Status report : functional classification of public roads study enacted by 1990 Legislature in SB 1316

Status report : functional classification of public roads study enacted by 1990 Legislature in SB 1316

Material Information

Status report : functional classification of public roads study enacted by 1990 Legislature in SB 1316
Florida. Dept. of Transportation. Florida Transportation Commission
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Management
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Roads--Florida--Administration ( lcsh )
letter ( marcgt )

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:
C01-00346 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.346 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has 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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00346
2 110
Florida. Dept. of Transportation. Florida Transportation Commission.
0 245
Status report : functional classification of public roads study enacted by 1990 Legislature in SB 1316
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1993 June
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Management
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856




STATUS REPORT FUNCfiONM:. C LA SS IFICATIO N OF PUBLIC ROAD S S TUDY ENACfED BY 1990 LEGISLATURE IN SB 1316 Pre sented by The Centet for Urban Transportation Research Uni versity of South Florida to Florida Transportation Commission June 10, 1 993 In accordance with S.B. l3!6, the Center for Urban Transporta tio n Reseateh (CUTR) was directed to perform a study. for the purpose o f devel oping criteria for the functional classifica tion of p ublic roads through out t he state CUTR was specifically directed to con sider the fo llowing general criteria: (I) emergency evacuati o n, (2) travel to and through urban areas, (3) national defense, (4) interstat e, interregional, and intercity commerce, (5) access to airport s, waterports, and major terminals or transfer facilities, (6) access to public facilities serving a statewide or r egional function, and (7) volume and distance of travel. During Phase I of the project, CUTR researched various criteria for functional classification, met periodically with a 16-member Ad Hoc Working Group representing a wide range of perspecti ves, and conducted seve n fact-fi ndin g work shops (one in eac h FOOT district) throughout the sta t e. In April 1991, CUTR presented detailed criteria for classification and jurisdictional determinatio n of roadways to the Florida Tran sportation Commission. In accord ance with SB 1316, the Florida Transportation Comm ission reviewed CUTR's proposed detailed criteria and invited public co mmen t. Subsequently, the Commission directed Florida DOT to move forward with the application of the proposed criteria for the ownership determination of roadways. The statewide applicat ion of the detailed ownership criteria was completed, and CUTR met with staff from each FDOT District to discuss the application of the criteria. As anticipated, the statewi de application resulted in modest refi nements to the cri teria origin ally to the Commiss ion in April 1991. The refined cdteria d efined the state highway system in terms of detail ed criteria for the following: I. National Highway System 2. Florida Intrastate Highway System 3. National De fense 4. Travel To ffhrough Urb an Areas 5. Designated U.S. Routes I


6. Access to Portsfferminalsffransfc!r Facilities 7. Access to Major Public Facilities 8. Emergency Evacuation In addition to the detai le d criteria for applying the proposed methodology CUTR developed a series of recommended generalized procedures as noted below, that would be applied iflegislative changes were enacted: I. 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 determination 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 system access to major public facilities, including ports/terminals/tran sfer 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 ADT (average daily traffic) would be the basis for specific roadway selection. It is not expected that residential subdivision streets would be used to define access. Generally, "stub" segments (i.e. discontinuous segments) are to be avo id ed, i f practical, except where dictated by geographic features, such as the coastline The determination of specific state highway system access roads to public facilities would be jointly made by FOOT and affected loc al governments. It should be recognized that the efforts applied in this study effort have not in cluded 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 rede finition, sufficient for the Commission and the legislature to evaluate the desirability. It is Cl..frlt's expectation that if legislative changes are made, it would be ne.;essary for FDOT to revisit the specific ownership determinations with full local participation as outlined above. S.B. 1316 directed that following the FOOT completion of the app li cation of the criteria, CUTR determine the fiscal :impact of the proposed reclassification. The Commission responded to requests from the Florida Association of Counties and at its Ju ly 30, 1992 meeting made the following decisions regarding the study: !. The Ad Hoc Working Group was to be reconvened to review .. the revised criteria recommended by CUTR and to provide inp ut on the fiscal impact methodology. The Ad Hoc Group's expertise was enhanced through the addition of two local government fiscal speciali sts. 2


2. Florida DOT will make available for public review in each of its

OVERVIEW OF F I SCAL lMPACT ANALYSIS The evaluation of fiscal impacts considered two areas of impacts: (A) The reduction in the mte's programmed costs resulting from state roads and bridges that transfer to local governmen ts and the reduction in local government promm med costs resulting from lo cal roads and bridges that transfer to the state. (Note: The state would transfer significantly more ro ads than it would receive from local governments.) What are the reductions in programmed costs? For the state: $824.8 million over five years, or $ 1 65.0 million per year (based on the FDOT's 5 Year Tentative Work Program, F Y 1993/94 Through FY 1997/98). Includes an estimate of annual maintenance costs. For l ocal governments: S56.5 mUUon ove r five years, or $11.3 mUUon per year (based on local capital improvement programs). Includes an estimate of annual maintenance and resurfacing. .. (B) The l'dded (lifetime) costs of assuming l'eSponsibiUty for transfe .rring roads and bridges. The focus of the evaluation is on the net impacts to local governments Six scenar ios were developed to assess impacts. SS) 1: Maintain current standards -thi s scenario includes the estimated cost to maintain the transferred roads and bridges based on current FDOT standards (i.e., milling and resurfacin g of roadways every fiflee;, vears and r outine annual maintenance). Sc.narto 1 : Maintain Current Standards Added Cost to Local Governments Less: Sce nario 2: Maintain current standards, plus complete work program improve ments-this scen ario is 'the same as Scenario 1 above, plus the amounts programmed In the FDOT 5 Year Work Program for capac ity, safety and other improvem e nt s on the transferring roads and bridges. The use of improvement costs from th e FDOT Work Program, coupled with the estima ted costs to maintain and re surface th e transferring roads and bridges at curren t standards (Scenario 1) results In a reasonabl e estimate of annual fiscal need. The validity of this approach, of course, depends upon how r epresentative this five year period is of ongoing 4


improvement The cost of completing those projects not finished during the 5 -year period are estimated and included in this scenario. Scenario 2: Maintain Current Standards Plus Work Cost to Maintain Current Standards Cost of Work Program Improvements Total Added Cost to Local Governments Estimated Cost to Complete Projects, Annualized Over 5 Years Included i n Value Above) $65.4M per year $1 03.0M per year $168.4M per year $51.7M Scenario 3: Improved Structural -this scenario is the same as Scenario J, except that the milling and resurfacing cycle of roadways is shortened from fifteen years to seven vears. While a seven year cycle is desirable because it would result in higher quality roadways and accelerate the reduction of any resurfacing bac/dog, several roadway engineers indicate that a fzfteen year cycle is sufficient Scenario 3: Structural Condition Added Cost to Local Governments Scenario 4: lmpJ'oved stJ' condition, plus complete work program improvements -this scenario is the cost of Scenario 3 above, plus the amounts programmed in the 5 Year Program for capacity, safety and other improvements on the transferring roads and bridges. The cost of completing those projects not finished during the 5-year period are estimated and included in this scenario. Scenario 4: Improved Structural Condition Plus Work Cost to Improve Structural Condition Cost of Work Program Improveme nts Total Added Cost to Local Governments Estimated Cost to Complete Unfinished Projects An nualize d Over 5 Years Included i n Value 5 $97.1M per year $103.0M per year $51.7M


S c e n a r io 5: Alloc ate Porti o n of FD OT Budget Based o n Re d uction in Cen t e r li n e M iles -this scenario simply estimates the impact as 16. 5 perc ent of related FDOT Work Program costs ( i.e., the same percentage as the reduction in the state s centerline miles ) The FDOT's 5 Year Work Program totals $13.5 b i llion Excluding unrelated items such as Public Transportation, right-of-way bonds, and Turnpike right -of way, yields an adjusted value of$11 5 billion. Taking 16. 5 percent of this value yields $1 84 billion (or $367.4 million per year ) (No T able Pro vided) Scenario 6: I ncrease Work P r o gra m I mprovem ent Costs By 25 Pe rcent -based on projected work program spending, approximately 25 percent of the state's highway lane miles are expected to be op e rationally deficient (e.g i nsufficient capacity) This percentage is used a s a proxy to estimate the operationally d e ficient roads among thos e transferring to local governments It is therefore assumed that in order to adequ a tely fun d improvements to correct operational deficiencies work program c osts should be increased by 25 percent. Based on these assumptions, the following impacts were estimated in combination with Scena r io 2. P l us: S cenario 6 : Increa s e Work Costs 2 5 Percent C o s t t o Main tai n Current Standards Cost of Work Program Improvements Total Added Cost to L oca l Gove m ments Add i t ional Costs Total Added Cos t to L ocal Governme nts Esti mated Cos t to Comp le te U nfi nished Projects Ann ua li zed Over 5 Years 6 $65.4M per year $ 103.0M per year $51.7M pe r


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.