Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutLTC 080-2015 - Traffic Study - PresentationBAL HARBOUR SHOPS EXPANSION TRAFFIC STUDYMay 5, 2015Joseph M. Corradino, AICPSalman Rathore, P.E. TODAY•Scope of Work•Methodology•Purpose of Traffic Study•Traffic Study Assumptions•Previous Study vs. The Corradino Group•Traffic Study Results•Previous Study vs. The Corradino Group•Questions / Comments SCOPE OF WORK (METHODOLOGY)Conduct Traffic Impact Study (Bal Harbour Shops Expansion Project)Collect Traffic Counts between Thanksgiving & Christmas or during Peak timesDay / Time selected based on conversations with the Police Department, Village Staff & ResidentsCommitted Development Trips near the project area to be includedTraffic Analysis to be conducted for the nearby intersections Analysis scenarios to be included for year 2015 (existing) vs. year 2020 (proposed project completion)Traffic study to address any anticipated impacts onto the existing roadway systemIf needed, Mitigation Strategies to be provided Traffic Study results to be compared to the previously submitted traffic study (Developer)Difference in assumptions and results will be highlighted PURPOSE OF TRAFFIC STUDY•Forecast additional traffic associated with new development based on accepted practices•Determine the improvements that are necessary to accommodate the new development•Assist in allocating scarce resources to areas which need improvements•Identify potential problems with the proposed development which may influence the developer’s decision to pursue it•Allow the community to assess the impacts that a proposed development may have•Help to ensure safe and reasonable traffic conditions on streets after the development is complete•Reduce the negative impacts created by developments by helping to ensure that the transportation network can accommodate the development•Provide direction to community decision makers and developers of expected impacts. TRAFFIC STUDY ASSUMPTIONSAssumptions Previous Study (Developer) New Study (Corradino)Data CollectionFebruary 2014 December 2014 / February 2015ITE Trip RatesLower trip rates are used for the studyretail mall (based on data collected)Scenario 1Average of trips used in the study and ITE general retail mall (includes eating and drinking establishments)ITE Trip RatesLower trip rates are used for the studyretail mall (based on data collected)Scenario 2Most conservative –Based on the assumption that shops will be redeveloped as a typical shopping center per ITE rates. TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSPROJECT LOCATION•ExistingLandUse463,477 square feet of grossleasable floor area•Proposed LandUseAddition of 325,945 square feetof gross leasable floor area for a total of 789,422 square  feet TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSThe intersection turning movement counts were collected in February 2015 and analyzed at the following intersections located near the project site:Bal Cross Drive and Collins Avenue (Unsignalized)96th Street & Bal Harbour Shops south entrance (500 Block) (Signalized)96th Street & Byron Avenue (Signalized)Harding Avenue & 96th Street (Signalized)Collins Avenue & 96th Street (Signalized)Collins Avenue & the 9700 Block (BHS and St. Regis Driveways) (Signalized)96th Street & Bal Bay Drive (Unsignalized)STUDY INTERSECTIONS TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSCounts collected in December 2014 (Christmas Season)These counts were found low when compared to other studies performed in the areaCounts were retaken in February 2015  which was consistent with the developer’s  traffic study for the following locations:Bal Cross Drive and Collins Avenue (Unsignalized)96th Street & Bal Harbour Shops south entrance (500 Block) (Signalized)96th Street & Byron Avenue (Signalized)Harding Avenue & 96th Street (Signalized)Collins Avenue & 96th Street (Signalized)Collins Avenue & the 9700 Block (BHS and St. Regis Driveways) (Signalized)96th Street & Bal Bay Drive (Unsignalized)TRAFFIC COUNTS DATA COLLECTION TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSDATA COLLECTION  LOCATIONS•February 2015 TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSPROJECT TRIP GENERATIONSCENARIO 1 (AVERAGE TRIPS)The average of the shops retail (trip rates from Developer’s traffic study) and general retail mall from ITE LU Code 820/shopping center (which includes eating and drinking establishments) was used. This average was reflective of a more conservative assumption that takes into account future changes in market conditions that could result in more intense uses for the purposes of traffic generation. TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSPROJECT TRIP GENERATIONSCENARIO 2 (MOST CONSERVATIVE)The second scenario assumed the worst case conditions and was based on the assumption that Bal Harbour Shops would be totally redeveloped along the lines of a typical shopping center as specified in the ITE Manual. Trip generation was determined based on the conditions in the future with the assumption that BHS will be totally converted to a standard shopping center. TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSPROJECT TRIP GENERATIONITE PASS‐BY TRIP CREDIT REDUCTION (SCENARIOS 1 AND 2)The ITE pass‐by trip reduction (34%) was applied on both the trip generation scenarios. Pass‐by trips are external to the development but are already on the transportation system (i.e., not new trips on the roadway). These trips enter the site as an intermediate stop, or are intercepted, by the proposed development. (For scenarios 1 and 2, the Pass‐by trips were included in the driveways for analysis) TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSTRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENTThe trip distribution and traffic assignment for the BHS project were basedonMiami‐Dade County’s Cardinal Distribution information (TAZ# 598) for thestudy area, examination of the surrounding roadway network characteristics,existing andfuture landuse patterns. TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSTRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES•Based on MDC Cardinal Distribution Information TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSFUTURE CONDITIONS TRAFFIC VOLUMESTwo sets offuture volumes were developedBackgroundTraffic: Existing Counts +Growth Rate +Committed DevelopmentsExistingCounts(Collectedin February 2015)Growth Rate(Using FDOT historical counts, Minimal growthrate found but1%GR used)CommittedDevelopments (ApprovedprojectsinBal Harbour/Surfside butnotconstructed)FutureTotalTraffic: BackgroundTraffic+BHSTrips+Proposed Enhancements (BHS)BackgroundTraffic calculated and as shown aboveBHSTrips (Scenarios 1and 2)Proposed Enhancements (Asper developer’s traffic study) TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSFUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC (SCENARIO 1)•Background Traffic+BHS Scenario 1 Trips + Proposed Enhancements TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSFUTURE TOTAL TRAFFIC (SCENARIO 2)•Background Traffic+BHS Scenario 2 Trips + Proposed Enhancements TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSBHS FUTURE PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS (PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER) TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSBHS FUTURE PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS (PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER)These improvements as highlighted in the developer’s traffic study are mentionedbelow:Construct a new signalizeddriveway at the north end of BHSReconstruct the BHSdriveway on 96thStreet to provideaccessto the enhancedShopsConvert the existing drive opposite the St. Regis into an Entry Only drive for PremiumValet ParkingConvert the secondary driveway adjacent to the pedestrian crossing signal just north of96thStreet to an ExitOnlydrivefor the PremiumValet parking TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSBHS FUTURE PLANNED ENHANCEMENTS (PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER)Replace the existing crosswalks on A1A at the 9700 Block with enhanced (2 stage)crosswalksand at the new driveway at the northern end of BHSRemove the mid‐blockpedestriansignalonCollins/Hardingjust north of 96thStreetDevelop new traffic signal coordination plans (retiming) to address the improved signalspacingand other changes to the street network and optimizesignaloperations TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSWHAT IS LEVEL OF SERVICE? Level of Service (LOS) is a quality measure describing operational conditionswithin a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speedand travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort andconvenience. TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSLEVEL OF SERVICE  TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSEXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON (Developer vs. Corradino)All study intersections currently operate adequately at an acceptable level of service intheyear2015whencomparedtotheadoptedlevelofserviceaspertheVillageComprehensivePlan.Theexistinglevel ofserviceresultsfromTheCorradinoGrouptrafficstudyare very close to developer’s traffic study. TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSFUTURE LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON (Developer vs. Corradino)All study intersections will continue to operate adequately at an acceptable level ofservice in the year 2020 with proposed project and enhancements (proposed in thedeveloper’s traffic study)in place for both tripgeneration scenarios (Scenario 1and 2).Similar LOS results buthigher delays were found in our study.Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOS Delay (sec) LOSCollins Avenue & New North Drive Signalized All 9.1 A 14.1 B 28.9 CCollins Avenue & 9700 Block Signalized All 3.7 A 3.9 A 4.0 ACollins Avenue & 96th Street Signalized All 22.2 C 23.0 C 23.4 CHarding Avenue & 96th Street Signalized All 36.3 D 43.4 D 52.2 D96th Street & Byron Avenue Signalized All 12.4 B 16.0 B 17.1 B96th Street & S. Mall Entrance Signalized All 6.5 A 13.6 B 23.3 C(*) Results from FCI Traffic Study Dated May 30, 2015.(**) Results from The Corradino Group Traffic Study for two Trip Generation Scenarios.Location Type MovePM Peak PM Peak PM PeakIntersectionsFCI* - 2020 With EnhancementsTCG** - 2020 With Enhancements (Scenario 1)TCG** - 2020 With Enhancements (Scenario 2) TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSNEW NORTH DRIVEWAY QUEUING ANALYSISThe Queuing Analysis for the New North Driveway was performed based on themethodology outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Transportation and Land Development.As per the developers traffic study, the New North Driveway at Collins Avenue isproposed to have three entering lanes where shoppers will enter the mall from southand north ofCollinsAvenue.As per the site plan, the three proposed entering lanes can accommodate up to 18vehicles.The arrival timesurvey data provided bythe developer’s traffic engineer indicates;The average service time for avehicle to stopandcollect ticket was8.3 secondsThe data was collected onMay 25, 2011for two entering lanes of BHSat9700 Block TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSNEW NORTH DRIVEWAY QUEUING ANALYSISDifferent scenarios were run based on Scenario 2 entering traffic, number ofticketinglanes and servicetime.The followingresults were found:EnteringLanes (N)Average Ticket ServiceTime (Seconds)Available Stacking (Vehicles)Anticipated Queue(Vehicles)330 (CorradinoAssumption) 18 (As per the plan)Model FAILS/Queuing is an issue315 (Corradino Assumption) 18 (As per the plan)Model FAILS/Queuing is an issue312.75 (Corradino Assumption) 18 (As per the plan)16 /Queuing is NOTan issue310 (Developer’s traffic engineer) 18 (As per the plan)6 /Queuing is NOTan issue TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSNEW NORTH DRIVEWAY QUEUING ANALYSISAsystemofentrymustbeproposedinwhichthe average ticket service time is 12.75seconds orless.The Village will work with the developer to increase the length of the stacking lanesor implement a different system of entry that does not require vehicles to stop andcollectticketsthus reducingany possibilityof carsqueueing ontoCollinsAvenue. TRAFFIC STUDY RESULTSDEVELOPER’S RESPONSIBILITYPay for all the enhancements as mitigation strategy as proposed in their trafficstudy.Work with Village of Bal Harbour to increase the stacking length, develop a bettertechnology or implement a different system of entry for the New North Drivewaythat does not require vehicles to stop and collect tickets thus reducing any possibilityof carsqueueing ontoCollinsAvenue.Coordinate with Miami‐Dade County Traffic Engineering Department and Village ofBal Harbour to develop strategy in order to provide modified and acceptable signaltimingplansfor the proposed expansion. QUESTIONS / COMMENTS?•Opportunity for public to express concerns & issues•Feedback is important•Feedback / comments can be taken into account as we finalize the report THANK YOU