criteria and directed the Florida Depar1ment of Transportation (FDOT) to apply the criteria to determine roadway ownership FDOT and the Florida District of the Federal Highway Administration recommended the use of new federal functional classification criteria (formulated at the same time ,as this study) rather than CUTR's functional classification criteria, and CUTR deferred to this recommendation. After the completion of an initial statewide application o f the roadway ownership criteria, CUTR incorporated refinements based on FOOT's experiences in applying the initial criteria on a statewide basis. The following revised criteria define state jurisdictional responsibility in terms of the roadway functions and purposes. (Detailed descriptions of the criteria are presented in a later section.) Proposed Criteria for Determining State Roads 1. National Highway System 2. Florida Intrastate Highway System 3. National Defense 4. Travel TofThrough Urban Areas 5. Designated u.s. Routes 6. Access to Ports/TermlnalsfTransfer Facilities 7. Access to Major Public 8. EmeJgency Evacuation Application of the proposed criteria result in a net decrease in state road mileage. As shown in the following table, the resulting ownership transfers would reduce the state's total centerline iii

PAGE 5

(i.e., roadway length) by 16.5 petcent. (Ibis is a net reduction, after incotpOratiog those local roads that would tnm.sfer to the state.) This traoslates to a two percent increase iD local centerline This change is somewhat misleading, however, because many local roads consist of lo w -volume roads that typi call y are not constructed o r maintained at the standards typical of highe r v o lume roads. In other words, the state r o ads tha t would transfer to local governments would characteristical l y b e h igher-volume roads that are more costly to mainta in Change In eem.rtfne Mil Slalo 1 1,835 ,322 388 9.879 16.5% local 96,250 2.322 98,206 2.0% As directed by S.B. 1316, following the completion by FOOT of the application of the roadway ownership criteria, CUTR estimated the fiscal impacts of the resulting roadway transfers. The evaluation of fiscal impacts considered two areas of impacts, as described below. 1. The reduction in the state's pmrsmmed costs resulting fro m stat e roads and bridges that would transfer to local governmen t s and the r eduction in local governments' prouammed cos ts resulting from local roads and b ridges that would transfer to the state . The reductions in programmed costs are as follows: For the state: $827.7 milli o n over five years, or $165.5 milli o n per yea r (based on FOOT's 5-Year Tentative Work Program, FY 1993194 Through FY 19 97/98). This includes estimated annual maintenance costs. For local governments: $ 5 7. 0 milli o n over fi ve ye ars, or $ 11 4 million per year ( base d on local capital impro v ement programs). This includes estimated annual maintenance and resurfacing costs. 2.. The added (ongoi n g ann.ual) costs t o local governmen.ts from assuming responsibility for those state roads and bridges that would transfer to local governments, and t b e reduced (ongoing a n.nual) costs t o the state associated with a net decrease iD state roads and bridges. These estimates reflect the fact that transfers would be permanent and that the ongoing annual fiscal impacts to local governments may not be the same costs as those programmed in the state's w ork program for these transfers. The reverse is also true; the ongoing annual cost to the state for the roads receiv e d from local governments may not be those costs p r ogr amme d for these roads in local cap ital improvement programs Further, ongoing fiscal impacts can vary depending on bow the state or local governme n ts choose to maintain or IV

PAGE 6

improve facilities under the proposed criteria. As a result of these factors, two fiscal impact scenarios wete developed. Scenario 1: Maintain current standards this scenario inc lude s the estimated cost to maintain the roads and bridges rec eived by a jurisdiction based on current FDO T standards (i.e., milling and resurfacing o f roadways e very fifteen years and routine annual maintenance). The scenario is basically a status quo estimate. That is, it is an estimate of the amount required to maintain the roads and bridges according to current operatio nal and structural standards. This estimate is based on the general, statewide FOOT cost averages for annual maintenance and resurfacing ( ammali:red based on a 15-year cycle). !:e nario 2: Maintain current standards, plus ongoing improvemen t nee d s this scenario is the Sllllle as Scenario 1 above but includes estimates of additional ongoing annual costs for imp r ovements such as operational capacity, and oth er improveme nts. (These estimates are based on average annual improveme nt costs develope d fro m projects in the FOOT Work Program.) The use of average costs for improvemen ts, coupled with the estimated costs to maintain and resurface those roads and bridges that a jurisdiction would receive upon applicatio n of the criteria (as shown in Scenario 1), should result in a reasonable estimate of ongoing fiscal need. These impacts are presented in the tables that follow. The process for estimating fiscal impacts is complex. To facilitate the understanding of these impacts and the process by which CUTR determined them, d etaile d explanations of m ost of the values are pr ovide below each of the follo\ving tab les. County-level details are provided in the appendix of the full report Scenario 1 : Maintain CurNtrt Stanctards Ongoing Annual Cost to Maintain Roads and Bridges that Transfer from the State To L ocal Governments Less: Reductio n In Local Programmed Costs that result from Local to State Transfers $65.9M ( I ) ()Qgoing Amloal Cost to Mainlai.n Roads and Bridges that TriiUfcr from tbe State to Local GovemmentJ these CO$tS are deriwd by multiplying an annual per !me mile cost ofmainteuanoe (See Appendix T able A IS} by the amount of lane miles that would transfer lhlm the state to local governments. ('2) Reduction in Local Prognunmed Costs that reou!t. from Local to State Trausfm these are Cho ce
PAGE 7

Scenario 2: Maintain Clirlent Standards Plus Needs Ongoing Annual Cost to MaintaJn Roads and Bridges that Transfer from the State to Local Govemments $65.9M per year Ongoing Annual Improvement Costs of Roads and Bridges that Transfer from the State to Local Governments $103.1M per year (1) Total Ongoing Added Cost to Local Governments Less: Reduction in local Programmed Costs that from Local to State Transfers (I) Ongoing Annual improvement Costs of Roads and Bridges that Transfer from the State to Local Govormnents these Ofe the FOOT annual wodc progmn costs for openlional, capaeity, safety, and other improvements for those rosds and bridges that would transfer to local govemments. (2) Total Ongoing Added Cost to Local Governments this is tho sum ofS6S.9M and $103.0M. A question that may arise is why this value ($169.0M) is different from the value of the reduction in the state's programme
PAGE 8

Scenario 2 : lilalntaiii Current Standards Plus Needs Ongoing Annual Cost to Maintain Roads and Bridges that Transfer from Local Governments to the State Ongoing Annual Improve ment Costs of Roads and Bridges that Transfer from the Local Governments to the State Total Annual Cost to the State Less: Reduction In State Work Program Costs that result from State to Local Transfers $9.0M per year $14.2M per year (1) $23.2M (I) Ongoing Annual Improvement Costs of Roads and Bridges that Transfer from Local Governments to the Sta tethese costs are derived by multiplying an average 1111J1ual per lane cost of improvements (developed from the FOOT Work Program) by the amount of lane miles tbal would transfer from local governments to the state. The submittal of this report to the Florida Transportation Commission marks the beginning of a six month review and comment period Several events that remain to be accomplished during this period and a tentative time frame have been proposed by the Commission. These events include: I. Maps showing the roads that would transfer upon application of the proposed criteria will be prepared by FOOT, and will be made available to local governments for review and comme nt. (Early July, 1993.) As of this writing, it i s estimated that maps will be made avai l able in FOOT District Offices 2 Local government comments regarding results of the application of the criteria and methodology used are to be submitted to the Commission for inclusion in the final Commission report to the Governor and Legislature (Late summer and early fall, 1993. ) Comments should be submitted to: Jane H Mathis Executive Director Florida Transportation Commission 605 Suwannee Street, MS9 TallahaS!ee, FL 32399 0450 3. Public Hearing(s) will be held by the Commission to discuss and evaluate findings, tentative conclusions and recomme n dations. (No v ember, December 1 993; specific h e aring da t es are contingent on timing of earlier activities.) 4 S u bmit final report containing Commiss ion findings and recommendations to Governor and Legislature (Late December, 1993.) vii

PAGE 9

.. Local governments and interested citiz.eils are encouraged to review this report and the lll8pS illustrating roadway transfers (to be made available by FD01), and to express their comments to the Florida Transportation Commission for consideration in the deliberations and legislative recommendations of the Commission. viii

PAGE 10

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUI\1Jv1ARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ROADWAY OWNERSIDP CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 State/Non-State Roadway Ownership Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 County/Municipal Roadway Ownership Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 REVIEW OF ROADWAY AND BRIDGE IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Roadway Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Bridge Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 F ISCAL IMP ACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 NBXf STEPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 ix

PAGE 11

Figure I Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Tab l e 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table II Table 12 T able 13 Table 1 4 T able 15 Table 16 IJST OF FIGURES Urban Area Connectivity t ; ; , , , , , 6 LIST OF TABLES Airports for State Roadway Service . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. 8 Waterports for State Roadway Service . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Rail-Truck Transfer Terminals for State Roadway Service . . . . . 9 Ed u c ational Facilities for State Roadway Service . . . . . . . . 10 Veterans Administrati on and Regional Medical Centers for State Road\Vay Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 State Parks for State Roadway Service . . . . .. . . .. . . . . 12 Attractions for State Roadway Service . . . . o 0 o o o 13 0 Road Segments that would Transfer Ownership ... o o o 15 Change in Centerline Miles o o o o o 1 6 Bridge s that would Transfer Owoership . o o o o 17 Work Program Costs for those Slate Roads and Bridges that would Transfer to Local Govenunents . . o o o 0 o 0 0 0 19 Capital Improvement Program Costs for Those Local Roads and Bridges that would Transfer to the State . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain Current Stan.dards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain CwTcnt Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Needs . o o o o o 25 Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Maintain Current Stan.dards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoin g Improvemen t Needs ...... .......... o 27 X

PAGE 12

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Table A-1 Road Segments that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State O'wnersh.ip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A ... 2 Table A-2 Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Table A-3 Movable-Span Bridges on Road Segments that would Transfer Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-20 Table A-4 Bridges that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-22 Table A-5 Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . A .. 2s Table A-6 Road Segments that would Transfer Ownership . . . . . . . . A-42 Table A-7 Bridges that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State Ownership: Cotmty and District Totals by Type of Bridge . . . . A-46 Table A-8 Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership: County and District Totals by Type of Bridge . . . . A-48 Table A-9 Capital Improvement Program Costs for Those Local Roads and Bridges that would Transfer to the State . . . . . . . . . . . A-51 Tab l e A 10 Work Program Costs for Those State Roads and Bridges that would Transfer to Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . A-55 Table A-ll Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain Current Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-59 Table A-12 Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Needs . . . . . . A-63 Table A-13 Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Maintain Current Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-67 Table A-14 Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Needs .................. A-71 Table A -15 Unit Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-75

PAGE 13

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIF I CATION StUD Y : FISCAL JMPACI' ANALY SIS OF PROPOSED REVISED R OADWAY OWNERSIDP CRITERIA INTRODUCI'I ON This report presents estimates of the fiscal impacts associated with the possible ownership transfer of state and local roads and bridges. These transfers would result from the application of detailed roadway ownership criteria developed by the Center for Urban Transportation Rese31'Cb ( CUTR), in accordance with the functional classification study mandated in S.B. 1316 of the 1990 session of the Florida legislature. This report consists of four sections following the introduction. The first section describes th e of the study and the evolution of the propose d criteria The second section describes the proposed detailed criteria for determining ownership of public roads. A summary of the roadway and bridge transfers that would occur based on the recommended criteria is presented in the third section. The fourth section presents the estimated fiscal impacts of these transfers. Tables showing the individual roadway and bridge transfers, as well as county level fiscal impactS are provided in the appendix. It is important to note that CUTR was not directed to address the issue of funding (i.e., what' types of new funding mechanisms or changes in existing funding would be needed to be implemented concurrent with the proposed ownership transfers). BACKGROUND With the passage of S.B. 1316 by the 1990 session of the Florida legislature CUTR was directed to undertake a study for the purpose of developing criteria for the functional classification and jurisdictional responsibility of public roads throughout the state. CUTR was specifically directed to consider the following general criteria for classification and ownership: I. Emergency evacuation 2. Travel to and through urban areas 3. National defense 4. Interstate interregional, and intercity commerce 5 Access to airports, waterports, and major terminals or transfer facilities I

PAGE 14

" 6. Access to public facilities serving a s1atewide or regional function 7. Volume and di.smnce of travel CUTR researched various criteria for functional classification and ownership, incl uding those specified in the legislation. CUTR also met periodically with a 16-mcmber Ad Hoc Working Group representing a wide range of perspecti ves, and conducted seven fact-fin ding workshops (one in each FOOT district) throughout the s1ate. In April 1991, CUTR presented detailed criteria for determining classification and i.urisdictional responsib ility of roadways to the Florida Transportation Commission. At the time, CUTR advocated separating the process of clas sifying roads from the proces s of determining roadway ownership. CUTR recommended that state ownership be based on criteria that estab lish the primary function or "purpose" of a road based on the criteria contained in S.B. 1316. For non-state roadways determination of county versus. municipal ownership would be base d on location with respect to the corporate boundary line and on the roadway's classification. Distinct from ownership criteria, CUTR recommended that roadway physical and operating attributes be used as a basis for the determination of roadway classification FOOT and the Florida District of the Federal Highway Administration, however, recommended the use of new federal functional classificat ion criteria (formulated at the same time as this study) ratlier than CUTR' s functional c lassification criteria, and CUTR deferred to this recommendation By deferring t o FOOT's classification criteria, the primary focus of CUTR's effort has become the criteria fo r establ i shi n g ownership of public roads. The Florida Transportation Commission reviewed the detailed ownership criteria developed by CUTR and determined them to be consistent with the seven general criteria proposed in S.B. 1316. Tbe FTC invited public comment and directed FOOT to m ove forward with the applicatio n of the proposed criteria for the ownership determination of roadways. After statewide application of the detailed ownership criteria was completed CUTR met with staff from each FOOT District to discuss the a p plication of the criteria. As anticipated, the statewide application resulted in modest refinements to the criteria originally presented to the Commission in A pri l 1991. The refined crit eria defined the state highway system in terms of detailed criteria for the following eight purposes Detailed descriptions of the criteria are presented in a later secti on. 2

PAGE 15

( State Roadway Criteria 1. National Syiitein 2. Florida Intrastate Highway System 3. National Defense 4. Travel TofThrough Urban Areas 5 Designated U.S. Routes 6. Access to Portsfl'enninalsffransfer Facilities 7. Access to Major Public Facilities 8 Emergency Evacuation In addition to the detailed criteria, CUTR developed a series of recommended generalized procedures, as noted below, that would be applied iflegislative changes were enacted: Recommended l'Tocedures for Detel"lllining Ownership 1. Local review and public hearings would be held as part of the procedures for making ownership determination. 2. Mutual agreement of FDOT and affected local governments as to road ownership would override a detennination based on the criteria. 3. Major statewide review would occur every five years; individual facilities would be reviewed anytime upon formal written request to FDOT 4. The intent is that state highway gystem access to major public facilities, including ports/tenninals/transfer facilities, be as close to the main property entrance as practical. However, it would not be required for a road to go directly to the main entrance for it to serve that facility. Generally, the direct route with the highest average daily traffic would be the basis for specific roadway selection. It is not expected that residential subdivision streets would be used to defme access. Generally, "stub" segments (i.e. discontinuous segments) are to be avoided, if practical, except where dictated by geographic features, such as the coastline. 5. The determination of specific state highway system access roads to public facilities would be jointly made by FDOT and affected local governments. 3

PAGE 16

It should be recognized that the efforts applied in this study have not included the degree of local input and public review called for above. Rather, the intent of this effort has been to develop approximate impacts of this proposed redefinition, sufficient for the Commission and the legislature to evaluate the desirability. It is ctitR;s expectation that if legislative changes are made, it would be necessary for FDOT to revisit the specific ownership determinations with full local participation as outlined above. Upon completion of the application of the criteria, S.B. 1316 further directed CUTR to determine the fiscal impacts of the ownership changes that would result from implementing the proposed ownership criteria The Commission also responded to requests from the Florida Association of Counties and, at its July 30, 1992, meeting made the following decisions regarding the study: I. The Ad Hoc Working Group was to be reconvened to review the revised criteria recommended by CUTR and to provide input on the fiscal impact methodology. The Ad Hoc Group's expertise was enhanced through the addition of two local government fiscal specialists. 2. FOOT will produce maps sho\ving results of application of the revised criteria. These maps will be available for public review in each of its district offices. Comments from local government on the results of the application and the methodology used will be included in the final report to the Legislature submitted by the Commission. 3. The above courses of action were approved by the Commission on the condition that they do not have the effect of further slowing progress on the study. The Commission agreed to request an extension for the fiscal impact phase, which was subsequently granted by the Legislature, making CUTR' s fiscal impact analysis due by the end of June 1993, with final Commission recommendations due to the Governor and Legislature by December 1993. CUTR has met with the Ad Hoc Working Group and has developed estimates of the fiscal impacts under the proposed criteria. This report presents these fiscal impact estimates. Local governments and interested citizens are encouraged to review this report and the maps illustrating roadway transfers (to be made available by FOOT), and to express their comments to the Florida Transportation Commission for consideration in the deliberations and legislative recommendations of the Commission. 4

PAGE 17

ROADWAY OWNERSIITP CRITERIA State/Non-State Roadway Ownenhip Criteria The detailed criteria for determination of state ownership are presented in this section. It is intended that the application of criteria for determining the State Highway System be in the order indicated. (It should be noted that existing non-state toll facilities would retain their current ownership responsibilities.) Natlonal Highway System. Roadways included in the new National Highway System, as jointly determined by the Federal Highway Administration and FDOT would be part of the State Highway System. Florida Intrastate Highway System. As an indicator of interstate, inter-regional and intercity commerce, all r oadways included in the Florida Intrastate Highway System, in accordance with Section 339.155, F lorida Statutes, would be part of the State Highway System. National Defense. Roads serving as national defense routes would include the primary routes identified on the National Highway Defense Network (STRAHNET) and the STRAHNET Connector System. These roads directly serve twelve military bases and installations in Fl orida. Travel Toffbrough Urban Areas. This criterion assures a basic "connectivity" between urban areas of the state. For connections between urban areas, one road will be chosen: the direct route with the highest average daily traffic. When the choice of route is uncertain, selection of a specific route would be a joint decision of FDOT and affected local governments The following order is recommended for connectivity determinations: I. Connect urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or more. The largest central business district of each urbanized area is to be linked to the largest central business district of the nearest urbanized areas. 2. Connect incorporated areas with a population of 50,000 or more to the roadway network established by the connection of urbanized areas. 3. Connect incorporated areas with a population of 5,000 or more to the roadway network established by the connection of urbanized areas and incorporated areas with populations of 50,000 or more. 4. If an incorporated area of at least 5,000 persons does not exist in a county, the county seat will be connected to the county seats of adjoining counties. Figure I illustrates the connectivity rule with an example of the minimum network o f roadways needed for urban area connection. 5

PAGE 18

To Urbanized Area 1 To Urbanized Arn 2,3 To Urbanized Area .._. __ -\-_ I&Wl Principal City of Urbanized Area txw!U:o.j >50,000 people 1 ::::::. 1 >5,000 people 1 To Urbanized Area To Urbanized Area 1 Roadways connecting urbanized areas 2 Roadways connecting to Incorporated areas >50,000 3 Roadways connecting to Incorporated areas >5,000 6

PAGE 19

Deslpated U.S. Routes. All routes alternates and business routes ) cmying an official U.S. Route designation would' be p1U1 of the State Highway System. Access to Pol1sll'erminabflnn.lfer Facilities. Roads connecting major ai!ports, wat erports, and rail tenninals would be part of the State Highway System. Specifically access by state highway will be provided to: I. 3 8 airports with a current desigoati on in the Florida Aviation Sy stem Plan as a commercial or reliever airport (as identifi ed in Table 1 ), 2. 10 major water ports (as identified in Table 2), 3. 20 rail-truck transfer facilities located in 13 cities identified in the F l orida Rail Systems Plan (as identified in Table 3) 4. rail and bus tenninals with more than 500 boarding or alighting passengers per day. Roads that serve facilities identified under this criterion will connect to the nearest state roadway (previous l y established by the first five cri teria for state ownership). Access to Major Public Facilities. State highway access would be provided to ml\ior public facilities. These facilities can be divided into five types: I) Colleges, community colleges, or universities with. enrollment of 5,000 or more at a single campus location. The 1990 Florida Statistical Abstract i den tifies 31 such educ ational systems in the state, as sbown in Table 4. 2) Regional medical centers with at least 500 beds, the five Veterans Administration medical centers, and certain specialized medical facilities identified by the Deparlment of Health and Rehabilitative Services. There are 41 medical facilities that meet these criteria, as sbown in Table 5. 3) Regional activity centers (RAC) formally desigoated by a regional planning council, consistent with Chapter 86-191, Laws of Florida. 4 ) National parks, forests, and monuments aod state parks with ao annual attendance greater than 150,000 per year According to the 1990 Florida Statistical Abstract and the Florida Deparlment of Natural Resources, Recreation and Parks Management Division, there arc currently 24 state parks tbat meet this criterion. These parks are shown in T able 6. S) Tourist attractions, historic or cultural facilities of region al or statewide significance. Twenty attractions have been identified, based on statistics provided by the Florida Departmen t of Comme.rce and the Florida Attractions Association. These faciliti es are listed in Table 7. Emergency Evacuation. It is recommended tbat a formal statewide network of evacuation routes be designated by FOOT working in cooperation with the Department of 7

PAGE 20

Community Affairs, regional planning councils, MPOs, and local governments Roadways on this system would be .included on the State Highway Sys!ern: In the interim, CUTR and FOOT have relied on those routes and critical links illustrated in Technical Report 4.2 5 (Appendix H) of the Florida Highway System Plan. Since these routes are illustri!.ted for coastal counties only, the limits of state ownership should extend inland until intersection with another state facility is reached. I Table 1 Airports for State Roadway Service I 1. Albert Whitted St.Petersburg 20. Cpa Locka Miami 2. Boca Raton PubUc 21. Orlando Executive 3. Craig Municipal -JacksonviUe 22. Or l ando International 4. Daytona Beach Regional 23. Palm Beach County Pari< 5. Ft. Lauderdale Executive 24. Panama City-Bay County 6 Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International 25 Pensacola Regional 7 Gai n esville Regional 26. Peter 0 K night Tampa 8 Herlong Jacksonville 27. Sanford Regional 9. Jacksonville International 28. Sarasota-Bradenton 10. Key West International 29. Space Center Execut i ve Tit usville 11. Kissimmee Municipal 30. 51. Lucie County Internationa l 12. Lakeland Municipal 31. St. Petersburg-Clearwater Inte rnational 13. Marat h on 32. S.W. Florida Regional Ft. Myers 14 Melbourne Regional 33. Tallahas see Municipal 15. Miam i-Chal ks Seaplane Base 34. Tam i aml -Miami 16. Miami International 35. Tampa International 17. Naples Mun icipal 36. Vandenberg -Tampa 18. North Perry -Ft. Lauderdale 37 Vero Beach Munic ipal 19. Okaloosa County Air Terminal 38. Palm Beach International 8

PAGE 21

I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Table 2. Waterports for State Roadway Service Port Canaveral 6. Port of Panama City Port Everglades 7. Port of Pensacola Port of Ft. Pierce 8. Port of St Peternburg Port of Jacksonville 9. Port of Tampa Port of Miami 10. Port of Palm Beach Table 3. Rail-Truck Transfer Tennlnals for State Roadway Service Cocoa 8 Orlando Ft. Lauderdale (2) 9. Panama City Ft. Pierce 10. Plant City Jacksonville (5) 11. Tallahassee Miami (2) 12. Tampa (2) MulberJY 13. West Palm Beach New Smyrna Beach 9 I

PAGE 22

T able 4 Educatio nal FacUlties for State R oadway S ervice . .. 1 Brevard Community College Cocoa 17 Nova University Ft Lauderdale 2. Broward Community College -18. Pal m Beach J unior College Fl Lauderdale 3. Daytona Beach Community College 19. Pensacola Juni or College 4. Edison Community College -Ft. Myers 20. Santa F e Community College Gainesville 5. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univers i ty -21. Seminole Community College Sanford B u n nell 6. Florida A&M University Tallahassoo 22. Sl Leo College 7 Florida Atlantic University -Boca Raton 23. Sl Petersburg J unio r College 8. Flor ida Communi ty College at Jacksonville 24. Tallahassee Commun ity College 9. Florida Insti tute of Technology -Melbourne 25. University of Central F l orida -Orlando 10. Florida Internat i onal U n iversity -Miami 26. University of Florida Gainesville 11. Florida State University -Tallahassee 27. University of MiamiCoral Gables 12. Gulf Coast Community College -28. Univers i ty of North Florida Jacksonville Panama City 13. Hillsborough Communi ty CollegeTampa 29. University of South Florida -Tampa 14. Indian River Commun i ty College 30. Universi ty of West Florida -Pensacola Fl P i erce 15. Manatee Commun ity College -Bradenton 31. Va lenci a Community College Orlando 16. Miami-Dade Community College 10

PAGE 23

Table 5. Veterans Administration and Reg ional Medical Centers for State Roadway Service 1. Bay Pines M edical Center St. Petersburg 2. Gainesville MediCal Center 1. Alachua General Hospital -Gainesville 2. All Children s Hospital -St Petersburg 3. Baptist Hospital Pensacola 4 Baptist Hospital of Miami 5 Baptist Medical Center -JacksonvDie 6 Bayfronl M edical Center St Petersburg 7 Bethesda Memorial Hospital -Boynton Beach 8. Boca Raton Community HospHal 9. Broward General Medical Center Ft. Lauderda le 10. Cedars Medical Center Mia mi 11. Aorida Hospital Or1ando 12. Halifax MediCal Center -Daytona Beach 13. HCA Twin Cities Hospital -Destin 14. HCA West Florida Regional Medical Center Pensacola 15. Holy Cross Hospital Ft. Lauderdale 16 J E Holm es Regional Medical Center Melbourne 1 7 Jackson M emorial Hospital Miami 18. Lakeland Regional Medical Center 11 4. Lake City Medical Cooter 5. Miami Medica l Center 19. Lee Memorial Hospital Ft Myers 20. M anatee Memorial Hospital Bradenton 21. Memorial HospitalHollywood 22. Mercy Hospital Miami 23. Methodi st Hospital Jacksonville 24 Molton Plant Hospital -Clealwater 25. Mt. Sinal Medical Center Miami Beach 26. Or1ando Regional Medica l Center 27. Sarasote Memor ial Hospit a l 28 Shands Teaching Hospital -Gainesville 29 South Miami Hospital 30. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Cooter -Ft. Myers 31. St. Anthony's Hospital Care Center St. Petersburg 32. St. Josep h's Hospital Tampa 33 St. V i ncenrs Medical Center Jacksonville 34 Tallahassee Memoria l Regional Medical Center 35. Tampa General Hospital 36. Winter Haven Hospital

PAGE 24

I T a bl e S tate Park s f o r S tate Roadway Servi ce I 1 Anastasia State Recreation Area 13. Honeymoon Island State Recreation Area St Augustine Dunedin 2. Bahia Honda State Recreation Area 14. Hugh Taylor Birch Stat e Recreation Area Big Pi n e Key Ft. Lauderdale 3. B l ue Springs S t ate Park Ora n ge City 15. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park Key Largo 4 Cape Florida, Bill Baggs State Recreation 16. L.ake Rousseau State Park Dunedin Area Key B iscayne 5. Deleon Springs State Recreation Area 17. Lake Ta lquln State Recreation Area Deleon Springs Tallahassee 6. Delnor-Wlggins Pass State Recreation 18. North Shore S t ate Recrea.tion Area Area Naples Surfside 7. Fort Clinch State Park Fernandin a Beac h 19. O leta River State Recreation Area North Miami 8 : Fort P i e r ce Inlet State Recreetlo n Area 20 Ravin e Stat e Gardens Palatka F t. Pierce 9. Gasparilla Island State Recreation Area 21. Sebast ian I n l et S t ate Recreation Area B o ca Grande Melbourne Beach 10. G uana R i ver State Pari< Ponte Vedra 22. Sl Andrews S t ate R e creat ion Area Beach Pan ama City 11. Hillsborough R i ver State Pari< 23 Wakulla Springs, Edward Ball State Park Thonotosassa Wakulla Spri ngs 12. Homosassa Springs State Park 2 4 Wekiva Springs Stat e Park Apopka Homosassa Springs 12

PAGE 25

Table 7. Attractions for State Roadway Service 1. AUantls, The Water Kingdom Hollywood 2 Busch Galdens Tampa 3. Church S1reet Station Orlando 4. Edison & Ford Winter Homes -Ft. Myers 5. Florida Museum of Natural History -Gainesville 6. Florida's Cypress GardensCyp(IISS Gardens 7. Florida's Silver Springs Sillier Springs 8. Florida's Weeki Wachee -Brooksville 9. Hemingway Home and Museum -Key West 10. Historic St. Augustine 11. Maljorle Kinnan Rawlings State Historic Site Hawthorne 12. Miami Seaquarium -Miami 13 Mirada Strip Amusement Park Panama City 14. Museum of F lorida History -Tallahassee 15. NASA Kennedy Space Center's Spaceport USA nusville 16. Ringling Museum of Art -Sarasota 17. Salvador Deli Museum -St. Petersburg 1 8 Sea World of Florida Orlando 19. Universal Studios Florida -Orlando 20. Walt Disney World I EPCOT I MGM Studios Lake Buena V ista County/Municipal Roadway Ownenhip Criteria The distinction between state and non-state roads was the primary focus of this study H owever, given the importance to local governments of determining cowtty versus mwticipal roadway o wnership, CUTR developed general ownership determination guidelines. Notwithstanding criteria noted below, any delineation of ownership that is mutually agreeable to the county and the ID_Unlclpallty should take precedent over the following guidelines. 13

PAGE 26

A non-state principal arterial with more than 25% of its total length outside a municipal corporate boundary would be county owned. A non-state principal arterial with less than 25% of its total length outside a municipal corporate boundary would be county owned for the portion outside the boundary and for the portion inside the municipal corporate boundary extending to an intersection with a roadway of equal or greater classification. Non-state minor arterials with more than SO% of their total length outside a municipal corporate boundary would be county owned. Non-state minor arterials with less than SOOfc, of their total length outside a municipal corporate boundary would be county owned for the portion outside the boundary and for the portion inside the municipal corporate boundary extending to an intersection with a roadway of equal or greater classification. Non-state principal and minor arterials that traverse an entire municipality would be county owned. Non-state collectors and local roads would change ownership at the municipal corporate boundary (i.e., the county assumes responsibility for these roads for the portion of these roads that extend outside a municipal corporate boundary). REVIEW OF ROADWAY AND BRIDGE IMPACTS Application of the proposed ownership criteria would result in many more transfers of state roads (and bridges located on these roads) to local governments than local transfers to the state. This section of the report summarizes these roadway and bridge transfers. Impacts have been consolidated into FDOT districts in this section; county-level impacts are shown in the appendix. Tables in this section includ e a reference to a corresponding table in the appendix containing the county-level data. Roadway Transfers Table 8 presents the roadway impacts of the proposed ownership criteria. Implementa tion of the criteria would result in the transfer of 380 state road segments to local 14

PAGE 27

governments, totaling 2,321.70 centerline miles' or 6,277.03 lane miles.2 C onversely, 54 local road segments, totaling 365 25 centerline or 862 .50 lane miles, would transfer to the state. The net mileage impact on local governments wolild be a total increase of I ,956.45 centerline or 5,414.53 lane miles. (As shown in the county details in Appendix Table A-6, several counties would receive no state roads or would transfer more local road mileage than state mileage received ) Table 8. Road Seg m e n ts that woul d Transfer Ownerah i p 1 26 250.70 54ll 60 9 26. 1 0 107.60 17 222.60 433 00 2 96 476.78 1,23$.91 2 620 20.40 94 472.58 1 2 1 5.51 3 47 493.95 1,021.AO 20 2 25.30 450.60 27 268.65 570.80 4 60 228.09 872.47 12 44.60 121 .20 48 183.49 751.27 5 82 541.01 1 412.91 4 12.80 39.20 78 528.21 1 373.71 6 44 201.44 804.06 3 26.75 80 .50 41 174.69 723.56 7 25 127.73 389.88 4 21.50 43.00 21 106.23 348.68 See Appendix Tabfes A-1, A-2. and for oounty.tevei detaiL The net change in total state and local centerline miles is shown in Table 9 As shown in the table, the resulting ownership transfers would reduce the state' s total centerline mileage (i.e., roadway length) by 16.5 percent (This is a net reduction after incorporating those local r oads that would transfer to the state ) The net change in total local centerline mileage is a two percent increase. This change is somewhat misleading, however, because many local roads consist of low volume roads that typically are not constructed nor maintained at the standards typical of higher volume roads. In other words the state roads that would transfer to local governments would characteristically be higher-volume roads that are more costly to maintain. 1Ceatertiae mile The length of a roadway segment. 2Laae mileThe length of a roadway segment multiplied by its number of lanes (e g., a two-mile section of a four lane roadway contains eight lane miles). 15

PAGE 28

I Table 9. Change II\ Cehterline Miles I State 1 1,835 -2.322 365 9,879 .5% Local 96,UO 2.322 98,206 2 .0% Bridge Transfers AJJ.y bridge located on a transferring state road would also transfer under the proposed criteria, with the exception of state movable span bridges (i.e., mechanically operated bridges) located on the Intracoastal Waterway, As per Florida Statute 335.04(6): If, as a result of the functional classification of a road pursuant to this section, a municipality would otherwise be required to assume the operation and maintenance responsibility of a mechanically operated bridge over the Florida Intracoastal Waterway in addition to the road attendant to such bridge, and if. prior to such functional classification, the bridge had been constructed, operated, and maintained with funds of a governmental entity other than that municipality, then the bridge and roadway shall continue to be operated and maintained by, and be within the jurisdiction of, that governmental entity. Further, the provisions of this subsection shall be applicable to all transfers or attempted transfers of responsibility pursuant to functional classification in accordance with this section which have occurred since January I, 1978, or which may occur subsequent to the effective date hereof. Because of the high cost of movable span bridges, the transfer of these bridges is an important issue for affected local governments. A typical movable span bridge will require a 24-hour presence of a bridge tender, or three tenders each working an 8-hour shift. Appendix Table A-3 lists the four movable span bridges located on local roads that would transfer to the state and the 17 movable span bridges located on state roads that would transfer to local governments, and identifies those that span the Intracoastal Waterway. Of these 21 movable span bridges, eight of the 17 state bridges would transfer to local governments and all four of the local bridges would transfer to the state. 16

PAGE 29

Table 10 SlUIIDlarizes the number of fixed span and movable span bridges that would transfer from the state to local governments, and the number of local bridges that would transfer to the state. The total number of state bridges that would transfer to local governments is 466. Most of the state bridges that would transfer to local governments are located in FDOT District 2 and District 3. The number of local bridges that would transfer to the state totals 51. The net impact on local governments is an increase of 415 bridges, composed of 411 fixed span and 4 additional movable span bridges. Table 10. Bridges that would Transfer Ownership 1 68 0 68 5 0 5 63 0 63 2 68 0 68 0 0 0 98 0 68 3 93 0 93 23 0 23 70 0 70 4 62 3 85 8 3 11 54 0 54 5 60 1 61 0 0 0 60 1 61 6 48 4 52 7 0 7 41 4 45 7 29 0 29 4 1 5 25 -1 24 See Appendix TabiN A-4 A-5, A-7 and A-8 fOf county-.level detail. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section of the report presents the estimated fiscal impacts of the road and bridge transfers that would occur upon implementation of the proposed ownership criteria. As CUTR proceeded with the analysis, it became clear that there is no simple estimate of fiscal impacts and that the impacts could vary widely depending on given assumptions. Examples of assumptions that would affect fiscal impacts include: the timeframe for transfer; the jurisdiction that would be responsible for completing currently programmed improvements if transfers take place before completion of these improvements; 17

PAGE 30

the types of maintenance activities and improvements that would be imp lemented once a jurisdicti on assumes responsibility for additional roads and bridges; and the unit cost assumptions for various road and bridge maintenance activities and improvements. Given the various assumptions, CUTR developed several estimates of fiScal impacts that will provide benchmarks for measuring the scope of the ownership changes resulting from the proposed ownership criteria. Most of the fiscal impacts presented in this section are sumrnarized by FOOT district. County details are provided in the appendix. As in the previo u s section, each table includes a reference to a corresponding appendix table which contains county-level data. (No distinction is made between county and municipal fiscal impacts since transfer impacts were only estimated on a state/non-state basis). Evaluating and in terpreting the fiscal impacts of these transfers is complicated by the fact that transfers would occur in both directions ( i .e., both state and local governments would lose and gain roads and bridges). In an effort to facilitate the overall understanding of these impacts, and CUTR's approach to estimating them, the fiscal impacts will be presented in a question and answer style format. Depending upon the tirneframe for transfer, there are two areas of fiscal impacts: 1. The reduction ill the state's proe:rammed costs (in the 5-Year Work Program) resulting from state roads and bridges that would transfer to local governments, and the reduction in local government programmed costs (in local capital improvement programs) resulting from local roads and bridges that would transfer to the state. 2. The ongoing annual added costs to local governments for assuming responsibility for state roads and bridges that would transfer to local governments and the ongoing annual cost reduction to the state resulting from a net reduction in roads and bridges. 18

PAGE 31

Table 11 summarizes the costs programmed in the FOOT 5-Year Tentative Work Program, FY 1993/94 through FY 1997/98 fQI the state roads and bridges t!lat would transfer to local governments. During this work program period, $827.7 million (or $165.5 million annually) has been programmed for these roads and bridges. These costs include an estimate of annual maintenance cost for the affected roads and bridges because the work program does not list annual maintenance costs for individual facilities. Table 11. Work Program Costs for those State Roads and Bridges that would Transfer to Local Governments 2 3 4 5 6 478.78 $22,155,52 1 493.95 $11,911,935 228.09 $28,090,880 641.()1 $43,701,994 201 .44 $30 992,057 $19,624, 121 $11,302 ,205 Source: FOOT Rtf&. Yo4f T6ntab\!e Worlc Program, FY 93194 Through 97198 See Appendix Table A-10 for eounty
PAGE 32

Local governments similarly develop 5-year work programs for transportation projects. Table 12 lists the costs progriiJllDled for those local roads and bridges that would transfer to the state under the proposed criteria. These costs include estimates of annual maintenance and, for those counties that do not list resurfacin g projects by road segment, annualized resurfacing costs based on a ISyear milling and resurfacing cycle. As shown in the table, the cost reduction to local governments would total $57.0 m.illion over the five-year period, or $11.4 million annually. The estimates for maintenance and resurfacing were derived nsing FOOT general, statewide averages (shown in Appendix Table A-15). Use of FOOT cost averages will result in slightly higher estim ates of maintenance and resurfacing costs for those local governments that can perform these activities at a lower cost than the state. The state averages were used becanse local cost data was not available for many counties or was not consistent. Members of the Ad Hoc Worlcing Group, which was composed of many local officials, indicated that many local governments could, in fact, perform these activities less expensively than the state due primarily to differences in improvement standards. However, the group concurred with the use o f these costs. T able 12. Capital Improvement Program Cost& for those Local Road s a nd Brid ges that would Transfer to the State 1 28.10 $2,717,817 $1,067.287 $1,920,287 2 6.20 $224,882 $224,$92 $404,862 3 225.30 $4,418 133 $4,438,$33 $4,418,133 44.6 $1,60$,, ... $1,803, 144 $1,603,144 5 12.80 St ,n7, M4 $1,077,58>4 $2.228;384 8 26.75 $924,9a3 $11 4 983 $1,074,963 7 21.$0 $521,815 $521,815 $521 815 Soui'Qe: Local government capttel Improvement pro9rJmS. See Appeodil< Table A-9 for COUII\YIevel datail. 20 $2,406 287 $1, 067 ,287 $9,178,884 $1, 835,777 $299,882 $1, 872,862 $3,027 ,310 $805,462 $4 418,133 $4;418,133 $22,109 085 $4,421 813 $2,283,144 $1,603,144 $8,875 721 $1 ,7$.5,144 $1,643 184 $428 ,58>1 $7,103, 620 $1,420, 724 $754,963 $754 983 $4,324 9 14 $164 ,983 $$21,8 1 5 $521 815 $2,608 07 5 $521,815

PAGE 33

There is no similar commitment established in the Florida Statutes requiring local governments to complete the first three years of their work programs, as is required of the state. However, if the state and local governments were to agree to a simi lar three year timeframe for transfe r, local governments would save $23.0 million by not completing projects planned during the final two years of their work programs for any of the local roads and bridges that would transfer to the state. The added costs to local governments would depend on the timeframe for transfer and how local governments choose to maintain or, if needed, improve the roads and bridges they would receive from the state. If local governments were to immediately gain responsibility and choose to complete the projects listed for these roads and bridges in the FOOT Work Program, the added costs would be $827.7 million over 5 years, or $165.5 million per year (assuming they would compl ete these projects at the same cost as the state). If local governments receive these roads and bridges after three years, and choose to complete those projects listed for these facilities in the remain ing two years of the 5-Year Work Program, their two-year total costs would be $266.1 million. The transfer of these roads and bridges, however, would entail responsibility beyond the 5Year Work Program. Essentially, local governments would asswne permanent respon sibility for these roads and bridges. To detennine permanent fiscal responsibility, ongoing annual costs (i.e the costs beyond those currently programmed for these roads and bridges in either the FOOT S-Year Work Program or local government capital improvement programs) were estimated. Ongoing annual costs would, as previousl y mentioned, depend on how a jurisdiction chooses to maintain and improve the roads and bridges it would receiv e. For this study, ongoing annual costs were estimated based o n two scenarios: Scenario 1: Maintain current standards this scenario includes the estimated cost to maintain the roads and bridges that a jurisdiction would receive, based on current FOOT standards (i.e., milling and resurfacing of roadways every fifteen years and routine annual maintenance). Ssenario 2: Maintain current standards, plus ongoing improvement needs this scenario is the same as Scenario I above, but includes estimates of additional 21

PAGE 34

ongoing annual oosts for improvements such as opaational, capacity aod other improvements. (TIJ.ese estimates are based on average annual improvement costs in the FOOT Work Progra!n.) use of average costs for improvements, coupled with the estimated costs to iniliritiiin and resurface the roads and bridges that a jurisdiction would receive (Scenario I) should result in a reasonable estimate of ongoing fiscal need. The first scenario is basically a status quo estimate. That is, maintaining roads and bridges based on FOOT standards will generally keep these facilities in their current operational and structural condition. If a jurisdiction does not follow these standards (e.g., resurfacing cycles are longer than fifteen years), then the overall condition of the roads and bridges received by that jurisdiction would deteriorate over time. The maintenance and resurfacing costs used for this estimate are based on the general, statewide FOOT cost averages. Estimates of the ongoing annual cost to local governments to maintain the roads and bridges that they would receive from the state at ciiJTent FOOT standards are shown in Table 13. The table also shows the net added costs to local governments. Local programmed costs for those local roads aod bridges that would transfer to the state were used to derive net added cost to local governments. These costs represent an average committed funding level (or avoided costs) that local governments would have used on these local roads and bridges that would transfer to the state. Theoretically, these avoided costs could be used to offset some of the costs of maintaining roads and bridges received from the state. As shown in the table, the total added cost to local governments to maintain the acquired roads and bridges would total $65. 9 million per year. Deducting the amount that local governments would avoid by transferring local roads and bridges to the state ( S 1 1 .4 million annually ) yields a net impact of $54.5 million per year. Scenario 2 was developed based on the premise that over the lifetime of a road or bridge, it is reasonable to expect that im provements beyond routine maintenance and resurfacing (e.g., widening, adding lanes, intersection or other types of improvements) would be required on some roads. Similarly, bridges eventually require major maintenance or rehabilitation. T o determine what improvements beyond the current 5-Year Work Program were planned for the roads and bridges that would transfer CUTR evaluated MPO, county and city long-range plans. The costs of the improvements were analyzed for several counties. (Improvement costs were estimated by CUTR in those cases where local plans did not provide cost estimates.) The result of the analysis showed that the costs for these long-range 22

PAGE 35

. T abl e 1 3. Ongoing Annual Add e d C os t to Lo ca l Governments to Main ta in C urrent Standard s 1 $5,518,765 S1,835,n7 $3,682,988 2 $ 12.!164, 222 $805,.462 $11,958 760 3 $ 1 0,12 2 ,458 $4,421,813 $5,700 ,64.5 4 $10,305,905 $1, 735,144 $8,$70 760 5 $14,41 1 ,183 $1, 420,724 $12,990,469 6 $9.239 470 $664,983 $8,374 487 7 $3 724,8 1 4 $52 1,61 5 $3,203,199 Ste Appendix Tabl e A-11 ror oounty4evel detail (I) These cos1s are derived by multiplying an annual per lane mile cost ofmainteoance (See Appendix Table A-IS) by the amount of lane miles that would transfer from the state to local governmeots (2) These are the costs thai lcx:al gov emmeots would have spent on those l ocal roads and bridges that would trans f er to the state. These costs Include both maintenance and programmed improvemeots. improvements, measured on a per lane mile basis, were significantly below the improvement costs (per lane mile) in the FDOT current work program, casting doubt on the use of l ong-range plans to determine annual ongoing improvement costs. Two factors account for the difference in programmed expenditures and th ose published in, or estima ted from, l o ng-range plans First, long-range plans typically focus on larger projects, while a significant amount of the work program's t otal costs of improvements is made up of smaller projects (e. g intersection improvements and adding turn lanes). The second factor is that many long-range plans do not inc l ude right-of way c o sts, which could be a large proportion of the total cost of some improvements, particularly those projects requiring additional right-of-way in urban locations. 23

PAGE 36

In addition to these facton affecting the use h f the information in these plans, long-range plans were not available for many counties. Because of these reasons, long -range plans were not used to develop estimates of ongoing improvement costs. The approach taken by CUTR to estimate ongoing annual improvement costs relies on averages of improvement costs derived from the cun-ent FOOT work program. T b e use of improvemen t cost. fro m the FDOT Work Program coupl ed with tbe estimated costs to maintain and res urfa ce lbe roads and bridges tbat a jurisdictio n wo uld receive (Scenari o 1) resu!U in a reaso n able estimate of oagoing aDJlual costs beyond th e five year period of eithe r the cnrnnt FDOT Work Program o r loeal government.' cap i tal impro ve ment progra ms The vali dity of this approach, of course, depends u pon how representative the FDOT' s work program costs for improvements is of ongoing improvement needs. To detennine whether the level of programmed expenditures is representative of ongoing improvement needs, CUTR reviewed the F OOT' s projections of the backlog of operatiooally deficient state roads. These projections show that the backlog of operatiooally deficient roads is expected to remain constant through the five-year work program period. This suggests that the programmed expenditures for operational improvements are adequate for maintaining the operational sufficiency of state roads. CUTR believes that these costs, converted to a lane mile unit cost, are suitable for estimating ongoing annual improvement costs, beyond those costs estimated for maintenance and resurfacing (Scenario 1). CUTR's approach involved converting the total costs of any operational, capacity, and safety improvements for the roads and bridges that would transfer from the state to local governments to an average annual improvement cost per lane mile. The per lane mile improvement cost was then allocated to each county based on the amount of lane miles that county would be receive from the state This approach levels the cost variations among counties that result from the timing of improvements during the 5-Year Work Program In other words, using the actual county-SPecific work program costs to estimate improvements needs beyond the work program period would distort ongoing needs of individual counties-it would understate ongoing needs in those counties that have relatively few improvements planned during the cWTent 5Year Work Program, and overstate ongoing needs in counties that have relatively many planned improvements 24

PAGE 37

Table 14 lists the added costs of maintaining roads and bridges at clliTCnt standards, plus ongoing annual improvement costs for those facilities that would tranSfer to local governmen ts. As shown in the table, the ongoing annual added cost to local governments to1llls $169.0 million. Deducting the S 11.4 millio n annual cost r eduction to l ocal governm en ts (i. e., the reduction in programmed costs resulting from those lo ca l roads and bridges that transfer to the state) yie l ds a net added local cos t of $157 6 million per year. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Tab l e 14. Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Need s $5,518 765 $8.880,91 2 $ 1, 835.777 S12,883,VOO $12 564 222 $20, 303.350 $32, 887.57 1 $505,4ll 2 $32 282,108 $10, 1 22, 45 8 $16 779,438 $28,901,898 $4 ,4 21,813 $22, 480.083 $ 10 ,3 05,905 $14,332,886 $2 4, 638 77 1 $1, 735,1 44 $22, 903.627 $ 14,411 ,183 $23,211 ,150 $37,822,333 $ 1,420 ,724 $36,201 .809 $9,239 ,470 $13,209.002 $22,448 472 $664 983 $21,583 ,489 $3,724 ,814 56,401,617 S10 ,12M30 $52 1,6 15 $9,604,81 5 See Al>l>t-Tobie A-1 2 detai. (1) TheM 11"1 the FOOT a nnual work program costs lot op)r.IUonal, capec:ly, safety and other irnproYemeft!S tor those roact. end bddgts f1at would trans.!e! to local goYemments. {2) Thrs column Is the sum of ongoing m aintenance costs and ongoing h'lprovement costs. A(luestion that may arfe:l why this VIM! ($ 189.0M) is different from the v afue of the reductron In the atate'a programmod C0$1$ tesultfng from Stitt I'Oidl and brldges thal would tra_nsf e r to local governments (S166.6M ) Both vtruea lneb:le the same costs. for an n u al maintenance and ennual improvomont:s. The difference is that the o n got); added cost to local governments an estimated e n nuaJlz.ed cost for resurfacing based o n an FOOT cycle of tltteen y etrt, which i s s llghtty shorter than wh. a f the FOOT has octuouy programmed for resurfacing in the 5-Year Work Progtam 25

PAGE 38

The approach to estimating these impacts follows the two scenarios developed in the p re vious question. Table 1 5 shows the net reduction in state costs if the roads and bridges the state receives from local governments are maintained at current FDOT standards The annual cost of IDaintaining these facili ties totals $9.0 million per year, while the state would reduce $165.5 million per year from its work program. Therefore, the annual ongoing net reduction in state costs would total $156.5 million. 1 3 4 5 6 7 Table 15. On g o i n g Annual Cost R ed u c tion to State to M aintain Cu11'8nt Stand ards $1 067,267 $10,133 ,975 $9,066,708 $224,862 $23, 431,701 $23,206,839 $4,418 133 $17, 240,473 $12,822,340 $ 1 ,803,144 $27, 620,990 $26,017 ,846 $4211,564 $41,$91 ,418 $41,464,834 $754,983 $21 ,$96 ,807 $21 141,824 $521 ,615 $23,320,082 $22, 798,467 See Appendix Table A-13 for countyleve l detail (1) lbese costs are d effl&d by mullii)Jyi ng an annua l per l ane mile C06t of m aintenance (See Appencftx Table A-15} by the amoun t of aan e miles tnat would transfer from local governments to t h o state (2) These a r e the CO
PAGE 39

If the state underlakes annual maintenance, periodic resurfacing and ongoing improvements (&:enario 2), the net cost reduction to the state totals $154.1 million annually as shown in Table 16. 1 2 3 5 6 7 Table 16. Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Maintain Current Sta nd ards Plus Ongoing Improvement Need s $1,087,267 $1, 787 ,840 $10, 133,975 $7,299 ,068 $224,882 $335,129 $559,991 $23,431,701 $4,418,133 $17,240 ,473 $5,419,937 $1, 803,144 $1, 991,o59 $MM,203 $27 ,820,t90 $24 028,788 $428,584 $543,973 $1, 070,557 $41 ,891.418 .S.O,a20,881 $7$4 ,983 $1, 322,444 $21,696,807 $19 819,379 $521,815 $708,399 $23,320,082 $22 .09 2 ,088 sea Appendix Table A-14 fo< couniY Ievel dotoll (1) These costs are derM>d by an average annua l per lane cost of lmp.....,mento (developed from tile FOOT Wol1< Program) by tile amount of lano miles tllat would transfer from loc:ol governments lo lhe stale NEXT STEPS The submittal of this report to the Florida Transp ortation Commission marks the beginning of a six-month review and comment peri od Sever al events that remain to be accom plished during this perio d and a tentativ e time frame have been prop osed by the Commissio n. These events include : 1. Maps showing the roads that would transfer upon application of the proposed criteria will be prepared by FOOT, and will be made available to local governments for review and comment (Early July, 1 993.) As of this writing, it is estimated that maps will be made available in FOOT District Offices. 2 Local governme nt comments regardin g resul ts of the application of th e cr iteria and methodol ogy u sed are to be submitted to the Commission for inclusion in the fmal 27

PAGE 40

Commission report to the Governor and Legislature. (Late summer and early fall, 1993.) Comments should be submitted to: Jane H. Mathis Executive Director Florida Transportation Commission 605 Suwannee Street, MS-9 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 3. Public Hearing(s) will be held by the Commission to discuss and evaluate findings, tentative conclusions and recommendations (November, December 1993; specific hearing dates are contingent on timing of earlier activities.) 4. Submit final report containing Commission findings and recommendations to Governor and Legislature. (Late December, 1993.) 28

PAGE 41

APPENDIX A I

PAGE 42

Table A-1. Road Segments that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State Ownership A

PAGE 43

1 1 t Table A-1. Road Segments that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State Ownership fiomo' 2 1 2 I 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 1.70 n n 6 .70 6 2 220 2 3.00 2 2

PAGE 44

Ta bl e A -1. Road Segments that wou ld Transfer from Loc a l Owners hip to State Ownership (continued) -"' I I 2 2 2 1 4 1 2 1.70 3.40 1 8 1.70 10.20 ... 4 saint Lucio CR8D8 Sl Lude BIYd. Hwy -SR815 2 1 2 2-90 5 80 5 Orange R4. SR50 -Naval Tmq Cenler 1 4 1 .00 4.00 5 Orange lJnMf1ly BMI. SR436 UCF Compvs I 1 4 5.80 23.20 5 Orange Woldwa Sp
PAGE 45

Table A-2. Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership A-5

PAGE 46

Table A-2. Roa d Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership 1 -1 -1 1 Iii 1 Lee 1 Manatee SR37 2 2 2 5.50 11 00 1 Manatee SR64 SR70 US4 1 Bus 2 1 2 2 .10 4.2 0 1 Manatee SRS83 2 2 2 520 10 40 2 2 2 2 90 5.80 .. t I ... .. --,.;t:.;., __ I 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 6 2 2 2 10.10 20.2( 1 1 4 1 .80 7 20 2 2 2 6 .00 1 2.00 2 2 2 7 .7 0 15. 40 2 1 4 2.50 10.0( 2 )Alachua INW161h Ave. SR25 I 2 2 2 3.60 7.20 2 1 -SR26

PAGE 47

Table A-2 Road Segmen ts th a t w o uld T ransfer from State Ownership t o L ocal Ownershi p (c o ntinued) 1 4 2 .80 11.20 2 2 2 0.70 1AO 2 1 4 1.50 Counly Line 2 2 2 6.40 12.80 US4412 2 2 7.20 14AO r E to Co. Une 2 2 -2 1 1 4 t I 2 IAJo
PAGE 48

.---. . Table A 2. Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Loca.l Ownership ( continued) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 .50 2 2 2 0.50 2 2 2 1 00 2 1 4 2.110 2 1 4 5. 1 0 2 2 I 'Du val I S R109 ISR13 SR10A I 2 1 ::-O uv.:al SR1 DA -Fl caro&ne Rd. 2 1 4 SR109 00 1 _1u u v a J 1"-'QI"\\, I -UQI"\" I:I'V I ' 1 4 2 4 1 1.2 9 5 .14 2 61 4.31 8 61 9 .60 1 1 2 I D uval ISR 122 --I SR1 1 7 SR5J\JS1 I 1 1 4 0 .23 0.91 2 1 2 1 4 3 .40 2 1 4 2.50 1 1 6 0.70 4.20

PAGE 49

T ab l e A 2 Roa d Seg m ents that would Transfe r fro m State Own ersh ip to L ocal Ownership (co n tin u ed) ... ., ,. IJo,.lo*r ...... ,. 1 4 9.50 38 00 2 1 4 1 .10 4.40 1 1 4 11.60 2 1 4 2 .10 2 2 2 1.90 2 1 2 2.20 2 Duval SR208 1-295 lana 2 2 2 0.80 2 Duval SR228 Allantic Blvd Bead! Blvd 1 2 4 2 .70 10 .80 1 2 3 .30 8.60 1 I 1 2 4 0.90 3 .60 1 1 2 4 1.40 5.60 1 . . \0 --............ .., .. ,,.._ ..... ......... 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ; 2 2 2 Line 2 2 2 2 2 2 state Line 2 2 2 State Une 2 2 -2 -2 2 Pulnam SR100 SR15/US17 1 1 4 2 Pulnam SR19 Merion SR151US17 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1.00 2 2 2 7.80

PAGE 50

Table A-2 Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership (c:ontlnu a d ) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2.70 6.40 2 2 2 14.00 28 00 2 2 2 6.75 2 2 2 .25 4 50 2 2 18.00 3MC 1 2 2 2 I I s ISR7713QA.30l I I 2 0 o __ --------.. -2 2 2 2 2 2 6 ,00 12 00 US90 I 2 2 2 6 .00 1 2 00 I I 4 4 75 2 I 2 4 75 2 2 2 3 .00 2 2 2 2.00 2 2 2 13.00 2 2 2 11 .00 2 2 3 00 8 1 2 2 2 28. 00 5 2 .0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

PAGE 51

Table A-20 Road Segments that wou l d Transfer from State Ownership tol..ocal Ownership (continued) or.t; mi"" ..... .. .., NtfJ\Il "' -. . flo ... ,.., ,.-r"!' ... .... ... ........ u .. f ". ........ ...J II -..... Pm:J'Ir ; .... -11': .. u'* .. u.t -:... etF.J ._. -e 0 J-10 2 2 2 6.00 12 00 3 Washington SR79 (SR20..j10) 2 2 2 24.00 48 .00 4 Broward SR736 Davie bW. SR7 oUS1 2 1 4 4 00 1 8.00 4 Broward SR81 0 o Hill$boro SR7 o 1 2 4 :1.20 12.80 4 -SR810 Hloboro SR7 1 1 6 2.10 12.60 4 llrowanl SR811 011 Oixlo Holy SJI838oSR810 2 2 2 1 4 .50 :le.OO 4 llrowanl SR814 Allanlio -. 31st Ave. 1 1 6 2.50 15 00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------0-------

PAGE 52

Table A-2. Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to L ocal Ownersh ip (continued) 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Broward SR834 Sample Rd Unlv, Or 1 1 1 6 7.80 4 Btoward SR8S8 Sunrise Unlv. Or. Turnpike 1 1 8 3.00 4 Broward SR84 SR7 1 2 6 1.60 4 B.,.,.n:l SR842 Browan:t Blvd Unlv Or. US1 1 1 6 7.20 1 1 I 1=: ISR84S--Rd I SR838-Co. Ltle I 1 > 1 1 6 5 .50 : Univ Dr. -1-95 SRB48 -SMng Rd N SRASA tubnd:.a:la SR7-J..Q5 1 1 2 1 2 o.os 0 12 2 1 2 0.31 0 83 1 1 4 0 .48 2 1 2 0.48 2 1 2 1 50 2 1 2 5.50 2 1 2 0.24 h BIYd. I 2 1 2 4.50 Rd-A1A 2 1 4 1.50 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 2

PAGE 53

Table A 2. Road Segments that would from State Ownership to L oca l Ownership (continued) I I I S;R71l7 Ci"" .... J :-.-: -_.. I -1 2 0 .20 - I .. '"'' ...... 2 I 2 5 30 I I 4 4 .40 17AO 5 I Btevald I SR40 7

PAGE 54

Table A 2. Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership (continued) Million 2 2 2 2 2 20. 10 <40,20

PAGE 55

Table A -2. Road Segments that w o uld Transfer from State Ownership to Loc al Ownership (continued ) 2 2 0.80 uo 5 Orange SR<23 SR528 Sand Lake!W 1 2 4 1.20 4.80 5 O..nge SR423 -JohnYO
PAGE 56

Table A -2. Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership (continued) 4 I 2 9 .40 0 SR436 I I 1-'1 2 I 4 2 2 2 I 5 Sumtar SR471 PolK SRSO 2 :r 5 Sumter SR48/475 Tumpb SR475 2 2 2 1.00 "' -------. -------5 Sumler SRSOI471 2 2 2 17.911 35.80 5 -SR11 SR15 flaGle< 2 2 2 14.30 28. 60 5 V...sla SR15A US17.112 US17 2 2 2 5 Volusla SR15A US17.112US17 2 1 4 3.40 13.60 2 17.90 35.60 2 2 4 .10 8.20 2 2 15.60 2 1 2 0 .79 2 1 4 4.60 I 1 I 8 4 .70 28.20 -Dao16 I 1 4 9 .70 38.80 I 2 2 2 2.10 4.20 1.70 Dr.

PAGE 57

--. -------. Table A-2 Road Segments that would Tra nsfer from State OWners hip to Local OWnership (continued) Wtl ... ..,.,. ,..,.,._S' .:! . ;t 5-'a-U.."'tl:> .. -u ,.... -'II< _:: ,. . . .., ........ EJ:it,., D ... .,.. } .... .... _;,_ .... ........, ................ >f",.,..t"--"-N,._,.._ ___ .... .' "" ., '#-,, ..,.._ ....... ...... ... e Dade SR878 1 1 4 3 .10 12AO 6 Dade SR907 Alton Rd. SR A1ASR At A 1 1 4 6 .66 22.60 e Dade SR909 W Obde Hwy. 1-95-SR626 1 1 4 3.70 14.80 6 Dade SR915 north o1 1 03rd SR860 1 1 4 4.90 19 .60 6 Dade SR916 BWcayne BMt. Palmetto Exp. 1 2 2 6.10 10.20 6 Dade SR916 Biscayne lllvd Palmetto Exp, 2 1 4 6.10 20AO 6 Dade SR916 2 1 2 2.80 8.60 6 Dade SR922 Bto.ad Causeway 2 1 4 2.70 10.BO 6 Dade SR922 Broad Causeway 1 1 4 2.70 10.BO 6 Dade SR924 1 1 4 1 .00 4.00 6 Dade SR932 103rd Sl US27 1 1 6 4 .15 24.80 6 Dade SR932 103rd Sl 1-95US27 1 1 4 4 .15 18.80 e Dade SR933 1 1 4 2.10 8AO .... 6 Dade SR933 2 1 4 2.10 8AO 6 Dade SR934 74th Sl Pametto Elcp. 1 1 4 7.50 30.00 6 Dade SR94 SR997-SR874 1 1 8 8 .62 51.72 e Dade SR944 54th Sl US2 US27 2 2 4 5.80 23.20 6 Dade SR953 SR924 SR916 1 1 4 1 .00 4-00 e Dade SR953 .. Le Juene 6th St. SR636 1 1 6 1 .38 8.28 6 Dade SR959Red Rd./S71h Ave. 2 3 2 5.30 10.60 e Dade SR968 Flag ler St. SR973US1 1 1 4 9 .30 37.20 6 Dade SR969 -NW 72nd Ave SR968NW741h St. 1 1 4 5 .92 23.88 6 Dade SR972 COral Way SW42nd Ave. US1 1 1 4 4 .ff7 18.68 6 Dade SR973 Galloway Rd/87111 Avo. 1 2 4 11. 50 4 5 .00 6 Dade SR976 Bird Rd. 1 1 6 4.23 25 .$8 e Dade SR976 Bird Rd. 1 1 4 4.23 1U2 6 Dade SR985 107th Ave. 1 1 4 7 .60 30AO 8 -.. SR98S SR821USI 1 1 7 .10 28AO 8 Dade SR989W 112111 Avo. SRff71-US1 2 2 s.oo 12.00

PAGE 58

Tabl e A-2. Road Segm e nts that would T ransfer from State OWnership to L ocal OWnersh i p (c o ntinued ) 1 : I 2 II 1 2 3.09 7 Hernand o SR50 CR575US98 2 7 Hernando SRSOA Jo11erson St. SR50US98 2 7 Hernando SR50A-Je11t,_,St SR50-US98 2 3 2 HO 7 Hillsborough FlolldaAw: SouUI A.._ SR80 2 1 > 7 Hlllsborough Florida Ave SouUI Avo Nel>
PAGE 59

Table A-2. Road Segments that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership (continued) '0

PAGE 60

Table A-3. Movable-Span Bridges on Road Segments that would Transfer OWnership A 20

PAGE 61

Table A-3. Movable-Span Bridges on Road Segments that would Transfer Ownership 860038 4 I Broward Indian Rive r t -

PAGE 62

Table A-4 Bridges that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State Ownership Bridge Type K ey Tho nrat digit Indicates the kind of m a terial a nd/or Description 1.2 Concrete 3.4 Steel 5 Prestressed conCMte 8 Abtnirtum. wrought "on or cast irOn 0 Olher Tile eeconcf and fbirtf cf,gis indicate lhe l)lplc of desig n and/or type of COMtructlon. 2!!! Oeserip lion 01 Slab 02 SlringerJMufti.beam or gi'de r 03 Girder and floofb&am system 04 Tee beam. or doub l e tee boam OG,OG Box beam or gi rders 11 1 2 Atoh deck thru 15,16 Movable -1ft", bascult 19 Culvert A-22

PAGE 63

Table A-4 Bridges that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State Ownership 103 180.0 43.0 nla 103 114.0 43.0 nla 104 1150.0 292 nla 152.0 37.3 nla 34. 0 0.0 nla 0 26.7 nla 382 nla 1979 640063 1978 501 80.0 39. 0 n/a nil 3 JelleiSOO CR-259 540027 1956 302 t! ,........, r.R?Ii.Q 540062 1977 502 1112. 0 n/a n/a 550034 1952 101 n/a 550080 I 1953 119 24.0 0.0 nla 590036 I 1960 119 2 1 0 0.0 1950 101 90. 0 2U 590017 1940 302 226. 0 21.3 nla 590020 I 1950 101 nla nil nil nil 34. 8 nla nil -9 I 1958 101 110.0 25. 5 nla nil 600032 1960 119 21.0 0.0 nil

PAGE 64

Ta bl e A -4 Bridges t hat wou l d Transfe r fro m L oca l Owners h i p to State Ownersh i p 880053 880050 I 1967 1502 1968 101 963 101 101 9&9 119 198 7 318 -930056 1969 318 930322 1981 318 Causeway 874542 1985 1502 834.0 4 7 8 nla Causeway 87.s45 1985 1502 3,828.0 114. 1 n/a I : 1::::: I Ri::tenbactef causeway I 874541 I 1985 302 682.0 78.8 n/a n/a r_,.,_ 33. 8 n/a nla 38. 7 n/a n/a Ia "'' nla nla n/a nla nla nla e. W.Davts BMI. 10560 8 1 927 302 100.0 48 5 nla nla 7 I P i nelas I CR-586, D unedi n Caut&wi.Y 15008 8 1963 3 1 8 1,190.0 3 7.8 n l a nta

PAGE 65

Table A-5. Bridges that would Transfer from State OWnership to Local OWnership A-25

PAGE 66

Table A-5. Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership 050001

PAGE 67

Table A-S. Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Loeal Ownership (con tinued) 090018 I 090042 Blvd Blvd. Blvd. Blvd Blvd. I 130084 1971 119 21,0 44.2 910055 1955 118 25. 0 0 0 910050 1955 101 80. 0 30.8 910053 1958 119 53.0 0.0 a lolu!!Adtd!AA ISR-710 I 81(11).47 1955 101 80.0 30..5 810012 1954 102 250.0 33.0 1 Otaec:h.obee SR-78 810009 1964 402 885.0 33.0 1 """ SR-17 160022 194 6 119 42 0 0 0 1 """ SR 160038 1966 502 161.0 68.6 87 1 """ SR-17 1 6096 1 1966 502 275.0 67.3 86 1 P<>lk SR-33 1 60004 197 6 119 25 0 0 0 1 P<>lk SR-33 1 60143 1977 119 21.0 0.0 25 0 0.0 949 302 322 0 36.5 160007 I 1940 402 150.0 27.2 n 111&423 501 21.0 0.0 180006 I 1978 119 31 0 o o 967 119 31 0 0.0 1941 119

PAGE 68

.. T a bl e A-5. B ridge s tha t w o u ld Tr ansfer from Sta t e Owners h ip t o Local Ownership (conti n ued) 160155 I 1962 119 21.0 160153 1987 119 2 1. 0 0.0 1975 502 180 0 0 0 1 502 213.0 34.l 1951 119 2 1. 0 0 0 1 950 119 45 0 0.0 180021 1964 101 90 0 160147 1965 119 21. 0 260036 1954 119 A l achua SR-121 260941 1963 119 "' 00 I 2 I 260046 I 1959 119 21. 0 0.0 0 0 !4.3 64 119 34.0 0.0 66 2110463 402 100.0 29 1 402 125 0 29.1 402 100.0 29.1 29.1 !8.0 0 0 125.0 34.5 1941 101 1941 101 91.0 31.2

PAGE 69

Table A-5 B ri dges that would Transfer from State Own e rship to L o cal Ownership (continued)

PAGE 70

. . T able A-5. Bri d g es t h a t w o ul d T ransfer from State Ownership to Loca l Ownersh i p (conti n u e d) 37.8 5 0 1 65. 7 t 0 501 12021: I 38. 0 64 Duval lsR-228 I 720Q49 I 1972 119 4 3.0 0.0 2 IDuval_ __ ,I 3300 1 9 I 1987 2 llafaye11e lsR-349_ I 330910 I 1948 1 1 9 330028 1988 119 3 3 0 0 0 1948 101 105 0 32.0 61 981 1 1 9 21 0 0.0 210 .0 3 2 .1

PAGE 71

Table A-5 Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership (continued) 0.0 3 1940 119 44.0 0.0

PAGE 72

--7 Table A-S. Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownersh i p to Local Ownership (continued) 501 1978 119 2 1.0 119 4 6 7 :: I I ::;o. I 530092 194 0 1 1 9 0. 0 3 .......... ........

PAGE 73

>.-"' "' 3 3 3 . Table A-5. Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership (continued) 119 0 0 119 119 11s 3 1. o I ,;:,y, ....... ... I> 0 0 .. 0 0 0 0 25.5 101 105 0

PAGE 75

Table A-6 Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownersh i p (continued)

PAGE 76

Table A-5. Bridges that wou11i'Transfer from State oWnership to Local Ownership (continued) 54.8 ;J> w 0> I I Palm Bl:!acl. LAkA Worth I 199 0 101 36 0 1 28 .0 030393 1958 102 46 .0 38 5 930448 199 2 19 28.0 0.0 930389 1956 101 70.0 33 3 930063 1951 101 30 0 33 0 930165 1966 302 201.0 81.0 930164 1966 501 40.0 46 1 930415 1989 201 80.0 1 21.0 930401 1983 101 55.0 48.0 930071 19 74 315 201.0 105.0 930359 1988 501 1 72.0 92. 5 930050 1989 101 100.0 48.3 930195 1989 101 100.0 47.0

PAGE 78

T a ble A-5. Bri d ges t ha t w o uld Transfer f ro m S tate Own ersh ip t o Local Ownership (cont inu ed) .., If ____ ----I 00 750!).40 1956 119 42.0 0 0 50298 1973 1 01 29. 0 42. 3 Rd. 750025 1965 319 27. 0 0 0 Rd. 750327 1984 502 70.0 46. 9 770036 1986 119 37. 0 0.0 770015 1966 119 40.0 0 0 770014 1979 119 66. 0 0 0 770031 1977 1 1 9 25.0 0 0 770030 1977 502 13 1.0 85. 3 92 180016 1928 119 26. 0 0.0 60 102 213.0 34.4 81 180023 I 1968 102 322.0 34.2 180013 1968 119 31. 0 0.0 5

PAGE 79

" Tab l e A-5. Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to Local Ownership (continued) ......... ;--. 50t 502 I I 83.0 t962 tt2 t04.0 8 1Dad8

PAGE 80

Tab l e A.S Bridg es that wou l d Tra n sfer from State Ownersh ip to L oc a l Ownershi p (continu e d ) 103 2 9.9 73 ' ... 870662 1956 316 4 7 I 870718 1972 M2 751 0 35.1. ....... .. ..... .. I 870715 4 56 0 3 5 .3 I s ISR-959. 57111 A-.od Rd. I 670638 I 1936 303 II ____ l L 318 649 0 64 .0 7 4 501 161.0 62 0 62 1 976 5 0 1 88. 0 100 0 91 1979 1 03 9 0 0 62 6 II< 1 95 1 302 84 0 50. 8 71 8 ---------1978 502 8 103 I I I I 1 2 711 Ave. 8

PAGE 82

Table A-6. Road Segments that would Transfer Ownership A -42

PAGE 83

T a ble A-6 Road Segments that would Tran s fer Ownership 0 0.00 0.00 1 1 .0 0 2 .0 0 0 0.00 0.00 1 4 .00 16. 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 2 44.20 88.40 0 0.00 o .oo 2 22.50 45.00 0 0 00 0 .00 0 0 .00 0.00 0 0.00 0 .00 3 21.50 45.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 11 .00 22 .00 5 13.70 51.20 4 1 5 7 0 31.40 0 0 .00 0.00 2 14.80 2 9 .60 0 0.00 0.00 12 121.00 279.20 0 0.00 0 00 1 8 59.60 157.00 0 0.0 0 0.00 2 16.60 33.20 0 0.00 0.00 5 32.90 6 5 .8 0 0 0.00 o .oo 8 39.10 118 .80 0 0.00 0.00 5 19.37 45.75 0 0 00 0.00 1 14.80 29.60 0 0.00 0.00 37 117.36 4 2 6.07 2 6 .20 20.40 0 0 .00 0.00 0 0 .0 0 0 00 2 2 1 0 4 .20 0 0 .00 0 .00 1 6 .70 17.40 0 0.0 0 0 .00 3 33 90 67.80 0 0.00 0.00 2 26.10 52.20 0 0.00 0 .0 0 2 8.70 17.4 0 0 0.00 0 .00 7 5 7. 9 0 119.80 0 0 00 o .oo John s 1 1 3 .35 2 8 .69 0 0 .00 0 .00 A-43

PAGE 84

Table A-6 R o ad Segments that would Transf e r Own e rship (c ontinued) Ros a Rlwr 7 2 6 0 3 0 3 7 I 5 1 2 3 2 1 1 9 8 3 25 35.00 46.40 26 50 0.00 27. 00 0 00 65.00 1 1 7.90 25.70 27.25 11. 00 5.5 0 45 00 12. 00 2 00 97 .60 6.34 6.24 98. 75 77 .00 92 .60 62 50 0 00 54 00 0 00 130.00 235 .80 51.4 0 5 6 .50 22 .00 22.00 90.00 2 4 00 8 .00 463 .60 1 7.65 15.46 314 90 A-44 3 0 2 3 0 1 1 0 2 1 I 0 I 3 2 3 2 3 3 12 .00 0 .00 26.00 39.00 0 .00 8 .50 11.0 0 0 .00 23 00 8 30 28. 00 0 .00 9 0 0 45.50 1 5 .00 6 .90 11 .00 17 .60 6 .20 24.00 0 .00 52 .00 7 6 .00 0 00 1 7 00 22 00 0 00 46.00 1 6.60 56 .00 0 .00 1 8 .00 91. 0 0 30 00 27.60 22. 0 0 4 1 00 24 80

PAGE 85

Tabl e A-6. R o ad Segm e nts that w o uld Transfer Ownership (cont i nued ) 11 1 1 1 3 8 29 1 7 5 43 4 1 3 2 48.18 6 .70 15.50 111. 55 85.70 137. 1 6 1. 1 0 26 .95 51.5 0 1 98. 5 4 10. 30 50. 7 6 3.07 161.43 13.4 0 31.00 %70.4 2 204.40 4 35.2 4 4AO 65A2 103.00 7 9 2 .4 6 20 60 15 1 .34 6 14 A-45 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 .00 0.00 0 .0 0 0 00 0 00 9 .80 0 .00 0 .00 0 .0 0 26 75 0 .0 0 19.00 0 .00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 33.20 0 .00 0.00 0.0 0 80.50 0 0 0 3 8 00 0 00

PAGE 86

Table A-7 Bridges that would Transfer from Local Ownership to State Ownership: County and District Totals by Type of Bridge A-46

PAGE 87

Ta b l e A-7. Bridges that would Transfer from L ocal Ownership to State Ownersh ip: County and District Total s b y Type of Bridge Escamb i a 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Frankli n 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Gulf 0 0 0 I 0 0 .1 Jefferson 0 3 0 I 0 0 4 Leon 2 0 0 I 0 0 3 San ta Ro s a 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wak u lla 2 3 0 3 0 0 8 Wa l ton I 0 0 1 0 0 2 Indian River 0 4 0 3 0 0 7 Martin I 0 0 0 0 1 2 Pal m Be ach 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 A-47

PAGE 88

Table A-8 Bridges that would Transfer from State Ownership to L oca l Ownership : County and District Totals by Type of Bridge A -'IS

PAGE 89

T able A8. Bridges tha t would Tra ns f e r from Sta t e O wn ers hip to Loc a l Own ersh ip : Cou n ty a nd D is t ric t T o tals b y T y pe of Bridg e Glades 5 7 0 1 1 0 0 23 Hardee 2 0 0 0 0 6 H i ghlands 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 Loo 2 3 0 0 0 0 5 Ma n atee 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Okeeehobee 2 3 0 2 0 0 7 Pol k 13 7 0 3 0 0 23 A lachua 6 0 0 2 0 0 8 Baker 1 4 0 0 0 0 5 Bradford 1 0 0 7 0 0 8 Clay 4 5 0 2 0 0 11 Columbia 1 1 1 0 0 0 3 Dixie 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 D uval 9 1 1 0 8 6 0 34 Lafayel1s 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Nassau 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 Putnam 9 3 0 3 0 0 1 5 SL Johns 2 1 0 2 0 0 5 Union 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bay 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 Ca lhoun 5 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 Esc:ambia 3 1 1 1 0 0 8 Gadsden 1 1 0 2 0 0 4 Holmes 5 1 0 2 0 0 8 Jackson 12 2 0 2 0 0 16 Jefferson 1 0 0 3 2 0 8 Leon 6 1 1 0 0 0 8 Uberty 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 A 49

PAGE 90

Table A -8 Bridges that would Tran s fer from State Ownership to L o cal Ownership: County and D i striCt totals by Type of Bridge (continued) SantaROt8 1 5 1 1 0 0 8 W.kuU a 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 W.lon 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 W.lllll ngton 10 7 0 1 0 0 18 Broward 0 18 1 11 2 2 34 I ndian Rfver 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Marlin 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Pam Beach 0 7 0 1 6 1 1 25 S a i n t Lucie 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Brevatd 2 3 4 3 0 0 12 Flagl er 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 Lake 0 1 2 3 0 1 7 M arion 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 Orange 5 3 2 2 0 0 12 Seminole 4 1 0 0 0 0 5 Sum te r 4 3 0 0 0 0 7 Votusla 2 1 1 4 0 0 8 Hernando 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Hillsborough 1 5 3 1 0 0 10 Paaco 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Pinellas 3 4 4 1 5 0 17 A -SO

PAGE 91

Table A-9 Capital Improvement Program Costs for those Local Roads and Bridges that would Transfer to the State A-51

PAGE 92

. . T able A-9 C apital I m provement Program Costs fo r th ose Local R oa d s an d Bri dges that wo u l d Transfe r to the Sta te $142, 160 $19,6 1 0 $ 1 9 ,610 $19, 6 1 0 $ 19,610 $220,600 $44,120 $181 ,720 $181,720 $181 ,720 $181 ,720 $181 ,720 $908,600 $181,720 $() $0 so $0 $() $() so $() $0 $() $0 $() $() $() $() $0 $() $0 $() $() $() $() $0 $() $0 $() $() $() $0 so $0 so $0 $0 $() $1,9>14,968 5416,968 $1,269,968 $1,755 ,968 $416,968 $5, 804,642 $1,160 ,968 $0 $() $0 $() $0 $0 $0 $0 $() $0 $() $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $() $0 $0 $0 s o $0 so $0 so $() $0 $() $0 $() $0 $() $0 so $() so $0 so $() $0 $() $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $() $0 $0 $0 $224.862 $404 ,862 $1 872,862 $3, 027,310 $605,462 $0 $() so $() so so so $0 $0 so $0 so $() so so $0 $() $0 $() $0 $() so $0 $0 so $() $0 $0 $() $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 $() $0 so $0 $0 $0 $() so $0 $() $0 $0 $0 Johns $0 so $0 so $0 $0 $0 A-52

PAGE 93

. T a ble A-9. C a pital I mp ro v e ment Program C osts for tho s e L oc al Road s and Bridg es that w o uld T ra nsfer t o the State ( co n ti nued) RC$0 DOT D istrict 4 River Beach $235 ,3 20 $0 $509,860 $764,790 $0 $16 6 ,685 $21 5,710 s o $451 030 S162, 7 6 3 $549,080 $0 $ 1 76,490 $892 255 $29 4 ,150 $313,467 $215 710 $520,0 1 4 $489,901 $235, 320 so $509,880 $764 790 $0 $166,685 $215 710 $0 $451,030 S162 ,763 $549 080 so $176,490 $910 855 $294 150 $313,467 $215 ,710 $520,014 $489,901 $235 320 $0 $509 860 $764,790 $0 S166,685 S 2 1 5 ,710 $0 $451,030 $16 2 763 $549 080 $0 $ 1 76 ,4 90 $692.255 $29 4 150 $313,467 $215,7 1 0 $520 014 $235,320 so $509,860 $764, 7 9 0 $0 $166,6 8 5 $215,710 $0 $ 451,030 $162 ,763 S549 080 so $176,490 $692,255 $294,150 $3 1 3,467 $2 1 5 710 $520,014 $469,901 $ 1 149,901 A-53 $235,320 $ 1 ,176,600 $0 $0 $509 860 $2,549,300 $764, 7 90 $3,823,950 $0 $0 $166,685 $833,425 $ 2 15,710 $1,078 ,550 so so $451,030 $2,255,150 $162,763 $613 815 $549,08 0 $2,745,400 $0 $0 $176,490 $ 8 82,450 $692,255 $4,479,675 $29 4 ,150 $1,470 ,750 $313 467 $1, 567, 33 5 $215 710 $1 0 78 ,550 $520 0 1 4 $2,600,070 $469,901 $3 109,504 $235,$20 $0 $509,860 $764,790 $0 $ 166, 685 $215,710 $0 $451,030 $162 763 $549,080 so $175 ,4 90 $695,935 $294,150 $313,487 5215,7 1 0 $520,014 $021,901

PAGE 94

' Tabl e A 9 Capital Improvement Program Co s ts for those L o cal Roa d s and Bridges that would Tran s f e r to the State (conti nued ) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 s o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $ 0 $0 $0 $1, 669,054 $ 1, 018 754 $2 169, 554 $1,564 354 $367 ,754 $6 6 0 9 470 $ 1,361, 694 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 s o $0 $ 0 $0 $0 so $0 $924 9 8 3 S814 ,983 $ 1 074 983 $754,983 $ 7 54 983 $4,324 914 $864 983 Hernand o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Hillsborough $372 590 $372,590 $372 ,590 $372,590 $372,590 $ 1 862 950 $372 590 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 A -54

PAGE 95

Table A-10. Work Program Costs for those State Roads and Bridges that would Transfer to Local Governments A-55

PAGE 96

T a bl e A-10. Work Program Costs for those State R oads and Bridges that w o uld Transfer to Local Go ve rnments $0 $0 $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 so $0 so so $0 $ 1 ,595 5 7 0 $509,570 $629 570 $5 989 570 $479,570 $9,203,850 $1,840,770 $244 125 S244,125 $244,125 $244,125 $244, 125 $ 1 220 ,625 $244, 125 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so $249 ,075 $249 075 $831 075 5249 075 $249, 0 7 5 $ 1 ,827,375 $365 4 7 5 $159,350 $3 398 350 $119 ,350 $7, 482,350 $512 ,050 $11 689,450 $2,333,890 52,435,2 3 0 $174,230 $374 ,230 $174,230 $1,841 230 $4,999 150 $999, 830 $2,023 580 $25Q.680 $160 ,580 $822,58 0 $160,580 $3 417,900 $683,580 $4,242 205 $2 37 5 705 $3,668,205 $3,439 205 $4,606 205 $18,331 525 $3, 686,305 $5,520 ,415 $7, 760,415 $952 415 S952,415 $952.4 1 5 $16,1$6 075 53 22 7, 6 1 5 $ 1 80,1 1 0 $180, 110 $230 110 $180,110 $180 1 1 0 5950,550 S190, 110 $456 985 $419,465 $356 965 5356,965 $ 3 58,985 $1,947,325 5389,465 $928,925 $ 1 3 238 925 $60 7,925 $607 925 $807,925 $15 ,991,625 $3, 198 325 $829 ,497 $265, 4 97 S979,497 $265,497 $ 26 5,497 $2 605, 4 85 $521,097 S 1 60,580 $ 160, 580 $160 580 $160 580 $160,580 $802 900 $160,580 $6, 562,995 $16,254,595 $3,90 4 595 $9 1 4 2 595 $2,640,595 $38,505 377 $7 701, 075 $0 $0 50 $0 50 $0 so $23 7 1 0 $616,710 $2 3, 710 $23 ,71 0 $23 7 1 0 $711,550 $142,310 $94 395 $94, 395 594,395 $94,595 $94 395 $471,9 75 $ 94,395 $2 ,768, 815 5367 815 $367,8 1 5 $367 815 $367 ,815 $ 4 ,2 4 0, 0 75 $8 4 8 ,015 $283,185 $283,185 $6 671,185 $283,185 $ 2 83 185 S6 803, 9 25 $1,360 785 $94 395 594,395 $ 94 ,395 $94,395 $94,395 $ 4 71, 9 75 $94 395 $905,675 $58 2, 675 S882 ,675 $562 675 $662,675 53 556 3 7 5 $71 1 ,275 Joh n s $29 9,804 $13 726,804 $144 804 $244,804 $144,804 $ 1 4 561 021 $2,912, 204 A 56

PAGE 97

Tabl e A -10. W o rk Pro g ram C os ts for tho s e State Roa ds a n d Br i d ges t hat would Tran sfe r to L oc al Governm e nts (c ontinued ) $44(),600 $440 600 $44(),600 $440,6 0 0 $440 ,600 $2,203,000 $440,600 $623,440 $56 4 ,44() $1,908,440 $730 ,44() $ 503,440 $4,330,200 5666,040 $1,204,363 $2,678 363 $371,363 $371,363 $3 7 1,363 $4,998 ,813 5699,363 30 $0 30 $0 $0 $0 $ 0 $1,121, 950 $623,950 $292 950 $7 952 950 $292,950 $ 1 0,26 4,750 $2, 056,950 30 so 30 $0 30 30 $0 $3, 228,250 $3, 092,250 $705, 2 50 $705,250 $705,250 $8,436,250 $1,687 250 $1,450,4 9 5 $14 081,855 $2 ,766,415 $1,420,215 $1, 279, 215 $20 998, 195 $4 199,639 $278,84S $278,845 $2 7 8,845 $2 7 8,845 $278 845 $1 ,394.225 $278.845 $306,513 $346,5 1 3 $1,123,513 $3, 135,913 $301,5 1 3 $5,213,963 $ 1 ,Q42,793 $ 1 19, 350 $ 119, 350 $11 9, 35 0 $119,350 $11 9,350 $596,750 $11 9 350 $1,310,575 $261 575 $146,575 $ 146,57S $146,575 $2,01 1,875 $4 0 2,37 5 Ros a $1, 1 26,510 $2,613 250 $2,4 37 860 $12,004 250 $838,250 $19,020 120 $ 3,804,02 4 $130,200 $ 1 096,200 $ 130, 200 $130.200 $130,200 $1,617 ,000 $323 ,400 $53,30 0 $644 300 $53 300 $53 300 $53 300 $857,500 $ 1 71,500 $14, 304,540 $ 1 6,761, 7 4 0 S18,ns,oeo ss, 378,oso $20, 091 ,720 $75 309 160 Sl5,o6t, 83 2 River $1 1 2,695 $2.384 695 $112,695 $ 1 12,695 $112,695 $2 835 ,476 $ 567, 095 $158 173 $158,173 $2,686 393 $100,173 $100, 173 $3,203 ,085 $840 ,617 Beach $ 1 0,551,448 $7,25>1, 448 $8 636,448 $4,321,3 1 8 $8,083,448 $38,84 7 ,108 $7,769 422 A-57

PAGE 98

T a ble A-10 Work P ro g ra m Costs f o r thos e State Ro a ds and Brid g e s that wou l d T ransfer to Local G o vernments ( continu e d ) $12.336,476 $7.167,276 $1,651,476 $3,2A9,4 76 $918,476 $25, 323. 179 $5,064,636 $101 695 $425,695 $656,695 $72,695 $72.695 $1, 329,475 $265 695 $168, 175 $168,175 $168,175 $168,175 $168 175 $840,675 $168,175 $5,721 558 $2 746,558 $8,440.568 $8, 317,558 $1,686,568 $24 9 1 2 789 $4.982,558 $11 ,247, 450 $2.629,295 $ 1 6,250,575 $11 ,601,545 $8,190 845 $49 9 1 9,4 1 0 $9,983 882 $5, 092,177 $21 152 117 $4.924,117 $4,753 ,117 $8,980,867 844,902 395 $8, 980 ,479 $16,370 $18,370 $18,3 7 0 $18,370 $18 370 $91,850 $ 1 8 370 $6,565 704 $2, 184,654 $1, 029 704 $456,704 $ 1 3,358 704 $23,595,468 $4,7 19,094 $558,775 $2 580 775 $683 775 $7, 401,775 $558,775 $11,783 875 $2, 356 775 $30,883,772 $25 516,362 $24,382 622 $19, 6 06,232 $7,716,622 $21,661,522 $118,970 $118 9 7 0 $116,970 $118,970 $ 1 18,970 $594 ,850 $11 8 970 $8,887 087 $31,022,087 $8 057 087 $1 387,087 $1,9 0 5 087 $49,258,435 $9,85 1 ,687 $33,310 $33 310 $33,310 $33, 310 $33,310 $ 1 66 548 $33,3 1 0 A 58

PAGE 99

Table.A-11. Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain Current Standards A-59

PAGE 100

T ab l e A-11 O ngo ing Annu a l Added Cost to L o cal Governments to M ai nta i n Cur ren t Standards $0 $44,120 so $181 ,7 20 so $0 so $888,782 $0 $866,762 $441,225 $0 $441 225 $0 $0 $0 $447 435 so $447,435 $215,710 $1,160,968 53 1 3,079 $0 $313,079 S290,228 $0 $290,228 $2, 944,326 $0 $2 944,326 $1,663 503 $0 $1,663 503 $325,526 $0 $325,526 $645, 169 $0 $645, 169 $1,070 647 $0 $1,070,647 $470,275 so $470,275 $ 2 90,228 so S290,228 $4,531,542 $605 462 $3 926,060 so $0 so $42 420 $0 $42 420 $170 607 so $170 ,607 $66 4 ,779 so $664,779 $611,62 1 $0 $51 1,821 S170,607 $0 $170,607 $1,1 9 0,422 $0 $1, 190 ,422 Johns S26 1 ,7 1 5 $0 S26 1, 7 1 5 A -60

PAGE 101

Tab l e A-11 Ongo i ng An nual Add ed Cost to Local Gov ernments to Maintain Current Standards (continued ) ._ . . $ 7 84, 1 5 1 $909, 904 $ 6 54,076 $0 $529 470 $0 $1, 274 6 5 0 $2,312 019 $503,977 $544,610 $215,710 $249 885 Rosa $$52 ,45(1 $235,320 $90 860 $5,888,172 River $195,548 $172,637 $3, 657,118 A 1 $235 320 $0 $509,860 $76 4 ,790 $0 $166,685 $215 7 1 0 $0 $45 1 ,0$0 $ 1 62,783 $549,080 s o $176,490 $895,935 $29 4, 150 8313,46 7 $215 710 $ 5 2 0,0 1 4 $ 62 1,901 $909,904 $144 216 $529 ,470 $1,058,940 $2,312 ,019 $52,947 $381.847 $249 ,885 $705,960

PAGE 102

T a bl e A-11. Ongoi n g A nnua l A d ded Cos t to L oca l Gove rnm ents to Maintai n Curre n t Stan d a rd s (conti nu ed) $1,5 96,4 25 $131,387 $303,955 $2.899,4n $2,106,607 $4,435,720 $32.832 SOM,WO $1,009 915 $9,107,723 $211,843 $1, 352,727 $60,203 A 6 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,381 894 $0 so $0 $664,983 $372,590 so $1,5!MI,425 $ 1 31,387 $303,955 S2,899,4n $2,106,607 $3,073,826 $$2,832 $655.9'70 $1, 009,9 1 5 $8,242,740 $211 ,643 $980,137

PAGE 103

Table A-12. Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Needs A-63

PAGE 104

Table A 12. Ongoing Annua l Added Cost to Local Governments to Maintain Curren t Standards P lus Ongoing Improvement Needs $0 $0 so $44,120 $0 $0 so $181,720 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $86$ ,762 $1,452.225 $2.318 987 so $2,318,987 $441,225 $739.255 $1, 180 480 $0 $1, 180,480 $0 so so $0 $0 $447,435 5739.255 $1,188 ,6 90 $0 $1,186,690 $215,710 $361 ,413 $577,123 $1,160 968 $313,079 $515,835 $828,914 $0 $828,914 $290,228 $486,285 $778,493 $0 $776 493 $2,944 ,326 $4,611&,664 $7.=,990 $0 $7.530,990 so $1, 863,503 $2,579,177 $4,242 880 $0 $4,242,680 $325,526 $545 ,408 $870,G32 $0 $870,932 $645 169 $1,080,955 $1,726,124 $0 $1, 726,124 $1,070 647 $1,9 1 5.49 1 $2,988 137 $0 $2,986,137 $470 ,275 $751,510 $1,221,784 $0 $1,221,784 $290 226 $486,265 $770!493 $0 $778 ,49 3 $4,531, 542 $&,999,427 $11,530 989 $605,46 2 $10,925,507 so so $0 $0 $0 $42,420 S68,997 $111,417 $0 $111,4 17 $170.S07 $285 ,845 $458,452 $0 $456, 4 52 $864,779 $1, 1 13,8 10 $1,77 6,589 $0 S 1,77 8 589 $511,821 $857 ,535 $1,369,356 $0 $1, 369,386 $ 170,607 $285,845 $458,4$2 $0 $456,452 $1 ,1 90,422 $1.884 ,77 5 $3 ,185,198 $0 $3,155 196 Johns $261 ,7 15 $4$8 ,493 $700,208 $0 $700,208 A-64

PAGE 105

Table A-12. Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Loca l Governments to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvemen t N eeds (contin u ed ) Rosa River $784 151 $909 904 $$54 07$ $0 $529 ,47 0 $0 $1,274,650 $2 312,019 $503 977 $544,6 1 0 $215 710 $249,865 $882,450 $235 320 $90 860 $.5, 888, 172 $195,548 $172 837 $3 657,118 $1.264 947 $ 1 ,524 507 $1,02$, 7 43 so $887.108 $0 $2 135,625 $3,873 694 $844,393 $926 175 $381,4 1 3 $361,413 $ 1 ,478.809 $394,269 $131,423 $7,944 523 $289,985 $254 304 $5, 173, 140 A-65 $2.049,098 $2.434,4 1 1 $ 1,$ 80 818 $0 Sl,416,576 $0 SM10,275 $6. 1 85:713 $1, 348 370 $1,472 ,78 5 $577 123 $$11,278 $2.$$0 9$9 S629,589 S222 283 $13,832,695 $485,533 $427 141 $8, 830,257 $235 ,320 $0 $509,8$0 $7&4.790 so $166,685 $215 710 $0 $451,030 $1$2.763 $549 080 $0 $176 ,490 $895,935 $294,150 $313 ,467 $215,710 $520,014 $621,901 S1,813 ,n8 $2,4 3 4 .411 $1,170,958 $1,4 1 6,576 S3,194, 565 $6,185 ,71 3 $89 7, 340 $ 1 ,3 1 0 022 $28,043 $611,2 7 8 $2,184 469 $13 519 ,22 8 $2$9 823 $8,208 356

PAGE 106

Table A-12. Ongoing Annual Added Cost to Loca l Governments to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Impro vement Needs (continued) $1,596.425 S131,3S 7 $303 ,955 $2,899,4n $2,106 ,607 $4, 435,720 $32,832 $655,970 $1,009,915 $9, 107,723 $211 ,843 $1,352 727 $80,203 $2, 651 986 $220,134 $509,264 $4,442,428 $3, 357,859 $7,150,071 $72,283 $1 ,074,712 $ 1,692 ,072 $13,018 ,439 $338 ,414 $2,486,196 $100,867 A-66 $ 4 ,248, 411 $3S 1 ,521 $ 8 13,219 $7,341,904 $5,464,466 $11 ,585, 791 $105,114 $1,750 682 $2,701 987 $22,126,16 1 $550,058 $3,836 922 $161,070 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,361 ,894 50 so $0 $864,983 so $372 ,590 $0 $4,248,41 1 $351 521 $813,219 $7,34 1,904 $5,464,468 $10,223,897 $105,114 $1,730,682 $2,701 ,987 $21,261,179 $550,058 $3,466,332 $ 1 6 1,070

PAGE 107

Table A-13. Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Maintain Current Standards A -67

PAGE 108

Table A-13. Ongoing Annual Cost Re d uction to State to Maintain Current Standards $ 19,610 $0 $161,720 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $1,840,770 S1,840,no $0 $244 ,125 $244,125 $0 $0 $0 $0 $365 ,4 75 $365 ,475 $416,968 $2 333 890 $1 ,916, 922 $0 $999,8SO $999,830 $0 $683 ,580 $683, 580 $0 $3,666,305 so $3,227,615 $3,227,815 $0 $190,1 1 0 $190 ,110 $0 3389,465 $389 ,4 6 5 $0 $3,1 98,325 $3,198,325 $0 $521,097 $521 ,097 $0 $160,580 $160 580 $224 862 $7,70 1,075 $7,476,213 so so $0 $0 $142 310 $142,310 $0 $94,395 $94,395 $0 $848 ,015 $848,0 1 5 $0 $1, $60 785 $1, 360 785 $0 $94,395 $94,395 $0 $711,275 $71 1 27 5 Johns so $2,912,204 $2 912,204 A-68

PAGE 109

Table A-13 O n go i ng Annua l Cost Redu ction to State to Malntaln Cunen t Standard s ( c onti nu ed ) Rosa RiVer $235,320 $0 $509,860 $764,790 $0 $166,685 $21 5 ,710 $0 $451 ,030 $1 62,783 $549,080 $0 $176,490 $892,2$5 $294 150 $313 487 $215 710 $489,901 A-{)9 $1 ,7$3, 880 $4-40,600 $886,040 $999,383 $0 $2 058,950 $0 $1,887,2.50 $4 190.639 $278,845 $1,042,793 $11i,3$0 $402,375 $3,804 ,024 $323 ,400 $171,500 115, 081 832 $1507, 095 $640 617 $7,7Ge .. 22 $205,260 $866,040 $489,503 $2.055,850 $1,471 540 $4,199,839 ($1 $ 8 80,030 $402 375 $3.627,534 ($1 $14,748 365 $351 ,385 $120,603 $7,279 521

PAGE 110

Table A -13. Ong oing Annual Cost R e duction to State to M a intain Current S tandard s (continued) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $367 ,7 5 4 $0 $0 $0 $764,983 $0 $372 590 $0 A-70 $5, 084,636 $265 ,895 $168 ,175 $4 ,982,5!58 $9,983,882 $8,98 0 .479 $18,370 $4, 7 1 9.094 $2 ,3!58,ns $2 1 ,661,522 $118 970 $9, 851 ,687 $33 310 $ 5 ,064, 636 $265,895 $168,175 $ 4 ,982 ,558 $9, 983.682 $8,6 1 2,725 $18,370 $4, 719 094 $2,356 ,ns $20, 906 539 $11 8,970 $9,479 097 $33 3 1 0

PAGE 111

Table A-14. Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Maintain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Needs A-71

PAGE 112

Table A-14 Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Mai ntain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Needs $19,810 $52.486 so s1e1.no $262,848 --so so so so so so so $0 $0 s1,840,no $1,840 ,no so $0 $0 $244,125 $2 44,125 $0 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $365,.475 $365,.475 $41US8 $8.41,108 $1,258,076 S2,333,8i0 $1,075,81A $0 so $0 $999,830 $999,830 $0 so $0 5683 580 5683.560 $0 $0 $0 $3,686,305 $0 so $0 $3,227,815 $3,l27,615 $0 so $0 $190, 110 $190 ,110 $0 $0 $0 $389 ,465 $389 ,465 $0 $0 $0 $3 198 ,325 $3 198,325 $0 $0 $0 $521,097 $521 097 $0 so $0 $ 160,560 $ 1 60,58 0 $224,682 $335, 1 29 $559,991 $7,701 075 $7,141,08 5 so $0 $0 $0 $0 so $0 $0 $142,310 $142,310 so so $0 $94,395 $94,395 $0 $0 so $848,015 $848 ,015 $0 $0 so $1,360, 78 5 $1, 360,785 $0 $0 so $9A,S95 $9A,395 so $0 $0 $7 1 1,275 $711,275 J ohns $0 $0 $0 $2,912 ,20 4 $2,9 1 2,204 A-72

PAGE 113

Table A-14. Ongoing Annua l Cost Reduction to State to Ma i ntain Current Standards Plus Ongoing Improvement Needs (continued ) RlvOI $0 $0 $235,320 $0 $509,860 $784,790 $0 $166 ,885 $215 710 so $451,030 $162,763 $549,080 $0 $178,490 $892,255 $294 150 $313, 487 $215 710 $520 ,014 $489,901 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1, 763,960 $1 763,ll60 $394,269 $0 $650,250 $1,281,375 $0 $279,274 $361,413 $0 $755,683 $ 272 ,703 $919,961 $0 $295 702 $1, 494,937 $492,836 $453,410 $361,413 $407,411 A-73 $629,589 $0 $1,364,110 $2.,048,185 $0 $445 959 s5n, 123 $0 $1,208,713 $43&,466 $1,489,041 $0 $472,192 $2,387 192 $788 ,988 $788,877 ssn, 123 $1,183.5$7 $897,312 $440,600 $866,040 $999,363 so $2,056 950 $0 $1,667,250 $4,199,639 $278,845 $1 ,042,793 $119 ,350 $402,375 $3 &M 024 $323 400 $171,500 $15,061 ,832 $567,095 $640,6 1 7 $7,769,422 $666,040 $2,056 950 $1, 110 127 $4,199,639 $607,3 27 $402 ,375 $3,331 .832 ($61

PAGE 114

Table A-14. Ongoing Annual Cost Reduction to State to Main ta i n Current Standards Plus Ongoing Impro vement Needs (continued ) so so 10 $0 $0 $367,754 so so $0 $58,830 $754,983 $0 $872, 590 so so so so so so $545,405 $0 $0 $0 $1,322,044 $0 $824,259 $0 A-74 so so so 10 $0 $9U,160 $0 $0 so $ 157,397 $2,077,427 $0 $0 $5,0&1. 838 $265,895 $168,175 $4,982,558 $9,983 ,882 $8,980 ,4 79 $18,370 $4,719,094 $2,35&,775 $5,351 ,555 $21,661,522 $1 18,970 $9,851 687 $33,310 $5,0114,836 $265,8gs $188,175 $4,982,558 $9,983,882 $8,067,319 $18,370 s.719,o94 $2 358 775 $5, 194 ,158 $19,5114,094 $118,970 $8,854 ,838 $33,310

PAGE 115

I Table A-15 Unit Coats I A-75

PAGE 116

I Table A-16. Unit Costs Mildng and Resurfacing $131,400 $197,200 $295,700 $394,300 M and R (Annualized aver 15-Year Period) $8,780 $13 147 S19,713 $28,287 Routine Maintenance (AnnuaQ $10,850 $18,700 $28,650 $35,400 M ill ing and Resurfacing $140,800 $251,700 $422,500 $563,21)0 M and R (Annualized over 15-Y ear Period) $9,387 $18,780 $28,167 $37 547 Routine Ma in tenance (Annual) $12,700 $28,850 $4 5 ,450 $53 000 Source: 1992 Tlonsport.lion COsts, Ofltce of Polley Planning, Florida Depaltment of Transportation. Wages of $4.2Sihour x 24 hows x 365 days $37,230 Overhead @ 89% of Wages $33 135 flifllle @ 67% of Wagos $24,944 Routine Maintenance 35, 000 Rounded to $100,000 in the estimate of bridge costs. Source : Data provided by C. D. P.E., Structt.lre$ an d Facilities Office, Aoride Department of Transportation, Oi&tric:ts 1 and 7. A-76 I