1. Problem 1: Determination of Facility Types for Analysis

2. Key Issues Why are we analyzing Krome Avenue? What is the regional significance of Krome Avenue? What is the regional significance of roadways intersecting Krome Avenue? Based on the map of the area where do you think traffic that is using Krome Avenue is going to/coming from?

3. Sub-problems: Sub-problem 1a: At what point does Krome Avenue change from a two-lane highway to a signalized arterial? Sub-problem 1b: What Class should be assigned to each of the facilities that are identified? Sub-problem 1c: What, if any, conditions exist at the controlled intersections that could impact the analyses?

4. Sub-problem 1a: At what point does Krome Avenue change from a two-lane highway to a signalized arterial? Two-lane highway Signalized arterial

5. Primary criterion for distinguishing an urban street vs. a two-lane highway? Signalized intersection spacing: > 2 miles: Probably a two-lane highway (Use Chapter 20)  2 miles: Probably an urban street (Use Chapter 15)

6. 10 Mile spacing 1 Mile spacing Two Lane Highway Signalized Arterial Proposed Facility Types

7. What additional information might be needed Land use and zoning along the corridor (potential for development and type) Transportation (potential intersection or parallel roadways) Supporting policies of the local jurisdiction (air quality, VMT reduction techniques that may affect the assumptions)

8. Sub-problem 1b: Determining the Facility Class and Scope of the Analysis Two-lane Highways Class I Class II Urban Arterials Class I Class II Class III Class IV

9. Why is there a further distinction within facility types? Because drivers have different expectations for speed, delay etc. on different classes of two-lane highways and urban arterials.

10. What parameters contribute to the distinction? Urban Streets roadside development pedestrian activity posted speeds cross section signal spacing Two-lane highways Length of trip Type of trip

11. Are the segments under consideration homogenous throughout? There are no observations in the field that would indicate otherwise.

12. Arterial Class HCM Depiction of Class I Typical View of this section of Krome Ave Access Density: Very Low Pedestrian Activity: Very little Both conditions suggest Class I

13. Two Lane Highway Class Class I: Expectation of high speed Class II: High Speed is not essential Lower speed limit Scenic route, etc. North Section: Posted speed 50 mph Definitely Class I South Section: Posted speed 45 mph This section could go either way If Class I is assigned, LOS will be very low because of the posted speed.

14. Summary of Krome Avenue Facility Types for Analysis SectionBoundaries Facility TypeClass North Okeechobee to Kendall Two-lane highwayI Center Kendall to Eureka Two-lane highwayI, II South Eureka to Avocado Signalized ArterialI

15. Sub-problem 1c: Special Considerations for the Analysis Need to identify conditions that  Could affect the outcome of the analysis beyond the scope of the procedures  Would require some modification of the procedures to achieve valid results.

16. Examples of Special Considerations Significant queues occurring on a two-lane highway Backup from one intersection into another intersection Overflow of a storage bay Short sections of a longer facility that have a different cross section than the main facility. Control features that are not covered by the HCM procedures Conditions that would suggest the use of traffic models that are more complex than the HCM

17. Special Conditions A short piece of four-lane divided roadway on Krome Avenue immediately south of Okeechobee. Excessive queuing on the northbound approach to Okeechobee during the PM peak.

18. Special Conditions (continued) Geometric improvements to eliminate congestion during the peak period Okeechobee Road Kendall Biscayne. There are no conditions observed that would suggest the need to use traffic models that are more complex than the HCM.

19. End of Problem 1