Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Study - Part II• APPENDIX H FDOT QUALITY/LOS • HANDBOOK TABLE 4-7 • TABLE 4 - 7 GENERALIZED PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Lanes Divided 1 Undivided 2 Divided 3 Divided A 100 1,060 1.600 Level of $eta iee B C D 340 670 950 1,720 2,500 3.230 2.590 3.740 4.840 E 1,300 3,670 5.500 STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIALS Class 1 (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per rile) Level of Service A B C D Lanes Divided 1 Undivided 2 Divided 3 Divided 4 Divided ** 250 380 490 220 1,530 2.330 3,030 720 860 1,810 1.860 2,720 2,790 3,460 3.540 Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service B C D Lanes Divided 1 Undivided 2 Divided 3 Divided 4 Divided ** ** *. 100 220 340 440 590 1,360 2,110 2,790 810 1,710 2.570 3,330 E 890 *** **. *** E 850 1,800 2.710 3,500 Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business distriet of an urbanized area over 750,000) Lanes Divided I Undivided 2 Divided 3 Divided 4 Divided A s .* ** *4 Level of Service B C D E ** 280 660 810 650 1,510 1,720 1,020 2.330 2,580 1,350 3.070 3,330 ** ** ** Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within primary city central business district of an urbanized area over 750,000) Lanes Divided I Undivided 2 Divided 3 Divided 4 Divided A ** *. ** .* Level of Sen ice B C D ** ** ** 270 650 1,000 1,350 720 1,580 2,390 3.130 E 780 1,660 2,490 3.250 Lanes Divided 1 Undivided 2 Divided 3 Divided Lanes Divided 1 Undivided 2 Divided NON -STATE ROADWAYS Major City/County Roadways Level of Service A ** ** ** B C D ** ** ** 480 760 1,120 1.620 1,740 2.450 Other Signalized Roadways (signalized intersection analysis) Level of Service C D E 250 530 660 580 1.140 1.320 A ** B ** *. E 810 1,720 2,580 Interchange spacing > 2 mi. apart Lanes 2 3 4 5 6 FREEWAYS Level of Service A B C 1.270 2,110 2,940 1,970 3,260 4,550 2,660 3,360 4,050 4,410 5,560 6,710 Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart 6,150 7,760 9,360 D E 3,580 3,980 5.530 6,150 7,480 8,320 9,440 10,480 11,390 12,650 Level of Service Lanes A B C D E 2 1,130 1,840 2,660 3,440 3,910 3 1,780 2,890 4,180 5.410 6,150 4 2,340 3,940 5,700 7,380 8,380 5 3,080 4,990 7,220 9,340 10,620 6 3,730 6.040 8.740 11,310 12,850 BICYCLE MODE (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine maximum service volumes) Paved Shoulder/ Bicycle Lane Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100°/0 Level of Service B C ** 130 160 380 A ** ** 170 210 >380 D 720 >210 ..* E >720 **. *** PEDESTRIAN MODE (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not the number of pedestrians using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes Io determine maximum service volumes.) Sidewalk Coverage 0-49% 50-84% 85-100% Sidewalk Coverage 0-84% 85-100% A ** *. ** B ** ** 120 Level of Service D 330 520 590 >590 C ** .* BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) (Buses per hour) Level of Service A B C •■ >5 >4 >6 >4 >3 D >3 >2 E 810 990 *** E >2 >1 Source: Florida Department of Transportation Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 http://www 11.myflorida.com/pianningtsystems:'smlosidefault.htm 02/22/02 Lanes 1 1 Multi Multi ARTERIAL/NON-STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS DIVIDEDIUNDI VIDED (alter corresponding volumes by the indicated percent) Median Divided Undivided Undivided Undivided Left Tums Lanes Yes No Yes No Adjustment Factors +5°e -20% -5% -25% ONE WAY FACILITIES Increase corresponding volume 20% 'This able does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planning applications_ The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist. Values shown are hourly directional volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile::track modes unless apeeificaily. eared. Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of di`erent modes into one overall roadway level of service is not reeonurended. To consent to annual average daily traffic volumes, these. volumes must be divided by appropriate t3 and K factors. Tne tidbit's input value defaults and level of service criteria appear on the following page. Calculations are based on planning applications of the Highway Capacity Manual, Bicycle LOS Model, t'edoscrian LOS Mtodel and Transit Capacity and Quality of Scrviee Manual, respectively for the automobiiortrtek. bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. **Cannot be achieved using table input value defaults. *"Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For automobile. truck modes, volumes greater than level of service 9 become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For bicycle and pedestrian modes, the level of service letter grade (including Ft is not achievable, because there is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults_ 97 • APPENDIX I EXCERPTS FROM • DOWNTOWN MIAMI DRI UPDATE • 0 TABLE ppWNTOWN MIAM GATE P ER9ON-TRIP VOL.IME ANO CAPACITY E X18TING CONDITIONS MATR16 20 110, 2001 ROADWAY FROM TO 8ISCAYNE OEVD NE 54 ST FILET NE4651RE1 NF. 46 51REET 1• 195 6195 NE 3651REET NE 36 STREET N£- 29 51R:ET NE 29 5711'.E 7 NE 20 5 MEET NE 70 STREET NE 19 STREET NE 19 STREET NE 15 STREET NE 15 STREET NE s45TREE T NE 14 STREET NE 1] 57i11: E 7 NE 13 STREET 1-195 6395 NE 6 STREET NE 6 STREET NE 3 STREET NE 3 S111EE1 N1: 1 STREET NE 1 STREET SE, 1 S1111'f.'1 SE: 1 STREET S1: 2 54WI; 1 5E 2 STREET 7E 4 S1FR:ET NE 2 AYENUE73RICRELL AVENI5E NE 20 S1NEE1 No 1951REET NE 19 STREET NE 14 STREET NE 14 STREET NE 13 STREET NE 135106E3 6395 1.395 NE 3STREET NE 3 STREET 14E t STREET NE 1 STREET FLAG. ER STREET FLAGL Elk STREE1 SE 1 STREET SE 1 STREET 5)1 -1 SNIFF: I SE ?STREET SE4sir-WET SE 4 STREET SE 8 STREET 0E a STREET SW 11 STREET SW 13 STREET Sw 15 ROAD Sw 15 ROAD REC6ENDACRER CSWY S(3i3115/1 KF17}{ AN1) !,.CI WARS, I' n p4R Nil 51) NB SR NO 50 Sp Nil 50 N9 58 ND SE4 Nil 50 1413 SD N13 511 59 58 NRI 58 NA/ 5i1 1411 tiN NIS Sli 203 5£4 ND 511 NI1 SD till 51) SO Sit Sil 11) tiff NB SD ND 513 T411 50 N£1 S11 MIAM1 AL3UP- TEO LDS E-1W E E 459 E-Iw E-1 W E•I0 F:-Iw E-1W {11 0874100 TYPE LS LS LS 1,5 LS 15 11S 11S 115 115 115 IT5 Its !15 ITS L5 4{5 H5 145 115 115 115 ITS i45 y14 S ITS 1.5 171 ROADWAY 1611iCt1LAF CAPACITY 1,810 1.0{0 1,6t0 1,610 1,010 4,6I0 1,010 1.610 1,150 1.750 1.750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1,750 1.750 2.560 2,560 2,560 2,590 3,140 2,560 3,14i) 1,140 7,140 3,149 3.140 3.140 ),1411 7.140 2.040 1,615 1,615 615 1,615 015 415 3.070 ._. -.... ROADWAY MODE.MA9STRA6181YMODE _ PI ...._ I41 1095S ;6((7('_ I8' _- (gl (tpi T(11) (42} -..... .,_ (S ][ m_(14}._ PERS-TRIP PERS TRIP EXCESS ROADWAY BUS MOVER RAIL TOTAL TRAN517 TOTAL TRANSIT CAPAtiTY ROAOWAY VOLUME PERSON PERSON PER -TRIP PER9TR4P P595.09IP TRANSIT PER80N-TRIP VOLUME TRANSIT PER9-TRIP ((tPPv- 4ENICULAR 4QPPV. TRIP TR P CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PER9-TRIP METRO- METRO- PER9 EXCE94 1 VO9,L)ME 1.4 LL CAPACITY V7C L09 CORD LOAD-- LOAD- CAPAIITV 9US 140V2R RAIL VOLUM1 CAPACITY 3,070 7070 3,07E7 3,(17E1 3.9/0 3-720 1,700 2,560 1,700 4,200 1.700 1.700 1,700 1.700 2896 2116 2,696 2,896 2,896 2.496 2.646 2.898 2.800 2800 2,800 2,900 2,800 2,000 2600 2,600 4 096 4.096 4096 4.096 51124 4046 5.024 5 024 5024 5,024 5,024 5,074 5.024 5024 3264 2.584 2,564 2,364 2,564 2.564 2.564 4,912 4,912 4912 4912 4,912 4947 6,032 2,720 4096 2.720 2,720 7,720 2,120 2,720 2.7'20 1,071 450 1,431 2.046 1,334 t.569 1.314 1,599 1,945 tau 1,605 970 1,759 1,252 1,674 919 1,674 919 1,731 1,697 1.432 1,505 1,096 746 1.696 746 1047 661 1,642 941 1,007 711 512 731 517 731 517 1,127 671 971 671 671 071 671 1, 49-7 1,340 796 1,345 601 1,476 610 1,364 429 2,590 2,003 2,864 1,66E 2,225 1680 2.725 2,681 1.246 2.247 1,358 2,461 1,753 2,344 1,287 2,344 4,267 2,423 2,376 2005 2,106 2.374 1,044 2,374 1.044 2.566 1.205 2,508 1115 2, S30 1,023 717 1,073 717 1,021 717 1,576 939 939 939 039 939 939 1,676 1,876 1,114 1,803 944 2068 1,134 1,910 4,467 306 8`37 32 1.028 671 1026 671 119 1,554 553 1,442 317 1 047 456 1 513 1.752 2,609 1.673 1,720 3,019 3,986 2,650 3.560 2,650 3,960 7438 3,619 7436 3819 7:14 1,561 1.867 1,561 1,667 1,561 1,687 3,334 3973 3,973 3,973 3 973 3.973 5093 044 2.220 1.606 637 4,676 654 5,586 6to 0 49 O 64 0 69 0 99 065 O 77 0 65 077 096 045 060 0.49 0.65 061 084 0 46 0 57 0.31 0.59 0 54 0 40 051 047 025 047 0.21 054 024 051 0 24 0 78 040 0 7a 040 0.28 049 026 0.32 0 19 n19 0 19 0 19 09 0 IE 062 0.46 0.41 069 031 0 76 042 0 70 0 C D 0 C O 920 420 920 070 920 920 1,412 2,252 1,412 2,252 1,472 2,252 1,469 2,249 1026 1,806 4,708 2.468 1,706 2.466 2,466 1,706 1 706 2486 2486 2.226 3,434 306 766 713 713 518 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,339 552 1,316 1.346 1,346 566 566 566 3116 11.16 306 306 960 960 960 960 960 960 060 960 580 460 960 960 440 1.440 1.440 4 440 1,440 1,440 2980 460 460 460 480 9617 960 1440 1 440 440 1,440 2,890 960 1,920 960 1,970 960 91i0 1463 1.463 1,483 1463 920 920 920 920 420 929 4.472 2,252 1472 2,252 1472 2,252 2429 3.209 1.946 7.766 2,666 3,446 2.666 3,446 3,446 2,666 2.666 3,446 3.926 3,666 4,874 1,746 7,020 1,440 2,460 713 713 4613 998 480 1,550 2030 2.030 2,770 1992 1 440 2, 756 4,226 2.306 2,466 2969 3.949 2,129 2,779 306 366 169 243 169 243 339 246 523 416 523 446 573 416 442 363 6711 465 752 506 746 496 367 398 677 499 857 394 1.406 61 187 19e 119 84 308 284 284 234 68 351 370 365 115 240 119 156 26 138 22 44 53 44 53 44 53 44 51 61 53 91 70 83 56 74 80 106 73 703 22 26 22 26 100 136 111 14 114 151 5) 164 360 184 276 360 692 6S 276 97 692 169 243 169 243 339 246 523 416 523 4)6 523 416 486 436 722 53B 796 559 792 55t 428 451 768 559 740 450 1,160 141 293 73 203 198 119 22 140 22 334 384 42D 345 202 114 507 521 529 475 680 1,171 517 B15 130 22 751 677 751 677 581 672 949 1.826 949 1,636 949 4,636 1,943 2,773 1266 7,230 1,870 2887 1,974 2695 3,018 2,245 4,990 2,887 3,186 3,216 3694 4,605 1.927 1.397 26/7 515 594 456 868 458 1,216 1,646 1840 2.425 1,790 1,326 2254 3.705 SE17MENT TOTAL- (ilf _ (t61 (4� 1161 9E0MENT SEGMENT SEGMENT SEGMENY PERSON PERSON PER9•TRIP PERSON TRIP TRIP EAC1S9 TA P CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY71-Og 1,777 2614 2,309 2,776 2212 1,914 466 264 3,416 3,816 3,416 31316 3,616 3,816 4,368 5,148 4,272 5,052 4,272 5,052 5,229 6.009 4,769 5.566 6,762 7,542 6,762 7,542 6,470 6,762 7,690 8470 5,950 8,690 9898 6, 770 7.244 6,464 6.144 3.297 3,297 3,064 3 582 3,064 4,134 6.942 6.942 7,682 0,904 6,357 7,668 10,75E 5,026 6,582 5,709 6.669 5.440 5,449 3,026 3.026 1,599 2.833 2,172 3.507 2,207 2,473 2,291 2.641 3.204 1.662 2.770 1.774 2,949 2,169 7066 1.625 3,140 1,946 3,245 2927 2,451 2.559 3,142 4.901 3,114 1,494 3.766 i,346 2,679 1,279 2,733 1,221 836 1,045 427 1,045 1.051 1.462 1,359 1.284 1,141 053 1,44, 1,460 2705 2.351 1,794 3,054 1,361 2,681 1,272 1.932 2.218 963 1644 709 {609 1343 1977 2,507 1 068 3,390 1,502 3.276 2,280 3,820 4,722 3,743 3.622 5.696 3,547 4615 6,037 4,203 4,546 6,467 5.436 7,196 6,132 5.424 4365 5,166 3411 2.076 2461 2.014 2.755 2 0)9 5,1183 4980 5.563 6,396 5.763 5,2S9 6,227 6,796 2,82) 4,231 3,945 3,615 4 088 2.566 1,754 1.014 0 459 0,742 0 569 0 614 0 578 0.646 0.547 0.513 0.750 0329 0 648 0351 0564 0,364 0 640 9 326 0464 0.245 0 475 0.364 0.267 0.378 0.409 0.189 0.348 0.472 0 380 0.199 0.397 0,198 0 445 0.370 0.254 0341 0231 0,341 0.254 0,283 0.196 0.167 0165 0 166 0116 0142 0 439 0.357 0.314 0.456 0250 0 529 0420 0 638 N BRAN( (ArEP110_1ECT 5120011167161TA0t.F 51114223 R(4 5YK4 • (4) 70-N14v.2001 ROADWAY FROM NE S'STREET IISCAYNE t1LVD NE 2AVENUE NE 1 AVENUE H MIA1,41 AVENUE NW 7AV(NLIF NE 3 STREET BISCAYNE BLVD NE 2 AVENUE N M{AM{ AVENUE NE 2-AVENUE NE 1 AVF Nut N 1.11AM£ AVENUE NW 2 AVE.N11- 1.15 NE 2 AVENUE N I31414! AVENUE 5AN 1 AVENUE It 1 STREET LISCAYNE B440 NE 2 AVENUE NE 2 AVENUE NW 7 AVENUE NW 7AVENUE I-216 FLAOLER STREET IISCAYNE i3LVD NE. 2AVENLIE NE 2 AVENUE NE 1 AVENUE NE 1 AVENUE 547 1 AVENUE NW 1 AVENUE NV 2 AVENUE NW 2 AVENUE I-95 SE 1 STREET BISCAYNE BLVD SE 1 AVENUE SE 1 AVENUE SW 1 AVENUE SW 1 AVENUE SW 2 AVENUE SW2AVENUE 1.95 7 S7REET15155418•£ RISCAYNE BLVD- 5E 3 AVENUE 5E 3AVENt3E SE 4 STREET/5145535-1 DISCAYNE L1I.Vu SE 7 31REET 4.1141C0ELL AVENII7. SW 1 AVENUE 5 5 STREET 611C0E13. AVENuf 5 MIAMI AVENUE OW 1 AVENUE NE 2 AVENUE SE. 7 AVENUE 0w 1 AVENUE 1.95 S MIA101 AVENUE SW 1 AVENUE 1-95 01R E61 (N ER ED 811.0111 A110P- TEO LO8- E-1W E-1w E-SW E-tv7 }, IW ED WU ER Wu E E7 wB WO wo YJH Wu W0 WO WB ED ED ER ED EA WB WB EI1 wi3 E LI ED ER E E E E-1W E,-1W E.IW [It ORRIDO TYPE N5 EIS !IS IS LS E-1 W E-1 W E1W E•IW E•IW 7-1W E-IW }.!IN E•IW E•Iw E-1W E-IW LS 1.5 I.ti LS 5 115 LS NS MIS IS I 415 115 IS I41 ;21 144 PERS-TRIP ROADWAY CAPACITY l E,IICULA 4 PPV• CAPACITY 1.5 3770 6 032 3,012T 49,7 3.070 4942 7070 4942 :I970 4,912 L4 IS 840 4149 540 640 B40 640 2040 2,040 2,040 2,040 29E0 2040 2 040 7 040 3,170 3070 3,07 3,770 2.171 3,770 4t1117 ❑70 3.0111 1,070 5074 3,17C TABLE DOWNTOWN MIAMI OM UPDATE PERSON TRIP VOLUME AND CAPACITY EXISTING CONDITIONS MATRIX _. __- .., .. -LUSS TRANSIT MooE -- ''--. .� iE15A- f1171 _ 'f'W 6 -�,1 PI [io[ I+11 TRANSIT TOTAL, TRAnsN 141 PER9TRIP EXCESS ROADWAY BUS MOVER RAIL TOTAL ROADWAY VOLUME PERSON PERSON PER -TRIP PERK -TRIP PEKE -TRIP TRANSIT PERSON TRIP VOLUME. TRANSIT PERS-TRI VEHICULAR 119l?V` TRW "N TR7P CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERS-TRIP CARACiTY VOLUME 1,4 CAPACITY V!C LO3 LOADS LOADS LOAD. CAPACITY BUS MOVER RAIL, YOLUM. „ 2,680 154 151 2,729 904 1374 4654 023 C 2,6Q0 2.550 151 151 2,729 7,660 954 t,37B 3,594 028 C451 2,77V 2,E80 2680 151 984 1 778 3,574 0 2a C 984 1370 1,534 026 C 23 234 52 208 1.344 1,344 1,344 1,344 4,344 4,344 3,264 3.264 3,264 3264 1,264 1264 3,264 2.764 4 912 4912 4412 6,032 6.032 6,032 4 917 4912 4912 1912 4,412 6.032 80 694 90 694 90 694 326 326 876 424 424 424 7,75E 256 1.037 1,037 975 694 2.402 2,402 1 11"16 1.076 1,472 1,3111 2,193 2.235 126 972 126 972 126 977 456 456 1 226 594 594 594 1756 358 1.452 1,452 1,365 1,252 3,363 3,363 2,556 t 4'15 2,058 913 3 070 3,129 1,2117 372 1.218 372 1,2178 372 2.606 2.008 2,036 3670 2670 2,670 1,506 2,406 009 0 72 0 00 0.72 0.09 0 72 460 3,460 3,547 4,780 014 7,669 2,660 0 14 0 36 7,356 3,477 0 46 018 0 18 0.54 2,854 011 2,474 1,542 2,903 0.30 0 20 0.25 021 056 056 0 52 029 0.42 0 39 061 062 C 0 C D C D C C O c C C D C D 0 C C D O 0 c O O D 0 260 948 7726 1.208 3.576 3,520 3,528 1,450 3,434 5,271 2,606 820 30 566 566 376 314.4 276 610 534 2400 444 2.880 7,680 2 470 1 140 160 948 1,726 1,208 3,525 3,528 8406 1.960 4.571 11,154 3406 830 2.910 3446 2000 276 375 276 610 534 57 60 246 540 794 650 672 555 423 730 822 298 134 65 74 710 156 300 345 252 10 31 146 146 ID 60 246 540 794 65o 924 555 525 046 522 295 147 280 111 24 210 156 300 345 NPERSON � TSEQNPERENTTE PERSON- PERB TRIP TRIP EXCESS TRIP CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VWC1.05. 588 1,415 660 2,734 7,578 5484 1,395 4.349 1.408 2,984 537 2,763 3,166 1,835 252 165 120 510 159 8,912 7,792 1,797 4412 5,221 1,604 1,344 1,344 1344 1,344 2.344 421? 4,490 4,472 6,792 6,792 9,672 5.214 3.264 4,786 13,066 8,718 6,562 0942 9.476 6 470 5,180 6,210 5 180 5,722 6,566 1,529 7,353 0.172 C 1,529 6,263 0.150 C 1,529 6,763 0-196 77 1,378 3,534 0 241 C f 610 3611 0305 D 17a 972 128 972 126 972 516 704 1,766 1,368 1,244 1,518 2,311 358 1426 372 1,215 372 1,216 372 2.698 4,286 2,706 5,404 5.54 6,154 2.903 2906 1,977 7,809 2,495 10.568 2,187 6.531 1,550 5,312 3,510 3.643 2,727 1450 2265 2,069 3,370 3,474 0.111 0.723 0 094 0,723 0044 0.723 5,432 5,835 4,14! 0.173 0141 0.395 1,729 3 077 0 204 0 163 0 157 0 443 0.110 :3099 2,352 3092 0 202 0.191 0.251 0.726 0. 39.1 0364 0.354 0261 C 0 C 0 C 0 421 0 C C 0 401 0 504 0529 C C C 0 C C C C 0 0 0 C D D 0 0 N 11110110! AN0 11f11F0)/1U 00)11O//7111 AL3! FSlt I1.11051l 77 WK4 -,111311.1 1.11111 ANII','.1114A1!', 1' 1' • r-Sep-2001 TABLE 21.B7 DOWNTOWN M1AMI DR1 UPDATE -INCREMENT II PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS CB0 AREA USES OFFICE ATTRACTIONS - MOVIE THEATER ATTRACTIONS - BALLPARK (5J INSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIAL RETAIL I HOTEL 1q SS VEHICLE TRIPS VEHICLE OCCUPANCY ADJUSTMENT @ IILITRANSIT TRIP REDUCTION C PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TRIP REDUCTION € NET EXTERNAL VEHICLE TRIPS UNITS 585,000 SQ-FT. 5,000 SEATS 45.000 SEATS 450,000 SO. FT. 500,000 SOFT 250.000 SQ.FT_ 3,000 O.L. 225,000 SQ.FT. 60C ROOMS ITE l LAN D USE CODE 710 I 444 444 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS ITE 6TH EDITION TRIP GENERATION RATE OR FORMULA 11 T-1.121(X)+79,295 T = 0.14 (X) T = 0.02 (X) 540 T = 1.66 (X) 710 T = 1.121 (X) + 79.29,5 110 T = 1.433 (X) - 163.421 232 T = 0.342 (X) + 15 466 820 Ln(T) = 0 660 Ln(X) + 3 403 310 Ln(T) = 1,212 Ln(X) - 1.763 ) 16.0% OF GROSS EXTERNAL TRIPS [2j 22.6' OF GROSS EXTERNAL TRIPS [3j 10,0'.9 OF GROSS EXTERNAL TRIPS (4] IN OUT TOTAL €1 TRIPS 17% '1 125 53;n 371 765 46% 314 17% 109 12% 23 62% I, 645 48% 515 53% 211 48% 3,106 TRIPS 83% 510 17% 329 15"0 135 54"0 403 83°.. 531 8846 '- 172 38',6 I 396 52'/ 557 47% 188 52% 3,321 TRIPS k 48% 497 52% 532 48 ; 702 52% 751 332 1.706 48% 311 52°b 48% 1,598 52% 735' 700 1,1 9001 it 7471 II 640j, 'I� 195.; 1,041 I 1,072; 399':II 6.429' ail 1,0291I 1,453II 1 643`I 3,304'1: NET EXTERNAL. PERSON TRIPS IN VEHICLES C NET EXTERNAL PERSON TRIPS USING TRANSIT n INET EXTERNAL PERSON TRIPS (VEHICLES AND TRANSIT MODES} 1.40 PERSONS! VEHICLE 1.30 PERSONS 1 VEHICLE 1 43% 43° 2.220 976 48% 3,196, 52% 2.406 4,625'' 52?'_ 1,058 2,034,. 52°-a 3,464 6.650: 1 I NET EXTERNAL PERSON TRIPS WALKING OR USING BICYCLES re 1.40 PERSONS 1 VEHICLE 43% 432 52'^ 468 NOTES- (1] IN THE FORMULAS, (X) IS THE AREA PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET. SEATS, ROOMS CR UNITS. [21 A 16% REDUCTION TO ACCOUNT FOR SAME PERSON TRIPS AS ITE BUT HIGHER VEHICLE OCCUPANCY (MIAMI'S 1,4 vs_ ITE's 1.2 P S.VEH) [3] TRANSIT TRIP REDUCTION BASED ON PROJECTED MODAL SPLITS USED IN THE ORGINAL DOWNTOWN M:AMI 031 STUDY. [41 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE- TRIP REDUCTIONS ARE ESTIMATED BASED ON DOWNTOWN CHARACTERISTICS. [5] TRIP RATE FOR THE ATTRACTION (BALLPARK) IS BASED ON 0.02 EMPLOYEES PER SEAT AND 1 AM & PM PEAK HOUR TRIP PER EMPLOYEE • 900 21-73 SOURCE: KEITH AND SCHNARS, P.A. n:ltranpian\proyeclsi2001\1671oltables\GEN-Pti1 i • TABLE 21.C1 DOWNTOWN MIAMI DRI UPDATE - INCREMENT II TRANSIT AND PEDESTRIAN MODE SPLITS 17-SeD-2001 • AREA TRANSIT MODAL SPLIT [1] PEDESTRIAN I� INCREMENT I I INCREMENT II REDUCTION [2] OMNI 11.7% 14.9% 10.0% CBD 23.3% 22.6% 10.0% BRICKELL 14.3% 14.1% 15.0% SE OVERTOWN 8.3% 8.2% N/A ►l NOTES: [1] TRANSIT MODAL SPLITS BASED ON APPROVED RATES USED IN THE ORIGINAL DOWNTOWN MIAMI DRI. [2] PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRIP REDUCTION BASED ON AREA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY OFFICIALS. 21-77 SOURCE: KEITH AND SCHNARS, P.A. n:ltranplan\projects12001\167161tables\cbd2pm.wk4 • APPENDIX J • CAPACITY ANALYSES • • • • Note CORRIDOR WORKSHEET for Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9 BISCAYNE BLVD. CORRIDOR BACKUP DATA Source and/or equation A FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Table 4-7, Appendix H B 2003 Peak Hour Volumes of 1,962 & 909 on Biscayne Blvd 2004 Peak Hour Volumes of 2,021 & 936 (2003 vol x 1.03) C 2003 Peak Hour Volumes of 1,056 & 281 on SE 1st Street & on E Flagler St = 2004 Peak Hour Volumes of 1,067 & 284 (2003 vol x 1.01) D Downtown DRI (Increment 2) Table 21.A7, (pages 21-46 and 21-49), see Appendix I E Yr 2000 values from DRI Table 21.A7 (see Appendix I) were increased to year 2004 2000 Pk Hr Bus Riders 1,106 61 2000 Pk Hr DPM Riders 74 80 2000 Pk Hr Bus Riders 794 423 2000 Pk Hr DPM Riders 102 F from Table C-3 in Appendix C G from Table G4 in Appendix C NB on Biscayne = 1,239 SB on Biscayne = NB on Biscayne = SB on Biscayne = WB on Flagler EB on SE 1st St EB on SE 1st St = 68 83 90 889 474 114 in 2004 @ 3%/year growth in 2004 @ 3%/year growth in 2004 @ 3%/year growth in 2004 @ 3%/year growth in 2004 @ 3%/year growth in 2004 @ 3%/year growth in 2004 @ 3%/year growth FULL REPORT �i m� v :.F l Y , . Yy _. Ti 'h-.;'",.�i �q%,X f` , � General nformation �.... s .,. � � i r. : x: >,.r�. -.-'�' u � r' A" te. nformatii n .w .., Analyst haf y gency or Co. TAP ate Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & Flagler St (J Area Type CBD or Similar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/PDOT Analysis Year Existing 2004 Peak Season . „> '�. �/ e""'3. ."�` 1 r ..wy�`rl,`X..xv�' i` 5 ."s''`= F�+V^� a �,.„,�. �w �'s [ntersection Geometry, ,::.<_ ,, .. ��.... Grade = 0 0 0 € it Grade = Wm North MOW i , TH—Ht o — ° r = R i 1 o 0 '1 =L , o „ o =TR ,' Grade _.---- - - � 1- ! ? __L.4 -t- 1 - LT �y"- = LR Grade = ° "I T R = L 0 4 0 Volume and Timung Input , :, X y .,... � EB..... WB' NB SB L LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 160 1774 % Heavy veh 2 2 PHF 0.92 0.92 Actuated (P/A) P P Startup lost time 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 Arrival type 3 Unit Extension 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 150 Lane Width 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parkinglhr Bus stops/hr 6 Ped timing 4.3 Peds Only 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 26.0 G= G= G= G= 66.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET eneral l Project Description Columbus Tower - Bisc & Flagler 1E12004 �;^w-.A ,�_ 4 � �, y �'tr1C �t�„"'��'�¢`K` Volume Adjustment _� K' �p i''�- � '�' `�-. gri� ..S �' d':�� EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 160 1774 PHF 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow Rate 174 1928 Lane Group LT Adj. flow rate 2102 Prop. LT or RT -- -- 0.083 -- 0.000 - Saturation' Flow.Rate; w . , ;*" "max' .,. :" - atk. Base satflow 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 fW 1.000 HV 0.980 fg 1.000 fp 1.000 fbb 0.994 fa 0.90 fLU 0.91 fLT -- -- 0.996 -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- -- fRT -- -- -- 1.000 -- fLpb -- -- 1.000 -- -- fRpb -- -- -- 1.000 -- Adj. satflow 6041 Sec. adj. satflow -- — — • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information,,; .; ,p.,£ .. 7,1 Project Description Columbus Tower - Bisc & Nagler (EJ 2004 Capacity Analysis � iftAdj. EB WB NB SB Lane group LT Adj. flow rate 2102 Satflow rate 6041 Lost time 2.0 Green ratio 0.66 Lane group cap. 3987 vfc ratio 0.53 Flow ratio 0.35 Crit. lane group N N N N Sum flow ratios 0.00 Lost time/cycle 0.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.00 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and,LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group LT flow rate 2102 lip Lane group cap. 3987 vfc ratio 0.53 Green ratio 0.66 Unit delay di 8.9 Delay factor k 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.5 PF factor 1.000 Control delay 9,4 Lane group LOS A Apprch. delay 9.4 Approach LOS A Intersec. delay 9.4 Intersection LOS A HCS2000T "' • Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.id General infoiatlon <;:.. W.. J Ite.(RfOiimaitOo,.� ,,�:�_�_,- Analyst haf Agency or Co. TAP spate Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & Hagler (Fast) Area Type CBD or Similar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/FOOT Analysis Year 2007 without Project IntersecttoWGede etry , = > . s , . < .,, Grade = 0 0 0 i l_i Grade = Shcrw North Arrow l T 3 1 JI 7 i 0 R i 0 - — 1 0 0 A 0 = T y^ it Grade = 0 = LT t = L R Grade = 0 'f 0 4 0 = L T R Volume and Timing input' ..� -- :<,. ,._ _ ,..E EB WB NB SB L LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 150 544 2175 % Heavy veh 0 2 2 PHF 0.85 0.92 0.92 Actuated (PtA) P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 PedIBikeIRTOR Volume 150 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N ParkingJhr Bus stopsihr 0 6 Ped timing 4.3 3.2 EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 26.0 G= G= G= G= 66.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET Project Description Columbus Tower - Bisc & Flagler[E] 2-Way 2007 w/o prof Votume Ad.ustment .,., . d.. ......:., K EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 150 544 2175 PHF O.85 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow Rate 176 591 2364 Lane Group L LT Adj. flow rate 176 2955 Prop. LT or RT -- -- 0.200 -- 0.000 - Saturation ;,Ftow Race' Base satflow 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 fW 1.000 1.000 fHV 1.000 0.980 fg 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 0.994 fa 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 0.91 fLT 0.950 -- -- 0.990 -- -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- -- fRT -- -- -- 1.000 - fLpb 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- -- fRpb -- -- -- 1.000 -- Adj. satflow 1624 6006 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information ; ... ;; #.. koroject Description Columbus Tower - 8isc &�Flagler1FJ 2-Way 2007 w/o prof Capacity Analysis :" »Y EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT Adj. flow rate 176 2955 Satflow rate 1624 6006 Lost time 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.26 0.66 Lane group cap. 422 3964 v/c ratio 0.42 0.75 Flow ratio 0.11 0.49 Crit. lane group Y N N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.60 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.65 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay,=anS..Determination .,' . ,. EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT Adj. flow rate 176 2955 Lane group cap. 422 3964 v/c ratio 0.42 0.75 Green ratio 0.26 0.66 Unit delay d1 30.7 11.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.0 1.3 PF factor 1.000 1.000 Control delay 33.7 12.7 Lane group LOS C B Apprch. delay 33.7 12.7 Approach LOS C 6 lntersec. delay 13.9 Intersection LOS 6 HCS20001-M • Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d FULL REPORT ry0.a� General lnformation ... ,�. �..,� a� � ate. rmation .��,.�_._ ,e _.. �`. . `in n fo Analyst haf Agency or Co. TAP Date Performed 7/14/2004 aPeriod PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & Flagler (E Area Type CBD orr Similarj Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/FDOT Analysis Year 2007 with Project Intersection`Geametry ....._._.,�_ ..: ., �._ ..__..�., Grade = 0 0 0 Grade = Show North Arrow _T r -4)E I 1 E � .. L V .Y. - -�- - j = T R Grade = 0 - _- = I_ T E �~ y= L 66 ; 0 "if= 1 0 4 0 Grade LT Volume and Timing Input . _ e: EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 150 616 2175 % Heavy veh 0 2 2 PHF 0.85 0.92 0.92 Actuated (PIA) P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parking/hr Bus stops/hr 0 6 Ped timing 3.2 3.2 EB Only 02 03 04 NB Only 06 07 08 G= 26.0 G= G= G= G= 66.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 1 Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET er1eral Information .: b Project Description Columbus Tower -Bisc & Flagler[E] 2-Way - 2007 w/proj Volume Adjustment . .. �..._.. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 150 616 2175 PHF 0.85 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow Rate 176 670 2364 Lane Group L LT Adj. flow rate 176 3034 Prop. LT or RT -- -- 0.221 -- 0.000 -- Saturat on Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 fW 1.000 1.000 IfHV 1.000 0.980 fg 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 0.994 fa 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 0.91 fLT 0.950 -- - 0.989 -- -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- fRT -- -- -- 1.000 -- fLpb 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- -- fRpb -- -- -- 1.000 — Adj. satflow 1624 5999 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General Information Project Description Columbus Tower -Bisc & Flagler[E] 2-Way - 2007 w/proj Capactty:Ana[ys , .. . EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT Adj. flow rate 176 3034 Satflow rate 1624 5999 Lost time 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.26 0,66 Lane group cap. 422 3959 vlc ratio 0.42 0.77 Flow ratio 0.11 0.51 Grit. lane group Y N N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.61 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical vie ratio 0.67 Lane Group: Capacity, Control De[ay,`and LOS°Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT Adj. flow rate 176 3034 Lane group cap. 422 3959 vlc ratio 0.42 0.77 Green ratio 0.26 0.66 Unit delay di 30.7 11.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.0 1.5 PF factor 1.000 1.000 Control delay 33.7 13.2 Lane group LOS C B Apprch. delay 33.7 13.2 Approach LOS C B Intersec. delay 14.3 Intersection LOS B HCS2000T M • Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.ld FULL REPORT ,�;r ... , ,F Gerie�ai infoimation .. _ �,. � ��.�; ' Site.:tnformatir i r am Analyst haf �gency or Co. TAP bate Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & Flagier St Area Type CBD o Similar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/FDOT Analysis Year Existing 2004 Peak Season inteisectioneork �z� W. ..Gitry ���� Grade = 0 1 4 0 Grade = 0 Ptarth At cm I =T v hT t l E ` V ro- R .., o , . , 2 '11) 1 �t4r ° W = T R Gracie = -- -- E ---------- I. . ! �: , ! , 1 iryr - L R -- Grade = L T R 0 0 0 = Volume and Timing input EB WB NB SB L LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 76 84 798 221 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.80 0.80 0.91 0.91 Actuated (P/A) P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 150 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parkinglhr Bus stops/fir 0 0 6 0 Ped timing 3.2 4.3 WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G = 26.0 G= G= G= G= 66.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= P Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET 1Oeneral Information . . s Project Description Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami (US1 & Flagier - W) Voiii3ir ust:c:ent ^^„C•i c : . BB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 76 84 798 221 PHF 0.80 0.80 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow Rate 95 105 877 243 Lane Group L LT T R Adj. flow rate 95 105 877 243 Prop. LT or RT -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 0.994 1.000 fa 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 fLT -- 0.950 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- - -- -- fRT -- -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 0.850 fLpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- fRpb -- -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 0.932 Adj. satflow 1593 3185 6066 1328 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET ... _....:, s":." . -' _ -vi SW' %arm "� - „� `.� R q r �.' `. j. . kw.�^+ `: " A' � . Y`Y�'i'csh".,.` t� .. i : General lnformat�©rt .;M :r� _ �.�, 4.:� � _. , . Project Description Columbus Tower- Downtown Miami (US1 & Flagler- IN) Ca act Anal sis ,r tY y r . EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT T R Adj. flow rate 95 105 877 243 Satflow rate 1593 3185 6066 1328 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.26 0.26 0.66 0.66 Lane group cap. 414 828 4004 876 vie ratio 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.28 Flow ratio 0.06 0.03 0.14 0.18 Grit. lane group N Y N N N Y Sum flow ratios 0.24 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.26 _p p y Lane`Grou Caacit , Control Delayand LOS Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT T R Adj. flow rate 95 105 877 243 Lane group cap. 414 828 4004 876 vlc ratio 0.23 0.13 0.22 0.28 Green ratio 0.26 0.26 0.66 0.66 U n if. delay d 1 29.1 28.3 6.8 7.1 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 lncrem. delay d2 1.3 0.3 0.1 0.8 PP factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 30.4 28.6 6.9 7.9 Lane group LOS C C A A Apprch. delay 29.5 7.1 Approach LOS C A Intersec. delay 10.5 Intersection LOS B FHCS2000T M • Copyright O 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1u FULL REPORT rmation . ..� , ,._� � �... �_ _.� �,���� �-���rv..; Genera! Info ., . rr i R- Srte.i~r�forrriaiort ;, Analyst haf b gency or Co. TAP Date Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak intersection Biscayne Blvd & Flagler Area Type CBa Si(Wesmilar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/FDOT Analysis Year 2007 without Project Inte iie.fion`Getimetry ... ;< Grade = 0 4 0 Grade = 0 ShCtii North krow T o 0 R _ i I i 717-1 - L ._ [ i 0 4 = TR Grade = 0 = L T _:________ i ity. Grade = "" LR L T R 0 0"4('_ 0 Volume and timing Input.. _ : ....;;: ,..: EB WB NB SB L LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 150 150 83 461 1094 98 % Heavy veh 0 0 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.91 0.91 Actuated (P/A) PPPPP P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedfBike/RTOR Volume 150 0 0 150 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parkingfhr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 6 0 Ped timing 4.3 4.3 EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 39,0 G= G= G= G= 53.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= II Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET . f. .-4�i.+ w: h -',ter :: p / - R'-.�; F°"1'"` 1�`-t^:. .u<,,;c.A':.la^'5�.w'� -.i9,n 5. G, < enerat..informat on r .:.. W Project Description Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami (US1 & Hagler -DM 2-Way) Volume .A'djustment -:�a "� �Y,`..: `. .._��,'.`. �>,'„f. M-S..-<�"� ,..,... ..,"'�.y>:`. 4:...« - EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 150 150 83 461 1094 98 PHF 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow Rate 176 176 104 576 1202 108 Lane Group TR L T T R Adj. flow rate 352 104 576 1202 108 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 -- 0.500 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 Saturation Flow Rate :- Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 7.000 1.000 /fHV 1.000 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.994 1.000 fa 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 fLT 1.000 -- 0.372 1.000 - -- 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- - -- -- fRT -- 0.933 -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 0.850 fLpb 1.000 -- 0.941 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- fRpb -- 0.942 -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 0.859 Adj. satflow 1503 587 1676 6066 1223 Sec. adj. satflow -- - -- • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET a Gen_ . .._.:, .�..w:. 'P:_ 'Project Description Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami (US1 & Fiagler[Wj 2-Way) �.-.; ... .,.� .,'�:.- � Capacity:AnalySis"� . s ' ��y ��w e'3�.`-w�ic .a...r:o°L,.-a"''"rd'...„ �wy, 1r�,rr A ��r/' =�;a e°-�'-�^�jbw � } '+'��c u�'rs'u.;��...=r"�..:.. ° .. .. ^>: EB WB NB SB Lane group TR L T T R Adj. flow rate 352 104 576 1202 108 Satflow rate 1503 587 1676 6066 1223 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 Lane group cap. 586 229 654 3215 648 vlc ratio 0.60 0.45 0.88 0.37 0.17 Flow ratio 0.23 0.18 0.34 0.20 0.09 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.54 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical vlc ratio 0.59 Lane Group Capacit , Control Delay; and L©S:Determination EB WB NB SB Lane group TR L T T R Adj. flow rate 352 104 576 1202 108 Lane group cap. 586 229 654 3215 648 v/c ratio 0.60 0.45 0.88 0.37 0.17 Green ratio 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 Unit delay di 24.3 22.6 28.3 13.8 12.1 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 lncrem. delay d2 4.5 6.4 15.7 0.3 0.6 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 28.8 29.0 44.1 14.1 12.7 Lane group LOS C C D B B Apprch. delay 28.8 41.8 14.0 Approach LOS C D B Intersec. delay 24.3 Intersection LOS C HCS2000T � I Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved Version 4. i d BACK -OF -QUEUE WORKSHEET eiral . scr HCS2000T M • Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. FULL REPORT �� ., General Information .�.. ... .. itean#"or anon S „s. n nalyst haf Igency or Co. TAP Date Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & Flagler (West) Area Type CBD or Similar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/PDOT Analysis Year 2007 with Project IntersectiorrGeometry �� = Grade = 0 1 4 0 Grade = 0 _ 0 F- - ' I 0 R r = l o 4_ -,--1_,.. _ / ir.--ir _- I R Grade = 0 Nyr Grade = = LR L T R 0 0 0 = Volume and Timing Input .. _s,:. ...a. EB`.:. WB NB SB L LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 150 150 83 533 1094 110 % Heavy veh 0 0 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.91 0.91 Actuated (P/A) PPPP P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 150 0 0 150 0 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parkinglhr Bus stops/hr 0 0 0 6 0 Ped timing 4.3 4.3 EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 41.0 G= G= G= G= 51.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= IF Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET ��':�.` ." ,.,5." "vf' `fi .:. 5 �� Yv :;�..q._.. ' i, � di .� 'P" �=ejy'a� +€."`��'"�. 1' "C ��"���� `E-'°' eneral lnformat�on ,:..,.,, .��. ,.:, Project Description Columbus Tower - US1 & Flagler AM (w/ 2-Way) 2007 w/proj Volume Adjustment ... .M... r.._ .,.. a ..:.k. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 150 150 83 533 1094 110 PHF 0.85 0.85 0.80 0.80 0.91 0.91 Adj. Flow Rate 176 176 104 666 1202 121 Lane Group TR L T T R Adj. flow rate 352 104 666 1202 121 Prop. LT or RT 0.000 -- 0.500 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 Saturatio"r Flow Rate: r , Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 /HV 1.000 0.980 0.980 0.980 0.980 fg 9.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.994 1.000 fa 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 1.00 fLT 1.000 -- 0.389 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- -_ -- -- fRT -- 0.933 -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 0.850 fLpb 1.000 -- 0.943 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- fRpb -- 0.945 -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 0.853 Adj. satflow 1507 614 1676 6066 1216 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET /� µ General Information ,� .. , . � Jc !Project Description Columbus Tower - US1 & Hagler 'WI (w/ 2-Way) 2007 w/proj Capacity:Analysis ... _�..,�:.�� _ _. .... EB WB NB SB Lane group TR L T T R Adj. flow rate 352 104 666 1202 121 Satflow rate 1507 614 1676 6066 1216 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.51 Lane group cap. 618 252 687 3094 620 v/c ratio 0.57 0.41 0.97 0.39 0.20 Flow ratio 0.23 0.17 0.40 0.20 0.10 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y N Sum flow ratios 0.60 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.65 Lane Group Capacity, Control `Delay; `and LOS Determinat on _ _, . > EB WB NB SB Lane group TR L T T R Adj. flow rate 352 104 666 1202 121 /Lane group cap. 618 252 687 3094 620 v/c ratio 0.57 0.41 0.97 0.39 0.20 Green ratio 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.51 Unit delay di 22.7 20.9 28.9 15.0 13.3 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0,50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 3.8 4.9 27.6 0.4 0.7 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 26.5 25.9 56.5 15.3 14.0 Lane group LOS C C E B 8 Apprch. delay 26.5 52.4 15.2 Approach LOS C D 8 Intersec. delay 28.5 Intersection LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright •c` 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.id • FULL REPORT f'�n tj j j^��y j „ General Information Y r a k ..� ;: ..� .....: .....:Site i- I. 1, ✓ g b ¢@ Iraformat�on �,��, �. �.��.�-..������ .� Analyst haf Agency or Co. TAP Date Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & NE 1st Street Area Type CBD or Similar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/FDOT Analysis Year Existing 2004 Peak Season Inte`rsectian Geometry ..: :.,. Grade = 0 0 4 0 ! i-1 L L €_ .2_ , _i Grade = 0 North Arrow fi =1 1 r = R 2 .1) Grade = - 7-- �*- _ 11 ir� 1 = LR i TO Grade - 0_ = LTR 0 Volume and Tir iiing Input ..1 EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 13 70 1006 179 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) P P P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/Bike/RTOR Volume 0 120 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N ParkingThr Bus stopsihr 0 0 6 Ped timing 3.2 4.1 WB Only 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 G= G= G= 77.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= _G= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET M N ter, f �� ;.a��� � � . -;. �-, � M� � � f ��� lenerai lntormaton ; _ . Project Description Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami Votume.Ad usfi4ii r ....... ......_.. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 13 70 1006 179 P H F 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow Rate 16 84 1118 199 Lane Group L LT TR Adj. flow rate 16 84 1317 Prop. LT or RT -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.151 s SatuonratiFtow Rate. Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.980 0.980 0.980 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 0.994 fa 0.90 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 0.95 0.91 fLT - 0.950 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- Secondary fLT -- -- -- fRT -- -- 1.000 -- -- 0.977 fLpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- fRpb -- -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1593 3185 5928 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET General lnformatioln k _ u::. y _m.., ram:. N _... ....: Project Description Columbus Tower Downtown Miami Capacit=Analysis:......._.... EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT TR Adj. flow rate 16 84 1317 Satflow rate 1593 3185 5928 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.77 Lane group cap. 239 478 4565 vlc ratio 0.07 0,18 0.29 Flow ratio 0.01 0.03 0.22 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y Sum flow ratios 0.25 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.27 Lane Groh Capacity, Control Delay;''and LOS' Determination `� EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT TR Adj. flow rate 16 84 1317 Lane group cap. 239 478 4565 v/c ratio 0.07 0.18 p.29 Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.77 Unit delay di 36.5 37.1 3.4 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.5 0.8 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 37.0 37.9 3.6 Lane group LOS D D A Apprch. delay 37.8 3.6 Approach LOS D A lntersec. delay 6.0 Intersection LOS A HCS2000Tyt Copyright w. 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 • • • FULL REPORT Genera lnfarmatinn .._ Site:;Cifforaton , 4 Analyst haf Agency or Co. TAP Date Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & NE lst Street Area Type CBD or Similar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/FDOT Analysis Year 2007 w/o Project (Flagler 2- 140 Intersedinn Geometry _ ..:: tip... _ :. Grade = 0 0 4 0 }J Grade - 0 =T ' 0 1---` _ I 1? 0! r , - _ iij 2 '11) a i L itili 0 1' — i i ! f = T R i ' = L T Grade = j % F i -.yip' I 'If 0 0 0 Grade = •_ L T Volume and Timing Input y EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 14 163 1178 314 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 Actuated (PIA) PPPP P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 4 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 PedIBike/RTOR Volume 0 120 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or N) N N N N N N N N Parkinglhr Bus stops/hr 0 0 6 Ped timing 3.2 4.1 EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 77.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET Gen 'ei eral[nformatio' � „ Project Description Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami Voluim7 Adjustment ..� , _... =. EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 14 163 1178 314 PHF 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow Rate 17 196 1309 349 Lane Group L T TR Adj. flow rate 17 196 1658 Prop. LT or RT -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.000 -- 0.210 Saturation Flores Rate Base satfiow 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.980 0.980 0.980 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1,000 0.994 fa 0.90 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 0.95 0.91 fLT -- 0.950 1.000 -- -- 1.000 - Secondary fLT -- -- -- fRT -- -- 1.000 -- -- 0.968 fLpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- fRpb -- -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1593 3185 5874 Sec. adj. satfiow -- -- -- • • CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Genn,_. =" General tnformatr , ... G " .er"„ rx fi i`� G ti si` _ /� .3 �. -yz' �'6 ��-:�.v '.£ .:� - _° Geon.,e . N ��y ,. Project Description Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami Capacity Analysis ,... �:.. EB WB NB SB Lane group L T TR Adj. flow rate 17 196 1658 Satflow rate 1593 3185 5874 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.77 Lane group cap. 239 478 4523 v/c ratio 0.07 0.41 0.37 Flow ratio 0.01 0.06 0.28 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y Sum flow ratios 0.34 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical vlc ratio 0.37 Lane Gr©up "Capacity, Control `Delay, an cl' LOS'©eterm>Inal ' Ln � ' 4 r EB WB NB SB Lane group L T TR Adj. flow rate 17 196 1658 Lane group cap. 239 478 4523 v/c ratio 0.07 0.41 0.37 Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.77 Unit delay d1 36.5 38.5 3.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 lncrem. delay d2 0.6 2.6 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 0.250 Control delay 37.1 41.1 1.2 Lane group LOS D D A Apprch. delay 40.8 1.2 Approach LOS D A Intersec. delay 5.7 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. Id FULL REPORT General information , , $ ..... w Site tnforrna ion Analyst haf Agency or Co. TAP Date Performed 7/14/2004 Time Period PM Peak Intersection Biscayne Blvd & NE 1st Street Area Type CBD or Similar Jurisdiction Miami-Dade/FOOT Analysis Year 2007 with Prof (2-W Flagler) IntersealCiWGeometry Grade = 0 0 4 0 I— ; Ei Grade = 0 i i irt Shaw North Arrow A = T 0 0 r = R ° it 2 ' - L ! 1 Grade =; — = LT : : , 1 , .,y,„ = L R itiir . 1 Grade = 'r'1!`� 0 o a _ Volume and Tiiiiing`lnput .....: _: . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume (vph) 14 163 1190 314 % Heavy veh 2 2 2 2 PHF 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 Actuated (P/A) PPPP P P Startup lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Ext. eff. green 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type 3 3 3 Unit Extension 3.0 3.0 3.0 Ped/BikelRTOR Volume 0 120 0 Lane Width 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking (Y or Nj N N N N N N N N Parkinglhr Bus stops/hr 0 0 6 Ped timing 3.2 4.1 EW Perm 02 03 04 SB Only 06 07 08 G= 15.0 G= G= G= G= 77.0 G= G= G= Timing Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis (hrs) = 0.25 Cycle Length C = 100.0 VOLUME ADJUSTMENT AND SATURATION FLOW RATE WORKSHEET Gen'eral:lnforma#ion:<9.z `y .z . ; `._; . . Project Description Columbus Towers - Downtown Miami ="i`Y:.;.:.. ; ..' .. --ry "JK+ VR. u „K� cam, olume.Adiustment . �. r .�._. .._. _ �.. � _. �... . EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Volume 14 163 1190 314 PHF 0.83 0.83 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow Rate 17 196 1322 349 Lane Group L LT TR Adj. flow rate 17 196 1671 Prop. LT or RT -- 0.000 -- 0,000 -- 0.000 -- 0.209 Satura#ran Fiow Ra#e,...,r. Base satflow 1900 1900 1900 Num. of lanes 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 fW 1.000 1.000 1.000 fHV 0.980 0.980 0.980 fg 1.000 1.000 1.000 fp 1.000 1.000 1.000 fbb 1.000 1.000 0.994 fa 0.90 0.90 0.90 fLU 1.00 0.95 0.91 fLT -- 0.950 1.000 -- -- 1.000 - Secondary fLT -- -- -- fRT -- -- 1.000 -- -- 0.969 fLpb -- 1.000 1.000 -- -- 1.000 -- fRpb -- -- 1.000 -- -- 1.000 Adj. satflow 1593 3185 5876 Sec. adj. satflow -- -- -- -- CAPACITY AND LOS WORKSHEET Genera[, Information.-..., ... . Project Description Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami g Capacity Anal ysis s fix.- a� � , -- , s _ EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT TR Ad. flow rate 17 196 1671 Satflow rate 1593 3185 5876 Lost time 2.0 2.0 2.0 Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.77 Lane group cap. 239 478 4525 v/c ratio 0.07 0.41 0.37 Flow ratio 0.01 0.06 0.28 Crit. lane group N N Y N Y Sum flow ratios 0.35 Lost time/cycle 8.00 Critical v/c ratio 0.38 Lane Grou Ca` aci Control`Delay,sand P p � tir, `� � :. LOS Determinai of f EB WB NB SB Lane group L LT TR Adj. flow rate 17 196 1671 1 Lane group cap. 239 478 4525 v/c ratio 0.07 0.41 0.37 Green ratio 0.15 0.15 0.77 Unit delay di 36.5 38.5 3.7 Delay factor k 0.50 0.50 0.50 Increm. delay d2 0.6 2.6 0.2 PF factor 1.000 1.000 1.000 Control delay 37.1 41.1 3.9 Lane group LOS D D A Apprch. delay 40.8 3.9 Approach LOS D A Intersec. delay 8.1 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM • Copyright © 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4. I d ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site"liiformation ;;r . .. r , ,: . Analyst haf Agency/Co. TAP Date Performed 11/05/2003 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Intersection NE 3rd Avenue & lst Street Jurisdiction Miami -Dade Analysis Year 2004 Peak Season Project ID Columbus Tower - Downtown Miami East/West Street: NE 1st Street INorthiSouth Street: NE 3rd Avenue Volume" Adjustments.aed Site Characteristics .,.,... f..., ,... .. ...._:... ,.. x.., �..,..:.. .:; Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 197 52 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume 21 31 L 0 0 0 0 %Thrus Left Lane 35 I 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration T TR LT PHF 0.91 0.91 0.67 Flow Rate 107 165 77 % Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 0 2 1 0 Geometry Group 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Satur ton Headway Adjustment Worksh eet' ,0 p 0 0 0 0.4 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.00 0.00 0.00 Depar rture Headway and Servicc e Tirr�ee hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.10 0.15 0.07 hd, final value 0.00 0.00 0.00 x, final value 0.12 0.18 0.10 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 Service Time Capacity...and Level of Service; Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Li L2 LI L2 Li L2 Li L2 Capacity 357 415 327 Delay 7.70 7.77 8.03 LOS A A A Approach: Delay 7.74 8.03 LOS A A Intersection Delay 7.81 Intersection LOS A fICS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved Version 4.1d ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information `< Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period haf TAP 11/12/2003 PM Peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year NE 3rd Avenue & 1st Street Miami -Dade 2007 without Project Project ID Columbus Tower- Downtown Miami EastiWest Street: NE 1st Street North/South Street: NE 3rd Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site"Characteristics" "A Approach Movement L Eastbound T R L Westbound T Volume 0 0 0 0 413 64 %Thrus Left Lane 50 60 Approach Movement Northbound T R L Southbound T Volume 12 22 0 0 0 0 %Thrus Left Lane 30 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration T TR LT PHF 0.91 0.91 0.67 Flow Rate 271 252 49 Heavy Vehicles No. Lanes 0 2 1 0 Geometry Group 1 1 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns 0.0 0.0 0.3 Prop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.00 0.00 0.00 Departure' Headway and'Service Time` hd, initial value 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.24 0.22 0.04 hd, final value 0.00 0.00 0.00 x, final value 0.31 0.27 0.07 Move -up time, m 2.0 2.0 Service Time Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capac y 521 502 299 Delay 8.85 8.35 8.30 LOS A A A Approach: Delay 8.61 8.30 LOS A A Intersection Delay 8.58 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, Alt Rights Reserved Version 4.1d ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Genera # information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period haf TAP 07/08/04 PM Peak Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year NE 3rd Avenue & 1st Street Miami -Dade 2007 with Project Project ID Columbus Tower- Downtown Miami East/West Street: NE 1st Street (Exist.. One -Way) North/South Street: NE 3rd Avenue (1 lane & 1-Way) Volu'nie .d ustments ai d'Site`Characterist cs A.. roach Movement Volume 0 ISIENEE A. proach Movement Volume 50 Eastbound T 0 R 0 Northbound %Thrus Left Lane 0 Eastbound 28 Westbound L 0 60 413 64 Southbound L 0 0 Westbound 50 Northbound 0 0 Southbound Configuration Flow Rate TR ®�� --_ 0.91 0.91 0.65 -- 252 109 -- No. Lanes Geometry Group Duration, T 0 1 0 0.25 Satufatiori Headwa` Ad`ustment Worksheet Prop. Left -Turns Prop. Right -Turns Prop. Heavy Vehicle hLT-adj hRT-at hHV-adj hadj, computed 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 -0.6 0.2 0.2 -0.6 -0.6 0.2 -0.6 -- 0.00 0.00 0.00 De arture Headwa' and' Service Time hd, initial value hd, final value 3.20 0.24 3.20 0.22 3.20 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.28 0.15 2.0 2.0 Ca•aci and I-evel of Service `s .- Eastbound Westbound Capacity Northbound Southbound 1111111.1111111 521 502 359 _-_ -_ 9.19 8.67 8.90 __.111111 _lIll. 1111111.11111111 Delay LOS Approach: Delay LOS Intersection Delay 8.94 A 8.90 A 8.93 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright © 2003 University or Florida, Alt Rights Reserved Version 4.1 d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY . -�, Cenecal ln Si#e .lformaton Y analyst haf Agency/Co. TAP A g Date Performed 7/15/2004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour NE 3rd Avenue & South Intersection Drive Jurisdiction City of Miami Analysis Year 2007 Project Description Columbus Tower MUSP East/West Street: South Drive North/South Street: NE 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle :Volumes and Adjustments „ Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 69 49 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.60 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 114 81 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -_ -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 12 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 19 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R ❑elay," Queue Lerigth,'and Levelof Service`. _ :-.. Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (vph) 19 C (m) (vph) 829 v/c 0.02 95% queue length 0.07 Control Delay 9.4 LOS A 1Approach Delay -- -- 9.4 f Approach LOS -- -- A Rights Reserved HCS200OTM Version 4.ld Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General [n ormaMior . St e nformation .. t: � ; ... Analyst haf ,' gency/Co. TAP Date Performed 7115/2004 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection NE 3rd Avenue & North Drive Jurisdiction City of Miami Analysis Year 2007 Project Description Columbus Tower MUSP East/West Street: North Drive North/South Street: NE 3rd Avenue Intersection Orientation: North -South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle V olumes:andutmenis� ...... =.. .. r.. _ -.. Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 46 35 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 0.60 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 76 58 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 0 0 Configuration TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 0 0 25 0 0 0 I Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Length, and Level"of Service ,. ...t Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (vph) 41 C (m) (vph) 883 vlc 0.05 95% queue length 0.15 Control Delay 9.3 LOS A Approach Delay - -- 9.3 'Approach LOS -- -- A Rights Reserved fICS2OOOT t Version 4.1d Copyright © 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1d • • • APPENDIX K FLAGLER MARKETPLACE • • Figure B-5: Existing (2000) PM Peak -Hour Turning Movements J 110.00055. 1.51 500 11:77-1111.111111 IA t_ : 115.0.5555 150 50.55.5.0 14..05505 [AAA.. IA IS 10 r 10 DA. 1110 Upon.. 111. 110 AO IAAAAA o5A05.0, 150 t t 500 Legerta: • Cmat,15.5.1 0 AA PM CAA. AAA..< *AAA —GA* AAA AAA.* Bidee I I Bride Li C. 11-1( 1 r J IA A•51 Ars.* SA. Source: The CORRADINO Group, 2001 Legend Cana. Ifn 1,1 Cantu Arran. Source: The CORRADINO Group, 2001 Figure D-3: Future PM Peak -Hour Turning Movements on o o — 1 r C.ct Pootot Na.9 Era 12+6360 Rrl N 5242AS SO E 523058 J6 END PROPOSED CUPP AND DITTER MATCH EXISTIND CURB & GUTTER /2+58.23 (17.23• LT1 8EG/N PROPOSED CURD ANC cvrrEA WATCH EXISTING Cl/Ra & SUTTER 40+05.52 119.48 LTI Pr I2+2772 8.3.F TT \ BET EXIST:SG CURB & DITTE. ITO BE PENC:;,°'' MILLING & RESURFACING 2D.19' RT 20/9' RI BEGIN pRopr,v:o CURB AND GUTTER MATCH EX:53195 CURB & CUTTER 40,5522 RTI Pt 114.491, 834' LT END PROPOSED CURE AND CTITER MATCH EXISTING CUPS & GUTTER 11+3222 05.24. TTI IT603.22 / 834' LT MATCH STA 41Ei3.53 STA 11499_90 N 524;824359 E 9335557033 CONIST. SE 1 sr + CORSI SE .3 AVE ' BEGIN PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTER MATCH EXISTING CURE & GUTTER 12525.50 (25.52* fin END PROPOSED CURD AND GUTTER MATCH EXISTING CURB & GJTTER 4,83.76 (19.-SZ' Lrl / LIMITS OF IIILLINC & RESURFACING PT 4)575.11 f 51 A 45we3.76 PC 12.5633 /7.55' RT 11.73' LT C ORRADINO CONST SE 1 ST S.E. 1st STREEr LEGEND METROPOLJTAN DeLDE COUNTY P5573LIC WORXS DEPARTMENT' 8428 cot?v-rr PrraLiC woRrS IrrAPT: HILTITINLLY OrmIsTON fuallt START, COV/62 wwww.EmENT pRaCcr PAVEC1 AO. SNEET22. OF 159 SIDEWAIX RESURFACING. SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION. PAYERS PLACEMENT & 51DE3AL6 mxsra.croi. PAVEmENT wIDENINC,. FLAGLER MARKET PLACE ROADWAY PLAN XIS LING SIG TO REITA1N ;;7m-46-21 Ex1S71NG SIGN q IM TO REMAIN rot p4 7L0-46-21 E. FLAGLER STREET, .. RM' UNEr ._ 15.38' R GATE 1 BY EXISTING SC,N TO 8E REu0V:0 700-46-11 BUS STOP a'3US DESCRIPTION EXISTING SIGN EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN TO REMAIN 700-46-21 700-46-21 NO;; EXISTING SEW 70 REMAIN 700-46-21 FEVISIONS GATE BY If j0 11, 0 (0 40 Feel EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN 700-46-21 OESCRIPrICN 12l( I, 12L' MATCH LINE STA. I6+60 (SHEET 791_ EXISTING SIGN FROM STA. 38+50.00 ON FLAGLER W Y za L�03 ={Di�1 mj,a,. Ex157/NG SIGN TO REMAIN 7c0-46-21 EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN 7GC-46-21 MATCH LINE STA. (3+30 (SHEET 841 qG-6' YE (TYR.) r`ou, z f /3 EXISTING SIGN TO BE RELOCATED TO STA. 15+53.00 ON N.E. 3T0 AVEN✓E 700-46-21 EXISTING 5 TO RE 7/Xi-46 `EXISTING 5 70 REMAIN 7G0-46-51 1 40+3520 6.77' LTLT DADE GW/.v7T P5JETJC W0R65 Gam IOGNWAY DOVLSTON rL CL-ER STREET LTWRIO 8 rvM3HEMENT 2R0.IECT PAYECT Na. 610140_ SHEET 7O_ 5; 159 REFLECT NE PAVEMENT YARYER —f Bi-0/RECTi0WAL !AMBER/AMBER) (TYRJ \40+6227 18.44' RT z <I" EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN O 70G-46-21 N 2 C ORRADINO METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY PLBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CARR SMITH CORRADINO GATE: FLAGLER MARKET PLACE SIGNING AND MARKING PLAN ExIsrmc sicx TO REMAIN 7C0-46-21 ZZ c)74.-w z,...z....- Ersrorc SCN TO REMAIN 11'±'Llt.,11 16' WHITE , • G — F frypx EXISTING SIGN TO REMAIN TGO-46-2t REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT mARXER 1 CA .... MCNIO-DIRECTIGNAL (COLGgLESSI ITYPJ '.,' ...nE" FtECTIVE -PAVEMENT mARKER 1,,,,et-OIRECT0(P1(AM5ER/AmeEIVITYPJ r`l i '''''''•O‘. FLECTNE PAVEMENT MARKER ''; BI,DIFJECTKINAL ICOLORLESS/PEDIMPJ i (2n.N'FJNHITE ''.. 143-1 700-40-1 \ 1 1 2-6YE11.001 (TYPJ 64 WHITE 25' R 6' YEUEZV Feet CXX/YTT PCISUC oraus DAPS: NIGFIWAT DIVISJON f 110-ER STREET CUIRICOR erHorEidENT P0-0(T PROJECT PO. 64140 v.-Er _74 or 159 DATE SCRiPTION REVISIONS DATE 5, 0.E5c010r0N C ORRADINO METROPOLITAN DADE CM -WTI' PLIMJC WORKS DEPARTMENT RR SMITH CORRADINO APP En DATE: FLAGLER MARKET PLACE SIGNING AND MARKEVG PLAN • APPENDIX L COMMITTED AND PROPOSED • DEVELOPMENTS • Mist MUST Traffic Impact Study MIST • • The gross vehicular trip generation for each land use was determined using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation rates or formulas. • Gross vehicular trips were reduced by l6% based upon the use of the ITE trip rates (City of Miami's 1.4 vs. ITE's 1.2 pers/veh). • Gross vehicular trips were reduced by 22.6% to reflect transit usage based on projected modal splits from Increment II of the Downtown DRI. • Gross vehicular trips were also reduced by 1 0% for pedestrian/bicycle based on estimates from Increment II of the Downtown DRI. • The net external vehicle trips were converted to person -trips using 1.4 persons per vehicle pursuant to City standards. • The vehicular trips assigned to transit were converted back to person -trips using 1.4 persons per vehicle pursuant to City standards. • The net external person -trips were obtained by adding together the project net external person -trips for the vehicle and transit modes. Imor A trip generation summary for the project is provided in Exhibit 9. 4.3.2 Project Trip Assignment Project traffic was distributed and assigned to the study area using the Cardinal Distribution for ) TAZ 517, shown in Exhibit 10. The Cardinal Distribution gives a generalized distribution of trips from a TAZ to other parts of Miami -Dade County. ) i For estimating the trip distribution for the project location, consideration was given to conditions such as the roadway network accessed by the project, roadways available to travel in the desired ) direction, and attractiveness of traveling on a specific roadway. Exhibit 11 shows the project ) vehicular trip assignment to the impacted roadway segments and intersections. Exhibit 11 shows the total PM peak hour traffic volumes (with project) at the intersections under study. 0 Page 16 0 • • Exhibit 9 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Analysis USES UNITS PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS ITE Land Use Code IN OUT TOTAL Trips % Trips Trips High -Rise Condominuim Retail General Office 516 DU 29,300 SQ. FT. 24,500 SQ. FT. 232 820 710r 62% 48% 1 119 134 ✓ 18 38% 52% 33,17r 73 145 89 `/ 192 279 107 GROSS VEHICLE TRIPS 47% 271 53% 307 578 Vehicle Occupancy Adjustment @ 16% of Gross External Trips (1) Transit Trip Reduction @ 22.60% of Gross External Trips (2) Pedestrian / Bicycle Trip Reduction @ 10.00% of Gross External Trips (3) 47% 47% 47% 43 61 27 53% 53% 53% 49 69 31 92 131 58 NET VEHICLE TRIPS 47% 1 39 53% 158 � 297XTERNAL 1.40 Persons/ Vehicle 1.40 Persons/ Vehicle 47% 47% 47% 195 i'86; ' 281 53% 53% 53% 221 97 /- 318 416 183 599 Net External Person Trips in Vehicles @ Net External Person Trips using Transit @ Net External Person Trips (vehicles and transit modes) Persons/ Vehicle 47% 38 f 53% 43 81 Net External Person trips walking / using bicycle 1.40 Notes (1) A 16% reduction to adjust for the difference between ITE auto occupancy and local data (Miami's 1.4 vs. ITE's 1.2 pers/veh) (2) Transit trip reduction based on projected modal splits used in the Downtown Miami DR1 Increment II (3) Pedestrian and bicycle trip reductions based on Downtown characteristics used in the Downtown Miami DRI Increment II\ NW !0 S T • NW 9 ST NW 8 ST (35%) — tt Sox 70X c ,4 N.T.S. PROJECT SITE ti cr} o 0 k NW7ST --4--• 351 f5x LEGEND IN = (XXX) OUT = XXX rn+ - ONE WAY dPa PHOJ C T, TITLE, MIST TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY PROJECT VEHICULAR TRIP ASSIGNMENT EXHIBIT No. 11 Page 19 TRANSPORT ANALYSIS PROFESSIONALS, INC. 8701 S.W, 137th AVENUE • SUITE 210 • MIAMI, FL 33183-4498 • TEL 3051385-0777 • FAX 305/385-9997 FAX & MAIL July 2, 2002 Mr. Clark P. Turner Chief, Community Planning City of Miami Planning Building & Zoning Department 444 SW 211d Avenue Third Floor Miami, Florida 33130 RE: One Miami — Traffic Report Major Use Special Permit IDDear Mr. Turner: • Transport Analysis Professionals, Inc., (TAP) has been requested to prepare a traffic report regarding the proposed One Miami development near the Dupont Plaza area in downtown Miami. The proposed development will be located on three city blocks known as tracts B, C and D (Per Attached Figure). The purpose of this traffic report is to depict traffic conditions between a proposed new development and a development that was never built, but was approved by the city in a MUSP application. The approved MUSP traffic report (attached) was performed by David Plummer and Associates --Master Traffic Study for Major Conditional Use Permit (The Plummer Report) and submitted to the city in September 1998 and subsequently upgraded with new data in July 2000. Background The approved aforementioned MUSP is for a development that included tracts A, B, C and D, adjacent to the Dupont Plaza Hotel in downtown Miami. (The proposed new development does not include tract A.) The approved MUSP included the following land uses and their respective size. Hotel _. 300 Rooms Retail — 400,000 sf Condos — 300 Units Apartments — 1,200 Units Office — 1,200,000 sf Planning • Design and Engineering • Accident Reconstruction • State of Florida EB 3766 Mr. Clark P. Turner .July 2, 2002 Page 2 • The trip generation for the approved MUSP development used trip rates that were approved by the South Florida Regional Planning Council as part of the Downtown Miami DRI in September 1994. The rates are also known as Increment One Rates as published in SFRPCs Attachment D-2 and shown in The Plummer Report as Exhibit 5 -Trip Generation, in the approved MUSP for the One Miami project. The rates include a reduction of primary trips to account for internal, transit and pass -by characteristics for all proposed land uses in Downtown Miami. The Plummer Report estimated that 1,202 new primary trips would be generated by the proposed and approved One Miami project for tracts A through D. The report analyzed existing conditions for the following intersections and roadway links: Intersections: - SE 2nd Avenue & SE 2nd Street - SE 3rd Avenue & SE 2nd Street SE 2nd Avenue & SE 3'd Street - SE 3rd Avenue & SE 3rd Street - SE 2nd Avenue & SE 4th Street - SE 3rd Avenue and SE 4th Street - Biscayne Boulevard & SE aid Street Links: - Biscayne Boulevard just north of SE 2nd Street - Brickell Avenue just south of SE 4th Street SE 2fld Avenue just north of SE 2nd Street SE 2nd Street just west of SE 2nd Avenue SE aid Street just west of SE 2nd Avenue In March 2000, David Plummer and Associates produced a preliminary plan for the city of Miami called the Revitalization of the Economic Gateway to Downtown Miami. The plan outlines possible two-way traffic patterns where one-way patterns exist today. Also, the plan suggests other possible changes such as, acquiring additional right of way and relocating the MetroMover. The New One Miami Development The new One Miami project will be considerably smaller than the approved development discussed above. At this writing, the following land uses are being considered: Tract C: Residential - 450 units - Athletic Club - 15,000 sf Retail - 38,275 sf Mr. Clark P. Turner 11) July 2, 2002 Page 3 • Tract B - Entertainment Complex: - Retail - 50,000 sf Theaters - 70,000 sf Tract D: Residential - 650 Units Retail - 27,025 sf Tract B: Residential — 400 units Retail - 31,000 sf A summary of all uses is as follows: Residential - 1,500 Units Retail & Theater - 216,300 sf Athletic Club - 15,000 sf Trip Generation The estimated trip generation between the existing/approved MUSP and the proposed new One Miami development is as follows: (Note: The number of seats for the theater are not known at this time. 1TE rates for square feet were used and reduced by 50% to account for internal, transit and pass -by trips. PM Peak Hour Estimated Trip Generation Volume Using Increment One DRI Rates Approved Proposed Land Use One Miami One Miami Hotel* 72 N/A Retail 208 76 Condos 41 54 Apartments 163 150 Theater N/A 133 Office 718 N/A Totals 1,202 413 ' Includes 100,000 sf Conference Center. 56. (SroTr-' 3( L.0 33 21 �z s6 L°v 53 ri73 44 41 Ank Mr. Clark P. Tuner Rip July 2, 2002 Page 4 As can be seen above, the proposed new One Miami project without the office component will generate about 66% less traffic than the formerly approved One Miami development. Future Considerations The proposed development will be designed to accommodate either the existing one-way or the proposed two-way traffic circulation. At this juncture, the developer is ready to move forward with the development plan to work with the one-way traffic pattern with the thought that a two-way plan may be in place prior to obtaining construction permits for the city. However, the developer is in full support of the two-way traffic patterns, if deemed to be acceptable by the city. • RPE/mp12718 cc: Robert Moreira Timothy Weller Bruce Brosch • Sincerely, TRANSPORT ANALYSIS PROFESSIONALS, INC. E.B. No. 3766 Richard P. Eichinger Senior Traffic Engineer SE 2 ST ...,.... d es� QCi V S•_4ST J B1S .LVD AY DUPONT PLAZA HOTEL MIAMI RIVER ZIFF k l HANSHUHl ANAL YSiS PHul C SSftJ.4 CHOPIN PLAZA INTERCONTINEN OFFICE BAYFRONT PARK INTERCONTINENTAL HOTEL A (NOT A PART OF) LEGEND ONE MIAMI PROJECT PARCEL DESIGNATION TRAFFIC LANE DESIGNATION TRAFFIC SIGNAL FIRST UNION BUILDING BISCAYNE BAY One Miami Site Location ON{MIAML ONE MIAMI - MASTER TRAFFIC STUDY FOR MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT (MUSP) • Project #98157 TRAF3.RPT September 8, 1998 • Prepared by: David Plummer & Associates, Inc. 1750 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, FL 33134 °NEMIAM1.. • • • Exhibit 7 - Cardinal Distribution for TAZ 664 & 665 Cardinal Direction Distribution NNE 11.86% ENE 6.14% ESE 0.96% SSE 1.50% SSW 12.24% WSW 25.86% WNW 20.40% NNW 21.08% Total 100.00% Exhibit 8: Project Trip Assignment Roadway Segment Percent of Project Traffic Entrance Exit 18% (SB) 28% (NB) Biscayne Boulevard north of SE 2nd St. Brickell Avenue south of SE 4th St. 28% (NB) 28% (SB) SE 2nd Avenue north of SE 2nd St. 21% (SB) N/A* SE 2nd Street west of SE 2nd Ave N/A* 11% (WB) SE 3rd Street west of SE 2nd Ave 33°/0 (EB) 33% (WB) Total 100% 100% (*) N/A: Not applicable because roadway is a one-way street One Miami - Master Traffic Study Page 15 • • • Table L-1 The Lofts Downtown PM Peak Hour Trip generation ITE Land Enter Exit Total Land Use Units Size Use Code Trips Trips Trips Residential - Condo units 196 230 73 35 108 Retail sf 8,000 814 9 12 21 Gross Total Vehicle Trips 82 47 129 Vehicle Occupancy Adjustment @ 16% Transit Trip Reduction @ 22.6% Pedestrian/Bicycle Trip Reduction @ 10% (13) (8) (21) (19) (11) (30) (8) (5) (13) Net External Trips 42 23 65 • The Lofts Downtown Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 196 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium November 25, 2003 Townhouse Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Driveway Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total Saturday 2-Way Volume Saturday Peak Hour Enter Saturday Peak Hour Exit Saturday Peak Hour Total 5.88 0.00 0.08 0.37 O .44 0.37 0.18 O .55 5.80 0.27 0.23 O .50 O .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O .00 0.00 0.00 O .00 1.00 1152 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 16 73 86 73 35 108 1137 53 45 98 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Tne above rates were calculated from these equations: 24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: LN(T) = . 85ZN (X) + 2.564, R^2 -- 0.83 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: ZN(T) = .79LN(X) + .298 110 R^2 = 0.74 , 0.17 Enter, 0.83 Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) - .827LN(X) + .309 R^2 = 0.79 , 0.67 Enter, 0.33 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) -= .808LN(X) + .209 R^2 = 0.78 , 0.18 Enter, 0.82 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .777LN(X) + .59 R'2 = 0.8 , 0.65 Enter, 0.35 Exit Sat. 2-Way Volume: T = 3.615(X) + 427.925, R^2 = 0.84 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: T = .286(X) + 42.627 Sun. 2-Way Volume: T = 3.132(X) + 357.258, R^2 = 0.88 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: T = .232(X) + 50.009 R^2 = 0.78 , 0.49 Enter, 0.51 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS • • • • The Lofts Downtown Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 8 T.G.L.A. of Specialty Retail Center November 25, 2003 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 40.67 13.70 1.00 325 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total Saturday 2-Way Volume 1.11 1.48 2.59 42.04 0.00 0.00 1.74 13.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 9 12 21 336 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS • THE LOFTS CARDINAL DISTRIBUTION PM ENTER TAZ # 538 TOTALS TRIPS 42 NNE 11.08% ENE 4.38% ESE 3.32% SSE 6.64% • SSW 15.46% WSW 25.23% WNW 19.67% NNW 14.22% • • THE LOFTS CARDINAL DISTRIBUTION PM EXIT TAZ # 538 TOTALS TRIPS 23 NNE 11.08% ENE 4.38% ESE 3.32% SSE 6.64% SSW 15.46% • WSW 25.23% WNW 19.67% NNW 14.22% • • THE LOFTS CARDINAL DISTRIBUTION OF PERSON TRIPS ON TRANSIT DURING THE PM PEAK PERIOD TAZ # 538 TOTALS TRIPS 21 =65 AUTO TRIPS X 22.6%X1.4 ppv NNE 11.08% ENE 4.38% ESE 3.32% SSE 6.64% 0 SSW 15.46% WSW 25.23% WNW 19.67% NNW 14.22% • -.--(180 59 (403) ---- (155 ) -A--•(398) 150 TRACT D [n : 316 Out = (569) Total = 885 ( 98 SE 2nd Street SE 3rd Street 447 ---a- HY ATT c. m .3 TRACT C 'G 1, = 125 c\1 Out = (94) tJ Total = 219 (87)2i7-1 (11)202--■- SE 3rd Avenue (329) -a —g TRACT B l = 252 Out = (189) Total = 441 SE 4th Street (518)- Jr- 11 PM Peak Hour c In - 693 0 0.) Out = (852) Total = 1545 70 --1 TAZ 555 s�o Chopin Plaza cv a ch 11 I 3 IL TRANSPORT ANALYSIS PROFESSIONALS Metropolitan PM Peak Hour Site Traffic Figure 3 10 TAB Artetial l Corridor Name _, FLAGLER CORRIDOR FATt3QL.NP SE 1 Street FLAGLER CORRIDOR WESTHQVND Flagler Street FUTURE YEAR (2007) PEAK SEASON CORRIDOR ANALYSIS with GROWTH, COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE TRAFFIC Adopted Allowable E+20 {2390 vph) Adapted Allowable E+29 (2390 vph) FLAGLER CORRIDOR - TWO-WAY TOTAL BISCAYNE CORRIDOR NQRTI46QUND Biscayne Boulevard (NB) BISCAYNE CORRIDOR 5QUr11IL(0136U Brickell Avenue (St31 Adopted Allowable E Adopted Allowable E BISCAYNE CORRIDOR -- TWO-WAY TOTAL 2007 CORR TYPE L) LS PER TRIP ROADWAY CAPACITY VEHICULAR 1PPV= CAPACITY' 1 B (3) 1,996 3,184 3, 9(30 ROADWAY MODE f2OA1)WAY ..„ ROADWAY .. PER, TRIP ROADWAY ... _ _ .. _ROADWAY VOLUME PER. TRIP ROADWAY VEHICULAR gPPV=..._... EXCESS PERSON .... VOLUME" 1 4 PER. TRIP TRIP _(5)_..i8i_ ... 1,252 1,753 1,431 0.55.... 0,368 1,522 S 1,990 3,184 1,022 3,1114 1,1(il 3,960 6.366 2,283 MASS TRANSIT MODE k CCAL filiS EXPRESS I, RAIL TRAN TOTAL TOTAL TRANSIT I PER. TRIP PER. TRIP PER. TRIP TRANSIT TRANSIT PERSON I CAPACITY_ CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY PERSON- ,-_TRIP , .-. LOAD(ri? =LOAD= 1 LOAD= LOAD» TRIP_ EXCESS_ DESIGN... -.-DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN VOLUME CAPACITY Li )t'?L_ (13), Metrolles Flaglnr Max ----> _ Metro BUS lite 11 (EB) ---> Total! ---> 2.E10(-3 elrn Bus Rto 11 (W13) 2,131 4,237 0 33 1,431 1,753 12 �....0 C 0.45 i 1? MetroBus Flagter Max ---> MetroBus Route 2 _ --> MetroBus Route 1E, ----> Total -> 1 419 MetroBus Fta9ler Max -> Meltalus Route 3 --> MetroBus F;oute 1G ---> Total ----> 3,19E 3,172 0 50 (3 L05 TAL9LL" ...._. 0.00 C,.._ 000 C 000 C _ 000 C 000 C 0.39 C _. "040p 0.95 1_., ..�-1_00_-r..... LOS C D E E+20 F DOI Rase Ono -Way Far. VIC Ratio Threshold"' 20 % Adius1 Threshold 650 780 0.39 1580 1900 0.95 1660 1990 1.00 1990 2390 1.20 "' Peak Directional FDOT Class IV CBD Condition ...... 610 ... HEADWAY PER 0 WT AVG SEATS_ PER DIRECTION VEH 20 380 _ _.._. 8 39.0 5.71 38.7 AVG RIDERSHIP 610 243 367 DESIGN LOAD PAX PERCENT PER HOUR FACTOR CAPACITY RIDERSHIP 79 150.00% 171 _.�33°6.-._. 164 15000% 439 67% ,- 160.00% 610 100%,_ CORRIDOR TOTALS CORRIDOR C CORRIDORPERSON CORRIDOR PERSON CORRIDOR ... PERSON TRIP TRIP EXCESS TRIP__ CAPACITY VOLUME _.. 14 "-` 75CAPACITY VIC (4) ( i 0 6) 07) _L05 3,794 1,996 1,708 0.53 AUTO PERSON TRIPS TRANS€T PERSON TRIPS TOTAL PERSON TRIPS = 1.753 87-8% 122% 100 0%_ 456 WTAVG HEADWAY SEATS ...PER PER DIRECTION VEH PER HOUR .7 5 38.0 .._t181_,)_150.009; 1.O66 522 0 AVG RIDERSHIP PAX ) 0 1,066 456 182 274 DESIGN LOAD PAX PERCENT FACTOR CAPACITY Ri41F1TSHIP 456 100% 425 641 522 288 234 --- IrJT AVG AVG HEADWAY SEATS RIDERSHIP DESIGN PER PER PAX LOAD__ DIRECTION VEH PER HOUR FACTOR 20 20_.... 20 6 67 .. 5111 39,9 38,0 .,. 3813 _.. 38.6... 94 99 88,0 150 00% 150 00% 150.00% 150.00`Y PAX CAPACITY 180 171 522 PERCENT RIDERSHIP 33% 34% 3356 100`%s 3,640 560 70130 0.15 AUTO PERSO 1 TRIPS = 378 67,59‘_ _ 7 RANSIT PERSON TRIPS= 2„) 32.5% TOTAL PERSON TRIPS = 560 100.0% 7,434 2,556 4,878 3,706 1,719 0 34 1,987 0.46 C AUTO PERSON TRIPS TRANSIT PERSON TRIPS TOTAL PERSON TRIPS = 1.431 83.2 h .26816.8% 1,719 1000% FIEADWAY. PER DIRECTION 15 20 20 6 0a 1,103 0 WI' AVG SEATS_ PER VE Ii 39.9 38.0 380 38R 0 Sat AVG RIDERSHIP DESIGN PAX LOAD FAX PERCENT PER HOUR FACTOR CAPACITY RIOER6r€1P 86 150,00% 229 33% 91 150,00% 171 __...... - _.-150.0096 171 203 316 i3 15 0 150 00% 501 3396 100%. 1,103 551 5E2 FACTORS: - __ .._..... _ .._..... 2003-2007 Ann. Cr 01 % /yr (comp) 1.0406 Note: Seasonaly Adjusted Base from Table4 _.. PROJECT_VOLUME ASSIGNED Transit Cnrn1lor ! Diirer:lian, Prot Auto Person Tri�1s Flagler Corridor Inbound IEB SE 1 SIlOutbound (WB Elegiac 141 57 Biscayne Corridor _ Inbound (Sp} 169142___ oulbound)N13} 199 167 3.765 2,028 1,737 0.5-1 AUTO PERSON TRIPS - __- 1,795_ 11UWSfT PERSON TRIPS= 263 __-- TOTAL PERSON TRIPS = 2,028 87.0% 13.0% 100 0% 7,471 3,747 3,724 0.50 0 Volume is from the year 2002 FOOT LOS tables Allowable LOS E an Biscayne and E •20% on Flagler and SE 1 St per Miami Adopted LOS LOS A ,4 B not possible under assumptions - other vlc cutoffs use FDO'i LOS lab€e ratios Existing volume adjusted to peak season PM bus ridership per segment from Table 21.A5 Downtown DRI Update Nolo: Finger Max has limited slaps but treated as local service and Metro' e8 serve other riders - MetroMover nearby. Note: Directional project transit trips divided equally among buS mutes serving corridor - Met 1 trips from Figure 3. Committed trips from "Committed Trips Wortrsbeer in appendix M�� Transport Analysis Professionals, inc. JN4104 N NTS cs� 2nd Avenue -d--- 3 60 --+ 3rd Avenue -4--66 Phase 1 TE lam\ Liver t m CO0 SE 4th Street Fiagler Street SE 1st Street SE 2nd Street 1 Chopin Plaza SE 3rd Street n Phase 2 TAZ 557 PM PEAK HOUR 5'0 CONDITION IN OUT TOTAL 21.6011.97 Phase I 185 133 319 22.65 6.59 Phase 2 98 60 157 Total 283 193 476 DUPONT PLAZA PM Peak Hour Site Traffic 25.42, `1.22 5.59 6.77 Figure 3 • • TABLE 6 DUPONT PLAZA • Arterial 7 CortldnF Name TLAOLE R CORRIDOR EASTB0UNL2 SE 1 Street FLADLER CORR1AOR WEST CUNQ Fl.Qler street FUTURE YEAR (2007} PEAK SEASON CORRIDOR ANALYSIS with GROWTH, COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE TRAFFIC MASS TRANSIT MODE (NotuS) ROADWAY MODE ROADWAY ROADWAY PE11 TRIP PER TRIP 2007 ROADWAY CA# ACITY ROADWAY VOI LIME GORF1 VEIIICULAFT 41 PPV-- VEHICULAR 41 PPV=,... TYPE CAPACITY' 1 6 VOLOMC'_ 14 _ - (.l) (4) HI Adopted LS Allowable E.20._. _—.... (2-3901,919 Adopted Plowable E.20 (2390 v(1h) LADLE R CORRIDOR -- TWO-WAY TOTAL BISCAYNE CORRIDOR f4QHTHLICUNI] Blvermile Boulevard (NB) BISCAYNE CO11R400E1 3411II.IB0UNh Bricked Avenue (SB) Ma pled Allowable LS 3.164 1.203 270 3.980 6,368 1,473 Adopted Altuwa61 ISCAYNE CORRIDOR - TWO-WAY TOTAL 90 3.164 15) 4,694 378 2,062 1,022 1,43 ROADWAY Nal 1 RIP EXCESS PER TF)1P ROADWAY 50RSUN_ IMP_ 17) 0. 1 L03 Met0OBus F1a918r Max ---' Metre Bus Isle 111E131 -._ --. - Tom i ---> 2,606 Metro flue Rle 11 (WI3("-"> 4,306 032 C Metra9us Flaler Max -> Malro0ua Boule3 _--> Metr0Bus Brute 16 —> Tote l - 4,261 4410 0 55 3.900 6368 2.2n1 3,156 FOOT Base One -Way F. VIC Ratio 0.00._... C LOS Tht:shoat— 20%. Adjust. Threshold 0 00.0 C 650 760 0.39 000 000 —_.._000 C 039 040 0 `l5 t) 096 1 00 ❑ 1580 1900 0 95 1660 1990 1.00 E.20 1990 2390 120 "' Punk Deochuna€ FOOT Ctaes IV COO Cond9i(r1 MelroBus Fla91m Mae--^-_> Meb08u■ Route 3 MelroBo$ Floulo 15 -> ) T9Ut -,-> '1 172 050 D LOCAL BUS EXPRESS RAIL _TBAN PER. TRIP PER, TRIP PER TRIP CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY t1 LOAD = 4a LOAD = LF LOAD (050GN DESIGNDESIGN _ 18) (9) tl0) 610 0 o I (EADWAY PER IRECT1ON 20 511 WT AVG SEATS PER VEI1 38.0_ 39 0 38 7 TOTAi. TRANSIT CAPACITY 40 LOAO DESIGN (11) 610 TOTAL TRANSIT PERSON T)UP VOLUME 112).. 200 TRANSIT PERSON 1RIP EXCESS CAPACITY 1131 410 AVG RIDERSHIP DESIGN FAX LOAD PAX PERCENT PER HOUR FACTOR CAPACITY RIDERSHIP 56 150.00% 171 28'%. 144 150 00% 439 72 % 200 .....� 150.0( 610 100 WT AVG HEADWAY SEATS PER PER DIRECTION VETS 7.5 380__ 0 AVG ELDERSHIP DESIGN _._ PAX LOAD FAX PERCENT PER 110011 FACTOR CAPACIEY F73DEIIS111P 150 15000:C _._..466.._..r ...._100%.._ 150 306 1,066 0 1,066 350 716 CORRIDOR PERSON_ TRIP CAPACITY (14) CORR(0051 TOTALS CORRIDOR.......-.___._.........__. �....... CORRIDOR PERSON CORRIDOR PERSON TRIP PERSON TRIP EXCESS TRIP ...,. ... .- -. VOl UME CAPACITY WC- _ _.,...._ (15) (161 (17) LOS 1884 t910 050 AUTO PERSON TRIPS - 1,684 1IiANSy r P1R6UN THIPS • 200 TOTAL PERSON TRIPS = 1,684 3189% 37 9% 356 05r. 3,640 520 3.112 0 15 AUTO PERSON TRIPS 11-iAtiSIT PERSCIti TAWS TOTA4. PERSON TRIPS r 376 (50 528 71.6% 28.4% 1000% 7,434 2.412 5,022 0.32 C 522 522 144 378 WT AVG AVG HEADWAY SEATS RIDERSHIP DESIGN PER PER PAX LOAD PAX PERCENT DIRECTION VE11 PER HOUR FACTOR CAPACITYR10ERS1(P 20 399 46 15000% 14)0 32%.__._ 20 38.0 51 15000% 171 35% 20 380 47 150.00% 171 33%� 6 67 38 6 1440 150 00% 522 .._-(000 581 0_�..-0 581 152 WE AVG AVG ...�..,,,—_... ...—__ HEADWAY SEATS RIDERSHIP DE51GN PER PER FAX LOADPAX PERCENT DIRECTION VEH PER 110014 FACTOR CAPACITY l3IDERSRIP 15 39,9 49 1501103E 239 320 -...r 20 38 0 54 150 OMIL 171 36 F. ._.._.-...r ��....- .._ _ 20 38 0 49 150.00%0.00% 171 32 600 -.. 3(16 1520 15000% 581 10034 1,103 1,103 296 807 FACTORS'. 2003 2007 850 Gf ®2 AJTrr SCOro) = 082,4 Note! Seasonally Adjusted Ease Ilan Talllu 4 PROJECT VOLUME ASSPRNEo Transit COriii101.i._Di(0 50 Pr�10.!IOU is4001LI1_. 22.6% 60 _...-29 _.._ 66_,� 20 ..._f 226% 59 27 tltl 18 Hagler Corridor Inbound (ED SF 1 SO Outbound O tbound (WO Haulm] lixay.ta Corridor_._..._.- _ Ift11o0rld (Sri).. OtravvindllaRt 3,706 1,575 2,131 — 043 AUTO PERSON TRIPS = __ 1,431 TRANSIT P1RSON THIPS. 144_ TOTAL PERSON TRIPS = 1,575 AUTO PERSON TRIPS= TRANSIT PERSON TIPS OTAL PERSON TRIPS = 1,848 1,788 152 1,917 27T 01. 272.0% 334.3%_ 1.0% 335 3% 7,471 3.492 3.979 0 47 O Volume is from the year 2002 FDOT L05 tables Allowable L0S E on Biscayne and Er20% on Hagler and SE 1 5t per Miami Adopted LOS LOS A S B not p0551de und8r as5urnpll(v15 - ether Y7C culofls use 0DOT LOS table Ia1W5 EalshnQ volume ad(uslad to peak season PM bus ridership per 50ORsenl horn Table 21.A5 Downtown DR(Update Note' PId019r Max has Oinked steps but healed as IOCa1sery ce and Mel1Wdll serve other riders, 4o604o1er nearby. Nolo- Okce6alal 440(06t train511 a bps filVII Od uqually among Gus 10u1u5 Surv1110 ClxlSial tra.ul1rr i.w • • NE 2 ST NE6ST 20/34 +.24/29 �II 19172 6/24 53/30 56/30 SE2ST FIGURE 8 AM & PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC 60/85 JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. EVERGLADES ON THE BAY dra PROJEZ.. MIAMI RIVER RENAISSANCE PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENTS EXHBIT No. 11) 0 APPENDIX M VALET PARKING QUEUING ANALYSIS • QUEUEING ANALYSIS COLUMBUS TOWER VALET DROP-OFF WITH ONE ENTRY LANE GIVEN VALUES ONE SERVER ARRIVAL RATE (VEH/MIN) SERVICE RATE (VEH/MIN) PROB OF NO CUST IN SYSTEM CALCULATED VALUES UTILIZATION FACTOR EXPECTED WAIT IN SYSTEM EXPECTED WAIT IN QUEUE AVE # IN SYSTEM si AVE # IN QUEUE PROB OF (N or more) CUSTOMERS IN THE SYSTEM (includes people being served, i.e. curbside) S = 1.0000 LAMDA = 0.8167 MU = 2.0000 PO = 0.5917 ROE W WQ L LQ P(2) P(3) P(4) P(5) P(6) P(7) P(8) P(9) P(10) 2= 3= 4= 5= 6= 7= 8= 9= 10 = 49 VEH PER HR 30 SEC. PER VEH. 0.4083 0.8451 MIN. OR 0.3451 MIN. OR 0.6901 0.2818 0.2817 OR EVERY 0.1150 OR EVERY 0.0469 OR EVERY 0.0191 OR EVERY 0.0077 OR EVERY 0.0031 OR EVERY 0.0012 OR EVERY 0.0004 OR EVERY 0.0001 OR EVERY 50.70423 SEC. 20.70423 SEC. 6 VEH. 15 VEH. 36 VEH. 88 VEH. 216 VEH. 528 VEH. 1294 VEH. 3169 VEH. 7760 VEH.