Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Article 3 Tab 3 Traffic Impact Analysis
O6/09/2005 12:58 FAX URS al002/004 .URS • June 9, 2005 Via Fax and US Mail Ms. Lilia 1. Medina, AICP Assistant Transportation Coordinator City of Miami, Office of the City Manager/Transportation 444 SW 2nd Avenue (10th Floor) Miami, Florida 33130 Re: Brickell CifiCenter MUSP Sufficiency Letter — W.O. # 107 Dear Ms. Medina: Subsequent to our May 3rd 2005 review comments for the subject project, we have received a response letter on June 9th 2005 prepared combinedly by The Corradino Group and Richard Garcia and Associates (RGA). Photocopy of the response letter is attached herewith. Al this time, we conclude that the traffic impact report along with the subsequent submittal meets ail the traffic requirements and the study is found to be sufficient. Should you have any questions, please call Quazi Masood or me at 954.739.1881. Sincerel u or tion Southern Raj Shanmu• - P E. .or Traffic Engineer Se Attachment cc: Mr. Kevin Wafford, Planner 1, City ofMiami (Fax - 305.416.1443) Mr. Joe Corradino, AICP, The Corradino Group (Fax— 305.594.0755) Mr. Richard Garcia, P.E., RGA Inc. (Fax — 305, 675.6474) URS Corporation Lakeshore Complex 5140 NW 33rd Avenue, Suite 150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33349-6375 Tel: 954.739.1881 Fax: 954.739.1789 06/09/2005 12:58 FAX URS I j 003/004 • • TIIE CORRADINO GROUP MEMORANDUM Date: June 6h, 2005 RE CE WED E D To: Raj Shanmugam, PE, URS JUN 0 9 2005 (2 From: R. De Arazoza, PE, The Corradino Grou Copy Lilia Medina (City of Miami), Quazi Masood (URS), Richard Garcia & J.M. Corradino Project #: 3569 Subject: Brickell CitiCenter MUSP The following is in response to your comments dated May 31d, 2005 on the subject. Comments /Responses 1. The study is performed based on 2,368-high rise residential condominium units, 176,300 sq.ft. office space and 98,250 sq ft. retrial space as oppose to 2,454-high rise residential condominium units, 138,400 sg.ft, office and 75,000 sq.ft, retail shown on the site plan. The internal capture, trip generation and trip distribution calculations may be incorrect as a result, and need to be revised. Response: The latest figures reflecting the proposed developments are as follows LU 232 — Highrise Residential Condos (2,424 DU) ---- LU 710 — General Office (133,721 SF) • LU 814 — Specialty Retail (39,438 SF),-- LU 850 - SuperMarket (33,000 SF)/ Passer-by Trips LU 931 -- Quality Restaurant (15,000 SF) --: Passer-by Trips As the result of above revised land use designations, trip generation, distribution and assignments were computed, as well as revised "Person Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis" tables". They are enclosed herein as "Attachment A". 2. The description of the project location provided in the introduction section is inconsistent with the location map shown in the report, which must be revised. Response: A revised project location map is enclosed as "Attachment B" 06/09/2005 12:58 FAX URS Q 004/004 • • (CitiCenter 6/6/05 Memorandum to Mr. Shanmugam) 3. The report must include a schematic of the lane geometry at all study intersections. Response: Please refer to the enclosed "Existing Lane Configuration" Graphic for details ("Attachment C") 4. The report does not include analyses of any project driveways, which must be addressed. The report must include a matrix showing the steps in determining the turning volumes at the site driveway(s) and also show the site driveway volumes in the future year with project graphics. Response: Attachment "D" contains the "Driveway Volumes" tables, the "Traffic Assignment / Driveways" diagram, and finally the HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity/LOS analyses work sheets. The tables, diagrams and analyses are in response to the above comments. Please note that the resulting LOS F reflecting the project's impact for driveway # 2 will be satisfactorily mitigated by providing the adequate storage length within the site. 5. The SW 8'4 Street/Brickell Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during both existing and future conditions. The future intersection operating conditions do not improve even after optimization of the signal timing/phasing combination. The report must include specific Transportation Control Measures (TCM) to reduce the auto trips at this intersection. Response: Transportation Control Measures (TCM) The developer understands the importance of maintaining mobility in the area, as well as ix► 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 TCMs as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The developer commits to work with the City to farther develop and implement TCMs 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 such as car-pools, van -pools, staggered work hours, incentives for using transit among others will be considered and may be implemented as a result of this coordination with the City of Miarni. Your May 3rd, 2005 memorandum indicated that coordination needed to take place with M-Dade County Traffic Control and Signs Division regarding proposed modifications to signal timings and phasing. Please be assured this coordination will take place as appropriate. if you have any questions or need to discuss further, please contact me at 305-594-0735 or Mr. Richard Garcia at 305-595-7505. 2 • • • THE CORRADINO GROUP MEMORANDUM Date: June 6th, 2005 To: Raj Shanmugam, PE, URS From: R. De Arazoza, PE, The Corradino Group Copy: Lilia Medina (City of Miami), Quazi Masood (URS), Richard Garcia & T.M. Corradino Project #: 3569 Subject: Brickell CitiCenter MUSP The following is in response to your comments dated May 3'1, 2005 on the subject. Comments / Responses 1. The study is performed based on 2,368-high rise residential condorniniuni units, 176,300 sq.ft. office space and 98,250 sgft. retrial space as oppose to 2,454-high rise residential condominium units, 138,400 salt. office and 75,000 sq ft. retail shown on the site plan. The internal capture, trip generation and trip distribution calculations may be incorrect as a result, and need to be revised. Response: The latest figures reflecting the proposed developments are as follows LU 232 — Highrise Residential Condos (2,424 DU) LU 710 — General Office (133,721 SF) LU 814 — Specialty Retail (39,438 SF) LU 850 - SuperMarket (33;000 SF) Passer-by Trips LU 931 -- Quality Restaurant (15,000 SF) Passer-by Trips As the result of above revised land use designations, trip generation, distribution and assignments were computed, as well as revised "Person Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis" tables". They are enclosed herein as "Attachment A". 2. The description of the project location provided in the introduction section is inconsistent with the location map shown in the report, which must be revised. Response: A revised project location map is enclosed as "Attachment B" • • • (CitiCenter 6/6,/05 Memorandum to Mr. Shanmugam) 3. The report must include a schematic of the lane geometry at all study intersections, Response: Please refer to the enclosed "Existing Lane Configuration" Graphic for details ("Attachment C") 4. The report does not include analyses of any project driveways, which must be addressed. The report must include a matrix showing the steps in determining the turning volumes at the site drivewav(s) and also show the site driveway volumes in the future year with project graphics. Response: Attachment "D" contains the "Driveway Volumes" tables, the "Traffic Assignment / Driveways" diagram, and finally the HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity/LOS analyses work sheets. The tables, diagrams and analyses are in response to the above comments. Please note that the resulting LOS F reflecting the project's impact for driveway # 2 will be satisfactorily mitigated by providing the adequate storage length within the site. 5. The SW 8Fh Street/Brickell Avenue intersection operates at LOS F during both existing and, future conditions. The, future intersection operating conditions do not irrrprove even after optimization of the signal tuning/phasing combination. The report must include specific Transportation Control Measures (TCM) to reduce the auto trips at this intersection. Response: Transportation Control Measures (TCM) - 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 TCMs as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The developer commits to work with the City to further develop and implement TCMs 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 such as car-pools, van -pools, staggered work hours, incentives for using transit among others will be considered and may be implemented as a result of this coordination with the City of Miami. Your May 3rd. 2005 memorandum indicated that coordination needed to take place with M-Dade County Traffic Control and Signs Division regarding proposed modifications to signal timings and phasing. Please be assured this coordination will take place as appropriate. If you have any questions or need to discuss further, please contact me at 305-594-0735 or Mr. Richard Garcia at 305-595-7505. 2 • • • THE CORRAD1NO GROUP MEMORANDUM Date: JUZIC 201=}5 To: Raj Skirt Ill ki pin.. PE UR.S from R. DC Ara7,074, Pf, The Cirmulmo Group - Liha Nfedma r}fMLarn. Qun.ziNiasood 1.1R Si, Richard (iarc-3;1 J.M. Punject #: 1569 Subjvcc Brickell [17i:in:met MUST' Th Cipllownii4 Is in poti-..4-tz to your e.onitnents dated May _V'', 2005 tr the aiihject, Comments ./Regrionsts s tudv IS per for,Incd based on .7, 36R,Iii gif 1.1.1e rex i tee gni ri dttin i ant Joni I , 3c)() sivti yflic space and liN,23.1) sp-ace as appo cc' Cr? 2.45-1J-gh rgse reci4lettNal zeinclurnintrini I 36' _400 34tJLCfirik'e and 75,0(141Lst,i fr retail .Yhown on the ite plan The 42frrn41/ itapwrv. trip gerwration 40.4-4) trip titstrfiLutrton ims Mal' he incarreei as a revult, and need .7) he c-L-viyed Reponh.e: The late5.i figures reflecting the prript-itt.cd i ipInirli art?. follows LU 232 - Ilighribt! Rusideolial Ccindos (2,424 DU) 1,11 710 - General Office 33.?2 SP) LU S14 -Specialty Retail (39,438 SF) LU S50 • SupaNbrket I.33.11011 SF) Trip LU 931 — Qu.ality Resiaurimr 05,0110 SF) Passer-by Trips A_S th retiult cif bOvt revismi land use desi.samtioins, trip genzrailon, chstrihtrtInc, and ii-RsIghTrirrits wem c-orttputcd, wIl is revised "Pq,mori Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis" tables" They are enelcrsed herern as "'Attachment " -2.. the ilturri,o/ion oldie pro.1/44' ct itart?,threlian section is incansislent with the totatimt ruer shtni-r Me rbpari, ifenteh must he repi.ted Response: A revised patijert Ineatiori map 1e-ric,.30.-seda..3 "Amamimi • • • g{ ttt4-r°rit.$r I; ?t°%!5 jai; rtiiszr2:ic,r77 ri, Vtr' SiiJrtrMIL::CCTiI i.t 't 11'JCleak st .' • I2fI4 ve. ?r# irl, 4..0 all SCii.d ' Lrl1 'Sfid'ri � 11 Rrsp ny : Pl.ease rif`.r tr: tip crr[ustti "i xts-org Lane Con ntation" t yT,rih,sc )ir rAttaCtliThleii rt4c. J`rpoPt i>c:ir J L.)2 7r14e::,rc i]!L j1}'.y`r',5 airy prorL`Ci i�r-`i'c?4'i[S.Y which ! i.i r r??r' i',dC4rCSSL d. rr_' orr must i.m.. d'. t &J alatrLt.if#.li}V'JJ.$,' t t sf.s 3t` i!f 41V7,'1'11V!tUfti? Mc) ¥wrierer . 1>(iit inr_ .(J! J.114ViIi iiriv I?=a'{,i) afJd also vhoii, the. ut Etr'i'1 E:'Si try 11711ri f ei tff 1 e lCJGilti" i H r'll pre.vr Y'f it pi.-A-r5c: Attachment °`t!" csmta.inJs the "flak sc-ry '�"lrr :s" tll�'Jt r;, the "Tr.tffb Agiirnc t Dr 511c�;ay '" th m- : tend finally the IIt�' .1 Linsi nah-_c . 1n:ucrsi rion �±a�.jt 'I_f7~ arti4li c:i work L- tti. l.] c d-agarlis a14Ci 3t7 J I y SCS are in rs:,~pc` nk- to the abovt, carrzmcvts. Plea..sr. note that the r lain LOS rrj7cc13nP thh Ira;ect` Impact fi-Fr Inv, =ay 0 2 will Ix s;;tti*yet is ttl4" rniii st€ti by pro &prig the r dt quuee sLuraec length within tit; site. .5 ?ire- ; "G* �S{° Sreu Brickell Avenue rr2 CcVnI) r1p irr res :zr „EC)). +tatrtft ? troll; e k.r.0sg? and ft.inire owtiiil'JIJtT,i. tram,ArerfJ'-ein' ltg ct rldihtron dcF not iFnpn -r a CI t! TIT 7t ri.i arirm tfi? t t' signal ii'mrriry ph isirig iontht'lfirlion. TI[e rive pre MU irrr.`r. d Spere#jc Trirrttpr,rr.wwJri (j.'rtry/ , `4 trrc.Y (TL:tJrttr rhe tlute.J frrp:y ct(OlLS irhY f'Scct 7n_ Tranipurtaitiury Cueteut 1rtea are% {' C'M The d►,,Nclt i• understands t,anid the importance of maintaining mnh sits,` in the area, as u'ctl nS to the entire City or Muamm and, the South Flosithi 1,.- :•.r>;:. As such. them is. a .rothdrtitment to conforming to the L_°i '3 pr I cic..9 Ng -II -ding the irtttpletuentation Telvis 1.s set.fcrtla �n tf:tc Cbrrt +re.hettztve Plan: The devclnpi- cnmitut! to work with tlic: Ci11r' LE_r further iL rclop and impici cii TGMs to reduce the generation rat single occtipmit vehicle trip;,. encourage the use of multiple oegurlant vehicles ink -Limit -rig public run i t for home and work l c-d trips, Sp tic mraures such as car—pools, varipooka, staggered wok hiri�rs;, mcerttivc fra- Lasing transit among. others will le considered and may Ere implemented as a r ult of this c orddtnaion with the Ciry of Komi: Your May 3", 20115 inerttormiurn cour'dirtatt+irc iireeded to take place with 1-E) do County.' Traffic Control and SignN .C7riv'isi0n regarding_ proposed mui cct.iiurrs to si ral 4irrxtng and pi-:asine. Plc se be assured his coordination will taker plate as aplir iprixJ1.e. II you hziie arty gt:est.ions or need to tscuss further, filcawe ,-p R charr:l Ciarzia at 305-595 75O Mart rroe at 305-594 0735 Or Mr, ao(o3f24101:= 14;24 FAI Irks o May 3„ 2005 Lille Mettine. AICP From Rai Snariniugom, P,E, Subjls. arias,' elticerrier (WO O?) Pxelitninary COMMenis Memorandum We need the following Information to cornice our review of the traffic *Ludy: 1. The study is performed had on 2,3884ligh r resickintial condominium units, 176,300 stilt, Office SpaCe its 95,250 rotall apace a5 oppose to 2,464-NZ rise residenant condominium units, 138.400 so.ft_ office and 76,000 sol, retail shown on the ea plan. The interne3 =Our% trip goneratiEin and trip distribution calouletIonamay be Incorrect as a result, and need to be revised; 2_ The descnplion of the phIljeCt iodation pi/vim-0 in the iiitwOuction section i inconeteent with the ibcation mewswn in the report, will& musi be revised; 3. The report must Include a solnarnetic of the lane gecrmetry at all study intersections-, 4., The report does nut Include analyseof any pnbjecr &Amway% which must. be Bdcireased, The /VOA IMILASt & matrix showing he steps in determining the fuming turnes at the site driveway(a) and also show the site driveway VOitiftli&S in the Uwe year with project 5_ The SW :SJeriokaf Avenue intersection operates at LOS F &ring bath existing and future conditions. The future intersection operating conditions do not improve even saw oPtimtretioh cif the liognal krntrtglOhastiv combination. The report must include specific Trwsportation Conlin:kr Measures (CM to reduce the uto tripe Ert this intersection,. Pease note that_ The aperwpsni has proposed to modify the signal timing/phasing combination at SW SireetSW 1*J Avenue inktreacon_ The epplIPAnt needs to coordinate with the Maori Dada County Traffic Contra/ arid Signs Dhisian to secure kopropriale app/ovei as this project goes through the review process. :Should you have any questions, plena Teel tea to call QUAgl Masood ro me at 954_739_1881. Ur, Ohm Wairapcl, 191nareerl,134 f Mitt* Mr, kip, CiafTtidlnO, Treg COrnu arrow (row: 304.604.07/K) Mr FXbari 3jrtta. RGA tnc. (Fax 35,5..a75.6414,1 airomitlaw. !Akimbo/a Cfenalin WO14511-1H koarrw. Aute 1.151 frel Lirsitarttilic P. =10,3375 7cir 661.139.1.E13.1. Perc T5c773.1t99 • ATTACHN ENT A • • erickell Citi Center MUSP Project Trip Generation Analysis Lard Use ILIA High-RIse Rdentiai Condo i Townhouse Geer al Orme RETAIL: !Specialty felt Center 1-Supermarttet (Groceries) Ikty Restaurant Unite 2,424 DU 33 721 TG$F 3gi•438 1GSF 33 00 TGSF 15 00 TGSF ITE LU CODE 232 710 914 931 ffl TRIP GENERATION kkliE 0,38 71 2.71 7.54 4.21 OUT' TOTAL Trips 05'3% S82 39 1 ,7316 44% 47 61% 57. 4 17% 63% 513% 33% OP* 10721. $90 229 60 107 122 241 1 pit* Trlp Generation Pect Internalization 43 13331 47 732 1 10.6% Of Us Tripe Grose hIde Trips tu.1.1% as 3% 74S Venial Adjustment TrwTrip Reduction 11,0 P. m. 011cyols Trip Reduction f2 „,, .0i110.4103,141,1,..mis1, e43,ta:40:1,: IJ ps In Whit** G Trips In Transfi P mon Trbps (Vowel sr Transit nodes Trips (0,1s114431T111g1 f Gross TL21 s 4,1% Of Trio • 0 Of Or Trios w %KITES: Tr' i) Gantribm *rum rtt.7W1 ori iranin tr rakestlY1 *Pm DPI irlrertwITt eittAik Arvii 2Heireigeprion from Dl inommerrl Tait 2I.C2. tT Gerumitto Wirzi&i y Pary Trim iSigs A ttathici Patt-ey TT Gan mrtuovialki 1,4,3 Pa 10 .pfsonsi yehide Perscrist Vishide 631. 5a% 53--4 112 53% 53% 411 575 148 ?22 157 18 laS 638 1402 47Y1 105 224 19 47% 210 4rA 35g T70 1,4 47% 4 nE, 129 4T% 2 4114 137 Yo'if QL7, 107 277 1 2.5 !-!LIS; unm.7,ry -c:f Tzar Ge.h.tazutin ITTIT Lr!Liri Jn2 LTh P Rnu-trilt;474 / ThwithL.Li Xzy De_int!,cn A-,79. Wati4aay Wy V..•:,:th I-1a 2 L:c:j 1.,721: -1C11. 7-9 ,4.2.-°: Pe.-5?_ [1-,J,Li. EIV:IE.L. i4i7,r 11111.7 EM:7 7-D AM P,naL fl:.:1..r 1-6 PM .1"-a.k. :Th.LrL:.1 E:11-: j-7,4 0.00 !_lio 51;7- 4-I! PH Pi.4.,ak 7d,.:!: Ez_lt ;J.1A 0,00 1,00 E3D 4-.--.- PN NI-ali l']0,:zir T,:it,11 D...-3E: 171.4: ',...U0 AY !,. HT, :77-t.fstrl-,..,:74-, ETT7-e'r 1:,Ut Li:,C. i AX VL 1.1.2: '.:_lt.-2.nt:rt,47,T.F.„To;j_,.; 0,2 (":.c 1,17] AH Pk HI, ',I_1,t2-11A_TrztLzr, Tc,il 0„34 PM Pk r'N Pi R.17, !--;orel,:ator, tzIt. PM Pk i47, G,T,r,P„'ratorf, Total ,_„.;-i- LL6:=1 1,00 Ki 2.J.Lr.cay :-Way Vnll_mi-or 4,31 2. LT. I-nn :z.7tul--thy F... ilL/LI Estier f),:5 U.00 1,nii ?64 ',-f..7,t1.1:day P-ce.a.L Hi..i.t r....it 0-70 LIAO l_Ou W ',:2-7,17:-,4rday PeiaL ileLli.C1 .7%!t-ill 3.7„,b 11..5c1 ,.ori f'!IF Vo1[w Eufteiay Pnak f.f141:- Fx.L.te7,r U.1,6 D..f0 1 „ 33ti litDur Exlt A =c-r-c-, 1E,d1:77,70-e5 Trmnmpzr7117:cn 7Llp 7t.h "7.1 FIENEPAZ:SAI • • • 2-W0V VQ1Line.: ;EWA. ? H. 7PLA: CLL Cef;Lrfr MUP F,..7.1 133,-721 Th.GI.Sq.Ft Gient-17m 17IFfi7t !1-411dInc Mly 7s1,71, rr- • Wettitd4_7! 177-WAy rr AM Pttait Ho,z: Entc:z. 7-43- AM Peak AM Pak llcr Tcrtal 4-r ;it U.i ErtF!.17 ?T ilnur 4 .71.5 AM 14: HI:, 1,-;en4Lat_ot, AM Fk Hr, c1,1":L-TItc7=r,Ext AM P1-. RE, civImrarot, Tcltai PM Entr FM RI, C-4Inekt E3.E1 • Elt,1---en€nnzt, 131-.14rAn7.1 2-)17 V,Iqume 51-_,LuzLimy Pted.Er 5,atUr. aatiity Peak Ht.= :lundAy vlumk,' 131441,4-ily PfNikHui mtcr St -many F'o4k Fku 51.utttgy Hpur LT-ly,f1w1:1% NnrFILf. A L,I111,7a7.-ea. 1;4 4L 010.-341.3h1rTht. Jdt rLewrlfr tu Jtequa77,7r-u...! tidy 12.1.um=r LN'T4 = .77LNIX: 3.E'J. P'2 - 0.e Pakfli. Tutlt LIA1T .91441X'.-- PTIZil Pt- Tr_1-al T 1.121X: 4. 70_91 = b AM Gen Pi_ HI. T4LNteal: = ? -7 196 17“:-elj7Fo_xiL FM 1:74-77, PkT TcaL T 1.12X1 G.1-; FArr. 0.83 :-Wny Valinnx-7 1' = 2,A!,K1 1/8.4';, R-: E.0 • DI Et. Tut..2111 = 4 . 1",4;i:4t _31, 1.7-2 INF": - • = •DLIE En!, 4i574ircal 1ttu c TtAnmpotl-tator Trip tIratior. Rt±Edflti=m, TRIP ..7;;KNEHAT:(74-1 EY NICRZ7RAN:-: • MP,J;? Lt-T-V1-5E1,71 12.;!ry of Tfip 7'1! of kvmr.17.!. VC.11.1tn= A7g. *ee-.Kczay Volum 7" AM PnaL 11,7411 4 ti 1Ju F_JIL:ftr PH H,7j117 EIt. 4-C PH EQatTtiL ;-J-1 r.4!nttf Utt AM Hr, Exa: fljf-flrIrrp;;;q[., Ht, Ft!Ek Prl Fr.: r...nellatol,Tr j v°7'111E,'3 Sal-urdF1.ur 17711:7 SaCUZdEvi OF_O:ludayPa.k 11111U2 TL1 dy Pnak Llazu,ly Pttdi.7 ';4J7,121,:z. 1-1;fit, Z5vinday Pcic Nc:Ite-: A vTicti.;ateE Lc- datd Oi±cItLJILLLut_n TrAP.PpGEtut10% T1-1P L".r1°-7-11tIrtri, 2—J03, TBIT G t4ACHIJTPAlit. • Cit3 WISP i r 1rrs-, tr=,• CZa171:-.31at,LQ. • • • PLIZ :'tx l.�rtrr. A vq . WP_ kd I ..,---W,zzy fc7,1. 1.T1-- Ilia , '.. 1 . a 4.i 1 . l i l? '3 P AM Pe"'iL i auz !«.r0Inz ' '70 rl, U Ui - -. e is AM Pink Iic':11Y- r: 1 t. nc, 0 , n0 ?:I3 F;c AM PC' iy EiC+ e:% Tr7to E W 79 0,10 ., HD 'r., 1 _ PM :'ma t: Hour Total 11.77 Lt 'D L 1.L€1i �isJ AM P: Hz:, ,Se= _.at t_ Exit i.s7 i"1,il0 ,,_ii-? 1G1 Ate N. - . Gene atoi, Total .b4 n-0 C! 3 S !-'m Pk Kr, 1_a i'tfi1"4tor, Este4L a;. wli Di .-i(i I, __k.Y ?i; €!r, 1= 1 r'-:m• Qr, :'o -a., i . i'= _ , r:;' 1 _ ;, ,ieurd y 2-Wd Vif_ammt 3r:_tir_ ' ,`I 1 <'�„ -,', ,are, r€ .y N'e k f,ou. E ft "- J, irar tl, i�11 1..1F1F ... 1. ew 5-,a.t«rR ' E..q-mk E ou,r I'llit J , 4:4 0. au 1,0) - "10-14c-c A y: fca k ;_ u 1r=ti.i 12. 'xm, Ci, 0 1 , i'1,. y_r, 1. Frt 6y a -W.. i'. tsrf.� IIt^_Ti�' I�i . I�it' 0. 1.) [ , 1.rL_3 'i,3 `.7 Inch y .r'nir. '!"a111i . t t 0_ 0 i C_ , t. 1's j _ r;:F_ 0 1.111d1i' _1-a.ak filial Eat 0,it1 r- 1, 1,C;!.i 0 ::urday ;!M•FOO, Holtc 1.717; _A? I.i, 11:: i3,0 ,, 1.0Il O7GA er �- rc= MD Tim zh a.a 1-EtS. -7alculad Lt= °'Rene' mn T171^ri:, 1-11:. 2 `7r5'1' ` 'y al7yrr,« rr�'♦♦ = , iT,P, F Ejrl :`,I LJ'74.5Cs, p'+.sZ. - 0.52 1 i J'? w'4:`''1 �" 19.1. L Tl zi iN i fig x ,71, [[11 i 1 _ 4 +1_51 C, :i EtatEr, c.D.9 Est' ' 1; E'i P i= a k HI, , '1'U r .. LN ; T ! . -, 9 LH C , ).2 Gen P.1: Hz, Total: T - L , .� ' S.t`>�1 4- .,.I 19.16 h' , .3 . ' I Erit_er _ .. S I Exit PM t 2 en Pr Hi, 0.6' r n. 5 j E7` it 0.4 ; P .If S. r- . 2-Way V, 1 : r la , U 5.tt,. P1: ?9=_ TnLalt Lt4%,y 1 - , 1'-!LN4,Xt .a_'i rign. 2-Way V lit': a, ©- Z = 0,55 r P M. [p Py ErtC:¢, 'R' ..,.:jai_ 32.1E `E: i.ttwLi.ture C3' TrA .ifp rtatI n Emcj,an .--s TILIF Genes tti r1, iC1't E i tic,11, 2,102, `A HL zE. 41 [:.a �C.P LT aN ?'; CV,':57 i • • • 7Entf,E- muaF zumm,41,:i - W.C-C,kday Hur b-v.777 iiLuz E1c Prti! rril7r!' iy Wzur PM '871.1r.1;7, Eklur HQU: ZAt-Arj fn7P7, Mr! 1,4 znr,--- n= ,414z.„..1 avnl],abit, ELL=LILut_t. if TL.mit=pzzl.,L.7;1 Fru:;.iimmt!z Tri.p H.41.14d !t.1:1r=7,h, 2.01 17ZNEPAT1M yM1CPOTRAN • • i B,-1k4,11 uu Cent",M'Si r M�J3 Ft4; i Q741ity RRt:.aur-ant: Mety Rate L viatIQ i 7-9 AM P4E,3k Hsur Entar i,` 00 _` AR f..,,a'r . _7 u r F ,i _ 0,0U € . F2 iJ -T� PM €efm !dcitl- ` otA7 , t 1e, ' 1 ' L i`M P 1: c _r7 _,- % � :«, «. w .— _ D : 0,9e - PN Pt.t..i. L {L .. , U 0.00 t-,, PM Pa.a . Jq _F IT lor-•; 1 , 4::€ 4.89 J Z4. Pk 3 - a .il-t . ! L^r..r _q..:. r ,, e:m . {", T' `k . 5 7 i -, €_ 1_+ 'SN Pk. 13.,:; 11. =I:, `ry .i. 5 _ 5-' 74,79 f€N Pk :�' . a 'F. e.`,ir cAL, Ea:i.',:^... - , ¢'ri L . fU'L C1-1 Pk :!ir, '-.i Y'..7r-.7[Cc;_a ERir p , al 1J. uU PM Pl... _, _ , r.,7 a'P1 C Q ;- , `F' L'rt 1 , ? z: 4.55 ▪ L Fday .2.- a.s. Vol;acne- zJ4 ...3ii 14,$2 a__:nIc.3y P31..--4 N3U1 .Eii _3L i-_+rsl _-i 1_; ur lay P 1;_ Ii7ctur E;:tt 1 .4. sl _ 11?.i y G-;}rday aa.- l,. hour Totad .,1.i, ir1:: 4 _ 38 ▪ ._.;dz y Fes, 'i° Hc.r r c,. L. dtr 2: 0,00 Eumday Po.eat' r %ai1L. _UJ 0,100 5L! aid y P E'k 1.511 To LaI 6.3E 1_01 r te..• A r:ird! ..^at' _ 77p7, 'i- - . ESL€ a i a , L Lr€_€x: I[;i i_tutE • firandpCt.LaLJc? .mix.1it .ram_ r d.1p €,'ta,s'. r.1 l uL , L.,Lk EJ..i. L_ 1 sLIn p 2W1. • ti; ° s. `r`4 .L` Cit Z Z' ! TCP.O T F' PN n t fin NT15;' T'Jr 7:1111-7.v IA.311auzAc.t • 70 go - AN AN E.7.;1*.; AJ.1 Lut Ec.ur PM Nr7.AE Exl/: PM T,1717al Lmt._Irdav Dz1v,twAy Tfip3 Vc Ad=11.1 Eilt€ff E.:sak EHat 1 GT 141:=1-1,,z • • A :f2-rc .1mriM7ate,:,r.cdata 1rint'ituTr Tran.7pc7,rtzition tz.qiners 77v;p GRt:tfr.dtori RarLdhoo MA7ch, ri TRIP GENEPATIC'N HICR=RAN3 • Mast! Gib Center MUSP Project Cardinal Distribution frAZ 568) PM Peak Is DIRECTION CTRIB % IN OUT TI 15_92 6.28 1.85 4.06 5_39 21,76 19.4. 25,.31 5 57 25 23 8 6 17 15 22 19 89 78 $o 70 104 91 122 49 14 32 41 167 150 195 100,00 411 Nate: Based on MATS & -Year 237Z5 Plaa> p l , TE,thn ral Report Directional Trip Imo» 'Wear $ Vailidaben and $-2 Copt • To!di ble Plan, Data: December 31, :Mt • 1104 Miami [)ate AliPQ • 1-fa N utt 41.22 R.47 VisICt‘t4 t IS TOW 1 • • BrickeIl Citi Center lMMUJ P Traffic Assignment Dicectloru 1N out TOTd L. Noels �3+&=29 15*-19=34 73 II $.1O=1 # 8 317 TOTAL 170 • • RS-- Center 1,4IJSP Troff c Msig 1rnerfI _ c'° iti a fie! 4;l ` SW 81h Yrete1 it .e * Rene +0011 belrtar bath Or b} R!1/15 litre. rst !fa niematss rrunktr rd dnLrl urlm. Li NT —MY RA 4'2 Traffic Analysis Zones Miarni-Dade Transportation Pion (to the Year 2030) Directional Trip Distribution Report January 2005 • Prepared by: M Gannett Fleming fn association with: PACO Group Public Financial Management media Relations Group • LWQ.mr-F_%a& f U r'm $1305 Cop Feaohh. Plan CaIir_71N w :--5ig TP 4 FEH1.4rIvT I'TF1' _I.W4 D::.M'`I'R11DLf'1'.i21i ! 1' ._ NNE ENE 21€ 5-7 7r wing lT 14 = TRIPS 1113 17 3 : ; _ t9 T:RTEI 161 117 1.9 a d z? 440 4 1: '-. ._ i!e_ tT '.2 T''.IE_ D 0 0 L' _ _ ter : 21 ITT t 1E, 12 72.tg- A,;.; 71_ Lg!.i }4!_ iNr f _ J 4 ..' ..y, 3.2J 3. P 7 31.1.L 24_52 1 -s 3 1 24.1c FrR T .G 'C E g-1"1 =.?e 10 S 'T£RI7.3 t 4 2 5 ,4 11 t,L 7.r.3 TR:20 27e 1.E J `i] LiA 114 ;.4 330 50€ 044 13.-- 10- .•,, 14,1-" 2.14 _...Gt' 1'"__1 LE.37 56S TF:.I'F 2D00 :311 SE=2 1J& i:-`_ .. 4 22_.:6 .., t. 73=. -p? t.1I 13.E8 17_212.79 43 s` 16 19 Ee 4L, 69 P.C}IT 44,4 2 i 1P ..39 2.41r 6..oe 15.1;7'4 567 TRIT9 E4 272 '71 e , PERCENT _ ?1>a4 5.0D 2,01 4.4 "1_ n r-i.p; ,.,,-fie TRIt7 .:13 E.34 L4S B4.1 ? t! "i7' :BM 13271 Film:1M L .'t 1.._5 4_0.5.3.9 A s e4 .74.31 54 T ;I S 1E.20 44L 12f:' 95_i 2:246 223,3 3)-Ta 1Ce 7 PE:i:IT T 14.74 4. 1.21 0_6.. _'?' : ,3_” +3i., r.€?. 11 TFIPS .316 223 +1 fl 1.!;4# 13.4 . 1457 13:1 4951. 4N6, 7 4-4 n_ 63 0.67 2-.1.1 27_19 29,4 , 69 • • • • Bracers ;.rio'MUM, Mal<PO4N'lwIP 4•01 1MRE AND CON Until' ANALYSIS TABLE: Was Ay rrh:i 44,40 4 0.4: 4,P •Lfl n• Al API ,6111.4.11.AP� d Alt 1 lw .. /w the ij 'Mr t .�,�.' �� ....... .._., ..� ile �p1 ; rife- mu Mt IMRLI .Waixar.r nrw..le*wwxr;..ewnaA !In :14 Mkt! Fat 43F ri t + ^A, i�1' F ill n _ ce..fptl1.Netma i 1 ~ E111 Y!+q- iCa6A 1 '.a+11 aAei I sA17.wr, to iiigif 11't1 03+ I pr rr t qv lay _.� _.... E ".. law 9 fir ITJ $r�......... E IM i • 1O- T.4 ek. ! Ctlf Center MUSP PERSON TRIP VOLUME AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS TABLE muomTWAY *tjjIki ADOPTS(' CDR LOA .�r BWTST tad asv 4 8DT 1 ii. #lnm.r NAV SW. 8 6T 98 IIIEE rit3r.r..W3Y 120Mrofp Pt N PER:SON F>x'x+ct tVAv 91Nifr NEJ CWAY ` TRIP t i4FiiIX14 'dWWCibiM CJ1P;c!TY VEHI^iL',R va.UWE TYTE .„1.0*.cil Y A A PPv V[1L'ULE -.,. t 4 Ff'i: is EXCESS F£idsoN TGIF l I I 1-.t a 1947 33?5 t�A� #4% i2 4 1117 �# p : u 4 Aie'Ff 9 Q-1R #i7 i REstea n;; II ill IMAM 21077 27.50 E D4tt 821 351S 9511111WAMIMIINI 2l E4 Illiarl.7pUiYd . -.ilLUMIIIMUIIIIIIIIIEME111 13. I•IIMIIII�� 44831 I4 lwr.r ® 27 iD sett _ 11•11.110101111111 AM dr _ ®® I Fr trnr - 3s ® . ®® �_77r,........i=_z3.1 v _.,...,e.�.....� dMIME NINNIIIIIIIMU== seta y m MEIMIll u ? h i TI14 iuear I CI=MOMR MIIIIIIIIIINIONMINI I♦ .._ 2 t7 34 ��l I�'r1 - a IIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIMMENIIIIMIll MEDI a., WPi 404 21S4, ki':Mi.LS duo ha rirolom rainiguyin ran4 !ice Tabu 7FlU 4110 11111111111111111 MIME NEM Ens vua 4 e 111111111111.1 P4>!48 ETA 8 1111111111111111111111111111 165E as 211$ 0.26 'Fabler T4 Brickell CO; Center kriLiSP PERSON TRIP VOLUME AND Citil I Ty A Lha. .c I 77, p T 04_ 'DAY TO aT 7 E. Miami Aim SEGMEte PEOrt0P4 TRW CJPALTh 42 4 7 Se-CAMENT PER 3CIN TRW .WT:114ENT PER -TRIP EXCESS CAPACrTY 2.172 1? 45 am R N5 474 31 Mn II war 5W1 Awl S.T 2 Mom a 0 37 wrnI al!. 1:22fr 25si AME 47/I1 ST F.45 *AP kg/flit 471 757 25 2 31e0, 0 3 3 Taltptg iyer 6W T 515( Ft 7 471R 100 le 11 .23 Miomi Rh,t4s. ST gr, w1&T :14;10 I-707R 57 • 30110 Mum r SW a NE la% Cambi We tate-wer trek yawl atibrind 5:134 r' —sty woul 0E5 detalinoxl liChiced. 1 p 3.0 T05 1 DSe 31.3i1 D 34 1 5T 1 11.52*-4 3 1121. Ti J. CI • • • Table: T-5 Mickel! Cttl Center MUSP Project Traffic Net Vehicle NMVeNola ST 0.00 12U I D Net Vehicle Net Train tt rdpcs - 'Trip- - TOTA TOTAL • ATTA H' ENT 8 • • • ATTACHMENT C • • • ATTACHMENT 11 • • • • • /Edda: 1.31 5ritk>vTit CItl CarOar *NU$,P Driveway Volumes fir ai +..'n COVE lR'.Tii PI1 PEAK FM maim bits ei C r ftAlt, !MJi,S NA:, v u4 tip4LKr.110.X.100 rdPK hi ni 1y 7TI +';a *Ira r-=-Erritstt jowlerartit du lurk. 9114 het Mini TrWrf_ I, xrriori .okicurr7.1 ,r Ark rrMc rimTs ledi 'M nrn CON Easai0, 41 to BO HI ftvii r7ka'THEW R15 » ..� 3-p. , {,„11L,,, 1 -1"-11. r, u i=se D a n a ��® F S u -� A f G D A A MITI°>{G MIT r S r pp �F�fTICT€1 lC Cd:t T=I S'3: .. „«,�.,',,.,...�.,..a., .q;�AR ,,.. .. ,.,.'W' Dm doe I22 i MN f 2 E t h.trn c1ilM3.�y u� ter D 5 3 ! 5 iraf r at +aC w� Millra=IIIIUIM 4H4+ _ nn TJi1 r e / ..sue u4 +i7! lT IMO F L+ . IMAM 6 i n : 1l1 ii 'L A nu' tam � � 1 .:.. .,m- f ti i i6811 1lFSdp 17 8 979 105,1 • • • hWtimu d au SE lgr, Nut. egamitU WI* •d 'a,:, Xitt 1.t+.; f.& 8e OW" Clif Centel WISP artvewey Volumes rtit 3 Aim IIMMUMBIMIn t io Sig bull. Su II gin% Cur wow 4ht Wolk Ai omit'-AbaGrrrait dls PitthtY twat }ieg= G u f2,5 16I3U • • • tihYs wi LIM ekirstw.ra sri t1 'n %Peel 1434 Tiviry.tio PIA Peti+r. FM OrAMr r pt p BAIL -Nero q '1 *tit ¢aid i+v rP, ., 00140Irta* a JWINI4 m Fri FT Ls= 1 PW Mh r *D rdf Oluit i x Prole II, i.Vrrj.E'>ti I*K4 r1W-cal rn lyrR7 3 eisrrt yra Gv rgK,rar n lrrrrr, e rid'hree rdtumam-milp{r rit j bEs starn far artft Pit Tp Pry srrq--llrr tw[a+^looiiF€m fq.sa. 54 p11S; rl 4YM3H pR' IIa.+. 14 VAC( Y lido in rrtearr or lira T'+k#Ir T-i! $rickft i Chu erntist ML19P Driveway 'Volumes Obis r41'=` 4T nu r r7 ( r)wr1,1G?°+ Trot .ram rxwr 4x; r� Ma twisti 'am irrdwe • CIti Cent E'r WISP 1raf c A+ssIgt'wn•ent " .t1,-- 1 14 SIN 7th Street I -1 it `a[ th Street j 13 5rm S13 8th Street we 101 M#+i! WI glee bf 0.45 loNel epn It+ locrottNi Aurribir wds SE Bth SIF(et — 171 CJti Centre Futri t rI pry Valurrs I tTPip • Seasons t y Add. Existing Condition 7:SW8ST&DAN#1 HCM Unsignaiized tntersectian Capacity Analysis Citi Centre MUSP ne dui ei ns Sign Contr.ol Free Free ode 09 i Volume {heir/) 0 NM 0 Peak Hour Factor t1: 9 ' 0.g2 0 92 Flotiffy now rate. ivahm) 0 109a Pedestrians Lane Wiwi (11) Walking Speed (tt ) Percent $ire Might turn gam (web) fbleOlatt ter fkiladiart storage veh) Y'C, ConflTtling V[lfltme 0 vC1, stage 1 t wol vC2. stage2 cod v ri tC, single (s) 41 1 tG 2Stage (s) IF (i 22 pg Quetta free % 100 chi capacity dyer ) 1622 Voiur T I 219 437 437 Volume 0 0 0 Voiume Right 0 0 0 14 1622 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.OQ t7.26 0,20 Queue t /) 0 0 0 Control Day (s) 0-0 0.0 0_0 Lane LOS Approach Delay () 0.0 Aoproach LOS Ammo o 0,0 Intersection Capacity UW WEIR .2161.7:saFt Stop 0% 0 0 0 92 0.92 0.52 0 0 0 0 Nana 364 6_6 6.9 3.5 3.3 100 100 608 1064 24_5%U Level of Service Seasonally AO Existing Condition HCM Unsignalizecl Intersection Capacrty Analysis 9. SVV ST & DAN #2 Ct Centre MU-SP • Laiie ortrigerations 4114 Sg Cntrtg4 Free Ffe Grade 0% 0% VoLutne 0 1006 0 P Rua Fatlor 0 92 002 0.92 Hiatirkif flow Egift: (.4)-etb%) 0 1093 0 Pleslyiens Lesie Width (ft) Walking Speed Ps) Perrent Blockage Right turn &Ire (veh) Mn type Mean storage vett) vC.cOttfl[cting volurrie vC1, stage 1 carer .vol vC,2, stage 2 min! ypi IC, stogie (s), IC, 2 stage (t) IF (s) 2-2 p0 queue tree %I 100 chit capacity 4:voila)) 1522 • DIritfrAltiof \40 0 0_92 0.92 0 92 0 0 0 Volume Tote! 219 437 4370 Volume JAR 0 a .0 Volume Right 0 0 CI 0 rise 1622 1700 1700 MO voitono to Capacity 0 00 0 215 , 0_26 0.00 Oueut 1.1igh (11) 0 0 0 Colltroi Delay (s) 0.0 00 OU 0,0 Lana L.D$ A Approach Delay (s) 0_0 1:114 A prodv Las- A okveraggi-- liAmsection Capactly Utilization 24_5% Nom! 364 61 5.9 3.5 3.3 100 100 608 I Ofi4 ICU Leve of Serice Seasoo y A ExIstIng Con n ST & D/W #3 HCM tins' ri.lizei Intersection Capacity Analysts Oita Carafe MUSE • • Lane Cttrigtic`etf Sign Control ade V tur (vetilta Peak f-taur Factor HOurJy :flow auto (veW Pedestrians Lana WitIm Vti4k.ing Speed (fit's) Pertart cloaking, Right Cum flare (vet) M� i1 rt lype MGiari stage vets) 4/C , conflicting v'> li? yC 1, stage 1 calif vat 2, staga 2 crnf vrl tC, (S) tC 2; tege 4S) tF f 2.2 cM capacity (vetilli) ten niivittek Ids Fries 0# 0.92 0_92 0.92 11 ,.1027 0 4.1 -gip 0% 0 0 t 0..92 0.92 0 02 0 0 None 342 0 8,8 09 3.5 3,3 100 1DO 628 1084 Vciume T V a 1aft Volume Right cad Volume! to Capacity Queue Length Control Delay ( Lana S Approach delay (s) 0.0 Approath Ltd 20S 411 411 0 0 0 Ifl22. 11 1700 0_00 0.24 , 02 D. 0 0.0 0_0 0.@ 0 1710 0_DO to 0.0 A 0,0 __tia .-utttaiftAmu •� � ..•ram ,.;�. ...,..; .. �.. e::: ......::.. .....N:a:..__.,. a y Intair5ection Capactly 'I 1i 3t1 - 2% ICU Levet of Service Seasonally Ad) Existing Candtttorz 15 SW 7 STa D W/14 HCM Uns grtali ed intersection Capacity lysis �usP • Lane Configurations Sigel orttrmt Gracie Volurne (vehlii) Rea, Hour Factor Hourly tkvirti ante .(ve i Pedestrians Lace Width ) Walking Gpeed Porten! BIi pe Right turn Rare (yen) Median type Median storage yen} YC, DartiftetinQ volume vC1, stage 1 cant %OM vC2. stage 2 cQrif vot IC, single {s) IC, 2stage-As) pOE queue free % c'M capacity {venal) Volume Total Volume Len Volume Right H Volume to Capacity QueueLenOth tft). Cntret Delay rsj LUM APPRMICh De1ayt ( j Ap cti ?S Fme Five 1227 0.92 0.02 0.92 Q.92 0 Ci 1334 4 ..1 TOO 1622 2 7 5 3 0 g 0 0 0 1700i7U £_cif} 0.31 0.3 f 0 0 0 Q.0 0.0 o.0 0.0 Average Detay .0 Interseclien Capacity Lifttri7okt 2g.t% ICU Level of Service Stop 0 0 0132 92 0 0 Nixie 5 3.5 3,3 1 _1-00 542 1064 Seasonally Adi Existing Condatori sw 7 ST & DAN #5 HCM Unsigna;tzed Intersecton Capacity Analysis center MU'D Lane Confhgurations Sigh Control Grade Volume Mott Peak Hair Factor Hourlyllow rate (1/eM PeOestilarts Lane Width (Tt. Walking Speed (Kos) Percent Blockage Riciftl turn Hare Nell) Median tvroe Median storage veh) vC, coriflicang yolane vC1, stage 1 cent val vC2, singe 2.zorif IC. singe IC, siage(4) IF (5) 0 giitEve free crvi capacity (you%) FFee tY% 0.02 0 POOthWte*:iiii: Volume Total 34B Vcilume Left Volume Right 0 ;SS VOltirrle tO Capacity OUCLAIT.Lettil control Delay ts) Lane toS :- Approach Dels) 0.0 Appal -Kt Lcka •-, •••••••• A9eMge Delay IntafSeCtiOri CiipaCely Utilizst n • 0 4.1 22 10D 1622 \ 3.5 100 4.45 606 0 0 0 0 0 -toza 1700 I700 170C1 0.00 0.41 , 0 41 0 iy0 0 0 0 O 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 A 0.0 100 1044 36,9% ICU Level of Sety.kce Proposed PM Peal< Condition 7 SW 8 ST & DAN #1 HCM UnsG alized intersection Capacity Analysis CJti Ceriu DAUSP • Lang Configuratinin 41t4 Sign COnlrot Preo Grade %Name Oietilh) 12 150 Peak HOW Fedor 0.22 0 92 Hourly flpw FI3 veMij 13 172fl Pedestrians Lang Virtiirfl (n) Walking Speed (fiis) Percont Rici-ctapo Right turn Mare (veh) Median type Modian storago yeti) VC, Coutliotin volume vC1, skuue 1 (mat vol yC2, stage 2 cont opt Ir, {1} tC, 2 stage (s) IF {s} 22 pa- queue ftee'14 OP cepaGily (yellItt) 1022 , Volwnt Teigl Volume Le. Valuing Right tzti . Volume lo Capacity aUetiiLig1411h (n) Delay (s) 141W Apphaach, Daley (s) ApproaCrh L. 4 1 NI, 41 'VOR FiVe Stop 0% 0% 0 0 0 0_92 0,92 0 92 0 92 0 0 0 0 359 691 691 •13 0 0 0 i022, Tim 1700 0,01 041 , 0,41 1 -0 0 0 3 0..0 A 0_1 Inierseation Qaiwity UtRization 37,0% tsbne 602 6 e 5.9 3.5 3 a 100 100 42'8 1064 ICU Level of Service A Proposed PM Peak Condition 9 SW ST & Divv ltr2 C3h F-ICM Linsigrialized Intersection Capacity Analysis C.ientre MU5P Lana Configurations Sign Control Gnat Voturne- Nehitt). Peak Hour Factor HourtyfloW rate (vettth) Pedestrians Lane Width Op Watking Speen (fiti5) Percerit EillocItage Right turn is veli) Median! type Median 5tonge veil) vC. coriftletingvoume 141. stage 1 alit vot vC2 stage 2 oorg V tC, single (5) tF (5) 2.2 pO queue free % 87 oaciarJty tvehlit) 1622 414 Fee 193 1590 092 0,92 .210 1728 41 4%. 1 Free Stop Or% 0 4:1 1B D 0 92 0.92 0 •0 196 0 None 996 6.8 6_g 3 5 3.1 7 100 210 1064 . . • Vonime Tota•l Volume:WI Volume Ric6Hgtrt ;.: Volume to Capacity Chteitie taeniPi (11.) Control Delay (5) LariesLp§-- Aporoaph Delay (5) ofi,pPraafi LOS 55,5 691 691 210 0 0 0 0 0 1622• 1700• 1700 0 13 0.41 0 41 11 0 3.0 0.0 0_0 A 1 0 198 196 0 210 0_93 193 92.8 92.8 .'• ;Tr Avenge Delay tritersection Capacity Ultlizatron .55_2% ICU Levei cf A %form -at Total Voiume L.eli Volume Right rt-i Volume to Capacity Queue Lerigth (A) Control Delay (s) Lane LOS Approacti Delay (s) Approach LOS. Proposed PM Peak Conclition 11 SW 8 ST & DAN #3 Lane canngulactons 441.4, Sign Cantivi Free 'Frog Glade Ook Volume (VeJ1/11) 12.7 1525 0 Peak Hour Fact& 0.92 0_92 0.92 Hoinly flop.i rain olefin)) 1 1558 0 PeOesinans Lame Wk111I(14 Walkin Spe-Eia Vris) Percent illkickage FRtght tam riare 4veri) Median type Median storage veh) vC, corillirlIng volume vC1, stage 1 confl vot vC2_, stage 2 coortf vLJl tC_ single (5) 4 1 tC, 2 stage (s) 2.2 pa queue free 193 100 rs-M cavaciiy (vet -AO 1622 283 1084 0441W2iiiirtli4. 57' 470 563 433 138 a 20 0 0 0 0 14127 1700 1700 2.83 0-09 a.3-g f] 39 0,07 • 7 0 0 2.7 0_0 0_0 18 7 0 7 T8 7 c HCM Unstgnallzed Intersection Capacity Anafysis Ceti Centre WISP Average Delay c1,13- Intersection Capacity Utilization 44_8% Sup 0 Is 0 D.92 0 92 0,02 0 20 Norio• li2-9 0 6.8 Q rcu Level of Service A Prop 15- red PM Peak 1 7STSEf t ditl n HCM Unsignaitzed intersect:an Capacity Analysis CIO Ceritte MUSP Lane Cott Sig€ Control Grade Volin (sih). Peak -four Factor H rty fin*4.ale Psde5trians Lam hey Waking Speed ?US Paroortl nr ck o Rl fi1 rum flare (ven Metliert tyre Median sto-tage veto) ✓ califfictiN vattermi. vC t , stage 1 cant vot iC. single (s) IC,. 2 5tha (s) rt0 quoit#: r itt % cM capacity (walls) ns Volume Tot: Volume Right O 1-1 Volume to revacity, Control Delay (s) Appr+aad Delay (s) Apj}ropt.pS • Pot hter5ection Cap 13 0 700 0 r:8 6_9 3.5 3.3 88 100 368 1€ 64 4-- *at Nat frae Frve Grp 0% 0% 0% 0 O. 21 1606 10.4 0 0,92 0.92 0,92 0_92 0.92 0:92 -0 1 23 1953 113 4.1 2:2 415 785 785 22 0 0 0 1522 1700 .:17 308. 0,01 1146 , 0.48 0_11. 0.5 0..0 00 9.0 19.0 c Prcpas PM Pe* Cordtton 1E: SW T&DM#5 HCM Unstgnalized Intersection Capra ty Anatysis i Centr, Mcl$P a Cl 0 0 IMO 170D 2511 0.5e, 0,55 0_24 0• 0 23 0_0 21.2 c 23.2 fit 52 0 0.9 3 1t 259 10 1 Lartk Contiyurati Sir Control Grade '1 *11tt (volifh.) Peak Haut Fact[i HHurty i L: ## Pactos#ru rt Lati z. Width (it} W iking Speed 11d0 Pottevt, 8k"r ge Right lum flare {veil) 13r tY t pif Median storage Wei) . co lthrrtg Volt o vci , age i omit 'Vial vc2T3tsgeZawe Prot lC. sulk% (s) IF (s) p0 q % cM capacity Newt)) 4 Fri Free Sipp 0% O% a :0. 57202 57 0 0.92 4_92 0_92 0.92 0.92 ail. flft 0 0 ; 2393 02 t# 4.1 2..2 1522 1031 Volume Total 541 967 1l57 Valumr5 L&& 1 VoLurrrc Rirh1 0 Voltirriti t5 Capacity 0,0 ;�errtrol Data), (s) 1,2 0.0 Larva ,LOS Jikpptcracti Delay ts) 0.3 ph 105 • • • CITICENTER MAJOR USE SPECIAL PERMIT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY: ' Dij\j.d RICHARD GARCIA AND ASSOCIATES 04.18.05 • • 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following details the results of a traffic impact study for the CitiCenter Major Use Special Permit (MUSP). The purpose of this study was to identify the traffic impacts associated with the project, which will be located on both sides of South Miami Avenue between SW 7"' and 8th streets in the City of Miami. The project will consist of 2368 Fligh-rise Condo residential dwelling units, 176,300 SF of Office and 98,250 SF of Retail developments. 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. . 1.1 Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Performance Traffic perforrriance was calculated at six intersections in the vicinity of the project. Results of the existing conditions analysis indicate that with one exception (SW 8`'' St and BrickelI Ave). these intersections will not operate beyond the allowable LOS E+ standard. The intersections are: • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and BrickelI Avenue (SR 5) is operating at LOS C • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and SW I5F Avenue is operating at LOS B • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and S. Miami Ave is operating at LOS B • SR 90 / SW 8`k Street and BrickelI Ave is operating at LOS F • SR 90 / SW 861 Street and SW 1 s' Avenue is operating at LOS C • SR 90 / SW 8`" Street and S Miami Avenue is operating at LOS C 1.2 Future (2008) 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 two of the six intersections will exceed the allowable LOS E + standard, With optimized signalization one of the intersections LOS was improved from F to B. The other one, although still at LOS F, the delay was. reduced as noted in Table 1 below. Table 1: Intersection LOS Performance Intersection Level of Service Delav Volume/Capacity Existing + Project +Committed Existing + Project +Committed Existing + Project +Committed SR 90 / SW 7'" Street and BrickelI Avenue D 45.7 0.96 SR 90 / SW 71' Street and SW i51 Avenue F / B* 94.4 / 19.3* 0.87 / 0.87* SR 90 / SW 7'h Street and S. Miami Ave C 20.8 0.74 SR 90 / SW 8`f' Street and BrickelI Ave F / F* 191.1 / 147.4* 1.71 / 1.44* SR 90 / SW 8'" Street and SW fs' Avenue C 24.7 0.60 SR 90 / SW 8'" Street and S Miami Avenue B 16.5 0.66 * = Results with optimized signalization. Note that on SW 8th St/Brickell the Delay has been reduced by approx 23% and the V/C by approx 16%. • • 1.3 Corridor Analysis A corridor link analysis was performed 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 C. Table 2: Person Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis ROADWAY FROM TO I DR EXISTING .CONDITION (Seasonally Adjusted) SR 90 / SW 7th Street MIAMI ADOPTED LOS Roadway Segment Roadway LOS Total Segment TOTAL SEGMENT LOS Brickell Ave SR 90 / SW 8th Street 1-95 WB E B i 1-95 Brickell Ave EB ? South Miami Avenue SW 8th Street Miami River NB B B B S. Miami Ave/SW 1st Avenue Miami River SW 8t, Street SB E ( B SW 2"d Avenue SW 8th Street Miami River NB B Miami River I SW 8th Street WITH BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (2008) SR 901 SW 7th Street SB Brickell Ave 1-95 WB B ? B SR 901 SW 8th Street 1-95 Brickell Ave EB South Miami Avenue SW 8th Street Miami River i NB S.Miami AveISW 1st Avenue Miami River ! SW 8th Street 1 SB SW 2"d Avenue SW 8tn Street I Miami River Miami River SW 8th Street NB SB • • • WITH BACKGROUND AND COMMITTED TRAFFIC SR 901 SW 7th Street Brickell Ave j 1-95 WB E I B SR 90 / SW 8th Street -95 Brickell Ave EB South Miami Avenue SW 8th Street Miami River NB E B B S.Miami Ave/SW 1st Avenue Miami River SW 8th Street SB E B 8 SW 2"a Avenue ' SW 8th Street Miami River NB SW 8th Street SB € E I B WITH PROJECT AND BACKGROUND AND COMMITTED TRAFFIC Miami River SR 90 / SW 7th Street Brickell Ave 1-95 WB : E SR 901 SW 8th Street 1-95 Brickell Ave EB South Miami Avenue SW 8th Street Miami River I NB B I B tl Miami River S.Miami Ave/SW 1st Avenue SW 8th Street SB i 8 SW 2nd Avenue SW 8th Street Miami River NB E Miami River Recommendation SW 8th Street SB B ! 8 E i B It is recommended that the City approve this development, as it has no significant negative impacts to traffic and circulation in the study area. With the exception of the intersection of SW 8'h St and Brickell Ave, all roadway links and the rest of the intersections will not exceed the LOS E+ standard. It should be noted that this intersection of SW 8th St and Brickell Ave is already operating at LOS F under existing conditions and will continue to operate at LOS F with background, committed and project's traffic. Due to existing physical constraints, it will not be practical to widen both SW 8th Street and Brickell Avenue within this general area, due to the associated potentially high Right -of -Way acquisition and construction costs. • • • 1.0 Introduction The following details the results of a traffic impact study for the CitiCenter MUSP. The purpose of this study was to identify the traffic impacts associated with the project, which will be located on both sides of South Miami Avenue between SW 7th and 8th streets in the City of Miami. The project will consist of 2368 High-rise Condo residential dwelling units. 176,300 SF of Office and 98,250 SF of Retail developments. 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. 2.0 Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology In order to review the impact this project has on traffic in the study area, an analysis was perfoi med, 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. The analysis focused on examining the following intersections: • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and Brickell Avenue (SR5) • SR 90 / SW 7`h Street and SW 1 S` Avenue • SR 90 / SW 7`'' Street and S. Miami Ave • SR 90 / SW 8th Street and Brickell Ave • SR 90 / SW 8th Street and SW Is` Avenue • SR 90 / SW 8th Street and S Miarni Avenue Traffic Study — Methodology Location South Miami Avenue, between SW 7th St and SW 8th St Traffic counts Full set of updated traffic counts, (6 in total) including turning movement's peaks, adjusted seasonally as required for the Vehicle LOS analysis: ■ Six intersections have been selected: • The intersection of SW-7th Street and Brickell Avenue • The intersection of SW 7th Street and SW IS` Avenue • The intersection of SW 7th Street and S Miarni Avenue • The intersection of SW 8th Street and Brickell Avenue • The intersection of SW 8th Street and SW ist Avenue • The intersection of SW 8th Street and S Miami Avenue • • • ATR (48 Hour) Counts • SW 7`h Street • SW 8`'' Street between South Miami Avenue and 2"11 Avenue (since these are a one-way pair) to attempt to adhere the corridor analysis suggestions made in the Downtown DRI Update. This will be done for eastbound and westbound PM peaks. • South Miami Avenue between Miami River And SW 8 St • SW lst Avenue between Miami River And SW 8 St • SW 2"d Avenue between Miami River and SW 8 St. (Optional) Traffic Impact Analysis (Intersection Level of Service and Corridor Analysis for Pedestrians, Transit, Vehicles) 1 Data Generation • Inventory Intersection Geometry • Collect Signal Timing Data • Calculate Trip Generation for applicable land uses using the PM peak hour a. Calculate trip reductions b. Vehicle occupancy adjustment for Miami from Increment II DRI c. Transit, 14.1%- If the project is within 'r: mile of both MetroRail 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%. d. 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. e. Person trips will be calculated and assigned to the Transit and Pedestrian/Bicycle Modes. • Distribute trips via Cardinal Trip Distribution obtained MUATS for 2005. • 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, I-95, W. Flagler St and SW 13 St, 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. The initial list of committed developments will be supplied to URS for review, prior to incorporation into the analysis. • • • 2 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 (HCM). • Driveway Analysis • Required input for Signal analyses includes: • roadway geometry • turning movement volumes • traffic signal timing (cycle lengths and phasing) • Corridor Analysis for three 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. • SW 7th Street and SW 8th Street between South Miami Avenue and 2nd Avenue (since these are a one-way pair) to attempt to adhere the corridor analysis suggestions made in the Downtown DRI Update. This will be done for eastbound and westbound PM peaks. • South Miami Avenue between Miami River And SW 8 St • SW 2"a Avenue between Miami River and SW 8 St. • Proposed Traffic Control Management (if needed) 2.1 Methodology Development Meetings Conversations were held with the City of Miami's Traffic Consultant to review the parameters of the above referenced methodology.. In recent studies, utilization of methodology set forth in the City of Miami Downtown DRI has been used. • • Project Location THE CORRADINO GROUP Project Area BrickeII Citi Centre (MUSP) • • • 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 development's 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 March of 2005. Traffic counts (TMC and ATR, please refer to the appendix) were taken at the following intersections: • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and Brickell Avenue • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and SW 15t Avenue • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and S. Miami Ave • SR 90 / SW 8"' Street and Brickell Ave • SR 90 / SW 8`', Street and SW IS` Avenue • SR 90 / SW 8"' Street and S Miami Avenue 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 CitiCenter project will consist of 2368 High-rise Condo (residential dwelling units), 176,300 SF of Office and 98.250 SF of Retail developments. 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 of 14.1% are based on projected modal splits used in the original Downtown DRI, and 15% reductions for pedestrian and bicycle. All methodologies are based on the Downtown Miami DRI increment II. This project will generate a gross of about 1475 PM peak -hour total vehicle trips. With adjustments for transit, vehicle occupancy and pedestrian and bicycles there will be 810 net vehicle trips associated with the development. Converted into person trips for vehicle and transit modes there will be 1424 peak -hour trips. Data for this is in the appendix. Trips were then distributed using the cardinal trip distribution for TAZ number 568. This distribution is based on the MUATS & year 2030 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 appendix. • • • 10 • • 12 3.5 Future Roadway Projects The Study area is becoming an increasingly populated residential area just south of Downtown Miami, It is serviced by arterial surface streets and in relative close proximity to expressways and served by bus routes, MetroRail and the People Mover. The combination of these makes the study area very accessible. which can be attributed to the areas increasing popularity and redevelopment potential. The MPO has several billions 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 densification 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 Intermodal Center. the Northeast Corridor Extension and the BayLink projects. In addition, the passage of the S0.005 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, The Long Range 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 and beyond (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 ingress/egress improvements in downtown Miami, from SW 8th St. to SW 1 s` Street. • Accelerate Program to provide ADA accessibility to bus stops throughout the county. According to the MPO's adopted 2005 Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.), there are a few transportation projects within the proposed site general area as follows: SR 90 / SW 7'' Street (FDOT FM 8 4.164171 & 4124811) • Sidewalk (SW 12 Ave -- SW 4`1' Ave) Construction (CST) = FY 06/07 • Resurfacing/reconstruction (US-1/Brickell SW 8th Street) --- CST = FY 05/06 SR 90 / SW 8th Street (4164201 & 4146461) • Sidewalk (Tamiami Canal Dr — SW 4th Ave) — CST = FY 04/05 • Resurfacing (SW 24`!' Ave -- SW 4th Ave) — CST = FY 07/08 SR 972 / Coral Way (4124751) • Resurfacing (SW 12 Ave — Brickell Ave) — CST = FY 06/07 US-1 /SR 5 /Brickell Ave (4124731) • Resurfacing (256' Rd — SE 4'h Street) — CST = FY 08/09 I-95 (2516623 & 4106799) • Pavement rehabilitation (US-1 — NW 1 1 th Street) — CST = FY 06/07 • Landscaping (US-1 -- SW 8"' Street) — CST = FY 08/09 Other Improvement (2512623) • Sidewalk, East Little Havana (S.River Dr. — Jose Marti Park) — CST -- FY 06/07 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. According to the City, the following twelve are the only ones that are applicable or that data exists for. These include: • Brickell Commons • Neovertika • 900 Biscayne • Brickell Station • Mary Brickell • Premiere Towers • Opus • Brickell on the River • 500 Brickell • Beacon & Brickell • 1060 Brickell • Riverfront 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. For locations of committed developments please refer to the appendix under tab titled "COMMITTED". • 13 • • • 14 • (PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK) • • 15 • • 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 intersections and along corridors was performed. Traffic counts were adjusted for peak season and background growth rate for 2% was provided for three 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 Was Tables for each roadway classification. A °L:\__:TY Ahn LEVEL Or SERVICE C D 4.2 Existing Conditions LOS Analysis Traffic perfoi Enance was calculated at six intersections in the vicinity of the project. Results of the existing conditions analysis indicate that one (SW 8'h St & Brickell) of the study intersections operate beyond the allowable LOS E+ standard. i 16 • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and Brickell Avenue (SR-5) intersection is operating at LOS C • SR 90 / SW 7th Street and SW 1st Avenue is operating at LOS B • SR 90 / SW 7t Street and S Miami Avenue is operating at LOS B • SR 90 / SW 8`h Street and Brickell Avenue is operating at LOS F • • SR 90 / SW 8th Street and SW 1'` Avenue is operating at LOS C • SR 90 / SW 8t1 Street and S Miami Avenue is operating at LOS C 4.3 Future Conditions With Project 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 exceed the allowable LOS E + standard, except for one location which is SW 8`'' St and Brickell. Table 3: Intersection LOS Performance • • 17 + + + SR 90 / SW 7 Street and Brickell Avenue D_..._M. 45.7 0.96 SR 90 / SW 7th Street and SW 151 Avenue F / B* 94.4 / 19.3* 0.87 70.87* SR 90 / SW 7th Street and S Miami Avenue C 20.8 0.74 SR 90 / SW 8Street and Brickell Avenue F/ F* 191.1 147.4* 1.71 / 1.44* SR 90 / SW 8th Street and SW 1st Avenue C 24.7 0.60 SR 90 / SW 8th Street and S Miami Avenue B 16.5 0.66 Results with optimized signalization. Note that on SW 8th St/Brickell the Delay has been reduced by approx 23% and the V/C by approx 16%. 4.5 Person Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis To analyze this development's 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 and future (2007) with background traffic, committed traffic and future traffic (2007) with the project. The segments are: SR 90 / SW 7th Street (Brickell Ave to 1-95) SR 90 / SW 8th Street (I-95 to Brickell Ave) S Miami Avenue (Miami River to SW 8th Street) SW 1'` Avenue (Miami River to SW 8`' Street) SW 2"d Avenue (Miami River to SW 8th Street) • • 18 This analysis was performed 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. Corridor segments operated at or better than LOS C. Below are two tables. One covers the Roadway portion only and the other the Roadway. Transit and the Segment Total. They are also included in the appendix, plus an additional table covering just the Transit and the Segment Total. • • • 21 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 taps, 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 approve this development, as it has no significant negative impacts to traffic and circulation in the study area. With the exception of the intersection of SW S`' St and Brickell Ave, all roadway links and the rest of the intersections will not exceed the LOS E± standard. It should be noted that this intersection of SW 8`'' St and Brickell Ave is already operating at LOS F under existing conditions and will continue to operate at LOS F with background, committed and project's traffic. Due to existing physical constraints, it will not be practical to widen both SW 8`1' Street and Brickell Avenue within this general area, due to the associated potentially high Right -of -Way acquisition and construction costs. • • • 22 APPENDICIES There are several appendices associated with this report. Each contains information specific to the data and analysis undertaken. • Trip Generation: (TRIP GEN tab) o Site Project Trip Generation Analysis (PM) o LU 232: Highrise Resdential Condo (2,368 DU) o LU 710: General Office (176,300 SF) a LU 814: Specialty Retail (32,750 SF) o LU 850: SuperMarket (32,750 SF) o Passer-by Trips o LU 931: Quality Restaurant (32,750 SF) o Passer-by Trips o Retail Distribution Details o Table 21.C1: DRI II Mode Splits o Table 21.C2: Trip internalization • Trip Distribution: (TRIP DIST tab) o TAZ 568 Traffic Assignments (North, South, East & West) o Cardinal Distribution o TAZ Map o MPO MUATS 2030 Cover Page o MPO MUATS 2030 — TAZ 568 o Figure: Percent Traffic Assignment (In & Out) • Signal Timing / Seasonal Factors: (TIMING / FACTORS tab) o Traffic Signal Asset ID o Signal Timing (6 Intersections) o FDOT Axle and Seasonal Factors (2003) • TMC's & ATR's (TMC'S / ATR tab) o Intersection Approach Volumes (3 Sheets) o TMC Data with Peaks (12 Sheets) o Table T-2: Peak Hour Volumes o ATR Data (5 Links) • Committed Developments: (COMMITTED) o Committed Developments Spreadsheet o Twelve Committed Developments (14 Sheets) • Transit: (TRANSIT tab) o Existing Bus V/C • Person Trip (Corridor Analysis): (PERSON TRIP tab) o Table T4: Person Trip V/C Analysis Table ■ Person Trip Roadway Mode (Portion) ■ Person Trip Segmental Total o Project Traffic • • o LOS Table • Intersection Analysis: (INT ANALYSIS tab) o Site Traffic Figure o Seasonally Adjusted Existing Volumes Figure (PM Peak) o Proposed PM Peak Hour Volumes o Seasonally Adj. Existing Condition Analysis (6 Intersections) o Proposed Condition LOS Analysis (6 Intersections) o Optimized Conditions: o Optimized Conditions for: ■ SE 8 St & Brickell Ave (Existing Condition) ■ SE 8 St & Brickell Ave (Proposed Condition) SW 7 St & SW 1 Ave (Proposed Condition) 23