Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Traffic Impact Analysis
• SOHO 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 MAY 2004 Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E. Florida Registration #28258 o • • 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 35 12.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 36 13.0 CONCLUSIONS 36 • • LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 PROJECT DATA TABLE 2 YEAR 2002 AVERAGE ANNUAL DAILY TRAFFIC (AADT) VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) 7 TABLE 3 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 8 TABLE 4 YEAR 2002 WEEKLY AXLE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 8 TABLE 5 SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 9 TABLE 6 EXISTING TRAFFIC BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 22ND STREET AND NE 23RD STREET 10 TABLE 7 EXISTING TRAFFIC NE 23RD STREET EAST OF BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 11 TABLE 8 EXISTING AM & PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 12 TABLE 9 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 17 TABLE 10 EXISTING LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE 18 TABLE 11 PROJECT TRAFFIC 20 TABLE 12 FINAL EXTERNAL PROJECT TRAFFIC 21 TABLE 13 PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION 22 TABLE 14 PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS 24 TABLEI5 ANNUAL AADT GROWTH RATES 25 TABLE 16 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT 27 TABLE 17 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS W/O PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 28 TABLE 18 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT 28 TABLE 19 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITH PROJECT 32 TABLE 20 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS WITH PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 33 TABLE 21 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT 33 TABLE 22 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES 35 TABLE 23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS 37 • o • LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION 2 FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA 4 FIGURE 3 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS BISCAYNE BOULEVARD BETWEEN NE 22ND STREET & NE 23RD STREET 14 FIGURE 4 PEAKING CHARACTERISTICS NE 23RD 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 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT 34 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed Soho Condominium project is a residential project consisting of approximately 95 dwelling units. The project includes approximately 142 on -site parking spaces. The site is located in the City of Miami on the north side of NE 23rd Street east of NE 4th Avenue. Currently, the site is vacant. The project will result in a net increase of approximately 47 vehicles per hour in the AM peak hour and 55 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 2% 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 23rd Street. Loading dock access via NE 23rd 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 facility 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 facility analysis clearly indicates that there is sufficient transportation facility capacity to accommodate the proposed project. • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Soho Condominium is a single phase development consisting of condominiums and parking. As shown in Figure 1, the site is located on the north side of NE 23rd Street east of NE 4th Avenue. The proposed development program is summarized in Table 1. TABLE 1 PROJECT DATA TYPE RESIDENTIAL QUANTI UNITS CONDOMINIUM 95 DU PARKING 142 SPACES Vehicular access to the site is consists of a two-way driveway connecting to NE 23rd Street. Loading dock access via NE 23rd Street. For purposes of this traffic impact analysis, build -out has been estimated to occur by the year 2006. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 1 o NW 62 ST Q DINNER KEY JULIATUTTLE CSWY RICKENBACKER CSWY FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION MIAMI BEACH FISHER ISLAND VIRGINIA KEY KEY BISCAYNE JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 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 level of service 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 27th Street as the northern boundary, NE 19th 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 23rd Street and Biscayne Boulevard NE 22nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard The roadway links include the following: Biscayne Boulevard between NE 19th Street and NE 29th Street JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 3 • • E 29 St cc NE 23 St NE 22 St NE 21 $t NTS Platinum Condo Onyx Bay 25 (Star) —Project Edgewater Tower (Rosabella) Biscayne Village Metropolis Bayshore • ,.,e (Quantum) ■ 1800 Club ■ ; Miramar Center 11 BISCAYNE BAY Venitian Causeway FIGURE 2 STUDY AREA JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 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 and/or 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 23rd Street and NE 4th Avenue. Loading dock access is provided by NE 23rd Street. Biscayne Boulevard (SR-5/US-1) Biscayne Boulevard is a four lane divided roadway with striped median between NE 19th Street and NE 29th Street. Turn lanes are provided at intersections. Traffic signals are located at: • NE 19th Street • NE 21 st Street • NE 22nd Street • NE 26th Street • NE 29th Street This equates to four signalized intersections within approximately five -eighths 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 III. NE 23rd Street NE 23rd Street is a two lane roadway with parking on either side. NE 23rd Street is classified as a local roadway. Traffic on NE 23rd Street is controlled by stop signs at Biscayne Boulevard and at NE 2nd Avenue. NE 23rd Street is interrupted at the FEC Rail Road, west of NE 2nd Avenue. NE 23rd Street is classified as a local roadway and, as such, is not subject to level of service standards. NE 22nd Street NE 22nd Street is a two Zane roadway with parking on either side. NE 22nd Street is classified as a local roadway. Traffic on NE 22nd Street is controlled by a traffic signal at Biscayne Boulevard and stop signs at NE 2nd Avenue. NE 22nd Street is interrupted at JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 5 • 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 23rd Street Due to the minimal amount of traffic, traffic flow on NE 23rd Street is good. During peak hours, operational conditions deteriorate at the intersection with Biscayne Boulevard. At such times, drivers desiring to use NE 23rd 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. NE 22nd Street Due to the minimal amount of traffic, traffic flow on NE 22nd Street is good. During peak hours, operational conditions deteriorate at the intersection with Biscayne Boulevard. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 16 • • • 4.4 MASS TRANSIT The site is Located within approximately 1/4 mile of MetroBus Routes 3, 16, 32, 36, 62, 95, T, Biscayne Max, which operate on Biscayne Boulevard. MetroBus Routes 9, and 10 which operate on NE 2nd Avenue are approximately 1/2 mile away. 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 19th 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 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD EXISTING LOS EB= F, WB=E EB=F, WB=F NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE NB=A, SB=A NB=A, SB=B NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD A A NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE SB=A SB=A ti JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, R.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 17 • • TABLE 10 EXISTING LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE STREET FROM LOS Biscayne Boulevard NE 19th Street NE 33rd Street AM=C PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS A MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 100 1840 2520 2600 2690 2,044 PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 1350 2960 3060 3130 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 G/C of 0.67. 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%) and escalated by 2% per year for two years. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 18 • • NE 29TH STREET NE 2ND AVE NE 28TH STREET NE 27TH STREET NE 26TH TERRACE c NE 26TH STREET EB=FANB E P% Q �=A� 0 NE 25TH STREET PM A {Ip NB=A % S6=B / NE 24TH STREET PROJECT NE 23RD STREET NE 22ND STREET NE 21ST STREET NE 20TH STREET IAM EB=F/WB=F PM EB=F/WB=Fj NE 19TH STREET AM SBA `SB=A/ rwM NORTH NTS BISCAYNE BAY AM/PM MINOR AM PM STREET Q APPROACH SIGNALIZED LOS AM LINK LOS PM LINK LOS INTERSECTION LOS FIGURE 5 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 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. 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 TAME VEHICLE TRIPS CONDOMINIUMS' TOTALS WEEKDAY DU IN OUT TOTAL 307 307 VPD 307 307 VPD 614 614 VPD AM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN OUT TOTAL 8 8 VPH 41 41 VPH 50 50 VPH PM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN 39 39 OUT 19 19 TOTAL 58 58 VPH VPH 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 were distributed throughout the study area as vehicle trips. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 20 • • Table 12 summarizes external trips for the project after accounting for modal splits. TABLE 12 FINAL EXTERNAL PROJECT TRAFFIC VEHICLE TRIPS. ITE.;(230) AUTO PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN OUT TOTAL 9 T 8 8 VPD 39 39 VPD 47 47 VPD PM PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET IN OUT TOTAL 37 37 VPH 18 18 VPH 55 55 VPH As can be seen from Table 12, the estimated number of vehicle trips entering the site during the AM peak hour is 8 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips leaving the site during the AM peak hour is 39 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips entering the site during the PM peak hour is 37 vph. The estimated number of vehicle trips leaving the site during the PM peak hour is 18 vph. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 21 • • • 6.0 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT The project site is Located in Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) 505. The cardinal distribution of the traffic within TAZ 505 was obtained from Miami -Dade County. The distribution is as follows: North -Northeast 9.89% East -Northeast 3.86% East -Southeast 4.71 % South -Southeast 3.70% South -Southwest 20.92% West -Southwest 23.40% West -Northwest 16.84% North -Northwest 16.68% 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 AM TRIPS TOTAL OUT PM TRIPS TOTAL NORTH NNW 16.68% 8 1 7 9 6 3 NNE 9.89% 5 4 5 4 2 EAST ENE 3.86% 2 0 2 2 1 ESE 4.71% 2 0 2 3 2 SOUTH SSE 3.70% 2 0 1 2 1 1 SSW 20.92% 10 2 8 11 8 4 WEST WSW 23.40% 11 2 9 13 9 4 WNW 16.84% 8 1 7 9 6 3 TOTAL 100.00% 47 8 39 55 37 18 JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 22 • ti3 1/5 t/3 NE 29TH STREET 1t- NE 2ND AVE r - - — NORTH NTS NE 28T1-I STREET Imam ---1 NE 27TH STREET NE 26TH TERRACE NE 26TH STREET NE 26TH STREET NE 24TH STREET 421/9 ten/9 PROJECT x0/10 t13/6 3/13 Pa 'it 4/21 y 7/4 NE 23RD STREET NE 22ND STREET t14 10/3 3/16114, NE 21ST STREET 9/4 — 2/9 NE 20TH STREET NE 19TH STREET 412� 1/4 7/4 t 117 f 1 1 3/11 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR NET ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC DUE TO PROJECT B1 SCAYNE BAY FIGURE 6 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 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 ROADWAY FROM 0 TYPE OF WORK YEAR(S) SR 112/1-195 1-95 Biscayne Bay PD&E/EMO Study PE 2004-2005 ROW 2006-08 SR 112/1-195 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. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 24 • 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. FDI T STA 5056 TABLE 15 ANNUAL AADT GROWTH RATES VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER DAY (VPD) SR 5/US-1, 100' NORTH OF NE 19TH STREET 28,423 53,000 nIr 36,000 0.91% 5058 SR 5/US-1, 200' NORTH OF NE 29TH STREET 28,461 37,000 ,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) In addition, traffic associated with the Uptown Lofts and 22 Biscayne Bay projects was included in the intersection and Zink level of service analyses. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 25 • • • Table 16 provides the future traffic volumes without the Soho 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 the previously described analysis. The intersection level of service for the future traffic volumes without the Soho 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. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 26 • • • 3'd'LQ3J,S1HV •w NOSM 1' CA 0 X 0 0 z C0 O ua " z to 0 TABLE 16 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 5 NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 8 1 24 30 F 44 9 1,265 19 18 INBOUND: HT 1,794 1,794 8 10 4 14 22 4 11 9 2 3 15 8 NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 4 12 9 62 3 38 37 1,238 35 26 1,870 18 NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 9 29 6 0 86 6 0 a 0 0 0 20 NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 11 2 28 25 1 29 30 1,837 42 41 1,567 23 NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 12 NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 24 7 9 21 7 11 17 10 8 16 4 16 NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 13 11 97 32 74 13 1 15 62 38 7 14 7 1,926 5 74 0 61 8 1,554 0 14 32 • • TABLE 17 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS W/O PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD YEAR 2006 LOS CIO PROJECT EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE NB=A, SB=A NB=A, SB=B NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD LIP 22ND STRFFT & NF 4TH AVPNl1F SB=A TABLE 18 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT STREET Biscayne Boulevard FROI NE 19th Street T! NE 33rd Street B SR=A AM=D PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS A B C MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 100 1840 2520 2600 2690 2553 PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 1350 2960 3060 3130 3230 2701 Notes: 1.) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volumes are taken from ARTPLAN analysis using a cycle length of 90 seconds and average GIC of 0.67. 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 FOOT 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. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 28 NE 29TH STREET NE 21 ID AVE MIME NE 26TH STREET NE 27TH STREET "1 NE 26TH TERRACE NE 26TH STREET NE 25TH STREET / EB=F)WB=F Gt] NE 24TH STREET Atli NB=A SB=A NB=▪ A SB=B PROJ ECT NE 23RD STREET NE 22ND STREET NE 21ST STREET NE 20TH STREET /AM EB=FMB=F PM 'DEB=FAWB=F/ 1;753 NE 19TH STREET AM \ SB=A ▪ pm \sB=A/ NORTH NTS BISCAYNE BAY ARiVPM MINOR PM STREET APPROACH SIGNALIZED LOS AM LINK LOS PM LINK LOS INTERSECTION LOS FIGURE 7 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 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 13 vph eastbound and 9 vph westbound on the section of NE 20th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue. Data contained in the Downtown Miami DR! Increment 11 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, 9 vph eastbound and 4 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, 13 person trips per hour eastbound and 5 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 9 vph eastbound and 6 vph westbound on the section of NE 29th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Miami Avenue. The project might add as much as 12 vph eastbound and 6 vph westbound on the section JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 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, 6 vph eastbound and 3 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. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 31 • • `icfllsiliv w NOSm3Vr NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD TABLE 19 FUTURE PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES WITH PROJECT NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 5 NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE rTBO 24 30 WI STBOUNL 1 64 9 N+ RTHBOUND T IRU RIGHT 1,265 20 21 OUTHBOUND THRU 1,794 8 -IT 8 14 4 34 42 4 11 9 5 3 15 8 4 12 11 NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 12 15 29 2 45 9 6 T 28 7 69 0 25 19 16 86 1 30 38 6 G 38 7 37 0 30 11 1,239 0 OLJ 1,837 17 35 0 46 26 26 0 1,870 0 UTHBOUN R 4 12 58 1,567 23 8 16 4 16 29 24 97 32 13 78 21 62 38 7 14 7 1,930 5 77 0 61 8 1,554 14 0 42 • • TABLE 20 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS WITH PROJECT WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD AM EB=F, WB=E EB=F, WB=F 2006 LOB 0 PROJECT EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F 2006 LOS VVITH PROJECT >. EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE NB=A, SB=A NB=A, SB=B NB=A, SB=A NB=A, SB=B NB=B, SB=B NB=A, SB=B NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD A A NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVFNI IF SB=A SB=A SB=A SB=A S B=A TABLE 21 FUTURE LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT SB=A STREET FROIIA, TO LOS Biscayne Boulevard NE 19th Street NE 33rd Street AM=D PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS A B c MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DI R ECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 100 1840 2520 2600 2690 2560 PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 1350 2980 3060 3130 3230 2706 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 0.67. 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. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 33 • • NE 29TH STREET NE 2ND AVE NE 28TH STREET NE 27TH STREET rrxw L—.11..•.., NE 28TH TERRAC NE 28TH STREET /ANC EB=FANS=F PM EE3=F/WB=Fi AM NB=B SB=B NE 25TH STREET NB=A SB=B NE 24TH STREET PROJECT NE 23RD STREET NE 22ND STR NE 21ST STREET 20TH STREET EB=FMIB=F PM DEB=FM/137 NE 19TH STREET NORTH NTS BISCAYNE BAY AM/PM MINOR Ann STREET PM APPROACH V SIGNALIZED LOS AM LINK LOS PIS LINK LOS INTERSECTION LOS FIGURE 8 FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 34 • • • 10.0 ON -STREET PARKING There are parking spaces on either side of NE 23rd Street. Adjacent to the site there are existing on -street parking spaces. The project may result in the elimination of a minimal amount of existing on -street parking spaces on the north side of NE 23rd Street. The project will construct some 142 on -site parking spaces. Parking will be provided for residents, employees and visitors to the site. 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 23rd Street. 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 23rd Street. Table 22 summarizes the AM and PM peak hour driveway volumes anticipated at the service point. TABLE 22 AM AND PM PEAK HOUR DRIVEWAY VOLUMES IN VEHICLES PER HOUR (VPH) INBOUN.� 8 OUTBOUND 39 37 18 Queuing analysis was conducted based upon the assumption that access to the garage JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 35 • • • will be controlled by a card reader system and consist of an inbound Zane 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 level plan, provided by the project architect, and dated 4/21/04, indicates that the potential control point could be located approximately 50 feet from the north curb line of NE 23rd Street and that the anticipated queues could be accommodated without impacting off -site traffic flows. HCS level of service analysis was conducted for the driveway in the AM and PM peak hours. That analyses, included in Appendix C, indicates the driveway will operate at acceptable levels of service. 12.2 PROJECT LOADING DOCK The proposed site plan includes a loading dock area internal to the site. Access to the loading dock is from NE 23rd 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 one 12' by 35' truck berth. 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 23rd Street. 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 intersections of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 23rd Street and Biscayne Boulevard and NE 22nd Street show, with or without the project, some degradation of level of service during the AM peak hour. JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 36 • • 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. Finally, the transportation facility level of service analysis, provided in Appendix D, clearly indicates that there is sufficient transportation facility capacity to accommodate the proposed project. TABLE 23 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY WEEKDAY PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 2006 LOS 110`PROJECT EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F 2006 LOS WITH PROJECT LOS WITH PROJECT AND MODIFICATIONS ;: EB=F, WB=F EB=F, WB=F N/A N/A NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE NB=A, SB=A NB=A, SB=B NB=B, SB=B NB=A, SB=B N/A N/A NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD N/A N/A NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE SB=A SB=A SB=A SB=A N/A N/A JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 Page 37 • APPENDIX A Existing Intersection Levels of Service • • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: 5/24/2004 AM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South 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 I 4 5 6 I L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 9 0.56 16 0 Undivided 738 8 0.94 0.50 785 16 1 2 0 L T TR No 9 0.56 16 0 / 1357 8 0.92 0.67 1474 11 1 2 0 L T TR No Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound 7 8 9 L T R Eastbound. I 10 11 12 I L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, I-IFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration Exists?/Storage 7 1 24 5 1 0.88 0.25 0.67 0.42 0.25 7 4 35 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No / 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR 24 0.86 27 0 No / Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level. of Service NB Eastbound 1 9 ► 10 11 12 L I LTR SB 4 I 7 L Westbound 8 LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/ c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 16 16 459 831 0.03 0.02 0.11 0.06 13.1 9.4 B A 46 158 0.29 1.14 36.9 E 36.9 E 42 80 0.52 2.25 91.6 F 91.6 F Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-1 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT 5/24/2004 PM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Southbound 5 6 T R Major Street: Approach Northbound Movement 1 2 3 14 L T R I L Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 28 1322 0.72 0.91 38 1452 0 -- Undivided 1 2 0 L T TR No 22 0.92 23 21 0.75 28 0 / 969 0.92 1053 1 2 0 L T TR No 23 0.57 40 Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound 7 8 L T Eastbound 9 1 10 11 12 R 1 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration 10 1 15 11 2 26 0.62 0.25 0.62 0.46 0.50 0.68 16 4 24 23 4 38 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No / No / 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, NB 1 L Queue Length, and Level of Service SB 4 L I Westbound 7 8 LTR Eastbound 9 I 10 11 12 LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 38 646 0.06 0.19 10.9 B 28 463 0.06 0.19 13.3 B 44 41 1.07 4.25 315.8 F 315.8 F 65 60 1.08 5.26 255.8 F 255.8 F Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-2 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection.: Jurisdiction: 5/24/2004 AM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/NE 4TH AVE CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 L T R Westbound I 4 5 6 I L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 8 10 0.67 0.42 11 23 0 -- Undivided 0 1 0 LTR No 4 0.25 16 14 0.50 28 0 22 0.92 23 0 1 0 LTR No 4 0.50 8 Minor Street: Approach Movement Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration 11 9 0.69 0.56 15 16 0 0 0 Exists?/Storage 0 1 0 LTR 2 3 15 8 0.50 0.38 0.62 0.67 4 7 24 11 0 0 0 0 0 No / No 0 1 0 LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 LTR LTR I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 11 1595 0.01 0.02 7.3 A 28 1584 0.02 0.05 7.3 A 35 779 0.04 0.14 9.8 A 9.8 A 42 807 0.05 0.16 9.7 A 9.7 A Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-3 • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL, SUMMARY J. ABLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: 5/24/2004 PM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/NE 4TH AVE CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 L T R Westbound 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? 12 0.50 24 0 Undivided 24 0.75 32 0 1 0 LTR No 7 0.44 15 9 0.56 16 0 / 21 0.66 31 0 1 0 LTR No 7 0.88 7 Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Southbound I 10 11 12 1 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration 11 17 10 8 0.69 0.71 0.50 0.67 15 23 20 11 0 0 0 0 0 Exists?/Storage No 0 1 0 0 LTR 16 4 0.67 1.00 23 4 0 0 0 No 1 0 LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, EB 1 LTR Queue Length, and Level of Service WB Northbound Southbound 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 LTR 1 LTR I LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95$ queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 24 1585 0.02 0.05 7.3 A 16 1573 0.01 0.03 7.3 A 58 817 0.07 0.23 9.7 A 9.7 A 38 749 0.05 0.16 10.1 B 10.1 B Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-4 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • • Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 5/24/04 Period: AM PEAK HOUR Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Eastbound L T R Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Year : EXISTING N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound L T R L T R 0 1 1 LT R 4 12 9 11.0 11.0 0 0 1 1 LT R 33 3 13 11.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 35 725 29 11.0 11.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 L TR 21 1413 18 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Phase Combination EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red Appr/ Lane Grp 1 A A A A A A 20.0 4.0 0.0 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right Intersection Performance 5 P P P P P P 6 7 8 62.0 4.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 90.0 Summary Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Group Flow Rate Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 371 R 337 Westbound LT 301 337 Northbound L 152 TR 2314 5outhbound L 393 TR 2328 1668 0.11 0.22 1516 0.05 0.22 1356 0.18 0.22 1516 0.06 0.22 220 0.36 0.69 3359 0.35 0.69 570 0.14 0.69 3379 0.64 0.69 28.0 C 27.6 C 28.7 C 27.7 C 12.4 B 6.2 A 5.6 A 9.2 A Intersection Delay = 9.2 (sec/veh) 27.9 C 28.4 C 6.6 A 9.1 A Intersection LOS = A secs Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-5 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 5/24/04 Period: PM PEAK HOUR Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Eastbound L T R Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Year : EXISTING N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound L T R L T R 0 1 1 LT R 16 11 30 11.0 11.0 0 0 1 1 LT R 58 15 24 11.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 14 1401 42 11.0 11.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 L TR 34 966 14 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red A NB Left A Thru A Right Peds A SE Left A Thru A Right Peds EB Right WB Right 16.0 91.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0:0 Cycle Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity 5 P P P P P P 6 7 8 Length: 115.0 secs Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 175 R 211 Westbound LT 174 R 211 Northbound L 358 TR 2666 Southbound L 182 TR 2673 1257 0.23 0.14 44.7 D 44.8 D 1516 0.26 0.14 44.9 D 1251 0.56 0.14 50.4 D 48.8 D 1516 0.15 0.14 43.9 D 452 0.04 0.79 2.6 A 3372 0.60 0.79 5.7 A 5.7 A 230 0.23 0.79 6.0 A 3378 0.39 0.79 4.1 A 4.1 A Intersection Delay = 8.3 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = A Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-6 • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 5/24/04 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 2254A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 9 20 6 0 32 6 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.75 0.45 0.50 1.00 0.69 0.75 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 44 12 0 46 8- Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 i 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 20 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 28 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 EH WS Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 12 0 C(m) (vph) 1564 1562 v/c 0.01 0.00 95% queue length 0.02 0.00 Control Delay 7.3 7.3 LOS A A Approach Delay Approach LOS 0 28 1024 0.03 0.08 8.6 A 8.6 A Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-7 • Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: EXISTING Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Major Street: 5/24/04 PM PEAK HOUR 22S4A CITY OF MIAMI Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 L T R Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Westbound 4 5 6 I L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 13 0.65 20 0 Undivided 40 0.73 54 0 1 0 LTR No 13 0.81 16 Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R 1 0.25 4 0 32 0.75 42 0 1 0 LTR No 7 0.58 12 Southbound I 10 11 12 I L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade ( % ) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration 7 0.58 12 0 5 0 8 0.42 1.00 0.67 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 No / 1 0 0 LTR 0 30 1.00 0.86 0 34 0 0 0 1 0 LTR No / Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, EB 1 LT R Queue Length, and Level of Service WB Northbound 4 1 7 8 9 LTR I LTR Southbound I 10 11 12 LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 20 4 1564 1544 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 7.3 7.3 A A 23 738 0.03 0.10 10.0+ 5 10.0+ B 45 955 0.05 0.15 9.0 A 9.0 A Soho Condominium Appendix A May 24, 2004 Page A-8 • • • APPENDIX B Future Intersection Levels of Service Without Project HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.ld • • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 5/24/2004 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD 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 9 1265 19 18 1794 8 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.56 0.94 0.50 0.56 0.92 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 1345 38 32 1949 11 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 1 L T R Volume 30 1 44 5 1 24 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.88 0.25 0.67 0.42 0.25 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 34 4 65 11 4 27 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 1 10 11 12 Lane Config L L j LTR ( LTR. v (vph) 16 32 103 42 C(m) (vph) 301 502 18 12 v/c 0.05 0.06 5.72 3.50 95% queue length 0.17 0.20 13.49 6.26 Control Delay 17.6 12.7 2550 1756 LOS C B F F Approach Delay 2550 1756 Approach LOS F F Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page B-1 • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: 5/24/2004 PM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD 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 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 30 1837 0.72 0.91 41 2018 0 ..- Undivided 1 2 0 L T TR No 42 41 0.92 0.75 45 54 -- 0 1567 0.92 1703 1 2 0 L T TR No 23 0.57 40 Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound 7 8 9 L T R Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration Exists?/Storage 25 1 29 11 2 28 0.62 0.25 0.62 0.46 0.50 0.68 40 4 46 23 4 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No / No / 0 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, NB 1 L Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 41 C(m) (vph) 365 v/c 0.11 95% queue length 0.38 Control Delay 16.1 LOS C Approach Delay Approach LOS 54 275 0.20 0.71 21.3 C 90 0 68 0 Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page B-2 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 5/24/2004 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23RD ST/NE 4TH AVE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/0 PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 8 10 4 14 22 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.67 0.42 0.25 0.50 0.92 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 23 16 26 23 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 0 Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 11 9 2 3 15 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.69 0.56 0.50 0.38 0.62 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 16 4 7 24 11 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 EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR 1 LTR I LTR v (vph) 11 28 35 42 C(m) (vph) 1595 1584 779 607 v/c 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 95% queue length 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.16 Control Delay 7.3 7.3 9.8 9.7 LOS A A A A Approach Delay 9.8 9.7 Approach LOS A A Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page B-3 • • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: 5/24/2004 PM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/NE 4TH AVE CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation.: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 12 0.50 24 0 -_ Undivided 24 0.75 32 0 1 0 LTR No 7 0.44 15 -- 0 / 9 0.56 16 21 0.66 31 0 1 0 LTR No 7 0.88 7 Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Southbound 1 10 11 12 I L T R Volume 11 17 10 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.69 0.71 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 23 20 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage No Lanes 0 1 0 Configuration LTR 0. 67 11 0 16 0.67 23 0 0 0 1 0 LTR 4 1.00 4 0 No Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 I 7 6 9 I 10 11 12 LTR LTR 1 LTR 1 LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 24 16 1585 1573 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.03 7.3 7.3 A A 58 817 0.07 0.23 9.7 A 9.7 A 38 749 0.05 0.16 10.1 B 10.1 B Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page B-4 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 5/24/04 Period: AM PEAK HOUR Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Year : FUTURE W/O PROJECT N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound Northbound L T R L T R L T R 0 1 1 LT R 4 12 9 11.0 11.0 0 0 1 1 LT R 62 3 38 11.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 37 1238 35 11.0 11.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 L TR 26 1870 18 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A NB Left P Thru A Thru P Right A Right P Peds Peds WB Left A SB Left P Thru A Thru P Right A Right P Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 20.0 62.0 Yellow 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 90.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 367 1653 0.11 0.22 28.0 C 27.9 C R 337 1516 0.05 0.22 27.6 C Westbound LT 283 1272 0.35 0.22 30.3 C 29.6 C R 337 1516 0.17 0.22 28.5 C Northbound L 80 115 0.73 0.69 52.5 D TR 2319 3367 0.59 0.69 8.4 A 10.2 B Southbound L 188 273 0.36 0.69 11.1 B TR 2329 3381 0.85 0.69 14.6 B 14.4 B Intersection Delay = 13.7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = 8 Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page B-5 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 5/24/04 Period: PM PEAK HOUR Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Eastbound L T R Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Year : FUTURE W/O PROJECT N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound L T R L T R 0 1 1 LT R 16 11 32 11.0 11.0 0 Southbound L T R 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 0 LT R L TR L TR 74 15 38 14 1926 74 61 1554 14 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 0 0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red 1 2 3 4 A NB Left A Thru A Right Peds A SB Left A Thru A Right Peds Right Right 91.0 4.0 0.0 Cycle Intersection Performance Summary EB WB 16.0 4.0 0.0 Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity 5 6 7 P P P P P 8 Length: 115.0 secs Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Flow Rate (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 155 R 211 Westbound LT 172 R 211 Northbound L 162 TR 2665 Southbound L 67 TR 2676 1111 0.26 0.14 45.1 D 45.0 D 1516 0.27 0.14 45.0 D 1234 0.69 0.14 58.4 E 54.3 D 1516 0.24 0.14 44.7 D 205 0.10 0.79 3.9 A 3368 0.83 0.79 10.4 B 10.3 B 85 1.13 0.79 163.2 F 3382 0.63 0.79 6.1 A 12.9 B Intersection Delay = 14.0 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page &6 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT 5/24/04 AM PEAK HOUR 22S4A CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage. RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 9 0.75 12 0 Undivided 29 0.45 64 0 1 0 LTR No 6 0.50 12 0 1.00 0 0 86 0.69 124 0 1 0 LTR No 6 0.75 8 Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Southbound 1 10 11 12 1 L T R Vo 1, ume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration 0 0 1.00 1.00 0 0 0 0 0 Exists?/Storage 0 1 0 LTR 0 0 0 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 No / No / 0 1 0 LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EB WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 LTR LTR E LTR 1 LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/ c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 12 0 1466 1536 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 7.5 7.3 A A 0 28 927 0.03 0.09 9.0 A 9.0 A Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page B-7 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • • Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT 5/24/04 PM PEAK HOUR 22S4A CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Major Street: Vehicle Volumes Study period (hrs): 0.25 and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 L T 3 R I Westbound 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? 13 97 0.65 0.73 20 132 0 Undivided 0 1 0 LTR No 13 0.81 16 1 62 0.25 0.75 4 82 0 0 1 0 LTR No 7 0.58 12 Minor Street: Approach Northbound Movement 7 8 9 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration 7 5 0.58 0.42 12 11 0 0 0 Exists?/Storage 0 1 0 LTR Southbound I 10 11 12 I L T R 0 8 0 32 1.00 0.67 1.00 0 11 0 37 0 0 0 0 0 No / 0 0.86 No 1 0 LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service ES WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 LTR LTR I LTR { LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 20 4 1513 1446 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 7.4 7.5 A A 23 624 0.04 0.11 11.0 B 11.0 B 48 878 0.05 0.17 9.3 A 9.3 A Soho Condominium Appendix B May 24, 2004 Page B-8 • APPENDIX C Future Intersection Levels of Service With Project • • HCS2000: Unsignaliz•ed Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: 5/24/2004 AM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD 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 1 L T R Volume Peak --Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 9 0.56 16 0 -_ Undivided 1265 0.94 1345 1 2 0 T TR No 20 0.50 40 0 21 0.56 37 1794 0.92 1949 1 2 0 L T TR No 8 0.67 11 Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound 7 8 L T Eastbound 9 1 10 11 12 R I L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration 30 0.88 34 0 Exists?/Storage 1 0.25 4 0 0 0 64 0.67 95 No 0 1 0 LTR 5 1 24 0.42 0.25 0.86 11 4 27 0 0 0 0 No 0 1 0 LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, NB 1 L Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L I LTR I LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 16 301 0.05 0.17 17.6 C 37 501 0.07 0.24 12.8 B 133 20 6.65 17.05 2924 F 2924 F 42 9 4.67 6.54 2463 F 2463 F Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-1 • • • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: 5/24/2004 PM PEAK HOUR NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Northbound 1 2 3 I 4 L T R I L Major Street: Approach Movement Southbound 5 6 T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 30 1837 0.72 0.91 41 2018 0 -- Undivided 1 2 0 L T TR No 46 0.92 49 58 0.75 77 0 1567 0.92 1703 1 2 0 L T TR No 23 0.57 40 Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound 7 8 L T Eastbound 9 I 10 11 12 R I L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration Exists?/Storage 25 1 38 0.62 0.25 0.62 40 4 61 0 0 0 0 No 0 1 0 LTR 11 2 28 0.46 0.50 0.68 23 4 41 0 0 0 0 / No / 0 1 0 LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, NB 1 L Queue Length, and Level of Service SB Westbound Eastbound 4 1 7 8 9 1 10 11 12 L 1 LTR I LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 41 77 365 274 0.11 0.28 0.38 1.12 16.1 23.2 C C 105 0 68 0 Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-2 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date PerfoLmed: 5/24/2004 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23RD ST/NE 4TH AVE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period {hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 8 14 4 34 42 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.67 0.42 0.25 0.50 0.92 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 33 16 68 45 B Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 ( 10 11 12 L T R I L Volume 11 9 5 3 15 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.69 0.56 0.50 0.38 0.62 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 16 10 7 24 11 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 EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 11 68 41 42 C(m) (vph) 1566 1571 696 .695 v/c 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 95% queue length 0.02 0.14 0.19 0.19 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 10.5 10.5 LOS A A B B Approach Delay 10.5 10.5 Approach LOS B B Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-3 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Perfoiaued: 5/24/2004 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23RD ST/NE 4TH AVE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 12 45 7 19 30 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.75 0.44 0.56 0.66 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 24 60 15 33 45 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 11 17 26 8 16 4 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.69 0.71 0.50 0.67 0.67 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 15 23 52 11 23 4 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 EB WE Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 24 33 90 38 C(m) (vph) 1567 1537 819 661 v/c 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.06 95% queue length 0.05 0.07 0.37 0.18 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 9.9 10.8 LOS A A A B Approach Delay 9.9 10.8 Approach LOS A B Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-4 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 5/24/04 Period: AM PEAK HOUR Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Eastbound L T R Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Year : FUTURE WITH PROJECT N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound L T R L T R 0 1 1 LT R 4 15 9 11.0 11.0 0 0 1 1 LT R. 69 16 38 11.0 11.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 L TR 37 1239 35 11.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 26 1870 18 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Phase Combination 1 EB Left A Thru A Right A Peds WB Left A Thru A Right A Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red 20.0 4.0 0.0 Appr/ Lane Grp Lane Group Capacity Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations 2 3 4 Intersection Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach NB Left Thru Right Peds SB Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 P P P P P P 6 7 Flow Rate (s) v/c 8 62.0 4.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 90.0 Performance Summary g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS secs Eastbound LT 369 1662 R 337 1516 Westbound LT 286 1289 R 337 1516 Northbound L 80 115 TR 2319 3367 Southbound L 188 273 TR 2329 3381 0.13 0.22 28.2 C 28.0 C 0.05 0.22 27.6 C 0.44 0.22 31.3 C 30.4 C 0.17 0.22 28.5 C 0.73 0.69 52.5 D 0.59 0.69 8.4 A 10.2 5 0.36 0.69 11.1 B 0.85 0.69 14.6 B 14.4 B Intersection Delay = 13.9 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-5 HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4,1d • Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency: Date: 5/24/04 Period: PM PEAK HOUR Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM E/W St: NE 22ND STREET No. Lanes LGConfig Volume Lane Width RTOR Vol Eastbound L T R Inter.: 3596 Area Type: All other areas Jurisd.: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Year : FUTURE WITH PROJECT N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Westbound Northbound L T R L T R 0 1 1 LT R 16 24 32 11.0 11.0 0 0 1 1 LT R 78 21 38 11.0 11.0 0 1 2 0 L TR 14 1930 77 11.0 11.0 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 L TR 61 1554 14 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 EB Left Thru Right Peds WB Left Thru Right Peds NB Right SB Right Green Yellow All Red A A A A A A NB Left Thru Right Peds 5B Left Thru Right Peds EB Right WB Right 5 P P P P P P 6 7 8 16.0 91.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 115.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 148 R 211 Westbound LT 152 R 211 Northbound L 162 TR 2664 Southbound L 66 TR 2676 1066 0.40 0.14 46.9 D 46.0 D 1516 0.27 0.14 45.0 D 1089 0.88 0.14 89.3 F 77.0 E 1516 0.24 0.14 44.7 D 205 0.10 0.79 3.9 A 3367 0.83 0.79 10.5 5 10.5 B 83 1.15 0.79 169.8 F 3382 0.63 0.79 6.1 A 13.2 B Intersection Delay = 15.4 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-6 • • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: 5/24/04 AM PEAK HOUR 22S4A CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/0 PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Eastbound 1 2 3 L T R l Major Street: Approach Movement Westbound 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? 9 0.75 12 0 Undivided 29 0.45 64 0 1 0 LTR No 6 0.50 12 0 1.00 0 0 86 0.69 124 0 1 0 LTR No 6 0.75 6 Minor Street: Approach Movement Northbound 7 6 9 L T R Southbound I 10 11 12 I L T R Volume 0 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Exists?/Storage Lanes 0 Configuration 0 0 0 0 20 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No / No / 1 0 0 1 0 LTR LTR Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, EB 1 LTR Queue Length, and Level of Service WB Northbound Southbound 4 ( 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 LTR 1 LTR I LTR v (vph) C(m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 12 0 1466 1536 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 7.5 7.3 A A 0 28 927 0.03 0.09 9.0 A 9.0 A Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-7 HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d • • Analyst: Agency/Co.: Date Performed: Analysis Time Period: Intersection: Jurisdiction: Units: U. S. Customary TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY J. AHLSTEDT 5/24/04 PM PEAK HOUR 22S4A CITY OF MIAMI Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Movement 1 2 3 L T R Westbound I 4 5 6 I L T R Volume Peak -Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type/Storage RT Channelized? Lanes Configuration Upstream Signal? 13 97 0.65 0.73 20 132 0 -- Undivided 0 1 0 LTR No 13 1 0.81 16 0.25 4 0 62 0.75 82 0 1 0 LTR No 7 0.58 12 Minor Street: Approach Movement Northbound 7 8 9 L T R Southbound 10 11 12 L T R Volume Peak Hour Factor, PHF Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Flared Approach: Lanes Configuration Exists?/Storage 7 5 0 8 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.67 12 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 No / 0 1 0 0 LTR 0 1.00 0 0 0 1 0 LTR 32 0.86 37 0 No / Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, EB 1 LTR Queue Length, and Level of Service WB Northbound Southbound 4 17 8 9 I 10 11 12 LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 20 C(m) (vph) 1513 v/c 0.01 95% queue length 0.04 Control Delay 7.4 LOS A Approach Delay Approach LOS 4 1446 0.00 0.01 7.5 A 23 624 0.04 0.11 11.0 B 11.0 B 48 878 0.05 0.17 9.3 A 9.3 A Soho Condominium Appendix C May 24, 2004 Page C-8 • o • APPENDIX D Transportation Facility LOS Analysis • • INTRODUCTION A level of service analysis was conducted using the City's person trip methodology and criteria established in the adopted Volume 1 of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan dated March 2004. The proposed project has potential impacts on four transportation facilities in or immediately in contact with the study area. The transportation facilities are defined by the following roadways: • Biscayne Boulevard NE 2nd Avenue NE 20th Street NE 29th Street The transit routes providing capacity to each of the facilities area: • Biscayne Boulevard - MetroBus Routes 3, 16, 32, 36, 62, 95, T, Biscayne Max • NE 2nd Avenue - MetroBus Routes 9 and 10 • NE 20th Street - MetroBus Route 32 • NE 29th Street - MetroBus Route 6 EXISTING 2004 VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS Table D-1 presents an analysis of the existing year 2004 volume to capacity ratios provided by each of the transportation facilities. Roadway vehicular volumes 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. An 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. Transit volumes were calculated using the ridership data and the percentage of passengers during the peak hours supplied by MDTA and estimating ridership from actual load factors calculated from the MetroBus survey data. Thus, the transit volumes shown reflect actual load factors calculated from MDTA surveys. Roadway vehicular capacities were based upon Table 4-4 of the Florida Department of Transportation 2002 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Soho CONDOMINIUM PAGE D-1 May 26, 2004 • • • Mass Transit person trip capacities were calculated from route schedules and equipment information supplied by the Miami -Dade Transit Agency (MDTA). Maximum allowed volume to capacity ratios (v/c) are based upon Policy TR-1.1.2 of the adopted Volume 1 of the Miami Comprehensive Neighborhood Plan dated March 2004. As can be seen from Table D-1, the existing facilities currently operate with volume to capacity ratios which are less than the maximum allowable. Soho CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 PAGE D-2 • • • YEAR 2006 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITHOUT THE PROJECT Table D-2 presents an analysis of the future year 2006 volume to capacity ratios without the project. Roadway vehicular volumes and mass transit volumes was taken from Table D-1 (2004) and adjusted to the year 2006 by applying a growth factor of 2% per year and adding the following committed development traffic. PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VEHICLE TRIPS (VPH) • Biscayne Bay Tower (Blue) 125 • Cultural Center 98 • Miramar Center II 532 • 1800 Club 322 • Biscayne Village 252 • Tuttle Street 241 • Sky Residences 17 • Bay 25 (Star) 35 • Platinum Condominium 35 • Metropolis Bayshore (Quantum) 417 • Edgewater Tower (Rosabella) 127 • Biscayne Bay Lofts (Onyx) 1 TOTAL 2,202 Details of the assignment of Committed Development Traffic are included in Table D-5. As can be seen from Table D-2, it is estimated that all four transportation facilities will operate with volume to capacity ratios which are less than the maximum allowable in the year 2006 without the project. Soho CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 PAGE D-3 e o o 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) 505. The cardinal distribution of the traffic within TAZ 505 was obtained from Miami -Dade County. The distribution is as follows: North -Northeast 9.89% East -Northeast 3.86% East -Southeast 4.71% South -Southeast 3.70% South -Southwest 20.92% West -Southwest 23.40% West -Northwest 16.84% North -Northwest 16.68% 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. Details of the assignment of person trips to the MetroBus routes and is shown in Table D-6. Soho CONDOMINIUM PAGE D-4 May 26, 2004 • • • 1f6� t/3 1l5 14'6/3 t!—� NE 2ND AVE NE 29TH STREET NE 28TH STREET NE 27TH STREET r 1 .01111111 NE 26TH TERRACE NE 26TH STREET 1 1 1 1 1 NE 25TH STREET NE 24TH STREET `13/6 420/9 PROJECT 2a/10 NE 23RD STREET w NE 22ND STREET 3/13 Ct m 3/16 a/3 t1/4 NE 21 ST STREET uj z a 9/4 NE 20TH STREET 2/9 NE 19TH STREET .IIIM MEI WNW. IMMYYM 4/2Al4 7/4�t 117 3/11 = AM/PM PEAK HOUR NET ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC DUE TO PROJECT NORTH NITS BISCAYNE BAY FIGURE D-1 PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Soho CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2fl04 PAGE D-5 • • • YEAR 2006 LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH THE PROJECT Table D-4 presents an analysis of the future year 2006 volume to capacity ratios 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 all four transportation facilities will operate with volume to capacity ratios which are less than the maximum allowable in the year 2006 with the project. Soho CONDOMINIUM May 26, 2004 PAGE D-6 TABLE 0-1 YEAR 2004 • FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT FROM - _ _ TO FUNCTIONAL VOLUME 1.4 ROUTE CLASS VPH PPV BISCAYNE BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class III 3,652 5,113 3 167 16 148 32 48 36 33 62 89 95 2 T 154 MAX 189 TOTAL 5,943 NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 1,780 2,492 9 280 10 47 TOTAL 2,819 NE 20 ST NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1,229 1,720 32 48 TOTAL 1,768 NE 29 ST NE 29th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 667 933 6 7 TOTAL 940 FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT FROM - ' TO FUNCTIONAL CAPACITY 1.6 ROUTE CLASS VPH PPV BISCAYNE BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class Ili 3,120 4,992 3 259 16 262 32 258 36 267 62 490 95 358 T 266 MAX 346 TOTAL 7,498 NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue NE 1901 Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 2,340 3,744 9 552 10 137 TOTAL 4,433 NE 20 ST NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1,184 1,894 32 258 TOTAL 2,152 NE 29 5T NE 29th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 2,340 3,744 6 23 TOTAL 3,767 FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT R FROM VOLU M EICAPACITY TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS v1C MAX ALLOWED VIC BISCAYNE BLVD Biscayne Blvd 3 NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class III 16 1.02 0.64 0.57 32 36 62 95 T 1.00 1.20 0.19 0.12 0.18 0.01 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.58 MAX TOTAL 1.20 1.50 0.55 0.79 1.20 1.20 1.50 NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 0.67 1.00 9 0.51 1.20 10 0.34 1.00 TOTAL 0.64 1.20 NE 20 ST NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 0.91 1.00 32 0.19 1.20 TOTAL i 0.82 1.20 NE 29 ST NE 29th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 0.25 1.00 6 0.30 1.00 TOTAL 0.25 1.00 ) SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 25.2004 • • • TABLE D-2 YEAR 2006 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUME FACULTY ROADWAY TRANSIT ROUTE FROM TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS VOLUME VPH 1.4 PPV BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class Ili 5,835 8,169 BISCAYNE 3 117 16 75 32 57 36 39 � 105 95 T 182 MAX --� 223 TOTAL 9,148 NE2AVE NE 2nd Avenue 9 NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 2,844 3,982 330 10 TOTAL 55 4,368 NE 20 ST NE 20tti Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1,693 2,37057 32 TOTAL 2,426 NE 29 ST NE 291h Street 6 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 1,069 1.496 TOTAL CAPACITY FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT FROM ROUTE t TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS CAPACITY 8 1,50A 1.6 BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PR1N ART Class ill 3,120 4,992 BISCAYNE 3 259 16 262 32 258 3 267 490 95952 358 T T 266 TOTAL MAX 346 7 498 NE2AVE NE 2nd Avenue 9 NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 2,340 3,744 552 10 IGIAL 137 4,296 NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1,184 1,894 NE 20 ST TOTAL 32 258 2,152 NE29ST NE 29th Street TOTAL 6 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLT 4LU 2,340 3,744 23 3,767 ROADWAY TRANSIT V V LW IPi LJ%,nr FROM rev, . e TO FUNCTIONAL .,f- MAX FACILITY ROUTE CLASS ALLOWED VC V/C BLVD Biscayne Blyd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class 111 1.64 1.00 BISCAYNE 3 0.4 1.20 16 0,67 1.20 32 36 0.22 0.15 1.20 1.20 62 0.21 1.20 95 0.01 1.50 T 0.68 1.20 MAX 0.64 1.20 TOTAL 1.22 1.50 NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue -NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 9 TOTAL 10 1.06 0.60 0.40 1.02 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.20 -NE ST NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1.25 20 TOTAL 32 1.13 1.200 1.20 NE29ST NE 29th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU TOTAL 6 0.40 0.36 0.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 25. 2004 TABLE D-3 PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME • • • 4 ROADWAY TRANSIT FROM TO IFUNGLASS j Wat-4IV1C FAGIU1Y LNE20ST TOTAL NE29ST NE 20th Street NE 29th Street 1 32 NE 2nd Avenue I N Miami Avenue NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART COLL 2LU 4LU 13 9 18 0 18 13 TOTAL 6 0 13 LrrrV t I . TO FUNCTIONAL.CAPACITY 1.6 FACILITY jROADWAY T ROUTE 'FROM PPV BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class III 3,120 4,992 BISCAYNE 3 259 16 32 262 258 36 267 95 490 95 358 T MAX 266 r 346 TOTAL 7,498 _ NE 2nd Avenue NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 2,340 ,74 4 NE 2 AVE 9 10 552 137 TOTAL 4,433 NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1,184 1 NE 20 ST 32 [ NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 2,340 258 2,152 3,744 TOTAL NE 29th Street 29 ST 6 I 23 1 1NE TOTAL 3,767 vVL.0 rYIFrvrrr".. a . FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT ROUTE FROM TO FUNCTIONAL ,,, CLASS % PAX % PAX VOLUME CAPACITY Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class Ilk BISCAYNE BLVD 3 0.30% 0.73% 16 0.30% 0.20% 32 0.30% 0.06% 36 62 0.30% 0.30% 0.04% 0.06% 95 0.30% 0.00% T T MAX - 0.30% 0.30% 0.43% 0.20% 0.19% 0.52% TOTAL NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue 10 NE 19th Street - NE 29th Street MIN ART _ 4LU 0.29% 0.29% _ 0.63% 0.18% % 0.12% _0.63% TOTAL NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 0.76% 0.96% NE 20 ST 32 0.29% 0.75% 0.06% 0.85% TOTAL NE 29 STNE 29th Street 6 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 0.24% 0.11 % kc7TAL 0.83% 0.34% SOHO CONDO MIMUM May 25. 2004 YEAR • • TABLE 0-4 2006 WITH PROJECT VOLUME FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT ROUTE FROM TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS VOLUME VPH 1.4 PPV BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIM ART Class ill 5,861 8,205 BISCAYNE 3 198 16 175 32 57 36 39 105 952 T T 182 MAX 224 TOTAL 9,187 NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue 9 NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 2,863 4,008 331 NE 20 ST TOTAL 10 56 4,395 NE 20th Street 32 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1,706 2,388 NE 29 ST TOTAL 57 2,445 -NE 29th Street 6 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 1,078 1,509 FACILITY TOTAL ROADWAY TRANSIT BISCAYNE BLVD Biscayne Blvd ROUTE 3 16 FROM CAPACITY TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS CAPACITY VPH 8 1,517 1.6 PPV NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART Class 111 3,120 4,992 32 36 259 262 258 62 95 267 490 358 TOTAL T MAX 266 346 7,498 NE 2nd Avenue NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 2,340 3,744� NE 2 AVE 9 10 137 4,296 TOTAL NE20Si` TOTAL NE29ST NE 20th Street NE 291h Street 32 TOTAL 6 NE 2nd Avenue NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue N Miami Avenue TUN ART COLL 2LU 4LL! 1,184 2,340 1,894 258 2,152 3,744 23 3,767 FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT ROUTE VVLV rn GT...mur.va. FROM TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS MAX ALLOWED ViC VIC BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART Class ill 1.64 1.00 BISCAYNE 3 0.76 1.20 16 0.67 1.20 32 0.22 1.20 36 0.15 1.20 62 0.22 1.20 95 T MAX 0.01 0.68 0.65 1.50 1.20 1.20 TOTAL 1.23 1.50 NE2AVE NE 2nd Avenue NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 1.07 TOTAL 9 10 0.60 1.00 0.40 1.02 1.20 1.00 1.20 NE 20 ST TOTAL NE 20th Street 32 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1.26 0.22 1.14 1.00 1.20 1.20 Sr NE 29th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4L0 0.40 1.00 NE 29 6 0.40 1.00 TOTAL 0.40 1.00 SOHO CONDOMINIUM May 25. 2004 • • • TABLE D-5 COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT VPH PAX VPH 1.4 TAZ NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW TOTAL Tuttle Street 241 337 382 32 12 12 14 51 48 33 38 241 Biscayne Bay Tower (Blue) 125 175 504 13 5 6 6 27 30 17 20 125 Platinum Condominium 35 49 504 4 1 2 2 8 8 5 6 35 Sky Residences 17 24 504 2 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 17 19 7 9 8 38 43 24 29 177 1800 Club 322 451 505 32 12 15 12 67 75 54 54 322 Bay 25 (Star) 35 49 505 3 1 2 1 7 8 6 6 35 Biscayne Bay Lofts (Onyx) 1 1 505 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Biscayne Viftage 252 353 505 25 10 12 9 53 59 42 42 252 Edgewater Tower (Rosabeita) 127 178 505 13 5 6 5 27 30 21 21 127 Metropolis Bayshore (Quantum) 417 584 505 41 16 20 15 87 98 70 70 417 Miramar Center ft 532 745 505 53 21 25 20 111 124 90 89 532 167 65 79 62 353 395 284 281 1,686 Cultural Center 98 137 512 9 5 4 11 16 19 20 14 98 2,202 3,083 COMM!! Ilw0 DEVELOPMENT AUTO 1.4 % IOIAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPH 2,202 3,083 0.95 3,245 3,083 162 EXIST COMM't 1 EU DEVELOPMENT VPH VPH Biscayne Blvd 3,652 100% 2,036 NE 2nd Avenue 1,780 49% 992 NE 20th Street 1,229 65% 414 52% NE 29th Street 667 35% 375 22% TAZ NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW 382 13.36 4.92 5.11 5.62 21.29 19.93 13.81 15.96 504 10.61 4.13 5.04 4.48 21.61 24.26 13.50 16.36 505 9.89 3.86 4.71 3.70 20.92 23.40 16.84 16.68 512 8.97 4.92 4.34 11.72 16.64 18.96 20.12 14.33 TAZ 382 504 505 512 TOTAL Biscayne Blvd 125 177 1,686 47 2,036 VPH NE 2nd Avenue 61 86 622 23 992 VPH NE 20th Street 0 0 395 20 414 VPH NE 29th Street 48 43 284 0 375 VPH • • • TABLE D-6 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AVG RIDERS DESIGN % COMM PROJECT SEATS PAX LOAD CAPACITY TRANSIT DEVEL RIDERS PER PER FACTOR RIDERS RIDERS ROUTE HEADWAY VEHICLE HOUR PER HR 3 20 43.2 167 100% 259 14.35% 23 1 16 20 43.6 148 100% 262 12.71% 21 1 32 20 43 48 100% 258 4.12% 7 0 36 20 44.5 33 100% 267 2.84% 5 0 62 10 40.8 89 100% 490 7.65% 12 0 95 15 44.7 2 100% 358 0.17% 0 0 T 20 44.4 154 100% 266 13.23% 21 1 MAX 15 43.3 189 100% 346 16.24% 26 1 9 10 46 280 100% 552 24.05% 39 1 10 40 45.8 47 100% 137 4.04% 7 0 6 60 11.5 7 100% 23 0.60% 1 0 1164 100.00% 162 4 COMMI i t Eo DEVELOPMENT AUTO 1.4 % TOTAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPH 2,202 3,083 0.95 3,24$ 3,083 162 PROJECT AUTO 1.4 % TOTAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPH 55 77 0.95 81 77 4 • RAW DATA CALCULATIONS • BISCAYNE BLVD S/O 23 ST 23 ST EIO BISCAYNE BLVD 2 ADT 18,572 17,869 36,441 NORTHBOUND 570 975 1,545 EASTBOUND 2 SOUTHBOUND WESTBOUND BISCAYNE BLVD S/O 23 ST 23 ST EIO BISCAYNE BLVD AM MID PM EVE 8:30 AM 11:45 AM 4:45 PM 18:15 8: 30 AM 11:00 AM 5:00 PM 19:15 BISCAYNE BLVD SIO 23 ST 23 ST EIO BISCAYNE BLVD BISCAYNE BLVD SIO 23 ST 23 ST EIO BISCAYNE BLVD PEAK K PSF K(100) 4:45 PM 7.42% 1.026 0.076 5:00 PM 8.16% 1.026 0.084 AM 1 2 TOTAL 8:30 AM 1,037 1,534 2,571 8:30 AM 30 61 91 • PEAK 16:45 17:00 D 65.38% 61.11% 7.06% 5.89% BISCAYNE BLVD SIO 23 ST 23 ST EIO BISCAYNE BLVD BISCAYNE BLVD S/O 23 ST 23 ST E/O BISCAYNE BLVD MID 1 2 TOTAL 11:45 AM 1,310 1,261 2,571 11:00 AM 39 71 110 PM 1 2 TOTAL 4:45 PM 1,768 936 2,704 5:00 PM 49 77 126 % 7.06% 7.12% 7.42% 8.16% MECHANICAL COUNTS • • • PROJECT NAME: Traffic Data Collection Notice to Proceed : NORTHBOUND LOCATION: BISCAYNE BLVD SIO 23 ST COUNT DATE: week of 5110104 SOUTHBOUND BOTHWAY TIME 1st Y4 2nd Y 3rd Y4 4th 6 TOTAL TIME 1st % 2nd'/s 3rd % 4th % TOTAL TOTAL 12:00 AM 151 130 97 73 451 12:00 AM 53 58 46 48 205 656 01:00 AM 68 56 50 58 232 01:00 AM 41 38 21 16 116 348 02:00 AM 27 31 26 18 102 02:00 AM 28 17 17 11 73 175 03:00 AM 21 36 18 37 112 03:00 AM 20 16 13 15 64 176 04:00 AM 30 36 19 19 104 04:00 AM 22 20 20 34 96 200 05:00 AM 29 36 54 74 193 05:00 AM 27 46 67 87 227 420 06:00 AM 70 74 140 173 457 06:00 AM 109 138 209 216 672 1,129 07:00 AM 173 200 216 214 803 07:00 AM 258 321 326 379 1,284 2,087 08:00 AM 279 246 275 257 1,057 08:00 AM 356 353 405 383 1,497 2,554 09:00 AM 255 250 243 270 1,018 09:00 AM 386 360 303 308 1,357 2,375 10:00 AM 291 327 297 293 1,208 10:00 AM 303 255 302 300 1,160 2,368 11:00 AM 245 305 255 331 1,136 11:00 AM 278 260 281 329 1,148 2,284 12:00 PM 337 345 297 306 1,285 12:00 PM 299 314 319 327 1,259 2,544 01:00 PM 262 331 318 267 1,178 01:00 PM 344 293 298 314 1,249 2,427 02:00 PM 292 301 301 285 1,179 02:00 PM 325 276 281 281 1,163 2,342 03:00 PM 241 264 346 331 1,182 03:00 PM 286 248 271 256 1,061 2.243 04:00 PM 415 325 350 408 1,498 04:00 PM 268 246 254 269 1,037 2,535 05:00 PM 514 396 450 345 1,705 05:00 PM 235 203 229 244 911 2,616 06:00 PM 334 271 203 233 1,041 06:00 PM 216 219 186 216 837 1,878 07:00 PM 204 213 180 177 774 07:00 PM 180 162 156 133 631 1,405 08:00 PM 146 185 137 144 612 08:00 PM 131 132 117 149 529 1,141 09:00 PM 105 157 153 116 531 09:00 PM 118 129 137 137 521 1,052 10:00 PM 120 106 118 85 429 10:00 PM 113 109 126 90 438 867 11:00 PM 85 75 74 51 285 11:00 PM 80 101 77 76 334 619 24 Hour Total 18,572 24 Hour Total 17,869 36,441 DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND A.M. Peak Hour, Time: 11:45 AM Volume: 1,310 A.M. Peak Hour, Time: 08:30 AM Volume: 1,534 AM. "IC' Factor: 7.1% P.H.F.: 0.95 AM. "K" Factor: 8.6% P.H.F.: 0.95 A.M. "D" Factor: 51.0% A.M. "D" Factor: 59.7% P.M. Peak Hour, Time: 04:45 PM Volume: 1,768 P.M. Peak Hour, Time: 12:15 PM Volume: 1,304 P.M. "K Factor. 9.5% P.H.F.: 0.86 P.M. "K" Factor 7.3% P.H.F.: 0.95 P.M. "D" Factor: 65.4% P.M. "D" Factor: 51.9% BOTHWAY: NORTHBOUND and SOUTHBOUND AM. Peak Hour, Time: 08:30 AM Volume: 2,571 AM."K" Factor: 7.1% P.H.F.: 0.95 AM. Hour "D" Factor: 59.7% P.M. Peak Hour, Time: 04:45 PM Volume: 2,704 P,M. "K" Factor. 7.4% P.N.F.: 0.90 P.M. Hour "D" Factor: 65.4% MECHANICAL COUNTS • • • PROJECT NAME: Traffic Data Collection Notice to Proceed : LOCATION: 23 ST E/O BISCA'YNE BLVD COUNT DATE: week of 5110104 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND BOTHWAY TIME 1st Y4 2nd'% 3rd % 4th Y4 TOTAL TIME 1st Y 2nd Y4 3rd Y4 4th Y4 TOTAL TOTAL 12:00 AM 2 4 5 4 15 12:00 AM 3 5 8 2 18 33 01:00 AM 0 1 0 1 2 01:00 AM 2 4 0 1 7 9 02:00 AM 0 0 1 0 1 02:00 AM 0 0 0 2 2 3 03:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 03:00 AM 3 1 0 3 7 7 04:00 AM 1 0 0 1 2 04:00 AM 0 0 3 1 4 6 05:00 AM 2 3 3 4 12 05:00 AM 1 6 7 12 26 38 06:00 AM 2 1 2 4 9 06:00 AM 6 7 6 24 43 52 07:00 AM 3 2 5 5 15 07:00 AM 10 9 11 10 40 55 08:00 AM 2 7 6 9 24 08:00 AM 15 7 26 9 57 81 09:00 AM 8 7 10 2 27 09:00 AM 14 12 15 8 49 76 10:00 AM 6 8 10 10 34 10:00 AM 8 7 14 10 39 73 11:00 AM 11 10 9 9 39 11:00 AM 17 23 15 16 71 110 12:00 PM 11 13 11 5 40 12:00 PM 10 15 15 15 55 95 01:00 PM 4 6 7 11 28 01:00 PM 9 15 8 17 49 77 02:00 PM 4 15 8 10 37 02:00 PM 10 7 4 7 28 65 03:00 PM 12 8 10 11 41 03:00 PM 14 13 15 10 52 93 04:00 PM 9 11 15 11 46 04:00 PM 15 20 16 18 69 115 05:00 PM 5 13 10 21 49 05:00 PM 17 10 17 33 77 126 06:00 PM 4 6 6 7 23 06:00 PM 14 13 5 17 49 72 07:00 PM 9 10 6 9 34 07:00 PM 8 19 21 18 66 100 08:00 PM 8 12 11 5 36 08:00 PM 19 14 19 14 66 102 09:00 PM 3 5 10 8 26 09:00 PM 12 11 21 7 51 77 10:00 PM 5 9 2 3 19 10:00 PM 6 11 11 5 33 52 11:00 PM 5 1 3 2 11 11:00 PM 7 3 6 1 17 28 24 Hour Total 570 24 Hour Total 975 1,545 DAlLYTRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND AM. Peak Hour, Time: 11:45 AM Volume: 44 A.M. Peak Hour, Time: 11:00 AM Volume: 71 A.M. "K" Factor: 7.7% P.H.F.: 0.85 A.M. "K" Factor: 7.3% P.H.F.: 0.77 A.M. "D" Factor: 44.0% A.M. "D" Factor: 64.5% P.M. Peak Hour, Time: 05:00 PM Volume: 49 P.M. Peak Hour, Time: 05:00 PM Volume: 77 P.M. "K" Factor: 8.6% P.H.F.: 0.58 P.M."K Factor: 7.9% P.H.F.: 0.58 P.M. "D" Factor: 38.9% P.M. "D" Factor: 61.1% BOTHWAY: EASTBOUND and WESTBOUND A.M. Peak Hour, Time: 11:00 AM Volume: 110 A.M. "K' Factor: 7.1% P.W.F.: 0.83 AM. Hour "D" Factor: 64.5% P.M. Peak Hour, Time: 05:00 PM Volume: 126 P.M. "K" Factor: 8.2% P.H.F.: 0.58 P.M. Hour "D" Factor 61.1% EXISTING AADT NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 9 738 8 5 1 24 9 1357 8 7 1 24 AM NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 28 1322 22 11 2 26 21 969 23 10 1 15 PM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 9 2 8 10 4 3 15 8 14 22 4 AM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 17 10 12 24 7 8 16 4 9 21 7 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 35 725 29 4 12 9 21 1413 18 33 3 13 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 14 1401 42 16 11 30 34 966 14 58 15 24 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 9 20 6 0 0 20 0 32 6 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 7 5 0 13 40 13 8 0 30 1 32 7 PM GROWTH FACTOR 1.04 FUTURE BACKGROUND AADT NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 9 768 8 5 1 24 9 1412 8 7 1 24 AM NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 30 1375 22 11 2 28 21 1008 23 10 1 15 PM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 9 2 8 10 4 3 15 8 14 22 4 AM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 17 10 12 24 7 8 16 4 9 21 7 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 37 754 31 4 12 9 21 1470 18 35 3 13 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 14 1458 44 16 11 32 36 1005 14 60 15 24 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 0 0 9 20 6 0 0 20 0 34 6 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 7 5 0 13 42 13 8 0 32 1 34 7 PM COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 497 11 0 0 0 9 381 0 23 0 20 AM NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 462 20 0 0 0 20 559 0 15 0 14 PM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 483 4 0 0 0 5 399 0 27 0 25 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 468 30 0 0 0 25 549 0 14 0 14 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 0 55 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 PM 0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 9 1265 19 5 1 24 18 1794 8 30 1 44 AM NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 30 1837 42 11 2 28 41 1567 23 25 1 29 PM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 9 2 8 10 4 3 15 8 14 22 4 AM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 17 10 12 24 7 8 16 4 9 21 7 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 37 1238 35 4 12 9 26 1870 18 62 3 38 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 14 1926 74 16 11 32 61 1554 14 74 15 38 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 9 29 6 0 0 20 0 86 6 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 7 5 0 13 97 13 8 0 32 1 62 7 PM PROJECT TRAFFIC NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 20 AM NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 0 4 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 9 PM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 AM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 16 0 21 0 0 0 0 10 9 0 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 13 0 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 0 4 3 0 13 0 0 0 0 4 6 0 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 AM FUTURE WITH PROJECT NB EB SB WB LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT LT T RT NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 9 1265 20 5 1 24 21 1794 8 30 1 64 AM NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 30 1837 46 11 2 28 58 1567 23 25 1 38 PM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 9 5 8 14 4 3 15 8 34 42 4 AM NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 11 17 26 12 45 7 8 16 4 19 30 7 PM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 37 1239 35 4 15 9 26 1870 18 69 16 38 AM NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD 14 1930 77 16 24 32 61 1554 14 78 21 38 PM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 0 0 0 12 29 6 0 0 40 0 86 6 AM NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE 7 5 0 29 97 13 8 0 42 1 62 7 PM • • NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD? COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC AM PEAK HOUR NB SB NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T R'T3TAL LT T RT TOTAL, TOTAL PERFORMING 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 6 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 13 13 32 32 45 0 0 0 45 SKY RESIDENCES 45 45 99 99 144 0 0 0 144 BAY 25 2 2 13 13 15 0 0 0 15 PLATINUM CONDO 1 1 8 8 9 0 0 0 9 METROPOLIS 62 62 I7 17 79 0 0 0 79 EDGEWATERTOWER 25 25 6 6 31 0 0 0 31 ONYX 3 3 16 16 19 0 0 0 19 22 BISCAYNE BAY 25 25 5 5 30 0 0 0 30 UPTOWN LOFTS 11 11 9 9 20 0 23 20 43 43 63 TOTAL 0 497 11 508 9 381 0 390 899 0 0 0 0 23 0 20 43 43 942 NE 23RD STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR NB SB NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T ET TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT YTAL LT T ET TOTAL TOTAL PERFORMING ARTS 9 9 8 8 17 0 0 0 17 MIRAMAR CENTER 132 132 201 201 333 0 0 0 333 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 6 6 II 11 17 0 0 0 17 1800 CLUB 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 13 13 6 6 19 0 0 0 19 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 11 11 5 5 16 0 0 0 16 22 BISCAYNE BAY 14 14 25 25 39 0 0 0 39 UPTOWN LOFTS 20 20 20 20 40 0 15 14 29 29 69 TOTAL 0 462 20 482 20 559 0 579 1,061 0 0 0 0 15 0 14 29 29 1,090 • • NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC AM PEAK HOUR NB SB NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT 3TAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL PERFORMING ARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MIRAMAR CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800 CLUB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TLrr LE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE BAY TOWERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SKY RESIDENCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BAY 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLATINUM CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 METROPOLIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDGEWATER TOWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONYX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 BISCAYNE BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UPTOWN LOFTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE 23RD STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR NB SI3 NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT )TAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL PERFORMING ARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MIRAMAR CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800 CLUB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TUTTLE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE BAY TOWERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SKY RESIDENCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BAY 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLATINUM CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 METROPOLIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDGEWATER TOWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONYX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 BISCAYNE BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UPTOWN LOFTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • • NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COMMI11I D DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC AM PEAK HOUR NB SB NS E13 W13 EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT )TAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL. PERFORMING 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 6 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 13 13 32 32 45 0 0 0 45 SKY RESIDENCES 45 45 99 99 144 0 0 0 144 BAY 25 2 2 13 13 15 0 0 0 15 PLATINUM CONDO I 1 8 8 9 0 0 0 9 METROPOLIS 62 62 17 17 79 0 0 0 79 EDGEWATER TOWER 25 25 6 6 3! 0 0 0 31 ONYX 3 3 16 16 19 0 0 0 19 22 BISCAYNE BAY 4 4 5 5 9 0 27 25 52 52 61 UPTOWN LOFTS 11 11 23 23 34 0 0 0 34 TOTAL 0 483 4 487 5 399 0 404 892 0 0 0 0 27 0 25 52 52 944 NE 22ND STREET & BISCAYNE BOULEVARD COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR NB SB NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT )TAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL PERFORMING ARTS 9 9 8 8 17 0 0 0 17 MIRAMAR CENTER 132 132 201 201 333 0 0 0 333 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 6 6 11 11 17 0 0 0 17 1800 CLUB 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 SAY 25 13 13 6 6 19 0 0 0 19 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 11 11 5 5 16 0 0 0 16 22 BISCAYNE BAY 30 30 25 25 55 0 14 14 28 28 83 UPTOWN LOFTS 20 20 15 15 35 0 0 0 35 TOTAL 0 468 30 498 25 549 0 574 1,072 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 28 28 1,I00 • • • NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC AM PEAK HOUR NA SB NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT JTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL PERFORMING ARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MIRAMAR CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800 CLUB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TUTTLE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE BAY TOWERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SKY RESIDENCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BAY 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLATINUM CONDO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 METROPOLIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDGEWATER TOWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONYX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 BISCAYNE BAY 0 0 0 9 9 52 52 61 61 UPTOWN LOFTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 52 0 52 61 61 NE 22ND STREET & NE 4TH AVENUE COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC PM PEAK HOUR NB SB NS EB WB EW TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL LT T RT DTAL LT T RT TOTAL TOTAL PERFORMING ARTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MIRAMAR CENTER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE VILLAGE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I800 CLUB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TUTTLE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BISCAYNE BAY TOWERS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SKY RESIDENCES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BAY 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PLATINUM CONDO 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 METROPOLIS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDGEWATER TOWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ONYX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 BISCAYNE BAY 0 0 0 55 55 28 28 83 83 UPTOWN LOFTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 0 55 0 28 0 28 83 83 • Project: SOHO CONDOMINIUM Analyst: J. Ahlstedt Date: 5/28/2004 Control System: Card Reader PM OUTBO 011 Input Data Arrival Rate 18per hour Service Rate 360r hour Number of Servers 1 Queue Capacity 2000 Threshold Time (Assumed) 15 seconds System Capacity (Queue Coity + Number of Servers) .2001 Calculated Data Average Number In System L p.053 Average Number in Queue Lq . 0.003 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 95% Probability That Arriving Customer Will Depart Without Entering System PrBalk 0% Probability That an Arriving Customer Witl Have To Wait PrWait 5% Probability That Waiting Time is Less Than Threshold Time Service. Level 99% Average Server. Utilization UN .. 5% 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 Cummuiative Probability of Number of Customers in System 199 90 6 70 60 50 49 30 29 10 4 4 4 4 14 5 u % % O f`1 t0 9 0 f! Number of Customers In System PrState % 0 95.00% 1 4.75% 2 0.24% 3 0.01% 4 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 7 0.00% 8 0.00% 9 0.00% 10 0.00% 1f 0.00% 12 0.00% 13. 0.00% 14 0.00% 15 0.00% 16 p.00°% 17 0.00% 18 0.00% 19 0.00% 20- 0.00% 109% :t 99% 2 9e% a 98% E 98% 0 97% 97% 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 % 0 95.00% 1 99.75% 2 99.99% 3 100.00% 4 100.00% 5 100.00% 6 100.00% 7 100,00% 8 100.00% 9 100.00% 10 100.00°% 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 4 • Project: SOHO CONDOMINIUM Analyst: J. Ahlstedt Date: 5126/2004 Control System: Card Reader Input Data Arrival Rate 37 per hour Service Rate 360 . -r 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 0,115 Average Number in Queue Lq 0.012 Minimum Number of Agents (threshold time & system capacity) MinAgents 2 Minimum Number of Servers (threshold time & queue capacity) MinServets 2 Probability That System is Empty Po 90% Probability That Arriving Customer Will Depart Without Entering System PrBalk 0% Probability That an Arriving...Customer Will Have To Walt . PrWait 10% Probability That Waiting Time Is Less Than Threshold Time Service Level 97% Average Server Utilization Util 10% Average Time Customer. Spends In System W 11 Seconds Average Time Customer Spends In Queue Wq 1Seconds Probability Distribution of Number of Customers In System 109% 90% 80% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Ne0 CY t2,20 Number of Customers In System PrState 0 89, 72% 9 22% 2 0.95% 0 0% 4 0.01% 5 0.00% 6 0.00% 0.00% 8 0.00% 9 0.00% 10 0,00% 11 0.00% 12 0,00% 13 0.00% 14 0.00 PM INSOUf�RT 15 0.00% 16 0.00% 17 0.00% 18 0,00% 19 0.00% 20 0.00% Cummulative Probability of Number of Customers in System 100% -- 100% 99% 99% 98% 3 E = es% rs 97% 97% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of Customers In System • Number 0 89.72% 1 98.94% 2 99.89% 3 99.99% 4 100, 00% 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 3 • Project: SOHO CONDOMINIUM Analyst: J. Ahistedt Date: 5/26/2004 Control System: Card Reader AM OUTBO11[5 Input Data Arrival Rate 39 per hour Service Rate 380 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 0.121 Average Number in Queue Lq 0.013 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 89% Probability That Arriving Customer Will Depart Without Entering System PrBalk 0% Probability That an Arriving Customer Will Have To Wait PrWait 11% Probability That Waiting Time is Less Than Threshold Time Service Level 97% Average Server Utilization LJtiI 11% 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 PrState 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 49 20 o/p 89.17% 9.66% 1.05% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%u 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00°/ 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Cummulative Probability of Number of Customers in System 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Number of Customers In System • Number % 0 89.17% 1 98.63% 2 99.87% 3 99.99% 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: SOHO CONDOMINIUM Analyst: J. Ahlstedt Date: 5/26/2004 Control System: Card Reader 1 AM INBOUND Input Data Arrival Rate 8 per hour Service Rate 360 per hour Number of Servers Queue Capacity 2000 Threshold Time (Assumed) 15 seconds System Capacity (Queue Capacity + Number of Servers) 2001 Calculated Data Average Number In System L 0.023 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 98% Probability That Arriving Customer Witt Depart 4Nithout Entering System PrEle k 0% Probability,That an Arriving Customer Will Have To Wait PrWait 2% Probability That Waiting Time is Less Than Threshold Time Service Level 99% Average Server Utilization Util 2% 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 Cummulative Probability of Number of Customers in System 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 2 50%. P. 40% 0. 30% 20% 10% 0% ,��,' Number of Customers In System � N PrState 0 97.78% 1 2.17% 2 0.05% 3 0.00% 4 0,00% 5 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% 18 0.00% 17 0.00% 18 0.00% 19 0.00% 20 0.00% 100% r g 99% a99% } L �a 98% E a 98% 0 97% 97% id 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 4A 0 97.78% 1 99.95% 2 100.00% 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% 17 100.00% 18 100.00% 19 100.00% 20 100.00°/ Page 1 TIMING8.txt • • • TIMING DATA FOR 2390 US 1 & NE 19 ST PAT OF NSG G Y EWW F G Y 1 T 35 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 2 T 66 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 3 T 32 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 4 M 35 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 5 M 35 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 6 M 58 95 1 4 7 18 1 4 7 M 58 95 1 4 7 18 1 4 8 T 74 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 9 T 54 80 1 4 7 18 1 4 10 T 58 75 1 4 7 18 1 4 11 T 35 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 12 T 74 55 1 4 7 18 1 4 13 M 54 80 1 4 7 18 1 4 16 T 53 75 1 4 7 18 1 4 17 T 58 75 1 4 7 18 1 4 18 T 45 80 1 4 7 18 1 4 19 T 0 30 1 4 7 18 1 4 20 M 58 95 1 4 7 18 1 4 21 T 0 30 1 4 7 18 1 4 22 M 65 65 1 4 7 18 1 4 23 T 0 30 1 4 7 18 1 4 24 T 0 24 1 4 7 18 1 4 MIN: 20 18 1 (SEC: 3 TYPE: SA) S Y M CYC 90AVG M2 0/3 90PRE AM M2 0/ 90POST PM M2 0 90MIAMI ARENA 90MIAMI ARENA 13OBEACH EGRESS 130BEACH INGRES 9OAM PEAK M2 0 115PRE PM PEAK 110AFT M1 0/3 90EARLY NITE M 90AM PEAK M1 115PRE PM PEAK 110MID MORN M2 11ONOON M2 0/3 115PM PEAK M2 0 6 65DAWN M2 14/2 130TEST (NOON M 6 65NITE M2 8/3 100MCARTHUR BLO 6 65LATE NIGHT 1 7 59RECALL TEST TIMING DATA FOR 4836 US 1 & NE 21 ST (SEC: 3 TYPE: SA) PAT OF NSG G Y R XW F EWG Y R NSL Y S Y M CYC 1 T 32 32 1 4 1 7 15 14 4 2 7 3 8 90AVG M2 0/3 2 T 68 32 1 4 1 7 15 14 4 2 7 3 8 90PRE AM M2 0/ 3 T 30 30 1 4 1 7 15 16 4 2 7 3 8 9OPOST PM M2 0 4 M 0 32 1 4 1 7 15 14 4 2 7 3 8 90MIAMI ARENA 5 M 0 30 1 4 1 7 15 10 4 2 5 3 6 82MIAMI ARENA 6 M 68 65 1 4 1 7 15 18 4 2 10 3 8 130BEACH EGRESS 7 M 68 65 1 4 1 7 15 18 4 2 10 3 8 130BEACH INGRES 8 T 82 30 1 4 1 7 15 16 4 2 7 3 8 90AM PEAK M2 0 9 T 44 47 1 4 1 7 15 21 4 2 10 3 8 115PRE PM PEAK 10 T 76 45 1 4 1 7 15 18 4 2 10 3 8 110AFT M1 0/3 11 T O 30 1 4 1 7 15 10 4 2 5 3 6 82EARLY NITE M 12 T 82 30 1 4 1 7 15 16 4 2 7 3 8 90AM PEAK M1 13 M 44 47 1 4 1 7 15 21 4 2 10 3 8 115PRE PM PEAK 16 T 81 45 1 4 1 7 15 18 4 2 10 3 8 110MID MORN M2 17 T 76 45 1 4 1 7 15 18 4 2 10 3 8 11ONOON M2 0/3 18 T 74 47 1 4 1 7 15 21 4 2 10 3 8 115PM PEAK M2 0 19 T O 30 1 4 1 7 15 10 4 2 5 3 6 82DAWN M2 14/2 20 M 68 65 1 4 1 7 15 18 4 2 10 3 8 13OTEST (NOON M 21 T O 30 1 4 1 7 15 10 4 2 5 3 6 82NITE M2 8/3 22 M 60 38 1 4 1 7 15 18 4 2 7 3 8 100MCARTHUR BLO 23 T O 30 1 4 1 7 15 10 4 2 5 3 6 82LATE NIGHT 1 24 T O 20 1 4 1 7 15 10 4 2 6 3 7 73RECALL TEST MIN: 16 15 10 5 TIMING DATA FOR 3596 US 1 & NE 22 ST PAT OF NSG G Y EWP Y 1 T 30 66 1 4 15 4 2 T 29 65 1 4 16 4 Page 1 (SEC: 3 TYPE: SA) S Y M CYC 90AVG M2 0/3 90PRE AM M2 0/ TIMING8.txt • • • 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 T 28 63 M 30 66 M 30 66 M 16 98 M 16 98 T 66 61 T102 90 T 48 85 T 30 66 T 48 61 M102 90 T 39 85 T 48 85 T 38 90 T 0 30 M 16 98 T 0 30 M 60 73 T 0 30 T 0 24 MIN: 20 1 4 18 4 1 4 15 4 1 4 15 4 8 4 16 4 8 4 16 4 1 4 20 4 1 4 16 4 1 4 16 4 1 4 15 4 1 4 20 4 1 4 16 4 1 4 16 4 1 4 16 4 1 4 16 4 1 4 15 4 8 4 16 4 1 4 15 4 1 4 18 4 1 4 15 4 1 4 15 4 15 TIMING DATA FOR 3597 US 1 & NE 26 ST PAT OF NSG G 1 T 70 66 1 2 T 16 55 1 3 T 77 63 1 4M7066 1 5 M 70 66 1 6 M102 98 11 7 M102 98 11 8 T 23 61 1 9 T102 93 1 10 T102 88 1 11 T 70 66 1 12 T 23 61 1 13 M102 93 1 16 T103 88 1 17 T102 88 1 18 T102 93 1 19 T 0 30 1 20 M102 98 11 21 T 0 30 1 22 M 13 73 1 23 T 0 30 1 24 T 0 24 1 MIN: 20 Y EWP Y 4 15 4 4 26 4 4 18 4 4 15 4 4 15 4 4 13 4 4 13 4 4 20 4 4 13 4 4 13 4 4 15 4 4 20 4 4 13 4 4 13 4 4 13 4 4 13 4 4 12 4 4 13 4 4 12 4 4 18 4 4 12 4 4 12 4 12 TIMING DATA FOR 2417 US 1 PAT OF NSG G Y 1 T 75 61 1 4 2 T 70 63 1 4 3 T 76 61 1 4 4 M 75 61 1 4 5 M 75 61 1 4 6 M103 99 4 4 R EWP Y 1 18 4 1 16 4 1 18 4 1 18 4 1 18. 4 1 17 4 & NE 29 ST 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 2 (SEC: 3 TYPE: S 90POST PM M2 0 90MIAMI ARENA 90MIAMI ARENA 130BEACH EGRESS 130BEACH INGRES 90AM PEAK M2 0 115PRE PM PEAK 110AFT M1 0/3 90EARLY NITE M 90AM PEAK M1 115PRE PM PEAK 110MID MORN M2 110NOON M2 0/3 115PM PEAK M2 0 6 54DAWN M2 14/2 130TEST (NOON M 6 54NITE M2 8/3 100MCARTHUR BLO 6 54LATE NIGHT 1 7 48RECALL TEST SA) M CYC 90AVG M2 0/3 90PRE AM M2 0/ 90POST PM M2 0 90MIAMI ARENA 90MIAMI ARENA 130BEACH EGRESS 130BEACH INGRES 90AM PEAK M2 0 115PRE PM PEAK 110AFT M1 0/3 90EARLY NITE M 90AM PEAK M1 115PRE PM PEAK 110MID MORN M2 110NOON M2 0/3 115PM PEAK M2 0 6 51DAWN M2 14/2 134TEST (NOON M 6 51NITE M2 8/3 100MCARTHUR BLO 6 51LATE NIGHT 1 7 45RECALL TEST (SEC: 3 TYPE; SA) S Y M CYC 90AVG M2 0/3 90PRE AM M2 0/ 90POST PM M2 0 90MIAMI ARENA 90MIAMI ARENA 130BEACH EGRESS TIMING8.txt 7 M103 99 4 4 1 17 4 1 8 T 2 59 1 4 1 20 4 1 9 T101 90 1 4 1 14 4 1 10 T103 82 1 4 1 17 4 1 11 T 75 61 1 4 1 18 4 1 12 T 86 59 1 4 1 20 4 1 13 M101 90 1 4 1 14 4 1 16 T 98 84 1 4 1 15 4 1 17 T103 82 1 4 1 17 4 1 18 T101 90 1 4 1 14 4 1 19 T 0 30 1 4 1 14 4 1 20 M103 99 4 4 1 17 4 1 21 T 0 30 1 4 1 14 4 1 22 M 13 71 1 4 1 18 4 1 23 T 0 30 1 4 1 14 4 1 24 T 0 24 1 4 1 14 4 1 MIN: 20 14 TIMING DATA FOR 3598 US 1 & NE 33 ST PAT OF NSG G Y EWP Y 1 T 30 67 1 4 14 4 2 T 40 66 1 4 15 4 3 T 32 52 5 4 25 4 4 M 30 67 1 4 14 4 5 M 30 67 1 4 14 4 6 M 49 98 11 4 13 4 7 M 49 98 11 4 13 4 8 T 53 61 1 4 20 4 9 T 45 93 1 4 13 4 10 T 49 88 1 4 13 4 11 T 30 67 1 4 14 4 12 T 59 61 1 4 20 4 13 M 45 93 1 4 13 4 16 T 46 88 1 4 13 4 17 T 49 88 1 4 13 4 18 T 38 93 1 4 13 4 19 T 0 30 1 4 12 4 20 M 49 98 11 4 13 4 21 T 0 30 1 4 12 4 22 M 61 73 1 4 18 4 23 T 0 30 1 4 12 4 24 T 0 24 1 4 12 4 MIN: 20 12 DAY NUMBERS: 1 - SUNDAY 2 - MONDAY 3 - TUESDAY 4 - WEDNESDAY 5 - THURSDAY 6 - FRIDAY 7 - SATURDAY 8 - HOLIDAY 9 - MONDAY (NO SCHOOL) 10 - TUESDAY (NO SCHOOL) Page 3 130BEACH INGRES 90AM PEAK M2 0 115PRE PM PEAK 110AFT M1 0/3 90EARLY NITE M 90AM PEAK M1 115PRE PM PEAK 110MID MORN M2 110NOON M2 0/3 115PM PEAK M2 0 6 55DAWN M2 14/2 130TEST (NOON M 6 55NITE M2 8/3 100MCARTHUR BLO 6 55LATE NIGHT 1 7 49RECALL TEST (SEC: 3 TYPE: SA) 5 Y M CYC 90AVG M2 0/3 90PRE AM M2 0/ 90POST PM M2 0 90MIAMI ARENA 90MIAMI ARENA 130BEACH EGRESS 130BEACH INGRES 90AM PEAK M2 0 115PRE PM PEAK 110AFT M1 0/3 90EARLY NITE M 90AM PEAK M1 115PRE PM PEAK 110MID MORN M2 110NOON M2 0/3 115 PM PEAK M2 0 6 51DAWN M2 14/2 130TEST (NOON M 6 51NITE M2 8/3 100MCARTHUR BLO 6 51LATE NIGHT 1 7 45RECALL TEST TIMING8.txt 11 - WEDNESDAY 12 - THURSDAY 13 - FRIDAY (NO SCHOOL) (NO SCHOOL) (NO SCHOOL) ENTER DAY ##, SECTION # (/ = STOP) 4,3 4,3 TIME PATTERN CYCLE 0 11 90 15 21 90 115 23 90 500 19 90 545 1 90 615 2 90 745 12 90 845 16 110 1200 17 110 1345 10 110 1545 9 115 1630 18 115 1800 3 90 1900 1 90 AVG M2 0/3 2130 11 90 EARLY NITE M2 1/3 ENTER DAY #, SECTION # (/ = STOP) # TYP CYC 1 T 90 2 T 90 3 T 90 4 M 90 5 M 90 6 M 130 7 M 130 8 T 90 9 T 115 10 T 110 11 T 90 12 T 90 • DESCRIPTION - SECTION EARLY NITE M2 1/3 NITE M2 8/3 LATE NIGHT 14/6 DAWN M2 14/2 AVG M2 0/3 PRE AM M2 0/3 AM PEAK M1 MID MORN M2 0/3 NOON M2 0/3 AFT M1. 0/3 PRE PM PEAK M2 0/1 PM PEAK M2 0/1 POST PM N2 0/3 3 PATTERN SCHEDULE FOR DAY # 4 TIMING PATTERNS FOR SECTION DESCRIPTION AVG M2 0/3 PRE AM M2 0/3 POST PM M2 0/3 MIAMI ARENA OUT -DAY MIAMI ARENA OUT-NITE BEACH EGRESS/VENITIAN CS BEACH INGRESS/VENITIAN C AM PEAK M2 0/1 PRE PM PEAK M2 0/1 AFT M1 0/3 EARLY NITE M2 1/3 AM PEAK M1 3 # TYP CYC DESCRIPTION 13 M 115 PRE PM PEAK M1 14 NOT USED 15 NOT USED 16 T 110 MID MORN M2 0/3 17 T 110 NOON M2 0/3 18 T 115 PM PEAK M2 0/1 19 T 90 DAWN M2 14/2 20 M 130 TEST (NOON M2 0/3) 21 T 90 NITE M2 8/3 22 M 100 MCARTHUR BLOCKAGE M2 0/2 23 T 90 LATE NIGHT 14/6 24 T 80 RECALL TEST Page 4 PARKING NE 23RD STREET PARKING E W1 Lt z w o C ¢ ` a t < d a al a U :n OFFICELt 4 R1-1 PARKING d� i110' NE 22ND STREET too, PARKING COMIERCIAL f OFFICE DRIVEWAY NTS • ARTPLAN 2002 Conceptual Planning Analysis Description/File Information Filename C:\LOSPLAN\Artplan\AP_BISCAYNE AM.xml Date Prepared 5/28/2004 Program ARTPLAN Version 5.1.1 Analyst J. AHLSTEDT Agency District Arterial meal BISCAYNE BLVD Beg Ine� sn ection NE 33 ST End intersection NIA 19 ST Study Period Kp/d Peak Direction User Notes Southbound SOHO CONDOMINIUM AM PEAK Facility Data Roadway Variables Traffic Variables Control Variables Multimodal Variables , ea Type Urbanized AADT 36000 Arrival Type 4 Paved Shoulder/Bike Lane No Class 3 K 0.097 Signals/Mile 5.00 Outside Lane Width Typical Posted Speed 30 D 0.52 Cycle Length 90 Pavement Condition Typical # Thru Lanes 4 PHF 0.925 Through g/C 0.67 Sidewalk Yes Median Type Restrictive 0/0Turns Excl. Lanes 12 Control Type Semiactuated Sidewalk/Roadway Separation Typical Left Turn Lanes Yes % Heavy Vehicles 1.7 Sidewalk/Roadway Protective Barrier No 1900 Obstacle to Bus Stop No Base Sat Flow Rate 0.95 Bus Freq 1 Local Adj. Factor 1775 Bus Span Of Service 15 Adjusted Sat Flow Rate • Automobile Segment Data Segment # Cycle Length g/C Arr. Type 0/0 Turns # Dir. Lanes, Length AADT Hourly Vol. FFS Median Type Oro NE 26 ST) NE 29 ST) 3 (to NE 22 ST) 4 (to NE 21 ST) 5 (to NE 19 ST) 90 90 90 90 90 0.67 4 0.67 0.67, 0.67 4 0.67 4 12 12 12 12 12 2 2 2 2 0.25 0.1875 0.25 0.0625 0.125 36000 36000 36000 36000 36000 1836 1836 1836 35 1836 35 1836 35 35 Non -Restrictive Non -Restrictive 5 Non -Restrictive, Non -Restrictive Non -Restrictive Automobile LOS Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate v/c Control Delay Int. Approach LOS Speed (mph) Segment LOS 1 (to NE 29 ST) 1747 0.73 4.84 A 25.6 B 2 (to NE 26 ST) 1747 0.73 4.84 A 24.4 _ B €3 (to NE 22 ST) 1747 0.73 4.84 A 25.6 B 4 (to NE 21 ST) 1747 0.73 4 4.84 A 17.7 D 5 (to NE 19 ST) 1747 0.73 4.84 A 22 Auto C Arterial Length 0.9 Auto Speed 24.0 LOS B Automobile Service Volume Tables A B C D E Lanes Hourly Volume In Peak Direction 1 * 820 1250 1300 1340 100 1840 2520 - 2600 2690 2 3 150 2890 3790 3890 4040 220 3940 5060 5190 5390 4 * 100 1840 2520 2600 2690 j Lanes Hourly Volume In Both Directions 2 ** 1570 2400 2490 2580 4 190 3530 4850 4990 5180 6 290 f 5560 7300 7480 7770 8 420 7570 9740 9980 10370 * 190 3530 4850 4990 5180 Lanes Annual Average Daily Traffic 2 ** 16200 24800 25700 26600 4 2000 36400 50000 51500 53400 6 3000 57300 75200 77100 80100 8 4300 78100 100400 102800 106900 * 2000 36400 50000 51500 53400 • ARTPLAN 2002 Conceptual Planning Analysis Description/File Information Filename AP_SISCAYNI= PM.xml Date Prepared 5/28/2004 Program Analyst ARTPLAN Version 5.1.1 3. AHLSTEDT Agency District Begin End Arterial Name BISCAYNE BLVD Inerection NE 19 ST Intersection NE 33 ST Study Period User Notes Kp/d Peak Direction Northbound SOHO CONDOMINIUM PM PEAK Facility Data Roadway Variables Traffic Variables Control Variables Multimodal Variables ea Type Urbanized AADT 36000 Arrival Type 4 Paved Shoulder/Bike Lane No Class 3 K 0.097 Signals/Mile 5.00 Outside Lane Width Typical Posted Speed 30 D p 52 Cycle Length 115 Pavement Condition Typical Yes 0.8 Sidewalk # Thru Lanes 4 PHF 0,925 Through g/C Median Type Restrictive % Turns Excl. Lanes 12 Control Type Semiactuated Sidewalk/Roadway Separation Typical Left Turn Lanes Yes % Heavy Vehicles 1'7 Sidewalk/Roadway Protective Barrier No 1900 Obstacle to Bus Stop No Base Sat Flow Rate 0.95 Bus Freq 1 Local Adj. Factor 1775 Bus Span Of Service 15 Adjusted Sat Flow Rate Automobile Segment Data AADT FFS Median Type Segment # NE 21 ST) Cycle Length NE 22 ST) 3 (to NE 26 ST) 4 (to NE 29 ST) 115 5 (to NE 33 ST) 115 g/C Arr. Type 115 0.8 4 115 115 0.8 4 Turns 0.8 12 12 0.8 4 0.8 4 12 12 # Dir. Lanes 12 2 2 Length 2 0.125 0.0625 0.25 0.1875 36000 0.25 ,36000 36000 Hourly Vol. 36000 1836 36000 1836 1836 1816 35 1816 35 35 35 Non -Restrictive Non -Restrictive Non -Restrictive Restrictive Restrictive Automobile LOS Segment # Thru Mvmt Flow Rate v/c Control Delay Int. Approach LOS Speed (mph) Segment LOS 1 (to NE 21 ST) 1747 0.62 0.76 A 27.5 B 2 (to NE 22 ST) 1747 0.62 0.76 A 26.! B B 3 (to NE 26 ST) 1747 0.62 0.76 A 29 4 (to NE 29 ST) 1728 0.611 0.74 A 28.7, B 5 (to NE 33 ST) 1728 0.61 0.75 A 29.1' B Arterial Length 0.9 Auto Speed 28.5 Auto LOS B Automobile Service Volume Tables A B C L D 1 E Lanes Hourly Volume In Peak Direction 1 590 1440 1520 1570 1610 3130 3230 1350 1 2980 r 3060 2 3 2130 4490 4600 4700 4840 4 2930 6000 6130 6270 6450 * 1350 2980 3060 3130 3230 .l Lanes Hourly Volume In Both Directions 2 1130 2760 2930 3020 3100 2600 5720 5890 6020 6210 4 6 4090 8630 8840 9040 9310 I 8 5630 11530 11800 12060 12410 * 2600 1 5720 5890 6020 6210 Lanes Annual Average Daily Traffic 2 11700 28500 30200 31100 32000 4 26800 59000 60700 62100 64000 6 42200 88900 91200 93200 96000 8 58100 118900 121600 124300 128000 * 26800 59000 60700 62100 64000 • • • Jackson M.. Ahlstedt, P.E. 17i Li:SI'ORT. 7'10N EAG NE£RIA'G d5 iVIV 04t STRISET i Afr'AMI S11GRES. FLORIDA 33150 / 005) 7 -S693 July 30, 2004 Via E-mail yls. Lib. I. Medina Assistant Transportation Coordinator Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: SO140 Condominium MUSP Response to Traffic Impact Analysis Review Comments dated July 12, 2004. Dear Ms. Medina: Please consider this my formal response to the comments contained in the letter, dated July 12, 2004, sent to you by Ms. Jean L. King, P.E. The letter identifies 6 issues. These are my responses: 1. Although the City's adopted level of service standard is not based upon peak season activity, I have attached calculations for future peak season conditions with the project. 2. The AR l ]'LAN analysis stands as provided. 1 have chosen to use the FDOT data because it yields the highest peak hour volumes and, in turn, the lowest level of service. It is not proper for the reviewer to dictate which data to use in the analysis. If 1 followed the reviewer's direction, FDOT could take exception to the analysis. 3. The report does include the traffic impacts of all approved committed developments. The supporting memorandum provided by the reviewer indicates that the "New Wave" was not included in the analysis. The analysis does include that project. Consistent with previous traffic studies prepared by me it is identified as 22 Biscayne Bay in the report. As to the issue of the two Midtown Miami projects; while 1 still maintain that it is improper to include those projects as committed developments, I have reviewed the Site Traffic Analysis Shops at Midtown Miami prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates and provided by the City. My comments are as follows. a. The original report for SOHO was prepared May 26, 2004. The current Large Scale Development Report dated July 8th, 2004, shows three Midtown Miami projects. All three projects are shown as Class II permits and all three are identified as preliminary. Further, The Shops at Midtown 1 • • Miami projects show review dates ofJunc 8 and June 15 2004. These projects are not approved projects and should not be considered committed developments. b. The SOHO traffic study estimated future traffic conditions by applying a growth rate of 2% per year and added in project traffic from 12 approved MUSP projects; the Shops at Midtown Miami Site Traffic Analysis applied a growth rate of 1.5% and did not include any approved MUSP traffic. c. The study area for the SOHO traffic study was identified to include NE 27th Street on the north and NE 2nd Avenue on the west. None of the Midtown Miami projects fall within the study area. The Shops at Midtown Miami Site Traffic Analysis does not provide any project traffic information for roadways in the approved study area for SOHO. Project traffic for the two Midtown Miami projects is not shown east of the FEC railroad. Based upon The Shops at Midtown Miami Site Traffic Analysis, in the year 2010 with the project, there would be 952 vph during the PM peak hour on NE 29th Street between the FEC railroad and North Miami Avenue. The person -trip analysis contained in the traffic report for SOHO estimated that in the year 2006 there would be 1,069 vehicles per hour. Thus, l believe that the traffic impact analysis provide for the SOHO project has adequately addressed the issue of committed development traffic. 4. The WC ratio thresholds presented in the person -trip analysis are interpreted correctly. In the supporting memorandum the reviewer incorrectly asserts that the analysis indicates that Biscayne .Boulevard may operate at a V/C greater than 1.0. The tables show that the maximum allowable V/C for the roadway portion of the Biscayne Boulevard facility is 1.0. However, the combined transportation facility which includes the roadway and all transit service is allowed to operate at a V/C of 1.50. 5. Data sources are documented in Appendix D. 6. The TCMP is not required to be part of the traffic study. Further, a--TCMP is only required for projects in the downtown district. This project is not in the downtown district, • • • Having addressed these issues, I trust that the application can proceed through the process without Further delay. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, JACKSON M. AHLSTE.DT, P.E. del(ILIC.404 Jkson M. A.hlstedt. P.E. Cc: Ms. Jerin L.King, P.E. • • • PEAK SEASON CALCULATIONS Future Conditions With Project Levels of Service • • • HCS2000: Onsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 7/24/2004 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE Jurisdiction: CITY OF 5IA21/FDOT Units: J. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: BISCAYNE BLVD Intersection Orientation: NS Major Street: Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L T R I L _ R Volume 31 1892 47 60 1614 24 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.72 0.91 0.92 0.75 0.92 0.57 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 43 2079 51 80 1754 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes .r 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 26 1 39 11 2 29 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.62 0.25 0.62 0.46 0.50 0.68 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 4 62 23 4 42 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach:axists?/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 LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 43 80 107 69 C(m) (vph) 349 259 0 0 v/c 0.12 0.31 95% queue length 0.42 1.27 Control Delay 16.8 25.0- LOS C C F F Approach Delay Approach LOS HCS2000: Unsignalized intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 7/24/2004 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23RD ST/BISCAYNE jurisdiction: CITY OF MIANI/FDOT Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON East/West Street: NE 23RD 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 9 1303 21 22 1848 8 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.56 0.94 0.50 0.56 0.92 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 16 1386 42 39 2008 11 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 R { L T R Volume 31 1 66 5 1 25 Peak Hour Factor, PEE 0.88 0.25 0.67 0.42 0.25 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 35 4 98 11 4 29 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 I 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config L L I LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 16 39—._m 137 44 C(m) (vph) 286 482 14 7 v/c 0.06 0.08 9.79 6.29 95% queue length 0.18 0.26 18.20 6.99 Control Delay 18.3 13.1 4484 3402 LOS C E F F Approach Delay 4484 3402 Approach LOS F F • • • • HCS2000: 0ssi;nalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 7/24/2004 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23RD ST/PEE 4TH AVE Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: 5OH0 CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON East/West Street: NE 23RD STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation: 5W Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 14 5 6 L fi R I L T' R Volume 12 46 7 20 31 7 Peak --Hour Factor, PHF 0.50 0.75 0.44 0.56 0.66 0.88 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 24 61 15 35 46 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Movement Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 ? 10 11 12 L T R 1 L T R Volume 11 18 27 8 16 4 Peak Hour Factor, 3HF 0.69 0.71 0.50 0.67 0.67 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 15 25 54 11 23 4 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 Approach Movement Lane Conf g Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service EE3 WB Northbound Southbound 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 LTR LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 24 35 94 38 C (m) (vph) 1566 1536 814 652 v/c 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.06 95% queue length 0.05 0.07 0.39 0.19 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 10.0- 10.9 LOS A A A B . Approach Delay 10.0- 10.9 Approach LOS A E3 • • • HCS2000: Unsignalized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 7/24/2004 AnalysisTime Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: NE 23R➢ ST/NE 4TH AVE Jurisdiction: CITY OF NIAM= Units: U. 5. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: 50HO CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON East/West Street: NE 23Rv STREET North/South Street: NE 4TH AVENUE Intersection Orientation: KW Major Street: Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 2 3 ! 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 8 14 4 35 43 4 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.67 0.42 0.25 0.50 0.92 0.50 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 11 33 16 70 46 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / _ET Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound ovement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 11 9 5 3 t5 8 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.69 0.56 0.50 0.38 0.62 0.67 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 15 16 10 7 24 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (8) 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 KB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 17 8 9 i 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR ( LTR v (vph) 11 70 41 42 C(m) (vph) 1564 1571 691 691 v/c 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.06 95% queue length 0.02 0.14 0.19 0.19 Control Delay 7.3 7.4 10.5 10.5 LOS A A B B Approach Delay 10.5 10.5 Approach LOS B B HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d Analyst: J. AHLSTEDT Inter.: 3596 Agency: Area Type: All other areas Date: 5/24/04 Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Period: PM PEAK HOUR Year : FUTURE. WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON E/W St: NE 22ND STREET N/5 St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound Westbound 1 Northbound 1 Southbound L T R L T R I L T R I L I R 1 No. Lanes I 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 LGConfig 1 LT R LT R 1 L TR I L TR Volume 116 25 33 80 22 39 114 1988 79 163 1601 14 Lane Width 1 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 111.0 11.0 111.0 11.0 RTOR Vol 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: A11 other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 7 8 EB Left A 1 NB Left P Thru A 1 Thru P Right A 1 Right P Peds 1 Peds MB Left A 1 SB Left P Thru A 1 Thru P Right A 1 Right P Peds 1 Peds NB Right 1 EB Right SB Right 1 WB Right Green 16.0 91.0 Yellow_ 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 115.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity (s) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 145 1041 0.41 0.14 47.1 B 46.1 D R 211 1516 0.28 0.14 45.1 D Westbound LT 150 1081 0.92 0.14 99.2 F 84.3 8' R 211 1516 0.25 0.14 44.7 D Northbound L 151 191 0.11 0.79 4.1 A TR. 2664 3367 0.86 0.79 11.5 B 11.5 B Southbound 63 78 1.25 0.79 208.4 F TR 2676 3382 0.64 0.79 6.3 A 15.2 B Intersection Delay = 17.1 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B • • • • HCS2000: Signalized Intersections Release 4.1d Analyst: J. AHLSTEDx Inter.: 3596 Agency: Area Type: All other areas Date: 7/24/04 Jurisd: CITY OF MIAMI/FDOT Period: AM PEAK HOUR Year : FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON E/,' St: NE 222ND STREET N/S St: BISCAYNE BOULEVARD SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Eastbound 1 Westbound 1 Northbound I L T R 1 L T R 1 L T R 1 I 1 No. Lanes 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 LGConfig 1 LT R 1 LT R 1 L TR Volume 14 15 9 171 16 39 138 1276 36 Lane Width 1 11.0 11.0 1 11.0 11.0 111.0 11.0 RTOR Vol 1 0 1 0 1 0 Southbound L T R 1 2 0 L TR 27 1926 19 11.0 11.0 0 Duration 0.25 Area Type: All other areas Signal Operations Phase Combination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 EB Left A NB Left P Thru A Thru P Right A Right P Peds Peds WB Left A SB Left P Thru A Thru P Right A Right P Peds Peds NB Right EB Right SB Right WB Right Green 20.0 62.0 Yellow 4.0 4.0 All Red 0.0 0.0 Cycle Length: 90.0 secs Intersection Performance Summary Appr/ Lane Adj Sat Ratios Lane Group Approach Lane Group Flow Rate Grp Capacity Is) v/c g/C Delay LOS Delay LOS Eastbound LT 369 1661 0.13 0.22 28.2 C 28.0 C R 337 1516 0.05 0.22 27.6 C Westbound LT 284 1279 0.46 0.22 31.5 C 30.6 C R 337 1516 0.18 0.22 28.6 C Northbound L 80 115 0.74 0.69 54.5 D TR 2319 3367 0.60 0.69 8.6 A 10.5 B Southbound L 177 257 0.40 0.69 12.7 B TR 2329 3381 0.87 0.69 15.9 8 15.8 B Intersection Delay = 14.7 (sec/veh) Intersection LOS = B • • • HCS2000: Unsigna7_ized Intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Analyst: U. AHLSTEDT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 7/24/04 Analysis Time Period: PM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 2254A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE .5/O PROJECT Project ID: SOHO CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EW Study e Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments od (hrs): 0.25 Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L T R I L T R Volume 13 100 13 1 64 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.65 0.73 0.81 0.25 0.75 0.58 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 20 136 16 4 85 12 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Cnannelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Movement Northbound Southbound 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T R Volume 7 5 0 8 0 33 Peak Hour Factor, PHF 0.58 0.42 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.86 Hourly Flow Rate, HER 12 11 0 11 0 38 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 EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 t 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR I LTR I LTR v (vph) 20 4 23 49 C(m) (vph) 1509 1441 617 874 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.06 95% queue length 0.04 0.01 0.12 0.18 Control Delay 7.4 7.5 11.1 9.4 LOS A A B A Approach Delay 11.1 9.4 Approach LOS B - A • • • HCS2000: Unsignaiized intersections Release 4.1d TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMERY Analyst: J. AHLSTEOT Agency/Co.: Date Performed: 7/24/04 Analysis Time Period: AM PEAK HOUR Intersection: 22S4A Jurisdiction: CITY OF MIAMI Units: U. S. Customary Analysis Year: FUTURE W/O PROJECT Project ID: SOH0 CONDOMINIUM - PEAK SEASON East/West Street: NE 22 ST North/South Street: NE 4 AVE Intersection Orientation: EN Study period (hrs): 0.25 vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street: Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 L R I L T R Volume 9 30 6 0 89 6 Peak -Hour Factor, P-iF 0.75 0.45 0.50 1.00 0.69 0.75 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 12 66 12 0 128 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type/Storage Undivided / RT Channelized? Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Upstream Signal? No No Minor Street: Approach Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 L T R I L T` R Volume 0 0 0 0 0 21 Peak Hour Factor, PEE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.71 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 0 0 29 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 E5 WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 1 7 8 9 I 10 11 12 Lane Config LTR LTR 1 LTR 1 LTR v (vph) 12 0 C(m) (vph) 1461 1533 v/c 0.01 0.00 95% queue length 0.02 0.00 Control Delay 7.5 7.3 LOS A A Approach Delay Approach LOS 0 29 923 0.03 0.10 9.0 A 9.0 A • • • TABLE 1 FUTURE PEAK SEASON LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH PROJECT STREET. FROM .- `-' TO LOS Biscayne Boulevard NE 19th Street NE 33rd Street AM=E PM=B ARTPLAN LOS CRITERIA PEAK HOUR LOS MAXIMUM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONALVOLUME (VPH) A 8 C D E AM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume (VPH) 100 1840 2520 2600 2690 2,637 PM Peak Hour Directional Service Volume {VPH) 1350 2980 3060 3130 3230 2,789 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 0.67. 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 year2002 FDOT data for count station 5056 (AADT = 36,000; K= 9.75%; and, D = 52.35%) escalated by 2% per year for four years, adding committed development traffic and project traffic, and factored to peak season by applying a factor of 1.03. • Jackson M. Ahistedt, P.E. • • TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING 46 NW 44 h STREET IMIAMI SHORES, FLORIDA 33150 /1305) 754-8005 August 25, 2004 Via E-mail Ms. Lilia I. Medina .Assistant Transportation Coordinator Office of Transportation, City Manager's Office City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Soho Condominium MUSP Response to Traffic Impact Analysis Review Comments Dear Ms, Medina: As requested, attached is a revised Transportation Facilities Level of Service Analysis. Having addressed this issue, I trust that the application can proceed through the process without further delay. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, JACKSON M. AHLSTEDT, P.E. d i-lf‘L(.4041 J kson M. Ahlstedt, P.E. Cc: Ms. Jen L.King, P.E. 1 • FAClLNY ROADWAY TRANSIT ROUTE BISCAYNE HlND Biscayne Elvd 3 16 32 36 62 95 T MAX PROM NE 19h Street TABLE D-1 YEAR 2004 VOLUME TO FUNCTIONAL VOLUME 1 4 CLASS VPH PPV NE 29th Street PRIN ART Cass ill 3,283 4,596 192 182 49 56 37 0 325 225 5,661 TOTAL NE2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue NE 191h Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4L:1 1,760 2,492212 9 74 10 2,766 TOTAL TL7TAL NfS 8.447 NE 20 ST NE 20th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1,229 1,720 49 32 1, 769 TOTAL NE 29 ST NE 29th Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 667 933 0 6 942 TOTAL TOTAL ENV 2,711 CAPACITY FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT FROM TO FUNCTIONAL CAPAC€TY 2 ROUTE CLASS VPH PPV BISCAYNE BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 291h Street PRIN ART Class III 5,436 8,696 387 3 396 16 32 387 414 3662 736 95 43© T 414 552 MAX 12,416 TOTAL NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 5 10 TOTAL NE 20 ST NE 20ih Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 32 TOTAL NE 29 ST NE 2901 Street NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 6 TOTAL VOLUME/CAPACITY FACILITY ROADWAY TRANSIT FROM TO FUNCTIONAL ROUTE CLASS OISCAYNE BLVD Biscayne Blvd NE 19th Street NE 29th Street PRIN ART 3 16 32 36 62 95 T MAX TOTAL NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Avenue TOTAL NE 20 ST NE 29th Street TOTAL NE 25 ST NE 29th Street TOTAL 9 10 32 4LU 2,340 3,744 828 237 4,779 TOTAL NIS 17,195 2LLI 1,164 1,894 387 2,281 4LU 2,340 2,744 78 3,822 TOTAL ENV 6,103 Class III VIC 0.53 0.517 0.46 0.13 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.78 0.41 0.46 NE 19th Street NE 29th Street MIN ART 4LU 0.67 0.27 0.38 0.55 TOTAL NIS 0.49 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 0.91 0.13 0.76 NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue COLL 4LU 0.25 0.11 0.25 TOTAL 81W 0.44 NOTES 1. Transit ridership based upon Data In Table 0-6 es951519d at 2% pee year (or 4 years. 2. Roadway capacity for Biscayne 80ules8rd based upon FDOT LOS Tab€es adjusted to reflect existing 0=115 and GtC=0.80. PCIL('IY TOTAL ROADWAY TRANSIT ROUTE 9 YEAR FROM TABLE D-2 2006 WITHOUT PROJECT VOLUME FUNCTIONA1 G ASS 0l UME JC ; 4 VPH TOTAL WS 308 16 496 N- .1 TOTAL NH 2nd Aver147 1 N Miami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 2749 NE T N' 'th r--i TCITAI F. NE 2e Alve N ?uliar<.:; Avenue _ C1 L. 1373 3,140 6 21 ▪ 923 TOTAL EIW 12 1,935 ▪ 151 NE 2 AVF NE 2r Av nu. NE 161 " r t N5 2n vcre 3vrw „r. I- i 628 10 1 407 TOTAL TOTAL NYS I 457 _.. 17.516 1 TMOOMMIMMI =IIMMIMI��MNNNIMIIMIMNMIMMMIIMI' TOTAL E1W IiiiMMMiiiiill= V O LUM EiCAPACITY N ART ...I I S ..... _.. .... -t-,r�— -. 0-52 lF 046 9 _ ..- - L 13 36 62 _ 0.14 se 0.00 __. -- --- -- - --_ - --- MAX TOTAL q.&i 1 ,„. NE 2 AVE NE 2, Ave71P 9 10 N 1145 5uee= i -vc .4 ,1, ,,,,, wit, r.". .._ 037 0,50 TOTAf _ TnTGI �r� 1 r- 134 0.34 NE 20 ST NE 2015 Sireet 2 NE 2nd Avaaua N M.:ami Avenue MIN ART 2LU 1.66 51.1 TOTAL N.�._ • NE 'ih 5'rr�-t ._....... ` NF 7ro �v_n N tv7_mi Av-�ru'__.. ...-Cs`„— TOTAL VOTES 1. Volumes based upon Tabig 0-1 escalated ail 2% per year for 4 years plus Committed Development and Other Development T;sfi51. 4( 1 33 r.-51 0.08 0,50 TOTAL Ern 0 32 FACILITY RO.ADVV AY BISCAY NE 6LVO i Biscayne 01vd NE2AVE TOTAL NE 2nd Avenue NE 20 5, NE 2©15 Street TOTAL NE 29 ST rOTA1 FAC ILIT Y NE 291h Stree ROADWAY 91SCAYNE BLVO Biscayne Bly N 2 AVE NE 20 ST TOTAL TOTA NE 2nd Avenue NE 20th Street NE 2 AVE NE 2nd Aven e TRANSIT ROUTE 32 TRANSIT OUTE 95 T MAX 32 TOTAL NE 29 ST 6 TOTAL TABLE 0-3 PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUME TO h....1o0,^,Streel... _NE 99th.._Street ..... NE 2nd Avenue N Miami Avenue NE 2nd Avenue _ N Miami Avenue FROM CAPACITY TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS PRIN ART MIN ART FUN CT}ONAL NE 191h Street , NE 29€1 Street PRIN ART NE 191h Street 2nd Avenue N Miami NE 2nd Avenue MIN ART VOLUME VPH 13 CAPAC}TY 18 C,Rs= ill 2LLt Class ill Avenue MIN ART Miami Avenua i..... ..._ COOL VOLUME(CAPACITY NE 2nd Avenue 111111111111111111111111 vIIN ART 2340 823 0.75% 0.30% 0_36% 0_g6 % 0.36 % 56 3.900 0.05% 0.02% i).00 % 0.7'.% 0.13% 0.18°/ ©,59% 0.0516 0.77% 0.34% 0.03% 0.32/° FACIL LTY RO,ACW AY TO ANSI: ROUTE MMSMi 'FROM TABLE. D-4 YEAR 2006 WITH PROJECT VOLUME TO FUNCTIONAL CLASS VOLT EME V H 16 32 36, r TOTAL . N Miem: Avenge COLT l 9 PpV TOTAL 3ISCAYNE BLV© . Biscayne Blvd TOTAL N F ?9 5T N aLe.et TOTAL...... F -- N _ N 76th TOTAL TRAM IT ROUTE CAPACITY NE 29th Str09t 00Zricl Aonue N MIWF E Av„en.,e. VOLUME/CAPACITY TOTAL TOTAL • 116 20 ST TOTAL AUW AY NE 20Ln Street TRAN 1 ROUTE. NOTES . Volumes obtained by adding volumes in Table U-2 and Table O-3. 1362 TOTAL EIW CAPACITY VPH TOTAL N.tS TOTAL EIiN 0.48 0,19 1.14 0.07 ©,00 ,1 0.37 0.512 1� FUNCTIONAL CLASS PRIN ANT MIN AR MIN a.R= N TI NA CLASS MIN ART MIN RT 4L'3 TOTAL N1S .7 "3 414 552 12 944 17.516 TABLE D-5 COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC WORKSHEET DEVELOPMENT TAZ VPH PAX VPH 1.4 Biscayne Blvd NE 2nd Ave NE 20th St NE 291h St 362 241 Tuttle Sheet 337 14 51 0 078 5 17 Avant 503 117 164 39 14 30 Biscayne Bay Tower (Blue) 504 125 175 41 29 8 4 8 Platinum Condominium 504 35 49 11 4 2 4 Sky Residences 504 i 7 24 6 54 1800 Club 505 322 451 322 0 75 35 0 8 6 Bay 25 (Star) 505 35 49 0 0 Biscayne Bay Lofts (Onyx) 505 1 1 1 0 252 353 252 0 59 42 505 Biscayne Village0 30 21 Edgewater Tower (Rosabella) 505 127 178 127 98 2 Metropals Bayshare 505 417 584 417 0 24 90 0 Miramar Center II 505 532 745 532 0 117 0 Cultural Center 512 98 3,109 29 69 TOTAL 2,319 6,219 1,825 238 436 344 COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT AUTO 1.4 % TOTAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPH 2319 3247 0.95 3417 3247 171 TRIP DISTRIBUTION WSW WNW NNW TAZ NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW 382 13.36 4.92 5.11 5.62 21.29 19.93 13.51 15.96 503 13.28 4.64 5.33 10.39 12.76 21.80 14.93 16.87 504 10.61 4.13 5.04 4.48 21,61 24.26 13.50 16.36 505 9.89 3.86 4.71 3.70 20.92 23.40 16.84 16.68 506 12,63 5.23 4.94 6.83 11.98 23.2 17.6 17.58 512 8.97 4.92 4.34 11.72 16.64 18,96 20.12 14.33 TRIP ASSIGNMENT Biscayne Blvd NE 2nd Ave NE 20th St NE 291h St TAZ 382 593 504 505 506 512 5.62 33.64 32.46 100.00 29.63 20.69 21.29 66.36 22.94 0.00 70.36 34.45 0.00 4.64 10.80 23.40 17.60 20.12 0,00 14.93 24.26 16.84 0.00 0.00 • DEVELOPMENT TABLE D-6 OTHER DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC WORKSHEET TAZ VPH PAX VPH 1.4 Biscayne Blvd NE 2nd Ave NE 20th St NE 29th St 200 135 Shops at Midtown 500 996 1,394 26 26 2 Midtown Glass II 500 305 427 Midpoint Village 503 88 123 29 58 4 132D The Steps en.the 503 135 189 45 90 6 Onyx 2 504 67 94 45 24 16 9 5th Avenue Lofts 504 28 39 14 The Yorker 504 39 S4 26 14 9 526 15 Biscayne Park 504 109 152 73 39 14 8 ice 504 57 80 38 20 504 24 33 16 8 6 3 IceZaf2 504 57 80 38 20 14 8 Moon Bay 504 38 53 26 14 9 5 Gallery Art 505 93 130 44 31 22 16 4 61 45 56 Paramount @Edgewater 505 221 309 811 7 New Wave 505 47 65 22 16 Uptown Lao19 13 9s 505 56 79 26 0 Bayview Market 506 1,612 2,257 478 1,134 284 247 52 124 31 0 Biscayne Tower 506 176 142 199 42 100 25 0 Ellipse 506 4,290 6,006 1,099 1,999 534 335 OTHER DEVELOPMENT AUTO 1.4 % TOTAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPH 4290 6095 0.95 6322 6005 316 Totat Resident'iai Office Retail Residential Office Retail VPH DU SF SF VPH VPH VPH AUTO 95% 5th Avenue Lofts 28 42 Gallery Art 93 71 95%Onyx 2 67 122 95% Soho 56 95 58 2 Midtown Class II 305 Shops at Midtown 996 Paramount @ Edgewater 221 1,679 95% Bayview Market 1,612 24 445,675 19 2 95% Biscayne Park 109 214 300 550 112 91 95% Biscayne Tower 176 175 24,136 95 4,624 132 17 95% Ellipse 142 262 60 95% ice 57 100 g5% ice 2 57 100 60 100 8,580 60 32 95% Midpoint Village 88 95% Moon Bay 38 61 40 95% hew Wave 47 75 4972 95 % The Steps on the 135 120 19,320 70 Al 95°/ The Yorker 39 62 4,800 41 18 95% Uptown Lofts 55 63 25 95% Zafire 24 34 4,346 30 TRIP DISTRIBUTION WSW WNW NNW TAZ NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW 382 13.36 4.92 5.11 5.62 21.29 19.93 13.81 15.96 503 13.28 4.64 5.33 10.39 12.76 21.80 14.93 16.87 504 10,61 4.13 5.04 4.48 21.61 24.26 13.50 16.36 505 9.89 3.86 4.71 3.70 20.92 23.40 16.84 16.68 506 12.63 5.23 4.94 6.83 11.98 23.2 17.6 17.58 512 8.97 4.92 4.34 11.72 16.5'4 18.96 20.12 14.33 TRIP ASSIGNMENT TAZ 382 503 504 505 506 512 TOTAL VPH Biscayne Blvd 33.64 67.16 46.43 29.63 177 VPH 2 66.36 35.82 33.93 70.36 0 VPH 20 4.64 23.88 23.21 17.60 4469 VPH 29 14.93 13.43 16.07 0.00 TABLE 0-7 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP WORKSHEET AVG RIDERS DESIGN % COMM OTHER PROJECT SEATS PAX LOAD CAPACITY TRANSIT DEVEL DEVEL RIDERS EXISTING PER PER FACTOR RIDERS RIDERS RIDERS ROUTE HEADWAY VEHICLE HOUR PER HR 3 20 43 177 150% 387 14.00% 24 44 1 16 26 44 168 150% 396 13.29% 23 42 1 32 20 43 45 150% 387 3.56% 6 11 0 36 20 46 52 150% 414 4.11% 7 13 0 62 10 41 34 150% 738 2.69% 5 8 0 95 15 43 0 125% 430 0.00% 0 0 0 74 1 T20 46 300 150% 414 23 73% 41 52 1 MAX 15 46 208 15©a/ 552 16.46% 28 1 9 10 46 204 150% 828 16.14% 28 51 150ai 207 5.38% 9 17 0 10 40 46 68 6 60 26 8 150% 78 0.63%a 1 2 0 1264 4831 100.00% 171 313 4 COMMITTED AUTO 1.4 /o TOTAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPR 2319 3247 95% 3417 3247 171 OTHER AUTO 1.4 % TOTAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPH 4253 5954 95% 6267 5954 313 PROJECT AUTO 1.4 % TOTAL AUTO TRANSIT VPH PPH AUTO PPH PPH PPH 56 78.4 0.95 83 78.4 4 FUTURE AVG DESIGN SEATS LOAD CAPACITY FUTURE PER FACTOR ROUTE HEADWAY VEHICLE 3 15 43 150% 516 16 15 44 150% 528 32 15 43 150% 516 36 15 46 150% 552 62 10 41 150% 738 95 15 43 125a/ 430 T 20 46 150% 414 MAX 15 46 150% 552 9 10 46 150% 828 10 40 46 150% 207 6 30 26 150% 156 5,437 NOTES 1. Existing Headways based upon current 2. Future Headways based upon Peoples 3. Average Seats per Vehicle based upon 4. Existing Ridership based upon 5. Design Load Factors based upon Downtown DRI. •