HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis ReviewO6/10/2004 13:39 FAX
4 011
•
•
April 30, 2004
Ms. Lilia I. Medina
Assistant Transportation Coordinator
Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office
City of Miami
444 SW 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: AVANT - Residential Condominium Development
Class III MUSP Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.O. # 51
Dear Ms. Medina:
We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis report for the AVANT project prepared by
Jackson M. Ahlstedt dated February 2004. The review of this report is incomplete due to lack of
information as listed below.
1. According to the Regional Activity Center (REC) or Midtown Miami project, proposed
roadway improvements include the extension of NE 34th Street from NE Avenue
westward across the FEC railroad tracks to N. Miami Avenue. The extension of NE 34th
Strut will. have a significant. impact to the surrounding roadway network. Hence, the
Traffic report should be revised and future conditions should be analyzed with the
extension of NE 34'n Street.
2. The two projects located within the Regional Activity Center (RAC) - Shops at Midtown
Miami and 2 Midtown, are moving through the City of Miami review process. The traffic
analysis should include traffic impacts related to these projects in addition to other
projects listed in the traffic report,
3. The corridor analysis should include an east -west roadway in addition to the north -south
roadways - Biscayne Boulevard and NE 2nd Avenue that were analyzed in the report.
We recommend including either NE 36th Street or NE 34th Street to the corridor analysis.
These issues were discussed in the Large Scale Development Review Committee Meeting, held
on March 23' 2004. As of today, we have not received a revised report or a response to these
comments from the applicant. To avoid repetition, we have suspended further review of this
project until we receive a revised traffic report.
Should you have any questions, please calf me or Quazi Masood at 954.739.1881.
UR5 Cimpotlititin S rulhrl'rl
5100 1V 3.1 "a�snue
Sidle 1311
Fort LuudrrllaIv, rt. 3331r:
Td: '1�.I.7.14.1 41I
rsc: 9 +4.739.1739
Sir. erely,
S Cor
Raj Shanmug
Se for Traffic En
coo Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E.
06/10/2004 13:40 FAX
4 012
•
Jackson M. Ahstedt, P.E.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
46 NW 94rh STREET /ML4-A(I SHORES, FLORIDA 33150 / (305) 754-8695
May 11, 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: Avant Condominium MUSP
Response to Traffic Impact Analysis Review Comments dated April 30, 2004.
Dear Ms. Medina:
Please consider this my formal response to the comments contained in the letter, dated April 30,
2004, sent to you by Mr. Raj Shanmugam, P.E. The letter identifies 3 items.
Item 1 -
The item is to analyze future conditions with the proposed extension ofNE 34th
Street from NE 2nd Avenue to Miami Avenue. I am not aware of any formal
approval of the proposed extension. 1 also have some misgivings about placing
this connection to Biscayne Boulevard so dose to the intersection of Biscayne
Boulevard and NE 36th Street. As such, I believe that is premature to include
extension in the analysis of the Avant project. Based upon the Transportation
Corridor Analysis provided in the report, in my opinion, the proposed extension
would not impact the ability to approve the Avant project. Further, I believe that
if, the as yet to be determined, functional classification of the proposed extension is
"local roadway" there would be no level of service standard applied to it_ Finally,
the proposed extension is not part of, nor is it required by, the Avant project. In
fact, the proposed extension would have more impact on the Avant project than
the Avant project would have on it. I believe the proposed extension warrants its
own detailed traffic study.
Item 2 - The item is to include two projects as committed developments, and include their
traffic in the analysis of future conditions- Those projects are Shops at Midtown
Miami and 2 Midtown Miami. Prior to completing the study I consulted th City's
list of developments. At the time, the most current list, identified as'04-0213
indicated that only one of the projects in question (2 Midtown Miami) was -even in
the preliminary stages (as was the Avant Condominium project). Further, the
City's report showed that the project was a Class II application. Historically,
I
06/10/2004 13:40 FAX
4013
committed development traffic in traffic studies prepared as part ofMUSP
applications have included traffic associated with approved MUSP projects. The
traffic associated with Class II projects and developments, other than DRIB, have
been considered as part of the background traffic which is existing traffic escalated
by some growth factor. Like others, I have taken this approach in all of my
studies, with the exception that I have included approved developments, other than
MUSPs, when they obviously had specific identifiable impacts which might have a
direct bearing on the project under study. Regardless, common practice has been
to consider committed developments as projects which have received some form of
specific development approval beyond simple land use or zoning changes.
Considering no traffic reports were prepared for the two Midtown Miami projects
specifically identified by the reviewer; I believe that it is inappropriate to require
that my client, in essence, provide a traffic study for those projects. To satisfy the
request would require that I obtain the development data for one of the projects
which was not even identified in the City's weekly report at the time of preparing
the traffic report for the Avant Condominium; obtain the site plans for both of
those projects; and, develop trip generation, modal split, trip distribution and
traffic assignment for those two projects.
loItem 3 - The item is to include an east/west roadway in the corridor analysis. As defined by
the City of Miami, there are no east/west roadways in the Biscayne Boulevard
Corridor. However, I have attached to this letter copies of an ArtPlan analysis and
a PM peak hour person trip analysis for NE 36th Street.
Having addressed these issues, I trust that the review can proceed.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E.
iifiCAC(.404
J kson M. Ahlstedt, P.E.
Cc: Mr. Raj Shannnugam P.E.
•
2
06/10/2004 13:39 FAX
l¢JUUU
•
•
May 14, 2004
Ms_ Lilia I. Medina
Assistant Transportation Coordinator
Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office
City of Miami
444 SW 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: AVANT - Residential Condominium Development (W.O. # 51)
Comments on the response letter sent by the applicant on May 11 "` 2004
Dear Ms. Medina:
We have reviewed the explanation received from Jackson M. Ahlstedt dated May 11 to 2004 in
response to our review comments submitted on April 30t" 2004 regarding the subject project
The applicant still needs to revise the Traffic Impact Analysis report based on the following
comments, which also matches the list of comments identified in our letter dated April 30th 2004.
a tiAl� �snr u'—Ctr-eet fr-e , AIE_2'
sh
Street
is section considering tho
coudeh..ye ifi
Sion of NE 3'1th Street into the report.
this -request:
2. As mentioned in the previous comment, no document describing the study methodology
was received from the applicant for this project. We believe that our office could have
cornmented on including the two projects Shops at Midtown and 2 Midtown located in
the Regional Activity Center (RAC) if we had received a proposed study methodology for
this project. City of Miami staff has clearly directed that RAC projects that are in the
review process must be incorporated into the traffic impact analysis. Therefore, we
maintain our conclusion that the report is incomplete without the addition of the traffic
impact analysis of the two projects mentioned above.
3. We must point out that there was only a partial response to our third comment, The
applicant has mentioned in his letter that he has accomplished the "PM peak hour
person trip analysis for NE 3d'' Street. Our interpretation is explained as follows.
06/10/2004 13:39 FAX
LJ010
•
•
Ms. Lifia 1. Medina
Avow —Comments on the Response letter
May 14, 2004
Page 2 of 2
The applicant has applied the person -trip analysis methodology in analyzing NE 36'h
Street but has not considered any other modes of transportation except automobiles into
his analysis. it is clearly stated in The Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan that "A
Transportation Corridor is an area within which the capacities of two or more modes of
passenger transportation are combined to measure the level of service (LOS) for the
corridor."
In addition, the following tables must be based on the latest information provided in the
Quality/Level of Service Handbook 2002, by Florida Department of Transportation:
a) The person -trip V/C ratio LOS conversion table listed under appendix D of the
report;
b) The vehicular capacity described in column 2 of the tables listed under appendix
D of the report, based upon different roadway classification and characteristics.
Also, in the newly added analysis, it is noted that the directional volumes on NE 361h
Street were calculated from the 2004 TMC data using the growth factor, but no
supporting document was attached with it to verify the information. Therefore, we
maintain our conclusion that the report is incomplete and a complete analysis of the
traffic conditions on NE 36th Street, if using the Transportation Corridor methodology,
based on currently published information, must be provided.
To avoid repetition, we have suspended further review of this project until we receive a revised
traffic report. Should . you have any questions, please call me or Quazi Masood at
954,739.1881.
Sincerely,
URS Corporation Southern
Raj Shanmugam, P.E.
Senior Traffic Engineer
cc: Mr. Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E.
Mr. Ben J. Fernandez
Attachments: 1. URS Memorandum dated April 30th 2004
2. Response letter from Jackson M. Ahlstedt dated May 11 `" 2004
06/10/2004 13:39 FAX
C ,1008
May 17, 2004
Ms. Lilia I. Medina
Assistant Transportation Coordinaetor
Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office
City of Miami
444 SW 2nd Avenue
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: AVANT - Residential Condominium Development (WO. # 51)
Revision to Memorandum dated May le 2004
Dear Ms. Medina:
Per today's discussion, we are recommending to discard the first comment of our memorandum
dated May 14th 2004. The issue was to include an additional traffic analysis section considering
the potential exten`sion of NE 34th Street across the FEC Rail Road tracks. As I understand it, as
of now there is no agreement or any indication from FEC that a new railroad crossing will be
allowed to accommodate the NE 34th Street extension.
Should you have any questions, please call me or Quazi Masood at 954.739.1881.
Sincerel
[J ' S Cor • • ra - • uthern
Raj anmu
Seni r Traffic
cc: Mr. Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E.
Mr. Ben J. Fernandez
Attachment: URS Memorandum dated May 14th 2004.
URS Corporation
Lakeshore Complex
5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375
Tel: 954.739,1881
Fax: 954.739.1789