Sr 826/Palmetto Expressway Project Development & Environment Study from Sr 93/I‐75 to Golden Glades Interchange

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

SR 826/PALMETTO EXPRESSWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT STUDY FROM SR 93/I‐75 TO GOLDEN GLADES INTERCHANGE

SYSTEMS INTERCHANGE MODIFICATION REPORT (SIMR)

Financial Project ID: 418423‐1‐22‐01 FAP No.: 4751 146 P / ETDM No.: 11241 Miami‐Dade County

Prepared For: FDOT District Six 1000 NW 111th Avenue Miami, Florida 33172

Prepared by: Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126

March 9, 2012

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

MEMORANDUM

DATE: March 9, 2012

TO: Phil Steinmiller, AICP Florida Department of Transportation District Six Interchange Review Committee Chair

FROM: Dat Huynh, PE FDOT, District Six Project Manager

SUBJECT: Methodology Letter of Understanding (MLOU) SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study Systems Interchange Modification Report (SIMR) FDOT, District Six FM No.: 418423‐1‐22‐01

Dear Interchange Coordinator: This document serves as the Methodology Letter of Understanding (MLOU) between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Systems Planning Office, Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise (Cooperating Approval Authority) and FDOT District Six Interchange Review Committee (Applicant) regarding the preparation of a Systems Interchange Modification Report (SIMR) for a portion of SR 826/Palmetto Expressway located in Miami‐Dade County, Florida. The SIMR relates to the proposed improvements for the segment of SR 826 between I‐75 and the Golden Glades Interchange (GGI). The project proposes to widen SR 826 mainline from I‐75 to Golden Glades Interchange to provide additional lanes that could serve as general use lanes or special use lanes (managed lanes). In addition, major modifications are proposed at several interchanges along the corridor to address capacity deficiencies, enhance safety and upgrade roadway design elements to meet current standards. A direct system‐to‐system connection is also planned linking SR 826 managed lanes (east) and I‐95 Express Lanes (north). These proposed improvements are the subject of an ongoing Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study for the corridor.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 1

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

The SIMR will serve as a component of the PD&E Study and will follow procedures and evaluate alternatives that are consistent with the PD&E Study. This MLOU covers the criteria, assumptions, processes (analyses) and documentation requirements agreed upon for this study. This MLOU has been developed in accordance with FDOT Policy No. 000‐525‐015‐f (Approval of New or Modified Access to Limited Access Facilities), FDOT Procedure No. 525‐030‐160‐g (Interchange Handbook) and the FDOT Traffic Forecasting Handbook (Procedure No.525‐030‐120‐g). The map in Figure 1 shows the project location area.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 2 END PROJECT (MP 24.572)

BEGIN PROJECT (MP 15.354)

LEGEND

SR 826 PD&E Study

TITLE FIGURE SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study Project Location Map 1 From SR 93/I-75 to Golden Glades Interchange ETDM NO.: 11241 FM NO.: 418423-1-22-01

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The Palmetto Expressway is one of the most traveled transportation corridors in Miami‐Dade County. This multi‐lane expressway extends from US‐1 to the Golden Glades Interchange (GGI) for a distance of approximately 25 miles. Within the project study limits, the Palmetto Expressway corridor is a six‐lane divided limited access facility from SR 93/I‐75 to NW 27th Avenue; and from NW 27th Avenue to the GGI, the corridor widens to an eight‐lane divided expressway. From NW 67th Avenue, a one‐way frontage road (NW 167th Street) runs along each side of the facility, providing access to businesses located along the corridor as well as St. Thomas University and Florida Memorial College. The Palmetto Expressway provides system‐ level connections to I‐75, Florida’s Turnpike, and I‐95. In addition, the Palmetto Expressway is designated as a Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) and Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility.

A Multimodal Intrastate Master Plan was completed in 1999 for the segment of the Palmetto Expressway from NW 154th Street to GGI. This Master Plan identified the need for improvements along the SR 826 east‐west corridor as a combination of highway design and traffic operations deficiencies that exist along the corridor. In March 2011, the FDOT District Six commenced a PD&E study for SR 826 to continue the planning and development of improvements that were initiated during the Master Plan. The proposed SIMR will serve as a component of this PD&E Study and will provide analyses for the Locally Preferred Alternative arising from the PD&E process.

The need for improvements along the Palmetto Expressway relates to traffic congestion, systems continuity/connectivity, safety and existing design criteria deficiencies. The proposed improvements would be designed to meet current FDOT criteria, provide system continuity with adjoining segments of SR 826 and new/improved system‐to‐system connectivity to adjacent facilities (I‐95, I‐75 and HEFT). The PD&E Study will evaluate Active Traffic Management and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) strategies, lane additions, managed lanes, major interchange modifications, and bus rapid transit. The study will determine the number and type of travel lanes and interchange improvements required to accommodate anticipated traffic volumes and improve safety conditions throughout the project corridor.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 4

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

1.1 Safety Standards and Design Criteria Deficiencies:

The existing SR 826 facility was designed in the early 1960s and much of its design criteria do not satisfy current design standards. The existing typical section provides an inside shoulder width of 7 feet, which is below the current American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standard of 10 feet. The rate of vertical curvature (K‐value) throughout the corridor does not satisfy current design standards and the horizontal alignment in the area of the 90‐degree curve west of NW 67th Avenue does not satisfy the desirable stopping sight distance requirements. None of the overpasses along the corridor meet the minimum vertical clearance requirement of 16.5 feet. Finally, many of the interchange ramps do not provide sufficient deceleration/acceleration lengths. 1.2 Travel Demand and Traffic Operations

SR 826 is a heavily traveled corridor with existing annual average daily traffic (AADT) of around 140,000 vehicles per day. Projections of future population and employment in the project area indicate that travel demand will continue to increase for years to come and AADT is expected to reach over 200,000 vehicles per day by year 2040. Throughout most of the study corridor, the mainline facility currently operates within Level of Service (LOS) E standards but this is expected to decline to failing conditions (LOS F) with the anticipated growth in traffic. Currently failing conditions are experienced at the terminal intersections for the interchanges at NW 67th Avenue, NW 57th Avenue and NW 27th Avenue. Queues on the off‐ramps at these interchanges back onto the mainline during peak periods, impeding traffic flow on the mainline and increasing risk of crashes along the corridor. These failing conditions at the terminal intersections will deteriorate further in the future, if no corrective actions are implemented. 1.3 System Linkages and Continuity

The implementation of a new managed lanes system along the mainline is among the proposed improvements under consideration for SR 826. The proposed managed lanes are part of a regional network of special use lanes that is being planned for the South Florida Region. The SR 826 managed lanes would provide direct system‐to‐system connections to 95 Express. The initial phases of 95 Express, from SR 112 to GGI, were completed and opened to traffic in 2008. The FDOT is now continuing the expansion of 95 Express through to I‐595 in Broward County. The proposed SR 826 managed lanes would also provide direct connections to the planned I‐75

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 5

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Express Lanes. The I‐75 Express Lanes are the subject of an ongoing PD&E Study by District 4 and District 6 which is expected to gain full FHWA Location Design Concept Approval by March, 2012.

The planned improvements along the east‐west portion of SR 826 would provide continuity for the expansion of the SR 826 corridor from US‐1 to the GGI. Over the past 20 years, FDOT has implemented the Palmetto Improvement Program that consisted of a 12‐Section phased construction program to widen the north‐south segment of SR 826. The final phase (Section 5) of this corridor expansion program (SR 826/SR 836 Interchange improvements) is currently under construction. Further planned improvements from the I‐75 PD&E Study and improvements under consideration for the SR 826 PD&E Study, would complete the expansion of SR 826 from US‐1 to the GGI.

2.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The anticipated production schedule for the proposed SR 826 improvements is as follows:

Table 1: Schedule

ACTIVITY START END PD&E Phase 2011 2013 Design Phase 2013 2015 Construction* 2015 2018 * Pending LDCA by FHWA.

The proposed improvements are expected to be implemented within the existing right of way. The expected completion dates of the SIMR and PD&E studies are February, 2013 and October, 2013 respectively. The anticipated schedule for intermediate deliverables and reviews is as follows:

 Draft SIMR Document: October, 2012

 Final SIMR Document: February, 2013

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 6

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

 SIMR Approved: February, 2013

 Draft Preliminary Engineering Report (PER): December, 2012

 Draft Project Development Summary Report (PDSR): March, 2013

 Final PER: August 2013

 Final PDSR: August, 2013

 LDCA: October, 2013 This proposed schedule allows for coordination efforts between Applicant, FDOT Systems Planning Office and FHWA.

3.0 PROJECT LOCATION/STUDY AREA

The study area for the project is shown in Figure 1. The aerial in Figure 2 shows the project location and highlights the spacing between adjacent interchanges. The project study area is located within the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA)/Urban Infill Area (UIA) established by Miami‐Dade County and Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) established by local municipalities (see Figure 2). The study area extends along SR 826 (Section 87260000) to include the anticipated area of influence for the project. The area of influence includes:  SR 826/Palmetto Expressway from south of I‐75 (MP 14.75) to the GGI. This incorporates the terminal intersections at the existing interchanges at NW 154th Street (MP 13.382), NW 67th Avenue (MP 17.984), NW 57th Avenue (MP 18.995), NW 47th Avenue (MP 20.026), NW 37th Avenue (MP 21.030), NW 27th Avenue (MP 22.034), NW 17th Avenue (MP 23.046) and NW 12th Avenue (MP 23.470). In addition, the signalized intersections within approximately ½ mile of these interchanges are included in the area of influence.

 All ramps and connecting roadways within the GGI area. This includes all connections serving SR 826, I‐95 (GP and Express Lanes), HEFT, SR 7 and SR 9. In addition, the area of influence extends along I‐95 (Section 87270000) from south of NW 151st Street (MP 11.68) to north of GGI (MP 13.50). These limits incorporate the area of influence for the adjacent GGI PD&E Study.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 7 0 0.5 1 Miles ±

F NW 12th Ave L 's T P NW 17th Ave K ¦¨§95 NW 37th Ave NW 27th Ave NW 67th Ave NW 57th Ave NW 47th Ave 0.4 0.8 Miles Miles 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mile

1.6 Miles UV826

1.1 Miles

NW 151st St NW 154th St

1 Mile

¦¨§75 Gratigny Pkwy

Legend Boundary TCEA / UIA Boundary TCMA Area of Influence

FIGURE:

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study ETDM NO: 11241 Study Area 2 FM.: 418423-1-22-01

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

4.0 CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVES

The following alternatives will be considered for the Study:

 No‐Build: The No‐Build Alternative will include the existing (2011) roadway conditions plus all funded and committed projects within the study corridor per the FDOT 5‐year Work Program. It will also incorporate all Cost Feasible Plan projects contained in the Miami‐Dade County’s 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) that are located outside the project study area. The mainline typical section for the No‐Build condition matches the existing shown in Figure 3.

 Transportation System Management (TSM) alternatives will consider minor network improvements (without addition of through lanes) and other options such as alternative travel modes, signal timing adjustments, ramp metering and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The mainline typical section for the TSM Alternative matches the existing condition shown in Figure 3.

 Build Alternatives: The Build Alternatives for the future SR 826 corridor will consider multiple improvement strategies for mainline typical section, interchange modifications and access connections for the proposed special use lanes. The alternatives will be examined and evaluated in the PD&E Study resulting in one Locally Preferred Alternative that will be carried forward and further analyzed in the SIMR. Build Alternatives will include the following:

o SR 826 Mainline Alternatives (see Figures 4 and 5) . Alternative 1 includes a mainline typical section consisting of eight (8) general purpose lanes (4 EB + 4 WB). This alternative includes no special use lanes. . Alternative 2 includes a mainline typical section consisting of six (6) general purpose lanes (3 EB + 3 WB) and four (4) special use lanes (2 EB + 2 WB).

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 9

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Figure 3: Mainline Typical Section – Existing Condition

Existing Typical Section ‐ NW 154 Street to NW 27th Avennue

Existing Typical Section: NW 27th Avenue to GGI.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 10

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Figure 4: Mainline Typical Section ‐ Alternative 1 (8 GP)

Figure 5: Mainline Typical Section ‐ Alternative 2: (6 GP + 4 SU)

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 11

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

. Other alternative mainline typical sections were initially considered that involved implementation of two special use lanes (1 EB + 1 WB) along with general purpose lanes. Following discussions with Distract Six staff, these alternative mainline typical sections were discarded as they were considered to be inconsistent with the District’s principle for implementation of special use lanes. Similarly, mainline typical sections consisting of twelve or more lanes were discarded as unfeasible for this study due to the extensive right of way that would be required.

o Alternative SU Lane Connections . Direct system‐to‐system connection for the special use lanes from SR 826 eastbound to 95 Express northbound and from 95 Express southbound to SR 826 westbound. . Direct system‐to‐system connection for the special use lanes from SR 826 southbound to I‐75 northbound and from I‐75 southbound to SR 826 northbound. . Connections to/from GP lanes to/from SU lanes along SR 826 at 1) north of NW 154th Street and 2) west of NW 12th Avenue.

o Alternatives for SR 826 Service Interchanges . Major interchange modifications will be considered at NW 67th Avenue, NW 57th Avenue and NW 27th Avenue. Potential modifications include changing from the existing urban diamond interchange configuration to Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI), Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) or maintain diamond interchange configuration with expansion of the ramps and terminal intersections. Proposed modifications will maintain all existing movements at the service interchanges. A detailed evaluation of all the above alternatives will be carried through the PD&E Study process resulting in the determination of a Preferred Build Alternative. The SIMR will document

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 12

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

in detail, the Preferred Build Alternative, No Build Alternative and Existing Conditions. The SIMR will also include a summary discussion on other considered alternatives. The PD&E reports will be available as companion documents to the SIMR with detailed analysis of other considered alternatives.

5.0 ANALYSIS YEARS

The analysis years proposed for the PD&E and SIMR studies are listed below:

 Existing Year: 2011

 Opening Year: 2018

 Interim Year: 2030

 Design Year: 2040

6.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS

Reports from the SR 826 PD&E Study will be referenced as part of this SIMR for gathering information related to the existing (2011) conditions. Data will also be gathered from the Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study (ongoing) and the Golden Glades Interchange Operational Assessment, June 2010. The SIMR will document existing conditions in the study area. Related documents prepared during the PD&E process will be attached as companion documents for the SIMR. Information gathered through field reviews and document research will include:

 Social Impacts

 Cultural Impacts

 Natural Environment

 Physical Impacts

 Existing Year (2011) Traffic Volumes

 Existing Year (2011) Traffic Operations

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 13

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

 Corridor crash records, 5‐year history identifying abnormally high crash patterns, probable causal factors and estimated annual economic loss.

 Existing access management controls along the corridor

 Land use information

7.0 TRAVEL DEMAND FORECASTING

The proposed travel demand forecasting process will serve the needs for three on‐going PD&E Studies in District Six: 1. SR 826 north‐south segment from SR 836 to I‐75 2. SR 826 east‐west segment from I‐75 to GGI 3. GGI PD&E for proposed SU lanes connections from SR 826 East to I‐95 North In order to streamline the traffic forecasting process and provide consistency in travel demand estimates, a similar traffic forecasting process will be followed for all three projects. The following sections describe the proposed approach to the traffic forecasting process.

7.1 Travel Demand Model

The Southeast Regional Planning Model (SERPM, Version 6.5, time‐of‐day) will be used as the basis for travel demand forecasting for all the SR 826 corridor studies. SERPM 6.5 is the approved Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) regional long range transportation planning model with base year 2005 and horizon year 2035. Project specific models will be developed for years 2010 (base year), 2016 (opening year, SR 826 North‐South), 2030 (interim year, all projects) and 2040 (design year, all projects). The models will be validated in accordance with guidelines specified in the FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook, FSUTMS procedures and The Interchange Handbook, Technical Resource Document No. 8. The models will be developed following procedures described below.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 14

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

7.2 Model Years

Table 2 shows the anticipated travel demand models that will be developed for the SR 826 corridor studies. Project specific models that will be developed for the SR 826 (East‐West) SIMR include the following: SR 826 (East –West) Models

 Base year 2010  No Build Alternative for future years 2016, 2030 and 2040. Travel demand estimates for year 2018 (build alternative opening year) will be estimated by interpolation from the models developed for years 2016 and 2030.  Build Alternatives (3 anticipated) for design year 2040. Three build alternative models are anticipated: o SR 826 mainline with 8 GP lanes and without system‐to‐system connection to I‐ 95 Express Lanes. o SR 826 mainline with 6 GP lanes + 4 SU lanes and with system‐to system connection to/from SR 826 SU lanes and I‐95 Express (North). o SR 826 mainline with 6 GP lanes + 4 SU lanes and without system‐to system connection to/from SR 826 SU lanes and I‐95 Express (North).  Locally Preferred Alternative for future years 2016 and 2030. Travel demand estimates for the opening year of the year 2018 will be estimated by interpolation from the models developed for years 2016 and 2030.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 15 Table 2: Anticipated Travel Demand Models for SR 826 Corridor Studies

GGI PD&E SR 826 East ‐ West SR 826 North ‐ South Analysis Years No Build Model Build Models No Build Model Build Models No Build Model Build Models Road network per year 2010 Not Applicable Road network per year 2010 Not Applicable Road network per year 2010 Not Applicable 2010 ‐ Model Base conditions. conditions conditions Year for validation checks and Existing Year for GGI PD&E

2011 ‐ Existing Year No Model Development. No 2011 Not Applicable No Model Development. Not Applicable No Model Development. Not Applicable SR 826 E‐W and N‐S operations analyses. Operations analyses per 2011 Operations analyses per projects. counts. 2011 counts. Road network per existing + Road network per GGI 2016 No Road network per existing + Road network per SR 826 PD&E Road network per existing + Road network per SR 826 N‐ committed projects through year Build + Interim connections for EB committed projects through year 2016 No Build + SR 826 E‐W committed projects through S 2016 No Build + SR 826 2016 ‐ Opening Year 2016. This network will exclude SR SR 826 to NB I‐95 + SR 826 2016 + Interim connection for EB Express Lanes year 2016. This network will Express Lanes + Interim SR 826 N‐S 826 Express Lanes. Express Lanes. SR 826 to NB I‐95 per GGI PD&E exclude SR 826 Express Lanes connection for EB SR 826 to + SR 826 N‐S Express Lanes. NB I‐95 per GGI PD&E.

No Model Development. Traffic No Model Development. Traffic No Model Development. Traffic No Model Development. Traffic No Model Development. No Model Development. Forecast interpolated from 2016 and Forecast interpolated from 2016 Forecast interpolated from 2016 Forecast interpolated from 2016 Traffic Forecast not required. Traffic Forecast not 2018 ‐ Opening Year 2030 Models. and 2030 Models. and 2030 Models. and 2030 Models. required. SR 826 E‐W and GGI

Road network per 2035 Cost Feasible Road Network per GGI PD&E Road network per 2035 Cost Road network per SR 826 PD&E Road network per 2035 Cost Road network per SR 826 LRTP + Amendments. This network 2030 No Build + Interim Feasible LRTP + Amendments + 2030 No Build + SR 826 E‐W Feasible LRTP + PD&E 2030 No Build + SR will exclude SR 826 Express Lanes. connection for EB SR 826 to NB I‐ Interim connection for EB SR 826 Express Lanes Amendments. This network 826 Express Lanes + Interim 2030 ‐ Interim Year, 95 + SR 826 Express Lanes . to NB I‐95 per GGI PD&E + SR will exclude SR 826 Express connection for EB SR 826 to All Projects 826 N‐S Express Lanes. Lanes. NB I‐95 per GGI PD&E.

Road network per 2035 CF LRTP + Road network per GGI PD&E 2040 Road network per 2035 CF LRTP Road network per SR 826 E‐W Road network per 2035 CF Road network per SR 826 N‐ Amendments + other anticipated No Build + SR 826 Express Lanes + + Amendments + other 2040 No Build + SR 826 E‐W LRTP + Amendments + other S 2040 No Build + SR 826 projects as agreed with D6. This system to system connection for anticipated projects as agreed Express Lanes + system to system anticipated projects as Express Lanes + system to network will exclude SR 826 Express SR 826 Express Lanes to/from I‐95 with D6 + Interim connection for connection for SR 826 Express agreed with D6. This system connection for SR Lanes. NB Express Lanes + other ultimate EB SR 826 to NB I‐95 per GGI Lanes to/from I‐95 NB Express network will exclude SR 826 826 Express Lanes to/from I‐ ramp improvements per GGI PD&E + SR 826 N‐S Express Lanes + other ultimate ramp Express Lanes. 95 NB Express Lanes + other PD&E. Lanes. improvements per GGI PD&E. ultimate ramp improvements per GGI 2040 ‐ Design Year, Manual adjustments will be In addition other models will be PD&E. All Projects applied to develop 2040 volume developed for project specific estimates for build alternatives system alternatives. These will incorporating only interim GGI include: improvements (or other limited 1. 8 GP Lanes w/o Express Lanes improvements) as necessary for system‐to‐system connection operations analyses. 2. 6 GP + 4 Express Lanes w/o system‐to‐system connection for Express Lanes

Notes: 1. Limits for SR 826 N‐S Express Lanes extend from SR 836 to I‐75 and continuing along I‐75 to NW 170th Street.

2. Limits for SR 826 E‐W Express Lanes extend from I‐75 to GGI

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

7.3 Development of 2010 SERPM Base Year Model

All three SR 826 Corridor studies will have the same Base Year (2010) Model. The following procedures will be followed in the development of the 2010 Base Year Model.

 Factor year 2005 Socioeconomic (SE) data to estimate year 2010 SE data. Adjustment factors will be estimated by interpolation between 2005 SE data and 2035 Cost Feasible SE data. External trips will be scaled in a similar manner.  Check, verify and edit TAZ centroid connectors, as needed. New TAZs will be added if needed to reflect new projects in the area.  Adjust roadway network, as necessary, to reflect 2010 conditions. All highway projects constructed and open to traffic in the year 2010 will be included in the model network. The MPO’s 2014 Existing + Committed (E+C) network will be used as the starting point for this analysis. Projects that are not open to traffic in year 2010 will be deleted from the 2014 E+C network.  Check link volume/count ratios and adjust model attributes as necessary to meet criteria per Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook. Adjusted model attributes will be carried forward to other future year models.

7.4 Development of 2016 SERPM Model

All three SR 826 Corridor studies will include the development of year 2016 SERPM models. The 2016 networks for the build and no build conditions will vary depending on the specific project as indicated in Table 2. The following procedures will be followed in the development of the 2016 Models for the SR 826 (East – West) project:

 Zonal data for year 2016 will be estimated by interpolating between the 2005 and 2035 Cost Feasible zonal data.

 SR 826 (East‐West) No Build Model Network: The 2016 No Build model network will be built on the 2010 network as the basis. The model network will be modified to represent the anticipated conditions in year 2016. The year 2016 No Build network assumptions will include the following:

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 17

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

o Most recent Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), from Miami-Dade County. o Local network changes as part of the CDMP Amendment Application #5 (These planned projects were not included in the LRTP approved SERPM models) o Network improvements on major corridors extending into Broward County. These include I-95 managed lanes, I-595 reversible managed lanes, and Florida Turnpike Open Road Tolling conversion. o GGI PD&E Study Preferred Alternative (Interim Improvements.) o SR 826 North – South Express Lanes  SR 826 (East‐West) 2016 Build Model Network: The network for the 2016 build alternative will incorporate all elements of the 2016 No Build Model (described above) in addition to the following:

o Proposed network improvements for the opening year (2018) resulting from the SR 826 PD&E Study. Travel demand for the project opening year (2018) will be estimated by interpolation from the 2016 and 2030 models.

7.5 Development of 2030 SERPM Model

All three SR 826 Corridor studies will include the development of year 2030 SERPM models. The 2030 networks for the build and no build conditions will vary depending on the specific project as indicated in Table 2. The following procedures will be followed in the development of the 2030 Models for the SR 826 (East – West) project:

 Zonal data for year 2030 will be estimated by interpolating between the 2005 and 2035 Cost Feasible zonal data.

 SR 826 (East‐West) No Build Model Network: The 2030 No Build model network will be developed from the 2035 Cost Feasible network. The model networks will be modified to represent the anticipated conditions in year 2030. Interim year 2030 model network adjustments will include:

o Local network changes as part of the CDMP Amendment Application #5

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 18

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

o GGI PD&E Study Preferred Alternative (Interim Improvements.) o SR 826 North – South Express Lanes  SR 826 (East‐West) 2030 Build Model Network: The network for the 2030 build alternative will incorporate all elements of the 2030 No Build Model (described above) in addition to the following:

o Proposed network improvements for the interim year (2030) resulting from the SR 826 PD&E Study.

7.6 Development of 2040 SERPM Model

All three SR 826 Corridor studies will include the development of year 2040 SERPM models. The 2040 networks for the build and no build conditions will vary depending on the specific project as indicated in Table 2. The following procedures will be followed in the development of the 2040 Models for the SR 826 (East – West) project:

 Zonal data for year 2040 model will be estimated by adjusting the 2035 Cost Feasible SE data based on average growth rates from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR).

 SR 826 (East‐West) No Build Model Network: The 2040 No Build model network will be developed by building on the 2035 Cost Feasible network. The 2035 model network will be modified to represent the anticipated conditions in year 2040. Network adjustment will include the following:

o Local network changes as part of the CDMP Amendment Application #5 o GGI PD&E Study Preferred Alternative (interim Improvements) o I‐75 PD&E Study Preferred Alternative from SR 826 to I‐595 o HEFT Widening PD&E Study Preferred Alternative from SR 836 to NW 57th Avenue (This project was not included in the LRTP approved SERPM Model)

o SR 924 West Extension PD&E Study Preferred Alternative o SR 924 East Extension PD&E Study Preferred Alternative

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 19

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

o SR 826 North – South Express Lanes  SR 826 (East‐West) 2040 Build Model Network: The network for the 2040 build alternatives will incorporate all elements of the 2040 No Build Model (described above) in addition to the following:

o GGI PD&E Study Preferred Alternative, Ultimate Improvements (proposed system‐to‐system connections for SR 826 SU lanes to/from I‐95 Express Lanes (North).

o Alternative network improvements for the design year (2040) resulting from the SR 826 PD&E Study. Three alternatives are anticipated as described under Section 7.2 of the MLOU.

7.7 Development of AADTs, AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes

 AADTs will be developed for all network links (freeway segments and arterials) for the future years based on results from the SERPM model forecasts. AADT for the opening year (2018) will be interpolated between model estimates for 2016 and 2030. AADTs for years 2030 and 2040 will be estimated from directly from model runs. Existing year (2011) AADTs will be estimated from traffic counts gathered for the project – document under Section 8.0 of the MLOU.  Directional design hourly volumes (DDHVs), reflecting the future AM and PM peak hour periods, will be developed by applying applicable K‐factors and D‐factors to the forecasted AADTs. Future intersection turning movement volumes will be developed using TMTOOL or other methods approved by the District. The estimated future AM and PM peak hour volumes will be subject to quality control procedures that will include adjustments to smooth and balance traffic flows throughout SR 826 corridor.

7.8 Model Validation Procedures

A new SERPM model will be developed for 2010 base year by interpolating zonal data between the latest validated 2005 base year and the 2035 horizon year SERPM model TAZ data. This task will be performed by adjusting the roadway network to reflect current conditions and creating new TAZ data if needed to reflect new projects in the area. The sub‐area for validation will

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 20

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

include the areas of influence for SR 826 PD&E and GGI PD&E studies. This includes one interchange to the north and south of the GGI along I‐95.

Although, the existing year for this study is 2011, in order to be consistent with other current studies in the region, the model validation check will be performed for year 2010. The network changes between 2010 and 2011 are insignificant, and hence, this study does not require a separate validation for 2011. The 2010 projected volumes will be compared to the 2010 traffic counts, on major corridors in the study area, to check the performance of the new model. To allow for these comparisons, the 2010 counts will be coded, into the model network within the area of influence. Appropriate modifications to network parameters (area type, facility type, speed, capacity, centroid connectors, etc.) will be performed to achieve acceptable validation. This effort will involve reviewing the data and making edits to model inputs, as appropriate for the analysis. Similarly, values of K, D, and T as indicated by FDOT permanent telemetry count stations will be used to ensure that the SERPM time‐of‐day model daily factors are consistent and correct assumptions are used for the AM and PM peak periods. The SERPM model adopted for the project provides traffic estimates for AM peak, PM peak and off‐peak time periods. The model also adds all the periods to generate a 24‐hour traffic forecast. The proposed traffic forecasting procedure will use the 24‐hour sum from the model and then apply the more traditional methods (K, D, and T) to estimate the Directional Design Hour Volumes (DDHV). The recommended maximum percent deviation errors by volume range used will conform to the FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook standards. All modifications to the network, zonal structure and model parameters will be documented and will be carried forward to all future year models. An adjusted base year model will be developed to replicate the traffic counts in the project area. These will be carried forward to future years and alternatives.

In addition to the MPO approved zonal data, the TAZ data and Traffic Technical Memorandum developed by the Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise (FTE) as part of the HEFT PD&E Study will be used as part of this travel demand effort. The data and roadway network improvements will consider the land use amendment completed as part of the Miami‐Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Amendment Application #5. FTE performed an extensive technical analysis to convert this land use data into SERPM 6.5 model inputs (Zdata). The FTE

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 21

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Technical Memorandum considered the future 2035 TAZ build out conditions for alternative scenarios with and without a potential new HEFT/NW 170 Street Interchange. The SIMR for the SR 826 PD&E study will assume a future scenario without the HEFT/NW 170 Street Interchange. 7.9 Adjustment Procedures 7.9.1 Data Adjustments Project specific models will developed for years 2010, 2016, 2030 and 2040. Model assignments will be used directly to estimate future forecast for years 2030 and 2040. Forecast for opening year 2018 will be estimated by interpolation between model forecast for years 2016 and 2030.

The zonal data for 2010, 2016 and 2030 will be estimated by interpolating between 2005 and 2035 zonal data. Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) forecasts will be used as control totals for indexing 2010 TAZ data. This will prevent overestimation of 2010 estimates due to recent economic downturn. For 2016 and 2030, straight line interpolation of the MPO approved TAZ data between 2005 and 2035 will be used. For developing 2040 forecasts, BEBR’s average annual growth rates will be applied to the 2035 MPO‐approved TAZ numbers. TAZ employment data will be developed in a similar manner as used for population data, through interpolation. Employment control totals will be applied to hold the County‐specific population‐ to‐employment ratios constant.

The No‐Build alternative will incorporate the area‐wide improvements along the SR 826 corridor that are consistent with the MPO’s latest approved 2035 Cost Feasible LRTP for Miami‐ Dade County. All future alternatives for the SR 826 PD&E Study will be built upon the No‐Build alternative. Developing zonal data and networks will be key tasks for all future alternatives. The travel demand models for the Build and No Build conditions will use the networks (2010, 2016, 2030, 2040) described under Sections 7.3 through 7.6 of the MLOU.

Toll assumptions will remain the same as represented in the 2035 LRTP model. Historical traffic trends will be reviewed to calculate growth factors for traffic in the study area. Growth factors will be estimated for 2010, 2016, 2030 and 2040. These values will be used to assess the reasonableness of future year traffic estimates produced by SERPM. In addition to growth factors based on historical traffic counts, the project team will examine growth in the model input data, including zonal population, households, employment and growth at external

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 22

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

stations to estimate compound annual growth rates that can be used for validating the traffic projections.

7.9.2 Trip Table Adjustments The FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook recommends using the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 255 (NCHRP 255) method to match the existing year projections with the existing year traffic counts. This recommended technique for post‐ processing does not successfully correct the model’s trip distribution errors. This study proposes to use a matrix estimation technique using Cube Analyst software. Cube Analyst is a tool that can be used to produce trip tables that minimize the differences between modeled volumes and traffic counts. The quality of the base trip table that is input to Cube Analyst, in conjunction with the quality of the counts is what determines the accuracy of the new estimated trip table. The trip table adjustment process will be performed to improve validation statistics in the model base year. Previous studies have indicated that the trip table adjustment process significantly reduces model’s error margins, thereby reducing the need for post processing model volumes. FDOT has approved this methodology as an alternative for post‐processing, but recommends performing reasonableness checks of the resulting trip table. The trip table will be calibrated to the base year 2005 conditions. The will be to modify the model’s trip tables prior to the assignment process to provide a better representation of travel patterns. The key here is to develop base year 2005 model trip tables for AM peak period, PM peak period and off‐peak period using Cube Analyst that results in minimal differences between the base year 2005 model assignment and 2005 traffic counts. This process will include the following major steps: 1 Estimate 2005 base year trip tables (AM peak, PM peak and off‐peak) using Cube Analyst. This method will entail running SERPM 6.5 to produce required Analyst inputs, development of all required Analyst inputs including the confidence level, and running Analyst to estimate the time‐of‐ day trip tables. Several tests may be required to achieve the optimum solution. For the initial approach, the modeling team intends to use the current list of traffic counts used for validating SERPM and additional SR 826 corridor count data and run Analyst for the entire SERPM region.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 23

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

2 The modeling team will develop a trip table adjustment procedure and will write and test a Cube application that automatically applies the procedure to the modeling process. The team will review the correction matrices for cell values that are very large or very small and will evaluate whether differences rather than ratios, or a combination of differences and ratios, should be applied for these cells. 3 Perform 2005 model validation. 4 Perform a year 2010 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes validation check. 5 Perform model runs for future year alternatives.

7.10 Documentation of Travel Demand Forecast

Detail documentation of the travel demand forecast will be contained in the Design Traffic Technical Memorandum (DTTM) for the SR 826 PD&E Study. This document will contain details of the model validation process, development of SERPM models for future years, adjustments to model assignments and the final recommended future years forecast ‐ AADTs, AM and PM peak hour volumes. The DTTM will be attached as a companion document for the SIMR.

8.0 DATA COLLECTION AND SOURCES

The data sources within the project study area will include, but are not limited to:

 Transportation System Data – Data sources include FDOT Straight Line Diagrams and Roadway Characteristic Inventory (RCI) as well as field observations.

 Traffic crash data obtained from FDOT.

 Land use data obtained from Miami‐Dade County.

 Environmental data obtained from Miami‐Dade County and Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL).

 Existing plans, programs and project lists obtained from FDOT, FTE and Miami‐Dade County.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 24

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

 PD&E studies, Master Plans, approved DRIs, other approved studies within the area.

 Traffic counts collected for the SR 826 PD&E Study (see Figure 6).

 Historical traffic counts from FDOT’s traffic monitoring sites.

 Traffic data recorded at the SunGuide Transportation Management Center – available through the Statewide Transportation Engineering Warehouse for Archived Regional Data (STEWARD).

 Field reviews will be conducted to document typical traffic operating conditions during peak periods.

9.0 DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGY

Data utilized in the existing conditions analysis, forecast for travel demand associated with proposed improvements and future land use forecast will be gathered from the SR 826 PD&E Study. Traffic data collection will include recent and historic traffic counts (mainline, ramps and arterials), classification counts and data from the FDOT’s telemetered traffic monitoring sites. Traffic counts will be collected on typical weekdays (Tuesday through Thursday). Turning movement counts will be collected from 6:30 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:30 PM to 6:30 PM (peak periods determined from machine counts). Traffic counts will be checked for reasonableness and adjusted for seasonal and axle correction factors in accordance with the Department’s Project Traffic Forecasting Manual. Figure 6 shows the location of project count stations and Figure 7 shows FDOT traffic monitoring sites within the project area. Intersections where turning movement counts will be collected are described below:

1. SR 826 at NW 154 Street, Interchange a. NW 154 Street at NW 77 Court b. NW 154 Street at SR 826 SB On Ramp/SB Off ramp c. NW 154 Street at SR 826 NB On Ramp/Off Ramp (CD Road) d. SR 154 Street at NW 77 Avenue (south leg)

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 25 N

V E N&W 173RD DR

NW 173 ± ST NW 175 ST & NW 175TH ST &

W 73RD DR 4 NW 1 7

6 & A

& A E XY V PALMETTO EXPWY E

N ST & W XY

N 9 & 16 5 W NW 7

R V

E & E PALMETTO EXPWY XY D

XY E

( V

D & XY & PWY A

XY R XY PALMETTO EXXY 2

& LMETTO EXPWY 1 PA 6 XY 3 XY & XY XY W )

& XY

N N

XY & W PWY XY & PALMETTO EX & XY

6 & XY V

7 XY A T &

H 3 1

V W

E N NW NW &

42 47

AVE AVE

826 NW

826 NW NW NW NW NW

22 NW 17 NW 826 32

AVE

67 AVE

AVE AVE

AVE

57 AVE

AVE AVE

N XY A

W L

E D

T A 75 ST W 1 V O N

& E(

C X

R P

9 NW 154 ST W

4 & &&& N Y 3

R W XYXY Y D )

A N W IR 2 & XY A W F 7

E NW 154 ST A

L XY METTO EXPWY V U AL E & P

&E Y EXPW R PALMETTO &

PWY W PALMETTO EX N

& &TO EXPWY 2 PALMET 2 4 XY & XY XY &2 & XY A ALMETTO EXPWY P V A XY XY

V N & XY

W XY

A 826 V XY Legend Count Locations & Approach Counts + TMC & NW 160 ST XY 72-Hour Ramp Counts

TITLE FIGURE SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study Traffic Count Location Map ETDM NO: 11241 6 From SR 93/I-75 to Golden Glades Interchange FM NO: 418423-1-22-01 0 0.5 1 Miles ±

F NW 12th Ave L 's T P NW 17th Ave K ¨¦§95

NW 27th Ave !( NW 37th Ave !( NW 67th Ave NW 57th Ave NW 47th Ave !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 826 !( !( !( !( ! !( UV !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(

!( !( !( NW 151st St !(!( !( NW 154th St !(

!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( 75 !( Gratigny Pkwy ¨¦§ !( !(

Legend !( Portable Traffic Monitoring Site ! Telemetered Traffic Monitoring Site Area of Influence

FIGURE:

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study ETDM NO: 11241 FDOT Traffic Monitoring Sites 7 FM.: 418423-1-22-01

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

2. SR 826 at NW 67 Avenue a. NW 67 Avenue at Windmill Gate Road b. NW 67 Avenue at SR 826 EB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street EB) c. NW 67 Avenue at SR 826 WB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street WB) d. NW 67 Avenue at NW 169 Street e. NW 67 Avenue at Mediterranean Avenue

3. SR 826 at NW 57 Avenue, Interchange a. NW 57 Avenue at NW 165 Street b. NW 57 Avenue at SR 826 EB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street EB) c. NW 57 Avenue at SR 826 WB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street WB) d. NW 57 Avenue at NW 173 Drive 4. SR 826 at NW 47 Avenue, Interchange a. NW 47 Avenue at SR 826 EB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street EB) b. NW 47 Avenue at SR 826 WB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street WB) c. NW 47 Avenue at NW 173 Drive

5. SR 826 at NW 37 Avenue, Interchange a. NW 37 Avenue at St. Thomas University b. NW 37 Avenue at SR 826 EB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street EB) c. NW 37 Avenue at SR 826 WB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street WB) d. NW 37 Avenue at NW 175 Street 6. SR 826 at NW 27 Avenue, Interchange a. NW 27 Avenue at NW 160 Street b. NW 27 Avenue at SR 826 EB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street EB) c. NW 27 Avenue at SR 826 WB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street WB) d. NW 27 Avenue at NW 175 Street 7. SR 826 at NW 17 Avenue, Interchange a. NW 17 Avenue at SR 826 EB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street EB) b. NW 17 Avenue at SR 826 WB On Ramp/Off Ramp (NW 167 Street WB)

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 28

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

8. SR 826 at NW 12 Avenue, Interchange a. NW 12 Avenue at SR 826 EB On Ramp (NW 167 Street EB) b. NW 12 Avenue at SR 826 WB Off Ramp (NW 167 Street WB)

9. NW 42 Avenue at NW 167 Street EB 10. NW 42 Avenue at NW 167 Street WB 11. NW 32 Avenue at NW 167 Street EB 12. NW 32 Avenue at NW 167 Street WB 13. NW 22 Avenue at NW 167 Street EB 14. NW 22 Avenue at NW 167 Street

Travel time runs will be required for calibration of CORSIM models used in the operational analyses. The travel time runs will be conducted in accordance with the Department’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Studies (MUTS). A minimum of three test runs shall be conducted during each (AM and PM) peak period in each direction of travel along SR 826.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 29

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

10.0 TRAFFIC FACTORS

Directional Design Hour Volume (DDHV) will be developed by applying K30 and D30 factors to AADTs developed along the corridor. Attachment B contains a Traffic Factors Assessment Report that was prepared for the study. The Traffic Factors Assessment Report contains recommended K, D and T factors for the study along with applicable data and rational to support the recommendations. Table below contains a summary of the recommended traffic factors for this study. A peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.95 will be used for analysis of all future conditions.

Table 3 Recommended Traffic Factors

Road Segment K30 D30 T24 SR 826 from I‐75 to West of NW 67 Avenue 7.10% 54.0% 7.0% SR 826 from East of NW 67 Avenue to GGI 8.00% 54.0% 7.0% NW 154 Street 9.00% 65.0% 5.0% NW 67th Avenue 9.00% 66.6% 5.0% NW 57th Avenue 9.00% 67.1% 5.0% NW 47th Avenue 9.00% 67.1% 4.0% NW 42nd Avenue 9.00% 67.1% 4.0% NW 37th Avenue 9.00% 64.3% 3.5% NW 32th Avenue 9.00% 64.8% 4.0% NW 27th Avenue 9.00% 65.7% 4.5% NW 22th Avenue 9.00% 63.4% 3.5% NW 17th Avenue 9.00% 58.4% 3.5% NW 12th Avenue 9.00% 67.1% 3.5%

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 30

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

11.0 CONSISTENCY WITH LRTP, LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DRIS

The PD&E and SIMR studies will maintain consistency with the Miami‐Dade County Long‐Range Transportation Plan (LRTP); Miami‐Dade County Comprehensive Plan and any approved Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). The proposed widening of SR 826 is included in the Miami‐Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), 2035 Cost Feasible Long Range Transportation Plan. No DRIs are located within the immediate vicinity of the project. Planned/Programmed projects that are located within the IJR study area shown in the Tables 4 and 5.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 31

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Table 4 Priority I-IV Projects

Priority/Found Phase1,2 I II III IV Facility From To Improvement 2010 2015 2021 2026 to to to to 2014 2020 2025 2035 North of Golden Glades I‐95 Add Special use lanes C SR 836/I‐395 Interchange SR 823/NW 57 W 46 St/ W 53rd Street Widen to 6 lanes (4 to 6) C Ave/ Red Road NW 103 St SR 823/NW 57 W 19th St W 46th St Widen to 6 lanes (4 to 6) C Ave/ Red Road SR 823/NW 57 W 53 St W 65 St Widen to 6 lanes (4 to 6) C Ave/ Red Road Limited access facility SR 924/Gratigny providing a connection Parkway Extension SR 826/I‐75 HEFT C between HEFT, i‐75, SR (West) 924, SR 826 SR 924/Gratigny Limited access facility Parkway Extension NW 32 Ave I‐95 providing E/W mobility to P P,R C C (East) I‐95 Golden Glades Broward I‐95 Special use lanes C Interchange County Line SR 826/Palmetto NW 87 Ave on 3 SR 836 Special use lanes P, C C Expressway I‐75 Operational SR 826/Palmetto improvement within the Expressway (EB) to P C Golden Glades I‐95 (NB) Interchange Note 1: For Priority I‐IV Projects, P‐Planning & Design, R‐Right of Way, C‐Construction Note 2: For Partially funded Projects, P‐Planning D‐Design, R‐Right Of Way, C‐Construction Note 3: Delivery of special use lanes on SR 826 may be accelerated to Priority 1

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 32

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Table 5 Partially Funded Projects

Priority/Found Phase1,2 I II III IV Facility From To Improvement 2010 2015 2021 2026 to to to to 2014 2020 2025 2035 SR 826/Palmetto Golden Glades I‐75 Add special use lanes P,D Expressway Interchange Limited access N/S facility Central Miami‐ North Miami‐ connecting the northern Connect 4Xpress P,D Dade County Dade County and central portion of the county

Add special use lanes and I‐753 Broward SR 826 provide an envelope for P,D County Line future transit service

Note 1: For Priority I‐IV Projects, P‐Planning & Design, R‐Right of Way, C‐Construction Note 2: For Partially funded Projects, P‐Planning D‐Design, R‐Right Of Way, C‐Construction Note 3: Delivery of special use lanes on I‐75 may be accelerated to Priority 1

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 33

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

12.0 OPERATIONAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

A detailed operational analysis will be performed for all analysis years for Existing Conditions and Future No‐Build and Build Alternatives. The operational analysis will consider all applicable FDOT design standards and determination of the level of service (LOS) based on the Highway Capacity Manual, 2000 Edition. Analyses will be performed using the Highway Capacity Software (HCS), Version 5.4 and Synchro Version 7.0. The HCS will be used in operational analyses for freeway segments ‐ mainline, ramps, merge, diverge and weaving segments. Synchro analyses will be performed for arterial segments, signalized/un‐signalized intersections and interchange ramp terminal intersections.

The HCS and Synchro operations analyses will be performed for the following conditions: 1. Existing year 2011 conditions, AM + PM 2. Year 2040 No Build and Build Alternatives, AM + PM 3. Year 2030 conditions for No Build and Locally Preferred Alternative, AM + PM 4. Year 2018 conditions for No Build and Locally Preferred Alternative, AM + PM.

In addition to the above HCS and Synchro analyses, a CORSIM analysis will be performed for the existing year (2011) conditions (AM + PM) and for the No Build and Preferred Build Alternatives in the design year 2040 (AM + PM). The CORSIM analysis will follow the FHWA’s Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume IV, Guidelines for Applying CORSIM Microsimulation Modeling Software. CORSIM version 6.2 will be used for the analyses. CORSIM models will be developed to cover a time period of two (2) hours during the AM peak period and two (2) hours during the PM peak period. Multi‐period analyses will be performed using 15‐minute time increments. It is anticipated that the CORSIM models will include the road network within the following limits:

 SR 826 mainline from I‐75 to GGI.  All terminal intersections at the service road interchanges along SR 826 from I‐75 to GGI.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 34

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

The SIMR will document results of the operations analyses for the No Build and Locally Preferred Alternative. Operations analyses for the additional build alternatives will be documented in the Traffic Operations Analysis Report (TOAR) that will be prepared for the SR 826 PD&E Study. The TOAR will be attached as a companion document for the SIMR.

13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Considerations for environmental fatal flaws will be addressed as part of the SIMR. Environmental considerations will include assessment of social, cultural, natural and physical impacts.

14.0 CONCEPTUAL FUNDING PLAN/CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE

A conceptual funding plan for the proposed project will be developed based on the results for the analyses, costs and recommendations from the PD&E Study.

15.0 CONSIDERATION OF OTHER INTERCHANGE PROPOSALS

The SR 826 SIMR will incorporate interchange modifications arising from the I‐75 PD&E Study (SR 826 at I‐75) and the Golden Glades Interchange PD&E Study. The SIMR will also consider any other interchange proposal that is identified during the development of the project.

16.0 QUALIFYING PROVISIONS

The FDOT’s Statewide Minimum Level of Service Standards for the State Highway System were adopted by Administrative Rule in 1992 (Rule Chapter No. 14‐94) and are described in the 2009 Quality/Level of Service Handbook. In addition, the project study area is located within the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) and Transportation Concurrency Management Area established by Miami‐Dade County and local municipalities. The

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 35

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

TCEA/TCMA provides provisions for roads to operate at Level of service standards that differ from current FDOT’s standards. It is also recognized that the FDOT plans to adopt a future Level of Service Policy that will apply LOS D standard for all facilities inside urbanized areas and LOS C standard for all facilities outside urbanized areas. The following shows a comparison of the current LOS standards (based on area and facility type) and the standards that will be applied for this study:

Facility Type FDOT Standard TCMA/TCEA Standard for Standard SIMR SR 826 Mainline, Ramps and Terminal Intersection LOS D LOS D LOS D (Typical sections GP lanes only) SR 826 Mainline, Ramps and Terminal Intersections LOS E LOS E LOS E (Typical sections with SU Lanes) Other intersections: inside N/A LOS E LOS E TCMA/TCEA Other intersections: outside LOS D N/A LOS D TCMA/TCEA

Capacity of proposed SU lanes on SR 826 and express toll lanes on I‐95 will be limited to 1650 vehicles per lane. This limiting capacity is consistent with recent studies for I‐95 Express and is also consistent with other studies involving special use lanes in South East Florida Region. The operational analysis will compare defined measures of effectiveness (MOEs) for the No‐Build and Build Alternatives to assess potential operational benefits or deficiencies of the Build Alternatives. Several MOEs will be examined in the evaluation of alternatives. The MOEs will include the following:

 Signalized intersections – Level of Service, Control Delay  Arterials – Level of Service, Average Speed  Ramps Merge/Diverge – Density  Freeway Segments – Density, Travel Speed  Interchange – Queue lengths on ramps

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 36

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

The SIMR will address the eight FHWA policy criteria as applicable for the proposed change in access to the interstate system. Responses to the eight policy statements will seek to demonstrate compliance with the FHWA’s requirements and provide justification for the proposed interchange modifications. The policy statements that will be addressed include the following:

1. Existing system is incapable of accommodating the design year traffic demands. 2. All reasonable alternatives to a new interchange have been considered including ramp metering, mass transit and HOV facilities. 3. Proposal does not adversely impact operations or safety of the existing freeway. 4. A full interchange with all traffic movements at a public road is provided. 5. The proposal is consistent with local and regional transportation plans. 6. Consistency with State Highway Master Plans 7. Coordination with the area’s Transportation System Improvements 8. Request needs to consider planning and environmental constraints.

17.0 CONSIDERATION OF SIGNING PLANS FOR SIMR

The SIMR study will include a conceptual plan of the type and location of the signs proposed to support the Locally Preferred Alternative.

18.0 ANTICIPATED EXCEPTIONS

Any design exceptions determined during the analysis phase will be processed per FHWA and FDOT requirements.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 37

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

19.0 METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING CONCURRENCE

The Applicant will provide to the DIRC and/or FHWA all modeling, data, networks and input/output files required to run the complete validated model used to analyze the proposed interchange concept.

This MLOU will not be binding upon the FDOT or FHWA to approve the Interchange Proposal, or will it nullify the FDOT’s or FHWA’s right to request changes or require additional data collection, analysis or documentation.

Full compliance with all MLOU requirements does not obligate FDOT or FHWA to approve the Interchange Proposal.

Chad Thompson Date Program Operations Engineer Federal Highway Administration

Holly Walker Date FDOT Central Office Systems Planning Office

Phil Steinmiller Date FDOT District 6 Interchange Review Committee Chair

Dat Huynh Date FDOT D6, Project Manager

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 38

METHODOLOGY LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING

Attachments:

Attachment A: SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study, Assessment of Traffic Factors, February 2012.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 39

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS – FINAL REPORT

SR 826/PALMETTO EXPRESSWAY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENT STUDY FROM SR 93/I‐75 TO GOLDEN GLADES INTERCHANGE

Financial Project ID: 418423‐1‐22‐01 FAP No.: 4751 146 P / ETDM No.: 11241 Miami‐Dade County

Prepared For: FDOT District Six 1000 NW 111th Avenue Miami, Florida 33172

Prepared by: Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. 6161 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Miami, Florida 33126

February 17, 2012

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS , FINAL REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In March 2011, FDOT District Six initiated a Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) Study for SR 826 (Palmetto Expressway) from SR‐93/I‐75 to Golden Glades Interchange in Miami Dade County, Florida. This Technical Memorandum documents the development of the design hour factor (K), directional distribution factor (D) and truck factor (T) for the PD&E study. It includes recommended traffic factors for SR 826 mainline and the arterial streets within the project limits. The recommendations contained herein are applicable for the PD&E Study as well as the associated Systems Interchange Modification Report (SIMR). The recommendations from this report will be further used in the project traffic forecasting process.

2.0 STUDY LIMITS

The assessment of traffic factors covers the anticipated area of influence for the PD&E Study which includes the following roadway segments (see study area in Figure 1). The anticipated area of influence incorporates the following road segments: • SR 826/Palmetto Expressway from I‐75 to the GGI. This incorporates the terminal intersections at the existing interchanges at NW 154th Street, NW 67th Avenue, 57th Avenue, NW 47th Avenue, NW 37th Avenue, NW 27th Avenue, NW 17th Avenue and NW 12th Avenue. In addition, the signalized intersections within approximately ½ mile of these interchanges are included in the area of influence. • All ramps and connecting roadways within the GGI area. This includes all connections serving SR 826, I‐95 (GP and Express Lanes), HEFT, SR 7 and SR 9. In addition, the area of influence extends south along I‐95 to include the interchange at NW 151st Street.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 1 0 0.5 1 Miles ±

NW 12th Ave FL's TPK

NW 17th Ave ¦¨§95 NW 37th Ave NW 27th Ave NW 67th Ave NW 57th Ave NW 47th Ave 0.4 0.8 Miles Miles 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mile 1 Mile

1.6 Miles UV826

1.1 Miles

NW 151st St NW 154th St

1 Mile

¦¨§75 Gratigny Pkwy

Legend Area of Influence

FIGURE:

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study ETDM NO: 11241 Study Area 1 FM.: 418423-1-22-01

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS , FINAL REPORT

3.0 METHODOLOGY

The annual average daily traffic (AADT) along with the K, D and T factors are the basic traffic parameters that will influence the planning and design of SR 826/Palmetto Expressway Corridor. These parameters are defined by the following relationships: K30 = Design Hour Volume (DHV)/AADT; (DHV = 30th Highest Hour Volume) D30 = Proportion of traffic in the peak direction during the design hour T24 = Proportion of trucks in daily traffic volume

The AADT, K and D factors are associated by the following relationship. Directional Design Hour Volume (DDHV) = AADT x K30 x D30)

Recommended traffic factors for the PD&E Study were developed by conducting research and analyses of various parameters, guidelines and industry standards used for estimating traffic forecasting factors. The research and analyses included the following:

1. Gathering information on the assigned historical traffic factors (K30, D30 and T24) along links in the study network for the 5‐year period 2006 through 2010, as reported by FDOT Traffic Information On‐line Service. 2. Computing peak to daily ratios for the AM and PM peak hours along segments within the study area from the 72‐hour machine counts collected in May 2011 (counts commissioned for the PD&E Study). 3. Computing directional splits during the AM and PM peak hours along segments within the study area from the 72‐hour machine counts collected in May 2011 (counts commissioned for the PD&E Study). 4. Gathering information on the recommended minimum and maximum K and D factors as specified in the FDOT Project Traffic Forecasting Handbook. 5. Review of FDOT’s proposed standard K factors 6. Gather information on the adopted K,D and T factors for other recent/on‐going

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 3

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS , FINAL REPORT

freeway projects within the vicinity of the study corridor. These projects included: a. I‐75 PD&E Study from I‐595 to SR 826 b. SR 924/Gratigny West Extension PD&E Study from SR 826 to HEFT.

Data from the above mentioned sources were compiled in tabular format for comparison and assessment. The data gathered for the assessment is summarized in Appendix A.

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 1 provides a summary of the recommended traffic factors resulting from the process described above. A discussion of the rationale for the recommendations contained in Table 1 is presented below. SR 826/Palmetto Expressway from SR‐93/I‐75 to West of NW 67 Avenue Recommendations:

• K30 = 7.1%

• D30 = 54% • T = 7.0%

Rationale: The recommended K‐factor (7.1%) for this segment of SR 826 is consistent with the adopted traffic factors for the SR 93/I‐75 PD&E Study and the SR 924/Gratigny Parkway West Extension PD&E Study. The study area for these on‐going PD&E Studies overlaps with the study area for SR 826 PD&E Study in the vicinity of the I‐75/SR 826 Interchange. In addition, the design year (2040) for these projects is consistent with the design year for the SR 826 PD&E Study. Given these similarities, it is prudent that the traffic forecast and related traffic factors for the SR 826 PD&E Study maintain consistency with the previously approved studies. The K‐ factor of 7.1% for this segment of SR 826 mainline was previously approved by all potentially impacted road authorities with facilities in the project area. These included: FDOT District Six, FDOT District Four, FDOT Systems Planning Office, FHWA and Miami‐Dade Expressway Authority.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 4

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS , FINAL REPORT

Table 1 Recommended Traffic Factors

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 5

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS , FINAL REPORT

The D‐factor recommended for SR‐826 (54.0) is consistent with the directional split measured from 2011 counts within the project limits. It should be noted from the tables in Appendix A that the peak direction along the mainline changes at NW 67th Avenue. In the AM peak, the peak direction is WB/SB for segments west of NW 67th Avenue and the peak direction is EB for segments east of NW 67th Avenue. Similarly, during the PM peak period, the peak direction is EB/NB for segments west of NW 67th Avenue and the peak direction is WB for segments east of NW 67th Avenue.

The recommended T‐factor (7.0%) is consistent with the FDOT’s historical classification counts collected along SR 826 mainline. Statistical data from the classification sites are summarized under Appendix B.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway from East of NW 67 Avenue to GGI Recommendations:

• K30 = 8.0%

• D30 = 54% • T = 7.0%

Rationale: The recommended K‐factor (8.0%) for the segment of SR 826 from east of NW 67 Avenue to GGI is consistent with recommendations per the FDOT’s proposed statewide standard K‐factors. Recommendations for the proposed statewide standard K‐factors are contained in the FDOT’s Draft Issue Paper: Improving Florida’s Transportation Planning and Design Analysis Time Period Process (Adopting Standard K Factors and Level of Service Standards throughout FDOT), July 15, 2011. The issue paper recommends a K‐factor of 8.0% for FDOT designated urbanized core freeways. In addition a K‐factor of 8.0% was specifically recommended by the District for SR 826 for the statewide standard K‐factor procedure. The FHWA approved use of the proposed standard K‐factors in their letter addressed to the Secretary of State, dated October 19, 2011. Based on these developments, a K‐factor of 8.0% was recommended for the segment of SR 826 from east of NW 67 Avenue to GGI.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 6

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS , FINAL REPORT

The recommended D‐factor (54%) is consistent with the directional splits measured along SR 826 from 2011 counts within the project limits. The recommended T‐factor (7.0%) is consistent with the FDOT’s historical classification counts collected along SR 826 mainline.

Arterial Segments: Recommendations:

• K30 = 9.0% • D30 = varies based on existing peak hour directional splits • T = varies based on available historical classification counts

Rationale: The recommended K‐factor (9.0%) for the arterial segments is consistent with recommendations per the FDOT’s proposed statewide standard K‐factors. Recommendations for the proposed statewide standard K‐factors are contained in the FDOT’s Draft Issue Paper: Improving Florida’s Transportation Planning and Design Analysis Time Period Process (Adopting Standard K Factors and Level of Service Standards throughout FDOT), July 15, 2011. The issue paper recommends a K‐factor of 9.0% for arterials in Miami‐Dade County urban area (7.5% if in an approved Multimodal Transportation District). The FHWA approved use of the proposed standard K‐factors in their letter addressed to the Secretary of State, dated October 19, 2011. In accordance with the statewide standard procedure, a K‐factor of 9.0% was recommended for all the arterial segments located within the project area.

D‐factors recommended for the arterial segments are consistent with directional splits measured from the 2011 traffic counts that were commissioned for the PD&E Study. The recommended D‐factor was limited to the FDOT’s recommended maximum (67.1%), for cases where the measured directional split was greater than the FDOT’s maximum.

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 7

ASSESSMENT OF TRAFFIC FACTORS , FINAL REPORT

Appendices:

Appendix A: Assessment of K, D and T Factors

Appendix B: Historical Vehicle Classification Counts

SR 826/Palmetto Expressway PD&E Study 8 APPENDIX A SR 826/Palmetto ExpresswayPD&E study ‐ Assessment of K,D and T Factors

SR 826 Between SR 93/I‐75 and NW 154 St Traffic FDOT I‐75 PD&E / Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM SR 924 W PD&E Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 ‐‐ 7.10 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐ 51.0 54.00 T 4.70 4.30 8.20 7.70 7.70 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00 7.00

SR 826 Between NW 154 St and NW 67 Ave Traffic FDOT I‐75 PD&E / Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM SR 924 W PD&E Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 6.55 6.99 ‐‐ 7.10 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐51.5(WB) 52.83(EB) 51.0 54.00 T 4.70 4.30 8.20 7.70 7.70 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00 7.00

SR 826 Between NW 67 Ave and NW 57 Ave Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily2 2010 Directional Split3 Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 6.88 6.92 ‐‐ 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐54.66(EB) 50.11(EB) 54.00 T 4.70 6.60 5.50 5.30 6.10 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00

SR 826 Between NW 57 Ave and NW 47 Ave Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 6.65 6.79 ‐‐ 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐52.7(EB) 53.24(WB) 54.00 T 4.70 6.60 5.50 5.30 6.10 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00

SR 826 Between NW 47 Ave and NW 37 Ave Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 6.93 6.86 ‐‐ 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐55.04(EB) 54.01(WB) 54.00 T 4.70 6.60 5.50 5.30 6.10 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00

SR 826 Between NW 37 Ave and NW 27 Ave Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 6.91 7.00 ‐‐ 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐54.79(EB) 55.44(WB) 54.00 T 4.70 6.60 5.50 5.30 6.10 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00

SR 826 Between NW 27 Ave and NW 17 Ave Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 7.03 7.10 ‐‐ 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐56.08(EB) 55.49(WB) 54.00 T 7.90 9.20 8.50 6.90 6.90 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00

SR 826 Between NW 17 Ave and NW 12 Ave Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 6.88 6.97 ‐‐ 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐54.37(EB) 53.45(WB) 54.00 T 4.70 6.60 5.50 5.30 6.10 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00 SR 826/Palmetto ExpresswayPD&E study ‐ Assessment of K,D and T Factors

SR 826 Between NW 12 Ave and GGI Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 10.06 7.19 7.43 7.48 7.59 9.4‐10 ‐‐ 7.10 D 56.25 54.12 54.15 52.98 54.58 50.4‐61.2 ‐‐ 54.00 T 4.70 6.60 5.50 5.30 6.10 NA NA NA NA NA 7.00

NW 154 Street Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NA NA NA 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 5.61 6.86 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐62.78(WB) 66.99(WB) 65.00 T NA NA NA 5.70 4.60 NA NA NA NA NA 5.00

NW 67 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NA NA NA 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 6.57 6.19 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐73.15(SB) 60.1(NB) 66.60 T NA NA NA 5.70 4.60 NA NA NA NA NA 5.00

NW 57 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 7.97 8.01 9.09 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 6.41 6.03 ‐‐ 9.00 D 54.22 54.34 55.75 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐67.7(SB) 68.03(NB) 67.10 T 5.20 3.50 5.70 5.70 4.60 NA NA NA NA NA 5.00

NW 47 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 7.97 8.01 9.09 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 6.29 7.39 ‐‐ 9.00 D 54.22 54.34 55.75 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐66.97(SB) 67.71(NB) 67.10 T 2.90 5.30 6.50 3.00 2.00 NA NA NA NA NA 4.00

NW 42 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NANANANANA9.2‐11.5 8.68 8.41 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA NA NA 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐79.37(SB) 64.83(NB) 67.10 T NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.00

NW 37 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NA NA NA 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 6.53 7.00 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐68.18(SB) 60.38(NB) 64.30 T NA NA NA 3.50 3.60 NA NA NA NA NA 3.50

NW 32 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NANANANANA9.2‐11.5 8.85 8.78 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA NA NA 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐66.58(SB) 63.(NB) 64.80 T NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 4.00 SR 826/Palmetto ExpresswayPD&E study ‐ Assessment of K,D and T Factors

NW 27 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K 7.97 8.01 9.09 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 6.47 6.35 ‐‐ 9.00 D 54.22 54.34 55.75 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐71.1(SB) 60.3(NB) 65.70 T 4.60 7.00 3.70 3.50 3.60 NA NA NA NA NA 4.50

NW 22 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NA NA NA 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 5.33 9.19 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐60.04(SB) 66.69(NB) 63.40 T NA NA NA 3.50 3.60 NA NA NA NA NA 3.50

NW 17 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NANANANANA9.2‐11.5 8.08 7.57 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA NA NA 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐64.15(SB) 52.55(SB) 58.40 T NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3.50

NW 12 Avenue Traffic FDOT Factors Assigned Historical Values (K30,D30,T24) Recommen 2010 Peak/Daily 2010 Directional Split Recommended Project 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 d Min‐ AM PM AM PM Traffic (K30,D30,T24) K NA NA NA 8.99 8.98 9.2‐11.5 71.10 80.36 ‐‐ 9.00 D NA NA NA 53.24 54.08 50.8‐67.1 ‐‐71.1(SB) 80.36(NB) 67.10 T NA NA NA 2.90 3.70 NA NA NA NA NA 3.50 APPENDIX B SR 826 PD&E Study ‐ Assessment of Traffic Factorss Vehicle Classification Counts1

FDOT Measured Historical Values Recommended Location (T24) Range Median Average Project Traffic 2 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (T24)

SR 826 West of NW 67 Avenue NA 5.82 6.50 6.13 5.89

SR 826 East of NW 67 Avenue NA 4.30 8.23 7.70 7.70 4.30 ‐ 9.20 6.9 7.0 7.0

SR 826 East of 27 Aenue NA 9.20 8.49 6.85 6.88

Note: 1. Truck Classification measured at FDOT site

2. Recommended T24 for SR 826 PD&E Study