HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #01 - Discussion Item- ►oval , ()M ;S lc is .. es Por�o� m• I11 I I. ; �- �' 8" 3
1N�i: tic►, � _._._.-..-•--�I ......_— _.. �..
- -- •_--• 1l�tt ��11'�i'i' C'><1• _--�---._ 111iii:
Coor\i (Y1n r %pAipLuI5
r�
i
ln,3yo r- (lWf
P"\,civo( Fe r
Ho uii r d` ra r Q,tI m n jr•.
y
• Dkrce.tor I (port d Miami
Carman d-0 n
�9
10
yc
q9
so
trlo C'l;�,
14 n C, Oc (LAD'l
10 mr, M , c\G ,,1 ,A c 150 h
15 F'rE5, ( ar►liv,)1 0(U4`Cx' (-%f'\C-
`1. L
t�
1j C'1�,fncE. F�ifirnan
20 (rl r. �u
z1
z�
`�. � � � u n � �/ ►'11 r>q r . �} I F � i1 P r r>1
30
so
as
ys
y_k
y-7
M
f -55
f^ 57
-Lk.1 A rn
60 � GO
6 G5
Jef- IL
67 6�
. Gy 61
70 70
r
7
77
w•� ,I•�7", 1 �• w ► �.1►�rq•I �►'wN'.,}tom-.s. 7r �. ���+`�.M �1�►w.r. t•/IiIY1 Mw/ .Il. ` 1�►w/I��IrrA.+i. G!.TI, ... ,r •ay/4
"l r. C-o,l ke n z r c,
rJOA -I D,cevior
Cornr.
Cnny. . icrhe\
-- III jl CAS. III 1I. W. 1IM:
�. o m �f • 1`e C�-t o f
rr1ay or
Co rn
COrr\f.
-Maqor-01�3( �.
Cote r. VcO c{ e.S
-Ai or e_rre-
�t iI'p5
Co r,,r. lowk6 r\s
C.-o m r. ' P l u rY, ►rne r
Cf1Gy o r 0-W K
►5
`j
211-1
;L7
z�
Com a r n- 1I1 30
I I 35
R.
3� 3
n COmr. Pere 40
V2 y�
Us Rout n yp
q9
-
Y9
s0
rn r P e r re
so
,f
Comr. 0-2ro11O
55
rm r.
(�. C) m
,ly
C omr
60
L u �t
60
CC. h a ,tee E�
70
70
W
17
.1• ..
q•►y't'...r..•.y..'....•.•+K•w rw...+►.*.+!1•\•.�✓.•.[. r. .... •gyp v...'L..4.r ♦. ♦ .. _..
4
Honorable :Mayor and Members
Of the City Commission
4 oward V. Gary
City Manager
July 28, 1983
Joint Miami City
Commission and Metro
Dade County Commission
Meeting
As per your directive, we have finalized all the necessary arrange-
ments to hold a joint Commission meeting with the County Commissioners
for the purpose of discussing the several options available to
resolve the Port of Miami access problem.
The meeting will be held in the Hibiscus Room of the Miami Conference
Center, starting at 11:00 A.M. on July 28, 1983. Lunch will be
served at 12 noon in the same room.
The City will provide transportation from City Mall to the Conference
Center and to the subsequent visit to the new Fire Training College
which is scheduled to be dedicated on the same day. Due to the time
restraints, I have prepared the following itinerary for your
consideration.
9:00 A.M. Start of City of Miami Commission
Meeting at City Hall
10:30 A.M. Citv Commission to call a recess
for the purpose of attending the
joint Commission meeting
10:40 A.M. Leave City Hall in vans provided
by City of Miami
11:00 A.M. Start of joint meeting in the
Conference Center
12 Noon Lunch served
12:30 P.M. Adjournment of meeting
12:45 P.M. Leave Conference Center for the
dedication of the new Fire Training
College
2:00 P.M. Reconvene for the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting at City Ball
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
Howard V. Gary �_/
City Manager �-
July 27, 1983
Port of Miami
The Port Access Report prepared jointly by the Downtown Development
Authority and the City of Miami with the attached addendum has been
distributed to all of the Commissioners. This report, and addendum,
covers the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives
under consideration and details the present positions of various
groups directly involved or impacted.
The Port of Miami has proposed the following program to meet its
future transportation needs:
PHASE I: Existing street improvements, (1982-1985),
remove parking on sections of 5th & 6th
Streets, improve Port Boulevard/Biscayne
Boulevard intersection, intersection im-
provements on N.E. lst and 2nd Avenues.
PHASE II: New Bridge/S.R. 836 Ramps (1985), construct
new high-level bridge over the Intracoastal
Waterway connecting Biscayne Boulevard (at -
grade) to Dodge Island, construct new ramps
connecting S.R. 836 to N.W. 5th and 6th
Streets.
PHASE III: A direct connection from the Port to the
expressway system.
The above program was approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organi-
zation on March 26, 1982. Since Phase I has been approved and is in
the preliminary engineering stage, attention should be directed pri-
marily to Phases II and III. The key issue is to provide direct
expressway access to the Port without negatively impacting the
Downtown area. Consequently, it is necessary to determine the
solution to Phase III prior to any final decisions on Phase II.
The Phase III solution will limit the range of alternatives that can
be considered in Phase II.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission Page 2
PHASE II. The options are a 6-lane high level bridge connecting
the Port directly to Biscayne Boulevard; a 4-lane hiqh level bridge;
a 4-lane bascule bridge to the north of the existing railroad
bridge; a 2-lane bascule bridge paired :pith the existing 2-lane
bascule bridge; or improvements to the existing bridge. All high
level bridges have a 65 foot clearance over the Intracoastal Water-
way.
The 6-lane high level bridge is not acceptable to the City of Miami,
the Downtown Development Authority, or the Chamber of Commerce.
Further, the Florida Department of Transportation has strong reser-
vations concerning the need for a 6-lane bridge to accommodate the
project traffic volumes.
Any Phase II alternative must be considered an interim solution to
the Port's transportation needs since the Biscayne Boulevard inter-
section has limited capacity and the downtown street network,
including 5th and 6th streets and 1st and 2nd Avenues, have limited
carrying capacity. The 5th and 6th Streets one-way pair are key
streets that serve Government Center, the new S.R. 836 ramps, the
proposed Bayside project and the S.E. Overtown/Park West project.
Proposed high level bridges have serious impacts on the Bayfront
Park System including a substantial land take in the recently
acquired F.E.C. Tract. Large retaining walls will separate the
F.E.C. Tract and Bicentennial Park from Bayfront Park. Increased
traffic, noise and air pollution, and visual intrusion will further
permanently impact the proposed Bayside project at the Miamarina
and Bayfront Park System.
PHASE III. The long-range solution connecting the Port directly
with I-395 has been reduced to three 4-lane corridors by the Port
Task Force. Each of these alternatives is based on either the con-
struction of a tunnel or tunnel viaduct and flyover configuration.
The first corridor connects the Port to the mainland from the
proposed 6-lane high level bridge to a tunnel, through the "F.E.C.
Tract" then north along the east side of Biscayne Boulevard emerging
in viaduct next to Bicentennial then connecting to I-395 with a
flyover.
The second corridor connects the Port to the mainland with a tunnel
under the Intracoastal Waterway then north immediately behind the
bulkhead fronting Bicentennial Park connecting directly to I-395.
The third corridor connects the Port to Watson Island with a tunnel
under Government Cut (North Ship Channel). This may require replace-
ment of the present bascule bridge on the MacArthur Causeway.
4 f
Honorable Mayor and Members Page 3
of the City Commission
The ideal solution would be to proceed immediately with a direct
tunnel access to I-395; however, permitting and funding may take
8 - 12 years to complete the construction of the tunnel. Conse-
quently, it is necessary to implement an interim _solutio_n which
meets the Port's needs until the tunnel is completed. Once the
tunnel is completed it will handle the bulk of the Port traffic
and the interim solution will remain to serve Downtown and handle
traffic which would be restricted from using a tunnel.
Based on our evaluation of the Port's needs and the City's needs
to minimize impact on Downtown Miami and the Bayfront Park System,
the Administration recommends the following solution to the Port
of Miami's transportation needs:
(1) PHASE II. Construction of a 2-lane bascule bridge
north of the existing railroad bridge. This would
double the present capacity and provide the needed
security of a second bridge should one be temporarily
out of service.
(2) PHASE III. Construction of a 4-lane tunnel which
would provide direct access to I-395. The preferred
alternative is the tunnel under the Intracoastal
Waterway which would run north along the bulkhead
of Bicentennial Park connecting to I-395. The
tunnel to Watson Island should also be considered;
however, impact to the island, cost and the possible
need to replace the MacArthur bascule bridge must
be considered.
(3) That a firm commitment and guarantees be made to the
Phase III solution prior to implementing Phase II.
(4) That a Port of Miami Transportation Improvement
Fund be immediately established and funded by the
Port of Miami with substantial contribution, at
least annually, to provide the needed local share
to secure funding by 1990.
(5) That every effort be made to implement the Phase III
improvements as soon as possible and that the County
seek federal Interstate designation for the tunnel
link to I-395 to assist in the financing of the
Proposed improvement.
(6) That the Dade County Lonq-Range Transportation Plan
incorporate the Phase II and III recommendations and
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) be
amended to include the new 2-lane bascule bridge and
tunnel. alternative.
i MEMORANDUM C
� 7: 1 7 A
To Honorable Mayor and Members e4.TE July 28, 1983
Board of County Commissioners
FROM M. R. Stierheim
County Manager
RECOMMENDATION
SUBJECT Summary Evaluation
Three Phase Concept Plan
for Port Access at the
Port of Miami
The Port of Miami is currently in the process of a major expansion
and an essential element of that program is the overall
transportation plan for the present and future traffic needs for the
Seaport and its relationship to the Downtown area. The Dade County
Transportation Planning Council (TPC) on October 13, 1981
established a Task Force, represented by technical staff from the
City of Miami, the Downtown Development Authority and the State of
Florida Department of Transportation, to develop a Port Access
Concept Plan.
Based upon their reviews with the Dade County Transportation
Committee, the Task Force recommends a three phase concept plan
(Port of Miami Proposed Implementation Schedule attached Exhibit 1)
as follows:
Phase I
Phase I includes the improvements to intersections and streets now
used by traffic coming to and from the Port. These improvements
will primarily be in the 5th Street, 6th Street, 1st Avenue and 2nd
Avenue corridors. Phase I also includes the removal of parking
along 6th Street and a part of 5th Street and Biscayne Boulevard and
entails the redesign of several intersections to increase capacity
for Port traffic. This phase should be implemented during 1983 and
1984.
Phase II
Early in review, it was obvious that the most feasible immediate
solution would be the construction of a high level bridge across the
Intracoastal Waterway connecting to Biscayne Boulevard. This would
provide adequate traffic capacity until 1995 and, by that time, the
long range Phase III could be implemented at which time -the bridge
would remain to serve local traffic.
In 1982, through the efforts of Senator Lawton Chiles and
Congressman William Lehman, Congress appropriated $23 million for
the construction of the bridge and the Coast Guard was designated as
the lead agency in the planning process.
Phase II would be composed of two components:
1) Construction of a new high-level bridge over the
Intracoastal Waterway between Dodge Island and Biscayne
Boulevard with an at -grade intersection at Biscayne
Boulevard (Exhibit 2). In order to accomplish the
construction of the bridge under this phase, the County
must obtain a small section of right-of-way from the City
of Miami..
2) Construction of new ramps on I-95 to provide additional
access to and from the west on SR 836 from NW 5th and 6th
Streets (Exhibit 2A). These ramps have been recommended in
a number: of other studies, including the Downtown Mobility
and Access Study and the DuPont Plaza Analysis, and any
modification made to the DuPont Plaza ramps would be
directly related to completion of these ramps, which will
not only improve Port access but will definitely help the
Central Business Disetrict (CBD) and the government center
and Overtown areas. The Port has committed half a million
r
Phase II (Continued)
Page 2
dollars of Seaport funds for the design of these ramps in
order to expedite their construction.The design
alternatives have already been presented to the Florida
Department of Transportation for their review, and
construction funds for these proposed ramps have been
committed by the Florida Department of Transportation from
the Interstate Reconstruction, Resurfacing and Repair Fund,
which is 90% paid by the federal government and 10% by the
state. Had the Seaport not extended this money,
construction of these ramps would have been delayed
approximately two years.
Phase III
Phase III will consist of one of the following alternatives:
1. Construction of a tunnel from the Port of Miami to
Watson Island (Exhibit 3).
2. Construction of a ramp/tunnel system adjacent to
Biscayne Boulevard to the west of Bicentennial Park
connecting to I-395 (Exhibit 4).
3. Construction of an extended tunnel system under the
Intracoastal Waterway parallel to the FEC property
and Bicentennial Park with an elevated roadway
connecting to I-395 (Exhibit 5).
While all of the proposed Phase III alternatives connect Port traffic
to one of the interstate systems, providing a balanced transportation
network for the Seaport and the Downtown area, the cost in each case
will exceed $100 million. Seaport Director, Carmen J. Lunetta, and
I recommend Alternative 3. These recommendations for Phase III were
presented to the Dade County Transportation Committee on July 14,
1983, and after consideration and debate the consensus of the
Committee was that Alternative 3, a tunnel section from the Port of
Miami to I-395 along the waterfront of the FEC property and
Bicentennial Park, was the preferred alignment of the three
alternatives. The estimated construction cost of Alternate 3 is
$128 million, as determined by the tunnel feasibility study by
Singstad, Hurka & Associates, P.C. It is our hope that the City of
Miami will join with D.D.A. and the New World Center Action
Committee in a unified effort to seek necessary federal funding for
Alternative 3, as this alternative is in the best interest of the
City of Miami. During the period that federal transportation
dollars are being sought for the tunnel alternative, a
Transportation Improvement Fund will be established and funded by
the Seaport for all local costs.
Implementation of any of the alternatives listed in the three phase
program will require that certain rights -of -way be obtained from the
City of Miami.
BACKGROUND
Because of the complexity of the alternatives and the variety of
agencies involved, the TPC, acting as the coordinating body for
countywide transportation projec►:s, accepted the leadership role in
coordinating the process of access alternative review and plan
selection. On October 13, 1981, the TPC established the Port Access
Task Force.
The Task Force, working closely with the Seaport Department and its
consultant, adopted the following objectives at its first meeting on
December 16, 1981:
° Access to Dodge Island should be improved to satisfy
current and future needs.
Page 3
BACKGROUND (Continued)
° A plan for meeting the growing access needs of the Seaport
should be implemented in stages.
° Traffic accessing the Seaport should be diverted from
local streets in the Central Business District.
° Traffic flows serving the Seaport should be harmonized
with the Park West Plan/Overtown.
Air quality in the CBD should be improved by eliminating
impediments to the movement of traffic accessing the
Seaport.
Access proposals shall be compatible with Bayfront Park/
Bicentennial Park Plans.
The objectives recognize the importance of meeting Seaport access
needs by phasing improvements. The phasing concept plan recommended
by the Task Force is an outgrowth of an extensive analysis of
alternatives carried out by the Seaport's consultant.
I-95 Im rovements
One alternative for providing freeway access is to improve the
existing I-95 freeway (see Figure 10). The I-95 improvements will
be required if access is provided to and from the Port via the
existing N 5th and 6th Street corridor. They are also highly
desirable to provide additional access into the Miami CBD, the
expanding Government Center, and the Park West development.
The existing northbound on -ramp to I-95 from NW 3rd Avenue now has a
13-foot 9-inch clearance, which is restrictive for many trucks.
Increasing the verticle clearance of this ramp will provide access
to north I-95 for trucks requiring the increased height. This ramp
provides access to northbound I-95, but does not allow vehicles to
access westbound SR 836. vehicles may travel west on SR-112
approximately three miles to the north; but SR-112 terminates east
of Miami International Airport without providing good access with
the Palmetto Expressway and industrial areas further west.
The interchange of I-95 and SR-836 does not allow access to and from
the west via the existing interchange of I-95 with NE 5th and 6th
Streets; but preliminary investigation indicates that these traffic
movements could be provided. The eastbound SR-836 to southbound
I-95 ramp can be widened to accommodate a new access ramp from SR
836 to the southbound I-95 off -ramp to NW 8th Street. The new ramp
will provide access to Miami for traffic that now must travel from
I-395 to NE 1st Avenue or Biscayne Boulevard, or travel south on
I-95 and into the DuPont Plaza via the I-95 connector. The traffic
flow from Miami to westbound SR-836 can use the new proposed ramp
from NW 10 Street and merge with the northbound I-95 ramp to
westbound SR-836. Access to the ramp will be provided by either
reversing the existing traffic flow on NW loth Street or by making
the street two-way from NW 3rd Avenue to the ramp. With this new
ramp, NW llth Street will have to be closed under the I-95
Expressway or height clearances will have to be restricted. The new
ramp will have the required elevation to clear the Dade County Rapid
Transportation System of NW loth Street.
The estimated cost of constructing the improvements required for
I-95 is approximately $5 million.
Subsequent to the recommendation and approval by the Dade County
Transportation Committee, the Task Force was again recalled to
evaluate and define the third and last phase, so as to avoid future
traffic congestion for lack of an approved plan.
(11
Page 4
BACKGROUND (Continued)
This third phase should comply with the following guidelines:
Provide a direct tie to the expressway system.
Minimize any land taking.
° Utilize least valuable properties along the proposed
alignment.
Utilize boundary corridors along the Bayfront Park/
Bicentennial Park, Park West/Overtown, and Government Center
project boundaries.
° Provide more than one point of access to the Seaport.
° Avoid any use of the Overtown area.
° Minimize impacts on major proposed announced projects such
as the Downtown Component of Metrorail (DCM), Downtown
Arena, Freedom Tower, and others.
A considerable amount of time was spent in developing Phase III,
with the Downtown Development Authority, the Miami Chamber of
Commerce New World Center Action Committee, and the State of Florida
Department of Transportation, which culminated with the Task Force,
on July 11, 1983, identifying and recommending Phase III, as
previously described.
CONCLUSION
In consideration of the materials presented at this time, the
Seaport Director, our consultants and I believe that the results
recommended are in the best interest of the Seaport and the entire
community. It is recognized that to accomplish the construction of
the bridge, a section of what is known as the FEC parcel will be
required. The City of Miami has reserved this parcel as future
right-of-way and will eventually rezone from its commercial status
to accomplish the same.
4.
Agenda Item No. 2 (c)
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING A THREE PHASE CONCEPT
PLAN FOR PORT ACCESS AT THE PORT OF MIAMI
WHEREAS, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes
outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is
incorporated herein by reference,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Hoard approves
the Three Phase Concept Plan for Port Access at the Port of Miami
as set forth in the Summary Evaluation, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
, who moved its adoption. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner
and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Barbara 1.1. Carey
Clara Oesterle
Beverly B. Phillips
James F. Redford, Jr.
Harvey Ruvin
Barry D. Schreiber
Ruth Shack
Jorge E. Valdes
Stephen P. Clark
The Mayor thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 28th day of July, 1983.
Approved by County Attorney as to
form and legal sufficiency. Ae,
DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY ITS BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RICHARD P. BRINKER, CLERK
by:
Deputy C er
1
PORT OF MIAMI ACCESS
• IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
PROPOSED 7 98 99 2000
RE
SpONSIBLE 1982 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 9
PHASE AGENCY ---
PLANNING SEAPORT/TASK FORCE _
PHASE 1 FZ
IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING SEAPORT
TO - - -
INTERSECTIONS
EXISTING DESIGN SEAPORT
STREETS ---
- ' IMPLEMENT SEAPORT
PLANNING SEAPORT/TASK FORCE
PHASE IIA FUNDING SEAPORT/FOOT/DOT - -
NEW BRIDGE
AND DESIGN SEAPORT _
APPROACHES
IMPLEMENT SEAPORT/FDOT
PLANNING SEAPORT/TASK FORCE - -
- SEAPORT/FDOT/DOT �` , . -
PHASE 1113 FUNDING ADE MIAWO ERS JCITY OF -
RAMPS ---
TO DESIGN SEAPORT/FDOT _ - -
1-95
IMPLEMENT FUOT
PLANNING SEAPORT/TASK FORCE '� - - -- --
PHASE III FUNDING SEAPORT/FDOT/DOT
PH_
ULTIMATE - -
IMPROVEMENTS pESIGN SEAPORT/FDOT - - _ - l ; !` +?'.
---- - - - :�- EXHIBIT 1
IMPLEMENT SEAPORT/FDOT
a
+r
I
0-
tA
> ���,
> -2,
NeWftmp,�
From 1-95 To
SR lk3r3..
,� Pro , ,
4*4'
P"A JW10
-e
`LPL_
6
LEGEND
Phase I
I&
I :N
.11, EXHIBIT 2
-A IHJ -I-,
i IL
h W7-
TERM
ST
N w
EE
N* 14 TERR
4 Of
1-95/SR 836
INTERCHANGE IMPROVEMENTS EXHIBIT 2A
Of
3
#i
Ifs!
' , C��Sf Ma•
1
1.
.l
I�.
0
PHASE II - BRIDGE
EXHIBIT 4
4-LANE TUNNEL STRUCTURE
( WITHIN BICENTENNIAL PARK
Disadvantages:
FROM PORT OF MIAMI TO 1-395
WUNDERGROUND INTERCHANGE )
1.
Modification to
existing traffic
patterns on Port of
Miami.
2.
Closing of Intracoastal
Waterway
for 9-12 month con-
struction cost.
(Cofferdam Method)
3.
Some impact on
Bicentennial Park
during construction.
4.
Requires above
grade ventilation
structure.
Advantages:
I. Eliminates Port traffic from Biscayne Boulevard by
diverting it directly to I-395.
2. View of Bay is not disturbed.
3. No visual or physical impact to Bicentennial Park.
4. No obstruction between Bayfront Park and F.E.C.
S. Minimal real estate costs.
b. Deep draft ships may dock alongside park bulkhead.
Cc -~eats:
1. 4 lanes - 2 lanes in each direction connecting Port
Of Miami to I-395.
2- 14-Foot draft at Deep -;eater Slip.
3• Estimated $128.7 million dollars for construction, costs.
4- !.ECOKXE: DED EXHIBIT 5
6
i
new
k _ t world
> center
July 77, 1983
Mayor- Maurice Ferre &
Cit v Commissioners
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami., Florida 33133
Mayor
Stephen Clark &
County
Commissioners
Room :'.5:'
, Courthouse
73 W(,st
Fkia,Iur Street
Miami,
Florida 33130
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The rrc rtt_c r Miami Chamber of Commerce recognizes the importance
of thc issue hcfore you today. Various committees of the Chamber
have hc,c-n struggling for several months considering the critical
requirements of the Port of Miami versus esthetic, social., and
economic needs of the City of Miami.
We recognize the critical needs that the Port must have additional
access to support present and future growth and to protect against
accidents and disasters.
We believe that the ultimate solution of the problem is a tunnel
(as has been discussed in many forums) but because of the time
to conclude that project, we favor a temporary solution that will
be as unobtrusive as possible, yet meet the interim needs of the
Port until the tunnel can be built.
The I;xecut.i.ve Committee of the Chamber is meeting with the Port
Director in his office August: 3rd for further presentation of the
project, and following that meeting we intend to adopt a formal
resolution of our position by our Board of Governors.
Sincerely,
David A. Wollard
Chairman
DAW/mc
5 July 1983
Addendum to Port Access Report, March 25, 1983
Since the Port Access Report Iwas completed, a number of new
developments related to both the short-term and long-term
options to serve the Port access needs have occurred.
On May 9, 1983, the Port Access Task Force2met to consider
the alternatives proposed in the Port Access Report. The
Task Force recommended that all the alternatives plus various
options to each be considered for solving the Port's access
needs. The Access Task Force met again on May 20, 19E3, to
review the cost estimates, prepared by the Port's consultants,
for the different tunnel alternatives.
On May 23, 1983, the New World Center Action Committee of
the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce met to discuss the
Port's access needs and review the many alternatives proposed
to solve these eeds. The Port's consultants3 and tunnel
sub -consultants presented all access proposals (bridges and
tunnels) plus the cost associated with each. At the con-
clusion of the presentation, the Port's consultants presented
a proposal which they felt addressed all the concerns expressed
by the Committee. The major elements of the Port's proposal
(see graphics) are a new six -lane high-level fixed bridge from
the Port to Biscayne Boulevard and a four -lane tunnel from the
Port to 1-395. The New World Center Action Committee adopted
a resolution (see graphic) which proposed a four -lane bridge
and a four -lane tunnel.
The staff of the Downtown Development Authority has also developed
a recommendation (see graphic) for solving both the short-term
and long-term access needs of the Port. This recommendation calls
for improving the existing facilities and/or constructing interim
facilities and construction of a four -lane tunnel.
The attached graphics show general alignments plus a verbal
description of the details of each of the various proposals
and recommendations.
IPort Access, The Downtown Development Authority, March 25, 1983•
2Task Force appointed by Dade County on October 13, 1981.
Includes representatives from State, Regional, County and City Agencies.
3Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc.
4Singstad, Kehart, November & Nurka.
PORT PRO OSAL
3 y '✓ f .�r �' �r.i . -�.
Its
09
4 �� may, ' , f. ' � .Y. • ♦ t a , t!+ �; -'� �(i� . f
Y y
�4.
;sr
f�r 6 LANE BRIDGE
if
w
Of
' 4 LANE TUNNEL
REMOVE'♦ '
As
EXISTING'#jai
lBRIDGE
Thr,f• Phask, Improvement Program
Phase I: At -grade roadway and intersection improvements.
Phase II: Six -lane, high-level (65') fixed span bridge. (S29.0 million)
Phase III: Four -lane tunnel to 1-395• ($128.7 million)
Comments:
Phase I : 6 lanes required due to large volume of trucks and 6i grades
require.' to provide clearance over the F.E.C. Railroad.
Existinq bridge will remain operational
North 5th & 6th Streets/Biscayne Boulevard cannot feed 8 lane capacity
(six nee.., lanes and 2 old lanes)
Structure and fill -sections divide F.E.C. Tract and Bayfront Park
creating a physical and visual barrier.
No commitment yet to have an architectural consultant as part of the
final bridge design team. Also no specific allocation of resources
to pay for any additional costs that may be required to build an
aesthetically pleasing bridge design.
No noise abatement procedures have been proposed.
Phase III: The existing two-lane bascule bridge will be demolished.
Depth of tunnel will allow access to deep -water slip.
Sub-',urfact: connr-ction to 1-395 is preferred.
Some construction but minimal long-term impact on part. land.
Railroad bridge will have to be relocated.
a i
CHAMBER RESOLUTION
�� � ,�- �� � � ./ `•. =a 4"'.1 � �b�� . : i r r . C -.fir -� ��� �..�1 :Y.
.,�i•a �r f r E. � tea~ '„'� _ �>
�� �� ��� • I � � c _,���!'• .� �, .✓ �t��. � � �r *w� . �� �l► � ' .�: ,tea.-'_�� � I ,!/
LANE BRIDGE
REMOV!',
EXISTING•
l BRIDGE
Three Phase Improvement Program
Phase 1: At -grade roadway and intersection improvements.
Phase II: Four -lane, high-level bridge (see comments).
Phase III: Four -lane tunnel to 1-395.
Comments:
4 LANE TUNNEL , I
Phase II: Various Alternatives 1) Expand existing bridge
2) Construct new 4-lane, high-level fixed
span bridge if above is not feasible.
Hire architectural design firm to ensure
aesthetic design. Remove existing two-lane
bascule bridge.
Phase III: Tunnel connecting Port to Interstate highway system.
Establish a Port of Miami Transportation Improvement Fund,
funded by the Port to ensure thet 10, of the cost of the
tunnel is available by January 1, 1992.
DDA RECOMMENDATION
fY�..f �.r, �'r� ..... /�i t .-� .v .r.. ...f \ rl � � 1 :� � u �• � #f . F
a.C.
�
'f ♦Nf
�y. „�.► �i� M f'ht �✓
Olt
fir , '•-' ;;. i;'', �. T
dw
Three Pha,,e Improvement Program
MPROVe"
EXISTING'.
4 BRIDGE
:
LANE TUNNEL
Phase. I: At -grade roadway and intu!�.-cLion improvements.
Phase II: Modify, oiden and improve the existing bridge or build a new low-level
bascule bridge.
Phase III: Four -lane tunnel to 1-395.
Comments:
Phase I1: The various alternatives available are shown in descending order
of preference and priority:
t
r.
1) Modify railroad bridge for vehicular use.
2) Modify existing bascule bridge
3) Construct temporary or permanent 2-lane bascule bridge
adjacent to the existing bridge.
4) Construct new 4-lane bascule bridge. (Remove existing bascule bridge.)
5) Construct new 4-lane, high-level bridge. (Remove existing bascule
bridge.)
Will provide vehicular capacity required until tunnel is operational.
Minimal Impacts on park lands.
Phase III: Improve or new bridge will remain to serve downtown area.
Depth of tunnel will allow access to deep-waterslip, subsurface
connection to 1-395.
Some construction but minimal long-term impact on park land.
NEW WORLD CENILK ACI IUN tu+t51111LE
WHEREAS, the Port of Miami and the Pity of Miami have acF""O udrud the
need to resolve the traffic problem created by the bULGels of the P,rt ut `iaAl
through Its exp.tnsion; and
WHEREAS, the Port of Miami has proposed a three phase 1rohran to te,.lve
such problem, Phase 1 providing for the improvement of certain btreeth t—,naty
to the current flow of traffic, Phase 11 calling for a six lane btidye hS fttt
high between the Purl of Miami and Hiscayne hWu yard and Phase 111 calliu. t t
a direct link for tidlfic from the Port of Miami to the Inteistatc hel,luA4 nLum ;
and
WHULAS. Phase 1 is under way and Please 11 1" t,ndud and In the C, ,n.Irie
stages; and
WHEREAS, this Committee agrees with (i) the need for addeti,aal tt.tttic
lanes to deCum,daLe traffic to and from the Pot! oad (it) the need to deLr1r,h,
the ultimate tr nr Jutiun of the leaf l is pnthlem by drte, t link L" tht intt I ,.,t.-
highway bybtum i rom the Pert o1 Miami rather than relyiuk un LEV bt 1,:qr of P „t .c
11 as the solution to the trdlfic problem; and
WHLRLAS, this Committee is cuncentud that (i) the ebtbatic incatt .!
the bridge be compatible with the planned develupwents for Haylionl Park and
improvements in the City and (if) the ultimate resulutJun of a direct link to
the interstate highway system be addressed until an appropriate solution i:.
determined and that the Port demonstrate a substantial curmnrtment tot.ard >�—h
solution;
RESOLVED, the New World Center Action Curm,illee let_ummends the Part
of Miami first reexamine the alternative of expanding; the capacity of its plcsunt
bridge to serve its interim needs and supplement its ultimate cunuettion with
the interstate highway system; should this alternative not prove feasible, this
Committee recommends the Port of Miami proceed with a fixed bpdn high level tour
lane bridge provided (i.) an independent architectural design firm be retained
to debit" an esthetically pleasing bridge With special tonsideration given to
minimize noise, to provide low level lighting, to utilize a land use plan such
that the impact on the park is minimized and to provide attractive landscaping
consistent with the park environment, (ii) an independent review board cou,ptisrd
of citizens approve all final proposals of such architectural design firm and
(iii) furlher'provided the use of the present bridge be restricted so as to
minimize traffic through the park and its use be discontinued as soon as
possible; and
tURllll.R MI.SU1.VLU, the New World Center ALLju" LommILLee !VL.Wh."dn tLat
(i) a t,m"Itmeul he mule to a tunnel as the optimum solution to link the Purl
of Miami t ral f lc directly with the interstate highway system and OWL (it) .t Put(
of Miami lransportatiun lmpruvemenl Fund be immediately established and funded
by Lite Port of Miami With substantial contributions at least annually such that
a minimum of 10 percent of the total cost of such tunnel project be in such Fund
by January 1, 1992; and
FVKTHLR RESOLVED, a public hearing be held with adequate advance notice
of the above proposals to permit informed public comment on bush propusals.
5/23/83
r 0
PROPOSED
PORT OF MIAMI ACCESS RESOLUTION
The preferred solution and most logical approach to resolve the future access
needs of the Port of Miami is a four lane tunnel connection from the Port to
1-395, running west under the Intracoastal Waterway then north within or
adjacent to the FEC property and Bicentennial Park. There are two options
to link the tunnel section with 1-395 at the N.E. corner of Bicentennial Park,
the preferred concept is a subsurface link that surfaces within the right-of-
way of I-395• Recognizing that permitting, preparation of drawings, construction
and funding commitments routinely take time, the political, personal and pro-
fessional efforts necessary to expedite the tunnel improvement should be
aggressively pursued.
All other proposals to resolve access needs to the Port of Miami must be viewed
as interim solutions. The four lane tunnel connection to 1-395 will obviate the
need for alternative short term high capacity solutions. Consequently all short
term alternatives must be considered within the broader perspective of the preferred
solution, with costs, benefits and impacts adequately addressed.
Based on the 'need to resolve both short term and long term access to the Port of
Miami, and accepting the tunnel as the preferred long term solution, short term
approaches should be further studied in descending order of priority as follows:
(1) Use of the existing bascule bridge with intersection, signalization,
stacking and street capacity improvements to meet needs until the
tunnel can be completed.
(2) The addition of new lanes utilizing the existing bascule bridge and/or
railroad bridge to increase short term capacity and minimize the short
term costs of new construction.
(3) The construction of a temporary or permanent 2 lane bascule bridge
parallel to the existing 2 lane bridge to provide 4 lane capacity
until the tunnel is completed.
(4) Construction of a new 4 lane bascule bridge which would create an
immediate 6 lane capacity. The old 2 lino bridge would be removed
when the tunnel is completed and the new 4 lane bridge would serve
automobile traffic between the Port and Downtown.
(5) Only if all other alternatives fail to adequately address the
short term needs of Port access, should a new high level four
lane bridge be considered and then only as an interim solution.
To ensure the orderly development of the Port of Miami's access, a firm commitment
must be made for the entire short and long term program. Work would not proceed on
interim solutions until the long term commitment is made.
Public hearings and full public discussion are essential elements of a project of
this magnitude which impacts on both Downtown Miami and the Port of Miami. A
schedule of hearings must be established to allow for community input.
It is understood that throughout the entire process of resolving Port transportation
Issues that every effort will be made to reduce economic, social, physical and
environmental impacts. Further, that an architectural design consultant be added
to the team to ensure adequate attention to the aesthetics of the project.
I
.I IV
i
1
too
ISSUES9 IMPACTS AND OPTIONS
1WIDowntown Development authority=
x
is PORT ACCESS
ISSUES, IMPACTS AND OPTIONS
Vj
PREPARED BY :
!1 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MIAMI
I APRIL 25, 1983
MIAMI CITYCOMMISSION
DDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
i
Honorable
Honorable
Maurice A. Ferre, Mayor
J.L. Plummer, Jr.
Mayor Maurice A. Ferre, Chairman
Richard McEwen, Vice Chairman
Honorable
Joe Carollo
Garth Reeves, Sr., Vice Chairman
Honorable
Miller Dawkins
Honorable Gerald Lewis
Honorable
Demetrio Perez, Jr.
Tony Alonso
Harry Hood Bassett
Howard V.
Gary, City Manager
Armando Codina
Eli Feinberg
Jim Reid,
Assistant City Manager
Martin Fine
Donald Cather, Director, Public Works
Tina Hills
Department
William Klein
Thomas R. Post
Athalie Range
Ofelia Sherman
Roy F. Kenzie, Executive Director
DDA URBAN DESIGN TEAM
George Varki, Director of Planning
Kahart M. Pinder, Transportation Coordinator
Joe Tyboro:jski, Urban Development Coordinator
Adam Lukin, Urban Design Coordinator
Special thanks to the staff of the Public Works Department, City of Miami, for their
assistance in preparinq this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Port of t•tiar,i i,, a 5250 ni l l ion expansion program.
'T
Thr, continued of the Part rr•rauiefficient and uninterrupted access.
NurxL,rou,, alternatives hiv(• t,,en invo-;tirratcd. All of the options through
Do::nto.;n !tia -i hanc iative phv,icaI, econn-ic, aesth<�tic and environmental
impact,.
The t`rr•:•t, phast.ir.pro:Fru nt prograr- I,rcSently proposed includes: Phase I -
exi°,t inq street irrrpro.--:- t-nt,,. Pha,,e I I - ne:, high-level bridge between the Port
and Bisc,;',n( Boulevard; and, PhaSc I II - direct connection from Port to
cxnre�-..a, sv,tcr^.
The short-term alternative - a proposed 6-lane high-level, fixed span bridge
to(It ther wi th the exi-t i ny 2-lane hascule bridge wi l l discharge 8 lanes of
traffic at N.E. 5th & 6th Strr-c:ts on Biscayne Boulevard. .
The Biscayne Boulevard intersection cannot handle more than 4 lanes of traffic
even �.ith the proposed Phase I improvements.
The only long-term alternative with little or no impact on Downtown is a tunnel
be. t:;t:en Dodge I s l and and MacArthur Cau,,ev ay ,
�i All the other long -ter!••, alternative,, connect to the Phase II high-level bridge
and require elevated viaducts/road,.ays or tunnel to link them directly to
I-95/S.R. 836 or 1-395.
These alternatives divide: the Bayfront Park System from the Bay; Park West
from the Bayfront Park System or the Central Business District; or Overtown
from Park, West and Do. nto.•rn,
Co,,t appears to be the. overriding consideration in all planning, with minimal
consideration for the coal, to redevelop Overtown/Park West and the objective
i to create an easily accessible and attractive public waterfront.
F There is inadequate cor,parative study and presentation of the social, economic,
real estate, physical and environmental costs of the various alternatives. The
traffic analysis is limited to the Port's needs and does not adequately evaluate
the impact,, on Downtown circulation,
This report presents two now alternatives both in tunnel configuration that
solve. the Port's access needs and minimize impact on Downtown, specifically
on Park West/Overtotivn and on the Bayfront Park System.
This report recommends these new alternatives be thoroughly studied for
feasibility, traffic impacts and construction cost.
This report recognizes that a tunnel will cost more than a bridge and additional
funding •rill be required to implement these options. However, these costs must
be weighed against the ierpact of high-level bridges and elevated, industrial
road,,:ays on the future of Miami's waterfront.
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
' INTRODUCTION: STATUS REPORT. ••• 1
TASK. FORCE: GO
ALS & OBJECTIVES ............................................ 2
IALTERNATIVES.............................................................. 3
ALTERNATIVES - CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER STUDY ............................... 7
PROBLEMS, CONSTRAINTS, IhPACTS............................................ 12
• RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY. ............. 14
1 CONCLUSIONS............................................................... 24
PORT ACCESS ALTERNATIVES - DDA REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION .................... 25
CITY OF MIAMI POSITION ON PORT TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES ................ 27
op
w
INTRODUCTION: STATUS REPORT
The Port of Mier':i is presently in the riid,lt of a S250 million expansion program which
double the .ize of the Port. It i,, projected that by the year 2000, cruise
passengers ,•:iII increase 5% threefold and cargo tonnage wiII increase sixfold.
-, Although thC,r•< trill he a dra�"atic increase in Port activity, it is not anticipated that
1 Port generated vehicular traffic will increase at the same rate. The Port has and is
continuing to investigate, and :•,ill be irlplement.ing, a number of traffic management
and on -site operational channes, such as: increased use of the railroad in transporting
cargo to and from the Port; increasinq the use of buses and vans by cruise ship
passengers. �•:hich wi11 reduce the peak and total daily vehicular traffic volumes. Based
on thlos, it is projected that peak hour traffic volumes wiII increase from 1,300 in
1980 to 4,170 in 2000 and daily volumes v.,ili increase from 19,000 in 1980 to 43,400 by
the year 2000.1
In order to moot the vehicular access needs of the Port through the year 2000, the Port
has proposed a three phase roa&.ay improvement program. This program as approved by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) on March 26, 1982, is:
Phase 1: Existing Street Im Provements (1982-1985)
- Remove Parking on sections of 5th & 6th Streets
- Improve Port Boulevard/Biscayne Boulevard intersection
- Intersection improvements on N.E. lst & 2nd Avenues
Phase II: New Bridge/S.R. 836 Ramps (1385)
- Construct new high-level bridge over the Intracoastal Waterway
connecting Biscayne Boulevard (at -grade) to Dodge Island
- Construct new ramps connecting S.R. 836 to N.W. 5th & 6th Streets
Phase III: Long Range Connections to Expressway (after 1996)
- Continue evaluation of new roadways connecting from Port to
J either I-395 or I-95/S.R. 836
The Phase II high-level bridge has been estimated to cost approximately $30 million.
JFederal funds in the amount of $23 million are presently available through a special
legislative appropriation. The remaining $7 million is the local share. Federal
laws require an approved 4F Environmental Impact Statement and State statutes require
a public hearing before funds can be expended. To date, the 4F Statement has not
been submitted for review and approval and no public hearings have been scheduled.
1Source: Port of Miami Vehicular Access Study, Second Progress Report: Phase III
Alternatives (Draft Report), Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., January,
1983.
TASK FORCE: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The approved improvement program ,;as a result of recorimendat ions made by the Dodge Island
Task Force Committee (Task Force) after it was established by the Transportation Planning
Council (TPC) on October 13, 1981. Agencies represented on the Task Force Are:
Dade County Pub is Works Department
Dade County Planning Department
Dade County Office of Transportation Administration
City of Miami Administration
Do..,ntown Development A,ithori ty
Florida Department of 'Iransportation
South Florida Regional Planning Council
Since the establishment of the Task Force by thy, TPC and its first meeting on December 16,
1981, the Task Force has continued to work on defininq the long-range access plan for the
Port. At its first meeting, the Task Force adopted a set of objectives and goals which
were to be used in defining and evaluating all access proposals. These objectives and
goals were:
Objectives:
To improve access to the Port to satisfy
present and future requirements.
To develop a plan that can be implemented
in stages to meet the growing traffic needs
of the Port.
Concurrent Goals:
To eliminate Port traffic from the Central
Business District (CBD) by diverting it
more directly to the interstate highway.
To harmonize traffic flows with the Park
West Plan,
To improve air quality in the CBD by eliminating
stops and slow Port traffic movement.
. To ensure that the new facility is compatible
with Bayfront Park/FEC/Bicentennial Park plans.
A
�Rj
ALTERNATIVES
During the past 18 months, tFu Tas11 Force in conjunction with the Seaport and their
!� consultants, has revievied 14 aIternativt•s proposed to accommodate the Port's long - range
access needs. A 1 1 14 alternative-, plus their r,ajor advantages and disadvantages are
sho::n beIo,:j. Thirteen of thor alternatives are directly connected to the Phase II high-
1evt•I bridge and the rec,,aining onr-, is a tunnel het::een the Port and MacArthur Causeway.
Six alternatives provide a direct conn,ction bott•reen the Phase If bridge and 1-395
either throucth or adjacent to Bicentennial Park. Four other alternatives also provide
a full or partial connection to 1-395 further tu the ',-rest after spanning Biscayne
Boulevard and pa,sina through Park West. and Overtoa,n. One alternative provides a direct
elevpted connection to 1-91,,/S.R. 836 through Pare: West and OverLown,
Il
P.,
�� I - •' ALTERNATIVE A - Direct connection to I
-39 in Biscayne
r ' say.
n,r !-.L•39`-�- '•! High-level two lane bridge
Blocks view of Bay
�M=-�'�'� Limits use of deep -water slip and
urr
t i\ waterfront
\" •• Lowest Construction Cost
X`'.
.S.R.836-'�• `' `"r Divides Park and FEC Tract from Bay
!'� s W RAMPS �, + .•
t� t� BEING CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER STUDY.
yj ,. •r
'i PHASE 11
BRIDGE
+ ALTERNATIVE B - Direct connection to 1-395 through FEC
Tract/Bicentennial Park.
High-level two lane bridge
Limits use of deep -water slip
1^ Visual impacts through Park
Blocks view of Bay
Divides
rks and
S.R.M 'r potential limits development
" and use
Y ` . RAMPS'
+. + „• t
P Not considered for further study.
!a1L • ••..�--r----�—=-,� PHASE II
LL jBRIDGE
• �: [/
111' 3
1
140
I
1
i
Fa
-g�
ALTERNATIVES
� 6 ,
1-395
...........
.......
...
..:;�.�...
S.R. 836
RAMPS 1 i
PHASE 11
C+A BRIDGE
i 1
,I _395_ F S.R. 836
RAMPS i
PHASE 11
®� BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE C - Direct :onrr•ction to 1-31: throu ' FEC
Tract/E'cc•rte-ia) Par,.
!ii -lr.vcl !wp 16 hridae
Licits use of deli-..ater clip
Visual irrpa:t tfrough Pare.
Block. vic.. of Ba;
Divides Par•-s and Iirits potential
de c lrpmcnt and use
N_.t considered for furt'cr stud.
�- ALTERNATIVE D - Direct conn�-ction to 1-395 along/
adjacen! to Biscayne Boulevard.
High-level two lane bridge
Negative visual and physical impacts on park
lands
High real estate cults
Minor impacts or. waterfront
Divides Park west and Parks
Impacts developments in the Omni Area
Not considered for further stud;.
N
,. I —^•_
ALTERNATIVE E (7i t co n•_cti,.,n to 1.316 along/
.{,-�
Jjacen! to Eis apnf• P .i;ovard.
Rtc -
l 95
Tunnel •:cction adjace n; to 6iscay•)e Boulevard
Two tare tur,•ieI/bridge
-
sections
Blocks vir,. throug', Parks
festricteJ vehicular 6 pedestrian access to
Parks
S R.836
"��
j:
Minor impacts on %,aterfront
RAMP$
r�r i•
Imparts develop^•ents in the Omni Area
High real estate costs
• _ •1• 1
ti`•�
May require reconstruction of 1-395 rasps to
��":��__•�••
Downtown
'
_
_. .
-------,._--•
PHASE 11
BEING CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER ST; C)Y .
__
BRIDGE
I
i _
,....�,.,...
ALTERNATIVE F - Direct connection to 1-395 along/
adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard.
u,c ,.
-t•-LL 1.395 ;./�/
High-level four lane bridge
Visual impacts on Park
High real estate costs
Minor impacts on waterfront
Divides Park West G Parks
�`.,S,R.g3g.".�
N`
u.�-: ?
May require some reconstruction of 1-395
s N RAMPS .,
. T
ramps to Downtown
I
�,"
". 1
". ..•r
-^
Not considered for further study.
_'�"„' -,'�
PHASE If
BRIDGE
.
4
I
ALTERNATIVES
V, ! c, ,:, r R i Boulevard
t r-_jq- FEC r i, t -or _.av to
uo 'I vr r t C 11c ,I : 1 11 1 3 t ; D-
P
I I t ra f f 0' a road s " s t
............ ..
I r c r-, a- r uc i r f i c around Metrorail
S.R.tat i f'n
z wRAMPS L i - r, 1� r),- ParLS
a t c, t
i v i Par: Wt., t ar,,! -ho CeD
''0 Jr._l) tjr furt
PHASE 11
BRIDGE
G"
ALTERNATIVE H Elevated over Biscayne Boulevard
through FEC riqht-of-wav and over
Il-396- Ovc,to,.n Iletrorail Station.
Four Ian.- sec t
Puts ail traff i on at -grade road sy s te-1
ImDact,. Freed'- To�.f.r
I -n,-C-
ats OveltC-1 % Park West Develop-,ent$
S. R.' en
L i � i
AV RAMPS
01-ro— fro- the CBD
Pivide� Parma
Not considered for further stunt
Ulu
H
PHASE 11 11
It. I P BRIDGE �
AIN
ALTERNATIVE I Elevated over BiscayBiscayne Boulevard
througli FEC r;51%t-of-wav and over
Overtown Metror3il Station with direct
WCStbOL)nd connectior, to 1-95/S.R. 836.
Four lane section
N__Puts inbound traffic on at -grade road system
1���Impacts Freedom Tower
Impacts Overtown & Park West Developments
Limited impacts on Parks
S. R. M Minor impacts an waterfront
RAMPSDivides Park West L Overtown from the CBD
Not considered for further study.
PHASE
A HASE
HSE11��
I
BRIDGE
Q.: ALTERNATIVE J - Elevated over Biscayne Boulevard
1%
-3%
�A
I I r
S. R. 836.,
RAMPS
It
7 iu9s
BRIDGE
JAI. -
through FEC right-of-way with west-
bound connection to 1-395.
Four lane section
Puts inbound traffic on at -grade road system
Impacts Freedom, Tower
Divides Overtown & Park West Developments
Limited impacts on Parks
Minor impacts on waterfront
Divides Park West & the CBD
Not considered for further study.
r
I
ALTERNATIVES
*J - I - r
k I ALTE - li.:T 1 .11, t E 1v 3 c r E; c a Boulevard
t.') W
Par t De v. I 0- F� -
.......... ........ Po r C F r r a -j, roa d S t e-
9 i
RAMPS Di i de, P3 - t C E
RAMPS
SE 11 BE I -S I DEt 7 S T
BRIDGE
will,
-
•
X1\
771-_�_
S. R. B361
fens
,,,,RAMPS ot%;
L
I
r
J,r.
S. R.
,.,RAMPS
I& NINE
ItIr
, - Of - F' A,_
395
PHASt -•
11,
R
Y"
N
ALT E-Z!,:-T I VE L - E I eva te,.- r�vr, r B ; sca , -e Boulevard
th roucl' rEC r i Q1, t -a F-wa< a ; th west-
bound connection to (-355-
Four )are section
Puts inbound traffic on at -grade road syste-
1r,pacts Freed(:-. To.-.c.r
Divides Overtc,. ParL. West Developments
H;rh construction b r ; 21)t -of-„a. roses
L i ri te 2 i t5 on Pa rL
Minor i--, CtC"-
Divides Part '4e, t to,: CED
lrnoact5 N.W. I&tk St ;c1i ) ;.n, 5 O�-)i Area
to Civic C•:nt�t
Not considered for furt"r stud.,,.
ALTERNATIVE M - Elevated over Biscayne Boulevard
through FEC right-of-way and north
to 1-3-45.
Four lane section
Impacts Freedor, Tower
Divides Overtown E Park West Developments
High construction G right-of-way costs
Removes Port traffic from at -grade road system
Limited impacts on Parks
Minor impacts on waterfront
Divides Park West & the CBD
Impacts N.W. 14th St. which links Omni Area
to Civic Center
Not considered for further study.
ALTERNATIVE N - Tunnel from Port to MacArthur Causeway
Four lane tunnel
High construction costs
Removes Port traffic from Downtown
No visual or physical barriers
May be developed in conjunction with
less substantial bridge to CBD
Some impact on development of Watson Island
7
M�
a
r
I
ALTERNATIVES -CONSIDERED FOR FURTHER STUDY
The Task Force recommendat ions arere that four al te.rnat i ves (A, E , K b N) , sho,:ln below be
considered for further study. On March 7, 1983, the Port Access Task Force met to review
additional data and cost estimates. During the course of the reetine, the following
act ions ;,ere taken:
1. Adopted a motion which:
A Ranked Alternative K last
b) Recommended that it be eliminated from further consideration
c) Recommended that it continue to be shot -in as one of the final alternatives considered
2. Eliminated the eastbound connection to 1-395 on Alternative E from further consideration
because it requires the taking of substantial Omni Area land.
3. Ranked all alternatives as follows:
a) Irrespective of Cost
Alternative N
Alternative A
Alternative E
Alternative K
b) Respective of Cost
Alternative A
Alternative E
Alternative N
Alternative K
Alignments of these four alternatives plus advantages and disadvantages are
discussed on the followirg pages.
_..,t, , 1-395
S.R. 836
AVRAMPS
`ttY- _.�`'. "'.�-• _. -�nt ::rt . Bon..
Boor •`�``�� ..ctr....
:tt •r: �
it Ir. - :aur,.
- - _ �•-•--- , , _ — n
i \1\
_ a
as or
LL
ut
:Boer_.,
PHASE 11
13RIDGE
•
7
ALTERNATIVE A
�• RAMPS `� ' ' ay •d- j
If
.. • . � + 1-395 �• �ti•,'`�" . �'�r ' r,�; , .y -� � � �.' -
•- �3 .. r
•, ' ', T 1�1'.�re\ •� � \� III ��j�V J► �;¢- ,. � Q�� '� �'• . �
+ .%"• .�•• '.-.. `1 t� '-"�• ���\\� rye I,.'tit . f ,• �•' \\ �\\
iO
• � '•, `3'. ;�'�`, ` � � �• �•� may. C> . ,""
t,�/. �: _+,.,"'♦�i� .,i` ^�°/�/- :ifs �.i��,.*�� '•:4� � '
t Y?'^� •'' ��-•• � �.�c •.,fit'• L�: c � " ,i/ r„ ' , �, •!
PHASE II
r� ,.•�.-•.r''� BRIDGE
Elevated structure in Biscayne Bay to 1-395
DISADVANTAGES:
1) Blocks View of Bay
2) Divides Park from Bay
3) Destroys Concept of Maritime Museum
4) Requires Taking of Park Property
5) One -Lane Connection to 1-395 may not Provide Adequate
Capacity without Diverting some Traffic through Downtown.
ADVANTAGES:
1) Lowest Construction Cost
COMMENTS:
1) 2 Lanes - One Lane in Each Direction Connecting Phase II Bridge
to I-395
2) 65 Feet to 75 Feet Elevation above Water
3) $20 Million Construction Cost
R
lia
i-1
ALTERNATIVE E
•S.R.838
�O' RAMPS
• �� • I-395 �;..�,- `'mot.. �'�'•�..�: ,� l � ..
Ali
to
i� ie • � �f�~ L r-"� �~•� �"4
10
N *fS `o.%� fin• -J'^ y�..•• •••i I - �� � ..
PHASE II\ �
BRIDGE V+ ' S(.
�..
Structure/Tunnel Adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard to 1-395
DISADVANTAGES:
ADVANTAGES:
1) Limits Vehicular Access to Bicentennial Park and FEC Tract
2) Pedestrian Access to Bicentennial Park and FEC Tract Severely
Restricted
3) Blocks View of Bicentennial Pa.h
4) Divides Park West and Bicentr..nn*-a' Park
5) Limits Pedestrian Movements bet.wt::n Bayfront Park and FEC Tract
6) Requires Reconstruction of Portions of 1-395
7) Requires Land Takes in both Bicentennial Park and FEC Tract
8) Requires Taking Howard Johnson's Hotel in Park West
1) Some Impacts on Waterfront Usage
2) Limited Intrusion into Park West
COMMENTS:
1) Four lane Bridge and Tunnel Sections
2) Estimated $75 Million for Construction and Right -of -flay
F-
L
9
s
T
I
a
E
P,
I
a
t�
ALTr.RNATI'VE K
. �C J •i1 ~ 1 •+�w
S.R. 836
RAMPS r ` s N ` ' ,;+'Y7•' J
01
1.395
.� . .
�� ' ' ,, <• • 4 ,�' - +� ` fir. S, �C�� -
PHASE 11 �, .,•+.:•''' '.
BRIDGE °� ,�.�•,
Ni-
�+ i •r' y .,. .'s?`.� y /'��� ,�' � �- •�r lam`\ i '
Elevated Structure through FEC Railroad Right -of -Way and Park West/Overtown to 1-395
DISADVANTAGES:
ADVANTAGE:
COMMENTS:
1) Requires Purchase of Air -Rights over FEC Railroad
2) Requires Land Take from FEC Tract
3) Visual and Physical Impacts on Freedom Tower
4) Divides Park West/Overtown Developments
5) Divides Park West from the CBD
6) Difficult High -Level Connection to 1-395
7) High Construction Costs
8) Major Impacts on Real Estate Values
9) Visual and Physical Barrier
1) May Provide: Ramps to and from N.W. 1st Avenue
1) Four -Lane Cross Section
2) Elevated Through Park and Over Boulevard
3) Estimated $105 Million for Construction and Right -of -Way
� ALTERNATIVE N
I-395 �
__ _ -_-- �-llC7T'.; ;�-.— arc .•.c•
p R S 11 ~�
BID
_Ar
T L
�.__- � III MJ� �• %/ ` �•
L
Tunnel from Port to MacArthur Causeway
DISADVANTAGES:
1) High Construction Cost
2) ;lay Impact Future Development on Watson Island
3) Construction may Disrupt Port and Shipping Activities
ADVANTAGES
1) Provides Second Point of Access to Port
2) With Two Points of Access, Existing Port Bridge can be Removed
3) No Impacts on Park System
- 4) No Visual or Physical Barriers in Downtown
5) No Visual or Physical Division of Park Wcst/Overto;rn
6) Provides Safety Valve in Case of Damage to Phase II Bridge
_ 7) No Visual Impacts on Bay or Parks
8) Removes Much of Port Traffic from Downtown
9) Provides Direct Highway Access for Cargo Vehicles
�f 10) Maintains Passenger Vehicle Access to/from Downtown
A! COMMENTS :
1) Four -Lane Tunnel
-� 2) Estimated $206 Million Construction Cost - includes $177 million
for Tunnel and $29 million for New High -Level MacArthur Causeway
Bridqe
3) Should be in conjunction with Phase II Bridge of only 4 Lanes
'� 11
r�
PROBLEMS,CONSTRAINTS,IMPACTS
In order to adequately;• study the proposed access glansy developed ;,th�. Port's consul -
tants, the entire three phase improvement program should bet cons i _ier,�d a-., a s i ng 1 paek-
agc, . The improvement pror;ram: ( I ) ex i s t i ng s tree t i mprovements ; ( I I ) In i gh- I uve l br i dgc
and, (II1) direct express�.,av connection does not meet all the goals ,s'.a'blitih_d by the
Task Force although it does satisfy the established objectives. The objt,ctives were a
statement of the Port's needs.
The 1 ir,iLed traffic analysis donee to date does not aj:;uat.,l•/ rcvi,.: tht, i-pact. of Port
traffic in the context of the coals and objectives of thc� Plans for th,.• redevrlopt-ent
of Overtown/Park Wost, the Bayfront Park System, and thf, city ,trcct system. The Phase.:
III studies have been too general and inadequate to nbjc.ctively evaluate and cor•,pare
the r•,eri is or impacts of the various al ternat ivf s .
The proposed Phase 11 hinh-level bridge betr,een the Port and the mainland, with an at -
grade intersection with Biscayne Boulevard, also has additional aesthetic and operational
impacts. The most critical of these is the steep grade (61 required on the mainland to
provide sufficient clearance for the relocated FEC Railroad tracks. This steep grade in
combination with increased truck traffic could result in a deterioration of air quality
in the CBD. This same combination, of grade and truck traffic, has resulted in the bridge
cross-section being increased from four lanes to six lanes. This widened cross-section
ali.o requires a greater land take in the FEC Tract. Approximately 4.0 acres of land is
needed to accommodate approaches and elevated section of the; bridc;e through this parcel.
;t Further, the North 5th and 6th Street intersections with the Boulevard will never be able
to maximize the use of a now 6 lane bridge and the existing 2 lane hridge.
The height of the bridge - 65 feet clear over the Intracoastal Waterway - is a major
visual intrusion into the Miami skyline. Should this be the alternative implemented, it
would be wise to require that an architectural consultant be added to the: engineering
team to enhance the: aesthetics of the structure.
With the exception of Alternative N - Tunnel to MacArthur Causeway - none of the Alterna-
tives meet or partially meet all the goals established by the Task Force. These alterna-
Lives also have other major disadvantages and impacts which have been identified in the
I( previous section of this study.
i During the many Task Force meetings and presentations to various public and private organ-
izations, the incompatibility of Phase III alternatives with the Park West and Overtown
development plans was consistently identified as a major issue. Consequently, it is
i important to include this issue as a fifth goal.
An evaluation of how the Phase I street improvements, the Phase II high - level bridge and
(� the Phase III alternatives meet or fail to meat the five qoals is shown in Table I.
i
Although it is necessary to consider project construction costs, t is equally important
to consider if the construction impacts are detrimental to the future of the community's
aesthetic, recreational and developmental needs. In the past a number of U.S. cities
have constructed elevated roadways which divide parks from waterfronts and major develop-
ments areas. Today, they are looking for resources and ways to remove or lessen the
l impacts of these facilities. Based on the experiences in these cities, this community
should carefully evaluate every possible alternative before making any decision which
/ would create a similar situation.
4�
P� 12
4 TAB
t
F
r
I
FI,
a
a]
11
LE 1
ALTERNATIVE S
PHASE I PHASEII PHASE ill
UUALS
BRIDGE
A
E
K
N
1) Elir;inate Port Traffic
frori the C6D by diverting
3 3
1
1
2
1
it mre directly to the
into rotate h i q ay.
21) Ha rr,(-)n i ze t ra f f i e f l o',•:s
2 3
1
2
2
�•:i th the Part. West Plan.
3) Improve air quality in
the. CBD by eliminating
3
2
2
3
1
stops and slow Port
traffic movements.
4) Ensure that the nee•:
facility is compatible
3
3
3
2
1
with Bayfront Park/FEC/
Bicentennial Park plans.
5) Ensure that the new
facility is compatible
2 2
3
3
3
1
with Park West and Over -
Town Development Plans.
1 Meets Goal
2 Partially Meets Goal
3 Does Not Meet Goal
RECOMMENDED FOR FURTHER STUDY
As members of the Port Access Task Force, staff of both the Downtown Development Authority
and the City of Miami have worked with the other Task Force members since its inception
in an effort to identify the most effective alternatives for providing safe, efficient and
uninterrupted access to the Port in both the short and long term. Although both organiza-
tions are cognizant of the Port's access needs and possible financing constraints their
rajor concerns are the minimization of impacts on Do,•,ntown, the Bayfront Park System,
Park West and Overtown.
Since the last Port Access Task Force meeting (March 7, 1983), additional alignments and
solutions have been investigated which address these concerns. Based on these additional
studies, -two alternative solutions are proposed and hereby recommended to the Task Force,
and the Port of Miami and their consultants for immediate study. While these new alterna-
tives will cost more than the Phase II bridge, they do resolve most of the
outstanding issues and should be pursued because their long-term costs and benefits out-
1 weigh immediate cost considerations.
J
ALTERNATIVE 1
j As with all other proposals for solving the Port's access needs this is also a three
phase improvement program.
The major difference between this proposal and those previously studied is that Phase li
and Phase III are entirely below grade except for connections to the road system on the
Port and mainland. Figure i shows the alignment and major elements of this solution.
Phase I - See Figure 3
- Remove parking along sections of North 5th b 6th Streets.
- Improve Port Boulevard/Biscayne Boulevard intersection including double left
turn lanes.
- Improve traffic signal synchronization on North 5th b 6th Streets and North 1st
& 2nd Avenues.
i Phase
i
II - See Figures 1 and 4
- Direct tunnel connection under the Intracoastal Waterway between Dodge Island
and Biscayne Boulevard.
- Varying cross-section of four to six lanes.
- Maximum grade of 4`;.
- Maximum bottom of structure (BOS) elevation of -40 feet under Intracoastal
Waterway.
-
Maximum top of structure (TOS) elevation of -17 feet under Intracoastal Waterway.
-
Minimum 5 foot between
clearance top of structure and bottom of Intracoastal
Waterway.
- Minimal land take of 1.4 acres in FEC Tract as compared to bridge proposal that
required 4 acres.
14
ALTERNATIVE 1 FIGURE I
W,1CA11TML%P CALME*AY
L-j Li
. . . . . . . . . . . .
D El Li
4
01
N
WENTENNIAL PARK
PARK WEST
oft
FZ C.TRACT
r arm,
CENTRAL
BUSMSS
DtSTW-T
a--.
SECTION
I
BAYFP40W PAW
Intracoastal
WAMARM
Pnri of Miami
5'of protective fill
6'of structure (3'top/ bottom)
17'of Tunnel clearance
� ROADWAY CONNECTIONS' ALTERNATIVE 1
1-395 INTERCHANGE FIGURE 2
I I I I _ cnUl EWAY
BISCAYNE
BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
J %" 1 1
N.E. 7th STREET '�,
j Ir,- \\\\%\�
F:E... RAILROAD
11
N.E. 6th STREET
PHASE 1
N.E. Sth STREET
I
CENTRAL
BUSINESS r—
DISTRICT �-
16
SUB -SURFACE
IMPACT ON
PARK
1.5 ACRES
FIGURE 3
14
i�
i
SECTION' • ALTERNATIVE 1 FIGURE 4
BICENTENNIAL EDGE
BAY BOTTOM
2.5" 10' 12' 12' 5' 2.5'
50'
u,
17
�I
r�
- Realigns existing Port bridge outbound lanes adjacent to outbound tunnel lanes.
- Meets existing grade east of Biscayne Boulevard to aito.-j for future improvements
of the Boulevard from 5th Street to 1-395 to match the Boulevard cross-section
�. south of 5th Street.
- Minimum impact on proiosed Port road,:�ay system.
- Provides special structural modifications and tie-ins to allot: for Phase III
connections.
Phase III - See Figures 1,2 and 4
- Direct tunnel connection from Phase II, adjacent to the FEC Tract and Bicentennial
Park to 1-395.
- Four lane stacked tunnel section.
- Maximum grade of 5� on approaches to 1-395•
- Maximum bottom of structure (BOS) elevation of -40 feet adjacent to parks.
- Maximum top of structure (TOS) elevation of +3 feet adjacent to parks.
- No land take in Bicentennial Park.
- Requires relocation of Biscayne Boulevard on -ramp to MacArthur Causeway within
existing 50 foot transit easement. Still allows adequate space for DCM guideway
and columns.
- Requires relocation of North Bayshore Drive on -ramp to MacArthur Causeway.
- May require reconstruction of 1-395 where tunnel goes under 1-395.
- Appears that traffic can be maintained on 1-395 and MacArthur Causeway during
construction.
- Provides new bulkhead which can have provision for dockage of maritime vessels.
- Creates additional park land on top of tunnel.
- Eliminates access to existing deep water slip.
Deep water slip can be reconfigured to provide a recreational lake or water
feature.
When the entire system is in place, it is proposed that the existing Port bridge be re-
moved since adequate vehicular access capacity will be available. At this time, the park
can be extended eastward over the tunnel structures, which when added to the area on top
of the Phase III tunnel will provide an additional 10.5 acres of new park land.
It should be noted that all grades, elevations, distances and acreages are preliminary.
I More detailed engineering studies may identify alternative alignments which could reduce
the maximum 5% grade shown for this proposal.
t8
to
ALTERNATIVE 2
Unlike all other proposals, this alternative is only a two phase improvement prograr--.
This alternative rs siniIar to Alternative I in that it proposes a tunnel connection
ht-t:ioen the Port and 1-335. Figure 5 shows the al ignment and maior elements of this
solution.
Phase I - See Figure 7
- Remove parking along sections of North 5th & 6th Streets.
-.Irprove Port Boulevard/Biscayne Boulevard intersection including double left
turn lanes.
Inprove traffic signal synchronization on North 5th & 6th Streets and North 1st
& 2nd Avenues.
Phase II - See Figures 5,6 and 8
- Combination elevated and tunnel sections in the FEC Tract and Bicentennial Park
connecting the Port directly to 1-395.
- Four lane cross-section.
- Maximum grade of 6'; on approaches at 1-395.
- Maximum bottom of structure (BOS) elevation of -40 feet under Intracoastal Waterway.
Maximum top of structure (TOS) elevation of -17 feet under Intracoastal Waterway.
- Minimum 5 foot clearance between top of structure and bottom of Intracoastal
Waterway.
- Maximum BOS elevation of -20 feet in parks.
- Maximum TOS elevation of +3 feet in parks.
- No land take in FEC Tract.
- Subsurface impact to FEC Tract and Bicentennial Park of 3.0 acres.
Maximum land take of 4.0 acres in Bicentennial Park.
- - Minimum 16'6" clearance over 1-395.
- Provides access to and from the at -grade roadway network at N.E. 13th Street and
the Biscayne Boulevard on -ramp to MacArthur Causeway respectively.
- Eliminates access to existing deep -water slip; however, the deep -water slip can
be maintained or reconfigured. Tunnel may be lowered at deep -water slip to
provide access for small maritime vessels.
- Creates pedestrian connection between FEC Tract and Bicentennial Park adjacent
to Bay.
j - Impacts DCM Stage 11 vertical alignment over 1-395.
19
ALTERNATIVE 2 FIGURE 5
•' •, "'.•.••. MAC ARTI CAUSEWAY
t _
nt t7w � v
. BICENTEMNLAL PARK
ne tpP lrtan .-u... •..... .: .w..v .vnYrr. __� � �
n•.e.. w.o•.ra ..a .c •. .� l
DARK wEsrLi
r e�i�.lA+w�arRtFAtr4t.ii•« I f '
�lnPrr t
� wswr.0 r n a v.mr... ..r _.. I .-•. F .
I m•.. nc .: c•... r. a 'f .......
FE.C.TRACT
Ml 'P •1t[
Ml .PIiR
fw.Tltal _ _ _ _ - �i•
1
CENTRAL
BUSt1ESS t
OtSTMCT
MA. o.c snen
SECTION
New Park
1 nnrl
BAYFRONT PARK
Intracoastal
9
PORT OF 1NAM
I T
0. 4 of AAi9R1i
5'of
protective fil!
6' of structure (3' top/ bottom)
17' of Tunnel clearance
i
ROADWAY CONNECTIONS -ALTERNATIVE 2
ti
I
I
u
1--395 INTERCHANGE
L0le�,O,, 2Li
F��lllllil, ..............
r \
� � h
i N N
f t
yox 00
i �p ~ co
i \
♦ � � y�i YQ
i
BISCAYNE BOULEVARD INTERSECTION
N.E. 7th STREET
i
\\\\\\\
F.E.C.RAILROAD ; F.E.C.TRACT
.....................................................................
S�
N.E. 6th STREET
)r
N.E. 5th STREET
PHASE 1
CENTRAL
BUSINESS
DISTRICT
FIGURE 6
NUR CAUSEWAY
TOS+29
-- BOS+25
VISUAL AND PHYSICAL
IMPACT
TO PARK 4 ACRES
c,
0
0
I EXISTING GRADE +7
FIGURE 7
iIII
..........
IMPROVE EXISTING PORT 111 11
ACCESS ROADWAY
101
21
SECTIONS • ALTERNATIVE- 2 FIGURE 8
BICENTENNIAL EDGE
11
11
1
1
0
Minir;um ir'pact on propos,2d Port road: ay s,;':ter, .
Maintains existing bulGh-ad that can he i-provcd to ra'.e provision for th.r d-)c--
aUe of maritime vessels.
tS lltth H1tLrnatlVe 1, tht' park: can be extend"d e•l':t'::ard and pt-nvidi an ad'.'ItionaI
5.6 acres of park land.
It should he noted that all grai'+ elevations, distancr.s, and acreage, are preliminary.
More detailed engineering studies may identify alternative alignrents :jhich could reduce
the maxir,um 6-1 grades shown For this proposal.
Any evaluation of these tt-.o alternatives should consider how they meet the goals that
have been estabI ished. Table 2 sho,:s how these alternatives compare r..ith the four
alternatives previously studied in r,eetino c,tab Iish(-d goals.
TABLE 2
ALTERNATIVES
PHASE 11
PHASE III
GOALS
BRIDGE ALT 1
ALT 2
A I
E
K
N
ALT 1
1) Eliminate Port Traffic from
the CBD by diverting it
3
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
more directly to the inter-
state high,.-
jay-2) Harmonize traffic flo�.s
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
with the Park West Plan.
3) Improve air quality in the
CBD by eliminating stops
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
and sloe! Port traffic
moverne n t s .
4) Ensure that tho ne%-�
facility is compatible with
3
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
Bayfront Park/FEC/Bicenten-
nial Park plans.
5) Ensure that the new
facility is compatible with
2
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
Park West and Overtown
Development Plans.
1 Meets Goal
2 Partially Meets Goal
3 Does Not Meet Goal
CONCLUSIONS
1
Everyone concerned recor;nizes the nr�e�j to suIvtl thu "hOrt an(j Ionq
term Purt access need,. this i�, neeessar; for the continued (4ro:;th,
expans inn and �,ucee,,s of the Port of Mia-i, :.,hich ev-r:on Sunrort
'
Th,,.� DDA resolutions adopted on March 11, 1g83, and Ac)ri1 8, 1983;
the Miami City Corr^r'5il.)n actions of March "14, ID83; pointed out
` that the construction of a 6-1ane high-It-vel, fixed span hridc;e ic,
not in tho brat inture,,t of Do: nto,..n Miami, Park West/Ovk-rto:,n,
Ba:,ide and the overalI rrogram for the redevelopment of the Bayfro-11,
Park System.
The limited resources that have been secured to build a bridge
betv:een Dodge Island and Downto:rn has severely constrained the
discussions on horn best to solve the Port access problu^ v;ithou t
destroying various other comr.iunity assets and goals.
It appears that all intere,'ted public and private bodies :rust try
to define, first, the right solution, and consequently, coma -.it
their collective eneryies to finance the solution rather than
pursue less than adequate solutions that in the short ter!, create
unnecessary social conflict and in the long term become a physical,
aesthetic and economic burden on this community.
i
Tunnel alternatives require minimal land take, and do not disrupt
the physical, aesthetic and economic development of Dov:ntov,n, the.
Park System and Park West/Overtown. Tunnels are more expensive.
However, cost should be measured in more than dollars and cents.
The two new alternatives presented in this report merit further
study. These alternatives once studied for feasibility, vehicular
capacity and construction costs may provide a solution everyone
can support. If additional funding is required and some delays
are experienced, this may be the price we have to pay to resolve
Downtown transportation needs and protect the future of the Bayfront
1
Park System.
L'
0 24
` PORT ACCESS ALTERNATIVES
DDA REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The Board of Directors of the Do:rnto::n Development Authority has revie::ed the issues,
f impacts and options for providing access to the Port of.Miami. The staff of the Port
and their consultants have appeared before the DDA Board and presented their findings
on the various phases and access alternatives that have been considered. In addition,
the staff of the DDT; has also presented their findings and concerns to the Board.
Eased on the information presented to date, the Board has taken the position stated
r in the foI Io:, i rig two resol tit ions.
PORT OF MIAMI RESOLUTION NO. 83-3
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING IMMEDIATE DETAILED STUDY OF THE
PROPOSED TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE BETWEEN THE PORT OF MIAMI AND
MACARTHUR CAUSEWAY, RUNNING WEST FROM THE PORT UNDER THE
INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY AND NORTH PARALLEL TO THE PARK SYSTEM.
SHOULD SUCH A STUDY SUBSTANTIATE THE FEASIBILITY OF THE
PROPOSAL, IT WOULD CONSTITUTE THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHCRITY'S RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDRESSING THE PORT OF
MIAMI ACCESS NEEDS. IF, HOWEVER, THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE ABOVE TUNNEL ALTERNATIVE, THE DCA BOARD
STANDS BY ITS EARLY RESOLUTION THAT:
THE PORT OF MIAMI HAVE MORE THAN ONE POINT OF
ACCESS: THAT THE PROPOSED PHASE II BRIDGE BE
FOUR LANES: THAT PORT PLANNING ADDRESS THE
TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN PREA:
THAT SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE FINAL PHASE III ALTERNATIVES AFFECTING THE BAYFRONT
PARK SYSTEM AND PARK WEST/S.E. OVERTOWN BE SERIOUSLY
CONSIDERED.
`
PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF � 1983•
ATTEST:
Maurice A. Ferre, Chairman
Executive Secretary o"Kenzi Executive Director
25
RESOLUTION NO. 83-2
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE PORT CF MIAMI HAVE
MORE THAN ONE POINT Or ACCESS; THAT THE PROPC'SED PHASE 11
BRIDGE BE BUILT WITH ONLY 4 LANES AND NOT 6; UPGIN„ THAT
THE PORT ACCESS PLANNING BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A MANNER THAT
L! ADDRESSES THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF THE ENTIRE
DOWNTOWN AREA; THAT THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRCNMENTAL
IMPACTS OF THE FINAL PHASE III ALTERNATIVES THAT
AFFECT BAyr?ONT PARK SYSTEM ANC, PARS' WEST/OVERTOWN BE
(DEQ'JATELY STV'DIED: AND, THAT A TUNNEL EETW'EEN THE
FCRT Dr MIANI AN L1A 'oTH' R " `- S
D G. J CA,:.c'r;Ar' BE •EF.IC�'. Ly
CCNSIDCFEC AND STUDIED.
WHEREAS, the efficient ane' uninterrupted access to and fro'-, t!-e Port of Miami ;s critical to its
continuind Success;
WHEREAS, the proposed final Phase III alternate plans, other than the tunnel alternative bet..ee-• the
Fort of•Mia•ri and MacArthur Causeway, only provides one point of access to Dodge Island;
WHEREAS, the Fort of Miami has secured funds for the construction of a new high level fixed span
Fla5e 11 bridge between the Port of Miami and Downtown Miami;
W'HEREaS, the present Phase 11 proposal is a 6 lane bridge;
WHEREAS, the present plans are to retain the existing 2 lane bridge;
WHEREAS, the Downtown street system: and specifically the 5th and 6th Street intersections with
Biscayne Bculevard will never be able to maximize the use of a new 6 lane bridge anc the existing 2 lame
bridyc,
WHEREAS, the proposed Phase If bridge does not provide adequate capacity to serve the ultimate
gro,th, develcp"ent and expansion progra7 of the Port of Miami;
WHEREAS, trr access needs to serve the fully developed Port will require direct access to SR-B36 and
I-?5; and,
WHEREAS, all the Phase III alternatives other than the tunnel between the Port of Miami and
M,a:4rthur Causeway have negative impacti on either the Bayfront Park System and/or the Part. West and Overton
Redevelopment program,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF
MIA-1, FLORIDA, that:
I. The Port of Miami access planning program should, if possible, include at least
two separate points and corridors of access to insure efficient and uninterrupted
access to and from Dodge Island.
2. The new Phase If bridge between the Port of Miami and Downtown Miami at Biscayne
Boulevard be constructed with 4 lanes to serve the near term needs of the Port
especially if the existing 2 lane bridge is retained.
3. The kl recommendation of the Port Access Task Force for Phase III, a tunnel between
Dodge island and MacArthur Causeway, is hereby endorsed.
4. The studies necessary to determine the alignment, engineering feasibility, traffic impacts
and related cost of the tunnel alternative commence immediately.
' 5. The social, economic, traffic and environmental impacts of the Phase 11 and Phase III
alternatives that affect Downtown, the Bayfront Park System, Park West and Overtown
be thoroughly studied and presented including real estate costs.
6. All Port access planning should consider the traffic and transportation needs of Downtown
Miami and to the extent possible the recommendations for access to the Port should also
attempt to enhance accessibility to Downtown.
PASSED AND ADCPTED THIS I1TH DAY OF MARCH, 1983.
ATTEST:
Maurice A. Ferre, Mayor/Chairman of the Board
Executive Seer ary
/ t / •►
Roy F. Ke?Yie, Executi Director
26
M C 0
A-tyffm=aearru
April 25, 1983
Mr. Merrett Stierheim
County Manager
Metropolitan Dade County
73 West Flagler Street
Room 911
Miami, Florida 33130
Dear Mr. Stierheim:
HOWARD , G.ARt
C11, kidndgf-
The Miami City Commission discussed the proposed bridge to
Dodge Island at its March 24, 1983 meeting and instructed me
to convey the City's position to the Dade County Commission
through you.
With regard to the short term solution, i.e. the construction
of the 55' or 65' high bridge:
1. You are requested not to proceed with the design
or working drawings on the bridge until the City
and County have reached an agreement on both the
short and long term solutions (connection to
SR 836) and if you do proceed, it is at your
own risk.
2. We request that the County explore the possibility
of a four lane bridge rather than a six lane bridge
including the possibility of a four lane 40' bascule
bridge.
3. Land owned by the City of Miami, which is needed for
a solution to the access problem of Dodge Island,
shall not be taken unless the City is compensated
for said land at the fair market value or if there
is an exchange for County property of equal value.
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 3500 Pan American Drive/Miami, Florida 332334708/13051 579,60+0
27
Mr. Merrett Stierheim
-2-
Regarding the long term solution, we are requesting:
1. Before we meet to negotiate and discuss preferred
solutions, an engineering study must be made of
the feasibility of tunnel access to Dodge Island
to resolve both the short and long term access.
The study should not be done by a local firm,
but rather one of the top national or inter-
national firms that have done tunnel work recently.
2. The Overtown/Park West area is not to be adversely
affected by the construction of a bridge that
permits construction of an elevated freeway
through Park West and Overtown to connect to
SR 836 as a long term freeway access solution.
The City of Miami is very much aware of the importance of improved
access to Dodge Island and does not wish to jeopardize your fund-
ing arrangements. However, it is in the best interest of the total
community that a senitive, aesthetic and effective solution be
mutually agreed upon to resolve the port access issue.
We look forward to working with you towards this end.
Sincer �,
Howard V. G y
City Manager
cc: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Commission
28