2007-26693 ResoRESOLUTION NO. 2007-26693
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THAT THE 23RD STREET BRIDGE
OVER COLLINS CANAL PROJECT (PROJECT) BE REMOVED FROM THE
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S (MPO) TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP); FURTHER REQUESTING THE RELEASE
OF THE PROJECT'S ASSIGNED ROAD IMPACT FEES (RIF), IN THE
AMOUNT OF $4,535,000, INTO THE MIAMI BEACH ROAD IMPACT FEE
FUND.
WHEREAS, the 23rd Street Bridge Project (Project) was adopted under the Miami Beach
Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP Project #33) to provide operational safety and mobility
improvement to this intersection, and to establish a direct connection between two major
corridors, Alton Road and Collins Avenue, by utilizing the Federal Roadway Collector
Classification with Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, on October 6, 1999, the City Commission approved the MMP pursuant to
Resolution No. 99-23349; and
WHEREAS, Miami -Dade County and City staff have undertaken a professional and
comprehensive planning effort, which resulted in the design and engineering of 90% construction
plans of the 23rd Street Bridge; and
WHEREAS, the Project was presented to the residents and property owners within the
Collins Park Cultural Campus at a community workshop on June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Project was also presented, respectively, to the Transportation and
Parking Committee, Historic Preservation Board, and Land -Use and Development Committee;
and
WHEREAS, based on the input received and the recommendation from the Land -Use
and Development Committee, the Administration requests the removal of the Project from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Administration also requests that the assigned Road Impact Fee (RIF)
for the Project, in the amount of $4,535,000, be released into the Miami Beach RIF Fund.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby request that the 23rd Street Bridge over Collins Canal Project (Project) be
removed from the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Transportation Improvement Program,
and request the release of the Project's assigned Road Impact Fees (RIF), in the amount of
$4,535,000, into the Miami Beach RIF fund.
ATTEST:
PASSED and ADOPTED this 17th day of Oct
CITY CLERK
Robert Parcher
T:\AGENDA12007\oct1707\Consent\23rd St Bridge reso.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FORpfECUTION
ID Jit Q7
Dale
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Requesting the Removal of the 23m Street Bridge Over Collins Canal Project from the
Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the Municipal
Mobility Plan (MMP); and Requesting the Release of the Project's Assigned Road Impact Fees (RIF) into
the Miami Beach RIF Fund.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Improve or maintain traffic flow.
Supporting Data (Surwmye,Environnmmntm|Scan, whs.):Trof�cand road repair appears eaone ofthe
nnostinmpo�antareas affecting residents quality oflife; 3596ofresidents rated the availability cfpedestrian
trails and bicycle paths/Ianes as excellent or good and 30% poor; traffic is ranked #2 by residents as one of
the changes that will make Miami Beach a better place to live; and, traffic flow where you drive in Miami
Beach is a key driver for recommendinq Miami Beach as a place to live.
Issue:
Shall the City Commission approve the Resolution?
Item Summammendmtion:
The 23r0 Street Bridge ProjectProject was adopted under the Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP Project
#33) to provide operational safety and mobility improvement of this intersection, and to establish a direct
connection between two nn 'oroonidoro—��tonRoodand��oUinm/4vanueUyuU|izingthmFedena|Roedwoy
[�oUector[�|aoa)�cadmnvvith'Miami Beach. The Project a\soprmpomedtoinoorporotea|barnotivemodeoof
transportation by improving pedestrian safety, adding a bike path and bike lanes, and by considering future
transit solutions.
Based on recent input received at various stakeholder meetings and a recommendation from the Land Use
and Development Committee, inadequate support exists for the 23m Street Bridge projectboprooeed.|n
order to formally cease the project and to shift the funding fro other possible uses, a resolution of the
Commission is necessary to present to the MPO. The Administration also requests the release of the
project's assigned RIF in the amount of $4,535,000 into the Miami Beach RIF Fund to fund future project
or projects.
The Administration recommends adoptinq the Resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
This item was not supported by the Land -Use and Development Committee at their September 10, 2007
|meaong.
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
2
3
°BP8 Total
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
| Fernando Vazquez, City Engineer, x.6399
pi���~ffs:
Department Direqdr Assistant '~'soager
|
| FOZO
TAGEDA\2007\oct1 7071Consent123rd St Bridge Summary.do
MIAMIBEACH
N
City Manager
[�-7
AGENDA ITEM r� '
m MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor David Dermer and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manage
DATE: October 17, 2007
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THE REMOVAL OF THE 23RD
STREET BRIDGE OVER COLLINS CANAL PROJECT (PROJECT) FROM THE
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION'S (MPO) TRANSPORTATION
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP), AND REMOVAL FROM THE CITY
MUNICIPAL MOBILITY PLAN (MMP); AND REQUESTING THE RELEASE
OF THE PROJECT'S ASSIGNED ROAD IMPACT FEES (RIF) IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,535,000 INTO THE MIAMI BEACH ROAD IMPACT FEE FUND.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING
Request the release of the project's assigned Road Impact Fee (RIF) funding in the
amount of $4,535,000 into the general Miami Beach RIF Fund to fund other projects.
BACKGROUND
The Project was adopted under the Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP Project #33)
to provide operational safety and mobility improvement of this intersection, and to establish a
direct connection between two major corridors —Alton Road and Collins Avenue by utilizing
the Federal Roadway Collector Classification with Miami Beach. The Project also proposed
to incorporate alternative modes of transportation by improving pedestrian safety, adding a
bike path and bike lanes, and by considering future transit solutions.
In 1999, the City Commission approved the MMP, and all its projects were adopted for
implementation under Resolution No. 99-23349. (See Attachment 1 "Resolution No. 99-
23349" and Attachment 2 "MMP #26. Dade Boulevard/23rd Street Intersection Alignment").
The intersection between Dade Boulevard and 23rd Street, a federally classified collector, is
a critical component of the MMP as it provides a connection between east -west Dade
Boulevard and north -south Collins Avenue corridors in Miami Beach. The MMP proposed
the replacement of the existing bridge over the Collins Canal with a new structure that
provides improved alignment with Dade Boulevard.
STAKEHOLDERS
The following meetings identify the public involvement process taken, with various
stakeholders and their respective comments to the project:
Transportation and Parking Committee (TPC) - June 20, 2005.
The TPC endorsed the project.
Historical Preservation Board (HPB) — May 10, 2005; January 10, 2006; March 13, 2007.
Although the realignment bridge is outside the boundaries of the historic district, at the three
meetings, the HPB strongly objected to the bridge configuration and to the traffic flow
modification of Park Avenue.
Oversight Committee for General Bond Obligation - Feb. 3, 2006.
The Oversight Committee endorsed the project.
Bikeways Committee - September 20, 2006.
The committee had no objections to the project.
Collins Park Neighborhood Association (CPNA) — May 15, 2007.
The CPNA objected to the traffic flow modification of Park Avenue.
Community Informational Meeting — June 5, 2007.
Of the twenty-four (24) members of the community who attended the meeting, there was
mixed support for the project. Several residents expressed concerns regarding the traffic
modifications of Park Avenue, while many did not express any definitive objections to the
proposed alignment.
Commission Meeting — July 11, 2007.
The City Commission referred the project to the Land Use and Development Committee to
allow an opportunity for the residents from the Pine Tree and La Gorce Neighborhoods to
voice their concerns.
Land -Use Committee — September 10, 2007.
The Land -Use and Development Committee does not support the project. They recommend
that the Road Impact Fees (RIF) for the project be released and reassigned to another
Miami Beach project.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on recent input received at various stakeholder meetings and a recommendation
from the Land Use and Development Committee, inadequate support exists for the 23rd
Street Bridge project to proceed. In order to formally cease the project and to shift the
funding for other possible uses, a resolution of the Commission is necessary to present to
the MPO. The project also should be removed from the City MMP. The Administration also
requests the release of the project's assigned RIF in the amount of $4,535,000 into the
Miami Beach RIF Fund to fund future project or projects.
JMG/RCM/FHB/FV/cl
T:\AGENDA\2007\oct1707\Consent\23rd St Bridge Memo.doc
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 99-23349
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 Plarming 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
compensatethe 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 of Interrelated 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
WHERIAS, 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 Oc tober ,1999.
ATTEST:
(Iu.X Pais(
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
/d/I /�
Dai
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:l%ci. m iam i-beach.t us
TO:
Members of the City C mission
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO.
Mayor Nelsen 0. Kasdin and
FROM: Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
DATE: October 6, 1999
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.
$ACKGROUND
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 of the City (MMP Vision for Transportation)
0 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, trans
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 of Interrelated 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 ' 11..1-
DATE
1___
DATE 10 - 99
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 of the 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% of the MMP -recommended projects are directly related to improving
the residential "quality of life" standards.
jvIMP Proiects Rpding 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:
0 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 -Year 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.
MMP Projects with livability and sustainability 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.
Projects funded by private-sector/concurrency mitigation plans could amount to
approximately 20% of the total funds required to implement the 10 -Year 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.
Electrowave 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 sustainability 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.
OA—
S S/JJ/aj
Attachment: Final Report, The MMP Implementation Plan/PIP
()a
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
MUNICIPAL MOBILITY PLAN
1 9
IMPLEMENTATION STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
.11~111144•111111111 OPIMMINIMMINI 111111111111•1•111 IIIMINOMMOIND 1•11M110=11110111
Su mitted to
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Agenda Item IZ
Date
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
"11111QVir
PROJECT OVERVIEW
INTRODUCTION
he Miami Beach Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP) is the City's first
"grassroots" effort to master plan for the community's transportation needs.
.It provides a snapshot of future transportation issues and trends which will
impact Miami Beach. The MMP establishes the City's vision for transportation.
makes recommendations for meeting the identified needs (the Ten -Year Plan).
provides a "Project Bank" of strategies tier addressing the issues, and establishes
the planning tools for guiding on-going decisions related to mobility. It also
reflects a comprehensive approach towards the issue of transportation by
at the needs for all types of mobility including automobiles. transit.
pedestrians, bicycles and other non -motorized vehicles.
The first step towards implementing the MMP is developing the MMP
Implementation Plan. The core of the Implementation Plan is the Project Bank.
initially developed in the MMP illustrated in figure 1. This bank identifies
specific projects or strategies, to improve mobility and enhance the quality of
life on Miami 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.
Ocean Drive Operational improvements
Venetian Causeway
Improvements andEnhancements
1
South Beach Walk
South Beach East/West
One -Way Pairs
Alton Rood Enhancements
r
Proiect Bank - Locator Map
Figure 1
Harding Avenue
4 Enhoncements
Li
oder, Oen. Ceres. 7 :st
Sneer ond ackens Synnue
immtm.-ton irnprosmm,:,;
•
rye/ 7Ist Street
Cotndot Enhancements
indlan Cmfti, Omm Copnok
Immo.,emems
‚44-
t
as 1
• ;
( BISCayne Poinf 1 ii .
a o
Nic• 075,37,3
North &FOCI, C0011115,1111V 3.51.11,40
,E,rorthoori
S'szOvne Eittorentaty Scha:ti
tmarovenwmts
4.onn Couv
74
Nottis Beach Netyttbotho
Coentng/Streetscotse
imptovernents
d Shreet/Indtan Creek Onne
Cspac/y hnoto•onnents
471t, Street T45114c Cann.ng.So#e
troprovemerOs
to Game/Rine r•//.
Trott Cctio,o9
Collyss Avenue Rookgnment
Noon Pooch Wony.f.son
AccttF.s Imptoyttnnetto
Asnosot
0.....m4r4s Regulabor
AoTtant
Walt/
oad Enhancements
.14ddle Beach Wail
Indon Ctee%, ur
Tm•I
44 st Skeet Sweeney*,
Pnorovements
Alton Rood/ 41st Street
Imersecnon Colmeng Program
43rd Street/44
Rood Inters n
Copactly
Imoro nts
14 '
Ito
• .;aff-..:42`2,17-s.
Noodos Calming Program Alton Rood Enhancements
middle 8eoch Community
SOWN: Ey00,,,,on
44
et - en -
44 ---4— ...;:i2.,
*&ans Aron.te-Gt.sod
• -.1111111Iso. Bouletard
Won Ciente Noel 4Ist Street Intetsecnon
Capacity Improvements
tair
Mon Road and &tier Dnve o @j D/
20th Senn! /menu/then
n
Roo/l-m*av 4 CD .r -
29 17 . 1:. . '.
-
W4st Avo- al z •1
Cade Boulevard/ 17th Stnnr/We
Avenue Intersaoson Reconnou
Connytchon
•
74. Street/Mon Rood
Inte"secnon freproeenten.s
32
rs'
Aj4o4, Road/Dad• 800lword 0
, Intersechon Impowements
Venetian Islands
. • e -
I
-
Dodo Boulevard Intersechon
Imtvavernenrs
Dade a044 4( 21-4 Stree•
!monsoon Akonment
Washington Avenue
Enhancements
nal Flommoo Pori NefghOOthOOd
Calrothg P-sg.on,
.,„
"Ra ..71
‘,
, m
0.1
a_ •
Alton Rood Capooty inna,ovetnenns
/enehon Causeway
and E,10,1CeMe454
01L P
South Beacts Wolk
50444. Point Streenca
Access %gm,
OSI/West Twos./
5th Street/Alton Rood Camelot,
Inlet -Acton h'oroyet-ents
South 8eoch Intern:ado,
Foals.
Oceon Otero on
imprortmemS
South &took East/Weso
One..ay Pod
AptbrAltpii? • "
1 I 1
CITY 0r MIAMI BE ACH(i - y
r. or G E
PROJECT BANK
COST ESTIMATES
1
II
fI
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
The MMP identified transportation and mobility issues through a series of
extensive public meetings. Among the nwst important transportation issues
City-wide were:
Roadway System Needs
Neighborhood Impacts
Sense of Place
Safety
Hurricane Evacuation
Subsequently, 44 projects were developed in response to these issues
to comprise the Project Bank. Projects are categorized as:
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).
"[Mese 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
Community Shuttle Expansion
Table 1 Proiect Costs 1
P•olert
1 North Beach Community Shunt.
2. North B.ac i Neg'n'eorhood
3 Mording/Colins Avenue Er roncenen s
4 Biscayne :V.nMlary School
5 Indian Creek >we/71" Street/Dickens
6 Normandy Drive/71"Street Corridor
T Indion Creek Onve Copoc ry
8. North B.cch Waterfront Access
9 Collins Avenue
10. North Beach Wolk/Athan c Trail
11 63' Street/Indian Creek Dn.,
12. Collins Avenue Realignment
13. La Gorce/Pine Tree TraH,c Colming
14. Alton Rood Enhancements
25. Middle Beach. Woik/Aslanhc Trail
16. 47' Street "talk Calming/Safety
17 Nautilus Neghborh000 Calming
18 Middle Beach Community Shuttle
19. 43" Street/Alton Road Inresacttet"
20. Middle Beach Intermodal Foakty
21. Indian Creek Drive/41" Street
22 Alton Rood/41" Street Intersection
23. 41 " Street S"-eeacape
24 Alton Rood Enhancements
25. Indian Creek Multi•Purpose Troll
26 Dade Boulevord/23'" Street
27 Dude Soul.vara Intersection
28 Mton Road at 20' Stree and Sunset
29 Alton Road/Dace Boule•ord
30. Oode Be"d/I r Seeet/Wea Avenue
31.17' Sneer/Alton Rood Intersection
32. Vacation Causeway Venetian Iron
33 16' Street Enhoncemen,s/Operotons
34 Alton Rood Capacity Imorovem.nts
35. Flemmgo ?ark Neighborhood
36 So Beach East/Wed One•Way Pours
37 Washington Avenue Enhancements
38. 5' Street/Alton R000 :nt.rsecton
39 East•Wett Transit Corridor
40. South Beach Irtermodol Facility
41. South ileac, Walk/Atlantic Trail
42 South Point Suet-soaps/Rea Access
43. Ocean Drty, Operoncnol
41 Collins Avenue•Grord Boulevard
Copttol Cosn
'wTorol Operotrs Costs
P'ann,rq
Coua
DcsIn
Cost
construct
on Cost
350,000 31,600.000' 31 2 M..
525,000 530.000 3 2M
315,00C S50,CC0 3 35 M
57.500 515,000 350.000
Nc Motch,ng =once iecuired
5'5.000 5200,000 $'.25M
550.000 575.000 5.75 M
N/A 520.000 S 15 M
325.000 5200,000 515M
510.000 5200.000 32 M
No Motcn,ng Fun= Required
5100.000 5100.300 S5 M
No Match ng Funds Recuired
325,000 5400,000 32.5 M
510,000 3300,000 53 M
310,000
540,000
550.000
520.000
N/A
5'5.000 350,000
S70.000 5 7 M
32.400.000' 31.6 ea -
3100.000
'.3100.000 5.5 M
N/A V/A
330.000 3300.000 56 M
515.000 350.000 5 25 M
No Notching Funds Required
320.000 5150.000 31 M
310,000 530,000 53 M
515.000 3150.300 5.75 M
320.000 350.000 52 5 M
525.000 530.000 3.3 M
No Matching Funds Required
550,000 350,000 S6 M
No Marching Funds Required
N/A 5350.000 52.28 M
325.000 550.000 5 25141
350.000 5150,000 3' M
310,000 375,000 5.5 M
No Marching Funds Required
hi/A 3300.000 S3 M
5100,000 5500.000 53 M
N/A N/A N/A
325.000 5750,000 57.5 M
310,000 5200000 52 M
325.000 540.000 5 3 M
No Marching Fuca: Regwred
125,000 3100.000 S 5 M
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 tnid-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
Capacity Improvement Projects
Project Criteria
7.Indion 19. 43rd 34. Alton 38. 5th
Creek Dr St/Alton Rd St/Alton
Capacity Rd Capacity Rd
C'1PACIIY lV1P<O!EMENl CPfE21A
Satisfies LOS Standard
Improves Safety
Facilitates Hurricane Evacuation
Improves Quality of Driver Exoenence
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2 ! 2 1
2 2 2 2
I:LkA
Promotes o More Cosuol Flow of Traffic
Improves Facility Function/Operations
Promotes Unique Character, Sense of Place
Mirgotes Roadway Impacts
1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Discourages Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion
Promotes Positive Economic Development 1 ! 1 1
Promotes Fovorobe Development Ponern 0 0 0 0
Supports Neighborhood Identify 0 0 0 0
Promotes Use of Allemotive Modes
Improves ADA Mobility
Improves Transf-Dependent Mobility
Promotes Transa.Reloted Development
0 0 0 0
o o. 0 0
o 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
'OLAL SCORE
3
2 13 12
Table 3
Project Prioritization
Community Sustainability Projects
Project Criteria
\WAJ illi IlrIYkJE1fi�Ja� �YuY3�ii
Satisfies LOS Standard 0
Improves Safety 1
Facilitates llumcone Evacuation 0
Improves Quotes' of Driver Experience 2
i1JIIV►ViiJi1IV11�iii►JIJMi�iY J rV911Ii
Promotes a More Casual Flow of Traffic 2
Improves Facility Function/Operations 1
Promotes Unique Character, Sense of Ploce 2
Miti..tes Roadway Impacts 2
Table 2 t
2. 4. 16 17 3.3 35 37 0 44.
North Biscov 4741 Nounl 16th F?ami Wosh, South Colhn
Bsoc ne SI us St no naton Pante sAve
h Eleme Tralfi Negh Enho Pori Ave Streets Gran
Nen mart' c bor. nee. Neig Enhon cape- d
hbor- Schon Calm hood ments hbor• es- Pedest Boule
hood 1 ine. Cohn, hood mane 'ion mrd
Calm C,rcul sotep ng Cahn Knu
int'• wean vg Progro
• T
CC-.t^.trCuffRA
Discourages Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion 2
Promotes Positive Economic Development 1
Promotes Favorable Development Pattern 1
Supports Neighborhood Identity 2
Promotes Use of Alternative Modes
Improves ADA Mobility
Improves Tronst•Dependent Mobility
Promotes Transit -Related Development
IOTA, SCORE
v.,
CITY 0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
j - 1
Pi 1 A. sit t R EA C H
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
0
1
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
2
0
FUNDING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS Fundina Package:
The Miami Beach ,Municipal Mobility Plan (MMP) listed a set of potential funding sources for the Figure 2
Project Bank improvements. This list was intended to provide a full range of potential sources of
funding for further development at a later time. The Implementation Plan presents a retined list of
funding sources which may 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 for in the past.
POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
• State Intermodal Development Fund
• 100 Percent State Funds
• State Transportation Disadvantaged Funds
• Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funds
• Transportation Equity .act for the 21" Century (TEA -21)
• Clean Cities Program
• Miami -Dade Neighborhood Traffic :Management.
Public Works Department
• Mitigation Plans tor Development Approval
• The Florida Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program
• Florida Greenways and Trails Program
• Florida Recreation Development Assistance Program
• National Recreational Trails Funding Program
• Special Waterway Projects Program
• Florida Inland Navigational District (FIN D)
• Special Benefit Districts
• Sustainable Development Challenge Grant Program
PROJECT FUNDING PACKAGES
Ocean Avenue
One strategy for making projects more attractive for'potential funding is grouping similar projects.
The City of West Palm Beach was granted 511.25 million in TEA -21 funding for a reconstruction
effort made up of many smaller projects, including side street traffic calming, landscaping, and
utilities replacement. The City was able to successfiittly "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.
•,
•
•
•
•
Master plan
1111 Packages I
I III Package :.
Package = ;
IIII Package s 4
Not part of.
package
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In Miami Beach, projects could be grouped according to more general improvement categories. This •
includes protects which are linked geographically. p4tysically 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 four 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:
3. Harding Avenue Enhancements
9. Collins Ave. Improvements/Regulation Program
12. Collins Avenue Realignment
14. Alton Road Enhancements
19. 43' Street/Alton Road Intersection Capacity Improvements
22. Alton Road/41' Street Intersection Calming
24. Alton Road Enhancements
28. Alton Road at 20th Street and Sunset Drive at 20'Stteet Intersection
Reconfiguration/Improvements
30. Dade Blvd./17' St./West Ave. Intersection Reconfiguration and Connection
34. Alton Road Capacity Improvements
38. 5'h St./Alton Rd. Intersection Improvements
44. Collins Avenue Grand Boulevard
•
•
-•
lE,
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
13. Middle Beach Community Shuttle Expansion
Potential funding sources include the State Intermodal Development Fund. TEA -21. FTA funds,
Clean Cities, Sustainable Development Challenge Grant, Mitigation Plans for Development Approval.
add 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, beachwalks, 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' 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 ofMiami Beach General Fund, and technical assistance from Miami -Dade Neighborhood
Traffic Management.
Ocean Avenue
•,1 tid 1ih
.--:.wse rinv.lS.:+.h
Indian Creek
C 1 T Y p R MIAMI B E A C HIQ
1
CONCURRENCY AND Potential Transit Villaaes
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Figure 4
Rule 9)-5, Florida Administrative Code, which provides the minimum
criteria for review of local government comprehensive plans, addresses
requirements related to local government' concurrency management
systems. "Concurrency" means that the required public facilities and
services necessary to maintain the adopted level of service standards are
available when the impacts of development occur. A concurrency
management system is required of all locjtl 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
..44 development occur. The concurrency management system must be
supported by a schedule ofcapital improvements 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 can direct development away
from dense cities such as Miami Beach which typically have difficulties
maintaining the adopted level of service standards for transportation
facilities.
The following 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 efficient 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 of transportation for frequent and typical trips.
To qualify as a TCMA and create area -wide level of service standards, the
area:
t. 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 TCMAs in South,
Middle and North Beaches, based on the existing neighborhood boundaries
and the Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs). Figure illustrates the
TCMA. The TCMA boundaries reflect the TCMA legislation requirements
and the goals and objectives of residents as described in the Miami Beach
Municipal Mobility Plan.
6
Community Shuttle Expansion
V.nenanC
b:
•
71St
KennuWCalnewar
LEGEND
Potential Transit Villages
f Mouth Beach
'2 Middle Beach
I Northlwach
i
TiRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY
EXCEPTION AREAS (TCEAS)
Exceptions are granted to reduce the adverse impact transportation
concurrency may have on urban infill development and
redevelopment as well as promoting public transportation. Although
TCEAs are an option available to local governments under Rule 9)-
5. it is not applicable nor advisable for Miami 'Beach. The City is
located in a high hazard coastal area and rbeeting hurricane
evacuation timeframes are of critical concerns. particularly if roadway
level -of -service (LOS) standards are not regulated or enforced.
LONG-TERM TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
The State has developed a "long term transportation concurrency
management 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 standard .s
are required to incrementally reach the required level ofservicegoal.
The long term transportation concurrency management system yields
a higher and. perhaps, a more unrealistic levet 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.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR
PROJECT BANK IMPLEMENTATION
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.
Indian Creek
Structure for Implementation
Figure 5
TRA NSPORTATION &
CONCURRENCY SECTION
Define prone plea Iron prated bank
TRANSPORTATION&
CONCURRENCYSECTION
Make o determination d maims ha whams
effects on owcerrnry
I
CITY
O F
RIDE FIVEPRO/ H fI'LLV
IF ADVERSE EFFECT
TRANSPORTATION&
1 CONCURRENCY SECITON
Develop !asitia mitigation plan
TRANSPORTATION& •
CONCURRENCY SECTION
S%boat awipatiaa plias le City Administration,
venom Owed !.sat Approval lands (Dp.
MI, IBA, Meaning laid( marbly forwarded
ro Cencarsenn Wince' ase. Committee
• TRANSPORTATION &. x
CONCURRENCYSECTION
and PLANNINGDEPARTMENT.
Submit ni9pdien plea le Marseieg Bard*
modifications if s mmmoheesive pla
madmen is spired
-}iFNOADVERSE EFFECTTRANSPORTATION& . �
1 CONCURRENCYSECTION,
I Submit mliOawrapmppanon pbn lo City Cammiaiao for
M operant press
ir
CITY COMMISSION
Adopts ar ropes mitigation plea
TRANSPORTATION &
- CONCURRENCY
Mews forward db egreomeats
Agreements reviewed by Legal Dapertomat IEncased with stream hem Public Warks.
Planing, sad Tmmpamtin awe tanormmy
Mnepmntmaim
11FAPPROtE,*
A M I
PUBucWORKS
New farwerd with implemmdatin
TRAFFIC CALMING Miami Beach Neighborhood Divisions
Figure 6
Traffic calming is a method of slowing autoinobile traffic on residential and
local streets with road obstructions which impede speed. A successful tragic
calming program will redirect non -local traffic onto main arterials and circulator
roads and reserve local streets for local traffic. Figure 6 indicates the
neighborhoods in Miami Beach. There is n ed for traffic calming in various
portions of all neighborhoods.
'There are myriad tratfit calming techniques employed throughout the country
and the world. Some of the hest examplescan be found in the West Coast
region where a strong commitment to good urban growth has been made.
Miami -Dade County recognized the need fir such a commitment when they
developed the Miami -Dade County Street C osure/Traffic Flow Modification
iNlanual.
TRAFFIC CALMING PROCESS
The ,Miami -Dade County Street Closure/Traffic Flow Modification Study
provides guidelines fix implementing traffic calming projects within Miami -
Dade County. The process outlined suggests :.tudving traffic conditions hetixe
calming measures are implemented to determine if traffic calming measures
are needed and what measures may be appropriate on a temporary basis.
Once traffic calming measures are installed on an experimental basis. the
Metro -Dade Street Closure/Traffic Flow Modification Studv recommends
that a traffic study be conducted to determine the impact and effectiveness
of the measures. If proven effective, the traffic calming measures may he
implemented on a permanent basis. However. if the measures are proven
ineffective, other measures may be implemented until better devices are
identified for permanent application.
Comments from MDCPWVU
The Miami Dade County Public Works Department (MDCPWD) was receptive
to the idea of the City conducting the 'preliminary study' to determine if traffic
Clow modification is warranted. This would allow the City to reduce unjustified
traffic Clow modification requests. Therefore, the City would only approach
the MDCPWD with requests substantiated with traffic data.
Comments from FOOT
The Florida Department of Transportation (FLOUT) 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
he less neighborhood opposition and better traffic calming solutions.
CASE STUDIES
Several cities in the United States have successfully used
traffic calming devices to decrease speeding and traffic
volumes in residential areas, while creating a safer
pedestrian environment. Seattle, Portland. West
Palm Beach. and Berkeley are all tourist destinations.
like Miami 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.
SS St•jj
715E -
r;
,,sols Dove
;1 St.
•
ILEGEND
)11 1. !Lawrie Point
2 X.mh Shore
.1 \arrttAndy
4 1.41t :orce
5. tic.tnlronl
ti. XrnuW;
7 lb, shore
S. Flamingo
V. 1% eft .1vt.
111 l cnctian lthad!
11 South Point
e.
Case Studies
SE.1 TTLE. w.I
:ujfir (Srrlex
reduce speed
Beo tify
94% reduction ,n coibstbns over post three years
PORTLAND. OR
Ourams
• Curb bulbs on afternohng side:, of the street
Beautify when pieced mid -block
• Changes the driver's perception of the street
Decreases vehicle speed by 5.13 m p.h.
Raised Crosswalks
Reduces speeds at pedestrian crossings
• Interferes with emergency vehicles
Can increase noise
Neither device is used on o primary
emergency response route
Speed Humps
-14 ft. hump achieves 25 in p.h
-22 ft. hump achieves 33 m.p.h
• Con increase noise
Interfere, with emergency vehicles
BERKELEY. CA
•
Speed Humps
• Most common :n Berkeley
• Con divert non.iocol trcific to other residential
neighborhoods
WEST PALM BEACH. FL; l
• Similar layout to Miami Beoch
• Local Example
• Received S 1 1.25 Million from TEA -21
Funding hos been used to supplement FDOT"s
construction budget
• One of the first cities to apply for TEA -21 funding
moking it easier to lobby support
Use traffic circles, raised medians, traffic humps
londscope medians, street closures
CITY
Diverters
Full diverters create Cul-de•Secs
• Diagonal Diverters force vehicles to turn
Semi.diverters close half the street
rt!,I.M! BEACH. FLA
.Meeting with .MDCPWD - MOT
• Preliminary traffic calming studies to be done
by the city, per request
Use Devices on on experimental bosis
Prefer mid Block Speed humps to rumble strps
and raised intersechcns
Chicanes may not be cooroprate as drivers
ore too aggressive
Lone narrowing should be considered
• Include the public
{ i 1
OF MIAMI BEACH
•
CORRApINO 1999
• '
ATTACHMENT 2
MMP #26. Dade Boulevard/23rd Street Intersection Alignment
26. Dade Boulevard/23rd Street Intersection Alignment
Mobility Plan Project ID No.:
Project Category:
Jurisdiction:
Traffic Analysis Zone(s):
Neighborhood(s) Division(s):
Transportation Concurrency Management Area:
26
Corridor Enhancement
City of Miami Beach
20, 23, 24
Oceanfront, Bayshore, Flamingo
Middle Beach
Proiect Description: The intersection of Dade Boulevard and 23'd Street provides connection between major east -
west (Dade Boulevard) and north -south (Collins Avenue) corridors in Miami Beach. A bridge over the Collins Canal
comprises the westbound approach to the intersection. This project involves the replacement of the existing bridge
over the Collins Canal with a new structure that provides improved alignment with Dade Boulevard and increased
capacity.
Proiect Need and Benefits: The Dade Boulevard/23'd Street Intersection Realignment would improve the safety and
increase the capacity at this intersection of Iwo major corridors. The improved operation of this intersection could
result in trips diverting from the saturated Alton Road corridor to utilize the under -capacity Collins Avenue corridor
for north -south travel.
Proiect Reauirements: An operational study of the intersection of Dade Boulevard and 23'd Street would be required
to determine the appropriate improvements to increase capacity. The study should also consider bicycling on Dade
Boulevard to/from Venetian Causeway. Once these improvements are identified the project would move forward to
design and construction phases, including bridge replacement. This project requires the approval of the MDPWD.
Project Cost:
Planning:
Design:
Construction:
$15,000
$150,00
$ 750,000
CARR SMITH CORRADINO Page 29
Miami Beoch Municipal Mobility Plon Implementation Plan
ATTACHMENT 3
23rd Street Bridge Design Plans
. _
'.4.,
!:.
1.•;:,—i'. ::. "".' i ' S re :Il' —.1r1‘7;..
''..:
, 1 .7' - , • r r *: - _,
1‘7
.tn
tr
,
7
io
t
I 1
i 1
%
A
4
'
;
•
.11
ly
g
3 g
r
•
j,-.... ,
....),,, = ''' • • ---
;
_, • z, -1:1\
:-',12..• '% ,)
,-.,' • 1 ' ,s,
------
— NO
\ • APAPIQ
\PkRok •
nA'sm‘f,
,r1 • tukik, •rk d in 7. 3
• i7-•••••.,
'• 7
•
248
- . •
AitZ0'22
— ',,
, „Os—".'• ,-''' "t• '.)..— '` I. 4 -:
:NA:ill, •:,... ,, . 1,.._ ..11,,,.....
••=,--
\
• -....., , „A, .„..,
.
,, ' ,,,7. •,i,k '''..-" ',-."` ''''''' • e ' .
11 ;R"-• ,," '''
;'
-4 •\\ i • .,
1 •
' t,•••.,„ ,,,,,, I .,_.„;.,, ,,,, ,
. ,
' .,..,...
'‘,....i.,,,,. .„.1: 14,
/------___L..,--,
6, •,
..'..c ..* ,,,-• ....
1.d.'.''
\
kZ:f
c
iPMI'JNGj
I TIME
25' . 1 - ... .
P> 4O4 —5 /WNI�_
J 18E.4T AeE. ?C'�
5 C. S3",
I - W, 'r 5'.a. 40344 64
y t',l , t: I — ' 2-23.23- hr
.1.1
MUCH LIME SrA.
SEE SHEET S-4
,00.11 v ��
aEa 8. I 1H h�_i`;I
i
"t IPARKINC��� Pi
‘7'i* ,1 ME it /J
=1.Hf-
.06.1! i
-1 L �.+Iz.
\ 0 1
$ 0105 El 4(2 $ o"
4'".31111.1
ANY
�I9NI W; r ;
11 ON
3-. I
1 :•
I 3NI8.5
--i
'ONiiatld' Ll
\\�
b5' 48' .
i4! I$Ie11i
6!.2
— *$2.6 "'
4 ra 117
'NE 1.,65 •—
-
1 i1 j — ,
6.0 c
Pt $T4.1-1649. 71
Np
.r,, I
---ir
y 1,7:1!„----,_4-1-111--1-1,
II ii
►z
i a .
U"
o '
`rit._
=
COLLINS AVENUE t
h
ol
T 0
g
O
2
1
I 1
11111111 1111111•
-1J. 1_11, J 1.1_, L
f\
a N,,:t *
1-' -os ' 'a t
•15 eep..-
,
;,..
i: ------ -... — • - , _.,
• ._
',,,
I
---b' '€:•"1
4E
. ,
ol,'-ii
; —
)X
$ r, ...............L.,4,40.4,r k.
3 ___ PINE TREE DR.
1 i —
la
_.---
___:,...t:
r wtio-E w,- c•pu'c JA
NNE TR, ip
yv't
\
LiTa,
trI,A\•.\ ,
S'':3t -41\AV I"t•
ia I
!
a a
1=5
,==
•AAA
IA :A=
z VA'
Ili
A
i 11 i ' i r•-• ,4 1 i , iT ,
, c:: =',..-'• ... _ ;„, 1.•.; '..
. .
, ; •
. • . '''-,-- -i ,,- 7, Al .',..''-'..,
i",
(Lai 4i H1S (114;-Z
ai
Tr—
i t
-
11
A A 1
c
•
- —_=
.,=
%
Et -7 pr. ITt
r:
_
1,0 4R/" AVg/iLifil<=J
_31 Jr 6- •
5 p
1 P- . ..
grk
G)
.C3
NN.
*9(
0
A _ 2 •• n CD - O n m m
- < � x P. m D
“O'YiFfif.Y2i0Rm g' R, V
' R"Ii11 PO w!!IfliH':
�7� R c a Q 7 j
2
...d '`,J IH ,Ut,
dS MO.4'VO 04.•:
Q
WANING aemc_
PLANTING- _AN = %3+d STREET BRIDGE
31/103H3S 1NVld
sayi(iii' Miter
'ft i,
k.
I
DETAILS - 90%
5 lit !
•
cn
0
OPICUM
23rd STREET BRIDGE
epos ollou
i • —Txr
I
F.
-
ll
ot
AN;
11
PROJECT
23,d STREET BRIDGE
;say n arn e