Navigation Discipline Report 

for the 

AAF Passenger Rail Project from 

Orlando to Miami, Florida

Prepared for:

All Aboard Florida Operations LLC

Prepared by:

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.

404 SW 140th Terrace

Newberry, FL 32669

Lucien D. Tender, PE

Sr. Project Manager

Charlene A. Stroehlen, PE

Sr. Principal Engineer

AMEC Project No.: 6063120212

July 2014
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

i AMEC

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................I

ES.1 Project Description.........................................................................................................I

ES.2 Navigation Study Purpose and Methodology ................................................................I

ES.3 Description of Proposed Action and Effects Determinations at Each Operable 

Bridge............................................................................................................................II

ES.4 Key Findings .................................................................................................................V

ES.5 Mitigation......................................................................................................................VI

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Purpose and Need for Navigation Analysis ........................................................................1-1

1.2 Project Description ..............................................................................................................1-1

1.3 Cases Evaluated for Navigation Study ...............................................................................1-2

1.3.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................1-2

1.3.2 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................................1-2

1.3.3 Proposed Action......................................................................................................1-2

1.3.4 Combined Effect – Proposed Action with Improved Freight ..................................1-3

2.0 Methodology and Approach ......................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Marine Industry Analysis .....................................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Waterway Features Inventory Methodology...........................................................2-1

2.1.2 Demand Forecast ...................................................................................................2-2

2.2 Economic Analysis ..............................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 Economic Value by County ....................................................................................2-2

2.2.2 Economic Value of the Marine Industry by Waterway............................................2-4

2.2.3 Socioeconomic Impact............................................................................................2-5

2.2.4 Public Outreach ......................................................................................................2-6

2.3 Vessel Traffic Survey ..........................................................................................................2-6

2.3.1 Literature Review of Vessel Traffic Studies............................................................2-6

2.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey.....................................................................................2-7

2.4 Bridge Operation Survey and Modeling ..............................................................................2-7

2.4.1 2014 Video Survey .................................................................................................2-7

2.4.2 Development of GIS Maps......................................................................................2-7

2.4.3 RTC Modeling of Bridge Operations.......................................................................2-8

2.5 Discrete-Event Simulation Model........................................................................................2-8

2.5.1 Scope of the Model.................................................................................................2-8

2.5.2 Inputs and Assumptions .........................................................................................2-9

2.5.3 Model Calibration..................................................................................................2-11

2.6 Effect Determination..........................................................................................................2-11

2.6.1 Determining Impacts on Reasonable Needs of Navigation .................................2-11

2.6.2 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................2-14

3.0 Characterization of New River Bridge ......................................................................................3-1

3.1 Project Area Description......................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Location of New River Waterway ...........................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Location of New River Bridge .................................................................................3-1

3.1.3 Land-use and Population Density...........................................................................3-4

3.2 Marine Industry at New River Bridge ..................................................................................3-7

3.2.1 Vessel Traffic Patterns............................................................................................3-7

3.2.2 Vessel Registration and Population Trends ...........................................................3-9

3.2.3 Inventory of Waterway Features...........................................................................3-10

3.2.4 Economic Analysis................................................................................................3-12

3.2.5 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................3-14

3.2.6 Additional Public Comments.................................................................................3-18

3.3 Summary of Vessel Traffic Survey at New River..............................................................3-19
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

Table of Contents (continued)

ii AMEC

3.3.1 Literature Review Vessel Traffic Surveys.............................................................3-19

3.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey...................................................................................3-23

3.4 Summary of Bridge Operation at New River.....................................................................3-26

3.4.1 Literature Review of Bridge Operation Studies ....................................................3-26

3.4.2 New River Vessel Survey and Preliminary Bridge Opening Analysis..................3-26

3.4.3 South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis Study – Phase 2 

Navigable Waterway Analysis Technical Memorandum ......................................3-27

3.4.4 New River Bridge Operations Analysis ................................................................3-28

3.5 Model Simulation Results..................................................................................................3-31

4.0 Characterization of Loxahatchee River Bridge .......................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Location of Loxahatchee River Waterway..............................................................4-1

4.1.2 Location of Loxahatchee River Bridge ...................................................................4-1

4.1.3 Land-use, Population Density.................................................................................4-3

4.2 Marine Industry at Loxahatchee River Bridge.....................................................................4-6

4.2.1 Vessel Traffic Patterns............................................................................................4-6

4.2.2 Inventory of Waterway Features.............................................................................4-8

4.2.3 Economic Analysis................................................................................................4-10

4.2.4 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................4-12

4.3 Summary of Vessel Traffic Survey at Loxahatchee River ................................................4-15

4.3.1 Literature Review Vessel Traffic Surveys.............................................................4-15

4.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey...................................................................................4-20

4.4 Summary of Bridge Operation at Loxahatchee River .......................................................4-24

4.4.1 Loxahatchee Bridge Operations Analysis ............................................................4-24

4.5 Model Simulation Results..................................................................................................4-26

5.0 Characterization of St. Lucie River Bridge...............................................................................5-1

5.1 Project Area description ......................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Location of St. Lucie River Waterway.....................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Location of St. Lucie River Bridge ..........................................................................5-1

5.1.3 Land-use, Population Density.................................................................................5-4

5.2 Marine Industry at St. Lucie River FEC Bridge ...................................................................5-7

5.2.1 Vessel Traffic Patterns............................................................................................5-7

5.2.2 Vessel Registration and Population Trends ...........................................................5-7

5.2.3 Inventory of Waterway Features.............................................................................5-9

5.2.4 Economic Analysis................................................................................................5-11

5.2.5 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................5-14

5.3 Summary of Vessel Traffic Survey at St. Lucie River.......................................................5-17

5.3.1 Literature Review Vessel Traffic Surveys.............................................................5-17

5.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey...................................................................................5-17

5.4 Summary of Bridge Operation at St. Lucie River..............................................................5-21

5.4.1 St. Lucie Bridge Operations Analysis ...................................................................5-21

5.5 Model Simulation Results..................................................................................................5-24

6.0 Effect Determination...................................................................................................................6-1

6.1 Effect Determination of No-Build Alternative at the New River Bridge...............................6-4

6.2 Effect Determination of No-Build Alternative at the Loxahatchee River Bridge .................6-5

6.3 Effect Determination of No-Build Alternative at the St. Lucie River Bridge ........................6-7

6.4 Combined Effect Determination at the New River Bridge...................................................6-8

6.5 Combined Effect Determination at the Loxahatchee River Bridge ...................................6-10

6.6 Combined Effect Determination at the St. Lucie River Bridge..........................................6-11

6.7 Mitigation ...........................................................................................................................6-13

7.0 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................7-1

7.1 Key Findings........................................................................................................................7-1

7.1.1 New River Bridge....................................................................................................7-1
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

Table of Contents (continued)

iii AMEC

7.1.2 Loxahatchee River Bridge ......................................................................................7-2

7.1.3 St. Lucie River Bridge.............................................................................................7-2

8.0 References...................................................................................................................................8-1

9.0 Appendices..................................................................................................................................9-1

List of Appendices

Appendix A Bridge Closure Data and Vessel Traffic Summary Data

Appendix B Extended Bridge Closures

Appendix C Simulation Model Run Summary

Appendix D Florida County Population Data 2013

Appendix E Residential Slips and Docks Data

Appendix F Vessel Statistics

Appendix G Public Outreach Meetings Documentation

List of Tables

Table ES-1. Description of No-Build Alternative and Proposed Action ...........................................III

Table ES-2. Description of Impacts to Navigation for Effect Determinations During Peak 

Hours for Vessel Traffic ...............................................................................................IV

Table ES-3. Summary of Key Findings for the Combined Effect (Freight plus Passenger 

Rail) Prior to Mitigation. A Decrease in Change from the No-build indicates the 

Combined Effect has a Positive Effect on the Criteria Listed. An Increase in 

Change from the No-Build indicates the Combined Effect has a Negative 

Effect on the Criteria Listed...........................................................................................V

Table ES-4. Effect of Proposed Action to Navigational Needs at New River, Loxahatchee 

River and St. Lucie River After Mitigation...................................................................VII

Table 1.1-1. Bridge Modifications under the Proposed Action ......................................................1-3

Table 1.1-2. Average Speeds of Passenger and Freight Trains ...................................................1-3

Table 2.2-1. Data Sets and Growth Percentages Used to Escalate Values .................................2-3

Table 2.2-2. Definition and Example of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Effects ..............2-4

Table 2.2-3. Percent Representation of each River Relative to the County in which it is 

Located.......................................................................................................................2-5

Table 2.2-4. Relative Percentage of River Represented in Each County......................................2-5

Table 2.5-1. Sample of Expected Freight Train Arrivals by Day-of-Week Case 1: 2013 

Freight Traffic with 2013 Infrastructure (Existing Conditions) ...................................2-9

Table 3.1-1. Characterization of Bridges Crossing the New River ................................................3-1

Table 3.1-2. Land Area and Population Density with Waterfront Access at the New River..........3-4

Table 3.2-1. Population and Vessel Registration in Broward County (2003 through 2016)10.....3-10

Table 3.2-2. Overview of Waterway Features in Broward County and the New River................3-10

Table 3.2-3. Overview of Waterway Features in the New River and Associated Waterways.....3-11

Table 3.2-4. Boat Ramps, Anchorages, and Vessel Repair Facilities on the New River............3-11

Table 3.2-5. Overview of Residential Boating Features of Waterfront Properties on the New 

River.........................................................................................................................3-12

Table 3.2-6. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County.......................................3-13

Table 3.2-7. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward 

County......................................................................................................................3-13

Table 3.2-8. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the New 

River.........................................................................................................................3-14

Table 3.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 1 of 4).................................................................3-14

Table 3.2-10. Letters and Agreements of Support.........................................................................3-18
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Tables (continued)

ii AMEC

Table 3.3-1. Summary of Vessel Traffic Observed at Colee Hammock Park in the New 

River East of the New River Bridge Collected via Video Cameras (2004 and 

2005) Summarized by Season and by Time of Day................................................3-20

Table 3.3-2. Summary of Vessel Traffic Observed at Colee Hammock Park in the New 

River East of the FECR Bridge Collected via Field Observers (2004 and 2005) 

Summarized by Day of the Week ............................................................................3-20

Table 3.3-3. Total Number of Vessels Observed in Broward County via Aerial Surveys 

Conducted in 2004 and 2005...................................................................................3-22

Table 3.3-4. Vessel Traffic at New River Bridge Based on FECR Video Assessment from 

January 2014 ...........................................................................................................3-24

Table 3.3-5. Vessel Traffic at New River Bridgea Observed During Survey of Live Video 

Feed Assessment ....................................................................................................3-26

Table 3.3-6. Commercial Vessel Traffic at New River Bridge Observed During Live Video 

Feed Assessment on February 13, 2014 ................................................................3-26

Table 3.4-1. Average Number of Openings per day at the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge 

and Andrews Avenue Bridge, April 2011.................................................................3-27

Table 3.4-2. Average Number of Daily Openings per month at the Andrews Avenue Bridge 

and Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge, Calendar Year 2011 ........................................3-27

Table 3.4-3. Average Number of Andrews Avenue Bridge Openings, November 2007 .............3-28

Table 3.4-4. Bridge Operation Survey for New River Bridge Based on Live Feed 

Observations, February 2014 ..................................................................................3-29

Table 3.4-5. Summary of Existing and Projected Bridge Operations for the New River 

Bridge.......................................................................................................................3-30

Table 3.4-6. Extended Bridge Closures at New River due to Freight and Passenger Train 

Operations................................................................................................................3-30

Table 3.5.1. Navigation Simulation Model Results for New River Bridge....................................3-33

Table 3.5-2. Simulation Model Results for Vessel Queue Lengths at New River Bridge............3-34

Table 4.1-1. Characterization of Bridges Traversing the Loxahatchee River................................4-1

Table 4.1-2. Land Area and Population Density with Waterfront Access at the Loxahatchee 

River...........................................................................................................................4-3

Table 4.2-1. Population and Vessel Registration in Palm Beach and Martin Counties (2003 

and 2016)10................................................................................................................4-8

Table 4.2-2. Overview of Waterway Features in Palm Beach and Maritin Counties and the 

Loxahatchee River.....................................................................................................4-9

Table 4.2-3. Overview of Waterway Features in the Loxahatchee River ......................................4-9

Table 4.2-4. Boat Ramps, Anchorages, and Vessel Repair Facilities on the Loxahatchee 

River...........................................................................................................................4-9

Table 4.2-5. Overview of Residential Boating Features of Waterfront Properties on the 

Loxahatchee River...................................................................................................4-10

Table 4.2-6. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in Palm Beach County ................................4-11

Table 4.2-7. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Palm Beach 

County......................................................................................................................4-12

Table 4.2-8. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the 

Loxahatchee River...................................................................................................4-12

Table 4.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 1 of 2).................................................................4-13

Table 4.2-10. Letters and Agreements of Support.........................................................................4-14

Table 4.3-1. Summary of Commercial versus Recreational Vessel Traffic Observed 

throughout Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County......................................4-18

Table 4.3-2. Summary of Vessel Traffic Observed throughout the Intracoastal Waterway in 

Palm Beach County. Summarized by Season and by Time of Day........................4-19

Table 4.3-3. Summary of Vessel Size Observed throughout the Intracoastal Waterway in 

Palm Beach County. ................................................................................................4-19
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Tables (continued)

iii AMEC

Table 4.3-4. Vessel Registration and 2020 Projections for Palm Beach County. 

Summarized by Size Class and Year......................................................................4-19

Table 4.3-5. Vessel Traffic Daily and Peak Volume Totals by Video Recording at two 

Locations in Jupiter Inlet. Traffic Volume Projections through 2020 .......................4-20

Table 4.3-6. Vessel Traffic at Loxahatchee River Bridge Based on FECR Video 

Assessment from Tuesday December 31, 2013 to Tuesday January 21, 2014 .....4-22

Table 4.4-1. Bridge Operation Survey for Loxahatchee River Bridge Based on FECR Video 

Assessment..............................................................................................................4-25

Table 4.4-2. Summary of Existing and Projected Bridge Operations for the Loxahatchee 

River Bridge .............................................................................................................4-26

Table 4.4-3. Extended Bridge Closures at Loxahatchee River due to Freight and 

Passenger Train Operations....................................................................................4-26

Table 4.5-1. Simulation Model Results for Loxahatchee River Bridge ........................................4-29

Table 4.5-2. Simulation Model Results for Vessel Queue Lengths at Loxahatchee River 

Bridge.......................................................................................................................4-30

Table 5.1-1. Characterization of Bridges Crossing the St. Lucie River Bridge..............................5-2

Table 5.1-2. Land Area and Population Density with Waterfront Access at the St. Lucie 

River...........................................................................................................................5-4

Table 5.2-1. Population and Vessel Registration in St. Lucie and Martin Counties (2003 

and 201610..................................................................................................................5-9

Table 5.2-2. Overview of Waterway Features on the St. Lucie River and Associated 

Waterways ...............................................................................................................5-10

Table 5.2-3. Boat Ramps, Anchorages, and Vessel Repair Facilities on the St. Lucie River.....5-10

Table 5.2-4. Overview of Residential Boating Features of Waterfront Properties on the St. 

Lucie River ...............................................................................................................5-10

Table 5.2-5. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County ..........................................5-12

Table 5.2-6. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County......5-12

Table 5.2-7. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County......................................5-13

Table 5.2-8. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie 

County......................................................................................................................5-13

Table 5.2-9. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the St. 

Lucie River ...............................................................................................................5-14

Table 5.2-10. St. Lucie River Community Outreach (page 1 of 3).................................................5-14

Table 5.2-11. Letters and Agreements of Support.........................................................................5-16

Table 5.3-1. Vessel Traffic at St. Lucie River Bridge Based on FECR Video Assessment 

from January 2014 ...................................................................................................5-19

Table 5.4-1. Bridge Operation Survey for St. Lucie River Bridge Based on FECR Video 

Assessment..............................................................................................................5-22

Table 5.4-2. Summary of Existing and Projected Bridge Operations for the St. Lucie River 

Bridge.......................................................................................................................5-23

Table 5.4-3. Extended Bridge Closures at St. Lucie River due to Freight and Passenger 

Train Operations ......................................................................................................5-23

Table 5.5-1. Simulation Model Results for St. Lucie River Bridge...............................................5-26

Table 5.5-2. Simulation Model Results for Vessel Queue Lengths at St. Lucie River Bridge.....5-27

Table 6.0-1. Description of Impacts to Navigation for the Effect Determinations ..........................6-1

Table 6.0-2 Vessel Wait Time Probability per Vessel for the New River, Loxahatchee 

River, and St. Lucie River ..........................................................................................6-2

Table 6.0-3. Intervals of Time When Peak Vessel Traffic Coincides with Single Closures 

Greater than 30 Minutes at the New River Bridge.....................................................6-2

Table 6.0-4. Intervals of Time When Peak Vessel Traffic Coincides with Single Closures 

Greater than 30 Minutes at the Loxahatchee River Bridge .......................................6-3
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Tables (continued)

iv AMEC

Table 6.0-5. Intervals of Time When Peak Vessel Traffic Coincides with Single Closures 

Greater than 30 Minutes at the St. Lucie River Bridge..............................................6-3

Table 6.1-1. Vessel Wait Times for the New River Bridge, Existing Conditions versus NoBuild Alternative .........................................................................................................6-4

Table 6.1-2. Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge for Existing Conditions and 

No-Build Alternative ...................................................................................................6-5

Table 6.2-1. Vessel Wait Times for the Loxahatchee River Bridge, Existing Conditions 

versus No-Build Alternative........................................................................................6-5

Table 6.2-2. Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge for Existing 

Conditions and No-Build Alternative..........................................................................6-6

Table 6.3-1. Vessel Wait Times for the St. Lucie River Bridge, Existing Conditions versus 

No-Build Alternative ...................................................................................................6-7

Table 6.3-2. Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge for Existing Conditions 

and No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................6-8

Table 6.4-1. Vessel Wait Times for the New River Bridge, No-Build Alternative versus 

Combined Effect.........................................................................................................6-9

Table 6.4-2. Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge No-Build Alternative and 

Combined Effect.........................................................................................................6-9

Table 6.5-1. Vessel Wait Times for the Loxahatchee River Bridge, No-Build Alternative 

versus Combined Effect...........................................................................................6-10

Table 6.5-2. Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River FECR Bridge No-Build 

Alternative and Combined Effect .............................................................................6-11

Table 6.6-1. Vessel Wait Times for the St. Lucie River Bridge, No-Build Alternative versus 

Combined Effect.......................................................................................................6-12

Table 6.6-2. Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge No-Build Alternative 

and Combined Effect ...............................................................................................6-13

 Addition of a tender at the New River Bridge. The New River has the 

greatest amount of commercial traffic (as compared to the Loxahatchee River 

Bridge and St. Lucie River Bridge). The addition of a bridge tender would 

allow better communication with commercial vessels in that the tender could 

be contacted directly by mariners with a need for information for planning 

purposes in order to minimize wait times. ...............................................................6-14

Table 6.7-1. Impacts to Navigation Before and After Mitigation for the New River Bridge..........6-15

Table 6.7-2. Impacts to Navigation Before and After Mitigation for the Loxahatchee River 

Bridge.......................................................................................................................6-16

Table 6.7-3. Impacts to Navigation Before and After Mitigation for the St. Lucie River 

Bridge.......................................................................................................................6-17

Table 7.1-1. Total Economic Impact (before mitigation) to Total Marine Industry Value 

Resulting from Vessel Delays....................................................................................7-1

List of Figures

Figure 2.5-1. Marine Traffic - Simulation Model versus Actual .....................................................2-11

Figure 3.1-1. New River Bridge Location Map ................................................................................3-3

Figure 3.1-2. New River Bridge Adjacent Land Use .......................................................................3-5

Figure 3.1-3. New River Bridge Adjacent Population Density per Census Block ...........................3-6

Figure 3.2-1. Marinas and Commercial Docks Along New River....................................................3-8

Figure 3.3-1. New River Vessel Survey Location..........................................................................3-21

Figure 3.3-2. Average Vessel Count Traversing the New River Bridge........................................3-25

Figure 4.1-1. Loxahatchee River Bridge Location Map...................................................................4-2

Figure 4.1-2. Loxahatchee River Bridge Adjacent Land Use..........................................................4-4

Figure 4.1-3. Loxahatchee River Bridge Adjacent Populatin Density per Census Block ...............4-5
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

v AMEC

Figure 4.2-1. Marinas and Commercial Docks Along Loxahatchee River......................................4-7

Figure 4.3-1. Jupiter Inlet Vessel Study Locations........................................................................4-17

Figure 4.3-2. Average Vessel Count Traversing the Loxahatchee River Bridge..........................4-23

Figure 5.1-1. St. Lucie River Bridge Location Map .........................................................................5-3

Figure 5.1-2. St. Lucie River Bridge Adjacent Land Use ................................................................5-5

Figure 5.1-2. St. Lucie River Bridge Adjacent Population Density per Census Block ....................5-6

Figure 5.2-1. Marinas and Commercial Docks Along St. Lucie River.............................................5-8

Figure 5.3-1. Average Vessel Count Traversing the St Lucie River Bridge..................................5-20
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

vi AMEC

Table of Contents (continued)

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AAF All Aboard Florida Operations, LLC 

AMEC AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CRA Community Redevelopment Agency 

DDA Downtown Development Authority 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

FDOR Florida Department of Revenue 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FEC Florida East Coast 

FECR Florida East Coast Railway, LLC 

FFWCC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

GIS geographic information system 

GOAA Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 

GPS Global Positioning System 

I-95 Interstate-95 

MBE/DBE/WBE Minority, Disadvantaged and Women-owned Business Enterprises 

MCO Orlando International Airport 

MF+10 multi-family residences with more than 10 units 

MF-10 multi-family residences with 10 or fewer units 

MHWL mean high water level 

MIASF Marine Industries Association of South Florida 

mph miles per hour 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

ROW right-of-way 

RTC Rail Traffic Controller 

SDVOSB service-disabled veteran-owned small business 

SF single family 

SFRTA South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 

SFWMD South Florida Water Management District 

SJRWMD St. Johns River Water Management District 

SR 528 State Road 528 

TCRPC Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG United States Coast Guard 

USDOT United State Department of Transportation 

VHB Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 

VHF very high frequency 

VMF Vehicle Maintenance Facility 

VOSB veteran-owned small business 

WFP waterfront residential property 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

I AMEC

Executive Summary

All Aboard Florida-Operations, LLC (AAF) has prepared this Navigation Discipline Report to evaluate 

the effect of its proposed passenger rail service on maritime traffic and the marine industry at three 

operable bridges located within the existing freight rail corridor operated by Florida East Coast 

Railway, LLC (FECR) in south Florida (corridor). This Navigation Discipline Report provides details 

of the proposed project, current and proposed freight and passenger rail service within the corridor, 

the location and operation of three operable bridges, and a summary of findings. 

ES.1 Project Description

The proposed AAF project (Proposed Action), will consist of a 235-mile intercity passenger rail 

service connecting Miami and Orlando International Airport (MCO). It will include the following two 

connected corridors and a new Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF):

 A Miami-to-Cocoa corridor (North-South Corridor) that includes approximately 195 miles of rail 

improvements between Miami and Cocoa, Florida, within an existing, active freight rail right-ofway (ROW).

 An east-west corridor (East-West Corridor) of approximately 40 miles from Cocoa to Orlando, 

generally parallel to the existing State Road 528 (SR 528 or Beachline Expressway), which 

would extend the service to MCO). The new VMF is proposed at MCO. 

This Navigation Discipline Report focuses on three operable bridges located within the existing 

FECR Corridor, between Miami and West Palm Beach. These include the New River Bridge in 

Broward County, the Loxahatchee River Bridge in Palm Beach County, and the St. Lucie River 

Bridge in Martin and St. Lucie Counties. These locations were selected for evaluation because they 

are located over navigable waters, and their operations (opening and closing) affect maritime traffic. 

ES.2 Navigation Study Purpose and Methodology

The purpose of this study is to provide navigational information for consideration by the United 

States Coast Guard (USCG) to allow informed decision-making on the Proposed Action.1This 

evaluation considers the potential for environmental, economic and navigational effects associated 

with the Proposed Action. More specifically, this study estimates the extent to which the projected 

changes in bridge closure frequency and duration due to the Proposed Action might affect 

commercial and recreational vessels traversing FECR’s moveable bridges at the New River, 

Loxahatchee River, and the St. Lucie River.

This study considers data presented in previous traffic studies performed by others, and includes 

detailed analyses and simulation modeling results based on current and future freight train 

operations, proposed passenger rail and recent boat traffic surveys. These studies and analyses 

include:

 Literature reviews of vessel traffic studies conducted at each bridge;

 Summaries of 2014 vessel traffic surveys gathered through video assessments;

 Summaries of bridge closure data;

 A detailed analysis of the existing vessel traffic and bridge schedules;

 A detailed analysis of the marine industry at each bridge;

 Socioeconomic analyses; and

 Results from a discrete-event simulation model of vessel traffic. 

These data were used to complete an analysis comparing the No-Build Alternative (as defined in 

Table ES-1 below) to the Proposed Action. The No-Build Alternative evaluated as part of this 

analysis involves no changes to the rail infrastructure within the FECR Corridor beyond those that 

 

1 United States Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Program. Reasonable Needs of Navigation: White Paper. Version 1.1, 

October 5, 2012
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

II AMEC

are currently planned and funded, no new rail line construction within the East-West Corridor, and 

considers expected growth of freight traffic.

ES.3 Description of Proposed Action and Effects Determinations at Each Operable Bridge

The effect determination for each bridge was assessed considering the potential to impact identified 

navigational needs, as per USCG guidance (Section 2.6.1), of the No-Build Alternative, the 

Proposed Action and the Combined Effect (defined as the Proposed Action combined with freight 

traffic that is projected to exist within the FECR Corridor in 2016). A summary of the descriptions for 

the No-Build Alternative and Proposed Action for each bridge is described in Table ES-1. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

III AMEC

Table ES-1. Description of No-Build Alternative and Proposed Action

Actions 

Considered Bridge Description

No-Build 

Alternative Same for all bridges

- No changes to the rail infrastructure will occur within the FECR 

Corridor beyond those that are currently planned and funded, and 

no new rail construction within the East-West Corridor.

- Daily operation frequency at the three bridges includes a 

projected increase to 20 freight trains by 2016 with a 3% growth 

per year thereafter in operations.

Proposed Action

New River 

Bridge

- Will include rail infrastructure work, which will not change the 

vertical clearance or footprint of the bridge that accommodates 

two tracks over the entire span. 

- Daily operation frequency includes 32 passenger trains per day.

Loxahatchee River 

Bridge

- Will include rail infrastructure work which will not change the 

vertical clearance or footprint of the bridge to restore the doubletracks over the entire span of the bridge.

- Daily operation frequency includes 32 passenger trains per day.

St. Lucie River 

Bridge

- Will include rail infrastructure work, which will not change the 

vertical clearance or footprint of the bridge that currently 

accommodates a single track over the entire span.

- Daily operation frequency includes 32 passenger trains per day.

The criteria defined for the effects determination on meeting reasonable needs of navigation for the 

No-Build Alternative, the Proposed Action, and the Combined Effect are summarized in Table ES-2. 

As the study shows, there are no major or enhanced impacts and those few moderate impacts will 

become minor or minimal or will be eliminated altogether with readily achievable mitigation.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

IV AMEC

Table ES-2. Description of Impacts to Navigation for Effect Determinations During Peak Hours for Vessel 

Traffic

Impact

Description of Impact to Navigation

Vessel Passage

Queue Length and 

Probability

Extended Closure 

Times Economic Impact

No Impact Alternative results in no 

change in vessel that 

experience a wait 

during peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in 

no change in vessel 

queue length during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in no 

increase in bridge 

closure times during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in no 

economic impact to 

marine industry as a 

result of longer wait 

times during peak 

vessel traffic hours 

Minimal Alternative results in 

slight changes not 

expected to be 

measureable in % of 

vessels that experience 

a wait during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in 

slight changes not 

expected to be 

measureable in vessel 

queue length during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in 

slight changes not 

expected to be 

measureable for bridge 

closure times during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in 

slight changes (< 0.1% 

change) not expected 

to be measureable to 

marine industry as a 

result of longer wait 

times during peak

vessel traffic hours 

Minor Alternative results in 

<25% of vessels that 

experience a wait 

during peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in 

an increase in vessel 

queue lengths >10 

with a probability 

<2.5% during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in

single bridge closure 

times that are < 30 

minutes long during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in a 

> 0.1% but < 1% 

increase in the cost of 

waiting compared to the 

marine industry value

Moderate Alternative results in 

>25% but <40% of 

vessels that experience 

a wait during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in 

an increase in vessel 

queue lengths >10 

with a probability 

>2.5% but <5% during 

peak traffic hours 

Probability that 

Alternative will results in 

single bridge closure 

times that are ≥30 and 

≤45 minutes long during 

peak traffic is less than 

1%

Alternative results in a 

> 1% but < 5% increase 

in the cost of waiting 

compared to the marine 

industry value

Major Alternative results in 

>40% of vessels that 

experience a wait 

during peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in 

an increase in vessel 

queue lengths >10 

with a probability >5% 

peak traffic hours 

Probability that 

Alternative will results in 

single bridge closure 

times that are ≥30 and 

≤45 minutes long during 

peak traffic is more than 

1%

Alternative results in a 

> 5% increase in the 

cost of waiting 

compared to the marine 

industry value

Enhanced Alternative results in a 

decrease in number of 

vessels that wait during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in a 

decrease in queue 

lengths during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in a 

decrease in bridge 

closures times during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in a 

decrease in cost of 

waiting as a result of 

longer wait times during 

peak vessel traffic 

hours 

In order to establish the effects determinations based on the criteria above, measurable and 

predictable operational parameters were utilized to analyze potential impacts to navigational needs 

and the local marine industry. The operational parameters include:

 Vessel Passage: This criterion allows for a comparison of the overall number of vessels that will 

be delayed when traversing each bridge location under each operating scenario. Lower 

percentages for this parameter would result in less impact. 

 Queue Length and Probability: This parameter is based on the probability that a queue length of 

10 boats or greater will occur during a bridge closure. A lower probability of occurrence is 

considered to have less effect. 

 Extended Closure Times: This parameter considers the length of individual closure times for 

each bridge location during peak traffic hours. Individual closure durations (as compared to total 

daily closure times) are useful for determining vessel wait times and queue lengths. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

V AMEC

 Economic Impact: The aforementioned criteria, along with economic data specific to the marine 

industry and local jurisdiction, are used to estimate economic impacts to the marine industry due 

to changes in vessel wait times. This estimate includes potential impacts to boaters, the marine 

industry (such as marinas) and non-marine industry businesses (such as local stores).

It should be noted that these criteria were evaluated utilizing data from periods of peak vessel traffic 

estimates to provide a conservative evaluation. Key findings of the navigational study are 

summarized below. 

ES.4 Key Findings

Results from vessel simulation and economic models performed for the three operable bridges 

allowed for identification of economic and navigational effects of projected increases in freight 

operations and the addition of passenger rail operations. Table ES-3 summarizes key findings prior 

to mitigation for peak vessel traffic periods. During these periods, more vessels will be required to 

wait at each bridge location. However, average wait times are reduced at all three bridge locations. 

The effect on costs to the marine industry will minimally decrease at the New River and Loxahatchee 

River Bridges and minimally increase at the St. Lucie Bridge. 

In addition, the likelihood of a 30+ minute bridge closure at any of the three operable bridges is 

unlikely, with less than 1% probability of such a closure occurring.

Furthermore, there is a 90% probability that a single vessel will not have a wait time of greater than 

12.2 minutes at the New River Bridge, 9.8 minutes at the Loxahatchee River Bridge, and 17.6 

minutes at the St. Lucie River Bridge.

Table ES-3. Summary of Key Findings for the Combined Effect (Freight plus Passenger Rail) Prior to 

Mitigation. A Decrease in Change from the No-build indicates the Combined Effect has a 

Positive Effect on the Criteria Listed. An Increase in Change from the No-Build indicates the 

Combined Effect has a Negative Effect on the Criteria Listed.

New River Bridge

Combined Effect*

Freight+Passenger

Change from 

No-Build

Average Wait for Vessels Waiting (minutes) 6.3 Decrease 1.6

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of 

Occurring (minutes) 12.2 Decrease 4.2

Estimated Cost to Marine Industry as Percentage of 

Industry (percent) 0.0029 Decrease 0.0094

Loxahatchee River Bridge

Combined Effect*

Freight+Passenger

Change from 

No-Build

Average Wait for Vessels Waiting (minutes) 5.7 Decrease 3.7

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of 

Occurring (minutes) 9.8 Decrease 6.9

Estimated Cost to Marine Industry as Percentage of 

Industry (percent) 0.0156 Decrease 0.0032

St. Lucie River Bridge

Combined Effect*

Freight+Passenger

Change from 

No-Build

Average Wait for Vessels Waiting (minutes) 8.1 Decrease 1.8

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; >90% Probability of 

Occurring (minutes) 17.6 Decrease 0.7

Estimated Cost to Marine Industry as Percentage of 

Industry (percent) 0.0167 Increase 0.007

* Effect determination prior to mitigation measures

The findings of this study indicate that the Proposed Action does not have a major socioeconomic, 

navigational or maritime delay impact on any of the three operable bridges based on the areas of 

required evaluation by the USCG. Furthermore, the application of proposed mitigation measures 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

VI AMEC

would enable any identified impacts to be reduced to a level equal or better than the No-Build

Alternative conditions. 

The following section describes mitigation options being considered by AAF to further reduce 

impacts to navigation at each bridge location. 

ES.5 Mitigation

Overall, impacts from the No-Build and Proposed Action range from minimal to moderate. The level 

of impacts associated with the Proposed Action can be reduced or eliminated through mitigation 

options. With the use of appropriate mitigation alternatives, the effects of the Proposed Action can 

be reduced to those expected for the No-Build (minimal to minor impacts), and for select effects

criteria, it could be reduced to conditions better than those expected for the No-Build. 

Mitigation options being considered by AAF to improve operations at the New River Bridge, 

Loxahatchee River Bridge, and St. Lucie River Bridge include:

 Addition of a tender at the New River Bridge to allow better communication with commercial 

vessels.

 Develop a schedule for the down times of the bridge for passenger rail service. 

 Provide public access to the bridge closure schedules in an internet-accessible format. 

Schedules for each bridge may be posted on the AAF website and/or the USCG website. This 

will allow the boating community to plan their trips to avoid wait times and related costs 

associated with the Proposed Action.

 Implement a notification sign/signal/horn at each bridge location with count downs to indicate the 

times at which the bridge will begin to close and open.

 Develop formal contact with first responders and emergency personnel.

 Develop coordination plans between AAF and local authorities during peak vessel travel times 

on holidays and major public events.

 Develop coordination plans between AAF and the USCG to promote communication with the 

commercial and recreational boating communities.

The results of the mitigation measures being considered are summarized in Table ES-4.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

VII AMEC

Table ES-4. Effect of Proposed Action to Navigational Needs at New River, Loxahatchee River and 

St. Lucie River After Mitigation

Effect Determination Criteria a

New River

after Mitigation

Loxahatchee 

River after 

Mitigation

St. Lucie River 

after Mitigation

Obstruction of passage

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minimal Minor

Most navigationally limiting structure

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minimal Minor

Impacts to jobs, economic growth and development

Economic Impacts No Impact No Impact No Impact

Economic impacts to existing or planned 

commercial/industrial developments

Economic Impacts

No Impact No Impact No Impact

Impacts to unique or critical infrastructure No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A)

Impacts to USACE transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minimal Minor

Impacts to USCG transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minimal Minor

Impacts to existing and future cruise ship ports-ofcall/terminals No impact No impact No impact

Impacts to commercial freighters No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A)

Impacts to ports supporting post-panamax vessels No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A)

Impacts to vessels that produce unique products for the 

region No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A)

Impacts to vessels that require tug boats

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

No impact No impact No impact

Impacts to proposed commercial vessels as a result of 

proposed development Minimal Minimal Minimal

Ability of vessels to adjust operations without significant 

economic loss in order to transit the Proposed Action No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A)

Availability of alternative routes for vessel passage No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A)

Ability of vessels to transit at typical lower water stages No Impact No Impact No Impact

Note: a Effect determination for factors to be considered by the USCG was determined based on the identified criteria in italics of 

either % of vessels that wait, queue length, economic impacts and extended bridge closures or a combination of these

criteria. 

The overall effect determination reflects the highest impact of the combined impact determination criteria of each

category.

As presented in the table above, and detailed in the following Navigational Study, there are no major 

impacts to the marine industry and/or to vessels traversing the New River, Loxahatchee River, and 

St. Lucie River Bridges anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

1-1 AMEC

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Need for Navigation Analysis

All Aboard Florida-Operations, LLC (AAF) has prepared this Navigation Discipline Report to evaluate 

the effect of its proposed passenger rail service on maritime traffic and the marine industry at three 

operable bridge locations within the existing freight rail corridor operated by Florida East Coast

Railway, LLC (FECR) between Miami and Cocoa (corridor). The Navigation Discipline Report 

provides details of the proposed project, current and proposed freight and passenger rail service 

within the corridor, the location and operation of three operable bridges and a summary of findings. 

1.2 Project Description

The proposed AAF project (Proposed Action), will consist of a 235-mile intercity passenger rail 

service connecting Miami and Orlando International Airport (MCO). It will include the following two 

connected corridors and a new Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF):

 The Miami-to-Cocoa corridor (North-South Corridor), a north-south alignment that includes 

approximately 195 miles of rail improvements within an existing, active freight rail right-of-way 

(ROW); and

 The east-west corridor (East-West Corridor), extending approximately 40 miles from Cocoa to 

Orlando, and generally parallel to the existing State Road 528 (SR 528 or Beachline 

Expressway), which would extend passenger service to MCO, where the new VMF would be 

constructed. 

This Navigation Discipline Report (NDR) focuses on three operable bridges located within the 

existing FECR Corridor, between Miami and Cocoa. These include the New River Bridge in Broward 

County, the Loxahatchee River Bridge in Palm Beach County, and the St. Lucie River Bridge in 

Martin County. These locations were selected for evaluation because they are located over 

navigable waters, and their operations (i.e., opening and closing) directly affect maritime traffic. 

The purpose of this study is to provide information for consideration by both the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) to allow informed decision-making

on the Proposed Action.2The USCG, in its June 2, 2014 letter3, supports including the NDR as “an 

attachment to the DEIS as it informs the choice of alternatives for analysis.”

This NDR considers the potential for environmental, economic, and navigational impacts associated 

with the Proposed Action. More specifically this study estimates the extent to which the projected 

increase in bridge closure time due to the Proposed Action will affect the commercial and 

recreational vessels traversingFECR’s operable bridges at the New River, Loxahatchee River, 

and/or St. Lucie River. This report presents:

 Literature reviews of vessel traffic studies conducted at each bridge;

 Summaries of 2014 vessel traffic surveys gathered through video assessments;

 Summaries of bridge closure data;

 A detailed analysis of existing vessel traffic and bridge operations data;

 A socioeconomic analysis of the marine industry in the vicinity of each bridge; and

 Results from a discrete-event simulation model of vessel traffic. 

These data were used to complete an analysis comparing a No-Build Alternative to the Proposed 

Action. The No-Build Alternative involves:

 

2 United States Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Program. Reasonable Needs of Navigation: White Paper. Version 1.1, 

October 5, 2012

3 USCG. Letter to the author. June 2, 2014. TS.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

1-2 AMEC

 No changes to the rail infrastructure within the FECR Corridor beyond those that are currently 

planned and funded;

 No new rail infrastructure within the East-West Corridor; and

 Consideration of expected growth of freight to an average of 20 trains per day by 2016.

1.3 Cases Evaluated for Navigation Study

The following four cases (Sections 1.3.1 through 1.3.4) were analyzed to evaluate potential impacts 

due to the Proposed Action.

1.3.1 Existing Conditions

There are three existing operable bridges located within the Project Area. These include the New 

River Bridge in Broward County, the Loxahatchee River Bridge in Palm Beach County, and the St. 

Lucie River Bridge in Martin County. All three of these operable bridges remain in the open position 

to allow for vessel traffic passage except for when freight trains approach. Existing (2013) freight 

operations consist of freight trains that average 8,150 feet in length, and are comprised of two 

locomotives (each 89 feet long) and 101 rail cars (each 79 feet long). According to historical trends 

obtained from the FRA Crossing Inventory, approximately half of the freight operations occur at night 

(10 pm to 7 am), and half during the day (7 am to 10 pm). Daily operation frequency includes an 

average of 10 bridge closures to allow for the passage of approximately 10 to 13 freight trains, at 

average speeds of 22.6 miles per hour (mph) in Broward County, 30.3 mph in Palm Beach County, 

and 32.0 mph in Martin County. 

These FECR bridges are not tended, but remain open with green lights illuminated indicating that 

marine vessels may pass. When a train approaches, the lights flash red and a horn sounds four 

blasts, pauses, and then continues four blasts. After eight minutes, the FECR bridges go down and 

lock, provided the scanning equipment reveals nothing under the draw. The draw remains down for 

a period of eight minutes or for as long as the track circuit is occupied. After the train has cleared, 

FECR bridges open and the lights return to green.

All train operations are controlled by FECR’s dispatch center in Jacksonville. This includes both train 

scheduling and bridge operations. It has been observed that bridges occasionally remain closed 

when not required to facilitate train crossing. These bridges are sometimes down due to required 

maintenance as the FECR needs to inspect the bridge, tracks and signal systems.

1.3.2 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative evaluated as part of this analysis involves no changes to the rail 

infrastructure within the FECR Corridor beyond those that are currently planned and funded, and no 

new rail construction within the East-West Corridor. The upgrades to the FECR Corridor 

contemplated as part of the Proposed Action would not occur in the near term as part of the No-Build 

Alternative; however, under the No-Build Alternative, freight operations by FECR would continue and 

are expected to increase in frequency. Historically, FECR operated 24 daily trains in 2006, and had 

projected growth of 5-7% between today and 2016. However, in light of delays in the expansion of 

the Panama Canal and other factors, it is now expected that freight operations will increase to 20 

trains per day by 2016, and at a 3% annual growth after 2016. As such, the No-Build Alternative 

assumes an increase to 20 freight trains in 2016, with operations at the three operable bridges at 

average speeds of 22.6 mph in Broward County, 30.3 mph in Palm Beach County, and 32.0 mph in 

Martin County by 2016. Projected 2016 operations are used for analyzing potential impacts of the 

Proposed Action because they coincide with the proposed start-up of AAF’s passenger rail service.

1.3.3 Proposed Action

The Proposed Action will cross the three operable bridges located within the Project Area: the New 

River Bridge in Broward County, the Loxahatchee River Bridge in Palm Beach County, and the St. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

1-3 AMEC

Lucie River Bridge in Martin County. The proposed modification to the New River Bridge 

contemplated as part of the Proposed Action includes rail infrastructure work, which will not change 

the vertical clearance or footprint of this double-track bridge. There are no plans to modify the bridge 

foundations located in the New River as part of the Proposed Action. 

The proposed modifications to the Loxahatchee River Bridge contemplated as part of the Proposed 

Action includes rail infrastructure work, which will not change the vertical clearance but will restore 

and upgrade the double-tracks over the entire span. In addition, the bridge foundations located in the 

Loxahatchee River will not be modified by the Proposed Action. 

The proposed modification to the St. Lucie River Bridge contemplated as part of the Proposed Action 

includes rail infrastructure work, which will not change the vertical clearance or footprint of the bridge 

that currently accommodates a single track. Providing a double-tracked bridge in this area would 

have required construction of a new adjacent bridge, a second-track and associated ballasts over 

the span of this long bridge, which is not planned as a part of this Proposed Action. Instead, this 

bridge will remain single-tracked. As such, the bridge foundations located in the St. Lucie River will 

not be modified by the Proposed Action for which AAF plans to complete upgrades to the FECR 

track on the St. Lucie River Bridge. 

Table 1.1-1. Bridge Modifications under the Proposed Action

Bridge Proposed Modification

Change to Vertical / 

Footprint Dimensions

New River Bridge Upgrade existing double track None

Loxahatchee River Bridge Restore and upgrade previously 

existing double track None

St. Lucie River Bridge Upgrade existing single track None

The use of all three operable bridges by AAF as part of the Proposed Action will result in an increase 

in the number of times per day that the bridges would need to close to allow for the passage of 

trains. However, the rail infrastructure improvements being considered as part of the Proposed 

Action (including the installation of new track with new ballast and ties, new turn outs and upgrades 

to existing turn outs, double tracking, and grade crossings) will serve to increase the speed at which 

trains may cross the bridges, thereby reducing the total closure time necessary for each train 

crossing of each bridge and increasing safety. As shown in Table 1.1-2, average speeds for the 

Proposed Action will be approximately 61 mph for passenger trains and 38 mph for freight trains in 

Broward County, approximately 76 mph for passenger trains and 39 mph for freight trains in Palm 

Beach County, and approximately 77 mph for passenger trains and 36 mph for freight trains in 

Martin County. A summary of bridge operations for these waterways can be found in USCG rule 33 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 114 -118 for operable bridges. 

Table 1.1-2. Average Speeds of Passenger and Freight Trains

County

No-Build Proposed Action

Freight (mph)

Passenger Train Speed 

(mph)

Freight Train Speed 

(mph)

Broward 23 61 38

Palm Beach 33 76 39

Martin 32 77 36

1.3.4 Combined Effect – Proposed Action with Improved Freight

Infrastructure improvements in the Proposed Action will enable track speeds to increase for freight 

rail. The corresponding improved freight efficiency is evaluated as part of this study. This case 

considers the planned AAF passenger rail operations in conjunction with the projected 2016 FECR 

freight operations (20 freight trains per day). 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-1 AMEC

2.0 Methodology and Approach

2.1 Marine Industry Analysis

The following sections summarize the data sources and methodologies utilized to analyze the effects 

of the Proposed Action.

2.1.1 Waterway Features Inventory Methodology

The Waterway Features Inventory of recreational and commercial vessel access facilities prepared 

for this report includes boat ramps, marinas, dry storage facilities, anchorages, commercial entities,

and waterfront residences with dockage or slips along the New River (in Broward County), 

Loxahatchee River (including portions of Palm Beach and Martin Counties) and St. Lucie River 

(including portions of Martin and St. Lucie Counties). The inventory was compiled through extensive 

review of existing data sets. Data sources included:

 Geographic information system (GIS) data and aerial photographs;

 Relevant websites (e.g., Florida Department of Revenue [FDOR]); 

 Florida Marina Monitoring and Tracking database;

 Florida Boat Launch Ramp database maintained by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research 

Institute; and

 Other studies and surveys performed along these waterways.

These databases contain records of more than 2,700 boating access locations and facilities 

including commercial marinas, condominiums with boating facilities, and hotels/restaurants with an 

associated boating facility. 

The Florida Marina Monitoring and Tracking database and the Florida Boat Launch Ramp database 

maintained by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute were developed as part of the Florida 

Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study Report.4The statewide databases contain 

records of launches from and arrivals at more than 3,100 boat ramps. Boating facility data reported 

for the affected study areas was confirmed utilizing aerial data from Google Earth (aerial imagery 

from 26 March 2011). For the purposes of this report, the extent of the navigable area west of the 

operable bridges and to the Intracoastal Waterway to the east was reviewed.

A sampling procedure was used to estimate the number of wetslips and the dimensions of broadside 

berthing available at waterfront residential properties within the Project Area. These largely private 

boating facilities are located at single-family homes, apartment buildings, condominiums and mobile 

home parks. The county-level waterfront residential property (WFP) Waterway Features Inventory 

consisted of a stratified random sampling design. For each applicable county, residential property 

parcel grids were used to define WFP parcels, which were cross referenced with zoning information 

to provide a characterization of WFP development type [single family (SF) residences; multi-family 

residences with 10 or fewer units (MF-10); multi-family residences with more than 10 units (MF+10), 

and condominium complexes (Condo)]. These strata were available as GIS coverage for Broward, 

St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach counties. 

A stratum sampling frame for potential WFPs was created using GIS software to select polygons 

from the county residential property parcel coverage that met the stratum definition and whose 

boundaries fell within the 75-foot buffered water layer for New River, Loxahatchee River, and St. 

Lucie River. Because verification of true WFP status requires labor-intensive interpretation of aerial 

photographs, it was impractical to identify all true WFPs for some strata. Instead, a random stratum 

sampling frame of 100 parcels was carried out for single-family residences and multi-family 

residences, with the true WFPs in the sampling frame being viewed as a subpopulation of the 

 

4

Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2009. Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study: 

A Report to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. August.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-2 AMEC

property parcels meeting the 75-foot buffer zone criterion. The databases and the residential 

sampling, taken together, are considered a reliable approximation of the current supply of 

recreational boating facilities along the New River, Loxahatchee River, and St. Lucie River. 

2.1.2 Demand Forecast

To estimate the number of registered vessels in the Project Area in 2016, historic vessel registration 

information for Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie counties from 2003 to 2013 were 

compared to county population to obtain a ten-year average of registered vessels per capita for each 

county. This per capita average was then compared to county population growth forecasts obtained 

from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.5 Using the growth forecasts for 2016, the 

increase in anticipated vessel traffic was calculated for each river. This forecast was utilized to 

quantify potential social and economic effects resulting from anticipated changes to the operation of 

the operable bridges on the New River, Loxahatchee River, and St. Lucie River. 

2.2 Economic Analysis

The economic value of the marine industry for the three affected waterways was determined by 

estimating the economic value of the marine industry to each of the counties in which these rivers 

are located and then assigning the approximate percentage of this value to the appropriate 

waterway. Therefore, the first step of this analysis is to determine the economic value of the marine 

industry to Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties.

2.2.1 Economic Value by County

The State of Florida has performed extensive studies regarding the economic value of the marine 

industry. These studies include analysis of spending on vessels (e.g., boat sales, storage, repairs) 

and recreation (e.g., restaurants, fishing, tackle, ski/boating instruction). These studies also provide 

information about the economic value of marine-related activities by county. Given the depth and 

breadth of these studies, they were used to estimate the economic value of the marine industry in 

2013 in order to determine a cost per trip to facilitate a quantitative socioeconomic impact analysis. 

2.2.1.1 Direct Economic Benefits

The economic benefits of marine-related activities on the inland waterways for each of the counties 

considered were previously analyzed in the following years: 2007 for Broward County, 2006 for Palm 

Beach County, and 1999 for both Martin and St. Lucie Counties. The State of Florida updated these 

studies in December 2011 to reflect the economic value of the marine industry in each county for 

2009 values (based on the most recently available data at the time)6. The State’s studies identify and 

quantify the total economic benefit of each county’s waterways, including direct benefits, indirect 

benefits, and induced benefits associated with marine-related activity. The analysis includes benefits 

related to expenditures in the marine industry as well as expenditures outside of the marine industry 

but directly related to marine activities (e.g., groceries purchased for a boating trip). These analyses 

do not include the impact of the marine industry on property values; accordingly, property value 

impacts will not be discussed in this report. Broward and Palm Beach Counties are the only counties 

within the study area that support port operations. The analyses for these counties included revenue 

from these operations; however, port operations are not part of the economic activity on the New 

River or Loxahatchee River, so these data were excluded from the economic analysis conducted for 

this study.

The analysis of total economic value of the marine industry for this navigation study relies on the 

methodology used by the State of Florida in its 2011 update of marine industry to determine the total 

 

5

Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. 2003-2013. Population Estimates for Florida 

Counties. April 2013.

6

Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways in 

Florida, Main Report (Appendices J, K, L, and M). Available at http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-3 AMEC

value of the marine industry by county in December 2013. This analysis also expands on the 

previous methodology to estimate growth in direct, indirect, and induced economic activity (see 

Table 2.2-1), including total business volume, personal income, and employment.

The methodology used for calculating growth in the marine industry involved projecting all retail 

sales based on the growth in estimated gross sales in the marine industry, as recorded by the FDOR 

in the Validated Florida Sales Tax Return Receipts Monthly Statistics by Business by County. These

data contain monthly totals for gross sales and taxable sales by county and by Kind Code up to 

December 2013. (Kind Codes are used to classify the main, but not the only, line of business of a 

particular establishment; currently, there are 85 Kind Codes in use.) Kind Code 28 consists of 

Motorboats, Yachts, Marine Parts, Accessories, and Boat Dealers. For each county, Kind Code 28 

was used to determine growth in the marine industry by calculating the percentage growth in this 

industry between the base date of the original study and December 2013. The same level of growth 

was applied to all retail values that were calculated in the original study for that particular county. 

The results often showed a decline in the industry due to the economic recession in 2008. 

Table 2.2-1 indicates gross sales in Kind Code 28 and associated growth between the base year 

and December 2013 for each county.

The values for purchases from non-marine businesses for use in the marine industry (e.g., gasoline, 

food, drinks, and ice that were purchased for boating trips) were updated using different escalators 

because they are not as directly related to growth in the marine industry. These purchases are less 

influenced by local marine-related sales and more by macroeconomic factors within the region. 

Therefore, this portion of the direct economic value of the marine industry was updated to 

December 2013 using economic growth in the entire state. The 2013 values for each county 

identified in Table 2.2-1 were determined by using the percent change in gross sales for all Kind 

Codes in the State of Florida between the base year and December 2013. The gross sales for all 

Kind Codes in the State of Florida in 1999 were not available, so the non-marine expenditures for 

the two counties with a base year of 1999 (i.e., Martin and St. Lucie Counties) were escalated using 

the Consumer Price Index. See Table 2.2-1 for the dataset that was used and a summary of 

associated growth between the base year and December 2013 for each county.

Table 2.2-1. Data Sets and Growth Percentages Used to Escalate Values

County (Base Year) Data Set Value in Base Year Value in 2013 Growth

Broward (2007)

Kind Code 28 (County) $1,698,280,456 $1,610,441,108 -5.17%

All Codes (State) $1,802,537,274,026 $1,956,911,596,398 8.56%

Palm Beach (2006)

Kind Code 28 (County) $571,635,414 $460,028,541 -19.52%

All Codes (State) $1,790,827,125,285 $1,956,911,596,398 9.27%

Martin (1999)

Kind Code 28 (County) $161,500,000 $256,347,656 58.73%

CPI-U (Nation, All Items) 168.3 233.049 38.47%

St. Lucie (1999) Kind Code 28 (County) $42,300,000 $63,161,543 49.32%

CPI-U (Nation, All Items) 168.3 233.049 38.47%

Source: Values for Kind Code 28 by county and all Kind Codes for the State of Florida were obtained from the Florida Department 

of Revenue and are available at http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/taxes/colls_from_7_2003.html#county. The Consumer Price 

Index (CPI-U) data was obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is available at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/

2.2.1.2 Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Benefits, including Business Volume, 

Personal Income, and Employment

Direct expenditures associated with the marine industry affect the local economy in two primary 

ways. First, these expenditures support local employment and personal income for employees at 

businesses engaged in this industry as well as businesses that receive money due to economic 

activity in the industry (e.g., grocery stores selling food that is used during vessel trips). Second, 

these expenditures produce indirect and induced economic benefits to the area as the initial 

expenditures go through successive rounds of spending, a portion of which is spent in the local area.

Estimating these benefits helps explain how money spent in one industry impacts the economy 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-4 AMEC

through successive rounds of spending. Table 2.2-2 presents a description of direct, indirect, and 

induced effects as well as an example to illustrate these effects.

Table 2.2-2. Definition and Example of Direct, Indirect, and Induced Economic Effects

Type of Effect Definition Illustrative Example

Direct

The initial change in the industry in 

question (e.g., expenditures in the marine 

industry).

For example, when a boater pays for repairs to 

his vessel, this spending is considered a direct 

effect of the industry.

Indirect

Changes in inter-industry transactions 

when supplying industries respond to 

increased demands from the directly 

affected industries (e.g., impacts from nonwage expenditures).

When repairing the vessel, the mechanic uses a 

portion of these funds to purchase epoxy; if this 

expenditure occurs in the same region it would 

constitute an indirect economic effect of vessel 

industry spending.

Induced

Changes in local spending that result from 

income changes in the directly and 

indirectly affected industry sectors (e.g., 

impacts from wage expenditures).

The vessel mechanic would earn income that 

can then be spent in the local economy, thereby 

producing induced benefits to the local 

economy.

The original economic studies, which have been prepared by the State of Florida since the early 

1990s and are updated periodically for each of the affected counties, included the value of the 

marine industry in terms of direct, indirect, and induced economic activity. These data includes total 

business volume, personal income, and employment. Because the general mix of sub industries that 

are included in the marine industry for each county are roughly the same as in the original studies, 

indirect and induced effects would represent a similar portion of the total economic value as in the 

original study. Therefore, this analysis uses multipliers based on the results of the original studies in 

order to estimate the December 2013 indirect and induced economic value based on the newly

estimated direct value of the marine industry for each county. Based on this assumption, personal 

income and employment should maintain a similar distribution as well; therefore, this methodology 

was also employed for calculating the direct, indirect, and induced personal income and employment 

for each county.

2.2.2 Economic Value of the Marine Industry by Waterway

In order to determine the economic value of the specific waterways considered in this analysis, the 

relative importance of each waterway was determined as a percentage of the marine industry in the 

county in which it is located. In the case that a particular waterway is located in two counties, its 

relative importance in each county was considered and then the results for each county were 

summed to obtain the total economic value of the waterway. 

In order to assess the importance of a river relative to the county in which it is located, the total 

number of wetslips at marinas, dockuminiums, clubs, and hotels/restaurants along the river were 

compared to the total number of wetslips at these types of facilities in the entire county. The resulting 

percentage was used to assign the relative percentage of the marine industry that each waterway 

represents in the county or counties in which it is located (see Table 2.2-3). After obtaining the 

relative importance of the waterway, the total economic value of the marine industry was determined 

by multiplying the total value in the county by the relative importance of the specific waterway. If the 

waterway lies in two counties, this was performed for each county and then the numbers were 

summed to get the total value of the marine industry along the entire waterway. Because these 

values are based on the updated values of the marine industry for December 2013, they represent 

the economic value of the marine industry associated with each waterway at that time.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-5 AMEC

Table 2.2-3. Percent Representation of each River Relative to the County in which it is Located

River County

Number of Wetslips at Marinas, Dockuminiums, 

Private Clubs, and Hotels and Restaurants

Percentage 

Represented by the 

On the River In the County River

New Broward 818 2,500 32.7%

Loxahatchee Palm Beach 534 2,300 23.2%

Martin 0 900 0.0%

St. Lucie Martin 746 900 82.9%

St. Lucie 222 1,450 15.3%

2.2.3 Socioeconomic Impact

Recreational and commercial boating activities bring revenue for local businesses and governments. 

The potential economic impacts to the marine industry for the three waterways of interest—New

River, Loxahatchee River, and St. Lucie River—were estimated by first determining the economic 

value of recreational and commercial vessel trips and then calculating the waiting time value based 

on the average amount of time that would be spent waiting at the bridge crossing due to the 

Proposed Action.

For recreational boating, the value of a recreational vessel trip is assumed to be equivalent to the 

total cost associated with the trip. The State of Florida has published extensive studies (e.g., 

Florida’s Recreational Marine Industry-Economic Impact and Growth 1980-2005, November 2005; 

The Value of Recreational Boating in Florida, March 2010) regarding the economic value of 

recreational boating at the county level, including total expenditures on vessel trips (e.g., marina 

services, restaurants, fuel) and vessel ownership (e.g., loan payments, vessel repairs, insurance). 

The four counties that provide recreational activities along the New River, Loxahatchee River, and 

St. Lucie River include Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties. For this analysis, the 

value of a vessel trip on a particular river is based on the weighted average between the counties in 

which the river is located. The respective weighting was determined based on the number of docks 

and slips on the portion of the river in each county, as shown in Table 2.2-4. Once the value of a 

recreational vessel trip on each river was defined, this number was divided by the average trip 

duration to obtain the cost per hour of recreational boating. 

Table 2.2-4. Relative Percentage of River Represented in Each County

New River Loxahatchee River St. Lucie River

Broward 

County

Palm Beach 

County

Martin 

County

Martin 

County

St. Lucie 

County

Residential Properties with Docks 3,750 703 358 1,307 734

Residential Slips 1,551 110 118 571 150

Commercial Slips 818 534 0 746 222

Residential plus Commercial Docks 

and Slipsa 6,119 1,347 476 2,624 1,106

Relative Weight to each Countyb100.0% 73.9% 26.1% 70.3% 29.7%

Notes: a Each property with a dock was assumed to have only one dock.

b

This relative weight was determined based on the percentage of the water body was in each county. The New River is 

entirely with Brevard County; however, the Loxahatchee River and the St. Lucie River are both in two counties.

For the commercial boating industry, the economic value of commercial activities is expected to be 

at least equal to the cost of providing the service, including vessel and vessel employee costs. For 

this analysis, the cost of operating a commercial vessel was used to represent the value of this use. 

In order to determine the cost of operating a vessel, the costs from the state’s recreational survey 

were used. Because commercial operations along the three rivers of interest are generally related to 

water transportation and charter activities, the vessels used for these operations are similar in size 

and costs to those used in the recreational boating industry along these rivers. The full costs 

associated with vessel ownership were considered; however, only a portion of the costs associated 

with recreational trip spending was included in the analysis for commercial operations. The costs 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-6 AMEC

that were included were boat fuel and marine supplies, while the costs that were excluded were 

comprised of costs such as lodging, restaurants, and groceries.

The cost of operating a commercial vessel also includes employee costs. Because the majority of 

commercial activity along the rivers is comprised of water transportation (e.g., water taxis), 

sightseeing activities, and charter boats, the average wages that were used for this analysis are 

those associated with these industries for the State of Florida. The commercial operations along the 

three rivers generally consist of smaller vessels; therefore, the crew size was assumed to be 

approximately two people per vessel - although some large vessels like the Jungle Queen could 

potentially require more than two operators. The majority of the commercial vessels in these areas 

are water taxies, which require an average of two operators per vessel. According to the U.S Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, the average annual wage for an employee engaged in the industry of scenic and 

sightseeing transportation on water in the state of Florida is $29,8127. Assuming this employee 

works 40 hours per week, the hourly cost of this employee is $13.31 per hour. The cost of two crew 

members per vessel was included in the hourly costs of operating commercial vessels.

This analysis considers the potential effects of the Proposed Action as compared to the No-Build 

Alternative, to obtain the average economic effect on the local economy due to bridge closure 

delays. The bridge operations model included in Section 2.4.3 was used to determine the total 

number of minutes of waiting time resulting from the Proposed Action to both recreational and 

commercial boaters by multiplying the daily number of vessels by the average amount of wait time 

per vessel (referred as non-zero wait time in the Appendix of this report). The waiting time was 

then multiplied by the cost per hour of operating recreational and commercial vessels on each of the 

three rivers. The sum of these costs constitutes the total value to the marine industry and 

recreational boaters associated with increased bridge closures due to the Proposed Action.

2.2.4 Public Outreach

Since AAF made the first public announcement of its proposed passenger rail project in Florida, a 

comprehensive public engagement strategy has been employed. AAF has participated in more than 

300 informational meetings, briefings, presentations, and telephone calls with stakeholders,

community leaders, neighborhood representatives, and elected officials. These efforts, which began

in March 2012, represent AAF’s proactive plan to work collaboratively with federal, state, and local 

agencies (e.g., FRA, US Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], US Coast Guard [USCG, South Florida

Water Management District [SFWMD], etc.). Outreach that occurred in the vicinity of the New River, 

Loxahatchee River, and St. Lucie River is summarized in Sections 3.2-5, 4.2-5, and 5.2-5, 

respectively.

2.3 Vessel Traffic Survey

Data required to conduct this analysis was gathered through literature review of existing vessel 

traffic studies, interviews with Marine Industry Association personnel, video recordings of vessel 

traffic provided by AAF, and live video feeds. Additional information was obtained from GIS data 

sources. Projected operations schedules for freight and passenger traffic was provided by AAF. This 

collective dataset representing vessel traffic at the affected bridges was used to assess the potential 

for navigation impacts.

2.3.1 Literature Review of Vessel Traffic Studies

Preliminary vessel traffic studies were identified for the Loxahatchee River and New River, but no 

studies or readily available data were identified for the St. Lucie River. However, data from live video 

feed were used to characterize vessel traffic on the St. Lucie River (see Section 2.3.2). The 

information gathered from preliminary vessel studies was summarized and compared to vessel

 

7

From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages for NAICS 4872, Scenic and 

sightseeing transportation, water. Available at http://www.bls.gov/data/#wages
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-7 AMEC

traffic data collected from the video footage and live feed assessment to evaluate changes in vessel

traffic. It was also used to evaluate the reliability of previous navigation studies in determining the 

socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action.

2.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey

Video recordings from permanent cameras located at FECR’s bridges located at New River, 

Loxahatchee River and St. Lucie River were provided by FECR. The videos contain approximately 

two to three weeks of data during December and January, and in some instances a holiday. The 

videos were used to quantify the number and types of vessels that pass under the bridges. The raw 

data collected includes the number and size of commercial and recreational vessels that pass under 

the bridges. These data were summarized and organized to show differences and patterns between 

and within weekdays, weekends and different times of the day. 

2.4 Bridge Operation Survey and Modeling

Data required to conduct this analysis were gathered through literature review of existing studies that 

investigated the rail bridge operations, video recordings of bridge operations provided by FECR, and 

live video feeds available for the New River, Loxahatchee River, and St. Lucie River FECR Bridges. 

Additional information obtained from GIS data sources and the projected operations schedule for 

freight and passenger traffic provided by AAF were also used to assess the potential for navigation 

impacts.

2.4.1 2014 Video Survey

Video recordings provided by FECR were used to collect bridge operation data for FECR’s bridges 

at Loxahatchee River and St. Lucie River. The time of day (hour:minutes:seconds) when the bridge

initially begins to close was recorded, and train schedule times were recorded relative to this initial 

closure time. 

The location of the camera did not provide a line of sight on the New River Bridge. Accordingly, 

existing bridge operations data (time it takes the bridge to open and close during each train crossing) 

could not be collected from the video provided by FECR at this location. Instead, information on 

current bridge operations and vessel traffic at the New River Bridge was gathered through 

monitoring of live video feed available at this location: http://www.microseven.com/tv/livevideoesplanade.html. This effort was conducted for five days during the peak season for vessel traffic (as 

characterized by previous studies, see Table 3.3-1), including weekdays and one full weekend. Live 

video feed data collection included vessel direction (heading east or west), vessel type (commercial 

or recreational), vessel size, bridge operations (e.g., closing times, the time the train arrives, and

time it clears the bridge), as well as pictures of the vessels traversing the bridge.

2.4.2 Development of GIS Maps

GIS maps were developed to show the location of FECR’s bridges at New River, Loxahatchee River 

and St. Lucie River as well as marine facilities, land use and population density along the three 

rivers. Source data included information from the following sources: ESRI GIS, Florida Geographic 

Data Library, National Bridge Inventory, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and FDOR.

Bridge location maps show: 1) the location of the FECR bridge relative to the inlet of the river (east);

2) additional bridges in the inlet, confluence, and north and south forks of each river; and 3) the 

extent of waterfront development for vessel traffic (west). The extent of waterfront development was 

determined through a Google Earth imagery analysis. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-8 AMEC

Coastal areas are major destinations for tourism, which represents one of the fastest-growing 

sectors in the US economy8. Accordingly, urban growth and the concentration of people in coastal 

and riverside areas have environmental and socioeconomic impacts at local, regional and global 

scales. When assessing the impact of population and population growth it is important to consider

spatial distribution, rather than absolute numbers. Population data were extracted from 2010 US

Census Bureau as population counts at the block level, which allows analysis at a relatively fine 

spatial scale, and then converted into population density as number of individuals per square mile. 

Population densities were divided into five classes and are defined as follows:

 Class 1: < 2,500 people per square mile

 Class 2: 2,501 to 5,000 people per square mile

 Class 3: 5,001 to 7,500 people per square mile

 Class 4: 7,501 to 10,000 people per square mile

 Class 5: > 10,000 people per square mile

Land use was defined by three main categories, residential, commercial and marine facilities. 

2.4.3 RTC Modeling of Bridge Operations

Rail Traffic Controller (RTC) is a rail traffic simulation tool developed by Berkeley Simulation 

Software. It is the de facto simulation tool used by Class I carriers (the seven largest North American 

railroads) and the majority of rail consulting firms. The primary purposes of the tool are to quantify 

the operating results (e.g., on-time performance, velocity, delay) of infrastructure changes (e.g., 

construction of new rail, improvement of existing rail) and to measure the impact of train schedule 

changes. For the Proposed Action, RTC modeling was used to fulfill both needs.

Specific to the three movable bridges affected by the Proposed Action, RTC modeling was used to 

determine the times that trains would occupy the span over the waterway. Once these occupancies 

were determined, a secondary (Excel-based) process used the RTC model data to determine the 

times that the waterway would be unavailable to vessel passage. This includes time that the bridge 

is in the process of closing before a train’s arrival. On this point, it should be noted that the bridge 

must be closed several minutes prior to the train’s arrival to allow the signaling system to permit the 

safe and efficient passage of the train. The bridge must be completely closed approximately 5 

minutes in advance so that trains approaching the area receive a proceed indication via the signal 

system. As an example, if the bridge is not closed completely, the signal immediately adjacent to the 

bridge will be red. The next signal, two to three miles back from the bridge, will be a yellow. This 

means that a train that is approximately 3 minutes from the bridge (and that observes a yellow 

aspect) must begin slowing down. In order to keep that train traveling at the maximum possible 

speed, the bridge must be closed, which would permit all signals between the train and the bridge to 

remain green. 

There are many factors that influence how far in advance the bridge must be down including, train 

speed, switch position, etc. Following the train traversing the bridge, the waterway remains 

unavailable for a period of time until the bridge is raised.

2.5 Discrete-Event Simulation Model

2.5.1 Scope of the Model

A discrete-event simulation model of scheduled train arrivals at a bridge and their corresponding 

impacts on commercial and recreational marine traffic was developed using Rockwell Software’s 

Arena Professional. The model includes the following unit operations: 

 

8 World Travel & Tourism Council. March 7, 2012. Travel & Tourism forecast to pass 100m jobs and $2 trillion GDP in 

2012. Available at: http://www.wttc.org/news-media/news-archive/2012/travel-tourism-forecast-pass-100m-jobsand-2-trillion-gdp-2012/
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-9 AMEC

 Scheduled movements of freight and passenger trains on the FECR line and their interaction 

with the operable bridge at the river crossing. Data for scheduled train movements were provided 

by AAF (Section 2.4.3).

 Commercial and recreational marine vessel traffic arrivals at the operable bridge in both 

directions along the river that were surveyed as part of this report. 

 Operable bridge operation at:

- New River Bridge in Fort Lauderdale

- Loxahatchee River Bridge in Jupiter/Tequesta

- St. Lucie River Bridge in Stuart

The simulation model was used to estimate the effect of train movements on the FECR line to 

marine vessel movements at three operable bridge locations Four scenarios were modeled that 

considered current and projected freight crossings and planned passenger crossings. Since the 

Proposed Action includes rail infrastructure upgrades that would improve freight movement, freight 

scenarios for the Proposed Action and the No-Build Alternative were also evaluated. The four 

scenarios examined include:

 Case 1: 2013 Freight Traffic with 2013 Infrastructure (Existing Conditions)

 Case 2a: 2016 Freight Traffic with 2013 Infrastructure (No-Build Alternative)

 Case 2b: 2016 Freight Traffic with 2016 AAF Improved Infrastructure (2016 Improved Freight)

 Case 3: 2016 Freight and Passenger Traffic with 2016 AAF Improved Infrastructure (Combined 

Effect)

Case 2b was examined to evaluate the effect of rail infrastructure improvements for the Proposed 

Action on projected 2016 freight traffic.

2.5.2 Inputs and Assumptions

2.5.2.1 Rail Traffic

The estimates of rail traffic arrivals are based on the existing schedule. A model to predict this 

schedule was generated using RTC. Specific to the three movable bridges, RTC was used to 

determine the arrival times of trains and the extent of time required to cross over the waterway.

Bridge closure time starts when the bridge is in the process of closing before a train’s arrival. Early 

bridge closures prior to the train’s arrival will start the signaling system to warn vessel traffic, 

allowing a safe and efficient passage of the train. Under Existing Conditions, the closure time prior to 

the train arrival is approximately 12 minutes. With the Proposed Action and associated 

improvements in rail infrastructure, closure times prior to the train’s arrival are expected to be 

reduced to approximately 7 minutes.

The train occupancy data from the RTC model was used as the basis for generating train arrivals at 

the bridges in the discrete-event model. Freight train arrivals were grouped by day-of-week and timeof-day. For example, Table 2.5-1 below shows the expected arrival times of Train 202 at the New 

River Bridge for one week.

Table 2.5-1. Sample of Expected Freight Train Arrivals by Day-of-Week Case 1: 2013 Freight Traffic with 

2013 Infrastructure (Existing Conditions)

Freight Train Schedule Example

Train Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun

202 Intermodal North (RTC Data) 14:40 13:31 14:19 13:31 14:58 14:40 15:23

When examining the train arrival data above, one can observe a variation in the arrival times of the 

train from day to day. This is due to differences in departure times and delays in route and is part of 

the RTC model simulation. To maintain some variability in the discrete-event model, the model 

generates train arrivals at the bridge using the arrival times produced by the RTC model with a
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-10 AMEC

variance of ±10 minutes to maintain some randomness in forecast train arrivals at the bridges. For 

example, on Mondays, the train will arrive at the bridge at 14:40 ± 10 minutes, etc.

Passenger train arrivals provided by the RTC model are at regular intervals, approximately once per 

hour in each direction. Since the predictability of the passenger service schedule is critically 

important to overall performance, the RTC data provides for no variability in passenger train arrival 

times and, therefore, the discrete-event model also does not include any variance.

2.5.2.2 Marine Traffic

Data for marine traffic were derived from video camera footage of the three crossings over the 

following periods during winter:

 New River: January 14 through 27, 2014;

 Loxahatchee River: December 31, 2013 through January 21, 2014; and

 St. Lucie River: January 3 through 17, 2014.

Traffic counts were sorted by vessel type (commercial or recreational), direction of travel, and were 

only assessed during daylight hours, from 6:00 AM to 6:30 PM.

Observations were also made regarding the characteristics of vessel traffic at New River Bridge. 

These observations included information on vessel size and traffic behavior and information on 

crossing times, and include the following:

 Vessels take between 1.5 to 7 seconds to cross under the bridge depending on size and speed.

 Most small vessels take approximately 2 seconds to cross.

 Medium vessels (e.g., the water taxi) take approximately 3.5 seconds to cross.

 Larger vessels (e.g., the Jungle Queen and sunset cruises) take approximately 5 to 6 seconds to 

cross.

 Two small vessels can cross at the same time in the same or opposite direction.

 A medium and small vessel were observed crossing at the same time (heading opposite 

directions).

 A small vessel will cross the bridge just behind a large vessel, reducing the amount of time it 

takes to cross by approximately 1 second.

 When a large vessel like the Jungle Queen crosses, no other vessel can cross and they are 

required to queue to the side of the river. 

 Some small vessels, such as jon boats, can cross when the bridge is down.

 Small vessels will cross the bridge as it is going down and some will cross before the bridge is 

fully open.

2.5.2.3 Infrastructure Changes

Proposed rail infrastructure changes would include extending the double track of the mainline across 

the Loxahatchee River Bridge and up to the St. Lucie River Bridge, which will remain single tracked. 

The result would be that a second train, waiting for a train coming from the opposite direction to 

cross the bridge, would be staged closer to the bridge. This would reduce delays for trains that must 

currently slow or stop to yield to oncoming train traffic. The assumptions used in the model for trains 

encountering oncoming traffic are delays of 10 minutes for Existing Conditions (2013) and 5 minutes 

for the Proposed Action (2016). Since the New River Bridge is currently double-tracked, siding 

delays are not considered in either the Existing Conditions or the Proposed Action. 

Currently, the bridges are controlled from a central dispatching facility in Jacksonville. On average, 

the controller deploys the bridge approximately 12 minutes before the arrival of a train and may or 

may not raise the bridge after the train has cleared it, depending on the expected arrival of the next 

train. The assumption for the Combined Effect (Case 3) is that the planned changes in dispatching 

procedures, result of the Proposed Action, will allow for the bridges to be deployed 7 minutes prior to 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-11 AMEC

the arrival of a train and that each bridge will be raised if the next train is not expected to arrive 

within the next 7 minutes. This is the assumption used in the simulation model.

2.5.3 Model Calibration

The simulation model was run and results were compared with the data outputs from the RTC model 

and actual marine traffic as observed on the surveillance video for the New River Bridge. The 

simulation model results are similar to those of the RTC model, in most cases within 1% of the RTC 

values. This suggests that the model calibrated well and accurately predicts moveable bridge 

operations. The total number of train crossings per week is almost identical and the day-to-day 

numbers are also within one to two trains of the RTC values. For marine traffic, hour-by-hour marine 

traffic arrivals at New River Bridge were compared to the observed values from the available video 

footage. Figure 2.5-1 shows the correlation.

Figure 2.5-1. Marine Traffic - Simulation Model versus Actual

The simulation model is designed to introduce some variation when generating train and marine 

traffic arrivals, so the results from run-to-run will not be identical. The results above show a good 

correlation between the simulation results and observed data. Therefore, it is concluded that the 

model is performing satisfactorily and, given the model inputs and assumptions, is calibrated. 

Following model calibration, the scenarios identified in Section 2.5.1 were examined to estimate the 

effect of train movements across the bridges on marine vessel movements. 

2.6 Effect Determination

2.6.1 Determining Impacts on Reasonable Needs of Navigation 

To determine whether the Proposed Action would unreasonably obstruct marine traffic, while at the 

same time accounting for the reasonable needs of land traffic, this analysis was developed pursuant 

to USCG Bridge Administration Manual COMDTINST M16590, which provides that drawbridge 

operating regulations must balance the needs of vessel, vehicular, and rail traffic in the overall public 

interest. 

The USCG guidance for bridges that have the potential to impact identified navigational needs 

(waterway usage) outlines several factors that need to be considered in order to assess potential 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-12 AMEC

impacts of the Proposed Action.2 The following factors will be considered to determine if the 

Proposed Action - when compared to the No-Build Alternative - meets the reasonable needs of 

existing and future navigation:

1. Obstruction of Passage: Does the Proposed Action completely obstruct the passage of any 

existing waterway users or the access to waterborne facilities?

The Existing Conditions, the No-Build Alternative, and the Proposed Action were evaluated using 

the RTC model results to determine whether there is a complete obstruction of passage of any 

existing waterway users, or the access to waterborne facilities. To determine an impact rating, 

vessel wait times during bridge closures for the No-Build Alternative (2016 freight traffic with 

2013 infrastructure) were evaluated against Existing Conditions (2013 freight traffic with 2013 

infrastructure); and the Proposed Action (2016 passenger traffic with 2016 infrastructure) and 

Combined Effect (2016 passenger and freight traffic with 2016 infrastructure) were evaluated 

against the No-Build Alternative (2016 freight traffic with 2013 infrastructure). Impact ratings 

were then assigned based on the associated increase or decrease in wait time.

2. Most Navigationally Limiting Structure: Does the Proposed Action establish a new 

navigational limiting factor (i.e., will the Proposed Action be the most restrictive/obstructive 

structure across the waterway)? Does the Proposed Action match the navigational clearance of 

other existing structures on the waterway?

To determine if the Proposed Action establishes a new navigational limiting factor, the vertical 

clearance of any infrastructure crossing the river, and thus considered a navigationally limiting 

structure, (bridges and power cables) within the defined extent of waterfront development 

(Figures 3.1-1, 4.1-1, and 5.1-1) were examined. Bridges were also categorized as operable or 

fixed for this purpose.

3. Impacts to Jobs, Economic Growth, and Development: Would implementation of the 

Proposed Action impact present or prospective commercial activity on the waterway (e.g., jobs, 

and economic growth and development)?

An economic analysis was performed to evaluate the potential socioeconomic impacts 

associated with the Proposed Action.

4. Economic Impacts to Existing or Planned Commercial/Industrial Development: Would 

implementation of the Proposed Action impact existing or planned commercial/industrial 

developments in the affected area (e.g., within waterways or on adjacent land-based 

properties)? What are economic impacts on these businesses?

The same technique described for “Impacts to Jobs, Economic Growth, and Development” was 

used to characterize potential impacts to this criterion.

5. Impacts to Critical or Unique Infrastructure: Does the Proposed Action impact existing 

facilities on the waterway that are or could be considered critical infrastructure, key resources, or 

important/unique US industrial capability (i.e., are these facilities unique or one of only a few of 

the type in the area)?

There are no critical or important/unique industrial facilities within the Project Area, and 

therefore, this criterion is not discussed.

6. Impacts to USACE Transit Ability: Does the Proposed Action impact USACE ability to transit 

the bridge in a federal project channel?

The evaluation methodology used to determine “Obstruction of Passage” impacts is the same as 

that used to determine impacts to USACE Transit Ability.

7. Impacts to USCG Transit Ability: Does the Proposed Action impact USCG and other 

government vessels’ ability to Transit Bridge to conduct mission essential functions (icebreakers, 

patrols, etc.)?
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-13 AMEC

The evaluation methodology used to determine “Obstruction of Passage” impacts is the same as 

that used to determine impacts to USCG Transit Ability.

8. Impacts to Existing and Future Cruise Ship Ports-of-Call/Terminals: Does the Proposed 

Action impact existing and future cruise ship ports-of-call/terminals?

Large cruise ships do not operate up and down each of the three rivers due to navigational 

constraints. Therefore, this criterion is not discussed. 

9. Impacts to Commercial Freighters: Does the Proposed Action impact commercial freighters.

All three of the rivers within the Project Area do not support large commercial freighters, due to 

navigational constraints. Therefore, this criterion is not discussed

10. Impacts to Ports Supporting Post-Panamax Vessels: Does the Proposed Action impact ports 

supporting post-panamax vessels?

All three of the rivers within the Project Area do not support large commercial freighters, due to 

navigational constraints. Therefore, this criterion is not discussed.

11. Impacts to Vessels that Require Tug Boats: Does the Proposed Action impact vessels that 

require helper boats/tugs (note the combined clearance requirement of the vessel and the helper 

boat/tug)?

Based on the characterization of the rivers as described in this report, it is assumed that helper 

boats/tugs are of the same vertical clearance, if not smaller, than the large boats included in this 

study. Therefore, the impacts characterized under “Obstruction of Passage” are applied to this 

criterion, as well.

12. Impacts to Proposed Commercial Vessels as a Result of Proposed Development: Does the 

Proposed Action impact proposed commercial vessels as a result of proposed development on 

waterway?

The evaluation methodology used to determine “Impacts to Jobs, Economic Growth, and 

Development”; as well as “Economic Impacts to Existing or Planned Commercial/Industrial 

Development” was used to address this criterion.

13. Ability of Vessels to Adjust Operations without Significant Economic Loss in Order to 

Transit the Proposed Action: Can vessels and cargoes be partially disassembled/dismantled 

in order to transit the Proposed Action, and if so, is it economically reasonable? The Coast 

Guard must take into consideration a vessel’s ability to adjust its operations without significant 

economic loss. Adjustment or mitigation techniques may include using other routes, lowering 

electronics (Global Positioning System [GPS], radar, communication antennae, etc.), lowering 

crane booms, etc.

Large commercial freighters and cargo ships do not operate up and down each of the three 

rivers due to navigational constraints. Therefore, this criterion is not discussed. 

14. Availability of Alternative Routes for Vessel Passage: Are alternative routes available for 

vessel passage?

Since each bridge is located at the confluence of each respective river, alternate routes (that do 

not exhibit equal or greater obstruction as presented by the Proposed Action) for vessel passage 

are not available. Therefore, this criterion was not considered in the effect determination.

15. Ability of Vessels to Transit at Typical Lower Water Stages: Can vessels transit at typical 

lower water stages (mean low water, mean pool level, etc.)?

The evaluation methodology of “Obstruction of Passage” was applied to determine the “Ability of 

Vessels to Transit at Typical Lower Water Stages”.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

2-14 AMEC

2.6.2 Evaluation Criteria

After assessing the potential of the No-Build Alternative and the Proposed Action to impact identified 

navigational needs as per USCG guidance (Section 2.6.1), a determination was made as to whether 

the Proposed Action meets or impacts the reasonable needs of existing and future navigation. The 

determinations of impacts to reasonable needs are described below:

 No Impact – No impact and/or change expected.

 Minimal – Impacts are not expected to be measurable, or are measurable but are too small to 

cause any change in environment.

 Minor – Impacts that are measureable but are within the capacity of the affected system to 

absorb the change, or the impacts can be compensated with little effort and few resources so 

that the impact is not substantial.

 Moderate – Impacts that are measurable but are within the capacity of the affected system to 

absorb the change, or the impacts can be compensated with effort and resources so that impact 

is not substantial.

 Major – Environmental impacts that, individually or combined, could be substantial.

 Enhanced – Positive impacts are anticipated.

For those navigational needs that required interpretative analysis of modeling results (obstruction of 

passage; impacts to jobs, economic growth and development; economic impacts to existing or 

planned commercial/industrial development; impacts to USACE transit ability, impacts to USCG 

transit ability, and impacts to proposed commercial vessels as a result of proposed development), 

criteria for the selection of an impact determination were developed to define determinations to the 

level of detail required (see Section 6.0 for this criteria matrix).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-1 AMEC

3.0 Characterization of New River Bridge

3.1 Project Area Description

3.1.1 Location of New River Waterway

The New River originates in the Everglades and flows east to the Atlantic Ocean, entirely within 

Broward County. The inlet of the New River is located north of the Port Everglades cut in the City of 

Fort Lauderdale. The waterway travels from the Intracoastal Waterway on the east to the west past 

residences and through the Central Business District of the City of Fort Lauderdale. West of the 

Central Business District, the river splits into north and south forks (North Fork and South Fork, 

respectively). The North Fork of the New River is a shallow meandering tributary, bordered primarily 

by residences with private docks for approximately 1.5 miles east before the waterway narrows 

along the south side of Sunrise Boulevard. The South Fork is a wider tributary for approximately 3.0 

miles to the south, where the waterway narrows and forks to either the North or South New River 

Canal. The South Fork is deeper, supports larger vessels, and is bordered by residences and 

commercial marine industries.9 Most marinas on the South Fork are located approximately 2.5 to 3.5 

miles from the New River Bridge, and numerous boat yards extend to approximately 6.8 miles from 

the New River Bridge (Figure 3.1-1).

The New River is traversed by multiple operable and fixed bridges. Characterization and location of 

these bridges, within the extent of waterfront development as defined in Figure 3.1-1 in the upper 

confluence and North and South Forks, can be found in Table 3.1-1.

Table 3.1-1. Characterization of Bridges Crossing the New River

Bridge Name Type of Bridge

Location Where Bridge 

Crosses the River

Vertical 

Clearance 

(feet)

Horizontal 

Clearance 

(feet)

State Hwy A1A Bridge operable/bascule East Intracoastal 

Waterway 55 125

Southeast 3rd Ave 

Bridge operable/bascule Confluence east of the rail bridge 16 60

Andrews Ave Bridge operable/bascule Confluence east of the rail 

bridge 21 60

New River Bridge operable/bascule Confluence 4 60

William Marshall 

Memorial Bridge operable/bascule North Fork 20 60

Southwest Eleventh 

Avenue Bridge operable/swing North Fork <5 ND

Broward Boulevard 

Bridge fixed North Fork <5 ND

Davie Boulevard 

Bridge operable/bascule South Fork 21 60

Interstate-95 (I-95)

Bridge fixed South Fork and North Fork 55 68

CSX Railway Bridge operable South Fork and North Fork 2 ND

Notes: ND=no data

3.1.2 Location of New River Bridge

The New River Bridge is located approximately 4 miles west of the New River’s inlet (26° 7'7.75" N

and 80° 8'43.54" W) (Figure 3.1-1). This operable bridge has a vertical clearance of 4 feet and 

horizontal clearance of 60 feet. Although in general the bridge remains open to allow a constant flow 

 

9 RS&H. 2012. New River Boat Survey and Preliminary Bridge Opening Analysis. FM Number: 417031-3-22-01
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-2 AMEC

of vessel traffic, it currently closes an average of 10 times daily to accommodate freight rail service. 

While closed, most vessels (with the exception of small recreational vessels requiring less than 4 

feet of draw) are unable to pass underneath the bridge deck, and must queue while waiting for the 

bridge to re-open.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-3 AMEC

Figure 3.1-1. New River Bridge Location Map
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-4 AMEC

3.1.3 Land-use and Population Density

The land use adjacent to the New River waterline is composed mainly of residential areas, with the 

exception of a large commercial sector north of the New River Bridge, at Las Olas Boulevard

(Figure 3.1-2). Las Olas Boulevard, is one of the largest commercial areas in Broward County and 

hosts many hotels and mixed-use condominium developments. Office buildings and high-rises 

include Las Olas River House, Las Olas Grand, 110 Tower (formerly AutoNation Tower), Bank of 

America, One Financial Plaza, Broward Financial Center, One East Broward Boulevard, Barnett 

Bank Plaza, PNC Center, New River Center, One Corporate Center, SunTrust Centre, and SunTrust 

Tower. A high density of commercial facilities can also be found south of the New River Bridge.

Marine facilities are located approximately 1.5 miles from the New River inlet, immediately after the 

A1A Route Bridge, and southeast and southwest of the New River Bridge; however, most marine 

facilities are concentrated within the river’s South Fork, approximately 3 miles west of the New River 

Bridge (Figure 3.1-2). 

Population density maps developed through analysis and development of GIS data show lands 

adjacent to the New River have census blocks with population densities that extend from Class 1 to 

Class 5. Class 1 and Class 2 population density can be found by the New River Inlet (Figure 3.1-3), 

while waterfront areas at the confluence of the New River have population densities in the range of 

Class 2 to Class 5. About 20 square miles of land adjacent to the New River have waterfront access. 

The population in this area is approximately 62,507 to 85,031 people (Table 3.1-2).

Table 3.1-2. Land Area and Population Density with Waterfront Access at the New River

Class

Total Area 

(square miles)

Area with Waterfront 

Access (square miles)

Percent with 

Waterfront Access

Population within 

Waterfront Access 

Size Class

1 18.5 10.5 57% 26,300

2 13.6 5.7 42% 21,517

3 10.9 2.3 21% 14,533

4 3.5 1.0 27% 8,323

5 2.8 0.3 11% 3,097
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-5 AMEC

Figure 3.1-2. New River Bridge Adjacent Land Use
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-6 AMEC

Figure 3.1-3. New River Bridge Adjacent Population Density per Census Block
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-7 AMEC

3.2 Marine Industry at New River Bridge

The New River has a robust waterfront industry, with vessel traffic utilizing a broad array of public 

and private marine facilities including 12 marinas and four boat ramps, as well as four boat/yacht 

clubs, two waterfront restaurants and two waterfront hotels that cater to mariners (Figure 3.2-1). 

Additionally, residential and commercial development occurs along the navigable extent of the New 

River, which provides approximately 280 private slips and 3,750 private docks.4 This waterway 

overview provides a description of the navigable extent of the New River and a characterization of 

the vessel traffic, waterway facilities, and the current and proposed use of the river. 

3.2.1 Vessel Traffic Patterns

Navigational constraints and regional land use dictate vessel traffic patterns on the New River. 

These factors result in varied navigational use of the New River, which is a travel corridor offering 

restaurants and entertainment venues that cater to marine vessels. Boating destinations on the New 

River include the Central Business District, Lauderdale Marine Center and the Port Everglades Inlet 

to the Atlantic Ocean. 

The New River going inbound (or upriver) starts at river markers 5 and 6. The river is approximately 

450 feet wide through marker 11 where the river makes an “S” turn to marker 12, known as the 

Tarpon Bend. Beyond marker 12 and into the Central Business District, the river is on average less 

than 150 feet wide, but can be as little as 100 feet wide at some narrower turns. This section of the 

river can be too narrow for larger vessels, which can include yachts up to 140 feet in length. Tow 

boats are often utilized to tow 100 foot yachts and larger vessels up and down the New River to and 

from several large boat yards that cater to yachts (e.g., Lauderdale Marine Center). All of the 

commercial vessels; such as the tour boats, tow boats and fuel barge boats; as well as bridges 

(including the FECR New River Bridge), monitor very high frequency (VHF) channel 9. From marker 

12, the New River runs about a quarter mile to the next bend. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-8 AMEC

Figure 3.2-1. Marinas and Commercial Docks Along New River
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-9 AMEC

Approximately 0.3 miles upriver from the Southwest 4th Avenue Bridge, the New River splits into the 

North Fork and South Fork. The North Fork of the New River is a shallow meandering tributary, 

bordered primarily by residences with private docks for approximately 1.5 miles before the waterway 

narrows into a canal that flows east along the south side of Sunrise Boulevard. The North Fork is 

primarily utilized as a travel corridor to and from residences Due to reduced depth and reach, the 

North Fork is less accessible to larger vessels. Additionally, the Broward Boulevard fixed bridge and 

the Southwest 11th Avenue swing bridge both have clearances less than 5 feet, which limits larger 

vessels from traversing this area.

The South Fork is a tributary that is generally wider than the North Fork, but can be narrow at river 

bends. The South Fork conveys most of the larger vessel traffic; primarily to the commercial 

boatyards located approximately 1.5 miles south of the river fork (refer to Figure 3.2-1). The Davie 

Boulevard Bridge, a bascule bridge that has a vertical clearance of 21 feet, is located approximately 

halfway from the river fork and commercial boatyards to the south. Boatyards are located on both 

the east and west side of the I-95 high-level fixed bridge (vertical clearance of 55 feet) and adjacent 

to the CSX Railroad Bridge. From these boatyards, the South Fork disperses into several inshore 

waterways.

The inshore waterways of the New River are primarily comprised of a network of man-made canals. 

These canals function essentially as a travel corridor to and from small marinas, boat ramps, and 

waterfront residential facilities. Vessel traffic on these waterways is limited to smaller vessels along a 

relatively narrow waterway for passage to and from their destinations. These canals are maintained 

for navigability by the USACE and Florida Inland Navigation District. Navigation can be limited in the 

upper portions of the New River, particularly where canals cross underneath low clearance bridges. 

3.2.2 Vessel Registration and Population Trends

Vessel registration information for Broward County from 2003 to 2013 was obtained from the Florida 

Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, indicating an overall reduction in vessel 

registration of 15.1 percent over this period.10 Vessel registration grew by approximately 4.1 percent 

between 2003 and 2008; however, during the recession from 2009 to 2013, vessel registration 

declined by approximately 18.9 percent from 2006 levels, which represented the peak vessel 

registration for the study period. 

Broward County, home to 1.69 million people in 2003, had grown by approximately 5.1 percent to a 

population of 1.78 million people in 2013. The county’s population is projected to grow to 1.81 million 

people by 2016 and to 1.90 million by 2025.5 Most municipalities are forecast to experience steady 

growth; however, Fort Lauderdale and Hollywood show the greatest growth over the 25-year period 

due to future housing unit construction in each city’s downtown area.5

Based on County population and vessel registration data for 2003 to 2013, 2.69% of the population 

is estimated to own/operate a vessel. This average number of registered vessels per capita was 

then compared to county population growth forecasts obtained from the Bureau of Economic and 

Business Research.5 Based on these population forecasts, it is anticipated that registered vessels in 

Broward County will increase to 48,629 by 2016 (Table 3.2-1).

 

10 Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 2014. Florida Vessel Owners Statistics: 2000-2013. 

Available at http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/vslfacts.html. Accessed 3 March 214. Online data available was only 

available back to 2000. Request for data prior to 2000 indicate that this information is no longer maintained by the 

State of Florida.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-10 AMEC

Table 3.2-1. Population and Vessel Registration in Broward County (2003 through 2016)Error! 

Bookmark not defined.

Year

Total 

Population

Total 

Vessel Registration

Percentage of Population with 

Registered Vessels

2003 1,698,425 49,041 2.89%

2004 1,723,131 49,470 2.87%

2005 1,740,987 51,105 2.94%

2006 1,753,162 51,375 2.93%

2007 1,765,707 50,623 2.87%

2008 1,758,494 51,057 2.90%

2009 1,744,922 45,373 2.60%

2010 1,748,066 42,976 2.46%

2011 1,753,162 42,687 2.43%

2012 1,771,099 42,131 2.38%

2013 1,784,715 41,657 2.33%

2016 (projected) 1,807,075 48,629 2.69% (11-year average)

Source: Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, 2013. Based on the results from the Florida Demographic 

Estimating Conference, February 2013 and UF, BEBR, Florida Population Studies, Volume 46, Bulletin 165, March 2013 

medium county projections.

3.2.3 Inventory of Waterway Features

The Waterway Features Inventory of recreational and commercial boating access facilities includes 

boat ramps, marinas, dry storage facilities, anchorages, and commercial entities (Table 3.2-2). The 

number of waterfront residences with dockage or slips along the New River was also estimated. 

Additionally, a sampling procedure was utilized to estimate the number of wetslips and docks

available at waterfront residential properties within the navigable extent of each waterway, extending 

inland from the Intracoastal Waterway. For the purposes of study, the New River was surveyed for 

the extent of its navigable area west of the operable bridge and east to the Intracoastal Waterway.

Table 3.2-2. Overview of Waterway Features in Broward County and the New River

Boating Facility Broward County New River

Percent of Broward County Inventory on 

New River

Marinas

Marina 37 12 32.4%

Private Club 9 4 44.4%

Hotels/Restaurants 12 4 33.3%

Boat Ramps

Private 0 0 -

Public 35 4 11.4%

3.2.3.1 Marinas, Boat Ramps and Repair/ Support Facility Inventory

The New River contains 12 public and private marinas. These marinas range in capacity from 5 slips 

to more than 190 slips, with an average of approximately 42 slips per marina. Marinas on the New 

River comprise approximately one third of all marinas in Broward County (Table 3.2-3). The largest 

concentration of marinas is located on the South Fork of the New River approximately two miles 

west of the New River Bridge. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-11 AMEC

Table 3.2-3. Overview of Waterway Features in the New River and Associated Waterways

Boating Facility Number Slips

Location Relative to

New River FEC Corridor Railway Bridge

East West

Commercial Marina 9 502 2 7

Public Marina 3 190 2 1

Private Club 4 79 2 2

Hotel/ Restaurant 4 47 4 -

Total 20 818 10 10

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 2009

Four locations on the New River have boat ramps (Table 3.2-4). All boat ramps on the New River 

are public, with three located west of the New River Bridge and one to the east. Only two 

anchorages occur in the vicinity of the New River, both located east of the New River Bridge. The

New River, and Fort Lauderdale in general, are known for recreational vessel services, and contains 

a relatively high number of vessel and yacht service companies. Most of these vessel repair and 

service facilities are located west of the New River Bridge, particularly concentrated on the South 

Fork of the River. These commercial repair and support facilities provide a variety of services 

including vessel repair, cleaning, sales, and temporary dry docking. These services provide 

economic benefits to the City of Fort Lauderdale and the regional economy (refer to Section 3.2.2). 

Table 3.2-4. Boat Ramps, Anchorages, and Vessel Repair Facilities on the New River

Boating Facility Number

Location Relative to

New River FEC Corridor Railway Bridge

East West

Boat Ramp 4 1 3

Anchorage 2 2 -

Repair/ Support Facilities 15 5 10

Total 21 8 13

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 2009

3.2.3.2 Residential Boating Facility Inventory

The New River and nearby area islands in the Intracoastal Waterway have a high number of 

residential waterfront properties and numerous residential neighborhoods with waterway access to 

the River. These parcels contain a large number of docks, while only approximately 6% contain a 

slip. Overall, approximately 89% of all waterfront properties contain either a dock or a slip 

(Table 3.2-5). The majority of the small private waterfront housing developments on the New River 

only meets the boating needs of the residences, and do not provide any public boating access. 

While secondary to marinas and other public marine facilities, an inventory of the docks and slips at 

waterfront housing developments is important to provide an overall picture of the complete marine 

industry and recreational use of the New River. Utilizing methodology provided in Section 2.1, the 

approximate number of docks and slips for single family, multi-family greater than 10, multi-family 

less than 10, and condominiums were counted or estimated (Table 3.2-5). 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-12 AMEC

Table 3.2-5. Overview of Residential Boating Features of Waterfront Properties on the New River

Land Use

Total 

Waterfront 

Properties

Estimated Properties 

with Docks

Estimated Properties 

with Slips

Estimated Properties 

with Docks or Slips

Single Family 4,218 3,627a

(86%)

169a

(4%)

3,796

(90%)

Multi Family <10 

Units 194 114a(59%)

56a

(29%)

170

(88%)

Multi Family >10 

Units 23 4(17%)

10

(44%)

14

(61%)

Condominiums 72 5

(7%)

45

(63%)

50

(70%)

Total Waterfront 

Properties 4,507 3,750(83%)

280

(6%)

4,030

(89%)

Note: a Estimated based on a percent of parcels with docks or slips from a random sample of 100 WFP parcels on the New 

River

3.2.3.3 Purpose and Use of Navigation Infrastructure (Commercial versus Recreational 

Vessel Traffic)

Navigation on the New River is predominantly recreational, with limited commercial and marine 

industry vessel traffic. The size of the waterway and adjacent land uses limit the extent of 

commercial marine activities on the New River. Commercial barge traffic primarily occurs in the 

vicinity of the Port of the Everglades. Inland commercial vessel activities are primarily associated 

with water taxi/bus, restaurant, and touring operations. 

3.2.4 Economic Analysis

The total economic value of the marine industry along the New River is based on all marine related 

sales along this river, including those directly related to marine services (e.g., vessel sales, vessel 

repairs, recreational equipment) and those that are outside the marine industry but related to marine 

activity (e.g., sales of food and ice for boating trips). The type of sales that were considered in the 

marine industry include:

 Vessel and yacht sales;

 Vessel accessories and replacement parts (e.g., trailers, electronics);

 Vessel services (e.g., repair, maintenance, interior design);

 Vessel storage (e.g., marinas, onshore storage);

 Sales at businesses frequented during boating trips (e.g., hotels and restaurants);

 Recreational equipment and instruction (e.g., dive equipment, fishing tackle, water ski 

instruction);

 Inland waterway businesses (e.g., water taxis and charter boats); and

 Other miscellaneous costs (e.g., insurance, business/personal services).

This analysis estimates the direct, indirect, and induced benefits of the marine industry to the local 

economy. In order to determine the direct economic value of the marine industry along the New 

River, the total direct economic value of the marine industry in Broward County was estimated, and 

then the relative percentage of the industry that can be attributed to the New River was applied. This 

value was then used to determine the resulting indirect and induced benefits. This analysis also 

considers the number of jobs that are supported by the economic activity associated with the marine 

industry along the New River.

3.2.4.1 Economic Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County

The direct economic value of the marine industry in Broward County was determined by updating the 

economic analysis performed by the State of Florida in 2011. The state’s study was updated from 

the base year of 2007, when the original study for Broward County was performed, to reflect the total 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-13 AMEC

value of the industry in December 2013. The direct economic value of the marine industry 

associated with the New River includes all marine-related spending by the individuals and 

businesses utilizing the waterway.

The direct benefits of the marine industry in Broward County were determined by escalating the 

values determined in the base year of 2007 in accordance with growth experienced between that 

time and December 2013. The gross sales in Kind Code 28 for Broward County declined by 5.17% 

in that period while gross sales across all Kind Codes in the state of Florida grew by 8.56%. In 

accordance with the methodology described in Section 2.2, retail sales were escalated by -5.17%, 

while port operations and non-marine benefits were escalated by 8.56%. As seen in Table 3.2-6, the 

resulting estimated total economic value of the marine industry (not including port tenants) in 

Broward County was $3,748.3 million, a decrease of $192.6 million (5%) from the 2007 value of 

$3,940.8 million.

Table 3.2-6. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County

Business Type

2007 Marine

Business Volume a

2013 Marine 

Business Volume

Total Direct Benefits (marine only) $3,858,775,858 $3,659,190,239 

Non-marine Benefits (gas, food, drink, ice) $82,100,000 $89,131,273 

Total Marine and Non-marine Benefits $3,940,875,858 $3,748,321,512 

Source: Original 2007 marine business volume obtained from Appendix M of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s 

Waterways in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

Note: a Excludes receipts from port tenants since the port operations in Broward County are not associated with the New River.

Due to indirect and induced effects of expenditures in the marine industry in Broward County, the 

total economic value of the industry is greater than the initial direct spending. The total economic 

value of the marine industry for Broward County, including direct, indirect, and induced effects, was 

generated by using IMPLAN economic modeling software for the 2007 data. Because the distribution 

of economic value is similar to the distribution at the time of the original study, the relative indirect 

and induced effects would also be similar. Therefore, extrapolating from the data obtained for the 

2007 model results, the estimated 2013 results show that the total value of the marine industry in 

Broward County is $5,268.0 million, with $3,748.3 million in direct sales, $820.2 million in indirect 

benefits, and $699.4 million in induced benefits (see Table 3.2-7).

The economic activity associated with Broward County’s marine industry also supports local area 

employment, including jobs associated with the direct effects of spending in the industry as well as 

jobs associated with indirect and induced economic activity. These benefits, including both the 

number of jobs and personal income, were estimated using the same methodology of applying the 

2007 IMPLAN model run percentages to determine the total effects. The results show that direct 

spending in the marine industry supports 15,185 jobs and $638.7 million in personal income. 

Additionally, the total spending associated with the marine industry, including direct, indirect, and 

induced effects, supports 27,592 jobs and $1,186.8 million in personal income (see Table 3.2-7).

Table 3.2-7. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Broward County

Benefit

Original 2007 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Business Volume 

(in millions) $4,325.8 $946.6 $807.2 $6,079.6 $3,748.3 $820.2 $699.4 $5,267.9

Personal Income 

(in millions) $737.1 $364.2 $268.3 $1,369.6 $638.7 $315.6 $232.5 $1,186.8

Employment 17,524 7,415 6,904 31,843 15,185 6,425 5,982 27,592

Source: Original 2007 model results obtained from Appendix M of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways 

in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-14 AMEC

3.2.4.2 Economic Benefits of the Marine Industry associated with the New River

The New River represents approximately 32.7% ($1,723.7 million) of the marine activity and 

economic value in Broward County, excluding port activities. This total value is comprised of 

$1,226.5 million in direct expenditures, $268.4 in indirect effects, and $228.9 million in induced 

effects. This activity supports a total of 9,028 jobs and $388.3 million in personal income (see 

Table 3.2-8).

Table 3.2-8. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the New River

Benefit Direct Indirect Induced Total

Business Volume (in millions) $1,226.5 $268.4 $228.9 $1,723.7

Personal Income (in millions) $209.0 $103.3 $76.1 $388.3

Employment 4,968 2,102 1,957 9,028

Source: Original 2007 model results obtained from Appendix M of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways 

in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

3.2.5 Public Outreach

Since AAF made the first public announcement of its proposed passenger rail Project in Florida, a 

comprehensive public engagement strategy has been employed. A series of meetings, briefings, 

speeches and telephone calls with stakeholders, community leaders, neighborhood leaders and

elected officials have been ongoing and will continue. AAF has participated in more than 300

meetings with residents, business and community leaders, and public agencies throughout the State.

Further to these efforts that began in March 2012, AAF has undertaken earlier coordination efforts to

work proactively with federal, state and local agencies (e.g., FRA, USACE, USCG, SFWMD, etc.). 

Public outreach activities in Broward County, particularly in the vicinity of the New River, are 

provided in Tables 3.2-9 and 3.2-10. Additionally, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) scoping 

meeting and meetings that specifically addressed navigation issues on the New River are outlined in 

Table 3.2-9. 

Table 3.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 1 of 4)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

April 2012

City of Fort Lauderdale Briefing - Lee Feldman, City Manager

Broward County Call - Commissioner Kristin Jacobs

Florida Minority Firms Presentation – Coordinated by United States 

Congresswoman Corrine Brown

May 2012

Broward County Meeting - Bertha Henry, County Administrator

Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Presentation – Board Meeting

Central Florida Partnership Presentation – Board Meeting

City of Fort Lauderdale/ Broward County Briefing - Lee Feldman, City Manager

Bertha Henry, County Administrator

Chris Walton, Transit Director

City of Fort Lauderdale Follow Up - Lee Feldman, City Manager

Planning Staff: Diana Alarcon, Sharon Dreesen, Jenni 

Morejon

Broward County Briefing - Bertha Henry, County Administrator

Fort Lauderdale Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Briefing - Chris Wren, Executive Director

South Florida Regional Planning Council Presentation – monthly board meeting

South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) Joseph Giuletti, Executive Director, & Staff

Transit Oriented Development Briefing - Tony Brown, Executive Director

Commissioner Lowe

Scott Evans, Planning Director
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-15 AMEC

Table 3.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 2 of 4)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

June 2012

Center for Urban Transportation Research Meeting - Jason Bittner

Citizen’s Independent Transportation Trust Meeting - Charles Scurr, Executive Director

FL House of Representatives Meeting - Rep. Lori Berman

July 2012

Broward County Planning Council Briefing - Henry Sniezek, Executive Director

Florida Coalition of Railroad Passengers Presentation – Spring/Summer meeting

City of Fort Lauderdale Briefing – Jenni Morejon, Deputy Director

Renee Cross, Senior Transportation Planner

Diana Alarcon, Transportation & Mobility Director

Kevin Walford, Transportation Planner

Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) - District 5 Meeting - Secretary Noranne Downs

Floridians for Better Transportation Presentation – 2012 Transportation Summit

Fort Lauderdale City Commission Presentation – monthly City Commission meeting 

with all city commissioners

United State Department of Transportation (USDOT) Meeting - Secretary Ray LaHood

August 2012

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 

USACE, SFWMD, St. Johns River Water Management 

District (SJRWMD) and others

Tiger Team Meetings (held monthly)

Broward County Senior Staff Meeting

Environmental Group Meeting Meeting with:

Everglades Foundation

Audubon Society

Florida Conservation Council

Sierra Club

Myregion.org Presentation – monthly board meeting

Greater Fort Lauderdale Alliance Meeting – Boating 

Community

Meeting with:

Greater Fort Lauderdale Alliance

Fort Lauderdale DDA

Broward MPO

Lauderdale Marine Center

Stiles

Marine Advisory Board

Ward’s Marine Electric

Riverfront Marina, Cymbal Development 

Winterfest

Tow Boat US Fort Lauderdale

City of Fort Lauderdale

Roscioli Yacht Center

Bradford Marine 

Fiberglass Coating

Frank & Jimmies Propeller, Neptune Boat Lift

Broward County Commissioners Individual briefings with:

Dale Holness, 

Barbara Sharief, and 

Ilene Lieberman

September 2012

City of Hollywood, FL Briefing - Mayor Peter Bober and staff

Broward County Planning and Environmental Regulation 

Division

Pre-application meeting

Florida East Coast Railway Society Presentation – historical society

Greater Fort Lauderdale Alliance Presentation – Corporate Council

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) Presentation – monthly board meeting
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-16 AMEC

Table 3.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 3 of 4)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

October 2012

USCG Pre-application meeting

United States House of Representatives Subcommittee 

on Railroads, Pipelines, & Hazardous Materials

Briefing- Joyce Rose

Southeast Florida Transportation Council Presentation – scheduled board meeting 

Tom Gustafson Briefing – Florida House of Representatives 

candidate

City of Delray Beach Briefing – Mayor Woodie McDuffie

November 2012

Marine Industries Association of South Florida (MIASF) Boat tour – MIASF representatives and the City of 

Fort Lauderdale

City of Fort Lauderdale Briefing –Lee Feldman, City Manager

City of Fort Lauderdale Briefing – Mayor Jack Seiler

December 2012

South Florida Regional Planning Council Presentation – Monthly board meeting

Sun Sentinel Editorial board

United States House of Representatives Briefing – Congressman Mario Diaz Balart

FL House of Representatives Briefing – Representative Will Weatherford

Broward County Meeting – Bertha Henry, County Administrator

January 2013

Broward MPO Briefing – Greg Stuart, Executive Director, and James 

Cromar, Planner

Broward County Planning and Environmental Regulation 

Division

Permit review meeting

Environmental groups Meeting: Everglades Foundation

Audubon Society

1,000 Friends of Florida

National Railroad Construction Conference Presentation – yearly conference

MIASF Briefing – Kristy Hebert, President, and Patience 

Cohn

February 2013

Broward County Briefing – Commissioner Sue Gunzburger

Florida Chamber of Commerce – Transportation Summit Presentation – Mobility and Investment Strategies 

Panel 

City of Fort Lauderdale Presentation – Marine Advisory Board

United States House of Representatives Transportation & 

Infrastructure Committee – Subcommittee on Railroads,

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

Briefing - Mike Friedberg, Staff Director, and Fred 

Miller, Counsel

Broward County Meeting - Bertha Henry, County Administrator, and 

staff

Brevard County Briefing – Commissioner Trudie Infantini

Brevard County Briefing – Commissioner Mary Bolin Lewis (staff)

March 2013

Broward County Briefing – Commissioner Martin David Kiar

Broward County Briefing – Commissioner Stacey Ritter

April 2013

Biscayne Gardens Civic Association Presentation – monthly neighborhood meeting

Village of Biscayne Park Briefing – Mayor Noah Jacobs and Manager Anna 

Garcia

Fort Lauderdale Economic Development Advisory Board Presentation –monthly board meeting

AAF/Broward County Marine Advisory Committee Presentation/Meeting – first meeting of a group 

convened by AAF to discuss and reach solutions on 

marine industry concerns

Life Sciences South Florida Executive Committee Presentation –monthly board meeting
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-17 AMEC

Table 3.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 4 of 4)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

April 2013 (continued)

Mayors Mean Business – Florida League of Mayors Presentation – more than 50 mayors at annual Florida 

League of Mayors meeting

City of Dania Beach Briefing – Vice Mayor Al Jones, Community 

Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Director Jeremy Earle, 

Economic Development Manager Dan Murphy

City of Hollywood Briefing – Commissioner/Broward MPO Chair Richard 

Blattner, Public Works Director Sylvia Glazer, Director 

of Parking & Intergovernmental Affairs Lorie MertensBlack

Notice of Intent published April 15, 2013 initiated EIS scoping process

May 2013

Broward County Briefing – Vice Mayor Barbara Sharief (staff)

Broward County Briefing – Commissioner Chip LaMarca

City of Fort Lauderdale Briefing – Commissioner Dean Trantalis

EIS Process scoping meeting/open house Public meeting – Miami (Section 2.2.5)

EIS Process scoping meeting/open house Public meeting – West Palm Beach (Section 2.2.5)

EIS Process scoping meeting/open house Public meeting – Fort Pierce (Section 2.2.5)

City of Fort Lauderdale Briefing – Vice Mayor Bruce Roberts

Broward County NAACP Briefing – Greg Durden

City of Pompano Beach Briefing – Mayor Lamar Fisher

Flagler Village Civic Association Presentation – monthly neighborhood association 

meeting (Fort Lauderdale)

Efficient Transportation for the Community Presentation – monthly board meeting

EIS Process scoping meeting/open house Public meeting – Fort Lauderdale (Section 2.2.5)

June 2013

Florida Planning & Zoning Association Presentation at yearly conference

Mayor Steve Abrams’ Roundtable District 4 

Mayors/Managers meeting

Presentation to mayors and city managers from 

coastal cities in District 4 in Palm Beach County 

City of Fort Lauderdale Briefing – Commissioner Romney Rogers

City of Pompano Beach Briefing – Vice Mayor George Brummer

City of Dania Beach Briefing – Mayor Walter Duke

AAF sponsored Minority, Disadvantaged and Womenowned Business Enterprises (MBE/DBE/WBE) and 

veteran-owned small business (VOSB) and servicedisabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) 

Outreach Forum

Events held in Central and South Florida so 

DBE/MBE/WBE firms could discuss potential teaming 

opportunities with potential prime contractors

United States House of Representatives Briefing – Congresswoman Corrine Brown

July 2013

FL House of Representatives Briefing – Representative David Richardson

Village of Biscayne Park Presentation – monthly commission meeting

Black Archives Briefing – Dr. Dorothy Fields, Founder

AFL-CIO Miami Briefing – Ellis Canty, Board Member

October 2013

City of Fort Lauderdale Monthly meeting -Marine Advisory Committee
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-18 AMEC

Table 3.2-10. Letters and Agreements of Support

Date Document; Entity Signatory

May 10, 2012 Resolution No. 05-01-12; DDA of Fort 

Lauderdale

Gregory Durden, Chairman; Chris Wren, 

Executive Director

July 24, 2012 Memorandum of Understanding; City of 

West Palm Beach Geraldine Muoio, Mayor

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; Broward MPO Gregory Stuart, Executive Director

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; South Florida 

Regional Planning Council

James F. Murley, Executive Director

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; Hialeah Chamber of 

Commerce & Industries Mandy Llanes, Chairman

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; Greater Fort 

Lauderdale Alliance, Broward County Bob Swindell, President and CEO

July 25, 2012 Letter of Support; Coral Gables 

Chamber of Commerce Mark A. Trowbridge, President and CEO

July 25, 2012 Letter of Support; TCRPC Michael J. Busha, AICP, Executive Director

July 31, 2012 Letter of Support; Broward County Bertha W. Henry

July 31, 2012 Letter of Support, Florida Chamber of 

Commerce David A. Hart, Executive Vice President

3.2.5.1 Fort Lauderdale EIS Scoping

The public scoping meeting to support preparation of the EIS was held at Holiday Park Social 

Center, 1150 G. Harold Martin Drive, Fort Lauderdale from 3:30 to 7:00 pm on May 29, 2013. Eighty

(80) persons attended the meeting, and most of those indicated they were representing a local 

government agency, business, or homeowner association. Approximately 13 persons indicated they 

were not representing any organization. Twenty (20) attendees submitted either comments or 

completed a survey questionnaire.11

Public participants in the Fort Lauderdale meeting expressed concern regarding potential for 

adverse economic impacts on Fort Lauderdale’s recreational boaters and marine industry due to 

more frequent crossings of the FECR operable bridge across the New River near the proposed 

station. Five (5) people addressed this topic at the meeting while an additional comment was 

received by email. Both traffic and boater congestion and public safety were a concern with respect 

to grade crossings in Fort Lauderdale, with specific concern regarding frequency of closing at 

Broward Boulevard and the New River Bridge. 

3.2.6 Additional Public Comments

Additional comments delivered by mail or email were received during the scoping process. The FRA 

received an email from John R. Fiore, Associate Planner; Liaison, Broward County Marine Advisory 

Committee; Broward County Parks and Recreation Division. The comment sent on April 25, 2013 

raised a concern that increased rail traffic on the FECR operable bridge across the New River in Fort 

Lauderdale will cause delays and boating safety hazards for recreational and commercial boaters 

using the New River waterway.

3.2.6.1 Marine Advisory Board Meeting, Fort Lauderdale

AAF presented to the City of Fort Lauderdale Marine Advisory Board in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on 

Thursday, February 7, 2013. The meeting took place at 6:00 pm in the 8th Floor Conference Room of 

100 North Andrews Avenue. After the presentation by AAF staff, several members of the Marine 

Advisory Board expressed concerns related to additional closure of the New River Bridge and 

associated effects to marine traffic. Members wanted to know how long the New River Bridge would 

 

11 Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB). June 28, 2013. Scoping Report for All Aboard Florida Intercity Passenger 

Rail Project – Orlando to Miami. Prepared for Federal Railroad Administration
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-19 AMEC

need to be down per crossing and per day. In addition, the inability to provide exact schedules for 

freight crossings due to irregular freight service was raised as an issue for marine traffic. The 

possible use of a bridge tender was also discussed. 

Private citizens at the meeting had additional concerns related to safety in the event of marine 

emergencies as well as the effects of bridge closures on public events such as the Winterfest Boat 

Parade. A representative of the Marine Industries Association of South Florida (MIASF) expressed 

appreciation for the continuing dialogue and attention to the concerns of MIASF given by the AAF 

Project staff. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, the marine Advisory Board passed a motion stating strong 

concerns over impacts to river traffic, especially for vessels traveling to Marina Mile boatyards and 

requesting AAF to continue dialogue with the City and marine interests (including MIASF) to ensure 

impacts are minimized and mitigated.

3.2.6.2 Broward County Marine Advisory Committee Meeting

The AAF Project was presented to the Broward County Marine Advisory Committee in Wilton 

Manors, Florida on Thursday, October 3, 2013. The meeting took place at 2:00 pm at the Island City 

Park Preserve located at 823 N.E 28th Street. After the presentation, the Committee expressed 

concern over long wait times for vessels during crossings. 

3.3 Summary of Vessel Traffic Survey at New River

Vessel traffic was summarized at the New River Bridge and surrounding areas, including peak travel 

seasons, months, days, and times; vertical clearance; and nearby bridges over the New River. This 

summary includes a literature review of existing vessel traffic studies, and vessel traffic extracted 

from 2014 FECR’s video recordings, and a live feed of the bridge. These combined data was used to 

analyze vessel activity within the New River and provides the information necessary to estimate 

impacts related to increased train traffic and associated closures of the New River Bridge. The 

information gathered from previous vessel studies along the New River was summarized and used 

in conjunction with vessel traffic data collected from the videos to evaluate changes in vessel traffic 

from 2004 to 2014, and to determine reliability of previous navigation studies to determine 

socioeconomic effects of the Proposed Action.

3.3.1 Literature Review Vessel Traffic Surveys

Vessel traffic studies along the New River have been conducted in 2004-200512, 200913 and 20119. 

These studies include aerial and fixed point surveys, and provide estimated morning and afternoon 

vessel trends as well as seasonal trends separated by weekdays and weekends. Figure 3.3-1 

depicts the locations for these studies. 

3.3.1.1 Broward County Vessel Study

A vessel traffic study was conducted in Broward County via aerial surveys between May 7, 2004 and 

January 24, 2005.12 Fixed point surveys were conducted via field team observers at Colee Hammock 

Park to record vessel traffic along the New River passing the park. Colee Hammock Park is located 

approximately 1.2 miles east of the existing New River Bridge (Figure 3.3-1). Observations were 

conducted on both weekdays and weekends throughout the summer and winter of 2004 and 2005. 

The data recorded during this period showed the number of average daily vessels observed during 

the summer were 224 for weekdays, and 591 for weekends, with a weekend/weekday ratio of 2.6 

 

12 Gorzelany, Jay F. 2005. MOTE Marine Laboratory. Recreational Boat Traffic Surveys of Broward County, Florida.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Final Report

13 Gannett Fleming. 2009. South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis Study Phase 2 Navigable Waterway 

Analysis Technical Memorandum.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-20 AMEC

(Table 3.3-1). There were more vessels observed during the winter as compared to the summer, 

with an average of 340 vessels during weekdays and an average of 846 vessels observed during 

weekends. More vessels were observed on average in the afternoon as compared to the morning 

during both the summer and winter with 495 and 841 vessels, respectively. On average, peak vessel 

traffic appears to occur on Sundays with 442 vessels observed while Saturday counts averaged 277 

vessels (Table 3.3-2). However, it is worth mentioning that the number of vessels observed in this 

study only reflect traffic east of the New River Bridge and not the number of vessels directly crossing 

New River Bridge.

Table 3.3-1. Summary of Vessel Traffic Observed at Colee Hammock Park in the New River East of the 

New River Bridge Collected via Video Cameras (2004 and 2005) Summarized by Season 

and by Time of Day

Season

Weekday 

(Average)

Weekend 

(Average)

Ratio 

(WE/WD)

Morning (am)

(8:00 am to 11:59 am)

Afternoon (pm)

(Noon to 3:00 pm)

Ratio 

(pm/am)

Summer 224 591 2.6 320 495 1.5

Winter 340 846 2.5 345 841 2.4

Source: Modified from Tables 10 and 11 from Gorzelany 200512

Notes: WD = Weekday; WE = Weekend

Table 3.3-2. Summary of Vessel Traffic Observed at Colee Hammock Park in the New River East of the 

FECR Bridge Collected via Field Observers (2004 and 2005) Summarized by Day of the 

Week

Day Number of Days Observed Average

Sunday 2 442

Monday 1 87

Tuesday 1 167

Wednesday 1 173

Thursday - -

Friday 1 137

Saturday 2 277

Source: Modified from Tables 1 and 2 from Gorzelany, 200512
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-21 AMEC

Figure 3.3-1. New River Vessel Survey Location
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-22 AMEC

This study also conducted aerial flight surveys to assess vessel traffic trends for all of Broward 

County.

12 Aerial surveys were conducted from May 2004 to January 2005 to estimate weekday and 

weekend vessel trends as well as trends throughout the week separated by morning and afternoon 

(Table 3.3-3). This study indicates that peak vessel activity occurs in the afternoon between noon 

and 3 pm with an average of 118 vessels counted on weekdays and an average of 347 vessels 

counted on weekends. Peak weekday vessel traffic occurs on Fridays with an average of 

142 vessels, whereas weekend traffic peaks occur on Sundays with an average of 501 vessels. 

Morning vessel activity is considerably lower for both weekdays and weekends with 91 and 176 

vessels observed, respectively (Table 3.3-3).

Table 3.3-3. Total Number of Vessels Observed in Broward County via Aerial Surveys Conducted in 

2004 and 2005

Morning (am) 

(8:00am to 11:59 am)

Afternoon (pm)

(Noon to 3:00 pm)

Ratio 

(pm/am)

Total

Number Days 

Observed

Average 

per day

Number days 

Observed

Average 

per day

Number days 

Observed

Average 

per day

Weekday verses Weekend Summary

Weekday 4 91 4 118 1.3

Weekend 4 176 4 347 2.0

Weekly Summary

Sunday 1 191 2 501 2.6 3 398

Monday 1 63 1 79 1.3 2 71

Tuesday - - - - - - -

Wednesday 1 97 1 128 1.3 2 113

Thursday 1 106 1 123 1.2 2 115

Friday 1 97 1 142 1.5 2 120

Saturday 3 171 3 304 1.8 6 237

Source: Modified from Tables 1 and 2 from Gorzelany, 200512

Notes: WD = Weekday; WE = Weekend

3.3.1.2 New River Vessel Survey and Preliminary Bridge Opening Analysis

A vessel survey was conducted in April 2011, for the section of the New River upstream of the New 

River Bridge to I-95 on the South Fork, and Broward Boulevard on the North Fork.9 The purpose of 

this study was to evaluate vessel traffic that would require the opening of operable bridges east of 

the New River Bridge crossing, towards the Intracoastal Waterway, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. 

Focus was placed primarily on vessels with vertical clearances higher than those of the Southeast 

3

rd Avenue Bridge (16 feet) and the Andrews Avenue Bridge (21 feet). 

Results from this study show that 425 vessels upstream of the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge and 

Andrews Avenue Bridge would require bridge openings. Based on analysis of the confirmed vessel 

heights surveyed during February 2011, the most common vessel height requiring opening of the 

Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge is 59 feet. Vessel heights requiring the majority of openings range from 

50 to 70 feet. The most common vessel heights requiring opening of the Andrews Avenue Bridge are 

over 55 feet. Vessel heights requiring the majority of openings include the vessel heights mentioned 

above, as well as those vessels with a 64 foot vessel height.9

Estimates of the total number of vessels in the navigable waterways upstream of the Southeast 3rd 

Avenue Bridge (extending to the water control structures), and the number of vessels that appeared 

to have a vertical clearance requirement greater than 20 feet were approximated from aerial 

photography taken March 26, 2011. Downstream of I-95 (and Broward Boulevard on the North Fork) 

were approximately 1,186 vessels, approximately 484 (41%) of which appeared to have a vertical 

clearance requirement greater than 20 feet. Upstream of I-95 (and Broward Boulevard on the North 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-23 AMEC

Fork) were approximately 1,406 vessels, approximately 289 (21%) of which appeared to have a 

vertical clearance requirement greater than 20 feet.9

3.3.1.3 South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis Study – Phase 2 Navigable 

Waterway Analysis Technical Memorandum

A navigable waterway analysis was published by Gannett Fleming in November 2009, which

evaluated the vessel traffic traversing bridges along the New River, based on preliminary studies 

from 1999 and 2009. The January 1999 vessel survey at the CSX Railway crossing of the South 

Fork determined approximately 170 vessels pass underneath this bridge with the tallest vessel 

height reaching 48 feet. Based on personal communication from the USCG, under low tide vessels 

with heights close to 55 feet can transit under the CSX Bridge. The CSX Railway Bridge remains in 

the open position similar to New River Bridge and closes to facilitate train passage on an as-needed 

basis. Vertical clearance in the western reaches of the South Fork is restricted to 55 feet due to the 

I-95 fixed bridge. A field study conducted in March 2009 surveyed the vertical heights of the tallest 

sailing vessels moored between the Andrews Avenue Bridge and the New River Bridge, finding an 

average height of 54.5 feet. Based on interviews conducted during March 2009 with local marine 

businesses, River Bend Marine Center and Storm Rigging, the most common vertical clearance of 

sailing vessels coming for service were 60 feet and 63.5 feet, respectively. Although the charted 

clearance of the power cables west of New River Bridge is 80 feet, Storm Rigging indicated that the 

cables are actually at 105 feet, and therefore vessels reaching 95 feet in height can pass through the 

area, particularly during low tide. 

3.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey

Video recordings from a camera placed by the New River Bridge were provided by FECR. These 

videos consist of two full consecutive weeks of the peak season for vessel traffic, from January 14th

to the 27th, 2014 and were assessed to extract data of vessel traffic traversing the New River Bridge 

during daylight hours (from 6:00 am through 6:30 pm each day). In addition, this section summarizes 

vessel traffic data and traffic characteristics extracted from a survey of a live feed of the New River 

Bridge, February 2014.

3.3.2.1 Summary of Vessel Traffic Traversing New River FEC Bridge

New River Bridge 2014 Video Assessment

Based on the January 2014 FECR video, an average of 157 vessel crossings occurred at the New 

River Bridge (Min=99; Max=289) on a daily basis (6:00 am to 6:30 pm) from Monday through Friday 

compared to an average of 356 vessels (Min=262; Max=508) per day on a weekend day 

(Table 3.3-4). Both Sundays observed during this two week video assessment (January 19 and 

January 26) had the most vessel activity, with a total 304 and 508 vessel counts from 6:00 am to 

6:30 pm, respectively. Wednesdays and Thursdays reported the lowest vessel activity with an 

average of 114 and 136 vessel counts, respectively. The average vessel count for Monday is likely 

higher than typical since it included data from January 20, 2014, which is a holiday.

The average count of commercial vessels per day ranged from 29 to 59 (Figure 3.3-1). An increase 

in commercial crossings during the weekend was not observed during this two week assessment, 

but lower vessel counts were observed during Monday and Friday, with an average vessel count of 

29 and 33 vessels, respectively. An average count of recreational vessels per day ranged from 64 to 

356, with lower traffic during Wednesday and Thursday and an increase in vessel traffic of 

approximately 64% during the weekend (Figure 3.3-2).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-24 AMEC

Table 3.3-4. Vessel Traffic at New River Bridge Based on FECR Video Assessment from January 2014

Week Day Date

Vessel Traffic at New River Bridgea

Total

Percent of 

Commercial 

Vessels/day

Percent of 

Recreational 

Vessels/day

Morning

(6:00 AM-9:59 AM )

Noon

(10:00 AM-1:59 PM)

Afternoon to Overnight

(2:00 PM-5:59 AM)

Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational

Tuesday 1/14/2014 4 13 21 60 22 57 177 26.6% 73.4%

Wednesday 1/15/2014 9 9 20 21 20 20 99 49.5% 50.5%

Thursday 1/16/2014 7 8 17 22 24 32 110 43.6% 56.4%

Friday 1/17/2014 5 5 10 58 12 64 154 17.5% 82.5%

Saturday 1/18/2014 5 19 13 77 16 132 262 13.0% 87.0%

Sunday 1/19/2014 9 9 19 106 19 147 309 15.2% 84.8%

Monday 1/20/2014 6 16 17 113 18 119 289 14.2% 85.8%

Tuesday 1/21/2014 26 13 22 46 22 21 150 46.7% 53.3%

Wednesday 1/22/2014 10 6 19 34 22 38 129 39.5% 60.5%

Thursday 1/23/2014 7 6 24 35 28 61 161 36.6% 63.4%

Friday 1/24/2014 4 7 18 39 17 55 140 27.9% 72.1%

Saturday 1/25/2014 18 9 29 100 16 172 344 18.3% 81.7%

Sunday 1/26/2014 9 30 18 155 31 265 508 11.4% 88.6%

Monday 1/27/2014 9 10 8 10 ND ND 37 45.9% 54.1%

Notes: a Vessel traffic was assessed primarily during January daylight hours (from 6:00am to 6:30pm), but casual observations late at night were also recorded; ND=no data
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-25 AMEC

Figure 3.3-2. Average Vessel Count Traversing the New River Bridge

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Average Vessel Count

Day of the Week

Commercial Recreational
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-26 AMEC

New River Bridge 2014 Live Video Feed Survey

The average vessel count observed during the February 2014 New River live feed observations was 

lower than values obtained from the January 2014 New River Bridge video assessment 

(Table 3.3-5). However, the density of traffic was similar throughout the week, with lower vessel 

traffic on Thursdays and an increase in vessel traffic over the weekend. A higher traffic of 

recreational vessels was observed compared to commercial vessels. Most commercial vessel trips 

account for those made by taxi boats, the Jungle Queen, a sightseeing riverboat cruise, and towing 

services (Table 3.3-6).

Table 3.3-5. Vessel Traffic at New River Bridgea Observed During Survey of Live Video Feed 

Assessment

Day Number of Vessels (am) Number of Vessels (pm) Number of Vessels per day

Tuesday ND 102 102

Thursday 16 67 83

Friday ND 94 94

Saturday 85 305 390

Sunday 96 297 393

Notes: a Vessel traffic was assessed during January daylight hours, from 6:00am to 6:30pm; ND = no data

Table 3.3-6. Commercial Vessel Traffic at New River Bridge Observed During Live Video Feed 

Assessment on February 13, 2014

3.4 Summary of Bridge Operation at New River

This section includes data gathered through existing bridge operation studies at and near the New 

River Bridge, bridge operation surveys performed from the live feed and the current and projected 

operations schedule for freight and passenger traffic provided by AAF. These data are summarized 

herein and will be used to assess projected changes in maritime traffic.

3.4.1 Literature Review of Bridge Operation Studies

Bridge operation studies along the New River were conducted in 200913 and 20119. These studies 

include aerial surveys, along with fixed point surveys and provide average weekly and monthly 

bridge operation/openings as well as vertical clearances for bridges along the New River.

3.4.2 New River Vessel Survey and Preliminary Bridge Opening Analysis

A vessel survey and bridge opening analysis was conducted in April 2011 for the section of the New 

River upstream of the FECR Bridge to I-95 on the South Fork, and Broward Boulevard on the North 

Fork.9The purpose of this study was to evaluate vessel traffic that would require the opening of

operable bridges east of the New River Bridge crossing, towards the Intracoastal Waterway, in Fort 

Lauderdale, Florida.

Bridge operation based on tender log data was used to determine the frequency of openings at the 

Southeast 3rd Avenue and Andrews Avenue bridges. A summary of the estimated number of 

openings per day of the week for each of these bridges is described in Table 3.4-1.9 In addition, the 

data demonstrate that in 2011 the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge was opened 10,821 times. Peak 

opening times occurred on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday with approximately 32, 33, and 31 daily 

openings, respectively (Table 3.1-1). The average bridge openings per day, week and month at the 

Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge was approximately 30, 210 and 900 respectively. The Andrews

Vessel Type

Number of Trips

Morning Afternoon

Water taxi 4 11

Jungle Queen 0 2

Towing service 1 4
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-27 AMEC

Avenue Bridge was opened 9,803 times during 2011, with peak opening times occurring on Friday 

and Saturday with approximately 31 and 29 daily openings, respectively. The average bridge 

openings per day, week and month at the Andrews Avenue Bridge was approximately 27, 190 and 

820 respectively. 

Table 3.4-1. Average Number of Openings per day at the Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge and Andrews 

Avenue Bridge, April 2011

Bridge Name

Number of Bridge Openings

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge 31 30 30 28 29 32 33

Andrews Avenue Bridge 27 28 28 25 27 31 29

Source: Modified from RS&H, 20129

The 2011 opening logs for the Andrews Avenue Bridge and Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge from the 

Broward County Highway and Bridge Maintenance Division record the date, time and vessel that the 

bridge was opened for, as well as the vessel name and direction of the vessel, if available. Based on 

review of the opening logs, February was the month with greatest number of openings at both 

bridges. The estimated average number of daily openings by month for the Andrews Avenue Bridge 

and Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge for the 2011 calendar year is summarized in Table 3.4-2. 

Table 3.4-2. Average Number of Daily Openings per month at the Andrews Avenue Bridge and 

Southeast 3rd Avenue Bridge, Calendar Year 2011

Bridge Name

Average Number of Daily Bridge Openings

Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Southeast 3rd 

Avenue Bridge 29 34 34 32 34 27 26 27 23 34 32 34

Andrews Avenue 

Bridge 27 30 29 29 30 27 26 26 23 28 29 31

Source: Modified from RS&H, 20129

3.4.3 South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis Study – Phase 2 Navigable 

Waterway Analysis Technical Memorandum

A navigable waterway analysis was published by Gannett Fleming in November 2009 concerning 

bridge operations along the New River for the Andrews Avenue Bridge and the New River Bridge.13

Based on data collected on November 2008, an estimated average of 11 freight trains crossed the 

New River daily and those trains accounted for an average bridge closure time of 3.4 hours per day. 

Depending on the number of freight trains and the train’s length, closure times ranged from 1.5 

hours to almost 6 hours per day.13 Weekday closures were found to be longer than weekend 

closures (4 hours as opposed to 2 hours, respectively).

13

The number of openings in one-hour periods throughout the day, as well as the average number of 

openings per day was determined based on the Andrews Avenue Bridge log of November, 2007. 

The largest number of bridge openings (33 to 34) took place on Sunday and Monday, respectively. 

The most navigational traffic occurred between 10 am and 4 pm, averaging approximately one 

opening per hour. Table 3.4-3 summarizes the estimated average number of openings per day of the 

week during the study period.13 Results of this study were confirmed by a representative from the 

Broward County Streets and Highway Division, who through a phone interview stated the Andrews 

Avenue Bridge opens an average of 30 times per day and 800 to 1,000 times per month.13
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-28 AMEC

Table 3.4-3. Average Number of Andrews Avenue Bridge Openings, November 2007

Day Average Number of Openings per Day

Sunday 33

Monday 34

Tuesday 22

Wednesday 26

Thursday 23

Friday 24

Saturday 23

Source: Gannett Fleming, 2009 13

3.4.4 New River Bridge Operations Analysis

A bridge operation survey performed through observations of live feed indicates the New River 

Bridge is closed, on average, 19 minutes per closure (Table 3.4-4). This value is comparable to the 

values obtained through RTC modeled bridge operations using the freight traffic data provided by 

AAF, which shows the New River Bridge is closed about 19 minutes per closure under Existing 

Conditions (Table 3.4-5).

RTC model results for existing and projected bridge operations are provided in Table 3.4-5. Analysis 

of data suggests the No-Build Alternative (without the infrastructure contemplated as part of the 

Proposed Action) will increase the average time of each bridge closure by approximately 6 minutes.

The projected freight traffic under the 2016 No-Build Alternative results in a total average daily 

bridge closure of 6 hours during weekdays and approximately 3.3 hours of daily closure during 

weekends, as compared to approximately 3.50 and 2.45 hours of daily closure during weekdays and 

weekends, respectively, under the Existing Conditions. Although the Proposed Action (2016 

Passenger and upgraded infrastructure) will add to the total daily bridge closure time (about 2.92

hours during the weekdays and 3.12 hours during weekends), improvements to the rail infrastructure

are expected to increase the speed of rail traffic, reducing the Proposed Action average time of 

single closures (11 minutes) by approximately 8 minutes when compared to Existing Conditions and 

No-Build Alternative (19 minutes). The Combined Effect (2016 Freight and Passenger) will 

correspond to an average of 6.9 hours of daily closure times during the weekdays and 5.23 hours of 

closure time during the weekends. The total bridge closure estimated for the No-Build 2016 Freight 

and the 2016 Improved Freight, (Combined Effect minus the Proposed Action; data presented in 

Appendix A) are very similar. However, the 2016 Improved Freight has a lower total daily closure 

time from Thursday to Saturday and a reduction of bridge closure that ranges between 2 and 30 

minutes during active vessel traffic (6:00am to 6:00pm). 

Under the Combined Effect some hours will experience longer periods of bridge closure time (above 

30 minutes). Extended bridge closure time in a specific hour can be split into several short bridge 

closings periods (e.g., three 10 minutes closings) with bridge openings between each bridge closure, 

or they can happen as one bridge closure in that hour (Table 3.4-6). However, these single extended 

periods of closure time will occur mainly at night and early morning, which are characterized by a 

decreased vessel traffic compared to daytime hours (Appendix B). In addition these extended bridge 

closures are usually followed by long periods of bridge openings that should allow all queue vessels 

to cross without experiencing multiple bridge closures. Even the largest vessels (e.g., Jungle Queen) 

will not take more than 5 to 6 seconds to cross the bridge, thus shorter periods of bridge opening 

(e.g., 5 minutes) should be enough to clear queue vessels at both sides of the bridge. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-29 AMEC

Table 3.4-4. Bridge Operation Survey for New River Bridge Based on Live Feed Observations, February 

2014

Day of Week

Time it takes 

Bridge to 

close

Time it takes 

Train to 

arrive 

Time it 

takes Train 

to cross

Time it takes 

Bridge to start 

opening

Time it takes 

for Bridge to 

open

Total 

Time

Values Represent the Average Times Per Day (hh:mm:ss)

Thursday 0:01:17 0:08:44 0:01:33 0:02:04 0:01:28 0:15:04

Friday 0:02:01 0:11:53 0:02:58 0:02:13 0:01:17 0:20:22

Saturday 0:01:31 0:20:45 0:02:16 0:00:44 0:01:41 0:26:57

Sunday 0:01:18 0:06:37 0:03:29 0:01:21 0:01:45 0:14:30

Statistics of Raw Data for the Bridge Operation Surveya(hh:mm:ss)

Average 0:01:32 0:12:00 0:02:34 0:01:36 0:01:33 0:19:13

Minimum 0:01:17 0:06:37 0:01:33 0:00:44 0:01:17 0:14:30

Median 0:01:24 0:10:18 0:02:37 0:01:42 0:01:35 0:17:43

Maximum 0:02:01 0:20:45 0:03:29 0:02:13 0:01:45 0:26:57

Notes: a Average data based on 10 observations

Each day is an average of multiple observations per day that include both single and multiple trains crossing within the 

closures observed.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-30 AMEC

Table 3.4-5. Summary of Existing and Projected Bridge Operations for the New River Bridge

New River Bridge

Existing 

Conditions 2013 F

No-Build 

Alternative 2016 Fa

Proposed 

Action

2016 Pb

Combined Effect

2016 F+P b

Average Single Daily Closure Time (Minutes)

Sunday 19 20 11 13

Monday 18 19 11 13

Tuesday 19 20 10 14

Wednesday 18 18 13 13

Thursday 19 19 11 13

Friday 19 19 12 13

Saturday 18 18 11 11

Average Single Weekly 

Closure Time (minutes) c

19 19 11 13

Total Number of Daily 

Closures

10 16 16 30

Total Daily Closure Time (Minutes)

Sunday 148 179 182 319

Monday 231 395 175 447

Tuesday 189 362 134 402

Wednesday 221 348 188 433

Thursday 186 341 189 397

Friday 223 354 191 390

Saturday 146 215 192 308

Average of Total Weekday 

Closure Time (Minutes)

210 360 175 414

Average of Total Weekday 

Closure Time (Hours)

3.50 6.0 2.92 6.90

Average of Total Weekend 

Closure Time (Minutes)

147 197 187 314

Average of Total Weekend 

Closure Time (Hours)

2.45 3.3 3.12 5.23

Notes: aResults based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field 

conditions and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

bResults based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned 

infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action.

cMultiple trains(freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure.

Table 3.4-6. Extended Bridge Closures at New River due to Freight and Passenger Train Operations

Day

Bridge Closure 

Time (hh:mm) a

Total Number 

of Trains

Duration of Single 

Closure (Minutes)

Open Duration Before Next

Bridge Closure (Minutes)

Tuesday 18:22 5 37 22

Tuesday 22:22 3 31 50

Thursday 17:22 3 30 29

Note: Extended bridge closures are characterized by single closures longer than 30 minutes

a

Time of day when the extended bridge closure occurs
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-31 AMEC

3.5 Model Simulation Results

No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) Compared to Combined Effect (Case 3)

Table 3.5.1 shows the model results for marine traffic wait times for total vessels (commercial plus 

recreational), commercial only vessels, and recreational only vessels at New River Bridge crossing 

for the four cases identified in Section 2.5.1. When comparing Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) 

to Case 3 (2016 Freight and Passenger, Combined Effect) an increase in the percentage of vessels 

experiencing a wait from 23% under the No-Build Alternative to 36% under the Combined Effect is 

seen. There is a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 16.4

minutes under Case 2a, and will not wait longer than 12.2 minutes under Case 3. The average wait 

times for all vessels that experience a wait is expected to decrease under the Combined Effect as 

compared to the No-Build Alternative from 7.9 minutes to 6.3 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait times for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was 

similar to the effect on total vessels. For commercial vessels that wait, the average wait time is 

expected to decrease from 7.3 minutes under the No-Build Alternative to 6.3 minutes under the 

Combined Effect. For recreational vessels that wait, the average wait time is expected to decrease 

from 8.1 minutes under the No-Build Alternative to 6.3 minutes under the Combined Effect.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the New River Bridge 

(Table 3.3-4), the highest traffic period for commercial and recreational vessels occur from noon to 

6:00 pm. Overall, under the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) and for the Combined Effect (Case 3) 

there is a higher probability (>80%) that vessels will not have to experience a wait time. However, 

the number of vessels that could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is

presented in Table 3.5-2. In general,

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 3.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.1 to 2.2% of occurrence is over 10 vessels.

 Under the Combined Effect, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are experiencing 

a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest probability of 

occurrence; while the greatest vessel queue length with a probability ranging from 0.2 to 2.0% is 

over 10 vessels. 

Existing Conditions (Case 1) Compared to No-Build Alternative (Case 2a)

When comparing Case 1 (2013 Existing Conditions) to Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) for total 

vessel traffic, changes in vessel delays are projected. The percentage of vessels that experience a 

wait time increases from 14% under Existing Conditions to 23% for the No-Build Alternative There is 

a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 15 minutes under Case 1, 

and will not wait longer than 16.4 minutes under Case 2a. The average wait times for vessels that 

experience a wait increase under the No-Build Alternative as compared to the Existing Conditions, 

from 5.9 minutes to 7.9 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect of total vessels experiencing a wait. For commercial vessels that wait, the average wait 

time is expected to increase from 5.1 minutes under Existing Conditions to 7.3 minutes under the 

No-Build Alternative. For recreational vessels that wait, the average wait time is expected to 

increase from 6.3 minutes under Existing Conditions to 8.1 minutes under the No-Build Alternative.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the New River Bridge 

(Table 3.3-4), the highest traffic period for commercial and recreational vessels occur from noon to 

6:00 pm. under Existing Conditions (Case 1) and for the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) there is a 

higher probability that vessels will not experience a wait time. However, the number of vessels that 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-32 AMEC

could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is presented in Table 3.5-2. 

In general, 

 Under the Existing Conditions a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence; and the maximum vessel queue length with a 0.1 to 1.4% probability of 

occurrence is over 10 vessels.

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 3.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.1 and 2.2% of occurrence is over 10 vessels.

No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) Compared to 2016 Improved Freight (Case 2b)

When comparing Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) to Case 2b (2016 Freight, Improved) wait 

times decrease for total vessel traffic. The percentage of vessels that experience a wait time, 

decreases from 23% under 2016 No-Build Alternative to 18% for the 2016 Freight, Improved. There 

is a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 16.4 minutes under 

Case 2a, and will not wait longer than 11.2 minutes under Case 2b. The average wait times for 

vessels that experience a wait decrease under the 2016 Freight, Improved as compared to the 2016 

No-Build Alternative from 7.9 minutes to 5 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect of total vessels experiencing a wait. For commercial vessels that wait the average wait 

time is expected to decrease from 7.3 minutes under the 2016 No-Build Alternative to 4.5 minutes 

under the 2016 Freight, Improved. For recreational vessels that wait, the average wait time is 

expected to decrease from 8.1 minutes under the 2016 No-Build Alternative to 5.2 minutes under the 

2016 Freight, Improved.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the New River Bridge 

(Table 3.3-4), the highest traffic period for commercial and recreational vessels occur from noon to 

6:00 pm under the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) and for the 2016 Improved Freight (Case 2b) there 

is a higher probability that vessels will not experience a wait time. However, the number of vessels 

that could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is presented in 

Table 3.5-2. In general, 

 Under the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence; and the maximum vessel queue length with a 0.1 to 2.2 % probability 

of occurrence is over 10 vessels.

 Under the 2016 Improved Freight (Case 2b), a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that 

are experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 3.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.1 and 0.3% of occurrence is over 10 vessels.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-33 AMEC

Table 3.5.1. Navigation Simulation Model Results for New River Bridge

Case Number 1 2a 2b 3

Train Traffic 2013 F 2016 F 2016 F 2016 F+P

Infrastructure 2013 (No-Build) 2013 (No-Build) 2016 (Build) 2016 (Build)

Marine Traffic Units 2013 2016 Projected

2016 

Projected

2016 

Projected

Total Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 215 215 215 215

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 185 165 176 139

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 86% 77% 82% 64%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 30 50 39 76

% Vessels With Wait Time 14% 23% 18% 36%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 0.8 1.8 0.9 2.2

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 5.9 7.9 5 6.3

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 15.0 16.4 11.2 12.2

Commercial Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 49 49 49 49

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 39 35 37 29

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 79% 71% 76% 59%

Vessels with Wait Time (#/day) 11 14 12 20

% Vessels With Wait Time 21% 29% 24% 41%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 1.1 2.1 1.1 2.6

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 5.1 7.3 4.5 6.3

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 14.9 17.0 11.6 12.9

Recreational Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 165 165 165 165

Vessels with Zero Wait Time (#/day) 145 130

13

8

10

9

% Vessels with Zero Wait Time 88% 79%

84

%

66

%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 20 35 27 56

% Vessels With Wait Time 12% 21%

16

%

34

%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 0.7 1.7 0.8 2.1

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 6.3 8.1 5.2 6.3

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 15.1 16.3 11.1 12.0

Notes: a Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and 

vessels with no wait time) 

b Average time queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

3-34 AMEC

Table 3.5-2. Simulation Model Results for Vessel Queue Lengths at New River Bridge

Case Time

Length of Queue (vessels)

Minimum 

Queue

Percent 

Chance

Maximum 

Queue

Percent 

Chance

Case Number: 1

Train Traffic: 2013 F

Infrastructure: 2013 (No-Build)

Marine Traffic: 2013

6-7 am 1 2.2 2 0.2

7-8 am 1 1 2 0.2

8-9 am 1 1.4 3 0.1

9-10 am 1 6.5 7 0.1

10-11 am 1 4.8 8 0.1

11 am – 12 noon 1 4.1 8 0.2

12 noon-1 pm 1 1.6 9 0.1

1-2 pm 1 2.8 9 0.1

2-3 pm 1 3.9 >10 0.9

3-4 pm 1 1.3 >10 1.4

4-5 pm 1 1.7 5 0.1

5-6 pm 1 4.3 >10 0.1

6-7 pm 1 2.9 >10 0.2

Case Number: 2a

Train Traffic: 2016 F

Infrastructure: 2013 (No-Build)

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am 1 2.2 2 0.3

7-8 am 1 2.7 3 0.1

8-9 am 1 0.5 1 0.1

9-10 am 1 0.5 1 0.5

10-11 am 1 4.9 7 0.1

11 am – 12 noon 1 8.6 >10 0.8

12 noon-1 pm 1 3.5 >10 0.3

1-2 pm 1 1.2 2 0.1

2-3 pm 1 5.4 >10 0.1

3-4 pm 1 5.3 >10 2.2

4-5 pm 1 5 >10 0.5

5-6 pm 1 8.5 >10 1

6-7 pm 1 8.2 >10 0.5

Case Number: 2b

Train Traffic: 2016 F

Infrastructure: 2016

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am 1 1.2 2 0.1

7-8 am 1 1.7 2 0.3

8-9 am 1 0.1 1 0.1

9-10 am 1 0.5 1 0.5

10-11 am 1 3.9 5 0.2

11 am – 12 noon 1 8.4 >10 0.1

12 noon-1 pm 1 3.7 9 0.1

1-2 pm 1 1.2 2 0.1

2-3 pm 1 4.4 8 0.1

3-4 pm 1 5.7 >10 0.3

4-5 pm 1 4.6 >10 0.1

5-6 pm 1 7.1 >10 0.2

6-7 pm 1 6.9 >10 0.1

Case Number: 3

Train Traffic: 2016 F + P

Infrastructure: 2016

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am 1 3.6 2 0.2

7-8 am 1 5.5 3 0.1

8-9 am 1 5 4 0.1

9-10 am 1 6.8 5 0.1

10-11 am 1 6.8 6 0.2

11 am – 12 noon 1 11.6 >10 0.2

12 noon-1 pm 1 9 >10 0.6

1-2 pm 1 7.3 >10 0.6

2-3 pm 1 8.6 >10 1.3

3-4 pm 1 7.8 >10 0.3

4-5 pm 1 9.5 >10 2

5-6 pm 1 8.8 >10 0.8

6-7 pm 1 8.9 >10 0.3
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-1 AMEC

4.0 Characterization of Loxahatchee River Bridge

4.1.1 Location of Loxahatchee River Waterway

The Loxahatchee River is located between Martin and Palm Beach Counties (Figure 4.1-1). Its 

headwater is located in River Bank on the south side of Indiana Road about 1.5 miles west of I-95 

and Florida’s Turnpike in Jupiter, and the mouth of the river is located at the Jupiter Inlet. The river

has three main forks that flow to the central embayment area before heading out the Jupiter Inlet.

The primary bridges crossing the Loxahatchee River include two operable bridges and three 

stationary bridges. Operable bridges include the US 1 Jupiter Federal Bridge and the Loxahatchee 

River Bridge located at the confluence, 0.9 miles and 1.3 miles from the Loxahatchee River inlet, 

respectively. Stationary bridges include the A1A Route Bridge located 1.2 miles from the 

Loxahatchee inlet, the Tequesta Drive Bridge located at the North Fork 2.4 miles from the 

Loxahatchee River Bridge, and the Loxahatchee River Road Bridge located at the South Fork 1.9 

miles from the Loxahatchee River Bridge. Characterization and location of these bridges, within the 

extent of waterfront development as defined in Figure 3.1-1 in the confluence and Northwest and 

Southwest Forks, can be found in Table 4.1-1.

Waterfront development on the North Fork extends for about 3.5 miles from the Loxahatchee River 

Bridge, for approximately 4.3 miles in the Northwest Fork and approximately 1.9 miles towards the 

South Fork, by the Loxahatchee River Road Bridge (Figure 4.1-1).

Table 4.1-1. Characterization of Bridges Traversing the Loxahatchee River

Bridge name Type of bridge

Location where bridge 

crosses the river

Vertical 

clearance 

(feet)

Horizontal 

clearance 

(feet)

US 1 Bridge Operable/Bascule Confluence 26 91

State Hwy A1A Fixed Confluence 25 47

Loxahatchee River Bridge Operable/Bascule Confluence 4 40

US 1 Bridge Fixed

Southeast Intracoastal 

Waterway 12 21

US1 Bridge Fixed

Southeast Intracoastal 

Waterway 7 18

State Hwy 706 Operable/Bascule

Southeast Intracoastal 

Waterway 35 90

Tequesta Drive Bridge Fixed Northwest Fork 11 34

SE Island Way Fixed Northwest Fork 13 36

SE Island Way Fixed Northwest Fork 6 60

Center Street Fixed Southwest Fork 4.6 25

Center Street Fixed Southwest Fork 7 25

Loxahatchee River Road Fixed Southwest Fork 6 18

Source: NOAA website

4.1.2 Location of Loxahatchee River Bridge

The Loxahatchee River Bridge is located about 1.3 miles west of the Loxahatchee River’s inlet 

(26°56'51.82"N, 80° 5'24.77"W) (Figure 4.1-1). This operable bridge has a vertical clearance of 4

feet and a horizontal clearance of 40 feet (Table 4.1-1). Although the bridge is typically open to the 

waterway to allow a continuous flow of vessel traffic, it currently closes an average of 10 times daily 

to accommodate freight rail service. While closed, most vessels (with the exception of small 

recreational vessels less than 5 feet in height) are unable to pass underneath the bridge deck, and 

queue while waiting for the bridge to re-open.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-2 AMEC

Figure 4.1-1. Loxahatchee River Bridge Location Map
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-3 AMEC

4.1.3 Land-use, Population Density

Land adjacent to the Loxahatchee River is mainly residential, with the exception of a commercial 

area and marine facilities near the Loxahatchee River inlet and west of the Loxahatchee River 

Bridge (Figure 4.1-2). The headwaters of the Loxahatchee River are one of the only two National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers in the State of Florida. This environmental preserve encompasses the three 

forks and central embayment of the Loxahatchee River, as well as Lake Worth Creek and is 

managed in two sections: Wilderness and Urban. While this designation ends approximately four 

miles west of the Loxahatchee River Bridge, this portion of the river is accessible to vessels 

traversing from the east. This river meanders through freshwater creeks from the west, down into a 

brackish estuary, and finally empties through the Jupiter Inlet into the Atlantic Ocean. 

Population density maps developed through GIS analysis show lands adjacent to the Loxahatchee 

River have census blocks with population densities that extend from Class 1 to Class 3. Population 

density for all Classes can be found by the Loxahatchee River Inlet (Figure 4.1-3), while waterfront 

areas in the confluence and the Forks of the Loxahatchee River have population densities in the 

range of Class 1 to Class 3. About 28 square miles of land adjacent to the Loxahatchee River have 

waterfront access. The number of people in this area is approximately 49,077 to 54,569 people

(Table 4.1-2).

Table 4.1-2. Land Area and Population Density with Waterfront Access at the Loxahatchee River

Class

Total Area 

(square miles)

Area with Waterfront 

Access (square miles)

Percent with 

Waterfront Access

Population within 

Waterfront Access 

Size Class

1 22.4 17.0 76 42,501

2 4.2 1.8 42 6,625

3 0.9 0.4 44 2,697
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-4 AMEC

Figure 4.1-2. Loxahatchee River Bridge Adjacent Land Use
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-5 AMEC

Figure 4.1-3. Loxahatchee River Bridge Adjacent Populatin Density per Census Block
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-6 AMEC

4.2 Marine Industry at Loxahatchee River Bridge

The Loxahatchee River supports a marine industry that primarily services smaller recreational 

vessels. Public and private marine facilities are concentrated in the eastern portions of the river and 

include seven marinas and three boat ramps (Figure 4.2-1). Boat/yacht clubs, waterfront restaurants 

and waterfront hotels that cater to mariners occur within Palm Beach and Martin counties; however, 

these waterway features are concentrated along the Intracoastal Waterway and are not located on 

the Loxahatchee River. With the exception of a commercial area and marine facilities near Jupiter 

Inlet, waterfront development is predominantly private residences, which provide approximate 135

private slips and 1,061 private docks.5 While the Loxahatchee River is located in both Martin and 

Palm Beach counties, waterfront development and marine facilities are overwhelming concentrated 

in Palm Beach County. This is largely due to the Wild and Scenic River designation that applies to 

the Loxahatchee River for most of its reach in Martin County. This designation allows for abundant 

marine recreation opportunities, but limits the construction of waterfront and vessel service facilities. 

This waterway overview provides a description of the navigable extent of the Loxahatchee River and 

a characterization of the vessel traffic, waterway facilities, and the current and proposed use of the 

river. 

4.2.1 Vessel Traffic Patterns

Navigational constraints and regional land use dictate vessel traffic patterns on the Loxahatchee 

River. The Loxahatchee River is used for recreational boating and as a travel corridor to and from 

residences to access the Atlantic Ocean via the Jupiter Inlet and the Intracoastal Waterway. Wild 

and Scenic River designated portions of the Loxahatchee River are accessible to smaller vessels 

only, and is a destination for wildlife viewing. 

4.2.1.1 Vessel Registration and Population Trends

Palm Beach County has grown by approximately 11.6% from a population of 1.21 million people in 

2003 to a population of 1.35 million people in 2013. The county’s population is projected to grow to 

1.39 million people by 2016 and to 1.54 million by 2025.10 Approximately one third of the County’s 

population lives in unincorporated areas. The remainder resides in the major coastal cities located in 

the central and southern portion of the County, including West Palm Beach, Boca Raton, and 

Boynton Beach. The City of Jupiter is anticipated to grow by 8.4% by 2025 to a population of 

61,678.14 Compared to Palm Beach County, Martin County tends to be less developed, with a 

population of 148,077 people in 2013. Population growth in Martin County has been robust, growing 

by approximately 10.1% over the last decade from a population of 134,491 people in 2003. 

 

14 Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and Building Department. 2013. 2013 Population Allocation Model. Available 

at: http://www.pbcgov.com/pzb/planning/population/populationproj.htm. Accessed 4 March.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-7 AMEC

Figure 4.2-1. Marinas and Commercial Docks Along Loxahatchee River
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-8 AMEC

Vessel registration information for Palm Beach and Martin counties from 2003 to 2013 were obtained 

from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Similar to other counties in 

Florida, vessel registration grew steadily between 2003 and 2008; however, during the recession 

from 2009 to 2013, vessel registration declined from peak vessel registration (2006). Overall, vessel 

registration declined by 14.1% between 2003 to 2013 in Palm Beach County, and 10.5% in Martin 

County.10

Based on County population and vessel registration data for 2003 to 2013, the 10-year average of 

registered vessels per capita is 3.31% for Palm Beach County, and 11.66% for Martin County. This 

per capita average of registered vessels was then compared to county population growth forecasts 

obtained from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.5 Based on these population 

forecasts, it is anticipated that registered vessels in Palm Beach County will increase to 46,173 by 

2016, and registered vessels in Martin County will increase to 17,956 by 2016. These data are 

provided in Table 4.2-1.

Table 4.2-1. Population and Vessel Registration in Palm Beach and Martin Counties (2003 and 

2016)Error! Bookmark not defined.

Year

Palm Beach County Martin County

Total 

Population

Total 

Vessel

Registration

Percentage 

of 

Population 

with 

Registered 

Vessels

Total 

Population

Total 

Vessel

Registration

Percentage 

of 

Population 

with 

Registered 

Vessels

2003 1,211,448 44,391 3.66% 134,491 17,446 12.97%

2004 1,242,270 44,560 3.59% 137,637 17,639 12.82%

2005 1,265,900 45,350 3.58% 141,059 17,661 12.52%

2006 1,287,987 44,964 3.49% 142,645 17,315 12.14%

2007 1,295,033 44,416 3.43% 143,737 16,772 11.67%

2008 1,294,654 45,294 3.50% 143,868 17,826 12.39%

2009 1,287,344 42,517 3.30% 143,856 15,932 11.07%

2010 1,320,134 41,158 3.12% 146,318 15,652 10.70%

2011 1,325,758 39,512 2.98% 146,689 15,745 10.73%

2012 1,335,415 38,363 2.87% 147,203 15,702 10.67%

2013 1,345,652 38,142 2.83% 148,077 15,606 10.54%

2016 (Projected) 1,394,974 46,173 3.31% 153,999 17,956 11.66%

Source: Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, 2013. Based on the results from the Florida Demographic 

Estimating Conference, February 2013 and UF, BEBR, Florida Population Studies, Volume 46, Bulletin 165, March 2013 

medium county projections.

4.2.2 Inventory of Waterway Features

The Waterway Features Inventory of recreational and commercial boating access facilities includes 

boat ramps, marinas, dry storage facilities, anchorages, and commercial entities in both Martin and 

Palm Beach counties (Table 4.2-2). Waterfront residences with dockage or slips along the 

Loxahatchee River in both counties were also estimated. In order to estimate the number of 

waterfront residential properties that include wetslips and docks, a sampling procedure was used. 

For the purposes of this study, the Loxahatchee River was surveyed for the extent of its navigable 

area west of the operable bridge and to the Intracoastal Waterway to the east.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-9 AMEC

Table 4.2-2. Overview of Waterway Features in Palm Beach and Maritin Counties and the Loxahatchee 

River

Boating Facility

Palm 

Beach 

County

Loxahatchee 

River (within 

Palm Beach 

County)

Percent of 

Palm Beach 

County 

Inventory on 

Loxahatchee 

River

Martin 

County

Loxahatchee 

River (Within 

Martin County)

Percent of 

Martin County 

Inventory on 

Loxahatchee 

River

Marinas

Marina 32 7 21.9% 24 0 0

Dockuminium 3 0 0% 0 0 0

Private Club 5 0 0% 3 0 0

Hotels/Restaurants 2 0 0% 10 0 0

Boat Ramps

Private 1 0 0% 2 0 0

Public 34 3 8.8% 13 1 7.7

4.2.2.1 Marinas, Boat Ramps and Repair/ Support Facility Inventory 

There are seven public and private marinas on the Loxahatchee River, all of which are located within 

Palm Beach County. The number of slips at these marinas ranges from 30 to 130, with a total of 534 

slips and an average of approximately 72 slips per marina. Marinas on the Loxahatchee River 

comprise less than one fourth of all marinas in Palm Beach County (Table 4.2-3). The largest

concentration of marinas on the Loxahatchee River is located along the Jupiter Inlet to the east of 

the Loxahatchee River Bridge, while the majority of the marinas in Palm Beach County are located 

along the Intracoastal Waterway. No waterfront hotels or restaurants that cater specifically to 

mariners are located on the Loxahatchee River.5

Table 4.2-3. Overview of Waterway Features in the Loxahatchee River

Boating Facility Number Slips

Location Relative to

Loxahatchee River FEC Corridor Railway 

Bridge

East West

Commercial Marina / Dockuminium 7 534 7 -

Private Club 0 - - -

Hotels / Restaurants 0 - - -

Total 7 534 7 -

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 2009Error! Bookmark not defined.

There are four boat ramps located on the Loxahatchee River, all of which are public (Table 4.2-4). 

Two of these ramps are located to the west of the Loxahatchee River Bridge - one on the North Fork 

of the Loxahatchee River and one on the South Fork. Three of the boat ramps are located in the 

Palm Beach County portion of the Loxahatchee River, while one, the Jonathan Dickinson State Park 

ramp, is located in Martin County on the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River. One waterfront vessel

repair and service facility is located on the Loxahatchee River.

Table 4.2-4. Boat Ramps, Anchorages, and Vessel Repair Facilities on the Loxahatchee River

Boating Facility Number

Location Relative to

New River FEC Corridor Railway Bridge

East West

Boat Ramp 4 3 1

Anchorage 0 - -

Repair/ Support Facilities 1 1 -

Total 5 4 1

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 20094
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-10 AMEC

4.2.2.2 Residential Boating Facility Inventory

The Loxahatchee River and nearby area islands in the Intracoastal Waterway have a high number of 

residential waterfront properties and numerous residential neighborhoods with waterway access to 

the river. Using the methodology provided in Section 2.1, the approximate number of docks and slips 

for single family, multi-family greater than 10, multi-family less than 10, and condominiums were 

counted or estimated (Table 4.2-5). Approximately, 81% of water front parcels for single family

contain docks, and 10% contain slips. The majority of these small private waterfront housing 

developments on the Loxahatchee River only meets the boating needs of the residences and do not 

provide any public boating access. 

Table 4.2-5. Overview of Residential Boating Features of Waterfront Properties on the Loxahatchee 

River

Land Use

Total Waterfront 

Properties

Estimated 

Properties with 

Docks

Estimated 

Properties with 

Slips

Estimated 

Properties with 

Docks or Slips

Single Family 1,304 1,057a131a1,188a

Multi Family <10 Units 7 3 2 5

Multi Family >10 Units 0 0 0 0

Condominiums 4 1 3 4

Total Waterfront Properties 1,315 1,061 136 1,195

Note: a Estimated based on a percent of parcels with docks or slips from a random sample of 100 WFP parcels on the 

Loxahatchee River

4.2.2.3 Purpose and Use of Navigation Infrastructure (Commercial versus Recreational)

Navigation on the Loxahatchee River is predominantly recreational, with limited commercial and 

marine industry vessel traffic. 

4.2.3 Economic Analysis

The total economic value of the marine industry along the Loxahatchee River is based on all marine 

related sales along this river, including those directly related to marine services (e.g., vessel sales, 

vessel repairs, recreational equipment) and those that are outside the marine industry but related to 

marine activity (e.g., sales of food and ice for boating trips). The type of sales that were considered 

in the marine industry includes:

 Vessel and yacht sales;

 Vessel accessories and replacement parts (e.g., trailers, electronics);

 Vessel services (e.g., repair, maintenance, interior design);

 Vessel storage (e.g., marinas, onshore storage);

 Sales at businesses frequented during boating trips (e.g., hotels and restaurants);

 Recreational equipment and instruction (e.g., dive equipment, fishing tackle, water ski 

instruction);

 Inland waterway businesses (e.g., water taxis and charter boats); and

 Other miscellaneous costs (e.g., insurance, business/personal services).

This analysis estimates the direct, indirect, and induced benefits of the marine industry to the local 

economy. In order to determine the direct economic value of the marine industry along the 

Loxahatchee River, the total direct economic value of the marine industries in Palm Beach and 

Martin Counties were estimated and then the relative percentages of the marine industry that can be

attributed to the portion of the Loxahatchee River that lies in each of these counties was applied. 

Because there are no wetslips at marinas, dockuminiums, clubs, and hotels/restaurants along the 

portion of the Loxahatchee River that lies in Martin County, the relative percentage for this county is 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-11 AMEC

zero; therefore, the economic contribution of the marine industry in Martin County was not 

considered in the analysis for this river. After calculating the direct economic value of the marine 

industry for the portion of the Loxahatchee River that lies in Palm Beach County, this figure was 

used to determine the resulting indirect and induced benefits. This analysis also considers the 

number of jobs that are supported by the economic activity associated with the marine industry along 

the Loxahatchee River.

4.2.3.1 Economic Benefits of the Marine Industry in Palm Beach County

The direct economic value of the marine industry in Palm Beach County was determined by updating 

the economic analysis performed by the State of Florida in 2011. The state’s study was updated 

from the base year of 2006, when the original study for Palm Beach County was performed, to 

reflect the total value of the industry in December 2013. The direct economic value of the marine 

industry associated with the Loxahatchee River includes all marine-related spending by the 

individuals and businesses utilizing the waterway.

The direct benefits of the marine industry in Palm Beach County were determined by escalating the 

values determined in the base year of 2006 in accordance with growth experienced between that 

time and December 2013. The gross sales in Kind Code 28 for Palm Beach County shrunk by 

19.52% in that period while gross sales across all Kind Codes in the state of Florida grew by 9.27%. 

In accordance with the methodology described in Chapter 2, retail sales were escalated by -19.52% 

while port operations and non-marine benefits were escalated by 9.27%. As seen in Table 4.2-6, the 

resulting estimated total economic value of the marine industry (not including port tenants) in Palm 

Beach County in December 2013 was $943.1 million. 

Table 4.2-6. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in Palm Beach County

Business Type

2006 Marine

Business Volume a

Estimated 2013 Marine 

Business Volume

Total Direct Benefits (marine only) $1,297,218,304 $904,169,935 

Non-marine Benefits (gas, food, drink, ice) $35,600,000 $38,901,606 

Total Marine and Non-marine Direct Benefits $1,332,818,304 $943,071,541 

Source: Original 2006 marine business volume obtained from Appendix L of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s 

Waterways in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

Notes: a Excludes receipts from port tenants since the port operations in Palm Beach County are not associated with the 

Loxahatchee River.

Due to indirect and induced effects of expenditures in the marine industry in Palm Beach County, the 

total economic value of the industry is greater than the initial direct spending. The resulting total 

economic value of the marine industry for Palm Beach County, including direct, indirect, and induced 

effects, was generated by using IMPLAN economic modeling software for the 2006 data. Because 

the distribution of economic value is similar to the distribution at the time of the original study, the 

relative indirect and induced effects would also be similar. Therefore, extrapolating from the data 

obtained for the 2006 model results, the estimated 2013 results show that the total value of the 

marine industry in Palm Beach County is $1.717 billion, with $943.1 million in direct sales, 

$219.4 million in indirect benefits, and $554.2 million in induced benefits (see Table 4.2-7).

The economic activity associated with Palm Beach County’s marine industry also supports local area 

employment, including jobs associated with the direct effects of spending in the industry as well as 

jobs associated with indirect and induced economic activity. These benefits, including both the 

number of jobs and personal income, were estimated using the same methodology of applying the 

2006 IMPLAN model run percentages to determine the total effects. The results show that direct 

spending in the marine industry supports 4,753 jobs and $182.7 million in personal income. 

Additionally, the total spending associated with the marine industry, including direct, indirect, and 

induced effects, supports 11,865 jobs and $494.8 million in personal income (see Table 4.2-7).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-12 AMEC

Table 4.2-7. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Palm Beach County

Original 2006 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Business Volume 

(in millions) $1,311.9 $305.2 $771.0 $2,388.2 $943.1 $219.4 $554.2 $1,716.7

Personal Income 

(in millions) $254.2 $122.8 $311.3 $688.3 $182.7 $88.3 $223.8 $494.8

Employment 6,612 2,533 7,360 16,505 4,753 1,821 5,291 11,865

Source: Original 2006 model results obtained from Appendix L of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways 

in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

4.2.3.2 Economic Benefits of the Marine Industry associated with the Loxahatchee River

The Loxahatchee River represents approximately 23.2% of the marine activity in Palm Beach

County, excluding revenue from port activities. Because the economic activity associated with the 

Loxahatchee River is located in Palm Beach County, the total economic value of this river is 

equivalent to 23.2% of the economic value of the marine industry in Palm Beach County, or $398.6 

million. This total value is comprised of $219.0 million in direct expenditures, $50.9 in indirect effects, 

and $128.7 million in induced effects. This activity supports a total of 2,755 jobs and $114.9 million in 

personal income (see Table 4.2-8).

Table 4.2-8. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the Loxahatchee River

Direct Indirect Induced Total

Business Volume (in millions) $219.0 $50.9 $128.7 $398.6

Personal Income (in millions) $42.4 $20.5 $52.0 $114.9

Employment 1,104 423 1,228 2,755

Source: Original 2007 model results obtained from Appendix M of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways 

in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011.6 Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

4.2.4 Public Outreach

Since AAF made the first public announcement of its proposed passenger rail Project in Florida, a 

comprehensive public engagement strategy has been employed. A series of meetings, briefings, 

speeches and telephone calls with stakeholders, community leaders, neighborhood leaders and

elected officials have been ongoing and will continue indefinitely. AAF has participated in more than 

300 meetings with residents, business and community leaders, and public agencies throughout the

State. Further to these efforts that began in March 2012, AAF has undertaken earlier coordination

efforts to work proactively with federal, state and local agencies [e.g., FRA, USACE, USCG,

SFWMD, etc.]. Public outreach in Palm Beach and Martin counties, particularly in the vicinity of the 

Loxahatchee River, is provided in Tables 4.2-9 and 4.2-10. Public outreach in the region has 

predominantly occurred in the City of West Palm Beach; however, meetings in the Town of Jupiter 

have also occurred. Additionally, the EIS scoping meeting and meetings that specifically addressed 

navigation issues on the Loxahatchee River are outlined below. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-13 AMEC

Table 4.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 1 of 2)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

March 2012

Community Development Department-Town of Lake 

Park

Meeting - Nadia Di Tommaso

April 2012

City of West Palm Beach Briefing - Jeri Muoio, Mayor 

Kim Briesemeister, CRA Director

City of West Palm Beach Briefing - Commissioner Kimberly Mitchell

City of West Palm Beach Planning and Zoning 

Department

Briefing - Rick Green, Director

City of West Palm Beach CRA Briefing - Kim Briesemeister, Director, & Staff

July 2012

City of West Palm Beach Briefing - Ed Mitchell, City Manager

Rick Greene, Planning Manager

Alex Hansen, Senior Planner

City of West Palm Beach Briefing - Development and Traffic Team

September 2012

North County Intergovernmental Presentation – monthly board meeting (Palm Beach 

County business organization)

October 2012

Marty Perry Briefing – Palm Beach business leader and SFRTA 

board member

City of Boca Raton Briefing – Deputy Mayor Susan Haynie

November 2012

Chamber of Commerce of the Palm Beaches Presentation – monthly meeting to membership

City of West Palm Beach Planning and Zoning 

Department

Briefing - Rick Green, Director

Business Development Board of Palm Beach County Briefing – Kelly Smallridge, CEO

December 2012

Sun Sentinel Editorial board

January 2013

Palm Beach County Briefing – Commissioner Priscilla Taylor

Palm Beach County Briefing – Commissioner Mary Lou Berger

Palm Beach County Briefing – Commissioners Shelley Vana

City of West Palm Beach Briefing – Mayor Jeri Muoio and Rick Greene

FONSI for intercity rail passenger service from Miami to West Palm Beach, FL published January 2013

February 2013

Palm Beach Post Presentation – Editorial board

Business Development Board of Palm Beach County Presentation – Economic Development stakeholders

City of West Palm Beach Briefing – Commissioner Keith James

City of Palm Bay Briefing – Councilwoman Kristine Isnardi

March 2013

West Palm Beach Briefing – Mayor Jeri Muoio and Rick Greene, Planning 

Director

City of North Palm Beach Meeting – City Manager Ed Green, Village Planner Jodi 

Nentwick and Director of Community Development 

Chuck Huff

City of Riviera Beach Meeting – City Manager Ruth C. Jones, Deputy City 

Manager Danny D. Jones, Fire Rescue Chief Troy F. 

Perry and Planning & Zoning Administrator Jeff Gagnon

City of West Palm Beach Briefing – Commissioner Sharon Materio

April 2013

Notice of Intent published April 15, 2013 initiated EIS scoping process
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-14 AMEC

Table 4.2-9. Community Outreach Data (page 2 of 2)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

May 2013

EIS Process scoping meeting/open house Public meeting – West Palm Beach (Section 2.2.5)

Palm Beach County Tourist Development Council Presentation – monthly board meeting

Martin County Briefing – Commissioner Doug Smith

Martin County Briefing – Commissioner Ed Fielding

Martin County Briefing – Commissioner John Haddox

Town of Jupiter Briefing – Councilor Wendy Harrison

Palm Beach Business Forum Presentation – monthly meeting

Palm Beach County Briefing – Kristine Frazell-Smith and county staff

Palm Beach MPO Briefing – Nick Uhren, Executive Director

June 2013

Mayor Steve Abrams’ Roundtable District 4 

Mayors/Managers meeting

Presentation to mayors and city managers from coastal 

cities in District 4 in Palm Beach County 

City of West Palm Beach Briefing – Commissioner Shanon Materio

City of West Palm Beach Briefing – Commissioner Keith James

Port of Palm Beach Briefing – Commissioner Ed Oppel

City of Lake Worth Briefing – Vice Mayor Scott Maxwell

Palm Beach County Briefing – Commissioner Mary Lou Berger

Palm Beach MPO Presentation – monthly board meeting

September 2013

TCRPC Presentation to Council regarding Loxahatchee River 

Bridge 

Palm Beach MPO Public Meeting - AAF staff gave an update on the project. 

Discussed included questions on noise impacts, safety 

improvements, quiet zones and construction schedule.

Table 4.2-10. Letters and Agreements of Support

Date Document; Entity Signatory

July 24, 2012 Memorandum of Understanding; City of 

West Palm Beach Geraldine Muoio, Mayor

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; South Florida 

Regional Planning Council James F. Murley, Executive Director

July 31, 2012 Letter of Support, Florida Chamber of 

Commerce David A. Hart, Executive Vice President

4.2.4.1 West Palm Beach EIS Scoping

The public scoping meeting was held at the Gaines Park Community Center, 1505 N. Australian 

Ave., West Palm Beach from 3:30 to 7:00 pm on May 7, 2013. One-hundred-thirty-six (136) persons 

attended the meeting, and most of those indicated they were representing a local government 

agency, business, or non-governmental organization. Approximately 26 persons indicated they were 

not representing any organization. Sixty-six (66) attendees either submitted comments or completed 

a survey questionnaire. The topic of greatest concern to attendees at the West Palm meeting was 

noise and vibration, generating 19 comments. Concerns about emergency vehicle access at specific 

locations in West Palm Beach and Jupiter were raised by five attendees. 

4.2.4.2 Loxahatchee River Railroad Bridge Meeting

A meeting concerning the Loxahatchee River Railroad Bridge was organized by the Treasure Coast 

Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and took place on Thursday, September 26th, 2013, from 

9:30am to 11:30am. The meeting was held at the Jupiter Community Center, at 200 Military Trail in 

Jupiter, Florida. The Vice President of FECI provided an overview of the AAF project and 

subsequently responded to questions and comments.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-15 AMEC

With relation to the elevation of the tracks and bridge, members of the public requested that AAF 

consider separating passenger and freight trains and a long-term plan to elevate the bridge span. It 

was noted that elevating the Loxahatchee Bridge would require closure of adjacent streets. The 

public also requested more information regarding bridge clearance, anticipated construction 

schedule and bridge closures during construction, and information regarding measures to reduce 

noise and vibrations. A request was made to post digital signage illustrating times until the next train 

crossing after concern over the schedule of closures, including the possibility of extended closures, 

was raised. 

The public audience also expressed concern over impacts to emergency services such as police 

and fire response. Another request was made to provide access to GPS train location data to 

emergency responders. Also related to safety, members of the public expressed a desire for 

information regarding stopping distances for trains traveling at various speeds. In conclusion, the 

TCRPC committed to creating a Loxahatchee River Railroad Bridge Working Group and to continue 

correspondence with FECI to arrange follow-up meetings.

4.3 Summary of Vessel Traffic Survey at Loxahatchee River

Vessel traffic data was summarized at the Loxahatchee River Bridge and adjoining areas, byseason, 

month, day, and time of day; vertical clearance; and nearby bridges traversed within the 

Loxahatchee River. This summary includes a literature review of existing vessel traffic studies and 

2014 FECR’s video recordings. This combined data was used to analyze vessel activity within the 

Loxahatchee River and provides the information necessary to estimate impacts related to increased 

train traffic and associated closures of the Loxahatchee River Bridge. The information gathered from 

previous vessel studies along Loxahatchee River was summarized and used in conjunction with 

vessel traffic data collected from the video to evaluate changes in vessel traffic from 2004 to 2014, 

and to determine reliability of previous navigation studies to determine socioeconomic impacts of the 

Proposed Action.

4.3.1 Literature Review Vessel Traffic Surveys

Two independent vessel traffic studies along the Loxahatchee River were conducted in 2009 and 

2012. These studies include aerial surveys, along with fixed point surveys and provide estimated 

morning and afternoon vessel trends as well as seasonal trends separated by weekdays and 

weekends. Figure 4.3-1 depicts the locations of each of these studies.

4.3.1.1 2009 Palm Beach County Vessel Traffic Survey

An Intracoastal Waterway vessel traffic study was conducted in Palm Beach County from the Martin 

County line south to the Boca Raton Inlet. The study focused on the Intracoastal Waterway, 

specifically four areas within Palm Beach County: Lake Work Inlet, South Lake Worth Inlet, Boca 

Raton Inlet and Jupiter Inlet.15 The study area for the Jupiter Inlet included the section of the 

Intracoastal Waterway corresponding to the adjoining sections of Jupiter Inlet and the Loxahatchee 

River. Two types of surveys were conducted: aerial surveys of vessel traffic and video surveys of 

vessel traffic Figure 4.3-1. 

Aerial Survey

Aerial surveys conducted in 2007 (published in 2009) in this area captured snapshot imagery of 

vessels in Jupiter Inlet and in the Loxahatchee River west of the Jupiter SR 811/Alt A1A Bridge and 

Loxahatchee River Bridge. The Jupiter Inlet data only includes vessel counts east of the 

 

15 PBS&J. 2009. Palm Beach County Vessel Traffic Study. Prepared for Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-16 AMEC

Loxahatchee River Bridge. A total of 16 flights capturing the entire Intracoastal Waterway were 

conducted and spaced evenly across season, day of week (weekend versus weekday) and time of 

day (morning versus afternoon) (Table 4.3-1). Data related to the Inlet aerial survey includes counts 

of vessel types and sizes. The data in this study is compiled into totals for the entire Intracoastal 

Waterway within Palm Beach and does not provide a breakdown for the Loxahatchee/Jupiter area or 

the railroad bridge. 

The total number of vessels counted in the Intracoastal Waterway during this 16 trip period was 

5,597 (Table 4.3-1). Only “in-use” vessels (i.e. excluding those docked at storage facilities, marinas 

or yacht clubs, or residential docks) were counted. Commercial vessels identified included tugs, 

barges, transport and “Other”. In this summary law enforcement vessels were included in the 

commercial count and accounted for 9% of the total commercial traffic. Recreational vessels made 

up 98% of the total vessel traffic. While afternoon counts of recreational vessels were more than 

two-fold higher than in the morning (3,924 versus 1,540), commercial traffic was evenly spaced 

across morning and afternoon periods. On average 8.3 commercial vessels were observed in the 

mornings and 7.9 were observed in the afternoon. On average 192.5 recreational vessels were 

observed in the mornings and 490.5 were observed in the afternoon.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-17 AMEC

Figure 4.3-1. Jupiter Inlet Vessel Study Locations
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-18 AMEC

Table 4.3-1. Summary of Commercial versus Recreational Vessel Traffic Observed throughout Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach County

Season Week Day Date

Morning (am) Afternoon (pm)

Total

Percent of 

Commercial 

Vessels/day

Percent of 

Recreational 

Commercial Recreation Commercial Recreation Vessels/day

Winter Friday 1/19/2007 5 123 7 165 300 4 96

Winter Saturday 2/24/2007 10 358 11 578 957 2 98

Spring Monday 4/2/2007 ND ND 7 241 248 3 97

Spring Tuesday 4/3/2007 5 136 ND ND 141 4 96

Spring Saturday 4/21/2007 13 269 ND ND 282 5 95

Spring Saturday 5/26/2007 ND ND 0 747 747 0 100

Summer Sunday 6/10/2007 ND ND 6 1406 1412 0 100

Summer Sunday 6/24/2007 2 288 ND ND 290 1 99

Summer Wednesday 7/18/2007 14 121 ND ND 135 10 90

Summer Thursday 8/23/2007 ND ND 9 82 91 10 90

Fall Monday 10/15/2007 13 45 15 55 128 22 78

Fall Sunday 11/4/2007 2 206 8 650 866 1 99

Total 64 1546 63 3924 5597 2 98

Source: Modified from Tables A3 from PBS&J 2009

15

Note: ND = No Data
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-19 AMEC

The data recorded during this period showed that for all seasons the average number of daily 

vessels was greater on the weekends than on weekdays. Weekend to weekday ratios ranged from 

7.5 to 2.6 across seasons (Table 4.3-2). There were more vessels observed during the summer as 

compared to all other seasons, with an average of 113 vessels during weekdays and an average of 

851 vessels observed during weekends. More vessels were observed on average in the afternoon 

as compared to the morning during all seasons and ranged from 752 in the summer to 364 in the 

fall. 

Table 4.3-2. Summary of Vessel Traffic Observed throughout the Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach 

County. Summarized by Season and by Time of Day

Season

Weekday 

(Average)

Weekend 

(Average) Ratio (WE/WD) Morning (am)

Afternoon 

(pm)

Ratio 

(pm/am)

Winter 150 479 3.2 248 381 1.5

Spring 195 515 2.6 212 498 2.3

Summer 113 851 7.5 213 752 3.5

Fall 64 433 6.8 133 364 2.7

Source: Modified from Tables A3 from PBS&J 2009

15

Notes: WD = Weekday; WE = Weekend

Vessel size was also recorded during aerial surveys (Table 4.3-3). In addition, this study compiled 

2000 to 2007 vessel registration by size class for all of Palm Beach County (Table 4.3-4). These 

data were used in the Vessel Development Model to project vessel registrations in 2020. Both for 

small vessels (less than 16 feet) and large vessels, a greater number of vessels were recorded 

during aerial surveys conducted during weekend and afternoon observation periods. Aerial survey 

data showed that 90% of all vessels observed were greater than 16 feet in length. The 2007 

registration data did not mirror aerial survey findings of the percentage of small vessels (less than16 

feet). Vessel registrations show that more than 30% of the vessels registered were small vessels 

whereas the aerial survey found that only 10% of the vessels were less than 16 feet in length. 

However, registration data reflects vessels throughout Palm Beach County and not just those 

vessels residing near or traveling within the Intracoastal Waterway. Vessel registration projections 

for 2020 mirrored trends of 2007 vessel registration: more than two times the number of vessels are 

registered for recreational use as compared to commercial use and greater than 60% of the vessels 

are greater than sixteen feet in length.

Table 4.3-3. Summary of Vessel Size Observed throughout the Intracoastal Waterway in Palm Beach 

County.

Vessel Size

Weekday 

(Average)

Weekend 

(Average)

Morning

(8:00 am to 11:59 am)

Afternoon

(Noon to 3:00 pm)

Percentage of 

Total

< 16 ft 15 52 21 46 10%

> 16 ft 116 517 180 452 90%

Source: Modified from Tables A4 from PBSJ 200915

Table 4.3-4. Vessel Registration and 2020 Projections for Palm Beach County. Summarized by Size 

Class and Year

Vessel Class CANOES CLASS A-1 CLASS A-2 CLASS 1 - 5

Vessel Size Less than 12' 12' - 15'11'' > 16' Percentage of Vessels < 16'

Year Rec Com Rec Com Rec Com Rec Com Rec Com

2007 264 2 8,550 67 5,535 154 28,619 836 33% 1%

2020

(projected) 641 5 10,137 97 3,704 120 37,648 1022 27% 2%

Source: Modified from Table 1-1 from PBSJ 200915

Notes: Rec = Recreational; Com = Commercial
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-20 AMEC

Video Survey

Video surveys were conducted at two locations within in the Jupiter Inlet area (Figure 4.3-1) from 

August 17, 2007 through August 19, 2007. Camera 1 was placed at the Jupiter SR 811/Alt A1A 

Bridge and directed southeast toward the Lake Worth Creek/Loxahatchee River confluence. A 

second camera (Camera 2) was placed on the U.S. Highway 1 Bridge and directed east toward 

Jupiter Inlet. Each monitoring period lasted 16 hours from 6 am to 9:59 pm. Data associated with the 

video survey included vessel direction as well as vessel counts at 15 minute increments. However, 

directional data was not provided in tabular form and it was not possible to interpolate the number or 

direction of the vessels from graphs provided in the report. Peak vessel traffic volumes as well as the 

total vessel count per 16 hour period (average daily traffic) were reported (Table 4.3-5). For both 

video survey locations, a greater number of vessels were recorded in the afternoon than in the 

morning). The total number of vessels during the Saturday survey period was similar at both 

locations (992 at Camera 1 versus 1113 at Camera 2). Forecasts out to 2020 show a 22% and 50% 

increase in traffic at the Lake Worth Creek/Loxahatchee River confluence and in Jupiter Inlet, 

respectively.

It should be noted that data from the video did not record vessels traveling under the Jupiter SR 

811/Alt A1A Bridge or associated Loxahatchee Railroad Bridge. North bound vessels capture on 

Camera 1 could turn west toward the railroad bridge or turn east toward Jupiter Inlet (Figure 4.3-1). 

Similarly, west bound vessels captured on Camera 2 could continue to travel under the railroad 

bridge, turn south into the Intracoastal Waterway, or turn north into the Intracoastal Waterway.

Table 4.3-5. Vessel Traffic Daily and Peak Volume Totals by Video Recording at two Locations in Jupiter 

Inlet. Traffic Volume Projections through 2020

Location Data Summary

Total Vessel Volumes and Projections

2007 2010 2015 2020

Jupiter Camera 1 

(Saturday)

Large Vessels 2 3 3 3

am Peak Volume 84 88 95 103

pm Peak Volume 144 151 164 176

Total Average Daily 

Traffic Volume 992 1042 1128 1213

Jupiter Camera 2 

(Saturday)

Large Vessels 0 0 0 0

am Peak Volume 84 88 95 104

pm Peak Volume 189 199 215 231

Total Average Daily 

Traffic Volume 1112 1169 1264 1659

Source: Modified from Table 2-4 from PBS&J 200915

4.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey

This section summarizes vessel traffic data extracted from a three week video assessment of the 

Loxahatchee River Bridge, from December 31, 2013 to January 21, 2014.

4.3.2.1 Summary of Vessel Traffic Traversing Loxahatchee River Bridge

Data gathered through a three week video assessment of the Loxahatchee Bridge during winter, 

shows an average of 108 vessel crossings per day occurred (Min=5; Max=335) from Monday to 

Friday, compared to about 271 vessels (Min=119; Max=502) per day on a weekend (Table 4.3-6). 

High vessel activity was observed during four different weekday holidays (around New Years and 

Presidents day) with vessel counts in the range of 200 to 335. When vessel traffic data from holidays 

is not included in the average vessel count for the weekdays, this average value drops to an average 

of 65 vessels per day. Sundays had the highest vessel activity, with exception of the holidays, with a 

range of 119 to 502 vessel counts. The average vessel count for Monday appears high, but these 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-21 AMEC

results include data from January 20, 2014 which was a holiday, and thus represents an unusual 

vessel count for Mondays as compared with data from Monday January 27, 2014.

The average count of commercial vessels per day ranged from 0 to 14 (Figure 4.3-1). A slight 

difference in commercial traffic was observed between weekdays and the weekend (average of 3 

and 5 vessels per day on weekday and weekend respectively). The average count of recreational 

vessels per day ranged from 5 to 500, with lower traffic from Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday and 

an increase in vessel traffic of about 60% during the weekend (Figure 4.3-2). Sunday had the most 

recreational vessel crossings with an average of 313 vessels.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-22 AMEC

Table 4.3-6. Vessel Traffic at Loxahatchee River Bridge Based on FECR Video Assessment from Tuesday December 31, 2013 to Tuesday 

January 21, 2014

Week Day Date

Vessel Traffic at Loxahatchee River Bridge a

Total

Percent of 

Commercial 

Vessels/day

Percent of 

Recreational 

Vessels/day

Morning

(6:00 AM-9:59 AM )

Noon

(10:00 AM-1:59 PM)

Afternoon to Overnight

(2:00 PM-6:00 AM)

Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational

Tuesday 12/31/2013 0 9 1 75 5 139 229 2.6% 97.4%

Wednesday 1/1/2014 0 13 4 90 1 122 230 2.2% 97.8%

Thursday 1/2/2014 2 14 2 128 2 187 335 1.8% 98.2%

Friday 1/3/2014 0 5 7 17 0 23 52 13.5% 86.5%

Saturday 1/4/2014 5 8 8 50 1 47 119 11.8% 88.2%

Sunday 1/5/2014 0 8 0 98 0 81 187 0.0% 100.0%

Monday 1/6/2014 0 13 0 72 0 68 153 0.0% 100.0%

Tuesday 1/7/2014 0 3 0 8 0 8 19 0.0% 100.0%

Wednesday 1/8/2014 0 0 0 3 0 2 5 0.0% 100.0%

Thursday 1/9/2014 0 5 4 7 0 10 26 15.4% 84.6%

Friday 1/10/2014 2 4 3 49 1 79 138 4.3% 95.7%

Saturday 1/11/2014 0 22 1 117 7 223 370 2.2% 97.8%

Sunday 1/12/2014 0 41 0 189 2 270 502 0.4% 99.6%

Monday 1/13/2014 0 11 0 39 2 48 100 2.0% 98.0%

Tuesday 1/14/2014 0 15 1 44 0 25 85 1.2% 98.8%

Wednesday 1/15/2014 0 12 3 9 1 6 31 12.9% 87.1%

Thursday 1/16/2014 2 3 2 9 0 25 41 9.8% 90.2%

Friday 1/17/2014 0 10 0 22 4 40 76 5.3% 94.7%

Saturday 1/18/2014 1 22 2 82 0 92 199 1.5% 98.5%

Sunday 1/19/2014 0 18 3 106 0 127 254 1.2% 98.8%

Monday 1/20/2014 0 19 0 91 2 88 200 1.0% 99.0%

Note: a Vessel traffic was assessed primarily during daylight hours (from 6:00am to 6:30pm), but casual observations were also recorded later at night.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-23 AMEC

Figure 4.3-2. Average Vessel Count Traversing the Loxahatchee River Bridge 

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Average Vessel Count

Day of the Week

Commercial Recreational
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-24 AMEC

4.4 Summary of Bridge Operation at Loxahatchee River

This section includes data gathered through existing bridge operation studies at and near the 

Loxahatchee River Bridge, and the current and projected operations schedule for freight and 

passenger traffic provided by AAF. These data are summarized herein and will be used to assess 

projected changes in maritime traffic.

4.4.1 Loxahatchee Bridge Operations Analysis

A bridge operation survey performed through the assessment of video recordings from the 

Loxahatchee River Bridge show that this operable bridge is closed for an average 19 minutes each 

time (Table 4.4-1). This value is comparable to the values obtained through RTC modeled bridge 

operations using the freight traffic data provided by AAF, which shows the Loxahatchee River Bridge 

is closed about 19 minutes per closure under Existing Conditions (Table 4.4-1).

Daily closures observed during the video assessment ranged from 0 to 4 closures. Observed 

number of closures is less than half of the daily closures reported by FECR (10 closures per day)

(Existing Conditions).

A summary of existing and projected bridge operations is provided in Table 4.4-2. Analysis of RTC 

model data suggests that projected freight increase with the No-Build Alternative without the 

infrastructure contemplated as part of the Proposed Action will increase the average time of each 

bridge closure by approximately 6 minutes. Furthermore, the projected freight traffic under the NoBuild Alternative results in a total average daily bridge closure of 5.8 hours during weekdays and 

approximately 3.6 hours of daily closure during weekends, as compared to approximately 3.57 and 

2.60 hours of daily closure during weekdays and weekends, respectively, under the Existing 

Conditions. Although the Proposed Action (2016 Passenger and upgraded infrastructure) will add to 

the total daily bridge closure time (about 5.53 hours during the weekdays and 5.41 hours during 

weekends), improvements to the rail infrastructure are expected to increase the speed of rail traffic, 

reducing the Proposed Action average time of single closures (11 minutes) by approximately 8 

minutes when compared to Existing Conditions (19 minutes) or about 9 minutes when compared to 

the No-Build Alternative respectively (20 minutes). The Combined Effect (2016 Freight and 

Passenger) will correspond to an average of 8.59 hours of daily closure times during the weekdays 

and 7.23 hours of closure time during the weekends. The total bridge closure estimated for the 2016 

Improved Freight, (Combined Effect minus the Proposed Action; data presented in Appendix A) is 

slightly shorter than the No-Build 2016 Freight. However, the 2016 Improved Freight has a lower 

total daily closure time throughout the week and a reduction of bridge closure that ranges between 3

and 24 minutes during active vessel traffic (6:00am and 6:00pm). 

Under the Combined Effect, some specific hour periods can potentially show longer periods of 

bridge closure time (above 30 minutes). Extended bridge closure time in a specific hour can be split 

into several short bridge closings periods (e.g., three -10 minutes closings) with bridge openings 

between each bridge closure, or these can happen as one bridge closure in that hour (Table 4.4-3). 

These single extended periods of closure time however, will occur mainly late at night, during which 

there is a decreased vessel traffic compared to daytime hours (Appendix B). In addition these 

extended bridge closures are usually followed by long periods of bridge openings that should allow 

all queue vessels to cross without experiencing multiple bridge closures. Large vessels will not take 

more than 5 to 6 seconds to cross the bridge, thus shorter periods of bridge opening (e.g., 5 

minutes) should be enough to clear queue vessels at both sides of the bridge.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-25 AMEC

Table 4.4-1. Bridge Operation Survey for Loxahatchee River Bridge Based on FECR Video Assessment

Day of Week

Time it takes 

bridge to close

Time it takes 

train to arrive 

Time it takes 

train to cross

Time it takes Bridge to 

start opening

Time it takes for 

Bridge to open Total Time

Values Represent the Average Times Per Day (hh:mm:ss)

Sunday 0:01:05 0:02:20 0:01:02 0:12:07 a0:01:44 0:18:18

Monday 0:01:51 0:07:23 0:02:03 0:00:54 0:01:37 0:14:22

Tuesday 0:01:39 0:14:48 0:01:20 0:01:05 0:01:29 0:20:22

Wednesday 0:02:02 0:08:59 0:02:57 0:02:22 0:01:51 0:17:52

Thursday 0:01:43 0:10:41 0:02:30 0:03:36 0:02:07 0:21:17

Friday 0:02:05 0:12:12 0:02:24 0:01:01 0:01:56 0:19:39

Saturday 0:01:29 0:13:35 0:03:24 0:02:09 0:01:27 0:22:42

Statistics of Raw Data for the Bridge Operation Survey b(hh:mm:ss)

Average 0:01:46 0:10:47 0:02:30 0:02:21 0:01:45 0:19:27

Minimum 0:00:40 0:00:51 0:00:23 0:00:40 0:00:47 0:07:47

Median 0:01:53 0:12:11 0:01:53 0:01:08 0:01:54 0:20:24

Maximum 0:02:30 0:20:08 0:06:19 0:12:07 0:02:31 0:35:18

Notes: Each day is an average of multiple observations per day that include both single and multiple trains crossing within the closures observed.

a This number is the result of multiple train crossings.

b Average data based on 23 observations
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-26 AMEC

Table 4.4-2. Summary of Existing and Projected Bridge Operations for the Loxahatchee River Bridge

Loxahatchee River Bridge

Existing 

Conditions 

2013 F a

No-Build 

Alternative

2016 F a

Proposed 

Action

2016 P b

Combined

Effect 2016 

F+ P b

Average Single Daily Closure Time (Minutes)

Sunday 19 20 11 11

Monday 22 20 12 13

Tuesday 20 19 11 12

Wednesday 19 20 12 12

Thursday 18 20 11 12

Friday 20 20 11 12

Saturday 18 21 11 11

Average Single Daily Closure Time c(minutes) 19 20 11 12

Total Number of Daily Closures 10 16 30 42

Total Daily Closure Time (Minutes)

Sunday 148 183 322 437

Monday 190 315 345 515

Tuesday 199 370 318 510

Wednesday 231 394 347 535

Thursday 216 357 319 508

Friday 235 318 330 508

Saturday 164 249 327 430

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 214 350.8 332 515

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 3.57 5.8 5.53 8.59

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 156 216 325 434

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 2.60 3.6 5.41 7.23

Notes: aResults based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field 

conditions and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

bResults based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned 

infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action.

cMultiple trains(freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure.

Table 4.4-3. Extended Bridge Closures at Loxahatchee River due to Freight and Passenger Train 

Operations

Day

Bridge Closure 

Time (hh:mm) a

Total Number 

of Trains

Duration of Single 

Closure (Minutes)

Open Duration Before Next

Bridge Closure (Minutes)

Monday 21:05 4 38 32

Wednesday 21:05 4 38 32

Note: Extended bridge closures are characterized by single closures longer than 30 minutes

a

Time of day when the extended bridge closure occurs

4.5 Model Simulation Results

No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) Compared to Combined Effect (Case 3)

Table 4.5-1 shows the model results for marine traffic wait times for total vessels (commercial plus 

recreational), commercial only vessels, and recreational only vessels at Loxahatchee River Bridge 

crossing for the four cases identified in Section 2.5.1. When comparing Case 2a (2016 No-Build 

Alternative) to Case 3 (2016 Freight and Passenger, Combined Effect) an increase in the 

percentage of vessels experiencing a wait from 25% under the No-Build Alternative to 42% under 

the Combined Effect is observed. There is a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not 

wait longer than 16.7 minutes under Case 2a, and will not wait longer than 9.8 minutes under Case 

3. The average wait times for vessels that experience a wait is expected to decreases under the 

Combined Effect as compared to the No-Build Alternative, from 9.4 minutes to 5.7 minutes, 

respectively.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-27 AMEC

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect on total vessels. For commercial vessels that wait, average wait time is expected to 

decrease from 6.7 minutes under the No-Build Alternative to 5.4 minutes under the Combined Effect.

For recreational vessels that wait, average wait time is expected to decrease from 9.5 minutes under 

the No-Build Alternative 5.7 minutes under the Combined Effect.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the Loxahatchee River

Bridge (Table 4.3-7), the highest traffic periods for commercial and recreational vessels occur from 

10:00 am to 6:00 pm. Overall, under the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) and the Combined Effect 

(Case 3) there is a higher probability (> 80%) that vessels will not have to experience a wait time. 

However, the number of vessels that could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 

6:00 pm is presented in Table 4.5-2. In general,

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 4.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.2 to 1.7% of occurrence is over 10 vessels. However, there are also blocks of time 

where vessels are expected to have a 0% of queue time (e.g., 6:00 am to 9:00am).

 Under the Combined Effect, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are experiencing 

a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest probability of 

occurrence; while the greatest vessel queue length with a probability ranging from 0.1 to 0.5% is 

over 10 vessels. 

Existing Conditions (Case 1) Compared to No-Build Alternative (Case 2a)

When comparing Case 1 (2013 Existing Conditions) to Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) for total 

vessel traffic, increases in vessel delays are projected. The percentage of vessels that experience a 

wait time increases from 7% under Existing Conditions to 25% for the No-Build Alternative. There is 

a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 15.9 minutes under Case 

1, and will not wait longer than 16.7 minutes under Case 2a. The average wait times for vessels that 

experience a wait increases under the No-Build Alternative as compared to the Existing Conditions,

from 8.3 minutes to 9.4 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect of total vessels experiencing a wait. For commercial vessels that wait, wait times are 

expected to increase on average from 5.9 minutes under Existing Conditions to 6.7 minutes under 

the No-Build Alternative. For recreational vessels that wait, wait times are expected to increase on 

average from 8.5 minutes under Existing Conditions to 9.5 minutes under the No-Build Alternative.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the Loxahatchee Bridge 

(Table 4.3-7), the highest traffic periods for commercial and recreational vessels occur from 10:00 

am to 6:00 pm. under the Existing Condition (Case1) and the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) there is 

a higher probability that vessels will not experience a wait time. However, the number of vessels that 

could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is presented in Table 4.5-2. 

In general, 

 Under the Existing Conditions a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence; and the maximum vessel queue length with a 0.1 to 1.3 % probability 

of occurrence is over 10 vessels. e.g., 5:00 pm to 7:00 pm).

 However, there are also blocks of time where vessels are expected to have a 0% of queue time 

(e.g., 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm).

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-28 AMEC

probability of occurrence (Table 4.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.2 to 1.7% of occurrence is over 10 vessels. However, there are also blocks of time 

where vessels are expected to have a 0% of queue time (6:00 am to 9:00am).

No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) Compared to 2016 Improve Freight (Case 2b)

When comparing Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) to Case 2b (2016 Freight, Improved) wait 

times decrease for total vessel traffic. The percentage of vessels that experience a wait time, 

decreases from 25% under 2016 No-Build Alternative to 18% for the 2016 Freight, Improved. There 

is a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 16.7 minutes under 

Case 2a, and will not wait longer than 11.4 minutes under Case 2b. The average wait times for 

vessels that experience a wait decrease under the 2016 Freight, Improved as compared to the 2016 

No-Build Alternative from 9.4 minutes to 6.3 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect of total vessels experiencing a wait. For commercial vessels that wait, wait times are 

expected to decrease on average from 6.7 minutes under the 2016 No-Build Alternative to 4.2

minutes under the 2016 Freight-Improved. For recreational vessels that wait, wait times are 

expected to decrease on average from 9.5 minutes under the 2016 No-Build Alternative to 6.4

minutes under the 2016 Freight-Improved.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the Loxahatchee River

Bridge (Table 4.3-7), the highest traffic periods for commercial and recreational vessels occur from 

10:00 am to 6:00 pm. Under the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) and the 2016 Improved Freight 

(Case 2b) there is a higher probability that vessels will not experience a wait time. However, the 

number of vessels that could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is 

presented in Table 4.5-2. In general, 

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 4.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.2 to 1.7% of occurrence is over 10 vessels. However, there are also blocks of time 

where vessels are expected to have a 0% of queue time (e.g., 6:00 am to 9:00am).

 Under the 2016 Improved Freight (Case 2b), a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that 

are experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 4.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.4 of occurrence is over 10 vessels. However, there are also blocks of time where 

vessels are expected to have a 0% of queue time (e.g., 6:00 am to 9:00am).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-29 AMEC

Table 4.5-1. Simulation Model Results for Loxahatchee River Bridge

Case Number 1 2a 2b 3

Train Traffic 2013 F 2016 F 2016 F 2016 F+P

Infrastructure 2013 (No-Build) 2013 (No-Build) 2016 (Build) 2016 (Build)

Marine Traffic Units 2013 2016 Projected

2016 

Projected

2016 

Projected

Total Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 121 121 121 121

Vessels With Zero Wait Time (#/day) 112 105 110 74

% Vessels With Zero Wait Time 93% 87% 91% 61%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 9 16 11 47

% Vessels With Wait Time 7% 25% 18% 42%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 0.6 1.2 0.6 2.2

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 8.3 9.4 6.3 5.7

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 15.9 16.7 11.4 9.8

Commercial Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 4 4 4 4

Vessels With Zero Wait Time (#/day) 4 4 4 2

% Vessels With Zero Wait Time 84% 84% 86% 56%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 1 1 1 2

% Vessels With Wait Time 16% 16% 14% 44%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 0.9 1.2 0.6 2.4

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 5.9 6.7 4.2 5.4

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 15.4 15.7 11.0 10.1

Recreational Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 116 116 116 116

Vessels With Zero Wait Time (#/day) 108 101 106 71

% Vessels With Zero Wait Time 93% 87% 91% 61%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 8 15 11 45

% Vessels With Wait Time 7% 13% 9% 39%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 0.6 1.2 0.6 2.2

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 8.5 9.5 6.4 5.7

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 15.9 16.8 11.4 9.8

Notes: a Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and 

vessels with no wait time) 

b Average time queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

4-30 AMEC

Table 4.5-2. Simulation Model Results for Vessel Queue Lengths at Loxahatchee River Bridge

Case Time

Length of Queue (vessels)

Minimum 

Queue

Percent 

Chance

Maximum 

Queue

Percent 

Chance

Case Number: 1

Train Traffic: 2014 F

Infrastructure: 2014 (No-Build)

Marine Traffic: 2014

6-7 am 1 0.2 1 0.2

7-8 am 1 2.5 2 0.3

8-9 am 1 3.2 3 0.3

9-10 am 1 1.9 3 0.1

10-11 am 1 3.6 4 0.1

11 am – 12 noon 1 1.5 4 0.1

12 noon-1pm 1 3.7 6 0.1

1-2 pm 1 0.3 5 0.1

2-3 pm 1 2.2 8 0.1

3-4 pm 1 2.4 >10 0.1

4-5 pm 1 2.4 >10 1.3

5-6 pm nq na nq na

6-7 pm nq na nq na

Case Number: 2a

Train Traffic: 2016 F

Infrastructure: 2014 (No-Build)

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am nq na nq na

7-8 am nq na nq na

8-9 am nq na nq na

9-10 am 1 0.4 2 0.1

10-11 am 1 6.4 7 0.2

11 am – 12 noon 1 0.5 7 0.1

12 noon-1pm 1 5.5 >10 0.2

1-2 pm 1 1.3 7 0.1

2-3 pm 1 0.1 1 0.1

3-4 pm 1 3.3 6 0.1

4-5 pm 1 8 >10 1.7

5-6 pm 1 6.6 >10 1.5

6-7 pm nq na nq na

Case Number: 2b

Train Traffic: 2016 F

Infrastructure: 2016

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am nq na nq na

7-8 am nq na nq na

8-9 am nq na nq na

9-10 am 1 0.2 1 0.2

10-11 am 1 4.2 5 0.1

11 am – 12 noon 1 0.5 4 0.1

12 noon-1pm 1 4 8 0.1

1-2 pm 1 1.2 4 0.1

2-3 pm 1 0.1 1 0.1

3-4 pm 1 2.4 5 0.1

4-5 pm 1 5.8 >10 0.4

5-6 pm 1 4.8 >10 0.4

6-7 pm nq na nq na

Case Number: 3

Train Traffic: 2016 F + P

Infrastructure: 2016

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am 1 0.8 2 0.1

7-8 am 1 4.2 2 0.5

8-9 am 1 6.7 3 0.2

9-10 am 1 6.8 4 0.1

10-11 am 1 9 6 0.1

11 am – 12 noon 1 10.8 >10 0.4

12 noon-1pm 1 9.9 >10 0.1

1-2 pm 1 10.1 >10 0.4

2-3 pm 1 8.1 >10 0.1

3-4 pm 1 9.2 >10 0.5

4-5 pm 1 9.9 >10 0.2

5-6 pm 1 12.9 >10 0.4

6-7pm 1 0.6 >10 0.1
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-1 AMEC

5.0 Characterization of St. Lucie River Bridge

5.1 Project Area description

5.1.1 Location of St. Lucie River Waterway

The St. Lucie River is located between St. Lucie and Martin Counties. The headwaters of the North 

Fork are located in St. Lucie County near I-95 and flows south into Martin County where it joins the 

north-flowing South Fork. The headwaters for the South Forks are located east of I-95 and northwest 

of Hobe Sound. The North Fork, passes through Port Saint Lucie and White City, The North and 

South Forks meet just south of the old Roosevelt Bridge in Stuart to form the main confluence of the 

St. Lucie River. From here, the River travels east, passing under the St. Lucie River Bridge and the 

Roosevelt Bridge until it reaches the northern end of Sewall’s Point peninsula, where the river then 

runs south under the Evans Crary Bridge and then into the Indian River Lagoon, which goes into the 

Atlantic Ocean. The St. Lucie River connects to Lake Okeechobee by the St. Lucie Canal.

The primary bridges crossing the St. Lucie River within the extent of waterfront development, as 

defined in Figure 5.1-1, include three operable bridges and ten stationary bridges. Operable bridges 

include the St. Lucie River Bridge and the Dixie Highway Bridge, located at the confluence, 

approximately 5.92 miles and 5.97 miles from the St. Lucie River inlet, respectively and a railroad 

bridge located in the South Fork at the Okeechobee Waterway. Stationary bridges include the 

Roosevelt Highway Bridge, located 5.82 miles from the St. Lucie River inlet in the confluence of the 

River; the State Road 716 Bridge, located 7.22 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the North 

Fork; the Prima Vista Boulevard Bridge, located 12.7 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the 

North Fork; the County Road 712 Bridge, located 16.61 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the 

North Fork; the State Road 714 Bridge, located 2.09 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the 

South Fork; the I-95 Bridge, located 6.4 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the South Fork; the 

Florida Turnpike Bridge, located 6.69 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the South Fork; the 

SW 96th Street Bridge, located 9.43 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the South Fork; the SR 

710 Bridge, located 20.69 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge in the South Fork; and the Conner’s 

Highway Bridge, located 31.32 miles from the St. Lucie River Bridge, which thereafter enters Lake 

Okeechobee. Characterization and location of these bridges, within the extent of waterfront 

development as defined in Figure 5.1-1 in the confluence and North and South Forks, can be found 

in Table 5.1-1.

5.1.2 Location of St. Lucie River Bridge

The St. Lucie River Bridge is located about 5.92 miles from the St. Lucie River’s inlet (27°12'12.84"N

80°15'36.41"W) (Figure 5.1-1). This operable bridge has a vertical clearance of 7 feet and a 

horizontal clearance of 50 feet (Table 5.1-1). Although this bridge remains open to the waterway to 

allow a continuous flow of vessel traffic, it closes an average of 10 times daily to accommodate 

freight rail service. While closed, most vessels (with the exception of small recreational vessels less 

than 16 feet size class) are unable to pass through the bridge, and queue while waiting for the bridge 

to re-open.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-2 AMEC

Table 5.1-1. Characterization of Bridges Crossing the St. Lucie River Bridge

Bridge name Type of bridge

Location where 

bridge crosses the 

river

Vertical 

clearance 

(feet)

Horizontal 

clearance 

(feet)

State Highway A1A fixed Inlet 65 125

Roosevelt Highway fixed Confluence east of 

the rail bridge 65 90

St. Lucie River Bridge operable/bascule Confluence 7 50

Dixie Highway Bridge operable/bascule Confluence west of 

the rail bridge 14 58

State Road 714 Bridge fixed South Fork 54 90

I-95 Bridge fixed South Fork 56 110

Fl Turnpike Bridge fixed South Fork 56 90

SW 96th Street Bridge fixed South Fork 56 90

SW Warfield Boulevard Bridge fixed South Fork 55 90

CSX Railroad Bridge operable/swing South Fork 7 47

State Road 716 Bridge fixed North Fork 18.4 75.5

E Prima Vista Boulevard Bridge fixed North Fork 12.8 57.7

Country Road 712 Bridge fixed North Fork ND ND

Notes: ND = no data
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-3 AMEC

Figure 5.1-1. St. Lucie River Bridge Location Map
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-4 AMEC

5.1.3 Land-use, Population Density

The upper North Fork of the St. Lucie River is primarily preserve land bordered by residential 

communities. South of Port St. Lucie, the North Fork widens and is surrounded by residences on the 

banks and golf courses until reaching the confluence (Figure 5.1-2). From Lake Okeechobee 

through much of the southwestern regions of the South Fork, the land use primarily consists of 

agricultural and some residential. After passing underneath the I-95 Bridge, the banks of the St. 

Lucie River are again dominated by residential land use and some marine facilities until reaching the 

confluence at the Dixie Highway Bridge, where more commercial land use and marine facilities can 

be found. A unique mixed land use of commercial and residential is found in this location; traveling 

east in the confluence the land use returns to primarily residential.

Population density maps developed through GIS analysis show adjacent lands to the St. Lucie River 

have census blocks with population densities that extend from Class 1 to Class 3. Land with 

waterfront access in only occupied by Class 1 and Class 2 population areas. Class 1 population

density can be found east of the Loxahatchee River Bridge by the river Inlet (Figure 5.1-3), while

waterfront areas in the confluence and the Forks of the Loxahatchee River have population densities 

in the range of Class 1, with the exception of the south Fork that includes an area of Class 2. About 

28 square miles of land adjacent to the Loxahatchee River have waterfront access. The number of 

people in this area is approximately 70,323 to 76,396 people (Table 5.1-2).

Table 5.1-2. Land Area and Population Density with Waterfront Access at the St. Lucie River

Class

Total Area 

(square miles)

Area with Waterfront 

Access (square miles)

Percent with 

Waterfront Access

Population within Waterfront 

Access Size Class

1 43.3 25.7 59% 64,245

2 5.7 2.4 43% 9,115

3 0.2 0%
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-5 AMEC

Figure 5.1-2. St. Lucie River Bridge Adjacent Land Use
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-6 AMEC

Figure 5.1-2. St. Lucie River Bridge Adjacent Population Density per Census Block
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-7 AMEC

5.2 Marine Industry at St. Lucie River FEC Bridge

The St. Lucie River supports a marine industry that primarily services smaller recreational vessels. 

Public and private marine facilities are concentrated in the eastern portions of the river and include 

seven marinas and four boat ramps. Boat/yacht clubs, waterfront restaurants and waterfront hotels 

that cater to mariners occur within St. Lucie and Martin counties; however, these waterway features 

are concentrated along the Intracoastal Waterway and are not located on the St. Lucie River 

(Figure 5.2-1). With the exception of a large commercial area and marine facilities near Jupiter Inlet, 

waterfront development is predominantly private residences, which provide approximately

135 private slips and 1,061 private docks.4 While the St. Lucie River is located in both Martin and 

St. Lucie counties, waterfront development and marine facilities are overwhelmingly concentrated in 

St. Lucie County. This waterway overview provides a description of the navigable extent of the 

St. Lucie River and a characterization of the vessel traffic, waterway facilities, and the current and 

proposed use of the river. 

5.2.1 Vessel Traffic Patterns

The St. Lucie River going up river has a broad river channel at its confluence with the Indian River 

Lagoon. The Indian River Lagoon provides mariners with access to the Atlantic Ocean and the 

Intracoastal Waterway. From the St. Lucie Bridge, the St. Lucie River travels inland southwestward 

to South Fork where it enters the St. Lucie Canal. After entering the St. Lucie Canal (Okeechobee 

Waterway), the waterway continues generally west southwestward to Port Mayaca where the canal 

enters Lake Okeechobee. The Okeechobee Waterway provides a route across the state a Florida 

from the St. Lucie River to Punta Rassa, approximately 90 miles south of the entrance to Tampa Bay 

on Florida’s west coast.

5.2.2 Vessel Registration and Population Trends

St. Lucie County has grown by approximately 32.7% from a population of 211,898 people in 2003 to 

a population of 281,151 people in 2013. The county’s population is projected to grow to 307,870

people by 2016 and to 387,701 by 2025.4 Martin County tends to be less developed than St. Lucie 

County, with a population of 148,077 people in 2013. Population growth in Martin County has grown

more slowly than St. Lucie County over the last decade from a population of 134,491 people in 2003. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-8 AMEC

Figure 5.2-1. Marinas and Commercial Docks Along St. Lucie River
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-9 AMEC

Vessel registration information for St. Lucie and Martin counties from 2003 to 2013 were obtained 

from the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Similar to other counties in 

Florida, vessel registration grew between 2003 and 2008; however, during the recession from 2009 

to 2013, vessel registration declined from peak vessel registration (2005 to 2006). Overall, vessel 

registration declined by approximately 10.5% between 2003 to 2013 in both St. Lucie County and 

Martin counties.

10

Based on County population and vessel registration data for 2003 to 2013, the 10-year average of 

registered vessels per capita is 5.17% for St. Lucie County and 11.66% for Martin County. This per 

capita average of registered vessels was then compared to county population growth forecasts 

obtained from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research.5 Based on these population 

forecasts, it is anticipated that registered vessels will increase to 15,916 in St. Lucie County and will 

increase to 17,956 in Martin County by 2016. These data are provided in Table 5.2-1.

Table 5.2-1. Population and Vessel Registration in St. Lucie and Martin Counties (2003 and 2016Error! 

Bookmark not defined.

Year

St. Lucie County Martin County

Total 

Population

Total 

Vessel

Registration

Percentage of 

Population 

with 

Registered 

Vessels

Total 

Population

Total 

Vessel

Registration

Percentage of 

Population 

with 

Registered 

Vessels

2003 211,898 13,154 6.21% 134,491 17,446 12.97%

2004 226,216 13,398 5.92% 137,637 17,639 12.82%

2005 240,039 13,999 5.83% 141,059 17,661 12.52%

2006 259,315 14,154 5.46% 142,645 17,315 12.14%

2007 271,961 14,053 5.17% 143,737 16,772 11.67%

2008 276,585 13,907 5.03% 143,868 17,826 12.39%

2009 272,864 13,621 4.99% 143,856 15,932 11.07%

2010 277,789 13,123 4.72% 146,318 15,652 10.70%

2011 279,696 12,857 4.60% 146,689 15,745 10.73%

2012 280,355 12,577 4.49% 147,203 15,702 10.67%

2013 281,151 12,564 4.47% 148,077 15,606 10.54%

2016 

(Projected)

307,870 15,916 5.17% 153,999 17,956 11.66%

5.2.3 Inventory of Waterway Features

The Waterway Features Inventory of recreational and commercial boating access facilities includes 

boat ramps, marinas, dry storage facilities, anchorages, and commercial entities in both Martin and 

St. Lucie counties (Table 5.2-2). Waterfront residences with dockage or slips along the St. Lucie

River in both counties were also estimated. In order to estimate the number of waterfront residential 

properties that include wetslips and docks, a sampling procedure was used. For the purposes of this 

study, the St. Lucie River was surveyed for the extent of its navigable area east of the operable

bridge, including the Okeechobee Waterway to the west, and to the Intracoastal Waterway to the 

east.

5.2.3.1 Marinas, Boat Ramps and Repair/ Support Facility Inventory 

There are 15 public and private marinas on the St. Lucie River. The number of slips at these marinas 

ranges from 8 to nearly 200, with a total of 439 slips and an average of approximately 35 slips per 

marina. Marinas occur throughout the St. Lucie River but many are concentrated in the vicinity of the 

St. Lucie River Bridge.Error! Bookmark not defined.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-10 AMEC

Table 5.2-2. Overview of Waterway Features on the St. Lucie River and Associated Waterways

Boating Facility Number Slips

Location Relative to

St. Lucie River FEC Corridor Railway Bridge

East West

Commercial Marina 9 439 4 5

Public Marina 6 78 2 4

Private Club 5 192 3 2

Hotel/ Restaurant 5 207 3 2

Total 25 916 12 13

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 20094

There are 15 boat ramps located on the St. Lucie River, all of which are public (Table 5.2-3). In 

addition, two anchorages, and five waterfront vessel repair and service facilities are located on the 

St. Lucie River.

Table 5.2-3. Boat Ramps, Anchorages, and Vessel Repair Facilities on the St. Lucie River

Boating Facility Number

Location Relative to

St. Lucie River FEC Corridor Railway Bridge

East West

Boat Ramp 15 2 13

Anchorage 2 1 1

Repair/ Support Facilities 5 3 2

Total 22 6 16

Source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute, 20094

5.2.3.2 Residential Boating Facility Inventory

The St. Lucie River and nearby area islands in the Intracoastal Waterway have a high number of 

residential waterfront properties and numerous residential neighborhoods with waterway access to 

the river. These parcels contain a large number of docks, while approximately 12.3% contain a slip. 

Overall, approximately 82.8% of all waterfront properties contain either a dock or a slip (Table 5.2-4). 

The majority of these small private waterfront housing developments on the St. Lucie River meet the 

boating needs of the residences, but do not provide public boating access. While secondary to 

marinas and other public marine facilities, an inventory of the docks and slips at waterfront housing 

developments is important to provide an overall picture of the complete marine industry and 

recreational use of the St. Lucie River. Utilizing methodology provided in Section 2.1, the 

approximate number of docks and slips for single family, multi-family greater than 10, multi-family 

less than 10, and condominiums were counted or estimated (Table 5.2-4). 

Table 5.2-4. Overview of Residential Boating Features of Waterfront Properties on the St. Lucie River

Land Use

Total 

Waterfront 

Properties

Estimated 

Properties with 

Docks

Estimated 

Properties with 

Slips

Estimated 

Properties with 

Docks or Slips

Single Family 2,847 2,021a341a2,362a

Multi Family <10 Units 32 17 2 19

Multi Family >10 Units 3 2 0 2

Condominiums 15 1 14 15

Total Waterfront 

Properties 

2,897 2,041 357 2,398

Note: aEstimated based on a percent of parcels with docks or slips from a random sample of 100 WFP parcels on the St. Lucie 

 River

5.2.3.3 Purpose and Use of Navigation Infrastructure (Commercial versus Recreational)

Navigation on the St. Lucie River is predominantly recreational, with limited commercial and marine 

industry vessel traffic. The size of the waterway for inland portions of the St. Lucie River limit the 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-11 AMEC

extent of commercial marine activities. No commercial barge traffic occurs in the St. Lucie River. 

Inland commercial vessel activities are primarily associated with water taxi/bus, restaurant, and 

touring operations. 

5.2.4 Economic Analysis

The total economic value of the marine industry along the St. Lucie River is based on all marine 

related sales along this river, including those directly related to marine services (e.g., vessel sales, 

vessel repairs, recreational equipment) and those that are outside the marine industry but related to 

marine activity (e.g., sales of food and ice for boating trips). The type of sales that were considered 

in the marine industry includes:

 Vessel and yacht sales; 

 Vessel accessories and replacement parts (e.g., trailers, electronics);

 Vessel services (e.g., repair, maintenance, interior design);

 Vessel storage (e.g., marinas, onshore storage);

 Sales at businesses frequented during boating trips (e.g., hotels and restaurants);

 Recreational equipment and instruction (e.g., dive equipment, fishing tackle, water ski 

instruction);

 Inland waterway businesses (e.g., water taxis and charter boats); and

 Other miscellaneous costs (e.g., insurance, business/personal services).

This analysis estimates the direct, indirect, and induced benefits of the marine industry along the St. 

Lucie River to the local economy. In order to determine the direct economic value attributed to the 

St. Lucie River, the total direct economic value of the marine industries in Martin and St. Lucie 

Counties were estimated and then the relative percentages of the marine industry that can be 

attributed to the portion of the St. Lucie River that lies in each of these counties was applied. After 

calculating the direct economic value of the marine industry for the portion of the St. Lucie River that 

lies in each county, these figures were used to determine the resulting indirect and induced benefits. 

This analysis also considers the number of jobs that are supported by the economic activity 

associated with the marine industry along the St. Lucie River.

5.2.4.1 Economic Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County

The direct economic value of the marine industry in Martin County was determined by updating the 

economic analysis performed by the State of Florida in 2011. The state’s study was updated from 

the base year of 1999, when the original study for Martin County was performed, to reflect the total 

value of the industry in December 2013. The direct economic value of the marine industry 

associated with the portion of the St. Lucie River that lies in Martin County includes all direct 

spending associated with the marine industry that occurred in the vicinity of this portion of the St. 

Lucie River. In other words, it includes all marine-related spending by the individuals utilizing this 

portion of the waterway.

The direct benefits of the marine industry in Martin County were determined by escalating the values 

determined in the base year of 1999 in accordance with growth experienced between that time and 

December 2013. The gross sales in Kind Code 28 for Martin County grew by 58.73% in that period, 

while the Consumer Price Index increased by 38.47%. In accordance with the methodology 

described in Chapter 2, retail sales were escalated by 58.73% while non-marine benefits were 

escalated by 38.47%. As seen in Table 5.2-5, the resulting estimated total economic value of the 

marine industry in Martin County in December 2013 was $523.7 million.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-12 AMEC

Table 5.2-5. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County

Business Type

1999 Marine

Business Volume

Estimated 2013 

Marine Business Volume

Total Direct Benefits (marine only) $307,515,142 $488,116,321 

Non-marine Benefits (gas, food, drink, ice) $25,700,000 $35,587,399 

Total Marine and Non-marine Direct Benefits $333,215,142 $523,703,720 

Source: Original 1999 marine business volume obtained from Appendix K of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s 

Waterways in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

Due to indirect and induced effects of expenditures in the marine industry in Martin County, the total 

economic value of the industry is greater than the initial direct spending. The resulting total economic 

value of the marine industry for Martin County, including direct, indirect, and induced effects, was 

generated by using IMPLAN economic modeling software for the 1999 data. Because the distribution 

of economic value is similar to the distribution at the time of the original study, the relative indirect 

and induced effects would also be similar. Therefore, extrapolating from the data obtained for the 

1999 model results, the estimated 2013 results show that the total value of the marine industry in 

Martin County is $705.0 million, with $523.7 million in direct sales, $86.0 million in indirect benefits, 

and $95.3 million in induced benefits (see Table 5.2-6). 

The economic activity associated with Martin County’s marine industry also supports local area 

employment, including jobs associated with the direct effects of spending in the industry as well as 

jobs associated with indirect and induced economic activity. These benefits, including both the 

number of jobs and personal income, were estimated using the same methodology of applying the 

1999 IMPLAN model run percentages to determine the total effects. The results show that direct 

spending in the marine industry supports 4,588 jobs and $138.1 million in personal income. 

Additionally, the total spending associated with the marine industry, including direct, indirect, and 

induced effects, supports 7,049 jobs and $205.5 million in personal income (see Table 5.2-6).

Table 5.2-6. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in Martin County

Original 1999 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Business Volume 

(in millions) $314.8 $51.7 $57.3 $423.8 $523.7 $86.0 $95.3 $705.0

Personal Income 

(in millions) $83.0 $19.0 $21.5 $123.5 $138.1 $31.6 $35.8 $205.5

Employment 2,758 663 816 4,237 4,588 1,103 1,358 7,049

Source: Original 1999 model results obtained from Appendix K of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways 

in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

5.2.4.2 Economic Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County

The direct economic value of the marine industry in St. Lucie County was determined by updating 

the economic analysis performed by the State of Florida in 2011. Because the economic studies for 

the marine industry in Martin and St. Lucie Counties were both performed in 1999, the methodology 

for updating data to December 2013 values is the same for both counties. The direct economic value 

of the marine industry associated with the portion of the St. Lucie River that lies in St. Lucie County 

includes all direct spending associated with the marine industry that occurred in the vicinity of this 

portion of the St. Lucie River. In other words, it includes all marine-related spending by the 

individuals utilizing this portion of the waterway.

The direct benefits of the marine industry in St. Lucie County were determined by escalating the 

values determined in the base year of 1999 in accordance with growth experienced between that 

time and December 2013. The gross sales in Kind Code 28 for St. Lucie County grew by 49.32% in 

that period, while the Consumer Price Index increased by 38.47%. In accordance with the 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-13 AMEC

methodology described in Chapter 2, retail sales were escalated by 49.32% while non-marine 

benefits were escalated by 38.47%; there is no revenue from port operations in this county. As seen 

in 5.2-7, he resulting estimated total economic value of the marine industry in St. Lucie County in 

December 2013 was $308.3 million.

Table 5.2-7. Direct Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County

Business Type

1999 Marine

Business Volume

Estimated 2013 Marine 

Business Volume

Total Direct Benefits (marine only) $186,473,389 $278,438,465 

Non-marine Benefits (gas, food, drink, ice) $21,600,000 $29,910,032 

Total Marine and Non-marine Direct Benefits $208,073,389 $308,348,497 

Source: Original 1999 marine business volume obtained from Appendix J of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s 

Waterways in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

The resulting total economic value of the marine industry for St. Lucie County, including direct, 

indirect, and induced effects, was generated by using IMPLAN economic modeling software for the 

1999 data. Because the distribution of economic value is similar to the distribution at the time of the 

original study, the relative indirect and induced effects would also be similar; this also applies for the 

calculation of personal income and employment. Therefore, extrapolating from the data obtained for 

the 1999 model results, the estimated 2013 results show that the total value of the marine industry in 

St. Lucie County is $420.85 million, with $308.35 million in direct sales, $53.17 million in indirect 

benefits, and $59.33 million in induced benefits. Additionally, the total personal income generated by 

the industry is $106.60 million and the total associated employment is 3,771 jobs (see Table 5.2-8).

Table 5.2-8. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry in St. Lucie County

Original 1999 Model Results Estimated 2013 Figures

Direct Indirect Induced Total Direct Indirect Induced Total

Business Volume 

(in millions) $192.87 $33.26 $37.11 $263.24 $308.35 $53.17 $59.33 $420.85

Personal Income 

(in millions) $40.34 $12.46 $13.88 $66.68 $64.49 $19.92 $22.19 $106.60

Employment 1,377 441 541 2,359 2,201 705 865 3,771

Source: Original 1999 model results obtained from Appendix J of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways 

in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

5.2.4.3 Economic Benefits of the Marine Industry associated with the St. Lucie River

The St. Lucie River represents approximately 82.9% of the marine activity in Martin County and 

15.3% in St. Lucie County. Because the economic activity associated with the St. Lucie River is 

located in both Martin and St. Lucie Counties, the total economic value of this river is equivalent to 

82.9% of the economic value of the marine industry in Martin County plus 15.3% of the economic 

value of the marine industry in St. Lucie County, resulting in a total economic value of $648.8 million. 

This total value is comprised of $481.3 million in direct expenditures, $79.4 million in indirect effects, 

and $88.1 million in indirect effects. This activity supports a total of 6,420 jobs and $186.6 million in 

personal income (see Table 5.2-9).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-14 AMEC

Table 5.2-9. Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits of the Marine Industry along the St. Lucie River

Direct Indirect Induced Total

Portion within 

Martin County

Business Volume (in millions) $434.1 $71.3 $79.0 $584.4

Personal Income (in millions) $114.4 $26.2 $29.7 $170.3

Employment 3,803 914 1,125 5,843

Portion within 

St. Lucie County

Business Volume (in millions) $47.2 $8.1 $9.1 $64.4

Personal Income (in millions) $9.9 $3.0 $3.4 $16.3

Employment 337 108 132 577

Total

Business Volume (in millions) $481.3 $79.4 $88.1 $648.8

Personal Income (in millions) $124.3 $29.2 $33.1 $186.6

Employment 4,140 1,022 1,258 6,420

Source: Original 2007 model results obtained from Appendix M of the Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s Waterways

in Florida, Main Report by the Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

5.2.5 Public Outreach

A summary of public participation initiatives and community outreach events, particularly related to 

navigation that occurred in the vicinity of the St. Lucie River, are presented in the Tables 5.2-10 and 

5.2-11. Additionally, details regarding other meetings that specifically addressed navigation issues 

on the St. Lucie River are outlined below.

Table 5.2-10. St. Lucie River Community Outreach (page 1 of 3)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

May 2012

Central Florida Partnership Presentation – Board Meeting

City of Orlando Meeting - Mayor Buddy Dyer

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA) Briefing - Stan Thornton, Project Liaison Manager

GOAA Briefing - Phil Brown, Executive Director

MetroPlan Orlando Transit-Oriented Development Forum

Orange County Meeting - Mayor Jacobs, Jim Harrison, Assistant County 

Administrator

SeaWorld Meeting - Terry Prather

Transit Oriented Development Briefing - Tony Brown, Executive Director

Commissioner Lowe

Scott Evans, Planning Director

Universal Florida Meeting - John McReynolds

June 2012

Orange County Environmental Protection Division Briefing - Lori Cuniff

Osceola County Briefing - Don Fisher, County Manager

GOAA Meeting – Phil Brown and Staff

July 2012

GOAA Meeting – GOAA staff, United States Congressman John 

Mica

Orlando Sentinel Meeting - Editorial Board

August 2012

FDEP, USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meetings

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Pre-application meeting/Bi-monthly conference calls

September 2012

FDEP, USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meeting

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

MetroPlan Orlando Presentation – monthly board meeting 

TCRPC Presentation – monthly board meeting
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-15 AMEC

Table 5.2-10. St. Lucie River Community Outreach (page 2 of 3)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

October 2012

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

November 2012

Universal Studios Briefing – John McReynolds, SVP, External Affairs, and 

Alice Norsworthy, EVP, Marketing and Sales

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

FDEP, USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meeting

City of Titusville Call – Mayor Jim Tulley

December 2012

FDEP, USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meeting

USACE Bi-monthly conference calls

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization Presentation – monthly board meeting

January 2013

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

FDEP, USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meeting

City of Orlando Briefing – Mayor Buddy Dyer

Central Florida Urban League Briefing – Allie Braswell, Executive Director

February 2013

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

FDEP, USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meeting

City of Titusville Briefing – Mayor Jim Tulley

March 2013

FDOT, District 4 Briefing – Amie Goddeau

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

April 2013

Audubon Florida – Central Florida Briefing - Charles Lee

NAIOP Central Florida Chapter Presentation – monthly meeting

FDEP, USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meeting

FDEP, SFWMD and SJRWMD Bi-monthly conference calls

SR 528 Land Manager Meeting Environmental Coordination Meeting

GOAA Environmental Coordination Meeting

Mayors Mean Business – Florida League of Mayors Presentation – more than 50 mayors at annual Florida 

League of Mayors meeting

Women in Transportation – Central Florida chapter Presentation – at annual scholarship dinner

Notice of Intent published April 15, 2013 initiated EIS scoping process
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-16 AMEC

Table 5.2-10. St. Lucie River Community Outreach (page 3 of 3)

Presentation Made To Type of Event

May 2013

USACE, USFWS, Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), FDEP, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FFWCC), SJRWMD, and GOAA

Agency/tribal Coordination Meeting (Section 2.2.2)

EIS Process scoping meeting/open house Public meeting – Orlando (Section 2.2.5)

FDEP, U USACE, SFWMD, SJRWMD and others Tiger Team Meeting

City of Fort Pierce Briefing – City Manager, Engineer and Planning Director

City of Fort Pierce Briefing – Mayor Linda Hudson

City of Fort Pierce Briefing – Commissioner Eddie Becht

City of Fort Pierce Briefing – Commissioner Rufus Alexander

City of Fort Pierce Briefing – Commissioner Reggie Sessions

City of Fort Pierce Briefing – Commissioner Tom Perona

St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization Briefing – Peter Buchwald, Executive Director

Florida Transportation Commission Presentation at public meeting

St. Lucie County Briefing – Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky

St. Lucie County Briefing – Commissioner Tod Mowery

St. Lucie County Briefing – Commissioner Frannie Hutchinson

Economic Development Council of St. Lucie Briefing – Larry Pelton, Executive Director

EIS Process scoping meeting/open house Public meeting – Fort Pierce (Section 2.2.5)

City of Stuart Briefing – City Manager

City of Stuart Briefing – Mayor Eula Clarke

City of Stuart Briefing – Commissioner James Christie

City of Stuart Briefing – Commissioner Jeff Krauskopf

Martin County Briefing – Commissioner Doug Smith

Martin County Briefing – Commissioner Ed Fielding

Martin County Briefing – Commissioner John Haddox

Visit Orlando Briefing – George Aguel, President & CEO, and 

management team

MetroPlan Orlando Briefing – Harry Barley, Executive Director

City of Orlando Briefing – Mayor Buddy Dyer

June 2013

FRA/GOAA /Federal Aviation Authority Environmental coordination meeting

October 2013

TCRPC Presentation to Council regarding St. Lucie River Bridge

Table 5.2-11. Letters and Agreements of Support

Date Document; Entity Signatory

July 23, 2012 Letter of Support; Florida State Hispanic 

Chamber of Commerce Julio Fuentes, President and CEO

July 24, 2012 Letter of Support; South Florida 

Regional Planning Council James F. Murley, Executive Director

July 25, 2012 Letter of Support; TCRPC Michael J. Busha, AICP, Executive Director

July 31, 2012 Letter of Support, Florida Chamber of 

Commerce David A. Hart, Executive Vice President

5.2.5.1 St. Lucie River Railroad Bridge Meeting

A meeting concerning the St. Lucie River Railroad Bridge was organized by the TCRPC and took 

place on Thursday, October 3, 2013, from 9:30 am to 11:30 am. The meeting was held at Stuart City 

Hall, at 121 SW Flagler Avenue in Stuart, Florida. The Vice President of FECI provided an overview 

of the AAF project and subsequently responded to questions and comments.

Attendees expressed concern regarding the frequency of bridge closures and the resulting impacts 

to marine navigation and economy, including property values. There was also concern about the 

lack of awareness of the Project by residents who use the bridge for weekend recreational boating. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-17 AMEC

In relation to bridge closure, the public requested an estimate of expected total time of closure per 

hour, an investigation of improved mechanics and communications technology, and the coordination 

of bridge closures/openings with the bridge tender on Old Roosevelt Bridge. The discussion also 

focused on how the Martin County Metropolitan Planning Organization and FDOT would be involved 

in facilitating any bridge improvements. Members of the public also raised a concern regarding

vessel safety related to the location of the two bridges and the existing currents in the channel noting 

that vessels have hit the bridge structure of Highway 1 (NW Federal Highway) before. A request for 

a taller, wider bridge was made for the purpose of increasing vessel safety. The public also 

requested a limited-service station in downtown Stuart. In conclusion, the TCRPC committed to 

coordinating with the FECR to arrange a follow-up meeting.

5.2.5.2 Waterways Plan for Martin and St. Lucie Counties 

A meeting concerning the Waterways Plan for Martin and St. Lucie Counties was organized by the 

TCRPC and took place on Wednesday, January 29, 2014, at 2:00 pm. The meeting was held in the 

Stuart City Hall Commission Chambers, at 121 SW Flagler Avenue in Stuart, Florida. The meeting 

was the third forum in a six-forum series, and included participants from the SFWMD, Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), USCG, Martin County, Martin County Sheriff’s 

Office, St. Lucie County, St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office, and the City of Stuart. 

The panel discussed the various possible ways in which the Waterways Plan could address 

regulation or management of the waterway. A brief discussion of the Project was prompted by a 

member of the Martin Municipal Planning Organization, and led to a conversation regarding USCG 

permitting requirements and environmental processes. During the conversation, concern for impacts 

to marine navigation was raised and the notion of including a bridge tender was suggested. 

The same topics were discussed in a steering committee meeting for the Waterways Plan that took 

place on Wednesday, January 29, 2014, at 4:00 pm. The meeting was also held in the Stuart City 

Hall Commission Chambers, at 121 SW Flagler Avenue in Stuart, Florida.

5.3 Summary of Vessel Traffic Survey at St. Lucie River

Vessel traffic was summarized at the St. Lucie River Bridge and adjoining areas, including peak 

travel days and times. This summary includes a review of the 2014 FECR video recordings, used to 

analyze vessel activity within the St. Lucie River and provide the information necessary to estimate 

impacts related to increased train traffic and associated closures of the St. Lucie River Bridge. The 

information gathered from the video was then used to determine the socioeconomic impacts of the 

Proposed Action.

5.3.1 Literature Review Vessel Traffic Surveys

Previous vessel traffic studies along the St. Lucie River were not identified. Vessel trends for the St. 

Lucie River Bridge were identified through the 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey and modeling of bridge 

operations.

5.3.2 2014 Vessel Traffic Survey

This section summarizes vessel traffic data extracted from a two-week video assessment of the St. 

Lucie River Bridge, from January 3, 2014 to January 17, 2014.

5.3.2.1 Summary of Vessel Traffic Traversing St. Lucie River Bridge

Data gathered through a two-week video assessment of the St. Lucie River Bridge during winter 

shows an average of 102 vessel crossings per day occurred (Min=28; Max=263) from Monday to 

Friday, compared to about 315 vessels (Min=157; Max=413) per day on a weekend (Table 5.3-1). 

Sundays had the most vessel activity, with a range of 296 to 395 vessel counts. 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-18 AMEC

The average count of commercial vessels per day ranged from 2 to 21, with an average of 7 vessels

and 12 vessels traversing the St. Lucie Bridge on weekdays and weekends respectively

(Figure 5.3-1). An increase of 43% in commercial traffic during the weekend was observed during 

this two week assessment. The average count of recreational vessels per day ranged from 26 to 406 

which represent a maximum increase in vessel traffic of about 69% during the weekend 

(Figure 5.3-1).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-19 AMEC

Table 5.3-1. Vessel Traffic at St. Lucie River Bridge Based on FECR Video Assessment from January 2014

Week Day Date

Vessel Traffic at Stuart River Bridge a

Total

Percent of 

Commercial 

Vessels/day

Percent of 

Recreational 

Vessels/day

Morning

(6:00 AM-9:59 AM )

Noon

(10:00 AM-1:59 PM)

Afternoon to Overnight

(2:00 PM-6:00 AM)

Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational Commercial Recreational

Friday 1/3/2014 2 6 7 17 4 8 44 29.5% 70.5%

Saturday 1/4/2014 6 22 8 77 5 39 157 12.1% 87.9%

Sunday 1/5/2014 0 25 1 264 1 104 395 0.5% 99.5%

Monday 1/6/2014 1 18 2 57 2 75 155 3.2% 96.8%

Tuesday 1/7/2014 0 10 1 8 1 8 28 7.1% 92.9%

Wednesday 1/8/2014 5 19 5 59 1 41 130 8.5% 91.5%

Thursday 1/9/2014 0 28 4 37 2 26 97 6.2% 93.8%

Friday 1/10/2014 0 22 3 43 4 51 123 5.7% 94.3%

Saturday 1/11/2014 1 37 2 183 4 186 413 1.7% 98.3%

Sunday 1/12/2014 4 33 9 123 8 119 296 7.1% 92.9%

Monday 1/13/2014 1 62 2 124 5 69 263 3.0% 97.0%

Tuesday 1/14/2014 1 31 2 45 3 32 114 5.3% 94.7%

Wednesday 1/15/2014 2 20 2 27 2 21 74 8.1% 91.9%

Thursday 1/16/2014 2 8 2 12 5 17 46 19.6% 80.4%

Friday 1/17/2014 0 16 3 27 0 0 46 6.5% 93.5%

Note: a Vessel traffic was assessed during January (high vessel traffic season) daylight hours (from 6:00am to 6:30pm), but casual observations were also recorded later at night.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-20 AMEC

Figure 5.3-1. Average Vessel Count Traversing the St Lucie River Bridge

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday Average Vessel Count

Day of the Week

Commercial Recreational
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-21 AMEC

5.4 Summary of Bridge Operation at St. Lucie River

This section includes data gathered through the current and projected operations schedule for freight 

and passenger traffic provided by AAF as modeled in the RTC simulation model. These data are 

summarized herein and will be used to assess projected changes in maritime traffic (Sections 6.0 

and 7.0).

5.4.1 St. Lucie Bridge Operations Analysis

RTC model results for existing and projected bridge operations are provided in Table 5.4-1. Results

shows the St. Lucie River Bridge is closed about 21 minutes per closure under Existing Conditions

(Table 5.4-1). Analysis of data suggests the No-Build Alternative (without the infrastructure 

contemplated as part of the Proposed Action) will decrease the average time of each bridge closure 

by approximately 1 minute. The projected freight traffic under the 2016 No-Build Alternative results in 

a total average daily bridge closure of 6.6 hours during weekdays and approximately 3.6 hours of 

daily closure during weekends, as compared to approximately 4.01 and 2.74 hours of daily closure 

during weekdays and weekends, respectively, under the Existing Conditions. Although the Proposed 

Action (2016 Passenger and upgraded infrastructure) will add to the total daily bridge closure time 

(about 5.95 hours during the weekdays 5.89 hours during weekends), improvements to the rail 

infrastructure are expected to increase the speed of rail traffic, reducing the Proposed Action 

average time of single closures (15 minutes) by approximately 6 minutes, when compared to 

Existing Conditions (21 minutes) or about 5 minutes when compared to the No-Build Alternative 

respectively (20 minutes). The Combined Effect (2016 Freight and Passenger) will correspond to an 

average of 9.79 hours of daily closure times during the weekdays and 7.63 hours of closure time 

during the weekends. The total bridge closure estimated for the No-Build 2016 Freight and the 2016 

Improved Freight, (Combined Effect minus the Proposed Action; data presented in Appendix A) are 

very similar. However, the 2016 Improved Freight has a lower total daily closure time throughout the 

week and a reduction of bridge closure that ranges between 4 and 53 minutes during active vessel 

traffic (6:00am and 6:00pm), except for Wednesday.

Under the Combined Effect, some specific hours could potentially experience longer periods of 

bridge closure time (above 30 minutes). Extended bridge closure time in a specific hour can be split 

into several short bridge closings periods (e.g., three -10 minutes closings) with bridge openings 

between each bridge closure, or they can happen as one bridge closure in that hour (Table 5.4-3). 

These single extended periods of closure time however, will occur mainly at night and early morning, 

during which there is decreased vessel traffic compared to daytime hours (Appendix B). In addition 

these extended bridge closures are usually followed by long periods of bridge openings that should 

allow all queue vessels to cross without experiencing multiple bridge closures. Even the largest 

vessels will not take more than 5 to 6 seconds to cross the bridge, thus shorter periods of bridge 

opening (e.g., 5 minutes) should be enough to clear queue vessels at both sides of the bridge.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-22 AMEC

Table 5.4-1. Bridge Operation Survey for St. Lucie River Bridge Based on FECR Video Assessment

Day of Week

Time it takes 

bridge to close

Time it takes 

train to arrive 

Time it takes 

train to cross

Time it takes Bridge to 

start opening

Time it takes for 

Bridge to open Total Time

Values Represent the Average Times Per Day (hh:mm:ss)

Monday 0:00:59 0:18:37 0:00:34 0:02:27 0:00:25 0:23:02

Tuesday 0:00:40 0:11:47 0:11:01 0:01:21 0:01:09 0:25:41

Wednesday 0:00:23 0:23:16 0:01:22 0:02:52 0:00:27 0:28:20

Thursday 0:00:32 0:14:54 0:04:18 0:02:04 0:00:27 0:22:18

Friday 0:00:30 0:09:34 0:36:54 0:04:05 0:00:29 0:51:32

Statistics of Raw Data for the Bridge Operation Survey a(hh:mm:ss)

Average 0:00:36 0:14:30 0:08:25 0:02:00 0:00:44 0:26:10

Minimum 0:00:14 0:02:03 0:00:06 0:00:34 0:00:22 0:06:07

Median 0:00:31 0:14:07 0:02:39 0:01:45 0:00:29 0:23:02

Maximum 0:01:26 0:24:11 0:58:02 0:04:05 0:02:57 1:22:15

Note: Each day is an average of multiple observations per day that include both single and multiple trains crossing within the closures observed.

a Average data based on 17 observations 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-23 AMEC

Table 5.4-2. Summary of Existing and Projected Bridge Operations for the St. Lucie River Bridge

St Lucie River Bridge

Existing 

Conditions 

2013 F

a

No-Build 

Alternative

2016 F

a

Proposed 

Action

2016 P

b

Combined

Effect

2016 F + P b

Average Single Daily Closure Time (Minutes)

Sunday 23 22 18 16

Monday 21 20 15 15

Tuesday 20 19 16 15

Wednesday 20 18 13 15

Thursday 21 20 14 14

Friday 20 19 16 16

Saturday 19 19 13 13

Average Single Daily Closure Time c(minutes) 21 20 15 15

Total Number of Daily Closures 10 18 30 42

Total Daily Closure Time (Minutes)

Sunday 158 179 348 458

Monday 227 358 385 583

Tuesday 234 407 372 580

Wednesday 245 411 316 594

Thursday 254 407 355 611

Friday 244 404 357 570

Saturday 171 247 359 457

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Minutes) 241 397.4 357 588

Average of Total Weekday Closure Time (Hours) 4.01 6.6 5.95 9.79

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Minutes) 165 213 354 458

Average of Total Weekend Closure Time (Hours) 2.74 3.6 5.89 7.63

Notes: aResults based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations with closure times verified with existing field 

conditions and under the assumption that infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action do not occur.

bResults based on RTC modeling data of train and bridge operations for both freight and passenger rail with the planned 

infrastructure improvements planned under the Proposed Action.

cMultiple trains(freight and passenger) can cross under a single bridge closure.

Table 5.4-3. Extended Bridge Closures at St. Lucie River due to Freight and Passenger Train Operations

Day

Bridge Closure 

Time (hh:mm) a

Total 

Number of 

Trains

Bridge Closure 

Time (hh:mm)

Duration of 

Single Closure 

(Minutes)

Open Duration Before 

Next Bridge Closure 

(Minutes)

Monday 16:09 3 16:09 33 20

Monday 18:09 3 18:09 33 36

Tuesday 18:09 3 18:09 32 40

Tuesday 19:22 2 19:22 33 3

Tuesday 20:00 3 20:00 41 10

Wednesday 16:19 4 16:19 40 16

Wednesday 18:19 3 18:19 33 20

Thursday 14:10 3 14:10 30 35

Thursday 16:22 3 16:22 32 5

Thursday 20:07 3 20:07 34 17

Friday 13:09 3 13:09 32 35

Friday 19:13 4 19:13 33 32

Note: Extended bridge closures are characterized by single closures longer than 30 minutes

a

Time of day when the extended bridge closure occurs
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-24 AMEC

5.5 Model Simulation Results

No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) Compared to Combined Effect (Case 3)

Table 5.5.1 shows the model results for marine traffic wait times for total vessels (commercial plus 

recreational), commercial only vessels, and recreational only vessels at St. Lucie Bridge crossing for 

the four cases identified in Section 2.5.1. When comparing Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) to 

Case 3 (2016 Freight and Passenger, Combined Effect) an increase in the percentage of vessels 

experiencing a wait from 14% under the No-Build Alternative to 42% under the Combined Effect is 

observed. There is a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 18.3

minutes under Case 2a, and will not wait longer than 17.6 minutes under Case 3. The average wait 

times for all vessels that experience a wait is expected to decrease under the Combined Effect as 

compared to the No-Build Alternative, from 9.9 minutes to 8.1 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect on total vessels. For commercial vessels that wait, wait time is expected to decrease on 

average from 8.1 minutes under the No-Build Alternative to 7.7 minutes under the Combined Effect.

For recreational vessels that wait, wait time is expected to decrease on average from 10.1 minutes 

under the No-Build Alternative to 8.1 minutes under the Combined Effect.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the St. Lucie Bridge 

(Table 5.3-1), the highest traffic for commercial and recreational vessels occur from 10:00 am to 

6:00 pm. Overall, under the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) and for the Combined Effect (Case 3) 

there is a higher probability (>80%) that vessels will not have to experience a wait time. However, 

the number of vessels that could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is

presented in Table 5.5-2. In general,

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 3.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.1 to 2.1% of occurrence is over 10 vessels.

 Under the Combined Effect, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are experiencing 

a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest probability of 

occurrence; while the greatest vessel queue length with a probability ranging from 0.1 to 4.3% is 

over 10 vessels. 

Existing Conditions (Case 1) Compared to No-Build Alternative (Case 2a)

When comparing Case 1 (2013 Existing Conditions) to Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) for total 

vessel traffic, increases in vessel delays are projected. The percentage of vessels that experience a 

wait time increases from 7% under Existing Conditions to 14% for the No-Build Alternative. There is 

a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 16.5 minutes under Case 

1, and will not wait longer than 18.3 minutes under Case 2a. The average wait times for vessels that 

experience a wait increase under the No-Build Alternative as compared to the Existing Conditions 

from 8.2 minutes to 9.9 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect of total vessels experiencing a wait. For commercial vessels that wait, wait time is

expected to increase on average from 6.1 minutes under Existing Conditions to 8.1 minutes under 

the No-Build Alternative. For recreational vessels that wait, wait time is expected to increase on 

average from 8.5 minutes under Existing Conditions to 10.1 minutes under the No-Build Alternative.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the St. Lucie River Bridge 

(Table 5.3-1), the highest traffic for commercial and recreational vessels occur from 10:00 am to 

6:00 pm. under the Existing Condition (Case1) and for the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) there is a 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-25 AMEC

higher probability that vessels will not experience a wait time. However, the number of vessels that 

could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is presented in Table 5.5-2. 

In general, 

 Under the Existing Conditions a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence; and the maximum vessel queue length with a 0.1 to 0.2 % probability 

of occurrence is over 10 vessels.

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 3.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.1 to 2.1% of occurrence is over 10 vessels.

No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) Compared to 2016 Improve Freight (Case 2b)

When comparing Case 2a (2016 No-Build Alternative) to Case 2b (2016 Freight, Improved) wait 

times decrease for total vessel traffic. The percentage of vessels that experience a wait time, 

decreases from 14% under 2016 No-Build Alternative to 11% for the 2016 Freight, Improved. There 

is a 90% probability that individual vessels that wait will not wait longer than 18.3 minutes under 

Case 2a, and will not wait longer than 13 minutes under Case 2b. The average wait times for 

vessels that experience a wait decrease under the 2016 Freight, Improved as compared to the 2016 

No-Build Alternative from 9.9 minutes to 6.9 minutes, respectively.

The effect on vessel wait time for commercial only vessels and recreational only vessels was similar 

to the effect of total vessels experiencing a wait. For commercial vessels that wait, wait time is 

expected to decrease on average from 8.1 minutes under the 2016 No-Build Alternative to 5.3

minutes under the 2016 Freight-Improved. For recreational vessels that wait, wait time is expected to 

decrease on average from 10.1 minutes under the 2016 No-Build Alternative to 7.1 minutes under 

the 2016 Freight-Improved.

Based on vessel traffic characterized in the FECR Video Assessment for the St. Lucie River Bridge 

(Table 5.3-1), the highest traffic for commercial and recreational vessels occur from 10:00 am to 

6:00 pm. under the No-Build Alternative (Case 2a) and for the 2016 Improved Freight (Case 2b) 

there is a higher probability that vessels will not experience a wait time. However, the number of 

vessels that could potentially experience being in a queue from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm is presented in 

Table 5.5-2. In general, 

 Under the No-Build Alternative, a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that are 

experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 3.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.1 to 2.1% of occurrence is over 10 vessels.

 Under the 2016 Improved Freight (Case 2b), a vessel queue length (the number of vessels that 

are experiencing a wait) of 1 vessel for both directions (traveling east or west) has the highest 

probability of occurrence (Table 5.5-2); while the maximum vessel queue length with a 

probability 0.1 and 0.7% of occurrence is over 10 vessels.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-26 AMEC

Table 5.5-1. Simulation Model Results for St. Lucie River Bridge

Case Number 1 2a 2b 3

Train Traffic 2013 F 2016 F 2016 F 2016 F+P

Infrastructure 2013 (No-Build) 2013 (No-Build) 2016 (Build) 2016 (Build)

Marine Traffic Units 2013 2016 Projected

2016 

Projected

2016 

Projected

Total Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 157 157 157 157

Vessels With Zero Wait Time (#/day) 145 135 140 90

% Vessels With Zero Wait Time 93% 86% 89% 58%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 11.7 22.5 17 66.7

% Vessels With Wait Time 7% 14% 11% 42%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 0.6 1.4 0.7 3.4

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 8.2 9.9 6.9 8.1

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.5 18.3 13.0 17.6

Commercial Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 9 9 9 9

Vessels With Zero Wait Time (#/day) 7 7 7 4

% Vessels With Zero Wait Time 83% 78% 81% 51%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 2 2 2 4

% Vessels With Wait Time 17% 22% 19% 49%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 1.0 1.8 1.0 3.7

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 6.1 8.1 5.3 7.7

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.4 18.3 12.9 16.6

Recreational Vessel Wait Times

Vessel Arrivals (#/day) 148 148 148 148

Vessels With Zero Wait Time (#/day) 138 127 33 86

% Vessels With Zero Wait Time 93% 86% 22% 58%

Vessels With Wait Time (#/day) 10 21 115 63

% Vessels With Wait Time 7% 14% 78% 42%

Avg. Wait Time (all) a(min) 0.6 1.4 0.7 3.4

Avg. Wait Time b(min) 8.5 10.1 7.1 8.1

Most Likely Vessel Wait Time; 

>90% Probability of Occurring (min) 16.5 18.3 13.0 17.7

Notes: a Average time all vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge (average between vessels with wait time and 

vessels with no wait time) 

b Average time queue vessels will have to wait before crossing the bridge
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

5-27 AMEC

Table 5.5-2. Simulation Model Results for Vessel Queue Lengths at St. Lucie River Bridge

Case Time

Length of Queue (vessels)

Minimum Queue Percent Chance Maximum 

Queue Percent Chance

Case Number: 1

Train Traffic: 2013 F

Infrastructure: 2013 (No-Build)

Marine Traffic: 2013

6-7 am 1 4.9 3 0.1

7-8 am 1 3.4 3 0.3

8-9 am 1 3.9 5 0.1

9-10 am 1 3.2 7 0.1

10-11 am 1 1.1 6 0.1

11 am – 12 noon 1 4.9 6 0.1

12 noon-1 pm 1 2.0 8 0.1

1-2 pm 1 1.0 6 0.1

2-3 pm 1 0.1 1 0.1

3-4 pm 1 3.1 7 0.1

4-5 pm 1 4.6 >10 0.2

5-6 pm 1 0.7 >10 0.1

6-7 pm nq na nq na

Case Number: 2a

Train Traffic: 2016 F

Infrastructure: 2013 (No-Build)

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am 1 4.6 2 0.8

7-8 am 1 0.5 1 0.5

8-9 am nq na nq na

9-10 am 1 3.8 6 0.2

10-11 am 1 4.2 >10 0.5

11 am – 12 noon 1 0.2 1 0.2

12 noon-1 pm 1 1.6 >10 0.1

1-2 pm 1 5.2 >10 2.1

2-3 pm 1 0.4 4 0.1

3-4 pm 1 1.0 4 0.1

4-5 pm 1 10.3 >10 1.1

5-6 pm 1 8.0 >10 0.2

6-7 pm 1 0.7 4 0.1

Case Number: 2b

Train Traffic: 2016 F

Infrastructure: 2016

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am 1 2.7 3 0.3

7-8 am 1 0.3 1 0.3

8-9 am nq na nq na

9-10 am 1 2.8 6 0.1

10-11 am 1 3.7 >10 0.1

11 am – 12 noon 1 0.2 1 0.2

12 noon-1 pm 1 1.0 7 0.1

1-2 pm 1 4.7 >10 0.7

2-3 pm 1 0.4 4 0.1

3-4 pm 1 0.5 3 0.1

4-5 pm 1 10.4 >10 0.3

5-6 pm 1 5.8 8 0.1

6-7 pm 1 0.6 2 0.2

Case Number: 3

Train Traffic: 2016 F + P

Infrastructure: 2016

Marine Traffic: 2016 Projected

6-7 am 1 5.9 2 0.4

7-8 am 1 8.4 5 0.1

8-9 am 1 9.1 7 0.1

9-10 am 1 9.7 >10 0.1

10-11 am 1 11.2 >10 1.3

11 am – 12 noon 1 11.2 >10 0.3

12 noon-1 pm 1 8.1 >10 1.5

1-2 pm 1 9.9 >10 4.3

2-3 pm 1 9.5 >10 0.7

3-4 pm 1 9.3 >10 0.2

4-5 pm 1 12.5 >10 1.5

5-6 pm 1 13.4 >10 0.2

6-7 pm 1 0.9 7 0.1
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-1 AMEC

6.0 Effect Determination

Impacts to navigation for the New River, Loxahatchee River, and St Lucie River were evaluated 

based on the criteria described in Table 6.0-1. The following section details the effects of the 

Proposed Action at each bridge location. As shown in Table 6.0-1, multiple impacts were considered 

including:

 Percentage of vessels that will be required to wait;

 Vessel queue length and probability of queue to occur;

 Duration and frequency of bridge closure times; and

 Economic impacts to the marine industry.

These effect determinations are consistent with USCG guidance for this study. 

Table 6.0-1. Description of Impacts to Navigation for the Effect Determinations

Impact

Description of Impact to Navigation

% of Vessel that Wait

Queue Length and 

Probability Extended Closure Times Economic Impact

No Impact Alternative results in no 

change in vessels that 

experience a wait 

during peak traffic 

hours 

Alternative results in no 

change in vessel queue 

length during peak traffic 

hours 

Alternative results in no 

increase in bridge closure 

times during peak traffic 

hours 

Alternative results in no 

economic impact to marine 

industry as a result of 

longer wait times during 

peak vessel traffic hours 

Minimal Alternative results in 

slight changes, not 

expected to be 

measureable, in

vessels that experience 

a wait during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in slight 

changes not expected to 

be measureable in vessel 

queue length during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in slight 

changes not expected to be 

measureable for bridge 

closure times during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in slight 

changes (< 0.1% change)

not expected to be 

measureable to marine 

industry as a result of 

longer wait times during 

peak vessel traffic hours 

Minor Alternative results in 

<25% of vessels that 

experience a wait 

during peak traffic 

hours 

Alternative results in an 

increase in vessel queue 

lengths >10 vessels with a 

probability <2.5% during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in single 

bridge closure times that are 

< 30 minutes long during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in a 

> 0.1% but < 1% increase 

in the cost of waiting 

compared to the marine 

industry value

Moderate Alternative results in 

>25% but <40% of 

vessels that experience 

a wait during peak 

traffic hours 

Alternative results in an 

increase in vessel queue 

lengths >10 vessels with a 

probability >2.5% but <5% 

during peak traffic hours 

Probability that Alternative

result in single bridge 

closure times that are ≥30 

and ≤45 minutes long during 

peak traffic is less than 1%

Alternative results in a 

> 1% but < 5% increase in 

the cost of waiting 

compared to the marine 

industry value

Major Alternative results in 

>40% of vessels that 

experience a wait 

during peak traffic 

hours 

Alternative results in an 

increase in vessel queue 

lengths >10 vessels with a 

probability >5% peak traffic 

hours 

Probability that Alternative 

will result in single bridge 

closure times that are ≥30 

and ≤45 minutes long during 

peak traffic is more than 1%

Alternative results in a 

> 5% increase in the cost 

of waiting compared to the 

marine industry value

Enhanced Alternative results in a 

decrease in number of 

vessels that wait during 

peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in a 

decrease in queue lengths 

during peak traffic hours 

Alternative results in a 

decrease in bridge closures 

times during peak traffic 

hours 

Alternative results in a 

decrease in cost of waiting 

as a result of longer wait 

times during peak vessel 

traffic hours 

Based on analysis of modeling results for Existing Conditions and the No-Build and Combined

Alternatives, extended closure times (single closure times greater than 30 minutes) create the 

greatest possible impact to navigation and obstruction of passage. Extended closure times during 

peak vessel traffic hours can present impacts associated with increased vessel wait times (for those 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-2 AMEC

vessels that wait) as well as extended vessel queue lengths. Vessel wait times associated with 

extended closure times are limited, as the probability of vessels experiencing a wait time of 30 

minutes or greater is less than 1% (Table 6.0-2). Specifically, there is a less than 1% probability that 

a single vessel will wait for 23.1 minutes at the New River Bridge, 20.2 minutes at the Loxahatchee 

River Bridge, and 30 minutes at the St. Lucie River Bridge. Furthermore, there is a less than 10% 

probability that a single vessel will wait for 12.2 minutes at the New River Bridge, 9.8 minutes at the 

Loxahatchee River Bridge, and 17.6 minutes at the St. Lucie River Bridge. 

Those times when peak vessel traffic coincides with single closures greater than 30 minutes under 

the Combined Effect are described in Tables 6.0-3 through 6.0-5.

Table 6.0-2 Vessel Wait Time Probability per Vessel for the New River, Loxahatchee River, and St. 

Lucie River

Wait Time Probability

per Vessel

New River

Wait Time (minutes)

Loxahatchee River Wait 

Time (minutes)

St. Lucie River

Wait Time (minutes)

< 10% 12.2 9.8 17.6

< 1% 23.1 20.2 30.0

Table 6.0-3. Intervals of Time When Peak Vessel Traffic Coincides with Single Closures Greater than 30

Minutes at the New River Bridge

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

6-7 am

7-8 am

8-9 am

9-10 am

10-11 am

11-noon

noon-1 pm

1-2 pm

2-3 pm

3-4 pm

4-5 pm

5-6 pm

Single Closure 

>30 min

6-7 pm

Single Closure 

>30 min 

7-8 pm

8-9 pm

9-10 pm

10-11 pm

Single Closure 

>30 min 

Notes: Shaded areas represent high vessel traffic time

Times when high vessel traffic coincide with single closures ≥30 minutes have a probability of occurrence of less than 1%, 

and are defined as a moderate impact
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-3 AMEC

Table 6.0-4. Intervals of Time When Peak Vessel Traffic Coincides with Single Closures Greater than 30

Minutes at the Loxahatchee River Bridge

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

6-7 am

7-8 am

8-9 am

9-10 am

10-11 am

11-noon

noon-1 pm

1-2 pm

2-3 pm

3-4 pm

4-5 pm

5-6 pm

6-7 pm

7-8 pm

8-9 pm

9-10 pm

Single Closure 

>30 min

Single Closure

>30 min

10-11 pm

Notes: Shaded areas represent high vessel traffic time

Times when high vessel traffic coincide with single closures ≥30 minutes have a probability of occurrence of less than 1%, 

and are defined as a moderate impact

Table 6.0-5. Intervals of Time When Peak Vessel Traffic Coincides with Single Closures Greater than 30

Minutes at the St. Lucie River Bridge

Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

6-7 am

7-8 am

8-9 am

9-10 am

10-11 am

11-noon

noon-1 pm

1-2 pm

Single Closure

>30 min

2-3 pm

Single Closure

>30 min

3-4 pm

4-5 pm

Single Closure

>30 min

Single Closure

>30 min

Single Closure

>30 min

5-6 pm

6-7 pm

Single Closure

>30 min

Single Closure

>30 min

Single Closure

>30 min

7-8 pm

Single Closure

>30 min

Single Closure

>30 min

8-9 pm

Single Closure

>30 min

Single Closure

>30 min

9-10 pm

10-11 pm

Notes: Shaded areas represent high vessel traffic time

Times when high vessel traffic coincide with single closures ≥30 minutes have a probability of occurrence of less than 1%, 

and are defined as a moderate impact
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-4 AMEC

6.1 Effect Determination of No-Build Alternative at the New River Bridge

The No-Build Alternative results in an increase in obstruction of passage compared to Existing 

Conditions, because of the greater number of bridge closures due to an increase in rail freight traffic. 

The number of vessels that wait is estimated to increase from 14% to 23%, which represents 

approximately 20 additional vessels per day. Of the additional number of vessels that wait, it is 

projected that 3 are commercial vessels and 15 are recreational vessels. In addition, the average 

wait time for vessels that wait will increase by approximately 2 minutes (Table 6.1-1). This results in 

a minor impact to the commercial and recreational vessels that wait. Although a measureable 

change/increase is expected in the percent of vessels that wait, this increase in wait time is not 

expected to occur during peak traffic hours.

With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels 

(Table 6.1-1) and the probability of queue length greater than 10 vessels in any given hour is 2.2%, 

and queuing is projected to be 10 or fewer vessels for the other 97.8% of the time. 

Table 6.1-1. Vessel Wait Times for the New River Bridge, Existing Conditions versus No-Build Alternative

Vessel Traffic Characterization Units Existing Conditions No-Build Alternative

Commercial Vessel Traffic

Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time a#/day 11 14

Percent Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 21 29

Recreational Vessel Traffic

Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Time a#/day 20 35

Percent Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait 

Time

% 12 21

Total Vessel Traffic

Percent Total Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 14 23

Average Wait Time for All Vessels that Wait min 5.9 7.9

Maximum Probability of Queue Length >10 % 1.4 2.2

Note: a Number of vessels rounded to the closest integer

The vertical clearance of the New River Bridge is 4 feet at mean high water level (MHWL). 

Therefore, recreational vessels requiring a low vertical clearance (under 4 feet) may still traverse

under the bridge when it is closed. Additionally, vessels with a higher vertical clearance may traverse 

under the closed bridge during low water conditions. Since vessels that can currently traverse under 

the closed bridge will do so under the No-Build Alternative, this is characterized as no impact.

Multiple overhead structures, such as bridges and power cables can obstruct the passage of vessels 

on the New River. However, the New River Bridge has the lowest vertical clearance (4 feet). The 

New River Bridge remains open most of the time, closing only to allow the passage of trains. The 

closed bridge limits vessel passage to the Intracoastal Waterway to the east and to marine facilities 

to the west. The Broward Boulevard Bridge, located at the North Fork, has a vertical clearance below 

5 feet. This bridge limits the passage of vessels in the North Fork. However, the shallow depth of the 

North Fork limits the passage of larger vessels. 

The anticipated increase in average vessel wait times associated with additional bridge closures and 

unimproved infrastructure would result in an increase in vessel queues of 18 vessels per day. These 

increased vessel wait times were considered when evaluating economic impacts to commercial 

developments along the New River. The increase in average vessel wait times for commercial and 

recreational vessels is estimated to result in an economic impact under the No-Build Alternative 

(Table 6.1-2) of $373.00 per day. This value is the difference between the estimated economic

impacts from the No-Build Alternative compared to the impact of Existing Conditions. This 

represents less than a 0.1% increase in the total cost of vessel delays per day on the marine 

industry under the No-Build Alternative.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-5 AMEC

Table 6.1-2. Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge for Existing Conditions and No-Build 

Alternative

Units Existing Conditions No-Build Alternative

Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels (min/day) 178 390

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 11 14

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 101 196

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value (%) 0.0016 0.0031

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 20 35

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 215 493

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value (%) 0.0040 0.0092

All Vessel Types

Total Daily Cost of Waiting ($) 316 689

Total Annual Cost of Waiting ($) 115,340 251,485

Port Everglades is located east of the New River Bridge. However, cruise ships, commercial 

freighters, and other large oceangoing vessels do not access the New River. Therefore the No-Build 

Alternative would have no impact to existing or future commercial freighter or cruise ship operations 

at Port Everglades.

Commercial destinations on the New River are primarily boat/yacht repair and support facilities, 

which would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business as a result of impacts to navigation; 

therefore the No-Build Alternative is not expected to have impacts to such businesses.

6.2 Effect Determination of No-Build Alternative at the Loxahatchee River Bridge

The No-Build Alternative results in an increase in obstruction of passage compared to Existing 

Conditions because of the greater number of bridge closures due to an increase in rail freight traffic. 

The number of vessels that wait is estimated to increase from 7% to 25%, which represents 

approximately 7 additional vessels per day. At this location, only recreational vessels have an 

increase in the number of vessels experiencing wait time (no change in the number of commercial 

vessels that wait are expected under the No-Build Alternative compared to Existing Conditions). In 

addition, the average wait time for vessels that wait is expected to increase by approximately 1.1 

minutes (Table 6.2-1). This results in a minor impact to the recreational vessels that wait. Although a 

measureable change/increase is expected in the percent of vessels that wait, this increase in wait 

time is not expected to occur during peak traffic hours.

With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels 

(Table 6.2-1) and the probability of a queue length greater than 10 vessels in any given hour is 1.7%

with little or no queuing for 98.3% of the time.

Table 6.2-1. Vessel Wait Times for the Loxahatchee River Bridge, Existing Conditions versus No-Build 

Alternative

Vessel Traffic Characterization Units Existing Conditions No-Build Alternative

Commercial Vessel Traffic

Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time a#/day 1 1

Percent Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 16 16

Recreational Vessel Traffic

Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Time a#/day 8 15

Percent Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 7 13

Total Vessel Traffic

Percent Total Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 7 25

Average Wait Time for All Vessels that Wait min 8.3 9.4

Maximum Probability of Queue Length >10 % 1.3 1.7

Note:

a Number of vessels round to the closest integer
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-6 AMEC

The vertical clearance of the Loxahatchee River Bridge is 4 feet at MHWL. Therefore, recreational 

vessels requiring a low vertical clearance (under 4 feet) may still traverse under the bridge when it is

closed. Additionally, vessels with a higher vertical clearance may traverse under the closed bridge 

under low water conditions. Since vessels that can currently traverse under the closed bridge under 

low water conditions will do so under the No-Build Alternative, this is characterized as no impact.

Overhead structures, such as bridges and power cables, traverse the Loxahatchee River and thus 

obstruct the passage of vessels. Amongst these structures, the Loxahatchee River Bridge has the 

lowest vertical clearance (4 feet). Although the Loxahatchee River Bridge remains open most of the 

time, closing only to allow the passage of trains, the closed bridge limits passage to the Intracoastal 

Waterway to the east and to vessel docks on residential areas to the west. Several other fixed 

bridges on the South Fork have vertical clearances between approximately 7 feet and 4 feet. The 

Center Street fixed bridge traverses the Loxahatchee River in two different, but consecutive, 

locations (interrupted by a peninsula of land) with vertical clearances that are 4.6 and 6 feet high. 

These bridges limit vessel traffic in Sims Creek and North Jupiter River Estates residential areas 

located at the South Fork at the Loxahatchee River. The Loxahatchee River Road Bridge traverses 

the main waterway of the South Fork and has a vertical clearance of 7 feet. This fixed bridge greatly 

limits the vessel traffic on most of the South Fork. 

The anticipated increase in average vessel wait times associated with additional bridge closures and 

unimproved infrastructure would result in an increase in vessel queues of 7 vessels per day. These 

increased vessel wait times were considered when evaluating economic impacts to commercial 

developments along the Loxahatchee River. The increase in average vessel wait times is estimated 

to result in an economic impact under the No-Build Alternative (Table 6.2-2), of $125 per day. This 

value is the difference between the estimated economic impacts from the No-Build Alternative 

compared to the impact of Existing Conditions. This represents less than a 0.1% increase in the total 

cost of vessel delays per day on the marine industry under the No-Build Alternative.

Table 6.2-2. Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River Bridge for Existing Conditions and NoBuild Alternative

Units Existing Conditions No-Build Alternative

Total Daily Wait Time for All Vessels (min) 74 147

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 1 1

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 7 9

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value (%) 0.0005 0.0006

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 8 15

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 118 241

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value (%) 0.0089 0.0182

All Vessel Types

Total Daily Cost of Waiting ($) 125 250

Total Annual Cost of Waiting ($) 45,625 91,250

There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the 

Loxahatchee River; therefore, the No-Build Alternative is not expected to have an impact on 

operations of these types of vessels.

Individual commercial vessels could potentially experience an increase in vessel queue times at the 

Loxahatchee River Bridge. However, there are very few commercial destinations on the 

Loxahatchee River, and they would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business as a result of 

the bridge closures. Therefore, there is no impact under the No-Build Alternative.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-7 AMEC

6.3 Effect Determination of No-Build Alternative at the St. Lucie River Bridge

Under the No-Build Alternative, an increase in obstruction of passage compared to Existing 

Conditions is projected, and this is related to a greater number of bridge closures due to an increase 

in rail freight traffic. Only recreational vessels will have an increase in the number or vessels 

experiencing wait time (no change in the number of commercial vessels that wait are expected 

under the No-Build Alternative compared to Existing Conditions). The average wait time for vessels 

experiencing a wait will increase by approximately 1.7 minutes. This results in a minor impact to the 

vessels that wait; as there are measureable changes in the percent of vessels that wait, but not 

primarily during continuous periods of time during peak traffic hours.

With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels 

(Table 6.3-1) and the probability of a queue length greater than 10 vessels in any given hour is 

2.1%, with little or no queuing for 97.2% of the time.

Table 6.3-1. Vessel Wait Times for the St. Lucie River Bridge, Existing Conditions versus No-Build 

Alternative

Vessel Traffic Characterization Units Existing Conditions No-Build Alternative

Commercial Vessel Traffic

Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time a#/day 2 2

Percent Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 17 22

Recreational Vessel Traffic

Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Time a#/day 10 21

Percent Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 7 14

Total Vessel Traffic

Percent Total Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 7 14

Average Wait Time for All Vessels that Wait min 8.2 9.9

Maximum Probability of Queue Length >10 % 0.2 2.1

Note:

a Number of vessels round to the closest integer

The vertical clearance of the St. Lucie River Bridge is 7 feet at MHWL. Therefore, recreational 

vessels requiring a low vertical clearance (under 7 feet) may still traverse under the bridge even 

when closed without obstruction. Additionally, vessels with a higher vertical clearance may traverse 

under the closed bridge under low water conditions without obstruction. Since vessels that can 

currently traverse under the closed bridge under low water conditions will do so under the No-Build 

Alternative, this is characterized as no impact.

Overhead structures, such as bridges and power cables, traverse the St. Lucie River and thus 

obstruct the passage of vessels. Amongst these structures, the St. Lucie River Bridge has the lowest 

vertical clearance in the confluence of the river (7 feet). Although the St. Lucie River Bridge remains 

open most of the time, closing only to allow the passage of freight, the closed bridge limits passage 

to the Intracoastal Waterway to the east and to vessel docks on residential areas to the west. 

Several other fixed bridges traverse the main waterway of the South Fork and the St. Lucie canal, 

some with vertical clearances lower than 7 feet. These bridges will limit the traffic of larger vessels in 

certain sections of the St. Lucie Canal.

The anticipated increase in average vessel wait times associated with additional bridge closures and 

unimproved infrastructure would result in an increase in vessel queues of 11 vessels per day. These 

increased vessel wait times were considered when evaluating economic impacts to commercial 

developments along the St Lucie River. The increase in average vessel wait times is estimated to 

result in an economic impact under the No-Build Alternative (Table 6.3-2), of $209 per day. This 

value is the difference between the estimated economic impacts from the No-Build Alternative 

compared to the impact of Existing Conditions. This represents less than a 0.1% increase in the total 

cost of vessel delays per day on the marine industry under the No-Build Alternative.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-8 AMEC

Table 6.3-2. Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge for Existing Conditions and No-Build 

Alternative

Units Existing Conditions No-Build Alternative

Average Wait Time for all Vessels (min) 96 223

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 2 2

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 15 26

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value (%) 0.0006 0.0011

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 10 21

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 143 341

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry Value (%) 0.0065 0.0156

All Vessel Types

Total Daily Cost of Waiting ($) 158 367

Total Annual Cost of Waiting ($) 57,670 133,955

There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the 

St. Lucie River; therefore, the No-Build Alternative is not expected to impact the existing or future 

operations of these types of vessels.

Individual commercial vessels could potentially experience an increase in vessel queue times at the 

St. Lucie River Bridge. However, there are very few commercial destinations on the St. Lucie River, 

and they would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business as a result of the moderate

impacts to navigation under the No-Build Alternative.

6.4 Combined Effect Determination at the New River Bridge

Under the Combined Effect (2016 Freight + Passenger), an increase in obstruction of passage 

compared to the No-Build Alternative is projected, creating a minor to moderate impact before 

mitigation. This increase in obstruction of passage results from an increase in the number of bridge 

closures and the frequency of closures. This increases the number of vessels that experience a wait 

time from 23% to 36%, which represents approximately 27 additional vessels per day (6 commercial 

vessels and 21 recreational vessels). However, the average wait time for vessels experiencing a 

wait will decrease approximately 1.6 minutes (from 7.9 to 6.3 minutes), when compared to the NoBuild Alternative (Table 6.4-1). This results in a minor impact to vessels that wait before mitigation.

With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels 

(Table 6.4-1). However, the likelihood of a queue length greater than 10 in any given hour is only 

2.0% (a decrease of 0.2% when compared to the No-Build Alternative). Therefore, under the 

Combined Effect, there is a minor impact to vessel queue length.

Impacts to the percent of vessels that wait, the queue length and the probability these impacts occur, 

may be reduced or eliminated through mitigation (see Section 7.0).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-9 AMEC

Table 6.4-1. Vessel Wait Times for the New River Bridge, No-Build Alternative versus Combined Effect

Vessel Traffic Characterization Units

No-Build 

Alternative

Combined

Effect

Proposed 

Actiona

Commercial Vessel Traffic

Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Timeb#/day 14 20 6

Percent Commercial Vessels With Wait Time % 29 41 12

Recreational Vessel Traffic

Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Timeb#/day 35 56 21

Percent Recreational Vessels With Wait Time % 21 34 13

Total Vessel Traffic

Percent Total Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 23 36 12

Average Wait Time for All Vessels that Wait min 7.9 6.3 -1.6

Number of Hours with Queue Length >10 7 8 1

Maximum Probability of Queue Length >10 % 2.2 2.0 -0.2

Notes: a Proposed Action = Combined effects − No-Build Alternative effects; values show increase and decrease compared to 

the No-Build Alternative

b Number of vessels round to the closest integer

Impacts due to extended closure times are expected to be moderate under the Combined Effect

before mitigation. Moderate impacts are defined as the probability that an alternative will result in 

single bridge closure times that are greater than 30 and less than 45 minutes long during peak traffic 

is less than 1%. Based on modeling, extended closure times at the New River Bridge are limited to 

Thursday between 5 pm and 6 pm. (Table 3.4-6). Since other extended closures do not occur during 

peak vessel traffic hours, these closures are considered a moderate impact. Due to the variability of 

freight train arrival times in the RTC model, there is an associated level of uncertainty with freight 

arrival times. As explained in Section 7, the moderate impacts due to increased closure times 

associated with the Combined Effect may be reduced, or eliminated, through mitigation.

The vertical clearance of the New River Bridge is 4 feet at MHWL. Vessels requiring a low vertical 

clearance (under 4 feet) may still traverse under the bridge when it is closed. Therefore, vessels that 

only require this clearance to pass under the bridge will not be affected by changes in operations.

The increase in average vessel wait times results in minor economic impact under the Combined

Effect (Table 6.4-2), which is estimated at $161 per day (a decrease in loss of $212 per day when 

compared to the No-Build Alternative versus Existing Conditions). This is the cost of the total vessel 

delay per day on the marine industry under the Combined Effect, and creates a minimal impact as 

there is a less than 0.1% increase in the percent cost of waiting compared to the marine industry 

value at the New River, when compared to the No-Build Alternative. 

Table 6.4-2. Economic Model Results for the New River Bridge No-Build Alternative and Combined Effect

Units

No-Build 

Alternative Combined Effect Proposed Action

Average Wait Time for all Vessels (min) 390 481 91

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 14 20 6

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 196 239 43

Percent Cost Compared to Marine

Industry Value (%) 0.0031 0.0038 0.0007

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 35 56 21

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 493 611 118

Percent Cost Compared to Marine 

Industry Value (%) 0.0092 0.0114 0.0022

All Vessel Types

Total Daily Cost of Waiting ($) 689 850 161

Total Annual Cost of Waiting ($) 251,485 310,250 58,765
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-10 AMEC

Commercial destinations on the New River are primarily boat/yacht repair and support facilities.

These facilities are anticipated to incur minor impacts to their business as a result of the moderate 

impacts of the Combined Effect on vessel wait times and queue lengths. 

Port Everglades is located east of the New River Bridge. Cruise ships, commercial freighters, and 

other large oceangoing vessels do not access the New River, and implementation of the Combined

Effect would therefore have no impact to existing or future operations at Port Everglades.

6.5 Combined Effect Determination at the Loxahatchee River Bridge

Under the Combined Effect (2016 Freight + Passenger), an increase in obstruction of passage 

compared to the No-Build Alternative is projected, creating a moderate impact before mitigation. This 

increase in obstruction of passage is related to an increase in the number of vessels that experience 

a wait due to an overall increase in the number of bridge closures. The number of vessels that 

experience a wait increases from 25% to 42%, which represents approximately 31 additional vessels 

per day (1 commercial vessel and 30 recreational vessels). However, average wait time is reduced 

under the Combined Effect. The average wait time for vessels experiencing a wait is estimated to 

decrease 3.7 minutes, when compared to the No-Build Alternative (Table 6.5-1). This results in a 

minor impact to the vessels that wait, when compared to the No-Build Alternative.

With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels 

(Table 6.5-1). The likelihood of a queue length greater than 10 vessels in any given hour is 0.5% (a 

decrease of 1.2% when compared to the No-Build Alternative). 

Impacts to the percent of vessels that wait, the queue length, and the probability these impacts 

occur, may be reduced or eliminated through mitigation (see Section 6.7).

Table 6.5-1. Vessel Wait Times for the Loxahatchee River Bridge, No-Build Alternative versus Combined

Effect

Vessel Traffic Characterization Units

No-Build 

Alternative

Combined

Effect

Proposed 

Actiona

Commercial Vessel Traffic

Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time b#/day 1 2 1

 Percent Commercial Vessels With Wait Time % 16 44 28

Recreational Vessel Traffic

Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Time b#/day 15 45 31

Percent Recreational Vessels With Wait Time % 13 39 26

Total Vessel Traffic

Percent Total Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 25 42 17

Average Wait Time for All Vessels that Wait min 9.4 5.7 -3.7

Maximum Probability of Queue Length >10 % 1.7 0.5 -1.2

Notes: a Proposed Action = Combined effects − No-Build Alternative effects; values show increase and decrease compared to the 

No-Build Alternative

b Number of vessels round to the closest integer

Impacts to extended closure times are expected to be minor under the Combined Effect before 

mitigation. For the Loxahatchee River Bridge, these extended closure times are limited to non-peak 

hours of Monday and Wednesday from 9:00 pm to 10:00 pm (Table 4.4-3). Since the single 

extended closures do not occur during peak vessel traffic hours, these closures are considered a 

minor impact. Due to the variability of freight train arrival times in the RTC model, there is an 

associated level of uncertainty with freight arrival times. Under the Combined Effect, no extended 

closure times occur on weekends when vessel traffic is the highest, and therefore, there is an overall 

minor impact on navigation. Furthermore, as explained in Section 7, these impacts may be reduced, 

or eliminated, through mitigation.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-11 AMEC

The vertical clearance of the Loxahatchee Bridge is 4 feet at MHWL. Vessels requiring a low vertical 

clearance (under 4 feet) may still traverse under the bridge when it is closed. Therefore, vessels that 

only require this clearance to pass under the bridge will not be affected by changes in operations.

The estimated economic impact under the Combined Effect (Table 6.5-2) is $208 per day (an 

increase of $83 per day when compared to the No-Build Alternative). This is the impact of the 

increased total vessel delay per day on the marine industry under the Combined Effect and 

represents less than a 0.1% increase. This is considered a minor effect.

Table 6.5-2. Economic Model Results for the Loxahatchee River FECR Bridge No-Build Alternative and 

Combined Effect

Units

No-Build 

Alternative Combined Effect Proposed Action

Average Wait Time for all Vessels (min) 147 269 122

Commercial Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 1 2 1

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 9 18 9

Percent Cost Compared to Marine

Industry Value (%) 0.0006 0.0012 0.0006

Recreational Industry

Vessels Experiencing a Wait (#/day) 15 45 30

Cost of Vessel Wait to Marine Industry ($/day) 241 440 199

Percent Cost Compared to Marine 

Industry Value (%) 0.0182 0.0331 0.0150

All Vessel Types

Total Daily Cost of Waiting ($) 250 458 208

Total Annual Cost of Waiting ($) 91,250 167,170 75,920

There are very few commercial destinations on the Loxahatchee River, as most of the waterfront 

development is residential. The few commercial destinations are not expected to incur any decline in 

business as a result of the Combined Alternative’s effect on navigation.

There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the 

Loxahatchee River; therefore, the Combined Effect would have no impact to existing or future 

operations of these types of vessels.

6.6 Combined Effect Determination at the St. Lucie River Bridge

Under the Combined Effect (2016 Freight + Passenger), an increase in obstruction of passage 

compared to the No-Build Alternative is projected, creating a moderate impact before mitigation. This 

increase in obstruction of passage is related to an increase in the number of vessels that experience 

a wait due to an overall increase in the number of bridge closures. The number of vessels that 

experience a wait time increases from 14% to 42%, which represents approximately 44 additional 

vessels per day (2 commercial vessels and 42 recreational vessels); however, a decrease average 

wait time is observed. Accordingly, under the Combined Effect, the average wait time for vessels 

experiencing a wait will decrease approximately 1.8 minutes when compared to the No-Build 

Alternative (Table 6.6-1). This results in a moderate impact before mitigation to the percent of 

vessels that wait, when compared to the No-Build Alternative.

With the exception of a few specific hour periods, the vessel queue length rarely exceeds 10 vessels 

(Table 6.6-1). The likelihood of a queue length greater than 10 vessels in any given hour is 4.3%. 

Impacts to the percent of vessels that wait, the queue length, and the probability these impacts 

occur, may be reduced or eliminated through mitigation (see Section 6.7).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-12 AMEC

Table 6.6-1. Vessel Wait Times for the St. Lucie River Bridge, No-Build Alternative versus Combined

Effect

Vessel Traffic Characterization Units

No-Build 

Alternative

Combined

Effect

Proposed 

Actiona

Commercial Vessel Traffic

Commercial Vessels Experiencing Wait Time b#/day 2 4 2

Percent Commercial Vessels With Wait Time % 22 49 27

Recreational Vessel Traffic

Recreational Vessels Experiencing Wait Time b#/day 21 63 42

Percent Recreational Vessels With Wait Time % 14 42 28

Total Vessel Traffic

Percent Total Vessels Experiencing Wait Time % 14 42 28

Average Wait Time for All Vessels that Wait min 9.9 8.1 -1.8

Maximum Probability of Queue Length >10 % 0.2 4.3 4.1

Notes: a Proposed Action = Combined effects − No-Build Alternative effects; values show increase and decrease compared to 

the No-Build Alternative

b Number of vessels round to the closest integer

The Combined Effect Alternative will result in moderate impacts to vessel navigation before 

mitigation due to the projected duration and frequency of bridge closures. Moderate impacts are 

defined as a single bridge closure time that is greater than 30 minutes, but less than 45 minutes, and 

occurs less than 10 percent of the time during peak vessel traffic. For the St. Lucie River Bridge, 

these extended closure times occur Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday between 4 pm and 5 pm, 

Thursday between 2 pm and 3 pm, and Friday between 1 pm and 2 pm (Table 5.4-3). The hours 

listed between noon and 6 pm have the potential to result in moderate impacts to navigation as 

these hours occur during the peak vessel traffic time. Due to the variability of freight train arrival 

times in the RTC model, there is an associated level of uncertainty with freight arrival times. Under 

the Combined Effect, no extended closure times occur on weekends, when vessel traffic is the 

highest. As explained in Section 7.0, these impacts may be reduced, or eliminated, through 

mitigation.

The vertical clearance of the St. Lucie River Bridge is 7 feet at MHWL. Vessels requiring a low 

vertical clearance (under 7 feet) may still traverse under the bridge when it is closed. Therefore, 

vessels that only require this clearance to pass under the bridge will not be affected by changes in 

operations.

The estimated economic impact under the Combined Effect (Table 6.6-2) is $520 per day (an 

increase of $311 per day when compared to the No-Build Alternative). This is the impact of the 

increased total vessel delay per day on the marine industry under the Combined Effect and 

represents less than a 0.1% increase in the percent cost of waiting compared to the marine industry 

value at the St. Lucie River. This is considered a minor effect.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-13 AMEC

Table 6.6-2. Economic Model Results for the St. Lucie River Bridge No-Build Alternative and Combined

Effect

Units No-Build Alternative

Combine

d Effect

Proposed 

Action

Average Wait Time for all Vessels (min) 223 239 315.5

Commercial Industry Wait Times

Vessels Experiencing Wait Time (#/day) 9 4 -4

Cost of Vessel Delay to Marine Industry ($/day) 26 55 29

Percent Cost Compared to Marine

Industry Value (%) 0.0011 0.0023 0.0012

Recreational Industry Wait Times

Vessels Experiencing Wait Time (#/day) 148 165 17

Cost of Vessel Delay to Marine Industry ($/day) 341 832 491

Percent Cost Compared to Marine Industry 

Value (%) 0.0156 0.0381 0.0225

All Vessel Types

Total Daily Cost of Waiting ($) 367 887 520

Total Annual Cost of Waiting ($) 133,955 323,755 189,800

Commercial destinations on the St. Lucie River are primarily vessel/yacht repair and support 

facilities, which would not be anticipated to incur any decline in business as a result of the impacts of 

the Combined Effect on navigation and, therefore, the Combined Effect would have minimal impact 

to such businesses.

There are no cruise ships, commercial freighters, or other large oceangoing vessels that access the 

St. Lucie River and the Combined Effect would therefore have minimal impact on existing or future 

operations of these types of vessels. 

6.7 Mitigation

Mitigation options are being considered by AAF to improve operations at the New River Bridge, 

Loxahatchee River Bridge, and St. Lucie River Bridge. These include:

 Develop a set schedule for the down times of the bridge for passenger rail service. 

Passenger rail service is anticipated to operate on consistent daily schedules that are both 

predictable and reliable with minimal deviations. Once local mariners are familiar with the 

passenger rail schedule, they should be able to predict approximate crossing times on a given 

day without having to look up the schedule because it will be consistent and unchanging from 

week to week. Developing a predictable schedule for passenger train crossing times will allow 

mariners, especially day to day commercial vessels, to plan their travel times accordingly and 

avoid unnecessary wait times. Local recreational mariners will also have access to the bridge 

schedules to plan accordingly and every effort should be made to inform non-local mariners of 

the bridge down times to avoid wait times and vessel stacking in the bridge vicinity.

 Provide public access to the bridge closure schedules in an internet-accessible format 

updated daily with anticipated crossing times for each bridge. Schedules for each bridge

may be posted on the AAF website and/or the USCG website. Internet sites will provide

estimated bridge crossing times so mariners may access real-time data from the water and plan 

appropriate travel times. This will also help the boating community to plan their trips to avoid 

wait times and related costs associated with the Proposed Action. Schedules and/or information 

on how to get up to date bridge down times may also be made available at local marinas and 

tackle shops. 

 Implement a notification sign/signal/horn at each bridge location with countdowns to 

indicate the times at which the bridge will begin to close and open. Similar to a road 

crossing, the notification system will alert mariners within the vicinity that a train is approaching 

and provide a countdown for bridge closings and openings. The countdown will make mariners 
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-14 AMEC

aware of the time available to get through the bridge crossing before closing as well as the time 

to wait for it to re-open. This notification system will provide information to mariners associated 

with the opening and closing of the bridges to allow for planning of trips for those in the vicinity of 

the bridge. 

 Develop formal contact with first responders and emergency personnel. A point of contact

will be established to ensure that emergency personnel can coordinate with the dispatch center 

when access is necessary to respond to waterway emergencies.

 Develop coordination plans between AAF and local authorities during peak vessel travel 

times on holidays and major public events. Local authorities will have the ability to contact 

AAF in order to coordinate plans for certain special events and occasions in an effort to establish 

adjustments to train schedules that would allow the bridge to be open for specified periods of 

time.

 Develop a coordination plan between AAF and the USCG to promote with commercial and 

recreational boating communities. Such a plan would allow for updates to the bridge operating 

schedules to be disseminated through the USCG and local marinas as well as on the official 

website used for scheduling information. 

 Addition of a tender at the New River Bridge. The New River has the greatest amount of 

commercial traffic (as compared to the Loxahatchee River Bridge and St. Lucie River Bridge). The 

addition of a bridge tender would allow better communication with commercial vessels in that the 

tender could be contacted directly by mariners with a need for information for planning purposes in 

order to minimize wait times.

In order for mitigation to reduce the effect determination by at least one level (i.e., reduce the impact 

from moderate to minor), each criterion was evaluated to determine the required percent reduction in 

impact to navigation to meet the threshold limit to be classified as minimal, minor, or no impact 

(Table 6.0-1). These percentages and the reduction in impacts with mitigation are reported in Tables 

6.7-1, 6-7.2, and 6.7-3 for the New River, Loxahatchee River, and St Lucie River, respectively.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-15 AMEC

Table 6.7-1. Impacts to Navigation Before and After Mitigation for the New River Bridge

Effect Determination Criteria a

No-Build 

Alternative

Combined Effect

(Proposed Action)

Reduction 

to Impacts 

to Meet 

Mitigation 

Goal

Combined 

with 

Mitigation

Obstruction of passage

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 30% Minor

Most navigationally limiting structure

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 30% Minor

Impacts to jobs, economic growth and 

development

Economic Impacts

Minimal Minimal 0.015%

No Impact 

(N/A)

Economic impacts to existing or 

planned commercial/industrial 

developments

Economic Impact

Minimal Minimal 0.015%

No Impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to unique or critical 

infrastructure No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to USACE transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 30% Minor

Impacts to USCG transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 30% Minor

Impacts to existing and future cruise 

ship ports-of-call/terminals No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to commercial freighters No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to ports supporting postpanamax vessels No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to vessels that produce 

unique products for the region No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to vessels that require tug 

boats

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 30% Minor

Impacts to proposed commercial 

vessels as a result of proposed 

development

Economic Impact

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 30% Minimal

Ability of vessels to adjust operations 

without significant economic loss in 

order to transit the Proposed Action

No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Availability of alternative routes for 

vessel passage No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Ability of vessels to transit at typical 

lower water stages No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Notes: aEffect determination for factors to be considered by the USCG was determined based on the identified criteria in italics of 

either % of vessels that wait, queue length, economic impacts and extended bridge closures or a combination of these 

criteria. The overall effect determination reflects the highest impact of the combined impact determination criteria of each 

Category.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-16 AMEC

Table 6.7-2. Impacts to Navigation Before and After Mitigation for the Loxahatchee River Bridge

Effect Determination Criteria a

No-Build 

Alternative

Combined Effect

(Proposed Action)

Reduction 

to Impacts 

to Meet 

Mitigation 

Goal

Combined 

with Mitigation

Obstruction of passage

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 36% Minimal

Most navigationally limiting structure

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 36% Minimal

Impacts to jobs, economic growth and 

development

Economic Impacts

Minimal Minimal 0.034% No Impact

Economic impacts to existing or 

planned commercial/industrial 

developments

Economic Impact

Minimal Minimal 0.034% No Impact

Impacts to unique or critical 

infrastructure

No impact 

(N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact (N/A)

Impacts to USACE transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 36% Minimal

Impacts to USCG transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 36% Minimal

Impacts to existing and future cruise 

ship ports-of-call/terminals No impact No impact - No impact

Impacts to commercial freighters No impact 

(N/A) No impact (N/A) - No impact (N/A)

Impacts to ports supporting postpanamax vessels

No impact 

(N/A) No impact (N/A) - No impact (N/A)

Impacts to vessels that produce unique 

products for the region

No impact 

(N/A) No impact (N/A) - No impact (N/A)

Impacts to vessels that require tug 

boats

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 36% Minimal

Impacts to proposed commercial 

vessels as a result of proposed 

development

Economic Impact

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 36% Minimal

Ability of vessels to adjust operations 

without significant economic loss in 

order to transit the Proposed Action

No impact 

(N/A) No impact (N/A) - No impact (N/A)

Availability of alternative routes for 

vessel passage

No impact 

(N/A) No impact (N/A) - No impact (N/A)

Ability of vessels to transit at typical 

lower water stages No Impact No Impact - No Impact

Notes: aEffect determination for factors to be considered by the USCG was determined based on the identified criteria in italics of 

either % of vessels that wait, queue length, economic impacts and extended bridge closures or a combination of these 

criteria. The overall effect determination reflects the highest impact of the combined impact determination criteria of each 

Category.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

6-17 AMEC

Table 6.7-3. Impacts to Navigation Before and After Mitigation for the St. Lucie River Bridge

Effect Determination Criteria a

No-Build 

Alternative

Combined Effect

(Proposed Action)

Reduction 

to Impacts 

to Meet 

Mitigation 

Goal

Combined 

with 

Mitigation

Obstruction of passage

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 41% Minor

Most navigationally limiting structure

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 41% Minor

Impacts to jobs, economic growth 

and development

Economic Impacts

Minimal Minimal 0.040% No Impact

Economic impacts to existing or 

planned commercial/industrial 

developments

Economic Impact

Minimal Minimal 0.040% No Impact

Impacts to unique or critical 

infrastructure No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to USACE transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 41% Minor

Impacts to USCG transit ability

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 41% Minor

Impacts to existing and future cruise 

ship ports-of-call/terminals No impact No impact - No impact

Impacts to commercial freighters No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to ports supporting postpanamax vessels No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to vessels that produce 

unique products for the region No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Impacts to vessels that require tug 

boats

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Moderate 41% Minor

Impacts to proposed commercial 

vessels as a result of proposed 

development

Economic Impact

% of vessels that wait

Queue length

Extended closure times

Minor Minor 41% Minimal

Ability of vessels to adjust 

operations without significant 

economic loss in order to transit the 

Proposed Action

No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Availability of alternative routes for 

vessel passage No impact (N/A) No impact (N/A) -

No impact 

(N/A)

Ability of vessels to transit at typical 

lower water stages No Impact No Impact - No Impact

Notes: aEffect determination for factors to be considered by the USCG was determined based on the identified criteria in italics of 

either % of vessels that wait, queue length, economic impacts and extended bridge closures or a combination of these

criteria. The overall effect determination reflects the highest impact of the combined impact determination criteria of each

Category.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

7-1 AMEC

7.0 Conclusions

The purpose of this Navigation Discipline Report is to provide navigational information for 

consideration by the USCG to allow an informed decision-making on the Proposed Action. This 

study evaluated the potential for environmental, economic and navigational impacts associated with 

the Proposed Action. More specifically, this study estimates the extent to which the projected 

increase in bridge closure times will effect commercial and recreational vessels traversing under 

each of FECR’s operable bridges at the New River, Loxahatchee River, and the St. Lucie River. The 

USCG, in its June 2, 2014 letter, supports including the NDR as “an attachment to the DEIS as it 

informs the choice of alternatives for analysis.” 

7.1 Key Findings

Based on the areas of required evaluation by the USCG, the findings of this study indicate that the 

Proposed Action does not have a major socioeconomic, navigational or maritime delay impact on 

any of the three operable bridges. Furthermore, applying the proposed mitigation measures enables 

any identified impacts to be reduced. This mitigation will enable the impacts to be improved to be 

equal to or better than the No-Build Alternative conditions.

There is a less than 1% probability that a single vessel will wait for 23.1 minutes at the New River 

Bridge, 20.2 minutes at the Loxahatchee River Bridge, and 30 minutes at the St. Lucie River Bridge. 

Furthermore, there is a 90% probability that a single vessel will not have to wait for more than 12.2 

minutes at the New River Bridge, 9.8 minutes at the Loxahatchee River Bridge, and 17.6 minutes at 

the St. Lucie River Bridge.

Passenger trains will operate under a set schedule and therefore were modeled as such. However, 

due to the variability of freight train arrival times (±10 minutes) in the RTC model, there is an 

associated level of uncertainty with freight arrival times. Therefore, the likelihood of a 30+ minute 

bridge closure at any of the three operable bridges is unlikely, with less than 1% probability of such a 

closure occurring. Table 7.1-1 provides a summary of total economic impact to the total marine 

industry resulting from recreational and commercial vessels delays at each of the three operable 

bridges. As shown, the total daily economic impacts due to vessel delays range from $483.20 for 

the Loxahatchee River to $924.52 for the St. Lucie River, and represent 0.034% and 0.040% of the 

daily total marine industry values for each of the rivers. These vessel delays associated with the 

Proposed Action have a minimal impact on the total marine industry and have the potential for no 

impact after mitigation.

Table 7.1-1. Total Economic Impact (before mitigation) to Total Marine Industry Value Resulting from 

Vessel Delays

Location

Economic Impact Due 

to Vessel Delays (Daily)

Marine Industry Value 

(Daily)

Percent of Total Marine 

Industry Value

New River $881.55 $5,786,301.37 0.015%

Loxahatchee River $483.20 $1,406,849.32 0.034%

St. Lucie River $924.52 $2,288,767.12 0.040%

7.1.1 New River Bridge

The following observations, and effects to marine navigation and the marine industry, related to 

proposed bridge operational changes are reported: 

 Peak usage times for maritime use were observed to generally be in winter months (January and 

February) and on weekends.

 Based on video surveillance, the average number of recreational vessels and commercial 

vessels traversing through the New River Bridge opening per day were 166 and 49, respectively 

in January 2014.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

7-2 AMEC

 Under the No-Build Alternative, an estimated 77% of vessels traversing through the New River 

Bridge experience no wait time due to bridge closures. This is projected to decrease to 64% with 

the Proposed Action (before mitigation). During peak vessel traffic times, the estimated average 

wait times for vessels that queue on either side of the bridge is 7.9 minutes under the No-Build 

Alternative. However, the wait time for vessels that queue is projected to decrease by 1.6 

minutes with the Proposed Action (before mitigation). Under the No-Build Alternative, the 

estimated cost of recreational and commercial vessels delays due to queue is 0.0123% of the 

total value of the marine industry in the New River. Under the Proposed Action, this is projected 

to decrease to 0.0029% (before mitigation).

7.1.2 Loxahatchee River Bridge

The following observations, and effects to marine navigation and the marine industry, related to 

proposed bridge operational changes are reported: 

 Based on video surveillance, the average number of recreational vessels and commercial 

vessels traversing through the Loxahatchee River Bridge opening per day were 117 and 4, 

respectively in January 2014.

 Under the No-Build Alternative, an estimated 87% of vessels traversing through the Loxahatchee 

River Bridge experience no wait time due to bridge closures. This is projected to decrease to 

61% with the Proposed Action (before mitigation). During peak vessel traffic, the estimated 

average wait times for vessels that queue on either side of the bridge is 9.4 minutes under the 

No-Build Alternative. However, the wait time for vessels that queue is projected to decrease by 

3.7 minutes under the Proposed Action (before mitigation). Under the No-Build Alternative, the 

estimated cost of recreational and commercial vessels delays due to queue is 0.0188% of the 

total value of the marine industry in the Loxahatchee River. Under the Proposed Action, this is 

projected to decrease to 0.0156% (before mitigation).

7.1.3 St. Lucie River Bridge

The following observations, and effects to marine navigation and the marine industry, related to 

proposed bridge operational changes are reported: 

 Based on video surveillance, the average number of recreational vessels and commercial 

vessels traversing through the St. Lucie River Bridge opening per day were 148 and 9, 

respectively, in January 2014.

 Under the No-Build Alternative, an estimated 86% of vessels traversing through the St. Lucie 

River Bridge experience no wait time due to bridge closures. This is projected to decrease to 

57% with the Proposed Action (before mitigation). During peak vessel traffic volumes, the 

estimated average wait times for vessels that queue on either side of the bridge is 9.9 minutes 

under the No-Build Alternative. However, the wait time for vessels that queue is projected to 

decrease by 1.8 minutes under the Proposed Action (before mitigation). Under the No-Build 

Alternative, the estimated cost of recreational and commercial vessels delays due to queue is 

0.0167% of the total value of the marine industry in the St. Lucie River. Under the Proposed 

Action, this is projected to increase to 0.0237% (before mitigation).
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

8-1 AMEC

8.0 References

1. Amtrak. 2010. Draft Environmental Assessment and 4(f) Statement for the FEC Amtrak Passenger 

Rail Study, Jacksonville (Duval County) to Miami (Miami-Dade County, Florida.

2. United States Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Program. Reasonable Needs of Navigation: White 

Paper. Version 1.1, October 5, 2012

3. United States Coast Guard (USCG) Bridge Program. Reasonable Needs of Navigation: White 

Paper. Version 1.1, October 5, 2012

4. USCG. Letter to the author. June 2, 2014. TS.

5. Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute. 2009. Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and 

Economic Study: A Report to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. August.

6. Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. 2003-2013. Population Estimates 

for Florida Counties. April 2013.

7. Florida Inland Navigation District, December 2011. Update of the Economic Benefits of the District’s 

Waterways in Florida, Main Report (Appendices J, K, L, and M). Available at 

http://www.aicw.org/studies.jhtml?method=list

8. From the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages for NAICS 

4872, Scenic and sightseeing transportation, water. Available at http://www.bls.gov/data/#wages

9. Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research, 2013. Based on the results from the Florida 

Demographic Estimating Conference, February 2013 and UF, BEBR, Florida Population Studies, 

Volume 46, Bulletin 165, March 2013 medium county projections.

10. World Travel & Tourism Council. March 7, 2012. Travel & Tourism forecast to pass 100m jobs and 

$2 trillion GDP in 2012. Available at: http://www.wttc.org/news-media/news-archive/2012/traveltourism-forecast-pass-100m-jobs-and-2-trillion-gdp-2012/

11. RS&H. 2012. New River Boat Survey and Preliminary Bridge Opening Analysis. FM Number: 

417031-3-22-01

12. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. 2014. Florida Vessel Owners Statistics: 

2000-2013. Available at http://www.flhsmv.gov/dmv/vslfacts.html. Accessed 3 March 214. Online 

data available was only available back to 2000. Request for data prior to 2000 indicate that this 

information is no longer maintained by the State of Florida.

13. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB). June 28, 2013. Scoping Report for All Aboard Florida Intercity 

Passenger Rail Project – Orlando to Miami. Prepared for Federal Railroad Administration

14. Gorzelany, Jay F. 2005. MOTE Marine Laboratory. Recreational Boat Traffic Surveys of Broward 

County, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation, Final Report

15. Gannett Fleming. 2009. South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis Study Phase 2 

Navigable Waterway Analysis Technical Memorandum.

16. Palm Beach County Planning, Zoning, and Building Department. 2013. 2013 Population Allocation 

Model. Available at: http://www.pbcgov.com/pzb/planning/population/populationproj.htm. Accessed 4 

March.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

8-2 AMEC

17. PBS&J. 2009. Palm Beach County Vessel Traffic Study. Prepared for Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission.
Navigation Discipline Report For the AAF Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 July 2014

9-1 AMEC

9.0 Appendices