HomeMy WebLinkAboutTraffic Impact AnalysisARCHITECTS
February, 12 2004
Caniilo Alvarado
Lab Group Developers
1395 SW 22 Street 2A
Miami, Florida 33145
`f y
ENGINEERS PLANNERS
ARCH. . LIC. NO. AA0002957
CONSTRUCTION
RE: KUBIK
Dear Mr. Alvarado,
This letter addresses changes to land use quantities for the KUBIK project. A MUSP Traffic
Impact Analysis was approved by the City in January of 2003.
The results show that all aspects of the project are acceptable and fall within Level of Service
thresholds developed by the City of Miami. In no way should issues regarding traffic have a
negative impact on the approval of this development.
For the analysis t was programmed to ':; 93
4,106 quality restaurant 35,350 — .--
specialty retail...
KUBIK has made minor modifications to its application in two proposals. It is our opinion that
these modifications are minor and will have no substantive impact on the level of service
thresholds.
Current
Analysis
Trip Gen
URDB
9/2/04
Trip Gen
URD13 Alt
9/2/04
Trip Gen
Residential Units
293
111
293
111
293
111
Resturant
4106
31
-
0
-
0
Retail
35350
92
28156
73
-
0
Office
-
13589
20
33046
49
Total Sq Ft / Trips
, 39456
2347 41745
204
33046
160
n_r
Trip Gen Rates: Res= .38tunit; Resturant= st Reta1= .
As can be seen from the table, the current analysis generates fewer trips than both options, and
therefore will have not have an adverse affect on the mobility system of the surrounding area.
In addition, site access had been modified and will only be provided off of NE 4th Ct. This is in
response to neighborhood concerns.
Sincerely,
The Corradino Group, Inc.
Joseph M. Corradino, AICP
Executive Vice President
Fort Lauderdale
_PV53 i ".111 7Lh ;- '_me
Miami
West Palm Beach Louisville Indianapolis
Detroit Evansville
1:1.am` FI✓rda333_78 Tel: 35.594.0735
_ 305.5794.0'755
KUBIK MUSP
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
9.03
by THE CORRADINO GROUP
and Richard GARCIA and Associates
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This following details the results of a traffic irnpact study for KUBIK DEVELOPMENT. The
purpose of this study was to identify the traffic impacts associated with the project, which will be
located at the intersection of NE 4'h Court and Biscayne Boulevard. The project will consist of
286 residential condominium units along with approximately 28,490 square feet of general
office and 17,306 square feet of specialty retail.
The goal of this report is to present, for the study intersections and transportation corridors, the
existing conditions, and the future traffic conditions with project and plus traffic from committed
development.
1.1 Existing PM Peale Hour Traffic Performance
Traffic performance was calculated at five intersections in the vicinity of the project. Results of
the existing conditions analysis indicate that only one study intersection operates worse than
LOS E+.
• The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 62nd Street is operating at LOS C+
• The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 615' Street is operating at LOS F
• The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 54'h Street is operating at LOS B
• The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 50'h Ter. is operating at LOS B+
• The intersection of Federal Highway and NE 54' Street is operating at LOS C
1.2 Future (2005) PM Peak Flour Traffic Performance with Project Plus Committed Development
The results of the analysis of future traffic conditions without the project indicate that with the
addition of the natural growth in traffic and growth of background traffic from other projects,
the performance of the study intersections are expected to remain relatively constant.
The results of the analysis of future traffic conditions with the project plus cornrnitted traffic
indicate that conditions will not worsen significantly when project traffic is added.
Table 1: Intersection LOS Performance
Intersection
Level of Service
Delay
Voiume/Capacity
Existing / With
Project
+Committed
Existing / With Project
+Committed
Existing / With Project
+Committed
Biscayne Blvd and NE 62nd Street
C+ / C+
21.8 /
28.1
.80 /
.86
Biscayne Blvd and NE 61" Street
F / F
108.9 /
134.1
1.01 /
1.08
Biscayne Blvd and NE 54'h Street
8 / B
16.2/
17.4
.61 /
.65
Biscayne Blvd and NE 50th Ter
B+ / B+
12.9 /
14.4
.67 /
.72
Federal Highway and NE 54" Street
C / C
32.3 /
34.4
.45 /
.47
1.3 Corridor Analysis
A corridor analysis was performed as called for in the Miami DRI. Here, person trip volurne
and capacity analysis were examined. All segments perform better than the required LOS E.
Table 2: Person Trip Volume and Capacity Analysis
ROADWAY
FROM
EXISTING CONDITION
(Seasonally Adjusted)
Biscayne Blvd.
TO
DIR
Roadway
Segment
Total
Segment
MIAMI
ADOPTED Roadway
LOS LOS
TOTAL
SEGMENT
LOS
NE 62 St
NE 61 St SB
NE 61 St
NE 54 St SB
NE 54 St
NE 50 Terr SB
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 50th Terr
NE 54 St NB
E C
NE 54 St
NE 61 St NB
E D
C
NE 61 St
NE 62 St NB
E D
0
NE 54 St
Biscayne Blvd.
Fed Hwy EB
Fed Hwy
WITH BACKGROUND
(2005)
Biscayne
Blvd.
WB
Biscayne Blvd
NE 62 St
NE 61 St S8
O
NE 61 St
NE 54 St SB
NE 54 St
NE 50 Terr SB
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 50th Terr
NE54St NB
NE 54 St
NE 61 St NB
D C
NE 61 St
NE 62 St NB
E
F D
NE 64 St
Biscayne Blvd.
Fed Hwy EB
B B
Fed Hwy
Biscayne
Blvd. WB
B B
ITH PROJECT AND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (2005)
Biscayne Blvd.
1.0 Introduction
The following details the results of a traffic impact study for KUBIK DEVELOPMENT. The
purpose of this study was to identify the traffic impacts associated with the project, which will be
located at the intersection of NE 4'h Court and Biscayne Boulevard. The project will consist of
286 residential condominium units along with approximately 28,490 square feet of general
office and 17,306 square feet of specialty retail.
The goal of this report is to present, for the study intersections and transportation corridor, the
existing conditions, and the future traffic conditions with project and plus traffic from committed
projects.
2.0 Traffic Impact 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 is a scope of services for the work performed:
• Meetings with MDCPW, FDOT and City of Miami to discuss study scope and
parameters
• Traffic counts
Full set of updated traffic counts (five in total)
Turning movements peaks, adjusted seasonally as required)
• 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
a. Calculate trip reductions
b. Vehicle occupancy adjustment for Miami from increment II DRI
c. Transit, 14.1 %- If the project is within 1/2 mile of both MetroRail
and Metro mover stops. The 14.1 percent reduction is
consistent with the Increment II DRI methodology.
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 from the Miami
Dade County FSUTMS model
• Assign trips to transportation network
• Evaluate transit capacity on this study corridor
• Assess Planned Roadway Improvements
0
Ff CI LI R� .
1[\,I ILI
€ st l [ E163r {fit
I �•
E I � l
NW 62nd s� E. 2nd S A '
1 ` NE 6Oth S.t
NW, Ot t._St '; 0t3th, t , - .
Caribbe n
l Marketplace
N1 9t-Ott==t
-•L#3 - ti--."t4•1 ----I [::::::t.,,,,_.
N t
NW •hi: -St.. ..
earn 1 .�:
'. l ` 1 h Sfi �i 1 .I 11 \
I I' N 55th T rrc>
.l E �h t E 5thS ......
_Ai._v4ih . t:.::.
KUBIK Stu!Area
•
i sr
. NE
0 mi 0.1 0.2 0.3 0,4 0.5
Copyright ®1988.2� 3p0 Microsoft Corp. and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved. http:f/www microsoft.comfstreets
® Copyright 2002 by Geographic Data Technology, Inc. Alt rights reserved. ® 2002 Navigation Technologies. All rights reserved. This data includes information taken with permission from Canadian authorities e 1991-2002 Government of Canada
(Statistics Canada and/or Geomatics Canada), all rights reserved.
® 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 Manua/ (HCM).
Intersections to be determined in discussions with City
County and FDOT
Required input for Signal analyses includes:
roadway geometry
turning movement volumes
traffic signal timing (cycle lengths and phasing)
• Person -trip capacity analysis is performed using the same person -trip
volume, capacity and LOS methodology as specified in the Increment II
DRI for Miami for the Transportation Corridor
2.1 Scope Development Meetings
Telephone conversations were held with FDOT and the City of Miami's Traffic Consultant to
review the parameters of this scope of services. Biscayne Boulevard is a State Road, and as
such MDCPW will defer to FDOT on how it should be analyzed. FDOT generally has a less
intensive methodology that that put together for this study. In recent studies, utilization of
methodology set forth in the City of Miami Downtown DRI has been used. It is acknowledged
that this project is not within the DRI, yet the same methodology has been chosen. As a note, it
would be an asset to the City and future traffic consultants, if a formal MUSP methodology
were compiled and disseminated.
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 on Tuesday September 9, 2003, Traffic counts (appendix A) were
taken at five intersections:
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 62" Street
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 61' Street
o Biscayne Boulevard and NE 54th Street
o Biscayne Boulevard and NE 50'h Ter.
o Federal Highway and NE 54th Street
Geometric conditions were developed from onsite observation. Volumes were adjusted for
peak season factors as suggested by FDC)T's Transportation Statistics Office (appendix A)
3.2 Signal Data
Signal data was collected from the computerized Miami -Dade County Traffic Control Systenn.
This data is located in appendix B.
o The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 62" Street is county asset number
4777, which has a 110 second cycle length in the PM Peak.
o The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 61' Street is county asset number
2109, which has a 110 second cycle length in the PM Peak.
o The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 54'h Street is county asset number
2103, which has a 110 second cycle length in the PM Peak.
• The intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 50' Terrace is county asset number
4397, which has a 110 second cycle length in the PM Peak.
• The intersection of Federal Highway and NE 54th Street is county asset number
2105, which has a 110 second cycle length in the PM Peak.
3.3 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, 6th Edition.
The KUBIK DEVELOPMENT project will consist of 286 residential condominium units along
with approximately 28,490 square feet of general office and 17,306 square feet of specialty
retail. 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. .Ali methodologies are based on the Downtown
Miami DRI Increment II.
This project will generate about 325 total trips_ With adjustments for transit, vehicle occupancy
and pedestrian and bicycles there will be 178 net vehicle trips associated with the
development. Converted into person trips for vehicle and transit modes there will be 314 trips
in addition to 68 pedestrian and bicycle trips, for a total of 382 person trips. Data for this is in
Appendix C.
Trips were then distributed using the cardinal trip distribution for TAZ number 485. 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.
•
•
62 St
61 St
15-4A-
8
8
54 St
L
Fp'
29
29
9
15 -11
0 15 19
'co
50
36
22
co
a)
50 Terr
10 5 „, tO
T
5 5 17
CO
14\
NTS
• Ana I yzed Intersect I on
Fig.
%S.
Percent (%)
In
KUBIK MUST
Traffic Assignment
15 62 St
7
61 St
54 SI-
15
3622
22
03
029
50 T err LL
401.13
10 .4*-i5 /24
5 17
CO
NTS
0 Analyzed Intersection
F t g
Percent (%)
Out
KUBIK MUST
Traffic Assignment
Table 3:
Site Project Trip Generation Anolysis
Land Use (LU)
High -Rise Residential
General Office
Specialty Retail
Units
286 D.U.
28,490 SF
17,306 SF
1TE LU
CODE
231
710
814
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
ITE TRIP GENERATION
RATE
0.83
1.49
2.59
1N
OUT
TOTAL
57%
17%
43%
Trips
134
7
19
43%
83%
57%
Trips
103
35
26
TRIPS
237
42
45
Gross Vehicle Trips
Vehicle Occupancy Adjustment (8
Transit Trip Reduction @
Pedestrian/Bicycle Trip Reduction @
Net Vehicle Trips
Net Person Trips in Vehicles
Net Person Trips in Transit 9,
Net Person Trips (Vehicle and Transit Modes)
Net Person Trips (Walking/Bicycling) t
16.0% Of Gross Trips
14,1% Of Gross Trips
15.0% Of Gross Trips
1.40 Persons! Vehicle
1.40 Persons/ Vehicle
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
161
26
23
24
88
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
164
26
23
25
90
50% 124 50% 126
325
52
46
49
178
250
50% 32 50% 32 64
50%
155
50%
158
1.40 Persons/ Vehicle 50% 34 50% 34
NOTES:
A 16% OCCUPANCY ADJUSTMENT IS BASED ON MIAMI'S 1.4 VERSUS ITE'S 1.2 PERSNEH.
TRANSIT TRIP REDUCTION BASED ON PROJECTED MODAL SPLITS USED IN THE ORIGINAL DOWNTOWN DPI.
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE REDUCTIONS WERE BASED ON THE DOWNTOWN CHARACTERISTICS.
314
68
3.4 Transit Capacity
Key to understanding the true impacts of the project on corridors in the area, the existing and
proposed directional transit volume and capacity was needed. This was obtained verbally from
MDT. Discussions with MDT suggest that a 10% peak to daily ratio was conservative. The
peak to daily ration was adjusted by 50% to account for directional distribution. Six bus routes
access the site, with headways of between 10 and 20 minutes. PM Peak rout capacity is 276,
and there is a daily ridership of 1479. The transit V/C is .27, noting excess capacity for this
mode.
F. ure 5: Transit Locations
Table 4: Existing and Proposed Directional Transit (bus) Volume to Capacity
CORRIDOR
TRANSIT
ROUTE
Additional
Description
2003-2005
Peak Hr.
Headway
NUMBER
OF
TRANSIT
VEHICLES
IN PM PK
HOUR
TRANSIT
VEHICLES
NUMBER
OF SEATS
TRANSIT
VEHICLE
LOAD @
150%
CAPACITY
ROUTE PM
PEAK
CAPACITY
Average
Daily
Ridershi
p
Peak to
DailyPeak
Ratio
PM
Volume
TransitTRANSIT
vlc
BISCAYNE
BL.VD
3
15
4
41
62
246
6381
0.05
319
0.74
16
20
3
41
62
185
62
10
6
41
62
369
2615
0.05
131
0.35
93
Bise Max
15
4
41
62
246
1134
0.05
57
0.23
TOTAL
1046
506
0.48
NE 54TH
STREET
54
15
4
46
69
276
1479
0.05
74
0.27
TOTAL
276
1479
74
0.27
Note: Capacities are in each direction. Ridership information obtained
verbally from MDT. Discussions with MDT suggested that a 10 % peak to
daily ratio was conservative. The peak to daily ratio was adjusted by 50% to
account for directional distribution.
3.5 Future Roadway Protects
The Study area is becoming a densely populated residential area north of Downtown
Miami. li 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 densification of the Urban lnfiil 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
Inter -nodal Center, the Northeast Corridor Extension and the BayLink proects. 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_
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
o Provide 15-minute or better bus service
Rapid Transit Improvements 2003-2008
(Construction of up to 88.9 Miles of countywide rapid transit lines)
s 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 8 St.
to SW 1 ' Avenue.
® Accelerate Program to provide ADA accessibility to bus stops throughout the
county.
There are no other roadway improvement scheduled for the protect area
3.6 Committed Developments
According to the most recent "Private Development Report" composed by the City of
Miami, there are no concurrent developments in the study area.
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 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 Appendix ❑:
Adjustments.
Level of Service analysis was performed for the existing conditions. Growth trends were
analyzed and ►evel 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_
Figure 6: Level of Service
C]t:AL.ITY ..NIA LEVEL OF SERVICE
0
4.2 Existing Conditions LOS Analysis
The traffic counts for each intersection were input in to the SINGAL 2000 software for a
Capacity analysis. Individual outputs can be found in Appendix E. The results of this
analysis shows that the south approach at Biscayne Boulevard and NE 61' Street is
currently at a LOS F. This leg has a service volume at LOS E of 1449 vph, while 1931
vph currently use the street. This provides a v/c of 1.3 and a delay of 180.1 seconds.
All other legs of this intersection function at or better than D+ which is better than LOS
E which is allowed. Because this leg fails, the intersection as a whole fails.
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 62' Street is operating at LOS C-r
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 61$' Street is operating at LOS F
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 54`h Street is operating at LOS B
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 50' Ter. is operating at LOS B+
• Federal Highway and NE 54'h Street is operating at LOS C
43 Future Conditions, Committed Developments With Out Project LOS Analysis
As there are no committed developments in the study area, traffic only worsens due to
the natural growth of traffic over three years.
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 62' Street is operating at LOS C-i-
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 61' Street is operating at LOS F
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 54' Street is operating at LOS B
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 50' Ter. is operating at LOS B+
▪ Federal Highway and NE 54' Street is operating at LOS C
4.4 Future Conditions With Project LOS Analysis
The results of the analysis of future traffic conditions with the project indicate that with the
addition of the natural growth in traffic and growth of background traffic from other
proects, of which there are none, the performance of the study intersections are expected
to remain relatively constant.
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 62nd Street is operating at LOS C+
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 615' Street is operating at LOS F
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 54' Street is operating at LOS B
• Biscayne Boulevard and NE 50' Ter. is operating at LOS B-t-
• Federal Highway and NE 54'h Street is operating of LOS C
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 5: Intersection LOS Performance
Intersection
Level of Service
Delay
Volume/Capacity
Existing /Comm WO Pjt
Existing /Comm WO Pjt
/Comm W Pjt
Existing /Comm WO
Pjt /Comm W Pjt
/Comm W Pjt
Biscayne Blvd and NE 62nd
Street
C+ /C +/C+
21.8 / 25.2 / 28.1
.8 0 / .84 /.86
Biscayne Blvd and NE 61"
Street
F / F/ F
108.9 / 128.5 / 134.1
1.01 / 1.07 / 1.08
Biscayne Blvd and NE 54'
Street
B / 8 / B
16.2/ 17.1 / 17.4
.61 / .64 / .65
Biscayne Blvd and NE 50'h Ter
3+ / B+/ B+
12.9 / 14.2 / 14.4
67 / .71 / .72
Federal Highway and NE 54'
Street
C / C /C
,.......E
32.3 / 35.2/ 34.4
45 / .48 /.47
45 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 (2005) with background traffic and future (2005) with the
project. The segments were:
o Biscayne Boulevard (SB)
a NE61 St toNE54St
• NE 61 St to NE 54 St
• NE54SttoNE50Terr
o Biscayne Boulevard (NB)
• NE 54 St to NE 50 Terr
• NE61 St toNE54St
• NE61 St toNE54St
o NE 54'h Street (EB / WB)
3 Biscayne Blvd to Federal Hwy
• Federal Hwy to Biscayne Blvd
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 io 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 Appendix F.
•
•
•
Table 6: PERSON TRIP VOLUME AND CAPACITY ANALYS S
ROADWAY
FROM
EXISTING CONDITION
(Seasonally Adjusted)
Roadway
Total
Segment
MIAMI
ADOPTED Roadway
TO DIR LOS LOS
TOTAL
SEGMENT
LOS
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 62 St
NE 61 St SB
NE 61 St
NE 54 St SB
NE 54 St
NE 50 Terr SB
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 50th Terr
NE 54 St NB
NE 54 St
NE 61 St NB
NE 61 St
NE 62 St NB
NE 54 St
Biscayne Blvd.
Fed Hwy
WITH BACKGROUND
TRAFFIC (2005)
Biscayne Blvd.
Fed Hwy EB
Biscayne
Blvd. WB E 8
NE 62 St
NE 61 St SB
NE 61 St
NE 54 St SB
NE 54 St
NE 50 Terr SB
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 50th Terr
NE 54 St NB
NE 54 St
NE61St NB
NE 61 St
NE 62 St NB
NE 54 St
Biscayne Blvd.
Fed Hwy EB
Biscayne
Fed Hwy Blvd. WB E B
WITH PROJECT AND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC (2005)
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 62 St
NE 61 St
SB
NE 61 St
NE 54 St
SB
NE 54 St
NE 50 Terr
SB
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 50th Terr
NE 54 St
NB
NE 54 St
NE 61 St
NB
NE 61 St
NE 62 St
NB
E
NE 54 St
Biscayne Blvd.
Fed Hwy
EB
Fed Hwy
Biscayne
Blvd.
WB
5.0 Recommendations
It is recommended that the City undertake a signal timing analysis of the corridor and attempt to
optimize or balance the timing to relieve some of the delay at the intersection of Biscayne Blvd
and NE 61 st Street. Only the South approach of this intersection fails. All others operate no
worse then D+, which is acceptable. This condition exists today prior to construction of the
development, and is only moderately exacerbated with this project.
NE 62 St
NE 61 St
SB
E
C
C
NE 61 St
NE54St
SB
E
C
C
NE 54 St
NE 50 Terr
SB
E
C
C
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 50th Terr
NE 54 St
NB
E
C
C
NE 54 St
NE 61 St
NB
E
C
C
NE 61 St
NE62St
NB
E
F
D
NE 54 St
Biscayne Blvd.
Fed Hwy
EB
E
B
B
Fed Hwy
Biscayne
Blvd.
WB
E
B
B
Recommendations
It is recommended that. the City undertake a signal timing analysis of the corridor and attempt
to optimize or balance the timing to relieve some of the delay at the intersection of Biscayne
Blvd and NE 61 st Street. Only the South approach of this intersection fails. All others operate
no worse then D-r, which is acceptable. This condition exists today prior to the developments
construction, and is only moderately exacerbated with this project.
SEP. 12. 28Cl3 12:31PM
NO.8155
BISCAYNE BLVD
Southbound
Start Time
Factor
16:00
16:15
18:30
15:45
Left
1,0
1
0
0
Total 2
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
0
2
Total 4
Grand
Total
Apprch %
Total %
6
0.2
0.1
Thru
1.0
246
269
275
299
108
9
293
304
276
272
114
5
223
4
91.5
38.0
1.0
24
25
23
29
Ped
3
1.0
0
0
0
0
100 0
20
26
15
29
App.
Total
271
285
298
327
1191
0 323
0 332
0 292
0 302
100 0 1249
200 0 2440
8.2 0.0
3.2 0.0 39.4
BISCAYNE BLVD
6-outbound
LStart Time Lett
/iak Hour From
ntersect° t6:G5
Volume
Percent
High Int.
Volume
Peak
Factor
•
Left
METRIC ENGINEERING
13940 S.W 136 Street
Miami, FL 33186
Tel: 305-235-5098 Fax; 305-251-5894
Groups Print
NE 62 S !MEET
Westbound
ru
RIgh Ped
5
1.0
0
1.0
1
1.0
2
1
0
File Name : Biscayne Blvd & NE 62 St
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 09/09/2003
Page :1
IS -TRUCKS
BISCAYNE BLVD
Northbound
App.
Total
1.0
0
0
0
0
4
2
2
2
3 3 4 0 10
1 1 0 0 2
2 0 3 0 5
4 1 4 0 9
2 1 3 0 8
9 3 10 0 22
Lott Thru
1.0
25
17
12
13
67
15
24
28
14_
80
1.0
418
453
422
488
175
9
481
444
445
429
179
9
Rig
hi
1.0
0
6
1
1
Ped
1.0
0
0
0
0
APP.
441
476
435
482
NE 82 STREET
Eastbound
Left I Thr
1,0
0
0
0
0
u
Rig Ped
hi s
1.0
0
0
1.0 1.0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
APP-
Totaf
0
0
0
715
773
735
811
8 0 1834 0 0 0 0 0 3035
0
4
6
2
12
0 497
O 472
0 477
O 445
O 1691
12 6 14 0 22 147 20 0 3725
37.5 19.8 43.8 0.0 3.9 95.5 0.5 0.0
0.2 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.5 2.4 57.4 0.3 0.0 60.1
0 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
822
809
778
753
0
3152
O 0 0 0 0 8197
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Thru I R;gh Pod
t 5
00to17:45- Peak 10
3 117
2
0.2 92.0
17:00
0 293
App' Left
Total j
99 0 1274
7.8 0.0
30 0 323
NE 62 STREET
Westbound
Thru
Rlgh ( Ped
t; 5
App.
Total
8 2 8 0 18
44.4 11.1 44,4 0.0
1 1 0 0
Left
79
BISCAYNE BLVD
Northbound
Rig Ped
Thru l ht s
183
8
4.1 95.3 0.6 0.0
11
16 481 0
APP-
Totsl
O 1928
O 497
NE 62 STREET
Eastbound
Lett Thr Rig ' Pod ) App. Int_
t u ht s ; Total Total
0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0
3220
0 0 0 0 0 822
0.979
SEE. 12, 2003 12:31FM
NC.8155 P, 3
r
BISCAYNE BLVD
Southbound
Stan Time Loft Thru s
Factor 1,0- 1.0 1,0 1.0,
1 &:00 1 247 0 0 248
16;15 0 269 0 0 269
16;30 0 276 0 0 276
18:45 0 298 0 0 298
109
0
Total
17:00
17;15
17:30
17:45
2
0
6
Total 9
Grand
Total
Apprch %
Total %
293
304
280
287
114
4
223
4
0.4 99.8 0.0 0.0
0.2 36.4 0.0 0.0 36,5
nigh P
0
0
Total
1091
0 0 294
O 0 306
0 0 280
0 0 273
0 0 1153
10
O 0 22
METRIC ENGINEEF1ING
13940 S.W 136 Street
Miami, FL 33186
Tel: 305-235-5098 Fax: 305.251-5894
File Name : Biscayne Blvd & NE 61 St
Site Code ; 00000000
Start Date : 09/09/2003
Page :1
Groups Frinted_ CARS - TRUCKS
NE 61 STREET BISCAYNE BLVD
Westbound Northbound
Lett Thru High Ped'" App. Left Thru Rig Ped '
t s Total ht
1.0E 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 1,0 1.0
3 0 12 0 15 0 394 0
3 0 6 0 9 0 407 1
10 0 2 0 12 0 391 2
5 0 6 0 11 0 428 2
21 0 26 0 47 0 162
0
3
3
1
9
9
6
3 0 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
12
7
11
0
0
0
0
10 0 32 0 42 0
3t 0 58 0 89
34.6 0.0 65.2 0.0
0.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.4
BISCAYNE BLVD NE 61 STREET
Southbaund Westbound
Start Tirne Left Thru Rlgn Ped I otal Left Thru
f s T
p. Hi Ped ' App.
t s i Total
eakHourFrorn 16:00 to 17:45 •Peak 1 of 1
.lnterec10 16:45
n
volume
Percent
High Int,
Volume
Peak
Factor
3
0.3
17:15
2 304
117
5
99.7 0.0 0.0
O 0 1175
O 0 306
12 0 30 0 42
28.6 0.0 71.4 0,0
3 0 9
442
416
435...
387
168
0 330
1
0.0 99.7
0.0 53.7
Left
1.0
0
0
0
0
APP.
Total
394
408
393
430
5 0 1825
0
2
1
3
0
0
0
0
442
418
437
390
6 0 1687
11 0 3312
0.3 0.0
0.2 0.0 53.9
Thru
BISCAYNE BLVD
Northbound
Rig Pet!`
ht s
0 172
2
0.0 99.7 0.3 0.0
NE 61 STREET
Eastbound
Left Thr Rio r Ped
ht s
Total
1.0 ; 1.0 1.0 1.0
35 9 28 0 72
40 3 30 0 73
29 8 16 1 54
34 9 26 0 68
138 28 100 1 267
33 4 23 0
43 2 31 0
35 3 14 0
30 4 8 0
60
76
52
42
fnt.
Total
728
759
735
007
3030
606
812
776
716
141 13 76 0
230
279 41 178 1 497
56.1 8.2 35.4 02
4.5 0,7 2.9 0.0 8.1
App.
Total
5 0 1727
NE 61 STREET
3112
6142
P. Int
Left I -u nt - s Total Total
Eastbound
Thr Rip r Pout
145 17 94 0 256
56.8 6.6 36.7 0.0
0 12 0 416 2 0 418 43 2 31 0 76
3203
812
0.998
SEP. 12. 2003 12:31PM
NO. 8115
r
•
•
FEDERAL HWY
Southbound
Start Time
Factor
16:00
18:15
18:30
16:45
Total
eft
7
2
7
9
25
Thni
1.0
25
21
14
22
82
High
1.0
9
5
2
10
26
Pad
3
1,0
0
0
0
0
0
17:00 3 29 8 0
17:15 6 14 2 0
17:30 4 19 7 0
17:45 8 20 6 0
Total 21 82 23 0
Grand
Total
App %
Total %
46 164 49 0
17,8 83.3 18.9 0.0
1.7 5.9 1.8 0.0
ADP.
Total
41
28
23
41
133
40
22
30
34
126
259
9.3
Left
METRIC ENGINEERING
13940 S.W 138 Street File Name
Miami, FL 33186 Site Code
Tel: 305-235-5096 Fax 305-251-5894
Groups Pri
NE 54 STREET
Westbound
Thru
1.0 1.0
2 28
0 31
1 31
1 34
4 124
Righ Ped
t s
1.0 1.0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
2 0
0 42 0
2 39 0
0 38 1
2 35 0
4 156
d: CARS - TRUCKS
APp.
Total
30
31
34
35
130
Left
1.0
42
36
35
74
187
: Federal Hwy & NE 54 Street
:00000000
Start Date : 09/09/2003
Page :1
FEDERAL HWY
Northbound
RigThru
ht s
1,0 1.0 1.0
87 33 0
111 38 0
110 30 0
135 44 0
443 145 0
0 42 45 108 39
0 41 36 131 53
0 39 44 111 32
0 41 42 94 34
0 163 167 444 158
8 282 3 0 293
2.7 96.2 1.0 0.0
0.3 10.1 0.1 0.0 10.5
FEDERAL HWY
Southbound
Start Time Left Thru Ri9h Pad] App.
t s I Total
Peak Hour From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1
Intersectlo 18:45
Volume 22 84 27 0 133
Percent 16,5 63.2 20,3 0.0
High Int. 18:45
Volume 9 22 10 0
Peak
Factor
Loft
NE 54 STREET
Westbound
Rlgh Ped
t s
APp..
Total
3 153 1 0 1
1.9 97.5 0.6 0.0
1 1 34 0 0 35
App.
Total
162
185
175
253
775
0 192
0 220
0 157
0 170
0 769
354 887 303 0 1544
22.9 57,4 19.6 0.0
12,7 31.9 10.9 0.0 55.5
Lef
1.0
20
13
16
14
63
NE 54 STREET
Eastbound
Ttlr 1 Rig ` Ped
u I ht 5
1,0 I 1,0 1.0
APP.
Total
93
87
186 113 1 363
50 23 0 93
48 29 0 90
47 30 0
41 31 1
19 40 17 0 76
20 42 33 0 95
15 38 17 0 70
16 37 31 0 84
70 157 98 0 325
133 343 211 1 688
19.3 49.9 30.7 0.1
4.8 12.3 7.8 0.0 24.7
Left
Thru
FEDERAL HWY
Northbound
Rlg Ped
ht s
199 485 168 0
23.4 56,9 19.7 0.0
74 135 44 0
NE 54 STREET
Eastbound
326
334
325
416
1401
350
378
326
329
1383
2784
Taal
Left
Thr I Rig Ped
u€ ht, 5
652
253
Total
t
68 161 98 1 328
20.7 a9.1 29.9 0.3
1a 41 31 1 87
Int.
Total
1470
418
0_883
SEP.12.2v03 12:31PM
Na 8155 1.
Start Time
BISCAYNE BLVD
t s
I Factor I 1.0
16:00 0 201 30 0
Left
Southbound
Thru Rlgh Ped
App.
Total
231
16:15 0 285 31 0 316
15:30 0 268 34 0 302
16:45 0 279 35 0 314
Total 0 r D� 130 0 1163
17:00 0 227 42 0 269
17;15 0 235 41 0 279
17:30 0 221 38 0 259
17:45 0 261 41 0 302
Total 0 947 162 0 1109
Grand
Total 0 190 292 0 2272
Apprch % 0.0 87.1 12.9 0.0
Total% 0.0 32.4 4.8 0.0 37.2
Miami, FL 33186 Site Code : 00000000
Tel: 305-235-5098 Fax: 305-251-5894
Start Date : 09109J2003
Page :1
Groups Printed: CARS - TRUCKS
NE 54 STREET BISCAYNE BLVD
Westbound
Left Thru Sigh Ped
i 5
1.0 1.0 1.0 I 1.0
O 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
O 0
0 0
_ Northbound
Ate' Left Thru Rig Pad'
Total ht s
P-
AP
Left
1.0 1.0 ; 1.0 1,0
0 38 362 0 0 400
O 38 358 0 0 396
0 29 357 0 0 386
O 40 381 0 0 421
0 0 0 ❑ 0 145
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0,0 0.0
BISCAYNE BLVD
Southbound
Stan Time Left Thru R'A i
Ped
App.
Total
Peak Hour From 16:00 to 17:45 - Peak 1 of 1
.ln1r9ectio
16:15
•
Volume 0 1 142 0 1201
Percant 0.0 88.2 11.8 0,0
Nigh Int, 16:45
Volume 0 279 35 0 314
Peak
Factor
Left
NE 54 STREET
Westbound
Thru
Sigh
145
0 0 1603
26 368 0 0 394
37 350 0 0 387
30 352 0 0 382
24 358 0 0 382
17
262
9.3
4.3
142
9
288
91.7 0.0 0.0
47.3 0.0 0.0
0 0 1545
0 0 3148
51.6
NE 54 ST
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped
u , ht s
METRIC ENGINEERING
13940 S.W 136 Street File Name ; bistayne blvd & ne 54 Street
App_
Total
1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0
65 0 25 0
60 0 27 0
61 0 22 0
67 0 24 0
1nl
Total
90
87
83
91
253 0 88 0 351
65 0 15 0 60
78 0 28 0 106
49 0 18 0 67
GB 0 15_ 0 51
258 0 76 0 334
511 0 174 0 685
74.6 0.0 25.4 0.0
8.4 0.0 2.9 0.0 11.2
Ped
s
Total
0 0 0 0 0
0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0
0 0 0 0 0
eft
BISCAYNE BLVD
Northbound
Thru Big Ped
ht s
IIota
133 0 0 1597
8.3 91.7 0.0 0.0
40 381 0 0 421
t
721
799
771
828
3117
743
772
708
765
2988
6105
NE 54 ST
Eastbound
Thr Rig Ped App. Int.
u hi s Total Total
253 0 86 0 341 3139
74.2 0,0 25.8 0.0
87 0 24 0 91 828
0.950
SE?, 12. 2003 12:32FM
NO. 8155
BISCAYNE BLVD
5outhbound
METRIC ENGINEERING
13940 S.W 136 Street File Name : BISCAYNE BLVD Fa NE 50 TERR
Miami, FL 331813 Cede : 00000000
Tel' 305-235-5098 Fax; 305-251
ip
t Date : 09/10/2003
Page :1
Groups Printed: CARS - TRUCKS
NE 50 TERR BISCAYNE BLVD
Westbound Northbound
Start Time
Left
Facto
1.0
Thru
1,0
igh Pe
t s
APP.
Total
-0 1.0
16:00 4 276 4 0 284
16:15 3 254 4 0 281
16:30 3 273 4 0 260
16:45 8 274 4 0 286
Total 18 Y07 16 0 1111
17:00 7 299 2 0 308
17:15 5 268 0 0 273
17:30 1 286 0 0 287
17:45 3 257 1 0 261
Total 16 111 3 0 1129
Grand 34 218 19 0 2240
Total 7
Apprch % 1.5 97.6 0,8 0.0
Total % 0.6 39,0 0.3 0,0 39.9
Left
.0
Thru Righ
1.0 1.0 1.0
AP
Tat
Left
1.0
NE 50 TERR - Shop, Center
Driveway
Eastbound
Thru
8 0 3 1 12
10 0 5 0 15
9 0 4 0 13
12 0 3 0 15
39 0 15 1 5
12 0 2 0 14
10 0 6 0 15
11 0 4 0 15
16 0 2 0 18
49 0 14 0 63
88 0 29 1 118
74.6 0.0 24.8 0.8
1.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.1
2
1
0
4
1.0
32
383
399
384
150
8
Rig
ht
1.0
14
18
16
15
Ped
8
1.0
TotalAPP,Leh
O 358 1
O 400 0
O 416 1
0 399 2
Thr
u
0
Rig
ht
1.0
Peet
3
-0
Total
Total
0 1 0 2
0 3 0 3
0 2 0 3
0 2 0 4
61 0 1573 4 0 8 0 12
1 361 13 0 375
0 401 18 0 417
0 412 21 0 433
1 413 18 0 432
2 158 88 0 1657
6 309 129 0 3230
0.2 95.8 4.0 0.0
0.1 55,1 Z3 0.0 57.5
2 0 2 0 4
1 0 4 0 5
0 0 4 0 4
0 0 0 0 0
3 0 10 0 13
7 0 18 0 25
28.0 0.0 72.0 0.0
0,1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.4
658
879
712
704
2751
701
711
739
711
2862
5613
1
l!1
BISCAYNE BLVD
Southbound
NE 50 TERR
Westbound
BISCAYNE BLVD
Northbound
NE 50 TERR - Shop_ Denser
Driveway
Eastbound
Time
lk
Lett
Thru
R1g i
Fed ApTota-
Left
9
Thru Ri h ' Per!
! s
App.
Total
Lef[
RfgPed Ap
Thru
ht s ; TotalTotal
Lett
Thr Ri
gApp.5tart
u ht
Pad
S
Int.
Total I
Ip,-
lnlersectla • 17:00
Volume 16 110 3
Percent 1.4 98.3 0.3 0.0
High lot, 17:30
Volume 1 286 0 0 287
Peak
Factor
•
0 1129 49 0 14 0 63
77,8 0.0 22,2 0.0
11 0 4 0 15
2 158 68 0 1657
0.1 95.8 4.1 0.0
0 412 21 0 433
3 0 10 0 13
23.1 0.0 76.9 0.0
0 0 4 0 4
2882
739
0.968
Traffic Signal Asset ID
KUBIK Site
•
TIMING DATA FOR 4777 US 1 & NE 62 ST
PAT OF
1 T 2
2 T 10
3 T 84
4 T 30
5 T 14
6 T 39
7 M 44
8 M135
10 T 50
11 M 77
12 M 52
13 M 88
15 M 64
16 M 36
19 M140
22 T 50
24 T 50
•
NSG
46
46
46
41
48
66
61
96
31
73
61
73
83
61
99
31
31
G
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Y R XW F
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
4 1 7 12
WG
7
7
7
7
20
7
7
7
7
10
7
10
15
7
9
7
7
Y NL
4 5
4 5
4 5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4.
4
4
5
10
5
5
5
5
10
5
10
10
5
10
5
5
Y
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
(SEC: 36 TYPE:
S Y
SA)
M CYC
8 90AVERAGE
8 90PRE AM PEAK
8 90POST PM PEAK
8 85MID-DAY PEAK
8 110PM PEAK
8 110AM PEAK
105PM PEAK
140AM PEAK/ 1-9
8 75NITE
125AVERAGE RR D
8 105EVACUATION
125POST PM PEAK
140PM PEAK RR D
8 105FB TESTING
8 150AM PEAK TEST
6 75LATE NIGHT 1
7 75RECALL TEST
TIMING DATA FOR 2109 US 1
PAT OF NSG G Y R XW F
1 T 17 24 1 4 1 7 13
2 T 10 27 1 4 1 7 13
3 T 3 27 1 4 1 7 13
4 T 30 20 1 4 1 7 13
5 T 15 47 1 4 1 7 13
6 T 69 44 1 4 I 7 13
7 M 54 42 1 4 1 7 13
8 M135 69 1 4 1 7 13
10 T 50 19 1 4 1 7 13
11 M 77 54 1 4 1 7 13
12 M 52 39 1 4 1 7 13
13 M 88 54 1 4 1 7 13
15 M 64 64 1 4 1 7 13
16 M 36 39 1 4 1 7 13
19 M140 84 1 4 1 7 13
22 T 50 19 1 4 1 7 13
24 T 50 26 1 4 1 7 13
MIN: 16 13
•
•
& NE 61 ST (SEC:
EG Y R WG Y R SL Y
10 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 7 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 7 4 1 7 3
12 4 1 7 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 7 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 7 4 1 7 3
15 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
7 4 1 9 4 1 5 3
15 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
15 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
20 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
10 4 1 10 4 1 7 3
7 4 1 7 4 1 5 3
10 4 1 7 4 1 7 3
7 7 5
36 TYPE: SA)
S Y M CYC
8 9OAVERAGE
8 90PRE AM PEAK
8 90POST PM PEAK
8 85MID--DAY PEAK
8 110PM PEAK
8 110AM PEAK
8 105PM PEAK
14OAM PEAK/ I-9
7 79NITE
125AVERAGE RR D
1 O 5 EVACUAT•I ON
125POST PM PEAK
140PM PEAK RR D
10SFB TESTING
8 150AM PEAK TEST
6 77LATE NIGHT 1
7 89RECALL TEST
•
TIMING DATA
PAT OF NSG
1 T 31 43
2 T 73 45
3 T 19 43
4 T 57 37
5 T 44 60
6 T104 63
7 M103 54
8 M 64 89
10 T 23 29
11 M 27 56
12 M 81 54
13 M 21 56
15 M137 67
16 M 85 54
19 M 43 99 5 4 1 7 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
22 T 23 29
24 T 23 49
MIN: 17
•
FOR 2103 US 1 & NE 54 ST (SEC:
GYRNLYREWFGYR
1 4 1 7 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 5 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 7 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 8 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 10 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 7 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 11 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 11 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 6 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 16 4 1 7 16 14 4 1
1 4 1 11 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 16 4 1 7 16 14 4 1
1 4 1 21 4 1 7 16 13 4 1
1 4 1 11 4 1 7 ::16 1 4 1
1 4 1 6 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
1 4 1 6 4 1 7 16 1 4 1
5 16 1
36
TYPE:
S Y
NA)
M CYC
90AVERAGE
90PRE AM PEAK
90POST PM PEAK
85M1D-DAY PEAK
110PM PEAK
110AM PEAK
105PM PEAK
140AM PEAK/ 1-9
75NITE
125AVERAGE RR D
105EVACUATION
125POST PM PEAK
140PM PEAK RR D
105FB TESTING
150AM PEAK TEST
75LATE NIGHT 1
7 95RECALL TEST
TIMING DATA FOR 4397 US 1 & NE 50 TERR (SEC: 36 TYPE: SA)
PAT OF NSGGYRWEGYR S Y M CYC
1 T 38 55 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 90AVERAGE
2 T 9 55 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 90PRE AM PEAK
3 T 83 55 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 90POST PM PEAK
4 T 17 50 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 85MID-DAY PEAK
5 T 12 75 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 110PM PEAK
6 T 12 75 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 110AM PEAK
7 M 79 70 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 105PM PEAK
8 M 78 99 1 4 1 7 15 7 4 2 140AM PEAK/ 1-9
10 T 36 40 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 75NITE
11 M 27 80 1 4 1 7 15 11 4 2 125AVERAGE RR D
12 M 53 70 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 105EVACUATION
13 M 24 80 1 4 1 7 15 11 4 2 125POST PM PEAK
15 M 86 95 1 4 1 7 15 11 4 2 140PM PEAK RR D
16 M 43 70 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 105E3 TESTING
19 M122 99 17 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 150AM PEAK TEST
22 T 30 40 1 4 1 7 15 1 4 2 6 75LATE NIGHT 1
24 T 30 40 1 4 1 7 15 6 4 2 7 80RECALL TEST
MIN: 25 15 1
•
TIMING DATA FOR 2105 FEDERAL HWY & NE 54 ST (SEC: 36 TYPE: NA)
PAT OF EWW F Y NL Y NSG Y WL Y S Y M CYC
1 T 85 15 16 4 12 3 24 4 9 3 90AVERAGE
2 T 42 15 16 4 12 3 24 4 9 3 90PRE AM PEAK
3 T 73 15 16 4 12 3 24 4 9 3 90POST PM PEAK
4 T 25 11 16 4 12 3 22 4 10 3 85MID-DAY PEAK
5 T 70 16 16 4 12 3 42 4 10 3 1109M PEAK
6 T 70 16 16 4 12 3 42 4 10 3 110AM PEAK
7 M 52 29 16 4 12 3 24 4 10 3 105PM PEAK
8 M 72 59 16 4 12 3 29 4 10 3 140AM PEAK/ I-9
10 T 68 12 16 4 6 3 17 4 10 3 75NITE
11 M 85 15 16 4 12 3 24 4 9 3 7 90AVERAGE RR D
12 M 52 29 16 4 12 3 24 4 10 3 105EVACUATION
13 M 73 15 16 4 12 3 24 4 9 3 7 90POST PM PEAK
15 M 52 29 16 4 12 3 24 4 10 3 7 105PM PEAK RR D
16 M 52 29 16 4 12 3 24 4 10 3 105FB TESTING
19 M 70 67 16 4 13 3 30 4 10 3 150AM PEAK TEST
22 T 68 12 16 4 6 3 17 4 10 3 75LATE NIGHT 1
24 T 68 12 16 4 6 3 17 4 10 3 75RECALL TEST
MIN: 11 16 5 10 5
•
•
0
•
•
•
Site Project Trip Generation Analysis
Land Use (LU)
Units
ITE
LU
CODE
PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS
ITE TRIP
GENERATION
RATE
IN
OUT
TOTAL
%
Trips
%
Trips
TRIPS
High -Rise Residential
286 O.U.
231
0.83
57%
134
43%
103
237
General Office
28,490 SF
710
1 "49
17%
7
83%
35
42
Specialty Retail
17,306 SF
814
2.59
43%
19
57%.
26
45
r
Gross Vehicle Trips
50%
161
50%
164
325
Vehicle Occupancy Adjustment @ 16.0% Of Gross Trips
50%
26
50%
26
52
Transit Trip Reduction @ 14.1% Of Gross Trips
50%
23
50%
23
46
Pedestrian/Bicycle Trip Reduction @ 15.0% Of Gross Trips
50%
24
50%
49
mww25
•rwwiw�iwr
Net Vehicle Tri s
50%
88
50%
90
178
`•a:{:.;.: s+rs. ••:. ,. .rr•rr:::}..:}...; ,... ,lr,..lr.,,.; .::.,,,,!
i2i)Zivrb'':•. Vh }S•: r. :.>.[. $:dhck`:{:ktkkikt}•tivJ .v,kr:. [?k`?\:k:;v:.2•i;k'[:v Oki ,a. ...[v.:: �.: hvviv .: ..:{. :,u:v,.
♦'z .��` 4+=:t.. vr::. 'h a {t':.r...r i^ ^ � iV.::'...O
:$k}j:G}: ij;;t:i. .\ + ,Y X.r. ..\ v
::•f.'Y;*�?;ri+r:•} \:.. ..a :..{k{;J {.a:. c..
.X`;;rY::'`;. r.,., it ,,.,.. , � $.�ki:2:::{::ek„{•. 24 i. :., 5� \"fi
Y'i:ur.:-::•:,,r,:: r•.�:.�.,,,:::[�. :•{ \ .v v.:.k.r.:.r .:x';>s.:.r r:s,.;..�..r: .r: }`:`., ,•..�:
r.:,•:.:::, }':'n^ � r .:YrY�riJ:{:::'^: h: ^: r..... :'}.r ::r. : 3 '{,r.^ n. ,.\p ;•; J•.y;,.J.. \.'�4:..
'.�.\..,. •^h^^ •, .c.h:.r...v g:ijhv.•: r:F[{.ti�':F�. +•v vrnii: M: `,
k:,. \k.....n r. ::.h:rr •nf•:, 'r. v: Y.{r,r ,:{•".4:{.. r..�'\ � .,.$:
kh � is .�. .. � � .. h.. .\.. �}n.. ;...:..: }:..}`.: hi..: h;,:,
[{a`:: :'.:,:::': :y,•:.:,:: •.. . r. :..:'r,,:,: �.,.: .....:.. :::•:::.:ah:':• .. .:::r 'r rr.r..... r,+..:........•r,•.,'r
rrrra :{•r.::h :::,:{:• :r.\..,..k:!•e 4...:.�::': ::.::..•. .j:ry ::A:::,v:. :,':r,,'::§,:::..v�v.'.
w`r?•c�} o-r.•"o?;:..
..�.,,{h. .Y.k
nC? .r,•kv v+h
'•�::.
i{-: , :'k.. � .{:..,:'li,
•.:.y,::'u:\�`::3:•r.:•rv,...
\v'•: i �<uw^v r....:n
.{ \.
:. fix` ,:[{::vi':..:,....'.
,J,y.'r, •, •..},, :,,,
; �\.
�{' .V {
°; Yv'.h.: }. .. }
5., k
..{., r.
•'.:• .r.J�,`^`\,::
v ti{ i\ ..:{
"v''�fi
: `.i r •.�,: %r
. }. ...r, \�
':'�':G...., ,�fi{.
,, }•.ram,.; •._... •.,,y,,, •{,••xr
r. a.. r..:\:.:,: >.x:y �ih, :r y.}v
4 ... v^:'\:. .,.,:kiavv:. ktiu.:::. ^.v��^
:vv.C:u:•. .. "'rli r{ .
..?.J ���r, �J.�, :r:;;�'w?:
{i:r. i?:.'.:•,,..•',,::.:r.,a. u.�',y,:•,•.,.•.: {. :�,: ,u.>..{ .::', .
r,\,., ::,w, ,r, ,~i...
{•.ti +6:o:i} k$iktikk::• .:v+�xv'{k:,: 'ti' :::.r..:,
.}4. •.r1 �.,r}•:::S:i :,..:,..:..»
� •. :,:.:�::.,.
^}y''':-:':6Y.'�%. v .�v1..... ..,V : :fir.: :::J..::
l:::\', :.', .?•.?:{•lv4.,.�.�:.v,•:: •.:•:..::.:: }:..
Net Person Trips in Vehicles @ 1,40 Persons/ Vehicle
50%
124
50%
126
250
Net Person Trips in Transit'A ,1.40 Persons/ Vehicle
50%
32
50%
32
64
Net Person Tri s Vehicle and Transit Modes
50%
155
50%
158
314
i. E tiv : [G+.v:.;n}: ^ wry 4.v\ v{:{. v.. :r ✓. •;v: ry i+h.?.:. ti-.{{ . •h;•'i•,{. • ,.i" { i. ,yr^
;: •:{ V ti .Y. .. � C[}{. r ,.j::. ^ viik?h^^\} :^!\...':
:..\r . . k::' , \:"ir:: r :.:k . .."4Y'.v.*{vr:::s4..v 7 'Q%::•.. N r .t.4 .. c t
.. r. � ,�,`:"• "2r^ . +.., >>:r,i.:•+{ �.. ..i.� ,Y�.r { , y .� y �
, •}�:i;':'>.:itlL.:z �. u:i§.{�:[rrv:::: C:uv'.ki'{r•'[>.vs'u'^: .:-r.:M`'+$�hk�.J.•}vv'},J, •r:h.Cki �}r.,.r.:v� vvy{:{..+.."Mt.%iirii i �'}nr vC:•n+.0.'G{'i[{'{�i:3i,.•%: vnn.6\v{
'\$$ h . [ yy,, ♦ }'\
.r..ury ..vv,, }uv..:� ^. {;.ir.... :v }:�'vv:,......r:^+v ti. Lk � ,�).�rti'i�vC'\ki � r. [iv^,
.;.••y. ^• .. .•Yir�Y : r. w ti .r- . r. r. . o? Y• . v, w.r'+
[r t'{ riv: w' K::r:' a , .yv . \ , k'{%k kni r::.. C,::k{ {, �{Y, . - :.�w... ^.,+:
•`:s:�;@",r:•.:'{',:,:h..4. • Y . ?'z1,..k: ;�{"{":::;::v.,.:,,r.,a.r r r {',':4 :. ,:h,'{;.2 \ .i. ;^t
.h :�rh ?„ }. yv..r"r ` .�O.v: .?. J„r.
v:ka: ^„rv\, v.}•::, .. n,.:.v v..n:.t.:. k... ...:., : {iv:"}i': }.. 2�:!{�v2•.:v ,:v::':4v::y ♦.�Y':: •:..`� [:�:2' 2w
•rr:S•:.,....::. ..F'. .,.'\`:v?`4..,... {:r.;i}i.: •.?`:ti-:', r:•:"3 i.l..
v.: �•:.} ...�n.wv \v v.v ...... ^...'. ...,rv+,v:•v{•rl..r...{.�i'i�..v,.....,..v,.v..,[..v..: P., :.,n.':t:: r"�.:�.:::'.. ,'. .krvv rvvr-•rrn.:rwr...,v�ry .n ..?r,::�1r'.-+.•:rvt -}�2 r. rr`v:�.•.r,n.n
k .,r..v
�y�� \e.�i
'1..\ V.0 {:riJ^rr$�
\�x{S:vu{v.:rwr vv},\.rx??�:.
^ ' .:7 rt•'L
YY„ ^;; .k. 4v r\?.o.,
\1� ':
:4. r..? v�
r'Y .;;
:i,vv. 4..4:.v ,v C
<.. '. v{S! {v�{ {
•.[Wtiv -[: �[ v i{.},{,;{ ["�: '. { {{{'{i:•:+{"{'i^
\ { . ' Y •: : r, { }Y-` .. .
i2:p {2..- sv. ' �.... ...\'w Y'};;:+':r:•;;....::. ..¢$t:,J.:=.
:v.1. �v v.. •;:..^ v v9, :'r: � \.,z.fi+: h`?u}..
n. � { r ,yy n$• yr}: Xir:: r� r .out •_
v ^uh> x•.k>. {: U.v.:z4 .v.t'.{vE, v+.A. c, .:.v..: :•: �:':
: �,.:i•}
:.)'• � n ti a r. �. it\�i{}� ;;,,:•..+.:,�{:�
.Y.'..<. {, ...{.... , r,£..:+^:,..a{ :...:•r.r...:.:r...:.:
..4 Y
.nL.v. \ .. "':4 �ir�.. /...^: •.: •,.: {.:
:Jr \•4�� v✓.. .h vh :::o.o. }J:vY�:.r fin::}: }:; p.,--
... ,v :..vv::v"'L �vv.,... {z .. �{:•nv: v+.r�•F.
Net Person Trips (Walking/Bicycling) @ 1.40 Persons/ Vehicle 50%
34
50%
34
68
NOTES:
A 16% OCCUPANCY ADJUSTMENT IS BASED ON MIAMI'S 1.4 VERSUS LYE'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 DRI4ICREMENT II)
KUBIK at Morningside
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 286 Dwelling Units of Low -Rise Residential Condo / Townhouse
September 10, 2003 d.. 4,/
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Deviation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.17 0.00 1.00 49
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.50 0.00 1.00 143
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.66 0.82 1.00 189
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.47 0.00 1.00 134
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.36 0.00 1.00 103
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.83 0.95 1.00 237
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.09 0.00 1.00 26
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.42 0.00 1.00 120
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.51 0.74 1.00 146
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.28 0.00 1.00 80
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.26 0.00 1.00 74
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.54 0.75 1.00 154
Saturday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Sunday 2-Way Volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
•
KUBIK at Morningside
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 28.490 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of General Office Building
September 10, 2003 1., ki
/
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Deviation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 11.01 6.13 1.00 314
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 1.37 0.00 1.00 39
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 5
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 1.56 1.40 1.00 44
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 7
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 1.24 0.00 1.00 35
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1.49 1.37 1.00 42
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 1.37 0.00 1.00 39
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 5
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.56 1.40 1.00 44
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.25 0.00 1.00 7
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 1.24 0.00 1.00 35
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 1.49 1.37 1.00 42
Saturday 2-Way Volume 2.37 2.08 1.00 68
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.22 0.00 1.00 6
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 5
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.41 0.68 1.00 12
Sunday 2-Way Volume 0.98 1.29 1.00 28
Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.08 0.00 1.00 2
Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.06 0.00 1.00 2
Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.14 0.38 1.00 4
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
•
•
•
KUTBIK at Morningside
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 17.306 T.G.L..A. of Specialty Retail Center
September 10, 2003 L. GJ 3 j411
Average Standard Adjustment Driveway
Rate Deviation Factor Volume
Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 40.67 13.70 1.00 704
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 1.11 0.00 1.00 19
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 1.48 0.00 1.00 26
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 2.59 1.74 1.00 45
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 3.08 0.00 1.00 53
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 3.33 0.00 1.00 58
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 6.41 0.00 1.00 111
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 2.81 0.00 1.00 49
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 2.12 0.00 .1.00 37
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 4.93 0.00 1.00 85
Saturday 2-Way Volume 42.04 13.97 1.00 728
Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Sunday 2-Way Volume 20.43 10.27 1.00 354
Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers
Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
•
•
•
Cardinal Distribution KUBIK
Project (TAZ 485)
PM Peak Hour Person Trips
13.65
5.21
6.66
10.20
14.32
19.88
14.95
15.13
100
Note:
Based on MUATS & Year 2025 Plan Update,
Technical Report: Directional Trip Distribution Year
1999 Model Validation and 2005-2025 Cost
Affordable Plan, Date: December 31, 2001
obtained from Miami Dade MPO.
Kubik Project TAZ
IIINote: The subject site is in TAZ 1477 as depicted
above. However, that TAZ has zero directional
distribution. Therefore. TAZ data from 485 was
utilized.
•
•
Miami --Dade 1999 Validation Distribution Report
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
ORIGIN
ZONE
CARDINAL DIRECTIONS TOTAL
NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW
481 TRIPS 1389 679 1451 602 1460 1875 1521 1367 10344
PERCENT 13.43 6.56 14.03 5.82 14.11 18.13 14.70 13.22
482 TRIPS 322 168 264 300 382 446 354 286 2522
PERCENT 12.77 6.66 10.47 11.90 15.15 17.68 14.04 11.34
483 TRIPS 320 126 162 368 389 464 299 315 2443
PERCENT 13.10 5.16 6.63 15.06 15.92 18.99 12.24 12.89
484 TRIPS 368 128 135 341 457 533 361 339 2662
PERCENT 13.82 4.81 5.07 12.81 17.17 20.02 13.56 12.73
1485 TRIPS
PERCENT
451 172 220 337 473 657 494 500 3304
13.65 5.21 6.66 10.20 14.32 19.88 14.95 15.13
486 TRIPS
319 96 101 205 387 487 335 359 2289
PERCENT 13.94 4.19 4.41 8.96 16.91 21.28 14.64 15.68
487 TRIPS 1941 640 896 1525 1603 3208 2096 2020 13929
PERCENT 13.93 4.59 6.43 10.95 11.51 23.03 15.05 14.50
488 TRIPS 350 139 366 183 304 449 401 421 2613
PERCENT 13.39 5.32 14.01 7.00 11.63 17.18 15.35 16.11
489 TRIPS 113 52 146 69 84 150 148 154 916
PERCENT 12.34 5.68 15.94 7.53 9.17 16.38 16.16 16.81
490 TRIPS
53 31 81 67 41 81 108 82 544
PERCENT 9.74 5.70 14.89 12.32 7.54 14.89 19.85 15.07
491 TRIPS 220 85 115 164 170 396 317 257 1724
PERCENT 12.76 4.93 6.67 9.51 9.86 22.97 18.39 14.91
492 TRIPS
40 10 23 44 43 74 50 32 316
PERCENT 12.66 3.16 7.28 13.92 13.61 23.42 15.82 10.13
493 TRIPS 232 99 134 230 244 462 357 291 2049
PERCENT 11.32 4.83 6.54 11.22 11.91 22.55 17.42 14.20
494 TRIPS 242 72 111 285 210 417 332 285 1954
PERCENT 12.38 3.68 5.68 14.59 10.75 21.34 16.99 14.59
495 TRIPS 615 183 262 529 569 951 605 606 4320
PERCENT 14.24 4.24 6.06 12.25 13.17 22.01 14-00 14.03
- 35- 12/31/01
•
Miami -Dade 1999 validation Distribution Report
DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
ORIGIN
ZONE
CARDINAL DIRECTIONS TOTAL
NNE ENE ESE SSE SSW WSW WNW NNW
1471 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1472 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1473 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1474 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1475 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1476 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1477 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1478 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1479 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1480 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1481 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1482 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1483 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1484 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1485 TRIPS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PERCENT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
101- 12/31 /01
•
•
0
INTERSECTION APPROACH VOLUMES
INTERSECTIO
N NO
INTERSECTION
NAME
APPROACH
MOVEMENT
PM PEAK
HR COUNT
PEAK
SEASONAL
ADJUSTMENT
BACKGROUND
GROWTH RATE 2%
No. of Years 3
Committed
Developments
Net Traffic
w/o Project
w/
Committed
Site Traffic
Assignment
>`i%)
Site Traffic
(VPH)
Site Traffic
in Person-
Trips (Vent
Site Traffic
in Person-
Trips
(Transit)
Total Traffic
(VPH)
Total Traffic
in Person -
Tres (Veh)
2
8
4
5
8
7
8
8
1fl
1!
1
BISCAYNE BLVD./
NE 62 ST
NORTHBOUNDNBT
NBL
80
82
87
0
87
15
13
19
11
100
134
1799
1835
1947
1947
19
17
23
1964
2743
NBR
12
12
13
13
13
18
TOTAL
1891
1929
2047
0
2047
34
30
42
11
2077
2896
SOUTHBOUND
SBL
4
4
4
4
6
4
6
SBT
1145
1168
1239
1239
19
17
24
1256
1752
SBR
100
102
108
108
108
152
TOTAL
1249
1274
1362
0
1362
19
17
24
6
1369
1910
EASTBOUND
EBL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EBT
0
0
0
0
0
0
EBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WESTBOUND
WBL
9
9
10
10
0
10
14
WBT
3
3
3
3
3
5
WBR
10
10
11
24
11
15
TOTAL
22
22
24
0
37
0
0
0
0
24
33
TOTAL
3162
3225
3423
0
3436
S3
47
66
17
3470
4839
2
BISCAYNE BLVD /
NE 61ST
NORTHBOUNDNBT
NBL
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
1681
1715
1820
1820
34
30
42
1850
2577
NBR
6
6
6
6
6
9
TOTAL, 1
1687
1721
1826
0
1826
34
30
42
11
1856
2686
SOUTHBOUND
SBL
9
9
10
10
6
10
14
SBT
1144
1167
1238
1238
19
17
24
1255
1751
SBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
1163
1176
1248
0
1248
19
17.
24
6
1265
1764
EASTBOUND
EBL
141
144
153
153
5
153
214
EBT
13
13
14
14
14
20
EBR
76
78
82
62
15
13
19
96
124
TOTAL
230
236
249
0
249
15
13
19
6
262
362
WESTBOUND
WBL
10
10
11
11
0
11
15
WBT
0
0
0
0
0
0
WBR
32
33
35
35
35
48
TOTAL,
42
43
46
0
46
0
0
0
0
45
64
TOTAL
3112
3174
3389
0
3369
68
61
85
22
3429
4777
3
BISCAYNE BLVO /
NE 54 ST
NORTHBOUND
NBL
117
119
127
127
7
127
177
N9T
1428
1457
1546
1546
22
20
28
1566
2184
NBR
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
1646
1676
1672
0
1672
22
20
28
7
1692
2361
SOUTHBOUNO
SSL
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
567
947
966
1025
1025
22
19
27
1044
1455
SBR
162
165
175
175
36
32
44
207
277
TOTAL
1109
1131
1200
0
1200
58
51
72
18
1262
1732
EASTBOUNDEBT
EBL
258
263
279
279
36
32
45
11
312
423
0
0
0
0
0
0
EBR
76
78
82
82
82
115
TOTAL
334
341
362
0
362
36
32
46
11
394
635
WESTBOUND
WBL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WBT
0
0
0
0
Q
Q
WBR
0
0
0
Q
0
0
TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
2988
3048
3234
0
3234
116
103
145
37
3338
4631
•
INTERSECTION APPRRCH VOLUMES
•
Z
0
0
o)
tr
INTERSECTION
NAME
MOVEMENT
PM PEAK
HR COUNT
PEAK
SEASONAL
ADJUSTMENT
BACKGROUND
GROWTH RATE 2°/a
No. of Years 3
Committed
Development
'A'
Net Traffic
w/o Project
w/
Committed
Site Traffic
Assignment
(%)
Site Traffic
(VPH)
Site Traffic
in Person-
Trips (Mehl
Site Traffic
in Person-
Trips
(Transit)
Total Traffic
IVPH)
Total Traffic
in Person -
Trips (Veh)
1
2
3
4
7
B
0
10
10
11
i7
4
BISCAYNE BLVD. /
NE 50 TERR
NORTHBOUND
NBL
2
2
2
2
5
2
3
NBT
1587
1619
1718
1718
17
15
21
1733
2420
NBR
68
69
74
74
74
103
TOTAL
1657
1690
1794
0
1794
17
15
21
6
1809
2528
SOUTHBOUND
SBL
16
16
17
17
7
17
24
SBT
1110
1132
1201
1201
17
15
21
1217
1697
SBR
3
3
3
3
5
4
6
8
9
TOTAL
1129
1152
1222
0
1222
22
19
27
7
1241
1730
EASTBOUND
EBL
3
3
3
3
5
4
6
2
8
9
EBT
0
0
0
0
0
0
EBR
10
10
11
11
11
15
TOTAL
13
13
14
0
14
6
4
6
2
19
24
WESTBOUND
WBL.
49
50
53
53
0
53
74
WBT
0
0
0
0
0
0
WBR
14
14
15
15
15
21
TOTAL
63
64
68
0
68
0
0
0
0
68
95
TOTAL
2862
2919
3098
0
3098
44
39
56
14
3137
4376
FED HWY / NE 54
ST
NORTHBOUND
NBL
167
170
181
181
9
181
253
NBT
444
453
481
481
481
673
NBR
156
161
171
171
29
28"
36
197
265
TOTAL
769
784
832
0
832
29
26.
36
9
858
1191
SflIiTH$GIJND
SBL
21
21
23
23
0
23
32
SBT
82
84
89
89
89
124
SBL
23
23
25
25
25
35
TOTAL
126
129
136
0
136
0
0
0
0
136
191
EASTBOUND
EBL
70
71
76
76
2
76
106
EBT
157
160
170
170
7
6
9
176
244
EBR
98
100
106
106
106
149
TOTAL
326
332
352
0
352
7
6
9
2
358
499
WESTBOUND
WBL
4
4
4
4
29
26.
37
11
30
32
WBT
158
161
171
171
7
6 ""
9
177
246
WBR
1
1
1
1
1
2
TOTAL
163
166
176
0
176
36
32
45
11
209
279
TOTAL
1383
1411
1497
0
1497
72
64
90
23
1661
2160
Notes
1 TMC data provided tom Marlin Engineering
2 Week 37 seesonai factor of 1.02 for category 8700 Miami -Dade North obtained from FD0Vs FT12002
3 Project is expected to have a build -out in 3 years.
4 Cesar lit Biscayne is the only committed development, However, no traffic data is yet available.
5 These volumes were utilized as the base (existing) condition.
6 Percentage of traffic assignment from Traffic Assignment Figures.
7 Site traffic assigned to the movement.
8 Site triffic converted to Person -Trips by multiplying by 1.4.
9 Site traffic assigned to the transit corridor.
10 Committed and Site Project traffic used in intersection analysis.
PrintDate: September 12, 2003
•owltY: 87 - DADE
Florida Department of Transportation
Transportation Statistics Office
Historical AADT Report
Site 5060 SR 5/US-1, 200' S NE 53 ST
Year AADT Direction 1 Direction 2
2002 C 40,500 N 18,500 S 22,000
2001 C 40,500 N 18,500 S 22,000
2000 C 39,000 N 18,000 S 21,000
1999 C 39,500 N 18,500 S 21,000
1998 C 37,500 N 18,500 S 19,000
1997 C 34,500 N 16,500 S 18,000
1996 C 28,500 N 13,000 S 15,500
1995 C 28,000 N 13,000 S 15,000
1994 C 35,500 N 16,500 S 19,000
1993 C 36,500 N 18,500 S 18,000
1992 : C.. 34,500 N 17,000 S 17,500
1991 33,902 N 0 S 0
1990 34,183 N 0 S 0
1989 41,483 N 0 S 0
1988 32,900 N 0 S 0
1987 34,286 N 0 S 0
1985 34,068 N 0 S 0
1976 32,671 N 0 S 0
AADT Flags: C = Computed; E = Manual Estimate; F = First Year Est;
S = Second Year Est; T = Third Year Est; X = Urown
Page
Print Date: Sep/12/.2003 Florida Department of Transportation
Transportation Statistics Office
2002 Peak Season Factor Category Report
41bLAMI-DADS NORTH MOCF = 0.97
Category: 8700 Week Dates SF PSCF
1 01/01/2002 - 01/05/2002 1.01 1.04
2 01/06/2002 - 01/12/2002 1,01 1.04
3 01/13/2002 - 01/19/2002 1.00 1.03
4 01/20/2002 - 01/26/2002 0.99 1.02
5 01/27/2002 - 02/02/2002 0.99 1.02
6 02/03/2002 - 02/09/2002 0.98 1.01
* 7 02/10/2002 - 02/16/2002 0.97 1.00
* 8 02/17/2002 - 02/23/2002 0.97 1.00
* 9 02/24/2002 - 03/02/2002 0.97 1.00
* 10 03/03/2002 - 03/09/2002 0.96 0.99
* 11 03/10/2002-03/16/2002 0.96 0.99
* 12 03/17/2002. - 03/23/2002. 0.97:.. 1.00
* 13 03/24/2002 - 03/30/2002 0.97 1.00
* 14 03/31/2002 - 04/06/2002 0.97 1.00
* 15 04/07/2002 - 04/13/2002 0.97 1.00
* 16 04/14/2002 - 04/20/2002 0.98 1.01
* 17 04/21/2002 - 04/27/2002 0.98 1.01
* 18 04/28/2002 - 05/04/2002 0.98 1.01
* 19 05/05/2002 - 05/11/2002 0.98 1.01
20 05/12/2002 - 05/18/2002 0.98 1.01
21 05/19/2002 - 05/25/2002 0.99 1.02
22 05/26/2002 - 06/01/2002 1.00 1.03
23 06/02/2002 - 06/08/2002 1.01 1.04
24 06/09/2002 - 06/15/2002 1.01 1.04
25 06/16/2002 - 06/22/2002 1.02 1.05
26 06/23/2002 - 06/29/2002 1.02 1.05
27 06/30/2002 - 07/06/2002 1.02 1.05
28 07/07/2002 - 07/13/2002 1.02 1.05
29 07/14/2002 - 07/20/2002 1.03 1.06
30 07/21/2002 - 07/27/2002 1.02 1.05
31 07/28/2002 - 08/03/2002 1.02 1.05
32 08/04/2002 - 08/10/2002 1.02 1.05
33 08/11/2002 - 08/17/2002 1.01 1.04
34 08/18/2002 - 08/24/2002 1.01 1.04
35 08/25/2002 - 08/31/2002 1,01 1.04
36 09/01/2002 - 09/07/2002 1.02 1.05
37 _ 09/08/2002 - 09/14/2002 1.02 1.05
38 09/15/2002 - 09/21/2002 1.02 1.05
39 09/22/2002 - 09/28/2002 1.01 1.04
40 09/29/2002 - 10/05/2002 1.01 1.04
41 10/06/2002 - 10/12/2002 1.00 1.03
42 10/13/2002 - 10/19/2002 1.00 1.03
43 10/20/2002 - 10/26/2002 1.00 1.03
44 10/27/2002 - 11/02/2002 1.01 1.04
45 11/03/2002 - 11/09/2002 1.01 1.04
46 11/10/2002 - 11/16/2002 1.02 1.05
47 11/17/2002 - 11/23/2002 1.02 1.05
48 11/24/2002 - 11/30/2002 1.01 1.04
49 12/01/2002 - 12/07/2002 1.01 1.04
50 12/08/2002 - 12/14/2002 1.01 1.04
51 12/15/2002 - 12/21/2002 1.01 1.04
52 12/22/2002 - 12/28/2002 1.01 1.04
53 12/29/2002 - 12/31/2002 1.00 1.03
•
•
70000
60000 —
t
7.3
(1,)
>a
cts
E
a)
L.
m
10000
50000 —
40000 —
30000
20000
1992
TRAFFIC TRENDS
BISCAYNE BLVD -- SITE 5060 (NE 53 ST)
Mil Observed Count
M—iFitted Curve
Log. (Fitted Curve)
1997
y = 8542.2Ln(x) + 22868
R2 = 0.8421
County:
Station #:
Highway:
I I h Ill it I 11, t
2002 2007 2012 2017
Year
2022
Annual Trend Increase: 805
Trend R-squared: 37.7%
Trend Annual Historic Growth Rate: 2.55%
Trend Growth Rate (2002 to Design Year): 2.01%
Printed: 12-Sep-03
Straight Line Growth Option
Dade
0
BISCAYNE BLVD
Traffic (ADTIAADT)
Year
Count*
Trend**
1992
34500
31800
1993
36500
32600
1994
35500
33500
1995
28000
34300
1996
28500
35100
1997
34500
35900
1998
37500
36700
1999
39500
37500
2000
39000
38300
2001
40500
39100
2002
40500
39900
2003
Opening Year
Trend
2003
N/A
40700
2004
Mid -Year
Trend
2004
N/A
41500
2005
Design Year
Trend
2005
N/A
42300
TRANPLAN
Forecasts/Trends
*e„ ro_eainefori
•
KUBIK MUSP
411 PM PEAK EXISTING CONDITION
•
•
09/16/03
07:34:25
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 62 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.80 Vehicle Delay 21.8 Level of Service C+
Sq 31 I Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3
LD/**
/1>
North
G/C=0.048 I G/C=0.590 I G/C=0.248
G= 5.0" 1 G= 62.0" I G= 26.0"
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" ' Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 7.6% 1 OFF=71.4%
C=105 sec G= 93.0 sec = 88.6% Y=12.0 sec = 11.4% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
I Lane 'Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group I Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay 1 S 'Model 11
N Approach 16.6 B
IRT+TH 1 24/2 10.450 10.590 1 2009 1 2065 1 1411 10.683 1
16.6 •I B 1 708 ft'
1 LT 1 12/1 10.192 10.590 1 47 1 62 1 4 10.056 1 9.4 1 A 1 3 ftl
S Approach 25.2 C+
IRT+TH 1 24/2 10.595 10.667 1 2348 1 2357 1 2052 10.871 1 18.7 1 B 11367 ftl
I LT 1 12/1 10.209 10.048 1 1 1 63 I 91 11.083 1 172.7 1 F 1 198 ftl
E Approach 30.0 C
RT 112/1 10.187 10.248 1 198 1 386 I 11 10.028 1 30.0 1 C 1 12 ftl
TH+LT1 12/1 10.187 10.248 1 227 1 441 I 13 10.029 1 30.0 1 C 1 14 ftl
KUBIK MUSP
411 PM PEAK EXISTING CONDITION
•
•
09/16/03
07:57:29
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 2 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 61 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 1.01 Vehicle Delay 108.9 Level of Service F
Sq 27 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4
**/LG
/I\
North
+
v
A
++++
G/C=0.067 1 G/C=0.410 1 G/C=0.286 1 G/C=0.067
G= 7.0" 1 G= 43.0" 1 G= 30.0" 1 G= 7.0"
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 9.5% 1 OFF=55.2% 1 OFF=88.6%
C=105 sec G= 87.0 sec = 82.9% Y=18.0 sec = 17.1% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
J Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume) v/c 1 Delay 1 S !Model 11
N Approach 23.1 C+
I TH 1 24/2 10.421 10.505 1 1670 1.1786 1 1297 10.726 1 22.9 1 C+1 743 ftl
1 LT 1 12/1 10.186 10.067 1 1 I 95 1 10 10.085 1 46.3 1 D 1 13 ftl
S Approach 180.1 F
IRT+TH 1 24/2 10.562 10.410-1 1244 1 1449 1 1913 11.320 1 180.1 1 F 12579 ftl
E Approach 38.6 D+
1 RT 1 12/1 10.195 10.181 I 1 1 271 1 37 10.129 1 36.3 1 D+I 43 ft1
1 LT 1 12/1 10.187 10.067 1 1 1 95 1 11 10.093 1 46.4 1 D 1 15 ft!
W Approach 29.3 C
IRT+TH+LT1 24/2 10.220 10.286 1 625 1 932 1 261 10.280 1 29.3 1 C 1 146 ftl
KUBIK MUSP
41, PM PEAK EXISTING CONDITION
•
•
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
09/16/03
08:13:26
Intersection Averages for Int # 3 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 54 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.61 Vehicle Delay 16.2 Level of Service 8
Sq 31 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3
LG/**
/1\
1
1
North
1
A
G/C=0.524 ! G/C=0.105 1 G/C=0.229
G= 55.0" 1 G= 11.0" 1 G= 24.0"
Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=57.1% 1 OFF=72.4%
C=105 sec G= 90.0 sec = 85.7% Y=15.0 sec = 14.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes! Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E (Volume! v/c 1 Delay 1 S (Model 11
N Approach
16.1 B
RT 1 12/1 10.268 10.800 1 1264 1 1267 1 183 10.144 1 2.6 1 A 1 69 ftl
TH 1 24/2 10.374 10.524 1 1753 1 1854 1 1073 10.579 1 18.4 1 B 1 518 ftl
S Approach
13.0 B+
TH+LTI 24/2 10.525 10.676 1 2381 1 2384 1 1751 10.734 1 13.0 1 3+1 860 ftl
W Approach
31.5 C
1 RT 1 12/1 10.211 10.381 1 469 1 603 1 87 10.144 1 21.4 1 C+1 78 ft!
1 LT 1 24/2 10.223 10.229 1 336 1 785 1 292 10.372 1 34.4 1 C 1 174 ftl
KUBIK MVSP
41, PM PEAK EXISTING CONDITION
•
•
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01
Intersection Averages for
Degree of Saturation
09/16/03
08:25:14
.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Int # 4 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 50 TERR
(v/c) 0.67 Vehicle Delay 12.9 Level of Service B+
Sq 11 ] Phase 1 1 Phase 2
LG/**
/I\
North
A
G/C=0.676 ] G/C=0.219
G= 71.0" I G= 23.0"
Y+R= 5.0" I Y+R= 6.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=72,4%
C=105 sec
G= 94.0 sec = 89.5% Y=11.0 sec = 10.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
I Lane lWidth/I g/C 1 Service Rate] Adj I 1 HCM I L 1 Queue 1
I Group I Lanes) Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E ]Volume) v/c I Delay I S IModel 11
N Approach
9.4 A
1 TH 124/2 10.413 10.676 1 2390 12393 11258 .1.0.526 1 9.4 I A 1460 ft1
1 LT 112/1 10.232 10.676 1 51 I 65 1 18 10.247 I 8.4 1 A 1 12 ft1
S Approach
14.5 B+
IRT+TH 124/2 10.556 10.676 12374 1 2378 11876 10.789 I 14.5 I 8+11026 ftl
E Approach
33.6 C
IRT+TH+LTI 12/1 10.204 10.219 I 125 I 372 I 72 10.189 I 33.6 I C I 81 ftl
Kvszx MUSP
0 PM PEAK EXISTING CONDITION
•
•
09/16/03
08:35:20
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 5 - FEDERAL HWY & 54 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.45 Vehicle Delay 32.3 Level of Service C
Sq 32 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 I Phase 4
LD/**
/I\
1
1
North
1
<+ + +>
++++ + + +
v + + +
++++1 ++++
<++++1 <++++
++++1
v 1++++
+>1++++>
+ 1++++
+ 1 v
G/C=0.114 1 G/C=0.229 1 G/C=0.095 I G/C=0.429
G= 12.0" 1 G= 24.0" 1 G= 10.0"G= 45.0" 1
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0"Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" 1
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=14.3% 1 OFF=41.0% 1 OFF=53.3% 1
C=105 sec G= 91.0 sec = 86.7% Y=14.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L I Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c I Delay 1 S IModel 11
N Approach 34.8 C
1RT+TH 1 12/1 10.231 10.229 1 114 I 404...1. 119 10.289 1 35.2 1 D+I 140 ftl
I LT 1 12/1 10.205 10.229 1 48 1 131 I 23 10.155 I 32.9 1 C 1 26 ftI
S Approach 43.2 D+
1 RT 1 12/1 10.266 10.505 1 692 1 799 1 179 10.224 1 15.2 1 B 1 144 ftl
1 TB 1 12/1 10.371 10.371 I 504 1 692 1 503 10.727 1 35.0 1 C 1 579 ft1
I LT 1 12/1 10.237 10.114 I 1 1 179 1 189 10.936 1 91.5 1 F 1 314 ftl
E Approach 11.1 8+
1 RT 1 12/1 10.184 10.552 1 799 1 875 1 1 10.001 1 10.5 I B+I 1 ftl
1 TH+LTI 24/2 10.207 10.552 1 1879 1 1953 1 183 10.094 1 11.1 1 8+1 63 ft1
W Approach 16.2 B
I RT 1 12/1 10.219 10.581 1 853 1 920 1 111 10.121 1 10.0 1 A 1 70 ftl
1 TH 1 12/1 10.231 10.429 1 673 1 798 1 178 10.223 1 19.1 1 B 1 152 ftl
1 LT 1 12/1 10.219 10.429 1 407 1 508 1 79 10.156 1 18.5 1 B I 67 ftl
•
•
KUBIK MUSP
PM PEAK W/ COMMITTED W/O PROJECT
09/16/03
08:40:18
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00) - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 62 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.84 Vehicle Delay 25.2 Level of Service C+
Sq 31 I Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 I
LD/**
/I\
North
<+ + +>
+ + +
+ + +
G/C=0.048 I G/C=0.590 1 G/C=0.248
G= 5.0" I G= 62.0" 1 G= 26.0"
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0"
OFF 0.0% I OFF= 7.6% 1 OFF=71.4%
C=105 sec G= 93.0 sec = 88.6% Y=12.0 sec = 11.4% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
I Lane (Width/j g/C 1 Service Rate] Adj 1 I HCM I L I Queue I
1 Group I Lanes' Reqd Used l @C (vph) @E !Volume] v/c I Delay 1 S 'Model 11
N Approach 17.6 B
IRT+TH 124/2 10.470 10.590 1 2009 1 2065 1 1497 10.725 I 17.7 I B 1796 ftI
1 LT 1 12/1 10.192 10.590 I 47 I 62 1 4 10.056 I 9.4 1 A I 3 ftl
S Approach 30.1 C
IRT+TH
I LT 1 12/1 10.211 10.048 1 1 1 63 1 97 11.155 1 195.9 I F 1 229 ftl
1 24/2 10.625 10.667 1 2348 1 2357 1 2177 10.924 1 22.8 1 C+11672 ftl
E Approach 30.2 C
1 RT 1 12/1 10.192 10.248 1 198 1 386 1 27 10.069 1 30.3 1 C 1 29 ft1
1 TH+LTI 12/1 10.187 10.248 1 227 I 441 I 14 10.032 I 30.0 I C 1 15 ftl
•
•
•
KUBIK MUSP
PM PEAK W/ COMMITTED W/0 PROJECT
09/16/03
08:43:02
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 2 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 61 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 1.07 Vehicle Delay 128.5 Level of Service F
Sq 27 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4
**/LG
North
+
v
A
++++
G/C=0.067 1 G/C=0.410 1 G/C=0.286 1 G/C=0.067
G= 7.0" 1 G= 43.0" 1 G= 30.0" 1 G= 7.0"
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0"
OFF= 0.0% j OFF= 9.5% 1 OFF=55.2% 1 OFF=88.6%
C=105 sec G= 87.0 sec = 82.9% Y=18.0 sec = 17.1% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C 1 Service Ratel Adj 1
1 Group 1 Lanes] Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume]
1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
v/c 1 Delay 1 S 'Model 11
N Approach 24.5 C+
1 TH 1 24/2 10.438 10.505 1 1670 1 1786 1 1376 10.770 1 24.3 1 C+j 835.ft1
1 LT 1 12/1 10.187 10.067 1 1 1 95 1 11 10.093 1 46.4 1 D 1 15 ftl
S Approach 215.4 F
1RT+TH
1 24/2 10.590 10.410 1 1244 1 1449 1 2029 11.400 1 215.4 1 F 12923 ftl
E Approach 38.7 D+
1 RT 1 12/1 10.196 10.181 1 1 1 271 1 39 10.136 1 36.3 1 D+1 46 ftl
1 LT 1 12/1 10.187 10.067 1 1 1 95 1 12 10.102 1 46.4 1 D 1 16 ftl
W Approach 29.4 C
1RT+TH+LT1 24/2 10.223 10.286 1 625 1 933 1 277 10.297 1 29.4 1 C 1 156 ftl
KUBIK MUSP
41, PM PEAK W/ COMMITTED W/O PROJECT
•
•
09/16/03
08:44:45
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00j - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 3 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 54 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.64 Vehicle Delay 17.1 Level of Service B
Sq 31 1 Phase 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3
LG/**
/i\
1
1
North
1
r
+
G/C=0.524 1 G/C=0.105 1 G/C=0.229
G= 55.0" 1 G= 11.0" 1 G= 24.0"
Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=57.1% 1 OFF=72.4%
C=105 sec G= 90.0 sec = 85.7% Y=15.0 sec = 14.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate, Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanesl Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E [Volume! v/c 1 Delay 1 S ,Model 11
N Approach 16.7 B
RT 1 12/1 10.273 10.800 1 1264 1 1267 1 194.10.153 1 2.6 1 A 1 74 ftl
TH 1 24/2 10.388 10.524 1 1753 1 1854 1 1139 10.614 1 19.1 1 B 1 567 ftl
S Approach 14.2 B+
1
TH+LT1 24/2 10.551 10.676 1 2381 1 2384 1 1859 10.780 1 14.2 1 B+1 997 ft1
W Approach 31.7 C
1 RT 1 12/1.10.212 10.381 1 469 1 603 1 91 10.151 1 21.5 1 C+1 82 ftl
1 LT 1 24/2 10.225 10.229 1 336 1 785 1 310 10.395 1 34.7 1 C 1 186 ftl
411 KUBIK MUSP
PM PEAK W/ COMMITTED W/0 PROJECT
•
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] -
Intersection Averages for Int #
Degree of Saturation (v/c)
sq 11 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1
LG/**
North
+ + + +
G/C=0.676 1 G/C=0.219
G= 71.0" 1 G= 23.0"
Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 6.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=72.4%
C=105 sec
09/16/03
08:47:19
Capacity Analysis Summary
4 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 50 TERR
0.71 Vehicle Delay 14.2 Level of Service B+
G= 94.0 sec = 89.5% Y=11.0 sec = 10.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Rate! Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) GE !Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 'Model 11
N Approach
9.8 A
1 TH
1 LT
1 24/2 10.429 10.676 1 2390 1 2393 1 1334 1.0.557 1 9.8 1 A 1 505 ftl
1 12/1 10.235 10.676 1 49 1 63 1 19 10.268 1 8.7 1 A 1 12 ftl
s Approach
16.4 B
IRT+TH 1 24/2 10.583 10.676 1 2374 1 2378 1 1991 10.837 1 16.4 1 B 11214 ftl
E Approach
33.7 C
IRT+TH+LTI 12/1 10.205 10.219 1 125 1 372 1
76 10.199 1 33.7 1 C 1 85 ftl
KUBIK MUSP
. PM PEAK W/ COMMITTED W/0 PROJECT
•
•
09/16/03
08:49:17
SIGNAL2000/TEAPACEVer 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 5 - FEDERAL HWY & 54 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.48 Vehicle Delay 35.2 Level of Service D+
Sq 32 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3[ Phase 4
LD/**
/1\
1
1
North
A
A
<+++>
++++ + + +
v + + +
G/C=0.114
G= 12.0"
Y+R= 3.0"
OFF= 0.0%
G/C=0,229
G= 24.0"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=14.3%
G/C=0.095
G= 10.0"
Y+R= 3,0"
OFF=41.0%
G/C=0.429
G= 45.0"
Y+R= 4.0"
OFF=53.3%
C=105 sec
G= 91.0 sec = 86.7% Y=14.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane (Width/1 g/C 1 Service Ratel Adj 1 1 IICM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes] Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E (Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S 'Model 11
N Approach
35.2 D+
IRT+TH
1 LT
1 12/1 10.234 10.229 1 114 1 404 1 127 10.308 1 35.5 1 D+1 150 ftl
1 12/1 10.214 10.229 1 39 1 108 1 26 10.208 1 33.6 1 C 1 30 ft1
S Approach
48.2 D
RT
TH
LT
1 12/1 10.271
112/1 10.384
1 12/1 10.240
0.505 1 692 1 799 1 190 10.238 1 15.3 1 B 1 153 ftl
0.371 1 504 1 692 I 534 10.772 1 37.2 1 0+1 638 ft1
0.114 1 1 1 179 1 201 10.995 1 108.3 1 F 1 357 ftl
E Approach
11.1 B+
RT 1 12/1 10.184 10.552 1 799 1 875 1 1 10.001 1 10.5 1 8+1 1 ftl
TH+LTI 24/2 10.208 10.552 1 1879 1 1953 1 194 10.099 1 11.2 1 B+1 67 ft1
W Approach
16.3 B
1 RT 1 12/1 10.221 10.581 1
1 TH 1 12/1 10.234 10.429 1
1 LT 1 12/1 10.221 10.429 1
853 1 920 1 118 10.128 1 10.0 1 8+1 74 ft1
673 1 798 1 189 10.237 1 19.2 1 B 1 163 ftl
403 1 503 1 84 10.167 1 18.6 1 B 1 72 ftl
KUBIK MUSP
411 PM PEAK COMMITTED & PROJECT
•
•
09/16/03
08:52:58
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] — Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 62 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.86 Vehicle Delay 28.1 Level of Service C
Sq 31 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3
LD/**
/1\
1
1
North
G/C=0.048 1 G/C=0.590 1 G/C=0.248
G= 5.0" 1 G= 62.0" 1 G= 26.0"
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0" l Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 7.6% 1 OFF=71.4%
C=105 sec G= 93.0 sec = 88.6% Y=12.0 sec = 11.4% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane lWidth/I g/C 1 Service Ratel Adj 1
1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes] Reqd Used l @C (vph) @E IVolumel v/c 1 Delay 1 S {Model 11
N Approach 17.9 8
IRT+TH
1 LT
1 24/2 10.474 10.590 1 2009 1 2065 1 1516 10.734 1 17.9 1 B 1 817 ftl
1 12/1 10.192 10.590 1 47 1 62 1 4 10.056 1 9.4 1 A 1 3 ftl
8 Approach 34.8 C
1RT+TH, 1 24/2 10.630 10.667 1 2348 1 2357 1 2196 10.932 1 23.6 1 0+11726 ftl
1 LT 1 12/1 10.214 10.048 1 1 1 63 1 111 11.321 1 256.4 1 F 1 306 ftl
E Approach 30.0 C
1 RT 1 12/1 10.187 10.248 1 198 1 386 1 12 10.031 1 30.0 1 C 1 13 ft1
1 TH+LTI 12/1 10.187 10.248 1 227 1 441 1 14 10.032 1 30.0 1 C 1 15 ft1
•
•
KUBIK MUSP
PM PEAK COMMITTED & PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.001 - Capacity Analysis Summary
09/16/03
08:55:05
Intersection Averages for Int # 2 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 61 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 1.08 Vehicle Delay 134.1 Level of Service F
Sq 27 1 Phase 1
**/LG
/i\
1
1
North
Phase 2 1 Phase 3
Phase 4
+
v
G/C=0.067 1 G/C=0.410
G= 7.0" 1 G= 43.0"
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 5.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF= 9.5%
G/C=0.286
G= 30.0"
Y+R= 5.0"
OFF=55.2%
G/C=0.067
G= 7.0"
Y+R= 5.0"
OFF=88.6%
C=105 sec
G= 87.0 sec = 82.9% Y=18.0 sec = 17.1% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane [Width/1 g/C I Service Rate! Adj I 1 HCM 1 L I Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes[ Reqd Used 1 @C (vph) @E 'Volume' v/c 1 Delay 1 S (Model 11
N Approach
24.9 C+
1
TH 1 24/2 10.442 10.505 1
LT 1 12/1 10.187 10.067 1
670 1 1786 11394 10.781 1 24.7 1 C+I 858 ftf
1 1 95 I 11 10.093 1 46.4 1 D 1 15 ftl
s Approach
225.8 F
IRT+TH
1 24/2 10.598 10.410 1 1244 1 1449 12063 11.424 1 225.8 1 F 13025 ftj
E Approach
38.7 D+
RT 1 12/1 10.196 10.181 1
LT 1 12/1 10.187 10.067 1
1 1 271 1 39 10.136 1 36.3 1 D+I 46 ftj
1 1 95 1 12 10.102 1 46.4 1 D 1 16 ftf
W Approach
29.6 C
1RT+TH+LTI 24/2 10.225 10.286 1 623 1 929 1 293 10.315 1 29.6 1 C 1 166 ftj
•
•
•
KUBIK MUSP
PM PEAK COMMITTED & PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
09/16/03
08:58:45
Intersection Averages for Int # 3 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 54 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.65 Vehicle Delay 17.4 Level of Service B
Sq 31 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2 I Phase 3
LG/**
/i\
1
1
North
• A
+
G/C=0.524 1 G/C=0.105 I G/C=0.229
G= 55.0" 1 G= 11.0" 1 G= 24.0"
Y+R= 5.0" I Y+R= 5.0" I Y+R= 5.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=57.1% ! OFF=72.4%
C=105 sec G= 90.0 sec = 85.7% Y=15.0 sec = 14.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used i @C (vph) @E IVolumel v/c 1 Delay 1 S }Model 11
N Approach
16.6 B
1 RT 1 12/1 10.289 10..800 1 1264.1 1267 1 230 10.182 1 2.8 1 A 1 89 ftl
I TH 1 24/2 10.392 10.524 1 1753 1 1854 1 1160 10.626 1 19.3 1 B 1 584 ftl
S Approach
14.5 B+
TH+LT1 24/2 10.556 10.676 1 2381 1 2384 1 1881 10.789 1 14.5 1 8+11029 ftl
W Approach
32.3 C
RT 1 12/1 10.212 10.381 1 469 1 603 1 91 10.151 1 21.5 1 C+1 82 ftl
LT 1 24/2 10.230 10.229 1 336 1 785 1 347 10.442 1 35.2 1 D+1 210 ftl
KUBIK MUSP
40 PM PEAK COMMITTED & PROJECT
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] -
Intersection Averages for Int #
Degree of Saturation (v/c)
Sq 11 1 Phase 1 1 Phase 2
LG/**
/I\
North
A
++++
G/C=0.676 1 G/C=0.219
G= 71.0" 1 G= 23.0"
Y+R= 5.0" 1 Y+R= 6.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=72.4%
C=105 sec
09/16/03
09:01:41
Capacity Analysis Summary
4 - BISCAYNE BLVD & NE 50 TERR
0.72 Vehicle Delay 14.4 Level of Service B+
G= 94.0 sec = 89.5% Y=11.0 sec = 10.5% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane IWidth/I g/C I Service Ratel Adj I I HCM I L I Queue I
I Group ] Lanes! Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume! v/c I Delay I S Model II
N Approach
9.9 A
I TH
I LT
124/2 10.433 10.676 1 2390 ] 2393 11352 10.565 I 9.9 I A 1516 ft!
1 12/1 10.235 10.676 1 49 ] 63 1 19 10.268 1 8.7 1 A 1 12 ftl
S Approach
16.7 B
IRT+TH 124/2 10.587 10.676 12375 1 2379 12008 10.844 I 16.7 1 B 11245 ftl
E Approach
33.7 C
IRT+TB+LTI 12/1 10.205 10.219 1 125 1 372 1 76 10.199 1 33.7 1 C 1 85 ftl
•
KUBIK MUSP
40 PM PEAK COMMITTED & PROJECT
09/16/03
09:05:36
SIGNAL2000/TEAPAC[Ver 1.01.00] - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 5 - FEDERAL HWY & 54 ST
Degree of Saturation (v/c) 0.47 Vehicle Delay 34.4 Level of Service C
Sq 32 I Phase 1 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 Phase 4
LD/**
/1\
North
1
A
<+++>
++++ + + +
v + +
G/C=0.114 1 G/C=0.229 1 G/C=0.095 1 G/C=0.429
G= 12.0" I G= 24.0" 1 G= 10.0" 1 G= 45.0"
Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0" I Y+R= 3.0" 1 Y+R= 4.0"
OFF= 0.0% 1 OFF=14.3% 1 OFF=41.0% 1 OFF=53.3%
C=105 sec G= 91.0 sec = 86.7% Y=14.0 sec = 13.3% Ped= 0.0 sec = 0.0%
1 Lane 1Width/1 g/C I Service Rate' Adj 1 1 HCM 1 L 1 Queue 1
1 Group 1 Lanes' Reqd Used I @C (vph) @E 'Volume! v/c 1 Delay 1 S 'Model 11
N Approach 35.2 D+
IRT+TH 1 12/1 10.234 1.0..229 1 114 1 404 1 127 10.308 1 35.5 1 D+1 150 ftl
1 LT 1 12/1 10.214 10.229 1 39 1 108 1 26 10.208 1 33.6 1 C j 30 ftl
S Approach 47.3 D
RT 1 12/1 10.284 10.505 1 692 1 799 1 219 10.274 1 15.8 1 B 1 178 ftl
TH 1 12/1 10.384 10.371 1 504 1 692 1 534 10.772 1 37.2 1 0+1 638 ftl
LT 1 12/1 10.240 10.114 1 1 1 179 1 201 10.995 1 108.3 1 F 1 357 ft1
E Approach 11.3 B+
RT 1 12/1 10.184 10.552 1 799 1 875 1 1 10.001 1 10.5 1 8+1 1 ft1
TH+LT1 24/2 10.213 10.552 1 1866 1 1941 1 230 10.118 1 11.3 1 B+l 81 ftl
W Approach 16.4 B
1 RT 1 12/1 10.221 10.581 1 853 1 920 1 118 10.128 1 10.0 1 B+1 74 ftl
1 TH 1 12/1 10.236 10.429 1 673 1 798 1 196 10.246 1 19.3 1 B 1169 ft'
I LT 1 12/1 10.223 10.429 1 387 I 486 1 84 10.173 1 18.7 1 B 1 72 ftl
TRIP VOLUME AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS
•
•
•
PERSON TRIP VOLUME AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS TABLE
ROADWAY MODE
MASS TRANSIT MODE
SEGMENT TOTAL
ROADWAY
052
M$AMI
ADOPTED
LOS
CORRIDOR
TYPE
ROADWAY
VEHICULAR
CAPACITY
PERSON-
TRIP
CAPACITY
A 1.6 PPV
ROADWAY
VEHICULAR
VOLUME
PERSON-
TRIP
VOLUME
@ 1 4
PPV
EXCESS
PERSON
TRIP
CAPACITY
ROADWAY
PERSON TRIP
BUS PER-
TRIP
CAPACITY
LOAD
MOVER
PER -TRIP
CAPACITY
LOAD
RAIL
PERSON
TRIP
CAPACITY
TOTAL
TRANSIT
PER -TRIP
CAPACITY
TRANSIT PERSON -TRIP
VOLUME
TOTAL
TRANSIT
PERS
VOLUME
TRANS1T
PERSON
TRIP
EXCESS
CAPACITY
SEGMENT
PERSON
TRIP
CAPACITY
SEGMENT
PERSON
TRIP
VOLUME
SEGMENT
PER -TRIP
EXCESS
CAPACITY
SEGMENT
PERSON TRW
FROM TO
ViC
LOS
SUS
METRO-
MOVER
METRO-
RAIL
WC
LOS
bcisr1tiddONbitbWissiii6iiiiii'Adjui
?WigRa
,W:';TY,,N,'
`=3:,%-::':2!?.th.;.0::
'sk:',:',':.!':e.
',iEl.'.!'51R.P.:!(.i::.,!''''',.-:,::'
.;P:'•V'.:.!::,.
i':',','.'"fri'T''
':'''''.,M'V',!
:','.:::.W.',:•'!',
'''‘'..:''::''.,':'''''
''''''''': '''''.?'!:',;').:::.',4i.
':g'1.;:':'',':.:'17,:::•'-':','::::.
';'',:.:::''..,n'''''..R.;','''';,:i.';1.
:!1:n:'''''::!iiM':','.!
'''4.*:q!,c5M.:::''.;''::,:!'
':'!'''',!?
Biscayne Blvd.
1
NE 62 St NE 61 St
561
E
HS
1780
2848
1176
1646
1202
0.58
C
/046
0
1046
506
0
568
540
3894
2152
1742
0.55
C
NE 61 St NE 54 SI
SO
E
HS
1780
2848
1131
1583
1265
0 56
C
1046
0
1046
506
0
506
540
3894
2089
1805
0.54
C
NE 54 St NE 50 Tea
SB
E
HS
1780
2848
1151
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 501h Ted- 1405451
NB
E
HS
1760
2848
1576
2206
642
0 77
C
1046
0
1046
506
0
506
540
3894
2712
1182
0 70
C
NE 54 SI 1456104
NB
E
HS
1780
2848
1721
2409
430
0 85
43
046
0
1046
506
0
506
540
3894
2915
979
0 75
C
NE 61 SI NE 62 SI
NB
E
HS
1700
2848
1029
2701
147
0.95
13
1046
0
1046
506
0
506
540
3094
3207
687
0 82
0
NE 54 St
Seayne Bivd. Fed Hwy
EB
E
HS
1700
2848
341
477
2371
0.17
0
276
276
74
0
74
202
3124
551
2573
0 18
8
Fed Hwy Biscayne Bivd,
WB
E
HS
1790
2848
166
232
2615
0.08
B
276
276
74
0
74
202
3/24
306
2818
0,10
B
WITH BACKGROUND
TRAFFtC
{2005)
Biscayne Blvd,
NE 62 St NE 61 St
56
E
HS
£780
2848
1248
1747
1101
0.61
C
1046
El
1046
506
0
505
540
3854
2253
1641
058
C
NE 61 St NE 54 St
56
HS
1760
2848
1200
1686
1168
0.59
C
1046
0
1046
506
0
506
040
3654
2106
1706
0.56
C
NE 54 St NE 50 Terr
SS
E
HS
1780
2848
1221
Biscayne Blvd.
NE 501h Tor NE 54 St
NB
E
HS
1780
2848
1672
2341
507
0.82
C
1046
0
1046
506
0
506
540
3854
2847
1047
0.73
C
NE 54 51 NE 61 St
NB
E
HS
1780
21348
1526
2557
291
0.90
D
1046
0
1046
506
Cr
506
540
3854
3063
831
0 79
C
NE 61 St NE 62 St
NB
E
HS
1780
2848
2047
21366
-18
%CI
f
1046
0
1046
506
9
505
546
3694
3372
522
OM
0
NE sa st
0c01110 Bivd. Fed Hwy
EB
E
HS
1780
2848
362
507
2341
0.18
B
276
276
74
0
74
202
3124
581
2543
0.10
11
Fed Hwy Biscayne Blvdil
We
E
HS
1780
2848
176
247
2601
0.09
8
276
276
74
0
74
202
3124
321
2803
0.10
B
WITH PROJECTAND
BACKGROUND
TRAFFIC {2OQ5
Biscayne Bivd.
NE 62 St NE 61 St
SB
9
HS
1780
2848
1272
1781
1067
0 63
C
1046
0
1046
512
0
512
534
3894
2293
1601
0.59
C
NE 61 SI NE 54 St
SB
HS
1780
2848
1271
1780
1068
0.62
C
1046
0
5046
524
0
524
522
3694
2304
1590
0.59
C
NE 54 SI NE 50 Tea
SO
E
HS
1780
2848
1248
Biscayne BI
5016 Terr NE 54 St
NB
E
HS
1750
2848
1700
2381
467
0.84
C
1046
0
1046
513
— 0
513
533
3894
2094
1000
0.74
C
NE 54 SI NE 61 St
NB
E
HS
1780
2840
1868
2616
232
0.92
C
1046
0
1046
517
0
517
529
3694 '
3133
761
6,60
C
NE 61 St NE 52 SI
NB
E
HS
1780
21348
2089
2925
-77
1.03
0
1046
0
1046
517
0
517
529
3694
3442
452
0.88
0
NE 54 St
scare Blvd. Fed Hwy
ES
0
HS
1780
2848
407
570
2278
620
B
276
278
85
0
85
191
3124
655
2469
0.21
8
Fed Hwy Biscayne Blvd
WB
E
HS
1780
2848
222
311
2537
0.11
8
276
276
85
0
05
101
3124
396
2728
013
8
LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLE
CLASSIFICATION
TYPE
FDOT'S 2002 QILOS
PERSON -TRIP LOS
A
B
C
D
E
A
B
C
D
E
CLASS i
1LU
0
220
720
860
890
0.00
0.25
0.81
0.97
1.00
2LD
0
1530
1810
1860
1960
0.00
0.78
0.92
0.95
1.00
3LD
0
2330
2720
2790
2890
0.00
0.81
0.94
0.97
1.00
4LD
0
3030
3460
3450
3550
0.00
0.85
0.97
0.97
1.00
CLASS #[
1LU
0
100
590
810
850
0.00
0.12
0.69
0.95
1.00
2LD
0
220
1360
1710
1800
0.00
0.12
0.76
0.95
1.00
3LD
0
340
2110
2570
2710
0.00
0.13
0.78
0.95
1.00
4LD
0
440
2790
3330
3500
0.00
0.13
0.80
0.95
1.00
CLASS III
1LU
0
0
280
660
810
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.81
1.00
2LD
0
0
650
1510
1720
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.88
1.00
3LD
0
0
1020
2330
2580
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.90
1.00
4LD
0
0
1350
3070
3330
0.00
0.00
0.41
0.92
1.00
CLASS IV
1LU
0
0
270
720
780
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.92
1.00
2LD
0
0
650
1580
1660
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.95
1.00
3LD
0
0
1000
2390
2490
0.00
0.00
0.40
0.96
1.00
4LD
0
0
1350
3130
3250
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.96
1.00
NOTES: DERIVED BY DIVIDING THE FDOT's 2002 LOS BY THE LOS 'E' FOR EACH TYPE OF ROADWAY.
LOS E' DETERMINED BY INCREASING LOS D BY 100 VPH CAPACITY WHICH CAN EASILY BE ACHIEVED BY
OPTIMIZATION AND OTHER TECHNIQUES.