Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Analysis Review08/31/2004 11:21 FAQ UKa ,J 'JUG/ UU.) URS August 31st, 2004 via FAX & US Mail Ms. Lilla I. Medina, ACP Assistant Transportation Coordinator Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office (10th Floor) City of Miami, 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Related Lofts 11 MUSP Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.O. # 64 Dear Ms. Medina: We have received a response letter for the Related Lofts 11 project prepared by Jackson M. Ahlstedt dated July 30th 2004 in response to our comments dated June 22` a 2004. Please note, contrary to the letter stating that URS was copied, we only received a copy of the letter via the City of Miami on August 24th 2004. A copy of the response letter is attached herewith. Following are our findings: 1. A peak season analysis of the future condition is presented and is acceptable; 2. We would like to bring to City's attention that the response states that there are no parking spaces required to serve the project and the applicant or attorney will provide the details to the City of the project's parking arrangement, which is proposed to utilize the City's municipal parking garage. We presume these arrangements will be coordinated between the applicant/attorney and the City staff, and that URS will not be required to review this issue any further; 3, We agree with the applicant's approach of using the 2002 FOOT data for the ARTPLAN analyses in the absence of any recently collected data; 4. The two-way conversion of downtown streets is a committed project, and it is reflected in the 2003 TIP as such. The direction we have been given by the City is that the two-way operation project will proceed. The two recent MUSP applications, Dupont Plaza and Met 1 in the downtown area presented their traffic evaluations including the two-way operations. The applicant must perform the analysis reflecting the two-way operations of the downtown streets for the future conditions to be consistent with the committed projects; URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tel: 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 .08/31/2004 11:21 FAX URS 4003/003 URS Ms. Ltha 1 Medina FtelatedLofs 11— Comments on the response letter August 31, 2004 Page 2 of 2 5. We recognize the mistake the applicant made in the original report, The Everglades on the Bay project was inadvertently left out from the list of committed projects. However, the traffic associated with this project was included in the committed project trips, and it is acceptable. As for the committed trips associated with Dupont Plaza and Columbus Office Tower, we agree that they were included in the DDRI analysis. However, the traffic analysis performed at the MUSP application level goes beyond the regional planning level analysis performed during the DDRI application process. The MUSP level traffic analysis evaluates the localized traffic impact in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, the committed trips must specifically include trips from projects that were included in the DDRI and have since submitted an application, in this case, the Dupont Plaza and the Columbus Office Tower. Although the above argument is made in the response letter as to why these committed trips should not be included in the analysis, Mr. Ahlstedt's response letter continues by presenting the committed trips associated with the above - mentioned projects. By adding the committed trips from Dupont Plaza and Columbus Office Tower to Biscayne Boulevard, the roadway LOS degrades from 'B' as was presented in the original traffic report to LOS 'C'. We agree with the findings that the project trips do not degrade Biscayne Boulevard near the project site below the acceptable LOS threshold. The report must include an intersection analysis of the Biscayne Boulevard/Hagler Street and Biscayne Boulevard/NE 1st Street intersections, including the additional trips associated with these two committed projects. Note the committed projects may not have turning movement information at these two intersections, therefore the committed trips may be considered as through movements at these intersections. We conclude that the report is still incomplete without the revised analyses of the intersections and the two-way roadway facilities. Please note that a revision in one section of the report may have a ripple effect on the other sections. Therefore, we cannot approve this analysis in pieces and require that a complete bound traffic report be submitted incorporating all the revisions that have been performed. Should you have any questions, please call Quazi Masood or me at 954.739,1881. Sincerely, U . Cor or•1 s:_ _ thern Raj + hanmu Se or Traffic •' -er CC: Mr. Kevin Watford - Planner I, City of Miami (via FAX & US Mail) Mr. Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E. (via FAX)