LTC 284-2008 63rd Street at Collins Avenue Intersection Update
~_ ; `:.1•'.~ nt~,.~1I C?L_~~t 2008ti0'!-3 Ali 942
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # zsa-zoos LETTER TO COMMISSION
rO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the C Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: October 31.2008 ~ '
SUBJECT: 63 ° Street at Collins Avenue Intersection Update
The purpose of this Letter to Commission (LTC) is to inform you that the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), in an attached letter dated October 6, 2008, has disapproved the City's
request to keep the eastbound traffic "free flowing" across the 63"' Street and Collins Avenue
intersection.
FDOT made a determination to have the "free flow' condition removed and to revert the intersection
to its "as built" condition, restoring all traffic signals to standard operating conditions (See
Attachment 2, "As Built" Condition"). FDOT based this determination following its evaluation of a City
of Miami Beach commissioned study, which evaluated various alternatives to determine which would
be the most preferred condition for this intersection. It merits underlining chat the City of Miami
Beach study concluded and recommended that the preferred alternative was that of the "free Clow"
condition (See Attachment 3. "Free Flow' Condition"). However, FDOT's findings did not support
this recommendation, subsequently requesting the intersection be reverted to its "as built" condition.
Pursuant to FDOT's ruling, the City has coordinated with Miami-Dade County to open the
intersection to its "as built" condition on Friday, November 7, 2008.
BACKGROUND
The City retained the services of Marlin Engineering on November 2$ 2007 to evaluate intersection
improvements at 63'd Street and Collins Avenue (Phase 1 Study). Once the evaluation was
completed, the City met with FDOT, Miami-Dade County, and Marlin Engineering to determine the
next steps for defining the final configuration of the subject intersection. At the conclusion of this
meeting, the traffic engineerin~q authorities of both County and State, determined that a revised
study for the intersection of 63' and Collins Avenue was subsequently required in order to address
additional traffic engineering parameters. These parameters included making improvements on the
timing of signals; a detailed review of the traffic accident data for the intersections of 63"' at Indian
Creek and Collins Avenue, and for the intersections of 65'" Street at Indian Creek and Collins
Avenue: as well as any associated impacts to immediately surrounding intersections.
Also, at the request of Commissioner Steinberg, a "Texas U-turn" (continuous left turn from Collins
to southbound Indian Creek at 63rd) was also analyzed on the south side of 63'd Street from Collins
Avenue to Indian Creek Drive to provide for north bound Collins Avenue to west bound 63`" Street
turning movement, which is not allowed under the "as built'' configuration.
The study also evaluated the potential operational impacts at other three intersections in the
immediate area including Collins Avenue at 65"' Street, Indian Creek Drive at 63"' Street and Indian
Creek at 65`" Street. At these intersections, simulation analyses with existing and future traffic were
performed during the morning and afternoon peak hours for the following four (4) alternatives:
LTC
October 31, 2008
63r° Street at Collins Avenue Intersection Update
Page 2 of 2
1. Alternative 1: Existing and year 2030 traffic with existing signal timing, optimized signal
timing and existing geometry.
2. Alternative 2: Year 2030 traffic with 65th Street One-Way westbound street improvement.
3. Alternative 3: Year 2030 traffic with Texas U-Turn intersection improvement for northbound
Collins at 63"' Street.
4. Alternative 4: Existing and year 2030 traffic for 6511 Street with two left-tum lanes westbound
approach improvement.
For each alternative the analysis considered operational elements at 63'~ Street and permanent
signal operation.
The Phase 2 Study completed by Marlin Engineering concluded that the re-configuration of fhe
intersection was warranted and recommended the "free flow" option as the preferred alternative.
The City met with FDOT and Miami-Dade County on August 25, 2008 to discuss the results of this
additional study. At this meeting, FDOT stated that they did not recommend proceeding with the
modifications of this intersection due to the following safety concerns identified during field
observations:
1. Gap availability and weave conflicts.
2. Excessive speeds and speed differentials.
3. Sight distance restrictions.
Mr. Bob Williams, Interim Signals and Sign Division Chief with Miami-Dade County Public Works,
indicated to FDOT that the benefits of the current "free flow" operation were significant and much
appreciated by the majority of the users. Furthermore, after receiving an explanation of FDOT's
concerns, Mr. Williams further indicated that given the fact that the "free flow" operation had worked
very successfully for the past couple years, and there currenflyexisted swell-reasoned countywide
push to increase the use of "free flow' operations, he was concerned that the disadvantages of re-
signalizing this intersection may outweigh the advantages.
CONCLUSION
Since the 63`d Street link connects to State roads, FDOT has the ultimate authority to approve or
disapprove the proposed re-configuration. Therefore, in spite of the recommendation of the traffic
engineering studies and Miami-Dade County's opinion, the 63`d SVeet intersection at Collins Avenue
must be restored to its "as-built" condition.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
Attachment:
1. October 6, 2008 FDOT Letter
2. "As Built" Condition
3. "Free Flow" Condition
C
B1FV1XFiCL
F:Lwnrkt$ALLt(1) EPaPLOYEE FOLDERSICNRISTINE LEDUCtUivlsionlLTC.63rd Slreel Inlursec0on LTC Octo!wr 2008.doc
:,~;,
u.;t
:~
1~'tnritltr .Dc~,tur~•trrrerrt of Trirrrsporttltrcirr
1 L\HI I I~. l Rl~~r
G O\liR \OR
Gib-ri.:..• ;i~, fin'1 c (.....-~-,a. -~ • ncl•In.vu ~_. ~prrl UI kls
.~ ~. 3nl .. C..
- tl.l .;i ~..:...
October 6, 2008
Fernando Vazquez Y.E.
City Engineer
City of Miami Beach Public Wurks Ih:partrnent
l 700 Convention Center (hive
M11iami l3cach, FL 33139
Re: 1i3n1 Street at Collins Avenue
Uear Mr. Varyuer.,
Collins Avenue
the maintenance
~-' ~ __
r
(J ,,~
:u I
a: to
ul
:I . ~
': _
.~. =-.
n
'" ~ .;•
r
i
~;
u .C rr
~
.~:'~
n+
,
:;. r~ x.
~.,
rrniew and study of the locaiit>n, a'~»d
s
ation. The department has detemtined that
operation will be n•moved, and the traffic
Ibis decision wax arrivod at after careful
history, pedestrian aMivity and access.
During field observations several safety concems were idenliliexl:
gap availability and weave \:onflicts
excessive speeds and speed differentials
sight distance restrictions
We understand that the city committed rosources to the a'tudy ofihe continued tree-flow
operation; however, the studies presented did not address tbe safety concerns identified at the beginning
of the study effort as needing to be resolved. Additionally, the study conclusions relative to intersection
level of sen-ice (LOS) seem to have been based on simulation analyses fowtd to contain er. ors. It should
be noted that the propnsal also results in a more circuitous route for many residents.
While the department is unable to support the proposal at this time, we will continue to assess the
location for possible improvements. Please let us know if you have other ideas on how to address the
safety concems discussed shove.
~S~ncp+ely,
Debora M. Rivera, P.E.
District Traffic Operations Engineer
DMR/
cc: Gus Pego, P.G., District Socretary
Robert Williams. P.E., Miami-Dade County Signals and Signs Division
Omar Meitin, P.E., Assis~it District Traffic Operations L•ngineer
Attachment 1
i - - T-
,;
~,_,,
=~
y i. LLi ~'- 1 I :I
~mr me. n
~.-~~ i~
,w_
l
r ` ~ ~ ~''i'',tiata _~f ~' -
m ~ ~ ~~
~' I -
,- ~.~a ~ ~'~'~.y~`'t`';t1 @ (zoo I T
I'
y ~ _ ~ ,`
i~~
<-
~.~ ~/ ~~V Ate ~1
' 1 I ~~~ - t`"- '-
nr¢ i_ _ -_ 1 I Ct t t_. X ~~~ ~ _ 1 1..
I I ' 1~ J
r-m ~ f~ ~„= O I
~ _
I i -~, _~__ • ~
..~ .~~~~ '- ~ i ~ 1
~ 'h,. ti __
',
i.
~ +, - _ l ~ = i , _
~ j 1~~~'rSi v. a 1 I :-
~'. ]y H
..~~ ~ I -
~ \ e ~~
li_ _ ~~r
-_ _ -'i~ 1
v 1
e 5 °' ~~ ,.
Ir : ~
c.
,,~
.. n
y rr
~ ~
_ ~~ i _~
,. ~
Attachment 2
~_:.~- _
~` ~;:,'m~-; ~~
~r
..
~ -_ ~ 't4VV' _ ~..
~_. ,..i
..i-~--
~ _
on ~ ~
.. vm ~u
r
y
~~1
A .~ N~ I '
-• `^ IN Iii ~r ~ ~
I_ o ~ 1~
_ _ i _
rY _
f" ~ ~
n :.
V - - \`` ,~
2 ~~ \ X i
- - _ I,i
~~ ~ -
y I Y. ~
r
i ~ S.
In 7
i, _.. _ II
L7
II 1~~ i_i_
I t~j~/
i r `'' ~: ~ ~ - --
i ~y ; ~
~ ~~
`y\ ~' _ -^
. - - -. _.- ~ V ~ _ ~'. k~ ~ ~~1 I
r
~ al
~;
-~
ti
1 _
.~
-~
{
o ~ .~
._ ~, yr_ ~-~
~~~ ~-
__
Attachment 3