Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOLD Traffic Impact AnalysisURS •bruary 13, 2004 Ms. Lilie 1. Medina City of Miami - Planning & Zoning Department 444 S.W. 2n6 Avenue Miami, FL 33233-0708 Re: Ocean Palace MUSP Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.O. # 42 Dear Ms. Medina: We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis report prepared by Transport Analysis Professionals, Inc. (TAP) for the Ocean Palace project. The original report and accompanying site plan were received on December 2, 2003. After discussion with TAP on December 29, 2003, an updated report was received on January 5, 2004. After we conducted a review of the updated report, we discussed significant discrepancies between the report and the site plan with TAP. A completely revised report was received by URS from TAP on February 4, 2004 and is herein reviewed. No revised site plan accompanied the completely revised report. Our detailed review comments are includedin the tdmemoranum. In summary, cSpecifically: variety of issues must be fully the reviewof this report and consider sufficient. addressed to complete 1. The site plan and study differ significantly. This affects the type and quantity of land uses, the project trip generation, the numberllocation of driveways, and site circulation. No driveway/queuing analyses were included in the report. 102. An internalization factor of 50% reduction was applied, assuming this is a multi -use development. This should be revised, as recommended herein. 3. in the capacity analyses, roadway capacity is erroneously assumed higher than it should be and the LOS conversion tables are incorrect, indicating LOS E, when it would be LOS F. The year 2003 analyses are not provided in the report. There are discrepancies on the number of lanes used in the analyses, which may significantly affect the results. 4. We disagree with the distribution and assignment of project trips on the roadway network. The analysis is not consistent with the cardinal distribution information collected for the area, off at times by as much as 50%. Project trips that we would expect to impact the study intersections are not assigned to those locations, which should be revised. 5. The analyses indicate numerous LOS F operations in the future with project condition, however the conclusions state otherwise. The project is expected to bring the LeJeune Road corridor below the LOS E threshold. based on the person -trio methodology, however no mitigation has been provided for this impact. Should you have any questions, please call me at 954.739.1881 extension 223. Sincerely, • URS corporation Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 TM: 954.734.18E1 Fax: 954.739.1789 URS Corporation Southern Jenn L. King, P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer cc: Richard Eichinger (TAP) attachment 05/14/LUU4 rA.. 4JUjU • • • MEMORANDUM To: Lilia 1. Medina From: Jenn L. King, P.E. Date: February 13, 2004 Subject: Ocean Palace MUSP Traffic Impact Analysis Review — W.U. # 42 The proposed development will be located on the west side of LeJeune Road, north of N.W. 7th Street. Construction is estimated to be complete in 2006. The report indicates that the applicant is proposing to build 443 condominium units and 7,168 square feet of retail space. The site plan received is dated 11/28/03 and may not be reflective of the actual current development plan, as there are numerous inconsistencies between the site plan and the traffic study, as noted below. Our findings are as follows: 1. General Location Map: The report includes a location map identifying the location of the project and the surrounding street network (Figure 1). 2. Study Area: As agreed upon previously, the study analyzes three intersections: LeJeune Road (S.R. 953 / N.W. 42"d Avenue) with N.W. 11th Street and with N.W. 7th Street, and N.W. 7th Street with N.W. 43rd Avenue. The proposed project driveways are also to be studied. Additionally, two corridors are analyzed, LeJeune Road between S.R. 836 and Hagler Street and N.W. 7th Street between N.W. 37th Avenue and N.W. 47 Avenue. The roadways and intersections within the study area were not sufficiently described with respect to the lanes and movements at LeJeune Road with N.W. 11th Street. A section of text and a figure should be added the Existing Conditions section of the report detailing the lanes and movements at the intersections, and the description of LeJeune Road on page 1 should include mention of the fact it is a state roadway. A copy of the agreed upon methodology, in the form of a call log or email, from the methodology meeting/discussion with our office should be included in the report, in the appendix. 3. Site Access: There are a variety of discrepancies concerning site access. it is possible that the site plan information provided to our office is not current. If the site plan has been updated, at a minimum, the applicant should provide our office with Sheet SP-1, Sheet A-2, and Sheet A-3. The report indicates primary access to the site is proposed one full access URS carparatian Lakeshore Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue. Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309-6375 Tel: 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 05/14/2UU4 URS Ms. Litia I. Medina Ocean Palace - Traffic impact Analysis Review February 13, 2004 Page 2 of 5 • • driveway onto N.W. 43rd Avenue, which is not consistent with the site plan provided, showing two driveways. Similarly, the report indicates two right- in/right-out driveways onto LeJeune Road, while the site plan indicates exit -only driveways. These considerations may have a significant impact on the site circulation, and the assignment and distribution of project trips in Figure 3 and Figure 4, which should be reviewed and possibly revised. No driveway/queuing analyses were provided in the report, which should be added to the report and discussed, particularly if the project will have gated access. A discussion of the garage access type should be detailed in the report. A review of the site plan indicates that there are many control gates planned throughout the garage that appear to stop full circulation within the garage. The lack of full circulation is undesirable, and may require that the traffic analysis (assignment and distribution) be revised. Additionally, there is a circulation concern within the garage at the point where the up/down ramps connect to the main drive aisles — will four lanes of two-way of traffic be open adjacent to each other, and if so, what traffic controls will be in place to assign safe right-of-way? 4. Data Collection: Two-hour turning movement counts and two-way directional counts were collected at the study intersections and segments. The data were collected in October 2003 and are provided in Appendix A. The raw counts are indicated in Figure 2. Signal timing data and transit/ridership data are provided in the appendix. 5. Adjustment Factors: Given the date of the data collection, we concur with the peak season adjustment factors. The project is not located with the Downtown DRI. A transit reduction factor of 5% was applied to site generated trips, which is acceptable. It is possible that the site plan information provided to our office is not current, as no retail component is noted. If this is the case, the current site plan land use mix data should be provided to our office (Sheet SP-1), The analysis indicates an internalization factor between the two land uses of 50%. If this project is a multi -use development, then the procedures set forth in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (March 2001) should be followed, likely resulting in much less than a 50% reduction factor. Table 1A should be modified to note both "transit" and "internalization" reductions. Person -trip capacity and occupancy adjustment values of 1.6 PPV and 1.4 PPV were applied correctly. An additional table should be included in the report documenting the adjustment of site (vehicle) trips to person -trips, including the assignment of site transit trips. 6. Existing Conditions Capacity Analysis: An existing level of service analysis of the study segments and intersections were performed. We agree with the use of HCS2000 for the signalized intersection analyses. O3/14/LUU9 11,1:34 IAA 1 Z. .URS Ms. trlia 1. Medina Ocean palace -Traffic impact Analysis Review February 13, 20CA Page 3of5 so been Existing signal timing datafrom the analysisl f ofatde County have he higher -volume peak provided. We agree with period conditions. We agree with the use of current service volume thresholds from the FDOT for the segment person -trip capacity analyses, however in Table 4, for the local N.W. 7h Street corridor, the roadway capacity was erroneously selected from a Class II state arterial. The roadway capacity for this corridor should be reduced to 3,210 VPH, and the remainder of the analysis revised accordingly. Additionally, the person -trip LOS conversion table in Table 4 is only provided for a four -lane state arterial; a second conversion table must be included the threshold from LOSfor use with N.W. 7th SDrtotLOShe conversion table has an error in should actually be 0.90, not 0.95 as noted in the report. Once this correction is made, the remainder of the analysis should be revised accordingly. This will lower the existing roadway mode LOS from LOS D as noted in the report, to LOS E, which is the minimum threshold. The intersection capacity analyses for year 2003 are not provided in Appendix A, and should be included in the report. 7. Planned Roadway improvements: The latest TIP and LRTP were reviewed for planned or programmed roadway improvements within the study area. Only the pending MIC project was noted within the study area. The MIC project is expected to generally improve traffic flow in the area by constructing new ramps for S.R. 836 in the future, however no date is set for that project and therefore no consideration of any of its possible effects were included in the analysis, as the project has a build - out date of 2006. The report section of planned roadway improvements should be moved to before the level of service section. B. Background Traffic: A two -percent annual background growth rate was applied to account for future growth of un-identified developments in the area. This percentage was conservatively selected consistent with other studies in the area. We agree that a two -percent growth rate is reasonable. This growth rate was increased to a three -percent rate, as agreed upon in the methodology meeting, to account for committed developments (see below). 9. Committed Developments: Staff at the City of Miami were contacted to determine the presence of other major development projects within the study area. There are no known approved committed developments within the study area. Given that the project is not located within the Downtown DRI, it was agreed that the background growth rate should be increased to three -percent, to account for other area developments. 05/14/2004 1II : J3 PAS u 1 3 URS Ms. ulla 1. Medina E Ocean palace - Traffic Impact Analysis Review February 113, 2004 Page 4 of 5 10. Trip Generation: The trip generation for the proposed site is from the most current (7th) edition of the iTE Trip Generation manual. The report section on page 4 mistakenly quotes the old manual. ITE Land Use Code 230 — Residential Condominium/Townhouse and LUC 814 — Specialty Retail were used to generate trips for the project site. We agree with the use of the residential LUC, however updated site plan information is required to verify the retail component. Additionally, the report indicates 443 units, which is significantly less than the number of units noted in the site plan information provided to our office. This must be reviewed, and either the trip generation analysis or the site plan data should -be revised. 11. Trip Distribution: The project is located within new TAZ 774. The cardinal distribution for TAZ 774 was obtained from Miami -Dade County, is provided in the appendix, and is correctly stated on page 5 and in Figure 3. However, we disagree the distribution and assignment indicated in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The number of driveways should be revised, as only three are noted in Figure 3, rather than the four driveways noted in the site plan. The number of entering vehicles in Figure 3 is slightly too low, not consistent with Table 1 A. The volume and percentage of traffic exiting the site to the west (and not through any of the intersections under review in this study) is almost twice as high as expected from the distribution (20% versus 40°/a). The note on reductions in Figure 3 is incomplete, discussing transit only and not internalization, which should be revised. Figure 4 is incomplete, lacking the 27.6% entering and the 32.8% exiting at the LeJeune Road driveway. Figure 4 should be revised to correct numerous errors, likely stemming from an oversight to combine movements (for example the westbound percentage on N.W. 11th Street, east of LeJeune Road should be 12.7% not 6.7%). Even given the right- iniright-out constraint of the LeJeune Road driveway, it is not clear why there is such a disparity between entering and exiting movements at the external links (for example, 6.7% versus [corrected] 24.3% on external N.W. 7th Street). Figure 4 should be revised or a discussion should be added to the text explaining the varying distribution. It would facilitate review if Figure 3 and Figure 4 would separately indicate entering and exiting movements by having a legend and two sets of numbers. Once the changes have been made to the distribution and assignment, and the site volumes at the study intersections have been increased, the subsequent analyses should be updated. 12. Future Conditions with Project: The methodology for determining future peak -hour volumes with project, link LOS, and intersection LOS is consistent with the rest of the report. The project driveway/queue analysis is missing and should be provided. At the intersection of LeJeune Road 05/14/ZUU4 rn.i v A Y IMS • Ms. LIEa [. Medina Ocean Palace -Traffic impact Analysis Review February 13, 2004 • Page 5of5 with N.W. 11t' Street there is a discrepancy in the number of lanes for the eastbound, westbound, and southbound movements. On N.W. 1 1th Street, the analysis assumes an extra lane east and west, which is not consistent with the traffic volume data collected in Appendix A. The intersection lane sketch requested previously will alleviate this confusion. Additionally, the southbound movement assumes only two through lanes, instead of three, implying that the outside lane cannot make a through movement, which is not accurate, and which has a significant negative impact on the analysis. In Table 3, there are a variety of LOS and delay errors in the 2006 results, most notably that under future conditions with project, the intersectio t-of LeJeune Road with N.W. 11t' Street will be at LOS F (not LOS E as stated), which is below the threshold. On page 11 the report erroneously states person -trip demand is lower than capacity for future with project conditions, however in Table 5, the v/c ratio for LeJeune Road is greater than 1.0, indicating the opposite. Table 5 has the same errors (capacity, conversion table) noted for Table 4 previously. In addition, the number of committed trips in the Factors table is not consistent with the rest of the report given the particular methodology for this project, it is expected to have a zero value. In general, additional discussion and/or a sketch or calculations are required to justify each of the increases over existing values in average ridership in passengers per hour. For the N.W. 7th Street corridor, the summation of transit capacity should be 587, not 561, and this value, not 359 should be used in column 8. For both corridors, the value in column 12 should equal the summation of the ridership (46 and 41, as they are currently calculated). A v/c ratio greater than 1.0 equates to LOS F, which is below the required threshold, requiring acceptable mitigation before the project can proceed. As presented, the analysis indicates that the project will cause the LeJeune Road corridor to fall below the acceptable LOS threshold. No mitigation has been provided for this impact. Once all of the above revisions have been incorporated, it may be that the results of the person - trip analysis will vary. The Conclusion section of the report does not accurately reflect the results of the analyses, and should be revised accordingly. The Transportation Control Measures Plan indicates that the developer is committed to providing a bicycle storage area. The development is committed to reducing vehicular traffic volumes, via a variety of methods, including encouragement of ridesharing and posting mass transit schedules in public areas. We conclude that there are many issues as noted above that need to be addressed to complete this review.