Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibiltiy Study
City of Miami Initial Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY prepared for: City of Miami, Florida 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. 15450 New Barn Road, Suite 304 Miami Lakes, FL 33014-2169 Phone: 305.728.7400 Fax: 305.728.7447 Final Report April 2005 Acknowledgements City of Miami Manuel A. Diaz, Mayor City of Miami Commission Joe Sanchez, Commissioner, Chairman, District Three Angel Gonzalez, Commissioner, Vice -Chairman, District One Johnny L. Winton, Commissioner, District Two Tomas Regalado, Commissioner, District Four Jeffrey L. Allen, Commissioner, District Five Joe Arriola City Manager Jorge L. Fernandez City Attorney Priscilla A. Thompson City Clerk Alicia Cuervo Schreiber, PE, Chief of Operations Mary H. Conway, PE, Director Lilia I. Medina, AICP, Assistant Transportation Coordinator Office of the City Manager/Capital Improvements Program and Transportation Miami Downtown Development Authority City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency Staff Miami Parking Authority Staff Agencies Et Stakeholders Florida US Congressional Delegation Florida Department of Transportation, Central Office and District VI Miami -Dade County, Board of County Commissioners Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Miami -Dade MPO TPC, TPTAC, CTAC Miami -Dade MPO Bay Link Project Team Miami Dade Transit Staff and Government Center Station Project Team Miami -Dade County Public Works Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust Greater Miami Chamber Transportation Executive Committee and Downtown Transportation Committee "Entities of Common Interest" Coalition of Major Public and Private Facilities Managers American Planning Association, Gold Coast Chapter Midtown Miami Community Development District Florida East Coast Railway Consulting Team HDR Engineering, Inc. Nick Serrianni Gunster, Yoakely Et Steward, P.A. Jeffery A. Parker Et Associates, Inc. Holland Et Knight, LLP LTK Engineering Services OTAK Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. Sorin Garber Consulting Group Vic Rhodes Consulting ".11111'111 ,. CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Study Context and Purpose ES-1 Study Funding and Management ES-1 What is Streetcar Transit? ES-2 Study Process ES-2 Initial Project Phase Recommendation ES-2 Project Components ES-4 The Opportunity ES-7 Frequently Asked Questions ES-9 PART I -CONCEPT PLAN 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Report Organization 1-1 1.2 Project Description and Context 1-1 1.3 Planning Context 1-3 1.4 Study Approach 1-3 1.5 Questions to Be Answered in the Study 1-4 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 National Context -Streetcars and the North American City 2-1 2.2 Community Concerns About Rail Transit 2-1 2.3 Historical Context -Miami's History with Streetcars 2-2 2.4 Existing Transit System 2-2 2.5 Miami -Dade People's Transportation Plan Improvements 2-3 2.6 "Miami at Midnight" Concept 2-3 2.7 Bay Link 2-3 3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF STREETCARS 3.1 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Implications of Streetcars 3-1 3.2 Comparative Characteristics of Transit Modes 3-2 4.0 STUDY AREA 4.1 Population, Households and Employment Trends 4-1 4.2 Attractions/Important Destinations 4-1 4.3 Area Redevelopment 4-1 4.4 Programmed Transportation System Improvements 4-6 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT CORRIDOR 5.1 Characteristics of North -South Streets 5-1 5.2 Characteristics of East-West Streets 5-3 5.3 Florida East Coast Railway Line 5-6 6.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA 6.1 Compatibility with Land Use, Economic Development and Transportation Goals 6-1 6.2 Physical Compatibility 6-1 6.3 Policy and Regulatory Compatibility 6-1 6.4 Stakeholder and Community Support 6-1 7.0 ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS EVALUATION 7.1 Advantages and Disadvantages 7-1 7.2 Issues and Constraints 7-3 7.3 Advancing Corridors for Further Examination 7-3 8.0 POTENTIAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS 8.1 Option 1 Alignment 8-1 8.2 Option 2 Alignment 8-1 8.3 Option 3 Alignment 8-2 8.4 Potential Stop Locations 8-2 9.0 PART I CONCEPT PLAN SUMMARY 9.1 Project Phasing 9-1 9.2 Next Steps 9-1 PART II -PLANNING, ANALYSIS Et IMPLEMENTATION 10.0 PART II -STUDY REFINEMENT 10.1 Recommended Alignment 10-1 10.2 Factors Considered for the Recommended Alignment 10-3 10.3 Goals of Part II Study 10-3 11.0 PROJECT CORRIDOR ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES 11.1 Proposed Alignment 11-1 11.2 Utilities 11-1 11.3 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances 11-1 11.4 Performing Arts Center 11-2 11.5 Midtown Miami 11-2 11.6 Planned Downtown Bus Terminal 11-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 11.0 PROJECT CORRIDOR ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES (CONT.) 11.7 FEC Railway Coordination 11-4 11.8 Bay Link Coordination 11-6 11.9 Miami at Midnight 11-6 11.10 Miami -Dade People's Transportation Plan 11-7 12.0 STREETCARS, LAND USE Et TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT 12.1 Experience of Other Cities with Streetcar Projects 12-1 12.2 Defining Transit -Oriented Development 12-4 12.3 Implementing Transit -Oriented Development -Case Studies 12-5 12.4 Land Redevelopment Base Model 12-6 12.5 Conclusion 12-9 13.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES 13.1 Local Trends 13-1 13.2 Land Use Plans, Zoning, and Incentive Programs 13-1 13.3 Current Development in the Study Area 13-2 13.4 Development Proposals in the Study Area 13-2 13.5 Population and Employment Forecasts 13-2 13.6 Real Estate Development Revenue Projections 13-3 14.0 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 14.1 Purpose 14-1 14.2 Transit Linkages 14-1 15.0 RIDERSHIP FORECAST 15.1 Land Use Data Sets 15-1 15.2 Operating Characteristics 15-1 15.3 Ridership Results 15-2 16.0 ALIGNMENT 16.1 Design Criteria 16-1 16.2 Horizontal Alignment 16-1 16.3 Typical Sections 16-4 16.4 Traffic Controls 16-4 16.5 Alignment Impacts 16-5 16.6 NE 2nd Avenue "Road Diet" Feasibility 16-5 17.0 STREETCAR STOPS Et STATION AREAS 17.1 Station Design Guidelines 17-1 17.2 Station Area Planning 17-7 18.0 MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND SUBSTATION LOCATIONS 18.1 Maintenance and Operations Facility 18-1 18.2 Traction Electrification System 18-1 19.0 CAPITAL Et OPERATING COSTS 19.1 Capital Costs 19-1 19.2 Operating Costs 19-2 20.0 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY 20.1 Capital Funding Sources 20-1 20.2 Financial Feasibility -Capital Funding Sources and Scenarios 20-5 20.3 Operating Funding Sources 20-7 20.4 Financial Feasibility -Operating Funding Sources and Scenarios 20-9 20.5 Ancillary Revenue 20-10 20.6 Secondary Revenue Sources 20-12 21.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS 21.1 Letter of No Prejudice Option 21-1 21.2 Environmental and Planning Requirements 21-1 21.3 Process to Meet Environmental Requirements 12-2 22.0 IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS 22.1 Key Factors for Selecting an Approach 22-1 22.2 Project Schedule 22-3 22.3 Payout Schedule 22-3 22.4 Next Steps to Move the Project Forward 22-3 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Scope of Work APPENDIX B Metrobus and Metromover System Maps APPENDIX C June 15, 2004 Florida East Coast Railway Meeting Materials APPENDIX D FEC Response APPENDIX E City of Miami Large Scale Development Report: 1995-Present CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 Phase I Recommended Streetcar Project ES-3 Figure ES.2 Study Area Development ES-5 Figure ES.3 Downtown Streetcar Alignment Shared with Proposed Bay Link Streetcar ES-6 Figure ES.4 Potential Corridor Extensions ES-8 Figure 1.2.1 Project Location 1-1 Figure 1.2.2 Study Area 1-2 Figure 4.2.1 Area Destinations 4-2 Figure 4.3.1A Corridor Employment Growth 4-4 Figure 4.3.1 B Corridor Population Growth 4-4 Figure 4.3.2 Study Area Development 4-5 Figure 5.1.1 Corridors Evaluated for Potential Streetcar Service 5-2 Figure 5.3.1 Recommended Alignment & Florida East Coast Railway Crossings 5-5 Figure 8.1.1 Option 1 Alignment 8-3 Figure 8.2.1 Option 2 Alignment 8-4 Figure 8.2.2 Option 3 Alignment 8-5 Figure 10.1.1 Recommended Phase I Alignment 10-2 Figure 11.6.1 Streetcar Alignment at Downtown Bus Terminal 11-5 Figure 12.0.1 Existing Districts/CRAs 12-2 Figure 12.4.1 Potential Redevelopment 12-7 Figure 14.1.1 Recommended Alignment & Signalized Intersections 14-2 Figure 14.1.2 Southbound Signalized Intersection Geometries 14-3 Figure 14.1.3 Northbound Signalized Intersection Geometries 14-4 Figure 14.2.1 Recommended Streetcar Route 14-6 Figure 14.2.2 Capture Area of Streetcar Route 14-6 Figure 14.2.3 Connections at Downtown Bus Terminal & Government Center Stations 14-8 Figure 14.2.4 Future Transit Linkages with Streetcar 14-8 Figure 17.1.1 Typical Station Functional Zones 17-1 Figure 17.1.2 Far Side Station Layouts 17-2 Figure 17.1.3 Near Side Station Layouts 17-2 Figure 17.1.4 Station Elevations 17-2 Figure 17.1.5 Mid -Block Station Layouts 17-3 Figure 17.1.6 Shared Station Layout 17-4 Figure 17.1.7 Platform Access 17-4 Figure 17.1.8 Station Locations at Route Turns —Intersections with Signal Priority 17-6 Figure 17.1.9 Station Locations at Route Turns —Intersections without Signal Priority 17-6 Figure 22.1.1 Potential Corridor Extensions 22-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1.1 Streetcar Advantages and Disadvantages 3-2 Table 3.1.2 Implications of Streetcar Service 3-2 Table 3.2.1 Comparative Characteristics of Different Transit Modes 3-7 Table 4.3.1 Forecast of Study Area Population, Household and Student Gains 2005-2025 4-3 Table 4.3.2 Study Area Employment 1999-2025 4-3 Table 4.3.3 City of Miami Large Scale Development Report 1996 to Present 4-3 Table 4.3.4 Streets Scheduled for Reconstruction 4-6 Table 7.1 Alternative Corridors Evaluation 7-1 Table 12.4.1 Maximum Developable Land Within 1/4 Mile of Streetcar Alignment 12-6 Table 12.4.2A Maximum Developable Land 8 Corresponding Parking Spaces (Traditional) 12-8 Table 12.4.2B Maximum Developable Land Et Corresponding Parking Spaces (Streetcar -Oriented) 12-8 Table 13.4.1 Development Activity in the Study Area 13-2 Table 13.5.1 Forecast of Study Area Population, Household and Student Gains 1999-2025 13-2 Table 13.5.2 Study Area Employment 1999-2025 13-2 Table 13.6.1 Employment, Household, and Space Demand Estimates 2005-2030 13-3 Table 13.6.2 2030 Assessment Value in 2030, Horizon Scenario 13-3 Table 13.6.3 Large Scale Projects Within Two Blocks of Streetcar Line 13-4 Table 13.6.4 Large Scale Projects Within Two Blocks of Streetcar Alignment — Ad Valorem Et Road Impact Fee Revenues 13-4 Table 13.6.5 Base Inflation Tax Rate Plus Large Scale Projects to 2030 13-5 Table 14.1.1 Preliminary Intersection Impacts and Controller Improvements 14-5 Table 14.2.1 Miami -Dade Transit Metrobus Routes Within 1/4 Mile Proximity of the Streetcar Route 14-5 Table 14.2.2 Miami -Dade Transit Route Linkages at Terminals and Metromover Stations 14-5 Table 14.2.3 Headways of Metrobus Routes in Study Area 14-7 Table 14.2.4 Miami -Dade Transit Circulator Services 14-7 Table 15.3.1 Streetcar Ridership Scenarios 15-2 Table 16.1.1 Design Criteria 16-1 Table 17.1.1 Clearance Requirements 17-3 Table 17.1.2 Placement Preferences 17-5 Table 19.1.1 Construction Cost Estimate 19-1 Table 19.1.2 Bay Link's Share -Cost Estimate 19-2 Table 19.2.1 Northbound Train Distances and Run Times 19-3 Table 19.2.2 Southbound Train Distances and Run Times 19-3 Table 19.2.3 Estimates of In -Service Cars Varying with Line Lengths and Service Frequency 19-3 Table 19.2.4 Annual Operating Et Maintenance Cost Estimate 19-3 Table 20.0.1 Capital Costs 20-1 Table 20.1.1 Preliminary Assessment of State Funding Sources 20-1 Table 20.1.2 Preliminary Assessment of Local Funding Sources 20-2 Table 20.1.3 City of Miami Allocation of PTP Revenues 20-2 Table 20.1.4 Special District Assessment Methodologies —Streetcar Impact Area 20-5 Table 20.2.1 Capital Funding Scenario 1 20-6 Table 20.2.2 Capital Funding Scenario 2 20-6 Table 20.2.3 Capital Funding Scenario 3 20-6 Table 20.2.4 Capital Funding Scenario 4 20-6 Table 20.3.1 One -Third of PTP Transit Minimum 20-7 Table 20.3.2 Operating Funding Reserve 20-7 Table 20.4.1 Operating Funding Scenario 1 20-9 Table 20.4.2 Operating Funding Scenario 2 20-9 Table 20.4.3 Operating Funding Scenario 3 20-9 Table 20.5.1 Summary Table 20-14 Table 22.1.1 Options for Implementation 22-4 Table 22.2.1 Project Schedule 22-6 Table 22.2.2 Estimated Payout Schedule 22-8 For additional information about the project, please contact: Lilia I Medina, AICP — Assist. Transportation Coordinator City of Miami, Office of the City Manager/Transportation 444 SW 2nd Ave, 10`h FL, Miami, FL 33130 Tel. (305) 416-1080 Fax (305)416-1019 limedina@ci.miami.fl.us http://www.ci.miami.fl.us CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY iv April 2005 Acronyms American Planning Association (APA) Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Automated People Mover (APM) Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Business Improvement District (BID) Central Business District (CBD) Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) Citizens' Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Community Development District (CDD) Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) Denver's Lower Downtown (LoDo) Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) Design/Build/Operate/Maintain (DBOM) Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Environmental Assessment (EA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Fiscal Year (FY) Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Florida Power Et Light (FPBL) Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) Florida Statute (F.S.) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Hillsborough Area Transit Authority (HART) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Letter of No Prejudice (LONP) Level of Service (LOS) Light Rail Transit (LRT) Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Maintenance and Operations Facility (MOF) Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan (MDTMP) Miami -Dade Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT) Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Net Present Value (NPV) Office of Community and Economic Development (OCED) Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Overhead Catenary System (OCS) People's Transportation Plan (PTP) Performing Arts Center (PAC) Pounds Per Square Foot (PSF) Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. (RERC) South Central Business Improvement District (SCBID) South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) Southeast Overtown Park West (SEOPW) State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Traction Electrification System (TES) Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Transportation Management Association (TMA) Transportation Planning Committee (TPC) Transportation Planning Technical Advisory Committee (TPTAC) --.1111! CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT-APRIL 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Between 1925 and 1928, more than 11 million passengers per year boarded trolley cars in Miami.' Trolleys, or streetcars, were an integral part of the City's growth and development early in the 20`h century. The Miami system of streetcars stopped operating in November 1940. Now, 65 years later, the City of Miami (the City) is evaluating the reintroduction of streetcar service with a modern technology counterpart. With this new transit service, the City seeks to provide its residents, businesses, and visitors with an attractive, convenient, comfortable urban mode of transit that is less expensive compared to light rail. The proposed 6.75 mile (10.86 km) streetcar service would provide improved transit connections between Downtown Miami and the redeveloping areas of Wynwood/Edgewater, Midtown Miami, the Miami Design District and the Buena Vista East Historic District. The streetcar is electrically powered and would run, at grade, on rail, within the roadway. The service is 'Biscayne BayTrolleys: Street RalAvays of the Mlaml Area, Edward Rldolph, Harold E. Cos pub- lisher, 80 Virginia Terrace, Forty Fort, PA 18704, 1,81., p. 51. intended to link with Metrorail and Metromover as well as with other planned transportation systems. It would also guide and enhance new investment opportunities for commerce, housing, the arts, cultural attractions and recreation, bringing additional jobs and tax revenues to the City. Study Context and Purpose Miami is undergoing spectacular growth. Since 2001, the City has witnessed a 10% increase in population. Estimates suggest that by the end of this decade, Miami's population may expand as much as 30%. This surge is a stark contrast to the 1% growth experienced in the 1990s and the 7% total seen from 1970-2000. The City's renaissance includes significant new commercial and residential investments, new residents living in Downtown Miami, new major public facilities and parks, and numerous capital improvement projects now breaking ground. Miami's urban intensification, in part, reflects a national pattern, wherein young people and "empty nest baby boomers" are seeking an urban lifestyle and avoiding the daily commute on increasingly congested highways. There is more at work here, however, than national demographic patterns. The renaissance underway in Miami is also being fueled by its stunning physical setting, its rising economic strength and by its reputation as an international gateway. These positive trends bring with them a question which Miami must prepare to face: will the existing transportation system be able to support and sustain a much denser and less automobile dependent urban Miami? Might streetcars, used so successfully in the improvement of other downtowns, be an ingredient in a successful strategy for the world -class downtown that Miami seeks to become? The existing downtown transportation system of transit and streets is no longer adequate to support the redevelopment growth. The street network is fixed in its number of lanes for carrying automobiles. The existing transit system consists of buses operating on those same streets and two fixed guideway systems, the Metrorail and Metromover, that are unsuited to the task of improving circulation for a multiplicity of short trips within the study area and do not reach many of the areas now experiencing large-scale redevelopment. All development, even its most urban forms, requires convenient access and circulation. So, how can Miami's dramatic transformation be effectively supported and sustained; how will all those additional residents, workers and visitors move around? The subject of this study is not how the Miami -Dade urbanized area will improve its transportation system to meet regional needs, address congestion and improve air quality. The focus here is local, at the district or neighborhood scale. How will everyday trips, to the grocery store, to a lunch meeting, or to the entertainment, cultural and dining destinations in Downtown Miami be made for tens of thousands of new residents, workers and visitors? If the answer to that question is "by using their cars," the result will not be sustainable, livable urbanism. Excellent transit service to circulate people within Downtown Miami, aside from whatever is done to connect the downtown to the surrounding suburbs, is very important. The City of Miami Initial Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study, Final Report, April 2005, was conducted for a study area bounded by the Miami River, Miami Avenue (including Government Center), NE 79`h Street and Biscayne Boulevard and found the following: The proposed project can effectively provide attractive, convenient and reliable transit connections between Downtown Miami and redeveloping areas. Streetcars are the most appropriate and readily available transit technology for the needs of the study area. The proposed project can efficiently increase the capacity and use of the City's local and regional public transportation system through integration with the existing and proposed enhanced Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) system. The proposed project can guide and sustain economic development and support a sustainable pattern of urban land use activities. The proposed project can feasibly operate on segments of selected roadway corridors without adversely impacting traffic flow, parking facilities, business operations, and other corridor characteristics. The proposed project is financially feasible and can be implemented with existing and new revenue sources. Study Funding and Management This initial feasibility study was funded by the City of Miami's share of the Miami -Dade County People's Transportation Plan (PTP) transportation half -cent surtax of which twenty -percent of the annual collections provided to the City must be encumbered for transit ES-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary April 2005 Executive Summary purposes or revert back to Miami -Dade County for redistribution. This study was managed by staff of the Capital Improvement Program and Transportation Department, Office of the City Manager, for the City of Miami. What is Streetcar Transit? Streetcars are a mode of public transit that operates along a fixed rail guideway that is embedded within the surface of the roadway. While streetcars cannot deviate from the path of the guideway, the operator of the streetcar "drives" the vehicle, accelerating and braking to move along with traffic that may operate in the same lane as the streetcar. Streetcars are related to light rail transit; the difference is that streetcars are smaller, lighter, less expensive, and usually run in traffic, rather than in their own exclusive right-of-way. Powered by quiet electric motors, these vehicles use an overhead arm called a pantograph to collect power from an electrified wire that is suspended approximately 20 feet (6.10 meters) over the lane in which the streetcar runs. Streetcars can look contemporary or vintage with many body styles available and can be outfitted with numerous features. Photo 'anon ofproposed streetcar - NE 2nd Avenue Study Process This initial feasibility study was conducted in two parts from February 2004 to April 2005. Part I of the Study (Concept Plan) included the following tasks: Evaluated 12 corridor segments for physical and economic feasibility. Conducted initial coordination and information meetings with several project area stakeholders to determine the compatibility and effectiveness of a proposed streetcar project with respect to governmental agency and district plans. Developed criteria for selection of a Phase I streetcar project. Applied the criteria to the alternative corridors examined. Identified any fatally flawed corridors (or corridor segments where physical, environmental or policy constraints would prohibit streetcar construction and use) in the study area. Identified corridors where streetcars would enhance and reinforce the objectives of redevelopment and revitalization efforts in the City of Miami. Developed a conceptual route with station locations for a series of streetcar lines which could serve major destinations, connect areas undergoing redevelopment, and provide access to other areas to improve their viability for redevelopment. Part II of the Study (Planning, Analysis Et Implementation) built on the Part I research; it addressed: Refinement of the conceptual route alignment to a Phase 1 recommended streetcar alignment. Coordination of the conceptual alignment with the proposed Bay Link project on the Downtown Miami portion of the study area south of Interstate 395. Identification of the requirements for a maintenance and operations facility. Engineering and operational issues involved with the proposed streetcar line crossing the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) in multiple locations along the alignment, including securing the cooperation of FEC for further development of the project. Preliminary capital and operating cost estimates for the initial phase of the project. Detailed analysis of the land use and economic development scenario throughout the study area. Potential environmental analysis requirements. Best practices in the revision of land use plans and ordinances in other cities which have developed streetcar systems. Options for financing construction and operation of the project and options for implementation and management of the service on an ongoing basis. Initial Project Phase Recommendation The study concluded that streetcar service is feasible and will be a key component in Miami's transportation system and redevelopment strategies. A variety of analytical measures were used to evaluate the various Phase I corridors. Having applied these criteria and analyzed the 12 potential corridors, an initial Phase 1 alignment of a Miami streetcar system is recommended (see Figure ES.1). This system provides the best combination of physical compatibility, economic development opportunity, and integration with existing and planned transportation projects in the study area. The recommended initial Phase I for streetcar service connects Downtown Miami to the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District, primarily via NE 2" Avenue. The recommended alignment will provide streetcar service in both directions, with stops located approximately every two to five blocks. While streetcar service will be feasible and provide many advantages for the entire NE 2nd Avenue corridor, and while there are multiple possibilities for extending streetcar service to other city neighborhoods, it is critical to begin with the most compelling phase of what can become a system. That is, the project's success is dependent on beginning with that section of the system that has the greatest intensity of economic development, projected ridership, financing capability, and connectivity with the existing Metrorail and Metromover and Miami -Dade Transit bus systems, as well as with additions and enhancements to the transit system now in the planning process such as the proposed Bay Link project. This alignment effectively connects existing urban development in the downtown core with major destinations such as the Government Center, Miami -Dade College, Performing Arts Center, the Entertainment Photosimudation of proposed streetcar - NE " CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ES-2 Executive Summary April 2005 Little Haiti Figure ES. 1 - Phase 1 Recommended Streetcar Project LEGEND • Study Area Recommended Phase I Streetcar Alignment ® Recommended Phase I Streetcar Station/Stop Locations —._ Midtown Miami —•— Miami Design Distract •••— Miami Downtown Development Authority Metromover Metrorail CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ES-3 District, the planned Museum Park, Midtown Miami and the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. It also links these destinations with a very large increment of recently completed, planned and anticipated development within ''A mile of the alignment, as much as 2.64 million square feet (0.245 million square meters) of new office and retail construction and over 14,750 new residential units (see Figure ES.2). The recommended alignment is fully integrated with the proposed Bay Link streetcar line being planned to connect Downtown Miami (see Figure ES.3) with Miami Beach to provide enhanced circulation within the downtown areas of both cities. By seamlessly expanding the possible trips which can utilize streetcars, the effectiveness and efficiency of both projects will be improved. The integration of these two projects will also allow the use of a joint maintenance and operations facility, again with cost and efficiency benefits. The proposed Miami Streetcar project is configured to complement transit service which might utilize the current Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway. Several locations along the recommended streetcar alignment afford the opportunity for shared stops to connect with this potential future service. However, using this FEC right-of-way for the streetcar line itself is not feasible since streetcars are an urban transit mode and need to be placed in pedestrian -oriented areas and since streetcars are incompatible for operation together with the existing freight rail operations and potential commuter rail on the FEC Railway track that accesses the Port of Miami and Downtown Miami. As design of the proposed Miami Streetcar project proceeds, however, consideration should be given to the most westerly section of the downtown streetcar loop, examining how it will connect with a downtown terminus for commuter rail, passenger rail and other transit services. Portland Streetcar Rail Construction Project Components The initial Phase 1 of the Miami Streetcar project includes a 6.75 miles (10.86 km) round trip loop of trackway of which 3.15 miles (5.07 km) is single track where the streetcar runs one way on a given section of street and 1.8 miles (2.90 km) of double track where the streetcar runs in both directions in the same section of street. Approximately 33 stops will be provided along the route. The project will operate with an initial fleet of eight vehicles. Of this infrastructure, 2.42 miles (3.89 km) of the single track, 0.21 miles (0.34 km) of the double track and six of the stops will be potentially shared by the proposed Bay Link streetcar line in Downtown Miami. Other project elements, including the vehicle and operations maintenance facility and electric power substations, may also be shared by Bay Link. It is recommended that Miami use modern European tram style vehicles for this project. In some contexts, like Tampa's Ybor City Historic District, a vintage style vehicle is appropriate. Miami is by contrast a modern city, and this project is envisioned as equally modern. Thus, the characteristics of modern streetcars (larger passenger capacity, large doors for quick boarding and exiting, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act) are best suited for this application. The Bay Link streetcar project is designed to be compatible with the same modern, Inekon/Portland-type vehicle proposed for the Miami Streetcar project. The preliminary estimated construction and system costs for this initial Phase I are $132,255,000 (year 2004 US dollars) which includes track, roadway and utility costs, a maintenance and operations facility, vehicles, Florida East Coast Railway crossings, design, construction and project contingencies. Annual operating cost, assuming streetcar arrival at any given stop (headways) every 10 minutes, is estimated at $3,500,000 per year (year 2004 US dollars). Preliminary streetcar ridership projections estimate 3,000 at opening year and potentially 8,100 riders per day in year 2025 depending upon several variables which are unknown at this feasibility stage, such as; fare structure, service frequency, operating speed and corridor redevelopment. Environmental requirements facing the project at this feasibility stage appear to be minimal and are not likely to pose a significant hurdle for project advancement. The project is financially feasible to construct and operate; several possible scenarios for funding capital and operating costs have been developed. Phase 1 Streetcar Project Construction and System Costs Contingency Design/ Construction Vehicles Track, Roadway and Utility Costs FEC Rail J Maintenance Crossings Facility $132,255,000 (Year 2004 Dollars) 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Phase 1 Streetcar Daily Ridership • Base Enhanced Vision Opening Year 2008 2025 There are a number of options for project implementation, including the formation of a new Authority similar to the Miami Downtown Development Authority (DDA) or the Miami Parking Authority. The project could also be advanced through a public -private partnership wherein the project would be owned by the City of Miami, but developed and managed through a nonprofit corporation similar to the partnership formed in Portland, Oregon. In any scenario, the active cooperation of Miami -Dade County, the Board of County —�� -."o&, ES-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary April 2005 Ear .... BucayncBlvd.......................................................... nd Av. Little Haiti ....................................... NE end Av. Onyx Blue Lofts Rosabella Lofts H Avant Tattle_ I � Bayside Marketplace American Airlines Arena Museum Park Mist Biscayne Bay Special Area Plan 10 Museum Park Performing Arts Center Omni Center 14th Street Corridor Bay Park Plaza Quantum on the Bay Park Lofts Grp 1 ;Miami „Midtown Miami Buena- Design.District��•�•�•�•� Vista Heights Buena Vista East Biscayne Blvd, NE end An Miami Children's Museum Parrot Jungle Island Gardens OMNI CRA wood/ water ce^mdm N: Miarot'Av. NW 1rt Av. NW end Av. NW srd Av. NW 6th Av. NW tih Av. NW Av. NW IOW Av. NW 11ch Av. One Miami Dupont Plaza — MET Miami Bayfront Park Flagler St.Corridor 50 Biscayne Columbus Office Tower Everglad4 the BO II • Enterjtainment ' I N::trrik... AvDistrict 1EC ariilre_, N'm NW .. I 1 z CITY of MIAMI rickell Av. S. Mumi Government Center Miami -Dade College Miami Arena NW 7th Street Spine Crosswinds Transit Village Historic Overtown Folklife Village West Overtown Big Time Productions Overtown Business Corridor 3rd Avenue District Figure ES.2 - Study Area Development Aso&April 19, 2004 Source Department of Planning & Zoning, City of Miami (April 19, 2004) LEGEND Study Area Omni Community Redevelopment Agency (Omni CRA) am Southeast Overtown Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (SEOPW CRA) mu Miami Downtown Development Authority —.— Special Districts (Shown in various colors) CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Streetcar to Miami Design District & Buena Vista Historic District Figure ES.3 - Downtown Streetcar Alignment Shared with Proposed Bay Link Streetcar LEGEND •• Recommended Streetcar Alignment O Recommended Streetcar Station/Stop Locations Metromover O Metromover Stop Locations Metrorail • Metrorail Stop Locations a Bay Link (Proposed) e.= Bay Link (Optional Alignment) MIN Shared Alignment Streetcar Bay Link NOTE_ Segments shown as shared alignment indicate where both Miami Streetcar and Proposed Bay Link will share the same track when both systems are operational. CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ES-6 Commissioners, the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization, Miami -Dade Transit, the Miami -Dade Public Works Department, the Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust and other entities will need to be secured in order to build and operate the project. Other public agencies, including the Federal Transit Administration and the Florida Department of Transportation, will be key to implementation. Property owners and tenants along the alignment must be fully informed and enlisted as project supporters in order to implement the project and ensure success. Photosimadati The Opportunity Streetcar projects are being designed and built in a growing number of North American cities. Few of these locations possess the potential which Miami enjoys in the project study area. The combination of factors is formidable: an intense development boom and the project financing possibilities resulting from this economic momentum, great destinations like Government Center, Miami -Dade College, the new Performing Arts Center and the planned Museum Park, corridor that is functionally and physically ideal for this form of transit, and a Miami -Dade County Transit system that could serve the community better if a local circulation component is provided. Based on this, the NE 2nd Avenue corridor is the place to begin in restoring this critical component of urban life to Miami. As Figure ES.4 --� W lfson Campus Station shows, there are many possibilities for future expansion of streetcar service, once an initial phase is implemented. A streetcar project in this corridor will serve many transportation purposes. It will allow choice riders to make many short commute and non -commute trips by means other than the automobile. The function and reach of the Miami -Dade Transit rail and bus system will be improved by circulating riders into adjacent areas. It will improve the attractiveness and convenience of Downtown Miami as a visitor destination by allowing visitors convenient access to the various attractions. More than these commendable transportation benefits, the Miami Streetcar will have a powerful beneficial effect on the location, form and sustainability of development, redevelopment and conservation in the neighborhoods it serves. The project will be a catalyst, PMumiu:vtllt Uhl. r - Portland, Oregon - Transit Oriented Development Along an Existing Streetcar Route enhancing smart growth inland from the bayfront properties, shaping the character of this development into a more pedestrian friendly, transit supportive environment. Finally, the proposed Miami Streetcar will have great symbolic and functional value, demonstrating that Miami has the comprehensive multi -modal transportation system expected in a world -class city. This initial feasibility study has been the first step in planning the Miami Streetcar project. The next steps CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY include consideration by the City of Miami Commission for the adoption of the City of Miami Initial Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study, Final Report, April 2005; authorization to the City Manager to begin initial implementation of the Study recommendations providing that the initial implementation will consist of Alternatives Analysis to satisfy Federal Transit Administration requirements for fund eligibility; and, further, selection of a Design/Contractor team to provide conceptual engineering is support of the environmental approval process and financial support services in the development of a detailed financial plan ES-7 Executive Summary April 2005 To Miami City Limit Biscayne Blvd N. Miami Av. NW 1. Av. NW end Av. NW Brd Av. NW Av. NW till Av. NW Bill Av. NW1o<h Av. NW 1. Av. To University of Miami/ Jackson (Allapattah) s s s NW end Av. To Overtown NE end Av. Mickeh Av. To Brickell To East/West Little Havana Figure ES.4 - Potential Corridor Extensions LEGEND 1 /4 mile (10 minute) walk to streetcar Recommended Phase I Streetcar Alignment • Recommended Phase I Streetcar Station/Stop Locations Potential Service Extensions CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ES-8 for project delivery of which the award of the work and agreement for project delivery of the Miami Streetcar project is to be brought back for future City of Miami Commission consideration and approval. For additional information about the project, please contact: Lilia I Medina, AICP — Assist. Transportation Coordinator City of Miami, Office of the City Manager/Transportation 444 SW 2nd Ave, 10`h Fl., Miami, FL 33130 Tel. (305) 416-1080 Fax (305)416-1019 limedina@ci.miami.fl.us http://www.ci.miami.tl.us Portland, Oregon—streetca n mixed tra(/i Frequently Asked Questions Why does Miami need streetcar transit? Up to August 2004, there were over 60 development projects at various stages of construction, permitting or planning within 1/4 mile of the alignment that the streetcar is planned to operate, creating over 14,000 residential units and over 2.64 million square feet (0.245 million square meters) of office and retail development. This intensification of urban life in core areas of Miami requires a more urban transportation system. Because most of the street network in this area is restricted from expanding due to limited right-of-way or existing development, the City must explore other non - automobile options to accommodate the increasing transportation needs of this fast growing area. The streetcar will help relieve the daily use of automobiles and the demand for parking for short trips within the project study area. Why can't Miami -Dade Transit just add more buses? Miami -Dade Transit will be adding more buses as their entire system expands over the next several years, but these additional buses will not satisfy the need for frequent and reliable circulation in the Downtown Miami area. There are two key reasons why adding more buses will not work as well as the streetcar to meet circulation needs. First, the number of buses required to equal the capacity of one streetcar makes buses more expensive to operate and maintain. Second, examples show that streetcars attract choice riders, people who otherwise would not ride a bus, because of the convenience, comfort, attractiveness and reliability of the streetcar and thus, the streetcar increases the number of people who will use transit. Can't we just expand the existing Miami -Dade Transit Metromover or Metrorail? Yes. However, the elevated structure and platforms for the Metromover and Metrorail make expanding these transit systems more costly and time consuming options than building the streetcar system. Also, these systems are less accessible and less convenient for the short trips that streetcars frequently serve. What other North American cities are using this type of modern streetcar transit? The best examples of the modern streetcar system proposed for Miami are in Portland, Oregon and Tacoma, Washington. Other successful systems include Tampa, Florida; Toronto, Canada; San Francisco, California; and San Diego, California. Many more systems are in planning or construction, including: Washington, D.C.; Seattle, Washington; Atlanta, Georgia; and Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Portland, Oregon —streetcar passengers. How is this different from the Coral Gables Trolley? The City of Coral Gables, Florida Trolley is a rubber tire, internal combustion mini -bus circulator with a vintage Executive Summary exterior body style and interior appointments also consistent with the vintage styling, such as wooden bench seats. The proposed Miami Streetcar is a modern, overhead electrically powered rail vehicle. In addition to these external differences in size and appearance, the mini -bus circulator also has major differences in cost, passenger capacity, maintenance requirements and effect on economic development. Bus circulators like the Coral Gables Trolley service work very well in meeting modest transit demands in lower -intensity areas; for a more dense urban environment like Downtown Miami, a higher -capacity solution is needed. Can the streetcar run along the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway Corridor? The streetcar vehicle does not meet the Federal Railroad Administration crash worthiness requirements that would allow it to operate on an active rail line such as the FEC Railway Corridor. In addition, the overhead power supply needs of the streetcar would also conflict with the vertical clearance requirements that the FEC establishes for overhead utilities. Although the proposed streetcar could run on the same sized rail as the freight trains that operate on the FEC Railway corridor, the foregoing factors preclude the operation of streetcar on the FEC Corridor. Most significantly, use of the FEC Railway Corridor is incompatible with the streetcar project since streetcars are an urban transit mode and need to be placed in pedestrian -oriented areas. How will streetcars operate in mixed traffic? Won't this cause more traffic congestion? The proposed streetcars will operate in a designated lane shared with other traffic in essentially the same manner that buses do today (buses will even be able to CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ES-9 Executive Summary April 2005 Executive Summary use the streetcar stops, as shown in the photo). The driver of the streetcar can accelerate and brake to move along with traffic, but does not have to steer the vehicle because it runs along the rails embedded in the roadway surface. In addition, the driver will be provided with traffic signal controls, such as signal pre-emption that enables the streetcar to clear congested intersections and maintain schedule during heavy traffic. Streetcars will improve congestion because they can reduce the need for additional buses and will reduce automobile usage for short trips. Portland, Oregon —bus at streetcar stop. What impact will streetcars have on on -street parking? On -street parking impacts will be minimal. Some existing on -street parking spaces may be needed to construct the loading platform at station stop locations. The size of the loading platform is equal to about two or three parking spaces for a single streetcar station stop such that the loss of parking is minimal. Will the rails in the pavement be unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians? No. The typical concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians around the in -pavement rails are electric shock by the rail and wheel/foot entrapment in the pavement groove. The steel rails in the pavement are not electrified. The pavement groove that the streetcar wheel flange rides into is +/- 2 inches wide and does not present an issue for foot entrapment. The narrow groove does warrant caution to be exercised by bicyclists riding parallel with the track. There is potential for the front wheel of a bicycle to slip into the groove that could cause temporary loss of control. This issue is typically addressed with appropriate warning signage and the design of bicycle lanes to cross the tracks at an angle. How much does streetcar transit cost compared to other types of transit options? The capital cost for the proposed Miami Streetcar would fall between the costs of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit at approximately $26 million per mile (Capital) and $110 per Revenue Service Hour (Operating) in year 2004 US dollars. It should be noted that the costs associated with any type of transit project vary by the size of the system, hours of operation and the complexity of physical and environmental issues that must be overcome to implement the system. Bus systems generally cost more to operate on a per passenger basis (since each bus carries fewer passengers per operator compared to rail systems), and have higher capital replacement costs, since the vehicles wear out much faster than rail vehicles. How will the streetcar system be funded? The detailed financial plan for funding capital and operating costs has not been fully defined at this initial feasibility stage. While several possible scenarios are feasible, it is anticipated that traditional state and federal transit funding sources, as well as locally generated funding sources will be used to fund the project. A next step in project implementation is a completed financial or business plan. Will the overhead wires create visual clutter? It is unlikely that overhead catenary wires would create visual clutter. This single wire can be obscured by landscaping and tree canopy along the roadway. In other cities where the streetcar corridor is established with buildings and landscaping, the overhead wires blend into the streetscape, and are not obtrusive on the downtown streetscape. Typically, the overhead power is supplied by a single electrified wire, and involves much less overhead hardware than is seen with electric trolleybus systems or light rail transit. Portland, Oregon —streetcar at a stop. How are the overhead wires affected by hurricane force winds? All of the streetcar infrastructure is subject to the hurricane code requirements required for roadway utilities and would be affected similarly to any recently constructed above ground utility. -'. k: ES-10 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Executive Summary April 2005 1.0 INTRODUCTION Between 1925 and 1928, approximately 11 million passengers boarded trolley cars in Miami every year.' Trolleys, or streetcars, were an integral part of the city's growth and development early in the 20'h century. The Miami streetcar system stopped operating on the night of November 16, 1940. Now, 65 years later, the City of Miami (the City) is evaluating the reintroduction of streetcar service that would use its modern technology counterpart on many of the same streets where streetcars operated earlier. With this new service, the City seeks to provide its citizens, businesses, and visitors with an attractive, convenient, and comfortable urban mode of transit that is relatively inexpensive compared to other modes such as light rail. The intent of a new streetcar service would be to provide improved transit connections between Downtown Miami and the redeveloping areas of Wynwood/Edgewater, Midtown Miami, the Miami Design District and the Buena Vista East Historic District, Little Haiti, and the Upper Eastside. The proposed streetcar service is intended to link with existing and planned transportation systems. It would also provide new investment opportunities for commerce, recreation and housing, including workforce housing, and bring additional jobs and tax revenues to the City. Blscayne Bay Trolleys: street Ral(vays of the Mlcml Area, Edward Rldolph, Harold E. Cos pub- lisher, 80 Virginia Terrace, Forty Fort, PA 18704, 1981., p. 51. _ ' The City is emphasizing collaboration in the planning of this project. The City has reviewed study conclusions and recommendations with numerous private, non-profit, and public -sector stakeholders and partners engaged in economic development, transportation, and enhancement of Miami's quality of life, including the City of Miami Commission and Administration, developers, employers, business and community leaders, Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Miami -Dade Transit (MDT), Miami -Dade Citizens' Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), Miami -Dade Public Works, and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The City will creatively explore a variety of funding sources to implement and operate the streetcar system. The proposed streetcar project will be used to promote the viability of existing transportation systems. 1.1 Report Organization This City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study is organized into two parts: Part I, Concept Plan, describes the planning context, the study objectives, project goals, key questions addressed in the feasibility study process, and the study's evaluation criteria. Potential alignment options for the first phase of the project (Phase 1) are recommended for further study and evaluation. Part II, Planning, Analysis, and Implementation Plan, identifies and refines the recommended Phase 1 alignment and addresses project costs, operating plan, land use, environmental and economic findings, financing options, and implementation strategies. The project work plan is provided in Appendix A. cimik TVs Ism In addition, a companion document, City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study Preliminary Alignment Plans, June 2004, has been developed to provide engineering details, typical sections, and the project alignment. That document is provided under separate cover. 1.2 Project Description and Context The proposed Miami Streetcar project is different in function and approach from the current transit options in Miami -Dade County, and from those transit SECTION 1 — Introduction Miami Lakes Opa-L S Qoa ka Airport 82 o ialeah M I A M I- D A D E : e North ar Bay 93n Miami Village Springs ,0e NW 54th St 0 orth Miami attach 826 North sc0 Miami sis Blscayne ,Park Are Bal Harbour Bay Harbor Islands Surfside 9. - i Lakes Miami shores Ls�,.,BI ortal Study Area Virginia Gardens r- ---- Miami Miami. International si Airport t yr„., Park 3 Ln9oon NW NS eke FLORIDA West Miami 59 Coral Gables. South Miami 9Ne Biscayne flay Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Biscayne N.P. Miami Beach 4 Third Street Beach Virginia key Atlantic Ocean Key Biscayne 'Key Biscayne Figure 1.2.1 — Project Location improvements now under consideration by various county and regional planning and transportation agencies. The City is evaluating the feasibility of developing a streetcar project financed mostly by state and local funding sources serving the study area (Figure 1.2.1). The study area under consideration for streetcar service is bounded by the Miami River on the south, Government Center at NW 1s' Avenue and North Miami Avenue on the west, NE 79th Street on the north, and Biscayne Boulevard on the east (Figure 1.2.2). CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 1-1 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 Little Haiti .................................................................. Figure 1.2.2 - Study Area NE end Av. Buena Vista East Miami Buena Design.Distre Vista Heigf^ NE end Av. Food/ vater FEC �^<'ridm NW 1rt Av. NW end Av. NW srd Av. Y� NW 6ih Av. LEGEND Study Area Metromover Metrorail CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY rickeLL Av. 1.3 Planning Context The City is undergoing unprecedented redevelopment of its urban neighborhoods through increased public and private investment, and is on course for a sound financial future. A significant challenge for the City, particularly with respect to transportation, is to accommodate the demands of this growth with an effective transportation system. Although there is much to celebrate in the City's resurgence and the significant redevelopment investments, this success carries a warning as these population densities require a "mode split" (travel mode choices) that relies more on transit and walking and less on the automobile. Changing that mode split will require aggressive action by public agencies, both in policy and investment. The City has an existing multimodal transit system provided by MDT, with excellent coverage by Metrobus, Metromover, and Metrorail over portions of the study area, but these services are designed largely to provide access to Downtown Miami. Although Metromover, an automated people mover (APM) on aerial guideway, provides local and convenient circulation in a portion of the study area and Downtown Miami, as shown in Figure 1.2.2, there are no current plans for expansion. Downtown Miami faces, on a local scale, a version of a problem evident in the growth of Miami -Dade County: rapid growth in residential population without corresponding increases in transportation infrastructure capacity. The Metrorail system, though a substantial investment in transit capacity, has become less accessible as new development has grown beyond the Metrorail service area. Expansion of both Metrorail and Metromover in Downtown Miami would be invasive and expensive and is therefore unlikely. As a result, the existing transportation system will not provide adequate service to the areas undergoing redevelopment and will need to be augmented in order to provide access and mobility by transit as well as by automobile. In addition to private -sector investment via development, the public investment in infrastructure (roads, transit, bridges) is substantial. Moreover, Miami - Dade County and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) have multiple projects in construction and planning to provide county -wide infrastructure improvements. The People's Transportation Plan program has already increased service levels by Metrobus and is funding studies to expand the County's transit system in a number of corridors. Each corridor will provide improved access to Downtown Miami, but the program will not provide the local circulation that is needed within the study area. The objective of the Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study is to identify a local circulator transit services to provide access to Downtown Miami and circulation among the neighborhoods and destinations within the study area, in a manner that guides and sustains further economic development. This type of access and circulation cannot be satisfied by the transit corridor projects discussed above or by increasing Metrobus services alone. In contrast to buses, when rail transit is used for local circulation, large numbers of "choice riders" (people who have the means to drive but choose to use transit) use the system, real estate values improve significantly, and redevelopment activities are accelerated. Modern streetcars, which have continued to evolve worldwide, represent high -quality, convenient, and cost-effective means of providing local circulation. The City has taken note of the success of streetcar projects in other North American cities, especially those in Portland, Oregon and Tacoma, Washington which are similar to the modern European -style system envisioned for Miami. Other cities, such as Tampa, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; and New Orleans, Louisiana, have been successful in implementing systems using vintage or heritage style streetcars. 1.4 Study Approach There is an established process in the U.S. for planning new public transit projects. Guided by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and administered through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Miami - Dade County MPO and other public agencies, this process is typically structured as a corridor study that begins with a formal alternatives analysis. This initial study report for the proposed Miami Streetcar project is consistent with this process of undertaking a locally initiated feasibility study prior to the formal alternatives analysis. However, to continue the project through the formal alternatives analysis process under the procedure required by FTA for the category of "New Starts" transit projects would require the following issues to be addressed: FTA's current technical approach for evaluating alternative transit options and potential projects is focused on cost-effective movement of suburban commuters, based on the cost per hour of travel time savings. Streetcar projects, however, function as urban circulators. Their frequent stops and slow speeds do not measure well against these criteria and calculations, even while succeeding in attracting new riders to transit, allowing easy access to local destinations, and making transit practical for short in -town trips. Tampa, Florida - TECO (Tampa Electric Company) Portland, Oregon - Portland Streetcar Portland, Oregon - Portland Streetcar I_ 1-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 Although the FTA evaluation process does consider land use, FTA's review is focused more on the congruity of land use planning with transit service than on the impact of transit projects on land development. That is, the review process checks that the proposed transit project will complement the planned land uses in station areas and that the proper plans and regulations are in place to facilitate transit -oriented development. Streetcar projects do more than this, however, by acting as a dramatic catalyst and accelerator for transit -oriented development. When implemented correctly, they are place -makers at least as much as they are people movers. The FTA process does not yet fully recognize the powerful economic development effects of an urban streetcar circulator. 1.5 Questions to be Answered in the Study This feasibility effort details the concept of the Miami Streetcar line(s) to a point where the project can be evaluated and adopted by key public and private stakeholders and moved forward into design and implementation. The study should provide answers to the following key questions: What is the purpose and benefit of providing streetcar transit in Miami neighborhoods and corridors? What is the location and conceptual layout of the Phase 1 project alignment and station stops? How will the Phase 1 project complement and enhance the existing MDT system, provide improved linkages to the existing system, and be integrated into the Miami -Dade County transportation system? What are the benefits to transit customers, residents, tourists, property owners, visitors, business districts, neighborhoods, and the overall transportation system? What are the costs, impacts, schedule, and regulatory issues? What are the advantages of developing a streetcar line, versus other transit technologies, to serve these urban transit needs? What are the financing options and strategies that will allow the project to move forward? How will the project achieve public understanding and endorsement? What are the options for development, management, and operation? 1-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 National Context —Streetcars and the North American City Prior to World War II, most North American cities, including Miami, were served by streetcar systems. These systems were a principal means of transportation for both office and industrial commuters, taking them to downtown retail, entertainment, sports, and civic destinations. They provided both connection and circulation, i.e., connecting residents with downtown destinations and enabling local circulation within and among downtown urban areas. Streetcar systems were also typically constructed as private ventures or as what we would now call public -private partnerships involving land development companies, electric utilities, and growth -oriented city governments. In the postwar era, there was a dramatic transition; in the space of two decades, almost all of these systems were abandoned. This sweeping change was hastened by several factors, especially: The flight to suburbia (supported by Federal housing policies), the construction of the interstate highway system, and a booming postwar economy, coupled with racial and other cultural factors; The condition of the streetcar lines (dilapidated after years of deferred maintenance and investment); The location of the rails, often running down the middle of streets, with passengers boarding and exiting onto the street surface. This reinforced the perception that streetcars were obsolete in the automobile age; The development -oriented genesis of many streetcar lines, which was, ironically, part of their undoing. After the streetcar lines had served their principal purpose of supporting a development pattern, often in the form of a "streetcar suburb", they were easily left behind by development interests after the lots they served were sold and developed. In the intervening 50 years, several North American cities have implemented Light Rail Transit (LRT) projects. These systems are usually designed to carry large volumes of suburban commuters to downtowns, and are often aligned parallel to major highway corridors. In many cases, these light rail lines have also sparked major new investment in downtown office, housing, and retail projects. Some specific examples (Portland, Oregon; Dallas, Texas; and Denver, Colorado) follow: Twenty years ago, Portland's central business district (CBD) was an underutilized downtown, with fading retail and rising office vacancy rates compared to suburban office parks. Today, light rail carries 50,000 passengers a day to a downtown rated as one of the most livable in North America. Office vacancy rates are lower than in suburban areas, and rents are higher. The best retail in the region is in Portland's downtown. Over two billion dollars of development has been constructed in station areas. In Dallas, the opening of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light rail line in 1996 sparked a real estate renaissance, with a premium being paid for property along the line. "Many investors have come to look at proximity to the DART light rail stop as offering a competitive advantage for their properties; said Jeff Stone, senior managing director of Holliday Fenoglio Fowler LP. Over $1.3 billion in development has been completed. Denver's Lower Downtown (LoDo) has emerged as one of the country's most successful new urban neighborhoods. The booming new neighborhood is anchored by a new LRT line, which opened in Spring 2002; the Lower Platte River; a downtown baseball stadium; and a successful bus shuttle along 16th Street. Considering both economic development and ridership, the light rail story in North America has been one of unqualified success. Ridership projections have been exceeded in every case, and in some cases dramatically so. Virtually every city that has succeeded in opening its first light rail line has gone on to plan and construct additional lines. 2.2 Community Concerns About Rail Transit This dramatic and positive development in North American cities does not come without challenges, however. Three concerns, in particular, stand out and have been faced by both light rail and streetcar projects: Capital cost —Rail transit projects are major investments, costing tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Federal, and in some cases state, funding is available, but local communities still shoulder a substantial portion of this financial burden. The question that is often raised is "why should a major investment like this be attempted, given so many other urgent needs in the community?" Operating cost —Transit systems in the United States do not cover their operating costs out of farebox and ancillary revenues. Thus, a question similar to the one about the capital cost is raised about ongoing costs: at a time when public agency budgets are under duress, how can a new cost be justified? Potential conflicts and safety problems —These issues are associated with introducing rail transit vehicles into a street environment where they were previously unknown. Dealing with these challenges requires strategies particular to each project. These strategies must be based on an understanding of the role these projects play within their communities. With regard to cost, it is necessary to develop the understanding that the benefits of a rail transit project accrue in multiple "accounts," as diverse as: Transportation system benefits —Rail transit can directly alleviate congestion or reduce further deterioration of function as travel demand grows. Property values and property tax revenues — These are enhanced by the presence of rail transit and a more urban and sustainable pattern of growth. Air quality —Rail transit, especially electrically driven, has a positive effect on air quality. Public health —The Center for Disease Control has targeted transit, and the walking it encourages, as a key strategy for addressing America's number one public health threat: obesity. Visitor attraction and convenience —If even a small percentage of visitors stay longer because they can easily reach a variety of destinations, the positive economic impact of visitors and tourists increases. 2-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 SECTION 2 — Background The point in delineating some of these diverse benefits is that the benefits of transit extend far beyond the transportation system itself and beyond the direct users of the service. A full understanding of the cost/benefit merits of a project requires consideration of these broader effects. There are also several points to consider with regard to safety and the possible conflicts between transit vehicles, such as light rail trains or streetcars, and motor vehicle traffic and pedestrians. First, the safety record of streetcar and light rail projects is generally excellent, so the City approaches this issue not only with that solid basis but also with access to extensive best practices and engineering standards that have been developed. As such, careful attention to project design is key to minimizing these risks. The quality of system testing and operator training programs also affects the safety record. Finally, a public information effort to prepare pedestrians and drivers for the "new ingredient" in the street can help reduce the length and difficulty of the transition period in which streetcars or light rail vehicles become part of everyday experience in the City's streetscape. 2.3 Historical Context —Miami's History with Streetcars Beginning in 1906, Miami's growth and prosperity was integrally tied to its electric streetcar system, which included as many as 12 different routes (not including another five lines in Coral Gables, Florida). The service was provided by three separate private operators: Miami Electric Railway, Miami Traction Company, and Miami Beach Railway (which operated streetcars in both Miami Beach and Miami).z Blscayne Bay Trolleys: Street Ral(vays of the Mlaml Area, Edward Rldolph, Harold E. Cos pub- lisher, 80 Vlrgl"la Terrace, Forty Fort, PA 18704, 1981. u. • ,._• il�'�IIIIII) o!III Miami, Florida - Circa 1927 The Miami Electric Railway was the first company to operate streetcars in the City. The initial single-track route followed Flagler Street (then known as 12`h Street) from NW 7`h Avenue across the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway to NE 2nd Avenue before heading north to the FEC depot at NE 6`h Street. Another FEC depot, located at NE 36`h Street, has been converted into a French restaurant. This service was closed in 1907.' The Miami Traction Company, the next operator in the City, initiated service on Flagler Street in 1915. The next year, it expanded to a route between NW 16`h Avenue and NW 6`h Street south to Flagler Street to NE 1s' Avenue. At the intersection with NE 1' Avenue, the streetcar line ran north to NE 14th Street before circulating on Biscayne Boulevard to NE 36`h Street. Service was operational approximately every 30 minutes.4 A fire destroyed the company's trolley barn in 1918, signaling the end of Miami Traction Company's operations. The Miami Beach Railway brought service over the Macarthur Causeway to Downtown Miami in 1920, using c Ibid. Ibid. Miami, Florida - West Flagler St., Circa 1939 NE 15' Avenue between NE 13`h and Flagler Streets. In 1924, the line was expanded to double track along the Causeway.5 The Miami Beach Railway Company closed its operations in 1939. The City also operated several streetcar lines as a municipal public transportation service. Between 1922 and 1940, the City provided service along seven separate routes, including routes abandoned by private operators and new routes stretching west to the City limits at NW 22"d Avenue and south across the Miami River to SW 6`h Street." Ridership was estimated to be as high as 11 million passengers per year between 1925 and 1928.' By the late 1920s, bus service began to compete with streetcars. When the City acquired the private transit operations acquired in 1939, funding was unavailable to expand streetcar track and power to serve the expanding City. Buses continued to expand, but streetcars ceased operating in Miami in 1940. 2.4 Existing Transit System The current transit system that services Miami -Dade County is made up of four major fixed -route services: Ibid. c Ibid. Ibid. Metrorail—Operated by MDT, Metrorail is a 21-mile heavy rail transit line that runs from Dadeland through Downtown Miami to Hialeah. Headways are every six minutes (meaning that a train comes every six minutes) during weekday peak periods and 20 minutes all other times. In year 2000, Metrorail served 14.1 million passenger boardings. Metrobus—Operated by MDT, Metrobus provides over 100 separate routes (see the Down- town inset of the MetrobusI System Map in Appendix B). Service in the study area can be very frequent, with most routes feeding into the transit hubs at Omni Bus Terminal and the Downtown Miami Bus Terminal (at NW 1s' Avenue and Flagler Street). These MDT services also include the operation of 39 routes for shuttle bus and circulator services that provide transit between specific destinations in Miami -Dade County. Thirteen of these shuttle and circulator services operate in the study area (see Section 14.0, Transportation System Operations). Metromover—This rubber -tired automated people mover (APM) serves Downtown Miami, Brickell, and Overtown/Park West. Metromover operates as a circulator over three aerial loop routes, with two -minute headways (see the Metromover System Map in Appendix B). In year 2000, Metromover served 4.2 million passenger boardings. South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA)—This 71.7-mile commuter rail service operates on continuous one - hour headways between Palm Beach County and Miami -Dade County with a terminal near the Miami International Airport. SFRTA is accessible to the study area via Metrorail. hierM l 2-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 2.5 Miami -Dade People's Transportation Plan Improvements On November 5, 2002, the citizens of Miami -Dade County approved the People's Transportation Plan (PTP), authorizing a one-half cent sales surtax as a dedicated funding source exclusively for the improvement of transportation. The PTP is guided by a citizen oversight committee, the Miami -Dade CITT. The PTP is governed by the following general rules: Twenty percent of surtax revenues are allocated to Miami -Dade County municipalities for their transportation projects. Each municipality must spend a minimum of 20 percent of its share on transit projects. No more than 5 percent of municipal surtax proceeds are to be expended on administrative costs. The expenditure of surtax proceeds is limited to the transportation and transit purposes specified in the PTP. Sales tax expenditures qualify as a dedicated local match for capital expenditures related to rail expansion. Improvement projects identified under the PTP are being reviewed publicly and programmed. CITT has identified a full program of bus service, rapid transit, and road and bridge improvement projects through the year 2034. Many of the road and bridge projects will improve access to Downtown Miami, as will the East-West Corridor rapid transit project. The bus service improvements being implemented through year 2008 will significantly increase service (such as the number of buses) on existing routes. It will include reduced bus headways, expansion of service schedule hours, additional neighborhood circulator services, and improved bus service amenities. 2.6 "Miami at Midnight" Concept The Miami Community Redevelopment Agency considered a concept for a transit shuttle in Downtown Miami, labeled "Miami at Midnight". The concept proposed in a report provided to the Authority is a network of inexpensive rail transit lines serving as shuttles between parking garages and downtown destinations and attractions.' The report proposes vehicles that are typically used in light -duty shuttle service such as those used at amusement parks as parking lot shuttles (usually the rubber tire variant) or as attractions unto themselves. These vehicles use narrow-gauge tracks and are suitable for low -speed, short trips where passenger comfort and amenities are less important. That is, they are typically open air without climate control, seats are usually molded plastic or metal, and ride quality is minimal. The report suggests that these vehicles would operate on pedestrian streets closed to automobile traffic. If so, there are significant feasibility questions to be addressed, given the use of these streets by general traffic, MDT Metrobuses, and emergency vehicles. If, instead, these vehicles were to operate in mixed traffic, working as streetcars do, a more solid vehicle would be required to meet safety standards. Although the report provides no specifics about capacities or speeds, it appears that such a system Mlaml at Mldnlght Concept Study would be very limited in its carrying capacity. As Downtown Miami experiences more travel demand from new occupants of housing, office, retail, and cultural buildings, the transit systems serving this vital urban environment must be robust enough to serve the growing demand. The small, narrow-gauge vehicles depicted in the report may not be capable of accommodating the demand that would be generated. The physical layout and power requirements of this mode also would be incompatible with the proposed Bay Link project and the Miami Streetcar project. 2.7 Bay Link The proposed Bay Link project is a streetcar transit connection between Downtown Miami and the South Beach area of Miami Beach, 5 to 6 miles in length. Several two-way concept routes were considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared for the proposed Bay Link project. The DEIS evaluated circulation in Downtown Miami along SE 19' Street and NE 19' Street between approximately NW 19' Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. The Bay Link route would use the Macarthur Causeway to access Miami Beach locations, traveling in a counter- clockwise fashion across 5`h Street to Washington Avenue, to the Miami Beach Convention Center to Alton Road, south to the Macarthur Causeway, and westbound toward Downtown Miami. The Bay Link project would include a local circulator route in Miami Beach running adjacent to the connector route in a clockwise manner. This local route would also travel farther south to the South Pointe area, bypassing 5`h Street by continuing south to South Pointe Road to connect between Washington Avenue and Alton Road. MPO has adopted a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). The project plans are currently being refined, with the objective of reaching a set of documents that support an application for Federal funding to enter into prelimi- nary engineering for the project. According to the Bay Link DEIS, the Bay Link transit connector could carry as many as 20,000 passengers per day in the year 2025 The Locally Preferred Alternative for the Bay Link project, approved by the City, the City of Miami Beach, and the Miami -Dade County MPO recommends streetcar transit. The decision for a streetcar as the preferred transit mode for the proposed Bay Link project is significant for Miami's consideration of potential streetcar corridors. This decision provides the opportunity to use compatible technology and infrastructure for the Bay Link and the Miami Streetcar project. The approved Bay Link alignment includes a streetcar loop in Downtown Miami running along Biscayne Boulevard to NE 19' Street, Government Center and North Miami Avenue, and NE 19' Avenue between NW 3rd Street and NE 9`h Street. Bay bulk Draft Endronmental Impact Statement, October 2002. 2-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 3.0 CHARACTERISTICS OF STREETCARS Streetcars are rail transit vehicles designed for local transportation and powered by electricity from an overhead wire. Streetcars operate on existing streets in mixed traffic, sharing a lane with automobiles and buses. To facilitate this operation, streetcars are generally small and light, and have low operating speeds. Streetcars may also utilize some form of traffic signal pre-emption that enables the transit vehicle to communicate with traffic signals to gain priority (a green light) through an intersection. The light weight and slow speeds of streetcars allow for a shallower structural slab with embedded track than is required for Light Rail Transit (LRT). This leads to fewer impacts on existing underground utilities and less costly streetcar construction than typical LRT construction. While streetcars can operate on LRT track and infrastructure, the reverse is not possible unless the streetcar system was built for the additional weight and size of the LRT vehicles which require a thicker structural slab and larger turning radii. Streetcar vehicles are available in a number of different designs. Vehicle options typically available for specific project applications include: Length and width One or two cabs with vehicle articulation (two cars hinged together) Door size and location Portland, Oregon —Embedded track design rums within vehicular travel lanes. Pc t/and, Oreg A'tndern articadated streetcar ve le Interior (number and orientation of seats) Climate control Track gauge (spacing between rails) Voltage (vehicle power requirements) Front and rear end styling and driver controls The dimensions of the streetcar vehicles are variable. Vehicles come in different sizes and can be combined with additional vehicles, and/or articulated vehicles, to meet specific needs. Streetcars can be configured to have wide doors on both sides or to be driven from either end of the vehicle. The low floor center section SECTION 3 — Characteristics of Streetcars facilitates easy direct access to passengers boarding and exiting at station stops and provides for level loading of wheelchairs, bicycles, and baby carriages. The chart compares key differences between streetcars and LRT. CHARAC- TERISTICS Right•of•Way LIGHT RAIL Mostly in exclusive right- of-way, separated from parallel traffic Flows Large tum radius, 82 ft minimum STREETCAR Mostly on streets with mixed traffic and in pedestrian environments Smaller tum radius, 60 ft minimum Vehicles Function Route Length Peak Use Wt. 77,000 - 110,000 Ib. empty Large, usually in 2 or 3 car trains Length (typ.)=180-270 ft Width (typ.)=varies by manufacturer Typical max. speed 50 - 65 mph Line haul, distribution Keyed to regional trip making Development effects secondary Usually > 10 miles Less frequent regional stops/stations for faster travel speed Rush Hours Events 250 passenger crush load/ vehicle Wt. 63,500 Ib - 80,000 Ib. empty Small, modem, consists of one or two cars Length (typ.) = 65-130 ft Width (typ.)-vanes by manufacturer Typical max. speed, 30 - 40 mph Distribution, downtown loop/shuttle Keyed to redevelopment and 'transit -oriented" development Usually < 10 miles Frequent stops for easy circulation No real "peak," ridership spread throughout the day 130 passenger crush IoadNehicle Main Users Many work trips Students, shoppers, other trips Some work trips Tourists Shoppers, students, other trips 3.1 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Implications of Streetcars In addition to the physical characteristics discussed above, it is important to understand the operational and land development effects of streetcar services in the context of the study area streets. As shown in Tables 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, streetcars have many distinguishing characteristics for operation and compatibility in Miami. Streetcar service would be complementary and compatible with Miami's current land use plans and redevelopment initiatives. In addition, it would provide a highly productive connector to an extension of the Miami -Dade Metrobus, Metromover, and Metrorail systems. Streetcar circulation would have a negligible impact on traffic flow and parking availability, and is physically feasible on nearly all streets in the study area. In contrast to streetcars, further expansion of Metrobus services beyond that already proposed would have fewer positive impacts for Miami. The distinctions have much to do with the type of vehicle and the manner in which they operate. For example, typical bus operations in mixed traffic or even in a dedicated lane as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) have not significantly promoted economic development in most cities. A six-month BRT demonstration project in Los Angeles, California, resulted in mixed reviews.10 Proponents of the system claim better service and on -time reliability for bus patrons, with travel time savings as much as 14 percent. Opponents claim additional traffic delays of three to seven minutes for motorists and 20 percent traffic diversion onto parallel streets. The controversial issue with respect to this BRT project was the removal of an existing traffic lane for exclusive use by transit. BRT systems using dedicated right-of-way for exclusive use by buses, pre-emptive traffic signals, queue bypass lanes, and other improvements can achieve improved speed and on -time reliability over typical bus operations and streetcars operating in mixed traffic. However, the use of exclusive right-of-way can negatively impact the performance of other modes and does little to spur "BRT In Los Angeles Hlghllghts Clash In Prlorltles: Traffic or Transit?", Urban Transport, Iron Monitor, October 2oM. CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 3-1 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 SECTION 3 — Characteristics of Streetcars Table 3.1.1 Streetcar Advantages and Disadvantages as Compared to Bus or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Advantages Choice riders are attracted to a greater extent than any bus mode. Existing streets or dedicated guideways are utilized. Controllable construction sequencing to minimize disruption. No negative air quality impacts. Can operate in mixed traffic. Stimulates land use and economic development changes. Promotes and enhances the pedestrian environment. Fixed route improves rider and investor confidence. Scale of vehicle compatible with urban settings. Expensive stops are not required; "Off -the -Shelf equipment and accesso- ries are often the norm. Lower long-term operating and maintenance costs compared to bus/BRT. Disadvantages Overhead contact electric system. Greater construction disruption than bus or BRT. Construction costs for streetcar can be more expensive than BRT (with exclusive right-of-way). Table 3.1.2 Implications of Streetcar Service Features and Benefits Low floor vehicles allow easy boarding and minimal remodeling of the streetscape improvements. Operation within mixed traffic maintains traffic lanes, parking lanes or median landscaping with minimal impact to traffic capacity. Slower speeds allow for more frequent stops, and impacts from stations are minimal. The vehicle can be driven from either end allowing the vehicle to reverse with a switch track rather than having to loop around. Implementation of a variety of traffic management measures will be required for the portions of the project in mixed traffic operations. Simple span wire presents some aesthetic impacts but not as great as Light Rail Transit catenary. Street tree branches provide degree of camouflage background. The streetcar replicates the historic transit mode on the streets of Miami, and the size of the modern vehicle "fits" with the existing urban scale and character. Area connectivity and local circulation. Enhances other transit systems. The pedestrian environment is maximized by increasing the number of short trips using transit and expanding the area that can be served by a short walk when combined with transit. Multiple local markets (residential, visitor and convention, retail, and office and recreation) are more widely served than by Metrobus, Metro - mover, or Metrorail. economic development, and/or to achieve mixed land use and streetscape enhancements. When operating in mixed traffic, buses have similar impacts on parking availability and traffic flow as streetcars but are far less complementary with transit supportive land uses and pedestrian activity. 3.2 Comparative Characteristics of Transit Modes As the City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study has progressed, participants involved in the project have asked questions about the basic characteristics of streetcars, how they differ from other transit modes, and whether streetcars are the best mode to improve connectivity and increase economic development in the City of Miami (the City). This section answers those questions and compares the characteristics, advantages, and disadvantages of streetcars with those of other modes in use or proposed in the City. Miami Florida - Metrorail heavy rail train pudding into elevated station BRT in Los Angeles Highlights Clash in Priorities: Traffic or Transit? Demonstration Pr jeer Evaluation Shows Mixed Results The evaluation ofa six-month pilotproject of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane on Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles hasbrought to theforef ont the differences in priorities expressed by the Metropolitan Transpor- tation Authority(MTA), the transit agency for the Los Angeles area. and the Los An- geles Department of Transportation (LADOT), which is responsible for traffic operations- The evaluation demonstrates the classic clash of traffic vs transit in terms of priority. However there are addi- tional issues involved which make this an interesting situation with implications re- garding when and how BRT should be used on existing surface arterials. The demonstration project area is only mile long d was implemented at a man cost of only S161,000. The project Please Writ to Page c 122 d 2uprmwd Sas pelFfrutatee but has aLolnrtnusednooflic cone hen (Phoru. Courtesy ofLADOT) Urban Transportation Monitor Article, October 2004 The transit modes considered include: • Heavy Rail Transit —Heavy rail transit service is powered by an electrified third rail and operates in a protected guideway (frequently on an elevated structure). Heavy rail service in Miami - Dade County is provided by Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) Metrorail between Government Center in Downtown Miami south to Dadeland Station in South Miami/East Kendall and north/west to and from the City of Hialeah (Okeechobee Station). • Light Rail Transit —Modern, electrically -powered LRT systems provide commuter transit service. Because LRT tracks are placed primarily at ground level, they do not always require a physical separation from other motorized traffic. Thus, investments to build LRT typically are less than for fully grade -separated systems. However, LRT average speeds and carrying CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 3-2 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 Sacramento, California -Low Floor LRT allows easy boarding. San Diego, California - Coupled LRT vehicles increase capacity. capacities typically are less than those of a heavy rail system. Streetcars or Trams —These modern, electrically powered local circulators, such as those in Portland, Oregon, and Tacoma, Washington, are the modern-day equivalent of the streetcars that were prominent in this country in the first half of the 20`h century. In certain circumstances, streetcars and light rail vehicles can share tracks and be used interchangeably. Bus Rapid Transit —This is a catchall phrase for bus systems that provide relatively unimpeded travel conditions, such as those found in dedicated bus lanes and high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Buses can be diesel powered or electric. They can also operate in mixed traffic without sacrificing travel time, using infrastructure, equipment, operations, and Tacoma, Washington - Streetcar Portland, Oregon - Streetcar technology that give preferential treatment to buses on urban roadways. MDT operates a BRT system south of Dadeland station. Vintage Trolley —These are replicas of the types of rail streetcars that once traveled on city streets in the United States. They are typically used to provide connections for tourists as well as local residents. Some cities use reconditioned, original rail streetcars for these services, as in New Orleans, Louisiana; others use replicas of old rail streetcars, as in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Galveston, Texas. In many places, replica trolley services use rubber -tired vehicles with a vintage trolley -like body, as in Coral Gables, Florida. Coral Gables Trolley —This hybrid electric, vintage rubber -tire trolley uses a gas turbine to charge a battery to run the vehicle. The trolley SECTION 3 — Characteristics of Streetcars Portland, Oregon - Streetcar Construction Portland, Oregon - Passengers Boarding Streetcars serves as a connector between the Douglas Metrorail station and downtown Coral Gables, Florida. Miami Beach "Electrowave"—This local, modern rubber -tire bus circulator operates in Miami Beach using electric batteries that are recharged every 12 hours. Electrowave provides great maneuverability and performance in congested urban conditions. "Miami at Midnight" —This unique technology is used in theme parks and for circulation through airports. A concept was considered for the Promenade Special Area Plan in Downtown Miami as a mixed -traffic circulator among the future Promenade attractions, transit services, parking facilities, and office buildings. ■ Ali Dade, Florida - BRT service with large shelter Photosimudation - Concept vehicle for guided Bus Rapid Transit 3.2.1 Description of Modes This section provides a detailed description of these transit modes. Their function, market usage, performance, and costs characteristics are compared in Section 3.2.2, Comparative Characteristics. Heavy Rail (Metrorail") An example of heavy rail is Metrorail, Miami -Dade County's 22-mile, elevated rapid transit system that runs to and from Dadeland through South Miami/East Kendall, Coral Gables, and Downtown Miami to the Civic Center/ Jackson Memorial Hospital area. The service also runs to and from Overtown, Brownsville, Liberty City, Hialeah, and Medley in northwest Miami -Dade County, with connections north to Broward and Palm Beach counties http://vwus.co.mlaml-dade.ft.us/transM/Metrorad routes scheds.asp May 19, 2004 L , 3-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 at the Tri-Rail/Metrorail transfer station at NW 79`h Street. Heavy rail transit is a steel -wheeled system that uses trains of multiple cars, powered by an electrified third rail. It operates in an exclusive guideway completely separated from the public right-of-way by elevation and/ or barriers. Stations are typically 0.5 mile apart in heavily urbanized areas and often 2 miles or more apart in suburban areas. Operating speeds range from 55 to 75 miles per hour (mph). Light Rail Transit (LRT) LRT technology is widely used as a public transit system. This steel -wheeled transit system consists of single cars or short trains that operate on steel rails powered by overhead power systems. Light rail vehicles can operate along exclusive rights -of -way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways, or in mixed traffic. When operating in exclusive right-of-way, LRT can operate at higher speeds, with larger vehicles than a streetcar, making LRT more advantageous for longer trips by commuters. Passengers can board and discharge at track level or on elevated platforms. LRT Stations typically are between 0.5 and 1 mile apart. Over 40 percent of FTA New Starts funding is applied to LRT systems. A distinctive feature of LRT is that vehicles draw power from an overhead wire. Unlike rail systems that draw power from a powered third rail at grade (like Metrorail), this overhead power collection system allows LRT to be integrated with mixed vehicle traffic and pedestrians. With overhead power collection and the availability of articulated LRT vehicles, LRT can operate in mixed traffic on tracks embedded in the street, on at- grade rights -of -way with street and pedestrian crossings, and on exclusive rights -of -way. LRT top speeds range from 50 to 65 mph, with average speeds, including station stops, ranging between 15 and 30 mph. The passenger carrying capacity varies between 4,000 and 15,000 persons per hour per track. The capital cost per mile for LRT can be in the range of $30 to $40 million per mile, although costs can be much higher when LRT is put on an aerial structure or in tunnels. Key characteristics of LRT include: LRT vehicles can operate as a single car or multi- unit train and, after heavy rail, has the highest passenger carrying capacity of all of the modes. Vehicles can operate at maximum operating speed. This feature is not significant in the urban environment but is a benefit in traversing longer, unencumbered distances. Steel wheels on steel rails provide a smooth ride with a vehicle performance that offers gradual acceleration and deceleration. Streetcar Transit Streetcars are rail transit vehicles that typically operate in an urban environment and are powered by electricity received from an overhead wire. Streetcars are derivatives of LRT and can share the tracks and power system with LRT operations. The main differences between streetcars and LRT are vehicle size, operating speed, and the trip purposes each mode is best suited to serve. Streetcars are designed for local transportation, while LRT can operate at higher speeds and over greater distances between a downtown area and outlying stations. LRT usually operates in a semi -exclusive right- of-way and is usually designed with some degree of SECTION 3 — Characteristics o = traffic separation in urban areas. Streetcars service closely spaced stations and operate in mixed traffic. Streetcar stops are typically 0.25 to 0.5 mile apart. Another difference between streetcars and LRT vehicles is that streetcars are generally smaller, designed for slower speeds, and therefore lighter in weight than LRT (63,500 to 80,000 lb vs. 77,000 to 110,000 lb or more). This lighter weight allows for a shallower pavement section with embedded track and less costly construction. Streetcar vehicle dimensions vary, and vehicles can be combined to meet specific needs. During the initial planning and analysis for this project, the streetcars were assumed to be about 65 feet (ft) long as single -car vehicles with doors on both sides. By comparison, a typical MDT bus is approximately 40 ft in length. The streetcars can be driven from either end of the vehicle. The low floor center section facilitates easy direct access to passengers boarding and exiting at station stops, thus providing for level loading of wheelchairs, bicycles, and baby carriages. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) BRT is a rubber -tired bus -alternative to LRT. While BRT systems can use standard buses, new vehicle designs are being developed to give a more contemporary image. BRT systems are designed to operate more quickly, efficiently, and comfortably than standard bus systems. BRT is not a single type of transit system; rather, it encompasses a variety of approaches, including buses using dedicated bus lanes, sharing HOV lanes with other vehicles, and improving bus service running in mixed traffic on city streets. The following features characterize BRT technology: Exclusive Busway or HOV/Limited Access Roadway. Busways are special roadways designed for the exclusive use of buses; they are often totally separated from other traffic. Buses in HOV lanes improve service for long-distance commuters. BRT systems using arterial streets may include lanes reserved for the exclusive use of buses and street enhancements that result in increased bus speed and improved service. Traffic Signal Priority. Traffic signals are designed to give preference to buses. As the bus travels along its route, electronic sensors provide indications to alert the traffic signal control box, triggering the signalization program to shorten or eliminate intersection wait times for buses. Boarding and Fare Collection Improvements. Rapid fare collection through prepaid or electronic passes and low-floor/wide-door boarding results in time savings. Limited Stops. Increasing distances between stations or shelters increases speeds. Improved Stations and Shelters. Bus terminals and unique stations or shelters differentiate BRT service from standard bus service. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Technologies. Advanced technology can maintain more consistent distances between buses and inform passengers when the next bus is arriving. Modern Streamlined Vehicles. The attractiveness of the technology is improved over that of standard buses to offer a variety of seating options, easier boarding, smoother rides, and more appeal to the riding public. 3-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 SECTION 3 — Characteristics of Streetcars Miami -Dade Transit -Metromover Metromover was built to provide a means for downtown circulation and to serve as a downtown feeder for Metrorail. Construction began in June 1983, and the system opened in May 1986 as the first automated people mover (APM) in a downtown setting, with 1.9 miles of double track and 10 stations. The total system cost in 1986 dollars was $159 million, or $83.2 million per mile. In May 1994, an extension of Metromover was opened, adding 12 stations and 2.5 miles of track to the previous system. The entire system, which connects to the Metrorail at two locations, now consists of 4.4 miles of track and 22 stations. The extension cost a total of $228 million in 1994 dollars (or $91.2 million per mile). Miami Beach, Florida - Electrowave The City of Miami Beach funds its own bus circulator service called Electrowave. The 11-bus Electrowave circulator fleet is in operation 365 days a year between 8:00 AM and 1:00 AM, and travels on five- to ten-minute headways. Electrowave travels on two interconnecting Miami. Florida - Miami -Dade TranritMetromover at a station. routes. The Washington Avenue route travels north and south on Washington Avenue from South Pointe Drive to 17th Street and Convention Center Drive to Alton Road. The Collins Avenue route travels between 16th and 23rd Streets on Collins and Washington Avenues. In April 2003, Electrowave carried an average of 1,900 passengers per day. Vintage Trolleys These specialty vehicles use either restored turn of the century streetcars or buses designed to simulate the look and feel of a turn of the century streetcar. The latter is built on a standard bus chassis and is equipped with an ornate period -style body, with wooden plank bench seats and brass fittings. The trolleys can be equipped with modern amenities including heating, air conditioning, and air ride suspension. They can also be equipped with a farebox. The vehicles have modern engines and can be powered by overhead or underground electrical systems, diesel, natural gas, or propane. This type of transit system is not intended to transport a large number of riders; the vintage trolley's average capacity is approximately 30 passengers. Vintage trolleys Miami Beach, Florida- Electrowave bus have been used by a number of cities to serve a limited number of passengers within tourist, historic, and compact business districts. This mode can be described as "transportainment". Cities utilizing vintage trolleys include: Austin, TX# Birmingham, AL# Charleston, SC# Charlotte, NC* Coral Gables, FL# Corpus Christi, TX# Dallas, TX* Detroit, MI* El Paso, TX# Lowell, MA* Norfolk, VA# Oklahoma City, OK# Portland, OR Providence, RI# Sacramento, CA# San Francisco, CA*t#c Savannah, GA# Tampa, FL* * Steel wheel, electrically powered trolley cars # Rubber -tired, gasoline- or diesel -powered trolley buses c Cable cars. An historic signature feature of San Francisco Coral Gables, Florida - Trolley The City of Coral Gables estimates that an average of 2,500 riders per day take advantage of the ease and convenience of the Coral Gables trolley. Currently, there are five hybrid -electric vehicles in the trolley fleet. The vintage style vehicles run on the streets to connect downtown Coral Gables to the Metrorail system, serving as a downtown circulator. San Francisco, California- Overhead electric -powered vintage trol- ey The trolleys are part of the city's Urban Improvement Program for the City of Coral Gables, established to ease traffic flow in commercial areas, and to provide connectivity to Metrorail. The trolleys, which seat approximately 22 people and accommodate an additional 15 standing passengers, were initially expected to have an estimated annual ridership of 250,000 by October 2004. The service has been very popular and was expected to hit 500,000 riders by the end of 2004. The appeal of the trolley service has caught the attention of many who see not just the intended shoppers using the system but also students, local residents, and commuters who board the trolley to connect with the Metrorail system. The high demand for the service has led to the addition of two cars on the Express Loop that stops only at the Douglas Road Metrorail Station, the Village of Merrick Park, Miracle Mile, Alhambra Circle, Giralda, and Valencia. Coral Gables officials plan to connect the service to other systems outside Coral Gables. Narrow -Gauge Rail - "Miami at Midnight" Narrow-gauge railroads were a common railroad type in the U.S. during the late 19`h and early 20th centuries, Coral Gables, Florida - Trolley a[ D uglav Road Metrorail S[alion CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 3-5 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 mostly for industrial purposes and where trains were needed to traverse steep terrain. Generally, these railroads are characterized as having a 3-foot track bed, with systems varying between 2 ft and 3 ft 6 inches (in), compared to the U.S. railroad standard of 4 ft 8.5 in. These railroads have less horsepower, smaller vehicles, and less cost than standard-gauge train systems. In the U.S., this technology is common in amusement parks and zoos and for excursion train trips. A proposal has been made to the Southeast Overtown/ Park West Community Redevelopment Agency and Omni Redevelopment District Community Redevelopment Agency to provide a very small narrow-gauge railroad service as part of the Promenade Special Area Plan. It is difficult to evaluate this mode because, as noted in a study by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida, "there are no narrow gauge rail trolleys) operating in a public transportation environment." 12 At the time of this writing, the literature contained no publicly available data about this technology or its costs. It appears that the only manufacturers of this mode are producing vehicles for amusement parks and zoos. In theory, the technology might result in lower costs than streetcars, LRT, or vintage trolley systems and, by combining multiple cars, could accommodate the number of passengers that can be carried by other rail transit modes. While information is available about the use of this technology for amusement parks and other controlled environments, additional information is needed about the use of this technology in public transportation environments, the availability and cost of capital components, and maintenance needs. Center for urban Transportation Research, Unlvers lty of South Elorlda, for the Elorlda De- partment of Transportation and the US Department of Trans portatlon, "Evaluation of the Economic Vitality of Narrow Gauge Local Rall Systems", page 26, November 2001. 3.2.2 Comparative Characteristics Each of the eight transit modes has different physical requirements and capabilities, performance characteristics and costs, and each serves differing functions and goals. The goals of the proposed City of Miami Streetcar project would be to: 1) Provide local connectivity as an urban circulator between the Miami Design District, Midtown Miami and Buena Vista East Historic District, Performing Arts Center, and Downtown Miami; 2) Integrate with current and future transit services; and 3) Complement and sustain economic development efforts in the study area. The transit modes discussed would meet these goals with varying degrees of success. The merits of each mode in achieving the objectives of this project are shown in Table 3.2.1 and described hereafter. Travel Function and Market Penetration Public transportation systems are designed to provide mobility to downtown urban areas, suburban and rural areas, and, occasionally, a combination of these markets. The intent of the City of Miami Streetcar project is to provide local circulation with frequent, reliable and convenient service. LRT, BRT, and heavy rail (Metrorail) modes are generally focused on the suburban to downtown market with high - quality, high -capacity peak period service. They can also provide local circulation, but the majority of their investment and focus is based on the suburban legs of their routes. The size, speed, and wider spacing of stops of these systems limit their usefulness as local circulators. Only streetcars, Electrowave, Coral Gables trolley, and "Miami at Midnight" modes are fully TION 3 — Characteristics of St dedicated to local circulation for all trip purposes. Vintage trolleys are usually aimed at serving the tourist market, though they may occasionally satisfy other trip demands. Disruption during Construction The construction of systems such as heavy rail and LRT is often disruptive to citizens, businesses, and travelers because the associated construction on streets, utilities work, and elevated structures, takes a minimum of two years. Construction for streetcars, vintage trolleys, and "Miami at Midnight" modes is shorter and less disruptive." When exclusive bus lanes for BRT are required, their construction timeframe can be comparable to that of any new street construction (two to four months per block). When new lanes are not developed for BRT systems and the scope of construction is limited to new communications/signal systems, additional signage, striping, and stations in conjunction with converting existing travel lanes to exclusive bus use, then construction can be completed in several weeks. The implementation of Electrowave systems requires only new bus stop signage because their service capital is limited to the actual vehicles, which travel in mixed traffic, and to maintenance facilities, which are built off-street. Economic Development Surface rail transit modes such as streetcars and LRT have a strong, consistent record in generating economic development benefits. In many cases, this may be because these systems are part of an economic conswctlon of Portland's Streetcar was completed In phased three cloy block Increments, each of which was completed In three weeks. Miami, Florida - Illustration of Promenade Special Area Plan Con- cept with Narrow Gauge Rail. development plan involving rezoning and reuse of land parcels. Investors in properties near these systems report that the permanence of the track demonstrates a real long-term investment in areas where these systems are built. BRT corridors and stations, which are easy to relocate, are more focused on moving passengers through areas quickly. In contrast, rail transit systems focus attention on creating "places" at and near station areas; they also generate larger passenger loadings at stations than do BRT systems. Heavy rail systems such as Metrorail have a mixed record of generating economic development at station areas. Some systems, such as Washington DC's Metro system and San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit, have experienced significant amounts of intense urban development and redevelopment at station areas. Others, such as Metrorail and Atlanta's Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), have seen less development and redevelopment at station areas. Factors in this variation include site control, the amount of land use coordination, and joint development efforts by the transit agency and other public agencies. A- 3-6 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 SECTION 3 — Characteristics of Streetcars Table 3.2.1 Comparative Characteristics of Different Transit Modes Miami Beach ve Coral Gable.:: VII Trolle "Miami at Mi•'-.;_ t" Heavy R-` Travel Function Market Construction Disruption Economic Development Performance Data - Passengers/Vehicle - Typical Max. Speed - Power System - Guideway Local Urban Minimal Significant 105-110 (a, b) 30-40mph (a) Overhead Electric Shared Local/Commuter Urban/Suburban Significant Significant 120-150 (a, b) 50-65mph (a) Overhead Electric Dedicated/Shared Local/Commuter Urban/Suburban Minimal/Moderate Minimal 60-90 (a, b) 55-65mph (a) Diesel or Electric Dedicated/Shared Local Urban None Minimal/Moderate 22(4) 35mph Electric Battery Shared Local Urban None Minimal/Moderate 22-37 35mph Hybrid Electric Shared Local Urban Minimal Minimal/Moderate 35-65 (a, b) 25-40mph (a) Diesel or Electric Dedicated/Shared Local Urban Minimal Unknown 30(6) na Various Dedicated/Shared Commuter Suburban Significant Significant 150-200 (a, b) 55-75mph (a, b) Electric 3'd Rail Dedicated Capital Cost per Mile $15-30M (1) $30-$100M (2) $5-$50M (c) $0.385M(4) NA $5-$25M (5) $5-$15M(6) $50-$250M (c) Operating Cost per Service Hour $122 (d) $167 (2) $80-$90 (3) $249 (4) NA $100-$150 (f) Unknown $209 (7) Sources (1) Portland Streetcar Inc. and Portland Office of Transportation, Portland Streetcar Operations Finance- Table 3, Report to the Portland City Council, 4/2004 (2) Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database, Table 138, Washington, DC, 2002 (3) Lower bound - Miami -Dade bus 08M costs; upper bounds represents potential incremental costs for BRT additives. (4) Discussion with Judy Evans, Ex. Director of Miami Beach Transportation Management Association (managing operator of Electrowave), 5/14/2004 (5) American Public Transportation Association Heritage Trolley a Streetcar web site http://www.heritagetrolley.org/planLittleRock.htm (6) Tom Gustafson, Nova Southeastern University, The Promenade Project Proposal: Miami at Midnight, for the City of Miami Community. Redevelopment Agency, Miami, FL, 11/2003, pages 19-23. Reader is cautioned that this study does not include proper references for cost and performance charac- teristics. Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database, for Miami -Dade Transit, Washington, DC, 2002 (7) The Electrowave, Coral Gables Trolley, and vintage trolley systems are successful in supporting and creating economic benefits from the tourist market. In the City, this market is substantial but may not be as strong in generating economic development from other markets. The conceptual "Miami at Midnight" mode would appear to incorporate many of the economic development benefits experienced by streetcars and vintage trolleys, but there is no evidence to support such a conclusion; literature searches did not identify any comparable installation of such technology as an urban public transit circulator. —�� Performance Characteristics Performance characteristics vary for the eight modes, with all offering adequate speed for an urban circulator service. Heavy rail, LRT, and streetcars provide the highest passenger carrying capacities. Electric power, which is used by these modes, generally provides quicker acceleration and deceleration (an important feature in urban settings) and produces fewer emissions than do fossil fuel vehicles. However, the electric systems require overhead, surface, or underground power connections and nearby substations. Notes: (a) Depending on specific vehicle selected. (b) Depending on tolerance for crowding at crush load. (c) Depending on alignment type(s) -- surface, aerial, subway. (d) Assume average trip/passenger trip = 1.0 mite/passenger. (e) National Transit Database - selected comparable properties. (f) Assumed to be similar to Streetcar and Less than LRT. Heavy rail, and occasionally LRT and BRT systems, require a dedicated guideway, but BRT, streetcars, and vintage trolleys frequently travel in mixed traffic environments. Streetcar and Electrowave always travel with other automobile, truck, transit and pedestrian/ bicycle traffic. Performance characteristics for the "Miami at Midnight" concept can only be assumed, as there are no public transit versions of this mode to use for analysis purposes. It is doubtful that this mode would be suitable for extensive use in street lanes shared with motor traffic, given its light vehicle construction. Capital Cost per Mile Initially, heavy rail systems have the highest per -mile capital costs (up to $250 million) in large part because of the required right-of-way acquisitions, costly vehicles and maintenance facilities, and complete grade separation for heavy rail. LRT systems exhibit a wide range of capital costs, depending on the degree to which they are grade separated and the number of vehicles used to support the service. Streetcars, vintage trolleys, and "Miami at Midnight" systems, which require minimal right-of-way but do require maintenance facilities, track and power construction, and less expensive rail cars, have per -mile capital costs ranging from $15 million to $30 million. As discussed earlier, BRT systems can be designed in a very elaborate and costly fashion and constructed with new dedicated lanes, or even exclusive bus roadways, with capital costs per mile exceeding $5 million. In many cases, however, BRT systems mix with general traffic; use buses that are already in existing fleets; and operate with certain advantages such as new signal/ communications devices, signage, striping, and bus stops which, combined, can be constructed for under $300,000 per mile. Electrowave capital costs are estimated at about $2.7 million.14 The costs are limited to the purchase of vehicles, maintenance facilities, other equipment, and batteries. Over time, the capital cost of streetcars, heavy rail, and LRT becomes competitive with BRT and Electrowave modes. This is principally because the replacement life of BRT and Electrowave buses is between four and seven 1°According to Judy Evans, Executive Director of Wan, Beach's Electrowave, the system's fac pities and buildings were donated, and vehicles cost $211,515 each In 2000 (which could be adjusted for Inflatlon by 3%/year to $238,000 In 2004 dollars), and batteries cost $10,500/ t. To maintain a total fleet of 11 buses wl th 7 In daily servme (as "Electrowave" does) would result Ina caporal cast of $2.7 million. 3-7 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 J 'y� it it i Portland, Oregon - Streetcar Tampa, Florida - Trolley Bus Portland, Oregon - Streetcar Station years (at a cost of approximately $400,000 for buses and $240,000 for Electrowave vehicles), whereas streetcar, heavy rail, and LRT vehicles costing between $2.0 million to $4.0 million per vehicle can have life spans of over 30 years. Vintage trolleys and "Miami at Midnight" vehicles may have life cycle advantages similar to those of the other rail transit systems. There is not enough evidence, however, to support any conclusions about their life cycle costs. Operating and Maintenance Cost Streetcars, LRT, and heavy rail transit are very reliable and require less maintenance than other modes. These maintenance costs include guideway maintenance, higher insurance premiums, and higher debt service payments than other modes. Generally, these costs are lower on a cost -per -rider basis than those of bus transit. Bus transit generates the lowest operating costs on a per -service -hour basis15, but its cost per rider tends to be higher because of a greater number of drivers and personnel needed and the cost of fuel. Operating costs must include maintenance of the buses and other systems components (communications and other equipment) to enhance performance. BRT costs are similar to general highway and street costs of maintenance, operations (traffic controls) and enforcement and has similar operating and maintenance —�� 'Standard Mizm6Dzde Transit bus opera Hng cost estlmztes were used for thls analysk be— cause BRT system costs were not available forthls study. costs as bus transit for personnel, fuel and vehicles. BRT using an exclusive right-of-way that requires maintenance work has a higher operation and maintenance cost per passenger than rail transit. Electrowave requires a high level of maintenance, largely because this unique vehicle requires specialized mechanics and replacement parts and relies on daily recharging of electric battery sets. The operating costs of vintage trolleys are expected to be similar to the costs of streetcars, but less than the cost of LRT, because trolleys use equipment, power systems, and track that are similar to those found in streetcar systems. The data for operating cost estimates for vintage trolleys is inconsistent because, in some systems, labor is donated by volunteers and trolley museums, while in others, staffing generates real costs. As with capital costs, the operating costs of the "Miami at Midnight" system are not available because there are no examples of these systems operating in a public transportation environment in the literature reviewed. 3.2.3 Summary of Comparative Technologies In summary, with regard to the study area and based on the comparative characteristics described herein, streetcars best meet the City's objectives for the project. Streetcar service would be highly complementary and compatible with current land use plans and redevelopment initiatives and would provide a highly productive connector and extension to the MDT system. LRT and heavy rail services would have similar positive economic development impacts, but their markets are really geared for longer -distance peak period travel, and ION 3 — Characteristics of they are far more costly systems than streetcars. In addition, the significant disruption during construction associated with these systems would have a strong adverse effect on the ability of the currently programmed redevelopment projects to prosper initially. BRT systems have not been shown to generate significant economic development effects, nor are they intended for local circulation purposes. Electrowave services could have a modest positive impact on economic development; as with BRT systems, however, their maintenance can be costly since the vehicles and batteries have a short life span of less than four years. Vintage trolley systems have costs and performance characteristics similar to those of streetcar systems, but they are geared toward the tourist market, and are not considered a serious transit mode for other trip purposes. Finally, no information was found in the literature regarding the "Miami at Midnight" mode concept to support an analysis of this mode as a public transportation vehicle in the public right-of-way. The manufacturers that were identified are limited to those producing amusement park and hobbyist vehicles. 3-8 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 4.0 STUDY AREA The following describes the characteristics of the project study area, which is bounded by the Miami River on the south, Government Center at NW 16` Avenue and North Miami Avenue on the west, NE 79`h Street on the north, and Biscayne Boulevard on the east, as shown in Figure 1.2.2. 4.1 Population, Households and Employment Trends According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the population in the City of Miami grew from 358,548 residents in 1990 to 362,470 residents in 2000, or a 1 percent increase.16 During the two-year period from 2000 to 2002, the City's population grew by 12,000 residents to 374,791 residents, or a 3.3 percent increase.:7 Between 1990 and 2000, the City lost 23,000 employees, a 13 percent decline from the 1990 employment level of 170,000. However, housing, office, and retail development is returning to the Downtown Miami area in response to economic growth and market demand. 16 US Census Bureau http://factflnder.census.gov/servleV54FFFacuss [,hanee6eoConteut&eeo Id=16000US1245000E eeoConteut=& street=& counter& clMw p neMlaml& state- O40c0USl2E z ¢& lane=en& sse=on htta://www.census.eov/Press-Felease/ www/2002/datables/90smal 2.xls 1�Ibld. htta://vww.census.eovrats/www/Products/Profiles/Slnele/200,AC5/ Tabular/160/16000US12450001.htm 4.2 Attractions/Important Destinations An objective of the Miami Streetcar project is to provide improved connectivity between critical destinations in the study area. The roadway network, Metromover and some Metrobus routes, and local pedestrian circulation systems serve these destinations and attractions. The roadway network is over burdened, and with the redevelopment occurring in the study area, additional mobility is necessary to connect redeveloping areas with Downtown Miami and to provide local circulation within the redeveloping areas. Streetcars offer that mobility without significantly affecting the travel performance of other modes. By adding significant person trip capacity to the roadway network, streetcars would clearly provide additional transportation capacity in the study area. Critical destinations guiding the development of alternative corridors for streetcar service, illustrated in Figure 4.2.1, are: Downtown Miami Central Business District (CBD)—Miami River to NW 8`h Street; the CBD includes Flagler Street and the Jewelry District. Miami -Dade Government Center —bounded by North Miami Avenue, NW 16' Avenue, NW 16` Street, and NW 26d Street; the center includes the Miami -Dade County headquarters, State and Federal offices, Miami Art Museum, Miami Historical Museum, Main County Library and in the vicinity, City of Miami Administrative Center, and other offices. Federal Courthouse Complex —bounded by N/S Miami Avenue, Flagler Street, NW/SW 1 ` Avenue, and SE/SW 16` Street; the complex includes existing and future judicial facilities. Overtown Transit Village —located at NW 16` Court between NW 6`h Street and NW 8`h Street, the project consists of a 17-story building and large parking garage expected to be completed in 2006; the 341,000 square foot (sq. ft) building will provide office space for nearly 1,800 employees from the County's Transit Department, Office of Community and Economic Development (OCED), and Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM). Miami -Dade College —bounded by NE 26d Avenue, N. Miami Avenue, NE 3rd Street to NE 5`h Street; the commuter campus, attended by more than 20,000 students, is an important economic generator. Museum Park\Bicentennial Park —east of Biscayne Boulevard, between NE 9`h Street and MacArthur Causeway; significant redevelopment is underway. American Airlines Arena —east of Biscayne Boulevard, between NE 7`h Street and NE 9`h Street; the arena is the region's major entertainment facility and traffic generator during events. Omni Area —Biscayne Bay to 1-395, NE 13`h Street to NE 16`h Street; this area has multiple high-rise condominium buildings, hotel retail, and the Miami Herald building. Bayside Marketplace —east of Biscayne Boulevard, south of the American Airlines Arena; Bayside has dining and entertainment venues. Performing Arts Center —bounded by NE Bayshore Road, NE 2nd Avenue, NE 13`h Street, and NE 14th Street; the center includes the Opera House, Concert Hall, and Studio Theatre slated to open in the fall of 2006. Midtown Miami Redevelopment —bounded by the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway, NE 29`h Street, N. Miami Avenue, and NE 36`h Street; this mixed -use redevelopment of a 56-acre rail yard, to open in 2006, will include construction of a street grid. Miami Design District —bounded by Biscayne Boulevard, N. Miami Avenue, NE 36`h Street, and NE 43rd Street; the district has design showrooms, several residential and commercial buildings, and the Design and Architecture High School. Buena Vista East Historic District and Buena Vista Heights Redeveloping Neighborhoods — two neighborhoods generally between NE 2nd Avenue and NW 2nd Avenue from NE/NW 43rd Street to NE/NW 48`h Street. Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged — at NE 2nd Avenue and NE 53rd Street; the home is a major employer. Little Haiti —between N. Miami Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue, NE 54th Street and NE 79th Street; this area includes the Caribbean Marketplace at NE 626d Street, a strong and growing residential/ retail/cultural and light industrial neighborhood, and the planned Little Haiti Park. 4.3 Area Redevelopment As previously discussed, economic growth in Downtown Miami is on the rise. The following is an overview of economic activity within the study area based on a review of several recent studies and current sources. Two data sources are used herein to illustrate emerging areas of growth: Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization travel demand model socio-economic data, 1999 and 2025. 4-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 Hucayne Blvd ............................... nd Av. Little Haiti ....N.pyaaroAv................................ nd Buena Vista East Miam H Bayfront Park Bayside Marketplace American Airlines Arena Miami -Dade College Government Center Museum Park Miami Arena Performing Arts Center Omni Center Little Haiti Park Jewish Home for the Aged Miami Design District Midtown Miami ......... ............ Bsdmmesmd................... Buena- Desfg—at District NE Ena n. Wynwood/ Edgewater EEC Comidm Miami n:mtiaroray. NW 1. Av. NW end Av. NW sad Av. NW 6.1 Av. NW /<h Av. NW SM Av. NW 10.1A.. NW 1. Av. amment District Park `4a/ t $ m 1 1 na A CITY of MIAMI S. Mama Figure 4.2.1 - Area Destinations LEGEND Study Area Area Destinations Metromover Metrorail CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY SECTION 4 - Pro ct Study Area City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department Large Scale Development Report, 1996-Present, updated through April 19, 2004. The Miami -Dade MPO travel demand model contains socio-economic data summary files for population and employment for the entire Miami -Dade County at the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) level (Figures 4.3.1a Et 4.3.1b). In Downtown Miami and within the study area, the TAZ geographically represents the city blocks with the street grid or other boundary features used to separate the individual zones. In the CBD, the zone boundaries are smaller, with each zone representing a few blocks. In the northern portion of the study area, the zone boundaries are larger, with each zone comprising 10 or more blocks. The socio-economic data sets reviewed include the years 1999 and 2025 (a year 2000 model validation was underway by the MPO at the time of this study). The 1999 and 2025 data sets were analyzed using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping to estimate the anticipated population and employment growth in the study area. The analysis of the model data for the area bounded by NE 79`" Street, Biscayne Boulevard, the Miami River, and N/S Miami Avenue indicates a 13 percent and 23 percent growth in population and employment, respectively. The relative change in population and employment, by TAZ, is shown in Figure 4.3.1. This data analysis provides one source of future development trends. However, it should be noted that this MPO data set, though still current, predates the 2000 U.S. Census and does not appear to reflect recent and current development activity in the area. This Table 4.3.1 Forecast of Study Area Population, Household and Student Gains, 1999-2025 2025 2025 2025 1999 2005 2010 2015 Base Enhanced Vision Population Households Students 22,644 23,783 24,734 7,273 7,652 7,965 17,719 20,931 23,607 25,681 8,280 26,284 25,515 9,133 26,725 29,489 10,719 26,725 35,169 13,003 26,725 Source: Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization Travel Demand Forecast Model, June 2004 Table 4.3.2 Forecast of Study Area Employment 1999-2025 Employment Category 1999 2005 2010 Commercial 8,248 9,124 9,846 Industrial 2,964 2,885 2,816 Service 45,273 47,916 50,108 Total Employment 56,485 59,925 62,770 Source: Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization Travel Demand Forecast Model, June 2004. activity would indicate an even stronger concentration of growth for population in the Downtown Miami area, along Biscayne Boulevard, and in Midtown Miami. As part of the City of Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan, adopted in 2003, the City generated two alternative future growth scenarios for use with the 2025 MPO model. The two scenarios, termed "2025 Enhanced" and "2025 Vision", reflect the more aggressive recent 2015 10,570 2,750 52,308 65,808 2025 2025 2025 Base Enhanced Vision 14,250 15,042 16,585 3,852 4,025 4,218 55,622 58,371 66,402 73,724 77,438 87,205 growth rates and potential redevelopment of the Downtown and other portions of the study area, respectively. Tables 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 summarize and compare the year 2025 socio-economic data for these three scenarios: the MPO Base and the City's Enhanced and Vision forecasts. These three socio-economic data forecasts are used to examine potential ridership in Part II, Section 15.0 of this study report. Table 4.3.3 City of Miami Large Scale Development Report: 1996 - PRESENT Citywide Major Use Special Permits (MUSP) and applicable Class II & Special Exception Projects Summation Number Res I Condo Hotel office Retail Parking Spaces Construction Cost (est) Completed Projects Under Construction Approved Projects Application Projects 21 24 55 8 3,983 7,623 15,302 4,381 1,184 491 300 271 826,135 721,551 2,180,074 108,923 138,962 400,635 1,403,010 111,329 9,681 13,408 30,416 6,542 $1,269,007,971 $1,954,170,215 $5,128,757,018 $2,014,165,171 Preliminary Projects 69 11,423 City Total 177 42,712 730 165,819 1,366,260 2,976 4,002,502 3,420,196 Units Square Footage 26,142 86,189 $480,327,100 $10,846,427,475 City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department , Large -Scale Development Report 1996-Present (April 19, 2004) Future Locat if the Shops at Midtown Miami, opening in 2006 The City of Miami's Large Scale Development Report was also reviewed as a data source of current economic trends. The City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department maintains this report of large-scale projects completed, under construction, approved, or in the application and preliminary stages. A summary of this report, shown in Table 4.3.3 (updated through April 19, 2004), provides additional evidence supporting the increasing economic development trend in the City, with nearly 43,000 residential/condominium units, over 4 million sq. ft of office space, and over 3.4 million sq. ft of retail space anticipated City wide. The portion of this development occurring in the study area includes the following: 13,183 residential/condominium units; 62 hotel rooms; 1,727,000 sq. ft of office space; and 1,854,000 sq. ft of retail space. Most of these projects are occurring between NE 2,d Avenue and Biscayne Bay, shown graphically in Figure 4.3.2 in relation to the study area and the two existing 4-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 SEC ION 4 — Project Study Area LEGEND 61:Li0y arEd' No GrowrI IM 21% - 4096 - 4 % - 60% 6 % - 8096 8196 -WO% 100% + LEGEND Study Aredi NO Growli RIM1 I% - 20 51, 2 I % I= 4 96 - 60 91, 6 % - RO% I 00% + Figure 4.3. i A - Corridor Employment Growth Figure 4.3.18 - Corridor Population Growth Source: Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization travel demand forecast model, March 2002 Source: Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization travel demand forecast model, March 2002 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 4-4 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 Little Haiti .......................................................................... Figure 4.3.2 - Study Area Development As o&April 19, 2004 Source Department of Planning & Zoning, City of Miami (April 19, 2004) Onyx Blue Lofts Rosabella Lofts Avant `Tuttle., Bayside Marketplace American Airlines Arena Museum Park Mist Biscayne Bay Special Area Plan 10 Museum Park Performing Arts Center Omni Center 14th Street Corridor Bay Park Plaza Quantum on the Bay Park Lofts Miami Children's Museum Parrot Jungle Island Gardens One Miami Dupont Plaza MET Miami Bayfront Park Flagler St.Corridor 50 Biscayne Columbus Office Tower Everglade the Be •J OMNI CRA � E nd A` NEendAes Par Buena Vista Entertalnmen• �•�, Fsc NE ro l District East �'^na,a - k W !Midtown Midtown Miami t SEOPW 4 ..... nesign.Districtp -•— tPNinerAn 1 5 CRA • $ NW 1st 3uer�ca NW 6th Av. NW till Av. NW Bill Av. NW NAB Av. NW 11ih Av. LEGEND : Study Area Omni Community Redevelopment Agency (Omni CRA) um SoutheastOvertownParkWestCommunityRedevelopmentAgency(SEOPWCRA) mu Miami Downtown Development Authority —.— Special Districts (Shown in various colors) riekeu Av. Government Center Miami -Dade College Miami Arena NW 7th Street Spine Overtown Transit Village Historic Overtown Folklife Village West Overtown Big Time Productions Overtown Business Corridor 3rd Avenue District CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Project Study Area City of Miami Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs): the Omni CRA and the Southeast Overtown Park West (SEOPW) CRA. Comparing the summary of the three socio-economic scenarios with the summary of large-scale developments (from 1996 to April 19, 2004) reveals that the enhanced forecast most closely represents the current rate of growth in the Downtown. The reasonableness of this assumption and expected market absorption for new development are further examined in Part II, Section 13.0. 4.4 Programmed Transportation System Improvements Several study area streets are scheduled for reconstruction, which may provide opportunities for developing even more cost-effective implementation of streetcar service in the next few years. These projects are shown in Table 4.3.4. In addition to these reconstruction projects, the City's 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Program includes the Streets Maintenance Program, which incorporates a broad range of resurfacing, traffic control, sewer repair, sidewalk repair, drainage, conversion of two-way streets to one way, and other infrastructure projects. Table 4.3.4 Streets Scheduled for Reconstruction Street Name and Description Status Biscayne Boulevard - FDOT sponsored project for reconstruction Biscayne, NE 5rh to NE 13rh Streets Construction to begin in 2005 Biscayne, NE 13rh to NE 38rh Streets In design Biscayne, NE 38rh to NE 67h Streets Biscayne, NE 67h to NE 871h Streets Construction to begin in 2005 Construction to begin in 2005 NE 2^d Avenue— Joint City/County reconstruction of existing geometry using County People's Transportation Plan funds and City funds NE 2nd Avenue, NE 20rh to NE 43rd Streets NE 2nd Avenue, NE 43rd to NE 87rh Streets veloper sponsored im•rovements NE 29rh to NE 36rh Streets In design In design Under construction NE 36th Street - FDOT sponsored project to total reconstruction of existing geometry NW 7rh to NE 7h Avenues Construction to begin in 2005 f Miami sponsored projects using City's People's Trans a on ''. "rnos NE 15" Avenue, NE 36rh Street to NE 43rd Street NE 38rh Street, N. Miami to NE 2nd Avenues NE 39rh Street, N. Miami to NE 2nd Avenues NE 40rh Street, N. Miami to NE 2nd Avenues Downtown Miami Improvement In design In design In design Construction to begin in 2005 Multiple conversions of one-way streets to two-way Multiple resurfacing and infrastructure repair projects In design In design CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 4-6 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF POTENTIAL PROJECT CORRIDOR This section describes the current characteristics of the roadways in the study area that were considered potential corridors for the streetcar. These descriptions are based on technical reviews and field assessments completed during preparation of Part 1 of this study report. This section is organized into major north -south and east -west roadways, as follows: North -South Streets (from west to east): North and South Miami Avenue NE and SE 1' Avenue NE and SE 2nd Avenue Biscayne Boulevard (US 1) East-West Streets (from south to north): o Flagler Street o SE and NE 1' Streets o NE 3rd 4`h 5`h 6`h 7`h 8th and 9`h Streets o NE 14`h Street o NE 29`h Street o NE 36th Street o NE 38th, NE 39`h, and NE 40th Streets Section 5.2.1 presents an overview of the Downtown Miami cross streets, which were evaluated separately. A description of the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway branch line, located between NE 72"d Street and NE 6`h Street to the Port of Miami, is also provided. The roadways evaluated in the study area are shown in Figure 5.1.1. 5.1 Characteristics of North -South Streets Given the concentration of redevelopment occurring east of North and South Miami Avenue and the extent of the redevelopment north to NE 79`h Street, the focus of the alternative corridors evaluation is on the following four north -south streets. 5.1.1 North and South Miami Avenue North and South Miami Avenue provides a continuous route throughout the study area and is adjacent to several important area destinations. The naming convention for Miami Avenue is South Miami Avenue south of Flagler Street and North Miami Avenue north of Flagler Street. North Miami Avenue is a four -lane, undivided Miami -Dade County arterial roadway between NE 15`h Street and the northern City Limit. It serves the Midtown Miami development project, the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District, and the burgeoning "club" and "studio" districts. South and North Miami Avenue is a southbound three -lane, one-way street between SE 4th Street and NE 15`h Street with on - street parking typically on one side. It serves the Miami - Dade College, Miami Arena, U.S. District Court, and County Courthouse. The Miami Design District Design Development Plan' calls for the reconfiguration of the number of lanes and the sidewalk widths on North Miami Avenue and for the construction of curb extensions. North Miami Avenue will be the west side arterial street serving the Midtown Miami project, which will have streetscape enhancements intended to be pedestrian friendly in context with the smaller -scale retail 18 The MI"ml Design Dlstrlct Design Development Plan, Aphl 2001'. SECTION 5 — Description of St businesses on the west side of the street in this area. The City of Miami Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element —Data Inventory and Analysis, November 2003, forecasts a year 2015 level of service (LOS) "F," which indicates a failing traffic condition, between NE 15`h Street and NE 36`h Street. 5.1.2 NE and SE 1st Avenue NE and SE 1' Avenue is a three -lane Miami -Dade County roadway. It is a northbound one-way roadway between SE 1' Street and NE 17`h street in the Downtown Miami area. NE 1' Avenue crosses under 1-395 between NE 11`h Street and NE 12th Street with a low vertical clearance at the 1-395 underpass of 13 ft 9 in. NE 1' Avenue does not physically exist between NE 17`h Street and NE 36th Street. The Midtown Miami development proposes to extend NE 1' Avenue through the Midtown Miami project between NE 29`h and NE 36`h Streets. This new section of roadway will be named Buena Vista Avenue. North of NE 36`h Street, NE 1' Avenue is a two-lane, undivided street that provides for two-way traffic and on -street parking on one or both sides. The roadway crosses under 1-195 north of NE 36`h Street with a vertical clearance of 14 ft 6 in.. NE 1' Avenue is central to many of the important destinations and redevelopment projects in the study area, including Miami -Dade College, Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District, and the NE 4th Street pedestrian mall. Streetcar service was provided on portions of this roadway until 1940. Presently, NE 1' Avenue is primarily a residential corridor north of NE 42"d Street. South of NE 15th Street, it is lined with commercial establishments and is part of Miami Florida - NE 2nd Avenue dy Area Corridor the primary truck route circulation between the Port of Miami and 1-395. The City of Miami Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element —Data Inventory and Analysis, November 2003, forecasts a year 2015 level of service (LOS) "E" or "F" (both considered unacceptable) along much of its route. 5.1.3 NE and SE 2nd Avenue NE and SE 2nd Avenue is a Miami -Dade County road that provides a continuous connection throughout the study area. As discussed in Section 2.0, streetcar lines were present on NE and SE 2nd Avenue from 1906 and extended north to NE 36`h Street. NE 2nd is a southbound three - lane, one-way roadway between SE 2nd Street and NE 14th Street. Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is designing an improvement to convert this current one- way section to two-way traffic from NE 14th Street to NE 11`h Terrace. North of NE 14`h Street to NE 36`h Street, the roadway is a four -lane, undivided roadway that allows for on -street parking on one or both sides in certain areas during unrestricted peak periods of the day. When on -street parking does occur, the roadway 5-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 Figure 5.1.1 - Corridors Evaluated for Potential Streetcar Service LEGEND MN Study Area East-West Corridors North -South Corridors Downtown East-West Corndors FEC Railway Corridor CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 5-2 SECTION 5 — Descripti .n of Study Area Corridor Miami, Florida - NE 1st Avenue (looking north) effectively operates as a two-lane, undivided roadway, as the outside lane is blocked by parked vehicles. North of NE 36th Street, the roadway varies from a two-lane, two-way undivided roadway with on -street parking to a four -lane, two-way undivided roadway without on -street parking. NE 2"d Avenue is central to Downtown Miami economic activity. It adjoins much of the redevelopment occurring in Wynwood, including the Midtown Miami redevelopment and Performing Arts Center, as well as other redevelopment in the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District and Little Haiti. Miami Florida - Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida - Miami Avenue (looking south near Miami Arena) Other important traffic generators along NE 2nd Avenue include Miami -Dade College, the Little Haiti retail core, the Miami Jewish Home and Hospital for the Aged (a major employer), and numerous redevelopment opportunities between NE 16`h to NE 36`h Street and between NE 42"d to NE 79th Streets. The City of Miami Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element —Data Inventory and Analysis, November 2003, forecasts a year 2015 LOS "E" or "F" on NE 2"d Avenue between NE 15`h Street and 1-395 and between NE 36`h and NE 54th Streets. The FEC Railway crosses NE 2"d Avenue at NE 36`h and NE 72"d Streets; and the Midtown Miami project is proposing to add an at -grade crossing of the FEC Railway line at NE 2"d Avenue/NE 34th Street. The Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District Plan, as well as the Little Haiti/Creole District Plan and Miami Design District Design Development Plan, call for reconfiguration of the number of lanes and the sidewalk widths along with construction of curb extensions, all of which would complement streetcar service. MIan7, Florida - NE 14th Street (looking east) 5.1.4 Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Boulevard (US 1) is a State highway (principal arterial) that extends north to the City limit. The boulevard provides direct access to 1-395, 1-195, the Port of Miami, and all four Biscayne Bay causeways within the City. In the southern section of the study area, Biscayne Boulevard operates as an eight -lane, two-way divided arterial with a wide median between NE 1"` and NE 6`h Streets and transitions to a six -lane, two-way arterial from NE 6th Street to NE 15`h Street. From NE 15`h Street north to NE 79`h Street, Biscayne Boulevard narrows to four lanes. Throughout the study area, it carries the highest general traffic volume and bus ridership. The City of Miami Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element —Data Inventory and Analysis, November 2003, forecasts a year 2015 LOS "E" and "F" on Biscayne Boulevard between the Venetian Causeway (i.e., NE 15th Street) and NE 54`h Street, indicating that the trend of increasing vehicular volumes and congestion is expected to persist. Many high -density projects are underway along the boulevard. These include residential, commercial, entertainment, recreational, and mixed -use Miami, Florida - NE 1st Avenue (looking south near NE 17th Street) projects, including the construction of the Performing Arts Center and programmed redevelopment of Bicentennial Park. In response to current congestion, and to ensure compatibility with the ongoing and planned redevelopment and densification of both sides of this significant roadway, the FDOT proposes the reconstruction of Biscayne Boulevard to make it more pedestrian friendly and to improve pedestrian -oriented linkages between the west and east sides of the street, with several design elements intended to "calm" traffic flow. Once these FDOT-sponsored improvements are built, Biscayne Boulevard could become even more compatible with the Miami Streetcar. This major north -south boulevard is also proposed to accommodate the future Bay Link project between MacArthur Causeway and Flagler Street. (Coordination with the Bay Link study is discussed in Section 10.0.) 5.2 Characteristics of East-West Streets Several east -west streets and other corridors offer good opportunities for streetcar circulation and streetcar stop locations. CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 5-3 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 of Study Area Corridor Miami, Florida - Flagler Street (looking west) 5.2.1 Downtown Miami Streets Downtown Miami streets provide a special case for the feasibility of streetcars because they occur in the areas where many land use patterns and transportation infrastructure are fixed and where the greatest transportation needs exist. As with the north -south streets, the east -west streets considered are those that present the most advantages for streetcar circulation through Downtown Miami and for meeting a large number of travelers' trip purposes, based on technical reviews and field assessment. As described in earlier sections of this study report, Downtown Miami is in the midst of major public and private redevelopment activity. The performance of many of its streets is anticipated to decline to LOS "E" and "F" over the next 10 to 20 years. The following Downtown Miami cross streets were examined because of their ability to provide connectivity in the study area: Miami, Florida - NE 9th Street at NE 1st Avenue (looking west) Flagler Street Flagler Street is the City's premier commercial "Main" street, forming the boundary between north and south addresses of the City, and is an important mobility corridor for automobiles, trucks, and transit services. It is currently a two-lane, one-way westbound street with on -street parking typically on one side of the street. Flagler Street experiences light freight activity by trucks bringing commercial goods into Downtown Miami and is also a major route for Metrobus and Metromover. Adjacent to Flagler Street is the Miami Art Museum and a significant office and retail district. Currently, Flagler Street is programmed for streetscape and sidewalk improvements and for conversion to two-way operation as part of the Flagler Marketplace project. NE 1" Street and SE 1" Street NE 151 Street and SE 151 Street provide the major east - west circulation through the heart of Downtown Miami and are used as part of the Bay Link alignment. These streets currently provide a one-way couplet to Flagler Street and other Downtown Miami streets, with SE 151 Street operating one-way eastbound and NE 151 Street Miami, Florida - NE 14th Street (looking east) operating one-way westbound. Both of these streets are planned for conversion to two-way traffic by year 2010 in the Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan, May 2003.19 NE 3rd, NE 4`h, NE 5`h, NE 6`h, NE 7`h, NE 8`h and NE 9th Streets Several of these cross streets operate in a one-way fashion between North Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard (NE 3rd Street and NE 61h Street are one-way westbound, and NE 51h Street is one-way eastbound) with on -street parking. NE 41h Street is closed to automobile traffic from N. Miami Avenue to NE 2" Avenue and serves as a pedestrian corridor for Miami -Dade College. NE 51h Street and NE 61h Street serve as the one-way pair for Port of Miami traffic destined to and from 1-395. NE 71h, NE 81h, and NE 91h Streets operate as minor two-lane roadways with two-way traffic and on -street parking. Each carries a low to moderate volume of traffic. own Transportation Master Plan, May 2003 (exhibit 3-090 Improvements). -.•11•1111, Miami, Florida - NE 29th Street (looking west) 5.2.2 East-West Streets from Downtown Miami to the Miami Design District While the streetcar service would operate mostly on the north -south streets, the route is envisioned to be a transit circulator, or possibly a loop, and would use one or more cross streets to complete the loop. As with the north -south streets, several cross streets provide direct access to critical destinations and redevelopment projects in the study area. Certain cross streets —namely NE 141h, NE 291h, NE 361h, and NE 381h through NE 401h Streets —offer the highest potential to provide connectivity in the study area, as well as within the streetcar route itself. For this reason, these streets are designated major east -west connectors. The following describes these streets and the benefits they would provide to streetcar operations: NE 14th Street NE 141h Street, a two-way, local street with on -street parking, is a major entrance to the Performing Arts Center facilities between Biscayne Boulevard and NE 2" Avenue. It could provide a good transition from the major destinations on Biscayne Boulevard to the south (Museum Park/Bicentennial Park, American Airlines 5-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 Figure 5.3.1 - Recommended Alignment & Florida East Coast Railway Crossings Date ofAerial: 2003 LEGEND Recommended Alignment • Recommended Station/Stop Locations .. Metromover O Metromover Stop Locations Metrorail • Metrorail Stop Locations =^ Bay Link (Proposed) - FEC Railway Corridor FEC Crossings on. Recommended Alignment CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ION 5 — Description of Study Area Corridor Arena, and Bayfront Park) and to the redevelopment areas along NE 2nd and NE 1' Avenues to the north. Construction plans for the Performing Arts Center Ballet and Opera House were reviewed for additional changes to NE 14th Street. Plans show a truck loading dock to be located on NE 14th Street between NE 2"d Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. NE 29th Street NE 29`" Street is a wide four -lane, two-way street and presents the first opportunity south of NE 36th Street to cross east -west between N. Miami Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. The street is intersected by an existing at - grade crossing with the FEC Railway between NE 2"d Avenue and the proposed Midtown Boulevard. NE 29`" Street forms the south border of the Midtown Miami redevelopment project and may be part of another development proposal on its south side between NE 2"d Avenue and N. Miami Avenue. NE 36th Street NE 36`h Street is a four -lane, undivided state road that continues east and joins the Julia Tuttle Causeway to Miami Beach. It carries a high traffic volume and forms the north border of the Midtown Miami redevelopment between N. Miami Avenue and the FEC Railway corridor. NE 36`h Street forms a complex, five -leg intersection with three-phase signal operation at FEC Railway/ Federal Highway and NE 2"d Avenue. A project to reconstruct NE/NW 36`h Street between NW 7`h to NE 7`h Avenues is programmed. NE 38t, NE 39t, and NE 40th Streets These three east -west streets form the heart of the commercial section of the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. They are each two- lane roadways designed for two-way travel with on - street parking, which is in high demand given the numerous retail establishments and new residential and commercial buildings lining these three streets. NE 38th, NE 39`", and NE 40th Streets are proposed for reconstruction in the next few years. Miami, Florida - NE 36h Street (looking east) A liami, Florida - NE 40th Street and NE 1st Avenue (looking east) 5.3 Florida East Coast Railway Line The FEC spur begins south of NE 79`h Street and west of NE 4th Court where it separates from the eastern mainline track. The mainline track curves to the west toward the Hialeah Yard. The spur line is a single track for approximately 0.5 miles with a right-of-way width of approximately 100 feet. The track then runs parallel with the southern leg of the wye coming from the Hialeah Yard. For approximately 0.4 miles, the line has double track and a right-of-way width of 60 to 90 feet. There are two crossovers in this segment, one near the middle of the double track segment and the other is at the end of the double track. The single track continues south, parallel to NE 4th Court and N. Federal Highway for approximately 1.5 miles. The right-of-way width from NE 62"d Street to 1-195 is primarily 60 feet, but varies from 60 to 120 feet. The route turns to the southwest for approximately 1.7 miles from 1-195 to 1-395 with a typical right-of-way width that varies from 50 to 100 feet. After crossing under 1-395, the rail line turns to the south for approximately 0.4 miles. It then turns east along the southern side of the Miami Arena toward American Airlines Arena, traveling approximately 0.7 miles. The right-of-way width for this segment, from 1-395 to the American Airlines Arena, is typically 80 feet. The rail line continues to the east toward the Port of Miami. CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Miami, Florida - Florida East Coast Railway (look sg Miami, Florida - EEC Spur to Port auader Metromover at NE 29th St) 1=_ 5-6 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 6.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA A critical element of the Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study is the development and application of relevant evaluation criteria, or performance measures, which identify the factors necessary to achieve the following study objectives: Provide connections between the central business district (CBD) of Downtown Miami and redeveloping areas of Southeast Overtown/Park West, Omni, Wynwood, Edgewater, Midtown, Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District, Buena Vista Heights, Little Haiti, and the Upper Eastside. Guide and sustain economic development activities. Identify the benefits and impacts on traffic flow, parking usage, business operations, and other corridor characteristics. For this study, the comparative advantages and disadvantages of a streetcar service were assessed for the following roadways: North and South Miami Avenue, from the Miami River to NE 79`h Street NE and SE 1 s' Avenue, from the Miami River to NE 17`h Street NE and SE 2nd Avenue, from the Miami River to NE 79`h Street Biscayne Boulevard (US 1), from the Miami River to NE 79`h Street FEC Railway corridor, from Downtown Miami to NE 79`h Street Downtown Miami area streets, from Biscayne Boulevard (US 1) to North Miami Avenue Major cross streets, from the Miami River to NE 79`h Street The evaluation criteria used to determine which of the corridors best meet these study objectives were: the consistency of a streetcar service with the plans and objectives for the study area the physical compatibility of the streetcar mode; policy and regulatory compatibility the positive impact on stakeholders directly affected by a significant transit investment These four evaluation criteria have been used in multiple transit planning exercises as a means of organizing the advantages and disadvantages of corridors under examination. Each of these criteria has a number of components that are addressed herein. 6.1 Compatibility with Land Use, Economic Development, and Transportation Goals The first evaluation criterion consists of the City of Miami's land use, economic development, and transportation goals, which are as follows: Fit with the planned character of the study area (i.e., compatibility with street function, streetscape, cultural resources, and pedestrian activity). Support existing and planned land uses, especially urban housing and storefront retail. Identify the scale of redevelopment that could be supported, accelerated, or catalyzed by new transit services. Address increased mobility needs for redeveloping areas. Be consistent with locally adopted land use regulations, zoning, and other land use objectives and requirements. Provide increased mobility for redeveloping areas. Provide connectivity and continuity within neighborhoods and between neighborhoods and major City destinations. Provide an additional modal option without significantly impacting the performance of already available modes. Ability to meet transit demands associated with 1) improved local connections; 2) unmet existing demand; and 3) demand from new traffic generators. 6.2 Physical Compatibility The physical compatibility criteria consist of the following components: Available right-of-way and lane width to accommodate bus rapid transit, streetcar alignments, and increased bus volume Integration of modes and alignments with other transit services Effect on inventory and usage of on -street parking Effect on street function in terms of the potential to manage traffic flow and prioritize pedestrian movements Simplicity, convenience, and clarity of the route Adequate horizontal and vertical clearances for the streetcar trackway, catenary lines (overhead electrical power lines), and vehicle Adequate sidewalk width passenger loadings at stops Adequate adjoining physical maintenance facility Configuration of utilities streetcar track construction to accommodate area to locate a to accommodate Adequate physical area to provide continuous associated power and communications system infrastructure SECTION 6 — Evaluation Criteria 6.3 Policy and Regulatory Compatibility The policy and regulatory compatibility criteria consist of the following components: Project construction that avoids significant effect on the function of state or Federal transportation facilities Consistency with streetscape designs and anticipated reconstruction projects Safety in terms of little or no conflict with automobile and truck traffic as well as pedestrian and bicycle traffic 6.4 Stakeholder and Community Support Stakeholder and community outreach was not formally conducted during Part I of this feasibility study; however, the corridor alternatives were presented to several private, non-profit, and public -sector stakeholders, including the City of Miami Commission and Administration, the Downtown Development Authority, study area developers, employers, business and community leaders, the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization, and Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) staff. In addition, the project was described in the local news media (newspaper and television) and at public involvement meetings for other projects (such as Bay Link) as a forum to educate and inform the public about the feasibility study. Valuable input was gathered from these meetings and used in selecting or eliminating corridors for further evaluation (as discussed in Section 10.0). This analysis, and future analysis to be conducted, will be the subject of a thorough and proactive outreach process. Input from the many stakeholders is an important component of the planning process. Additional public involvement will occur during implementation of the project. 6-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 7.0 ALTERNATIVE CORRIDORS EVALUATION The evaluation of corridors for possible streetcar service, as depicted in Table 7.1, were presented in Section 6.0 and were used to measure advantages and disadvantages of each corridor. 7.1 Advantages and Disadvantages 7.1.1 North -South Streets The north -south streets considered for evaluation are Biscayne Boulevard, NE and SE 2nd Avenue, NE and SE 1" Avenue, and North and South Miami Avenue. In general, streetcar service on all north -south streets would be physically feasible and would positively contribute to planned redevelopment activity and infrastructure improvements in these corridors. The planned reconstruction programs for these roadways could provide opportunities for streetcar cost savings where provisions are made to accommodate streetcars during the roadway reconstruction phase. However, much advanced planning is necessary for conversion to occur during such opportunities; the low likelihood of integrating elements of streetcars with public roadway improvements that are already in the design stage does not warrant special consideration in the evaluation process. SECTION 7 — Alternative Corridors Evaluation Table 7.1 Alternative Corridors Evaluation Evaluation Criteria North -South Streets East-West Streets Downtown Miami Circulation Streets Fit with planned character of corridor/distract • • • O • • • • • • NIA NIA Complements transit -supportive land uses • • • C • • • • • • • • Consistent with local land use regulations • • • • • • • • • • • • Direct connections to Metro Dade Transit Services • • • • • • • V • • t • Encourages pedestrian activity 0 • • • • • • • • • • • Scale of redevelopment that could be generated 0 • • • • • • • • • • • Connectivity between neighborhoods, Midtown, and Downtown Miami 0 0 0 • • • • • • • • • Available ROW V V C O 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) 4) Effect on local traffic flow O 4 O O 0 O O O o 0 0 0 Integration with other transit services • • • • • • • NIA • • NIA • Effect to on -street and off-street parking O 'O U 4) C O U O o 0 0 0 Manage all modal movements C • • • • • 0 • • • • 0 Simplicity/clarity of route • • O • • • • • • • • • Ability to program with street reconstruction projects • • 4 • • 4) • 0 o 0 0 0 Adequate clearances 0 4) 0 4) 4 C) O 0 O C) C 4 Adequate sidewalk area for station stops • • • • • • • • • • • • Available area to locate maintenance facility 0 • • • • • • 0 • • • 0 Ability to provide continuous communications/power • • • • • • • • • • • • Avoidance of state or federal transportation facilities 0 O 4 IIID tJ 4) 0 t/ 4) ( 4) 4) Consistency with streetscape designs/redevelopment • • • • • • • • • • NIA NIA Presents safety conflict with other modes 0 O O C C O O © O t) 1) 0 Meets transit demands • • • • • • • • • • • • Key • Positive Ira act/Correlation ONo Impact/Weak Correlation QNegative Impact/Correlation NA Not Applicable CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 7-1 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 Primary challenges and opportunities to consider for these north -south corridors are as follows: The Biscayne Boulevard right-of-way, north of the MacArthur Causeway (located north of NE 11 `h Street), presents some challenges to streetcar operations and safe, user-friendly pedestrian access. In its current configuration, Biscayne Boulevard, with its wide right-of-way, can be difficult for pedestrians to cross to reach significant area attractions such as Bayfront Park, American Airlines Arena, Bayside Marketplace, and the Museum Park/Bicentennial Park area. Streetcar service on Biscayne Boulevard may impact mobility between the state facilities of MacArthur Causeway and Julia Tuttle Causeway (I-195). The segment of Biscayne Boulevard south of NE 7`h Street also presents unique challenges to transition the alignment from the median to the curb lane if the alignment were to be located within the wide landscaped median on this segment. An advantage of the Biscayne Boulevard corridor is the additional alignment opportunity available in the public parking area separating northbound from southbound traffic under Metromover between SE 1' and NE 6`h Streets. The vertical clearance of NE 2"d Avenue under I-195/SR 112 is only 14 ft 6 in; however, overhead contact systems can be modified to accommodate vertical clearances as low as 14 ft. The vertical clearance of NE 1' Avenue at the 1-395 underpass is only 13 ft 9 in, which would result in costly construction to lower the profile of NE 1' Avenue below the viaduct to achieve the minimum vertical clearance. NE 2nd Avenue is the corridor that is most conducive to streetcar project development north of 1-395, between Downtown Miami and the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. Three factors make this a compelling corridor: 1) the scale of redevelopment opportunities there, 2) the pace of redevelopment activity (some of it already underway, particularly in the Midtown Miami project area), and 3) the clear transit destination of the Miami Design District. However, north of the Miami Design District, the options for an alignment narrow and the scale of redevelopment opportunity is much reduced. Although there is significant transit demand in this northerly segment of the corridor, there is no major destination point to anchor a streetcar extension there at this time. Consequently, the alignment options that will be developed from this evaluation of north -south streets will focus on opportunities to connect Downtown Miami (Government Center) to the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District as the Phase 1 project. 7.1.2 East-West Streets Similarly, all east -west streets evaluated would be compatible with streetcar service, which would also enhance redevelopment opportunities that are underway and planned. The east -west streets in the Miami Design District do not currently accommodate transit except for the Little Haiti Connection circulator on NE 39th Street. Streetcar service would not provide connectivity in this district for integration with other Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) services; however, connection to this district could provide improved transit service and coverage for a developing area. SECTION 7 — Altern The north -south alignment of the streetcar service obviously will influence which east -west streets provide the most advantageous connections. Key considerations for these east -west streets include: NE 38`h, NE 39`h, and NE 40th Streets are scheduled for reconstruction and therefore may provide an improved streetscape environment and opportunity to be made more compatible for streetcar operation. Similarly, improvements are anticipated for NE 14`h, NE 29`h, and NE 36`h Streets. Initially locating the end of the streetcar line within the Miami Design District presents some challenges for turning the vehicle around for the return run back to Government Center. Options could include a loop or a switch track, which could be located on one of these east -west side streets. The switching operation, however, may impact parking or traffic operations as the streetcar traverses the roadway for the southbound operation. The complexity of the NE 36`h Street/NE 2nd Avenue and Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway crossing intersection may impact the performance of other traffic movements if the streetcar were added to this intersection; mobility to I-195/Julia Tuttle Causeway could also be affected. The north -south corridors for access to the Performing Arts Center along either Biscayne Boulevard or NE 2nd Avenue affect the selection of the east -west roadways. The primary alternatives for east -west access to the Performing Arts Center are NE 13th Street and NE 14`h Street. NE 14th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard is needed to access the truck loading docks on the north side of the Ballet and Opera House at the Performing Arts Center. Depending on the frequency of use, time of day operation, and entering/exiting maneuvers for truck access, streetcar operations on this segment could create a conflict for truck access to the Performing Arts Center. NE 13th Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard will serve as the access to the valet drop-off and side door patron access to the Ballet and Opera House. Traffic congestion and valet traffic parking along NE 13th Street may create conflict for streetcar operation on this roadway section. As with the evaluation of the north -south streets, these few site -specific constraints would not rule out use of portions of the east -west streets for streetcar service 7.1.3 Downtown Miami Circulation Routes In contrast to the corridors evaluated above, two Downtown Miami circulation corridors (NE 3rd Street to NE 6`h Street, and NE 7`h Street) are deemed less advantageous, or even infeasible, because of the lack of redevelopment activity planned for these corridors. In addition, NE 6`h and NE 7`h Streets are heavily traveled truck routes between the Port of Miami and 1-395, which would impede streetcar operations. Moreover, little redevelopment is currently planned for NE 7`h Street; a streetcar would thus be expected to promote less economic development in this corridor. On the other hand, NE and SE 1' Streets (as an east -west couplet) and Flagler Street are superior streets for streetcar service (particularly, if two-way streetcar service were permitted and efforts were made to improve the pedestrian amenities on Flagler Street). The large employment base and diverse retail activities there J 7-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 SECTION 7 — Alternative would be highly compatible with streetcar operation. Key opportunities and challenges in conjunction with the Downtown Miami east -west streets are as follows: NE 3rd Street may provide an opportunity for one-way streetcar service to NW 1' Avenue and access to Government Center. The right-of-way on NE 3rd Street is narrow, with on -street parking provided on only one side. This would make it difficult to turn the streetcar vehicle onto NE 3rd Street without encroaching into additional lanes, unless a corner right-of-way clip is taken. Right- of-way clips are a concern for any right turns by the streetcar. The NE 4th Street pedestrian corridor would be an ideal cross street for low -speed streetcar operations and would provide a very high degree of access to Miami -Dade College. The high volume of truck traffic using NE 5th Street and NE 6`h Street makes these roadways less desirable for streetcar use and less likely for developing into intensive pedestrian oriented environments. 7.1.4 FEC Branch Line Use of the FEC Railway line is being considered for the potential implementation of improved freight rail and transit service in the FEC Tri-County Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis being prepared for FTA. This study will examine the FEC branch line as part of a potential second SFRTA or other rail transit service line that would directly serve Downtown Miami. The primary objective of this type of service is to provide longer commuter trips rather than the short, local circulation afforded by streetcar service. The possibility of incorporating the Miami Streetcar project into the FEC Railway corridor was reviewed but dismissed for the following reasons: The small streetcar vehicle does not meet the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) crash - worthiness requirements that would allow it to operate on an active rail line such as the FEC Railway corridor. Permits for streetcar service operating in a mixed environment with heavy freight and passenger rail would be extremely difficult to obtain. A waiver for time -separated operation would have to be negotiated with the host railroad and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). Although freight rail and streetcar operations could be scheduled and dispatched in a manner to avoid conflicts, experience throughout the U.S. indicates that obtaining a permit is a significant challenge even under these kinds of operations. The overhead power supply needs of the streetcar would conflict with the vertical clearance requirements that FEC Railway has established for overhead utilities on the active freight line. Although the proposed streetcar could run on the same - sized rail as the freight trains that operate on the FEC Railway corridor, these two factors preclude streetcar operation, in the near term, on the FEC corridor while the freight line remains active. 7.2 Issues and Constraints There are several constraints that can adversely impact the feasibility of the streetcar service. Some are mentioned above and implied in the discussion of the evaluation criteria; issues with respect to the recommended alignments are discussed in Section 11.0. Thus far, the evaluation of alternative corridors has addressed limited horizontal and vertical clearance, conflicts with private property, the need to acquire right-of-way from others, and impediments to service along the FEC Railway. Future analysis of the routes will cover traffic circulation, parking, integration with transit, the ability to provide maintenance and operations facility locations, power substations, and the poles and wires forming an overhead catenary system (OCS). 7.3 Advancing Corridors for Further Examination With few exceptions, all of the streets reviewed in this evaluation have several advantages that would be compatible with a new streetcar service. Streetcars would attract a large ridership, and their attractiveness and convenience would, on its own, generate street life and economic development in the corridors. Because the proposed streetcar concept is envisioned as a circulator type of transit service, the recommended alignments should use those corridors that access the largest number of destinations with the fewest adverse impacts. Based on this set of criteria, the following corridors appear to have the greatest advantages: North -South Streets Biscayne Boulevard (SE 1' to NE 14`h Streets) NE 2"d Avenue (SE 1' Street to NE 79`h Streets) Midtown Boulevard (NE 29`h to NE 30) NE 1' Avenue (NE 36`h to NE 40th Streets) N. Miami Avenue (SE 1' to NE 14th Streets) East-West Streets NE 14`h Street (Biscayne Boulevard to NE 2"d Avenue) NE 29`h Street (NE 2"d to NE 1'Avenues) NE 38`h to NE 40th Streets (NE 1' to NE 2"d Avenues) Downtown Miami Circulation Routes NE and SE 1' Streets couplet (NW 1' Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard) Flagler Street (NW 1' Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard) 7-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 8.0 POTENTIAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS Based on the evaluation of corridors in Section 7.0 , three initial alignment options were developed. Each of the options follow an out and back alignment going out from Government Center north to the Miami Design District, where the alignment turns around and returns to Government Center, running primarily on the same roadways. This section describes the three options and the segments of those alignments that are recommended for further evaluation as the Phase 1 project. Streetcar service would be feasible for many parts of the City of Miami and on many other streets. Within this study area, streetcar service appears most practical to serve between downtown and as far north as the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. A northward extension of the initial project up to NE 79`h Street would be one of several appropriate next phases in the development of streetcar transit within the City; however, extension beyond NE 41' Street is not recommended at this time because of limited opportunities to anchor the streetcar service with key destinations or major redevelopment. The experience of successful streetcar projects in Portland, Oregon; Tampa, Florida; and Tacoma, Washington, indicates that it is best to initiate streetcars as limited, self-sufficient local circulators (no more than 4 or 5 miles in length) in alignments with the maximum transit and development leverage. Later, extensions can be added into areas where these effects can be replicated, although at a less dramatic scale or impact. 8.1 Option 1 Alignment —Use Biscayne Boulevard and NE 1s` Street/Flagler Street Couplet Figure 8.1.1 illustrates a potential alignment using a combination of the most favorable roadway segments examined. This route not only appears to be physically feasible but also provides direct access to a large number of important destinations, both existing and anticipated, where a high concentration of streetcar traffic could originate (i.e., residences, hotel rooms, and Downtown Miami attractions). Streetcar operations on this alignment would have little adverse impact on traffic operations and parking availability. This route could provide direct access to several potential maintenance facility locations and direct integration with Metromover and the Omni bus transfer station as well as the proposed Bay Link project and potential SFRTA or commuter rail extension into Downtown Miami. In addition, it traverses well -situated stop locations. This Option 1 alignment is conceptualized as a double - track, two-way system using the curb lanes of public roadways. The lanes accommodating streetcar tracks would be available for other road traffic (i.e., automobiles, trucks, buses, and bicycles) and would utilize current traffic control devices, with some modernization and/or enhancement for transit -exclusive phases. Stop locations would be constructed through curb extensions at intersections. This potential alignment is described below. SECTION 8 — Potential Alignment O' 8.1.1 From Miami River to 1-395 Begin outbound service at Government Center and travel east along Flagler (soon to be converted from its present one-way westbound operation to two-way operation) to the Biscayne Boulevard intersection. Cross over to Biscayne Boulevard. Travel north on Biscayne Boulevard through the 1-395 underpass. Return to Downtown, using NE/NW 1s` Street from Biscayne Boulevard to Government Center. 8.1.2 From I-395 to NE 36th Street Continue north of the 1-395 underpass on Biscayne Boulevard and travel west on NE 14th Street to NE 2"d Avenue. Travel north on NE 2nd Avenue to NE 29`h Street. Proceed west on NE 29`h Street to the Midtown Miami redevelopment along Midtown Boulevard (the equivalent of NE 1s'Avenue). Continue north on Midtown Boulevard and on Buena Vista Avenue before proceeding north across NE 36`h Street at the existing NE 36`h Street/ N E 1 `Avenue intersection. 8.1.3 Miami Design District/Buena Vista Historic District (from NE 36`h Street to Miami Design District Cross NE 36`h Street at the existing perpendicular intersection with NE 1s' Avenue into the Miami Design District. From NE 1s' Avenue turn the vehicle around for southbound operations; this would require development of a loop using NE 38`h Street, NE 2"dAvenue, and NE 40th Street, or a switch track to reverse the vehicle on NE 1 ` Avenue or one of the side streets. 8.2 Option 2 Alignment —Use NE 1s` Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue The Option 2 Alignment is also envisioned as a two-way, double track system for the portion of the alignment north of NE 14th Street. North of NE 14th Street the system follows the same alignment as Option 1. Alternatives within the southern portion of the study area up to NE 14`h Street include connecting the central business district (CBD) to the Performing Arts Center not by Biscayne Boulevard but by a couplet of NE 1s` Avenue and NE 2nd Avenue (Figure 8.2.1). 8.2.1 From Miami River to 1-395 Begin outbound service at Government Center and travel north along NW 1s' Avenue to NW 1s' Street and turn east (to be converted from it's present one-way westbound operation to two- way operation). Travel east on NW 1s' Street to NE 1s` Avenue and turn north on NE 1s` Avenue. Travel north on NE 1s' Avenue through the 1-395 underpass then turn east on NE 13`h Street (requiring two-way street conversion of its existing westbound one-way operation). Continue east on NE 13th Street to NE 2nd Avenue, then turn north on NE 2nd Avenue crossing over the southbound streetcar tracks at this intersection. Return to Downtown, using NE 2nd Avenue to Flagler Street, turning west back to Government Center. This alternative would have a greater benefit on redevelopment because it would spread service over a larger geographic area and would better serve the Miami -Dade College campus. However, Option 2 would not serve the major waterfront destinations as conveniently as options using Biscayne Boulevard. A 8-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part l:Concept Plan April 2005 major factor in selecting Option 2 would be the avoidance of traffic management and design complexities attendant to developing an alignment in the Biscayne Boulevard right-of-way. 8.3 Option 3 Alignment —Use Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street The third option would follow the Option 1 alignment north of NW 1st Street but would connect from Biscayne Boulevard to Government Center using Flagler Street once it has been converted to two-way traffic (Figure 8.3.1). Focusing streetcar service along Flagler Street could leverage additional development opportunities and would restore this corridor as the historic focal point of Downtown. If the streetcar project were at a more advanced stage of implementation, the Flagler Marketplace project and planned streetscape enhancements to this corridor could have provided a unique opportunity for streetcar construction cost savings by incorporating basic streetcar components such as track slab and electrical utilities during the streetscape reconstruction. However, the Flagler Marketplace improvements are currently moving forward well in advance of any preliminary engineering activities for the streetcar project, and coordination to bring these two efforts together does not appear feasible as this time. 8.4 Potential Stop Locations Streetcar stops (or stations) should be placed at highly utilized, easily accessed locations that provide direct access to important destinations and redevelopment Government Center at NW 1'" Avenue-4n um,,, FL Miami -Dade College at NE 1"Avenue—Miami, FL opportunities. For streetcars, which are intended as urban circulators, stops should be placed every two to five blocks, and should have ample area for pedestrian circulation to and from boarding platforms as well as areas for waiting passengers (see Section 17.0, Streetcar Stops 8 Station Areas). Stops should be placed away from driveways and heavy vehicle loading areas. Locations before the intersection (near side) or after the intersection (far side) and at mid -block are more suitable for streetcar stops. Station design at the stops provides significant opportunities for neighborhood identity, urban amenities, and SECTION 8 — Potential Alignment Options Midtown ha/ i—Miami. FL Eto � Miami Design District i _ — No m Miami Design Uistriet—Miami FL landscaping and urban design features. For these reasons, the following general areas should be considered at a minimum for station stop locations. From Miami River to 1-395 Government Center Flagler/NE 1" Avenue Miami -Dade College Miami Arena (near Overtown Transit Village) Miami Federal Courthouse (Wilkie D. Ferguson Courthouse) From 1-395 to NE 36`h Street Performing Arts Center NE 2"d Avenue/NE 21' Street NE 2"d Avenue/NE 26`h Street NE 2"d Avenue/NE 29`h Street Midtown Boulevard/NE 31' Street Midtown Boulevard/NE 34th Street NE 1' Avenue/NE 35`h Street Miami Design District/Buena Vista East Historic District (From NE 36`h Street to NE 40th Street) ❑ "Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District" (NE 1' Avenue/NE 40th Street) ❑ NE 2"d Avenue/NE 38`h Street ❑ NE 2nd Avenue/NE 40th Street The alignment options for Downtown circulation would provide a new set of important station locations for consideration in certain segments and would still provide direct access to the locations listed above. The streetcar service would provide a critically needed direct transit connection between Downtown Miami and Midtown Miami, where extensive redevelopment activities are occurring, and for the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. In addition, the streetcar service could provide a catalyst for accelerated redevelopment activities in areas that have been redeveloping slowly, such as along NE 2"d Avenue between NE 15`h and NE 29`h Streets. In addition to the alignment options, several parcels were identified as potential locations of the streetcar maintenance and operations facility. The project implementation process will include selection of candidate site(s) for possible acquisition. Plans need to be prepared to address how the site(s) can be acquired, or jointly developed with other public authorities or private organizations, to incorporate the maintenance facility and other uses on the same site. `7.,•111116,, CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 8-2 Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 Figure 8.1.1 - Option 1 Alignment: Using Biscayne Boulevard In Downtown Miami CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY LEGEND Study Area Option I Streetcar Alignment • Option I Streetcar Station/Stop Locations Metromove. Metrorail JL NE end Av. Figure 8.2.1 - Option 2 Alignment: Using NE 1st Avenue & NE 2nd Avenue In Downtown Miami 7 r Midtown Miami Redevelopment Site .... N: Mi3Mt'AN NW 1rt Av. NW snd Av. NW srd Av. YF NW 6ih Av. LEGEND Study Area Option 2 Streetcar Alignment • Option 2 Streetcar Station/Stop Locations Metromover Metrorail CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 8-4 JL Huczyne Blvd,... Figure 8.2.2 - Option 3 Alignment: Using Flagler Street 2-Way In Downtown Miami 7 F Midtown Miami Redevelopment Site LEGEND Study Area •• Option 3 Streetcar Alignment 0 Option Streetcar Station/Stop Locations Metromover Metrorail NOTE: The segment of the tra, CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 8-5 9.0 PART I —CONCEPT PLAN SUMMARY 9.1 Project Phasing All three potential Phase 1 alignment options for a bi- directional (i.e., a two-way circulator) routes run from the heart of the central business district (CBD) in Downtown Miami and provide service to the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District, using the most advantageous roadway corridors in the study area. All alignment options identified in Section 8.0 provide in -street streetcar service in both directions along the corridors, with stops located every two to five blocks. Each alignment option would cross the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway branch line to the Port of Miami in the existing grade crossing at NE 29th Street and in other locations to the south. Some of the key factors supporting these potential Phase 1 alignment options are: Each appears physically feasible, pending further examination. Each can provide direct access to a feasible maintenance facility location and well -situated station stop locations. Each provides direct or convenient walk access to important destinations, including Government Center, Miami -Dade College, Downtown Miami, Central Business District, Bayfront Park, American Airlines Arena, Miami Arena, Museum Park/Bicentennial Park, Performing Arts Center, Midtown Miami, and the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. Each would integrate with existing transit services; i.e., meet Metromover at Flagler/ North Miami Avenue, Omni station and the School Board Station, Metrorail at Government Center, and multiple Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) bus routes throughout the study area. Each would provide mobility for newly redeveloping residential, commercial, and retail areas in Downtown Miami, Performing Arts Center, Midtown Miami, Wynwood/ Edgewater, and the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. Each would result in a limited impact to on - street parking availability. Other alignments within the corridor could also be eligible for consideration as additional Phase 1 projects or as project extensions, but they currently do not have as many advantages and as great a potential to meet transit needs as the alignment options identified in Section 8.0. 9.2 Next Steps Upon completion of this Part I, Concept Plan, the initial feasibility study analyses, findings, and alignment options were reviewed with a number of private, non- profit, and public -sector stakeholders, including the City of Miami Commission and administration, study area developers, employers, business and community leaders, the Downtown Development Authority, Miami - Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization, and MDT staff. These reviews and the resulting input guided SECTION 9 — Part I —Concept Plan Summary refinements of the Part I findings, as presented in Part 11 Sections 10.0 through 22.0. Those sections include development of the following: • Streetcar Operating Plan; • Conceptual streetcar alignment, including the curb -side and median lane travel specifications, station area concepts, and maintenance and operations facility location requirements (see the separate report titled City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study Preliminary Alignment Plans, June 2004); Traffic and parking impact analysis; Coordination with FEC Railway for the crossing requirements of the FEC Railway track on NE 29th Street and between NE 6`h to NE 7`h Streets; Integration with other transit services; Best practice land use reviews for streetcar implementation; Selection of a preferred alignment and station stop locations; • Ridership estimates; • Urban design/station area planning concept plans; Economic redevelopment analysis; Conceptual capital and operating cost estimates; Financial analysis and recommendations; and Options and recommendations for project implementation. CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY 9-1 STUDY Part I: Concept Plan April 2005 10.0 PART II —STUDY REFINEMENT The corridor evaluation carried out in Part I resulted in three alignment options for further development and refinement. The Part I activities focused on technical criteria to establish feasible alignment options independent of agency or stakeholder involvement. Part II began with the first round of interagency and affected/interested stakeholder participation, whereby all available plans generated from each agency or organization involved in the redevelopment of Downtown Miami and its environs were incorporated into the process. This multi -agency involvement resulted in a revised and recommended Phase 1 alignment. The agencies and other stakeholder entities involved at this stage included the following: City of Miami Mayor A. Manuel Diaz, City Commissioners, and administration City of Miami Transportation Coordinating Group Miami Downtown Development Authority (DDA) City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency staff Miami Parking Authority staff Bayfront Park Management Trust staff Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce Transportation Executive Committee, Downtown Transportation Committee Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Committees, Transportation Planning Council (TPC), Transportation Planning Technical Advisory Committee (TPTAC), Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) Miami -Dade County MPO Bay Link Project Team, Station Area Planning Meetings Miami -Dade Transit (MDT)— Staff and Downtown Bus Terminal Project Team The following interested members of the private sector were also consulted at this stage: Midtown Group, LLC, Developers Diversified Realty staff Zyscovich, Inc. The "Entities of Common Interest" Coalition of Representatives from Major Public and Private Facilities and Hotel Managers American Planning Association (APA) Gold Coast Chapter Dacra Although there was not a formal public involvement program associated with this feasibility study, opportunities were sought to disseminate information about the study. Public information included a Project Update/Project Fact Sheet, which was published and provided at related transportation planning meetings, such as the Miami -Dade MPO committee meetings and City of Miami Commission Meetings, and which was made available at Bay Link public information meetings. In addition, the local media provided information about the study through community news stories and news spots on local network television. Following this feasibility study, it is recommended that a SECTION 10 comprehensive public information program, including an intensive interagency coordination effort, be implemented in conjunction with the preliminary engineering activities. 10.1 Recommended Alignment The recommended Phase 1 alignment, shown in Figure 10.1.1, was modified from the Option 2 alignment in Part I of this study based on: input from various stakeholders including the Miami Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and City of Miami Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) staff; briefings with City Commissioners; and coordination with the proposed Bay Link system. As a result of the input received, and particularly as a result of close coordination with the Bay Link project which would likely share guideway and traction power infrastructure on the downtown segments of the Miami an maim 1 Tismonoantarox FAMED HIDE FROM THE FAST MAY HAVE FUTURE IN MIAMI Ride of the past has Miami future Miami Herald Article —Famed Ride From Past May Have Future in Miami. July 9, 2004 — Part II —Study Refinement Streetcar, the refined alignment emerged as the recommended concept for the Phase 1 streetcar system. This option would facilitate future implementation of Bay Link. The downtown segment of Streetcar Fever Mlamt Idonne,Plans, tha. as„I SUNS POSt t:mcnrowimey.r... MMan.Mr14w1t, , e mos NMlght real Vansi,on stMyy Neel. Pctured herletthe heavf real People Mover now found More Miami'ssbeetx Moto by Michell Loh, By Michel Pellecche Steff Valor rerIm BayllrNssele oM, this propel will he vs get ore Innoy pmpasal has not been formals brought befo re ^m 'Opt but the .slink and sbeebmwtl be made Wein terms of mnologyyjaolly aM elgrrtm ra%Nilson eXR1caus Bee tthe Federal Surfaceng theeMatsPunell. istEon Act e and worst hes been suspend., al federal transportation subsidies are on hole. tltely torte Aivm, mdobnpusly lneresno guamnlee, bN II's rtasonedeta we wbl gelsometing,"sag Wdwn. Streetcar.. wAlm4 me My a minimum S95 million a male The lb, phase is projected, cost between 313A and Ng illoaTh vehltlmes tennselves wham.e I mlllon each and reliiMyua o pnel.farupenorq atofaM dents ablAyis core mpercang farsupemrmtnataaMeeoDade • in mos. 1..00,110.M, Imposts pay Isit pre], entirely limnearly Pn funds. use wantPm bemn- waNlegMinmlveelnanything Thal would be a Man, drain tote My.. • senior...Ma Boa. sad Mesh..lsnot designed. replace the bus, but ram. to supplement to bus Immsponzeau system..'sad Nieo(become pat minemuny Medina md the s.elcar is going, attract thos. core people whe recognizehal Mama has a guatty public transportation alraaruonue and WI move hex because alb Its a pacemaker and economic mats." said Medina. In an eft. %o kay, up au. Me etys rags high., ...awl and ant population gnaw., Mlamh aTJ natl. was to brag Strcekars oampled Miami...be.. 19..A19., N M the Medlarwere gradually replaced by busesgamin manna over Me tiaMcod ofMel, pollution and nose are gang a street. resurgence nationwide. In addition to son Francisco and New deans—ogles...allr assoc.. min street., and lmIlys cal join Ogles, Atlanta, stop and omen In somethingMs we've been pushing f«," said Maser forou tly° Mena.0. teI. rile moles al DOE ewad�igm 923 Nihon in mrihr constructame Draw mer ion In p nninse mangy ...IL bale my,n.,a ansiedbmdeemol pry'ema are waling to be apment Is, also a1 Machina $52 blllpn n mlaa'I>use development Isely being propasd e movement al people back Into the urban corn,. Become My et bansp^datm planner rid Ma grid, bon soon overcome Mann street ananMe MbllW Muds has been funded mils a�e a small .re of Cthe nit. PTP(People iereponabon PI.) hell., fes ommss,. mewed me moat proposal fortthenrsfime last ...me with optimism, sm... "Everything ths edminl,hen is Moults grandiose Mans, and .6. Me streets ere brolien ond full of halides and we don't how. money n then •C mnisswne to fix r Tomas Regalado said. Phase t a IN streetcar pmeM irnnluees laying tr., from the elys Cenbel Bust ass Dish., the Mimi Design Dtfha, creating ann.-youth transport.. minder dense. goo, n Miami and N.E. P9M Street. Plans to expand Meer smylrea the paposed MiitldtownSMiart wellasthe future May, n to um Beach area being inn- u_ In addition., Laa Mean, tro smslaant transport.. coordinate, fee.. sadi. for amoitm hack to t, Helti and 1/1... ere mg, works Allho gh Davila Is years hntedhslmxe Mali a sale tb:oty Is wreaking uay w,hnsthe MPo (Mehapolilm Panning Orga.)toameke son. II.o.M ar system is Bastin, friendly prate...lb mores to M ikon. gula,amandae• Probe,. of the sleet , sus it I ale m^slflnamellYleasible managing the vanspoda cis needs Maar, gnawing papule., Aeeordingta Mana, manning Me bletromm woo, he mig In easingly nelllMemeThe aneemert muses are andaeahMlrelly attractive:Means Medina hopes to complete rnan.al Ional IIty ands by October go before Me comma . to solicit adingillappmeed phase one arms project add be underway420A0 rtaxMlymadletnermndnm a mereereno Intel stems Ma oapu thar automobiles streetcars • pt4an studies that woud l etermneMe1psteected number a commuters mos., Miami versus those wM real lbw and wain m Many have. m be eondnmed. Commis9on ers AMurieet and Anga' Gonzalez whose rer cor • to prat, an° muff consleer is en.eing µ t hut nei ae roads mamas., were., and upgmaded.'Me matter. .It before the commission In sea.mb.. Miami Florida —Sun Post Article —Streetcar Fever, July 15, 2004 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 10-1 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Figure 10.1.1 - Recommended Phase 1 Alignment LEGEND • Study Area Recommended Phase I Streetcar Alignment ® Recommended Phase I Streetcar Stop Locations —•— Midtown Miami —•— Miami Design District •••— Miami Downtown Development Authority Metromover Metrorail CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 10-2 rt II —Study Refs Option 2 was revised further with a westerly shift using the following corridors: NE 2nd Avenue south into downtown West on NE 9th Street to North Miami Avenue North Miami Avenue to the Miami Arena South on Miami Avenue to NW 3rd Street then to NW 1st Avenue Government Center to SW 1st Street SW 1st Street to SE 1st Avenue Northbound on SE/NE 1st Avenue to NE 14th Street NE 14th Street joining back to NE 2nd Avenue northbound 10.2 Factors Considered for the Recommended Alignment Factors that influenced the resultant recommended alignment include the following: Potential traffic operations conflicts in Options 1 and 3 for northbound Miami Streetcar maneuvering under the I-395/Biscayne Boulevard interchange. Roadway improvement plans for Biscayne Boulevard prepared by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) would slightly improve this operation by straightening the reverse curve road alignment under 1-395 and providing improved approach geometry at the signalized intersections. However, the northbound streetcar would potentially block access to 1-395 eastbound entry ramps due to its undesirable operation in the right -only lane that extends several hundred feet and would require an exclusive signal phase to transition from the right -only lane to the through traffic lane under the overpass. The recommended Phase 1 alignment avoids this operation. Potential conflicts with Performing Arts Center (PAC) Ballet/Opera House loading/receiving dock operations on NE 14th Street between NE 2"d Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard in Options 1 and 3. Design plans were provided during coordination with the PAC representatives. Input from PAC representatives indicated that loading bays are being constructed accommodate heavy vehicle operations loading, delivery, and receiving at the Ballet/Opera House. The entry/exit to four to for PAC the loading bays will require tractor -trailers to stop on NE 14`h Street and back into the bays, which ramp down from the roadway. Trucks exiting the PAC will pull out from the bays directly onto NE 14th Street going eastbound. The recommended Phase 1 alignment avoids this operation. Difficulties sharing track and infrastructure with the proposed Bay Link system on Biscayne Boulevard. These difficulties stem from the proposed location of the southbound Bay Link system running within the median of Biscayne Boulevard and Miami Streetcar running southbound on Biscayne in the outside (closest to the curb) travel lane in Options 1 and 3. The potential for two separate southbound tracks in the future (one for Bay Link and one for Miami Streetcar) would add to traffic control difficulties for signal priority and cause concerns for motorist and pedestrian safety. Traffic control issues were of particular concern in this two southbound track arrangement for crossing the entrance to the Port of Miami between NE 6`h Street and NE 5`h Street. The recommended Phase 1 alignment avoids this undesirable condition. Opportunity to share track and infrastructure on downtown segments of the planned Bay Link system. In meetings with the Bay Link project team, it was determined that both the Bay Link and Miami Streetcar systems could operate on the same streets using the same infrastructure, which would provide potential cost savings to both projects without duplicating service. Since both systems desire access to the Government Center transit terminal (with access to Metrorail), it was possible to revise the alignment of both systems (Bay Link and Miami Streetcar) to utilize the same track and infrastructure when making this Government Center connection. The recommended Phase 1 alignment facilitates this opportunity. Opportunity to extend construction and development over to the NE 2nd Avenue and NE 1" Avenue corridors in Downtown Miami. Major redevelopment projects are clearly supported by the market in areas of Downtown Miami which front Biscayne Bay or have good views of the bay. Farther west into the downtown core, this "scarce amenity" of waterfront location or view disappears, especially as the buffer of infill high- rise development along the water's edge on Biscayne Boulevard becomes more complete. Therefore, a different amenity is needed to propel redevelopment further westward. Other cities have found that the amenity of a lively, pedestrian -friendly urban streetscape served by a convenient and attractive transit mode is effective in spreading redevelopment beyond the waterfront or other scarce amenity. Locating the streetcar line a few blocks west of Biscayne Boulevard places the catalyst where it is most needed. 10.3 Goals of Part II Study The goal of Part II of this feasibility study is to further define the recommended Phase 1 system as follows: Refine the streetcar route as well as the location of station sites and the maintenance facility. Evaluate the comparative functions, benefits, and costs of streetcars and other transit modes. Analyze the linkage between existing and future transit services and the streetcar. Develop preliminary alignment plans. Develop a proposed streetcar operating schedule. Evaluate traffic, parking, and environmental impacts associated with the alignment. Identify economic development/benefit opportunities. Estimate capital and operating costs of the streetcar system and service. Develop urban design/station area planning concept plans. Prepare a financial analysis and options for operational authority. Develop an implementation plan identifying the next steps of streetcar system development through construction and operations. 10-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 11.0 PROJECT CORRIDOR ISSUES Et OPPORTUNITIES The alignment recommended for Phase 1 of the project would provide service on a corridor between Government Center and the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District, running primarily north -south between NW 1s` Avenue and NE 2"d Avenue. This project corridor presents both issues and opportunities that may affect the final alignment and operation of the streetcar project. 11.1 Proposed Alignment The recommended Phase 1 alignment shown in Figure 10.1.1 is the basis for all other elements of the feasibility study, including cost, ridership, economic impacts, environmental constraints, and funding options. However, the specific alignment may vary based on further evaluation of these issues and opportunities in subsequent design and implementation of the system. Typical sections, station details, and concept plan drawings are shown in City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study: Preliminary Alignment Plans, June 2004, available under separate cover. The remainder of this section discusses the issues and opportunities with respect to the project corridor in which the proposed alignment is located. 11.2 Utilities Above- and below -ground utilities run along the streets where the streetcar guideway is proposed for the project. The utilities include electric, water, sewer, cable, telephone, and gas. Known utility owners within Downtown Miami are listed in the City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility: Preliminary Alignment Plans, June 2004. None of the existing utility lines have been surveyed or specifically mapped for the recommended alignment; however, it is assumed that some of the existing utilities would require relocation throughout the system with a relocation cost allowance of $900,000 per mile. Although the proposed streetcar system is expected to use a shallow trackbed construction method that would minimize utility impacts, it is assumed that any utilities running longitudinally underneath the trackbed would require relocation. During field visits to the project corridor some utility locations were identified by previous surveyors' paint markings on the street and sidewalks. It was noted that several gas lines along NE 2nd Avenue and NE 1s` Avenue are located within the proposed in - street guideway. Existing utilities within the project corridor will need to be properly located and identified during the corridor survey, at which time it will be necessary to detail all actual utility impacts. 11.3 Horizontal and Vertical Clearances The project corridor was reviewed for both lateral and vertical clearances where the streetcar would complete a turning maneuver or cross under an existing structure. The minimum turn radius for the streetcar is 60 ft, although larger turn radii are desirable to minimize wheel squeal and wear. The minimum operable vertical clearance of the vehicle is 14 ft. --�� --:. SE Horizontal clearance issues to be resolved during design include: Sidewalk encroachment at Midtown Miami at NE 29th Street and Midtown Boulevard (NE 1s` Place) Sidewalk encroachment at NE 29`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue Lane encroachment at the southbound turn from NE 2nd Avenue to westbound NE 9`h Street A conflict with the Bay Link project at the southbound turn from N. Miami Avenue to westbound NW 3,d Street (The proposed Bay Link system would run eastbound in the same lane, assuming conversion of the street from one way to two way.) Sidewalk encroachment at NE 1 ` Avenue and NE 14th Street The vertical clearances (north to south) are as follows: 1-195 at NE 1s` Avenue-14 ft 8 in. 1-395 at NE 2nd Avenue-14 ft 4 in. 1-395 at NE 1s` Avenue-13 ft 9 in. The 1-395 clearance at NE 1s` Avenue is less than the minimum clearance for the streetcar. Therefore, in - pavement trackwork on NE 1s` Avenue would require depressing the roadway at least 3 inches to meet the minimum 14-foot clearance. The roadway modifications Miami, Florida- Interstate 395 Overpass at NE 1st Avenue (looking northbound). CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY ssues Et. Opportunities Miami, Florida - 1-95 Overpass at NE 1°L Avenue (looking southbound). at this underpass would also require additional drainage modifications for stormwater collection that are factored into the cost of the project on the recommended alignment. Based on coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), 1-395 is being studied to relocate the existing facility underground through the area. Therefore, the lowering of the roadway and minimum clearances may be only a temporary issue, depending on the outcome of the FDOT study. The recommended alignment would cross the existing Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway corridor four times, once each way on NE 29`h Street and two crossings of the spur line to the Port of Miami on Miami Avenue and NE 1 ` Avenue (see Section 11.7.1). FEC Railway requires a minimum vertical clearance of 23 ft 6 in. for structures crossing the active rail line and typically greater clearances for electric utilities crossing the rail line. A minimum 25-ft clearance should be assumed for the streetcar traction power supply wire spanning the at -grade rail. These clearances along the project Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 11 — Projec Corridor Issues Et Opportunities corridor would require a pantograph (the arm mounted on top of the vehicle which picks up electrical current from the overhead wire) that can extend to 25 ft and retract to 14 ft to maintain constant power to the streetcar. 11.4 Performing Arts Center The Performing Arts Center (PAC) is located in the Omni -Venetia area on Biscayne Boulevard, between NE 13th and NE 14`h Streets east of NE 2"d Avenue where the streetcar is proposed to operate. The PAC is currently under construction and scheduled to open for the 2006 season. When complete, this complex will occupy 570,000 sq ft on 5.8 acres. Miami, Florida - Performing Arts Center During Part I of this feasibility study, concerns were raised that the proposed streetcar would interfere with loading dock operations at the north end of the PAC along NE 14th Street, which also provides a back stage entrance to the center. Construction plans for the PAC were obtained and reviewed to verify that streetcar operations would not interfere with PAC loading operations considering that all streetcar traffic would be limited to NE 14th Street west of NE 2nd Avenue. Further, from the plans it was determined that automobile valet traffic will occur on the south end of the building on NE 13`h Street between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard. Vehicles parked by valet may require crossing the proposed streetcar line, depending on the proposed parking lot locations. However, this function would not impede streetcar operations, as vehicular traffic crossing NE 2nd Avenue would occur under signalized traffic control at the NE 13`h Street/NE 2nd Avenue intersection. The main entrance ways to the PAC are oriented towards Biscayne Boulevard and NE 13`h Street at the valet entrance. The location of streetcar relative to the PAC would provide convenient access for patrons using the system to attend performances and events at the PAC complex. It would require a walk of less than half a block to a building doorway, except for the main entrance ways to the PAC at Biscayne Boulevard, which would require a walk of one block. 11.5 Midtown Miami 11.5.1 Introduction The Midtown Miami Community Development District (CDD) has been formed to support a major redevelopment project for this area called Midtown Miami. The Midtown Miami project is located north of NE 29`h Street, east of North Miami Avenue, south of NE 36th Street, and west of the existing FEC Railway right - Miami, Florida - Future Entrance into Midtown Miami of -way in the City of Miami. The site and the District consist of approximately 56 acres. The proposed development for the land within Midtown Miami provides for approximately 2,800 condominiums, 500 residential apartment units, 350 hotel units, 25,000 sq ft of grocery store use, 35,000 sq ft of gym/spa space, 150,000 sq ft of office space, 160,200 sq ft of restaurant, and 733,000 sq ft of retail space. A total of approximately 45 acres of the property will be developed for mixed use. The development will be divided by the west right-of-way line of Midtown Boulevard and has been subdivided into two major plats, as shown in the chart. Gross Area Road Right of Way FEC Perimeter Rd. R/W Net Developable Mixed Plat - Plat - Midtown Buena Miami East Vista West (Acres) (Acres) 22.28 33.83 6.21 6.17 1.70 N/A Use Area 17.93 27.22 Currently not planned for Development N/A 0 .44 Streetscape and landscape improvements planned for Midtown Miami will include enhanced landscaping, a public plaza, linear parks, fountains, and signage within public areas. Transportation improvements will consist of four -lane divided roadways along the northern, southern, and western boundaries of the CDD, with two- lane undivided and divided roadways within Midtown Miami. The roadways will be constructed and financed by the CDD. Transportation improvements are being coordinated to include construction of the Miami Streetcar between NE 29th Street and NE 36th Street, with streetcar tracks, stops, and corresponding power and traffic control systems. To serve the residents and property owners of the CDD, a Capital Improvement Plan was developed for the financing, construction, and maintenance of certain improvements and facilities within, and adjacent to, the CDD. These improvements are mandated by, or consistent with, the requirements of Miami -Dade County, the City of Miami, FDOT, and other applicable regulatory and jurisdictional entities. The exact location of facilities may be modified during the course of approval and implementation, but these changes will not diminish or alter the benefits to the CDD. The CDD Board of Supervisors has retained the right to make reasonable adjustments to the development plan to meet the requirements of any governmental agency while providing the same or greater benefits to the CDD. The implementation of any improvement within the CDD requires the final approval of the CDD's Board of Supervisors. The CDD will construct, operate, and maintain infrastructure to support the proposed development. Existing Infrastructure Because this is a complete redevelopment of the abandoned FEC Buena Vista Railyard, there is currently no infrastructure within the boundaries of the CDD, with the exception of minor aerial electrical services extending into the property. Roadways and utilities exist within the abutting rights -of -way. CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 11-2 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 11.5.2 Planned Infrastructure The City has closely coordinated the efforts of the proposed streetcar project to integrate it readily into redevelopment projects and to capitalize on upcoming construction. This approach minimizes both costly reconstruction of new and recently completed streetwork as well as construction delays brought about by adding streetcar infrastructure after the fact. Toward this end, a project workshop was held with the Midtown Miami project planners, architects, and engineers to examine how to integrate the proposed streetcar project into the new Midtown Miami roadway infrastructure. Conceptual alignments were developed based on then -current development plans and drawings as well as the current streetcar concept plan. The workshop identified the following streetcar alignment through Midtown Miami: Beginning at the south, the double -track alignment would enter Midtown Boulevard from NE 29`h Street. Midtown Boulevard will be an approximately 2,450-foot-long new two-lane urban roadway from NE 29`h Street to NE 36`h Street. This roadway would have on -street public parallel parking on both sides where feasible. Near the north end of Midtown Boulevard the double -track alignment would proceed west through the planned two -acre public plaza to Buena Vista Avenue. Buena Vista Avenue will be an approximately 1,400-foot-long new two-lane urban roadway from NE 32nd Street to NE 36`h Street. This street would have on -street public parallel parking on both sides where feasible. It would be a curbless street with planted medians and customer pickup and dropoff. The double -track system would continue north to NE 36`h Street where it would proceed through a traffic signal and into the Miami Design District along NE 1"' Avenue. Streetcar Integration Issues for Midtown Miami Incorporation of streetcar infrastructure with the developing Midtown Miami project entails the construction of portions of the proposed streetcar system with the installation of roadway, drainage, and utilities in the development. Attributes of the streetcar project would include: Approximately 3,000 linear feet of in -street trackwork, including trackbed structure Modification to approximately 3,000 linear feet of street construction, including curbs and gutters Intersections and signal system modifications Relocations of utilities within the street, such as water and sewer A traction power substation to be connected to the public utility and feeder cables to a future overhead catenary system (OCS) for the streetcar The modifications of future utility and/or street light system to support the OCS would include: Modifications to street lighting locations and pole foundations Infrastructure such as underground duct banks, manholes, hand holes, service panels, and all other related electrical components as required Station platform areas with shelters, treatments to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, passenger informational systems, and other passenger amenities SECTION 11 — Project Corridor Issues Et Op Modifications to the streetscape and landscaping elements The current capital cost estimate for Midtown Miami does not include actual installation of streetcar infrastructure (rails, OCS, etc.). Designing for and constructing the basic streetcar guideway and traction power elements during new street construction would provide significant savings in roadway reconstruction, mobilization, and maintenance of traffic. Coordination efforts are underway between the City and the Midtown Miami CDD to incorporate basic streetcar elements into the initial Midtown Miami project infrastructure. Specifically, it is proposed that sufficient design be completed to determine which elements of the streetcar project should be constructed as part of the Midtown Miami project. This effort will also determine what modifications should be made to the Midtown Miami construction to accommodate the streetcar project. While most affected construction items are expected to be below or at grade, the coordination efforts will identify any other issues that need to be resolved within the Midtown Miami project with respect to the streetcar (such as the number and location of traction power substations). Streetcar elements that should be constructed as part of the Midtown Miami project include elements that are at or below grade, 6,000 linear ft of roadway with the appropriate cross slope to accommodate the streetcar infrastructure, and three future streetcar stop locations. These primarily include underground conduit, Florida Power Et Light (FPBL) duct banks, water and sewer lines, drainage, and roadway. Other streetcar elements that could be constructed with the Midtown Miami project include foundations for the OCS and light poles, station platforms, track slabs, and cathodic protection. The ability to defer construction of items such as pole foundations depends on the actual shape and configuration of the foundation itself. Above- ground elements are expected to be constructed in the future unless a specific benefit is achieved at minimal cost by sharing facilities. For instance, it may be determined that certain light poles would serve as OCS poles after future modification when the streetcar project is constructed. Another integration issue to consider is that Midtown Miami is a Brownfield site, which, by definition, means the property has some form of environmental contamination. The Brownfield closure agreement for the property with Miami -Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) requires an environmental cap over all soils or excavation and replacement of the soils with clean fill to a depth of 3 feet to meet the criteria for residential development on the property. The roads, sidewalks, and building foundations serve as the above -referenced environmental cap. Subsequent streetcar construction to relocate below -ground utilities could affect the closure agreement with DERM. Environmental monitoring, permitting, and agency coordination associated with reopening a closed Brownfield site would be required, which would add to the cost of the future streetcar project. Modification to the Midtown Miami infrastructure design would be necessary to accommodate the streetcar project. The streetcar project would definitely affect the design of the current roadway cross section and has the potential to affect utilities within the street, depending on the private and public utility providers' position with regard to their facilities being beneath the tracks. The roadway cross section is affected by the 11-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 11 — Pro cross slope of the streetcar track slab; the streetcar track slab cannot have a cross slope greater than 1 percent and is preferably 0 percent. This cross slope change would require the vertical profile of the roadway to be lowered if all other project elements are to remain as previously designed. As the roadway cross slope is changed for the streetcar, additional drainage inlets may be required to accommodate additional low points within the roadways of the proposed development. At the present time, proposed utilities are located within the track slab area. Based on discussions with the utility companies, the water, sewer, and power lines may be moved now to eliminate relocations in the future. An analysis was conducted during this coordination effort to estimate the likely future construction impacts on the Midtown Miami project costs (in 2004 dollars) if streetcar construction were to occur after completion of the Midtown project, as currently planned. The elements classified as reconstruction of new infrastructure, and their costs, include: Reconstruction of the roadway and sub -base in which the streetcar would operate to accommodate the track slabs and a revised roadway cross-section = $135,000 Reconstruction of sidewalk for installation of trenches for two underground duct banks and foundations for OCS poles = $40,000 to $50,000 Abandonment and relocation of water and sewer lines to accommodate the streetcar = $700,000 to $750,000. Modifications to the existing drainage system (adjust four to six inlets, excavate and core drill for connections for track drainage, and abandon and reconstruct one deep well) = $150,000. Resigning and marking = $5,000 Reconstruction of the FPBL duct bank on Midtown Boulevard, while maintaining service in the existing duct bank, and removal of the existing FPEtt duct bank = $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 Modifications to street curbs and sidewalks at station locations = $30,000 to $40,000 Total: $2,060,000 to $2,630,000 The major cost components of the potential project impact are associated with utility relocations. It is recommended, at a minimum, that the City and CDD continue coordination efforts to modify the current construction plans to relocate utilities potentially affected by future streetcar construction. This presents the greatest opportunity to minimize costs and disruptions to both projects. According to the current schedule for roadway, drainage, and water and sewer utilities within Midtown Miami, these elements are to be under construction between 2005 and 2006. Construction of the parking garages and public areas is to occur between 2005 and 2007. 11.6 Planned Downtown Bus Terminal The Downtown Government Center Transit Station provides an important interface with Miami -Dade Transit Bus, Metromover, and Metrorail services at Government Center. However, the current design of the transit station is not compatible with streetcar service, so the streetcar would be unable to stop at the new station. The design for this new downtown bus terminal, shown in Figure 11.6.1, incorporates a series of bus bays in a "zipper lane" configuration occupying most of the block west of the curb line of NW 1' Avenue between NW 1' Street and Flagler Street. A concrete barrier is also planned in the street to separate bus maneuvering from general southbound traffic traveling on NW 1' Avenue. A meeting was held with Miami -Dade Transit representatives regarding integration of the Government Center Transit Station with the proposed streetcar system. There was general agreement that it would not be practicable to include a streetcar platform on either of these two block faces, given the intensity of bus operations that will be occurring there. There was also agreement, upon review of the respective plans, that streetcar operations in the left-hand southbound travel lane of NW 1" Avenue would be possible without affecting the bus operations at the station. Streetcar station stops should be located as closely as possible on NW 1' Avenue to provide a convenient walk connection for transfers to the regional transit systems. 11.7 FEC Railway Coordination Coordination with FEC Railway management occurred because the recommended streetcar alignment would involve at -grade crossings of the FEC Railway line. The following describes the crossings, agency communication and response, and additional issues that may arise in future phases of the project. 11.7.1 Crossings A total of four at -grade crossings are proposed along the recommended alignment: on eastbound NE 29`h Street, westbound NE 29`h Street, southbound Miami Avenue, and northbound NE 1' Avenue. However, two additional at -grade crossings may be required to travel to the maintenance and operations facility (MOE) once a site has been selected. Each crossing would require the installation and use of concrete embedded track work, a remote interlocking signal system to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements, an upgraded crossing protection system, and isolation of the FEC Railway track from stray current. The capital cost of each crossing, based on the required improvements, is estimated to be approximately $1.25 million. 11.7.2 Meeting with FEC Railway A meeting with FEC Railway was held at the FEC Railway Corporate Office in St. Augustine, Florida, on June 15, 2004. The FEC Railway representatives attending were Wayne Russell, Vice President and Operations Manager, and Charles Stone, Director of Engineering. A presentation was conducted to describe the project, including its purpose, the recommended alignment, potential station locations, connections to other transit systems, and the vehicle characteristics. After the presentation, FEC Railway expressed a number of concerns about the project, including: Clearance of the OCS wires Proximity of the two at -grade crossings on NE 29th Street (one eastbound and one westbound) Proximity of the stop locations relative to the FEC Railway right-of-way Desire of FEC Railway to sell the rail corridor 11-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 — Project Corridor Issues Et. Opportunities MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT DOWNTOWN BUS TERMINAL (]ram 111 MIAMI — DADE CENTER SAN MARTIN ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS (3DS) Fl6-I 7F (}p5) 645-�39] FoR (YJS) 866—])25 PEREZ & PEREZ ARCHITECTS PLANNERS, INC z�zv oo7«:iai's'�'ss (303)4aa�4545 Fm (305) aaa-1-524 Figure 11.6.1—Streetcar Alignment at Downtown Bus Terminal CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY PKON 61 w16. 11-5 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Discussions at the meeting identified no major fatal flaws. The meeting agenda, presentation, handouts, and resulting meeting minutes are shown in Appendix C. 11.7.3 FEC Railway Response FEC Railway responded on June 18, 2004. The response letter regarding the project is reproduced in Appendix D. The letter stated that FEC Railway did not object to the project but had several expectations, as follows: The railroad crossing "frogs" (small square rail sections that allow two rails to intersect) should be manufactured with premium rail with a base rail width of no less than 6 in. and should have reversible manganese inserts The final design would have to be approved by FEC Railway prior to ordering. The four crossings should be designed as automatic interlockings in regard to signal protection for FEC Railway. The manufacturing, installation, and future maintenance of these items would be at the expense of the City A joint facility agreement would have to be completely executed prior to any construction on the FEC Railway right-of-way in accordance with the standard operating procedures (SOP). A license agreement covering both the street and the streetcar crossing FEC Railway track is required for each crossing location. These agreements should cover the annual fee for right-of-way usage and all maintenance cost for the roadways and streetcar tracks as deemed necessary by FEC Railway in accordance with the SOP These considerations are to be expected at this level of a feasibility study. It is anticipated that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be required to continue working together through the design process. Once design is at a sufficient level, detailed negotiations can begin in order to reach final agreements for streetcar operations across the FEC Railway corridor. 11.7.4 Additional Issues Although discussions with FEC Railway have been favorable to date, several additional issues need to be addressed in the future. These include routine maintenance, potential future construction and improvements within the FEC Railway right-of-way, and future transit services within the FEC Railway corridor. Future Construction If construction or maintenance activities along the FEC Railway corridor are required after implementation of the Miami Streetcar, these activities may impact the streetcar service. These impacts could result from routine repair at each crossing location. It is assumed that the resulting closures would be minor inconveniences. A contingency operating plan for streetcar service would be employed in the event of a long-term closure of the FEC Railway corridor. This issue would also apply to typical roadway maintenance and construction disruptions. Future Transit Service As discussed in Part I Section 7.0, FDOT is planning to perform a preliminary study called the FEC Tri-County Corridor Study Alternatives Analysis to provide a transit service such as commuter rail on the FEC Railway line from Jupiter to Downtown Miami, approximately 80 miles. As the streetcar project progresses into design and construction, coordination of the two projects will be required. As part of the coordination efforts, transfer station locations, transit -oriented SECTION 11 — Project Corridor Issues Et Oppa development, and other opportunities for shared facilities should be explored. 11.8 Bay Link Coordination As noted in the Section 10.0, coordination of this project with the proposed Bay Link project resulted in modification to the recommended alignment for the Miami Streetcar. The modification included revisions enabling a portion of the project to share track with the Bay Link project. Additionally, the stops along the shared tracks were revised to accommodate Bay Link's future requirements for two -car consists (two streetcars linked together). The Bay Link project also affects the maintenance and operations facility (MOF) and the traction power substations. Coordination with the Bay Link project concluded that a combined MOF for the two systems would be more efficient. The primary effect of this decision is the need for a larger MOF site with a larger vehicle maintenance building and more storage tracks. The Miami Streetcar project would need a 3-acre site for its MOF, whereas the combined MOF site would require 7 acres at a minimum, and preferably 10 acres. Potential sites for a combined MOF were evaluated concurrently with the evaluation of sites for the Miami Streetcar MOF. At this time, there are several locations that satisfy the criteria for a combined MOF site. The selection of a final MOF site should occur during project design so that the site can be acquired. The traction power substations would need to be larger within the portion of the alignment shared by Miami Streetcar and Bay Link systems because of the larger Bay Link trains (two cars versus one car). Generally, the substations within the shared alignment would need to be 1 megawatt (MW), requiring larger sites for each substation. The substation locations should be coordinated with the Bay Link project during the design phase. As the Miami Streetcar project progresses, coordination with the Bay Link project will need to continue. Although a recommended conceptual alignment has been identified as part of this feasibility, the alignment will require further refinement during the design phase. Similarly, more detailed efforts will be needed in the analysis of MOF sites, including a detailed layout of the MOF facilities. In addition, the location of the substations that are not on the shared alignment will influence the layout and sizing of the traction power substations. Coordination efforts should also include meetings with FTA to ensure that no project activities adversely affect the efforts to advance the Bay Link project. Given the joint use of infrastructure, the need to coordinate future public involvement efforts for the two projects is also likely. 11.9 Miami at Midnight As discussed in Section 2.0, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) recently studied a concept for a transit shuttle in the downtown area, called "Miami at Midnight," which proposes rail transit lines serving as shuttles between parking garages and downtown destinations and attractions. During coordination with CRA regarding the proposed Miami at Midnight project, it was determined that the Miami Streetcar project, though not compatible in terms of the physical infrastructure, would not prohibit the operation of a narrow-gauge rail service. Because of their differences in technology as currently envisioned, the streetcar and Miami at Midnight projects would not be able to share guideway and traction power systems, 11-6 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 station platforms, or MOFs, all of which would be uniquely designed and specific to the rail vehicles in service. In addition to physical compatibility issues, the City of Miami Commission does not want a CRA project to compete for the same potential funding as the streetcar project. However, the City and CRA both want to have the CRA areas serviced in some way by the streetcar project. Additional interface between the Miami Streetcar and Miami at Midnight projects is necessary to determine how these two projects can co -exist in the downtown area. 11.10 Miami -Dade People's Transportation Plan The Miami -Dade County People's Transportation Plan (PTP) also identifies commitments to projects in three major categories: bus service, rapid transit, and major highway and road improvements projects. The PTP projects will continue to be updated and revised. 11.10.1 Bus Service Improvements 2003-2008 As of July 2004, the PTP included the following bus service projects: Increase the bus fleet from 700 to 1,335. Increase the current service miles from 27 to 44 million miles. Increase operating hours from 1.9 to 3.3 million hours. Utilize minibuses on all new bus routes and in neighborhood/municipal circulator shuttle service. Add midday, Saturday, and Sunday services within 30 days of approval of a dedicated funding source, using existing buses. Provide 15-minute bus service, or better, during rush hour; 30-minute bus service, or better, during other periods; and 24-hour service in certain major corridors. Replace buses on a systematic basis to reduce operating costs and to increase reliability. Construct bus pull-out bays on major streets to expedite traffic flow. Implement a grid system for bus service (north - south and east -west) on major streets and avenues with circulator service feeding mainline bus service and rapid transit lines. Expand the bus shelter program throughout the County. Enhance and expand transit bus stop signage countywide. Expand the public information program for transit through enhanced marketing and advertising. Expand on the successful municipal circulator program. 11.10.2 Rapid Transit Improvements 2003-2033 The PTP also includes extensive improvements to countywide rapid transit. The majority of these transit systems will provide additional mobility and options for connectivity between major origins and destinations in the county and will primarily serve the commuter home -to -work trips. These types of services will complement the Miami Streetcar project, which would provide circulation for the thousands of commuters coming to downtown by these rapid transit systems each day. The success of these countywide transit systems depends on services like the streetcar and other circulator systems to provide users with a means of getting around once they reach their destination. Coordination between these proposed transit systems SECTION 11 — Project Corridor Issu and the Miami Streetcar project is essential to the successful development of a countywide transit system. The PTP includes a number of countywide transit projects. The initial planning phases have been completed for two corridors, the North Corridor and the East-West Corridor, totaling 26.7 miles of transit. These improvements are ready for additional environmental planning and final design. Earlington Heights/Airport Connector: a 3.1-mile extension from the Earlington Heights Metrorail station to the Miami Intermodal Center, located on the east side of Miami International Airport. The North Corridor is a 9.5-mile heavy rail alternative running from the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Metrorail Station along NW 27`h Avenue to NW 215`h Street (the Miami-Dade/Broward County line). Stations are proposed at Northside Shopping Center, MDC-North Campus, City of Opa-locka, Palmetto Expressway, Carol City Shopping Center, Pro -Player Stadium, and Florida's Turnpike. The East-West Corridor consists of two segments: a 6-mile segment from the Florida Turnpike east to the Palmetto Expressway (SR 826) and an 11.2-mile segment from Palmetto Expressway, through Miami International Airport and Downtown Miami, to the Port of Miami. The following sites have been identified as potential station locations: Florida's Turnpike, NW 107`h Avenue, NW 97th Avenue, NW 87`h Avenue, Milam Dairy Road, Blue Lagoon area, Miami Intermodal Center, NW 27`h Avenue, Orange Bowl, Government Center (Downtown Miami), and the Port of Miami. This project recently began the Alternatives Analysis/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) process. The Federal, state, and local planning processes for these transit lines need to be completed to determine the feasibility, technology, and corridor alignment. The corridors for these transit lines include, but are not limited to, the following: Bay Link: a 5.1-mile corridor between Downtown Miami and south Miami Beach. Kendall Corridor: a 15-mile corridor with both east -west and north -south segments. Northeast Corridor: a 13.6-mile corridor from Downtown Miami, through Little Haiti, to NE 215th Street, generally along the Biscayne Boulevard./US 1 Corridor and FEC Railway right- of-way. As noted previously, the streetcar project would provide many opportunities to connect with and complement this transit corridor. Rail Extension to Florida City: a 21-mile rail extension along U.S. 1 consisting of a segment from Dadeland South Metrorail station to Cutler Ridge and a second segment from Cutler Ridge to Florida City. Douglas Road Extension: a 4.5-mile corridor from the Douglas Road Metrorail station to the Miami Intermodal Center. �- ••11.11111111, 11-7 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 12.0 STREETCARS, LAND USE Et TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT The proposed Miami Streetcar alignment passes through or adjacent to several existing redevelopment areas and special districts (Figure 12.0.1), including: the Omni and Southeast Overtown/Park West (SEOPW) Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs), the Promenade Special Area, Downtown Miami, Entertainment District, Midtown Miami, Miami Design District, the Buena Vista East Historic District as well as numerous destinations such as the Performing Arts Center, Museum Park, American Airlines Arena and Miami Dade College. Each of these areas has specific goals, strategies, and development regulations, which are in addition to any goals and regulations defined in the existing City of Miami Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The City of Miami is in the process of reviewing the existing policies of its Comprehensive Plan and proposing changes through a public process entitled "Miami 21". A review of other cities' experiences with streetcars, current transit -oriented development literature, and other jurisdictions' land development policies associated with transit was conducted to identify the types of policy changes the City of Miami may want to consider in association with the Miami Streetcar project and the ongoing "Miami 21" process. Data and information collected were used to identify some streetcar "lessons learned", some definitions of SECTION 12 —Streetcars, transit -oriented development, and common elements associated with streetcar or light rail stations that have appeared in different jurisdictions' transit -oriented development regulations. In addition, a rough analysis of the redevelopment potential in the downtown area with and without streetcar and transit -oriented development was performed. 12.1 Experience of Other Cities with Streetcar Projects In recent years, several North American cities have opened new streetcar lines and many others are now planning such projects. There are similar reasons for initiating such projects; common elements of project histories include: A desire to link community destinations, particularly entertainment or shopping districts and major public buildings such as performing arts centers or convention facilities A redevelopment strategy fostering reinvestment in blighted areas and spreading investment to peripheral or edge areas of the central business district Response to the mobility needs of urban residents for high -quality, high -capacity transit as the national pattern of urban condominium development takes off in core areas The need for access and circulation among visitor destinations, allowing tourists and visitors to circulate easily Improvements to the function of existing rail transit systems by connecting them to newly developing areas and to other ridership beyond a convenient walking distance from existing stations The following summarizes three examples of other cities that have implemented streetcar service or are in the process of doing so. While these cities are quite different from one another and from Miami, the results they experienced bear directly on the issues and opportunities driving consideration of streetcar transit in Miami. 12.1.1 Portland, Oregon Portland's Central City Streetcar, which opened for service in the summer of 2001, has become the prototype for other planned modern streetcar lines in North America. The Portland project uses modern European tram vehicles to serve a 5-mile-long loop traversing a somewhat run-down part of an otherwise healthy downtown and going on to serve a large redevelopment area adjacent to downtown and a nearby densely developed neighborhood. Along the way, it connects a large hospital, an urban university campus, performing arts facilities, and other sites. The project proponents and backers perceived from the beginning that the streetcar would act as a development tool as well as a transportation project. Its backers, who organized as a non-profit corporation that built and now oversees operation of the line, consisted of developers, retailers, and property owners as well as city government. This $55-million streetcar line has sparked over $1.4 billion in new development. The Pearl District neighborhood, organized along the line in the redevelopment area, is considered one of the nation's most successful new urban districts. Portland, Oregon —Central City Streetcar Ridership has quickly exceeded projections, and the streetcar is now serving over 6,000 passengers per day, even at the somewhat meager 13-minute frequency now being provided. The character of that ridership is dramatically different from typical bus ridership. The streetcar has attracted riders who typically have traveled in single -occupant vehicles or are choice riders (i.e., those who can afford to drive but choose to take transit). Two key "lessons learned" that emerged from the Portland experience are relevant to Miami: Use the Streetcar Project as a "Placemaker." The Portland streetcar clearly demonstrates the powerful effect of a well -integrated project as a catalyst for sustainable, transit -oriented development. The frequent stop spacing, certainty of service, and appealing modern vehicles have attracted choice riders to the transit line as well as residents and businesses to the area it serves. This combination of development planned with the streetcar in mind and the attractiveness of the streetcar to choice riders has proved powerful. The 12-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 end Av. Biscayne Bay Special Area Plan Performing Arts Center 14th Street Corridor NW 1si Av. NW end Av. NW srd Av. NW 6ih Av. NW 'tin Av. NW sin Av. NW loth Av. NW 11ih Av. OMNI CRA 1 s;a e .C1 '1 di II NE snd Av.a I I CITY of MIAMI wi Flagler St.Corridor NW 7th Street Spine Downtown Overtown West Overtown Overtown Business Corridor 3rd Avenue District Figure 12.0.1 - Existing Districts/CRA's LEGEND • Study Area . Miami Downtown Development Authority Recommended Streetcar Alignment —•— Special Districts (Shown in various colors) • Recommended Streetcar Stop Locations Omni Community Redevelopment Agency (Omni CRA) am Southeast Overtown Park West Community Redevelopment Agency (SEOPW CRA) CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 12-2 SECTION 12 —Streetcars, Land Use Et Transit Oriented Develop Portland streetcar has not just influenced the pace of development that might have occurred anyway but has helped change the form of that development to a denser, less automobile -oriented development type. The market value and attraction of Pearl District real estate continues to strengthen, contrary to a recent weakening in the local economy. Although formal origin/destination data for the Pearl District are not available, it is clear that automobiles are carrying a very small portion of the mode split compared to transit and walking for short trips. The Portland streetcar demonstrates the unique ability of streetcar transit to support sustainable urban development and become a viable transportation choice. If There Isn't a Departmental "Home" for the Project, Create One. The City of Portland, like most North American cities, has no responsibility for public transit; a regional transit authority plans, builds, and operates bus and rail transit lines in the Portland metropolitan area. The transit agency, Tri-Met, was initially not supportive of the proposed streetcar project. This opposition was based on two factors: 1) a "frame of reference problem," in that Tri-Met was focused on the management and improvement of a regional transit system serving a large metropolitan area and did not grasp the significance of the opportunity to combine transit and development at a district level; and 2) a concern that the streetcar project might compete against Tri-Met projects for Federal funding. The City of Portland, understanding that neither its own agencies nor the regional transit agency was positioned to be able to implement the project, ultimately fostered the development of a non-profit corporation, Portland Streetcar, Inc., as the implementing organization. The Portland experience demonstrates that cities, because of their land use planning and economic development focus, are a natural locus of leadership for streetcar projects. Portland's experience also shows that structuring a specific public -private partnership for project implementation can be an effective strategy. 12.1.2 Tampa, Florida Tampa, Florida, opened its Tampa Electric Company (TECO) streetcar line in October 2002, connecting the downtown core and waterfront destinations with the historic Ybor City District, once a center of cigar -making and now a lively entertainment and restaurant area. The route serves the city's convention center and cruise ship terminals as well as major hotels. The project was constructed in a separate guideway located within and adjacent to the street right -of way and utilizes a single trackway with seven passing sidings to facilitate the meeting and passing of vehicles traveling in opposite directions. A major design challenge for the project was that it would cross an operating CSX Railroad freight line. Although the TECO line provides a circulation option for local residents and has generated approximately $1 billion in development impact, one of its primary functions is to provide visitors and convention attendees with a means to conveniently circulate among waterfront destinations and the Ybor City District. The project has proven very popular in this market. The project was planned and implemented by the local transit agency, the Hillsborough Area Transit Authority (HART), with active support and coordination from the City of Tampa and a local historical society. The 2.5- mile line has 10 stops and was constructed for $56 • --+4., Tampa, Florida —Tampa Electric Company Streetcar million. The largest single source of funds in the capital budget for this project was an allocation of regional Federal flex funds (Federal gas tax revenues which can be allocated to a variety of transportation purposes) and Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds. The Tampa project was also particularly successful in attracting sponsor support for the line, including a major sponsorship in exchange for naming rights sold to TECO. Two key "lessons learned" from the Tampa experience can help influence Miami's decisions and strategies: Aggressively Seek Sponsors. The TECO streetcar line set a new high water mark for ancillary revenue in the form of sponsorships for vehicles and stations, and in this case, for the project overall. Over time, these revenue sources will contribute, through an endowment fund, up to one- third, or between $400,000 and $600,000 annually, toward the operating budget. Make Railroad Coordination a Priority Railroad coordination for the Tampa streetcar project began during the planning phase in 1998, four years CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY before the system went into revenue operation. This was essential because without the crossing, the system would not have been viable. Even with the early coordination, CSX Transportation completed the installation of the crossing only one month before the start of revenue operations. Thus, early railroad coordination is critical to the implementation of a project that requires crossing an active freight line. When contemplating a crossing of an active freight railroad, it is important to realize that the railroad has the ultimate authority as to whether a crossing will be granted. From CSX Transportation's perspective, the crossing in Tampa represented a potential liability that did not exist without the crossing and could have an unwelcome impact on the railroad's operations. As a result of the additional liability considerations, the railroad initially required the streetcar project to provide $500 million in liability insurance. The railroad also required HART and the City to bear both the capital cost to install the crossing as well as the cost to maintain the crossing throughout the life of the project. CSX Transportation designed the signal system and required a payment in advance of over $1 million before they would begin to install the system. In addition, even if a railroad agrees to a crossing, as in the case of CSX Transportation, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has to grant approval. For the TECO line, this was accomplished through the submission and approval of a waiver. 12.1.3 Toronto, Canada Unlike most other North American cities, Toronto resisted proposals to abandon its streetcars and replace them with buses. Not only has the Toronto Transit 12-3 STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 12 —Streetcars, Land Use Et Transit Oriented Development Commission maintained continuous operation of its streetcar network, but in recent years it has opened several expansions of the system. Meanwhile, the larger metropolitan area has exhibited the usual pattern of low -density sprawl, causing one critic to describe the region as "Vienna, surrounded by Phoenix". This duality is also seen in Portland, although the suburban expansion there has been checked by a metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary. Therefore, the continued strength and recent growth of Toronto's streetcar system has less to do with regional travel patterns and more to do with life in the city itself. Several characteristics of the system and its role are noteworthy : The downtown area, once primarily an office district, is increasingly strong and diverse, with a growing residential component as well as retail stores and cultural attractions. This diversity means that the streetcars carry a variety of trips, not just commuter trips. The city's policies and plans emphasize walkability and mixed uses. Streetcars fit well with this scale and character of development which, thanks in part to the continued use of streetcars as a key component of local transpor- tation, is typical in the inner districts of Toronto. Streetcars are a popular form of transit, even in areas where weather is not always favorable to being a pedestrian/transit rider. The streetcar network is well -integrated with other components of the transit system, including heavy rail and buses. A key lesson that emerges from the Toronto experience is worthy of consideration in Miami: Toronto, Canada's electric streetcar Choice Riders Prefer Streetcars. In many American cities, a large portion of transit riders are transit -dependent customers; i.e., they do not have cars or access to affordable parking at their workplace. The effect is that commuter trips are a large proportion of the trips taken on the transit system. A key objective for an urbanizing area is to break this pattern and attract choice customers. The Toronto Transit Commission has estimated the percentage of choice riders on its streetcar lines at 60 percent and has recorded significant ridership increases in cases where a new streetcar line replaced pre-existing bus service on the same street. 12.2 Defining Transit -Oriented Development Transit -oriented development is not a new phenomenon. In an automobile -oriented context, achieving transit -oriented development requires that public policy and regulation be directed toward a result which once occurred organically. Early transit, beginning with the horse-drawn streetcar, had an impact on the shape of cities. Many of the goals associated with modern transit -oriented development date back to the design and shape of cities before the domination of the automobile. Additionally, successful transit -oriented development cannot be described as merely a mix of uses with various densities a half -mile from a transit stop, although all of these elements play an important role in transit -oriented development. The overriding vision of transit -oriented development is to provide options. A neighborhood of options consists of ..places where residents of diverse incomes, ages and backgrounds have the option to walk to nearby shopping, parks and schools; where streets are safe to walk along and public spaces are beautiful, inviting and frequented and where people can choose to take a train or bus to their destinations as easily and conveniently as a car."2° In this neighborhood of options, job centers are convenient, housing choices are diverse, and the neighborhood is linked to other neighborhoods and downtown by transit. The book, The New Transit Town, states that transit - oriented development projects should be defined as those that achieve five main goals: Location efficiency Rich mix of choices Value capture Place making Resolution of the tension between node and place Location efficiency recognizes the need to consciously place residences in proximity to transit systems. The key components of location efficiency are defined as density, transit accessibility, and pedestrian friendliness. A rich mix of choices deals with making activities and destinations in the area available without needing to drive. The focus is on making the community convenient, with a greater range of choices in housing, mobility, and shopping. Value capture is defined as the economic value to the residents and the area of successful transit -oriented development, which requires frequent transit service, good interconnectivity, community amenities, and attention to financial returns. Components of value capture range from increased tax values for the property owners and revenues for the local government, to reduced transportation costs to the residents. Place making is the goal of making the station, node, or area a destination (i.e., a place where people want to walk and visit). Transit -oriented development also should balance the competing need of transit stops to be a node in the transportation system and a place in their own right, thereby resolving the tension between node and place. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, transit -oriented development needs to fit into its geographic surroundings. What works for a suburban light rail m Hank Dittmar and Gloria Ohland, ed. The New Transit Town: Best Practices In Transit -Oriented Horse Drawn Streetcar in San Francisco, California (1877) Development. Island Press. Washington, covet°, London. 2004 12-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 station will likely not work in a metropolitan downtown. Recognizing that transit -oriented development may be applied in an almost infinite number of locations, ranging from downtowns and urban neighborhoods to suburban centers and neighborhood transit zones, the specifics of transit -oriented development policy must be customized to the place. Successful transit -oriented development projects also involve a number of participants, including transit agencies, local government, public agencies, developers, lenders, and the community at large. With this many players, and no cookie cutter policies available, the challenges of successful transit -oriented development become obvious. The role of the local government in developing transit -oriented development is to: create and sustain the long-term vision; lead the planning process; assist with entitlements, land assembly, and infrastructure investment; and promote the public good through plans and regulations designed to implement the vision. Transit -oriented development plans should include conceptual land use and development programs, identify key opportunity sites, provide design guidelines and streetscape plans, take a comprehensive view of mobility, and include a financial strategy. Developing these components will assist in taking the uncertainty out of the process for interested developers and will provide for greater congruity in the developments proposed. Two main types of practices feed into creating successful transit -oriented development: policy approach and regulatory provisions. The first practice, policy approach, includes the mechanisms used, how they are managed, and which agencies participate. In some cases, the policy approach may be specific to transit -oriented development; in others, it may be the same approach used for other desirable development, such as the planned development or planned unit development process.21 The second practice, regulatory provisions, deals with the specific provisions unique to the project or to transit -oriented development. Although standardizing policies and regulations may reduce cost, effort, and risk and is appropriate for small- to medium-sized projects, such standardization is not suitable for projects that are of major size or make up major portions of a transit district.22 Such projects need a customized approach. Given the scale of the project being considered in Miami, a customized approach appears to be appropriate. Yet within nearly every type of transit - oriented development project, there appear to be several common areas. Three areas of regulatory provision are identified as the ABCs of transit -oriented development: A = Active, walkable streets B = Building intensity and scale C = Careful transit integration23 Research into several jurisdictions also identified these as strong common regulatory areas, meaning the adopted policies all address these three issues. Additional common areas of regulatory provision that were identified as closely related to these ABCs included parking and signage. SECTION 12 —Streetcars, Land Use Et Transit Oriented Development 12.3 Implementing Transit -Oriented Development —Case Studies The following reports how several jurisdictions interviewed for this project have changed, amended, or developed land development regulations in support of transit in their areas, and what changes they made with respect to the ABCs of transit -oriented development. Kenosha, Wisconsin The City of Kenosha, Wisconsin, runs a streetcar on a 1.7-mile loop through Harborpark, a 69-acre redevelopment in the heart of downtown Kenosha. The original goal of the project was to redevelop a Brownfield site (a former auto plant). The streetcar was added as an amenity, connecting the development to the regional train station and points beyond, including Chicago, a major regional employment center. The city owned much of the property for this project. The master plan, originally completed in 1991 and updated in 1996, includes goals that relate to all three of the transit -oriented development ABCs and was implemented through a zoning overlay district. Policies in the zoning overlay address what uses are expressly prohibited within each of the underlying zoning Kenosha, Wisconsin —Vintage Streetcars districts; require conformance with the development guidelines that address building use, placement, height, fencing, parking, and architectural development guidelines; and clearly outline processes for development approval. The streetcar project was a successful combination of modest public funding and volunteer effort. Historic trolley vehicles are utilized in this operation. The Harborpark development itself has been very successful, in part due to its proximity to regional rail, and the trolley has been successful primarily with tourists, although many residents remain skeptical. Memphis, Tennessee The City of Memphis did not specifically consider changes to its land development regulations and zoning code in association with its transit service. However, coincidentally, a portion of the streetcar line falls within an area targeted for redevelopment south of downtown, associated with the site for a new $250 million arena. An additional zoning overlay is being developed for the portion of the alignment that is slated to become a light rail connection to the airport. Though not specifically considered by the city in Memphis, Tennessee -Vintage Streetcar CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 12-5 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 conjunction with the streetcar system, the South Central Business Improvement District (SCBID) contains many of the ABCs of transit -oriented development. The SCBID is divided into several smaller land use districts, or subareas, each of which is designated for a specific type of land use with complementary accessory uses. For example, the sports and entertainment district permits land uses ranging from residential to commercial and parking garages but does not permit drive -through windows and requires ground -floor commercial use or public space in parking garages. Within this subarea, there is no maximum density, but development is subject to a height limitation of 90 feet or eight stories and all development is exempt from the off-street parking requirements. Specific landscaping requirements are imposed for parking areas. Most of the subarea regulations allow a variety of land uses, restrict drive -through windows, exempt off-street parking, and require specific land uses. Additional regulations in some subareas give density bonuses to multi -use buildings; allow commercial -only use on the first floor of multi -story buildings; or limit height, frontage, or scale depending on the goal of the specific subarea. Tacoma, Washington The City of Tacoma, driven by an overall goal to revive the whole of downtown, developed a plan that includes transit and associated land use changes to implement this goal. The city adopted a new zoning code for most of the downtown along the alignment of the city's new downtown streetcar line, with the desire of making shops and areas more commuter friendly for those riding the rail system. Some of the ideas implemented include a free parking garage on the outskirts of town that allows those working, shopping, or visiting attractions in the downtown to park their cars and use the streetcar for convenient and quick travel in the downtown. The immediate area abutting the parking garage functions as a transportation hub for the city, where all modes of transportation come together and distribute throughout the core area. All project funding was obtained through local sources. The city incorporated changes into both its comprehensive plan and its land use regulations. As in the two previous examples, the regulations apply to subareas or districts within the downtown. The goals are outlined in Tacoma, Destination Downtown, which contains excerpts from the comprehensive plan as well as goals and objectives that clearly address the ABCs of transit -oriented development. General polices of the plan state that the individual subareas or districts should be connected by landscaped streets and public open spaces; the land uses should be mixed, with each district having its own character; pedestrian activity should be reinforced; parking supply should be managed; and public transportation should contribute to the quality of the streetscape. The subareas identified in the plan each have specific policies and Tacoma, Washington -Streetcar SECTION 12 —Streetcars, Land Use regulations that address the types of use, maximum densities and density/intensity bonuses, design standards, and additional requirements for those proposed developments where the intent is to maximize the density/intensity. 12.4 Land Redevelopment Base Model Development and growth were examined to test whether the streetcar technology would stimulate the economic redevelopment of the study area. Scenarios with and without the streetcar were compared. In general the scenarios differed on the amount of built space dedicated to automobiles. Figure 12.4.1 displays the parcels that would be available for redevelopment within the study area. Based on existing land use regulations and assuming the maximum allowable development, the net yield of redevelopment space is equal to nearly 38 million sq ft (Table 12.4.1). Tables 12.4.2a and 12.4.2b compare the allocation of maximum allowable space for parking and show how it impacts the area that can be developed. Table 12.4.2a assumes regular parking requirements, while Table 12.4.2b assumes a new paradigm with densities based on streetcar and light rail systems in other cities in the United States. Table 12.4.1 Maximum Developable Land within / mile of Streetcar Alignment Downtown Omni Midtown Land Use Office Institutional CBD Restricted Commercial General Commercial Subtotal Restricted Commercial General Commercial Industrial High -Density Residential Medium -Density Residential Subtotal Restricted Commercial General Commercial High -Density Residential Medium -Density Residential Duplex Residential Subtotal TOTAL FAR = Floor Area Ratio Source: City of Miami Geographic Information Systems Parcel Data and Zoning Maps, II DR Engineering, Inc., April 2004. No. of Parcels 3 3 17 33 2 58 46 44 Net Land (sq ft) FAR (gross) Development (sq ft) 777,000 10 7,770,000 209,000 5 1,045,000 1,010,000 10 10,100,000 1,530,000 3 4,590,000 107,000 2 214,000 3,633,000 23,719,000 1,730,000 3 5,190,000 1,460,000 2 2,920,000 1 41,300 1 41,300 10 261,000 8 2,088,000 2 31,500 3 94,500 103 20 7 4 8 3,523,800 755,000 143,000 70, 700 249,000 3 2 8 10,333,800 2,265,000 286,000 565,600 3 747,000 3 42 203 52,200 1,269,900 8,426,700 52,200 3,915,800 37,968,600 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 12-6 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Biscayne Blvd. wA. • N Minni Av. CD d ° L o 0 4q l �B arB on Q ❑ o rip°olo r1 yL 1:P ❑ condo, ❑ p NW and Av. NW sral Av. NW 6th An NW 'SW Av. NW ath Av. NW loth Av. NW lath Av. Figure 12.4.1 - Potential Redevelopment As o&Apnl I9, 2004 LEGEND 1 Redevelopment Analysis Area Recommended Streetcar Alignment • Recommended Streetcar Station/Stop Locations n Redevelopment Opportunity Sites 1 District I- Midtown Miami Area 2 District 2- Omni Area 3 District 3- Downtown Miami Area CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 12-7 Transit Oriented Development Table12.4.2a Maximum Developable Land and Corresponding Parking Spaces - Traditional Development Downtown Land Use Office 7,770,000 Institutional 1,045,000 CBD 10,100,000 Restricted 4,590,000 Commercial General Commercial 214,000 Omni Restricted Commercial General Commercial Industrial High -Density Residential Medium -Density Residential Midtown Restricted Commercial Maximum Parking Parking Percent Developable Development Area Spaces Parking Area (sq ft) (sq ft) (sq ft) 2,331,000 313,500 3,030,000 2,754,000 7,770 1,045 10,100 9,180 30% 30% 30% 60% 5,439,000 731,500 7,070,000 1,836,000 128,400 428 60% 85,600 23,719,000 8,556,900 28,523 15,162,100 5,190,000 3,114,000 10,380 60% 2,076,000 2,920,000 1,752,000 41,300 8,260 2,088,000 522,000 5,840 28 1,740 60% 20% 25% 1,168,000 33,040 1,566,000 94,500 23,625 79 25% 70,875 10,333,800 5,419,885 18,067 52% 4,913,915 2,265,000 1,359,000 4,530 60% 906,000 General Commercial 286,000 High -Density Residential 565,600 Medium -Density 747,000 Residential Duplex Residential TOTAL 171,600 572 60% 114,400 141,400 471 25% 424,200 186,750 623 25% 560,250 52,200 13,050 3,915,800 1,871,800 37,968,600 8,426,700 44 6,240 52,830 25% 39,150 48% 2,044,000 22,120, 015 Source: City of Miami Geographic Information Systems Parcel Data and Zoning Maps, HDR Engineering, Inc., April 2004. The conclusion is that as development is maximized, parking ratios can be optimized with streetcar service. At the policy level, this means that an overlay district is required to change particular aspects of land use and zoning; in this particular example, the change would apply to minimum and maximum parking requirements. Methodology The following is a step-by-step description of the model, including details of the methodology used: First, City zoning maps and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data were used to create a GIS layer for the study area, which was verified through field visits. Table 12.4.2b Maximum Developable Land and Corresponding Parking Spaces - Streetcar -Oriented Development Land Use Maximum Development (sq ft) Parking Area (sq ft) Parking Percent Developable Spaces Parking Area (sq ft) Downtown Omni Midtown Office Institutional CBD Restricted Commercial General Commercial Restricted Commercial General Commercial Industrial High -Density Residential Medium -Density Residential Restricted Commercial General Commercial High -Density Residential Medium -Density Residential Duplex Residential TOTAL 7,770,000 1,045,000 10,100,000 4,590,000 214,000 1,165,500 156,750 1,010,000 344,250 3,885 523 15% 888,250 3,367 15% 6,604,500 10% 9,090,000 1,148 8% 16,050 54 8% 23,719,000 2,692,550 5,190,000 2,920,000 41,300 8,977 11% 389,250 1,298 4,245,750 197,950 21,026,450 8% 4,800,750 219,000 730 8% 2,478 8 6% 2,701,000 38,822 2,088,000 250,560 835 12% 1,837,440 94,500 10,333,800 2,265,000 286,000 565,600 14,175 875,463 169,875 47 2,918 8% 9,458,337 566 15% 80,325 21,450 72 67,872 226 8% 2,095,125 8% 264,550 12% 497,728 747,000 112,050 374 15% 634,950 52,200 3,915,800 37,968,600 7,830 26 15% 379,077 1,264 10% 8,426,700 13,159 44,370 3,536,723 34,021,510 Source: City of Miami Geographic Information Systems Parcel Data and Zoning Maps, HDR Engineering, Inc., April 2004. Second, the total amount of development/ redevelopment potential in the streetcar corridor was calculated. Then these potential areas of redevelopment were disaggregated by future land use and by segment. Third, a limited market assessment was conducted to determine the expected amount of development that can reasonably be accomplished, given 1) historic and expected market conditions; 2) the competitive environment for development; 3) the presence of 12-8 ] CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 12 —Streetcars, Land Use Et Transit Oriented Development vacant or underutilized properties for redevelopment; 4) actual developer plans and/or proposals; 5) the character of recent development or redevelopment activity; and 6) the ability to actually construct and finance redevelopment in the face of competing demands for public resources. From this assessment, the amount of development that is expected to be constructed in the next five to ten years was estimated. The estimated development was measured in terms of building type and scale, property valuation, fiscal revenues, and resulting job creation. The methodology focused on parcels located within 0.25 mile of the streetcar alignment. This ensured that all parcels with frontage were included, as well as any significant parcels just beyond the parcels abutting the alignment. Once those parcels were identified, they were categorized as either having or not having redevelopment potential based on the following additional criteria: Can be physically redeveloped Is less than two stories in height Is vacant Is in poor condition/not feasible to rehabilitate Is known as planned for redevelopment Has National Register of Historic Places or Landmark Building status Has no civic or public use, such as a park or school Is not owned by a public or private institution This information was validated through correlation with estimates of the future number of households, residents, and employees developed by the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization regional travel demand forecast model. 12.5 Conclusion Based on the literature review, as well as the review of the work done by other jurisdictions, it is apparent that changes to land development regulations associated with transit are very specific to the location and goals of the areas served. Such changes may have significant impact on both the form and scale of the development/ redevelopment potential of an area. Common elements in the research pertain to pedestrian -friendly streets, the intensity and scale of the buildings, the amount and location of parking and signage, and the design and landscaping of the streetscape present in the jurisdictions reviewed. Some of the regulations reviewed addressed more clearly how transit, or stations, would be integrated; in others, the land use plan was coincidental to the establishment of transit. In considering changes to the land development regulations to support transit -oriented development, it is important to address the ABCs of transit -oriented development (active, walkable streets; building intensity and scale; and careful integration of transit). However, the specifics of land development regulations need to suit the context in which they will be implemented, with attention to the goals of the area, the surrounding land uses, and the existing and future uses to be served by transit. 12-9 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 1 3.0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Over the past five years, the City of Miami (the City) has enjoyed remarkable success in attracting residents and businesses into several city districts and in attracting development projects to house them. The City's role as the U.S. economic and cultural center for Latin American and Caribbean nations, and its growth as a worldwide apparel and goods design center, have led to a high demand for new housing, commercial space, and cultural and recreational facilities. Since the year 2000, the City has experienced growth in population and employment, which is particularly evident in the Brickell neighborhood and in several districts within or adjacent to the study area, including Downtown, Overtown, and Wynwood/Edgewater. This growth consists of primarily residential high-rise developments and retail to serve them. Development is also evolving with the construction and planning of new cultural institutions and commercial uses. Understanding these trends is important to realizing the development and redevelopment potential that can accompany the Miami Streetcar service. Many of the new development projects that have recently opened, as well as those that are under construction and in planning stages, are directly accessible to the recommended streetcar alignment. 13.1 Local Trends The local private and public development trends can be observed in the progress of projects within the Southeast Overtown Park West (SEOPW) Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) including the Promenade Special Area Plan, the Biscayne Boulevard Special Area Plan), the Omni CRA, and the Midtown Miami Community Development District (CDD). Key trends affecting the immediate and long-term future of the study area include: Rising land prices, which are driving up residential densities Low interest rates, which are promoting condominium ownership versus primarily rental housing Larger mixed -use developments and denser housing concentrations, which are beginning to support more extensive and competitive retail components Development of new housing closer to employment centers and social services, which reflects residents' desire for less commuting time Population growth in the City itself, which has resumed since 2000 after a long period of net decline 13.2 Land Use Plans, Zoning, and Incentive Programs The study area represents a development mix of central business district, newly constructed high -density residential towers, established commercial corridors, emerging cultural and commercial districts, vacant lots, and underutilized light industrial parcels. A portion of the land directly adjacent to and near the SECTION 13 — Economic Development Oppo recommended streetcar alignment is already partially developed in a form that is walkable and streetcar supportive. Segments of the study area accommodate buildings that address the street with front doors opening onto wide sidewalks, storefront retail, and a generous mix of uses. The Downtown and Wynwood/ Edgewater neighborhoods, in particular, allow for relatively high permitted densities, some of which have not yet been developed and are used by surface parking lots. In the Midtown Miami redevelopment area and the existing Miami Design District, buildings currently under construction will face the street, have minimum setbacks, and provide direct entryways from the public sidewalk. Newer residential towers have been designed to have direct access to the lobby from the sidewalk and to include ground -floor retail. The City has established development design criteria, strategies and guidelines in several specific areas, corridors and districts throughout the study area. These plans include the Downtown Transportation Master Plan, Miami Design District and Buena Vista Historic District and Little Haiti Creole District Planning Study, Design District —Design Development Plan, FEC Corridor Strategic Redevelopment Plan, Biscayne Boulevard Corridor Urban and Architectural Guidelines, Performing Arts Center Special Area Plan, and the Biscayne Boulevard Special Development Plan. The plans encourage and even stipulate development to achieve a more walkable and higher -quality environment where mixed use and compact developments are the norm. In addition, these plans reinforce a transit supportive development pattern and include provisions to improve transit service. Nearly the entire study area is situated within the North Central Dade Enterprise Zone, which is focused on offering incentives to investors and small business owners —entrepreneurs who develop and/or expand employment opportunities for eligible recipients. The Enterprise Zone financing incentives are: Jobs tax credit —tax credit on the Florida corporate income tax or Florida sales and use tax for eligible persons employed at least three months Property tax credit —tax credit on newly acquired and/or improved properties Sales tax refund for business machinery and equipment used in an Enterprise Zone —refund of sales tax Sales tax refund for building materials used in an Enterprise Zone —refund of sales taxes In addition, portions of the study area are located within U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Empowerment Zones (two of the five designated Empowerment Zones in the City—Wynwood/ Edgewater and Overtown—overlap the study area) and the State Designated Enterprise Zone, each of which provides additional incentives for development activities. The proposed streetcar project would have both a direct and indirect impact on the creation of new jobs that may also benefit from these incentive programs. While the indirect impact associated with new development has not been quantified, the direct job impact associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance is sizeable. Construction is estimated to generate approximately 285 jobs during the first two to three years of construction, and an additional 40 to 50 jobs would be created for the operation and maintenance of the streetcar system. _ 13-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 13.3 Current Development in the Study Area The large-scale mixed -use development in the City24 indicates that a building boom is underway throughout the study area. Seven projects that are under construction will result in 2,365 residential units, 120,000 sq ft of office/retail space, 4,595 seats at the Performing Arts Center (PAC), and 3,413 parking spaces. These seven projects, which have expected completion dates before 2006, are: One Miami Parcel A, 205 South Biscayne Boulevard Performing Arts Center, 1330-1301 Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Tower, 1800 Biscayne Boulevard Biscayne Bay Tower, 501 NE 36`h Street The 1800 Club, 1800 North Bayshore Drive The Village on Bayshore Drive, 1901 Biscayne Boulevard The Yorker, 444 NE 30th Street 13.4 Development Proposals in the Study Area The City of Miami25 Large Scale Development Report of June 2004 indicates 19 project applications that have been approved for construction, four projects that are in the project application phase, and 31 projects that are at the pre -application phase. All of these projects are situated in the study area. Combined, they contain nearly 12,000 residential units, 3.5 million sq ft of office and retail space, and 25,000 parking spaces (see Table 13.4.1). Department of Planning and Zanmg, Clty of Mlaml, Large Scale Development Report 1996- Present, June 2004 Ibld. 13.5 Population and Employment Forecasts The Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) travel demand forecast model was reviewed to estimate population and socio-economic forecasts for the study area26. The model data review shows significant growth in population and employment over the next five-, 10-, and 20-year periods. These forecasts, however, do not anticipate any significant alterations in recent growth patterns that might be attributed to major redevelopment undertakings or new transportation infrastructure improvements, such as the streetcar project. The Miami -Dade MPO projected growth between 1999 and 2025 on the basis of historical growth patterns over the past 15 years, when the City's population grew at a relatively low rate and employment demonstrated decline in some sectors. This MPO projection was used to formulate the 2025 Base forecast. As discussed in Section 4.3, Area Redevelopment, the City of Miami generated an alternative future growth scenario (the 2025 Enhanced forecast) for the Downtown Transportation Master Plan, May 2003, using growth rates experienced over the past five years, when redevelopment and job creation began to show some increases. In addition, the City prepared another forecast (the 2025 Vision forecast) based on anticipated development throughout the City and more aggressive growth patterns than estimated in the 2025 Enhanced forecast. Tables 13.5.1 and 13.5.2 summarize growth trends forecast for the streetcar study area. The 2025 FSl1TM5 travel demand model flies obtained from the Mlaml-Dade MPO In June 2004 for this data review are dated March 2002. The MIamH-Dade MPO Is currently a pdatlng the 2030 Long Range Trans portatlon Plan but these files were not available at the time of this study. SECTION 13 - Economic Development Opportunities No. of Projects Table 13.4.1 Development Activity in the Study Area Dwelling Units Office Hotel Parking Retail Seats Rooms Spaces Under construction Approved Applications Preliminary Total 7 19 4 31 61 2,365 6,599 1,331 3,888 14,183 56,000 1,485,000 69,000 117,000 1,727, 000 65,000 593,000 85,000 1,111,000 1,854,000 4,595 3,413 62 12,458 2,298 10,030 4,595 62 28,199 Source: Department of Planning 8 Zoning, City of Miami, Large Scale Development Report: 1996-Present, August 2004; RERC, Inc. Table 13.5.1 Forecast of Study Area Population, Household and Student Gains, 1999-2025 2025 2025 1999a 2005a 2010a 2015a Basea Enhancedb 2025 Visionb Population Households Students 22,644 7,273 17,719 23,783 7,652 20,931 24,734 7,965 23,607 25,681 8,280 26,284 25,515 9,133 26,725 29,489 10,719 26,725 35,169 13,003 26,725 Source: ° - Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization Travel Demand Forecast Model, March 2002 - City of Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan, May 2003 Employment Category 1999a 2005a 2010a Table 13.5.2 Study Area Employment 1999-2025 2025 2025 2015a Basea Enhancedb 2025 Visionb Commercial Industrial Service Total Employment 8,248 2,964 45,273 56,485 9,124 2,885 47,916 59,925 9,846 2,816 50,108 62,770 10,570 2,750 52,308 65,808 14,250 3,852 55,622 73,724 15,042 4,025 58,371 77,438 16,585 4,218 66,402 87,205 Source: a - Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization Travel Demand Forecast Model, March 2002 - City of Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan, May 2003 Key observations inherent in these forecasts include the following: The number of study area households are projected to grow by 26 percent between 2000 and 2025, an increase of almost 2,000 homes for the Base 2025 forecast. Average household size will decrease over the forecast period. Student population is expected to grow. Employment growth in the study area will require roughly 190 to 200 acres of developable land each year through the 2025 forecast period. As previously stated, the proposed streetcar is also expected to generate additional employment opportunities in the City of Miami. Construction is estimated to generate approximately 285 jobs during the first two to three years of construction and an additional E, 13-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 40 to 50 jobs would be created for the operation and maintenance of the system. 13.6 Real Estate Development Revenue Projections There could be a significant opportunity for new real estate development resulting from and providing funding support for the streetcar system. The anticipated development of major projects, as identified in the City of Miami Large Scale Development Report: 1996-Present, August 2004, suggests that both new ad valorem tax revenue and transportation (road) impact fees could contribute substantially to supporting the capital and operating costs of the streetcar system. 13.6.1 Approach to the Analysis Two approaches were utilized to estimate the potential real estate development impacts of the streetcar system and the tax revenues that could be generated. For the long-term view, employment growth projected to 2025 and beyond was utilized to estimate potential office, commercial, services, and residential development within an area 1/4 mile in any direction from the recommended streetcar alignment. This area, the analysis area, includes all projects considered less than a 10 minute walk from the streetcar alignment. This analysis area extended east to Biscayne Bay between NE 29`h Street and 1-395 and southeast to encompass the riverfront development east of SE 2" Avenue and south of SE 2nd Street (DuPont Plaza and One Miami area). Traffic zone employment and household estimates were taken from the City of Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan 2025 Enhanced forecast. The long-term planning horizon is assumed to be 2030. For purposes of this study, this set of economic data that extends beyond the 2025 forecast is referred to as the "Horizon Scenario." For a more immediate and conservative view, only large-scale development projects that are within the analysis area that are currently in some stage of construction, approvals, or preliminary planning were considered as the development potential that would impact the funding prospects of the proposed streetcar system. These developments are assumed to be constructed between 2005 and 2015. Those recently completed or under construction at this time are assumed to be on the tax rolls by 2006; those approved but not built are assumed to be on the tax rolls by 2010; and those in the preliminary approval process are assumed to be on the tax rolls by 2015. For purposes of this study, this set of economic data is referred to as the "Near -Term Scenario." Once these two sets of estimates of real estate development within the analysis area were established, the potential values to be added to the tax rolls were calculated, using factors for assessed value by general SECTION 13 — Economic Develop land uses—office/services, retail/commercial, and residential. These per -square -foot or per -unit factors were determined by averaging current tax roll data for all properties within the 1/4 mile analysis area. The same development data were used to calculate potential transportation impact fee revenues, using the current schedule of fees for the City. 13.6.2 The Horizon Scenario The traffic analysis zone (TAZ) data for the years 2005 through 2030 indicate that the office and services demand within the study area will be 2.9 million sq ft. The retail and commercial demand in the study area will be 4.8 million sq ft. The projected additional households should require at least 7,600 new residential units (Table 13.6.1). There also are 843,000 sq ft of industrial/manufacturing uses projected. Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. (RERC) reviewed the Miami Dade County tax assessment rolls within the 1/4 mile analysis area and determined the average current assessment based on land use categories. These values included both land and improvements. Factoring these Table 13.6.1 Employment, Household, and Space Demand Estimates 2005-2030 Miami Streetcar Impact Area, Horizon Scenario Employment/ Households 2005 Year Year Increase: Space 2030 2005-2030 Required* Office/ Service 57,881 72,546 +14,665 2,933,000 sf Retail/ Commercial 9,445 17,472 +8,027 4,816,200 sf Industrial 3,320 4,374 +1,054 843,200 sf Households 7,017 14,608 +7,591 units units units 7,591 units *Space demand estimates are based on 200 square feet per office/service employee; 600 square feet per retail/commercial employee; 800 square feet per industrial employee. Source: City of Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan, May 2003 assessments, the projected assessed value of additional new development through 2030 approaches $1.4 billion. At current millage rates, the additional ad valorem revenue generated would be just over $12.2 million per year; current levels of impact fees would provide one- time revenues of an additional $18.5 million (Table13.6.2). These figures provide an order of magnitude of the real estate development value projected within the total Impact Area. Roughly half of the ad valorem revenues generated by this demand would be within existing CRAs. 13.6.3 The Near -Term Scenario For the purposes of this streetcar feasibility study, RERC also took a more conservative approach to identify potential revenue sources from real estate development. The City of Miami Large Scale Development Report: 1996—Present, August 2004, served as one basis for these projections. The large- scale development locations were identified within the analysis. Those projects generally within two -blocks of Table 13.6.2 2030 Assessment Value In 2030, Horizon Scenario Land Uses Assessment Factors Assessed Valuation Ad Valorem Transportation Per Land Use Revenues Impact Fees* Office/Services 2,933,000 sf x $90 = $263,970,000 $5,206,100 Retail/Com m ercia l Industrial Residential 4,816,200 sf x $70 = 843,200 sf x $45 = 7,591 units x $100,000/unit = $337,134,000 $37,944,000 $759,100,000 $6,044,300 $616,400 $6,657,300 Totals $1,398,148,000 $12,251,270 x 8.7625 mils $18,524,100 *Impact fees for office/services calculated on $1.775 per sf.; retail/commercial on $1.255 per sf.; industrial on $0.731 per sf.; and residential on $877 per unit. Source: City of Miami Department of Planning 8 Zoning, and Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. (RERC). 13-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 the proposed streetcar line were included in the calculations (Table 13.6.3). Portions of this Impact Area were extended east to Biscayne Bay between NE 29`h Street and 1-395 and southeast to encompass the riverfront development east of SE 2nd Avenue and south of SE 2"d Street to the Dupont Plaza area. Projects outside this focused two -block area and even beyond the 1/4 mile analysis area could and should benefit from the proposed streetcar system, however, this more conservative scenario provides solid indication of the potential revenue opportunities resulting from those properties directly benefiting from proximity to the proposed alignment. Based on these major projects alone, there are approximately 14.5 million sq ft of development in the "pipeline," meaning projects that have recently been completed, are under construction, or are at various stages of planning review approval. This includes 1.29 million sq ft of retail space, 1.35 million sq ft of office space, 10,850 residential units (calculated at 1,100 sq ft per unit), and more than 19,000 parking spaces. The assessed valuation of these projects alone would generate almost $11,400,000 in new ad valorem taxes annually for the City. Approximately 38 percent of this development and its related revenues would be within the three existing CRAs (includes SEOPW, Omni, and Midtown Miami) in the study area; the balance would be outside CRA boundaries. The estimated road (transportation) impact fees for these projects are almost $17,000,000 (Table 13.6.4). Project ID No. SECTION 13 - Economic Development Opportunities Table 13.6.3 Large Scale Projects within Two -Blocks* of Streetcar Line Project Name CRA Status Housing Office Retail Parking (units) (sq ft) (sq ft) (spaces) 2000-008 Opera Tower Omni approved 2001-007 1800 Club Omni under const. 2001-008 Tuttle Street approved 2001-010 Overtown Transit Village SEOPW under const. 2002-012 One Miami (A) under const. 2002-015 Star Lofts approved 2002-016 Metro Miami (B, C, 8D) approved 2003-017 Aria approved 2002-020 Miltamax approved 2003-004 Biscayne Tower Omni under const. 2003-020 Rosabelta Lofts approved 2003-023 Ten Museum Park SEOPW preliminary 2003-025 New Wave preliminary 2003-027 Cynergi preliminary 2003-039 Office Building SEOPW preliminary 2003-041 Cite' Omni under const. 2003-054 Onyx approved 2003-055 Columbus Tower approved 2003-058 4300 Biscayne approved 2003-065 Everglades on the Bay approved 2003-070 DuPont Towers approved 2003-072 Avant Tower approved 2003-080 Quantum on the Bay Omni under const. 2004-011 Opera Hall/PAC Omni under const. 2004-013 Gallery Art Condo 2004-014 Opus 2004-017 900 Biscayne 2004-019 The Cube 2004-025 SoHo 2004-033 Bayview market 2004-036 The Loft II 2004-039 Midpoint Village 2004-043 Ellipse 2004-046 Fitting Station Lofts 635 92,260 18,112 763 450 27,000 4,872 670 168,000 115,000 664 - 341,000 4,000 588 896 24,000 17,000 1,200 55 75 1,500 500,000 236,700 3,716 78 7,500 20 25,216 35,015 175 24,136 291 258 470 200 13,200 10,670 395 78 - 90 100 4,624 256 60,000 300 436 19,400 701 118 170 587 15,727 728 176 27,582 4,000 289 866 65,549 1,146 1,228 - 30,000 114 - 4,000 194 752 - 8,470 845 preliminary 164 8,907 Omni preliminary 408 17,160 SEOPW approved 516 69,200 14,375 preliminary 101 19,335 preliminary 95 - Omni preliminary 24 - 445,675 preliminary 496 - 4,000 preliminary 100 - 8,580 Omni preliminary 262 - 7,500 Omni preliminary 85 - 6,800 208 568 1,114 203 142 1,855 186 435 125 2004-047 Shops at Midtown Miami Midtown preliminary 141,776 1,075 Source: City of Miami Department of Planning 8 Zoning, Large Scale Development Report: 1996-Present, August 1, 2004; Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. * - Portions of this Impact Area were extended east to Dupont Plaza and MET One along the riverfront. Table 13.6.4 Large Scale Projects Within Two Blocks of Streetcar Alignment - Ad Valorem and Road Impact Fee Revenues, Near -Term Scenario (2015) Land Use sq ft/Unit Assessed City Ad Valorem Valuation* Revenue Office @ 1.35 million sq ft $122,083,000 Retail @ 1.29 million sq ft $90,300,000 Residential @ 10,850 units $1,085,500,000 Total $1,297,883,000 $1,070,000 $791,000 $9,512,000 $11,373,000 *Calculations based on $90/sq ft for assessed value of office space; $70/sq ft for assessed value of retail space; $100,000/ unit for assessed value of residential. Source: Miami/Dade County tax rolls and Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. Land Uses Office @ 1.35 million sq ft Retail @ 1.29 million sq ft Residential @ 10,850 units Road Impact Fees* $3,488,600 $3,760,300 $9,520,000 Total $16,768,900 *Impact fees for office/services, retail/commercial, and residential are calculated based on the City of Miami/Dade County current impact fee rate schedule(10/1/95). Source: City of Miami Department of Planning & Zoning and Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. 13.6.4 Baseline Ad Valorem Tax Increase In addition, there will be ad valorem growth through the periodic re- valuation process of existing parcels within the study area, even without additional new developments within the 2030 timeframe. The current valuation for the Impact Area is $4.2 billion. Conservative growth in this base at 1.5 percent a year would generate $18,000,000 in new annual ad valorem tax revenues for the City by the year 2030. Adding the anticipated new development indicated by the Near -Term Scenario would increase the potential annual taxes by $15,000,000. E_ 13-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 13 — Economic Development Opportunities Table 13.6.5 illustrates the base real estate growth as well as estimates of the impact of the large-scale projects phased between 2005 and 2015. These figures are provided to highlight the nature of the overall real estate revenue projections. 13.6.5 Summary of Findings In summary, the following are conservative estimates of revenues expected to be generated by potential real estate investment activity over the next 25 years (2005- 2030) within the streetcar alignment Impact Area alone: Near Term Development Scenario City of Miami ad valorem taxes (new): $11,373,000 peryear Increase in base taxable value at 1.5 percent per year: $18,000,000 per year Road (transportation) impact fees: $16,768,900 The Horizon Scenario City of Miami ad valorem taxes (new:) $12,251,300 peryear New ad valorem outside existing CRAs: 50 percent * Road (transportation) Impact Fees $18,524,000 * The percentage of the ad valorem tax revenue from outside of the existing CRAs declines slightly, from 62 percent in the Near -Term scenario to 50 percent in the longer -term Horizon scenario because a disproportionate amount of the area outside the CRA boundaries is currently vacant or nearly so. It is difficult to calculate and quantify the real estate financial impact resulting from the development of the streetcar system. Because there are a number of large- scale projects already proposed in some stage of development (under construction, approved, applications, or in preliminary planning), the financial impact of these known projects has already been calculated over the next 15 years. Based on the substantial real estate "uplift" experienced by rail projects in other U.S. cities, it is reasonable to forecast that development of the streetcar system can impact the corridor in the following manner: Will solidify the ability of the proposed large- scale developments to get financing. Should accelerate the construction schedule of some of the projects in the "pipeline". Will encourage new investment opportunities along the alignment due to the enhanced accessibility and uniqueness of the system, with particular improvements to ground -floor retail opportunities. Will create a new "main street" environment with an active street level, which historically has enhanced residential environments, thereby strengthening the market absorption rate. Will increase property values for vacant or underutilized property, mostly between NE 21' Street and NE 29`h Street. Will redirect and reallocate demand spatially to align with the streetcar corridor. Will increase retail sales by 20 to 30 percent. Will increase property values, resulting in office or residential ground floor space converting to retail use, which would increase assessed values by 80 to 100 percent. Table 13.6.5 Base Inflation Tax Rate Plus Large -Scale Projects to 2030 INFLATED TAX BASE Base x 1.5% New Development 2003 $4,200,000,000 2004 $4,263,000,000 2005 $4,326,945,000 2006 $4,391,849,175 2007 $4,457,726,913 2008 $4,524,592,816 2009 $4,592,461,709 2010 $4,661,348,634 2011 $4,731,268,864 2012 $4,802,237,897 2013 $4,874,271,465 2014 $4,947,385,537 2015 $5,021,596,320 2016 $5,096,920,265 2017 $5,173,374,069 2018 $5,250,974,680 2019 $5,329,739,300 2020 $5,409,685,390 2021 $5,490,830,670 2022 $5,573,193,131 2023 $5,656,791,028 2024 $5,741,642,893 2025 $5,827,767,536 2026 $5,915,184,049 2027 $6,003,911,810 2028 $6,093,970,487 2029 $6,185,380,045 2030 $6,278,160,745 Change: 2003-30 $2,078,160,745 Tax Rate 0.0087625 Tax $18,209,883 Cumulative New Dev. x New Dev. 1.5% $311,631,460 $311,631,460 $316,305,932 $311,631,460 $316,305,932 $311,631,460 $316,305,932 $311,631,460 $316,305,932 $720,932,300 $1,032,563,760 $1,048,052,216 $1,032,563,760 $1,048,052,216 $1,032,563,760 $1,048,052,216 $1,032,563,760 $1,048,052,216 $1,032,563,760 $1,048,052,216 $265,318,030 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 Source: Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. $1,297,881,790 $1,317,350,017 Base Plus New Development $4,200,000,000 $4,263,000,000 $4,326,945,000 $4,708,155,107 $4,778,777,434 $4,850,459,095 $4,923,215,981 $5,728,810,506 $5,814,742,663 $5,901,963,803 $5,990,493,260 $6,080,350,659 $6,440,853,719 $6,537,466,525 $6,635,528,523 $6,735,061,451 $6,836,087,373 $6,938,628,683 $7,042,708,114 $7,148,348,735 $7,255,573,966 $7,364,407,576 $7,474,873,689 $7,586,996,795 $7,700,801,747 $7,816,313,773 $7,933,558,480 $8,052,561,857 $3,852,561,826 0.0087625 $33,758,073 13-5 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 14.0 TRANSPORTATION OPERATIONS 14.1 Purpose This section on streetcar transportation operations focuses on potential impacts associated with existing and future signalized intersections, integration with existing and future Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) bus service, and potential opportunities to replace MDT bus service with streetcar where the routes and alignment overlap. 14.1.1 Comparison to Bay Link Study For this transportation operations analysis, the transportation impacts addressed in the Bay Link Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) were reviewed. The types of roadway vehicular traffic impacts associated with the Bay Link project, which was evaluated as Light Rail Transit (LRT) in the DEIS, would be similar for the proposed Miami Streetcar project. Overall, the transportation analysis in the Bay Link DEIS determined that the proposed LRT system would have a negligible impact on the Downtown Miami street system in terms of peak -hour levels of service due to the forecast high level of congestion in the downtown area. The additional transit service afforded by the light rail system would cause an expected shift in travelers from automobiles to transit, creating new capacity on the downtown system. Because of the levels of congestion, however, the additional capacity would be absorbed by traffic diverting from other facilities in the study area. The same findings hold true for the proposed streetcar system; that is, the shift in travelers from automobile trips to streetcar would not necessarily relieve congestion. It would, however, increase the people - moving capacity of the downtown transportation system. Roadway levels of service, as determined in the Bay Link study, would not improve by a letter grade (for example, from LOS "E" to "D") with the addition of the Miami Streetcar project. 14.1.2 Area Roadway Impacts Roadway modifications as a result of right-of-way impacts and geometric modification to the existing roadway sections are described in Section 16.0, Alignment. 14.1.3 Impacts at Intersections The proposed streetcar system operates in mixed traffic and may pass through a signalized intersection under standard traffic signal control or under separate transit signal control depending on the type of maneuver or signal phase requirements. Separate transit signals are not necessary where the streetcar moves straight through the intersection in the same direction as automobile traffic operating under traffic signal control. Transit priority at standard traffic signals can be provided via signal pre-emption using systems such as 3M's Opticom. The Opticom system is commonly used by police and fire rescue to change the traffic lights to green, allowing emergency vehicles to pass through an intersection unimpeded by the traffic signal. Similarly, streetcar drivers can use signal pre-emption to maintain their schedule or extend signal green time through a congested intersection to avoid lane blockage by the back of the streetcar. Using signal pre-emption can improve on -time reliability and enables the streetcar to achieve a higher average speed over the route. The streetcar generally operates in the outside right hand lane. When the streetcar makes a left turn through a signalized intersection from this lane, it will be necessary to implement a separate transit signal using a protected phase. That is, a phase will be added to the intersection to stop all conflicting traffic movements and a transit signal will permit the streetcar to make the protected left turn from the right hand lane. This maneuver is indicated at the intersections in Table 14.1.1 where a transit signal and signal phase is required. The transit signal phase would only be actuated when an approaching streetcar is detected. The transit signal phase would remain inactive between streetcar operations which are expected to occur at 5 to 10 minute intervals on one-way service roadways and at 2.5 to 5 minute intervals on bi-directional service roadways such as the intersection at NE 2nd Avenue and NE 29`h Street. At these locations, the additional transit signal phase would be added to the traffic signal phasing plan. This additional transit signal phase will add a slight delay of typically less than 15 seconds at the intersection for non -transit users for each streetcar operation through the intersection. During a peak 60- minute period this would result in additional traffic delays of 90 to 360 seconds per hour. For an average 120 second cycle length this would add approximately 9 to 12 seconds of delay per cycle. Existing traffic signals along the proposed route are identified in Figure 14.1.1. The existing geometry for the intersection approaches is also shown for the system's southbound operation in Figure 14.1.2 and for the northbound operation in Figure 14.1.3. The impacts to each signalized intersection along the recommended alignment were estimated by evaluating the expected lost time per streetcar operation through the intersection. Lost time occurs when transit priority is given at an intersection either in the form of an exclusive transit phase or by the extension of green time for the movement under which the streetcar is operating through the intersection. The amount of lost time per hour varies depending on the number of streetcar operations, the directional movement of streetcars through the signal, the streetcar operational frequency (headway), and the cycle length of the signal operation. These variables were analyzed for variable operating plans and signalization schemes to quantify the impact on each intersection and the overall system. The expected impacts in terms of lost time and the types of improvements to each intersection are summarized in Table 14.1.1. 14.2 Transit Linkages One of the primary objectives of the proposed streetcar service is to provide connections between the Miami - Dade County transit system and local origins and destinations. More specifically, the streetcar would improve local access via the transit system to and from travelers' ultimate origins and destinations. Although the current Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) services provide extensive coverage in the study area (Figure 14.2.1), high -quality, frequent, and convenient local service connecting the Miami Design District, Midtown Miami redevelopment, Performing Arts Center, and Downtown Miami is not in place, nor are such services planned. 14-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Figure 14.1.1 - Recommended Alignment & Signalized Intersections LEGEND Study Area Recommended Streetcar Alignment 0 Recommended Streetcar Station/Stop Locations 0 Signalized Intersection (Alignment) CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 14-2 I , L. Signal Not Active ,i ' All-- : ' I ,z NE 2nd Av. Biscayne Blvd. T1 II • EEC Corridor N. Miami Av. z _�— _• A_= 9 =^'► 11^ '1 13,14"`15'► r zz N z z N NE 1st Av. z r r r z a z z i r NE 2nd Av. r 19 •'► •—'20 z z 21 22 v v N NW 1stAv zz z r i S. Miami Av. z 9 23 V 24—►�25. 26 SE 1st St. 27 Figure 14.1.2 - South Bound Signalized Intersection Geometries 0 0 (see figure 14.1 3) ® One -Way Street LEGEND South Bound Recommended Streetcar Alignment North Bound Recommended Streetcar Alignment Signalized Intersections (Alignment) Future Signalized Intersections (Alignment) CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 14-3 - ‘,, 4-1 1 I ©znirlm Owe= OR� �QR\IR\I I/= OR an= �O� 4-11/:,/ Arr . .._,\ ..... i ri I m®,, ,111.F- '‘) , V , AI-T- ,-„,, OCITY of MIAMI NOT TO SCALE t ) t t A(A .�► ► NE 2nd Av. t—' d �— I. =1 6 rr 7 -�, ='.� 8 =�• =1 9 ❑=10 r w w NE 2nd Av. 5 L 1 n i l r r z z z w 1i NE •1 tAv. 41 — 40 • 39 38 ' 37' " 36''�r �� r' �: II SEC Corridor +'� +'� �, r '� �,� �' ��=� �' .r, — r a t S. Miami Av. 2 N N. Miami Av. N N ss sy n n v NVV1stAv j a �s z z z 0 Biscayne Blvd. SE 1st St. Figure 14.1.3 - North Bound Signalized Intersection Geometries LEGEND South Bound Recommended Streetcar Alignment North Bound Recommended Streetcar Alignment O Signalized Intersections (Alignment) ® Future Signalized Intersections (Alignment) O (see figure 14.1 2) ® One -Way Street CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 14-4 SECTION 14 - Transportation System Operations Table 14.1.1 Preliminary Intersection Impacts and Controller Improvements Lost Time (sec/ Lost Time (sec/ Potential cycle/hr) cycle/hr) Streetcar Clearance 90s Cycles 120s Cycles Traffic Signal Operation at Time per Improvements No. Intersection Intersection Operation HW*=5 HW=10 HW=5 HW=10 Needed" NE 2nd Ave/NE 39th St Sgl track left 15 secs 4.5 secs 2.25 secs 6 sea 3 sea TS/SP 2 NE 2nd Ave/NE 29th St Dbl track left/right 15 secs 2.25 secs 1.125 secs 3 sea 1.5 secs TS/SP 3 NE 2nd Ave/NE 20th St Dbl track thru 5 sea 0.75 secs 0.375 secs 1 sea 0.5 secs EXT 4 NE 2nd Ave/NE 19th St Dbl track thru 5 sea 0.75 secs 0.375 secs 1 sea 0.5 secs EXT 5 NE 2nd Ave/NE 17th St Dbl track thru 5 sea 0.75 secs 0.375 secs 1 sea 0.5 secs EXT 6 NE 2nd Ave/NE 15th St Dbl track thru 5 sea 0.75 secs 0.375 secs 1 sea 0.5 secs EXT 7 NE 2nd Ave/NE 14th St Sgl track thru/Sgl 15 secs 2.25 secs 1.125 secs 3 sea 1.5 secs TS/SP track left 8 NE 2nd Ave/NE 13th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 9 NE 2nd Ave/NE 12th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 10 NE 2nd Ave/NE 11th Terr Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT EXT EXT 13 N. Miami Ave/N. 8th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 14 N. Miami Ave/N. 6th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 15 N. Miami Ave/N. 5th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 16 N. Miami Ave/N. 4th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 17 N. Miami Ave/N. 3rd St Sgl track right 15 secs 4.5 secs 2.25 secs 6 sea 3 sea TS/SP 18 NW 1st Ave/NW 3rd St Sgl track left 15 secs 4.5 secs 2.25 secs 6 sea 3 sea TS/SP 19 NW 1st Ave/NW 1st St Sgl track tint 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 20 W. 1st Ave/Flagler St SO track thu 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 21 SW 1st Ave/SW 1st St Sgl track left 15 secs 4.5 secs 2.25 secs 6 sea 3 sea TS/SP 22 5. Miami Ave/5. 1st St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 23 SE 1st Ave/SE 1st St Sgl track left 15 secs 4.5 secs 2.25 secs 6 sea 3 sea TS/SP 24 E. 1st Ave/Flagler St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 25 NE 1st Ave/NE 1st St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 26 NE 1st Ave/NE 2nd St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea 27 NE 1st Ave/NE 3rd St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea 28 NE 1st Ave/NE 5th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea 11 NE 2nd Ave/NE 11th St 12 NE 2nd Ave/NE 10th St Sgl track thru Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 secs 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea 29 NE 1st Ave/NE 6th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea 30 NE 1st Ave/NE 8th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT EXT EXT EXT EXT 31 NE 1st Ave/NE 10th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 32 NE 1st Ave/NE 11th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT NE 1st Ave/NE 12th St (WB I- 395 Ramps) 33 Sgl track thru 5 secs 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 34 NE 1st Ave/NE 13th St Sgl track thru 5 sea 1.5 secs 0.75 secs 2 sea 1 sea EXT 35 NE 1st Ave/NE 14th St Sgl track right 10 secs 3 sea 1.5 secs 4 sea 2 secs TS/SP Table 14.2.1 Miami -Dade Transit Metrobus Routes within 1/4 Mile Proximity of the Streetcar Route Bus Route 2 3 6 7 Shared Segment(s) NE 1st Avenue between NE 1st -NE 6th Streets Biscayne Boulevard between NE 79t"-NE 14th Streets NE 1st Avenue, NE 4th-NE 17th Streets Downtown Bus Terminal 8 NE 1st Avenue, Flagler Street -NE 6th Street 9 NE 2nd Avenue, NE 79th-Flagler Street; NE 1st Avenue, NE 1st -NE 17th Streets 10 NE 2nd Avenue, NE 29th-Flagler Street; NE 1st Avenue, NE 1st -NE 17th Streets 11 NE 1st Street, NE 2o° Avenue -Government Center 16 Downtown Bus Terminal 21 Downtown Bus Terminal 32 NE 19th and 20th Streets, NE 2"d Avenue 36 NE 36th Street 77 Government Center, Downtown Bus Terminal 95 6 routes, 3 of which use Flagler Street west of Biscayne Boulevard C Omni/Downtown Bus Terminal NE 36th Street K Downtown Bus Terminal, NE 14t" Street, Flagler Street, NE 1st/2n0 Avenues M NE 14th Street, Omni Bus Terminal S Omni/Downtown Bus Terminals T Omni/Downtown Bus Terminals; NE 1st/2" Avenues, NE 14th-Flagler Street Seaport Connection Government Center to Port, via NE 5t" and NE 3f0 Streets Night Owl Omni/Downtown Bus Terminals Airport Owl Omni/Downtown Bus Terminals Flagler MAX Government Center/Downtown Bus Terminal; NE 1st/NE 3f° Streets Biscayne MAX Government Center/Downtown Bus Terminal Source: Miami -Dade Transit Metrobus Schedule, May 2004. Table 14.2.2 Miami -Dade Transit Route Linkages at Terminals and Metromover Stations Destinations Metrobus, Metrorail, Metromover Linkages Downtown Bus Terminal Government Center Station Metromover School Board Station Metromover 11 th Street Station Metromover Park Street Station Metromover Freedom Tower Station Metromover College North Station Metromover Arena/State Plaza Station Metromover First Street Station 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 77, 95, C, K, S, T, Airport Owl, Metromover 3, 11, 77, B, Airport Owl, Seaport Connection, Midnight Owl, Little Havana Circ, Flagler MAX, Biscayne MAX, Metrorail, Metromover 6, 9, T 9, 10, K, T 9, 10, K, T 9, 10, K, T 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, K, T, Seaport Connector, Metromover 6, 8, Seaport Connector, Metromover 9, 10, K, T, Metromover HW = Headway in minutes of frequency. # TS/SP = Transit Signal and Transit Signal Phase Source: Miami -Dade Transit Metrobus Schedule, May 2004. EXT = Phase Extension to Traffic Signal (Opticom) CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 14-5 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 7tt NE71St • a' 10 • NE 2 St Limited - Stop Bus NE 62 St I Service 6 t Irrt NE54 St Government Center Station_ DOWNTOWI BUSTERMINA SW 7 Sl 79 St Cswy Julia Tuttle Cswy CVO— OMNI BUS TERMINAL 395 ~9 Venetian CsA Sar Marir Islan ac NZ LEGEND Recommended Streetcar Alignment I 1 Study Area r— Metromover McSorali 0 Bus Routes Figure 14.2.1—Recommended Streetcar Route 3--11E1164_ LEGEND Recommended Streetcar Alignmem • One-quartermile nutter ldistance people are willing to walk ro or from rransirl - Metromcner Say Link lProposedl - Metmrail 2uute$ Figure 14.2.2—Capture Area of Streetcar Route CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 14-6 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 ION 14 - Transportation System Operat ons Table 14.2.3 Headways (Minutes between Buses) of Metrobus Routes in Study Area Bus Route Peak Off -Peak Saturday 2 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 21 32 36 77 95 C K M T Seaport Connection 15 20 30 20 10 10, 20 30 8, 10 20 30 20 5, 10, 20 7, 10 5,10,15 20 20 15, 30 30, 60 60 30 15, 20, 30 20, 30 40, 90 30, 40 30 30, 90 30, 60 30, 40 30, 60 15 30, 60 40, 50 20 30, 40, 50 15, 30 10, 20 20 30, 60 20, 60 20, 30 20, 40 15, 30 60 30, 60 15, 30, 60 30 30, 60 10, 30, 60 30, 60 30, 60 30, 40 30, 60 15, 30, 60 na 20, 30, 60 20, 30, 60 15, 30 45, 60 10, 25, 60 30 15 30 30 Night Owl* 30 Airport Owl* na Flagler MAX Biscayne MAX 30 25, 40 60 60 15 20, 30 15 15 na na Sunday 30, 36 20, 40 60 30, 40 20, 30. 60 30 30, 60 15, 20, 60 30, 40 30, 60 60 30 30, 60 na 30, 60 20, 30, 60 20, 30, 60 25, 60 15, 30, 60 30, 75 30 60 60 na na Source: Miami -Dade Transit Metrobus Schedule, May 2004. *These routes operate between 11 PM through 6 AM; the Night Owl only operates on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. 14.2.1 Direct Physical Linkages between Current Metro -Dade Transit System and Proposed Streetcar Route As shown in Figures 14.2.2 and 14.2.3, within a 0.25- mile distance (on all sides), the proposed streetcar would connect directly with Metrobus, Metromover, and Metrorail services. As many as 25 Metrobus routes would link to the streetcar (Table 14.2.2), as would Metrorail Metrobus Route Table 14.2.4 Miami -Dade Transit Circulator Services Origins/Destinations Headway Weekday Brickell Key Shuttle Coconut Grove Circulator East-West Connection Flagami Connection Gables Connection Hialeah Gardens Connection Little Havana Circulator Little Haiti Connection Brickell Metrorail-Brickell Key Douglas Road Metrorail-Coconut Grove Metrorail Dolphin Mall-Earlington Heights Metrorail Pan American Hospital -Mall of the Americas So Miami Metrorail-Alcazar/Salzedo Palmetto Metrorail-NW 192nd Street Government Center Station, SW 8th Street (Route 208A) Biscayne Shopping Plaza -Miami Design Center 15 15, 20 30, 35 20, 30 30 30, 40, 50 15, 20 30, 35 North Dade Connection Okeechobee Connection Seaport Connection Sweetwater Circulator TriRail-Airport Shuttle na = not applicable. Miami Lakes Tech Center -NE 2nd Avenue/NE 187th Street Palmetto Metrorail-Pel Mad Industrial Park Government Center to Port, via NE 5th and NE 3rd Streets NW 117`"-SW 107`h Avenues, West Flagler, SW 2nd and SW 4`h Streets MIA-TriRail Airport Station service at the Government Center station and all three Metromover routes at seven Metromover stations. 14.2.2 Miami -Dade Transit Bus Circulation Services In addition to its Metrorail, bus, and Metromover services, MDT provides short -length, 10- to 15-minute headway service on 13 bus circulator routes. These 20, 30 30, 40 15,30 10, 15, 20 20, 60 Headway Weekend 15 15, 20 60 30, 35 30 60 20, 25 30, 35 na na 30 15, 20, 30 30, 120 routes provide a similar level of transit service as intended with the streetcar service; i.e., the routes provide convenient, frequent service between two to five major traffic generators. Clearly, MDT and patrons find these circulators useful and productive for completing trips. The streetcar service would operate on a longer daily schedule (approximately 20 hours per day) and is anticipated to provide headways of less than 10 minutes throughout the day. 14.2.4 Opportunities to Replace Some MDT Bus Service with Streetcar There may be opportunities to restructure some of the bus routes that travel within or near the streets that would accommodate the proposed streetcar service. In fact, the streetcar could replace the downtown portions of several bus routes that use the NW/NE 1' Street, Flagler Street, and SW/SE 1' Street corridors. Routes that could be restructured include those with shared segments, as identified in Table 14.2.1. The frequencies existing bus and Metromover routes in the study area are shown in Tables 14.2.3 and 14.2.4. Several of these routes, such as the Flagler MAX, 9, and 10, are among the most productive lines in the MDT system. Two Metrobus routes -Routes 9 and 10-provide service between the Miami Design District, Midtown Miami, Performing Arts Center, and Downtown Miami (on NE 2nd Avenue southbound between 40`h and Flagler, and on NE 1' Avenue northbound between NE 1' and NE 17`h Streets). This service is nearly identical to that of the proposed streetcar route. The bus routes provide peak - period headways of 10 and 20 minutes, off-peak weekday headways of 20, 30, 40, and 90 minutes, and Saturday/Sunday headways of 15, 30, and 60 minutes. Although these headways are relatively frequent, and the service schedule is relatively long, these routes would not replicate the type of service provided by the streetcar. 14-7 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 i LI :GI`livEAPrAIr 7E�: f10P1 I`ll J�l'f J'i`IL Government Center Station cnill_rnnl it :MOMs r2 2� =.\ror; r I.� 1 irl I nr1 � �1VfP f J JL 11��9 7a� r,��l 1 1 vil= Downtown ,,l-_�,rrl,Is la 9 I F,ag,el t. Ill rr Bus Terminal —11:16{{kklf1 •721.77 .95..5.0 ir.L.A,3LE i, ll. A11-1' J;' r 74`IL LEGEND Recommended Streetcar Alignment ®One -quarter mile buffer (distance people are willing to walk to or from transit) Metromover Bay Link (Proposed) Metrorail 0 Bus Routes Figure 14.2.3—Connections at Downtown Bus Terminal Et Government Center Stations SECTION 14 — Transportation Syste Operations LEGEND Recommended Streetcar Alignment •One -quarter mile buffer (distance people are willing to walk to or from transit) Bay Llnk (Proposed) FEC Tri-County Corridor Study 'Alternatives Analysis( East/West Corridor (Concept Plan) Figure 14.2.4-Future Transit Linkages With Streetcar CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 14-8 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Transportation Although restructuring some of the bus routes would require an extensive transit service planning effort, which should be restricted to Metrobus services only, current bus services could be redeployed to other parts of Miami -Dade County. MDT staff provided a sketch -level analysis of current MDT bus service that could be short -turned (i.e., where existing routes can be abbreviated by connecting with the recommended streetcar alignment). This very preliminary analysis will be subject to additional data coordination and analysis. MDT is currently reviewing a restructuring of Metrobus services through a Comprehensive Bus Operations Study (conducted by the Center for Urban Transportation Research), which was not complete at the time of this feasibility study. The MDT sketch -level analysis focused on current routes on or near NE 2nd Avenue in three general areas between NE 79`h Street and NE 15`h Street and concluded the following: 1. NE 79 Street south to approximately NE 29 Street — The only existing MDT bus service that could potentially be short -turned at the recommended streetcar alignment on NE 2"d Avenue is: Routes 9 and 10 = 10 buses/peak hour one-way north or southbound. 2. South of approximately NE 2nd Avenue/NE 29 Street — Where the proposed streetcar alignment and Biscayne Boulevard are one block apart, the services that could potentially be short -turned at the recommended streetcar alignment are: Routes 9 and 10= 10 buses/peak hour one-way Routes 3/16= 6 buses/peak hour one-way Route 93= 4 buses/peak hour one-way Route 95 Express= 10 buses/peak hour one-way 3. South of the Omni Bus/Metromover Station at Biscayne/NE 15th Street —If routing is available to connect the Omni Station to the recommended streetcar alignment and the public is not adverse to transferring to/from the streetcar (as they were in the past when there was an attempt to end routes at the Omni), the following additional routes to/from Miami Beach could potentially be short -turned at the future streetcar: Route C Route K Route S Route T = 4 buses/ peak hour one-way = 4 buses/ peak hour one-way = 6 buses/ peak hour one-way = 4 buses/ peak hour one-way Total Potential= 58 buses/peak hour one-way* *Note: MDT staff estimates of future bus service that could or would be short -turned are very much dependent on directives received from the Board of County Commissioners as a result of public input. The MDT riding public is often resistant to change unless it is clearly evident that the option for change affords faster, easier, more con- venient, and better customer service. The MDT sketch -level analysis indicates that the recommended streetcar alignment could potentially reduce the need for MDT bus service over portions of the corridor by as much as 58 peak hour one-way bus operations. This could significantly increase the ridership of the streetcar service on the recommended alignment by capturing existing transit users who use existing bus service for local trips and providing transfers to other MDT bus routes that interface with the alignment. However, it should be noted that many of the NE 2nd Avenue bus services in the study area are intended for connecting to and from origins and destinations outside the study area. The benefits of decreased bus operating costs (as a result of reduced route lengths) would need to be weighed against the potential loss of patronage on those routes due to the inconvenience of adding a transfer from bus to streetcar to the same origins and destinations that are currently accomplished without such transfers. This potential reduction in MDT bus service along the recommended alignment is not assumed in the streetcar ridership estimation summarized in Section 15, Ridership Forecast. Additional analysis is needed to determine the potential benefits that could be achieved by coordinating MDT bus service in the study area with the recommended streetcar service. Additionally, the proposed streetcar service may establish opportunities to strategically alter routes considered for the Bay Link, Tri-Rail Downtown Connection, and East-West transit services, so that their quality of service can be improved at a more cost- effective level. 14.2.5 Linkages with Non -MDT Transit Systems - Jitneys and Taxis Jitneys and taxis also provide mobility to those traveling to, from, and through the study area. They will continue to serve an important purpose for many travelers, such as more direct, personalized, and convenient travel even with development of the streetcar service. While there has not been any evaluation of how many travelers who currently use jitneys and taxis would transfer to a streetcar, it is clear that streetcars have the capacity to handle the expected large passenger loads anticipated in the next 5 to 10 years. Within the study area, jitneys and taxis can extend the service area for the streetcar by connecting residents, employees, and visitors outside of the streetcar service area with the recommended alignment. Jitneys are also being studied as a means of providing mobility in areas where MDT is contemplating eliminating bus services because of low ridership levels. That is, there is ridership that could be efficiently carried by jitneys, but the demand is not sufficient for larger -capacity buses to continue to operate in those areas. 14.2.6 Conclusion Streetcar service on the recommended alignment for Phase I would effectively link with a large portion of the Downtown Miami MDT system. Because of the high - quality services provided by streetcars, usage of the MDT system is expected to increase both within and outside the study area. Implementation of streetcar service would also help in finding ways to make the MDT system more efficient and in extending its services. 14-9 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 15.0 RIDERSHIP FORECAST A transit system's ridership is dependent on several key factors. These factors include the alignment, the land use surrounding the transit corridor, the operational characteristics, and any competing services in the transit corridor. The recommended streetcar alignment between NE 41' Street and SW 1' Street was examined for its ridership potential with respect to these variables. Given the ridership sensitivity of the streetcar transit system to the surrounding land use and its operational characteristics, several alternatives were examined. This was done to develop a range of ridership projections, as the future land use of the corridor and the system operating plans have not been formally defined for this feasibility study. Ridership on the Miami Streetcar project was estimated using the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) travel demand model utilized for the 2025 Miami -Dade Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This currently adopted model includes the 2025 Downtown Miami highway and transit network. These future networks are crucial in that they provide the necessary connectivity between the proposed streetcar system and the future transit and street networks. After the streetcar recommended alignment was coded into the model, several alternative scenarios were developed to test the sensitivity of the streetcar transit system ridership to various land use assumptions and to operational characteristics. 15.1 Land Use Data Sets Three land use scenarios were assumed to estimate ridership for the proposed Miami Streetcar. The Base scenario included the 2025 land use forecast in the 2025 Miami -Dade LRTP. However, close inspection revealed that the 2025 land use data set did not show significant population and employment growth in the Downtown Miami area. As discussed in Section 4.0, the Miami -Dade County Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's) projected population and employment growths in the Downtown Miami traffic analysis zones from 1999 to 2025, shown in Figure 4.3.1, are lower than anticipated within the streetcar transit corridor. Since the 2025 Miami -Dade LRTP was developed, there have been revisions to the growth assumptions in Miami - Dade County. With this in mind, two other land use scenarios were obtained from the City and the MPO and developed into the ridership model. The two additional land use scenarios were originally generated from the adopted Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan (MDTMP). The scenarios previously reviewed in Part II, Section 13.0, labeled the 2025 Enhanced and 2025 Vision forecasts, were established in the model by updating the 2025 Miami -Dade LRTP land use with the land use data sets from the MDTMP. As part of the MDTMP, the 2020 land uses in many Downtown Miami traffic analysis zones were revised upward, creating a moderately aggressive data set (2020 Enhanced) and an aggressive data set (2020 Vision). Because these two data sets were for 2020, they had to be increased to 2025 projections. To do so, the two land use data sets were increased to match the zonal growth rates between the adopted 2020 and 2025 Miami -Dade LRTP data sets and were then incorporated into the adopted SECTION 15 — Ridershi 2025 data set to create the 2025 Enhanced and 2025 Visionary land use scenarios. Portland, Oregon —streetcar passengers.. 15.2 Operating Characteristics Different operating characteristics were tested to examine how the streetcar system would respond under different operating plans. For all alternatives, both the peak -period headway and the off-peak headway were assumed to be 10 minutes. This is due to the fact that the streetcar is not intended to serve as a predominantly commuter system in which additional service would be needed for commuter periods. Alternatives were also tested as both a fare -free system and a fare structure similar to that used for the pro- posed Bay Link system represented in the adopted MPO model. The fare structure tested included a $1.25 fare and transfer fares dependent on the mode. It would also be desirable to develop a fare structure in which the system can operate with a fare -free zone as well as with a fare for connections to and from destinations outside of the fare -free zone. Without this structure, there would be a loss of ridership for short trips on the Portland, Oregon —Operator Controls within Streetcar Vehicle . streetcar in the Downtown Miami area. However, this feasibility study did not examine a fare -free zone combined with a fare structure for longer trips. Another sensitivity tested was how the streetcar system was coded into the travel demand model. In one set of alternatives, the streetcar was coded as if it operated like Metrobus and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which travel in traffic. In this case, the speed of the streetcar would depend on prevailing traffic conditions also experienced by other vehicles traveling along the corridor. Another set of alternatives was created to simulate a streetcar system operating at specified speed or travel time. To accomplish this, the streetcar system was coded as a fixed guideway system within the roadway and given various levels of signal priority through the system. Two levels of signal priority were tested, low and moderate, summarized as follows: Low priority is assumed to provide exclusive transit phases for streetcar operations at all intersections. Priority or exclusive phases are provided where the streetcar must turn through an intersection and phase extensions are provided for operations at all other signalized 15-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 intersections. With low priority, it is assumed that the system can achieve an average speed of 15 mph over the route. Moderate priority is assumed to provide the same advantages as low priority as well as signal pre- emption capability to allow streetcar drivers to maintain schedule and obtain signal priority at congested intersections. This priority level is provided on the Portland, Oregon, streetcar system using Opticom signal pre-emption, which is similar to that used by emergency vehicles. Under moderate priority, it is assumed that the streetcar system can achieve an average speed of 25 mph over the route. 15.3 Ridership Results A total of nine different alternatives were tested to gauge the range of ridership that could be expected for the initial phase of the proposed Miami Streetcar system. The headway, fare, and alignment were assumed to be identical for all alternatives. Table 15.3.1 compares the ridership under the various alternatives. Using the 2025 Miami -Dade LRTP model, the ridership on the streetcar system is projected to be between 3,900 and 8,100 riders per day in 2025, beginning with 3,000 riders on opening day, projected to be late 2008. Even with the limited assumptions used in this analysis, there are trends that are noteworthy. One is that more dense and aggressive growth in Downtown Miami would result in increased ridership on a streetcar system. Therefore, the dense land use development proposed along the streetcar corridor in the Miami Design District, Midtown Miami, and other areas of Downtown Miami could ultimately result in higher streetcar ridership than that measured using the Base, Enhanced, and Visionary land use data sets. Another trend confirmed in this analysis is that higher signal priority, resulting in a faster operating speed of the streetcar, would produce higher ridership. This will be important as the operational characteristics of the streetcar are further refined. Although the streetcar would not require a separated right-of-way, limiting the delays experienced by the streetcar as it travels within traffic would make this transit mode more attractive and result in increased ridership. Alternative Number 1 2 3 4 Land Use Data Set Base Enhanced Visionary Base 5 Enhanced 6 Visionary 7 Base 8 Enhanced 9 Visionary Table 15.3.1 Streetcar Ridership Scenarios Similar Mode Operation MetroBus MetroBus MetroBus Fixed Guideway Fixed Guideway Fixed Guideway Fixed Guideway Fixed Guideway Fixed Guideway Signal Priority None None None Low Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Daily Rideship 3,900 4,800 5,500 4,900 Daily Ridership w/ $1.25 Fare Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested 5,800 Not Tested 6,700 Not Tested 5,900 3,900 7,100 4,600 8,100 5,100 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Phase 1 Streetcar Daily Ridership Ease ..Enhanced n Vision Opening 2008 Year 2025 15-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 16.0 ALIGNMENT The alignment developed in Part I of this study has undergone many refinements, described in Section 10.0, Study Refinement. During this refinement process, site reconnaissance was completed to verify the effects of the alignment on the general surroundings, and the optimum location for the turnaround was examined. For a turnaround at NE 41" Street and NE 2"d Avenue, the only site to locate the switch to accomplish the turnaround, given the direction of traffic flow, is the parking lane in front of the school at NE 2"d Avenue. Observations of general operations at the school during the morning hours indicated that the school buses and parents used the parking lanes to drop off students. Therefore, another option was needed to avoid detrimental effects to the school from removal of the parking lane. After examining all the streets located in the Miami Design District, it was determined that a loop would best accomplish the turnaround. NE 39`h Street was first examined as the primary eastbound corridor to NE 2"d Avenue because of the perpendicular intersection with NE 1" Avenue and 55 ft of right-of-way but was rejected because of high east -west traffic volumes. NE 38th Street was chosen instead for the eastbound connection to NE 2"d Avenue even though the 50 ft of right-of-way on this section may constrain the location of a station stop on NE 38`h Street. NE 41' Street and NE 40th Street were examined for the connection from NE 2"d Avenue to NE 1" Avenue. NE 41" Street has 50 ft of right-of-way compared with 66 ft of right-of-way on NE 40th Street. In addition, NE 41' Street has fewer development opportunities while the existing commercial character of NE 40th Street would be more transit supportive and this roadway was determined to be the best option for the westbound return from NE 2nd Avenue to NE 1' Avenue. Therefore, the loop was created using NE 38`h Street and NE 40th Street. These refinements, and those discussed in Section 10.0, resulted in the refined Phase I alignment shown in Figure 10.1.1 . 16.1 Design Criteria Streetcar design criteria were needed to develop a horizontal alignment. Based on the understanding that the Portland Streetcar is the model for the proposed system, the vehicle was assumed to be the same as the Skoda-Inekon Astra vehicle used in Portland. Therefore, the design criteria utilized were as shown in Table 16.1.1. 16.2 Horizontal Alignment The horizontal alignment was further refined, using the Phase 1 recommended alignment, the design criteria, and the latest controlled aerial photographs available from Miami -Dade County. The alignment sheets were prepared at a scale of 1 inch equals 50 feet. These sheets, shown in the City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study: Preliminary Alignment Plans, June Table 16.1.1 Design Criteria Design Element Current Standard Vehicle Manufacturer Vehicle Width • Exterior Body Mirrors Extended Dynamic Envelope (due to potential suspension motion) Vehicle Height • No pantograph • Lowered pantograph Vehicle Length Vehicle Weight (empty) Vehicle Voltage • Primary • Control Vehicle Acceleration Rate Vehicle Deceleration Rate Vehicle Motors • Number • Power Vehicle Passenger Capacity • Seated • Standing Track Gauge Track Slab • Material • Min. Width Minimum Horizontal Curve Spiral Length Assumes No Track Super - elevation Minimum Vertical Curve Radius Maximum Grade Maximum Speed • Operating • Design Minimum Vertical Clearance Maximum Cross Slope Skoda-Inekon Astra (LTM. 10.08) 8 ft 1 in. 8 ft 10.6 in. 10 ft 9 in. (minimum 11 ft travel lane) 11 ft 3.5 in. 12ft8.5in. 66 ft 63,500 lb 750 Vdc 24 Vdc 3 mph/sec 3 mph/sec 4 115 hp 30 127 56.5 in. Concrete 8 ft 2 in. 60 ft 25 ft 620 ft 9% 30 mph 42 mph 14 ft 1% 2004 (under separate cover), provide a multitude of information such as alignment stationing, typical roadway sections for all the effected roadways, general station (boarding) stop locations, and conceptual station stop layouts in plan and section view. It should be noted that the alignment is laid out with simple radius curves only. The final alignment will require the use of spiral curves prior to and after each horizontal curve as described in the design criteria. The alignment generally consists of multiple loops, and rail alignments are typically stationed from north to south. Therefore, the best location to start the alignment stationing was determined to be the beginning of the loop in the Miami Design District near the intersection of NE 38`h Street and NE 1' Avenue. The alignment goes through the Miami Design District and Midtown Miami, continues south to Government Center, and then returns to the Miami Design District, completing the loop at the same location as the start. The total streetcar alignment forms a 35,642 ft loop, or 6.75 miles round trip from Government Center to the Miami Design District and back. The alignment can be divided into two main components, single-track segments and double -track segments (i.e., those with tracks in both the southbound and northbound directions). The total length of single-track segments is 3.16 miles, and the total length of double track segments is 1.79 miles . The following describes the streetcar alignment in detail. 16.2.1 Miami Design District The alignment begins at Station 100+00, just east of the intersection of NE 38`h Street and NE 1' Avenue, and goes east toward NE 2"d Avenue. Nearing NE 2"d Avenue, E_ 16-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Miami, Florida - NF. 2' Avenue, at NE 39°i Street looking north the alignment turns left, or northward, onto NE 2nd Avenue. The intersection of NE 38`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue would require the installation of a signal. The signal could be designed to operate only for the streetcar, stopping automobile traffic until the streetcar turning movements have been completed. Once on NE 2nd Avenue, the streetcar would operate in the northbound through lane, crossing NE 39`h Street. The signal at the NE 39th Street and NE 2nd Avenue is expected to require modifications to accommodate the streetcar system. The alignment turns westbound, or left, onto NE 40th Street. A signal, potentially for the streetcar only, would have to be installed at this intersection. The alignment continues westbound on NE 40th Street, turning southbound onto NE 1 ' Avenue. The intersection of NE 40th Street and NE 1' Avenue may also require a signal, which could be a streetcar -only signal. It is noted that on streets with low traffic volume, streetcar drivers commonly operate the vehicle like a bus, yielding to cross -street traffic and using stop signs for side street traffic control. The alignment continues southbound, passing NE 38`h Street, where double track begins. The alignment proceeds south, crossing under 1-195, passing by the Iglesia Episcopal de la Santa Cruz Anglo Catolica, and crossing NE 36`h Street. The intersection of NE 1"` Avenue and NE 36`h Street must be signalized because of the heavy cross -street volumes and because this is a main entry way to the Midtown project. The understanding is that a signal is to be installed at this location by the Midtown Miami development; however, modifications would be needed to make the signal compatible with the streetcar system. Once the alignment crosses NE 36`h Street, it is within the Midtown Miami development. 16.2.2 Midtown Miami The streetcar would operate on two new roadways to be constructed within the Midtown Miami development. It would operate in a north -south direction within the outside travel lanes while on Buena Vista Avenue (the equivalent of the existing NE 1' Avenue) for approximately 350 ft. At that point, the alignment changes to an east -west direction, passing across a plaza to Midtown Boulevard. At Midtown Boulevard, the alignment changes back to the north -south, crossing NE 34th Street and NE 32"d Street, which are both new proposed intersections. In addition, the alignment passes NE 30`h Street. These three intersections are likely to require the use of signals to avoid conflicts with automobile and pedestrian traffic. Approximately 300 ft south of NE 30th Street, the alignment merges onto NE 29`h Street toward NE 2nd Avenue, leaving the Midtown Miami development. The intersection of NE 29th Street and Midtown Boulevard would require the installation of a signal and minor curb modifications. It is anticipated that this signal would be installed by the Midtown Miami development. Modifications would be necessary to make the signal compatible with the streetcar system. Once on NE 29`h Street, the streetcar would travel east - west toward NE 2nd Avenue. The alignment crosses the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway line at -grade on both sides of the roadway, that is, in both directions of travel, within the outside travel lane. The at -grade, rail -to -rail crossing would have concrete embedded track work and would require installation of a remote interlocking signal system to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements. In addition, the existing crossing protection system must be upgraded with a signal and gate system. The FEC Railway track must also be isolated from stray electrical current produced by the overhead catenary wires for the streetcar. To accommodate the streetcar/rail signal system, the median within NE 29`h Street must be raised with curb and gutter. It is understood that a raised median is being installed at the rail crossing by the Midtown Miami development. The FEC Railway crossing would also require a high vertical clearance of 25 ft for the overhead catenary system (OCS), which would entail vehicle modifications to maintain power supply via the pantograph. Once past the FEC Railway tracks, the alignment turns onto NE 2nd Avenue and goes toward downtown on double track. 16.2.3 NE 2"d Avenue (NE 29th Street to NE 9th Street) The intersection of NE 29`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue would require modifications to the curb in the southwest corner and overall signal modifications to accommodate the streetcar. Along NE 2nd Avenue, it is recommended that the existing four -lane roadway with temporary parking be converted to a two-lane roadway with dedicated parking facilities from NE 29th Street to NE 17`h Street, where there is an existing parking lane. The City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study Preliminary Alignment Plans, June 2004, show a schematic layout of the proposed curb line and parking. Once the alignment passes NE 17`h Street, the typical section changes to three lanes with on -street parking on both sides of the roadway. The streetcar would operate in the outside travel lanes in this location until NE 14th Street, where the double -track section ends on NE 2nd Avenue because the two-way roadway converts to a one-way roadway. The southbound single-track section continues with a lane transition to the center lane to cross under 1-395. The alignment transitions back to the outside travel lane just south of NE 11 `h Street and turns west onto NE 9`h Street. Several proposed projects are under design in this segment of the alignment. From NE 14th Street to NE 11`h Terrace, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is designing milling and resurfacing improvements to convert NE 2nd Avenue from one-way traffic to two-way traffic. At the time of this writing, only a typical section package had been completed and the 60 percent design plans were underway. The end of the FDOT project ties to a Miami -Dade County milling and resurfacing project that extends from NE 11 `h Street to NE 6`h Street along both NE 2nd Avenue and NE 1st Avenue. Both of these projects have minor impacts on the alignment and should be incorporated into the next phase of the streetcar project. 16-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 16.2.4 NE 9th Street (NE 2nd Avenue to North Miami Avenue) To minimize impacts on adjacent properties, the streetcar would make a slight swing -out maneuver prior to and after the turn from NE 2"d Avenue onto NE 9`h Street. Once the turn is completed, the streetcar would operate in the westbound travel lane until the intersection with NE 1' Avenue. This intersection would require a new traffic signal. In addition, the streetcar would cross itself, requiring complex track work. Once across NE 1' Avenue, the streetcar would continue in the westbound travel lane, pass the Technology Center of the Americas, and turn southbound onto North Miami Avenue, where a new traffic signal would be required. No parking impacts are anticipated within the NE 9`h Street corridor. Miami, Florida - NE 91k Street, atMia i Awn le look east 16.2.5 North Miami Avenue (NE 9th Street to NW 3rd Street After turning from NE 9`" Street, the streetcar would turn into the far west travel lane of North Miami Avenue and continue southbound. It would cross NE 8`" Street, where a traffic signal modification would be required to accommodate the streetcar. Approximately 500 ft south of NE/NW 8`" Street is the location of the proposed crossing of the FEC Railway line. The at -grade, rail -to - rail crossing would have concrete embedded track work and would require installation of a remote interlocking signal system to meet FRA requirements. In addition, the existing crossing protection system must be upgraded with a signal and gate system. The FEC Railway track must also be isolated from stray electrical current produced by the overhead catenary wires for the streetcar. South of the FEC Railway crossing, the alignment crosses NE/NW 6`h Street, NE/NW 5`h Street, and NE 4`h Street. These existing signalized intersections would require modifications to the traffic signals to accommodate the streetcar passing through the intersections. In this immediate area, the Federal Courthouse and related buildings currently have intense security measures in place. The alignment would not disturb these measures. Approximately 350 ft south of NE 4`h Street, the alignment turns to the west onto NW 3rd Street through the intersection of NE/NW 3rd Street and North Miami Avenue. The existing intersection is signalized and would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar maneuvers. 16.2.6 NW 3rd Street (North Miami Avenue to NW 1st Avenue) The alignment turns onto NW 3rd Street from North Miami Avenue. NE/NW 3rd Street is currently a one-way westbound street. The turning movement is accomplished from the western travel lane on North Miami Avenue to the southern travel lane on NW 3rd Street. This alignment to the southern travel lane was selected because it minimizes impacts on the intersection with North Miami Avenue. The alignment continues westbound to the intersection with NW 1' Avenue. NW 3rd Street is planned for conversion to two- way traffic in the Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan, 2003, and is part of the planned alignment for the proposed Bay Link project. If this segment is converted to two-way traffic or if the Bay Link project is implemented then the streetcar should operate in the northern outside travel lane going westbound. However, this shift will require a corner clip at the intersection of North Miami Avenue and NW 3rd Street. 16.2.7 NW/SW 1st Avenue (NW 3rd Street to SW 1st Street The existing signalized intersection of NW 1' Avenue and NW 3rd Street would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar turning maneuvers. The streetcar would turn from NW 3rd Street in the southernmost lane onto NW 1' Avenue traveling southbound. From NW 3rd Street to approximately 100 ft south of NW 2"d Street, the alignment is located in the western travel lane. However, 200 ft north of NW 1' Street, the alignment shifts to the inner lane to cross NW 1' Street and West Flagler Street. Both NW 1' Street and West Flagler Street are signalized intersections, which would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar. Approximately 250 ft south of West Flagler Street, the alignment turns from SW 1' Avenue onto SW 1' Street. 16.2.8 SW/SE 1st Street (SW 1st Avenue to SE 1st Avenue The existing signalized intersection of SW 1' Avenue and SW 1' Street would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar turning maneuvers. The streetcar would turn from the inside lane on SW 1' Avenue to the southern outside lane on SW 1' Street. The location of the streetcar on the southernmost lane eliminates impacts at the intersection and allows right - side boarding. In addition, as the streetcar travels to the east, the southern alignment minimizes impacts on the existing parking and conflicts with garage entrances where the sight distance is minimal due to the Metromover piers. The alignment crosses the South Miami Avenue intersection, where the existing traffic signal would have to be modified. It then continues east on SE 1' Street in the southernmost lane, reaching the intersection with SE 1' Avenue. 16.2.9 SE/NE 1st Avenue (SE 1st Street to NE 14th Street) The streetcar would have to turn left from SE 1' Street, in the southernmost lane, and to the north, into the easternmost lane onto SE 1' Avenue. The left turn across traffic is a complex maneuver requiring detailed traffic signal modifications. Once on SE 1' Avenue, the streetcar would cross East Flagler Street, where the street name changes to NE 1' Avenue. In addition, at this location the existing signal would have to be modified. While traveling toward the north, the streetcar would remain in the outside eastern lane, crossing NE 1' Street, NE 2"d Street, NE 3rd Street, NE 5`h Street, and NE 6`h Street, where each traffic signal would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar. Approximately 150 ft north of NE 6`h Street, the alignment crosses the FEC Railway line. The at -grade, rail -to -rail crossing would utilize concrete embedded track work and would require installation of a remote interlocking signal system to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements. In addition, the existing crossing protection system must be upgraded with a signal and gate system. The FEC Railway track CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 16-3 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 must also be isolated from stray electrical current produced by the overhead catenary wires for the streetcar. The alignment continues northward, crossing NE 8`h Street, where the traffic signal would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar. At NE 9`h Street, a new traffic signal would be needed because the alignment crosses itself, requiring complex track work at this location. Continuing northward, the alignment crosses NE 10`h Street and NE 11`h Street, where the existing traffic signals would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar. Approximately 150 ft north of NE 11`h Street, the alignment passes under 1-395, where the clearance height is substandard at 13 ft 9 in. At this location, the entire roadway must be lowered to accommodate the 14 ft minimum clearance requirements for the streetcar. In addition, the ramps and traffic signals must be modified, including the signals on NE 12`h Street. The alignment continues northward, crossing NE 13th Street, where the traffic signal would require modifications to accommodate the streetcar, and approaches the intersection with NE 14th Street. 16.2.10 NE 14th Street (NE 1'` Avenue to NE 2nd Avenue In order for the streetcar to make the right turn from NE 1' Avenue onto NE 14th Street, the curb and the existing traffic signal would have to be modified. The streetcar would operate in an eastbound direction within the outside travel lane. As the alignment approaches the intersection of NE 2"d Avenue, NE 14`h Street turns gently to the south, creating the need for complex geometry. In addition, the streetcar would cross itself within the intersection, requiring special track work as well as the interlocking signal modification discussed previously. 16.3 Typical Sections The streetcar would operate in mixed traffic, utilizing a reinforced concrete track slab, approximately 12 in thick and approximately 8 ft 2 in wide, located at the outside edge of the travel lane. A typical section was prepared for each of the roadways within which the streetcar would operate. These typical sections are shown in the City of Miami Streetcar Corridor Feasibility Study: Preliminary Alignment Plans, June 2004 (under separate cover). As shown in the typical sections, the track slab should not exceed a cross slope of 1 percent. This shallow slope contained within an existing 2 to 3 percent cross slope requires substantial milling and resurfacing of the roadway. The need for milling and resurfacing is also increased because some portions of the roadways have parabolic cross sections without specific crown locations. Utility locations are not shown on the typical sections because they are not fully known at this time. The utilities potentially affected include water, sewer, gas, and telephone. It is assumed that most utility companies would not want parallel facilities under the track slab, and that these facilities would need to be relocated. 16.4 Traffic Controls Streetcar operations along most of the recommended alignment would occur much like existing bus transit operations; i.e., moving with existing street traffic under standard traffic signal control. Because the streetcar would operate in mixed traffic and priority lanes are not provided where only through movements occur, there is no need for special transit signalization. Transit priority at signals may be provided via signal pre-emption (using standard systems such as Opticom). This may be used by streetcar operators primarily to maintain schedule or to extend green time through a congested intersection to avoid lane blockage by the back of the vehicle. At intersections requiring left turns, the streetcar would need to operate under an exclusive transit phase to allow it to turn left from the outside (typically right- hand) lane of the roadway. This maneuver would be necessary at the locations listed below where transit and standard traffic signalization would be required. The transit signal phase would be inactive between streetcar operations, which are expected to occur at 5- to 10-minute intervals on one-way service roadways and at 2.5- to 5-minute intervals on bi-directional service roadways (such as the intersection at NE 2nd Avenue and NE 29`h Street). At these locations, a phase would be added to the current traffic signal phasing, adding a slight delay, typically less than 15 seconds, at the intersection for non -transit users for each operation of the streetcar through the intersection. During a peak 60-minute period, this would result in additional traffic Portland, Oregon - Typical rail transit signal and roadway, traf- fic signal shown together for mixed traffic operations CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY delays of 90 to 360 seconds per hour. For an average 120 second cycle length, this would add approximately 9 to 12 seconds of delay per cycle. The following intersections are anticipated to require signal modifications to accommodate streetcar operations: New Signal (Streetcar Only) NE 40th Street and NE 1' Avenue* NE 39`h Street and NE 1' Avenue* Buena Vista Avenue (NE 1' Avenue) and Midtown Miami Plaza Midtown Miami Plaza and Midtown Boulevard (NE 1' Place Midtown Boulevard (NE 1 ` Place) and NE 34th Street* Midtown Boulevard (NE 1 ` Place) and NE 32"d Street* Midtown Boulevard (NE 1 ` Place) and NE 30t Street* *These locations may operate under standard Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) stop control depending upon future traffic volumes. New Signal (Streetcar and Traffic) NE 38th Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 40th Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 36`h Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 29`h Street and Midtown Boulevard (NE 1' Place) NE 9`h Street and NE 1" Avenue NE/NW 9`h Street and North Miami Avenue Potential Signal Modifications (Through Movement) NE 39`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 19`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 17`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue 16-4 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 16 - Ali NE 15th Street and NE 2"d Avenue NE 13`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 12`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 11th Terrace and NE 2nd Avenue NE 11 th Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 10`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE/NW 8`h Street and North Miami Avenue NE/NW 6`h Street and North Miami Avenue NE/NW 5`h Street and North Miami Avenue NW 1" Street and NW 1' Avenue West Flagler Street and NW/SW 1" Avenue SW/SE 1' Street and North Miami Avenue East Flagler Street and SE/NE 1" Avenue NE 1" Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 2nd Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 3,d Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 5`h Street and NE 1" Avenue NE 6`h Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 8`h Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 10`h Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 11 th Street and NE 1' Avenue NE 11 th Terrace and NE 1" Avenue NE 12`h Street and NE 1" Avenue Signal Modifications Required (Turning Movement) NE 29`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 14th Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE/NW 3rd Street and North Miami Avenue NW 3rd Street and NW 1" Avenue SW 1" Street and SW 1s` Avenue SE 1" Street and NE 1" Avenue NE 14`h Street and NE 1" Avenue 16.5 Alignment Impacts Implementation of the streetcar on the alignment described above would involve impacts on the existing infrastructure. The following are the impacted intersections requiring modification of the curb to accommodate the turning movement of the streetcar (listed in the order of stationing in the Preliminary Alignment Plans): NE 1' Avenue and NE 38`h Street Midtown Boulevard (NE 1' Place) and NE 29`h Street (proposed) NE 29`h Street and NE 2nd Avenue NE 2nd Avenue and NE 9`h Street North Miami Avenue and NW 3rd Street NW 3rd Street and NW 1" Avenue (very minor, possibly can be avoided) NE 2nd Avenue and NE 14th Street Parking impacts are also anticipated. It is assumed that approximately two to three on -street parking spaces would be lost to accommodate the station locations for the single -car stations, and approximately five to six parking spaces to accommodate the two -car stations in instances where the Bay Link system would share the station stops. The addition of streetcar platforms in the road network would result in a potential loss of 80 to 110 on -street parking spaces. However, along NE 2nd Avenue from NE 29th Street to NE 17`h Street, a total of approximately 100 to 150 on -street parking spaces are proposed to be added along both sides of the street. Parking now occurs in the outside travel lane of the existing four - lane undivided roadway but is either not metered or not enforced. The inclusion of on -street parking and intersection bulb -outs would allow the streetcar to function better by increasing pedestrian functionality and providing station locations. In addition, potential impacts would occur in conjunction with the need to raise the sidewalk to accommodate the boarding platform at locations where stations are adjacent to the sidewalk and no parking spaces are present. Because station locations have some flexibility, they should be shifted to ensure that impacts on the businesses and surrounding buildings are minimized. Lastly, a significant project impact would be associated with the lowering of NE 1" Avenue under Interstate 395, which would be required to meet the minimum 14 ft clearance under the overpass. Other solutions may be available and should be examined in the preliminary engineering phase of the project. 16.6 NE 2nd Avenue "Road Diet" Feasibility "Road diet" is a new term used to describe the conversion of existing multilane roadways into facilities that are leaner, more efficient, and friendlier to transit, bicycles, and pedestrians by reducing the number of lanes. The most common road diet involves converting a four -lane undivided roadway to a three - lane roadway having one through lane in each direction and a two-way left -turn lane or a median with turn bays, along with bike lanes or on -street parking. Numerous communities across the country have successfully made four- to three -lane roadway conversions on facilities carrying up to 25,000 vehicles per day. Miami Florida - NE 2nd Avenue, south ofNE 29' Street looking south Miami, Florida - NE 2' Avenue, north ofNE 15' Street looking north 16.6.1 NE 2nd Avenue Existing Conditions Between NE 17`h Street and NE 29`h Street, NE 2nd Avenue is a four -lane undivided minor arterial measuring 46 ft from curb to curb and a potential candidate for a conversion to three lanes. In this segment, on -street parking is allowed within the outside lanes during off-peak hours, although observations E, 16-5 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 indicate that the parking is used infrequently in many locations. No exclusive left- or right -turn lanes are provided. According to the City of Miami Comprehensive Plan, Transportation Element, Data Inventory and Analysis, November 2003, the current two-way peak -hour volume on this segment is 1,528 vehicles, and the roadway operates at a vehicular level of service (LOS) of "D". Based on the City's person trip methodology, however, this segment operates at an overall person trip LOS "B". City policy allows NE 2nd Avenue to reach 120 percent of vehicular and person trip capacity for LOS "E" due to its location in the urban infill area with the presence of transit service operating with less than 20-minute headways. As such, NE 2nd Avenue is operating acceptably during peak periods today. The segment of NE 2nd Avenue between NE 14th and 17`h Streets has two southbound lanes and one northbound lane, with on -street parking on both sides of the street. With a two-way peak -hour volume of 1,523 vehicles, this segment now operates at LOS "F", although it operates at LOS "B" based on the person trip methodology. It should be noted, however, that the capacity used to determine the existing vehicular LOS is based on a two-lane undivided roadway, and thus reflects only the operating conditions in the northbound direction. No exclusive turn lanes are provided in this roadway segment. Between NE 29`h Street and NE 14th Street, there are six signalized intersections along NE 2nd Avenue: NE 2nd Avenue/NE 29`h Street NE 2nd Avenue/NE 20`h Street NE 2nd Avenue/NE 19`h Street NE 2nd Avenue/NE 17`h Street NE 2nd Avenue/NE 15`h Street NE 2"d Avenue/NE 14`h Street The signal at each of these intersections operates as part of a coordinated system, with the exception of the 29`h Street intersection, which operates as an isolated intersection. The only intersections that currently have exclusive left -turn phases are NE 20`h Street (northbound left turns) and NE 19`h Street (southbound left turns). Because of the simple nature of the signal timings, with few exclusive phases for turning traffic, the northbound and southbound directions get a large percentage of the total cycle time, ranging from 55 to 80 percent. Without an exclusive left -turn phase at most of the signalized intersections, however, northbound and southbound vehicles making left turn movements block the inside lane until there is a gap of acceptable size in the opposing traffic stream. This effectively reduces the number of through lanes in each direction to one. 16.6.2 Advantages of NE 2nd Avenue Road Diet NE 2nd Avenue, between NE 14`h Street and NE 29`h Street would reap several benefits from conversion to three lanes: Reduced speeds —In a three -lane section, the prudent driver sets the speed for following vehicles, and aggressive driving at higher speeds and with multiple lane changes is minimized or eliminated. Improved sight distance —Vehicles making left turns from a center turn lane have better visibility than those making the same turn from the left through lane of a four -lane road, where visibility of oncoming traffic can be obscured by vehicles waiting to turn left from the opposite direction. A three -lane section also improves the sight distance for vehicles turning onto the roadway from side streets or driveways. Reduced crash rates —Studies of road diets have shown that crash rates are reduced after conversion to three -lane sections; for example, moving left -turning vehicles out of the through lanes into an exclusive turn lane reduces the frequency of rear -end crashes. Improved safety for pedestrians and transit users —Pedestrians and transit users tend to have difficulty crossing four -lane streets, but a three - lane street allows pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time; the center turn lane offers a refuge area, which can be further enhanced by mid -block crosswalks and pedestrian refuge islands. With the potential for increased transit use in the NE 2nd Avenue corridor, improvements to the pedestrian environment are especially critical. Improved emergency response time —Emergency vehicles can use the center turn lane to move around traffic in the outside lane without having to negotiate the opposing traffic lanes or opposing traffic flow. Vehicular capacity —The capacity of a three -lane roadway during peak hours is similar to that of a four -lane undivided roadway. On a four -lane section, the inside lane is used by left -turning traffic, which reduces the through vehicle capacity to one lane in many locations, such as at intersections. Minimal traffic diversion —After conversion to three lanes, most roadways experience little to no diversion of traffic to other routes. Downtown Miami has a grid street network. Therefore, any diverted traffic has several options for traveling SECTION 16 — Alignment north and south parallel to NE 2nd Avenue, such as on Biscayne Boulevard/US 1 (a principal arterial) or North Miami Avenue (a minor arterial), which are both within 0.25 mile of NE 2nd Avenue. Portland, Oregon - Bike lane treatment at Streetcar station 16.6.3 NE 2nd Avenue Issues and Options To complete a road diet on NE 2nd Avenue, there are several issues and options to consider. These include the proposed cross section of the street, station requirements and potential conflicts, and necessary infrastructure modifications. Several options are available on the northern portion of the segment between NE 17`h Street and NE 29`h Street, as follows: Option 1—Convert the cross section to three lanes with on -street parking on both sides of the street. This can be accomplished with three 10- ft lanes (including the center two-way left -turn lane) and 8-ft parking lanes. Option 2—Convert the cross section to three lanes with bike lanes. This can be accomplished 16-6 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Portland, Oregon - Cyclist follows bike lane behind sta platform with three 12-ft lanes and 5-ft bike lanes. Additionally, by narrowing the vehicle lane widths to 10 ft, the extra space created could be used to provide a 3-ft landscape buffer between the sidewalk and the edge of roadway. It is important to note that the Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's ) Bike Facilities Plan, 2001, includes NE 2nd Avenue between NE 87`h Street and NE 17`h Street as a Priority II on -road bicycle facility within the 2025 Minimum Revenue Plan of the Long Range Bicycle Plan. Option 3—A hybrid option between Options 1 and 2 is to convert the cross section to three lanes with bike lanes and with on -street parking on only one side of the street. To fit within the existing 46-ft width, this would require 9.5-ft through lanes, a 10-ft center turn lane, an 8-ft parking lane, a 5-ft bike lane adjacent to the parking lane, and a 4-ft bike lane on the side of the street opposite the parking lane. Providing a minimum 5-ft bike lane is imperative whenever the lane is located adjacent to on -street parking so that bicyclists have adequate space to avoid Portland, Oregon - Bike lane treatment at a Streetcar station getting "doored" by motorists exiting parked vehicles. These options need to be further evaluated with respect to the dynamic envelope of the selected streetcar vehicle. The dynamic envelope of the Skoda-Inekon Astra is 10 ft 9in. which would preclude reducing travel lane widths to less than this dimension. The segment of NE 2nd Avenue between NE 17`h Street and NE 14th Street, measuring 49 ft from curb to curb, has three lanes (two southbound lanes and one northbound lane, each 11 ft wide) with on -street parking on both sides of the street. Because this segment is already configured as three lanes, the only recommended change to the cross section is to convert the inside southbound lane to a two-way left -turn lane. The inclusion of on -street parking or bike lanes in the cross section of NE 2"d Avenue would allow for proper streetcar station design as a curb extension to be raised to the appropriate height to allow Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant boarding and alighting. Portland, Oregon - Bike lane rejoins roadway beyond the station However, if bike lanes are included in the design, there must be adequate provisions for bicyclists to travel past the streetcar station areas. While an on -street parking lane simply ends prior to the streetcar station, a bike lane should be carried through. However, it cannot be carried through between the streetcar track and the curb, as the streetcar track must be located directly adjacent to the curb at the stations. Also, maneuvering the bike lane to the left of the streetcar track at the stations would require the bicyclist to cross the track, increasing the potential for bicyclist accidents. The City of Portland has addressed this concern regarding bike lanes at the streetcar stations by ramping the bike lane up to the sidewalk level and directing cyclists behind the station platform and shelter. The bike lane then ramps back down to street level once past the streetcar station. Although this configuration avoids a conflict between bikes and the streetcar tracks, it creates another potential conflict between bicyclists and pedestrians between the sidewalk and the station platform. The primary infrastructure modifications required for the above options for the segment between NE 29`h Street and NE 17`h Street include the following: Relocation of curbs, with a narrow landscape buffer on each side of the roadway if Option 2 is selected Potential signal modifications, particularly re- alignment of signal heads over the correct lanes and potential signal -timing adjustments 16-7 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 17.0 STREETCAR STOPS Ft STATION AREAS 17.1 Station Design Guidelines The Miami Streetcar project includes 33 stations stops, six of which could be shared with the Bay Link project. Guidelines for the design of these stations are intended to focus preliminary design attention on passenger safety and comfort, identity for the streetcar, and "place -making " within the urban context of the corridor. A "place" -associated experience is important to transit riders who begin and end their trip as pedestrians. These guidelines are intended to establish design criteria, ensure reasonable maintenance, and allow for flexibility in station design. They suggest general solutions that can be repeated, or customized to respond to other land use regulations or district design criteria. 17.1.1 Station Area Layout for Streetcar Figure 17.1.1 illustrates a modular approach to station design that defines functional zones of the platform area. Each modular zone has recommended uses and components within the context of a fully developed streetcar station. Each zone can be larger or smaller depending on the space available. Passenger amenities and information can be incorporated into these zones, provided the minimum sidewalk and right-of-way conditions exist at a given stop location. BUILDING FRONTS C B Zone A L TYPICAL STATION FUNCTIONAL ZONES Primary Waiting and Loading Area Shelter Location/Orientation Station Microclimate/Protection Customer Information Primary Passenger Amenities System Identity Zone B Secondary Waiting and Loading Area Secondary Station Amenities Integration to Existing Streetscapes Public Art/Station Identity Customer or District Information Zone C Zone D Building Front Activity Pedestrian Clear Space Access to Transit Zones A & B Integrate Building/Streetscape/Transit Unobstructed View Pedestrian Safety for Access to Transit Streetscape Design for Transit Identity Access to Zones A & B Figure 17.1.1 Typical Station Functional Zones Figures 17.1.2 through 17.1.4 are prototypical layout diagrams for near- and far -side streetcar stations at street intersections. Near -side stations are located just before the intersection and far -side stations are located just after the intersection in accordance with the direction of travel. The diagrams do not represent every SECTION 17 — Streetcar Stops possible solution or condition. Station design guidelines may include: Passengers loading from intersection curb extensions where on -street parking exists A raised platform area that ADA-compliant slopes from regular sidewalk activities Station Areas A vehicle berthing area with a maximum length of 60 to 65 feet, including the fully accessible passenger loading area, which is 40 to 45 feet long (If station locations are shared by Bay Link and the Miami Streetcar, the length of the berthing area would increase to 200 to 220 feet.) Streetcar vehicles that remain in travel lanes at stations (No vehicle pull-out bays are anticipated due to space requirements.) Shelter space based on the station architectural concept, to be developed during preliminary design —preferably compatible with existing neighborhood character Final selection of the streetcar vehicle type, which can affect design refinements, particularly with regard to curb height and platform length Minimize encroachment on sidewalks Maximize opportunities for branding or advertising revenues Some stations may be located mid -block between intersections. These stations may serve special event and civic facilities, pedestrian promenades, or building breezeways in commercial districts where ridership Portland, Oregon —Streetcar Station Stops 17-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Station loea 18-20' Figure 17.1.2 Far Side Station Layouts 18-20' Figure 17.1.3 Near Side Station Layouts DOUBLE TRACK TWO-WAY STREET —Sheave Dmign Streetcar, auto lanes P 24-26' SINGLE TRACK TWO-WAY STREET Streetcar, m 24-26' Figure 17.1.4 Station Elevations CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY M[17-2 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 17 — Streetcar Stops Et Station Areas potential is high. Figure 17.1.5 illustrates prototypical layouts for these stations. Figure 17.1.6 depicts the concept of a station shared by Bay Link and the Miami Streetcar. In the event the Miami Streetcar becomes operational before Bay Link, the platform area could be constructed first for single - car loading and then expanded for two -car loading 17.1.2 Station Area Layout Parameters Further development of the station prototypes during preliminary design will include consideration of operating characteristics and basic dimensions of the selected transit vehicles, loading requirements, and safe passenger access. Adherence to operational and safety parameters is essential during the preliminary design of each station component. The height of a station platform is greater than that of the typical street curb. Design solutions will be required to resolve that vertical height difference. Based on the station layout diagrams, Figure 17.1.7 illustrates potential solutions for integrating stations into existing streetscapes and sidewalks. The station prototypes also allow flexibility in design. Each functional zone may have a component designed to respond to specific elements of the station environment, such as: Land uses and activities served by the station Streetscape qualities at the station location Transit system identity through station "place - making" design City/county/community redevelopment authority design guidelines Unique passenger safety and comfort needs Flexibility may also be needed to accommodate special identity issues for districts or neighborhoods. Community input and careful review of operating and safety requirements should be the primary protocol steps in responding to requests for flexibility. In some cases, flexibility may be needed in response to an atypical right-of-way constraint at a given stop. 17.1.3 Clearance Requirements at Stops Based on the station layout diagrams, the clearances are recommended (Table 17.1.1). Table 17.1.1 Clearance Requirements Description Requirement Sidewalk Clearance Accessible Pathway Road Clearance ADA Landing Area ADA Waiting Areas in Shelters Visibility Vertical Clearance Shelter Location Sight Distance Minimum 6 feet of sidewalk clearance behind shelter and platform elements Minimum 5 foot wide path be- tween shelter and any poles, kiosks, or street furniture Minimum 2 foot clearance be- tween shelter and edge of curb - tactile warning strip encouraged Minimum 5 foot x 8 inch "clear and level surface" perpendicular to the curb at vehicle door loca- tions Minimum of 4 feet of clear space for waiting area to accommodate mobility devices Shelter must not block motorists or pedestrians' tine of sight No shelter overhang, tree canopy or pole mast arms less than 8' above platform or sidewalk Shelter should be within a com- pact space, close to landing area for access to streetcar The shelter shall be placed so passengers waiting in the shelter can see approaching streetcars PASSENUER WA➢4'G AREA au as. Wale [1 BM ARRA MID -BLOCK STATION LAYOUT MID -BLOCK STATION LAYOUT AT EVENT AITRACTORS Figure 17.1.5 Mid -Block Station Layouts 17-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 17 — Streetcar Stops Et Station Areas STREETCAR / BAYLINK SHARED STATIONS PHASED CONSTRUCTION OPTION Figure 17.1.6 Shared Station Layout FAR SIDE STOP NEAR SIDE STOP Figure 17.1.7 Platform Access CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 17-4 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 .treetcar Stops Et Station Areas 17.1.4 Stop Locations Street intersections for stops have been identified on the proposed alignment plan (Figure 17.1.7). Table 17.1.2 suggests the preferred placement of stops for typical situations. Table 17.1.2 Placement Preferences Situation Preferred Placement If bus route on same street turns at intersection Far side Intersection with many auto right turns Complex intersection with multi- phase signals or dual turn lanes Near side curb extension prevents right turns in front of streetcar Major transit generator at near side and intersection is signalized Major transit generators is not served by stops at intersections Far side Far side Near side Near side Mid -block Mid -block pedestrian crossing or mid - block pedestrian access to major tran- Mid -block sit generator Figures 17.1.8 and 17.1.9 illustrate potential station location issues where the preferred alignment makes turns within the City street grid. Primary concerns are movement conflicts between streetcar and automobiles based on signal priority, momentary queuing space for automobiles at the station, and the required trackway radius through the intersection. 17.1.5 Passenger Amenities Passenger amenities may influence final station designs and architectural concepts. A full menu of passenger amenities should be available at streetcar stations. Recommended amenities are: Shelters —Shelters are required at all stops for microclimate comfort of passengers and system identity. The passenger capacity of shelters and the architectural design may vary according to the station environments. Setback and orientation guidelines should be provided. Customer Information —Schedule and route information are required at all stops, including transfer points, transit centers, new service, and special attractors served by transit. Information regarding special attractors may be more detailed at Downtown stops. Real-time information displays are an optional information enhancement for stations with high ridership or at transfer points. Audio information should also be considered for visually impaired passengers. Seating —Seating is required at all transit shelters. Additional seating, such as benches or raised planter walls, may be provided outside a shelter area where pedestrian activity and/or ridership is high. Where these amenities already exist, stop design and placement should attempt to retain them. Lighting —Overhead street lighting is required for street crossings and station locations. Additional shelter lighting is optional and can be integrated into the station environment characteristics and architectural design concepts. Bike Racks —Bicycle parking is required at stations with high ridership. Trash Cans —Trash cans are required at stations with high ridership. They are optional at other stops. Advertising Panels —Advertising panels are optional at selected stations. These panels may help offset shelter costs or operating costs and provide electrical service for additional station lighting and other amenities. Portland, Oregon —Raised Curb Station Platform Public Art —Public art is optional at selected stations. Art should promote system identity and strengthen ties to the district or destination served. Concessions and Newspaper Racks —Concessions and newspaper racks are optional within the sidewalk area at selected stations. Locations of such amenities should be within one-half block of the station if possible. Placement within station shelters or within the primary waiting and loading area is not recommended. Pay Telephones —Pay phones are optional within the sidewalk area at selected stations where public telephone service is not available within one block. Placing telephones in or on station shelters or within the primary waiting and loading area is not recommended. 17.1.6 Station Architecture Concepts Development of station architectural concepts is a critical early step in preliminary design for the Phase 1 of the Miami Streetcar. Concepts should be based on a design program for an integrated "kit of parts" for platforms and shelters. Such a design program organizes Tampa, Florida- TECO Streetcar Station functional elements, which are fixed, and separates them from customized elements. Fixed elements provide station identity, passenger orientation, and safety throughout the system. Customized elements can reinforce identity for a district or a specific stop location. Orlando, Florida —South Street Station Concept for Orlando LRT (SOURCE: Lynx Central Florida Rail Design Manual) 17-5 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 N 17 — Streetcar Stops Et Station Areas Figure 17.1.8 Station Locations at Route Turns Intersections with Signal Priority 7 AIME TURN PPANITIED IVISTREETCAR velRm.e SRACRRV6 BEHIND SRRRRRCAR EWA" TOM PI MONT Or STRIZTCAAPREVINTED • 1 / 1 / r / L RAW. (OP) EThia nl inl , 1—CCU - T T, TT EI rgT WADY IRAIX MIMI° RAMOS IND POTENTIAL CELN LICRWRRR OPPOSDRiQIRR R.O:WATO) Figure 17.1.9 Station Locations at Route Turns Intersections without Signal Priority CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 17-6 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 A kit of parts approach has advantages as follows: Capital cost savings through prefabrication Ease of maintenance and control of replacement parts Adaptability to future improvements This approach can also engage the community in developing the design concepts that respect distinctive neighborhood qualities and allow diversity of appearance while maintaining system identity. Local public art programs can be involved in station design themes, and station construction can include installation of specific artwork at all or selected stations. Goals and design criteria for each station component should be developed and approved by the operating agency prior to the station design phase of the project. Station architecture components include: Standard Components, which are pre -selected for the system and standardized for functional consistency, safety, and economy B Examples include but are not limited to: Communication equipment Station security equipment Schedule and information devices System signage Electrical systems and fixtures Tactile warning strips Platform access configuration options Modular Components, which are pre -selected for the system but can be arranged according to the station designer's choice B A base module can be established and the number of modules increased or decreased at certain stations in response to expected ridership or specific dimensional opportunities or constraints at the station location. Examples include but are not limited to: Windscreens and panels Selected information/a dvertising signage Schedule and information devices Selected railing or structural elements Site furnishings Station furnishings and accessories Ticket vending machines (if any) Customized Components, which are allowed in a palette of options for a range of design expression within districts or selected stations, such as those located near significant civic or cultural buildings — Depending on the final design program, some customized elements may be treated as modular elements. Examples include, but are not limited to: Shelter canopy design Glazing elements Platform paving materials Landscape materials "Totem" elements "Totem" refers to elements located within the platform area to either enhance the shelter architectural concept or reinforce visual identity for the transit system. As the name implies, this is "a strong vertical element. Possible totems include: Bosque of Trees Information kiosk designed of distinctive form Sculptural art Distinctive pedestrian -scale light poles and luminaries SECTION 17 — Streetcar Stops Et Sta; 17.1.7 System Identity Issues The degree of system identity achieved through station design should be a clearly stated goal of the design program, including stations that will be shared with the Bay Link system. Standard, modular, and customized components can be assigned a role and value in meeting that goal. For instance, shelter canopies are the most visually significant elements in the whole "family" of stations. Canopies that express a consistent design theme versus a customized design that reinforces diverse district identities will be a basic programming decision. A design approach that emphasizes district identity might include analysis of the district's visual qualities. In such an analysis, distinguishing visual qualities are identified and mixed with ideas about the uses, history, and spirit of each district to develop possible design expressions suitable for the stations. Forms and materials for the ideas can be combined with the station layout diagrams to produce an architectural concept for each station within the district. A liamr, Florida 17.2 Station Area Planning Streetcars have unique "place -making" and urban design qualities. They can be both a catalyst and link for an enhanced pedestrian environment, public art, and high- quality urban design. The primary opportunities are: Signature streets Pedestrian movement leading to the station Basis for the character of a district 17.2.1 Signature Streets Streetcars are, among transit modes, most clearly part of the streetscape. The look and operating speed of the vehicles and the permanence of the tracks begin to create a signature street. The signature is complete when the station setting becomes visible as part of the streetscape, pedestrian enhancements are extended from the station, and redevelopment occurs. Modern streetcars , as if they were moving urban furniture, are easily integrated into the streetscape and surrounding buildings because of their size, speed, and the visual transparency afforded by their large windows. 17.2.2 Pedestrian System All transit riders begin and end their trip as pedestrians (this includes those on bicycle, wheelchairs, strollers and other means). The quality of the experience getting to and from the stations can influence the "choice" transit rider. Qualities of that environment should match the qualities of the station environment and the ride in the streetcar itself. Development of the Miami Streetcar can be an opportunity to identify and evaluate the primary pedestrian network that serves each station. Suggested limits of the pedestrian CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 17-7 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 network analysis are 5- and 10-minute walk distances from each station. Based on that evaluation, design guidelines for the desired pedestrian qualities of those routes can be developed and implemented as simultaneous or subsequent projects. The guidelines can serve both publicly and privately initiated projects that will affect the urban design context of the streetcar system. Implementation should result in pedestrian -scale improvements arranged to integrate the streetcar stop and its pedestrian access within the City street system. At a minimum, the performance goals for the pedestrian's walk to the streetcar should be: • Continuous walkway • Personal safety • Minimum time and distance • Physical comfort • User-friendly pedestrian system 17.2.3 District Character In additional to the redevelopment potential associated with streetcar development, there is usually an intensification of sidewalk activity within one to two blocks of the stations that is directly influenced by the streetcar hours of operation. In addition to the positive effects of increased walk -by traffic, businesses often update their advertising to indicate their proximity to the streetcar. It becomes a part of their "address". Stations themselves can become a temporary social space shared by transit patrons, sometimes reinforced by nearby outdoor seating for cafes and coffee shops. Examples of City of Miami visions that can benefit from its streetcar include: ■ ■ Flagler Street redesign and streetscape improvements in proximity to the streetcar alignment Entertainment District and Promenade Midtown Miami Redevelopment Miami Design District Jewelry District streetscape improvements The Performing Arts Center } Miami, Florida —Station Area Concept Tampa, Florida—TECO Streetcar Typical Station .treetcar Stops Et Station Areas Miami Florida —Proposed Bay Link Typical Statio CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 17-8 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 18.0 MAINTENANCE FACILITY £t SUBSTATION LOCATIONS 18.1 Maintenance and Operations Facility Potential locations for a maintenance and operations facility (MOF) were analyzed to determine the viability of each location. Any selected site must be large enough to accommodate a vehicle maintenance building, storage and maintenance tracks for the streetcar vehicles, and employee parking. The maintenance building should be approximately 10,000 sq ft, with the first level consisting of maintenance bays for up to two streetcar vehicles, wheel truing equipment, truck replacement capability, as well as vehicle cleaning and fare collection facilities. The facility should also include a paint spray booth, maintenance pits, and mezzanine maintenance structures for rooftop equipment maintenance. The upper level could house administrative and support functions including a streetcar control center. The external yard would have a storage capacity for approximately 20 streetcar vehicles. Potential MOF sites were evaluated using a set of criteria including site configuration, land use, location/ distance from the streetcar alignment, environmental impacts, existing and future land use, and site access. SECTION Portland, Oregon - Maintenance Facility Site configuration criteria for the MOF site include: Minimum practical size of 2.5 to 3 acres for 20 vehicles (7 to 10 acres if the MOF is to be shared with Bay Link) Minimum site dimension of 250 feet (350 feet preferable) Minimum track curvature radius of 80 feet Relatively level across long dimension Operational considerations for the MOF site include: The site size should accommodate the vehicle maintenance building, vehicle storage tracks, a car washing facility, a substation for traction power, stormwater retention, and parking for employees and visitors. Storage capacity should be large enough for an initial fleet size of eight vehicles; space to accommodate up to 20 vehicles would be desirable. The site should be in an industrial -type land use with compatible surrounding land uses; site characteristics include 24-hour operation, three shift changes, some noise, bright lights, a storage yard, and primarily nighttime vehicle Portland, Oregon -Maintenance Facility maintenance (1:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.) while the fleet is out of service. The site should be either adjacent to the streetcar line or close enough to the main line to reduce non -revenue service to the extent possible; it should preferably be located on a section of the track where no passengers are carried and which is used only for connecting the MOF to the operating line. If future phases or extensions of the initial line are anticipated, the MOF site location can be assessed to include these considerations. The site should have good access from major surface streets for employees and delivery trucks. Access should not require employees and delivery trucks to traverse a residential area. Typically, the site should be oblong or rectangular in shape. A general layout of the site should be developed early in the evaluation process to confirm functionality. The MOF requires all major utilities: water, sewer, electric, and communications. Considerations regarding acquisition of the MOF site include: Reasonable cost. The potential for shared use with Bay Link and additional size requirements. Minimal business and residential displacements, to the extent possible —If there are perceived impacts on any adjacent properties, the possibility for mitigation should be addressed, and some assessment of the cost of mitigation should be included in the acquisition cost assessment. Potential for joint use of the MOF—For example, the maintenance bays and parking could be located on the lower floor(s), and commercial or industrial office space on the upper floors. Potential site contamination —A survey should be conducted upon approval from the property owner. A number of potential MOF sites were identified and evaluated based on these considerations. Data was collected from aerial photographs, property ownership records, and visual observation. At this time, there are several locations that may satisfy the criteria for an MOF site. The selection of a final MOF site should be part of the design of the project so that timely acquisition of the site can be completed. 18.2 Traction Electrification System For this project, a traction electrification system (TES) would provide power to the streetcars at 750 volts DC. The TES would consist of three major elements: Substations, converting commercial AC power to 750 volts DC 1 18-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 8 — Maintenance Facility Et Substation Locations Overhead contact system carrying 750 volts DC from the substations to the streetcars Running rails, welded and electrically bonded to ensure the integrity of the return circuit Traction power substations would feed power to the OCS. The OCS design should minimize visual impacts while controlling costs. The substation size should be coordinated with the OCS. For larger substations (1 MW), either a full catenary system consisting of both a messenger and a contact wire or a single contact wire OCS with parallel feeders in an underground conduit must be used. For smaller, more closely spaced substations, a single contact wire without feeders may be used. The reason for this is voltage drop, which becomes a concern with the higher current levels in acceleration. The longer the distance and the less copper in the air, the larger the voltage drop. Within this context, the location and size of substations is variable and interdependent. For instance, 350 kW substations would need to be located approximately every 0.5 mile along the streetcar alignment, whereas 1 MW substations would be located approximately every mile. However, a 1 MW substation would require a larger site than a 350 kW substation. Given their smaller size, 350 kW substations offer the most flexibility for placement along the streetcar alignment, with minimal property acquisition requirements. The general equipment size of a 350 kW substation is approximately 4 feet by 10 feet. The space required by a 350 kW substation depends on where the substation is placed. At a location where it is exposed to weather, the substation is placed in an enclosure for protection. For a 350 kW substation, the enclosure would be approximately 12 feet by 20 feet, allowing sufficient room for access to the electrical equipment within the enclosure. In open locations, a plot of about 18 feet by 26 feet is needed to provide 3 feet around each side of the substation for a perimeter ground. When placed in a protected location (such as a parking garage), a substation can be protected using a cement block firewall with doors that provide sufficient clearance for access to the electrical equipment. Such an enclosure requires the equivalent of about two parking spaces. A 1 MW substation of 20 feet by 40 feet, together with its ground mat, requires a plot of about 30 feet by 60 feet. General criteria for the substation sites include: Substations must be sized and spaced to provide adequate power to streetcars at all points along the line, and to provide sufficient capacity such that operations can continue with one substation off-line. Substations should be located either adjacent to the streetcar line or close enough to the line to require as short a power feed line as possible. Substations should be located on public property to the greatest extent possible to minimize the potential for property acquisition. Substation locations should have good access from roads for maintenance. Urban design aesthetics play an important role in decisions regarding the TES. For this project, these goals can be best achieved using a feederless single contact wire OCS and a larger number of smaller substations. OCS support and streetlights or traffic lights should use the same poles. Wherever possible, OCS span wires should be attached directly to buildings to reduce the number of poles needed. To the extent possible, uniformity in system equipment is a desirable characteristic. Generally, the number of substations is not large but the cost of spare parts is significant. With more than one type of substation and/ or OCS design, it would be necessary to stock at least small quantities of a larger variety of expensive parts. Locations for substations have not been selected at this point in time. The siting of substations should be part of the design phase. During design, the location and sizing of the substations and OCS will be modeled and optimized. For this work, the guiding principle is "whatever is best for the project." Portland, Oregon —Maintenance and Operations' Facility Portland, Oregon —Traction Power Substation 18-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 19.0 CAPITAL Et OPERATING COSTS 19.1 Capital Costs Construction costs are one-time capital expenditures. The capital cost for the proposed City of Miami Streetcar system was developed based on the constructed Portland Streetcar project and was refined for local conditions, as identified through numerous field visits. Because of the large number of unknown factors at this point in project development, such as utility locations and street reconstruction, several assumptions had to be made to develop the construction cost estimate presented in Table 19.1.1. This construction cost estimate includes the cost of preliminary engineering, final design, vehicle procurement, and program management as well as a 30 percent contingency. The contingency was added to the single- and double -track cost -per -mile estimates and the maintenance and operations facility (MOF) as well as the required at -grade Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway crossings. The estimated capital cost of the proposed system is approximately $132.2 million in 2004 dollars, which is approximately $19.6 million per route mile including the proposed MOF. 19.1.1 Assumptions It was assumed that the capital cost estimate is for the City of Miami Streetcar system only, with the exception that the MOF site is sized large enough to accommodate the Bay Link system in the future. The following lists —�—_ some of the other assumptions made to arrive at the preliminary construction cost estimates. Items unknown at this feasibility phase were accounted for in contingency. General Assumptions Eight Portland -type vehicles (Inekon-Skoda Astra), 750 volts DC Track slab design with girder rail and embedded turnouts Basic station stop configuration with custom - designed shelters and amenities Table 1 Construction Cost Track, Roadway and Utility Unit Costs Single Track Items Traffic Control and Mobilization (10%) Roadway Stations (Platform and Shelter)(6 per mile) Utilities Track a Traction Power Subtotal Single Track Cost Subtotal Double Track Cost * Track, Roadway and Utility Costs Single Track Double Track Subtotal Track, Roadway and Utility Costs Maintenance Facility Property Acquisition Facility 0.75 miles Double Track Railroad Crossings - (2®$1.25 Million each) Subtotal Maintenance Facility FEC Rail Crossings (4 ® $1.25 Million each) Subtotal Construction Costs SECTION A 141-1b RE rail and full signalization for the crossings of the FEC Railway branch line and Port of Miami switching lead Track Work Track slab 8 ft 2 in. wide by 12 in. thick with a 1 percent cross slope Minimum soil support pressure 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) Double flexieve tongue turnouts with spring actuated throw mechanisms and guarded frogs Rubber rail boot to protect against stray current Turnout tubs and spray on insulation material to protect against stray current in the turnouts 9.1.1 Estimate (2004) 690,000 1,810,000 390,000 900,000 3,800,000 $ 7,590,000 $ 12,700,000 Feet 16,700 9,471 Contingency (30%) Vehicles (8 at $2.33 Million each) Total Construction Costs Design / Construction Management Costs Preliminary, Final Design and Vehicle Procurement® 12% ** Construction Management ® 4% ** Total Design/CM Costs TOTAL PROJECT COST Per Mile Per Mile Miles 3.16 1.79 Cost per Mile $ 7,590,000 $ 12,700,000 Cost $ 23,990,000 $ 22,790,000 $ 46,780,000 5,000,000 9,000,000 9,525,000 2,500,000 26,025,000 5,000,000 77,805,000 23,350,000 18,640,000 119, 795, 000 $ 9,340,000 $ 3,120,000 $ 12,460,000 $ 132,255,000 * Double Track per mile cost estimated to be 2/3 higher than Single Track due to construction overlap/redundancy. ** Vehicle and Contingency not included in percent calculation. Assumes Design Build procurement Custom -designed rigid crossings for intersecting streetcar lines Roadway/Civi I Roadway milling and resurfacing throughout to meet the new track slab cross slope and to facilitate proper storm drainage Excavation and compaction to a depth of 14 to 18 in. by 10 ft wide, depending on the roadway profile. to install the track slab Re -striping and addition of new signing Curb replacement and installation for on -street parking Utilities Relocation of all underground parallel water, sanitary sewer, storm, gas, and telephone lines that are under the proposed track slab Relocation of or increase in the height of all overhead lines (telephone, electric, and cable television) that are less than 26 ft above the top of the rail Lowering, or encasing, and provision of cathodic protection for all underground utilities that are less than 24 in. below the bottom of the track slab Traction Power Pole spacing approximately 80 ft apart Steel, tapered poles For double -track segments, poles on both sides of the street or attachment to adjacent buildings with span wires to support the traction power wires For single-track segments, one pole or attachment to the Metromover supports as appropriate Small 350 kW substations spaced approximately 0.5 mile apart to provide traction power Maintenance Facility A 7- to 10-acre parcel to accommodate both the Miami Streetcar system and the Bay Link system A facility to service and store the eight City vehicles plus the Bay Link vehicles A location within 0.75 mile of the mainline 19-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 19 — Capital Operating Costs FEC Crossings At -grade rail -to -rail crossings utilizing concrete embedded track work Installation of a remote interlocking signal system to meet Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) requirements and an upgraded crossing protection system Isolation of the FEC Railway track from stray current Design of new systems included in streetcar design costs 19.1.2 Bay Link Share Through coordination with the Bay Link project, it is understood that the Bay Link system will share facilities with the Miami Streetcar system. Some basic assumptions were made regarding the shared costs related to the Bay Link project, including a 50 percent share rate for the estimated cost of these facilities as well as the same contingency and design percentages. To estimate the share cost, preliminary assessments of track sharing were made for both single- and double - track sections assuming the following shared track sections : Shared Single Track NE 9`h Street from NE 2"d Avenue to Miami Avenue Miami Avenue from NE 9`h Street to NW 3rd Street NW 3rd Street from Miami Avenue to NW 1 s` Avenue NW 1s' Avenue from NW 3rd Street to SW 1 ` Street SW 1 ` Street from NW 1 s` Avenue to Miami Avenue SE 1 s` Street from Miami Avenue to SE 1 s` Avenue NE 1 ` Avenue from NW 3rd Street to NE 14th Street NE 14`h Street from NE 1 s` Avenue to NE 2nd Avenue NE 2nd Avenue from NE 14th Street to NE 9`h Street Shared Double Track NE 2nd Avenue from NE 17`h Street to NE 14th Street A portion of the track listed above is necessary to reach the proposed MOF. Table19.1.2 indicates the cost of these shared facilities as $72.4 million. Applying the assumed 50 percent share rate, the total cost assumed to be the responsibility of the Bay Link project is $36.2 million. Shared Single Track Shared Double Track* Railroad Crossings 2 at $1.25 Million Each 19.2 Operating Costs 19.2.1 Operating Plan A sketch streetcar operating plan was developed for purposes of generating operating and maintenance (00M) costs and vehicle fleet requirements and as an input for the ridership model. Tables 19.2.1 and 19.2.2 provide distances and run times for northbound and southbound operations. As shown, the estimated end -to -end run times are approximately 24 and 23 minutes, respectively. Table 19.1.2 Bay Link's Share -Cost Estimate (2004) Maintenance Facility Subtotal Construction Costs Contingency (30%) Total Construction Costs Design / Construction Management Costs Preliminary, Final Design and Vehicle Procurement@ 12% ** Construction Management @ 4% ** Total Design/Construction Management Costs Total Cost of Items to be Shared BAY LINK SHARE (50%) Bay Link Share of Total Project Cost Notes: Feet 12,800 1,100 Miles Cost Per Mile 2.42 $ 7,590,000 0.21 $ 12,700,000 Cost 18,400,000 2,650,000 2,500,000 26,025,000 49,575,000 14,880,000 $ 64,455,000 5,950,000 1,990,000 7,940,000 72,395,000 36,198,000 27.37% Shared Single Track Calculation: NE 9th Street to Miami Ave, to NW 3rd St, to NW 1St Ave, to SW 1st Street to SE 1st Avenue = 6,100 feet NE 1st Avenue from NE 3rd Street to 14th Street and 14th Street to NE 2nd Avenue = 4,700 feet NE 2nd Avenue from NE 14th Street to NE 9th Street = 2,000 feet Total Single Track = 12,800 feet Shared Double Track Calculation: NE 2nd Avenue from NE 17th Street to NE 14th Street = 1,100 feet Total Double Track = 1,100 feet * Double Track per mile cost estimated to be 2/3 higher than Single Track due to construction overlap/redundancy. **Vehicle and Contingency not included in percent calculation. Assumes Design Build procurement. The run time and distance information in Tables 19.2.1 and 19.2.2 was also used to estimate vehicle fleet requirements. The current recommended plan is to provide peak and off-peak service at 10 minute headways along the entire route. In addition, a 20 percent fleet adjustment should be made for in-service vehicles or a minimum of two additional cars, whichever is greater, to calculate the total fleet requirements. Therefore, based on the in-service vehicle estimates in Table 19.2.3, the estimated minimum fleet should be eight vehicles for the initial system running from Government Center to the Miami Design District and Buena Vista East Historic District. 19.2.2 Costs Unlike one-time capital expenditures, annual 00M costs must be estimated to determine the actual cost of the proposed system. The Portland Streetcar was used as the basis for the annual 08M costs and adjusted for use in the Miami project in 2004 dollars. The Portland Streetcar revenue service hour costs were assembled from 2001 to 2003. To evaluate costs within the City of Miami, bus OftM costs were compared and an adjustment factor was created to account for the differences in the two cities. The number of required vehicles to provide service along the proposed alignment was estimated assuming a 10-minute headway. Then the number of revenue service hours was calculated assuming a 16-hour-per-day operating scenario, Monday through Saturday, and 12 hours on Sunday. In addition to the basic costs for service, the project would have some unique costs to cross the FEC Railway multiple times. Table 19.2.4 summarizes the 00M costs, which total $3.5 million annually in 2004 dollars. 19-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Table 19.2.1 Northbound Train Distances and Run Times Running Along Car Stop Feet Miles Post Minutes Minutes SW 1st St. NW 1st Ave. -- -- 0.00 -- -- SW 1st St. NE 1st Ave. 990 0.19 0.19 1.1 1.5 NE 2nd Ave. NW 1st. St. 675 0.13 0.32 0.8 1.0 NE 1st Ave NW 4th St 1160 0.22 0.54 1.3 1.5 NE 1st Ave NW 6th St. 710 0.13 0.67 0.8 1.0 NE 1st Ave NW 8th St. 780 0.15 0.82 0.9 1.0 NE 1st Ave NW 11th St. 1150 0.22 1.04 1.3 1.5 NE 1st Ave NW 14th St. 1350 0.26 1.29 1.5 1.5 NE 2nd Ave. NE 17th St. 1900 0.36 1.65 2.2 2.5 NE 2nd Ave. NE 19th St. 890 0.17 1.82 1.0 1.0 NE 2nd Ave. NE 23rd St. 1600 0.30 2.12 1.8 2.0 NE 2nd Ave. NE 26th St. 930 0.18 2.30 1.1 1.5 NE 2nd Ave. NE 29th St. 860 0.16 2.46 1.0 1.0 Midtown NE 30th St. 1280 0.24 2.70 1.5 1.5 Midtown NE 32nd St. 750 0.14 2.85 0.9 1.0 NE 2nd Ave. NE 36th St. 1300 0.25 3.09 1.5 2.0 NE 2nd Ave. NE 39th St. 770 0.15 3.24 0.9 1.0 NE 2nd Ave. NW 40th St. 830 0.16 3.39 0.9 1.0 Total Line North 17,925 3.39 20.4 23.5 Mile Estimated Schedule Table 19.2.2 Southbound Train Distances and Run Times Running Along Car Stop NE 2nd Ave. NW 40th St. -- NE 1st Ave NW 39th St. 900 NE 1st Ave NW 36th St. 800 Midtown NW 32nd St. 1300 Midtown NW 30th St. 730 NE 2nd Ave. NW 29th St. 1220 NE 2nd Ave. NE 26th St. 880 NE 2nd Ave. NE 23rd St. 960 NE 2nd Ave. NE 19th St. 1520 NE 2nd Ave. NE 17th St. 910 NE 2nd Ave. NE 14th St. 1630 NE 2nd Ave. NE 11th St. 1050 N. Miami Feet SECTION 19 - Capital Et Operating Costs Table 19.2.3 Estimates of In -Service Cars Varying with Line Lengths and Service Frequency (Headway) Estimated Estimated Cars Given Service Miles Minutes Headways Round Complete 5 7.5 10 From To Link Cume Link Cume Trip Cycle Mins Mins Mins From Government Center Flagler at SW 2nd Av NE 4th 0.7 0.7 5.0 5.0 10 15 3 2 2 NE 17th St 1.0 1.7 6.5 11.5 23 30 6 4 3 NE 36th 1.3 3.0 9.0 20.5 41 45 9 6 5 NE 40th 0.2 3.2 1.0 21.5 43 50 10 7 6 Table 19.2.4 Annual Operating Et Maintenance Cost Estimate Portland Streetcar Inc. Revenue Service Hour (RSH) Costs Existing RSH Existing RSH Average Annual Inflation Estimate 3.0% Estimated RSH Year Cost 2001 $ 115.17 2003 $ 122.00 2004 $ 125.66 Notes Mile Estimated Schedule PortlandlMiami Adjustment Based on Bus O&M Costs per RVH Miles Post Minutes Minutes 0 Year Cost per RVH Notes Miami (Miami Dade Transit) 2002 $ 78.55 Based on National Transit Database 0.17 0.17 1.0 1.0 Portland (TriMet) 2002 $ 90.48 0.15 0.32 0.9 1.0 0.25 0.57 1.5 1.5 0.14 0.71 0.8 1.0 Estimated Miami Streetcar Cost per RVH 0.23 0.94 1.4 1.5 0.17 1.10 1.0 1.0 Year Cost per RVH Notes 0.18 1.29 1.1 1.5 2004 $ 109.32 Estimated Rounded Miami Cost per RVH $ 110.00 0.29 1.57 1.7 2.0 0.17 1.75 1.0 1.0 Estimated Miami Streetcar RVH 0.31 2.05 1.9 2.0 0.20 2.25 1.2 1.5 Annual RVH Notes Ave. NW 8th St. 2100 0.40 2.65 2.4 2.5 N. Miami Ave. NW 6th St. 720 0.14 2.79 0.8 1.0 N. Miami Ave. NW 4th St. 720 0.14 2.92 0.8 1.0 NW 1st Ave. NW 3rd St. 800 0.15 3.08 0.9 1.0 NW 1st Ave. NW 1st St. 710 0.13 3.21 0.8 1.0 NW 1st Ave. SW 1st. St. 855 0.16 3.37 1.0 1.0 Total line South 17,805 3.37 20.2 22.5 Adjustment Factor 87.0% Number of Vehciles Monday to Saturday Service Sunday Service Total RVH per Vehicle Total System RVH 5 4,992 624 5,616 28,080 Operating and Maintenance Costs O&M using RVH $ 3,100,000 Miscellaneous O&M Costs $ 400,000 TOTAL O&M COSTS $ 3,500,000 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 10 Minute Headways 16 Hours per day 12 Hours per Day 19-3 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 20.0 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Section 19, Cost Estimates, provides an estimate of capital and operating costs for the Miami Streetcar project. Total capital costs at this stage of project development are estimated to be in the range of $133 million (2004 dollars). Table 20.1 shows the breakdown of capital costs by components. Table 20. 1 - Capital Costs ($1,000) Track, Roadway, Utilities $ 62,322 Maintenance Facility (including site acquisition) FEC Rail Crossings Sub -total Construction Vehicles $ 33,833 $ 5,000 $ 101,155 $ 18,640 Design Construction Management TOTAL $ 9,340 $ 3,120 $ 132,255 Annual operating costs are estimated at $3.5 million (2004 dollars) for 2008, the year in which service would begin. The proposed Streetcar operating plan, which provides the basis for the operating cost estimate, is contained in Section 19, Cost Estimates. 20.1 Capital Funding Sources Funding of capital costs is anticipated from a variety of programs and sources. Grants, loans, and other debt structures were explored, along with real estate -related revenue sources and contributions from local agencies that stand to benefit from the project. The following describes each funding source and provides an assessment of its applicability to the Streetcar project. 20.1.1 Federal Federal funds typically are involved in the funding of new rail system initiatives. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers funding programs designed to assist local agencies fund new rail starts. Competition for FTA "New Starts" funding is fierce nationally as many cities around the country develop "New Starts" projects, seeking Federal participation as a principal funding source. For example, FTA received over 60 applications for "New Starts" projects this year. The cost of new rail systems can be high, sometimes in the billions of dollars. As a result, the FTA process for qualifying a project for "New Starts" funding is very structured and comprehensive. New Federal transportation legislation is currently under consideration by the U.S. Congress. One of the initiatives under consideration is the creation of a "Small Starts" program designed for projects that require generally less than $75 million in Federal funds. Proposals differ between the House and Senate bills, but transit advocates are seeking more simplified requirements for qualifying less expensive, smaller projects to receive Federal funds. Depending on the outcome of the legislation, this new program initiative may be a potential source of funds for the Miami Streetcar project, providing as much as 50 percent of the total project capital costs. 20.1.2 State Table 20.1.1 provides a preliminary assessment of potential state funding sources administered by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Both grant programs and FDOT's State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) were explored. FDOT administers grant programs to assist local agencies in funding new rail initiatives. Some are discretionary programs where awards are made from a Funding Source/Program SECTION 20 — Financial Feasibility statewide pool of funds. Others, such as FDOT's Intermodal Development Program, are administered by the FDOT district offices from a specific allocation of funds available to each district. The most notable recent example of state discretionary grant awards is FDOT's commitment of $100 million to accelerate Miami -Dade County's planned Earlington Heights Metrorail connection to the proposed Miami Intermodal Center. There is a high probability that this pool of discretionary funds, along with other grant funds allocated to FDOT's Miami district office, would be available to assist the City with funding the capital costs of the Miami Streetcar project. Table 20.1.1 Preliminary Assessment of State Funding Sources Implementing Agency Description Associated Issues Revenue Potential Transit/Rail Service Development Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Parkand Ride; Commuter Assistance Intermodal Development Public Transit Block Grants FDOT Discretionary funding allocated to specific projects by FDOT policy makers to assist in initiating new transit or rail service. Assistance can be either capital or operating grants, although operating assistance is limited to a defined timeframe - typically three years. FDOT A new initiative by FDOT to provide funding for statewide and regionally significant transportation facilities and services. FDOT FDOT FDOT State Infrastructure FDOT Bank (SIB) Loans Programs to facilitate the use of car pools/vanpools by providing funding for planning, marketing, and capital projects. Program designed to provide funding for improved access, connections to other modes (airports, seaports, rail, etc.), and to facilitate intermodal or multi - modal movement of people and goods. Formula grants to established transit providers (MDT) for use on capital projects or operating assistance. Provides low interest loans for transportation projects - all modes. Repayment terms are flexible and are negotiated on a case -by -case basis. Project must be consistent with the local comprehensive plan, and be included in MPO plan and TIP. Initial focus is on improving intercity transportation corridors, rather than local services. Not designed for the Streetcar project. Project must be consistent with the local comprehensive plan, and be included in MPO plan and TIP. Project must be consistent with the local comprehensive plan, and be included in MPO plan and TIP. Project must be consistent with the local comprehensive plan, and be included in MPO plan and TIP. High potential. Can be as much as 50% of the non-federal share of capital and operating costs. Low potential. Low potential. High potential. Medium potential. Provides a recurring source of state funds for operating assistance to existing transit agencies. High potential. SIB loan awards vary by project. FY 04/05 awards averaged close to 15% of project costs. 2011 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 The SIB provides loans to eligible transportation projects at very competitive interest rates and flexible repayment terms. Since its inception, SIB loans have totaled approximately $650 million, representing approximately 15 percent of total project costs. Interest rates applied to these loans have generally been in the 0 to 2 percent range, with repayment terms ranging from as little as 2 years to as much as 30 years. The SIB provides an excellent opportunity for the City to cost-effectively leverage its share of the County half - cent sales tax increase, which is supporting implementation of the County's Peoples Transportation Plan (PTP). SIB loan applications are reviewed annually (typically end of September) for the subsequent fiscal year. Therefore, a SIB loan may not be applicable for items with long lead times, such as vehicle procurement or maintenance facility property acquisition. A SIB loan would be more suitable for construction costs incurred in 2006 to 2008. 20.1.3 Local Table 20.1.2 provides a preliminary assessment of local funding sources potentially available to fund the capital costs of the Miami Streetcar project. The assessment included a review of the following sources: PTP revenues -County portion, PTP revenues -City portion, parking -related revenues, real -estate -related revenues, and potential contributions from other local agencies. Bay Link Joint Use Funding: On -going coordination with the study team responsible for Miami -Dade County's proposed Bay Link project, a new rail initiative linking Downtown Miami to Miami Beach, revealed that there are opportunities for joint use of project Table 20.1.2 Preliminary Assessment of Local Funding Sources Funding Implementing Source/Program Agency Peoples Transportation Plan Revenues - County Portion Peoples Transportation Plan Revenues - City Portion County Funding In Lieu of Bus Service Parking Related Reve- nues Miami -Dade County City of Miami Miami -Dade County Description Bay Link project will share portions of the Miami Streetcar guideway and potentially its maintenance facilities. The County has expressed a willingness to also share in the cost of these joint use facilities. City receives approximately $9-10$ million per year in PTP revenues; at least 20% must be used for transit improvements. MDT provides bus service in the Miami Streetcar project corridor. Replacement of bus service with Streetcar service potentially frees MDT operating funds. City of Miami Park- Parking Authority manages in excess ing Authority of 17,000 parking spaces, of which over 6,900 are metered spaces on City streets. Either an increase in parking rates or an expansion of parking facilities to support the Streetcar project could generate additional revenue. Associated Issues Timing of Bay Link project is long-term, thus no immediate benefit to County. Countywide prioritization of PTP revenues. Funds can be used for pay-as- you-go requirements or to repay debt. Citywide prioritization of PTP revenues. Funding in lieu would com- pete with other MDT system wide operating priorities. Revenue Potential High potential. Negotiate appropriate County share of joint use facilities costs. High potential. Optimum use may be to leverage a modest revenue stream to leverage capital financing, leaving a resid- ual portion to fund operat- ing costs. Medium potential. Parking facilities coverage Needs further analysis and supporting the Streetcar pro- coordination with the Park- ject corridor should be as- ing Authority. sessed. Tax Increment Financ- ing N/A Future redevelopment in the Miami Much of the corridor is cov- Streetcar corridor could yield incre- ered by the existing Commu- mental increases in ad valorem tax nity Redevelopment Districts. revenue. Formation of a new devel- opment district could yield revenues for the project. Needs further analysis to assess and quantify reve- nue potential. Other Real Estate Re- lated Revenue Contributions by Local Agencies. N/A N/A Formation of a business improve- A majority of property owners Needs further analysis to ment district (BID) can yield real must agree to a self assess- assess and quantify reve- estate related revenue for improve- ment. nue potential. ments in a defined area. Notable examples include the Miracle Mile BID in Coral Gables and the Times Square Alliance BID in New York. The Streetcar project will aid exist- ing organizations such as the Com- munity Redevelopment Agency and the Downtown Development Author- ity in carrying out their missions. Contributions by these agencies should be explored. N/A Needs further coordination with potential contributing agencies. facilities. For example, the Bay Link project and the Miami Streetcar project could effectively share track/ guideway in the downtown area. Additionally, a shared maintenance facility would be a much more cost effective scheme compared to each project having its own maintenance facility and equipment. The estimated total cost of these potential joint use facilities is approximately $72 million. Although further coordination is required between the City and Miami - Dade County, an equal sharing of these costs would result in the County/Bay Link project contributing approximately $36 million toward these joint use facilities. The joint use facilities contribution thus would become a capital funding source for the Miami Streetcar project. Peoples Transportation Plan Revenues: Estimated PTP revenue allocations for the City of Miami (the City) are shown in Table 20.1.3. Also shown in Table 20.1.3 is the potential allocation of the City's total PTP revenue that must be spent on transit projects. A minimum of 20 percent of the PTP revenue must be spent by the City on transit projects; however, the Table 20.1.3 City of Miami Allocation of PTP Revenues ($1,000) 16% 20% 16% 20% Transit 5,025 5,327 5,647 5,985 6,345 6,725 7,129 7,556 8,010 8,490 9,000 9,540 10,112 10,719 11,362 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 10,688 11,179 11,738 12,313 12,966 13,718 14,513 15,486 16,461 17,531 18,688 19,903 21,097 22,363 23,705 1,710 1,789 1,878 1,970 2,075 2,195 2,322 2,478 2,634 2,805 2,990 3,184 3,376 3,578 3,793 2,138 2,236 2,348 2,463 2,593 2,744 2,903 3,097 3,292 3,506 3,738 3,981 4,219 4,473 4,741 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 25,127 26,635 28,233 29,927 31,723 33,626 35,644 37,782 40,049 42,452 44,999 47,699 50,561 53,595 56,811 4,020 4,262 4,517 4,788 5,076 5,380 5,703 6,045 6,408 6,792 7,200 7,632 8,090 8,575 9,090 Total $827,212 $132,354 $165,442 Source: Pro Forme, The People's Transportation Plan Financial Capacity Analysis, 2003. 20-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 demand for this revenue for other transit projects, such as circulator systems, may reduce the portion available for the Streetcar to less than the full 20 percent. For purposes of the finan-cial analysis a 16 percent (80 percent of 20 percent) Streetcar transit alloca-tion will be evaluated, along with an allocation of the total 20 percent transit minimum. Table 20.1.3 allocations are based on the County's official estimate of the half -cent sales tax revenue, including the revenue growth estimates over a 30-year period. Additionally, for the City's estimated total allocations, it was assumed that its proportionate share of the total allocations to municipalities remains constant, at approximately 33 percent. The City's allocation of PTP revenues provides an excellent source of funding for both the capital and operating costs of the Miami Streetcar project. A conservative approach was taken for this initial financial feasibility analysis. Use of the City's allocation of PTP revenues was limited to the 20 percent minimum that must be spent on transit in Funding Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 which appear below. In Funding Scenario 4, a 16 percent Streetcar allocation was used. The City is currently reviewing options for bonding its allocation of PTP revenues, not only for the Streetcar project but also to accelerate the roadway and transit projects contained in the larger PTP-funded Five Year Municipal Transportation Improvement Program. Local Option Gas Tax: Discussions with the City's budget and finance personnel included an interest on the City's part to also consider bonding other revenue sources for transportation improvements, such as the City's share of the Local Option Gas Tax. This revenue source yields approximately $7 million per year, which would provide an additional significant resource for leveraging debt. Funding from this source could be used for all legitimate transportation purposes and for Public Works Department or Miami -Dade County (MDT) needs. Should this option be pursued, consideration should be given to the allocation of additional bond proceeds to the Miami Streetcar project. Homeland Defense Bonds: The City's Homeland Defense/Neighborhood Improvement Bond Program con- tains certain roadway and infrastructure improvement projects. To the extent there is overlap between the roadway and infrastructure improvements contained in the Homeland Defense Bond Program with the roadway improvements required for the Miami Streetcar guide- way installation, shared funding at these locations should be considered. Parking Surcharge: The City imposes a 20 percent surcharge on the gross parking receipts associated with public and private parking facilities, excluding residential parking and metered parking on public right- of-way. In fiscal year (FY) 2001/02, the revenues from the parking surcharge were estimated at $13 million. Although surcharge revenues accrue to the City's general fund as a means to contain ad valorem tax rates, a portion of this revenue source may be used for capital improvements. State legislation passed in 2004, which is currently under review by the City, affected the disposition and use of these revenues. Pending the outcome of the City's review of this legislation, revenues from the parking surcharge also could provide a capital funding source for the Miami Streetcar project. Tax Increment Financing: Per requirements stipulated in Florida Statute (F.S.) Chapter 163, municipalities or counties may designate a Community Redevelopment Area to address the removal of slum and blight. Following a process that includes the Finding of Necessity (by resolution), the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan (by public hearing/ordinances), and the creation of a Tax Increment Trust Fund (by public hearing/ordinances), the city/county establishes a Community Redevelopment Agency. The financing instrument under this program enables the CRA to receive contributions from the affected taxing jurisdictions within the planning area. The contribution formula is based on 95 percent of the ad valorem tax revenues generated by each taxing entity from any new taxes generated within the CRA subsequent to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. All revenues from these contributions must be deposited into the Tax Increment Trust Fund and the monies spent on implementing programs identified in the adopted plans to remove slum and blighting conditions. The Streetcar Corridor is proposed to run through two existing CRAs, Omni and Southeast Overtown Park West (SEOPW ), as well as one to be created, Midtown. The CRAs have a 30-year "sunset" provision. The City's Community Redevelopment Agency was consulted to gain a better understanding of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and the potential application of that mechanism to generate revenue for the Miami Streetcar project. The existing CRA community rede- velopment districts are projected to generate approximately $7 to 8 million for 2005; however, this reve-nue stream has taken several years to mature. Consequently, TIF revenues, or similar mechanisms that depend on the increase in property values, may be better suited as a potential source of operating funds SECTION 20 — Financial Fe for the project, as Streetcar operations are not sched- uled to begin any sooner than 2008. New TIF district boundaries that the City should consider include (1) the area between the Omni CRA and the Midtown Miami Improvement District, extending to the west along NE god Avenue and to the east along Biscayne Boulevard (because the Streetcar, among other things, would act as a reliever for the vehicular traffic using Biscayne); and (2) the area south of the Southeast Overtown/Park West CRA to include SW 1' Street, extending west to Miami Avenue, and east to Biscayne Boulevard. Other Real Estate Related Revenue: Coordination with the City's economic development staff resulted in a suggestion to assess the formation of a Business Improvement District (BID) as an additional means of generating real estate related revenue for the Streetcar project. Under F.S. Chapter 170, Business Improvement Districts may be established by a municipality or county resolution. The establishment of a BID is predicated on the approval of a majority of the property owners to be included in the designated districts. The funds from the non -ad valorem assessment of the property owners can be used to promote/market the area, and to enhance secu-rity, maintenance, beautification, and transportation. The property owners shall be specially benefited by the provision of the BID services and will be assessed upon each such property in reasonable proportion to the benefits derived from the services. Numerous such BIDs are established throughout Florida. BIDs typically rely on an assessment applied to the properties within a defined area based on assessed property values, per -square -foot charges, or linear frontage. The property owners must agree to the --�� ,"•_••4, 20-3 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 assessment. The Miracle Mile BID in Coral Gables, formed in 1997, assesses property owners based on $2.25 per $1,000 of assessed property value. Today, the assessment generates approximately $420,000 per year. The revenues are used for marketing and advocacy on behalf of the businesses in that area. The statutes enabling the formation of BIDs provide flexibility in purpose and disposition of BID assessments. For example, the provision of mass transportation systems is specifically referenced in the law. The real estate development projections identified in the Section 13.7 provide the city with financial flexibility in the allocation of resources for the streetcar system capital costs. The conservative approach in calculating the real estate assessment values indicates that over 14,500,000 sq ft of development are identified as Large Scale Development projects that are within a two -block area of the proposed Phase 1 system. These developments will generate almost $11,400,000 per year in new ad valorem taxes for the City as they are completed and come on the tax rolls. Even if no additional new developments occur within the 2030 timeframe, there would be ad valorem growth through the periodic re- valuation process of existing parcels within the study area. The current valuation for the Impact Area is $4.2 billion. Conservative growth in this base of 1.5 percent a year would generate $18,000,000 in new annual ad valorem tax revenues for the City by the year 2030. Adding in the anticipated new development indicated by the Near -Term Scenario would increase the potential annual taxes by $15,000,000. Contributions by Local Agencies: Both the City's Community Redevelopment Agency and the Downtown Development Authority were contacted to ascertain their interest in financially contributing to the Miami Streetcar project. While the contact was made at the staff level and not through the respective governing boards, both agencies viewed the Streetcar project as a means to facilitate their respective missions and expressed a willingness to support the project financially. The CRA's revenue mechanism is described above (TIF). The Miami Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is funded from a half -mil ad valorem tax, which currently generates approximately $2.5-$3.0 million per year. Contributions from agencies like the CRA and the DDA should be further explored by the City and ideally solidified concurrent with future phases of the project development process. Miami -Dade County tax assessment rolls within the Impact Area were reviewed and used to determine the average current assessment based on land use categories. These values include both land and improvements. Factoring these assessments, the projected assessed value of additional new development through 2030 approaches $1.4 billion. At current millage rates (14.7315), the additional ad valorem revenue generated would be just over $12.2 million per year; current levels of impact fees would provide one-time revenues of an additional $18.5 million. Roughly half of the ad valorem revenues generated by this demand would be within existing CRAB. Currently, the Omni CRA and the Southeast Overtown Park West CRA have transportation elements in their adopted plans with budgeted funding. The Midtown CRA has a negotiated agreement with the city and county whereby the TIF trust fund monies can be used only to underwrite costs associated with parking facilities and public plazas or other open spaces. The DDA has a half -mil ad valorem assessment on all properties within its district, which includes both the Omni and SEOPW CRAs. The DDA's annual revenue is approaching $3.0 million per year. The growth in its revenues will be restricted to the DDA area south of the SEOPW CRA and north of the SE 15th Road. The DDA increases in the two existing CRAs will be contributed to their respective TIF Trust Funds. Because the DDA has expressed a willingness to support the streetcar system, particularly to enhance the Jewelry District opportunities, an annual contribution by the agency could be developed to assist in operating costs. This contribution could follow a formula methodology based on linear front feet, square footage of each parcel or square footage of improvements on each parcel within a specified distance of the streetcar line (500-1000 feet ). Additional consideration should be given to establishing a "transportation trust fund", requiring all new developments to pay an established fee for the rights to build parking spaces. This trust fund would be established for all properties within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the streetcar line. The projected parking spaces for the Large Scale Projects within two blocks of the line exceeds 10,000 spaces. To encourage streetcar use and reduce intra-City traffic within the study area, an annual assessment on each new parking space would be made for operating expenses. For each parking space, a monthly or annual transit pass would be allocated for riding the streetcar without additional charge. These new trust fund revenues could be combined with increased parking fees for existing on -street and off - SECTION 20 — Financial F street parking facilities within the same 500- to 1,000-ft distance from the streetcar line. Special Assessments: The following examines the potential yield of a special assessment mechanism for producing revenue for the project. Assessments are distinguished from other district -type revenue mechanisms, as follows: Tax Increment, collected and spent by a Community Redevelopment Agency, is ad valorem tax revenue collected at the same tax rate as other areas but with the increment of new revenue directed to the CRA. Business Improvement Districts collect an additional amount of ad valorem revenue from each property within the BID, to be used for programs and assessments benefiting the BID. Assessments are a charge collected on a rational basis from properties within the district of benefited properties for specific purposes. Assessments in general are addressed primarily in F.S. Chapters 170 and 190. Municipalities and counties may choose to create a special assessment district to provide services or construct capital infrastructure for specified benefits to property owners. Creating the assessment district, adopting an equitable formula, and documenting the benefits may be accomplished by resolution of the City or County. Much like the BID requirements, the properties being assessed must be specially benefited by the services and/or capital improvements and the assessment must be reasonably proportionate to the benefits. Unlike the BID, the governing jurisdiction may create the resolution without any vote of the affected property owners. The special 20-4 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 assessment allows much greater flexibility than that allowed in BIDs. "Special assessments" are a valid tool for generating revenues for financing the local share of capital and/ or operating costs associated with the proposed streetcar system. There are as many variations of special assessments as there are projects that employ them. The viability of this approach is determined by the rationale for allocating the cost burdens to potential beneficiaries, and by the impacts on property values that might result from both the benefit to be received and the costs to be allocated. There are at least five basic approaches to such special assessments: They may be allocated based on the taxable value of properties; They may be allocated on the basis of proximity to the benefit; They may be allocated on a simple linear, or frontage -foot, basis; They may be allocated on the basis of site size; or They may be allocated on the basis of site development intensity. Each approach has its pros and cons, its advocates and opponents. Given the City's current ad valorem property tax structure, the first approach cannot be considered until a legal opinion is obtained regarding the potential negative impacts on taxing authority. Each of the other four was considered, although it is not possible at this time to ascertain which, if any, would be acceptable to city leaders and affected property owners. The range of potential assessment rates also varies, and the experience of other communities was researched for similar assessment districts and rates used to fund local transportation -related infrastructure. Based on the beneficial effect of streetcar or light rail projects on property values and development in other U.S. cities, it is reasonable to forecast that the streetcar system itself would benefit nearby properties by enhancing their access to other activity centers and housing within the Downtown Miami area. Some fundamental principles guide the preliminary evaluation of alternatives: Vacant or underutilized properties located between downtown and midtown Miami are likely to benefit more than those properties that are fully or substantially built out. Proximity to the proposed streetcar alignment is beneficial. Frontage on double -track segments is more valuable than frontage on single-track segments. Some land uses, such as retail establishments, may benefit more than others. Frontage -foot or land area assessments may encourage more intense development. As a financing tool, assessments have the potential advantage of providing funds early in the process if applied to existing development as well as future development, which might be more speculative. The following calculations of potential assessment revenues illustrate how existing land and improvements may be tapped to generate an immediate revenue potential of $2 to 4.5 million annually. When and if applied to the property improvements or their values, revenue may grow significantly over time, while fixed determinants (such as front -footage) may prove static. Table 20.1.4 Special District Assessment Methodologies - Streetcar Impact Area 2004 2008 PER FRONT FOOT: front feet (net) -double track front feet (net) - single track assessment rate - double track assessment rate - single track 10,000 20,000 $ 100.00 $ 50.00 10,000 20,000 $ 150.00 $ 75.00 assessment revenues $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 PER SQUARE FOOT/LAND: square feet/land assessment rate assessment revenues PER SQUARE FOOT/BUILDING: square feet/buildings assessment rate assessment revenues 11,606,196 $ 0.50 $ 5,803,098 17,208,142 $ 0.25 $ 4,302,036 11,606,196 $ 0.50 $ 5,803,098 20,657,920 $ 0.25 $ 5,164,480 SOURCE: Real Estate Research Consultants, Inc. Table 20.1.4 illustrates that reasonable assessment rates applied to the streetcar alignment or to the land and/or improvements in the Impact Area can generate significant revenues, which can be applied to capital or operating costs. Given the average assessed values of vacant land in the Impact Area, these assessment rates are less than 5 percent of the average values. Compared to the average assessed values of existing office and retail buildings, these rates are even less (2-4 percent). Given the potential benefits to be realized by most properties, such impacts should be easily recovered through enhanced property values. The basic assumptions included in these calculations are considered quite conservative, as the Impact Area is limited to two blocks on either side of the streetcar alignment and only minimal new development is assumed to occur by 2008. By assigning greater premiums for proximity or by varying the rates for land uses (similar to impact fee schedules), a re- allocation of costs may achieve equal or greater revenues. These calculations do assume the legal establishment of a designated benefit district, which overlays other CRAs and business districts in the Downtown to Midtown area. 20.2 Financial Feasibility —Capital Funding Sources and Scenarios Four capital funding scenarios, shown in Tables 20.2.1, 20.2.2, 20.2.3, and 20.2.4 were developed for consideration by the City. For the first scenario, in Table 20.2.1, no Federal participation is assumed. The assumption underlying state participation is based on discussions to date with FDOT and represents a reasonable but conservative 20-5 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 expectation. Bay Link joint use funding is predicated on the County contributing 50 percent of the cost of the potential joint use facilities described above. PTP bond proceeds assume that an amount equal to two- thirds of the 20 percent transit minimum would be leveraged for capital financing, with the remaining one-third available to help fund the project's operating costs. The $40 million estimate is conservative and is based on the net present value (NPV) of the revenue stream over 25 years using a 5 percent interest rate. Additional City bond proceeds could include debt supported by additional amounts of PTP revenues above the 20 percent transit minimum; new debt supported by other City revenues sources, such as the Local Option Gas Tax or Parking Surcharge; or contributions of bond proceeds from other programs, such as the Homeland Defense Bond Program. Contributions by others assume that other local agencies, such as the CRA, would be willing to contribute to the project. Tax increment financing (TIF) revenues and the projected growth in the increment could approach $6.4 million per year if the City's Large Scale Projects were all within an existing or expanded CRA. Of this revenue, $1.1 million would come from development outside of existing CRAs. However, if tax increment revenues are limited as an option, then the ad valorem taxes from the Large Table 20.2.1 Capital Funding Scenario 1 ($1,000) No Federal/13.2% PTP for Capital/City Bonds/Contributions by Others FTA"Small Starts" State Discretionary Grants Baylink Joint Use Funding $ 30,000 $ 36,000 PTP Bond Proceeds Additional City Bond Proceeds Contributions by Others Total $ 40,000 22,000 5,000 133,000 Scale Projects alone would provide almost $3.8 million annually in new revenues. In addition, the road (transportation) impact fees on these projects would generate an additional $7 million in one-time revenue. Finally, a special assessment applied along the corridor using one of the previously described methodologies is estimated to generate $2 to $4.5 million annually based on expected development levels in the 2004-to-2008 time frame and provides a dedicated revenue stream for both capital and operating costs. A combination of two or more of these types of local funding sources could be reasonably expected to generate an additional $5 million in capital funding during the project implementation period, which would close the funding gap for Scenario 1. All together, these funding sources could be leveraged to yield capital funding at a much greater level; however, this conservative assumption was applied due to the current unknowns concerning the legal structure, political acceptance, and policy direction from City leaders in how funding from the various sources could be applied. The second scenario, in Table 20.2.2, also assumes no Federal participation. The assumption underlying state participation is based on discussions to date with Table 20.2.2 Capital Funding Scenario 2 ($1,000) No Federat/20% PTP for Capital/City Bonds/ No Contributions FTA "Small Starts" $ - Sate Discretionary Grants $ 30,000 Bay Link Joint Use Funding $ PTP Bond Proceeds $ Additional City Bond Proceeds $ Contributions byOthers $ Total $ 36,000 60,000 7,000 133,000 FDOT. Bay Link joint use funding is predicated on the County contributing 50 percent of the cost of the potential joint use facilities. The amount of PTP bond proceeds is increased and assumes that an amount equal to 100 percent of the 20 percent transit minimum would be leveraged for capital financing, leaving no revenues from this source available to help fund the project's operating costs. The $60 million estimate is conservative and is based on the NPV of the revenue stream over 25 years, assuming a 5 percent interest rate. Additional City bond proceeds could include debt supported by additional amounts of PTP revenues above the 20 percent transit minimum; new debt supported by other City revenue sources, such as the Local Option Gas Tax or Parking Surcharge;, or contributions of bond proceeds from other programs, such as the Homeland Defense Bond Program. The third scenario, in Table 20.2.3, assumes Federal participation at approximately one-third of total project capital costs, anticipated to be derived from the proposed FTA "Small Starts" program discussed earlier. As with the first and second scenarios, the assumption underlying state participation is based on discussions to date with FDOT. Bay Link joint use funding was reduced to approximately 25 percent of the cost of the potential joint use facilities, Table 20.2.3 Capital Funding Scenario 3 ($1,000) Federal "Small Starts"/13.2% PTP for Capitat/No City Bonds/No Contributions FTA "Small Starts" State Discretionary Grants Bay Link Joint Use Funding PTP Bond Proceeds Additional City Bond Proceeds Contributions by Others Total 45,000 30,000 18,000 40,000 133,000 SECTION 20 — Financial, anticipating that no immediate benefit would accrue to the County by this investment, as the Bay Link project is scheduled well beyond the opening date for the Streetcar. As in Table 20.2.1, PTP bond proceeds assume an amount equal to two-thirds of the 20 percent transit minimum would be leveraged for capital financing, with the remaining one-third available to help fund the project's operating costs. The $40 million estimate is conservative and is based on the NPV of the revenue stream over 25 years using a 5 percent interest rate. The fourth scenario, Table 20.2.4, assumes Federal participation at approximately one-third of total project capital costs, anticipated to be derived from the proposed FTA "Small Starts" program discussed earlier. As with the previous scenarios, the assumption underlying state participation is based on discussions to date with FDOT. Bay Link joint use funding was again reduced, in this scenario to approximately 35 percent of the cost of the potential joint use facilities, anticipating that no immediate benefit would accrue to the County by this investment, as the Bay Link project is scheduled well beyond the opening date for the Streetcar. Unlike the previous scenarios, PTP bond proceeds assumes a lesser allocation to the Streetcar of only 16 percent of the PTP revenue available to the City, of which two-thirds would be leveraged for Table 20.2.4 Capital Funding Scenario 4 ($1,000) Federal "Small Starts"/10.6% PTP for Capitat/No City Bonds/No Contributions FTA"Small Starts" State Discretionary Grants Bay Link Joint Use Funding PTP Bond Proceeds Additional City Bond Proceeds Contributions by Others 45,000 30,000 26,000 32,000 Total $ 133,000 20-6 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 20 - Fi capital financing, with the remaining one-third available to help fund the project's operating costs. The $32 million estimate is conservative and is based on the NPV of the revenue stream over 25 years using a 5 percent interest rate. Tables 20.2.3 and 20.2.4 clearly demonstrate the advantage of seeking Federal funding from a finance perspective. With Federal participation as part of the capital funding plan, the City gains more flexibility in its use of the PTP revenues, enabling part of the Streetcar's allocation from this revenue source to be set aside for the Streetcar's operating costs. Also, less dependency can be placed on the Bay Link joint use funding component and contributions from other agencies. Conversely, seeking Federal funds presents tradeoffs, including but not limited to (1) the uncertainty of whether the new FTA "Small Starts" program will be created, (2) its composition with respect to eligibility requirements, which could delay the project delivery schedule if too burdensome, and (3) the expected competition for this new funding source. It also should be noted that state SIB loans were not factored into the four capital funding scenarios. FDOT anticipates having available $50 to $75 million per year in FY 05/06 and FY 06/07. Based on historic SIB loan awards, the Streetcar could anticipate receiving approximately $20 million in loans over this two-year period. As this would add to the leveraging capabilities of the City's PTP revenues, it deserves additional consideration within the context and timing of a larger City debt initiative. 20.3 Operating Funding Sources: As with the capital funding analysis, a variety of funding programs and sources also were explored to help fund the Streetcar's annual operating budget, as farebox revenues are expected to fund approximately 25 percent of the total operating budget requirement. Tables 20.1.1 and 20.1.2 describe potential sources of operating funds from state programs and local revenue sources. Additionally, private participation through several ancillary revenue mechanisms was assessed, the details of which are contained in Section 20.5. 20.3.1 State Table 20.1.1 indicates that at least two potential state sources of funds may be available to help support the Streetcar's operating costs. These include service development funding and funds derived from the County's share of FDOT's State Public Transit Block Grant program. No estimate was made for service development funding, as projects typically compete for a limited statewide pool of funds each year. To the extent this competition takes place in 2008, the City is encouraged to apply for these funds. Service development funding is intended to assist with the initiation of new transit services and is typically available for the first three years of a system's operation. It is not intended as a permanent source of operating funds. The County receives approximately $15 million per year in State Public Transit Block Grant funds. This funding source can be used for either capital or operating costs. Each operating public transit agency receives an annual allocation of these funds based on a three-part formula (one-third population, one-third revenue miles, and one-third ridership). When the Streetcar becomes operational, it is assumed to result in a net increase in the transit service available to the public and, consequently, an increase in the County's allocation of State Public Transit Block Grant funds. The Streetcar's potential share of these funds was not estimated, however, as this would be difficult to estimate at this time. First, a public transit system is eligible for these funds only after it has become operational. Revenue miles and transit riders as used in the formula are based on a system's actual performance. Second, the County's projected allocation of these funds in 2009 or 2010 would have to be estimated, considering all of the transit systems that would be operational at that time. Third, an estimate also would have to be made of whether the Streetcar's operations resulted in an incremental increase in the County's total allocation and thus the portion of the County's allocation attributable to the Streetcar's operations. The State Public Transit Block Grant program provides another potential funding source for the Streetcar's operating costs. The City should seek participation from this source at the appropriate time. 20.3.2 Local Table 20.1.2 contains several potential local funding/ revenue sources that could be applied to help pay for the Streetcar's operating costs. Peoples Transportation Plan Revenues: As used in two of the capital funding scenarios, one-third of the City's PTP, 20 percent transit minimum, revenue stream was assumed to be available to help pay for the Streetcar's operating costs. This funding source was also evaluated using one-third of a 16 percent Table 20.3.1 One -Third of PTP Transit Minimum ($1,000) 16% and 20% Scenarios 16% 20% 16% Year Amount Amount Year Amount 20% Amount 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 564 590 620 650 685 724 766 818 869 926 987 1051 1114 1181 1252 705 738 775 813 856 905 958 1,022 1,086 1,157 1,233 1,314 1,392 1,476 1,565 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 Total 1327 1406 1491 1580 1675 1775 1882 1995 2115 2241 2376 2519 2670 2830 3000 43,677 1,658 1,758 1,863 1,975 2,094 2,219 2,352 2,494 2,643 2,802 2,970 3,148 3,337 3,537 3,750 $54,596 Table 20.3.2 Operating Funding Reserve ($1,000) One -Third of 16% Transit Year PTP Revenue One -Third of 20% Transit PTP Revenue 2005 590 $ 738 2006 620 $ 775 2007 650 $ 813 2008 685 $ 856 Total 2545 $ 3,182 Operating Reserve Note: Interest earnings not included. Streetcar allocation, allowing the City to use the remaining 4 percent for other City transit initiatives. This revenue stream is shown in Table 20.3.1 for the 16 percent and 20 percent scenarios. Prior to the initiation of Streetcar operations, this funding source for the years 2005 through 2008 could be used to accumulate an operating reserve to offset the potential ramp -up of other proposed operating revenue sources. The operating reserve is illustrated 20-7 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 in Table 20.3.2. After 2008, the projected annual revenues from this source would be applied to the annual operating costs of the Streetcar project. County Funding in Lieu of Bus Service: The Streetcar may replace existing bus service now provided by MDT in the project corridor. Should this be the case, it would represent a savings to MDT and thus a potential contribution to the Streetcar's operating costs. No estimate was made for this potential source of funding, however, as additional service coordination and funding negotiation with the County is required. Parking Related Revenues: Additional parking facilities are not expected to be needed to support potential streetcar riders (i.e., not a park and ride system ). However, additional parking would be needed to support additional development and redevelopment that will occur along the corridor, drawing both streetcar riders and automobile traffic. An additional 100-150 metered parking spaces along the proposed Streetcar alignment will also be created along the NE 2nd Avenue corridor between NE 17`h Street and NE 29`h Street where on street parking is not currently metered or enforced. The revenue derived from additional parking facilities, net of any capital cost for installation, could be used to help fund the Streetcar's operating costs. Also, the City may want to consider a modest increase in parking rates for existing parking facilities located along the project's alignment. Real -Estate -Related Revenues: As discussed in the capital funding sources section, the existing CRA community redevelopment districts are projected to generate approximately $7-8 million for 2005, noting that this revenue stream has taken several years to mature. The Miracle Mile BID in Coral Gables, which assesses property owners based on assessed property value, generates approximately $420,000 per year. Consequently, these types of mechanisms may be well suited as potential sources of operating funds for the Streetcar project. Property values have been on the rise in the Miami area, contributing to and enhancing the performance of existing real -estate -related revenue mechanisms. The real estate development projections identified in the previous section provide ample support for financial flexibility in allocating resources for the operating costs associated with the streetcar system. The conservative approach in calculating the real estate assessment values indicates that the Large Scale Development Report identifies more than 5,100,000 sq ft of development. These developments will generate almost $3,800,000 per year in new ad valorem taxes as they are completed and come on the tax roles. The appreciated value of the existing properties will also generate an increase in ad valorem revenues which, combined with the new projects, are anticipated to reach $18,575,000 per year by 2030. Contributions by Local Agencies: As noted earlier, both the City's Community Redevelopment Agency and the Downtown Development Authority were contacted to ascertain their interest in financially contributing to the Miami Streetcar project. Both agencies viewed the Streetcar project as a means to facilitate their respective missions and expressed a willingness, at the staff level, to support the project financially. The CRA's revenue mechanism (TIF) and the DDA's revenue source have been described previously. Contributions from agencies such as the CRA and the DDA should be further explored by the City and ideally solidified during future phases of project development. Calculations based on all the large-scale projects included within an existing, expanded, or new CRA, project new tax increment revenues at $6,388,000 (millage rate of 14.7315). Currently, the Omni CRA and the southwest Overtown Park West CRA have transportation elements in their adopted plans with budgeted funding. The Midtown CRA has a negotiated agreement with the city and county whereby the TIF trust fund monies can be used only to underwrite costs associated with parking facilities and public plazas or open spaces. The Miami DDA has a half -mil ad valorem assessment on all properties within its district, which includes both the Omni and SEOPW CRAs. The DDA's annual revenue is approaching $3.0 million per year. The growth in its revenues will be restricted to the DDA area south of the SEOPW CRA and north of the SE 15`h Road. The DDA increases in the two existing CRAs will be contributed to their respective TIF Trust Funds. Because the DDA has expressed a willingness to support the streetcar system, particularly to enhance the Jewelry District opportunities, an annual contribution by the agency could be developed to assist in operating costs. This contribution could follow a formula methodology based on linear front feet, square footage of each parcel, or square footage of improvements on each parcel within a specified distance of the streetcar line (500 to 1000 feet). Additional consideration should be given to creating a "transportation trust fund", requiring all new developments to pay an established fee for the rights to build parking spaces. This trust fund would be established for all properties within 500 to 1,000 ft of the streetcar line. More than 10,000 parking spaces within two blocks of the Miami Streetcar line are projected for the Large Scale Projects. To encourage streetcar use and reduce intra-city traffic within the study area, an annual assessment on each new parking space would be made for operating expenses. Each parking space would be allocated a monthly or annual transit pass to ride the streetcar without additional charge. These new trust fund revenues could be combined with increased parking fees for existing on - and off-street parking facilities within the same 500- to 1,000-ft distance of the streetcar line. 20.3.3 Farebox Revenues Three farebox revenue scenarios were developed based on the ridership forecasts contained in Section 15. Farebox revenues have been estimated in the range of $1-2 million per through 2025. The range was driven by differing land use and redevelopment assumptions, which influenced the underlying ridership forecasts. The difference, however, in the farebox revenue projections amounts to less than $500,000 in 2025. It is assumed that the total amount of farebox revenues collected each year would be used to help pay for the Streetcar's operating costs. For this study, the most conservative farebox revenue projection was used. 20.3.4 Ancillary and Secondary Revenues An estimate of ancillary revenues was prepared, the details of which are contained in Section 20.5. Two revenue components were analyzed: (1) the media value of advertising on, within, and near the vehicles, and (2) exclusive concession agreements and rental fees on or near each of the proposed 24 station stops. w --711116„ 20-8 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Table 20.4.1 Operating Funding Scenario 1 ($1,000) Uses 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Annual Operating Cost $ 4,057 $ 4,179 $ 4,305 $ 4,434 $ 4,567 $ 4,704 $4,845 Sources: One -Third 20% Minimum $ 905 Farebox $ 1,033 Ancillary Revenues $ 745 Contributions $ 300 TIF/BID $ 800 Operating Reserve Draws $ 275 Total Sources $ 4,058 $ 958 $ 1,022 $ 1,086 $ 1,157 $ 1,233 $1,314 $ 1,053 $ 1,074 $ 1,096 $ 1,118 $ 1,140 $1,163 $ 745 $ 745 $ 745 $ 745 $ 745 $ 745 $ 309 $ 318 $ 328 $ 338 $ 348 $ 358 $ 824 $ 849 $ 874 $ 900 $ 927 $ 955 $ 290 $ 296 $ 305 $ 309 $ 310 $ 309 $ 4,179 $ 4,304 $ 4,434 $ 4,567 $ 4,703 $4,844 Uses: Table 20.4.2 Operating Funding Scenario 2 ($1,000) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $ 4,704 $ 4,845 Annual Operating Cost Sources: One -Third 20% Minimum $ 4,057 $ 4,179 $ 905 $ 958 Farebox Ancillary Revenues Contributions TIF/BID $ 1,033 $ 1,053 $ 1,100 $ 1,133 $ 300 $ 309 $ 800 $ 824 Total Sources $ 4,138 $ 4,277 Surplus/Deficit $ 81 $ 98 $ 4,305 $ 4,434 $ 4,567 $ 1,022 $ 1,086 $ 1,157 $ 1,074 $ 1,096 $ 1,118 $ 1,167 $ 1,202 $ 1,238 $ 318 $ 328 $ 338 $ 849 $ 874 $ 900 $ 4,430 $ 4,586 $ 4,751 $ 125 $ 152 $ 184 Table 20.4.3 Operating Funding Scenario 3 ($1,000) $ 1,233 $ 1,314 $ 1,140 $ 1,163 $ 1,275 $ 1,313 $ 348 $ 358 $ 927 $ 955 $ 4,923 $ 5,103 $ 219 $ 258 Uses: Annual Operating Cost Sources: 1/3 of 16% Streetcar Allocation Farebox Ancillary Revenues Contributions TIF/BID 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $ 4,057 $ 4,179 $ 4,305 $ 4,434 $ 4,567 $ 4,704 $ 4,845 $ 724 $ 766 $ 818 $ 869 $ 926 $ 987 $ 1,051 $ 1,033 $ 1,053 $ 1,074 $ 1,096 $ 1,118 $ 1,140 $ 1,163 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 1,100 $ 300 $ 309 $ 318 $ 328 $ 338 $ 348 $ 358 $ 800 $ 824 $ 849 $ 874 $ 900 $ 927 $ 955 Operating Reserve Draws $ 100 $ 127 $ 146 $ 167 $ 185 $ 202 $ 218 Total Sources $ 4,057 $ 4,179 $ 4,305 $ 4,434 $ 4,567 $ 4,704 $ 4,845 The media revenue component was considered less speculative, given the established transit media market and the availability of comparables. Concession revenues, however, were more speculative as comparables were not as readily available. Additionally, because much of the Streetcar's proposed alignment is undergoing redevelopment, future pedestrian traffic and shifting demographics along the corridor would impact concession returns. Ancillary revenues were estimated to be in the range of $745,000 to $1.4 million per year, subdivided into the two components: media, at $510,000 to $875,000, and concessions, at $235,000 to $565,000. 20.4 Financial Feasibility -Operating Funding Sources and Scenarios Tables 20.4.1 and 20.4.2 present two operating funding scenarios for consideration by the City. They illustrate the feasibility of funding the Streetcar's operating costs from the funding sources shown. The time frame covered by these scenarios begins in 2009, the first full year of Streetcar operations, and extends through 2015. 20.4.1 Uses of Funds Annual operating costs were estimated to be $3.5 million (2004 dollars) for 2008, the year in which service would be initiated. This amount was escalated for inflation at 3 percent per year, resulting in an amount of approximately $4 million (2009 dollars) for 2009, the first full year of operations. The operating costs values shown in Tables 20.4.1, 20.4.2, and 20.4.3 were further inflated at 3 percent per year through 2015. SECTION 20 - Financial Feasibility 20.4.2 Sources of Funds One -Third of the PTP Transit Revenue: The projections shown conform to the values in Table 20.3.1, which is based on the County's official estimate of the half -cent sales tax increase (PTP) revenue, including long-term revenue growth. Farebox Revenues: Revenues from this source are projected to grow at only 2 percent per year based on the most conservative ridership forecast, which is described in more detail in Chapter VI. Ancillary Revenues: As already noted, ancillary revenues were estimated to be in the range of $745,000 to $1.4 million per year. For this analysis, the lower end of the range ($745,000) was used. Because ancillary revenue growth would be a function of the strength of the advertising market at a future point in time, no attempt was made to estimate an appropriate growth rate for this revenue stream. TIF/BID: It is assumed for this analysis that some form of real -estate -related revenue mechanism would be established for the purpose of partially funding the Streetcar's operating costs. An amount of $800,000 beginning in 2009 was used, which is considered conservative because it represents less than 10 percent of the existing CRA TIF and Coral Gables BID revenue streams combined. A conservative inflation factor of 3 percent per year was applied to this revenue stream, as it is tied to the strength of the real estate market. The TIF financing is directly tied to the growth of the ad valorem tax base. The development activity associated with the City's Large Scale Projects Report will generate almost $3.8 million in city ad valorem 20-9 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 tax per year. If these projects are included in an existing or expanded tax increment area, that number approaches $6.4 million per year. The concept of an assessment program is addressed in section 20.3.2. There are a variety of approaches in developing the criteria for assessing properties as well as developing the appropriate formula for each parcel's assessment. Operating funds would seem to lend themselves to this type of funding. In addition to the previously described BID program, there are a variety of assessment vehicles that deal with road improvements, street lighting, maintenance of rights - of way, public safety, etc. An assessment program supporting the streetcar operation could be developed around a parking/transportation enhancement concept. If established with the appropriate formula and with a specific time limitation that can be renewed based on performance, an assessment program appears to be viable and could be a significant source of revenue to augment those resources already identified. Once established, such a program may very well be able to replace one or more revenue sources. Contributions: Based on the positive reaction received from the staff at the CRA and the DDA, and their interest in seeing the Streetcar project succeed, it was assumed for this analysis that a contribution in the amount of $300,000 per year would be achievable to help pay for the Streetcar operating costs. Again, a conservative inflation factor of 3 percent per year was applied to this revenue stream, as both agencies' revenue sources are tied to the strength of the real estate market. Operating Reserve Draws: Table 20.3.2 contains the accumulated value of the proposed operating reserve for the years 2005 through 2008. The operating funding scenario shown in Table 20.4.1 consumes only two-thirds of the reserve, leaving approximately $1 million in reserve to address any potential shortfalls that may accrue beyond 2015. Table 20.4.2 shows a slight variation from the assumptions used in Table 20.4.1, but the result is significant. Table 20.4.2 uses the mid -point of the estimated ancillary revenues estimate range noted above and escalates these values at 3 percent per year. In this scenario, there is no need to draw from the operating reserve and for each year a surplus of operating funds exists. The surplus could be used to absorb operating cost increases above the estimate, or less dependence could be placed on the other sources of funds listed. Additionally, because no reserve is needed in this scenario, this amount can be available to leverage additional capital financing or pay for capital costs from available cash. Table 20.4.3 shows the impact of reducing the Streetcar's allocation of PTP revenues to 16 percent of the City's total revenues from this source. One-third of the 16 percent allocation is used to help pay for operating costs, and the remaining two-thirds is used to leverage capital financing. As in Table 20.4.2, a mid -point of the range of estimated ancillary revenues was used, except that in this case no escalation was applied. Operating reserve draws are necessary, but less than half of the total reserve shown in Table 20.3.2 was consumed. In summary, the three operating scenarios demonstrate the financial feasibility of operating the Streetcar project. The revenue estimates for the funding sources shown are considered to be achievable, and their respective growth over time conservative. It also should be noted that the funding sources used were not all inclusive. As discussed earlier, additional potential sources were not estimated at this time for the reasons mentioned in the respective sections. These include additional state sources, County sources, and parking -related revenues. Thus, in light of the conservative approach applied to the scenarios shown in Tables 20.4.1 through 20.4.3 and the presence of additional untapped funding sources, implementing a viable operating finance plan for the Streetcar project should not be problematic. 20.5 Ancillary Revenue The estimate of ancillary revenue is for the Phase 1 alignment of the Miami Streetcar (expected to open in 2008 or after), which is presumed to feature eight cars running between the downtown business district. Additional analysis and surveys could develop more precise estimates and fully identify potential private and public sector hurdles and opportunities that may impact the full realization of these revenues. 20.5.1 Components The ancillary components: revenue for this system has two The media value of the advertising on, within, and near the vehicles Exclusive concession agreements and rental fees on or near each of the proposed 24 station stops The media revenue component is less speculative, given the established transit media market and the plentiful availability of comparables. Concession revenues, on the other hand, are the most variable. SECTION 20 - F There are yet unexplored implementation issues related to community receptivity and governmental acceptance. Comparables are not readily accessible, and additional analysis is required to adequately predict customer usage and corporate participation. Finally, much of the future Miami Streetcar alignment is undergoing redevelopment. Future pedestrian traffic and shifting demographics along the corridor would particularly impact concession returns. 20.5.2 Research Process Site Visits The following were observed and evaluated: Existing commercial development, media sites, traffic, and other factors along the recommended alignment Fully developed commercial districts on Biscayne Boulevard, Brickell Avenue, and Collins Avenue as potential comparables for the future build -out of the proposed Streetcar route The existing bus system running in these commercial districts. The ridership profile was gauged, and typical interior advertising, bus shelter advertising, and other ancillary revenue opportunities were identified. Interviews Phone interviews were conducted with the following: Media sales representatives employed by major transit advertising companies which operate in Ft Lauderdale, Tampa/St Petersburg, Orlando, Cleveland, and Denver. (Cleveland is the 16th largest TV market, Miami is the 17`", and Denver is the 18`". Comparing these three provided an opportunity to evaluate the impacts of regional and demographic variations.) The following were queried: -'"1116,, 20-10 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 The general health of the local ad market Community and governmental receptivity to outdoor advertising Prices for various forms of transit media, with a particular emphasis on prices and terms for full bus wraps, interior ad cards, and bus shelters The County official who currently manages Miami's bus advertising inventory, Chuck Devine, to obtain similar information. (This inventory is not currently represented by an outside media sales organization, although it is anticipated that within a few months from June 2004 a regional or national company will likely be awarded a contract.) 20.5.3 Miami Streetcar in the Context of Comparable Systems In addition, the activities of trolleys and light rail systems in Tampa, Portland, Cleveland, New Orleans, and San Diego were briefly reviewed. Each system has taken a slightly different approach to securing ancillary revenues, as follows: Tampa, Florida Sold naming rights to the entire system to a local company. Has a naming rights sales effort underway that will sell rights to each of the eight cars and 10 stations to local companies and small businesses. Has a name branding that is discreet and limited to logos and such. The respective sponsors' name is announced at each sponsored stop via an automated announcement on board each vehicle. No regular advertising is yet accepted on the system. Portland, Oregon Numerous station and individual car sponsorships have been sold at relatively modest amounts; station sponsorship is priced at $4800 per station per year, and vehicle sponsorships at $25,000 per vehicle per year. The respective sponsors' name is announced at each sponsored stop via an automated announcement on board each vehicle. Local restaurants are involved in sponsoring the system maps. San Diego, California The trolley has been under a 20-year advertising and sponsorship moratorium. The moratorium was temporarily lifted during a Super Bowl. Trolley car wraps were then sold on 10 vehicles (less than 10 percent of the fleet); local and national advertisers eagerly paid for this inventory. The system's board subsequently elected to reinstate the moratorium on all rail vehicles. San Diego's bus fleet accepts all forms of advertising, including wraps. The system has an agreement with the Coca Cola Company to place vending machines at 43 of the trolley's 46 stations. A revenue -sharing agreement is in place. An outside vendor serves as a general contractor to provide cart -based amenities (coffee, newspapers, souvenirs etc.) to riders at selected stations. New Orleans, Louisiana Traditional transit ads are placed on the sides and back of the vehicles. This inventory is represented by Clear Channel Outdoor. Ad rates for traditional exterior transit ads on street cars range from $300 to $650 per month per car depending on the kind of street car selected. By comparison, full wraps of the city's buses are offered at $2,000 to $3,000 per month by Clear Channel Outdoor. Cleveland, Ohio The light rail system allows some branding and advertising on its cars (but not full wraps); advertising is accepted on only one side of each vehicle at a cost of $800 per vehicle per month. Because the Miami Streetcar would be operating in the out -sized, vibrant Miami market and is being designed from the ground up, there is an opportunity to build a much more exciting, stylized, and lucrative advertising presence into the basic design (and to prepare the public for it). From a strategy and revenue perspective, much depends on whether the management takes a more modest civic sponsorship - based approach or is willing to select the broader, "streetcar-as-bigger-tha n- life-advertisi ng- platform" path (or some hybrid blend of these options). Selecting against the latter approach is likely to significantly reduce the revenue potential. For either path, public acceptance should be more easily attainable with a consistent message: these revenues would help defray operating costs and minimize demands on public funds. Furthermore, no precedent exists for signage and graphics standards on streetcars in Miami, so there are no public expectations. To this end, it would likely make sense to ensure that all SECTION 20 — Financial F preliminary drawings and public presentations include vehicles wrapped in advertising. At this phase of the study, the intent of the research and analysis has been to present top -line findings regarding the operations of other, similar systems. More complete phone interviews with current operators of these systems and possible site visits may yield more useful information on the opportunities and limitations of securing ancillary revenues for these types of transit systems. Revenues from the newly opened Las Vegas monorail, and estimates for the proposed 42nd Street light rail transit (LRT) in Manhattan were not seriously considered as comparables because the first phase of the Miami Streetcar would not carry the same high level of ridership and would not traverse thoroughfares that are as busy and as storied as those in Las Vegas or Manhattan. (However, it should be noted that the proposed Bay Link alignment through South Beach would have a related marquee value). The success of Las Vegas in selling non-traditional sponsorships and l0-year contracts for $10 million full - vehicle wraps does provide an important industry precedent. 20.5.4 Ancillary Revenue - Findings, Recommendations, Assumptions and Estimates Media The local advertising market is quite healthy, as confirmed by all of the sales representatives interviewed. Two of four local companies had already achieved 80 percent of annual sales goals within the first six months of the year. Furthermore, all reported that the City's aversion to outdoor billboards is making transit media more valuable. 20-11 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Recommendation If the desire of the City is to maximize the revenue potential of the proposed system, it will be important to present the ad platform on each streetcar as something special, rare, and different from traditional bus advertising, and to be prepared to wrap each car with a brand message. Wraps create a large, approximately 65-ft advertising platform, which compare favorably to a normal city bus, which measures 45 ft for advertising. Streetcars are inherently held in higher regard than buses; they are typically perceived by the public as affinity properties (again very different from buses). The opportunity to "own" a wrapped streetcar could be marketed to prominent national companies or major Miami - headquartered companies to showcase their brand and show civic pride to visitors and residents. Some advertising may be included in packages with exclusive concession relationships for participating companies (such as a bank looking for automatic teller machine (ATM) rights, described below). Ad revenues from station shelter and vehicle interior ad panels can also be packaged into sponsorships, but it would probably make sense to sell them as traditional transit ads via a traditional third -party ad sales organization. To achieve related revenues, station shelter and vehicle interior designs should be modified as needed to include backlit ad panels. It is important to realize that there are many approaches to packaging and selling advertising and packages that can work for Miami Streetcar. As discussed above, Miami may also opt to pursue naming rights sales and low-key civic sponsorships, instead of vehicle wraps, interior advertising, and station ad panels. However, for the purposes of developing a financial plan, wraps and traditional advertising are recommended. They are part of the established transit and outdoor billboard media market, are easy to benchmark, and can be reliably estimated. Naming rights, station sponsorship, etc. are inherently more speculative but can be studied more fully if desired; in any event, the associated revenue is very unlikely to exceed that which transit advertising would generate. Assum ptions Each streetcar would be available for a "full - wrap" ad featuring a single advertiser (with no restrictions on window covering, etc. ); if wraps cannot be sold, these estimates should be discounted by 50 percent or more. Interior ad cards would be available for advertising by one sponsor or multiple advertisers. A typical city bus can accommodate about 15 interior ad cards, and it is assumed that each streetcar would accept 25 interior ad cards. Stations would be covered stops, similar to bus shelters, and would accommodate at least two advertising panels. Annual estimates for all three units (wraps, ad cards and station panels) would be based on 13 billing periods, as transit advertising is customarily sold in 28-day increments. Income from advertising and graphics preparations (post -up or "make ready" charges) and associated mark-ups are not included in these estimates. If collected, they would vary depending on if the production is done in-house or out -sourced, as well as based on the frequency of ad changes. All estimates are for gross revenues and are not net of any sales commissions. Annual Revenue Estimate (2004 dollars) Revenue Source Streetcar Wraps Streetcar Interior Cards Station Ad Panels Media Subtotal High Scenario $505,000 $50,000 $320,000 $875,000 Low Scenario $240,000 $30,000 $240,000 $510,000 20.6 Secondary Revenue Sources Four broad, ancillary revenue opportunities have been identified for initial study. (There may be more opportunities as well, but further time and study will be required to identify and evaluate them.) Each considered initiative would provide riders, visitors, and area residents with an essential utility that is unrelated to transportation. To realize the related revenue potential, new precedents would have to be set as to how each station stop is designed, situated, and utilized. Current aesthetic and regulatory considerations have not been fully factored into this study, as project design and planning efforts are only just beginning. However, by identifying these opportunities at this stage, it may be possible to ensure their inclusion from the ground up, rather than trying to retrofit to include them after the fact. In the event that planning and design challenges are met, a rough, order -of -magnitude estimate is provided below. The revenue consulting experts believe that these initiatives are quite achievable assuming that the management and political leaders deem the tangible and intangible costs and benefits worth the effort. 20.6.1 Recommendation The proposed design of stations should accommodate the following concessions: automated teller machines, beverage vending machines, and wireline phones SECTION 20 — Financial F (potentially with wi-fi transmitters). These concessions would generate commissions from sales, usage, and/or leasing. Further, note that some or all stations may accommodate small cellular phone base station antennas, generating rental income from mobile phone carriers. To maximize revenues, these concession rights could be bundled, when possible, as components of larger, packaged arrangements, which would also include ad - buying commitments. Concession agreements are typically structured either to produce guaranteed revenues/rental income or to pay returns on a revenue -share basis. For the Miami Streetcar, these options are likely to be selected or blended on a case -by -case basis, to balance risks and returns, and in response to indications from the private sector. As mentioned above, good value may also be derived from packaging concession rights into larger, long-term sponsorship deals. On revenue -share deals, returns from most of these sources would likely be "lumpy", spiking during events and conventions, and varying seasonally. Design changes to stations would include adding appropriate, secure spaces or slots for concession machines/devices. There would need to be appropriate circuits and power outlets available. A tasteful, convenient, modular design can be developed in consultation with likely concession service providers and industry experts; this input could be gathered during a future study phase. The MPO's proposed Bay Link FEIS/PE project has proceeded through form and fit analysis and station concept planning. 20-12 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 BeveragesNending Each station could accommodate a beverage and/or snack vending machine of appropriate size and secure design. This machine would be accessible to waiting passengers as well as passing pedestrians. Each station stop would need to provide an appropriate power outlet. A wide variation in sales from station to station is expected. Assum ptions All 24 stations could accommodate these machines, and some or all may be selected as viable locations. The retail price per item would be $1.00, with a portion paid in commission income to the management. Annual Revenue Estimate (2004 dollars) Revenue Source Beverages/Vending High Scenario $175,000 Low Scenario $70,000 Automatic Teller Machines Each station could accommodate an automatic teller machine; however, it is likely that only a few stations in high -traffic areas, particularly those that host out- of-town visitors, would be desirable candidates for ATMs. Ultimately a bank partner or a third -party ATM supplier would be best suited to evaluate the suitability of each station location for an ATM (during pre -bid discussions or as part of a proposal process). The ATM machines envisioned would be accessible to waiting passengers as well as passing pedestrians. Each station stop would need to provide an appropriate power outlet. The ongoing, long-term viability of ATMs as a revenue source should be monitored as more and more of the populace shifts to conducting cashless transactions. An interesting side note: The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) has issued a request for proposals for ATMs at LRT stations. Instead of a revenue -sharing or rental arrangement, however, CATS has requested that the ATMs be configured to vend tickets as a cost offset. The net value to be gained or lost by this offset approach is not yet clear, nor are the operational ramifications. However, it is possible that an ATM/ ticket -vending machine will already have been developed for CATS by a national bank partner by the time the Miami Streetcar opens. Assumptions All 24 stations could accommodate ATMS, but not all would be used. The transaction charge would be $1.50, with 50 percent, or $0.75, paid in commission income to Miami Streetcar. Many transactions are expected at various stations but not all would be commissionable if a prominent local bank provides the ATMs and existing customers of that bank use these machines for free. A majority of the commissionable transactions are likely to occur near the convention and hotel area, and would be driven by out-of-town visitors. Annual Revenue Estimate (2004 dollars) Revenue Source ATMs High Scenario $160,000 Low Scenario $70,000 Wireline Pay Telephones Each station could accommodate one or more pay phones. The pay phones are assumed to be accessible to waiting passengers as well as pedestrians. The continuing revenue viability of pay phones over the long term must be examined from time to time as more and more of the populace shifts to wireless devices. A vending machine that disburses pre -paid phone cards could offset some of this possible revenue erosion. Some major telephone companies are also installing wi-fi hubs at their pay phone locations. In addition to revenue generation, the presence of pay phones is sometimes perceived to be a helpful public safety measure. (In other cases, a regular clientele can be perceived as a nuisance.) Assumptions All 24 stations could accommodate pay phones. Each call would cost the consumer an average of $0.50, with half paid as a commission to Miami Streetcar. Annual Revenue Estimate (2004 dollars) Revenue Source High Scenario Low Scenario Pay Phones $100,000 $40,000 Wireless Base Station Antennas Wireless companies often situate base station antennas at or near busy street corners to provide uninterrupted cell coverage to their subscribers. They typically pay lease or rental fees to property owners. Often one company will secure the station via a lease or rental agreement and then proceed to "sublease" the antenna for use by competitors. While all 24 stations could accommodate these antenna devices, only a few stations may be eligible based on each location's ability to alleviate a local dead spot in wireless coverage. Assumptions All 24 stations could accommodate antennas, but most would not be desirable locations. Each location would generate a flat monthly fee. Annual Revenue Estimate (2004 dollars) Revenue Source High Scenario Low Scenario Antenna Leases $130,000 $55,000 Over the long-term, inflation in media costs is likely to exceed CPI on an annual basis, while the retail sales price of the concessions envisioned at each stop are not likely to keep up with CPI. In the short-term, however, market fluctuation is likely to render any fixed rate growth assumptions unsound. Consequently, no inflation -related adjustments were made to the estimates above. All Estimates are for Gross Sales All potential revenue estimates in this study are for gross sales. It is highly likely that sales commissions would be paid for sponsorship and ad sales. Long-term sponsorship sales commissions typically range from 15 percent to 25 percent, whereas traditional ad sales efforts by the third -party sales organizations often entail 40 percent or more in sales commissions, depending on the level of upfront revenue guarantees provided (if any). Within the transit world, agencies with in-house sales people typically pay between 5 percent to 15 percent sales commission. Different sales forces can also deliver different sales results, with large third -parties typically having better access to national advertisers. 20-13 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Pe' 4011111111 SECTION 20 — Financial Fea Table 20.5.1 Summary Table PROJECTED GROSS ANNUAL ANCILLARY REVENUE POTENTIAL (2004 dollars) Revenue Source High Scenario Low Scenario Media Streetcar Wraps $505,000 $240,000 Streetcar Interior Cards $50,000 $30,000 Station Ad Panels $320,000 $240,000 Media Subtotal $875,000 $510,000 Secondary Sources Beverages/Vending $175,000 ATMs $160,000 Pay Phones $100,000 Antenna Leases $130,000 Secondary Subtotal* $565,000 $235,000 $70,000 $70,000 $40,000 $55,000 Gross Ancillary Revenue Potential: $1,440,000 $745,000 * Estimates are not net of sales commissions and are in 2004 dollars 20.6.2 Next Steps As financial plans and physical designs for the Miami Streetcar progress, there are a number of steps that can advance the revenue opportunities identified in this study: Research Meet with other Florida agencies to discuss strategies and determine actual revenue yields from ancillary sources as well as to identify typical costs and any additional barriers. Explore nationwide experiences and yields from naming rights and "low-key" sponsorships and compare them to traditional and wrap advertising. Survey common post -up charge yields. Facilitation Describe opportunities and risks to stakeholders. Build consensus around an ancillary revenue plan. Finance Revise ancillary revenue estimates to reflect the accepted plan. Refine and update projections. Incorporate into pro forma. Design Consult station and vehicle plans to ensure that ancillary revenue opportunities are being maximized in all designs. Invite potential concessionaries to provide design feedback. Get details on wrapping from wrap manufacturers and other local agencies and incorporate the information into yard and shop needs (if necessary). Strategy and implementation Develop and implement a proprietary sales and sponsorship packaging strategy (once the project has moved through the approval process). Include: Close long-term sponsorship deals. A contract for an outdoor advertising sales agent to handle traditional media (potentially with a revenue guarantee). A package and source concession and cell tower rights. Summary This section has discussed a number of funding options which the City could finance the construction and operations of the Miami Streetcar. As the project continues to be developed, additional funding options will be identified and examined as to viability. The intent within this study was to determine if the project was financially feasible. Since the preparation of this section, a number of discussions have been held with respect to the project financing. Based upon these discussions, it is apparent that there are a variety of means that the City can use to finance this project. A final project finance plan will be developed as the project proceeds and decisions are made as to which sources of funds will be used for project implementation. At this time, there is no reason to believe that the project is not financially feasible. 20-14 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 21.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS Presently, the use of Federal transit funds is an option for planning, design, or implementation of the initial phase of the streetcar project. This option might or might not be exercised in the initial project phase. Federal funds may also be requested, however, for subsequent phases of the project. To qualify for Federal transit funding, the proposed City of Miami Streetcar project would need to comply with the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA's) environmental policies. Coordination with FTA would confirm the environmental classification and process for complying with the agency's requirements. Additionally, the City (and/or local or state partners) may request that local funds expended for the project qualify for credit toward the local match for subsequent Federal funding. The FTA must first give its approval to use non -Federal funds for final design, construction, or other capital costs, such as rolling stock, in advance of the availability of Federal funds. Similarly, FTA approval is required to qualify for reimbursement of eligible expenses or credit for eligible expenses toward the local matching share of Federal funding, should the project be approved by FTA at a later date. 21.1 Letter of No Prejudice Option FTA has several mechanisms that allow projects to advance beyond planning and preliminary engineering without first receiving formal FTA approval. The mechanism that could allow the proposed Miami Streetcar to incur final design and construction costs without first receiving formal FTA project approval is known as a "Letter of No Prejudice" (LONP). The LONP allows a project proponent to spend local funds on the project and be eligible for reimbursement or credit toward the local match if and when FTA approves and funds the project. The LONP would have an expiration date beyond which funding cannot be requested retroactively for the project. Typically, the period covered by a LONP does not exceed two years.' The LONP approach has been used on other urban transit projects where potential grant applicants desire to proceed before receiving Federal funding. 21.2 Environmental and Planning Requirements National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA 1 and Environmental Laws In order to receive a LONP, the applicant must meet the requirements of NEPA and environmental laws and executive orders28 (such as the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and environmental justice considerations) before state or local funds are spent on a project that may subsequently be funded with FTA funds. NEPA (42 USC 4321 et seq.) provides a framework for considering the potential environmental impacts of major Federal actions such as the approval and funding of urban transit projects. FTA has promulgated a FTA Circular 9300.1A, Chapter 6, Section 21. I hid. SECTION 21 — Environmental Regui environmental regulations implementing NEPA (23 CFR 771), which provide specific environmental review and documentation requirements for the agency's actions. Under these regulations, projects are classified with regard to the level of environmental review and documentation they require. FTA's environmental rules encourage local governments that may apply for Federal transit funding to coordinate with FTA so that FTA can advise the applicant of the probable class of action and the related level of documentation required in the NEPA process (23 CFR 771.115). Projects that fall within categories of actions that do not typically have significant environmental impacts are considered to be categorical exclusions, or Class II actions, and do not require detailed environmental review (23 CFR 771.117). Actions that are larger in scope or may result in significant impacts require more detailed review in the form of an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). Both EAs and EISs require that the public be afforded the opportunity to comment. According to FTA's guidance, projects qualifying for a LONP may not be advanced "beyond planning and preliminary engineering before FTA has approved either a categorical exclusion, a finding of no significant impact (for an EA), or a record of decision (for an EIS)."29 The Miami Streetcar project would be constructed almost exclusively within existing public rights -of -way. The guideway, overhead power wires, power substations, and platforms would be constructed primarily within the public right-of-way. A portion of the project is proposed within a plaza in the Midtown Ihid. Miami Redevelopment Area, which is on private property. As noted above, several candidate sites for a maintenance and operations facility are under consideration. This facility would not be within existing right-of-way, but it is likely that the site would be in an industrial area and compatible with surrounding land uses. Based on the project characteristics described above, the Miami Streetcar project may qualify as a Categorical Exclusion under FTA's environmental rules, as it appears to be consistent with the following types of actions that meet the criteria for Categorical Exclusions : Track and railbed maintenance and improvements are carried out within the existing right-of-way (23 CFR 771.117 (c)(18)), and Rail storage and maintenance facilities are constructed in areas used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community (23 CFR 771,117(d)(11)). The proposed integration with Bay Link may affect how FTA assesses the project with respect to its environmental classification. FTA Region 4 should be contacted to discuss the environmental classification of the project and confirm this assessment as well as the documentation that would be required. If the project were classified as a categorical exclusion, summary documentation would need to be prepared, describing the project, its potential impacts on environmental resources, and procedures for complying with environmental laws and requirements. The Bay Link Draft EIS provides 21-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 — Environmental Requirements substantial recent information on environmental conditions in the project area. This information would be very useful in preparing documentation for a categorical exclusion. If FTA does not concur that the project is a categorical exclusion, then an EA or EIS would be required if the City wishes to pursue Federal funding. An EA or EIS would require more extensive analysis and documentation than a categorical exclusion, and would have longer time frames to complete. Planning Requirements In addition to meeting NEPA and other environmental requirements, conformity with the Clean Air Act and inclusion of the project in the local Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Federally approved State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) must be demonstrated. Presently, the Miami Streetcar project is included in the City's Draft Five -Year TIP (along with reconstruction, resurfacing, sidewalk repair, traffic control) for public streets in the study area. If the project is incorporated into the local TIP and STIP, an individual conformity analysis would not be required. 21.3 Process to Meet Environmental Requirements Coordination with FTA regarding the project's environmental classification and documentation requirements should be initiated as the project proceeds to ensure eligibility for Federal funding. The request for an LONP would allow the project to move forward while the appropriate environmental review is conducted. A categorical exclusion would be more expedient and require less effort to process than would an EA or EIS. It is also important is to ensure that the project is in the TIP and STIP, or that the process is underway and likely to result in the project being adopted prior to the expenditure of local funds on the project. The City of Portland submitted its categorical exclusion documentation and request for a LONP prior to incorporation of the project in the STIP; however, the process to incorporate and approve the project was underway when the request was submitted and it was completed prior to project initiation. Finally, a public involvement process would provide useful information on public interest, support, and/or concerns regarding the project. 21-2 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 22.0 - IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS Over time, Miami could once again enjoy the benefits of a system of streetcar lines. Although this study report focuses on the NE 2"d Avenue corridor, there are multiple possibilities for future extensions of streetcar service, taking off from this "spine" at various points and from the downtown loop in several directions (see Figure 22.1.1 for the potential system plan). Potential extensions include one farther along NE 2nd Avenue to the Miami City Limit and another to the Civic Center area. These potential extensions would only occur, however, after an initial line is built and opened. The recommended initial Phase 1 project has a number of key strengths, which lead to issues to be addressed in project implementation: Access to a very large increment of redevelopment. As the Midtown Miami project and other recent development projects listed in the Large Scale Development Report demonstrate, this redevelopment is already underway. If the City wants to influence and sustain the pattern of redevelopment now taking shape in this corridor, the streetcar project would be a powerful tool in exerting this influence. To be effective in shaping this development into a more transit -oriented form, this tool would need to be used soon. Enhanced service to parking -constrained destinations that will soon need better access. The Miami -Dade Community College, the new federal courthouse, and the Performing Arts Center are among the key community destinations which the recommended Phase 1 project would serve. Meeting the need for access to these facilities, in part with the Streetcar project, would be highly beneficial to these destinations. Shared use of the downtown streetcar loop for the Miami Streetcar project, Bay Link, and future additions. The Bay Link project is being advanced into the next stage of project development under the process set out by the Federal Transit Administration. The shared downtown trackway and stations, as well as the potential for a shared maintenance and operations facility (MOF), could create a strong partnership between the Miami Streetcar project and the Bay Link project. That partnership offers the possibility for a significant contribution to the capital cost of the Miami Streetcar project. Potential Phase 2 extensions of the streetcar service would bring additional opportunities to connect services to other regional transportation projects, creating new opportunities for partnerships. Ability to show early and dramatic results for the People's Transportation Plan (PTP). Voter approval of the half- cent sales tax funding for the PTP was an indication of voter concern about mobility options and a vote of confidence for the effective delivery of tangible improvements. Given the long timeline for the delivery of major PTP projects, especially those involving federal funds, there is a growing need to demonstrate results for this investment. The Miami Streetcar project has the potential to meet this need with a highly visible and popular project, opened in a relatively short time. Strong project finance potential using local funding sources. The City's improving financial health, coupled with the lift provided by large SECTION 22 — Implementation Options amounts of new construction and the availability of new revenue resources in the form of the PTP, opens possibilities for funding a key new initiative such as this project. Potential access to state and Federal funds. As discussed in Section 20, a variety of state and federal funding sources are potentially available, in addition to local funds, to cover a portion of the capital and operating costs of the Miami Streetcar. Project sponsors will need to make timely strategic decisions to take full advantage of these opportunities. 22.1 Key Factors for Selecting an Approach Three factors highlight three key requirements for project implementation: The ability to move quickly to maximize the streetcar's benefits and funding options The need to control costs and schedule Creation of a workable structure for construction and ongoing operations The following are several options for project implementation. Project Delivery by Existing Public Agencies The simplest approach would be to use an existing public agency to implement and operate the project. Because the City has project leadership and financing responsibility and because cities generally are positioned to implement public works construction, this approach assumes that the City would be responsible for project management and construction. Then, upon completion, the new "public work" of the streetcar line, along with any revenue sources attached to the project, could be turned over to the Miami -Dade Transit (MDT) for ongoing operation. This transition would be implemented through an interlocal agreement. Within this option are two variations: 1) Financing, design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management by the City and an interlocal agreement with MDT for operations and maintenance 2) Financing and project oversight by the City and design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management, operations and maintenance by MDT Project Delivery by a New Public Organization Specialized public agencies, in the form of a special district or authority, are an effective way to carry out projects and provide discrete public services. County and municipal authorities are common in Florida and have been used for a variety of purposes in Miami - Dade County and its cities. Economic development and transportation - and this project would provide both - are common applications of this approach. Similarly, there are options in this category: 1) Financing and project oversight, design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management by the City and operations and maintenance by a new City of Miami Mobility Authority, created by action of the City of Miami Commission with state or county authorization. 2) Financing and project oversight by the City and design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management, operations and maintenance by a new City of Miami Mobility Authority, created by action of the City of Miami Commission action with state or county authorization. 3) Project oversight by the City and financing, design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management, operations and maintenance by a new City of Miami Mobility 22-1 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 To Miami City Limit Biscayne Blvd N. Miami Av. NW 1. Av. NW snd Av. NW Brd Av. NW Av. NW till Av. NW Bill Av. NW1oih Av. NW 1. Av. To University of Miami/ Jackson (Allapattah) To Overtown NE snd Av. Brickell Av. s Too Brickell To East/West Little Havana Figure 22.1.1 - Potential Corridor Extensions LEGEND I /4 mile (I 0 minute) walk to streetcar Recommended Phase I Streetcar Alignment • Recommended Phase I Streetcar Station/Stop Locations Potential Service Extensions CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 22-2 Authority, created by action of the City of Miami Commission with state or county authorization. Project Delivery Through a Public Private Partnership Public -private partnerships are increasingly utilized to deliver public projects. One form of this innovation is soliciting Design/Build/Operate/Maintain (DBOM) proposals from the private sector for a particular project and its attendant costs and revenues. A particular variation of this approach has been developed and utilized particularly for local transportation projects: forming a nonprofit corporation for the specific purpose of project implementation. Portland, Oregon, has now used this approach for three projects, one completed (Portland Streetcar, Inc. for the Central City Streetcar), one in the construction phase (Portland Aerial Tram, Inc. for an aerial tramway connecting the South Waterfront district with Oregon Health Sciences University), and one in the design phase (Friends of Burnside, Inc. for a streetscape and one-way couplet project). Locally, Miami Beach contracts with Miami Beach Transportation Management Association, Inc. for operation of its Electrowave local transit circulator service. There are four options to consider in this category: 1) Financing, project oversight of a nonprofit corporation by the City; design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management by the nonprofit corporation (i.e., Miami Streetcar, Inc.); and an interlocal agreement with MDT for operations and maintenance 2) Financing, oversight of a nonprofit corporation by the City and design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management and operations and maintenance by the nonprofit corporation (i.e., Miami Streetcar, Inc.) 3) Financing, project oversight, design, vehicle and track procurement, construction management by the City and operations and maintenance by a Transportation Management Association (TMA) 4) Financing, Project Oversight by the City and Design, Vehicle and Track Procurement, Construction Management and Operations and Maintenance procured through a Design/Build/ Operate/Maintain agreement. Analysis of Project Delivery Options Table 22.1.1 outlines the structure of each option and describes its advantages and disadvantages. It also notes some key actions needed to implement each option. Under the "Description" column, an entity is identified for construction. It is assumed that the construction approach would be the same in each instance due to the need to proceed swiftly with this project and given the successes experienced in other projects, to control costs (Key Factors 1 and 2 listed above). In other words, regardless of the implementing organization, it is recommended that one of the following streamlined project delivery methods be selected: Soliciting Design/Build proposals Qualification -based selection of a construction contractor and negotiation of a construction management/general contractor (CM/GC) agreement with the selected contractor Thus, when an option lists an entity for "construction," the entity would be responsible for conducting the design/build or providing CM/GC services. SECTION 22 — Implementation Options 22.2 Project Schedule Given a desire by the City to proceed as rapidly as possible, the project implementation schedule can be developed to open the project for service by 2008. That timeline requires the implementation of specific project delivery stages, as shown in Table 22.2.1, and requires expenditure of funds as shown in Table 22.2.2. Once the expenditure percentages were determined by year, the estimated costs for each were applied as total annual payments for design and construction costs. In addition, to accurately determine the City's responsibility for the anticipated design and construction costs, the Bay Link share of the construction cost estimates was multiplied by the same payout schedule, also shown in Table 22.2.2. 22.3 Payout Schedule To evaluate the financial feasibility of the project, it was desirable to have the capital costs broken out by an anticipated design and construction schedule using calendar years from 2004 to 2008. It is assumed that design would be initiated in 2006 and the system would open in 2008, as shown in Table 22.2.1. Initially, an estimated percentage breakdown of the costs per calendar year was created using the categories of preliminary and final design costs, track, roadway and utility construction, vehicle procurement, maintenance facility (property acquisition and construction), and construction management. Once the expenditure percentages were determined by year, the estimated costs for each were applied as total annual payments for design and construction costs. In addition, to accurately determine the City's responsibility for the anticipated design and construction costs, the Bay Link share of the construction cost estimates was multiplied by the same payout schedule and is also shown in Table 22.2.2. 22.4 Next Steps to Move the Project Forward A number of initial steps are key to moving this project forward to implementation, including: 1) City of Miami Commission Report - The findings of this feasibility study will be presented to the City of Miami Commission and made available to the public. 2) City of Miami Commission Resolution directing further project development - The City of Miami Commission would need to consider and act on a resolution authorizing additional project development activities, including some or all of the following items. 3) Initiation of time -critical advance technical work, specifically: The completion of a survey and geotechnical investigation needed for construction Initiation of negotiations with Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway to resolve design and operations issues Initiation of negotiations for options to purchase a site for the MOF 4) Public and Stakeholder Outreach - A number of organizations within the study area have been involved in the study process, include the following: CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY 22-3 STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 ECTION 22 — Implementation Options Option Description 1. City Finances, Manages and Constructs 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. MDT Operates City Finances MDT Constructs and Operates City Finances and Constructs Authority operates City Finances Authority Constructs and Operates Authority Finances, Constructs, and Operates City Finances Nonprofit Corp. Constructs MDT Operates Table 22.1.1 Options for Implementation Advantages No new agency or organization needed Good opportunity for Bay Link coordination No new agency or organization needed Good opportunity for Bay Link coordination Experienced agency operating More time to form Authority Authority is narrowly focused on ongoing operations, requiring a smaller span of expertise More flexibility on labor issues Authority is focused on project implementation and later, on operations Opportunity for stakeholder and property owner involvement through Authority Board City maintains overall control, with specific responsibilities delegated to the Authority More flexibility on labor issues Scarce City staff resources focused on project oversight Authority has full responsibility for project implementation and operation Opportunity for stakeholder and property owner involvement through Authority Board Successful precedent: Miami Parking Authority, DDA, MDX, etc. More flexibility on labor issues City has access to project financing Nonprofit has focused responsibility for project construction Opportunity for stakeholder and property owner involvement and potentially higher "buy -in through Nonprofit Board Good opportunity for Bay Link coordination Experienced agency operating Disadvantages City is not configured to manage a significant transit project and does not have sufficient project management staff for such a project MDT may be unwilling to operate the project or might operate it differently than City would wish Less private -sector involvement than public -private partnership or Authority options MDT costs and labor agreements impact operating costs MDT may be unwilling to build or operate the project or might operate it differently than City would wish Less private -sector involvement than public -private partnership or Authority options MDT costs and labor agreements impact operating costs Key implementation steps Interlocal Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Interlocal Agreement with MDTA for Operations Interlocal Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Interlocal Agreement with MDTA for Operations Less private -sector involvement if Authority is only concerned with operations Interlocal Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Bay Link coordination less direct Legislative or County Approval of new Authority City Commission approval of new Authority Creating new Authority requires action by Legislature Board of County Commissioners Creating new Authority requires action by Legislature or Board of County Commissioners, with impact on the project timeline Bay Link coordination less direct Authority might have less access to project financing options than City itself Bay Link coordination less direct Responsibility for project implementation is divided MDT may be unwilling to operate the project or might operate it differently than City would wish MDT costs and labor agreements impact operating costs Labor negotiations Interlocal Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Legislative or County Approval of new Authority City Commission approval of new Authority Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Labor negotiations Interlocal Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Legislative or County Approval of new Authority City Commission approval of new Authority Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Labor negotiations Interlocal Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Nonprofit formation Commission approval of agreement with Nonprofit Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Intel -Local Agreement with MDTA for Operations CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 224j Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Option Description 7. 8. 9. City Finances Nonprofit Corp. Constructs, and Operates City Finances and Constructs TMA operates City Finances Design/Build/ Operate/Maintain (DBOM) Contractor Constructs and Operates Miami -Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Miami -Dade County MDT Transportation Planning Technical Advisory Committee (TPTAC) Miami Downtown Development Authority Community Redevelopment Agency Miami Chamber of Commerce Transportation Executive Committee Miami Parking Authority "Entities of Common Interest" organization of large public facilities In addition, a number of property owners in the corridor have been briefed on the project. In the case of the property owners involved in the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Yards site into the Midtown Miami Advantages City has access to project financing Nonprofit has broad responsibility for project construction and operation Opportunity for stakeholder and property owner involvement and potentially higher "buy -in" through Nonprofit Board More flexibility on labor issues Successful precedent: Portland Streetcar, Inc. and others City maintains control of financing and construction process TMAs can be formed under current City authority Construction can begin quickly; TMA need only be in place for operation More flexibility on labor issues Successful precedent: TMAs widely used for ongoing services such as local transit service operation (e.g. MBTMA) City maintains control of financing and maintains project oversight Potential access to financial tools not otherwise available DBOM contractor assumes more risk More flexibility on labor issues project, intensive work has already begun to integrate the design and infrastructure plans for these major projects with the recommended streetcar alignment. There is now a need for a more complete public and stakeholder outreach effort in the study area. The Miami Streetcar project would have dramatic beneficial impacts on these properties, with few negative aspects in the form of construction disruption (because the construction process can be held to a relatively brief period in each segment), traffic flow (negligible impact), or the need to acquire right-of- way (none, except for the purchase of a site for the MOF). However, this initiative represents change, and is a major public project; therefore, a lack of information or opportunities for public involvement brings the potential for public and stakeholder concern, or even opposition. SECTION 22 — Implementation Options Table 22.1.1 Options for Implementation (continued) Disadvantages Formation of Nonprofit and agreements between Nonprofit and City might delay start of procurement or construction Bay Link coordination less direct Stakeholder and Property Owner involvement confined to TMA participation and operations stage Bay Link coordination less direct DBOM solicitation and negotiation possibly slower and more complex than more traditional Design/Build Public accountability concerns with having a private entity provide a public serWce Aside from this legitimate community information responsibility, broad stakeholder involvement is needed to maximize the project's positive impacts. The Miami Streetcar project is intended to influence the pattern, intensity, and pace of private real estate development in the corridor. That result will occur when property owners, architects, and developers begin to revise their plans. Given other cities' experience in moving toward Transit Oriented Development (TOD), progress in this direction will be aided by a high level of collaboration among city planners, the streetcar project's implementation team, and the large and diverse group of private stakeholders. The sooner that process begins, the more positive impact the streetcar project can have and the fewer missed opportunities - in the form of traditional automobile -oriented designs - that need to be overcome. Key implementation steps Intel -Local Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Nonprofit formation Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Commission approval of agreement with Nonprofit Labor negotiations Intel -Local Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package Formation of TMA Labor negotiations Intel -Local Agreement with Miami -Dade County for Construction Preparation of 30% design and Design/Build package DBOM solicitation DBOM selection and negotiation 1) Adoption of a Project Finance Plan for Construction and Operations —Several options were developed in this study for configuring funding for capital construction and ongoing operation of the project. The City and its partners in this project, public and private, will need to select their preferred funding scenario and implement that scenario through action of the City of Miami Commission on budgets, interlocal agreements, and other mechanisms. 2) Alternatives Analysis and Environmental Assessment —If the adopted finance includes the use of Federal funding, Alternatives Analysis (AA) and an Environmental (EA) must be completed to satisfy FTA's National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process. This process will document the existing environmental, social and economic 22-5 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 22 — Implementation Options Task Feasibility Study Bay Link/FEC Coordination Survey/Geotech Design Vehicle/Track Procurement Design Build Advertisement Bid Review and Contractor Negotiation Construction Testing Opening * Project Milestone conditions for three alternatives: the No -Build; the Transportation Systems Management (TSM), and one or more Build alternatives. FTA must approve the EA before Federal funding can be committed to the project. 3) FTA New Starts/Small Starts Application —If the adopted finance includes the use of Federal funding, a New Starts application must be submitted for approval by FTA for funding. This application can be completed using the work completed throughout the AA/EA, supplemented as necessary in conformance with FTA requirements. Even if the project fits into the Small Starts category, the level of documentation required is the same as a typical New Starts application. It is FTA's review of a Small Start application that is less rigorous, rather than the application process. Table 22.2.1 Project Schedule 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th -- * 4) Agency Coordination —The Miami Streetcar project must be coordinated closely with a number of agencies, such as several departments of FTA, Miami -Dade County, FDOT (Central Office and District VI), and others, to ensure successful, efficient and timely implementation of the project. Agency coordination will include issues related to project approval, funding, design and implementation, project impacts, development of agreements, and regulatory matters. 5) Public Involvement —Public involvement has become a key component to large infrastructure projects in the past twenty years, particularly as means of soliciting public input and building public consensus. Given the potential effect of the Miami Streetcar project on businesses and properties from station location and project construction, a public 1st 2nd 3rd 4th * 1st 2nd involvement program (PIP) is included in this phase of the program management. While the Feasibility Study identified a preferred alignment and the location of stations, it left open the possibility of modifications to both the alignment and the station locations. Public input during this Phase of the streetcar program will be vital to the resolution of the alignment and station locations. Public involvement will include public meetings, meetings with property owners, coordination with the media, a project website, and other means of soliciting input from the public. 6) FEC Railway Coordination —As currently planned, the Miami Streetcar project will cross the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) in more than one location. While the Feasibility Study includes coordination on such crossings in the planning process, it will be necessary to 3rd 4th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th * Vehicle Delivery * * * formalize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with FEC for such crossings as part of the project. Since the project will be seeking FTA approval through a New Starts application, it expected that FTA will require that the New Starts application include documentation of agreement from FEC that the Miami Streetcar can cross their rail line. Therefore, this effort provides for the effort necessary to develop an MOU for the crossing of the FEC rail line by the Miami Streetcar. This effort is expected to include resolution of design issues such as signalization, communications, and special trackwork. 7) Maintenance and Operations Facility Site Selection Analysis —The Miami Streetcar Feasibility Study included an analysis of potential locations for a maintenance and operations facility (MOF). Since that study did 22-6 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 SECTION 22 — Im lementation Options not finalize the MOF site selection, a site selection effort for an MOF in necessary. This site selection analysis will address the need for a MOF to be shared by the Bay Link project and Miami Streetcar. The analysis should include a track route from the MOF to the streetcar alignment. 8) Property Acquisition Definition —The Feasibility Study identified two potential corner clips (at intersections of NE 9`h Street/ NE 2nd Avenue and N. Miami Avenue/NE 3rd Street) along the streetcar alignment - both of which occurred due within the area of the alignment shared by the Bay Link and Miami Streetcar projects. This effort should identify property acquisition requirements for the project for traction power substations (TPS) as part of the electrical supply system to the streetcar and any other corner clips along the alignment as revised or to the MOF. 9) Selection of the Preferred Organizational Option for Project Implementation —As indicated above, there are a number of options for "housing" this initiative in existing public agencies or in a new organizational structure. During or after the completion of the four steps outlined above, this question will need to be taken up, and an approach selected. Given the diversity of approaches used by other cities to manage such projects and given Miami's own particular structures and traditions, it is likely that several of these options would serve to effectively implement the project. More important than which particular organizational option is chosen is the presence of the key • ingredients, which are clearly in place, for a successful streetcar project: Political Leadership —This project represents change and constitutes a major City initiative requiring strong advocacy from public figures. City leaders must "lead the charge" for project implementation. Redevelopment opportunity —Vacant or underutilized land is available for a new form of development. Few American cities, if any, have the opportunity now present in this corridor for large-scale transit -oriented development. Development pressure - The spectacular resurgence of development in Miami, along with the prospect for deteriorating mobility in an overcrowded street network otherwise, provides the force to propel this initiative forward. Physical feasibility - This study has determined that the Miami Streetcar project is physically and operationally feasible as proposed. Financial capacity - As this study has demonstrated, the means are available to construct and operate this project and operate it. Given these positive factors, the question of which finance or operations scenario to select is less important than the fact that one is selected. Summary This study has dealt with a variety of issues as it determined the viability of a Miami Streetcar project. From consideration of Miami's history with streetcars to a comparison of current transit technologies, this study has defined a Phase 1 project for the Miami Streetcar that will help guide and sustain the development that the City of Miami is experiencing. The Miami Streetcar project is feasible from a physical perspective in that it can be built in the urban environment within the City of Miami with minimal impacts. The project is feasible from an environmental perspective in that it has few, if any, environmental impacts —indeed, further analysis may show that it results in environmental benefits by reducing dependence on and use of cars in downtown Miami. The construction and operations of the project are both financially feasible for the City of Miami, with financial support for the project already identified from a number of project partners. Finally, the project is feasible from a "place -making" point of view as it will connect a residents, visitors, and worker to the destinations of downtown Miami, creating a truly livable city. 22-7 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Implementation Options Table 22.2.2 Estimated Payout Schedule CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWN ITEM Preliminary and Final Design Costs Track, Roadway and Utility Construction Vehicle Procurement Maintenance Facility Property Acquisition Construction Construction Management TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS COST $ 9,340,000 $ 67,322,500 $ 18,640,000 $ 6,500,000 $ 27,332,500 $ 3,120,000 $ 132,255,000 ESTIMATED PERCENT BREAKDOWN YEAR ITEM FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 TOTAL Preliminary and Final Design Costs 50% 50% 100% Track, Roadway and Utility Construction 6% 40% 54% 0% 100% Vehicle Procurement 50% 0% 40% 10% 100% Maintenance Facility Property Acquisition 100% 0% 100% Construction 50% 50% 0% 100% Construction Management 1% 45% 47% 7% 100% ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST PAYOUT YEAR ITEM FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 TOTAL Preliminary and Final Design Costs $ 4,670,000 $ 4,670,000 $ $ $ 9,340,000 Track, Roadway and Utility Construction $ 4,039,350 $ 26,929,000 $ 36,354,150 $ $ 67,322,500 Vehicle Procurement $ 9,320,000 $ - $ 7,456,000 $ 1,864,000 $ 18,640,000 Maintenance Facility Property Acquisition $ 6,500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,500,000 Construction $ - $ 13,666,250 $ 13,666,250 $ - $ 27,332,500 Construction Management $ 31,200 $ 1,404,000 $ 1,466,400 $ 218,400 $ 3,120,000 TOTAL PAYOUT $ 24,560,550 $ 46,669,250 $ 58,942,800 $ 2,082,400 $ 132,255,000 Inflation Factor (based on FY2004) 1.03 1.061 1.093 1.126 FYE Costs $ 25,297,367 $ 49,511,407 $ 64,408,389 $ 2,343,760 $ 141,560,922 ESTIMATED BAY LINK CONSTRUCTION COST PAYOUT YEAR ITEM FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 TOTAL Preliminary and Final Design Costs $ 1,278,172 $ 1,278,172 $ $ $ 2,556,344 Track, Roadway and Utility Construction $ - $ 7,370,428 $ 11,055,642 $ $ 18,426,070 Vehicle Procurement $ 2,550,870 $ $ 2,040,696 $ 510,174 $ 5,101,741 Maintenance Facility Property Acquisition $ 1,779,040 $ $ - $ - $ 1,779,040 Construction $ - $ 3,740,433 $ 3,740,433 $ - $ 7,480,865 Construction Management $ - $ 384,273 $ 409,891 $ 59,776 $ 853,939 TOTAL PAYOUT $ 5,608,083 $ 12,773,305 $ 17,246,662 $ 569,950 $ 36,198,000 Inflation Factor (based on FY2004) 1.030 1.061 1.093 1.126 FYE Costs $ 5,776,326 $ 13,551,200 $ 18,845,893 $ 641,484 $ 38,814,902 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY 22-8 Part II: Planning, Analysis Et Implementation April 2005 Bibliography "BRT in Los Angeles Highlights Clash in Priorities: Traffic or Transit?" Urban Transportation Monitor. Fairfax Station, Virginia: Lawley Publications, October 1, 2004. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, for the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation and the US Department of Transportation. "Evaluation of the Economic Vitality of Narrow Gauge Local Rail Systems." page 26, November 2001. David Plummer Et Associates. "Miami Downtown Transportation Master Plan." (exhibit 3-CBD Im- provements), April 2003. Department of Planning and Zoning, City of Miami. Large Scale Development Report: 1996- Pre- sent, June 2004. Dittmar, Hank and Gloria Ohland, ed. The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit -Oriented Development. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press, 2004. FTA Circular 9300.1A, Chapter 6. "Requirements Common to All Capital Program Grant Applica- tions." Section 21. Miami Dade MPO. "Bay Link Draft Environmental Impact Statement." October 2002. Miami -Dade MPO. 2025 FSUTMS travel demand model, March 2002. Nova Southeastern University Center for Public Policy and Leadership. "Miami at Midnight Con- cept Study." November 2003 Ridolph, Edward. Biscayne Bay Trolleys: Street Railways of the Miami Area. Forty Fort, Pennsyl- vania: Harold E. Cox publisher, 1981, p. 51. Urban Resources Group. The Miami Design District Design Development Plan, April 2001. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts? event=ChangeGeoContextftgeo_id=16000US1245000ft_geoContext=ft_street=ft_county=ft_cityTo wn=Miamift_state=04000US12ft_zip=ft_lang=enft_sse=on http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/ www/2002/dptables/90smp12.xls http://www. census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2002/ACS/ Tabular/160/16000U512450001.htm CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Appendices Final Report April 2005 PPENDIX A — Scope of Work 01441104 Project Workplan City of Miami Northeast 2nd Avenue Streetcar Feasibility Study Phases I and II February 4, 2004 Project Goals, Key Issues to be addressed in the Study This Feasibility Study is a strategic planning effort, conducting a needs assessment and detailing the concept of the NE 2' Avenue Streetcar line to a point where it can be evaluated and adopted by key public andprivate stakeholders. The initial phases of this study shouldprovide answers to the following key questions facing the project: + What is the purpose and need for the project? What are its potential community benefits? + What criteria should guide the location and design of the planned project? + Will the project sustain and enhance existing close -in neighborhoods such as Overtown, Little Haiti, the Club District and other distinct communities? + Will the project complement and enhance redevelopment plans in downtown Miami, the Design District and adjacent neighborhoods, changing the character and intensity of development in the Buena Vista Yards and other redevelopment sites in positive, sustainable ways? + What are the project's transportation benefits? Can it link key community destinations and make them more accessible to Miami residents without requiring them to drive? How can it provide improved linkages to the existing transit system (Metrorail and Metromover), fuhre additions to the regional system (The Miami Intermodal Center, Bay Link, Metrorail, Metromover, etc.) and be otherwise integrated into the regional transportation system? + What are the capital and operating costs for the planned project? • What are the impacts on traffic operations, railroad operations, utilities, and other systems? + What environmental and regulatory issues will the project need to address? + What changes to the City's plans and ordinances should be considered as implementation measures? • What are the finance options and strategies that will allow the project to move forward? What are the options for project construction, and which option is optimal for the City? How might the ongoing operation of the project be managed and funded? How will the project achieve public understanding and support? What is the timetable for project implementation? HR efil I 1 Project Tasks and Methodology: PHASE 1— STRATEGIC PLANNING, NEEDS ASSESSMENT STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT (February 4 — April 1, 2004) + Task 1: Identify intemal stakeholders and set initial meeting. Confmn the City of Miami's mission, goals and expectations for the project. The City 's project Manager and the HDR Project Manager will identify a list of key internal stakeholders. The City and project staff will conduct an initial stakeholders meeting to brief them on the project concept and to discuss project issues, opportunities and concerns, on February e. • Task 2: Define project objectives and develop evaluation criteria. Working with key internal and external stakeholders, define the project's objectives and develop evaluation criteria for alignment options, development and transportation impacts, and other issues. • Task 3: Develop overall route and three possible alternative alignments. Using these objectives and criteria, project staff will conduct afield review, and will develop a conceptual system plan with sketch -level alternative alignments and potential phases of project development. + Task 4: Analyze economic development potential, neighborhood impact. City, business district and private development plans, aerial photographs, demographic information and other data will be reviewed to assess development potential along the alternative alignments. In addition, discussions will be held with members of the local development community and economic development leaders. + Task 5: Analyze transportation impacts. Project staff will review current transportation system plans and capital plans and ident/ opportunities and constraints relevant to project design and feasibility. + Task 6: Field review of the Portland, Tampa and Tacoma streetcar systems for key City staff FiR CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 Project skiff will coordinate a field survey of modern U.S. streetcar systems in Portland Oregon, Tacoma, W hing/on, and Tampa, Floridafor key City staff + Task 7: Recommend a Phase I alignment for further development. Based on the information gathered in Tasks 1-6, pr jet/ skiff will recommend aPhase I alignme nl for further project development. + Task 8: Conduct technical and public workshops to assist the study process, inform the public and gather public input. Technical workshops w ill be organized as needed for completion of Phase 11 tasks. Possible subjects of /ethnical workshops include ridership estimation, uglily and Traffic impacts, and project finance. A public workshop on alignment concepts will be conducted. APPENDIX A — Scope of Work PHASE II: PROJECT PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, BUSINESS CASE, IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES: (April1- July 15, 2004) + Task 1: Develop the proposed alignment plan (trackway, station locations, maintenance facility, etc) and produce Conceptual Plans depicting the alignment. A Phase I alignment will be developed, and conceptual plans depicting the proposed alignment, along with station locations, will be produced and reviewed with stakeholders. + Task 2: Refine estimate of economic development impacts. The economic effects described in Part I, Task 4 will be further refined and quantified with respect to the recommended Phase I alignment. ❖ Task 3: Review linkages to the existing MDTA transit system, and to planned system additions. Opportunities for system inlegralion with existing a proposed transit systems will be identified and described. + Task 4: Develop a ridership estimate.' Using current MDTA ridership data, land use and demographic analysis and other available information, a ridership estimate will be produced. • Task 5: Identify project impacts on relevant City, neighborhood, and business district plans. City and neighborhood plans will be reviewed and recommendations developed for changes needed in zoning, density, parking requirements and other development regulations, which will significantly affect the eharacler of development, which will be allowed and encouraged in the pr jet/ area 8 Task 6: Produce illustrative streetscape concepts depicting relationship between the project and urban design in the project area. Two to three urban design schemes, depicting neighborhood development scenarios which include the implementation of the Phase I streetcar project and related changes in land use plans, will be produced. + Task 7: Assess major utility impacts. Utility system maps will be reviewed and key Wilily planners will be interviewed to ident/ and map infrastructure that could significantly impact project feasibility or cost. hDa ballritffiL CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 + Task 8: Assess impact on vehicular traffic flow, on -street parking, and railroad operations. The impact of the proposed project on railroad operations, traffic operations, the traffic management system, and parking availability will be estimated. + Task 9: Determine the level of Environmental Review necessary for project implementation. A technical memorandum will be prepared that will delineate the potential process of environmental review which the project will need to complete in order to obtain federal, slate or local funding. + Task 10: Prepare a conceptual cost estimate for design, construction and operation of aPhase I project. A conceptual construction and operations cost estimate will be developed for the Phase I project. • Task 11 Develop a financial analysis and options for project funding. Project funding options, including local, slate and federal funds as web as funds which might be derived from public -private partnership options, will be investigated and quantified. + Task 12: Develop options for project operation. Organizational options for ongoing operation of the project will be investigated and described. • Task 13: Identify and describe next steps in project development. An action plan for the next stages ofproject development will be produced. + Task 14: Conduct technical and public workshops to assist the study process, inform the public and gather public input. Technical workshops will be organized as needed for completion of Phase II tasks. Possible subjects include ridership estimation, Wilily and traffic impacts, and project finance. Deliverable: • Streetcar Feasibility Report, inclusive of the findings of all Phase I and Phase II Tasks. Thirty printed and bound copies will be provided to the City, as well as an electronic copy on disk. FLR Schedule, Phases I and II: Northeast Secon 1 Avenue Streetcar Feasibility Study Phase I -Strategic Planning 1. ID stakeholders, conduct internal kickoff • 2. Devebp project objectives, eval. criteria 3. Devebp route and alignment options 4. Analyze development potential 5. Analyze transportation impacts 6. Field review of Portland, Tacoma, Tampa • 7. Devebp Phase I alignment 8. Technical and public workshops • Phase II -Project Planning and Analysis 1. Devebp Phase I alignment concept 2. Refine and quantify economic impacts 3. Review transit linkages 4. Ridership estimate, 5. Identify possible plan ordinance changes 6. Devebp urban design schemes 7. Evaluate utility impacts 8. Evaluate traffic and railroad impacts 9. Determine environmental requirements 10. Produce cost estimate 11. Financial analysis, business case 12. Options for construction, operation 13. Outline implementation measures 14. Technical and public workshops> Deliverable: Phase I and II Report ♦ ,Ridership Estimation Process Review existing and future networks, codings, and co-efficients; validate and review with FDOT District staff and MPOIMDTA staff II. Evaluate current MDTA operations/ridership to/from the Buena Vista area III. Complete O-D studies (select zone assignments) oftrips to and from locations within the Boma Vista area, and stratify by trip purpose- resident shopping, school, work, etc IV. Evaluate ridership on MDTA services with a streetcar alignment(s) in place, in order to assess levels of transit capacity against levels of demand for each type of transit service in the Buena Vista area a CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX A — Scope of Work V. Establish service changes based on ridership levels with streetcar alignments in place; evaluate charges in ridership in model VI. Determine whether a feeder bus service to streetcar service produces additional local trips by transit- using new codings into model of concept transit routings/service levels VII. Review with City of Miami and FDOT staff; make additbnal refinements, if necessary, after meeting. VIII. Prepare recommended streetcar and corresponding transit service operafing plan(s) - including routings, head rays, type of equipment etc. IX. Estimate ridership by transit mode and time of day at a northern and a southernscreenline. X. Estimate new capital and operating costs associated with recommended transit service operating plan XI. Document analyses and present findings to City of Miami L CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 , iof Miami Streetcar Feasibility Study s -- PHASE I REPORT Figure 2.1 Miami Dade Transit - System Map Appendix over System Maps City of Miami Streetcar Feasibility Study PHASE I REPORT Figure 2.2 Metromove System Map •iii'qj 11151111thir7 GMERNIA North CAUSEWAY PORT ULEVARD LEGEND Lag NM Norval Appendix CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX C — June 15, 2004 Florida East Coa st Railway Meeting Materials AGENDA MIAMI STREETCAR STUDY Coordination Meeting Florida East Coast Industries Headquarters June 15, 2004 10 a.m. 1) Introductions/Safety Briefing 2) Purpose of Meeting 3) Project Presentation 4) Questions and Answers 5) Next Steps a) Additional Coordination / Meetings b) Memorandum of Understating Adjourn TO: Attendees, File FROM: Chad Luedtke DATE: June 16, 2004 (Revised June 28, 2004) SUBJECT: Final Meeting Minutes for FEC Coordination Meeting Miami Streetcar Feasibility Study A meeting was held on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. at Florida East Coast Railway Corporate Office at 1 Malaga Street in St. Augustine, Florida. Thefollowing persons were in attendance: VVayne Russell — FEC Charles Stone — FEC Larry Romaine — HDR Chad Luedtke — HDR The following is a list of items that were discussed during the subject meeting: I. Introductions Everyone introduced themselves. Action Items: None. II. Purpose of Meeting Chad described the purpose of the meeting to coordinate with the FEC about the project and solicit input to the feasibility study. Action Items: None. III. Project Presentation Chad presented the Miami Streetcar project including purpose of the project, proposed alignment, potential station locations, connections to other transit systems, and the vehicle characteristics. Action Items: None. IV. Questions and Answers A. Concerns FEC stated concerns about the overhead catenary wires. The FEC stated that their clearances are 23.5 feet for bridges and a range of 35 to 48 feet for electrical wires based upon voltage. Chad stated that the system operates at 750 volts DC. However, NON Engineering, Inc. 315E Robinson Street Suite4110 Orlando, FL 32801-1949 Phone 14044204200 Fax: 1401142042e2 wwwhdrinc.com CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX C — June 15, 2004 Florida East Coast Railway Meeting Materials DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 15,2004 Page 2 of 3 1-0-( the pantograph would not be able to reach beyond 25 feet. FEC stated that a copy of their standards would be forwarded to HDR for their use in the project. It was explained thatthere were 4 at -grade crossings proposed at this time, but a maintenance facility site had not been chosen and that two additional crossings may be required. FEC stated that their main concern was the 29'1 Street crossing due to the proximity of the two diamonds, approximately 40 feet apart. They would prefer to see the crossings separated either in a separate corridor, reduced to one crossing or split to two different streets. Chad asked if 36"' Street could be an option, however FEC is working on the 36' Street improvements with the FDOT and did not think that this was a viable solution. FEC stated that the Mid Town Miami developer asked for an additional roadway crossing, but this had not been approved at this time. The FEC stated that crossings at 29' Street and 27' Street could be an option. Chad stated that the City of Miami was seeking to do this project with very limited right-of-way acquisition and this concept would require substantial acquisitions. FEC asked how the diamonds work with a freight line, and examples of this were given in Pennsylvania and Tampa. FEC asked Larry to provide some pictures of these diamonds. In addition, the FEC stated that the maintenance of the diamonds would be the responsibility of the City of Miami. In addition the FEC stated that the slabs would have to be modified for the crossings and that they would require approval of the engineering drawings. Chad stated currently this is only a feasibility study, but once the project moves into the design process, drawings would be provided to the FEC. FEC also examined the preliminary station locations. They expressed concerns over the proximity of stations related to the railroad crossing. Chad stated that most of the stations will be located at the end of blocks and should not pose a problem since the railroad crossings are typically mid -block locations. FEC stated that the City of Miami could buy the FEC Downtown Feed Corridor to alleviate all concerns by the FEC. Action Items: -Lany to provide pictures of other diamonds within the roadway. Chad to obtain the FDOT plans for 36' Street. FEC to provide design standards for use in the Streetcar project. B. Schedule Chad stated that the City would like the system operational by 2008 with groundbreaking late 2005/early 2006. Action Items: HDR/Ciry of Miami to keep FEC informed of the design and construction schedule. DRAFT Meeting Minutes June 15, 2004 Page 3 of 3 V. Next Steps FEC stated that the engineering group would present the Miami Streetcar project to the FEC management. FEC stated they would provide comments in two weeks and schedule another meeting to present the responses to comments. FEC also stated that they were agreeable to a MOU, and a MOU could be drafted after comments are received. Action Items: FEC to provide comments by June 30, 2004. FECto schedule another meeting aftercomments are received. VI. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 11:00 am. Attachments: Agenda Presentation Alignment Handouts CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX C — June 15, 200 Florida East Coast Railwa Meeting Materials LEGE") — Recommended Alignment Q Recommended Stop !cartons s Lieoomorer O L4etromoser Stop locations - Meoorall • Meaorall Stoplocatians - Baylink (Proposed( - FEB Corridor la EEL Croongs on Recommended AAtignment CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY Recommended Alignment - Detail CITY OF 0 et 0 44 w LEGEND Recommended Afgnment • Recommended Stop Rotarians = MMromover o Men -mover Stop lo¢' s - Meao l • Metm d Stop locations B o (Proposed) - FEC corridor Cross Rem-weldedMgnment MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX D — FEC Response FLORMA ASTC3-As-i Rmtrymv a NGF E I C4 DEP- June 23, 2004 315 E. Robinson Street Suite 400 Orlando, FL 32801-1949 Gt,,0 1l4 404 01004 S?. A'JGU.571.Ne, Fi 320E. RECEIVED JUla 2 8 2004 TO: Chad Luedtke FROM: Wayne Russell SUBJECT: Miami. Streetcar Feasibility Study This re reference to our meeting on June 15, 2004 concerning the above subject. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with our President and based on information you provided about the study we do not object to the concept of the project As the project moves further toward design and estimating there are some basic items you will have to consider. The railroad crossings frogs will be manufactured with premium rail with a base of rail width of no less than six inches and will have reversible manganese inserts. The final design will have to be approved by F.E.C. prior to ordering. Also, the four crossings will designed as automatic interlockings in regard to signal protection for the F.E.C. Both of these items will be at the expense of the City of Miami for manufacturing, installation and future maintenance. A joint facility agreement will have to be completed executed prior to any construction on our right of way. There will also be a license agreement covering both the street and the trolley crossing our track at each crossing location. These agreements will cover annual fee for right of way usage and all maintenance cost for the roadways and trolley tracks as deemed necessary by the F.E.C. As this project moves forward we will have to work out the final details but at this point I wanted to point out some of the bigger hems you must consider. Please feel free to contact Charles Stone or myself if you have further questions. Wayne .Russell Vice President & Chief Engineer Cc: Mr. John McPherson Mr. Charles Stone _- '"•01� CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present Project IDb August 1,2004 Name Type of Permit Citywide Address CITY OF MIAMI Major Use Special (Status: A -Completed; L°rational Information Description LARGE SCALE Permits (MUSP) Chronological (Listed Alphabetically B-Under Net Area and Construction; Atlas Pg DEVELOPMENT applicable Date by C-Approved; Zoning District(s) Class Order Project C.C. Dirt. II, Name) D Units Res/ Condo REPORT: Special Application; Hotel Exception E-Preliminary) S#t. Office 1995-Present Retail & By Right Parking Spasm Projects Height Feet Stories FAR Cost (est) Construction DRI (YIN) Date Review C.C. Resolution Status Comments LS-2000-003 1060 Brickell Option"A" MUSP 1060 Brickell Avenue Mixed -use project, residential developmentin two phases with accessory commercial uses. (2 Buildings) Downtown 37 SD-5 2 605 0 0 25,000 840 480 45 7.05 (65%) $ 243,269,993 Y 14-Dec-00 00-1134 C UDRB (7-21-04) LS-2002-001 1390 Brickell Bay (South Bayshore Tower) MUSP 1390 Brickell Bay Drive Mixed Use Residential&Retail Downtown 37 R-4, SD-5 2 323 0 0 11,902 516 439 40 6,70 (44%) $ 102,873,438 Y 26Sep-02 02-862 C Modified 9-23-03 UDRB (7-21-04) LS-2004-006 1451 Brickell Class II 2004-072 1451 Brickell Avenue Commercial Building Downtown 37 SD-5 2 0 0 0 15,527 18 325 $ 970,000 22-Mar-04 C LS-2003-067 1800 Pointe Class II 1800 SW 8th Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail West Little Havana 39 C-1,12-0 3 54 0 0 2,900 96 117 10 168 Information not given 13,1-04 LS-2003-037 2120 Property LLC Class 0 2003-286 2120W Flaglcr Street Residential West Little Havana 34 Gt 3 13 0 0 0 19 Information not given 17-Dec-03 C LS-2004-002 3305 Holding Company, LLC Class II 2004-001 3305 SW 37th Avenue Office Building SW Coconut Grove 46 SD-2 2 0 0 2399 0 10 Information not given 22-Mar-04 C LS-2004-028 36th Street & 3rd Avenue MUSP SW Comer of NW 36th Street and NW 3rd Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 7-2 5 112 0 0 9,456 253 113 10 206 $ 11,000,000 13-Su1-04 E LS-2002-019 39th Street Project MUSP Biscayne Boulevard and 39th Street Residential Units w/recreational amenities Upper East Side 15 SD-8 2 146 0 0 0 265 Information not given 10-Dec-02 LS-2003-058 4300 Biscayne Boulevard Class II 2004-040 4300 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use residential retail&office Upper East Side 15 C-1, SD-9 2 176 0 27,582 4,000 289 Information not given 4Feb-04 C LS-2004-007 SOO Brickell MUSP 550 Brickell Avenue, 65, 59, 57, 51, 47, 41 SE 6th Street Mixed Use residential&retail Downtown 36 SD-5, SD-7 2 633 0 0 20,497 851 423 42 820 Bonus $ 150,000,000 24-Jun-04 04-0650 C LS-2003014 5101 Biscayne Blvd Class II 03- 0308 5101 Biscayne Boulevard Residential Upper East Side 15 O/SD-9 2 63 0 0 0 89 8] 8 120 Information not given 21-Sul-04 C LS-2003-015 5225 Biscayne Blvd Class II 03- 0309 5225 Biscayne Boulevard Residential Upper East Side 15 0/5D-9 2 6 0 0 0 83 97 9 147 Information not given 21,1-04 C LS-2004-041 5301& 5501 Biscayne Blvd Class II 2004-198 5301+ 5501 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use Residential & Office Upper East Side 15 0/SD-9 2 104 0 13,318 0 233 172 Information not given 18-May-04 E LS-2003-060 5th Avenue Lofts (Le Lofts) MUSP NE 35th Terrace and. 5th Avenue Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4, SD-20 2 42 0 0 0 72 249 Information not given 24-Feb-04 E LS-2004-032 6189 Biscayne Boulevard Class II 6189 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use Residential&Retail Upper East Side 14 C-1,R-1 2 10 0 0 2,128 26 103 8 131 Information not given 13,1-04 LS-2003-052 735 Condominium MUSP 735,45SW 2ndStreet Residential East LittleHavaua 35 R-3 3 22 0 0 0 33 0,75 $ 2,300,000 Y 28-0ct-03 E LS-2004-020 8699Biscayne Boulevard Class II 2004-0231 8699 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use Residential, Retail & Office Upper East Side 9 C-1,R3, SD- 2 38 0 4,500 4,700 102 $ 9,500,000 1-Sun-04 E LS-2004-017 9OO Biscayne MUSP 900 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use residential w/accessory recreation, retail & office Downtown 23 SD-6 2 516 0 69,204 14,375 1,114 740 63 587 $ 363,950779 22-Sul-04 04-501 C LS-2003-005 Aguadara MUSP 1960,0 NW 27th Avenue Residential Retail,&Office Allapatt3 26 0-2 1 185 0 1,000 2,700 374 $ 14,060,000 28-0ct-03 E LS-2003-031 Allapattah Project MUSP NW 36th Street/37th Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail Allapattah 18 C- 1 119 0 0 8,729 213 Information not given 25-Nov-03 LS-1997-003 American Airlines Arena MUSP 601 Biscayne Boulevard 24,000 capacity MUItj-FUp©: Arena for Miami Heat NBA Basketball team (19,600 seats) &other events Downtown 36 PR 2 0 0 37,500 40,000 1,147 $ 176,000,000 Y 27-San-98 98-0089 A LS-2003-017 Aria Class II 90 NE 41st Street Mixed -use Residential Retail& Showroom Little Haiti 16 SD-8 5 78 0 0 7,500 Information not given 2003 C LS-2003-012 Avant Towers MUSP 238-274 NE 34th Street Mixed Use residential&commercial Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 C-1, SD-20 2 114 0 0 12,000 194 250 Bonus $ 23,700,000 22,1-04 04-0500 C LS-2003-042 Ayesteran Towers 700,90 SW 27th Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail West Little Havana 33 C- 4 141 0 0 14,000 334 Information not given 2003 LS-2004-033 Bayview Market MUSP .17th Street &NE 2nd Avenue Mixed Use Big Box Retail with residential liner Wynwood/ Edgewater 23 C- 2 24 0 0 445,615 1,855 158 5 185 Information not given 21,1-04 E UDR], (/-21-04) C:1WINNIITsmporary Internet FilesIOLKSIZarge Scale DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Page 1 of II CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E — City of iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present Proje[[IDb August 1,2004 Name L°rational Wmmation Units Srj't. Parking Space, Height Feet Stories FAX Cost(est) Construction DRI ONN) Date Review C.C. Resolution Status Comments Type of Permit Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning District(s) C.C. Dirt. Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail LS-2001-005 Beacon )ABrickell (The Beacon Brickell Village) MUSP 30 SE 8m Street 830 SE 1"Avenue Residential project/with accessory recreational uses Downtown 3] SD-] 2 250 0 0 5,745 364 396 36 $ 40,000,000 Y 15-Nov-01 01-1232 C LS-2004-029 Best Western Inn Hotel Class II 2004-149 4101 NW 11 Street Hotel Flagami 27 C-2, SD-19 1 0 125 0 0 83 198 $ 7,461,100 18-May-04 E LS-2004-055 Biscayne Park MUSP SW Comer of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 2kh Street Mixed Use Residential Retail& Office Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 C-1, SD-20 2 214 0 300 550 331 261 25 Information not given 20,1-04 LS-2003-004 LS-2003-064 Biscayne Tower (Biscayne Plaza) Blue at Coral Way C1assII 2003-0150 MUSP 1800 Biscayne Boulevard 3170 Coral Way, 3163, 3165, 3115 SW 22nd Ter. Residential & Retail Residential & Retail Wynwoo4 Edgewater Coral Way 23 42 C-1, SD-20 C-1,R-2, SD- 23 0 4 115 190 0 0 0 0 24,136 4,135 291 331 Information not given $ 22,000,000 29-Ju I-03 25-Mar-04 04-0193 B C LS-2003-047 Blue Condominium (Biscayne Bay Tower) MUSP (Modfied) 501NE 36th Street Residential tower to be located along NE 36th Street fronting a City park along Biscayne Bay Wynwood/ Edgewater 15 R-4, SD-20 0 343 0 0 0 480 $ 72,000,000 27-Feb-03 03-0231 B LS-1999-005 Brickell Bay Village Apartments (Skyline) MUSP 2101-2105 Brickell Avenue Residential tower to be located along Brickell Avenue fronting Biscayne Bay. Includes recreational facilities Coral Way 37 R-0 2 360 0 0 0 548 $ 88,000,000 14-Dec-99 99-0961 B LS-1995-001 Brickell Bayfront Club (Fortune House) MUSP 185 SE 14th Street Mixed Use w/ accessory recreational uses including a health club Downtown 37 SD-5 2 297 0 1,440 1,895 342 $ 31,000,000 05 13-Iu1-95 95-0598 A LS-2000-009 Brickell By The Roads (Brickell West) MUSP 529, 537, 545, 551 SW llth Street Residential East LittleHavana 37 R-3 3 40 0 0 0 72 $ 1,850,000 22-Feb-01 01-0198 C LS-1999-009 Brickell Commons MUSP 750 S Miami Avenue Mixed Use Development Project with 5,000 seat movie theater Downtown 36 SD, 2 1700 0 0 585,938 3,241 800 $ 649,890708 Y 23-Mar-00 00-0286 C LS-1995-002 Brickell on the Rver MUSP 27 SE5th Street Residential w/accessory retail & office Downtown 36 SD=] 2 712 0 0 2,600 872 650 60 $ 200,000,000 26-Lu1-01 01-0782 B LS-2000-012 Brickell Station Towers MUSP 92 SW 11th Street Mixed Use residential &retail Downtown 37 SD, 2 718 0 0 11,550 1,346 $ 254,514,604 24-May-01 01-0515 C LS-2000-007 Brickell View MUSP 1200 South Miami Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail Downtown 37 SD, 2 600 0 30,521 23,461 843 $ 96,109,791 Y 8Feb-01 01-0133 B LS-2003-014 Brickell Vista (Brickell ViewiThe Asti) Class II 2003-219 800 SW 9th Avenue Residential East LittleHavana 38 C-1, SD-25 3 101 0 0 3,787 Information not given 6-Nov-03 LS-2003-040 Brisas del Mar Class II 2003-001 556 West Flagler Street Residential project w/accessory recreational uses East Little Havna 36 C- 3 160 0 0 0 80 Information not given 2002 B LS-2004-008 Brisas Del Ro MUSP SE Comer of NW 24th Avenue& NW 16th Street Road Residential West Little Havana 25 G1,R3, SD- 1 831 0 0 0 1,824 188 20 Information not given 15-Sun-04 LS-2004-048 Capiro Tower MUSP 300 SW12 Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail; Demolish existing building East little Havna 35 SD-14 3 305 0 0 10,000 575 132 14 Information not n 13-Lu1-04 E LS-2003-081 Catalonia at Silver Bluff Exempt SW 27th Avenue b/w24th Street and 24th Terrace Coral Way 43 C- 4 56 Information not given E LS-2003-016 Century Towers Class II SW 1th Road &SW 2nd Court Residential Coral Way 37 C-1,0 3 129 0 0 0 145 Information not given 27-May-03 LS-2003-033 Chanticleer Bayview Condominium MUSP 606 West Flagler Street Residen00Retail, Res tau rant, Office East Little Havana 36 C- 3 233 0 22,000 11,000 497 249 Bonus Information not given 18-Nov-03 E LS-2000-010 Children's Museum MUSP 980 McArthur Causeway (Watson Island) Children's Museum & Exhibition Downtown 22 PR 2 0 0 0 0 142 $ 13,500,000 26-Apr-01 01-0359 A LS-2003-041 Cite (The Village on Bayshore Drive/. scayne Village) MUSP 1901 Biscayne Blvd 2010 North Bayshore Drive Mixed Use residential&retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 23 SD-6 2 436 0 0 19,400 701 $ 122,42337 2003 B LS-1998-006 Cloisters on the Bay MUSP 3471-3571 Main Highway Residential. angle Family Homes NE Coconut Grove 46 R-1,SD-18 2 41 0 0 0 98 072 (20%) $ 36,487,729 Y 8-Dec-98 98-1229 A LS-2002-008 Coconut Grove Courtyards 2630 SW 28th Street Residential w/accessory recreational uses NE Coconut Grove 45 R-1 2 60 0 0 0 63 $ 2,003,040 Y 2002 B LS-2003-055 Columbus Residential Tower (Cousins Properties/Columbus Office Tow) MUSP 50 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed -use Residential&Retail Downtown 36 CBD 2 587 0 0 15,727 728 543 55 $ 160,000,000 26Feb-04 04-0111 C UDRB (/-21-04) LS-2004-034 Commodore Bay Phase II MUSP 1402 Brickell Bay Drive Addition of adjacent 26-story residential building Downtown 37 R-0 2 13 0 0 0 65 360 34 136 Bonus Information not given 27-01-04 E LS-2004-024 Coral Palace Class II Coral Way between SW 12th Ave and SW 13th Ave Residential Coral Way 38 R-4, SD-14 3 56 0 0 0 101 Information not given 6-Apr-04 E LS-2002-014 Coral Sea View Class II 1401 Coral Way Mixed -use project w/accessory recreational uses Coral Way 38 R-4 3 62 0 0 0 92 Information not given 13-Nov-02 B C;lWINNIITemporary Internet FilesIOLKSIZarge Scale. DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Paget ofll CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E — City of iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present Project IDb August 1,2004 Name L°rational Wmmation Units S#t. Parking Space, Height Feet Stories FAX Cost(est) Construction DRI ONN) Date Review C.C. Resolution Status Comments Type of Permit Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning District(s) C.C. Dirt. Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail LS-2002-010 Coral Station at Bnckell Way Village MUSP 1470 SW 1st CT,101 SW15th RD, 104 SW 13th ST Mixed Use Residential, Retail and acres "rational use Downtown 37 SD-] 2 481 0 0 40,606 1,016 $ 233,583,668 10 27-Jun-02 02-0748 C LS-2000-002 Coral View Residential (The Aston) MUSP MOO Coral Way 2960- 3014 Coral Way 2963-3019 SW 22nd Tern Residential/Mixed Use Coral Way 42 0-1 4 226 0 0 16,897 429 220 (28%) $ 12,915,000 14-Dec-00 00-1136 A LS-2003-027 Cynegi Class II 2700 N Miami Avenue Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 0-2 2 100 0 0 4,624 256 Information not given 2Sep-03 E LS-2003-070 LS-2004-037 Dupont Towers (Dupont Plaza) Edgewater Site MUSP Class II 300 Biscayne BouclvardWay Biscayne Bay/ 62 Street Mixed Use Residential, Retail, Restaurant, Condo/Hotel Residential Downtown Upper East Side 36 14 CBD R-3 2 2 1,228 51 62 0 0 0 38,000 0 1,481 91 609 60 820 075 $ 761,054,570 Information not given 22-Apr-04 20-Apr-04 04-0277 C E LS-2003-030 El Palmar MUSP 903 SW 13th Court Residential Coral Way 38 C-1, SD-14 3 20 0 0 0 01 Information not given 30-Jun-03 E LS-2004-043 Ellipse MUSP 1776 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 23 R-4, SD-20 0 262 0 0 7,500 435 275 23 $ 53,000,000 8-Jun-04 E LS-2003-043 Emerald at Bnckell (Bnckell Premiere All Suite Hotel) MUSP 218 SE14th Street Residential(Onginally 120-room hotel w/1000 sq ft of accessory retail) Downtown 37 SD-5 2 142 0 0 0 183 $ 132,573,415 2003 B LS-2003-003 Emerald Plaza MUSP 3410 Coral Way Residential Coral Way 42 0-1,R-2 4 63 0 0 0 70 Information not given 3-Jun-03 E LS-1999-003 Espirito Santo Plaza MUSP 1395 Bnckell Avenue Mixed Use development/accessory recreational uses including a health club/37 stones tall Downtown 37 SD-5 2 116 203 213,021 37,682 956 $ 160,000,000 0 22-Jun-99 99-0467 A LS-2003-065 Everglades on the Bay MUSP 244 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use Residential&Retail Downtown 36 CBD 2 866 0 0 65,549 1,146 538 49 $ 376,761,008 25-Mar-, 04-0196 C LS-2004-046 Filling Station Lofts Special Exception 1636-50NE Miami Court 1651 N Miami Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail Downtown 23 C- 2 85 0 0 6799 123 262 Information not given 25-May-04 LS-2004-011 Florida Grand Opera(Anderson Opera Centel Class II 235-245NE14th Street Production rehearsal 527seat hall, theater, w/ retail, office, and apartment units Downtown 23 SD-6 2 22 0 16,200 4,000 304 Information not given 3Peb-04 E LS-2003-048 Fortune Plaza Class II 1421 South Miami Avenue Commercial project Downtown 37 0,SD-5 2 0 0 10,405 0 22 Information not Y 7-Mar-03 B LS-1998-001 Four Seasons (Millennium Project) MUSP 1435-1441 Bnckell Avenue Mixed -use Residential, Retail &Hotel Downtown 37 SD-5 2 186 305 243,656 11,716 911 789 70 $ 279,000,000 0 2003 A LS-2003-028 Gables Marquis MUSP 3202, 3232 Coral Way Mixed Use Residential&Retail Coral Way 42 0-1,R-2 4 177 0 0 5,000 335 249 Bonus $ 81,588,336 23-0ct-03 03-1129 C LS-2004-013 Gallery Art Condominium MUSP NE comer of Biscayne Blvd and NE 24th Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4, SD-20, 0-1 2 164 0 8,907 0 208 199 17 $ 32,000,000 21-Ju1-04 D PAB (7-21-04) LS-2004-003 Grove Enclave Class II 2003-334 3024 McDonald Street Residential NE Coconut Grove 46 R-2 2 22 0 0 0 44 Information not given 22-San-, B LS-2003-046 Grove Garden (The Taurus) MUSP 3540Mant0thway Mixed -Use Project, ground floor restaurant and and retail. Utilizing Taurus historic structure SW Coconut Grove 46 R-1 2 42 0 0 9,217 106 139 Bonus $ 42,261,399 23-San-03 03-0114 B LS-2003-063 Grove Lofts MUSP 3001 SW 27 Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail NE Coconut Grove 45 SD-13 2 30 0 0 2,761 61 $ 2,800,000 16-Mar-04 E LS-2002-0M Grovenor (Naval Reserve Property) MUSP 2610 Tgertail Avenue Residential project NE Coconut Grove 45 Gd 2 192 0 0 0 455 249 Bonus $ 178,919,466 22-May-03 03-0615 C LS-2003-021 Havana Tower Class II 1430 SW 1st Street Residential&Retail East Little Havana 35 C-1, SD-14 3 66 0 0 612 75 Information not given 30Sep-03 LS-2004-054 Hidden Harbor Class II 1951NW South River Drive Residential (Affordable Housing) West Little Havana 25 R-0 1 199 0 0 0 289 214 23 235 Bonus $ 17,000,000 20-Ju1-04 E LS-2003-019 Hurricane Cove MUSP 1818& 1884 NW N River Drive Residential with 130slip Marina model existing bldg to restaurant & retail Allapattah 25 C-1. R-0 1 1,071 0 0 5,000 1737 245 Bonus $ 296,508,411 24-Jun-04 04-0426 C LS-2004-044 Ibiza at Coral Way Class II 2004-0212 3360 SW 22 Street Residential Coral Way 42 C-1, SD-23 4 26 0 0 0 42 Information not given 11-May-04 E LS-2002-002 Ice (Edgewater Tow) Class II 2002-005 701NE 31st Street Residential project w/accessory reaeatronal uses Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 SD-6 2 100 0 0 0 120 Information not given 10-Apr-02 C C:146INNIITemporary Internet File0 22081ldrge Scale. DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Page 3 of II CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E - City of iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995-Present Project IDb August 1,2004 Name L°rationalln(mmation Units S#t. Parking Space, Height Feet Stories FAX Cort (est) Construction DRI ONN) Date Review C.C. Resolution Status Comments Type of Permit Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning District(s) C.C. Dirt. Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail LS-2003-076 Ice 2 Class II 630 NE 31st Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4, SD-20 0 100 0 0 0 228 545 54 264 Bonus Information not given 6-1,I-04 E LS-2003-077 Infiruty at Brickell (Coral Way Development) MUSP 34, 40, 60 SW 13th Street 25, 37, 45 SW 14th Street Mixed Use Residential, Retajl, Office, Restaurant Downtown 37 SD, 2 459 0 61,540 6,727 590 604 52 995 $ 89,800,000 27-May-04 04-0461 C LS-2003-068 Island Gardens MUSP 950& 1050 MacArthur Causeway Mega -Yacht 50-berth Manna Hotels, Residential, Retail, Restaurant Downtown 22 C-1, PR 2 0 605 0 221,000 1,610 535 48 1.07 $ 395,000,000 8-1u1-04 04-0644 C LS-1999-004 Jackson Memorial Hospital North Parking Garage MUSP 1975 NW 12th Avenue Hospital Parking Garage Allapattah 24 SD-10 1 0 0 0 0 804 $ 12,000,000 26-Oct-99 99-0827 A LS-1998-0W Jade Residences at Brickell Bay (Bayshore Palms South -Phase l) MUSP 1331 Bn rkell Bay Drive Residential w/accessory recreational and commercial/retail uses/Phase I has been renamed`The lade'. Downtown 37 0, SD-5 2 616 0 0 16,955 1,254 528 49 Information not given Y 28-Apr-98 98-450 B LS-2004-052 Joint Development -Miami Parking Garage No MUSP 40 NW 3rd Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail, Demolish existing Municipal Parting Garage No. 1 Downtown 36 CBD 2 308 0 0 15,854 1,253 351 33 Information not given 22-Jun-04 LS-2004-004 Keystone Park Condominium MUSP NW Comer of Le leave Road & NW 1st Street Mixed Use residential&retail Flagami 32 C- 4 298 0 9,500 14,128 687 Information not given 24-Feb-04 E LS-2004-015 Keystone Villas II (Keystone Square) Class II 2004-320 3538 Coral Way Mixed Use Residential&Retail Coral Way 42 G1 4 75 0 0 3,280 166 98 8 161 $ 5,000,000 27-1u1-04 E LS-2004-005 Keystone Villas of Coral Way Class II 2004-003 3590 Coral Way Mixed Use Residential Retail & Office Coral Way 42 C-1, SD-23 4 60 0 832 775 110 1.69 Information not given 18-Feb-04 C LS-2003-078 Kubik at Momingside MUSP 5600-5180 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use residential, retail& restaurant Upper East Side 14 C-1, O, SD- 2 293 0 0 41,745 422 1.88 Bonus $ 180,231,938 10-1uv-04 03-0415 C LS-2003-022 Latitude on the Fiver(Ryer Place) - Office component named Latitude One MUSP 615 SW 2nd Avenue Residential, Otfice&Retail(2 buildings) Downtown 36 SD, 3 455 0 225,000 20,000 1,006 476 42 506 $ 215,051,272 18-Dec-03 03-1236 C LS-2004-031 Le Club (Coral 17 Condominium) Class II 1726-40 Coral Way Mixed Use Residential&Retail Coral Way 43 0-1,R-4 4 34 0 0 1,138 65 142 13 1.68 $ 4,000,000 13-1u1-04 E LS-2003-002 Little Havana Condominiums Class II 1534 SW 3rd Street Residential East Lille Havana 35 R3 SD- 3 20 0 0 0 31 Information not given Y 4-Feb-03 LS-2003-045 Little Town Class II 2002-272 1215 SW 7th Street Mixed -use project w/accessory recreational uses East Lille Havana 35 C-1, SD-14 3 42 0 0 6,028 61 Information not goren 10-Jan-03 LS-2003-009 Lofts m the Grove (Grovehouse) Class II 2003-057 2694 Inagua Avenue Residential NE Coconut Grove 45 0,SD-13 2 20 0 0 0 01 Information not given 2003 C LS-2004-001 Los Suenos Special Exception 501 NW36th Street Residential 0©y 6-floor parking garage Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 C-2, SD-12 5 179 0 0 0 358 143 13 162 $ 13,000,000 29-Jun-04 E LS-1998-002 Lyric Village &Lyric Oaks MUSP SEOPW West side of NW 2nd Avenue between NW9th-10th Streets (Village) and NW 8th-9th Streets (Oaks) Residential Condos (Village-54 units) Towrdtiomes (Oaks-42 units) Overtown 23 R-3, SD-16 5 96 0 0 0 66 $ 5,20Q000 1998 C LS-2001-003 Mandarin Hotel MUSP 500 Brickell Key Drive Hotel with accessory commercial and recreation, space Downtown 37 SD-5 2 0 327 0 10,000 501 Information not given 2002 A LS-2003-079 Manna Blue (The Mist) MUSP 888 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use Residential&Retail Downtown 23 SD-6 2 516 0 10,700 29,300 803 615 57 $ 347,241,529 Y 23-Oct-03 03-1109 C LS-1999-008 Mary Brickell Village(Bndcell Main Street) MUSP 900 South MI arm Avenue Mixed Use retail restaurant & hotel Downtown 37 SD, 2 382 288 0 197380 1,040 $ 150,000,000 Y 17-Feb-00 00-0188 B LS-2004-022 Mayfair Lofts (Lofts at Mayfair I&II) MUSP 3339 Virginia Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail NE Coconut Grove 46 SD-2 2 98 0 0 3,500 123 191 Bonus Information not given 5-May-04 E LS-2003-059 Meditemnea MUSP 117 NW Le leave Road Mixed Use Residential&Retail Flagami 32 0-1,R4 4 185 0 0 8,428 362 172 $ 18,000,000 10-Feb-04 E LS-1998-007 Mll© Financial Center(Barclays/JW Marriott) MUSP 1111 Brickell Avenue Office &Hotel /©y commercial uses Downtown 37 SD-5 2 0 302 540,000 27,550 1,321 430 31 $ 172,000,000 Y 22-Jun-89 89-0585 A LS-2002-016 Metropolitan Miami (Parcels B, C,D) MUSP 300 SE 3rd Street (B) 200 SE 3rd Street (C) 200 SE 2nd Street (D) Mixed Use residential, retail & entertainment (4 buildings) Downtown 36 CBD 2 1,500 0 500,000 236,700 3,716 550 53 $ 1,007,512710 Y 24-Jun-04 04-0516 C LS-2000-006 Macentralis Tower I+II Class II 50 SE 2nd Street Mixed Use residential&retail Downtown 36 CBD 2 404 0 0 22760 471 Information not given 25-Jan-01 E LS-2004-027 Miami Jackson Senior High -State School"SSS" MUSP 1751 NW 36th Street Replacement of exsting High School campusw/821-seat auditorium and 2,088-seat gymnasium Allapattah 17 G/I 5 0 0 0 0 531 Information not given 27-Apr-04 C:1WINNIITemporary Internet FilecIOLKSIZarge Scale. DR (August 2004).xlc (Licang) Page 4 of 11 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E — City of iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present Project MI, August 1,2004 Name L°rationalln(mmation Units S#t. Parking Space, Height Feet Stories FAX Cort (est) Construction DRI (Y/N) Date Review C.C. Resolution Status Comments Type of Permit Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning Dunce,() C.C. Dirt. Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail LS-2004-038 Miami Riverhouse Condominiums Exempt 1170NW 11th Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail replacing existing Travel Inn on site Overtown 24 0 5 199 0 8,856 12,900 400 19 $ 18,000,000 23-Apr-04 E LS-2001-001 Miami Stadium Apartments MUSP 2301 NW 10th Avenue Residential Allapattah 20 R-3 1 336 0 0 0 502 $ 25,500,000 26,1-01 01,88 LS-2004-039 Midpoint Village (2nd Avenue Lofts) Class II 2728 NE 2nd Avenue 169 NE 27th Street 161-161 NE 28th Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 G1 2 100 0 0 8,580 186 172 $ 10,000,000 25-May-04 E LS-2003-051 &dt© Lofts MUSP 3179, 3181, 3185 SW 22 Terrace 3178, 3180 C©1 Way 1,Exed-rise residential project. Coral Way 42 G1,R-2 4 85 0 0 2,800 131 221 (25%) $ 7,190,000 25Sep-03 03-105] C LS-2002020 Millamax Development Corp. Class II 155 NE 38th Street Mixed -use Showroom, Retail, Warehouse, Office &Residential Little Haiti 16 Gt, SD-8 5 20 0 25,216 35,015 181 $ 11,900,000 Y 13Dec-02 C Modified LS-2003-082 MErade Center (1986) MUSP 3301-3501 Coral Way Retrofit of eui sting mixeduse building included remodeling of exterior fayade C© Way 21 Gl 4 180 0 0 99,513 748 104 8 Information not given 19-Nov-03 E LS-2003-0, Moon Bay Class II 500, 510, 520 NE 29th Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4,SD-20 2 61 0 0 0 70 Information not given 3-Feb-04 LS-2001-009 Neo Lofts Exempt 10 SW South Rver Drive Residential )©y retail East LittleHavana 36 Gl 3 199 0 0 1,337 352 391 33 $ 12,000,000 Sub 12-31-01 Exempt A LS-2003-010 Neo Vatika (Neo Loft) MUSP 690 SW 1st Avenue Mixed Use residential&retail Downtown 36 S75a 3 443 0 0 24,676 575 379 35 $ 158,189,810 Y 17,1-03 03-0811 C LS-2003-006 New Miami City Yew Apartments Class II 2003-262 NW 14th Street and NW l5th Avenue Residential Allapattah 24 R-4 1 130 0 0 0 141 Information not given 10-Oct-03 E LS-2003025 New Wave Class If 2003-295 725 NE 22vd Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4 2 78 0 0 0 90 239 19 $ 10,000,000 11-Dec-03 C LS-2004-023 norm. (Banyan Bay Apartments) MUSP 680 NE64th Street Mixed Use Residential&Restaurant and a Publ. Upper East Side 14 C-1,R3 2 580 0 0 41,510 895 95 9 Information not given 20-Lu1-04 E LS-2003-029 Nordica(The Sterling) Class II 2003-0288 2525 SW 3rd Avenue Mixed Use residential&retail Coral Way 38 0 3 125 0 0 5,732 248 172 Information not given 3-Nov-03 B LS-1996-002 Northwestern Estates P. 800 NW 69[h Street Residential. angle Family Homes Model City 12 R-3 5 134 0 0 0 199 $ 4,700,000 Y 23-Ien-97 57-0063 C LS-2003-034 Oak Park Village Class II SE Comer of Oak Avenue & McDonald Avenue Residential NE Coconut G© 46 R-1 2 10 0 0 0 20 Information not given 7-Ot-03 E LS-1995-003 Oakwood (Yacht Club I atBrickell) MUSP 1111Bridsll Bay Drive Residential with accessory commercial and recreationat uses Downtown 37 0, SD-5 2 355 0 0 4,605 465 $ 37,300,000 Y S1am-96 96-0078 A LS-2003-066 Ocean Palace (Le luene Gardens) MUSP 850 NW. Le Iuene Road Residential & Retail Flagami 27 G2 1 400 0 0 8,600 809 206 Bonus $ 100134,689 6-Apr-, D CC (9=1-04) LS-2003-039 Office Building MUSP SEOPW 27 NE 9th Street Office Building Downtown 23 C- 2 0 0 60,000 0 300 172 Information not given 16-Dec-03 LS-2002-012 One Miami (Parcel A) MUSP 205 South Biscayne Blvd Mixed Use office, residential commercial Downtown 36 CBD 2 896 0 24,000 17,000 1,200 480 45 $ 274,414,625 Y 25-Iu1-02 02-0858 B LS-2000-014 One Riverview Square Exempt 325 South Hiram Avenue Mixed Use Office &Retail Downtown 36 CBD 2 0 0 150,865 8,750 161 136 8 Information not given Exempt 2001 LS-2003054 Onyx (Biscayne Bay Lofts) MUSP 665 and721NE 25th Street and 720 NE 26th Street Residential project w/accessory recreational uses Wyvwood/Edgewater 21 R-0, SD-20 2 118 0 0 0 170 225 Bonus $ 71,751,320 22-1an-04 04-0043 C LS-2004-026 Onyx MUSP NE 28th Street&N. Byh© Drive Residential Wyvwood/Edgewater 21 R-0, SD-20 2 122 0 0 0 165 536 50 Information not given 26-Lu1-04 D ZB (7-26-04) LS-2000-008 Opera Tower (Bay Parc PlazaMiramar Centre Phase II+III) MUSP 1744-56N. Byh© Drive Mixed Use Residential, Office & Recreation (2 buildings) Wynwood/ Edgewater 23 SD-6 2 635 0 92,260 18,112 763 530 56 $ 217,841343 Y 22-Feb-01 01-0199 C LS-2004-014 Opus MUSP 1231 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use residential retail & office Downtown 23 SD-6 2 408 0 0 17,160 568 620 57 409 $ 189,646,964 29-Lu1-04 D CC (9=1-04) LS-2003-036 Orion Class II 2003-331 420 SW 12th Avenue Residential East LittleHavana 35 Gt, SD-14 3 60 0 0 0 112 $ 4,800,000 24-0Dec C LS-2001-010 Overtown Transit Village (Miami -Dade County) MUSP SEOPW 100 NW 6th Street )Ot©/ Arena Mletrorail Station) Mixed Use Office/Retail Overtown 23 RT 2 0 0 341,000 4,000 588 17 Information not given 2001 B LS-2004-040 Paramount @Edgewater Square MUSP 2020 North Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4/SD-20 C- 1/SD-20.1 2 377 0 0 48,808 578 562 47 3.00 Bonus Information not given 21-Lu1-04 E UDRB (7-21-04) C:IWINNIITsmporary Internet FilecIOLKBlldrge Scale. DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Page S of 11 CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E — City of iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present Project IDb August 1,2004 Name L°rational Wmmation Units S#t. Parking Space, Height Feet Stories FAX Cort(est) Construction DRI (Y/N) Date Res,,,. C.C. Resolution Status Comments Type of Permit Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning District() C.C. Dirt. Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail LS-2001-006 Park Place at Brickll MUSP 1450 Brickell Avenue Residential/Mixed Use development in 3 phases / park -like setting. Downtown 3] SD-5 2 790 0 0 36,554 1,400 $ 190,000,000 0 15-Nov-01 01-1233 B LS-2000-001 Parrotlungle MUSP 901 McArthur Causeway (Watson Island) Entertainment complex Downtown 22 PR 2 0 0 0 0 588 $ 46,000,000 16-Nov-00 00-0132 A LS-2004-053 Premier Luxury Investments Special Exception 3851BirdRoad Mixed Use Residential, Retail& Office Coral Way 42 C-2/R-2 2 47 0 12,000 14,107 146 120 8 Information not g n 13,1-04 LS-2004-045 Premiere Towers Brickell Village MUSP 28-59 SW9th Street 830-850 South Miami Avenue Mixed Use Residential, Retail& Office Downtown 31 SD-3 2 588 0 92,000 20,266 850 579 41 $ 112,000,000 18-May-04 E .PH (/-20-04) LS-2004-012 Puerto Bahia Special Exception 501NW 36th Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 16 0-2 5 199 0 0 0 397 $ 16,000,000 10-Feb-04 E LS-2003-080 Quantum on the Bay (Metropolis at Bayshore) MUSP 1900 North Bayshore Drive Mixed Use residential, retail & Restaurant Wynwood/ Edgewater 23 SD-6 2 752 0 0 8,410 845 536 48 $ 328,532563 24-Ju1-03 03-0879 B LS-2003-012 Renaissance Pointe MUSP SWC of SW 8th Street &SW19th Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail West Little Havana 39 C-1,R-4 3 314 0 0 19,030 663 $ 6,200,000 16-Dec-03 E LS-2004-030 Renaissance Pointe West Class II 2000 SW 8th Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail West Little Havana 39 C-1,R-4 3 42 0 0 900 64 171 Information not ven 6-Apr-04 LS-2003069 Residences at Douglas MUSP 2263 SW 37 Avenue Residential Coral Way 42 Gt, R-2, SD- 19 4 156 0 0 0 237 192 19 240 Bonus Information not given 13-Ju1-04 E LS-2004-021 Rice 3333 Class II 2004-0061 3333 Rice Street Mixed Use residential&retail NE Coconut Grove 46 SD-2 2 9 0 0 2,700 18 Information not goren 5-Mar-04 C LS-2002-007 Ritz Carlton in Coconut Grove MUSP 3300 SW 27 Avenue 2730 Tgertail Avenue Accessory function and commermal/reail space NE Coconut Grove 46 0, R-4, SD- 19 2 208 250 0 500 564 249 (44%) $ 148,000,000 0 2002 A LS-2003-011 Rver Front East (Miami River Village) MUSP SW Comer of SW 3rd Street & South Miami Avenue Mixed Use Residential, Retail & Office (3 Buildings) Downtown 36 SD-6 2 1,424 0 52,800 41,994 1,611 602 54 840 Information not given Y 27-Ju1-04 03-1235 E UDRB (9-1-04) LS-2004-045 Rver Front West (Miami River Village) MUSP SE Comer of SW 3rd Street and Metror41 right-of-way Mixed Use Residential, Retail& Office (4 Buildings) Downtown 36 UST)-6 2 1,436 0 203,000 38728 1,867 630 55 840 Information not given Y 27-Ju1-04 E CC (9=1-04) Zoning Change LS-2003-056 Rver House Lofts Class II 2003-01 350 W. Flagler Street Residential&Retail Downtown 36 C- 5 182 0 62,531 22,000 513 405 29 1:72 Information not given 3-Feb-04 D Modified LS-2003-001 Rver Run South Exempt 2415 NW 16th Street Road Residential West Little Havana 25 R-3 1 174 0 0 0 314 Information not given 2003 Exempt C LS-2003-049 Riverview Apartments Class II NW 25th Court/NWN. River Drive Residential Allapattah 25 R-2 1 90 0 0 0 115 Information not given 28-Apr-03 LS-2003-008 Roads End Village MUSP 928 SW10th Street 915 SW 11th Street Residential townhom es East Lille Havana 38 R-2 3 26 0 0 0 56 072 Bonus $ 22,622Z10 25-Nov-03 03-1104 C LS-2003-020 Rosabella Lofts MUSP 421,425,441NE 22 St; 418,442 4461E 22 Ter.; 2221NE4 Ave Residential & 4,200 sq. ft Place of Worship with 11 parking spaces Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4, SD-20 0 258 0 0 0 470 249 Bonus $ 42,000,000 18-Dec-03 03-1237 C LS-2003-061 Royal Atlantic (Riverside Park) MUSP 1001 NW7th Street Residential&Retail East Lille Havana 24 G1 3 744 0 0 9,400 1,073 $ 82,519,500 26-Feb-04 04-0118 C LS-2001-0W Royal Bay Estates MUSP South Bayshore Drive in Coconut Grove just north of 17th Avenue (1641 South Bayshore Drive and 1640 Mficanopy Avenue) Single family residential PUD /one unit is a rehab of the existing historic structure along South Bayshore Drive NE Coconut Grove 44 R-1, SD-18 2 3 0 0 0 6 080 (33%) PUD Information not given 15-Nov-01 01-1234 C LS-2004-050 San Lorenzo Exempt 219 NW 12th Avenue Mixed Use Residential, Retail& Office East Settle Hanna 35 C-1/R-3 3 90 0 1,854 5,349 147 110 10 188 Information not given 6-Iu1-04 E LS-2000-0M Santa Clara Apartments SADD 2000 NW 12th Avenue Residential. Joint Development with Metroral Station for Affordable Housing along with 288 parking spaces (88 dedicated to Metrorail) Allapattah 20 I 1 208 0 0 0 288 $ 18,480,000 25-Jan-01 01-0083 A LS-1996-001 Santa Maria Exempt 1643 Birchen Avenue Residential wiboat slips Coral Way 31 R-4 2 115 0 0 0 520 51 Information not goren Exempt Exempt LS-2002-013 SeyboldPointe Exempt 816 NW 11th Street Residential Overtown 24 C-1,R-3 5 96 0 0 0 11 Information not given B LS-1999-002 Silver Bluff Harbor MUSP 1660 South Bayshore Court Residential project NE Coconut Grove 44. R-3 2 11 0 0 0 Information not given Y 23-Feb-99 99-0151 C C:146INNIITemporary Internet FilesIOLKS1ldrge Scale. DR (August 2004.xls (Listing) Page 6 of II CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E — City of iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present Project IDb August 1,2004 Name L°rationalln(mmation Units S#t. Parking Space, Height Feet Stories FAR Cort (est) Construction DRI (Y/N) Date Review C.C. Resolution Status Comments Type of Permit Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning District(s) C.C. Dirt. Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail LS-2002-003 Sky Residence Project(34th Street Tower) MUSP 640NE34th Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 SD-20 2 36 0 0 0 71 $ 24,887305 29-Oct-02 C LS-2004-025 SoHo MUSP 601L15 NE 23rd Street Residential project Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4, SD-20 2 95 0 0 0 142 202 16 215 Bonus $ 12,000,000 21-In1-04 E UDRB (7-21-04) LS-2002-005 Solans (Bothell Bay Tow) Class II 186 SE 12th Terrace Residential project Downtown 37 R-4, SD-5 2 138 0 0 0 155 Information not glven 2002 B LS-2002-015 LS-1999-007 Star Loth (Bay 25) Summit Bnthell(Bntkell Grand) MUSP MUSP 704=112 NE 25th Street 1010 South NLami Avenue 19 t©y residential complex MLxed-use development project Wyvwood/Edgewater Downtown 21 37 R-0, SD-20 SD, 2 2 55 427 0 0 0 3,539 0 20,415 "]5 405 435 $ 40,744,027 $ 70,246,327 Y 19-Nov-02 17-Feb-00 02-1243 00-0187 C A LS-2003-023 Ten Museum Park (Core) MUSP 1040 Biscayne Boulevard MExed Use residential commernad & office Downtown 23 CBD, SD-6 2 200 0 13,712 10,668 395 550 50 412 Information not glven 9-Iu1-03 LS-1995-0W TequestaPomtl MUSP 888 Bn then Hey Drive Residential Downtown 36 0, SE-5 2 289 0 0 0 Information not glven 1995 LS-1999-001 Tequesta Point II MUSP 808 Bn then Hey Drive Residential Downtown 36 0, SE-5 2 268 0 0 0 438 410 40 Information not glven 1999 LS-2000-005 TequestaPoint III MUSP 848 Bothell Key Drive Residential Downtown 36 0, SD-5 2 236 480 46 $ 45,000,000 2001 A LS-2004-049 Terraces at Latin Quarters Class II 1277 SW 8 Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail East Little Hanna 35 C-1/SD-14 3 97 0 0 5,460 157 Information not glven 8-Jun-04 E LS-2003-071 Terrazas Rorer Park Village(Terrazas de Miami Rorer) MUSP 1861 NW South River Dnve Residential West Little Havana 25 R-4 1 324 0 0 4,182 517 248 Bonus $ 195,469,385 22-Iu1-04 04-0502 C LS-2001-007 The 1800 Club MUSP 1800 North Bayshore Drive MExed-use development project/with accessoryrecrea oval uses Wynwood/ Edgewater 23 R-4, SD-6 2 450 0 27,604 4,872 670 423 40 539 $ 154,125502 11-Dec-01 01-1272 B LS-2004-042 The Bank Condominium ClassII 2004-0301 8101 Biscayne Boulevard MExed Use Residevtiat&Retail Re -model existing bank building Upper East Side 9 R-1, G1/SD- 9 2 "]9 0 0 16,000 147 Information not g n 27-Iu1-04 E LS-2000-011 The Belmont (Lofts on the Way) MUSP Coral Way and SW 32nd Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail C©1 Way 42 GI 4 177 0 0 12,200 37 Information not glven 23-May-01 E LS-2002-009 The Carbonell on Bothell Key MUSP 901 Bn tkell Key Boulevard Residential Downtown 36 SD-19 2 284 $ 198,000,000 2002 LS-1997-001 The Club at Britkell Bay (Bothell Bay Plaza) MUSP 1201 Bothell Avenue Residential /©y recreational and mmmernal & retail uses Downtown 37 SD-5 2 645 0 80,000 12,601 786 568 $ 154,770,665 23-Sep-97 97-0681 B LS-2004-019 The Cube (Luna) Class II 35. 40 St Mixed Use Residential&Retail Little Haiti 16 SD-8 5 101 0 0 19,335 203 244 23 Information not glven 21-Iu1-04 E UDRB (7-21-04) LS-2003-035 The Four Ambassadors (1968). (Parking Garage Tow) MUSP 805 Bntkell Bay Dnve Proposed Parking Garage Tower with heliport and restaurant on elevated pod Downtown 37 SD-5 2 0 0 0 10,000 580 263 Information not Vven 27-Iu1-04 E LS-2003-001 The Loft(Related) Class II 2003-019 230 NE 3rd Street Residential&Retail Downtown 36 CBD 2 196 0 0 2,150 0 Information not glven 26-Mar-03 C LS-2004-036 The Loft II (Related Lofts l) MUSP 133 NE 2 Avenue MExed Use Residential &Retail with Metromover Station (First Street) run ng through building Downtown 36 CBD 2 496 0 0 4,000 0 433 35 9.86 Information not given 20-Apr-04 E UDRB (7-21-04) LS-199I-002 The Mark (Yacht Club II at Bn then MUSP 1155 Bn then Bay Drive Residential with accessory tommeraial and recreational uses Downtown 37 0,5D-5 2 357 420 36 Information not glven 26-Dec-9I 9I-08. LS-2000-013 The Metropolitan (Chateau MLrage) MUSP 2475 Bothell Avenue Residential C©1 Way 37 R-0 2 199 0 0 0 319 $ 19,400,000 25-May-01 A LS-1998-003 The Mutiny Condominiums MUSP 2951 South Bayshore Dnve 2989 McFarlane Road MExed Use residential&retail NE Coconut G© 46 0, SD-2 2 383 0 0 5,384 705 $ 132,513,415 Y 28-Apr-98 98-0444 A LS-2003-018 The Palma Apartments Class II 1040 SW 1st Street Residential East Little Havana 35 G1 3 92 0 0 0 103 132 Information not glven 22-Jun-04 E LS-1998-00S The Pcrformivg Arts Center of Greater MEami MUSP 1300 and 1301 Biscayne Blvd Entertainment complex w/4,595 seats Downtown 23 SDL 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 163,000,000 Y 28-Apr-98 98-0421 B LS-2003-050 The Platinum Covdomivium MUSP 480 NE 30th Street Residential project w/accessory recrea rink uses Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4,SD-20 2 116 0 0 0 195 230 Bonus $ 51032,944 22-May-03 03-0607 C LS-1999-006 The Plaza at Bothell Phase II(Bntkell SquareII+Id) DRS 851+ 901Bntkell Avenue MExed-use DRLResidentml&Retail Downtown 37 SD-5 2 1,000 0 0 41,100 1,47 585 56 $ 300,000,000 Y 27-Ian-00 00-0102 C LS-2003-024 The Roads Condominium Class II 2003-285 2021 SW 3rd Avenue Residential C©1 Way 37 0, SD-23 3 57 0 0 0 102 Information not .ven 21-Nov-03 C LS-2001-002 The Sail Residential project Class II DWIDRI 170 SE 14th Street Residential project Downtown 37 SD-5 2 152 0 0 2,262 198 $ 26,000,000 15-Nov-02 B LS-2004-047 The Shops at thdt© Mfiami -MEd & South Block Class II N.1.arm Avenue b/w NE 31st and 32nd Streets Mlixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 I, SD-27 2 0 0 0 141,,776 1,015 Information not glven 8-Jun-04 E CAININNIITemporary Internet File&IOLKBIIdrge Scale DR (August 2O04).xls (Listing) Page J ofll CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E — City of iami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present Project IDb August 1,2004 Name L°rationallnfmmation Units S¢'t. Parking Space, Height Feet Stories FAR Cort(est) Construction DRI (Y/N) Date Res,. C.C. Resolution Status Comments Type of Permit Address Description Net Area Atlas Pg Zoning District(s) C.C. Dirt. Res/ Condo Hotel Office Retail LS-2004-018 The Shops at Midtown Miami -North Block-ParcelA Class If 3401N Miami Avenue Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 I, SD-27 2 42 0 0 324,884 1295 081 Information not given 15-Sun-04 E LS-2004-016 The Steps on the Boulevard Class1I SE corner of Biscayne Boulevard and NE 24th Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 C-1, SD-201 2 120 0 0 19,320 200 Information not given 12-Feb-04 LS-2003-0. The Tower at GrandBay Class II 2003-009 2615 South Bayshore Drive Condo addition to Grand Bay Hotel NE Coconut Grove 45 SD-12 2 62 0 0 0 122 Information not given 9-lan-03 D LS-2004-010 The Towers at Blue Lagoon MUSP 4865 NW 7th Street Residential Flagami 28 C-1,R-2 1 1,646 0 0 0 2,838 Information not given 22-San-04 E LS-2002-011 The Yorker Class II 444 NE 30th Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-4 2 62 0 0 0 21 Information not given 16,1-02 B LS-2003-062 Tower Twenty -Seven MUSP 2700,2730,2742,2744,2746 SW 22th Avenue 2201 SW 27th Court Residential & Retail Coral Way 42 G1 2 181 0 0 6,400 307 $ 32,000,000 26-Feb-04 04-0113 C LS-2004-009 Trilogy(/460 Biscayne Boulevard) Class II 2004-156, 152 7460 Biscayne Boulevard Mixed Use Residential&Retail Upper East Side 9 C-1, SD-9 2 61 0 0 2,400 138 $ 12,000,000 13-Apr-04 E LS-2003-032 Tuscan Place MUSP 501 NW 2th Avenue, and NW 5th and 6th Streets Residential project w/accessory recreational uses Overtown 36 C-2 5 374 0 0 0 515 $ 42,200,000 22Ian-04 03-0413 C LS-2001-008 Tulle Street Project MUSP 3720, 3750 ,3280 Biscayne Blvd 399 NE 38th Street 293 NE 32th Street Mixed -use project Upper East Side 15 C-1, SD-8 2 0 0 168,000 115,000 664 245 Bonus $ 117,214,257 24-San-02 02-0111 C LS-2003-015 Two Midtown Miami (Buena Vista Phase Il) Class II NE35th Street &Florida East Coast Railway Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 I, SD-27 2 331 0 0 16,128 403 $ 40,000,000 13-Nov-03 LS-2003-038 lin, of Miami Clinical Research Buiding &Parking MUSP 1150 NW14 ST Clinical Research Office Building w/60,000 sf Wellness Center Al1apattah 24 GII 1 0 0 336,000 0 1,410 $ 151,294,692 1-May-03 03-0404 B LS-2003-013 Uptown Lofts Class II 2003-152 301NE23rd Street Mixed Use Residential&Retail Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 C-1, SD-20 2 63 0 0 4,800 119 Information not given 19-Dec-03 C LS-2003-073 Urbanea(Wndsor at Douglas) MUSP 1600 Douglas Road Mixed Use Residential&Retail West Little Havana 40 C-1,R-2 4 114 0 0 6,516 203 $ 10,000,000 26-Su1-04 D ZB (/-26-04) LS-2002-018 Villa Godoy Condominiums Class1I 145519 W Flagler Street Mixed Use residential&retail East Lille Havana 35 C-1, SD-14 3 32 0 0 1,431 42 Information not given 3-Dec-02 LS-2003-026 Villa Magna (Bayshore Palms North - Phase II) MUSP 1201 Bridsll Bay Drive Mixed Use Residential, Retail, Restaurant, &Hotel Downtown 37 SD-5 2 999 209 0 34,975 1,474 595 45 724 $ 602,266,932 12-San-04 D CC (9=1-04) LS-2003-053 Villaggioiv the Grove MUSP 2140-54 SW 28 Terrace Residential NE Coconut Grove 42 SD-19 2 86 0 0 0 119 $ 30,211,020 Y 25-Nov-03 03-1183 C LS-2004-051 Wagner Square Exempt 1200NW 14th Avenue Mixed Use residential & retail (Affordable Housing) Allapattah 24 R-0 1 198 0 0 0 $ 5,000,000 Exempt Exempt E LS-2002-006 Watson Island Visitor & Aviation Center MUSP Watson Island (South Side) Transportation &Information Center Downtown 22 PR 2 0 0 0 0 180 012 $ 6,400,000 25-Apr-02 02-0480 C LS-2002-017 Wynwood Lofts Class II 250 NW23rd Street Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 C-2 2 36 0 0 0 40 Information not given 26-Nov-02 E LS-2004-035 Zafire Class II 2004-165 402-416.34 ST Residential Wynwood/ Edgewater 21 R-0,SD-20, C-1,SD-20.1 2 34 0 0 0 40 122 Information not given 11-May-04 Note: Cost data totals varies as figures are not provided for all oroiec s by developers C:146INNIIT9mporary Internet PilssIOLK8IZarge Scale DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Page 8 of II CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 APPENDIX E - City of Miami Large Scale Development Report: 1995-Present Cell: X8 Comment: 1060 Brickell: (1) Option "B" which was also approved (00-1135) included offices for the Dominican Republic Consulate to complement its 619 units; 5,000 sq. f. of Office; 25,000 sq. f. of Retail and 1,207 parking spaces ($270,357,783 Construction Cost) (2) Modification reviewed on 5-18-04 with a reduction in parking from 1,022 spaces to 741 spaces, and retail from 25,000 sq ft to 22,855 sq ft. Building heights are 480f/45 stories and 364/34 Cell: X9 Comment: South Bayshore Tower: Modification submitted on 9-23-03 to include corner site purchased. Project totals increased to 477-foot, 47 story tower with 374 units, 21,388 sq ft of retail, and 514 parking spaces Cell: X39 Comment: Brickell Bay Village: 26-Jul-01 Modification approved (01-780) which reduced units and parking from 421 units and 632 spaces, respectively Cell: X43 Comment: Brickell on the River: Originally 508 units+325 hotel rooms w/17,426 sf office and 30,729 sf retail Cell: X57 Comment: Columbus Residential Tower: Substantial Modification submitted on 6-22-04 to replace approved Columbus Office Tower (Res. 04-0111) that contained 661,393 sq ft Office; 29,508 sq ft Retail and 1,260 parking spaces Cell: X58 Comment: Commodore Bay Phase II: Addition of adjacent 26-story building with nine 1-Floor penthouses on top of 12 floor parking garage to upgrade parking hardship in area. The existing 37-unit building was built in 1994. Cell: X61 Comment: Coral Station at Brickell Way Village: (1) Modified 14-Oct-03 from Res 02-748 (27-June-02) of 201,400 Off; 62,333 Ret; 186 Hotel; 204 Residential Un (2) Reso 03-1056 on Sept. 25, 2003 Cell: X68 Comment: Emerald at Brickell: Originally 120-room hotel w/1,000 sq ft of accessory retail and 1,094 parking spaces Cell: X91 Comment: Jade Residences: 4-24-02 (Res. 98-450) Approved Modification split Bayshore Palms into two separate projects: Phase I - Jade Residences at Brickell Bay to consist of 336 units and 432 parking spaces along with accessory commercial and recreation space and an unnamed Phase II to consist of 350 units and 533 parking spaces along with accessory commercial and recreation space. 4-28-98 (Res. 98-450) Original Approval for Bayshore Palms consisted of 375 units and 600 parking spaces along with accessory commercial and recreation space. Cell: X96 Comment: Kubik at Morningside: Modified application with Alternative "A' passed by City Commission on June 10, 2004. Alternative "B" was comprised of 293 units, 33,046 sq f of retail/restaurant and approximately 362 parking spaces. Cell: X105 Comment: Marina Blue: 30-Mar-04 Revision to to reduce Office square footage from 22,500 sf to 10,700 sf and increase parking from 800 to 803 spaces. Cell: X106 Comment: Mary Brickell Village: 10-Oct-02 (Res. 02-11335) Modficiation Cell: X110 Comment: Metropolitan Miami: (1) Current proposal consists of: Tract B - (East) Met 1 (447 units 440-foot/40 stories) & (West) Met Square (90,500 retail, 60,000) with total of 641 parking spaces Tract C - Met 2 (653 units, 30,000 retail, 975 parking spaces in 550-foot/53 story tower) Tract D - Met 3 (400 units, 500,000 office, 56,200 retail, 2,100 parking spaces in 540-foot/49 story (west) and 39 story (east). (2) (Res. 02-1249) 11-19-02 The Metropolitan. Parcels B, C, D consist of 1,500 units, 300 hotel rooms, 9,000 sq. ft. office, and 230,000 sq. ft. retail (3) (Res. 02-0858) Bifurcation with Parcel A (One Miami) which now consisted of 900 units, 28,000 sq. ft. office, and 17,000 sq. ft. retail (4) (Res. 98-1151) Original Approval consisted of 1,500 units, 300 hotel rooms, 1,200,000 sq. ft. office, and 400,000 sq. ft. retail Cell: X118 C IWINNIITenporary Internet FilesIOLKPIInrge Scale DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Page of II CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 FDA APPENDIX E - City of Miami Large Scale Development Report: 1995-Present Comment: Miracle Center: 9-16-03: Submitted Proposed changes to existing Miracle Center with with demolition of west half to be replaced with residential with remodeled east half to remain retail. Original Reso 86-334 on 10-23-86 was for 330,897 sq ft of various uses (retail/office, restaurant, entertainment, and apartments). Current use is 5,554 sq ft of retail/office, 277,380 sq ft of Telecom, and 50,176 sq ft of health club. Cell: X124 Comment: Nirvana: 3-2-04 and 6-22-04 Modification submitted for parital replacement of the existing 5-building; 398 unit; 12,792 sq ft retail; 510-parking space complex with multi -building 580 unit; 31,510 sq R Publix Supermarket; 10,000 sq ft restaurant; and 895 parking space complex. Cell: X131 Comment: One Miami: (1) (Res. 02-0858) Bifurcation from Parcels B,C, and D creating One Miami (Parcel A) which now consisted of 900 units, 28,000 sq. ft. office, and 17,000 sq. R. retail (2) (Res. 98-1151) Original Approval consisted of 1,500 units, 300 hotel rooms, 1,200,000 sq. ft. office, and 400,000 sq. ft. retail Cell: X135 Comment: Opera Tower: Phase I is existing Bac Parc Plaza (368-foot, 39-story building). Phase 11 is a 7-story building with 92,260 sq ft. of office and 13,200 sq ft retail & restaurant Phase III is a 530-foot, 56-story residential building with 635 units. Cell: X145 Comment: Quantum on the Bay: 10-Feb-04 Non -Substantial Modification in Preliminary Stage: 698 units; 1,900 sf Office; 5,920 sf Restaurant; 2,057 sf Retail; 978 parking spaces Cell: X151 Comment: River Front East (Miami River Village): 5-5-04: Submitted Modification for review to split Miami River Village into project now known as River Front East and West, which would be two separate entities: River Front East, consisting of 1,403 residential units, 52,800 sq ft of office, 41,994 sq of retail and 1,648 parking spaces in three buildings ranging in height from 448 - 552 feet; and River Front West, consisting of 1,416 residential units, 203,000 sq ft of office, 38,728 sq of retail and 1,867 parking spaces in four buildings ranging in height from 337 - 580 feet. Total usage on site is seven buildings consisting of 2,819 residential units, 255,800 sq ft of office, 80,722 sq of retail and 3,515 parking spaces. 12-18-03: (Res. 03-1235) Original Approval for $235 million Miami River Village which consisted of 1,304 residential units, 92,043 sq ft of office, 32,532 sq. ft. of retail, and 1,992 parking spaces in three buildings. Cell: X152 Comment: River Front West (Miami River Village): 5-5-04: Submitted Modification for review to split Miami River Village into project now known as River Front East and West, which would be two separate entities: River Front East, consisting of 1,403 residential units, 52,800 sq ft of office, 41,994 sq of retail and 1,648 parking spaces in three buildings ranging in height from 448 - 552 feet; and River Front West, consisting of 1,416 residential units, 203,000 sq ft of office, 38,728 sq of retail and 1,867 parking spaces in four buildings ranging in height from 337 - 580 feet. Total usage on site is seven buildings consisting of 2,819 residential units, 255,800 sq ft of office, 80,722 sq of retail and 3,515 parking spaces. 12-18-03: (Res. 03-1235) Original Approval for $235 million Miami River Village which consisted of 1,304 residential units, 92,043 sq ft of office, 32,532 sq. ft. of retail, and 1,992 parking spaces in three buildings. Cell: X168 Comment: Star Lofts: 23-Dec-03 Modification in Preliminary Stage Cell: X182 Comment: Four Ambassadors: 1-13-04: Submitted proposal for a 275-unit and 8,000 sq ft retail Tower V (Brickell Bay Yacht Club) to the existing 20-story four tower complex built in 1968 as a hotel. Existing site has a 615 condo units, a 100-unit hotel, 33,346 sq ft of office, 46,642 sq ft of retail and 687 parking spaces. Proposed project will require the demolition of 201 parking spaces to be replaced by 978 new parking spaces for a total of 1,359 spaces 7-13-04: Submitted proposal for a 263-foot, 20-level high cylindrical parking garage tower with a 3-story pod on the top encompassing a restaurant, bar and a heliport Cell: X183 Comment: The Loft: No on -site parking will be provided. Parking will be provided through valet parking in adjacent municipal parking garages (Article 4, Section 401, CBD, Offstreet Parking) Cell: X184 Comment: The Loft II: No on -site parking will be provided. Fifty Percent of Parking (500 spaces) will be provided through valet parking in adjacent municipal parking garages (Article 4, Section 401, CBD, Offstreet Parking) Cell: X191 Comment: The Plaza at Brickell: C:1 wINNIITenporary Internet F:IesIOLKPIInrge Scale DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Page 10 of II CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April 2005 FDA APPENDIX E — City of Miami Large Scale Development Report: 1995—Present (1) Modification submitted for review on June 8, 2004 with 560 units in 851 Brickell Tower (585 feet/56 stories) and 440 units in 901 Brickell Tower (475 feet/46 stories) (2) Previously approved DRI (1-27-00) had two options for Phase II-901 Brickell (A: 500,000 sf office, 18,650 sf retail, 1,101 parking spaces; B: 560 units, 18,650 sf retail, 793 parking spaces) and Phase III-851 Brickell (440 units, 16,350 sf retail, 644 parking spaces) Cell: X209 Comment: Villa Magna: 4-24-02 (Res. 98-450) Approved Modification split Bayshore Palms into two separate projects: Phase I — Jade Residences at Brickell Bay to consist of 336 units and 432 parking spaces along with accessory commercial and recreation space and an unnamed Phase II to consist of 350 units and 533 parking spaces along with accessory commercial and recreation space. 4-28-98 (Res. 98-450) Original Approval for Bayshore Palms consisted of 375 units and 600 parking spaces along with accessory commercial and recreation space. C:IWINNIITenporary Internet FilesIOLKPIInrge Scale DR (August 2004).xls (Listing) Page 11 of II CITY OF MIAMI INITIAL STREETCAR CORRIDOR FEASIBILITY STUDY April2005