Loading...
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.