Functional classification of Florida's roadways

Functional classification of Florida's roadways

Material Information

Functional classification of Florida's roadways
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Roads--Florida ( 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:
C01-00409 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.409 ( 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 C01-00409
2 110
University of South Florida. Center for Urban Transportation Research
0 245
Functional classification of Florida's roadways
Tampa, Fla
b Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR)
c 1991 July
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856




FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FLORIDA'S ROADWAYS prepared by The Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida-College of Engineering July, 1991 This study report has l>een prepared by the for Ut!>an Transportation Research at the University of South F/crida in accordance with StrUJie Bill 1316 and subsequently Chapter 9/J-136, Laws of Florida


TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. BACKGROUND 3 Ill. CUTR'S APPROACH 7 IV. ROADWAY OWNE RSHIP CRITERIA 9 1. Highways of National Significance 9 2. Regional Commerce 9 3 Emergency Evacuation 9 4. National Defe .nse 10 5. Travel To/Through Urban Areas 10 6. Access to Ports/Terminals 13 7. Access to Major Public Facilities 15 8. Non-State T oll R oads 21 V COUNTY /MUNICIPAL ROADWAY OWNERSHIP CRITERIA 21 VI. ROADWAY ClASSIFICATION CRITERIA 23 VII. GENERAUZEDPROCEDURES 25 1. Thresholds for Classification Scoring 25 2. Roadway Segmentation for Classification 25 3 Selection of Roads to be Classified 26 4 Consideration of Future Improvements 26 5 Data Collection Responsibilities 26 6. Updating the Functional Classification System 27 VIII. SUMMARY 27


LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Airports for State Roadway Service Table 2 Waterports for State Roadway Service Table 3 -RailTruck Transfer Terminals for State Roadway Service Table 4 Educational Facilities for State Roadway Service Table 5 -Regional Medical Centers f or State Roadway Service Table 6 State Parks for State Roadway Service Table 7 Attractions for State Roadway Service Table 8 Preliminary Roadway Scoring Thresholds LIST OF FIGURES 13 14 14 17 18 19 20 25 Figure 1 Typical Roadway Hierarchy 7 Figure 2 Mobility vs. Access Characteristics of Different Roadway 'JYpes 8 Figure 3 Selection of Roadways for Connectivity 11 Figure 4 Urban Area Connectivity 12 Figure 5 State Roadway Service to Major Public Facilities 16 Figure 6 County vs. City Roadway Ownership 21 Figure 7 Proposed Roadway Attribute Weighting and Scaling 24 Figure 8 Functional Classification Process 28 Figure 9 Standard Input Form for Functional Classification 29


I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with S.B. 1316 and subsequentiy Chapter 90-136, Laws of Florida, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) has evaluated and refined the current func tional classification criteria for all public roads in Florida. This is particularly important since the current system of roadway classification serves as the basis for roadway ownership determination CUTR believes there is a fundamental difference between ownership and classification. Ownership defines the jurisdiction (state, county, or city) for road maintenance, which in tum establishes continuing financial responsibility for the roadway CJassification establishes hierarchy of road function and the "mobility versus land access" character of the roadway and is typically used in the determination of roadway design standards, as well as roadside deve l opment restrictions. Consequently, CUTR believes that objective and equitable roadway functional classification should substantially separate classification and ownership Determination of state ownership shou l d be based on identified statewide functions of the roadway, whereas phys i cal and operating attributes should form the basis for establishing roadway classification. Consequently, the ownership of a roadway shou l d not predetermine roadway classification, nor should classification of a roadway d i ctate ownership. CUTR recommends that state ownership be based on the following seven criteria: (1) Highways of National Significance (2) Regional Commerce (3) Emergency Evacuation (4) National Defense (5) Travel to/through Urban Areas ( 6) Access to Ports/T erminals (7) Access to Major Public Facilities For non-state roadways, determination of county versus municipal ownership will be based on location with respect to the corporate boundary line and on the roadway's classification. Distinct from ownership criteria, CUTR recommends that the following four roadway attributes be used as a basis for the determination of classification: 1


(1) Daily Vehicle-Miles of Travel (2) Lane-Miles (3) Driveways per Mile (4) Posted Speed CUTR has developed a recommended method for weighting each of the four attributes and for determining roadway scores, based on a statewide comparison with other roadways. I n accordance with !he legislative direction, !he Florida T ransponation Commission has reviewed CUIR's proposed criteria and bas invited public comment. Subsequently, the Commission bas directed Florida DOT to move forward with the application of CUTR's p r opose d criteria for the ownership determina tion of roadways. Based on concerns expressed by Florida DOT and by the Florida Dist rict of the Federal Highway Administration, the Commission determined !hat !he application of CUTR's classification criteria should be delayed, pending the clarification of possible new federal criteria for functional classification of roadways. When the federal r equirements are clarified, CUTR will re-examine its proposed classification system to determine if refinements are warranted. Upon review by the Commission, Florida DOT will then apply !he prop osed classification system on a statewide basis. Subsequent to FOOT's application of the proposed criteria for determining state and non state ownership responsibility, CUTR wlll perform a fiscal impact analysis, which will identify necessary funding requirements to suppon the r oadway responsibilities of the state system and the non-state systems. Since CUIR's proposed system for determining county ownership and municipal ownership relies on the roadwa y classification, CUTR's detennination of the allocation of funding needs between counties and municipalities will need to be deferred until the completion of the classification element of the project. It is anticipated that additional refinements to both the ownership and classification criteria will be made throughout each of these phases of the project. Ultimately, the Florida Transponation Commission will make recommendations for legislative changes to the 1993 session of the Florida legislatur e. 2


U. BACKGROUND Since the modem period of roadway functional ciassification in Florida began in 1977, the methodology for roadway functional classification bas undergone several changes. Each change that has occurred was initiated to create a more objective and equitable functional classification system. The current state system for functional classification is based on physical and operating attributes used in conjunction with a mathematical scoring function The factors used in urbanized areas are fairly straightforward and include measures such as: traffic volume length number of lanes speed divided or undivided character For rural areas, the factors are somewhat more complicated, including the following: traffic factor obtained by multiplying the average daily traffic by a normalizing coefficient defined as five, divided by the logarithm to the base 10 of the county population density multiplied by 100 e length volume of truck traffic network factor calculated by multiplying ADT by distance between arterial connections access factor calculated by dividing ADT by number of access points per mile 3


number of counties traversed system element coefficient defined b!15ed on a four page table that relates the size and intensity of the points being connected. A very important feature of the current method for functional classification is that it defines the state highway system based on classification. The state highway system consists of all interstates, rural arterials (and their extensions into urban areas), urban principal arterials, and certain urban minor arterials. In October 1989, following considerable study of the current functional classification system, the Florida Transportation Commission identified six criteria which it believed were a sound basis for defining the state highway system. The criteria cited by the Commission were: Emergency Evacuation Travel to and through Urban Areas National Defense Interstate, Inter-regional and Inter-city Commerce Access to Airports, Waterports, and Major Terminals or Transfer Facilities of Other Transportation Modes. Public Facility Access The criteria for state ownership suggested by the Florida Transportation Commission are fundamentally different from the current attnbute-based scoring system. Specific trip purposes have been i dentified that are considered to be of statewide or regional importance. 4


' The 1990 session of the Florida Legislature enacted S.B. 1316, which commissioned CUfR to perform a study for the purpose of developing criteria for the functional classification of public roads throughout the state The bill directed CUfR to consider the six criteria identified by the Florida Transportation Commission, along with a seventh, volume and dis t ance of travel. S:S 131 6 identified five distinct phases to th i s project Phase I CUfR is required to develop criteria to determine the functional classification of roads. Phase II The Florida Transportation C ommission reviews and comments on CUfR's proposed criteria, Phase m -Th e Florida Department of Transportation is directed to evaluate all public roads in Florida, using the criteria developed by CU1R. Phase IV CUfR is required to determine the fiscal impact of the proposed reclassification system. P hase V -The Florida Transporta t ion Commission is required to make specific recommendations, including proposed statutory changes, to the 1993 session of the Florida Legislature Since initiating the effort, CU1R has researched numerous criteria f o r functional c l assification. CUfR has also met periodically with a 16-memberMd Hoc Working Group that included representation from the Florida League of Cities, the Florida Association of Counties, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, metropolitan planning organizations, and regional planning councils. Other attendees included the Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Department of Community of Affairs, and staff of the Florida Transportation Commiss i on and relevant legislative committee0C'U1R also has cond u cted seven fact-finding workshops throughout the state (one in each FDOT district). The workshops were attended by over 170 people. Insights gained through this extensive public involvement process have substantially influenced the criteria proposed by CU1R. 5


The following sections detail CUTR's recommended approach to statewide functional classification. They represent the product of CUTR's Phase I efforts. As noted in the Executive Summary, CUTR has presented these recommendations to the Florida Transportation Commission, which has reviewed the proposed criteria and has invited public comment. Subsequently, the Commission has directed Florida DOT to move forward with the applicat ion of CUTR's proposed criteria for the ownership determination of roadways. As the criteria are applied on a statewide basis, and as FDOT and CUTR continue to work cooperatively, it is anticipated that additional refinements will be made. The Florida Transportation Commission determined that the application of CUTR's criteria should be delayed. This determination was based on uncertainties raised by FDOT regarding future requirements for federal classification. The Florida District of the Federa l Highway Administration strongly advised the Commission to delay roadway classification pending directives expected from the 1991 Surface Transportation Assistance Act, as well as 1990 Census resu l ts that will redefine urban area boundaries. In view of the anticipated resolution of federal functional classification system requirements within several months, application of a new classification system will be deferred. When the federal requirements are clarified, CUTR will re-examine its proposed classification system to determine if refinements are warranted. CUTR will then return to the Florida Transportation with a recommended classification system. Upon review by the Commission, Flo rida DOT will then apply the proposed classification system on a statewide basis. It is likely that the statewide application of proposed criteria will result in further refinements. Subsequently, CUTR will perform a fiscal impact analysis, which will identify necessary funding requirements to support the roadway responsibilities of each level of government It is possible that additional refinements to both the ownership and classification criteria will be made as a result of the fiscal impact analysis. Ultimately, the Florida Transportation Commission will make recommendations for legislative changes to the 1993 session of the Florida legislature. 6


III. CUTR's APPROACH ClTIR's review of the current functional classification system and of the criteria proposed by the Florida Transportation Commission led us to conclude that there were good features of both. The system proposed by CUTR combines the best features of both approaches, by basing classification on roadway attnllutes and ownership on specific roadway function. The principal purpose of roadway classification is .to establish the relative role of various roadways in the overall hierarchy of roadways. Roadway classification is used as a basis for level of service standards, design criteria, access management, and is also used by local governments as part of local zoning ordinances, sign ordinances, and for other purposes. The American Association of State Highway and Transponation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highway Administration have identified the fundamental relationship of mobility versus access as the basis for establishing the classification, or hierarchy of roadways. Figure 1 illustrates the hierarchical nature of roadways, while Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between access and mobility of various levels of roadways. Figure 1 Typical Roadway Hierarchy Local Roads 1\ Collector Roads 7


Figure 2 Mobility vs. Access Characteristics of Different Roadway Types Arterials Collectors Locals As depicted in Figures 1 and 2, a typical trip involves moving between local streets, collectors, and arterials, each of which serve different purposes. Local streets perform a high level of land access, but serve a limited mobility role. On the other hand, arterials serve primarily a mobility function, with a much more limited land access role. CU1R believes that the use of physical and operating attributes to determine roadway classification is a sound concept. CU1R has adopted this element of the current FOOT system, although we have attempted to substantially simplify the criteria. cum also believes the criteria proposed by the Florida Transportation Commission to determine ownership are highly appropriate criteria for that purpose. As a result, CU1R's proposal makes use of a simplified set of attributes to determine classification, together with the Commission's criteria to determine ownership. CU1R believes objective and equitable roadway functional classification should substantially separate classification and ownership. Therefore, the classification of a roadway should not dictate ownership, and likewise, roadway ownership should not predetermine roadway classification. cum also believes that an objective roadway functional classification implies the absence of predetermined mileage caps, and that equitable financial burden should be assessed only after roadway ownership has been determined. 8


IV. ROADWAY OWNERSHIP CRITERIA CUTR recommends that the following seven criteria be applied to determine state ownership of all public roadways. It is also recommended that the criteria be applied in the order listed so as to prioritize the creation of the state highway system. 1. Highways of National Significance The Federal Highway Administration is currently working with state agencies across the country to identify a system of Highways of National Significance. This national network will link major airports, seaports, military installations, popular destinations like national parks, and urban areas. Roadways included in the new system of Highways of National Significance, as jointly determined by the Federal Highway Administration and the FDOT will be part of the state highway system. 2. Regional Commerce Interstate, inter regional, and inter-city commerce routes that accommodate the primary movement of goods by commercial carriers should be included as part of the state highway system. It is recommended that the Florida Intrastate Highway System be utilized to identify facilities for this criterion. Future deletions/additions to this system should also be reflected for state ownership. 3. Evacuation The Florida Transportation Plan, the overall policy plan for the FDOT, has identified hurricane evacuation as a state priority towards carrying out the goals of a state comprehensive plan. Technical Report 4.2.5 of the Florida Highway System P lan (June, 1987) identifies routes and critical links considered to be of statewide importance for emergency evacuation purposes. It is recommended that until a statewide plan is formally adopted, the routes included for state ownership under this criteria match those routes and critical links illustrated in Technical Report 4.2.5 (Appendix H) of the Florida Highway System Plan. 9


The emergency routes in the report consolidate county-wide and regional evacuation routes into a statewide plan of primary evacuation routes. It is important to note only routes in coastal counties are included in the report. The limits of state ownership should however extend inland until intersection with another state facility is reached Application of this criterion will also assure that major evacuation routes away from coastal areas continue well inland to the vicinity of the ultimate destination. 4. National Defene Roads serving as national defense routes and satisfying state ownership under this criterion, will include the primary routes identified on the National Highway D efense Network (S1RAHNET), as well as connector routes identified in the S1RAHNET Connector Atlas (3rd Edition, May 1988) directly serving twelve military bases and installations in Florida. 5. T rave l To/Through Urban Areas This criterion assures a basic "connectivity" between all areas of the state. For each connection, only one road will be c hosen, the direct route with the highest average daily traffic. The following order is established for connectivity determinations: (1) Connect urbanized areas of 50,000+ population with each other. The largest central business district of each urbanized area is to be linked to the largest central business district of the nearest urbanized areas There are currently 22 urbanized areas in the state. (2) Connect incorporated areas of 50,000+ to the roadway network established by the connection of urbanized areas. There are currently 24 cities of 50 000+ in the state 10


(3) Connect areas of 5,000+ to the roadway network established by the connection of urbanized areas and incorporated areas of 50,000+. There are currently 174 cities of 5,000+ in the state. (4} 1f an incorporated area of 5,000 does not exist in a county, the county seat will be connected to the county seats of adjoining counties. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the connectivity rule. Figure 3 depicts four choices for a connecting road, and by a comparison of ADTs (first) and length (second}, roadway A would be selected. Figure 4 illustrates an example of the minimum network of roadways needed for urban area connection. Figure 3 Selection o f Roadwa y for Connectivity Roadway A Roadway 8 Roadway C Roadway 0 11 A e c 0 Length (mi.) 21.5 18.4 19.2 25.0 ADT 200,000 50,000 50,000 100,000


To Urbanized Area Figu r e 4 -Urban Area Connectivity 1 To Urbanized Area To Urbanized Area ...... f------i---Wim!il Principa l City of Urbanized Area >50,000 people t::: : ::.l >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 12


6. Access to Ports /Terminals 0 Roads selected under this criterion include connections to major airports, waterports, and rail terminals. All airports with a current designation as a commercial or reliever airport, as designated in "Florida's Airports" (a technical supplement to the Florida Aviation System Plan), will be included for s tate roadway service. Table 1 lists these 38 airports. All ten major waterports in the state, as listed in Table 2, are also incl uded for state roadway service. Table 1 Airports for State Roadway Service 1. Albert Whitted. &.Petersburg 20. Opa Locka Miami 2. Boca Raton P\lbUe 21. Orlando &ecvfNe 3. Qalg Municipal Jaekooaville 22. Orlando lntcmational 4. Da)1oaa &ach Regional 23. Palm Beacb County Park S Ft. Lauck1date Executive 24. Panama CII)Bay O>unly 6. Pt. lnterMtiona l 2.5. PcnsaoolA Regional 7. OaJtlU\Iille-Regional 26. Pe1cr 0. Tampo &. Helton-JacbonviUe 27. Sanford Regional 9. lacbonville Intemational 28. S.I1:SOUI..Smdcnto.o 10. Key West Jntemational 29. Space Center Executive Titusville 11. Kissimmee Municipal 30. St. Lucie County lntem.t.liooat 12.. Lalte&and 31. St. PcteJ:$butg...Qe:a.rwa.ter Jntcmatklnal 13. Marathon 32. S .W. Florida RegionalFt Myers 14. Melboume R.egioul 33. TallahMoee Munldpal 15. M;ami-Cbalk Seaplane Buc 34. Tamiami Miami 16. Miami Intematioaal 35. Tampa lntematioaal 17. Naples Mualeipal 36. Vandenbetg: Tampa 18. Nonb Petry Pt. Laudetdak 37. Vet() Beach Muakipal 19. OkaJOOSi\ County Air Terminal 38. West Palm Beaeb IntcmatioMI 13


Table 2 Waterports for State Roadway Service L Port canaveral 6. Port of Panama Oty 2. Port ilJgiadc< 7. Port of Pensaoola 3. Port or Ft. Pierce 8. Port or St. Petersburg 4 Port of Jaclc&onville 9. Pon or Tampa S. Port or Miami 10. Port of Palm Beach Intermodal passenger terminals include rail stations and intercity bus terminals with more than 500 boarding or alighting passengers per day. Major rail-truck intermodal transfer facilit ies identified by the Florida Rail System Pla n (August, 1988), are indicated in Table 3. These 20 facilities are located in 13 cities, and include bulk transloading terminals and distribution warehouses, other than deep water ports. Table 3 Rail Truck Transfer Terminals for State Roadway Service 1. Cocoa S.. Orlando 2. Ft. Lauderdolc (l) 9. Paaama City 3. Ft. Pierce 10. Plant City 4. hcbonville {5) 11. Taii>M5oce s. M;amj {2) 12. Tampa (2) 6 Mulberry 13. West P.ilio Beach 7. New Smyrna B

7. Access to Major Public Facilities State ownership for roadways serving major public facilities is to extend to the main entrance to the property (not necessarily the main entrance gate of the attraction). To ensure a continuous state highway system. stubbing of segments will be avoided by carrying all state roadways to a point of intersection with another state roadway. If the main entrance is not located on an existing state roadway, the most d ir ect connection from the main entrance to a state facility along the road( s) witb the highest ADT will be selected. Figure 5 illustrates an example of main entrance state roadway service that connects to the nearest xtate facility, of equal or higher classification, and avoids "stubbing". For purposes of roadway ownership determination, a major public facility will be considered if it is assured to be open for public use within a three year period, and otherwise meets the criteria for access by the state highway system. 15


Figure 5 -State Roadway Service to M ajor Public Facilities ..... 4.5 Mi. i "' 0 1.5 Mi. "' <4 Mi. 1 Ave 25 M i. USF ,; 1-275 i 1-75 "' "' i 0 "' .7 5 MI. 2 "' Fowler Ave. 1.5 t.4i. 75 Mi. 1 Ml. .2.25 Mi. State Route I' .. I I.' ..... I ..... . ......... Main Entrance 16


The order of connection priority and definition of major public facilities under this criterion includes: (1) Colleges, community colleges or universities with full and part-time enrollment greater than 5,000 at a campus location. The 1990 Florida Statistical Abstract indicates there are 31 educational systems with enrollment greater than 5,000, as shown in Table 4. To apply this criterion, it will be necessary to determine enrollments by each campus. Table 4 Educational Facilities for State Roadway Ownership 1. Brevard Community Cocoa 17. Nova Unlvmity Ft. Laudemte 2. Broward Community College Fr. Laucterlm Beam 1Ullior CoUege 3. Daytona Beacb Community COllege 19. PeftS&COia Junior College 4 Bdisoa Community College Fr. Myer:s 20. Santa Fe Community CoUege Gainesville 5 Embt)-Riddle Acrooaudcal UniversityBunnell 2:1. Seminole Community CoUegeSanford 6 Florida A&M Ualvtuity TaUa.ba5SCC 2:2. St. L::o College 7 Florllle&\"9. Florida Jnstltute ot Tethnototy Melbourne 2S. University ot O!ntral Florida .. OrlandO 10. Florida Iotemaljonal University-Miami 26. Ullfvtnlty ot Florida GaineMUe 11. FJori4a State Univtl$ity-TallAhassee 1:1. Univtr:slty ot Miami -Coral Gables 12. Gulf Coast Com.muoity College -Panama City 28. Uoiver&ity ot North Florida -Jacbonville 13. HiUsbo""'3f3 Community College Tampa 29. U!liversity of South F1orida -Tampa 14 lndiao River Community CoUcge-Ft. Piette 30. Uoivenity of West florida -Pcnsac:ola 15. Manatee Community College Bradcfttoo 31. Valencia COmmunity College Orlando 16. Miami-Dade Community COUege 17


(2) Regional medical centers, with at least 500 beds, should be served by the state roadway system. In addition, for each of the six specialized services, as identified by the 1990 Florida Health Care Atlas (prepared by HRS), one facility from each state medical district is also included, if not previously identified by facilities with 500+ beds. There are 36 medical facilities that meet these criter i a, as shown in Table 5. Five Veterans Administration hospitals located in Gainesville, lake City, Miami, Tampa, and St. Petersburg should also be included. Table 5 Regional Medical Centers for State Roadway Service 1. Alacbua General Hospital GaiccsviUe 19. Lee Memorial Hos:pltal Ft. 114)-en 2. All QU)dreos Hospital St Petersburg 20 Manatee Memoria) Hospital Bradenton 3. Bap

(3) Regional Activity Centers (RAC) consistent with Chapter 86-191, Laws of Florida, and Rule 9J-2, both dealing with developments of regional impact (DRI). Only those RAC formally designated by the regional planning councils will qualify for state roadway service. RAC designation is a tool, used by some regional planning councils, for promoting intense concentrated growth in areas that have adequate existing or planned infrastructure, thereby reducing fragmented and sprawl-type development For example, in the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council area, the Tampa CBD and the Westshore Business District are designated regional activity centers. Typically, central business districts and areawide DRI's can qualify as RACs. (4) National parks, forests, and monuments, and state parks with an annual attendance greater than 150,000 a year. Accord in g to the 1990 Florida Statistical Abstract and the Florida Department of Natural ResourcesRecrea tion and Parks Management Division there are currently 24 state parks, as shown in Table 6, that meet this criterion. T able 6 State Parks for State Roadway Service 1 Amltuia SW.II.K:mtiOo AN $(, AUJI*IJ)c; 1l. Wad S1elo R.tcmtiolt Ani -l)uiiCdiD. 1. BllP Uoadl SliMo R:rc:MiOG IUf.a Bi1 Plac 14. H..p Tl)1or BUda S111o ""* Fl. LMdttdlk 3 B*IIJ $pria .. SW& PW Otu8" Clly 1$, JOU hlllldeulp Qn.t Rocf SWc PM1t Kq I..MJo ... Rill la&:P SWe ReaudooAra Kq BUcwroo 16.lAII.c Stal Put DWICdla 5. Del.toa SpriQp $11110 Rco:JatiOo DcUollsptiDp t7.Like 'NqiWl sc.u Rocrc::lt.ioo Ata. nlllh .. 6. DdAOt-W"Qot Put Sllolc ftccJalloe No N tple. 1&. NOftla SII;Orc $t&tc AI'C:a S"arflldc 1. FOil Cliodl Swc P-"' Fcru:odlu 19. Oh .. $UU: Rocft:lliDII Ala Miami. 8. FOil fiQcc ID)e( ion fiem: 20. c;.Ncu P'&laG:a 9. c.pullta ki&Dd Ala 8CICS GIWDdc 21.Sd:luli&D lGiol 8adl 10. O..U..IAMrSW. rm.-Bc:ll:ll S..C. RM:rat.ioD.Ata r-Cily U Rim Stlk Pd %), Wtk\llla Spr'illft, a.u St.ccrw. wwa SpriDat 1.2. Putt H01111:11 -21. SIMc h4:. Apopka 19


(5) Tourist attrac tloflS, his t oric or cultural facilities of regional or statewide significance. These 20 attractions are taken from the 19%-91 Florida Vacation Guide, prepared by the Florida Department of Commerce; they include those that are in the top forty national amusement or theme parks, the top ten national water parks, the top ten Florida attractions for out of state vis i tors, and several attractions including historical cultural or facilities of statewide significance. Table 7 Attractions for State Roadway Service 1. Atlantis, The Wat er Kingdom Hol l ywood 2 Bu&ch Gardens -Tampa 3 Cbutm Street Station .. Orlando 4, Edison & Ford Winter Homes .. Pt. Myers S Florida Mu&e\lm of Natutal History Gainesville 6. florida's Cypre&s Oardc.ns Cypress Gardens 7. Florida's Sitver Spring& Silver Springs 8. Florida's Weeki Waeh 9. Home and Key We&t 10. Historic SL Augustine 11. Ma-rjorie Kianan Rawlinp State Historic Site-Hawtbome 12 Miami Seaquarium Miami 13. Miracle Strip Amusement Parle -Paaarna Cily 14. Museum o( Florida Hisrozy .. Ta1Jab8:$$ee-15. NASA Kennedy SpaSVille 16. Satvador DaiJ Musewn St. Pcte1$butg 17. Sea WO

9 Non-State Toll Roads Notwithstanding the above criteria, existing non-state toll facilities should retain their current ownership However pending current legislati v e discussi o ns aimed at evaluating all toll facilities as state owned and operated this issue may require further investigation. V COUN'IY/MUNICIPAL ROADWAY O WNERS ID P CRITERIA The aforementioned criteria are recommended for determination of state roadways. The criteria to be utilized for distinction b etween county and municipal roads can best be illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6 County vs. M unicipal Roadway Ownership PRD

Based on the roadway classification, and location with respect to the municipal boundary line in the Figure 6 example, the limits for county versus municipal roadway ownership can be determined as follows: (1) Notwithstanding criteria noted below, any delineation of ownership mutually agreeable to the county and the municipality shall be acceptable. (2) For non-state principal arterials with more than 25% total length outside corporate boundary, the entire roadway will be county owned. Otherwise, roadway ownership will change at city corporate boundary. (3) For non-state minor arterials with more than 50% total length outside corporate boundary, the entire roadway will be county owned. Otherwise, roadway ownership will change at city corporate boundary. ( 4) For non-state principal and minor arterials that traverse the entire city and county (as shown in Figure 6 by those roads with arrows on each e nd), the entire roadway will be county owned. (5) All non-state collectors and local roads will change o wnership at the city corporate boundary. limits of county ownership inside the city corporate boundary will extend to the intersectio n with a roadway of equal or greater classification. 22


VI. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA Roadway classification criteria will be utilized to determine the statewide hierarchy of all public roadways in terms of locals, collectors, minor arterials, and principal arterials. After considering numerous indicators, CU'IR bas recommended four criteria which reflect the mobility and access character of roadways. It is intended that the scores for each roadway attribute be determined based on a comparison to attn'bute scores for all other roadways in the state. CU1R recommends that the following four roadway attributes be compared and scored for determination of classification. (1) Daily Vehicle-Miles of Travel (DVM'l), (040 points) Average daily traffic x roadway length (miles). (2) Lane-Miles, (0-30 points) Number of through lanes x roadway length (miles). (3) Driveways Per Mile, (0-20 points) Total number of driveways in both directions /roadway length (miles). (4) Posted Speed, (0-10 points) -Posted speed that exists for the majority of roadway length. The absolute range of possible scores would t h us be betwee n 0 and 100. As illustrated in Figure 7, for each of the attributes cited above, except for driveways per mile, roadways throughout the state would be listed in rank order, from highest to lowest. The highest ranked roadway would receive the maximum possible point total for that attribute, and the lowest ranked would receive a zero attnbute score. For driveways per mile, the highest score would be for roadways with no driveways, with lower scores for frequent driveways. All roadways would receive a score based on their rank order in comparison to Jill other roadways. It is also recommended that scores for each attn'bute be compiled and stored in a computerized statewide data base for easy retrieval, verification, updating, and comparison 23


Figure 7 Propooed Roadway Attribute Weighting and Scaling Percent ol Lane Percent o l VMT Dally all Mile Lane all Score VMT Roads Score Miles RoadS 40 Hlgl>est 30 Hlgl>eat} } 12.6f. 16 .67'4 36 26 30 } 12.6fo } 18 .87f. } 12.6f. 20 25 l } 12.6'4 18 .87'11. 20 15 l 12.6'4 } 18.87f. 16 } 12.6"' 10 10 } 18.87'4 } 12.6'11. 6 6 Loweol } 18.87'11. 0 L.,.,..t } 12. 5'11. 0 Percanl ol Drfwway Drfwway all Pos11!d CUI CUte Drtwway Cute Slleed Poe ted Score per Mile per Mile Score SpHd 20 Lowest 10 ) 66 } 20'4 18 } 20'11. 7.6 45-54 12 } 20f. 6.0 36-44 8 l 20f. 2.6 25-34 } 20'11. 0.0 < 24 0 Hlgheet -24


VII. GENERALIZED PROCEDURES 1. Threshold for Classification Soorin& A numerical scoring scale has been established to distinguish among principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and locals. Based on the results of preliminary roadway classification in the seven test counties presented in the public workshops, and application of the currently recommended classification criteria on a sampling of different roadway types in Hillsborough County, the threshold scoring in Table 8 is suggested. These thresholds are anticipated to be refined following statewide application of the classification criteria. Table 8 Preliminary Roadway Scoring Thresholds Principal Arterials 65 or greater Minor Arterials 50-64 Collectors 2().49 Loeals Less than 20 2. Roadway Sesmentatjon for Classification It is recommended that roadway classification be performed on a statewide basis. The entirety of a roadway should be classified as one segment; segments should not be broken at county boundary lines. Since roadway length (continuity) is a major attribute affecting classification scores, the same roadway in adjacent counties could receive substantially different scores if performed on a county-wide basis. Segmentation should be done only at end segments of a roadway where laneage changes from two lanes to more than two lanes. It is anticipated that roadway classification will be done by FDOT on a district-wide basis, and therefore it is also recommended that roadway classifications be matched at district boundary lines and checked for consistency. 25


3. Selection of Roads to be Classified For the preliminary classification work accomplished by CUTR, only those roads listed in the state roadway characteristics inventory (RCI) were classified. All existing state roadways are included in the RCI, but only a portion of non-state roads are included. Therefore, it is recommended that all roadways identified in local government co mpr ehensive plans be included for classification. Since each county in the state is required to develop a comprehensive plan, a comprehensive statewide listing of all public roadways can best be developed following this recommendation. Other roads, at the discretion of local governments, can be considered for classification only if there is reasonable expectation that the roadway may score as a collector or higher. 4. Consideration of Future Improvements Generally, the measurement of classification (attribute) or ownership criteria will be based on current characteristics. However, if a new roadw ay or lane addition to an existing roadway or a major public facility will be open within a three-year period, attribute data and ownership determination will be based on opening year conditions. 5. Data Collection Respons jbiljties FDOT can readily collect required attribute data on all existing state roads. On existing county and city roads, the respective county or city should be able to assist. Of the data to be collected, lane-miles and the posted speeds should be readily available. Driveways per mile on all state roadways can be obtained from visual inspect ion of the state photolog video library (estimated to require a total of 1,500-2,000 man-hours). Most of the larger counties and cities have aerial photography which can be utilized to count driveways. If aerial photography is not available, field collection will be required prior to classification. Average daily traffic counts are collected regularly on state and many county and city roads sufficient for classification purposes. Based on existing concurrency management requirements, necessary traffic volume counts should be available. 26


6 Updating Roadway Classification and Ownership Determination It is recommended that roadway classification and ownership determination be updated every five years. FOOT will compile and maintain the statewide attribute data base for classification. However, the process should also provide amp l e opportunity for all jurisdictions to review and verify the attribute data being used for classification, and the trip function criteria that determine ownership VIII SUMMARY CU1R has developed criteria that will simplify and standardize roadway classification and ownership determination for all public roads in Florida The process for application of the recommended criteria is illustrated by Figure 8 The process chart indicates the series of tasks to be followed in order to complete roadway functional classification. In addition, CUlR has developed a standardized functional classification data input form as displayed in Figure 9 27


r-: l" .... t -: .:q; ts ... r- -l i r !l h .!> f-. l r-c il 1" f.-oa'EI r-lil 0 t .. o-z= -0 ,..-,. .. !lil' t;o f.-H r- c .,i .!!j. = "' fi 1-H u. uS !:i= zil" ; j! .... in !a s! u J 1-i 3 v f-. f--ra .S! '---1' .s .. '--fd f-fd 28


Figure 9 Standard Input Form for Functional Classification FDOr""""' ----c ... .,. ______ R...t N,.ho, ---Stplc _____ .....,,..._ ___ 'J't'aoott To/l"hhw&b Utbul.vL-Afta 1. I1W0rporatt6 Atu ). J.lltOrp!l'tW;I'ed An >5,001 AoceN IO M'J,iOr hbl&c F-ailla L C:.U.. Unfmllty 2. Mtdlcsl Fadlil)' l. JtqlouJ Adloriq 4. hrks, S'IW Padcs S. Tou:dlt AUnld:ioa ......... ............. 29 No!Wbk .... uccrialwllh >2ft tot.a o.lsldc eorpofM: -,. No-..s:c.w m&lor annial rih k.ptrl o.ttllh


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.