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-~(,