Transportation-Master-Plan-Final-ReportTransportation
Master Plan
Final Report
Mayor Philip Levine
Commissioner John Elizabeth Alemán
Commissioner Ricky Arriola
Commisioner Michael Grieco
Commissioner Joy Malakoff
Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez
Commissioner Micky Steinberg
City of Miami Beach Mayor and Commissioners City of Miami Beach Management Team
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
Kathie G. Brooks, Assistant City Manager
Jose R. Gonzalez, P.E., Transportation Director
Josiel Ferrer-Diaz, E.I., Transportation Manager
Milosh Majstorovic, M.S.C.E.,Transit Operations Supervisor
Xavier R. Falconi , P.E., Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY(SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT) .................................... I
2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
TMP GOALS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
THE TMP PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................... 5
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 6
ENVIRONMENTAL ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Existing Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Existing Pedestrian Facilities ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
TRANSIT .................................................................................................................................................................................................11
Existing Transit Network .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
AUTOMOBILES ........................................................................................................................................................................................18
Existing Roadway Network .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Forecasted Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Parking within the City ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
FREIGHT .................................................................................................................................................................................................59
Existing Loading Zones ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
TRANSPORTATION POLICIES ....................................................................................................................................................................69
Transportation Element ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
Concurrency Management .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
EXISTING MODE SHARE ...........................................................................................................................................................................75
Transit Mode Split ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 77
City Visitors Mode Split ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 81
ONGOING EFFORTS ..................................................................................................................................................................................83
4. MODE PRIORITIZATION ...................................................... 87
COMMUNITY OUTREACH ..........................................................................................................................................................................88
Public Feedback .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
Network Evaluation (Public Input Results) .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 91
MODE PRIORITY ......................................................................................................................................................................................94
5. TRANSPORTATION MODE SHARE 2035 VISION ...................... 96
PEDESTRIAN MODE .................................................................................................................................................................................97
Pedestrian Safety ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 97
Pedestrian Accessibility ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Pedestrian Mobility ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
Pedestrian Connectivity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
Pedestrian Count Stations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100
South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zone (PPZ) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 100
BICYCLE MODE .................................................................................................................................................................................... 104
Management of Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104
TRANSIT MODE .................................................................................................................................................................................... 107
Transit Infrastructure.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 107
AUTOMOBILE MODE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 116
Management of Roadways ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 116
Parking ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121
Recommended Facilities by Walker Parking Consulting ........................................................................................................................................................................... 126
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 132
Freight Corridors and Freight Corridor Program ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 132
Truck Routes ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 133
Truck Restriction Zones ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 135
Intersection Geometry Analysis and Improvements .................................................................................................................................................................................. 138
Loading Zone Accommodations ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 139
Colored Curb Program............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 140
Interactive Freight Map .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 141
ENSURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 143
Updating and Setting New Policies ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 143
Concurrency Management Threshold ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 147
6. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 153
SETTING CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 154
7. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS ...................................................... 159
MODE PRIORITIZATION ON THE CITY’S MAJOR ROADWAYS .................................................................................................................... 159
The Washington Avenue Example ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 160
NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS ................................................................................................................................................................... 161
SR A1A/Collins Avenue ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 161
SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163
West Avenue – North Bay Road ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 165
Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 167
Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 169
Washington Avenue................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 171
EAST-WEST CORRIDORS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 173
SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 173
Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street .................................................................................................................................................................................. 175
SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 177
SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 179
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 181
Transit Priority Corridors ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 183
Bicycle & Pedestrian Priority Corridors...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 187
8. PROJECT BANK .............................................................. 191
PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 191
PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 210
PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 216
POTENTIAL COSTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 229
Priority 1 Projects ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 234
Priority 2 Projects ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 239
Priority 3 Projects ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 241
9. PROJECT FINANCING ....................................................... 245
10. NEXT STEPS ................................................................. 252
FINAL REFLECTION ............................................................................................................................................................................... 253
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Existing and Forecasted City Regional Routes Ridership ............................................................................................................................................................. 13
Table 2: Specific Links (Roadway Segments) [Pages 10 – 15] .................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Table 3: City Area Growth Rates Used to Forecast Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 4: Roadway Segments/Links Average Daily Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 28
Table 5: Roadway Segments/Links Peak Two-Way Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions .................................................................................................... 33
Table 6: Roadway Segments/Links Peak Directional Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 37
Table 7: Roadway Segments/Links Forecasted Daily, Two-Way Peak, and Peak Directional Volumes, and LOS for 2025 ..................................................................... 41
Table 8: Roadway Segments/Links Forecasted Daily, Two-Way Peak, and Peak Directional Volumes, and LOS for 2035 ..................................................................... 46
Table 9: Existing South Beach Parking Supply (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis) ................................................................................................... 52
Table 10: Existing South Beach Parking Demand (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis) .............................................................................................. 53
Table 11: Existing North Beach Parking Supply (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis) .................................................................................................. 54
Table 12: Existing North Beach Parking Demand (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis) ............................................................................................... 55
Table 13: South Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 14: Middle Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities .............................................................................................................................................................. 56
Table 15: North Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................ 57
Table 16: City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Table 17: Existing FLZs and ALZs Inventory .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
Table 18: Existing Curb Loading Zones Inventory ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Table 19: Existing City TCMAs Concurrency Fees ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 20: Total Daily Person Trips by Purpose1.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Table 21: City of Miami Beach Average Daily Population by Category ...................................................................................................................................................... 76
Table 22: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Roads Leaving and Entering the City4 ....................................................................................................................... 77
Table 23: Daily Transit Trips to and from City by Roadway ........................................................................................................................................................................ 78
Table 24: Bi-Directional Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway ........................................................................................................................................................ 79
Table 25: Overnight Visitors Mode of Transportation to the City ................................................................................................................................................................ 81
Table 26: Non-Overnight Visitors Mode of Transportation to the City ......................................................................................................................................................... 81
Table 27: Current Short-Term Improvements Efforts by the City’s Transportation Department ................................................................................................................. 85
Table 28: Previously Planned Transit Transfer Station within the City ..................................................................................................................................................... 110
Table 29: Parking Facility Choice Types (2010 Denver Strategic Parking Plan) ...................................................................................................................................... 122
Table 30: Freight Corridor Program Advantages and Disadvantages ...................................................................................................................................................... 132
Table 31: Truck Routes Program Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................................................... 134
Table 32: Truck Restriction Zones Advantages and Disadvantages ........................................................................................................................................................ 137
Table 33: Intersection Geometry Improvements Advantages and Disadvantages ................................................................................................................................... 138
Table 34: Loading Zone Accommodations Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................................ 139
Table 35: Colored Curb Program Advantages and Disadvantages .......................................................................................................................................................... 140
Table 36: Failing Roadway Segments (Including Existing, 2025, and 2035 Conditions) .......................................................................................................................... 145
Table 37: ITE Trip Generation Rates per Land Use .................................................................................................................................................................................. 150
Table 38: Proposed Projects Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 155
Table 39: Priority 1 Projects ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 191
Table 40: Priority 2 Projects ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 210
Table 41: Priority 3 Projects ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 216
Table 42: Sources for Estimation of Potential Project Costs ..................................................................................................................................................................... 229
Table 43: Potential Costs for Priority 1 Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 234
Table 44: Potential Costs for Priority 2 Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 239
Table 45: Potential Costs for Priority 3 Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 241
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: City of Miami Beach Demographics Overview Maps ..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: City of Miami Beach Environmental Overview Maps ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3: City of Miami Beach Bike/Ped Overview Maps .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Facilities within the City of Miami Beach .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: City of Miami Beach Transit Overview Maps ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Existing MDT Routes with the City ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Existing MDT Routes Combined Ridership per Stop ................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 8: Existing MDT Routes Combined Average Speed ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 9: Sample Light-Rail Transit Vehicle ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 10: Future Planned Transit Projects within the City ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 11: Blueways Master Plan Conceptual Rendering of Miami Beach Water Taxi dock ...................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12: Blueways Master Plan’s SoBe Street End Pocket Park Concept Plan ...................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 13: Blueways Master Plan’s Monument Island Concept Plan .......................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 14: Blueways Master Plan’s Maurice Gibb Park Concept Plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 15: City of Miami Beach Automobile Overview Maps ...................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 16: Annual Growth Rates for South, Middle, and North Beach ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 17: Existing City-Wide Off-Street Parking Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 18: Existing Citywide Truck Volumes ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
Figure 19: SR 195/Julia Tuttle Causeway SIS Corridor .............................................................................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 11: Sample FLZ and ALZ Posted Regulations ................................................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 21: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Collins Avenue .............................................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 22: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Washington Avenue...................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 23: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Alton Road and West Avenue ...................................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 24: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Lincoln Road ................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 25: Existing Loading Zones on South Beach ................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Figure 26: Existing Loading Zones on Middle Beach .................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 27: Existing Loading Zones on North Beach .................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 28: Existing Commercial Land Use within City ................................................................................................................................................................................. 68
Figure 29: Existing Transient Residential Land Use within City .................................................................................................................................................................. 68
Figure 30: City Transportation Currency Management Areas (TCMAs) ..................................................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 31: City of Miami Beach Residents Mode to Work ........................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Figure 32: Miami-Dade County and Other Cities Residents Mode to Work ................................................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 33: Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway .............................................................................................................................................................................. 80
Figure 34: City Neighborhood Projects and MPO TIP Projects .................................................................................................................................................................. 83
Figure 35: Identified MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Projects within the City .................................................................................................................... 84
Figure 36: City Staff Presenting at the Public Workshop ............................................................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 37: Public Polling on Proposed Improvements ................................................................................................................................................................................ 89
Figure 38: Public Input on Proposed Transit Corridors ............................................................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 39: Public Input on Proposed Transit Corridors ............................................................................................................................................................................... 92
Figure 40: Public Workshop Comment Cards Template ............................................................................................................................................................................. 92
Figure 41: Public Workshop Sample Comment Cards Feedback ............................................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 42: Public Workshop Sample Comment Cards Feedback ............................................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 43: City Commission Endorsed Transportation Mode Hierarchy ..................................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 44: City Transportation Mode Share 2035 Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................ 96
Figure 45: Sidewalk Zones .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 46: Sidewalk Zones Application Examples ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 98
Figure 47: South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zones ................................................................................................................................................................................... 101
Figure 48: Bus Only Lane Examples ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 49: Miami-Dade MPO Intermodal Center Locator Map .................................................................................................................................................................. 112
Figure 50: Potential Areas for Future Major Transit Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................................................ 113
Figure 51: MacNab Transit Terminal (Ontario, Canada) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 52: MIC Intermodal Station Terminal (Miami, FL) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 115
Figure 53: Münchner Freiheit Station (Munich, Germany) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 115
Figure 54: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Blake Transit Center (BTC) ............................................................................................................................................. 115
Figure 55: The Three “Dimensions” of Traffic Congestion (ACR 2009) .................................................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 56: Relationship between Parking Location, Parking Duration, and Activity Performed (2010 Denver Strategic Parking Pla n) .................................................. 123
Figure 57: Space Requirements: Parallel Parking vs Angle Parking ........................................................................................................................................................ 124
Figure 58: Radial Capture of Lincoln 1111 ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 125
Figure 59: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on South Beach .......................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 60: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on Mid Beach .............................................................................................................................. 127
Figure 61: Real-time Electronic Parking Availability Sign .......................................................................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 62: Ballet Valet Parking Garage ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 128
Figure 63: Dedicated Car Share Parking Space ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 64: Existing Residential Parking Zone Sign ................................................................................................................................................................................... 129
Figure 65: Truck Route Informational Guide Example (New York City) .................................................................................................................................................... 133
Figure 66: Freight Corridor Wayfinding Signage Example (New York City) .............................................................................................................................................. 134
Figure 67: TIM Truck Lane Restrictions Interactive Map ........................................................................................................................................................................... 135
Figure 68: Downtown Seattle Truck Restriction Zone ............................................................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 69: Truck Restrictions Sign Examples ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 70: Truck Turning Movement ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 71: Typical Sidewalk Curb Ramp ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 139
Figure 72: Loading Zone and Bike Path Buffer Separation Example ........................................................................................................................................................ 139
Figure 73: Colored Curb Program Example .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 140
Figure 74: Freight Management Interactive Map Sample ......................................................................................................................................................................... 141
Figure 75: Washington Avenue Person Throughput ................................................................................................................................................................................. 160
Figure 76: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 161
Figure 77: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................................................ 162
Figure 78: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ........................................................................................................................................ 163
Figure 79: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections .............................................................................................................. 164
Figure 80: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ........................................................................................................................................ 165
Figure 81: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................................... 166
Figure 82: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ...................................................................................................................................... 167
Figure 83: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................................ 168
Figure 84: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive Corridor Mode Prioritization Data .................................................................................................................................. 169
Figure 85: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections .................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 86: Washington Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ........................................................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 87: Washington Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections .................................................................................................................................. 172
Figure 88: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ......................................................................................................................... 173
Figure 89: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ................................................................................................ 174
Figure 90: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data........................................................................................................... 175
Figure 91: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ................................................................................. 176
Figure 92: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ....................................................................................................................... 177
Figure 93: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................. 178
Figure 94: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ........................................................................................................................ 179
Figure 95: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections .............................................................................................. 180
Figure 96: TMP Recommended Transit Corridors and Bicycle/Pedestrian Corridors ............................................................................................................................... 181
Figure 97: TMP Recommended Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links) ............................................................................................................................................... 182
Figure 98: TMP Recommended Transit Network and Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links) .............................................................................................................. 182
Figure 99: TMP Recommended Bicycle/Pedestrian Network and Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links) ........................................................................................... 182
Figure 100: TMP Recommended Transit Priority Corridors ...................................................................................................................................................................... 183
Figure 101: TMP Recommended Transit Priority Corridors & Potential Typical Sections Locations ........................................................................................................ 184
Figure 102: SR A1A/ MacArthur Causeway Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from US-1 / Biscayne Blvd to SR 907/Alton Road ............................................ 184
Figure 103: SR A1A/ 5th Street Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from SR 907/Alton Road to Washington Avenue ................................................................. 184
Figure 104: Washington Avenue Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from SR A1A/5th Street to Dade Boulevard ...................................................................... 185
Figure 105: 71st Street/Normandy Drive Transit Corridor Typical Section from the end of the 79th Street Causeway to SR A1A Collins Avenue ................................. 185
Figure 106: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 44th Street to 5900 City Block .............................................................................. 185
Figure 107: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section non -bridge portion of the causeway located within the Biscayne Bay ............... 186
Figure 108: SR A1A/Collins Avenue/Indian Creek Drive Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 17th Street to 44th Street ...................................................... 186
Figure 109: SR 907/Alto Road Transit Corridor Potential Configuration from South Pointe Drive to Dade Boulevar d ............................................................................ 186
Figure 110: TMP Recommended Bicycle/Pedestrian Priority Corridors ................................................................................................................................................... 187
Figure 111: TMP Recommended Bicycle Priority Corridors & Potential Typical Sections Locations ....................................................................................................... 188
Figure 112: 22nd Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from Washington Avenue to the City of Miami Beach Beachwalk .......................... 188
Figure 113: 11th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from West Avenue to Ocean Drive .......................................................................... 188
Figure 114: North Bay Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from West Avenue to La Gorce Drive ............................................................. 189
Figure 115: West Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from 6th Street to 20th Street .............................................................................. 189
Figure 116: Pine Tree Drive & La Gorce Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from 51st Street to La Gorce Circle .................................... 189
Figure 117: Priority 1 Projects Map ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 209
Figure 118: Priority 2 Projects Map ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 215
Figure 119: Priority 3 Projects Map ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 228
Figure 120: Revenue Forecast FY 2020 – FY 2040 Estimates for Miami-Dade County .......................................................................................................................... 250
Figure 121: 2040 LRTP Set-Aside Funds ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 250
Figure 122: 2040 LRTP Available Revenue for New Capital and New O&M ............................................................................................................................................ 250
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
S U B M I T T E D A S S E P A R A T E D O C U M E N T
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
1
2. INTRODUCTION
The City of Miami Beach is a 7.7 square mile
barrier island formed by a compilation of 27
different land masses. The South Beach
area, along with the entire eastern coast of
the City, has the largest contiguous land area
forming about 45 percent of the total land
mass. This area is connected to the adjacent
land masses by a series of 12 man-made
bridges, soon to be 13 with the upcoming
West Avenue Bridge, and to the mainland by
4 causeways. Just as its distinctive historic
culture and architecture, the City has a
topography that is quite unique. WHAT
MAKES IT DIFFERENT, MAKES IT
BEAUTIFUL , but also presents challenges
when providing continuous connectivity for its
transportation network and the different
modes it encompasses.
The way in which we maneuver through our
city has lasting impacts on various factors.
While it can be thought that the sole purpose
of transportation is to arrive from a starting
point to an end destination, what can be
easily overlooked is the ease in which we
travel and the particular mode of
transportation that is available. These factors
play into the evolution and success of a city
financially, socially, and environmentally. In
order to keep the City of Miami Beach at the
forefront of transportation development, we
have to assess its needs as the population
continues to expand. With this expansion,
comes a requirement to REEVALUATE THE
EXISTING TRANSPORTAT ION NEEDS OF
THE COMMUNITY and the multi-modal
system that is currently in place and to
propose solutions to improve transportation.
This has driven the City to arrive at a multi-
modal approach to proactively plan for its
current and future growth.
This Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is
intended to provide future directions for the
City of Miami Beach’s transportation system.
It will be integrated into the City of Miami
Beach 2025 Comprehensive Plan, other
CMB plans, and any other plans that will
affect the City’s Transportation Network. In
recognition of the exponential growth in
population, future traffic and transit
conditions will be forecasted into the year
2035. In an effort to provide guide for future
transportation strategies, this plan will
generate a project bank for the City of Miami
Beach, composed of multi-modal projects,
and will analyze new prospects for funding
the future endeavors and potential policy. To
ACCOMPLISH A DIVERSE G ROUP OF
PROJECTS FOR THE CIT Y , a range of city-
wide data was collected and coordination
with concurrent planning efforts was
maintained to ensure a wide coverage of the
City’s transportation network.
The City should be thought of in a holistic
manner as there are many factors that play
crucial roles in transportation. The
environment, employment rate, regional
connections, traffic generators, freight
movement and multi-modal transportation all
influence the City’s transportation network.
Therefore, to PROVIDE A
COMPREHENSIVE AND FU NCTIONAL
TMP , the data presented herein regards all
of these aspects to fully assess possible
transportation improvements.
This TMP ultimately seeks to provide
recommendations for feasible multi-modal
projects that seek to enhance the City’s
mobility and connectivity while providing
project guidance to make this a reality.
INTRODUCTION
2
T MP G O A L S
The TMP effort is guided by goals set forth to achieve an overall multi-
modal vision for the City’s transportation network. Thus, the TMP
reflects other City planning efforts such as area plans, corridor studies,
or other Commission decisions that modify and enhance the mobility
and connectivity of the residents as well as its visitors.
The plan establishes the following goals and/or strategies to develop
recommendations and suggest improvements that benefit all road
users:
Goal 1: Prioritize the people, the pedestrians.
Encourage City residents and visitors, through safe and engaging
infrastructure, to resort to walking for their short trips within their
respective living and staying areas.
Goal 2: Provide reliable, convenient, and
consistent transit service and infrastructure.
Through City efforts and regional coordination, develop a city-wide
transit network in which public transportation will have exclusively
assigned road space, enhanced vehicles, and state-of-the-art transit
amenities.
Goal 3: Develop a safe, connected, and
consistent bicycle network throughout the
entire City.
Promote bicycling, through well designed facilities, education, and
encouragement, as a safe and healthy mode to get around the City, not
only for leisure trips but also as a dependable mode of reaching daily
destinations. The City has placed priority on bicyclists and has
developed a specifically focused Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan
(BPMP) along with a Street Design Guide.
Goal 4: Provide accessible and convenient
off-street parking facilities.
Strengthen the efforts to seek public-private partnerships for off-street
parking facilities that support and encourage multi-modal activity.
Goal 5: Ensure most, if not all, planned
developments within all areas of the City are
in concurrence with the expected capacity
levels and the multi-modal vision for the
transportation network.
Develop a way to measure and mitigate the impacts, to the City’s
roadway network, of any proposed new development regardless of its
nature and size.
Goal 6: Plan for efficient freight mobility and
delivery of goods within the City.
Develop recommendations for improvements to the way in which goods
are delivered through the City and on which roadways and times this
may take place.
INTRODUCTION
3
To move forward with developing a functional plan to achieve these
goals, a few steps were taken in the multi-modal direction in hopes of
shifting the paradigm. The following process was followed in efforts to
reach the ultimate goal of this TMP: develop and recommend feasible
short and long-term projects.
T H E T M P P R O C E S S
1. Gather all available existing relevant data
2. Assess existing transportation mode splits
and develop attainable future share goals
3. Forecast future conditions of the
transportation network
4. Establish and endorse modal prioritization
hierarchy
5. Define and assign mode specific corridors
based on physical characteristics and modal data
6. Evaluate and prioritize potential solutions for
the different modes: pedestrians, public transit,
bicyclists, freight, and personal automobiles
7. Develop a comprehensive multi-modal
project bank
8. Suggest a policy conducive to target the
mode share vision and provide consistency with
the established and adopted modal prioritization
hierarchy
EXISTINGCONDITIO
NS
EXISTING CONDITIONS - CITYWIDE
5
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
This TMP encompasses the entire City of Miami Beach, and thus all
data presented herein is pertinent to its boundaries and connecting
regional corridors. The City is divided into three (3) areas South,
Middle, and North Beach with southernmost limit being South Pointe
and the northernmost 87th Terrace at which point the Town of Surfside
begins.
While the entire range of data collected, mapped, and/or summarized
for the City limits can be found within the separate TMP’s Existing
Conditions Technical Memorandum, this section briefly summarizes the
most relevant facts of the City and its transportation network.
S T U D Y A R E A
EXISTING CONDITIONS - CITYWIDE
6
D E M O G R A P H I C S
Figure 1: City of Miami Beach Demographics Overview Maps
EXISTING CONDITIONS - CITYWIDE
7
E N V I R O N M E N T A L
City-Wide Land Uses
(Percentages based on the City’s 7.7 square miles of land area)
Figure 2: City of Miami Beach Environmental Overview Maps
EXISTING CONDITIONS - CITYWIDE
8
B I C Y C L I S T S A N D P E D E S T R I A N S
Figure 3: City of Miami Beach Bike/Ped Overview Maps
EXISTING CONDITIONS - BICYCLE
9
Existing Bicycle Facilities
CYCLING is the most energy efficient mode of transportation; and for
many people, cycling is a healthy, fun, and inexpensive way to travel. It
creates no emissions, costs little, and CAN BE A GREAT WAY T O
EXPERIENCE THE CITY’S STREETS AN D ITS HISTORICALLY
RICH NEIGHBORHOODS while exercising and safely REACHING
EVERYDAY DESTINATION S . Many of the daily trips made within the
City are of a length that may be reasonably accomplished by bicycle.
Over the past few years, the City of Miami Beach has been making an
effort to provide BICYCLE FACILITATES throughout its different
areas, South, Middle, and North. Although, all three (3) areas currently
have roadways which bike enthusiast can use to get around within
each, there is a CLEAR LACK OF CONN ECTIVITY between them.
The South Beach and North Beach area of the City have various
facilities, ranging from Shared Use Paths to mixed traffic travel lanes
marked with Shared Lane Markings (Sharrows), which provide good
north-south coverage of the area but not much east-west connections.
Within Middle Beach, the bicycle infrastructure is sparse, with most of
its northern section not having any facilities. This causes the biggest
disconnect for navigating the City entirely on a bicycle. Individuals
wishing to make bike trips from South Pointe to the North Beach area
will have to ride, during parts of their trips, on unmarked mixed traffic
lanes and/or sidewalks.
This TMP was conducted concurrently with a specific BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN MASTER PL AN (BPMP) for the City. This BPMP had
a more specific focus, and hence was able to capture the most current
City issues regarding the bicycle mode of transportation through an
extensive outreach program. This broad involvement of the City
residents and visitors aided the BPMP to recommend strategies and
potential improvements. The BPMP serves as a GREAT TOOL FOR
FUTURE GUIDANCE TOWA RD THE IMPLEMENTATIO N OF A
TRUE CITYWIDE MULTI -MODAL NETWORK . While this section of
the TMP will focus on bicyclists, it should be utilized in conjunction with
the more specifically focused BPMP. The vast majority of the bicycle
mode improvements recommended by this TMP are in accordance with
the City’s BPMP.
Figure 4 displays the location of all the bicycle facilities currently
provided within the City of Miami Beach.
Figure 4: Existing Bicycle Facilities within the City of Miami Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PEDESTRIAN
10
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian Safety
Pedestrian safety is the PRIMARY CONCERN of the four main
objectives to achieve an excellent pedestrian transportation system.
Between the years 2011 and 2013, a total of 8,425 citywide crashes
occurred, of which 310 (4 %) involved pedestrians. The location of 11 of
these pedestrian crashes was reported unknown. Of the total located
(299) pedestrian crashes within the three year period, most occurred in
South Beach (195 or 65%), followed by North Beach (56 or 19%), and
Middle Beach (48 or 16%).
Also, of the total 310 pedestrian crashes, six (6) resulted in fatalities,
with four (4) occurring in the southern region of the City and two (2)
occurring in the northern region. The area of South Beach is the most
popular destination and the largest contiguous landmass of the City;
therefore it is not surprising that most pedestrian crashes occur in this
area. Nevertheless, EVEN A SINGLE PEDEST RIAN CRASH IS
UNDESIRABLE .
Critical Pedestrian Zones
In order to determine critical zones within the City where pedestrians
need to be prioritized existing conditions need to be review and
sufficient pertinent data needs to be collected and available.
Throughout the City, nine pedestrian counts where preformed at critical
locations where the amount of pedestrian volume have been perceived
to be the highest. The 15-min pedestrian counts were collected on
Saturday, November 15, 2014 from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM and from 8:00
PM to 12:00 AM at the following locations:
Beach walk between the Deauville Beach Resort (approximately
at 67th Street) and 69th Street
Beach walk near the Indian Beach Park (i.e. north of the
Fontainebleau Hotel)
Ocean Drive south of 3rd Street (in the vicinity of Marjory
Stoneman Douglas Ocean Beach Park)
Intersection of 5th Street and Ocean Drive
SR A1A Collins Avenue in the vicinity of the Fontainebleau
Hotel
SR A1A Collins Avenue north of 21st Street
SR A1A Indian Creek at 24th Street and the Pedestrian Bridge
SR A1A Indian Creek at 28th Street and the Pedestrian Bridge
Washington Avenue in the vicinity of 7th Street
The pedestrian counts revealed that the location with the highest
pedestrian volume within an eight hour period is the intersection of
Ocean Drive and SR A1A/5th Street with a total of 6,140 pedestrian
counts, followed by, in order of highest to lowest pedestrian volumes,
the intersection of Washington Avenue and 7th Street with 3,637, SR
A1A Collins Avenue and 24th Street with 2,842, Ocean Drive and 3rd
Street with 2,197, SR A1A/Collins Avenue and 21st Street with 1,696,
beach walk near the Deauville Beach Resort with 1,387,SR A1A Indian
Creek Drive and 28th Street with 902, beach walk near the
Fontainebleau Hotel with 883, and lastly SR A1A Collins Avenue near
the Fontainebleau Hotel with 193.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - TRANSIT
11
T R A N S I T
Figure 5: City of Miami Beach Transit Overview Maps
EXISTING CONDITIONS - TRANSIT
12
Existing Transit Network
Currently, MDT provides, maintains, and operates 13 REGIONAL BUS
ROUTES that serve the City across the four (4) causeways from the
mainland, and one (1) local circulator. Additionally, The City of Miami
Beach is in the process of implementing a network of city-wide transit
circulators as a compliment to the regional service provided by MDT.
The first phase circulator to be implemented by the City was the North
Beach Trolley Loop which began service in 2014. As a second phase,
the City recently decided to make the originally temporary Alton-West
Trolley Loop into a permanent circulator route, referred to as the South
Beach Trolley, along with the Middle Beach Trolley Loop. The Collins
Link Trolley service will be the third phase. When combined, ALL
FOUR TROLLEY ROUTES PROVIDE AN INTERCONN ECTED
LOCAL CIRCULATOR NETWORK for every-day, all-day transit travel
within Miami Beach. Figure 6 displays the existing transit service within
the City.
Figure 6: Existing MDT Routes with the City
EXISTING CONDITIONS - TRANSIT
13
Transit Ridership
The ridership data for the existing regional routes were obtained directly
from the MDT archives for the year 2014. These data were filtered to
extract individual RIDERSHIP ONLY FOR T HE STOPS LOCATED
WITHIN THE CITY PER INDIVIDUAL ROUTE . These ridership
values were then forecasted using historical growth factors and well as
growth obtained from the SERPM 7.0 model.
SERPM 7.0 is an activity-based model (ABM) that simulates both
household-level and person-level travel choices including intra-
household interactions between household members. Each transit
route within the model consists of a series of links that make up the
alignment of the route, the mode, operator, headways, and speed.
Transit ridership is then calculated by assigning the transit trips to the
transit network based on the best transit paths. SERPM 7.0 model
reports ridership numbers by route, by mode, and by stop for five time
periods of the day: AM-Peak, Midday, PM-Peak, Early AM, and
Evening. The base-year of SERPM 7.0 is 2010, and it also includes a
2040 future year model based on the adopted 2040 Long-Range
Transportation Plans (LRTP) from the Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm
Beach Counties Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPOs).
The growth factors from the SERPM 7.0 model ranged between 0.4%
and 2.0% for the 13 regional routes. Since the model involves many
different variables, its output may sometimes yield data that will not
necessarily relate to the particular historical growth of a specific route.
Therefore, the values from the model output were compared to
historical data and adjustments were made where deemed appropriate.
The following table displays the existing RIDERSHIP WITHIN THE
CITY FOR EACH INDIVI DUAL REGIONAL ROUTE and the
FORECASTED VALUES FO R THE YEARS 2025 AND 2040 based
on the obtained growth factors. Though this Transportation Master
Plans looks into the year 2035 for the implementation of its vision,
ridership estimates were forecasted for the year 2040 to be consistent
with the latest adopted Miami-Dade LRTP.
Table 1: Existing and Forecasted City Regional Routes Ridership
ROUTE
2014 2025 2040
Daily Boardings
Wkdy. Sat. Sun. Wkdy. Sat. Sun. Wkdy. Sat. Sun.
62 70 87 117
79 160 178 207
101 350 153 189 390 171 211 453 198 245
103 2225 1667 1196 2403 180
0 1292 2668 1998 1434
108 440 365 339 505 418 388 608 504 468
110 865 429 365 954 473 402 1089 540 460
112 3919 3195 2660 4493 366
3 3049 5413 4413 3674
113 658 302 346 734 337 386 852 391 448
115 414 37 435 39 466 42
117 381 132 425 147 493 171
119 7286 5296 5062 8308 603
9 5772 9936 7222 6903
120 3690 3111 1714 4117 347
0 1912 4779 4029 2220
150 1212 1009 1041 1507 125
5 1294 2028 1689 1742
All
Route
s
Total
2167
0
1569
5
1291
2
2453
5
178
11
1470
7
2911
0
2119
7
1759
3
EXISTING CONDITIONS - TRANSIT
14
Figure 7 shows the existing combined
boardings for all routes for each stop with the
City and Figure 8 shows the combined
average speed of all of the regional routes.
This places transit ridership and speed in a
heat map visual context and serves as an aid
to recognize the areas within the City with
the highest transit activity.
Figure 7: Existing MDT Routes Combined Ridership per Stop
Figure 8: Existing MDT Routes Combined Average Speed
EXISTING CONDITIONS - TRANSIT
15
Ongoing Future Transit
Figure 9: Sample Light-Rail Transit Vehicle
Over the last few years the City has embarked in efforts to plan
unprecedented improvements to the existing transit system. With five
major projects included in the Miami-Dade MPO 2040 Long Range
Transportation Plan and with an additional set of two intercity trolley
initiatives, Miami Beach has set multimodal transportation as its
cynosure since PUBLIC TRANSPORTATIO N has proven to enhance
personal opportunities, reduce traffic congestion, reduce fuel
consumption, reduce fuel emissions, and INCREASE THE PER SON
CAPACITY OF ROADWAYS . The City faces numerous challenges in
achieving its transportation and sustainability goals, however, these
planned efforts and initiatives are effective steps in achieving a quality
transportation system that supports growth and blossoms a vibrant
community.
In detail, the UPCOMING TRANSIT PRO JECTS WITHIN THE CIT Y
includes:
1. 79th Street Causeway/John F. Kennedy Causeway Enhanced
Bus Service from the Northside Metrorail Station to the Beach
Convention Center
2. Premium Light-Rail Beach Connection (previously known as
Baylink) from Miami Downtown Terminal to the Beach
Convention Center
3. Central I-95 Expressed Enhanced Bus Service from the Beach
Convention Center to the Miami Intermodal Center (MIC)
4. North I-95 Expressed Enhanced Bus Service from the Beach
Convention Center to the Golden Glades Interchange (GGI)
Terminal
5. Miami Beach Light-Rail Transit (LRT) Collins Extension from the
Beach Convention Center to 71st Street/Normandy Drive
6. Mid-Beach Trolley Connection from the Mount Sinai Clinical
Center to US Social Security Administration on the intersection
of Dade Boulevard and Alton Road
7. Collins Link Trolley Circulator from 69th Street to 39th Street
Figure 10 displays where these upcoming transit projects will be
located within the City. These projects are intended to support the
existing transit users within the City as well as to swift the mode-split
from single-occupancy vehicles to public/mass transportation vehicles
by providing a variety of destinations and opportunities to travel in, out,
and within the City.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - TRANSIT
16
Figure 10: Future Planned Transit Projects within the City
Since Miami Beach has a unique geography
composed of multiple islands, opportunities
for alternative transit mediums are available
such as water taxis. Currently a private
company provides this service from Bayside
Market Place/Bayfront Park to the Miami
Beach Marina with six daily trips and 90
minute headways. The City of Miami Beach
BLUEWAYS MASTER PLAN (BMP) has
identified 4 potential stops throughout the
Beach where docks and other amenities
would create shared use spaces and routes
for marine transit to and from mainland
Miami. The POTENTIAL WATER TAXI
STOPS include:
1. SoBe Street End Pocket
2. Monument Island
3. Maurice Gibb Park
Figure 11: Blueways Master Plan Conceptual Rendering of Miami Beach Water Taxi dock
EXISTING CONDITIONS - TRANSIT
17
As per the City’s BMP, water taxis could be used as income generating
tourist attractions, replace causeway trips for marine trips, and enhance
the aesthetic appeal of the City. The following figures display some of
the potential site specific improvements recommend by the City’s BMP.
Figure 12: Blueways Master Plan’s SoBe Street End Pocket Park
Concept Plan
Figure 13: Blueways Master Plan’s Monument Island Concept Plan
Figure 14: Blueways Master Plan’s Maurice Gibb Park Concept Plan
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
18
A U T O M O B I L E S
Figure 15: City of Miami Beach Automobile Overview Maps
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
19
Existing Roadway Network
Motorized personal automobiles are the main mode of transportation
into and within the City of Miami Beach. The City is composed of
arterials, collectors, and local streets. It has two (2) major North-South
arterial roadways, one of which is Collins Avenue providing connectivity
throughout the City’s entirety and the other is Alton Road which
provides access to the majority of the City. Other major arterials include
four (4) East-West roadways within the City and are a continuity of the
four (4) causeways that connect the City to the mainland. These
roadways are SR A1A/5th Street, Dade Boulevard, SR 112/Arthur
Godfrey Road/W 41st Street, and SR 934/ 71st Street. The rest of the
major roadways within the Miami Beach are collectors. Most of them
form a grid in the South Beach area, with Washington Avenue providing
the most North-South connectivity and thus exhibiting large commercial
activity around it.
Roadway Functional Classification
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFIC ATION ESTABLISHES TH E HIERARCHY
OF THE ROADS as well as the authorities responsible for them: state,
county, or local. The state roads are aligned near the East and West
edges of the City limits, primarily traveling North and South, as well as
making connections to the MacArthur Causeway (I-395), Julia Tuttle
Causeway (I-195), and John F. Kennedy Causeway. Within the interior
of this State road loop, reside the majority of the local roads.
ARTERIALS are major streets expected to carry large volumes of
traffic. Arterials are often divided into major and minor arterials, and
provide regional as well as local connections. All state roadways
mentioned above are classified as arterial.
COLLECTORS , as the name implies, collect traffic from local roads and
distribute it to arterials. Traffic on collectors is usually going to or
coming from somewhere nearby. Collectors are typically in jurisdiction
of the county or the local government, in this case, the CMB.
LOCAL ROADS are at the “bottom” of the hierarchy. These roads have
the lowest posted speed limits, and carry low volumes of traffic.
Typically they will be the primary roads within residential neighborhoods
for circulation.
Level of Service (LOS)
Proving AMPLE CAPACITY FOR I TS USERS is perhaps the first
priority and FUNCTIONALITY OF A R OADWAY . The Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT), in its Quality/Level of Service
Handbook, defines the capacity of a road as the maximum number of
vehicles or people that can safely pass through a point or section of it
within a specified period of time. CAPACITY DEPENDS ON VARIOUS
FACTORS of a roadway, such as the numbers of lanes for the different
traffic movements that take place on it, as well as the timing at its
signalized intersections. Through providing sufficient capacity, a road
essentially is providing a service to those who traverse on it. The
quantitative stratification of the quality of this service is referred to as
Level of Service (LOS) and is categorized with the letters A through F,
with A being the optimal traveling condition on a roadway and F being
the worst.
LEVEL OF S ERVICE LETTER GRADIN G is fundamentally defined in
the following manner:
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
20
LOS A: Free flow. Vehicles travelling on the roadway are practically
unaffected by other vehicles and have complete mobility between
lanes. Traffic flows at or above posted speed limits.
LOS B: Nearly free flow. Traffic still flows at or above posted speed
limits but maneuverability for vehicles is slightly more restricted.
LOS C: Stable flow. Ability to maneuver through lanes is noticeably
restricted and posted speeds are maintained.
LOS D: Approaching unstable flow. Speeds slightly decrease as traffic
volumes slightly increase. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic
stream is much more limited and driver comfort levels decrease.
LOS E: Unstable flow (operating at capacity). The spacing between
vehicles traveling at a uniform flow is at a minimum. Speeds can vary
rapidly because of disruptions in the traffic stream and are maintained
below posted limits.
LOS F: Forced or breakdown flow. The travel demand exceeds the
capacity of the roadway as it is constantly in a traffic gridlock. Frequent
slowing and/or stopping takes place.
The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) establishes a structure for
roadway systems consisting of points, links, segments, sections,
facilities, corridor, areas, and system. While LOS is measured for all of
these elements, this Transportation Master Plan effort will only focus on
the links level of service. Based on HCM methodology and statewide
observations of traffic and roadway design characteristics, the FDOT
establishes daily and peak hour generalized roadway service volumes
for various types of roadways. The HCM methodology relies on the
notion that roadway capacity which is a function of intersection delay;
increasing frequency of signals, with an associated longer period of
stop time per intersection, tends to increase travel time and thus reduce
average travel speed and overall LOS. LOS link analysis for Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT) and peak volume values was performed
using the FDOT 2012 Generalized LOS Tables. Since the
determination of a roadway’s LOS is dependent upon a number of
characteristics, the following information was collected for the different
road segments within the City.
Specific Link (Roadway Segment)
Number of Lanes
Existence of a Median
Road Jurisdiction
Functional Classification
Number of Traffic Signals
Segment Length
Signals per Mile
Speed Limit
Existing Level of Service Standard
Service Volume at LOS C, D, E
Average Annual Daily Traffic
Peak Hour Volume
Existing Level of Service
Remaining Capacity
Table 2 defines the segments (links) for which the roadway
characteristics data were collected and for which traffic volumes were
forecasted.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
21
Table 2: Specific Links (Roadway Segments) [Pages 10 – 15]
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existence
of a Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of
Traffic
Signals
Signals
per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
1 SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway City Limits Alton Road 3.102 Divided Barrier
Wall State Arterial 4 1 55
2 SR A1A / 5th Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue 0.553 Divided Curbed State Arterial 8 14 35
3 SR A1A / Collins Avenue 5th Street 15th Street 0.912 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 10 11 35
4 SR A1A / Collins Avenue 15th Street 26th Street 1.101 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 11 10 35
5
SR A1A
Collins Avenue 26th Street 41st Street 1.024 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 10 10 35
6 Indian Creek Drive 26th Street 41st Street 0.807 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 4 5 35
7 SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive 41st Street 44th Street 0.201 Divided Curbed State Arterial 1 5 35
8 SR A1A / Collins Avenue 41st Street 44th Street 0.204 Divided Curbed State Arterial 3 15 35
9 SR A1A / Collins Avenue 44th Street 5800 Block 1.802 Divided Curbed State Arterial 17 9 35
10
SR A1A
Collins Avenue 5800 Block 63rd Street 0.226 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 1 4 35
11 Indian Creek
Avenue 5800 Block 63rd Street 0.211 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 1 5 35
12 SR A1A / Collins Avenue 63rd Street 71st street 0.501 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 3 6 35
13 SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive 63rd Street Abbott Avenue 0.511 Divided Curbed State Arterial 3 6 35
14 Indian Creek Drive Abbott Avenue Byron Avenue 0.122 Divided Curbed
City of
Miami
Beach
Arterial 2 16 35
15 Indian Creek Drive Byron Avenue 71st street 0.204 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Arterial 2 10 35
16
SR A1A
Collins Avenue 71st Street 73rd Street 0.464 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 3 6 35
17 Abbott Avenue Indian Creek
Drive 73rd Street 0.463 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 3 6 35
18 SR A1A Collins Avenue 73rd Street 88th Street 0.975 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 8 8 35
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
22
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existence
of a Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of
Traffic
Signals
Signals
per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
19 Harding Avenue 73rd Street 88th Street 0.981 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 8 8 35
20 SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Causeway City Limits Alton Road 3.136 Divided
Curbed/
Guardra
il
State Arterial 0 0
21 SR 112 / 41st Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue 0.815 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 15 18 35
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
23
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existence
of a Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of
Traffic
Signals
Signals
per Mile
Spee
d
Limi
t
From To
22 SR 934 / 79th Street Causeway City Limits Bay Drive 2.677 Divided Curbed State Arterial 12 4 45
23
SR 934
71st Street W Bay Drive E Bay Drive 1.049 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 5 5 35
24 Normandy Drive W Bay Drive E Bay Drive 1.041 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 5 5 35
25 SR 934 / 71st Street E Bay Drive Dickens
Avenue 0.221 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 3 14 35
26 SR 934 / 71st Street Dickens
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.304 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 5 16 35
27 SR 907 / Alton Road 5th Street Dade
Boulevard 1.332 Divided Curbed State Arterial 13 10 35
28 SR 907 / Alton Road Dade
Boulevard 41st Street 1.521 Divided Curbed State Arterial 5 3 35
29 SR 907 / Alton Road 41st Street 63rd Street 2.504 Divided Curbed State Arterial 3 1 35
30 SR 907 / 63rd Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue 0.426 Divided Striped State Arterial 4 9 35
31 Alton Road South Pointe
Drive 5th Street 0.465 Divided Curbed
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 3 6 25
32 11th Street Alton Road Washington
Avenue 0.735 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 8 11 25
33 Venetian Causeway City Limits Dade
Boulevard 2.555 Undivide
d N/A County Arterial 7 3 35
34 Dade Boulevard Venetian
Causeway Alton Road 0.303 Undivide
d N/A County Arterial 3 10 35
35 Dade Boulevard Alton Road Pine Tree
Drive 0.847 Undivide
d N/A County Arterial 6 7 35
36 17th Street Dade
Boulevard
Collins
Avenue 0.861 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 10 12 25
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
24
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existence
of a Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of
Traffic
Signals
Signals
per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
37 Meridian Avenue 5th Street Dade
Boulevard 1.503 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 10 7 25
38 Meridian Avenue Dade
Boulevard 28th Street 0.604 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 1 2 26
39 28th Street Meridian
Avenue
Pine Tree
Drive 0.391 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 0 0 25
40 Washington Avenue South Pointe
Drive
Dade
Boulevard 2.094 Divided Curbed
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 23 11 25
41 South Pointe Drive Alton Road Ocean Drive 0.23 Divided Curbed
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 0 0 25
42 West Avenue 5th Street 17th Street 1.382 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 9 7 25
43 North Bay Road West Avenue La Gorce
Drive 3.465 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Local 1 1 25
44 Prairie Avenue Dade
Boulevard 47th Street 1.755 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 5 3 25
45 Pine Tree Drive Dade
Boulevard 47th Street 1.611 Divided Curbed County Collector 8 5 35
46 Pine Tree Drive 47th Street 51st Street 0.401 Divided Curbed County Collector 2 5 35
47 Pine Tree
/ La Gorce
Pine Tree Drive 51st Street La Gorce
Drive 1.283 Undivide
d N/A County Collector 1 1 35
48 La Gorce Drive 51st Street La Gorce
Circle 1.376 Undivide
d N/A County Collector 2 1 35
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
25
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existence
of a Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of
Traffic
Signals
Signals
per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
49 47th Street Alton Road Pine Tree
Drive 0.608 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 2 3 25
50 73rd Street Collins
Avenue
Dickens
Avenue 0.273 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 4 15 25
51 77th Street Hawthorne
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.551 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 5 9 25
52 Hawthorne Avenue 77th Street 85th Street 0.553 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Local 2 4 25
53 85th Street Hawthorne
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.461 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Local 3 7 25
54 Biarritz Drive Shore Lane Normandy
Drive 0.224 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Local 1 4 25
55 North Shore Drive Fairway Drive 71st Street 0.332 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Local 1 3 25
56 Dickens Avenue 71st Street
Tatum
Waterway
Drive
0.523 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 5 10 25
57 Tatum Waterway Drive Dickens
Avenue Byron Avenue 0.224 Undivide
d N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 2 9 25
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
26
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existence of
a Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of
Traffic
Signals
Signals
per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
58 Byron Avenue
Tatum
Waterway
Drive
88th Street 0.418 Undivided N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 2 5 25
59 Collins Avenue South Pointe
Drive 5th Street 0.438 Undivided N/A
City of
Miami
Beach
Collector 3 7 25
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
27
Forecasted Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes for the roadway segments defined above were
obtained from existing Portable Traffic Monitoring Sites (PTMS) data
provided on the FDOT Traffic Online website for the year 2014. These
PTMS count the number of vehicles passing at specific points of a
roadway, bi-directionally for two-way roads, to provide approximate
values for the average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes. The PTMS
also provide average values for peak hour (K) and directional
distribution (D) factors, these values were utilized to approximate peak
bi-directional volumes and peak directional volumes. The K factor is the
bidirectional distribution of the traffic travelling in a selected hour. It is
obtained by dividing the directional peak hour traffic by the AADT. The
D factor is the directional distribution of traffic travelling in the peak
direction during a selected hour. It is obtained by dividing the directional
volume by the bi-directional volume. Tables 4 through 6 display the
existing AADT, peak two-way volumes, and peak directional volumes,
in relation to LOS and volume capacity. The LOS values reflected in
the tables are the result of applying FDOT generalized LOS tables
which are accepted by FDOT for planning purposes such as this TMP.
FDOT tables reflect general conditions at a statewide level and may not
necessarily completely reflect local conditions. THE PURPOSE OF A
TMP IS TO PROVIDE A BROAD OVERALL ANALYS IS FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWO RK of the City, more detailed
examination such as a corridor analysis or any other specific traffic
engineering analysis may give more accurate results for a specific
roadway or area. Software such as Synchro or CORSIM, which are
based on HCM methodology, may provide a more precise reflection of
the existing and future conditions because the analysis performed with
the software aims to duplicate local specific conditions such as driver
behavior, degree of driver aggressiveness, local geometric, etc. through
field observations, and calibration.
The year 2014 was taken as the base year (existing conditions) and
VOLUMES WERE FORECAS TED FOR THE YEARS 20 25 AND
2035 . The base year values were compared for concurrence to 24
hour volumes counts performed at certain locations of the City
(provided in Appendix XX) and to counts provided by the City from
previously performed traffic analyses. The forecasted volumes were
calculated with growth factors obtained from trend analysis (the highest
of: linear, exponential, and decaying exponential, provided in Appendix
XX) performed using existing historical volume data for various
locations within each of the three areas of City: South, Middle, and
North. These growth factors were compared to those utilized on the
latest MPO LRTP model to ensure concurrence. Figure 16 and Table 3
shows the growth factors for each of the City areas used to forecast
future traffic volumes for the previously mentioned specific roadways
links. Tables 7 and 8 show forecasted daily, peak two-way, and peak
directional volumes for the year 2025, and 2035, respectively.
Figure 16: Annual Growth Rates for South, Middle, and North Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
28
Table 3: City Area Growth Rates Used to Forecast Traffic Volumes
City Area PTMS Description Growth Rate Based
Upon Highest R2
Adjusted
Growth Rate1
Average
AADT
Average
Growth
Rate
Weighted
Average Growth
Rate
South
87-9080 SR A1A/MacArthur Cswy., 1000' W Palm Isle Ent. @ R31 1.61 1.61 81625
0.86 1.00
87-6059 Ramp from EB MacArthur Cswy. to NB Alton Rd., 300' E of
MacArthur Cswy. 0.66 0.66 18500
87-2527 SR A1A/MacArthur Cswy., 200' W SR 907 (Alton Rd.) -0.16 0.50 78406
87-2528 SR A1A/MacArthur Cswy., 150' N of Meridian Ave. -2.28 0.50 38531
87-5159 SR A1A/Collins Ave., 200' N 5th St. -2.13 0.50 16100
87-2542 SR 907/Alton Rd., 200' S of Venetian Cswy. 1.76 1.76 35333
87-5170 SR A1A/Collins Ave., N of 21st St. -0.98 0.50 26625
Middle
87-0012 SR 907/Alton Rd., 200' N of 20th St. 1.48 1.48 45000
0.93 1.00
87-5388 SR 112/Arthur Godfrey Rd., 200' W Indian Creek Dr. 0.30 0.30 38750
87-0011 SR A1A/Collins Ave., 200' S of 4700 BLK -1.49 0.50 40156
87-1018 SR 907/Alton Rd., 200' S of W 51st St. 1.21 1.21 31719
87-2541 SR A1A/Collins Ave., 500' S of 63rd St. 0.63 0.63 17667
87-2646 Indian Creek Dr., 200' S of 38th St. -5.66 0.50 16318
87-2647 SR 907/Alton Rd. 200' N of Nautilus Dr. -0.17 0.50 6330
87-6031 Ramp 87004025 from SB SR 907/Alton Rd. to WB I-195,
200' SW of SR 907/Alton Rd. 0.91 0.91 15727
87-6060 Ramp 87037201 from EB I-195 Off Ramp 87004024 to NB
SR 907/Alton Rd., 400'E of Ramp 87004024 1.50 1.50 12145
87-6061 Ramp 87037202 from NB SR 907/Alton Rd. to WB I-195,
300' NE of SR 907/Alton Rd. 1.76 1.76 14727
North
87-0533 SR 934/N Bay Cswy., 200' E of Treasure Dr. 0.45 0.45 34469
1.60 1.40
87-5191 SR934/NE 79th St., N of Bay Cswy.; 71st St., 100' W of Rue
Versailles 5.39 5.39 18500
87-0115 SR 934/Normandy Dr. WB, 100' W of Rue Versailles 2.26 2.26 17938
87-5189 SR 934/71st St., 200' W of SR A1A/Harding Ave. -1.24 0.50 15056
87-0520 SR A1A/Harding Ave. One-Way Pair SB, 100' N of 87th St. -0.75 0.50 25563
87-0525 SR A1A/Collins Ave. One-Way Pair NB, 100' N of 87th St. -1.05 0.50 25875
Notes:
1 Negative growth were adjusted to 0.5%
2 A weighted average of 1.4 instead of 1.6 was utilized for the area of North Beach based general knowledge from previous experience on projects within this area.
Table 4: Roadway Segments/Links Average Daily Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
29
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
Adopted LOS
Standard
FDOT Factored Volumes Adopted
City
Capacity
Average
Annual Daily
Traffic
Existing
Daily Level
of Service
Remaining
Daily Capacity
FDOT City C D E
1 SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X 90566 F X
2 SR A1A / 5th Street State Arterial D D + 50 23300 50000 50900 75000 34000 D 41000
3 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 50 5840 11840 12480 17760 16400 F 1360
4 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 50 10875 24300 25350 36450 22500 D 13950
5 SR
A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 14000 D 22000
6 Indian Creek
Drive State Arterial D D + 20 23300 50000 50900 60000 16000 C 44000
7 SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive State Arterial D D + 20 5840 11840 12480 14208 41000 F -26792
8 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 14000 D 22000
9 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 23300 50000 50900 60000 35500 D 24500
10 SR
A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 21000 D 15000
11 Indian Creek
Drive State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 26000 D 10000
12 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 21000 D 15000
13 SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 35500 F 500
14 Indian Creek Drive City Arterial D D + 20 9425 21060 21970 25272 3900 C 21372
15 Indian Creek Drive City Arterial D D + 20 9425 21060 21970 25272 3900 C 21372
16 SR
A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 25500 D 10500
17 Abbott
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 25500 D 10500
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
30
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
Adopted LOS
Standard
FDOT Factored Volumes Adopted
City
Capacity
Average
Annual Daily
Traffic
Existing
Daily Level
of Service
Remaining
Daily Capacity
FDOT City C D E
18 SR
A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 25500 D 10500
19 Harding
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 25500 D 10500
20 SR 112 / Julia Tuttle
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X 107473 F X
21 SR 112 / 41st Street State Arterial D D + 20 14500 32400 33800 38880 41000 F -2120
22 SR 934 / 79th Street
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X 39000 D X
23 SR
934
71st Street State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 20500 D 15500
24 Normandy
Drive State Arterial D D + 20 13980 30000 30540 36000 18500 D 17500
25 SR 934 / 71st Street State Arterial D D + 20 14500 32400 33800 38880 11600 C 27280
26 SR 934 / 71st Street State Arterial D D + 20 6570 13320 14040 15984 11600 D 4384
27 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D + 20 14500 32400 33800 38880 30500 D 8380
28 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D 14500 32400 33800 32400 47500 F -15100
29 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D 14500 32400 33800 32400 33500 E -1100
30 SR 907 / 63rd Street State Arterial D D + 20 10875 24300 25350 29160 33500 F -4340
31 Alton Road City Collector D D + 50 14500 32400 33800 48600 5200 C 43400
32 11th Street City Collector D D + 20 5110 10360 10920 12432 6000 D 6432
33 Venetian Causeway County Arterial D X X X X X 5100 X X
34 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X 5100 X X
35 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X 5100 X X
36 17th Street City Collector D D + 50 13050 29160 30420 43740 18900 D 24840
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
31
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
Adopted LOS
Standard
FDOT Factored Volumes Adopted
City
Capacity
Average
Annual Daily
Traffic
Existing
Daily Level
of Service
Remaining
Daily Capacity
FDOT City C D E
37 Meridian Avenue City Collector D D + 20 5110 10360 10920 12432 8000 D 4432
38 Meridian Avenue City Collector D D + 20 5475 11100 11700 13320 3600 C 9720
39 28th Street City Collector D D + 20 5475 11100 11700 13320 3600 C 9720
40 Washington Avenue City Collector D D + 50 13050 29160 30420 43740 18700 D 25040
41 South Pointe Drive City Collector D D + 20 13050 29160 30420 34992 5200 C 29792
42 West Avenue City Collector D D + 20 5475 11100 11700 13320 15000 F -1680
43 North Bay Road City Local D X X X X X X X X
44 Prairie Avenue City Collector D D + 20 5475 11100 11700 13320 3500 C 9820
45 Pine Tree Drive County Collector D D + 20 X X X X 16200 D X
46 Pine Tree Drive County Collector D D + 20 13050 29160 30420 34992 11000 D 23992
47 Pine
Tree /
La
Gorce
Pine Tree
Drive County Collector D D + 20 7250 16200 16900 19440 5100 C 14340
48 La Gorce
Drive County Collector D D + 20 7250 16200 16900 19440 4800 C 14640
49 47th Street City Collector D D + 20 5110 10360 10920 12432 3900 C 8532
50 73rd Street City Collector D D + 20 X X X X X X X
51 77th Street City Collector D D + 20 5110 10360 10920 12432 2100 C 10332
52 Hawthorne Avenue City Local D X 5110 10360 10920 X 2100 C X
53 85th Street City Local D X 5110 10360 10920 X 2100 C X
54 Biarritz Drive City Local D X X X X X X X X
55 North Shore Drive City Local D X X X X X X X X
56 Dickens Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 3900 C X
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
32
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
Adopted LOS
Standard
FDOT Factored Volumes Adopted
City
Capacity
Average
Annual Daily
Traffic
Existing
Daily Level
of Service
Remaining
Daily Capacity
FDOT City C D E
57 Tatum Waterway
Drive
City Collector D X X X X X 3900 C X
58 Byron Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 3900 C X
59 Collins Avenue City Collector D X 5110 10360 10920 X 5200 D X
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
33
Table 5: Roadway Segments/Links Peak Two-Way Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Adopted Level of
Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Two Way
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Two Way
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Two Way)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
1 SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X 8151 F X
2 SR A1A / 5th Street State Arterial D D +
50 2090 4500 4590 6750 3060 D 3690
3 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D +
50 528 1064 1128 1596 1476 F 120
4 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D +
50 982.5 2190 2280 3285 2025 D 1260
5
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 1260 C 1980
6 Indian
Creek
Drive
State Arterial D D +
20 2090 4500 4590 5400 1440 D 3960
7 SR A1A / Indian Creek
Drive State Arterial D D +
20 528 1064 1128 1276.8 3690 F -2413
8 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 1260 C 1980
9 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 2090 4500 4590 5400 3195 D 2205
10
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 1890 D 1350
11 Indian
Creek
Avenue
State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 2340 D 900
12 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 1890 D 1350
13 SR A1A / Indian Creek
Drive State Arterial D D +
20 2090 4500 4590 5400 3195 D 2205
14 Indian Creek Drive City Arterial D D +
20 851.5 1898 1976 2277.6 351 C 1927
15 Indian Creek Drive City Arterial D D +
20 851.5 1898 1976 2277.6 351 C 1927
16
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 2295 D 945
17 Abbott
Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 2295 D 945
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
34
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Adopted Level of
Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Two Way
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Two Way
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Two Way)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
18
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 2295 D 945
19 Harding
Avenue State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 2295 D 945
20 SR 112 / Julia Tuttle
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X 9673 F X
21 SR 112 / 41st Street State Arterial D D +
20 1310 2920 3040 3504 3690 F -186
22 SR 934 / 79th Street
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X 3510 D X
23
SR 934
71st Street State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 1845 D 1395
24 Normandy
Drive State Arterial D D +
20 1254 2700 2754 3240 1665 D 1575
25 SR 934 / 71st Street State Arterial D D +
20 1310 2920 3040 3504 1044 C 2460
26 SR 934 / 71st Street State Arterial D D +
20 594 1197 1269 1436.4 1044 D 392
27 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D +
20 1310 2920 3040 3504 2745 D 759
28 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D 1310 2920 3040 2920 4275 F -1355
29 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D 1310 2920 3040 2920 3015 E -95
30 SR 907 / 63rd Street State Arterial D D +
20
1244.
5 2774 2888 3328.8 3015 F 314
31 Alton Road City Collector D D +
50 1310 2920 3040 4380 468 C 3912
32 11th Street City Collector D D +
20 462 931 987 1117.2 540 D 577
33 Venetian Causeway County Arterial D X X X X X 459 X X
34 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D +
50 X X X X 459 X X
35 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D +
50 X X X X 459 X X
36 17th Street City Collector D D +
50 1179 2628 2736 3942 1701 D 2241
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
35
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Adopted Level of
Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Two Way
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Two Way
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Two Way)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
37 Meridian Avenue City Collector D D +
20 462 931 987 1117.2 720 D 397
38 Meridian Avenue City Collector D D +
20 495 997.
5
1057.
5 1197 324 C 873
39 28th Street City Collector D D +
20 495 997.
5
1057.
5 1197 324 C 873
40 Washington Avenue City Collector D D +
50 1179 2628 2736 3942 1683 D 2259
41 South Pointe Drive City Collector D D +
20 1179 2628 2736 3153.6 468 C 2686
42 West Avenue City Collector D D +
20 495 997.
5
1057.
5 1197 1350 F -153
43 North Bay Road City Local D X X X X X X X X
44 Prairie Avenue City Collector D D +
20 462 931 987 1117.2 315 C 802
45 Pine Tree Drive County Collector D D +
20 1179 2628 2736 3153.6 1458 D 1696
46 Pine Tree Drive County Collector D D +
20 1179 2628 2736 3153.6 990 D 2164
47 Pine Tree /
La Gorce
Pine Tree
Drive County Collector D D +
20 655 1460 1520 1752 459 C 1293
48 La Gorce
Drive County Collector D D +
20 655 1460 1520 1752 432 C 1320
49 47th Street City Collector D D +
20 462 931 987 1117.2 351 C 766
50 73rd Street City Collector D D +
20 X X X X X X X
51 77th Street City Collector D D +
20 462 931 987 1117.2 189 C 928
52 Hawthorne Avenue City Local D X 462 931 987 X 189 C X
53 85th Street City Local D X 462 931 987 X 189 C X
54 Biarritz Drive City Local D X X X X X X X X
55 North Shore Drive City Local D X X X X X X X X
56 Dickens Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 351 C X
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
36
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Adopted Level of
Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Two Way
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Two Way
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Two Way)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
57 Tatum Waterway Drive City Collector D X X X X X 351 C X
58 Byron Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 351 C X
59 Collins Avenue City Collector D X 462 931 987 4380 468 D 3912
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
37
Table 6: Roadway Segments/Links Peak Directional Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing Adopted
Level of Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Directional
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Directional
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Directional)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
1 SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X 8151 F X
2 SR A1A / 5th Street State Arterial D D + 50 1170 2520 2560 3780 3057 D 723
3 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D + 50 296 600 640 900 799 F 101
4 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D + 50 547.5 1222.
5 1275 1833.75 1061 D 773
5
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 1259 C 2370
6 Indian
Creek Drive State Arterial D D + 20 1170 2520 2560 3024 1439 D 1585
7 SR A1A / Indian Creek
Drive State Arterial D D + 20 296 600 640 720 1934 F -1214
8 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 1259 C 2370
9 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1170 2520 2560 3024 1674 D 1350
10
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 1888 D 1741
11 Indian
Creek
Avenue
State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 2338 D 1291
12 SR A1A / Collins Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 1888 D 1741
13 SR A1A / Indian Creek
Drive State Arterial D D + 20 1170 2520 2560 3024 1674 D 1350
14 Indian Creek Drive City Arterial D D + 20 474.5 1059.
5 1105 1271.4 207 C 1065
15 Indian Creek Drive City Arterial D D + 20 474.5 1059.
5 1105 1271.4 207 C 1065
16
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 2293 D 1336
17 Abbott
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 2293 D 1336
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
38
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing Adopted
Level of Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Directional
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Directional
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Directional)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
18
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 2293 D 1336
19 Harding
Avenue State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 2293 D 1336
20 SR 112 / Julia Tuttle
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X X F X
21 SR 112 / 41st Street State Arterial D D + 20 730 1630 1700 1956 1934 F 22
22 SR 934 / 79th Street
Causeway State Arterial D D X X X X X D X
23
SR 934
71st Street State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 1843 D 1786
24 Normandy
Drive State Arterial D D + 20 1404 3024 3072 3628.8 1663 D 1965
25 SR 934 / 71st Street State Arterial D D + 20 730 1630 1700 1956 547 C 1409
26 SR 934 / 71st Street State Arterial D D + 20 333 675 720 810 547 D 263
27 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D + 20 730 1630 1700 1956 1438 D 518
28 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D 730 1630 1700 1630 2240 F -610
29 SR 907 / Alton Road State Arterial D D 730 1630 1700 1630 1688 E -58
30 SR 907 / 63rd Street State Arterial D D + 20 693.5 1548.
5 1615 1858.2 1688 F 170
31 Alton Road City Collector D D + 50 730 1630 1700 2445 262 C 2183
32 11th Street City Collector D D + 20 259 525 560 630 318 D 312
33 Venetian Causeway County Arterial D X X X X X X X X
34 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X X X X
35 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X X X X
36 17th Street City Collector D D + 50 657 1467 1530 2200.5 1002 D 1199
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
39
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing Adopted
Level of Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Directional
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Directional
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Directional)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
37 Meridian Avenue City Collector D D + 20 259 525 560 630 424 D 206
38 Meridian Avenue City Collector D D + 20 277.5 562.5 600 675 191 C 484
39 28th Street City Collector D D + 20 277.5 562.5 600 675 191 C 484
40 Washington Avenue City Collector D D + 50 657 1467 1530 2200.5 942 D 1258
41 South Pointe Drive City Collector D D + 20 657 1467 1530 1760.4 276 C 1485
42 West Avenue City Collector D D + 20 277.5 562.5 600 675 795 F -120
43 North Bay Road City Local D X X X X X X X X
44 Prairie Avenue City Collector D D + 20 259 525 560 630 165 C 465
45 Pine Tree Drive County Collector D D + 20 657 1467 1530 1760.4 859 D 902
46 Pine Tree Drive County Collector D D + 20 657 1467 1530 1760.4 583 D 1177
47 Pine Tree /
La Gorce
Pine Tree
Drive County Collector D D + 20 803 1793 1870 2151.6 459 C 1693
48 La Gorce
Drive County Collector D D + 20 803 1793 1870 2151.6 432 C 1720
49 47th Street City Collector D D + 20 259 525 560 630 207 C 423
50 73rd Street City Collector D D + 20 X X X X X X X
51 77th Street City Collector D D + 20 259 525 560 630 111 C 519
52 Hawthorne Avenue City Local D X 259 525 560 X 111 C X
53 85th Street City Local D X 259 525 560 X 111 C X
54 Biarritz Drive City Local D X X X X X X X X
55 North Shore Drive City Local D X X X X X X X X
56 Dickens Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 207 C X
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
40
Segment
Number Segment Name Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing Adopted
Level of Service
Standard
FDOT Factored Peak Directional
Volumes Adopted City
Capacity
Peak Hour
Directional
Volume
Existing Level of
Service ( Peak
Directional)
Remaining
Capacity
FDOT City C D E
57 Tatum Waterway Drive City Collector D X X X X X 207 C X
58 Byron Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 207 C X
59 Collins Avenue City Collector D X 259 525 560 2445 276 D 2169
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
41
Table 7: Roadway Segments/Links Forecasted Daily, Two-Way Peak, and Peak Directional Volumes, and LOS for 2025
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2025)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2025)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2025)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2025) From To
1 SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway City Limits Alton Road State Arterial 90566 X X X X X X
2 SR A1A / 5th Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue State Arterial 34000 37557 D 3380 D 3380 F
3 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 5th Street 15th Street State Arterial 16400 18116 F 1630 F 880 F
4 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 15th Street 26th Street State Arterial 22500 24854 E 2240 E 1170 D
5
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 26th Street 41st Street State Arterial 14000 15465 D 1390 D 1390 C
6 Indian
Creek
Drive
26th Street 41st Street State Arterial 16000 17674 C 1590 C 1590 D
7 SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive 41st Street 44th Street State Arterial 41000 45290 F 4080 F 2140 F
8 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 41st Street 44th Street State Arterial 14000 15465 D 1390 D 1390 C
9 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 44th Street 5800 Block State Arterial 35500 39214 D 3530 D 1850 D
10
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 5800 Block 63rd Street State Arterial 21000 23197 D 2090 D 2090 D
11 Indian
Creek
Avenue
5800 Block 63rd Street State Arterial 26000 28168 D 2540 D 2530 D
12 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 63rd Street 71st street State Arterial 21000 24132 D 2170 D 2170 D
13 SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive 63rd Street Abbott
Avenue State Arterial 35500 40795 D 3670 D 1920 D
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
42
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2025)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2025)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2025)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2025) From To
14 Indian Creek Drive Abbott
Avenue
Byron
Avenue City Arterial 3900 4482 C 400 C 240 C
15 Indian Creek Drive Byron
Avenue 71st Street City Arterial 3900 4482 C 400 C 240 C
16
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 71st Street 73rd Street State Arterial 25500 29304 D 2640 D 2630 D
17 Abbott
Avenue
Indian
Creek
Drive
73rd Street State Arterial 25500 29304 D 2640 D 2630 D
18
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 73rd Street 88th Street State Arterial 25500 29304 D 2640 D 2630 D
19 Harding
Avenue 73rd Street 88th Street State Arterial 25500 29304 D 2640 D 2630 D
20 SR 112 / Julia Tuttle
Causeway City Limits Alton Road State Arterial 107473 X X X X X X
21 SR 112 / 41st Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue State Arterial 41000 45290 F 4080 F 2140 F
22 SR 934 / 79th Street
Causeway City Limits Bay Drive State Arterial 39000 X X X X X X
23
SR 934
71st Street W Bay
Drive
E Bay
Drive State Arterial 20500 23558 D 2120 D 2120 D
24 Normandy
Drive
W Bay
Drive
E Bay
Drive State Arterial 18500 21259 D 1910 D 1910 D
25 SR 934 / 71st Street E Bay
Drive
Dickens
Avenue State Arterial 11600 13330 C 1200 C 630 C
26 SR 934 / 71st Street Dickens
Avenue
Collins
Avenue State Arterial 11600 13330 E 1200 E 630 D
27 SR 907 / Alton Road 5th Street Dade
Boulevard State Arterial 30500 33691 E 3030 E 1590 D
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
43
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2025)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2025)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2025)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2025) From To
28 SR 907 / Alton Road Dade
Boulevard 41s Street State Arterial 47500 52470 F 4720 F 2470 F
29 SR 907 / Alton Road 41st Street 63rd Street State Arterial 33500 37005 F 3330 F 1870 F
30 SR 907 / 63rd Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue State Arterial 33500 37005 F 3330 F 1870 F
31 Alton Road South
Pointe
Drive
5th Street City Collector 5200 5744 C 520 C 290 C
32 11th Street Alton Road Washingto
n Avenue City Collector 6000 6628 D 600 D 350 D
33 Venetian Causeway City Limits Dade
Boulevard County Arterial 5100 X X X X X X
34 Dade Boulevard Venetian
Causeway Alton Road County Arterial 5100 X X X X X X
35 Dade Boulevard Alton Road Pine Tree
Drive County Arterial 5100 X X X X X X
36 17th Street Dade
Boulevard
Collins
Avenue City Collector 18900 20877 D 1880 D 1110 D
37 Meridian Avenue 5th Street Dade
Boulevard City Collector 8000 8837 D 800 D 470 D
38 Meridian Avenue Dade
Boulevard 28th Street City Collector 3600 8837 D 800 D 450 D
39 28th Street Meridian
Avenue
Pine Tree
Drive City Collector 3600 8837 D 800 D 450 D
40 Washington Avenue
South
Pointe
Drive
Dade
Boulevard City Collector 18700 20656 D 1860 D 1040 D
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
44
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2025)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2025)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2025)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2025) From To
41 South Pointe Drive Alton Road Ocean
Drive City Collector 5200 5744 C 520 C 300 C
42 West Avenue 5th Street 17th Street City Collector 15000 16569 F 1490 F 880 F
43 North Bay Road West
Avenue
La Gorce
Drive City Local X X X X X X X
44 Prairie Avenue Dade
Boulevard 47th Street City Collector 3500 3866 C 350 C 180 C
45 Pine Tree Drive Dade
Boulevard 47th Street County Collector 16200 17895 D 1610 D 950 D
46 Pine Tree Drive 47th Street 51st Street County Collector 11000 17895 D 1610 D 950 D
47 Pine
Tree /
La
Gorce
Pine Tree
Drive 51st Street La Gorce
Drive County Collector 5100 5634 C 510 C 510 C
48 La Gorce
Drive 51st Street La Gorce
Circle County Collector 4800 5302 C 480 C 480 C
49 47th Street Alton Road Pine Tree
Drive City Collector 3900 4308 C 390 C 230 C
50 73rd Street Collins
Avenue
Dickens
Avenue City Collector X X X X X X X
51 77th Street Hawthorne
Avenue
Collins
Avenue City Collector 2100 2413 C 220 C 130 C
52 Hawthorne Avenue 77th Street 85th Street City Local 2100 2413 C 220 C 130 C
53 85th Street Hawthorne
Avenue
Collins
Avenue City Local 2100 2413 C 220 C 130 C
54 Biarritz Drive Shore Lane Normandy
Drive City Local X X X X X X X
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
45
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2025)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2025)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2025)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2025)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2025) From To
55 North Shore Drive Fairway
Drive 71st Street City Local X X X X X X X
56 Dickens Avenue 71st Street Tatum
Waterway
Drive
City Collector 3900 4482 C 400 C 240 C
57 Tatum Waterway
Drive
Dickens
Avenue
Byron
Avenue City Collector 3900 4482 C 400 C 240 C
58 Byron Avenue Tatum
Waterway
Drive
88th Street City Collector 3900 4482 C 400 C 240 C
59 Collins Avenue South
Pointe
Drive
5th Street City Collector 5200 5744 D 520 D 300 D
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
46
Table 8: Roadway Segments/Links Forecasted Daily, Two-Way Peak, and Peak Directional Volumes, and LOS for 2035
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2035)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2035)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2035)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2035) From To
1 SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway City Limits Alton Road State Arterial 90566 X X X X X X
2 SR A1A / 5th Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue State Arterial 34000 41486 D 3730 D 3730 F
3 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 5th Street 15th Street State Arterial 16400 20011 F 1800 F 970 F
4 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 15th Street 26th Street State Arterial 22500 27454 F 2470 F 1290 F
5
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 26th Street 41st Street State Arterial 14000 17083 D 1540 D 1540 D
6 Indian
Creek
Drive
26th Street 41st Street State Arterial 16000 19523 C 1760 C 1760 D
7 SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive 41st Street 44th Street State Arterial 41000 50028 F 4500 F 2360 F
8 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 41st Street 44th Street State Arterial 14000 17083 D 1540 D 1540 D
9 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 44th Street 5800 Block State Arterial 35500 43317 D 3900 D 2,040 D
10
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 5800 Block 63rd Street State Arterial 21000 25624 D 2310 D 2310 D
11 Indian
Creek
Avenue
5800 Block 63rd Street State Arterial 26000 31115 F 2800 F 2800 D
12 SR A1A / Collins
Avenue 63rd Street 71st street State Arterial 21000 27732 D 2500 D 2490 D
13 SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive 63rd Street Abbott
Avenue State Arterial 35500 46880 D 4220 D 2210 D
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
47
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2035)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2035)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2035)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2035) From To
14 Indian Creek Drive Abbott
Avenue
Byron
Avenue City Arterial 3900 5150 C 460 C 270 C
15 Indian Creek Drive Byron
Avenue 71st Street City Arterial 3900 5150 C 460 C 270 C
16
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 71st Street 73rd Street State Arterial 25500 33674 F 3030 F 3030 E
17 Abbott
Avenue
Indian
Creek
Drive
73rd Street State Arterial 25500 33674 F 3030 F 3030 E
18
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue 73rd Street 88th Street State Arterial 25500 33674 F 3030 F 3030 E
19 Harding
Avenue 73rd Street 88th Street State Arterial 25500 33674 F 3030 F 3030 E
20 SR 112 / Julia Tuttle
Causeway City Limits Alton Road State Arterial 107473 X X X X X X
21 SR 112 / 41st Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue State Arterial 41000 50028 F 4500 F 2360 F
22 SR 934 / 79th Street
Causeway City Limits Bay Drive State Arterial 39000 X X X X X X
23
SR 934
71st Street W Bay
Drive
E Bay
Drive State Arterial 20500 27072 D 2440 D 2430 D
24 Normandy
Drive
W Bay
Drive
E Bay
Drive State Arterial 18500 24430 D 2200 D 2200 D
25 SR 934 / 71st Street E Bay
Drive
Dickens
Avenue State Arterial 11600 15319 D 1380 D 720 C
26 SR 934 / 71st Street Dickens
Avenue
Collins
Avenue State Arterial 11600 15319 F 1380 F 720 E
27 SR 907 / Alton Road 5th Street Dade
Boulevard State Arterial 30500 37216 F 3350 F 1760 F
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
48
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2035)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2035)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2035)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2035) From To
28 SR 907 / Alton Road Dade
Boulevard 41s Street State Arterial 47500 57959 F 5220 F 2730 F
29 SR 907 / Alton Road 41st Street 63rd Street State Arterial 33500 40876 F 3680 F 2060 F
30 SR 907 / 63rd Street Alton Road Collins
Avenue State Arterial 33500 40876 F 3680 F 2060 F
31 Alton Road South
Pointe
Drive
5th Street City Collector 5200 6345 C 570 C 320 C
32 11th Street Alton Road Washingto
n Avenue City Collector 6000 7321 D 660 D 390 D
33 Venetian Causeway City Limits Dade
Boulevard County Arterial 5100 X X X X X X
34 Dade Boulevard Venetian
Causeway Alton Road County Arterial 5100 X X X X X X
35 Dade Boulevard Alton Road Pine Tree
Drive County Arterial 5100 X X X X X X
36 17th Street Dade
Boulevard
Collins
Avenue City Collector 18900 23062 D 2080 D 1220 D
37 Meridian Avenue 5th Street Dade
Boulevard City Collector 8000 9762 D 880 D 520 D
38 Meridian Avenue Dade
Boulevard 28th Street City Collector 3600 9762 D 880 D 500 D
39 28th Street Meridian
Avenue
Pine Tree
Drive City Collector 3600 9762 D 880 D 500 D
40 Washington Avenue
South
Pointe
Drive
Dade
Boulevard City Collector 18700 22818 D 2050 D 1210 D
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
49
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2035)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2035)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2035)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2035) From To
41 South Pointe Drive Alton Road Ocean
Drive City Collector 5200 6345 C 570 C 340 C
42 West Avenue 5th Street 17th Street City Collector 15000 18303 F 1650 F 970 F
43 North Bay Road West
Avenue
La Gorce
Drive City Local X X X X X X X
44 Prairie Avenue Dade
Boulevard 47th Street City Collector 3500 4271 C 380 C 230 C
45 Pine Tree Drive Dade
Boulevard 47th Street County Collector 16200 19767 D 1780 D 1050 D
46 Pine Tree Drive 47th Street 51st Street County Collector 11000 19767 D 1780 D 1050 D
47 Pine
Tree /
La
Gorce
Pine Tree
Drive 51st Street La Gorce
Drive County Collector 5100 6223 C 560 C 560 C
48 La Gorce
Drive 51st Street La Gorce
Circle County Collector 4800 5857 C 530 C 530 C
49 47th Street Alton Road Pine Tree
Drive City Collector 3900 4759 C 430 C 250 C
50 73rd Street Collins
Avenue
Dickens
Avenue City Collector X X X X X X X
51 77th Street Hawthorne
Avenue
Collins
Avenue City Collector 2100 2773 C 250 C 150 C
52 Hawthorne Avenue 77th Street 85th Street City Local 2100 2773 C 250 C 150 C
53 85th Street Hawthorne
Avenue
Collins
Avenue City Local 2100 2773 C 250 C 150 C
54 Biarritz Drive Shore Lane Normandy
Drive City Local X X X X X X X
EXISTING CONDITIONS - AUTO
50
Segment
Number Segment Name
Segment Limits Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Existing
AADT
Future
AADT
(2035)
Future
Daily
LOS
(2035)
Future
Peak Two-
Way
Volumes
(2035)
Future
Peak
Two-
Way LOS
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
Volumes
(2035)
Future Peak
Directional
LOS (2035) From To
55 North Shore Drive Fairway
Drive 71st Street City Local X X X X X X X
56 Dickens Avenue 71st Street Tatum
Waterway
Drive
City Collector 3900 5150 C 460 C 270 C
57 Tatum Waterway
Drive
Dickens
Avenue
Byron
Avenue City Collector 3900 5150 C 460 C 270 C
58 Byron Avenue Tatum
Waterway
Drive
88th Street City Collector 3900 5150 C 460 C 270 C
59 Collins Avenue South
Pointe
Drive
5th Street City Collector 5200 6345 D 570 D 340 D
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
51
Parking within the City
When it comes to the automobile mode of travel, roadways and bridges
are not the only infrastructures supporting the weight of creating an
effective transportation system. An AUTOMOBILE TRIP WILL
NEVER BE COMPLETE IF PARKING IS NOT AVAIL ABLE . Beyond
affecting the timeliness of an automobilist’s trip, parking has the
potential to mold the City by shaping many things; from the enjoyment
of its visitors to the economic growth and sense of community its many
residents and visitors experience. However, within the crowded built
environment of such a rich and dense City as Miami Beach, parking
needs to be delicately balance between other needs such as multi-
modal accommodation, surrounding land use, and quality transportation
roadways.
Since before 2004 and most recently in 2014, City efforts have been
quantifying and analyzing the adequacy of parking throughout Miami
Beach with several studies performed by Walker Parking Consultants.
The knowledge assembled from these studies along with other
collaborations and intercity analyses have conflated to form the City’s
Vision for parking management:
“COMMUNITY SUSTAINAB ILITY IS PARTLY ACHI EVED WHEN
PARKING IS MANAGED A S A CONTEXT SENSITIV E/LAND -USE
DEPENDENT INVESTMENT THAT MAY IMPROVE OR IMPACT
THE QUALITY OF THE T RANSPO RTATION SYSTEM IF NO T
PROPERLY ALLOCATED.”
Simply put, parking, as all other elements of an urban setting, shapes
the way people interact with other roadway users and sways their
inclinations to travel to surrounding businesses and developments,
jobs, and even their homes. The way parking is allocated in a
community depends on multiple levels of policies and regulations and
affects the City’s aesthetics, livability, and traffic congestion. In order to
fully grasp this concept and the many consequences parking allocation
has, several key statistics need to be revisited.
Existing Parking Inventory
To fully assess the existing conditions of the City’s automobile parking
accommodations, an inventory of the existing parking supply and
demand was performed through research of existing relevant literature.
To be exact, the data presented herein were obtained from the Parking
Demand Analyses performed by Walker parking Consultant in 2014.
Tables 9 through 12 show the parking supply and demand for the
areas of South and North Beach. It should be noted that no study was
performed for the area of Middle Beach; hence no information is
presented for that region of the City. More details regarding the amount
of parking spaces and their occupancy may be found in these reports.
Additionally, Tables 13 through 16 register City provided data for off-
street parking facilities within the areas of South, Middle, and North
Beach, respectively. To provide visual context of their location, and to
serve as a canvas for an updatable inventory, Figure 17 graphically
depicts the existing off-street City parking facilities.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
52
Table 9: Existing South Beach Parking Supply (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis)
South Beach Areas
Amount of Parking Spaces
On-Street
Off-Street
Total City-Owned
Garages
City-Owned
Surface Lots
Privately-Owned
Public Garages
Privately-Owned
Public Surface
Lots
Private
Parking
Alton Road Corridor
from SR A1A/5th Street to 17th Street and from Bay Road/West
Avenue to Lenox Avenue
978 1,050 93 698 71 4,004 6,894
Convention Center & Sunset Harbour
From 17th Street to 23rd Street/Dade Boulevard and from SR
907/Alton Road to SR A1A/Collins Avenue
930 1,081 1,391 300 50 858 4,610
Flamingo/Lummus Neighborhood
from SR A1A/5th Street to 17th Street and from Lenox Avenue to
Pennsylvania/Drexel Avenue
2,944 1,460 776 780 0 120 6,080
Ocean Drive Corridor
from SR A1A/5th Street to 17th Street and from
Pennsylvania/Drexel Avenue to SR A1A/Collins Avenue/Ocean
Drive
1,616 2,424 126 1,897 213 1,029 7,305
South Pointe Neighborhood
from South Pointe Drive to SR A1A/5th Street and from SR
907/Alton Road to Ocean Drive
1,101 0 342 311 182 819 2,755
Total Parking Spaces Supplied by Facility Type 7,569 6,015 2,728 3,986 516 6,830 27,644
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
53
Table 10: Existing South Beach Parking Demand (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis)
South Beach Areas
Maximum Observed Occupancy
On-Street
Off-Street Average
Parking
Demand City-Owned
Garages
City-Owned
Surface Lots
Privately-Owned
Public Garages
Privately-Owned
Public Surface
Lots
Private
Parking
Alton Road Corridor
from SR A1A/5th Street to 17th Street and from Bay Road/West
Avenue to Lenox Avenue
80% 52% 88% 83% 79% 95% 81%
Convention Center & Sunset Harbour
From 17th Street to 23rd Street/Dade Boulevard and from SR
907/Alton Road to SR A1A/Collins Avenue
83% 63% 100% 100% 96% 82% 81%
Flamingo/Lummus Neighborhood
from SR A1A/5th Street to 17th Street and from Lenox Avenue to
Pennsylvania/Drexel Avenue
91% 100% 91% 38% - 75% 82%
Ocean Drive Corridor
from SR A1A/5th Street to 17th Street and from
Pennsylvania/Drexel Avenue to SR A1A/Collins Avenue/Ocean
Drive
91% 75% 96% 49% 93% 100% 73%
South Pointe Neighborhood
from South Pointe Drive to SR A1A/5th Street and from SR
907/Alton Road to Ocean Drive
85% - 73% 75% 80% 84% 80%
Average Parking Demand by Facility Type 86% 73% 90% 69% 87% 87%
Note: Maximum observed occupancy may have occurred on a weekday or Saturday at either 12:00 PM, 6:00 PM, or 10:00 PM
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
54
Table 11: Existing North Beach Parking Supply (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis)
North Beach Areas
Amount of Parking Spaces
On-Street
Off-Street
Total City-Owned
Garages
City-Owned
Surface Lots
Privately-Owned
Public Garages
Privately-Owned
Public Surface
Lots
Private
Parking
Town Center
from SR 907/63rd Street to 72nd Street, up Abbott Avenue to
73rd Street, up SR A1A/Collins Avenue to 75th Street and from
Bonita Drive to Atlantic Way
758 0 676 428 11 7,944 9,817
North Shore
from the upper limits of the Town Center area to the City
boundary with Surfside and from Tatum Waterway Drive/ Byron
Avenue to Atlantic Way
2,210 0 518 0 0 3,196 5,924
Biscayne Beach
from Hawthorne Avenue to Crespi Boulevard and from 77th
Street to 86th Street 779 0 0 0 0 314 1,093
Normandy Shores
along S Shore Drive from N Shore Drive to Ray Street 167 0 0 0 0 234 401
Normandy Isle
The area encompassed by Bay Drive, Calais Drive, and
Marseille Drive 1,764 0 73 0 0 1,787 3,624
Total Parking Spaces Supplied by Facility Type 5,678 0 1,267 428 11 13,475 20,859
Note: The City does not own or operate any garages within the North Beach region
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
55
Table 12: Existing North Beach Parking Demand (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis)
North Beach Areas
Maximum Observed Occupancy
On-Street
Off-Street
Total City-Owned
Garages
City-Owned
Surface Lots
Privately-Owned
Public Garages
Privately-Owned
Public Surface
Lots
Private
Parking
Town Center
from SR 907/63rd Street to 72nd Street, up Abbott Avenue to
73rd Street, up SR A1A/Collins Avenue to 75th Street and from
Bonita Drive to Atlantic Way
94% - 84% 36% 91% 93% 90%
North Shore
from the upper limits of the Town Center area to the City
boundary with Surfside and from Tatum Waterway Drive/ Byron
Avenue to Atlantic Way
92% - 64% - - 55% 69%
Biscayne Beach
from Hawthorne Avenue to Crespi Boulevard and from 77th
Street to 86th Street 79% - - - - 67% 75%
Normandy Shores
along S Shore Drive from N Shore Drive to Ray Street 84% - - - - 98% 92%
Normandy Isle
The area encompassed by Bay Drive, Calais Drive, and
Marseille Drive 89% - 62% - - 69% 76%
Average Parking Demand by Facility Type 88% - 70% 36% 91% 76%
Note: Maximum observed occupancy may have occurred on a weekday at 11:00 AM, 2:00 PM, or 7:00 PM or Saturday at either 12:00 PM, 4:00 PM, or 9:00 PM
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
56
Table 13: South Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities
Type of Facility ID Location Spaces
Surface Lot
P1 South Pointe Park 215
P2 South Pointe Drive & Ocean Drive 62
P3 Washington & Commerce 12
P4 1 Street & Washington Avenue 30
P5 4 Street & Alton Road 23
P9 11 Street & Jefferson Avenue 120
P10 15 Street & Michigan Ave (Softball
Lot) 134
P11 6 Street & Meridian Avenue 25
P12 9 Street & Washington Avenue 24
P13 10 Street & Washington Avenue 30
P14 6 Street & Collins Avenue 34
P15 10 Street & Collins Avenue 33
P16 13 Street & Collins Avenue - West
Side 55
P18 Lincoln Lane S & Meridian Avenue 40
P19 Lincoln Lane S & Jefferson Avenue -
East Side 21
P20 Lincoln Lane S & Jefferson Avenue -
West Side 62
P21 Lincoln Lane S & Michigan Avenue 19
P22 Lincoln Lane S & Lenox Avenue 18
P23 16 Street & West Avenue 31
P24 17 Street & West Avenue (Epicure) 71
P25 Lincoln Lane N & Lenox Avenue -
West Side 86
P26 Lincoln Lane N & Lenox Avenue -
East Side 107
P27 Lincoln Lane N & Meridian Avenue 144
P28 Lincoln Lane N & Pennsylvania
Avenue 195
P29 17 Street & Convention Center Drive 160
P32 18 Street & Meridian Avenue 886
P33 19 Street & Meridian Avenue
(Holocaust) 26
P46 18 Street & Purdy Avenue 41
P48 21 Street & Park Avenue 15
P49 21 Street & Collins Avenue 202
P51 23 Street & Liberty Avenue - East
Side 20
P52 23 Street & Liberty Avenue - West
Side 35
Garage
G1 7 Street & Collins Avenue 646
G2 12 Street & Drexel Avenue 134
G3 13 Street & Collins Avenue 286
G4 16 Street & Collins Avenue 803
G5 17 Street & Pennsylvania Avenue 1460
G7 City Hall (18 Street & Meridian) 650
G8 5 Street & Alton Road 500
G9 Pennsylvania Avenue (17 Street) 550
G10 19 Street & Bay Road 431
Table 14: Middle Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities
Type of Facility ID Location Spaces
Surface Lot
P55 27 Street & Collins Avenue 121
P56 34 Street & Collins Avenue 62
P57 35 Street & Collins Avenue 72
P58 40 Street & Royal Palm Avenue 43
P59 40 Street & Prairie Avenue 70
P60 40 Street & Chase Avenue 80
P61 41 Street & Alton Road 41
P62 42 Street & Jefferson Avenue 30
P63 42 Street & Royal Palm Avenue 194
P64 47 Street & Pine Tree Drive 17
P71 46 Street & Collins Avenue 426
P72 53 Street & Collins Avenue 159
Garage G6 42 Street & Sheridan Avenue 620
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
57
Table 15: North Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities
Type of Facility ID Location Spaces
Surface Lot
P81 64 Street & Collins Avenue 65
P82 65 Street & Indian Creek ( Marina) 52
P83 69 Street & Harding Avenue - East
Side 35
P80 71 Street & Byron Avenue 30
P84 71 Street & Harding Avenue- West
Side 51
P85 71 Street & Carlyle Avenue - South
Side 15
P86 71 Street & Bonita Drive - South Side 34
P87 71 Street & Bay Drive - South Side 35
P88 Normandy Drive & Rue Versailles 23
P89 Normandy Drive & Bay Drive - North
Side 31
P90 71 Street & Bonita Drive - North Side 18
P91 72 Street & Carlyle Avenue 51
P92 72 Street & Collins Avenue 320
P93 73 Street & Dickens Avenue 18
P106 75 Street & Collins Avenue 110
P107 79 Street & Collins Avenue 47
P108 80 Street & Collins Avenue 54
P109 83 Street & Collins Avenue 105
P110 85 Street & Abbott Avenue 12
P111 84 Street & Collins Avenue 65
P112 87 Street & Collins Avenue 15
Table 16: City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities Summary
Region Total Parking
Facilities By Type of Facility Parking
Spaces
South Beach 41 32 Surface Lots & 9 Parking
Garages 5495
Middle Beach 13 12 Surface Lots & 1 Parking
Garage 1935
North Beach 21 21 Surface Lots & 0 Parking
Garages 1186
City-Wide Total 75 65 Surface Lots & 10
Parking Garages 8616
The City owns a total of 10 parking garages and 65 parking surface lots
with 6,080 and 2,536 parking spaces, respectively. Garages and
surface lots are off-street parking facilities which have advantages and
disadvantages as compared to on-street parking. As mentioned
previously, parking is a context sensitive/land-use dependent
investment, where a specific land-use requires a certain amount of
parking spaces and a user’s willingness to park changes per the
environmental context of where the parking space is located. A parking
garage concentrates multiple parking spaces into one location allowing
for appropriate parking supply within a small footprint. Notice that out of
the TOTAL 8616 OFF -STREET PARKING SPACE S provided by the
City, 70% ARE PROVIDED WIT HIN T EN (10) GARAGES .
EXISTING CONDITIONS - PARKING
58
Figure 17: Existing City-Wide Off-Street Parking Facilities
Existing Parking Garage
Existing Surface Lot
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
59
F R E I G H T
Figure 18: Existing Citywide Truck Volumes
Figure 19: SR 195/Julia Tuttle Causeway SIS Corridor
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
60
Existing Loading Zones
Most of the loading zones throughout the City follow the County’s Code
for curb loading zones which allows for significant flexibility in the types
of vehicles that could use these zones and which are enforced from
7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Under the Count’s Code, the stops for loading and
unloading activities are restricted to twenty (20) minutes except in
specially marked “parcel truck” loading zones where the activity may
last up to one (1) hour.
In an effort to improve the efficiency of the loading zones, the City
began the Freight and Alley Loading Zones Parking Permit Program on
July 1st, 2014, with the purpose of facilitating loading/unloading
activities of larger trucks. This current program was developed through
the analysis of loading zone regulations in nine (9) other cities
throughout the United States which included Chicago, Houston, New
York, Orlando, Pensacola, Portland (Oregon), Salt Lake City, San Jose,
and Seattle. Taking into account the adjustments and expansions of
this program that occurred on February 10, 2015, this TMP aims to
review the existing freight and alley loading zone program and delivery
management policies to understand the overall existing transportation
network.
As defined in the City’s Ordinance No. 2014-3873, Freight Loading
Zones (FLZ) are on-street parking spaces exclusively reserved for
commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight (GVW) greater
than 10,000 lbs., designed to transport more than 15 passengers,
and/or is used in the transportation of hazardous materials during
specific hours of operation. In order for a commercial motor vehicle to
be able to use a FLZ it must be registered and permitted at the City’s
Service Center. Frequent FLZ users may purchase an annual or semi-
annual permit with costs of $364 or $182, respectively; while infrequent
users may simply pay for parking at pay stations via the ParkMobile
application each time they park. A fleet permit for up to five (5) vehicles
may also be purchased by permit holders with fleet(s) over ten (10)
vehicles at an annual cost of $1,500 or semi-annual cost of $750. All
permits are non-transferable between vehicles or permit holders,
however, for every five (5) non-transferable fleet permits; one (1) is a
transferable permit that may be used on other qualifying vehicles within
the same fleet.
FLZ comprise up to FOUR (4) CONTIGUOUS PARKING SPACES ,
typically totaling 110 feet in length, with two (2) additional honored
parking spaces when the provided four (4) parking spaces are occupied
(the two (2) honored parking spaces are free of charge during the hours
of operation of the FLZ for commercial motor vehicles). DELIVE RIES
are prohibited from 8:00 PM to 7:00 AM on most FLZ and ARE
LIMITED TO 30 MINUTE S . Since February 10, 2015 FLZ may be
classified into six (6) different “types” which are as follows:
FLZ 1: 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM [11
hours]
FLZ 2: 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM [6
hours]
FLZ 3: 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM [8
hours]
FLZ 4: 7:00 AM to 11:00 AM
[4 hours]
FLZ 5: 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM and 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM [10
hours]
FLZ 6: 7:00 AM to 1:00 PM and 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM
[8 hours]
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
61
Within the same ordinance, Alley Loading Zones (ALZ) are defined as
designated City owned alleyways with sufficient right-of-way (ROW) for
loading, unloading, and parking for all other commercial vehicles that
do not qualify as commercial motor vehicles (as previously described).
Commercial vehicles wanting to use ALZ will also have to be registered
and permitted by the City. Annual permit fees cost $182.00 for each
vehicle while semi-annual permit fees cost $91.00. Fleet permits may
also be purchased for permit holders with ten (10) or more vehicles at
fees of $750 or $375 per vehicle for an annual or semi-annual basis,
respectively. ALZ may usually be found on alleyways estimated to be
less than or equal to 300 feet (which would accommodate
approximately 13 parking spaces) without pavement markings or
defined parking spaces. DELIVERIES ON ALZ may only be performed
from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM for a MAXIMUM OF 20 MINUTE S ; hence,
ALZ may only be classified into one (1) “type” as follows:
ALZ: 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM [13
hours]
The City’s 2015 Freight Loading Zone (FLZ) Adjustments/Expansion
Letter to Commission (No. 059-2015) includes four (4) maps that depict
the existing FLZ and ALZ in South Beach. These maps are displayed
on Figures 21 through 24. The zones are located around four (4)
critical north-south roadways: West Avenue, Alton Road, Washington
Avenue, and Collins Avenue (Collins Park); and Lincoln Road. Table 17
includes an inventory of the existing amount of FLZ and ALZ within
South Beach as well as the number of public parking spaces they
occupy.
Table 17: Existing FLZs and ALZs Inventory
FLZA Total Existing Zones 78
Total Occupied On-Street Parking
Spaces 341
Total Zones within Main Roadways 16
Total Occupied On-Street Parking
Spaces within Main Roadways 58
ALZA
Total Existing Zones 24
Approximate Equivalent Occupied
Parking Spaces 387B
A Excluding Middle and North Beach FLZ B Assuming parallel on-street parking spaces of 22 feet in length
Existing FLZ and ALZ have only been established on South Beach and
many commercial and transient residencies (hotels, motels, etc.)
outside of South Beach do not benefit from the new loading zone
policies. The City is currently undertaking the task to examine existing
curb loading zones on North and Middle Beach, which currently follow
Miami-Dade County’s loading zone policies, in order to upgrade or
reclassify them as either FLZ or ALZ.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
62
Figures 25 through 27 illustrate all the loading zones within the three
regions of the City, including previously established curb loading zones
and future FLZs/ALZs. Table 18 includes an inventory, per region, of
the total amount of commercial loading zones still enforced within the
City. These curb loading zones usually constitute of one or two parking
spaces within a parking lane.
Table 18: Existing Curb Loading Zones Inventory
South Beach 73
Middle Beach 22
North Beach 25
Figure 20: Sample FLZ and ALZ Posted Regulations
Figure 21: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Collins Avenue
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
63
Figure 22: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Washington Avenue
Figure 23: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Alton Road and West Avenue
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
64
Figure 24: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Lincoln Road
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
65
Figure 25: Existing Loading Zones on South Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
66
Figure 26: Existing Loading Zones on Middle Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
67
Figure 27: Existing Loading Zones on North Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS - FREIGHT
68
The MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT throughout
the City, and the daily delivery of goods,
needs to LINK STRONGLY TO the
environment surrounding the roadways. The
7.7 square miles of City land predominately
consist of residential LAND USE . However,
freight movement is mostly needed by
commercial, office/governmental, and
transient residential (hotels, motels, etc.)
land uses. These commercial and transit
residential land uses compose about 3.5%
and 3%, respectively, of all of the developed
land within the City; with 325 upcoming
developments as of the year 2015. As shown
on Figure 28, most of the commercial land
use within the City is concentrated in South
Beach. The transient residential properties
however, are spread from south to north
throughout the eastern coast of the City, as
portrayed on Figure 29. With most of the
FREIGHT ENTERING THE CITY through
the major causeways ON THE WEST ,
especially along I-195/Julia Tuttle Causeway
which is part of the FDOT Strategic
Intermodal System (SIS), it is crucial to
provide GOOD MOBILITY AND
ACCESSIBILITY for these goods to
efficiently reach their destinations and exit
the City with the LEAST IMPACTS TO THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWO RK.
Figure 28: Existing Commercial Land Use
within City
Figure 29: Existing Transient Residential Land
Use within City
EXISTING CONDITIONS - POLICIES
69
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N P O L I C I E S
The City of Miami Beach currently has OUTSTANDING
TRANSPORTATION POLIC IES that encourage the development of a
sustainable, efficient, and attractive transportation system. POLICIES
ARE consciously and carefully crafted SYSTEMS OF PRINCIPLE S
that help guide decisions and decision makers to achieve desired goals
and milestones. Through adopting transportation policies, it is the
CITY’S GOAL to provide, maintain, and improve a SUSTAINABLE,
SAFE, CONVENIENT, AN D ENERGY EFFICIENT MULTI -MODAL
TRANSPORTATION SYSTE M. Multi-modal transportation systems
are characterized by having several modes of transportation actively
being used by citizens in order to TAKE ADVANTAGE OF TH E
UNIQUE BENEFITS INHE RENT TO DISTINCT MOD ES OF
TRANSPORTATION . Recognizing the benefits of a complete multi-
modal transportation system the City updated the Transportation
Element of its 2025 Comprehensive Master Plan on November 2009 in
order to provide the current outstanding transportation policies. This
TMP aims at reviewing the existing policies in order to reiterate positive
solutions to current needs and as a measure of ensuring transportation
challenges are resolved.
Transportation Element
The City’s current Transportation Element is focused on the mobility of
people and goods, not merely vehicles. Coordinated with the City’s
Land Use Element, the Transportation Element recognizes and
promotes alternative modes of transportation including public transit,
bicycle, and pedestrians as well as acknowledging the need for parking
and freight sustainability. By balancing the City’s current and future
needs, the different policies found within this element ensure the
economic vitality of businesses within Miami Beach, enhances the
quality of life of the City’s residents, and employs environmentally
friendly growth management principles. The eleven (11) objectives
under which policies have been adopted within the current
Transportation Element are summarized below. For detailed policy
descriptions please refer to the Transportation Element within the 2025
Comprehensive Master Plan.
1. Level of Service
The City shall provide a safe, convenient, balanced, efficient,
and effective multi-modal transportation system with a Level of
Service (LOS) for multiple transportation modes.
2. Coordinate With Land Use
The City shall evaluate its transportation system as it relates to
the land use element of this comprehensive plan in an effort to
encourage commercial development which is mixed use, multi-
modal in nature and which ultimately enhances mobility.
3. Roadway Planning, Design, and Construction
The City shall continue to provide for a safe, convenient,
efficient, and effective transportation system, which sustains the
City’s natural, aesthetics, social, and economic resources.
4. Mass Transit
The City shall work with transportation partners, specifically
Miami-Dade Transit (MDT), to provide residents and visitors
with an efficient public mass transportation system.
5. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYC LE CIRCULATION
The City shall strive to increase and promote the safe and
convenient use of its bicycle and pedestrian networks including
the creation, extension, and improvements of bicycle and
EXISTING CONDITIONS - POLICIES
70
pedestrian facilities between and among present and potential
major generators of bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
6. MULTI -MODAL TRANSPORTATION
The City shall continue to support and promote multiple modes
of transportation by considering Transportation Demand
Management (TDM), Transportation Systems Management
(TSM), and other techniques.
7. ENHANCE, PROTECT, AN D PRESERVE THE CITY’S
NEIGHBORHOODS
The City shall provide a safe and attractive transportation
system throughout the City that meets the needs of the users of
the rights-of-way, the neighborhoods, the neighboring
communities, and the environment.
8. PARKING
The City shall provide clean, safe, and affordable parking, by
continuing to explore and implement creative and
technologically advanced methods of parking provisions and
management to satisfy the need.
9. TRANSPORTATION CONCU RRENCY MANAGEMENT
AREAS (TCMA)
The City shall maintain the South Beach, Middle Beach, and
North Beach Transportation Concurrency Management Areas
(TCMAs) within its boundaries. Within these areas, increased
multi-modal mobility options will be pursued and redevelopment
efforts will be focused.
10. TRANSPORTATION COORD INATION WITH OTHER
JUR ISDICTIONS
Transportation efforts in the City will be coordinated with the
plans and programs of other state and local jurisdictions
including; the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO), the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT),
Miami-Dade County Public Works (MDCPW), MDT, and other
local jurisdictions.
11. HURRICANE EVACUATION
The City shall address hurricane evacuation within its
jurisdiction by coordinating with responsible agencies including
the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Miami-Dade
County Office of Emergency Management, South Florida
Regional Planning Council, and MDT.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - POLICIES
71
Concurrency Management
Out of the eleven (11) objectives described within the City’s
Transportation Element, a critical objective for developing a truly
efficient and multi-modal transportation system is the successful
implementation of TMCAs (Objective 9). Concurrency measures the
rate of transportation infrastructure development relative to the rate of
land use development. It is essentially a measure of how much
transportation capacity is supplied through the roadway network
infrastructure versus how much capacity is demanded by the land
development; A CONCURRENCY SYSTEM HELPS state
governments and municipalities to SUSTAIN TRANSPO RTATION
NETWORKS that are developed ahead of or CONCURRENT WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF I TS SURROUNDING LAND .
The State of Florida’s transportation concurrency requirements ensure
that local governments provide proper consideration to state resources
and facilities as well as local ones. These requirements establish that
local governments define Level of Service (LOS) thresholds for the
transportation network, to determine whether new developments can be
accommodated by the existing and planned roadway infrastructure.
Concurrency became a requirement by the State of Florida through its
1985 Growth Management Act and since then it has evolved to
promote, and better accommodate, growth in urban areas where the
option of widening roadways is very constrained. The Act was revised
various times to become more flexible and provide concurrency
alternatives for local governments with additions like transportation
concurrency management areas and multi-modal transportation
districts. In 2011, the Community Planning Act made transportation
concurrency optional for local governments1. The City of Miami Beach
currently opts for retaining its Concurrency Management System,
created in 1998.
The City’s process for managing transportation concurrency is defined
in the Transportation Element of the 2025 Comprehensive Master Plan
and Chapter 122 of the City’s Municipal Code. The sole purpose of the
process is to ensure that any land development project having the
potential to increase the demand for roadway facilities within the City
will be adequately served in accordance with the establishes levels of
service (LOS).
Within its Transportation Element, the City has established minimum
levels of service criteria, stating that ALL ROADS WITHIN THE CITY
SHALL APPLY TO THE F OLLOWING L EVEL OF SERVICE
STANDARDS , except Federal Interstate Highway System (FIHS),
Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), and Transportation Regional
Incentive Program (TRIP), which shall be subject to Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) level of service standards.
Local Roads: LOS - D
Collector Roads: LOS - D
Arterial Roads: LOS - D
Limited Access Roads: LOS - D
Additionally, the City has established TCMA s , which, as defined by the
FDOT, are compact geographic areas with an existing network of roads
where multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes are available
for common trips that local governments may establish to promote infill
development and redevelopment.
EXISTING CONDITIONS - POLICIES
72
The Transportation Element dictates that for roadways within these
established TCMAs and for roadways exhibiting certain of the following
characteristics, the following criteria will have to be adhered to:
Where NO MASS TRANSIT service exists, roadways shall
operate at LOS D or above.
Where MASS TRANSIT service having HEADWAYS OF
20 MIN UTES OR LESS is provided within 1/4 mile
distance, parallel roadways shall operate at no greater than
120% of LOS D.
Where EXTRAORDINARY TRANSI T service classified as
Local Circulator or express or peak-hour limited stop bus
service having HEADWAYS OF 10 MINUTES exists,
parallel roadways within 1/4 mile shall operate at no greater
than 150% of LOS D.
As per the Transportation Element, the City’s TCMAs are portrayed on
Figure 30. These are the areas defined by the City where the focus
should be redevelopment efforts and where increased multi-modal
mobility options should be pursued. Furthermore, Policy 9.1 of the
Element provides tables with specific limits for certain roadways within
the TMCAs of South Beach, Middle Beach, and North Beach which will
have their service volumes averaged at the approved LOS levels, as
the calculation of area-wide capacity.
Lastly, Policy 9.8 of the Transportation Element dictates that all
MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS within the City’s TCMAs shall submit a
Transportation Mitigation Plan which will include STRATEGIES TO
MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE SIT E , and will
encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation.
Figure 30: City Transportation Currency Management Areas (TCMAs)
By creating these three sub-sections, the City is able to manage and
allocated collected mitigation fees to the respective area in an efficient
manner that allows for different area-wide level of service standards
and funding for context-sensitive solutions. The concurrency fees
currently charged within each of the three TCMAs are shown on Table
19.
Table 19: Existing City TCMAs Concurrency Fees
EXISTING CONDITIONS - POLICIES
73
TCMAs Mitigation Fees
South Beach $2,016 per Vehicular Trip
Middle Beach $2,783 per Vehicular Trip
North Beach $1,841 per Vehicular Trip
While the existing defined TCMAs span throughout the vast majority of
the City limits, and while the current Concurrency Management Plan
proposes to educate the development community to encourage
appropriate TSM and TDM strategies that improve the mobility system’s
efficiency, effectiveness, and safety; it is not realizing its intended
purpose to its full potential because of one particular reason:
According to Policy 9.8, only new major developments (those
projects over 50,000 gross sq. ft. and/or projects that increase
the number of trips over 100 peak hour trips) are required to
submit a Transportation Mitigation Plan, which is a TRAFFIC
IMPACT STUDY that includes proposed strategies to mitigate
the traffic generated by the site and encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation.
This simply means that the impacts from any proposed developments
with a gross area smaller than 50,000 sq. ft. are not measured until
culminating stages of the development process or even worse, go
unaccounted for.
The mitigation fees shown on Table 19 are used by the City to
implement specific roadway or geometric improvements in the general
area of the proposed development to maintain appropriate service
levels. As per the City’s adopted LOS and capacity standards, 10
roadway segments currently exhibit unacceptable LOS (i.e. LOS E or
F), six (6) of which have no remaining capacity; and as per forecasted
volumes in the Automobiles section of this TMP, the number of
segments with unacceptable LOS will increase to 15. With only 10
major corridors within the City, this indicates that most, if not all, of the
City’s major roadways are or will be operating at vehicular capacity or
above. It is no coincidence that these roadway segments are major
arterials or collectors such as Alton Road, which are usually the
roadways which carry the most traffic.
Mitigation fees must serve not only to provide for roadway capacity
improvements but also to provide for alternative multi-modal
improvements; and more importantly, they should apply to most, if not
all, proposed developments or redevelopments within the City’s
TCMAs.
The reality of MITIGATION FEES is that they PROVIDED A DUAL
BENEFIT for the City:
1. They require a traffic impact study to be performed which
identifies critical intersections and transportation capacity issues
consequently allowing for constant updates of the available
transportation network data, and
2. They increase the monetary capacity of the City to implement
necessary improvements on the identified impacted locations.
However, there may be a case in which the City already has identified
capacity issues through other transportation efforts and instead needs
monetary backup to implement proposed improvements for said issues
in a timely manner. Since traffic impact studies and mitigation fees are
codependent and require time to be assessed and completed, it may be
more beneficial for the City to provide other methods of complying with
transportation concurrency.
Multi-Modal Concurrency
The City is currently taking steps toward the reevaluation of their
current methodology that developments have to follow when required to
EXISTING CONDITIONS - POLICIES
74
perform a Neighborhood Traffic Impact Study. To evaluate the
effectiveness of current concurrency fees and how they are invested in
mitigation improvements, the City may evaluate its Concurrency
Management System according to the Miami-Dade Metropolitan
Planning Organization’s (MPO) Evaluation of Current Methodology to
Determine Traffic Concurrency study published in February 2013. In
this document, the MPO presents alternative approaches to the existing
concurrency programs and impact fee structures within Miami-Dade
County in order to that take into consideration multi-modal
transportation options and different land use patterns based on density
and intensity. Because the CURRENT CONCURRENCY
METHODOLOGY FOCUSES ON DETERMINING TRAFF IC
IMPACTS on the nearest roadway(s) of a subject
development/redevelopment and how it is accessed instead of focusing
on a more comprehensive review of the overall transportation network
and how that development affects it, incentives to provided transit-
oriented developments, multi-modal developments, or develop Urban
Infill Areas (UIA) are not effective. Therefore the MPO suggests a
MORE COMPREHENSIVE P ERFORMANCE MEASURE
denominated “PERSON -TRIPS” as opposed to the traditional
vehicular trips considered by traffic impact studies. Person-trips take
into consideration the person-capacity of roadways, meaning that it
counts how many people a roadway may carry depending on the mode
of transportation used. Where an vehicular trip counts a bus trip as a
single trip, a person-trip counts a bus trip as several trips considering
the bus’ headway, seat capacity, and estimated occupancy (e.g. a high
frequency transit line usually has 15‐minute headways and each bus
contains approximately 40 available seats, hence the person‐trips per
hour would be 40 seats x 4 trips per hour x 2 directions = 320 person‐
trips per hour). Person trips may also be an appropriate performance
measure for determining the amount of pedestrian and bicycle trips
created by a development and the capacity of the existing
infrastructure. Therefore, evaluating potentially modifying the City’s
existing concurrency management system to any of the alternatives
presented by the MPO may result in a more accurate concurrency
system that uses the collected fees for appropriate infrastructure
facilities.
Section Sources:
1. FDOT Proportionate Share Calculation Report, 2011
2. FDOT Working with Transportation Concurrency Management Systems, 2006
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
75
E X I S T I N G M O D E S H A R E
According to the latest City of Miami Beach Environmental Scan
(CMBES), performed for the period of 2013-2014, after having
decreased since the 1980s, the City’s residential population has been
steadily growing since 2006. As of 2013, the City houses approximately
90,600 RESIDENTS . While the needs of the residents come first,
they are only part of the story, as the City experiences gradually
increasing DAILY POPULATION numbers reaching around 206,000
INDIVIDUALS . Along with the portion of the residents who stay to work
at the City, the CMBES includes in this daily population non-resident
workers, hotel guests, “other” tourists, non-tourist City visitors, and
“other” day trippers.
In the year 2009, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carried
out a National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) and developed a
report summarizing national travel trends. The document states that the
average number of daily trips per person is approximately 3.8. When
taking into account the 206,000 individuals within the City on any given
day, this translates to nearly 782,800 DAILY TRIPS to, from, and/or
within the barrier island. Additionally, in association with all the states,
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) produces special census products and data tabulations for
transportation to facilitate the understanding of characteristics regarding
where people live and work, their journey to work commuting patterns
and the travel modes they use for getting to work3. The following mode
share data were obtained from these AASHTO planning tools and is
pertinent to the modes of transportation City residents use to get
to/from work every day (see Figure 31). Additionally, the same data
was obtained for the entire Miami-Dade County and for other cities to
provide comparative measures for the City’s current modal split (see
Figure 32).
Figure 31: City of Miami Beach Residents Mode to Work
Figure 32: Miami-Dade County and Other Cities Residents Mode
to Work
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
76
When comparing the City’s current percentages to the other cases,
while a bit far from the New York City numbers which has been and
currently is the first in the country on transit usage, Miami Beach is
currently achieving numbers in the vicinity of Vancouver, British
Columbia, one of the most multi-modal cities in North America. The
magnitude if the City’s numbers for “other” should not be a surprise, as
this category encompasses mopeds, scooters, motorcycles, taxis, etc.;
modes which are widely known to be used throughout Miami Beach.
As previously mentioned, the residential modal split only tells a portion
of the story, as TRAVEL TO AND FROM T HE WORK PLACE
accounts for ONLY 16 PERCENT OF A LL PERSON TRIPS 2. This
means that around 657,552 daily trips need to be placed in the context
of mode share to comprehensively assess the traveling characteristics
of most, if not all, of the City’s daily population.
According to the NHTS, at 42 percent of the total daily trips, the reason
why most people travel on a daily basis is for family and personal
errands. Second to this, is traveling for social and recreational purposes
at 27 percent (see Table 20).
Table 20: Total Daily Person Trips by Purpose1
Trip Purpose Person Trips
(Millions) Percent
To/From Work 61,214 16%
Work-Related Business 11,943 3%
Family/Personal Errands 166,535 42%
School or Church 37,676 10%
Social and Recreational 107,722 27%
Other 6,933 2%
Total 392,023 100%
Family/Personal Errands trips include the following1:
Medical/dental services, shopping/errands, buy goods, buy services,
buy gas, attend funeral/wedding, use personal services, pet care,
attend meeting, family personal business/obligations, pick up someone,
take and wait, drop someone off, transport someone.
Social and Recreational trips include the following1:
Going to the gym/exercise/play sports, rest or relaxation/vacation, visit
friends/relatives, go out/hang out, visit public place, get/eat meal,
coffee/ice cream/snacks, meals, social event.
The 2012 American Community Survey Three-Year Estimates show
that out of the total residential population, 49,459 ARE CURRENTLY
EMPLOYED . Furthermore, the CMBES indicates that out of these
employed residents, 28,611 LEAVE THE CIT Y TO WORK . The
CMBES displays the following:
Table 21: City of Miami Beach Average Daily Population by Category
Population Category No. of People Percent
Residents 90,588 44%
Seasonal Residents 23,509 11%
Residents leaving for work -28,611 -14%
Non-Resident Workers 33,561 16%
Hotel Guests 25,688 12%
Other Tourists 14,191 7%
Non-Tourist Beach Visitors 32,247 16%
Other Day Trippers 14,742 7%
Daily Population 205,915 100%
The data show that whether, leaving, entering, or staying within the
City, there are a total of 83,020 PEOPLE TRAVEL ING TO GET TO
AND FROM WORK EVERY DAY .
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
77
Assuming one trip to go to work and another one to return, this
translates to approximately 166,040 daily work commuting trips. These
trips represent 21 percent of the total daily to, from, and within the City
trips and compares closely to the national average of 16 percent.
The following data show the current values for the Annual Average
Daily Traffic (AADT) for the six (6) roads that can be used to enter and
leave the City to and from the North and the West4:
Table 22: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Roads Leaving and
Entering the City4
Roadway AADT
(2014) Percent
I-395/SR A1A/MacArthur
Causeway
90566 31%
Venetian Causeway 5100 2%
I-195/SR 112/Julia Tuttle
Causeway
107473 37%
SR 934/79th Street Causeway 39000 13%
Harding Avenue 26000 9%
SR A1A/Collins Avenue 21500 7%
Total 289639 100%
The AADT percentage splits show, not surprisingly, that travelers are
making their trips to and from the City on the MacArthur Causeway or
Julia Tuttle Causeway. Now, AADT data literally translates into all of the
vehicles passing through a certain point on the roadway. While these
roadways have counts for heavy vehicle volumes (T-factors), these
values only reflect vehicles that have longer distances between axles
than standard personal automobiles but do not differentiate between a
pick-up truck hauling a trailer being driven by one individual and public
bus carrying 30 people.
Transit Mode Split
The task was clearly spelled out by the data gathered until this point:
TO PLAN FOR BETTER transportation ALTERNATIVES for people
accessing, leaving and/or staying within the City, it became CRUCIAL
TO KNOW what the EXISTING SPLIT BETWE EN
TRANSPORTATION MODES was. Given that transit ridership for the
existing routes and their stops was known within the City, data which
can be found within the Transit section of this document; the approach
was to find how the people were entering and leaving the City on their
personal automobile or using public transit. While it is clear that those
two are not the only available modes of transportation, it was assumed
that pedestrian and bicycle trips would be negligible in comparison
when only focusing on trips across the causeways and on the roads
entering and leaving the City on the North.
While gathering all of the relevant data from Miami-Dade Transit (MDT)
was rather time consuming, the methodology for obtaining the transit
mode split on the access roads to and from the City followed a quite
simple approach. First, based on the schedules for each of the routes5,
the number of bus trips was calculated for each of the six (6) City
access roadways. This number of bus trips was then multiplied by the
average load6 for each of the pertaining routes and thus yielding DAILY
TOTALS for the number of PEOPLE CURRENTLY ENT ERING
(16,825) AND LEAVING (15,730) THE CITY BY BUS . The
following table provides a breakdown how these daily totals were
obtained and displays percentages for each of the six (6) roadways.
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
78
Table 23: Daily Transit Trips to and from City by Roadway
City Access Roadway MDT Routes
Entering City Leaving City
Daily No. of
Bus Trips
Average Bus
Load
Person
Trips
Daily No. of
Bus Trips
Average
Bus Load Person Trips
I-395/SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway
103 - C 51 25 1275 52 26 1352
119 - S 89 29 2581 94 26 2444
113 - M 20 13 260 19 15 285
120 70 32 2240 71 28 1988
Subtotal 230 6356 236 6069
Percent 33% 38% 34% 39%
Venetian Causeway 101 - A 14 10 140 14 10 140
Subtotal 14 140 14 140
Percent 2% 1% 2% 1%
I-195/SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway
150 35 18 630 37 18 666
62 63 19 1197 63 19 1197
110 - J 43 22 946 44 16 704
Subtotal 141 2773 144 2567
Percent 21% 16% 21% 16%
SR 934/79th Street Causeway 112 - L 88 30 2640 87 21 1827
79 12 18 216 13 13 169
Subtotal 100 2856 100 1996
Percent 15% 17% 15% 13%
Harding Avenue
119 - S 94 26 2444 - - -
108 - H 38 17 646 - - -
120 70 23 1610 - - -
Subtotal 202 4700 0 0
Percent 29% 28% 0% 0%
SR A1A/Collins Avenue
119 - S - - - 89 28 2492
108 - H - - - 38 17 646
120 - - - 70 26 1820
Subtotal 0 0 197 4958
Percent 0% 0% 29% 32%
Total Directional Daily Trips 687 16825 691 15730
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
79
The data dictates more people are entering the City than leaving on
most of the roadways except for Collins Avenue (See Table 24), which
is expected since routes 119(S) and 120 travel northbound beyond the
City limits and travelers may be using these routes to access
neighboring cities from within Miami Beach and from the mainland.
Also, being the most crucial link between downtown Miami and the City,
it is not surprising that MOST PEOPL E USING TRANSIT TO A CCESS
THE CITY OF MIAMI BE ACH ARE DOING SO ON THE
MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY , with 38 percent of the total person bus
trips entering and 39 percent leaving. Now that the total number of
person trips on buses was obtained, it was time to compare these
values to the total number of person trips (TNPT) entering and leaving
the City (See Figure 33). The TNPT was obtained by multiplying the
AADT values by the national value for vehicle occupancy; which in
theory is a function of both the number of people in a vehicle and the
distance traveled on a trip, is weighted based on the purpose of the trip,
and averages at approximately 1.6 PERSONS PER VEHI CLE1,7 .
Table 24: Bi-Directional Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway
Roadway AADT
(2014)
Total
Daily
Bus
Trips
(2014)
Person Trips
on
Personal
Automobiles
Person
Trips on
Buses
Transit
Mode
Split
I-395/SR
A1A/MacArthur
Causeway
90566 466 144906 12425 8%
Venetian Causeway 5100 28 8160 280 3%
I-195/SR 112/Julia
Tuttle Causeway 107473 285 171957 5340 3%
SR 934/79th Street
Causeway 39000 200 62400 4852 7%
Harding Avenue 26000 202 41600 4700 10%
SR A1A/Collins
Avenue 21500 197 34400 4958 13%
Total 289639 1378 463422 32555 7%
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
80
Figure 33: Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
81
In relation to the total number of daily person trips, Collins Avenue
exhibits the highest percentage of these trips being performed on
transit. As previously mentioned this is expected since Collins Avenue
hosts route 119 (S) which can be used to access other neighboring
cities to the north and is currently the route within and going through the
City with the most ridership. Overall, 7 PERCENT OF ALL DAI LY
PERSON TRIPS TO AND FROM THE CITY ARE PE RFORMED ON
BUS . When considering that this includes not only work trips but all trip
types, from personal errands to social and recreational, it provides a
good starting point to recommend improvements and a to serve as a
future measure for the effectiveness of such improvements.
City Visitors Mode Split
Being that a large number of the City’s daily population consists of
visitors, approximately 42 percent according to the CMBES when
considering everyone who is neither a worker nor resident; data were
gathered from the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
(GMCVB) to find out which modes people are using to visit Miami
Beach. The data collected pertain to overnight and non-overnight
visitors daily trips traveling from Miami International Airport into the City.
At 9 PERCENT for overnight and 12 PERCENT for non-overnight, the
City VISITORS’ TRANSIT MO DE SPLIT compares to that of the
residents (12 percent) as well as the overall split from the daily person
trips to and from the City (7 percent). Once again, these numbers
provide a canvas to recommend better transportation alternatives for
those travelers visiting the City on a daily basis.
Table 25: Overnight Visitors Mode of Transportation to the City
Mode Used Daily Vehicle
Trips
Total Daily
Person Trips
Mode Split
(%)
Car Rental
(Avg. 2.2
persons/vehicle)
3351 7372 44%
Taxi Cabs
(Avg. 1.8
persons/vehicle)
1262 2272 13%
Limousines
(Avg. 2.2
persons/vehicle)
59 130 1%
Airport Flyer (Route
150) N/A 1504 9%
Super Shuttle
(Avg. 1.8
persons/vehicle)
93 167 1%
Private Vehicle
(Avg. 2.2
persons/vehicle)
2447 5383 32%
Total 7212 16828 100%
Table 26: Non-Overnight Visitors Mode of Transportation to the City
Mode Used Daily Vehicle
Trips
Total Daily
Person Trips
Mode Split
(%)
Car Rental
(Avg. 2.2
persons/vehicle)
1795 3949 33%
Taxi Cabs
(Avg. 1.8
persons/vehicle)
1332 2398 20%
Limousines
(Avg. 2.2
persons/vehicle)
0 0 0%
Airport Flyer (Route
150) N/A 1504 12%
Super Shuttle
(Avg. 1.8
persons/vehicle)
0 0 0%
EXISTING CONDITIONS – MODE SHARE
82
Private Vehicle
(Avg. 2.2
persons/vehicle)
1938 4264 35%
Total 5065 12114 100%
EXISTING CONDITIONS – ONGOING EFFORTS
83
O N G O I N G E F F O R T S
Upon completion of a comprehensive data collection effort,
observations and assessment of certain citywide travel patterns, and
existing and forecasted transportation network analysis, ongoing short,
mid and long term improvements to the City’s transportation network
were identified as a means of understanding the current actions taken
to resolve existing transportation issues within the City.
The projects included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program, the
latest Miami-Dade MPO Long Range Plan, and the MPO’s
Transportation Improvements Program were reviewed and examined.
These projects are portrayed in Figures 34 and 35. Aside from these
already defined and funded infrastructure improvements, the City has
been conducting PARALLEL EFFORTS to this TMP in continuous
determination of tackling current transportation needs. These parallel
efforts included the City’s current Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
and Street Design Guides, the Blueways Master Plan, and previously
completed Atlantic Greenway Network Master Plan as well as a number
of short-term improvements. These short-term improvements efforts are
shown on Table 27, and are responsibilities of the City’s Transportation
Department.
Figure 34: City Neighborhood Projects and MPO TIP Projects
EXISTING CONDITIONS – ONGOING EFFORTS
84
Figure 35: Identified MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Projects within the City
EXISTING CONDITIONS – ONGOING EFFORTS
85
Table 27: Current Short-Term Improvements Efforts by the City’s Transportation Department
Project Name Project Limits Description Project Type
Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
Normandy Drive and 71st Street
between E. Bay Drive and W. Bay
Drive
Study looks at implementation of crosswalks in order to improve pedestrian safety along 71
Street/Normandy Drive corridor. Due to high operating speed, large distance between signalized
intersections and lack of crosswalks- pedestrians are at risk.
Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
Collins Avenue between 79 and 87
Street
Request to FDOT to consider installation of signalized pedestrian crosswalk at Collins Avenue/79 Street
(currently no crosswalk) as well as Collins Avenue/83 and Collins Avenue/87 Street (currently unsignalized
crosswalks).
Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Improvements Indian Creek Drive/41 Street Due to roadway geometry, southbound right turns are typically performed at high speed and level of
compliance to pedestrian crossing is very low. Request to FDOT to consider installation of RRFB's. Safety
Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
71 Street between Carlyle and Byron
Avenue
Request to FDOT to consider implementation of crosswalk along 71 Street between Carlyle and Byron
Avenue. Request approved and RRFB's will be installed. Safety
Safety
Improvements Collins Avenue/24 Street
Request sent to FDOT to install speed feedback signs in both southbound and westbound approach of the
curve due to high operating speed through the curve that resulted in a few southbound vehicles running
over the curb and colliding with street furniture. Request approved and currently in design.
Safety
Lane Assignment
Modification Collins Avenue/44 Street Request to FDOT to evaluate current lane assignment at WB approach and consider implementation of
double left turning lanes for final lane assignment to be 2 LTL and 2 RTL. Currently 1 LTL and 3 RTL. Operational
Lane Assignment
Modification Indian Creek Drive/65 Street
Request to MDC to evaluate current lane assignment at WB approach and consider implementation of
double left turning lanes for final lane assignment to be inside lane LTL, outside lane shared LTR. Request
approved.
Operational
Signal Operation
Improvement Collins Avenue/63 Street Request to FDOT to consider installation of loops at EB and NB approaches to Collins Avenue/63 Street
intersection (fully actuated). Signal currently pre-timed, thus hard to coordinate, particularly in EB direction. Operational
Lane Assignment
Modification Collins Avenue/15 Street Request to MDC to evaluate current lane assignment at WB approach and consider implementation of
dedicated right-turn lane. Currently, WB approach has only one shared LTR lane. Operational
Geometry
Improvements Dickens Avenue/71 Street
Request to MDC to evaluate implementation of dedicated right turn lane on the north leg of Dickens
Avenue/71 Street intersection that will begin at the south crosswalk of the intersection of Dickens Avenue
and 72 Street. This effort will require reduction of current tra vel lane width. Proposed new lane width would
be 10 feet for southbound through and dedicated right turn lane as well as for northbound through lane.
Bicycle lanes could be kept and bicycle lane width would be 4 feet for a total of 38 feet of available
roadway width. Aforementioned proposed geometry improvement would provide more storage for the
vehicles along Dickens Avenue between 72 Street and 71 Street and would reduce number of conflicts
and delays that are currently occurring due to conflicts between southbound through and right turning
vehicles. The improvement is expected to increase throughput and level of service for the southbound
approach as well as intersection as whole. Negative response so far.
Operational
MODEPRIORITIZATI
ON
MODE PRIORITIZATION
87
4. MODE PRIORITIZATION
Arriving to and leaving the City are the first and last steps of a person’s journey within Miami Beach. What happens inside the City is as important, if
not more, as accessing it. PROVIDING BETTER TRAVEL CHOICE S TO MOVE AROUND THE CITY IS CRUCIAL for the wellbeing of those who
live, work and play in the historic and vibrant environment that is Miami Beach. Although the City residents are leaps and bounds ahead of the entire
County when relying on modes other than the personal automobile, the same mindset needs to translate across the entire daily population. Priorities
need to be reconsidered and a shift in the transportation paradigm should begin to take place.
In order to change the way we TRAVEL...
…We need to PRIORITIZE for better alternatives
MODE PRIORITIZATION – COMMUNITY OUTREACH
88
C O M M U N I T Y O U T R E A C H
Public observations and sentiment are critical for the success of a Transportation Master plan. With that in mind, the City of Miami Beach hosted two
public workshops, on June 16, 2015 and on January 19, 2016, to gather AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE . These presentations took place at
progressive stages of this effort and consisted of three sections: Presentation, Question & Answer, and Assessment & Feedback exercise. To further
encourage individuals to voice their opinions, comment cards were also developed and distributed during the workshops. These meetings lasted over
three hours with a very healthy dialogue between City officials and residents. A number of issues where brought up from various neighborhoods within
the City. A list of these poignant comments can be found on the following pages.
Presentation Question and Answer Assessment & Feedback
PUBLIC WORKSHOP PRESENTATION STRUCTURE
MODE PRIORITIZATION – COMMUNITY OUTREACH
89
Figure 36: City Staff Presenting at the Public Workshop
Public Feedback
The follow are questions and observations made by City residents
during the question and answer session:
1. Question: Connecting the dots: How is the mainland being
connected to the City?
2. Observation: The mode split for tourists has to be
obtained: People that drive to the beach from Orlando stay at the
Beach.
3. Observation: Consider bike/walk to school
accommodations. Crossings to get to the schools should be safe.
Consider obtaining data from the schools about residents with
areas of where students are coming from and to the school. It
would be great if the best route for students to travel to school
safely was established.
Figure 37: Public Polling on Proposed Improvements
4. Question: Are there any plans to address safe crossing for
bike /pedestrian on causeways?
5. Observation: We do not have the infrastructure of New
York to be comparing our numbers to them. Penalize cars that
come into the City (congestion pricing).
6. Observation: Turning Washington into a single lane of
traffic in each direction may not function because now you’re
eliminating one lane of traffic and have the same traffic volume.
7. Question: The City is a barrier island and more development
is not a good thing. What is being done about emergency
vehicles? Also can we provide incentives for hotel guests not to
use cars?
MODE PRIORITIZATION – COMMUNITY OUTREACH
90
8. Observation: Consider diverting some of the traffic from
the major roads onto parallel minor roads.
9. Question: What is being done about the Watson Island
development and is the traffic generated from it going to affect the
City’s traffic?
10. Observation: Transit lanes on Washington or anywhere
within the Beach would need enforcement. Make sure there is
enough budget for that.
11. Observation: The residents are tired of construction and so
make sure that upcoming planned projects are phased to
minimize disruption.
12. Observation: Also provide service similar to the Bus Route
150 to and from the airport but along Alton Rd or West Avenue or
on the west.
13. Question: Why are there light rail connections on the
MacArthur Causeway? Why not on I-195, which is in the middle of
the City?
14. Observation: The scheduling of the MDT buses is not
coordinated and the trip from the Beach to the mainland takes too
much time.
15. Observation: Synchronization of traffic lights is poor,
especially when trying to travel on the roadways on bike.
16. Observation: Public opinion of the residents should be
obtained to know what they really want. Perhaps that includes
bringing Metrorail or light rail to the city.
17. Question: There is a missing piece of the beach walk, when
will the construction of that take place?
MODE PRIORITIZATION – COMMUNITY OUTREACH
91
Network Evaluation (Public Input Results)
After the presentation and a session of questions and answers, the
attendees were requested to give their impression on the proposed
TRANSIT AND BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN NETWORKS . Each
attendee was given green and red dots to place upon multiple boards
which were set up in the meeting room of the two networks.
GREEN DOT – Represents initiatives being proposed on the
two networks which are approved by the public attendees.
RED DOT – Represents initiatives being proposed on the two
networks which are disapproved by the public attendees
In a post meeting discussion, it was concluded that the public was
dealing with graphics which were not entirely clear to them. This
conclusion is made due to the placement of dots at particular locations.
Such as red dots clustered on the Bike/Ped corridor proposed on the
Julia Tuttle Causeway. Even though there were a number of individuals
requesting safe passage for non-motor vehicle means of passage. Its
theorized that these red dot placements were done assuming a
Bike/Ped corridor would be developed there under current conditions.
Conditions, which all present at the public workshop agreed, are
unsafe.
These boards would be modified to show proposed design alterations
to the current roadway conditions to create efficient and safe
environments for various modes of travel, including Pedestrians and
Bicyclists. Figures 38 and 39 display public input on the proposed
pedestrian and bicycle network and transit network, respectively.
Figure 38: Public Input on Proposed Transit Corridors
MODE PRIORITIZATION – COMMUNITY OUTREACH
92
Figure 39: Public Input on Proposed Transit Corridors
Comment Cards
As previously mentioned comment cards were distributed to all
individuals attending the public workshop. In any group situation there
are people that have vital information that they could share yet feel
hesitant to speak up in front of others. These cards are meant to
capture those notes of information which would otherwise go unheard.
Comment cards were provided in both English and Spanish. Figure 40
shows the template for the bilingual comment cards that were provided
to the public.
Figure 40: Public Workshop Comment Cards Template
MODE PRIORITIZATION – COMMUNITY OUTREACH
93
The follow are examples of the filled out comment cards received from
the public at the end of the meeting:
Figure 41: Public Workshop Sample Comment Cards Feedback
Figure 42: Public Workshop Sample Comment Cards Feedback
MODE PRIORITIZATION – MODAL HIERARCHY
94
M O D E P R I O R I T Y
When developing the mode priority for the City, examining case studies
and listening to the residents was crucial. For example, the focus
portrayed by the residents made it clear they had three over-arching
topics ever present in their minds: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY,
MITIGATING TR AFFIC WITHIN THE CITY AND ALTERNATIVE
FORMS OF TRANSPORTAT ION . It was enlightening and vindicating
at the same time.
It was also clear to all involved in developing this transportation master
plan that there is prevalent trends in the future ambitions of other cities.
Vancouver, for example, is reaching for a concerted effort to reduce the
number of private vehicles used on a daily basis within their city. As
well as pushing for a dramatic increase of bicycle and pedestrian trips
to further increase the health of the city and a reduction of traffic
inducing vehicles.
And so these valuable nodes of information and perspective the City
Commission was presented with a potential mode hierarchy in relation
to how transportation alternatives should be prioritized on all of the
roadways accessing and within the City.
Figure 43: City Commission Endorsed Transportation Mode Hierarchy
While pedestrian trips are the shortest of them all, every single person
trip begins and ends with a pedestrian trip. We are all pedestrians
during some period of the day, and no matter the time, OUR SAFETY
IS ABOVE ALL . Therefore, it is only logical for PEDESTRIANS to be
the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY within the City as well as entering and
leaving it. This essentially means that no transportation project should
be planned or constructed, without fist considering all possible
improvements for pedestrian facilities. Transit, bicyclists, and freight will
be prioritized secondly, and will be on equal planes depending on the
type of roadway: transit will be prioritized first on major arterial
roadways where its potential benefits are the highest and bicyclists will
be prioritized first on all other roadways to create an interconnected
network where bicycling can serve as a reliable mode of travel for all
users at all times. Freight will be prioritized for specific areas of the City
and on a case by case study.
FOLLOW ING THE PRESENTATION OF THE SUPPORTING DATA,
THE CITY COMMISSIONE RS ENDORSED THE PROP OSED MODE
HIERARCHY. The proposed mode hierarchy was later adopted by the
City Commissioners in July 2015.
95
2035 MODE
SHAREVISION
MODE SHARE VISION
96
5. TRANSPORTATION MODE
SHARE 2035 VISION
Upon completion of a broad analysis of the available information on
existing travel choices and patterns, and upon endorsement of modal
priorities from City officials; a vision had to be set. A VISION that would
be AN ANCHOR TO STEER T HE CITY’S DE CISIONS , and
constantly would serve as an encouraging reminder of the
INTERCONNECTED MULTI -MODAL NETWORK the City wants to
have by the year 2035. This vision will help focus the upcoming
changes to transportation infrastructure, making it a more
APPEALING, RELIABLE, AND SAFE E NVIRONMENT FOR ALL
TRAVELERS . The vision for the future citywide mode share is as
follows:
Figure 44: City Transportation Mode Share 2035 Vision
All recommendations emerging from this Transportation Master Plan as
well as all other future City plans and projects should focus on moving
one step closer to achieving this vision.
Section Sources:
1. http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf
2. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/chap1.cfm#10
3. http://ctpp.transportation.org/Pages/default.aspx
4. http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/FloridaTrafficOnline/viewer.html
5. http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/routes.asp
6. MDT Segment Ridership Summary Reports by Urban Transportation
Associates
7. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/highlights_of_
the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/section_02.html
MODE SHARE VISION – PEDESTRIAN MODE
97
P E D E S T R I A N M O D E
Walking is the most fundamental form of transportation; almost EVERY
single daily person TRIP BEGINS AND ENDS BY WALKING .
Walkability is defined by the extent to which people can travel on foot to
get to everyday destinations for work, person or family errands, social,
and/or recreational purposes. Walkability is providing an environment
that integrates physical accessibility, proximity to pedestrian origins,
and desirable destinations; it is not just providing a concrete surface
raised six inches above the motorized vehicles travel lanes on which
people can traverse. The majority of the roadways in the City of Miami
Beach provide some sort of pedestrian facility, sidewalks, shared-use
paths, pedestrian bridges, the world famous beachwalk/boardwalk , etc.
MIAMI BEACH is perceived as ONE OF THE MOST WALK ABLE
CITIES within the entire Miami-Dade County.
The CITY HAS an average daily population of approximately 206,000
that enjoys its VAST RECREATIONAL EN VIRONMENT comprising of
convention centers, museums, parks, numerous shopping amenities
and restaurants, and an internationally recognized beach. As a
measure to protect the lives of its many residents and visitors, the
vitality of its commercial environment, and consequently promote
physical activity and nurture social interactions, the City has identified
IMPROVING PEDESTRI AN SAFETY, ACCESSIBILIT Y,
MOBILITY, AND CONNECTIVITY as its NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.
Pedestrian Safety
Multiple SAFETY MEASURES may take place within the City TO
IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN S AFETY AND VITALITY . These measures
include, but are not limited to, physical improvements to existing
pedestrian facilities, roadway design featuring traffic calming and
management and speed regulations, intersection design, signalization
and pavement markings, and readjustments to signal timing as well as
pedestrian clearance intervals.
MODE SHARE VISION – PEDESTRIAN MODE
98
Pedestrian Accessibility
This refers to whether or not pedestrian facilities allow all types of
travelers to access and use them effectively. The optimal sidewalk
configuration includes the following zones, which are also portrayed in
Figure 45:
FRONTAGE ZONE: Area adjacent to the ROW line where transitions
between the sidewalk and the adjacent land uses occur. This area is
commonly used for public activities such as outdoor cafes and sidewalk
sales. The minimum width of this zone is typically 2 feet but it should
desirably be 6 feet to 10 feet wide1, 2.
PEDESTRIAN THROUGH ZONE : Basic portion of the sidewalk that is
used for pedestrian travel along the corridor. This zone should be clear
of obstructions, straight, continuous, well lit, and functional in all
weather conditions. The minimum width of this zone should be 5 feet
when situated at least 2 feet from the back of the curb. If adjacent to the
back of the curb, then this zone should have a minimum width of 6 feet.
This zone should desirably be 8 feet to 10 feet wide1, 2, 3.
FURNISHING ZONE : Portion of the sidewalk between the back of the
curb and the walkable area, which is commonly used for the placement
of landscaping, transit stops, street lights, site furnishings, bicycle
racks, street signs, utilities and various other pedestrian amenities and
objects. This zone is usually 2 feet wide and has a desirable width of 6
feet1, 2.
Pedestrian accessibility also takes into account curb ramps, hand rails,
pedestrian signalization (both visual and/or acoustic), and specialized
walking SURFACES THAT ALLOW ALL CITIZENS TO WALK
SAFELY .
Figure 45: Sidewalk Zones
Figure 46: Sidewalk Zones Application Examples
MODE SHARE VISION – PEDESTRIAN MODE
99
Pedestrian Mobility
Pedestrian mobility may be measured on how walkable a certain area
is. Walkability is a measure that takes into account the transportation
environment and whether or not people are incentivized to perform their
trips on foot. The principles of a walkable community include:
1. Providing a MULTI -MODAL URBAN TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK where the allocation of right-of-way (ROW) is
determined based on a community, regional, and urban context.
2. Providing COMPACT MIXED -USE LAND DEVELOPMENTS
THAT MOTIVATE PEDESTRIAN TRIPS by location
destinations within a ¼ mile radius from permanent and
transient residencies.
3. Accommodating intermodal trips through services and amenities
such as bike racks, lockers, benches, transit shelters, and
showers that allow for CONVENIENT TRANSITI ONS
BETWEEN MODES OF TRA NSPORTATION .
Walkable communities also have characteristics that are observable
and appreciable at the pedestrian level. These characteristics may
include ground floor businesses, public artworks, textured/colored
pavement, decorative street lighting, trash cans, landscaping, historic
landmarks, and architectural and urban design features.
Prime examples of WALKABLE STREETS/BLO CKS WITHIN THE
CITY may be found NEAR THE NOTORIOUS L INCOLN ROAD where
residents of the West Avenue and Flamingo neighborhoods, as well as
the plethora of tourists within the City, are incentivized to walk on
existing wide sidewalks in order to shop, spend leisure, or participate in
cultural/societal events. South Beach is the most commercially active
region of the City and improvements within the area may still take
place. Prioritizing the pedestrian mode of transportation does not
necessarily mean improving accessibility (i.e. widening sidewalks).
Even though a certain roadway segment may still lack pedestrian
accessibility, OTHER IMPROVEMENTS T HAT MOTIVATE
WALKING AS A MODE OF TRANSPORTATION MAY T AKE
PLACE IN ORDER TO BE NEFIT PEDESTRIANS . Generally, these
other type of improvements may be regarded as pedestrian mobility
improvements which create a walkable environment within the City.
Pedestrian Connectivity
Lastly, pedestrian connectivity is the physical link between origin and
destination. Even though all pedestrians may be safe to walk on a
certain roadways/path, have access to the roadway, and have a desire
to perform a certain trip, not all roadways/paths may connect to their
destinations. Improving PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIV ITY IS A
MATTER OF CONSISTENC Y . If the other objectives are attained
throughout a corridor then connectivity will be almost completely
accounted for. Throughout the City, several island and neighborhoods
have been identified as having missing pedestrian links. These
locations are: Sunset Islands, Bayshore between Prairie Avenue on the
west and Pine Tree Drive on the east and 28th Street on the south and
34th Street on the north, La Gorce Island, Allison Island, missing links
within Normandy Isle, and missing links within Normandy Shores.
However, connectivity also takes into account the length of a pedestrian
trip; even though walking is the most dependable and essential mode of
transportation, it is not the most efficient. Therefore connectivity
improvements throughout the City may LOOK AT REDUCING THE
LENGTH OF PEDESTRIAN TRIPS through the use of pedestrian
bridges and/or pedestrian thoroughfares. Currently there are 5
pedestrian bridges, of which three are located in South Beach and two
are located in North Beach, and one pedestrian mall (Lincoln Road).
Since the City of Miami Beach comprises multiple islands, pedestrian
MODE SHARE VISION – PEDESTRIAN MODE
100
connectivity is unique and needs to be analyzed according to
geographic constraints, pedestrian demand, and sense of place.
Pedestrian Count Stations
Note that without accurate pedestrian count data, engineering analysis
of a corridor’ pedestrian level of service and level of safety may not be
accurately measured. While pedestrian counts are collected for specific
tasks and study throughout the City, the obtained data is not being
archived, inspected for quality, and made available for future
developments. Since the City strives from its vast pedestrian traffic due
to it being a major tourist destination and having active citizens, it is
recommended that best practices for creating and maintaining a
pedestrian count warehouse are adopted. These practices include
gathering, quality checking, warehousing, maintaining, processing, and
disseminating pedestrian count data. Currently the Transportation
Research Board and collaborating Virginia Tech and University of
Virginia are working on methods of creating and maintaining a bicycle
and pedestrian count warehouse and designing bicycle and pedestrian
traffic cunt program to estimate performance measures on streets and
sidewalks in Blacksburg, VA, respectively. Once complete, these
studies may help the City in establishing the aforementioned data
collection effort. In practice today is the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) TRADAS System which maintains a data
warehouse for bicycle and pedestrian counts. This system uses
permanent count stations developed by Eco-Counters which use
passive infrared sensor that are able to differentiate between bicycle
and pedestrians. The collected data is correlated with weather patterns
and seasonal patterns to identify commuter versus recreational trips
and day of the week patterns. Therefore, this system is also able to
identify and solve capacity issues, directionality (i.e. connectivity)
issues, and weather effects. In addition safety issues may be solved by
generalizing the results of a detailed study on how pedestrians observe
traffic signals, relating traffic accidents involving pedestrians to
pedestrian volumes along adjoining sidewalks, and to determine the
number of jaywalkers at intersections or elsewhere as a percentage of
total pedestrian volume. Another useful document on collecting
pedestrian counts is the “Conducting Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts: A
Manual for Jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and Beyond” by the
Southern California Association of Governments and Metro.
South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zone (PPZ)
A Pedestrian Priority Zone (PPZ) is a designated area where specific
design guidelines and/or standards apply to prioritize the pedestrian
mode of transportation on all public transportation facilities within the
area. PPZs are typically found within a downtown/central business
district or other high-density mixed-use area that has a great demand
for pedestrian facilities. When implemented, PPZ guidelines/standards
create an integrated network of streets, alleys, pathways, and
intermodal hubs that increase the mobility, connectivity, and safety of
pedestrians. Even though PPZs prioritize the pedestrian mode of
transportation, the other modes of transportations (automobile, transit,
and bicycle) may also be positively impacted due to shared benefits of
certain improvements, such as, buffered sidewalks (either by the
addition of street furniture, bike lanes, or parking lanes) and bulb-
outs/curb extensions which benefits transit operation. Improving
pedestrian transportation is cornerstone to improving a community’s
longevity and livability, as well as adopting an affordable and
environmentally sustainable transportation system. Figure 47 displays
the areas within South Beach identified as PPZs.
MODE SHARE VISION – PEDESTRIAN MODE
101
Figure 47: South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zones
MODE SHARE VISION – PEDESTRIAN MODE
102
The following guidelines are to be followed when developing and
recommending transportation projects within the areas of South Beach
that have been defined as PPZs, in an approach to create destinations
within the City where pedestrian safety, accessibility, mobility, and
connectivity are the main focus within the public realm. :
PROVIDE ADEQUATE SID EWALK WIDTHS where the
optimal sidewalk has a 2 ft. Frontage Zone for street-level retail/culinary
stores, building entrances, and greenspace; 6 ft. Walking Zone clear of
any obstructions; and a 6 ft. Furnishing Zone that buffers pedestrians
through the placement of utilities, street furniture, greenspace, and
transit stops. The Frontage Zone and Furnishing Zone are optional but
should be priority when ROW permits.
PROVIDE 10 FT. WIDE HIGH -EMPHASIS
CROSSWALKS AT ALL IN TERSECTIONS with properly aligned curb
ramps on every leg of the intersection. Midblock crosswalks shall also
be provided at all blocks greater than 400 ft. in length and when
warranted. These crosswalks should be high-emphasis with median
refugee islands where sufficient ROW exists. Raised pedestrian
crosswalks should also be considered where applicable to reduce
vehicle speed, increase pedestrian visibility, and increase accessibility
for disadvantaged civilians.
DESIGNATE 25 MPH SPE ED LIMIT on all automobile
and transit facilities within the PPZ. All reconstruction and new
construction facilities shall be designed with a 30 mph speed limit
where traffic calming devices such as gateways and chokers may be
installed at specific locations of a corridor within the PPZ to diminish
impact on the automobile mode.
LIMIT MIXED TRAFFIC LANE WIDTHS to a maximum
of 10 ft., with the exception of outside lanes and turning lanes that may
have a maximum width of 12 ft. to accommodate transit and turning
vehicles. Sharrow lanes are also limited to a maximum width of 12 ft.
while dedicated transit lanes are limited to a range between 15 ft. and
12 ft.
IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN S IGNALIZATION at all
intersections by offering pedestrian countdown signals at all street
crossings, providing leading pedestrian intervals (LPI) at signalized
intersections, maximizing pedestrian crossing times to one (1) second
for every 2.8 ft. of distance, implementing the minimum number of
traffic signal phases, minimizing traffic signal cycle lengths, and
prioritizing pedestrian signals over traffic signals.
MODE SHARE VISION – PEDESTRIAN MODE
103
PROVIDE SPECIFIC TRA FFIC CALMING
IMPROVEMENTS on all streets within the PPZ. These specific traffic
calming improvements include bulb-outs/curb extensions on streets
with parking-lanes and landscaping on the Furnishing Zone of the
sidewalk or on the median if applicable. Bulb-outs/curb extensions
shall extend a minimum of 20 ft. on either side of a crosswalk and a
minimum of 45 ft. when transit stops are present. These curb
extensions shall not have turning radius greater than 15 ft. except on
corridors with transit service.
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT S HADING AND LIGHTING on
the Frontage Zone, Furnishing Zone, and/or median of a street.
Providing sufficient shade may be achieve through the use
landscaping, required canopies on adjacent developments, overhangs,
awnings, arcades and/or other nonpermanent architectural sun
controlling devices above sidewalks. Artificial shading devices should
not project more than 8 ft. beyond the building façade and should be
installed at least 10 ft. above the sidewalk surface. Providing sufficient
lighting may be achieved through the use of decorative pedestrian
scale lights that are broad spectrum (white in color), such as metal
halide, that provides high levels of uniform lighting on and along all
sidewalks and pedestrian ways. These improvements also serve the
purpose of complementing the aesthetics of the surrounding PPZ.
PROHIBIT RIGHT TURNS ON RED for automobiles and
buses and provided green arrow turn signal. This would include the
addition of a signal timing phase and revision of pedestrian clearance
intervals on all intersections within the PPZ.
On a concurrent effort to this Transportation Master Plan, the City has
its own Street Design Guide, and in this guide, the City has also
identified similar policies and benchmarks for PPZs. Additional
characteristics not included above may also be implemented in areas
where further pedestrian safety is required. These characteristics are
adopted in the following guideline:
CRITICAL ZONES within PPZs that include even lower traffic speed
limits of 15 mph with textured pavement and crosswalk which may be
colored treated for raised alertness. Textured/patterned pavements
accepted by the Department of Transportation include Paveway STS,
FrictionPave, Duratherm, TrafficPatterns, and Liquid Brick Eco.
Section Sources:
1. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
2. Boston Complete Streets Design Guidelines
3. FDOT Plans Preparation Manual, Vol. 1. 2015
MODE SHARE VISION – BICYCLE MODE
104
B I C Y C L E M O D E
Management of Bicycle Facilities
When looking to provide a fully
interconnected bicycle network for the City
and broadly analyzing the existing roadway
facilities, the following TYPES OF BICYCLE
ACCOMMODATIONS , along with the
toolbox provided in the BPMP, were
considered to provide recommendations.
EXCLUSIVE SHARED BIC YCLE/BUS
LANES (SBBL)
This is a lane solely dedicated for the use of
buses and bicyclists. Vehicles performing
right turns may also use this lane.
Sufficient signage is essential to indicate that
bicycles are allowed to travel on these lanes.
The safety of bicyclists in bus lanes may also
be improved if adequate training is provided
for bus operators.
DEDICATED CONVENTION AL BICYCLE
LANES
As it pertains to the study corridor,
conventional bicycle lanes should be 4 feet in
width when adjacent to the curb and gutter,
and 5 feet in width when between a travel
lane and an on-street parking lane1.
BUFFERED BICYCLE LAN ES
Provide space for bicyclists to pass each
other without encroaching into the adjacent
general use traffic lane.
Can encourage bicycling by contributing to
the perception of safety.
Buffer separation should be at least 3 feet in
width.
MODE SHARE VISION – BICYCLE MODE
105
CONTRA FLOW BICYCLE LANES
Bicycle facilities designed to allow cyclists to
travel legally in the opposite direction on a
one-way street, delineated from the opposing
motor vehicle lane with double yellow
striping.
Provide connectivity and access for bicyclists
traveling in both directions and reduce
dangerous wrong-way riding.
Special consideration should be taken at
intersections to account for the expectancy of
those traveling in the opposite direction.
SHARED USED PATH
These allow bicycle movement in both
directions on one side of the road.
Research shows that they are more
attractive for bicyclists, and that they reduce
out of direction travel by providing contra-
flow bicycle movement.
Special consideration should be given at
transit stops to manage bicycle and
pedestrian interactions.
Special consideration should be taken at
intersections to account for the expectancy of
those traveling in the opposite direction.
A 3 feet buffer on either side of the shared
use path is the minimum separation that
should be between the curb and gutter and
an on-street parking lane to avoid conflicts
with parked vehicles and pedestrians.
Additional to providing the aforementioned
bicycle accommodations, other
enhancements which cannot be represented
on a roadway’s typical section, could be
implemented to create a better environment
for bicyclists. The following items could be
provided as improvements for the bicycle
mode:
BICYCLE PARKING
Short-term (Bike racks)
This provides bicyclists, who generally park
for two hours or less, a convenient and
readily accessible place to station bicycles. It
should be located within a reasonable
distance (50 feet) from the area most
frequented by cyclists.
Sufficient bicycle racks should at least be
provided on most, if not all, transit
stops/stations within the study corridor.
MODE SHARE VISION – BICYCLE MODE
106
Long-term (Bike lockers and/or cages)
This provides bicyclists who stay at a site for
several hours a secure and weather-
protected place to store their bicycles. It
should be located on site or within 750 feet of
the site since daily bicycle commuters are
generally willing to walk a short distance if
they are confident the parking is secure.
BIKE BOXES
NACTO defines a bike box as a designated
area at the head of a traffic lane at a
signalized intersection that provides
bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get
ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal
phase.
COLORED BICYCLES LAN ES
Colored bicycle facilities improve safety by
alerting drivers of the presence of bicyclist
and attract users to bike around the City.
However, this innovative technique needs
further analysis and locations where this
design approach may be performed need to
subsequently be identified and approved.
WAYFINDING (SIGNAGE)
Adequate signage is essential to direct
bicyclists, who may be unfamiliar with the
area, to places of interest. Wayfinding signs
for cyclists should include travel distances,
direction arrows, and facility names.
Additionally, they should complement other
roadway and City signage.
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
107
T R A N S I T M O D E
An essential component to meet the mobility needs of Miami Beach’s
residents, visitors, and employees, improve and sustain the City’s
economic vitality, and support the growth and development of urban
mixed-use centers, is providing a prevalent system of interconnected
transit services.
TRANSIT SERVES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE P RIVATE
AUTOMOBILE to reach the City from the mainland and TO MAKE
LONGER TRIPS to connect between many of the City’s important
destinations that may be too far for people to walk or bike. Therefore,
providing high quality transit service is an important part of developing a
sustainable transportation system and providing options to travel to and
within the City without the need to rely on a private vehicle.
Transit services within the City of Miami Beach consist of regional and
local routes operated and maintained by Miami-Dade Transit (MDT),
and a local trolley service provided by City. There is a growing
proportion of the City’s DAILY POPULATION that is RELIANT ON
these TRANSIT SERVICES to enter, travel within, and/or leave Miami
Beach; a population that COULD CONTINUALLY IN CREASE as the
City and region continue to grow, and AS MORE RELIABLE
MOBILITY OPTIONS ARE PROVIDED .
Transit Infrastructure
Exclusive Transit Lanes
As a way to incorporate the overall vision for and interconnected and
reliable transit network for the City, exclusive transit lanes were
considered for the development of recommendations for corridors in
which the transit mode is prioritized. The provision of a lane(s) solely
dedicated to transit offers a range of opportunities for a corridor, those
being in the operations sector as well as the economic one. Any
recommendation of exclusive transit right-of-way within any major City
corridor should be measured on its viability and overall suitability for the
specific corridor, and studied accordingly. The following should serve
as a guideline when analyzing future feasibility of any project
recommended by this TMP considering exclusive transit lanes:
Exclusive transit lanes allow for the implementation of BUS
RAPID TRANSIT (BRT) systems.
BRT is a form of rapid transit that combines stations,
vehicles, services, and ITS elements into an integrated
system with a predominant identity.
Planning BRT projects requires a detailed assessment of
demands, costs, benefits, and impacts.
BUSES HAVE HIGHER OC CUPANCIES THAN
AUTOMOBILES ; hence economic benefits can result from
increased ridership. Higher ridership numbers could lead to
fewer automobiles on the roadway, which could translate into
passenger time savings as well as a reduction on automobile
operating and maintenance costs.
CONCURRENT FLOW BUS LANES should allow at least two
adjacent general traffic lanes in the same direction of travel.
Research shows that concurrent flow curb bus lanes are
relatively easy to install, their costs are low, and they
minimize the street space devoted only to transit.
However, they usually present enforcement difficulties
and their operational benefits may be reduced due to
conflicts between right-turning traffic and pedestrians.
CONTRA FLOW BUS LANE S should allow at least two traffic
lanes in the opposite direction of travel.
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
108
Research shows contra flow curb lanes enable two-way
operation for buses on one-way streets, which may
increase the number of curb faces available for
passenger stops, completely separate transit from
general traffic flow, and are generally self-enforcing.
Contra flow lanes require buses to run against the
prevailing traffic signal progression, limit passing
opportunities around stopped or disabled buses, and
create conflicts with opposing left turns. Additionally,
proper markings and signage should be used along with
strict enforcement to maintain proper use of the lane as
well as the safety of the corridor.
COMMUNITY WILLINGNES S to support public transportation,
foster transit-oriented development, and enforce bus lanes is
essential. Therefore, extensive and effective public participation
in the decision-making process should be well established and
maintained.
Certain benefits to transit can come from other improvements that do
not necessarily pertain to a corridor’s typical section. While,
enhancement to the existing transit service can originate from a number
of different sources, those that particularly apply to identified transit
corridors and that can potentially be implemented are:
CAPCITY STRATEGIES
Realigned transit SERVICE SCHEDULES .
Monitoring the security of transit patrons, stations, and
vehicles.
Enhanced transit AMENITIES AND SAFETY .
Universal fare cards for regions with multiple transit
agencies.
Installation of BUS -PRIORITY TRAFFIC SIG NALS .
Provision, if feasible, of QUEUE -JUMPER LANES at
intersections where there are no stops.
This applies to the alternatives that consider
transit in mixed traffic.
CAPCITY STRATEGIES
More frequent transit or expanded hours of service.
Expanding the transit network through new bus and rail
services
CONSOLIDATION OF STO PS.
This would have to be coordinated with Miami-Dade
Transit (MDT).
Infrastructure enhancements (Improvements to stops).
Provide shelters where none are present or improve
them where they are inadequate. As well as Provisions
for bicycles on transit vehicles and at transit stops
Provide REAL TIME PASSENGER INFORMATION , or
the capability to provide it in the near future, at bus
stops.
Provide travelers with information on travel conditions as
well as alternative routes and modes
IMPROVE WAY -FINDING .
Improve seating accommodations.
Provide bicycle racks.
Relocation of STOPS TO THE FAR SID E of the signalized
intersections where feasible.
This would have to be coordinated with Miami-Dade
Transit (MDT).
Figure 48 is a compilation of various urban centers which
accommodate Exclusive transit lanes. Each example has different
configuration which is labelled accordingly.
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
109
Figure 48: Bus Only Lane Examples
Transfer Locations
Existing policy dictates that the City shall maintain constant
coordination with MDT to construct intermodal transit facilities to serve
existing and future multi-modal transportation uses.
One of the most critical aspects of a successful transit environment is
how to manage and operate transfers. In terms of operation, transfers
are usually undesirable events since they create delays and economic
burdens on the transit system. In addition, transfers play a unique factor
in enticing or discouraging potential and current transit users.
Ineffective transfer stops may cause boarding delays, missed
departures, long waiting time, and/or bus crowding due mostly to
inadequate or insufficient infrastructure. Furthermore, bigger
improvements such as transfer centers are often regarded as
undesirable neighborhood developments that are difficult to site and
that generate unwanted noise, emissions, and potentially loitering
passengers. However, TRANSFERS ARE AN ESS ENTIAL PART OF
AN EFFECTIVE TRANSIT SYSTEM because they maximize the
coverage area and diversity of active transportation services. Hence, in
order to obtain a successful transit environment, it is of critical
importance to provide efficient and attractive transfer stops/centers to
improve the quality of transit services as well as support the
surrounding community.
In order to create relevant transfer stops/centers it is important to make
these facilities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of
Miami Beach. By taking into consideration adjacent projects, integrating
the culture of the surrounding community, and potentially venturing into
joint development with other sectors (such as retail and/or civic
spaces).
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
110
TRANSFER STOPS/CENTE RS may cause substantial benefits that
IMPROVE LIVABILITY, MOBILITY, AND ACCESS IBILITY . Part of
this effort begins with identifying key locations based on existing transit
activity (boardings and alightings, converging transit routes, available
right-of-way (ROW), existing infrastructure, surrounding neighborhoods,
transportation priorities, and existing and future land use. Logically,
since the primary goal of transfer stations is to improve transit services,
ridership data and converging transit routes locations will provide the
most relevant information on where transfer stops/centers are likely to
be needed within the City.
Review of the existing activity for all the stops within the City identified
CURRENT AREAS WITH THE MOST TRANSIT DEMAND . These
areas and/or bus stops are as follows:
City owned parking lot located on 7251 Collins Avenue, Miami
Beach, FL 33141 (three bus stops on the north, east, and west
sides of this lot)
Served by routes 79, 108, 115, 119, and 120
northbound; routes 79, 108, 112, 115, 117, 119, and 120
southbound; and routes 79, 112, and 117 eastbound
W 41st Street between SR A1A/Indian Creek Drive and SR
A1A/Collins Avenue (two bus stops within this 250 ft. segment
of the street)
Served by routes 103, 112, 113, 119, and 120
eastbound; and routes 62, 103, 110, 112, 113, 119, 120,
and 150 westbound
Lincoln Road between Washington Avenue and James Avenue
(two bus stops within this 300 ft. segment if the road)
Served by routes 103, 119, 120, and 150 eastbound;
and routes 101, 115, 117, and 119 westbound
Other identified locations with prevalent transit activity include:
SR A1A/Harding Avenue between 85th Street and 86th Street
(two bus stops served by five routes)
Mt. Sinai Hospital (two bus stops served by four routes)
Alton Road between SR A1A/5th Street and 7th Street (two bus
stops served by three routes)
Washington Avenue between SR A1A/5th Street and 6th Street
(two bus stops served by four routes)
Washington Avenue between 13th Street and 14th Street (two
bus stops served by four routes)
Indian Creek Drive between 28th Street and 29th Street (one bus
stop served by 6 routes)
The majority of the identified locations with high transit activity are near
or within: SR A1A (Indian Creek Drive, Collins Avenue, and 5th Street),
Alton Road and Washington Avenue. All of these corridors have been
identified as transit priority corridors by this TMP, further supporting that
these LOCATIONS ARE VALUABLE OPTIONS FOR TRANSFER
STOPS /CENTERS AND SHOULD BE FURTHER ST UDIED , perhaps
individually, for the feasibility of developing major transit infrastructure
within the City.
Furthermore, review of existing documents revealed four (4) proposed
transfer stations throughout the City. The following table summarizes
the transit transfer station identified in the City of Miami Beach
Transportation Element according to the 2007 Coastal Communities
Transit Plan.
Table 28: Previously Planned Transit Transfer Station within the City
Planned Transit
Transfer Stations Phase Description
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
111
South Beach Bus
Transfer Station I
Implement temporary street bus
transfer facility in phase I at 23rd
Street between Collins and Park
Avenue. Phase II calls for
identifying a better location that
can accommodate up to 7 buses
and can load and unload
passengers safely and easily.
North Beach Transfer
Station I
Implement transfer facility at
existing stops between 71st
Street and 73rd Street on Collins
Avenue and Abbott Avenue.
Phase II will construct a bus
transfer facility on City-owned
property between 72nd Street
and 73rd Street, Collins Avenue
and Abbott Avenue.
Middle Beach Park and
Ride Station III
The park and ride station would
be located around the area of
SR 907/Alton Road and N. Bay
Road. Phase I calls for a
feasibility study prior to design
and construction.
South Beach
Interceptor Park and
Ride Station
III
Two facilities are proposed in the
South Beach area. The first
would be located near Alton
Road and MacArthur Causeway,
and the second would require
further study to locate an
additional facility within the
South Beach Corridor.
The Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) maintains
an interactive Intermodal Center Locator Map which identifies potential
transit centers within the entire Miami-Dade County (see Figure 49).
Included within the City limits there are four (4) potential transit centers
located at: Mt. Sinai, Collins Avenue/44th Street, Collins Avenue/72nd
Street, and South Miami Beach (on 5th Street and Alton Road). The
MPO identified potential South Miami Beach Transit Center differs from
the South Beach Bus Transfer Station proposed by the City’s
Transportation Element.
POTENTIAL AREA S WHERE TRANSFER STOPS/CENTE RS
COULD BE PROVIDED HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED through reviewing
existing bus routes, City stop activity (boardings and alightings), and
transit documents. This locations and the desired transit infrastructure
improvement are summarized in Figure 50.
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
112
Figure 49: Miami-Dade MPO Intermodal Center Locator Map
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
113
While all of these transit facilities can be considered transfer areas,
they may vary in size and functionality; transfer stops, transfer
center/stations, and park-and-rides are all different types of transit
infrastructure. Many examples of these exist in the region of Miami-
Dade County, within the United States, and abroad. The following
criteria differentiate and define each of these aforementioned transit
facilities and should serve as guidelines for future decision making
process during implementation of projects.
Figure 50: Potential Areas for Future Major Transit Infrastructure
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
114
Transfer Stops
A transfer stop may be any enhanced bus stop which is in accordance
to ADA standards and includes bus bays that accommodate at least
two articulated buses. A 75 ft. passenger loading zone is adequate for a
standard 40 ft. bus or a 60 ft. articulated bus; hence a transfer stop
should have at least a 150 ft. passenger loading zone. An enhanced
bus stop must include bus shelters, benches, and trash cans. Since a
transfer stop will have waiting passengers it is suggested that longer
bus shelters, or multiple bush shelters, are used such as the linear bus
passenger platforms with continuous glazed canopies in the MacNab
Transit Terminal (see Figure 51).
Figure 51: MacNab Transit Terminal (Ontario, Canada)
Transfer Centers/Stations
A transfer center/station is a more elaborate transfer stop that may
accommodate more than two articulated buses and may include
amenities such as retail, restrooms, and lounge. Since most of the
transit services in the City are north-south, linear transfer centers are
recommended in such that buses can enter, drop and pick-up
passengers, and re-enter a taxi that seamlessly merges into the
adjacent corridor traffic. Examples of linear transfer centers are
presented in Figures 52 and 54.
A great example of amenities that may be included in transfer center is
the MacNab Terminal which includes a 2-story terminal building
includes a green-roof, and provides a climate-controlled public waiting
area, washrooms, staff lounge and dispatch office. Extensive glazing
maximizes sightlines throughout the terminal. Special emphasis was
placed on achieving universal accessibility and effective
signage/wayfinding throughout the terminal. Streetscape elements
include trees, lighting, decorative paving treatments and metal screen
structures to enable “vertical greening.”
In order to integrate other transit development occurring within the City,
these centers could be expanded to include a streetcar stop. Hence
these transfer centers may also serves as multi-modal hubs where
passengers may transition between transportation modes (if cyclist are
accommodate through placement of bike lanes, bike racks, and lockers
this quality may be further enhanced and expanded to attract other
passengers). An example of an integrated streetcar and bus transfer
station may be observed in Figure 53.
MODE SHARE VISION – TRANSIT MODE
115
Figure 52: MIC Intermodal Station Terminal (Miami, FL)
Figure 53: Münchner Freiheit Station (Munich, Germany)
Figure 54: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Blake Transit Center
(BTC)
MODE SHARE VISION –AUTO MODE
116
A U T O M O B I L E M O D E
Management of Roadways
As they reach capacity, TRANSPORTATION SYSTE MS MUST BE
CAREFULLY MANAGED to prevent unacceptable trends in
congestion, safety and the daily travel choices of individuals. With
proper planning, relatively minor actions that resolve localized barriers
and bottlenecks can have a large benefit for the overall system. A
CHALLENGE, HOWEVER, IS CHOOSING THE MOST EF FECTIVE
TOOL FOR MANAGING A ROADWAY SINCE THERE ARE MANY
OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FR OM. These “tools” range from short-term
patches to long-term strategies and may be adopted to fit the local
transportation environment.
A reliable source of existing tools for roadway management is the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and its Congestion
Management Process Guidebook. Even though FHWA developed this
process specifically for MPOs that manage metropolitan areas with a
population exceeding 200,000, this process may be applied locally to
analyze and manage roadways within the City of Miami Beach.
CONGESTION MANAGEMEN T is the application of strategies to
improve transportation system performance and reliability through a
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS T HAT IDENTIFIES TRANS PORTATION
NEEDS, GOALS AND APP ROPRIATE SOLUTION . Congestion
concerns inevitably tie into community objectives regarding transit use,
livability, and land use. In addition, because transportation tends to
provide a structure for how to consider the design and timing of various
other capital projects, in particularly utility projects, stormwater
improvements, and parks and trails projects, CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT SHOULD NO T BE A STANDALONE PR OCESS BUT
INSTEAD AN INTEGRAL PART OF A LARGER PLA NNING
EFFORT. Managing roadways is usually synonymous with managing
congestion.
The challenge with traffic congestion is that it is not a single facet
problem that may be tackled with one solution. As illustrated by Figure
55 provided within the Atlanta Regional Commission (ACR) 2009
Transportation Fact Book, TRAFFIC CONGESTION I S A THREE -
DIMENSIONAL ISSUE WI TH INTENSITY, DURATI ON, AND
EXTENT OF IMPACT. On a particular roadway traffic congestion may
range from minimal to severe with unacceptable levels of service. This
characteristic is defined as the intensity of the congestion (i.e. how
much supplied space is occupied by car demand?). Intensity is usually
the most visual characteristic of congestion, but the truth is that if
severe congestion only occurs every Friday night on a roadway then
that roadway is not necessarily out of capacity. Congestion duration is
the time traffic congestion lasts on a roadway and this measurement is
critical because it has the potential of increasing both congestion
intensity and extent. Lastly, congestion extent is the amount of people
affected by traffic congestion and the local and regional impact.
Congestion on La Gorce Drive will definitely not have the same extent
as to congestion on the MacArthur Causeway.
MODE SHARE VISION –AUTO MODE
117
Figure 55: The Three “Dimensions” of Traffic Congestion (ACR 2009)
MULTIPLE FACTORS INF LUENCE WHAT ROADS PE OPLE TAKE
AND AT WHAT TIME THEY PERFORM THEIR T RIPS , most
importantly though are the location of major trip generators, the
seasonal variations in traffic, the time-of-day variations in traffic, and
the type of trips people make (i.e. work trips, non-work trips, and most
particular to the City of Miami Beach tourist-trips). It is important to
identify, locate, and analyze the trip patterns of major trip generators
such as hospitals, hotels, tourist attractions, office centers, and
shopping malls. These land uses attract many people year-round and
have distinct traffic patterns that should be accounted for through
provided infrastructure. Consequently, understanding traffic patterns
leads a need of understanding the types of trips people make and
where the mode of transportation predominantly used is the most
effective at accomplishing those trips. Hence, because traffic patterns
are observations over a period of time that changes depending on
factors such as time-of-day and season, V ARIABILITY M A Y BE
CONSIDERED A FOURTH DIMENSIONS OF CONGESTION .
With an understanding of what traffic congestion is, a wide range of
congestion management tools may be developed. As per the FHWA
MODE SHARE VISION –AUTO MODE
118
Congestion Management Process Guidebook these tools may be
grouped into strategies as follows.
Demand Management Strategies: nonautomotive strategies that
change travel behavior by substituting commuter trips with
telecommuting, reducing urban sprawl, and/or shifting transportation
mode split.
Promoting Alternatives
Encouraging mass transit, biking, and walking as
alternatives of automobile trips through improved
infrastructure, marketing and outreach programs,
multimodal considerations, and transit-oriented
development (TOD)
Managing and Pricing Assets
Implementing congestion pricing strategies such as high-
occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, express lanes similar to I-
95, or pricing fees for the use of travel lanes by the
number of persons in a vehicle and per time-of-day
Implementing parking management strategies (see
“Developing a Parking Strategy” section under the
Transportation Mode Share 2035 Vision within this TMP,
Page 121)
Work Patterns
Encouraging flexible work hour programs
Encouraging telecommuting programs
Encouraging commuters to use ridesharing programs
Land Use
Implementing land use or zoning controls in order to
create mixed use neighborhoods
Implementing growth management restrictions
Adopting effective mitigation policies that encourage
multimodal development
Implementing incentives for high-density developments
(infill and densification)
MODE SHARE VISION –AUTO MODE
119
Traffic Operations Strategies: strategies that focus on improving the
current transportation system usually through the use of modern
technologies such as Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).
Causeways Operations
Metering traffic onto freeways
Including reversible commuter lanes
Improving access management
Providing movable median barriers for added capacity
during peak
Bus-only shoulders
Arterials, Collectors, and Local Roads Operations
Optimizing signal timing
Restricting turns at key intersections
Performing geometric improvements to roads and
intersections
Converting streets to one-way pairs
Providing transit signal priority
Redesigning local streets with traffic calming elements
Applying road diets
Other Operational Strategies
Improving traffic incident response
Implementing traveler information systems
Anticipating and addressing special events
Improving freight management (see “Freight
Management” section under the Transportation Mode
Share 2035 Vision within this TMP, Page 127)
MODE SHARE VISION –AUTO MODE
120
Road Capacity Strategies: When all other options have proven to be
ineffective the base capacity of the roadway network may need to be
increase by adding new through lanes, limited access facilities, or
redesigning specific bottleneck at intersections. These strategies are
normally associated with higher capital costs and adverse
environmental consequences.
Constructing new high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) or HOT lanes
Removing bottleneck
Intersection improvements
Center turn lanes
Overpasses or underpasses at congested intersections
Closing gaps in the street network
Adding travel lanes on major freeways and streets (including
truck climbing lanes on grades)
Add new connections between landmasses (i.e. bridges)
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
121
Parking
Parking, in an urban context, is much more than pavement markings on an asphalt surface, parking is a technical and sophisticated business that is
ingrained to everyday transportation trips. Over the years parking has evolved into a central part of the design and livability of a city’s environment .
Without adequate parking management every mode of transportation is affected. Roadways become more congested due to drivers n ot finding
available spots, consequently transit is delay due to the same traffic congestion and aggressive drivers may potentially block any advantages given to
transit (i.e. parallel parking on bus lanes or on queue jump lanes near intersections). Frustration over not finding unoccupied parking may also translate
to reduced pedestrian and bicyclist safety. In addition, effective parking management results in a public service that is affordable, sustainable, and
most importantly safe. It is important to understand the overall parking supply and demand of a given area before determining what type of parking
strategy needs to be employed. For this reason the City of Miami Beach has engaged Walker Parking Consultants in order to analysis the existing
parking conditions throughout the City. A summary of the studies performed by Walker may be found on the section “Parking within the City” under
Existing Conditions of this TMP, Page 50.
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
122
Developing a Parking Strategy
In its Strategic Parking Plan of 2010, the City of Denver, Colorado, identified different factors that determine a motorist’s choice of parking location and
facility. These factors are summarized in Table 29. Location and convenience are primary decision factors because they depend on the surrounding
land use. Hence, it is also appropriate to consider the optimal location of parking per activity type and duration when developing a strategic parking
plan. Figure 56 displays the relationship between the location of parking, duration of parking, and type of activity performed for which parking is
needed.
Table 29: Parking Facility Choice Types (2010 Denver Strategic Parking Plan)
Decision Factor On-Street Facility Off-Street Facility
Location
On-street parking, if available, is dispersed geographically
throughout an area and may be closer or further from any
single use depending on availability.
Off -street parking is concentrated in a single
facility and may or may not be public or
dedicated to one use.
Convenience
If parking is widely available, users will likely be able to
park close to their destination. In situations where parking
is in high demand and street spaces are not readily
available, street parking may be perceived as
inconvenient.
Dedicated parking attached to a single use may
not be open to the general public. Parking in a
structure may be perceived as inconvenient.
Visibility and Information
Since on-street parking is dispersed, users can easily
assess parking options without altering driving path but
may cruise multiple blocks looking for parking. Time
restrictions are not always readily visible while driving.
Users may be unfamiliar with the price, time
restrictions or public nature of a structure or lot
and, without visible signage, may be reluctant to
turn into the lot or structure.
Safety
Areas with good pedestrian lighting and lots of activity
have fewer safety concerns associated with on-street
parking. Some users, however, may not feel comfortable
parallel parking on busy streets. Others may not feel
comfortable parking in areas that feel unsafe or have less
desirable uses.
Underground garages and large or poorly lit
structures can be perceived as unsafe by users.
If so, these facilities may only be used if other
parking is unavailable. If a structure is well
designed and patrolled, it may be perceived as
safer than on-street parking.
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
123
Figure 56: Relationship between Parking Location, Parking Duration, and Activity Performed (2010 Denver Strategic Parking Plan)
ON-STREET PARKING BENEFITS THOSE QUICK TRIPS such as deliveries and quick corridor specific errands. By providing parking in front or
within several feet of a location, users performing time-restricted activities may efficiently park and quickly reach their destination. As opposed to off-
street parking, on-street parking usually does not require additional right-of-way or parcel purchase since it simply provides the space in form of a lane
within the public roadway. Off-street parking requires land and/or development of some type, investments which are costly within the premium realty of
the City. One disadvantage of ON-STREET PARKING , however, is that ONLY A FEW PARKING S PACES may be ALLOCATED towards one land
use; hence a business is limited to a few customers that park close to the entrance and may be unattractive to those parking a farther away.
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
124
In addition, roadway right-of-way is also a precious commodity that has to be shared between different travel modes and may be more beneficial to
allocate that space towards safety and mobility improvements. Furthermore, for dense urban areas, such as the City of Miami Beach where parking is
in short supply, on-street parking may seem undesirable for motorist due to difficulties associated with parking on congested or busy corridors. THREE
TYPES OF ON -STREET PARKING FACIL ITIES EXIST and allow for different advantages when it comes to convenience and safety. On-street
parking may be provided as PARALLEL PARKING SPA CES, 60° PARKING SPA CES, OR 45° PARKING SPACE ; of which the second and third
options are variations of angle parking. Parallel parking is the most widely used on-street parking facility because it minimizes the use of street cross-
section, allowing this facility to fit on urban streets where constraint right of way exists. Angle parking, on the other hand, occupies more of a street’s
cross-section but fits a greater quantity of cars within a city block. Angle parking also requires more maneuvering space for drivers to be able to park
and resume driving conditions. In addition, this type of on-street parking facility is more user-friendly, results in quicker parking turnover, and may be
used as a traffic calming design element. Figure 57 illustrates the basic difference in space requirement between parallel parking and angle parking.
Figure 57: Space Requirements: Parallel Parking vs Angle Parking
300
’
13 Parking Spaces
27 Parking Spaces at 60° / 22 Parking Spaces at 45°
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
125
On the other hand, TWO TYPES OF OFF -STREET PARKING FACIL ITIES EXIST : PARK ING LOTS AND PARKING GARAGES . A parking garage
concentrates multiple parking spaces into one location allowing for appropriate parking supply within a small footprint. Of t he existing City-owned
parking spaces, 70% are provided within ten garages which is a great attest of the capabilities of parking garages. In essence, a parking lot
accomplished the same purpose as the parking garage, however the intensity of concentrated parking spaces is much less and so is the associated
costs of building a lot versus a garage. In general, providing off-street parking is costlier than providing on-street parking lanes because land parcels
need to be bought and more refined design and construction method are required. However, where the need for vast amounts of parking is present,
off-street parking facilities provide the best solution. One of the BENEFITS OF CONCENTR ATING PARKING IN A P OINT is that a RADIAL
CAPTURE OF LAND USE near the parking facility is achieved. In other words, people going to businesses and residences within a certain radius from
the parking garage will find the facility convenient to park in and walk to their desired destination. Figure 58 displays an example of the concept of
radial capture for the parking garage Lincoln 1111. Off-street parking facilities also achieve to move parking related traffic from roadways into confined
lots or structures. This avoids delays caused by those MOTORISTS CIRCLING A ROUND BLOCKS looking to find an empty on-street parking space,
which according to research perform by FHWA contributes to approximately 30 PERCENT OF THE CI TY’S DAILY CONGESTIO N . Parking provided
off-street also has the potential to avoid double parking from people performing pick -ups, drop-offs, and/or quick errands.
Figure 58: Radial Capture of Lincoln 1111
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
126
Recommended Facilities by Walker Parking Consulting
The Walker Study Supplemental Report identified opportunities for potential parking facilities on the south and middle regions of the city (Figures 59 –
60). These facilities vary in size, location, and number of parking spaces provided and were provided on zones where parking demand exceeds 85% of
existing available parking (this threshold is considered as the demand a which users would experience difficulty in finding parking). No parking facilities
were recommended on north beach because no specific location was identified to be suitable in order to accommodate a parking garage or lot. For
more detail on these locations please refer to the supplemental reports prepared for the city in 2015.
South Beach
1. Miami Beach Lot P13 – 10th Street and Washington Avenue
2. Miami Beach Lot P16 – 13th Street and Collins Avenue
Figure 59: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on South Beach
Middle Beach
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
127
1. Miami Beach 71 Surface Lot
2. Miami Beach 63 Surface Lot
3. Miami Beach 55 Surface Lot
Figure 60: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on Mid Beach
The Walker Study Supplemental Report also recommended specific parking management strategies for the City. For more details on these strategies
please refer to the Supplemental Report. These are as follows:
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
128
Incorporate Dynamic Wayfinding for Parking
Real-time electronic parking availability signage at or near off-street parking facilities directs users to available parking spaces.
The City’s app should be updated with the provided parking information to enable planned trips with a “park-once” mentality.
Figure 61: Real-time Electronic Parking Availability Sign
Add centralized city parking facilities as a measure of managing supply
Figure 62: Ballet Valet Parking Garage
Develop a car sharing program for residents
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
129
A car sharing program reduces parking demand within the City by allowing registered residents to rent privately owned vehicles by the
day or by the hour. This reduces the amount of vehicles owned within the City by potentially substituting 10 vehicles owned by 10
different households with a single shared vehicle; consequently reducing the amount of parking needed as well.
Figure 63: Dedicated Car Share Parking Space
Expand the existing residential parking permit program
Residential parking zones restrict normally unrestricted on-street parking spaces for legitimate residents only. By establishing these
zones through a voting process of the residents, this program may reduce the amount of parking spaces within residential areas taken
by spillover demand from nearby commercial areas. Hence, this program may allow residents to park undisturbed while parking demand
for commercial areas is mitigated through the implementation of other strategies.
Figure 64: Existing Residential Parking Zone Sign
Unbundle parking fees for residents
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
130
This strategy aims at separating apartment/house leasing contracts from including parking in order to better quantify the tru e value of
each parking spaces provided. Hence, by offering parking spaces and apartment/house leasing contracts separate, parking demand
may be managed through pricing which may sway people into trying alternative modes of transportation instead.
Pricing Adjustments
Pricing adjustments were detailed in the Walker Study for each region of the City in order to encourage quick turnovers and manage
demand accordingly. These pricing adjustments are time sensitive and location sensitive, hence they may not apply in the future when
land use and demand may change.
OTHER MEASURES AVAIL ABLE TO MANAGE PARKING ARE P RICING STRATEGIES . A recurring strategic parking pricing model is responsive
to fluctuations in parking demand and compatible with existing parking technologies. A prime example of application of this m odel is the city of Seattle,
Washington. Since 2011 Seattle has implemented the Performance-Based Parking Pricing Program which regulates neighborhood parking rates,
hours, and time limits by measures of occupancy and is evaluated and corrected annually. Another more assertive model would be a recurring
congestion pricing system that surcharges users of public roadways to reduce congestion. This model burdens single-occupancy vehicles in order to
make multi-modal transportation a more favorable option. Locally, the I-95 Express Lanes in Miami-Dade are an example of congestion pricing.
Nationally, the city of San Francisco, California is currently implementing a trial system on Treasure Island in which residents will be given mandatory
transit passes, alternative modes of transportation such as ferries and buses will be favored, and motorists will have to pay parking fees and ramp
metering in order to mobilize within the island.
MODE SHARE VISION – PARKING
131
Section Sources:
1. Congestion Management Process: A Guidebook (FHWA), April, 2011 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/congestion_management_process/cmp_guidebook/)
2. Congestion Management Process 2009: CMP Toolbox, New York Metropolitan Transportation Council
(http://www.nymtc.org/project/CMS/2009_CMP_files/CMP%20Toolbox.pdf)
3. Atlanta Regional Council Congestion Management Process, July, 2006 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/congestion_management_process/case_studies/arc.cfm )
4. Performance-Based Parking Pricing Study Final Report, City of Seattle Department of Transportation, August, 2011
(http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parking/docs/SDOT_PbPP_FinRpt.pdf)
5. Treasure Island Development Authority, City & County of San Francisco (http://sftreasureisland.org/transportation)
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
132
F R E I G H T M A N A G E M E N T
As part of a comprehensive transportation system and a desirable
sustainable growing economy, FREIGHT LOADING AN D DELIVERY
MANAGEMENT have to be incorporated into transcendent City plans
so that roadway designs, transportation planning, and City
developments all work in concordance to IMPROVE THE MOBILITY ,
CONNECTIVITY, AND EC ONOMY OF THE CITY . The City of Miami
Beach is home to renowned commercial locations, cultural centers, and
hotels which benefit from and depend on efficient delivery management
system. Multiple strategies for managing freight exist; however, the City
is an urban environment that does not handle high volumes of heavy
trucks making some strategies inappropriate for Miami Beach. Hence,
the following strategies have been identified as appropriate for the City.
Freight Corridors and Freight Corridor Program
Understanding that freight delivery is an essential service with unique
transportation challenges, freight corridors throughout the City should
be identified and classified as so. This classification will allow for the
implementation of a FREIGHT CORRIDOR PROGRAM that evaluates
existing corridors to improve truck accessibility and mobility. This
program could include improvements such as:
Removal of on-street parking at key locations
Relocation of utilities
Installation of signs (truck wayfinding signage)
Provision of truck queue lanes/holding lanes at major access
points
Provision of loading bays
Signal control for proper traffic gaps and vehicular safety
This effort should potentially DEVELOP, MAINTAIN , AND UPDATE
AN INVENTORY of known obstacles identified by the trucking
community, maintain an inventory of height limitations for
infrastructures/utilities facing truck operations, list of large delivery
generators within the corridor, and maintain and publish a LIST OF
TRUCK RESTRICTIONS throughout the City for the longevity of all
bridges throughout. Freight corridors would prove essential in
alleviating traffic congestion, improving delivery operations, and
locating future/existing FLZ and ALZ. The cost of planning and
implementation may vary depending on the type and length of each
corridor and generally tend to be medium to high1. Table 30 displays
the advantages and disadvantage of implementing a freight corridor
program and which City corridors could potentially be studied in more
detail for the implementation of such program.
Table 30: Freight Corridor Program Advantages and Disadvantages
Freight
Corridor
Program
Advantages
Enhances safety
Reduces traffic congestion
Reduces infrastructure damages
Disadvantages
Discourages other modes of
transportation (transit, bike, etc.)
May require medium to high
capital investments
Potential
Corridors
SR 907/Alton Road from 41st Street to Michigan
Avenue
Collins Avenue from 5th Street to 41st Street
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
133
Truck Routes
Truck restrictions and truck corridor improvements work in synch with
potential truck routes. Truck routes may be defined throughout the City
by establishing paths for delivery and commercial vehicles along certain
corridors in concurrence with the locations of existing and future FLZ
and ALZ. By defining specific roadways for these routes, any future
improvements on the roadways will have to consider certain
accommodations for truck traffic.
The DEVELOPMENT OF TRUCK ROUTES REQUIRE S CAREFUL
PLANNING and should consider a variety of elements: freight
movement patterns, origins and destinations, characteristics of specific
corridors (heavy vehicle volumes etc.), and land use patterns. Costs
associated with the development of truck routes include substantial
stakeholder coordination (especially with all the major roadways within
the City being state roads), installation of guide signs, and strict
enforcement. Pavement design is of particular interest for corridors
served by truck route due to increased wear and tear from higher
density of heavy vehicles.
A GOOD CASE TO STUDY regarding the development and/or
improvement of truck routes within an urban environment is the one
from NEW YORK CITY . In a four-year effort NYCDOT embarked on
the development of the Truck Route Management and Community
Impact Reduction Study; and through this study, the City performed an
extensive analysis of the roadway network and developed a set of
recommendations to improve efficiency of goods movement through its
five boroughs. The recommendations included routing modifications,
transportation policy changes, roadway signage improvements,
enhanced enforcement, and educational initiatives.
By completion of this effort by NYCDOT, two truck routes were
modified: a portion of the truck route network in the Bronx and one in
Brooklyn had been realigned. The realigned truck routes improved the
efficiency of goods movement and removed truck traffic from residential
neighborhoods2. Figure 65 shows an example of some of the material
produced by NYCDOT as part of an educational initiative to promote
citywide truck routes.
Figure 65: Truck Route Informational Guide Example (New York City)
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
134
Additionally, developing strategic truck routes requires acquisition and
monitoring of specific data. These data may include elements such as
vehicle dimension and weight restrictions, land use, mobility (volume to
capacity ratio), truck origin and destination forecast, accident data,
truck summonses issued, truck-generating facilities and areas, and
stakeholder issues3. As an example of data that should be considered,
Figure 66 displays the current truck volumes on the majority of the
roadways within the City of Miami Beach4. Lastly, Table 31 shows the
advantages and disadvantage of implementing a truck route
development/improvement program and which City corridors could
potentially be studied in more detail for the implementation of such
program.
Figure 66: Freight Corridor Wayfinding Signage Example (New York
City)
Table 31: Truck Routes Program Advantages and Disadvantages
Truck
Routes
Advantages
Enhances safety
Discourages unnecessary truck
movement in sensitive areas
Reduces infrastructure damages
Informs carriers about geometric
and structural conditions of the
route network
Enhances livability
Disadvantages
High probability for unintended
consequences:
Increase operational costs
Increase vehicle-miles traveled
Challenging to ensure commercial
accessibility
Requires proper communication,
education, and enforcement
Requires proper coordination
between jurisdictions
Potential
Corridors
SR 907/Alton Road from 41st Street to Michigan
Avenue
Collins Avenue from 5th Street to 41st Street
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
135
Truck Restriction Zones
Truck restrictions in certain areas to avoid potential noise, safety, and
traffic congestion issues should be part of the effort of creating and
maintaining a livable community and an efficient multi-modal
transportation network within the City of Miami Beach. Covered under
Miami-Dade County policies are the restrictions for Category 3 vehicles,
which are all other vehicles not considered recreational or exceeding 20
feet in length or eight feet in height to be stored within a residential
area. However, TRUCKS WITHIN THE CI TY MAY STILL NEED TO
BE RESTRICTED FROM S PECIFIC CORRIDORS that are not
necessarily within residential areas as a measure of maintaining
adequate levels of service throughout that corridor. Vehicle size and
weight restrictions require careful planning that considers freight
movement and land use in certain target areas. A full analysis should
be conducted of possible positive and negative outcomes for the entire
freight system, not just the targeted area. Cost associated with TRUCK
RESTRICTIONS includes enforcement by local authorities, adequate
signage, and STAKEHOLDER COORDINA TION .
Exiting truck restrictions set by the State of Florida are established
under the 2015 Florida Statute s. 316.515. According to this statute,
semitrailers may operate on all public roads except for highways on the
tandem trailer truck highway network, public roads deemed unsafe, or
roads on which such longer vehicles are determined not to be in the
interest of public convenience. In a similar manner, tandem trailer
trucks may operate on all public roads of the State of Florida except for
restricted residential neighborhood streets, or streets and roads
deemed unsafe according to an engineering analysis, provided that the
restrictions are consistent with the provisions of the statute. The Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) has developed safety and
engineering standards to be used by all jurisdictions when identifying
public roads and streets to be restricted from tandem trailer truck
operations. All restrictions, whether for semitrailers or tandem trailer
trucks, shall be in conformance with the 2015 Florida Statute s.
316.006, which assigns authority over transportation decision to the
corresponding roadway owner. This means that local governments may
only set freight restrictions on their ROW as well as FDOT and Miami-
Dade County on theirs. No current truck restrictions within the City are
identified in the Florida Truck Lane Restrictions Interactive Map
provided by the Florida Traffic Incident Management (TIM) (refer to
Figure 67).
Figure 67: TIM Truck Lane Restrictions Interactive Map
Research shows that regulations are frequently put in place by urban
authorities for safety and environmental reasons to prevent vehicles
above a certain weight, size (length or width), or number of axles from
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
136
using either a particular road or a particular area of several connected
roads. Reasons for introducing this type of regulation include:
A narrow road
A weak bridge
A low bridge
Overhanging buildings
To improve the amenities of local residents
Since, as previously mentioned, regulations can vary between
municipalities. Careful consideration should be given to ensure
harmonization of all the interest of the various involved stakeholders5.
Figure 68 shows an example of a freight restriction area within
downtown Seattle, where vehicles over a certain size are prohibited to
be during specific time periods. Additionally, Figure 69 depicts
examples of signage that may be typically used within this type of
areas.
Lastly, Table 32 shows the advantages and disadvantage of
implementing truck restriction areas within the City.
Figure 68: Downtown Seattle Truck Restriction Zone
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
137
Figure 69: Truck Restrictions Sign Examples
Table 32: Truck Restriction Zones Advantages and Disadvantages
Truck
Restriction
Zones
Advantages
Enhanced safety
Reduced traffic congestion
Improved urban mobility
Reduce infrastructure damages
Reduced noise emissions
Disadvantages
Difficult to enforce
High probability of unintended
consequences:
Increased truck congestion on
other areas
Increased operational costs
Hamper economic activity
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
138
Intersection Geometry Analysis and Improvements
To complement designated freight corridors and/or routes or simply
areas where roadways exhibit high heavy vehicle traffic, intersection
geometry should be analyzed in efforts to improve traffic operations.
This may be achieved by DESIGNING CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS
with appropriate turning radii, providing swept path width, and
relocating traffic control devices/utility poles TO BETTER
ACCOMMODATE TRUCKS . Implementation cost varies per location
and state/federal design standards may be adopted at minimal costs.
This project may also be regarded as a short-term low-cost alternative
to implement a Freight Corridor Improvement Plan by simply improving
the intersections with high heavy vehicle traffic throughout the City in a
logical pattern. Table 33 shows the advantages and disadvantage of
providing improvements to intersection geometries to better
accommodate truck movements within the City.
Table 33: Intersection Geometry Improvements Advantages and
Disadvantages
Intersection
Geometry
Improvements
Advantages
Enhanced safety
Reduced traffic congestion
Reduce infrastructure damages
Low to no probability for
unintended consequences
Disadvantages
May require high to low capital
investments
May require moderate
implementation times
May conflict with pedestrian traffic
May impact private sector
locations
Figure 70: Truck Turning Movement
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
139
Loading Zone Accommodations
Not all FLZ and ALZ throughout the City completely accommodate
delivery activities. A minor and helpful physical improvement to loading
zones is the addition of sidewalk ramps for handcarts and forklifts.
These ramps will FACILITATE LOADING A ND UNLOADING O F
TRUCKS , therefore providing shorter and more efficient deliveries.
Multiple efforts are required to plan, update design standards, zoning
strategies, and inform involved stakeholders (real estate developers,
landlords, etc.). However, IMPLEMENTATION OF S IDEWALK
RAMPS is cheap if no additional sidewalk space is required to meet
design standards. Figure 71 graphically depicts a typical sidewalk
ramp. Other treatments may be needed when bicycle lanes are present
such as the use of a buffer area as a refuge island from the bicycle lane
(refer to Figure 72). Further accommodations may include building
retrofitting to update older buildings and include requirements for
loading accessibility in new developments. This effort is more costly
and benefits will have to be determined through further detailed
analysis. Lastly, Table 34 shows the advantages and disadvantage of
providing accommodations for freight loading zones throughout the
City.
Figure 71: Typical Sidewalk Curb Ramp
Table 34: Loading Zone Accommodations Advantages and
Disadvantages
Loading Zones
Accommodations
Advantages
Improves delivery efficiency
Environmental sustainability
Enhances safety
Improves accessibility (May be
used for ADA compliance)
Low to no probability for
unintended consequences
Disadvantages May conflict with pedestrian traffic
Figure 72: Loading Zone and Bike Path Buffer Separation Example
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
140
Colored Curb Program
The City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and the City of San
Francisco all currently have Colored Curb Programs which ALLOW
MOTORISTS TO QUICKLY DETERMINE THE TYPE O F CURBSIDE
PARKING PROVIDED through visual inspection of the color of the
curb. These programs are necessary in these cities due to the different
parking/loading zones they have established: green zones are for short-
term parking (generally less than 10 minutes), red zones are “No
Parking” zones installed at intersections, near fire hydrants, driveways,
curb ramps, and bus stops, white zones are only for passenger
loading/unloading of 5 minutes, yellow zones are only for active
commercial loading/unloading, and blue zones are designated for
disabled parking permits. MERCHANTS AND RESIDE NTS SUB MIT
a non-refundable APPLICATION that results in a town hall meeting to
approve the respective zone they wish to have installed near their
property. These zones may be properly adopted for the City of Miami
Beach and implemented in identified freight corridors. Since the FLZ
have expanded to include six (6) different “types” with distinct hours of
operation, COLORED CURBS MAY BE USED TO HELP TRUCK
DRIVERS IDENTIFIED T HE LOADING ZONE TYPE as opposed to
guiding all motorists on the type of curbside parking zone. This program
would be relatively simple to implement, low in cost, and would be easy
to amend to the existing loading zone policies. Figure 73 provides a
sample image of the types of curb colors defined in the City of San
Francisco, and Table 35 shows the advantages and disadvantage of
implementing a colored curb program within the City of Miami Beach.
Figure 73: Colored Curb Program Example
Table 35: Colored Curb Program Advantages and Disadvantages
Colored Curb
Program
Advantages
Improves delivery efficiency
Environmental sustainability
Low to no probability for unintended
consequences
Improves City organization of FLZ
“types”
Disadvantages
May not prevent inadequate loading
from taking place
Enforcement required
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
141
Interactive Freight Map
To facilitate future freight planning endeavors and to consolidate
current and upcoming freight management efforts from the City, this
TMP has created a comprehensive freight map that displays existing
loading zones that have been mapped thus far as well as the existing
and potential designated truck routes and/or corridors.
Figure 74: Freight Management Interactive Map Sample
Existing/Proposed Loading Zone
Existing/Proposed Commercial Land Use
Existing/Proposed Hotel Land
Potential City Freight Route
FDOT SIS Roadway
City Parcel Lot
MODE SHARE VISION – FREIGHT
142
Section Sources:
6. Freight Mobility Strategic Action Plan, Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), June, 2005
7. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/execsum.pdf
8. http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop10019/truckrtmgmt.htm#8b
9. http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/FloridaTrafficOnline/viewer.html
10. http://www.bestufs.net/download/BESTUFS_II/good_practice/English_BESTUFS_Guide.pdf
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
143
E N S U R I N G I M P L E M E N T A T I O N
In order to achieve the City’s 2035 strategic transportation mode share
vision, policies have to be set forth in order to remind, guide, and help
decision makers to pass legislature that promotes multimodal
transportation and rescind all of Miami Beach’s residents and visitors
preconceptions about travelling on transit, bikes, and on foot. The City’s
desire to weave together the CONCERNS OF COMMUNIT Y AND
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WITH TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
should be harnessed through concrete measures that ensure
implementation in order develop the City into a connected vibrant
livable community.
Recognizing that the City already enjoys of OUTSTANDING
TRANSPORTATION POLIC IES within its Transportation Element that
encourage the development of a sustainable, efficient, and attractive
transportation system, this TMP proposes to modify and set new
policies that will provide necessary support for implementing any
selected transportation strategy.
Updating and Setting New Policies
Legend
Existing Policy
Suggest Policy or Policy Modification
Non-Motorized Transportation
Policy 1.5: Multi-modal Level of Service
Roadway level of service is insufficient as a measure of multi-
modal mobility in a mature city with land use intensities, mixed
uses and the economic vitality such as Miami Beach. The city
shall attempt to shift from roadway capacity and level of service
to an overall mobility system capacity and level of service.
Policy 1.5.1
The City of Miami Beach should consider creating and
maintaining a pedestrian and bicycle count warehouse of
collected data regarding pedestrian and bicycle volumes,
level of service, peak hours, and location.
Policy 1.5.2
The City of Miami Beach should consider developing
permanent pedestrian and bicycle count stations using
any available technologies at key locations where
pedestrian and bicycle activities have been historically
high (i.e. similar to FDOT permanent vehicular count
stations that allow for better design due to reliable data
collection and interpretation)
Policy 1.5.3
The City of Miami Beach should consider developing
methodologies to determine pedestrian and bike level of
service and existing facilities remaining capacity to
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
144
standardize and analyze design procedures for new
pedestrian and bike facilities
Policy 5.6: Bicycle Storage
The City shall establish guidelines for the provision of short term
and long term bicycle parking areas, including bicycle racks for
multifamily residential areas, commercial areas, transit transfer
areas, transit stops, and recreational areas. All existing and new
garages shall include long-term bicycle parking (bicycle
lockers).
Policy 5.10: Pedestrian Priority Zones
The City shall define and adopt pedestrian priority zones, as
described in the Transportation Master Plan and their design
standards in order to ensure pedestrians safety, mobility, and
accessibility in targeted areas.
Policy 5.12: Bicycle Pavement Markings
The City shall adopt new pavement markings, presented in the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (i.e. Bicycle boulevard
pavement marking), and study the possibility for implementing
colored bicycle boxes at intersections, points of conflicts, and
other recommended locations citywide.
Transit
Policy 4.4: Enhanced Transit Amenities
The City shall coordinate with Miami-Dade Transit to provide
enhanced transit amenities, such as bus shelters, intermodal
facilities, transfer stations/centers, buses, implementation of bus
rapid transit (BRT) along selected corridors, real time transit
location information at shelters, exclusive bus lanes, and at
intermodal terminals, more comfortable bus seating, and
passenger amenities, etc.
Policy 4.7: North Beach And Middle Beach Circulators
(Local Circulators Systems)
The City shall plan, design, seek funding for and implement
local circulator systems in North Beach and Middle Beach. The
City shall continue to plan and coordinate with Miami-Dade
Transit (MDT) and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) to develop a connected circulator system that feeds
regional routes and future rail connections.
Policy 4.13: Exclusive Transit Lanes Design Guidelines
In coordination with Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) and the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT), the City shall study the
possibility of developing guidelines and standards for the
construction, and placement, of future transit infrastructure
including, but not limited to, the enhanced transit amenities
mentioned in Policy 4.4.
Automobiles
Policy 6.3: Intelligent Transportation Systems
The City shall coordinate with and support FDOT in the pursuit
of intelligent transportation systems (ITS), to help manage
congestion on facilities within Miami Beach as well as those
facilities connecting the city with the mainland transportation
system. This may include using various forms of technology,
not limited to cameras, and electronic signage, to inform
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
145
travelers of the condition of the transportation system, roadway
level of service, adaptive signal controls, and availability of
parking citywide. Additionally, the City is currently pursuing
FDOT independent ITS projects and shall continue to pursue
such independent projects to better manage the movement of
traffic within the City’s transportation network.
Policy 6.18: Corridor Safety
The City shall undertake an evaluation of the existing
transportation corridors in an attempt to enhance safety and
optimize mobility for all modes of transportation. In addition, the
City should encourage the development of an intersection safety
program in which intersections with skewed geometries or high
crash intensities are specifically reviewed and analyzed by a
traffic engineer to improve safety for all modes of transportation.
Policy 9.8: Provision Of Multimodal Amenities
Within the City’s TCMA’s, the City shall require all new major
developments and developments applying for new areas, those
projects over 5,500 gross square feet, and/or projects that
produce over 38 peak hour trips, to submit a Transportation
Mitigation Plan which will include strategies to mitigate the traffic
generated by the site, and will encourage the use of alternative
modes of transportation.
Policy 9.8.1
In addition to new major developments, the City shall
require all developments, excluding those below, within
a ½ mile radius from any roadway segment with a level
of service E or F (see adjacent table) to perform and
submit a Transportation Mitigation Plan. Developments
excluded from performing a Transportation Mitigation
Plan are limited to:
• Single family homes
• Multi-family homes with less than 15,500 gross
square feet (which represents the median gross square
footage for approximately 5 single family homes within
the City; that is a multi-family home of 5 families)
Table 36: Failing Roadway Segments (Including
Existing, 2025, and 2035 Conditions)
Segment Name Segment Limits
From To
SR A1A/MacArthur
Causeway City Limits Alton Road
SR A1A/Collins
Avenue 5th Street 26th Street
SR A1A/Collins
Avenue 71st Street 88th Street
SR A1A/Abbott
Avenue Indian Creek Drive 73rd Street
SR A1A/Indian Creek
Drive 73rd Street 88t Street
SR A1A/Indian Creek
Drive 41st Street 44th Street
SR A1A/Indian Creek
Drive 5800 Block Abbott Avenue
SR 112/Julia Tuttle
Causeway City Limits Alton Road
SR 112/41st Street Alton Road Collins Avenue
SR 937/71st Street Dickens Avenue Collins Avenue
SR 907/Alton Road Dade Boulevard 63rd Street
SR 907/63rd Street Alton Road Collins Avenue
Parking
Policy 8.2: Public Private Partnerships
The City shall continue to seek public-private partnerships in the
development of its parking facilities and intermodal centers.
Preferably, these ventures shall encourage off-street parking on
centralized parcels that serve multiple land-uses and should
prioritize the development of surface parking lots into parking
garages.
Policy 8.10: Parking Studies
The City shall analyze parking supply, demands, and potential
strategies to be implemented every 5 years as a measure for
determining the success of the city’s effort to moving parking
from on-street into facilities.
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
146
Policy 8.11: Parking Strategies
The City shall implement the appropriate strategies suggested
by the parking studies in order to achieve its vision and
encourage multimodal transportation. These
strategies/recommendations may include but are not limited to
way-finding, electronic signage, new proposed facilities, pricing
adjustments, car sharing programs, etc.
Policy 8.12: Multimodal Parking Facilities
In continuing the effort to develop parking facilities encourage
multimodal design elements within new or existing parking
facilities such as transfer stations, benches, showers, leased
retail spaces, etc. That create a walkable environment and
encourage a “park-once and go” mindset.
Freight
Policy 12.1: FLZ And ALZ Program
The City should continue its effort in developing and determining
FLZ and ALZ on all regions of the city and as substitutes for the
commercial loading zones where appropriate.
Policy 12.2: Colored Curb Program
FLZ and ALZ should be classified according to their time
restrictions and should be easily identifiable by drivers through a
colored pavement program, appropriate signage and way-
finding elements.
Policy 12.3: Commercial Loading Zones
Commercial loading zones should be reevaluated and
standardized to serve as compliments to the FLZ and ALZ by
providing zones for smaller vehicles, taxis, and/or school drop
offs/pick-ups.
Policy 12.4: Freight Routing
Freight should be routed in a logical way through major
corridors by providing loading zones on side streets and
alleyways that are serve a route which provides access to
commercial and transient residences.
Policy 12.5: Freight Amenities
The City shall encourage and analyze the potential of providing
curb ramps and/or dolly/handcarts/hand trucks on FLZs and
ALZs to provide improved access for delivery activities and for
quicker loading/unloading.
Multi-Modal Transportation
Policy 6.5: Modal Split Analysis
The City currently has a transportation mode split of its daily
population of 64% private vehicles, 11% mass transit, 10%
walking, 5% biking, and 10% others. The City shall strive to
achieve its 2035 vision of a transportation mode split of 43%
private vehicles, 20% mass transit, 17% walking, 10% biking,
and 10% others through support of and implementation of
multimodal transportation improvements.
Policy 6.7: Prioritizing Multimodal Improvements
The City’s transportation master plan has identified priority
corridors for each mode of transportation. The City shall abide
by these guidelines to prioritize projects along those corridors
according to the designated primary mode of transportation. The
City shall coordinate with other jurisdictions to follow the set
prioritization if a corridor does not fall under City jurisdiction.
Policy 6.21: Modal Split Data Collection
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
147
As a tool for accomplishing the desired modal split envisioned
for 2025 the city shall perform and retain a series of origin-
destination studies in which the modes of transportation used
within the city and by different people are recorder. These
studies could be performed through surveys of tourist, residents,
and commuters provided electronically and capturing a desired
sample size.
Concurrency Management Threshold
In reviewing and updating the Transportation Element a critical
objective for developing a truly efficient and multi-modal transportation
system is the successful implementation of concurrency measures
within the City’s TCMAs. Of the aforementioned proposed/modified
policies, Policy 9.8 under the Automobiles section (Page 144) redefines
the threshold for new developments or redevelopments that are
required to perform a Transportation Mitigation Plan. A closer look at
this policy and the proposed sub-policy follows.
Under the adopted Transportation Element of the 2025 Comprehensive
Master Plan the full policy is stipulated as follows:
Policy 9.8: Provision of Multimodal Amenities
Within the City’s TCMA’s, the City shall require all new major
developments, (those projects over 50,000 gross square feet,
and/or projects that increase the number of trips over 100 peak
hour trips), to submit a Transportation Mitigation Plan which will
include strategies to mitigate the traffic generated by the site,
and will encourage the use of alternative modes of
transportation. The safety and convenience of all users of the
transportation system including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
users, and motor vehicle drivers shall be accommodated and
balanced in all types of transportation and development projects
and through all phases of all new major developments so that
the most vulnerable – children, elderly, and persons with
disabilities – can travel safely within the public right of way.
Applicable treatments may include, but not be limited to TDM
strategies included in Policy 6.2 and TSM policies included in
Policy 6.1.
As stated, only projects with a footprint of 50,000 gross square feet or
more, or projects that increase the number of generated trips by over
100 peak-hour trips are required to mitigate the additional traffic they
produce. The reality of all new development and some redevelopments
is that they generate NEW TRIPS WHICH HAVE TO BE
ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE EXISTING PUBLIC
INFRASTRUCTURE . If today a roadway is at capacity, the addition of
new trips will saturate the roadway and strategies need to be
implemented in order to improve operations. Hence, new developments
that are large in footprint area, density, and intensity should not be the
only developments responsible for mitigating any generated traffic. By
requiring new developments and/or redevelopments to perform a
Transportation Mitigation Plan the burden of performing an engineering
study is transferred to the private sector as opposed to the public
sector. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS S AVES TAX MONEY BY FUNDING
AN IDENTIFIED TRANSPORT ATION STRATEGY /SOLUTIONS AS
OPPOSED TO PERFORMIN G STUDIES TO IDENTIFYING THE
BEST TRANSPORTATION STRATEGY /SOLUTION TO DEAL WI TH
NEWLY GENERATED TRIP S .
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
148
Hence new thresholds were identified for the City using relevant data.
According to the Housing Element within the 2025 Comprehensive
Master Plan for the City of Miami Beach the AVERAGE SQUARE
FOOTAGE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS OF 3,163. As of
2013, the US Census Bureau QuickFacts for the City identifies that
PER HOUSEHOLD THERE IS AN AVERAGE OF 2.0 4 PEOPLE .
FHWA under its 2013 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions & Performance, Chapter 1: Household Travel has
identified that as of 2009 ONE PERSON MAKES AN AVERAGE OF
3.79 DAILY TRIPS .
IN PROMOTING URBAN I NFILL AND DENSIFICAT ION , single
family homes and small multi-family homes have been except from
having to prepare a Transportation Mitigation Plan because the amount
of probable trips these developments will produce will be
INSUFFICIENT TO CREA TE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN
ROADWAY LEVEL OF SER VICE AND TRANSPORTAT ION
DEMAND . For this purpose, a small multi-family home has been
defined as household contacting an average of 10 people or 15,500
square foot which would produce an estimated 37.9 daily trips. Any
residential development with a footprint greater than 15,500 will begin
to have adverse effects to the existing transportation system.
The nature and amount of trips generate by residencies is very different
than from those generate by other land uses such as commercial
buildings and transient homes (i.e. hotels). These land uses usually
create more trips per square footage, therefore, APPLYING THE
SAME AREA THRESHOLD TO RESIDENCIES AND COMMERCIAL
LAND USE IS NOT APPROPRIATE .
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
149
Throughout the City businesses, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, and retail spaces generate more transportation needs than houses and small
apartments, especially in the tourist destination that is Miami Beach. Using the INSTITUTE OF TRANSPO RTATION ENGINEERS (I TE) TRIP
GENERATION MANUAL (8TH EDITION), AVERAGE AREAS GENERA TING 38 VEHICULAR TRIPS WERE DETERMINE FOR SEVERAL
COMMON LAND USES within the City (See Table 37). Using the maximum area calculated, an area threshold for other land use was determined.
This area threshold corresponds to a wholesale supermarket with 5,646 SQUARE FEET . For ease of implementation and documentation the area
threshold was rounded down to the nearest five hundred; which is 5,500 SQUARE FEET . However, note that the controlling factor for capacity
impact determination is the amount of vehicular trips produced, hence, regardless of the footprint area, if a development produces more than 38
TRIPS IT WILL ADVERSELY IM PACT THE TRANSPORTAT ION NETWORK .
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
150
Table 37: ITE Trip Generation Rates per Land Use
ITE Code
(8th Ed.) Description Units ITE Weekday Vehicle Trip Generation Rate Area Required for 38 Generated Trips
(Equivalent to 5 Single Family Homes)
310 Hotel A Occ. Room 8.92 1,406
312 Business Hotel A Occ. Room 7.27 1,725
320 Motel A Occ. Room 9.11 1,377
330 Resort Hotel A Occ. Room 13.43 934
520 Elementary School KSF2 15.43 2,463
530 High School KSF2 12.89 2,948
560 Church KSF2 9.11 4171
561 Synagogue KSF2 10.64 3,571
610 Hospital KSF2 16.50 2,303
710 General Office KSF2 11.01 3,451
750 Office Park KSF2 11.42 3,327
820 Shopping Center KSF2 42.94 885
850 Supermarket KSF2 102.24 372
853 Convenience. Mkt w/ Gas Pumps KSF2 845.60 45
860 Wholesale Market KSF2 6.73 5,646
880 Pharmacy/Drug. w/o Drive-Thru KSF2 90.06 422
881 Pharmacy/Drugstore w/ Drive-Thru KSF2 88.16 431
934 Fast Food with Drive Thru KSF2 496.12 77
937 Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive Thru KSF2 818.58 46
Note:
A Per City Code a minimum size of 330 square feet per room was used to estimate the size transient residencies (i.e., hotels, etc.); note that this estimation is low
since the area only takes into account accommodating rooms and no other hotel amenities
MODE SHARE VISION – POLICIES
151
Section Sources:
1. City of Miami Beach 2005- 2007 Year-Based Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Housing Element, Page HE-9
(https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQFjABahUKEwikk6WmzfTIAhWC_R4KHYXuD_8&url=http%3A%2F%2F
www.miamibeachfl.gov%2FWorkArea%2FDownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D64027&usg=AFQjCNFCfLzo8oIuPDLwLo_gTibgdPZfPg&bvm=bv.106379543,d.d mo)
2. US Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts Beta 2.0 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1245025.html)
3. FHWA 2013 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions & Performance; Chapter 1: Household, November, 2014
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/chap1.cfm#body)
PROJECTDEVELOPME
NT
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT – SETTING CRITERIA
153
6. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
SHIFTING OUR TRAVEL PATTERNS towards a more sustainable
transportation mix will require changes to transportation modal
priorities, funding, standards, policies and projects. While ALL
FUTURE PROJECTS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVALS AND
FUNDING , and in some cases participation of external agencies, these
projects represent current priorities that will help start the shift towards
a more sustainable and multi-modal transportation future. However, it’s
clear that all the variables needed to make any of these projects a
reality, are not always readily at hand. THEREFORE, THE SUCCE SS
OF THESE PROJECTS IS NOT HINGED UPON ANY
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OR UNFORESEEN TRANSP ORTATION
NEEDS OF THE CITY MA Y HAVE.
Once the analysis of the main City corridors was complete and modal
priorities, led by the endorsed hierarchy, were assigned to the
roadways; the development of potential transportation projects became
a straightforward task. The notion to defining the projects was
structured the following way:
TRANSIT CORRIDORS shall provide exclusive facilities for
such mode. This means that the typical section of the roadway
should accommodate lanes and/or infrastructure improvements
dedicated exclusively for transit, i.e. bus lanes, light rail lanes,
enhanced stations, transfer facilities, etc.
BICY CLE AND PEDESTRIAN C ORRIDORS shall provide
exclusive facilities and/or enhancements for such mode. This
means that the typical section of the roadway should
accommodate lanes, markings, signage, and/or infrastructure
improvements dedicated exclusively for bicyclists and
pedestrians, i.e. enhanced crosswalks, traffic calming
improvements, more and safer crossings, adequate
signalization and timing, neighborhood greenways, standard
bicycle lanes, protected bicycle lanes, etc.
The concept of providing exclusive facilities for these alternative modes
of transportation guided the development of the vast majority of the
recommended projects. Nonetheless, maintaining the mobility of
motorized personal vehicles was not overlooked since they are after all
an integral part of an efficient transportation network as well. Thus, in
close coordination with the City, various recommendations were made
toward capacity improvements for certain identified congested areas.
Since, area specific improvements require detailed analysis, most of
the recommendations to improve roadway capacity consist of short-
term feasibility studies to further define the issues causing congestion
within the areas and provide pertinent site improvements. This TMP
recommends that ANY FEASIBILITY STUD Y that is to analyze and
suggest CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT S should do so under a multi-
modal scope and under the notion that these improvements will
ACCOMMODATE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN
THE PERSONAL VEHICLE , especially when involving TMP defined
transit and/or bicycle/pedestrian corridors.
This TMP has created a project bank structured in three categories:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT – SETTING CRITERIA
154
S E T T I N G C R I T E R I A
While this TMP intends to recommend numerous potential
improvements, it is known that certain limitations exist for simultaneous
implementation of all of them. Monetary funding being one but also the
fact that it is simply irrational as well as physically impossible to
improve the City’s transportation infrastructure all at once, especially
with it being a barrier island with limited access points. Therefore, it is
CRUCIAL TO PRIORITIZ E potential projects in an orderly manner as
TO EFFICI ENTLY IMPROVE the transportation infrastructure WHILE
OBTAINING as many MEASURABLE RESULTS as possible along the
way. As previously shown, the TMP recommended projects were
prioritized in three categories, and were assigned to each one based on
certain criteria. While the prioritization involved a certain degree of
judgement based on professional experience and on current needs
expressed by the City, the proposed improvements were subjected to
various conditional and quantifiable measures to ensure a progressive
and cost feasible addition into the City’s Capital Improvement Program
(CIP).
To ensure consistency and make use of the City’s valuable resources,
the criteria set forth in the most recent Transportation Element (2009)
were used in the prioritization of these potential projects. These criteria
essentially look at different ways in which a project can impact the
overall environment of the City and ASSIGN WEIGHTED VALU ES
based on various conditions. Driven by the City’s MULTI -MODAL
GOALS , a few other qualitative measures were added to the
Transportation Element criteria, to ensure projects were rated on how
they may GEAR the transportation network TOWARD the endorsed
MODE HIERARCHY and help achieve the 2035 MODE SHARE
VISION . Table 38 displays the criteria utilized for the prioritization of
proposed projects.
All projects were assigned weighted values for each of the criterion and
then ranked/prioritized based on the total value. The thresholds for the
priorities were as follows:
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3
80 to 60 59 to 38 37 to 16
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT – SETTING CRITERIA
155
Table 38: Proposed Projects Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Score Description
Ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
Travel
Demand
L 1 0 ≤ AADT ≤ 10,000
M 3 10,001 ≤ AADT ≤ 20,000
H 5 20,001 ≤ AADT
Demand to
Capacity
Ratio1
L 1 LOS A or LOS B
M 3 LOS C or LOS D
H 5 LOS E or LOS F
Co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Personal
Automobile
L 1 Improvements will not provide new roadway connections to improve the grid network of the city for the automobile mode of
transportation
M 3 Improvements will provide new connections to collector roadways for the automobile mode of transportation
H 5 Improvements will provide new connections to arterial roadways for the automobile mode of transportation
Transit
L 1 Improvements will not provide new roadway connections to improve the grid network of the city for the transit mode of
transportation
M 2 or 3 Improvements will provide new connections that will increase transit coverage to a small or limited area within the City (mixed-use
facilities will receive a score of 2 while dedicated facilities will receive a score of 3)
H 4 or 5
Improvements will provide new connections that will increase transit coverage between the regions of the City (South Beach,
Middle Beach, and North Beach) or beyond the City (mixed-use facilities will receive a score of 4 while dedicated facilities will
receive a score of 5)
Bicycle
L 1 Improvements will not provide new roadway connections to improve the grid network of the city for the bicycle mode of
transportation
M 2 or 3 Improvements will provide new connections to existing bicycle facilities within a small or limited area of the City (mixed -use
facilities will receive a score of 2 while dedicated facilities will receive a score of 3)
H 4 or 5
Improvements will provide new connections that will structure the bicycle facilities network for movement between the regions of
the City (South Beach, Middle Beach, and North Beach) or to multi-modal hubs (mixed-use facilities will receive a score of 4 while
dedicated facilities will receive a score of 5)
Pedestrian
L 1 Improvements will not provide new connections or facilities for pedestrians
M 3 Improvements will provide new connections and/or enhance existing facilities for pedestrians within a small or limited area of the
City
H 5 Improvements will provide new connections for pedestrians to multi-modal hubs, key civic facilities, and/or touristic attractions
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT – SETTING CRITERIA
156
Criteria Score Description
So
c
i
a
l
Im
p
a
c
t
s
Adjacent Land
Use
L 5 Changes in traffic behavior will have little to no change to the neighborhood quality of life, environmental resources, and/o r access
to community services
M 3 Changes in traffic behavior will not exceed the neighborhood livability thresholds, improvements will partially affect environmental
resources, and/or no significant access changes to community services will occur
H 1 Changes in traffic behavior will exceed the neighborhood livability thresholds, improvements will affect environmental resources,
and/or significant access changes to community services will occur
Relocation of
Residents
L 5 No residential displacement will occur and/or impacts to residential access will be of a small or nonexistent magnitude
M 3 Magnitude of residential displacement will be less than the average City block and/or residential access will change moderate ly
H 1 Magnitude of residential displacement will be greater than the average City block and/or residential access will be change
drastically
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
Costs
L 5 $0 ≤ Total Improvements Cost ≤ $250,000 (in 2015$)
M 3 $250,001 ≤ Total Improvements Cost ≤ $750,000 (in 2015$)
H 1 $750,001 ≤ Total Improvements Cost (in 2015$)
ROW
Acquisition
L 5 No ROW acquisition required
M 3 ROW acquisition required for a specific intersection, corner radii improvements, utility clips, and/or adjacent lands less th an an
average City block
H 1 ROW acquisition required along a roadway segment longer than an average City block
Relocation of
Businesses
L 5 No business displacements will occur and/or impacts to business access will be of a small or nonexistent magnitude
M 3 Magnitude of business displacement will be less than the average City block and/or business access will change moderately
H 1 Magnitude of business displacement will be more than the average City block and/or business access will change drastically
Mu
l
t
i
-Mo
d
a
l
i
s
m
Potential for
Mode Shift
L 1 Multi-modal improvements are of minor significance to induce a modal shift from vehicular transportation that would result in fuel
savings and reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
M 3 Multi-modal improvements limited to a specific location are considered of moderate significance to induce a modal shift from
vehicular transportation within the City
H 5 Multi-modal improvements across several neighborhoods are considered of major significance to reduce single occupancy vehicle
within one of the three regions of the City (South Beach, Middle Beach, and North Beach) or Citywide
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT – SETTING CRITERIA
157
Criteria Score Description
Re
g
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
Mobility to
Downtown
L 1 Proposed improvements will mostly have an impact on the internal Citywide multi-modal transportation network
M 3 Proposed improvements will indirectly provide connectivity to the mainland for all or various modes of transportation
H 5 Proposed improvements will directly provide connectivity to the mainland for all or various modes of transportation
Mobility to the
Airport
L 1 Proposed improvements will mostly have an impact on the internal Citywide multi-modal transportation network
M 3 Proposed improvements will indirectly provide connectivity to multi-modal routes/roadways and/or infrastructure which will
essentially culminate or connect to MIA
H 5 Proposed improvements will directly provide connectivity to multi-modal routes/roadways and/or infrastructure which will
essentially culminate or connect to MIA
Ne
e
d
s
Recurrent
L 1 Project does not relate or indirectly relates or partially connects to identified and/or implemented projects from previous p lanning
efforts
M 3 Project partially connects or is part of identified and/or implemented projects from previous planning efforts
H 5 Project has been identified in previous planning efforts and has yet to be implemented
Current
L 1 Project has been identified as an improvement to the overall multi-modal transportation network but has had little or no expressed
need
M 3 Project has been identified as an improvement to the overall multi-modal transportation network and a medium to low level of
need has been expressed for it by the Region, City, and/or residents and stakeholders
H 5 Project has been identified as an improvement to the overall multi-modal transportation network and a medium to high level of
need has been expressed for it by the Region, City, and/or residents and stakeholders
1 Only LOS for motorized vehicles was obtained
L = Low Priority M = Medium Priority H = High Priority
CORRIDORANALYSIS
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
159
7. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
M O D E P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N O N T H E C I T Y ’ S M A J O R R O A D W A Y S
The idea behind this exercise was driven by the notion
that in order to truly make a difference in the way City
residents and visitors travel, modes other than the
personal automobile had to be prioritized on certain
roadways, specifically those which currently carry the
most amounts of people. This means that dedicated,
reliable, and efficient FACILITIES THAT PROV IDE
CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THE EXTENT OF THE
CITY LIMITS have to be provided to actually make a
true shift in the current mode split.
The process was straight forward: there are only a few
roads within then City that provide continuous
connectivity in the north-south direction as well as in the
east-west; and while the TMP team identified five (5)
north-south corridors and four (4) east-west corridors,
there is actually ONLY ONE(1) ROADWAY which is
CONTINUES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY , SR
A1A/Collins Avenue, the rest of the corridors are
combinations of roadways that when combined provide
sufficient coverage of the City and were considered
major links.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – THE WASHINGTON AVENUE EXAMPLE
160
To make recommendations, different aspects of EACH
INDIVIDUAL FACILITY had to be ASSESSED in order to
prioritize alternative modes of transportation within the City’s
10 major corridors. This analysis involved looking at corridor
specific data such as:
Adjacent land use,
Number of bus routes running on the facility,
Number of transit stops,
Daily ridership per stop,
Miles of dedicated bicycle facilities,
Number of signalized intersections,
AADT volumes, and
Vehicular LOS.
Additionally, through the use of current aerial photography,
and supplemented by field reviews, an INVENTORY was
performed for THE EXISTING INFRAST RUCTURE of each of
the 10 corridors. This implied defining the existing typical
section(s) from beginning to end of each corridor and defining
the number of different segments for each corridor; every point
at which the typical section changed marked the start of a new
segment. Knowing the different elements (travel lanes, parking
lanes, sidewalk widths, etc.) became a VALUABLE
RESOURCE during this process, making it easier to know how
much dedicated public right-of-way is available and how it can
be redefined TO RECOMMEND A MORE UNIF ORM
FACILITY in which certain modes have priority. Figures 76
through 95 display the aforementioned data for each of the 10
corridors as well as their segments and respective existing
typical sections. It should be noted that the typical sections
portrayed are meant to display approximate dimensions to be
used for planning recommendations; any further analysis
recommending changes to this typical should be performed with more detailed,
perhaps surveyed, dimensions.
The Washington Avenue Example
In an approach to visualize the impact that redefining the purpose of a travel
lane would have in term of moving people, Washington Avenue was used as an
example. The bidirectional Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for this roadway
was obtained, and then converted into person trips using the nationwide average
value of 1.6 persons per vehicle (discussed in the Mode Share section of this
document). This total daily person trips was divided by the number of travel
lanes on Washington Avenue to approximate the number of PEOPLE
TRAVELING ON A SINGL E LANE . Then this number of persons/lane/day was
compared to the number of people that can be POTENTIALLY CARRIED
DAILY ON A DEDICATED BUS LANE ; assuming that an articulated bus would
pass every 5 minutes and would have an occupancy of approximately 75
percent. This of course is a very schematic approach and deserves more in
depth analysis; however, it is a valid exercise to show the potential of providing a
facility with transit priority.
Figure 75: Washington Avenue Person Throughput
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
161
N O R T H -S O U T H C O R R I D O R S
SR A1A/Collins Avenue
Figure 76: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
162
Figure 77: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
163
SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street
Figure 78: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
164
Figure 79: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
165
West Avenue – North Bay Road
Figure 80: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
166
Figure 81: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
167
Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue
Figure 82: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
168
Figure 83: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
169
Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive
Figure 84: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
170
Figure 85: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
171
Washington Avenue
Figure 86: Washington Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS
172
Figure 87: Washington Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
173
E A S T -W E S T C O R R I D O R S
SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street
Figure 88: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
174
Figure 89: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
175
Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street
Figure 90: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
176
Figure 91: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
177
SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street
Figure 92: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
178
Figure 93: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
179
SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street
Figure 94: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – EAST-WEST CORRIDORS
180
Figure 95: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – RESULTS
181
C O R R I D O R A N A L Y S I S
R E S U L T S
Through the analysis of corridor specific data and existing
infrastructure shown above as well as general knowledge
of how the transportation network of the City functions, the
10 major corridors were grouped into TRANSIT and
BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS . Through basic
ridership data along the roadway and functionality, it
became clear which of these major facilities should provide
exclusive right-of-way for transit. Essentially, three(3) of
the four(4) causeways entering the City from the mainland
as well as their receiving roadways were defined as transit
corridors since these are the facilities actually carrying the
people in and out of the City on a daily basis. Similarly, and
under the notion that ALL MODES SHOULD BE
PROVIDED WITH EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES , all of the
four (4) causeways were defined as bicycle/pedestrian
corridors. This should be accomplished through the
provision of exclusive and protected facilities that would
safely accommodate any traveler type choosing to cross
the Biscayne Bay bicycling or on foot. It should be noted
that all of the causeways are under the jurisdiction of
agencies other than the City of Miami Beach and thus
close coordination should take place regarding future
modifications to the typical section(s) of these facilities.
This exercise/analysis yielded what this TMP considers to
be a comprehensive, connected, and exclusive network for
the Transit, Bicycling, and Walking modes of
transportation. The 10 major corridors alone would not
complete the entire grid; and therefore, to cover the vast
majority of the City and create a web that would extend to
the majority of the areas, MULTI -MODAL CONNECTORS were identified as the
crucial links to provide full and continuous connectivity. These connectors are other
minor city roadways which have been identified as good candidates to provide
sufficient amenities and/or exclusivity to these other modes of transportation to
provide a complete network. Figures 96 and 98 show the transit network,
bicycle/pedestrian network, and multi-modal connectors, respectively, which this
TMP recommended for multi-modal projects to take place on and for future
planning, design and construction efforts to be carried forward in subsequent
phases. Additionally, Figures 99 portrays how the multi-modal connectors relate to
the bicycle/pedestrian network.
Figure 96: TMP Recommended Transit Corridors and Bicycle/Pedestrian Corridors
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – RESULTS
182
Figure 97: TMP Recommended Multi-modal
Connectors (Network Links)
Figure 98: TMP Recommended Transit
Network and Multi-modal Connectors
(Network Links)
Figure 99: TMP Recommended
Bicycle/Pedestrian Network and Multi-modal
Connectors (Network Links)
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDORS
183
Transit Priority Corridors
Transit priority corridors are those roadways or combinations of
roadways that have been recommended by this TMP to PROVIDE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT -OF-WAY FOR TRANSIT . This exclusivity
should be provided through the implementation of any of the different
types of transit exclusive lanes, or combinations, previously mentioned
in this section of the report. This recommended exclusive transit
corridors are intended to provide a R ELIABLE, CONNECTED A ND
CONTINUOUS INFRASTRU CTURE NETWORK with the goal of
achieving the City’s 2035 multi-modal vision. Figure 100 and 101
portray the TMP recommended transit network; a more detailed
description on how these corridors were defined and recommended is
provided in the Corridor Analysis section of this document.
Additionally, Figures 102 through 109 provide an array of potential
typical sections for certain segments of these transit corridors. These
typical sections were developed using the comprehensive major
corridor existing infrastructure inventory (provided in the Corridor
Analysis section of this documents), and should be used as a GUIDE
FOR POTENTIAL CONFIG URATIONS of these roadway segments
during further stages of projects recommended by this TMP.
Figure 100: TMP Recommended Transit Priority Corridors
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDORS
184
Figure 101: TMP Recommended Transit Priority
Corridors & Potential Typical Sections Locations
Transit Corridors Potential Typical Sections
Figure 102: SR A1A/ MacArthur Causeway Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from
US-1 / Biscayne Blvd to SR 907/Alton Road
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 2 and Priority 3: No. 25
This typical section recommends Exclusive Bus Lanes and Bicycle Lanes (Priority 1), and
elevated Light Rail Facility and Shared Use Path (Priority 3)
Figure 103: SR A1A/ 5th Street Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from SR 907/Alton
Road to Washington Avenue
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 3 and No. 5
This typical section recommends Exclusive Buffer Separated/Protected Bicycle Lanes, Light
Rail and Bus Lanes. The exclusive bicycle lanes of this segment will extend to Ocean Drive.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDORS
185
Figure 104: Washington Avenue
Transit Corridor Potential Typical
Section from SR A1A/5th Street to Dade
Boulevard
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 4 and No. 6
This typical section recommends
Exclusive Light Rail and Bus Lanes.
Figure 105: 71st Street/Normandy
Drive Transit Corridor Typical Section
from the end of the 79th Street
Causeway to SR A1A Collins Avenue
TMP Project Bank Priority 2: No. 7
This typical section recommends
Exclusive Transit Lanes and Protected
Bicycle Lanes.
Figure 106: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 44th Street to 5900 City Block TMP Project Bank Priority 3: No.3
This typical section recommends
Exclusive Transit Lanes.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – TRANSIT PRIORITY CORRIDORS
186
Figure 107: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section non-bridge portion of the causeway located within the Biscayne Bay TMP Project Bank Priority 3: No. 27
This typical section recommends a
Shared Use Path, Exclusive Transit
Lanes.
Figure 108: SR A1A/Collins Avenue/Indian Creek Drive Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 17th Street to 44th Street TMP Project Bank Priority 2: No.2
This typical section recommends
Exclusive Bicycle and Bus Lanes.
Figure 109: SR 907/Alto Road Transit Corridor Potential Configuration from South Pointe Drive to Dade Boulevard TMP Project Bank Priority 3: No. 11 and 14
This typical section recommends
Conventional Bicycle Lanes and
Exclusive Bus Lanes.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY CORRIDORS
187
Bicycle & Pedestrian Priority Corridors
Bicycle priority corridors are those roadways or combinations of
roadways that have been recommended by this TMP to provide
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT -OF-WAY AND/OR AMENITIES FOR
BICYCLISTS . This should be provided through the implementation of
any of the different types of bicycle facilities, or combinations,
previously mentioned in this section of the report. This recommended
exclusive bicycle corridors are intended to provide a reliable, connected
and continuous infrastructure network with the goal of achieving the
City’s 2035 multi-modal vision, and have been recommended to
prioritize not only bicyclists but also pedestrians. Figure 110 and 111
portray the TMP recommended bicycle/pedestrian network; a more
detailed description on how these corridors were defined and
recommended is provided in the Corridor Analysis section of this
document.
Additionally, Figures 112 through 116 provide an array of potential
typical sections for certain segments of these bicycle/pedestrian
corridors. These typical sections were developed using the
comprehensive major corridor existing infrastructure inventory
(provided in the Corridor Analysis section of this documents) as well as
the very thorough Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP) which has
been developed concurrently to this TMP. All corridors recommended
to prioritize bicyclists and pedestrians have been corroborated with the
recommendation provided in the BPMP, which concentrated specially
on these two modes of transportation and provides insightful detail to
the overall process of developing recommendations to achieve the
City’s multi-modal vision. The typical sections shown in this section of
the TMP should be used as a GUIDE FOR POTENTIAL
CONFIGURATIONS of these roadway segments during further stages
of projects recommended by this TMP and the BPMP.
Figure 110: TMP Recommended Bicycle/Pedestrian Priority Corridors
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY CORRIDORS
188
Figure 111: TMP Recommended Bicycle
Priority Corridors & Potential Typical
Sections Locations
Bicycle Corridor Potential Typical Sections
Figure 112: 22nd Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from
Washington Avenue to the City of Miami Beach Beachwalk
TMP Project Bank Priority 2: No. 5
This typical section recommends Protected Bicycle Lanes.
Figure 113: 11th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from
West Avenue to Ocean Drive
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 42
This typical section recommends a Neighborhood Greenway
.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS – BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY CORRIDORS
189
Figure 114: North Bay Road Bicycle
and Pedestrian Corridor Potential
Typical Section from West Avenue to La
Gorce Drive
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 11
This typical section recommends a
Neighborhood Greenway. This
recommendation is consistent with the
recommendation from the BPMP.
BPMP recommended configuration
Figure 115: West Avenue Bicycle and
Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical
Section from 6th Street to 20th Street
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 7
This typical section recommends
Protected Bicycle Lanes. This
recommendation is consistent with the
recommendation from the BPMP.
BPMP recommended configuration
Figure 116: Pine Tree Drive & La
Gorce Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian
Corridor Potential Typical Section from
51st Street to La Gorce Circle
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 20
This typical section recommends
Protected Bicycle Lanes. This
recommendation is consistent with the
recommendation from the BPMP.
BPMP recommended configuration
PROJECTBANK
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
191
8. PROJECT BANK
P R I O R I T Y 1 P R O J E C T S
Table 39: Priority 1 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
1
SR A1A /
MacArthur
Causeway
Complete
Streets
Feasibility
Study
South Multimoda
l Downtown Collins
Avenue 3.80
Review of design alternatives
for exclusive transit lanes and
bicycle lanes long MacArthur
Causeway (Phase I)
SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway
requires an improvement towards
regional and local connectivity.
Improve the speed, reliability, comfort
and convenience of transit. Serve
new markets and support economic
vitality.
2
Miami Beach
Light
Rail/Modern
Street Car
South Multimoda
l
S.Pointe
Drive
&
SR A1A/5th
Street
Washington
Avenue
&
Dade
Boulevard
4.55
(Rail
Lane)
and
4.70
(Protecte
d Bike
Lanes)
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening)
South Beach requires an
improvement for regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
192
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
3
West Avenue
Protected
Bicycle Lanes
South Bike/Ped 6th Street 20th Street 1.3
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing), Enhanced
crosswalks
West Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
4
73rd Street One
Way Protected
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue Atlantic Trail 0.35
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing), Enhanced
crosswalks
73rd Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
5
72nd Street One
Way Protected
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.28
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing), Enhanced
crosswalks
72nd Street requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
193
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
6
Byron Avenue
Protected
Bicycle
Lanes/Neighbor
hood Greenway
North Bike/Ped 73rd Street Hawthorne
Avenue 0.56
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing) from 73rd
Street to 75th Street.
Neighborhood Greenway from
75th Street to Hawthorne
Avenue. Enhanced crosswalks
Byron Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
7
North Bay Road
Neighborhood
Greenway
(Including SR
907/Alton Road
connecting bridge
over Surprise
Waterway)
Middle Bike/Ped Dade
Boulevard
La Gorce
Drive 4.6
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
North Bay Road requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
8
SR 907 / Alton
Road
and 17th Street
Intersection
Improvements
South Bike/Ped N/A N/A N/A
Review Geometry of the
intersection for the addition of
an additional left turn lane.
Improved vehicular operations at
the Intersection of SR 907 / Alton
Road AND 17th Street
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
194
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
9
51st Street
Green Bicycle
Lanes
Middle Bike/Ped Alton Road Pine Tree
Drive 0.4 Enhanced (green) Bicycle
Lanes
51st Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
10
63rd Street:
Feasibility
Study for
Bicycle
Alternatives
Middle Multimoda
l Alton Road Indian Creek
Drive 0.4
Multimodal Feasibility Analysis
for bicycle and transit
alternatives consistent with the
Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan
63rd Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
11
SR 907 Bicycle
Alternatives
Analysis and
Implementation
Middle Bike/Ped Michigan
Avenue
Chase
Avenue 0.93
Analysis and implementation of
Separated or Protected Bicycle
Facilities adjacent to the golf
course
Alton Road requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
195
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
12
Dade Boulevard
Shared Use
Path + Road
Diet
South Bike/Ped 17th Street Pine Tree
Drive 1
Feasibility Study and
Implementation of Shared Use
Path Adjacent to Collins Canal
with potential road diet on the
eastbound approach between
SR 907/Alton Road and
Michigan Avenue
Dade Boulevard requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
13
Euclid Avenue
Protected
Bicycle Lanes
South Bike/Ped 2nd Avenue 16th Street 1.15
Protected Bicycle Lanes from
5th Street to 16th Street.
Neighborhood Greenway from
3rd Street to 5th Street.
Dade Boulevard requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
14
Meridian
Avenue Bicycle
Facilities
South
Bike/Ped/
Safety/
Capacity
16th Street Dade
Boulevard 0.47
Phase I of the Project includes
a geometric feasibility analysis
for protected bicycle lanes. The
analysis also includes a
capacity analysis of the
Meridian Avenue and 17th
Street Intersection (Priority 1A).
Phase II of the project includes
implementation based on the
results of Phase I.
Meridian Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
196
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
15
Meridian
Avenue and
28th Street
Shared Use
Path
Middle Bike/Ped Dade
Boulevard
Pine Tree
Drive 0.90
Shared Uses Path (Lane
repurposing) Enhanced
crosswalks
Meridian Avenue and 28th Street
require an improvement towards
local non-motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
16
La Gorce Drive /
Pine Tree Drive
Protected/buffer
ed bicycle lanes
Middle Bike&Ped 51st Street La Gorce
Circle 2.69
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing) BPMP Page
158
La Gorce Drive/Pine Tree Drive
requires an improvement towards
local non-motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
17
6th Street and
Michigan
Avenue Bicycle
Facilities
Analysis
South Bike/Ped West
Avenue
SR A1A / 2nd
Street 0.5
Phase I of the project includes a
geometric analysis of the
proposed section of the corridor
determine what bicycle facilities
are appropriate for the corridor.
Phase II of the project includes
implementation based on the
results of Phase I.
6th Street and Michigan Avenue
requires an improvement towards
local non-motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
197
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
18
SR A1A / 5th
Street
and SR 907 /
Alton Road
Intersection
Improvements
South Bike/Ped N/A N/A N/A
Provide Enhanced Crosswalks
and improved sidewalk
crossings.
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of SR A1A / 5th Street
AND SR 907 / Alton Road
19
Dickens Avenue
and SR 934 /
71ST Street
Geometric
Modifications
North Roadway N/A N/A N/A
Feasibility study for Geometric
Modifications including an
additional Southbound Lane
This site requires examination for
improved capacity and functionality.
Examining the potential addition of
a Southbound Lane gives the area
the opportunity to improve roadway
traffic.
20
SR A1A /
MacArthur
Causeway
and SR A1A /
5th Street's
Feasibility
Study of
Adaptive Signal
Controls
South Roadway Fountain
Street
Washington
Avenue 2 Feasibility Study of Adaptive
Signal Controls
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued along the
corridor of SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway / 5th Street
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
198
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
21
SR 907 / Alton
Road's
Feasibility
Study of
Adaptive Signal
Controls
South Roadway 6th Street Michigan
Avenue 1.5 Feasibility Study of Adaptive
Signal Controls
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued along the
corridor of SR 907 / Alton Road
22
23rd Street's
Complete
Streets
Feasibility
Study
South Multimoda
l
Dade
Boulevard
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
0.3 Feasibility Study of Complete
Streets Design
23rd Street requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
23
SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive
Bicycle/Pedestri
an Safety
Improvements
Middle Roadway 26th Street SR 112 /
41st Street 0.9 Safety Improvements
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued along the
corridor of Indian Creek Drive from
26th Street to 41st Street
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
199
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
24
Intersection of
SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive and
63rd Street and
SR A1A / Abbott
Avenue's
Feasibility
Study of
Intersection
Improvements
North Roadway N/A N/A N/A Feasibility Study of Intersection
Improvements
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive and 63rd Street and
SR A1A / Abbott Avenue
25
Intersection of
SR 907 / Alton
Road and 43rd
Street/Ed
Sullivan Road
Feasibility
Study of
Intersection
Improvements
Middle Roadway N/A N/A N/A Feasibility Study of Intersection
Improvements
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of SR 907 / Alton Road
and 43rd Street/Ed Sullivan Road
26
SR 934 / 71st
Street /
Normandy Drive
Safety
Improvements
North Roadway N Shore
Drive
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
0.5 Safety Improvements
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued along the
corridor of SR 934 / 71st Street /
Normandy Drive
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
200
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
27
SR 112 / Julia
Tuttle
Causeway s
Feasibility
Study
Middle Multimoda
l
US-1 /
Biscayne
Blvd
SR 907 /
Alton Road 3.18
Feasibility study for Shared
Path, Protected Bike lanes, and
Exclusive Bus lanes
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Causeway
requires an improvement towards
local non-motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
28 85th Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped Stillwater
Drive Atlantic Trail 0.50
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
85th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
29
SR 907 / Alton
Road
SR 112 / 41st
Street
SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive /
Collins Avenue
Dade Boulevard
Proposed
Middle Beach
Middle Transit
Sullivan
Drive (Mt.
Sinai
Medical
Center
Entrance)
SR 907 /
Alton Road
SR 112 /
41st Street
SR 112 /
41st Street
SR A1A /
Indian Creek
Drive / Alton
Road
Dade
Boulevard
17th Street
6.4
(Total
Distance
of One
Loop)
Trolley Route from Mt. Sinai
Medical Center servicing Mid
and South Beach
This project proposes a route which
will provide the Middle Beach area
of the City with a trolley system to
help encourage multimodal
alternatives of transportation.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
201
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
Trolley Route SR A1A /
Indian
Creek Drive
30
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue and
Indian Creek
Drive Signal
Optimization
Study
North Roadway SR 907 /
63rd Street
SR 934 /
71st Street 0.79 Signal Optimization Feasibility
Study on SR A1A
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued along the
corridor of SR A1A / Collins Avenue
31
SR 934 / 71st
Street
Feasibility
Study
North Roadway Carlyle
Avenue
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
1.02
Feasibility Study for removing
existing dedicated left turns
along 71st Street and review the
feasibility of adding an
additional westbound lane.
This section of SR 934 / 71st Street
stands a chance of improving
capacity and functionality by
examine the efficiencies of Left turn
lanes and their alternatives.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
202
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
32
SR 112 / 41st
Street and SR
907 / Alton Road
Auxiliary Turn /
Shoulder Lane
Study
Middle Roadway N/A N\A N/A Feasibility Study for Auxiliary
Turn / Shoulder Lane
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of SR 112 / 41st Street
and SR 907 / Alton Road
33
Middle Beach
Intermodal
Station
Middle Multimoda
l N/A N/A N/A Develop an Intermodal Station
to provide multi-modal transfers
This site specific improvement will
reach beyond just its immediate
area. This station is being designed
with the hopes of
34
SR 112 / Julia
Tuttle Cswy
Westbound
Ramp
Middle Roadway Mount Sinai
Hospital
SR 112 /
Julia Tuttle
Causeway
.25
Westbound on ramp to SR 112
/ Julia Tuttle from Mount Sinai
Hospital
This project’s focus is to helping
improving roadway functionality and
capacity but providing mitigation of
traffic generation from Mount Sinai
Hospital
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
203
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
35
10th Street/11th
Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped West
Avenue
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
0.52
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
10th or 11th Street require an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
36
SR 907 / Alton
Road
and Michigan
Avenue's
Intersection
Improvements
Middle Bike/Ped N/A N/A N/A Provide Enhanced Crosswalks.
FDOT Project
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of SR 907 / Alton Road
AND Michigan Avenue
37
Middle Beach
Recreational
Corridor
Middle Bike/Ped
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
BLK 4700
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue BLK
5400
0.8 Connect the North and South
existing Beachwalk segments
The Middle Beach Recreational
Corridor has the potential to
function as a pedestrian and
bicyclist only environment which full
connects the North and South
portions of the City of Miami Beach.
This is the last section of the route
that remains as an inconsistent
experience for travelers.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
204
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
38
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive and
SR 112 / 41st
Street's
Intersection
Safety Study
and
Improvements
Middle Roadway N/A N/A N/A Intersection Safety Study and
Improvements
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of A1A / Collins Avenue
/ Indian Creek Drive AND SR 112 /
41st Street
39 81st Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped Crespi
Boulevard Atlantic Trail 0.36
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
81st Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
40 77th Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.28
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
77th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
205
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
41
Tatum
Waterway Drive
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped 77th Street 81st Street 0.34
Neighborhood Greenway
(Boulevard Markers and Traffic
Calming) Enhanced crosswalks
Tatum Waterway Drive requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
42
Chase Avenue
Shared-Use
Path Feasibility
Study
Middle Bike/Ped Alton Road 34th Street 0.23
Phase I of this project includes
a feasibility analysis for a
shared-use path adjacent to the
golf course. Various
constructability concerns were
found during the master
planning exercise, thus the
need for a feasibility analysis.
This analysis will also include
the intersection Alton Road and
Chase Avenue. Phase II of the
project will consist of the
implementation phase.
Chase Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
43
Alton Road and
North Bay Road
Intersection
Bicycle
Improvements
Middle Bike/Ped Intersection
Project N/A N/A Intersection Safety
Improvements
The intersection requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
206
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
44
16th Street
Bicycle
Facilities
Improvements
South Bike/Ped Bay Road Collins
Avenue 0.83
Phase I of the project proposes
the improvement of the existing
Bicycle Lanes by painting them
green. Phase II of the project
includes the implementation of
Protected Bicycle Lanes along
the corridor.
16th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
45
47th Street
Enhanced
Bicycle Lane
Middle Bike/Ped North Bay
Road
Pine Tree
Drive 0.66
Enhanced (Green) Bike Lane
for the corridor, including the
portion between Alton Road
and North Bay Road.
47th Street requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
46
42nd Street
Enhance
Bicycle Lanes
Middle Bike/Ped Prairie
Avenue
Pine Tree
Drive 0.25 Enhanced (Green) Bike Lane
for the corridor.
42nd Street requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
207
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
47
Bay Drive
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped West 71st
Street
East 71st
Street 1.30
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
Bay Drive requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
48
Royal Palm
Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway
Middle Bike/Ped 28th Street 41st Street 0.55
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
Royal Palm Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop
a safe, complete, and accessible
multi-user citywide bicycle and
pedestrian network. Promote non-
motorized transportation as a
reliable mode of travel within the
City.
49 Baywalk South Bike/Ped 5th Street 15th Street 1.05
Feasibility Study and
Implementation of Shared Use
Path
Baywalk requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
208
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
50
South Beach
Pedestrian
Priority Zones
South Bike/Ped N/A N/A N/A
Designation and formalization
of Pedestrian Priority Zones
(PPZ)
Phase I of the project includes
analysis and implementation of
PPZs for the South of 5th Street
Neighborhood and the West
Avenue Neighborhood. Phase II
includes analysis and
implementation of the Flamingo
Park Neighborhood.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
209
Figure 117: Priority 1 Projects Map
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS
210
P r i o r i t y 2 P r o j e c t s
Table 40: Priority 2 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
1
17th Street
Exclusive
transit and
protected/buffer
ed bicycle lanes
South Transit/Bik
e& Ped
Washingto
n Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.14
Evaluation of Exclusive transit
and/or protected/buffered
bicycle lanes (Lane repurposing
and/or roadway widening),
17th Street requires an improvement
towards regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit.
2
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive
Exclusive
transit and
protected/buffer
ed bicycle lanes
South /
Middle
Transit/Bik
e& Ped 17th Street 44th Street 2.76
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), Enhanced
crosswalks
SR A1A / Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive requires an improvement
towards regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit. Serve new markets and
support economic vitality.
3
Meridian
Avenue
Protected/buffer
ed bicycle lanes
South /
Middle Bike/Ped 16th Street 28th Street 1.04
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), Enhanced
crosswalks
Meridian Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS
211
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
4
69th Street
Buffered
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped
Indian
Creek
Drive
Collins
Avenue 0.20 Buffered Bicycle Lane
69th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
5
21st Street and
22nd
Street/Park
Avenue
Protected
Bicycle Lanes
Feasibility
Study
South Bike/Ped
Washingto
n Avenue
and 23rd
Street
Beachwalk 0.6
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), Enhanced
crosswalks
21st & 22nd Street requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
6 63rd Street
Protected/buffer
ed bicycle lanes
Middle Bike/Ped North Bay
Road
SR A1A
Indian
Creek Drive
0.47
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening)
63rd Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS
212
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
7
SR 934 / 71st
Street /
Normandy Drive
Exclusive
Transit Lanes/
Protected/buffer
ed bicycle lanes
North Bike/Ped Bay Drive
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue
2.6
Exclusive Transit Lanes
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
SR 934 / 71st Street / Normandy
Drive requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
8
SR 907 / Alton
Road AND SR
112 / 41st
Street's Safety
Feasibility
Study
North Bike/Ped SR 907 /
Alton Road
SR 112 /
41st Street N/A Safety Feasibility Study
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at this
intersection of SR 907 / Alton Road
AND SR 112 / 41st Street
9
SR 112 / 41st
Street and Pine
Tree Drive
Safety
Feasibility
Study
North Bike/Ped SR 112 /
41st Street
Pine Tree
Drive N/A Safety Feasibility Study
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations along the corridor of SR
112 / 41st Street AND Pine Tree
Drive
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS
213
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
10
44th Street AND
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue Safety
Feasibility
Study
Middle Bike/Ped 44th Street
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
N/A Safety Feasibility Study
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations along the corridor of 44th
Street AND SR A1A / Collins Avenue
11
Meridian
Avenue Bicycle
Greenway
Analysis
South Bike/Ped 1st Street 16th Street 1
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers
and Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
Meridian Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
12 Lincoln Road
Shared Space South Bike/Ped Washingto
n Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.12
Shared Space including
changes to pavement and
various multi-modal
accommodations.
Meridian Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS
214
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
13
Lincoln Lane
North Bicycle
Connection/
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped Alton Road Washington
Avenue 0.57
Exploring the various typical
sections of the alleyway to
create an exclusive bicycle lane
or Neighborhood Greenways.
Lincoln Lane North requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
14
Fairway Drive
Shared-Use
Path
North Bike/Ped Biarritz
Drive Bay Drive 1.10 Shared-Use Path adjacent to
the golf course.
Fairway Drive requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS
215
Figure 118: Priority 2 Projects Map
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
216
P R I O R I T Y 3 P R O J E C T S
Table 41: Priority 3 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
1
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South Bike/Ped
South
Pointe
Drive
17th Street 1.68
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
SR A1A / Collins Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
2
Prairie Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway
Middle Bike/Ped 44th Street 47th Street 0.25
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Prairie Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
3
SR A1A Collins
Avenue
Exclusive transit
lanes
Middle Transit 44th Street
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue /
Indian Creek
Drive Split
2 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
SR A1A Collins Avenue requires an
improvement towards regional and
local connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit. Serve new markets and
support economic vitality.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
217
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
4
SR A1A Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive
Exclusive transit
and
protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
Middle
/
North
Transit/
Bike/Ped
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue /
Indian
Creek Drive
Split
SR 934 /
71st Street 2.05
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening),
SR A1A Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive requires an improvement
towards regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit. Serve new markets and
support economic vitality.
5
SR 934 / 79th
Street Causeway
Exclusive transit,
Shared Uses
Path, and
protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
North Transit/
Bike/Ped
US 1 /
Biscayne
Boulevard
Bay Drive 2.67
Exclusive transit, Shared Uses
Path, and protected/buffered
bicycle lanes (Lane repurposing
and/or roadway widening),
SR 934 / 79th Street Causeway
requires an improvement towards
regional and local connectivity.
Improve the speed, reliability, comfort
and convenience of transit. Serve
new markets and support economic
vitality.
6
Abbott Avenue
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
North Bike/Ped Indian
Creek Drive
SR 934 /
71st Street 0.3
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Abbott Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
218
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
7 77th Street
Shared Path North Bike/Ped Normandy
Avenue
Dickens
Avenue 0.24
Shared Uses Path(Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening) Enhanced crosswalks
77th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
8
77th Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue Atlantic Way 0.34
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
77th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
9
81st Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped
Tatum
Waterway
Drive
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
0.19
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
81st Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
219
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
10
South Pointe
Drive
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South Bike/Ped Alton Road Beachwalk 0.31
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
South Pointe Drive requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
11
Alton Road
Exclusive transit
and
protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South Transit/
Bike/Ped
South
Pointe
Drive
SR A1A /
5th Street 0.49
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), Enhanced
crosswalks
Alton Road requires an improvement
towards regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit. Serve new markets and
support economic vitality.
12
Washington
Avenue
Exclusive transit
and
protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South Transit
South
Pointe
Drive
SR A1A /
5th Street 0.44
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), Enhanced
crosswalks
Washington Avenue requires an
improvement towards regional and
local connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit. Serve new markets and
support economic vitality.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
220
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
13
Venetian
Causeway
Conventional
Bike Lanes
South Bike/Ped
US 1 /
Biscayne
Boulevard
West
Avenue 3.21
Conventional Bike Lanes(Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening) Enhanced crosswalks
Venetian Causeway requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
14
SR 907 / Alton
Road Exclusive
transit lanes
South Transit Dade
Boulevard
SR 112 /
41st Street 1.46 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
SR 907 / Alton Road requires an
improvement towards regional and
local connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit. Serve new markets and
support economic vitality.
15
24th Street /
Liberty Avenue
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
Middle Bike/Ped Pine Tree
Drive
23rd Street /
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue
0.28
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
24th Street / Liberty Avenue requires
an improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
221
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
16
Flamingo Drive
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
Middle Bike/Ped Pine Tree
Drive
SR A1A /
Indian Creek
Drive
0.13
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Flamingo Drive requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
17
Biarritz Drive
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
North Bike/Ped Shore Lane SR 934 /
71st Street 0.32
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Biarritz Drive requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
18
Bay Drive
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped Fairway
Drive
SR 934 /
71st Street 0.34
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Bay Drive requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
222
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
19 Wayne Avenue
Shared Path North Bike/Ped Raymond
Street 73rd Street 0.07
Shared Uses Path (Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening) Enhanced crosswalks
Wayne Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
20 Wayne Avenue
Shared Path North Bike/Ped Michael
Street 75th Street 0.19
Shared Path (Lane repurposing
and/or roadway widening)
Enhanced crosswalks
Wayne Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
21
SR A1A Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive /
Harding Avenue
Exclusive transit
lanes and
Protected
Bicycle Lanes
Middle
/
North
Transit
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue /
Indian
Creek Drive
Split
88th Street 4.36
Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing) and protected
Bicycle Lanes along Harding
Avenue
SR A1A Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive / Harding Avenue
requires an improvement towards
regional and local connectivity.
Improve the speed, reliability, comfort
and convenience of transit. Serve
new markets and support economic
vitality.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
223
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
22
Hawthorne
Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped 77th Street 85th Street 0.54
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Hawthorne Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
23
85th Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped Hawthorne
Avenue
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
0.46
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
85th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
24
Pine Tree Drive
Protected
Bicycle Lanes
Middle Bike/Ped 23rd Street 51st Street 2.00
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Pine Tree Drive requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
224
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
25
SR A1A /
MacArthur
Causeway Light
Rail Connection/
Shared-Use Path
South Transit/
Bike&Ped
US 1 /
Biscayne
Boulevard
SR 907 /
Alton Road 3.41
Light Rail Connection across
the Bay/ Protected Bicycle
Lanes (Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), Enhanced
crosswalks
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway
requires an improvement towards
regional and local connectivity.
Improve the speed, reliability, comfort
and convenience of transit. Serve
new markets and support economic
vitality.
26
SR 112 / 41st
Street Exclusive
transit lanes and
protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
Middle Transit/
Bike/Ped
SR 907 /
Alton Road Beachwalk 0.87
Exclusive transit lanes and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing) Enhanced
crosswalks
SR 112/41st Street requires an
improvement towards regional and
local connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit. Serve new markets and
support economic vitality.
27
SR 112 / Julia
Tuttle Causeway
Exclusive Transit
Lane/Shared-Use
Path
Middle Multimoda
l
US-1 /
Biscayne
Blvd
SR 907 /
Alton Road 3.18
Exclusive Transit Lane and
Shared-Use Path. This project
required extensive bridge work.
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Causeway
requires an improvement towards
local non-motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
225
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
28
SR A1A/ Indian
Creek Drive
Protected
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped Abbott
Avenue
Dickens
Avenue 0.33
Protected Bicycle Lanes (Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening)
That section of Indian Creek Drive
requires an improvement towards
local non-motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
29
15th Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped Washington
Avenue
West
Avenue 0.66
Neighborhood Greenway
(Bicycle Boulevard Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
15th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
30
20 Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped Purdy
Avenue Sunset Drive 0.25
Neighborhood Greenway
(Bicycle Boulevard Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
20th Street requires an improvement
towards local non-motorized
transportation infrastructure
connectivity. Develop a safe,
complete, and accessible multi-user
citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
226
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
31 Ocean Drive
Shared Space South Bike/Ped 5th Street 15th Street 0.90
Shared Space (Public Space)
allowing for easy closures for
events, calming traffic, and
improved pedestrian space.
Ocean Drive requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
32
Crespi Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway
North Bike/Ped Hawthorne
Avenue 85th Street 0.22
Neighborhood Greenway
(Bicycle Boulevard Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Crespi Boulevard requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
33
Purdy Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped Dade
Boulevard 20th Street 0.26
Neighborhood Greenway
(Bicycle Boulevard Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Purdy Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
227
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
34
Drexel Avenue
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped Espanola
Way 17th Street 0.40
Neighborhood Greenway
(Bicycle Boulevard Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Drexel Avenue requires an
improvement towards local non-
motorized transportation
infrastructure connectivity. Develop a
safe, complete, and accessible multi-
user citywide bicycle and pedestrian
network. Promote non-motorized
transportation as a reliable mode of
travel within the City.
PROJECT BANK – PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS
228
Figure 119: Priority 3 Projects Map
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
229
P O T E N T I A L C O S T S
For all projects included in the project bank planning and development, design, and construction costs were estimated. Using industry accepted
assumptions and engineering judgement, planning and development costs were assumed to be 5% to 10% of the construction costs while design
costs were assumed to be 15% of the same. For the different variety and type of projects proposed, several sources were used to identify an estimated
construction unit cost for a specific type of improvement. These sources come from the state, city, and other municipalities. Projects which include a
combination of improvements were estimated by adding the unit costs for each improvement. Most of the unit costs obtained are on a per mile basis
meaning that the calculated construction cost is proportional to the project length. Table 42 lists the sources, type of improvement, and estimated
construction unit cost used. Tables 43 through 45 display the potential costs for the planning, design and construction phases of this TMP’s
recommended projects
Table 42: Sources for Estimation of Potential Project Costs
Source Improvement
Type Improvement Unit Costs Notes
PE Design Construction
+ CEI Total Cost
FDOT D7
Roadway
Cost per
Centerline
Mile
(Revised
June 2014)
Roadway
Urban Arterial New Construction (2-Lane Roadway) with 5’ Sidewalk,
and Curb & Gutter $/CL MI $1,098,217 $8,419,661 $9,517,877 -
Urban Arterial New Construction (4-Lane Roadway) with 5’ Sidewalk,
and Curb & Gutter $/CL MI $1,550,181 $11,884,720 $13,434,90
0 -
Urban Arterial New Construction (6-Lane Roadway) with 5’ Sidewalk,
and Curb & Gutter $/CL MI $1,895,171 $14,529,646 $16,424,81
8 -
Urban Arterial Milling and Resurfacing (4-Lane Roadway) with 5’
Sidewalk, and Curb & Gutter $/CL MI $278,442 $2,134,725 $2,413,168 -
Urban Arterial Milling and Resurfacing (6-Lane Roadway) with 5’
Sidewalk, and Curb & Gutter $/CL MI $2,632,764 $3,027,679 $3,422,593 -
Urban Arterial Add 1 Through Lane on Inside (To Existing) with 5’
Sidewalk, and Curb & Gutter $/CL MI $203,029 $1,556,556 $1,759,585 -
Urban Arterial Add 1 Through Lane on Outside (To Existing) with 5’
Sidewalk, and Curb & Gutter $/CL MI $549,245 $4,210,877 $4,760,121 -
Urban Arterial Add 300’ Exclusive Left Turn Lane $/EA $15,625 $119,793 $135,418 Urban Arterial Add 300’ Exclusive Right Turn Lane $/EA $32,769 $251,228 $283,996 Traffic Signal
(Mast Arm
Assembly on
Four Legs)
2-Lane Roadway Intersecting 2-Lane Roadway $/Intersection $37,887 $290,470 $328,358 -
4-Lane Roadway Intersecting 4-Lane Roadway $/Intersection $47,801 $366,477 $414,279 -
4-Lane Roadway Intersecting 2-Lane Roadway $/Intersection $42,844 $328,474 $371,319 -
6-Lane Roadway Intersecting 6-Lane Roadway $/Intersection $53,072 $406,887 $459,959 -
Bike/Ped Sidewalks Per Mile (5’ Width – 1 Side) $/MI $20,136 $154,378 $174,514 -
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
230
Source Improvement
Type Improvement Unit Costs Notes
Facilities Sidewalks Per Mile (6’ Width – 1 Side) $/MI $24,164 $185,254 $209,417 -
Multi-Use Trail Per Mile (12’ Width – 1 Side) $/MI $38,496 $295,139 $333,635 -
Median Retrofit Convert 14’ Center Turn Lane to 14’ Raised Median (Per Mile) $/MI $46,984 $360,212 $407,197 -
Construction
Low Average High
FDOT
Structures
Manual
2015 BDR
Cost
Estimates
(Vol. 1, Ch
. 9)
Structures Short Span Bridge Reinforced Concrete Flat Slab- Simple Span $/SQ FT $115 $138 $160
Plus 3% for
constructio
n over
water
Structures Short Span Bridge Pre-cast Concrete Slab – Simple Span $/SQ FT $110 $155 $200
Structures Medium Span Bridge Concrete Deck / Steel Girder – Simple Span $/SQ FT $125 $134 $142
Structures Medium Span Bridgs Concrete Deck / Steel Girder – Continuous
Span $/SQ FT $135 $153 $170
Structures Medium Span Bridge Concrete Deck / Prestressed Girder – Simple
Span $/SQ FT $90 $118 $145
Structures Medium Span Bridge Concrete Deck / Prestressed Girder –
Continuous Span $/SQ FT $95 $153 $211
Structures Bascule $/SQ FT $60 $65 $70
Structures Widening (Construction Only) $/SQ FT $85 $123 $160
Capital Cost
City of
Miami
Beach
Light
Rail/Modern
Streetcar
Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project including two routes from NW 1st
Street to SR A1A/Collins Avenue and from SR A1A/5th Street to
Dade Boulevard
Complete
Project $350,000,000
Capital Cost
Short-
Term
Beach
Connectio
n Transit
Study
Final
Technical
Memorand
um
Transit
Repurpousing Two Existing Travel Lane as Exclusive Bus Lanes
(Only Including Resurfacing, Signing, Pavement Markings, New Curb
Bulb-outs (plus 5% for minor drainage), Colored Asphalt, 20%
Mobilization/MOT, and 25% Scope Contingency)
$/1.65 MI - $596,922 -
$864,880.0
0 was the
cheapest
alternative
included in
this study
for
repurposin
g two travel
lanes on
Washingto
n Avenue
and
including,
in addition
to other
mentioned
improveme
Repurpousing Existing Travel Lane as Exclusive Bus Lanes (Only
Including Resurfacing, Signing, Pavement Markings, New Curb Bulb-
outs (plus 5% for minor drainage), Colored Asphalt, 20%
Mobilization/MOT, and 25% Scope Contingency)
$/MI - $361,771 -
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
231
Source Improvement
Type Improvement Unit Costs Notes
nts,
enforceme
nt cameras
and new
bus
shelters
Capital Cost
NACTO
Urban
Bikeway
Design
Guide
Bike Colored Aslphalt TN - $730 - -
Capital Cost
April 9,
2014 Land
Use and
Developm
ent
Committee
Memorand
um:
Discussio
n on
Beachwalk
Uniformity
Ped Average Cost of Replacing Elevated Boardwalk with At-grade Pavers $/MI - $6,258,458 - -
Capital Cost
North
Beach
Trolley
Capital
Cost Per
Mile
Transit Trolley Loop in Miami Beach $/MI - $11,000 - -
Capital Cost ITS SCATS
Initial
Capital
Cost Per
Intersectio
n
ITS Installing Adaptive Signal Controls $/Intersection - $30,000 - -
Capital Cost
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
232
Source Improvement
Type Improvement Unit Costs Notes
Doral
Transporta
tion
Master
Plan
ITS Planning ITS and Signal Timing Projects $/Intersection - $75,000 - -
Capital Cost
City of
Miami
Beach
Study Safety Study $/Study - $50,000 - -
Capital Cost City of
Miami
Beach
Transporta
tion
Element
2009
Study Average Cost of a Feasibility Study $/Study - $125,715 -
Average
Cost per
Feasibility
Study
Miami-
Dade MPO
Unified
Planning
Work
Program
Years 2015
– 2008
Study Average Cost of a Feasibility Study $/Study - $65,877 - $95,796
Design Cost Construction
Cost Total Cost
Miami-
Dade MPO
Downtown
Miami
Terminal
Feasibility
Study
Transit
St. Louis Gateway Transportation Center $/Intermodal
Station $600,000 $7,400,000 $8,000,000 Average
Constructi
on Cost
per
Intermodal
Station
Downtown Denton Transit Center & TOD $/Intermodal
Station $360,000 $1,800,000 $2,160,000
Capital Cost
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
233
Source Improvement
Type Improvement Unit Costs Notes
Miami-
Dade MPO
Palmetto
Station
Intermodal
Terminal
Feasibility
Study
Transit
Site Development Costs of Phase I (Intermodal terminal plaza,
parking lot, access roadways 24 ft wide, landscaping, and site
utilities)
$/Intermodal
Station - $3,082,200 - $4,094,067
Note: Bolded figures for each of the improvement types were the ones used to estimate the potential costs of projects.
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
234
Priority 1 Projects
Table 43: Potential Costs for Priority 1 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
1
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway
Complete Streets Feasibility Study South Multimodal 3.8 $113,000 $2,700,000 17,700,000 $20,513,000
2
Miami Beach Light Rail/Modern Street
Car South Multimodal
4.55 (Rail Lane) and
4.70 (Protected Bike
Lanes)
$10,000,000 $360,000,000 $370,000,000
3 West Avenue Protected Bicycle Lanes South Bike/Ped 1.3 - - $530,000 $530,000
4
73rd Street One Way Protected Bicycle
Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.35 $139,000 $100,000 $3,820,000 $4,059,000
5
72nd Street One Way Protected Bicycle
Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.28 $139,000 $100,000 $3,820,000 $4,059,000
6
Byron Avenue Protected Bicycle
Lanes/Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.56 $50,000 - $800,000 $850,000
7
North Bay Road Neighborhood
Greenway (Including SR 907/Alton Road
Connecting Bridge)
Middle Bike/Ped 4.6 $100,000 $100,000 $3,750,000 $3,950,000
8
SR 907 / Alton Road and 17th Street
Intersection Improvements South Bike/Ped N/A $50,000 $330,000 $2,910,000 $3,290,000
9 51st Street Green Bicycle Lanes Middle Bike/Ped 0.4 $10,000 $40,000 $50,000
10
63rd Street: Feasibility Study for
Multimodal Alternatives Middle Multimodal 0.4 $100,000 - - $100,000
11
SR 907 Bicycle Alternatives Analysis
and Implementation Middle Bike/Ped 0.93 $50,000 $368,000 $418,000
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
235
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
12
Dade Boulevard Shared Use Path +
Road Diet South Bike/Ped 1.00 $207,000 $3,880,000 $4,087,000
13 Euclid Avenue Protected Bicycle Lanes South Bike/Ped 1.15 - $50,000 $420,000 $470,000
14 Meridian Avenue Bicycle Facilities South
Bike/Ped/
Safety/
Capacity
0.47 - $75,000 $3,320,000 $3,395,000
15
Meridian Avenue and 28th Street
Shared Use Path Middle Bike/Ped 0.9 - $75,000 $343,000 $418,000
16
La Gorce Drive / Pine Tree Drive
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes Middle Bike&Ped 2.69
$1,068,000
$21,360,000 $22,428,000
17
6th Street and Michigan Avenue Bicycle
Facilities Feasibility Analysis South Bike/Ped 0.5 $50,000 - - $50,000
18
SR A1A / 5th Street and SR 907 / Alton
Road Intersection Improvements South Bike/Ped N/A $50,000 - - $50,000
19
Dickens Avenue and SR 934 / 71ST
Street Geometric Modifications North Roadway N/A $50,000 - - $50,000
20
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway and SR
A1A / 5th Street's Implementation of
Adaptive Signal Controls
South Roadway 2 $15,000 $435,000 $450,000
21
SR 907 / Alton Road's Implementation
of Adaptive Signal Controls South Roadway 1.5 $15,000 $685,000 $700,000
22
23rd Street's Complete Streets
Feasibility Study South Multimodal 0.3 $100,000 $250,000 $1,950,000 $2,300,000
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
236
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
23
SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive
Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety
Improvements
Middle Roadway 0.9 - $15,000 $95,000 $110,000
24
Intersection of SR A1A / Indian Creek
Drive and 63rd Street and SR A1A /
Abbott Avenue's Feasibility Study of
Intersection Improvements
North Roadway N/A $50,000 - - $50,000
25
Intersection of SR 907 / Alton Road and
Sullivan Drive's (Mt. Sinai Entrance)
Feasibility Study of Intersection
Improvements
Middle Roadway N/A $50,000 - - $50,000
26
SR 934 / 71st Street / Normandy Drive
Safety Improvements North Roadway 0.5 $50,000 - - $50,000
27
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Causeway
Feasibility Study Middle Multimodal 3.18 $100,000 $110,000 $2,400,000 $2,610,000
28 85th Street Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.5 $50,000 $75,000 $1,081,000 $1,206,000
29
SR 907 / Alton Road
SR 112 / 41st Street
SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive / Collins
Avenue
Dade Boulevard Proposed Middle
Beach Trolley Route
Middle Transit 6.4 (Total Distance of
One Loop)
Operations: $5,300,000 per year
$5,300,000
30
SR A1A / Collins Avenue and Indian
Creek Drive Signal Optimization Study North Roadway 0.79 - $100,000 $100,000
31 SR 934 / 71st Street Feasibility Study North Roadway 1.02 $75,000 - - $75,000
32 SR 112 / 41st Street and SR 907 / Alton
Road Auxiliary Turn / Shoulder Lane
Middle Roadway N/A $50,000 $100,000 $252,000 $402,000
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
237
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
Study
33 Middle Beach Intermodal Station Middle Multimodal N/A $120,000 $360,000 $4,095,000 $4,575,000
34
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Cswy Westbound
Ramp Middle Roadway 0.25 $50,000 - - $50,000
35
10th Street / 11th Street Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.52 $65,000 $165,000 $1,264,000 $1,494,000
36
SR 907 / Alton Road and Michigan
Avenue's Intersection Improvements. Middle Bike/Ped N/A - - $2,600,000 $2,600,000
37 Middle Beach Recreational Corridor Middle Bike/Ped 0.8 - $533,520 $12,200,000 $12,733,520
38
SR A1A / Collins Avenue / Indian Creek
Drive and SR 112 / 41st Street's
Intersection Safety Study and
Improvements
Middle Roadway N/A $50,000 - - $50,000
39 81st Street Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.36 $45,000 $45,000 $875,000 $965,000
40 77th Street Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.28 $68,000 $89,000 $685,000 $842,000
41
Tatum Waterway Drive Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.34 $50,000 - $830,000 $880,000
42
Chase Avenue Shared-Use Path
Feasibility Study Middle Bike/Ped 0.23 $30,000 $45,000 $110,000 $179,322
43
Alton Road and North Bay Road
Intersection Bicycle Improvements Middle Bike/Ped N/A $50,000 - - $50,000
44 16th Street Protected Bicycle Lanes South Bike/Ped 0.83 - $100,000 $827,000 $927,000
45 47th Street Enhanced Bicycle Lane Middle Bike/Ped 0.66 - - $210,000 $210,000
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
238
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
46 42nd Street Enhance Bicycle Lanes Middle Bike/Ped 0.25 - - $150,000 $150,000
47 Bay Drive Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 1.3 $100,000 $100,000 $3,200,000 $3,400,000
48
Royal Palm Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway Middle Bike/Ped 0.55 $50,000 $85,000 $850,000 $985,000
49 Baywalk South Bike/Ped 1.05 $31,000 $41,000 $310,000 $382,000
50 South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zone South Bike/Ped N/A $300,000 $300,000 $1,500,000 $2,100,000
Total Potential Cost for Priority 1 Projects $482,745,890
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
239
Priority 2 Projects
Table 44: Potential Costs for Priority 2 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
1
17th Street Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes South Transit/Bik
e&Ped 0.14 $116,230 $465,895 $1,162,300 $1,744,425
2
SR A1A / Collins Avenue / Indian Creek
Drive Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
South
/
Middle
Transit/Bik
e&Ped 2.76 $1,145,696 $9,184,771 $22,913,906 $33,244,373
3
Meridian Avenue Protected/buffered
bicycle lanes
South
/
Middle
Bike&Ped 1.04 $366,466 $955,997 $7,329,312 $8,651,775
4 69th Street Buffered Bicycle Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.2 $64,070 $183,846 $1,281,400 $1,529,316
5
21st Street and 22nd Street/Park
Avenue Protected Bicycle Lanes
Feasibility Study
South Bike/Ped 0.6 $264,553 $345,068 $2,645,526 $3,255,147
6
63rd Street Protected/buffered bicycle
lanes Middle Bike&Ped 0.47 $222,220 $1,116,646 $2,222,198 $3,561,064
7
SR 934 / 71st Street / Normandy Drive
Exclusive Transit Lanes/
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
North Bike&Ped 2.6 $1,003,587 $7,335,939 $20,071,725 $28,411,251
8
SR 907 / Alton Road AND SR 112 / 41st
Street's Safety Feasibility Study North Bike&Ped N/A $95,796 - - $95,796
9
SR 112 / 41st Street and Pine Tree
Drive Safety Feasibility Study North Bike&Ped N/A $95,796 - - $95,796
10
44th Street AND SR A1A / Collins
Avenue Safety Feasibility Study Middle Bike&Ped N/A $95,796 - - $95,796
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
240
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
11
Meridian Avenue Bicycle Greenway
Analysis South Bike/Ped 1 $242,987 $316,938 $2,429,864 $2,989,789
12 Lincoln Road Shared Space South Bike/Ped 0.12 $36,333 $315,932 $363,322 $715,587
13
Lincoln Lane North Bicycle
Connection/ Neighborhood Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.57 $138,503 $180,655 $1,385,023 $1,704,181
14 Fairway Drive Shared-Use Path North Bike/Ped 1.1 $32,466 $42,346 $324,653 $399,465
Total Potential Cost for Priority 2 Projects $86,493,761
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
241
Priority 3 Projects
Table 45: Potential Costs for Priority 3 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
1
SR A1A / Collins Avenue
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes South Bike/Ped 1.68 $591,983 $1,544,303 $11,839,657 $13,975,943
2
Prairie Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway Middle Bike/Ped 0.25 $34,063 $44,430 $340,626 $419,119
3
SR A1A Collins Avenue Exclusive
transit lanes Middle Transit 2 $338,945 $5,374,060 $6,778,900 $12,491,905
4
SR A1A Collins Avenue / Indian Creek
Drive Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
Middle
/
North
Transit/
Bike/Ped 2.05
$850,970 $7,452,408 $17,019,387 $25,322,765
5
SR 934 / 79th Street Causeway
Exclusive transit, Shared Uses Path,
and protected/buffered bicycle lanes
North Transit/
Bike/Ped 2.67
$1,378,742 $7,126,692 $27,574,824 $36,080,258
6
Abbott Avenue Protected/buffered
bicycle lanes North Bike/Ped 0.3 $105,712 $275,769 $2,114,225 $2,495,706
7 77th Street Shared Path North Bike/Ped 0.24 $7,084 $9,240 $70,834 $87,158
8 77th Street Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.34 $23,163 $60,424 $463,251 $546,838
9 81st Street Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.19 $12,944 $33,767 $258,876 $305,587
10
South Pointe Drive Protected/buffered
bicycle lanes South Bike/Ped 0.31 $109,235 $284,961 $2,184,699 $2,578,895
11
Alton Road Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes South Transit/
Bike/Ped 0.49 $181,526 $477,012 $3,630,502 $4,289,040
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
242
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
12
Washington Avenue Exclusive transit
and protected/buffered bicycle lanes South Transit 0.44 $163,003 $428,338 $3,260,042 $3,851,383
13
Venetian Causeway Conventional Bike
Lanes South Bike/Ped 3.21 $821,774 $2,252,219 $16,435,476 $19,509,469
14
SR 907 / Alton Road Exclusive transit
lanes South Transit 1.46 $893,994 $2,342,493 $17,879,877 $21,116,364
15
24th Street / Liberty Avenue
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes Middle Bike/Ped 0.28 $98,664 $257,384 $1,973,277 $2,329,325
16
Flamingo Drive Protected/buffered
bicycle lanes Middle Bike/Ped 0.13 $45,809 $119,500 $916,164 $1,081,473
17
Biarritz Drive Protected/buffered
bicycle lanes North Bike/Ped 0.32 $112,759 $294,153 $2,255,173 $2,662,085
18 Bay Drive Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.34 $41,308 $107,759 $826,154 $975,221
19 Wayne Avenue Shared Path North Bike/Ped 0.07 $2,066 $2,695 $20,660 $25,421
20 Wayne Avenue Shared Path North Bike/Ped 0.19 $5,608 $7,315 $56,077 $69,000
21
SR A1A Collins Avenue / Indian Creek
Drive / Harding Avenue Exclusive
transit lanes and Protected Bicycle
Lanes
Middle
/
North
Transit 4.36
$1,809,867 $14,509,276 $36,197,330 $52,516,473
22
Hawthorne Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.54 $65,607 $171,147 $1,312,127 $1,548,881
23 85th Street Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.46 $55,887 $145,792 $1,117,738 $1,319,417
24
Pine Tree Drive Protected Bicycle
Lanes Middle Bike/Ped 2 $704,742 $1,838,456 $14,094,830 $16,638,028
PROJECT BANK – POTENTIAL COSTS
243
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project Length
( Miles )
Costs
Feasibility Design Construction Total
25
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway Light
Rail Connection/ Shared-Use Path South Transit/
Bike&Ped 3.41 $4,925,900 $14,777,698 $98,517,982 $118,221,580
26
SR 112 / 41st Street Exclusive transit
lanes and protected/buffered bicycle
lanes
Middle Transit/
Bike/Ped 0.87
$367,601 $1,027,830 $7,352,009 $8,747,440
27
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Causeway
Exclusive Transit Lane/Shared-Use
Path
Middle Multimodal 3.18
$3,882,675 $11,603,847 $77,653,494 $93,140,016
28
SR A1A/ Indian Creek Drive Protected
Bicycle Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.33 $116,283 $303,346 $2,325,647 $2,745,276
29 15th Street Neighborhood Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.66 $80,186 $209,180 $1,603,711 $1,893,077
30 20 Street Neighborhood Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.25 $30,374 $79,235 $607,466 $717,075
31 Ocean Drive Shared Space South Bike/Ped 0.9 $13,282 $34,647 $265,626 $313,555
32
Crespi Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.22 $26,729 $69,727 $534,571 $631,027
33
Purdy Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.26 $31,589 $82,404 $631,765 $745,758
34
Drexel Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.4 $48,598 $126,776 $971,946 $1,147,320
Total Potential Cost for Priority 3 Projects $450,537,878
PROJECTFINANCING
PROJECT FINANCING
245
9. PROJECT FINANCING
With the estimated COSTS for all of the recommended improvements TOTALING close to $1.14 B ILLION , finding sufficient funding sources
becomes crucial to effectively implement this TMP. The CITY’S YEARLY REVENU E SOURCES only amount to a FRACTION OF THESE CO STS
and thus it is imperative to recognize all available funding options to make these projects a reality. Planning for proper allocations and commitments
from these potential funding sources is a multifaceted challenge since other municipalities and cities may be competing for the same funds and the
reliability of available adequate funds is threatened by declining revenue (e.g. gas taxes will continue to generate less revenue due to more fuel
efficient or electrical vehicles replacing older vehicles). In addition, funding for specific project types may also be taken advantage of if properly
planned and executed. This is why it is essential for each of the projects recommended by this TMP to undergo more in-depth analyses to better
assess their feasibility, not only structurally but also financially. A list of the available transportation funding sources follows with a description of each.
Source General Description Options
FEDERAL
The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) manages federal
funds distributed to each state. These funds come from the annual federal
budget which is financed by federal taxes. Federal revenue sources include
both Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) funds, and they may be either formula-based
(automatically allocated) or discretionary (competitive grant process)
depending on the program. The majority of the funds for of highway
improvement projects are typically automatically allocated by FHWA through
FDOT; while transit improvement projects usually must go through
discretionary FTA processes for funding, which are highly competitive and
very stringent on the cost-effectiveness of the projects and the ability to
successfully build, operate ,and maintain of the competing entities.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMI NISTRATION (FHWA)
FDOT Capacity Programs
National Highway System (NHS) Program:
o For improvements on roads that are part of the National
Highway System (including transit)
Surface Transportation Program (STP)
o For improvements on Federal-Aid Highways, bridge
projects, transit capital projects, railway/highway crossing
safety projects, transportation enhancements, and intercity
bus terminals/facilities
o Section 133 of Title 23 of the United States Code
mandates that at least 10 percent of STP funds shall be
used only for "transportation enhancement” (TE) activities.
Projects will be stratified into one of three categories,
which include the following TE classifications:
o Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
o Scenic and Environmental Projects
o Historic Preservation and Archeology
FDOT Non-Capacity Programs
Interstate Maintenance Program (IMP)
Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
(HBRRP)
PROJECT FINANCING
246
Source General Description Options
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMI NISTRATION (FTA)
Section 5307 Urbanized Area
Formula-based grants program for transit capital and operating
assistance to urbanized areas
Section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization
Capital funds for existing fixed guideway systems that have been
operating for over seven years
Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related
Project-specific capital grants for the purchase of vehicles and
other bus-related assets
Section 5309 New Starts
Multi-year competitive basis funds for major new transit capacity
projects
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
(TIGER)
STATE
The State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)’s primary
statutory responsibility is to coordinate the planning and development of a
safe, viable, and balanced transportation system within the state of Florida.
Serving all regions of the state, FDOT assures the compatibility of all
transportation components, including multimodal facilities.
FIHS Construction and Right-of-Way
Determined by FDOT for public transportation, intermodal access,
and seaport development projects
Intermodal Access
Assistance for improving access to intermodal facilities and the
acquiring of associated rights of way
Strategic Intermodal System
2003 Florida Legislature enacted Sections 339.61-64 that
determines SIS hubs and roadways that move both people and
goods
Quality of Life
Primary purpose is to fund improvements on the part of the State
Highway System (SHS) that are not designated as FIHS
(approximately 68% of the SHS)
Transit
Capital and operating assistance to transit, paratransit, and
ridesharing systems
Fuel Taxes and Road Impact Fees
Constitutional Gas Tax (Secondary Gas Tax) Miami-Dade
County Public Works Department (80%) and General Fund
(20%)
PROJECT FINANCING
247
Source General Description Options
Local Option Six-Cents Gas Tax (6-Cent LOGT) Miami-
Dade County Public Works Department and MDT
Capital Improvement Local Option Gas Tax (5-Cent LOGT)
Miami-Dade County Public Works Department
Ninth-Cent Gas Tax (Voted Gas Tax) Miami-Dade County
Public Works Department and MDT
Road Impact Fees at a district level against new
developments
MDT
People’s Transportation Plan (PTP) half-cent dedicated sales tax
(Charter County Transit Surtax)
Federal Highway Priority Projects (FHPP)
Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) Grant
FDOT Safety Office’s Highway Safety Grant Program
FDEP’S Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT)
FDOT Service Development Program (SDP)
COUNTY
The Federal Aid Highway Act of 1962 mandated that as a condition for the
receipt of federal funds, each urban area with a population over 50,000 in
the United States was required to carry on a continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive transportation planning process. The Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) for the Miami Urbanized Area guides the transportation
planning process in Miami -Dade County. The MPO was created as required
under Section 163.01, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and established by
Interlocal Agreement between Miami-Dade County and the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT). A primary function for the MPOs is to
produce and update (every 5 years) a Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP) with a minimum time horizon of 20 years. The LRTP is a
comprehensive transportation infrastructure plan that includes, at a
minimum, highway and transit infrastructure improvements. Certain projects
included in the City’s Project Bank are concurrent with the 2040 LRTP.
Depending on the priority given in the LRTP, certain funds may be allocated,
planned, or pending to be planned. For any of the projects recommended by
this TMP to be eligible for this type of funding, they must be included and
prioritized as part of the LRTP effort. Moving forward, t he City must ensure
that a plan is developed to introduce the TMP recommended projects into
the LRTP during its next amendment’s cycle.
Refer to Figure 120 for the latest Revenue Forecast presented in
the 2040 Edition of Miami-Dade County LRTP. Of the $41 billion
in total projected revenues identified in the table, approximately
70 percent is generated locally. This amount includes transit
fares, PTP surtax revenues, County general funds, fuel taxes
(both the local option taxes and the County’s share of the state
taxes), road impact fees, MDX revenues, and the Count y’s
estimated share of Turnpike revenues. The remaining 30 percent
of the total comes from either federal or state funding sources,
including FDOT programs and FTA and FHWA grant programs.
PROJECT FINANCING
248
Source General Description Options
LOCAL
The City’s Transportation Department ensures that the Beach has a safe,
secure, and efficient transportation system that moves people and goods.
While ensuring environmental and economic sustainability, the department
promotes alternative modes of travel to improve the mobility, livability,
accessibility, and quality of life for all residents, tourist, and commuters that
travel within Miami Beach.
Quality of Life Taxes
Funds available for tourism enhancing projects with capital
projects in north, south and mid beach of approximately $5.5
million per year
People’s Transportation Plan Fund
Half-cent county surtax dedicated to transportation of which the
City receives $3.4 Million per year for transit and transportation
improvements.
Concurrency Mitigation Fees
Fees paid to mitigate the traffic impacts specific to a project
approximately $1.4 million per year in the last 3 years
Fees in Lieu of Parking
A recurring or one-time fund that is subsidized by
developers that pay a $40,000 fee (or $800 annuity) for
each parking space they are not able to provide within their
project
The funds collected are used for transportation and
mobility related improvement projects Citywide;
approximately $12.5 million accumulated
Parking Year End Surplus
Year-end surplus from the parking fund that can be used to fund
any legal purpose of the City, including transportation initiatives
and is allocated $1.3 million for transportation in the FY 2014/15
OTHER
There are a variety of other funding options available to the City to provide
for transportation improvements. For example private funding may be one
and could include cost sharing, private ownership, and tax increment
financing. Many communities provide a major portion of their transportation
system through improvements provided by private developers and/or
through impact fees.
Public Private Partnership
Method of financing a roadway project where a private entity
constructs and maintains a facility and the City pays for the use of
the facility for the traveling public. This is accomplished by the
City paying the private entity access fees or through a lease
agreement.
Tax Increment Financing
The concept is that as improvements are made within the defined
area and property values increase, the resulting property tax
revenue would be earmarked for a specific use within the area,
such as transportation improvements.
Strategic Parking Pricing (Recurring)
Parking management system responsive to fluctuations in parking
demand and compatible with existing parking technologies.
Since 2011 Seattle has the Performance-Based Parking
PROJECT FINANCING
249
Source General Description Options
Pricing Program which regulates neighborhood parking
rates, hours, and time limits by measures of occupancy and
is evaluated and corrected annually
City of Denver, developed to accommodate current growth
in travel patterns and mode split
MB Commission approved implementation of a Pilot
strategic Parking Program on 2014
Congestion Pricing (Recurring)
Surcharging users of public roadways to reduce congestion by
burdening motorists and favoring multimodal facilities and/or
transit through reinvestments of funds collected.
Locally, I-95 Express Lanes are an example of Congestion
Pricing
Vancouver’s citizens will soon vote for/against
implementation of a mobility pricing system
San Francisco is currently implementing a trial system on
Treasure Island in which residents will be given:
o mandatory transit passes
o alternative modes of transportation will be favored
o motorists will have to pay parking fees and ramp metering
PROJECT FINANCING
250
Figure 120: Revenue Forecast FY 2020 – FY 2040 Estimates for Miami-
Dade County
Figure 121: 2040 LRTP Set-Aside Funds
Figure 122: 2040 LRTP Available Revenue for New Capital and New
O&M
There are plenty of transportation funding sources available for the City
to utilize toward improving its infrastructure. Given that some of these
recommended projects are to take place on facilities for which the City
has limited jurisdiction (i.e. state and county roadways); the City must
diligently match the applicable source to the type of project. The City
should also review its currently planned projects as well as those that
have already been completed to identify the amount available to fund
future needs. As it is, the City may have a backlog of projects that are
already part of their Capital Improvements Program (CIP) which should
be addressed prior to any newly recommended project. The City shall
continue to review its CIP on an annual basis to ensure it is meeting its
goals and objectives and to review its funding needs.
MOVINGFORWARD
MOVING FORWARD
252
10. NEXT STEPS
To provide “real” and effective solutions, many of the recommendations
of this plan will require more detailed analysis and/or consultation.
Given limited resources and practical constraints, achieving all of the
goals set forth in this document requires the City to prioritize its efforts
and explore innovative funding and design solutions.
THIS TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN ENCOURAG ES THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH TO:
Obtain Biggest Bank for Its Bucks
Prioritize investments where the greatest benefits can be achieved.
Start with locate problem areas such as collision “hotspots,” and where
improvements achieve larger network benefits such as gaps in the
transit, walking, or bicycle network.
Think Big Picture
Prioritize projects that accomplish multiple transportation benefits, like
improved mobility and safety, but that also enhance the City’s quality of
life and economic competitiveness, such as those that benefit air quality
and increase commercial activity.
Be Proactive and Opportunistic
Minimize throwaway efforts by coordinating transportation
improvements with other work projects. When and where feasible, time
projects to take place during concurrent reconstruction projects,
infrastructure replacement, community plans, and new development.
Innovate
Use low-cost pilot projects to test new ideas and approaches. Seek
new transportation and information technologies that help achieve
efficiency.
Keep Track
Monitor results, learn from experiences, and adapt policies and
approaches as necessary. If and when possible, share and gather data
in an open format that supports other efforts and enhances the planning
and development process.
Be a Team Player
Collaborate with partners on projects that span municipal boundaries
and provide regional benefits. Pursue partnerships for development and
funding opportunities, including other government agencies, academic
institutions, community and business groups, and private industry.
Engage the Community
Involve residents, businesses, and other stakeholders when developing
and implementing projects. Their feedback is crucial to advance any
improvement project, and their concerns and aspirations will foster
constructive discussion and inspire creative and positive action.
MOVING FORWARD
253
F I N A L R E F L E C T I O N
On behalf of the many contributors to this Transportation Master Plan,
The City of Miami Beach thanks you for reading this document. In April
2016, the final plan was adopted by the City of Miami Beach.
To all residents and visitors, your continued involvement in and
advocacy for this TMP will be absolutely essential to implementing the
recommendations put forth. It is the City’s hope that all who read it will
recognize many principles that they are inspired to rally behind. Now is
the time for all of us, who have come to know and love this part of
Florida, to emphasize our common interests and look beyond our short-
term concerns to strive toward true multi-modal vision. A VISION
WHICH PLACES THE PED ESTRIAN, THE BICYCLI ST, AND T HE
TRANSIT RIDER AT THE FOREGROUND OF ALL FUTURE
TRANSPORTATION DECIS ION MAKING . As well as taking
advantage of all opportunities to manage and improve congestions on
our streets
Whether you are a private citizen, local official, planner, business
person, educator, or part of any other stakeholder group, we hope you
see your issues addressed thoughtfully in the plan. Whether you have
participated to date or are participating for the first time by reading the
plan, we hope you continue to take advantage of opportunities
presented by this master plan to weigh in on issues that matter to you
and your community. The city and region’s future depends on your
active engagement.