Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis ReviewU.5/n/'LUU4 US:bi rAA k uva May 5, 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: Terrazas de Miami River - Residential Condominium Development Class II / MUSP Traffic impact Analysis Review -- W.O. # 53 Dear Ms. Medina: We have received a memorandum from Kirnley Nora and Associates, Inc. (KHA) dated April 28, 2004, in response to our comments dated April 27, 2004 regarding the subjected project. A copy of the memorandum is attached. The memorandum adequately addresses all the comments and demonstrates that the local transportation infrastructure will not be degraded by this project. Should you have any questions, please call me or Quazi Masood at 954.739,1881. Sincerely, UR Corp rat" • outhern Raj ' an Senior Tra Attachrnent 9 cc: Gregory S. Kyle, A1CP (KHA) URS Corporation Southern 5100 NW 33r° Avenue Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309 Tel: 954.739.1881 Fax:954.739.1789 05/28/2004 08:52 FAX E1009 • • • Will. Kirntey-Hord and Associates, Inc. Memorandum To: Raj Shanmugam, P.E. From: Greg Kyle, AICP Copy: Lilia Medina Date: April 28, 2004 Response Date: N/A Subject: Terrazas de Miami River — Residential Condominium Development Class lUMUSP Traffic Impact Analysis Review Response to Comments We received your comments pertaining to the above referenced project on April 27, 2004, via facsimile. We thank you for immediately meeting with us to discuss the comments. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide a response to your comments consistent with the discussion in our meeting earlier today. We offer the following responses: 1. The PM peak hour volumes for two of the three study corridors were interpreted incorrectly for both existing (2003) and future (2006) conditions. In order to provide for a conservative analysis, the volumes from each individual corridor's P.M. peak hour were utilized in the analysis. Per our discussion, all future Class IIIMUSP traffic analyses will be conducted using an overall study area P.M. peak hour. . 2. The Software Package SYNCHKO used to analyze the Level of Service (LOS) for signalized intersection was run with incorrect volumes for both existing (2003) and future (2006) conditions. According to the re>j iew comment memorandum, two (2) specific study intersections were identified as having errors. The analysis at the intersection of N-W 11to Street and NW22"¢Avenue was noted to have the incorrect southbound right -tuning volumes. A review of the report indicates that all the existing (2003) condition intersection analyses were performed with the correct volumes. However, the figure illustrating these volumes (Figure 2) was incorrect. A revised Figure 2 is attached. ■ TEL 954 739 -2233 FAX 954 739 2247 ■ Suite 157 • 5100 N.W. 33td Avenue FL Lauderdale, Florida 33309 05/28/2004 08:52 FAX oI0 • V cam KitttieyH0rn Mr. Raj Shanmugam, P.., April 28, 2004, Pg. 2 and Associates, inc. Additionally, the comment memorandum noted the absence of the westbound right -turning volumes in the intersection analyses performed for NW South River Drive and NW 174 Avenue. This movement was excluded in the existing and future conditions analyses. Field information indicates that the westbound right - turn movement operates under free -flow conditions at this intersection with an exclusive northbound receiving lane on NW 17`h Avenue. Therefore, the westbound right -turn movement is not under signalized control at this location and was properly excluded from the analyses. 3. The PM peak hour intersection LOS was referred to the wrong parameter (V/C ration) for both existing (2003) and future (2006) conditions. Tables in the report summarize both the LOS and the V/C ratio at each intersection. However, the LOS presented in the report was based upon intersection delay. The WC ratio was provided for informational purposes only. In future Class II/MLiSP analyses, the overall intersection delay will be indicated in the tables rather than the WC ratio. 4. The ITE/City of Miami vehicular occupancy adjustment factor was calculated incorrectly in the report. The report assumed a 16% vehicular occupancy adjustment factor. Per our discussion, the more appropriate adjustment factor for this analysis IS 14% A review of the trip generation calculations indicate the new adjustment factor would result in three (3) additional vehicular trips and five (5) additional person - trips. These additional trips generated by the site are minimal and will have little or no impact on the results of the analysis. In future Class II/MUSP analyses, the appropriate adjustment factor (l4%) will be utilized. cn n N al T at co ,J c i b C N 42 192 �83 NW 11 th Street.../ xx 83 ► 111 Dolphin Expressway (S.R. 836) INN 17th Avenue r'} Q NW South River Dr. 91� 79 NW 7th Street LEGEND P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (VEHICLES) P.M. PEAK HOUR VOLUMES (PERSON —TRIPS) `-1,629 1,628 ► 212 (Free-F1OW) 4 1 11— 22 (13 FIGURE 2 2003 PEAK SEASON TRAFFIC VOLUMES ©� � Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.... XXd ZS:So tOOZ/8Z/S0