Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutURS Traffic Report03/25/2004 13:11 FAX RI011/013 • was February 13, 2004 Ms. Lilia I. Medina Senior Planner City of Miami - Planning & Zoning Department 444 SW 2ri Avenue P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 Re: Infinity WO. # 41--- Review of response dated 1130104 Dear Ms. Medina: We have reviewed the response letter dated January 30, 2004, prepared by Jackson M. Ahlstedt, F.F. (JMA), to our Traffic Impact Analysis report review comments dated January 7, 2003 for the Infinity project. The response letter was accompanied by the additional information we requested to complete the review [raw data, ARTPLAN analysis, committed development data, signal timing, and queue analysis], all of which is attached to this letter. We have also discussed the issues with Mr. Ahlstedt on January 8, 2004, via telephone. The response letter and submitted materials adequately address all except the following six issues: 1. Finding # 2 — Study Area: This project is within the Downtown DRI, which is more current than the expired Transportation Element of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. The current methodology looks at each roadway corridor in a PM, peak hour, peak season, directional (not two-way) manner. The analysis in Appendix D should be revised to be consistent with the methodology in the Downtown DRI in which this project is located: each roadway corridor, directional. We agree the requested roadway links are included in the analysis, and would encourage the author to more clearly state this on page 3. in the future, we would also encourage the author to conduct a methodology meeting/email/telecon with our office, so that study area issues may be dispelled in a proactive manner. 2. Finding # 5 - Adjustment Factors: Although the author recognizes the seasonal variations in traffic volumes, he disagrees that the analyses need to be performed for the peak season conditions, We maintain our position, based on standard traffic engineering practice and the consistent direction that we have provided to all traffic consultants who have prepared traffic studies for MUSP projects within the past two years, that the analysis should be based on peak season conditions. Additionally, this project is located within the Downtown DRI, which is based on PM, peak hour, peak season volumes, so for consistency, all of the analyses in this study should be based on peak hour volumes. In Section 4.3.1, the K100 and D values for Miami Avenue and S.W. 1st Avenue are incorrect. UAS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tel; 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 03/25/2004 13:11 FAX 1Ri012/013 • • • URS Ms. Lila i. Medina Infinity February 13, 2004 Page 2 of 3 3. Finding # 6 — Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis: See above for discussion on directional corridors and peak season analysis. In addition, as noted in Table 21.A8 of the Downtown DRI, different LOS conversions are developed for each roadway classification type. The analysis in Appendix D should be revised to reflect the different LOS characteristics for the various roadways included in the analysis. The Downtown DRI roadway capacities were based upon the (then) most recent 1998 FDOT LOS Handbook. The roadway capacities in this study should be updated to the (now) most recent values (2002), which is again, standard traffic engineering practice and the direction we have consistently given all MUSP applicants over the past two years. The values in Table 12 of the report are not consistent with the ARTPLAN analysis included herein, and they should be compared to the values in Table 6 (after Table 6 has been adjusted for peak season). The ARTPLAN analysis should be revised as follows, to verify that it correctly includes the following facility data for Coral Way: an undivided condition for 'median", AADT/KID values from Table 6, correct and consistent signals per mile (we agree with page 5 of the report, which indicates four, however the AM was run with three and the PM was run with six). Additionally, a statement supporting the PHF, percent turns/heavy vehicles, AT, and local adjustment factors selected should. be included in the analysis. The results of the ARTPLAN analysis are expected to change and Table 12, and subsequent tables, should be revised accordingly. 4. Finding # 9 — Committed Developments: The matrix of committed development data has been provided, but the trip generation and distribution/assignment sketch , was not included. For future projects, this should be included in the analysis. 5. Finding # 11 — Trip Distribution: We agree Table D-3 overstates volumes, which is not desirable and not our intention. As these reports become resources for future analyses, it is preferred that the analyses contained therein are as accurate and reflective of the proposed development as reasonably possible; being overly conservative and unrealistic is not required in this analysis. For consistency with Figure 8, we would expect approximately 133 trips (total two way) on the link in question, not 289, which would be double counting. The previously requested information to support column 12 of Table D-3, possibly in the form of a separate sketch, is still outstanding, and should be provided. As this is half of the methodology, it should not be overlooked. 6. Finding # 12 — Future Conditions with Project: See above for discussion on roadway capacities and peak season analysis. The corridor analysis in Appendix D, specifically Table D-4, is not complete, and should be revised. In general, the analysis should be based on current, collected data (adjusted appropriately), whenever it is available, as it is for Column 4 in Table D-1. Based on the analyses, the project is expected to significantly, negatively impact the intersection of Coral Way with Miami Avenue, and mitigation for the local impact should be addressed. 03/25/2004 13:11 FAX Z 013/013 • URS Ms. Lilla i. Medina Infinity February 13, 2004 Page 3of3 The outstanding items specifically concern the person -trip capacity analysis, which is critical, and the fact that the project trips are anticipated to produce a local, negative impact. In addition, this was our first opportunity to review the ARTPLAN analysis, and concerns were raised herein. We anticipate the applicant will revise and resubmit the requested and subsequently affected analyses, tables, figures, and appendices. Should you have any questions, please call me at 954.739.1881. Sincerely, URS Corporation Southern Jenn L. King, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer (7 cc: Jackson Ahlstedt, P.E. attachments