Transportation Master Plan Final Report
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................ 1
2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 1
TMP GOALS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
THE TMP PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
3. EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................................... 4
STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Existing Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Existing Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
TRANSIT ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Existing Transit Network ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
AUTOMOBILES ........................................................................................................................................................................................17
Existing Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Forecasted Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Parking within the City .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 50
FREIGHT .................................................................................................................................................................................................58
Existing Loading Zones ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 59
TRANSPORTATION POLICIES ....................................................................................................................................................................68
Transportation Element ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68
Concurrency Management .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
EXISTING MODE SHARE .......................................................................................................................................................................... 74
Transit Mode Split ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
City Visitors Mode Split ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 80
ONGOING EFFORTS ..................................................................................................................................................................................81
4. MODE PRIORITIZATION ...................................................... 85
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ........................................................................................................................................................................85
Public Feedback .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 87
Network Evaluation (Public Input Results) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
MODE PRIORITY ......................................................................................................................................................................................92
5. TRANSPORTATION MODE SHARE 2035 VISION ...................... 93
PEDESTRIAN MODE .................................................................................................................................................................................94
Pedestrian Safety ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 94
Pedestrian Accessibility ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95
Pedestrian Mobility ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 96
Pedestrian Connectivity ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 96
Pedestrian Count Stations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 97
South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zone (PPZ) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 97
BICYCLE MODE .................................................................................................................................................................................... 101
Management of Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 101
TRANSIT MODE .................................................................................................................................................................................... 104
Transit Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104
AUTOMOBILE MODE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 113
Management of Roadways ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 113
Parking .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 118
Recommended Facilities by Walker Parking Consulting .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 123
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 130
Freight Corridors and Freight Corridor Program ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 130
Truck Routes .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 131
Truck Restriction Zones ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 133
Intersection Geometry Analysis and Improvements ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 136
Loading Zone Accommodations .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 137
Colored Curb Program ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 138
Interactive Freight Map ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 139
ENSURING IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................................... 141
Updating and Setting New Policies .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 141
Concurrency Management Threshold..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 145
6. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ................................................. 150
SETTING CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................................................................ 151
7. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS ...................................................... 155
MODE PRIORITIZATION ON THE CITY’S MAJOR ROADWAYS .................................................................................................................... 155
The Washington Avenue Example............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 156
NORTH-SOUTH CORRIDORS ................................................................................................................................................................... 157
SR A1A/Collins Avenue ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 157
SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 159
West Avenue – North Bay Road ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 161
Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 163
Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 165
Washington Avenue ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 167
EAST-WEST CORRIDORS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 169
SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 169
Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 171
SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 173
SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 175
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 177
Transit Priority Corridors .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 179
Bicycle Priority Corridors ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 183
8. PROJECT BANK .............................................................. 186
PRIORITY 1 PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 186
PRIORITY 2 PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 205
PRIORITY 3 PROJECTS.......................................................................................................................................................................... 211
POTENTIAL COSTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 227
Priority 1 Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 229
Priority 2 Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 235
Priority 3 Projects .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 237
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Existing and Forecasted City Regional Routes Ridership ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 2: Specific Links (Roadway Segments) [Pages 10 – 15]............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
Table 3: City Area Growth Rates Used to Forecast Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
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................................................................................................................................................. 32
Table 6: Roadway Segments/Links Peak Directional Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 7: Roadway Segments/Links Forecasted Daily, Two-Way Peak, and Peak Directional Volumes, and LOS for 2025............................................................................................................ 40
Table 8: Roadway Segments/Links Forecasted Daily, Two-Way Peak, and Peak Directional Volumes, and LOS for 2035 ........................................................................................................... 45
Table 9: Existing South Beach Parking Supply (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysi s) ................................................................................................................................................. 51
Table 10: Existing South Beach Parking Demand (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis) ........................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 11: Existing North Beach Parking Supply (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis) ............................................................................................................................................... 53
Table 12: Existing North Beach Parking Demand (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis) ........................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 13: South Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 14: Middle Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Table 15: North Beach City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 16: City-Owned Off-Street Parking Facilities Summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Table 17: Existing FLZs and ALZs Inventory ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 60
Table 18: Existing Curb Loading Zones Inventory .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
Table 19: Existing City TCMAs Concurrency Fees .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 72
Table 20: Total Daily Person Trips by Purpose1 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Table 21: City of Miami Beach Average Daily Population by Category .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 75
Table 22: Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Roads Leaving and Entering the City 4 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 76
Table 23: Daily Transit Trips to and from City by Roadway ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77
Table 24: Bi-Directional Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 78
Table 25: Overnight Visitors Mode of Transportation to the City .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 26: Non-Overnight Visitors Mode of Transportation to the City ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 80
Table 27: Current Short-Term Improvements Efforts by the City’s Transportation Department ........................................................................................................................................................... 83
Table 28: Previously Planned Transit Transfer Station within the City ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 108
Table 29: Parking Facility Choice Types (2010 Denver Strategic Parking Plan) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 119
Table 30: Freight Corridor Program Advantages and Disadvantages ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 130
Table 31: Truck Routes Program Advantages and Disadvantages ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 132
Table 32: Truck Restriction Zones Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 135
Table 33: Intersection Geometry Improvements Advantages and Disadvantages .................................................................................................................................................................................... 136
Table 34: Loading Zone Accommodations Advantages and Disadvantages.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 137
Table 35: Colored Curb Program Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 138
Table 36: Colored Curb Program Advantages and Disadvantages ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 148
Table 37: Proposed Projects Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 152
Table 38: Priority 1 Projects ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 186
Table 39: Priority 2 Projects ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 205
Table 40: Priority 3 Projects ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 211
Table 41: Sources for Estimation of Potential Project Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 227
Table 42: Potential Costs for Priority 1 Projects ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 229
Table 43: Potential Costs for Priority 2 Projects .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 235
Table 44: Potential Costs for Priority 3 Projects .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 237
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities within the City of Miami Beach ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Existing MDT Routes with the City ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3: Existing MDT Routes Combined Ridership per Stop ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 4: Existing MDT Routes Combined Average Speed ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 5: Future Planned Transit Projects within the City .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Blueways Master Plan Conceptual Rendering ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 7: Annual Growth Rates for South, Middle, and North Beach ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Figure 8: Existing City-Wide Off-Street Parking Facilities ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 9: Existing Citywide Truck Volumes .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 58
Figure 10: SR 195/Julia Tuttle Causeway SIS Corridor .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 10: Sample FLZ and ALZ Posted Regulations ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
Figure 12: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Collins Avenue ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 13: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Washington Avenue ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 14: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Alton Road and West Avenue ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 15: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Lincoln Road ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 16: Existing Loading Zones on South Beach .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 17: Existing Loading Zones on Middle Beach ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 65
Figure 18: Existing Loading Zones on North Beach .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Figure 19: Existing Commercial Land Use within City ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 20: Existing Transient Residential Land Use within City .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 20: City Transportation Currency Management Areas (TCMAs) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 22: City of Miami Beach Residents Mode to Work .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 74
Figure 23: Miami-Dade County and Other Cities Residents Mode to Work ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
Figure 24: Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 25: City Neighborhood Projects and MPO TIP Projects ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 81
Figure 26: Identified MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Projects within the City .................................................................................................................................................................. 82
Figure 27: Public Input on Proposed Transit Corridors ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 28: Public Input on Proposed Transit Corridors ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 29: Public Workshop Comment Cards Template .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 30: City Endorsed Transportation Mode Hierarchy................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 92
Figure 31: City Transportation Mode Share 2035 Vision ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 32: Sidewalk Zones ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 95
Figure 33: Sidewalk Zones Application Examples ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 95
Figure 34: South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zones ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 98
Figure 35: Bus Only Lane Examples ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 36: Miami-Dade MPO Intermodal Center Locator Map ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 109
Figure 37: Potential Areas for Future Major Transit Infrastructure .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 110
Figure 38: MacNab Transit Terminal (Ontario, Canada) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 111
Figure 39: MIC Intermodal Station Terminal (Miami, FL) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 40: Münchner Freiheit Station (Munich, Germany) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 112
Figure 41: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Blake Transit Center (BTC) ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 112
Figure 42: The Three “Dimensions” of Traffic Congestion (ACR 2009) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 114
Figure 43: Relationship between Parking Location, Parking Duration, and Activity Performed (2010 Denver Strategic Parking Plan) ..................................................................................... 120
Figure 44: Space Requirements: Parallel Parking vs Angle Parking ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 45: Radial Capture of Lincoln 1111 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 122
Figure 46: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on South Beach ........................................................................................................................................................................... 123
Figure 47: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on Mid Beach .............................................................................................................................................................................. 124
Figure 48: Truck Route Informational Guide Example (New Yo rk City) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 131
Figure 49: Freight Corridor Wayfinding Signage Example (New York City) ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 132
Figure 50: TIM Truck Lane Restrictions Interactive Map .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 133
Figure 51: Downtown Seattle Truck Restriction Zone ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 134
Figure 52: Truck Restrictions Sign Examples .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 135
Figure 53: Truck Turning Movement ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 136
Figure 54: Typical Sidewalk Curb Ramp .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 137
Figure 55: Loading Zone and Bike Path Buffer Separation Example ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 137
Figure 56: Colored Curb Program Example .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 138
Figure 57: Freight Management Interactive Map Sample ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 139
Figure 58: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 157
Figure 59: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................................................................................................... 158
Figure 60: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 159
Figure 61: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections .............................................................................................................................................................. 160
Figure 62: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 161
Figure 63: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................................................................................. 162
Figure 64: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 163
Figure 65: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ......................................................................................................................................................... 164
Figure 66: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive Corridor Mode Prioritization Data .................................................................................................................................................................................. 165
Figure 67: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections .................................................................................................................................................................. 166
Figure 68: Washington Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 167
Figure 69: Washington Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sec tions ................................................................................................................................................................................... 168
Figure 70: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ........................................................................................................................................................................ 169
Figure 71: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................................................................. 170
Figure 72: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ...................................................................................................................................................... 171
Figure 73: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections .......................................................................................................................... 172
Figure 74: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data ........................................................................................................................................................................ 173
Figure 75: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections............................................................................................................................................. 174
Figure 76: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data........................................................................................................................................................................ 175
Figure 77: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections ............................................................................................................................................ 176
Figure 78: TMP Recommended Transit Corridors and Bicycle/Pedestrian Corridors ............................................................................................................................................................................... 177
Figure 79: TMP Recommended Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links).................................................................................................................................................................................................. 178
Figure 80: TMP Recommended Transit Network and Multi -modal Connectors (Network Links) ......................................................................................................................................................... 178
Figure 81: TMP Recommended Bicycle/Pedestrian Network and Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links) .................................................................................................................................... 178
Figure 82: TMP Recommended Transit Priority Corridors ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 179
Figure 83: TMP Recommended Transit Priority Corridors & Potential Typical Sections Locations ....................................................................................................................................................... 180
Figure 84: SR A1A/ MacArthur Causeway Transit Corridor Po tential Typical Section from US-1 / Biscayne Blvd to SR 907/Alton Road ................................................................................. 180
Figure 85: SR A1A/ 5th Street Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from SR 907/Alton Road to Washington Avenue ......................................................................................................... 180
Figure 86: Washington Avenue Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from SR A1A/5th Street to Dade Boulevard .............................................................................................................. 181
Figure 87: 71st Street/Normandy Drive Transit Corridor Typical Section from the end of the 79th Street Causeway to SR A1A Collins Avenue ................................................................... 181
Figure 88: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 44th Street to 5900 City Block ........................................................................................................................ 181
Figure 89: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section non -bridge portion of the causeway located within the Biscayne Bay .............................................. 182
Figure 90: SR A1A/Collins Avenue/Indian Creek Drive Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 17th Street to 44th Stree t ............................................................................................ 182
Figure 91: SR 907/Alto Road Transit Corridor Potential Configuration from South Pointe Drive to Dade Boulevard .................................................................................................................... 182
Figure 92: TMP Recommended Bicycle/Pedestrian Priority Corridors .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 183
Figure 93: TMP Recommended Bicycle Priority Corridors & Potential Typical Sections Locations ...................................................................................................................................................... 184
Figure 94: 22nd Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from Washington Avenue to SR A1A/Collins Avenue ................................................................................ 184
Figure 95: 11th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from West Avenue to Ocean Drive .................................................................................................................... 184
Figure 96: North Bay Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from West Avenue to La Gorce Drive ................................................................................................... 185
Figure 97: West Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from 6th Street to 20th Street ....................................................................................................................... 185
Figure 98: Pine Tree Drive & La Gorce Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from 51st Street to La Gorce Circle ....................................................................... 185
Executive Summary
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
W H A T ’ S I N T H E P L A N ?
Goals
Prioritize pedestrians
Improve network for alternative modes
Develop parking and freight management strategies
Suggest concurrency thresholds that apply to all new developments
Public Input
Engage City residents, stakeholders, and anyone who travels within the City to
obtain valuable information from those rely on the transportation infra structure on
a daily basis. This document discusses a Public Workshop session and all other
pertinent feedback obtained during the process.
Travel Mode Share
This TMP evaluated the existing transportation conditions Citywide in order to
develop a 2035 Mode Share Vision that will serve as an anchor to encourage City’s
decision to promote a more sustainable transportation environment. This vision will
also serve as constant reminder on how a balanced multi-modal transportation
system will improve the livability and quality of life of the City.
Modal Strategies
The plan establishes strategies for the various modes of transportation to provide
guidance for future planning decisions and aid in the development of TMP
recommended multi-modal. Some of these strategies include:
Define Pedestrian Priority Zones & Create programs to accurately obtain
and maintain pedestrian data
Executive Summary
Provide reliable and continuous transit exclusive facilities & Suggest
potential locations for transfer infrastructure
Improve safety for all road users traveling on bicycles, Close gaps
between existing bicycle links, & Strategize consistently with the City’s BPMP
Integrate adaptive signal control devices on certain corridors to better
manage congestion & ITS to monitor vehicular density on peak periods and
improve the City’s emergency response system
Parking Management
Through research of relevant City literature, the TMP presents an inventory of the
current citywide off-street parking as well as existing overall parking supply and
demand. The plan also suggests strategies to shift parking to off-street locations
and better the City’s parking supply.
Freight Management
This plan emphasizes the fact that a comprehensive transportation system and a
desirable sustainable growing economy, freight loading and 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 economy of the City.
Concurrency Management
This TMP concentrates on the importance of transportation concurrency to manage
the City’s growing land use simultaneously to the development of the
transportation network. The City should have methods in which all devel opments or
redevelopments should measure and manage any potential additional trips to the
roadway system; and thus this plan recommends ways in which the City can
accomplish through certain thresholds and in a more multi-modal manner.
Multi-modal Corridors
Corridors are defined herein on which alternative modes of transportation
to the private automobile should be prioritized to accomplish the City’s
2035 multi-modal vision. This means that dedicated, reliable, and efficient
facilities that provide connectivity through the extent of the City limits with
exclusive public right-of-way have to be provided to actually make a true
shift in the current mode split.
Executive Summary
Project Bank
A series of short, mid and long term improvements to the City’s
transportation network were identified and are recommended in this TMP.
These recommended projects are multi-modal in nature in efforts to plan
for the successful achievement of the City’s 2035 mode share vision. This
TMP encourages the City’s Transportation Department to maintain and
continue constant coordination with other divisions of the municipality to
ensure the successful implementation of the recommended projects. The
plan suggests potential costs for planning, design, and construction of these
projects as well as potential funding sources. The projects are
recommended in the following structure:
Executive Summary
Goals
1.
Prioritize pedestrians.
Encourage City residents and visitors, through safe and
engaging infrastructure, to resort to walking
2.
.
Improve transit Service and
Infrastructure. develop a city-wide transit network
that will have exclusively assigned road space and easy to
access transfer areas. utilize vehicular alternatives (i.e.
car-sharing) for trips where transit is not convenient.
3.
Develop a safe, connected, and consistent
bicycle network. Promote bicycling,
through well designed facilities, education, and
encouragement.
4.
Provide accessible and convenient off-
street parking facilities. Seek
opportunities for off-street parking facilities that
support and encourage multi-modal activity.
5.
Plan for efficient freight mobility and
delivery of goods. Improve the way in which goods
are delivered through the City and on which roadways.
6.
Provide Policies for the future
Ensure that transportation policies support the projects
recommended and promote multi-modal best practices.
Executive Summary
Existing Conditions
Executive Summary
Existing Conditions
Executive Summary
* In most Cities, Transportation facilities (Roadways, Sidewalks, Pathways, etc.) ac count for the majority of the land-use; however, as shown in the
Data, Miami Beach does not fit that mold. This serves to further indicate of the limited right-of-way available for facility widening.
Executive Summary
Modal Share – Residents to Work
Executive Summary
other Cities Commuter Modal Share
Executive Summary
Estimated Overall Modal Share
The team reviewed the following data: Based on the results obtained by other cities who made commitments to
multi-modal transportation, the team developed a proposed vision for
Causeway transit data modal share. This vision, as shown above, was further calibrated based on
Overnight and Non-overnight visitor data the modal impact recognized by each of the projects.
Transit usage within the City of Miami Beach
Based on the calculations, the team arrived the estimated modal
share shown above.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Corridor Prioritization
Executive Summary
Corridor Priorities Map
Executive Summary
Alternatives and improvements
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Developing Projects
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
MacArthur Causeway- Dedicated Transit Lanes 5th Street- Dedicated Transit Lanes
Washington Avenue- Dedicated Transit Lanes 5th Street- Exclusive Rail Lanes
1 2
3 4
Executive Summary
Washington Avenue – Exclusive Rail Lanes West Avenue – Protected Bicycle Lanes
73rd Street – One-Way Protected Bicycle Lanes
5 6
7
Executive Summary
72nd Street – One-Way Protected Bicycle Lanes
Byron Avenue – Protected Bike Lanes
8
9
Executive Summary
North Bay Road –Neighborhood Greenway Alton Road and 17th Street –Intersection Capacity Improvement Study
51st Street – Bicycle Lanes
10 11
12
Executive Summary
63rd Street – Bicycle Alternatives Feasibility Analysis
13
Executive Summary
Alton Road (Miami Beach Golf Course) – Bicycle Improvement
Limits:
Objective:Bike Alternatives
North Michigan Avenue–Chasse Avenue Type:
Cost:$ 700,000
14
Executive Summary
Dade Boulevard – Bicycle Alternatives
Limits:
Objective:Bike Path/ Protected Bike Lanes
17th Street –Pine Tree Drive Type:
Cost:$ 100,000 –$ 3,000,000
BICYCLE ALTERNATIVE W/ A TRAFFIC CIRCLE
15
Executive Summary
Euclid Avenue – Protected Bicycle Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Protected Bicycle Lanes
5th Street –17th Street Type:
Cost:$ 60,000 –$ 90,000
16
Executive Summary
Meridian Avenue – Neighborhood Greenway/Protected Bike Lane
Limits:
Objective:Protected Bicycle Lanes
5th Street –Dade Boulevard Type:
Cost:$ 150,000
North of Lincoln Road
South of Lincoln Road
17
Executive Summary
Meridian Avenue/28th Street – Shared Use Path
Limits:
Objective:Shared-Use Path
Dade Boulevard to Pine Tree Drive Type:
Cost:$ 320,000
Limits:
Objective:Shared-Use Path
Dade Boulevard to Pine Tree Drive Type:
Cost:$ 320,000
SHARED-USE PATH
18
Executive Summary
Pine Tree Drive and LaGorce Drive– Protected Bicycle Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Protected Bicycle Lanes
51st Street to LaGorce Circle Type:
Cost:$ 12,400,000
19
Executive Summary
6th Street– Protected Bicycle Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Protected Bike Lanes
SR A1A / 5th Street ---West Avenue Type:
Cost:$ 700,000
5th Street and Alton Road– Intersection Study
Limits:
Objective:Capacity Improvement Feasibility
Study
Intersection Type:
Cost:$ 10,000
Dade Boulevard and 17th Street– Safety Review
Limits:
Objective:Safety Review
Intersection Type:
Cost:$ 10,000
71st Street and Dickens Avenue/Indian Creek Drive– Geometric Analysis
Limits:
Objective:Capacity Improvement Feasibility
Study
Intersection Type:
Cost:$ 10,000
20 21
22 23
Executive Summary
Julia Tuttle Causeway – Exclusive Transit Lanes/Shared-Use Path Feasibility Analysis
Limits:
Objective:Exclusive Transit Lanes/Shared Path
Feasibility Analysis
Downtown ---Alton Road Type:
Cost:$ 100,000,000
32
Executive Summary
Project Description (Priority 1)
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 Multimodal 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
SR A1A /
MacArthur
Causeway
Exclusive Transit
Lanes and
Protected Bicycle
Lanes
South Multimodal Downtown Collins
Avenue 3.80 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing and shoulder lane)
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.
3
SR A1A/5th Street
Exclusive Bus
Lanes and
Protected Bicycle
Lanes
South Multimodal SR 907 /
Alton Road
Washington
Avenue (for
buses) and
the Atlantic
Trail (for
Bicycles)
0.4 (Bus
Lane)
and 0.55
(Bike
Lane)
Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
SR A1A/5th 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
4
Washington
Avenue Exclusive
Bus Lanes
South Transit SR A1A/5th
Street
Dade
Boulevard 1.64 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
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.
5
SR A1A/5th Street
Exclusive Light Rail
Lanes
and Protected
Bicycle Lanes
South Multimodal SR 907 /
Alton Road
Washington
Avenue (for
buses) and
the Atlantic
Trail (for
Bicycles)
0.4 (Rail
Lane)
and 0.55
(Bike
Lanes)
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening),
SR A1A/5th Street requires an
improvement for regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit.
6
Washington
Avenue Exclusive
Light Rail Lanes
South Multimodal SR A1A/5th
Street
Dade
Boulevard 1.64
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening),
Washington Avenue requires an
improvement for regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
7
West Avenue
Protected Bicycle
Lanes
South Bike/Ped 6th Street 20th Street 1.3
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), 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.
8
73rd Street One
Way Protected
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue Atlantic Trail 0.35
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
9
72nd Street One
Way Protected
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.28
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), 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.
10
Byron Avenue
Protected Bicycle
Lanes/Neighborho
od Greenway
North Bike/Ped 73rd Street Hawthorne
Avenue 0.56
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
11
North Bay Road
Neighborhood
Greenway
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.
12
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
13 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
14
63rd Street:
Feasibility Study
for Bicycle
Alternatives
Middle Bike/Ped Alton Road Indian Creek
Drive 0.4
Feasibility Analysis for Bicycle
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.
15
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.
16 Dade Boulevard
Shared Use Path South Bike/Ped 17th Street Pine Tree
Drive 1 Shared Use Path Adjacent to
Collins Canal
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
17
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.
18 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.
19
Meridian Avenue
and 28th Street
Shared Use Path
Middle Bike/Ped Dade
Boulevard
Pine Tree
Drive 0.90
Shared Uses Path (Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening) 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
20
La Gorce Drive /
Pine Tree Drive
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
Middle Bike&Ped 51st Street La Gorce
Circle 2.69
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) 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.
21
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.
22
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
23
Dade Boulevard
and 17th Street
Intersection
Improvements
South Bike/Ped N/A N/A N/A Provide Enhanced Crosswalks
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of Dade Boulevard AND
17th Street
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
24
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.
25
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
26
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
27
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue's
Feasibility Study of
Adaptive Signal
Controls
South Roadway SR A1A / 5th
Street 23rd Street 1.7 Feasibility Study of Adaptive
Signal Controls
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued along the
corridor of SR A1A / Collins Avenue
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
28
23rd Street's
Complete Streets
Feasibility Study
South Multimodal 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.
29
SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive 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 SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway / 5th Street
30
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
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
31
Intersection of SR
907 / Alton Road
and Sullivan
Drive's (Mt. Sinai
Entrance)
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
Sullivan Drive (Mt. Sinai Entrance)
32
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
33
SR 112 / Julia
Tuttle Causeway s
Feasibility Study
Middle Multimodal
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.
34
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
35
SR 907 / Alton
Road
SR 112 / 41st Street
SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive /
Collins Avenue
Dade Boulevard
Proposed Middle
Beach Trolley
Route
Middle Transit
Sullivan
Drive (Mt.
Sinai
Medical
Center
Entrance)
SR 907 /
Alton Road
SR 112 / 41st
Street
SR A1A /
Indian Creek
Drive
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.
36
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
37 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
38
17th Street
Alternate
Multimodal
Solutions Study
South Bike/Ped SR 907 /
Alton Road
SR 907 /
Alton Road 0.72
Feasibility Study of Alternate
Multimodal Solutions on 17th
Street
17th Street requires a study for to
provide improvements 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.
39
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
40 Middle Beach
Intermodal Station Middle Multimodal 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
41
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
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
42
11th Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped West
Avenue
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
0.52
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers and
Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
11th 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.
43
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
44
SR 907 / Alton
Road's Level of
Service
Improvements
Middle Roadway 43rd Street 63rd Street 1.7 Level of Service Improvements
SR 907 / Alton Road acts as a major
North/South connection for all traffic
moving on the West side of the City. It
also provides direction connection to
two of the major causeway across the
bay. This project seeks to improve the
current failing LOS conditions of this
critical roadway.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
45 Beachwalk 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 Beackwalk 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.
46
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
47
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
48
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.
49
SR 907/ Alton
Road Shared-Use
Path
Middle Bike/Ped 48th Court 51st Street 0.29
Shared Uses Path (Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening) Enhanced crosswalks
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.
50
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
51
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.
52
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.
53
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
54
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.
55
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.
56
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
57
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.
58 Baywalk South Bike/Ped 5th Street 15th Street 1.05 Shared-Use Path Improve Bicycle connectivity for
recreational and commuter use.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Collins Avenue and Indian Creek Drive – Exclusive Transit Lanes/Protected Bicycle Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Exclusive Transit Lanes/Protected
Bicycle Lanes
17th Street ---44th Street Type:
Cost:$ 9,500,000
2
17th Street – Exclusive Transit Lanes and/or Protected Bicycle Lanes Analysis
Limits:
Objective:Exclusive Transit Lanes/Protected
Bicycle Lanes
Washington Avenue ---Collins Avenue Type:
Cost:$ 691,000
1
41st Street – Enhanced Transit Operations
Description: Review of Transit and Bicycle Operations for implementation of
enhanced transit service. The analysis must include at a minimum, a review
of partially exclusive lanes, signal pre-emption, queue-jumpers,etc.
Limits:
Objective:Enhanced Transit Operations (Partially
Exclusive Lanes, Signal Pre-emption,
Etc.)
Alton Road ---Beachwalk Type:
Cost:$ 2,900,000
3
71st Street/Normandy Drive – Exclusive Transit Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Enhanced Transit Operations (Partially
Exclusive Lanes, Signal Pre-emption,
Etc.)
Alton Road ---Beachwalk Type:
Cost:$ 2,900,000
4
Executive Summary
Dickens Avenue/Park View Island – Shared-Use Path/Protected Bicycle Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Shared-Use Path/Protected Bike Lanes
72nd Street to 77th Street Type:
Cost:$ 2,200,000
7
Executive Summary
63rd Street – Bicycle Alternatives Feasibility Analysis
Executive Summary
Project Description (Priority 2)
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
1
17th Street
Exclusive transit
and
protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South Transit/Bike
&Ped
Washington
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.14
Evualuation 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/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South /
Middle
Transit/Bike
&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/buffere
d 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.
Executive Summary
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.
6
21st Street and
22nd Street/Park
Avenue Protected
Bicycle Lanes
Feasibility Study
South Bike/Ped
Washington
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.
7
63rd Street
Protected/buffere
d 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
8
SR 934 / 71st
Street / Normandy
Drive Exclusive
Transit Lanes/
Protected/buffere
d 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.
9
Dickens Avenue
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
North Bike&Ped SR 934 /
71st Street 88th Street 1.22
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Dickens 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
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
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
11
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
12
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
13
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.
14 Lincoln Road
Shared Space South Bike/Ped Washington
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
15
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.
16 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.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Ocean Drive – Shared Space
Limits:
Objective:Public Space
5th Street ---15th Street Type:
Cost:$ 2,200,000 SHARED SPACE
Royal Palm Avenue – Neighborhood Greenway
Limits:
Objective:Neighborhood Greenway
28th Street ---41st Street Type:
Cost:$ 140,000
BPMP
Executive Summary
Collins Avenue – Exclusive Transit Lanes/Protected Bicycle Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Exclusive Transit Lanes/ Protected
Bicycle Lanes
41st Street ---71st Street Type:
Cost:$ 9,950,000
1 & 5
Executive Summary
Alton Road – Exclusive Transit Lanes/Protected Bicycle Lanes
Limits:
Objective:Exclusive Transit Lanes/ Protected
Bicycle Lanes
South Pointe Drive ---17th Street Type:
Cost:$ 4,060,000
18 & 20
Collins Avenue – Rail Transit
Limits:
Objective:Exclusive Rail Lanes
17th Street ---71st Street Type:
Cost:$ 157,000,000
Executive Summary
MacArthur Causeway – Light Rail Transit
Limits:
Objective:Light Rail Transit
Downtown ---Alton Road Type:
Cost:$ 177,790,000
Executive Summary
Project Description (Priority 3)
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
1
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue
Protected/buffered
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
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.
4
SR A1A Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive
Exclusive transit
and
protected/buffered
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/buffered
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
6
Abbott Avenue
Protected/buffered
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.
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
10
South Pointe Drive
Protected/buffered
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/buffered
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
Meridian Avenue /
1st Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped Washington
Avenue 16th Street 0.88
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Meridian Avenue / 1st 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
13
Meridian Avenue /
1st Street
Protected/buffered
bicycle lanes
South Bike/Ped Washington
Avenue 16th Street 0.41
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Meridian Avenue / 1st 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.
14
Washington
Avenue Exclusive
transit and
protected/buffered
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.
15
SR 907 / Alton
Road Exclusive
transit lanes
South Transit SR A1A / 5th
Street
Dade
Boulevard 2.15 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
16
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.
17
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
18
24th Street /
Liberty Avenue
Protected/buffered
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.
19
Flamingo Drive
Protected/buffered
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
20
Biarritz Drive
Protected/buffered
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.
21
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.
22 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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
23 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.
24
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.
25
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
26
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.
27
SR A1A Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive
Exclusive transit
lanes
South
/
Middle
Transit 17th Street
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue /
Indian Creek
Drive Split
4.51 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
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.
28
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
29
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.
30
SR 112 / 41st Street
Exclusive transit
lanes and
protected/buffered
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.
31
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle
Causeway Exclusive
Transit
Lane/Shared-Use
Path
Middle Multimodal
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
32
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.
33
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.
34
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
35 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.
36
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.
37
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.
Executive Summary
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
38
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.
Executive Summary
Potential Costs
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Policies and Rec ommendations
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
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 DIFFER ENT, 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 EXIST ING
TRANSPORTATION 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 COMPREHENS IVE AND
FUNCTIONAL 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 short-term (0-
5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), and long-term
(10-20 years) direction.
INTRODUCTION
2
TMP 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 a re
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
EXISTING CONDITIONS
4
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
5
D E M O G R A P H I C S
EXISTING CONDITIONS
6
E N V I R O N M E N T A L
TRANSIT MODE
7
B I C Y C L I S T S A N D P E D E S T R I A N S
TRANSIT MODE
8
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 AND ITS HI STORICALLY
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 CONNECTIVITY 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 FUTUR E GUIDANCE TOWARD
THE IMPLEMENTATION O F A TRUE CITYWIDE MU LTI -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 vas t
majority of the bicycle mode improvements recommended by this TMP are
in accordance with the City’s BPMP.
Figure 1 displays the location of all the bicycle facilities currently provided
within the City of Miami Beach.
Figure 1: Existing Bicycle Facilities within the City of Miami Beach
TRANSIT MODE
9
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 yea rs
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) occurri ng 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.
TRANSIT MODE
10
T R A N S I T
TRANSIT MODE
11
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 ROU TES PROVIDE AN
INTERCONNECTED LOCAL CIRCULATOR NETWORK for every-day,
all-day transit travel within Miami Beach. Figure 2 displays the existing transit
service within the City.
Figure 2: Existing MDT Routes with the City
TRANSIT MODE
12
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 WIT HIN
THE CITY PER INDIVID UAL 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 RIDERSH IP WITHIN THE CITY F OR EACH INDIVIDUAL
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
2014 2025 2040
Daily Boardings
ROUTE 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 1800 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 3663 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 6039 5772 9936 7222 6903
120 3690 3111 1714 4117 3470 1912 4779 4029 2220
150 1212 1009 1041 1507 1255 1294 2028 1689 1742
All
Routes
Total
21670 15695 12912 24535 17811 14707 29110 21197 17593
TRANSIT MODE
13
Figure 3 shows the existing combined boardings
for all routes for each stop with the City and
Figure 4 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 3: Existing MDT Routes Combined Ridership per Stop
Figure 4: Existing MDT Routes Combined Average Speed
TRANSIT MODE
14
Ongoing Future Transit
Over the last few years the City has embarked in efforts to plan
unprecedented improvements to the existing transit system. With five ma jor
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
TRANSPORTATION has proven to enhance personal opportunities,
reduce traffic congestion, reduce fuel consumption, reduce fuel emissions,
and INCREASE THE PERSON 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 5 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.
TRANSIT MODE
15
Figure 5: 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 6: Blueways Master Plan Conceptual Rendering
TRANSIT MODE
16
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 are some of the potential site
specific improvements recommend by the City’s BMP.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
17
A U T O M O B I L E S
EXISTING CONDITIONS
18
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 HIERA RCHY
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 ROADWAY . 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.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
19
LEVEL OF SERVICE LET TER GRADING is fundamentally defined in
the following manner:
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
20
Table 2: Specific Links (Roadway Segments) [Pages 10 – 15]
Segment
Number Segment Name Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existen
ce of a
Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of Traffic
Signals
Signal
s 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
EXISTING CONDITIONS
21
Segment
Number Segment Name Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existen
ce of a
Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of Traffic
Signals
Signal
s per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
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
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/
Guardrail State Arterial 0 0
21 SR 112 / 41st Street Alton
Road
Collins
Avenue 0.815 Undivide
d N/A State Arterial 15 18 35
22 SR 934 / 79th Street
Causeway City Limits Bay Drive 2.677 Divided Curbed State Arterial 12 4 45
EXISTING CONDITIONS
22
Segment
Number Segment Name Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existen
ce of a
Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of Traffic
Signals
Signal
s per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
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
Washingt
on
Avenue
0.735 Undivide
d N/A City of Miami
Beach Collector 8 11 25
33 Venetian Causeway City Limits Dade 2.555 Undivide N/A County Arterial 7 3 35
EXISTING CONDITIONS
23
Segment
Number Segment Name Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existen
ce of a
Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of Traffic
Signals
Signal
s per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
Boulevard d
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
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
EXISTING CONDITIONS
24
Segment
Number Segment Name Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existen
ce of a
Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of Traffic
Signals
Signal
s per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
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
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 Hawthorn
e 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 Hawthorn
e Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.461 Undivide
d N/A City of Miami
Beach Local 3 7 25
54 Biarritz Drive Shore
Lane
Normand
y Drive 0.224 Undivide
d N/A City of Miami
Beach Local 1 4 25
EXISTING CONDITIONS
25
Segment
Number Segment Name Segment Limits Segment
Length
(Miles)
Existen
ce of a
Median
Median
Type
Road
Jurisdiction
Functional
Classification
Number
of Traffic
Signals
Signal
s per
Mile
Speed
Limit From To
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
58 Byron Avenue
Tatum
Waterway
Drive
88th Street 0.418 Undivide
d N/A City of Miami
Beach Collector 2 5 25
59 Collins Avenue
South
Pointe
Drive
5th Street 0.438 Undivide
d N/A City of Miami
Beach Collector 3 7 25
EXISTING CONDITIONS
26
Forecasted Traffic Volumes
Existing traffic volumes for the roadway segments defined abo ve 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 F OR THE YEARS 2025 AN D
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 7 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 7: Annual Growth Rates for South, Middle, and North Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS
27
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 ISL ENT @R31 1.61 1.61 81625
0.86 1.00
87-6059 RAMP FROM EB MACARTHUR TO NB ALTON RD, 300' E OF
MACARTHUR 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 5 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 21 ST -0.98 0.50 26625
Middle
87-0012 SR 907/ALTON RD, 200' N OF 20 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 W 51 ST 1.21 1.21 31719
87-2541 SR A1A/COLLINS AVE, 500' S OF 63 ST 0.63 0.63 17667
87-2646 INDIAN CREEK DR., 200' SOUTH OF 38 STREET -5.66 0.50 16318
87-2647 SR 907/ALTON ROAD 200' N OF NAUTILUS DR -0.17 0.50 6330
87-6031 RAMP 87004025 FROM SB ALTON RD TO WB I-195, 200' SW
OF ALTON RD 0.91 0.91 15727
87-6060 RAMP 87037201 FROM EB I-195 OFF RAMP 87004024 TO NB
ALTON RD, 400'E OF RAMP 87004024 1.50 1.50 12145
87-6061 RAMP 87037202 FROM NB ALTON RD TO WB I-195, 300' NE
OF ALTON RD 1.76 1.76 14727
North
87-0533 SR 934/N BAY CSWY, 200' E TREASURE DR 0.45 0.45 34469
1.60 1.40
87-5191 SR934/NE 79TH ST,NORTH BAY CSWY,71ST ST, 100' W OF RUE
VERSAILLES 5.39 5.39 18500
87-0115 SR 934/NORMANDY DR. WB, 100' W RUE VERSAILLES 2.26 2.26 17938
87-5189 SR 934/71 ST, 200' W SR A1A/HARDING AVE -1.24 0.50 15056
87-0520 SR A1A/HARDING AVE ONE-WAY PAIR SB, 100' N 87 ST -0.75 0.50 25563
87-0525 SR A1A/COLLINS AVE ONE-WAY PAIR NB, 100' N 87 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.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
28
Table 4: Roadway Segments/Links Average Daily Volumes, LOS, and Capacity Existing Conditions
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
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
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 -
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 - -
34 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X 5100 - -
35 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X 5100 - -
36 17th Street City Collector D D + 50 13050 29160 30420 43740 18900 D 24840
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
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 - - -
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 -
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 - - -
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 -
53 85th Street City Local D X 5110 10360 10920 X 2100 C -
54 Biarritz Drive City Local D X X X X X - - -
55 North Shore Drive City Local D X X X X X - - -
56 Dickens Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 3900 C -
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
57 Tatum Waterway Drive City Collector D X X X X X 3900 C -
58 Byron Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 3900 C -
59 Collins Avenue City Collector D X 5110 10360 10920 X 5200 D -
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS
32
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
33
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 -
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 -
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 - -
34 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X 459 - -
35 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X 459 - -
36 17th Street City Collector D D + 50 1179 2628 2736 3942 1701 D 2241
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
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 - - -
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 - - -
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 -
53 85th Street City Local D X 462 931 987 X 189 C -
54 Biarritz Drive City Local D X X X X X - - -
55 North Shore Drive City Local D X X X X X - - -
56 Dickens Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 351 C -
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
57 Tatum Waterway Drive City Collector D X X X X X 351 C -
58 Byron Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 351 C -
59 Collins Avenue City Collector D X 462 931 987 4380 468 D 3912
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS
36
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
37
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 -
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 -
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 - -
34 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X X - -
35 Dade Boulevard County Arterial D D + 50 X X X X X - -
36 17th Street City Collector D D + 50 657 1467 1530 2200.5 1002 D 1199
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
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 - -
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 - -
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 -
53 85th Street City Local D X 259 525 560 X 111 C -
54 Biarritz Drive City Local D X X X X X X - -
55 North Shore Drive City Local D X X X X X X - -
56 Dickens Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 207 C -
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
57 Tatum Waterway Drive City Collector D X X X X X 207 C -
58 Byron Avenue City Collector D X X X X X 207 C -
59 Collins Avenue City Collector D X 259 525 560 2445 276 D 2169
X = Information Not Available
EXISTING CONDITIONS
40
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
41
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
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
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 Washington
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
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
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
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
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
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
55 North Shore Drive Fairway
Drive 71st Street City Local - 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
EXISTING CONDITIONS
45
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
46
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
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
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 Washington
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
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
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
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
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
EXISTING CONDITIONS
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
55 North Shore Drive Fairway
Drive 71st Street City Local - 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
EXISTING CONDITIONS
50
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 AVAILABLE . 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 ILI TY IS PARTLY ACHIEVE D WHEN
PARKING IS MANAGED A S A CONTEXT SENSITIV E/LAND -USE
DEPENDENT INVESTMENT THAT MAY IMPROVE OR IMPACT
THE QUALITY OF THE T RANSPORTATION SYSTEM IF NOT
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, respectively. 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 display City provided data for off-street
parking facilities within the areas of South, Middle, and North Beach. To
provide visual context of their location, and to serve as a canvas for an
updatable inventory, Figure 8 graphically depicts the existing off-street City
parking facilities.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
51
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 within South Beach 7,569 6,015 2,728 3,986 516 6,830 27,644
EXISTING CONDITIONS
52
Table 10: Existing South Beach Parking Demand (2014 South Beach Walker Parking Demand Analysis)
South 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
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%
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
53
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 within North Beach 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
54
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%
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
55
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
56
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 disadv antages 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
SPACES provided by the City, 70% ARE PROVIDED WIT HIN TEN
(10) GARAGES .
EXISTING CONDITIONS
57
Figure 8: Existing City-Wide Off-Street Parking Facilities
Existing Parking Garage
Existing Surface Lot
EXISTING CONDITIONS
58
F R E I G H T
Figure 9: Existing Citywide Truck Volumes
Figure 10: SR 195/Julia Tuttle Causeway SIS Corridor
EXISTING CONDITIONS
59
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). DELIVERIES are prohibited from
8:00 PM to 7:00 AM on most FLZ and ARE LIMITE D TO 30 MINUTES .
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
60
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 MINUTES ; 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 12
through 15. 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
61
Figures 16 through 18 illustrate all the loading zones within the three regions
of the City, including previously established curb loading zones. 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 11: Sample FLZ and ALZ Posted Regulations
Figure 12: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Collins Avenue
EXISTING CONDITIONS
62
Figure 13: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Washington Avenue
Figure 14: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Alton Road and West Avenue
EXISTING CONDITIONS
63
Figure 15: Existing FLZ and ALZ along Lincoln Road
EXISTING CONDITIONS
64
Figure 16: Existing Loading Zones on South Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS
65
Figure 17: Existing Loading Zones on Middle Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS
66
Figure 18: Existing Loading Zones on North Beach
EXISTING CONDITIONS
67
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 19, 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 20. 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 ACCESSI BILITY for these
goods to efficiently reach their destinations and
exit the City with the LEAST IMPACTS TO
THE TRANSPORTATION N ETWORK .
Figure 19: Existing Commercial Land Use within City
Figure 20: Existing Transient Residential Land Use within City
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
68
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, AND ENER GY 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 INHERENT TO DISTINCT MODES 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.
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
69
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 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
JURISDICTIONS
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.
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
70
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 TRANSPORTATI ON
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 governments 1. 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 FOLLOWI NG LEVEL 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 TCMAS , 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.
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
71
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
MINUTES 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 MINUT ES 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 XX. 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 SITE , and will encourage the use of
alternative modes of transportation.
Figure 21: 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.
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
72
Table 19: Existing City TCMAs Concurrency Fees
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 comp lying with
transportation concurrency.
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT
73
Multi-Modal Concurrency
The City is currently taking steps toward the reevaluation of their current
methodology that developments have to follow when required to 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 PERFOR MANCE 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
MODE SHARE
74
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 peop le 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 what mode of
transportation City residents use to get to/from work every day (See Figure
22: City of Miami Beach Residents Mode to Work). 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
23: Miami-Dade County and Other Cities Residents Mode to Work).
Figure 22: City of Miami Beach Residents Mode to Work
Figure 23: Miami-Dade County and Other Cities Residents Mode to Work
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
MODE SHARE
75
multi-modal cities in North America. The magnitude if the City’s numbers
for “other” should not be a surprise, as this category encompass es 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 WORKPLACE accounts for
ONLY 16 PERCENT OF ALL PERSO N 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: Total Daily Person Trips by Purpose1).
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%
MODE SHARE
76
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 .
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 routes 5, 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 load 6 for each of
the pertaining routes and thus yielding DAILY TOTALS for the number of
PEOPLE CURRENTLY ENT ERING (16,825) AND L EAVIN G
(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.
MODE SHARE
77
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
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
78
The data dictates more people are entering the City than leaving on most
of the roadways except for Collins Avenue (See Table 24: Bi-Directional
Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway), 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 Mi ami Beach
and from the mainland. Also, being the most crucial link between
downtown Miami and the City, it is not surprising that MOST PEOPLE
USING TRANSIT TO ACC ESS THE CITY OF MIAM I BEACH ARE
DOING SO ON THE MACA RTHUR 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 a nd
leaving the City (See Figure 24: Transit Mode Split by City Access R oadway).
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%
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
79
Figure 24: Transit Mode Split by City Access Roadway
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
80
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 AR E PERFORMED 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 PERCEN T 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%
Private Vehicle
(Avg. 2.2 persons/vehicle) 1938 4264 35%
Total 5065 12114 100%
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
81
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 25 and 26. 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 25: City Neighborhood Projects and MPO TIP Projects
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
82
Figure 26: Identified MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Projects within the City
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
83
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 implementat ion
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 con sider 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
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
84
Project Name Project Limits Description Project Type
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 travel lane widt h. 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
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
85
4. MODE PRIORITIZATION
Arriving to and leaving the City are the first and last steps of a person’s journey within the Miami Beach boundaries. What happens inside the City is as
important, if not more, as accessing it. PROVIDING BETTER TRA VEL CHOICES TO MOVE AROUND THE CITY IS C RUCIAL 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 le aps and bounds ahead of the entire
County when relying on modes other than the personal automobile, the same mindset needs to tra nslate across the entire daily population. Priorities need to
be reconsidered and a shift in the paradigm should begin to take place.
C O M M U N I T Y W O R K S H O P
Public observations and sentiment is critical for the success of the Transportation Master plan. Wi th that in mind, the City of Miami Beach hosted a public
workshop on June 16th, 2015 to gather AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS POSSIBLE . The presentation was composed of three sections: Presentation, Question &
Answer, and a Proposed Transportation network assessment exercise. To further encourage individuals to voice their opinions, comment cards were developed
and distributed during the workshop as well. The entire meeting lasted over three hours with a very health y 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.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
86
Presentation Question and Answer Network Assessment
PUBLIC WORKSHOP PRSENTATION STRUCTURE
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
87
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.
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.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
88
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?
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?
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
89
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 27 and
28 display public input on the proposed pedestrian and bicycle network and
transit network, respectively.
Figure 27: Public Input on Proposed Transit Corridors
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
90
Figure 28: 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 29 shows the template for the
bilingual comment cards that were provided to the public.
Figure 29: Public Workshop Comment Cards Template
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
91
The follow are examples of the filled out comment cards received from the
public at the end of the meeting:
MODE SHARE
92
M O D E P R I O R I T Y
When developing the mode priority for the city, examining case studies and
hearing the resident 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, M ITIGATING TR AFFIC
WITHIN THE CITY AND ALTERNATIVE FORM S OF
TRANSPORTATION . It was enlightening and vindicating at the same time.
It was also clear to all involved in developing this 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 30: City 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 pedestrian 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 and bicyclists 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.
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.
MODE SHARE
93
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 DECISIONS , 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
ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL TRAVELERS . The vision for the future
citywide mode share is as follows:
Figure 31: 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
PEDESTRIAN MODE
94
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
PEDESTRIAN SAFETY, ACCESSIBILIT Y, MOBILITY, AND
CONNECTIVITY as its NUMB ER 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.
PEDESTRIAN MODE
95
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 32:
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.
P EDESTRIAN 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 32: Sidewalk Zones
Figure 33: Sidewalk Zones Application Examples
PEDESTRIAN MODE
96
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 TRANSITIO NS BETWEEN
MODES OF TRANSPORTAT ION .
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 TRANSPORTA T ION MAY
TAKE PLACE IN ORDER TO BENEFIT PEDESTRIA NS. 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
CONSISTENCY . 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
PEDESTRIAN MODE
97
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). S ince the
City of Miami Beach comprises multiple islands, pedestrian 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 34 displays the areas within South Beach
identified as PPZs.
PEDESTRIAN MODE
98
Figure 34: South Beach Pedestrian Priority Zones
PEDESTRIAN MODE
99
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 A DEQUATE SIDEWALK WID THS 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.
PEDESTRIAN MODE
100
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 i dentified
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
BICYCLE MODE
101
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.
BICYCLE MODE
102
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.
BICYCLE MODE
103
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 E S
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.
TRANSIT MODE
104
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
LON GER 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 OP TIONS 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
TRANSIT MODE
105
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.
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
CONSOLIDATI ON OF STOPS .
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 -FINDIN G .
Improve seating accommodations.
TRANSIT MODE
106
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 35 is a compilation of various urban centers which accommodate
Exclusive transit lanes. Each example has different configuration which is
labelled accordingly.
Figure 35: Bus Only Lane Examples
TRANSIT MODE
107
Transfer Locations
Existing policy dictates that the City shall maintain c onstant 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 stop s
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).
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 T HE MOST TRANSIT DEMA ND. 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)
TRANSIT MODE
108
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 STUDIED , 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 Priority Description
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.
TRANSIT MODE
109
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 36). 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 37.
Figure 36: Miami-Dade MPO Intermodal Center Locator Map
TRANSIT MODE
110
While all of these transit facilities can be considered transfer areas, they may
vary in size and functionality; transfer stops, transfer center/statio ns, 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 37: Potential Areas for Future Major Transit Infrastructure
TRANSIT MODE
111
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 st op 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
38).
Figure 38: 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 39 and 41.
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 40.
TRANSIT MODE
112
Figure 39: MIC Intermodal Station Terminal (Miami, FL)
Figure 40: Münchner Freiheit Station (Munich, Germany)
Figure 41: Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Blake Transit Center (BTC)
AUTOMOBILE MODE
113
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 EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR M ANAGING A
ROADWAY SINCE THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS TO CHOO SE
FROM. 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 MANAGEMEN T SHOULD
NOT BE A STANDALONE PROCESS 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 41 provided
within the Atlanta Regional Commission (ACR) 2009 Transportation Fact
Book, TRAFFIC CONGESTION I S A THREE -DIMENSIONAL ISSUE
WITH INTENSITY, DURA TION, 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 ca pacity. 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.
AUTOMOBILE MODE
114
Figure 42: 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 .
AUTOMOBILE MODE
115
With an understanding of what traffic congestion is, a wide range of
congestion management tools may be developed. As per the FHWA
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 hig h-
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)
AUTOMOBILE MODE
116
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)
AUTOMOBILE MODE
117
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)
AUTOMOBILE MODE
118
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 c entral 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 not finding availa ble 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 r educed 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.
AUTOMOBILE MODE
119
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 43 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.
AUTOMOBILE MODE
120
Figure 43: Relationship between Parking Location, Parking Duration, and Activity Performed (2010 Denver Strategic Parking Plan)
ON-STREET PARKING BENEF ITS THOSE QUICK TRIP S 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 far ther away. 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
AUTOMOBILE MODE
121
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
FACILITIES EXIST and allow for different advantages when it comes to convenience and safety. On-street parking may be provided as PARALLEL
PARKING SPACES, 60° PARKING SPACES, OR 4 5° 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 44 illustrates the basic
difference in space requirement between parallel parking and angle parking.
Figure 44: Space Requirements: Parallel Parking vs Angle Parking
300
’
13 Parking Spaces
27 Parking Spaces at 60° / 22 Parking Spaces at 45°
AUTOMOBILE MODE
122
On the other hand, TWO TYPES OF OFF -STREET PARKING FACIL ITIES EXIST : PARKING LOTS AND P ARKING GARAGES . A parking garage
concentrates multiple parking spaces into one location allowing for appropriate parking supply within a small footprint. Of the 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 in tensity 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 c ertain radius from the parking garage will find the facility convenient to park in
and walk to their desired destination. Figure 45 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 ca used by those MOTORISTS
CIRCLING AROUND 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 45: Radial Capture of Lincoln 1111
AUTOMOBILE MODE
123
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 46 – 47).
These facilities vary in size, location, and number of parking spaces provided and were provided on zones where parking deman d 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 p arking 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 46: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on South Beach
AUTOMOBILE MODE
124
Middle Beach
1. Miami Beach 71 Surface Lot
2. Miami Beach 63 Surface Lot
3. Miami Beach 55 Surface Lot
Figure 47: Walker Studies Recommended Parking Garage Locations on Mid Beach
AUTOMOBILE MODE
125
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:
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.
Add centralized city parking facilities as a measure of managing supply
AUTOMOBILE MODE
126
Develop a car sharing program for residents
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 di fferent households
with a single shared vehicle; consequently reducing the amount of parking needed as well.
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 com mercial
areas is mitigated through the implementation of other strategies.
AUTOMOBILE MODE
127
Unbundle parking fees for residents
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 whe n land use and
demand may change.
AUTOMOBILE MODE
128
OTHER MEASURES AVAIL ABLE TO MANAGE PARKI NG ARE PRICING STRAT EGIES . A recurring strategic parking pricing model is responsive to
fluctuations in parking demand and compatible with existing parking technologies. A prime example of appli cation of this model 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.
AUTOMOBILE MODE
129
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)
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
130
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 ECONOMY OF THE C ITY . 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 RESTRI CTIONS 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
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
131
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 48 shows an example of some of the material produced by NYCDOT
as part of an educational initiative to promote citywide truck routes.
Figure 48: Truck Route Informational Guide Example (New York City)
Additionally, developing strategic truck routes requires acquisition and
monitoring of specific data. These data may include elements such as
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
132
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 49displays
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 49: 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
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
133
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 CITY MAY STILL NEED TO BE RESTRICTE D FROM
SPECIFIC 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 out comes
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 50).
Figure 50: TIM Truck Lane Restrictions Interactive Map
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
134
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 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 51 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 52 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 51: Downtown Seattle Truck Restriction Zone
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
135
Figure 52: 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
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
136
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 ACCOMMODAT E 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 53: Truck Turning Movement
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
137
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 OF TRUC KS, 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 SI DEWALK RA MPS is cheap if no additional
sidewalk space is required to meet design standards. Figure 54 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 55). 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 54: 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 55: Loading Zone and Bike Path Buffer Separation Example
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
138
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 TH E TYPE OF CURBSIDE P ARKING
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
RESIDENTS SUBMIT 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 56 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 56: 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
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
139
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 57: 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
FREIGHT MANAGEMENT
140
Section Sources:
6. Freight Mobility Strategic Action Plan, Seattle Department of Transportation (SD OT), 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
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
141
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)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
142
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
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
143
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 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)
From To
City Limits Alton Road
5th Street 26th Street
71st Street 88th Street
Indian Creek Drive 73rd Street
73rd Street 88th Street
41st Street 44th Street
5800 Block Abbott Avenue
City Limits Alton Road
Alton Road Collins Avenue
Dickens Avenue Collins Avenue
Dade Boulevard 63rd Street
Alton Road Collins Avenue
SR 907 / Alton Road
SR 907 / 63rd Street
SR 112 / Jullia Tuttle Causeway
SR 112 / 41st Street
Failing Segments (Includes conditions for: Existing,
2025, and 2035)
SR 937 / 71st Street
SR A1A / Collins Avenue
SR A1A / Abott Avenue
SR A1A / Harding Avenue
SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive
SR A1A / Collins Avenue
SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway
Segment Name
Segement Limits
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
144
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.
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
145
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
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
146
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 INFRA STRUCTURE . 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 secto r as
opposed to the public sector. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS S AVES TAX
MONEY BY FUNDING AN IDENTIFIED TRANSPORT ATION
STRATEGY /SOLUTIONS AS OPPOSED TO PERFOR MING
STUDIES TO IDENTIFYING THE BEST TRANSPORTATION
STRATEGY /SOLUTION TO DEAL WI TH NEWLY GENERATED
TRIPS .
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 FOOTA GE
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 2.04 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
CREATE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN ROADWAY LEVEL OF
SERVICE AND TRANSPOR TATION 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 RESIDE NCIES AND COMMERCIAL LAND USE
IS NOT APPROPRIATE .
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
147
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 L AND
USES within the City (See Table 36). 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 ADV ERSELY IMPACT THE
TRANSPORTATION NETWO RK.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
148
Table 36: Colored Curb Program Advantages and Disadvantages
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
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
149
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%2Fwww.miam
ibeachfl.gov%2FWorkArea%2FDownloadAsset.aspx%3Fid%3D64027&usg=AFQjCNFCfLzo8oIuPDLwLo_gTibgdPZfPg&bvm=bv.106379543,d.dmo )
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)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
150
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 FUN DING , 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.
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.
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRI AN CORRIDORS 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
STUDY 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 ACCOMMODAT E MODES OF TRANSPORT ATION
OTHER THAN THE PERSO NAL 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
151
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
PRIORITIZE potential projects in an orderly manner as TO
EFFICIENTLY 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 VISI ON. Table 37 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
152
Table 37: Proposed Projects Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Score Description Capacity 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 Connectivity 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 (mix ed-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, M iddle
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 transpo rtation
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 o f the City
H 5 Improvements will provide new connections for pedestrians to multi-modal hubs, key civic facilities, and/or touristic attractions
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
153
Criteria Score Description Social Impacts Adjacent Land
Use
L 5 Changes in traffic behavior will have little to no change to the neighborhood quality of life, environmental resources, and/or access to
community services
M 3 Changes in traffic behavior will not exceed the neighborhood livability thresholds, improvements will partially affect enviro nmental
resources, and/or no significant access change s to community services will occur
H 1 Changes in traffic behavior will exceed the neighborhood livability thresholds, improvements will affect environmental resour ces, 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 moderately
H 1 Magnitude of residential displacement will be greater than the average City block and/or residential access will be change dr astically Economic Impacts 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 ad jacent lands less than 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 acc ess will change drastically Multi-Modalism 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 saving s
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
154
Criteria Score Description Regional Connectivity 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 Needs 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 o r 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
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
155
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
amount 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
156
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 RUC TURE 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 UNI FORM FACILITY in which
certain modes have priority. Figures 58 through 77 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 SINGLE 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.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
157
N O R T H -S O U T H C O R R I D O R S
SR A1A/Collins Avenue
Figure 58: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
158
Figure 59: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
159
SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street
Figure 60: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
160
Figure 61: SR 907/Alton Road – 63rd Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
161
West Avenue – North Bay Road
Figure 62: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
162
Figure 63: West Avenue – North Bay Road Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
163
Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue
Figure 64: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
164
Figure 65: Meridian Avenue - Prairie Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
165
Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive
Figure 66: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Drive Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
166
Figure 67: Pine Tree Drive and La Gorce Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
167
Washington Avenue
Figure 68: Washington Avenue Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
168
Figure 69: Washington Avenue Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
169
E A S T -W E S T C O R R I D O R S
SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street
Figure 70: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
170
Figure 71: SR A1A/MacArthur Causeway - 5th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
171
Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street
Figure 72: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
172
Figure 73: Venetian Causeway - Dade Boulevard - 17th Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
173
SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street
Figure 74: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
174
Figure 75: SR 112/Julia Tuttle Causeway – 41st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
175
SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street
Figure 76: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Mode Prioritization Data
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
176
Figure 77: SR 934/79th Street Causeway – 71st Street Corridor Segments and Existing Typical Sections
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
177
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 78 and 80
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 81 portrays how the multi-modal connectors relate to the
bicycle/pedestrian network.
Figure 78: TMP Recommended Transit Corridors and Bicycle/Pedestrian Corridors
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
178
Figure 79: TMP Recommended Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links)
Figure 80: TMP Recommended Transit Network and Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links)
Figure 81: TMP Recommended Bicycle/Pedestrian Network and Multi-modal Connectors (Network Links)
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
179
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
RELIABLE, CONNECTED AND CONTINUOUS INFRA STRUCTURE
NETWORK with the goal of achieving the City’s 2035 multi-modal vision.
Figure 82 and 83 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 84 through 91 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
CONFIGURATIONS of these roadway segments during further stag es of
projects recommended by this TMP.
Figure 82: TMP Recommended Transit Priority Corridors
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
180
Figure 83: TMP Recommended Transit Priority Corridors & Potential Typical Sections Locations
Transit Corridors Potential Typical Sections
Figure 84: SR A1A/ MacArthur Causeway Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from US-1 / Biscayne Blvd to SR 907/Alton Road
TMP Project Bank Priority 2: No. 1
This typical section recommends Exclusive Buffer Separated/Protected Bicycle Lanes, Light Rail and
Bus Lanes.
Figure 85: SR A1A/ 5th Street Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from SR 907/Alton Road to Washington Avenue
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 1 and No. 2
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
181
Figure 86: Washington Avenue Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from SR A1A/5th Street to Dade Boulevard
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 5 and No. 6
This typical section recommends Exclusive
Light Rail and Bus Lanes.
Figure 87: 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. 10
This typical section recommends Exclusive
Bus Lanes and Protected Bicycle Lanes.
Figure 88: SR A1A/Collins Avenue Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 44th Street to 5900 City Block TMP Project Bank Priority 3: No.7
This typical section recommends Exclusive
Bus Lanes.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
182
Figure 89: 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 2: No. 5
This typical section recommends a Shared
Use Path, Exclusive Bicycle and Bus Lanes.
Figure 90: SR A1A/Collins Avenue/Indian Creek Drive Transit Corridor Potential Typical Section from 17th Street to 44th Street TMP Project Bank Priority 2: No.35
This typical section recommends Exclusive
Bicycle and Bus Lanes.
Figure 91: SR 907/Alto Road Transit Corridor Potential Configuration from South Pointe Drive to Dade Boulevard TMP Project Bank Priority 3: No. 21
This typical section recommends
Conventional Bicycle Lanes and Exclusive
Bus Lanes.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
183
Bicycle 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 92 and 93 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 94 through 98 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 prov ides
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 92: TMP Recommended Bicycle/Pedestrian Priority Corridors
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
184
Figure 93: TMP Recommended Bicycle Priority Corridors & Potential Typical Sections Locations
Bicycle Corridor Potential Typical Sections
Figure 94: 22nd Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from Washington Avenue to SR A1A/Collins Avenue
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 7
This typical section recommends Protected Bicycle Lanes.
Figure 95: 11th Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from West Avenue to Ocean Drive
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 7
This typical section recommends a Neighborhood Greenway.
CORRIDOR ANALYSIS
185
Figure 96: North Bay Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from West Avenue to La Gorce Drive
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 10
This typical section recommends a
Neighborhood Greenway. This
recommendation is consistent with the
recommendation from the BPMP.
BPMP recommended configuration
Figure 97: West Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from 6th Street to 20th Street
TMP Project Bank Priority 1: No. 3
This typical section recommends
Protected Bicycle Lanes. This
recommendation is consistent with the
recommendation from the BPMP.
BPMP recommended configuration
Figure 98: Pine Tree Drive & La Gorce Drive Bicycle and Pedestrian Corridor Potential Typical Section from 51st Street to La Gorce Circle
TMP Project Bank Priority 2: No. 8
This typical section recommends
Protected Bicycle Lanes. This
recommendation is consistent with the
recommendation from the BPMP.
BPMP recommended configuration
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
186
8. PROJECT BANKPRIORITY 1 PROJECTS
Table 38: 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 Multimodal 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
SR A1A /
MacArthur
Causeway
Exclusive Transit
Lanes and
Protected Bicycle
Lanes
South Multimodal Downtown Collins
Avenue 3.80 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing and shoulder lane)
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.
3
SR A1A/5th Street
Exclusive Bus
Lanes and
Protected Bicycle
Lanes
South Multimodal SR 907 /
Alton Road
Washington
Avenue (for
buses) and
the Atlantic
Trail (for
Bicycles)
0.4 (Bus
Lane)
and 0.55
(Bike
Lane)
Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
SR A1A/5th 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.
4
Washington
Avenue Exclusive
Bus Lanes
South Transit SR A1A/5th
Street
Dade
Boulevard 1.64 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
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 DEVELOPMENT
187
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
5
SR A1A/5th Street
Exclusive Light Rail
Lanes
and Protected
Bicycle Lanes
South Multimodal SR 907 /
Alton Road
Washington
Avenue (for
buses) and
the Atlantic
Trail (for
Bicycles)
0.4 (Rail
Lane)
and 0.55
(Bike
Lanes)
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening),
SR A1A/5th Street requires an
improvement for regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit.
6
Washington
Avenue Exclusive
Light Rail Lanes
South Multimodal SR A1A/5th
Street
Dade
Boulevard 1.64
Exclusive transit and
protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening),
Washington Avenue requires an
improvement for regional and local
connectivity. Improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and convenience of
transit.
7
West Avenue
Protected Bicycle
Lanes
South Bike/Ped 6th Street 20th Street 1.3
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), 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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
188
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
8
73rd Street One
Way Protected
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue Atlantic Trail 0.35
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), 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.
9
72nd Street One
Way Protected
Bicycle Lanes
North Bike/Ped Dickens
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.28
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening), 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.
10
Byron Avenue
Protected Bicycle
Lanes/Neighborho
od Greenway
North Bike/Ped 73rd Street Hawthorne
Avenue 0.56
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) 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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
189
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
11
North Bay Road
Neighborhood
Greenway
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.
12
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
13 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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
190
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
14
63rd Street:
Feasibility Study
for Bicycle
Alternatives
Middle Bike/Ped Alton Road Indian Creek
Drive 0.4
Feasibility Analysis for Bicycle
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.
15
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.
16 Dade Boulevard
Shared Use Path South Bike/Ped 17th Street Pine Tree
Drive 1 Shared Use Path Adjacent to
Collins Canal
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
191
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
17
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.
18 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.
19
Meridian Avenue
and 28th Street
Shared Use Path
Middle Bike/Ped Dade
Boulevard
Pine Tree
Drive 0.90
Shared Uses Path (Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening) 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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
192
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
20
La Gorce Drive /
Pine Tree Drive
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
Middle Bike&Ped 51st Street La Gorce
Circle 2.69
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) 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.
21
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.
22
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
23
Dade Boulevard
and 17th Street
Intersection
Improvements
South Bike/Ped N/A N/A N/A Provide Enhanced Crosswalks
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued at the
Intersection of Dade Boulevard AND
17th Street
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
193
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
24
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.
25
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
26
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
27
SR A1A / Collins
Avenue's
Feasibility Study of
Adaptive Signal
Controls
South Roadway SR A1A / 5th
Street 23rd Street 1.7 Feasibility Study of Adaptive
Signal Controls
Improve multimodal vehicular
operations will be pursued along the
corridor of SR A1A / Collins Avenue
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
194
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
28
23rd Street's
Complete Streets
Feasibility Study
South Multimodal 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.
29
SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive 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 SR A1A / MacArthur
Causeway / 5th Street
30
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
31
Intersection of SR
907 / Alton Road
and Sullivan
Drive's (Mt. Sinai
Entrance)
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
Sullivan Drive (Mt. Sinai Entrance)
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
195
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
32
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
33
SR 112 / Julia
Tuttle Causeway s
Feasibility Study
Middle Multimodal
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.
34
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
196
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
35
SR 907 / Alton
Road
SR 112 / 41st Street
SR A1A / Indian
Creek Drive /
Collins Avenue
Dade Boulevard
Proposed Middle
Beach Trolley
Route
Middle Transit
Sullivan
Drive (Mt.
Sinai
Medical
Center
Entrance)
SR 907 /
Alton Road
SR 112 / 41st
Street
SR A1A /
Indian Creek
Drive
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.
36
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
37 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 DEVELOPMENT
197
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
38
17th Street
Alternate
Multimodal
Solutions Study
South Bike/Ped SR 907 /
Alton Road
SR 907 /
Alton Road 0.72
Feasibility Study of Alternate
Multimodal Solutions on 17th
Street
17th Street requires a study for to
provide improvements 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.
39
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
40 Middle Beach
Intermodal Station Middle Multimodal 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
41
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
42
11th Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped West
Avenue
SR A1A /
Collins
Avenue
0.52
Neighborhood
Greenway(Boulevard Markers and
Traffic Calming) Enhanced
crosswalks
11th 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 DEVELOPMENT
198
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
43
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
44
SR 907 / Alton
Road's Level of
Service
Improvements
Middle Roadway 43rd Street 63rd Street 1.7 Level of Service Improvements
SR 907 / Alton Road acts as a major
North/South connection for all traffic
moving on the West side of the City. It
also provides direction connection to
two of the major causeway across the
bay. This project seeks to improve the
current failing LOS conditions of this
critical roadway.
45 Beachwalk 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 Beackwalk 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 DEVELOPMENT
199
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
46
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
47
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.
48
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 DEVELOPMENT
200
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
49
SR 907/ Alton
Road Shared-Use
Path
Middle Bike/Ped 48th Court 51st Street 0.29
Shared Uses Path (Lane
repurposing and/or roadway
widening) Enhanced crosswalks
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.
50
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.
51
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
201
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
52
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.
53
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.
54
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
202
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
55
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.
56
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.
57
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
203
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
58 Baywalk South Bike/Ped 5th Street 15th Street 1.05 Shared-Use Path Improve Bicycle connectivity for
recreational and commuter use.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
204
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
205
Priority 2 Projects
Table 39: 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/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South Transit/Bike
&Ped
Washington
Avenue
Collins
Avenue 0.14
Evualuation 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/buffere
d bicycle lanes
South /
Middle
Transit/Bike
&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/buffere
d 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 DEVELOPMENT
206
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.
6
21st Street and
22nd Street/Park
Avenue Protected
Bicycle Lanes
Feasibility Study
South Bike/Ped
Washington
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.
7
63rd Street
Protected/buffere
d 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 DEVELOPMENT
207
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
8
SR 934 / 71st
Street / Normandy
Drive Exclusive
Transit Lanes/
Protected/buffere
d 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.
9
Dickens Avenue
Protected/buffere
d bicycle lanes
North Bike&Ped SR 934 /
71st Street 88th Street 1.22
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Dickens 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
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
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
208
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
11
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
12
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
13
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.
14 Lincoln Road
Shared Space South Bike/Ped Washington
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 DEVELOPMENT
209
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
15
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.
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 DEVELOPMENT
210
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
211
P R I O R I T Y 3 P R O J E C T S
Table 40: 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/buffered
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
212
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
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.
4
SR A1A Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive
Exclusive transit
and
protected/buffered
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/buffered
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
213
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
6
Abbott Avenue
Protected/buffered
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.
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
214
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
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 DEVELOPMENT
215
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
10
South Pointe Drive
Protected/buffered
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/buffered
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
Meridian Avenue /
1st Street
Neighborhood
Greenway
South Bike/Ped Washington
Avenue 16th Street 0.88
Neighborhood
Greenway(Sharrow Markers)
Enhanced crosswalks
Meridian Avenue / 1st 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 DEVELOPMENT
216
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
13
Meridian Avenue /
1st Street
Protected/buffered
bicycle lanes
South Bike/Ped Washington
Avenue 16th Street 0.41
Protected/buffered bicycle lanes
(Lane repurposing and/or
roadway widening) Enhanced
crosswalks
Meridian Avenue / 1st 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.
14
Washington
Avenue Exclusive
transit and
protected/buffered
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.
15
SR 907 / Alton
Road Exclusive
transit lanes
South Transit SR A1A / 5th
Street
Dade
Boulevard 2.15 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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
217
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
16
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.
17
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
218
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
18
24th Street /
Liberty Avenue
Protected/buffered
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.
19
Flamingo Drive
Protected/buffered
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
219
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
20
Biarritz Drive
Protected/buffered
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.
21
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.
22 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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
220
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
23 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.
24
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.
25
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.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
221
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
26
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.
27
SR A1A Collins
Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive
Exclusive transit
lanes
South
/
Middle
Transit 17th Street
SR A1A
Collins
Avenue /
Indian Creek
Drive Split
4.51 Exclusive transit lanes (Lane
repurposing)
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.
28
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 DEVELOPMENT
222
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
29
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.
30
SR 112 / 41st Street
Exclusive transit
lanes and
protected/buffered
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.
31
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle
Causeway Exclusive
Transit
Lane/Shared-Use
Path
Middle Multimodal
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 DEVELOPMENT
223
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
32
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.
33
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.
34
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 DEVELOPMENT
224
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
35 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.
36
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.
37
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 DEVELOPMENT
225
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type From To
Project
Length
( Miles )
Project Description Purpose & Need
38
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 DEVELOPMENT
226
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
227
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 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 constru ction unit cost for a specific type of
improvement. These sources come from the state, city, and other municipalities. Projects which include a combination of impro vements were estimated by
adding the unit costs for each improvement. Most of the unit costs obtained are on a per mi le basis meaning that the calculated construction cost is
proportional to the project length. Table 41 lists the sources, type of improvement, and estimated construction unit cost used. Tables 42 through 44 display the
potential costs for the planning, design and construction phases of the TMP recommended projects
Table 41: Sources for Estimation of Potential Project Costs
Source Type of Improvement Cost Unit of Measurement
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014) Sidewalks (6' Width - 1 Side) $209,417.00 $/Mile
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014) Multi-Use Trail (12'Width - 1 Side) $333,635.00 $/Mile
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
2-Lane Roadway Intersecting 2-Lane Roadway
Mast Arm/Traffic Signalization Assembly $328,358.00 $/Intersection
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
4-Lane Roadway Intersecting 4-Lane Roadway
Mast Arm/Traffic Signalization Assembly $414,279.00 $/Intersection
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
6-Lane Roadway Intersecting 6-Lane Roadway
Mast Arm/Traffic Signalization Assembly $459,959.00 $/Intersection
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
Mill & Resurface 2 Lane Urban Road with 4'
Bike Lanes $482,833.28 $/Mile
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
Milling and Resurfacing (4-Lane Roadway)
with 5' Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter $2,413,168.00 $/Mile
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
Milling and Resurfacing (6-Lane Roadway)
with 5'Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter $2,413,168.00 $/Mile
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
New Construction (2-Lane Roadway) with
5'Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter $9,517,877.00 $/Mile
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
New Construction (4-Lane Roadway) with 5'
Sidewalk and Curb & Gutter $13,434,900.00 $/Mile
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
228
Source Type of Improvement Cost Unit of Measurement
FDOT Roadway Cost Per Centerline Mile
(JUNE 2014)
Thermoplastic, Preformed, White, Message
(i.e. Sharrow Pavement Markings) $332.26 EA (Assumed four markings per
intersection)
AMiami-Dade MPO Beach Connection
Study (2015)
Projected Light-Rail Cost on SR A1A/5th Street
from SR 907/Alton Road to Washington
Avenue
$31,444,200.00 $/Mile
AMiami-Dade MPO Beach Connection
Study (2015)
Projected Light-Rail Cost on Washington
Avenue from SR A1A/5th Street to Dade
Boulevard
$29,560,288.24 $/Mile
Miami-Dade MPO Unified Planning Work
Programs (2015 – 2007), Atlantic Coast
TPO Unified Planning Work Programs
(2015), and City of Miami Beach
Transportation Element
Complete Streets Feasibility Study $100,000.00 EA
ITS SCATS Initial Capital Cost Per
Intersection Installing Adaptive Signal Controls $30,000.00 $/Intersection
City of Miami Beach Washington Avenue
Short-Term Connection Study
Repurposing Outer Mixed-Use Through Lanes
into Transit-Only Lanes (Bi-directional) $900,000.00 $/Mile
City of Miami Beach April 9, 2014 Land
Use and Development Committee
Memorandum: Discussion on Beachwalk
Uniformity
Replacing Elevated Boardwalk with At-Grade
Pavers $6,258,457.95 $/Mile
City of Miami Beach North Beach Trolley
Study New Transit Loop $11,000.00 $/Mile
City of Doral Transportation Master Plan Intersection Safety Study $10,000.00 $/Intersection
City of Doral Transportation Master Plan Planning ITS and Signal Timing Projects $75,000.00 $/Intersection
Note: ACost is in accordance to the FDOT Transit Primer which estimates the average cost per mile of light-rail to be $27,500,000.00
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
229
Priority 1 Projects
Table 42: Potential Costs for Priority 1 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
1
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway and
SR A1A / 5th Street's Complete
Streets Feasibility Study/ Exclusive
Transit Lane Implementation
South Multimodal 3.80 $100,000.00 $0 $0 $100,000.00 TBD
2
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway
Exclusive Transit Lanes and
Enhanced Bicycle Lanes
South Multimodal 3.80 $0 $513,000.00 $3,420,000.00 $3,933,000.00 TBD
3 SR A1A/5th Street Exclusive Bus
Lanes South Transit 0.50 $0 $67,500.00 $450,000.00 $517,500.00 TBD
21 Washington Avenue Exclusive Bus
Lanes South Transit 1.70 $153,000.00 $229,500.00 $1,530,000.00 $1,912,500.00 TBD
5
SR A1A/5th Street Exclusive Light
Rail Lanes and Protected Bicycle
Lanes
South Multimodal
0.40 (Rail
Lane)
and 0.55
(Bike
Lanes)
$2,081,675.30 $3,122,512.94 $20,816,752.9
6 $26,020,941.20 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
230
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
6
Washington Avenue Exclusive
Light Rail Lanes and Conventional
Bike Lanes
South Transit 1.70 $8,847,120.01 $13,270,680.01 $88,471,200.0
9 $135,589,000.12 TBD
7 West Avenue Protected Bicycle
Lanes South Bike/Ped 1.30 $41,883.40 $62,825.10 $418,834.00 $523,542.50 TBD
8 73rd Street Protected/Buffered Bike
Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.35 $128,157.12 $192,235.68 $1,281,571.20 $1,601,964.00 TBD
9 72nd Street Protected/Buffered Bike
Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.35 $52,.300.00 $78,450.00 $1,281,571.20 $653,750.00 TBD
10 Byron Avenue Protected Bicycle
Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.35 $32,000.00 $48,000.00 $1,281,571.20 $400,000.00 TBD
11 North Bay Road Neighborhood
Greenway Middle Bike/Ped 4.60 $3,455.50 $5,183.26 $34,555.04 $43,193.80 TBD
12 SR 907 / Alton Road and 17th
Street Intersection Improvements South Bike/Ped N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
13 51st Street: Green Bicycle Lanes Middle Bike/Ped 0.38 $0 $27,521.50 $183,476.65 $210,998.15 TBD
14
63rd Street Bicycle Facility
Feasibility Study and
Implementation
Middle Bike/Ped 0.37 $100,000.00 20,000.00 200,000.00 $320,000.00 TBD
15
SR 907 / Alton Road Bicycle
Alternatives Analysis and
Implementation
Middle Bike/Ped 0.90 $23,097.87 $34,646.81 $230,978.70 $288,723.38 TBD
16 Dade Boulevard Shared Use Path South Bike/Ped 1.00 $25,664.30 $38,496.45 $256,643.00 $320,803.75 TBD
17 Euclid Avenue Protected Bicycle
Lanes South Bike/Ped 1.15 $55,525.83 $83,292.79 $555,258.27 $694,346.89 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
231
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
18 Meridian Avenue Bicycle Facilities South Bike/Ped 0.47 $22,693.16 $34,039.74 226,931.64 $283,664.54 TBD
19 Meridian Avenue and 28th Street
Shared Use Path Middle Bike/Ped 1.00 $25,664.30 $38,496.45 $256,643.00 $320,803.75 TBD
20
La Gorce Drive / Pine Tree Drive
Protected / Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Middle Bike&Ped 2.69 $984,979.01 $1,477,468.51 $9,849,790.08 $12,312,237.60 TBD
21
6th Street and Michigan Avenue
Bicycles Facilities Analysis and
Implementation
South Bike/Ped 0.30 $55,688.49 $83,532.74 $556,884.90 $696,106.13 TBD
22
SR A1A / 5th Street and SR 907 /
Alton Road Intersection
Improvements
South Bike/Ped N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
23 Dade Boulevard and 17th Street
Intersection Improvements South Bike/Ped N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
24
Dickens Avenue and 71st Street
Feasibility Analysis of Geometric
Modifications
North Roadway N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
25
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway and
SR A1A / 5th Street's Feasibility
Study of Adaptive Signal Controls
South Roadway 2.00 $75,000.00 $575,722.50 $3,838,150.00 $4,488,872.50 TBD
26 SR 907 / Alton Road's Feasibility
Study of Adaptive Signal Controls South Roadway 1.50 $75,000.00 $575,315.40 $3,835,436.00 $4,485,751.40 TBD
27
SR A1A / Collins Avenue's
Feasibility Study of Adaptive Signal
Controls
South Roadway 1.70 $75,000.00 $993,726.60 $6,624,844.00 $7,693,570.60 TBD
28 23rd Street's Complete Streets
Feasibility Study South Multimodal 0.20 $100,000.00 TBD TBD $100,000.00 25
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
232
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
29 SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive Safety
Improvements Middle Roadway 0.90 $160,000.00 TBD TBD $160,000.00 TBD
30
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 $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
31
Intersection of SR 907 / Alton
Road and Sullivan Drive's
Feasibility Study of Intersection
Improvements
Middle Roadway N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
32 SR 934 / 71st Street / Normandy
Drive Safety Improvements North Roadway 0.50 $80,000.00 TBD TBD $80,000.00 TBD
33
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Causeway
Shared Used Path, Protected Bike
Lanes, and Exclusive Bus Lane
Middle Multimodal 3.18 $100,000.00 $0 $0 $100,000.00 TBD
34 85th Street Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.46 $261,126.07 $391,689.11 $2,611,260.74 $3,264,075.93 TBD
35
SR 907 / Alton Road
SR 112 / 41st Street
SR A1A / Indian Creek Drive /
Collins Avenue
Dade Boulevard Proposed Middle
Beach Trolley Route
Middle Transit
6.40
(Total
Distance
of One
Loop)
$7,040.00 $10,560.00 $70,400.00 $88,000.00
36
SR A1A / Collins Avenue and
Indian Creek Drive Signal
Optimization Study
North Roadway 0.80 $50,000.00 $0 $0 $50,000.00 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
233
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
37
SR 934 / 71st Street Replace Left
Turn Lane with Westbound Thru-
Turn Lane Feasibility Study
North Roadway 0.23 $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
38 17th Street Alternate Multimodal
Solutions Study South Multimodal 0.72 $100,000.00 $0 $0 $100,000.00 TBD
39
SR 112 / 41st Street and SR 907 /
Alton Road Auxiliary Turn /
Shoulder Lane Study
Middle Roadway N/A 10,000.00 $0 $0 $10,000.00
40 Middle Beach Intermodal Station Middle Multimodal N/A $321,180.00 $481,770.00 $3,211,800.00 $4,014,750.00 TBD
41
SR 907 / Alton Road and 43rd
Street On-Ramp to Westbound
Julia Tuttle Causeway Feasibility
Study
Middle Roadway N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
42 11th Street Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.74 $25,000.00 $37,500.00 $250,000.00 $312,500.00 TBD
43
SR 907 / Alton Road and Michigan
Avenue's Intersection
Improvements
Middle Bike/Ped N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
44 Alton Road Level of Service
Improvements Middle Roadway 1.7 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,250,000.00 TBD
45 Beachwalk Middle Bike/Ped 0.80 $500,676.64 $751,014.95 $5,006,766.36 $6,258,457.95 TBD
46
SR A1A / Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive and SR 112 / 41st
Street's Intersection Safety Study
and Improvements
Middle Roadway N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
47 81st Street Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.19 $35,269.38 $52,904.07 $352,693.77 $440,867.21 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
234
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
48 77th Street Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.34 $63,113.62 $94,670.43 $631,136.22 $788,920.28 TBD
49 Alton Road Shared Use Path Middle Bike/Ped 0.29 $10,000.00 $14,513.12 $96,754.15 $121,267.27 TBD
50 Tatum Waterway Drive
Neighborhood Greenway North Bike/Ped 0.34 $5000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 TBD
51 Chase Shared-Use Path Feasibility
Study Middle Bike/Ped 0.23 $10,000.00 $0 $0 $10,000.00 TBD
52 Alton Road and North Bay Road
Intersection Bicycle Improvements Middle Bike/Ped N/A $10,000.00 $0 $0 $10,000.00 TBD
53
16th Street Bicycle Facilities
Improvements South Bike/Ped 0.83 $20,037.50 30,056.37 $200,375.00 $250,468.87 TBD
54 47th Street Protected Bike Lane Middle Bike/Ped 0.66 $241,667.71 $362,501.57 $2,416,677.12 $3,020,846.40 TBD
55 42nd Street Enhanced Bicycle Lanes Middle Bike/Ped 0.25 $12,070.38 18,106.25 $120,708.38 $150,885.45 TBD
56 Royal Palm Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway Middle Bike/Ped 0.55 $20,555.80 $39,833.75 $265,558.00 $325,947.54 TBD
57 Baywalk South Bike/Ped 1.05 $35,031.73 $52,547.60 $350,317.33 $437,896.66 TBD
Total Potential Cost for Priority 1 Projects $224,876,153.87 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
235
Priority 2 Projects
Table 43: Potential Costs for Priority 2 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
1 17th Street Exclusive Transit and
Protected / Buffered Bicycle Lanes South Transit/Bike
&Ped 0.14 $226,015.21 $339,022.81 $126,000 $691,037.02 TBD
2
SR A1A / Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive Exclusive Transit and
Protected / Buffered Bicycle Lanes
South /
Middle
Transit/Bike
&Ped 2.76 $760,734.11 $1,141,101.16 $7,607,341.08 $9,509,176.35 TBD
3 Meridian Avenue Protected/
Buffered Bicycle Lane South Bike/Ped 1.04 $51,180.32 $76,770.48 $511,803.22 $639,754.02
4 69th Street Buffered Bicycle Lane North Bike/Ped 0.20 $9,656.66 $14,485.00 $96,566.64 $120,708.30
5 21st Street and 22nd Street / Park
Avenue Protected Bicycle Lanes South Bike/Ped 0.60 $28,970.00 $43,455.00 $289,699.97 $362,124.96 TBD
6 63rd Street Protected Bicycle Lanes Middle Bike/Ped 0.47 $22,693.16 34,039.74 $226,931.62 $283,664.52
7
SR 934 / 71st Street / Normandy
Drive Protected / Buffered Bicycle
Lanes
North Bike&Ped 2.60 $952,024.32 $1,428,036.4
8 $9,520,243.20 $11,900,304.00 TBD
8
Dickens Avenue / Tatum Waterway
Drive / Byron Avenue Protected /
Buffered Bicycle Lanes
North Bike&Ped 1.22 $446,719.10 $670,078.66 $4,467,191.04 $5,583,988.80 TBD
9 SR 907 / Alton Road and SR 112 /
41st Street's Safety Feasibility Study North Bike&Ped N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
10
SR 112 / 41st Street Exclusive
Transit Lanes and Protected /
Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Middle Transit/Bike
&Ped 0.87 $229,050.47 $343,575.70 $2,290,504.68 $2,863,130.85 TBD
11
SR A1A / Collins Avenue and 44th
Street Safety Study to improve
Capacity (FDOT)
Middle Roadway N/A $10,000.00 TBD TBD $10,000.00 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
236
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
12 Meridian Avenue Greenway
Analysis South Bike/Ped 1 $100,000.00 $0 $0 $100,000.00
13 Lincoln Road Shared Space South Multimodal 0.12 $161,218.80 $241,828.20 $1,612,188.00 $2,015,232.00
14 Lincoln Lane North Bicycle
Connection/Greenway South Bike/Ped 0.57 $27,521.49 $41,282.24 $275,214.94 $344,018.24
15 Fairway Drive Shared Use Path North Bike Ped 1.10 $36,699.85 $55,049.78 $366,998.50 $458,748.13
Total Potential Cost for Priority 2 Projects $34,891,887.19 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
237
Priority 3 Projects
Table 44: Potential Costs for Priority 3 Projects
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
1 SR A1A / Collins Avenue Protected
/ Buffered Bicycle Lanes South Bike&Ped 1.68 $615,154.18 $922,731.26 $6,151,541.76 $7,689,427.20 TBD
2 Prairie Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway Middle Bike&Ped 0.25 $12,070.83 $18,106.25 $120,708.32 $150,885.40 TBD
3 SR A1A Collins Avenue Exclusive
Transit Lanes Middle Transit 2.00 $180,000.00 $270,000.00 $1,800,000.00 $2,250,000.00 TBD
4
SR A1A Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive Exclusive Transit and
Protected / Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Middle
/ North
Transit/Bike
&Ped 2.05 $380,538.02 $570,807.02 $3,805,380.15 $4,756,725.19 TBD
5
SR 934 / 79th Street Causeway
Exclusive Transit, Shared Uses
Path, and Protected / Buffered
Bicycle Lanes
North Transit/Bike
&Ped 2.67 $6,275,309.16 $9,412,963.74 $62,753,091.58 $78,441,364.47 TBD
6 Abbott Avenue Protected /
Buffered Bicycle Lanes North Bike&Ped 0.30 $109,848.96 $164,773.44 $1,098,489.60 $1,373,112.00 TBD
7 77th Street Shared Path North Bike&Ped 0.24 $6,159.43 $9,239.15 $61,594.32 $76,992.90 TBD
8 77th Street Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.24 $16,416.33 $24,624.50 $164,163.32 $205,204.14 TBD
9 81st Street Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.19 $9,173.83 $13,760.75 $91,738.36 $114,672.94 TBD
10 South Pointe Drive Protected /
Buffered Bicycle Lanes South Bike&Ped 0.31 $57,544.77 $86,317.16 $575,447.73 $719,309.66 TBD
11 Alton Road Exclusive Transit and
Protected / Buffered Bicycle Lanes South Transit/Bike
&Ped 0.49 $90,957.87 $136,436.80 $909,578.67 $1,136,973.34 TBD
12 Meridian Avenue / 1st Street
Neighborhood Greenway South Bike&Ped 0.88 $123,739.91 $185,609.86 $1,237,399.08 $1,546,748.85 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
238
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
13 Meridian Avenue / 1st Street
Protected / Buffered Bicycle Lanes South Bike&Ped 0.41 $107,943.32 $161,914.99 $1,079,433.24 $1,349,291.55 TBD
14
Washington Avenue Exclusive
Transit and Protected / Buffered
Bicycle Lanes
South Transit 0.44 $200,711.81 $301,067.71 $2,007,118.08 $2,508,897.60 TBD
15 SR 907 / Alton Road Exclusive
Transit Lanes South Transit 2.15 $193,500.00 $290,250.00 $1,935,000.00 $2,418,750.00 TBD
16 Venetian Causeway Conventional
Bike Lanes South Bike&Ped 3.21 $4,202,660.71 $6,303,991.07 $42,026,607.12 $52,533,258.90 TBD
17 SR 907 / Alton Road Exclusive
Transit Lanes South Transit 1.46 $131,400.00 $197,100.00 $1,314,000.00 $1,642,500.00 TBD
18 24th Street / Liberty Avenue
Protected / Buffered Bicycle Lanes Middle Bike&Ped 0.28 $102,525.70 $153,788.54 $1,025,256.96 $1,281,571.20 TBD
19 Flamingo Drive Protected /
Buffered Bicycle Lanes Middle Bike&Ped 0.13 $47,601.22 $71,401.82 $476,012.16 $595,015.20 TBD
20 Biarritz Drive Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.32 $15,450.66 $23,176.00 $154,506.65 $193,133.31 TBD
21 Bay Drive Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.34 $16,416.33 $24,624.50 $164,163.32 $205,204.14 TBD
22 Wayne Avenue Shared Path North Bike&Ped 0.07 $1,796.50 $2,694.75 $17,965.01 $22,456.26 TBD
23 Wayne Avenue Shared Path North Bike&Ped 0.19 $4,876.22 $7,314.33 $48,762.17 $60,952.71 TBD
24
SR A1A Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive / Harding Avenue
Exclusive Transit Lanes
Middle
/ North Transit 4.36 $392,400.00 $588,600.00 $3,924,000.00 $4,905,000.00 TBD
25 Hawthorne Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.54 $26,073.00 $39,109.50 $260,729.97 $325,912.46 TBD
26 85th Street Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.46 $22,210.32 $33,315.48 $222,103.18 $277,628.98 TBD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
239
Project
Number Project Name City
Area
Project
Type
Project
Length Costs Potential
Funding
Source ( Miles ) Feasibility Design Construction Total
27 SR A1A Collins Avenue / Indian
Creek Drive Exclusive Transit Lanes
South /
Middle Transit 4.51 $405,900.00 $608,850.00 $4,059,000.00 $5,073,750.00 TBD
28 Pine Tree Drive Protected Bicycle
Lane Middle Bike/Ped 2 $482,633.60 $723,9650.00 $4,826,336.00 $6,032,920.00
29
SR A1A / MacArthur Causeway
Exclusive Rail Lanes, Shared Use
Path, and Protected Bicycle Lanes
South Transit/Bike/
Ped 3.41 $14,222,935.21 $21,334,402.81 $142,229,352.0
6 $177,786,690.07 TBD
30 SR 112 / 41st Street Exclusive Transit
Lanes/Protected Bicycle Lanes Middle Transit/Bike/
Ped 0.87 $207,745.62 $314,918.42 $2,077,456.16 $2,600,120.20
31
SR 112 / Julia Tuttle Causeway
Shared Used Path, Protected Bike
Lanes, and Exclusive Bus Lane
Middle Multimodal 3.38 $7,478,241.42 $11,217,362.13 $74,782,414.17 $93,478,017.71 TBD
32 SR A1A Indian Creek Drive
Protected Bicycle Lanes North Bike/Ped 0.33 $22,019.91 $33,029.87 $220,199.10 $275,248.86 TBD
33 15th Street Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike&Ped 0.66 $31,847.19 $47,770.79 $318,471.93 $277,628.98 TBD
34 20th Street Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike&Ped 0.25 $12,0708.31 $18,106.25 $120,708.31 $277,628.98 TBD
35 Ocean Drive Shared Space South Bike&Ped 0.90 $1,203,141.00 $1,813,711.50 $12,091,410.00 $15,108,262.50 TBD
36 Crespi Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway North Bike&Ped 0.22 $10,622.63 $45,933.50 $106,226.31 $132,782.44 TBD
37 Purdy Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike&Ped 0.26 $10,622.63 $45,933.50 $106,226.31 $132,782.44 TBD
38 Drexel Avenue Neighborhood
Greenway South Bike&Ped 0.46 $22,210.32 $33,315.48 $222,103.18 $277,628.98 TBD
Total Potential Cost for Priority 3 Projects $468,116,978.10 TBD