LTC 145-2002
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. 1iJ6~cltltJ2
~
To:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Date: June 12, 2002
From:
Jorge M. Gonzalez /\ /2 _-7_ _ _ _.d,
City Manager~t:JtF\LV'~
Subject:
BAY LINK PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and its consultant,
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., are conducting a transportation corridor study
for Miami and Miami Beach, known as the Bay Link Corridor Study. The study results
will produce what is technically known as the "Draft Environmental Impact Statemenf'
(DEIS), and will assess the feasibility of developing a premium transit connection between
downtown Miami and the Miami Beach Convention Center.
The DEIS and the upcoming "Final Environmental Impact Study" (FEIS) are funded by the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) at $1,5 million, and managed by the MPO,
the body responsible for long-range transportation planning.
A courtesy copy of the draft document will be available to the publiC (both on-line and in
print), beginning June 15, 2002. The document will be formally distributed after review by
the Federal Transit Administration (FT A). However, a "Bay Link Decision Document"was
provided to the City's Transportation and Parking Committee on June 3, 2002, and is
hereto attached, along with a Miami Beach "Schedule of Bay Link DEIS Meetings."
Courtesy document distribution
After an advertised Miami Beach Public Meeting for the Bay Link DEIS takes place at City
Hall, on June 27,2002, at 6:00 p.m., the Transportation and Parking Committee will be
asked to provide a recommendation regarding the Bay Link Study. Then, at the July 10,
2002 meeting, the City Commission will be asked to make a recommendation
regarding the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to be 'studied further in the FEIS.
The first decision that needs to be made is which of the following transit modes you would
recommend for further study in the FEIS:
a Bus Rapid Transit Improvements (BRT)
a Light Rail Transit (LRT)
If the decision is made to support LRT, then a second decision will be required regarding
which alignment is preferable in Miami Beach. The route alignment options are as follows:
a Two-way operation along 5th Street and Washington Avenue to the Convention Center.
(Alternative B-1)
L TC/Bay Link Project Overview
June 12, 2002
Page 2
o A loop operation along Alton Road, 1st Street, Washington Avenue, and 17th Street. The
loop, as it was evaluated, provides two-way operations on Washington and one-way
operation on Alton with trains running from the Convention Center to downtown Miami
alternating on Alton and Washington. (Alternative B-2)
o Two-way operation on Alton Road and 17th Street to the Convention Center
(Alternative B-3). Please note that B-3 is the alternative recommetlded by the Bay
Link Study.
Because of the common rail leg along the MacArthur Causeway, any Miami Beach LRT
alternative can operate with any downtown Miami LRT alternative.
The recommendations you will be asked to make will be forwarded to the MPO Governing
Board. This group has the final responsibility for selecting what will be called the
LPA, which will be further refined in the FEIS. After the LPA choice is made by the MPO,
the Bay Link Project process will include the following steps and phases:
1. Submission of a Supplemental DE IS to the FT A, which includes the selected LPA.
2. FEIS preparation. The FEIS constitutes the "preliminary engineering and design- phase
of the LPA selected by the cities of Miami Beach and Miami for their respective portions
of the Bay Link Project. The FEIS will have to undergo the same local review, and
governing bodies approval process (as the original DEIS), prior to its submission to the
federal funding agencies. It is important to note that the No-Build Alternative
automatically carries forward to the FEIS.
3. Upon acceptance of the FEIS, FTA produces a Record of Decision.
4. Design plans will be taken to a point that a firm cost estimate can be prepared.
5, FTA executes a full funding grant agreement with the County for the Bay Link Project.
(Officially, the No-Build Alternative dies here; practically, however, it is not dead until
the project is constructed).
6. Final design/construction documents are prepared for the approval process.
. 7. Right-of-way is acquired for the Bay Link Project, as/where needed.
8. Bids are issued/received for the phased Bay Link Project.
9. The Project's phased construction begins.
LTC/Bay Link Project Overview
June 12, 2002
Page 3
If an LPA is chosen and supported, the Bay Link Project could be under construction within
the next three (3) years and operational within the next six (6) years, particularly if the
"half cent on the sales tax" proposal is approved by the Miami-Dade County voters.
JMG/JG/RM~'JJ/AJ
Attachments: Miami Beach Schedule of Bay Link DEIS Meetings
Notice of Bay Link Public Meeting in Miami Beach
Bay Link Decision Document
Bay Link Brochure
cc: Assistant City Managers
Murray Dubbin, City Attorney
Fred Beckmann, Director of Public Works
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Nannette Rodriguez, Public Information Officer
Joseph Johnson, Transportation/Concurrency Management Division Director
Amelia Johnson, Transportation Coordinator .
Judy Evans, Executive Director, MBTMA
F:\WORK\$TRAIAMELlA\MPO\BAYLINKupdate.L TC.doc
.
June 15
June 27
July 8
July 10
July 11
July 15
July 25
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
SCHEDULE OF BAY LINK DEIS MEETINGS
June 6, 2002
A courstesy copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
becomes available for review at the Miami Beach Public Library
reference desk, the Miami-Dade County Main Library, as well as online
at: www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/moo/moo4-bavlink-home.htm.
Interested persons may direct their questions regarding the DEIS to:
Larry Foutz, of Parsons Brinckerhoff at Foutz@pbworld.com
or Fax # 305-261-5735
Miami Beach Public Meetine for the Bav Link Proiect
City Commission Chambers
Thursday, June 27, 2002, at 6:00 p.m.
MPO and Bay Link Consultants will make a presentation, record all
questions, and, subsequently, provide written answers for City review and
Bay Link permanent record.
Transportation and Parking Committee (T &PC) Meeting:
Bay Link Project Manager/Consultants answer T &PC member questions
T &PC Resolution/recommendation to City Commission regarding locally-
preferred alternative and technology
Convention Center, Executive Conference Room, 4th Floor, at 3:30 p.m.
Presentation to Miami Beach City Commission
at regular City Commission Meeting (time-certain item)
Wednesday, July 10, 2002
Decisions regarding locally-preferred alternative and technology.
Presentation to Miami City Council
Decisions regarding locally-preferred alternative and technology.
Bay Link Public Hearing (Miami & Miami Beach)
Conducted by the MPO and Bay Link Consultants
Wolfson Campus of Miami-Dade Community College, Room 2106
M~nday, July 15, 2002, at 5:00 p.m.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Governing Board Mtng.
Review recommendations made by both cities and select a
locally preferred alternative for the Bay Link Project.
F:\WORK\$TRA\AMELIA IMPO\BA YLINKSchcdule.doc
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
COME OFFER YOUR COMMENTS
AT A PUBLIC MEETING FOR
BAY LINK
the Miami-Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study
THURS., JUNE 27, 2002, 6 P.M.
City Hall Commission Chambers
1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor
Miami Beach, Florida
The Miami-Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion Is conducting a study for a possible light rail or bus
rapid transit link connecting downtown Miami and South
Beach. Beginning June 15, 2002, you can review the
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement at
the Miami Beach Public Library, the Miami-Dade County
Main Library, or on the project webslte at:
www.co.mlaml-dade.f1.us/mDo/mD04-bavllnk-home.htm.
Then take part in this Public Meeting, discuss the find-
Ings and alternatives evaluated and offer vour oDinlonl
.'
.
..
MIAMI-MIAMI BEACH TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR STUDY
JJW.
~.~~~
Decision Document
Prepared by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & D~uglas, Inc.
May 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 DECISION TO BE MADE.............................................................................................1-1
2.0 PURPOSE OF. THE PROJECT ...........,........................................................................2-1
2.1 STUDY AREA....... ...... ......... .......... .... ................................................ ...... .........2-1
2.2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT...................................................2-1
3.0 INITIAL ALTERNATIVE SCREENING .........................................................................3-1
3.1 TECHNOLOGY.. .............. ......... .... ........,.......... ...................................-.............3-1
3.2 TECHNOLOGy........ ...... ,. ...................... ........... .......................... .....................3-2
3.2.1 Bus Rapid Transit .................................................................................3-2
3.2.2 Light Rail Transit...... .... ...... .... .................. ..............................................3-3
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE AL TERNA TIVES...................................................................4-4
4.1 ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTIONS .........................................................................4-4
4.1.1 Bus Rapid Transit ........................................................,........................4-4
4.1.2 Light Rail Transit .................................. .....:....... ...:................................4-4
4.2 OPERATIONS ..................... ... ............... ............................. ............... .... ......... ...4-4 .'
4.2.1 Light Rail Yard and Shop Facility ........................................................;,4-4
4.3 ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC .........................................................4-5
. 4.4 SUMMARY OF KEY EVALUATION FACTORS ................................................4-6
4.4.1 . Land Use and Development..................................................................4-6
4.4.2 Ridership..................... .......:............. ............. .... .......... .............. ........ ....4-7
4.4.3 Visual Impacts............................................. ......... ........... ................ ......4-8
4.4.4 Mobility Benefits..... ............ ...... ............... ............ ............ ...... ............... .4-9
4.4.5 Parking Impacts...................................... .................. ........ .......... ......... .4-9
4.4.6 Environmental Summary.................................. ............................ ......... .4-9
4.4.7 Capital Cost ........................................................................................4-10
4.4.8 Operations and Maintenance Cost......................................................4-10
4.4.9 Farebox Recovery ................ ...............................................................4-11
4.4.10 Cost Effectiveness ..............................................................................4-1.1
4.4.11 Summary of Goal Achievement...........................................................4-12
4.5 EVALUATION SUMMARy...... ........... .............................................................4-12
4.5.1 Summary of Major Benefits/lmpacts....................................................4-13
4.5.2 Decisions to be made................... ........................... ............................4-13
Miami Beach Bay Link Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
",
1.0 Decision to be Made
The purpose of this document is to assist decision makers make a recommendation regarding
the Locally Preferred Altemative (LPA) to be studied further in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the Bay link Project. The recommendation of each group will be
forwarded on to the Goveming Board of the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO). who will make the final decision regarding the LPA
The first decision that needs to made is which mode should be studied further - Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) or light Rail Transit (LRT)
If the decision is made to support LRT then decisions need to be made about which alignment is
preferable in downtown Miami and in south Miami Beach.
There is an opportunity to refine a number of the assumptions about the LRT alignments and
operations during the. FEIS stage. These will be discussed as the altematives are presented.
Financial mechanism need not be decided upon at this stage.
,
Miami Beach Bay Unk Canida( Study
Decision Document
May 2002
1-1
2.0 Purpose of the Project
2.1 Study Area
The study corridor is that segment of the East-West Multimodal Corridor study that is bounded
by.I-95 on the west and the Atlantic Ocean on the east. To the south, the study corridor limits
end at the Miami River in Miami and the South Pointe area on Miami Beach. The study area .
includes Watson Island, the MacArthur Causeway, Terrnin1;l1lsland and Star, Palm and Hibiscus
islands. On the Miami side of Biscayne Bay, the northem limit of the study area is the vicinity of
NW 29th Street. The northem limit on Miami Beach is 1-195 and 41st Street. The following
graphic reflects the study area.
2.2 Purpose and Need for the Project
Both downtown and south Miami Beach are continuing to grow rapidly and experiencing heavy
densification that has exceed earlier population and employment projections. This growth,
when combined with the geographic constraints, relatively narrow streets and a chronic lack of
parking, results in congestion that makes access by private automobile extremely difficult. A
high capacity altemativeto the automobile to maintain the mobility so essential to continued
economic prosperity and the quality of life so valued in the region.
. Some relevant study area statistics include: .
· Existing resident population of 62,000; increase to 80,000 by 2025;
. There are approximately 98,000 jobs in the study area; increase to 121,000 by 2025;
. There are 4.7 million over night visitors in the corridor per year;
. Over 500 Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) buses carrying over 8,000 riders per day between
Miami and Miami Beachalong the MacArthur Causeway.
The purpose of the project is to respond to the following pressing needs:
.. Current level of service on roadways, congestion to increase over 24 percent in the next ten
years;
. Benefit of huge public and private development will suffer without addition of safe and
reliable transit capacity;
. Due to the natural features that limit roadway capacity, substantial growth difficult without
added mobility offered by transit; .
. An effective transit link is needed to tie the study area to the large transportation
investments made in region;
. Emergence of downtown Miami as a tourism destination and the location of an increasing
number of special events will require greater accessibility;
. The Miami Beach concurrency limitations related to traffic generation and parking require a
travel altemative other than the automobile;
. Good and reasonabl.e access to the jobs by transit is necessary to keep wages stable and
competitive. .
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
2-1
"
3.0 Initial Alternative Screening
3.1 Technology
'.
A technology assessment was prepared early in the study process. Assessment defined
general service needs, characteristics of corridor and evaluation methodology addressed;
. Bus Rapid Transit;
. Light Rail Transit;
. Rapid Rail Transit (Metromover);
. Automated Guideway Transit (Metromover); and
. Monorail.
During the scoping process, the following additional technologies were identified:
. A ferry connection;
. . A cable car (the G~ide); .an~
. Extension of Metrorail or Metromover to 5th Street and Alton Road.
BRT LRT AGT RRT Ferry Cable Car
Operational Flexibility . a Et a ~ ~
Future Expansion . a ~ Et ~ E9
Capital Cost . a Et Et a Unknown
O&M Cost a a Et . Et Unknown
Distribution . . ~ ~. ~ ~
ROW . a Et Et Et Et
Fixed Investment Et . . . Et Et
Image ~ . Et Et a Et
Environmental Et . . .. Et Et
Urban Integration Et . Et Et . a
Proprietary Technology . . Et . . E9
Capacity a . . . Et a
Fire Life Safety . . . . Et E9
. a Et ~ ES.
Sest Worst
. Miami Beach Bay Link Corridor Study
Decision Document .
May 2002
,
3-1
3.2
Technology
3.2.1
Bus Rapid Transit
'.
Bus Rapid Transit
· Flexible mode in terms of placement
· Evolving, dynamic technology which meets EPA 2004 requirements and 200 7 requirements (for
certain technologies). .
· Has the capability to operate at grade (Le., street level) with motor vehicles and pedestrians
crossing the right-of-way, made possible by the overhead distribution system or heavy-duty diesel
electric motor or a1te'!late (fuel cell etc.) .
· Large, single or double articulated cars running on rubber tires
. Manned Operation
· . gan operate up to 70 km/h; make short radius turns of 40 feet; and climb grades up to 13 percent
· Vehicles/systems are somewhat proprietary, bid competition will not be limited, competitive pricing
can be obtained if choice is similar to that of various other cities (economy of scale)
· Systems deployed in France and Italy and being seriously considered in various US cities.
· FTA approval and "Buy America". clause need to be addressed.
· The least costly of the modes being considered~
" ,
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
3-2
3.2.2
Light Rail Transit
Sacramento LRT'
. Flexible mode in terms of placement
. Has capability of operating at-grade (Le., street level) with motor vehicles and pedestrians crossing
the right-of-way, made possible by the overhead power distribution system
. Large, single or articulated cars running on traditional rails for support and guidance, giving simple .
and fast switching capability
. Manned operations, but with automatic train protection
. Can operate up to 55 miles per hour; make short radius turns; and climb grades up to 7 percent
. Vehicles are generic and generally non-proprietary in concept, thus attracting strong bid competition
. Overhead power distribution system and support poles cause negative visual impact
. Where at-grade, has negative impact on other traffic movements
3-3
Miami Beach Bay Link Corridor Study
Decision Document
. May 2002
4.0 Description of the Alternatives
4.1 Alignment Descriptions
4.1.1 Bus Rapid Transit
The following graphic represents the BRT alignment.
4.1.2 Light Rail Transit
The following rail alternative has been divided into six segments for analysis. $egments A 1, A2,
and A3 represent Miami alignment options. The segment from Bicentennial Park to Terminal
Island is common to all alternatives. Following are. graphic presentations of each alternative:.
4.2 Operations
The following summarizes the general characteristics of the proposed system operation:
. Operates 20.5 hours per day
. Service Frequencies (minutes)
5 - Peak (5:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.)
15 - Off Peak (6:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.)
. Train Length (LRT)
2 Cars AM peak, midday and PM peak
1 Car off peak
. Station dwell time is 20 seconds
. . Utilizes signal prioritization
. Average speed:
LRT -: 16 to 18 miles per hour
BRT -12 to 13 miles per hour
4.2.1 Light Rail Yard and Shop Facility
For the Bay Link LRT system two separate sites for a maintenance facility were located. Both
locations meet the ~ite requirements and are located north of the downtown LRT segment,
between 1-395 and 1-195 and east of 1-95.
The Yard and Shop layouts are similar and both include the following elements:
. Maintenance shop (approximately 48,500 square feet) with three through tracks
. Separate train' wash facility on track adjacent to the maintenance building;
. Bypass track to the storage yard;
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002 .
4-4
~'i~m~fl'~li~iMUlU
"',- -~. -'...
c
- I
;
.
i
Ii"
:~.
'~
~, -.,.
.~
...
'i
!
....
~
.
" .
.
.
..
.
.
I II
.
.
<<
.
.'
.1
':"'".,
'-.., .
.'
(,~ ~
;" ..; ,.Pi ";,\;;'~.,~;i~]jj.~f:'~ I"
;"i,e :., Ii,:: /:',: ,~,;]: "'1111' . '~;.~rt: [",; "
X ;c'. I- "". 0";'. "--<:,...' "i: '.,. ""'" - l:-n . . . ' :,.
',- ,";,,~,. ~':,>':;';' ::.'i:nf' :.TIi; Ii; t;; t;;ltiJli; :!ii.1i; Ii;(/)~ ..::0...... 'Ii; ;.' :U~J,.:..:.I.t;;;":..
-h.~ 03:d C5 .. <0.,.\': .,. -= ""'~~' .:.-= -= -= -=I-=~'-=:~ "t:l "t:l. ......- :.:,JJfB:!'.:
.,. ~. "'.. ...,c....O.I.\.'.""..... ,',' 'V.,-Ioo; - --".- ~ c: .:~ ..:.f"...,."".;
_,. .~ ~_ .' ">,m".. r'-.";--"'<,'" - _ a;)"" ~.It) M N '. .'~:_.\.;..'~"'_.
}~~{:~r:~;,;;<~~ ~::':'< 5I.;;:'t ....JtV:',' J.: 1~~';~;~}
I '..': :;i\J(:\t ':i'i:'~'T,/ ~~~i:},j:W'i;;,;a:r;,:,;.. "'11".. '.. ~.. ........ .... ::,:-- .:.;..ID::~;;.
<<.';:'~O?,~~;',';:." "'~,~;,:\' ;![';j1!&'~'IfI~~'i,'j::;~ij.t~t: '1'.:.:: .. ..':'.
.~
d
"', )oi~-~~'"7-,-,--~~>~:-'-'~:::':;::" . ."-<.' <>-':.
~;~~~~~":'"
'\( ~'-~-.J ~...
s \' ~ ~ w ! -' :V~~:=t,.,","", .. hill
:::'-i ~88:6 ~ ^V PlP"3 ...... ::
_'. U I ::: 8 U5 U5 U5 2 U5 U5
- t-,. ~'-- :5 ~ ~"" ~ ~ ? ~
.:r ;:~,~~~,\., IS UeO!4:l!V'I ... . '" ,- w" I....-'
5,' ~ " \.... ^V XOUUBl '..'" ~..<'.
.....- \ P~ U01"" ..C,
~< V ,,,",\ ---;''':,; ;<-,~.::
\~"+';:"";i ,; !,.):.<~:.;..":~ i'\'" ;....'.'.,i};';X:il
'" ';:: .",;;,\'>',i;;''.':\:~:-:' ;:,:;',.:." '~.. . .
(; ,"~';' {i]~:..,,;';~:.~::';-,\ :~
"c::".c <{J; _~_.\<o
..;.>, ;;:'. :,.>;, f/
",';:'.,' Ie' "..,,;,'7,
:~:~}itl
-..' '<i
ifi~.)JtF '
'..;,~.s' ., / ~
~irlJ~~
1
....:,\11
~l
i:'.
~.
F
~
;>-
i~D~ ,.:,..~...;
>,,~ ....
\\;l.
(
~~~~:'~
::;;.~
V' 'jW.c
", (j:"'~;,
',";le;
:. .;~G'
~'t;
'''';/i;'
iI',".'
.,..-(.>:-.':
f ,';...
;g~:~;~:'~
"
~'t:<~'
,
.
i~~:2f1.t.:f1';~~.~.:q""-~~J.::"';
. '.
C,)
~ m
ctl >
'- '- 0
f- ~ E
-0 0 0
Q) '- '-
xQ3Q3
222
~ .
f .
i .
.
.
~ .
. .
1 .
:
'-
Q.)
......
c
Q.)
~ U
c c .....
"-
-l 0 CJ)
>. ...... c
ctl ctl ctl
Ci5 '-
en f-
0 <l
.... ..
.r_}1B3-r:~J :.~r: T.::.~ :-~ ~;..~ ~::-.- T:'~:~.TJ.~-J~'..~~. .-:'::.~~~::':,~~d:~i~~~#~~~~~~~~:I~~t;~t~~it
...:~ - "
:;r~~
~~
:t!::
~-
t
~(T~,~~~:~::i~';~~~-..r ~'~':': : : ~r.' . ,.... .-:-''"T'~r1~r! to..
.... ,,"-, ";--:'''~--r 7'~ p~'
':~..~y,~,r.~:'
~.~ - ~-'-': .......,.~.,.~~ ~~1'.~.~rr.~. . "..~".":;;7:':';'~"'~o':.~,:;..",~:I',":!~.;
.:I! ~'fT:::-;:. :;"-; r.
... r'._~~"~."
,. ~__.~ 'I'"?'T!:i .:.-:. ,',: -.' ..-!...~~)";;.~.~}~,"....~"!;~. ...:..r--~. t1:~;i<~:';,~4J~ .
JO lJ~a"O
"... SNn?O:J
"... NOlDN1/"'S"'M
, .
· Double loop configuration with special trackwork to allow ease of movement between
maintenance shop/wash track and storage yard.
. Maintenance-of-way building;
· Storage ladder tracks for 21 vehicles plus provision for an additional six to 17 vehicles in the
initial phase.
Alternative 1 branches from the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) rail corridor at NW 17th
Street. The site covers approximately 13 acres and is bordered by the FEC on the west, NW
17th Street to the south, NW 2nd Avenue to the east and the Miami Cemetery on the north.
Two signalized rail crossings are required on Miami Avenue just north of NW 17th Street.
Slightly more than half of the existing properties are vacant with one, two and three story
warehouse/office buildings on the remainder of the site. . .
Alternative 2 branches from the FEC rail corridor just north of NW 29th Street and is located in
the FEC railroad container storage property (Buena Vista yard) east of Miami Avenue. The site
covers approximately 12 acres. The existing properties are either vacant or occupied by the
storage yard. No roadways are affected by the layout. Miami Avenue would likely provide the
ingress and egress for employees working at the facility. Right-of-way for site access would
then be through the FEC property (not included in the acreage estimate).
4.3 Assumptions Regarding Traffic
The primary assumptions for design of the system from a traffic perspective are:
. Bay Link will operate in mixed traffic on Flagler Street;
· No other mixed-use areas of operation wiil be permitted unless no practical alternatiye exist; -
. Where lost, on-street parking will be replaced by new local lots where necessary to use
space for traffic lanes;
. Traffic controllers will be upgraded to permit the coordination and prioritization of traffic
signals;
. In general cross street will need to be signalized;
. Left or right turning movements will be restricted where vehicular and train safety cannot be
reasonably assured through other means;
. Bay Link movements will be controlled and facilitated by adding the necessary phases to
existing or new traffic signals;
. Access to and from station platforms will be accomplished at intersections under the positive
control or new or existing traffic signals.
. Bay Link will operate 5-minute headways during the peak and midday periods; Bay Link will
operate with a maximum of 2-car trains;
. Bay Link's station dwell time will be 20 seconds.
Miami Beach Bay Unk Cotridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-5
4.4 Summary of Key Evaluation Factors
This section provides summary information about the more significant elements contributing to
the formulation of an I,PA decision. Factors addressed in clued: land use; ridership; parking
impacts; an environmental summary; capital cost; operations and maintenance cost; farebox
recovery; and, cost-effectiveness.
4.4.1 land Use and Development
. Convention Center
Improved access to large blocks hotel rooms
. Add trains for "special events"
Future extensions amplify benefit
. . Cultural and Tourism
American Airlines Arena
Miami Grand Prix
Bayfront Park
Proposed Museum/Bicentennial Park
. Performing Arts Center .
Parrot Jungle/Marina
. Mitigate concurrency limitations
Strengthen tourist base will reduce dependency on automobile (traffic/parking)
. Improve weekend access to beaches
Support sustainable growth
Provide alternative to auto based travel
. Easier to attract/retain employees
Better regional access
Wages stable and competitive
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4~
jJj~11[~I~li: '"
f ..,.,.'"'............
. 'l~I~
:7!~~t-'.~-~~!:
~
f:
~
. ",
.
.
~~;.,.
I!'~ 1 ". :',n,~;
.. '.'-~-.. ',. - - ;~::%ti~...?C,g.'~;.~
;-.:::. ~L . I'U::..s.NrIioo '~.'i..;:;c=,~:?::" r'---rti>,
~r ._10 .... , . ~"".". / "
..t.o- 'F=,;TF I "y NUlo""i "'... . ;,. .,' , ~
~ i'Y ~I~ --. ""'.O--U;~~l-~
~'l ~ ~~ ;;;'V '"'"';;; ~ :: ~I PA
1U, "I H" ~ "I "'Ill.v/:~:
I ., ,m " =N'!I' ~'_"... ,.
. ~4 fr:;: I "\I XOUU;ll. NOLlY ~', ;:"'_"':'. ',': .
\ \ if,. I <Jll". '.. .
.(]~ j; '\1-~~;; J ,"}'-;,3-:',~{_> :/'.
. n _ ?""" '" ,
'. 1\....-'--,.,.1 -.... :18, (il'),.
'.V' '. 'I:J~ 'y-.'-,.c ""., -""::J"",~ "Ed) .
,;. '" .:117<;(:'_' ,.:.;./_-~~tarlS\an:...-,...-;~~
,A. I :;;/':.",;,-::,,,,::"-',;,,:~ .'.:S.. ~ !
'.' -' - <:tiT -'S,.' '" :.>>>-; '.).>' /I . _
I ,'. . ) .'. c - :(.;: ... ;;"', c",,:: .;;: '.; '. '.' .:;, "i'~.. ' f;
. , . ,'/( --'';'' . .,.... ,,'; c,';' If A
Ii . ". ;~ I -.-,. ......'7' '~. /. .'X7 ;!/; (S';
i.' . ....:;~.~:(.. "';"<,';.l: ..',,,. 't:>A ".; J ;; Ill, is:
,:.,: .:: "\""'. ..J''', ~ . \",.7./ ". ..t( II,? .,,' .
"'::.- . ., ~ '~""I"" " '/114-. ')
"". , '" ". c. '.; '" ~ '0
". '.i..;. ;.\.- .', ':..." "\',;~,' ".2", n< \'/ . , "'
' . .'. '-,. "'" """ "''''.,
,i. :.":', ~iT'''\' _ ., "'3S1 ',4:.' ,~
. , .,'\. >"'.
I .,~ ;,':';:: ',: .... .."" .. ':?f '. ". '.' t! .
-- c" ..,. "'''c "..;. . "
I '.', ."', .
~i,U "'Ai.;:
'1
---,... .... . "...
4~:)3{:.' :
CD II!: :<.; : .'.:
Ol I:. :'}.; .';:'
~ ~ '-':/~.:.!
a5 0
-< (J ~:.:'\::
II) x'?:- I :: "'; '.:.
~:g -a ~ .~; :i:;::
~ ... ~ E E .~:r;:',~
~ <( ~ 0 E . -:::..:,:;) '::".:'
m c: (J 0 '" }".,
c: ~ C ~ (J. ...:<
~ (.l 0 ... CIl /,.~.".
C....-:W"C
m<D>'"C[ll
OE~mCl
m<:CIlLL
co''''' co en~'
.... ....
~C3C3
x (jj .~ .!!l
. ..!!1 LL. 0 ....
a,Q. "0 (J.<:
0, E ~.c g'
58]!~E
JOJ...._e;
OC:~E't:
t:: (ij U) ~. Q,)
(\l:2ii::2o..
0..,
....: . C\I M ~ III
. ~
~ ".(1)
oS -< .... Cii ".
a5'c:>
(J~_ 0
:s f:! E
~ ~:~ e e
2"CQiQi
t5 .m :2 :2
<: a.. ..
ii'fi~ .. jJL'i
: ~:(:. '::. ,3L~,::;~<:7.:"
'::~
....:..~;c. ::. x.:
.'i1!l (;" .... .... ;;, ,.":~" _" ,.... ~ ~
.'<. '>;'. ~.>.:.". ~-'- "
i e;. ;!'> :. ",;;', ,.:.~. li;". ....... ~~l '. ~.; I ,il '.
-US:! .aA..t::)SI..... .18:._.1.... t~. i ~ ~li I ",'
.' ~~. . fit- ,t'.
- 'Al. '. """~ _; Ill. i I,. . _
~I. ~.....:.:.~ ~Il~ r'\.: ..
--'-~ ~glft,/" ~
Z I . ';.00: < :' 'H.I
I'. .'. - ";.,1-." .
8~. .
.... .UL_.
.;
g ].<
.~~,
...N.
....~.~.
;'.:"
I
-
^\f~WN
~.
o
I
---'- --=:::::=
~.
---=
'-.
:'..:;
K':;.,
~''''''
:';:;"':.'." ,:~
ilft~
2'
...-
":".~;..
c'
..... . ;'::'t ;~UJ
~ II L;:;~,
.'" :'-'.C.
>,""1. ,:"i,,':,;
4.4.2
Ridership
. 15,500 to 17,400 daily riders; 5.6 to 6.3 million annually
. Metrorail, Metromover and bus system ridership would increase with LRT
Boardings by Mode - Unlinked Trips
A1B3 A2B2 A3B1 BRT No-Build
BRT 13,336
Beach LRT 17,375 15,632 15,445
Metrorail 70,806 71,188 71,593 70,094 70,389 .
Metromover 28,207 30,124 27,216 18,091 21,515
All Transit 448,200 448;164 446,175 439,702 444,203
Source: The Corradino Group .
I
I
. BRT would attract less riders, Metrorail, Metromover and total system ridership would be
le'ss
. R.idership by trip purpose
42% Commuting
38% Non-work based trips
20% Trips originating from work
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-7
4.4.3
Visual Impacts
;-
.I
.I
/
/
f
%..:.~:.
wii'')r
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-8
4.4.4 Mobility Benefits
. Adds significantly to study area mobility
. Provides altemative to automobile
. Adds greatly to core capacity
. Replaces 500 MDT buses with 176 trains
. Improves effectiveness of Electrowave
. Upgrades signal system
. Removes 6,100 to 7,800 cars per day
4.4.5 Parking Impacts
. 8ay Link proposed to replace displaced spaces with off-street lots
Off-Street Public On-Site Spaces Percent of
Alternative Spaces Space Impacted Spaces
A1 4,903 391 -871 16
A2 6,063 431 -431 6
A3 5,584 227 -227 4
81 1,889 282 -86 4
82 4,741 636 -323 6
83 3,140 226 +100 . +3
4.4.6 Environmental Summary
. In general there are no "Fatal Flaws. environmental with any of the altematives.
. The areas with the greatest challenges. crossing the waterways and MacArthur Causeway
and the yard and. shop site, are common to all LRT altematives. .
. The major environmental difference between altematives may be the potential
contamination along Alton Road affecting Altematives 82 and 83.
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002 .
4-9
.
Y'
4.4.7
Capital Cost
Construction Maintenance Management!
Alternative ROW Vehicles Yard Engineering Tot~1 Cost
BRT $59.4 $8.5 $7.9 $25.1 $100.9
A1/B1 $191.8 $41.6 $27.7 $94.1 $355.1
A1/B2 $232.0 $41.6 $27.7 $109.0 $410.2
A1/B3 $226.7 $41.6 $27.7 $101.0 $397.0
A2IB 1 $178,9 $37.0 $27.7 $88.0 $331.5
A21B2 $219.1 $37.0 $27.7 $102.9 $386.6
A21B3 $213.8 $37.0 $27.7 $95.0 $373.4 '
A3/B 1 $173.4 $37.0 $27.7 , $86.0 $324.0
A3/B2 $213.6 $37.0 $27.7 $100.9 $379.1
A3IB3 $208.3 $37.0 $27.7 $92.9 $365.9
Capital Cost
(millions of 2001 $'s)
4.4.8
Operations and Maintenance Cost
Operating and maintenance costs are the cost that are required to be spent annually on keeping
a transit system running.
Alternative Bus Cost Metrorail LRT Total
No-Build $160.4 $66.2 N1A $226.6
BRT $162.2 $66.2 N1A $228.5
A1/B1 $155.1 $66.2 $10.0 $231.4
A1182 $155.1 $66.2 $11.0 $232.4
A 1/B3 $155.1 $66.2 $9.8 $231.2
A2IB 1 $155.1 $66.2 $8.7 $230.0
A21B2 $155.1 $66.2 $9.6 $231.0
A21B3 $155.1 $66.2 $8.5 $229.8
A3/B 1 $155.1 $66.2 $8.4 $229.8
A3182 $155.1 $66.2 $9.4 $230.7
A3/B3 $155.1 $66.2 $8.3 $229,6
Operating and Maintenance Cost
. '(millions of 2001 $'s) ,
, Bus costs and Metrorail costs are based upon the existing 2001 MDT O&M costs.
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-10
4.4.9
Farebox Recovery
The farebox recovery ratio (the annual O&M costs divided by the revenue collected by
passengers) directly affects the amount of money the County must pay to subsidize transit
operations. The farebox recovery for MDT is around 25 percent. The calculated farebox
recovery ratio for the. LRT alternatives ranges between 35 percent and 48 percent. The best
farebox recovery is provided by the combination of alternatives A3 and 83. .
Farebox Recovery
(millions of 2001 $'s) .
Annual Riders 1 Annual Annual O&M Farebox
Alternative Daily Riders (000) Revenue2 (SOOO) Cost (SOOO) Recovery
AlIB1 15,587 4,832 $3,624 $10,000 36%
A1/82 16,197 5,021 $3,766 $10,854 35%
A1/B3 17,375 5,386 $4,039 $9,841 41%
A2IB 1 15,021 4,656 $3,492 $8,663 40%
A21B2 15,631 4,846 $3,634 $9.516 38%
A21B3 16,809 5,211 $3,908 $8,503 46%
A3/8 1 15,447 4,789 $3,592 $8,414 43%
A3IB2 16,057 4,978 $3,733 $9,268 40%
A31B3 17,235 5,343 $4,007 $8,254 48%
1 Annual Riders equals daily riders. 310 days.
2 Annual revenue equals annual riders. $.75 (MDT revenue per passenger counting all modes.)
.4.4.10 . Cost Effectiveness
Cost-Effectiveness - relates the costs of the alternatives to specific measurable travel benefits.
In particular, the capital and operating costs of the alternatives are related to new transit riders
generated. This index produces ratios with units of "added cost per new rider", and reflects
benefits to existing riders and savings in operating costs as well as the attraction of ne\(V riders.
It can be interpreted to be the ratio between the necessary ~pital investment plus annual
operating and maintenance costs and the return in transit ridership.
...
Cost Effectiveness
(Cost in 2001 $'s)
Annualized 1 Change In O&M Change in Transit Cost Effectiveness
Alternative Capital Cost Costs 2 Trips 3 Index ·
BRT $8,320,000 $1,848,000 1.395,310 S7.29
A1/B1 $27,150,000 $4,739,000 2,520,831 $12.65
A1/B2 $31,750,000 $5,785,000 2,608,216 $14.39
A1/B3 $30,650,000 $4,579,000 2,634,380 $13.37
A2IB 1 $25,250,QOO $3,402,000 2,482,099 $11.54
A21B2 $29,850,000 $4,351,000 2,623,220 $13.03
A21B3 $28,750,000 $3,242,000 2,596,407 $12.32
A3/8 1 $24,650,000 $3,153,000 2,006,630 $13.85
A3/82 $29,150,000 $4,103,000 2,549,172 $13.04
A3/83 $28,050,000 $2,993,000 2,621,914 $11.83
1 Annualized Cost is the capital cost spread out over the expected life of the project using standard FT A factors.
2 This column is calculated by subtracting the No-Build O&M costs from the O&M cost of each A1temative.
Miami Beach Bay Link Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-11
3 This column is obtained by subtracting the unlinked riders for the No-Build altemative from each "altemative.
4 The index is obtained from the following formula ""
Index = ~$CAP + ~$O&M
p.RIDERS
4.4.11
Summary of Goal Achievem~nt
Goal Achievement Summary
Goal BRT A1/B1 A1/B2 A1/B3 A2/B 1 A2IB2 A21B3 A3/B1 A3/B2 A3/B3
1. Develop Multimodal Et a Et a a Et a a Et .
Transportation System
2. Improve efficiency and Et a a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
safety
3. Preserve Social Integrity of ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~
Urban Communities
4. Plan projects that enhance Et Et ~ . . ~ . Et ~ ~
quality of life/environment
5. Define a sound funding Et ~ . ~ Et ~ a Et ~ a
base
.aEt
4.5 Evaluation Summary
The purpose of this section is to collect and summarize the data presented above to facilitate
the review and decision process. Provided are: a summary of major benefits; and an evaluation
summary.
Miami Beach Bay Unk Conidor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-12
4.5.1
Summary of Major Benefits/Impacts
Alternative Benefits Impacts
No-Build . , Does not cause short-term construction impacts. . Does not support goals of community. Does
not supply an alternative to growing
congestion.
BRT , . Does not cause short-term construction impacts . Will require increase in transit vehicles on
on Miami Beach. local streets to keep up with demand.
LRT A1 . Carries highest projected ridenship . Impacts parking on both Biscayne Boulevard
. Serves densest commercial areas of downtown and along NW 1st Avenue
. Works will with potential LRT extension to the . Impacts traffic operations on Flagler Street
north. . Does not directly serve residential areas of
downtown
LRT A2 . Serves residential areas of downtown. . One-way loop provides the least convenient
. Works will with potential LRT extension to the service level in the downtown.
north.
. On-way loop minimizes roadway impacts.
LRT A:3 . Provides direct service to MDCC. . Does not serve the densest areas of
. Provides most direct routing to Metrorail downtown.
. Has lowest construction cost. . NW 2nd Street is not transit oriented,
. Hast the highest farebox recovery ratio . Does not serve Overtown community.
. Has the best cost-effectiveness ratio.
LRT B1 . Has the least parking impact on the beach. . Has the lowest ridenship projections.
. Serves the hotel, recreational and tourist trips. . Takes a lane of traffic on Washington
. Has the lowest capital cost. . Provides least service to South Beach
residents.
LRT B2 . Services all areas of South Beach . Has the highest cost.
. Has the lowest farebox recovery and highest
cost per new rider.
LRT B3 . Has the highest farebox recovery ratio . Requires loss of all on-street parking on Alton
. Road.
. Has the highest ridenship projections.
. Serves high density residential areas of South . Requires minor right-of-way takes.
Beach. ,
"
4.5.2
Decisions to be made
The decision that you are being asked to make will be forwarded to the MPO Board. This group
has the final responsibility for selecting what will be called the LPA. which will further refined in
the FEIS.
The first decision that needs to be made is which of the following modes you would recommend
for further study in the FEIS. It is important to note that the No-Build Alternative automatically
carries forward into the next phase of the planning work.
1. Bus Rapid Transit Improvements
2. Light Rail Transit
Miami Beach Bay Link Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-13
,
If the decision is made to support LRT then there are two sections of the project that have been
examined - Miami and Miami Beach. Because of the common rail leg along the MacArthur
Causeway any downtown Miami alternative can operate with any Miami Beach Alternative.
In downtown Miami there are three alternative alignments - one of which needs to be selected.
. Two-way operations along Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street and NW 1st Avenue
(Alternative A 1- the Hook) .
. A one-way loop along NW 9th Street, NW 1st Avenue, Flagler Street and Biscayne
.Boulevard. (Alternative A2 ~ the Big Loop)
. Two-way operations on a part of Biscayne Boulevard with a one way loop on NW 4th Street,
NW 1st Avenue, and NW 2nd Street.
. On Miami Beach there are also three alternative alignments - one of which needs to be
selected.
. Two-way operation along 5th Street and Washington to the Convention Center (Alternative
B1)
. . A loop operation along Alton, 1 st Street, Washington, and 17th Street. The loop as it was
evaluated provides two-way operations on Washington and one-way operation on Alton with
trains running from the convention center to downtown Miami alternating on Alton and
Washington. (Alternative B2)
. Two-way operation on Alton Road and 17th Street to the Convention Center. (Alternative
B3)
Finally within the FEIS phase of the project there will be an in-depth focus on a single
. alternative. Alternatives as they have been examined so far can be modified when the LPA is
selected. Below are some of the modifications to the proposed alternatives that have been
suggested. It is your prerogative to recommend a modification for the LPA.
All of the alternatives have been planned to operate in its own right-of-way, except for along
Flagler Street. Any portion of an alternative can operate in mixed flow traffic.
Different alternatives have different loop configurations. Full two-way loops can be developed
or a full one-way loop can be operated.
. The two-way loop would improve the transit level of service, but would have a greater impact
on traffic lanes and parking lanes.
. A fully one-way loop would reduce the transit level of service and the impact on traffic and
parking.
. The Alton Road Alternative (B3) can be modified to provide a loop service around the east
end of Lincoln Road with one-way operations on 17th Street, Collins Avenue and 16th
Street.
Miami Beach Bay Unk Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
4-14
YOU ASKED US.....
What connections will there be
to other transportation systems?
In Miami, the Bay Link line could connect
downtown to Metrorail at the Government
Center or Overtown stations, to many of the
Metromover stations-and to-Miami-Dade
Transit (MDT) buses. If Metrorail is extended
-o-O_nnn_______ from the Earlington Heights station to the
'- ~",?-,,---~-, Miami Intermodal Center there will be a
direct connection to the airport. Once Bay
Link ties into the existing Metrorail system
there will also be a connection to Tri-Rail. In
Miami Beach, Bay Link could connect now
to the Electrowave circulation system and
with MDT buses, and at a future intermodal
facility.
tg, _
Light rail transit (lRT) is similar to what many
know or remember as "streetcars." It is
characterized by cars that can operate as a
single vehicle and carry up to 170
passengers, or up to a 4-car train carrying
as many as 680 passengers. For Bay Link,
trains would be single cars during off-peak
periods and two cars long during peak
periods. Light rail can serve both short and
long distance trips with stations normally
spaced from a quarter mile to one half mile
apart. The system is powered by overhead
wires called catenaries. It can operate in
traffic, on an exclusive right-or-way or with
cross-traffic, and can make tight turns
around corners. Its stations can be very
simple or elaborate and it is well-suited for
urban centers.
What other transportation
modes are being considered in
this study?
Example of Bus Rapid Transit
At this point in the Bay link study, Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) is still being
considered as an alternative to light rail.
It can operate in traffic or in exclusive
lanes making infrequent stops, but may
require additional right-of-way for lane
expansion. It can be powered by
compressed natural gas or electricity
from an overhead catenary. This
technology would not require any street
reconstruction for placement of rails.
--,
How willi be able to express my
opinion about Bay Link if 11m not
a member of the Citizens
Advisory Committee?
Citizens Advisory Committee meetings are
open to the public and are advertised in the
Miami and Miami Beach city halls and on
those cities' cable TV channels. The ne~t
cAe meetfng\y.lif be June 2~ N~tice
of CAC meetings is also posted on the MPO
website, www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/mpo/
mp04-baylink-home.htm
You are also urged to attend a public hearing
on July 15. It will be advertised in local
newspapers as well as in the places listed
above. Comments provided at the public
hearing become a part of the public record
and must be responded to in writing as part
of the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) process.
See Important Meetings
on back page for details.
How would a light rail system
aHect local bus routes?
local bus routes would be modified to
eliminate any portions that duplicate the
proposed Bay link alignment. Bay Link could
actually reduce bus traffic on Miami Beach
streets by replacing 500 buses daily on routes
that traverse South Beach.
Will cars be able to drive over
the tracks or use the train lane
when the train is out of the
area?
49'.q' ~
10'.q' B'.q' 10'.q'
LANE TURN LANE LANE
~ ~ 1f
Example of Cross Section
Light rail can operate either in mixed flow
traffic or in separate exclusive lanes. This
decision can be made at any time during
the study. Exclusive lanes provide a higher
degree of reliability and are generally more
desirable. A trade-off must be examined to
determine if the higher reliability and faster
travel times of an exclusive rail line justify
the impacts on regular vehicular traffic. The
intent is to maintain traffic flow by
coordinating traffic signals, adding stacking
and turning lanes and making other low-
cost improvements.
Would light rail create more con-
gestion on our already-crowded
streets in downtown Miami and
Miami Beach?
Some traffic lanes may need to be re-
moved to accommodate light rail lines
so in the short term there may be more
local congestion. However, it has been
proven where light rail is used in met-
ropolitan areas that as more people
become accustomed to using the train,
vehicular congestion eases and level of
Service (lOS) on roadways actually im-
proves. Bay link would remove 500 MDT
buses daily between Miami and Miami
Beach. Based on current auto occupancy
Bay link would also remove approxi-
mately 700 cars an hour from the local
streets. Additionally, traffic signals must
be fully synchronized for the lRT to
work, which in itself would be a tremen-
dous step towards easing congestion.
Parking is already tight in Miami
Beach. Will this light rail system
reduce the number of available
parking spaces?
J-c, 77<" o-L
11'Q
"'"""'"
11'..(J"
"'"""'"
p \{!.
'fr 'fr/p
Example of Cross Section
on Alton Rd. or Washington Ave.
Each transit alternative offers trade-offs
between traffic Rowand parking. The transit
system can be designed to have a greater
impact on either traffic or on-street parking.
Alton Road would lose parking curbside and
maintain two through lanes. Washington
Avenue would lose a through lane and
maintain the curbside parking.
It is also possible to provide parking at off-street
locations to compensate for spaces lost. With
15,000 -18,000 people a day projected to use
the system, there will be a drop in the demand
for both parking and street lanes as people
coming to Miami Beach switch to transit.
Could a rail line coming to Miami
Beach via the MacArthur
Causeway and ending around
5th Street be adequately served
by connections with MDT bus and
the Electrowave?
If Bay link were to end at 5th Street in Miami
Beach, those riders not within walking distance
of their final destinations would be faced with
an additional transfer and longer travel times.
One light rail car can carry up to 170
passengers, while an MDT bus can only carry
45 and the Electrowave can only carry 20.
lRT will deliver up to 2,500 people during the
peak periods. It would take a very large
number of MDT /Electrowave buses to handle
these volumes. If passengers couldn't get a seat
on the first bus that comes along they would
end up having to wait for another one.
Where could a maintenance
yard and shop area be built?
Example of Bus Rapid Transit
Several sites are being examined for a
maintenance yard and shop area north of
downtown Miami in areas zoned for industrial use.
What happens if the power goes
out in an area served by light rail?
lRT gets electrical power from wayside sources
through overhead wires or catenaries. No two
adjacent sources are connected to the same
power company substation. Therefore, if the
power goes out in one substation, lRT will still
have electrical power from another. If the power
company should lose enough substations, lRT
would be shut down until adequate power is
restored. For LRT to be stopped by loss of power
IS an extremely rare occurrence.
What would Bay Link Cf;)st, and
what would its ridership be?
~.~It.d~tt+
The cost of building any combination of al-
ternatives would be between $300 - 400
million. Once built, the annual cost to oper-
ate and maintain Bay link would be between
$8 - 10 million. The number of people who
would ride the train is conservatively esti-
mated to be between 15,000 - 17,500 daily!
The trip from downtown Miami to the Miami
Beach Convention Center would take ap-
proximately 25 minutes.
Example of Light Rail Transit
Where will funds come from to
build Bay Link?
The project will most likely be financed from
a variety of sources. Fifty percent of the fund-
ing will come from gas tax money that is
already being collected by the federal gov-
ernment. Twenty-five percent will come from
gas tax money collected by the state and
twenty-five percent will come from local
sources. Those local sources of funding could
be the gas tax, parking fees, additional toll
revenues, tourist bed tax, or the proposed
additional sales tax.
1:1 'lwelW
OBLS # llwJad
OIVd
39"lSOd sn
m:l"ON"lS
031HOS3Hd
l
LE ~EE 1=1 '!we!1I\I
a ~o ~ al!ns
anua^v pu~ -3-N ~v~v
~aaJ~S ~s l MN III
Ja9WO~) UO!SS!WWO) JOOI::l puz;
Ja~ua) ~JOI) "d ua~da~s
qZ; ^Inr 'XopsJn~l'"w"d z;
UO!P'v' /6u!JOaH J!19nd
(OdW) UO!~DZ!UD6JO 6u!UUDld
uD~!IodoJ~aw apDO-!WD!W
anua^'v' puz; :IN OOE
90 L Z; woo~ 'sndwo) uos~loM
a6allo) ^~!unwwo) apoo-!WO!W
q L ^Inr I^OpUOW '"w"d q
6U!JDaH )!Iqnd
a^!JO Ja~ua) uo!~ua^uo) OOOZ;
uapJo~ IOJ!UO~otl ~Joatl !WO!W
OZ; aunr '^opsJn~l'"w"d 9
aau!wwo::> .(JOS!^P\f suaz!H::>
iSf)N'J.~~W J.NtfJ.1I0dW'
SAY L.INt<-WELCOiVU:S---
YOUR PARTICIPATION!
Your participation is invited! Bay Unk
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAG)
meetings are open to all interested
parties, and study materials are
available for review at five locations
within Miami-Dade County. In
addition, infonnation about the project
can be reviewed by logging on to
www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/mpol
mp04-baylink-home.hbn
Those wishing to contact
members of the Public
Involvement team can
reach Communikatz at
bgraf@communikatz.com or
305-573-1210. Carmen Morris
& Associates can be reached
at cmorris@bellsouth:net or
305-278-2395.
PROJECT RECORD
AVAILABLE TO PUBLIC
Bay Link read files, the project
record containing CAC meeting
minutes and technical reports, are
available at several public sites.
They can be reviewed during nonnal
business hours Monday through
Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., at:
· City of Miami/Riverside
Center library
444 SW 2nd Avenue, 3rd Floor
305-416-1429
· Miami-Dade Metropolitan
Planning Organization library
Stephen P. Clark Govt Center
111 NW 1 st Street, Suite 910
305-375-4507
. Parsons Brinckerhoff library
5775 Blue Lagoon Drive, Ste 360
305-261-4785
. Communikatz, Inc. library
4141 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 101 D
305-573-4455
· Miami Beach Public
Library reference desk
2100 Collins Avenue
305-535-4219
For those requiring evening or
weekend hours, the Miami Beach
library is open Monday through
Thursday from 9:30 a.m. to 9 p.m.,
and Friday and Saturday from 9:30
a.m. to 6 p.m.
CITIZENS ADVISORY.COMMITTEE
CONSULTS WITH STUDY TEAM
An important part of the Bay Link planning
process involves regular meetings and ongo-
ing consultation with the Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) by the Bay Link study team.
The CAC is made up of residents, property
and business owners and other "stakehold-
ers," or individuals representing organizations
which would be served by the project.
Meeting locations alternate between Miami and
Miami Beach. The group elected co-chairs who
conduct the meetings in their respective cities.
The Miami co-chair is Irby McKnight and the
Miami Beach co-chair is Marty Hyman.
l
Mr. McKnight said, "It's important for us as citi-
zens interested in this community to participate
in the transportation planning process and to
know our opinions really carry weight. "
The CAC reviews the technical findings of the
Bay Link planners, offers suggestions and will
ultimately give a recommendation as to the
Locally Preferred Alternative, or preferred route
for Bay Link.
Mr. Hyman commented, "A study like this one
is an intensive effort so it's good to know that
residents and business operators can have a
say in the outcome."