HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-02-0791J-02-616
7/09/02
RESOLUTION NO. 02— 791
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION,
WITH ATTACHMENT(S), AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO TRANSMIT TO THE MIAMI-DADE
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION ("MPO")
THE CITY OF MIAMI'S (1) LOCALLY PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE FOR THE MIAMI SEGMENT OF "BAY
LINK," THE PROPOSED TRANSIT CONNECTION
PROJECT CONNECTING MIAMI AND MIAMI BEACH, AS
DETAILED IN THE MIAMI -MIAMI BEACH
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY DECISION
DOCUMENT, ATTACHED AND INCORPORATED, AND (2)
RECOMMENDATION THAT THE MPO CONTINUE
ASSESSING THE DESIRED ALIGNMENT FOR
PREPARATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR BAY LINK.
WHEREAS, Bay Link, the transit connection under
consideration between Downtown Miami and Miami Beach will
reinforce the adopted Miami Downtown Master Plan and the
preliminary findings of the Downtown Transportation Master Plan;
and
WHEREAS, a transit connection between Downtown Miami
facilities, including the Performing Arts Center, and the City of
Miami Beach will provide enhanced accessibility for residents and
visitors for recreational and employment destinations; and
� J
494
:CITY COMMISSION
MEEM4G
J U L 0 c 2002
wwn.
WHEREAS, the area's population is predicted to increase by
25% by the Year 2025 and current roadways will be inadequate to
support population and employment projections in Downtown Miami
and Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, the MIAMI -MIAMI BEACH TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY
DECISION DOCUMENT, attached and incorporated, prepared by Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., consultants for the Miami -
Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization ("MPO"), in cooperation
with City of Miami and City of Miami Beach, has been written to
assist decision makers in deliberation regarding modes that
should be studied further, including such alternatives as Bus
Rapid Transit, Light Rail Transit, and Locally Preferred
Alternative Alignment ("LPA"); and
WHEREAS, the Study has received extensive public
participation through five Citizen Advisory Committee meetings
and approximately seventy briefings for elected officials,
community and governmental organizations; and
WHEREAS, all recommendations are being forwarded to the
Governing Board of the MPO, which shall make the final decision;
and
Page 2 of 5
02- 791
WHEREAS, the City Commission and City Manager supports the
recommendation of the City of Miami Transportation Coordinating
Group, one of the cooperating organizations, for the alignment
for light rail along Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street,
Northwest 1St Avenue (or in the area between Northwest 1St Avenue
and the Metrorail Right -of -Way) to an end at the Overtown
Metrorail Station with the option to complete a loop from
Overtown to Biscayne Boulevard, combining several alternatives;
and
WHEREAS, the funds to implement the LPA will be decided upon
in future phases of the study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Page 3 of 5 02— 791
Section 2. The City Manager is authorizedll to transmit
to the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization the City of
Miami's Locally Preferred Alternative for the Miami segment of
"Bay Link," the proposed transit connection project connecting
Miami and Miami Beach, as detailed in the MIAMI -MIAMI BEACH
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY DECISION STATEMENT, attached and
incorporated, as follows:
(1) light rail as the preferred Bay Link technology, and
(2) a combination of Alternative Alignments A-1 and A-2,
which combination will create a complete, double -
tracked loop along Biscayne Boulevard on the east,
along the corridor comprising North First, Flagler, and
South First Streets on the South, along West First
Avenue on the West, and along the corridor comprising
North 9th and North 10th Streets on the north as the
preferred alignment, thus comprising the Locally
Preferred Alternative for Bay Link in the City of
Miami.
Section 3. The City Manager is further authorized to
transmit to the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization
("MPO") the City of Miami's recommendation that the MPO continue
assessing the desired alignment for preparation of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Bay Link.
1� The herein authorization is further subject to compliance with
all requirements that may be imposed by the City Attorney,
including but not limited to those prescribed by applicable City
Charter and Code provisions.
Page 4 of 5 s V7 9 1
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor Y
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th
ATTEST:
64ia'u. �& a - aL,,_
PRISCILLA A.' HOMPSON
CITY CLERK
S :c
day of July , 2002.
MANUEL A. DIAZ, MA
zi If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become
effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was
passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall
become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the
City Commission.
Page 5 of 5
02- '791.
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA A=7
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
enez
FROM: ity Mana eT
RECOMMENDATION
BATE : JUN 2 C 2,132 FILE:
SUBJECT : Bay Link,
Commission Meeting
of July 11, 2002
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached resolution
recommending to the Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
the Commission's choice of (1) light rail as the preferred Bay Link technology and (2) a
double -tracked combination of alternative alignments A-1 and A-2, which combination
would create a complete, double -tracked loop along Biscayne Boulevard on the east,
along the corridor comprising N. First, Flagler, and S. First Streets on the South, along
W. First Avenue on the West, and along the corridor comprising North 9 and North 10
Streets on the north as the preferred alignment, thus comprising the Locally Preferred
Alternative for Bay Link in the City of Miami. In addition, the resolution recommends
that the MPO continue assessing the desired alignment in preparation of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for Bay Link.
BACKGROUND
Bay Link, the transit connection under consideration between Downtown Miami and
Miami Beach, has been under study for the past year by consultants for the Miami -Dade
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), in cooperation with the Cities of Miami and
Miami Beach. The study has involved many meetings with citizen groups and advisory
committees on both sides of Biscayne Bay, and has now entered the alternative selection
phase. The City of Miami is asked to select a preferred alternative for the technology and
alignment to be forwarded to the MPO Board, which has final responsibility for selecting
the Locally Preferred Alternative that will be further refined in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for the project. Details of this process are contained in the
attached Decision Document.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Planning and Zoning Department has verified that this item under consideration has
nQo� fiscal imp t.
DB: :C
Attac ents
02- 791
MIAMI -MIAMI BEACH TRANSPORTATION
CORRIDOR STUDY
- 04im Oewh *V�y
Decision Document
Prepared by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
02.- 791
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.0 SUMMARY OF KEY EVALUATION FACTORS..............................................................13
5.1.1 Land Use and Development.................................................................... 13
5.1.2 Ridership.................................................................................................14
5.1.3 Visual lmpacts.........................................................................................15
5.1.4 Mobility Benefits...................................................................................... 16
5.1.5 Parking Impacts..................................................................................... 16
5.1.6 Environmental Summary ......................................................................... 17
5.1.7 Capital Cost............................................................................................ 17
5. .8 Operations and Maintenance Cost........................................................17
5.1.9 Farebox Recovery ...................................................................................18
5.1.10 Cost Effectiveness..................................................................................18
5. 1.11 Summary of Goal Achievement..............................................................19
5.1.12 Evaluation Summary...............................................................................19
6.0 DECISIONS TO BE MADE.............................................................................................21
a2- '791
Page
1_0
BACKGROUND................................................................................................................3
2.0
PURPOSE
OFTHE PROJECT........................................................................................
4
2.1
STUDY AREA.......................................................................................
............ 4
2.2
NEED FOR THE PROJECT.................................................................................
4
3.0
INITIAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES....................................................................
6
3.1
TECHNOLOGY.....................................................................................................6
3. 1.1 Bus Rapid Transit......................................................................................
7
3.1.2 Light Rail Transit.......................................................................................
8
4_0
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES......................................................................
9
4.1
ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTIONS.............................................................................
9
4. 1.1 Bus Rapid Transit......................................................................................
9
4.1.2 Light Rail Transit......................................................................................
10
4.2
OPERATIONS....................................................................................................11
4. .1 Light Rail Yard and Shop Facility.............................................................
11
4.3
ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING TRAFFIC
........................................................... 12
5.0 SUMMARY OF KEY EVALUATION FACTORS..............................................................13
5.1.1 Land Use and Development.................................................................... 13
5.1.2 Ridership.................................................................................................14
5.1.3 Visual lmpacts.........................................................................................15
5.1.4 Mobility Benefits...................................................................................... 16
5.1.5 Parking Impacts..................................................................................... 16
5.1.6 Environmental Summary ......................................................................... 17
5.1.7 Capital Cost............................................................................................ 17
5. .8 Operations and Maintenance Cost........................................................17
5.1.9 Farebox Recovery ...................................................................................18
5.1.10 Cost Effectiveness..................................................................................18
5. 1.11 Summary of Goal Achievement..............................................................19
5.1.12 Evaluation Summary...............................................................................19
6.0 DECISIONS TO BE MADE.............................................................................................21
a2- '791
1.0 Background
The purpose of this document is to assist decision makers make a recommendation regarding
the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) to be studied further in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) for the Bay Link Project. The recommendation of each group will be forwarded
on to the Governing Board of the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), who
will make the final decision regarding the LPA.
The first decision that needs to made is which mode should be studied further— Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) or Light Rail Transit (LRT)
If the decision is made to support LRT then decisions need to be made about which alignment is
preferable in downtown Miami and in south Miami Beach.
There is an opportunity to refine a number of the assumptions about the LRT alignments and
operations during the FEIS stage. These will be discussed as the alternatives are presented.
Financial mechanism need not be decided upon at this stage.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 3
Decision Document
May 2002
02- 791
2.0 Purpose of the Project
2.1 Study Area
The study corridor is that segment of the East-West Multimodal Corridor study that is bounded by
1-95 on the west and the Atlantic Ocean on the east. To the south, the study corridor limits end
at the Miami River in Miami and the South Pointe area on Miami Beach. The study area includes
Watson Island, the MacArthur Causeway, Terminal Island and Star, Palm and Hibiscus islands.
On the Miami side of Biscayne Bay, the northern limit of the study area is the vicinity of NW 29th
Street. The northern limit on Miami Beach is I-195 and 411' Street. The following graphic reflects
the study area.
STUDY
AREA
LEGEND — — — Bay L+n<A:arnati'.es
......... Eante^ron He'gn13 Exwrmon
Mwo' I
7n•ia
%1.: A'?;romover
Study area
2.2 Need ,for the Project
Ara
'AnAA TUTTLE CAUSEWAY
Biscayne I BEACH
Both downtown and south Miami Beach are continuing to grow rapidly and experiencing
heavy densification that has exceed earlier population and employment projections. This growth,
when combined with the geographic constraints, relatively narrow streets and a chronic lack of
parking, results in congestion that makes access by private automobile extremely difficult. A high
capacity alternative to the automobile, to maintain the mobility so essential to continued economic
prosperity and the quality of life so valued in the region.
• Some relevant study area statistics include:
• Existing resident population of 62,000; increase to 80,000 by 2025;
• There are approximately 98,000 jobs in the study area; increase to 121,000 by 2025;
• There are 4.7 million over night visitors in the corridor per year;
• Over 500 Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) buses carrying over 8,000 riders per day between
Miami and Miami Beach along the MacArthur Causeway.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 4
Decision Document
May 2002 0-2- 791
The purpose of the project is to respond to the following pressing needs:
• Current level of service on roadways, congestion to increase over 24 percent in the next ten
years;
•. Benefit of huge public and private development will suffer without addition of safe and reliable
transit capacity;
• Due to the natural features that limit roadway capacity, substantial growth difficult without
added mobility offered by transit;
• An effective transit link is needed to tie the study area to the large transportation investments
made in region;
• Emergence of downtown Miami as a tourism destination and the location of an increasing
number of special events will require greater accessibility;
• The Miami Beach concurrency limitations related to traffic generation and parking require a
travel alternative other than the automobile;
• Good and reasonable access to the jobs by transit is necessary to keep wages stable and
competitive.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 5
Decision Document
May 2002 02— 791
S
3.0 Initial Screening of Alternatives
3.1 Technology
A technology assessment was prepared early in the study process. Assessment defined general
service needs, characteristics of corridor and evaluation methodology addressed;
• Bus Rapid Transit;
• Light Rail Transit;
• Rapid Rail Transit (Metromover);
• Automated Guideway Transit (Metromover); and
• Monorail.
During the scoping process, the following additional technologies were identified:
• A fent' connection;
A cable car (the Glide); and
• Extension of Metrorail or Metromover to 5th Street and Alton Road.
••a®®
Best Worst
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 791
Decision Document 02—
May 2002
Technology Evaluation
BRT
LRT
AGT RRT
Ferry
Cable Car
Operational Flexibility
•
•
• •
Future Expansion
•
•
® •
Capital Cost
•
•
• •
•
Unknown
O&M Cost
•
•
• •
•
Unknown
Distribution
•
•
Right-ol`44ay
•
•
• •
•
•
Fixed Investment
•
•
• •
•
•
Image
•
• •
•
•
Environmental
•
•
• •
•
•
Urban Integration
•
•
• •
•
•
Proprietary Technology
•
•
• •
•
Capacity
•
•
• •
•
•
Fire Life Safety
•
•
• •
•
••a®®
Best Worst
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 791
Decision Document 02—
May 2002
- 3.1.1 Bus Rapid Transit
Bus Rapid Transit --Eugene, Oregon
• Flexible mode in terms of placement
• Evolving, dynamic technology which meets EPA 2004 requirements and 2007 requirements
(for certain technologies).
• Has the capability to operate at grade (i.e., street level) with motor vehicles and pedestrians
crossing'the right-of-way, made possible by the overhead distribution system or heavy-duty
diesel electric motor or alternate (fuel cell etc.)
• Large, single or double articulated cars running on rubber tires
• Manned Operation
• Can operate up to 70 km/h; make short radius turns of 40 feet; and climb grades up to 13
percent
• Vehicles/systems are somewhat proprietary, bid competition will not be limited, competitive
pricing can be obtained if choice is similar to that of various other cities (economy of scale)
• Systems deployed in France and Italy and being seriously considered in various US cities.
• FTA approval and 'Buy America" clause need to be addressed.
• The least costly of the modes being considered.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 7
Decision Document
May 2002
. 02- 791
3.1.1 Light Rail Transit
Light Rail Transit—Portland, Oregon
• Flexible mode in terms of placement
• Has capability of operating at -grade (i.e., street level) with motor vehicles and pedestrians
crossing the right-of-way, made possible by the overhead power distribution system
• Large, single or articulated cars running on traditional rails for support and guidance, giving
simple and fast switching capability
• Manned operations, but with automatic train protection
• Can operate up to 55 miles per hour; make short radius turns; and climb grades up to 7
percent
• Vehicles are generic and generally non-proprietary in concept, thus attracting strong bid
competition
• Overhead power distribution system and support poles cause negative visual impact
• Where at -grade, has negative impact on other traffic movements
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 8
Decision Document
May 2002
02—
,_ 791
J
4:0 Description of the Alternatives
4.1 Alignment Descriptions
4.1.1 Bus Rapid Transit
The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Alternative provides exclusive bus lanes along Biscayne Boulevard
and the MacArthur Causeway. The following graphic represents the BRT alignment.
zo�sr 4 Biscayne r
CornrAm
14 /
�. use
i
Soo
Bay
\\kdWW`
BRT alignment ,EGEW Bn'unk `—� ModTr.fic
o SU40n wuorrr7
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 9
Decision Document
May 2002
02— '7 91 .
4.1.2 Light Rail Transit
The following rail alternative has been divided into six segments for analysis. Segments All, A2,
and A3 represent Miami alignment options and segments B1, B2, and B3 represent the Miami
Beach alignment options. The segment from Bicentennial Park to Terminal Island is common to
all alternatives. Following are graphic representations of each alternative.
LNI alignment alternatives from left to right A1, A2 and A3
LRT alignment alternatives from left to right B1, B2 and B3
s�
LEGM
ewiono.er
---- Nq-104opto
o SUM_
G7
o ■mom
MUM
M
�■Fe
•� ms
.111%�
,■ten,
�, j
—Aip -
aero„ over
o
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 10
Decision Document
May 2002 .� 791
A1
G7
G7
..1.
..
MUM
MUM
MCI
11
OEM
111M�
`
HIPS
7
LRT alignment alternatives from left to right B1, B2 and B3
s�
LEGM
ewiono.er
---- Nq-104opto
o SUM_
G7
o ■mom
MUM
M
�■Fe
•� ms
.111%�
,■ten,
�, j
—Aip -
aero„ over
o
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 10
Decision Document
May 2002 .� 791
A1
G7
..1.
..
MUM
MUM
MCI
`
HIPS
LRT alignment alternatives from left to right B1, B2 and B3
s�
LEGM
ewiono.er
---- Nq-104opto
o SUM_
G7
o ■mom
MUM
M
�■Fe
•� ms
.111%�
,■ten,
�, j
—Aip -
aero„ over
o
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 10
Decision Document
May 2002 .� 791
A1
4.2 Operations
The following summarizes the general characteristics of the proposed system operation:
1. Operates 20.5 hours per day
2. Service Frequencies (minutes)
El 5 — Peak (5:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.)
El 15 — Off Peak (6:30 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.)
3. Train Length (LRT)
El 2 Cars AM peak, midday and PM peak
El 1 Car off peak (evening and nights)
4. Station dwell time is 20 seconds
5. Utilizes signal prioritization
6. Average speed:
0 LRT — 16 to 18 miles per hour
Q BRT — 12 to 13 miles per hour
4.2.1 Light Rail Yard and Shop Facility
For the Bay Link LRT system two separate sites for a maintenance facility were located. Both
locations meet the site requirements and are located north of the downtown LRT segment,
between 1-395 and 1-195 and east of 1-95.
The Yard and Shop layouts are similar and both include the following elements:
• Maintenance shop (approximately 48,500 square feet) with three through tracks
• Separate train wash facility on track adjacent to the maintenance building;
• Bypass track to the storage yard;
• Double -loop configuration with special trackwork to allow ease of movement between
maintenance shopfwash track and storage yard.
• Maintenance -of -way building;
• Storage ladder tracks for 21 vehicles plus provision for an additional six to 17 vehicles in
the initial phase.
Alternative 1 branches from the Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) rail corridor at NW 17th
Street. The site covers approximately 13 acres and is bordered by the FEC on the west,
NW 17th Street to the south, NW 2nd Avenue to the east and the Miami Cemetery on the north.
Two signalized rail crossings are required on Miami Avenue just north of NW 17th Street. Slightly
more than half of the existing properties are vacant with one, two and three story warehouse/
office buildings on the remainder of the site.
Alternative 2 branches from the FEC rail corridor just north of NW 29th Street and is located in the
FEC railroad container storage property (Buena Vista yard) east of Miami Avenue. The site covers
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
11
02- 791
approximately 12 acres. The existing properties are either vacant or occupied by the storage
yard. No roadways are affected by the layout. Miami Avenue would likely provide the ingress and
egress for employees working at the facility. Right-of-way for site access would then be through
the FEC property (not included in the acreage estimate).
4.3 Assumptions Regarding Traffic
The primary assumptions for design of the system from a traffic perspective are:
• Bay Link will operate in mixed traffic on Flagler Street;
• No other mixed-use areas of operation will be permitted unless no practical alternative exist;
• Where lost, on -street parking will be replaced by new local lots where necessary to use space
for traffic lanes, where possible;
• Traffic controllers will be upgraded to permit the coordination and prioritization of traffic
signals;
• In general, cross streets will need to be signalized;
Left or right turning movements will be restricted where vehicular and train safety cannot be
reasonably assured through other means;
• Bay Link movements will be controlled and facilitated by adding the necessary phases to
existing or new traffic signals;
• Access to and from station platforms will be accomplished at intersections under the positive
control or new or existing traffic signals.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 12
Decision Document
May 2002
02- - "791
5 0 Summary o� f Key Evaluation Factors
This section provides summary information about the more significant elements contributing
to the formulation of an LPA decision. Factors addressed in clued: land use; ridership; parking
impacts; an environmental summary; capital cost; operations and maintenance cost; farebox
recovery; and, cost-effectiveness.
5.1.1 Land Use and Development
• Convention Center
• Improved access to large blocks hotel rooms
• Add trains for "special events"
• Future extensions amplify benefit
• Cultural and Tourism
- American Airlines Arena
- Miami Grand Prix
- Bayfront Park
- Proposed Museum/Bicentennial Park
- Performing Arts Center
- Parrot Jungle/Marina
Support public investment
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 13
Decision Document
May 2002
02- 791
Mitigate concurrency limitations
- Strengthen tourist base will reduce dependency on automobile (traffic/parking)
- Improve weekend access to beaches
- Support sustainable growth
- Provide alternative to auto based travel
Easier to attractlretain employees
- Better regional access
- Wages stable and competitive
5.1.2 Ridership
Boardings by Mode -Unlinked Trips
• 15,500 to 17,400 daily riders; 5.6 to 6.3 million annually
• Metrorail, Metromover and bus system ridership would increase with LRT
BRT would attract less riders, Metrorail, Metromover and total system ridership would be less
Ridership by trip purpose
- 42% Commuting : -{�--
A
- 389/ Non -work based trips
- 20% Trips originating from work
Ridership by commut
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 14
Decision Document
May 2002 02— 7 91
A1B3
A2B2
A3B1
BRT
No Build
BRT
N/A
N/A
NIA
13,336
N/A
Beach LRT
17,375
15,632
15,445
N/A
N/A
Metrorail
70,806
71,188
71,593
70,094
70,389
Metromover
28,207
30,124
27,216
18,091
21,515
All Transit
448,200
448,164
446,175
439,702
444,203
Source: The Corradino Group
• 15,500 to 17,400 daily riders; 5.6 to 6.3 million annually
• Metrorail, Metromover and bus system ridership would increase with LRT
BRT would attract less riders, Metrorail, Metromover and total system ridership would be less
Ridership by trip purpose
- 42% Commuting : -{�--
A
- 389/ Non -work based trips
- 20% Trips originating from work
Ridership by commut
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 14
Decision Document
May 2002 02— 7 91
5.1.3 Visual Impacts
The photographs from other operating LRT systems, below and on the following page, are
intended to provide you with a visual context for the Bay Link system.
Portland at -grade guideway
Portland's Tri -Met power substation structures
San Diego system aerial guideway
Portland's Tri -Met system employs visually interesting
architectural treatments for power substation structures
Fare collection and ticket vending
kiosks for San Diego's Santee
Orange Line system
Overhead catenary system delivers electricity to
power the Salt Lake City light rail transit line
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
15
02- 791
ii3
A visually diverse variety of station area concepts and interior treatments clockwise from top left: Portland, Orlando,
Cos Angeles, New Orleans, Portland and Los Angeles
5.1.4 Mobility Benefits
• Adds significantly to study area mobility
• Provides alternative to automobile
• Adds greatly to core capacity
• Replaces 500 MDT buses with 176 trains along the corridor
• Improves effectiveness of Electrowave
• Upgrades signal system
• Removes 6,100 to 7,800 cars per day
5.1.5 Parking Impacts
• Bay Link proposed to replace displaced spaces with off-street lots
Parking Impacts
Off -Street Public
On-site
Spaces
Percent
Alternative
Spaces
Space
Impacted
Change
Al
4,903
391
-871
16
A2
6,063
431
-431
6
A3
5,584
227
-227
4
81
1,889
282
-86
4
B2
4,741
636
-323
6
B3
3,140
226
+98
+3
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 16
Decision Document
May 2002
p-2- 791
5.1.6 Environmental Summary
• In general there are no "Fatal Flaws" environmental with any of the alternatives.
• The areas with the greatest challenges, crossing the waterways and MacArthur Causeway
and the yard and shop site, are common to all LRT alternatives.
• The major environmental difference between alternatives may be the potential contamination
along Alton Road affecting Alternatives B2 and B3.
5.1.7 Capital Cost
Bus costs
Metrorail
LRT
Total
No Build
Capital Cost
$66.2
N/A
$226.6
BRT
(millions of 2001 $'s)
$66.2
WA
Alternative
Construction
now
Maintenance
Vehicles Yard
Management/
Engineering
Total Cost
ORT
$59.4
$8.5 $7.9
$25.1
$100.9
A1/131
$191.8
$41.6 $27.7
$94.1
$355.1
A1/132
$232.0
$41.6 $27.7
$109.0
$410.2
A1/133
$226.7
$41.6 $27.7
$101.0
$397.0
A2/81
$178.9
$37.0 $27.7
$88.0
$331.5
A2/132
$219.1
$37.0 $27.7
$102.9
$386.6
A2/63
$213.8
$37.0 $27.7
$95.0
$373.4
A3/81
$173.4
$37.0 $27.7
$86.0
$324.0
A3/62
$213.6
$37.0 $27.7
$100.9
$379.1
A3/B3
$208.3
$37.0 $27.7
$92.9
$365.9
Bus costs and Metrorail costs are based upon the existing 2001 MDT operating and maintenance
costs.
5.1.8 Operations and Maintenance Cost
Operating and maintenance costs are the cost that are required to be spent annually on keeping
a transit system running.
Operating and Maintenance Cost
(millions of 2002 $'s)
Alternative
Bus costs
Metrorail
LRT
Total
No Build
$160.4
$66.2
N/A
$226.6
BRT
$1622
$66.2
WA
5228.5
A1/Bi
$155.1
$66.2
$10.0
$231.4
A111112
$155.1
$66.2
$11.1
$233.0
A1/153
$155.1
$66.2
$9.8
$231.2
A2IB1
$155.1
$66.2
$8.7
5230.0
A2/132
$155.1
$66.2
$9.6
$231.0
A2/63
$155.1
$66.2
$8.5
$229.8
A3/131
$155.1
$66.2
$8.4
$229.8
A3/32
$155.1
$66.2
$9.4
$230.7
A3/133
$155.1
$66.2
$8.3
$229.6
Bus costs and Metrorail costs are based upon the existing 2001 MDT O&M costs.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 17
Decision Document
May 2002
02- 791
Cost -Effectiveness - relates the costs of the alternatives to specific measurable travel benefits.
In particular, the capital and operating costs of the alternatives are related to new transit riders
generated. This index produces ratios with units of "added cost per new rider", and reflects
benefits to existing riders and savings in operating costs as well as the attraction of new riders. It
can be interpreted to be the ratio between the necessary capital investment plus annual operating
and maintenance costs and the return in transit ridership.
Cost Effectiveness
t
5.1.9 Farebox Recovery
The farebox recovery ratio (the annual O&M costs divided by the revenue
collected by
passengers) directly affects the amount of money the County must pay to subsidize transit
operations. The farebox recovery for MDT is around 25 percent. The calculated farebox
recovery ratio for the LRT alternatives ranges between 35 percent and 48 percent. The best
farebox recovery is provided by the combination of alternatives A3 and 133.
Farebox Recovery
(millions of 2001 $'s)
Annualized'
Annual Annual
Transit
RidersRevenue 2 Annual O&M
Farebox
Alterantive Daily Riders (000) ($000) Cost ($000)
Recovery
A1/01 15,587 4,832 $3,624 $10,000
36%
A1102 16,197 5,021 $3,766 $10,854
35%
A1/B3 17,375 5,386 $4,039 $9,841
41%
A2B1 15,021 4,656 $3.492 $8.663
40%-
A2182 15,631 4,846 $3,634 $9,516
38%
A21113 16,809 5,211 $3,908 $8,503
46%
A3/B1 15,447 4,789 $3,592 $8,414
43%
A311112 16,057 4,978 $3,733 $9,268
40%
A3/133 17,235 5,343 $4,007 $8,254
48%
Annual Riders equals daily riders ' 310 days.
_
2 Annual revenue equals annual riders' $.75 (MDT revenue per passenger counting all modes.)
$13.37
5.1.10 Cost Effectiveness
$25,250,000
Cost -Effectiveness - relates the costs of the alternatives to specific measurable travel benefits.
In particular, the capital and operating costs of the alternatives are related to new transit riders
generated. This index produces ratios with units of "added cost per new rider", and reflects
benefits to existing riders and savings in operating costs as well as the attraction of new riders. It
can be interpreted to be the ratio between the necessary capital investment plus annual operating
and maintenance costs and the return in transit ridership.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 18
Decision Document
May 2002 791
Cost Effectiveness
(Costs in 2001 $'s)
Change in
Annualized'
Change in
Transit
Cost Effectiveness
Alterantive
Capital Cost
O&VA Cost 2
Trips 3
Index 4
ORT
$8,320.000
$1,848,000
1,395,310
$7.29
A1B1
$27,150,000
$4,739,000
2.520,831
$12.65
A1102
$31,750,000
$5,785,000
2,608,216
$14.39
A1IO3
$30.650.000
$4,579,000
2,634.380
$13.37
A2/01
$25,250,000
$3,402,000
2,482.099
$11.54
A2B2
$29,850.000
$4,351.000
2,623,220
$13.03
A21113
$28,750,000
$3,242,000
2,596,407
$12.32
A3/01
$24.650,000
$3,153,000
2,006,630
$13.85
A3/02
$29,150,000
$4,103,000
2,549,172
$13.04
A3/133
$28,050,000
$2,993,000
2,621,914
$11.83
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 18
Decision Document
May 2002 791
Annualized Cost is the capital cost spread out over the expected life of the project using standard FTA factors.
2 This column is calculated by subtracting the No -Build O&M costs from the O&M cost of each Alternative.
3 This column is obtained by subtracting the unlinked riders for the No -Build Alternative from each alternative.
The index is obtained from the following formula
Index = A$CAP + A$O&M
A RIDERS
5.1 .11 Summary of Goal Achievement
Gaal
1. Develop Multimodal
Transportation System
2. Improve efficiency and
safety
3. Preserve Social Integrity of
Urban Comnumities
4. Plan projects that enhance
. quality of life%nvironment
S. Define a sound funding
base
Goal Achievement Summary
BIRT
A1is1
A1iB2
A103
A=1I
A*W
A2i63
A3ie1
A31B2
"W
a
a••
a
•
a
a
s
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
•aa®®
Best Worst
5.1.12 Evaluation Summary
The purpose of this section is to collect and summarize the data presented above to facilitate the
review and decision process. Provided is a summary of major benefits and impacts.
Summary of Major Benefitslimpacts
Altenuative Benefit Impact
No -Build Does not cause short-term construction impacts.
BRT Does rat cause short-term construction impacts on
Miami Beach.
Does not support goals of community. Does not supply an
alternative to growing congestion.
Will require Increase in transit vshides on local ch to
keep up with demand.
LRT Al Carries highest projected ridership Impacts parking on both Biscayne Boulevard and along NW
Serves densest commercial areas of downtown 1st Avenue
Works will with potential LRT extension to the north. Impacts traffic operations on Flagter Street
Does not directly serve residential areas of downtown
LRT A2 Serves residential areas of downtown. One-way loop provides the Trost convergent service level in
Works will with potential LRT extension to the north. the downtown.
One-way loop nrnirrus roadway knpacts.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
02- 791
19
LRT A3 Provides direct service to MDCC.
Provides most direct routing to Metrorail -
Has lowest construction cost.
Has the highest farebox recovery ratio
Has the best cost-effectiveness ratio.
LRT B1 Has the least parking impact on the beach.
Serves the hotel. recreational and lawrist trips.
Has the lowest capital ooa
LRT B2 Services all areas of South Beach.
Does not serve the densest areas of downtown.
NW 2nd Street is not transit oriented.
Does not serve Overtown community.
Has the lowest ridership projections.
Takes a lane of tragic on Washington
Provides least service to South Beach residents.
Has the highest cost.
Has the lowest farebox recovery and highest cost per new
rider.
LRT S3 Has the highest farebox recovery ratio.
Requires loss of all on -street parking on Alton Road.
Has the highest ridership projections.
Requires minor righW
way takes.
Serves high
density residential
areas of South Beach.
Evaluation Summary
Evalueition Factors
Wr
A116i
A1032
A11133
A?JB1
AZ432
AZW
A3181
A3IB2
A31B3
Achieve Goals
®
(D
a
s
a
0
0
®
(Il
a
Environmental
0
(11
(11
13
(11
13
ED
CO
E
Ridership
®
®
ED
41
®
®
QI
Capital Cost
0
O&M Cost
•
®
®
®
®
4
Cost-Effectiveriess
0
®
®
®
®
®
a
Farebox Recovery
NA
®
®
(P
ED
®
40
a
(P
0
00(31(b®
Best
Worst
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study 20
Decision Document
May 2002 r '791
6.0 Decisions to be made
The decision that you are being asked to make will be forwarded to the MPO Board. This group
has the final responsibility for selecting what will be called the LPA, which will further refined in
the FEIS.
The first decision that needs to be made is which of the following modes you would recommend
for further study in the FEIS. It is important to note that the No -Build Alternative automatically
carries forward into the next phase of the planning work.
1. Bus Rapid Transit Improvements
2. Light Rail Transit
If the decision is made to support LRT then there are two sections of the project that have been
examined — Miami and Miami Beach. Because of the common rail leg along the MacArthur
Causeway any downtown Miami alternative can operate with any Miami Beach Alternative.
In downtown Miami there are three alternative alignments — one of which needs to be selected.
• Two-way operations along Biscayne Boulevard, Flagler Street and NW 1 st Avenue (Alternative
Al- the Hook)
• A one-way loop along NW 9th Street, NW 1 st Avenue, Flagler Street and Biscayne Boulevard.
(Alternative A2 — the Big Loop)
• Two-way operations on a part of Biscayne Boulevard with a one way loop on NW 4th Street,
NW 1st Avenue, and NW 2nd Street.
• On Miami Beach there are also three alternative alignments — one of which needs to be
selected.
• Two-way operation along 5th Street and Washington to the Convention Center
(Alternative B 1)
• A loop operation along Alton, 1st Street, Washington, and 17th Street. The loop as it
was evaluated provides two-way operations on Washington and one-way operation on Alton
with trains running from the convention center to downtown Miami alternating on Alton and
Washington. (Altemative 62)
• Two-way operation on Alton Road and 17th Street to the Convention Center. (Alternative 63)
Finally within the FEIS phase of the project there will be an in-depth focus on a single altemative.
Alternatives as they have been examined so far can be modified when the LPA is selected. Below
are some of the modifications to the proposed alternatives that have been suggested. It is your
prerogative to recommend a modification for the LPA.
All of the alternatives have been planned to operate in its own right-of-way, except for along
Flagler Street. Any portion of an alternative can operate in mixed flow traffic.
Different alternatives have different loop configurations. Full two-way loops can be developed or
a full one-way loop can be operated.
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
21
02- 791
• The two-way loop would in, prove the transit level of service, but would have a greater impact
on traffic lanes and parking lanes.
• A fully one-way loop would reduce the transit level of service and the impact on traffic and
parking.
• The Alton Road Alternative (133) can be modified to provide a loop service around the
east end of Lincoln Road with one-way operations on 17th Street, Collins Avenue and 16th
Street.
AA/DEIS
DE/FEIS
Final Design
Right -of -Way
Const./Proc.
Test Start-up
Revenue Service
Implementation Schedule
2001 2002 2003 1 2004 1 2005 1 2006 1 2007 1 2005
LPA
Miami -Miami Beach Transportation Corridor Study
Decision Document
May 2002
ROD
22
2- 791
1