Loading...
99-23349 RESO RESOLUTION NO. 99-23349 A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE MIAMI BEACH MUNICIPAL MOBILITY PLAN (MMP) AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/ PROGRAM OF INTERRELATED PROJECTS, DEVELOPED BY CARR SMITH CORRADINO, CONSULTANTS, WITH INPUT FROM THE CITY, ITS TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING COMMITTEE, AND THE RESIDENTS OF MIAMI BEACH. WHEREAS, on April 16, 1997, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 97-22354, approving a Professional Services Agreement with Carr Smith Corradino (Consultant) to develop a Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP) for Miami Beach, in the amount of $150,000, funded by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Miami Beach Parking Enterprise Fund, and the Miami Beach Redevelopment Agency; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 1998, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 98-22963, approving a First Amendment to the Agreement, in the amount of $9,800, to compensate the Consultant for services delivered above and beyond the original scope of services, at the City's request, and funded by the Professional Services Account-Economic Development Budget; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 1998, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 98-22970, approving the City's Vision for Transportation, as proposed by the MMP, and directing the Administration to develop an implementation plan for the MMP vision; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 1999, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution No. 99- 23121, approving a Second Amendment to the Agreement for the Consultant to develop an Implementation Plan! Program ofInterrelated Projects (PIP) for the MMP, in the amount of$62,000, funded by an MPO grant and the Parking Enterprise Fund; and WHEREAS, the MMP and its ten (10) year Implementation Plan/PIP will ensure that mobility, accessibility, livability and sustainability issues are properly addressed and resolved in the City of Miami Beach; and WHEREAS, the MMP Implementation Plan/PIP and its Executive Summary are hereby recommended for approval and adoption and are herein incorporated by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission herein approve and adopt the attached Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP) and its Implementation Plan! Program of Interrelated Projects, developed by Carr Smith Corradino, Consultants, with input from the City, its Transportation and Parking Committee, and the residents of Miami Beach. PASSED AND APPROVED, this the 6th day of October , 1999. MAY~r!t ATTEST: ~iko PcUL~ CITY CLERK aJ APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE & FOR EXECUTION 4tJ!l,t~- 1U;~?j CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139 http:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 74/ 0 -C] '7 TO: Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and Members of the City C mission DATE: October 6,1999 FROM: Sergio Rodriguez City Manager SUBJECT: A RESOL ION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE MIAMI BEACH MUNICIPAL MOBILITY PLAN (MMP) AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN/PROGRAM OF INTERRELATED PROJECTS, DEVELOPED BY CARR SMITH CORRADINO, CONSULTANTS, WITH INPUT FROM THE CITY, ITS TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING COMMITTEE, AND THE RESIDENTS OF MIAMI BEACH. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution. BACKGROUND On November 18, 1998, City Commission Resolution No. 98-22970 adopted the City's Vision for Transportation, as proposed by the Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP) and recommended by the City's Transportation and Parking Committee (T &PC), and directed the Administration to develop an Implementation Plan for the MMP Vision. The MMP is a 10-year transportation plan which addresses the following items: o The future transportation needs ofthe City (MMP Vision for Transportation) o The need for maintaining community quality-of-life standards o Serves as a guide for future action o Reflects a comprehensive approach to all kinds of mobility, including automobiles, transit, pedestrian, bicycles, and other non-motorized vehicles. Resolution No. 99-22121, dated April 14, 1999, amended a professional services agreement with Carr Smith Corradino, to develop an Implementation Plan/Program ofInterrelated Projects for the MMP, in the amount of $62,000. This was funded by a $50,000 grant from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), matched at $12,000 by the City's Parking Enterprise Fund. The MMP Implementation Plan/PIP's Final Report has been previously submitted to the Mayor and City Commissioners and is made part of this Agenda Item, by reference. AGENDA ITEM RlI ID-l::,-q::} DATE ANALYSIS The MMP Implementation Plan/Program of Interrelated Projects (PIP) is the result of 30 months of intensive technical planning and community involvement efforts aimed at developing and implementing an effective and functional blueprint for the future of transportation and mobility in a 21st Century Miami Beach. Its Program of Interrelated Projects (10-year CIP) will become the City's primary instrument to obtain Federal, State, County, and other grant funds for the MMP projects, as well as for programming the twenty (20%) percent local cash match which is an essential element ofthe funding process. The main items addressed by the MMP Implementation Plan/PIP are as follows: o The strategies and policies which will assist the City in the implementation of the MMP recommendations and of the capital projects identified. o A project bank of 44 capital improvement projects and their cost estimates, criteria and matrices for project prioritization. o Prospective project funding sources and proposed strategies. o A 10-year capital improvements program designed to meet the goals and objectives of the MMP Vision Plan. o Transportation concurrency issues and strategies for alleviating traffic congestion. o Traffic calming case studies and techniques. o An organizational structure for project bank implementation. It is important to note that 58% ofthe MMP-recommended projects are directly related to improving the residential "quality oflife" standards. MMP Projects Funding Prospects (10-year plan): It is estimated that the implementation of the MMP projects will require from $80 million to $90 million, within a ten (10) year period. The estimated funding sources are as follows: o State Roadway Projects in the MMP are 100% funded by FDOT - $18 million to date, programmed in the first 3 years of the Dade County 5- Y ear Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). It includes the following projects: Collins Avenue from 5th Street to 41st Street, Alton Road from 8th Street to Michigan Avenue, and the Meridian Avenue Bridge. o MMP Projects with livability and sustainabi1ity components will require from $40 million to $50 million, of which over $38 million is included in the upcoming General Obligation Bonds referendum. o Projects which meet federal classification standards (for major/minor arterial and collector roads) could be funded at approximately $30 million in 10 years, through the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and/or Congressional appropriation processes. o Required City/local match to the prospective federal funds, above mentioned, would amount to approximately $6 million in 10 years. The larger portion of this local match would be covered by the G.O. Bond funds, if issued. o Projects funded by private-sector/concurrency mItIgation plans could amount to approximately 20% of the total funds required to implement the 10- Y ear MMP Projects. A large portion of the mitigation funds would be dedicated to the local City streets, which are not eligible to receiving federal funds. o E1ectrowave transit and transit-related projects in the MMP would be funded as follows: All capital funds would be provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 3 funds, matched at 20% by FDOT, using toll revenue credits (a soft match). Capital funds already available for the purposes of new vehicle/equipment acquisition and intermodal center planning amount to $2.5 million in FY 1999 and 2000 federal earmarks. It has been proposed that, in the future, operating funds be provided mostly by proceeds from a to-be-implemented surcharge on parking fees and TCMAs; from a combination of Resort Tax, FDOT, and grant funds; plus fare collection and advertising revenues and other sources or recurring funds the City staff is striving to create, CONCLUSION The MMP and its Implementation Plan ensure that the issues of mobility, accessibility, livability and sustainabi1ity are properly addressed and resolved in the City of Miami Beach, in a comprehensive, creative, and methodic manner. Due to these factors, The MMP Implementation Plan will become the best enabling instrument the City has ever had to receive funding from federal sources, available through the MPO and Congressional appropriation processes, as well as from the State and County sources. Throughout its 30-month development process, the MMP has generated a lot of interest, inquiries, and requests for presentations before Miami-Dade transportation planning agencies, and copies of the Plan have already been solicited by coastal communities such as Virginia Beach, VA., Cocoa Beach and Miami, and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The Administration recommends this innovative MMP Implementation Plan for approval and adoption by the City Commission. s~t:;- Attachment: Final Report, The MMP Implementation Plan/PIP (rrunpimpl)aj MUNICIPAL MOBILITY PLAN 199 9 IMPLEMENTATION STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- OF MIAMI BEACH Agenda Item R. 1 J Date /0- 6 - 0/ q ::::J __~C___I_~~::____~~__~__~~I~~~_~_~~_m__ iII-. PROJECT OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION T, M'"u' ",",h Muu'cip" Muhil'ty PI,u <'''IP)" th, City", ",,' "grassroots" eft()rt to master plan t()r the community's transportation needs. ~t provides a snapshot of future transportation issues and trends which will Impact Miami Beach. The MlI,\P establishes the City's vision t()r transportation, makes recommendations t(Jr meeting the identified needs (the Ten- Year Plan), provides a "Project Bank" of strategie~s f()r addressing the issues, and establishes the planning tools f(Jr guiding on-going decisions related to mobility. It also reflects a comprehensive approach towards the issue of transportation by addressing the needs f()r all types of mobility including automobiles, transit, pedestrians, bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles. Ocean Drive Operationa/lmprovements The first step towards implementing the M,\\P is developing the ,\\,\lP Implementation Plan. The core of the Implementation Plan is the Project Bank, initially developed in the MMP illustrated in figure 1. This bank identifies specitic projects or strategies, to improve mobilitv and enhance the quality of life on .'Yliami Beach. The remainder of the Implementation Plan refines the Project Bank by prioritizing individual projects. identifYing funding sources and strategies, recommending legislative initiatives for strengthening the transportation opportunities work plan, and examining case studies of traffic calming devices as part of the Project Bank. Venetian Causeway Improvements andEnhancements South Beach Walk ===:::J C --...J- '::::J 1------ '-I k - Locator Map Project Ban Figure 7 . ,.,~ ~.. 11 .;;;/;~ ....~". "~-",n" ndlof1 LieC;lckens Avenr:: Slreel/'o~~~~n impl0~ prn~r,~, t:.. L - .' ,~w,.. Street/lnd,on ~fS _'.~'l.. .; La Gorce/Pine Lf'e Traffic Calming )) /....i.' i~~~ Nautilus C~lming Program 3(, ., ] 7th Street/We Dade Boulevard! Reconfiguro n A.venue intersection 29 & C:Jnnectron , b... . '<l;~ .... -' ..l;J,,: ,"~ -.':-- 'huHIA . "'-ofllmUf1i1V j ". _. _ .,'_ Beech .. ".~ ~~~ . "CnO')' EiF'r~enloIY ,J .' :('lorOV8rn~nrs .;r ~~! ~ Harding Avenue Enhancements --~ ~ . , ..,-.. ,~" , ~ . 71 I 51,.pl NormondEy Dflv:~mer~ls CO/fldol I1non ~ :....r. "."-'c' 9 -' " f3p'(JCh Neighborhood ~~;'~Ing/Slreelscope Improvements ..~ --~~ i!iSl . -h Wole,[,ofl/ Norirl B:-oc _ VF>menls Acee.ss ,"npIO _, indian Creek Drrve CapoCilv Improvements ,(-. , ~4!j . . " ~ ~. - (fie COimm9is.aFetyl .J7lh 51ceel ria. , .1 . Improvemenls ~ ~ . .~':'~~...~ ~~, .emenls Allan Road ["none, t'/ MIddle Beach Walk ....=' ", , - '. '.. ... :. ,... ... .,>>,-,,, :. -".~ ---.... ... -- , =!i.' L.. J .. '.: ~-' 25 ~ ....,............~,P.l..i '.1. ail '~kJ . ~"";;l , :J :'\;L) .::.. h Commundy ! Middle Beac .j.j . ___, Shullle ExpanSIon ~. ~ ltII ~ '..~ I .~ i' ".,r. '';;~:--G= .. .. Collins Avenue ~..~ Boulevard t>""':. ~el Inlersection . C -eek Drive, i . Ind,an. ' I ravemenls _ , ~.. . _... j Copac,1y mp .,; 6 . I l" . . . t.I:;.IC ',. ~....... I . ......~,>":_.~ ~ .....~~.2-;;:;ee! .. - . --~. --- Dade 3~~:~;g~m:nl ~ d Intersection Inter se. c._ .,' Dade Soulevor _ ... '~, ". :'Jo 3j,...(,~. 1~c1" ~ '\I:,(.~ - ~ ". ;~... _'" :;Z"~ 3 ; r ~i"'-"-:-:.~---":" ~'.- .. 'm,o,om,," ' .~=. lenellon COUs~~~y . ':Jr'd Enl10ncem ~ 3E~~ ~:I::' , . .~~ East/West TeonSlI ::omdor 5th Streef/Alton R~~ienls Inter;;edion Improv_ '\j , hbo"rnoC! Flamingo ~or~~~lg . Calming P ':19 Dade Boulevard Alton Ro~d/ ovemenfs IntersectIon f~~~ Island:> ' Vei1e!!C,il E ncemen,s/ r 6th Street nno ImP.ft.i r~v:~;IS. . Af' " .~~ : . ~:-i511 -''; ~: :::::> ~ .if}~ (.~~ ~ 'vf"!men!5 Allan Rood CapaCity Impro ~ 32 ==.::::J ~ . .-.-- -'., Ie I C r- ------, A C ,.. B y o F A M E u.. -< I -< . '."., I H~G;E W PROJECT BANK COST ESTIMATES The MMP identified transportation and mobility issues through a series of extensive public meetings. Among the most important transportation issues City-wide were: Roadway System Needs Neighborhood Impacts Sense of Place Safety Hurricane Evacuation 'lit Subsequently, 44 projects were developed in response to these to comprise the Project Bank. Projects are categorized as: issues Capacity Improvement Projects Corridor Enhancement Projects Community Sustainability Projects Alternative Mode Projects and include preliminary cost estimates developed to provide an order-of- magnitude cost (based on comparisons with similar projects in the Miami- Dade County Fiscal Years 1999-2003 Transportation Improvement Program). These estimates are general approximations to be utilized for planning purposes and are shown in table 1. The planning component of the project cost primarily consists of feasibility studies, environmental studies, operational studies and public involvement. The design component of the project cost includes preparing design, plans, specifications, details, construction contract documents, and permitting. The construction component estimates the costs to build the project including the acquisition of right-of-way, utility relocation, and construction engineering and inspection. After the planning component determines more precisely what actually needs to be constructed, a more detailed engineering cost estimate should be prepared. This detailed cost estimate will identify the required funds that should be programmed for the project. Additionally, the costs reflect current values and should be adjusted in the future to reflect current economic conditions. Collins Avenue- Grand Boulevard I'" 1'';'>::<..^;;;>-''G''M.i1k.t.~~",:...::,,1 '7 _ "_ ~ 2J1 Community Shuffle Expansion Table 1 Proiect Costs .;IJ 1 r :J Prolect Planning DeSign Conslruclt Costs Costs on Costs 1 North Beach Community Shl.onle 2. North Beae., Ne;gnoorhood 3 Hording/Coilins Avenue :~rancer'\en~s 4 Biscayne :!e~ef1tory Sc~oo! 5 lndian Creek J'~"el7 i IT Street/Dickens 6. Normardy )riveJ71 jr Street Corndor 7 Indian Creek Onve Capac~y 8. North Beech Waterfront Access 9, Collins A\lenue 10. 'iorth Beach Wolk/A"on"c Trod 11 63'd Streef/lndian Creek Drive 12. Collins Avenue ReoligntTIeni 13. La Gorce/Pine Tree Traffic Calming 14. Alton ~oaci Enhanceme'1rs 15. Middle Beaer- Waik/Atlontlc Trail 16. 47rh Street -raH:c Calming/Safety 17. Nautilus Neigrborhooa Calming 18, Middle Beach Community ShuMle 19.43"1 Slreet/AJton Rood Inte""SecflOI'\ 20. Middle Beach Intermadol Foc'!,'y 2 1 Indian Creek Dnve/4 1" Street 22, Alton Road/41lol Street Intersection 23, 4 1 ~I Streef S"ee:scope 24 Alton Road E,...honcements 25. Indian Creek Multi-Purpose Troil 26 Dade Boulevard/23" S"eel 27 Dade 3oulevord Intersection 28. Alton Rood at 2011> Slree' and Sunset 29, Alton Rood/Doae Boulevard 30. Dade Blvd/l r Street/'Nesl A....enue 31 I T~ Street/AJton ~oad Intersechon 32, Venetian Causeway Venetian Trali 33, 16'~ S~reet Enr.ancemen1s/Operotions 34 Alton Rood Capacity Imarovements 35. Flamingo Pork :'Jeighborhood 36. So Beach Eost/West One-Way Pairs 37, Washington Avenue Enhancements 38. S'~ S~reel/ Allen Road intersection 39 Eosl.Wesl TranSIt Corridor 40. South Beach Irfermodal Facdity 41 Soc,h Beoc" Walkl Atlant,c T ro,1 42. Soulh Poinf Slree~scQpe/Peci, Access 43. Ocean Drive OperatIonal 44. Collins Ave'lue.Grol"d Boulevard . ~ Cop,tal CoSfS ~~ ~ T otol Operatlnc; Cos~s $50.000 $1,600,000' $1 2 M" $25,000 $30,000 $2 M $15.000 $50,000 $35 M $7,500 515,000 $50,000 Nc Matching ~l;ncs :(eC;Jired 5' 5,000 $200,000 $"25 M $50,oeO 575,000 575 M N/A $20,000 $.15M $25,000 5200,OCO $1 5 M $10,000 5200,000 $2 M No Ma'cnmg Funds Required $100.000 $100.00C 55 M No MOlchng FI,..nds R.eQuired $25,000 $400.000 $2.5 M $10,000 $300,000 $3 M $10,000 5: 5.000 550,COO $40.000 $70.000 57M $50.000 52,400,000' $1.6 MOO $20,000 5100,COO $.5 M NM NM ~M $30,000 $300,000 56 M 515.000 15C,000 $25M ~o Matching Funds Reql..ilred $20,000 5 i 50.000 51 M $ 10,000 $30,000 $3 M 115.000 5150,00C 575 M 530.000 $50,000 125M 525.000 $50,000 $3 M No Matching Funds Required $50,000 $150,000 $6 M 1\0 Matching Funds Reql..iired N/A 5350,000 $2.28 M 125.000 550,OCO 525 M 150,000 $ i 50,000 $: M $40,00C $ 75,000 IS M No Ma~ching Funds ReqUired "/A 5300,000 $3 M $100,000 15CO.000 $3 M N/A N/A N/A $25,000 1750,000 $7.5 M $10,000 $200,OCO $2 M 125,000 $40,000 $ 3 M No Matching Funas Required 125,000 5100.000 $5 M I... PROJECT BANK PRIORITIZATION Projects in the Project Bank are prioritized into two sets of prioritization tables to develop a realistic timeline for implementation. The first set, called project horizons, arranges the projects according to their expected date of completion. This includes long, short and mid-terms periods of time. The second set, shown below in tables 2 and 3, called project prioritization, arranges projects by order of importance. This order is measured by each project's ability to enhance mobility, while improving neighborhood sustainability. The total score is composed of a subset of criteria given a 0, 1, or 2. These ratings are explained a 0, Project Does Not Meet/Has Unfavorable Relationship to criterion 1, Project Partially meets / Has Moderately favorable relationship to Criterion 2, Project Meets / Has Moderately Favorable Relationship to criterion Project Prioritization Capadty I mpravement Projects Satisfies LOS Standard Improves Safety Focilitoles Hurricane Evacuation Improves Quality of Driver Experience 2 2 2 2 2 2 Table 2 '- j 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 LCRRIDOR ~i',HANl tMUn ,--,IILR A 2 IOTAl SCORE 13 12 13 12 Promotes a More Casual flow of TraffiC Improves facility Function/Operations Promotes Uniqce Character. Sense of Place Mil; ates Roadway Impacts 1 2 o o Discourages Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion Promotes Positive Economic Development Promotes Favorable Development Pallern Supports Nei hborhaod Identity 1 1 o o o o o o Promotes Use of Alternalive Modes Improves ADA Mobility Impro....es Transit-Dependent Mobility Promotes T ranSlt.Related Development 1 2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o i Project Prioritization Community Sustainability Projects Project Criteria 2 4 16 17 33 35 37 4? 44. Table 3 North Biscay 47th Noutil 16th Flomi Washi South Collin ~ Beae ne 51 uS 51 ngo nglon Pointe 5 Ave h Eleme Traffl N.,gh Enha Park ""e Streets Gron ~, Neig ntory C bar- nee- Neig Ennen cope- d hbor- Schoo Calm "ood I ments hbor- co- Pedest Boule hood 1 lng. Calml' hood ments rion vard Calm Circul Safet'f ng Calm Access ing. ation ,ng Progro CAPACITY IMPROVEMFNT CRITERIA CO',RIDOR tNHANnMENT C RII ERIA ===::J I ~""i"!'-i"~~",'7-1.:;4'(~ ~.,-.-,::'/-,., >:;:~,-;~1 ~I Satisfies LOS Standard 0 Improves Safety 1 F~cilitates Hurricane Evacuation 0 Improves Quality of Driver Experience 2 o 2 o o o 2 o 2 2 I 2 2 2 1 1 2 o 2 o 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 o o 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 o o o 1 1 o o o 2 o 2 2 2 1 1 1 o o o 1 I o o 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 I I o o o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 IT. C I T Y o F I I MIAMI I o 2 2 I o 2 2 o 1 1 2 o 2 2 2 Promotes a More Casual Flow of Traffic 2 Improves Facility Function/Operations 1 Promotes Unique Character. Sense of Place 2 Mili ates Roadway Impac" 2 2 2 o o 1 I o o 1 I o o .: Discourages Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion 2 Promotes Positive Economic Development 1 Promotes Favorable Development Pattern 1 Supports Nel hborhood Identi 2 o o o o Promotes Use of Alternative Modes Improves ADA Mobility Improves Transit-Dependent Mobility Promotes Transit-Related Development . . '~H4 B E FUNDING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Fundinq Packaq~'., Figure 2 The Miami Beach Municipal :Vlobility Plan (MMP) listed a set of potential funding sources for the Project Bank improvements. This list was intended to provide a full range of potential sources of funding tor further development at a later time. The Implementation Plan presents a refined list of funding sources which mav be made directly available to the City or indirectly through State Government. such as fOOT. The funding sources reflect the full scope of the Project Bank, and relate to the ways in which similar projects have been paid tor in the past. POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES . State [ntermodal Development fund . 100 Percent StJte Funds . State Transportation Disadvantaged Funds . Federal Transit .\dministration (FT A) Funds . Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Cen tun (TEA-21) . Clean Cities Pm gram . Miami-Dade Neighborhood Tramc Management, Public Works D~partment ~ . Mitigation Plans tll[ Development Approval . The Florida Pedestrian and Bicvcle Safetv Program . Florida Greenwavs and Trails Program' ~ . Florida Recreatil;n Development ,~ssistance Program , ~ational Recreational Trails Funding Program . Special Waterway Projects Program ~ ~ . Florida Inland \'avigational District (FIND) . Special Benefit Districts . Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program PROJECT FUNDING PACKAGES Ocean Avenue One strategy tor making projects more attractive for potential funding is grouping similar projects. The City of West Palm Beach was granted $11.25 million in TEA-21 funding tor a reconstruction effort made up of many smaller projects, including side street traffic calming, landscaping, and utilities replacement. The City was able to successfully "package"' these projects to obtain significant funding. This funding would probably not have been achieved if the individual projects had been pursued separately. West Palm Beach's experience points out the importance of creatively packaging transportation projects in order to attract the attention of funding entities. [n Miami Beach, projects could be grouped according to more general improvement categories. This includes projects which are linked geographically, physically and functionally. Four packages could be developed to include a majority of the projects in the Project Bank. Figures 2 and 3 groups projects according to these tour funding packages. Project Funding Package #1: "Spine"' Preservation & Enhancement The Collins Avenue and Alton Road corridors provide the vital functions of connecting Miami Beach to the rest of the metropolitan area, while also providing hurricane evacuation routes and major circulation routes within the City. This project funding package includes: Harding Avenue Enhancements Collins Ave. Improvements/Regulation Program Collins Avenue Realignment Alton Road Enhancements 43"1 Street/Alton Road [ntersection Capacity Improvements Alton Road/ 41" Street Intersection Calming Alton Road Enhancements Alton Road at 20[h Street and Sunset Drive at 20,hStreet Intersection R econfigu ration/1m provemen ts Dade Blvd.!1!,h St./West Ave. [ntersection Reconfiguration and Connection Alton Road Capacity [mprovements 5'h St.! Alton Rd. [ntersection [mprovements Collins Avenue Grand Boulevard 3. 9. 12. 14. 19. 22. 24. 28. 30. 34. 38. 44. a-I!!. J , , , d:~ ,~- 'A-- , . - . ~ I ,,-;f I .::.: ,:...; I r I , tl' r ' ~ ~ .. ~ -: . PJckJge + ,; II P:lckage :t "I .i\otpartoi" package , , # , e , , . . . . . , ......2::' , , , ~ .~~'><. - - .. .. . ,.. .-.. t:. .=- .;~. ling ~~ ~:/-: ?~~ ,:,-1', : 1j", .1; , \~- ;e'l"- >I, ~ :::::J Funding sources include State 100 Percent Funds through FDOT, Mitigation Plans for Development Approval, and TEA-21 funds. Project Funding Package #2: Community Shuttle Expansion This funding package addresses the mid to long-term need to expand the existing community shuttle system which consists entirely of the Electrowave. This project funding package includes: 1. North Beach Community Shuttle Expansion l~. Middle Beach Community Shuttle Expansion Pjtential funding sources include the State Intermodal Development Fund. TEA-21. FTA funds, CI an Cities, Sustainable Development Challenge Grant, Mitigation Plans for Development Approval, a d participation in the projects from Miami-Dade Transit Agency. Project Funding Package #3: Major Pedestrianways, Beachwalks and Greenways The MMP envisions a network of pedestrianways, beach walks, and greenways which will provide an integrated system for non-motorized travel. This network is shown in Figure 3. This project funding package includes: 10. North Beach Walk 15. Middle Beach Walk 25. Indian Creek Multi-Purpose Trail 32. Venetian Causeway Improvements (Venetian Trail) 41. South Beach Walk Potential funding sources include the State Intermodal Development Fund, TEA-21, Clean Cities, Sustainable Development Challenge Grant, the Florida Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program, Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program, National Recreational Trails Funding Program, Florida Greenways and Trails Acquisition Program, and Mitigation Plans for Development Approval. Project Funding Package #4: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Traffic calming projects can appropriately be packaged together as a wide-ranging response to the impacts of traffic on neighborhoods. While other projects than those listed below include traffic calming elements, these projects do not overlap with others that make up the other project funding packages. This project funding package includes: 2. North Beach Neighborhood Calming/Streetscape Improvements 16. 47'h Street Traffic Calming/Safety Improvements 17. Nautilus Neighborhood Calming Project 35. Flamingo Park Neighborhood Calming Project 42. South Pointe/Streetscape/Pedestrian Access Program Funding sources include Mitigation Plans for Development Approval, TEA-21, Special Benefit Districts, City of Miami Beach General Fund, and technical assistance from Miami-Dade Neighborhood Traffic Management. .., ,.( C- o ~ -, -I ~ ~. H~_ "G. - -,-' o' .... IS' ,_...-1,,/ I I A M I I B E A C - - - ~--- -_._~..__.- - ~----'" - o F CONCURRENCY AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Rule 9)-5, Florida Administrative Code. w~ich pfllvides the minimum criteria tiJr review of local government comprehensive plans, addresses requirements related to local governmentr concurrency management systems. "Concurrency"' means that the r~Ruired public facilities and services necessary to maintain the adopted ~evel of service standards are available when the impacts of developm~nt occur. A concurrency management system is required of all lochl governments in order to establish an on-going mechanism to ensure !that the public facilities and services needed to support development are available when the impacts -4>f development occur. The concurrency management system must be supported by a schedule of capital improvernents demonstrating that the adopted level of service standards will be achieved and maintained. Although concurrency seeks to ensure that adequate public facilities are provided as new development occurs, it qn direct development away !torn dense cities such as Miami Beach which typically have diftlculties maintaining the adopted level of service standards tiJr transportation facilities. The tiJllowing is an explanation of concurrency management options as they apply to Miami Beach. TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT AREAS (TCMAs) These specially designated areas are designed to promote infill development or redevelopment with more eftlcient mobility alternatives such as public transit. By establishing an areawide level of service (LOS) standard within a compact area, a TCMA can develop multiple, alternative routes and modes ot transportation for frequent and typical trips. To quality as a TCMA and create area-wide level of service standards, the area: 1. Must be compatible with the local comprehensive plan 2. Should have a viable street network with justifiable boundaries 3. Should have sufficient transportation alternatives to achieve required mobility 4. Should be coordinated with the DOT and MPO Currently, Miami Beach is considering designating three TC~1As in South, Middle and North Beaches, based on the existing neighborhood boundaries and the Transportation Analysis Zones (T AZs). Figure illustrates the TGvlA. The TGvlA boundaries reflect the TOvlA legislation requirements and the goals and objectives of residents as described in the Miami Beach ~{unicipal Mobility Plan. Community Shuttle Expansion -..-----l >--:Ir~~ 6 Potential Transit Villaoes Figure 4 " .' f 9~";.'.<:.:t r--------l -;;". ';I;..~-,..r.~""'- .::::: - Exceptions are granted to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban infill qevelopment and redevelopment as well as promoting public tran~' ortation. Although TCEAs are an option available to local govern ents under Rule 9)- 5, it is not applicable nor advisable for Miami Beach. The City is located in a high hazard coastal area and meeting hurricane evacuation timeframes are of critical concerns, particularly if roadway level-of-service (LOS) standards are not regulated or enforced. I f 1 I I ; ! TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY EXCEPTION AREAS (TCEAS) Structure for Implementation ] Figure 5 ;J LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS REUEF/NE PROjEC r PLAN The State has developed a "long term transportation concurrency managemen t system" which allows an expansion of the three year time frame to ten years when there is a backlog on transportation facilities. To quality, a project must be financially feasible and must be able to meet the required level of service standard at the end of the ten year period. Additionally, interim level of service standards are required to incrementally reach the required level of service goal. The long term transportation concurrency management system yields a higher and, perhaps, a more unrealistic level of service standard than the short term system which requires maintaining a particular level of service. Achieving the long term system level of service standard in Miami Beach would require additional reconstruction to increase road capacity where there are existing deficiencies. Therefore, it may not be advantageous for the City of Miami Beach to implement a long term concurrency management system. TRANSPORTA TlON & CONCURRENCY SECTION Define prol"t plan Irom proied bonk TRANSPORTATION& CONCURRENCY SECTION Make a determination if proiect has adverse eHem on COMurrency TRANSPORT A TION & . CONCURRENCY SECTION ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR PROJECT BANK IMPLEMENTATION TRANSPORTATION & CONCURRENCY SECTION Submit miligolioo plan fa Gty Administration, VOflOUS Developmenl Approval Boards (ORB, HP, IBA, Planning Baardl pallibly forwarded to Concurrenc Technictll Review Committee In order to initiate the concurrency management system, the City will establish a Transportation and Concurrency Management Section, established to coordinate and implement the Transportation Concurrency. The section will administer the TCMA and the Project Bank improvements. The process for transportation concurrencey administration is illustrated in figures. Submit mitigation plan to Planning Board for modification if a comprehensive pion amendment is required Moves forward with implementation j i ,. Indian Creek ~ ,4 ~ B E A 6 H~ /7 ',.>"" ~ I o F I I M I A M I I. I C 1 T Y TRAFFIC CALMING I"raftic calming is a method of slowing autOl'nObile traffic on residential and I(Kal streets with road obstructions which iI pede speed. A successful traffIc calming program will redirect non-local traffic on to main arterials and circulator roads and reserve local streets for local traffic. Figure 6 indicates the neighborhoods in Miami Beach. There is n ed tilr traffic calming in various portions ofall neighborhoods. ' I"here are myriad traffic calming technique, tlmployed throughout the country and the world. Some oftre best examples can be found in the West Coast region where a strong commitment to good urban growth has been made. Jvliami-Dade County recognized the need tilr such a commitment when thev tlevelopcd the Mia~li.Da(re County Street C osure/Traltic Flow ModitIcatio;l Manual , TRAFFIC CALMING PROCE~S lhe Miami-Dade County Street closure/l'jraffil Flow Moditication Studv provides guidelines tilr implementing traffic calming projects within Miamf- Dade County. The process outlined suggests. tudying traffic conditions betilre calming measures are implemented to determine if traffic calming measures are needed and what measures may be appropriate on a temporary basis. Once trafflc calming measures are installed on an experimental basis. the 0.letro-Dade Street Closure/Traffic Flow \loditication Studv recommends that a traffIc study be conducted to determine the impact an'd effectiveness of the measures. If proven effective, the wafflc calming measures may be implemented on a permanent basis. Ho\\"~ver, if the measures are proven ineffective, other measures may be implemented until better devices are identitled tiH permanent application. (iJtnments from ,'YlDCPWIJ The Miam'i Dade County Public Works Department (\lDCPVVD) was receptive to the idea of the City conducting the 'preliminary study' to determine if traffIc How modification is warranted. This would allow the City to reduce unjustified traffic flow modifIcation requests. Thereti)re, the City ~ould only approach the MDCPWD with requests substantiated with traffic data. Commentvfrom FDOT The Florida Department ofTransportation (Hf)OT) emphasized the importance of public involvement in Miami Beach's traffic calming projects. If the public is informed and involved in traffic calming projects from the outset, there will be less neighborhood opposition and better traffic calming solutions. CASE STUDIES Several cities in the Cnited States have successfullv used traffic calming devices to decrease speeding and tiaffic volumes in residential areas, while creating a safer pedestrian environment. Seattle, Portland, West Palm Beach, and Berkelev are all tourist destinations, like \1iami Beach. They are located on the water and have been built on 'a grid. The following page gives examples of those cities' traffic calming devices and how they apply to Miami Beach. ___._.._... _..I --'''::-:J =~-=---=.-----=-:'=_-__':::":::':=.:J -t G'E:'-::-:'=-~"W_' B Miami Beach Neighborhood Divisions Figure 6 r: LE.L:::~l' p,.)int :!. \"nrth Shore ) :\orfl1and\ .4 [,;I (;orce ' Is.oce:lTllront Il.:\;lllttlUS I 7 f{;l\''ihnre ! S. FLimingo I ~l. \\'l'st .\ve. I 10 Venetian Lslar'lb: ! 11 Snuth Point 1- ~.._"_._~~__ _.___. -='::':'':'~=-.':::'':''''::_~==-==_::J 1 ;;~Ji ~. ~ I"\.,',;r.;,:c$ ~ , . -i}....-b-- ,:</~!i:f 5 ~-~~ -~- . J Case Studies SE. I Tnf, w. l ovei post three years ellicunt,S Curb bulbs on alternating sides of the street Beautify when placed mid-block . Changes the dnver's perception of the street Decreases ve;~icle speed by 5- 13 m D. h PORTLLVD, OR Rui~{'J Crnsslt'ldks Reduces speeds at pedestnan crossings Interferes with emergency vehicles Con increase noise Neither deVice is used on 0 primary emergency response route Speed Humps -1../ ft hump achieves 25 mph -22 ft. hump achieves 33 mp.," Can increase noise Interfere, with emergency vehicles i' i i t ~ Dh'erten Full diverters create Cul-de-Sacs . Diagonal Diverters force vehicles to turn . Semi.diverters close half the street Speed Humps Most common ,n Berkeley Can divert non.local traffic to other residential neighborhoods i\-fIAMJ BEACH. FL.I ... ~ .:: =;:~~~g~ ~l(_ It WEST PIlL\-! BEACH. FLA . Similar layout to 1I,1iaml Beach Local Example Received $] 125 Million from TEA-2] Funding has been used to supplement FOOT's construction budget . One of the first cities to apply for TEA-2] funding making it easier to lobby support Use traffic circles, raised medians, traffic humps landscape medians, street closures I . , I C ,Heeling with ,HDCPWD . FDOT . Prelimmary traffic calming studies to be done by the cily, per request Use DeVices on on excerimentol basis Prefer Mid Block Speed humps to rumble strips and raised Intersectrons Chicanes may not be appropriate as drivers are too aggressive Lone narrowing should be considered Include the public A M B E '..:=J A C . 0- I ,,"'t. .,~ f " " ,.i,:!;' " H~ - . ;.19 .;,,7 =---==:J L - ,- o ~ F M l' y I I i ~ -...-~ -~--~ ~-- --- --- ---- --- --- --- ---- c 0 R R A 0 N o 1 999 .',~~-ilt;-"'" I~"- ..- -. I~"J,-"'''''.: = I;:' :l~~;.~;:.~~~~lli-~(,