Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SEOPW-CRA-2003-12-08-Discussion Item 2
f OFFICIAL REPORT I TEM 2 Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq., On Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality opportunities in conjunction with Liner Buildings/Parking Structures, a component within the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update. DISCUSSED LAW OFFICES OF ,0 THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 440 4901 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308 TELEPHONE (954) 492-0071 FACSIMILE (954) 492-0074 tomftransitgreenwaylaw.com ft://www.transitg��gnwUlaw.com/ November 12, 2003 Frank K. Rollason The SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency The Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency 49 N.W. 5'h Street, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area Deliverables for Professional Services Agreement dated September 16, 2003 Dear Mr. Rollason: This will confirm the hand delivery to your offices of the above referenced report with attachments and a compact disc copy of the report and related materials including a Critical Path Method (cpm) chart. Last week, the copy of the draft report was transmitted to you and Chelsa Arscott-Douglas by email and by hand -delivery for your review. During the last week I have continued to revise the draft document, including a new section proposing a freight intermodal improvements area. I hope this draft document meets with your approval. If you think that further revisions are necessary, please let me know. Based upon our prior discussions, please confirm that this matter will be placed on the agenda for the next CRA Board meeting. As the report indicates, some of the recommendations involve time sensitive activities and an indication from the CRA Board as to whether they wish to pursue specific intermodal strategies needs to be recieved as soon as possible. I have been working with Joe Kohl to help complete the draft SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update consistent with this report inclusive of the PowerPoint presentation that will include a discription of these matters. Pursuant to my discussions with Ms. Arscott-Douglas, these submittals will constitute the deliverables required for completion of the services contemplated by the above referenced Professional Services Agreement. DISCUSSED 1 rk Please let me know when Joe Kohl and I can meet with you to discuss the CRA Board presentation and additional efforts that will need to be undertaken if the CRA wishes to pursue the recommendations contained in this report and the redevelopment plan update. Sincerely, C�/1'1 d� omas F. Gu afson For the Firm Enclosures M. �U.W Critical Path Method (cpm) Chart 1. Contract Date: September 16, 2003 2. Initial Work Correspondence: September 16,2003 3. Microsoft Projects scheduling for an October 30, 2003 report submittal: September 29, 2003 4. Miami -Dade MPO Transit Corridor Workshop: September 30, 2003 5. Kick-off meeting: October 1, 2003 6. SOEPW CRA Community Workshop: October 212003 7. Review of available materials: October 3, 2003 through October 30, 2003 8. Drafting field survey and mapping efforts: October 16, 2003 through October 30, 2003 9. Initial draft: September 24, 2003 10. Submittal of Draft Report: September 30, 2003 11. Transmittal of Contract Deliverables with request for matter to be placed of the next CRA agenda: November 12, 2003 DISCUSSED Promenade Area Map #1 Narrow Gauge Rail A. Promenade to 1-395 Parking Loop B. Promenade to 14th Street Loop C. 10th and 11th Street Loop D. NW 3rd Avenue Loop E. Sth and 10th Street Loop F. Miami Avenue Area Loop G. Central Loop H. Port of Miami Loop I(a). Jackson Memorial Hospital Loop (via NW 3rd Avenue) I(b). Jackson Memorial Hospital Loop (via N. Miami Avenue) J. Omni East Loop K. Omni West Loop - P Metromover / Station _O Metrorail / Station Intermodal Areas (Passenger, Freight, and Connectors) Interregional Destinations & Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs Port of Miami (POM) Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) Miami international Airport (MIA) Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT) Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach) Orange Bowl Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB) Miami River (and to MIA / MIC / POM and other waterfront destinations via waterborne transit service To MIA /MIC J L--.. i- To MIA / MIC / JMH To MIA / MIC / TriRail via Metrorall l IT --I T: -r— --'�, i Orange__ To - MIC via East-,r]y�� West Corridor p i LTI _ _ . r "-T-- i To DBT / Miami River 0 0 0 • Promenade Area Map #2 Regional Rail Connectors 1. Baylink Connector to Port of Miami 2. Port of Miami Connector via Metrorail Extension 3. East - West Corridor via 5th and 6th Streets to Port of Miami 4. Baylink Metromover / Station Metrorell / Station Interrnodel Areas (Passenger, Freight, and Connectors) Interregional Destinations & Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs Port of Miami (POM) Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) Miami International Airport (MIA) Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT) Q Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach) Orange Bowl Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB) Miami River (and to MIA I MIC / POM and other waterfront destinations via waterborne transit service To MIA /MIC I ICI . I ..— _ LF 11 ' I t--�I To MIA / MIC / JMH I' I To MIA / MIC / TriRall via Metrorail r� r I y 1' Cy r-IL , I `l' -r--t , — —, IL, r I j r 7r CRA ,J—i Ak L � I 411 CRA B I- J r i{Y ryl�ry '_Yi ToMiami ' _1, _.... I r� _ _ f T _ I Jr _, I r ! _� . ,e•-r�Tl (r-i '41-1 I �j !f ry� � ..., Tr'1' ��^�!''�� 3 111�i1.!, ltr�t L I.' '-'T' ,III ! ' _I' � •-1 ! -�---1 4.2, , I ��N21 ! li' !li `L' �I I ...L I J I r 47 i L To Orange So /MIAI- MIC via East West Corridor J L�-� X _G�1�L �—.. -- r. , rT- "';'•ilk �� ?<r - Beach via Baylink B!ce�.tenn'at Pa* 8Azey- 8ry American Alrlires Arena T �r��Ir� , POM 0 0 0 Promenade Area Map #3 Proposed Community Intermodal System Improvements Passenger Intermodal Facility Improvements Area Freight Intermodal Facility Improvements Area and Freight Intermodal Connectors Pedestrian -Oriented Intermodal Connectors # . Recommended Liner Building /Parking Structure Area 07, Metromover I Station -0 Metrorail / Station Interregional Destinations & Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs Port of Miami (POM) Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) Miami International Airport (MIA) Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT) Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach) Orange Bowl Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB) Miami River (and to MIA / MIC / POM and other waterfront destinations via waterborne transit service N lill, Tt 4 r To MIA/ MIC II II '7 To MIA/ MIC JMH To MIA MIC TriRall via Metroral I :T F� ]L 'Ali r L -4 J_ J`7 OMNI 17: FQ Z-V CRA uIL, CL19LP_ C),473 __T P'T 7 21 LJ 7 U 110 L 7. 1 _3� SE&M CRA To Miami r L rl 71�" F_ I I L-LUP-7 To Orange Bowl / MIA/ --- MIC via East - T r West C 7: -LI i (77rl To DBT I Miami River • d L, 1-396 Beach via L Baylink oil I P.A ml 7 i IT,: American NfiineS A—. tt POM r.T�r_7 7 7-1 17- _j _t 0 Transportation - Florida Strategic Intermodal System - SITAC Members Page 1 of 1 Search MyFlorida.com r Florida Department of Transportation .bol contact us ( what's new I FAQ's I links • f;`� Shaping Florida's Future Florida's Strategic Intermodal System Developing a transportation system to giri+de strategic investments linked to Florida's future economy SIS Home I What's New I Background I System Development I Products I Get Involved! Statewide Intermodal Transportation Advisory Council SITAC Members for Term beginning Oct. 2003 Governor Jeb Bush's appointments: ■ Mayra Bustamante, Assistant Director of Administration, Miami -Dade Transit Agency ■ Winston E. Scott, Executive Director, Florida Space Authority ■ Robert M. Ball, Executive Director, Lee County Port Authority ■ Robert M_ "Randy" Isaacs, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc. ■ James R. Barr, Group Director, Ryder Systems, Inc. Senate President Jim King's appointments: ■ Elisa Rohr, Director of Governmental Relations, Greater Orlando Aviation Authority ■ Charles Towsley, Port Director, Port of Miami -Dade ■ John Randall Evans, Vice President of Real Estate and Industrial Development, CSX Transportation Speaker Johnnie Byrd's appointments: ■ Bennett J. Biscan, Vice President and General Manager, Florida Central, Midland and Northern Railroads ■ Donald P. Connor, Vice Chairman, Rail Management Corporation ■ T. Martin Fiorentino, Board of Directors, Jacksonville Port Authority - - More on SITAC legislation All documents provided in PDF file format and must be viewed with Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher_, which is available free from the Adobe Web site. Back to top SIS Toll -free Information Number: 1-866-SIS-FDOT (1-866-747-3368) DISCUSSED Web Contact I SIS Contact l SIS Home �r— http://wwwl I.myflorida.com/planning/sis/legislation/sitac.htm 11/12/03 Florida Transportation Commission O E Page 1 of 3 r� U 71 jeting is scheduled for December 9, 2003 in Miami. MISSION STATEMENT: The mission of the Florida Transportation Commission is to provide leadership in meeting Florida s transportation needs through policy guidance on issues of statewide importance and maintaining public accountability for the Department of Transportation. %About the Commission ` Meeting A_ endas UPDATED ', 2003 Meeting Schedule % Meet the Commissioners % Meet the Staff % Commission Meeting Minutes ® UPDATED % Public Notices ® % Press Releases and Statements MR %Florida Transportation Commission's Year In Review- FY 2002/03 % Florida TransDortation Commission's First Ouarter in Review - July-Seotembe 2003L'-J NEW ti Performance & Production Review of the Department of T UPDATED http://www.ftc.state.fl.us/ JSS€D _� 1/12/03 Florida Transportation Commission Q ti Review of the Department of Transportation T 2003/04 through 2007/08 0' Status Report of Strategic Priority Issues O Page 2 of 3 O Work Program FY 0% Organizational and Operational Review of the Florida Department of Transportation Macroeconomic Impacts of the Florida Department of Transportation Work Program Report www.tea21fl.org ,,The (National) 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report - Texas Transportation Institute - http://mobility.tamu.edU NEW Review of Regional Transportation Planning in Florida NEW fffin Documents with this icon 0 are stored as Adobe Acrobat PDF (Portable Document Format). To download Adobe Acrobat Reader, click on the icon below. Get Acrobat, Use of Adobe Acrobat format files in no way represents an endorsement of Adobe products by the Florida Transportation Commission. Acrobat and the Acrobat logo are trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated which may be registered in certain jurisdictions. Laura Kelley, Executive Director You may contact the Commission at: Florida Transportation Commission 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 9 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (850) 414-4105 Contact Web Author: Cathy Goodman 850/414-4316 — SC 994-4316 — TC915CG cathy.goodman(cDdot.state.fl.us DISCUSSED e13— 62 http://www.ftc.state.fl.us/ 11/12/03 Meet the Commissioners rage i or L CW U Meet the Commissioners Chairman Earl Durden Panama City Beach Chairman and CEO of Rail Management Corporation. Chairman, Executive Committee, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. Appointed to Commission in February 1999. David Brown Orlando Chairman in the statewide law firm of Broad and Cassel. Specializing in Transactional Real Estate. Former Vice -Chairman James W. Holton Madeira Beach Self-employed attorney, commercial real estate developer and investor. Owner and president of MHH Enterprises, Inc. Member of the National Marine Merchant Association. Appointed to Commission in March 2000. Secretary Janet Watermeier Fort Myers President of The Florida Coast Group. Serves on e Southwest Florida Regioi Planning Council and Flo Long Range Economic Strategic Plan Task Forc( Additionally, she conduce seminars for the State Department of Communi Affairs and the Florida Economic Development Council. Appointed to Commission in Decembe 2001. Sidney C. Calloway Gasper Lazzara Plantation Ponte Vedra Partner in the law firm of Shutts and Orthodontist, Founder, p Bowen, LLP. Member of the Urban President, CEO and Chai League of Broward County, BronrA— Is c tgra Chairman http://www.fte.state.fl.us/meet—the—commissioners.htm `„W12/03 r Meet the Commissioners Page 2 of 2 A Aviation Committee Chairman for the Naval Training Center Reuse Commission. Appointed to Commission in February 1999. Norman Mansour Tampa Member of the High Speed Rail Authority. Former Vice President of Advantis, a St. Joe Company. A Certified Property Manager. Past chairman of the Tampa Sports Authority. Appointed to Commission in December 1999. League of Cities and the Port Everglades Trade Association. Appointed to Commission in December 2001. R. M. "Bob" Namoff Miami Chief Executive Officer of Allied Universal Corporation, a chemical manufacturer. Serves on Board of Directors of the Chlorine Institute in Washington, D.C., and the Commercial Bank of Florida in Miami. Appointed to Commission in December 2001. Emeritus of Orthodontic Centers of America. Mei of numerous professiona boards and associations. Appointed to the Commi: in 2002. DISCUSSED -. - _ f http://www.ftc.state.fl.us/meet the_commissioners.htm 11/12/0") L7 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality and Shared Parking Strategies for the Promenade Area Prepared for The Southeast OvertowniPark West Community Redevelopment Agency and The Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency by Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. DISCUSSED November 2003 " r , TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Section 1 - Miami at Midnight: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality and Shared Parking Strategies for the Promenade Area (November 2003) Section 2 — Transit Greenway Applications to the Marlins Ball Park and CRA Related Linkages to the Adjacent Communities (March 2001) Section 3 — The Amsterdam Experiment in Mixing Pedestrians, Trams and Bicycles (August 1999) Section 4 — Recommendations relating to the Proposed Grande Promenade improvements (May 2002) Section 5 — Grande Promenade transit depictions (May 2002) Section 6 — Miami Surface Shuttle Services: Feasibility Study for Transit Circulator Services in Downtowrb�S�D Miami, Overtown and Airport West (June 2000) Section 7 — Palm Beach County Community Transit Study Technical Memorandum, "Transportation Policy, Regulation and Funding Data (June 2003) Section 8 — Correspondence related to work performed Should there be questions or suggestions as to how to improve this report, please contact Tom Gustafson by phone at 954/661-7848 or by email at tom _transggreenwaylaw.com DISCUSSED 2 --- SECTION 1 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. ■ Xmas F. Gustafson, Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality and Shared Parking Strategies for the Promenade Area This report will explore the opportunities and options for narrow gauge rail transportation modality and shared parking strategies to link the proposed Promenade improvements to the Bicentennial Park, the Miami Beach Baylink project and other destinations within the redevelopment areas as delineated in the attached maps (Promenade Area). It includes a description of the strategies to create a pedestrian -oriented intermodal access plan and a case for using cost efficient narrow gauge rail and small community transit vehicles for short distance intermodal movements of passenger and goods. The report includes a description and recommended locations for shared parking structures and mixed -use buildings that are placed on their perimeter (liner buildings) and concludes with a description of the opportunities to secure federal and state funding, a scale of magnitude cost estimate and recommended actions to be undertaken. Through the use of available transportation funds and designations, The Southeast Overtown/Park /West Community Redevelopment Agency ®I SC U E (SEOPW CRA) and The OMNI Redevelopment District Community, 1-�- • Redevelopment Agency (OMNI CRA) can undertake a $140 million ,- 1 of 31 - 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. .omas F. Gustafson, intermodal development effort that will spawn $700 million in community redevelopment and a significant recurring source of community redevelopment and transit funding. As presented in the Promenade Special Area Plan/06.13.03 Draft (Promenade SAP) and the Biscayne Blvd. Special Area Plan/06.13.03 Draft (Biscayne Blvd SAP), the Promenade is being planned to add a new distinctive, informal urban character to downtown Miami as part of the Park West Entertainment District. As a pedestrian -oriented corridor, there will be an opportunity to operate within and adjacent the Promenade corridor (generally 50 feet wide), a small, narrow gauge rail vehicle as an element of a larger community transit service and parking shuttle system operated in conjunction with the Miami Parking Authority facilities. This report will describe and map transit routing opportunities and options in the context of current and future parking, residential, employment, civic, entertainment, educational, shopping, park, recreational, cultural, sports and healthcare related destinations within or adjacent the SEOPW CRA area and the OMNI CRA area (redevelopment area or redevelopment areas as depicted on the Promenade Area maps). Included in this report is a map to show the specific liner building and parking structure locations and their relationship to the pedestrian and freight intermodal areas and intermodal connectors identified throughout the redevelopment areas and a description as to how they might operate to resolve the immediate and long-term infrastructure needs within the redevelopment area. While the Section H. Order of Magnitude Costs identifies costs for five such locations (2,000 spaces) plus additional structured parking within the freight intermodal area (600 spaces), it is assumed, once the pedestrian -oriented parking structures described herein are established as a viable alternative to more typical parking garage designs, that similar parking strategies will be built into all intermodal facilities or redevelopment projects undertaken in or adjacent the redevelopment areas. As part of these undertakings, suggestions have been made, as summarized by the attached correspondence, to the 06.13.03 drafts of the Promenade SAP and Biscayne Blvd SAP and the September 2003 draft of the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Plan (SEOPW Redevelopmeb & U S S E D Update). 2of31 " " _' 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. Further, core ideas and components of this report will be included in the PowerPoint presentation being developed with Dover, Kohl & Partners to present the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update to SEOPW CRA Board. Such presentation and this report, along with the attached Critical Path chart, shall constitute the deliverables as referenced in the September 16, 2003 Professional Services Agreement between the SEOPW CRA, the Omni CRA and Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. 11. Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality A. The Vehicle Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality is defined for purposes of this report as a system of community transport most useful when establishing a shared parking system in the context of large-scale pedestrian movements important for significant intermodal faculties and linkages to downtown destinations. The vehicles are currently available through several vendors (Severn -Lamb Ltd., Custom Locomotive Corporation, Chance Rides, DLM AG, etc.). It would be expected that with an initial installation (e.g. a new or rehabilitated parking structure or two and liner building complex linked to the Promenade Area by a mixed -mode corridor, pedestrian -oriented street designs for adjacent vehicular streets and a one to two mile parking shuttle installation with one or more "on demand" community transit service vehicles or trams) and a larger, federally financed second phase contract for the remainder of the project costs summarized in Section H. Order of Magnitude Costs, that several standard gauge rail and transit providers would redirect their efforts to these smaller, but functionally equivalent, rail vehicles. 1 1 In America, San Diego chose in 1978 to depart from the traditional heavy rail development process in favor of a lighter rail vehicle using local and state funding. Their successful effort was the catalyst that brought light rail systems to cities across America. See Transit in San Diego: ASCE Anniversary Project and The History of Tramways and Evolution of Light Rail. A similar phenomena for even smaller vehicles occurred in several European cities after the smaller than typical light rail/modern streetcars tif9CUSSED where initiated in Strasbourg, France in an effort to create a pedestrian-oriented, sustainable transportation systems. 3 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. The rail vehicles can be comfortably sized at seven feet wide and nine feet tall to accommodate up to thirty passengers per car. The rail vehicles should be constructed so that the floor height is approximately five inches from the street grade and level with the sidewalk surface thereby eliminating any barriers to entry. To the extent that mechanical requirements of the motorcar require a floor height above five inches, such flooring components shall not exceed fourteen inches above street grade. The low floor trailer car or modifications to the motorcar (steps, running boards, ramps and lifts) can be used to comply with ADA requirements. The vehicles should be configured in trains (two, three or four vehicles in a single train set) that can therefore reduce or add capacity as the need arises. The lead vehicle would be powered by one of several environmentally supportive alternative motor drive systems (bio-diesel, diesel hydraulic, propane/gas engine conversion, steam, electric, etc.). The correct choice from the list of available alternatives can be determined based upon load carrying capacity, reliability, maintenance requirements, unique costs of installation, noise and vibration, emissions, fuel costs, life cycle costs or other factors that relate to expected long and short term performance. The design and colors of the vehicles should reflect or complement the heritage and transit history of the region while still allowing for modern design and technology applications. Seating areas should be positioned to accommodate bicycle, baby carriages, wheelchairs, luggage, groceries shopping bags and other goods typical for pedestrian, bicycle or automotive transport. Windows should be operative so they can be opened or closed by the vehicle operator or passengers as appropriate for various weather conditions. The windows should be sized so as to give passengers an open view of the street and destinations along the way. Trailer cars can be configured as open-air vehicles with structural protection from the sun and rain, as air-conditioned units for hot or cold weather conditions or as unique designs for special and festive occasions. Without the costs of a motor drive system, a trailer car should be sufficiently inexpensive to be stored when not needed during specific times of the day, week, month or year ($100,000 to $150,000 per trailer vehicle as compared to $250,000 or more per motorized vehicle). No mechanical problems are likely to occur when trailer cars are stored for extended time periods (special purpose or seasonal vehicles) or intermittent use (open-air DISCUSSEDvelideal V.r n 4 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. weather conditions or other vehicles used during maximum capacity events and time periods). Trailer cars are inherently easier to design as a lower floor vehicle (five inches above the street grade) with smaller wheels (12 inches or less) due to the fact that there is significantly less mechanical apparatus connected with the wheel assembly. B. Narrow Gauge Rail Installation Narrow gauge rail references any track where the rails are less separated (historically narrow gauge rail track installations varied between 18 inches, 24 inches, 30 inches, 36 inches or similar dimensions based upon local preferences) then is customary with standard gauge track (four feet, eight and %2 inches)2. In addition, because narrow gauge rail systems are designed for shorter, slower trips than standard gauge rail (narrow gauge rail systems have been used in mountainous and remote areas, factories and mines or other subterranean venues versus standard gauge rail systems that are used for transcontinental trips), the weight and size of the railway system components for narrow gauge rail are substantially smaller and simpler and therefore easier and far less expensive to fabricate and install the any standard gauge system.3 2 Standard gauge rail generally is configured with 125 pound or more track installed so that the two separate rail lines are separated by a distances of four feet, eight and '/2 inches. Standard gauge rail steel wheels (33 inches or more in diameter) and large truck and chassis assembly components can support a train car nine feet or more wide traveling at speeds that approach or exceed one hundred miles per hour for transcontinental freight and passenger movements. Standard gauge rail is so configured based on the width of a Roman Chariot whose wheel formed the road ruts in England that became the plank roads and later railroads that set a standard carried to the United States and established throughout North America as a "standard" gauge by the victorious Union forces following the American Civil War. These standard gauge rail systems, so effective in the movement of war materials, freight and passengers for the North American continent became the standard gauge for all industrializing nations around the world. 3 Standard gauge rail is wholly inappropriate if the travel times required or desired are 20 miles per hour or less for trip distances of 5 miles or less and whenever the vehicle floor heights are to be inexpensively designed and built (by use of very small wheels and truck assemblies) to be fives inches above the rail surface and level with the adjoining sidewalk surface for improved passenger access and ADA compliance. Moreover, whb &tu S S c D 5 of31 ,� 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. Based on experience and observation, 30-inch gauge track, using 20 pound rail track sections installed in a bed of concrete using 42 to 54 inch long steel cross ties (#6 Rebar) welded beneath the rail at approximately three foot intervals, stabilized with diagonal steel rods (#4 Rebar) arranged at a 45 degree angle between the two rail sections and welded to the inside of the rail sections is most likely to produce a functional, long term, affordable narrow gauge rail transit investment for the Promenade Area and related interregional destinations and Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs and Corridors (as defined in Section. H. Order of Magnitude Costs). With the removal of approximately 6 inches of road surface and asphalt, the reinforced rail assembly is raised approximately 2 5/8 inches above the road subsurface with concrete spacers before the concrete pour, which ideally incorporates brick, stone pavers or a shell rock aggregate mix to raise the road surface flush with the top of the rail surface. The brick, stone or shell rock should provide an irregular surface that should extend over the entire width of the roadway within or leading to the areas around the pedestrian - oriented passenger intermodal facilities (with a smoother surface provided at the crosswalks and mixed -mode corridors) to establish a distinctive road surface that enhances pedestrian movements and slows rubber tire vehicular traffic approaching or passing through the redevelopment areas. turning radius is required within an urbanized built environment (38 to 50 feet) and the dimensions of the items carried are human scale, narrow gauge rail will operate effectively where the standard gauge vehicle will not (standard gauge generally requires 100 feet or more as a turning radius and is threatening in size when compared to pedestrian scaled automotive vehicles). Where cost and weight is a factor, narrow gauge rail can be installed and operated for a far less expense (basic narrow gauge rail installations costs can be as low as $60 to $100 per foot or approximately $500,000 per mile compared to standard gauge rail installation costs of $3 to $5 million per mile or more due in part to its substantially less mass and weight of vehicles (narrow gauge rail cars can be constructed with a gross vehicle weight or 3,500 pounds or more compared to standard gauge rail vehicle that range in weight from 100,000 to 400,000 pounds or more) and track construction (20 to 25 pound rail and small cross ties measuring four inches or less thick for narrow gauge rail installations compared to 125 pound or more track with eight inch thick or greater wood or concrete cross ties). While light rail and modern street cars are sized smaller and weight less then heavy passenger rail and freight rail vehicles, they use the same standard gauge rail and therefore carry the substantial cost of standard gauge rail installation into the urbanized areas where, in n44%ca es ,sus E cost can not be functionally justified. L,)S hf _ n c� a a ,�T v 6 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. In addition, a I V2 inch wide by 1 inch deep flange way is formed along the inside edge of each rail track pairing to form an operative narrow gauge rail track supporting 12 inch to 24 inch diameter narrow gauge rail vehicle flanged wheels. Such track construction will be more than adequate for long term (50 years) use in conjunction with narrow gauge rail vehicles that range in weight from 3500 pounds to 16,000 pounds and that will be traveling on the rail system at pedestrian compatible speeds of 5 to 10 miles per hour and, where merging with street vehicular traffic, at automotive compatible speeds of 20 to 30 miles per hour. With a turning radius of 38 to 50 feet and the ability to negotiate up to a 5% grade, such a narrow gauge rail transportation system will allow for all necessary movements through the existing and proposed street grid system. Where a parking shuttle narrow gauge rail route intersects with another route, the appropriate track intersection (crossing or switch) will be installed as required for operation of both routes even if both routes are not immediately implemented. As additional routes are built, the system will be incrementally expanded and the simple routes as individually shown will become highly flexible by combining more than one route into a more complex routing opportunity that may better responds to changing passenger needs. Given the inherent nature and small scale of the rail construction techniques described above, and the incremental route development (routes with greatest demand first), the narrow gauge rail parking shuttle system and community transit initiatives will not only keep costs down and ridership up, but will also more likely provide contracts and employment opportunities to Overtown and Omni area businesses and residents. C. Pedestrian Intermodal Access In order to facilitate safe, large-scale pedestrian intermodal access to transit (MetroRail, MetroMover, regional bus transit, community transit, etc.) and other modal choices (Port of Miami, Miami International Airport, Miami Intermodal Center, a newly developed Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal, bicycle and greenway corridors, waterbus, water taxi or ferry seq�j�Ap.� A "' 7 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. .omas F. Gustafson, within the pedestrian zones (identified as the Passenger Intermodal Facility Improvements Area on the attached Promenade Area Map #3 and referred to as pedestrian intermodal areas elsewhere in this document) and along the pedestrian -oriented intermodal connectors that transect the redevelopment areas (also identified on that same attachment), the road network must be calmed (designed for 20 miles per hour traffic speeds) by a wide array of strategies that will slow the traffic moving through the redevelopment areas. Some of the structural street calming and pedestrian -oriented options include: a) narrowing the street widths to 11 feet lanes or less; b) widening the sidewalks to 15 feet or more; c) adding a median strip to facilitate mid -block street crossings; d) installing large canopy trees throughout the redevelopment areas; e) construct brick, cobble stone or shell rock the road surfaces; f) providing parallel street parking spaces intermittently between large 40 to 60 feet long bulb -out areas that expand the sidewalk pedestrian and cafe areas and tree canopied seating opportunities at the street corners and at mid -block; g) design street intersections to protect the pedestrian from injury (road surface is rougher than typical for American roadways, the cross walks are smoother the roadways, the street widths are narrowed to provide two to four eleven feet or less wide lanes of traffic, wide tree canopied medians at mid block with well-defined wide crosswalks/twelve to fifteen feet wide and, where street crossings are designed at intersections, provision for parallel parking and wide bulb -outs before intersection crossing) and allow for slower and safer vehicular turning movements (pedestrian - oriented roundabouts or small street corner radii/ five to ten feet radius); h) zoning that specifically directs construction of building at least three stories tall with no side setbacks (except for mid -block publicly accessible pedestrian corridors from one block to the next) and that supports the creation of a continuous building face on ' Similar pedestrian -oriented or transit access corridors have been referenced as mixed - mode corridors (Amsterdam), transit greenways (Florida)), transit malls (Oregon) or a ramblas (Barcelona). All terms and several more can be used to broadly describe a intermodal connector (FDOT) which is design for large-scale pedestrian-onVOU S E N a 8 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. .auras F. Gustafson, each side of the street or mixed -mode corridor that with high frequency provides for street -oriented doors, windows, stoops, forecourts, entry ways, balconies, arcades, awnings, roof overhangs and decretive facades; and, i) provide mixed mode corridors that constitutes channels that stimulate humans to walk (habitable spaces between building faces that are comfortable, useful, interesting and safe and that protect the occupants from the sun, rain, wind, heat and cold) and that transect the pedestrian zone from several directions and link it with the related complex of interregional destinations, SIS Hubs and Corridors and liner buildings with parking structures positioned along the nearby vehicular corridors or along the fringe of the pedestrian intermodal areas. In addition, within these pedestrian intermodal areas, removable decorative bollards are placed across streets to restrict automotive and truck traffic (during the evening, at mid -day, on weekends or on a 24 hour day/ seven day a week basis) at those street segments as are required to enhance the size and capacity of the pedestrian zones adjacent the Overtown/Arena MetroRail Station. This design feature helps to visually and functionally identify the pedestrian zone and to protect the pedestrian and bicycle trips that are undertaken between interregional, statewide, national and international transportation systems modes (Port of Miami, Miami International Airport, Amtrak, Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal, etc.). The parking shuttles and community transit (but not automotive and truck traffic) will pass through the bollards as a part of the designated routes to and from the pedestrian intermodal area. Within and immediately adjacent the pedestrian intermodal area, the pedestrian will use existing and proposed community transit and parking shuttles, regional transit and rail services, pedestrian -oriented intermodal connectors and strategically located commercially active gathering or staging areas (small parks, plazas, courtyards, etc.) to extend the typical pedestrian trip distances beyond the often referenced one -quarter mile or five minute walk. Finally, located within the pedestrian intermodal areas specific intermodal improvements and building structures (liner buildings and parking structures, shared use loading docks, transit access stations, passenger intermodal facilities, etc.) will be positioned to fill in the side yards between existing buildings. Further, parks, courtyards and plaza development ®I SC U S S E D ate— l � Y� • �- 9 of 31 ", j 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. opportunities will be identified every 500 feet or so with tree canopy, seating areas, public art, water features and recreational design components. Commercial, retail and residential uses that open to the street, sidewalk cafe and retail market services, public square and market areas and recreational open space help to complete the urban fabric of the pedestrian intermodal area. D. Freight Intermodal Access In order to facilitate safe, large-scale and efficient intermodal access for freight and goods to and from the Port of Miami, I-95, I-395 and the redevelopment areas, within a Freight Intermodal Facility Improvements Area (extendingfrom the Port of Miami to I-95 along and immediately north of the 5th and 6th Street freight intermodal connectors as identified on Promenade Map #3 and referred to as freight intermodal areas elsewhere in this document), the freight access road network (5th and 6th Street) must be expanded from 1-95 to the Port of Miami as three, one -directional, 12 foot lanes for 5th Street (eastbound) and three, one -directional, 12 foot lanes for 6th Street (westbound). These freight intermodal connectors (5th and 6th Street) should be reinforced for large truck and freight trailer use (patterned concrete or large vertically placed cobble stones) and will have limited off street parking between structural columns for the MetroMover and MetroRail elevated rail service. Located within this freight intermodal area will be warehouse facilities, shared loading docks, market areas and transshipment facilities, Freight Transportation Gateways Program improvements (intermodal freight transportation projects/National Highway System intermodal freight terminal access and connections), Commercialized Rest areas, Idling Reduction Facilities and other SAFETEA referenced provisions that are expected to be congressionally approved with the TEA 21 Reauthorization as described in Section G. Fund Opportunities of this report. Functionally these improvements will extend the Port of Miami and interregional truck freight access and storage facilities through the downtown and redevelopment areas to provide improved interregional and international access to goods, freight services and market areas for the businesses that will locate and be positioned outward of these freight intermodal connectorsDISCUSSED 10 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM 3mas F. Gustafson, P.A. By this means and by way of the pedestrian intermodal connectors, improved freight access, markets and employment opportunities will be available to the entire downtown and redevelopment areas. Rail connections (at grade via FEC, Baylink, and narrow gauge rail corridors and elevated via MetroRail and MetroMover service) can be used after normal passenger use/hours of operation or throughout the day for the movement of goods in specialized transport vehicles. Passenger access via a transit station above the 5`h and 6th Street corridor between I" Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard from the second level (MetroMover) or third level (MetroRail) effectively creates, with adjacent existing and proposed buildings, parking structures and liner buildings, a large-scale pedestrian passageway and mixed -use area over the freight intermodal area and intermodal connectors. Further, the establishment of market and transshipment facilities for downtown Miami with linkages to Port of Miami, the Miami International Airport, Miami Jackson Medical Center and the Miami -Dade Community College downtown campus will help to achieve redevelopment objectives of the SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan (i.e., better employment 40 opportunities and upward job mobility for residents; maintain existing businesses and attract new businesses; improve the delivery of human services; provide better transportation links to employment and services centers; encourage a comprehensive large-scale redevelopment of Park West; provide linkages with adjacent planned uses; resolve existing and future transportation conflicts; reduce travel distances for downtown workers; encourage day and night activities in downtown Miami; integration of the physical redevelopment activities programmed for Park West and Overtown. etc.). E. Liner Buildings and Parking Structures No parking lots will exist within the pedestrian intermodal areas or the transition area surrounding the pedestrian intermodal areas. Parking lots create inherently hostile areas for pedestrian movements and under utilize valuable land for a one-dimensional single use. In contrast, shared parking structures, typically three to six stories in height and lined with mixeC U 1A SSED 0 2l 9 4 • 11 of31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. imas F_ Gustafson, buildings, provide multiple benefits to the pedestrian and community Co interests (i.e., health, economic, social, crime prevention, aesthetic, etc.). Located along the vehicular corridors leading to the pedestrian intermodal area and along the fringe of the pedestrian intermodal area, they provide shelter from weather conditions as motorists are encouraged to park their cars and walk several blocks to one or more destinations in the redevelopment area or to further access the Promenade Area using narrow gauge rail parking shuttles or "on demand" rubber tire community transit vehicles. The liner building provides affordable housing, work force housing, small business and educational facilities locations to residents of Overtown, Park West and Omni area helping to both stabilize and improve the existing residential and business conditions. Many of the roads leading to the pedestrian intermodal area will loop in and loop out of the pedestrian intermodal area without transporting cars through the center. Instead of traffic congestion, cars will park along the vehicular corridors and within the shared parking structures at the fringe of the pedestrian intermodal area and convert the remainder of the trip to pedestrian and other pedestrian -oriented non -automotive modes. To further absorb or minimize the through traffic and automotive congestion, the roads that do transect the center will provide two-way vehicular access to significant parking and redevelopment area destinations. The dimensions of pedestrian -oriented garages will be more narrow than typical (90 to 100 feet wide compared to 130 feet or more wide) in order to facilitate liner buildings of sufficient depth to form useful retail space (60 feet or more), offices (40 feet or more) or residences (20 feet or more). This can be best accomplished by using parallel (along the perimeter of the parking structure) and angled parking (around the parking structure interior) spaces within the parking structure in combination with a single one - directional isle. To facilitate a functional but separated entry and exit feature, two or more parking structures will be connected at the third or higher level and at least one up -ramp structure will be paired with a similar nearby down - ramp structure. An air well in the center for nearly the length of the parking structure will facilitate light, ventilation, a green area, drainage for the parking decks and space to accommodate the necessary internal turmn radius (45 feet). DISCbSSED a 8- F; i i 12 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM imas F. Gustafson, P.A. The liner buildings are best built incrementally on 60 feet deep by 30, 40 or 50 feet wide lots under the design guidelines described in the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update. Such small parcel development will completely circumnavigate the parking structure and will support small business development and a diversity of architectural styles and uses. Where buildings of significant height are desired, the parking deck and liner building lots can still be carved off the larger building site for compatible design strategies or added later for larger buildings that have already or will soon be constructed. Where parking structures already exist, a review of their design would establish that the spaces required for liner building construction can still be identified by redeveloping the existing parking structure and adjacent properties to provide for such property reuse based upon the following alternative strategies: a) build the liner building where it fits given current land uses on one, two or three sides of the parking structure, if not all four sides; b) use the first line of parking spaces to embed the liner building into the parking structure for approximately 20 feet so that only 20 to 40 feet or less of area outward of the parking structure is required to construct a 40 to 60 foot or less deep liner building; c) consider using corners, instead of the full sides of the parking structure, for uses needing greater depth (40 to 60 feet); d) look for an additional garage location next to the existing parking structure to create the second structure to allow for one -directional and more narrow isles, parallel and angled parking and the up -ramp and down -ramp parking structures; e) change the 24 foot two way isles into 14 to 20 one way isles and reallocate parking spaces into parallel and angled parking so that more of the parking structure space can be used for retail or live/work loft units; f) examine the street widths and adjacent land uses for creative liner building development; and, g) consider demolition and rebuilding non-functioning parking structures into liner building and parking structures that are better designed and more useful from a pedestrian and transit point of view. DISCUSSED 13of31 ���— 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM auras F. Gustafson, P.A. The pedestrian -oriented character of the liner building and parking structures are further achieved where at least two of the paired liner building and parking structures face each other along their longest dimension (approximately 300 feet or more) and create a pedestrian -oriented mixed mode corridor (pedestrians, bicycles and parking shuttles/narrow gauge vehicles) between them with all the components (what we see, hear, smell taste, and feel) that induce walking behaviors by humans (the area is safe, comfortable, useful and interesting) and the adjoining buildings are positioned and the features are designed to protect pedestrians from the rain, sun, wind, heat and cold in high quality habitable spaces (places to nest, rest, breed and feed). Further, by such a design, a mixed —mode corridor is encased in properly designed mixed -use environments of the paired and juxtaposed liner buildings and parking structures and the events of daily life (shopping for food, clothing and home/work supplies, school, day care, beauty salons, barber, laundry/dry cleaning, shoe repair, bookstore, news stand, drugstore, post office, flower shop, etc.) can be achieved comfortably on foot as part of the car/walk/transit daily trips between home and work. In this way, the liner buildings and parking structures will predictably magnify the walking impulse. By placing the vehicular roadways to the outsides of the two or more paired liner buildings and parking structures that enclose the pedestrian -oriented mixed -mode corridor, an intuitive and short vehicular pathway from the roadway to parking space and systematically short, comfortable and safe pedestrian pathway from the parked car to mixed -use destinations, the adjoining mixed -mode corridor, interregional destinations and intermodal access points has been created. By this means, a pattern, process and method for the large scale removal of humans from their cars and large-scale pedestrian access to intermodal choices has been built into the structure of the intermodal supportive community (a "community intermodal system"). Every day and at every hour the residents and visitors to this South Florida redevelopment area will be encouraged to initiate the first and most important steps in successful intermodal transfers — parking their cars and walking to multiple community destinations and access points forditUSSED modes of transportation. 14 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. F. Community Intermodal System Designing a community for such predictable intermodal transfers from a roadway, to parking structure, to pedestrian trip, to alternate transportation modes will substantially improve the efficient movement of people and goods within the redevelopment areas. In addition, such designs will cause substantial change the modal balance between automotive and other modes (30 to 50 percent of all trips into and out from the redevelopment areas will by achieved without a automobile)6. Further, such design strategies will have a substantially positive impact on the economic, cultural and environmental conditions of the redevelopment areas'. Finally, such large-scale pedestrian behaviors will support non-polluting and sustainable transportation alternatives and improve health, social cohesion and the efficient transmittal of community values and useful information. In this way, the various components of the redevelopment plan will function as elements of a community based intermodal system (e.g., passenger intermodal facilities and pedestrian -oriented intermodal connectors). While the redevelopment of the existing Metro Rail and MetroMover station sites into a series of connected liner building and parking structures (with properly designed interior and exterior spaces to better relate the pedestrian activities at the street level with the transit station floors twenty to thirty feet above grade) can obviously be proposed as an intermodal transportation project that would qualify for transportation trust funds, to a greater or lesser degree, every improvement within the redevelopment areas should be look upon as an opportunity to improve the intermodal movements within the redevelopment areas. Transportation funds will be available for less obvious projects where the functional linkage between design, land use and successful intermodal strategies is established. 8 Collectively, all these 5 The Amsterdam Experiment in Mixing Pedestrians Trams and Bicycles by John Zacharias (ITE Journal, August 1999). 6 See TDM in Europe: A Synthesis of Research Findings and http:Hwww.vtpi.or. 'See Air Pollution the Automobile and Public Health. Walking Downtown, Makin Cities Livable and Carfree Cities. 8 See related analysis of transit greenway, pedestrian -oriented design, transit access and transportation funding opportunities (Fort Pierce, Lake Park, Fort Lauderdale, Pla1318C US S E D E , 15 of31 �� 11 /12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. ,omas F. Gustafson, intermodal improvements can be referred to as SEOPW or OMNI Community Intermodal System Improvements. Therefore every redevelopment improvement should be looked at as an opportunity to expand upon the community intermodal system and secure state and federal transportation intermodal funding. This is especially true as to the installation of strategically located shared parking structures that, with mixed mode corridors, parking shuttles and community transit services, move people from their cars to intermodal faculties and many various interregional, statewide, national and international multimodal transportation choices. G. Funding Opportunities In order to understand the magnitude of these funding opportunities, we only have to look at the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) annual budget ($4 billion) and the significance of their ongoing efforts to identify and focus funding towards the critical elements of Florida's Strategic Intermodal System.9 When combined with the congressional schedule for TEA 21 Reauthorization (February 2003) and the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) proposed SAFETEA legislation provisions as described herein, there is a clear opportunity to define elements of the redevelopment Plan Update in fundable transportation project terms.10 This is specifically true as it relates to the transportation improvements that would functionally create an open-air, Port of Miami related, community based intermodal companion to the Miami Intermodal Center. These Monroe County, St. Augustine, West Palm Beach, SEOPW CRA Marlins Ball Park Study) at http://www.transitgreenwaylaw�com/ 9 See SIS Home Page and the descriptions therein provided as to current planning efforts pursuant to CS for SB 676 (2003) as approved by the Florida Legislature and Governor Bush earlier this year. 10 See SAFETEA for a summary of the USDOT's proposed federal reauthorization legislations and congressional links to information relating to the expected transportation policy issues and schedule for approval of the reauthorization legislation. Also see Feasibility Study for Transit Circulator Services in Downtown Miami, Brickell, Overtown and Airport West (2000) published by CUTR located at: www.cutr.usf.eci ISCU 16of31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM Xmas F. Gustafson, P.A. transportation improvements can be referenced as community intermodal system improvements and would include passenger intermodal facilities and improved pedestrian -oriented mixed -mode intermodal connectors for interregional, statewide, national and international passengers and freight. Subject to passage of SAFETEA or similar legislation, federal funding opportunities for such improvements are enhanced, if the intermodal passenger facilities are physically and functionally related to intercity bus service and other modes of transportation and transportation services (aviation, commuter, rail, intercity rail, public transit, seaports, the National highway System, airport limousine service, airline ticket offices, rent -a -car facilities, taxis, private parking, etc.). The USDOT has proposed as part of SAFETEA that $100 million per year be committed to fund passenger intermodal facilities on a competitive basis to state and local governmental authorities for financing capital projects determined to be justified and to have adequate financial commitment. The primary criteria for selection would be the extent to which the facility enhances the integration of all modes of intercity and local public transportation, as well as the connection with the private automobile. The federal share would not exceed 50 percent of the net project cost and up to 30 percent of the non-federal share could include amounts appropriated to or made available to a federal department or agency for transportation purposes. The intended purpose of this funding initiative is to further assist the intercity bus industry in linking passengers arriving through airports, public transportation facilities, train stations and seaports with their final home, work and tourist destinations. Moreover the FDOT expects to complete its work to define the intermodal connectors, including those within the Miami -Dade, that link those SIS Hubs and Corridors that have statewide or interregional significance and which play a critical role in moving people and goods to and from other states and nations and between major economic regions in Florida. The FDOT has already designated with the legislative approval the SIS Hubs (Miami International Airport, Port of Miami, Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal, Miami Airport Amtrak/Tri-Rail Station, Golden Glades Tri-Rail Station, MetroRail Transfer Tri-Rail Station, Miami Intermodal Center/planned, Miami High Speed Rail Station/planned, FEC Intermodal Terminals/freight) and SIS Corridors (FEC line from Miami to Jacksonville, South Florida Rail Corridor, Amtrak Corridor/along South Florida Rail Corridor, Tri-Rail u SCUSSED 17 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM imas F. Gustafson, P.A. Corridor/ along South Florida Rail Corridor. Atlantic Intercoastal waterways and shipping lanes, I-95, I-395, I-195, I-75, Homestead Extension of Florida's Turnpike, South Dade Expressway/SR874, East-West Expressway/SR836, Airport Expressway/SR112, Gratigny Parkway/SR924, Palmetto Expressway/SR826, Florida's Turnpike, US I/SR5, Krome Avenue/SR997, Gratigny Parkway/SR924 and US 27) for the Miami -Dade County area. At this time, the FDOT is concluding a process wherein the Miami -Dade intermodal connectors will be identified for the SIS Plan. More importantly, they are drafting a "needs and priorities report" to guide the prioritization process (e.g., who gets funded for improvement and expansions). These decisions will have great affect on the future ability to define intermodal facilities in community supportive terms.11 Discussions with the state legislative delegation, the FDOT, the Florida Transportation Commission and the newly appointed Statewide Intermodal Transportation Advisory Council would be helpful at this time should the SEOPW CRA and Omni CRA wish to pursue the intermodal recommendations contained in this report .12 In December 2003, FDOT is scheduled to be distributing the draft strategic plan for review and comment (e.g., maps of complete system/hubs, corridors and connectors; funded and unfounded needs, project prioritization process; and, proposed finance plan). By January 2004, FDOT will hold public and 11 See SIS Work Plan and Schedule and the list of statewide Intermodal Transportation Advisory Council (SITAC) members that will advise and make recommendations to the Florida legislature and FDOT ("advising the FDOT on policies, planning and implementation of strategies related to intermodal transportation and provide advice and recommendations to the legislature on funding got projects to move goods and people with the most efficient and effective manner for the State of Florida"). Florida statutes also provide that the Florida Transportation Commission (FTC) will conduct an assessment of the need for an improved philosophical approach to regional and intermodal input in the planning for and governing of the SIS and other transportation systems and will report its observations to the Governor and the Florida Legislature by December 15, 2003 with recommendations as necessary to fully implement the SIS. 12 Membership lists of the FTC and SITAC are attached to this report and availablest the m FTC Hoe Page and the SIS Home Page CUSSED 1 r 18 of31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM amas F. Gustafson, P.A. partner feedback workshops around the State and after revisions reflecting those public comments, the Initial Strategic Plan will be submitted to the Legislature on March 3, 2004. At both the federal and state levels, early project and favorable policy identification will be critical for success. Given the schedule for TEA 21 Reauthorization and SIS planning activities, it is incumbent upon the SEOPW CRA and the Omni CRA to immediately determine what intermodal or other transportation projects it might want to help undertake consistent with their respective redevelopment planning documents and to clearly and with strong conviction assert those requests to the appropriate transportation and elected officials having jurisdiction over these matters consistent with established transportation planning and funding procedures.13 H. Order of Magnitude Costs Costs related to rail, roadway and sidewalk improvements as described in Abr this report and the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update are broadly expected to be: a) $300,000 to $500,000 per mile for narrow gauge rail installation; b) paving components ranging can range from $1,000,000 per mile or more depending upon construction techniques, materials used and road widths; and, c) up to $4,000,000 per mile for sidewalk, landscape and streetscape improvements (inclusive of small plazas, courtyards and park areas along the corridor) plus additional costs from right-of-way or easements required to optimize pedestrian -oriented design. Such additional right-of-way costs should be kept to the minimum by generally designing within current right-of-way constraints or consistent with easily acquired property used for liner building and parking structure and adjoining mixed - mode corridors and necessary open space). Parking structures should involve costs not to exceed $15,000 per space or less if large scale, large component or segment assembly construction techniques are used. Liner buildings would involve costs similar to local 13 See Transportation Policy, Regulation and Funding Data Technical Memorandum submitted as part of the Palm Beach County Community Transit Study (2003) and an unpublished transcript developed subsequent to that work effort entitled," A Flori� �+Su Transportation Renaissance: The Use of Mixed -Mode Corridors in Florida". S ED 19 of31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. ,omas F. Gustafson, construction costs for similar three story buildings ($200 per square foot or more when taller structures are designed to incorporate sufficient and more complex foundations, structures and building service systems). Vehicle costs for narrow gauge rail will range from $250,000 or more for the powered vehicles and approximately $150,000 per trailer vehicle. The costs will fluctuate based upon the motor drives systems, design features and number of vehicles ordered. Design goals can be summarized as follows: • Five inch above the rail grade floors to allow an ADA compliant sidewalk level entry. • Six to seven feet vehicle widths. • Eight to nine feet vehicle heights. • Twelve inch or less wheel diameters except where used as a component of the motor drive system (in which case an up to twenty-four inch wheel may be used. • Motor cars systems can use any propulsion system, however, vehicle selection will be based upon a desire to obtain the least expensive per passenger mile vehicles (capital and operating costs over the vehicle's useful life) and the most quiet and least polluting vehicle that is quickly available and capable of pulling up to three air conditioned, 20 passenger or more, trailer cars. A full range of motor drive systems including bio-diesel, diesel hydraulic, propane/gas engine conversion, modern steam engine and electric (rotary and linear) should all be considered. • The design and colors of the vehicles should reflect the heritage and transit history of the region while still allowing for modern design and technology applications.14 • Seating areas should be positioned to accommodate bicycles, baby carriages, wheel chairs, luggage, groceries, shopping bags, etc. • Windows should be operative so that they can be opened or closed by the vehicle operator and passengers as appropriate for various weather conditions and sized so as to give passengers an open view of the street and destinations. Aw 14 See vehicle study of alternative designs from the TransVia Project Overview, Product Design Department, The Savannah College of Art and Design (2002) DISCUSSED s 20 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. ,omas F. Gustafson, As part of the parking shuttle system and community transit service, small rubber tire vehicles should be reviewed for use as an "on demand" vehicle service within the redevelopment areas. Vehicle costs will range from $150,000 to $300,000 per vehicle. Many vendors already produce a wide variety of event, attraction and community transit vehicles and a survey of potential venders will identify the most appropriate vehicle or vender willing to design the most appropriate vehicle that would respond to these design goals: • Vehicle floor ten inches or less above the street grade (five inches above the sidewalk grade) with ADA compliant access ramps or lifts (housed in the vehicle or as part of the transit stop infrastructure). • Vehicle width of six to seven feet. • Vehicle height of seven to eight feet • Fourteen inch or less rubber tires. • Motor systems can use any propulsion system however vehicle selection will be based upon a desire to obtain the least expensive per passenger mile vehicles (capital and operating costs over the vehicle's useful life), most quiet and least polluting vehicle quickly available that is capable of pulling at least one air-conditioned, 15 passenger or more, trailer car. A full range of motor drive systems including bio-diesel, diesel hydraulic, propane/gas engine conversion, modern steam engine and electric (rotary and linear) should all be considered. • The design and colors of the vehicles should reflect the heritage and transit history of the region while still allowing for modern design and technology applications. • Seating areas should be positioned to accommodate bicycles, baby carriages, wheel chairs, luggage, groceries, shopping bags, etc. • Windows should be operative so that they can be opened or closed by the vehicle operator and passengers as appropriate for various weather conditions and sized so as to give passengers an open view of the street and destinations. While a wide variation in costs can be expected based upon the specific designs, intensity of improvements and phasing issues, a good order of ( magnitude estimate for the community intermodal facility improvements as DISCUSSED, -�� 21 of 31 A ,�` 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. omas F. Gustafson, described herein and incorporated in the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update based upon previous transit greenway, pedestrian -oriented design and transit access strategies planning efforts would be approximately $140 million per square mile based upon: ❑ Approximately $32,000,000 for eight miles of fully developed mixed - mode corridor improvements ($4,000,000 per mile equals $27,000,000). ❑ Approximately $18,400,000 for twelve miles of improvements along the service routes for narrow gauge rail parking shuttles and rubber tire community transit "on demand" service ($500,000 per mile for twelve miles of installed track equals $6,000,000 plus $1,000,000 per mile for four miles of stone or brick street resurfacing equals $41000,000 plus $7,200,000 for twelve narrow gauge rail three car trains assuming $300,000 for a motor cars and $150,000 for each trailer car, $900,000 for three rubber tire "on demand" community transit motorized vehicles and $300,000 for three non -motorized rubber tire community transit trailer cars). ❑ Approximately $30,000,000 to construct for five sets of twin parking structures (assuming 400 spaces per parking structure pair times five parking structures equals 2000 spaces times $15,000 per space equals $30,000,000). Land costs, inclusive of the land upon which the liner buildings will be developed, will be identified with the sale of the liner building land that, when sold in 30 to 50 foot wide increments after the construction of the parking component, will produce $25,000,000 or more (500,000 square feet of liner building land valued at $50 per square foot or more equals $25,000,000). Such a sum may well be sufficient to pay for most if not all of the liner building and parking structure land costs. Parking revenues will be used for the operations and maintenance of the parking structure and transit services (2,000 spaces at $1.00 per hour, assuming a 50 % occupancy, will produce over a ten hour revenue day $10,000 per day over a 356 day calendar year or $3,560,000 in gross revenue per year). o Approximately $6,000,000 for a transit barn, maintenance equipment and shared freight loading dock facilities (transit barn of 5000 square feet for fifteen vehicles at $200 per square foot for construction and land acquisition equals $1,000,000 plus $3,000,000 or so for loadinaDISCUSSED 22 of 31 IL �- 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. omas F. Gustafson, dock facilities built as part of the intermodal facilities or liner buildings and parking structures and $2,000,000 for maintenance equipment and replacement parts for the 15 vehicles purchased over a five year period). ❑ Approximately $50,000,000 for the Freight Intermodal Improvements Area, inclusive of storage, parking, loading docks and market areas improvements necessary to provide access for and to freight and goods and pedestrian passage between lst Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard at the 2nd and 3rd level for destinations north and south of the freight intermodal area (assuming 600 parking spaces times $15,000 per space equals $9,000,000 plus 90,000 square feet for short term storage and market facilities times $200 per square foot equals $18,000,000 plus $10,800,000 for roadway improvements [three 12 foot traffic lanes for approximately two miles or 10,000 linear feet equals 360,000 square feet at $30 per square foot] plus $8,000,000 for pedestrian access improvements [two miles at $4,000,000 per mile] plus $4,200,000 for pedestrian crossing improvements). Liner building development will be used to offset land costs. Parking revenue will be used for market improvements after maintenance and operational costs are paid. ❑ Approximately $4,400,000 for contingencies and incentives. Based upon the expected cost of the Miami Intermodal Center ($2 billion), conceptualizing arguments for a functionally equivalent open-air community intermodal facilities (passenger and freight) and pedestrian -oriented and freight intermodal connectors involving transportation trust funds and local match requirements totaling $140.8 million should not be so difficult to image. In addition, with small parcel, incremental development of the liner building out parcels, the businesses and work force residents living with the redevelopment areas will be able to participate in what should be a very profitable redevelopment of the 500,000 square feet of liner building land (based upon 60 feet deep liner building footprints that circumscribe each half of five paired parking structures where each half of the paired parking structures are 90 feet wide by 200 feet long) and three to six times that amount of square feet for mixed -use liner building structures broadly WA SCUSSED 23 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. at $500 million (assuming 500,000 square feet of land associated with five pairs of pedestrian -oriented parking structures and an average of four stories of mixed -use liner building development, the developed liner buildings around the five paired parking structures will equal approximately 2 million square feet of development valued at $250 per square foot or $500 million of redevelopment undertaken as liner buildings related to the five paired parking structures). Once such property is built, occupied and subject to property taxes, the tax increment to the redevelopment district will be significant ($5 to $10 million or more depending on the assessment value and millage rates at that time). Larger parcel development within or north of the freight intermodal connectors by more institutional owners will characterize approximately 800,000 square feet of liner buildings in the freight intermodal area valued at $250 per square foot or $200 million of additional freight access related redevelopment. Recommended Community• • System Improvements A. Maps and Illustrations Narrow gauge rail transportation modality can be used as a component of the Promenade Area redevelopment effort to improve the intermodal connectors and link the Promenade with Bicentennial Park, the Miami Beach Baylink project and other destinations within the redevelopment areas as shown by the attached hypothetical build -out plan for narrow gauge rail service (Promenade Area Map # 1). Not every route needs to be built and some routes will clearly be considered more important for immediate implementation. In addition some routes are best implemented in conjunction with other routes, liner building and parking structures and intermodal improvements. The route mapping sequence is a beginning point for a CRA decision -making process that needs to be completed during this calendar year. DISCUSSED V 24 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM Lomas F. Gustafson, P.A. The second Promenade Area map identifies the MetroRail and MetroMover service corridors and stations as well as the proposed East-West Corridor that would provide direct MetroRail service between the Port of Miami and the Miami International airport along a 5th and 6th Street alignment. Such a configuration will improve freight and passenger intermodal connectors to and from the Port of Miami by directly connecting that Port of Miami to the 1-95 corridor and Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway and providing linkages to MetroRail, Baylink, Miami International Airport, Miami Intermodal Center, TriRail, Amtrak and intercity bus transportation services. This will also place an elevated MetroRail service over the Freight Intermodal Facility Improvements Area and the proposed truck access route from 1-95 to Port of Miami. This will facilitate, along with strategically located and designed liner buildings and parking structures, a second level MetroRail station and pedestrian access over 5th and 6th Street adjacent Miami -Dade Community College so that the educational facilities located there will not be disconnected from the redevelopment area. Additional transit corridors opportunities identified on Promenade Area Map #2 include an extension of the Baylink project into the Port of Miami and a MetroRail Seaport Extension (at grade through Overtown and along the FEC corridor on the eastbound trip and elevated on the 6th Street corridor and the MetroRail corridor on the westbound trip). Either or both of these options provide near term Port of Miami connections to the redevelopment areas and, via the current and near term MetroRail service, connections to the Miami International Airport (assumes near term MetroRail connections to the Miami International Airport based in the MIC/Earlington Heights Connector). These intermodal and transit opportunities are identified in this report because they relate to and support the development of the parking shuttle, community transit and liner building and parking structures and should be supported as part of the overall strategy for community intermodal system improvements. A third Promenade Area map provides an examination of the recommended locations for a community intermodal system improvements that include passenger intermodal facilities, a pedestrian zone along a north —south axis of the redevelopment and downtown area (from the Miami River to the most northern extension of the MetroMover service) and pedestrian -oriented DISCUSSED �p 25 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. intermodal connectors (mixed -mode corridors and streets) that will support intermodal transfers in throughout the redevelopment areas. These improvements would be design in the context of the recommended narrow gauge rail parking shuttle and rubber tire "on demand" community transit service, the current and proposed MetroRail and MetroMover service and the planned Baylink light rail project with the recommended Port of Miami connections. In addition, this map identifies the recommended locations for placement of liner buildings and parking structures (liner structures) within the SEOPW CRA including viable sites throughout the redevelopment areas for construction of liner buildings and parking structures to resolve the immediate and long-term infrastructure needs within the redevelopment area. The sites selected are identified based on their proximate locations to vehicular streets and the ability to convert those streets into looping in and looping out configurations common in Europe when pedestrian zones are identified within the urban center. No liner building with parking structure sites are identified that would interfere with or adversely affect historic building or significant building in (40 current use. Where such buildings do exist, they can be incorporated into the liner building designs. The parcels identified are sized so that pairs of parking structures as defined herein can be located on the premises (each "half' of the parking structure being at least 90 feet wide by 200 feet long) and that sufficient land adjacent the parking structure footprint would exist to allow for at least a 60 feet deep liner building to be constructed around the circumference of each of the two or more parking structure elements and for high quality pedestrian areas designed around and throught the liner structures complex. Specific GIS based parcel and ownership information is available from CRA or City of Miami staff. No single liner building and parking structure location is essential for the provision of necessary parking to the immediate and long term, however, it is important to reserve the land necessary for a pattern of parking structures to evolve over time that constitute fringe and corridor shared parking opportunities for the redevelopment areas that, with the streets, mixed -mode corridors, parking shuttles, community transit services and passenger and freight intermodal facility improvements, link all the destinations within the redevelopment area to interregional, statewide, national and international destinations through the designated SIS Hubs (Miami International Airpo �+ c .IDISCUSSE® 26 of 31 - _ 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. Miami Intermodal Center, TriRail and Amtrak stations, the Greyhound Intercity Bus terminal) and SIS Corridors (195, I395, Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway). Finally, the attached illustrations will help you to identify with the kind of walking environments that can be designed for pedestrian, freight and transit access within the context of community intermodal facilities that provide linkages to interregional, statewide, national and international modes of transportation. B. Recommended Actions The SEOPW CRA and the Omni CRA need to immediately consider and approve these transportation projects as intermodal projects and seek the support for these projects from the City of Miami City Commission, the Miami -Dade County Commission, the Miami -Dade MPO, the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida Legislative Delegation and the U.S. Congressional delegation including both U.S. Senators from the State of Florida. Immediate discussions with members of the FTC and SITAC would be very helpful as well. The proposals need to be presented as consistent with USDOT and FDOT intermodal initiatives and well -established transportation law and policy. While historically large-scale pedestrian -oriented transportation improvements have been difficult to conceptualize as valid transportation expenditures, with the federal and state interest in intermodal projects (virtually all passenger intermodal movements involve pedestrian trips), there would seem to be a better opportunity at this time to undertake such an initiative. To be seriously considered for state and federal funding the proposed intermodal projects need to be identified in the Miami -Dade MPO's long- range plan and should be scheduled within the FDOT's five-year work program. Further, within the next few months, or as soon as possible thereafter, such intermodal improvements need to also be identified as an SIS identified need and as intermodal connectors and addressed in the TEA 21 Reauthorization and related federal appropriations decisions. 3 27 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM omas F. Gustafson, P.A. In undertaking these efforts, the SEOPW CRA and the Omni CRA must recognize that they will need to be a funding participant with the City of Miami and the Miami -Dade County as to any state and federal originated transportation funds. More importantly, should they determine that such a plan for mixed -mode streets and corridors, parking shuttles and community transit, parking structures and liner buildings are the be incorporated into their updated redevelopment plan, then the CRA's should implement initial components of the intermodal improvements plan in partnership with the Miami Parking Authority to demonstrate the their funding partners how such a system will work and why they should participate in such community redevelopment related transportation intermodal improvements. C. Conclusion The recommendations of this report suggest revisions to the redevelopment plan for SEOPW CRA and OMNI CRA that move the planning process for the redevelopment areas toward a community redevelopment effort that undertakes to use improved pedestrian environments as tools for enhanced, large-scale intermodal connectivity. These community redevelopment recommendations would, broadly speaking, represent systemic community intermodal improvements that combine land use, architectural design and transportation systems for the purpose of achieving specific transportation results (reduced congestion, improved air quality, enhanced safety and intermodal choice, and the efficient movement of people and goods to and from other states and nations and between major economic regions in Florida). This report specifically recognizes two developing transportation programs. In the first program, the FDOT has undertaken efforts to designate and improve upon a Strategic Intermodal System that would create a strategic, seamless statewide transportation system that: a) efficiently serves Florida's citizens, businesses and visitors; b) helps Florida become a world-wide economic leader; c) enhances economic prosperity and competitiveness; d) enriches quality of life; and, e) reflects responsible environmental stewardship. The work of the FDOT was approved in 2003 by the Florida Legislature through the passage of CS for SB 676 that created the Strategic Intermodal System and directed that a SIS Plan be completed that would DISCUSSED 28 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM P.A. ,omas F. Gustafson, include a needs assessment, prioritization process, a map to identify SIS facilities and finance plan. In addition, the USDOT has recently proposed legislation that reauthorizes federal spending for transportation projects (SAFETEA) and the United States Congress is scheduled to reauthorize TEA 21 (the law that authorized federal funds for the last six year term) to identify new federal spending priorities by February 2004. Amongst the many proposed changes is a provision to fund passenger intermodal facilities when such improvements enhance coordination between intercity bus service and other modes of transportation and transportation services. In recognition of these transportation policy initiatives and funding opportunities, this report specifically proposes the development of large- scale pedestrian intermodal improvements consisting of multiple passenger intermodal facilities located within a pedestrian intermodal areas (describable as a pedestrian zone, ramblas or transit mall) that is transected by pedestrian -oriented mixed -mode intermodal connectors and surrounded by shared parking structures lined with mixed -use development. Narrow gauge rail parking shuttle service operating in the mixed -mode corridors and traffic clamed streets throughout the redevelopment area, along with the specific corridor and street designs and mixed uses, will extend the length of pedestrian trips and "on demand" community transit vehicles and bicycle movements will respond to any remaining short trip community needs. Further, a freight intermodal area and connectors that provides access, market and employment opportunities to Miami residents and visitors and improved freight access between I-95 and the Port of Miami will transect the redevelopment area. By various transportation modes (movements by rail, road, water and air transport), goods witl get to and through the Port of Miami and other SIS Hubs and Corridors helping to implement the redevelopment and intermodal agendas of the federal, state and local governments. Such an intermodal complex will relatively inexpensively ($140 million) serve a genuine transportation purpose — the seamless, safe and efficient connection between FDOT designated SIS hubs (Port of Miami, Miami International Airport, Miami Intermodal Center, MetroRail, Tri-Rail and Amtrak stations and the Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal) and FDOT DISCUSSED 29 of 31 11/12/03 12:13:12 PM comas F. Gustafson, P.A. designated SIS corridors (I-95, I-395, Amtrak/Tri-Rail South Florida Rail Corridor, FEC line and the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway and shipping lanes). Moreover, such transportation improvements would link all intermodal facilities with the shared parking structures to better manage the movement of very large numbers of people and goods and enhance intermodal connections and the coordination between intercity bus service and other modes of transportation and transportation services. With these improvements, this strategic South Florida community will see a significant increase (30% or more) the use of non -automotive alternative modes of transportation. These transportation projects will be best undertaken by engaging in valuable private and public partnerships, equitably treating the residents and businesses of the Overtown, Park West and Omni neighborhoods and providing a platform upon which the entertainment, sports, cultural, educational and telecommunications offerings of downtown Miami can be developed as an internationally recognized and accessible world -class community. When the sun goes down and the moon rises over Miami, the residents, business and visitors to Overtown, Park West and the Omni neighborhoods will once again walk through their city streets, visiting with friends, neighbors and business associates, enjoying a quality of life that compares to any in the world. A cool moist breeze rolls in from the waterfront. A cornucopia of familiar rhythmic music fills the street as they walk arm -in - arm from one late night establishment to the next. It's midnight in Miami and it feels really good to be alive. DISCUSSED r, k A o 30 of 31 i mot IAJII TODA lot 00 { t r IAMI A T MIDIVIGH 9 u 0 11 • Promenade Area Map #1 Narrow Gauge Rail A. Promenade to 1-395 Parking Loop B. Promenade to 14th Street Loop C. loth and tith Street Loop D. NW 3rd Avenue Loop E. 8th and loth Street Loop F. Miami Avenue Area Loop G. Central Loop H. Port of Miami Loop I(a). Jackson Memorial Hospital Loop (via NW 3rd Avenue) I(b). Jackson Memorial Hospital Loop (via N. Miami Avenue) J. Omni East Loop K. Omni West Loop a- Metromover / Station a Metrorail / Station Intermodal Areas (Passenger, Freight, and Connectors) Interregional Destinations & Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs Port of Miami (POM) Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) Miami International Airport (MIA) Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT) Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach) Orange Bowl Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB) Miami River (and to MIA / MIC / POM and other waterfront destinations via waterborne transit service W J r 61 I To MIA/ MIC I � To MIA / MIC / JMH To MIA / MIC / TMRall via Metrorail r1 V M_;, To Orange 3 1 T. 1 Bowl / MIA / MIC via East - West Corridor P" '�� �, TIT't1 1 ITITft I i r :.) � =I l To DBT / Miami River tom; To Miami Beach via Baylink • C • .n Promenade Area Map #2 Regional Rail Connectors 1. Baylink Connector to Port of Miami 2. Port of Miami Connector via Metrorail Extension 3. East - West Corridor via 5th and 6th Streets to Port of Miami 4. Baylink p Metromover / Station - Metrorail / Station Intermodal Areas (Passenger, Freight, and Connectors) Interregional Destinations & Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs Port of Miami (POM) Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) Miami International Airport (MIA) Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT) Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach) Orange Bowl Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB) Miami River (and to MIA / MIC / POM and other waterfront destinations via waterborne transit service v+ 0 C r W e 0) m 0 = � KPp To MIA / MIC Lf I To MIA / MIC / JMH R To MIA / MIC / TrlRall via Metrorail To Orange L Bowl / MIA / MIC via East - r West Corridor ilL� L ff To DBT / Miami River E • Promenade Area Map #3 Proposed community Intermodal System Improvements Passenger Intermodal Facility Improvements Area Freight Intermodal Facility Improvements Area and Freight Intermodal Connectors Pedestrian -Oriented Intermodal Connectors Recommended Liner Building / Parking Structure Area o- Metromover / Station Metrorail / Station Interregional Destinations & Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) hubs Port of Miami (POM) Miami Intermodal Center (MIC) Miami International Airport (MIA) Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT) Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach) Orange Bowl Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB) Miami River (and to MIA / MIC / POM and other waterfront destinations via waterborne transit service To MIA / MIC I j LL _ I I y pv To MIA / MIC / JMH I� I To MIA / MIC / TriRall via Metrorail --� ;lam hI ToOrange —1 Bowl / MIAa�-- MIC via East - r� West Corridor` -- I � I-�I {•, To DBT / Miami River Transportation - Florida Strategic Intermodal System - SITAC Members Page 1 of t • Search Myrlorida.com Florida Department of Transportati0n contact us I what's new I FAQ's I links Florida's Strategic,Intermodaf System Developiry a &'anspoltown system to gc#de stmtegfic investments linked to F 0nda's future economy SIS Home I What's New I Background I System Development I Products I Get Involved! Statewide Intermodal Transportation Advisory Council SITAC Members for Term beginning Oct. 2003 Governor Jeb Bush's appointments: ■ Mayra Bustamante, Assistant Director of Administration, Miami -Dade Transit Agency ■ Winston E. Scott, Executive Director, Florida Space Authority ■ Robert M. Ball, Executive Director, Lee County Port Authority ■ Robert M. "Randy" Isaacs, Manager of Governmental Affairs, Greyhound Bus Lines, Inc. ■ James R. Barr, Group Director, Ryder Systems, Inc. Senate President Jim King's appointments: ■ Elisa Rohr, Director of Governmental Relations, Greater Orlando Aviation Authority ■ Charles Towsley, Port Director, Port of Miami -Dade ■ John Randall Evans, Vice President of Real Estate and Industrial Development, CSX Transportation Speaker Johnnie Byrd's appointments: ■ Bennett J. Biscan, Vice President and General Manager, Florida Central, Midland and Northern Railroads ■ Donald P. Connor, Vice Chairman, Rail Management Corporation ■ T. Martin Fiorentino, Board of Directors, Jacksonville Port Authority - - More on SITAC legislation All documents provided in PDF file format and must be viewed with Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher, which is available free from the Adobe Web site. Back to top SIS Toll -free Information Number: 1-866-SIS-FDOT (1-866-747-3368) Web Contact I SIS Contact I SIS Home 3— a`1- I http://wwwl I.myflofida.com/planning/sis/legislation/sitac.htm 11/12/03 Florida Transportation Commission Page 1 of 3 eting is scheduled for December 9, 2003 in Miami. MISSION STATEMENT: The mission of the Florida Transportation Commission is to pro vide leadership in meeting Florida s transportation needs through policy guidance on issues of statewide importance and maintaining public accountability for the Department of %About the Commission % Meeting Agendas UPDATED ti 2003 Meeting Schedule Transportation. Meet the Commissioners Meet the Staff z Commission Meeting Minutes ® UPDATED Public Notices ® 06 Press Releases and Statements Lgd Florida Transportation Commission's Year In Review- FY 2002/03 ti Florida Transportation Commission's First Quarter in Review - July -September 2003 ® NEW y Performance &Production Review of the Department of Transp-ort#%@&Lj IIJCUSSED UPDATED c 0 http://www.ftc.state.fl.us/ 11/12/03 ' riorida Transportation Commission Page 2 of 3 Review of the Department of Transportation Tentative Work P 2003 04 through 2007/08 Lvj- 1�'Status Report of StrateRM gic Priority Issues Ulj- %Organizational and Operational Review of the Florida Department of Transportation 06 Macroeconomic Impacts of the Florida Department of Transportation Work Program Report %www.tea2lfl.org 'The (National) 2003 Annual Urban Mobility Report- Texas Transportation Institute - jUpj/mobility.tamu.edu NEW Review of Regional Transportation Planning in Florida NEW Documents with this icon ® are stored as Adobe Acrobat PDF (Portable Document Format). To download Adobe Acrobat Reader, click on the icon below. Get Acrobat, Use of Adobe Acrobat format files in no way represents an endorsement of Adobe products by the Florida Transportation Commission. Acrobat and the Acrobat logo are trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated which may be registered in certain jurisdictions. Laura Kelley, Executive Director You may contact the Commission at: Florida Transportation Commission 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 9 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 (850) 414-4105 Contact Web Author: Cathy Goodman DISCUSSED 850/414-4316 - SC 994-4316 - TC915CG� — u cathy.goodman(cDdot.state.fl.us .� s http://www.fte.state.fl.us/ 11/12/03 Meet the Commissioners �f Page I of 2 C C Meet the Commissioners Chairman Earl Durden Panama City Beach Chairman and CEO of Rail Management Corporation. Chairman, Executive Committee, American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association. Appointed to Commission in February 1999. David Brown Orlando Chairman in the statewide law firm of Broad and Cassel. Specializing in Transactional Real Estate. Former Vice -Chairman lames W. Holton Madeira Beach Self-employed attorney, commercial real estate developer and investor. Owner and president of MHH Enterprises, Inc. Member of the National Marine Merchant Association Appointed to Commission in March 2000. Secretary 3anet Watermeier Fort Myers President of The Florida Coast Group. Serves on 1 Southwest Florida Regioi Planning Council and Flo Long Range Economic Strategic Plan Task Forc( Additionally, she conduct seminars for the State Department of Communi Affairs and the Florida Economic Development Council. Appointed to Commission in Decembe 2001. Sidney C. Calloway Gasper Lazzara Plantation Ponte Vedra Partner in the law firm of Shutts and Orthodontist, Founder, p Bowen, LLP. Member of the Urban Presidentt,�,aaCE IO and Chai League of Broward County, BrowarS�rd?Vrman - 1, http-//www.fte.state.fl.us/meet the commissioners.htm � 1/12/03 Meet the Commissioners Page 2 of 2 It Aviation Committee Chairman for the Naval Training Center Reuse Commission. Appointed to Commission in February 1999. Norman Mansour Tampa Member of the High Speed Rail Authority. Former Vice President of Advantis, a St. Joe Company. A Certified Property Manager. Past chairman of the Tampa Sports Authority. Appointed to Commission in December 1999. League of Cities and the Port Everglades Trade Association. Appointed to Commission in December 2001. R. M. "Bob" Namoff Miami Chief Executive Officer of Allied Universal Corporation, a chemical manufacturer. Serves on Board of Directors of the Chlorine Institute in Washington, D.C., and the Commercial Bank of Florida in Miami. Appointed to Commission in December 2001. Emeritus of Orthodontic Centers of America. Mei of numerous professiona boards and associations. Appointed to the Commi: in 2002. DISCUSSED http-//www.ftc.state.fl.us/meet the commissioners. htm 11/12/03 SECTION 2 0 U D � 0/� , I co y NE 2"d Avenue circa 1907 Ridolph Collection Transit Greenway Applications to the Marlins O Ball Park and CRA Related Linkages to the Adjacent Communities The economic impact of the Marlins Ball Park to the City of Miami and the Community Redevelopment Agency is directly related to the pedestrian linkages and parking strategies that are employed to minimize traffic congestion and improve the walking, shopping and business environment of the surrounding communities on game days. If parking is dispersed outwardly one to two miles from the event destination and pedestrian oriented street, utility, hardscape and landscape improvements are undertaken in conjunction with the construction of small retail, office and residential units, large scale pedestrian movements can be anticipated in the resulting wide park -like pedestrian corridors. Transit greenway strategies use available transportation trust funds to pay for such improvements and represent an additional funding source to complement the existing financial strategies to locate the Marlins Ball Park in the City of Miami. Transit greenway systems are horizontally arrayed intermodal facilities that look like community redevelopment but function as large scale transit access improvements and consist of the following elements: 1) Wide, pedestrian -oriented corridors that allow for significant movement and massing of pedestrians, bicyclists and greenway transit vehicles; DISCUSSED - - -62 3/12/2001 Page 1 of 14 2) Design features that provide a desirable (useful, interesting and partially protected) and comfortable walking and bicycling experience that includes such features as a continuous building fagade, trees and foliage materials, street furniture and fixtures, underground utilities and protection from adverse weather conditions; 3) A mix of uses to accommodate the daily and weekly activities of a city's inhabitants, including commercial and residential facilities, public squares and gathering places; 4) Pedestrian -friendly (small, narrow, low floor and slow moving) greenway transit vehicles; 5) Dispersed, mixed -use structured parking facilities and strategically located, intermittent parallel parking opportunities; 6) Intermodal and freight transfer facilities to enhance the movement of people and goods to commercial and residential centers; and 7) A plan of operation and revenue generation for a fiscally self-sufficient transit system. 1. Typical Transit Greenway Cross Sections and Pedestrian Orientation Design Strategies ® Thomas Lade & Associates S Story IAYA_Usa NN -t.Ig L.hZ + LA4 DISCUSSED Mixed -Use Corridor With Continuous Building Face 3/12/2001 Page 2 of 14 a • 4 Archer/Abbate/Urbanfonn �++•L'RUae� a.t.� Amrx tint` .T. Srr vw, 420 i r'a - L S..L.bt.1. •may ti r'rsa- ai - • �IC.S' ��ct= Mixed -Use Corridor Design Elements Narrow- Gauge Rail 'Tracks -• 2% (iccr�tFunrtoorral Iranstt VchicIt-3 Lighting 3% ( 16% I.andralring Right-Ol' Way 17% 9% Su ._.v?a& Furniture 1% Uii3iiy Burial Wermndsl Fadhtic,, j4s 48% Typical Construction Costs Edward D. Stone, Jr_ & Associates Corridor Mixed -Use and Parking Component®'SCuSSED 3/12/2001 Page 3 of 14 • LJ Pedestrian Oriented Roundabout Fort Pierce, Florida !%- 004 to PublicSquare with Water Feature, Food, Music, Entertainment and Places to Sit City Place, West Palm Beach, Florida DISCUSSED s� 3/12/2001 Page 4 of 14 0 L�J Wide Pedestrian Corridor at Mid -Block with Bulbout and Cafe Seating Hollywood, Florida 3/12/2001 DISCUSSED Arcade Corridor to Mitigate Adverse Weather Conditions Boca Raton, Florida Page 5 of 14 0 i Landscape, Fountains and Benches in a Linear Park Winter Park, Florida Sidewalk Produce Stand and the Colors of a Walking Street Budapest, Hungary 3/12/2001 Page 6 of 14 M Rail Transit Vehicle within Pedestrian Corridor Strausboug, France Narrow Gauge Rail Installations in Park Settings Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Orlando, Florida Historic Trolley from Athens, Greece Charlotte, North Carolina Narrow Gauge Rail Installation Disc b;:5tu Orlando, Florida 3/12/2001 Page 7 of 14 o C II. Transit Greenway Application/Marlins Ball Park Site Hill 61 NO lop ff'r7WIN s �. gill I�'� � � •� Transit Greenway Coniclors Unldng the Ball Paris with the N6ami Community Easterly Oriented Ball Park Location Between Miami Avenue and NE fd Avenue (between NE Street and 1-395) adjacent to the d" Street Pedestrian Corridor with Connections to Metro Rail and People Mover Stations. A slight rotation to the Southeast will bring the Freedom Tower into full view and increase parking on the Northwest quadrant of the Ball Park site. s Q5V FAMU04. —.1 - T 1pp� D a r 0 FOUL DISCUSSED A-1 Route A 7+� 3/12/2001 Page 8 of 14 pig ■ � � r,��u� Ij WIN Mill PAR sm Ji �►\� r 11�1� � ► IIQ �: 11131 Route B DISCUSSED P J Route C 3/12/2001 Page 9 of 14 © Ill. Selected Renderings and Photographic Survey of the Area 00 j00 r �. WO , 1 ji I V14,W)jr- LOCAlM VIMRAM mljw, %,p MIAVI DISCUSSED 3/12/2001 Page 10 of 14 Looking West from NE 2 "d Street along 9th Street Pedestrian Corridor Archer/Abbate DISCUSSED 3/12/2001 Page 11 of 14 Looking East from Miami Avenue along the 9th Street Pedestrian Corridor Archer/Abbate DISCUSSED 3/12/2001 Page 12 of 14 • Looking North from 13th Street along NW 3rd Avenue 3/12/2001 Archer/Abbate DISCUSS__.E. D e 1 Page 13 of 14 0 Conclusion 101 No matter how good the game, if the community that surrounds a ball park becomes a vast sea of traffic congestion and at -grade parking lots without any effort to redefine a pedestrian oriented urban form, than the benefits of this public and private partnership will be limited to the few who own the land, who build the park and who play the game. Using transportation funds to provide pedestrian linkages from dispersed mixed -use parking and intermodal facility opportunities to all community destinations allows everyone to benefit through enhancements to the built and social environment of the communities wherein the ball park is located. Within the context of a vastly improved urban form, baseball fans, community residents, and local business owners and employees will all enjoy and profit from each game played at the ball park. For those who doubt the ability of USDOT and FDOT to fund such undertakings, please take the time to carefully review the law of transportation and its prime directive to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and reduce fuel consumption. If a transit greenway system eliminates the last mile or two of a twenty mile commute, multiplied by the millions of people who will attend the sporting events in downtown Miami, little doubt should remain as to the legal or policy justification for use of transportation trust funds for this purpose. For more information, please contact: Thomas F. Gustafson Gustafson & Roderman 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: (954) 492-0071 Facsimile: (954) 492-0074 e-mail: tom6d4ransiLgreenwayla►nr.com website: www.transitgreenwaylaw.com Ems 3/12/2001 Page 14 of 14 SECTION 3 The Amsterdam Experiment in Mixing Pedestrians, Trams and Bicycles MIXED -MODE STREETS PEDESTRIAN ZONES HAVE tive than pedestrian or public trans - become a familiar feature in the central portation alternatives. The bicycle ARE BEING PROPOSED AS areas of European cities. Private cars are offers significant rime saving, relative always excluded from these zones, while safety and convenience.) The pedes- A SOLUTION TO LOCAL delivery vehicles are permitted during trian zones provide cyclists with alter - off -peak hours. Bicycles and taxis are nate routes that are often illegal but are TRAFFIC AND LAND -USE typically relegated to a circumferential nevertheless used on a regular basis. service road. Some have argued that Authorities tolerate cyclist use of these PROBLEMS. IN THE STUDY such rigid traffic separation contributes pedestrian paths, as long as it does not to economic and environmental dispar- contribute to pedestrian discomfort or DESCRIBED IN THIS icy between the pedestrian zone and its accidents. Some Dutch observers argue surroundings. The concentration of that such a liberal approach works best FEATURE, A DE FACTO high -value retailing, services and pedes- since the level of cyclist use is largely titans within the zone contrasts with self-regulating. According to the self - MIXED -MODE STREET IN low values and heavy car traffic at the regulation theory, cyclists take responsi- periphery. Traffic -calming experiments bility for collision avoidance and pedal AMSTERDAM WITH during the 1970s and 1980s demon- through pedestrianized zones if pedes- stmted that environmental design could trian traffic volumes allow them to do RELATIVELY HIGH TRAFFIC reduce both the volume and the envi- so comfortably and safely. ronmental impact of cars in local areas. This de facto mixing of modes merits VOLUME WAS STUDIED TO These results have led to speculation study for several reasons. If such systems about how a controlled mix of traffic can be made to work safely and effi- DETERMINE HOW THE modes might be made to lessen these ciently, they can solve many planning central -area contrasts. The role of the problems. The major issues in addition MODES AND DIRECTIONS bicycle in particular has not been to level of service are comfort, conve- addressed in pedestrian zone planning. nience, safety and attractiveness.z While ARE ACCOMMODATED. The bicycle is typically treated as a vehi- engineers have generally supported traf- cle even in those cities where its use is fic separation as safer than mixing, not encouraged. However, since environ- all agree with this view, citing the persis- mental design cannot be used to tent accident rates at intersections of exclude cyclists from pedestrian areas, pedestrian and bicycle pathways with planners have to rely on cyclist adher- vehicular routes.3 The self-regulating once to regulation, a dubious proposi- theory also requires empirical verifica- tion in many cities. tion. In particular, we need to under - The Netherlands has consistently stand how pedestrian volume flow level embraced the principles of traffic sepa- impacts on bicycle volume flow. ration while promoting use of the bicy- Separated bicycle pathways take cle. Pedestrianized core areas and an space on the street, usually the width of extensive system of a traffic lane in each direction. In Ams- separate bikeways are terdam as in many other cities in found in all major Europe and North America, imple- towns and cities. Bicycles are routinely menting such an arrangement with used for all kinds of intra-urban trips separated footpaths means a drastic and are found not only on bicycle path- reduction in the space allocated to ways but on all other streets as well. The vehicles, if not their elimination from extensive pedestrian zones, some the street. exceeding a 30-minute walk across the One of the major questions raised by diameter, make the bicycle more attrac- such designs are their carrying capacity DM.R AggS 22 TE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1999 N w and, in particular, the sustainability of the traffic mix when the total volume of traffic is increased.4,5 Also, in the event that the number of pedestrians remains stable while the number of bicycles increases, will there be more conflict situations? Alternatively, if the number of pedestrians increases, how will this affect the cyclist's experience and his/her decision to use this street? Effective width of the street is less than the real one because pedestrians do not use all of it.6 The design factors in preference for a particular path trajec- tory need to be examined. It has been suggested that walkway capacity will be reduced when there is two-way move- ment and when this movement is uneven? This is because the secondary flow will be dispersed in and among those moving in the opposite direction. Even flows in opposite directions will ,tend to sort into separate streams but only at density levels somewhat greater than those in the Leidsestraat. In typical commercial streets, there is bound to be in uneven distribution of pedestrians in the observed streams, and the streams themselves may not be stable. While such conditions may be tolerable for pedestrians traveling at approximately the same speed and with considerable maneuverability, this may not be the case when cyclists are added to the mix. These questions are addressed in a field study of the Leidsestraat, a major pedestrianized street in the historic core of Amsterdam. RESEARCH METHODS In this feature, we examine the pat- terns of movement as they appear over rime and in relation to the plan of the street. We show how the various identi- fiable streams of movement (eight of them) use various parts of the street sur- face, overlap, expand and contract. Sec- ondly, we discuss the role of environmental design in the behavior of pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, we con- sider how variations in density impact on the space available for cyclists. Our method involved videotaping sections of the street from elevated posi- tions on bridges with a digital camera. Midday samples were taken at three sec- ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1"9 figwe 1. The Leidsestraat is as em Wded pedestft aad tram mall where bitydes are tolerated. tions of the street, each with the same cross -sectional design but with different intersection configurations and differ- ent pedestrian volumes. The tape was sampled in single frames taken at sufficient intervals so that all the pedestrians in the earlier frame had been replaced in the later one. The section of the street repre- sented in the frame was reproduced as a computer -based drawing. Individual pedestrians, bicycles and trams in the frame were plotted on the plan. In this way 45 frames were selected from the video record for detailed consideration. These layered maps are then repro- duced as density diagrams to reveal the directionality of the flows and the intensity of use of various parts of the available channel. Finally, we approach the question of the impact of an increase in pedes- trian and cyclist presence by consider- ing the behavior of individuals at the various recorded density levels. When the overall density is higher, is there a concomitant tendency for individuals to spread themselves over the available space or do they tend to reduce the amount of space between them within the channels already heavily used? For example, Liu$ found that the width of the channel used by cyclists is linearly related to the flow rate. However, pedestrians tend to spread out to gain greater physical and psychological comfort. As a result, it may be that rel- atively low overall pedestrian densities will present the cyclist with as difficult an obstacle course as a street with higher density. To find out what effect higher pedestrian density had on the maneuvering capability of the cyclists, we measured the distance between each individual and the three nearest individuals in each frame. The figures for pedestrians and cyclists were com- pared with overall densities. DISCUS 1% 23 p� THE LEIDSESTRAAT CASE STUDY The Leidsestraat is a particular case but typical for the questions raised by such de facto shared pedestrian corri- dors. The street is officially pedestrian- ized and directly linked with the most heavily traveled parts of the central walking system, including the Kalver- straat and Nieuwendijk (Figure 1). These latter streets are narrower with higher overall flow levels and no bicy- cles except in off-peak hours. The Leid- sestraar is the most important north -south transportation corridor through the city, at least until the north -south metro line is completed. The street is also the major traffic carrier in an area of four- to six -story buildings with high site coverage, even though the street itself is only 12 meters (m) wide. The Leidsestraat is lined with clothing, houseware and gift shops as well as small restaurants. The transversal streets also are lined with restaurants, which generate considerable traffic in the evenings. The Leidsestraat itself empties into the Leidseplein, one of the most important entertainment centers in the city and the junction of several tramlines, bicycle and car routes. Dur- ing the peak period from noon until 3 p.m., pedestrian volumes vary from 3,000 to 4,000 persons/hour (h). Although the great majority of pedestri- ans are natives, tourists form an impor- tant minority, more for their conspicuous behavior than for their actual numbers. Three tramlines pass through these streets at headways of about two minutes, for a carrying capac- ity of 2,800/h. The cyclist volume var- ied between 200 and 300/h. The street is demarcated by a single, overlapped tramtrack in the center, set in asphalt and bordered by a gutter grat- ing. Both sides of the grating to the building faces are paved in brick. These wide strips of brick are divided into two parts, the inner building edge being fin- ished in a variegated and unevenly laid brick while the central strip is flat and even (Figure 2). Part of the rough brick surface also is used for store displays, bicycle parking and refuse bins. Pedes- trians are concentrated in the flat brick area but also stray onto the tramtracks 24 Fgae 2.The pedestrim core of Amst &n is slam whh average midday Wom flow; as recorded dwig July W. when the density is high. Up to half of track area, moving out of the way of on - the bicycles follow in the wake of the coming pedestrians, cyclists or trams tram, share the asphalt strip between the (Figure 3). rails or veer between groups of moving The first impression of the Leidses- pedestrians. Faster moving pedestrians traat from the raised bridge portions usually choose to venture into the over the canals is that of a chaos of DISCUSSED ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1999 b-� e Figure 3. The street surface consists of parallel rough and smooth bride strips, separated by gutters and tramway rags set in asphalt. movement. Movement in both domi- nant directions is heavily intermixed, with additional movement from side to side of the street. Through the center at two -minute intervals trams pass alter- nately in both directions. Bicycles weave through all of this movement. Dozens of collision accidents appear ready to happen at any one moment although very few arc witnessed (none in several days of observation). RESEARCH RESULTS The Leidsestraac never experiences a density of traffic resulting in the overall slowing of pedestrian movement, although individual progress is impeded frequently and temporarily. The average peak of 4.6 persons/minute/m is below those levels found to result in reduced speed, platooning and reduced cross - movement, all of which can however be observed nearby on the Kalvcrstraat. The pedestrian density9 on the Leidses- traat is 0.18 pedestrians/m2. This is much less than the critical value of 1 for a reduction of speed.10 Nevertheless, it ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1999 has been suggested that truly unimpeded walking requires about 12 m2/pedes- trian, equivalent to 6.5 pedestrians/ minute/m of walkway width.? The Leid- sestraat average pedestrian density is 6.1 m2/pedestrian with a standard deviation of 2.1. If only effective walkway width is considered, i.e., the flat -bricked area, then the spacelpedestrian would approach 4 m2. While the average walk- ing speed is a relatively high 5.3 Wome- ters per hour (kph), slower -moving platoons and meandering tourists frus- trate free movement several times while traversing a single block. The regularity of our data is impor- tant to our conclusions, especially in light of the variety of movement pat- terns. Several studies have related the volume of pedestrian movement and limited observations (see Ref. I for instance). Haynes12 provided a way to estimate the sampling error in pedes- trian counts, using the pedestrian envi- ronment in Norwich. At the flow rate and for the sampling times in our street, we could expect about 10 percent error 20 ,� •waukx{ - - = - deadm { Diu t i .., .rt Figure 4. AN individuals on foot (ardes) and on bkyde (oblongs) in 10 unrelated frames of video were derided according to the movement direction and placed on plan of the street. QonUff® 2$ (at p < 0.05). Our own samples showed relatively low standard deviations; for example, for an average count of 32.7 pedestrians, the standard deviation was 5.0. In other words, our samples are rep- resentative of the situations and times observed. These samples are not, how- ever, representative of the much greater range of densities over the day and over the week. At these suboptimal conditions, traf- fic streams already show a statistical ten- dency to right-handed travel but with the opposing movement completely mixed. There is no observable reduction 1.5 parsons ■ e.ia to sr. Figure S. the density of individuals/0.1S m2 areas Is showy using 10 frmnes of video as source data. in speed in this arrangement although there is a need to be alert to possible col- lision with other pedestrians. For the cyclist in particular, the challenge is sub- stantially greater since people in the street are moving toward and away from their own moving bicycle and in a con- stantly changing distribution across the width of the street. While cyclists tend to seek the underused central portion of the street, they share a relatively narrow strip. The space between the rails is just wide enough for two bicycles to squeeze by with a clearance of a couple of cen- timeters, otherwise requiring a fairly sharp movement to cross the rails at an obtuse angle. Cyclists tend to keep to the right of each other within the avail- able channel for them (Figure 4). Moreover the individual paths are clustered together in a relatively small part of the available channel. Figure 5 illustrates traffic density on the same section of the Leidsestraat as illustrated in Figure 1. Shoppers make up only 5 percent of the traffic in any one section of the street. Since the street is long, a higher proportion of the pedestrians are also shoppers at some part of the street, but they do not behave as shoppers for the most part. Shoppers tend to weave across the streams of traffic, deferring to the through movement and only occa- sionally coming into conflict with oth- ers. Other shoppers cling to the rela- tively untraveled portion of the street next to the building facade. Much more cross movement is encountered at the block ends where transversal streets car- rying car traffic cross the Leidsestraat. At this point, cyclists and drivers attempt to cross the Leidsestraat traffic streams without explicit rules or traffic lights to guide them. Cross movement defers to through movement, although this often amounts to edging into the stream until pedestrians yield the right of way. Finally, we considered the question of whether pedestrians and cyclists tend to distribute themselves variably across the street surface at various densities. Our measurements from each individ- ual to the three nearest neighbors were thought to capture all spacing maneu- vers individuals were likely to engage in. These measurements included those individuals walking together who could not be expected to disperse at lower overall pedestrian density. We can nev- ertheless observe a tendency toward dis- persion over the whole sample, as shown in Figure 6. This means that an increase in density does not produce a linear increase in pedestrian presence over the road surface. Cyclists were observed to maintain a greater distance from each other and from pedestrians than pedestrians did from each other. The distances between cyclists and others include only nine instances out of 248, which are less than 1 m, representing comfort dis- tance. No relationship is found between cyclists and others as a function of over- all density (R =—0.001). Over the den- sity range in our sample, the conflicts that occurred were not attributable to density but to chance encounters. CONCLUSIONS Visitors to Amsterdam are often amazed to observe the free movement of pedestrians, cyclists and trams and espe- cially the skill of the Amsterdam cyclist. Others are impressed by the apparent insouciance of parents with babies mounted front and back of the bicycle, riding in the rain between tramtracks Figure 6. There is a tendency to disperse over the available surface area as pedestrian density declines. and pedestrians (Figure 7). 26 3 y= 2.7 - 0.01 x, R = -0.55 average O O distance between o 0 nearest 2 0 ® 00 neighbors o0 0 0 ®0 0 0 (m) 00 co 0 0 O 1 10 20 30 40 50 pedestrian density (individuals/frame) N' AqC u DM JOURNAL / AUGUST 1999 J Figure 7. Atnsterdommers will ride woUently in the rain with children aboard and Awping bags slung casu- ally over the handlebars. In this particular case, we were inter- ested in sorting out the movements to develop an approach to measuring thresholds for such mixed -use streets. While the Leidsestmat seems to operate within tolerable limits of mixing, increased density will surely lead to an increasing number of conflicts and the eventual elimination of the bicycle from the street. We have discovered that the varia- tions in density observed here have little or no effect on cycling behavior. More- over, overall density may be a poor mea- sure of the capacity of the street, since the spatial distribution of pedestrians is dearly a more important factor in the accommodation of the bicycle. The most promising feature of the Leidses- traat case is the role of environmental design in the location of movement streams. Subtle changes in paving are closely related to the distribution of Pedestrians and bicycles in the street. To study thresholds for pedestrian and bicycle mixes for different street configurations, we will need a much larger set of visual records, covering a wider range of densities. It also would be useful to conduct a study of individ- ual trajectories within a dynamic field to develop a more complete catalog of behaviors that could be incorporated into an eventual model. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to Timothy Blair who conducted most of the observations and also helped with the analysis. ■ References I. Pucher, J. "Bicycling Boom in Germany: A Revival Engineered by Public Policy." Trans- portation Quarterly 51, No. 4 (1997): 31-46. DISCUSSED 2. Khisty, C. "Evaluation of Pedestrian Facili- ties Beyond the Ltml-of-Servim Concept." Tmm- ponation Researtr'i Record, 1438 (1994): 45-50. 3. Forester, J. Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers. Cambridge, Mass., USA: MIT Press, 1994. 4. Epperson, B. "Evaluating Suitability of Roadways for Bicycle Use: Toward a Cycling Level -of -Service Standard." Transportation Research Rernrcl, 1438 (1994): 9-16. 5. Sharples, R. A Framework for the Eval- uation of Facilities for Cyclists --Pan 1." Tmf- fsc Engineering and Control, 36, No. 3 (1995): 142-149. 6. Seneviratne, P. Acceptable Walking Dis- tances in Central Areas." Journal of Bunsporta- lionEngineering, 111, No. 4 (1985): 365-376. 7. Pushkarev, B., and J. Zupan. "Capacity of Walkways.' Transportation Research Record, 538 (1975): t-14. 8. Liu, Y. "The Capacity of Highway with Mixture of Bicycle Traffic." In Brannolte, ed. Highway Capacity and Level of Service. Balkema, Rotterdam,1991, pp. 253-257. 9. Polus, A., J. Schofer and A. Uspiz. "Pedestrian Flow and Level of Service." Journal of Transportation Engineering, 109, No. 1 (1983): 46-56. 10. N irkler, M., and S. Elayadath. 'Pedes- trian Speed -Flow -Density Relationships.' Trans. portation Research Recor4 1438 (1994): 51-58. 11. Hocherman, I., A. Hakken and J. Bar- Ziv. "Estimating the Daily Volume of Crossing Pedestrians from Short Counts." Transporta- tion Research Recor4 1168 (1986): 31-38. 12. Haynes, R. "Sampling Time and Sam- pling Error in Pedestrian Counts." Traffic Engi- neving and Control, 18, No. 2 (1977): 72-74, - JOHN ZACHARIAS is an Associate Professor with the Urban Studies Pfvgwnnne at Concor- dia University in Mon- trea4 Quebec. Canada, where he conducts mearrh in spatial behavior. The present fcau- is part ofa program far deve4ing new stint designs for Chinese cities. 28 ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 1999 SECTION 4 uj U) D U) LAW OFFICES OF GUSTAFSON & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON jOSEPH V. PRIORE May 30, 2002 Annette E. Lewis, Acting Executive Director Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 300 Biscayne Blvd. Way, Suite 309 Miami, Florida 33131 SUITE 440 4901 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308 TELEPHONE (954) 492-0071 FACSIMILE (954) 492-0074 Re: Recommendations relating to the proposed Grande Promenade improvements Dear Ms. Lewis: This will confirm that Chelsa Arscott-Douglas has requested that I review the proposed Grande Promenade improvements to determine if it would be advisable for the Southeast Overtown/Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to acquire property that relates to such improvements. In my discussions with the planning and design professionals at Dover, Kohl & Partners and other consultants working on the Grande Promenade proj ect for the CRA, the City and CRA staffinvolved in the Grande Promenade project and the business and club owners adjacent to the proposed Grande Promenade, it is apparent that that any improvements must create a safe, well lighted pedestrian - oriented space which is designed as an extension of the entertainment activities that dominate the area and which links the business entrances in the Entertainment District to nearby parking opportunities. It was made clear at both the Grande Promenade workshop organized by Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. last April 17, 2002 and at the site visit scheduled with the CRA personnel, the City staff and the adj scent club and business owners last May 2, 2002, that the Grande Promenade improvements need to be scheduled so that near term and long-term mobility benefits are provided to the Grande Promenade area customers who arrive by car in large numbers during the evening and morning hours of club activities. Based upon the attached initial design proposals submitted by Dover, Kohl & Partners, it is apparent that transportation and parking improvements need to also respond to the anticipated day time traffic needs of the area as infill development increases daytime use of the public space created by the Grande Promenade project. Further, because the Grande Promenade project is designed to eliminate slum and blight conditions that exist within the CRA boundaries, the proposed improvements and related land acquisitions, as further described herein, would be consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the CRA and in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan and other redevelopment and revitalization planning documents. DISCUSSED With these issues in mind and upon review of the Grande Promenade 4 fictions d v oped by Dover, �zA_ Kohl & Partners, it is clearly apparent that the CRA should acquire those vacant properties that are located within the immediate zone of anticipated Grande Promenade pedestrian activity (the properties located along the 10' Street and 11" Street corridors between Biscayne Boulevard and Northwest 1" Avenue) and especially those properties immediately adjacent the proposed Grande Promenade corridor. Due to the opportunity to initiate near term improvements proximate to current club activities between Miami. Avenue and Northeast V Avenue, the vacant property immediately south of the proposed Grande Promenade corridor lying to the east of Miami Avenue (properties identified as 1001 Miami Avenue, 45 Northeast 10" Street and 11 Northeast 10' Street) should be acquired as soon as possible. These properties should be used by the CRA to locate a mixed -use pedestrian -oriented structure that can fulfill multiple public purposes such as: 1) active retail and other uses consistent with the design proposals of Dover, Kohl & Partners that establish a southern boundary along the Grande Promenade and create interesting, useful and comfortable space supportive of large scale, long distance walking behavior, 2) shared parking capacity with vehicular access to or from Northeast 10' Street and Miami Avenue; 3) facilities to collectively manage trash collection, safe and sanitary temporary storage and efficient preparation for transfer and permanent disposal; 4) small rental units for incubator business and workforce housing opportunities; 5) an interior pedestrian throughway corridor or courtyard/public square space extending through the city block immediately south of the Grand Promenade between Miami Avenue and Northeast 1 ' Avenue providing useful and convenient pedestrian access to Northeast 10' Street for the businesses northward of the Grand Promenade; and, 6) pedestrian -oriented uses at the first and sometimes second floor level along the perimeter and throughway of the structure that provides for store fronts that afford pedestrian customers convenient opportunities to accomplish the events of daily life (post office, day care, food stores, restaurants, shoe repair, drug stores, medical and dental offices, hair cuts, clothing purchases, alterations or cleaning services, book stores, office supplies or newspaper sales, j ewelry stores, art and craft stores, music stores, banking facilities, hotels and inns, artist and musician lofts or studios, sidewalk cafes or small entertainment venues, governmental offices with frequent citizen contacts, etc.) In addition, the CRA should acquire good title to the property located between Northeast 2'a Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard and immediately east of the portion o f the proposed Grande Promenade that is currently owned and under the control of the CRA. This strategic property would allow the CRA to incorporate a small transit vehicle system into the corridor design and provide pedestrian -oriented transit linkages between the Grande Promenade and Bicentennial Park. Such pedestrian -oriented transit corridors would encourage development at both locations that would support beneficial ���� E throughout the morning, afternoon and evening hours on a seven-day a week schedull 0 4v Additional property immediately south of the above referenced corridor property (property identified as 1000 Biscayne Boulevard) should be acquired by the CRA and would be an appropriate location for another mixed -use pedestrian -oriented structure as described above. Such property acquisition and development would further strengthen the linkages between the Grande Promenade and Bicentennial Park and provide significant transportation benefits to the properties within the CRA boundaries. Finally, additional mixed -use parking opportunities should be identified that will support further development of economically and socially beneficial pedestrian -oriented mixed mode transit corridors and related uses and activities within the CRA boundaries designed so as to create a system of movement to and within every part of the CRA. Such efforts would be designed to minimize automotive traffic congestion and increase the use of transportation alternatives by way of the expansion of such pedestrian -oriented linkages to existing and proposed regional transit and all other modes of transportation. If you have any questions regarding the above matters, please contract me at the above address or by e- mail at tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com. Please let me know if you will need for me to attend the CRA meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 4:00 PM. Sincerely yours, GUSTAFSON & PRIORE Thomas F. Gustafson DI CUB, ED Irma M 11:1.I 0 N "i low ems' 0 SECTION 5 a Lu cf) ' U t LAW OFFICES OF GUSTAFSON & PRIORE ATTORNEYS AT LAW 4 THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON JOSEPH V. PRIORE MEMORANDUM TO: Sergio Vazquez FROM: Tom Gustafson DATE: 5/30/2002 RE: Grande Promenade/small transit depictions SUITE 440 4901 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308 TELEPHONE (954) 492-0071 FACSIMILE (954) 492-0074 Attached please find the transit images that will give you a variety of choices to depict on the Grande Promenade consistent with the image you sent to me yesterday. Remember that the front, sides and roof of a transit vehicle, using narrow gauge rail equipment as a rolling platform or bench, can be whatever shape, size, color and design you can draw that conforms to the outdoor space it is traveling through. Historic images are only the most obvious choices. What would the vehicle you most like have evolved into had it been styled and retooled over the last century as were trains, planes and automobiles? Note that when we did the Miami CRA work regarding the Ball Park location in Park West, the vehicle had ball caps to theme the street. Further, if you want the vehicle to functionally relate to the pedestrians, to seamlessly merge with and into the pedestrian flow, and support, expand and extend larger scale, longer than typical distance, pedestrian movements, think of the vehicle as a rolling platform or bench that becomes a part of the pedestrian trip instead of an interruption of the pedestrian experience. The vehicle, therefore, should be: 1) slow moving (at pedestrian comfortable speeds from five to ten miles per hour); 2) very low floored (given the single grade street as depicted for the Grande Promenade, the floor of the vehicle should be flush or no more that six inches above grade); 3) very narrow (four to six feet at a maximum as depicted in the Harrisburg vehiclelfour feet wide or the Orlando vehicle/six feet wide) to fit between the light posts shown on the south side of the Grande Promenade and the seating shown on the North side of the Grande Promenade; 4) at a height not much beyond typical standing human (seven to nine feet in height); 5) more open than closed due to the fact that, as with a San Francisco trolley, a hay ride wagon and transit equipment that operated in South America through the 1970's, pedestrians will more readily access vehicles that they can climb onto at will without waiting in line for the door to open; DISCUSSED 03— �� . 6) protective of passengers in adverse weather conditions (therefore always assume a roof and usually a front horizontal surface, consider using a wider roof to protect the passengers from rain and sun and, if sides are required, avoid putting a side on the vehicle where you want the passengers to access the vehicle); 7) operated by a human driver who behaves as a friend and guide to all the customers of the Grande Promenade; 8) colorful (reds, yellows, blues and purples or whatever helps to keep the edgy look of the Grande Promenade); 9) twenty to twenty-two feet long depending on turning radius requirements and in two to three car sets so as to maximize the number of passengers per car/driver and the time window when the passenger can decide to enter the vehicle; 10) The smaller the wheel the better (twelve inch wheels have been successfully used on the Harrisburg and Orlando vehicle) so as to simplify construction of a low floor vehicle; 11) electrically powered or hybrid -electric with provision for minimal vibration, emissions and vehicular sound; 12) add the sounds, taste and smells that are pleasant or inviting to the pedestrians who share the street with the vehicle and who may seek short transportation opportunities (consider a water dispenser, snacks, live or taped music); 13) generally moving in the direction most people are walking, with some provision made to periodically change direction in response to the change of pedestrian flow, 14) comfortable whether sitting, leaning or standing, with opportunities to change positions and seating or standing areas while in route; 15) built to last fifty years on continuous service (mining equipment when reconfigured for transit use meets such a requirement); 16) simple to construct with as few moving parts as possible; 17) ADA compliant; 18) capable of serving a route beyond the Grande Promenade routinely or when the need arises; 19) well lighted for nighttime use; 20) design as comfortable, useful and interesting, not only from the point of view of the person using the vehicle, but also from the point of view of the pedestrians on the Grande Promenade, business owners on the Grande Promenade and the customers to businesses on the Grande Promenade; 21) well ventilated by natural or mechanical means (traditional air conditioning should be avoided); and DISCUSSED --,`�'I 22) built and installed for under One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per mile. After you have made a first effort to depict the vehicle, I will be available to assist in discussing the needs with CUTR and available sources of similar or described vehicles. A review of routing, parking and traffic constraints and alternatives should be undertaken to coordinate these images and proposals with the specifics of the area to be served by these pedestrian -oriented design and transit access strategies_ Please call me to confirm receipt and let me know if additional information is required. DISCUSSED � a Adk ��.j ►ore. `�"� � x i � i 1 {S t 0 0 • © DISCUSSED rl - � V iJ O h 0 DISCUSSED 0 3 _ 6 I A �J Historic Concept Retro Concept DISCUSSED 43- ' 1 MJ 3 SECTION 6 0 W (n U NHAMI SURFACE SHUTTLE SERVICES: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR TRANSIT CIRCULATOR SERVICES IN DOWNTOWN MJAM.) BRICKELL, OVERTOWN, AND AIRPORT WEST Prepared for the Miami -Dade Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Final Report - June 2000 Prepared by: The Center for Urban Transportation Research Principal Investigators: Joel Volinski Victoria Perk DISCUSSED 4 = = 1 4.0 E. i-F EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The concept of shuttle, or local circulator, bus service is gaining popularity around the country as a service that satisfies certain niche transit markets and helps promote different public policy objectives. Shuttle services can improve mobility for employees, residents, and visitors of certain areas while helping to relieve traffic congestion, and it can contribute to economic development in an environmentally favorable way. The Downtown Development Authority of Miami (DDA) initially expressed its desire to implement shuttle services along Flagler Street as part of that corridor's more comprehensive redevelopment, often referred to as the Flagler Marketplace plan. This plan ells for changing Flagler Street from one-way operations to two-way, adding many new street amenities, and redirecting the large buses that currently serve Flagler Street to other streets in the downtown area. There is also a desire on the part of the retailers on and around Flagler Street to provide a shuttle service that could conveniently link them with the hotels and residential areas north and south of the immediate downtown area. Representatives of the Brickell community are also interested in new shuttle services that would help promote a true `village" atmosphere where people live, work, shop, and enjoy leisure activities within relatively short distances of each other. The more eastern portion of the Brickell area is experiencing substantial new growth ofhotels, residential towers, and offices. These new developments will clearly add to traffic congestion and competition for parking, possibly decreasing the attractiveness ofthe area. Those who work and live in Brickell are primarily interested in a service that would provide fast, convenient service between Metrorad/Metromover and the new developments east of Brickell Avenue. Business interests along Flagler Street are interested in a service they hope would be faster and more direct than the Metromover to tie Brickell to the downtown. The DDA asked the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to help fund a study to examine the feasibility ofestablishing surface shuttle services in those areas. The MPO agreed to fund the study, but also added the task of including the feasibility of providing such services in the Overtown community as well as the area referred to as Airport West, The Miami circulator services proposed in this report can serve a numberofpurposes, as suggested above. Similar to Metromover, a circulator service can help tie together the various communities that make up greater downtown 1\Tami by providing direct and reliable service between offices, residences, shopping districts, parks, historic sites, greenways, and transportation facilities. It can help create a more pedestrian - friendly atmosphere by taking large buses off ofcertain streets. New shuttle service can be provided where no public transit service currently exists, and a user-friendly service canattractpeople to travel to areas that are in the initial stages of redevelopment. It can encourage greater use of public transit, including Metrorail, that can help minimize the congestion that will occur with the new developments that will be taking place throughout downtown and Brickell. A direct circulator service can also assist the county's efforts in providing access to jobs for those coming off welfare. -1- DISCUSSED BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF REPORT The concept of shuttle bus service is gaining popularity around the country as a service that satisfies certain niche transit markets and different public policy objectives. Shuttle services can improve mobility for employees, residents, and visitors ofcertain areas while helping to relieve traffic congestion, and they can contribute to economic development in an environmentally favorable way. Due to the use of minibuses, shuttle services can often be provided at a lower cost than regular fixed route transit. The Downtown Development AuthorityofMiami (DDA) initially expressed its desire to implement shuttle services along Flagler Street (as part of that street's more comprehensive redevelopment) and in Brickell in anticipation ofthat area's substantial new growth ofhotels, residences, and offices. The DDA asked the Miami -Dade MetropolitanPlanning Organization(MPO) to help fiord a study to examine the feasibilityof establishing surface shuttle bus services in those areas. The MPO agreed to fund the study, but added the tasks of reviewing the feasibility of providing such services in the Overtown community as well as in the area referred to as Airport West. The MPO then engaged the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) to conduct the feasibility analysis for the provision of bus shuttle services in the various areas. This report will review each of the sub -areas noted above for their potential for supporting shuttle services. Alternative routes and levels of service wdl be presented, along withthe approximate capital and operating expenses associated with each The advantages and disadvantages of different types of buses (such as standard diesel or alternative fuel vehicles) will be examined, as well as who might operate the service and where maintenance and storage facilities could be located Perhaps most importantly, the report will identify the potential sources of funds for paying for these services. DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREAS This study will review the feasibilityofestablishing shuttle services m four different areas. Three of the areas are inclose geographic proximityto each other. While these three areas are all adjacent to each other and will be considered as a whole, each subarea has distinct characters of their own and will be reviewed separately as well: The FlaglerStreet corridorrepresents the heart of historic Miami and includes the blocks both north and south of Flagler Street from the Miami River to Biscayne Boulevard 2. Brickell lies subjacent to the Flagler Street corridor, on the south side of the Miami River. The study area is bordered by the Miami River onthe north, 15' Road on the South, Brickell Key and Biscayne Bay on the east, and SW " Avenue on the west. -3- DISCUSSED d 3. The Overtown community is situated just north of the Flagler Street corridor. It is generally bounded by NW 2e Street to the north, NW P Street to the south, the Florida East Coast Rail Road to the east, and the Miami River/NW r Avenue to the west. In addition to these three subareas, which together will be referred to as "greater downtown Miami", this study will also review the feasibility ofestablishing shuttle services in the area known as "Airport West". This area is generally bounded by NW 74`' Street/Okeechobee Road to the north, SW r Street to the south, the Florida Turnpike to the west, and LeJuene Road to the east. Brickell The area commonly referred to as `Brickell" has the potential to be one of the most exciting urban neighborhoods in the state of Florida. It has proven to be an attractive location for Class A high-rise office developments since the 1980s, contributing to the development of one of the largest financial and banking districts in the world. There are approximately 5 million square feet of office space in the Brickell area, with almost one million more square feet under construction. A considerable amount of new high rise condominium residential developments have either been built or are being built south of 151 Road, from Brickell Key to SW 3w Avenue. Over 8,000 housing units currently exist, while 3,000 more are planned. Over 15,000 people live in the Brickell area, and more than 5,000 new residents are expected within the next three years. In addition, four new five-star hotels are all being constructed in Brickell. In the recent past, a full -service Publix and Walgreens have been built at Coral Way and SW 2nd Avenue to provide convenient community shopping services supportive ofresidential living. The Brickell area has some of the finest restaurants in all of Miami, as well as fast food eateries. There are four parks and a tremendously important historic site (the Miami Circle) that are located in the study area. The majority of residents and employees have views ofBiscayne Bay or the Miami River. And all of this is happening in an area less than a square mile in size. In short, Brickell is a mixed -use, high density area that provides a setting for the development of an urban communitywhere residents can live, work, eat, shop, and relaxwiflm close distances. Officials sometimes refer to the concept of the `Brickell Village", given its potential to become a true urban neighborhood that is economically vibrant and very liveable due to the opportunities for residents, visitors, and employees to access much of the area without the need for a car. The types of densities and mixed uses in Brickell clearly lend themselves to supporting mass transit services. Existing Transit Service in Brickell -4- DISCUSSED ti Before considering new shuttle services in an area, it is appropriate to consider whether existing transit services satisfy the needs ofthe community. Given the limited availability ofpublic fiords, it is important not to suggest service that would duplicate existing services. The west side ofBrickell is served by the Brickell Metrorail station at SW I 't Avenue and SW 11 m Street. Metrorail is a 20 mile long heavy rail service that provides access to Brickell from as far south as South Dixie Highway and Kendall Drive, to as far north as West Palm Beach, when one considers its connection to Tri-Rail. In another two years, Metrorail will extend its northwestern terminus to the Palmetto Expressway, making access from northwest Miami -Dade and Southwest Broward County that much easier. Metrorail provides service every sic minutes in both directions during peak hours, and every 15 minutes during off-peak hours. Hence, Metrorail makes Brickell accessible to well over 1,000,000 people in three counties who can complete they commute to work without bringing an automobile into Brickell. The middle of the study area is served by four Metromover stations along Southeast First Avenue (at 5' Street, 8d' Street, I Od' Street, and 14d' Street), and one station co -located with the Metrorail station at SW 1 ` Avenue and 11 to Street. The service provided by Metromover runs north and south, and is primarily in place to connect Bnckell to downtown, and to serve as a distributor/collector for those using Metrorail. One advantage of Metromover is that it provides unimpeded access between downtown Miami and Brickell by virtue of a fixed high bridge over the Miami River. Metromover provides service every five minutes in both directions along the Brickell leg. Once in downtown Miami, the inner loop of Metromover provides service every two minutes. Metrobus provides service witha number ofroutes. In the western portion of Brickell, Route #8 provides a high level ofservice (10 minute frequency during the peak, 15 minutes off-peak). This route travels east and west through the countyalong SW 7d' and 8d` Streets, stops at the Brickell Metrorail station, and then accesses Flagler Street via SW 2nd Avenue. Route #0 accesses Brickell from the west, stopping at the Metrorail station, and then enters downtown Miami via SW 2°d Avenue. However, service on Route #6 is provided only once an hour. A number of Metrobus routes serve Brickell Avenue. Route #24 travels east and west along Coral Way, then travels along Bnckell Avenue on its way to downtown Miami. Service is provided every 15 minutes during peak hours and every 30 minutes during off-peak hours. Route #48 travels along Biscayne Bay fromthe Coconut Grove area to downtown, going through the study area along Brickell Avenue ona once - an -hour basis. Finally, Route `B" provides a high level of service along Brickell Avenue on its way between Key Biscayne and downtown Miami. It provides service every 15 minutes during the peak hours, and every 30 minutes during off-peak hours. In addition, Route `B" connects to the Brickell Metrorail station on every trip, providing some east -west service between the Metrorail station and Brickell Avenue along SW 7d' and 8d' Streets. All of these bus routes take passengers to the bus terminal in downtown Miami via SW/E Td Street. As can be seen from the description of current transit services, Brickell is well connected to regional bus -5- DISCUSSED p ei r and rail transit service, befitting its nature as a major employment center. Given its close proximity to downtown Miami, Brickell also enjoys the availability of bus routes that pass through on their way to and from the downtown area. In addition, Metromover serves the dual purpose of feeding Metrorail and connecting much of Brickell to downtown Miami. It is not unreasonable to question if additional service would be truly beneficial. The Needs and Potential Markets for Shuttle Services in Brickell Although the Miami -Dade Transit Agency has invested heavily in transit infrdstlucture and service in Brickell, a new type of transit service could contribute to the future livability and sustamability of this relatively unique, high density area. The types of transit services that are lacking in Brickell, and would not duplicate existing MDTA service, are those that would serve the more eastern developments along Brickell Bay Drive and Brickell Key. There are major new developments being built in those areas, including all of the new hotels noted earlier, and some high-rise residential towers. Brickell Key, with its mixed uses ofover 2,000 residential wits, office towers, shops, and hotel, is situated a halfmile fioomthe nearest transit service. What is also lacking is a neighborhood circulator, where residents and visitors can easily access a minibus that would take them quickly and directly to points of convenience or interest (whether that be work, leisure, or shopping) within Brickell or in the Flagler Street corridor. There is concern that the additional development that is planned for Brickell will result in traffic that could overwhehn certain intersections, strain paddng facilities, and reduce the attractiveness and livability of the community. As noted above, the Brickell area is exploding with new development. In addition to the substantial development that is already in place, there are four new five-star hotels being built, mchding the J.W. Marriot, the Mandarin Oriental, the Four Seasons, and the Espiritu Santu which together will add 1,500 new hotel rooms and 1,200 new employees. All ofthese developments are east ofBrickell Avenue. In addition to these hotel units, more than 1,000 new residential units in towers such as Tequesta Three on Brickell Key and The Mark on Brickell Bay Drive are being constructed as ofthe writing of this report. Developments such as the Millenuun Project and Barclay's Financial Center will feature close to a million new square feet of office space. A high densityarea withmixed uses is generally regarded by planners as a relatively ideal environment for instituting transit services. In short, it appears there could be a tremendous potential new market for local shuttle services in Brickell. The project manager for this report met and/or and spoke with many ofthe representatives of the business community in the Brickell area to learn more about what types of shuttle services would be most appreciated by employees, residents, and visitors to the area. The project manager also tried to be sensitive to not suggesting services that duplicated or competed with existing transit services provided by the Miami Dade Transit Agency. The intent was to identify shuttle services that would complement existing services and enhance the likelihood of more people using transit in Brickell. The feedback received from multiple sources was that there would be an interest in using shuttle services -6- ®ISCUSSE® Y • V vJ O that could get people back and forth between the more eastern portions of the Brickell area (particularly Brickell Key) and Metrorail. The closest Metromover station still requires a walk of almost 15 minutes to Brickell Key, and eight minutes to Brickell Bay Drive. The normal range for those who would use transit is to walk no more than five minutes or one -quarter of a mile. There is a natural anticipation that higher levels of traffic congestion will result from the new development that is scheduled to occur in Brickell. There is also a concern that parking will become more difficult to find, and expensive to provide. These conditions should make using public transit a more attractive option, even to those with automobiles, whetherthey be current or future employees. While higher income people often do not use rubber -wheeled transit, they are good candidates for rail transit, and they could be tempted to use a shuttle ifconnects with Metrorail Metromover, and it is direct, convenient, and considered nice enough In addition, Brickell area representatives noted that the many hotels being built in the area will be offering hundreds of entry level positions in the hospitalityindustry, and there will be a need to provide alternative means of transportation for those who find it difficult to afford cornmuting by car. This migbt include many WAGES clients who are discontinuing welfare benefits and joining the workforce. A shuttle providing fast service from Metrorail or Metrobus stations to these employment sites would be ideal for such people. A number of people expressed interest in being able to take a direct shuttle to lunch places throughout Brickell. For instance, professionals and residents who work and live on Brickell Key would like to be able to access the fine restaurants along 10`' Street without the need to drive their cars through traffic and fight for parking. Other employees on Brickell Key, particularly those without automobiles, might want to access less expensive fast food eateries located on 8"' Street. There are also people in other parts of Brickell that would like to eat at restaurants located on Brickell Key. A number of people noted an interest in being able to access downtown Miami and Flagler Street without having to walk to Metromover and go through the change of cars at the Knight Center station. Many people expressed frustration with Metromover's reliability (even though records show the Metromover to be quite reliable). The managers of buildings on Brickell Key and along Brickell Bay Drive noted that many of the people who resided in Brickell worked downtown and might prefer a more direct surface shuttle that could get them to the heart of Flagler Street in half the time, assuming the bridge is in the down position, with very little walking required Finally, there was an interest in being able to access the shopping available at the new Publix and Walgreens at Coral Way and SW 2nd Avenue. Parking at Publix in particular is physically tight and sometimes unavailable due to high demand The managers at Publix and Walgreens expressed support for such a service, and the availability of shuttle services could eliminate trips made by car between the residential areas of eastern Brickell and these stores. It should also be noted that some representatives in Brickell stated that having a local circulator dedicated to Brickell's destinations would be far more likely to be patronized than the typical 40 foot MDTA buses that are part of routes that serve many other areas of the county. There would be a greater sense of -7- DISCUSSED "communityownership" if a shuttle was dedicated to serving the Brickell area. Having a shuttle vehicle with its own identitywould help passengers recognize the service and feel it was uniquely available to serve their needs. Given the number of MDTA buses that go through the area, people can get confused in terns of which route goes where (some go directly downtown, some go to the Metrorail station). In addition, most of the trips made within Brickell would be quite short, and there would be reluctance to pay the full MDTA fare of $1.25 for such short trips. Optional Circulator Routes in Brickell Five different options for providing transit circulators in the Brickell area are described below. When designing transit services, it must be recognized that there are always trade-offs to consider between costs, service coverage, and service frequency. Transit service is very expensive to provide, and routes that try to be everything to everyone soon become very expensive and/or unattractive to passengers due to their winding nature. Decisions need to be made that result in the most direct service possible, the most frequent service possible, at the least cost possible. The primary principles that were followed in the development of the route options described below were: • To provide transit service where none is provided now and numniae duplication ofMDTA service; • To link any new circulator service with other transit transfer points including Metrorail, Metromover, and Metrobus whenever possible to encourage greater use of transit to access the Brickell area from the region; • To make the routes easy to understand, having the route travel in both directions on the same roads whenever possible; • To make the circulators connect to the major points of interest within the area as expressed by community representatives; • To keep each passenger's trip taken on the circulator services as short as possible while still serving as many destinations as possible; • To make fiequency of service no worse than one shuttle vehicle every 20 minutes; and • To recognize that the Bnckell area is relatively small in size, filled with relatively energetic people who can be expected to walk a block or two as part of the urban lifestyle. Service does not have to be designed to go to every destination's front door. DISCUSSED a f R • on Brickell Shuttle - Option 1 3 ` Y11NVON T LOR OVERTOWN `¢s f•YX �M 1 � 91, 8 1 L� Sir PARK R r. F TFnM1*l AP .l �JJEST SOUTHEASTY } OVERTOWN 2 f -tea ... T� � P1PIC _ su sT IE 1119 r •iy M,?I v:YJs� C A' s�ti alarm J tl +whv EAST LITTLE HAV ARA �. 1 l ]Illi'L ct ' rtal i ca 11i Gt 564s 7L J r .F : Fr1r, VON i �f'1 R �ryyiv h18g1Bt b3test (Mms m J crjmk'D3 w,sNlUoxolcw *Mm in -9- DISCUSSED �v %� Brickell Option #1 This optionis designed to serve as anintemalcirculatorwithinBrickell that has a more east -west orientation and connects very directly with the Brickell Metrorail station. The advantages of this route are that it provides very direct access to other transit modes at the Brickell Metrorail Station; it serves the restaurants along SW 10t1i Street and the fast-food restaurants and shops along SW 8tb Street; it goes past the Pubhx/Walgreens shopping center on Coral Way; it avoids crossing the bridge to Flagler Street, thereby improving its schedule's reliability; it is designed to avoid being caught in the southbound traffic on Brickell Avenue that gets backed up by the bridge when it opens; and perhaps most importantly, it provides the greatest frequency of service at the lowest cost. This route could be completed in 15 minutes with one vehicle. Hence, everyone on the route would have a shuttle vehicle pass they location every 15 minutes, and only one vehicle would be required, making Option # 1 only half as expensive as the other options described below. Looked at another way, Option #1 could provide service every seven and -a-half minutes at the same expense that Options #3, and #5 provide service every 20 minutes. The average one-way trip by any passenger would take approximately six minutes. For instance, a passenger traveling to or from Metrorail and Brickell Key could complete their trip in approximately six minutes. A passenger going from Eckerds on SW Ste Street to the Barclay Financial Center would complete their trip in about seven minutes, even though they would experience what they might regard as a "detour" through Brickell Key. The major disadvantage of this route is that it is a one-way loop. One-way loops are easy enough to understand, but they can be very fiushating to passengers. For instance, if someone from the Millenium development at Brickell and 14'b Street wanted to go to the restaurants on SW 10'h Street, the trip to the restaurant would only take two minutes on Option #1. However, the return tripfrom the restaurant would take almost 13 minutes because they would have to travel all the way around the one-way loop to get back to the Millenium development. Part of the delay in the return trip would be accounted for by the short "layover" that the circulator vehicle would most likely take at the Brickell Metromover station. For this reason, loops are generally discouraged in transit planning, although they sometimes can not be avoided due to one-way street patterns. Another major disadvantage of this route is the obvious fact that it does not access Flagler Street directly. Option #1 would rely on getting people to and from the Metrorail/Metromover station quickly and allow people to complete their trip to downtown Miami via the Metromover. This option avoids duplicating transit service provided by MDTA, but it does not satisfy the desire to provide relatively quick and direct access to Flagler Street via a surface shuttle for those who work and live in eastern Brickell. A final disadvantage of Option #1 is that it goes past only two parks in Brickell. -10- DISCUSSED I Brickell Shuttle - Option 2 � AIimST Z.' 17. 1Yp1A J7NN61 Cl. �.nnitl 2 \�'4 'C iila ye 1a 'a 2 OVERTOWN �r x PARK ` WEST SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN �rrai� 2 � � `ti5r1 EAST LITTLE `ar HAVANA Ittd v u�a1.r� Ur Di is A1'Akgc 3h.t11c 0dims - - �'TMC" 1U"SI I SriU.�C 0;111.d v ® FIsg13r S'reat SPLr& Opbon r V]'/11l: P R:aet} ME 1e19 _r4Aist I rtwsleaa B iC E NiEN NIAL er.RO s, f' E1,'�'FRCNf f' rar.K C:fJakn5vw,l rrrtkf69.xw opts:.w� ,_DISCUSSED Brickell Option #2 Option #2 is very similar to Option # 1 and has all the same advantages . It retains the character of an internal circulator for the Brickell area without crossing the Miami River. This option continues to provide direct service to Metrorail/MoverBus, and it adds additional stops in the northern portion of Brickell traveling north on Miami Avenue to allow the circulator to service SE 5"' Street. By extending the route in this direction it provides direct service to the restaurants along Miami Avenue such as Tobacco Road and the Fishbone Grill. It also passes the FDOT offices before traveling east on SE 5' Street where it would bring passengers close to the Capital Grill, the Sheraton Hotel, and Brickell Park on Brickell Avenue. It would then travel back to SE 8` Street via Brickell Avenue and continue east to Brickell Key. This route is superior to Option #1 since it equalizes available service to restaurants and hotels in the Brickell area, and provides access to Brickell Park and the Miami Circle site. This option also shares the same disadvantages of being a loop and not connecting directly to downtown Miami. The additional disadvantage of this one-way loop option is that it takes longer to complete (approximately 20 minutes instead of 15 minutes) with one vehicle. This means service would be provided in the Brickell area only three times per hour rather than four times per hour with one vehicle. In addition, the average trip on the shuttle would be approximately eight minutes rather than six minutes due to the greater distance the route covers. Two vehicles providing ten-minute service would be much more attractive. Service would be more frequent than Option # 1 and the second vehicle would provide some `Insurance"of continuing service should one of the vehicles suffer a breakdown. The obvious disadvantage of providing a second vehicle is that the cost for providing the service would double. -12- DISCUSSED � a N� -13- DISCUSSED Y • 1E 101 0 Brickell Shuttle - Option 3 -14- DISCUSSED Brickell Option #3 This route attempts to provide service that ties the eastern portion ofthe Brickellarea to the heartof Flagler Street, Metrorail, and the Publix shopping center in the most straightforward and fastest manner possible, providing bi-directional service on the same roads, with loops at both ends. It provides convenient connections with other transit modes at the Brickell Metrorail station by pulling right up to the entrance gate of the rail station on SW 1" Avenue. Option #3 provides service to the PublixValgmens shopping center, letting passengers on and off within a half -block ofthe stores' entrances. Option #3 also gets passengers within one long block of the restaurants on SW 10`' Street, and within one block of the fast-food eateries and stores (such as dry cleaners and Eckerds) along SW 8' Street. The major difference between Option #3 and the first two options is that this route crosses the Miami River on the Brickell Avenue bridge. Option #3 takes considerably longer to complete (40 minutes round trip versus 15 or 20 minutes) given its greater length. There is also less certainty of schedule adherence given the risks associated with crossing the bridge. It would take two vehicles to provide 20 minute service. While Option #3 provides excellent connections with other transit service in Brickell, it does not provide convenient connections with existing transit services in downtown Miami. The possibility ofconnecting with a frequent shuttle service along Flagler Street will be covered later in the report. -15- DISCUSSED a j � 1 Brickell Shuttle -+Option 4 s Ni•14f 3I OGERTCOWN IL•eare � b •� L � t larval cnr ' �f'� i E � a PARK WEST L i SOUTHE+ ST ti� ti4 OVERT a Uri 4 � `a Lai NM2W3f l wF131a e 3Nm at ow%,n EAST LITTLE HAVANA �J SIC E •TE • rtlA_ PV, K e� tr 11 a FMI-1 64r ! , F RO MT P.t, H r tJ_ 1•t 1t 1 ti r �txsr3e 1 -ok�f BRIGK ICI 9r111114 ilovl 6 1f� NY drickcl Yfladc S�ultc Oti�o�. � C"CY.OrAI ,rif1Ud c iOoxi r- Fl-jfr 41rrrl SI t.11 M 0:1 w n } ter' r" W:L2M1U0WMb l I toil UMMOA WMJ IU DISCUSSED Brickell Option #4 This optionis extremely similar to Option #3 . It travels through the Brickell area inexactly the same fashion as Option #3, but also adds service along Flagler Street to allow the shuttle vehicle to access all other MDTA buses at the downtown temunal at Flagler Street and SW I't Avenue. The advantage this option offers is to anyone who accesses Brickell from any of the 20 bus routes that enter MDTA's downtown terminal. This may be a particular advantage for the employees who will work in the new hotels that are currently being built in Brickell. Of course, any transportation options that help employees get to work are an advantage to the employer as well, helping ensure that their employees are able to get to work on time. The disadvantage of this option is that it takes five minutes longer (a total of 45 minutes) to complete a round trip. This length of time is hard to divide into easy -to -remember fieequencies with only two shuttle vehicles. Two vehicles could not provide service once every 20 minutes; they would be providing service once every 22.5 minutes, making "clockface headways" impossible. With three vehicles, service could be provided every 15 minutes which would provide easy -to -remember schedules, but the expense to provide service would increase by 50016. -17- PISCUSSED e -18- DISCUSSED "S �=- A _ w E • Brickcll Shuttle - Option 5 a Xrt 17k 6t . � rr.Fks�lh OVERTOWN • PARKIr \ WEST SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN �� Z• anaaEt 4 Mr, 1 � S ary 3iFa EAST LITTLE `�_,•� `� HAVANA M"1, { VE 31C or. N4 lak V c_L%k' L' Wc' I, vn, � ne�rre 1 P RI' F YiF `J!J RI F7F K B^YF Ro V1 ll, P?F li .y- 4�1 110 4 ' NMnla�r f) �Lq1 a 1 D �tl LE' EN D �° r Bey DriJcl Yllade 3hLde %-bo- r ti alertcwn Shkftle Op:l:ns t� r ,V, n x ul.r F OCiC'.`_.:fCx ;7"U11C�_;p117r13 -19- DISCUSSED Brickell Option #S The last option considered for this report ties together different elements of all the first four options. This option attempts to retain much of the internal circulator service provided by Option #1, while mininrizing the effects of a loop at the southern end of the route. As the map for Option #5 shows, this route would serve eastern Brickell much as Options # 1 and #2 by traveling along SW 14' Street, Brickell Avenue, and SW 101 Streets, and would serve the Brickell Metrorail station very directly. However, rather than traveling along SW 21 Avenue, the route would leave the Metrorail station and proceed south along SW 1' Avenue, go east on 15' Road, then north on Brickell urn it reached SE 14"' Street where it would go east and proceed along the same route as Options 3 and 4 back to Flagler Street. It would take 40 minutes to complete a round trip on this route if it ended at Flagler and SE 2' Avenue, or 45 minutes to complete if it accessed the bus terminal in downtown Winn. This route does not provide as much direct access to the residential towers south of SE 14'' Street, but it does come within two blocks of all of those units. (There is a possibility that the community of condominiums north of 14d' Street will seek to close Brickell Bay Drive to through traffic). It also does not provide service to SW 2nd Avenue and SW 8t' Street, but it does provide direct service to the restaurants along SW Tenth Street. Essentially, this route trades off SW 2"d Avenue for SW 10''' Street, and provides more direct service to the Barclay Financial Center and less direct service to the high rise residential towers south of SE 14'h Street Sunimary of Brickell Options The circulator service options described above all require at least two vehicles, with the exception of Options #1 and #2 that require only one. Option #1 provides the best frequency at the lowest cost, although it does not serve as much of the Brickell area as Option#2, and it does not access Flagler Street as do Options #3, #4, and #5. Option #1 can provide 15-minute service, connect most of east and west Brickell, and provide fast service to and from the Brickell Metrond MoverBus station with one vehicle. Option#2 provides a bit more service coverage throughout Brickell than Option # 1, but takes longer(20- minute round-trip versus fifteen) to complete. Both fifteen minute and twenty minute service allow for "clockface headways" which means the vehicles would always come to every destination at the same time within the hour during every hour of service throughout the day. This provides easier opportunities to promote the service and allows regular users to become familiar with when the shuttle will come past their point of pick up. The average trip on Option # 1 would take six to seven minutes, while the average trip on Option #2 would take eight to ten minutes. Options #3 and #5 could provide 20-minute service withtwo vehicles. This would mean the average time passengers without a schedule would need to wait for a shuttle vehicle would be 10 minutes. The average travel time for most trips taken on the shuttle would be approximately eight to ten minutes for all options except #1, where the average travel time for trips would be six to seven minutes. Twenty minute service may be sufficient to serve the trips most likely to be taken by residents who are shopping, or by commuters returning home from work. However, it is not as frequent as one would want to serve lunchtime trips to and from restaurants when people generally have only one hour away from their jobs. It is also less than -20- DISCUSSED desirable for those who are trying to get from home to work on schedule. Option #4 provides 15-minute service, but is clearly the most expensive of all the options. It should also be noted that Options #3 through #5 require crossing the Brickell Avenue bridge and will be subject to the uncertainties ofthat bridge's operation. Records obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation indicate that the bridge opens approximately 30 times a day. The average length of time that traffic is delayed is approximately 4 minutes and 30 seconds. The bridge opens on demand, and there is no way to build the bridge's openings into a predictable shuttle schedule. Therefore, there will be times when a trip between Flagler Street and the Brickell area will take another four minutes and 30 seconds longer than other trips. While this uncertainty will frustrate some trips, there appears to be enough interest m providing a direct surface link between the two areas to make this option available. Some might say the four -and -a -half minute delay would be no worse than the additional time it currently takes to walk to Metromover, wait for its arrival, and wait for the transfers at Knight Center station to complete their trips. Two vehicles would be required to provide 20 minute service for all options except Option# 1 which would only require one vehicle to provide service every 15 minutes, unless it was decided to provide service every seven -and -a -half minutes for this more internal circulator route. Given the types of demands for the service as expressed by community representatives, service should be made available from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday. At an estimated rate of $45 per hour, the annual cost of providing two vehicles for thirteen hours a day (including one hour for "deadhead service' to and from the starting point of service), six days a week would be $365,040. The annual cost of providing service with one vehicle as called for in Option# 1 would be $182,520. The annual cost ofproviding 15-minute service with three vehicles as called for in Option #4 is $547,560 Because this is new service for much of the Brickell area, passengers might be expected to pay a fare of $.25, which is the cost of a transfer fare on the MDTA system The City of Miami would also need to agree to forsake approximately 20 parking spaces on streets such as Brickell Bay Drive and Southwest 2nd Avenue to allow room for shuttle bus stops. Whenever available, the sliuttle should be allowed to use existing MDTA bus stops on Brickell Avenue and SW 2nd Avenue and SW 8d' Street This report recommends that Option #1 be implemented, assuming the county's Access to Jobs grant is approved by the federal government. That grant provides sufficient funds to operate one vehicle for one year. This will give the community the time to promote a new circulator service that provides a fairly good level of frequency within the Brickell community and encourages greater use of all the modes of public transportation available in the area. Should the circulator prove successful during the first year of operation and the community would like to see more service, it could determine which ofthe other options are most attractive and affordable. Flagler Street Corridor -21- DISCUSSED Downtown Miami has many ofthe characteristics ofother central cities in the United States. It is the center of county government, it has a number of cultural attractions, and it is a major employment center with millions ofsquare feet of office space. Much ofthe development in the Flagler Street corridor is older than that in the Brickell area, and the percentage of office buildings that are regarded as Class A is lower. There are a number of historic buildings, including the Gusman Theater in the corridor. The Miami -Dade Community College Wolfson Campus is just a few blocks north between NE 1' and 2' Avenues. While there are relatively few housing opportunities in the corridor, there are major mixed -use development proposals for the area along the Miami River east of SE 21 Avenue (known as "One Miami'). At the west end ofthe corridor is the Miami River, while the east end ofthe corridor terminates at Bayfiont Park. Both of these water -based assets are underutilized for leisure activities at the present time. Near the west end of the Flagler corridor at SW I" Avenue is the downtown bus terminal where 20 MDTA bus routes converge within one block of the Metrorail/Metromover Government station Levels of Service on the streets ofthe Flagler corridor are generally good (LOS B and Q, although cars pulling in and out of street parking spaces, and trucks making deliveries, can cause aggravation to traffic trying to move forward. What gives the Flagler Street corridor a bit ofa different character than most downtowns in Florida is the level of retail activity that it enjoys. While most downtowns have seen the retail function migrate to the suburbs, downtown Miami still hosts numerous stores ranging from Burdines, Marshalls, and Ross, to electronics stores and a thriving jewelry district. While the employees working in the downtown area do some of their shopping here, much of the retail activity can be attributed to visitors. Flagler Street is generally alive with pedestrians during the daytime hours. In spite of these positive signs, the DDA believes that Flagler Street has fallen short of its potential as a full -day, year-round, street -oriented marketplace and an exciting pedestrian promenade. Some storefronts are currently shuttered, and after 5 pm. the downtown area becomes far less patronized and attractive. The Downtown Development Authority is very excited about the prospects for renewed private investment in the downtown, and has developed plans for improving the Flagler Street Corridor. The Flagler Marketplace plan calls for the following improvements: • Conversion ofFlagler Street froma one-wayto a two-waytraffic operation, including a cul-de-sac and additions to the existing bus terminal. at NW V Avenue; • Relocation of large MDTA buses to other streets in the downtown area; • Improved street lighting; • Improved street landscaping, • Sidewalk enhancements; • Repaving of the sheet; -22- DISCUSSED Vto-, . Downtown destination and informational signage, banners, and information kiosks. The DDA hopes to see these improvements implemented by mid- 2001. One component of the successful implementation of such a plan is the establishment ofa shuttle service that would take the place of the large MDTA buses that currently traverse Flagler Street. Existing Transit Services in the Flagler Street Corridor Downtown Miami serves as the single largest hub of transit services provided by the Miami Dade Transit Agency. Twenty routes enter the city from points north, south, east, and west to converge at the Central Bus Terminal between Flagler Street and SW I" Street along SW 1st Avenue. This transfer facility is currently undersized, and many buses need to exercise their layover on the surrounding streets. The facility is also located over a block away from the Metrorail/Metromover Government Center Station. Part of the plans to improve Flagler Street include an expansion of the bus transfer terminal that would bring it closer to the rail station by extending the terminal to NW 1st Street. Clearly, the Flagler Street corridor in downtown Miami does not lack for transit service. Many of the 20 mutes that enter the bus terminal go through downtown Miami on a combinationofFlagier Street, NE/W 1st Street, and S E/ W 1st Street. These rouges contribute to approximately 100 buses per hour going through the Flagler corridor between Biscayne Boulevard and the Central Bus Terminal. Downtown Miami is also served by Metromover, with eight stations located on the inner/outer loop, that encircles the immediate downtown area. The Needs and Potential Markets for Shuttle Services in the Flagler Corridor The downtown Flagler corridor is relatively short (six -tenths of a mile from the Government Center to Biscayne Boulevard) and can be relatively easily walked by casual shoppers. The important question to be answered, in h& ofthe substantial amount oftransit service alreadyavailable, is - what ultimate purpose would a shuttle serve? One answer may be that the shuttle on Flagler Street could serve a broader purpose of tying Flagler to its neighbors to the north and south. As noted earlier, there are substantial hotel and residential developments in Bnckell that could help patronize the retail activities in the Flagler corridor. There is also hope thatredevelopment near the Omni area will create new markets for downtown retail and office activity. Shuttles that connect those areas with Flagler Street might not have to traverse all of Flagler Street on a frequent basis as long as people are able to find the shuttle in a centrally located shuttle stop (for instance, between SE 2°d and 3'd Avenues). On the other hand, a frequent shuttle service from Bayfront Park to the bus terminal could result in greater use of all the retail opportunities along Flagler Street. Making all stores and offices accessible with a -23- DISCUSSED n comfortable and frequent shuttle can make the entire corridor more attractive since the effort one would need to expend to get to any place on Flagler Street would be mil. An enclosed, air-conditioned shuttle would minimize the effects of hot or rainy weather and make shopping on Flagler Street a more pleasant experience. Attractive shuttles can also entice people to go to destinations that they might not otherwise think of trying to reach, such as the Miami. River area once it starts to redevelop as a waterfront attraction of restaurants and parks. In short, a frequent shuttle along Flagler Street could help to expand every shopper's opportunities and help unify the entire downtown Flagler corridor from east to west. A ground shuttle service that connects the downtown withresidential areas both north and south would also respond to retailers who feel disappointed in Metromover's indirect access to the heart of Flagler Street. In Memphis, Tennessee and Des Moines, Iowa, shuttles are designed to take people to and from remote parking garages to minimize traffic on their major downtown street, and encourage more parking on the perimeters of the downtown. A shuttle along Flagler could assist Miami in this way as well. There are a number of parking facilities on the west end of Flagler Street, many of which have space available for additional cars at the present time. Ultimately, a small fleet of shuttle buses could replace most of the large bus service in the Flagler corridor if the service was very fiuquent and connected the Omni bus transfer center with the downtown bus terminal. MDTA's large buses are clearly not pleasant components of the downtown area. The buses' diesel engines are quite loud and emit unwanted exhaust, both of which are made worse by the "urban canyon" nature ofthe downtown area. Given their need to make connections and schedules, these 13-ton buses seem to move fairly fast and can be scary to some as they rumble by. All in all, these large buses are not consistent witha pedestrian friendly, shopping -intensive atmosphere that the citywishes to promote. CUTR staffmet with members ofthe Downtown Miami TransportationManagement Initiative (TMI) during March 2000 to discuss what alternatives they would support to improve transportation services in downtown Miami. Among the top 10 alternatives identified by the private sector members of the TMI were: • To expand mass transit routes and schedules; • To provide shuttles to transit facilities and satellite parking; • To have more and smaller buses; and • To develop employer -based shuttles to the city. Optional Circulator Routes on Flagler Street -24- DISCUSSED Y Three different options for providing shuttle services along Flagler Street are described below. Once the improvements to Flagler Street are completed, the shuttle service will be able to travel on Flagler Street in both directions, making the service very easy to understand The general principles that were followed in the development of the options were: The shuttle service should be frequent enough that people would not need a schedule to use it; The shuttle should serve as much of the length of Flagler Street as is appropriate given current levels of development; and The shuttle should connect with other hansportation modes whenever possible. -25- DISCUSSED 1*1 a M Flagler Street Shuttle - Option 1 � Illl'913t OVERTOWN ulnolbl �„ �..hK'rSti i�� NarP '♦y' a fl�nla u�akalc.rel '• �•+w� k aft, 1 \` s uxe * `••\ P{ BICEA7EVHY.L K 17.1 . '9r A STri i 5r,•�'-"`� '\ yet ~Ati 1�ti. � 17.e1� SOUTH OVERT a N �` I J N3t mFRCtlitt/f { �.. PAFK r wMatl IM p41glr V s, at EAST LITTLE HAV ANA ` t 3f13Y 51 1 r Iric}xl�/ (F,C: BRICKELL Y.1 1111 S 1 M=b.1 �' 1 ltl•w ..a '� _nccu ;tI1A�9 5n.nle'�plla�e l' t. °° rr tt7y nw I etwii P. O: I un. 1p�E''.,.`IICCI :sI1l�11C'�IY(fOl� �f a nix n7c �' m•. s� -26- DISCUSSED v Flagler Street Shuttle Option #1 This optionprovides service from the Central Bus Terminal to Bayside Marketplace via Hagler Street and Biscayne Boulevard This is an extremely straightforward and easy route to understand that serves virtually all the developed blocks along Hagler Street as well as Biscayne Boulevard up to NE 0 Street. Part of the reason for this routing is that it ties together two major attractions (Bayside and Hagler Street) and the more attractions and destinations that there are on a shuttle route, the more likely people are to use it There is also a very convenient turn -around point at Bayside that would allow the shuttle to pick up and drop off passengers at Bayside and continue quickly back to Hagler Street. This would enable the route to stay on Hagler Street and Biscayne Boulevard in both directions, thereby avoiding any confusing loops and excessive left hand turns at the east end ofthe route. In addition, having the shuttle go as far as Bayside would get people closer to the seaport, thereby reducing the length oftaxi trips to cruise ships in the Port ofMian* and within two blocks ofthe new American Airlines Arena. This routing would also allow people to be picked up and dropped off closer to the Hotel Intercontinental and directly in front of Bayfront Park. This route would pass directly by the Bayfront Metromover station and be within one block of the Government Center Metrorail/Metromover station. This option connects the shuttle withallofthe MDTA buses that access the Central Bus Terminal, providing for easy transfers between the two services. The presence of a frequent shuttle service would make it unnecessary for MDTA routes #77 and # I 1 to travel east of the bus terminal as they presently do to take passengers directly to any destinations as far east as Biscayne Boulevard This would enable MDTA to "save" the cost of operating two large buses in its service planning and its budget. It would also result in having 16 fewer large buses going through the Hagler Street corridor each hour. A round trip on Option #1 is 1.7 miles long and could be comfortably completed in 15 minutes. Service could be provided in both directions every five minutes with three vehicles m operation, or every three minutes with five vehicles in operation. Assuming service is provided between 6:30 a.m, and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday, a five-minute level offrequency provided by three vehicles working 13 hours a day (including one hour "deadhead" service to get to and from the start of service) would cost approximately $547,560 per year. Three minute service requiring five vehicles in service would cost approximately $912,600 per year. -27- DISCUSSED L� � a Flagler Street Shuttle - Option 2 WMA01. E nxaFr� ia. Iknxh ':tikl krill lGr tt 41 S OVERTOWN C_mrc ,\ ks tlalaclCaRi •.� ��2 Rti R l]T ti prlr OVERTa 1 � Z kwum a x EAST LITTLE HAVANA W)n0: LRO Era D R. i kA Y IbI jr. Shu Ilr. Cpliu x .. _ _... - -D,Ett ywn S1x.RIB Optkins hlxl:r U-xt Lhumc (,"oro A wit In\T PARK I� UNTENIA FARM. WEST Y r I CJ'S? U" PARS _- .� 1sk Sk —rmio— -lrwhmD kaNIWCxc'IIrU_aFto`x w r —28— DISCUSSED Y • N � e Flagler Street Shuttle Option #2 This option offers the same basic service as Option # 1 by travelog between the Central Bus Terminal and Bayside Marketplace. However, it also includes service further west to the Miami River. The primary advantage of this route is that it would help in the redevelopment of the northeast side of the Miami River by snaking it convenient for people to access by the shuttle. It has been the experience of other cities that attractive shuttle service will encourage people to go to places they might not otherwise think of going to. In addition, this optionwould also provide shuttle access to those who park their cars in the Miami Parking System facilities located under 1-95 and its ramps entering downtown. Option #2 would pass by the parking lot at NW 1" Street and River Drive, as well as Parking Lots # 14, # 15, and #33 located along SW 1 S` Street. Greater utilization of these parking facilities could decrease the amount of automobile traffic in the downtown area, and possibly provide an incentive for the Miami Parking System to contribute to the cost ofoperating the shuttle. This route would also provide direct access to a planned greenway that will be designed to follow the Miami River all the way from Biscayne Bay. The disadvantage of this plan is that extending the route to the Miami River would add another mile to the round trip distance of the route. An additional five to six minutes would be required to complete a round trip. Four vehicles would be required to provide service every five minutes on this extended route, increasing the cost ofproviding service every five minutes to $730,080 per year. To provide service every three minutes over the extended route would require seven buses at a total cost of $1,277,640 per year. Given the high costs associated with the addition of each new vehicle, it might be appropriate to delay consideringthis option until the redevelopment along the river is underway. One option to consider to keep costs lower would be to provide service to the Miami River only during lunchtime, for instance between 11:00 am. and 2:00 pm. Mondays through Fridays. This type of service would cost an additional $46,800 per year for a total operating cost of$594,360 for five minute service, or an additional $93,600 for service every three minutes for a total operating cost of $1,006,200 per year. -29- DISCUSSED _ c .A 11 E C Flagler Street Shuttle - Option 3 Ilk-, 'ft -a OVERTOWN MRaCI tow b6ft SOUT ST OVERT wi 34 -M 41J. 3t EAST LITTLE H"ANA L!X=E;1% Et1c<=-II Yl lace S-Utla 0otlons I lof 24111111-. .�pfil I x Fl-.Ul-r =l - �l qmIllm qdh i PARK BIC= —E,141AL I"UF.K VXsT E mm br iz rrXft co BRICKEXL 14 AJa1A "Wil S. mi iiwn1dLqwm bmr -30- DISCUSSED M Flagler Street Shuttle Option #3 This option is clearly the most ambitious, the most controversial, and the most in need of partners to accomplish. Yet it is not inconceivable, and could result in the most exciting opportunities for overall improvement of the environment ofthe downtown. Option #3 calls for providing shuttle service between the Central Bus Terminal and the Omni bus transfer center at Biscayne Boulevard and NE 141' Street. This is clearly the longest route optionproposed, with a round trip length of 3.5 miles. In spite of its greater length, the round trip could be completed in 20 minutes because much of the area along Biscayne Boulevard north of NE 4' Street does not have major development or destinations. This would require a minimalnumber of stops and allowthe shuttle vehicles to travel at a good pace on this stretch ofthe route. This option would allow passengers to access the American Airlines Arena and the new Perfomung Arts Center when it is built One of the major advantages of this option is that it connects the hotels and new residential developments occurring near the Omni with Flagler Street via the shuttle. Of course, this is already possible through a number of MDTA bus routes that follow the same route. This observation leads to the other major potential advantage of this option. A shuttle service that is very frequent and free could replace much of the large bus service that now travels between the Omni and the Central Bus Terminal. This proposed option presents problems as well as wonderful possibilities. One significant problem is that this option proposes to truncate (terminate) many (but not all) of the bus routes at the Omni transfer facility rather than allow them to complete their trip to downtown Miami. The most negative aspect of this proposal is that the subject oftnmcating bus routes outside ofthe downtown is controversial and has been rejected in the past. Truncating the bus routes at the Omni has been proposed before as a way of saving MDTA more than $2.7 million per year in operating expenses. The theory was that passengers could use the Metromover to complete their trip to the downtown area. While these monetary savings to MDTA would be tremendous, passengers were not looking forward to having to change from a bus to the Metromover at Omni with less than two miles to go to complete their trip. Passengers on buses truncated at the Omni would be required to change elevations to the Metromover platform, wait for a Metromover car to arrive, and face a trip that was at least a few minutes longer to complete their trip downtown on a vehicle with very few seats. Passengers' travel time was going to be increased by as much as ten minutes. It's not surprising that passengers did not consider this a bargain. However, transferring to a ground shuttle service might not be as objectionable. Virtually all of the bus routes coming from the north and east (Miami Beach) enter the Omni bus transfer center. If shuttle vehicles going to Flagler Street were available at the Omni every two to three minutes, there would be no need to change elevations to the Metromover, very little increase in the passenger's overall travel time, and a good chance of having a seat on the shuttle. The transfer to the shuttle would be free. Another way to make this option more acceptable would be to allow some of the large MDTA buses to -31- DISCUSSED rWr►` `ter/ continue on through to the downtown. Routes such as the #3, that travels along Biscayne Boulevard and Route S that comes fiomMiami Beach, carrycrushloads, and it would be unrealistic and foolishto require passengers to exit a 40 or 60 foot bus and cram into a 22 foot shuttle. However, a number of other routes withlighterpassenger loads could be terminated at the Omni and passengers would have the optionof(1) taking the shuttle, (2) using Metromover ifit better accommodated their final destination, or (3) transferring to any of the large MDTA buses that are continuing through to the downtown area. The major advantage of this option is that it removes almost two-thirds of the large bus traffic from the downtown area. This would significantly reduce the emissions and the noise from MDTA's buses as they travel through the downtown. It would also increase the sense of pedestrian safety on Flagler and the surrounding streets. This is clearly the most expensive of all the options to provide shuttle service along Flagler Street. Frequency would need to be high - no worse than every three minutes, and preferably every two minutes. This level of frequency would be required to provide sufficient capacityfor the passengers transferring from the MDTA large buses at Omni to smaller shuttle buses to complete their trip to downtown. A high level of frequency is also required to make the transfer from MDTA large buses to smaller shuttle buses as painless as possible in terms of travel time forpassengers. They should not be expected to wait, particularly if the weather is inclement, for a vehicle that allows them to complete their trip. Providing service every three minutes would require sevenvehicles thatwould provide a capacity oftcansporiing approximately 600 passengers per hour one way. Providing service every two minutes would require 10 vehicles that would be able to transport 900 passengers per hour one way. Providing service in this fashion from 6:00 am. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturdays would cost $1,375,920 per year for service provided by seven shuttle vehicles every three minutes, or $1,965,600 per year for service provided by ten shuttle vehicles every two minutes. Summary of Flagler Street Shuttle Options The options for service described above provide a wide range of choices for those who will determine what type of shuttle service is most appropriate for the Flagler Street corridor. With as few as three vehicles, shuttle service could be provided between the Central Bus Terminal and Bayfront Marketplace every five minutes in both directions from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 pm. Mondays through Saturdays for $547,560 a year. This option would remove only 16 large buses per hour from the streets of downtown Miami if MDTA agrees to terminate routes #11 and #77 at the Central Bus Temvnal. A more comprehensive approach to providing shuttles that removes approximately 70 large buses from downtown Miami during the same days and hours would require 10 vehicles at an annual operating cost of$1,965,600. The subject ofhow these services could be paid for will be covered more thoroughly in the section of the report on potential funding sources. It is enough to say at this point that the most probable way for the most comprehensive (and expensive) option to be funded (Option #3) would be by having the MDTA become a full partner in the provision of service, whereby they would help pay for the new shuttle service through the savings they -32- ISCU QED UD jrrs *✓ realized from truncating some routes that currently travel from the Omni to the Central Bus Terminal in downtown Miami. MDTA officials would most likely be very reluctant to accept this option because of the burden it places on passengers to change vehicles. Whenever possible, transit agencies try not to make their passengers "transfer" during their trips. In general, transferring makes a trip by public transit less attractive and could discourage ridership. However, there is precedent for the service proposed under this option. In Denver, Colorado, the Regional Transit District temunates all of their bus routes heading for the downtown at two transfer facilities approximately one mile apart from each other. If passengers wish to complete their trip downtown via transit, they are required to transfer to large buses that run every 60 seconds on the "Sixteenth Street Mall", a one -mile pedestrian/transit facility in the heart of downtown. This necessity to transfer is simply regarded as a non -issue by transit officials and passengers given the high level of frequency available to passengers, and the fact that no fare is required to ride the shuttle. A two -minute level of service would probably be sufficient in downtown Miami to make transferring a non -issue to MDTA passengers. Of course, a two minute frequency would also provide a wonderful level of service throughout Flagler Street for those not using MDTA's regional bus routes. It is proposed that any shuttle service along Flagler Street be provided for free. Most of the trips would be less than four minutes. Passengers would be reluctant to pay a fare for such short trips. Requiring payment could severely slow -the process ofboarding and delay the schedule and forward progress of the shuttle which would be expected to be more heavily used than the other shuttles in Brickell and Overtown. In Option #3, a shuttle service would be replacing existing transit service for which most people have already paid a full fare. It should be noted that the Flagler Street optional routes do not address the potential of providing shuttle services to and from the Port of Miami. This facility is certainly a major source of tourists who shop in the downtown area during certain days. However, a round trip through the port would take 20 minutes for serving an area with sporadic demand. It would not make good sense to incorporate the Port of Miami into a route that also serves Flagler Street since there would be no need for two to five minute service to and from the Port throughout the day on an every day basis. It might make better sense to have a stand- alone route that provides service every 20 minutes from the Port connecting to the other shuttles on Biscayne Boulevard, or possibly to incorporate the Port into a route that also serves Overtown on an east - west route along 8' Street. Passengers wishing to go downtown could transfer to the more frequent shuttle serving Flagler Street. This would be more likely if Option #3 for serving Flagler Street was put into effect. In the meantime, MDTA intends to provide 60-minute shuttle service to the seaport from the Government Center on a regular basis starting in September with funds made available from a job access grant from FDOT. This will not have a dramatic effect on accessing retail activity on Flagler Street, but will help people who are leaving welfare and finding work at the port -33- DISCUaSED M Overtown Overtown is the largely AfricanAmericancommunity located north ofdowntown Miamiwitha richhistory, but an uncertain future. This community is primarily residential, with some neighborhood businesses and other commercial/industrial uses located in its more northeasterly portions. Prior to 1960, Overtown was a relatively stable and vibrant community of almost 40,000 residents. While the community was clearly economically challenged, there was a much greater sense of neighborhood coherence due to the co - location of higher income residents, neighborhood schools, and hundreds of locally owned businesses. After 1960, a number of forces including school desegregation, increased housing opportunities in other areas for higher income minority residents, speculative apartment construction, disinvestment, and urban renewal produced major negative effects on the Overtown community. Many of these forces caused a dispersion offormer residents to other areas, and a reduction in neighborhood togetherness. Perhaps just as importantly, rumors offreewayconstruction, followed by actual construction of multiple transportation corridors, accelerated the decline of the community. Hundreds of businesses and residences were purchased and destroyed to accommodate the construction ofI-95,1-395, and Metrorail. These actions removed a large part of the economic base of the community, and created physical barriers that divided what was once a singular communityinto four different parts that became a particularly difficult place to live. Today, Overtown is a shell ofwhat it once was - the proud center of the African American community of Miami -Dade County. The population of the area has shrunk from 33,000 people in 1950 to approximately 8,000 today. Overtown is currently experiencing the most extreme economic hardship of any community in Miami -Dade County. The 1990 census indicated that only 34 percent of Overtown's working -age residents were employed. Over half of all families in Overtown were shown in the 1990 census to be below the poverty line. There is substantial underinvestment in this area that is located so close to major centers ofeconomic growth, including the Civic Center to the northwest, the booming areas of Brickell, and the expected development that will occur in downtown Miami and the Omni area. Existing Transit Services in Overtown MDTA currently provides a high level of service through Overtown. A number of regional routes serving downtown Miami pass throughOvertown ona north -south basis. Route #77 travels along NW 7"' Avenue and River Drive, providing service every 10 minutes during peak hours, every 15 minutes during the midday, and every 20 minutes on Saturdays. Route #21 provides service from the Jackson Memorial complex to downtown Miami by going through Overtown along NW 3' Avenue between N W 17t' Street and NW 1 I d' Street, then along NW 5d' Avenue between NW l Ph Street and NW 5th/6th Streets, and finally along NW 2nd Avenue from NW 5d' Street to the Central Bus Terminal. Service on Route #21 is provided every 30 minutes on weekdays and every 60 minutes on Saturdays. Route #2 provides service essentially along NW` 2°d Avenue from N W le Street to the Central Bus Terminal. Route #2 runs every 15 minutes throughout the day on weekdays, and every 20 minutes on Saturdays. -34- DISCUSSED N V 7 � A� *10# East- west service is provided by MDTA on Route #7 which travels from NW 7"' Avenue to NE Is' Avenue along NW 6' Street. Route #7 runs every 20 minutes throughout the day on weekdays, and every 30 minutes on Saturday. In addition, the Route 'W travels in an east -west direction from Jackson Memorial along NW 17"' Street to NW 3rd Avenue, then along NW 14t' Street to the Omni. Service on the "M" is provided every 30 minutes during weekdays, and every 60 minutes on weekends. There are two Metrorail stations serving Overtown, including the Overtown Arena station at N W r Street and NW 1s' Avenue, and the Culmer Station at NW 11t' Street and NW 7" Avenue. Metrorail provides six minute service during peak hours, and 15 minute service during off-peak hours. The Metromover system lies just south and east of Overtown, with the closest station located at NW 5''' Street and Miami Avenue. In addition to the bus and rail services provided by MDTA, there are a number oflegalprivate jitneys that operate through Overtown including King Jitney and Tri Rail Jitney. These jitneys provide service at the same cost as MDTA, though there are no agreements to accept transfers between the public and private providers of service at this time. The Needs and Potential Markets for Shuttle Service in Overtown Florida International Universityproduced a well researched and documented report in 1998 entitled'The Historical Impacts of Transportation Projects onthe Overtown Community". That report documents the devastating effects that prior transportationprojects have had onOvertown that have resulted in community leaders having little trust towards public decision makers. The FIU report suggests that any future transportationprojects be designed to improve residents' access to economic opportunities and retail areas, including Bayside, Flagler Street, the Omni, Jackson Memorial, the Port, and (though not mentioned in the report) the booming areas of Brickell. As shown above, MDTA and private jitneys provide a good level of service to many destinations including Flagler Street, Jackson Memorial, and the Omni. Clearly, a new shuttle service would not be intrusive to the community, and could further improve residents access to areas where jobs are being created. A shuttle service could also improve access to humanservices, job twining, parks, schools, and new shopping centers for daily conveniences such as the Winn Dixie Marketplace. In addition to recommending improved access to economic opportunities in the surrounding areas for Overtown residents, the various plans developed for Overtown call for the improvement of the infrastructure ofthe area to create a more favorable environment for business and housing. The emphasis in the near future is in the development of the Folklife Village in the heart of historic Overtown between NW 8' and 10' Streets and 2" and 3' Avenues. A revitalization in this area within Overtown could generate renewed pride and interest among residents, and attract visitors to enjoy the rich history of the African American community in Miami Dade County. -35- DISCUSSED i y• The options for shuttle routes m Overtown are based on the principles within the various community development plans summarized in the FlU report, as well as information received from neighborhood and city planners, as well as the staff of the community redevelopment agency who are very familiar with the issues m the community. The primary interest is in providing an east -west shuttle through the heart of the community that provides access to a number of public services and places, historic sites, redevelopment areas, multiple transportation modes, shopping, and economic opportunities. Optional Shuttle Routes for Overtown Three different options for shuttle service are provided below, all of them sharing some common characteristics oftraveling through the community on an east -west basis. The general principles followed in the development of these options are: • To avoid obvious duplication with existing transit services in the community, • To connect with as many other transit modes as possible to encourage greater use ofpublic transit; • To provide residents with access to multiple work, human service, and shopping opportunities; • To provide service that would encourage non-residents to visit the historic attractions in Overtown; • To support redevelopment efforts that are currently underway; • To be consistent withplans for bike and pedestrian improvements and plans for greenways that are intended to connect the Miami River to the Biscayne Bay through Overtown. -36- DISCUSSED Overtown Shuttle - Option 1 N.i OVGWOVM Ulu t f•�J a tt , OVERTO vvva���yyy., � $ 3 crr so et -Weh RASI LITTLE HAVANA av)aM .r,1 IN r) Frick41 AlaW +hullr.gdinln - J)Y3 oarr �hsrtle ()Pb0hE PARK SCEYTE "I' m PAR' me ausl rar. n NC .A x _l ON st 0 r - _ i aaat j �' 1 eC. �stuc;ft�:I.4 ua�.l .• � s r V ae JrFrrr fvr, i •t =6sm a El CYD3kMAwkfilltlf)zhj?Lw 3orbkrAm -37- DISCUSSED Overtown Shuttle Option #1 This option provides a basic east -west service through Overtown from Biscayne Boulevard to NW 12t' Avenue, primarily along NW 10th/l lth Streets and NW 8t' Avenue. The service is designed to start on Biscayne Boulevard at Bayside where it could connect with the Flagler Shuttle. From there it heads north past the American Airlines Arena to NE 8' Street. The route would proceed west along NE/W 8`' Street past the Park West Metromover station and the proposed telecommunication center at NE Is' Avenue. The route would continue toward Miami Arena and the Overtown Arena Metrorail station at NW l' Avenue where hundreds ofthousands of square feet ofnew office space developments are anticipated. On the north side of NW 8 " Street are high density residential developments between Miami Avenue and NW 1 s' Avenue that also feature the 9"' Street Pedestrian Mall. The route would turn north on NW 2nd Avenue past the Lyric Theater on its way to NW 11'' Street, going through part ofthe planned FoRdife Village and redevelopment areas between NW 8' and 11' Streets. The route would proceed west on NW 11" Street, passing two short blocks south of Gibson Park. At NW 5' Avenue the route would be one block north of the Jefferson Reaves Sr. Health Center and Reeves Park. One block further west the route would go past Booker T. Washington Senior High School. Continuing in a westbound direction, the route would cross NW 7'' Avenue and pull into the Cuhner Metrorail station before proceeding to its final destination at the new Winn Dixie Marketplace just east of NW 12' Avenue. This route provides new service in the community that is not currently being provided by MDTA or private jitneys. It "connects the dots" of many different points of interest for residents and non-residents. It is consistent with the redevelopment plans for the heart of Overtown that focus on historic elements of the community. It is also consistent with plans for a greenway through the community that is attempting to connect multiple parks in this section of the city. Option # 1 provides connections with Metrorail service and also provides quick access to the new full -service Winn Dixie Marketplace which provides residents with a wide range of food choices and pharmaceutical items at competitive prices. A round trip on this route could be completed in 20 minutes. Therefore, one vehicle could provide service every 20 minutes in both directions. A twenty minute frequency of service provides the opportunity for easy -to -understand "clockface headways" where the shuttle vehicle will pass byanypoint at the same times during every hour of service. Assuming the service ran from 6:30 am. to 6:30 pm Monday through Saturdays, the annual operating costs for providing this service would be $182,520 with one vehicle. Providing 10 minute service with two vehicles would cost $365,040 per year. Given the lower densities of development in the Overtown area, it might be more appropriate to start with a service that ran every 20 minutes until such time as demand required greater service. The Winn Dixie Marketplace would provide a convenient layover spot for the bus at the end of a round trip to allow the vehicle operator to have a few moments to use a restroom or just take a short break. The advantages ofthis route are that it is relatively inexpensive, fairly easy to understand (although the one- way nature of some of the streets make it less -than -ideal), and the trips taken on the route will be completed quickly. There is little traffic on the local roads that will cause delay of the shuttle, and no -38- DISCUS SED err' �j bridges to be concerned with. The disadvantages of the route are that it requires passengers to transfer •� . if they are going to Hagler Street, and it does not reach as far west as the Jackson Memorial Hospital complex. It is also not a true neighborhood circulator that gets close to all of the residents in the various sections of Overtown. -39- DISCUSSED M� v 1 A-,- lvmw *40i -40- DISCUSSED r b9 1/ ' C•. Overtown Shuttle - Option 2 VLXTUWN 04Z S 0 1HR evpftro ti ME 0 rT wjm. DAST LITTLE HAVANA 3WI-M g LEGEND Elickdl I.,ilQqc ---hw.He Cpfio-c Ovcibwn Sh-dl-- C-mior- Flacier Street Stv_t_'r= Opdms M flu cl. QO IP, 9"m PC "Ok yl PARK mr.rmr-,ih L% PXV4 vap—qr PARK r . bp.- OF ::r"jbr3t "no rA GE as �t rfr DISCUSSED N4100" Overtown Shuttle Option #2 Option #2 is virtually identical to Option # l , but it adds service to the Jackson Memorial Hospital complex. The route continues west on NW l I' Street to NW 12' Avenue and turns east on NW14th Street. Passengers would be let off on NW 14' Street to access all ofthe medical offices, requiring a walk ofone to three blocks. The route would then go southonNW 10"' Avenue to NW IOh Street to continue with all the service noted in Option #1. The obvious advantage of this route is that it takes passengers very near the medical complex (Cedar Medical Center, VA Hospital, and Jackson Memorial Hospital). This would be a valuable service for both employees and patients of these facilities. The primary disadvantage associated with Option #2 is that it takes 25 minutes to complete a round trip. This addition of five minutes removes the possibility of providing service once every 20 minutes with one vehicle, thereby losing the advantage of the clockface headways as noted earlier. Service could be provided every twenty-two and one half minutes, or it could be slowed down to once every 30 minutes to retain an easy -to -understand schedule. If it was changed to provide service every 30 minutes, the shuttle could spend more time taking passengers more directly into the Jackson Memorial Hospital facilities via NW 16' Street, making their walk access to the various facilities there that much easier. As noted in Option # 1, providing service with one vehicle every 30 minutes would cost $182,520 per year to operate. Service could be provided every 15 minutes with two vehicles at an annual operating cost of $365,040. -42- DISCUSSED v v a. w .7 C is Overtown Shuttle - Option 3 UVERTOWN L-4ti m som OVEP.T01, N so Zoe A a. 8AIS1 LITTLE ON Dt HAVANA W FC;FNF. B,iaei 'Alap Shtrge,:r.lom :NertDWns,uae,:,ions c� PARX WEST U. PARS PAR sw UW I�U,,i H EW�Y� -43- DISCUSSED G2 i Overtown Shuttle Option #3 This option is identical to Option #2, but it provides a direct connection with Flagler Street that voids the need to transfer to another vehicle to access downtown Miami. Rather than connect with Biscayne Boulevard, Option#3 turns south on NE 2nd Avenue and proceeds to Flagler Street, then heads back to 81' Street via NE 1st Avenue. This route's round trip could be completed in 30 minutes with one vehicle, or in 15 minutes with two vehicles. The costs associated with these two choices would be the same as those noted in Option #1. Overtown Option#3 might not be necessary ifFlagler Option #3 were implemented In that option, a very high frequency of shuttle service (every two to three minutes) is provided along Biscayne Boulevard, connecting with Overtown options # 1 and #2 at NE 8th Street. This would allow those using the Overtown shuttle to access Flagler Street with a very quick and easy transfer that would enable them to reach downtown only a couple of minutes slower than in Overtown Option #3. However, the return trip to Overtown would require a more carefully planned transfer since Overtown Options #1 and #2 would provide service only once every 20 minutes. Overtown Option #3 not only provides better access to downtown Miami for Overtown residents, it provides more potential shoppers for the stores in the rejuvenated Flagler corridor. In addition, it provides Overtown residents with easier access to the job opportunities that might be available in the new developments in Brickell, as well as job training opportunities available through Miami -Dade Community College's Wolfson campus. This routing option would also provide an easy connection to the shuttles noted in Brickell options 3 through 5. Summary of Overtown Shuttle Options The advantages and disadvantages of each individual route option for Overtown have already been described. However, it would also be possible to combine Overtown Option #3 with Brickell route options 3 and 5, whereby the same vehicles could serve Overtown route Option #3 and either of Options 3 and 5 in Brickell. There are a number of advantages to combining these routes. First, this would eliminate the need for passengers to transfer buses when traveling to and from Overtown and Brickell, making travel more convenient for those going between those two locations. Many residents of Overtown might want to use the service to get to jobs in Brickell. Residents of Brickell might want to go to the Wolfson campus of Miami -Dade Community College, visit the Folklife Village, have a direct ride to Jackson Memorial Hospital or shop at the Winn Dixie. Second, it could increase the likelihood of gaining funding for the route through certain federal resources that are available to pay for services that help people as they leave welfare and enter the work world. Third, it would equalize the level of service throughout the greater downtown area and help unite the various neighborhoods that are to receive shuttle service. Should a composite route be developed that would combine services to Overtown and Brickell, four vehicles would be required to ensure 20 minute service. One significant liability to this option is the negative effects the bridge openings could have on schedule reliability in both Overtown as well as Brickell. If -44- DISCUSSED S service were provided between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday, the annual operating .� costs would be approximately $730,080. These services could be phased in depending on the demand and availability of funds. Airport West The Airport West Transportation Management Initiative (TMI) in Miami is interested in establishing public shuttle service within its boundaries to help minimize traffic congestion that occurs during weekdays in this area of concentrated employment. CUTR has been asked to help determine the feasibility of, and possible alignments for, such public transit shuttle routes to alleviate traffic congestion, increase access to area employment from existing MDTA bus and rail facilities, and allow midday trips (such as for lunch, shopping, or other errands) for employees in the area. The area known as Airport West surrounds the Miami International Airport and is home to several industrial centers, corporate parks, shopping facilities (including Miami International Mall, Mall of the Americas, and the planned Dolphin Mall, an outlet mall that will be located just east ofthe Florida Turnpike south of NW 25''' Street), hotels, and other major employers. The most dense concentration of employment is near SR 826 and SR 836 in and around the airport. The full Airport West area is bounded by Okeechobee Road (U.S. 27) on the north; Le Jeune Road (NW 42"d Avenue) on the east; Flagler Street on the south; and the Florida Turnpike on the west. For a more focused study, the northern boundary was moved south to NW 42"d Street and NW 36' Street (this street is NW 42"1 to the west of NW 87'h Avenue and NW36th Street to the east of NW 87'' Avenue). This shift did not preclude consideration of the needs of employers north of 36`h Street, however, such as the Doral Resort and the Koger Center. The Airport West area is characterized by extremely heavy traffic volumes in the peak morning and afternoon rush periods as well as midday. Traffic is most congested in the areas near SR 826 (Palmetto Expressway) for both north- and southbound traffic as well as east- and westbound traffic. Within the area, there are several roadway segments that operate below acceptable levels of service (there are a number of improvements planned in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program, however). Currently, Airport West is underserved by the Miami -Dade Transit Agency (MDTA), although additional service has been proposed, as described in later sections of this report. Population and employment within Airport West is expected to grow slowly but steadily. It is forecast that, between 1995 and 2020, population will grow 40 percent, and employment will increase 36 percent. -45- DISCUSSED � N Ow Information Gathering As part ofthis effort, CUTR, withthe help ofthe AirportWest TMI, contacted nearly 40 majoremployers, leasing managers, and other stakeholders within Airport West to help determine the need for the services under consideration and to solicit input as to what the recommended services should accomplish. Seventeen of the employers and leasing managers (for shopping malls and corporate parks) contacted by CUTR agreed to a face-to-face meeting or answered a series of questions via fax. They included representatives of Delta Airlines, Holiday Inn/Crowne Plaza, Hotel Sofitel, Miami Airport Marriot, Radisson Mart Plaza, ICF Kaiser Engineers, Norwegian Cruise Lines, Blue Cross -Blue Shield, Neighborhood HealthPartnership, STAF Airlines, Swiss ChaletFine Foods, Inc., Koger Center, Radisson Plaza, Mall of the Americas, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Airport Corporate Center, and the Waterford/Hogan Group. Points of discussion included the following: • perceptions of traffic congestion and parking problems • workday hours of employees • employee complaints or problems with traffic congestion • current public transit use among employees • possible areas for shuttles to serve (origins, destinations) • hours of service and possible pick-up/drop-off points for a shuttle system • types of shuttle vehicles (minibuses, alternative fuel, etc.) • goals for a shuttle service in the Airport West area • levels of interest in partnering to help support a shuttle service in the area Regarding perceived traffic congestion, all ofthe respondents agreed that it is a major problem throughout the Airport West area. While traffic levels are high throughout the day, as one would expect, congestion is the worst in the morning and afteroonpeak periods. Roadways cited as most troublesome include NW 36th Street/NW 42"d Street between SR 826 and the Turnpike; NW 25"' Street between the airport and the Turnpike, NW 8r Avenue between SR 836 and NW 36 h Street, Milam Dairy Road (NW 72na Avenue), and the intersection of SR 826 and SR 836. Field visits to the area by CUTR staff confirmed these observations. None of those surveyed indicated any serious parking problems. Those interviewed or surveyed were asked about the general workday hours of their respective employers/employees. This would give insight as to the best span of service for any recommended shuttle service. Due to the mix of j ob types that exist in Airport West, answers to this question were varied. Most of the employees of the offices and corporate parks in the study area have regular business hours of between 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 - 6:00 p.m. According to the respondents, those with employees working these normal business hours sometimes do complain about the traffic or have trouble getting to work on time. In many instances, however, the respondents believed that the major factor behind the rush period traffic is the congestionthat occurs on SR 826 and SR 836, especially near their intersection. None ofthose reportingthe normalbusinesshours indicated any major problems attracting or retaining employees -46- D1SCU ED t 9- 94. ,1 2 %woo' \� due to traffic problems. The hotels, airlines, and other employers in Airport West often have workdayhours or shifts that differ from the "regular" workday. Various shifts for hotel workers, and for those who work in warehouse or cargo facilities, can start as early as 4:30 a.m., and end as late as 1:00 a.m. Many of these workers can avoid the periods of peak traffic volumes on the area's roadways. However, some of these types of jobs are entry-level and/or earn relatively lower salaries; thus, some workers, especially in the hotel industry, do not have access to vehicles and find it difficult to access the jobs in the area from the few transit routes that currently operate in the region. One of the respondents, representing one of the hotels in the area, gave an example of a promising prospective employee who, that day, called to turn down the job offer because he could not travel to the hotel at the times necessary via transit The stakeholders were also asked about the number of employees currently using a mode of transportation other than driving alone. Many, while assuming that most of their employees drove personal vehicles to work, were not aware of the level of transit use among their employees. A few responded that they knew of"one or two" employees that utilized public transit Another responded, "We have one that rides Tri-Rail and one that rides the bus." These responses were not surprising, given that the Airport West area is currently underserved by MDTA. The hotel representatives, however, had a clearer idea of the number ofemployees using transit or carpooling, and were aware that a relatively large portion oftheir workforces relied on modes of transportation other than driving alone. Any shuttle service implemented in Airport West will have little use if it does not go where people in the area would like to go, or need to go. The stakeholders were asked for input regarding origins and destinations for shuttle service. Responses to this question varied widely: some envisioned commuter service originating far outside the study area, such as Kendall, Miami Gardens, and even Broward County, while others pictured later evening service that would provide travel options for hotel guests to restaurants and shopping destinations in the area. Regarding commuter service, the most commonly cited origins included Metrorail. and Tri-Rail. Desired commuter destinations included nearly all ofthe employers in the Airport West area, especially those along NW 87"' Avenue, NW 33`d Street, and NW 36th Street/NW 42°1 Street, and including the major industrial/corporate centers. For a midday shuttle, respondents indicated desirable destinations such as Miami International Mall, the Mall ofthe Americas, as well as a few other restaurants in the area, originating fromplaces ofemployment Desired hours of operation included the typical rush hours (approximately 7:00 - 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 - 6:00 p.m.). There was also some interest in lunchtime or midday service operating from approximately 11:30 am. to 1:30 or 2:00 pm. Nearly all ofthe respondents felt they would consider, or felt their employees would consider, using the shuttle service if it stopped at or near their place ofwork. It would be a "welcome service," most believed, as long as the service was frequent, on -time, clean, and did not have too many stops. Most ofthe respondents favored the idea ofusing alternative -fuel technology, ifavailable, to operate shuttle -47- DISCUSSED z service in Airport West. According to some, alternative -fuel vehicles would project a positive image for the service and might, at the least, give the impression of counteracting the pollution from the many cars, and especially trucks, that travel the roadways throughout Airport West. Most would also like to see smaller, more agile vehicles that could easily traverse the congested lanes of the area To gain a clear understanding of the exacts needs and desires of the area stakeholders (i.e., those who would use and benefit from the shuttle service), a question was asked as to what the goals of a shuttle service in Airport West should be. They were asked, in essence, what the service should accomplish. The most common responses included: • Relieve stress resulting from harried commutes (this was the most popular response); • Effectively and safely transport people to and from work witha mode other than the single - occupant vehicle —to decrease the number of cars on the roads; • Accommodate as many work shifts as possible; • Target employers with large numbers of employees who work on site; • Provide access to employment within Airport West for those without access to a vehicle. Finally, it was explained to the respondents that the level and quality of services that a shuttle service can provide will depend largely upon the level of funding available from both public and private partners. The respondents were asked if they would be interested in helping support such a service either directly, or indirectly through activities such as purchasing transit passes. A few answered simply that they would not be interested in supporting the operation of a shuttle, beyond possibly providing some ridership. Others wanted to take a "wait -and -see" approach, or further research the idea. Many of those with whom CUTR spoke, however, were possibly interested in helping support a transit shuttle service in the Airport West area. Understandably, however, most prefer to not make any commitments until proposed routes and schedules are approved and available. Inadditionto the interviews and surveys of the area employers and stakeholders, CUTR made several field visits to the area to observe traffic patterns and conditions, and examine the physical attributes of potential origins and destinations to determine their accessibility by a transit vehicle. Based on the previously -mentioned discussions with area employers/leasing managers and other stakeholders, the Airport West TMI, and MDTA, as well as on previous studies and the field visits, CUTR formulated alternative route alignments for a public transit shuttle service. Existing Transportation Service in Airport West Prior to developing any alternative route alignmens for transit shuttle service in Airport West, CUTR examined existing public and private transportation services that currently operate within the Airport West study area Private transportation services are limited to taxi service and some hotel shuttle buses that are -48- M DISCUSSED primarily used for transporting hotel guests to and from the airport. Existing MDTA bus service within Airport West is described below (and is shown color -coded in blue on the accompanying map: Route 7, 7A - Route 7, one of the most heavily traveled routes in the system, is a trunk route that serves the Government Center and Overtown Metrorail Stations, as well as the Downtown Bus Terminal in Downtown Miami. In addition, the route serves Miami International Airport and Miami Springs. Route 7A serves the Mall of the Americas and Miami International Mall. Route 7 has an approximate spanofservice from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. with 40- minute headways. Route 71 - This crosstown route has only the northern portion of its alignment in the Airport West study area, serving Miami International Mall. To the south, this route also serves FIU South and Miami -Dade Community College (Kendall campus). Route 71 has approximately 60-minute headways and operates from 5:30 am. to 9:00 p.m. Route 36, 36A - Route 36 is one of the more heavily traveled routes in MDTA's system and is considered a crosstown route. This route, which travels to Miami Springs, serves the Omni Metromover Station as well as the Allapattah Metrorail Station. Route 3 6A also travels to the Koger Center industrial park, one of the largest employers in the Airport West area. Route 36 operates from 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Headways vary from 60 minutes in the off-peak to very frequent service (15-20 minute headways) during the am. and p.m. peak periods. Route 132 (Koger) - This route is a Tri-Rail shuttle that travels along NW 36"' Street to serve the Koger Center industrial park (one of the largest employers in the Airport West study area, as mentioned previously). The route also serves the Ryder facility (also one of the largest employers in the study area). This shuttle operates a.m. and p.m. peak period service only. Route 95 - This is a North Dade route that serves the EarlingtonHeights Metrorail Station, Miami International Airport, Doral Estates, and the Miami -Dade Police Department headquarters. Route 95 is an express route that travels southbound in the a.m. peak and northbound in the pm. peak. Route 87 - This crosstown route serves the Okeechobee Metrorail Station and basically bisects the Airport West study area, serving several destinations along the way including the Miami -Dade Police Department headquarters and the Mallofthe Americas. The route continues south of Airport West and serves Dadeland Mall and the Dadeland North Metrorail Station. Route 87 has an approximate service span between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., with 30-minute peak period headways and 60-minute off-peak headways. -49- DISCUSSED A 4 .O Route 73 - This is a crosstown route that also serves the Okeechobee Metrorail Station. The northern portion ofthis route is beyond the Airport West studyarea and serves Miami Lakes and Hialeah. The southern portion bisects the study area, primarily along Miamm Dairy Road (NW 72nd Avenue) and extends south to Dadeland Mall and the Dadeland South Metrorail Station. The span of service for Route 73 is from approximately 5:30 a.m. until 10:30 p.m., with 30-minute headways in the peak and 60-minute headways in the off- peak. Additional Developments MDTA has long been aware of the need for additional transit service in the Airport West area. During the course of this study, CUTR was able to provide information that helped MDTA develop the alignments for three new routes to serve the area: the Doral Connection, the Airport West Connection, and the Airport/Blue Lagoon Connection. In addition, beginning June 25, 2000, MDTA will implement the Airport Connection, which will nun from the airport terminal to the cargo area. The other three routes are described below: • Doral Connection - This route runs southwest from the Okeechobee Metrorail Station to Miami International Mall. Major destinations along the route include the Ryder facility, Miami -Dade Police headquarters, and the International Corporate Center. This route will have 30-minute peak headways and 45-minute middayheadways, and willnm from 5:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. Airport West Connection - This route will originate at the Allapattah Metrorail Station and rim west along NW 3 6t'' Street/NW 41 st Street to NW 107t'' Avenue. The route will then travel south along N W 10r Avenue to the Miami International Mall. MDTA will seek funding for this route through Job Access and Reverse Commute grants. It is likely this route will begin operating by the end of the 2000 calendar year. Airport/Blue Lagoon Connection - The area just south of the airport, known as Blue Lagoon, has long been underserved by public transit. MDTA has proposed a new route that will originate from the Earlington Heights Metrorail Station and will travel southwest to the Mall of the Americas. This route will provide access to the airport terminal as well as Tri-Rail's airport station. The alignment follows Perimeter Road from the airport to NW 5 7t' Avenue and south to Blue Lagoon Drive, serving the Airport Hilton Hotel, Hotel Sofitel, and tenants of the Waterford Group. The Miami Merchandise Mart Radisson Hotel, on NW 7t' Street, will also be served. As with the Airport West connection, -50- DISCUSSED .,•�_ n,1 2 9M MDTA will seek fiinding for this route through Job Access and other federal grants. At the earliest, this route will begin operating at the end of the 2000 calendar year. The impending implementation of the Airport Connection and the Doral Connection will be first steps in meeting the needs of commuters in Airport West The routes will provide better access to employment in the area for those dependent on public transportation, and will provide a feasible alternative to many of those who currently drive alone to their jobs in Airport West. The other two routes, the Airport West Connection and the Airport/Blue Lagoon Connection, once implemented, will finther increase access to the area's employment and provide a commute alternative for still more area employees. -51- DI 4CYgED ® Airport West Shuttle Study , _q_f _ -I_ !'_ _1l T 14,-T 1N TGL�_41, ' I I.•' ,.a_ , I •� i y` 1 I -e--1'_ tom, ' :�`! , I�+_ ` -_•.�. -=t _ - •c� Ji cq t Y �lirw wrrr - - J k al o k1*T In rt'al —'ki #' - t: ilr.l�r�a .;. � -^•Ilixl,. �r (�-` .�f�,: x� 511.011. ell .r. Y 1 4 � ✓'1� ���� fr r � ri"' f �_ JI ,� I f�l t- 1.�— !' �c , — Proposed MDTA Service —Proposed Shuffle Service —Existing MDTA Service R41AStu* Area Alternatives for Shuttle Service in Airport West The development of the new MDTA routes, as described above, will provide additional commute alteratives for employees in the Airport West area, and will help meet the goal of increasing access to the various job types that exist within Airport West, especially from Metrorail and Tri-Rail. In looking to best allocate limited resources, the shuttle route alteratives presented below are designed as midday, or lunchtime, services. The availability of such services could help persuade more employees to use transit to commute to work, since they wouldn't need a car to get to lunch The implementation of frequent midday service that serves several ofthe major employers in the study area as well as destinations such as Miami International Mall, Mall of the Americas, and other area restaurants, will help ease midday 52 DISCUSED Oe 3 a congestion in the area. The proposed shuttle route alignments are highlighted in green in the illustration of existing and proposed transit services for the Airport West area: • Blue Lagoon Shuttle - This shuttle route will run from the Miami Airport Hilton Hotel west to the Mall of the Americas. It will travel along Blue Lagoon Drive, serving the Hotel Sofitel and the employees in the Waterford corporate center, serving the Mall of the Americas via Milani Dairy Road (NW 72"d Avenue) and West Flagler Street. • International Mall Shuttle - This shuttle route will provide service to the Miami International Mall for several of the employers in Airport West that are located along NW 80 Avenue, NW 25' Street, NW 8r Avenue, NW 36 h Street, and NW 12t° Street. Restaurant destinations along NW 8r Avenue will also be served Cost estimates for both shuttle routes are based upon a $45 cost per revenue hour of service, 250 annual weekdays of service, and the availability of vehicles through contracting or county fleet The shuttles are recommended to operate from 11:00 am. until 2:00 p.m. Below are two alternatives for each shuttle alignment: one based on 20-minute headways, and one based on more fiequent 15-minute headways. Costs are expected to increase approximately five percent per year. • Blue Lagoon Shuttle • Alternative "A" is based on a 15 mph average speed for two vehicles for 20- mint& service. This alternative would result in a $67,500 annualized operating cost, displayed as follows: First Year - $67,500 Second Year - $70,875 Third Year - $74,419 Fourth Year - $78,140 Fifth Year - $ 82,047 S Alternative `B" is also based on a 15 mph average speed, but uses three vehicles for 15-minute headways. This alternative results in a $101,250 annualized operating cost: First Year - $101,250 Second Year - $106,313 Third Year - $111,629 -53- DISCUSSED Fourth Year - $117,210 Fifth Year - $123,071 International Mall Shuttle S Alternative "A" is based on a 12 mph average speed using three vehicles for 20- minuteheadways. This alternative results in a $101,250 annualized operating cost: First Year - $101,250 Second Year - $106,313 Third Year - $111,629 Fourth Year - $117,210 Fifth Year - $123,071 S Alternative `B" is based on a 12 mph average speed using four vehicles for 15- minute headways. This alternative results in a $135,000 annualized operating cost: First Year - $135,000 Second Year- $141,750 Third Year- $148,838 Fourth Year - $156,280 Fifth Year - $164,094 If funding is available, Alternative `B" for both shuttle routes would be the recommended options. Especially during the midday, it will be important for service to as fiiequent as possible, to attract riders. Employees are particularly time sensitive to the need to get back to work within an hour during their lunch break. In addition, bus shelters would be an important passenger amenity. On average, shelters cost approximately $4,000, and can be paid for by private advertising. It is anticipated that between 16 and 20 shelters would be needed for the two shuttle routes described above. It may be possible to contract this service through a provider such as VPSI, Inc. For a relatively conservative 10,000 annual miles, a 12-month vehicle lease would cost $14,700 (including maintenance at $0.15 per mile). Insurance could be as high as $4,800 per year, and fuel would cost approximately $2,500 annually. In total, one vehicle accruing 10,000 annual miles would cost approximately $21,500 per year. For comparison, a vehicle accruing 20,000 annualmiles (should the vehicles be used to provide additional service) would cost approximately $31,400 per year, includingmamtenance, insurance, and fuel. It is important to note that these figures are estimations only. In addition, driver costs are not included, and would need to be contracted separately. It is estimated that driver costs would total about $14 per hour: for four hours per day (250 annual days of service) per vehicle, driver costs would be approximately $14,000 per year. -54- DISCUSSED _ w UsingAltemative `B" forthe two shuttle alignments, costs for a five-year timeframe are shown below (costs are assumed to increase five percent annually): • Blue Lagoon Shuttle S Alternative `B" uses three vehicles for 15-minute headways. This alternative results in a $106,500 annualized operating cost. Costs would be about $30,000 more per year if each vehicle provided twice the number of miles. First Year - $106,500 Second Year - $111,825 Third Year - $117,416 Fourth Year - $123,287 Fifth Year - $129,451 International Mall Shuttle S Alternative `B" uses four vehicles for 15-minute headways. This alternative results in a $142,000 annualized operating cost. Costs would be about $40,000 more per year if each vehicle provided twice the number of miles. First Year - $142,000 Second Year - $149,100 Third Year - $156,555 Fourth Year- $164,383 Fifth Year - $172,602 OPTIONS FOR OPERATING THE SHUTTLE SERVICES Potential Service Providers There are a number of different entities that could operate the services described m this report. They could be provided directly by MDTA. Miami -Dade County has broad jurisdiction over the provision ofpublic transportation services as prescribed in the county's charter. As everyone knows, MDTA is the major provider oftransit services throughout the coun"tha fleet of 136 heavy rail cars, 29 Metromover cars, and over 600 buses. That agency provides bus service to over 210,000 passengers a day, from 4:30 a.m. to 2:00 am. The agency will soon be providing some bus services 24 hours a day with funding they will receive from the federal govemment through an Access to Jobs grant. MDTA operates its bus service from three different garages located in the north, central, and south parts of the county. The agency operates passenger vehicles that are as small as cutaway vans to articulated buses that are 60 feet long. The agency is clearly capable of providing whatever kind of shuttle services are contemplated in this report. Shuttle services could also be provided through other entities including the City of Miami or the Transportation Management Association of the DDA or possibly the TMI for Airport West through its -55- DISCUSSED R lu association with South Florida Commuter Services. For instance, in Broward County, the county has reached interlocal agreements with ten different cities that now provide local circulator services with their own staffs of operators and mechanics. Those cities have concluded that there is an advantage in providing a circulator service that can be tailored to their citizens' needs (rather than having only regional bus service that goes through their city). Broward County provides minibuses to the cities through its ability to secure state and federal capital grants for transit vehicles. Broward County provides technical assistance in temps of scheduling and marketing the services, and also provides $20,000 per vehicle, per year in subsidies to each city to help pay for the operating expenses ofthe service. The cities are responsible for all other costs, and for providing the service with their own personnel. There is also precedent within Miami -Dade County for interlocal agreements, where municipal circulator services are now being provided in the cities of Miami Beach, Aventura, and North Miami. The City of Hialeah will soon have its own local circulator services as well. Given the county's authority over public transit services, these local services can onlybe instituted through an interlocal agreement withMiami-Dade County, meaning the county must approve of the proposed routes and services. These interlocal agreements generally provide that the majorityofthe local circulator routes must be within the city that is sponsoring the service, which would clearly not be a problem with the services being proposed for the greater downtown Miami area. Fares charged for the service must be consistent with MDTA's fare structure, and each service would be required to accepttransfers fromthe other. The interlocal agreements provide that any additional formula-drivenfederal or state revenues the county receives due to increased passengers will be provided to the city to help pay for the service. In reality, this amount would be modest and account for less than10% of the cost of providing the service. There are other standard elements of the interlocal agreements including the need to provide adequate insurance and ridership reports. The City of Miami is a full service city with a municipal fleet of vehicles maintained by the city's General Services Administration. That department has a major garage and maintenance facility at 1390 NW 20" Street (not far from the proposed shuttle services for Overtown, Brickell, and Flagler Street). CUTR project managers visited that site and spoke with the managers of the department who indicated that their facilitywas bursting at the seams, and could not reasonably accommodate the high maintenance associated with transit vehicles. This does not mean that the city could not still be responsible for providing the services. In Miami Beach and Aventura, the cities have contracted with a private company (Coach USA) for the provision of local circulator services. In Aventura, the private company is responsible for all elements of the service including bus operations and maintenance of the vehicles. The vehicles in use are 24 foot diesel engine minibuses that provide hourly service throughout the city. In Miami Beach, the city has contracted with Coach USA only for the bus operations and dispatch functions, while retaining the responsibility for maintaining a fleet of electric vehicles with their own city staff mechanics. In both Aventura and Miami Beach, the cities are ultimately responsible for the quality of the service provided through appropriate monitoring of the contract, but the service on the street is actually being provided by private employees under contract to the cities. Hence, if there is a great desire on the part of the City of Miami to be recognized as the provider of shuttle services, there are more than enough examples of how it can be done. If the city was to seek competitive proposals to have another public or private agency -56- DISCUSSED " k operate the service, they would need to notify MDTA of this opportunity and allow MDTA to respond to the request for proposals. As noted above, MDTA is clearly capable of providing such services as well. This agency has not elected to pursue providing such services in the cities where local shuttles are now being operated, citing other priorities that require its attention. However, there might be greater interest by MDTA in being considered to provide these services, particularly in the greater downtown Miami area, since they are responsible for so much transit service in that area. MDTA's central bus maintenance facility is located at NW 3211 Avenue and 34t` Street, which is within 15 minutes of the circulator routes proposed for the downtown area. MDTA's southern garage at Coral Way and SW 7e Avenue is located within 15 minutes of the Airport West area. The close proximity of these facilities would help the "deadhead" mileage associated with providing transit service. Deadhead mileage is the distance buses must travel from their initial dispatch from the garage to the start of actual route service. All of the expenses associated with operating a bus start as soon as the bus leaves the garage, so it is advantageous to have as few deadhead miles as possible. MDTA currently has the ability to provide services with minibuses at a reduced cost due to previous negotiations with the Transit Workers Union (the bargaining representative of MDTA bus operators and mechanics, among others). The cost of $45 an hour for service, which has been used throughout this report, is based on the approximate cost of service if provided through the "B" Division of MDTA. It is possible that service could be provided at lower cost through a private provider. For instance, Aventura is providing service through a contract withCoach USA for approximately $35 per hour, but that rate was based on conditions as they existed almost two years ago, before fuel prices almost doubled and competition for employees became more intense. It also includes no street supervision services. What Agency Should Provide the Service? Which method of operating is best? What agency should manage and/or provide these proposed services? In the case of the proposed services for greater downtown Miami, it depends to a large extent on the level of interest of the City of Miami in this service. In Miami Beach, the city saw the electric shuttle services as vital to its sustainability and quality of life. Traffic along Ocean Drive and Collins Avenue near the Art Deco District was becoming unmanageable as people wanting to access the popular clubs and restaurants cruised for parking spaces that were hard to find As a partial solution to this condition, the City of Miami Beach put a great deal of effort into planning and implementing a highly customized service that made it possible for people to park at remote parking facilities and use a frequent electric minibus service to get to where they wanted to go along the beach Miami Beach officials believed that this service was so important to the success of the area that they wanted control of the service. They also knew they were using new technology, and believed that specialized skills could best be developed in a local environment. The citywas committing a considerable amount of its local dollars to the service, and felt they wanted more control over their investment. In addition, they did not want the service to be provided by another agency -57- DISCUSSED with many other potential priorities that could distract that agency from making the electric shuttle a complete success. The reason most cities throughout Broward and Miami Dade counties have elected to provide or manage such services is that they welcome the accountability and want to put more local energy into the service that they regard as politically popular. Local control gives a bit more flexibility to the local area in terms of schedules and routes. Utilizing private transit companies under contract also gives greater flexibility in changing servicewhennecessary. As of this date, it appears the cities of Miami Beach and Aventura are satisfied with the quality of services being provided by a private transit company working under a contract with the cities. This option is certainly available to the CityofMiami ifit wishes to pursue it, and if the county agrees with it. On the other hand, the City of Miami might not view the services proposed in this report in the same way that other local governments have regarded their own shuttle services. It might feel that the services being proposed are straightforward enough to allow the county to be the provider. The city might rather not be bothered with attempting to operate and maintain the vehicles themselves, or to have to go through the competitive proposal process and then be responsible for managing a contract with a private provider. The city might not want to be responsible for providing a new public transit service and assuming the potential liabilities associated with it. Funds for operating the service might come from sources other than the city's general funds (such as special assessment district revenues or savings from truncated MDTA bus routes), thereby reducing the city's interest in accountability. If there is general agreement about the routes and levels of service to be provided, the city might well wish to work directly with the county - assuming the county is interested in providing the service. At this time, it is not clear ifthere is enthusiasm at MDTA to provide the types of services suggested in this report That agency might believe that it provides more than sufficient service to the downtown area, and A might believe that surface shuttle service between Brickell and Flagler Street would "compete" with Metromover. Assuming the county could agree with the basic concepts of the shuttle services, it might be willing to act as the provider. There would be good logic to this because all services in the greater downtown area would benefit by being managed by one agency with responsibility for the passengers' well being. In addition, MDTA and county leaders should want to be involved with something that contributes to the positive development ofgreater downtown Miami. If Flagler Option #3 (which calls for truncating most buses at Omni and the Central Bus Terminal) was selected as the preferred method of serving the Flagler corridor, it would be absolutely appropriate for MDTA to be the providerofservice, to help ensure accountability for the coordination ofall transit service in the downtown area. If Flagler Options #1 or #2 are selected, it would not be as critical for MDTA to be responsible for the service, unless MDTA agreed to truncate a few of its routes at the downtown terminal. In order to avoid problems with its union work force, MDTA might want to replace the work lost due to the truncations with the new shuttle services. To summarize, the major factors determining what entity should provide the service in greater downtown Miami are as follows: the shuttle route options that are selected for implementation along Flagler Street; -58- DISCUSSED N ". the level of interest the City of Miami has in controlling and paying for the provision of service; the level of interest the county has in providing the service; the type of vehicle technology that will be used to provide the service. CUTR recommends that if funding for the service can be secured, and if MDTA still has the opportunity to provide service through its less expensive `B" Division (the labor agreement is being negotiated at the time of this report), then the county would be the best entity to provide the services throughout greater downtown Miami. This would especially be the case if MDTA is to help contribute toward the costs of paying for the service by truncating any of its routes in the Flagler corridor and converting the savings to help pay for the operating expenses ofthe shuttles. In addition, if electric vehicles are the preferred choice oftechnology, then this report will argue that the county should be the preferred provider. This point will be explored further in the next section of the report. If, on the other hand, the Flagler Shuttle Options #1 or #2 are preferred, the vehicle technology selected is commonly available to private bus companies, the county no longer has the `B" Division within the MDTA, and no MDTA routes are truncated, then it would be advisable to strongly consider contracting for the services provided. For Airport West, it might be better to provide the services through a private contract. This service is intended to be provided only during lunch hours, and its ultimate success is less certain than the services being suggested for greater downtown Miami. This service could be started by a private provider under contract, possibly to the TMI, but more likely to the county. The service could also be provided with standard minibuses with standard engines that are commonly available to private bus companies. This option would result in having the service provided by an entitywith considerable experience and expertise. Initial capital investments could be avoided by contracting for the service. It also assures the sponsor of maximum flexttWity in increasing or decreasing the service as "cleanly" as possible (no layoffs of county employees if service is discontinued, and faster provision of increased service if required). -59- DISCUSSED J VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS Minibuses vs. Full Size Buses Local circulator services are typically provided with minibuses. It is contemplated that all of the service route options described in this report can be provided with minibuses that are approximately 22 to 24 feet in length These vehicles can seat between 16 and 20 passengers, with capacity for another 10 to 15 standees. Clearly, the routes proposed to serve Brickell, Overtown, and Airport West would not need any more passenger capacity than a minibus provides. Each route is short, and passengers would be getting on and off throughout the short routes, thereby freeing up capacity along the way. While there might be an occasional exception, it is not anticipated that more than 25 passengers would be on a minibus at one time during a typical one-way trip. MDTA's average passenger load diroughout the system is 36 passengers per hour. With each minibus providing three to four trips per hour, there would be a capacity of between 75 to 100 passengers per hour per bus. It is impossible to predict just how much demand there will be for any of the proposed routes. In Miami Beach, they did not anticipate the incredible popularity of the electric shuttles and the effect of free fares. The seven buses they placed in service were insufficient to satisfy the demand frompassengers. The city now charges a quarter for the service which has reduced ridership by approximately 40 percent. Miami Beach will soon receive four more electric minibuses to provide the additional capacity the route needs. The only route that would test the capacity ofthe minibuses in greater downtown Miami would be Flagler Option #3. Since this option contemplates substituting minibus service for existing MDTA service, capacity could be a question ifservice is provided once every three minutes withsevenmimbuses. Service would need to be provided once every two minutes with ten minibuses to help ensure sufficient capacity. If the service becomes very popular, there could be a need to consider larger or more vehicles. Minibuses are the preferred type of vehicle to use for local circulator service due to their greater maneuverability, and their more neighborhood -friendly size. The smaller size of a minibus would be most advantageous in areas such as Brickell Key where the minibus would be able to negotiate the roundabout in the center of Claughton Island, whereas a 40 foot bus could not. A mnnbus could also maneuver more easily through the Winn Dixie shopping center in Overtown and into entrances of restaurants and hotels in Airport West. The smaller size of the vehicle would be more in keeping with the pedestrian activity on the streets throughout greater downtown Miami. These smaller vehicles also have faster acceleration to help ensure better schedule adherence. Low Floor Buses versus Conventional Buses The advantages of minibuses for local circulator services are fairly evident, and whenever possible, they -60- DISCUSSED should be used. In addition, minibuses with "low floors" are preferable as well. Low floor minibuses have no steps for passengers to climb to get on or off the vehicle. This makes boarding easier for everyone, particularly the elderly and disabled, a parent with a baby stroller, or a shopper with a wheeled basket to help transport groceries . Low floors on buses utilize manually activated ramps to accommodate wheelchairs, thereby eliminating the need for hydraulic wheelchair lifts (all vehicles used in the proposed service would need to be accessible to the disabled, with the exception of commuter vans that might be used in a pilot project in Airport West). Perhaps most importantly, low floor minibuses also help speed the boarding and debarking process for every passenger, thereby contributing to faster route service and more reliable schedules. This would be particularly important for the Flagler Street route options, assuming those routes will carry a considerably greater passenger load, and stop almost every block to pick passengers up or let them off. The only disadvantage to requiring low floor minibuses is that they are more expensive than conventional minibuses, and not many public or private bus companies have such vehicles in stock. Should low floor buses be required, it would increase the capital costs of providing the proposed services. Conventional vs. Alternative Fuel Vehicles Two ofthe study areas expressed a preference forutiliangelectric vehicles. The representatives of Brickell Key noted their status as an island that must be erivirunmentally sensitive. Association managers at Brickell Key actually volunteered to provide a place to store an electric vehicle on the island if funding could be found to operate the service, and ifa facilitycouldn't otherwise be secured. The representatives ofAirport West suggested that using electric vehicles would help counteract the pollution they see emitted, particularly by the truck traffic, in this highly congested area. Representatives ofthe Retailers Association ofdowntown Miami did not seem to feel as strongly about the need for using alternative fuel minibuses. Their primary objective was to get customers from Brickell and Omni to Flagler Street to shop. Conventional fuel vehicles would be adequate to meet this objective. Virtually everyone talked to by CUTR was familiar with the Electrowave Shuttle service on Miami Beach Everyone acknowledged how the electric vehicles helped provide greater visibility for the service which helped in its promotion and marketing. However, even Miami Beach officials believe that the basic demand for local circulator service was there, whether the vehicles were powered by electric batteries or conventional fuels. As noted above, the electric battery powered vehicles used in Miami Beach gave the service greater visibility, and added to the quality of the environment in the entertainment district with its many pedestrians and sidewalk cafes. After two years of experience, it is hard to imagine any other type of vehicle being used on Miami Beach. The following section will higbh& basic information about electric vehicles and cover their advantages and disadvantages. This information was gathered by CUTR as a result of attending a workshop organized by the Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation in Atlanta, Georgia in November 1999. CUTR also met with staff of the City of Miami Beach who are responsible for the maintenance of the Electrowave -61- DISCUSSED v,- 62,i vehicles and the monitoring of the service provided by Coach USA. The Basics of Electric Vehicles A pure Electric Vehicle (EV) is a vehicle that uses a rechargeable battery for fuel. They are very simplistic. The major components of the power train ofanEV are a battery pack, a motor, transfer gear (instead of a transmission), and a controller. There is only one moving part in an electric motor, compared to 847 moving parts in an internal combustion engine. This relative simplicity results in a reduced parts inventory and reduced routine maintenance. A hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) uses two fuels for propulsion. One is a rechargeable battery, while the other can be gasoline, diesel, propane, CNG, or other fuel supply for a small alternative power writ (APU) that constantly charges the batteries. The benefits of EVs are well established. They reduce emissions to zero or near zero. They require far less oil and fuel, thereby relieving dependence on foreign oil whichresults in more stabile fuel prices. EVs are twice as fuel efficient as internal combustion engines. They are virtually silent except for a minor whir from a turbine APU. They emit no offensive smells or exhaust. Eliminating both noise and smell is particularly important for operations in downtown areas that are looking to encourage more pedestrian and sidewalk activities. EVs have no transmissions and therefore are low floor for easier boarding and debarking. No matter where they have been used, EVs have proven to be fantastic for public relations and rider acceptance. Operating Characteristics of Electric Vehicles Pure electric vehicles will provide an average range of 40 to 80 miles (or 4 to 8 hours of service) on lead acid batteries, depending on the ability of the vehicle operator to avoid uneven acceleration. Special training is needed for EV operators. Range is also dependent on topography, but the flat nature of Miami minimizes this as a factor. Crossing the Brickell Avenue bridge would not be a problem for an electric minibus. The top speed of an electric minibus is 40 to 50 miles per hour. There are gauges on board vehicles to inform the operator ofhow much energy is left in the batteries. The vehicle will slowdown gradually before losing all its power (an EV will not suddenly "conk out" in the middle of a route). Nickle cadmium batteries cost more, but provide a bit more power and range. More advanced batteries are being developed each year. Cells withinbatteries can be replaced. Battery manufacturers are now willing to offer three year warranties. Batteries are 98 percent recyclable and are always sent back to the supplier. Batterypacks cost between $10,000 and $12,000. Battery packs on EVs take six hours to slow -charge. The batteries last between 800 to 3,000 cycles -62- DISCUSSED � Y V s (charges and discharges). Maintenance and operation techniques will determine how long they will last within that range. An operator needs to be prepared to swap out the batterypack after about five to eight hours of service. In spite of the weight and size of the battery pack, swapping out the batteries is a relatively fast and simple process. The vehicle is taken to its maintenance site where a technician uses a heavy duty dolly to take out the battery pack from the vehicle. The technician positions that battery pack in its place for recharging and then puts a new fully charged battery pack in the vehicle. The process takes no more than five minutes, but the bus also has to be removed from service to complete this process. How long this takes depends on how near the maintenance f nlityis to swap out batteries. In Miami Beach, the process takes a little less than 15 minutes since the facility is near, but not right along, the Electrowave route. This points out the need to have a maintenance facility right along the route, if at all possible. Without rapid recharge equipment (discussed in the next paragraph), all -electric vehicle operations need to have at least three sets of batteries for every vehicle, one that is in the vehicle, one that is being charged, and one that is fully charged and ready to place in the vehicle. A fully charged battery pack should not be placed into an in-service vehicle immediately after its slow -charging cycle is complete. This subjects the battery to too much heat, and it is heat that ultimately kills batteries. The industry is now producing `rapid recharge" equipment for battery packs. These pieces of equipment, which cost approximately $40,000 apiece, can fully charge a battery pack in approximately 20 minutes (versus the six hour slow charge technique noted above). If an EV is being used on a route that has a schedule that allows it to have a half-hour layover, it can be fully charged and ready for another service cycle fairly quickly. The advantage of rapid recharge equipment is that personnel are not required to take care ofswapping out batterypacks during service cycles ofthe vehicle. A new technique that is being used is the concept of "opportunity recharges". With this technique, a vehicle operator plugs the battery pack in the vehicle into the rapid recharge equipment forapproximately five minutes. This does not fully recharge the batteries. It only recharges them to about 60 percent ofiheir capacity, but that is enough to keep them going for another three to four hours. The EV industry has determined that this method is probably the best for the longevity of battery packs. There is a "sweet spot" for batteries to be charged at about 40 to 70 percent oftheir capacity. Rapid rechargers get the batteries substantially recharged before damaging heat builds up. This process can be continued throughout the day. This technique minimizes the need for spare battery packs, and eliminates the need to have personnel readily available to swap out battery packs throughout the day. Hybrid electric vehicles give operators the most flexrbilityofall options. These vehicles have small turbine engines (APUs) powered by fossil fuel. They run very efficiently because they operate at a rather low and constant speed. The purpose of these APUs is to provide constant power to generate the battery packs, and in warn weather service areas such as Miami, they help power the air conditioning systems. The range of a hybrid electric vehicle is considerably greater than an all -electric vehicle, because it does not have to be taken out of service for recharging as long as the APU has fuel. Industry representatives note that the typical range for the hybrid -electric vehicle is between 150 and 350 miles. The downside to this option is that each hybrid electric vehicle costs approximately $40,000 more than an all -electric vehicle (which -63- DISCUSSED costs approximately $200,000). Advanced Vehicle Systems, the producer of the 22 foot hybrid -electric vehicles used in Chattanooga, has won a statewide bidding process, making it possible for Florida's public transit providers to purchase these vehicles without going through the competitive bid process. The appropriate option of electric bus operations (pure electric with battery swap outs; pure electric with rapid rechargers; or hybrid electric) will be determined by the following factors: how the routes will be operated (in temps of frequency, layover, etc.); how many buses are going to be operated; and, most importantly, where the maintenance facility is going to be located. Pure electric vehicles are the least expensive to buy, but will require extra battery packs and personnel to swap diem out while the vehicles are in service. Rapid rechargers eliminate the need for personnel to do swap -outs, and reduce the need for extra battery packs, but the rapid rechargers themselves cost $40,000 apiece. Hybrid electric vehicles require no rapid rechargers or personnel to swap out batteries, but they cost $40,000 more per vehicle. Unless a maintenance facility can be found within close proximity to the proposed routes, hybrid electric vehicles would be the only feasible option. Where EVs are being used in the United States There are now about 200 EV minibuses operating in the United States. The most prominent examples of municipal shuttle services using EVsare mChattanooga, Tennessee; Miami Beach, Norfolk, Virginia, Santa Barbara, California; Portland, Maine; Cape Cod, Massachusetts; and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The market for such vehicles could conceivably explode. Tempe, Arizona has ordered 30 new EVs, Los Angeles is ordering over 20, and Alabama is purchasing approximately 25 for Birmingham, Mobile, and the Gulf shores area Denver's Regional Transit District has ordered 40 and 45 foot electric buses to operate in its downtown mall. Emory University in Atlanta uses five EVs to provide internal circulation services on its campus. Coconut Creek in Broward County will soon have four EVs in service as circulators throughout the city. EVs are used at national parks, airports, amusement parks, and mega -shopping centers. Chattanooga is regarded as the laboratory for EVs. This was one of America's dirtiest cities in the 1950s. City officials saw the opportunity to redevelop their downtown by, in part, using electric shuttle buses that would serve as parking garage intercepts. Twenty-three all -electric vehicles are used on a downtown route that connects parking garages, recreational and cultural destinations, majoremployers, tourist facilities, and the river. Over one million passengers a year are carried on this system. AVS (the electric minibus manufacturer) and the Electric Vehicle Transportation Institute are also located there. Miami Beach is also becoming famous world-wide for its EV shuttle program. It uses the same approach as Chattanooga in terms of vehicles and routing. It anticipates increasing the frequency of service on South Beach, and extending the service to North Beach. The city would like to buy another 25 vehicles over the next five years. Everyone on the beach wants to be a part of their success. The only weakness of the program was that it wastoo successful interns ofattracting passengers, resulting in overcrowded minibuses -64- DISCUSSED I and passed -by passengers. Lessons Learned from Around the Country There are a number of common experiences among the various cities that have implemented EV shuttle services that offer helpful lessons to other areas that are considering this type of service: Most importantly, make sure the mechanical characteristics of the bus match the operating characteristics of the routes. The propulsion system must provide the power and range that is needed. Maintenance facilities should be on or near routes. 2. There must be a champion for the project, whether it is an elected official, a transit general manager, a maintenance manager, etc. Someone must really want this type of service and want to make it work. 3. Both mechanics and operators need fulltraining on EV and electric technologies. Therearemany nuances they need to appreciate. 4. Care must be exercised in the selection of batteries, since they are the fundamental fuel that drives the vehicle. 5. Public agencies should leverage the public relations value that EV shuttle service invariably generate. EVs are non -intrusive and extremely popular with the public for all the right reasons. All the sponsors can improve and/or build their reputation around it. 6. A "shakedown" period should be expected, where some "bugs" in the vehicles are discovered. It is still a new industry, and each vehicle is hand -made. In spite of the advances in the industry, there will always be problems with new vehicles. Make sure there are sufficient spares. 7. Involve the experts. Sponsors of the service should get the help of the Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation and the Electric Vehicle Transportation Institute. The sponsor should ensure that the EV manufacturer is committed to standing behind the product and is willing to provide considerable on -site f wrong. The manufacturer should know the characteristics of the routes that will be served before finalizing design of the vehicles. The local utility company can help with the specifications of the maintenance facility and where to locate charging units. 8. Sponsors should understand the infrastructure requirements of an EV service. The local utilities -65- DISCUSSED company can advise the sponsor of the peak and off-peak times for electric service, and when electric rates would be least expensive. 9. In teems of routes, frequency is the key. Also, linear routes tend to be more successful than looped routes. They are more direct and easier to understand. Facilities for Maintaining and Storing Electric Vehicles If the services proposed in this report are provided by conventional fuel vehicles, the issue of where a maintenance facility is located is relatively minor. Conventional fuel vehicles have great range (from 250 to 350 miles on a full tank of fuel), and they can handle all the service they will provide in a day on one tank of fuel. There would be no need for the vehicles to return to the maintenance facilityin the middle ofthe day unless an unexpected mechanical problem occurred that could not be corrected by a service vehicle in the field. If, on the other hand, pure electric vehicles are used, there must be a maintenance facility in close proximity to the circulator routes. Indeed, the implementation of Miami Beach's Electrowave service was delayed for many months due to the difficulties in finding an appropriate maintenance facility. The operating range of such vehicles is quite small, and a single charged battery pack will not have sufficient power to accommodate substantial deadhead mileage and 12 hours of service. In addition, a charging facility must be relatively close by to minimise the amount of time a vehicle is removed from service in order to get recharged. The opportunity to place rapid rechargers at strategic places along the routes provides greater flexibility for electric vehicles, but it would still be advantageous to have a maintenance facilityspecifically designed for such vehicles near the circulator routes. This would also drastically reduce any costs associated with "deadhead mileage". CUTR visited a number of agencies to see if there might be an opportunity to store and maintain electric vehicles at their sites. Miami Beach operates its EV shuttle service from the city's fleet vehicle maintenance facilities on the east end of the MacArthur Causeway. Electrowave managers understood the logic in having a City ofMiami service dispatched from the existing Miami Beach facility where there was already expertise in maintaining such vehicles. However, they claimed they were having difficultywiththe minimal space they had at their site, and it was only going to get worse when they receive four new electric minibuses later this year. They share the site with 900 other city vehicles, including garbage tricks, public works trucks, and all other city vehicles. Mrarrri Beach offiicmis are hoping to build a new maintenance facilitycloser to the middle of the city, in keeping with their desire to extend EV shuttles further north This new facility, which would be designed to handle as many as 45 electric vehicles, ni& not be available for five years. If the new facility is located further north, its practicality as a site for Miami's vehicles would be much reduced, unless hybrid -electric vehicles are used. Hybrid -electric provides sufficient range to obviate the need to return to the facility in the middle of the day to get recharged It was noted earlier that CUTR also met with the vehicle fleet managers for the City of Miami at their facility at 1390 N W 20`h Street. That facility is located within a mule ofthe service that is proposed for Overtown. -66- DISCUSSED However, that facility is over capacity at the present time, and managers there did not believe that facility would be able to reasonably accommodate the special attentionthat electric vehicles providing public transit service would require. The administrator ofthe Brickell Key Management Association volunteered to provide a charging site for an electric vehicle. While it is possible that a rapid recharger might be located there as a strategic place to conduct "opportunity charges", it is not likely that a facility on the Key could accommodate any more than two vehicles, making it a possible storage site only if no other service is provided in the greater downtown area. CUTR project managers also met with representatives of Florida Power and Light For obvious reasons, the staff of FP&L are very supportive of the use of electric vehicles and were very helpful in establishing the Electrowave service. They were asked if the FP&L substation fialitylocated just north of the Miami River between SW 2' Avenue and the Metrorail guideway could possibly serve as a maintenance and storage site for an electric vehicle service. This location is ideally situated in the middle of the circulator routes for greater downtown Miami, and electric vehicles would no doubt receive priority from an agency dedicated to providing electric service. Unfortunately, FP&L representatives have advised that their facility is also relatively crowded, and would not be able to handle the demands of a fleet of as many as 15 electric vehicles. However, they left the possibility open of being able to accommodate one or two vehicles. The Miami -Dade Transit Agency's central bus facility is located at NW 32nd Avenue and 3e Street This facilityis approximately 15 minutes awayfromthe circulatorroutes proposed for greater downtown Miami. There is sufficient space to accommodate a relatively small fleet of new vehicles, but this site would only suffice for hybrid -electric vehicles given its distance from the proposed routes. There are three other interesting possibilities for providing a maintenance and storage site for electric vehicles very near the proposed routes. The first ofthese options might be the least possible, but it should be explored nonetheless. There is a major new development known as "One Miami" that is going to be built in downtown Miami near SE 2" Avenue and the Miami River. This development is planned to have 1.2 million square feet of office space, 400,000 square feet of retail space,100,000 square feet of conference center space, 300 condonumurn units and 300 hotel rooms, as well as hundreds of thousands of square feet of parking. A maintenance facility for a small electric vehicle fleet could possibly be fit in the parkng garage ofthis new development which will be in the dead center of the proposed circulator routes for greater downtown Miami. Approximately 15,000 square feet would need to be made available, with some area having ceiling space of20 feet to allow for vehicles to be placed on lifts. The development might welcome the attention sucha facilitybrings to a development. People from all over the world come to visit such facilities, helping the image of the sponsor, and possibly bringing more business to the development If there is still room for negotiations with the developer, perhaps some sort of partnership could be developed between the public and private sector to develop a maintenance and storage f talityat this new development -67- DISCUSSED A second possibility is also a bit of a stretch, but should be explored. Advanced Vehicle Systems has expressed an interest in establishing a service centerinsoutheastFlorida ifa criticalmass ofelectric vehicles are purchased and placed in service there. Miami Beach is hoping to purchase 25 more vehicles in the next five years. The services proposed in this report call for as many as 17 electric vehicles to be purchased and placed in service. Coconut Grove is considering the establishment of shuttle service to help alleviate traffic congestion and reduce noise and emissions in its business district. Oder municipalities might also consider establishing some similar type of service. It is possible that this level of electric shuttle activity could attract AVS to establish a service center that might be expanded into a storage and maintenance facility as well, in partnership with public sponsors of electric shuttle service. There might be vacant sites in or near Overtown that could be affordable, be near the circulator routes, and provide some environmentally sound economic opportunities for Overtown residents. The third option is the most interesting, the most possible, and perhaps the most appropriate location for a facility to house an electric vehicle fleet. While searching for possible locations for a maintenance and storage facility, CUTR project managers were advised of the building and grounds at 650 NW 8' Street in Overtown. This site contains a 30,000 square foot building that is currently underutilized as a Commercial Drivers License testing site. The interior of the building is barely being used at the present time, and would require significant rehabilitation. However, part of the reason it is such an interesting option is that it is the building that once housed the electric trolleys that operated in downtown Miami prior to 1950. Would it not be exciting and appropriate, especially when considering a new electric vehicle shuttle service, to utilize the building that housed previous electric public transportationservices? The old expression' what goes around, comes around" comes to mind. And what goes around and comes around as much as local circulator shuttles? The major advantage ofthis fa&tyis its location (two blocks away fromthe Overtown routes, and as little as six blocks away from the Flagler route). This would keep the options of utilizing an all electric service available. Another advantage is that the proximity of the site almost eliminates the deadhead mileage associated with providing transit service, thereby reducing operating costs by almost eight percent. The site is located in Overtown, which could provide some opportunities for jobs and further investment in the area. In fact, the site might also be of interest to AVS as their service center, as noted in the previous paragraph. Given Overtown's status as an Economic Empowerment Zone, there are incentives available to encourage investment in the area Given the building's previous use and history, it might be possible to receive fiords to rehabilitate the building through programs dealing with historic preservation. CUTR staff spoke with the owner of the building who indicated that it was available to sell or to rent. Renting this building would cost approximately $75,000 to $100,000 per year. DISCUSSED 4-L-44t--4-217- -68- POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES The real key to determining ifthe services described in this report are feasible is whether or not fumding can be found to pay for the operating and capital expenses. The costs for the services range, depending on what options are selected. The combined operating costs for services in all four study areas range from $1,044,000 to $2,819,000 per year. For the services in the three areas of the downtown alone, the combined operating expenses range from approximately $914,000 to $2,636,000 per year, depending on the routes selected and the frequency of service. Capital expenses could range from next to nothing (if conventional vehicles are used from existing facilities), or as mochas $4,800,000 for new electric vehicles and another $500,000 to purchase and/or build a new maintenance facility. Hence, the availability of fiords may well determine just what options are selected There are no "sllam dunk" grant sources that are going to make all ofthese services immediately available. The City of Miami is just recovering from a severe financial crisis that required a state oversight board to review its budgets and expenditures to ensure the city remained fiscally solvent Miami Dade County is in better shape financially than the city, but it is limited in how much it can increase appraised values on its primary source of revenue (property taxes) each year. The Miami -Dade Transit Agency has only recently been taken off a "Management Watch" status that was imposed by the County Manager's office to deal with the agency's budget deficit The state is far more interested in funding road construction than in funding transit, as evidenced by the Governor's Mobility 2000 planthat calls for over $4 billion to be spent almost exclusively on roads. Federal dollars for transit have increased by approximately eight percent a year for the past three years, but MDTA's backlog of capital replacement and rehabilitation requirements for both bus and rail easily lay claim to any funds that might be available for capital purposes. In addition, these new services would compete with other local circulator services, such as Miami Beach's planned expansion and Hialeah's local shuttles, for any grant funding that might be available. In spite ofthese discouraging conditions, there are a number of sources of funds and techniques that could conceivably provide the funds necessaryto pay for these services. It will require buy -in and cooperation from a variety of public and private partners to make this happen. It will then take a local champion to provide leadership and oversight, and a full time staff person to coordinate the various efforts that will be necessary. The next section of the report will describe the sources of funding that might be available to pay for operating and/or capital expenses associated with these proposed services. DISCUSSED Florida Department of Transportation Funding Programs The "Fast Track" Program This past year, Florida implemented a new program that complemented the work of the Freight Stakeholders' Task Force. The Fast Track program is a unique approach to strengthen our State's economic competitiveness and improve our business climate through transportation. Fast Track allowed public transportation projects that have been unfunded or underfunded in the past to receive priority consideration for accelerated funding in the fast year of the work programs. The Governor and Secretary of Transportation announced the program in early September 1999, and set a deadline for a broad range of applicants for November 1. In its first year, $59 million in fiords previously dedicated to high-speed rail were available to fimd high -priority projects in aviation, rail, transit, seaport, space, or intermodal freight or passenger facilities. A Fast Track Selection/Advisory team was formed including transportation executives outside the FDOT using candidates recommended by the Florida Chamber, the Freight Stakeholders Task Force, the MPO Advisory Council, and the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade, and Economic Development During October 1999, a selection/advisory team, supported by MOT staff, went to work developing specific criteria for a quantitative methodology to screen and score projects. The Selection Committee met twice in November, 1999, and recommended projects to be fimded to the Secretary of DOT. Final funding decisions have been made. The vast majority of the projects involved enhanced road capacity, but there were three transit projects that were approved for funding. As noted above, transportation projects fimded through this program are intended to increase the state's economic competitiveness and improve our business climate. MOT District VI staff have indicated that a downtown circulator program would be weak in terms of meeting the criteria for the program. However, a few transit projects around the state were funded through this program last year, including the capital costs associated with a neighborhood transit center to serve as a focus for local circulator services in Pompano Beach. Its best chance would be for the proposed services in this report to be promoted as a way of creating a more inviting business environment for Miami that would result in greater retail activity, better access for employees to get to and from work, and improved traffic conditions based on trips being taken by people who would otherwise utilize cars and contribute to debilitating levels of congestion. These funds are very competitive, and assuming the program is continued, applications would need to be forwarded to the state by fall of 2000, with fiands coming available in summer of 2001. Should this source of funds be considered, it is recommended that the criteria for the program be carefully reviewed to determine if it is worthwhile to expend the effort required to apply for the grants. Funds from this program -70- DISCUSSED 93- s � _ are available only for capital projects. Consequently, this program could help pay for the acquisition of vehicles and facilities associated with the services described in this report Public Transit Service Development Program The Public Transit Service Development Program was enacted bythe Florida Legislature to provide initial funding for special projects. The program is selectively applied to determine whether a new or innovative technique or measure can be used to improve or expand public transit Service Development Projects specifically include projects iuvohrnmg the use of new technologies, services, routes, or vehicle frequencies; the purchase ofspecialtransportationservices; and other such techniques for increasing service to the riding public as are applicable to specific localities and transit user groups. Projects involving the application of new technologies or methods for improving operations, maintenance, and marketing in public transit systems can be funded through the program.. Funding of Service Development Projects are subject to specified times of duration, but no more than three years. If deemed successful by their own measures, Service Development Projects have to be continued by the public transit provider without additional Public Transit Service Development Program funds. Each district FDOT office develops and submits a program of eligible Service Development projects to the Central Office by the first working day of July each year, for implementation beginning July 1 of the following fiscal year Projects are developed in consultation with eligible recipients, and the need for such projects is justified in the recipient's Transit Development Plan (TDP). For example, a project to initiate a new marketing campaign must be generally supported in the recipient's TDP with a statement of need for improved marketing efforts, as well as an objective to provide these efforts. As delineated in Section 341.051, Florida Statutes, the Department is authorized to fund Service Development Projects that will improve system efficiencies, ridership, or revenues. The following are eligible fimctionalareas along withspecified time durations for Service Development Projects: projects that improve system operations, having a duration of no more than three years; projects that improve system maintenance procedures, having a duration of no more than three years; projects that improve marketing and consumer information programs, having a duration of no more than two years; and projects that improve technology involved m overall operations, having a duration of no more than two years. The Department provides up to one-half of the net project cost, but no more than the amount of funding committed by the local project sponsor. Any proposed state participation of more than 50% of the net project cost are for projects of statewide significance. The final determination ofwhether a project qualifies for more than 50% state participation is made by the MOT Central Office in Tallahassee. District offices are notified of the determination before the appropriation request is forwarded to the Legislature. This state program could help find operating or capital costs associated with any of the services described in this report. It might be the most likely source of state money for the proposed Airport West shuttles. _71_ DISCUSSED There might still be some Service Development funds available in the current fiscal year to apply to the Brickell or Flagler Services, based on prior discussions between the Miami DDA and FDOT District VI officials. If not, requests for such fiords need to reach FDOT by mid -May of 2000 in order to be considered for funding starting in July of 2001. FDOT budgets approximately $2,000,000 per year that is distributed throughout the seven districts of the department. Again, there is severe competition for this program's funds, not the least of which comes from MDTA which has many projects they would like to try on a pilot basis. Transit Corridor Program The FDOT Central Office annually reviews all existing (i.e. currently approved and operating as of the annual review) projects, and then allocates to each district sufficient funds to cover these ongoing projects. First priority for fimding under this program is for existing projects meeting their adopted goals and objectives. Any remaining fiords are allocated to each of the districts by formula, based on each districts' percentage ofthe total state urbanized population. It is generally recommended that new corridor funding requests be submitted to the district FDOT office at least 12 months prior to the initial year of funding need. The districts may program up to one hundred percent (100%) of the cost for transit corridor projects, as provided by statute, involving the activities indicated below, either by grants to a public entity or by a Department contract for services for part of or all services necessary to plan and execute a transit corridor project including, but not limited to: • Development of Transit Corridor Plans; • Design and construction or installation oversight of project facilities and improvements, • Providing guidance and administrative support to the Technical Advisory Group during planning and implementation of the project; • Development of marketing and public relations activities; • Capital acquisition and investments based on study findings and as agreed to by the project Technical Advisory Group, including but not limited to: 1. Rolling stock such as buses, vans, light rail vehicles and other high occupancy vehicles. 2. Purchase of land for installation of project facilities and right of way for transportation corridor improvements. 3. Construction and installation of facilities, such as Park and Ride lots, shelters and stations. 4. Transportation corridor improvements such as turn lanes, traffic controls, and exclusive lanes or facilities for high occupancy vehicles. Operational costs including but not limited to: 1. Pre -service preparations 2. Service operating deficits 3. Marketing and public relations 4. Project administration 5. Security and traffic control 6. Equipment and project lease, including appraisals 7. Commuter transportation services 8. Carpool and vanpool activities 9. Other Transportation Demand Management strategies targeting employers along the corridor or legitimate costs deemed appropriate by the District Each corridor project must have clearly defined goals and objectives. Milestones have to established by which progress toward the goals and objectives can be measured. Decision points should be established where continuation of certain elements of the project or the entire project can be acted upon. The goals, objectives, milestones, and decision points must be defined by the grantee, be consistent with the Local Government Comprehensive Plan(s), Strategic Regional Policy Plan, MetropolitanPlanning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan and the Florida Transportation Plan, and approved by the district office initiating the project. After the initial two year period, projects consistently meeting milestones can be reauthorized by being added to the Department's work program. This program is particularly pertinent to the Flagler shuttle options described in this report. Both Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street are considered state roads, and the shuttle services described in any of the three options for Flagler circulators could be eligible for funding under the Corridor Program. This finding Program requires more planning and accountability in terms ofineasures ofsuccess. However, the major advantage of this program is that it can fund virtually 100 percent of operating and capital costs for an unlimited number of years as long as the project's goals are being met. Once again, applications for these fiords should be submitted a year in advance of planned implementation. This would mean an application for these fiords should be made by June 2000 for implementation in July 2001. Federal Flexible Funding Programs Flexible finding program authorized by ISTEA have been maintained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century(TEA-21). Many of these sources maybe used for either transit or highway projects. The following flexible funding programs may be used for transit projects: the Surface Transportation Program -73- DISCUSSED P (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) programs. Both the STP and CMAQ programs are discussed below. Flexible funds, such as STP funds, can be transferred from the FHWA to FTA for project approval. Flexible fiords which are programmed for transit specific projects must result from the local and state planning and programming process, and must be contained in an approved State Transportation Improvement Program (ST1P). Once transferred, these fiumds are treated as FTA formula funds and may be used for any non -operating purpose eligible under the FTA program. (Note: CMAQ maybe used for operating assistance within the parameters set for that program) Surface Transportation Program (STP) TEA-21 authorizes $33.3 billion nationally for STP over the life of the Act STP funds are distributed among the states based on each state's lane -miles offederal-aid highways, total vehicle miles traveled on those highways, and estimated contributions to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund Once the fiords are distributed to the states, suballocations are developed for each local area. STP fiords may be used for any transit capital project including bus terminals and facilities, and rolling stock. A state/local match of 20% is required for STP funds. However, toll revenue credits may be used as a soft match for this program. Public agencies who are interested in pursuing STP fiords for use ontransit capitalprojects must work with their local metropolitan planning organizations and district DOT offices to obtain access to those funds. For example, in Volusia County the transit agency, VOTRAN, was able to obtain a formal resolution by the Volusia County MPO to annually set aside 20 percent of the county's STP apportionment for VOTRAN. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program The CMAQ program was reauthorized in the recently enacted TEA-21. The primary purpose of the CMAQ program is to fund transportation projects and programs in nonatlamment and maintenance areas which reduce transportation -related emissions. Over $8.1 billion dollars is authorized over the 6-year program (1998-2003), with annual authorization amounts increasing each year during this period. All projects and programs eligible for funding must come from a conforming transportation improvement program that is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Eligible projects include capital funding to establish new or expanded transportationprojects and programs and operating assistance, under limited circumstances. Operating assistance under the CMAQ program is limited to 3 years, in most cases. The establishment or implementation of Transportation Control DISCUSSED -74- Measures (TCMs) generally satisfy program criteria and include programs for improved public transit. CMAQ can fund up to 100% of the project costs for eligible activities. It is unknown whether this source will continue to be made available to Florida's urban areas. Those urbanized areas that were classified as maintenance areas by the US Department of Environmental Protection may be reclassified as attainment areas prior to the expiration of TEA-21, thereby eliminating the potential for CMAQ funding m these areas. However, if the Miami area remains eligible for CMAQ funds, this program would be particularly appropriate to help pay the costs associated with the purchase ofelectric vehicles which measurablyreduce the amount ofozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter pollution. However, it should be noted that all known amounts available to Miami -Dade County for the next three years are already programmed for other projects. Other Federal Transportation Programs Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program The Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot (TCSP) program is a comprehensive initiative of research and grants to investigate the relationships between transportation and community and system preservation and private sector -based initiatives. The TCSP is a FHWA program being jointly developed with the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Rail Administration, the Office of the Secretary, and the Research and Special Programs/Volpe Center within the US Department of Transportation, and the US Environmental Protection Agency. The TCSP provides funding for grants and research to investigate and address the relationship between transportation and community and system preservation. The States, local governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), tribal governments, and other local and regionalpublic agencies are eligible for discretionary grants to plan and implement transportation strategies which improve the efficiency ofthe transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers oftrade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these goals. The services identified for the greater downtown Miami area are very much in keeping with the goals of this program, particularly if alternative fueled vehicles are used The proposed shuttle services would help eliminate the need for extensions of the Metromover system in both Brickell and Overtown. Electric vehicles could help reduce the environmental impacts oftransportation in the downtown area. The service would help get people to jobs in the booming parts of downtown Miami and Brickell, and encourage continued development within these areas with concentrated transit services. -75- DISCUSSED A total of $120 million is authorized for this program for FY's 1999-2003. Grant applications for TCSP grants are due to the appropriate FHWA Division Office in January of each year (FY 2001 applications were due by January 31, 2000). grant projects are awarded in October of each year. Again, competition for these funds is severe, and of the $35 million made available in FY 2000, $25 million was earmarked by Congress. Only 35 of 530 submitted applications were funded last year, receiving anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000. A strong case can be made for the services described in this report. Transportation Enhancement Program The Transportation Enhancement Program (TEP) is a federal program administered by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). TEP guidance and direction are provided by the FDOT Environmental Management Office, whereas the selection and implementation of most enhancement projects are handled by the FDOT district offices with input from metropolitan planning organizations or county commissions. Funding for transportation enhancement projects is provided by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the Federal Transportation Equity Act for the 2 1 " Century (TEA-21). This funding is intended for projects or features that go beyond what has been customarily provided with transportation improvements. This program is for projects that are related to the transportation system but are beyond what is required through normal mitigation or routinely provided transportation improvements. TEP is not a grant program, rather projects are undertaken by project sponsors, and eligible costs are reimbursed. The following 12 activities are eligible for funding under the Transportation Enhancement Program: • Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles; • Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists; • Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites; • Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities; • Landscaping and other scenic beautification; • Historic preservation; • Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals); • Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian or bicycle trails); • Control and removal of outdoor advertising, • Archaeological planning and research; -76- DI CUS§E® Environmentalnutigationto address waterpollutiondue to highwaynuiofforreduce vehicle -caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity; and Establishment of transportation museums. Funds can be used for planning, project development and environmental studies, design work, right-of-way acquisition, construction operations, and constriction engineering and inspection services. Applications for enhancement funds are taken in February/March of each year by the district MOT offices for eligible activities. Approximately $12 million will be available in FYs 2002 through 2004. Transportation enhancement funds are provided in an 800/o✓200/o ratio of federal to state/local. Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Transit Grants The Federal Transit Administrationprovides funding to transit agencies throughout the nation through two primary programs. The first is the Urbanized Area Formula transit Grant program, commonly known by its authorizing legislation as Section 5307, that provides funding to urbanized areas to support capital expenses in areas ofover 200,000 population. As the title of the program implies, local transit authorities are entitled to these funds (assuming they meet all federal guidelines and requirements), and receive their share of these funds on a formula basis that takes into account the area's population, population density, and the amount of service miles provided The Miami -Dade Transit Agency is the sole recipient of these fiords in the county, although they can share parts of these funds with other local transit providers through an interlocal agreement such as has happened in Miami Beach, Aventura, and North Miami. The total dollars shared with municipalities through this program is relatively minimal (less than 10 percent of the cities' costs of providing the local services). However, it is not known ifthe City of Miami is interested in providing the service itself or through a contractor. Federal Transit Administration Major Capital Grant Program Commonly known by its authorizing legislation as Section 5309, this program provides capital assistance for new rail and other fixed guideway systems, modernization of rail and other fixed guideway systems and for new and replacement buses and facilities. There are approximately $535 million dollars available nationwide to help purchase buses and bus facilities. Funds from this source are available on a competitive basis (not distributed by formula). The "competition" for these funds is primarily political (rather than based on skills in grantsmanship). All of the fiords for buses and bus facilities from this source are "earmarked" by Congress, withlittie input from the FTA staff. Once Congress has made its decisions on what areas will receive the fiords, FTA prefers to work with only one designated recipient in any urban area, if at all possible. In this case it would be MDTA. However, that agency could act as a pass -through on behalf of a local city, if there is an mterlocal agreement between the city and the county that allows the buses -77- DISCUSSED e .- purchased by the county to be used in a localityfor a particularprogram. This is what has happened with the Electrowave service in Miami Beach. For the upcoming fiscal year, the Clinton administration has proposed that $100 million dollars in this program beset aside to purchase alternative fueled buses and their facilities. CUTR has worked with EV Ready Broward and the Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation to include the purchase of 12 electric minibuses for use in Mani in a consortium grant proposal that will hopefully gamer the support of Senators and Congressional Representatives from throughout the southeastern United States. The additional political leverage this consortium can bring to bear should be more effective than every area in the southeast going after funds on they own. While it is unlikely that each area in the southeast will get as many buses as they hope to, there is a good chance that funds for as many as three to five electric vehicles might be available to use in the City of Miami in Fiscal Year 2001. Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Grant Program In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that radically changed the way welfare programs would be administered throughout the country. Welfare recipients may now only be eligible for benefits for a total of five years, with no more than two consecutive years of benefits received at one time. This legislation requires most people currently receiving welfare benefits to prepare to find work. As a way of helping welfare recipients make the transition to work, the Federal Transit Administration created the Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Grant Program to help welfare recipients and low-income individuals access employment opportunities. Funds from this program are available to pay for a wide range oftransportation services that link those needing jobs with areas that have jobs. Throughout the country this has often meant providing transportation from the inner city where many welfare recipients work to the outer suburban areas where the new jobs are being created. However, there is no reason that a transportation service can't be approved for grant funding ifit connects inner city residents with other central city employment opportunities (e.g., Overtown to Brickell). Miami -Dade County has been earmarked to receive $1.1 milliondollars fromthis program to help establish the kinds of transportation services described above. Those $1.1 million dollars must be matched by an equal amount, but the matchmay come from other federal sources as well as other state and local sources. Miami Dade County already has many ideas for fimding routes that connect welfare recipients with job Opportunities, but there still might be time to include the Overtown Shuttle service described in this report into such a grant program. Community Development Block Grant Funds This federally funded nationwide program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development provides $4.8 billion on a formula basis to support a wide variety of community and -78- DISCUSSED economic development activities, with priorities determined at the local level. While this program is not focused ontransportation, communities can use CDBG funds for the constructionoftransportationfacihties, or for operating expenses and vehicle acquisition for community transportation services in low and moderate income areas. Funds from this source could be used to pay for either capital or operating expenses of shuttle services in the Overtown area. There is a great deal of local input into how these federal funds are used, and any thoughts of using CDBG funds for the purpose of purchasing buses, bus facilities, or shuttle services would need the support of the Overtown community which has many other needs and redevelopment aspirations. It is perhaps more likely that CDBG fiords could be used for amenities such as bus shelters along the route serving Overtown. -79- DISCUSSED LOCAL SOURCES OF FUNDING Special Taring District Funding Chapter 18 ofthe Code ofMiami-Dade County provides the countywiththe authorityto establish Special Taxing Districts to help finance the provision of a wide range of public improvements and services, including public transit improvements or services. Special taxing districts may embrace not only an unincorporated area in the county, but also all or part of one or more municipalities m the county; provided however, that no such district sball be comprised solely of a municipalityor embrace all or a part of a municipalitywithout the approval of the governing body of such municipality. Special taxing districts for public transportation improvements may embrace the transporting of people by conveyances, or systems of conveyances, traveling on land or water, local or regional in nature, and available for use by the public, or a project undertaken by a pubic agency to provide public transit to its constituency, and may include but shall not be limited to the acquisition, design, construction, reconstruction, or improvement of a governmentally owned or operated transit system or ancillary facilities and improvements related thereto. It is the intent ofthe county code to provide for the construction and the financing of public improvements and of providing services in areas m the county where such improvements and services could not conveniently be made available otherwise; that the cost of such improvements and services be bome on an equitable basis by those who receive the benefits thereof, and that property receiving special benefits be assessed in proportion to, but not in excess of, such special benefits. Indeed, this is how the local capital matchfor the Metromover system was secured. The special assessments for the areas of downtown Miami associated with the inner loop of the Metromover system have just been terminated within the past year. The special assessments for Brickell and the northeast sections ofdowntown associated withthe Omni and Brickell loops of the Metromover will continue in effect until the year 2004. While the county has the authority to establish special districts, it obviously would only want to do so on the condition that there is support for such a district within the proposed district. No issuance of bonds to pay for capital improvements can be accomplished without the consent ofa majorityofthe property owners in the district. Before a special taxing district of this nature can be established, there needs to be a report completed that documents the benefits that will be realized as a result ofthe improvements or services. The report that was completed for the special assessment district established for the Metromover concluded that the estimated benefits ofthe project would be $256 million due to higher prestige, additional floor space made possible -80- DISCUSSED M9=SL- by better access and higher demand, less parking required, premium rents, higher occupancy, increased sales, and increased property values. The establishment of a special taxing district could generate revenues that could conceivably pay for all or a part of the operating and capital costs associated with the shuttle services in both greater downtown Miami and in Airport West This report could not gauge the sentiment for the support for such a district, though some of the retailers along FlaglerStreet indicated anmterest. Of course, that support might depend on the costs associated with the project, and how much excitement and benefit new bus service would generate. They might be willing to pay for such services if the cost is relatively modest and helps attract new shoppers to Flagler Street. They might also be willing to pay if the service is more ambitious and results in an exciting new environment in the downtown area, where the large buses are removed from the downtown streets and they are replaced by clean electric vehicles. Savings from Truncated MDTA Bus Routes Most of the operating costs associated with the service in the Flagler/Biscayne corridor could be paid for through the savings realized by truncating a number of routes at the Omni and the Central Bus Terminal. As noted earlier in the report, this is a controversial option that has been discussed by the County Commissionbefore and rejected. This option was proposed a few years ago as away of saving as much as $2.7 milliondollars in operating expenses a year. Passengers would be required to transfer from the two transit transfer facilities in order to complete any trips to the downtown. In the past, the only option available to passengers was to use the Metromover, requiring a change in elevation, a wait for the Metromover car, and longer travel time to complete their trip on a vehicle with virtually no seats. The Flagler Street Options all anticipate that some existing bus service by MDTA could be eliminated if a frequent shuttle was established along this downtown corridor. In Flagler Street Options # 1 and #2, MDTA bus routes # 11 and #77 could be terminated at the Central Bus Terminal instead of being routed through the downtown to complete a loop before heading back west The county would save the costs of operating one bus on each route, whichresults in a savings of approximately W,000 per year. Those savings could be converted into shuttle services, helping to pay for the majority of the expenses in Flagler Option # 1, and a significant part ofOption #2. Passengers would be required to transfer from their buses, but a minibus would be running every three to five minutes front the transfer facility to Biscayne Boulevard. Many of the passengers fi-om routes #11 and #77 work within a block or two of the transfer center, and could walk the short distance if they preferred to do so, rather than wait a minute or two for a shuttle. Flagler Option #3 is far more ambitious and requires the majority of MDTA buses to be truncated at the Omni and Central Bus Terminal. MDTA buses with the heaviest passenger loads such as the #3 and the "S" would complete their trips into the downtown, but the remainder would complete their service at the transfer facilities. Passengers would have three options: (1) they could take the Metromover if that system provided more direct service to their final destination, or (2) they could either remain on, or transfer to, one -81- DISCUSSED of the MDTA buses that continues its service into downtown, or (3) they could transfer to a very frequent shuttle bus that would run every two minutes and get them to their final destination just as fast as regular MDTA bus service. This option would only make sense if the service was provided by electric vehicles, since the number of buses traveling through downtown would actually increase. The major benefit of this service is that it would serve a dual benefit of transporting regional travelers as well as shoppers who simply wish to travel on the shuttle for a few blocks. This option would only work if MDTA is willing to cooperate, and ifMDTA is the operator of the service. Union employees could rightfully grieve if their jobs are eliminated due to this project. MDTA would be skeptical of these options because they might believe there is little to gain for them. However, being part of a major improvement in the downtown is a major public relations accomplishment (just as the Electrowave has become a popular service on Miami Beach). Ifthe real mission of a transit agency is to improve the community of which they are a part, they should give serious consideration to these options to help pay for such services ifthe communityenthusiastically supports them. The savings they contribute would cost them nothing, and those dollars contributed to the project could serve as the match for any number of other state and federal sources of funds. Other Private Contributions CUTR asked property owners in Brickell and Airport West if they would be willing to contribute toward the costs of providing shuttle services. The response was somewhat muted in Airport West, but the representatives in Brickell were much more open to the idea. The manager of the Brickell Key Master Association expressed a willingness to tack on a fee to each unit on the island to generate funds to help pay for the service. It is possible other residential complexes in Brickell, as well as the major new hotels, would be willing to do something similar: This type of revenue generation occurs in Broward County in the major condominium complexes known as Century Village. A fee of approximately $4 per unit per month is paid by each residential unit to help pay for the extensive circulator services that are provided on an otherwise fare -free basis to all residents. This allows unlimited access to such services by the residents of the condos. Although many of the residents still drive and do not use the bus services, they understand the benefits for their neighbors and support the monthly payments. Something similar might be developed in the Brickell area in particular. This area has a significant number of residential units and hotels, and a significant amount of wealth. This type of revenue generation would not require a special assessment to be established It could be done through the voluntary actions of the residents and businesses of the area. Although such a funding mechanism might be easier to establish, it is also more prone to uncertainty given its voluntary nature. If certain parties should "drop out" of their voluntary agreement to pay, the source of revenue for operating the service would diminish and the communal sense of fairness and equity would be destroyed. However, it should still be kept as an option, particularly for services that benefit Brickell Key. This development's nature as an island causes the service to be a little more expensive to provide (requiring route deviations from the primary service area). In -82- D.ISCUSSS ED addition, Brickell Key was not subject to the special assessments for the Metromover capital funding project. Mostly, however, Brickell Key is an enthusiastic supporter of better transit services, and already has a market for such services that will only grow larger as the island continues to develop. They would probably be willing to contribute to the costs of new shuttle services that helps reduce traffic on their causeway, and helps their residents and employees gain access to areas of interest without adding to the traffic congestion in the Brickell area Businesses such as Publix and Winn Dixie stand to benefit in terms of better access for their employees and customers. These businesses could be asked to help sponsor promotions for the service, and could also provide facilities for minibus operators when they need to take a brief break. Revenues from the Miami Parking System In other cities where downtown shuttle services are provided, a good portion of the funds to pay for their operation come from parking revenues. These services are designed to serve as feeders to and from parking facilities located on the immediate periphery of their downtowns. The shuttle services described in this report do not emphasize this function, !although they are mentioned in Flagler Street Option #2. If the shuttle services are ultimately designed with the intent to serve as a `parking intetcept", that makes parking facilities more attractive and increases their revenues, it is not unrealistic to hope that the Miami Parking system could contribute toward the cost of operating such shuttle services. Again, these funds could be used as a match for funds from other sources. Local Option Gas Tax The City of Miami benefits from portions of the local option gas taxes levied by Miami -Dade County. It is highly likely that any proceeds already being collected are completely committed to roadway and traffic engineering improvements. However, it might be possible for the city to indicate that any new revenues from this source that exceed existing amounts would be dedicated to helping to pay for the operations of the shuttle. The city must realize that its downtown is the primary beneficiary of this service, and consequently, they need to demonstrate a commitment to fimding this service. In Miami Beach, that city has committed over $600,000 per year to help pay for the operating costs of this service. The City of Miami might still be recovering from severe financial stress, but it must also be an active participant in the funding of a service that benefits its well being so directly. If the local option gas tax provides insufficient funds for this purpose, then it should review other sources such as property taxes to help pay for some portion of them Impact Fees or Mitigation Fees in Lieu of Impact Fees De�U, D -83- 43 = There are some major developments that have been proposed for development in downtown Miami and Brickell that will be adding impacts to the local transportation system. Although the levelofservice ofthe roads in downtown Miami is relatively good, the City would want to keep it that way. The city and the county might have the opportunityto assess impact fees on these new developments that could be used to help pay for some of the costs associated with the proposed shuttle services. In Broward County, impact fees are collected at the time land is platted, and can be used for the capital costs associated withproviding transit services in the area of the developments. In Miami Beach, the city is hoping to establish a steady source of revenue for operating its Electrowave through a mitigation fee in heuofimpact fees. The Cityof Mane and Miami -Dade Countymight wishto review the feasibilityofestablishmg similarprovisions for the new developments in greater downtown Miami and Airport West. Revenues from the Shuttle Service This report suggests that any shuttle service that is implemented as part of the Flagler Street corridor be made available on a fare -free basis. This service will satisfy very short trips that would not deserve a fare, or longer trips that are currently made on the county transit system that in effect have ah eady been paid for. In order to encourage ridership and interest, fares should be waived, at least for the first few months of service on all the other proposed routes. Any fare charged after that time would nerd to be consistent with the fares charged by MDTA. A fare of$.25 would be the same fare as MDTA charges for transfers, and would be appropriate to charge for service that provides relatively short trips that connect them to other regionaltransit services. It should be noted that there is great sensitivity to fares. The Electrowave service saw its ridership decrease by approximately 40% when it introduced a fare of $.25 in mid-1999. The revenue that might be expected from fares received in Brickell, Overtown, and Airport West would probably account for no more than five to eight percent of the revenue necessary to operate the service. However, charging a fare does discourage vagrants from using the service. Another possible source ofrevenue that the shuttle service itself might generate is through selling advertising on the outside and/or inside of the minibuses. This might take the form of ads on placards that promote consumer products or services. Some regard this as unsightly, but it could generate thousands of dollars a month in revenue for the service. Another approach is to sell space to sponsors of the service with their names prominently placed on the vehicle in ways that don't appear quite so commercial. The agencythat operates the service should focus on working with local businesses to sponsor the service as a way of generating revenue, and as a way of promoting partnerships with such businesses who will do other things to help promote the new service. Since their names would be associated with the vehicles, they would have a vested interest in helping the service to succeed Assistance from Other Partners DISCUSSED E Depending on the nature of the technology used, and the ultimate design of routes, there might be other partners that can help to promote the service in one way or another. For instance, if it is decided to proceed with the services using electric vehicles, Florida Power and Light might help in designing maintenance facilities, and possibly contribute toward the cost of charging units, as it did for Miami Beach. In Alabama, the state's utility system provided the local share (20 percent) of the capital costs for purchasing the electric vehicles. If the routes help promote other public programs, there might be the chance that these programs could provide fimding for facilities such as bus stops or shelters, or help promote the new shuttle services. For instance, the routes could promote the fact they go past many ofMiami's historic sites and buildings. The routes could also complement the work going on with the Miami River Commission's efforts to establish a continuous greenway along the river, and connecting the river to the bay through Overtown. DISCUSSED -85- CONCLUSIONS This report provides various options to provide service in the four study areas. These options range from a relatively modest level of services in each area to more ambitious options that help integrate services throughout greater downtown Miami. This report also identifies a number of potential sources of funds to help pay for both the capital and operating costs of these services. In spite of the financial challenges many of the local governments are experiencing at the present time, even the most ambitious of these options could be a reality within 24 months if many different parties agree on the concepts for the service, and agree to participate as partners in making the concepts a reality. For instance, the City of Miami should not simply regard the provision of transit services as the County's responsibility. The services described in this report are customized for areas within the City of Miami, and they must be willing to contribute financially as a partner. So should the private interests who are the most likely to benefit finm these services. The county must beenthusiastic m sharing a vision for a revitalized downtown that they can help create by being open to serving the downtown very differently than they are now. A combination of savings fi-om truncating selected routes, revenues from special taxing districts, contributions from management associations, operating grants from FDOT, revenues from the City's parking system, some sort of impact fees, and revenues from fares and sponsorships would spread the burden of financing the services, and mirdr i the impact on any single agency or entity. There are multiple sources of grants available on a competitive basis to help pay for the capital costs of these services. Ifthe technology used is conventional, capital costs could be greatly reduced, and options for providing the service withprivate contractors becomes more realistic. However, electric vehicles would result in more benefits for the areas served by being quiet and clean, and by making the service easier to promote. All of the partners in this service should be looking at a bigger picture with a longer view, particularly if electric vehicles are the preferred option. There could be opportunities to share maintenance facilities, and even vehicles, between a variety of providers in the area. For instance, Miami Beachwants to expand its electric shuttle service and will require larger maintenance and storage facilities. Coconut Grove might also want to provide similar services. If the parties representing greater downtown Miami also want to provide service with electric vehicles, all shuttle service providers in the area should consider how they might work together to help each others' interests. For instance, Miami Beach might not need to purchase as many new vehicles as they forecast needing to serve the nighttime demand if -86- DISCUSSED vehicles from Miami were available to use after their daytime service is complete. Perhaps one maintenance facility can help serve the needs of others (e.g., Coconut Grove) to reduce capital costs in the future. Perhaps all of these areas together could help convince an electric vehicle manufacturer to locate a service facility in southeast Florida. The next important step is for a committee representing all of the interests mentioned in the report to get together and select the options they want to see implemented This is easier said than done. For instance, Florida Power and Light representatives have already indicated that the service must be designed to succeed iftheyare to be a partner, and this success willdepend on frequency. Better fi-equency of service is more attractive to passengers, but it is also more expensive to provide. There will be many other strategic issues to decide. CUTR will help facilitate such meetings if requested. Total costs could then be detemuned, and a plan of action could be developed that identifies the operating agency and the responsibilities of the all partners. The plan could be implemented in phases, and might have to be, given the major developments occurring in Brickell at the time ofthis report. Implementation in phases is more financially feasible, and would allow time for all of the elements of the plan to be put into place. Many grant applications will need to be completed and submitted, a Special Taxing District might need to be established, etc. Some staff person will need to be given the lead responsibility in organizing everyone's efforts to make these services happen, and a recognizable champion for the service would help give this project the priority it will need D SCU S ED -87- . 43 v z�-�— SECTION 7 Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. Palm Beach County Community Transit Study Technical Memorandum Task 3: Data Collection and Analysis Section 5. Transportation Policy, Regulation and Funding Data The current state and federal transportation policy, regulations and data relative to funding opportunities for the construction and operations of community transit services can be summarized as follows: Federal transportation law is codified in the United States Code. The most recent federal transportation law modifying the United States Code is, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA 21). Florida transportation law is codified in the Florida Transportation Code. Both federal and Florida law is further articulated and interpreted in administrative regulations, rules, guidance documents, policy statements and various reports, findings and administrative rulings. While not attempting to exhaust all available support for community transit funding opportunities', such transit initiatives can be funded by federal and state sources as described below. State Sources With approximately $4 billion in annual transportation funding over the next 25 years at its disposal2, the ability of the Florida Department of Transportation ' This memorandum should be read in concert with "Innovative Transit Financing in Florida" located at http://wwwl l-mvflorida.conVresearch-center/completed Pmt/SumpiM PTO/FDOT BC389 pdf and "Innovative Finance" located at www.thwa-dot/800/innovativefinanc4c/indeyhtm. A specific area for additional study would include use of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act and the State Infrastructure Bank where public or private sources of repayment funds are identified. Generally federal and state agencies addressing environmental, air quality, energy conservation, land use, criminal justice, urban development, housing or economic j #fie and competitiveness issues will also have interest in the improvements proposed and available funding. 2 Revenue Forecast Handbook (February 2001). Table 1 on page 6 identified that Aver a 25-year term 32% of transportation funding in Florida is obtained from federal revenue sources, 60% from state reven"UtSC U �+ C� E D and 7% from Turnpike revenue sources. See �3�7 IJ http://wwwl I.MAorida.com/planning/l)olicvWfs/RevHandbk.pdf K -1- - o Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. (FDOT) to fund necessary and useful projects responsive to the needs of Florida cannot be underestimated. No community should assume that it would succeed at advocating for project funding without complying with the complicated, but clearly articulated, transportation planning and programming process as provided in Florida law. While the following information will review a variety of discretionary and formula funding categories and strategies potentially applicable to community transit initiatives, it should be recognized that all transportation trust funds, from federal or state sources, that are used to fund transportation projects in Florida must be included in the FDOT 5-year adopted work program and, as to the first year expenditures, included within the General Appropriations Act of the State of Florida. To develop a work program, the FDOT first allocates funds estimated to be available during the five-year time period to various programs and geographic districts based upon the policy and goals contained in the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP)3 and relevant federal and state laws governing the use of transportation funds4. The resulting fund allocations are presented in the FDOT Program and Resources Plan which contains "commitment" authority that funds the full amount of a transportation project, even if that project will be constructed over multiple years with cash disbursements stretching well beyond the first year of the annual State budget. This project cost is compared to the revenue estimates identified in the Cash Forecast and the Finance Plan to assure that the FDOT's allocation of transportation dollars to the various projects can be fully funded by current and expected transportation revenues. 3 http://wwwl 1.myQoridacom/planning/2020ftp/default.htm. a F.S. § 339.13 (2002) indicates that the FDOT will allocate funds for new State Highway System construction to the districts, except as to new construction for the turnpike enterprise, based on equal parts of population and motor fuel tax collections and that funds to be used for resurfacing, bridge repair and rehabilitation, bridge tender system construction or repair, public transit projects and other programs with quantitative needs assessments will be allocated based on the results of needs assessments. Public Transit Block Grants are allocated as described at pages 22 -23. In addition, 50% of new discretionary highway capacity funds (funds available to FDOT above prior year funding level for capacity improvements which FDOT has discretion to allocate to highway projects) are to be allocated to the Florida Intrastate Highway System. These allocations are significant since the initial allocation between new State Highway System construction and the "assessed needs" program fundamentally shape all other allocations and funding allocated for FIRS (50% of the annual increase for highway projects) is simply a function of this initial allocation between new construction and "assessed needs" programs. Moreover, even if Florida Intrastate Highway System funding could be stabilized at current levels (approximately $1 billion per year), a policy decision must be made as to how FDOT will allocate the remainder 50% of new discretionary highway capacity funds in future years given the recent adoption of the Strategic Intermodal System. See SIS as summarized at pages 14 — 22. At 23 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 135 federal law provides for the establishment and activities of the metropolitan planning organizations and statewide planning requirements, 49 U.S.C. §§ 5301 through 5338 provides for the federal statutory framework for developing and funding of transit projects and 49 U.S.C. §§ 5501 through 5568 provides for the National Intermodal Transportation System policy and programs. At www.fta-dot.goy/library/admin/checklist/n4la.htm, the FTA Notice 000.41A (2000) provides the FTA Program Guidance Checklist for program guidance circulars. Also see "Transportation Funding Sources" by Lowell Clary, FDOT Financial Planning Office Manager, la Ci UaS E D l.s+..-//__,. I I F7..«.7.. l..____._li`Tf A XTC1r%eN"T A TT XT Tr T1 Tr\- I Tti- - 2- v � V i A Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. The projects are selected and "programmed" within these available funds following input received from the affected FDOT district office, the metropolitan planning organizations (WO or WOs), county and other local or regional transportation agencies as well as from public hearings, the Florida Legislature and the Governor's Office. To be included in the tentative five-year work program: i. a project must be recognized as a priority by the FDOT and the applicable NTOs (or the county government in non -urbanized areas); and, ii. project costs, scheduling and other necessary project information must be identified. Finally, the Florida Transportation Commission (FTC) reviews the five-year work program for compliance with federal and Florida laws prior to its submission to the Governor's Office and thereafter to the Florida Legislature. In addition to funds adopted in the 5-year work program, local funding sources, whether transportation revenue related or otherwise is always available for community transit projects. To the extent the transportation benefits are purely local in nature, use of local transportation funding sources are appropriate. To the extent the transportation benefits are regional or intraregional, MOT and federal funding is more appropriate. Further, when the project lacks a recognized transportation benefit, other local sources of funding unrelated to motor fuel taxes should be considered (ad valorem taxes, assessments, impact fees, bonding, tax incremental financing, parking or corridor use fees, advertising and other service revenues, etc.). Whenever a transportation purpose is recognized, however, efforts to comply with federal and state transportation law will allow local revenue sources to be leveraged as local match requirements required by the state and federal funding programs (ranging up to 50% of the total project costs). When developing any community transit project, it should be remembered that both federal and Florida transportation law provides for livable community initiatives, policies and related programs6. In Florida, the policy provides for incorporation of Transportation Design for Livable Communities (TDLC) on the State Highway 5 Current state law allows up to a 16¢ per gallon local tax on motor fuels. This entire amount, which includes local option taxes, is now being collected within Palm Beach County. See Florida's Transportation Tax Sources - a Primer (January 2003) at www. l 1.mAorida.com/financialplanning/tax Primer JAN-2003.prif . 6 "Transportation Design for Livable Communities," FDOT Policy, Topic No.: 000-625-060-6, effective September 20, 2001 located at http://www2 dot state fl Wprocedumldocuments/yrocedures/bin/000625060ydf . "Livable Communities Initiatives" located at www.fta.dotgov . G` U - 3 - " Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. System when such features are desirable, appropriate and feasible. TDLC features shall be based upon consideration of the following principles: i. safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and public transit users; ii. balancing community values and mobility needs; iii. efficient use of energy resources; iv. protection of natural and manmade environment; V. coordinated land use and transportation planning; vi. local and state economic development goals; and, vii. complementing and enhancing existing standards, systems and processes. The Plans Preparation Manual, available through the FDOT, provides further guidance in implementing this policy'. Specific funding options related to the United State Department of Transportation (USDOT) Livable Community Initiative is summarized on pages 26 through 28. Finally, the FTP provides for four goals: i. safe transportation for residents, visitors and commerce; ii. preservation and management of Florida's transportation system; iii. a transportation system that enhances Florida's economic competitiveness; and, iv. a transportation system that enhances Florida's quality of life. Funding initiatives addressing all these goals will receive state funds sooner than those that do not, especially when related to an identified major component of Florida's system of transportation. Given this broadly stated planning and programming framework, public transit funding, inclusive of community transit services, should be viewed in the context of FDOT's statutory transit responsibilities and the Transit 2020: Florida's Strategic Plan for Public Transportation (Transit 2020) which provide clear guidance for the design and funding of FDOT supportable community transit services. Moreover, it should be recognized that FDOT has great flexibilities8 to expand its response to the transportation needs of Florida pursuant to its statutory transit responsibilities that include: ' Plans Preparation Manual, Volume I, Chapter 27 (Topic No. 625-000-007) located at: http://wwwl I.Lnyfloridacom/rddesian/PPM`/`2OManual/PPM.htm. 8 F.S. § 206.046(3) provides that at least 15% of the Florida transportation trust funds must be committed by the FDOT for public transportation projects. No maximum amounts are provided and the actual amount is set by the FDOT Central Office when allocating available funds between new capacity highway projects and the remainder projects that, to a great extent, are identified on a needs assessment basis. This can be further emphasized if the program request is positioned as a safety initiative (based upon SHS 118C assessment). ED -4- __ . Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. i. statewide plan for public transit to assure maximum use of facilities and optimum integration and coordination with modes of transportation, including both governmentally owned and privately owned resources, in the most cost-effective manner possible, consistent with the FTP goals, the local or regional planning efforts and the federal planning requirements9; ii. formulate a specific program of projects and project financing to respond to identified needs as part of the work program; iii. provide technical and financial assistance to local governments based on an analysis of public transit problems and needs and assist in establishing and implementing effective transit systems and related support programs by making FDOT owned transit vehicles and appurtenances available for lease to such agencies for special needs of limited duration; iv. coordinate activities between public entities and private entities on matters relating to public transit; V. provide the transit service element of a transit corridor project designed to relieve urban traffic congestion (through contracts with existing publicly or privately owned transit systems); vi. assist local governmental agencies and other transit operators (e.g. planning and development of transit programs and procedures; identification of alternatives for achieving the most effective use of available transportation resources; and, increasing revenue sources as needed so that Florida's transit systems can move toward becoming fiscally self-sufficient) and advance, on a matching basis, state funds for capital improvements to transit properties (i.e. terminal facilities for lease by interfacing modes, the acquisition and development of adjacent land for lease or sale to public and private entities, and the acquisition and development of air rights, etc.) where there is a FDOT approved demonstrated need, administrative ability and system financial plan; vii. assist local governments to operate transit systems at a service level responsive to identified needs, in a manner to promote maximum transit usage and to achieve the highest possible operating recovery ratio commensurate with the local government's transit role and requirements; and, viii. assist local governments and other transit operators in the planning, development and coordination of transit services for WAGES program participants"' 9 FDOT has recognized that transit greenway planning comply with FTA Planning Emphasis Areas and have directed MOT District offices to consider such efforts beginning December 7, 1997. See Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 134, Friday, December 5, 1997 on pages 64462 — 64463 and the FDOT Transit Office Memorandum of December 29, 1997 to MOT District Planning personnel. to F. S. § 341.041 (2002) provides that the FDOT's transit responsibilities also include: (3) develop, publish and administer state measures concerning system management, performance, productivity, cost distribution and safety of governmentally owned public transit systems and privately owned or operated systems financed wholly or in part by state funding. Such measures shall be developed jointly with re_-- -5- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. In furtherance of these MOT public transit responsibilities, Transit 2020 was developed in collaboration with state and local governmental agencies, transit providers, community leaders and the general public and articulates a common vision of the future for public transit in Florida's urban areas. More importantly, as an element of the FTP, Transit 2020 helps to provide the policy framework that links Florida's transportation goals and objectives with FDOT's annual budget and 5-year work program. While the scope of Transit 2020 is limited to those services provided by Florida's 20 fixed -route urban transit systems (one of which is Palm Tran public transit services), it defines the emerging core values, mission and vision for public transit in Florida (to provide Floridians and visitors with an effective, efficient and customer -friendly transit service in a transit -friendly environment). Of specific relevance to community transit funds are Transit 2020 references to develop, promote and use: i. an effective and efficient mix of transit modes and transfer facilities to achieve seamless intermodal travel; ii. flexible funding opportunities for transit; iii. creative and innovative funding strategies (i.e. joint development of transit assets, property transfer, density bonuses, leases, certificates of participation, turnkey management, tax increment financing, betterment assessments, impact fees, parking fees, delayed local match, advanced right-of-way acquisition, toll revenue credits, revolving loan funds/State Infrastructure Bank); publicly owned transit systems and in coordination with affected privately owned systems, with full consideration given to nationwide industry norms; (8) provide new transit service and equipment where a public need has been determined to exist pursuant to the transportation planning process and where all of the following conditions occur: a) no other governmental entity of appropriate jurisdiction exists; b) a governmentally owned or privately owned public transit provider cannot reasonably provide the service; c) the cost of providing the service does not exceed the sum of revenues resulting from user fares, special transit services such as charter operations, local fund participation, and specific legislative appropriation for this purpose. The department may buy, sell, own, lease, and otherwise encumber facilities, transit vehicles, and appurtenances thereto, as necessary to provide such service; or the department may provide service by contracts with governmentally owned or privately owned service providers; (9) provide public transportation service where emergency service is required, provided that no other private or public transportation operation is available to provide needed service and that such service is clearly in the best interests of the people or communities being served. Such service shall be provided by contractual services, actual operation of state- owned transit equipment and facilities, or any other means deemed appropriate by the department and shall be limited to a period not to exceed 2 years; (10) administer federal and state commuter assistance programs and related federal -aid funds apportioned to the FDOT, which promote the use of ridesharing arrangements and transportation demand management strategies, and the creation of transportation management associations. Public agencies, and not -for -profit private organizations approved by the local government and the department as being consistent with local, regional, and state transportation plans, are eligible to receive funds under this program. The department shall establish adequate insurance requirements based on passenger capacity for each vehicle used in ridesharing; and, (14) create and maintain a common self -retention insurance fund to support fixed -guideway projects throughout the state when there is a contractual obligation to have the fund in existence in order to provide fixed -guideway services. The maximum lun t Qf� as required by any contractual obligation. n n l* U § ttb Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. iv. a better integration of transportation, land use planning and urban design practices that facilitate transit service and access and which do not replicate current land use and urban design patterns characterized by sprawling low density developments which are not conducive to efficient transit operations; V. land use planning and urban design practices that facilitate transit service and access; vi. institutional arrangements, practices and cultures that establish clearly defined roles, promote staff teamwork, encourage partnership with transit providers, and support a results oriented management approach; vii. a multimodal transportation planning process that addresses the wide range of policy issues involved in making sound long-range transportation investment decisions, including technological innovation and the environmental and economic benefits of transit; viii. broad -based public and political support of transit as a mobility choice and enhancement for Floridians' quality of life; and, ix. a multimodal transportation planning process that addresses the wide range of policy issues in making sound, long-range transportation investment decisions, including technology innovation and the environment and economic benefits of transit. In preparing the 5-year tentative work program, the FDOT will include specific transit projects that have been reviewed and approved by the affected MOT district office, MPO, and local governments and regional transportation agencies as outlined above and that meet the statutory project eligibility requirements (e.g. necessary to meet program objectives; contained in the local transportation improvement program and the MOT adopted work program; consistent with the FTP and regional transportation goals and objectives; and, programmed in accordance with fund participation rates). In addition, the work program should provide for public transit needs with resources provided in a manner that: i. assures maximum use of existing facilities and optimizes integration and coordination of various modes of transportation, including both governmentally owned and privately owned resources, in the most cost effective manner; ii. incorporates plans adopted by local and regional planning agencies which are consistent to the maximum extent feasible, with adopted strategic policy plans and approved local government comprehensive plans for the region and units of local government covered by the plan; and, iii. conforms to federal planning requirements insofar as practical. Unless otherwise authorized by the legislature, the FDOT is prohibited from entering into any agreement or contract for a public transit project which would result in the ultimate expenditure or commitment of state fun e c�s$�oof$5 million. (r (� S, �1 -7- ' Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. In addition to funds available from MOT administered federal transit programs (Section 5303 federal project planning funds, Section 5307 federal formula program funds for capital and operating assistance in urbanized areas, Section 5310 federal capital funds for projects to meet special needs of elderly and handicapped persons and Section 5311 federal formula program funds for capital and operating assistance in non-urbanized/rural areas), financial support for community transit projects can be sought through the following transit funding programs and planning initiatives. • Public Transit Service Development Program funding is available for new or innovative techniques or measures used to improve or expand public transit (e.g. new technologies, services, routes, or vehicle frequencies; the purchase of special transportation services; or, other such techniques for increased service to the riding public as are applicable to specific localities and transit user groups). Public Transit Service Development Program projects must improve system efficiency, ridership or revenues and are organized into four functional areas which are subject to the specified times of duration: i. projects that improve system operations are eligible for no more than three years of FDOT transportation trust funds; ii. projects that improve system maintenance procedures are eligible for no more than three years of FDOT transportation trust funds; iii. projects that improve marketing and consumer information programs are eligible for no more than two years of FDOT transportation trust funds; and, iv. projects that improve technology involved in overall operations are eligible for no more than two years of FDOT transportation trust funds. On July 1, 2003, FDOT District IV will submit eligible service development projects to the FDOT Central Office in Tallahassee for implementation beginning July 1, 2004. Prior to that time, candidate projects need to be developed with eligible recipients and must be justified as an objective and recognized need in the recipient's Transit Development Plan (TDP)11 and must be approved by the FDOT as being consistent with the FTP and regional transportation goals and objectives. The project objectives, the assigned operational and financial responsibilities, the time frame required to develop the required service, and the criteria by which the success of the project will be judged shall be documented by the department for each such Public Transit Service Development Program project. FDOT is authorized to fund up to 50 percent of the capital and net operating costs (all operating costs of the project less any federal funds, taxes or other sources of income to the project) of an approved Public Transit Service Development Program project that are local in scope (up to 1001/o for statewide projects) and all such DISCUSSED " See Palm Tran's Palm Beach County Transportation Agency Development Plan Annual Update FY2001- 2002located at www.pbcgov.com/palmtranlmformation.hth. r 12 -8- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. projects shall be identified in the appropriations request of the department through the specific program of projects proposed to respond to the identified needs as part of the work program. Such Public Transit Service Development Program projects should be reviewed in the context of the FDOT obligation to develop the statewide plan that provides for public transit needs for at least a five-year term with resources provided for this purpose. All Public Transit Service Development Program projects shall be identified through a specific program of projects that show the capital and operating expenses to be funded for each individual project. • Transit Corridor Program funding is available for projects undertaken by a public agency and designed to relieve congestion and improve capacity within an identified transportation corridor by increasing the people -carrying capacity of the system through the use and facilitated movement of high -occupancy conveyances. FDOT has the responsibility to provide transit service through contracts with existing publicly or privately owned transit systems, where such service represents the transit element of a corridor project designed to relieve urban traffic congestion. Annually, FDOT Central Office reviews existing projects and allocates to each district sufficient funds to cover ongoing projects. Existing projects meeting their adopted goals and 'objectives get first priority from available funds and any remaining funds are allocated to each district by formula based upon each district's percentage of the total state urbanized population. Each FDOT district office determines funding for specific transit corridor projects and any transit corridor request should be submitted by or before June 2003 for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004. Transit corridor projects may receive up to 100 percent of capital and net operating costs and shall be identified as part of the planned improvements on each transportation corridor designated by the FDOT. Transit corridor projects are individually identified in the appropriation request by the FDOT and shall show a breakdown of capital and operating expenses. The project objectives, the assigned operational and financial responsibilities, the timeframe required to develop the required service, and the criteria by which the success of the project will be judged shall be documented by the department for each such transit corridor project. The goals, objectives and project parameters must be consistent with the applicable local government comprehensive plans, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's Strategic Re�ional Policy Plan12, the Palm Beach County MPO Long Range Transportation Plan 3 and the FTP. e SCU ED 12 See www.t(Mc.org/publications/srpp.html. 13 See www.co.palm-beach-fl.us/ O/O/plans pq)orts.htm. ? -9- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. When a transit corridor project is undertaken, the MOT district may provide funds to a public entity or directly contract for project services including; but not limited to: i. development of transit corridor plans; ii. design and construction or installation oversight of project facilities and improvements; iii. guidance and administrative support to the Technical Advisory Group during planning and implementation of the project; iv. development of marketing and public relations activities; V. capital acquisition and investment based on study findings and as agreed to by project Technical Advisory Group including but not limited to: a) rolling stock such as buses, vans, light rail vehicles and other high occupancy vehicles; b) purchase of land for installation of project facilities and right-of-way for transportation corridor improvements; c) construction and installation of facilities, such as Park and Ride lots, shelters and stations; and, d) transportation corridor improvements such as turn lanes, traffic controls, and exclusive lanes or facilities for high occupancy vehicles. vi. operational costs including but not limited to: a) pre -service preparation; b) service operating deficits; c) market and public relations; d) project administration; e) security and traffic control; f) equipment and project lease, including appraisals; g) computer transportation services; h) carpool and vanpool activities; i) other transportation demand strategies along the corridor for employers; and, j) legitimate costs deemed appropriate by the MOT district. After the initial two-year period, projects consistently meeting or exceeding the project criteria by which success of the project will be judged can be reauthorized by being added to the MOT Five -Year Work Program and reauthorized by the Legislature. • Public transit capital projects (a project undertaken by a public agency to provide to its constituency public transit14 that is limited to acquisition, design, 14 Public transit means the transporting of people by conveyances, or systems of conveyances, traveling land or water, local or regional in nature, and available for use by the public. Public transit systems may bQ"%C2gUSSEI either governmentally owned or privately owned. Public transit specifically includes those forms of - 10- " ;�. Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. construction, reconstruction or improvement of a governmentally owned or operated public transit system) or commuter assistance projects (financial and technical assistance by the MOT to promote alternatives to the use of automobiles by a single commuter including ridesharing15, transportation demand management16 and transportation management association [TMAj 17) that are is local in scope, may receive up to 50 percent of the nonfederal share of the costs18, not to exceed the local share, provided however, that MOT participation in the final design, right-of- way acquisition, and construction phases of an individual fixed guideway project which is not approved by federal funding shall not exceed an amount equal to 12.5 percent of the total cost of each phase. • Transportation Outreach Program (TOP) funding is, at least in theory, available for transportation projects of a high priority based upon the prevailing principles of preserving the existing transportation infrastructure; enhancing Florida's economic growth and competitiveness; and improving travel choices to ensure mobility. Projects are selected by seven -member TOP Advisory Council and recommended to the legislature with MOT technical expertise and support as requested by the Council19 transportation commonly known as paratransit. "Paratransit" means those elements of public transit which provide service between specific origins and destinations selected by the individual user with such service being provided at a time that is agreed upon by the user and the provider of the service. Paratransit service is provided by taxis, limousines, "dial -a -ride" buses, and other demand -responsive operations that are characterized by their nonscheduled, nonfixed route nature. 15 Ridesharing means an arrangement, between persons with a common destination or destinations within the same proximity, to share the use of a motor vehicle on a recurring basis for round-trip transportation to and from their place of employment or other common destination. For purposes of ridesharing, employment shall be deemed to commence when an employee arrives at the employer's place of employment to report for work and shall be deemed to terminate when the employee leaves the employer's place of employment, excluding areas not under the control of the employer. However, an employee shall be deemed to be within the course of employment when the employee is engaged in the performance of duties assigned or directed by the employer, or acting in the furtherance of the business of the employer, irrespective of location. 16 Transportation demand management means techniques that can be used to increase the efficiency of existing transportation systems by influencing demand on the systems and by reducing the number of automobile trips during peak hours of highway use. 17 Transportation management association means an organization which helps solve transportation problems by encouraging businesses and governments to implement ridesharing and demand management strategies. 18 If the transit capital or commuter assistance project is statewide in scope or involves more than county and no other governmental entity or appropriate jurisdiction exists, FDOT is authorized to fund up to 100% of the cost of such eligible projects. 19 Governor Bush has left the Advisory Council positions vacant and no meetings of the TOP Advisory Council are scheduled. The TOP Program was not included in the Governor's budget recommendations and no funding or projects for the TOP's program were approved during the 2003 Florida Legislative Sessi U - 11 - ,�' 4'•.� Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. TOP projects must meet the following minimum criteria: i. the project can be made production -ready within a 5-year period following the end of the current fiscal year; ii. the project is listed in an outer year of the 5-year work program and can be made production -ready and advanced to an earlier year of the 5-year work program; iii, the project is consistent with a current transportation system plan, including, but not limited to, the Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS), aviation, intermodal{rail, seaport, spaceport, or transit system plans; and, iv. the project is not inconsistent with an approved local comprehensive plan of any local government within whose boundaries the project is located in whole or in part or, if the project is inconsistent with the applicable approved local comprehensive plans, the project proposal is accompanied by an explanation of why the project should be undertaken notwithstanding such inconsistency. One or more of the minimum criteria listed above may be waived for a statewide or regionally significant transportation project of critical concern. Eligible projects include those for planning, design or acquiring right-of-way, or construction of, the following: i. major highway improvements20; ii. major public transportation projects21; and, iii. highway and bridge projects that facilitate retention and expansion of military installations, or that facilitate reuse and development of any military base designated for closure by the federal government. • Projects that will assist the Florida transit system in becoming fiscally self- sufficient may receive a FDOT funding advance of up to 80 percent of the capital costs. Such advances shall be reimbursed to the department on an appropriate schedule not to exceed 5 years after the date of provision of the advances. 211 Major highway improvements include: the Florida Intrastate Highway System; feeder roads which provide linkages to major highways; bridges of statewide or regional significance, trade and economic development corridors; access projects for freight and passengers; and, hurricane evacuation routes. 21Major public transportation projects include: seaport projects which improve cargo and passenger movements; aviation projects which increase passenger enplanesnents and cargo activity; transit projects which improve mobility on interstate highways or which improve regional or localized travel; rail projects that facilitate the movement of passengers and cargo including ancillary pedestrian facilities; Spaceport Florida Authority projects which improve space transportation capacity and facilities to meet current and future commercial, national and state space transportation requirements; and, bicycle and pedestriand M V S S E D that add to or enhance a statewide system of public trails. -12- -"J-U4A Thomas F. Gustafson, PA • Intermodal Development Program funding is available for major capital investments in fixed -guideway transportation systems, access to seaports, airports and other transportation terminals, providing for the construction of intermodal or multimodal terminals and to otherwise facilitate intermodal or multimodal movement of people and goods. FDOT is directed to develop a proposed intermodal development plan to connect Florida's airports, deepwater seaports, rail systems serving both passenger and freight, and major intermodal connectors to the FIHS facilities as a primary system for the movement of people and freight in this state in order to make the intermodal development plan a fully integrated and interconnected system. The intermodal development plan must: i. define and assess the state's freight intermodal network, including airports, seaports, rail lines and terminals, and connecting highway; ii. prioritize statewide infrastructure investments, including the acceleration of current projects, which are found by the Freight Stakeholders Task Force to be priority projects for the efficient movement of people and freight; and, iii. be developed in a manner that will assure maximum use of existing facilities and optimum integration and coordination of the various modes of transportation, including both government - owned and privately owned resources, in the most cost-effective manner possible. FDOT, in the administration of the Intermodal Development Program, must review funding requests from Chapter 343 Rail Authorities (Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, etc.) and may include projects of the authorities, including planning and design, in the tentative work program. No single transportation authority operating a fixed -guideway transportation system or single fixed -guideway transportation system not administered by a transportation authority receiving funds under the Intermodal Development Program shall receive more than 33'/3 percent of the total intermodal development funds appropriated between July 1, 1990 and June 30, 2015. FDOT is authorized to fund projects within the Intermodal Development Program, which are consistent, to the extent feasible, with approved local government comprehensive plans of the units of local government in which the project is located. Intermodal Development Program projects eligible for funding include: i. major capital investments in public rail and fixed -guideway transportation facilities and systems which provide intermodal access and which have complied with the FDOT's major capital investment policy22; 22 Effective September 30, 2001, that Capital Investment Policy For Major Transportation Facilities provides that state investments in major transportation facilities must undergo assessments through compliance with applicable federal planning and public development requirements. Any major public transit component shall specifically include: 1) methods to be used to determine consistency of a transit project with approved applicl government comprehensive plans where the project is located; (, 0A9P 1ll Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. ii. road, rail or fixed -guideway access to, from, or between seaports, airports and other transportation terminals; iii. construction of intermodal or multimodal terminals; iv. development and construction of dedicated bus lanes; and, V. projects which otherwise facilitate the intermodal or multimodal movement of people and goods. The development of such an Intermodal Development Program could be fiuther enhanced by the establishment, construction and management of the Florida Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) as called for by the FTP goals and long range objectives. Specifically, the FTP envisioned a transportation system that will enhance Florida's economic competitiveness and called for development of a SIS composed of transportation corridors and facilities of statewide and interregional significance to more efficiently move both passenger and freight. Moreover, the SIS would create a process for the development of prioritized strategic facilities consistent with the purpose statement of the Florida Transportation Code (to establish the responsibilities of the state, the counties and municipalities in the planning and development of the transportation systems serving the people of the state and to assure the development of an integrated, balanced statewide transportation system), its prevailing principles which are to be considered in planning and developing an integrated, balanced statewide transportation system (preserving the existing transportation infrastructure; enhancing Florida's economic competitiveness; and improving travel choices to ensure mobility); and the FDOT's mission (to provide a safe, statewide transportation system that ensures the mobility of people and goods, enhances economic prosperity, and preserves the quality of our environment and communities). In February 2002, a Steering Committee comprised of 31 statewide stakeholders was formed to develop consensus recommendations for criteria that would be and to designate SIS facilities. The Steering Committee developed goal and principle statements, designation criteria and thresholds, and implementation guidances. The resulting SIS recommendations were recognized by the FDOT as a fundamental shift in the way Florida views the development of and makes investments in Florida's transportation system23. For purposes of community transit funding, the provisions of the December 2002 Steering Committee Final Report: Recommendation for Designating Florida's 2) methods for evaluating the level of local commitment to a transit project, which is to be demonstrated through system planning and the development of a feasible plan to fund operating cost through fares, value capital techniques such as joint development and special districts or other local funding mechanism; 3) methods for evaluating alternative transit systems including analysis of technology and alternative methods for providing transit services in the corridor. 23 The Strategic Intermodal System, "Recommendations for Designating a Strategic Intermodal System" summary (March 2003). ® C C U S S E D - 14 - , Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. Strategic Intermodal System (SIS Report) is especially relevant24. They provide for a SIS goal: Florida's Intermodal System should be a strategic, seamless statewide transportation system that: i. efficiently serves Florida's citizens, businesses and visitors; ii. helps Florida become a worldwide economic leader, iii. enhances economic prosperity and competitiveness; iv. enriches quality of life; and, v. reflects responsible environmental stewardship. Further, eight SIS Principles are established to accomplish the SIS goal through designation, planning and implementation activities (System Development, System Scope, System Integration, System Performance, Economic Competitiveness, Community, Environment and Implementation and Funding). Finally, the SIS Report describes the SIS facilities and services that are the transportation system elements of statewide or interregional significance and that play a critical role in moving people and goods to and from other states and nations and recommends that Florida's transportation system be planned and managed as three major components: i. SIS Component — facilities and services of statewide or interregional significance (broadly categorized as corridors, hubs and connectors). This element would include the facilities and services that play a critical role in moving people and goods to and from other states and nations, and between major economic regions in Florida; ii. Emerging Component — facilities and services of statewide or interregional significance that do not currently meet the criteria and thresholds of SIS designation but are experiencing growing levels of activity; and, iii. Other Component — facilities and services of local or intraregional significance that support or link with the SIS Component without being candidates for future SIS designation. In addition, the SIS Report recognized that the existing transportation funding from all sources (federal, state and local) would not be sufficient to pay for needed transportation projects. This funding shortfall is currently estimated to exceed $50 billion through 2020. While the Steering Committee recommends that Florida's political and business leaders make transportation funding a high priority, absent additional funding commitments, it is clear that transportation priorities would be refocused through the SIS process to more strategic expenditures and, therefore, projects recognized within the SIS will be given a funding priority over those that are not. Using objective criteria and thresholds, the SIS Report recommended SIS corridors and hubs for initial designations (seven commercial service airports, o0 MCUS S E D 24 httn://wwwl 1.myflorida.cgm/plamung/sis/defaulthtm �1 ^ -h Z ' -15- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. seven deepwater seaports, the Atlantic and Gulf Intercoastal Waterway and shipping lanes, more than 1600 miles of railroads, the initial phases of the planning high-speed rail system, five intercity bus stations and five existing or planned intermodal passenger terminals and more than 3700 miles of highway). Supporting facilities and services were defined as those transportation system elements that are not designated as part of the SIS. These facilities are further divided into Emerging facilities and services of a statewide or interregional significance that are candidates for future SIS designation but which do not yet meet criteria and thresholds for SIS designation and Other facilities and services that are local in nature but which can support and link with SIS facilities without being candidate for future SIS designation. While SIS facilities and related Planned Intermodal Connecter Areas were identified in Florida's larger communities (the Jacksonville, Orlando, Lakeland, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Cape Canaveral, Fort Pierce, West Palm Beach, Fort Lauderdale, Miami and Fort Myers areas), Emerging facilities and services were identified at other strategic communities (Gainesville, Daytona Beach, Fernandina Beach, Tallahassee, Panama City and Pensacola) (See SIS Report, Figure ES.1). In addition to this listing of communities with specific SIS facilities, most other Florida communities, with a proper understanding of the SIS goals and project development process, will be able to develop Other facilities and services projects to link with SIS facilities that are located throughout the State of Florida. SIS facilities and services identified in Palm Beach County were as follows: i. hubs (Palm Beach International Airport, Port of Palm Beach, West Palm Beach Amtrak/Tri-Rail station and West Palm Beach planned high-speed rail terminal); ii. corridors (CSX passenger rail corridors - Amtrak and Tri- Rail service, proposed high-speed rail corridor, FEC and CSX freight rail corridors, Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway and shipping lanes and the major highway corridors, I-95, Florida Turnpike, SR80, SR710 and US27); and, iii. intermodal connectors to the SIS hubs and corridor facilities that are to be identified in 2003 for the Palm Beach County Planned Intermodal Connector Area. Significantly, the Planned Intermodal Connector Area as identified on Figure ES.1 of the SIS Report would suggest that current planning efforts be undertaken to define and designate intermodal connectors within Palm Beach County to link the above -referenced SIS hub and corridor facilities during the next phase of the SIS designation process that is scheduled to be completed during the calendar year 2003. SIS intermodal connectors, as described in the SIS Report, typically will consist of intraregional transportation facilities and services that link SIS hubs to the nearest SIS corridor or SIS hub (may consist of rail mainlines, FIHS, rail short line transit DISCUSSED -16- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. lines, inland waterways, State Highway System roads or, in limited cases, roads that are not on the State Highway System). Because passenger and freight access SIS hubs via many forms of transportation, the SIS Report recognized that there might be more than one intermodal connector designated for each SIS hub (e.g. links by rail, road, transit or waterborne transport services). Further, SIS intermodal connectors are to be designed consistent with a SIS defined community and environmental process (enhance the health, safety, function and character of the natural and human communities in which SIS facilities are located and, with the implementation of SIS projects, foster good environmental stewardship) and should include context -sensitive design features so as to reduce or mitigate impacts on the built and natural environment. Subject to adoption of the SIS Report recommendations, the specific criteria for designating intermodal connectors will be developed in 2003 in close coordination with the Palm Beach County WO and other local governments planning agencies, taking into account any previous studies that have identified existing connectors (i.e. National Highway System Intermodal Connector Inventory, etc.). During implementation of the SIS, major passenger and freight origins and destinations for each SIS hub should be investigated and existing bottlenecks and inefficiencies identified as part of the needs assessment for SIS and any access improvements, planned or proposed by FDOT and local governments, should be considered as part of this investigation. Upon completion of the SIS designation process, a SIS Strategic Plan will be created to cover up to a 20 year time period of SIS development. The Strategic Plan will be developed by the FDOT with input from the FTC, MPOs, growth management and environmental interests and other private sector, regional and modal partners. It will be updated every five years subsequent to the five-year FTP updates and will include facility maps, identified needs, priorities improvements, financing strategies and related policies. Planning and programming for SIS, as well as Emerging facilities and services and Other facilities and services, will be accomplished consistent with the state and metropolitan planning and project selection process pursuant to state and federal law and regulations, where applicable. The Initial SIS Strategic Plan will complete the SIS designation process by: i. identifying existing and planned intermodal connectors between SIS hubs and corridors and statewide coordination with partners to improve these connectors; ii. ensuring strategic linkages between SIS facilities and the Emerging facilities and services or Other facilities and services; and, iii. developing facility maps that indicate specific locations of the designated SIS hubs, corridors and connectors. In addition, the Initial SIS Strategic Plan, as well as subsequent u ates will include the following activities: DISCUSS E D - 17- — t r � 4 Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. i. develop methodologies for needs assessment and project prioritization; ii. develop a SIS needs plan, unconstrained by estimates of available revenues, that identifies needs for SIS and Emerging facilities and services, along with alternatives for addressing these needs; iii. develop a SIS cost feasible plan that identifies the costs of potential alternatives and determines which alternatives should be given priority for available funding over the 20 year period; iv. develop a finance strategy to leverage available transportation revenues to implement the SIS cost feasible plan; and, V. recommend other policies to ensure the effective implementation of the SIS cost feasible plan in a manner consistent with the SIS and FTP goals and principles. SIS needs assessment will include: 1. ii. iv. 0 vl. vii. assessing existing SIS facilities and services performance (measures of both transportation system performance and economic competitiveness); the use of available socio-economic forecasts, augmented with available facility master plans and local governmental plans, to project future passenger and freight travel demands; identifying existing and projected deficiencies that prevent efficient transportation movement on the SIS (bottlenecks, intermodal connectors, and interregional, interstate and international corridors); the use of a visioning process, where appropriate, that considers how the transportation system can support evolving statewide economic competitiveness needs, consistent with Florida's Strategic Plan for Economic Development; consideration of a range of multimodal improvements to SIS facilities (e.g. added capacity, safety enhancements, maintenance, demand management measures, operational improvements such as application of Intelligent Transportation System [ITS] technologies25); consideration of investments in Emerging or Other facilities that would improve the performance of a designated SIS facilities; consideration of new hubs or corridor development and new uses of existing hubs and corridors to improve the performance of a designated SIS facility; development of alternatives, as appropriate, for moving people and delivering goods and services statewide; and, DISCUSSED ".; -- zs Assumes both highway and transit -related ITS improvements. -18- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. ix. systemwide, multimodal analyses as well as geography - specific, mode -specific and facility -specific analyses to determine how best to address needs. SIS project prioritization will include: i. development and application of a range of prioritization measures that address the impacts of potential improvement projects, including measures of both transportation system performance and economic competitiveness and costs (construction, right-of-way and operations); and, ii. consideration of the economic development impacts of SIS investments on rural areas (rural areas of critical economic concern; state designated enterprise zones; and federal designated rural enterprise communities and rural empowerment zones). A SIS cost feasible plan will be used to determine SIS projects to be included in the MOT Five -Year Work Program and high -priority projects will be programmed based upon availability of funds and their readiness to move forward. With the adoption of the SIS Strategic Plan, SIS corridor plans will be developed for high -priority corridors (a more detailed analysis of needs and alternatives for specific interregional, interstate or international trade corridors, comprising multiple highway, rail, waterway, air and other transportation facilities so as to facilitate the continuous refinement and updating of the SIS Strategic Plan). Planning for Emerging facilities and services, compatible with and supportive of the SIS Strategic Plan, will be lead by MOT district offices, MPOs, regional planning councils and other appropriate regional organizations with state and local input. Emerging facilities and services will be primarily planned and prioritized through existing modal and regional planning processes and targeted planning will be undertaken to encourage forward looking investments in these Emerging facilities and services. In similar fashion, Other facilities and services planning, compatible with and supportive of the SIS Strategic Plan, will be lead by MPOs, county governments or local governments, with state and regional input where appropriate. Other facilities and services should be planned and prioritized through existing modal, MPO and local planning processes. State technical assistance will be provided to help address SIS compatibility and connectivity issues and encourage the affected MPO and county government to identify their strategic systems of regional and local significance. The SIS Strategic Plan will supplement and build upon but not replace the existing statewide modal planning processes. Each statewide modal plan should address SIS facilities and services, Emerging facilities and services and Other facilities an E Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. services, ensure connections between the appropriate three types of facilities and classify the roles and responsibilities of SIS planning, programming, funding and implementation for all participating modal partners. FDOT and other owners or operators will develop statewide design and operations standards for SIS hubs, corridors and intermodal connectors reflecting national and international state -of -the -practice designs and standards for interregional corridors, major transportation hubs and intermodal connectors. Emerging facilities and services and Other facilities and services will be given greater design and operation flexibility to meet regional and local needs and to comply with community character and constraints, provided that Emerging facilities and services investments are planned so that SIS standards can be met without undue constraints when, at a later date, such facilities are designated SIS facilities. SIS implementation activities will: i. use FDOT's Efficient Transportation Decision -Making (ETDM) process to evaluate all planned SIS and Emerging projects for environmental and community impacts, to determine mitigation strategies and achieving community livability goals and environmental protection; ii. adjust design standards for SIS facilities to meet community and environmental screening criteria (See Appendix D of SIS Report); iii. identify SIS facilities with significant but unavoidable negative environmental impacts; and, iv. incorporate into SIS facility improvements context -sensitive design features pursuant to the TDLC policy and at -grade separations or access control design and construction methods to minimize project impacts to sensitive natural resource areas and communities. The SIS Strategic Plan should be consistent, to the extent feasible, with local government comprehensive plans and support community goals related to transportation and land use. Local governments should review their local comprehensive plans for consistency with the broad goals and objectives of the SIS. Regional planning councils will be coordinating agencies to harmonize and reconcile any inconsistencies between the SIS and local comprehensive plans. On request, the Department of Community Affairs will provide assistance to local governments in analyzing land use and comprehensive planning aspects of the SIS. SIS designation in a community should be supported by the local plan through policies that help implement the broad regional and statewide goals of SIS. Where there is a local governmental initiative in support of the SIS, silence in a local plan regarding SIS should not be interpreted as opposition to the SIS. The SIS should support development in rural areas at appropriate locations or where local government supports development to promote economic growth but SIS should not be a catalyst for residential or commercial development in rural anI S C U S S E D -20- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. agricultural lands where such development is not supported by the local comprehensive plans. The SIS will consist of only the highest priority components of the State's transportation system. While the SIS facilities and services may be key components of regional evacuation strategies, it will not provide the redundancy and local connectivity necessary for an effective emergency evacuation network. Operations of SIS facilities and services should incorporate the use of ITS technology to improve emergency management, safety and security and should be coordinated with the ITS technology of Emerging facilities and services and Other facilities and services to ensure effective emergency response. Given the significance of SIS intermodal connector designations, there will be an opportunity to define individual components of such connectors as commuter assistance programs, public transit service development projects or public transit capital projects that are statewide or statewide in scope and therefore authorize FDOT funds for 100 percent of the capital and operating costs. In similar fashion, should the individual components of such a connector be definable as a transit corridor project, FDOT would be authorized to fund 100 percent of the capital costs. Finally, if a community transit project can be configured to assist the Florida transit system to become fiscally self-sufficient, FDOT can advance for up to five years 80% of capital costs. Reimbursement of project funds would be programmed from parking and other intermodal service and real estate related revenues or from future intermodal enhancements, assessment or tax increment or other funding sources. During the 2003 legislative session, the SIS Report was provided to the Florida Legislature for approval and, with the passage of CS for SB 676, the Florida Strategic Intermodal System was adopted and has been sent to the Governor for his signature. The legislation closely followed to recommendations of the SIS Report and provides for a Statewide Intermodal Transportation Advisory Council (SITAC) to advise and make recommendations to the Florida Legislature and the FDOT on policies, planning and funding of intermodal transportation projects (advising the FDOT on the policies, planning and implementation of strategies related to intermodal transportation and providing advice and recommendations to the legislature on funding for projects to move goods and people in the most efficient and effective manner for the State of Florida). The legislation also provides for the FTC to conduct an assessment of the need for an improved philosophical approach to regional and intermodal input in the planning for and governing of the SIS and other transportation systems. The FTC is directed to coordinate with the FDOT, the SITAC and other appropriate entities when developing this assessment and shall deliver a report to the Governor and Florida Legislature by December 15, 2003 with recommendatioDISCUSSED ecesatto fully implement the SIS. -21- KK Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. In the development of the SIS Plan and all updates (referenced as the SIS Strategic Plan in the SIS Report), FDOT is directed to provide MPOs, regional planning councils, local governments, transportation providers, affected public agencies and citizens with an opportunity to participate in and comment on the development of the proposed plan or update. The SIS Plan shall include the following: i. a needs assessment; ii. a prioritization process; iii. a map of facilities designated as Strategic Intermodal System facilities and facilities that are emerging in importance that are likely to be part of the system in the future; and, iv. a finance plan based on reasonable projections of anticipated revenues, including both 10-year and 20-year cost -feasible components. It is with the SIS Plan development process and the policy decisions to be made within the FDOT prior to and during the SIS Planning efforts, that a well-defined local initiative with congressional, FDOT, MVO and transit provider support could be proposed for immediate implementation. Funding would be obtained through existing Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) funds available for this or: similar purposes, additional transportation trust fund allocations refocused through the SIS planning process, funds made available with the passage of TEA 21 Reauthorization26 or state revenue increases due to increased fuel consumption, Consumer Price Index directed increases to the State Fuel Sales Tax, revenue forecast corrections or tax adjustments adopted at federal, state or local level27. While the timetable from design to construction for a typical highway project is from seven to nine years, many factors can affect the time needed to undertake a project (right-of-way acquisition in urban areas, removal of hazardous waste, the inclusion of major bridges, changes in local priorities, etc.). The specifics of a community transit project, as more fully described herein, may justify a more optimistic schedule once state policy and local priorities are matched to a community transit project that provides substantial transportation, environmental, air -quality, community and cost benefits when compared to more conventional alternatives. 0 Public Transit Block Grant Program funding is available to eligible public transit providers who establish public transportation development plans consistent, 26 On May 15, 2003, the United States Department of Transportation released its proposal for TEA 21 Reauthorization. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Efficiency Act (SAFETEA) contains many new funding opportunities that will provide additional venues to fund intermodal connectors for the West Palm Beach area. See pages 29 through 30 for further analysis of SAFETEA opportunities. 21 It is also recognized that with the passage of CS for CS for SB 686 authorizing the transformation of Tri- County Commuter Rail Authority into the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA), SIS Plan will be developed in coordination with SFRTA and well as the, SITAC, the Palm Beach County WO, Palm Tran, the Treasure Cost Regional Planning Council, local governments and Wgt't D providers. u' -22- .J Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. to the maximum extent feasible, with approved local government comprehensive plans of the units of local government in which the provider is located and which address how the public transit provider will work with the appropriate regional workforce board to provide services to participants in the welfare transition program. Such program funds can be expended on: i. costs of public bus transit and local public fixed guideway capital projects; ii. costs of public bus transit service development and transit corridor projects; and, iii. cost of public bus transit operations. Public Transit Block Grant Program funds are subject to the following limitations: i. state participation in eligible capital projects shall be limited to 50 percent of the nonfederal share; ii. state participation in eligible capital transit operations may not exceed 50 percent of such costs or an amount equal to the total revenue, excluding federal funds and fare box, charter and advertising revenue, received by the provider for operating costs, whichever is less; iii. no eligible public transit provider shall use transit block funds to supplement local tax revenues made available to such provider for operations in the previous year (subject to waiver by the FDOT Secretary when the county where the public transit provider is recovering from a state of emergency); and, iv. no more than 39 percent of the funds available for public transit block grant distribution, nor more than the amount that local revenue sources provide to the transit system, shall be distributed to any county. While the Public Transit Block Grant Program is clearly oriented towards public bus transit costs, it does allow for costs of local public fixed guideway capital projects. To the extent that specifically designed community transit service includes small bus vehicles or fixed guideway vehicles (including narrow gauge rail), such funding sources should be explored. Because 15 percent of the total Public Transit Block Grant Program is distributed to community transportation coordinators that are in compliance with the Rules of the Commission for Transportation Disadvantages, should the community transit service be designed for the Public Transit Block Grant Program distribution to such community transportation coordinators, further funding opportunities will exist for projects that serve the needs of transportation disadvantaged. Finally, if the community transit system is designed for high quality, functional interactions with pedestrian -oriented corridors, perimeter mixed -use parking facilities, interregional intermodal linkages, transit supportive land use and pedestrian -oriented urban design patterns that produce larger transit ridership and to, therefore, justify increases in the total revenue miles, additional Put�f��it V_ D -23- ".�— Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. Block Grant Program funds will be programmed by formula to the public transit provider in response to more successful and extended transit services28. Such transit use and funding successes should therefore motivate public transit providers to participate in community transit ventures with the private and public partners who can provide the transit supportive and pedestrian -oriented land uses, urban designs and community/environmental conditions. Federal Sources The Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century was signed in law by President Bill Clinton on June 9, 1998 and authorized the expenditure of $218 billion for highway, highway safety, transit and other surface transportation programs for the next six years. Subsequent technical corrections in the TEA 21 Restoration Act have been incorporated in the federal code and these Acts are jointly referred to as TEA 21. TEA 21 built upon the initiatives established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) signed in law by President George Bush on December 18, 1991 which was the prior major authorizing legislation for surface transportation. The ISTEA policy statement provided that the law, was enacted to develop a National Intermodal System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provides the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner. To achieve these policy goals, ISTEA established: i. a National Highway System (NHS), consisting primarily of existing Interstate routes and a portion of the Primary System, was established to focus federal resources on roads that are most important to interstate travel and national defense, roads that connect with other modes of transportation, and are essential for international commerce; ii. that state and local governments would have more flexibility in determining transportation solutions, whether transit or highways, and the tools of enhanced planning and management system to guide them in making choices; iii. that new technologies, such as intelligent vehicle — highway systems and prototype magnetic systems would be funded to push the nation forward into thinking of new approaches in providing 21 st Century transportation; iv. that the private sector would be tapped as a source for funding transportation improvements (federal funding for toll roads restrictions were relaxed and opportunity for private ownership of such facilities were recognized); V. discretionary and formula funds for mass transit would be continued; 28 Two-thirds of the Public Transit Block Grant Programs funds are distributed based on total revenue miles and passengers carried, while one-third of the formula funds are distributed based on the population of the eligible providers' county. Similar financial impacts can be produced related to federal form bitt AQ U.S.C.� S.C. § 5336. US -24- - Thomas F. Gustafson, PA vi. that highway funds could be used for activities that enhance the environment, such as wetland banking, mitigation of damage to wildlife habitat, historic sites, activities that contribute to meeting air quality standards, a wide range of bicycle and pedestrian projects and highway beautification; vii. that highway safety would be further enhanced by a new program to encourage the use of safety belts and motorcycle helmets; and, viii. that state uniformity in vehicle registration and fuel tax reporting would be required to ease record keeping, and the reporting burden on business and to encourage productivity for the truck and bus industry. TEA 21 undertook new initiatives to improve safety as traffic continued to increase at record levels and protect and enhance communities and the national environment while advancing America's economic growth and competitiveness domestically and internationally through efficient and flexible transportation. Significant features of TEA 21 included: i. assurances of a guaranteed level of federal funds for surface transportation through FY 2003 with the annual floor to highway funding keyed to receipts of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) Highway Account and transit funding guaranteed to a selected fixed amount. Specifically, TEA 21 provided a guarantee to each state that its share of apportionments for formula programs (Interstate Maintenance, National Highway System, Bridge, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement, Surface Transportation Program, Metropolitan Planning, High Priority Projects, Appalachian Development Highway System, Recreational Trails and the Minimum Guarantee funding itself) would be at least 90.5% of its percentage share of the contributions to the HTF Highway Account and transit funding was guaranteed at a selected fixed amount over the TEA 21 period for eligible transit program projects based upon the assumption that 80 percent of the transit spending would derive from the HTF Transit Account and the remaining 20 percent would derive from the General Fund; ii. the extension of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Program, providing a flexible national 10 percent goal for the participation of disadvantaged business enterprises, including small firm owned and controlled by women and minorities, in highway and transit construction undertaken with federal funding; iii. the strengthening of safety programs across the USDOT with new incentive program funds aimed at use of safety belts and enhancement and enforcement of 0.08 percent blood alcohol concentration standards for drunk driving; iv. the continuation and enhancement of proven and effective program structure established for highways and transit under ISTEA (flexibility of use of funds, emphasis on measures to improve the environment, focus on a strong planning process as the found ion of good transportation decisions); UISCUSSED -25- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A V. new program project funds to targeted special areas of national interest and concern (border infrastructure, transportation infrastructure finance and innovation and access to jobs); and, vi. investments in research and its application to maximize the performance of the transportation system (ITS emphasis to help improve operations and management of transportation systems and vehicle safety). Within these broad policy perimeters, specific federal funding programs and initiatives related to community transit projects, can be identified as follows: • Federal Flexible Funding Programs; • Surface Transportation Program; • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program; • Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program; • Transportation Enhancement Program; • Federal Transit Administration Urbanized Area Formula Transit Grants; • Federal Transit Administration Major Capital Grant Program; • Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute Grant Program; • Community Development Block Grant Funds; • High Priority Projects as identified in TEA 21; and, • Model Intermodal Transportation planning efforts. Without further describing the details of these programs, it is sufficient to say that without a significant effort by Palm Tran, the Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, a locally supported TMA, a special purpose transportation entity or a local government to define and plan specific projects and unless the projects are given the full backing of the FDOT, MPO and the congressional delegation, these funding sources, however appropriate for such projects, will generally not be successfully pursued. In addition, when developing any community transit program that will seek federal funding, planning efforts should consider use of procedures and principles articulated in the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) developed Livable Communities Initiative (LCI)29. LCI was formulated to strengthen the linkages 29 Located at www.fta.dotgov. Also see FTA research subjects located at DISCUSSED http://www.fta.dot.gov/ntUres=cb/index.html related to: Intermodal Connectivity, Multimodal System Evaluation, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth (the interaction between transportation investments and land use); Transportation Institutional Reform, Transit Intelligent Transportation Systems; and, TCSP Pilot -26- 1 Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. between transportation services and communities served. It has been described as an experiment in the use of sustainable design concepts30 such as transit -oriented development, community -sensitive transit services, the provision of safe and secure pedestrian access, and transit supportive parking management and traffic management techniques. The objectives of LCI are to improve mobility and the quality of services available to residents of neighborhoods by: i. strengthening the link between transit planning and community planning, including land use policies and urban design supporting the use of transit, and ultimately providing physical assets that better meet community needs; ii. stimulating increased participation by community organizations and residents, minority and low-income residents, small and minority businesses, persons with disabilities and the elderly in the planning and design process; iii. increasing access to employment, education facilities and other community destinations through high quality, community -oriented, technologically innovative transit services and facilities; and, iv. leveraging resources available through other federal, state and local programs. Characteristically, a livable community will include: i. full community participation in the decision -making process by residents, neighborhood organizations and the business community including small and minority businesses, Programs. While each subject matter presents overlapping interests, goals and objectives, they represent distinct project funding and implementation opportunities. As to TCSP projects, it should be noted that while originally authorized for $20 million in FY1999 and $25 million per year for FY2000-2003, congressional designation of TCSP projects has become more typical. In FY2002 $271.1 million was awarded to 221 projects in 47 states and the District of Columbia as a result of congressional designation. Such congressional support of the community transit as a TCSP project will need to be evaluated once the project perimeters are better understood. States, local governments, MPOs and tribal governments are eligible for discretionary grants to plan and implement strategies which improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services and centers of trade, and examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns which achieve these goals. While TCSP requires no matching local funding share, priority is given to projects with a commitment to non-federal resources. A similar review of ITS programs will need to be undertaken. See www.fta-dot.gov//////research/flectlitslits.htm Also LCI projects would be likely to rely upon the "Design Guidance Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach A US DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking into Transportation Infrastructure located at hiip://www.fhwa.dot.goy/enviKgggLent/bikeped/Desig_n htm . r'. QISCUSSLL..j 30 Sustainable development is defined broadly as development that allows people "to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." (Brandt Land Commission, 1987). -27- 1440, Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. ii. well -planned and designed neighborhoods where housing, schools and parks are within easy walking distance of user-friendly transit and link residents to job opportunities and social services; iii. transit, pedestrian and bicycle access that is compatible with land use, zoning and urban design to reduce dependence on the automobile; iv. mixed -use neighborhoods that complement residential areas with commercial, recreational, education, health and other social services; V. transit services and facilities which provide safety, security and accessibility for all passengers, including disabled persons and elderly members of the community; and, vi. sound environmental practices including careful parking and traffic management techniques, to reduce auto trips, conserve space, encourage green areas, avoid gridlock and improve air quality. Eligible recipients are transit operators, metropolitan planning organizations, city and county governments, states, planning agencies and other public bodies with the authority to plan or construct transit projects. Non-profit, community and civic organizations are encouraged to participate in project planning and development as partners with eligible recipients. Metropolitan and other planning organizations that receive FTA planning funds are expected to incorporate LCI elements into their regular planning work programs. Eligible capital activities or capital project enhancements of demonstration projects include: i. property acquisition, restoration or demolition of existing structures, site preparation, utilities, building foundations, walkways and open space that are physically and functionally related to mass transportation facilities; ii. the purchase of buses, enhancements to transit stations, park -and -ride lots and transfer facilities incorporating community services such as day care, health care and public safety; iii. safety elements such as lighting, surveillance and community police and security services; iv. site design improvements including sidewalks, aerial walkways and bus access and kiss -and -ride facilities; and, V. operational enhancements such as transit marketing and pass programs, customer information services and advanced vehicle locating, dispatch and information systems. Federal funding sources for projects reflecting the LCI principles are: • Transit Capital Discretionary Grant or Loan Program; • Transit formula assistance Block Grants; • Planning and Research Program; DISCUSSED -28- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.AA • Planning and Design of Mass Transportation Facilities to Meet Special Needs of Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities; • Rural transit assistance Formula Grant Program for Areas Other Than Urbanized Areas; • Surface Transportation Program; and, • Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds. In addition, the FTA has indicated limited funding would be available for LCI technical assistance and demonstration project implementation, planning, capital projects, model planning, urban design and community involvement techniques. Moreover, on May 15, 2003, the USDOT released its proposed legislation to reauthorize TEA 21 federal transportation funds for 2003 through 200931. The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Efficiency Act (SAFETEA) proposes to revise federal transportation law in several ways that will be supportive of the development of an intermodal connector system (e.g. Infrastructure Performance and Maintenance Program, Freight Transportation Gateways Program [intermodal freight transportation projects/NHS intermodal freight terminal access and connections], Highway Safety Improvement Program, Highway Safety Programs/General Performance Grants, Commercialized Rest Area Pilot projects, National Scenic Byways Program, Recreational Trails Program, Multimodal Energy and Climate Change Program, Idling Reduction Facilities, Variable Toll Pricing Program, Transportation Systems Management and Operations, Real -Time System Management Information, Intelligent Transportation System Performance Incentive Program, Commercial Vehicle Information Systems and Network program, Federal Lands Highways Program, Fringe and Corridor parking Facilities projects, Railway -Highway Crossing Hazard Elimination projects, Job Access and Reverse Commute projects, Intercity Bus Intermodal Passenger Facility grants, Transit Enhancement projects, New Freedom Program, Research, Development, Demonstration and Deployment Projects, National Parks and Public Lands Legacy Projects, Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, State Infrastructure Bank Pilot Program and Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act). In addition if the SAFETA provisions were adopted as proposed, the USDOT Secretary would be specifically directed to encourage context sensitive highway designs (preserve environmental, scenic, community and/or historic values, safe uses for passengers and freight movement, consider context of the locality, access to other modes of transportation, etc.). Further, shared use paths would be specifically defined as fundable projects (multi -use trail or other path, physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic and used by pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, equestrians, and other non -motorized users). Finally, intermodal transfer DISCUSSED 31 See http://www.fliwa dot.ov/reauthorization/safetahtm for a copy of the proposed legislation and the USDOT section -by -section analysis of SAFETEA. - 29 -"� p " Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. facilities development would remain a national priority and $100 million in contract authority would annually be made available from the Highway Trust Fund for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009 for intermodal passenger facilities physically and functionally related to intercity bus service or that enhances coordination between intercity bus service and other modes of transportation and transportation services (aviation, commuter rail, intercity rail, public transit, seaports, The National Highway System, airport limousine service, airline ticket offices, rent -a - car facilities, taxis, private parking, etc.). In such a passenger intermodal facility program, the USDOT Secretary would make grants on a competitive basis to state and local governmental authorities for financing capital projects determined to be justified and to have adequate financial commitment. The primary criteria for selection would be the extent to which the facility enhances the integration of all modes of intercity and local public transportation, as well as the connection with the private automobile. The federal share would not exceed 50 percent of the net project cost and up to 30 percent of the non-federal share could include amounts appropriated to or made available to a federal department or agency for transportation purposes. The intended purpose of such funding is to fimher assist the intercity bus industry in linking passengers arriving through airports, public transportation facilities, train stations and seaports with their final home, work, and tourist destinations. Needless to say, such SAFETEA provisions, if adopted as federal law, would prove to be very helpful when developing a successful intermodal passenger facility funding request in the context of SIS intermodal connectors designated in the Planned Intermodal Connector Area for Palm Beach County. This can best be accomplished by an immediate effort to define such a West Palm Beach intermodal passenger facility as a livable communities initiative, to work with FDOT to expedite the designation of the Palm Beach County intermodal connectors as part of the SIS and craft language for the TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation to specifically incorporate the opportunity to approve and fund a livable community intermodal system for West Palm Beach (LCIS@WPB). What should be clear from any review of state or federal law and pending legislation is that when the right product is proposed that responds to the goals and directive repeated throughout the federal and Florida transportation laws, additional funding commitments will more likely be obtained34. 32 For additional information related to local, regional, state and federal funding sources, please consult the City of Fort Pierce Transit Greenway Conceptual Master Plan (1999) at www.tmnsitumnWaylaw.com or the Miami Surface Shuttle Services: Feasibility Study for Transit Circulator Services in Downtown Miami, Brickell, Overtown and Airport West (2000) at www.cutr.usfedu or the many USDOT and FDOT documents available at www.dot.gov and www.dot.state.fl.us respectively. In addition, a recently developed Finance and Implementation Strategy (2003) proposed by The Goodman Corporation for the Downtown Fort Lauderdale TMA suggests a variety of additional strategies to obtain local, state and federal funding. This report is available by email from Paul Carpenter, Executive Director of the Downtown Fort Lauderdale TMA at dtltma@fdn.com. DISCUSSED N -30- 1 n, �%. _, Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. There are several important local policy considerations to keep in mind when seeking federal funding for any community transit service proposal. These concerns can be summarized as follows: i. federal funding generally involves more complex, expensive and time consuming regulations and design perimeters; ii. much of the discretionary federal funding is tied to congressionally controlled decisions that require attention to the policy and political characteristics of the United States House and United States Senate (TEA 21 Reauthorization high priority projects, TCSP or similar designations and annual appropriation earmarks); iii. federal funding frequently requires state and local governmental contributions; and, iv. state interest in supporting the proposed federal funding will directly relate to whether the funding is provided above the minimum guarantee and whether the proposed projects are consistent with FDOT planning and program activities. Once a decision is made to access federal funding, it must be recognized that FDOT cooperation will be required to take full advantage of Florida's relative strengths and favorable alliances within and as between the federal and state governments. Such cooperation is more likely if project funding represents additional money granted to Florida above the TEA 21 guarantees for projects that fit with Florida's State Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, the FTC purpose statement and prevailing principles, the FDOT's mission and program objectives, the FTP goals and long range objectives, FDOT statutory transit responsibilities, Transit 2020 directives, and SIS goal, principles and implementation strategies. In developing a successful federal and state funding strategy, it must be recognized that while ISTEA demonstration projects represented additional fundings, Florida was not as successful as other states in such authorizations given the volume and relative sizes of projects identified in Florida. When TEA 21 high priority projects were authorized, Florida and other states were successful in supporting TEA 21 provisions that provided for high priority projects to be counted as part of the TEA 21 guarantee amounts. Therefore, TEA 21 high priority projects generally did not represent additional federal funding opportunities33. As a result, Florida did receive more overall federal highway funds by including high priority highway projects and specified other programs in the calculations of minimum guarantee. When efforts were made by the FDOT to reduce funding otherwise distributed to FDOT Districts for program amounts equal to the high priority project authorization, federal policy prohibited such redistributions within Florida and 33 TEA 21 did provide that some projects, designated as high priority priorities, were not to be included as part of the 90.5% minimum guarantee calculations (High Priority Projects numbered 1818 through 1849 as listed in Section 1602 of TEA 21 where not, pursuant to Section 1603 of TEA 21, included in the calculation of the minimum guarantee apportionment and involved projects in Missouri, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, South Dakota, Oregon, California, Alabama, Colorado, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Wyoming, Arkansas, Idaho, New Hampshire, Virginia, Texas and Maine) and therefore, those projects did represent funding above the guarantee amounts. , ' DISCUSSED -31- a " ��� ThomF. Gustafson, P.A. therefore a high priority project, at least in theory, represent as "additional funds" to the specific FDOT Districts if not to the state as a whole. This benefit might be considered illusionary given the needs of an integrated, balanced and statewide transportation system, not to mention the inherent authority of the FDOT Central Office to balance other project priorities throughout the state. With such transportation policies and treatment of funding allocations related to TEA 21 high priority projects, it has been clearly established through the six years of TEA 21 funding that projects earmarked in the annual appropriations process that were not high priority projects do represent additional funds allocated to Florida above the TEA 21 guarantees. In addition, transit projects and other initiatives not referenced as part of the programs to which the 90.5 percent guarantee was applied represent additional funding opportunities (i.e. Jobs Access and Reverse Commuter Grants, Federal Lands Highway Program, public lands highways and transit facilities, National Corridor, Value Pricing Pilot Program, Ferry Boats and Terminals Program, Scenic Byway, Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Program, Technology Deployment Initiatives and Partnerships Program, ITS Program, TCSP Pilot Program, LCI projects, Model Intermodal Transportation Program, etc.). Such or similar SAFETEA designations or earmarks, programs and authorizations, therefore, represent Florida's best, chance to obtain a full 100% return of federal funds that originated from Florida taxpayers absent in the unlikely event that TEA 21 reauthorization guarantees such 100% return of revenues. At this time, even the donor states such as Florida are only advocating for a 95% funding guarantee. Moreover, if a project is prioritized as a SIS project, it could be matched with the high priority or other TEA 21 authorized projects or programs during the reauthorization of TEA 21 and the annual federal appropriations so as to be supportive and not conflicting with Florida's SIS planning efforts and goals (a strategic, seamless statewide transportation system that efficiently moves Florida's citizens, businesses, and visitors, helps Florida become a worldwide economic leader, enhances economic prosperity and competitiveness, enriches quality of life and reflects responsible environmental stewardship). Given equitable and responsible nature of such a strategy, it is likely that once undertaken, the full capabilities of Florida's political potential will be focused to designate, authorize and appropriate the necessary funds to advance these transportation goals and objectives. CONCLUSION While a wide array of funding options exist for community transit service development and the related supportive pedestrian -oriented infrastructural improvements (walkable corridors, perimeter mixed -use parking facilities and livable community public space), most project funding has already been prioritized within the five year work program or recognized in 20 year long range planning documents, such that near term funding options are difficult to identify. While a determined city can wait its turn and propose project D f S C U S S E D -32- 93_ c*Q 1 Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. funding to be annually added to the fifth year of the five year work program, local governmental, private and public support for such projects has historically not been sufficiently patient or consistent to participate as such drawn -out planning, funding and construction efforts. Such long term efforts, however, have been successful when transportation entities or authorities, transit agencies, or local governmental transit operations departments have established a recipient institutionally willing to commit the time and resources necessary to obtain federal and state funding for community transit services or where the FDOT or county government develops programs for a regional or local governmental entities, TMAs or other transportation entities to more readily, quickly and easily participate in such programs. As specific examples, the Miami Beach TMA was organized to and operates a very successful community transit system (Electrowave Service) and Broward County Transit has set up a community bus program, wherein cities and TMAs have applied for funds and acquired smaller transit vehicles to initiate localized community transit services. These types of programs can be emulated in Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach and other US 1 corridor municipalities once a clear improvement plan is articulated, dedicated funding sources are identified and the amount of local match funding is established. In the alternative, if the community transit service is regionally significant (i.e. SIS Intermodal Connector, etc.), FDOT, Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority, Palm Tran, West Palm Beach or a TMA specifically organized for this purpose may be interested in providing direct services as part of or adjunct to bus, waterborne, fixed -guideway, rail or community transit operations. In either case, a strategy that recognizes the political significance of TEA 21 Reauthorization activities, that coordinates TEA 21 high priority or other project authorizations, designations and earmark requests with community transit project proposals, intermodal passenger facilities and the SIS intermodal connector designations and implementation efforts and that seeks to jointly develop the project with private and local governmental funding initiatives, will meet with success where other similar projects without such prioritization recognition and coordinated planning efforts will fail. Specifically, it would be possible in Palm Beach County to identify the proposed community transit projects and related corridor and parking improvements along the US 1 corridor as proposed in this study, with the projects that have been submitted to the respective U.S. House or U.S. Senate committees as TEA 21 High Priority Projects or similar program authorizations, grants or appropriations earmarks (TCSP, LCI, ITS, intermodal passenger facilities or other funding programs or requests) so as to constitute components of the SIS proposed intermodal connector system to be developed within the Palm Beach County Intermodal Connector Area (See SIS Study, Figure ES.1). Such a SIS intermodal connector project would consist of a system of pedestrian -oriented streets, mixed -mode corridors, public spaces and the adjoining buildings of the built or to be built urban center, perimeter mixed -use parking structures and community transit routes (using technologically innovative, pedestrian -oriented equipment and advanced customer information systems) that would establish substantial intermodal linkages between SIS corridors and hubs within the context of high quality human habitats consistent with livable communities initiatives, policies and related programs. DISCUSSED -33- "'� ` ' 0 Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. With sophisticated town planning advice, an intermodal connector within the urbanized West Palm Beach downtown area would look just like or better than the best parts of communities in Palm Beach County (using new urbanism, transit -oriented design, pedestrian -oriented design, smart growth, livable communities, walkable communities, sustainable communities, intelligent transit and transit greenway strategies) and would be referenced within the SIS as a Livable Community Intermodal System Facility for Palm Beach County or LCIS@PBC. Such a facility would be distinguished from, but would be functionally identical to and less expensive than, the more traditional structural intermodal connector facilities, which are already recognized in SIS (e.g. Miami Intermodal Center and the existing or proposed multimodal terminals at Kissimmee, Orlando, Deland and Jacksonville). If such livable community intermodal connector facilities could be defined during the 2003 calendar year, the SIS supported LCIS@PBC would be more readily approved as a TEA 21 Reauthorization high priority, program authorized or earmarked project, funded off the top from federal transportation trusts funds before any equitable distributions to the state are made (a policy adopted with the ISTEA and with, some variation, still permitted as part of TEA 21). While SIS intermodal connectors are specifically not intended to link SIS hubs and corridors to local economic center (tourist destinations, central business districts, etc.), such local economic center and downtown community linkages within the Palm Beach County Intermodal Connector Area cannot be avoided, based upon a livable communities intermodal connector facility planning efforts and the geographic location of the SIS intermodal hubs and corridors in relationship to downtown West Palm Beach community and economic center destinations. In addition, the proposed SAFETEA intermodal passenger facilities program would specifically provide funding linkages from airports, seaports, train stations and transit/intercity bus terminals to final work, home and tourist destinations. Further, to the extent local economic centers north of SR710 and south of SR80 are linked to SIS facilities by community transit and related pedestrian -oriented structural, parking and streetscape improvements, the existence of a system of SIS intermodal connectors between SR710/Port of Palm Beach and SR80/Palm Beach International Airport will give a specific justification for the funding of such north and south community transit improvements as an Other Component (facilities and services linked to and supportive of the SIS Component). Such Other Component facilities and services providing livable community transit services north of SR710/Port of Palm Beach (LCTS@NPBC) and south of SR80/Palm Beach International Airport (LCTS@SPBC) could be initiated through MPO, Palm Tran and other local and regional planning efforts and through partnering efforts with the state as needed to ensure connections between such local economic centers and the Palm Beach County area SIS corridors, hubs and intermodal connectors. Once identified as an Other Component supportive of a SIS Component by the MPO and through local, regional and FDOT planning and other state partnering efforts, the LCTS@NPBC and LCTS@SPBC initiatives could be candidates for similar off the top or earmarked related funding through the annual federal and state appropriations process in combination with regional, county or local sources. DISCUSSED -34- Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. Currently no TEA 21 high priority project has received support from the FDOT based on directions received from Governor Jeb Bush. Historically, the MOT has been institutionally unwilling to support high priority projects where they deviate from a well - organized MOT planning efforts. In addition, the U.S. Senate, has been generally less supportive of individual Florida project designations and appropriation earmarks, then is typically the case in the U.S. House. Given the passage during the 2003 Florida Legislative Session of CS for SB 676, which authorized the development of the SIS Plan, the FDOT, with advice from the SITAC and the FTC, will initiate efforts to define specific intermodal connectors. It would make sense at this time for West Palm Beach to initiate efforts to identify the intermodal connectors in livable community terms (e.g. LCIS@PBC) and gather both congressional, gubernatorial, FDOT, FTC, SITAC, MPO and Palm Tran support to identify such a SIS defined intermodal passenger facility connector as a priority to be funded through the appropriate federal law reference during the TEA 21 Reauthorization process. In addition, if the LCIS@PBC can be designated as part of the SIS Plan and is recognized as a high priority or federally supported project, funding opportunities from the various programs as identified above could be marshaled to focus federal, state, regional and local resources in support of the construction and operation of the Palm Beach County intermodal connectors (e.g. LCIS@PBC) and the related livable community transit services implemented along the US 1 corridor north and south of the Palm Beach County Planned Intermodal'Connector area (e.g. LCTS@NPBC and LCTS@SPBC) in a more near term than projects not so designated. Should such intermodal connector strategy succeed in Palm Beach County then other communities with similar opportunities will follow that example so that the SIS will truly become the process by which state and federal funding is strategically and efficiently coordinated. Consistent with clearly stated Florida and federal transportation policy to avoid waste and given the limited transportation resources available to Florida when compared to existing needs, the SIS with TEA 21 Reauthorization funding, when properly coordinated, will allow the State of Florida to establish, with currently available resources, a world -class system of transportation that is strategic, seamless and statewide. 34 34 Many of the documents available through USDOT, FDOT and CUTR were consulted to present this summary of Transportation Policy, Regulations and Funding Data, however, the conclusion as presented herein appears to be original based on many discussions with transportation officials and experts involved in such matters. DISCUSSED SECTION 8 LAW OFFICES OF TH('TMAS F. GUSTAFSON, :A. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 440 4901 NORTH FIDIItAL HIGHWAY FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308 TELEPHONE (954) 492-OM FACS0 ffI.E (954) 4924W4 tomCalmsrtpreenwaylaw. com W://www.transitgreenwgylaw.com/ November 12, 2003 Frank K. Rollason The SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency The Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency 49 N.W. 5 h Street, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area Deliverables for Professional Services Agreement dated September 16, 2003 Dear Mr. Rollason: This will confirm the hand delivery to your offices of the above referenced report with attachments and a compact disc copy of the report and related materials including a Critical Path Method (cpm) chart. Last week, the copy of the draft report was transmitted to you and Chelsa Arscott-Douglas by email and by hand -delivery for your review. During the last week I have continued to revise the draft document, including a new section proposing a freight intermodal improvements area. I hope this draft document meets with your approval. If you think that further revisions are necessary, please let me know. Based upon our prior discussions, please confirm that this matter will be placed on the agenda for the next CRA Board meeting. As the report indicates, some of the recommendations involve time sensitive activities and an indication from the CRA Board as to whether they wish to pursue specific intermodal strategies needs to be recieved as soon as possible. I have been working with Joe Kohl to help complete the draft SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update consistent with this report inclusive of the PowerPoint presentation that will include a discription of these matters. Pursuant to my discussions with Ms. Arscott-Douglas, these submittals will constitute the deliverables required for completion of the service �l� a a the above referenced Professional Services Agreement. �71� Please let me know when Joe Kohl and I can meet with you to discuss the CRA Board presentation and additional efforts that will need to be undertaken if the CRA wishes to pursue the recommendations contained in this report and the redevelopment plan update. Sincerely, O� omas F. ustafson For the Firm Enclosures DISCUSSED Critical Path Method (cpm) Chart 1. Contract Date: September 16, 2003 2. Initial Work Correspondence: September 16,2003 3. Microsoft Projects scheduling for an October 30, 2003 report submittal: September 29, 2003 4. Miami -Dade MPO Transit Corridor Workshop: September 30, 2003 5. Kick-off meeting: October 1, 2003 6. SOEPW CRA Community Workshop: October 2, 2003 7. Review of available materials: October 3, 2003 through October 30, 2003 8. Drafting field survey and mapping efforts: October 16, 2003 through October 30, 2003 9. Initial draft: September 24, 2003 10. Submittal of Final Draft: September 30, 2003 11. Transmittal of Contract Deliverables with request for matter to be placed of the next CRA agenda: November 12, 2003 Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson lent: Friday, November 07, 2003 4:16 PM ;0: Andy Weber (E-mail) Cc: Joe Kohl (E-mail); Frank Rollason (E-mail); Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Subject: SEOPW CRA reports Pursuant to our telephone conference, this will confirm that you will be sending the completed NGR & LB.PS maps by email tonight for my review and we will get together Monday to finalized and create the disc copy for submittal to the CPA. By copy to Frank Rollason and Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, I am notifying them that the completed report should be in their hands by Monday PM orTuesday AM. If Joe is available Monday, let me know when I can review with him the next SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update draft in preparation for the submittal to the CRA next week. Thanks Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distritwtion or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. SCUM. Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson )ent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 3:33 PM ,'o: 'Rollason, Frank' Subject: RE: TABLE OF CONTENTS *A IM I i 1-01 Narrow Gauge Rail Maps m show Critical Path Method Table of Transportati... intemrodal improv... Chart doc— CorrteMs.doc I will bring the package to you today (I am moving my office so I haven't mailed it yet.) I have one more section to add dealing with freight intermodal area and would appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the report with you when you are available. Call me on my cell phone: 954 661-7848 or possibly we can talk later this afternoon at your offices. Thanks. Tom -----Original Message ----- From: Rollason, Frank[mailto:frollason@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:53 AM To: Tom Gustafson; Arscott, Chelsa Cc: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Subject: RE: TABLE OF CONTENTS Tom, as I review the material transmitted, I find that I have the cover memo to Chelsa and Sections 1 and 7, only. Is all of the material covered in the table of contents suppose to be included in this e-mail, Frank? ----Original Message----- rom: Tom Gustafson [mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:22 AM To: Arscott, Chelsa Cc: Rollason, Frank; Joe Kohl (E-mail) Subject: The attached will be sent by mail or delivered to your office if I am nearby. Please call me when you are able. Use the cell phone number as I will be in Miami most of next week. Thanks <<Chelsa Arscott-Douglas status report (as revised) regardign NGR & LB PS Report 11.6.2003.doc>> <<Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality and Shared Parking Startegies for the Grande Promenade 11.03.2003.doc>> <<Table of Contents.doc>> <<Maps to show intermodal improvements.pdf>> <<Title Page for NGR & LB PS Reprt November 2003.doc>> <<Title Page for CD.NGR & LB —PS Reprt November 2003.doc>> <<FINAL TASK # 3.doc>> Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 ell: 954.661-7848 )m@transitgreenwaylaw.com DISCUSSED r 93 A � CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail 1 transmission is legally priv )ged and confidential informat= intended only for the use of the indiVedual or entity named above. It the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is --strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, lease immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED M 2 Tom Gustafson From: Rollason, Frank [frollason@ci.miami.fl.us] lent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:53 AM "0: Tom Gustafson; Arscott, Chelsa Cc: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Subject: RE: TABLE OF CONTENTS Tom, as I review the material transmitted, I find that I have the cover memo to Chelsa and Sections 1 and 7, only. Is all of the material covered in the table of contents suppose to be included in this e-mail, Frank? -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Gustafson (mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:22 AM To: Arscott, Chelsa Cc: Rollason, Frank; Joe Kohl (E-mail) Subject: The attached will be sent by mail or delivered to your office if I am nearby. Please call me when you are able. Use the cell phone number as I will be in Miami most of next week. Thanks <<Chelsa Arscott-Douglas status report (as revised) regardign NGR & LB PS Report 11.6.2003.doc>> <<Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality and Shared Parking Startegies for the Grande Promenade 11.03.2003.doc>> <<Table of Contents.doc>> <<Maps to show intermodal mprovements.pdf>> <<Title Page for NGR & LB PS Reprt November 003.doc>> <<Title Page for CD.NGR & LB —PS Reprt November 2003.doc>> <<FINAL TASK # 3.doc>> Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cell: 954.661-7848 tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED rm Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson '*nt: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:22 AM i o: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Cc: Frank Rollason (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail) The attached will be sent by mail or delivered to your office if I am nearby. Please call me when you are able. Use the cell phone number as I will be in Miami most of next week. Thanks RTM Chelsa Narrow Gauge Rail Table of Maps to show Tide Page for NGR Title Page for -Doug ArscoC las status _. Trans rtatl... po Contcnts.doc intermodal im pro-.. & LB —PS Rep... CD.NGR & LB —PS ... FA FINAL TASK # 3.doc Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 'ell: 954.661-7848 :im@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by a -mail. DISCUSSED LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, V.A. ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 440 4901 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308 TELEPHONE (954) 492-OM FACSRWLE (954) 492-0074 tom na transif� mwaylaw.com http://www.transitueenwgylaw.com/ November 3, 2003 Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, Planning Administrator The SEOPW Community Redevelopment Agency The Omni Community Redevelopment Agency 49 N.W. 5' Street, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area Dear Ms. Arscott-Douglas: This will confirm that I have provided, at your direction, suggestions to Joe Kohl to revise the September draft of the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update, the September 6, 2003 Draft Biscayne Blvd. SAP and September 6, 2003 draft Promenade SAP consistent with the above referenced report. Generally as to all three planning documents, I have suggested that the drafts use terminology seen in transportation planning documents that reflect upon current transportation policy and statutory directions. For more specific references, I would suggest your review of the attached Palm Beach County Transit Study Technical Memorandum, "Transportation Policy, Regulation and Funding Data" (June 2003). More importantly, the suggested revisions move the planning update toward a community redevelopment effort that undertakes to use improved pedestrian environments as tools for enhanced, large-scale intermodal connectivity. What I would broadly reference as systemic community intermodal improvements, represent the kind of community redevelopment that combines land uses, architectural designs and transportation systems for purposes of achieving specific transportation results (i.e., reduced congestion, improved air quality, enhanced safety and intermodal choice, efficient movement of people and goods to and from other states and nations and between major economic regions in Florida, etc.). In my report and the three planning document revisions, I have recognized two developing transportation programs. In the first program, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has undertaken efforts to designate and improve upon a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) that DISCUSSED v 3 4- would create a strategic, seamless statewide transportation system that: a) efficiently serves Florida's citizens, businesses and visitors; b) helps Florida become a world-wide economic leader; c) enhances economic prosperity and competitiveness; d) enriches quality of life; and, e) reflects responsible environmental stewardship. The work of the FDOT was approved in 2003 by the Florida Legislature through the passage of CS for SB 676 that created the Strategic Intermodal System and directed that a SIS Plan be completed that would include a needs assessment, prioritization process, a map to identify SIS facilities and finance plan. In addition, the United States Department of Transportation has recently proposed legislation that reauthorizes federal spending for transportation projects (SAFETEA) and the United States Congress is scheduled to reauthorize TEA 21 (the law that authorized federal funds for the last six year term) to identify new federal spending priorities by February 2004. Amongst the many proposed changes is a provision to fund passenger intermodal facilities when such improvements enhance coordination between intercity bus service and other modes of transportation and transportation services. What the narrow gauge rail and liner building/parking structure location report, the revised redevelopment plan update and SAP documents will propose is a large-scale pedestrian intermodal improvements consisting of multiple passenger intermodal facilities located within a pedestrian intermodal area (describable as a pedestrian zone, ramblas or transit mall) that is transected by pedestrian -oriented mixed -mode intermodal connectors and surrounded by shared parking structures lined with mixed -use development (liner buildings). Narrow gauge rail parking shuttle service operating in the mixed -mode corridors and traffic clamed streets throughout the redevelopment area, along with the specific corridor and street designs and mixed uses, will extend the length of pedestrian trips and "on demand" community transit vehicles and bicycle movements will respond to any remaining short trip community needs. Such an intermodal complex will relatively inexpensively ($90 million) serve a genuine transportation purpose — the seamless, safe and efficient connection between FDOT designated SIS hubs (Port of Miami, Miami International Airport, Miami Intermodal Center, MetroRail, Tri- Rail and Amtrak stations and the Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal) and FDOT designated SIS corridors (I-95, I-395, Amtrak/Tri-Rail South Florida Rail Corridor, FEC line and the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway and shipping lanes). Moreover, such transportation improvements would link all intermodal facilities with the shared parking structures to better manage the movement of very large numbers of people and goods and enhance intermodal connections and the coordination between intercity bus service and other modes of transportation and transportation services. In this way, this South Florida community will see a significant increase (30% or more) the use of non -automotive alternative modes of transportation. This transportation project will engage valuable private and public partnerships, equitably treat the residents and businesses of the Overtown, Park West and Omni neighborhoods and provide a platform upon which the entertainment, sports, cultural, educational and telecommunications offerings of downtown Miami can be developed as an internationally recognized and accessible world -class community. DISCUSSED 2 of 3 F 2 i The attached revised report conforms the Introduction and the Conclusion (written for use as an Executive Summary) to the language contained in this letter and makes other clarifying and technical revisions. With any further revisions you night suggest, I will be delivering the final report and attachments to Frank Rollason later this week. I would look forward to discussing with you and Mr. Rollason what other efforts you think should be undertaken at this time. Sincerely, I Thomas F. Gustafson Enclosures 3 of 3 DISCUSSED --03------fir Tom Gustafson " e' From: Tom Gustafson ent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:50 PM .'o: Frank Rollason (E-mail) Cc: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-main; Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject: Narrow Gauge Rail and Liner Building/Parking Structures Report Based in Chelsa's email, I assume you only recieved the second transmittal of images and not the first (with the report) or the third. Attached is the report which I revised again today to reflect minor corrections I identified this afternoon. I will send the maps by a second transmittal and the Marlins Ball Park study materials by a third. The rest of the materials will be delivered to your offices next week (paper copy and compact disc). Please confirm receipt and let me know when we can meet to discuss the report and the presentation at the next CRA Board meeting. Thanks EJ Narrow Gauge Raft Transpor ati_ Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 oft Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson from: Tom Gustafson 'gent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:53 PM o: 'Frank Rollason (E-mail)' Cc: 'Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail); 'Joe Kohl (E-maiq; 'Victor Dover (E-mail); 'Andy Weber (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Narrow Gauge Rail and Liner Building/Parking Structures Report (second transmittal/maps) See attached maps for the above referenced report. Maps to show kvbKmodal improv... Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com 'ONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the ae of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. --Original Message --- From: Tom Gustafson Sent Riday, October 31, 2003 5:50 PM To: Frank Rollason (E-mail) Cc: Cheksa M. Arscott Douglas (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject Narrow Gauge Rail and Liner Building/Parking Structures Report Based in Chelsa's email, I assume you only recieved the second transmittal of images and not the first (with the report) or the third. Attached is the report which I revised again today to reflect minor corrections I identified this afternoon. 1 will send the maps by a second transmittal and the Marlins Ball Park study materials by a third. The rest of the materials will be delivered to your offices next week (paper copy and compact disc). Please confirm receipt and let me know when we can meet to discuss the report and the presentation at the next CRA Board meeting. Thanks Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com DISCUSSED CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for e the use of the individual or entity named aba 'the reader of this message is not the intended recip'v eou are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is stria prohibited. If you have received this transmission in ft. 4 please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by a -mail. DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson ,From: Tom Gustafson tent: Friday, October 31, 2003 5:56 PM .'o: 'Frank Rollason (E-mail)' Cc: 'Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail)'; 'Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail)'; 'Andy Weber (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Narrow Gauge Rail and Liner Building/Parking Structures Report (third transmittal/Marlins Ball Park study) See the attached Marlins Ball Park study. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the o'e of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Anbution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited- If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at -64.492.0071 or by e-mail. --Original Message — From: Tom Gustafson Sent Friday, October 31, 2003 5:50 PM To: Frank Rollason (E-mail) Cc: Chelsa M. Aiscott-Douglas (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject Narrow Gauge Rail and Liner Building/Parking Struchm Report Based in Chelsa's email, I assume you only recieved the second transmittal of images and not the first (with the report) or the third. Attached is the report which I revised again today to reflect minor corrections I identified this aftemoon. I will send the maps by a second transmittal and the Marlins Ball Park study materials by a third. The rest of the materials will be delivered to your offices next week (paper copy and compact disc). Please confirm receipt and let me know when we can meet to discuss the report and the presentation at the next CRA Board meeting. Thanks Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com DISCUSSED CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named abm v the reader of this message is not the intended recipir ou are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is stndly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in 0,.#,Iplcese immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED m 1 3 - ,--- Tom Gustafson .From: Tom Gustafson 'ent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:43 PM 4'0: Frank Rollason (E-mail) Cc: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-maiq; Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area 10.30.2003 The attached draft document is presented as scheduled with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas. A copy with attachments and referenced materials will be delivered to your office next week. If you would like to see further revisions to this document before its final submittal next week, please let me know. I would like to debrief with you regarding these matters next week as you calendar permits. I hope that a final draft redevelopment plan update will be available from Joe Kohl next week as well. I will call your office tomorrow to schedule a meeting in your offices. Due to the nature of the report and its recommendations, I hope that you will schedule this report and the Redevelopment Plan Update for the next CRA Board meeting. Thank you. EJ Narrow Gauge Rail Maps to show Transit Greemvay Transporlati.._ interrnodalimprov... Applications... 1 Harrisbur9jp9 Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com TransVia.pdf S4asbourgi.Jpg Vienna transit and Orlando .JPG courtyard.p... CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately ratify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson - From: Tom Gustafson '"t: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:11 PM �0: 'Frank Rollason (E-mail)' Cc: 'Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail); 'Joe Kohl (E-mail)'; 'Victor Dover (E-mail); 'Andy Weber (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area 10.30.2003 Sending again with fewer attachments - first group of attachments C K M T Narrow Gauge Rail Maps to show Transit Greemay Transportati... intermodal improv... Applications... Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com 'ONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is al leg ly p � rrvi legea and confidential information intended only for the .se of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. --Original Message -- From: Tom Gustafson Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:43 PM too. Frank Rollason (E-mail) tc: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area 10.30.2003 The attached draft document is presented as scheduled With Chelsa Arscott-Douglas. A copy with attachments and referenced materials will be delivered to your office next week. If you would like to see further revisions to this document before its final submittal next week, please let me know. would like to debrief with you regarding these matters next week as you calendar permits. I hope that a final draft redevelopment plan update will be available from Joe Kohl next week as well. I Will call your office tomorrow to schedule a meeting in your offices. Due to the nature of the report and its recommendations, I hope that you Will schedule this report and the Redevelopment Plan Update for the next CRA Board meeting. Thank you. << File: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Grande Promenade 10.30.2003.doc >> << File: Maps to show intermodal improvements. pdf >> << File: Transit Greenway Applications to the Marlins Ball Park.PDF >> << File: TransVia.pdf >> << File: Strasbourg1.jpg » << File: Vienna transit and courtyard.pdf >> << File: Orlando .JPG» << File: Harrisburg.jpg» DISCUSSES Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED .a 3 %� 6) i y 6 3 - 913 Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson ;ent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:16 PM .'o: 'Frank Rollason (E-mail)' Cc: 'Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mall)'; 'Joe Kohl (E-maiq ; Victor Dover (E-maiq ; 'Andy Weber (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area 10.30.2003 Sending again with fewer attachments - second group of attachments q Strasbourgl-jpg Vienna transit and courtyard-p... Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom d_transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at g54.492.0071 or by e-mail. ---Original Message — From: Tom Gustafson Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:43 PM To: Frank Rollason (E-mail) Cc: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area 10.30.2003 The attached draft document is presented as scheduled with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas. A copy with attachments and referenced materials will be delivered to your office next week. If you would like to see further revisions to this document before its final submittal next week, please let me know. I would like to debrief with you regarding these matters next week as you calendar permits. I hope that a final draft redevelopment plan update will be available from Joe Kohl next week as well. I will call your office tomorrow to schedule a meeting in your offices. Due to the nature of the report and its recommendations, I hope that you will schedule this report and the Redevelopment Plan Update for the next CRA Board meeting. Thank you. << File: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Grande Promenade 10.30.2003.doc >> << File: Maps to show intermodal improvements. pdf >> << File: Transit Greenway Applications to the Marlins Ball Park.PDF >> << File: TransVa.pdf >> << File: Strasbourg1.jpg >> << File: Vienna transit and courtyard.pdf >> << File: Orlando .JPG >> << File: Harrisburg.jpg >> Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 DISCUSSED Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: toM@transitgreenwaylaw�,;.,.n CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mal transmission is legally pdWeged and confidential information Mended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. tf the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. ff you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED y Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson 'ent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:17 PM J'o: 'Frank Rollason (E-mail)' Cc: 'Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-maiq; 'Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); 'Andy Weber (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area 10.30.2003 Sending again with fewer attachments - third group of attachments. Orlando .JPG Harrisburg.jpg TransVia.pdf Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7823 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com 'ONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the je of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, dstibution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. --Original Message — From: Tom Gustafson Sent Thursday, October 30, 2003 8:43 PM To: Frank Rollason (E-mail) Cc: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Promenade Area 10.30.2003 The attached draft document is presented as scheduled with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas. A copy with attachments and referenced materials will be delivered to your office next week. If you would like to see further revisions to this document before its final submittal next week, please let me know. I would like to debrief with you regarding these matters next week as you calendar permits. I hope that a final draft redevelopment plan update will be available from Joe Kohl next week as well. I will call your office tomorrow to schedule a meeting in your offices. Due to the nature of the report and its recommendations, I hope that you will schedule this report and the Redevelopment Plan Update for the next CRA Board meeting. Thank you. << File: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Grande Promenade 10.30.2003.doc >> << Fite: Maps to show intermodal improvements.pdf >> << File: Transit Greenway Applications to the Marlins Ball Park.PDF >> File: TransVia.pdf >> << File: Strasbourg1.jpg >> << File: Vienna transit and courtyard.pdf >> << File: Orlando .JPG >><< File: Harrisburg. jpg >> DISCUSSED Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 E� 1�l17��,a -�Il Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mad transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED �� 4 2 Page 1 of 2 Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 2:29 PM To: 'Arscott, Chelsa' Cc: Andy Weber (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail) Subject: RE: CRA/DOSP Workshop Sorry I missed the meeting. I was out of the office finishing the narrow gauge rail/parking report. I am working on my final edits now and if there was any comments from the meeting that you think I should refer to, please send them to me (with the agenda or minutes of the meeting if available). My report will be complete today and emailed to you later this afternoon. I understand from Joe Kohl that the Dover, Kohl & Partners revisions to the SEO/PW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update will be done shortly. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. ----Original Message ----- From: Arscott, Chelsa [mailto:CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 9:31 AM To: Tom Gustafson (E-mail); Barbara Carey-Shuler (Dr. Barbara Carey-Shuler); Brenda Fennell (Brenda Fennell); cmitchell@cg.wrtdesign.com; craley@greatermiami.org; dwolfberg@wolfbergalvarez.com; debora.rivera@dot.state.fl.us; delbryan@bellsouth.net; Denis Russ (Denis Russ ); DONNOVAN A. MAGINLEY (Business Fax); fara@mrd-consurdng.com; Fred Joseph (Fred Joseph); gailt@miamidade.gov; JUBILEECDC@MINDSPRING.COM; GEORGINA@CAMILLUS.ORG; gregory.mundy@imdc-techservices.com; janeLlopez@dot.statle.fl.us; Marvin Weeks (Marvin Weeks); pbacon@collinscenter.org; Randy Ross (Randy Ross); RKATZ@COMMUNIKATZ.COM; Richard Williams (S. FI. Water Mgmnt) (Dr. Richard Williams (S. FI. Water Mgmnt)); Rod Harvey (Rod Harvey); Santiago Enchemendia (Santiago Enchemendia); Simone Lee (Simone Lee); sealet@gtlaw.com; Walker, Jason; Billberry, Lori; Bobbie Mumford; Brad Knoefler; Carswell, Keith; Castaneda, Frank; Crapp Jr, Tony; Diaz, Manuel A. (Mayor); Martin Fine; Mason, Gary E.; McGibbon, Karen; Medina, Anna M.; Rodriguez, G. Barbara; Susan Marshall Cc: Rollason, Frank Subject: FW: CRA/DOSP Workshop DISCUSSED Please excuse the short notice. Antranette Pierre City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 11/1/2003 , ,_ Page 2 of 2 49 NW 5t' Street, Suite 100 Miami, FL 33128 (305) 679-6801 DISCUSSED 11/1/2003 Tom Gustafson ,----,From: Tom Gustafson 'sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:56 PM ,'o: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Cc: Andy Weber (E-maiq; Victor Dover (E-mail) Subject: Miami CRA report The attached redraft is for your review. Did you get my Friday, October 24, 2003 email with the various images? 1 am on my way to your offices. Sorry for the delay. 7-1 Narrow Gauge Rail Vienna3.doc Transporlati... Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at g54.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson -.From: Tom Gustafson lent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:16 PM go: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Cc: Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject: CRA report/narrow gauge rail and liner building/parking structure Due to file size 1 am sending this last attachment separately. Most specific article on the subject - walking in a mixed - mode corridor without have to deal with automotive traffic. Also visit www.carfree.com Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com I CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distnb Aion or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED 2— R2, M Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson 'ent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:55 PM to: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Cc: Victor Dover (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject: CRA report/narrow gauge rail and Liner building/parking structure The attached draft report still needs work. I am checking on and correcting the financial estimates, other calculations, factual statements, etc. Your comments would be appreciated before I circulate it to the CRA staff. Andy has been helpful with the two maps we will need to show the related transit and intermodal improvements and the narrow gauge rail routes. Hopefully we can finish the revisions to the Redevelopment Plan Update next week including any necessary references to these maps. You office has my suggested revisions to the Promenade SAP and Biscayne Blvd. SAP. Hopefully I can get a copy of my comments back on Tuesday along with the revisions I suggested for the SEO/PW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update. I need to summarize them as part of my separate report (I intend to do a short broadly stated memorandum to your offices regarding these revisions). I will need to property parcel close-up map (probably showing the various sections of the redevelopment areas) to work with before we agree how to present the specific liner building/parking structure locations (I gave Andy a disc with the most recent GIS information maps). We can talk about that on Tuesday afternoon if you are available in addition to any other matters that will help bring this planning effort to a close. I will be available by cell phone in Orlando on Monday and by cell phone in North Miami Tuesday morning. Please call me to schedule a time for us to meet in your offices. Thanks Narrow Gauge Rail Strasbourgl.jpg Orlando .JPG Harrisburg.jpg Transport... Viennal.jpg Vienna2-JPG Sbasbour I Lauderdale-by-theS Transvia.doc Miamil-JPG Miami Beach2-JPG Tramline.pdf ea.pdf LY TFU Greeways 329.2003.pdf... LEJ Transit Greenways -three page .-- Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the e of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Aribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immedi�h `'tjfl�ls 6yefaphq�e d54.492.0071 or by e-mail. � J' I V � J C s s Tom Gustafson --From: Tom Gustafson ant: Thursday, October 23, 2003 4:22 PM d'o: Neko Grant (E-mail) Cc: Chelsa M. Arscott Douglas (E-mail) Subject: SEO/PW CRA Redevelopment Plan Thank you for the copies of the Omni Redevelopment Plan (1986 as amended 1987) and the Draft Park West Club District Streetscape Plan/Eleventh Street Corridor Improvements (2002). 1 will be submitting a draft report by October 30, 2003 as agreed upon. It would be helpful if I could also have a copy of the current SEO/PW CRA Redevelopment Plan (I assume from the mid-1980's and as amended to date) that is the document to be amended by the Dover, Kohl & Partners pending draft update. Call me when it is ready for me to pick up. Give my best to Chelsa and Mark. Thanks Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular. 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission Is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the * of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, Wribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited_ If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson --From: Tom Gustafson 'ent: Wednesday, October 15, 20031:28 PM +'o: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Cc: Andy Weber (E-mail); Victor Dover (E-mail); Frank Rollason (E-mail); Chelsa M. Arsc:ott- Douglas (E-mail); Neko Grant (E-mail); Esperanza Matinez (E-mail); Rebeka Lowe (E-mail); Antranette Edwards- Pierre (E-mail) Subject: Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality and Liner Buildings/Parking Structures Joe - I spoke with Frank Rollason this morning and confirmed that he expects my transportation and parking report will be put on the November/December agenda (probably for a December 8, 2003 CRA meeting). He has agreed with my suggestion that the revised SEO/PW Redevelopment Plan Update that incorporates my proposed revisions and any other revisions you have made based upon comments recieved to date from others (City Planning comments, etc.) could be reviewed by the CRA Board at the same time. I would suggest, therefore, that we try to complete the revisions to the Redevelopment Plan when you return from Panama City Friday, October 24, 2003. By that time Andy and I ought to have finished the various route maps for inclusion in the Revised Update and with Andy's help I will have identified the best mapping approach for presenting specific liner building/parking structure locations. I will finish with the field review of liner building/parking structure locations by then as well so that when you are back in your office we can decide how best to present the information in the Redevelopment Plan Update (as an Appendix or otherwise). 1 am completing the text report at this time and will send'it to you shortly for review and comparison with the Update Plan revisions. I would like to get from you the handwritten revisions to the Redevelopment Plan I gave you last week so that I can summarize them in my report. If they are already included in a redline version of the Plan, please email me a copy or have someone at you offices provide a copy to me. At Chelsa's direction I prepared similar revisions to the Biscayne Blvd SAP and Promenade SAP. I have given the revisions to Andy and requested he give me back a copy so that I can summarize in my report those revisions as well. . would like to get my initial draft report and the related maps for use with the revised Redevelopment Plan completed and to Frank by October 30 (as scheduled with Chelsa). I would be happy to work with you on a short PowerPoint presentation to summarize these issues when they have been incorporated into the revised Redevelopment Plan Update. This schedule is recommended in order to allow time for the recommendations to be discussed with Miami -Dade Transit, the MPO, FDOT and the state legislative and congressional delegation before Florida's Strategic Intermodal System Initial Strategic Plan (March 2004) and the federal TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation (February 2004) are finalized. Thank you Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED a Tom Gustafson f --,From: Tom Gustafson dent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:57 PM "0: 'Rollason, Frank' Cc: Martinez, Esperanza; Arscott, Chelsa; Joe Kohl (E-mail) Subject: RE: CRA meeting presentation /intermodal system improvements Thank you for your quick response. If you will be able to schedule these matters for the November 2003 meeting, then we would hopefully be in the position to present transportation requests in December 2003. It would be helpful if the revised SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update could be distributed to theeSEOPW CRA Board at the October 27th meeting with the request that the revised drafts be read in preparation of the November 2003 SEOPW CRA Board meeting. If appropriate, I would make efforts to review these matters individually with the Board members after the October 2003 Board meeting to better understand any pending concerns they may have. The revised update would describe the transportation intermodal projects and therefore form the basis for federal and state project references. While the final draft update may still be pending final approval in December 2003, federal, state, MPO and county transportation officials will need to made aware of the possible projects and their planning status as soon as possible after the October, November and December 2003 CRA Board meetings. Let me know when it would be convenient to review the draft revisions and mapping documents? Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 ` brt Lauderdale, Florida 33308 .elephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: Rollason, Frank [mailto:frollason@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:10 PM To: Tom Gustafson Cc: Martinez, Esperanza; Arscott, Chelsa Subject: RE: CRA meeting presentation /intermodal system improvements Tom, we have missed the cutoff for the October 27th Agenda. It is no longer run like it use to be so you are looking at November meeting to address the Board. In the mean time, I think you should go forward within your approved scope of services to pursue whatever you think is DISCUSSED IS C US S C D in the best interest of the CRA. I am jammed to the gills at the �+v C moment, but will be in the office tomorrow morning by 6:00am. You can st me on my direct line at 305-679-6802, Frank. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Gustafson [mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2, ,, 5:12 PM To: Rollason, Frank Cc: Martinez, Esperanza; Arscott, Chelsa Subject: CRA meeting presentation /intermodal system improvements c'ursuant to my discussion with Ms. Martinez earlier today, I would like to address the CRA Board regarding the status of my work to identify narrow gauge rail transportation modality opportunities in conjunction with liner building/parking structure locations. While the work will not be completed until later this month, due to the fact that the November meeting agenda may be moved to a meeting proposed to be scheduled for December 15, 2003, it would be important to get CRA Board comments and direction at the October CRA Board meeting. I would like to review with the CRA Board the federal legislative schedule for TEA 21 Reauthorization (February 2003) and the Florida Department of Transportation schedule for development of the Initial SIS Strategic Plan for review and approval by the Florida Legislature (March 2003). In order to be prepared to request authorizations or appropriations supportive of an CRA related transportation projects, additional meetings may need to be scheduled and activities approved to request project support. I will be able to submit to you my draft report by the end of this week and Joe Kohl indicates that the revised SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update would be available to be distributed to the CRA Board members at the October 27, 2003 meeting so that the need for further meetings or workshops regarding the proposed projects could be discussed and considered by the CRA Board members. By separate cover I will send the initial mapping of the transportation routes under review. Please call me regarding these matters after you review of this request. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED 0 . ca'— Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson 'gent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 6:13 PM to: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Cc: Neko Grant (E-mail); Frank Rollason (E-mail); Joe Kohl (E-mail); Andy Weber (E-mail) Subject: RE: Transit Map 1/2 Yes, but it won't be added to the map until tomorrow. In addition, I have discussed with Joe Kohl the need to do a map for each route and than be able to show the combinations of routes built over time and their relationship to the existing and proposed MetroRail, MetroMover and Bay Link routes. The maps you got have all the routes depicted and I will try to sort out with Dover, Kohl & Partners how best to present the information for discussion with the CRA. By copy of this email to Andy Weber, I am requesting he call me tomorrow so we can schedule a time for he and I to review these matters at the Dover, Kohl & Partners offices. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mdil: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or atity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are -kereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original message ----- From: Arscott, Chelsa[mailto:CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 5:17 PM To: Grant, Neko Cc: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com Subject: FW: Transit Map 1/2 Tom, Is there a legend for the map? Chelsa -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Gustafson [mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Tue 10/14/2003 5:17 PM To: Rollason, Frank Cc: Martinez, Esperanza; Arscott, Chelsa Subject: FW: Transit Map 1/2 �'�� ��� ED Pursuant to my earlier email, attracted please find an initial mapping of transportation routes under review. .comas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 333t;-_ Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 c-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: Andrew Weber [mailto:aweber@doverkohl.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:56 PM To: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com Subject: Transit Map 1/2 Sorry no attachment on first e-mail. From: Andrew Weber [mailto:aweber@doverkohl.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003'12:54.PM To: 'tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com' From: Andrew Weber [mailto:aweber@doverkohl.com] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 10:44 AM To: 'tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com' Tom, I only had time to put the lines in. Andrew Weber Dover, Kohl & Partners - Town Planning .weber@doverkohl.com www.doverkohl.com DISCUSSED s 2 Al Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson 'ent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:03 PM +.0: Neko Grant (E-mail) Cc: Pierre, Antranette; Lowe, Rebekah; Villacorta, James H; Martinez, Esperanza; Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Subject: RE: SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Neko - I will be meeting with Andy Weber at the Dover, Kohl & Partners offices on Friday, October 10, 2003 at 11:00 AM. Can I review maps and available ownership/site condition reports with you tomorrow afternoon or Friday morning? Please call me on the cell phone (954/661-7848). Thanks. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for'the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of .the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately Dtify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original message ----- From: Arscott, Chelsa[mailto:CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:49 PM To: Tom Gustafson Cc: Pierre, Antranette; Grant, Neko; Lowe, Rebekah; Villacorta, James H; Martinez, Esperanza Subject: RE: SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Hi Tom. Your contract should be effective as of September 16, 2003, the date that it was executed. While the resolution that authorized the engagement was approved in 2002, no work has been authorized during that period. The contract will run from September 16, 2003-September 16, 2004. We agree that you will have your deliverables for the update to the SEOPW Plan within a speedy manner. Your comments on the Omni Plan Update will take a bit longer since that contract with Zyscovich is still pending execution, and no work has yet commenced on that project. Please forward any comments you have on the Special Area plans to Joe Kohl, and copy Antranette, Rebekah, Neko and my self as well. Please also forward me your comments to Dover Kohl on the SEOPW Plan Update. Thanks. ANDREA (TASK) 1. In my files, (2nd Drawer), you will see a folder titled "llth Street Masterplan". lease forward a copy to Tom. DISCUSSED REBEKAH (TASK) 1. Please forward copies of commission meeting dates to Tom. ESPERANZA (TASK) 1. Please forward copies of CRA Board Meeting dates and deadline for items to be submitted to Tom. OVER KOHL (TASK) Please forward The Entertainment District and CRA Parking Analysis Report to Tom. Chelsa -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Gustafson [mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Wed 10/8/2003 3:18 PM To: Arscott, Chelsa Cc: Pierre, Antranette; Grant, Neko; Lowe, Rebekah Subject: SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Thank you for copies of the planning comments on the Grand Promenade, Biscayne Blvd and the CRA Parking Plans. Do you want me to comment on them as well? I have read the Draft Biscayne Blvd. SAP - 06.13.03 and the Promenade SAP Draft - 06.13.2003 and have several suggestions related to transportation and parking issues. I have already submitted to Joe Kohl my suggested revisions to the September 2003 Draft SEOPW Redevelopment Plan. I do not have anything that is entitled the Entertainment District and CRA Parking Analysis (I do have the Miami Parking Authority Timeline regarding the proposed "under I-395" parking lot). I also don't have a copy of the final Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC llth Street Corridor Improvements Plan (I do have a short draft document dated June 24, 2003 that references goals and objectives and attaches a Preliminary Master Plan Concept map). Can anyone elp me get copies of these documents? Also Rebekah sent me an email that indicated that my contract date was September 16, 2003 (the date the agreement was entered into) and then recalled the email message. I understand the contract indicates that it was effective as of June 27, 2002, but that you have scheduled me to complete my work assignments by October 30, 2003. By that date, I assume my recommended revisions to the Draft Redevelopment Plan will be included in the Dover Kohl & Partners drafted Redevelopment Plan and PowerPoint presentation as appropriate. I am now preparing a separate written report that further describes the narrow gauge rail and parking recommendations. To the extent these materials can be completed by October 13, 2003, I will submit them with the Dover Kohl & Partners materials for review by the CPA at their next Board meeting. If I am misunderstanding my responsibly and the schedule, please let me know. I will be scheduling with Andy Weber of Dover Kohl & Partners a conference in his office to map my initial recommendations as to narrow gauge rail routes later this week. I have already given to Joe Kohl my generalized parking location recommendations for the Redevelopment Plan. I hope to have more specific parking locations identified by next week. I have spoken to Neko regarding the base maps I would like to use and I will get with him tomorrow or Friday to get these items from him or the City's GIS office (Ita Npekim). He has also indicated that he has some map/ownership/lot conditions information for my review when we meet later this week. Can someone give to me the meeting dates, time and place for the City Commission and CRA Board during September and October? As to the CRA Board eetings, when must my materials be submitted and to whom in order to be DISCUSSED lendaed and with whom should I clear these matters before hand? Absent further instructions, I will send everything through Dover, Kohl & Partners,, r as I assume my information and work product will either be included in the 4 e s L. Redevelopment Plan, the Apperb.„ex to the Redevelopment Plan or e Dover, Kohl & Partners PowerPoint presentation. Thanks again for allowing me to work on these matters for the CRA. comas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED 3 Tom Gustafson __ From: Tom Gustafson ent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:19 PM fo: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Cc: Antranette Edwards- Pierre (E-mail); Neko Grant (E-mail); Rebeka Lowe (E-mail) Subject: SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Thank you for copies of the planning comments on the Grand Promenade, Biscayne Blvd and the CRA Parking Plans. Do you want me to comment on them as well? have read the Draft Biscayne Blvd. SAP - 06.13.03 and the Promenade SAP Draft - 06.13.2003 and have several suggestions related to transportation and parking issues. I have already submitted to Joe Kohl my suggested revisions to the September 2003 Draft SEOPW Redevelopment Plan. I do not have anything that is entitled the Entertainment District and CRA Parking Analysis (I do have the Miami Parking Authority Timeline regarding the proposed "under 1-395" parking lot). I also don't have a copy of the final Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC 11th Street Corridor Improvements Plan (1 do have a short draft document dated June 24, 2003 that references goals and objectives and attaches a Preliminary Master Plan Concept map). Can anyone help me get copies of these documents? Also Rebekah sent me an email that indicated that my contract date was September 16, 2003 (the date the agreement was entered ,into) and then recalled the email message. I understand the contract indicates that it was effective as of June 27, 2002, but that you have scheduled me to complete my work assignments by October 30, 2003. By that date, I assume my recommended revisions to the Draft Redevelopment Plan will be included in the Dover Kohl & Partners drafted Redevelopment Plan and PowerPoint presentation as appropriate. I am now preparing a separate written report that further describes the narrow gauge rail and parking recommendations. To the extent these materials can be completed by October 13, 2003, 1 will submit them with the Dover Kohl & Partners materials for review by the CRA at *heir next Board meeting. If I am misunderstanding my responsibly and the schedule, please let me know. i will be scheduling with Andy Weber of Dover Kohl & Partners a conference in his office to map my initial recommendations as to narrow gauge rail routes later this week. I have already given to Joe Kohl my generalized parking location recommendations for the Redevelopment Plan. I hope to have more specific parking locations identified by next week. I have spoken to Neko regarding the base maps I would like to use and I will get with him tomorrow or Friday to get these items from him or the City's GIS office (Ita Npekim). He has also indicated that he has some map/ownership/lot conditions information for my review when we meet later this week. Can someone give to me the meeting dates, time and place for the City Commission and CRA Board during September and October? As to the CRA Board meetings, when must my materials be submitted and to whom in order to be agendaed and with whom should 1 clear these matters before hand? Absent further instructions, I will send everything through Dover, Kohl & Partners, as I assume my information and work product will either be included in the Redevelopment Plan, the Appendix to the Redevelopment Plan or the Dover, Kohl & Partners PowerPoint presentation. Thanks again for allowing me to work on these matters for the CRA. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the ,►se of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, ,tnbution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately i us by t � D A.492.0071 or by e-mail. C U y �� Tom_ Gustafson From: ant: >fo: Subject: rA Final comments Blvd SAP.doc Tom, Arscott, Chelsa [CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Tuesday, October 07, 2003 1:57 PM tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com 1=W: Promenade and Boulevard SAP comments from Planning and Zoning Final comments Promenade Plan.... 9 Entertainment DistrictBCRA Par... See Planning comments on the Grand Promenade, Biscayne Blvd and CRA Parking Plans. Thanks Chelsa -----Original Message ----- From: Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana Sent: Tue 10/7/2003 11:19 AM To: Rollason, Frank Cc: Arscott, Chelsa; Slazyk, Lourdes Y.; Nardi, Maria; 'jkohl@doverkohl.com' Subject: FW: Promenade and Boulevard SAP comments from Planning and Zoning Frank, I am enclosing our comments on Dover -Kohl's proposal. -----Original Message----- -rom: Slazyk, Lourdes Y. ant: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:12 AM To: Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana Cc: Nardi, Maria Subject: <<Final comments Blvd SAP.doc>> <<Final comments Promenade Plan.doc>> <<Entertainment District&CRA Parking Study.doc>> Here are final written comments on Boulevard SAP and Promenade SAP and Parking info for CRA area. DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson From: Joe Kohl Ukohl@doverkohl.comj 'ent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 5:20 PM fo: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com Subject: FW: map and list of properties Importance: High 19 V Slum R Blight SEOPW CRA CRA Slum and Findings - Expan_. Expanded Boundary Ma... Blight3.doc Tom, Here is those files regarding properties that I copied for you. The map is in color. Joseph A. Kohl Dover, Kohl & Partners 1571 Sunset Drive Coral Gables, FL 33143 (305) 666-0446 Phone (305) 666-0360 Fax ----Original Message----- rom: Arscott, Chelsa[mailto:CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 2:02 PM To: jkohl@doverkohl.com Importance: High > Joe, > I think we should include the slum and blight findings report for the SEOPW expanded boundaries in this plan update. > Chelsa > -----Original Message----- • From: Arscott, Chelsa > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:59 PM > To: 'Philip Bacon (E-mail)' > Cc: Rollason, Frank > Subject: RE: Update - April Young - Overtown Civic Partnership > Importance: High > Phil, > Enclosed, please find the slum and blight findings raw data for the SEOPW/CRA expanded boundaries as prepared by CRA consultant, Guillermo Olmedillo. I am not able to place my hands on the raw data for the existing SEOPW boundaries which would have been prepared sometime prior to 1982. DISCUSSED Thanks Chelsa> > <<Slum & Blight Findings - Expanded CRA Area.xls>> > > > Chelsa> > <<SEOPW CRA Expanded Boundary Map 3.jpg>> > > <<CRA Slum > Chelsa> > and Blight3.doc>> 1 1 > -----Original Message----- * From: Arscott, Chelsa > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 9:59 AM > To: Rollason, Frank Cc: Philip Bacon (E-mail) Subject: Update - April Young - Overtown Civic Partnership > Importance: High > Frank, > FYI. April Young from the OCP was requesting the "findings of necessity" which justifies the need for a CRA area as per F.S. 163.335, as well as any diagram conceptualizing the "findings of necessity". I informed her that the Overtown Civic Partnership was provided with a compact disk copy of the latest DRAFT 2.1 (Sept. 2003) SEOPW Plan update, which documents the "update to the existing findings of necessity" which was necessary to justify the need for the expanded proposed boundaries. The 2.1 DRAFT SEOPW Plan update further incorporates the revised definition of slum and blight that was modified by the state legislature on July 1, 2002 via HB 1341. The original findings of necessity is documented in the existing 1982 SEOPW Plan which was also provided to the OCP as well. > Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas > Policy and Program Development Administrator City of Miami Community > Redevelopment Agency > 49 NW 5th Street, Suite 100 > Miami, Florida 33128 > Main: (305) 679-6822 > Fax: (305) 400-5395 > Web: www.miand-cra.org DISCUSSED .I " r 1 2 GUILLERMO OLMEDILLO TO: ANNETTE LEWIS, DIRECTOR C.R.A. CITY OF MIAMI SERGIO VAZQUEZ DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS FROM: GUILLERMO OLMEDILLO SUBJECT: SLUM AND BLIGHT REPORT DATE: 5/23/2002 CC: SERGIO VAZQUEZ, DOVER, KOHL & PARTNERS SLUM AND BLIGHT CONDITIONS PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA This report is presented for the consideration of the C.RA. Board during its deliberations on the potential expansion to the boundaries of the existing redevelopment district. BACKGROUND In 1969, the Board of County Commissioners approved by Resolution 1117-69 the Central Miami Renewal Plan. This plan included the area south of NW Twenty Ninth. Street; west of the FEC Railroad, with an extension to N.E. Second Avenue; east of I-95; and north of the Miami River. It was amended on January 20, 1981, to include the areas bounded on the west and south by the FEC tracks; on the east by Biscayne Boulevard; and on the north by I-395. In addition, the area bounded on the south by I-395; on the east by Biscayne Boulevard; on the north by NW Seventeen. Street in part, and the City of Miami Cemetery in part; and on the west by the FEC tracks. At those public hearings, evidence was presented to find this area meeting the definition of "slum and blight". The importance of that decision is that the proposed expansion area located north of I-395 and fronting on NW Third Street, extending north to NWDISCUSSED SCuSSED Twenty Second. Street was declared through resolution of the County Commission as "slum and blight". (Area B1). Additionally, Areas B and C of the proposed expansion, were part of the Central Miami Urban Renewal Area graphic provided for illustration purposes at the hearing of January 20, 1981, when the expansion was approved. PROPOSED AREA A. These properties are located within the rights of way of I-395 and I-95. They were not included in the description of either of the existing redevelopment districts. These properties are presently in a state of disrepair, and to leave them out of the districts simply creates a ribbon of neglected properties separating them. These properties meet the criteria to be classified as "slum and blight". PROPOSED AREA A 1. The general boundaries of this area are: on the south and west, the I-395 Right of Way; on the north NW le. Street from I- 395 to North Miami Avenue, and NW 15a. Street from North Miami Avenue to North East Miami Court; end on the east North East Miami Court. This area is partly in the existing Omni Redevelopment District, therefore there is no need to make a "slum and blight" finding. The portion that is not in the Omni Redevelopment District is in state of disrepair, and it contains a number of vacancies that present serious limitations for redevelopment It is important to consider this area in connection with the SEOPW Redevelopment District because of its visual relationship and continuity under the expressway. PROPOSED AREA A-2. This area is bounded generally on the north and east by the I-95 Right of Way; on the west by NW Fifth Avenue; and on the south by NW Tenth Street Two of the three properties are owned by the City, and the other one is a decrepit structure, which needs major work or demolition. The percentage of vacant land and dilapidated structures qualifies the area as "slum and blight". PROPOSED AREA A-3. Bicentennial park is presently vacant. There is no permanent use established. The only meaningful structure is the seawall and it is damaged to a great degree. DISCUSSED 2 It is important to consider this area as expansion to the Redevelopment District because its planned use will serve as a support activity to the residential development that will emerge in the immediate neighborhoods. PROPOSED AREA A4. Watson Island has some uses projected, but presently its major portion is vacant. Again, the percentage of existing vacant land qualifies this area as "slum and blight". PROPOSED AREA B. This area is defined on the north by NW Tenth Avenue; on the east by I-95; on the south by NW Fourth Street; and on the west by NW Fifth Avenue. It is evident that the identity of the existing SOTPW area is changing, from a primarily residential neighborhood to a more dynamic mixed -use district, defined by attractions and recreational activities. As these uses take up some of the properties that were originally considered for residential purposes, Area B emerges as a natural expansion to the west There is a neighborhood infrastructure, which maintains a very close visual relationship and great connectivity through the street network that crosses under the expressway. ?� The building code requires a 40/50 year certification for structures built before 1960. Eighty percent of the properties were built before 1960. Approximately fifty percent of the properties are vacant The number of vacancies, lack of maintenance and updating qualify this area as "slum and blight" under the criteria of "deterioration of site and other improvements"; "diversity of ownership which prevents the free alienability of land within the deteriorated area"; and "inadequate and outdated building density patterns". AREA B-1. This corridor runs along NW Third Avenue, from I-395 to NW Twenty Second Street. It includes all properties fronting on the east side of the right of way. On the west side, it includes a number of properties owned by public agencies, which have contributed to the character of the strip. It is important to expand the District to include this corridor so that the tax increment may be used to improve a significant number of historically significant structures in disrepair. The majority of structures were built before 1950. DISCUSSED Number of vacancies and the age of the buildings meet the criteria of "slum and blight'. PROPOSED AREA C. This area is defined by NW Eleven Street on the north; on the east by NW Fifth Avenue; On the south by NW Sixth Street; and on the west by NW Seventh Avenue. Almost sixty percent of the property in this area is vacant, and the remainder contains a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses. Diversity of ownership and vacancy rates qualifies this area as "slum and blight". Attached please find a list of properties according to the proposed area, including vacancies and condition of the existing structures. This will assist the Board during its consideration for expansion. DISCUSSED 4 _. Slum Blight Findings Expanded SEOPW CRA Boundaries May 23, 2002 Consultant: Guillermo Olmedillo AREA FOLIO NUNIBER LOT SIZE BUILDING SIZE BLDG, COr'JDITIOtJ1 OVVNERSHIP AREA Al 01-3136-009-0420 121,447 89,291 GOOD SCHOOL BD. 01-3137-032-0010 3,333 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0600 11,924 11,644 POOR PRIVATE 01-3136-010-0020 3,590 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0610 1,658 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-010-0010 4,600 4,000 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0570 1,728 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-6590 3,458 2,997 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0580 0 3,046 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0430 7,180 7,073 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0440 10,000 14,655 POOR PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0470 10,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0460 10,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-0540 8,467 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-1280 6,099 0 PARKING PRIVATE 01-3136-009-1270 6,750 5,500 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-009-1260 6,750 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-1380 5,306 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-1390 6,750 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-009-1190 1,747 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1160 10,000 10,536 FAIR CITY 01-3136-005-1150 2,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1140 4,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1130 4,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1090 6,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1080 6,000 18,441 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1060 5,400 386 POOR PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1070 9,900 6,000 POOR PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1110 8,000 0 VACANT CITY 01-3136-005-1151 5,000 5,533 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-005-1180 3,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE AREAA2 01-3136-061-0020 71,003 NA GOOD CITY 01-3137-032-0010 3,333 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-061-0010 26,572 6,646 POOR CITY AREA B 01-0107-030-1090 9,000 2,498 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1080 4,000 2,394 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1100 7,500 269,204 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1110 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1120 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1130 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1140 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1150 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1160 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1170 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1220 7,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1010 4,000 2,125 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1020 5,000 3,437 GOOD 1PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1030 4,0001 1,889 GOOD IPRIVATE )ISCUSSED Tom Gustafson ,---,From: Tom Gustafson )ent Wednesday, September 24, 2003 12:44 PM 'o: 'Arscott, Chelsa' Subject: RE: SEOPW/CRA 3rd Community Workshop - October 2, 2003 - REVIEW of DRAFT (September 2003) SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update I am available on either October 1, 2003 or October 3 (you suggested the day before or the day after the community workshop scheduled for October 2 at 4:OOPM). Let me know what works for you and DoverKohl. Do you know where the community workshop will be held on October 2nd?. I got the copy of the Draft SEOPW Redevelopment Plan (September 2003) but can you tell me if the updated Gantt chart is available that will be presented at the community meeting. Also which consultants would you recommend for me to visit and what documents would be available to me for review for a general orientation of the transportation issues that are developing adjacent to the CRA district ( the Baylink project, the FEC Corridor study/light rail proposal, improvements for truck access to the Port of Miami on 5th and 6th Street, Port of Miami access tunnel from I-395, reconstruction of I-395, any MetroRail, MetroMover or TriRail improvements, Miami Intermodal Center plans, Downtown community Transit initiatives and any proposed funding/construction schedules). I intend. to review these matters with the MPO, the DDA, Dade Communit_y College, the Miami Parking Authority and City of Miami planning staff but I do not want'to duplicate information and documents that you or DoverKohl already have access to and which you can share with me. I will bring with me the aerial photograph that has street identifications that I was going to use when the project was first discussed. Is there a more recent one I should use consistent with the aerial photographs being used in the DoverKohl or related reports? irsuant to you suggestion that I complete my work quickly, do you have a preferred timeline for me to work within? Thanks again for your help on these matters Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: Arscott, Chelsa[mailto:CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 5:09 PM DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson Cc: jkohl@doverkohl.com 'object: RE: SEOPW/CRA 3rd Community Workshop - October 2, 2003 - REVIEWi`� — DRAFT (September 2003) SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update _Lmportance: High Tom, If we could meet either the day before of the day after the workshop that would be great. R'm including Joe Kohl as well in the meeting. In the meantime, I am forwarding you a opy of the latest DRAFT of the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update for your review and .:omments. We will have to work quickly to expedite your component of the plan. I am sure you are well aware that Miami Beach approved going forward with the Baylink project and the FEC Corridor study also entertains a light rail along the FEC tracks. Please let me know what dates you are available to meet and I will coordinate with Dover Kohl. Package will be sent to the following address: 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Thanks Chelsa -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Gustafson [mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:50 PM To: Arscott, Chelsa Subject: RE: SEOPW/CRA 3rd Community Workshop - October 2, 2003 - REVIEW of DRAFT (September 2003) SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update Chelsa - Thanks for the notice. I will calendar the meeting. Can we get together before or after the meeting so I can get up to speed on all project components? Should anyone else join us to give me specific further direction? Is my contract likely to be signed by then? See you then. Tom Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. �qOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: Arscott, Chelsa[mailto:CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 3:23 PM To: craley@greaterMiami.org; gdominguez@greatermiami.org; jkohl@doverkohl.com; mhege@zyscovich.com; Thomas F. Gustafson (E-mail); ndcmiami@aol.com; rrichelle@aol.com; Donald DiMartini (E-mail); cdeeb@hjross.com; ealvarado@hjross.com; Doug Bruce (E-mail); MIKE ABRAMS (E-mail) Cc: Nardi, Maria; Gelabert-Sanchez, Ana; Balzebre, Frank; Walker, Jason; Castaneda, Frank; McGibbon, Karen; Joseph, Michelle; Mason, Gary E.; Padilla, Heriberto; Carswell, Keith; Lehmann, Diane; Cano, Jorge; loriega@miamiparking.com; Hernandez, David .bject: SEOPW/CRA 3rd Community Workshop - October 2, 2003 - REVIEW of DRAFT (September 2003) SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update Importance: High DISCUSSED To addressees: 'lease mark your calendars! The SEOPW CRA will be hosting its third ommunity workshop on Thursday, October 2, 2003 from 4:00 pm - 6:30 pm to siscuss the 2nd draft of the SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update and to obtain community stakeholders feedback on the revised plan. Meeting location TBA. Please be reminded that Dover Kohl & Partners will make a presentation on the status of the Plan Update and provide an updated Gantt chart at the September 29, 2003 CRA Board of Directors Meeting. CRA Board Members will receive a copy of the draft plan in the agenda packages. Thanks cc: MDCC/HUD/OTC Committee Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas Policy and Program Development Administrator. City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency 49 NW 5th Street, Suite 100 Miami, Florida 33128 Main: (305) 679-6822 Fax: (305) 400-5395 Web: www.miami-cra.org IL DISCUSSED Slum Blight Findings Expanded SEOPW CRA Boundaries May 23, 2002 Consultant: Guillermo Olmedillo FOLIOAREA - 01-0107-030-1040 LOT SIZE 0 BUILDING SIZE 0 CONDITION 01-0107-030-1050 10,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1060 11,550 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-030-1070 11,550 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0107-040-1090 9,000 13,167 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0107-040-1040 32,356 26,395 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0107-040-1100 0 0 01-0106-080-2080 112,740 32,121 GOOD HUD 01-3137-030-0010 2,498 0 VACANT HUD 01-3137-030-0020 2,512 1,974 GOOD HUD 01-3137-030-0030 10,012 0 VACANT HUD 01-3137-030-0040 2,512 5,432 GOOD HUD 01-3137-030-0050 2,379 1,427 GOOD HUD 01-3137-030-0060 4,103 4,345 GOOD HUD 01-3137-029-0090 3,750 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-029-0100 3,750 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-029-0110 3,750 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-029-1190 3,750 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0106-070-2020 3,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0106-070-2010 32,000 27,454 GOOD YWCA 01-0106-070-2060 2,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-029-0030 2,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3137-029-0020 2,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3137-029-0040 2,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3137-029-0050 2,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3137-029-0060 4,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3137-029-0070 6,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3137-029-0080 6,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-080-2060 5,000 0 PKG PRIVATE 01-0104-080-2070 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-080-2080 5,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0104-080-2090 5,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0104-080-2100 5,000 4,661 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0104-080-2110 5,000 1,573 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0104-080-2120 15,000 8,411 GOOD PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0010 3,967 1,225 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0020 2,550 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0030 2,550 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0040 2,550 1,444 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0050 2,550 1,444 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0060 2,550 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0070 3,683 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0180 1,226 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-080-1070 3,000 2,632 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-028-0060 2,000 428 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-028-0050 4,000 3,362 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-028-0040 3,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-028-0030 3,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-028-0020 5,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-028-0010 5,000 0 VACANT JCOUNTY 01-0104-080-1010 5,000 3,404 POOR 1PRIVATE DISCUSSED is i Slum Blight Findings Expanded SEOPW CRA Boundaries May 23, 2002 Consultant: Guillermo Olmedillo AREA FOLIO NU1-,11BER 01-3137-033-0080 LOT SIZE 2,984 BUILDING SIZE 1,226 BLDG. CONDITIONOVJNERSHIP POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0090 2,550 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0100 2,550 1,444 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0110 2,550 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0120 3,100 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0130 3,075 1,226 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0140 2,550 1,144 POOR PRIVATE 01-3137-033-0170 0 PKG. PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1120 3,750 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1100 2,500 1,064 POOR PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1110 1,250 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1080 2,500 1,237 POOR PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1090 2,500 1,053 POOR PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1130 3,506 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1140 11,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1150 7,500 7,331 POOR PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1160 7,500 2,281 POOR PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1170 7,506 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-070-1060 17,528 ;3,954 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0103-040-1110 15,000 22,782 POOR PRIVATE 01-0103-040-1100 6,825 6,665 POOR PRIVATE 01-0103-040-1090 4,935 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0103-030-1010 30,000 23,299 POOR PRIVATE 01-0103-030-1080 15,000 13,966 POOR PRIVATE 01-0103-030-1070 15,000 13,966 POOR PRIVATE 01-0103-030-1020 30,006 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0103-030-1060 6,000 6,598 POOR PRIVATE 01-0103-030-1050 455 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0103-030-1030 48,875 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1040 7,500 3,264 POOR PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1049 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1030 2,500 885 POOR PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1011 2,500 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1010 21,750 14,140 POOR PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1012 23,250 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1080 52,500 43,407 POOR PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1070 7,500 4,017 POOR PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1020 7,500 1,094 POOR PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1060 10,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0102-080-1050 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0101-010-2030 594,860 163,448 FAIR COUNTY 01-0101-010-2020 149,846 6,392 GOOD CITY 01-0101-010-2031 8,883 0 VACANT CITY AREA B1 01-3136-021-0070 749 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-021-0770 10,710 6,049 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-0780 5,100 1,627 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-0790 5,610 4,170 POOR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-0910 1,924 1,393 POOR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-0911 3,536 2,592 POOR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-0920 5,355 0 VACANT PRIVATE )ISCUSSED e19- a I Slum Blight Findings Expanded SEOPW CRA Boundaries May 23, 2002 Consultant: Guillermo Olmedillo AREA s NUNIBER 01-3136-021-0930 LOTO 5,355 BUILDING 0 ELC-G. VACANT • PRIVATE 01-3136-064-0010 93,900 33,455 GOOD CITY 01-3136-064-0020 302,850 NA NA COUNTY 01-3136-064-0910 1,924 1,393 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-064-0911 3,531 2,592 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-1791 3,588 3,215 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-1790 1,872 1,854 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-1810 10,350 4,013 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-021-1812 2,860 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-021-1820 2,860 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0370 7,128 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0360 6,048 6,987 GOOD PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0350 6,401 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0340 6,754 4,809 GOOD PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0330 7,106 6,751 GOOD PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0320 6,237 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0230 12,289 11,744 GOOD PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0310 6,955 1,793 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0300 14,918 3,194 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0290 7,998 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3136-029-0280 8,215 6,567 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0230 6,950 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0220 6,950 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0210 6,950 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0200 6,950 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0190 6,950 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0180 7,100 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0090 6,850 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0080 6,850 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0070 6,850 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0050 6,850 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0040 6,850 1,798 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0020 12,285 1,229 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0280 8,215 6,567 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0230 6,950 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0220 6,950 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0210 6,950 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0200 6,950 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0190 6,950 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0180 7,100 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0090 6,850 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0080 6,850 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0070 6,850 1,451 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0050 6,850 1,224 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0040 6,850 1,798 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3136-028-0020 12,285 1,229 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3125-042-0280 397,362 NA FAIR COUNTY C 01-3125-042-0160 25,220 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-3125-042-0110 14,065 15,773 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3125-039-0360 12,691 15,130 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3125-039-0260 25,906 2,959 FAIR PRIVATE 4 )ISCUSSED rl`1- Cn i • Slum Blight Findings Expanded SEOPW CRA Boundaries May 23, 2002 Consultant: Guillermo Olmedillo AREA FOLIO NUMBER LOT SIZE BUILDING SIZE BLDG CONDITION OVVNERSHIP AREA C 01-0101-020-1010 25,000 3,052 GOOD FPL 01-3137-020-0860 255,000 85,000 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0101-000-1040 15,360 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0101-000-1030 10,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0101-000-1020 10,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0101-000-1011 11,959 7,200 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0101-000-1011 11,291 11,964 FAIR PRIVATE 01-3137-031-0200 35,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-3137-031-0190 11,902 0 VACANT FPL 01-3136-000-0220 4,000 0 VACANT RR 01-0105-000-1060 16,643 0 PKG. PRIVATE 01-0105-000-1070 31,881 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0105-000-1080 7,500 0 PKG. PRIVATE 01-0105-000-1090 52,500 52,218 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0105-000-1010 30,000 31,090 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0105-000-1050 45,000 28,866 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1130 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1110 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1120 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1150 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1140 10,000 5,387 GOOD PRIVATE 01-4137-041-0030 37,497 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-4137-090-1080 7,500 6,874 FAIR PRIVATE 01-4137-090-1190 7,500 5,487 FAIR PRIVATE 01-4137-041-0040 22,497 2,264 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1210 3,750 1,625 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1240 7,500 6,431 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1220 11,250 3,235 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1050 11,250 3,000 FAIR PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1030 3,750 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1020 4,125 3,002 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0104-090-1041 3,375 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0105-010-1100 9,779 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0105-010-1080 28,250 0 UTILITY COUNTY 01-0105-010-1120 11,600 635 UTILITY COUNTY 01-0105-010-1060 75,000 16,310 UTILITY COUNTY 01-0105-010-1150 10,000 0 VACANT COUNTY 01-0105-010-1140 5,000 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0105-010-1020 3,750 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0105-010-1010 11,250 0 VACANT PRIVATE 01-0105-010-1040 15,000 8,202 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0105-010-1050 15,000 5,213 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0105-020-1080 30,000 26,887 GOOD PRIVATE 01-4137-041-0010 14,879 0 VACANT 1PRIVATE 01-0105-020-1100 7,500 7,340 GOOD PRIVATE 01-0105-041-0020 74,186 _! VACANT PRIVATE 01-0105-020-1050 23,100 26,316 GOOD PRIVATE DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson ient: Friday, October 03, 2003 8:06 AM d'o: James H. ViIlacorta (E-maio Cc: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-maiq; Antranette Edwards- Pierre (E-maiq; Rebeka Lowe (E- maiQ Subject: Narrow Gauge Rail Transpiration Modality and Liner Buildings/Parking Structures Thank you for discussing with me earlier this week the transportation issues that my CRA work effort will involve. I am about to finish drafting an article ("Mixed -Mode Corridors in Florida') that summarizes the opportunity to develop livable community intermodal systems consistent with emerging federal and state transportation law and policy. It was drafted by me during the last four months as revisions to a report 1 finished for a PBC Community Transit Study last June 2003 and I intend to try to publish the article later this year. While the conclusions reached in that article will be the basis for my recommendations to the CRA, the article itself will not be part of the information, documents, reports or any other materials prepared specifically and exclusively for the CRA pursuant to the Professional Services Agreement that 1 have signed with the CRA.. Please let me know if you will have a contrary opinion. In addition, my copy of the Professional Services Agreement is fully executed but lacks the contract date at the top of the first page. Can you provide me with the correct contract date? Thank you saw Task # 3 REVISION 09.25.20.., Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distrfthon or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by teleptmone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED Tom Gustafson - From: Tom Gustafson 'ent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:42 AM .'o: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Cc: Victor Dover (E-mail) Subject: FW: SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update (Word attachment See attached. Transit Greenway Applications ... Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tomQtransitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic'mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distiftition or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. if you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at � A.492.0071 or by e-mail. —Original Message --- From: Tom Gustafson Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:38 AM To: Joe Kohl (E-mail) Cc: Victor Dover (E-mail) Subject SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update The attached was the document prepared in 2001 for the CRA that related to the location of a proposed Marlin's Ball Park in downtown Miami. I will send this PDF version for your review and a second email with the Word version should any of the images be of value to the current report efforts. See you a 9:00 AM. Thanks. Transit Greenway Applications ... Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com DISCUSSED JNFtDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential inf ended only t use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. Tom Gustafson From: Arscott, Chelsa [CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] 'ent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 8:45 AM .'o: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com Cc: Grant, Neko; Lowe, Rebekah Subject: Interesting Articles - interesting arddes.doc Tom, Enclosed ,please find two articles from Miami Today related to transit improvements. Chelsa DISCUSSED 0"t2_ e2 t Port of Miami to ask county for improvements to roads By Shannon Penypiece Road projects including a new Interstate 95 ramp and synchronizing downtown traffic lights could speed traffic through the Port of Miami and retain shipping companies, port officials said. The Port of Miami on Oct 23 will ask the Metropolitan Planning Organization to approve a plan to improve the main roads between 1-95 and the port and Fifth and Sixth streets. "If it costs too much in time and dollars the cargo will go elsewhere... this is Miami vs. any other port on the Eastern Seaboard," said Bruce Brecheisen, vice president of shipping firm Seaboard Marine. Within three years the US Department of Transportation also plans to start work on a ramp connecting 1-95 to State Route 836 (Dolphin Expressway) to speed the trip between the expressway and the port. The county Metropolitan Planning Organization has approved the ramp. Today, truckers traveling to the port can only get to State Road 836 by taking First Street to 1-395 because heavy traffic makes it too dangerous to go from 1-95 to 836 on the current roadways, said Port of Miami engineer Carl Fielland. The new 1-95 ramp, now in preliminary design, and repairs to current downtown ramps will cost $20 million, most of which will come from the federal government, and the 18-month construction project will start in 2005 or 2006, he said. The Port of Miami is proposing an additional $4 million plan to repave Fifth and Sixth streets, lower them so high trucks could dear bridges and synchronize the seven traffic lights on the strip. ff the Metropolitan Planning Organization approved the plan this month it could be done by 2007 or 2008 and financed by the port. But these improvements will only be a temporary solution until a tunnel to the port or bridge over Biscayne Boulevard is built, port officials said. The Fifth and Sixth street improvement was originally due for a Metropolitan Planning Organization hearing in September, but Chairwoman Barbara Carey-Shuler asked that it be deferred. "This would provide substantial relief, not total relief," Mr. Brecheisen said. "In the long run there is going to need to be a tunnel or some sort of port -traffic -only corridor." The only road to the port is nestled between the American Airlines Arena and Bayside Market Place and is often in the middle of major events such as the Grand Prix. During last weekend's Grand Prix traffic was backed up for miles, said Jorge Rovirosa, Port of Miami Terminal Operating Co. general manager. Cargo shipments to the port have an annual economic impact in Miami -Dade County of $8 billion and create 45,000 jobs, the port says. Traffic problems at the port could hurt Miami's bid for the Free Trade Area of the Americas headquarters, or secretariat, said President of the Florida Foreign Trade Association Ralph Puga. "Almost every other city places a high priority on entrance to the port and you don't have to go that far - go to Port Everglades," Mr. Puga said_ "It kind of sets us back a bit" DISCUSSED N "J.Mm1U-1 M County approves railroad corridor as route for Metrorail extension By Shannon Pettypiece After a pep talk from Miami -Dade County's Washington lobbyist, the Metropolitan Planning Organization approved a route for a Metrorail extension to Miami International Airport. The line is to run from the Earlington Heights Metrorail station down the South Florida Railroad corridor and enter from the north a proposed transportation hub near the airport. While the county missed the federal government's Aug. 28 deadline for projects to be considered for the Federal Transportation Administration's 2004-05 budget, county lobbyist Dennis Vierra told the MPO last week that it could still get into the federal funding cycle if the board made a quick decision. "it is most important that all efforts be made to make sure this effort provides timely action," Mr. Vierra said. The FTA must submit its budget to the White House for review by Nov. 1, Mr. Vierra said, and the Bush administration will make a decision on the budget in February. The MPO had planned to vote on a route at a July meeting but ran out of time, and members were unable to meet in August because many were on vacation. Now that the MPO has chosen a route, preliminary engineering can begin. The FTA and Environmental Protection Agency must review the project before a grant is issued. Mr. Vierra said it could be four to five years before construction begins. Board members said the approved route would not have as much of an impact on surrounding communities as would another proposal, which would have sent a train through the median of Northwest 32nd Avenue in Miami's Melrose area. The 32nd Avenue plan would have cost $70 million more than the approved plan but was preferred by citizens during a June public hearing. Thirteen Melrose residents attended last weeks MPO meeting, and several told the board that many businesses would be hurt if the route were to go on 32nd Avenue. 'The disruption of Metrorail running through Melrose would be devastating," said Mark Crane, who said he works in the neighborhood. "All businesses dose to 32nd Avenue would be destroyed from the construction over two years." Transportation planners said the railway route would prevent Metrorail from being extended east or west from the airport because a train would have to make too sharp a turn out of the station. DISCUSSED Page 1 of 2 Tom Gustafson From: Tom Gustafson Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:58 PM To: Neko Grant (E-maio; Charles Deeb (E-mail) Cc: Walter Revell (E-mail); Antranette Edwards- Pierre (E-mail); Rebeka Lowe (E-mail); Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Subject: FW: Community Workshop Please note the attached. I will let you know if I need additional mapping help after I discuss with Joe how best to incorporate my work efforts into the revisions to the Redevelopment Plan. Thank you Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7$48 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylawcom CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The infohnation in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Gustafson Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:24 PM To: 'Lowe, Rebekah' Cc: Joe Kohl (E-mail); Antranette Edwards- Pierre (E-mail); Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Subject: RE: Community Workshop Thanks for the reminder. I will be there and have made arrangements to meet with Joe Kohl Thursday after the Community Workshop and Friday morning at his offices. Pursuant to my discussion with Chelsa, I will keep her advised by copies of my emails that reference my work activities for the next 30 days (my work schedule has been adjusted for completion of work by October 30, 2003) and will, as needed, coordinate my effort with you and Antranette. When I have had a chance to brief Joe on the proposed Redevelopment Plan revisions to the September 2003 Draft I will, at Chelsa's suggested, coordinate with Joe and Neko Grant regarding mapping issues (routes and parking structure locations) and call upon H.J. Ross if the need arises. By copy of this email to Chelsa, I want to thank her for the orientation she gave me yesterday and wish her well during her maternity leave. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 11/1/2003 DISCUSSED Page 2 of 2 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify Lis by telephone at 954A92.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: Lowe, Rebekah [mailto:RLowe@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:59 PM To: Yury Beckermen; Alejandro Vilarello; Anna Medina; Barbara Carey-Shuler; Barbara Rodriguez; Bill Mauzy; Bobby Mumford; Brad Knoefler; Brenda Fennell; Carolyn Mitchell; Christopher Norwood; Claire Raley; Clyde Judson; Crapp, Tony Jr.; Cynthia Perry; David Cardwell; David Wolfberg; Debora Rivera; Deborah Desilietes; Del Bryan; Dennis Russ; Derrick Wendell Smith; Don Zuchelli; Dorothy Fields; Edward Parker; Elizabeth McBride; FDOT Public Information Office; FDOT Public Information Office 2; Fred Joseph; Gail Thompson; Gary Mason; George Durden; George Sanchez; Georgina Pardo; Gerald Marston; Gregory Mundy; Guillermo Olmedillo; Gwendolyn Warren; Henry Jones; J. Biach; Jeanette Stanley; Joel Volinski; John Jackson; Jose Abreu; Jose Guerra; Karen McGibbon; Katrina Wright; Ken Deon; Lawrence Kenchen Consulting; Lew Glinton; Lori Billberry; Major McQueen; Martin Fine; Marvin Weeks; Medina, Lilia I; Nathaniel J Wilcox; Nello Davis; Patricia Castro; Peter Ehrlich; Philip Bacon; Randy Ross; Ric Katz; Richard Tong; Richard Williams; Ronda A. Vangates; Rosa Green; Santiago Enchemendia; Sergio Vazquez; Susan Marshall; Syliva Scheider; Theodore ; Tom Gustafson; Tom Marko; Victoria Guillermo; William Bloom Subject: Reminder Message - Community Workshop Thursday Oct, 2nd REMINDER COMMUNITY WORKSHOP Regarding the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Plan Update Thursday October 2nd from 4:00pm to 6:30 pm Miami Arena VIP Room The SEOPW CRA will be holding its third community workshop hosted by SEOPW CRA Planning Consultant, Dover Kohl & Partners, to discuss the DRAFT (September 2003) SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update. Said meeting will take place on Thursday, October 2, 2003, from 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm., at the Miami Arena (VIP Room) located at 701 Arena Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Public comments received since the March 8, 2003 Community Workshop have been incorporated into the revised Redevelopment Plan. Transcripts from the previous two community workshops (November 9, 2002 and March 8, 2003) can be obtained from the City Clerks' office by contacting 305-250-5360. PndividuAls and stakeholders who reviewed and commented on the first draft (March 8, 2003) of the redevelopment plan update and all others interested are encouraged to attend said meeting. DISCUSSED l l/l/2003 - Page 1 of 2 Tom Gustafson From: Arscott, Chelsa [CArscott@ci.miami.fI.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:22 PM To: Tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com Cc: Grant, Neko Subject: FW: Community Workshop Thanks Tom. Neko's direct number in the office is (305) 679-6811 Neko - FYI... Tom will be contacting you regarding mapping issues. chelsa -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Gustafson [mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 2:24 PM To: Lowe, Rebekah Cc: Joe Kohl (E-mail); Pierre, Antranette; Arscott, Chelsa Subject: RE: Community Workshop Thanks for the reminder. I will be there and have made arrangements to meet with Joe Kohl Thursday after the Community Workshop and Friday morning at his offices. Pursuant to my discussion with Chelsa, I will keep her advised by copies of my emails that reference my work activities for the next 30 days (my work schedule has been adjusted for completion of work by October 30, 2003) and will,as needed, coordinate my effort with you and Antranette. When I have had a chance to brief Joe on the proposed Redevelopment Plan revisions to the September 2003 Draft I will, at Chelsa's suggested, coordinate with Joe and Neko Grant regarding mapping issues (routes and parking structure locations) and call upon H.J. Ross if the need arises. By copy of this email to Chelsa, I want to thank her for the orientation she gave me yesterday and wish her well during her maternity leave. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. -----Original Message ----- From: Lowe, Rebekah [mailto:RLowe@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 4:59 PM To: Yury Beckermen; Alejandro Vilarello; Anna Medina; Barbara Carey-Shuler; Barbara Rodriguez; Bill Mauzy; Bobby Mumford; Brad Knoefler; Brenda Fennell; Carolyn Mitchell; Christopher Norwood; Claire Raley; Clyde Judson; Crapp, Tony Jr.; Cynthia Perry; David Cardwell; David Wolfberg; DebMtt,.r S S G r D 11/1/2003 Page 2 of 2 Deborah Desilietes; Del Bryan; Dennis Russ; Derrick Wendell Smith; Don Zuchelli; Dorothy Fields; Edward Parker; Elizabeth McBride; FDOT Public Information Office; FDOT Public Information Office 2; Fred Joseph; Gail Thompson; Gary Mason; George Durden; George Sanchez; Georgina Pardo; Gerald Marston; Gregory Mundy; Guillermo Olmedillo; Gwendolyn Warren; Henry Jones; J. Biach; Jeanette Stanley; Joel Volinski; John Jackson; Jose Abreu; Jose Guerra; Karen McGibbon; Katrina Wright; Ken Deon; Lawrence Kenchen Consulting; Lew Glinton; Lori Billberry; Major McQueen; Martin Fine; Marvin Weeks; Medina, Lilia I; Nathaniel J Wilcox; Nello Davis; Patricia Castro; Peter Ehrlich; Philip Bacon; Randy Ross; Ric Katz; Richard Tong; Richard Williams; Ronda A. Vangates; Rosa Green; Santiago Enchemendia; Sergio Vazquez; Susan Marshall; Syliva Scheider; Theodore ; Tom Gustafson; Tom Marko; Victoria Guillermo; William Bloom Subject: Reminder Message - Community Workshop Thursday Oct 2nd REMINDER COA04UNITY WORKSHOP Regarding the Southeast Overtown/Park West Redevelopment Plan Update Thursday October 2nd from 4:00pm to 6:30 pm Miami Arena VIP Room The SEOPW CRA will be holding its third community workshop hosted by SEOPW CRA Planning Consultant, Dover Kohl & Partners, to discuss the DRAFT (September 2003) SEOPW Redevelopment Plan Update. Said meeting will take place on Thursday, October 2, 2003, from 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm., at the Miami Arena (VIP Room) located at 701 Arena Boulevard, Miami, Florida. Public comments received since the March 8, 2003 Community Workshop have been incorporated into the revised Redevelopment Plan. Transcripts from the previous two community workshops (November 9, 2002 and March 8, 2003) can be obtained from the City Clerks' office by contacting 305-250-5360. Individuals and stakeholders who reviewed and commented on the first draft (March 8, 2003) of the redevelopment plan update and all others interested are encouraged to attend said meeting. DISCUSSED l l/1/2003 Tom Gustafson From: Arscott, Chelsa [CArscott@cLmiami.fl.us] lent: Monday, September 29, 200310:28 PM "o: Tom Gustafson Cc: Pierre, Antranette; Joe Kohl (E-mail); Rollason, Frank Subject: RE: SEOPW Redevelopment Plan (Draft September 2003) Tom, Everything stated below is accurate per our phone conversation. I received a copy of your executed contract from Rebekah. See the enclosed excel spreadsheet with the requested contact information for the consultants and City staff. Chelsa -----Original Message ----- From: Tom Gustafson [mailto:tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 9:27 PM To: Arscott, Chelsa Cc: Pierre, Antrahette; Joe Kohl (E-mail) Subject: SEOPW Redevelopment Plan (Draft September 2003) - This will confirm our telephone conference this afternoon wherein I )nfirmed my receipt of the Professional Services Agreement and that 1ou confirmed that you would input in Microsoft Projects a completion date for my work effort as October 30, 2003 consistent with my contract obligation (CPM deliverable). As you have requested, I will attend the Miami -Dade MPO Transit Corridor Workshop scheduled for tomorrow, September 30, 2003 at 10:00 AM to 12 Noon in the County Commission Chambers and the SEOPW CRA Community Workshop regarding the Redevelopment Plan scheduled for Thursday, October 2, 2003 at 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM in the Miami Arena. You have indicated I would not need to attend today's CRA Board meeting and that you would send to me a copy of the DoverKohl status report regarding the Redevelopment Plan. I will schedule with Joe Kohl a briefing with him at his offices as to the status of the Redevelopment Plan and any background materials they may have acquired during their work effort that would be of assistance to me. I will discuss with him and follow up with specific suggestions any suggestions that would require revision to the draft Redevelopment Plan. This will also confirm that you have requested that the I issue a iparate zitten report to the SEOPW CRA and that the text and images be incorporated into the final work product of being produced by Dover Kohl & Partners 1 DISCUSSED including a PowerPoint preserludtion they will be completing w the final draft Redevelopment Plan. ? understand you are going on maternity leave on October 1, 2003 but hat, as time permits, you will keep up with these matters via email. You indicated that you would give me the names of the consultants working on the following projects, their key contact person for the respective project and their phone numbers and email addresses: Baylink Project; FEC railway/light rail study; the Omni redevelopment planning efforts, Grande Promenade planning efforts, I-395 reconstruction planning efforts; Truck access to Port of Miami via 5th and 6th Streets, Port of Miami access tunnel from !-395: any MetroRail, MetroMover or TriRail improvement planning efforts relatable to the CRA areas, the Miami Intermodal planning efforts: Downtown community transit initiatives. Where you do not have the information, I will identify the person as directed through my discussions with the entities list below.. I would like to discuss these matters with the following entities and would like for you to provide to me the 'name, phone and email address of appropriate contact person you believe might be helpful in my review of these matters: City of Miami planning staff; the DDA; the Miami -Dade MPO staff; Miami -Dade Planning Staff; Miami Parking Authority: Miami International Airport; Port of Miami; Metro Transit, Dade Community College, �= Greyhound Bus; South Florida Regional Transit Authority. You have indicated that I should seek further assistance on these matters from Antranette Pierre or Rebekah Lowe. I got a email from Antranette earlier today and faxed her the document she requested regarding the Marlin's Ball Park Study. In that I will be in Miami for the Transit Workshop, I will stop by your offices to drop off color copies (one for you and one for Antranette) of the 3/12/2001 work product I developed for that study work effort. If you need additional information, please let me know. Thank you for your assistance on these matters. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7848 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail DISCUSSED ransmission legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use3• of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message 2 (1 is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you 'have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us Y Telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED 3 [� Page 1 of 2 Tom Gustafson From: Arscott, Chelsa [CArscott@ci.miami.fl.us] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 200310:30 AM To: Grant, Neko; Thomas F. Gustafson (E-mail) Cc: Lowe, Rebekah; Pierre, Antranette Subject: FW: Sent on behalf of the MPO Secretariat Tom, please plan on attending. Neko, you should plan to attend as well. AP/RL — meeting will be informative and touches upon the Baylink Project as well. Chelsa -----Original Message ----- From: Palmer, Donna S (MPO) [mailto:SAP456@miamidade.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 10:21 AM To: (MPO) Metro Planning Organization All Staff; Abreu, Jose (FDOT); Adams, Traci (DBD); Alvarez, Danny (MDT); Alvarez, Mark (CUTR); Arscot:4 Chelsa; Barreiro, Bruno (DIST15); Beckman, Fred; Bofill, Jackie (CMO); Bonzon, Carlos (Airport); Boyd -Savage, Gwendolyn; Bradley, Roosevelt (MDT); Brantley, Charles (Trucking); Bravo, Alice; Braynon, Oscar (Dist 3); Brown, Gary; Burgess, George M.(CMO); Carey-Shuler, Dr. Barbara (DIST 3); Celestin, Joe (Mayor); Cohen, Jeff (PWD); Collins, Gary (OLA); Colmeneres, Cathy; Coward, Bruce (DERM); Cuevas, Robert A (CA); Davis, Dianne (CMO); DeArazoza, Rafael (FDOT); District 1; District 10; District 11; District 12; District 13; District 2; District 3; District 4; District 5; District 6; District 7; District 9; District8; Donn, Gary (FDOT); Dube, Christopher S. (FDOT); Erveson, Eduardo; Escobar, Bemardo (Dist 10); Farina, Sylvia (DIST8); Ferguson, Betty (Dist 1); Femandez, Hilda M. (Mayor's Office); Fielland, Carl (Seaport); Forbes, Clinton (MDT); Garcia, Mario (MDT); Gibson, Shirley (Mayor of Miami Gardens); Gittens, Angela; Giulietti, Joseph (Tri- Rail); Gonzalez, Alfredo J. (Dist 5); Graf, Betty(communikatz); Harris, Lyn (Office of the Chair); Hemandez, Ed (DIST4); Hernandez, Frank (CTAC); Hemandez, Jorge; Hemandez, Pedro (Pete) (CMO); Jean -Baptiste, Sharon (COM); Jennings, Bemard; Johnson, Bill (CMO); Johnson, Joseph (MB); Johnson, Steve; Kerdyk, William (League of Cities); Kerdyk, William (League of Cities); Korros, David (FDOT); Krongold, Ronald; Kurlya, Juan (Seaport); Lily, Stuart; lukin, Adam (DDA); Marques, Javier (DIST11); Martinez, Jesus (FDOT); Martinez, Joe A. (DIST11); Martinez, John (FDOT); McAndrew, Eric (OLA); Medina, Lilia; Miller Consulting, Inc.; Miranda, Gaspar (PWD); Mohandes, Kouroche (FDOT); Mohl, Carolyn (Sharpton Asst); Monserrat, Marcia (DIST7); Mora, Joe (CSD); Morales, Jimmy L. (DIST7); Morris, Bemice; Morris, David (OMB); Moss, Dennis C. (DIST9); Navia Lobo, Maria Luisa; Newhjar, Dennis (Tri-rail); Offord, Bruce (FDEP); O'Quinn Williams, Diane (DP&Z); Parapar, Servando (MDX); Peel, Cathy Grimes (CSD); Pego, Gus (FDOT); Penelas, Alexander (Mayor's Office); Perez-Zarraga, Daniel; Ramos, Jose (Airport); Real, Flora (COC); Renfrow, John (DERM); Riera-Gomez, Timothy (OLA); Riles -Robinson, Valerie; "Rivera, Aristides (PWD)"; Rodriguez, Aurelio (MDT); Rodriguez, Grisel (Team Metro); Rodriguez, Javier; Rodriguez, Manuel A. (Airport); Rodriguez, Rene; Rose, Chris (OMB); Sanchez, Gerald (CA); Sharpton, Darryl (MDX); Siranni, Geoge (FDOT); Smith, Jose (Commissioner Miami Beach); Sorenson, Katy (DIST8); Sosa, Rebeca (DIST6); Sotorrio, Ana (Airport); Souto, Javier D. (DIST10); Sullivan, Kay M. (COC); Surrancy, Nathaniel (DIST9); Teele, Arthur E. (Commissioner Miami); Towsley, Charles (Seaport); Vangates, Ronda (DIST3); Vaughan, David; Villaamil, Vivian (Perla T. Hantman); Volinski, Joel (MDT); Wartman, Norman (CTAC); Whitfield, Randy (Palm Beach); Williams, Michael (Tri-Rail); Wilson, Bruce (Broward MPO) Subject: Sent on behalf of the MPO Secretariat Attached please find the Transit Corridors Workshop agenda for September 30, 2003 and a map illustrating the transit corridors approved in the MPO Transportation Plan to be discussed. S. Donna Palmer MPO Office Manager 111 NW First Street, Suite 910 DISCUSSED i 6) 11/1/2003 Page 2 of 2 Miami, Florida 33128 305-375-1734 Visit: www.co.miami-dade.fl.us/mpo DISCUSSED 11/1/2003 " _'CA 9`. Tom Gustafson ,---,From: Tom Gustafson lent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 4:11 PM "0: Chelsa M. Arscott-Douglas (E-mail) Subject: Scheduled meetings Based on the emails recieved recently. I am scheduled to attend the following meetings: 1) October 2, 2003 SEOPW CRA Community Workshop at 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM (need to know meeting location): 2) September 29, 2003 SEOPW CRA Board of Directors Meeting (need to know time and meeting location): and, 3) September 30, 2003 Miami -Dade MPO Transit Corridors Workshop at 10:00 AM to 12:00 Noon (County Commission Chambers). You wanted for me to meet with you and DoverKohl to review their Draft SEOPW Redevelopment Plan, updated Gantt chart and any other related background documents, studies or reports (in preparation for my discussions with the consultants that prepared them regarding the status of recommended activities) to help orient me to the work at hand as referenced in my 9/24/2003 email. Have you been able to schedule any date with DoverKohl for such a meeting? I will make myself available for any time you can schedule. As to the meetings referenced above, do you know the location for the 10/2/2003 workshop? Or the time and location for the 9/29/2003 SEOPW CRA Board meeting? Thanks. Thomas F. Gustafson, Esq. THOMAS F. GUSTAFSON, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 oft Lauderdale, Florida 33308 elephone: 954.492.0071 Facsimile: 954.492.0074 Cellular: 954.661.7823 E-Mail: tom@transitgreenwaylaw.com CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail transmission is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of the transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 954.492.0071 or by e-mail. DISCUSSED