Professional Traffic Analysis of Perdido Key Roundabout's Performance is Completed-------So What Does it Say?

The study for the Perdido Key Roundabout, pictured above, comes with analysis, data, and recommendations.

I am now in receipt of and am going through, meticulously, the professional traffic study analysis of the Perdido Key Roundabout in District 1.

I requested it in the face of mounting displeasure by the residents in Perdido over this traffic feature that was meant to assist with traffic flow and safety--but that instead has apparently exacerbated the traffic problems out on Perdido Key.

Staff has sent me the full report, which I will be presenting in detail at a town hall meeting in Perdido to be held Monday, Sept. 18th at 6:00 PM.

With the report, staff also provided their initial thoughts and recommendations, which I will consider thoughtfully as we find a way forward on this issue.  

From the email:

Commissioner,

 Attached is the report submitted by HSA-Columbia for your review.  I have highlighted a few key points below:

1. Observations were conducted on July 22 and July 29… two consecutive Saturdays with good weather (sunny and hot)
2. Video counting measures were taken both north and south of the circle with 3 intervals north to record backups.  Traffic was also counted on Johnson Beach Rd.
3. Southbound backups were observed from the roundabout northward over the bridge to the Publix driveway on July 22 only between approximately 4 to 5 pm.  The same was observed on July 29 around 3 pm for 15 minutes and again from 4 to 5 pm.  The delay times for these instances to travel from Publix to the roundabout was 6 to 7 minutes.  Travel times from Gongora Drive to the roundabout were generally 3 to 4 minutes.
4. Northbound backups related to signal timing were discovered from the signal to the roundabout on one of the observation days around 10:30 am.
5. Analysis for a west bound (Johnson Beach) to northbound (PK Drive) bypass lane was analyzed with favorable results.
6. The conclusions on page 10 indicate a delay of around 5 minutes beyond expected times on peak, special days (holidays, Blue Angels events, etc).

I would like a chance to get the camera installed on the condo so we can look on that side of the bridge, similar to what we have done at Pensacola Beach to time the signal (see #4 above) to prevent delays northbound.  We are working with County Legal and the Condo Legal to get an agreement worked out for liability and maintenance. 

I will inquire with Natural Resources relating to wildlife impacts regarding the addition of the bypass lane (see #5 above) to help with the hesitation associated with the close quarters of the southbound leg and westbound leg being so close together.  Right of way and wildlife impacts have long been an issue with the size of this circle.

In summary, I don’t believe we have enough information yet to justify removal of the circle.  I believe that it will function as intended during the “off season”.  I would like an opportunity to observe further from the circle to the bridge exactly what backups are taking place.  I believe the community is getting more used to the circle in that I have not heard of any more mishaps of running through the center of it nor any collisions.  If you hear of any of these instances, please forward them to me.

Read the full report, here.

Approving Developments--Inside the Process Part III: Environmental Permits Granted

5th Dimension's Rendering of this proposed development

As I mentioned in parts I and II of this series of posts about a multi-family development in the Perdido area of District 1--there were residents that were caught off guard by this project.

Several came to a meeting last month, one asked for a townhall, which I have now subsequently scheduled.

Look, I'm concerned about traffic, too.  I understand the issues and have heard from many constituents that live in this area about traffic congestion.  And I am working that issue to the extent I am able and within the confines of the revenue available.  And there are a lot of great projects in the works and in the planning stages right now for that area.

This said, I am not an agent, cheerleader, or spokesman for this development, this  developer, or his representatives. I am a county commissioner for this district and because folks are concerned I have assured them that I will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that every "i" was dotted and "t" was crossed as it pertains to this particular development having been approved properly.  I have asked for and received a raft of information that the staff looked at and used upon which they based their approval decision.  I have also asked staff to have the developer's representative at the town hall as well as the traffic study's author.  We will see if they show up.  I believe it would be in their interest to do so.

Thus far, it appears to me that everything has been done in accordance with state and local ordinances and the County's land development code.

As I said I would do, I am going to link all documents related to this development here on this blog so citizens can see the same information I am seeing in the lead up to the town hall on the 25th of next month..

This morning I am linking a very important permit that was received, the Northwest Florida Water Management District approval.  Lots of additional supporting documents for this project and this particular permit can be found by clicking this link and searching under the developer name in the search field, JH Capital, LLC.  Readers will at this site see all the charts, maps, and additional

Approving Developments--Inside the Process, Part II: A Traffic Engineer Reviews the Traffic Analysis

5th Dimension's Rendering of this proposed development

 In part one of this series we discussed how the process to approve a 325 unit development at the foot of the Baars Bridge in Perdido occurred.  The particular focus of the first blogpost was on the traffic impacts of this project and also, importantly, the timeline of this development (this approval was well underway as were the lion's share of all necessary environmental permits, before this was in D1; It had been an in the works project--being planned and envisioned for years in D2 ---and would have happened regardless of whether this parcel remained in D2 or went to D1 after the redistricting).  That's #1. 

#2 is the Traffic impacts.  To drill down on these particular concerns,  I linked the traffic study in that post.  I also asked our current Traffic Engineer to review the study and provide feedback (he was not employed with the county when this was submitted and the development order was approved by the county--and unlike some of the folks who commented on this topic on part one of the post--Mr. Phillips is a Professional Engineer and an expert on traffic management).

His comments and findings based on his review of the traffic study are below:

"I have reviewed the traffic analysis submitted by Dantin Consulting (Oct. 2021) for the proposed development between Canal Drive and Monterey Avenue.  The calculations all follow industry standards.  There was a concern voiced regarding the Level of Service (LOS) shown in one of the exhibits.  These calculations were performed to show none of the corridors went to a level beyond a D.  Several of the sections still meet a LOS C with one being a B.  It is important to know these calculations are NOT required for development in Escambia County of the State of Florida as transportation concurrency has been removed from State criteria quite some time ago.

Only two instances are present where a regulation was not met to the letter due to geometric constraints versus perceived benefit.  These are explained in number 5 and 6 below.

1. Trip calculation was performed utilizing proper Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) land use codes and entering/exiting numbers.  These consider the development size, general location, and sample size of the data to closely mimic reality.   The PM peak hour (utilized throughout) for trip generation is greater than the AM peak.  The PM Peak Hour calculation shows 129 vehicles per hour (vph) with 79 entering and 50 exiting during that time, again in accordance with ITE data.  Ten percent of trips was dedicated to bike/ped uses.  The projected trips show that not all residents of the 325 dwelling units will leave or arrive during a one-hour period.
2. The trip distribution to the two access points is acceptable with 60%/40% exiting at Canal/Monterey and 70%/30% entering Canal/Monterey
3. FDOT counts from 2020 were used for background traffic on Sorrento, Gulf Beach, and Innerarity.  New counts were taken for Canal and Monterey to record background and turning movements that are occurring presently.
4. The roadway LOS was calculated utilizing the FDOT Peak Hour Directional Volume chart for various types of roadway.  The rationale for the calculation utilizes the FDOT count station data, conversion from Annual Average Daily Traffic to Peak Hour Directional, then compare to a Level of Service on the chart.  The engineer chose level of service D to show that even at LOS D, there is capacity remaining after adding the trips from this development to the roadway segment.  Many of the segments have capacity at a LOS C as well with one segment operating at LOS B.
5. County Design Standards Manual requires LT and/or RT turnlane if the turning movement into the site from the adjacent county road is 30 vph or greater.  The Monterey access did not warrant

Approving Developments--Inside the Process Part I--Traffic Study

There is/was a 28.64 acre parcel of land at the foot of the Baars Bridge just north of Perdido Key that has been given a development order for the construction of 325 dwelling units total--to include luxury townhomes.

This project was years in the making, and all the forms were submitted prior to this area becomming a part of District 1 after our once per decade redistricting that happened late last year (and went into effect 10 days after our vote on December 3rd).  

In October of 2021, prior to this area being in D1, the owner of the property applied to our Development Services Department for approval(s) to move forward with constructing this development.  The final approved development order was issued in early January (January 12th to be precise) of this year, less than 30 days after this area became a part of D1.  (I give this timeline to insure folks know it and do not believe incorrect information/misinformation that is being promulgated online by some with axes to grind over the way redistricting went down and other personal issues as well)

Bottom line:  I wasn't aware this process was underway during the redistricting process--most were not---except for the staff that was following existing rules, codes, and ordinances to process a bonafide development request which already fit within the allowable uses of our codes.

The parcel was/is zoned Commercial with a FLU (Future Land Use) designation of MU-S (Mixed Use, Suburban) which allows for such a development without going to the planning board.

The project did, however, go through the vetting required by the Land Development Code--which does include rigorous study of the potential impacts such a development will have on the adjacent area.

A five million dollar piece of property--It is my understanding from speaking with a different developer who "passed" on purchasing and developing this particular parcel--that"Yes, he [current owner] is paying tax on that land every year which is substantial, and he tried to generate revenue to offset this tax bill with various temporary business ventures he started, including adding a shaved-ice truck and even some slides for kids--both of which were not well-received by nearby residents."  He continued "so at some point to hold a property like that--it has to generate revenue to truly be an asset and not a liability--and thus this development."

Earlier this month, multiple residents contacted me in anger and frustration about this project.  Several came to our last public meeting. One individual asked if I would hold a townhall in Perdido so all the