Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis Review05/14/2004 10:50 FAX Ej002 • April 2, 2004 Ms. Lilia 1. Medina Assistant Transportation Coordinator Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Met 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Review-- W.O. # 50 Dear Ms. Medina: We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis report for the Met 1 project. Our detailed review comments are included in the attached memorandum. In summary, additional information is needed to complete the review of this report. The key issues specifically include: 1. No site plan was provided with the report submittal, which must be provided. Among a variety of other items to be reviewed, City staff noted concerns with loading bays at the 2/3/04 Pre -Application meeting, which cannot be reviewed without the site plan. 2. The traffic volumes and movements at the study intersections are not consistent with the collected data, or consistent throughout the analyses, which requires review, clarification, and/or revision. The HCS capacity analyses require a wide variety of revisions. 3. Additional committed developments within the study area were not noted in the report, which must be included in the analyses. 4. The analyses that include the proposed site trips are missing significant volumes of project trips (170 vehicular trips and 376 transit person -trips), which rnust be addressed. Should you have any questions, please call me at 954.739.1881 extension 223. Sincerely, URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tel: 954,739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 URS Corporation Southern Jenn L. King, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer cc: Richard Eichinger (TAP) attachment 05414/2004 10:50 FAX 1j003 MEMORANDUM To: Lilla I. Medina From: Jenn L. King, P.E. 01✓� Date: April 2, 2004 Subject: Met 1 Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.O. # 50 We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared by Transport Analysis Professionals, Inc. (TAP) for the Met 1 project, dated February 2004. The report was not accompanied by any site drawings, so the development mix, site access, parking, and other issues could not be reviewed at this time. The site plan must be provided for review. The proposed development will be located on three blocks, between S.E. 2nd Avenue on the west, Biscayne Boulevard on the west, S.E. 4th Street on the south and S.E. 2nd Street on the north. This project is within the Downtown Miami DRI. Build out of this proposed project is anticipated in 2007. The project is a modification to a previous development mix, and now will be composed of 108,500 square feet of retail space, 60,000 square feet of theater space. 400,000 square feet of office space, a 50,000 square foot grocery store, and 1,500 residential units. No information was provided concerning parking. Our findings are as follows: 1. General Location Map: The report includes a location map, which adequately identifies the project location and surrounding street network (Figure 1). 2. Study Area: As agreed upon via a preliminary methodology discussion, the study analyzes seven signalized intersections: • S.E. 2nd Avenue with S.E. 2n Street • S.E. 2nd Avenue with S.E. 3`d Street • S.E. 2nd Avenue with S.E. 4tn Street • S.E. 3rd Avenue with S.E. 2nd Street • S.E. 3rd Avenue with S.E. 3rd Street • S.E. 3rd Avenue with S.E. 2nd Street • Biscayne Boulevard with S.E. 2nd Street. URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 let: 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 05/14/2004 10:50 FAX J004 URS Ms. Lisa I. Medina 500 Brickell Avenue - Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo April 2, 2004 Page 2of4 • • The study also analyzes two corridors: Biscayne Boulevard between S.E. 7th Street and N.E. 1 Street and lagler S st Street west were analyzed, Biscayne Boulevard. No projectdriveway intersections which must be included. 3. Site Access: As notd in Figure 3, primary access to Tract B and Tract C will be from S.E. 3rdStreet, which is currently one-way eastbound. Primary access to Tract D will be from S.E. 3rd Avenue, which is currently one-way northbound. Note the typo on page 6, indicating S.W. 3rd Street. Attention is drawn to the MUSP Pre -Application Meeting Minutes dated 213/04, which provide direction to the application concerning loading bays. Compliance with the City comments could not be checked at this time because no site plan was included in the submittal. There was no discussion of controlled entry (garage), drop off areas, or circulation. No driveway/queue analysis was included, which must be provided. 4. Data Collection: Two hours of P.M. turning movement count (TMC) data were collected at the seven study intersections. The data were collected in January 2003 and are provided in Appendix A. Eastbound and westbound FDOT corridor volume data (March 2003) were also used, which is acceptable. However, no source or data were provided for the November 2003 northbound and southbound corridor volumes, which must be provided. Signal timing data provided by Miami Dade County is also provided in the report. No discussion of number of lanes, direction, and/or a schematic of lane geometry at the study intersections has been included, which must be provided to complete the review of the HCS and person -trip analyses. 5. Adjustment Factors: Year 2002 FDOT adjustment factors were incorporated into the analysis, for growth to current year and peak season, which is acceptable. Downtown DRI CBD factors have been applied, for occupancy, person -trip conversion, and transit, and pedestrian/bicycle reductions, which is also acceptable. 6. Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis: An existing conditions analysis for the corridors (person trip) and intersections (HCS2000) was conducted. The raw existing year 2003 volumes in Figure 2 do not match the collected data, which must be revised. Specifically, there are discrepancies in the volumes at S.E. 2nd Avenue with S.E. 4th Street, at S.E. 3rd Avenue with S.E. 4th Street, and at Biscayne Boulevard with S.E. 2rd Street. The northbound approach is reversed at S.E. 3rd Avenue with S.E. 4th Street. The allowable movements are not consistent at Biscayne Boulevard with S.E. 2nd Street, which has a significant impact on later analyses. This must be revised and may require a section of the text to 05/14/2004 10:51 FAX Z005 URS • Ms. Ulla I. Medina 500 Brickell Avenue - Traffic Impact Anatysis Review Memo April 2, 2004 Page 3 of 4 • • clarify for all of the analyses. The 2004 peak season volumes in Table 3 also have discrepancies compared to the TMC data, some of the movements are not indicated at some of the intersections, and volumes at S.E. 3hJ Avenue with S.E. 4th Street appear erroneously set to zero. The HCS analyses indicate actuated movements at each intersection, which seems unlikely given the signal coordination and should either be revised or clarified/discussed. RTOR volumes at most of the intersections appear too high (up to 600 vehicles per hour, and up to 100% of the total right turns) and should either be revised or clarified/discussed. !t is not clear why 0% heavy vehicles are allowed on S.E. 3rd Street eastbound, revise/explain. Volumes are reversed at S.E. 3rd Avenue with S.E. 4t' Street and are missing at Biscayne Boulevard with S.E. 2nd Street. Green splits were mis-applied at S.E. 2nd Avenue with S.E. 3rd Street and Biscayne Boulevard with S.E. 2nd Street. The analysis indicates that under existing conditions, two intersections operate at LOS F, which is below the threshold: S.E. 2nd Avenue with S.E. 2rzd Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue with S.E. 3rd Street. The person -trip analysis in Table 5 conservatively applies year 2002 FDOT LOS maximum service volumes, which is acceptable. The applicant is cautioned that, for City person -trip analyses, there is no definition for "E+20 thresholds". 7. Planned Roadway Improvements: The study notes the future possibility of conversion of the one-way roads to two-way roads and of relocation of the 1-95 ramps, however the analysis is based on current conditions, which is acceptable. 8. Background Traffic: A two -percent background growth rate, compounded annually, was applied to account for unidentified projects, which is acceptable. While the background person trip growth is clearly noted in Table 3 (which is a part of the intersection analyses), there is no such clarification (for vehicular and transit volumes) prior to Table 6 (corridor analyses), which must be provided. 9. Committed Developments: The traffic from three committed development projects in the area was included in the analysis. The three projects are: • One Miami Tract A • DuPont Plaza • The Mist. While we agree with these projects, additional projects within the study area should be incorporated, possibly including, but not limited to: Brickell on the River, Columbus Office Tower, 500 Brickell, and Everglades on the Bay. The applicant is directed to Mr. Kevin Watford (305.41 6_'1473) for the 05/14/2004 10:51 FAX a/3006 • • linIS Ms. Lila 1. Medina 500 9rickell Avenue - Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo April 2, 2004 Page 4 of 4 complete list of projects to be included (please cite the date of the committed development list in the report, as it is updated weekly). The land use, trip generation, and distribution of the committed development trips must be added to the report. The note on Table 3 is inconsistent with the text on page 10, which must be reviewed/revised. As noted above, clarification of the committeddevelopmenta yses) r and transit volumes) prior to Table 6 (corridor amust be provided. 10. Trip Generation: The trip generation for the site is from the (new) 7th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation manual, which is acceptable. The applicant is requested to note the applied (new) Land Use Codes (LUC) in one of the report tables. The applicant is further requested to note the transit and pedestrian/bicycle reductions separately in Table 2, for use with the corridor analysis. The retail component of Tract C was analyzed with a conservative increase over the stated size. 11. Trip Distribution: The project is located within new TAZ 555. We agree with the project distribution in Figure 3, however, as noted earlier, the allowable movements at Biscayne Boulevard with S.E. 2nd Street may require review/revision. We generally agree with the distribution in Table 3, however 170 site trips are missing from the analysis. As noted previously, clarification on the distribution of site trips prior to Table 6 must be provided. it is unclear from where the vehicle trips in the "derivation of project transit traffic" originated (in Appendix A) or how these trips are incorporated into the rest of the report. 12. Future Conditions without and with Project: The HCS analyses of future conditions with project are consistent with the existing conditions analyses. In Figure 5, volumes at S.E. 3`d Avenue with S.E. 3rd Street are significantly too low, and approximately 170 trips are missing from Biscayne Boulevard with S.E. 2nd Street. The intersection analysis indicates that the proposed project will reduce the level of service at the two intersections of S.E. 3� Avenue with C to LOSS F. Street No mitigation 3 is Avenue with S.E. 3rd Street from LOS provided for these significant local impacts, which must be addressed. In Table 6, the connection between Table 2 and the "factors/project volume assigned" box is unclear. Only 347 of the 723 site person -trips appear to be included in Table 6, which must be reviewed/revised. For a project of this scope, the Transportation Control Measures Plan must be measurable, and will become a requirement of the D.O. for the project, per City Code, Section 14-182. Once the above changes have been incorporated, the results of the analyses are expected to change. We conclude that the report has inconsistencies, errors, and/or omissions as noted above. These items need to be addressed to complete this review.