Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysisa EDGEWATER TOWER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for ARCO DEVELOPMENT 111 SW 3rd Street 6th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 • by Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E. 46 N.W. 94th Street Miami Shores, Florida 33150 (305) 754-8695 AUGUST 2003 • ackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E. Florida Registration #28258 • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY 3.0 STUDY AREA 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS 4.2 EXISTING SIGNAL TIMING 3 3 5 5 6 4.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 6 4.3,1 PEAK HOURS • ' 10 4.3.2 PREVAILING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS • • • 14 4.4 MASS TRANSIT ... 116 4.5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE - - 16 5.0 TRIP GENERATION - ' 19 6.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT • 21 7.0 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ... 23 8.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT ... 24 9.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 29 33 10.0 ON -STREET PARKING 33 11.0 PEDESTRIANS 33 12.0 PROJECT SITE PLAN . ' 33 12.1 PROJECT DRIVEWAYS 33 12.2 PROJECT LOADING DOCK 34 12.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS - - 34 13.0 CONCLUSIONS • • LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 PROJECT DATA TABLE 2 YEAR 2002 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) 6 VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) TABLE 3 7 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TABLE 4 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TABLE 5 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TABLE 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 22ND STREET AND NE 23RD STREET .. 9 TABLE 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC 10NE 22ND STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD TABLE 8 15 EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES TABLE 9 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 16 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS TABLE 10 17 EXISTING LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE11 19 PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLE 12 20 FINAL EXTERNAL PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLE 13 21 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TABLE 14 23 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TABLE 15 24 ANNUAL AADT GROWTH RATES TABLE 16 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT 26 TABLE 17 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS W/O PROJECT 27 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS TABLE 18 27 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT TABLE 19 30 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TABLE 20 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS WITH PROJECT 31 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS TABLE 21 31 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT TABLE 22 34 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES TABLE 23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS .. 35 35 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 2 PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE 2 �} STUDY AREA FIGURE 3 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 22ND STREET & NE 23RD STREET 12 FIGURE 4 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS i 3 NE 22ND STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD FIGURE 5 1 g EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE FIGURE 6 22 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC FIGURE 7 2g FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT FIGURE 8 32 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT sath • • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Edgewater Tower project is a residential project consisting of approximately 257 dwelling units. The project includes approximately 470 on -site parking spaces. The site is located in the City of Miami on the north side of NE 22nd Street east of NE 4th Avenue. Currently, except for some church buildings and a seven unit apartment building, the site is vacant land. The project will result in a net increase of approximately 103 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour and 127 vehicles per hour in the PM peak hour. Based upon existing traffic count data, the AM volume is approximately 4% of the total two-way AM peak hour volume on Biscayne Boulevard. The PM volume is approximately 5% of the total two-way PM peak hour volume on Biscayne Boulevard. Primary vehicular access to the site is restricted to one, two-way driveway connecting to NE 22nd Street. In addition, there is loading dock access via NE 22nd Terrace. Two types of level of service analysis were conducted. The first type of analysis included Intersection and roadway link level of service analysis. The second type of analysis consisted of transportation corridor analysis. For purposes of identifying the specific localized impacts of the project, level of service analysis was conducted for the existing year 2003 conditions, and future conditions in the year 2005 with and without the project. These analyses included Zink and intersection level of service analysis. The results from the intersection analysis and the roadway link analysis, indicate that, with or without the project, by the year 2005 there will be some deterioration in the level of service on Biscayne Boulevard. That deterioration, however, will not fall below acceptable standards. Additionally, the analysis indicates that the greatest impacts of the project could be almost completely mitigated by modified striping of the eastbound and westbound approaches to the signalized intersection at Biscayne Boulevard and NE 22nd Street. Finally, the transportation corridor analysis clearly indicates that there is sufficient transportation system capacity in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor to accommodate the proposed project. • • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Edgewater Tower is a single phase development consisting of condominiums and parking. As shown in Figure 1, the site is located on the north side of NE 22nd Street east of NE 4th Avenue. The proposed development program is summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 PROJECT DATA , -2R1c�td"`�, ^•. ^-4 5' 4 ,-, �i,- p, ,, Ni�5i , °s n t F.u1, , 0"ti `v,k ( :':;.�4 i� ...»: , - s .v [ RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM 257 DU 470 SPACES PARKING Primary vehicular access to the site is consists of a two-way driveway connecting to NE 22nd Street. For purposes of this traffic impact analysis, build -out has been estimated to occur by the year 2005. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Pagel • • FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 2 • • • 2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY The primary purpose of this study is to assess the impacts of vehicular traffic on intersections and roadways within the study area due to the proposed development by conducting a roadway link and intersection level of service analysis. 1 n addition, the report provides a general assessment of project impacts on parking and pedestrians. Specific items discussed are as follows; • Determination of existing traffic volumes and levels of service for major roadways within the study area; • Estimation of the number of trips generated by the proposed project and the distribution of these trips within the study area network. • Estimation of future background and project traffic conditions and levels of service; • Determination of whether the transportation impacts of the proposed project exceed the City of Miami concurrency standards, and solutions to mitigate any adverse impacts; e Determination of project impacts on on -street parking; and, • Determination of project impacts on pedestrians. 3.0 STUDY AREA The study area's boundaries were defined to include: NE 26th Street as the northern boundary, NE 18th Street as the southem boundary, Biscayne Bay as the eastern boundary, and NE 2nd Avenue as the western boundary. This area includes a one-half mile section of Biscayne Boulevard. Figure 2 shows the intersections and roadway links which are most significant to the project. These include the following intersections: NE 22nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard The roadway links include the following: Biscayne Boulevard from NE 18th Street to NE 26th Street JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 3 • NE19 St NEI8 St NETT Ter NE22Te1 FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA NTS --�- Bey 25 BISCAYNE PAY Project Biscayhe Village Metropolis Bayshore 1800 Club JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, R.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 4 • • • 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The study area was surveyed to observe existing traffic conditions, identify parking locations, identify traffic count locations, and to collect traffic count data. 4.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS This section describes the characteristics of selected roadways in the study area. Key roadways in and/or near to the study area include Biscayne Boulevard (SR-51US-1), NE 13th Street, NE 15th Street and NE.36th Street. Of these roadways, Biscayne Boulevard is by far the most significant roadway serving the proposed project. Local access to the site is provided by NE 22nd Street. Biscayne Boulevard (SR-5/US-1) Biscayne Boulevard is a four lane divided roadway with striped median between NE 18th Street and NE 26th Street. Turn lanes are provided at intersections. Traffic signals are located at: ▪ NE 19th Street ■ NE 21 st Street ▪ NE 22nd Street • NE 26th Street This equates to three signalized intersections within one-half mile. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. For purposes of analysis, Biscayne Boulevard was classified as a State Two- way Arterial, Class lil. NE 22nd Street NE 22nd Street is a two lane roadway with parking on either side. NE 22nd Street is classified as a local roadway. Traffic on NE 22nd Street is controlled by a traffic signal at Biscayne Boulevard and stop signs at NE 2nd Avenue. NE 22nd Street is interrupted at the FEC Rail Road, west of NE 2nd Avenue. NE 22nd Terrace in the vicinity of the site, NE 22nd Terrace is little more than an alley. On the east it connects to NE 7th Avenue, which runs between NE 22nd Terrace and NE 22 Street; and on the west it connects to NE 4th Avenue. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 5 • 4.2 EXISTING SIGNAL TIMING Existing signal timing data for the signalized intersections to be analyzed was obtained from the Miami -Dade County Traffic Control Center. This data was used in the intersection capacity analysis to determine each intersection's level of service (LOS) and in the roadway link analysis. • 4.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS There are two existing Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic count stations location within or near the study area. Data for these traffic count stations is summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2 YEAR 2002 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) /■ ; .y�] ■r f _. CATI S N ti � 3 ff h tR3 M f ^v L 1 `s g, { Y <v., , r4( T f',� DIR , 'thy ,i a fi' ...... ',114;1 SSIT � sh , ^ {� aF h ni.,. 5.. . 5y 4, x. rrt�' }Gyy 4' 4 �� 3� `, ^i 'fi t ,. -}c y'$� {- i '�- ...�Y"��=�''� 'v°CFS �...' - a-& "{ ,- r�rtx. +.+yf FOBI.: Z T- .05 505fi SR 51UJS-1, 100' NORTH OF NE 1 9TH STREET NB 18,500 SB 17,500 36,0(}0 5058 SR 5/US-1, 200' NORTH OF NE 29TH STREET NB 19,000 SB 119,500 38,500 Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office. Original 24 Hour machine traffic counts were taken the week of July 7, 2003 at the following locations: • Biscayne Boulevard between NE 22nd Street and NE 23rd Street • NE 22nd Street east of Biscayne Boulevard The count program provided machine traffic counts (without vehicle classifications) summarized every 15 minutes for a 24-hour period. Machine traffic count data is summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Turning movement counts were obtained as follows: • At the intersection of NE 22nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard, on Wednesday, July JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 6 • • • 9, 2003 between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. • At the intersection of NE 22nd Street and NE 4th Avenue, on Wednesday, July 9, 2003 between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. This traffic count data, adjusted to reflect peak hour volumes forAverage Annual Weekday Traffic conditions is summarized in Table 8. Weekly Volume Factors Weekly volume factors to adjust raw count data to Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes were obtained from FOOT records for the year 2002. Rather than using county- wide factors, Miami -Dade County North factors were used, These factors are shown in Table 3. TABLE 3 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 28 6/30/02 7/7/02 7/6/02 7/13/02 1.02 1.02 Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office. Axle Adjustment Factors Weekly axle adjustment factors to adjust raw count data to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were obtained from FOOT records for the year 2002. Rather than using county- wide factors, factors for SR-5/Biscayne Boulevard were used. These factors are shown in Table 4. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 7 • 27 TABLE 4 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 6/30/02 7/6/02 0.98 28 7/7/02 7/13/02 0.98 Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office, Peak Season Adjustment Factors Peak season adjustment factors were obtained from FDOT records for the years 2000 through 2002. Consistent with the FDOT 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, the median weekly factor for the thirteen highest consecutive weeks of the year (the peak season) for each of the three years was determined. The peak season adjustment factor was determined to be 1.026. These factors are shown in Table 5. TABLE 5 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS • 2000 1.024 2001 1.025 2002 1.029 MEDIAN 1.026 Source of yearly data: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office. The significance of the peak season adjustment factor is that it shows that there is less than a 3% difference between average annual daily traffic and peak season traffic. This is well within the ability to accurately measure and/or estimate traffic volumes. The roadways in question are not seasonal roadways and average annual weekday conditions are not significantly different than peak season conditions. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. • EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 8 • TABLE 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC BISCAYV E BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 22ND STREET AND NE 23RD STREET RAW DA ADT AM PEA MID-DA PM PE WEEKL AXLE A ADJUST AADT AM PEA MID © A PM PEA AADT AM PEi� MID DA PM PE/ K(100) TA Y Y NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 2-WAY 18,154 21 ,1fly 39,259 K HOUR 784 1,828 2,612 PK HR 1,268 1,428 2,696 K HOUR 1,441 1,327 2,768 ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 1.02 DJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.98 ED DATA NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 2-WAY 18,100 21,100 39,200 K HOUR 780 1,830 2,610 ( PK HR 1,270 1,430 2,690 K HOUR 1,440 1,330 2,770 PERCENTAGE OF DAILY TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND N/A 46% 54% K HOUR 6.66% 30% 70% Y PK HR . 6.86% 47% 53% ,K HOUR 7.07% 52% 48% °o 52 / 48% 7.25% JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 9 • • • RAW D ADT AM P ID-DA PM PE TABLE 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC NE 22ND STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD kTA EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2-WAY 684 1,379 2,063 ,IBC HOUR 59 100 159 Y PK HR 49 97 146 . ►K HOUR 57 117 174 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR ADJUSTED DATA AADT 1.02 0.98 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2-WAY 700 1,400 2,100 AM PEAK HOUR 60 100 160 MID -DAY PK HR 50 100 150 PM PEAK HOUR AADT 60 120 170 PERCENTAGE OF DAILY TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND N/A 33% 67% AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PK HR 7.62% 38% 63% 7.14% 33% 67% PM PEAK HOUR 8.10% 35% 71% K(100) 8.31 % 35% 71% 4.3.1 PEAK HOURS This Section identifies characteristics of existing peak hour traffic in the study area. These characteristics include AM and PM peak hours, Planning Analysis Hour Factor (K100) factors and Directional Distribution! (D) factors. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 10 • • • Biscayne Boulevard The peaking characteristics of Biscayne Boulevard between NE 22nd Street and NE 23rd Street are presented graphically in Figure 3. As can be seen from Figure 3, this section of Biscayne Boulevard experiences the following three peaks. • An AM Peak of approximately 6.66% beginning at 8:30am • A mid -day peak of approximately 6.86% beginning at 1:15pm • A PM Peak of approximately 7.07% beginning at 2:45pm The K100 for this section of roadway was estimated to be 7.25%. The D factor for this section of roadway was estimated to be 51.99%. NE 22nd Street The peaking characteristics of NE 22nd Street east of Biscayne Boulevard are presented graphically in Figure 4. As can be seen from Figure 4, this section of NE 22nd Street experiences the following three peaks. • An AM Peak of approximately 7.62% beginning at 9:15am • A mid -day peak of approximately 7.14% beginning at 1:30pm • A PM Peak of approximately 8.10% beginning at 5:00pm The K100 for this section of roadway was estimated to be 8.31%. The D factor for this section of roadway was estimated to be 70.59%. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 11 • • • BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 22ND STREET & NE 23RD STREET 5:00 1000 15:00 HOUR BEGINING 2000 FIGURE 3 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 22ND STREET & NE 23RD STREET JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August itt 2003 Page 12 • • • 12.00% 10.00% 0 (7. u.. 8.00% Li. 6.00% 0 uJ Z 4.00% Lu LLI 2.00% 0 NE 22ND STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 1 1 \ ENO 0:00 5:00 10 OD 15:00 HOUR BEGINING 20:00 FIGURE 4 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS NE 22ND STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 13 • • • 4.3.2 PREVAILING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This section describes the traffic conditions on selected roadways and at selected intersections in the study area. Biscayne Boulevard Although heavy during peak hours, traffic flow on the section of Biscayne Boulevard in the study area is reasonably acceptable. Signal progression appears to be good. NE 22nd Street Due to the minimal amount of traffic, traffic flow on NE 22nd Street is good. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 14 • TABLE S EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BO U LEVAR NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE Source: Original, traffic counts taken July 9, 2003. Note: Data has been adjusted to reflect AM and PM peak hour volumes for Average Annual Weekday Traffic conditions. ,JACK OS N M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 15 • • • 4.4 MASS TRANSIT The site is located within the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor. Transit routes providing capacity to the corridor are MetroBus Routes 3, 16, 32, 36, 62, 95, T, Biscayne Max, 9, 10, and 6. 4.5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Each of the selected intersections were analyzed to determine their level of service. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology based Highway Capacity Software, HCS Version 4.1c was used. The results are shown in Table 10 and on Figure 5. The intersection level of service analyses are included in Appendix A. Link analysis, based upon AM and PM peak hour directional volumes, was also performed for the section of Biscayne Boulevard between NE 15th Street and NE 23rd Street using the FOOT ARTPLAN 2003 version 5.1.0 (June 6, 2003) software and FDOT 2002 QualityiLevel of Service Handbook, Table 4-7. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 11. TABLE 9 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE A JACKSON M. AHLSTEPT, F.E. A EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 16 • • TABLE 1© EXISTING LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE Biscayne Boulevard ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR 0701 NE 18th Street NE 26th Street AM=C PM—B LOS A c O E MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR D IRECTI0NALV cS L U ME (VPH ) AM Peak H our Directional Service Volume (VPH) PM Peak 1-iour Directional Service Volume (VPH) N/A 1760 2510 2600 2630 1,874 1390 2810 2900 2960 3430 1,874 Notes: 1.) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 90 seconds and average G/C of 0.68. 2.) PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 115 seconds and average GIC of 0.75. e lculated from year 2002 3.) Maximumcan atiion 5056 directional (AADT = 36,000; K =9.7�5%; and, D 52.35%) and ©escalated forOT data by 2% per year for one year. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 17 • • • FIGURE 5 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 18 • • 5.0 TRIP GENERATION The total number of vehicular trips generated by the project was determined for the AM and PM peak hours using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 6th Edition. The number of vehicular trips generated by the projectwas based on the total number of condominium units, using data for 1TE Land Use Code230. These trips are the total number of vehicular trips generated by the project before adjusting for pedestrian and mass transit trips. WEEKDAY 1N OUT i NPONNIUMS 726 726 TABLE 11 PROJECT TRAFFIC 726 726 VPD VPD TOTAL 1,452 1,452 VPD AM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 18 18 VPH OUT 90 90 VPH TOTAL 108 108 VPH PM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 90 90 VPH OUT TOTAL 44 134 44 134 VPH VPH Because of its proximity to MetroBus routes and the nature of the area, it is anticipated that 5% of the person trips will use mass transit or walk. These person tri ps will not negatively cie trips effect the traffic studyditions, and aea. The rehmaining 95 /a of the pere, are not ded rsonin the ve trips g nerated bytdistributed ec throughout t were distributed throughout the study area as vehicle trips. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, A.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 19 • • • Table 12 summarizes external trips for the project after accounting for modal splits. TABLE 12 FINAL EXTERNAL PROJECT TRAFFIC AM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN OUT TOTAL 17 85 103 PM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 85 OUT 42 TOTAL 127 85 42 127 VPH VPH VPH As can be seen from Table 12, the estimated number of vehicle trips entering the project during the AM peak hour is 17 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips leaving the project during the AM peak hour is 85 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips entering the project during the PM peak hour is 85 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips leaving the project during the PM peak hour is 42 vph. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 20 • • 6.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 505 (note that this is the new zone numbering system). The cardinal distribution of the traffic within TAZ 505 was obtained from Miami -Dade County. The distribution is as follows: North -Northeast 9.89% East -Northeast 3.86% East -Southeast 4.71 % South -Southeast 3.70% South -Southwest 20.92% West -Southwest 23.40% West -Northwest 16.84% North -Northwest 16.68% The distribution of AM and PM project trips is summarized in Table 13. Based upon this trip distribution, the project trips were assigned to the roadway network. This is shown in Figure 6. TABLE 13 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION �, J L' 5'3Y-—[i'§^'s,�',']S L�yk+ a-�A.,.25' S c y' rq 1 Jfch^4C{y`rvi't�yy ,,Jrt7'� P -f 3 '{S�'fF�� if - 3 }rvf�`J '1�i '5 �6'L'",7 ,-,,, -i '}i'�SiY� h - `t 4T �A' x t'�� (y y YS-1" ( ? / YC�,t_ 'GY' �..Y"'`'Y'�slYTv�L.�L's.ay�i -_ 'S"�[_�`5{fR�_'!ryT'}i ` �` L'j Jai � ? Jr .�}a'Y `F r�T ��.Iy i". �. 4 ��,t4-s-�h`I f Y !}- v+YL; ,:ra1 'YZ2 TY"i d{�� �'3 -: i3iK 9 V 5'1j4fyi -'. �'4 N'yt�. L �4', li 'Sy'...r x j ' {{yy;{-xG :03 -b i§ -3 17 _z t l bQ h, a */ R .` +r e � � a f- uS3:`k�fK -. .,i• °j4 e -� NORTH NNW 16.68% 17 3 14 21 14 7 NNE 9.89% 10 2 8 13 8 4 EAST ENE 3.86% 4 1 3 5 3 2 ESE 4.71% 5 1 4 6 4 2 SOUTH SSE 3.70% 4 1 3 5 3 2 SSW 20.92% 21 4 18 27 18 9 WEST WSW 23.40°/0 24 4 20 30 20 10 WNW 16.84% 17 3 14 21 14 7 TOTAL 100.00% 103 17 85 127 85 42 JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 21 • • • 19184 RAM/PM PEAK :HOUR :PROJECT pTRAFFIC FIGURE 6 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 22 • • • 7.0 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Programmed and planned improvements in or near the study area were identified using the Miami -Dade County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), 2004. These improvements are detailed in Table 14. None of these improvements add capacity to the transportation system. TABLE 14 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ��4 - 6 1,t.1V „ �.�.G q `m"'F; "F r . -se 3tTx;. Yr-x` i '�k-e'd Y`s�`A Z.'s C" SS-'.� grq.W iL 4�"''�v. -:.'a. i `i jai .. N k5 T. , ',.. �� �� z @( ar s ''w�. � N 20t'" Street NW 2"° Avenue NE 2"d Avenue Resurface CST 2006- 2008 US-1/Biscayne Blvd NE 13th Street NE 24th Street Traffic and Pedestrian Enhancements and Beautification Project UNFUNDED JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 23 • • 8.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Future traffic conditions without the project were analyzed. Future traffic consisting of background traffic and committted development traffic was estimated. Background traffic was estimated by applying an annual growth factor to existing traffic.. The annual growth factor of 2% per year was developed based upon the historical traffic count data shown in Table 15. TABLE 15 ANNUAL AADT GROWTH RATES VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) .4 h - >i'S 3 {iv,�e5`� -.. LS�...Ki .,�,., l - ' .'x rs i SR 51US-1, 100' NORTH OF NE 28,423 53,000 36,000 0.91% 19TH STREET SR 51US-1, 200' NORTH OF NE 28,461 37,000 38,500 1.17% 29TH STREET Future traffic conditions were analyzed for year 2005. The growth rate of 2% per year was applied to the 2002 FDOT traffic counts and the 2003 original traffic count volumes in order to achieve 2005 traffic volumes. In addition, City of Miami data on major committed developments was researched and the traffic associated with those developments was included in the analysis. These developments consisted of the fol lowing projects: • Biscayne Bay Tower • Cultural Center ■ Miramar Center II • 1800 Club ▪ Biscayne Village ■ Tuttle Street • Sky Residences • Bay 25 • platinum Condominium • Metropolis Bayshore In addition, there is currently under construction a rental apartment project located at 615 NE 22nd Street. This project called, 22 Biscayne Bay, would add traffic to NE 22nd Street and to Biscayne Boulevard. Traffic for this project was specifically added to develop the estimate of future traffic. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 24 • • • Table 16 provides the future traffic volumes without the Edgewater Tower project and shows these volumes with the associated movement. These volumes were used to determine intersection level of service by using the same software programs as used for the previously described analysis. The intersection level of service for the future traffic volumes without the Edgewater Tower project are shown in Table 17 and on Figure 7. The analysis shows a slight deterioration in the intersection level of service during the AM peak hour. In general, the values are generally the same as those for the year 2003. The intersection level of service analyses are included in Appendix B. The link level of service analysis for future AM and PM peak hour directional traffic conditions was performed on the previously identified roadway link. These results are summarized in Table 18. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 25 • • • TABLE 16 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT E 22ND STREET & ISCAYNE BOULEVARD E 22ND STR EET & NE TH AVE E 22ND STREET & ISCAYNE BOULEVARD E 22ND STREET & NE TH AVE JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 26 • • • TABLE 17 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS W10 PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NF 22Np..,TRFFT & NF 4TH AVF TABLE 18 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) N/A 1390 1760 2810 2510 2900 2600 2960 E MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) 2630 2304 3030 2374 Notes: 1) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 90 seconds and average G/C of 0.68. 2.) PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 115 seconds and average GIC of 0.75. 3) Maximum peak hour directional volumes are calculated from year 2002 FDOT data for count station 5056 (AADT = 36,000; K= 9.75%; and, D = 52.35%) escalated by 2°Jo per year for three years and includes committed development traffic. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 27 • • • NE 26 St NE E 25 St S■ s, e e 4 1 NE18 St NE17 Ter NTS Project AM/PM NTER SECTION A LOS AMIPM LINKLOS FIGURE 7 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT JACKSON M.AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 28 • • • 9.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC Future traffic conditions with project traffic were analyzed for the year 2005, This was accomplished by using the 2005 estimated traffic volumes without the project and adding the traffic generated by the project (as shown in Table 13). Table 19 details the future traffic plus project traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours. These volumes were then used to determine the intersection levels of service using the same procedures as previously stated. For the most part, there were only minor changes between the year 2005 future intersection level of service with and without the project. This is shown in Table 20 and on Figure S. The intersection level of service analyses are included in Appendix C. The link level of service analysis for future AM and PM peak hour directional traffic conditions with the project was performed on the previously identified roadway links. These results are summarized in Table 21. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 29 • • • TABLE 19 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITH PROJECT E 22ND STREET & iSCAYNE BOULEVARD E 22ND STREET & NE TH AVE JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 30 • • • TABLE 20 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS WITH PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS � .Ay��. Y . VECT1O. .� � � Y j3` �ti � otl •-<r -eye■ �i -'� <- �S - c pygbr f x4 '�j�`,£ � k 4i2 d's 7�pu' P.,VR�+"�`J. °s '�+. Fr' "V,yP, s�7§.",4 ,3 Y4'f-h}` '£� Sah 6r�.-�z. � y.t_, - t S -a' �r"Ny��z'�p�r+.`w cif. ,�✓�T"# �'�°� F"s"� �'a1„r E^;Y �i..y Tf'�.-6s� S �'-'c NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD B A B B B D NE 22ND STREET & NE A A A A A A 4TH AVF TABLE 21 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT Biscayne Boulevard NE 9 8th Street NE 26th Street AM-C PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS A 6 c E MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR OIRECTIONALV0LUME (VPH) AM Peak Hour Directorial Service Volume (VPH) N/A 1760 2510 2600 2630 2329 PM Peak Hour D irectior a! Service Volume (VPH) 1390 2810 2900 2960 3030 2399 Notes: 1.) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 90 seconds and average G/C of 0.68. 2.) PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 115 seconds and average G/C of 0.75. 3) Maximum peak hour directional volumes are calculated from year 2002 FDOT data for count station 5056 (AADT = 36,000; K= 9.75°/0; and, D = 52.35%) escalated by 2% per year for three years and includes committed development traffic and project traffic. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 31 • • - AM/PM INTERSECTION LOS A MRIVI LINK LOS FIGURE 8 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT JACK SON . AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 32 • • • 10.0 ON -STREET PARKING There are parking spaces on either side of NE 22nd Street. Adjacent to the site there are existing on -street parking spaces. The project may result in the elimination of a minimal amount of existing on -street parking spaces on the north side of NE 22nd Street. The project will construct some 470 on -site parking spaces. Parking will be provided for residents, employees and visitors to the site. 11.0 PEDESTRIANS Little pedestrian activity was noted in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are pedestrian detectors (push buttons) in the traffic signal at Biscayne Boulevard and NE 22nd Street. The proposed project will not significantly impact pedestrian movements along NE 22nd Street. 12.0 PROJECT SITE PLAN Traffic and transportation aspects of the proposed site plan were reviewed and analyzed. 12.1 PROJECT DRIVEWAYS The proposed project includes one, two-way driveway serving main access to the site. Table 22 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour driveway volumes anticipated at the service point. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 33 • • TABLE 22 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) Queuing analysis was conducted based upon the assumption that access to the garage will be controlled by a card reader system and consist of an inbound lane and an outbound lane. Analysis of potential inbound queues for the AM and PM peak hours indicates that there is better than a 99% probability that the queue should not exceed 3 vehicles including the vehicle being processed. Analysis of potential outbound queues for the AM and PM peak hours indicates that there is better than a 99% probability that the queue should not exceed 3 vehicles including the vehicle being processed. The ground level plan, provided by the project architect, June 25, 2003 indicates that the potential control point could be well within the property and that the anticipated queues could be accommodated without impacting off -site traffic flows. 12.2 PROJECT LOADING DOCK The proposed site plan includes a loading dock area on the north side of the property. Access to the loading dock is from NE 22nd Terrace. The loading dock area consists of two single unit truck berths. This should be adequate to serve the type and magnitude of development anticipated. The loading dock is accessed via NE 22nd Terrace on the north side of the project. Although loading dock maneuvering will impacts on traffic flow and pedestrian movements on NE 22nd Terrace; there is little traffic flow or pedestrian movement on NE 22nd Terrace. Use of NE 22nd Terrace for loading dock maneuvering is appropriate. 12.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS The proposed site plan provides principle pedestrian access to NE 22nd Street. 13.0 CONCLUSIONS JACKSON M, AHLSTEDT, P.E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 34 • • • After reviewing the results from the intersection analysis and the roadway link analysis, it can be concluded that with or without the project, by the year 2005 there will be some deterioration in the level of service on Biscayne Boulevard. The signalized intersection analysis, conducted for the intersection of Biscayne Boulevard shows some degradation of level of service during the PM peak hour. Additional analysis indicates that the cumulative impacts of future traffic, including project traffic, can be almost completely mitigated by striping the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. The roadway link analysis yields similar level of service results, indicating that roadway levels of service remain relatively consistent through the year 2005 with or without the project. The results of all of these analyses are shown in Table 23. Finally, the corridor analysis provided in Appendix D clearly indicates that there is sufficient transportation system capacity in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor to accommodate the proposed project. TABLE 23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P,E. EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Page 35 • • • APPENDIX A Existing Intersection Levels of Service • Analyst: Agency: Date: Period: Project E/W St: HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4. le J. AHLSTEDT 8/4./2003 AM PEAK HOUR II): EDGEWATER TOWER NE 22ND STREET 1 No. Lanes 1 0 1 1 LGConfig 1 LT R Volume 14 9. 12 Lane Width 1 11.0 11.0 RTOR Vol 1 0 Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIA.NMI/FD©T Year : EXISTING N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 LT R 1 L TR 132 9 8 142 714 21 11.0 11.0 111.0 11.0 0 1 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 I, TR 19 1531 38 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Phase Combination EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red 1 2 A A A A A A 20.0 4.0 0.0 Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity Intersection Adj Sat Ratios Flow Rate (s) Type: All other areas Signal Operations 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 1 NB Left P Thru P Right P Peds 5B Left P Thru P Right P Peds EB Right WB Right 62.0 4.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 90.0 secs Performance Summary Lane Group Approach v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT R Westbound 360 1619 0.08 0.22 27.8 C 27.7 C 337 1516 0.06 0.22 27.7 C LT 325 337 Northbound L 116 TR 2317 Southbound L 397 TR 2321 1462 0.22 0.22 29.0 C 28.7 C 1516 0.05 0.22 27.6 C 169 0.60 0.69 28,6 C 3363 0.35 0.69 6.1 A 7.9 A 577 0.09 0.69 5.1 A 3369 0.71 0.69 10.5 B 10.4 B Intersection Delay = 10.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS B EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Appendix A Page A-1 • • HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1 c Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: Period: Project E/W St: 8/4/2003 PM PEAK HOUR I D : EDGEWATER TOWER NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol 0 1 1 LT R 13 14 30 11.0 11.0 0 Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other: areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FD0T Year : •EXISTING N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUNLMARY Eastbound 1 Westbound I Northbound LT R I L T R I L 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 LT R 1 L {36 16 22 115 1 11.0 11.0 111.0 1 0 I 2 0 TR 1408 36 11.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 L TR 41 1023 19 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0,25 Area Phase Combination 1 2 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds WB Left A Thru A Right A Feds NE Right SE Right Green Yellow All Red 16.0 4.0 0.0 Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity Type; All other areas Signal Operations 3 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 6 P P F P P P 8 91.0 4.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 115.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 214 1538 0.24 0.14 44.7 R 211 1516 0.18 0.14 44.1 Westbound LT 194 1393 0.34 0.14 45.7 R 211 1516 0.17 0.14 44.0 Northbound L 320 405 0.06 0.79 3.0 TR 2667 3371 0.60 0.79 5.8 Southbound L 179 226 0.32 0.79 8.1 TR 2667 3370 0.43 0.79 4.3 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = A Intersection Delay = 7.7 D 44.4 D D D 45.1 D D A A 5.7 A A A 4.5 A EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix A August 4, 2003 Page A-2 • • • HCS2000: LJnsignali zed Intersections Release 4. lc TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 8/04/03 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 2254A .jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 8 13 4 0 19 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.65 0.33 1.00 0.68 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 20 12 0 27 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: .Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 f 10 11 12 L T R ! L T R Volume 2 0 0 1 0 27 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.25 1..00 0.59 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 0 4 0 45 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? No No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level. of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 ? 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 16 0 8 49 C (m) (vph) 1595 1593 829 1037 vie 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.15 Control Delay 7.3 7.3 9.4 8.6 LOS A A A A Approach Delay 9.4 8.6 Approach LOS A A EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix A August 4, 2003 Page A-3 HCS2000; Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1 c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 8/04/03 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 2254A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project II): EDGEWATER TOWER East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 ! 4 5 6 L T R 1 L T R Volume 16 3i 4 0 1 9 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.58 0.50 1.00 0.68 0.63 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 32 53 8 0 27 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 0 Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 1 0 Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 7 1 1 3 0 24 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.75 ©. 00 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 4 4 4 0 0 27 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 Median Storage No Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR 1 LTR # LTR v (vph) 32 0 CM) (vph) 1591 1555 v/c 0.02 0.00 95% queue length 0.0E 0.00 Control Delay 7.3 7.3 LOS A A Approach Delay Approach LOS 15 810 0.02 0_06 9.5 A 9.5 A 31 1008 0.03 0.10 8.7 A 8.7 A EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix A August 4, 2003 Page A-4 • APPENDIX B Future Intersection Levels of Service Without Project • • Analyst: Agency: Date: Period: Project E/W St: HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1 c J. AHLSTEDT 8/4/2003 PEAK HOUR II): EDGEWATER TOWER NE 22ND STREET Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI / FDOT Year : FUTURE W/O PROJECT I/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 Eastbound ! Westbound 1 Northbound IL TR L T R 1 L T R f I 1 No. Lanes I 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 LGConf ig 1 LT R LT R 1 L TR Volume f4 14 13 148 31 24 144 1187 24 Lane Width 1 11.0 11.0 11 .0 11.0 111.0 11.0 RTOR Vol 1 0 0 1 0 S outbound L T R 1 2 0 1 TR 23 1947 39 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: A11 other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peels WB Left A Thru A Right A Peds NB Right SB Right Green 20.0 62.0 Yellow 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 90.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru P Right P Peds ETB Right WE Right 5 P p 7 8 Eastbound LT 361 R 337 Westbound LT 334 R 337 Northbound L 80 TR 2322 Southbound L 203 TR 2324 1624 0.10 0.22 28.0 C 27.9 C 1516 0.07 0.22 27.7 C 1505 0.47 0.22 31.4 C 30.7 c 1516 0.14 0.22 28.3 C 115 0.91 0.69 90.2 F 3371 0.56 0.69 8.1 A 12.4 3 295 0.21 0.69 7.5 A 3373 0.90 0.69 17.6 B 17.4 B Intersection Delay = 16.5 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Appendix 8 Page B-1 • • • HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1 c Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 8/4/2003 Period: PM PEAK HOUR Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER E/W St: NE 22ND STREET 1 Eastbound 1 L T R No. Lanes f LGConfig Volume 114 Lane Width RTOR Vol 1 0 1 LT 37 11.0 Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Year : FUTURE W/0 PROJECT N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY 1 Westbound Northbound 1 L T R L T R 0 1 1 LT R 28 32 11.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 16 1888 54 11.0 11.0 0 S ou thboun d L T R 1 2 0 y TR 58 1568 20 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Phase Combination EB 'Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red A A A A A A 16.0 4.0 0.0 Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 NB SB EB WB Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Right Right 5 P P P P 2 P 91.0 4.0 0.0 Cycle 6 7 8 Length: 115.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 195 211 Westbound LT 133 211 Northbound L 150 TR 2666 Southbound L 74 TR 2671 1399 0.51 0.14 48.2 D 47.1 D 1516 " 0.18 0.14 44.1 D 953 0.70 0.14 62.2 E 56.0 1516 0.25 0.14 44,7 ' 190 0.14 0.79 4.8 A 3369 0.81 0.79 9.7 A 9.7 A 94 1.11 0.79 149.1 F 3376 0.65 0.79 6.4 A 12.8 B Intersection Delay = 13.8 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Appendix B Page B-2 • • • 3CS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4. 1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 8/04/03 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 22S4A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/0 PROJECT Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (b s) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 ! 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume S 23 4 0 72 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.65 0.33 1.00 0 _ 68 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 35 12 0 105 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 - Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound 5outhb ou nd Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R ! 1 T R Volume 2 0 0 1 0 28 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 0.59 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 0 4 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? No No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach E3 WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 16 0 8 51 C(m) (vph) 1494 1573 716 937 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.05 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.17 Control Delay 7.4 7.3 10.1 9.1 LOS A A B A Approach Delay 10.1 9.1 Approach LOS 3 A EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Appendix B Page B-3 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4,l c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 8/04/03 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 22S4A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Stud (Yirs? 0.25 Intersection Orientation: EW y period Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Westbound Major Street: Approach Eastbound 3 i 4 5 6 Movement 1 2 L T R I L T R Volume 17 87 4 0 48 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.58 0.50 1.00 0.68 0.63 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 150 8_ 0 70 _ 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lanes LTR Configuration LTR Upstream Signal? No No Approach Northbound Southb ou.nd Minor Street: App 12 Movement 7 8 9 i 10 1 1 R L T R I L Volume 7 1 1 3 0 25 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.75 1 . QO 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 7 4 0 4 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 00p Percent Grade (%) Median Storage N o Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lanes 1g Configuration LTR Approach Movement Lane Config v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service S a uthbound EB WB Northbound 10 11 12 1 4 I 7 8 9 1 LTR LTR f LTR I LTR 34 0 15 33 1535 1434 667 930 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.11 7.4 7.5 10.5 9.0 A A 5 A 10.5 9.0 n A EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix B August 4, 2003 Page B-4 • • • APPENDIX C Future Intersection Levels of Service With Project • • • HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date; 8/4/2003 Period: AM PEAK HOUR Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIA_MI/FDOT Year : FUTURE WITH PROJECT N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound 1 Westbound Northbound ( L TR IL TR L T R 1 0 1 1 1 0 _ 1 LT R 1 LT R 14 21 13 173 65 49 1 11.0 11.0 1 11.0 11.0 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 TR 44 1187 30 11.0 11.0 0 Soutbbound L T 1 2 0 L TR 29 1947 39 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Phase Combination 1 A A A A A A EB Left Thru Right Peds W3 Left Thru Right Pecis NB Right 5B Right Green Yellow All Red Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity 20.0 4.0 0.0 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 NB SB EB WB Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Right Right 5 P P P 62.0 4.0 0.0 6 7 8 Cycle Length: 90.0 Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) vfc g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS secs Eastbound LT 303 1365 R 337 1516 Westbound LT 329 1482 R 337 1516 Northbound L 80 115 TR 2319 3366 0.16 0.22 28.5 C 28_2 C 0.07 0.22 27.7 C 0.86 0.22 53.6 D 47.4 D 0.29 0.22 29.6 C 0.91 0.69 90.2 F 0.57 0.69 8.2 A 12-5 B Southbound L 200 290 0.28 TR 2324 3373 0.90 Intersection Delay = 18.7 0.69 0.69 8.8 A 17.6 B 17_4 3 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = 3 EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix C August 4, 2003 Page C-1 • • • HCS2000: Signalized Analyst: LT. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 8/4/2003 Period: P54 PEAK HOUR Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConf ig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol lntersectlons Release 4.Lc Inter.: 3596 Axea 'hype: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAHI/FDOT Year : 'FUTURE WITH PROJECT N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound I Westbound l Northbound L T R I L T R ! L T R 0 1 1 LT R 14 71 31 11.0 11.0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 LT R I L TR 158 45 45 116 1888 79 1 11.0 11.0 111.0 11.0 0 1 0 Soutzbound L T R 1 2 0 1 TR 83 1568 20 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Phase Combination EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow A11 Red Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity 1 A A A A A A Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 NB Left. Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Pecia EB Right WB Right 5 P P P P 6 7 16.0 91.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 115.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 157 R 211 Westbound LT 57 R 211 Northbound L 150 TR 2660 Southbound L 69 TR 2671 1130 1.07 123.3 F 413 2.33 466.4 F' 190 0.14 0.79 4.8 A 3361 0.82 0.79 10.3 B 10.2 8 87 1.70 0.79 379.2 .F 3376 0.65 0.79 6.4 A 30.0 C 1 516 1516 Intersection 0.18 0.35 Delay = 44.7 0.14 141.2 F 0.14 44.1 D 0.19 700.4 F 0.14 45.8 D (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = D EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 Appendix C Page C-2 • • • Analyst: Agency: Date: Period: Project E/W St: J. HC52000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1c AHLSTEDT 8/4/2003 AM PEAK HOUR II?: EDGEWATER TOWER NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volute Lane Width RTOR Vol Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIANI / FDOT Year : FUTURE WITH PROJECT - MODIFIED STRIPING N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound I Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Sovthbound L T R I L T R IL T R IL T R 1 1 1 1 0 ? 1 1 2 0 L TR j I L TR 4 21 13 129 1947 39 12.0 11.0 111.0 11.0 0 1 0 1 1 0 L TR 173 65 49 112.0 11.0 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 L TR 144 1187 30 111.0 11.0 1 0 Duration 0.25 Phase Combination EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red 1 A A A A A A 20.0 4.0 0.0 Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 Intersection Adj Sat Flow Rate (s) NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right. WB Right 5 P P P P p 62.0 4.0 0.0 6 7 8 Cycle Length: 90.0 secs Performance Summary Ratios Lane Group Approach v/c g/C Delay L05 Delay LOS Eastbound L 142 TR 374 westbound L 294 TR 375 Northbound L 80 TR 2319 Southbound L 200 TR 2324 641 0.08 0.22 26.0 C 1683 0.16 0.22 28.4 C 28.3 c 1325 0.38 0.22 30.6 C 1686 0.72 0.22 38.9 D 36.4 ➢ 115 0.91 0.69 90.2 F 3366 0.57 0.69 8.2 A 12.5 B 290 0.28 0.69 8.8 A 3373 0.90 0.69 17.6 B 17.4 3 Intersection Delay = 17,7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix C August 4, 2003 Page C-3 • Analyst: Agency: Date: Period: Project E/W St: HCS2000: Signalized InterseCtionS Release 4.1 c J. AHLSTEDT Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas 8/4/2003 Jurisd: CITY OF MXAMI;/FDOT PM PEAK HOUR Year : FUTURE WITH PROJECT ID: EDGEWATER TOWER - MODIFIED STRIPINGYS St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 22ND STREET SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound Soutnboundd L T R L T R L No. Lanes LGConf ig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Eastbound L T R 1 1 0 L TR 14 71 31 112.0 11.0 0 1 1 0 L TR 58 45 45 12.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 16 1888 79 11.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 83 1568 20 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.23 Phase Combination 1 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds WB Left A Thru A Right A Peds NB Right 5B Right Green Yellow All Red Appz/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity 16.0 4.0 0.0 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 NB SB EB WB Left Thru Right Peds Left Thru Right Peds Right Right 6 7 8 91.0 4.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 115.0 secs Intersection Perfoance Summary Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound L 124 TR 240 Westbound L 93 TR 229 Northbound L 150 TR 2660 Southbound L 69 TR 2671 891 1727 668 1643 190 3361 0.21 0.14 0.75 0.14 0.71 0.14 0.62 0.14 0.14 0.79 0.82 0.79 87 1.70 0.79 3376 0.65 0.79 Intersection Delay = 22.8 44.7 D 59.9 E 69.4 E 51.5 D 4.8 A 10.3 B 379.2 F 6.4 A 58.0 E 57.2 E 10.2 B 30.0 C (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = C EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix C August 4, 2003 Rage C-4 Analyst: Agency/Co.: &j04fQ3 Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR.. Intersection: 22S4A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAi7I Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: Study rind (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound westbound Movement I 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 8 42 4 0 156 2 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.65 0.33 1.00 0.68 0.5 0 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 64 12 0 229 --4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 i2 L T R I L T R 0 1 0 LTR No 0 1 0 LTR No HC52000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEUT Volume 2 0 0 1 0 28 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.25 0. 1.00 0.59 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 8 0 0 04 0 0 47 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 00 Percent Grade (%) 0 Median Storage N o Flared Approach: Exists? No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach ES WB Northbound So uthbound •Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR 1 LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 16 0 8 513 C(m) (vph) 134E 1536 563 79 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.04 0 .21 95% queue length 0.04 0.00 0.04 9.9 Control Delay 7.7 7.3 LOS A A B A 11.5 9.9 Approach Delay 11.5 A Approach LOS EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix C August 4, 2003 Page C-5 • • • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersee''r;^nRelease 4.1c TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 8/04/03 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 22S4A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: EDGEWATER TOWER East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs) : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Movement Eastbound Westbound 1 2 3 ! 4 5 6 L T R ! L T R Volume 17 171 4 0 91 5 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.58 0.50 1.00 0.68 0.63 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 294 8 0 133 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 --- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 ! 10 11 12 L T R ! L T R Volume 7 1 1 3 0 25 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.75 1.00 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 7 4 4 4 0 29 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Median Storage Flared Approach: Exists? No No Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach EB W3 Northbound Southbound Movement 4 ! 7 8 9 ! 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR + LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 34 0 15 33 C(m) (vph) 1456 1270 504 821 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.04 95% queue length 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.13 Control Delay 7.5 7.8 12.4 9.6 LOS A A S A Approach Delay 12.4 9.6 Approach LOS S A EDGEWATER TOWER Appendix C August 4, 2003 Page C-6 • • • APPENDIX D Corridor Analysis • INTRODUCTION A level of service analysis was conducted using the techniques contained in the adopted Trans ortation Element of the Miami Com rehensive Nei hborhood Plan 1989-2000. These techniques are contained in the City of Miami publication Transportation Corridors: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Management in Miami as revised September 1990. In performing the analysis, of the three possible scenarios available, Scenario 2 - maximum auto was used. The level of service analysis for Edgewater Tower is documented in Tables 1 through 4. The proposed project is located in the Biscayne Boulevard corridor. The roadways providing capacity to the corridor are: • • • Biscayne Boulevard • N.E. 2„d Avenue North Miami Avenue The transit routes providing capacity to the corridor are MetroBus Routes 3,16, 32, 36, 62, 95, T, Biscayne Max, 9, 10, and 6. EXISTING 2003 LEVEL OF SERVICE Table 1 presents an analysis of the existing 2003 corridor level of service. Roadway vehicular capacities (column 2) were based upon data contained in Transportation Corgi: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Management in Miami as revised September 1990. Roadway vehicular volumes (column 4) were taken from FDOT traffic count data. This AADT volume was adjusted to reflect peak hour conditions by applying factors obtained from FDOT data. Mass Transit person trip capacities (columns 8, 9 and 10) were calculated from route schedules and equipment information supplied by the Miami -Dade Transit Agency (MDTA) and data contained in Transportation Corridors: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Managemen m as revised September 1990. Average weekday ridership data was obtained from MDTA. Total route ridership was available for MetroBus. Additionally, MDTA provided an estimated percentage of person trips during the peak 4 hours of the day. Because the MetroBus data reflected ridership on the entire route, some percentage of EDGEWATER TOW ER August 4, 2003 PAGE D-1 • • which is typically outside of the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor, it was necessary to estimate the portion of the total route ridership which was actually on the buses when they were in the corridor. To facilitate this estimate of segment volumes, 1999 through 2002 data on MetroBus boardings in the corridor was obtained from MetroBus surveys. Transit volumes (column 12) were calculated using the ridership data and the percentage of passengers during the peak hours supplied by MDTA and estimating ridership in the corridor from actual load factors calculated from the MetroBus survey data. Thus, the transit volumes shown in column 12 reflect actual Toad factors calculated from MDTA surveys. As can be seen from Table 1, the existing Biscayne Boulevard Corridor currently operates at Level of Service "A". EDGEW ATER TOW ER August 4, 2003 PAGE D-2 C 3RRIDOR E Prim pet R 4edwaY(s) TABLE 1 - EXISTING 2003 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ROADWAY MODE MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS 2003 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORR VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON PER, TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON TYPE CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP @PPV= @PPV= CAPACITY V/C LOS @ LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS 1.4 1.4 DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY_ (Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (77) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR Bieceyne Boulevard (5058) _ MetroBus Rte 3 MetroBus Rte 16. MetroBus Rte 32 MetroBus Rte 36 MetroBus Rte 62 MetroBus Rte 95 MetroBus Rte T, MetroBus Rte MAX_ Biscayne Boutelmrd Subtotal N.E. 2nd Avenue (276) MetroBus Rte 9 MetroBus PM 10, N.E. 21M Avenue Sub*Ma) Miami Avenue(308) MetroBus Rte 6, Miami Avenue Subtotal TOTAL L05 TABLE LS F 2,720 3.808 3.580 5,012 (1.204) 1.32 3,808 5,012 0,204) 1.32_ 388 beg 151 221 389 167 221 0.43 392 392 148 245 392 148 245 0.36 387 387 48 339 387 48 _ 339 0.12 400 400 33 367 400 33 367 0.08 734 734 89 645 734 89 645 0.12 447 447 _ 2 445 447 2 445 0.00 400 400 154 246 400 154 246 0.39 619 519 189 331 519 189 _ 331 0.36 2,720 3,808 3,580 6,012 (1,204) 1.32 F 3,221 447 3.668 830 2,839 7,476 5,842 1,634 0.78 3,806 2,297 1,511 0.60 2,720 3,808 1,641 2,297 1,511 0.60 _ A - - ' - 828 828 280 548 826 280 548 _ 0.34 205 205 47 158 205 47 158 0.23 2,720 3,808 1,641 2,297 1,511 0.80 A 1.033 0 0 1.033 327 706 4,841 2.824 2,217 0.54 3,808 1,105 2,703 0.29 2,720 3.808 789 1,105 2,703 0.29 7 27 0.21 34 34 7 27 34 - 2,720 3,808 789 1,105 2.703 0.29 A 34 0 0 34 7 27 3,843 1,112 2,730 0.29 8.160 11,424 6,010 _ 8,415 3,009 0.74 B 4.289 447 0 4,736 1,164 3.572 16,160 9,576 6,581 0.59 AUTO PERSON TRIPS 8,415 87.65%. 0.00 A TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS 1,154 12.16% 0.60 A TOTAL PERSON TRIPS 9,578, 100.00%, 0.61 0.70 8 0.71 C 0.80 C 0.81 D 0.90 0 0.91 E 1.00 E 1.01 F AVE,' RIDERSHIP CESION % SEATS PAX LOAD CAPACITY RIDERSHIP HEAD PER PER ,FACTOR _ WAY VEH HOUR _ MetroBus Rte 3 20 432 167 150.00% 389 14.38% MetroBus Rte 16 20 43.6 148 150.00% 392 12.68% MetroBus Rte 32 20 43.0 48 150.00% 387 4.12% MetroBus Rte 36 20 44.5 33 160.00% 400 2.82% MetroBus Rte 62 19 40.8 89 160.00% 734 7.67% Metrneus Rte 95 15 447 2 125.00% 447 0.17% MelmBu6 Rte T 20 444 154 150.00% 400 13.22% MetroBus Rte MAX 15 43.3 189 150.00% 519 16 21% MetroBus Rte 9 10 46,0 280 150.00% 826. 24.05% MetroBus Rte 10 40 45,5 47 160.00% 205 4.05% MetroBus Rte 6 60 11,5 7 150.00% 34 0.62% 1,164 100.00% EDGEWATER TOWER August 4. 2003 PAGE D-3 A A A A 2,99 EVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT THE PROJECT presents an analysis of the future year 2005 corridor level of service without the y vehicular volumes and mass transit volumes was taken from Table 1 (2003) and d to the year 2005 by applying a growth factor of 2% per year and adding committed molt traffic. seen from Table 2, it is estimated that the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor will t Level of Service "B" in the year 2005 without the project. PAGE D-4 CORRIDOR NAME Principal Roadway(s) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR TABLE 2 -2005 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITHOUT PROJECT ROADWAY MODE MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS 2005 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORR VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON PER. TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON TYPE CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP @PPV= @PPV= CAPACITY V/C LOS @ LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS 1,4 1.4 DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY (Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) Ls _. Biscayne Boulevard (50581 2,720 3,808 3.726 5,215 , (1,407) 1.37 F __ 3,808 5,215 (11,40% 1.37 MetroBua Rte 3 389 0 _ 0 389 199 190 389 199 190 MelroBus Rte 16 _ _ 392 0 0 _ 392 176 217 392 178 217 MetmBus Rte 32 _ _ _ 387 0 0 _ 387 57 330 387 57 330 MelroBus 61036 400 0 0 400 39 361 400 39 361 MetmBus 81e62 734 0 0 734 106 628 734 106 628 MetmBus ftt095 _ _ 0 447 _ 9 447 2 444 447 2 444 _ MelroBus Rte T 400 0 _ 0 409 183 216 _ 400 183 _ 216 MetroBua Rte MAX, _ _ 519 0 _ 0 519 225 295 619 226 _ 295 _ Biscayne Boulevard Subtotal 2,726 3,806 3,725 5,216 (1,407) 1.37 F 3.221 447 0 3.868 987 2,681 7,476 6.202 1,274 0.83 0 N.E. 2r4 Avenue (276) _ 2.720 _ 3,808 1,707 _ 2.390 1,418 0,63 B 3,808 _ 2.390 1,418 0.63 8 MetmBus Rte 9 _ 828 0 828 _ 333 495 _ 828 333 495 MetmBus Rte 10, _. 206 0 205 55 149 205 58 149 N.E. 2nd Avenue Subtotal 2.720 3,808 1,707 2,390 1,418 0.63 B 1,033 0 1,033 389 844 4,841 2.779 2.062 0.57 A Miami Avenue (308) 2,720 3,800 821 1,150 2,658 0.30 3,808 1,150 2,658 _ 0.30 MelroBus Rio 6. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 34 0 34 9 26 _ 34 _ 9 26 Miami Avenue 343i08l 2,720 3,806 821 1,150 2,668 0.30 34 0 0 34 9 26 3.843 1,158 2.684 0.30 A TOTAL 8,160 11,424 6,253 8,756 2,669 0.77 C 4,280 447 0 4,736 1,385 3.351 16,180 10,140 6,020 0.63 B LOS TABLE AUTO PERSON TRIPS 8,755 86,34% • 0.00 A TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS 1,385 13.66% 0,60 A TOTAL PERSON TRIPS 10,140 100.00% 0.61E . 0.70. 8 0.800 0.81.0 0.90.0 0.91E 1.00E 1.01E GROWTH FACTOR 1.02 Per Year 2 YEARS COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC VPH PAX TRANSIT 2368 3,315 174 5.00% TRANSIT Biscayne Boulevard (5050) 554 776 PAX _ LOCAL EXPRESS RAIL TOTAL MetmBus Rte 3 14.38% 25.1 25 MetmBus Rte 16 12.88%_ 22.1 22 MetmBus We 32 4.12% 7.2 7 Matro8us Rte 36 2.82%_ 4.9 5 MetmBus Rte 62 7.67% 13.4 13 MetroBua Rte 95 0.17% 0 0 MelroBus Rte T 13.22% 23.1 23 MeloBus Ma MAX 16.21%_ 28.3 28 MotroBus Rte 9 24.06% 42.0 42 Matt61(s Rte 10 4.05% 7.1 _ _ 7 _ MetmBus Rte 8 0.62%, 1.1 i 100.00% 174 0 174 EDGEWATER TOWER PAGE D-5 August 4, 2003 • TR AFFIC ,r}ts project traffic and mass transit ridership based upon PM peak hour project its is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 505 (note that this is the new zone i"hr cardinal distribution of the traffic within TAZ 505 was obtained from Miami- r ty The distribution is as follows: 1 rth-Northeast st-Northeast [,:ist-Southeast South -Southeast ',Ot,rth-Southwest West -Southwest West -Northwest Nurth-Northwest 9.89% 3.86% 4.71% 3.70% 20.92% 23.40% 16.84% 16.68% i ;tribution, the project trip assignment was determined. This is shown in PAGE €)-e CORRIDOR NAME P ncpal Roadway(s) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR Biscayne Boulevard (5058) MetroBus Rte 3 MetroBus Rte 18. Metr08u6 Rte 32 MetroBus Rte 38 MetroBus Rte 62 MetroBus Rte 85 MetroBus Rie T. MetroBus Rte MAX, Biscayne Boulevard Subtotal N.E. 2. Avenue (276) MetroBus Rte 9 MetroBus Rte 10, N: E. 2. Avenue Subtotal Miami Avenue (308) MetroBus Rio 6, Miami Avenue Subtotal TOTAL LOS TABLE PROJECT TRAFFIC Biscay08 Boulevard (5050) TABLE 3 e PROJECT TRAFFIC ROADWAY MODE 2005 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY CORR VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON TYPE CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME _ VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP @PPV= @PPV= CAPACITY V/C 1.4 1.4 (Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Ls 0.00 A C.60 A 0.61 8 0.70.8 071 0.80 C 0.81 D 0.60 0 1.00 E 1.01 F VPH 127 27 OCAL MetroBus R18 3 14.38% 1 MetroBus Rte 16 12.68% 1 MetroBus Rte 32 4.12% 0 M81ro8us R1536 2.82% 0 MetroBus Rte 62 7,67% 1 MetroBus Rte 95 0.17% MetroBus Rte T. 13.22%, 1 Metr08uc R1e MAX 16,21%, 2 MetroBus Rte 9 24.05% 2 MetroBus Rte 10 4.05%. 0 881,26ue R106 0.62% 0 100.00% 9 2,720 2,720 2,720 3,808 3,808 3,808 127 178 127 3,630 0.05 178 3.630 0.05 0 3.808 0.00 MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR PER. TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP LOS @ LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY (6) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) _ (14) (15) (16) (17) 2,720 3,808 0 3.808 0.00 R 2.720 _ 3.808 0 3.808 0.00 A 2.720 3,808 0 0 3,808 8,160 11,424 127 17E 11.248 AUTO PERSON TRIPS TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS TOTAL PERSON TRIPS PAX _178 78 EXPRESS 0 0 RAIL 'RAN SIT TOTAL 2 178 95.00% 9 5.00% 188 100.00%. 5.00% TRANSIT 0.00 A 0.02 389 0 389 392 0 392 387 0 _ 0 387 400 0 0 400 734 0 0 734 0 447 0 447 400 0 0 400 519 0 0 515 3.221 447 0 3.668 828 206 1,033 34 34 4,289 0 0 447 O 828 O 205 O 1,033 O 34 O 34 O 4,73B 0 387 391 387 400 733 447 398 618 3,681 826 205 1,031 34 34 4,726 3.808 389 392 387 400 734 447 400 519 7.478 3.808 828 205 4,841 3.808 34 3,843 16,160 178 t 0 0 1 0 1 2 185 0 2 0 3 0 0 180 3,630 387 391 387 400 733 447 398 518 7,291 3,80E 826 205 4,839 3,808 34 3,842 15,972 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 EDGEWATER TOWER PAGE D-7 August 4, 2003 • • 99154:AM/PM PEAK :HOUR :PROJECT :TRAFFIC FIGURE d-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 PAGE D-8 • • • Project transit ridership was estimated based upon the assumption that 5% of project person trips would be by mass transit. Assignment of person trips was proportioned to the MetroBus routes . YEAR 2005 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH THE PROJECT Table 4 presents an analysis of the future year 2005 corridor level of service with the project. Roadway vehicular volumes and mass transit volumes were determined by adding the data from Table 2 (Year 2005 Without Project) and Table 3 (Project Traffic). As can be seen from Table 4, it is estimated that the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor will operate at Level of Service "B" in the year 2005 with the project. EDGEWATER TOW ER August 4, 2003 PAGE II-9 CORRIDOR NAME Principal Roadway(s) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR Biscayne Boulevard (6058) MetmBus Rte 3 MetroBus Rte 16 MetroBus Rte 32 MetroBus Rte 36 MetroBus Rib 62 MetroBus Rto 96 MetroBus Rte T MetroBus R% MAX TABLE 4 - 2005 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT ROADWAY MODE MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS 2005 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORR VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON PER. TRIP PER, TRIP PER, TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON TYPE CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP @PPV= @PPV= CAPACITY V/C LOS LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = @ LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS 1.4 1.4 DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY (Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (77) Ls 2,720 3,808 3,852 5,393 (1,585) 1,42 Biscayne Boulevard Subtotal 2.720 3,808 3,852 5,393 (1,585) N.E.2. Avenue (278) 2,T20 3,806 1,707 2,390 1,418 MetroBus Rte 9 _ MetroBus Rte 10 N.E. 2nd Avenue Subtotal 2,720 3,808 1,707 2,390 1,418 Miami Avenue(308) _ 2,720 _ 3,808 821 1,150 2,658 Motro6Ps Rt. 6 Miami Avenue Subtotal 2,720 3,808 821 1,150 2,658 TOTAL 8,160 11,424 6,381 8.933 2,491 LOS TABLE AUTO PERSON TRIPS 8,933 86.504 0.00A TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS 1,395 13.50% 0.60 A TOTAL PERSON TRIPS 10,327 100.00%. 0.0113 0.70E 0.71C 9,80C 0.81 0 0.900 0.91 E 1.00E 1.42 0.63 0.63 0.30 0.30 0.78 3,808 _ 5,393 (1 585) _ 1.42 389 0 389 201 188 389 201 188 0.52 992 0 0 362 177 213 382 177 216 0.45 387 0 _ 387 58 329 367 58 _ 329 0.15 400 0 400 39 361 400 39 361 9.10 734 0 0 734 107 627 734 107 627 0.15 0 447 0 447 2 444 447 2 444 0.01 400 0 _ _ 400 _ 184 215 400 184 216 0.46 519 0 519 226 293 519 226 293 _ 0.44 3,221 447 3,688 394 2,674 7,476 6,387 1,089 0.85 3,808 2,390 1,418 _ 0.63 828 0 828 335 493 828 335 493 0.41 206 0 205 66 149 206 56 149 0.28 1,033 0 1,033 392 641 4,641 2,782 2.059 0.57 _ 3,808 1,150 2,658 0.30 34 0 34 9 26 34 9 26 0.25 34 0 34 9 26 3,843 1.158 2,684 0.30 4,289 447 4,736 1.395 3,341 16, 160 10,327 5,832 0.64 A A A A A A A A 'ATER TDWER PAGE D-10 4, 2003 • RAW DATA CALCULATIONS • • BISCAYNE BLVD N/0 NE 22 ST E/0 BISCAYNE BLVD N/O NE 22 ST EIO BISCAYNE BLVD N/0 NE 22 ST E/O NE 22 ST BISCAYNE BLVD NE 22 ST BISCAYNE BLVD NE 22 ST BISCAYNE BLVD 1 •2 ADT 1 18,154 21,105 39,259 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 684 1,379 2,063 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND AM MID 8:30 AM 1:15 PM 9:15 AM 1:30 PM PEAkRR 2:45 PM 6:30 PM ERR K ERR 7.05% 11.39% ERR PM 2:45 PM 5:00 PM psFERR 1.026 1.026 1.026 EVE PEAK 18:15 18:30 K(100) ERR 0.072 0.117 0.000 • 14:45 18:30 ERR 52.06% 52.34% ERR EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 • AM • 1 2 TOTAL • BISCAYNE BLVD N/0 NE 22 ST 8:30 AM 784 1,828 2,612 6.65% NE 22 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD 9:15 AM 59 100 159 7.71% ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? MID 1 2 TOTAL % BISCAYNE BLVD N/O NE 22 ST 1:15 PM 1,268 1,428 2,696 6.87% NE 22 ST EIO BISCAYNE BLVD 1:30 PM 49 97 146 7.08% ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? PM 1 2 TOTAL % BISCAYNE BLVD NiO NE 22 ST 2:45 PM 1,441 1,327 2,768 7.05% NE 22 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD 5:00 PM 57 117 174 8.43% ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? ERR ERR ERR 0 ?? EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 •RAW DATA NB SB WB LT T RT L T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 22ND STREET &BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 41 700 21 4 9 12 19 1501 37 31 9 8 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 15 1380 35 13 14 29 40 1003 19 35 16 22 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 2 0 0 8 13 4 1 0 26 0 19 2 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 7 1 1 16 30 4 3 0 24 0 19 5 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDOT SEASONAL FACTOR 1.02 AADT ADJUSTED DATA NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 42 714 21 4 9 12 19 1531 38 32 9 8 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 15 1408 36 13 14 30 41 1023 19 36 16 22 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 2 0 0 8 13 4 1 0 27 0 19 2 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 7 1 1 16 31 4 3 0 24 0 19 5 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDOT PEAK SEASONAL FACTOR 1.026 PEAK SEASON ADJUSTED DATA NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 43 733 22 4 9 13 20 1571 39 32 9 8 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 16 1444 37 14 15 30 42 1050 20 37 17 23 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 2 0 0 8 14 4 1 0 27 0 20 2 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 7 1 1 17 31 4 3 0 25 0 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 PHF • NB SB WB LT T RT L T RT LT T RT LT T RT • NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0,60 0.94 0.53 0.33 0.56 0.60 0,53 0.96 0.62 0.65 0.38 0.50 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0.75 0.91 0,67 0.54 0.50 0.81 0.71 0.93 0.48 0.88 0.67 0.61 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 0.25 ERR ERR 0.50 0.65 0.33 0.25 ERR 0.59 ERR 0.68 0,50 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 0.88 0.25 0.25 0.80 0.58 0.50 0.75 ERR 0.86 ERR 0.68 0,63 PM 0 ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 0 0 ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR ERR 0 EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 NB EB i0 SB WB EXISTING All • LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 42 714 21 4 9 12 19 1531 38 32 9 8 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 15 1408 36 13 14 30 41 1023 19 36 16 22 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 2 0 0 8 13 4 1 0 27 0 19 2 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 7 1 1 16 31 4 3 0 24 0 19 5 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GROWTH FACTOR 1.04 FUTURE BACKGROUND AADT NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 44 743 22 4 10 13 20 1593 39 33 10 8 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 16 1464 37 14 15 31 42 1064 20 37 17 23 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 2 0 0 8 14 4 1 0 28 0 20 2 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 7 1 1 17 32 4 3 0 25 0 20 5 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 444 2 0 4 0 3 354 0 15 21 16 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 424 17 0 22 0 16 504 0 8 11 9 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003 • i • FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT NE 22ND STREET & NE 22ND STREET & NE 22ND STREET & NE 22ND STREET & 0 0 PROJECT TRAFFIC BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 4TH AVE NE 4TH AVE NE 22ND STREET & NE 22ND STREET & NE 22ND STREET & NE 22ND STREET & 0 0 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 4TH AVE NE 4TH AVE FUTURE WITH PROJECT NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVE 0 0 NB LT 44 16 2 7 0 0 NB LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 T RT 1187 24 1888 54 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 T RT 0 6 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB LT T RT 44 1187 30 16 1888 79 2 0 0 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 EB LT 4 14 8 17 0 0 EB LT 0 0 0 0 0 0 T RT 14 13 37 31 23 4 87 4 0 0 0 0 T RT 7 0 34 0 19 0 84 0 0 0 0 0 EB LT T RT 4 21 13 14 71 31 8 42 4 17 171 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB LT T RT 23 1947 39 58 1568 20 1 0 28 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB LT 6 25 0 0 0 0 T RT O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SB LT T RT 29 1947 39 83 1568 20 1 0 28 3 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB LT T RT 48 31 24 45 28 32 0 72 2 0 48 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 WB LT 25 13 0 0 0 0 T RT 34 25 17 13 84 0 43 0 O 0 O 0 WB LT T RT 73 65 49 58 45 45 0 156 2 0 91 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM PM AM PM 0 0 AM PM AM PM 0 0 AM PM AM PM 0 0 EDGEWATER TOWER August 4, 2003