The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTraffic Impact Analysis02: 21 2005 t6:51. FAX URS Z. 002 0:72 February 21, 2005 Ms. cilia I. Medina, AICP Assistant Transportation Coordinator City of Miami, Office of the City Manager/Transportation 444 SVV 2nd Avenue (10th Floor) Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Urban River MUSP Sufficiency Letter — W.O. # 99 Dear Ms. Medina: Via Fax and US Mail Subsequent to our February 3rd 2005 review comments for the subject project, we have received a revised traffic impact report along with a response letter on February 17th 2005 prepared cornbinedly by The Corradino Group and Richard Garcia and Associates (RGA). Photocopy of the response letter is attached herewith. At this time, we conclude that the revised traffic impact report along with the subsequent submittal meet all the traffic requirements and the report is found to be sufficient. Should you have any questions, please call Quazi Masood or me at 954.739.1881. Sinc UI Corq,brati •_ Southern Raj hanmugm, P.E Seni r Traffic ENrigfn -er Attachment cc: Mr. Kevin Walford, Planner I, City of Miami (Fax - 305.4157443) Mr. Joe Corradino, AICP, The Corradino Group (Fax— 305.594.0755) Mr. Richard Garcia, P.E., RGA Inc. (Fax — 306.675.6474) URS Corporation Lake5hom Complex 5100 NW 33rd Avenue, Sulte 150 Fort Lauderdale, EL 3330Si:3375 Tel: 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 • URBAN RIVER MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS • PREPARED BY: CaL, RICHARD GARCIA AND ASSOCIATES 12.16 04 • • • 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This following details the results of a traffic impact study for Urban River. The purpose of this study was to identify the traffic impacts associated with the project, which will be located at Urban River Boulevard. The project will consist of 288 Highrise Residential units, 9188 square feet of Specialty Retail, and 2,907 square feet of Quality Restaurant. The goal of this report is to present, for the study intersections and transportation corridors, the existing and future traffic conditions with project and committed development in the study area. It was agreed that the primary analysis would be the intersections at the four corners of the site. 1.1 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Performance Traffic performance was calculated at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project. Results of the existing conditions analysis indicate that two of the study intersections operate beyond the allowable LOS E+ standard. • US-1 and NE 26`h St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 29th St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 30th St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 31' St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 32nd St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 33rd St is operating at LOS A • NE 2"d Ave and NE 29`h St is operating at LOS D • NE 2"d Ave and NE 306 St is operating at LOS A • NE 2"d Ave and NE 32nd St is operating at LOS A 1.2 Future (2007) PM Peak Hour Traffic Performance with Project Plus Committed Development The results of the analysis of future traffic conditions with the project plus committed traffic indicate that conditions will not worsen significantly when project traffic is added. Table I: Intersection LOS Performance Intersection Level of Service Delay Volume/Capacity Existing / With Project +Committed Existing / With Project +Committed Existing / With Project +Committed US-1 and NE 26th St A / A 5.4 / 5.5 .56 i .56 US-1 and NE 29th St A / A 7.7 / 7.7 .59 / .59 US-1 and NE 30th St A / A 19.1 / 267.1 .54 / .60 US-1 and NE315'St A/A 1.9/6.5 .53/.58 US-1 and NE 32nd St A/A 5.4/13.8 .52/.57 US-1 and NE 33rd St A I A 6.1 / 6.1 .53 / .53 NE 2"` Ave and NE 29`h St D / D 47.5 / 49,3 .68 / .69 NE2"dAve and NE30tSt A / A 3.7/2.6 .49/.59 NE 2nd Ave and NE 32nd St A / A 0.1 10,2 .29 / 32 • 1.3 Corridor Analysis A corridor analysis was perfouined as called for in the Miami DRI. Here, person trip volume and capacity analysis was examined. When the analysis uses the corridor concept as allowed in the person trip methodology, as set forth by the City which entails summing the capacity of the parallel corridors, all segments perform better than the required LOS E, and no worse than LOS B. Table 2: Person Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis ROADWAY D}R MIAMI ADOPTED LOS Roadway Segment Total Segment TOTAL SEGMENT LOS FROM TO Roadway LOS 'w - ,r Biscayne Blvd NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E B B NE 36 St NE 29 St SB E B B NE2Ave NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E B B NE36St NE29St SB E B B NE 29 St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B 8 NE 36 St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B B WITH BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (2007) Biscayne Blvd NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E B B NE 36 St NE 29 St SB E B B NE 2 Ave NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E B B NE36St NE29St SB E B B NE 29 St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B B NE 36 St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B B WITH BACKGROUND AND COMMITTED TRAFFIC Biscayne Blvd • • • NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E B B NE 36 St NE 29 St SB E B B NE 2 Ave NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E B B NE 36 St NE 29 St SB E B B _ _ NE29St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B B NE 36 St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B B WITH PROJECT AND BACKGROUND AND COMMITTED TRAFFIC Biscayne Blvd NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E C B NE 36 St NE 29 St SB E B B NE 2 Ave NE 29 St NE 36 St NB E B B NE 36 St NE 29 St SB E B B NE 29 St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B B NE 36 St Biscayne Blvd N Mia Ave EB E B B N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd WB E B B Recommendations It is recommended that the City approve this development, as it has no significant negative impacts to traffic and circulation in the study area. • 1.0 Introduction This following details the results of a traffic impact study for Urban River. The purpose of this study was to identify the traffic impacts associated with the project, which will be located at Urban River Boulevard. The project will consist of 288 Highrise Residential units, 9188 square feet of Specialty Retail, and 2,907 square feet of Quality Restaurant. The goal of this report is to present, for the study intersections and transportation corridors, the existing and future traffic conditions with project and committed development in the study area. It was agreed that the primary analysis would be the intersections at the four corners of the site. 2.0 Traffic Impart Analysis Methodology In order to review the impact this project has on traffic in the study area, an analysis was performed, which conforms to the analysis suggested in the Miami DRI, by which intersections and corridors are studied and level of service is provided for vehicles, persons and transit. The following scope of services for the work performed was agreed upon by Consultant for the Developer and the Consultant for the City. Upon field review of existing conditions it was determined that several of the agreed upon intersections would be impractical to analyze. In such cases, alternative intersections were analyzed. The analysis focused on examining the four corners of the site. It is believed that the final set of analyzed intersections is provides a more conservative view of the study corridor. The final list includes: • US -I and NE 26th St • US-1 and NE 29th St • US-1 and NE 30th St • US -I and NE 31' St • US-1 and NE 32nd St • US-1 and NE 33rd St • NE 2nd Ave and NE 29th St • NE 2nd Ave and NE 30th St • NE 2nd Ave and NE 32nd St Traffic Study - Scope of Services 1 Traffic Counts Full set of updated traffic counts. (six intotal) including turning movement's peaks, adjusted seasonally as required for the Vehicle LOS analysis Full set of updated 24-hour traffic counts, adjusted seasonally as required for the Corridor LOS analysis 1 Traffic impact Analysis (intersection Level of Service and Corridor Analysis for Pedestrians, Transit, Vehicles) • Data Generation • Inventory Intersection Geometry • Collect Signal Timing Data • Calculate Trip Generation for applicable land uses using the PM peak hour • Calculate trip reductions • Vehicle occupancy adjustment for Miami from Increment II DRI so • Transit, 14.1%- If the project is within mile of both Metrorai1 and Metro mover stops. The 14.1 percent reduction is consistent with the Increment II DRI methodology. Vehicular occupancy adjustment so 16% and Bike and pedestrian adjustments of 10%. • Vehicle Trip Conversion — Vehicle tips are converted to person trips, utilizing a factor of 1.4 as specified in the DRI Update Increment II, and accepted by FDOT. • Person trips will be calculated and assigned to the Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Modes. • Distribute trips via Cardinal Trip Distribution obtained MUATS for 2007. • Assign trips to transportation network • Evaluate transit capacity on this study corridor • Assess Planned Roadway Improvements • Committed developments within the study area. Any MUSP, Class II, or RAC projects either approved or under construction between Biscayne Bay, NE 36th Street, Miami Avenue, and NE 29`h Street, or within '/2 mile from the project site. It is agreed that the Developers Consultant will supply the City's Consultant with a list of committed developments and a location map of those developments, for their concurrence prior to analysis. • Analysis • Intersection Analysis. Signal 2000 analysis is performed on each intersection. Intersection levels of service were calculated with this software, which strictly follows the procedures outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (RCM). • Required input for Signal analyses includes: • roadway geometry • turning movement volumes • traffic signal timing (cycle lengths and phasing) • Corridor Analysis for four corridors, utilizing the person -trip capacity analysis performed using the same person -trip volume, capacity and LOS methodology as specified in the Increment II DRI for Miami for the Transportation Corridor. 1 North / South (between NE 29th St and NE 36`h St) • Biscayne Boulevard • NE 2" d Ave 2 East / West (between Biscayne Blvd and N Miami Ave) • 29" Street • 36th Street • Proposed Traffic Control Management • 2.1 Scope Development Meetings Telephone conversations were held with the City of Miami's Traffic Consultant to review the parameters of this scope of services. In recent studies, utilization of methodology set forth in the City of Miami Downtown DRI has been used. • Project Location ,gym -f ST \W 3$TH ST'_._._...... 35TH $j's J.; E4EMEHI�E J TH - c OMk013lsrsn=1 Q. iiW 315T Hav3ON sr. _.. a311WT8it1ST.. 'NW MN —arwzcrT2s M1f 24TH ST ,swNTH Sr N91 2s.,RD._._' a NW22A CN ii- — -- Nw 224C a wW D St g ' " ME: ST -WVi'2 'TS1`TERfi gK NW T1g�Siisur : { SE233T sr 1 . 1.,N€20 i #' W 207H sr Legend • Project Site THE CORRADINO GROUP Boymelgreen MUSP Site Location • • 3.0 Data Development Traffic impact analyses strive to quantify the existing conditions of a study area prior to the development of a particular site. The specific development is then measured in terms of its impact on the project area. This impact is combined with other committed developments to be built in the area, and projected to the developments year of completion. Generally projects of this nature are constructed within three years, therefore it is not as important to project traffic growth due to the minimal impact it will have. 3.1 Traffic Counts Traffic performance was calculated for the PM Peak hour, as required by the Downtown Miami DRI. These were performed in September, October and again in December of 2004. Traffic counts (TMC and ATR appendix) were taken at nine intersections: 1. US-1 and NE 26th St is operating at LOS A 2. US -I and NE 29th St is operating at LOS A 3. US-1 and NE 30th St is operating at LOS A 4. US-1 and NE 31' St is operating at LOS A 5. US-1 and NE 32nd St is operating at LOS A 6. US-1 and NE 33rd St is operating at LOS A 7. NE 2°d Ave and NE 29`s St is operating at LOS D 8. NE 2" Ave and NE 30th St is operating at LOS A 9. NE 2" Ave and NE 32nd St is operating at LOS A Geometric conditions were developed from onsite observation. Volumes were adjusted for peak season factors as suggested by FDOT's Transportation Statistics Office (see labeled appendices for each) 3.2 Trip Generation An essential aspect of development of a quality traffic impact analysis is to measure the future impact of the planned development on the existing conditions. Trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Handbook, 7th Edition. The Urban River project will consist of 288 Highrise Residential units, 9188 square feet of Specialty Retail, and 2,907 square feet of Quality Restaurant. Note that a 16 % occupancy adjustment has been made based on Miami's 1.4 persons per vehicle versus ITE's 1.2 persons/ vehicle. Transit trip reductions are based on projected modal splits used in the original Downtown DRI, and pedestrian and bicycle reductions were based on the Downtown Characteristics and reduced by 10%. All methodologies are based on the Downtown Miami DRI Increment II. This project will generate a gross of about 156 total trips. With adjustments for transit, vehicle occupancy and pedestrian and bicycles there will be 92 net vehicle trips associated with the development. Converted into person trips for vehicle and transit modes there will be 162 trips in addition to 22 pedestrian and bicycle trips, for a total of 184 person trips. Data for this is in the Trip Generation appendix. Trips were then distributed using the cardinal trip distribution for TAZ number 503. This distribution is based on the MUATS & year 2025 LRTP Update from the Miami Dade MPO. This has been done for incoming and outgoing trips. Distribution and assignment data can be found in the Trip Distribution appendix. • • 10 Rome lowers Wirrtiti1 riO cam) IJ 1513 F,# C w Iola! D4rti Cry S lam 43 5.30 REF 1 2_94 21 .33 1 1735 19/106 14015 Based ort WAT £4tar , i'erriest! Rupert Dimetinatal Trip Ntetti tom, Derearter 31, 20131 nom UPC • • Traffic Assignment; Percent In 11 Figure: 6OYMK-(7K66N •3050/3100 616GAYNO, mUSG' PERCENT % INGRESS • • Traffic Assignment: Percent Out [Sit 32 58 32 38 Ana[yzed Entersection Etypl 13 4T H 1F j+f� rn J 32NO r -Analyzed intersection 31 ST AI ley OT 2 Th 0OYMEL&K6EN +3050/3t00 fISGAYNEk MUEP PERCENT % EGRESS 12 w • Trip Generation Site Project Trip Generation Analysis Land Use (LU) Units ITE LU CODE PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS ITE TRIP GENERATION IN OUT , TOTAL RATE % Trips % Trips TRIPS High -Rise Residential Specialty Retail Quality Restaurant 288 DU 9,188 SF 2,907 SF 232 814 931 0,38 2.71 7.49 _ 63% 44% 67% 69 11 15 37% 56% 33% 40 14 7 109 25 22 Gross Vehicle Trips 61% 95 39% 61 156 Vehicle Occupancy Adjustment @ 16.0% Of Gross Trips 61% 15 39% 10 25 Transit Trip Reduction c 14.9% Of Gross Trips 61% 14 39% 9 23 Pedestrian/Bicycle Trip Reduction @ 10.0% Of Gross Trips 61% 9 39% 6 16 r Net Vehicle Trips 61% 56 39% 36 92 : .,mar„ �_,t £a&�-:�`.a,.Y%..� E{��s..w vi#5 3t,d:�' .. Net Person Trips in Vehicles a 1,40 Persons! Vehicle si % .. 78 39% ,_ 51 _... 129 Net Person Trips in Transit Q 1.40 Persons/ Vehicle 61 % 20 39% 13 33 Net Person Trips (Vehicle and Transit Modes) 61% 98 39% 64 162 Net Person Trips (Walking/Bicycling) a 1.40 Persons/ Vehicle j 61% 13 39% 9 22 NOTES; A 16% OCCUPANCY ADJUSTMENT IS BASED ON MIAMI'S 1.4 VERSUS tTE'S 1.2 PERSNEH. TRANSIT TRIP REDUCTION BASED ON PROJECTED MODAL SPLITS USED IN THE ORIGINAL DOWNTOWN DRI. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE REDUCTIONS WERE BASED ON THE DOWNTOWN CHARACTERISTICS. (ABOVE METHODOLOGIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI DRI-INCREMENT II, TABLE 21 C1) 13 • • 3.4 Transit Capacity In attempting to understand the true impacts of the project on corridors in the area, the existing and proposed directional transit volume and capacity was needed. Information was obtained verbally frorn MDT. Twelve bus routes access the site, with headways of between 10 and 30 minutes. Route capacity in the PM Peak hour is s 2,999. Ridership is about 846 in the peak hour for 2004. The bus transit V/C is .24, There are no rail operations in the study area. 14 Transit Inventory TRANSIT CORRIDOR TRANSIT ROUTE Additional Description 2003-2007 Peak Hr. Headway # OF TRANSIT VEHICLES IN PM PK HOUR TRANSIT VEHICLES NUMBER OF SEATS TRANSIT VEHICLE LOAD @ 150% CAPACITY ROUTE PM PEAK CAPACITY 2004 PM Peak Volume i Transit vlc BUS Biscayne Boulevard 3 20 3 43 65 194 111 .57 16 20 3 44 66 198 99 .50 36 15 4 46 69 276 32 .12 62 10 6 41 62 369 21 .06 T 15 4 46 69 276 152 .55 BM 12 5 46 69 345 14 .04 95 15 4 43 65 258 100 .39 TOTAL 1916 529 .28 NE 2 Ave 9 15 4 46 69 27 78 .28 10 30 2 46 69 138 36 .26 TOTAL 414 114 .28 NE 29 Ave 6 30 2 26 39 78 3 .04 TOTAL 78 3 .04 NE 36 St 36 12 5 46 69 345 100 .29 J 15 4 41 62 246 100 .40 TOTAL 591 200 0.34 15 • • 16 33 Future Roadway Projects The Study area is becoming an increasingly populated residential area just north of Downtown Miami. It is serviced by arterial surface streets and is close proximity to expressways and transit. The combination of these makes the study area very accessible residential area, which can be attributed to the areas increasing popularity and redevelopment potential, The MPO has over $5.4 Billion in scheduled transportation improvements designed to comprehensively cover a wide array of mobility options. This suggests that the County's mobility will be enhanced. Over the past decade as Miami -Dade County has become more congested, segments of the population have begun to seek alternative transportation options as a way to make mobility efficient. This has been reflected in a continued densifcation of the Urban Infill Area and the eastern sections of Miami, due to its central location and its proximity to transit. It is anticipated that this will only be enhanced by the County's exploration of transit, such as the Miami lntermodal Center, the Northeast Corridor Extension and the BayLink projects. In addition, the passage of the $0.005 sales tax for transportation improvements will vastly improve mobility Countywide through the provision of transportation alternatives. Immediate implementation has entailed a reduction of bus transit headways and an increase in fleet size. Miami is positioned to be the direct and indirect beneficiary of this commitment to mobility. The result of which will be the removal of automobile trips from local streets and maintenance of adequate traffic flow. In general, Miami -Dade County will be spending its 80% share of the $16 Billion tax (over 30 years) on the following types of projects. Further explanation regarding this topic is public information, which can be accessed on both the Miami Dade County web site and the MPO web site. See topics regarding the Peoples Transportation Plan, and the Transportation Improvement Program, Bus Service Improvements 2003-2008 • Increase bus fleet from 700 to 1335 • Increase current service miles from 27 million miles to 44 million miles • Increase operating hours from 1.9 million hours to 3.3 million hours • Provide 15-minute or better bus service Rapid Transit Improvements 2003-2008 (Construction of up to 88.9 Miles of countywide rapid transit lines) • Technology and Corridor Improvements • Earlington Heights/ Airport Connector • BayLink • Kendal Corridor • Northeast Corridor • Rail Extension to Florida City • Douglas Road Extension Major Highway and Road Improvements 2003-2013 • Upgrade the County's Traffic signalization system • Construct major ingress/egress improvements in downtown Miami, from SW 8th St. to SW IS` Avenue. • Accelerate Program to provide ADA accessibility to bus stops throughout the county. Within one half mile of the project site there is only one transportation project. This is a From N.W. 3RD ST to N,W. 6TH ST to replace the movable span bridge. 3.6 Committed Developments A review of the most recent "Private Development Report" issued by the City of Miami searched for any MUSP, Class II, or RAC projects either approved or under construction between Biscayne • • 17 Bay, NE 3611 Street, Miami Avenue, and NE 29`h Street, or within '/z rnile from the project site. Over thirty applicable developments were found. According to the City, the following eleven are the only ones that are applicable or that data exists for. These include: • 5`h Ave Lofts • Avant + Biscayne Bay Lofts • Edgewater Towers • Gallery Art Condo • Platinum • Sky Residences « Shops at Midtown • Shops at Midtown Midblock • Tuttle Street Project + Paramount @ Edgewater Traffic Impact Analysis reports from each of these developments were examined. Trip generation and distribution information was gathered and incorporated into this analysis. Detailed data is shown in the Committed Developments appendix. Overall there are 678 committed trips associated with these developments. This equals 950 person trips, and 155 transit trips. • • 18 Location of Committed Developments a� n'NW ark St T : �,iW3:l5T y 3 € rrr432ND 'iy KW S2NDSi r saiD SF -. IOU [ tanisTsrl � 3dW aorm sT . t7W 2< 8 iNJ 24TH ST .:_ 44S1. ST... Ott! ST `�..._ >.._...,,• .4,,`: i ail z 'H #E? SEE PAGE Dowinorpti FOR BURGE PACE PARK Legend i Project Site is Committed Development THE CORRADINO GROUP Boymelgreen MUSP Committed Development • 4.0 Analysis The data collected in the categories specified above has been utilized in the methodology arrived at by the project team in consultation with the City of Miami. An analysis that takes into account LOS of vehicles, persons and transit at intersection and along corridors was performed. Traffic counts were adjusted for peak season and background growth rate for 2% was provided for two years. Site traffic percentage as assigned to the vehicle trips and person trips, and total trips in vehicles and persons was provided. This was done for each leg of each intersection. See the Intersection Analysis appendix. Level of Service analysis was performed for the existing conditions. Growth trends were analyzed and level of service analysis was performed for future conditions, three years out. Then a person trip volume and capacity analysis was performed. 4.1 Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is the traffic performance measure generally accepted in traffic analysis, Levels of service range from LOS A (free flow with negligible delays) to LOS F (heavily congested with long delays). LOS B, LOS C, LOS D and LOS E indicate intermediate conditions. Applicable levels of service were developed from FDOT's 2002 Q/los Tables for each roadway classification, Q€;.A_:TY ANh LEVFS.. OF SFRVIC r C 4.2 Existing Conditions LOS Analysis Traffic performance was calculated at seven intersections in the vicinity of the project. Results of the existing conditions analysis indicate that two of the study intersections operate beyond the allowable LOS E+ standard. • US-1 and NE 26th St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 29th St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 30th St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 31st St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 32nd St is operating at LOS A • US-1 and NE 33rd St is operating at LOS A • NE 2nd Ave and NE 29th St is operating at LOS D • NE 2nd Ave and NE 30th St is operating at LOS A • NE 2nd Ave and NE 32nd St is operating at LOS A 19 • • Table 5: 20 4.3 Future Conditions With Protect and Committed Development LOS Analysis The results of the analysis of future traffic conditions with the project plus committed traffic indicate that conditions will not worsen significantly when project traffic is added. Intersection LOS Performance intersection • Level of Service Delay Volume/Capacity Existing / With Project +Committed Existing / With Project +Committed Existing / With Project +Committed US-1 and NE266'St A / A 5.4/5.5 .56/.56 US-1 and NE29tSt A/A 7.7/7.7 .59/.59 US -I and NE 30th St A / A 19.1 / 267.1 .541.60 US-1 and NE 31st St A/A 1.9/6.5 .53I.58 US-1 andNE32ndSt A/A 5.4/ 13.8 .52; .57 US-1 and NE 33rd St A / A 6. 1 / 6.1 .53 / .53 NE 2nd Ave and NE 29th St D / D 47,5 / 49.3 .68 1.69 NE2ndAve and NE30`hSt Al A 3.7/2.6 .49/.59 NE 2nd Ave and NE 32nd St A/A 0.1/0.2 .29/32 4.5 Person Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis To analyze this developments affect on specific corridors in the study area, a person trip volume and capacity analysis was developed utilizing the methodology of the Downtown Miami DRI, as discussed above. This examined corridor segments in the existing condition future (2007) with background traffic and future (2007) with the project. The segments were: Biscayne Blvd From NE 29 St to NE 36 St From NE 36 St to NE 29 St NE 2 Ave From NE 29 St to NE 36 St From NE 36 St to NE 29 St NE 29 St From Biscayne Blvd to N Mia Ave From N Mia Ave Biscayne Blvd NE 36 St From Biscayne Blvd to N Mia Ave From N Mia Ave to Biscayne Blvd Biscayne Blvd From NE 29 St to NE 36 St From NE 36 St to NE 29 St NE 2 Ave From NE 29 St to NE 36 St From NE 36 St to NE 29 St NE 29 St From Biscayne Blvd to N Mia Ave From N Mia Ave to Biscayne Blvd NE36St • 21 From Biscayne Blvd to N Mia Ave From N Mia Ave to Biscayne Blvd This analysis was perfoiilied for the Roadway and Transit modes which resulted in a segment total level of service. Components of the examination were the adopted LOS, which is E, the roadway vehicular capacity, and the conversion of this to person trip capacity (1.6) and volume (1.4) were made. An excess person trip capacity was arrived at and level of service attained. For the Transit Mode the bus per trip capacity load was determined and utilized as the total transit trip capacity. Transit person trip volumes for this mode were developed and excess capacity was found. The segment total analysis capacities, volumes and excesses for both the roadway and transit segments were combined. Each corridor segment operated at or better than LOS D. A full table is presented in the Corridor Analysis Appendix. w • PERSON TRW VOLUME AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS TABLE 4 4AY MODE MASS 7'R3145i71060E ROADWAY M AAI ADOPTED LOS CORR1002 TYPE ROADWAY YEtrAILAR CAPA43TY PERSON. TRP CAPACITY 14PP4 ROADWAY VENWAX.AR VOLUME PERSON. TRP VOLUME 414PPV EXCESS PERSON TRIP CAPACITY RDA7NfAY PERSON TRP RAVER PER-TRP CAPAg7v RAIL PERSON TRP CAPACITY TOTAL TRANSIT P133,7 IP CAPACITY 'maw 06*40N-TRIP VOLUME TRANSIT PERSON TRP MESS CAPAC3TY 3E064ENT PERSON TRIP 5E0+4F.N7 540050NT PERSOM TRIP VOLU4t TOi4L SEGMENT PE6TRP AXCE55 06143ON TRP FROM T6 510 v.1 L05 81,4 PER, TRP CAPACITY BUS METRO, 1,10YF7 METRO- RAIL TOTAL TRANSIT PERS VOLUME ;., •.tG ssz a ,� V4' 4 ..,<.. F ..,...bii,kfl''cr)v.F<gla 3xb.&,Yu„JW'7gkta:, 6 „APACITy £APA4l7Y WC L06 h"UC 1E29 ..:.. .,. . ............ di✓SOK Ale E 4t0 7600 7864 13AS 1999 941 557 8 191E1914 529 1367 4796 246E 41E39 SL 1&20 88 0 at 1400 $80 1154 1613 1262 A.56 5 19t6 1916 624 529 1387 4196 2147 2324 2849 0.615 5 laths. 0448 8 148 9 11N! 1568 b.49 B 474 414 114 114 349 915ft 1042 185E NE P9 4W 510 414 560 215E 0.21 8 474 414 114 714 3e6 3150 e94 2458 0.407 a274E 4E311L 0220 5 844d 14.Merl Ma 1.- ES E 2LUI4LU 680 13 3 277 388 572 019 8 78 T4 3 3 74 1438 391 1047 4272 rtk�iw Bi0oa7n BMd lit W8 E 21114 U 650 136E 363 4*1 883 0.37 0 78 78 3 3 76 1436 500 434 B 36at. .. - 0.34E 8 di, Weird .;� 11 E 4LD 7BW 2560 611 775 2185 02S B 991 591 29e 200 310 3471 1414451A9* . W8 E 4LR 1400 4 766 2222 01 8 591 3/1 3461 200 W1 3111 915 e64 2558 2513 0234 5 iW_„(f _ ®`.• +-.� . ' . I�Py A�, :7:, _ E ! i,._ofi __ .e -5• 3 i ,:lv' �Aa�n l E: t-AP s.: .,_i4 4Y, P, \a ;'i' k a.d4A��'''ims �! ... 9247 - B b'vnz ___ .,... e..�a,>�'?J • 94. NE 3494. •` E 40' 1600 ._ 1 ' ,.- 822 0.71 , B 1416 1416 461 541 1355 479E 2614 45034 et 48 E 4LO 1600 1227 1717 1163 0,60 B i116 1410 441 341 1136 4716 2279 2177 0544 B M92Art. 2517 0.476 B 1E nu. so ad 4M E 4LU 5713 ST36 866 1?„W 1497 045 8 474 414 121 12! 29i 3150 1360 1 1} 6L 0E2050 011 E 41U 1110 244 416 515 2131 022 5 414 414 141 121 213 3150 736 4790 3432 8 WES i41able319e. 2414 0234 5 N.1.19e0A96 44 0470 E8 E 2L1.134LU 150 1360 114 412 648 0,30 6 70 7e 3 ' 3 74 1438 415 84% NW" 041 70 215741.1.3 430 1300 4 $7? 323 633 0,3 8 78 74 3 3 76 143E 531 1023 0.244 B NE3961L 90? 0,364 8 I4,e,1 8111. 442044404Aw Ee E 41.0 1500 2480 .... 542 759 3121 076 B 591 S91 312 213 371 2471 871 4L9 1e00 446 162 024 8 50t 49! K2 212 971 911 B 25M1 00215 262 5 . Bia4aynaBad 11£299L ' NE38 BL F501334. Wi E 40 1400 2660 1644 21e- 713 0.75 5 191E 1914 471 579 1337 4796 2745 gE395L S8 £ 010 151Xr 2880 1391 1606 075 364 B 191E 1914 342 592 1324 479E 2497 2050 0572 5 4*03Rw. 14E2950 2299 0.521 B 3631 3664 E 4LU 1710 213E 497 1270 7A49 0,4E 5 414 414 12 127 267 3150 139E NEa9*4 , 88 EE 413 1710 2738 484 653 2063 0.24 8 414 414 12? 121 i47 3150 I60 1774 0943 .1-1 I+I 1-HH = 1+ 101m1 �� Baw41,e950. 237d 024� N.8484444e E8 £ 2LUNLU E50 1360 467 570 790 0.42 8 78 74 36 29 49 1436 599 7tv:14AM► B809517068,4 BE N18 E 2L554113 850 1360 4i 517 743 0.44 8 74 7e 14 14 94 143E 913 434 0.416 349E 6*caWna814 826 0.425 N.5968114Me 1449erMAy6 E8 E 41.0 1500 2180 490 952 7 0.32 8 591 391 244 244 347 3471 1197 *cede *ML WO E 41.0 1600 f840 416 661 2010 030 5 691 154 231 299 382 5471 1100 2274 0345 � �S4a4ycpaAlali ,p e' n91 ^o,., I u41» i)jA4h. 1 £, sc, 5<...: 6fx`?'11E".,tb,'3 _ '1 2371 0317 Blvd 86E2281. 1iE3636. 30686199 148 E 416 1600 3660 1e17 21ee 654 ado C 1915 1916 6*1 5✓R 1327 4706 2775 2421 44E5*61 Be E 4LD 4300 2860 133E 1223 903 067 6 1016 191E 7002 602 1314 479E 2527 0571 146284e. 1 22E 0.527 N482>301. 65036&. N8 6 4LU 9710 273E 926 1209 1437 04T B 414 414 142 142 272 2150 1441 l709 3504e 50 4 39 $ III 650 E 440 1710 466 286 20513 0,25 8 414 414 143 143 271 3150 820 2321 0457 6L 0.263 65.46e0814 N. 1lwii44 E6 E 23.4)3443 650 1350 418 667 T73 043 6 76 7e 34 36 42 143E 623 346814150061 * 01one Mt W8 E 2104111 350 1380 436 T31 045 6 76 76 31 21 57 142E 130 515 0431 ilE34SL 868 0436"' 8Bicrifs11241 N Mori MI EB E 411) 1000 1*A0 M0 gee 1914 0.54 B 591 591 264 251 340 3471 1217 2254 dd. 4EAF4iaae Damao Sad WA E 4.0 1600 9Ti 200E 0.M B _ 591 591 2M 246 __ 345 3471 1117 2 S`j 934? 0.322 • 23 4.6 Transportation Control Measures The developer understands the importance of maintaining mobility in the area, as well as in the entire City of Miami and the South Florida Region. As such there is a commitment to conforming to the City's policies regarding the implementation of Transportation Control Measures (TCM's) as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The developer commits to work with the City to further develop and implement TCM's to reduce the generation of single occupant vehicle trips, encourage the use of multiple occupant vehicles including public transit for home and work based trips. Specific measures may be implemented as a result of this coordination. 5.0 Recommendations It is recommended that the City approved this development, due to the fact that it has no adverse impact on transportation and mobility in the study area. APPENDIC1ES There are several.appendices associated with this report. Each contains information specific to the data and analysis undertaken. • Trip Generation o Site Project Trip Generation Analysis o LU 931: Quality Restaurant (2,583 SF) o LU 232: Highrise Residential Condo (301 DU) o LU 814: Specialty Retail (8,337 SF) o LU 710: General Office (1,095 SF) • Trip Distribution o Assignment Egress o Assignment Ingress a TAZ Cardinal Distribution o MPO MUATS 2025 Cover Page o MPO MUATS 2025 TAZ 503 o Location Map o TAZ Map • Signal Timing o Traffic Signal Asset ID Map o Intersections 1 through 6 • FDOT Adjustment Factors a Table 21.C1: DRI II Mode Splits o 2002 Weekly Axel Factors o 2002 Peak Season Factor • TMC's o Intersection Approach Volumes (7 intersections) o Intersections 1 through 7) • ATR 24 o Link volume PM Peak Flour Average o Link AADT • US-1 • NE 2 Ave • NE 29 St • NE36St • 25 • Committed Developments o Committed Developments Spreadsheet o Eleven (11) Committed Developments • Transit o Existing Bus WC o MDT Data • Corridor Analysis (person trip) o Person Trip V/C Analysis Table o Project Traffic o LOS Table • Intersection Analysis o Signal 2000 Int: 1 through 6 (Existing and Proposed) o Synchro Int: 7 (Site Driveway — Existing and Proposed) • Committed Projects