The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTraffic Impact Analysis• • • ONYX 2 MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: 02, LLC Prepared by: Jackson M. Ahlstedt, PE June 7, 2004 sio ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for BERMELLO AJAMIL & PARTNERS 2601 South Bayshore Drive 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33133 • by Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E. 46 N.W. 94th Street Miami Shores, Florida 33150 (305) 754-8695 APRIL 2004 • ckson M. Ahlstedt, P_E. lorida Registration #28258 • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY 3 3.0 STUDY AREA 3 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 4.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS 5 4.2 EXISTING SIGNAL TIMING 6 4.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS 6 4.3.1 PEAK HOURS 13 4.3.2 PREVAILING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS 16 4.4 MASS TRANSIT 17 4.5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE 17 5.0 TRIP GENERATION 20 6.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 22 7.0 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 24 8.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT 25 9.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC 30 10.0 ON -STREET PARKING 35 11.0 PEDESTRIANS 35 12.0 PROJECT SITE PLAN 35 12.1 PROJECT DRIVEWAYS 35 12.2 PROJECT LOADING DOCK 36 12.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 36 13.0 CONCLUSIONS 37 • LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 1 PROJECT DATA TABLE 2 YEAR 2002 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) 7 VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) TABLE 3 8 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TABLE 4 8 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TABLE 5 9 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS TABLE 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 27TH STREET AND NE 28TH STREET 10 TABLE 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC NE 28TH STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 11 TABLE 8 12 EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES TABLE 9 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 17 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 17 TABLE 10 18 EXISTING LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE 11 20 PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLE 12 21 FINAL EXTERNAL PROJECT TRAFFIC TABLE 13 22 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION TABLE 14 24 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TABLE 15 25 ANNUAL AADT GROWTH RATES TABLE 16 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT 27 TABLE 17 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS W/O PROJECT 28 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 28 TABLE 18 28 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT TABLE 19 32 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITH PROJECT TABLE 20 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS WITH PROJECT 33 WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 33 TABLE 21 33 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT TABLE 22 36 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES TABLE 23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 38 38 • • • LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION 2 FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 3 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 27TH STREET & NE 28TH STREET 14 FIGURE 4 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS NE 28TH STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 15 FIGURE 5 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE 19 FIGURE 6 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC 23 FIGURE 7 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT 29 FIGURE 8 34 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT • • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Onyx 2 Condominium project is a residential project consisting of approximately 122 dwelling units. The project includes approximately 165 on -site parking spaces. The site is located in the City of Miami on NE 28th Street at Biscayne Bay. Currently, the site is vacant. The project will result in a net increase of approximately 58 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour and 67 vehicle per hour in the PM peak hour. Based upon existing traffic count data, the AM volume is approximately 2% of the total two-way AM peak hour volume on Biscayne Boulevard. The PM volume is approximately 3% of the total two- way PM peak hour volume on Biscayne Boulevard. Vehicular access to the site is restricted to one, two-way driveway connecting to NE 28th Street. Loading dock access is via the same driveway connecting to NE 28th Street. Two types of level of service analysis were conducted. The first type of analysis included Intersection and roadway link level of service analysis. The second type of analysis consisted of transportation corridor analysis. For purposes of identifying the specific localized impacts of the project, level of service analysis was conducted for the existing year 2004 conditions, and future conditions in the year 2006 with and without the project. These analyses included link and intersection level of service analysis. The results from the intersection analysis and the roadway link analysis, indicate that, with or without the project, by the year 2006 there will be some deterioration in the level of service on Biscayne Boulevard. That deterioration, however, will not fall below acceptable standards. Finally, the transportation corridor analysis clearly indicates that there is sufficient transportation system capacity in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor to accommodate the proposed project. e • o 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Onyx 2 Condominium is a single phase development consisting of condominiums office space and parking. As shown in Figure 1, the site is located on NE 28th Street at Biscayne Bay. The proposed development program is summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 PROJECT DATA RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM 122 DU PARKING 165 SPACES Vehicular access to the site is consists of a two-way driveway connecting to NE 28th Street. Loading dock access via the same driveway connecting to NE 28th Street. For purposes of this traffic impact analysis, build -out has been estimated to occur by the year 2006. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 1 • NW 82 ST NW 20 i ST OLPH IN NW 7 ST I. }g C Cz l� n w} l `iPROJECT VENETIAN CswY ICKENBACKER CSw FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION MIAMI BEACH FISHER ISI.ANP VRGINIA KEY JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 2 • • • 2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY The primary purpose of this study is to assess the impacts of vehicular traffic on intersections and roadways within the study area due to the proposed development by conducting a roadway link and intersection level of service analysis. In addition, the report provides a general assessment of project impacts on parking and pedestrians. Specific items discussed are as follows: • Determination of existing traffic volumes and levels of service for major roadways within the study area; Estimation of the number of trips generated by the proposed project and the distribution of these trips within the study area network. • Estimation of future background and project traffic conditions and levels of service; Determination of whether the transportation impacts of the proposed project exceed the City of Miami concurrency standards, and solutions to mitigate any adverse impacts; ■ Determination of project impacts on on -street parking; and, • Determination of project impacts on pedestrians. 3.0 STUDY AREA The study area's boundaries were defined to include: NE 32nd Street as the northern boundary, NE 24th Street as the southern boundary, Biscayne Bay as the eastern boundary, and NE 2nd Avenue as the western boundary. This area includes a one-half mile section of Biscayne Boulevard. Figure 2 shows the intersections and roadway links which are most significant to the project. These include the following intersections: NE 28th Street and Biscayne Boulevard The roadway links include the following: Biscayne Boulevard between NE 22nd Street and NE 33rd Street JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 3 • • r • • • r r • • r MIDTOWN MIAMI 1 r r NE 34 ST • r • • • 1 NE29ST ; • • • • r r SKY RESIDENCES • r 1 PLATINUM CONDO N • r • 1 r • NE 20 ST r 4 N.T.S. PROJECT B1SCAYNE BAY LOFTS (ONYX) BAY 25 BISCAYNE BAY BISCAYNE VILLAGE (FINGERS) FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 4 • 4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The study area was surveyed to observe existing traffic conditions, identify parking locations, identify traffic count locations, and to collect traffic count data. 4.1 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS This section describes the characteristics of selected roadways in the study area. Key roadways in andlor near to the study area include Biscayne Boulevard (SR-5/US-1), NE 13th Street, NE 15th Street and NE 36th Street. Of these roadways, Biscayne Boulevard is by far the most significant roadway serving the proposed project. Local access to the site is provided by NE 28th. Loading dock access is provided by NE 28th Street. Biscayne Boulevard (SR-5/US-1) Biscayne Boulevard is a four lane divided roadway with striped median between NE 20th Street and NE 33rd Street. Turn lanes are provided at intersections. Traffic signals are located at: ■ NE 21 st Street • NE 22nd Street • NE 26th Street • NE 29th Street ■ NE 33rd Street This equates to four signalized intersections within three-quarters of a mile. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. For purposes of analysis, Biscayne Boulevard was classified as a State Two-way Arterial, Class I1. NE 28th Street NE 28th Street is a two lane roadway with parking on either side. NE 28th Street is classified as a local roadway. Traffic on NE 28th Street is controlled by stop signs at Biscayne Boulevard and at NE 2nd Avenue. NE 28th Street is interrupted at the FEC Rail Road, west of NE 2nd Avenue. NE 20th Street Between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard, NE 20th Street is a narrow one -lane roadway signed for eastbound travel. This section of NE 20th Street is classified as a local roadway and not subject to level of service standards. Traffic is controlled by a stop sign at Biscayne Boulevard. Between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue, NE 20th Street is a two-lane roadway. This JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 5 • • • section of NE 20th Street is classified as an urban minor arterial. MetroBus Route 32 operates on this section of NE 20th Street on 20 minute headways. Thus, this section of NE 20th Street could be defined as a transportation corridor. However, the City's adopted comprehensive plan as articulated in the document Transportation Corridors: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Management in Miami as revised September 1990 does not designate NE 20th Street as a transportation corridor. NE 29th Street Within the study area (between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard) NE 29th Street is a two-lane roadway. This section of NE 29th Street is classified as a local roadway and not subject to level of service standards. Traffic is controlled by traffic signals at Biscayne Boulevard and at NE 2nd Avenue. Between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue, NE 29th Street is a four -lane un-divided roadway. This section of NE 29th Street is classified as an urban collector. MetroBus Route 6 operates on this section of NE 29th Street on 30 minute headways. Thus, this section of NE 29th Street could not be defined as a transportation corridor. Traffic on this section of NE 29th Street is controlled by traffic signals at NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue. 4.2 EXISTING SIGNAL TIMING Existing signal timing data for the signalized intersections to be analyzed was obtained from the Miami -Dade County Traffic Control Center. This data was used in the intersection capacity analysis to determine each intersection's level of service (LOS) and in the roadway link analysis. 4.3 EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS There are two existing Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) traffic count stations location within or near the study area. Data for these traffic count stations is summarized in Table 2. JACKSON M. AIILSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page6 • • • 5056 TABLE 2 YEAR 2002 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) SR 5/US-1, 100' NORTH OF NE 19TH STREET NB 18,500 SB 17,500 36,000 5058 SR 51US-1, 200' NORTH OF NE 29TH STREET NB 19,000 SB Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office. 19,500 38,500 Original 24 Hour machine traffic counts were taken the week of March 29, 2004 at the following locations: • Biscayne Boulevard between NE 27th Street and NE 28th Street • NE 28th Street east of Biscayne Boulevard The count program provided machine traffic counts (without vehicle classifications) summarized every 15 minutes for a 24-hour period. Machine traffic count data is summarized in Tables 6 and 7. Turning movement counts were obtained as follows: • At the intersection of NE 28th Street and Biscayne Boulevard, on Wednesday, March 31, 2004 between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. This traffic count data, adjusted to reflect peak hour volumes for Average Annual Weekday Traffic conditions is summarized in Table 8. Weekly Volume Factors Weekly volume factors to adjust raw count data to Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes were obtained from FDOT records for the year 2002. Rather than using county- wide factors, Miami -Dade County North factors were used. These factors are shown in Table 3. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 7 • • TABLE 3 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Al 14 3/24/02 3/30/02 0.97 15 3/31/02 4/6/02 0.97 Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office. Axle Adjustment Factors Weekly axle adjustment factors to adjust raw count data to Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes were obtained from FDOT records for the year 2002. Rather than using county- wide factors, factors for SR-5/Biscayne Boulevard were used. These factors are shown in Table 4. TABLE 4 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS WEEK G1i D 14 3/24/02 3/30/02 1.00 15 3/31/02 4/6/02 1.00 Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office, Peak Season Adjustment Factors Peak season adjustment factors were obtained from FDOT records for the years 2000 through 2002. Consistent with the FDOT 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, the median weekly factor for the thirteen highest consecutive weeks of the year (the peak season) for each of the three years was determined. The peak season adjustment factor was determined to be 1.026. These factors are shown in Table 5. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 8 • • TABLE 5 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 2000 1.024 2001 1.025 2002 1.029 MEDIAN 1.026 Source of yearly data: Florida Department of Transportation, Transportation Statistics Office. The significance of the peak season adjustment factor is that it shows that there is less than a 3% difference between average annual daily traffic and peak season traffic. This is well within the ability to accurately measure and/or estimate traffic volumes. The roadways in question are not seasonal roadways and average annual weekday conditions are not significantly different than peak season conditions. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 9 • • • TABLE 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 27TH STREET AND NE 28TH STREET RAW DATA NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 2-WAY ADT 22,342 20,087 42,429 AM PEAK HOUR 1,285 1,448 2,733 MID -DAY PK HR 1,565 1,301 2,866 PM PEAK HOUR 1,495 1,216 2,711 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.97 AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 1.00 ADJUSTED DATA NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 2-WAY AADT 21,700 19,500 41,200 AM PEAK HOUR 1,250 1,400 2,650 MID -DAY PK HR 1,520 1,260 2,780 PM PEAK HOUR 1,450 1,180 2,630 PERCENTAGE OF DAILY TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND AADT N/A 53% 47% AM PEAK HOUR 6.43% 47% 53% MID -DAY PK HR 6.75% 55% 45% PM PEAK HOUR 6.38% 55% 45% K(100) 6.92% 55% 45% JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 10 • • TABLE 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC NE 28TH STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD RAW DATA EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2-WAY ADT 303 391 694 AM PEAK HOUR 18 27 45 MID -DAY PK HR 28 32 60 PM PEAK HOUR 24 40 64 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 0.97 AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 1.00 ADJUSTED DATA EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 2-WAY AADT 300 400 700 AM PEAK HOUR 20 30 40 MID -DAY PK HR 30 30 60 PM PEAK HOUR 20 40 60 PERCENTAGE OF DAILY TRAFFIC DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND AADT N/A 43% 57% AM PEAK HOUR 5.71% 50% 75% MID -DAY PK HR 8.57% 50% 50% PM PEAK HOUR 8.57% 33% 67% K(100) 8.79% 50% 50% JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 11 • • • `iO91S H 'LN NOSJ OV TABLE 8 EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES f xkf �JS >•�Mw7�*�Ak��li9S F.. C. g S� E 1YY1Yw.•I,va��..�, / f. 1 2 ,. >;*�{y, k 1'�. 3i k` -3�d. 7J 2r C Z: � < f.:s �� . jyi ki. It F Yr. ��Rw.. b �3),.. , � i F�)�. � } 1,'.F_,. :{ \F_ 'k :r: +.'T. S. t F,4.' t....: 44 E y,�[{� $ .,�S�M:t�� 7; k.!I l v � l.,l �, ; �-i1�ORT O� D ,_ . t.�. 6f _ - E ) Y � OLJ HI OUNt ) f 41f S ��jsa f i.., y `F F. ,.Z'R£{x� vp{v. 5 � t { /y�.t� 37 r 763 3 6 e.r 1,446 38 NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 5 3 18 3 0 �. z C l F {_ l ''l 7 ;.. c 3 `' 4Ff�t '.: r r z �i ! S� �Z s 1 � ! S''. f \ 1:. f. 2 ! �.. J, Y- t .. t,. .. „ic S f h -} 4 4/'. 3'_R#.€ s 5 33 't f 1 412 � � v � �� 3�� t tt � E.'�l t Y'. u. t e� §,. 3.,.t 5 L !;, w: �YB � � / tf -:} 1 i 41 ,. ,, �$ F`r+ t � E t z s, .<, .Jy..a..:,: C e' f r ': f .' IliRG� �O k }, 3�r ...r. )�.,h' ! � s,.� aF . k ti 3 1TB M f ( .. .: •:,4Y ? Q"f'S Fi'ti- ICI._... s ,_. :.a « fl S'. 1d ,a 3. ) } 4''FL d3- J� .. ,. , ,r v z.... �.Y:... ," .. _ ? l,f �. `.� F:Y 9 tJ 75. � � , i J, F',� it ( :-:.-'.. .i $ , N f �. 1 33.:. fi i' Ei , s .: .`.,�,T'�•rr�.��.u��'�� ,.I��Z. .a€��5. , ..,..r�.y.y r..: „r` ::.iu. :..y�i.��.. J. { r( E {y. \ex .,i�v� �Il .(v�rr z, <- FS, � �...a. ,.. 1285 r 7 11 y 1166 y � 19 rt>:`- .. ..� n NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 9 0 43 3 1 8 32 Source: Original traffic counts taken March 31, 2004. Note: Data has been adjusted to reflect AM and PM peak hour volumes for Average Annual Weekday Traffic conditions. • • • 4.3.1 PEAK HOURS This section identifies characteristics of existing peak hour traffic in the study area. These characteristics include AM and PM peak hours, Planning Analysis Hour Factor (Km) factors and Directional Distribution (D) factors. Biscayne Boulevard The peaking characteristics of Biscayne Boulevard between NE 27th Street and NE 28th Street are presented graphically in Figure 3. As can be seen from Figure 3, this section of Biscayne Boulevard experiences the following three peaks. • An AM Peak of approximately 6.43% beginning at 8:15am • A mid -day peak of approximately 6.75% beginning at 12:15pm • A PM Peak of approximately 6.38% beginning at 5:30pm The K100 for this section of roadway was estimated to be 6.92%. The D factor for this section of roadway was estimated to be 54.68%. NE 28th Street The peaking characteristics of NE 28th Street east of Biscayne Boulevard are presented graphically in Figure 4. As can be seen from Figure 4, this section of NE 25th Street experiences the following three peaks. • An AM Peak of approximately 5.71 % beginning at 9:30am • A mid -day peak of approximately 8.57% beginning at 10:45am • A PM Peak of approximately 8.57% beginning at 5:30pm The K100 for this section of roadway was estimated to be 8.79%_ The D factor for this section of roadway was estimated to be 50.00%. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 13 • 0 7,00'10 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 27TH STREET & NE 28TH STREET jr I 1 6.00% 5.00% ›- I 4.00% W 3.00% z w 0 2.00% w CL 1.00% 1 • 0 _ 0:00 5:00 10:00 15:00 HOUR BEGIN1NG k 20:00 FIGURE 3 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 27TH STREET & NE 28TH STREET JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 14 • 1000%- 11. ›- IL 6 00% LLJ uJ 0 8.00% 4 00% 2.00% , 0:00 5:00 NE 28TH STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 17 fftT Ii 10:00 15:00 HOUR BEGINING I vA, 2000 FIGURE 4 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS NE 28TH STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 15 • • 4.3.2 PREVAILING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS This section describes the traffic conditions on selected roadways and at selected intersections in the study area. Biscayne Boulevard Although heavy during peak hours, traffic flow on the section of Biscayne Boulevard in the study area is reasonably acceptable. Signal progression appears to be good. NE 28th Street Due to the minimal amount of traffic, traffic flow on NE 28th Street is good. During peak hours, operational conditions deteriorate at the intersection with Biscayne Boulevard. At such times, drivers desiring to use NE 28th Street generally rely on the courtesy of drivers on Biscayne Boulevard to allow them to make southbound left turns and all eastbound and westbound movements. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 16 • • 4.4 MASS TRANSIT The site is located within the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor. Transit routes providing capacity to the corridor are MetroBus Routes 3, 16, 32, 36, 62, 95, T, Biscayne Max, 9, 10, and 6. 4.5 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE Each of the selected intersections were analyzed to determine their level of service. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000 methodology based Highway Capacity Software, HCS Version 4.1 c was used. The results are shown in Table 9 and on Figure 5. The intersection level of service analyses are included in Appendix A. Link analysis, based upon AM and PM peak hour directional volumes, was also performed for the section of Biscayne Boulevard between NE 22nd Street and NE 33rd Street using the FDOT ARTPLAN 2003 version 5.1.0 (June 6, 2003) software and FDOT 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Table 4-7_ The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 10. TABLE 9 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD EB=F, WB=E ISTING. EB=F, WB=F JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 17 • o • TABLE 10 EXISTING LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE Biscayne Boulevard NE 22nd Street NE 33rd Street AM=B PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS A 6 c D E MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 670 2310 2600 2680 2780 2,044 PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 1470 3000 3100 3190 3230 2,044 Notes: 1.) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 90 seconds and average GIC of 0.68. 2.) PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 115 seconds and average GC of 0.80. 3.) Maximum peak hour directional volumes are calculated from year 2002 FDOT data for count station 5056 (AADT = 36,000; K= 9.75%; and, D = 52.35%) and escalated by 2% per year for two years. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 18 • NE 36 ST f N T.s NE 33 ST B NE 29 ST NE 28 ST 1sssss ussssi B MA PM EB=F EB=F WB=E WB=F NE 22 ST NE 20 ST AM Pm EB=F EB=F WB=E WB=F LEGEND AM/PM MINOR STREET APPROACH LOS (UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AM LINK LOS PM LINK LOS FIGURE 5 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 19 • • 5.0 TRIP GENERATION The total number of vehicular trips generated by the project was determined for the AM and PM peak hours using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 7th Edition. The number of vehicular trips generated by the project was based on the total number of condominium units, using data for ITE Land Use Code 230 plus the number of office trips calculated using data for ITE Land Use Code 710. These trips are the total number of vehicular trips generated by the project before adjusting for pedestrian and mass transit trips. TABLE 11 PROJECT TRAFFIC JDOMIN' WEEKDAY IN 380 380 VPD OUT 380 380 VPD TOTAL 760 760 VPD AM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 10 10 VPH OUT 50 50 VPH TOTAL 61 61 VPH PM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 47 47 VPH OUT 23 23 VPH TOTAL 71 71 VPH Because of its proximity to MetroBus routes and the nature of the area, it is anticipated that 5% of the person trips will use mass transit or walk. These person trips will not negatively effect the traffic conditions, and therefore, are not included in the vehicle trips distributed throughout the study area. The remaining 95% of the person trips generated by the project JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 20 • • were distributed throughout the study area as vehicle trips. Table 12 summarizes external trips for the project after accounting for modal splits. TABLE 12 FINAL EXTERNAL PROJECT TRAFFIC 0000. AM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 10 10 VPD OUT 48 48 VPD TOTAL 58 58 VPD PM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 45 45 VPH OUT 22 22 VPH TOTAL 67 67 VPH As can be seen from Table 12, the estimated number of vehicle trips entering the site during the AM peak hour is 10 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips leaving the site during the AM peak hour is 48 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips entering the site during the PM peak hour is 45 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips leaving the site during the PM peak hour is 22 vph. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P,E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 21 • • • 6.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 504. The cardinal distribution of the traffic within TAZ 504 was obtained from Miami -Dade County. The distribution is as follows: North -Northeast 10.61 % East -Northeast 4.13% East -Southeast 5.04% South -Southeast 4.48% South -Southwest 21.61 % West -Southwest 24.26% West -Northwest 13.50% North -Northwest 16.36% The distribution of AM and PM project trips is summarized in Table 13. Based upon this trip distribution, the project trips were assigned to the roadway network. This is shown in Figure 6. TABLE 13 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION NORTH NNW 16.36% 9 2 8 Ai 11 7 4 NNE 10.61% 6 1 5 7 5 2 EAST ENE 4.13% 2 0 2 3 2 1 ESE 5.04% 3 0 2 3 2 1 SOUTH SSE 4.48% 3 0 2 3 2 1 SSW 21.61 % 12 2 10 15 10 5 WEST WSW 24.26% 14 2 12 16 11 5 WNW 13.50% 8 6 9 6 3 TOTAL 99.99% 58 10 48 67 45 22 JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 22 • NE 36 ST t N.T.S. MIAMI AVE 12/5 NE20ST 4- 2/1�^ 1 1 /4 11r w N w z NE 33 ST � 0 21/10 ::s;s>!i3'=. PROJECT 9/44f 2/8 t2/8 8/4 17/8 r Y26/12 NE 28 ST 14/25 NE 26 ST 113/42/17 NE 22 ST LEGEND 9/4.vilpy f 1 /9 3/11 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR NET ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC DUE TO PROJECT FIGURE 6 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 23 • 7,0 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Programmed and planned improvements in or near the study area were identified using the Miami -Dade County February 5, 2004 Draft of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), 2005. These improvements are detailed in Table 14. None of these improvements appear to add significant capacity to the transportation system. TABLE 14 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ADV SR 112/1-195 1-95 E AR( Biscayne Bay PD&E/EMO Study PE 2004-2005 ROW 2006-08 SR 11211-195 NW 2nd Avenue Miami Avenue Widen/Resurface Existing Lanes INC 2004-05 NE 2nd Avenue NE 36th Street NE 87th Street Beautification/ Resurfacing UNFUNDED SR 25/NW/NE 36th Street NW 7th Avenue NE 7th Avenue Resurfacing CST 2004-05 It might be noted that the proposed Midtown Miami Project will likely make major changes to the transportation system in the area. In addition, as part of the recently completed FEC Corridor Study a number of potential transportation improvements have been identified. One of much significance to the project is the addition of light rail on NE 2nd Avenue. Implementation of the proposed light rail service would obvious capacity to the corridor. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 24 • o • 8.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Future traffic conditions without the project were analyzed. Future traffic consisting of background traffic and committted development traffic was estimated. Background traffic was estimated by applying an annual growth factor to existing traffic. The annual growth factor of 2% per year was developed based upon the historical traffic count data shown in Table 15. TABLE 15 ANNUAL AADT GROWTH RATES VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) 5056 SR 5/US-1, 100' NORTH OF NE 19TH STREET 28.423 53,000 36,000 0.91 % 5058 SR 5/US-1, 200' NORTH OF NE 29TH STREET 28,461 37,000 38,500 1.17% Future traffic conditions were analyzed for year 2006. The growth rate of 2% per year was applied to the 2002 FDOT traffic counts and the 2004 original traffic count volumes in order to achieve 2006 traffic volumes. In addition, City of Miami data on major committed developments was researched and the traffic associated with those developments was included in the analysis. These developments consisted of the following projects: • Biscayne Bay Tower (Blue) • Cultural Center • Miramar Center II • 1800 Club • Biscayne Village • Tuttle Street • Sky Residences • Bay 25 (Star) • Platinum Condominium • Metropolis Bayshore (Quantum) • Edgewater Tower (Rosabella) • Biscayne Bay Lofts (Onyx) Table 16 provides the future traffic volumes without the Onyx 2 Condominium project and shows these volumes with the associated movement. These volumes were used to determine intersection level of service by using the same software programs as used for JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 25 • • • the previously described analysis. The intersection level of service for the future traffic volumes without the Onyx 2 Condominium project are shown in Table 17 and on Figure 7. The analysis shows a slight deterioration in the intersection level of service during the AM peak hour. In general, the values are generally the same as those for the year 2004. The intersection level of service analyses are included in Appendix B. The link level of service analysis for future AM and PM peak hour directional traffic conditions was performed on the previously identified roadway link. These results are summarized in Table 18. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 26 • • 1G J S1HV IAI NOSMOVr 0 z x n p0 174, -0 u NZ m o TABLE 16 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT ... N � � ,-•L'. I 4 ;�tYG .r�a.._. . DZ 3€ p ii d‘L %G , HyTj�S NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 5 3 19 3 0 5 38 1,286 3 6 1,857 39 � f 2 2 INTi lO f /t }ti t; 1 /- ' i i 4 's f ziir l 7 t z r s lr :i t z 1- iE 6 a -� ma � � „i t �_ 4 { L4 i PEAS C rOU ifi Z} .5,. 3, r s - Y � L. 1? S 1 � f 3 t S t r q 4} 4 R teS'+ 41 C ¢ y�.�y �1? �E L f(i�TRM' { z.u£.,i 3..;�. .,_, li .�l,�Si.:,±±, g'.-? b3.. kk,, 3 f,Z _t ih W.y(U3;11 {may],' �{ 3 T,id L'Rt�. E xi. 1 s< i. Z-� �� i �'r` F.. �I�L�.,'l• H�jR �, ��7#,{,��h SSY` [ 1 1.\1?t. z5 li.: j.:;,t"t1i■ y[s� },i JY .,� fi�M,+�£�A Zi 1, E. X';�'. 4{= ilrr�l��.., {" £i t��Y,u,. li. ��';1,?!�A?.°S� ��{y�:§[ ,t.P •Tnl��`3:,.s.d (i a�: ,�r �T,.,�yj��l,zs.:a y(�i■ i?_31,��.=J. .... .,,.. '., zn,. ;:'. ,r .� ., c..�� ... NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD .,1 9 0 44 3 1 8 33 1,771 7 11 1,757 20 • TABLE 17 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS W/O PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F TABLE 18 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT Biscayne Boulevard NE 22nd Street NE 33rd Street AM=C PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS A E MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 670 2310 2600 2680 2750 2479 PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) Notes: 1470 3000 3100 3190 3230 2561 1.) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 90 seconds and average G/C of 0.68. 2.) PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 115 seconds and average GIC of 0.80. 3) Maximum peak hour directional volumes are calculated from year 2002 FDOT data for count station 5056 (AADT = 36,000; K= 9.75%; and, D = 52.35%) escalated by 2% per year for four years and includes committed development traffic. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 28 • • • NE 36 ST N.T S NE 29 ST NE 33 ST m LU Q NE 28 ST Lil Z Q U Ul AM PM EB=F EB=F WB=F WB=F C NE 22 ST NE 20 ST \_AM PM EB=F EB=F WB=E WB=F LEGEND AM/PM MINOR STREET APPROACH LOS (UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AM LINK LOS PM LINK LOS FIGURE 7 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 29 • • • 9.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC Future traffic conditions with project traffic were analyzed for the year 2006. This was accomplished by using the 2006 estimated traffic volumes without the project and adding the traffic generated by the project (as shown in Table 13). Table 19 details the future traffic plus project traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours. These volumes were then used to determine the intersection levels of service using the same procedures as previously stated. For the most part, there were only minor changes between the year 2006 future intersection level of service with and without the project. This is shown in Table 20 and on Figure 8. The intersection level of service analyses are included in Appendix C. The link level of service analysis for future AM and PM peak hour directional traffic conditions with the project was performed on the previously identified roadway links. These results are summarized in Table 21. It is estimated that during the PM peak hour the project will add 11 vph eastbound and 5 vph westbound on the section of NE 20th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue. Data contained in the Downtown Miami DRI Increment 2 Transportation Analysis indicates that in April of 2000 the peak hour period volume on this section of NE 20th Street was 600 vph eastbound and 491 vph westbound. The "Downtown DRI" indicated that the maximum service volume on NE 20th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue was 800 vph eastbound and 800 vph westbound. Assuming a growth rate of 2% per year for 6 years the year 2006 traffic volume on this section of NE 20th Street would be 676 vph eastbound and 553 vph westbound. Thus, the estimated existing excess vehicular capacity is 124 vph eastbound and 247 vph westbound. The proposed project would add, at most, 11 vph eastbound and 5 vph westbound. Further, the "Downtown DRI" indicated that in 2009 the person trip demand in this section of NE 20th Street was estimated to be 1,117 person trips per hour eastbound and 879 person trips per hour westbound. The person trip capacity of this section of NE 20th Street was estimated to be 1,466 person trips per hour eastbound and 1,466 person trips per hour westbound. Thus, the projected excess person trip capacity is 349 person trips eastbound and 587 person trips westbound. The proposed project would add, at most, 18 person trips per hour eastbound and 8 person trips per hour westbound. Within the context of the City's adopted level of service standards, project traffic can be accommodated on the section of NE 20th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue. It is estimated that during the PM peak hour the project will add 6 vph eastbound and 3 vph westbound on the section of NE 29th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue. The project might add as much as 10 vph eastbound and 5 vph westbound on the section JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 30 • • of NE 29th Street between Biscayne Boulevard and NE 2nd Avenue. In March of 2002, Florida International University (FIU) obtained AM and PM approach count data at the intersection of NE 29th Street and Miami Avenue. That data indicated that east of Miami Avenue, during the AM peak hour the eastbound volume was 301 vph and the westbound volume was 269 vph. Similarly, during the PM peak hour the eastbound volume was 329 vph and the westbound volume was 287 vph. Assuming a growth rate of 2% per year for 4 years the existing traffic volume on this section of NE 29th Street would be 356 vph eastbound and 311 vph westbound. Based upon the FDOT 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Table 4-7 it is estimated that the maximum service volume for level of service "E" (capacity) for the section of NE 29th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue is 1,290 vph in each direction. Thus, the estimated excess vehicular capacity is 934 vph eastbound and 979 vph westbound. The proposed project would add, at most, 10 vph eastbound and 5 vph westbound. Within the context of the City's adopted level of service standards, project traffic can be accommodated on the sections of NE 29th Street between Biscayne Boulevard and Miami Avenue. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 31 • • • `iaDis1Hv w Nos)4adr 0 z x 0 D0 > —0 -gig cn" z co TABLE 19 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITH PROJECT •` '} 1` Nrt1ETlt1 k£wii i,_ FE C .! 3.: txf L £ S l.E ,5 \ ' - ;.� C M,:s.,, f � k ✓ ti -' jN Y4%' I ! T Zx Y.__ 5..�fSi .11.,F r ITittb ittTHBUIb ill ..�tN D ` E iRS EF Ct iyC :..v., {Fl[� } �sfl�.a i [fl:-. ic'k�. �E { Ytk ..ii ;..::r7.1'l.v ``Ki z yyyt yyy }i3 3v.,1iSI1�. ,....� {i?��{$$� yz= ..,c: .,. ...f ..:.T,;.,. .w } :_ ..5. n.. �. .'le . �y�y, y��y. .... ... .....«,.... NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 5 3 19 29 0 26 38 1,286 7 10 1,857 39 �- ! IN,TESET1, :£ r z tS.:.i: ' '� n � S t ct 3},.�3'4 t. i''�, (�lh d iS 2- i1 in. fr {}+�� t _ A 1Ff'(l /�l+i' 1 I r5� -S ?l ] 4t?- ti£.. 1 I �{F ( y, d < ,F5 a�. 7 l' l �;-. 2t '.. }F 1iY�iiif�1 i {,z-. 3 x iSNI ,,' c- Ct" - car O N Z\§ Y / f1 ' _ % € t r�4I `1 ) ,: ;tY oy \ ■} ��w t i ! . ,dry/ 4....r � C -P. F E Y \ i ►F 1 va �I' ^ L...� 7 ,n!fs..0 S..:m.�.a. ,. n,..i.,}� I.tv , SIGHT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 9 0 44 15 1 18 33 1,771 32 31 1,757 20 • • • TABLE 2© FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS WITH PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD EB=F, WB=D EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F TABLE 21 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT Biscayne Boulevard NE 22nd Street NE 33rd Street AM=D PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS A B E MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 670 2310 2600 2680 2750 2505 PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 1470 3000 3100 3190 3230 2586 Notes: 1.) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 90 seconds and average G/C of 0.68. 2.) PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 115 seconds and average G/C of 0.80. 3) Maximum peak hour directional volumes are calculated from year 2002 FDOT data for count station 5056 (AADT = 36,000; K= 9.75%; and, D = 52.35%) escalated by 2% per year for four years and includes committed development traffic and project traffic. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 33 • NE 36 ST 1 N T.S. NE 29 ST NE 33 ST 0 03 NE 28 ST W >- c) U) m D AM PM EB=F EB=F WB=F WB=F NE 22 ST NE 20 ST AM PM EB=F EB=F WB=E WB=F LEGEND AM/PM MINOR STREET APPROACH LOS (UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AM LINK LOS PM LINK LOS FIGURE 8 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM AprII 15, 2004 Page 34 • • 10.0 ON -STREET PARKING There are parking spaces on either side of NE 28th Street. Adjacent to the site there are existing on -street parking spaces. The project will construct some 165 on -site parking spaces. Parking will be provided for residents, employees and visitors to the site. NE 28th Street is a narrow street with curb and gutter. The pavement width is 27 feet (30 feet face of curb to face of curb). While this might be acceptable for the original residential character of the street, as traffic is added to the street, it is less and less acceptable. Given the existing 38 foot right-of-way, It should be anticipated that as re -development occurs along NE 28th Street on -street parking will have to be eliminated. 11.0 PEDESTRIANS Little pedestrian activity was noted in the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposed project will not significantly impact pedestrian movements along NE 28th Street. Sidewalk widths along NE 28th Street are minimal. The distance from face of curb to back of sidewalk is 4 feet. This dimension does not support significant pedestrian activity. The plans for the project appear indicate that the sidewalk on the north side of NE 28th Street adjacent to the site will be widened. 12.0 PROJECT SITE PLAN Traffic and transportation aspects of the proposed site plan were reviewed and analyzed. 12.1 PROJECT DRIVEWAYS The proposed project includes one, two-way driveway connecting to NE 28th Street and a pick-up drop-off area at the east end of the property. Table 22 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour driveway volumes anticipated at the service point. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 35 • TABLE 22 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) AEI PEAS HOB . I PM PEAK HOUR INBOUND OUTBOUND IINBOU D C?UTBOU ID , 10 48 45 22 These volumes are the total for both driveways. Queuing analysis was conducted based upon the assumption that access to the garage will be controlled by a card reader system and consist of an inbound lane and an outbound lane. Analysis of potential inbound queues for the AM and PM peak hours indicates that there is better than a 99% probability that the queue should not exceed 2 vehicles including the vehicle being processed. Analysis of potential outbound queues for the AM and PM peak hours indicates that there is better than a 99% probability that the queue should not exceed 2 vehicles including the vehicle being processed. The ground floor plan, provided by the project architect, dated March 22, 2004, indicates that the potential control point could be well within the property and that the anticipated queues could be accommodated without impacting off -site traffic flows. 12.2 PROJECT LOADING DOCK The proposed site plan includes a loading dock area on the internal to the site. Access to the loading dock is from the project driveway which connects to NE 28th Street. Loading dock maneuvering is internal to the site. It should be anticipated that, to facilitate the maneuvering of single unit trucks, the loading dock area will be refined during the design process. The loading dock area consists of two 12' by 35` truck berths. This should be adequate to serve the type and magnitude of development anticipated. Larger "moving van type" vehicles will need to use the street for the occasional loading and un-loading. 12.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS The proposed site plan provides pedestrian access to NE 28th Street, JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, R.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 36 • • 13.0 CONCLUSIONS After reviewing the results from the intersection analysis and the roadway link analysis, it can be concluded that with or without the project, by the year 2006 there will be some deterioration in the level of service on Biscayne Boulevard. The intersection analyses, conducted for the intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 28th Street show, with or without the project, some degradation of level of service during the AM peak hour. The roadway link analysis yields similar level of service results, indicating that roadway levels of service remain relatively consistent through the year 2006 with or without the project. The results of all of these analyses are shown in Table 23. This project represents a classic example of transportation planning and land development issues in the Edgewater area. The project is located at the end of a dead end street whose only access is to Biscayne Boulevard is at an un-signalized intersection. There is no adopted level of service standard for local streets (NE 28th Street). The intersection level of service is more dependent on the volume of traffic on Biscayne Boulevard and less dependent on the impacts of the additional traffic associated with the project. If level of service were an issue and sufficient development occurred along NE 28th Street east of Biscayne Boulevard, a traffic signal might be warranted. However, there is an existing traffic signal one block to the north at NE 29th Street. Good transportation planning would ask whether it would be better to add a traffic signal; or, restrict side street movements; or, create a connection between NE 28th Street and NE 29th Street. Finally, the transportation corridor analysis, provided in Appendix D, clearly indicates that there is sufficient transportation system capacity in the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor to accommodate the proposed project. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 37 • • TABLE 23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F MoDF CATIONS N/A N/A JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 Page 38 • • • APPENDIX A Existing Intersection Levels of Service HC52000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agencv/Co.: Date Performed: 4/12/04 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 28TH ST/BISCAYNE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: ONYX 2 East/West Street: NE 25TH STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Qrientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 37 763 3 6 1446 38 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.63 0.92 0.38 0.75 0.96 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 58 829 7 8 1506 46 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 __ -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 3 0 5 5 3 18 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 1.00 0.62 0.42 0.75 0.53 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 0 8 11 4 33 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I LTR I LTR v (vph) 58 8 12 48 C(m) (vph) 433 807 110 74 v/c 0.13 0.01 0.11 0.65 95% queue length 0.46 0.03 0.36 2.92 Control Delay 14.6 9.5 41.7 117.6 LOS B A E F Approach Delay 41.7 117.6 Approach LOS E F ONYX 2 Condominium Appendix A April 15, 2004 Page A-1 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 4/12/04 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 2BTH ST/BISCAYNE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: ONYX 2 East/West Street: NE 25TH STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 { 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 32 1285 7 11 1166 19 Peak --Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 0.89 0.58 0.55 0.90 0.71 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 42 1443 12 19 1295 26 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 3 1 8 9 0 43 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.38 0.25 0.33 0.56 1.00 0.73 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 7 4 24 16 0 58 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L 1 LTR I LTR v (vph) 42 19 35 74 C(m) (vph) 530 471 50 75 v/c 0.08 0.04 0.70 0.99 95% queue length 0.26 0.13 2.80 5.21 Control Delay 12.4 13.0 174.5 196.0 LOS B B F F Approach Delay 174.5 196.0 Approach LOS F F ONYX 2 Condominium Appendix A April 15, 2004 Page A-2 • APPENDIX B Future Intersection Levels of Service Without Project • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 4/12/04 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 28TH ST/BISCAYNE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: ONYX 2 East/West Street: NE 25TH STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 38 1286 3 6 1857 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.63 0.92 0.38 0.75 0.96 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 60 1397 7 8 1934 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 3 0 5 5 3 19 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 1.00 0.62 0.42 0.75 0.53 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 0 8 11 4 35 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 j 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 60 8 12 50 C(m) (vph) 295 493 12 20 v/c 0.20 0.02 1.00 2.50 95% queue length 0.75 0.05 2.12 6.59 Control Delay 20.3 12.4 672.4 1085 LOS C B F F Approach Delay 672.4 1085 Approach LOS F F ONYX 2 Condominium Appendix B April 15, 2004 Page B-1 • • • Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: NE 28TH Jurisdiction: CITY OF Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O Project ID: ONYX 2 East/West Street: North/South Street: HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT 4/12/04 PM PEAK HOUR ST/BISCAYNE MIAMI/FDOT PROJECT NE 25TH STREET BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Movement 1 2 3 L T R Southbound 4 5 6 L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 33 1771 0.75 0.89 44 1989 0 Undivided 1 2 0 L T TR No 7 0.58 12 -- 0 11 0.55 19 1757 0.90 1952 1 2 0 L T TR No 20 0.71 28 Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound 7 8 9 L T R Eastbound 1 10 11 12 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration 3 1 8 9 0.38 0.25 0.33 0.56 7 4 24 16 0 0 0 0 0 No 1 0 0 LTR 0 44 1.00 0.73 0 60 0 0 0 No 1 0 LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, NB 1 L Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound 4 I 7 8 L I LTR Eastbound 9 I 10 11 12 LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 958 queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 44 19 296 290 0.15 0.07 0.52 0.21 19.3 18.3 C C 35 8 4.38 5.68 2424 F 2424 F 76 0 ONYX 2 Condominium Appendix B April 15, 2004 Page B-2 o • • APPENDIX C Future Intersection Levels of Service With Project HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 4/12/04 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 28TH ST/BISCAYNE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIP.MI/FDOT Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: ONYX 2 East/West Street: NE 25TH STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 { 4 5 6 T R I L T R Volume 38 1286 7 10 1857 39 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.63 0.92 0.38 0.75 0.96 0.81 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 60 1397 18 13 1934 48 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L T R i L T R Volume 29 0 26 5 3 19 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 1.00 0.62 0.42 0.75 0.53 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 38 0 41 11 4 35 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 60 13 79 50 C(m) (vph) 295 488 6 20 v/c 0.20 0.03 13.17 2.50 95% queue length 0.75 0.08 11.66 6.59 Control Delay 20.3 12.6 6666 1085 LOS C B F F Approach Delay 6666 1085 Approach LOS F F ONYX 2 Condominium Appendix C April 15, 2004 Page C-1 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 4/12/04 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 28TH ST/BISCAYNE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAM1/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: ONYX 2 East/West Street: NE 25TH STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 33 1771 32 31 1757 20 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 0.89 0.58 0.55 0.90 0.71 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 44 1989 55 56 1952 28 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 1 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration L T TR L T TR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound Eastbound 7 8 9 4 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 15 1 18 9 0 44 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.38 0.25 0.33 0.56 1.00 0.73 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 39 4 54 16 0 60 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No / No / Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach NB SE Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L i LTR I LTR v (vph) 44 56 97 76 C(m) (vph) 296 279 4 0 v/c 0.15 0.20 24.25 95% queue length 0.52 0.73 14.19 Control Delay 19.3 21.1 12234 LOS C C F F Approach Delay 12234 Approach LOS F ONYX 2 Condominium Appendix C April 15, 2004 Page C-2 • • • APPENDIX D Corridor Analysis • • • INTRODUCTION A level of service analysis was conducted using the techniques contained in the adopted Transportation Element of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan 1989-2000. These techniques are contained in the City of Miami publication Transportation Corridors: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Management in Miami as revised September 1990. In performing the analysis, of the three possible scenarios available, Scenario 2 - maximum auto was used. The level of service analysis for Avant is documented in Tables 1 through 4. The proposed project is located in the Biscayne Boulevard corridor. The roadways providing capacity to the corridor are: Biscayne Boulevard NE 2nd Avenue North Miami Avenue The transit routes providing capacity to the corridor are MetroBus Routes 3, 16, 32, 36, 62, 95, T, Biscayne Max, 9, 10, and 6. EXISTING 2004 LEVEL OF SERVICE Table D-1 presents an analysis of the existing 2004 corridor level of service. Roadway vehicular capacities (column 2) were based upon data contained in Transportation Corridors: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Management in Miami as revised September 1990. Roadway vehicular volumes (column 4) were taken from several sources. FDOT traffic count data was used for Biscayne Boulevard. This AADT volume was adjusted to reflect peak hour conditions by applying factors obtained from FDOT data. The original machine traffic count was used for NE 2nd Avenue. A count taken from the FEC Corridor Study prepared by Lehman Center for Transportation Research at FIU study was used for Miami Avenue. The FDOT and FIU count data was adjusted to 2004 using a growth rate of 2% per year. Mass Transit person trip capacities (columns 8, 9 and 10) were calculated from route schedules and equipment information supplied by the Miami -Dade Transit Agency (MDTA) and data contained in Transportation Corridors: Meeting the Challenge of Growth Management in Miami as revised September 1990. Average weekday ridership data was obtained from MDTA. Total route ridership was available for MetroBus. Additionally, MDTA provided an estimated percentage of person ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE D-1 • • • trips during the peak 4 hours of the day. Because the MetroBus data reflected ridership on the entire route, some percentage of which is typically outside of the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor, it was necessary to estimate the portion of the total route ridership which was actually on the buses when they were in the corridor. To facilitate this estimate of segment volumes, 2002 through 2003 data on MetroBus boardings in the corridor was obtained from MetroBus surveys. Transit volumes (column 12) were calculated using the ridership data and the percentage of passengers during the peak hours supplied by MDTA and estimating ridership in the corridor from actual load factors calculated from the MetroBus survey data. Thus, the transit volumes shown in column 12 reflect actual load factors calculated from MDTA surveys. As can be seen from Table D-1, the existing Biscayne Boulevard Corridor currently operates at Level of Service "B" ONYX 2 CONDOMJNUM PAGE D-2 April 15, 2004 TABLE D-1 - EXISTING 2004 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ROADWAY MODE MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS RIDOR NAME 2004 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR Principal Roadway(s) CORR VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON PER. TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON _ PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON TYPE CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY_ CAPACITY PERSON TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP @PPV= APPV= CAPACITY V/C LOS @ LOAD = (di LOAD = A LOAD = c(, LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS 1.6 1.4 DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY _ CAPACITY (Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR LS _ Biscayne Boulevard (5056) 2 720 4,352 3,652 5,113 (761) 1.17 F 4352 5113 (761) 1.17 F MetroBus Rte 3 389 _ 389 167 221 389 167 221 Metroeus Rte 16 _ 392 392 148 _ 245 392 _ 148 245 Matron. Rte 32 387 387 48 339 387 48 339 MetroBus Rte 36 _ 400 400 33 367 - 400 33 367 MetroBus Rte 62 734 734 89 _ 645 734 89 645 MetroBus Rte 95 447 447 2 445 447 2 445 MetroBus Rte T 400 400 154 246 400 154 246 Metro5u9Rte MAX _ 519 519 189 331 - 519 189 331 Biscayne Boulevard Subtotal 2,720 4,352 3,652 5,113 (761) 1.17 F 3,221 447 0 3,668 830 2,839 8,020 5,942 2,078 0.74 C N.E. 2nd Avenue {Original Count 1/27/04) 2 720 4 352 1 780 2 492 1 860 0.57 A - _ 4 352 2 492 1.860 0.57 A MetroBus Rte 9 828 828 280 548 828 280 548 MetroBus Rte 10 205 205 47 158 _ 205 47 158 N.E. 2nd Avenue Subtotal 2,720 4,352 1,780 2,492 1,860 0.57 A 1,033 0 0 1,033 327 _ 706 5,385 2,819 2,566 0.52 A Miami Avenue (FIU Count 3/14/2002) 2 720 4 352 1 608 2 252 2 100 0.52 A _ 4 352 2 252 2.100 0.52 A f 34 34 7 27 34 7 27 Miami Avenue Subtotal 9 2,720 4,352 1,608 2,252 2,100 0.52 A 34 0 0 34 7 27 4,387 2,259 2,127 0.52 A TOTAL 8,160 13,056 7,040 9,856 3,200 0.75 B 4,289 447 0 4,736 1,164 3,572 _ 17,792 11,020 6,772 0.62 B LOS TABLE AUTO PERSON TRIPS 9 856 89.44% 000 A TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS 1 164 10.56% - 0.60 A TOTAL PERSON TRIPS 11 020 100.00% _ 0.61 B 0.70 8 0.71 C - 0.80 C _ 0.81 D 0.900 0.91 E 1.00 E 1.01 F AVG RIDERSHIP DESIGN % SEATS PAX LOAD CAPACITY RIDERSHIP- _ - HEAD PER PER FACTOR _ WAY VEH HOUR _ _ _ MetroBus Rte 3 20 43.2 167 150.00% 389 14.38% MetroBus Rte 16 20 43.6 148 150,00% 392 12.68% Metro8us Rte 32 20 43.0 48 150.00% 387 4.12% MetroBus Rte 36 20 44.5 33 150.00% 400 2.82% _ MetroBus Rte 62 10 40.8 89 150.00% 734 _ 7.67% _ - MetroBus Rte 95 15 44.7 2 125.00% 447 0.17% MetroBus Rte T L 20 44.4 154 150,00% 400 13 22% _ _ MetroBus Rte MAX 15 43.3 189 150 00% 519 16.21 % _ MetroBus Rte 9 10 46.0 280 150.00% 828 24.05% MetroBus Rte 10 40 45.6 47 150.00% 205 4.05% _ MetroBus Rte 6 60 11.5 7 150.00% 35 0.62% _ _ 1,164 100.00% ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE D-3 • • • YEAR 2006 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT THE PROJECT Table D-2 presents an analysis of the future year 2006 corridor level of service project. Roadway vehicular volumes and mass transit volumes was taken from Table D-1 adjusted to the year 2006 by applying a growth factor of 2% per year and following committed development traffic. • • • • without the (2004) and adding the PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIPS WPM Biscayne Bay Tower (Blue) Cultural Center Miramar Center II 1800 Club Biscayne Village Tuttle Street Sky Residences Bay 25 (Star) Platinum Condominium Metropolis Bayshore (Quantum) Edgewater Tower (Rosabella) Biscayne Bay Lofts (Onyx) TOTAL 125 98 532 322 252 241 17 35 35 417 127 1 2,202 As can be seen from Table D-2, it is estimated that the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor will operate at Level of Service "D" in the year 2006 without the project. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE D-4 TABLE D-2 - 2006 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITHOUT PROJECT ROADWAY MODE MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS RIDOR NAME 20D6 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR Princi.al Roadwa s - CORR VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON 11111 PER. TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON 1 PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON TYPE CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON TRIP 1 TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP @PPV= APPV= CAPACITY V/C LOS @ LOAD = p LOAD = @ LOAD = {D, LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS 1.6 1.4 DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY 1 CAPACITY (Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 1 (14) (15) (16) (17) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR LS , Biscayne Boulevard (5056) 3 799 4 352 5 319 (967) 122 Metroeus Rte 3 0 369 174 215 389 174 215 MetroBus Rte 16 IIIIIIIII3899fl 392D 392 154 239 392 154 239 McVoBus Rte 32 3870 387 50 337 387 50 337 MetroBus Rte 36 400 0 4� 34 66 3.111411111 400 34 366 MetroBUS Rte 62 Metmew Rte 95 __------, -- , 734 a�a�+.-I�-�� MIIIINIIIIaIIWEIIIII 2 445 ��M�1.1.1111=11.1 447 IIIIIIIMIIIIMIIMIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIII 0 Metro6us Rte T 400 0 0 400 160 239 400 160 239 MetroBus Rte MAX 519 0 0 519 196 323 519 196 323 Biscayne Boulevard Subtotal 2,720 4,352 3,799 5,319 (967) 1.22 3221 447 0 3,668 863 2,805 8,020 6,182 1,838 0.77 C N.E. 2nd Avenue (Original Count 1/27/04) 2.720 4352 1,852 2,593 1,759 0.60 4352 2593 1,759 060 A MetroBus Rte 9 MetroBus Rte 10__- N.E. 2nd Avenue Subtotal __ 2,720 828 0 0 828 291 537 828 291 537 ��—��aa�- �i e 7 *7 all 1852 IIIIM11111111111=11 0.60 IIIIIt 1,033 0 =��a®a®©®-© 0 1.033 34 340 7 693 111111=1110111112=11 27 ' 4,387 2,350 2,452 2,036 054 0.54 11011 Miami Avenue FIU Count 3/i 4/2002 _-M - 1.673 IIIIIMIIIIIIIIMME '®' 0I Miami Avenue sub total 2,720 4,352 1,673 2,343 2,009 0.54 34 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC 7,325 10,255 1,211 ITT DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC 2202 3083 I 11111 162 ITHOUT PROJECT 8 160 13 056 9 527 13,337 (281) 1.02 4 289 4 736 1 373 3,363 17 792 14 710 2081 0.83 LOS TABLE AUTO PERSON TRIPS 13337 90.67% mmillIMINI1111111111111111111 ----� ----;----- --_ Millt .11.11111111111111111111M1111M111111111111.11111 OEM=--'_ -_' 0.61 = El 0,70 = 0.71 0.80 0.81 0.90111111111111111111111111 111 I_MICMI Pea MEE TRANSIT 0.9) 1.00 1.01 GROWTH FACTOR COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC -� 162 5.00% • ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE D-5 • • • PROJECT TRAFFIC Table D-3 presents project traffic and mass transit ridership based upon PM peak hour project traffic. The project site is located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 504. The cardinal distribution of the traffic within TAZ 504 was obtained from Miami -Dade County. The distribution is as follows: North -Northeast 10.61 % East -Northeast 4.13% East -Southeast 5.04% South -Southeast 4.48% South -Southwest 21.61 % West -Southwest 24.26% West -Northwest 13.50% North -Northwest 16.36% Using this trip distribution, the project trip assignment was determined. This is shown in Figure D-1. Project transit ridership was estimated based upon the assumption that 5% of project person trips would be by mass transit. Assignment of person trips was proportioned to the MetroBus routes and is shown in Table D-3. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE D-6 • • • NE 36 ST 4 N.T.S. MIAMI AVE 12/5 NE 20 ST �--- 2/111 NE 33 ST 1/41Ir N W Z 2/1 14/2 0 co W Z >- a �4/2 410/5 E �10/5 4-21/10 PROJECT 6! 12 .410/4 4/25 NE 28 ST 9/4,vir 2//8 t218 17/8 8/4 NE 26 ST t2/17 NE 22 ST 1/8 1143/16 17/811r 5/3,1r f 1 /5 9/4,; t1 /9 LEGEND 3/11 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR NET ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC DUE TO PROJECT FIGURE D-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE D-7 iTABLE D-3 - PROJECT TRAFFIC ROADWAY MODE MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS CORRIDOR NAME 2006 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR Principal Roadway(s) CORR VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON PER. TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON TYPE CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP iPPV= g"i7PPV= CAPACITY V/C LOS (ca LOAD = (rD LOAD = (rD LOAD = A LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS 1.6 1.4 DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY (Notes) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR Ls Biscayne Boulevard (5056) 2 720 4,352 _ MetroBus Rte 3 389 0 0 389 1 388 389 1 388 MetroBus Rte 16 392 0 0 392 1 392 392 1 392 MetroBus Rte 32 387 0 0 387 0 387 387 0 387 Niehaus Rte 36 400 0 0 400 0 400 400 0 400 MetroBus Rte 62 734 0 0 734 0 734 734 0 734 MetroBus Rte 95 0 447 0 447 0 447 447 0 447 MetroBus RteT 400 0 0 400 1 399 400 1 399 Metrceus Rte MAX 519 0 0 519 1 519 519 1 519 Biscayne Boulevard Subtotal 2,720 4,352 3,221 447 0 3,668 4 3,665 3,668 4 3,665 N.E. 2nd Avenue (Original Count 1/27/04) 2.720 4 352 4 352 0 0 MetroBus Rte 9 828 0 0 828 1 827 828 1 827 MetroBus Rte 10 205 0 0 205 0 205 205 0 205 N.E. 2nd Avenue Subtotal 2,720 4,352 1,033 0 0 1,033 1 1,032 5,385 7 1,032 Miami Avenue (FIU Count 3114/2002) 2 720 4 352 4 352 0 0 MetroBus Rte 6 35 0 0 34 0 34 34 0 34 Avenue Subtotal 2,720 4,352 34 0 0 34 0 34 4,387 0 34 JECT TRAFFIC 8,160 13,056 67 94 12,962 4,289 447 0 4,736 5 4,731 13,440 5 4,731 LOS TABLE AUTO PERSON TRIPS 94 9500% 0.00 A TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS 5 5.00% 0.60 A TOTAL PERSON TRIPS 99 100.00% 0.61 8 0.70 8 0.71 C 0.80 C 0.81 D 0.90 D 0.91 E 1.00E 1.01 F PROJECT TRAFFIC VPH PAX TRANSIT TOTAL 67 94 5 5.00% TRANSIT LOCAL EXPRESS RAIL TOTAL MetroBus Rte 3 14.38% 1 1 MetroBus Rte 16 12.68% 1 1 MetroBus Rte 32 4.12% 0 0 MetroBus Rte 36 2.82% 0 0 MetroBus Rte 62 7.67% 0 0 MetroBus Rte 95 0.17% 0 0 MetroBus Rte T 13.22% 1 1 M.etrc8us Rte MAX 1621 % 1 1 MetroBus Rte 9 24.05% 1 i M91,089s Rte 10 4.05% 0 0 MetroBus Rte 6 0.62% 0 0 100.00% 5 0 0 5 ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE D-8 • • • YEAR 2006 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH THE PROJECT Table D-4 presents an analysis of the future year 2006 corridor level of service with the project. Roadway vehicular volumes and mass transit volumes were determined by adding the data from Table D-2 (Year 2006 Without Project) and Table D-3 (Project Traffic). As can be seen from Table D-4, it is estimated that the Biscayne Boulevard Corridor will operate at Level of Service "D" in the year 2006 with the project. ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 PAGE 0-9 TABLE D-4 - 2006 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT ROADWAY MODE MASS TRANSIT MODE CORRIDOR TOTALS GOR I IDr NAME 2006 ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY ROADWAY LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR CORRIDOR NI R. y •' ` VEHICULAR PER. TRIP VEHICULAR PER. TRIP EXCESS PERSON PER. TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON PERSON ' CAPACITY CAPACITY VOLUME VOLUME PER. TRIP TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP TRIP QPPV= c@PPV= CAPACITY V/C LOS @ LOAD = .' LOAD = LOAD � = @ LOAD = TRIP EXCESS CAPACITY VOLUME EXCESS V/C LOS 1.6 1.4 DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY • - (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) ` 2,720 4352 3799 5319 (967) 1.22 F 4352 5319 (967) 1.22 F % 389 0 0 389 174 215 389 174 215 i , PSq i6 392 0 0 392 154 239 392 154 239 387 0 0 387 50 337 387 50 337 400 0 0 400 34 366 400 34 366 62 734 0 0 734 93 641 734 93 641 0 447 0 447 2 445 447 2 445 T 400 0 0 400 160 239 400 160 239 ear sm Nk ... 519 0 0 519 196 323 519 196 323 Brnes,;r�rs%g 2,720 4,352 3,799 5,319 (967) 1.22 F 3,221 447 0 3,668 863 2,805 8,020 6,182 1,838 0.77 C N 2,720 4,352 1,852 2,593 1,759 0.60 B 4,352 2,593 1,759 0.60 A 828 0 0 828 291 537 828 291 537 205 0 0 205 49 156 205 49 156 NO '7r;9 2,720 4,352 1,852 2,593 1,759 0.60 B 1,033 0 0 1,033 340 693 5,385 2,933 2,452 0.54 A 2 720 4 352 1 673 2 343 2,009 0.54 A 4 352 2 343 2 009 0.54 A 35 0 0 34 7 27 34 7 27 2,720 4,352 1,673 2,343 2,009 0.54 A 34 0 0 34 7 27 4,387 2,350 2,036 0.54 A 8,160 13,056 7,325 10,255 2,801 0.79 C 4,289 447 0 4,736 1,211 3,525 17,792 11,465 6,326 0.64 6 2.202 3083 162 3245 67 94 5 99 I i:¥fi,. 8160 13056 9594 13,431 (375) 1.03 4,289 447 0 4,736 1,378 3,358 17,792 14,809 2982 0.83 D AUTO PERSON TRIPS 10 255 89.44% A TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS 1,211 10.56% 0,60A TOTAL PERSON TRIPS 11465 100.00% tit 0 1 EAiC I ONYX 2 NI1LN11NI Apra 1S PAGE D-10 o • • RAW DATA & CALCULATIONS BISCAYNE BLVD NE 28 ST S/O NE 28 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD 1 2 ADT 1 2 22,342 20,087 42,429 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 303 391 694 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND AM MID PM EVE PEAK BISCAYNE BLVD S/O NE 28 ST 8:15 AM 12:15 PM 5:30 PM 18:15 12:15 NE 28 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD 9:30 AM 10:45 AM 5:30 PM 18:15 17:30 BISCAYNE BLVD NE 28 ST S/0 NE 28 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD PEAK K PSF K(100) D 12:15 PM 6.75% 1.026 0.069 54.61% 5:30 PM 9.22% 1.026 0.095 62.50% ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 • • AM 1 2 TOTAL % BISCAYNE BLVD SIO NE 28 ST 8:15 AM 1,285 1,448 2,733 6.44% NE 28 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD 9:30 AM 18 27 45 6.48% BISCAYNE BLVD NE 28 ST MID 1 2 TOTAL SIO NE 28 ST 12:15 PM 1,565 1,301 2,866 E/O BISCAYNE BLVD 10:45 AM 28 32 60 6.75% 8.65% PM 1 2 TOTAL BISCAYNE BLVD S/O NE 28 ST 5:30 PM 1,495 1,216 2,711 6.39% NE 28 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD 5:30 PM 24 40 64 9.22% ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 MECHANICAL COUNTS DAILY TRAFFIC NORTHBOUND A.M. Peak Hour, Time: A.M. "K" Factor: A.M. "D" Factor: P.M. Peak Hour, Time: P.M. "K' Factor: P.M. "D" Factor: BOTHWAY: NORTHBOUND A. M. A.M. A.M. P ECT NAME: Traffic Data Collection e to Proceed LOCATION: COUNT DATE: BISCAYNE BLVD S/O NE 28 ST WEEK OF 3/29/04 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND BOTHWAY TIME 1st % 2nd'1/4 3rd 1 4th' TOTAL TIME 1st'/+ 2nd Ya 3rd % 4th 1/4 TOTAL TOTAL 12:00 AM 172 140 176 95 583 12:00 AM 78 79 69 81 307 890 01:00 AM 66 115 82 60 323 01:00 AM 48 47 49 39 183 506 02:00 AM 59 69 65 62 255 02:00 AM 45 35 28 34 142 397 03:00 AM 55 48 39 43 185 03:00 AM 33 25 33 26 117 302 04:00 AM 49 28 49 52 178 04:00 AM 26 34 42 36 138 316 05:00 AM 52 53 56 88 249 05:00 AM 47 77 63 121 308 557 06:00 AM 117 108 150 200 575 06:00 AM 116 156 230 267 769 1,344 07:00 AM 172 222 255 274 923 07:00 AM 279 302 350 410 1,341 2,264 08:00 AM 279 280 350 331 1,240 08:00 AM 365 345 362 406 1,478 2,718 09:00 AM 324 258 297 300 1,179 09:00 AM 335 351 326 309 1,321 2,500 10: 00 AM 313 303 383 345 1,344 10: 00 AM 280 294 323 312 1,209 2,553 11:00 AM 293 296 287 325 1,201 11:00 AM 300 325 293 314 1,232 2,433 12:00 PM 346 363 404 369 1,482 12:00 PM 286 310 328 332 1,256 2,738 01:00 PM 429 360 401 346 1,536 01:00 PM 331 277 317 327 1,252 2,788 02:00 PM 350 358 359 355 1,422 02:00 PM 258 278 263 266 1,065 2,487 03:00 PM 362 384 352 349 1,447 03:00 PM 274 278 251 252 1,055 2,502 04:00 PM 402 380 340 372 1,494 04:00 PM 242 259 281 254 1,036 2,530 05:00 PM 311 375 366 374 1,426 05:00 PM 304 283 303 308 1,198 2,624 06:00 PM 372 383 339 313 1,407 06:00 PM 314 291 321 277 1,203 2,610 07:00 PM 342 339 272 271 1,224 07:00 PM 284 253 235 228 1,000 2,224 08:00 PM 215 265 250 214 944 08:00 PM 193 203 175 193 764 1,708 0 PM 230 166 131 152 679 09:00 PM 180 179 176 154 689 1,368 PM 137 184 122 136 579 10:00 PM 166 141 131 148 586 1,165 0 PM 158 112 115 82 467 11:00 PM 142 104 95 97 438 905 24 Hour Total 22,342 24 Hour Total 20,087 42,429 COUNT SUMMARY SOUTHBOUND Volume 1,438 A.M. Peak Hour, Time: 07:45 AM Volume 1,482 P.H.F.: 0.89 A.M. "K' Factor: 7.4% P.H.F.: 0.90 A.M. "D" Factor: 55.6% Volume 1,565 P.M. Peak Hour, Time: 12:15 PM Volume 1,301 P.H.F.: 0.91 P.M, "K" Factor: 6.5% P.H.F.: 0.98 P.M. "D" Factor: 45.4% 11:45 AM 6.4% 53.7% 12:15 PM 7.0% 54,6% and SOUTHBOUND Peak Hour, Time: 08:15 AM "K" Factor: 6.4% Hour "D" Factor: 53.0% P.M. Peak Hour, Time: P.M. "K" Factor: P.M. Hour "D" Factor: 12:15 PM 6.8% 54.6% Volume: 2,733 P.H.F.: 0.93 Volume: 2,866 P.H.F.: 0.94 MECHANICAL COUNTS �ECT NAME: Traffic Data Collecton to Proceed : EASTBOUND TIME 1st'/. 12:00 AM 1 01:00 AM 0 02:00 AM 1 03:00 AM 0 04:00 AM 0 05:00 AM 0 06:00 AM 2 07:00 AM 3 08:00 AM 3 09:00 AM 1 10:00 AM 2 11:00 AM 3 12:00 PM 8 01:00 PM 3 02:00 PM 3 03:00 PM 4 04:00 PM 6 05:00 PM 6 06:00 PM 4 07:00 PM 8 08:00 PM 5 EliO PM 2 O PM 2 O PM 3 DAILY TRAFFIC EASTBOUND A.M. Peak Hour, A.M. "K" Factor: A.M. "D" Factor: P.M. Peak Hour, P.M. "K" Factor: P.M. "D" Factor: BOTHWAY: EASTBOUND and WESTBOUND A.M. Peak Hour, Time: 10:45 AM A.M. "K" Factor: 8.6% A.M. Hour "D" Factor: 53.3% 2nd/ 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 2 6 12 8 12 6 5 3rd % 4th 'A 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 6 4 0 9 4 6 5 7 3 6 2 5 5 3 5 6 4 5 6 4 10 5 3 8 2 5 4 2 2 3 4 4 1 2 3 2 2 1 24 Hour Total LOCATION: NE 28 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD COUNT DATE: WEEK OF 3/29/04 WESTBOUND TOTAL TIME 1st % 2nd Y4 6 12:00 AM 2 0 2 01:00 AM 0 0 3 02:00 AM 4 0 1 03:00 AM 0 0 0 04:00 AM 0 0 0 05:00 AM 0 0 4 06:00 AM 9 11 6 07:00 AM 7 2 12 08:00 AM 4 15 13 09:00 AM 6 4 17 10:00AM 7 9 25 11:00 AM 4 10 28 12:00 PM 3 7 24 01:00 PM 4 3 16 02:00 PM 3 9 17 03:00 PM 3 4 21 04:00 PM 4 5 21 05:00 PM 4 2 22 06:00 PM 7 16 23 07:00 PM 8 9 13 08:00 PM 5 10 13 09:00 PM 0 3 8 10:00 PM 7 2 8 11:00 PM 4 3 303 COUNT SUMMARY Time: 11:15 AM Volume 9.9% P.H.F. 52.6% Time: 12:00 PM Volume 9.2% P.H.F. : 52.8% P.M, Peak Hour, Time: P.M. "K" Factor: P.M. Hour "D" Factor: 30 0.63 28 0.88 WESTBOUND A.M. Peak Hour, Time: A.M. "K" Factor: A.M. "D" Factor: P.M. Peak Hour, Time: P.M. "K" Factor: P.M. "D" Factor: Volume: 60 P.H.F.: 0.68 05;30 PM Volume: 64 9.2% P.H.F.: 0.62 62.5% 3 rd '/A 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 2 0 11 7 3 1 3 6 9 5 9 5 4 3 0 24 Hour Total 4th ' 2 1 0 0 0 2 3 2 6 9 7 3 8 2 5 10 6 8 3 6 4 0 3 2 BOTHWAY TOTAL TOTAL 9 15 1 3 4 7 0 1 0 0 2 2 27 31 14 20 25 37 21 34 23 40 28 53 25 53 12 36 18 34 20 37 21 42 23 44 31 53 32 55 24 37 7 20 15 23 9 17 391 694 10:45 AM Volume 32 8.2% P.H.F.: 0.73 53.3°1° 05:30 PM Volume 40 10.2% P.H.F.: 0.63 62.5% • • RAW DATA NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 38 787 3 5 3 19 6 1491 39 3 0 5 AM NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 33 1325 7 9 0 44 11 1202 20 3 1 8 PM FDOT SEASONAL FACTOR 0.97 ADJUSTED DATA NB EB SB WB LAADT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 37 763 3 5 3 18 6 1446 38 3 0 5 AM NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 32 1285 7 9 0 43 11 1166 19 3 1 8 PM FDOT PEAK SEASONAL FACTOR 1.026 PEAK SEASON ADJUSTED DATA NB EB SB WB L LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 38 783 3 5 3 19 6 1484 39 3 0 5 AM NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 33 1319 7 9 0 44 11 1196 20 3 1 8 PM ,. • PHF NB EB SB WB L LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0.63 0.92 0.38 0.42 0.75 0.53 0.75 0.96 0.81 0.75 ERR 0.62 AM NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0.75 0.89 0.58 0.56 ERR 0,73 0.55 0.90 0.71 0.38 0.25 0.33 PM ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 EXISTING AADT NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 37 763 3 5 3 18 6 1446 38 3 0 5 NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 32 1285 7 9 0 43 11 1166 19 3 1 8 GROWTH FACTOR 1.04 FUTURE BACKGROUND AADT NB EB SB WB L LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 38 794 3 5 3 19 6 1505 39 3 0 5 NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 33 1337 7 9 0 44 11 1213 20 3 1 8 COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 492 0 0 0 0 0 352 0 0 0 0 NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 434 0 0 0 0 0 544 0 0 0 0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT NB EB SB WB L LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 38 1286 3 5 3 19 6 1857 39 3 0 5 NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 33 1771 7 9 0 44 11 1757 20 3 1 8 PROJECT TRAFFIC NB EB SB WB L LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 26 0 21 NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 0 25 0 0 0 20 0 0 12 0 10 FUTURE WITH PROJECT NB EB SB WB L LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 38 1286 7 5 3 19 10 1857 39 29 0 26 NE 28TH STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 33 1771 32 9 0 44 31 1757 20 15 1 18 ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM April 15, 2004 • • NE 28TH STREET 8 03/31/04 PEDS 0100 AM 0 07:15 AM 0 07:30 AM 0 0145AM 0 08:00AM 0 08:15 AM 0 08:30AM 0 08:45 AM 0 TOTALS 0 PKHR 0 PERCENT PHF NE 28TH STREET 8 03/31/04 PEGS 04:00 PM 0 04:15 PM 0 04:30 PM 0 04:45 PM 0 05:00 PM 0 05:15 PM 0 05:30 PM 0 05:45 PM 0 TOTALS 0 PKHR 0 PERCENT PHF ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 50 RT T LT TOTAL 5 283 0 288 3 334 2 339 4 354 2 380 6 340 1 347 11 354 2 377 5 389 2 396 12 385 2 399 11 353 0 364 57 2802 11 2870 39 1491 6 1536 3% 97% 0% 100% 0,81 0.96 0.75 0.96 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD PEDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 WS NB E8 RT T LT TOTAL PEDS RT T LT TOTAL PEDS RT T LT 1 0 2 3 0 1 144 4 149 0 4 0 0 3 1 1 5 0 2 130 6 138 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 1 170 3 174 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 0 179 5 184 0 9 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 204 7 213 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 161 9 170 0 4 1 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 208 7 218 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 214 15 229 0 9 1 3 13 1 11 25 0 7 1410 56 1473 0 38 4 5 5 0 3 8 0 3 787 38 828 0 19 3 5 63% 0% 38% 100% 0% 65% 5% 10044 70% 11% 19% 0.63 ERR 0.75 0.67 0.38 0.92 0.63 0,90 0.53 0.75 0.42 SB WB NB EB RT T LT TOTAL P00S RT T LT TOTAL PEDS RT T LT TOTAL PEDS RT T LT 10 254 2 268 0 2 0 1 . 3 0 2 301 5 308 0 7 0 3 7 247 4 258 0 1 0 0 1 0 D 300 4 304 0 11 0 2 6 228 4 238 0 4 0 1 5 0 1 322 4 327 0 11 D 0 3 268 3 274 0 1 1 2 4 0 1 329 8 338 0 11 0 2 4 333 2 339 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 371 5 379 0 11 0 2 6 315 1 322 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 333 11 346 0 7 0 4 7 286 5 298 0 6 0 0 6 0 1 292 9 302 0 15 0 1 10 289 1 300 0 1 0 3 4 0 4 300 7 311 0 5 0 3 53 2220 22 2295 0 16 1 8 25 0 14 2548 53 2815 0 78 0 17 20 1202 11 1233 0 8 1 3 12 0 7 1325 33 1365 0 44 0 9 2% 97% 1% 100% 67% 8% 25% 100% 1% 97% 2% 100% 83% 0% 17% 0.71 0.90 0.55 0.91 0.33 0.25 0.38 0.50 0.58 0.89 0.75 0.90 0.73 ERR 0.56 15 MINUTE NB+SB TOTAL 4 3 3 10 4 6 4 13 47 27 100% 0,52 437 477 534 531 590 566 015 593 15 MINUTE NB+SB TOTAL 1D 13 11 13 13 11 16 8 95 53 100% 0.83 HOURLY EB+WB TOTAL NB+SB EB+WB TOTAL 7 8 7 15 6 8 7 14 444 485 541 546 596 574 622 607 1979 37 2018 2132 36 2168 2221 36 2257 2302 36 2338 2364 35 2399 2364 35 2399 HOURLY EB+We TOTAL NE+SB EB+WB TOTAL 574 13 587 562 14 576 565 18 581 612 17 629 2313 60 2373 718 14 732 2457 61 2518 668 12 680 2563 59 2622 600 22 622 2598 85 2683 611 12 623 2597 60 2857 4910 120 5030 2598 65 2663 • • NE 28T11 STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC AM PEAK HOUR NB SB NS E13 WB EW TOTAL LT T ET TOTAL LT T ET TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL PERFORNENG ARTS 9 9 8 8 17 0 0 0 17 MIRAMAR CENTER 201 201 132 132 333 0 0 0 333 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 11 11 6 5 17 0 0 0 17 1800 CLUB 72 72 33 33 105 0 0 0 105 TUTTLE STREET 28 28 6 6 34 0 0 0 34 BISCAYNE .BAY TOWERS ERS 13 13 32 32 45 0 0 0 45 SKY RF,SIDENCES 45 45 99 99 144 0 9 0 144 BAY 25 11 11 2 2 13 0 0 0 13 PLATINUM CONDO 1 1 8 8 9 0 0 0 9 METROPOLIS 62 62 17 17 79 0 0 0 79 EDGEWATER TOWER 25 25 6 6 31 0 0 0 31 ONYX 14 14 3 3 17 0 0 0 17 TOTAL 0 492 0 492 0 352 0 352 845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 845 NB 28TI1 STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR NI3 SB NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL PEREORMLIG ARTS 9 9 8 8 17 0 0 0 17 MTRAMAR CENTER 132 132 201 201 333 0 0 0 333 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 6 6 11 11 17 0 0 0 17 1800 CLUL3 65 65 72 72 137 0 0 0 137 TUTTLE STREET 6 6 28 28 34 0 0 0 34 BISCAYNE BAY TOWERS 32 32 13 13 45 0 0 0 45 SKY RESIDENCES 99 99 87 87 186 0 0 0 186 BAY 25 5 5 11 11 16 0 0 0 16 PLATINUM CONDO 7 7 4 4 11 0 0 0 11 METROPOLIS 55 55 73 73 128 0 0 0 128 EDGEWATER TOWER 13 13 25 25 38 0 0 0 38 ONYX 5 5 10 10 15 0 0 6 15 TOTAL 0 434 0 434 0 544 0 544 978 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 978 ONYX 2 CONDOMINIUM ARTPLAN 2002 Conceptual Planning Analysis Description/File Information Filename AP_BISCAYN E AM PK.xml Date Prepared 4/8/2004 Program ARTPLAN Analyst AHLSTEDT Version 'Agency 5.1.1 District Arterial Name BISCAYNE BLVD Begin Intersection NE 33RD STREET End Intersection NE 22ND STREET Study Period iKp/d Peak Direction Southbound User Notes AM PEAK HOUR Roadway Variables a Type Urbanized Facility Data Traffic Variables AADT 40055 Control Variables Arrival Type 4 Multimodal Variables Paved Shoulder/ Bike Lane No Class 3 K 0.097 Signals/Mile 5.00 Outside Lane Width Typical Posted Speed # Thru Lanes Median Type Left Turn Lanes 30 4 Restrictive Yes PHF 0/0 Turns Excl. Lanes 0/0 Heavy Vehicles Base Sat Flow Rate Local Adj. Factor Adjusted Sat Flow Rate 0.52 0.925 12 1.5 1900 0.95 1778 Cycle Length Through g/C Control Type 90 0.68 Semiactuated Pavement Condition Sidewalk Sidewalk/ Roadway Separation Sidewalk/Roadway Protective Barrier Obstacle to Bus Sto p Bus Freq Typical Yes Bus Span Of Service Typical No No 1 15 Automobile Segment Data 3 (to NE 22ND STREET) Cycle Length 90 90 90 9/C 0.68 0.68] Arr. Type 4 4 0.68 4 0/0 Turns 12 12 12 # Dir. Lanes 2 2 Length 0.25 0.1875 0.25 AADT 40055 40055 40055 Hourly Vol. 2043 2043 2043 FFS 35 35 35 Median Type None None None Automobile LOS Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate v/c Control Delay Int. Approach LOS Speed (mph) Segment LOS 1 (to NE 29TH STREET) 1944 0.85 5.41 A 25 B 2 (to NE 26TH STREET) 1944 0.85 5.41 A 23,7 C 3 (to NE 22ND STREET) 1944 0.85 5.41 A 25 B Arterial Length 0.7 Auto Speed 24.6 Auto LOS B i Automobile Service Volume Tables Lanes A B c Hourly Volume In Peak Direction Il 300 1010 1290 1340 1370 2 670 2310 2600 2680 2750 4 2 4 6 8 * Lanes 2 4 6 8 1040 1430 670 3630 4920 2310 3910 5220 2600 4030 {j 4120 5370 2680 5500 2750 Hourly Volume In Both Directions 580 1290 2000 2750 1290 1940 4450 6980 9470 4450 2490 5000 7520 10030 5000 2570 5160 7740 10330 5160 2640 5280 7930 10570 5280 Annual Average Daily Traffic 6000 13300 20600 28300 13300 20000 45900 71900 97600 45900 25700 51500 77500 103400 51500 26500 53200 79800 106400 53200 27200 54500 81700 109000 54500 • • ARTPLAN 2002 Conceptual Planning Analysis Description/Fite Information Filename AP BISCAYNE PM _ PK.xml Date Prepared 4/8/2004 Program ARTPLAN Version Analyst Arterial Name . AHLSTEDT Agency District BISCAYNE BLVD Begin Intersection NE 22ND STREET End Intersection NE 33RD STREET Study Period Kp/d Peak Direction Northbound User Notes PM PEAK HOUR Facility Data Roadway Variables Traffic Variables Control Variables Multimodal Variables ea Type Urbanized AADT 40055 Arrival Type 4 Paved Shoulder/Bike Lane Nol Class 3 K 0.097 Signals/Mile 5.00 Outside Lane Width Typical Posted Speed 30 D 0 52 Cycle Length 115 Pavement Condition Typical 0.8 Sidewalk Yes # Thru Lanes 4 PHF 0.925 9�C ugh Median Type Restrictive %Turns Excl. Lanes 12 Control Type Semiactuated Sidewalk/Roadway Separation Typical Left Turn Lanes Yes %a Heavy Vehicles 1.5 Sidewalk/Roadway Protective Barrier No Base Sat Flow Rate 1900 Obstacle to Bus Stop Na Local Adj. Factor 0.95 Bus Freq 1 Adjusted Sat Flow Rate 1778 Bus Span Of Service 15 • Automobile Segment Data Cycle Arr. 0/0 Segment # Length �g/C Type Turns NE 26TH STREET) 115 0.8 2 # Di r. Lanes Length AADT (to NE 29TH STREET) 115 0.8 4 12, 2 t 0.25 0.1875€ ,40055 40055 3 (to NE 33RD STREET) 115 0.8' 4 12 2 0.25` 40055 Hourly Vol. 2043 2043 2043 FFS 35 35 35 Median Type None None None Automobile LOS Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate v/c Control Delay Int. Approach LOS Speed (mph) Segment LOS 1 (to NE 26TH STREET) 1944 0.72 1.06 A 28.4 B 2 (to N E 29TH STRE E I) 1944 0.72 1.06 A 28 B 3 (to NE 33RD STREET) 1944 0.72 1.06 A [ 28.4 B Arterial Length DJ Auto Speed 28.3 Auto LOS B Automobile Service Volume Tables A c D Lanes Hourly Volume In Peak Direction 1 650 1480 1540 1600 2 1470 3000 3100 3190 1620 3230 3 2310 4520 11 4650 4790 li 4850 4 3160 6040 6210 6380 6470 4,- * 1 1470 3000 Lanes 2 1250 3100 3190 Hourly Volume In Both Directions 2850 3230 2970 II 3070 11 3110 4 2830 5780 5960 6130 6220 f 6 4450 8690 8940 8 6070 11610 11930 9200 12270 9330 12430 * 2830 5780 5960 6130 6220 Lanes Annual Average Daily Traffic 2 12900 29400 30600` 31600 32000 4 29200 59600 61400 6 45900 89600 92200 63200 64100 94900 96100 8 62600 119700 123000 126500 128200 * 29200 59600 61400 • 63200 64100 • AM INBOUND Project: ART GALLERY CONDOMINIUM Analyst', J. Ahlstedt Date: 4/12/2004 Control System: Card Reader Input Data Arrive{ Rate 10 per hour Service Rate 360 per hour Number of Servers 11 Queue Capacity 2000 Threshold Time (Assumed) 15 seconds System Capacity (Queue Capacity + Number of Servers) 2001 Calculated Data Average Number In System L 0.029 Average Number in Queue Lq 0.001 Minimum Number of Agents (threshold time & system capacity) MinAgents 1 Minimum Number of Servers (threshold time & queue capacity) MinServers 1 Probability That System is Empty Po 97% Probability That Arriving Customer Will Depart Without Entering System PrBalk 0% Probability That an Arriving Customer Will Have To Wait PrWait 3% Probability That Waiting Time is Less Than Threshold Time Service Level 99% Average Server Utilization Util 3% Average Time Customer Spends In System W 10 Seconds Average Time Customer Spends In Queue Wq 0 Seconds Probability Distribution of Number of Customers in System Cummuiative Probability of Number of Customers in System 100% 90% 80% 70% 6030 00% 40% 0. 30% 20 % 10% 0% • oP 2 6 2 Number of Customers In System 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 97.22% 2,70% 0, 08% 0 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/ 0.00% 0, 0 0 % 0.00% 000% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 16 0.00% 17 18 19 0.00% 0.00% 000°! 20 0,00% • 190% 100% 99% • 99% 0 98% 4,1 98% 97% L) 97% 96% 96% JO J 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 Number of Customers In System Number o4 0 97, 22% 99.92% 2 100.00% 100.00% 4 100.00% 5 100, 0 0 % 6 100.0©%a 7 100, 0 0 % 8 100.00% 9 100.00% 10 100.00% 11 100.00% 12 100.00% 13 100.00% 14 100.00% 15 100.00% 16 100, 00% 17 100.00% 18 100.00% 19 100.00% 20 100, 00°/ Page 1 AM OUTBOII10 Project: ART GALLERY CONDOMINIUM Analyst: J. Ahlstedt Date: 4/12/2004 Control System: Card Reader Input Data Arrival Rate 48 per hour Service Rate 360 per hour Number of Servers 1 Queue Capacity 2000 Threshold Time (Assumed) 15 seconds System Capacity (Queue Capacity + Number of Servers) 2001 Calculated Data Average Number In System L 0.154 Average Number in Queue Lq 0.021 Minimum Number of Agents (threshold time & system capacity) MinAgents 2 Minimum Number of Servers (threshed time & queue capacity) MinServers 2 Probability That System is Empty Po 87% Probability That Arriving Customer Will Depart Without Entering System PrBalk 0% Probability That en Arriving Customer Wiil Have To Wait PrWait 13% Probability That Waiting Time is Less Than Threshold Time Service Level 96% Average Server Utilization Util 13% Average Time Customer Spends In System W 12 Seconds Average Time Customer Spends In Queue Wq 2 Seconds Probability Distribution of Number of Customers in System Cummuiative Probability of Number of Customers in System 100%-- 90% 80%.. 70% 60%.. 50°!a AO% 30%- 20% k- 0% PrState 0 86.67% 11,56% 1.54% 3 0.21 % 4 0, 03°/ 5 0.06% 6 0.00°/ 7 0.00 % 8 0.00% 9 0.00°% 10 0.00% 11 ❑, 00% 12 0. 00% 13 0.00% 14 0.00% 15 0.00% 16 0.00% M V to f(S r r o,E2 Number of Customers In System 17 0.00% 18 0.00% 19 0.00% 20 000°/ CummulativeProbabilify 100% --- 100 % 99 % 99 % 98% 98% 97% 1 97% - 96 % 96% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of Customers In System Number % 86.67°/ 98, 22% 2 99.76% 3 99.97% 4 100.00% 5 100.00% 6 100.00% 7 100.00% 8 100.00% 9 100.00% 10 100.00% 11 100.00% 12 100.00% 13 100.00% 14 100.00% 15 100.00% 16 100.00% 17 100.00% 18 100 00% 19 100.00% 20 100.00% Page 2 • Project: ART GALLERY CONDOMINkUM Analyst: J. Ahlstedt Date: 4/12/2004 Control System: Card Reader Input Data Arrival Rate 45 per hour Service Rate • 360 per hour Number ai Servers 1 Queue Capacity 2000 Threshold Time (Assumed} 15 seconds System Capacity (Queue Capacity + Number of Servers) 2001 Calculated Data Average Number In System L 0,143 Average Number in Queue Lq 0.018 Minimum Number of Agents (threshold time & system capacity) MinAgents 2 Minimum Number of Servers (threshold time & queue capacity) MinServers 2 Probability That System is Empty Po 88% Probability That Arriving Customer Will Depart Without Entering System Praalk 0% Probability That an Arriving Customer Will Have To Wait PrWait 13% Probability That Waiting Time is Less Than Threshold Time Service Level 97% Average Server Utilization Util 13% Average Time Customer Spends In System W 11 Seconds Average Time Customer Spends In Queue Wq 1 Seconds Probability Distribution of Number of Customers in System 100% 90% 80 % 70% 0 40% 30 % 26 % 10% 0% PrState 0 1 2 3 Oh 87.50 % 10.94 % 1.37% 0,17% 4 0, 02% 5 0.00% 6 0.00% PM INBOt3R'1T.J 7 0.00% N e m m Number of Customers In System 72 8 0.00% 9 0.00% 10 0.00% 11 0, 00% 12 0, 00% 13 0.00% 14 0-00% 15 0.00% 16 0.00°% 17 0.00% 18 0.00% 19 0.00% 20 0,00% C u m m u lativ e P ro b a b it ity 10©% 100% 99% 99°k 98% 98% 97 % 97^% 96° 96 % Cummulative Probability of Number of Customers In System 6 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 29 Number of Customers In System • Number o% 0 87.50% 1 98.44°% 2 99. 80°% 3 99.98% 4 100.00% 5 100.00% 6 100.00% 7 100.00 % 8 100.00% 100, 00% 10 100.00% 11 100.00% 12 100.00"% 13 100.00% 14 100.00% 15 100.00% 16 100.00% 17 100-00% 18 100 00% 19 100.00% 20 100.00% Page 3 PM OUT. • Project: ART GALLERY CONDOMINIUM Analyst: J Ahlstedt Date: 4/1212004 Control System: Card Reader input Data Arrival Rate 22 per hour Service Rate 360 per hour Number of Servers 1 Queue Capacity 2000 Threshold Time (Assumed) 15 seconds System Capacity (Queue Capacity + Number of Servers) 2001 Calculated Data Average Number in System L 0.065 Average Number in Queue Lq 0.004 Minimum Number of Agents (threshold time & system capacity) MinAgents 2 Minimum Number of Servers (threshold time & queue capacity) MinServers 2 Probability That System is Empty Po 94% Probability That Arriving Customer Will Depart Without Entering System PrBalk 0% Probability Thal an Arriving Customer Will Have To Wait PrWait 6°% Probability Thal Waiting Time is Less Than Threshold Time Service Level 99% Average Server Utilization Util 6°% Average Time Customer Spends In System W 11 Seconds Average Time Customer Spends In Queue Wq 1 Seconds Probability Distribution of Number of Customers in System © N t° m b N r W Number of Customers In System N PrState 0 93.89% 5, 74% 2 0.35% 3 0.02% 4 0.00% 0.00% 6 0.00% 7 0.00% 8 0.00% 9 0.00% 10 0, 00% 11 0.00% 12 0.00% 13 0.00% 14 0.00% 15 0.00% 16 0.00% 17 0.00% 18 0.00% 19 0, 00% 20 0, 00% C u m m u I ative P ro b a b it ity 190% 100% 99% 99% 98% 98% 97% 97% 96% 96% Cummulative Probability of Number of Customers in System 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of Customers In System Number 0 93, 89% 99.63% 99.98% 3 100.00°% 4 100.00% 5 100.00% 6 100, 00°% 7 100.00% 8 100.00% 9 100.00% 10 100.00% 11 100.00% 12 100.00% 13 100.00% 14 100.00% 15 100.00% 16 100.00°% 17 18 100,00e 100, 00% 19 100 % 20 100.00% Page 4 FROM : AHLSTEDT FAX NO. :3057548895 Jun. 02 2004 02:21PM P1 06/02/2004 10:23 FAX June 2, 2004 Ms. Lilia I. Medina Assistant Transportation Coordinator Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office City of Miami, 444 SW 2"" Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: ONYX 2 Condominium Class 11 ! MUSP Traffic Impact Analysis Review WO. # 59 Dear Ms. Medina: Q002/OO2 We have received the Traffic Impact Analysts report for the ONYX 2 Condominium project prepared by Jackson M. Ahlstedt dated April 2004. Following is a brief list of comments that need to be addressed prior to conducting a detail review of the traffic impact analysis. 1. The report must include the Level of Service (LOS) analysis of at -least one signalized intersection nearest to the project site located at NE 29th Street/Biscayne Boulevard, In addition, a schematic of lane geometry at the study intersections is required; 2. The report illustrates that NE 28th Street/Biscayne Boulevard intersection operates at LOS F during both the peak hours in the future condition, even without the proposed project_ Therefore, the report must include a section of signal warrant analysis at NE 28" Street/Biscayne Boulevard; 3, The report must include the traffic impacts related to the two projects located within the Regional Activity Center (RAC) - Shops at Midtown Miami and 2 Midtown; 4. The analysis must include an east -west roadway nearest to the project site in addition to the analysis Biscayne Bot.iievard; 5. The peak season factor must be applied to all of the existing or the future condition analyses; 6. The existing timing data must be appended in the report: 7. The roadway vehicular capacity (column 2) and the person -trip \ffC ratio-LOS conversion table, both shown in the corridor analysis sectlorl (Appendix D). must be based on the latest /DOT Quality/LOS Handbook 2002; 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. T39,1881. UR5 corporation Lakeshore CorreplQx 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Port LLUdotala, F12a309-6275 rah 964.730.1481 Fax: 954.738.1789 Raj hen San or Traffic cc: Jacksonkt, Ahlstedt, P.E_