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-2004-04-26-Discussion Item 1
NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship NSU TOM GUSTAFSON Director of Government Relations Institute of Government and Public Policy Carl DeSantis Building 3301 College Avenue • Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 (954) 262-5128.800-672-7223, ext. 5128 Fax:(954) 262-3829 Email: tgustafs@nsu.nova.edu Web site: www.huizenga,nova.edu f 07A Board of Directors Meeting April 26, 2004 ITEM 1 • OFFICIAL REPORT Mr. Thomas F. Gustafson, Nova Southeastern -University Status report: Miami at Midnight Transportation Demonstration Project • NSCUSSED � i ld 0 *ard of Directors Meeting April 26, 2004 ITEM 1 • SOUTHEAST OVERTOWN/PARK WEST AND OMNI COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Chairman Arthur E. Teele, Jr. and Members of the CRA Board From: Frank K. Rollason Executive Director Date: APR 16 2004 File: Subject: Miami at Midnight Transportation Demonstration Project References: Enclosures: Status Report Please be advised that Mr. Tom Gustafson, CRA Transportation Consultant through Nova Southeastern University will appear before the CRA Board of Directors to give a status report on this project FKR/ap DISCWSSED .� J r • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Status Report for March 2004 The following meetings and telephone discussions occurred this month regarding the MIA_MI AT_MIQ_N19 HT report and strategies that would be helpful to develop support for and funding to implement the referenced intermodal improvements and demonstration project as referenced therein. 4k Conference with FDOT Secretary Jose Abreu, FDOT District VI Secretary John Martinez, State Public Transportation & Modal Administrator Marion Hart and the CRA's Tallahassee consultant Doug Bruce regarding project funding opportunities, strategies and allocations. Distribution of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and related materials to the FDOT. dk Review of Baywalk information and communication with City Staff regarding same. 4. Prepare binder reports to summarize project funding strategy and allocations and status reports for CRA staff. Conference with Charles Deeb regarding cost estimate for development of preliminary design scope of work. k Attend conference with CRA Chairman Art Teele and Miami Parking Authority Executive Director Art Noriega regarding parking and related street, sidewalk and utility improvements within the entertainment and redevelopment areas. 4- Review of FRA notice for compliant diesel multiple unit (DMU) self- propelled passenger cars and conference with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas . regarding same. 4- Draft the Transit Element Compatibility section in response to the February 18, 2004 City Manager Inter -Office Memorandum regarding narrow gauge rail technology and revise the FDOT Presentation, Funding Summary and Phase 1 Components map, Map descriptions, the IAMI ALMIONIGHT report. • 4; Telephone conference with LaAnna Gutierrez in Senator Bill Nelson's office regarding the inclusion of provisions for an intermodal passenger facilities program in TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation as approved by the U.S. Senate (10 million per year FY05-FY09) and review of Senate Bill 1072, Section 3045 wherein the intermodal passenger facilities program is referenced 4- Review of the City of Miami's streetcar project summary and conference with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas regarding same and Phase 1 Community Intermodal System project development. Preparation of the PowerPoint Community Presentation. 4- Conference with FDOT Assistant Secretary for Intermodal Systems Development Ysela Llort, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Support Lowell Clary, State Public Transportation Administrator Marion Hart, Transit Manager Ed Coven and the CRA's Tallahassee consultant Doug Bruce regarding project funding opportunities, strategies and allocations. . Distribution of the NAMI AT M.jIDN_I_GH_T_ report and related materials to the FDOT. Conference with Charles Cooper in Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart's office regarding status of TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation and review of House Transportation Committee bill markup (HR 3550). In addition, numerous communications by email were sent with copies to Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Planning Administrator, along with related telephone calls to her confirming the status of ongoing activities. Similar communications occurred from time to time with Frank Rollason, Executive Director for the SEOPW and OMNI CRA. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafsOnsu.nova. edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. 4/21 /2004 IS \%�.NSU • Institute of Government and Public Policy at the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship Nova Southeastern University The Promenade Project MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT, Prepared for SEOPW CRA and OMNI CRA March 2004 DISCUSSED • Tom Gustafson Director of Government Relations 10 Institute of Government and Public Policy H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship Nova Southeastern University 3301 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Office: (954) 262-5128 Fax: (954) 262-3829 Cell: (954) 661-7848 email: tgustafs@nsu.nova.edu MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT • 11 SECTION 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STATUS REPORTS SECTION 2 FDOT AND POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS SECTION 3 FUNDING COMPONENTS AND SUMMARY - EARLY PHASE COMPONENTS CHART 1"11-\-Pj All hj'E'IIAt) J 1`lI�J1�JrJ I PI-1(, �7 SECTION 5 THE AMSTERDAM EXPERIMENT MIXING PEDESTRIANS, TRAMS AND BICYCLES SECTION 6 TRANSIT GREENWAYS SECTION 7 11AIAM1 AT MIDNIGHT REPORT SECTION 8 TRANSIT ELEMENT COMPATIBILITY DISCUSSED wilson�ones www.wilsonjones.com 4/23/04 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since December 2004, a significant effort has been undertaken to review the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report' with the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County and the Miami -Dade MPO to develop a request for FDOT and USDOT support of the intermodal improvements described therein. The materials provide herein have been created to organize the issues for such presentations and specify the recommended funding allocations to be proposed. The attached Early Phase Community Intermodal System Components aerial photograph depicts corridors to be scheduled for $84 million of early Specifically the MIAMNIGHT report had proposed the development of a community based, pedestrian -oriented intermodal improvements. The order of magnitude cost estimates calculated $141 million in capital improvements that related to 11 specific corridors, consisting of 20 miles of mixed -mode corridors and traffic calmed streets ($42 million) with 12 narrow gauge rail three -car trains and three rubber tire "on demand" community transit vehicles($ 8.4 million), 2000 structured shared -use parking spaces ($30 million) with related mixed -use liner buildings, transit storage and maintenance facilities with related equipment, parts and supplies and freight loading dock facilities ($6 million), freight intermodal 0 improvements ($50 million) and contingencies and incentives ($4.4 million). DISCUSSED 4123104 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT g phase community intermodal system improvements. The project components would include eight segments (totaling 9.2 miles) of mixed -use corridors, traffic calmed streets and narrow gauge rail track ($41.4 million) with ten narrow gauge rail two -car trains and six alternative fuel/electric rubber -tire "on demand" community transit vehicles with trailer vehicles or smaller electric shuttle vehicles ($ 6.9 million), 2000 structured parking spaces ($30 million) with related liner buildings, transit storage and maintenance facilities, maintenance, parts and supplies and loading dock facilities freight intermodal 10 improvements ($3 million) and contingencies and construction incentives ($2.7 million). The specific corridors and two of up to ten parking structure locations are identified on the attached Early Phase Community Intermodal System Components aerial map. The initial demonstration project would best be presented to include the Promenade and one additional corridor for a $16.2 estimated project cost. The project components would include the described and depicted corridor improvements along the Promenade and one of the other corridors ($ 8.1 million), the construction of 400 structured parking spaces immediately south of the Promenade and DISCUSSED 0 4/23/04 _ MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT 10 possibly elsewhere along the improved routes ($ 6 million), the installation of two narrow gauge rail two - car train and one alternative fuel/electric rubber -tire "on demand" community transit vehicle with a trailer vehicle or smaller electric shuttle vehicles ($ 1.3 million) and sufficient vehicle storage and maintenance facilities with related equipment, parts and supplies and freight loading dock facilities ($ .8 million) . Within the attached materials, the role of a community intermodal system is described and issues relating to technology compatibility and competition for capital and operating funds are addressed. A copy of the FDOT presentation is included in the materials along with the PowerPoint presentation that can be used when appropriate at community meetings. The activities undertaken regarding these matters are specified by month of activity and supplemental monthly status reports will be prepared for each month hereafter as work continues. Over the next four months the specific proposal to establish the transportation management association will be drafted for CRA approval to facilitate the operation of the narrow gauge rail and "on demand" community transit service and other transportation demand management efforts will be developed with IMSCLWeu 4/23/04 AT MIDNIGHT JO the CRA staff. In addition, a proforma cash flow estimate for project improvements based upon property value and tax increment increases, parking revenues and liner building related sales and rentals will be prepared to support the redevelopment plans associated with the demonstration project. With the CRA's approval of these materials and the efforts they describe, the CRA staff and the consultants involved will proceed with efforts to define the funding and partnership agreements for Board's consideration and approval. Such agreements would include an agreement to undertake the preliminary design efforts with the planning partners. The Promenade corridor images below were photographed from N.E. Vt Avenue looking west down the Promenade and were rendered by Steve Price of Urban Advantage at the direction of Dover, Kohl & Partners. The asterisk on the aerial photograph identifies the location where the corridor image picture was taken and the pictures illustrate the conditions that exist today compared to how the Promenade will look after the described transportation and community improvement are made. Corridors identified as narrow gauge rail (NGR) & pedestrian -oriented corridors will receive similar ussE® • 4/23/04 treatment to establish pedestrian -oriented mixed - mode corridors, traffic calmed streets, shared parking structures with liner buildings and narrow gauge rail and "on demand" community transit service. When the sun goes down and the moon rises over Miami, the residents, visitors and local business owners and customers of the Overtown, Park West and the Omni neighborhoods once again walk through their city streets, visiting with neighbors, friends and business associates, enjoying a quality of life that compares to any in the world. As a cool moist breeze rolls in from the waterfront, a cornucopia of familiar rhythmic music fills the street. We 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. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafs(aD-nsu.nova. edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. =U&sLu • • • 12/31/2003 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT u I F.'m 1 rw 11 P► t:. Status Report for December 2003 The following meetings and telephone discussions occurred this month regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and strategies that would be helpful to develop support for and funding to implement the referenced intermodal improvements and demonstration project as referenced therein. 1 Briefing to the SEOPW and OMNI Board members and their staff regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. Transmittal of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report to Mary Conway, City of Miami Transportation Director. i Transmittal of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report to U-Haul of Greater Miami (via Hector Rivera, General Manager) and briefing to Greg Mirmelli and Daniel Kodsi of Royal Palm Communities as property owners who might be involved a demonstration project. 4- Briefings with Joe Kohl regarding MIAM .AT MIDNIGHT and revisions to the Redevelopment Plan Update draft, The Promenade Special Area Plan draft and the Biscayne Boulevard. SAP draft consistent with the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. 4- Briefing with Bernard Zyscovich and Zyscovich staff working on the OMNI Redevelopment Plan Update regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. Briefing with Carlos Rogers, Area Sales Manager for Greyhound Lines, Inc regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. 1 Briefings with Miami Parking Authority staff (Arthur Noriega, Executive Director; Mark Trowbridge, Director of Planning and Development; and, Roamy Valera, Deputy Director) regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. Briefing with Steve Sauls, FIU Vice President for Governmental Affairs regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. DISC L�+ �7EE) 1 of 2 • • • • • 12/31/2003 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT 1 Briefing with Joe Kohl of Dover, Kohl & Partners and Charles Deeb of T.Y. Lin-HJ Ross regarding the MIAMLAT MIDNIGHT report and review of drafting information for the Capital Improvement Costs and Time Line section of the Redevelopment Plan Update and other revisions thereto. Transmittal of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report to Francisco Norona for review and comment as to Port of Miami access issues. l Transmittal of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report to George Burgess, Miami - Dade County Manager, for review and comment as to Miami -Dade County issues. Briefing with Jose -Luis Mesa and other MPO staff members regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. 1 Briefing with Doug Bruce regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. i Briefing with Mike Abrams regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. Briefing with Irby McKnight regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report in preparation for the January 2004 Overtown Advisory Board meeting. 1 Briefing with George Stapf, The National Development Council regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. In addition, numerous communications by email were sent with copies to Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Planning Administrator, along with related telephone calls to her confirming the status of ongoing activities. Similar communications occurred from time to time with Frank Rollason, Executive Director for the SEOPW and OMNI CRA. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafs(a)-nsu.nova. edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. 2 of 2 ®#%7CUSSED 1/31/2004 _._ MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT 10 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Status Report for January 2004 The following meetings and telephone discussions occurred this month regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and strategies that would be helpful to develop support for and funding to implement the referenced intermodal improvements and demonstration project as referenced therein. Briefings with Joe Kohl regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and fax revisions to the Redevelopment Plan Update draft. J- Scheduling with the FDOT, City of Miami and CRA staff regarding attending a meeting with FDOT Secretary Jose Abreu and FDOT District VI Secretary John Martinez. 1 Attend the CRA Board meeting and confirm arrangements for FDOT meeting schedule and preparation for the FDOT meeting. Z Briefing with Secretary Jose Abreu and Secretary John Martinez regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report attended by Frank Rollason, CRA Executive Director, Gregory King, Special Aide to City Commissioner Arthur Teele, Chelsa Arscott-Douglas and Joe Kohl or Dover, Kohl & Partners. 1 Presented to the Overtown Advisory Board a briefing regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. 1 Briefing with Phil Bacon, Executive Director of the Overtown Civic Partnership and Design Center, regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. Presented to the FDOT Strategic Intermodal System Miami Public Workshop on the Initial Strategic Plan Elements a briefing regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. l Reviewed with CRA staff demonstration project routing and costs issues. DISOC.PU66tu 1 of 2—,1�7-5— • 1/31/2004 l Briefing with Dana Nottingham, Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority regarding the MIApM1 AUQ1 NIGHT report. Briefing with Michael Hardy, President and CEO for the Performing Arts Center of Greater Miami regarding the MIAp41AT MIDNIGHT report. Briefing with Joe Kohl regarding the Redevelopment Plan Update revisions consistent with the MIAI AT MIDNIGHT report and funding strategies as discussed with FDOT. Briefing with Francisco Norona regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and Port of Miami access issues. � Initiated efforts to schedule meetings with the U.S. Congressional offices. In addition, numerous communications by email were sent with copies to Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Planning Administrator, along with related telephone calls to her confirming the status of ongoing activities. Similar communications occurred from time to time with Frank Rollason, Executive Director for the SEOPW and OMNI CRA. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafs(c�nsu.nova. edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. DISCUSSED 2 of 2 0 40 • • 2/29/2004 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT2 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Status Report for February 2004 The following meetings and telephone discussions occurred this month regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and strategies that would be helpful to develop support for and funding to implement the referenced intermodal improvements and demonstration project as referenced therein. s- Confirmed schedule for Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart meeting on February 19, 2004 at 11:00 AM to review the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report, preparation for the presentations to U.S. congressional offices and transmittal of meeting requests to Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Congressman Kendrick Meek. 1 Briefing with Senator Bill Nelson's staff regarding the regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. 1 Meeting with Mary Conway, City of Miami Transportation Director, Frank Rollason, CRA Executive Director, Jason Walker, Senior staff Assistant to City Commissioner Johnny Winton and Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Planning Administrator regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and the need for the City of Miami for confirm its position in support thereof and how it might relate to streetcar project under City of Miami review. 1 Briefing with Trenton Baughn, the Zyscovich manager for the OMNI Redevelopment Plan Update work regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and its possible relationship to the City of Miami streetcar planning efforts, other transportation initiatives and the Midtown Miami developments. Review of REA-3 Legislative Update from Rick Spees and Jane Sargent of Katz, Kutter, Alterman & Bryant. 1 Review with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas demonstration project routing and costs issues. I of 4 DISCUSSED • r] • C, 2/29/20 4 • Briefing with Adam Lukin, Projects Manager of the Downtown Development Authority regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and it possible relationship to the City of Miami streetcar planning efforts, other transportation initiatives and the Downtown transportation needs. Transmittal of MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report to Senator Bob Graham and request for the opportunity to schedule a briefing. Transmittal of MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report to Charles Towsley, Port Director for the Port of Miami and requested for the opportunity to schedule a briefing. 1 Review of confirmation of the passage by the U.S. Senate of the TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation (SB 1072) and telephone conference with Senator Bill Nelson's office, Senator Bob Graham's office and Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart's office regarding the status of TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation. Review of CRA's 2004-2009 Consolidated Plan spreadsheets as forwarded by Chelsa Arscott- Douglas. �- Response to City staff regarding Bay Walk planning efforts. 1 Briefing with Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart and CRA Executive director Frank Rollason regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT project and funding opportunities in the TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation. l Transmittal to Joe Kohl of funding allocations for the Promenade Demonstration Project, the USDOT passenger intermodal facilities grant and long range projects for inclusion in the Capital Improvement section of the SEOPW CRA Redevelopment Plan Update. Discussions with Miami Dade College (Victoria Hernandez and Miguel Rodriquez) regarding the opportunities as described in the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. Transmittal of response to Chelsa Arscott-Douglas regarding the 2/ 18/2004 Inter -Office Memorandum from City Manage Joe Arriola regarding the November 2003 MIAMLAT MIDNIGHT Proposal. 2 of 4 • • • • 2/29/2004 Attend the OMNI Neighborhood Building Owners & Businesses meeting with the Zyscovich consultant team and transmittal of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT materials. Discussion with Miami -Dade staff (Wilson Fernandez) regarding status of transit planning efforts. 1 Meeting with Mary Conway, City of Miami Transportation Director, the City's N.E. 2"d Avenue Corridor Streetcar Study consultants (HDR) regarding the coordination of activities and issues to be resolved in the two planning efforts (the City's Streetcar project and the CRA's community intermodal system project). �- Review of routing suggestions from CRA Executive Director, Frank Rollason, and drafting of revised Promenade Demonstration Project parameters (Phase 1 routing and Funding Summary). Review of same with CRA Planning Administrator Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Executive Director Frank Rollason and CRA Chairman Art Teele. 4, Discussions with Congressman's Mario Diaz-Balart's office regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT materials and status of the TEA 21 Reauthorization efforts in the U.S. House. Attend meeting with Performing Arts Center Urban Development Committee with Zyscovich consultant team and review of transportation issues and opportunities that might be applicable to the OMNI planning efforts. Transmittal of Funding Summary to FDOT Secretary Jose Abreu and arrangements made to discuss funding opportunities FDOT Secretary Jose Abreu, FDOT District VI Secretary John Martinez, State Public Transportation & Modal Administrator Marion Hart and Doug Bruce. Copies of Funding Summary transmittals sent to CRA staff and consultants, Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart's office, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen's office, Congressman Kendrick Meek's office and Senator Bill Nelson's office. In addition, numerous communications by email were sent with copies to Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Planning Administrator, along with related telephone calls to her confirming the status of ongoing activities. Similar communications have 3 of 4 • E 2/29/2004 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT' occurred from time to time with Frank Rollason, Executive Director for the SEOPW and OMNI CRA. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafs .nsu.nova.edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. 4 of 4 DISCUSSED -- • WEDNESDAY. MARCH-1j, 20N MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Status Report for March 2004 The following meetings and telephone discussions occurred this month regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and strategies that would be helpful to develop support for and funding to implement the referenced intermodal improvements and demonstration project as referenced therein. �- Conference with FDOT Secretary Jose Abreu, FDOT District VI Secretary John Martinez, State Public Transportation & Modal Administrator Marion Hart and the CRA's Tallahassee consultant Doug Bruce regarding project funding opportunities, strategies and allocations. Distribution of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and related materials to the FDOT. 1 Review of Baywalk information and communication with City Staff regarding same. Prepare binder reports to summarize project funding strategy and allocations and status reports for CRA staff. Conference with Charles Deeb regarding cost estimate for development of preliminary design scope of work. 1 Attend conference with CRA Chairman Art Teele and Miami Parking Authority Executive Director Art Noriega regarding parking and related street, sidewalk and utility improvements within the entertainment and redevelopment areas. 4� Review of FRA notice for compliant diesel multiple unit (DMU) self- propelled passenger cars and conference with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas regarding same. Draft the Transit Element Compatibility section in response to the February 18, 2004 City Manager Inter -Office Memorandum regarding narrow gauge rail technology and revise the FDOT Presentation, Funding Summary and Phase 1 Components map, Map descriptions, the MIAMI AT MIDNI_Off report. � DISCUSSED ` T Li • • • • _ 3 V I&"a II MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT � Telephone conference with LaAnna Gutierrez in Senator Bill Nelson's office regarding the inclusion of provisions for an intermodal passenger facilities program in TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation as approved by the U.S. Senate (10 million per year FY05-FY09) and review of Senate Bill 1072, Section 3045 wherein the intermodal passenger facilities program is referenced l Review of the City of Miami's streetcar project summary and conference with Chelsa Arscott-Douglas regarding same and Phase 1 Community Intermodal System project development. 4- Preparation of the PowerPoint Community Presentation. Z Conference with FDOT Assistant Secretary for Intermodal Systems Development Ysela Llort, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Support Lowell Clary, State Public Transportation Administrator Marion Hart, Transit Manager Ed Coven and the CRA's Tallahassee consultant Doug Bruce regarding project funding opportunities, strategies and allocations. Distribution of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and related materials to the FDOT. 1 Conference with Charles Cooper in Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart's office regarding status of TEA 21 Reauthorization legislation and review of House Transportation Committee bill markup (HR 3550). In addition, numerous communications by email were sent with copies to Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Planning Administrator, along with related telephone calls to her confirming the status of ongoing activities. Similar communications occurred from time to time with Frank Rollason, Executive Director for the SEOPW and OMNI CRA. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafs(aD-nsu.nova. edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. ®ISCU88D 1/28/2004 _FDQTr�nAlion MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT WHY ARE WE HERE? During the initial stages of review, the City of Miami's Community Redevelopment Agencies (Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA and Omni Redevelopment District CRA) wanted to brief FDOT, the appropriate federal, state and local officials and interested community organizations on the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and its recommendations: • The Miami CRAs are in the process of updating their redevelopment plans and they would like to reference opportunities to pursue federal and state funding for a pedestrian -oriented, community -based intermodal projects that would collectively create the community intermodal system as described in MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT; and, • The Miami CRAs want to determine what funding strategies might be useful to develop both short and long term funding assuming the CRAs are able to coordinate their efforts with the City of Miami, Miami - Dade County, the Miami -Dade MPO and other affected organizations. 016CUSMD • • • • 1/28/2QQ4 FDOT Presentation MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Mai WHAT IS THE STATUS OF OUR PLANNING EFFORTS? The SEOPW CRA has undertaken efforts during the last two years with Dover, Kohl & Partners to draft a Redevelopment Plan update that will define the activities of the CRA through 2012 and thereafter. As part of that effort, the SEOPW CRA and OMNI CRA undertook efforts to conceptualize through the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report: • Narrow gauge rail transportation modality that would link the Grande Promenade to Bicentennial Park, the Miami Beach Bay Link Project and other destinations within the redevelopment areas; and, • The placement of parking structures and liner buildings (mixed -use buildings that are constructed on the perimeter of the parking structures) throughout the redevelopment areas to resolve the immediate and long term parking infrastructure needs. MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT review and approvals from the City of Miami, Miami -Dade County and the Miami -Dade MPO need to be scheduled with other community meetings to gather input, improve upon the proposal and develop further support for the community intermodal system improvements. DISCUSSED • • 1/2&M4 FDOT Presentation WHAT IS A PEDESTRIAN -ORIENTED COMMUNITY INTERMODAL SYSTEM? The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report suggests a European - inspired method of movement that develops, within the community context, high quality public spaces between buildings that are safe, comfortable, useful and interesting. Large numbers of people walk longer than typical distances because they enjoy the experience and the design features, within the community intermodal system, protect the traveler during both the walk and ride phases of typical multimodal trips. Cars are still recognized as a dominant method of transport, but they are now parked in shared -use parking structures that are surrounded by mixed -use liner buildings that help to form the consistent pedestrian -oriented urban form and habitat. The automobile and truck traffic is less visible in the street, air quality is improved, pedestrian safety is assured and a significant modal shift to alternative modes of transportation is achieved. DISCUSSED • • 1128/2004 MOT Presentation "Bicycle and pedestrian traffic mix with small and quiet trolley cars that children and adults safely ride from one neighborhood to the next." s It i "Centrally located bus and train stations provide timely and convenient transport between neighboring towns and regional events. " DISCUSSED • 1/28/2004 THE PROMENADE PROJECT The Promenade Project was proposed by Nova Southeastern University's Center for Public Policy and Leadership to implement the recommendations of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report recognizing that many ongoing efforts to develop transportation initiatives for the Miami area are underway: • The SEOPW CRA has committed $601,742 for initial improvements to the Promenade (the CRA owned corridor, formally a municipal owned rail line, runs through the center of three city blocks from N.W. 1 st Avenue to N.E. 2nd Avenue parallel to and between N.E. 101h and 11th Streets); • The Miami Parking Authority has committed to build and received FDOT approval to construct surface parking lots under 1-395 between N.E. 1st Avenue and North Miami Court; • The Performing Arts Center Foundation of Greater Miami, Miami -Dade County and other community partners are building a world -class multi -use facility within the OMNI CRA district and immediately adjacent the SEOPW CRA, astride Biscayne Boulevard and north of 1-395; DISCUWED • • • • • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation ol nig 1 EvIN 11 Biel • The Port of Miami has undertaken planning efforts to develop improved freight and passenger access from 1-395 (Port Tunnel) and 1-95 (5th and 6th Street); • Miami -Dade MPO and Miami -Dade Transit have undertaken with planning efforts for an East-West Metrorail extension that would connect Miami International Airport and the Miami Intermodal Center with the Port of Miami, a Bay Link project that would connect downtown Miami with the Miami Beach and a Metrorail connection with the Miami Intermodal Center and Miami International Airport; • FDOT, Miami -Dade MPO and other Miami -Dade community organizations are exploring how best to replace the 1-395 elevated roadway that bisects both CRA districts: • Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan (funded by the City of Miami, Miami -Dade MPO and FDOT) recommended pedestrian corridors and bicycle route/facilities improvements, greenway projects and transit greenway development, traffic calming alternatives, transit shuttle systems, water taxi service, fixed guideway service to the American Airlines Arena and Seaport and other components built into the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT recommendations; and, • The City of Miami, Miami DDA, Miami River Commission and others have planned and expressed interest greenway and streetcar systems for local trips within the Miami area. p7l 0 • • 1/2$/2004 FDOT Presentation FUNDING COMPONENTS- OF MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report recommends the development of Community Intermodal System projects that can be summarized as pedestrian -oriented structural improvements that encourage and induce large numbers of travelers to shift their modal choice from exclusively automobile trips to frequent transit use as part of the multimodal movements typically connecting major corridors to airport, seaport, bus and rail terminals. The improvements consist of: • traffic -calmed streets; • pedestrian and mixed -mode corridors; • landscaping and hardscaping improvements; • parking structures positioned and designed for shared use and to permit the development of mixed -use buildings that provide easy access to destinations within and beyond the liner building; and, • small community transit and parking shuttle vehicles to provide fixed route and "on demand" access to destinations within the city center and, with various regional and interregional transportation system connections, to destinations throughout the state, nation and world. � DISCUSgo • 2 /2004 FDOT The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report provides an order of magnitude cost estimate in the amount of $141 million for improvements to be undertaken through and beyond 2012. The project would be best divided in a demonstration project ($15 million), a federal passenger intermodal program grant as described in SAFETEA at Section 6002 ($31 million) and the remainder improvements ($95 million) to be identified as long range projects funded after 2012 or so. The Promenade Demonstration Project would connect the Promenade with the Miami Parking Authority 1-395 parking lots by a route that would at least loop east to N.E. 2nd Avenue and west to N.W. 1 St Avenue in a clockwise rotation. It would include a parking structure (200 spaces or so) that would be narrowly confined to the south side of the Promenade with liner buildings constructed along the northern and southern perimeter of the parking structure. The Promenade would be a mixed -mode corridor with a brick or cobblestone surface and with landscape and hardscape features designed to be consistent with the requirements of large-scale pedestrian behavior. Two narrow gauge rail prototype trains and one "on demand" rubber tire vehicle would be constructed consistent with historic streetcar, modern light rail or special purpose designs. DISCUSSED III 10 ti MIAMI AT XMIGH1 The Passenger Intermodal Facilities grant request would link the Promenade Demonstration Project to the Port of Miami, Greyhound Intercity Bus Service, the Overtown/Arena Metrorail Station, the 14th Street corridor, six Metromover stations, the Downtown Bus Terminal via Metrorail and Metromover service, the proposed Bay Link service, any passenger service developed for the FEC/ N.E. 21d Avenue corridor and any water transit service developed for the Miami River Port -to -Airport trips. The remainder components would be funded through the priority setting process by the Miami -Dade MPO as part of their long range planning efforts. Once the demonstration and passenger intermodal facility improvements have been fully implemented and their operational success evaluated, the MPO approved funds for the remainder improvements can be programmed. The attached maps depict the alternative routes that over time could be developed for the narrow gauge rail system. It is expected that most downtown trips would consist of some combination of walking and small transit movement. "On Demand" community transit shuttle service would provide necessary trip connections to intermodal terminals, shared parking facilities and narrow gauge rail service for disabled and younger travelers or, for a fee, to any customer. DISCUSSED C� 0 • • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation "Arcades, awnings, fountains, street cafes and public space delight the senses and provide relief from the rain and summer heat. " "At night and on the weekends, community events occur in well -lighted public spaces located throughout the city and town. " DISCUSSED • U • • • FUNDING COMPONENTS CHART: MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT - $141 MILLION Demonstration Project - $15 million to develop traffic calmed streets, pedestrian and mixed -mode corridors, landscaping and hardscaping improvements, parking structures with out -parcels of land for liner buildings and community transit and parking shuttle vehicles. Passenger Intermodal Facilities Grant - $31 million to develop physical and functional intermodal linkages between intercity bus service and other modes of transportation and transportation services, enhancing the integration of all modes of intercity and local transportation, as well as connection with the private automobile, and linking passengers arriving through airports, public transportation facilities, train stations and seaports with their final home, work and tourist destinations. Miami -Dade MPO Long Range Plan - $95 million to complete the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT recommendations for a community intermodal system using federal, state and local funding sources prioritized through the transportation planning process as required by federal transportation law and provided for in the Florida Transportation Code. r% • C` 1/29/ 2004 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT FUNDING SUMMARY Consistent with ongoing discussions with FDOT and other interested parties, the Promenade Demonstration Project has been revised to accommodate near term funding opportunities and destination requirements. The attached NGR and corridor improvements route map and the proposal to obtain project funding should be reviewed as soon as possible with the City Mayor and Commissioners, the City staff, FDOT Secretary Jose Abreu and FDOT District VI Secretary John Martinez, the SEOPW and OMNI stakeholders, federal and state elected officials whose support will be required and useful, potential project partners and other parties that may have an interest in these matters. The map should be reviewed with the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report, related background documents and the budget issues summarized below. While still representing very preliminary estimates, the following funding allocations will be submitted to the SEOPW CRA and the OMNI CRA for their consideration and approval: DISCUSSED 1 of5 nn • $ 7.5 million FDOT grant $ 6.0 million FDOT loan $ 0.6 million CRA Promenade corridor improvements (consistent with final design) $ 0.9 million USDOT enhancement grant/MDCC for the 4th Street project 31.0 million USDOT passenger intermodal facilities grant program $ 46.0 million (initially described as a $15 million Promenade Demonstration project plus the $31 million USDOT grant) To establish with FDOT that the local entity receiving the funds has equally matched the FDOT project grant, the project would be further defined to include the following CRA funding commitments, referenced in the 2004-2009 consolidated plan spreadsheet and revised to constitute the required match: $ 2.0 million CRA office liner building (with TMA/mobility offices) for the Promenade parking structure 4.9 million CRA capital program expenditures for corridors improvements $ 6.9 million to match the FDOT grant (with $ .6 million for CRA Promenade improvements) $52.9 million total Phase 1 project costs HISSED O�S�C 2 of 5 • While the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report described a much larger project, given a review of funding options that might be more immediately available, this funding summary and the related route and corridor map assumes a project large enough to be an effective instrument for pedestrian -oriented intermodal connections, but small enough to be reasonable for near term implementation. Having gone through several revisions already, it would be expected, based on comments received, that further revisions might still be required. The PHASE 1 project components as presented herein would involve: approximately 5 miles of NGR track and corridor improvements (1.2 miles of those improvements would be the Promenade Demonstration Project); 1000 parking spaces (200 of those spaces would be the Promenade Demonstration Project); a $2 million budget for transit storage and maintenance facility, maintenance equipment, spare parts, and loading dock; six NGR two -car parking shuttle trains; and, two rubber tire trams with a trailer car for each to operate as "on demand" community transit vehicles. The Promenade Project would put the initial two NGR parking shuttles and one community transit vehicle into operation. 3 of 5 DIScuSSED • The CRAs' engineering consultants at T.Y. Lin-H.J. Ross need to draft a scope of work for preliminary design planning efforts to develop PHASE 1 project parameters that will address the appropriate technology, engineering and the intermodal opportunities, costs and benefits. In addition, the work effort should provide the information expected to be required for a successful USDOT passenger intermodal facilities grant request. The preliminary design report will also provide an analysis of PHASE 1 parking and transit needs, trips types, compatibility concerns, revenue projections and operating costs. A review of operational options will include a transportation management association (TMA), formed to operate and maintain the parking shuttles and community transit vehicles and to contract with the Miami Parking Authority for parking facilities management services. As described, Phase 1 of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT project will hopefully be of interest to the City of Miami, the Miami Parking Authority, the Port of Miami, the Performing Arts Center of Greater Miami, the American Airlines Arena, the Miami Dade College, the Miami Arena/Miami Sports and Exhibition Authority, Bayside Marketplace, Miami -Dade Transit, Miami - Dade County Public Schools and the route related DISCUSSED 4of5 ;, • • • E • 1/29/ 2004 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT aim hotels, commercial buildings and residential complexes. During the course of such preliminary design work efforts, the CRA staff and consultants will continue to coordinate with City staff and consultants regarding the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT project and all related projects under review by the City of Miami, Miami - Dade County, the Miami -Dade MPO and other community organizations. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tqustafs nsu.nova.edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. 5 of 5 DISCUSSED N L-1 • • 4/22/04 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT f Early Phase Components: MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT projects, costs and partnerships The projects depicted on the attached aerial photograph entitled "Early Phase Community Intermodal System Components" identify a comprehensive system of mixed -mode corridors, traffic calmed streets, narrow gauge rail community transit routes and two of the several locations for shared parking structures that are enclosed with liner buildings. Such improvements when properly arranged cumulatively constitute a community intermodal system that provides significant and highly effective interregional intermodal connections. These improvements are further described in the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report, the subsequently drafted related documents that have been prepared by the combined efforts of the CRA staff and Nova Southeastern University and previously reviewed transit greenway and mixed -mode corridor articles. Finally, contained within this document is the Early Phase Components Chart that provides the CRA DISCUSSED • Board members with a summary description of each project, the expected costs based upon the order of magnitude cost estimates from the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and the stakeholders and potential planning partners that would be involved in further MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT development efforts. It is hoped that this information will provide to the CRA, with the other materials being presented at the April 26, 2004 CRA Board meeting, sufficient information to act upon the recommendation that preliminary design planning efforts be undertaken with the redevelopment areas stakeholders and planning partners. The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and related documents are consistent with the "Traffic and Transportation Plan" from the existing 1982 SEOPW Redevelopment Plan and the "Transportation System: Mobility Access" component of the 2004 Amended SEOPW Redevelopment Plan which makes recommendations to create "transportation circulation and parking" and to reestablish the "traditional urban network of streets with pedestrian friendly corridors". The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT demonstration project, as described by the attached illustrations, corridor descriptions and the early Phase Component Chart are offered to the CRA Board for comment and approval as a first step in accomplishing these redevelopment goals and guiding principles. DISCUSSED d c) L • 4/22/04 If the projects as defined herein, and as stated and restated in the existing and amended SEOPW Redevelopment Plans, meet with the CRA Board's approval, subsequent authorization from the Board to finalize negotiated funding and partnership agreements between the CRA, stakeholders and planning partners (specifically including the City of Miami, Miami Parking Authority, Miami -Dade County, Miami -Dade MPO, Florida Department of Transportation and United States Department of Transportation) as necessary to proceed with the preliminary design, construction and management of the pedestrian -oriented Community Intermodal System improvements. EARLY PHASE FUNDING SUMMARY The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT community intermodal system demonstration project description (Demonstration Project) has been developed broadly consistent with the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report, the related background documents, additional input from stakeholders, planning partners and CRA staff and the budget and funding chart provided below. While still very preliminary, the following funding allocations are submitted to the SEOPW CRA and the OMNI CRA for their consideration and approval: DISCUSSED • 4/22/04 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT $ 5.1 million FDOT/USDOT grant $ 6.0 million FDOT loan $ .6 million CRA Promenade expenditures $ 1.0 million CRA liner building/TMA offices and Mobility Center $ .95CRA Capital program expenditures related to posed corridors $ 2.55 Planning partners $ 16.2 Demonstration project estimated costs To establish with the FDOT that the local entity receiving the transportation funds (the transportation management association or TMA) has the required matching funds, planning partners' agreements will be developed by the participants in the TMA. Similar funding commitments will be established for subsequent Early Phase Community Intermodal System Components as they become scheduled for development. While the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report described a much larger project, given a review of funding options that might be more immediately available, this description of early phase components, the Early Phase Components Chart and the Early Phase Community Intermodal System Components aerial map assume a project cumulatively large enough to DISCUSSED CJ provide meaningful intermodal connects and initially small enough for near term implementation. In addition to these suggestions for pedestrian - oriented mixed -mode and traffic calmed streets, the article entitled "Transit Element Compatibility" provide further details and refinements regarding the use of narrow gauge rail vehicles in combination with rubber tire "on demand" community transit vehicles. Finally, individual early phase projects are described below and can be individually evaluated for implementation evaluation. A specific cost estimate is provided for each project segment. Please note that each project route links to one or more other project routes to form a consistent web of intermodal connections that assure redundancy and flexibility in the planning, construction and operation of the community intermodal system. THE EARLY PHASE COMPONENTS CHART The Community Intermodal System improvements described in the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT for the SEOPW/CRA and the OMNI/CRA are now more specifically described as follows: UkiUUSSED • • • • • 4/22/04 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Projects Cost Partners The Promenade $8.1 million (assuming 3900 feet of corridor Nightclub, business and and track improvements, 200 structured property owners, Miami parking spaces, one NGR vehicle and trailer Parking Authority and the car, "on demand" community transit support, Port of Miami. vehicle storage and maintenance facilities with related equipment, parts and supplies and freight loading dock facilities). Performing Arts $8.1 million (same assumptions except that it The Performing Arts of also assumes the Performing Arts Loop uses Greater Miami, related part of the Promenade Loop where the routes uses, the Miami Parking overlap for approximately 700 feet). Authority, Omni developers and property owners. Overtown $8.1 million (same assumptions except that it Miami Arena/Miami Sports also assumes the Overtown Loop uses part of and Exhibition Authority, the Promenade Loop where routes overlap for Miami Parking Authority, approximately 1800 feet). City of Miami and related developers and property owners. Port of Miami $11 million ( assuming 6900 feet of corridor American Airlines Arena, and track improvements, 200 structured Port of Miami and related parking spaces, one NGR vehicle, trailer car, passenger cruise one "on demand" community transit vehicle, businesses, Bayside vehicular storage and maintenance facilities Marketplace, Miami Dade with equipment, parts and supplies and freight College, Miami Parking loading dock facilities. The Port of Miami Loop Authority, Miami uses part of the Overtown Loop where the Arena/Miami Sports and routes overlap for approximately 600 feet). Exhibition Authority, and related developers and propertyowners. Bicentennial $7.6 million (assuming 3300 feet of corridor The City of Miami, the Park and track improvements, 200 structured Baywalk Steering parking spaces, one NGR vehicle and trailer Committee, proposed car, "on demand community transit support, museums and park event vehicle storage and maintenance facilities with operators, the American related equipment, parts and supplies, freight Airlines Arena, the Miami loading dock facilities. The Bicentennial Park Herald, the Miami Parking Loop uses part of the Port of Miami, -Authority, the Performing DISCUSSED 'iA c►r� 2� E LJ 7 • • 4/22/04 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Promenade and Performing Arts Loops where Arts Center of Greater the routes overlap for approximately 2850 Miami and related feet). developers and property owners. 1 oth and 11th $17.2 million (assuming 9450 feet of corridor The businesses and Street and track improvements, 400 structured nightclubs within the Park parking spaces, two NGR vehicles and trailer West Entertainment District, cars, one "on demand" community transit residents and property vehicle, storage and maintenance facilities and owners near the 10th and related equipment, parts and supplies and 11th Street corridors, freight loading dock facilities. The 10th and 11th Metrorail passengers who Street Loop uses part of the Overtown and wish easier access to the Promenade Loops where the routes overlap Culmer Metrorail Station for approximately 1950 feet). and children who attend area schools and their parents. N.W. 3 Id Avenue $18.4 million (assuming 10,200 feet of corridor The small business owners, and track improvements, 400 structured property owners and parking spaces, two NGR vehicles and trailer residents adjacent the 3rd cars, one "on demand" community transit Avenue, 2"d Avenue and 1st vehicle, storage and maintenance facilities with Place corridors north to at related equipment, parts and equipment, least N.W. 20th Street, freight loading dock facilities. The N.W. 3rd children attending area Avenue Loop uses part of the Overtown Loop schools and their parents. where to routes overlap for approximately 1050 feet). School Board $6.2 million (assuming 2400 feet of corridor Miami -Dade County Public and track improvements, 200 structured Schools, business and parking spaces, one NGR vehicle and trailer property owners related to car, "on demand" community transit support, the Omni and Park West vehicle storage and maintenance facilities with Entertainment districts related equipment, parts and supplies and needing shared parking for freight loading dock facilities. The School business and residential Board Loop uses part of the Promenade and purposes, the Performing Performing Arts Loops where to routes overlap Arts Center of Greater for approximately 1650 feet). Miami and the Miami Parking Authority. TOTAL: $84.7 million ui6GUSSED ,4- _ , f, .r . 4/22/04 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT JO The costs listed above are based upon the scale of magnitude estimates provided in the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. Preliminary design planning efforts should be undertaken to provide more accurate cost estimates and to examine the specific technical and construction issues that will define a successful community intermodal system. Costs for the preliminary design planning efforts should be shared by all residents, property owners and businesses in the redevelopment area, but leadership on initial funding efforts needs to come from the CRAs, the City of Miami, the Miami Parking Authority, Miami -Dade County, the Port of Miami, the Miami -Dade MPO and FDOT District 6. Costs to develop a scope of work for the preliminary design are expected to be $5,000. The preliminary design cost for the Early Phase projects are expected to cost $ 172,330 or approximately 2% of the project costs. If the CRA wants to seriously pursue federal and state funding, it will increase the probability of success by identifying, with other stakeholders and planning partners, a strategy to initiate preliminary design efforts. If all the Early Phase projects are given equal planning efforts, opportunities to move on some aspects of the projects will not be hampered by DISCU6%*1)r_Lv 4112104 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT obstacles thrown in the way of other project segments. All segments would be built, but in this way the segments with fewer issues to resolve would be addressed more quickly. Once it becomes established that some segments will be built in the very near term and the benefits from such pedestrian -oriented intermodal connections are established, questions relating to the appropriateness and usefulness of such an intermodal access strategy will be easier to answer and obstacles for the remaining segments will more quickly be resolved. Each loop when built will improve the linkages within the redevelopment area and will build upon the system improvements that preceded it. Each street that is successfully redesigned for large scale pedestrian movements encourages the next project to undertaken. By addressing the projects within the context of a single objective (large-scale pedestrian movements to facilitate high quality and significant intermodal linkages that cause a substantial increase in multimodal interregional, regional and local trips), individual community projects can be focused toward a larger mission to improve transportation, economic conditions and workforce efficiencies. DISCU6�aw • Be staying focused on pedestrian -oriented corridor designs, the recognized landscaping and traffic calming strategies to improve the urban form, the lighting and lively conditions required for significant pedestrian -oriented public spaces, the parking and mixed -use liner buildings that help to structure a pedestrian -oriented urban form and the small transit intermodal access enhancements that extend the length and frequency of urban pedestrian movements, great progress can be achieved to accelerate and qualitatively improve the redevelopment process while achieving a clearly stated transportation objective. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafs(aD-nsu.nova. edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is: 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. ,ok, To Miami International Airport I . L.— I . - School Board and9 It _� Miami '46 ' - V A Early Phase Community Intermoda System Components: OVERT N Metror ll Promena -A 0 -r. oun I - I --yb d Intercill# Terminal fj NGR & pedesbian-oriented corridors 711 ST.,, a) b) c) Overtown/Aren d Metrorad Station Flo e) Bicentertial, Park f) riIFhl 1Z g) NW 3rd Avenue h) Port of Miami, AA & Miami Arenas, Bayside Marketplace and Miami Dade -College Parking sbuctures with liner buildi M ia re, D .,Government: Ce nt6r and Met raMit Station Tj Miami -Rivib tRR i�jnq^` inter icentennial Park and Museums A Dr, L • • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation MIAMI DOWNTOWN INTERMODAL COMPONENTS ON MAP #1 Narrow Gauge Rail routes are identified as: A. -'romenade to I- 9b Parking Loop; B. Promenade to 14th Street Loop; C. :�th and ' metre -t D. N.W. V Avenue Loop; E. 8th and 1Oth Street Loop; F. Miami Avenue Area Loop; G. Central Loop; H. Port of Miami Loop; r v/1cl I ]r)f rTj l\/ll--llrll ,'-\Vpfl! J. Omni East Loop; K. Omni West Loop. 1 I r�r)p(vi/ -:i i l.VV. Awefi�i Other transportation components are identified as: Metromover Intnrry)-1-il nags (Passenger, Freight and C(-,nrr),rtnr-,) Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs and interregional destinations are identified as: Port of Miami (POM); Miami International Airport (MIA); .6 Miami Intermodal Center (MIC); ,i Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH); � Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT); -46 Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach); 4Orange Bowl; � Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB); +� Miami River (and to MIA/MIC/POM and other water front destinations via waterborne transit service). DISCUSSED • • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT t • MAP #1 Narrow gauge rail routes, other transportation components, SIS Hubs and interregional destinations I MI onliNl r I - If 1] To IJIIA!'JF. JMM SECI To WAiW;I CR TaFbil vio m tmll To Ota1ge Jm,,l I MIA ! MIC via =eat - .1.1.1 Ccmdor • ?l ' ���. }. fo Ntarri Drach va (r1 — i 87iink t FOAI To OUT f Mtaini River s • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation MIAMI DOWNTOWN INTERMODAL COMPONENTS ON MAP #2 Regional Rail connectors are identified as: 1. Bay Link connector to Port of Miami pu if 3. East-West Corridor via 5th and 6th Streets; and, 4. Bay Link to Miami Beach Other transportation components are identified as: Metroraii rid Metromover Jntnr►n-dal Areas (Passenn-r, Freight and Connector--` Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs and interregional destinations are identified as: �- Port of Miami (POM); 4- Miami International Airport (MIA); 4- Miami Intermodal Center (MIC); 4- Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH); -4 Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT); 4. Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach); Orange Bowl; 1 Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB); 1 Miami River (and to MIA/MIC/POM and other water front destinations via waterborne transit service). DISCU ~ S EU 0 • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT MAP #2 Regional rail connectors, other transportation components, SIS Hubs and interregional destinations 9 oil' i 7 • • • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation MIAMI DOWNTOWN INTERMODAL COMPONENTS ON MAP #3 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Ohio Additional Community Intermodal System Improvements are identified as: • Passenger Intermodal Improvements Area and Pedestrian -oriented Intermodal Connectors; • Freight Intermodal Facility Improvements Area and Freight Intermodal Connectors; and, • Recommended Liner Building/Parking Structure Area. Other transportation components are identified as: Metromover -)taflon •:• intermodal Areas (Passenger, Freight and Connectors). Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Hubs and interregional destinations are identified as: i Port of Miami (POM); Miami International Airport (MIA); � Miami Intermodal Center (MIC); +� Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH); Downtown Bus Terminal (DBT); Miami Beach Convention Center (Miami Beach); Orange Bowl; •- Greyhound Intercity Bus Facility (GIB); .i► Miami River (and to MIA/MIC/POM and other water front destinations via waterborne transit service). DISCU EU r� • • • • 1/28/2004 FDOT Prgsentation MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT nag MAP #3 Community Intermodal System improvements, other transportation components, SIS Hubs and interregional destinations • fo MIA !MIC • • • OMNI • CRA • • O 0 ro MIA I MIC ! • • • • • 1MH SEOPW * • • fo MIA / MIC ! CRA To MiamirnRail via Beach via 4airorail • Bayhnk • • O i • ° * •i• Q • ♦ i0 • • • • TO • • • ��� 0 POM fo Orange • 30w1 / MIA 1 dIC via East • r Nest Corridor "o B • To DP.T r Miami Rivei O 0 DISCUSSEU • • 1/28/2004 FDOT Presentation Promenade Demonstration Project MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT ado Illustration When the sun goes down and the moon rises over Miami, the residents, visitors and local business owners and customers of the Overtown, Park West and the Omni neighborhoods once again walk through their city streets, visiting with neighbors, friends and business associates, enjoying a quality of life that compares to any in the world. As a cool moist breeze rolls in from the waterfront, a cornucopia of familiar rhythmic music fills the street. We walk arm -in -arm from one late night establishment to the next. really good to be alive. It's midnight in Miami and it feels DISCUSSED MIXED -MODE STREETS PEDESTRIAN CONES HAVE Ave than pedestrian or public trans - become a familiar feature in the central portarion alternatives. The bicycle ARE BEING PROPOSED AS areas of European cities. Private cars are offers significant time saving, relative always excluded from these zones, while safety and convenience. 1 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 dispat- contribute, to pedestrian discomfort or DESCRIBED IN THIS ity between the pedestrian zone and its accidents. Some Dutch observers argue surroundings. The concentration of chat such a liberal approach works best FEATURE,.A DE FACTO high -value retailing, services and pedes- since the level. of cyclist use is largely traans 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- strated 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.2 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 races at intersections of exclude cyclists from pedestrian areas, pedestrian and bicycle pathways with planners have to rely on cyclist adher- vehicular routes. The self-regulating ence to regulauon, a dubious proposi- theory also requires empirical vcrifica- 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 arc terdam as in many ocher 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 aurae- such designs are their carrying capacity 22 itE )ODOW 91 A 1� and, in particular, the sustainabiliry of the traffic mix when the total volume of traffic is increased.43 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.G 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 an 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 time 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 tine 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 - ITT JOURNAL / AUGUST 1999 Figure 1. The Leidsestrut is an undivided pedestrian and tram mall where hitydes 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 arc 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 it -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. : e i®`sCU 3D A • • THE AEIDSESTRAAT 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- sestraat is the most important north -south transportation corridor through the city, at least until the north -south metroJine 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 tramcracks 24 rqure 2. The pedestrian sore of Amsterdan is shown with overage midday vo6m flows; as recorded dwil My 1991. when the density is high. Up to half of the bicycles follow in the wake of the tram, share the asphalt scrip between the rails or veer between groups of moving .pedestrians. Faster moving pedestrians usually choose to venture into the tram - track area, moving out of the way of on- coming pedestrians, cyclists or trams (Figure 3). The first impression of the Leidses- traat from the raised bridge portions over the canals is that of a chaos of DI����ST t999 �j61— 6Df9 2 • • Figure 3. The street surface Consists of parallel rough and smooth brick strips, separated by gutters and tramway rails 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 crams 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 are witnessed (none in several days of observation). RESEARCH RESULTS The Leidsestraat 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/minutelm 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 Kalverstraat. The pedestrian density9 on the I eidses- 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/pcdes- trian, equivalent to 6.5 pedestrians/ minutchn 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 space/pedestrian would approach 4 m2. While the average walk- ing speed is a relatively high 5.3 Uomc- tcrs 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 Rcf. 11 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 Figure 4. All individuals on foot (circles) and on bicycle (oblongs) in 10.unrelated frames of video were divided atcording_to the movement direction and pieced on a plan of the, street. ®ISC 25 ft /it -� ® Al 7t • • (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 arc 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 Figure 5. The density of individuals/0.75 m2 areas Is shown, using 10 frames 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 ennugh for two hicycles 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 Leidsescraat 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 rend to weave across the streams of traffic, deferring to the through movement and only occa- sionally coming into conflict with oth- 3 y=2.7-0.01x,R=-0.55 average 0 ° distance between 00 0 ® 0 0 nearest 0 neighbors 0 0 0�0 0 (m) ° 00 0 0 ° 1 10 20 30 40 50 pedestrian density (individuals/frame) Figure 6. There is a tendency to disperse over the available surface area as pedestrian density declines. 26 ers. Other shoppers cling to the rela- tively untraveled portion of the street next to the buildingficade. Much more cross movement As. 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 i 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. CONCLUSION 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 and pedestrians (Figure 7). DI N ��%y¢llGUST 1494 fl' — �v U r 2 _ 0- _z 4 • Figure 7. Amsterdommers will ride confidently in the rain with children aboard and shopping bags slung casu- alty 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 L.eidsestraat 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 clearly 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 28 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- uaI trajectories within a dynamic Field to develop a more complete catalog of behaviors that could be incorporated into an eventual model. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT$ I am indebted to Timothy Blair who conducted most of the observations and also helped with the analysis. is Rcf rences 1. Pucher, J. "Bicycling Boom in Germany: A Revival Engineered by Public Policy." Trans- portation Quarterly, 51, No. 4 (1997): 31-46. 2: Khisty, C.."Evaluation of Pedestrian Facili- tier. Beyond the Level -of -Service Concept" Tmru- portation Research:Aft*.� .1438 (1994): 45-50. 3. Forester, j. Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling.Tramportarion Engineen. 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 Record 1438 (1994): 9-16. 5. Sharpies, R. "A Framework for the Eval- uation of Facilities for Cyclists —Part 1." Traf- fic Enginreringa_nd Contro4 36, No. 3 (1995): 142-149. 6. Seneviratne, P. "Acceptable Walking Dis- tances in Ccntral Areas." Journal ofTrarrsporta- tion Engineering, 111, No. 4 (1985): 365-376. 7. Pushkarev, B.; and J. Zupan. "Capacity of Walkways." Transportation Research Record, 538 (1975): 1-14. 8, Liu, Y. "The Czpacity 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•Lcvel of Service." Journal of Transportation Engineering, 109, No. 1 (1983): 46-56, I0. Virkler, M., and S. Elayadath. "Pedes- trian Speed -Flow -Density Relationships." Trans- portation Research Rtco A 1438 (1994)i 51-58. 11. Hocherman, I., A. Hakkert and J. Bar- Ziv. "Escimating,the Daily Volume of Crossing Pedestrians from Short Counts." Transporta- tion Research Record, 1168 (1986): 31-38. 12. Haynes, R: "Sampling Time and Sam- pling Error in Pedestrian Counts." TraJftc Engi- neering and Contro4 18i No. 2 (1977). 72-74. JOHN YACHARIAS is an Associate Profesmr with the Urban Studies y Programme at'Concor- '' s , dia. Univenity in Mon- trea4 Qurbrc, Canada, where he conducts research in spatial behavior.'The present feature is pan ofa progmm for developing new sosrerdesignsf r Chinese cities. 0 A r? G v' 7t gb A ITE JOURNAL J-AUGUST 1999 • I �usit &realw�llS h • 0 It starts with a healthy appreciation for the magnitude of available transportation trust funds and the history and fabric of state and federal laws, policy and personalities that direct the expenditures. It requires an understanding of what motivates humans in this century to use their automobile instead of other modes of transport and more importantly what will motivate them to leave their automobile to undertake on foot the events of daily life. It also requires sensitivity to human needs and desires that must be accommodated before any other transportation alternative can be implemented. It demands a willingness to use an inherently political process to build structural and landscape improvements that, with typical American ingenuity, combine functional and artistic components that are in evidence around the world where pedestrian, bicycle and transit movements represent a larger percentage of trips within, to and from urban centers. Lastly, it assumes that any long-term commitment to pedestrian - oriented design will have to be firmly centered in a profitable undertaking related to the substantial increase in real estate values adjacent to the high quality human habitats created in the spaces between buildings, pedestrian -oriented publicly funded parking facilities and other transit greenway components. The elements of a transit greenway system are: (i) wide and physically comfortable walking corridors that support positive interactions between humans and provide good access to the things they want; (ii) a continuous vertical building face and streetscape that stimulates human interest due to its design, use and ability to provide protection from the heat, cold, wind and rain; (iii) outwardly positioned parking structures, with mixed - use liner buildings, that fill the gaps in the existing automobile -oriented urban form, comfortably remove humans from their automobiles and send them into safe and secure pedestrian networks latticed into the urban form of mixed -use commercial centers and historic downtowns; (iv) very small, narrow, long, low floor, quiet, attractive, visually open, low cost and simple greenway transit vehicles that operate at low speeds and high frequencies compatible to their close proximity and integration with the walking humans; (vi) intermodal and freight transfer facilities that allow for unobtrusive movement of goods and services into pedestrian -oriented commercial centers and historic downtowns; (vii) a self-sufficient plan of operation using a variety of non-traditional revenue sources. • • is TreaskGreeMIM16SMARM111111dMIL It starts with a healthy appreciation for the magnitude of available transportation trust funds and the history and fabric of state and federal laws, policy and personalities that direct the expenditures. It requires an understanding of what motivates humans in this century to use their automobile instead of other modes of transport and more importantly what will motivate them to leave their automobile to undertake on foot the events of daily life. It also requires sensitivity to human needs and desires that must be accommodated before any other transportation alternative can be implemented. It demands a willingness to use an inherently political process to build structural and landscape improvements that, with typical American ingenuity, combine functional and artistic components that are in evidence around the world where pedestrian, bicycle and transit movements represent a larger percentage of trips within, to and from urban centers. Lastly, it assumes that any long-term commitment to pedestrian - oriented design will have to be firmly centered in a profitable undertaking related to the substantial increase in real estate values adjacent to the high quality human habitats created in the spaces between buildings, pedestrian -oriented publicly funded parking facilities and other transit greenway components. The elements of a transit greenway system are: (i) wide and physically comfortable walking corridors that support positive interactions between humans and provide good access to the things they want; (ii) a continuous vertical building face and streetscape that stimulates human interest due to its design, use and ability to provide protection from the heat, cold, wind and rain; (iii) outwardly positioned parking structures, with mixed - use liner buildings, that fill the gaps in the existing automobile -oriented urban form, comfortably remove humans from their automobiles and send them into safe and secure pedestrian networks latticed into the urban form of mixed -use commercial centers and historic downtowns; (iv) very small, narrow, long, low floor, quiet, attractive, visually open, low cost and simple greenway transit vehicles that operate at low speeds and high frequencies compatible to their close proximity and integration with the walking humans; (vi) intermodal and freight transfer facilities that allow for unobtrusive movement of goods and services into pedestrian -oriented commercial centers and historic downtowns; (vii) a self-sufficient plan of operation using a variety of non-traditional revenue sources. A • • • • A"*W wmnn� L S Attractive and Interesting Corridor v-= • 6.30.2003 Examples of Automotive vs. Pedestrian -oriented Design Automotive -oriented design Pedestrian -oriented design 12' traffic lanes 10' traffic lanes 4 to 6 lanes of traffic 2 lanes or less Left and right turn lanes Pedestrian -oriented roundabouts Large transit vehicles in street traffic Small transit vehicles arrayed w/ pedestrian and bicycle movement 30 to 40 mph automotive traffic Varied types of vehicles at 20 mph or less Separated buildings w/ side yards Continuous building face w/ small or no side yards 6' sidewalks 20' to 30' pedestrian corridors w/ linear park features Many parking lots No parking lots and parking structures w/ mixed -use liner buildings Buildings oriented to the car Buildings oriented to the pedestrian No or interrupted arcades, awnings, roof overhangs Continuous array of arcades, awnings, roof and balconies overhangs and balconies Landscape looks good from a passing automobile Landscape functionally designed to provide comfort and induce pedestrian movement No mid -block covered street crossings at pedestrian Mid -block covered street crossings at pedestrian grade grade Long blocks w/o mid -block walking corridors City blocks consistently developed with mid -block, mixed -use walking corridors through the urban forms Thomas F. Gustafson, P.A. 4901 North Federal Highway, Suite 440 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Telephone: (954) 492-0071 Facsimile: (954) 492-0074 infoOtransitgreenwaylaw.com www.transitgreenwaylaw.com DISCU ED © Thomas F. Gustafson. 2001-2003 NE 2"d Avenue circa 1907 Ridolph Collection Transit Greenway Applications to the Marlins 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 movemeDISCV EU and massing of pedestrians, bicyclists and greenway transit vehicles; 0 2 ft--3�r- 3/12/2001 Page 1 of 14 • 11 • 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 3/12/2001 Thomas Lucido & Associates 3SWy IADted4he $�tas�dre Mixed -Use Corridor With Continuous Building Face DISCUSSED Page 2 of 14 0 0 0 0 Narrow Gaup Rail ]'tacks 7 2% DeeDIFunctimil Fnmsit Vehicles Lighting 3% 16% Right -Or -Wily 9% Ad� Intermodal Facilifics 49% r v.y^,V- • Archer/Abbate/Urbanform divew Mixed -Use Corridor Design Elements Landscaping 17% Siro_-9PaA, rumiture 1% I, Utility Burial 5% Typical Construction Costs Edward D. Stone, Jr. & Associates Corridor Mixed -Use and Parking ComponenPISCUSSED 3/12/2001 Page 3 of 14 • Pedestrian Oriented Roundabout Fort Pierce, Florida - a I a n t Public Square with Water Feature, Food, Music, Entertainment and Places to Sit City Place, West Palm Beach, Florida 3/12/2001 Page 4 of 14 n Wide Pedestrian Corridor at Mid -Block with Bulbout and Cafe Seating Hollywood, Florida Arcade Corridor to Mitigate Adverse Weather Conditions Boca Raton, Florida Dj CY , _ fY1� V 3/12/2001 Page 5 of 14 �' �f - •� ,� yea,+ -..� X. �. +. w r r f r �� 'i- KodviF ' Kock • • WN 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 3/12/2001 W Narrow Gauge Rail Installation Orlando, Florida Pl§%W !14 Page 7 of 14 r� IL Transit GreenwaY pP A lication/Marlins Ball Park Site Zia �� =G I' �M . MIN=Ill ��►� a w� � �. :Pr s �r ��.E,�•- ;_,: MEN 11 MI r`� l'ihl_I I Transit Greenway Corridors Linking the Ball Park with the Miami Community Easterly Oriented Ball Park Location Between Miami Avenue and NE fd Avenue (between NE 4h Street and 1-395) adjacent to the 4h 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. 3/12/2001 _■■ .... _ _.. --- _ .«u■NJ - ii''i � S 111NNI � r pry+ur �1 r 11VV I. r� �11r ■ ■ ram. �. ,� .-. � _,. Route A DISCUSSED Page 8 of 14 r-1 • • Vasil - ,ram==l -w1-,�,�,�� 1� 1. 1: r,`tii�rr�� � � �. ..• ���r�Er�r r ■■ r ��� � �. ra� 3/12/2001 Route B all "Will fi.-f cyIts �\� r 1�1�1�t 1 `�`o� � ■ r� Route C DISC USLSED a 2 25 Page 9 of 14 0 r-I L .J • N. Selected Rendenngs and Photographic Survey of the Area MPWAW 1,•. - 4 * 1 �J r m m, w� 1 I.laCATaK VlPfiR4M 1 t %00 rV% Ops,000 f 's 1 " � Nr 3/12/2001 Page 10 of 14 • • • • Looking West from NE 2"d Street along 9th Street Pedestrian Corridor 3/12/2001 Archer/Abbate Page 11 of 14 t • I] • Looking East from Miami Avenue along the 9th Street Pedestrian Corridor 3/12/2001 Archer/Abbate DMDISED �n c N Page 12 of 14 �J • • • • Looking North from 13th Street along NW 3rd Avenue 3/12/2001 0 Archer/Abbate Page 13 of 14 0 Conclusion • 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: tom(a-)transitgreenwaylaw.com website: www.transitgreenwaylaw.com 3/12/2001 Page 14 of 14 11/2/03 0 Thfas F. Gustafson, P.A. • • 0 Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality and Shared Parking Strategies for the Promenade Area I. Introduction 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 (SEOPW CRA) and The OMNI Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency (OMNI CRA) can undertake a $140 million intermodal development effort that will spawn at least $700 million in community redevelopment and a significant recurring source of community redevelopment and transit funding. 1 of 31 11/2/03 Aas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 initially operate within and adjacent to 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 developed 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 to 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, revision suggestions have been made, as summarized by the attached correspondence to Chelsa Arscott-Douglas, CRA Planning Administrator, dated November 3, 2003 related 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 Redevelopment Plan Update). MSCUED 2 of 31 ��_ 11/2/03 0 Toas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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. II. 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 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. ' 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 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 designs where initiated in Strasbourg, France in an effort to create a pedestrian -oriented, sustainable transportation systems. Dtscubbeu 3 of 31 �n � 11/2/03 ® Aas F. Gustafson, P.A. is 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 bicycles, baby carriages, wheelchairs, luggage, grocery 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 vehicles for ideal weather conditions or other vehicles used during maximum capacity events and time periods). DISCUSSED au Ai �, 4of31 11/2/03 0 TtOas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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) than is customary with standard gauge track (four feet, eight and V2 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 than 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 (3o to 40 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 wheels 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, where a tight 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 r :ED 5 of 31 tiA �! 4 ,n ?y-. 11/2/03 0 TOas 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. 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 the substantially less mass and weight of narrow gauge rail 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 small track construction requirements (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 for standard gauge rail systems with eight inch thick or greater wood or concrete cross ties). While light rail and modern street cars are sized smaller and weigh less than heavy 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 most cases, such cost can not be functionally justified. 6 of 31 04 11/2/03 0 Tgas F. Gustafson, P.A. 11 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. Where narrow gauge rail systems merge with street vehicular traffic, the narrow gauge rail vehicle will travel 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 such 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 can be incrementally expanded. Simple routes, as individually shown, will become more flexible by combining more than one route into a more complex routing opportunity that 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 "on demand" 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 (e.g., Port of Miami, Miami International Airport, Miami Intermodal Center, a newly developed Greyhound Intercity Bus Terminal, bicycle and greenway corridors and parking shuttles, waterbus, water taxi or ferry services, etc.), within the pedestrian zones (identified as 7of31 S� Al 4 V �� 11 /2/03 0 "f. Teas F. Gustafson, P.A. a 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 areas4 (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) constructing 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) designing street intersections to protect the pedestrian from injury (road surface is rougher than typical for American roadways, the cross walks are smoother than the roadways, the street widths are narrowed to provide two and not more than 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 to 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 buildings 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 4 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 these terms and several more can be used to broadly describe an intermodal connector (FDOT) which is design for large-scale pedestrian -oriented use. W!AMVIMIL 8 of 31 11/2/03 46 Teas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 decorative facades; and, i) providing mixed mode corridors (channels that stimulate humans to walk by creating 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) 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 that are 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 to the Overtown/Arena MetroRail Station and a MetroRail/MetroMover station above the proposed freight intermodal area. 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' I Lplp � R41 9of31 11/2/03 ® TOas F. Gustafson, P.A. existing buildings. Parks, courtyards and plaza development 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 provide sidewalk cafe and retail market services, public squares and market areas, educational facilities and recreational and social open space and 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-95,1-395 and the redevelopment areas, within a Freight Intermodal Facility Improvements Area (extending from the Port of Miami to I-95 along and immediately north of the 51h 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 improved from I-95 to the Port of Miami as three, one -directional, 12 foot wide lanes for 51h Street (eastbound) and three, one -directional, 12 foot wide 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 to I-95 and concentrate freight access and storage facilities for the downtown and redevelopment areas within this freight intermodal area to provide improved interregional and international access to goods, freight services and market areas. In addition, businesses that locate outward of these freight intermodal �UE� 10of31 �1— 20•2 0 11 /2/03 ThOas F. Gustafson, P.A. connectors (5th and 6th Street) will provide freight and goods access to the South Florida region. 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 and hours of operation or throughout the day for the movement of goods in specialized transport vehicles. Passenger access via a transit station above the 5th and 6"' Street intermodal connectors between N.E. 1" 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 (inclusive of the Overtown, Park West and Omni redevelopment areas) 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 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 11 of 31 � 11/2/03 ® ThOas F. Gustafson, P.A. create inherently hostile areas for pedestrian movements and underutilize valuable land for a one-dimensional single use. In contrast, shared parking structures, typically three to six stories in height and lined with mixed use buildings, provide multiple benefits to the pedestrian and community 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 and encourage motorists 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 buildings provide affordable housing, work force housing, small business and educational facilities locations to residents of Overtown, Park West and Omni redevelopment areas 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 go 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 non -automotive modes. To further absorb or minimize through traffic and automotive congestion, the roads that do transect the center will provide two-way vehicular access to significant parking and Promenade Area destinations. The dimensions of pedestrian -oriented garages will be more narrow than typical (90 to 105 feet wide .compared to 130 feet or more wide) in order to facilitate sufficient liner buildings 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 parking spaces (along the perimeter of the parking structure interior) and angled parking spaces (around the center of the parking structure interior) 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 one or more nearby down -ramp structures. An air well in the center for nearly the length of the parking structure will facilitate light, DSCUED 12 of 31 a V2 11 /2/03 TIC F. Gustafson, P.A. ventilation, a green area and drainage for the parking decks and space to accommodate the necessary internal turning radius (45 feet). 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 typically 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 as redevelopment of the larger buildings that have already or will soon be constructed. Where parking structures already exist, a review of their design would establish that the area 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 buildings where they will fit given current land uses on one, two or three sides of the parking structure, if not on all four sides, especially when designed as a sound or visual barrier; b) use the first line of parking spaces on the perimeter 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 designs; e) change the 24 foot wide two way isles into 14 to 20 feet wide 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; 0 examine the street widths and adjacent land uses for creative liner building development; and, POPCul MME® 13of31 �d 11 /2/03 0 Toas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 intermodal point of view. 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 200 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 their 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 means, a mixed —mode corridor is encased in properly designed mixed -use environments of the paired and juxtaposed liner buildings and parking structures such that the events of daily life can be accessed comfortably on foot as part of the car/walk/transit daily trips between home and work (shopping for food, clothing and home/work supplies, schools, day care facilities, beauty salons, barber shops, laundry and dry cleaning establishments, shoe repair businesses, bookstores, news stands, drugstores, the post office, flower shops, etc.). 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 is created to provide linkages to interregional facilities and intermodal access points. 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 will be built into the structure of the intermodal supportive community (a "community intermodal system"). DDSED 14of31 11/2/03 Aas F. Gustafson, P.A. In 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 for all modes of transportation. F. Community Intermodal System Designing a community for such predictable intermodal transfers from the roadways to parking structures, to pedestrian trips and to all 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 can be achieved without an 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, useful information and goods. In this way, the various components of the redevelopment plan will function as elements of a community based intermodal system (e.g., passenger and freight intermodal facilities and connectors). While the redevelopment of the existing MetroRail 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 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://www.vlpi.org. 7 See Air Pollution, the Automobile, and Public Health. Walking Downtown, Makin Cities Livable and Carfree Cities. Pl§Ww"E�D 15 of 31 - UWAMOMi 11 /2/03 Aas F. Gustafson, P.A. in 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. ' Collectively, all these intermodal improvements can be referred to as SEOPW or OMNI Community Intermodal System Improvements. Therefore every redevelopment improvement should be looked upon 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 pedestrian -oriented liner buildings, mixed mode corridors, parking shuttles and community transit services, move people from their cars to intermodal faculties and various interregional, statewide, national and international multimodal transportation choices. G. Fundinq 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 8 See related analysis of transit greenway, pedestrian -oriented design, transit access and transportation funding opportunities (Fort Pierce, Lake Park, Fort Lauderdale, Plantation, Monroe County, St. Augustine, West Palm Beach, SEOPW CRA Marlins Ball Park Study) at htlp://www.transitgreenwaylaw.com/ enwaylaw.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 16 of 31 r 11/2/03 0 TOas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 transportation improvements can be referenced as community intermodal system improvements and would include intermodal facilities and 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, go through grants to state and local governmental authorities for financing capital projects that are 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 shortly complete its work to define the intermodal connectors, including those within the Miami -Dade, that link those SIS Hubs and Corridors having 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 Feasibility Study for Transit Circulator Services in Downtown Miami, Brickell, Overtown and Airport West (2000) published by CUTR located at: www.cutr.usf.edu. � Y ,� i 17of31 1 � AD -, 11/2/03 Aas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 Corridor/ along South Florida Rail Corridor. Atlantic Intercoastal waterways and shipping lanes, I-959 I-395, I-195, I-75, the Florida Turnpike Homestead Extension, 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 has initiated 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 improvements and expansions). These decisions will have great affect on the future ability to define intermodal facilities in community supportive terms." Discussions with the state legislative delegation, the FDOT, the Florida Transportation Commission (FTC) and the newly appointed Statewide Intermodal Transportation Advisory Council (SITAC) would be helpful at this time should the SEOPW CRA and OMNI CRA wish to pursue the intermodal recommendations contained in this report. 12 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 available at the FTC Home Page and the SIS Home Page. p��p �DOSCUSS ED 18of31 �� 11/2/03 ® T1as F. Gustafson, P.A. • • In December 2003, FDOT is scheduled to be distributing the draft strategic plan for review and comment (e.g., maps of the complete system/hubs, corridors and connectors; funded and unfunded needs, project prioritization process; and, proposed finance plan). By January 2004, FDOT will hold public and partner feedback workshops around the State and after revisions reflecting those public comments, the Initial SIS 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, the SEOPW CRA and the OMNI CRA should immediately determine what intermodal or other transportation projects it might want to help undertake consistent with their respective redevelopment planning documents and 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 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 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 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 Florida Transportation Renaissance: The Use of Mixed -Mode Corridors in Florida". DOSCVED . �u 19 of 31 11 /2/03 0 T10as F. Gustafson, P.A. property used for liner buildings and parking structures, 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 construction costs for similar three story buildings ($100 to $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), 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 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 accommodate bicycles, baby carriages, wheel chairs, luggage, groceries, shopping bags, etc. 14 See vehicle study of alternative designs from the TransVia Project Overview, Product Design Department, The Savannah College of Art and Design (2002) 20 of 31 11 /2/03 0 ThOas F. Gustafson, P.A. • Windows should be operative 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. As part of the parking shuttle system and community transit service, small rubber tire vehicles should be reviewed for "on demand" vehicle service use within the redevelopment areas. Capital costs will range from $150,000 to $300,000 per vehicle. A wide variety of event, attraction and community transit vehicles are available from existing vendors. A survey of potential vendors will identify the most appropriate vehicle or a vender willing to design the most appropriate vehicle responsive 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) and the 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 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 to accommodate bicycles, baby carriages, wheel chairs, luggage, groceries, shopping bags, etc. • Windows should be operative 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. MSCU ED 21of31 �— 46 A. 11/2/03 ® Tivas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 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. These improvements would extend over a three square mile redevelopment area or approximately $47 million per square mile. This cost estimate is calculated as follows: ❑ Approximately $32.000.000 for eight miles of fully developed mixed - mode corridor improvements ($4,000,000 per mile times eight miles equals $32,000,000). ❑ Approximately $18,400,000 for twelve miles of improvements along the service routes for narrow gauge rail parking shuttles and rubber tire "on demand" community transit 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 $4,000,000 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 community transit motorized vehicles and $300,000 for three non -motorized rubber tire community transit trailer cars). o 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 the parking shuttle and community 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 and during a 365 day calendar year, $3,560,000 in gross revenue per year). ❑ Approximately $6,000,000 for a transit barn, maintenance equipment and shared freight loading dock facilities (transit barn of 5000 square 22 of 31 11 /2/03 0 VTh�fias F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 loading 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). o 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 N.E.Is' 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 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 over the freight intermodal area). 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. a 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 imagine. In addition, with small parcel, incremental development of the liner building parcels, the businesses and work force residents living within 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 valued at $500 million (assuming 500,000 square feet of land associated with five 23 of 31 U �10"90 �r 11/2/03 *as F. Gustafson, P.A. go 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). 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. Once such structures are built, occupied and subject to property taxes (assuming a $700 million valuation), the tax increment to the redevelopment district will be significant ($7 to $14 million or more depending on the assessment value and millage rates at that time). Additional private sector developments can be expected to follow these public sector initiatives HL Recommended Communoty Dnte7 modal System Dmprodements 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 [routes A. through K.]). 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 or in concert with specific liner building and parking structure and intermodal improvements. The route mapping and phasing sequence is a beginning point for a CRA decision- 24 of 31 11 /2/03 Aas F. Gustafson, P.A. making process that needs to be started during this calendar year and completed as soon as possible thereafter. The second Promenade Area map (Promenade Area Map #2) identifies the MetroRail and MetroMover service corridors and stations and assumes 5th and 61h Street alignment for the proposed East-West Corridor that would provide direct MetroRail service between the Port of Miami and the Miami International Airport with Orange Bowl and other station stops. 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 I-95 corridor and I-95 to the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway and by providing linkages to MetroRail, Baylink, Miami International Airport, Miami Intermodal Center (assumes near term MetroRail connections via the MIC/Earlington Heights Connector), 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 (the 51h and 6th Street intermodal connectors from I-95 to Port of Miami). This will facilitate, along with strategically located and designed liner buildings and parking structures, a second and third level MetroRail and MetroMover station stops and pedestrian access over 51h and 6th Street freight intermodal connectors adjacent Miami -Dade Community College (MDCC) between N.E. 1 st Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard so that the MDCC and other educational facilities 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 could provide near term Port of Miami connections to the redevelopment areas, interregional destinations (i.e., Miami Arena, American Airlines Arena, Performing Arts Center, Bicentennial Park, Bayside, Downtown Miami, etc.) and SIS Hubs and Corridors. These intermodal and transit opportunities are identified in this report because they are part of the overall strategy for community intermodal is system improvements and because they relate to and support the specific pi§U ED 25 of 31 11/2/03 TO as F. Gustafson, P.A. development of the parking shuttle and community transit systems, the liner buildings and related parking structures and the freight and pedestrian intermodal areas and connectors as described herein and depicted on the Promenade Area Maps # 1 and #3. A third Promenade Area map (Promenade Area Map #3) identifies the recommended locations for the remainder community intermodal system improvements (e.g., a pedestrian intermodal area along a north —south axis of the redevelopment and downtown area from the Miami River to the most northern extension of the MetroMover service; pedestrian -oriented intermodal connectors throughout the redevelopment areas [mixed -mode corridors and streets]; a freight intermodal area between I-95 and the Port of Miami, freight intermodal connectors on 51h and 61h Streets to improve access for the Port of Miami) that will support pedestrian, freight and goods intermodal transfers throughout the redevelopment areas. These improvements should be designed 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 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 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 parcels identified (each "half' of the parking structure being at least 90 feet wide by 200 feet long); sufficient land adjacent the parking structure footprint will exist to allow for approximately 60 feet deep liner building to be constructed around the circumference of each of the two or more parking structure elements; 26of31 •� u 1112103 0 *as F. Gustafson, P.A. and, high quality pedestrian areas designed around and throught the liner building and parking structure complex will link the parking structures with intermodal destinations throughout the redevelopment areas. Specific GIS based parcel and ownership information is available from CRA or City of Miami staff. While not every liner building and parking structure location identified at this time would be essential for the provision of necessary parking for the immediate and long term, it is important to undertake the a process to reserve sufficient land and establish a pattern for parking structures that over time will constitute the necessary fringe and corridor shared parking opportunities required for the redevelopment areas. Such shared parking and liner building development, with the pedestrian -oriented streets, mixed - mode corridors, parking shuttles, community transit services and passenger and freight intermodal improvements, will function as intermodal links to all the destinations within the redevelopment area and to the interregional, statewide, national and international destinations through the designated SIS Hubs (Miami International Airport, 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 and pedestrian -oriented parking structures that can be designed for pedestrian, freight and intermodal access areas within the context of community intermodal facilities that provide linkages to all 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 USDOT, the FDOT, the Florida House and Senate legislative delegation, the U.S. Congressional delegation and both U.S. Senators from the State of Florida. Immediate discussions with members of the FTC and SITAC would be very important as well. 27 of 31 11/2/03 Ahas F. Gustafson, P.A. 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 to undertake such an initiative at this time. 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 a SIS need and as intermodal connectors and addressed in the TEA 21 Reauthorization and related federal appropriations decisions. 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 pedestrian -oriented mixed -mode streets and corridors, parking shuttles and community transit, parking structures and liner buildings will 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 to their funding partners how such a system will work and why they should participate in such community redevelopment related transportation intermodal improvements (i.e., initial narrow gauge rail service on the Promenade to I-395 Parking Loop with the construction of mixed -use liner building development and shared parking structures between Miami Avenue and N.E. 1st Avenue immediately south of the Promenade). 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 28 of 31 11/2/03 0 TIC F. Gustafson, P.A. In undertakes to use improved pedestrian environments as a tool 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 MOT has undertaken efforts to designate and improve upon a Strategic Intermodal System that would create a strategic, seamless statewide transportation system which: 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 MOT was legislatively approved in 2003 (CS for SB 676 created the Strategic Intermodal System and directed the MOT to complete a SIS Plan inclusive of a needs assessment, a prioritization process, a map to identify SIS facilities and a 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 29 of 31 DU 9 VEP U9Q1' . fh A'- 1) to 'Z 11 /2/03 ThOas F. Gustafson, P.A. I& 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 provide access, market and employment opportunities to residents and visitors. Improved freight access between I-95 and the Port of Miami will transect the redevelopment area (the 5th and 6tn Street intermodal connectors). By various transportation modes (movements by rail, road, water and air transport), freight, goods and passengers will 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 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 and loading docks to better manage the movement of very large numbers of people, freight and goods and to 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 are best undertaken through private and public partnerships that equitably treat the residents and businesses of the Overtown, Park West and Omni neighborhoods and use the entertainment, sports, cultural, educational and telecommunications offerings of downtown Miami to establish an internationally recognized, intermodally accessible and highly desirable world -class community. 30 of 31 11 /2/03 TIC F. Gustafson, P.A. • When the sun goes down and the moon rises over Miami, the residents, visitors and local business owners and customers of the Overtown, Park West and the Omni neighborhoods once again walk through their city streets, visiting with neighbors, friends and business associates, enjoying a quality of life that compares to any in the world. As a cool moist breeze rolls in from the waterfront, a cornucopia of familiar rhythmic music fills the street. We 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 31 of 31 c 4/22/04 0 • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT L-1 • • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT TRANSIT ELEMENT COMPATIBILITY In response to questions raised by the City of Miami as to potential compatibility issues between the Narrow Gauge Rail technology described in the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and other transit technologies such as the Bay Link, Tri-Rail and the City of Miami's proposed streetcar initiative, the following comments are offered to the Board of Directors for the Southeast Overtown/ Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (SEOPW/CRA) and the Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency (OMNI/CRA) to address these issues. BACKGROUND On April 25, 2002 the SEOPW/CRA adopted a resolution (No. SEOPW/CRA R-02-59) authorizing the creation of a Transportation Management Authority (TMA). Thereafter, on June 27, 2002 the SEOPW/CRA and OMNI/CRA (the CRAs) adopted resolutions (No. SEOPW/CRA R-01-118 and No. OMNI/CRA R-02-051) that authorized the 1 of 21 c - • 3- 4/22/04 0 • • drafting of a conceptual Plan for a Narrow Gauge Rail Transportation Modality for the Grande Promenade to link the Promenade with Bicentennial Park, the Miami Beach Bay Link Project and other destinations within the redevelopment areas and the placement and construction of Liner Buildings and Parking Structures throughout the redevelopment areas to resolve the immediate and long term parking infrastructure needs within the redevelopment area (the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report). The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report recommended the development of a pedestrian -oriented intermodal access system for the downtown that would provide significant mixed -mode linkages to and from the redevelopment area and the significant nearby downtown destinations and modal choices for Tri-Rail, Metrorail, Metromover, Metrobus, Port of Miami and Miami International Airport passengers and motorists using 1-95 and 1-395 (two segments of the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highwa ss and Florida Intrastate Highway System hereinafter referred to as 1-95/395) Since the construction of 1-95/395) the CRA redevelopment areas have been disconnected and isolated from the City of Miami. Specifically, the redevelopment areas are now bisected by interstate and arterial highways used for high speed and large scale automotive and truck movements. DW,U"ED 2 of 21 4/22/04 • • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT In addition, the many gaps in the urban form, in combination with the highway system, make pedestrian movements unsafe, uncomfortable, useless and uninteresting. Current Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) planning efforts will create a long term commitment to such adverse conditions based upon the Phase 2 Connectors Methodology and identification of N.E. 2nd Avenue, N.E. 1st Avenue, N.E. 5th Avenue and N.E. 61h Avenue as SIS Road Connectors on the FDOT District 6 SIS maps and SIS connectors list. This network of interstate and connector highways and the gaps in the urban form they create is a fundamental cause and contributing factor that isolates the redevelopment areas. Further, this isolation prevents the redevelopment areas from functioning as a single, larger pedestrian -oriented destination that could be used by interregional transportation hubs and corridors to facilitate intermodal connections through the community intermodal system improvements described in MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT. The Board of Directors for the CRAs agreed that a more aggressive approach was needed to redesign the interregional connectivity and regain the pedestrian connectivity between the Overtown neighborhood and other neighborhoods and destinations within the City of Miami. DISCUSSED — _' 3 of 21 4/22/04 • • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT 11 A perfect example of the complex situation facing the redevelopment areas would be the isolation between Omni, Park West and Overtown neighborhoods. One just has to ask the property owners and stakeholders to get an earful on the impact such isolation have on their business and way of life. The Park West Entertainment District is just one block south of the Omni Entertainment District and yet there is absolutely no connectivity (pedestrian or vehicular traffic) between the two areas. The lack of pedestrian friendly, traffic calmed streets, mixed -mode corridors between continuous urban building forms, landscaped two-way streets and mixed -use shared parking structures serves as a barrier between the two areas. The same can be said with Overtown which is merely one block west of the Park West entertainment district. Such severe isolation is unique to the CRA redevelopment areas and it was believed that street and corridor improvements, parking structures with liner buildings and localized narrow gauge rail and "on demand" community transit service would bridge these pedestrian hostile areas and substantially improve the intermodal and pedestrian conditions within the redevelopment district. DISCUSSED 4of21 • • • Further, it was recognized by the CRAs that due to its pedestrian scale, narrow gauge rail and "on demand" community transit services would be best suited for the pedestrian -oriented redevelopment areas as referenced in the 2004 Amended SEOPW Redevelopment Plan. The Board has agreed that the redevelopment areas could be used to demonstrate that such projects may be less expensive to build and operate, more functional within the context of the existing and planned Overtown, Park West and Omni neighborhoods and more fiscally self-sufficient than prior proposals or conventional methods. Efforts are now underway to explain the project perimeters to area stakeholders and expected project partners. The MIAMI AT MIDNMIGHT report and ongoing efforts to develop the referenced intermodal improvements have looked at successful initiatives around the world in providing planning advice and recommendation for a pedestrian -oriented, transit and intermodal solutions specific to the redevelopment areas. This planning effort accommodates the needs of the stakeholders, accomplishes the CRAs' longstanding goal of connectivity between the three neighborhoods and seeks to develop interregional connections that do not destroy the community form and fabric. DISCUSSED 5of21 4_ 4/22/04 • • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT �t COMPATIBILITY OF PROPOSED TRANSIT MODES Prior to San Diego's light rail initiative, transit and rail projects were generally limited to heavy rail, standard gauge options. The major argument against any less expensive light rail alternatives was that each rail project needed to be compatible with heavy rail freight and passenger service that constituted the national rail system. After San Diego had proven that the light rail was 10 operationally sound, less expensive and appropriate for the intended route (San Diego to Tijuana using miles of existing track), many other cities sought and received federal funds for light rail systems that used smaller, less heavy vehicles on a standard gauge (4 foot, 8 1/2 inches between the rail segments) track constructed with track weighing less than heavy rail track commonly used for long distance freight and continental passenger rail service (90 pound track vs. 150 to 160 pound Class A railroad track). ' Track weight is measured as a number of pounds a three foot rail section would weigh. Since standard gauge track, using 90 to 160 pounds per three foot rail segment, usually comes in 30 to 40 foot rail segments or longer continuously welded rail segments, specialized heavy equipment and large track construction crews are required for standard gauge rail installations (90 to 160 pounds per three foot rail segment means every 30 foot rail segment weighs at least 900 to 1600 pounds). i .i 6 of 21 4/22/04 • • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT Now A similar opportunity is available to the City of Miami to explore lower weight and less expensive fixed guideway options (20 to 30 pound rail constructed as 30 to 36 inch gauge track). Narrow gauge rail is frequently used in Europe, for smaller, less expensive, transit systems using less than standard gauge (i.e., 30 inch gauge, 36 inch gauge, one meter gauge, etc.) and smaller track sizes (20 pound, 30 pound, 65 pound, etc.). The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT proposal recommends for the community intermodal system improvements the use of 30 inch gauge track built with 20 pound rail sections and vehicles that are seven foot wide and nine foot tall. 2 40 Such vehicle size, while less than light rail vehicles (frequently 9 feet wide and 11 feet tall), will accommodate a three foot isle so passengers can comfortably move past each other and stand in the isle to increase crush capacity for high use hours and events without compromising efficient seating arrangements for each side of the vehicle. Based upon equipment operating around the world, smaller sized tracks would provide for adequately sized vehicles (6 to 8 feet wide by 8 to 10 feet tall) that can 2 Narrow gauge rail, using 20 to 30 pounds per three foot rail segment, usually comes in 20 foot segments and two person crews, without specialized heavy equipment, can easily install such narrow gauge rail tracks after removal of the asphalt surface (20 to 30 pounds per three foot segment means every 20 foot rail segment weighs between 122 and 198 pounds). Narrow gauge rail systems are therefore human scale in their installation as well as their operation (seven foot wide and nine foot tall vehicles). cU §,ED 7 of 21 4-Z) - 3 4/22/04 MIAMI ATMIDNIGHT I operate in automotive traffic lanes or in mixed -mode corridors (bicycle lanes wide enough for narrow transit vehicles operating outward of the pedestrian -oriented urban center or in mixed -mode corridors reserved for pedestrians, bicycles, small transit vehicles and after hours delivery trucks within the pedestrian -oriented urban center). Such narrow gauge rail vehicles can carry 25 to 40 passengers per car in two and three car "trains" thus providing ridership of up to 120 passengers per train with a cycle time or "headway" of two to five minutes. Such capacity is expected to handle very significant numbers of passengers in addition to the passenger load carried on the adjoining pedestrian -oriented streets and corridors. The proposed preliminary design efforts can more specifically define needed capacity when compared to the narrow gauge rail vehicle and pedestrian related corridor capacities. For pedestrian -oriented environments, vehicular rail speeds between 5 to 10 miles per hour are appropriate. The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT described technology can also provide speeds up to 20 to 30 miles per hour that would make it compatible operating within a mix of automotive traffic as well. It is noted that the highest vehicle speeds expected to be achieved by the Bay Link will be between 40 to 50 miles per hour when crossing Biscayne Bay. Given such speed DiSCU*%. ED 8 of 21 4/22/04 0 • • demands, it can be expected that the Bay Link will require a large sized and heavier technology suited for such speeds and regional movements (36 inch, meter or standard gauge). The traffic calming tools as detailed on pages 8 and 9 of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and the mixed -mode corridors as recommended by the 2004 Amended SEOPW Redevelopment Plan are both appropriate methods to slow traffic and to create a comfortable environment for pedestrians to enjoy the street realm. Also please see the article entitled "The Amsterdam Experiment in Mixing Pedestrians, Trams and Bicycles" which shows how such a mixture of transit modalities can create a safe, interesting useful and comfortable walking environments for the public. Further, mixed -use urban environments when linked to downtown destinations and intermodal facilities can help achieve significant modal shifts (thirty percent or more) to the existing and proposed non -automotive modes as part of a comprehensive implementation of sustainable transportation demand management strategies. See Strasbourg, France, TDM in Europe: A Synthesis of Research Findings and Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT narrow gauge rail vehicles will be ADA compliant since the floor of the of the vehicle will 10 be flush to the sidewalk at specific locations along the DI$CUSSED 9 of 21 4/22/04 • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT mixed -mode corridors and traffic calmed streets and at specific intermodal facilities. Additionally, the trains can be outfitted to accommodate air conditioning and heating systems, open seating with natural ventilation or a mixture of the two. While final technology determination should not be conclusively reached until the preliminary design planning effort has determined likely usage within the SEOPW and OMNI CRA redevelopment areas, many alternative narrow gauge rail systems exist and can be reviewed to match their varying capacities with expected demand and demand growth. Along with the many technical journals and site visit opportunities, specific focus on technology alternatives should be consulted relating to Swiss narrow gauge rail systems (Rail -Info Switzerland), historic narrow gauge rail systems in Maine (Images of Rail: Maine Narrow Gauge Railroads), Wales (Corris Railway Society), Chicago (Chicago Tunnel Company Railroad), Los Angeles (The Street Railway History of Los Angeles) and the many other narrow gauge rail systems that have operated or still operate around the world (Narrow Gauge - W, Narrow Gauge Railroad Links: Page 1, Narrow Gauge Railroad Links: Page 2, Narrow Gauge Railroad Links: Page 3, Window to the Past: A narrow- gauge railroad and Narrow Gauge Railroad Lines). 0 10 of 21 DISCUSSED .�. 4/22/04 • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT 3 POTENTIAL COMPETITION FOR CAPITAL FUNDS (INCLUDING FEDERAL FUNDS Should cost be a factor, less than standard gauge rail has been recognized throughout the world as significantly less expensive than standard gauge rail (less weight, less speed equals less cost). The most important consideration should not be which type of standard gauge American equipment is easily available from current technology providers, but can such vendors or their European competitors replicate the fully functional, but slightly smaller, narrow gauge rail equipment operating in many national and international localities at a lower than light rail costs? Moreover, should the preliminary design efforts confirm that the pedestrian -oriented streets, mixed -mode corridors and narrow gauge rail systems provide the necessary and comfortable intermodal connectivity capacity at pedestrian -oriented and traffic compatible speeds, speeding less money on unnecessary equipment costs will help to fit all projects into their respective funding categories and reduce any competition for capital funding. The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report seeks the creation of a pedestrian -oriented community intermodal system DiSCUSSED l l of 2 l 4` • 4/22/04 MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT improvements which have specific funding designated for such intermodal facilities that the City's streetcar project would probably not be able to focus upon. In addition, the City's current strategy is to avoid federal transit funding (due to expected approval delays), whereas the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report recommends federal grants for intermodal passenger facilities. While the City's streetcar project is expected to use local funding sources, the CRAs plans to identify matching funds through strategic parking and liner building development agreements with local developers, property owners and stakeholders in the area. Preliminary discussions have already been held with these entities and the parties involved are very interested in the development of this area inclusive of the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT described community intermodal system improvements. A capital cost for construction of the complete community intermodal system improvements was estimated at $141 million. The Demonstration project was projected to cost $15 million and would consist of the Promenade Loop and either the Performing Arts Loop or the School Board Loop. The Phase 1 projects (six loops defined as a functioning and meaningful intermodal system and including the Demonstration Project) were estimated to cost $52.9 million. DISCUSSED 12 of 21 U AT MIDNIGHT E. • 4/22/04 • By adding the 10th and 11 th Street Loop and N.W. 3Id Avenue Loop to the early project phase ($20 million), with an additional 800 parking spaces ($12 million), an expanded transit storage and maintenance facility, additional maintenance equipment and more shared freight loading dock facilities ($1.6 million) and four additional two -car trains and two "on demand" community transit vehicles ($2.6 million), the combined early phase projects are estimated to cumulatively cost $86,165,000 or about $33 million above the original estimates for the Phase 1 project costs. (See attached Early Phase Community Intermodal System Components aerial maps and the Early Phase Components Chart). What is gained from this approach, however, is a more flexible initiative that can build from the original Promenade Demonstration Project in any of four directions responding the funding opportunities wherever and however they occur. In addition each project has a lower price tag and can be incrementally funded over a course of time from moneys made available when other projects fall behind schedule. Instead of a single large $141 million dollar project there are now eight related but separately defendable smaller projects costing between $6.4 million and upwards to $18.7 million. As our funding and planning partners find ways to help promote the projects, further revisions can be expected. DISCUSSED 13 of 21 - POTENTIAL COMPETITION FOR FUNDS TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report recommends the development of intermodal improvements with the expectations that a significant portion of the funds committed will be used to build the pedestrian -oriented parking structures adjacent to interstate or arterial highways. In this way, traffic congestion is absorbed within the parking structures which are shielded from the pedestrian areas by the liner buildings that surround the parking structures. Visitors, residents and customers choose to walk or ride in the narrow gauge rail and "on demand" community transit vehicles after parking their vehicles. With the use of transportation funds and revenues from land sales for liner building locations to construct parking structures, parking fees can be used pay for the narrow gauge rail and `on demand" community transit operational costs. Operation and maintenance cost for the entire project (8 proposed routes) is projected at $2.3 million annually. Parking revenue from 2000 parking spaces would well exceed these community intermodal system operating costs ($3.56 million based on MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT calculations). Additional revenues can be expected from tax increments, occurring when liner buildings expand the tax base of the redevelopment areas that would support DlSCUSSED 14 of 21 • 4/22/04 0 • the mobility and redevelopment redevelopment areas ($5 to $10 million AT MIDNIGHT calculations). MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT needs of the based on MIAMI None of these funding sources would compete with the City's expected local sources for operations and maintenance of their proposed streetcar improvement. COMPATIBILITY AND COMMUNITY INTERMODAL SYSTEMS An argument can be made that the Bay Link and the 10 City's streetcar projects should have similar technologies. Both projects have similar functions (fixed guideway transit each operating over a 5 mile or more route to and from Downtown Miami with many station stops (twenty five or so). In addition, both systems may, at a later date, be amalgamated into a single operating system managed by Miami -Dade Transit. No such similar functional or operational assumption can extend to the community transit and parking shuttle service described in the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report. The community transit and parking shuttle service was proposed for much shorter routes (loops that transect the redevelopment areas along routes that are less than two . miles length). It assumed that passengers would board or DISCUSSED 15 of 21 �" 4/22/04 • • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT depart the vehicle at opportune locations along the pedestrian -oriented streets and mixed -mode corridors without the expense of typical transit station stops. It was never contemplated that any entity other than a TMA organized by the many interested parties (the CRA, the Miami Parking Authority and other local entities served by the community intermodal system) would operate the community transit service. After addressing the various rail system issues such as gauge, size, turning radius, routes and speed, it would still be possible for differently sized rail systems, using different motor drive systems to be compatible in the basic design and visual appearances. Such a system would operate seamlessly on different, proximate or crossing routes that functionally allow passengers to comfortably move from one system to the next (i.e. the 79t" Street Metrorail station linkage to Tri-Rail station). In the case of the City's proposed streetcar project and the SEOPW/OMNI Community Intermodal System Improvements, different sized tracks and similar sized vehicles can operate on different routes and at different speeds within the context of their respective purposes and corridor environments. The streetcar service would probably be designed for higher speeds and to operate within the flow of typical traffic conditions, while the community intermodal system would be designed to more slowly circulate within the traffic calmed downtown :DISCU�D 16 of 21 -4 , 4/22/04 • • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT streets for short distances and to extend pedestrian movements within the 10 blocks wide by 20 blocks long redevelopment areas. Serving different functions and operating on different routes, the two systems would still be functionally compatible if the routes intersected or were nearly joined at stops or at pedestrian -oriented public spaces designed for intermodal transfers between the streetcar, Bay Link, Metromover, Metrorail and all other nearby modes. Simply put, one system would transport passengers to destinations between 79t" Street (including the 79t" Street Metrorail/Tri-Rail Station) and N.E. 2nd Avenue destinations and the downtown so that the community intermodal system can help circulate those passengers within the pedestrian -oriented downtown area. At airports, we are all familiar with many different airplanes arriving from varied destinations and distances. Due to speed and capacity requirements, they represent a wide array of airplane types and sizes. Compatibility is achieved by the fact that passengers can unload from larger often faster planes and walk to the gate of smaller planes without any compatibility concerns. All the airplanes must fly and therefore, broadly speaking, have the same look and functional components. Of interest to those concerned with compatibility, is the purposeful changing of airplane body shapes, colors and DISCUSSED 17 of 21 .: • 4/22/04 y MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT insignias that help to create consumer interest by providing a distinctive variety of designs and finishes. Intermodal facilities are designed to functionally allow for easy to accomplish passenger transfers to and from "incompatible" modes (i.e., trains, airplanes, buses, cars, etc.). Whether they are very large structures such as the Miami Intermodal Center or pedestrian -oriented community intermodal system improvements woven into the fabric of the existing community as recommended in MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT, they accomplish this fundamental purpose only by providing efficient and affordable pedestrian -oriented linkages (comfortable, useful, interesting and safe) to many differing technologies. By definition, they therefore must be functionally and technologically different from, but highly accessible to and compatible with all the modes they serve. It is widely recognized in Europe and in some American communities that variety in transit and the functionally seamless provision for modal choice can be a benefit that encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation. If alternatives to the single passenger automotive use are to be encouraged, technological and functional variety and choice is the more appropriate description of the linked multimodal elements of a sophisticated community intermodal transportation system. DISCUSSED 18 of 21 2— 4/22/04 • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT In such a context, it is important not to overstate the need for technology compatibility or misunderstand what makes systems compatible and seamless from a passenger and pedestrian point of view. Compatibility can be achieved if the customers' needs are successfully addressed during the typical pedestrian and vehicle movements from one destination to the next regardless of track size, motor drive systems or other technological distinctions. Fundamental to the idea that private and public entities within the redevelopment areas of Miami can build a community -based, pedestrian -oriented intermodal system improvements, is the design approach that all transportation modes in downtown Miami (i.e. 1-95/395, Metrorail, Metromover, Metrobus, Bay Link and inter -city bus service, taxi and private automotive, pedestrian, bicycle, Port of Miami and Miami International Airport passenger service, water taxi or bus, and Amtrak trips) will be connected through pedestrian -oriented, mixed -mode corridors with fringe and corridor mixed -use, pedestrian - oriented, shared parking structures to achieve a generalized improvement in the public spaces that incrementally will complete the built and natural environments. DIPCUSSED 19 of 21 • • 4/22/04 • CONCLUSION What the MIAMI_ AT MIDNIGHT report conceptualizes is: • A significantly enhanced walking environment designed to be compatible with all pedestrian needs and therefore to induce large-scale, longer than typical, pedestrian movements; • A walking environment within pedestrian -oriented streets and mixed -mode corridors that by design link the many modes of transport with shared parking structures; • Shared parking structures designed to be wrapped in mixed -use buildings to help shape the new pedestrian -oriented urban forms throughout the redevelopment and downtown areas; and • Narrow gauge rail and "on demand" community transit vehicles that help to extend the length and frequency of large scale pedestrian movements that operate within the pedestrian -oriented streets and mixed -mode corridors. DISCUSSED 20 of 21 • • • 4/22/04 • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT u Compatibility can be designed into structures and facilities that support the pedestrian access to the wide variety of modal choices. Such an effort is intended as reflected in the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report and related more current related reports. While the questions raised by the City Manager and the City`s streetcar project consultants need to be answered more fully by a preliminary design project as recommended in the Funding Summary, this response is intended to help all the parties to reach agreement to explore the many options to improve the transportation, redevelopment and access components of the downtown redevelopment areas. Please send your comments and questions regarding the above matters to Tom Gustafson, Director of Government Relations, Institute of Government and Public Policy, H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached by email at tgustafs(ab-nsu.nova. edu, by telephone at (954) 262-5128, by facsimile at (954) 262-3829 or by cell phone at (954) 661-7848. The mailing address is: 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314. P r F-M 0OP .+ �. �` �� ....«„ �isssssS '1t�:4;:,5�• i � % �� ' ems, •�..w........ �� �lilklilSt,1 . _ WlAitsil~ j ew- - it rj ` LO 1w 11M Community redevelopment designed to achieved enhanced pedestrian -oriented intermodal connectivity. Corridor Components • Wide (30 feet or more) pedestrian -oriented corridors • Continuous building face that protects from the rain, wind, heat and cold. • Attractive landscape and hardscape • Partial tree canopy • Places to sit • Calmed or no vehicular traffic 8 Story Musa sv� sae LAJ La. x0l -`S- rx .r "GFi rdG r �� •s- . arraen I Structural Parking Components • At parameter of pedestrian - oriented downtown or community center • One directional vehicular movement from access to exit • Parallel parking along parking structure outer edge • Angled parking around central air/light well that also provides for landscape and run-off area • Mixed -use liner buildings Greenway Transit • Small, fixed guideway community transit (7 foot wide by 9 foot tall with a vehicular floor 5 inches from road surface) • providing parking shuttle service to downtown destination beyond the length of a comfortable walk (one -quarter mile) and nearby modal access points • Operates a low speeds (5 to 10 mph) within mixed -mode corridors at city centers and at higher speeds (10 to 20 mph) in wide bike lanes of traffic calmed streets within a four mile radius. Who Are We? • Nova Southeastern University \ . I - NSU - Nova Southeastern University (NSU) is the 10th largest independent, not -for -profit, post -secondary institution in the U. S.A. providing distance learning, educational opportunities and alliances throughout the world. • H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship - Offering a revolutionary curriculum centered on value creation that provides a fully integrated, philosophical approach to managing and leading. • Institute of Government and Public Policy (Institute) - Providing consultant services to governments and a vision as to how communities of the future will be organized. What are Miami's Community Redevelopment Agencies • Miami approved over twenty years ago the establishment of the Southeast Overtown/Park West and Omni CRA's • Extending over a two square mile area, the CRA's are in the process of expanding their boundaries, updating their respective redevelopment plans and extending their tax increment financing authority • MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT recommendations are being incorporated into those redevelopment plans I lift6 �I, firm W., • • • _. 1 1 1� • •••y.. itilkli lYsq'f ....•.• _ � .Sti�}a4e1F• f _ P r , R y r,7 r 47i Promenade demonstration project and first phase of a passenger intermodal system Modal Choices within Downtown Miami • Port of Miami ����►�� ,��''T� - �r��J • Metrorail Metromover and Metrobus I-' �; ,- • Intercity Bus (Greyhound) LW • Miami River/Biscayne Bay TMHMICI �i- • Automotive - - SEOPW To MIA! MIC I CRA To Miami THRafl via - Beach Ma Walking Metro ail Bay Ink •• Bicycling • Airport (within 2 miles) - !-- T. • Proposed Bay Link and a Miami streetcar service T°°cle = - 3owl f MIAI , MBst Corridor Ltu=�. \ - �� Public Space and Parking Abundance From the I-95, 1-395 and other JI�Tl fll ' major roadways, parking ° MIA/ MIC sfr cf res sho Id afro h the �� - `yJ-� RE u u u p y - F�� ,"LMU traffic entering to city centers oMN;��'t Lio CRA -- Provide areas where traffic can LF be diminished or eliminated❑FM � L rassenger intermooai KTA MIC Improvements Area ar MMIA `�"'c' ° RI Pedestrian -oriented intermodal s'orai ,� I-f�rnl�hi� �onnectors; °M'A`MI°/ �� »IIII111111LLL LH 'Z F. MI l via 70 Freight Intermodal Facility° - Improvements Area and Freight Intermodal Connectors; and Recommended Liner Building/Parking Structure Area. fo Orange 3owll MlA/ "'� -- SICv Nest Corridor FT�j 1U� 9�,J�1 LLl1�l�� To DBT / Miami River To Miam Beach 1. Bzl nk nm�n�-an IV�Inec To POM - 1�L L -1 Community Intermodal mprovements - $141 million 8 miles of fully developed pedestrian -oriented corridors _ twelve miles of traffic calming and NGR track installation 12 NGR three -car trains and cc MH » ? l _ fire trams - - SEflPW T.rmarMlcr CRA : !ro Niarc rn Rvil B-d". 2000 structured p g arkin R-1.k M?tn spaces designed for mixed- UT use line buildings\ r i Transit and freight intermodal T� —__- FOhI facilitiesk° MIC MlRa3 - 7 I yq ' MIC ,Wiest Condor � II . - To ❑ET 1 Miami Rfver 1..�4�3 4i :�J�`l� l $15 million Demonstration Project along Route A AFL Mixed -mode corridors and streetscape improvements —3 1A:3 T Streetscape Improvements E K-_:J L*) Route A i m - Streetscape Improvements " Promenade Improvements Pro�ue� le Impterements �- Tr,o_nr Pedestrian -oriented ' Parking. Structures Located immediately South of the Promenade between N . Miami Ave. & NE 1st Ave DF m Route A C "Promenade hnproN meats LBBiPS Prorueuade Imp rents - 1 J 1� - _ arAL r � � %lapffil - _ I ■- �. - _� a� - Jlr-�,. w u .. ■ Yltd L�■4 Parking Shuttle System along Route A l � - Parking Shuttle System Phase 1 includes 5 miles of corridor improvements, 1000 parking structures, six NGR 2 car trains and 2 "on demand" community transit vehicles $53 million in demonstration and passenger intermodal facility improvements Identify and Facilitate Funding F� • City of Miami • Miami -Dade County • Congressional Delegation • Florida Members of the United States Senate • Florida Legislative Delegation �• FDOT / USDOT $53 Million hy does it have to be done now 4 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) will complete and submit to the Florida Legislature by March 3, 2004 the proposed strategic intermodal improvements (hubs, corridors and connectors) and the funding plan to build them. If the Miami -Dade community wants a community intermodal system for downtown Miami, it needs to say so as soon as possible. Narrow Gauge Rail "Tracks -� Z% Deco/Funciionai 1 ransit Vch is€es Lighting I_andsceping Right-0i=Wag- 9% St—UPark Furniture I% qIIIINEWIJulity Burial Intermodal I -act l i tics 511. 48% Why does it have to be done now? • United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has proposed passenger intermodal facility funding on a competitive basis at $100 million per year (beginning 2005). The existing Federal law (TEA 21) needs to be reauthorized by February, 2004. If the Miami -Dade community wants a community intermodal system for downtown Miami, the United States Congressmen and United States Senators need to see the proposal and understand that it is a priority for the region. ]�4r �y \+\.•pia g•'. •++.*ems OP -, Y jTr+' •.,...ia..+.......L4 w+.+a. s+.e i�rrl J}IIW,NI1,5f 4t T r' Reviewing the MIAMI AT MIDNIGHT report with local partners and seeking City, County, MPO,FDOT, congressional and Florida legislative support for the community intermodal system improvements