Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

for the 

All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project 

from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida 

Prepared by: 

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 

404 SW 140th Terrace 

Newberry, Florida 32669 

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

September 2013 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

i 

Table of Contents 

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

2.0 Affected Environment .............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Existing Rail and Bus Systems ................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1.1 Existing Passenger Train/Bus Service ......................................................... 2-1

2.1.1.2 Existing Freight Rail Service ........................................................................ 2-2

2.1.2 Existing Roadway Network ...................................................................................... 2-2

2.1.2.1 Existing Highway Rail Grade Crossings ...................................................... 2-6

2.1.2.2 Existing Roadway Network for MCO and the VMF ...................................... 2-6

3.0 Railroad Crossing Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.2 Traffic Data ..................................................................................................................... 3-12

3.3 Traffic Operational Analysis ............................................................................................ 3-14

4.0 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Rail Transportation Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1.1 No Build Alternative ..................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1.2 Build Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1.3 Construction Impacts ................................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2 Regional Roadway Network Impacts ....................................................................... 4-2

4.1.2.1 No Build Alternative ..................................................................................... 4-3

4.1.2.2 Build Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-3

4.1.2.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ 4-3

4.1.3 Local Vehicular Transportation Impacts ................................................................... 4-3

4.1.3.1 Build Alternative .......................................................................................... 4-5

4.1.3.2 No Build Alternative ..................................................................................... 4-6

4.1.3.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ 4-6

5.0 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 5-1

6.0 References ................................................................................................................................ 6-1

 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

ii 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Summary of Existing Freight Operating Characteristics and Average Crossing 

Closures 

Table 2-2. Summary of Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and Level of Service 

(LOS) for Primary Regional Roadways 

Table 2-3. Summary of Total Crossings by County 

Table 2-4. Traffic Count Information for the VMF Alternative Location Service Roads 

Table 3-1. Summary of Rail Operating Characteristics and Average Crossing Closure for both 

Freight and Passenger Rail for Opening Year 2016 

Table 3-2. Signalized Level of Service (LOS) Criteria 

Table 3-3. Unsignalized Level of Service (LOS) Criteria 

Table 3-4. Banyan Boulevard Crossing in Palm Beach County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = 

West Bound Traffic)

Table 3-5. Northlake Boulevard Crossing in Palm Beach County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB 

= West Bound Traffic) 

Table 3-6. SE Indian Street Crossing in Martin County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West 

Bound Traffic) 

Table 3-7. SE Monterey Road Crossing in Martin County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West 

Bound Traffic) 

Table 3-8. Seaway Drive Crossing in St Lucie County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West 

Bound Traffic) 

Table 3-9. North Causeway Crossing in St Lucie County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West 

Bound Traffic) 

Table 3-10. Oslo Road Crossing in Indian River County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West 

Bound Traffic) 

Table 3-11. 19th Place/20th Place Crossing in Indian River County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB 

= West Bound Traffic) (page 1 of 2) 

Table 3-12. Palm Bay Road NE Crossing in Brevard County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = 

West Bound Traffic)

Table 3-13. Pineda Causeway Crossing in Brevard County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West 

Bound Traffic) 

Table 4-1. Maximum Passenger Rail Speeds at State Road, County Road and US Highway 

Crossings 

Table 4-2. Comparison of Roadway Crossing Closures for the Project Area in 2016 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. AAF System; proposed Project including the East-West Corridor and the North South 

Corridor 

 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

iii 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 1. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Palm Beach County. Banyan Boulevard 

Crossing. 

Exhibit 2. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Palm Beach County. Northlake Boulevard 

Crossing. 

Exhibit 3. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Martin County. SE Indian Street Crossing.

Exhibit 4. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Martin County. SE Monterey Road Crossing.

Exhibit 5. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – St. Lucie County. Seaway Drive Crossing.

Exhibit 6. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – St. Lucie County. North Causeway Crossing.

Exhibit 7. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Indian River County. Oslo Road Crossing.

Exhibit 8. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Indian River County. 19th Place/20th Place 

Crossing. 

Exhibit 9. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Brevard County. Palm Bay Road NE 

Crossing.

Exhibit 10. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Brevard County. Pineda Causeway Crossing. 

 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

iv 

Table of Contents (continued) 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

AAF All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC 

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement for AAF Passenger Rail Project Orlando to 

Miami, Florida 

EA Environmental Assessment 

FEC Florida East Coast 

FECI Florida East Coast Industries, Inc. 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FEC ROW Florida East Coast Right-of-Way and North-South Corridor 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FRA Federal Rail Authority 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers 

LOS Level of Service 

ROW Right-of-way 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

1-1 

1.0 Introduction 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 [42 United States Code (USC) 

4321 et seq], and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations [40 Code of Federal 

Regulation (CFR) 1500-1508], the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has initiated an evaluation 

of the potential environmental and related impacts of constructing and operating an intercity 

passenger rail service as proposed by All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC (AAF). Specifically, AAF 

is proposing to construct and operate a privately-owned, intercity passenger railroad system that will 

connect Orlando and Miami, with intermediate stops in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, 

Florida (Project). As AAF intends to apply for a loan under FRA’s Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing (RRIF) Program pursuant to 49 CFR Part 260, FRA must consider the 

potential environmental impacts resulting from the Project pursuant to NEPA. 

AAF previously completed an Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation (AAF EA)1

 for 

intercity passenger rail service between Miami and West Palm Beach, Florida. FRA issued a Finding 

of No Significant Impact (AAF FONSI)2

 for the AAF EA in January 2013. To the extent that actions 

have not changed since the AAF EA, these would not be evaluated by FRA as part of this proposed 

action (Proposed Action), which will consist of a 235-mile intercity passenger rail service composed 

of the following two connected corridors and a new vehicle maintenance facility (VMF): 

 An extension of the north-south corridor that includes approximately 128.5 miles of rail 

improvements between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, Florida, within an existing, active freight 

rail right-of-way (ROW), as well as modifications to seven existing bridges along the 66.5-mile 

portion of that ROW that was evaluated as part of the AAF EA and AAF FONSI (North-South 

Corridor); and 

 An east-west corridor of approximately 40 miles from Cocoa to Orlando, Florida, generally 

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

the service analyzed in the AAF EA and AAF FONSI to the Orlando International Airport (MCO), 

where the new VMF would be constructed (East-West Corridor). 

A proposed station at MCO (Orlando Station) is expected to be developed by the Greater Orlando 

Airport Authority (GOAA) and would serve as the Orlando terminus for the Proposed Action. 

Development of this Orlando Station has been studied by GOAA in two previous environmental 

assessments (each, an EA).3 4

As described in more detail in the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) for the Project that was published by FRA in the Federal Register on April 15, 2013, FRA shall 

act as the lead Federal agency in conducting the environmental review and preparing, reviewing, 

revising and completing the environmental documentation related to the Proposed Action. The EIS 

shall be prepared to satisfy the requirements of NEPA. . An overview map of the proposed Project is 

shown in Figure 1-1, Project Location. 

 

1

 All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation for the All 

Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. 

2

 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 2013. Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277. 

3

 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Greater Orlando 

Aviation Authority (GOAA). 1998. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed South Terminal Complex at the 

Orlando International Airport. 

4

 United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) and Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA). 2005. Environmental Assessment for the 

Proposed OIA Intermodal Center and associated High Speed Rail and Light Rail Alignments. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

1-2 

This Technical Memorandum describes the existing traffic and rail conditions in the Project Area and 

documents traffic operations analysis for selected railroad crossings at major arterials in the NorthSouth Corridor study area. This analysis was done to evaluate the impact of the Proposed Action on 

the adjacent roadway network. 

Figure 1-1. AAF System; proposed Project including the East-West Corridor and the 

North-South Corridor 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-1 

2.0 Affected Environment 

2.1 Transportation 

The potential for impacts to transportation services including rail, regional roadway and local 

roadway networks resulting from the Proposed Action has been evaluated. As discussed in the 

Purpose and Need Statement, FDOT’s 2006 Vision Plan projects a 200 percent increase in intercity 

travel within Florida by 2040. The Proposed Action will provide additional infrastructure to help meet 

this demand. 

In order to reduce or eliminate the potential impacts associated with a new transportation project, the 

proposed Project has been primarily located within the FEC Corridor and adjacent to existing roads. 

The Project is intended to alleviate the growing congestion of the regional highway system while not 

creating new or substantial delays to existing local transportation networks. 

The analysis performed on transportation focuses on impacts in the North-South Corridor 

Alternative, which is comparatively less densely populated and allows for greater train speeds at 

existing roadway crossings due to fewer stops than the service evaluated from West Palm Beach to 

Miami in the AAF EA for which the AAF FONSI was issued. The East-West Corridor Alternatives

will be constructed without the need for road crossings, which will alleviate regional highway 

congestion while creating no adverse local traffic impacts. 

2.1.1 Existing Rail and Bus Systems 

2.1.1.1 Existing Passenger Train/Bus Service 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) provides passenger rail service between 

Orlando and West Palm Beach. This route runs twice daily from Orlando to West Palm Beach. From 

West Palm Beach it passes through Okeechobee, Sebring, Winter Haven and Kissimmee before 

arriving in Orlando. It takes about 5 hours one way and the average round trip cost for the service is 

$100.00 for one adult passenger. 

Miami Orlando Shuttle Bus provides five bus trips daily, seven days a week between Orlando and 

West Palm Beach. From West Palm Beach the route follows along the Florida Turnpike passing 

through Fort Pierce, Kissimmee before arriving in Orlando. It takes about 4 hours and the average 

round trip cost for the service is $60.00 for one adult passenger. 

Greyhound provides passenger bus service between Orlando and West Palm Beach. The route runs 

four times daily from Orlando to West Palm Beach. From West Palm Beach the route follows along 

the Florida Turnpike passing through Fort Pierce, Kissimmee before arriving in Orlando. It takes 

about 4 hours one way and the average round trip cost for the service is $60.00 for one adult 

passenger. 

 

RedCoach provides passenger bus service between Orlando and West Palm Beach. The route north 

to south (Orlando to West Palm Beach) runs along the Florida Turnpike passing through Fort Pierce 

before arriving in Orlando. The route runs four times daily on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and 

Saturday. This route also runs two times daily on Monday, Friday, and Sunday. The route south to 

north (West Palm Beach to Orlando) runs along the Florida Turnpike passing through Fort Pierce 

before arriving in West Palm Beach. The route runs four times daily on Monday, Tuesday, 

Wednesday, and Saturday. This route also runs two times daily on Thursday, Friday, and Sunday. It 

takes about 3 hours one way and the average round trip cost for the service is $100.00 for one adult 

passenger. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-2 

2.1.1.2 Existing Freight Rail Service 

Regular freight traffic currently operates within the FEC Corridor from Jacksonville to Miami. The 

freight track within the aforementioned FEC corridor was evaluated from MP 170 Cocoa (Brevard 

County) to MP 299 West Palm Beach (Palm Beach County). According to the FEC operations data 

from 2012, there are 4 flat switching yards, 18 stations, 72 industry turnouts and 21 bridge crossings 

along the aforementioned route. 

 The existing freight traffic consists of 18 trains per day, which includes both north-bound and southbound trains. The average train length is 8,150 feet, which includes 2 locomotives and 101 cars. A 

summary of existing freight operations is provided in Table 2-1, with characteristics organized by 

County. 

Table 2-1. Summary of Existing Freight Operating Characteristics and Average Crossing Closures 

County 

Time to 

Activate 

and Close 

the Gate 

(sec) 

Avg. Train 

Length (ft) 

Avg. 

Train 

Speed 

(mph) 

Time to 

Clear 

(sec) 

Time to 

Bring the 

Gate 

Back Up 

(sec) 

Total 

Time to 

Activate 

and 

Clear 

(sec) 

Crossings 

(Trains 

per Day)

Closure 

(min/ 

day) 

Maximum 

Crossings 

per Hour

Maximum

Delay per 

Hour 

(min) 

2011 Freight 

Palm 

Beach 30 8150 59.4 94 15 139 18 41.6 1 2.3 

Martin 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

St 

Lucie 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

Indian 

River 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

Brevard 30 8150 28.5 195 15 240 18 72.0 1 4.0 

Notes: 

1. FRA regulations require 20 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing 

and 10 seconds to bring the gate back up. FDOT uses 30 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train 

entering the railroad crossing and 15 seconds to bring the gate back up. To account for the worst-case scenario, 

FDOT timings were used in this analysis. 

2. Maximum crossings per hour includes north-bound and south-bound trains combined 

3. 2011 freight speed for Palm Beach, Martin, St.Lucie, Indian River, and Brevard Counties was was obtained from 

Section 3.3.1.1 of the Environmental Assessment for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project – West Palm 

Beach to Miami, Florida, dated October 31, 2012. 

4. Maximum Delay per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum 

Crossings per Hour. 

2.1.2 Existing Roadway Network 

The primary regional roadways that serve automobile traffic between West Palm Beach and Orlando 

are Florida’s Turnpike, I-95, and SR 528. SR 528 is a partial toll road that is operated and 

maintained by Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) from Orlando to SR 520 and 

the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) from SR 520 to US 1. The OOCEA section has 

two toll plazas located along the route. The FDOT section is not a toll road. The Florida Turnpike is a 

toll road that is operated and maintained by the Florida Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) from Orlando to 

West Palm Beach. The FTE section has six toll plazas along the route. I-95 is an interstate system 

that is operated and maintained by FDOT from SR 528 intersection in Cocoa to West Palm Beach. 

The level of service (LOS) and Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for the aforementioned 

roadways were determined from the FDOT District 4 and 5 Generalized Tables and the FTE 

(Table 2-2). Overall the LOS through the analyzed roadway corridors is reasonably stable flow, at or 

near free flow traffic, LOS C, which is the target for highway systems outside urbanized areas 

according to FDOT. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-3 

Table 2-2. Summary of Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and Level of Service (LOS) for Primar

(page 1 of 3) 

County From To 

Length 

(miles) Facility Type La

SR 5281

Orange 

I-4 SR 436 2.33 Tolled Expressway 

SR 436 SR 15 2.70 Tolled Expressway SR 15 SR 417 2.10 Tolled Expressway SR 417 International Corp Park Blvd 4.22 Tolled Expressway International Corp Park Blvd Dallas Blvd 4.01 Tolled Expressway Dallas Blvd SR 520 7.05 Tolled Expressway SR 520 Brevard County Line 4.96 Expressway 

Brevard 

Orange County Line SR 407 1.15 Expressway 

SR 407 Urban Boundary 3.69 Expressway Urban Boundary I-95 1.08 Expressway I-95 SR 524 4.03 Expressway 

I-951,2

Brevard 

Indian River County Urban Boundary 11.07 Freeway 

Urban Boundary SR 514/Malabar Rd 2.22 Freeway SR 514/Malabar Rd CR 516 3.01 Freeway CR 516 US 192/SR 500 4.40 Freeway US 192/SR 500 SR 520 20.82 Freeway SR 520 SR 528 3.93 Freeway SR 528 SR 46 18.29 Freeway SR 46 CR 5A 7.57 Freeway CR 5A Volusia County Line 1.40 Freeway 

Indian 

River 

St. Lucie County Line SR 60 6.15 Freeway 

SR 60 Fellsmere Rd 9.11 Freeway Fellsmere Rd Brevard County Line 3.90 Freeway 

St Lucie 

Martin County Line Gatlin Blvd 4.35 Freeway 

Gatlin Blvd St Lucie Blvd 3.45 Freeway St Lucie Blvd Midway Rd 4.39 Freeway Midway Rd SR 70/Okeechobee rd 3.25 Freeway SR 70/Okeechobee Rd SR 68/Orange Ave 2.24 Freeway SR 68/Orange Ave SR 614/Indrio Rd 6.45 Freeway SR 614/Indrio Rd Indian River County Line 3.08 Freeway 

1 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), 2011. 2011 SHS LOS Maps. Received via secure download from Chon Wong, District 4. Received May, 22 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), 2011. Florida’s Turnpike AADT and LOS Request. May Request 05 07 2013 Spreadsheet for FY 2011. R

Cromartie Samson, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise. Received May, 2013. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-4 

Table 2-2. Summary of Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and Level of Service (LOS) for Primar

(page 2 of 3) 

County From To 

Length 

(miles) Facility Type La

Martin 

Palm Beach County Line Bridge Rd 7.45 Freeway Bridge Rd SR 76/Kanner Hwy 4.77 Freeway SR 76/Kanner Hwy FLA TP/High Meadows Ave 1.63 Freeway FLA TP/High Meadows Ave Martin Highway 7.77 Freeway Martin Highway St Lucie County Line 3.13 Freeway 

Palm 

Beach 

SR 882/Forest Hill Blvd SR 80/Southern Blvd 1.45 Freeway 

SR 80/Southern Blvd Belvedere Rd 1.03 Freeway Belvedere Rd SR 704/Okeechobee Blvd 1.19 Freeway SR 704/Okeechobee Blvd Palm Beach Lakes Blvd 1.26 Freeway Palm Beach Lakes Blvd 45th St 2.78 Freeway 45th St SR 708/Blue Heron Rd 1.75 Freeway SR 708/Blue Heron Rd Northlake Blvd 1.75 Freeway Northlake Blvd SR 786/PGA Blvd 2.20 Freeway SR 786/PGA Blvd Donald Ross Rd 3.40 Freeway Donald Ross Rd SR 706/Indiantown Rd 3.81 Freeway SR 706/Indiantown Rd Martin County Line 1.87 Freeway 

Florida's Turnpike3

Palm 

Beach 

West Palm Beach (Okeechobee Blvd) SR 710 6.60 Tolled Expressway 

SR 710 

Palm Beach Gardens (PGA Boulevard) 2.50 Tolled Expressway 

Palm Beach Gardens (PGA Boulevard) Jupiter (Indiantown Road) 6.86 Tolled Expressway Jupiter (Indiantown Road) Martin County Line 1.85 Tolled Expressway 

Martin 

Martin County Line 

Stuart (Martin Downs Boulevard/SR 714) 16.45 Tolled Expressway 

Stuart (Martin Downs Boulevard/SR 714) St Lucie County Line 3.84 Tolled Expressway 

St Lucie 

St Lucie County Line Becker Road 0.28 Tolled Expressway 

Becker Road 

Port St. Lucie (Port St. Lucie Boulevard) 4.56 Tolled Expressway 

Port St. Lucie (Port St. Lucie Boulevard) Fort Pierce (SR 70) 8.89 Tolled Expressway Fort Pierce (SR 70) Indian River County Line 21.30 Tolled Expressway 

Indian River Indian River County Line Okeechobee County Line 7.90 Tolled Expressway 

Source: FDOT and Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-5 

Table 2-2. Summary of Existing Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and Level of Service (LOS) for Primar

(page 3 of 3) 

County From To 

Length 

(miles) Facility Type La

Okeechobee Okeechobee County Line Indian River County Line 7.17 Tolled Expressway 

Indian River Indian River County Line Osceola County Line 7.90 Tolled Expressway 

Osceola 

Osceola County Line Yeehaw Junction (SR 60) 2.61 Tolled Expressway 

Yeehaw Junction (SR 60) End Section 15.43 Tolled Expressway Begin Section Kissimmee Park Road 16.45 Tolled Expressway Kissimmee Park Road 

Kissimmee-St. Cloud South (US 192 & US 441) 3.14 Tolled Expressway 

Kissimmee-St. Cloud South (US 192 & US 441) 

Kissimmee-St. Cloud North (US 192 & US 441) 2.03 Tolled Expressway 

Kissimmee-St. Cloud North (US 192 & US 441) Osceola Parkway 4.18 Tolled Expressway Osceola Parkway End Section 0.51 Tolled Expressway 

Orange 

Begin Section 

SR 417/Central Florida GreeneWay 16.45 Tolled Expressway 

SR 417/Central Florida GreeneWay Orlando South (US 17/92/441) 4.26 Tolled Expressway Orlando South (US 17/92/441) Consulate Drive 0.37 Tolled Expressway Consulate Drive Orlando (I-4) 3.98 Tolled Expressway 

Source: FDOT and Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-6 

There are a couple of segments within the roadway corridors where the LOS approaches an 

unstable flow in traffic, LOS D, but according to FDOT LOS D is the target for highway systems 

inside urbanized areas. Therefore the aforementioned roadways meet or exceed the LOS standard 

for state highway systems according to FDOT. 

2.1.2.1 Existing Highway Rail Grade Crossings 

The Proposed Action along the North-South Corridor Alternative currently crosses 167 roadways 

over 5 Counties from the West Palm Beach to Cocoa. A summary of the total number of crossings 

by county is provided in Table 2-3. The crossings include both public and private roads, and are 

classified as highway-rail grade crossings. 

Table 2-3. Summary of Total Crossings by County 

County Length of Corridor (miles) Number of Crossings 

Brevard 42 55 

Indian River 21 30 

St Lucie 22 20 

Martin 26 25 

Palm Beach 18 26 

Source: FEC Grade Crossing Inventory5

2.1.2.2 Existing Roadway Network for MCO and the VMF 

Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System Plan (SIS) has identified MCO as a hub in the system of hubs, 

connectors, and corridors. MCO provides a location for the integration of various forms of 

transportation (air, bus, and personal vehicles). MCO currently handles 295,000 annual flight 

arrivals and departures with approximately 809 daily flight arrivals and departures.6

 

MCO is located south of SR 528 and north of SR 417 (Central Florida Greenway). Roadway access 

from the north is primarily from Jeff Fuqua Boulevard and from the south via the South Access Road. 

The local public transportation service (LYNX) provides daily fixed-route local bus service between 

MCO and nearby destinations in Orlando.7

 LYNX’s area of service includes Orange, Seminole and 

Osceola counties. LYNX provides more than 85,000 passenger trips each weekday spanning an 

area of approximately 2,500 square miles with a resident population of more than 1.8 million. 

An Amtrak station is located approximately 12 miles from MCO, and can be accessed via buses, 

taxies, and vehicles for hire. Taxi cabs, shuttle vans, and rental cars are additional transportation 

options for MCO. Also, cruise transfers for ships leaving Port Canaveral occur at MCO. 

The VMF is located adjacent to and north of Boggy Creek Road within MCO property (Figure 4-3, 

Technical Memorandum No. 3 Alternatives Identification for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail 

Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida).

8

 Employee traffic would access the station from Boggy 

Creek Road from the south. Traffic count information for the roadway is provided in Table 2-4. 

 

 

5

 All Aboard Florida, 2013. FEC Grade Crossing Estimate Spreadsheet. Received via email from Alex Gonzolaz on 

March 7, 2013. 

6

 MCO website accessed August 8, 2013. http://www.orlandoairports.net/statistics/index.htm 7

 LYNX website accessed August 7, 2013. http://www.golynx.com/about-lynx/ 8

 AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC). 2013. Technical Memorandum No. 3 Alternatives Identification 

for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Orlando to Miami, Florida
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

2-7 

Table 2-4. Traffic Count Information for the VMF Alternative Location Service Roads 

VMF Alternative Access Road Segment AADT LOS9

GOAA CR530/Boggy Creek Rd N of Airport Park Dr 13000 E 

GOAA CR530/Boggy Creek Rd Weatherbee to E. Weatherbee 9300 E 

MCO currently has approximately 17,000 parking spaces in garage structures adjacent to the main 

terminal as well as satellite surface lots.10 Two overflow parking lots with over 3,000 parking spaces 

have been closed. According to MCO officials, even on the busiest day at the airport, no more than 

79 percent of the MCO parking spaces have ever been filled.11 North of the MCO property, private 

lots and hotels offer additional parking spaces. 

Within a quarter mile of the planned MCO Station, the South Park Place surface parking lot contains 

2,740 spaces. MCO is proposing the construction of 3,500-space parking garage adjacent to the 

MCO Station.12 

 

9

 City of Orlando, 2011. Transportation Element: Goals, Objectives and Policies. Approved August 12, 1991. 

Amended December 5, 2011. 

10 MCO Quickfacts. Summer 2013. 11 Orlando Sentinel, April 28, 2013. 12 Orlando Sentinel, July 29, 2013. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-1 

3.0 Railroad Crossing Analysis 

The proposed North-South Corridor Alternative crosses six counties; Palm Beach, Martin, St. 

Lucie, Indian River, Brevard, and Orange. There are no at-grade crossings proposed along the EastWest Corridor Alternative and therefore no highway-rail grade crossing are modeled for Brevard 

and Orange Counties adjacent to SR 528. 

Annual Average Daily Volume (AADT) traffic data is available from the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) for arterials in the study area. These were sorted and the largest two arterials 

by volume for each county were selected for analysis. 

The following major arterials with highway-rail grade crossings that traverse the existing FEC rail line 

for the proposed Project Area were analyzed: 

 Palm Beach County 

- Banyan Boulevard Crossing – AADT 39,500 

- Northlake Boulevard Crossing – AADT 40,000 

 Martin County 

- SE Indian Street Crossing – AADT 16,200 

- E Monterey Road Crossing – AADT 15,900 

 St. Lucie County 

- Seaway Drive Crossing – AADT 6,600 

- North Causeway Crossing – AADT 8,200 

 Indian River County 

- Oslo Road Crossing – AADT 12,400 

- 19th Place/20th Place Crossings – AADT 11,500 

 Brevard County 

- Palm Bay Road Crossing – AADT 26,000 

- Pineda Causeway Crossing – AADT 40,000 AADT 

These crossing locations along with adjacent intersections on both sides of the crossing were 

analyzed for Opening Year 2016 and Buildout Year 2036. 

An exhibit for each crossing location is included in this report. 

 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-2 

Exhibit 1. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Palm Beach County. Banyan Boulevard Crossing. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-3 

Exhibit 2. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Palm Beach County. Northlake Boulevard 

Crossing. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-4 

Exhibit 3. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Martin County. SE Indian Street Crossing.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-5 

Exhibit 4. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Martin County. SE Monterey Road Crossing.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-6 

Exhibit 5. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – St. Lucie County. Seaway Drive Crossing.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-7 

Exhibit 6. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – St. Lucie County. North Causeway Crossing.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-8 

Exhibit 7. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Indian River County. Oslo Road Crossing.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-9 

Exhibit 8. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Indian River County. 19th Place/20th Place 

Crossing. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-10 

Exhibit 9. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Brevard County. Palm Bay Road NE Crossing.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-11 

Exhibit 10. Existing Year 2012 Traffic Conditions – Brevard County. Pineda Causeway Crossing. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-12 

3.1 Methodology 

The traffic analysis was performed using Synchro/SimTraffic analysis software based on procedures 

from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The following procedures and assumptions were used in 

this analysis: 

 Length of the train, speed, and clearance time requirements for closing and opening of the gates 

at the crossings are based on information from AAF, and in accordance with FRA and FDOT 

guidelines. Details of train characteristics, frequency, and clearance time area used in the traffic 

model are included in Table 3-1. 

 Three railroad crossing events are assumed to take place during the PM peak hour. Two freight 

crossing and two passenger train crossings were modeled. This scenario constitutes a worstcase condition. 

 The peak hour operations at the crossing were divided into three cycles. The first cycle 

represents no train crossing event. The second cycle represents a freight train crossing event. 

The third cycle represents a passenger train crossing event. Closure times were calculated for 

each of these cycles and the average closue time was calculated as the weighted hourly 

average of each of the three cycles. 

 Level of service (LOS) for the approaches and intersections in the area near the crossing was 

calculated using the weighted average of the LOS for all cycles during the peak hour. 

3.2 Traffic Data 

Traffic data used in this analysis was obtained from FDOT. The 2012 AADT volumes were converted 

to Directional Design Hour Volumes (DDHV) based on guidance from the 2009 FDOT Quality/Level 

of Service Handbook13. The K100 and D100 factors were obtained from Table 3-4 of the FDOT 

Handbook. The DDHV was used in the model to simulate the conditions during the PM Peak Hour. 

The turning movement counts were estimated from the DDHV by assuming the through movement 

accounts for 75% of the volume, the right turning movement accounts for 12.5%, and the left turning 

movement accounts for 12.5%. 

A 2% heavy vehicle factor and a peak hour factor of 0.92 were used. 

The 2012 volumes were grown at 1% per year to estimate the 2016 Opening Year and 2036 

Buildout Year volumes. It should be noted that much of the study corridor has experienced no 

growth or negative growth in the past several years. Therefore the 1% growth rate represents a 

conservative assumption. 

 

13 Florida Department of Transportation. 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Available at: 

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-13 

Table 3-1. Summary of Rail Operating Characteristics and Average Crossing Closure for both Freight and Pass

Year 2016 

County 

Time to 

Activate 

and 

Close the 

Gate 

(seconds) 

Avg. 

Train 

Length 

(feet) 

Avg. 

Train 

Speed 

(miles 

per hour)

Time to 

Clear 

(seconds) 

Time to 

Bring the 

Gate 

Back Up 

(seconds) 

Total Time 

to Activate 

and Clear 

(seconds) 

Crossings 

(Trains per 

Day) 

Closures 

per Day 

(minutes) 

Max

Tr

Cros

per 

2016 Freight 

Palm Beach 30 8150 54.3 102 15 147 28 68.8 Martin 30 8150 44.4 125 15 170 28 79.4 St Lucie 30 8150 47.8 116 15 161 28 75.2 Indian River 30 8150 54.2 103 15 148 28 68.9 Brevard 30 8150 53.8 103 15 148 28 69.2 

2016 Passenger 

Palm Beach 30 725-900 89.2 6 15 51 32 27.3 Martin 30 725-900 79.5 7 15 52 32 27.7 St Lucie 30 725-900 92.6 6 15 51 32 27.2 Indian River 30 

725-900 

106.6 5 15 50 32 26.8 

Brevard 30 725-900 98.1 6 15 51 32 27.0 

Notes: 1. FRA regulations require 20 seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing and 10 seconds to bring the gate ba

seconds to activate and close the gate prior to the train entering the railroad crossing and 15 seconds to bring the gate back up. To account for the wo

timings were used in this analysis. 

2. Maximum crossings per hour includes north-bound and south-bound trains combined 3. 2016 freight and passenger information obtained from AAF via email October 2013. 4. 2016 freight speed obtained from CA20 TPC Runtimes Frt-RO.xlsx, received from AAF via email June 2013. 5. 2016 passenger speed obtained from CA20 TPC Runtimes-R2 w Revised EW Corridor.xlsx, received from AAF via email June, 2013. 6. Closure per Day calculated as the Train Crossings per Day multiplied by the Total Time to Activate and Clear, divided by 60. 7. Maximum Closure per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum Crossings per Hour, divided by 60.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-14 

3.3 Traffic Operational Analysis 

Capacity analysis for all the crossings and intersections in the study area were conducted in 

accordance with the methodology presented in the Highway Capacity Manual14 utilizing 

Synchro/Simtraffic software, Version 8. 

Level of service provides a qualitative relationship between operational conditions. Signalized LOS 

ranges from “A” through “F”, with “A” being the most free operating condition and “F” being the most 

restrictive. Generally LOS “D” or better is considered acceptable. LOS for signalized intersections is 

measured by control or signal delay per vehicle. Unsignalized LOS ranges from “A” through “H”, with 

“A” being the most free operating condition and “H” being the most restrictive. Generally LOS “D” or 

better is considered acceptable. LOS for unsignalized intersections is calculated using the 

Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method by taking a sum of critical volume to saturation flow 

ratios. Table 3-2 and Table 3-3 provides the delay ranges for the signalized and unsignalized LOS. 

Table 3-2. Signalized Level of Service (LOS) Criteria 

Level of Service

Delay 

(seconds/vehicle)

A <10 

B 10.1 to 20.0 

C 20.1 to 35.0 

D 35.1 to 55.0 

E 55.1 to 80.0 

F > 80.0 

Table 3-3. Unsignalized Level of Service (LOS) Criteria 

Level of Service

ICU 

(percent) 

A < 55 

B >55>64 

C >64>73 

D >73>82 

E >82>91 

F >91>100 

G >100>109 

H >109 

For this project, intersections and railroad crossings were analyzed with conditions similar to the 

projected evening (PM) Peak Hour, to represent the maximum traffic volume during the day. Each 

location was analyzed without train crossings, with freight train crossings, and with passenger train 

crossings. 

The operation includes a clearance phase prior to the arrival of the train to clear any queues present 

on the railway and adjacent approaches. Then the train crossing event is simulated. During the train 

crossing event the traffic movements not in conflict with the train crossing continue to operate 

normally. 

 

14 Institute of Transportation Engineers. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

3-15 

Since the train crossings occur approximately three times during the peak hour, the closure time for 

each crossing was calculated using the weighted average of the without train crossing, with freight 

train crossing, and with passenger train crossing closures. 

Queue lengths were obtained for the 95th percentile queue as calculated by the Synchro/Simtraffic 

software. The 95th percentile queue represents the queue length that is not expected to be reached 

95% of the time. 

Results for closure times, LOS, and queue length are summarized for each crossing and adjacent 

intersections for 2016 and 2036 in the tables that follow. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-16 

Table 3-4. Banyan Boulevard Crossing in Palm Beach County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic) 

Banyan Blvd Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditions

Approach/Movement 

Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger 

Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS 

Banyan Blvd @ S Quadrille Blvd 

Overall Intersection 59.4 E 40 186.8 F 2 184.2 F EB Approach 77.9 E 696 103.8 D 1495 99.4 F WB Approach 41.7 D 622 208.5 F 4975 202.0 F Banyan Blvd @ FEC RR Crossing Overall Intersection 1.6 A 40 173.6 F 2 171.9 F EB Approach 2.3 A 0 216.7 F 7413 217.3 F WB Approach 0.9 A 0 126.9 F 6455 122.7 F 

Banyan Blvd Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenge Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS 

Banyan Blvd @ S Quadrille Blvd 

Overall Intersection 115.6 F 40 236.0 F 2 238.5 F EB Approach 130.0 F 1032 153.3 F 1632 149.2 F WB Approach 115.2 F 938 244.5 F 7504 239.3 F 

Banyan Blvd @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 1.5 A 40 222.3 F 2 216.2 F EB Approach 1.7 A 0 268.9 F 10446 263.7 F WB Approach 1.3 A 0 171.8 F 8506 164.7 F 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-17 

Table 3-5. Northlake Boulevard Crossing in Palm Beach County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic

Northlake Blvd Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tr Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Northlake Blvd @ Old Dixie Hwy 

Overall Intersection 46.3 D 80 118.7 F 2 131.1 F EB Approach 61.4 E 254 86.7 F 1747 101.9 F WB Approach 39.9 D 186 95.5 F 2894 107.6 F 

Northlake Blvd @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection 0.4 A 80 25.6 C 2 29.6 C EB Approach 0.5 A 0 23.3 C 2168 27.3 C WB Approach 0.3 A 0 28.2 C 1589 32.1 C 

Northlake Blvd @ Hwy 811/10th St 

Overall Intersection 55.7 E 64 142.0 F 2 147.9 F EB Approach 75.1 E 384 57.0 E 2837 67.7 E WB Approach 62.2 E 337 107.6 F 2182 130.1 F 

Northlake Blvd Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tr Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Northlake Blvd @ Old Dixie Hwy 

Overall Intersection 78.2 E 80 310.8 F 2 272.3 F EB Approach 102.3 F 345 236.3 F 3424 204.3 F WB Approach 69.4 E 221 394.0 F 4015 329.1 F 

Northlake Blvd @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 0.4 A 80 57.4 E 2 38.7 D EB Approach 0.4 A 0 70.7 E 4018 39.5 D WB Approach 0.4 A 0 43.0 D 2316 37.8 D 

Northlake Blvd @ Hwy 811/10th St 

Overall Intersection 101.2 F 64 382.9 F 2 307.9 F EB Approach 147.3 F 533 286.3 F 4209 226.4 F WB Approach 104.3 F 471 550.6 F 3963 378.0 F 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-18 

Table 3-6. SE Indian Street Crossing in Martin County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic) 

SE Indian Street Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

SE Indian @ SE Dixie Hwy 

Overall Intersection 9.3 A 79 103.0 F 2 103.4 F EB Approach 9.4 A 91 3.6 A 23 3.5 A WB Approach 10.7 B 93 70.5 E 1084 69.2 E 1

SE Indian @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 0.2 A 79 64.3 E 2 63.3 E EB Approach 0.2 A 0 75.7 E 1412 74.3 E 1WB Approach 0.2 A 0 52.0 D 1533 51.4 D 1

SE Indian @ E Commerce (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection C C C 

SE Indian Street Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

SE Indian @ SE Dixie Hwy 

Overall Intersection 11.2 B 79 108.2 F 2 112.6 F EB Approach 10.7 B 115 3.6 A 29 3.6 A WB Approach 14.7 B 120 75.9 E 1392 74.5 E 1

SE Indian @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 0.0 A 79 70.0 E 2 69.1 E EB Approach 0.0 A 0 82.3 F 1842 80.8 F 1WB Approach 0.0 A 0 56.6 E 1964 56.4 E 1

SE Indian @ E Commerce (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection E E E 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-19 

Table 3-7. SE Monterey Road Crossing in Martin County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic) 

SE Monterey Road Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Monterey Rd @ SE Dixie Hwy 

Overall Intersection 8.8 A 79 113.1 F 2 114.5 F EB Approach 11.5 B 52 230.9 F 1007 239.0 F 1WB Approach 10.0 B 32 264.1 F 726 271.4 E 7

Monterey Rd @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 0.1 A 79 61.1 E 2 58.1 E EB Approach 0.1 A 0 69.2 E 855 64.8 E 8WB Approach 0.2 A 0 52.4 D 1486 50.9 D 1

Hwy 714/Monterey Rd @ SE Federal Hwy 

Overall Intersection 10.9 B 79 10.6 B 2 10.6 B EB Approach 9.8 A 78 9.8 A 78 9.8 A WB Approach 13.1 B 100 13.1 B 100 13.1 B 

SE Monterey Road Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Monterey Rd @ SE Dixie Hwy 

Overall Intersection 11.0 B 79 118.1 F 2 122.6 F EB Approach 11.2 B 61 239.5 F 1248 246.7 F 1WB Approach 9.8 A 38 269.6 F 890 296.2 F 9

Monterey Rd @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 0.1 A 79 67.8 E 2 63.9 E EB Approach 0.1 A 0 77.9 F 1081 72.1 E 1WB Approach 0.2 A 0 56.9 E 1901 54.9 D 1

Hwy 714/Monterey Rd @ SE Federal Hwy 

Overall Intersection 13.7 B 79 13.6 B 2 13.6 B EB Approach 10.7 B 98 10.7 B 98 10.7 B WB Approach 17.4 B 127 17.4 B 127 17.4 N 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-20 

Table 3-8. Seaway Drive Crossing in St Lucie County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic) 

Seaway Drive Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Condi

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle 

 Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour 

Seaway Dr @ US Hwy 1

Overall Intersection 20.6 C 53 146.6 F 2 EB Approach 47.8 D 267 328.4 F 1007 WB Approach 22.7 C 155 18.5 B 726 

Seaway Dr @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection 0.0 A 79 225.2 F 2 EB Approach 0.1 A 0 207.0 F 806 WB Approach 0.0 A 0 244.9 F 591 

Seaway Dr @ 2nd St (Unsignalized)

Overall Intersection A A 

Seaway Dr @ Indian River Dr

Overall Intersection 8.6 A 79 8.6 A 2 EB Approach 12.2 B 46 12.2 B 46 WB Approach 11.9 B 43 11.9 B 43 

Seaway Drive Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle 

 Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour 

Seaway Dr @ US Hwy 1

Overall Intersection 66.7 E 53 189.9 F 2 EB Approach 167.5 F 379 374.7 F 3992 WB Approach 26.2 C 214 24.1 C 1054 

Seaway Dr @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection 0.1 A 79 236.3 F 2 EB Approach 0.1 A 0 204.7 F 716 WB Approach 0.0 A 0 270.6 F 723 

Seaway Dr @ 2nd St (Unsignalized)

Overall Intersection A A 

Seaway Dr @ Indian River Dr

Overall Intersection 8.8 A 79 8.8 A 2 EB Approach 11.9 B 51 11.9 B 51 WB Approach 11.6 B 47 11.6 B 47 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-21 

Table 3-9. North Causeway Crossing in St Lucie County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic) 

North Causeway Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditi

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle  Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour 

North Causeway @ US Hwy 1

Overall Intersection 12.2 B 63 12.3 B 2 EB Approach 24.8 C 205 24.8 C 205 WB Approach 17.6 B 139 17.6 B 139 

North Causeway @ Old Dixie Hwy

Overall Intersection 10.3 B 79 88.1 F 2 EB Approach 13.0 B 105 56.4 E 675 WB Approach 9.3 A 42 1.0 A 34 

North Causeway @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection 0.5 A 79 25.1 C 2 EB Approach 0.8 A 9 22.5 C 1137 WB Approach 0.0 A 0 27.8 C 205 

North Causeway @ Harbortown Dr (Unsignalized)

Overall Intersection A A 

North Causeway Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle  Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour 

North Causeway @ US Hwy 1

Overall Intersection 22.5 C 63 22.5 C 2 EB Approach 32.8 C 277 32.8 C 277 WB Approach 19.5 B 180 19.5 B 180 

North Causeway @ Old Dixie Hwy

Overall Intersection 11.0 B 79 93.8 F 2 EB Approach 14.4 B 133 68.3 E 851 WB Approach 9.5 A 51 1.2 A 43 

North Causeway @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection 0.6 A 79 27.4 C 2 EB Approach 1.2 A 16 26.5 C 1500 WB Approach 0.0 A 0 28.3 C 252 

North Causeway @ Harbortown Dr (Unsignalized)

Overall Intersection A A 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-22 

Table 3-10. Oslo Road Crossing in Indian River County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic) 

Oslo Road Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Train Cro

 Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue 

Oslo Rd @ Old Dixie Hwy

Overall Intersection 11.0 B 80 95.1 F 2 95.1 F EB Approach 11.8 B 74 182.0 F 1436 181.3 F 1434 WB Approach 13.6 B 85 3.6 A 3 3.6 A 3 

Oslo Rd @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection 0.1 A 80 148.8 F 2 148.5 F EB Approach 0.1 A 0 82.3 F 1705 82.0 F 1701 WB Approach 0.1 A 0 220.9 F 1299 220.6 F 1299 

Oslo Rd @ US Hwy 1

Overall Intersection 18.8 A 80 143.9 F 2 143.9 F EB Approach 29.3 C 264 144.3 F 4349 142.1 F 4326 WB Approach 22.7 C 242 224.9 F 3072 223.9 F 3066 

Oslo Road Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Train Cro

 Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue 

Oslo Rd @ Old Dixie Hwy

Overall Intersection 12.1 B 80 101.4 F 2 101.3 F EB Approach 12.7 B 94 193.8 F 1821 193.0 F 1817 WB Approach 14.6 B 104 5.7 A 89 5.6 A 88 

Oslo Rd @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection 0.1 A 80 148.2 F 2 147.8 F EB Approach 0.2 A 0 87.7 F 2223 87.5 F 2219 WB Approach 0.1 A 0 213.7 F 1600 213.0 F 1594 

Oslo Rd @ US Hwy 1

Overall Intersection 33.8 C 80 259.9 F 2 258.3 F EB Approach 80.0 F 378 669.9 F 7172 656.2 F 7148 WB Approach 38.3 D 323 306.2 F 4107 303.0 F 4099 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-23 

Table 3-11. 19th Place/20th Place Crossing in Indian River County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffi

19th Place/20th Place Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Co

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle 

 Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour 

19th Pl @ Commerce Ave

Overall Intersection – One Way Traffic 

8.9 A 80 49.3 D 1 

EB Approach 10.6 B 49 2.3 A 0 

19th Pl @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection– One Way Traffic 

0.1 A 80 129.5 F 1 

EB Approach 0.1 A 0 129.5 F 867 

20th Pl @ Commerce Ave

Overall Intersection– One Way Traffic 

8.4 A 80 136.8 F 1 

WB Approach 10.9 B 38 123.5 F 608 

20th Pl @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection– One Way Traffic 

0 A 80 58.4 E 1 

WB Approach 0.0 A 0 58.4 E 391 

19th Place/20th Place Crossing - Year 2036 Condit

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle 

 Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour 

19th Pl @ Commerce Ave

Overall Intersection– One Way Traffic 

9.2 A 80 50.3 D 1 

EB Approach 10.6 B 60 2.4 A 0 

19th Pl @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection– One Way Traffic 

0.1 A 80 134.0 F 1 

EB Approach 0.1 A 0 134.0 F 1080 

20th Pl @ Commerce Ave

Overall Intersection– One Way Traffic 

8.4 A 80 140.2 F 1 

WB Approach 10.2 B 41 126.7 F 750 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-24 

Table 3-11. 19th Place/20th Place Crossing in Indian River County (page 2 of 2) 

20th Pl @ FEC RR Crossing

Overall Intersection– One Way Traffic 

0.0 A 80 58.7 E 1 

WB Approach 0.0 A 0 58.7 E 526 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-25 

Table 3-12. Palm Bay Road NE Crossing in Brevard County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic)

Palm Bay Road Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Palm Bay Rd @ N Main St NE (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Palm Bay Rd @ S Main St NE (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Palm Bay Rd @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 3.5 A 53 68.5 E 2 12.1 B EB Approach 4.4 A 3 78.6 E 6635 14.0 B 2WB Approach 2.6 A 0 57.5 E 4878 10.1 B 1

Palm Bay Rd @ Maplewood St (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Palm Bay Rd @ Orange Blossom Trail (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Palm Bay Road Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Palm Bay Rd @ N Main St NE (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Palm Bay Rd @ S Main St NE (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Palm Bay Rd @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 14.6 B 53 132.2 F 1 44.9 D EB Approach 19.3 B 81 146.4 F 12206 57.4 E 10WB Approach 9.5 A 48 116.9 F 10589 31.4 C 4

Palm Bay Rd @ Maplewood St (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Palm Bay Rd @ Orange Blossom Trail (Unsignalized) 

Overall Intersection H H H 

Note: Unsignalized intersections use different LOS criteria and are rated A through H. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 

3-26 

Table 3-13. Pineda Causeway Crossing in Brevard County (EB = East Bound Traffic; WB = West Bound Traffic) 

Pineda Causeway Crossing - Opening Year 2016 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Pineda Causeway @ Holy Trinity Dr 

Overall Intersection 48.9 D 21 80.3 F 2 63.6 E EB Approach 5.6 A 373 28.8 C 2292 13.0 B 1WB Approach 78.4 E 461 73.2 E 2715 50.7 D 2

Pineda Causeway @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 0.8 A 21 34.0 C 2 18.4 B EB Approach 0.9 A 0 34.2 C 3899 21.2 C 2WB Approach 0.7 A 0 33.4 C 2546 15.4 B 1

Pineda Causeway Crossing - Year 2036 Conditions

Approach/Movement Normal Signal Cycle Freight Train Crossing Cycle Passenger Tra Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Queue Cycles/Hour Delay LOS Q

Pineda Causeway @ Holy Trinity Dr 

Overall Intersection 157.4 F 21 185.3 F 2 128.5 F EB Approach 8.9 A 648 41.4 D 3747 18.8 B 2WB Approach 302.5 F 727 293.2 F 3808 183.5 F 3

Pineda Causeway @ FEC RR Crossing 

Overall Intersection 1.6 A 21 79.1 E 2 36.0 D EB Approach 1.8 A 0 61.8 E 6651 40.3 D 4WB Approach 1.3 A 0 97.8 F 4329 31.3 C 2
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

4-1 

4.0 Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Transportation 

4.1.1 Rail Transportation Impacts 

The proposed Project passenger operations would include 16-19 round-trip trains per day, which 

amounts to a maximum frequency of two trains crossings per hour. Maximum operating speeds 

would range from 79 to 125 miles per hour, depending upon the location along the North-South or 

East-West Corridor. Operating speeds will be greatest along the East-West Corridor due to the 

absence of any highway-rail grade crossings. From the station in West Palm Beach to the station at 

MCO, service would be non-stop, as there are no stations proposed between those stations. 

The demand for freight capacity is expected to grow along the North-South Corridor. Based on 

anticipated operations data for the 2016 opening year, the number of freight crossings per day is 

expected to increase from 18 (in 2011) to 28 along with an increase in the average length to 8,150 

feet. An increase in freight efficiency is also anticipated, as represented by increases in 

average operating speeds. Table 3-1 shows a summary of 2016 freight and passenger operational 

characteristics, along with calculated closure times at roadway crossings. 

The demand for freight capacity is also expected to grow along the North-South Corridor. Based on 

data provided in the EA, an annual freight growth rate of 3 percent was assumed and incorporated 

as increased train frequency and length. An increase in freight efficiency was also incorporated, as 

represented by increases in average operating speeds. Table 3-1 shows a summary of future freight 

and passenger operational characteristics. 

The North-South Corridor has been designed to cause no adverse impact on freight operations 

within the North-South Corridor, and may have a beneficial impact on freight operations. The 

addition of passenger rail service within the existing ROW would require modifying the mostly single 

track system to a mostly double track system, which would be used by both passenger and freight 

operations. 

There are no existing freight rail operations within the East-West Corridor, therefore no impacts 

would occur under East-West Corridor with Alternatives A, C or E. 

4.1.1.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not cause significant adverse impacts to rail transportation. Under 

the No Build Alternative, there would be no passenger train service added from West Palm Beach 

to Cocoa and the existing freight infrastructure would be maintained. Freight train configurations 

would be expected to incorporate the anticipated annual growth of approximately 3 percent through 

increases in train length and/or speed. The No Build Alternative would not result in any delays or 

impacts related to construction of stations or other infrastructure required for the proposed Project. 

The upgrades to the FEC Corridor contemplated as part of the Project would not, however, occur in 

the near term as part of the No Build Alternative. 

4.1.1.2 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative, which includes the North-South Corridor Alternative, the East West 

Corridor Alternatives and the MCO Alignment and VMF Alternative, would have a beneficial 

impact on existing freight traffic along the North-South Corridor, due to the proposed infrastructure 

expansion previously discussed. The Build Alternative would also have a beneficial impact on the 

passenger rail transportation network between West Palm Beach and Orlando by providing potential 

customers with an alternative means of rail transportation. The Proposed Action is designed to 

provide a direct, non-stop rail service from West Palm Beach to the MCO, which is a different service 

geographically and functionally compared to the existing Amtrak service. The Build Alternative
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

4-2 

would also provide more frequent and regular service, which would provide more flexibility to 

potential customers. 

4.1.1.3 Construction Impacts 

New track construction required for the Build Alternative will be performed according to best 

management practices so that minimal temporary adverse impacts to existing freight operations will 

be experienced. Any required maintenance or rehabilitation of the existing single track will also be 

done using planning and construction practices that would minimize impact to existing freight traffic. 

Future required maintenance and rehabilitation will also be done more efficiently as track operators 

will be able to use planning practices that utilize the additional tracks to mitigate temporary delays. 

AAF is familiar with projects (for example the Union Pacific Railroad in northern California) that have 

implemented similar single track to double track upgrades without causing any impact to passenger 

or freight service during construction. AAF plans on utilizing similar techniques and methods to 

reduce or eliminate potential impacts such as delays or downtime. 

4.1.2 Regional Roadway Network Impacts 

According to the “Vision Plan”

15 discussed in the Purpose and Need Statement, it is estimated that 

the total intercity travel person trips between Miami and Orlando will increase from 9.5 million in 

2000 to 18.5 million by 2020, with further increase to 30.5 million by 2040. 

The Proposed Action may help to alleviate the growth in congestion that is expected as a result of 

these trips. For the Proposed Action, an investment grade evaluation was prepared to estimate 

annual ridership. That report, prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc., will be provided as a 

separate submittal that will become an appendix to the EIS. 

Among other things, that report describes a Base Case for ridership, as well as a Business Plan 

Case that accounts for certain elements important to future ridership potential, which are not 

included in the Base Case. Following this forecast, AAF’s management further refined its strategies 

and goals for ridership and revenue which are reflected in a Management Case scenario. 

These forecast scenarios can be summarized as follows: 

1) Base Case – The Base Case scenario provides a conservative outlook for implementation of 

AAF service. The scenario does not include potential future changes to the proposed AAF 

service, such as additional future station locations; and does not include consideration of future 

changes to the relevant transportation network that are subject to some level of uncertainty, such 

as impact of the growth in congestion on major highways and arterials in the market area, or the 

impact of potential direct connections with local transit improvements planned by local and 

regional agencies. 

2) Business Plan Case – An alternative scenario was prepared to account for elements of the AAF 

business plan under development at the time the forecast was originally prepared; and to reflect 

the impact of a number of specific items not included in the Base Case. The Business Plan 

Case includes: (i) future connections to other transit services, such as SunRail in Central Florida 

and the WAVE Streetcar in Fort Lauderdale; (ii) marketing initiatives targeted to resort customers 

and travel arrangers to enhance ridership. 

3) Management Case – The Business Plan Case does not include the impact of certain strategies 

that are commonly employed by management of similar consumer-oriented rail operating 

companies and that could potentially further increase ridership and/or revenue such as (i) 

revenue yield management strategies; (ii) frequent rider loyalty programs; (iii) block ticket 

agreements with resorts and educational institutions; and (iv) plans for further local transit 

connections not known at the time of preparation of the Business Plan Case forecast. Following 

 

15 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2004-2006. Florida Intercity Passenger Rail “Vision Plan”. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

4-3 

the preparation of the Base and Business Plan Case forecasts, AAF’s management developed 

an estimate of the ridership impact of these strategies through market soundings, discussions 

with regional businesses and institutions, and discussions with rail operators. 

The analysis of each case is presented in more detail in the above-referenced ridership study 

prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (LBG). Based on that analysis, the projected ridership 

was analyzed to determine the manner in which the Proposed Action would impact the regional 

roadway network. It is projected that 344 vehicles per day would be removed from the roads as a 

result of the Proposed Action for the 2016 Base, Business Plan and Management Cases and 1,214 

vehicles would be removed per day for the 2019 Base, Business Plan and Management Cases. 

4.1.2.1 No Build Alternative 

Given the projected increase in intercity traffic, the No Build Alternative has the potential to 

contribute to future adverse transportation impacts on I-95, Florida’s Turnpike and SR528 by not 

aiding in the reduction of the projected increase in total automobile volume on these roads. Without 

the added capacity provided by the proposed passenger service, these roads would be forced to 

absorb the majority of this increase. 

4.1.2.2 Build Alternative 

Implementation of the Build Alternative would have a beneficial effect on regional roadway 

transportation networks by providing additional transportation capacity between Miami and Orlando. 

Construction and operation of the North-South Corridor Alternative and East-West Corridor 

Alternatives would reduce the cumulative traffic volume on I-95, Florida’s Turnpike and SR 528 by 

removing vehicles and providing an easily accessible and efficient alternative means of transport to 

residents and visitors between the Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Orlando areas. 

 The loss of toll revenues to the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority (OOCEA) will be 

immaterial based on the Impacts of AAF on OOCEA Toll Revenues Report15 prepared by Steer 

Davies Gleave. 

4.1.2.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

The Project is anticipated to enhance regional roadway transportation by reducing vehicles on the 

regional roadway network. By reducing vehicles traveling on the regional roadways, accident rates, 

pollution, and needs for roadway maintenance would be reduced. With a reduction in traffic 

accidents, public safety officers, emergency medical service technicians, and public works 

department employees would be redeployed to other duties. Travel delays caused by accidents 

would be reduced and therefore, downtime for people and vehicles that would otherwise be engaged 

in economically productive activities would be reduced. With fewer passenger vehicles on regional 

roadways, air pollution from emissions and water pollution from the runoff of gas and oil from 

roadways would be reduced. With fewer vehicles traveling on the regional roadways, a slight 

reduction in roadway maintenance due to wear and tear would occur. 

4.1.3 Local Vehicular Transportation Impacts 

Along the North-South Corridor, potential impacts may result from the addition of passenger rail 

service to the existing ROW through increased traffic delays at existing roadway crossings. Changes 

to traffic delays resulting from the various build alternatives are discussed below. 

 

Table 4-1 provides the roadway names, number of lanes and the maximum design speed for 

passenger train operations in each County. To reduce the table size, only data for State Roads, 

County Roads, and US Highways were included. The maximum design speed for passenger trains 

along the North-South Corridor is greater than the maximum design speed of 79 mph south of the 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

4-4 

West Palm Beach. Because there are fewer crossings and stops north of West Palm Beach, 

average freight speeds tend to be greater as well. 

Table 4-1. Maximum Passenger Rail Speeds at State Road, County Road and US Highway 

Crossings (page 1 of 2) 

Road Name Highway Type Number of Lanes Speed 

Brevard County 

Dixon Blvd CR-0503 4 100 

King St. SR 0520 5 110 

Poinsett Dr / Rosa L Jones Blvd CR-5024 2 110 

Barton Ave CR-5026 6 110 

Barnes Blvd SR-502 5 110 

Pineda Causeway SR0404 4 110 

Post Rd CR5042 4 110 

Parkway Ave CR-5046 3 110 

Lake Washington Rd CR-5052 5 110 

Aurora Rd. CR0511 4 110 

Sarno Rd SR518-5 4 110 

Babcock St. CR0507 6 110 

Nasa Blvd CR-5056 4 110 

Hibiscus Ave CR 5060 4 110 

Fee Ave CR-5062 2 110 

Strawbridge Ave US192 4 110 

New Haven Ave SR 0192 2 110 

Prospect Ave CR-5077 2 80 

University Blvd CR5066 4 110 

N.E. Palm Bay Rd CR5070 2 110 

N.E. Port Blvd CR5074 4 110 

8080Malabar Rd SR 0514 2 110 

Valkaria Rd CR-5076 2 110 

1st St. CR-5078 2 110 

Micco Rd CR-5082 2 110 

Indian River County 

Roseland Rd SR 0505 2 110 

Fellsmere St. SR 0512 3 110 

W. Wabasso Rd SR 0510 2 110 

S. Wntr Bch (65st) SR 0632 2 110 

41st St / So. Gifford Rd CR0630 2 110 

20th Place SR 0060 4 110 

Glendale Rd CR0612 3 110 

Ninth St. SW / Oslo Rd SR 0606 4 110 

St Lucie County 

City Causeway SR A1A 5 110 

Orange Ave SR A1A 2 80 

Midway Ave CR0712 2 110 

Martin County 

Jenson Beach Blvd SR 707A 4 110 

SR-AIA SR 0707 2 60 

Colorado Ave SR 0010 4 80 

SR-AIA SR0AIA 2 110 

Indian Ave SR A1A 4 110 

Salerno Rd SR 0722 3 110 

SR-AIA SR A1A 2 110 

Bridge Rd SR 0707 2 110 

 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

4-5 

Table 4-1. Maximum Passenger Rail Speeds at State Road, County Road and US Highway 

Crossings (page 2 of 2) 

Road Name Highway Type Number of Lanes Speed 

Palm Beach County 

Indiantown Rd. SR 0706 8 110 

Lake Park Rd CR-809 6 110 

Inlet Blvd SR0710 4 110 

45th St. SR 0702 5 110 

Source: FEC Grade Crossing Estimate5

4.1.3.1 Build Alternative 

The North-South Corridor Alternative and East-West Corridor Alternatives would not have a 

significant impact on local vehicular traffic along the North-South Corridor, and would have no impact 

on local vehicular traffic along the East-West Corridor. The increase in number of crossing events 

due to the addition of 16-19 round trips per day would cause additional closure events, but closures 

from passenger trains would be much shorter than closures from existing freight traffic (Tables 2-1 

and 3-1). Also, the projected annual increase in freight capacity would result in minor increases in 

local roadway crossing closures, but total impacts relative to existing conditions would be minimal. 

Table 4-2 shows expected roadway crossing closures times in the counties north of West Palm 

Beach as compared to the counties south of West Palm Beach. Closure times are provided for both 

passenger and freight operations from the 2016 project opening year. 

Table 4-2. Comparison of Roadway Crossing Closures for the Project Area in 2016 

County 

Number of 

Crossings 

26 

Freight Passenger 

Train Speed 

(miles per 

hour) 

Maximum 

Closure 

(minutes/hour)

Train Speed 

(miles per 

hour) 

Maximum 

Closure 

(minutes/hour) 

Palm Beach (N of Station) 54.3 4.9 89.2 1.7 

Martin 25 44.4 5.7 79.5 1.7 

St Lucie 20 47.8 5.4 92.6 1.7 

Indian River 30 54.2 4.9 106.6 1.7 

Brevard 55 53.8 4.9 98.1 1.7 

Notes: 

1. 2016 freight speed obtained from CA20 TPC Runtimes Frt-RO.xlsx, received from AAF via email June 2013. 

2. 2016 passenger speed obtained from CA20 TPC Runtimes-R2 w Revised EW Corridor.xlsx, received from AAF 

via email June, 2013. 

3. Maximum Closure per Hour calculated as the Total Time to Activate and Clear multiplied by the Maximum 

Crossings per Hour, divided by 60.
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

4-6 

The traffic model shows that implementation of passenger rail operations would result in no 

significant impact to local roadway traffic along the portion of the North-South Corridor from West 

Palm Beach to Cocoa. 

There are no proposed highway-rail grade crossings along the East-West Corridor. 

The VMF would not have a significant impact on local vehicular transportation. Assuming facility 

operations would require 100 employees per day and each employee, in addition to arriving and 

leaving from work each day, left an average of once during the day for lunch, meetings, and errands. 

The estimated maximum number of trips that would be generated each day is 400. This traffic would 

access the station via Boggy Creek Rd from either the northwest or southeast. In 2012, the AADT for 

these portions of Boggy Creek Rd were 13,000 and 9,300, respectively (TM 4). If employee access 

is distributed evenly between both access directions, the increase in AADT would consume 

1.5 percent of current capacity in the northwest direction and 2.2 percent in the southeast direction. 

4.1.3.2 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would not have a significant impact on local vehicular traffic. Based on 

data provided in Table 3-1, the projected annual increase in freight capacity would result in minor 

increases in local roadway crossing closure times, but increases would be minimal relative to current 

closure times. 

4.1.3.3 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 

Secondary and cumulative impacts to local vehicular transportation are anticipated to be minimal. 

The Project is anticipated to have minimal negative secondary and cumulative impacts at roadway 

crossings and on local roadway capacity. Adjusting traffic signal timing in the Project Area is a BMP 

that would reduce traffic impacts. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

5-1 

5.0 Summary 

 Based on the analysis of the 2016 Opening Year and 2036 Buildout Year with and without the 

freight and passenger train services, the following conclusions were reached: 

 The passenger trains are expected to clear the crossing in 52 seconds or less (depending on the 

County) and for two events to occur during the peak hour. The analysis indicates that the 

additional delay to the adjacent roadway network caused by the introduction of passenger rail 

service is minimal. 

 Since this analysis was conducted to simulate the PM Peak Hour volume, any event taking place 

during non-peak hours is assumed to have less impact on traffic operations. 

 By introducing passenger trains the traffic operations and LOS at nearby intersections are 

anticipated to continue to operate at LOS similar to the existing LOS during a freight train 

crossing. Therefore the additional impact from the passenger rail services is minimal. 

 Even though not accounted for in this analysis, the passenger train services is expected to 

benefit some north-south roadways in the study area as a result of the use by commuters of the 

rail service in lieu of travel by automobile. 

 It should be noted that some crossings have intersections within close proximity (less than 100 

feet of the crossing) and that the usage of proper signage and traffic control will alert drives 

about the railroad crossings in accordance with applicable laws. 
Transportation and Railroad Crossing Analysis 

 AAF Passenger Rail Project from Cocoa to West Palm Beach, Florida

AMEC Project No. 6063120212 September 2013 

6-1 

6.0 References 

1. All Aboard Florida – Operations LLC. 2012. Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) 

Evaluation for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project West Palm Beach to Miami, 

Florida. Available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L04278. 

2. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA). 2013. Finding of No Significant Impact for the All Aboard Passenger Rail Project 

West Palm Beach to Miami, Florida. Available at: 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Details/L04277. 

3. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and Greater Orlando Aviation Authority (GOAA). 1998. Environmental 

Assessment for the Proposed South Terminal Complex at the Orlando International 

Airport. 

4. United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Greater Orlando Aviation 

Authority (GOAA). 2005. Environmental Assessment for the Proposed OIA Intermodal 

Center and associated High Speed Rail and Light Rail Alignments. 

5. All Aboard Florida, 2013. FEC Grade Crossing Estimate Spreadsheet. Received via 

email from Alex Gonzolaz on March 7, 2013. 

6. MCO website accessed August 8, 2013. 

http://www.orlandoairports.net/statistics/index.htm 

7. LYNX website accessed August 7, 2013. http://www.golynx.com/about-lynx/ 

8. AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (AMEC). 2013. Technical Memorandum No. 3 

Alternatives Identification for the All Aboard Florida Passenger Rail Project from Orlando 

to Miami, Florida

9. City of Orlando, 2011. Transportation Element: Goals, Objectives and Policies. 

Approved August 12, 1991. Amended December 5, 2011. 

10. MCO Quickfacts. Summer 2013. 

11. Orlando Sentinel, April 28, 2013. 

12. Orlando Sentinel, July 29, 2013. 

13. Florida Department of Transportation. 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. 

Available at: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/. 

14. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. 

15. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 2004-2006. Florida Intercity Passenger 

Rail “Vision Plan”.