Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact Review• • fle447 • July 12th, 2004 Ms. Lilia 1. 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 Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.Q. # 66 Dear Ms. Medina: We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis report for the SoHo Condominium project prepared by Jackson M. Ahlstedt dated May 2004. Our detailed comments are outlined in the attached memorandum. In summary, the applicant needs to revise several sections of the report. The key issues specifically include but are not limited to: 1. The peak season factor must be applied to all of the existing and the future condition analyses; 2. The existing and future condition ARTPLAN analyses must be revised based on the collected field data rather the 2002 FDOT data; 3. The report must include the traffic impact of all the committed development projects within the study boundary; 4. The 1/1C ratio thresholds outlined in the person -trip analysis are interpreted incorrectly; 5. The report must include the supporting documents of the sources of the roadway vehicular volumes and transit rider information used in Appendix D; 6. The report must provide mitigation efforts for the failing corridors. In addition the Transportation Control Measures Plan (TCMP) must also be included. It is recommended that any development order for this project require personnel to assist all backing and loading maneuvers for the site. Please note that the site plans need to be revised to address the dead-end parking issue. Should you have any questions, please call me or Quazi Masood at 954.739.1881. Sincerely, URS Corporation Southern n L. King, P.E. ior Transportation Engineer cc: Jackson M. Ahlstedt, P.E. Attachment: URS Memorandum JLKIgm URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tel; 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 URS MEMORANDUM To: Lilia I. Medina From: Jenn L. King, P.E. /7( Date: July 12th, 2004 Subject: SoHo Condominium MUSP Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.O. # 66 We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report prepared by Jackson M. Ahfstedt, P.E. (JMA) for the SoHo Condominium project, dated May 2004. The report is accompanied by site plan drawings, dated June 14, 2004. The proposed project will be a single-phase solely residential development located on the north side of NE 23rd Street and east of NE 4th Avenue. The project is located outside of the DDRI. Build out of the project is anticipated in 2006. The report indicates that the applicant is to build 95 condominium units, which is consistent with the site plan drawings. The report states that a total of 142 on -site parking will be provided for the proposed project. Our findings are as follows: 1. General Location Map: The report includes a location map, which adequately identifies the project location and surrounding street network (Figure 1 and Figure 2). 2. Study Area: According to the traffic report, NE 27th Street to the north, NE 19th Street to the south, Biscayne Bay to the east, and NE 2nd Avenue to the west define the study area boundaries. The study identifies one signalized intersection (NE 22nd Street/Biscayne Boulevard), three un-signalized intersections (NE-_23rd Street/Biscayne Boulevard, NE 23rd Street/NE 4th Avenue and NE 22nd Street/NE 4th Avenue) and one north -south roadway link (Biscayne Boulevard between NE 19th Street and NE 29th Street) as most significant to the project. The corridor analysis also reviews NE 20th Street and NE 29th Street. We agree with the selection of intersections and corridors. IJF:5 Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33309-6375 Tel: 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 Ms. Lilia I. Medina SoNo Condominium - Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo July 12, 2004 Page 2 of 4 3. Site Access: The vehicular access to the site will be through one two- way driveway via NE 23rd Street. Access to the loading bay is provided via NE 23rd Terrace. Note the street name for accessing the loading bay is labeled incorrectly all through in the report. It is recommended that any development order for this project require personnel to assist all backing loading maneuvers for the site. Please note that there are dead-end parking spaces provided on every level of the garage, which must be addressed. The reps includes a queuing analysis of the project driveway based upon the assumption that access to the garage will be controlled by a card reader system and consists of an inbound lane and outbound lane. Analysis of potential inbound and outbound queues for the AM and PM peak hours indicate that there is better than a 99% probability that the queue should not exceed 50 feet including the vehicle being processed. The ground level plan indicates that the potential control point could be located approximately 50 feet north from the north curb line of NE 23rd Street and the anticipated queues could be accommodated without impacting off -site traffic flows. 4. Data Collection: Two-hour turning movement counts were collected during both the AM and PM peak hours at four intersections (NE 23rd Street/Biscayne Boulevard, NE 23rd Street/NE 4th Avenue, NE 22nd Street/Biscayne Boulevard and NE 22nd Street/NE 4th Avenue) during the final week of April 2004. The AM and PM turning movement counts were taken between 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM respectively. Also, 24- hour machine counts were collected on Biscayne Boulevard between NE 22" d Street and NE 23rd Street and NE 23rd Street east of Biscayne Boulevard during the week of May 10th, 2004. The report includes the existing signal timing data, collected from the Miami Dade County traffic control computer system and a schematic of lane geometry at the study intersection. 5. Adjustment Factors: Year 2002 FOOT adjustment factors such as seasonal and peak season factors were interpreted correctly but not incorporated into the analysis, which must be revised. The PHFs are not shown in the report, which must be included. b. Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis: An existing level of service analysis of four intersections and Biscayne Boulevard arterial was performed. We agree with the use of HCS (v-4.1 c) and FOOT ARTPLAN 2003 (v-5.1.0) for the intersection and link analyses respectively. As stated before, the peak season volumes must be used for all the analyses. The intersection analyses show that the signalized intersection operates at • Ms. Lliia i. Medina SoHo condominium - Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo July 12, 2004 Page 3 of 4 an acceptable LOS threshold during both AM and PM peak periods. In Appendix D, the maximum allowed VIC ratio thresholds is interpreted incorrectly as 1.2 and 1.5 instead of 1.0, which must be revised. In addition, the supporting documents of the sources of the roadway vehicular volumes and transit rider information used in Appendix D must be included at the back of the report However, for the link analyses, since the FDOT datasets were used, only a "peak hour" link analysis (as compared to a "P.M. peak hour") could be conducted. The ARTPLAN software used for the link analysis must be revised to be based on the collected field data rather than using the 2002 FDOT information. 7. Planned Roadway Improvements: The 2005 Draft Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) was reviewed for planned or programmed roadway and transit improvements within the study area. The report identifies four roadway improvements (SR 112/1-195 PD&E/EMO study, SR 112/1-195 widening and resurfacing existing lanes, NE 2nd Avenue beautification and resurfacing and SR 25/NW/NE 36th Street resurfacing) within the study area, none of which are expected to affect roadway capacity. We agree with the findings. 8. Background Traffic: Two -percent (2.0%) background growth rate, compounded annually, was applied to account for future growth of un- identified developments in the area, based on the historical traffic count data. We agree with the growth rate application. 9. Committed Developments: Twelve recent major committed developments were included in the analysis, based on information from the City of Miami Large Scale Development Report (LSDR). The committed developments are as follows: • 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). Ms. L ilia 1. Medina SoNo Condominium - Traffic Impact Analysis Review Memo July 12, 2004 Page 4 of 4 In addition to the applicant's list of committed developments, the study must also include the "New Wave" development based on City's May 17th, 2004 Large Scale Development Report. Additionally, the traffic impacts for the two projects Shops at Midtown and 2 Midtown, both located within the Regional Activity Center (RAC) boundary, must also be included in the report. As mentioned before in the existing condition comment, both the seasonal and peak season factors must be used while developing the volumes for future condition without project scenario. The analysis shows that the signalized intersection operates at an acceptable LOS threshold during both AM and PM peak periods. However, the intersection and roadway link analyses for future condition without project scenario must be revised based on the similar comments listed in the existing condition section. 10. Trip Generation: The total number of vehicular trips generated by the project was determined for the AM and PM peak hours using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication, Trip Generation, 7th Edition. We agree with the Land Use Code (LUC) selected for the project. A five - percent modal split was applied, which is acceptable for the project location. 11. Trip Distribution: The project is located within new TAZ 505. The cardinal distribution obtained from Miami -Dade County was correctly used to distribute the project traffic. 12. Future Conditions with Project: The intersection and link analyses of future condition with project scenario must be revised to be based on peak season volumes. The report includes the transportation corridor LOS analysis using City's person trip methodology. The analysis includes major north -south and east -west roadways. Roadway vehicular _capacities were based on the FDOT Q/LOS handbook. However, as noted previously in the existing condition comment, the maximum allowable V/C ratio thresholds are interpreted incorrectly. The analysis indicates three corridors, which would operate below the City's LOS "E" standard, which must be revised and or mitigated, The report must include a section describing the Transportation Control Measures Plan (TCMP), per section 14.182 D of the City code. In addition, a trip generation table for the committed development must also be included. We conclude that the report needs to address the issues noted herein. 411