HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #12 - Discussion ItemC�/
�.iT" •Jr CAI.\`.1�,
Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
Jim Reid, Director
Planning Department
Don Cather, Director
Public Works Departmfn
SUI MIARY
OR
April 4, 1980
Request from
Resolution
Crossing of
the StatP for
on the Easterly
the Miami River
On January 28, 1980, in a Letter to County Manger M.R. Stl(c rheim,
Harvey Hall, the District Engineer for the Florida Department of
Transportation, asked for a resolution from the Miami City
Commission regarding I'he establishment of a crossinn of the Miami
River eastof the Bri ckel 1 Avenue Bri d-;e .
The Miami Plannin,- Department and Department of Public: Wnrlcs
have reviewo(l this matter and rccoinmc�ncl that a. City position
on the easterly crossin issue he deferred until the results
of the Ori;in and Destination Survey/Transportation Study being
undertaken by the County and the State are available to provide
guidance to this decision.
Further it is recommended that a Policy Committee he established
to guide the Study. An action a-enda for immediate transpor-
tation improvement." i s also sugc;ested in the memorandum.
BACKGROUND
Over the last decade there have been numerous studios desif;ned to
inil) rovr1 t17c- clownt'own transportation syst.(�m (See Apl-wndix I ,
Stimm;cry of Conclusions of Izecon_1. St.ndies on Downtown T_ranspor-
tation). In oarly 1979,--__.t-.he %, ewWorld Acti(�n C,�mmittee of
the Greater �,.1inmi Uhnmhwr of Commerc(-, endorsed n numhor of
transport ;ct ion imprm-onwnts for Dowell ov;n 11i nmi , incA uding: an
additionil crossini,; of thr )Iiami Ri%-er enst of the Iirickell Ave-
nge Iirid e. Subsequent to this ac•t i.on the reprc-,entatives of
t1jo Cit%, of 'Miami, 1.11e Downtown Developmont. Authority, the
Greater 'Miami Chamber of Commerce, includint; the Now World Action
Committee. 11et r0pol i tun Dada County and the Florida Department
of Transport.at. ion , nrt rind agreed t hat t ho easterly erossin,
issue shc�ulcl be resolved in the c_ontoxt of an Origin and Dos-
tination Survey/Transportation Study.
80-341
ok ok•
Joseph R. Grassie
Page 2
April 4, 1980
There have been substantial delays in the inception of this
Study primarily because of the time required by the State
to review the request for study funds and the required contract
documents. A consultantfirm has been selected to carry
out the Study and it is expected that the results of the Study
will be avail -able within six months. (See Appendix II
Summary of Proposed Origin and Destination Survey/Transporta-
tion for more description).
Recently, the State District Engineer acting at the request of
the New 1';orld Action Committee completed some preliminary align-
ment work on the easterly crossing. On the basis of this
engineerin- work he has concluded that an easterly crossing is
desirable and has determined that early action is necessary to
preserve the only remain.ingr viable corridor i.e., Biscayne
Boulevard/C1r111,11ton Island/SF 7th and 8th Streets. (See
Appendix III Summary of SLate DOI' Memorandum of January 28, 1980).
It should be noted that the year 2000 transportation plan
adopted by the County, acting as the Metropolitan Planning Or-
ganization, calls for an increase of 10 lanes in the current
river crossing; capacity. The number of lanes would go from
8 to 1S in the County's long range transportation plan. In
addition, it, should be remembered that the Metro Rapid Transit
Systern Nvi.11 have a carryin,; capacity at least equal to the
construction of a 24-lane highway bridge across the River (12
lanes in each direction).
RECOMMI'NDATIONS
1. The Mi.urli Planning Department and the Department of Public
Works have reviewed this request and recommend that a
City position on the easterly crossing issue be deferred
until the results of the Origin and Destination Survey/
Transportation Study being undertaken by the County and
the State are available to provide guidance to this
decision.
In the interim, City staff believe that the option for an
easterly crossing can be preserved by retaining a potential
corridor on Claur;hton Island during review of development
plans and by reserving a. SE 7th Street corridor from the
Bay to Brickell durinrr; any development of regional impact
review of the irroperties adjacent to the new F1,1nship
Bank headquarters. Should study indicate that the easterly
crossing is not needed, constraints on the aforementioned
developments would he removed.
00% ^
Joseph R. Grassie
Page 3
April 4, 1980
2. The proposed Origin and Destination/Transportation Study
is the key to the development of a sound and orderly long-
range strategy for transportation improvements in Down-
town Miami. City staff firmly believe that if this study
is to be successfully formulated, adopted by public of-
ficials, and carried out, it must be guided from the in-
ception by a policy committee similar to the committee
whichsuccessfully shaped crucial decisions recently made
regarding the DPM alignment, staging and station location
processes. This committee should be composed of:
elected officials from the City and County;
businessmen from the Brickell, Central Business
District and Omni/'Mid-Town Sections of Downtown;
including representatives from the DDA Board, the
New World Action Committee and the Downtown Miami
Businessmen's Association;
citizens with an area -wide perspective, e.g.
League of Women Voters, Urban League, etc.
This police conuni ttCrc should bc' supt101'ted b�' a staff tech-
nical commi t:tel', with representation from the Downtown
Development Authority, Florida DOT , Dade County DOW ,
Dade County Public Works and Office of Transportation
Administration, and the Cite Planning Department and
Public Works Department. At the appropriate time, the
Study findings and rec_oinmend,,itions should be brought
before the Cite Commission and the County Commission
actin;' as the metropolitan Planning Organization. One
key function of the policy committee would be to provide
guidance in the development cif' three growth scenarios
for Downtown called for in the Study and in the definition
and approval of growth policy assumptions ,;.tmilar to
the illustrative assumptions set forth in Appendix IV.
The growth scenarios and the growth police assttmptiOtis
should be reviewed with the City and County Commissions
when they are formulated and prior to their use in defi-
ning the parameters for the Transportation Study recommen-
dations.
3. In interim there are a number of ,.actions which can be
taken by State, City, and County agencies to improve the
downtown transportation system and maintain momentum
needed to carry out specific downtown transportation
projects.
80-341
Joseph R. Grassie
Page 4
April 4, 1980
A suggested action agenda follows:
. the State of Florida should:
1. complete the design of the bifurcated system
in the Dupont Plaza area to resolving the con-
cerns of Southenst Bank regarding the ramp
design and to promoting, ease of pedestrian move-
ment throuhout the Dupont Plaza area, among
the major activity centers such as Miami Center
and the City Convention Center.
2. complete the nreliminnry design of a 6-lane Brickell
Bridge and study widening of Brickell Avenue to 6
lanes from the Bridge, to SIti 8th Street;
3. initiate improvements to the SW/SE 7/8th Street
corridor from I-95 to Brickell;
4. expedite the study of improvements to the I-95
interchange at SIti 7/8th Streets;
5. make needed signing improvements.
the State and the County should:
1. complete the design and construction of a
6-1ane Miami Avenue Bridge with two 3-lane
pairs going to the Bridge from SIti 8th Street
to the Miami River;
. the County should:
1. begin preliminary design studies on a west -side
corridor by improv.i.ng the 2nd Avenue Bridge and
the linkage to NII` 1st Avenue and NW 3rd Avenue;
2. develop a plan for improvements to the NW/NE
5/6 Street corridor from I-95 and I-395 to
Biscayne Boulevard in response to the Port of
Miami. Development Order.
the City should:
1. study the feasibility of developing peripheral
parking garages at key north/south entrances to
downtown such as NW 5th Street and I-95 and
NW 2nd Street and I-95. In the short term these
garages could be linked up with shuttle buses
to the Dupont Plaza area thus proving continuous
convenient transportation access to that area
80-341
rk
Joseph R. Brassie
Page 5
April 4, 1980
when the I-95 ramp and the bifurcated street
system is being constructed; in the long term
these garages would serve the Government Center
and the DPNI system.
2. prepare development guidelines for the 4 Dupont Plaza
tracts which promotr' the integrated development of
these blocks providing appropriate pedestrian
connections and the opportunity for an I-95 ramp
directly connected with a parking structure(s)
so that. several thousand cars can reach that.
site cirri ly without. t.raversin ; the Surface
street sv-,tem.
The State, County and City should seek full funding for the Down-
town People Mover System so that the Rapid Transit System is
effectively linked to downtown activity centers and to provide
a connectionbetween those areas that is unobstructed by Miami
River Bridge openings.
In summary, the City staff recommends:
deferral of a decision on the easterly crossing;
expeditious completion of the Origin and Desti-
nation Survey/Transportation Study with the estab-
lishment. of a Policy Committee to provide necessary
policy guidance;
an action agenda for immediate transportation im-
provements.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS OF RECENT STUDIES ON DOWNTOWN TRANSPORATION
The purpose of this appendix is to summarize the major findings of
these studies so that the reader will have a historical framework
for the analysis and conclusions contained e,i.rlier in this memorandum
Since 1973, there have been at least seven studies of various as-
pects of the Downtown transportation prohlc--m. Some of these
studies are single -purpose in nature examining the requirements
for a single facility or area, while others Such as the 'Transportation
Concept Plan for Downtown completed in 1973 are broad in scope.
In 1973, in Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan prepared
by Beiswen-er Koch and associates, Inc., for F.D.O.T., the following
major points emerged:
existing parking deficiencies in Downtown Miami
would become more severe unless additional park-
ing was provided in several locations;
a new mode of transportation (rapid transit) should
provide an alternative to the automobile and surface
buses;
major movements in the Dupont Plaza area should be
separated from each other in an integrated transpor-
tation improvement:
deficiencies in general traffic circulation should
be overcome at five kev locations,.
This study did not recommend an additional bridge or tunnel at the
mouth of the Miami Diver because it: would tend to restrict access
to Miami's Bavfront Parks and it was not cost-effective when com-
pared to other solutions.
Most of the aforementioned recommendations were incorporated in
Downtown MiLuni 1973-1985:An Urhnn Pedevelopment and 'Zoning Plan
prepared by Wallace, 1lcfiarg, Roborts and Todd and approved in
principle by the Miami Ciiy COmmissiOn in 1975. In addition,
Wallace, Mellarg, Koherts and Todd recommended restriction of on -site
parkin;; to a maximum of 1200 spaces per block.
-1-
In 1978, the Rice Center located in Houston, prepared the US1
Dupont Plaza and Miami Avenue Crossing Value Capture Analysis.
In this study they reviewed proposed tunnels under the Miami
River in the general location of the South Miami Avenue Bridge
and .in the corridor between I3i.scayne Boulevard Extended and the
Claughton Island/Brickell Area and concluded that, the value added
from these facilities would not he adequate to pay for the tunnels.
In November of 1978, the firm of Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and
Douglas prepared a study for the City of 'Miami and the Downtown
Development Authority entitled Subaqueous CS1 Route Crossing of
the Miami River which analyzed the possible tunnel, recommended
a preferred route, and alignment, and provided cost estimates
for a tunnel under the Miami River. On the basis of this study
the City staff concluded that:
a tunnel under the Miami River was technically
feasible;
a tunnel under the Miami River was costly, e.g.,
103 million for the DPM and a 6-lane tunnel or
75 million for a 3-lane tunnel and a 3-lane Brickell
Bridge operating in tandem;
a tunnel would change the character of Brickell
Avenue and constitute an undesirable growth
policy for the City;
if a tunnel was not built, a six -lane Brickell
Bridge was warranted by future traffic.
In June of 1079, Beiswenger Hoch and Associates, Inc., presented
their recommendations for improvement at a public hearing conducted
by the Florida State Department of Transportation on the US1/Dupont
Plaza area. In their findings, the Bciswenger Hoch firm evaluated
the impact of:
a new bridge at an easterly alignment to the existing
Brickell Bridge known as Elks South; or
a 6-lane Brickell Bridge with a Brickell to Biscayne
connector;
doing nothing.
-2-
Both action alternatives included a I-95 to Biscayne connector
and a Dupont Plaza parking loop. Earlier in this process the
State rejected the alternative of a tunnel with an alignment
throu,h Clau;;hton Island.
'File State consultants' solution for the Dupont Plaza area was re-
jected chirin the public hearing in favor of in alternat.ivo suggested
by Barton Aschman in a report entitled Traffic Forecast and
Roadwa.v Plan for the Dupont Plaza Area. This report. (prepared
by Barton Aschman for the Downtown Development. Authority, Cite
of Miami, EEol ywel l Corporation, SF. Banc: Corporation and Dupont
Plaza, Inc.) recommended a bifurcated scheme in the Dupont Plaza
area that would allow traffic from 1-95 to enter directly into a
parkin, ,,ara;,e and return to I-95 via a parkin- loop, and elevate
ramps near SE 2nd Avenue to reduce the conflict between Biscayne
Boulevard to Brickell. and I-95 to Biscayne movements. It also
recommended the closing of S1 3rd Street. All intersections of
the Barton Aschmann Plan would operate at service level "D" or
better in the year 2000.
The Barton Aschmann report also noted that:
1350 parkins; spaces are currently being provided
in the four -block Dupont Plaza area;
regional constraints such as I-95 off -ramps to
do%�,ntown would become si.1 gniricant in the future;
in the year 2000, 70`(of the traffic. Entering, the
Dupont Plaza study area would be destined .for that
area; and
free --flow connections between I-95 and Biscayne
Boulevard as woll as between Brickell and Biscayne
BOtileval•d are not necessary.
Subsequently, in a zoning/transportation study of the C-3 zoning
district for the City of Miami Plannin Department., Barton Aschman
noted an imbalance between the capacity going in an(1 out of the
central business c.ii.strict, i.e., 17,300 vehicles per hour in the
outbound direction vorsits 20,700 vehiclei, per hour in the` inbound
direction, result.in;, in nut.bound traffic bein_ a sir,nificant con-
straint on downtown develolmient.. The study also indicated that the
downt.own transportation svtitem provided ,t capacity for about
10,000,000 sclu uo feet in additional development in the C-3 zone.
A previous study by Wallace, 11eE[ar� , Roberts and Todd (1973) noted
that the zoninL, in downtown hypothetically permitted the development
of an additional 190,000,000 square feet.
-3- 80-341
T
The most recent study of traffic in the area was conducted by
Barton Aschman as part of a Development of Regional Impact
Report prepared on the Nasher Center pro,jec.t. This study in-
corporated the impact of developments in Brickell to 1984 and
revealed that several intersections in the 7/8th Street cor-
ridor will operate at service level "D" and one at service level
"E' without fnctorin, in additional development on Brickell
Avenue or the impact of an easterly crossinv.
This analysis supports the assumption that construction of an
easterly crossing wotild probably necessitate the six-laning of
Brickell Avenue between SW 8th Street and U.S. #1.
Z
-4- 80-341
1^
APPENDIX II
SUNWARY OF PROPOSED ORIGIN AND DESTINATION SURVEY/TRANSPORTATION
STUDY
Dade County and the State of Florida have combined resources to
engae a consultant who would prepare an Origin and Destination
(0&D) Study/Transport. at ion Plan :for downtown Miami. This studv
would 1) provide essential baseline data in the form of origin
and destination surveys; 2) analyze up to three future develop-
ment scenarios for downtown (including a high growth option);
and 3) conclude with a. recommended transportation strategy
for the next several decades.
In addition to providing; useful data not now available, the
0 & D Survey/Transportation Study should:
analyze the need for and feasibility of an
easterly crossing.
analyze the need for an feasibility of
the proposed western corridor, which would
link this 2nd Avenue Bridge with SW 1st Avenue
and eventually tie into an i mhrovr,d North
Miami Avenue at about NW 20th Street. (ad-
ditional focus on this issue will probably
be required as part of a Development of Regional
Impact Report required for the Government
Center. It mad• he possible to desi.gna.te this
route as an alternative to U.S. 1 and thus
receive State and Federal funding assistance).
make recommendations re ardinti intercept,
fringe and peripheral parkin;;
make recommendation:, regarding selected problem
areas such as the mid -town Omni area.
integrate the proposed handling of Port traffic
which is bein; analyzed as a result of the
Port of Miami Development Order.
review bri.d;*e openin,.; times to determine how these
might be modified to assure more free flow
movomont during the day.
review regional constraints such as freeway ramps
to determine how these could be alleviated in the
context of an overall plan;
-1-
. make recommendations as to how to handle the im-
balance between present capacity in and out of the
downtown cited in Appendix I:
make signing recommendations to ease auto movement,
e.g. the signing of I-95 to direct traffic to the
Brickell area on SW 8th Street; and
identify congestion problems caused by vehicles
illegally parked on major arterials during peak
hours and recommend action to remedy the problem.
finally, suggest a staging of improvements that
would constitute an optimum maintenance of traffic
plan.
During the preparation of this study, the consultants should
not only test various land use scenarios, but testthe impact
of alternate transportation and methods to carry them out
such as:
increasing the mode split expected for transit
and the Dor;ntown People Mover;
increasing car occupancy from the present level
of 1.3 occupants:
encouraging car and van pools;
promotion of staggered work hours and parking
pricing policies including the reduction of pub-
lic or private subsidies for parking; etc.
The consultant should be under contract in April and the study
concluded in 4-6 months.
A policy group similar to the DIEM policy group should be
established to guide the study. (Possibly the same group
with minor additions or replacements could be re -convened
for this purpose enabling them to build on the experience
gained shaping the DP;ti study.)
-2-
APPENDIX III
SUMMARY OF STATE DOT MEMORANDUM OF JANUARY 28, 1980
Harvey Ball, District: Engineer for the State Department of
Transportation supportecl his request for resolution of the
easterly crossing issue with a copy of a detailed 12-page memo
from him to Secretary of Transportation William N. Rose. The memo
included a status report on the Dupont Plaza improvements and
the Bricicell I3ridgc replacement as well as a detailed dis-
cussion o.f the easterly crossing issue.
On the issue of th(� easterly crossing the memo indicated:
1) that there is no need for this facility in the normal 20-
year planning, timeframe; 2) that in the opinion of State DOT
the facility would provide a unique transportation solution
to the River crossing problem: and 3) that the only possible
alignment for this facility would probably soon be threatened
by urban development. The memo also indicated.
the Miami Avenue Bridge improvement environmental
hearing is scheduled for early March, 1980; (meeting
held March 3, 1980)
the design of the bifurcated roadway in the Dupont
Plaza area would be submitted to the Federal High-
way Administration in August of 1980;
the design for the 6-1ane Brickell Bridge would be
submitted to the Federal Highway Administration in
August of 1980;
the bifurcated system recommended by Barton Aschman
for the Dupont Plaza area was a satisfactory solution
to the movement of surface traffic.
The State memo indicated that the transportation solutions were
intertwined with zonin,, land use and growth policy issues and
it was for local. governments to decide what would be
the hest course of action. The District Engineer urged that
there be early public agreement on the easterly crossing issue
subsequent to completion of the Origin and Destination Study.
IIe did not personally feel that the Origin and Destination Study
would resolve the issue and indicated that the Greater Mituni
community was divided on the need for an easterly crossing.
IIe noted that if the community did agree on an easterly crossing;
that it would have to con;pate with other projects in the
State pipeline, e.g. Sunny Isles Causeway, completion of com-
puter controlled sig;nalization system, and a 4-lane bridge in
Marathon as well as face the reality that the Sixth District
covering Dade and Monroe counties only receive about 20 million
dollars a year for financing projects of this type.
-1- 8()-I/!I
(Of course other local improvements such as:
Improvements
1. Miami Avenue Bridge
and approaches
2. Bifurcated Dupont Plaza
road system
3. Six -lane Brickell Bridge
4. SW 7th/Sth Streets im-
provements between Brickell
and I-95
5. I-95 ramp improvement at
SW 7th/8th Streets
6. Proposed west -side corridor
linked to SIV 2nd Ave. Bridge
T
Estimated Cost
$ 16,587,000
7,930,000
12,175,000
5,095,000
No Estimate Available
No Estimate Available
would all require priority setting and funding presumably from
the same sources.)
The memo included a detailed summary of the arguments used by
proponents and opponents of the easterly crossing. The State
memo noted proponents of the easterly crossing argue that:
an additional connection to Claughton Island would
provide the opportunity for more office development;
a new crossing would enable the Brickell. Bridge to
be replaced with a 4-lane bridge thus "protecting
the character of Brickell".
an easterly crossing represents the last opportunity
for an additional river ernssing in downtown;
a easterly crossing would provide an alternative for
traffic when the Brickell Brid�,e is being replaced and
when the bifureat'ed connection to I-95 is under
construction and;
a 20-year tirnefra.mo is an inadequate period to plan
for Miami which is emerging as a New World Center
and experiencing dynamic growth.
The State memo noted that. opponents contend that:
there is no traffic ,justification for the crossing
in the next 20 years (this is normal time period
for justifying the use of federal funds);
-2-
r
APPENDIX IV
ILLUSTRATIVE GROWTH POLICY- ASSUMPTIONS TO GUIDE FUTURE DOWNTOWN
TRANSPORT�ATTON PL?1NNING
Transportation decisions for downtown should be made in the con-
text of both alternative development scenarios and growth policy
assumptions which provide ;guiding; principles for the transporta-
tion decisions. An initial set of these policy assumptions are,
sug-gested here for consideration.
the capacity of Slti 7th and Sth Streets, as improved,
should be reserved to accommodate future, growth
in the Brickell area;
the duality and 4-1ane character of Brickell Avenue
from Slti 7th Street. to Rickenbacker Causeway
should he maintained, if possible;
peripheral parking should be provided at l.(-v con-
nections to tho I-95 frenwav sustoin and the Downtown
People Mover to minimize surface traffic in downtown,
e.€;., I-95 and tho Dupont Plaza, I-95 nt Ntti 2nd
Street at the Government Canter, Miami Avenue at Nt4
5th Street and I-:195 at NE 2nd Avenue, etc.:
intenratc•d developmcrrit of thf� ff,ur flocks in the Dupont
Plaza area i s necessary to keep 3,500 cars off the
surface street system by construction of an I-95 ramp
system direct. linked to pnrkin,, _,ara<ges ;
the promotion of hottsim_� within and nearby downtown
including' areas such ,ts Marl: Kest, tho Lummus Park/
Overt own area, tho area north of Omni and
east of l;c,ulevard, 1'lara Venetia and Claughton
Island; i., dosirttfle to provide a closer link between
residenres and w()rk pincos;
the Miami 7.,on i n.g Ordinance should be amendt�ci t:o pro-
vide honu:,es for addi t i c>n�il resi dent i al development
in a lar-o-scale rnitied uv-;e pro•jectnext to the Brickell
Transit Station, and for tho remainin;; hayfront areas
east of Brickell Avenue and south of Sit' Sth Street,
as well as the undeveloped area adjacent to the Miami
River in Brickell that are currently zoned R-C.
-1-
a
This list is suggested as a starting point for discussion.
Policy guidance should be provided to the O&D Survoy/Transportation
Study consultants as soon as possible, after Technical Committee
reviewand intensive discussion by the proposed Policy Committee.
The policy recommendationsapproved by the Policy Committee should
be reviewed by the City Commission and the MPO as soon as
possible.
-2-
i
there is little residual capacity on SW 7th and 8th
Streets and this remaining capacity should be re-
served for development related to Brickell Avenue
(several underdeveloped sites are located on Brickell
Avenue between loth Street and the Miami River).
additional office development is not desired on
Claughton Island and the present residential plans
are preferred;
the facility would negatively impact Claughton Island,
Ball Point, and the future development of eight acres
adjacent to the new Flagship Bank headquarters;
it is too expensive to provide this facility for
a short-term "detour" while the Brickell Avenue
Bridge and I-95 distributor are being improved;
the real constraints to downtown highwny access
are facilities such as Dixie Highway, 836 and
the connecting ramps to I-95 and not additional
bridge capacity:
the community has more pressing needs than con-
struction of an unneeded bridge or an expensive
downtown tunnel to provide an easterly crossing;
a new westei,n corridor throu(Jh downtown using
the 2nd Avenue Bridge and NW 1st Avenue is a
preferred solution;
with the energy crisis and the advent of rapid
transit we should be discouranin;; rather than
encouraging; additional auto movement to downtown.
-3-