Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis Review06/10/2004 21:16 FAX • • • ULM June 10, 2004 Ms. Lilla 1. Medina Assistant Transportation Coordinator Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: 900 Biscayne Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.O. # 60 [j 002/005 Dear Ms. Medina: r ed co have rev iewed the Traffic impact Analysis report for the 900 Biscayne project. O tide tailneededreview to comments are included in the attached Specifically: random. In su complete the review of this report. The re ort does not include an analysis of an east -west corridor, which must be included. 1. p ri eneration reduction factors that were applied to the project traffic are too high and 2. The t p 9 must be revised. 3. One committed development in the area was not noted in the report, which must be included in the analyses. 4. The future intersection analysis does not reflect futureonditions, and the driveway analyses do not include all turning movements, which must be revised. Should you have any questions, please call me at 954.739.1881 extension 223. Sincerely, URS Corporation Southern URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue. Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tel; 954.7'39.1881 Jenn L. King, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer cc: Juan Espinosa (DPA) attachment 06/10/2004 21:16 FAX LQJ00 i/00 •URS MEMORANDUM To: Lilia I. Medina From: Jenn L. King, P.E. Date: June 10, 2004 Subject: 900 Biscayne Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.O. # 60 We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared by David Plummer and Associates (DPA) for the 900 Biscayne project, dated March 2004. The report is accompanied by site drawings, dated April 5, 2004. et The proposed development will be located �s not within therle�imits of the DowntownBoulevard and N.E. 2 Avenue. This project Miami DRI. Build out of this proposed project is anticipated in 2006. The project will be composed of 516 residential units, 70,000 square feet of office space, 11,000 square feet of restaurant space and 9,000 square feet of retail space. The project also includes a 1,114 parking space garage. Our findings are as follows: p 1. General Location Map: The report includes a location map, which adequately identifies the project location and surrounding street network (Exhibit 1). 2. Study Area: As agreed upon via a preliminary methodology discussion, the study analyzes four intersections: two Biscayne Boulevard) and two nalized intersections (N.E. 10th Street with N.E. 2dAvenue and with unsignalized intersections (N.E. 9th Streetarewith N.E. 2nd Avenue and c Biscayne Boulevard). In addition, project driveway intersections s analyzed. The study analyzes two analyze ��Bother astiscayne 6-we t corridooulevard � N.E. 2nd Avenue. The study must also a which must be included in the analysis. iveway 3. Site Access: Access rQ 5t eett siteis is ided via a one-way was bound.drA valet connecting onto N.E. 10th connects onto N.E. 2nd Avenue, will be wech ll e I within the site, suis one-way bCh that The garage access control gate a queuing into the roadway is unlikely. URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tat: 954.739.1881 ..c e . 1 713Q 06/10/2004 21:16 FAX 4 004/005 • vas Ms. Ulla 1. M4edirla 900 Biscayne - Traffic impact Analysis Review Memo June 10, 2004 Page 2of3 4. Data Collection: Two hours of P.M. turning movement count (TMC) data were collected at the four study intersections. The data are provided in Appendix B. Signal timing data provided by Miami Dade County is also provided in the report. A schematic of existing lane geometry at the study intersections has been included, along with detailed descriptions of the study roadways. On page 4 there is a typo indicating N.E. 8th Street. Automatic 24-hour traffic data were collected on the study corridors. 5. Adjustment Factors: Year 2002 FDOT adjustment factors were incorporated into the analysis, which is acceptable. However, the reduction adjustments in the trip generation calculation are based on CBD Downtown DRI rates; since this project is not within that area, these reductions are too high, and Exhibit 9 must be adjusted. 6. Existing Conditions Analysis: An existing conditions analysis for the corridors (person trip) and intersections (HCS2000) was conducted. In Exhibit 2, the southbound volumes at N.E. 10th Street with N.E. 2nd Avenue are incorrect, and all roadway labels should be corrected to indicate "N.E." The existing metromover ridership in Exhibit 4 is not substantiated in the report and is too low, which must be revised. An analysis must be conducted of an east -west corridor, as noted above. Appendix C musts be revised to reflect all of the different roadway conditions (N.E. 2 Avenue is not a State Class 4 Arterial). In Exhibit 5, there is no metrorail volume, see footnote 5. The HCS intersection analyses incorrectly indicate that N.E. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard are fully actuated. At N.E. 10th Street with Biscayne Boulevard, there are only three southbound lanes, not four. 7. Planned Roadway Improvements: The toe �tTIP are that mayd the 025 LRE affect were reviewed. The only planned project in Y capacity is the reconstruction of Biscayne Boulevard, which will include a new signal at N.E. 9th Street. The site plan for this project also notes that N.E. 9th Street and N.E. 10th Street reportwill w which must be clarified.roadways, however this is not mentioned in the 8. Background Traffic: A one -percent background growth rate was applied to account for unidentified projects, which is acceptable. 9. Committed Developments: The traffic from one committed development project (The Mist) in the area was included in the analysis, based on information provided by the City, dated March 12, 2004. While we agree with this project and the distributionfassignment information in Appendix E, an additional project must be included, The Performing Arts Center. 06/10/2004 21:16 FAX W0005/005 •URS i Ms. Likia I. Medina 900 Biscayne - Traffic ImpaCi Analysis Review Memo June 10, 2004 Page 3 of 3 10. Trip Generation: The trip generation for the site is from the 7th Edition of the lTE Trip Generation manual,�dwhich ��e� acceptable. #phehreport.Is recommended The directional that the edition of the manual splits in Exhibit 9 are incorrect and must be revised. As noted above, the trip reductions (32.6%) are too high for this area, resulting in a net project traffic volume that is too low, which must be revised. 11. Trip Distribution: The project is located within new TAZ 517. We agree with the project distribution in Exhibit 11, however the vehicular volumes in Exhibit 13 are too low, being based on Exhibit 9, which must be revised. _.._. 12. Future Conditions with Project: The analyses of future conditions with project are consistent with the existing conditions analyses. The intersection analysis at Biscayne Boulevard with N.E. 9th Street does not reflect the future signalized condition, which must be revised. The corridor analysis in Exhibit 12 has the same issues as noted above and the growth factor in footnote 2 is incorrect. Columns (f) and (j) are based on column (i) not (L). The driveway analyses do not include all turning movement volumes, which must be revised. Once the above noted changes have been incorporated throughout the report, the results of the final analyses are expected to change. We conclude that the report has inconsistencies, errors, and omissions as noted above. These items need to be addressed to complete this review.