Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-76-0617/ r 6 MOt. 16-545 RESOLUTION NO. 76-617 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT EXPRESSLY INDICATING THE AGREEMENT OF THE CITY CO:;MISSION WITii THE PRO- POSED BP: DO::N OF FUND1 G FO TNS EIGHT`i-TIURI:E MILLION DOLLAR INITIAL COST OUTLAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM" AND SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE PROPOSED 375 ASSESS- MENT AS THE CITY OF MIA."•i_L' S SHARE OF THE PROJECT COST. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COiMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, F'LORIDA: Section 1. It is the intent of the City Commission to hereby expressly indicate its agreement with the following breakdown of funding for the $83,000,000.00 initial cost outlay in connection with the construction of the "People Mover System"; further the Commission specifically approves the herein proposed 3% assessment as the City of Miami's share of such cost: 1976. "80% FEDERAL FUNDS = 67.4 MILLION DOLLARS 10c. STATE F i.:,DS = 8.3 MI F,LION DOLLA S 5% COUN.C' FUNDS = 4.2 MILLION DOLLARS 3% CITY FUNDS = 2.8 MILLION DOLLARS 2% D.D.A. FUNDS = 1.4 MILLION DOLLARS TOTAL 83 NI LLIO:: DOLLARS" PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of JUNE MAURICE/ A. FERRE L' 1/ ` M A Y O R SOU T / City Cie_.. i PREPAF,r'D AND APPROVED BY: `,el% ' 1� ('.',� 1 J,ssist....f- C: _ Attorney APP RO."i:i)...S Fop.': AND CORP.ECTNESS ,,, Cc,nn S. L:10 .. c ity Atto:n__ 1 CORD OF PU3LIC HEARING DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM On the 25th day of June, 1976. members of the Metro- politan Dade County Commission and the Miami City Commission met in the downtown Bayfront Park Auditorium in joint session to conduct an advertised public hearing for the purpose of enabling members of the general public to express their opin- ions on a proposed downtown people mover system. The meeting was called to order at 2:10 o'clock P.M. by Metropolitan Dade County Mayor Stephen P. Clark. The following members of. the Metropolitan Dade County Commission were present: Mrs. Clara Osterle, Mrs. Beverly Phillips, Mr. James Redford, Jr., Mrs. Sandy Rubinstein and Mayor Clark. The following members of the Miami City Commission were present: Mrs. Rose Gordon and Mr. J. L. Plummer, Jr. Also present were the City of Miami Manager and Attorney and the Dade County Manager and Attorney. as well as members of the staffs of both the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County. Dr. John Dyer, Transportation Coordinator for Metro- politan Dacie County, presented a brief summary of the proposed project, using aerial photographs to illustrate his remarks. Mayor Clark then announced that the hearing was open to the public. r.rs. Orrie Strubinger , Vice President of the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Dade County, appeared and read the following prepared statement: "The League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Dade County supports a belanoed transoortation system utilizing the modes appropriate for various conditions. We urge the Dade County Commission, f.ho Miami City Cor.`•.:'.ii s3ion, and the downtown merchants to seek the slate an'1 fed er'al funding which would cover ninety per cent. of the cr]:_ i tat cost for the proposed people mover for the do'..ntcy.•:] area. "I);.lrinj preliminary engineering the Kaiser Engineers conducted a separate stud,' on the feasiTlilitv of using mini - Systems at various acui . ;' centers. The co'••'nLo•.•In area was one Lhe t appeared ripe for this type of r,:.cration. Since then the l:c.l.u-iL`,' has experiv n`:e:1 '.: th various ....'.Ittle buses for do:rntc.,wn. These hole: with :nobility, but one glaring ro:�lem remains. 13u ies which r:iust 5hare laneswith auto? in the crowd- ed cop!,' :e rci al areas i_rn;i also mn:;e frequent sto is , arc., simply too slow.: to offer an alternative to the auto. A grade se •aratcd peol•le mover, even with fre.7uent stops would be faster than a car. If the people mover .'ere electricaliY powered. it would have the a'lled advanta•je of ,.)reviJing nee'ie:? mobility without any a L t''n"i nt air pollution in this afire, critical area. "A '.ell designed people mover should help to stimulate the redevelopment of the heart of the inner city, one of the prime objectives of the Master Plan. It should also serve to increase the ridership on the rapid transit element when it is completed. Conversely, completion of the rapid element will increase the use of the downtown people rover. Each element will complement the other. The League of Women Voters believes that this proposal will be a positive step forward in achieving balanced transportation for Dade County." Barbara Levinson: 1 am Chairperson for the People Mover Sub- committee of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce Downtown Action Committee. The Do:•rntow-n_ Action Committee appointed this committee of approximately fifteen people from a variety of disciplines and business interests to work with the government agencies involved in formulating proposals for the people mover system for Miami. The committee has been actively engaged in all facets of the proposal and has studied each aspect diligently. At one of its last meetings it endorsed the concept of the sys- tem as a vital one to link downtown Mia:ni' s rapid transit com- ponents; to enhance established businesses, and to encourage new do‘'.-1to n uevelocelent . It also is in acco.:d with the finan- cing plan as proposed to the joint City and County Commissions. A special tax district based on a benefit assessment will be an important step in allowing the public and private sectors of the metrotolitan area to work together towards a modern concept in trails :ortatio:z. The Do%::ntow:1 7cti on Committee has also en- dorsed is ;eae idea, 0.3 has the Executive Committee of the Chamber. of Commerce, and just this morning the full board of the Greater iiia;:li Chamber met and endorsed these major components of they preeosa1 , including the financing plan. The Committee feels that the proposal encom-asset; the many pinta btoght to- gether by our various backgrounds. We would, however, like to reiterate our concern that the alternate north routing using east Third Avenue be reassessed in the preliminary engineering study: as it is reviewed in the proposal's Milestone Five. In the evens that legal aspects make Biscayne 3oulevard too costly a route, we would :-ant to be sure that the project progresses with the use of the alternate routing. With this small excep- tion the Committee fens confident that Miami and Dare County are presenting a practical and worthwhile proposal, and we look forward to being among the first riders on the people mover in dot•:nto�..n Miami. Lucius Williams, Executive Director of the Downtown Development ent Authority of t11C• City of Miami: I wish to place on the record of this public hearing) the findings of the bm rd of the 7',u-!-nr•i.ty. `l':; uthori.ty has cons2:.clorec-1 th? }e proposals; 'have tea rtic:i i' :i t io ulann i ri of the project throu'jl1 this time, and 1I1'1e'ed Lae .tuff has participnt.c1 with the federal Oi t :LCi. ll:i alt i Mr. John 'dyer for so.:12 nip? months, even , before this aot)1 ication beca::le possible. But for the record. the Deve o:dm^'1t AUt110riLy has considered these proposals and1 has duly passed a r_esolutio,i endorsing, which reads as follows: The Downtown Development Authority Board strongly e►dorses and supports the proposed concept for the downtown people mover system as reflected in the Milestone reports and the final recommendations, and we encourage you to proceed With the concurrence of this full and final system report to- day. so that we may be hopeful of oetaining a balanced trans- portation system in the downtown area. I c, :yid also like your concurrence that I place in the record of this public hearing the certified copy of the minutes of the Board of the Downtown Development Authority on June 1Oth. I do not have those presently, but will provide them so that they may be inserted as a document of this public hearing. Mayor Clark: All right, sir, if you will give those to the Clerk as soon as you can, Mr. Williams, he would appre- ciate it. Mr. Clerk, you have that notation. Richard N. Friedman: I am here to voice my opinion in opposition to this downtown shuttle, and the reason I am op- posed to it is not that in concept it won't look good, or that in concept it won't do the job for the people who want to move about downto::n. Those are not the objections. The two key objections, I think, is first of all that I note in the June 22, 1976 ',demi herald that the bus shuttles for downtown have been merged. Now I do }.now for a fact, having taken the down- town train, that they are very ill used, or little used, unfor- tunately. •.'ieth r they were for ten cents or for free. they were little used. _:OW May':De it is the fact of a lac: of pub- licity. .Maybe it was the route. It could be many different reasons. I thins{ the fact of the City and County working in this area to try to afford. the public the ease and convenience of the downtown t ranport.:tio-i has don? a good thing in having a trap of this sort, but I do believe that the downtown shuttle bus should first be given a lengthy try of at least a year --not unlike the route on South Dixie Highway where you tried it for a year and we lost a million dollars and we eventually suspend- ed it, at least as of now --to see what kind of traffic you have, and if there is in fact a demand from the public that it will be usecl sufficiently, then I Lh n% ::e ought to take steps, perhaps, to construct this sort of :people mover system. The unsightliness question, of course, has to also be raised, and I don't have any Liefinitive opinion on this because I haven't seen any mock-ups that nny have '?c'cn prepared on this. I do have a general objection to lergc concrete pillars with trains over them.;. which 1 thi z'k would m;.l::e th•a downtown arca unsightly. I think -Cho proroso_:1 sy:3Lem, whicn will cost variously between eighty and a hun6 ui ni.li inn dol) n:"s . is an awfully expensive toy until we have se: e very (Si niti.vo evidence that the system will bet use's su f fl.c. en Lly by the publ.i c downtown. In addition, the r of the E•vs tom • v.ho c _ the men downtown, }�a.�.i girt c,. ti ,_ 1� I�usirle:,:.. according tc) the distance from the system, I believe, was three hundred feet, six iinridred feet, nine hundred feet, whether that i s an appropriate approach. I am not saying it is and I am not saying it is not, but I think that is certainly open to question, particularly by the downtown businessmen who will have to pay the tax. I imayin` that there may be some here, or -3- you will hear more from that avenue. So, two things, I think the cost of the system, the funding of the system, and the question of the sightliness of the system are the three main issues that --to which I approach --is my approach to the system, and I certainly think that we are premature simply to --because the federal government says we have money, make an application -- we will bring it in Miami because Miami right now, Dade County, is down in construction ---we can bring money into Dade County, so let's get federal funds as quickly as we can to boost our economy. There is some merit to that, but I don't think as much merit as a sensible approach and a rational approach to the spending of our tax money, regardless of whether it comes from the federal, state or local government; and I think we ought to have a "go slow" approach on this. First make a definitive analysis of the need for it, and once we have done that, then let's ask for the funds and build it if it is nec- essary. Mayor Clark: Mr. Friedman, we don't want to get into a debate here. What we are trying to do today is to apply for these funds. That's all we are trying to do. We don't know exactly whether it is going to be on pillars, hanging from the s'cy, or just what construction. Mr.. Dyer will attest to the fact that this is an application that must be sent in by June 30th to even be qualified. Then if we are qualified; if we do receive the grant, then at that time the input that you speak of that is premature, will be on line at that time. We are not planning any system. We have to give them a Lesic route. That's about all the planning we have done. Right, John? Dr. Dyer nodded in the affirmative. Mayor ci. -', : Just give tI1e a basic route to show about how many people it will service. Other than that there is no planning. in so far as the pillars, the direct route -- because the resolution the City of Miami passed has an open end on it; either Biscayne Boulevard or .;E 3rd Avenue; so the options thHt you sea of are not on line at this time because our applicntion has not been approved. We don't know whether we will even reeei ee the Ironer or not. We are following the guideline:; set forth by the federal government of making this application as solid in so far as unification between the City of Miami an] Dn'dc County is concerned. Mr. F,:ie,'i.nan: Mayor, not as argumentative, but merely in roapon:,e, I uoulri only say that the question of the appllcatli)11 'i.11;;t is the integrity of the application, I think, should he lJEce:t upon ;ojac basic proof that there is a need for such a sy: t m, and not simply run after federal funds, v}llt;ll I t'.:11_n': is the nature of the L:plgl:::at.?_0:1, because the fact of the letter is that the tram that was, or has Leen .going around in t). <,ow- li.:o';.'il aeea to the courthoue, and :'hat have you, in one article which caupca'reJ in th:: Herald iIId:Lcated that not more tii;:n t.wani.y dollars was collected when we were charging ten cent,;, anti my view o1: it, having use it several times a week to go to the courthouse and bac': I find that it is not used all that much even though it is free, so I have to just question whecMr there will be very much public use in order for this body of people and the Dade Transportation Department to make the effort and spend the time to go through the bureaucratic entangler.ent in order to get the federal funds where we ultimately may come to the conclusion that they are absolutely unnecessary. Mayor Clark: Well, Mr. Friedman, in response to what you have just stated, we did not go out and knock on the door of Washington for these funds. I would like to read just the first paragraph of a report given to us today by our County Manager, Mr. Dewey Knight. The Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the Department of Transportation announced on April the 5th, 1976 that it was soliciting --now there is is great difference in going after and someone trying to solicit you --soliciting project proposals from urbanized areas interested in develop- ing downtown people mover projects. This announceer t indi- cated that the national coeLpetiti.on was part of a major demon- stration effort to examine the desirability of downtown people clover systems as a Node of transportation to accomplish a series of r"iationai coals. Up to tree cities are to be select- ed, tllroen,4h neti on..i conpetition tion to receive capital grants to develop doentc•. n people mover systems. Now far be it fro;n us --we are not knocking --ire do at times knock on the door of Washington for funds for. Dade Count,: and the Ci t' c1. ; ,r.."h:. :.c ski._, not ao out and make this solicitatioa o.:rsclves , as eas ai.11ele l to in the re, larks that '-, that e are k , �t you �.��:._ t,.�_.t �:�.. �._e : .a.�.:i,1ti on Washington's door for funds to co::e up .rit;l a new type of project. This is a national goal; this isn't a _ .! .rat. , a Dade Count.•' goal. lee. Friedman: :Ir. Mayor, the rere fact that Washington says there are --that there is a great deal of funds available is a little like the Congressman from Utah. You know, he says he was solicited; that he didn't do the solicitation; so I mean it is a question of how you call the shot. But I think when we are making the application we are doing it for a pur- pose and wo are mekin=_; representations, I believe, to our federal government that the money is needed for a particular purpose, and 7 am merely questioning the need in the downtown area for such an expen:, i_ve systc, even if we were given the gift of a hundred or eighty million dollars. rir.s. 1'Ihi.i1.i r: I thought everyone here know that this was not a s ;ur of the G10''.nt thing. \.e had under contract, as part of our --an addendu a to o'.;r Keiser contract, close to eighteee eoliths ago a stur?y of fo::r ,nrens of ton for reonle moverr:, :a;t l we had soe.e public meetings presenting the differ- ent t:clhnir;uee, an•-i at thet tinc it was doter:?hided we would go With the shuttle bua initially, but that ultimately this would not caw, eola:111 I,cople for our needs in the downtown area. So this isn't a cage of either Washington or us' it is a case that we had an opportnnit.y to do something that we have been planni ncl all along. MrI IPI 'p' + limpon iloII IIIII 11IIII11! _0 Mr. Friedman: Respectfully, Mrs. Phillips, eighteen months ago I disagreed with the need for the attachment to otir rapid transit system in the downtown area. Mrs. Phillips: I am aware of that, Mr. Friedman. Mayor Clark: That's the beauty of --- Mr. Friedman: So it is not a spur of the moment that I am here either. Mayor Clark: We know that, and everyone has the right to agree or disagree. We appreciate your presentation. Further input from the audience? (No response) Further persons wish to speak? Mr. Dyer, do you have ---(Dr. Dyer gestured in the negative) Mr. Plummer: I have some questions. Mayor Clark: Just a minute, J. L. If we are going to have discussion among ourselves, are there other persons who wish to speak at this time? If not we are going to close this public hearing and then we are going to discuss this, and if we want to open it up again and let someone else speak, that's all right. (No response from the audience) All right, the rublic hearing is closed. Now, Mr. Plummer. Mr. P1u7-'er : John, let me ask a question. If this is successful, as I recall you said that the first rider would be approximately the end of seventy-nine. Is that correct? Dr. Dyer: I believe it is 1921, Commissioner. The seventy-nine w_7,::1:3 be pretty much the end of the construction, and also the beginning of vehicle arrival. It could be as early as 1980. August of eighty is the start-up time. t•lr. Plu=er: Now, my question, then, is, as I brought to your attention before, in San Francisco their biggest prob- lem is at the distal ends as it relates to parking. And the mass transit, as I understand it, if it were approved and every- thing were in order. would take approximately seven years for irplement:?tion '--Jefore you would have your first rider. Is that correct? Dr. Dyer.: The scheduled start-up date for Stage Cne would be 19P1, one year after this. They would be designed and constr.zeted in tendon where they interface: that is at the govermr.ent cen`_or static,n and the SW 8th Street station. Mr. Plummer: Well, my question is, what are you going to do in the interim, or the void time, et SW 10th Street and the railroad tracks? Are you going to he di.•-;ping a great amount of traffic into Chet area? Assuming both systems are go, what is the proposal there. I kno'•' that if the mass transit becomes a reality at a later time that that would he a drop off to pick up the people mover, but are we looking at a tremendous gap and are we looking at a problem of congestion in that area in the interim? -6- Dr. Dyer: I think there are two answere to that. As an interim measure there are a number of sattelite parking facilities would be available for parking. The people mover would tend to substantially reduce congestion along Brickell for the simple reason it: is carrying the equivalent of five or six thousand cars every day up and down that area, Secondly, as an additional interim measure, as the rapid station gets in place the parking facility there would be completed early on, so the parking would be available for the people mover in advance of the time that the main line rapid is completed. Mr. Plummer: At that particular location. Dr. Dyer: Yes si.? . Mr. Plummer: My only other question --or maybe I should just state it as my personal. opinion- -one of the speakers spoke to it --and that is, you made a comment before that this system will actual J.y, in fact:, he turned over to a company who will do the entire par.kage. Dr. Dyer: Yes sir. Mr. Plummer: That's what scares me. Let me tell you why. I have been thinking about the fact of the different models of the vehicles which would be used in this system, and. the thing to me, there is no comparison between the box shaped structures, which 3 would call square vehicles, as opposed to the possibility of the Disney World type, streamlined; and I would be very, very cautious to turn over, especially when they are having to match hard dollars, to someone without the Cornnission--I am saying Commission jointly --approval of which vehicle is used, because I thin): it is the difference between an ugly situation and an up-to-date, first-class eituation. So I personally would not. want to turn over to any contractor the right to designate which vehicle is used. Dr. Dyer: Yes, sir. Perhaps I might explain that just a bit. The order or sequence of things would be, if both Commis- sions approve the proposal that you have before you, or some- thing that is modified, it is submitted to the Urban Mass Transportation administration by June 30th, the next major de- cision is the decision on the three cities that would then re- ceive funding to proceed. After_ that decision is made the next thing that happens would be a set of performance specs. Speci- fications would have to be sent out to all proposed, all possible offerers who would be in a position to build the system and install their. vehicles. Then the next thing that would happen would be that there would be a decision by this body on which of the systems is selected. So you, in effect you would be selecting the system. Mr. Plummer: That would not preclude this body's right of designating which vehicle. Dr. Dyer: You would make the selection based upon the performance specifications. It is not a federal decision and it is not a staff decision. It is a policy decision of the --- of those commissions. -7- Mayor Clark: All right, any further questions? Mr. Andrews, do you have something to add? P. W. Andrews, City Manager: No, I haven't. Mrs. Gordon: I just want to say I hope we are so lucky to be selected as one of the three. It would indeed be very fortunate for all of us in this area. Mayor Clark: Mr. Redford, do you have anything to add? Mr. Redford gestured in the negative. Mayor Clark: Anything down here? (No response.) Mayor Clark: All right I am going to ask for a motion from our Commission to approve the resolution. Mrs. Phillips: I will move. Mayor Clark: Approving the project proposal for the downtown people mover system and authorizing the County Manager to submit the project proposal to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration to expend funds therefor. There is a motion by Mrs. Phillips, seconded by Mrs. Rubenstein. Call the roll on this, Mr. Clerk: Thereupon the motion was adopted by the following vote: Mr. Redford: Yes. Mrs. Osterle: Yes. Mrs. Phillips: Yes. Mrs. Rubenstein: Yes. Mayor Cl a r' : I vote yes. The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 o'clock P.M. STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF DADE CITY OF flI :.II I, H. D. Southern, Clerk of the City of i1I ni, Florida, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing pages numbered 1 to 8, inclusive, contain a tr.te and coYrect record of a public hearing held on the 25th day of Jun, 1073, for the purpose of enablingv tho general t:nli.c to express its opinion on a proposed people glover system for the downtown area of Miami.r WIT:ZESS my hand and the official seal of the Cir.y of I•Iia'.1i, Florida, this 28th day of June, 1976. r'' nip III rnr't ro;, I idn (td(IP COU(1tV McAllister Hotel • 10 Biscayne Boulevard • Miami, Florida 33132 • Phone 373-5970 Purpose: To promote political responsibility through informed and active participation of citizens In government. STATEMENT BEFORE THE COM`]ISSIONS OF METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF MIAMI REGARDING A PROPOSAL FOR A PEOPLE MOVER JUNE 25, 1976 The League of Women Voters of Metropolitan Dade County supports a balanced transportation system utilizing the modes appropriate for various conditions. We urge the Dade County Commission, the MJami City Commission, and the down- town merchants to seek the state and federal funding which would cover nine- ty percent of the capital cost for the proposed people mover for the down- town area. During jlro.1 .iiLi nary engineering, the Kaiser Engineers conducted a separate study on the Feasibility of using mini -systems at various activity centers. The downtown area was one that appeared ripe for this type of operation. Since then, the County has experimented with various shuttle buses for down- town. These help with mobility, but one glaring problem remains. Buses which must share lanes with autos in the crowded commercial areas and also make frequent stops, are simply too slow to offer an alternative to the auto. A grade separated people mover, even with frequent stops, would be faster than a car. If the people mover were electrically powered, it would have the added advantage of providing needed mobility without any attendant air pollution in tlii.s already critical area. A well designed people plover should help to stimulate the redevelopment of the Heart of the inner city, One of the prime objectives of the Master Plan. It should also serve to increase the ridership on the rapid transit element when it is completed. Conversely, completion of the rapid element will increase the use of the downtown people mover. Each element will complement the other. The League of Women Voters believes that this proposal will be a positive step forward in achieving balanced transportation for Dade County. 1 M E M O R A N D U M TO Honorable Mayor and Members Board of County Commissioners =RCM r. DATE June 25, 1976 SUBJECT Approval and Authorization to Submit the Downtown People Mover Project Int=Eim County ?Manager Proposal The Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the Department of Transportation announced on April 5, 1976, that it was soliciting project proposals from urbanized areas interested in developing Downtown People Mover Projects. This announcement indicated that the national competition was part of a major demonstration effort to examine the desirability of Downtown People Mover Systems as a mode of transportation to accomplish a series of national goals. Up to three cities are to be selected through national competition to receive capital grants to develop Downtown People Mover Systems. Metropolitan Dade County in conjunction with the City of Miami has prepared a Downtown People Mover Project Proposal. Included in the development of the Project Proposal have been numerous representatives of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Development Authority. The Project Proposal includes a series of seven parts which have been developed through me planning and decision making process which included six serarate Milestone reports. At the conclusion of the public meetinr, conducted by the City Commission of the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County Eoard of County Commissioners on June 4, 1976, the financing plan and route alignment and station locations decisions were completed. They were subsequently con- firmed by resolutions of the Eoard of County Commissioners and the Miami City Commission on June 18, 1976, and June 17, 1976 respectively. In general, all decisions on route alignment and station locations are considered firm, except that it is important to note that the original recommendation contained in Milestone 5 regarding the East Third avenue alignment in a north -south direction, has been approved as an acceptable alternative to the Biscayne Boulevard alignment in the event that the latter cannot be made workable during the preliminary engineering stage of developing the People Mover System and assuming that the Project Proposal is approved by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Upon refinement of the proposed routing of the People Mover System, the analysis indicated that the Project Proposal should involve two stages. Stage 1 would amount to 3.3 miles including the entire system plan less .4 miles which is the east -west portion of the loop at north Fifth Street linking the north -south alignment with the Government Center station. Stage 2 would include the .4 miles not included in Stage 1. The total estimated capital cost of Stage 1 is $73,839,000 of which UMTA is requested to fund $58,110,000 from Section 3 funds, the Florida Department of Transportation and Dade County would utilize Federal Urban System Funds to design and construct the Miami River bridge structure in the amount of $950,000, Florida Department of Transportation would contribute 100 of the total cost in the amount cf $7,389,000, Metropolitan Dade County would contribute $3,695,000, the City of Miami would contribute $2,217,000, and the private sector through a special taxing district requested by the Downtown Development Authority at the meeting of the Eoard of County Commissioners on June 15, 1976, would contribute $1,478,000 or 20 of the total cost. Stage 2 with a total length of .1 miles would cost approximately $9.4 million of which UMTA would contribute $7,520,000, the Florida Department of Transportation would contribute $940,000, Metropolitan Dade County would contribute $470,000, the City of Honorable Mayor and Members Board of County Commissioners 2- June �5i 1976 Miami would contribute $282,000, and the private sector would contribute $188,000. The total cost of both stages of the Project Proposal would amount to $83,239,000. The final project proposal, available for review and discussion, has been presented at a public hearing scheduled some 30 days ago for June 25, 1976, at 2:00 p.m. This public hearing demon- strated the substantial support and need for the Downtown People Mover System as part of a unified transportation system for all of Metropolitan Dade County. Your approval of the Project Pro- posal and your authorization to submit it to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration is requested. DWK/js was seconded by Commissioner RESOLUTION NO. r RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR THE DOWNTCWN PECPLE . PCVER SYSTEM AND AUTHORISING THE COUNTY MANAGER TC STEMIT . ThE PROTECT PROPOSAL TC THE URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION AND TO EXPEND FUNDS TP.EF.EFCR WHEREAS, this Eoard desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the memorandum from the County Manager, a copy of which is attached to this resolution, for the reasons delineated therein. NOW, THEREFORE, EE IT RESCDED EY THE BARD OF COUNTY CONTESSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board approves the Project Proposal for the Downtown People Mover System and authorizes the County '^anager to submit the Project Proposal to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, and expend funds therefor. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner who moved its adoption. The motion , and upon being put t o a vote, the vote was as follows: Neal F Adams Harry F. Cain Sidney Levin Clara Oesterle Beverly Phillips James F. Redford Jr. Sandy Rubinstein Harvey Ruv'ri Stephen P. Clark The Mayor thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this DADE COUNTY, FTL,OREA BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMaSSIONERS RICHARD P. ERINKEF, CIAO Approved by County Attcrney as to form and legal sufficiency...--- By: Deputy Clerk wel!ROIIIIlP,P11P111?11 2 A THE MIAMI NEWS Saturda, May 29, 1976 The TV censorship of movies (.•nntinued from 2A (liner which films they ha\ r r r• used. hut \1ae Helms, director of program clearance for Cf3S, reports That "Carnal Knowledge" v.•as fumed dov;n because of its adult sexual theme. On the other hand, Ms. Helms and her co-workers at CBS decided that they might he able to salvage "1 he Exorcist." The film has not heen sold, but Ms. Helms says, '1 think we would all like to get our !ands on editing that one." r trice a movie has been pur- r iia ed, the network censors super- vise the recanting of the film. Nudi- ty, explicit sex. language and vin- lenre are the main areas of con - ,ern. The National Association of Broadcasters Code is fairly general. the censor., have formulated ihmr own specific prohibitions. Iic rnunin Traviesas. NBC's vice president in charge of broadcast tandards. reports. "I coined the rhra e. 'No frontal, backal or sidal nudity.' " Standards vary slightly from r;,..aork to network. CBS is gener- considered the most liberal, ,i Mae Helms insists that " Caba- weild have turned nut differ - it it had been shown on CBS. itt:n� techniques are mart rbt, than yiecrrrs may reah,, . u,ii_r is our biggest problem." •.;, ,a- complains. li0v:evcr. err ,i run es arc no longer i v.;rh distracting hleeps to 1,t four-letter vyords. )(tee. the editors will be able to ace an offending word with an- • word lifted from another ot :he soundtrack. For exar?t- pl, if the censor objects to "son of a hitch." a shrewd editor may find that the same character uses the sword "gun" in another scene in the movie. 13y transferring that tiny hit of tape, he can change "son of a bitch" to "son of a gun" without asking the actor to reduh the line. There are other editing tricks that the networks have perfected. Traviesas gives another example: "in 'There's a Girl in My Soup,' there vas a scene where Peter Sellers was sitting on a chair talk- ing. We needed the dialogue, hut the problem was that behind him there was a painting on the wall of two people copulating. The editor found a way of enlarging the frame so that the painting was no longer visible. Because of intricate changes Iikr these, the time involved in refash- ioning a film for television can he• staggering. Richard Kirschner, CBS vice president in charge of pro- gram practices. estimates that the CBS editors spent 200 man-huars working on the mop ie On some films the director is re- quired to shoot alternate footage for television while he is making the movie. And in a feu. cases Universal has even shot new foo- tage in preparing a mode fur tele- vision. in "Secret ('eremony." a new scene added for the l \' ver- sion changed Elizabeth Taylors profession from prostitute to wig- maker. The networks defend their poli- cies by arguing that since televi- sion is a mass medium. they must protect the rights of viewers who are offended by explicit sex and language. But critics ask ."..hy they INFIATION FIGHTER SATURDAY MAY 29th & SUNDAY MAY 30th ONLY Regular Price Bucket (serves 6 persons-15 pieces chicken) 4.90 French Fries (for six) . 1.40 Creamy Cole Slaw (16 fi. oz.) . .65 Buttered Rolls (for six) .30 TOTAL S7.25 SATURDAY & SUNDAY ONLy , ignore the rights of thr viewers who are offended by the mangled films that the networks present in place of the originals. Mac Helms replies. "It is the au• dience that controls our decisions, the influx of mail and phone calls that we get. We search for the grey area between (he ultrapro- gressive and the ultraconserva- tive." She admits that the number of letters does not always reflect the actual number of dissatisfiea viewers. in the months after the showing of "The Damned" (in a drastically shortened version), CBS received 4.18,000 letters protesting the screening of X-rated movies on television; but a study revealed that most of the letters were part of an organized campaign mounted by several pressure groups. Nevertheless, the censors are confident that they are reflecting the views of the majority of Ameri• cans. Traviesas offers this ration- ale: "1 believe that no matter how mores change. this country is best• catty puritanical. When young peo. Pie begin to have children of their own, they become just as puritani- cal as their parents were. I know what the country wants. I think most people are satisfied with our standards. ' One thing that may eventually have an influence on network poll• cy is the development of cable tele- vision, Already the Home Box Of- fice in New York and the Z chan- nel in Los Angeles — both of which show movies uncut — have provided an alternative to the net- works' treatment of films. The network censors often argue that the nude scenes and four-letter words they cut were not necessary to the film in the first place. In a few cases that may be true. in the great majority, however, every de- tail contributes to the unique quali- ty of the movie, and an edited -for - TV vfrsion is a poor facsimile of the original. NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM THE DEPT. OF U.S. HUD FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ACTIVITIES 24 CFR 58,30 (a) On June A, 197E, Dade County will submit o'equest to the U.S. Dept. of HUD for the release of funds for the tmplementatitn of the following protect proposed under Lfle 1 of the Housing and Community levelopment Act of 1974: A. The North County Community Development Target Area #1, for which the following activities areproposed: Youth and Young Adult Employment, Yost and Young Adult Development Program, ICrime PreventionProgram Continuation), Buccaneer Pork Expansion and Redesign,Visto Verde Pork Design, Water Distribution System Design, 5onitory Sew, System Design For the purposes of Community Devetopeent, North County is described as o 2.5 square mile oreo bounded onus north by the Dode-Broword County line, on the east by N.W. 27 Avenue. on the south by the Snake Creek Canal, and on the west by N.W. A Avenue (Red Rood). B. The Opa-locko Community Dev(bpment Target Area #2, far which the following activities ore proposed: sanitary Sewer Collection System DesignCommunrty Crime Prevention Program Continuation, Comprehensive ARreation Facilities Design & Construction at Golden Glades Elementey School, Bunche Park (first year continuotioni, North Dode Jr. Highkhool, and Ingram Pork (first year continuation). For the purposes of Community Developsent, Opo-locko is described os o 2.5 square mile portion of the City of(pa-Iocka, bounded on the north by the Golden Glades Expresswat,on the east by N.W. 17 Avenue. on the south by N.W. 135 Suet and on the west by the Opo- locko Airport. C. The West Little River Commu* Development Target Area 4'3, for which the following activifie ore proposed: Sanitary Sewer Collection 'System DesiesRecreat,on°, Facility Design & Construction for West tittle River Elemesery School, local Street Improvements Design ond, or Construe*. Open Space Acquisition, land Acgms.tuon for Expansion of ArcdiPOrk, Community Pork Design. Tennis Court Construction of Miami Cerlal Nigh School, Construction of Lights for MultiPurpose Courts al 1,»leaver Pork 0. The Hialeah Community Devtiopment .Torget Area #4, for which the following activities ore proposed: • entinuation, Seminolo NDP es . change, this country is basi- puritanical. When young peo- gin to have children of their they become just as puritani- their parents were. t know the country wants. I think people are satisfied with our irds." thing that may eventually in influence on network poll - he development of cable tcle- . Already the Home Aox Of - New York and the Z chan- t Los Angeles — both of show movies uncut — have led an alternative to the net- ;' treatment of films. network censors often argue le nude scenes and four-letter they cut were not necessary film in the first place. In a ases that may be true. In the majority, however, every de- ntributes to the unique quail - the movie, and an edited-for- Ision is a poor facsimile of iginal. GRA EON PD ING • ' OTTERY NEW LOCATION 490 Er 4th AVE., HIALEAH in scar CUsrOMERs SPECIAL! RECEIVE ONE SMALL PLOT ^ FM! 81-2" PAINTED POT CERAMICS WITH ROPE /tl $ 50 t • it ALL IZES • WROUGHT IRON STAIRCASES each II • WROUGHT IRON STANDS \1 l • HAND PAINTED VASES — 3 SIZES - All HAND PAINTED IN MEXICO ..• —... 1001 DIFFERENT ITEMS . - N POTTERY 490 E. 4th AVE., HIALEAH OPEN: 10 A.M.-6 P.M. MON. thru SAT. PHONE 887-7224 Be Thrifty See Today's .•1(IS INTENTION TO 3E OF FUNDS FROM HUD FOR COMMUNITY WGRAM ACTIVITIES 58,30 (a) equest to the U.S. Dept. of HUD r of the following prole-0 proposed evelopment Act of 1974; velopment Target Area #1, proposed: fond Young Adult trogrom Continuation), vista Verde Pork Design, Water System Detign Int, No-th County is described north by the Dode-Froward ve. on the south by tie Snake AvenuelRed Road). )pment Target Areo #2, for posed: .ommvnty Come prevention •eohon Fecd,t es Design d School. Bvnche Pork (first tool. and Ingram Park (first nt. Opo-locks is described os a loc,a. bounded on the n the cost by N W. 17 end ce the west by the Opa. De.e':�ment Target Area ore F�ctc:ed tcreo,,tena ,:stir re: yn 6 y Oiler `.rer.e *taro•^Ori. ark C .c� Peiy :xst Hive Sr)rl, . �!!Nr✓t,On of u Port. )ment Target Areo #4, for posed: ntinuahon, Semmolo NDP z;:a�;dim,,Yrt!at,.sts',•i,t,•i;£��" fs•'#. For the purposes of Community Development. little Havana dn5,nhcd as a three and half square mile area bounded on the north by N W 7 Street and the Miami River, on the east by the FEC Roilrood, on the south roughly by S.W. 17 Street and on the west by 27 Aven,,e. 1, The Coconut Grove Community Development Target Area #12, for which the following activities ore proposed. Acquisition of Slums and Blighted Properties ler a future housing site—borborrose Building, Street Improvements to Douglas Road and the Area Sounded by Douglas Road, New York Street, Flondo Avenue and U.S. 1, Crime Prevention for Youth For the purposes of Community Development. Coconut Grove target area incorporates the former NDP 04 Project Arco with the some boundaries. M. The South Miami Community Development Target Area # )4 for which the following activities are proposed: Acquisition of right-of•way for improvements to 5 W. 64th Street •Hardee Drive), Removal of slum and blight through acquisition of property of S.E. corner of S.W. 66 Street and 58th Place. Pork Expansion -acquisition of property south of lee Pork Day Core Center design for site located at S.W. 66 Street and S.W. 61st Court, Improvements to South Miami Park For the purposes of Community Development, South Miomi is described ess o .5. square mile portion of the City of South rniarn, bounded on the north by Miller Rood, on the east by Red Rood on the south by Sunset Drive and on the west by S W. 62 Avenue. N. The Perrine Community Development Target Areo :15 for which the following octivities ore proposed: Street Improvements to Homestead Avenue, Hibiscus Street and S.W. 176 Street, Crime Prevention and Youth Employment. Planning for tot•lot and improvement to Perrine Pork. For the purposes of Community Development Perrine is described os o 1.25 square mile area bounded on the north by Richmond Drive, on the east by U.S. 1, on the south by S.W 188 Street and on the west by 5 W. 119 Avenue. O. The Goulds Community Development Target Area #16 for which the following activities are proposed: Design of woter system sewer distribution ono repo•'n; east at NDP oreo, Continued Street Improvements ,n forme, NDP arta Construction of fence at conol north of Goulds Elementary Sctoo' for the purposes of Community Developrr.ent ✓e •e s aescrioeo as o 2.5 square mile oreo bounded on the north by 12 Sheet, on the cost by the South Dade Espresswoy on the sour liver Patin Drive, and on the west by S.W. 130 Avenge. Cm- law "YIP a weefor so much goodness f 0 t t'a Chicker/Take Home 8717 SW. 136th Street at US.1 • Phone 253.4432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County and the City Commission of the City of Miami at the Bayfront Park Auditorium, One Biscayne Blvd„ June 25, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. for the purpose of con- sidering a project for which financial assistance is being sought from the Urban Mass Transportation Ad- ministration, pursuant to the Urban Mass Transporta- tion Administration Act of 1964, as amended, general- ly described as follows: A, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, provided funds for capital improvement, The capital needs are described as follows. 1) A downtown people mover system serving the central business district of the City of Miami 2) All engineering, construction, equipping, and maintenance facilities. The estimated cost of the total project has been determined to be $83.000,000. 0f this total, 567,400,000 is being sought from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. The remaining twenty per cent is non-federal. A total of $8,300,000 will be funded through County and City sources. An equal amount will be sought through the State of Florida Department of Transportation, Mass Transportation Improvements Program, B. RELOCATION It is anticipated that no families or businesses will be displac- ed by this project. C. ENVIRONMENT Physical facilities will be located in areas such that no signifi• cant environmental impact will take place. D. COMPREHENSIVE PUNNING This project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as well as the Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Dade County. The application is in the process of being sub- mitted fo the State and Regional A-95 Clearinghouse. E. ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED The applicant will make every reasonable effort to insure that the elderly and handicapped will be able to use mass transportation effectively, resulting from implementation of this project grant. If. At the hearing, the Commission will afford an opportunity for interested persons or agencies to be heard with respect to the social, economic, and environmental aspects of the project. Interested persons may submit orally or in writing evidence and recommendations with respect to the proposed project. III. A copy of the application for a Federal grant for the pro- posed project, together with an environmental analysis and the transit development plan for the area, is available for public inspection at the Office of Transportation Ad- ministration, the Dade Federal Building, 119 E. Flagler Street, Suite 112. R. Ray Goode County Manager r Street Improvements South of 23rd Street (o mnuohon For the purposes of Community Develop^lnt, Hialeah is described os o five square mile area located with the Gry of Hialeah and generally bounded by Okeechobee Rood on the coeh and west. N.W. 103 Sheep c� the north, and N W. 37 Avenue iDoudos Road) an the cost. E. The Model City Community Development Target Areo #5, for which the following activities are proposed: Sanitary Sewer Collect on System Construt,on. Glndeview School Aree Street Improvement Deng^. al reserve Cpr r2pandede1ealt$ and Medical Superblock. Model Cry leg Care. Higher Horizons. Youth Streetworkers, Senior Citizen Program, Fomdy Planning Inlormat c s, Ex O1lendr Project, Guttural Enrichment Program For the purposes of Community 0e lope ens, Model Cities is described ns o 7 squat! mile urea bounded on the north by N.W. 79th Street, on the east by she 1 95 Expressway. N^ eW. 3Tth Aby tt I"95 Airport Expressway, and on the west by F. The Edison -little River Community Development Target Areq #6, for which the following activities ore proposed: Acquisition and or Reconstruction of Physical Properties for Redevelopment. PIonn'ng and Des,gn of Sewers in the Lorch:en:: h For the purposes of Community Development, Edison -little Rrdescribed ns a 4 square mileharf EboPo�ood. d on the no on then obhby the River Canal, on the cast by Airport Expressway, and on the west by 1.95. G. The Allapottah Community Development Target Areo #7, for which the following activities are p: ry Hro4h Care Program personnel. drugs,roposedsupplies and equipment, NPrimaeighborhood Commumry Center Rehabilitation, demolition, landscaping, parking facilities & other improvements, Crime Prevention Program Continuation, Arterieal Road improvements Continuation• Landscaping, pnrk'^g foc'bhes & other improvements, Jackson Sr, Hip$ School Site Expansion For the purposes of Commumry Development, Allopottoh is iboe a 4 square mie1 are;: bound ryorth by Nte Airport Expresswaydescred , on the east by 195, and endethe on souththe and on the west by the Miami River. N. The Wynwood Community Development Target Areo #8, for which the following activities ore oroposed: Neighborhood Community Center Cc'tinuation, acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, construction & other improvements, Senior Citizens Recreational Progrom, Child Develocment Progrom Continuation, Crime Prevention Program Continuation, Re reotion Facility Improvements at Robert E tee Pork For the purposes of Community Deveopment, Wynwood is described as n 1 75 square mile area bounded or the north by the Airport ,presswoy. on the east by BiscoyneBay, on the south by N.E, 20 Street, and on the west by t 95. t. The Culmer Pork Community Development Torget Areo #4, for which the followini octivitie: are proposed: Construction of o Neiy.,borhood Fmliy, Acquisition of Blighted Properties- for future Housing. Def.? and Construction of a Pedestrian Path under the Expressway, Develovnent of o Mini -Park east of N.W. 3rd Avenue, Street Beautification od Improvements on N.W. 1nd and 3rd Avenues. For the purposes of C-immunity De•lopment, Culmer Park is described as 1.5 square mile oreo bounded c the north by N W. 20 Street, an Rtt east by the F E C. ROW, on the sm.) by the Miami River, and on the west by N W. 10 Avenue. J. Downtown Miami Communin Development Target Area #10 for which the following activitil ore proposed: Traffic Signal System Improvemen'ot Downtown Intersections between 5.w. eth St and N W„'N E. 171h meet. 1-95 to Biscayne Boy, Hagler St. Signal System Improvements beM,n N.W./S.W. 1st Avenue and • Biscayne Boulevard For the purposes of Community D,elopment, Downtown Miami is described as o 1 squore mile oreoounded on the north by N.E, 15 Street, on the east by Biscayne Ba on the south by the Miami River, and on the west by the F E.C. Roilrooc K. The little Havana Commury Development Target Area #11, for which the following activits are proposed: 5 W 8th Street Beautification Prcrom Continuation land Acquisition for Housing Sit, rAtet froorovernents Sou$ of 23rd Street Contnuat.on arse ale toe a wee priht for so much goodness fOtt'"a ChickerN Take Horne 8717 SW. 136th Street at US.1 • Phone 253-4432 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County and the City Commission of the City of Miami of the Bayfront Park Auditorium, One Biscayne Blvd., June 25, 1976, at 2:00 P,M. for the purpose of con- sidering a project for which financial assistance is being sought from the Urban Mass Transportation Ad- ministration, pursuant to the Urban Mass Transporta- tion Administration Act of 1964, as amended, general- ly described as follows: A. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Section 3 of the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance Act of 1974, provided funds for capital improvement, The capital needs are described as follows, 1) A downtown people mover system serving the central business district of the City of Miami 2) Ati engineering, construction, equipping, and maintenance facilities. The estimated cost of the total project has been determined to be $83,000,000. Of this total, 567,400,000 is being sought from the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. The remaining twenty per cent is non-federal. A total of $O,300,000 will be funded through County and City sources, An equal amount will he sought through the State of Florida Department of Transportation, Mass Transportation Improvements Program, B. RELOCATION It is anticipated that no families or businesses will be displac- ed by this project. C. ENVIRONMENT Physical facilities will be located in areas such that no signifi• cant environmental impact will take place. D. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING This project is in conformance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as well as the Transportation Plan for Metropolitan Dade County. The application is in the process of being sub- mitted to the State and Regional A-95 Clearinghouse, E. ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED The applicant will make every reasonable effort to insure that the elderly and handicapped will be able to use mass transportation effectively, resulting from implementation of this project grant. I1, At the hearing, the Commission will afford an opportunity for interested persons or agencies to be heard with respect to the social, economic, and environmental aspects of the project. Interested persons may submit orally or in writing evidence and recommendations with respect to the proposed project. 11l, A copy of the application for a Federal grant for the pro- posed project, together with an environmental analysis and the transit development plan for the area, is available for public inspection at the Office of Transportation Ad- ministration, the Dade Federal Building, 119 E, Flagler Street, Suite 112. R. Ray roode County Manager Fnr, the purposes of Community Development, Hialeah is described as es live squnre mile area located with the City of Hialeah and generally hounded by Okeechobee Road on the south and west, N.W. 103 Street co the north, and N W. 37 Avenue (Douglas Road) on the cost. E. The Model City Community Development Target Area 45, for which the following activities ore proposed: Sanitory Sewer Collection System Construction. Glodeview School Area Street Improvement Design, Street Improvement Design for the 5uperblock. Model City Legal Services, Expanded Health and Medical Core, Higher Horizons, Youth Streetworkers, Senior Citizen Program, Family Planning Information, Ex Offender Project, Cultural Enrichment Program ror the purposes of Community. Development, Model Cities is described as a 7 square mile area bounded on the north by N.W. 79th Street, on the east by the I95 Expressway, on the south by the 1.95 Airport Expressway, and on the west by N.W. 37th Avenue. F. The Edison•Little River Community Development Target Areo #6, for which the following activities are proposed: Acquisition and/or Reconstruction of Physical Properties for Redevelopment, Planning and Design of Sewers in the larchmont ores For the purposes of Community Development. Edisorr.lrt1 a River is described as a 4 square mile area bounded on the no-th by the tittle River Canal. on the east by the E E C Railroad, on the south by the Airport Expressway, and on the west by 1.95. G. The AllopaHah Community Development Target Areo 47, for which the following activities are proposed: Primary Health Core Program personnel, drugs. supplies and equipment, Neighborhood Community Center Rehabilitation demolition. landscaping, parking facilities & other improvements. Crime Prevention Program Continuation, Arterial Rood Improvements Continuation - landscaping, parking facilities & other improvements, Jackson Sr. High School Site Expansion For the purposes of Community Development. AllopaHah is described es o 4 square mile oreo bounded on the north by the Airport Expressway, on the east by 1.95, and on the south and on the west by the Miami River. H. The Wynwood Community Development Target Areo #8, for which the following activities are proposed: Neighborhood Community Center Continuation. acquisition. demolition, rehabilitation, construction & other improvements. Senior Citizens Recreational Program. Child Development Program Conhnuntion, Crime Prevention Program Continuation, Recreation FOUhty Improvements at , Robert E. lee Pork For the purposes of Community Development. Wynwood is described as n 1 75 square mile ores bounded on the north by the Airport Expressway. on the east by Biscoyne Bay, on the south by N.E, 20 Street, and on the west by 1 95. t. The Culmer Pork Community Development Target Area #9, for which the following activities are proposed: Construction of a Neighborhood Fa;hey, Acquisition of Blighted Properties for future Housing, Design and Construction of o Pedestrian Path under the Expressway, Development of o Mini -Park east of N.W. 3rd Avenue, Street Beautification and improvements on N.W. 2nd and 3rd Avenues. For the purposes of Community Development, Culmer Pork is described as 1.5 square mile area bounded or the north by N W. 20 Street, on the east by the F E C. ROW, on the south by the Miami River, and on the west by N.W. 10 Avenue. J. Downtown Miami Community Development Target Areo # 10 for which the following activities are proposed: 'traffic Signal System Improvements at Downtown Intersections between S.W. Brh 5t. and N W./N.E, 17th Street, I.95 to Biscayne Bay, Flogler St. Signal System Improvements between N.W./S.W. 1st Avenue and Biscayne Boulevord For the purposes of Community Development, Downtown Miami it described as a 1 square mile area bounded on the north by N.E. 15 Street, on the east by Biscayne Boy, on the south by the Miami River, and on the west by the F E.C. Railroad. K. The little Havana Community Development Target Area #11, for which the following activities ore proposed: S.W. 8th Street Beautification Program Conhnuotion Land Acquisition for Housing Saes Continuation tent, Hialeah is described os a y of Hiateoh and generally zth and west, N.W 103 Street Jos Road) on the east. ►lopment Target Areo #5, for roposed: tenon, Gladevie.w School Area cement Design for the xpanded Health and Medical ers, Senior Citizen Progrom, r Project, Cultural Enrichment sent, Model Cities is described north by N.W. 79th Street, on ouch by the 1.95 Airport rth Avenue. ity Development Target Area es ore proposed: ysical Properties tor Sewers in the larchmont area sment Edison -little River is ded on the north by the little oilroad. on the south by the 1.95. elopment Target Area 7, for roposed: 1, drugs. supplies and equipment, ibilitotion, demolition. mprovements. Crime Prevention nprovements Continuation• improvements, Jackson Sr. High omen', Allapohah is described os north by the Airport Expressway, rid on the west by the Miami River. relopment Target Areo #8, for proposed: ihnuation, acquisition demolition, vovements. Senior Citizens nent Program Contins.ntion. Crime motion Facility Improvements at opment. Wynwood is described as the north by the Airport lay, on the south by N.E. 20 Street, Development Target Area #9, ore proposed; ihty, Acquisition of Blighted and Construction of a Pedestrian merit of a Mini -Park east of N.W. I Improvements on N.W. 2nd and •lopment, Culmer Park is described the north by N W. 20 Street, on the s by the Miami River, and on the Development Target Areo # 10 ore proposed: at Downtown Intersections between reel, 1.95 to Biscayne Bay, Hagler St. n N W./S.W. 1st Avenue and elopment, Downtown Miami is rounded on the north by N.E. 15 on the south by the Miami River, and y Development Target Areo #11, s are proposed: ram Continuation P. The Noranja x 17, for which the following activities ore proposed: Youth employment, Construction of swimming p, signed for Naranta Elementary School Pork, Park Expansion For the purposes of Community Development Naronla is described as on irregularly shaped 4.5 square mile area e,rendma as fa, 'lout-, as Palm Drive, as far east as 5 W. 312 Avenue. ns far south ns S W 302 Street and is bounded on the southwest by South DVxie Highway ;US I1. O. The Homestead -Florida City Community Development Target Areo # 18 for which the following activities are proposed: Land acquisition for senior citizens housing, improvements to streets within area bounded by Mowry Street, Lucy Street, 2nd Avenue and 12th Avenue For the purposes of Community Development, Homestead tlonda City is described as a 5 square mile area, generally bounded on the north, by S.W. 312 Street (Homestead -- N.W 8 Street), on the east by S W. 172 Avenue on the west by S.W 192 Avenue (Tower Road) and on the south by S.W. 360th St. (Lucille Dr,) R. Non•Target Area Specific Housing rehabilitation loons to low and moderote income homeowners. Demolition of unsafe structures. Housing Opportunity Center -Counseling, Public housing modernization, rehabilitation and site improvements. Site improvements to public owned housing sites in preparation for Section 8 housing, Neighborhood facilities in areas shown feasible by study in progress, Design and construction of childcare facility in South Dode Skills Center, Childcare facility at migront labor comp. Housing development and rehabilitation corporo'bn administrative support. Expansion of ex•oftender services program to South Dade Target areas, Expansion of elderly services program in North and South Dode Toiget areas, Expansion of childcare services program to target areas. New mental health program to reduce child abuse, Small business and minority economic development plan. coordination. and services, Commercial rehabilitation loons to eligible businesses. Historical preservation progrom'inventory of comprehensive plan, and acquisition of endangered site, Water and sewer connection assistance. Acquisition of land for close•out of NDP Program, Removal of architectural barriers to improve accessibility of public and commercial ores to physically handicapped, Commercial area blight prevention study in North Niacin, Improvements to City of South Miami park. Richmond Heights planning and capitol improvements Jackson 5, High School Site expansion, Relocation payments and staff assistance Dade County is certifying to HUD that Dade County and R. Roy Goode in his official capacity os County Manager, consent to ac- cept the jurisdiction of the federal courts if an action is brought 'to enforce responsibilities in relation to environmental reviews, decision -making, and action; and that these responsibilities hove been satisfied. The legal effect of the certification is that upon its approvol, Dade County may use the block grant funds, and HUD will have satisfied its responsibilities under the National En• vironmentol Policy Act of 1969. HUD will accept an objection to its approvol of the release of funds and acceptance of the certification only if it is on one of the following bases: (a) That the certification wos not in fact executed by the Chief Executive Officer or other officer of applicant approved by HUD; or (b) That applicant's environmental review record for the project in- dicates omission of a required decision, finding, or step ap- plicable to the project in the environmental review process. Ob- jections must be prepared and submitted in accordance with the required procedure (24 CFR, part 58) and may be addressed to HUD at the Dept. of HUD's Jocksonville Area Office, Peninsular Plaza, 661 Riverside Ave„ Jacksonville, Fla. 32204. Objections to the release of funds on bases other than those above will not be considered by HUD..Jo objection received after June 25, • 1976 will be considered by HUD. The Annual Performance Report for the 1975 CD Activity y year is available for review at the Office CD, 140 W. Flogler Street, Room 1105. R. Roy Goode, County Manager 8 Executive Officer for Com- munity Development, Room 901, Dode County Courthouse, 73 West Flogler Street, Miami, Florida 33130. u /--- —iiiis 7- 7: ,// es , J ,,, . ( (_ „,. Z Lt.,.. 2 ...., -,,! ... 1.1 , - ( e- (- , • \ ///c--7' -- 2..., - -- , ) / i 1. • 1 • .7 ) .?.----_J• )...„.... _ —,„ 7. -..._. i,. --, ) ) ' t ' c ,•--- .. / • ' • --, )1(r. (.. -i,.. , -,,, „.---(' 2. ,•s' 1 , —;...) .../..-/ ,...--- " • --.) 7 \ •-••••••, • • .." /*". t <", / ) ; 7 /'1„,) CZ •-- IT • re•7 .••• , t4 Cj —3 73 1 --<111-/ • 6 / • A • • • ( - - . • - 1 Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to ensure control of soild waste materials produced during the construction proces s. Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to minimize the impact. upon surrounding areas of noise produced by construction equipment. Control fully all water runoff from. transit facilities. Connect storm drainage systems associated with transit facilities to the local storm sewer system, if any; and connect sanitary sewer systems in transit stations to the appropriate sewer treatment facilities. Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to ensure maximum control of dust, exhaust emissions, and other air pollu- tants during the construction process. F. Urban Design Yolicies Adopt coordinated signage requirements as part of station area plans. Adopt visual cornmui.:cation and street accessories standards as part of station area plans. Adopt 'defensible space" urban design criteria which minimize physical features that promote high crime situations in station areas. • ENCLOSURE it DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Length (Centerline Miles) 4.5 4.2 4.4 1.6 1.3 4.4 Number of Stations 19 19 20 7 6 14 Daily Ridership 47,300 41,800 45,300 17,500 17,100 43,000 Walking Time Savings: Minutes 13 10 10 7 6 10 Percent 46% 38Z 38i; 257, 22% 38% Costs: Capital Cost (Million) $ 87.7 83.8 85.2 41.5 37.3 93.5 Annual Operating Cost (Million) $ 2.7 2.5 2.6 1.1 0.9 3.1 Capital Cost/Daily Rider $1,850 2,000 1,880 2,370 2,180 2,170 OWE4TtiwN tEOPLE MOVER Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 Length (Centerline Miles) 4.5 4.2 4.4 1.6 1.3 4.4 Number of Stations 19 19 20 7 6 14 Daily Ridership 47,300 41,800 45,300 17,500 17,100 43,000 Walking Time Savings: Minutes 13 10 10 7 6 10 Percent 467 38% 38% 25% 22% 3.3% Costs: Capital Cost (Million) S 87.7 83.8 85,2 41.5 37,3 93.5 Annual Operating Cost (Million) $ 2.7 2,5 2.6 1.1 0.9 3.1 Capital Cost/Daily Rider $1,850 2,000 1,880 2,370 2,180 2,170 1 tr, tTgY i S 1 U wr gg •,0�.♦ le 1. a: • WASHI NGTON, D.C. 20590 I\iV- li ;cb. . STATEMENT BY ROBER,T E. PT.TRICELLI , 'URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR, ANNOUNCING DO; 1 T O;iN PEOPLE ;:OVER. (DPt•1) PROJECT • PRESS CONFERENCE, DOT HQ, ROOT; 10234, t'1 SHINGTON, D.C. April 5, 1976, 2:00 P.M. Ladies and gentlemen: I am pleased to announce that U:•1TA will undertake a project to assess the benefits of fully automated people mover systems in urban downtown areas. We will select up to three cities in the fall for the firs public operation of Downtown People glover (DPM) systems. The intent of the project is to show whether relatively simple, automated solution to local Such systems have systems can provide a reliable and economical circulation problers in congested downtown areas. been proven effective in controlled environ- ments, such as airports and commercial and re:creatic:ial centers. We now want to test their feasibility and public acceptance in the harsher and more 'demanding environment of a real. city. Secretary Coleman and I feel that this project is important not only because it will provide, for the first ti:;:c,, hard data on the cost-effectiveness of a simple aut : ted system, but also because it responds E.C. rn..0 to one Of t:: broad?' qJnls of the U:•:' ;„ • 2 program, that is, to support the effective economic functioning of our central cities. Many of our cities have begun aggressive efforts to revitalize their downtown centers. Frequently, they find that the key to linking together all of this redevelopment activity is an effective system for carrying computers from line haul rail or bus terminals and parking complexes to their jobs and for providing convenient movement within the downtown center for business, shopping, leisure and cultural activities. Too often, UMTA projects have merely faciliated long distance suburban commuting which may tend to encourage the out - migration of jobs and residences from the city. While we will continue to assist in building -line haul systems, we must not �.' overlook the importance_ of improving downtown circulation patterns in order to help tie together and strengthen the economic life of our central cities. _)4 There are over a dozen automated systems in operational service now, at airports, recreational centers and private commercial establishments, in addition to the UMTA system at Morgantown, West Virginia. These systems collectively incorporate about 50 stations, 150 vehicles, and 25 miles of single -lane guideway. They have carried over 100 million passengers quite successfully. Some of the:,; have been in operation for 3 or more years with impressive records of service avei1abil ty, safety and economy of operation. I think it noteworthy that :;;a, t of them are privately f inancec business propositions that. were is 3-- apparently judged to be prudent capita] investments. While there are still many technical, economic and social acceptance questions associated with deploying such systems in downtown the potential advantages of fully automated sufficient to warrant Federal initiative and areas, we believe people Hovers are financial support. w• i DEPARTNLE OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN [AMASS TRANSPCIRTATOON ADMINiSTRATION WASHI NGTON, U.C. 20590 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 6, 1976 ....�. � f 1�( Contact: Joe Marshall Phone: (202) 426-4043 UMTA 76-30 A project to demonstrate the benefits of fully automated people mover systems in urban downtown areas was announced today by Robert E. Patricelli, Administrator of the Depart- ment of Transportation's Urban Mass Transportation Adminis- tration (UMTA) . Up to three cities will be chosen by UMTA in the fall of 1976 for the first public operation of Downtown People Mover (DPM) systems. Administrator Patricelli stated the DPM project is in- tended to show whether relatively simple automated systems can provide a reliable and economical solution to the local circulation problems in congested downtown areas. "Such systems have proven effective in controlled environments, such as airports," Patricelli said. "We now want to test their feasibility and public acceptance in the harsher and more demanding environment of a real city." "We feel this project is important not only because it will provide for the first time hard data on the cost-effec- tiveness of a simple automated system," Patricelli said, "but also because it responds to one of the broader program goals of the UMTA program, that is, to support the effective economic functioning of our central cities." The UMTA Administrator explained that the project had three major policy goals: (1) to test the operatinc; cot savings which transit systems might deliver; (2) to assess the economic impact of improved circulation systems on the central city; and --more- automated downtown -2- (3) to test the feasibility of surface or elevated people movers both as feeder distributors and as poten- tial substitutes for certain functions now performed by more expensive fixed guideway systems, such as subways. The project is expected to provide operating data, planning tools, and experience for use by other communities seeking soluLions to similar problems of downtown circula- tion. The project is also intended to demonstrate the acceptability of modern guideway structures and of driverless vehicles in an urban environment. The DI't•1 Project is to be funded through local public agencies from funds that are available under UMTA's Capital Assistance program, which will provide up to 80 percent of the capital costs required to implement the project. Local participation for the remaining costs must be provided by or through the sponsoring public agency. In addition, UMTA will fund several research, development, and evaluation efforts in direct :support of the project. A "letter of interest" addressed to the t1."•iTA Adminis- trator is requested by May 15, 1976, from communities inte- rested in participatLnT in the project. 'These communities Inu:-t also submit by June 30; 1976, a proposal for the pro- ject to the UMTA Office of Research and Development, 1\GT Application Division. The proposal PIU:;t. provide sufficient data to permit evaluation of the Merits of the proposed project, site. opportunities;, and the degree to which the proposed project best fulfills the criteria set forth by UMTA (see attachment) . Based on its review of they project proposals submitted, UMTA will then select up to three sites to perform project engineering. The number of sites that are selected for construction funding wi 11. depend on the engineering results and the availability of funds. Information for. Applicants tUMTA Downtown People hover Project Applicants seeking selection for funding Downtown People Mover (DPM) systems must demonstrate, as a minimum, the following: (1) The candidate city must be willing to select, through a competitive procurement process, one of the existing people mover technologies with minimum modifications to adapt it for urban deployment. The project is not designed to develop new technology. (2) The applicant must give assurance that, upon completion of the installation, successful testing, and initial public operation, it will continue to operate the system. (3) The proposed project should have national relevance; i.e., it should illustrate service patterns that would be widely applicable, shop„ intermodal links, and generally be of a nature that would fairly test the feasibility of urban uses of such systems. (4) The total cost of the installation of the system, including costs for site acquisition, preparation, and integration, should be commensurate with the anticipated benefits. Such benefits as patronage in both peak and off-peak hours, and attainment of local land use and community development goals will be considered. (5) The candidate city will have to demonstrate: (a) that adequate planning for the project has been performed; (b) that the project is consistent with the approved regional transportation plan; (c) that t%ere is support from all elements of the community that share in the responsibility for the project and that the project has been endorsed by appropriate local officials; (d) that adequate financial resources to fund the local share of the capital costs of the project have been firmly identified; (e) that financial resource:; to fund any deficits that may result from continuing o;-errition; and maintenance of the system have boon explored; 2 (f) that adequate technological resources to implement and operate the system will be provided; and (g) that the project complies with all requirements under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. April St 1976 (-1N.n_� ,. ': '• `CJ �, 1I1:1'.1IC1 .Mh.N7• ttb' •i'1..1\S1'tlEt'I•.\'1•ItI\ Al I\1I:' TS t'1:.' FI' i\ t I`E.j JI 1:':�tlo•�� I'1.`• 1Cfl' F 1R I'IIIVAI n is PC11T.\GF: .1\t' FCI:K T'ATO . L'ltttA\ MASK TG.1IIPN AU?lI\I STl:1 Ciit\ DCIT 511 FIRST CLASS People Mover' Seen As Substitute System F 1Va f 1 •5n—eer �7 ' .c uril4 U.S. "Transit Agency Offers • To Pay for 80 0 of Three ,Such Autorn, I- rcljects ByaWALL S'R»rr.lncnNat. .tip Ir3J77,-!`- WASHINGTON—The government wants to encourage•• use of automated "people mover" transit systems for downtown travel. :Instead of full•srale subway systems . The Urban Mass T: ansporLation Adminis- tration said it will pay for R')' of Use cost of up to three,such system!: In city •'ticrnon- strarlon—projects. Each one might cost about 32t1 million, officials estimated The agency Is a Transportation Department unit. Cities were given until May 1' to submit "letters of interest" to the trare;it agency !and until June 30 to offer formal proposals. 1 ."People, movers,— or "pereonvl rapid i trarisit"• systems ere re'a'i•:el _y s:nsll•vol• ume lines that early p-t .-:14..t a in small aol tomaticaliy controlled vehicles :lone: a fixed (ctrack. Generally. they have been used in air - ports or for sight.eeing rt. zoos. 'ere! only tdowntown-type application in the U S is a inewly built system. estimated to have cost ;about S112 million. connecting carnpi,.ses of the t'ruve:-city of Wes: %'iri,i,•ia. al Morgan- town. Robert Patricelli, administrator of the mass•transit agency, said tine government believes: using simpler versions of the Mor• gantown system might make• more sense in some cities than building full-scale subway network for downtown transportstion, al- though a number of cities have hopes for subway systems. . • - , . Cities showing Interest in downtown peo- ple movers include I s Angeles; Atlanta; Miami. Fla.; Denver. and Honolulu. The transit agency'e increased emphasis on putting downtown people movers into operation reflects a switch from its previous focus on research into developing bigger. costlier personal transit systems, such as Morgantown, Mr. Patricelli noted. Last June• in fact• Congress's Off.ce of of Tech• nology Assessment and the Senate Appropriations Committee said the tran- sit agency's research and development program dwelt te.i much on costly fully automated system+ li:<e Morgantown, with little regard for translating .wch work into urban prrjeet:, using scaled -down systems that aren't fully ;ur:omated. Mr. Patricelli s ti,l that whereas auto- mated people movers l: Lee so far worked well to "benign" settings ,uch as airrnrts, It's time to test them in '-hareher" situations • Involving moving people around congested downtown areas. 0 • DRAFT MILESTONE 1 REPORT SYSTEM CONCEPT AND CRITERIA DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER (DPM) PROJECT FOR THE MIAMI CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MAY 17, 1976 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Purpose and Scope .66666.iiti►, 6♦66661 Section 2. Downtown Miami. 6666+6466666666666665 Section 3: Previous Studies........ - 12 Section 4: Evaluation Methodology 25 Section 5: Goals, Objectives and Quantifiable Standards... 27 Section 6: Corridor Evaluation 32 6-7 SECTION 1 - PURPOSE AND SCOPE The downtown Miami area is the largest concentration of employment, retail) government and special services found in the entire South Florida region. The.9 sq mile Central Business District is identified on Dade County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) as the only diversified regional activity centerfor the entire metropolitan area. When coupled with the adjacent metropolitan activity center south of the CBD along Brickell Avenue, and the sub -metropolitan activity center north of the CBD along Biscayne Boulevard, the magnitude of this concentration of resources is apparent. Many of the current problems in the area are the result of inadequate transportation links between the three centers. Rapid development in the activity centers to the north and south of the present CBD (downtown core), and the development of the Government Center complex on the western edge of the core area will aggravate this problem still further. Although the three centers contain 12 - 15Z of all Dade County jobs according to 1973 estimates and 1985 projections, the two rapidly growing sub -centers plus the Government Center area are not well linked together, except through existing street and shuttle bus systems that traverse the existing core area. The approximate one mile spacing between these activity centers, the barrier formed by the Miami River) and the Florida East Coast Railroad's connection to the Port of Miami serve as additional internal barriers. In recognition of this growing problem, which is coupled with the overall area goal of increasing transit ridership to all activity centers, several studies have been done of the downtown area's transportation and -1- land use problems, within a regional planning context. Joint State, Dade County and City of Miami efforts have been directed towards these studies. The Downtown Miami - A Conceptual Transportation Plan; Downtown Miami 1973 - 1985 - An Urban Development and Zoning Plan; and Collection - Distribution System Analysis have all pointed out this internal movement problem. All three reports have proposed rapid transit/downtown people mover systems to achieve regional and sub -regional transportation objectives. - The purpose of this report, which is a joint Metropolitan Dade County/City of Miami endeavor is to examine the various concepts proposed for the downtown area, review them, and establish a framework in which various - concepts can be evaluated, tested, compared and a best alternative brought forth for implementation to solve the transportation proijems and long- range development needs of the area. The objectives of the previous downtown area studies, the refinement of the 1985 transportation plan; i and the possibility of better integration/interface of rapid rail and downtown people mover concepts establishes the thrust of this effort. -2- gtCTION 2 - DOWNTOWN MIAMI Downtown Miami is changing rapidly. Over one million square feet of new office space has recently heel completed; Brickell Avenue, south of The Core Area, is emerging as a strong commercial and residential concentration; and 0MNI, a major retail development, is now underway in the Midtown Core. In additional to commercial development, Central Miami is growing as an insti- tutional center with the Miami -Dade Community College, the YWCA Building, the planned Government Center and recently proposed convention facilities. If Downtown continues to grow at the current pace, employment in 1975 could be double that of 1970. Over five million square feet of new office space and as many as 7000 new dwelling units are forecast for Downtown by 1985. Public projects such as the Miami River Walk will soon be underway and a corraittment has been made to construct the first stage of a rapid transit system. These actions provide a potential for Downtown Miami to become an attractive and vital city center; a center providing broad opportunities for work, living and leisure for all the citizens of the region. However, for this potential to become a reality, public projects must be designed to stimulate private development, and, in turn, private development must contribute to a batter Downtown environment.. This private contribution includes new developments interfacing with street cnpacity, parking locations and rapid transit stations, as well as an improved pedestrian environment. The Downt Miami is composed of many activity nodes but six major functional areas are of prime importance. These areas are: The Government Center, -3- MAJOR FUNCTIONAL AREAS N.W. 20 St. 1111111111 W. FLA MMEIWERk 1.111111111 N. W. 6 St. • P 5• i 0 10ob 2000 FEET WATSON ISLAND CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: I.- Flogler Street Retail Core 2.- Dupont Plaza Office Core 3.-BrickelI Avenue Office Core 4.-South Hotel Area 5.-Community College/Federal Courts 6.-Midtown Retail Core the Retail Core along Flagler Street, The Office Core including DuPont Plaza, Brickell Avenue, The Community College, Hotel Row extending north from Flagler Street and the Midtown Retail Core. Long range development potentials in the Miami region are strong, and Downtown can attract a substantial share of that growth. The cumulative effects of public and private investments now underway and planned will make Downtown more attractive and accessible than ever before. Bayfront Park improvements and expansion and Miami River Walk w_11 dramatically increase the attractiveness of the water edge of the Downtown, stimulating and enhancing private development. The Government Center, developed in conjunction with a linear park along the FEC Railroad will balance new private development occurring along Biscayne Boulevard. A large scale residential development in the presently under utilized area north of the Community College should be developed as a large in -town water -related community. -5- MMENIM MEM 11 MEIMMAffeEiti PUBLIC FACILITIES - EXISTING & FUTURE N.W. 20 St 111111111 W. FL A N.W. 5 St. GLER St. S.W. 8 St. t i 2000 • I WATSON ISLAND CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: 1.- Community College - Downtown 2.- Miami Convention Center 3.-Miamarina/Boyfront Pork/Auditorium 4.-Port of Miami 5.-Ricenteniol Pork 6.-Government Center 7.-Riverwalk 8.-Governmental Office The general location of the downtown office core is along Flagler Street and SE First Street with the heaviest concentrations of office employment east of Miami Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard. Activity patterns within the office core are weighted toward banking, savings and loan institutions, and other financial activity. The ground floor areas however are generally active and occupied by retail, service establishments or banking chambers. The Downtown retail core is one of a number of significant retail concentra- tions in the region. Flagler Street has tradi.:ionally served as a retail center for the central area of Miami. There are several major department stores located near the center of Miami which form the center of the core for apparel shopping along Flagler and Miami Avenue. Other retail and service establishments are located along the adjacent streets intersecting or parallel to Flagler Street. In the midtown core of Downtown Miami a new intense regional development likewise provides significant retail activity and office employment to Miami's central district. A concentration of manufacturing, wholesaling and ware- housing exists along the railroad right-of-way in close proximity to the new Port of Miami by which to service support and by which to provide an extension of major industrial activity such as garment manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing. Although hotel row along Biscayne Boulevard fronting Bicentennial and Bayfront Park consists of larger older hotels, the hotels provide a significant service to accommodating visiting businessmen concerned with the office and financial districts of the downtown core. The residential area of the central commercial area, having undergone a significant MEME ligg mom MIIMb MMEE MEP Effi • EXISTING ACTIVITY AREAS 1 W. FL • • N.W. 20 St co. PARK o 2000 FEET CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: I. -South Hotel Area 2.-Midtown Retail Core 3.-Dupont Plaza 4.-Community College/Federal Courts 5.-Flagler Retail Center 6.-Port of Miami 7.-Miamarina /Auditorium 8.-Miami Modern Police Station 9.-Regionol Service Center 10.- Brickell Avenue Core II.- Upper Bicenteniol Park 12.- Downtown Office Core redevelopment in recent years provides a significant portion of the labor force available for central Miami employment. The DuPont Plaza area is important for Downtown. Potential development in this area will provide linkages to Urickell Avenue on the south, stimulate development on the currently under utilized parcels along the River, and support the major retail and office core of Downtown Miami along Flagler Street. The Biscayne Boulevard and NE 2nd Avenue area although containing the initial development of Miami, also contain newer developments such as the Miami -Dade Community College and the new Hotel -Motel development and new -town development to the north. The Downtown Government Center is emerging as a major functional area by virtue of the construction of the City of Miami new Police Facility and the Regional Service Center for the State of Florida. Additional elements of the Government Center are well into the planning stages signifying that this area will provide a significant node and overall downtown development and redevelopment. The Midtown Core and in particularly the Omni Development will provide a new urban activity not previously experienced in Downtown Miami's central growth. This is a start of a major regional concentration which will stimulate significant amounts of growth and commercial, uffice, and residential development in Downtown Miami. The City of Miami's recent commitment to a convention facility along the Miami Riverfront adds a very realistic activity center within the goals and objectives of the central city environment. -9- N.W. 20 St MEE W. FL N.W. 5 St. S.W. 8 St. FUTURE ACTIVITY AREAS i 2 0 2000 CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: I. -North Hotel Area 2.-Plaza Venetian Residential Core 3.- Dupont Plaza Area (Expanded Dupont) 4.- West Flag ler Center 5.- Miami Riverfront Development 6.- Bicentenial Park Expansion 7.-Claughton Island 8.- New Community - Intown (Residential) 9.- Government Center 10.- Convention Center • 1 11111111111111 Central Commercial Tlll1R L Genera! Commercial 771 Industrial 1 Pubic Facilities _1 Commercial/ Resdential Parks and Recreation Resdential (hgh density) Residential (mod duty) 1985 LAND USE SECTION 3- PREVIOUS STUDIES Since 1973, three major studies concerned with transportation in downtown Miami have postulated people mover systems to ease downtown circulation problems. In each case the Downtown People Mover (DPM) has been directly linkea to Proposed Regional Rapid Transit Facilities and intended to function as a feeder/distributor to that system. These studies are: 1. Kaiser Engineers and Wilbur Smith and Associates, Collection -Distribution System Analysis - Special Task 1, (Dade County Transit Improvement Program, July 1975) 2. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd, Downtown Miami 1973-1935 An Urban Development and Zoning Plan, (The City of Miami, Florida, November 1973) 3. Beiswenger, Hoch and Associates, Inc., Downtown Miami - A Conceptual Transportation Plan, (The State of Florida Department of Transportation, September 1973) A total of six possible DPM routing schemes were identified in these reports. Major functional areas served included the Government Center, The Retail Core along Flagler Street, The Office Core including DuPont Plaza, Brickell Avenue, The Community College, Hotel Row extending north from Flagler Street, and the Midtown Retail Core. In addition, downtown residential areas were identified aod linked into the system as appropriate to their size and location. In the fol.Lowing pages these six alternatives are described in further detail. -12- Soutce. Kaiser Engineers Study, Reference #1 System Concept: A one direction loop and a two direction shuttle are combined to provide service to activity areas along Brickell Avenue in the core area and extending north to midtown. The single track guideway in the core area is intended to minimize visual impact and space requirements. Operational Concepts: Patrons desiring to travel from one line to destinations on the other line would be required to utilize one of the two transfer stations. A short one-way loop is required so that travel tires in opposite directions do not become unreasonably long. The direction of travel on the loop could change to correspond to the peak direction of flow. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - 1.4 mi. Double track guideway length - 2.9 mi. Functional areas served - 6 Vehicle units required for two min. headway - 15 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 58 plus spares Number of Junctions - None Number of intra-mode transfer stations - 2 Number of water crossings - 2 -13- IMW DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER N.W. 20 St. I 1 E1 ti N.W. 5 St. y.. in 4) PARK 0 1000 2000 FEET co CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND= ALTERNATIVE I 1' 11/11111 11111U111111111111111111111111111111111111I IIIIIIIIIII9IIIIpi!a ril I Li I FM ALTERNATtt'E 2 Source: Kaiser Engineers Study, Reference #1 System Concept: The one direction loop of Alternative i is retained, but Biscayne Blvd., rather than East 2nd Avenue, is the rcut.e for the north -south line. The same general activity areas are served with the exception that the north- southline is not adjacent to the Conventjon Center. The additional width of Biscayne Blvd. is more readily adap:.abl.e to the two track structure. Operational Concepts: The two transfer stations of Alternative #1 are replaced by a single transfer at Flagler. Street and Biscayne ?:lvd. This requires some tran,- fering patrons to travel more than halfway around the loop. The two lines are designed to be operated as entirely :..dependent services. The Bayfront Park System is afforded high accessibility. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - 1.4 mi. Double track guideway length - 2.8 A. Functional areas served - 6 Vehicle units required for two minute headway - 15 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 55 plus spares Number of Junctions - None Number of intra-node transfer stations - 1 Number of water crossings - 2 -15- e mim NEB MEM- MEM we • 1MM W. -.111111111111111M =01,M.111111111•1 111111. N.W. 20 St. N.W. 5 St. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER 0 1000 2000 .zr co FEET CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 2 AtTt12NATIVE 3 Raiser 1;ngineeris Study, 1tefJrence #1 System Concept: The utilization of existing F.E.C. right-of-way is maximized through use of the east -west section north of N. W. First Street. Transfers would be required to move from points along the north line to points along the south line. All major activity centers in downtown are served. The single track loop in the gore area is retained. Operational Concepts: Three basic lines are provided, a loop, a north line, and a south line. The south end of the north line and the north end of the south line coincide with the loop. Because of headway restrictions around the loop, minimum headways on the north or south line would be one minute for a system with 30-second capability on the loop and four minutes for a system with two - minute capability on the loop. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - 1.4 mi. Double track guideway length - 2.9 mi. Functional areas served - 6 Vehicle units required for two minute headway - 18 plus spares* Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 46 plus spares** Number of junctions - 2 Number of intra-mode transfer stations - 2 Number of water crossings - 2 * 1 min. headway on loop. ** 30 sec. headway presumed on loop only, 1 min, outside loop -17- GI N.W. 20 St. IMUENCI • ti N . W. 5 St. W. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER S.W. 8 St. N. MIAMI Ave. 0 1000 2000 FEET 777-11 rie P, 1■ WATSON ISLAND co CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 3 w. N.W. 20 St. 4, DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER -J CO Li ‘0\ PARK IUI 0 1000 2000 tr co CO CO FEET V CLAUGHTON ISLAND a LEGEND ALTERNATIVE 3 1 MEE ALTERNATIVE 4 Source: Beiswenger, Hoch Study, Reference #3 System Concept: A two way loop serves only the core area. Particular attention is paid to connecting the Government Center, the Convention Center, DuPont Plaza and the Community College. The primary function of the DPM in this instance is collection/distribution of trips to and from the rail rapid transit line. Operational Concepts: The two way loop allows for return trips to be made along the same route as the original trip. In the event of a breakdown on one direction of the loop, the system could remain in operation as single tack loop until repairs are made. Extensions could be accomplished either through the addition of junctions or with separate lines and intramodal transfer facilities. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - none Double track guideway length - 1.6 mi. Functional areas served - 4 Vehicle units required for two min. headway - 6 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 25 plus spares Number of junctions - none Number of intramode transfer stations - none Number of water crossings - none a -19- -.1•••••= 9- .,...111131111 ',11•111MIMIMM -47 w W. N.W. 20 St. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER 0 100 0 2000 Inn#•-komime---1 FEET ALTERNATIVE 5 Source: $eiswenger, Hoch Study, Reference #3 SysLem Concept: A smaller two-way loop is provided than that prop.sed for Alternative 4, The Community College is two blocks from the nearest station, but improved access is provided to the Flagler Street commercial area. The Government Center, DuPont Plaza area and Convention Center receive direct service. Operational Concepts: As in Alternative 4, the loop provides service in two directions. One less station than Alternative 4, coupled with a slightly shorter total route length, allows for the system requiring fewest vehicles of any considered. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - none Double track guideway length - 1.3 mi. Functional areas served - 2 Vehicle units required for a two minute headway - 6 plus spares Vehicle units required for a 30-second headway - 21 plus spares Number of junctions - none Number of intra-mode transfer stations - none Number of water crossings - none -21- DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER N.W. 20 St. IMMMES N.W. 7 Mrs N.W. 5 St. cy 0 1000 2000 FEET v MF 11 No- u CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 5 ALTERNATIVE 6 Source: Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd Study, Reference E2 System Concept: Two separate two way lines are located in such a fashion as to provide full service to major offstreet parking areas as well as the rail rapid transit system. It is presumed that the commercial core along Flagler Street would be serviced by systems other than DP:!. Service to DuPont Plaza is emphasized by the location of a transfer station in that area. Operational Concepts: Both lines are located with water crossings which entail potential service interruptions when lift bridges must be opened. Two intra-modal transfer points and two way operation on both lines provide a maximum number of routing possibilities to reach a given destination. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - none Double track guideway length - 4.3 mi. Functional areas served - 4 Vehicle units required for two minute headway - 18 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30-second headway - 69 plus spares Number of junctions - none Number of intra-mode transfer stations - two Number of water crossings - two —23— N.W. 20 St. 1118111113 N.W. 5 St. w. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVEN • 0 1000 2000 FEET a) CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 6 M=!MMINEW'ry 11111111Wal tiatma-7 SECTION 4 - EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The work done in previous land use and transportation studies, both for the region and the downtown Miami area, provides the basis for developing the Downtown People Mover (D.P.M.) System. This Report 1f1, "System Concepts and Criteria", coupled with other reports will develop the framework for the planned system. The other reports cover detailed approaches to the following: Report 112: System evaluation and alternative concepts, Report 113: Technology. Report i14: Lane use and right-of-way policies. Report 115: Route alignment and station location. Report 116: Final System Plan. Using an iterative process, shown on the following page, this planning and development program will be able to assess the impact of various alternatives against the system's goals and objectives included in this report. The Joint Review of the work performed by County, City, Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce officials will guide the efforts undertaken by professional staff. In order to develop an overall base from which alternative concepts can be judged, the goals and objectives of the system have been defined. This process brought the three studies regarding downtown circulation into a common framework. In the next section of this report, these goal and objective statements are refined into criteria and quantitative standards. The final section presents the evaluation matrix in which different elements of the overall plan can be compared. -25- MIS Eni SYSTEM CONCEPT A N D CRITERIA PREVIOUS STUDIES M.3.3 4! VEF1ICLE TECHNOLOGY M.S. 27 7 y� ALTERNATIVES I ANALYSIS JOINT COMMITTEE A PRELIMINARY SYSTEM CONCEPT M. S. 5 7 ROUTE ALIGNMENT AND STATION LOCATION s JOINT COMMITTEE FFI SYSTEM CONCEPT JOINT COMMITTEE M.S.6 FINAL SYSTEMS PLANS PLANNING PROCESS LAND USE AN D RIGHTS OF WAY SECTION 5 - GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND QUANTIFIABLE STANDARDS The planning policies of Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami have placed astrong emphasis on the need to recognize the downtown Miami area as the major metropolitan activity center. The existing Central Business Disti.ct and adjacent activity centers presently act in this capacity and long range planning objectives propose to continue this relationship. The goal of this entire effort is to "improve the viability of the Downtown Miami area through better transportation systems." The regional scale land use and transportation plans (i.e. the Comprehensive Development Master Plan and the Miami Urban Area Transportation Study) have set the role of the down- town area. The City of Miami's Downtown Urban Development and Zoning Plan and Neighborhood Development Plans have established the area's land use and policy planning framework. As described in the preceding section the various proposed inter. al downtown transportation systems differ from each other in varying degrees trying to accomplish the same objectives. Therefore this section of the report attempts to clarify those objectives and describe criteria and quantifiable standards by which different concepts can be evaluated. The following pages show the progression from the overall goal of the program, stated above. The two basic objectives are amplified by several specific sub-objectives/criteria against which the alternative concepts can be evaluated. These sub-objectives/criteria are defined by specific quantifiable standards where ever possible to minimize subjective evaluation and to produce specific information regarding the effect of proposed alternative, in certain instances however, normative standards are used, whenever specific quantifiable data is an inapplicable indicator. -27- COAL: Improve the viability of the downtawn Missi area through better transportation systems. OBJECTIVE: To foster land use patterns consistent with lorg-range plans. CRITERIA - A: Be supportive of desired land use pattefl STANDARDS a .. Provide efficient connections between major activity centers. b - Link majority activity centers. carrot t& - B: 1 Provide access to areas of greatest joint use and value capture potential. icieut land use patterns caused acilities. STANDARDS a - Reduce use of valuable land for on -site parking. Provide area. on fringe of downtown Dom: 1 - Travel time major Gib palate. 1 - Number of existing activity centers linked. 2 - Number of future activity testers linked. 3 - Mabee of lobs, ccarercial fleet space, hotel rooms and public far steles with access to system 00O1- 1 . E a:ber of large scale future develop- ments with access to system (501'). 2 - Number of "appottanity areaslinked. acres of bigh vales ed for parking nick seas to systan tom'). of aches of 19IS p+1isI eat — side CH'i care with access to systems (500'). I -2- CRITERIA - B: c - Reduce land needed for transportation facilities. CRITERIA C: Stimulate public and private development opportunities within the downtown area. STANDARDS a - Provide access to major areas of private investment. b - Encourage new high intensity urban development. OBJECTIVE: Improve transportation effectiveness within the downtown area. CRITERIA - A: Utilizes technology appropriate with long-range planning objectives. STANDARDS a - Has 30 second - 2 minute avg. headway capability. b - Is fully automated. 1 - Amount of land taken for system. 2 - Reduction in area used for parking within CBD core. 3 - Reduction in area used for rapid. transit facilities. 4 - Potential for joint use of system with other proposed transportation facilities (incl. pedestrian areas). MEASURES: 1 2 3 1 2 3 - Number of acres of high value land accessible to system (500'). - Number of "opportunity areas accessible to system (500').. - Major retail areas accessible to system (500'). zoning incentives made accessible (500'). - Number of parking spaces not needed on site in areas of high value land due to system accessibility (500'). - Public facilities accessible to system (500'). - Number of acres eligible for MEASURES: 1 - Compliance with performance specifications. 1 - Compliance with performance specifications. ble Witb near term operational (3 - 5 yrs). d - Capable of satisfying 1985 operatiana needs. CRITERIA - B: ieproves existing levels of transportation service. STAMMAi())S a - Accessible to existing activity centers. b - Increases cransi levels. c - Could be integrated with existing transportation services. CRITERIA- C: Odra long-range cost-effective alternative ed five for STANDARDS a - Cost effectiveness in comparison with 1985 transit plan. b .. Maximize passenger/operating cost ratio. CRITERIA - D: Minimize duplication of transit services. STANDARDS a - Minimize demand for heavy rail ridership within area. Maxiise transfer ridership to system. stm Tad: 1- Number of acceaaible 1 - Dadly future ridership projettioss vs. present ridsrsMP levels. actidtp centere Normative standard. MIASOMIS 1 - Annual operating cost. 2 -- Annualized total coat. 1 - Anneal (aerating cops. 2 - Annualized total cost. 3 - Ridership forecast. MEASURES: 1 - Ridership forecast. forecast. -4- CRITERIA - E: Improve accessibility within downtown area. STANDARDS a - Be accessible to major residential and hotel areas. b - Connect major pedestrian concentrations. c - Promote use by elderly and handicapped. d - Maximize access to remote parking areas. e - Maximize auto/transit transfers. f - Interface with major transit transfer points. CRITERIA - F: Provides support to overall TSM activities. STANDARDS a - Allow reduction in 1985 parking needs. MEASURES: 1 - Numbers of residential units accessible (5n0'). 1 - Normative standard. 1 - Normative standard. 1 - Acres of remote parking accessible (500'). 1 - Ridership forecast. 1 - Ridership forecast. MEASURES: 1 - Acres of remote parking accessible (500'). 2 - Ridership forecast. 3 - Number of parking spaces in high land value areas. SECTION 6 - CORRIDOR EVALUATION The six alternative schemes postulated in the three previous studies have been consolidated into concensus corridor segments (approximately 500' wide). These corridor segments will ue evaluated in light of the established purpo..e of this study. The corridor segments are grouped for purposes of comparison into four categories. These categories include east/west segments, north/south segments, north extensions and south extensions. The results of these comparisons are illustrated on the summary evaluation matrix. Alternative 1 Corridor Segments: A, E, F, G, H, I, L, M It tt tt It 2 tt 3 it 6 IV tt tt A, E, F, G, H, I, L, M A, C, D, F, G, H, I, L, M F, G, H, I F, G, H, I A, C, B, J, H, K, M Although many of these corridors are identical, they represent proposed alignments on adjacent streets within 500' of each other, or possible one-way/vs. two-way vehicle movements within identical corridors. The purpose of this corridor/segment description is to allow system evaluation to compare various segments of the different alternatives based upon corridor impacts in an attempt to evaluate overall system impacts before a final system concept is developed. The evaluation matrix on the next page outlines the format whereby the corridor segments of the various proposals can be evaluated against a common set of quantifiable standards. -32- Et - -1•;11.4, N.W. 20 St. MEM =MIMEO= =REI=IME N.W. 7 Ave. —111111 MEN --menmsommwm mom --a -1111111111Mli N.W. 5 St. c. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER 0 1000 FEET vr co Lu co 2000 CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: CORRIDOR SEGMENTS • M.1110 ilM11111K1 =•••111121114,-, IIMEMIEW 1111111W.-: MEM •••11=1, =1111111111111111c !PMEENrcr CORRIDOR SEGMENTS EAST/WEST C NORTH/SOUTH G 1 D, C D, Il SOUTH EXTENSION K L TI NORTH EXTENSION A 7i 61 4 UARRARV EVALUATION MATRIX 44 /� .� /� �fi'.� t, C �. N 0 C/ 0 q 0 -N J . b 0 L L r /L QI fi 4Y fi 4v 4v y 0 0 ti L G -o / - G' 0 c- 0 4 Asti 0 y 04 0 r! . n G -0 C,y o tir.,o r '"1 ° .y L �: L • C.1 J ..Z .J ('Si7'` �rJ Q .:n O rJ S~ 4v v o fi 0 0 0 0 &,/ -' -r/-0 ° --0 f L v /0 (y •� 4 '0 1 T i Op fi ti 0.44 0 fi'y O 0ti CI 0 Iv CI ."IOCS, G7 4vL CO CI 'y ^0 0 ,(17 L •�ti cr2L 0 '.. CO C4.4- o L 4r (CL�4 ~ .SG/j ,Zfi 3fib ^Y L • &,0 r'3 o C0 '0 J NCIo L• wL O '^i i ti U COc'., 4:, Q4 NG0 /�C/0 .NV L 1' / 4IPMENI=M bOt4NTOt4N MIAMI PEOPtE MOVER SYSTEM Milestone 2 Alternative Routes Analysis Metropolitan Dade County City of Miami, Florida bO NTOWN MIAMI PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM Milestone 2 Alternative Routes Analysis Metropolitan Dade County City of Miami, Florida TAL OP CONttNtS INTRODUCTION I. THE STUDY AREA A. General Features B. Land Use and General Socio-Economic Characteristics C. Transportation Facilities II. ALTERNATIVE PEOPLE -MOVER SYSTEM ROUTES A. Previous Studies B. Route Descriptions III. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY IV. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES A. Evaluation Structure B. Order -of -Magnitude Costs C. Comparison of Routes D. Evaluation Findings V. CONCLUSIONS tAttoduction The emphasis of this milestone report is to document the methods, and assumptions used, and report on findings of the alternative routes analyzed jointly by Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami. This analysis was undertaken to examine and evaluate various alternative "Downtown People Mover" system routes. The findings and conclusions of this report are products that will be integrated with the conclusions and recommendations of other previously identified milestone reports which, when taken together, form the planning process structure for this Downtown People Mover Study. This study is being undertaken to prepare a project proposal for a Downtown People Mover system as announced by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) in April, 1976. A letter of interest expressing the desire of Dade County to work with the City of Miami and the private sector to prepare a proposal was signed by the County Manager on May 10, 1976 and transmitted to UMTA in accordance with their guidelines. As called for in the work plan prepared by the County and City, the scope of this report is as follows: 1. Review all studies conducted over the last five years for Downtown Miami which recommended various people —mover alternatives and assemble all feasible recommendations such that a detailed alternatives analysis/marginal analysis could be conducted. bevelop alternative routing patterns in conjunction with alternative Downtown Rapid Transit Station spacing assumptions and associated 1975 and 1985 data bases for use in performing a micro analysis of the alternative routes via computerized simulation. 3, Prepare travel demand forecasts based on 1985 land use assumptions, socio-economic profiles and operational transportation system concepts. Estimate system patronage and loading patterns for each alternative route for 1985. 4. Prepare "order -of -magnitude" estimates of capital and operating costs for each of the alternative routes being analyzed. 5. Evaluate each alternative route using the criteria documented in Milestone 1, System Concept and Criteria, and select the routing pattern most suitable for the area being served. The overall intent of this report is to assemble into one document all previous and current activities associated with the analysis of alternative routes for a Downtown People Mover System such that the information is presented in the framework necessary for decision making. In some cases, it will be necessary to develop new materials in order to tie together a number of various unrelated elements. The point being made, however, is that this report, with the noted exception of Section III, represents only an updated compilation of the various reports and studies done to date and not a new Downtown People Mover Study. The Study Area The downtown Miami study area is the area between Interstate Route 95 and Biscayne Bay extending north to include the Omni development of Venetian Causeway and south to include the Brickell Avenue/Claughton Island develop- ments terminating at S. 15th Road. This study area is indicated in Figure I-1. Several studies relating to downtown Miami transportation needs have been conducted since 1971. The following studies were reviewed and pertinent data from them used in preparing this rep'rt: • "Collection Task 1" by Kaiser Engineers: July, 1975. • "Joint Technical Staff Review of Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan"; July, 1974. • "Downtown Miami: A conceptual Transportation Plan" by Beiswenger, Hock, and Associates; September, 1973. ▪ "Downtown Miami, 1973-1985, An Urban Development and Zoning Plan" by Wallace, McHarg, Roberts, and Todd; December, 1973. Additionally, certain recent planning studies dealing with the Rapid Transit Preliminary Engineering Program and the MUATS 2000 Update were utilized in preparing the computer simulation models, the alternatives analysis framework, and the 1975 and 1985 data bases. The specific studies utilized were as follows: oup,11 1:1111111'.111'111111011111 111111111,1 11111 111111i !II191'III;1111,1 I,I,IIIfII IIIII ��11 i1 Iqj H COiH1(Yd1 Y I-111 IP I1.I1n IlII 1111 ,11�1 I1 1IE��I�Y,: • • y✓ CLAUGI ITON ISLAND ,1 DLVELOPMENT DU kitli 11 11- G 1 MLU LL: _ !It E. E _ 11 !iPt1!hf Ir rI 1 1 1 . • ) I Iz jAYFTtOy f ' F/cuRc .t•S SruDY ARCA 111 i x �p��+lm�nv�gl�lenpn�lrlr'auvu�l!��{� MI rNIII WNUN i uuu . nu i11 IT. UUI•CEN 1 LNNIAL PARK 11 1 ti C A YNE 'It II II P' 7 1 PP t I. i RRn`m1 flip'ltDl-11[11'Rh][Id„„„; I m Hi1lt........ hill lf. 'Hi �f�SIB-fF�III►l-f !llllll1 1411 IFI IIfilli-111 01111[11111B 4 IfI1�I� (I��H lfl FN I I [1I1!•W �li'- I-, 1 11l� 111I It���ry t I Ol-'MENI lh 11111; ;HI - �'IIfEli�i�Flill II'1- `lUIIIll1tII! 1 _ V U imam mu OOWMTOWM Mum I 1ou1 l l A I PI NlII, 1m I III III 11 III � 1 5 "Dade County Transit Ridership Study" by Dade County► Office of Transportation Administration; October, 1975. • "MUATS 2000 Update, Interim Report 3: Validation of Travel Demand Models" by Miami Urban Area Transportation Study; February, 1975. • "MEATS 2000 Update,Interim Report 5: Future Travel and Proposed Development/Evaluation of Alternatives" by Miami Urban Area Transportation Study; March, 1976. • "Final Project Report Preliminary Engineering Rapid Transit System" by Kaiser Engineers; March, 1976. • General Features The downtown Miami study area contains a number of activity centers, shown in Figure I-2, of which the core central business district (CBD) is the most important. This activity center together with others either in existence or in the planning stage are identified and discussed below. The Miami CBD is a retail, office, and hotel area bounded roughly by NE 2nd Street, Biscayne Blvd, Florida East Coast Railroad, and Interstate Route 95 ramps/Biscayne Blvd Way. Linear development is also expected north along Biscayne Blvd as far as NE 6th Street. The CBD has been classified as a diversified, regional activity center on the recently adopted 1985 Metropolitan Development Pattern, whereas the Omni Development and the Brickell Avenue Development are classified as submetropolitan scale activity centers. imu Www- hill' II'iIit 10 0'10 I'IIP'IIP'010001q'III,II11011 III 7t7 Tr 1 TIT 1-111.171[1r,;(1 `• I i, .• — -T .� 1 87 -` i, ,,_ „ _, _, 1 „ l �`, fr • J 1 l l' 1 ' - mini -,d ..� ` � (11 II �_ �-,. <�} , i? r1 `' III_° ' �:: . T i',. �� l 1 -r:l�yi ;T / 1 f 1 I I. I 1_ i\�'if I I ahillj ci I I I I I I I I I I I itl I (I` .. • buy„SI,, m I , 4, 11 CJRMdY.�fl Y I. 1 N li 1 ,././2//1//////11///8/// r.Pdp44/,' dy?' / lA 1/11-I/11/ 111 1 Cl AUGI i ION ISI AND DLVIA OPMLNI ;AY IIICE FsG a- . 2 AcrxviTY CENTERS 1111 111�i 1 ,I _1 11 1 _ _ .. u 1171 . - I. _ _ -. , i — - I IA 9MUI )LlE 1 1 _:�rl I t-_ i I I Il • 1- 1 1- II 1 111F1Illillfllll - i u tu-' . r 9 '(I ii it i ii rill!!iI l ,1(I um flit t'C1 1fflJI(Iil 1��[th( 1[gl�� � 1II"IIII - 1 1� limuu� IIIII!II 11t t11umi �mcuj UU ►;�r�r{l rI (�� I r � III III T ih fill I�, 4� 1 1 l Ci f- i I'!!�i�1 1.1 U I)!�H I I E( N -[I 'rl 11 11 [I __ `/, Li' till I �� H,T1 i l l t '' PIS 1111 SI 51111 �� p .iP a 11,. Rq IIly ii1,0700ryN1�!!IP1la,r11u�P'1.-,... I!I Or' [ I" I zII .Stint �..1,;io;,(llllllilll:'�111 I�,�� ,1j� ,..112'Lli.1,1•IfItaiiii-i 11 I ! 11T1 fi 1h 1.1..V 7 / 11I1111,1i)..ti i [i`il l i I fl'i'i' N itI l'' 1)1.' hill l'id; [ !hi ih)tilillillil 1i:[11 I:li111 �11 1 1 I I� l 11111 � 1 n tl i i Hi ii f i li1-Pi l i dill i\ NI{f!ffi fi 1p iiill) I. Fiji' 11 1 - li I. 11i i 1111i!li 1 II1I{if litiilf [N 11 11 ICI[ I'1;Ii. ; l _I it 1 I'I � ._.�. ... i1I111f-I Iiii I,- 'cIIIv LI I; C A Y it L . 11 1t,11 ,141 00WMIOWN MIAMI - 14 ,11 lll�l�li' !!II II ��I The Government Center, projected to have 6,000 to 8,000 employees and an equal number of daily visitors, will be located west of the Florida East Coast Railroad generally between Flagler and NW 5th Streets. Brickell Avenue is developing as an office center extension of the CBD. The developed portion of Brickell Avenue extends from the Miami River south to about SE 13th Street. Claughton Island was recently approved for development, with reservations concerning flow of traffic. Since it would be a large development (3,000 dwelling units, 8,000 jobs), it was felt the connection to SE 8th Street would be inadequate for generated traffic flows. The collection -distribution system could help decrease that demand. The Port of Miami, a major cruise port, is not served by any bus lines. The only connection is established by a railway bascule bridge as well as a two-lane roadway bascule bridge. Biscayne live is developing as an office and retail area north of the East-West Expressway culminated by the Omni Development (former Plaza Venetia) in the NE lith Street area. Although parking will be discouraged in the downtown area as the rapid transit system is implemented, some spaces will remain at the fringe segments. This region of "parking potential" is located between the Interstate Route 95 ramps and the Miami River as well as under the Interstate Route 95 elevated roadways. t,and Use and General Socio-Economic Characteristics 1. Existing Conditions Major categories of existing first floor land use are shown in Figure 1-3. Certain trends of these various uses can be illustrated. Residential use is predominant in the northwest section of the Study Area while most commercial and office uses are concentrated along Flagler Street, in the CBD. Hotels are also concentrated within the downtown core area while institutional and utility uses are generally scattered throughout the Study Area. The figure seems to indicate a large quantity of off-street parking facilities located throughout the area. However, these lots do not necessarily meet the required parking demands at the desired locations. The various land usages are all oriented to the use of the automobile for transportation access. The degree of efficiency for transportation access largely determines the economic status of each specific land use. Commercial uses require highly efficient access from external sources while residential areas require efficiency for internal circulation. Warehouses and light industrial uses are strategically located near railroad rights -of -way and the Miami River. Besides being accessible by rail and water, the light industrial facilities are also dependent upon the trucking industry and thus, also must be easily accessible via surface streets. Open spaces, streets and parks occupy the remaining land. These uses generally surround the CBD. Large areas of vacant land are located to the north of the CBD while Bayfront Park to the east provides the largest single 1 lb dreg for recreational use. Land use intensity for the Study Area is shown on Figure I-4, Each block is categorized according to the Floor Area Ratio ranges indicated. High ratios are present near Flagler Street while much of the remaining Study Area is occupied by medium levels of intensity, except for the low level concentration in the northwest area and in Bayfront Park. These land use intensity figures will assist in determining the effective- ness of any proposed transportation alternate. The most efficient transpor- tation improvement alternate should effectively serve the areas of high land use intensity. Land is becoming increasingly valuable as a natural resource throughout the State of Florida. The comfortable climate and the pollution free atmosphere have lured large numbers of people to the state with Metropolitan Dade County receiving more than its share of these people along with a large influx of Cuban refugees in recent years. This increase in population coupled with the recent increase in the cost of living has caused the price of land in the Miami area to rise to high level Land in the downtown district of Miami is no exception. As can be expected, high values have been assigned to the CBD, especially along Flagler Street. Properties adjacent to Biscayne Boulevard have medium values, while land near the Interstates and to the northwest has lower values. Values of individual parcels of land will play an important role in developing a transportation improvement. Land required for the right-of-way of a proposed solution which has a high value may demand a further consideration of alternate solutions. Thus, the value of land in certain sections of the 12 Study Area could be the determining factor when choosing a recommended alternate. Building conditions, land values, and land use intensity, each independently play primary roles in the development of a transportation system. These roles may also be linked to one another to indicate the general pattern of development for the area which they represent. The value of an individual piece of property depends, in part, upon the physical conditions of any buildings on that property. At the same time, the value of a piece of land greatly influences thetype of development. High priced land demands a high land use intensity. Building conditions and land values in the area illustrate trends of poor conditions and lower values to the west, with good conditions and higher values to the east. In areas of high land values, Floor Area Ratios are also high, indicating the intense development of the downtown core area. The transition from generally low quality areas near the Interstate to high quality near the Bay should be followed in the development of transportation facilities, with primary concern for those areas which are considered to be of a generally high quality. It is highly desirable to concentrate upon linking these high quality areas with those forms of transportation that provide major access from the remainder of the metropolitan area. A 1 • . • •• • ri. JLL a , • • I I n I • ' 11 • —h•-"F --.—; 1111311[11 Central Corimercal 11111101 COM General Commercial EJ • = Industrial r flT Pubic FacUrties - Commercial/ Residential Parks and Recreation Residential (high density) Residential (mad. density) , 1 - i'l; ily L' 4."„.i.?....-: ,'1 1 ifi 'N ;121;-./.,;,:n i 1 111011111 1,11 ti hiJ l'4,4—• „, 1 ' I 01i li'll't Ithil 14' 2J1 11:11..: pi; 1,01.11 lil 1'717 :1 4.4 •Lir+ t ,11 II, 11101111, 1.: i GI i r "r 1 il 1985 LAND USE FiGuRe t-S" _ _ _ 15 The areas of greatest commercial development potential during the 19 6 — 1985 period will be in the DuPont Plaza area and the Biscayne 2tid Avenue corridor. To a Jesse~ e: tunt commercial development is certain to occur in and adjacent to the Government Center and the midtown core. The Biscayne Bayfront and Miami River subareas have excellent potentials for residential development. The movement system for Downtown is planned not only to keep pace with development, but also to provide a pleasant, convenient system that anticipates and guides new development. In the short range automobile transportation and parking are the critical issues; in the long range the location of rapid transit stations and internal transit movement become major concerns. It should be emphasized that transportation is critical for Downtown development. 16 Transportation Facilities Current Conditions Downtown area land uses are served by transportation facilities and service operations to provide a means of ingress and egress as well as the necessary requirement of circulation internal to the downtown itself. Through traffic is discouraged first by the geographic constraints of Biscayne Bay on the east and the Miami River bordering much of the area to the west. The fixed highway facilities complement these geographic constraints to through traffic, as the Miami River provides a limited number of bascule bridge crossings, while I-95 (bordering much of the western edge of the study area) provides a high-speed means to by-pass the surface streets in the downtown area that operate at considerably slower speed. The most important existing facilities providing access between the downtown area and the remainder of the region ar eInterstate 395 and Interstate 95, supplemented by it's "distributor" which connects to the surface street network at SE 2nd Avenue and 3rd Street. Obviously, the most important future facility to provide regional access to the downtown land uses is the rapid transit system and its strategically located stations. The existing fixed facilities are complemented by a pattern of one-way street couplets to provide downtown circulation. Major east -west streets serving the downtown areas include Flagler Street)N 1st Street and S 1st St.; S 7th Ave, S 8th Street and S 13th Street serving the Brickell Ave area south of the Miami River; and N 15th Street (Venetian Causeway) north of I-395. Major north -south arterials serving the downtown Miami area 16 Transportation Facilities Current Conditions Downtown area land uses are served by transportation facilities and service operations to provide a means of ingress and egress as well as the necessary requirement of circulation internal to the downtown itself. Through traffic is discouraged first by the geographic constraints of Biscayne Bay on the east and the Miami River bordering much of the area to the west. The fixed highway facilities complement these geographic constraints to through traffic, as the Miami River provides a limited number of bascule bridge crossings, while 1-95 (bordering much of the western edge of the study area) provides a high-speed means to by-pass the surface streets in the downtown area that operate at considerably slower speed. The most important existing facilities providing access between the downtown area and the remainder of the region arelnterstate 395 and Interstate 95, supplemented by it's "distributor" which connects to the surface street network at SE 2nd Avenue and 3rd Street. Obviously, the most important future facility to provide regional access to the downtown land uses is the rapid transit system and its strategically located stations. The existing fixed facilities are complemented by a pattern of one-way street couplets to provide downtown circulation. Major east -west streets serving the downtown areas include Flagler Street)N 1st Street and S 1st St.; S 7th Ave, S 8th Street and S 13th Street serving the Brickell Ave area south of the Miami River; and N 15th Street (Venetian Causeway) north of 1-395. Major north -south arterials serving the downtown Miami area itidiude Biscayne Blvd, E 2nd Ave, Brickell Ave, Miami Ave, and W 2nd Ave. Due to spatial restrictions, most streets do not possess turning lanes. The one-way nature of the CBD grid system has, however, minimized the problems inherent with that condition. Signal cycles tend to be longer since pedestrian phases (both directional and scramble) are provided at major intersections to accommodate the existing heavy pedestrian flows. Peak access demand periods generally occur between 7:30 and 9:00 a.m. as well as 4:30 through 5:30 p.m. The morning rush hour generally serves 9% of all daily traffic, while the p.m. peak hour accommodates 11%. The heaviest traffic concentrations tend to occur outside the core area and involve interface between fringe parking tacilities and principal access routes (Interstate Route 95, primarily). Unexpected conditions, such as traffic congestion, raised bascule bridges, accidents, etc., can readily shift and extend peak demand periods. From routine surveys conducted by the County's Department of Traffic and Transportation together with the Downtown Development Authority as well as specalized spot surveys, the volume of pedestrian traffic is highest in the area bounded by the following streets: south of N 2nd Street, east of W 1st Ave, north of S 2nd Street, and west of E 3rd Ave. The total pedestrian traffic count in the area along N 1st Street between Miami and NE 1st Ave, for example, is about 20,000 while Flagler and S 1st Street counts, during the busiest 11 hours of downtown activity, total 33,450 and approximately 15,000 respectively. Fr — tom 18 Traffic signals are present at a majority of intersections in the area. They are interconnected to a master control system which, in conjunction with the one-way e•ystem, assures relatively comfortable movement conditions during the off-peak hours. This system also includes provisions for the preferential treatment of Orange Streaker Buses and soon will be tied to the County -wide computerized signal system. Vehicular volumes exceed capacity of many key locations during morning and evening rush hours due not only to excessive numbers of vehicles, but streams of pedestrians and surface bus stops as well as in the downtown segment. Parking demand and supply within the area tends to follow patterns similar to other major metropolitan areas. Supply exceeds demand in areas outside of the concentrated business district, but availability of spaces within the core of the downtown is limited. High land values demand that land usage be oriented toward ventures with higher rates of monetary return than parking facilities. In the area under study, a total of 33,000 parking spaces are available. Downtown Miami, as a focal point of the Metropolitan Dade County Transit Agency (MTA) bus service, is frequented by virtually every scheduled route. Slightly fewer than 2,000 daily buses serve approximately 40,000 trips to the area each week day. Flagler and SW 1st Streets, as a one-way pair, form major linear bus stops in the center city along several blocks. Corresponding north -south service is provided by Miami Ave and NE/SE 1st Ave. Service to provide access to the area begins as early as 5 a.m., and many lines continue running until well past midnight. Typically, headways on regular bus routes through the area are 20 to 30 minutes during the week and about 30 to 60 minutes on weekends. z 19 TWO routes of particular interest for internal travel within the downtown are the government services shuttle and the Flagler Street shuttle. The government services shuttle operates on weekdays from 8:30 a.m. until 5:40 p.m. connecting the downtown Miami study area, the Orange Bowl's peripheral parking areas, and the Civic Center at approximately 20-minute headways. Flagler Street's eight mini buses shuttle east -west through the downtown core along Flagler Street and S 1st Street at about 5-minute headways. 2. Proposed 1985 Conditions A total of six fixed guideway, rapid transit stations are proposed for the downtown Miami area. The locations of these stations are shown on Figure 1-6. No on -site parking, and only limited kiss -and -ride facilities, will be provided. Walking serves as the dominant type of access with support from feeder buses and/or collection -distribution systems. Street additions, closures, and operational changes are planned around all stations. The SW loth Street station is located between SW llth Street and SW loth Street with feeder bus and a portion of the kiss -and -ride facilities located along SW 1st Ave. The NW 7th Street station is classified as a future station. The site will accommodate 10 kiss -and -ride spaces as well as five feeder bus berths, and no park -and -ride or kiss -and -ride spaces will be provided. The Government Center station site will accommodate 10 feeder - bus berths with adequate potential for expansion, and no park -and -ride or kiss -and -ride spaces will be provided. The Miami Avenue station site will accommodate six feeder -bus berths and no kiss -and -ride or park -and ride facilities. Designed to integrate with the one-way street pattern, the site requires no roadway changes. ue i11 1.11. 1.11 III I llii ili11 +� I .,7:„llt[I-11 [!` — �''`� ^. +II.I iV__;Ir ,:t5t ?sd../l`!<` 1 ` '�/ J .,= �1_ .. 1Fir 1,4 1--- `lrtl [II 11 -111 11 ill 6 ty/ , 1 12 II } CLAUGIITON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT I t kt711111:ii 41I1 Iil : ,, Dull„Lii Ili 1.YA ) r It II II II' J [ Of4V,Y ; IrYPI I1 I ' 1F1.(:1-=1E I��E1[t_1„ : 1 j)' -J - 1 flAYI=ROI�j1 T h' C _ R - . �tlll II➢D 1 1 /11f__1-11 �.� -I-iI1 �10" ImuII Him !x� '1l11G� hhiILi it 11 FSGURe r-6 /6,470SD 774A1;13X7" ACZGNMENT 5rArroN LOCAYt'NS P It uit,i mom pl Iq 1' lei III PI I II Pi II I'll I'Y1 III' II•" n " �I 1 ! l9A�7,°.. 'SR2.., AI�i4R�'�4 l�AR41IIA!:.�,11I ���l,�, ll I '� �il l �,i� I III iillll� III I I I I ° �� 1 117UI' Ill ����il htIIII �I,Il��ll�ilil,.I�II�I�111111�IIIII�IL�P��II II I� I � • III IltulIII. IJ u LITI •VS III 1 11:1{'171.;;; / I LIT 1 �11 1{{ [Wit ll10Elrtt m1 !,� �L�tr{ltll'ris ir.,�r.1t [1I1i1[111 Iif[i[1il11fl111l.[g11H1:111-1.111�11f;11U.1ffffjL [Iljlfi(+►t (f11. [f. �(II" II, rift_ y .e� 11 [1[ lI I r �Il�fli�(f it .111 rll�ntl �ttllri1 Fil _l 1:101 i1i,L111'!l 'TM 11i11 Iit [i' ilii.l,_[1I. lI{{!flf1II [11 1 -Pi fi,I-1[ ([�1 Ell 1IM 114 11 1 -1 rttl l 1 f}rff� f1f I [� I 0.11I.1lcr1 k�LI li�� ll��i�.:l -! I Ell -CENTENNIAL P. PARK U I S L' A Y 11 E '11111I'dIIII"IIII u Ishii wu OOWMIUWY MIAMI II It 1 1 ��AI!�nr;Il IIrIII1��I�1��Alllrtl�'a!! I II 21 At the station serving the Miami -Dade Community College downtown campus, otliy feeder -bus berths will be provided. At the NE 9th Street station, the presence of residential areas north and west of the site indicate demand for four feeder -bus berths and 36 kiss -and -ride spaces. No parking will be allowed. A substantial number of stations are planned for the study area. If an efficient collection/distribution system is designed and constructed to serve the rapid transit Stage 1 and later stages of the system, perhaps the total number of rapid transit stations, together with their related economic and environmental impacts could be reduced. 22 tts Alternative Downtown People Mover System Routes The six alternative people mover system routes analyzed have been derived from three previous studies focused specifically on downtown Miami's land use and transportation since 1970. No new alternative fixed guideway routes are analyzed. The three studies and 6 routes alternatives are: 1) "Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan", two routes; 2) "Downtown Miami 1973-1985", one route; and 3) "Collection -Distribution System Analysis," Dade County Transit Improvement Program, three routes. The routes of the six alternatives identified as potential collector -distributor, grade -separated, fixed -guideway downtown people movers are described in the following sections. ROUTE DESCRIPTION Alternative 1 Alternative 1, shown in Figure II-1 consists of a one-way loop serving the high -demand activities within the downtown core area, and a north -south shuttle service via E 2nd Avenue between the Brickell Ave/ Claughton Island developments and the Omni Development in the midtown retail area (in the vicinity of Biscayne Blvd and NE l7th Street). A transfer is required between the north -south line and the core loop. The single guideway, one-way loop alignment identified to serve the downtown core (the area from Biscayne Bay to Interstate Route 95 and between the Miami River and N 4th Street) starts at the Government Center rapid transit station. From these it runs south paralleling the south corridor rapid transit line to SW 1st Street. It then turns east and proceeds along SW 1st Street to Biscayne Blvd where it follows the median Mkr, 1 I "- I'll • _ --1113---7- .11 ! ji 111 r 3 I\ - 111 1 • 11-11)1‘‘(( Jr A . c _ _ _) _ -1'11 ILI 11 , jijIllii.jj•jir,111,01j1j'j•!•.• H j j1 • 1•1 T rj• 'TN ir CLAUGI !TON ISL AND DEVELOPMENT • •-•?:".?:.- CORNILlull I. I 11 • lfTE -1 1ffT - _11-- jilt , CAI 1111 1t-q- 1 it 1- bill11E11R - 1 i [1111 - 11t 2I --- i il .....-- j , 1 f--: ),- - --'n(-1 ! ) NBAYFI1ONI-I' --•'. ( I ::"''..ifi.-.•:•.ii:"" '-'' : : ; Ati-Guittr • 1 21P Ai A 1.regivAralle Pi. MIN smel rfrwmpvi /44S ill!, 81-CENTENNIAL 10. PAM( BISCAYNE 11 II i 11 fill ft Ili /1.1;11 11:111 110 1M 1 1 Hill IlTI ii11:111 - :11[11 lid111110:ffiflift ti 11Y1Yirl 14_ PI Qvimililit Eillgi-In11111{1111-filt}ii 111-1111 1,11:1 111111 I II DE1i .01)MhNIII 11. 1 I '-1 I 1..11.1..1.11:11111. I.: 1 I I 1 11 1_ 1 • 11 mac SIMI MOON MIAMI rn II 1 1 .....1171111111111111111111! 19111111117,41" • I! ,111 1 1,1 1 1'11,10111 111,0. 11!ii 111, 1111, !!111,911r,riir plililip!!!!1gri!•Pt111/1!,11!!!:,1,1,1!!. !IT '! • I "7T .11111111' ill-111111111110(11 111111111 '1 !1 11111 111 24 Of Biscayne Blvd to NE 27:d Street. At this point the system proceeds west along N 2nd Street to the north corridor rapid transit line. The loop is closed to the south, at the Government Center rapid transit station. Seven stations would be provided on the loop at the Government Center rapid transit station, and in the vicinities of SW 1st Street and S Miami Avenue, SE 1st Street and SE 2nd Avenue, Biscayne Blvd and SE 1st Street, Biscayne Blvd and NE lst, NE 2nd Avenue and NE 2nd Street, and N Miami Avenue at N 2nd Street. The direction of travel on the loop would be changed to correspond to the peak direction of flow. The north -south line of this alternate provides two-way directional service which originates in the Brickell Avenue area at the SW loth Street rapid transit system. The line parallels the rapid transit system from SW loth Street to SW 13th Street, then turns east along S 13th Street to Brickell Avenue. At Brickell Avenue the line would turn north in the median of Brickell Avenue from SE 13th Street to SE 8th Street and in private right-of-way on the north side of SE 8th Street from Brickell Avenue to a new transit bridge to Claughton Island. On Claughton Island the alignment and stations would be planned to fit the approved development. A new transit bridge with lift span and 35-ft clearance would cross the Miami River just east of the DuPont Plaza Hotel. (The minimum 75 ft. clearance required for a fixed span is not practical for the collection -distribution system route). Within the downtown core the alignment follows Biscayne Blvd Way, and along the edge of E 2nd Avenue from Biscayne Blvd Way to NE 1st Street. From NE 1st Street to NE loth Street the alignment continues adjacent to the rapid transit line across Biscayne Blvd and through the corner of Bicentennial Park. Here the route diverges from the proposed rapid transit line and crosses over Interstate 395. North of the expressway the line would 25 aaa be iodated in the middle of Bay Shore Drive until reaching the terminal Station at the Omni Development near NE l7th Street. The nine stations of this line that are in addition to rapid transit and loop stations are located so that all developed areas along the route are within approximately 600 ft. walking distance. Alternative 2 This alternative, shown in Figure II-2,is the same as Alternative 1 except for the section of the north -south line between the Miami River and NE llth Street. This alternative's north -south line would be in the median of Biscayne Blvd. to Port Blvd (approximately NE 6th Street) where it makes a transition to the east side. A transfer station to the downtown core loop would be located at the eastern end of Flagler Street. Alternative 3 This alternative shown in Figure II-3 differs from the first two in that a transfer would not be required to go from the core loop to the north or south areas. The alignment of the loop would be the same as that of the first two alternatives. The south line would be the same as Alternative 2 from the SW loth Street rapid transit station to Biscayne Blvd and SE 1st Street. However, in this alternative the south line merges with the core loop instead of running parallel to it. The north line diverges from the loop at NW 1st Avenue and NW 2nd Street and proceeds north parallel to the north corridor rapid transit line to NW 5th Street. It then turns east along the Florida East Coast Railroad to NE 2nd Avenue. From this point north, the alignment is basically the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. ir...7.7. .......... i.„.....T. i v..............orgn _ 1 \ \ 11111 )...1. LI_ - fi' - til _ :2.-J.,77-I 1,3"; 11-11j11 it, Id' .1 1 11.1.1N ; irniii T -., — : j, 1 -- -,_,,_ I ". 114 -1 In 11---11 , ,..,, 1 _ 1 ,1;1:1111f';'----, I iI 1;s1 11 1111 t 11 1! .111j to, Cnnamon rt_t. IP Tr . - P i - ..: 14 .........„ _;IN,1,./1r)InillriOlpiTy: ....- lii/ / Fatlye 2r- z .2)P/Ii A ixeRNArryt 2 1 rIII PIIIII migoito041-614110041 1I jiW iyr RA 1 IV -CENTENNIAL PAIM nISCAYNF. Oft (WU 1111111h11111111( tili[iiiMilliii11111111)9:11t I IN_ ir illi[11.11N111 tliffl -11111111111111[111H 11111111`13-1,;!1,17iiirli'LlICY11;illitIttliiff. IT- il.ifrIfi: 1111111111111i111`11{1'.511111.'T1:11.11111,Th11[11111111C111'111:Ii'llill1;411111141111- / 11111111.[Vill1711-(111 T11.11:tifitlI13-11-1111 1f141111111-11.1 _II 'III [it', .. L. 11111W V ,,IIIIJUI DOWNTOWN MIAMI NIFOlimmoommiowPRIIIIIIMI1111111111111 n A Pl..1111II1�IliulilI!il�ii!IIII'll li'1111glli 1VN1P!14 1 II ill 11IfIIIIIr t�� �-11 111111, i [1"1 1 \• - [I rc ` i1, f ---- -11111 111� 1jjj���'fjfjfj 11 I1 11 1 } nll ; COgN,ODP P.L, ; may. C,A~U•GIITON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT ivr e;3 1.1- 1rTT } IiCI_1[__=r _ l [-if _P It Ai lir :1---J1--1:-.--- �:1 -- --- - - _ _,. ---e.--ram A1‹ R:IL:ll- 7 - - ii — it 1 .1 . - [ :if _Ill Fir: i.,,,,,,),,,,p),,,, }-,A2._1111_,,, „.„,-77(11 1 I�T ottipd. .)/3AYF12ON r), PARK i7/ I`rcumf ..Zr -3 P,S' A •. reRa47:2w 3 71:17 ipR',i�iAiuulu�o�iP�iu�rnul�pie�4����� @q ► I. ,III M utu E31-CENIENNIAL PARK UISCAYNE i''''.7-'-'--- 4 i [II [11 ,,.,„, \, I ► i I ► r__i.0 t_ifl _Il��'' Fy51:t. IIlI _jilifilitillii:ii_i_iii Iff J7.(111111[G11131f1[IIIf11[[111111c11 1 ►(iIJ11111111111 � :► :.. i}11flIA 11IIIIIf!},111111111111h }f11FIN�1-, �,1 k IE1I1111i(iij 1111-(FIf[9rulil[i1[ff: I1M11IIII 11[1I1 1 ' 1 hill 11►1u ,r,i ' u. ash 1 1111111111[I1-11[Il1I1�'11 rT4'II�I"iI: illdiv illlil11 ),1 I I tIbil iu'�,,, / ,.; 11 I1I"}I�;►1i�41 �i�1r{;r!i EN J"" (II1hI.1II�11111�11ii11C4Ctif1"�1;111}Il i 1111i[11@ li 11111nu1"I►1}}}I1IIf111 �1'}IIi11H _I Il0 iilfil il. Fti tH It 1 1111111111iil ( 1FF(r11([f-Ifll (II I 1 II!i-�I'�1' _ I H i i . tf,..1.11,11 L III 9 i;ld ►[ h1, 1 (111I.I N Iiiii[11I f1 1,' LuIItIIIII II 1'1 •r • 1. Mawt„t. DOWNTOWN MIAMI n A ti @ DE1V OPMENl J (I "I r� a 28 The operating plan of Alternative 3 would the core loop single guideway. The loop would acid the direction not changed to correspond to have three lines which share operate counterclockwise the peak flow. The south line would operate from the SW loth Street rapid transit station to the loop, travel around the loop, and return to the SW loth Street station. The north line would operate from the northern Omni Development area to the loop, around the loop, and return north to the Omni Development area. Alternative 4 As shown on Figure II-4, this Alternative 4 provides only a loop through the center of the downtown core area. Starting north from the government center rapid transit station, the route proceeds east to a point approximately midway between NE 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Blvd. and south from here into the DuPont Plaza Area (SE 2nd Street and 3rd Avenues) where one of loop's seven stations is located. The corridor then continues west along S 2nd and lst Streets to SW 1st Avenue, and follows west lst Avenue northward back into the proposed rapid transit terminal. Although two-way operation over this route is more complex than one-way service, the two-way operation provides quick service, reduces the possibilities of complete system breakdown, and the construction/right-of- way cost differential between the two operations should be relatively small. In addition to the government center/rapid transit station, people mover access is provided at seven locations along the two-way route shown in Figure 11-4. I` II(1101111111111 Ifll!'IP�II��Iillilllll 1111 11 (• _ 1 1,. li 11I I 11 I I I it I _" } 1 11 ,td) It LOBlnlx:i N L 111 1 Ili I • .' '•i�%11� 111 11 l l 1 III," it �11II CLAUG1-ITON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT �e,� n.IgOn k)u Ifsk U -1 4_i L !L'1 Er 'AYl�l , a 4Vfi i i+ I 11 1�1GE _i ( 1'4 (} a�,llpmii 'AYI=fu0lyIT -�- �4 • Es6uR6 Q" 4 A .D p/►' LTs,�NATsl�4' 4 e'I, geli��grl�h�11 m1ar�,�r, irl! u 80l minim 1 W!flT _ uuu ..uu Qilllir.:] 11 1111 11 1 11 A 7 t 1/4 _1 r1 4i[itillllE1IE- 1.1. l 11111Hu rirn.� it �iltrl 1�f111:1111D�V-II[EH ll f,11[D[ 1, MI 11 11771:111111411/ illii11111111 \1E7.!1' .I41ff�� 1fRn 111111111119r1f111 Sr1ij'i_ ,1 fi j -1- 1i•l.r1'�1111u14►'"' I1rHN_111 f1411111,111'1.1 1� 111! I[I11 �1!111� [� _C-- f i1, IUl f1.11 1r1 [1{411-�'1111 [1{ 1 il� tlfffim; I 1tff[H :1 H 1(1 1 [!!11'1I1[[ii1 t [ffff�ri��! lK-1 I 1 -((I 1 �I 1�1�111 , is III'. =f 11I`11:1 f�.. Y Y ► ' BICENTENNIAL PAM ( V 1S tact M won 111 U I i t: A Y N E ) 1�1l11i1 !{'I i "f/l 1�1[111I�1111 rII t u m,n 11LL1 DOWNTOWN NIAIU r 30 Alta.rttative 5 This alternate is basically the same as Alternate 4, except the full core rapid transit system and its downtown stations are assumed which lessens the extent of the people mover. As shown in Figure II-5 the northern leg of the Alternate 5 route traverses N 1st Street from NW 1st Court to NE 3rd Avenue. Five people mover access points are provided in addition to the government center/rapid transit station. Two-way operation is assumed. Alternative 6 This alternate people mover alignment, depicted in Figure 11-6 has two separate lines -one to serve the linear development corridors along Biscayne Bay from the Brickell Avenue Development south of the Miami River on north to the Omni Development at approximately NE 16th Street, while the other links downtown parking and employment concentrations. Both lines tie to the full core rapid transit system stations in the downtown area. The linear north -south line starts at the SW loth Street rapid transit station and follows the alignments of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in reaching Brickell Avenue. The line proceeds north along Brickell Avenue in crossing the Miami River. Through the proposed DuPont Plaza area development the lines shifts northeasterly to 3rd Avenue, follows 3rd Avenue to NE 2nd Street, then transitions back to and follows 3rd Avenue to NE 2nd Street, then transitions back to and follows NE 2nd Avenue to NE 15th Street, At this point the alignment veers northeasterly to the northern terminal immediately west of Biscayne Blvd at NE 16th Street. Nine stations are located along this two-way people mover alignment, with three of the stations integrated with the core rapid transit line. !Ilil!1!II!III 11111111111011 11111111 11111 1 ►1t1 I J . '�• (A) II CQf MIUUM M1 t11 C AUGIITON ISLAND • DEVELOPMENT I�oI'V ,11 pro 11.'r • II di 1[14 • .i is C� 1 t1ii1111J �IIII� I (( 11 I 1 ��� It 191 III III, 1111J] 1tNl]1_-� IIt�+- Isl CAY 11('' 31 III i '[,:'L _ III - -'i^)t N, -- ) �AYF1lOry r Nj- __. :__ i(l�,"-_f� PAill4 -�. ,/ FsauRr 2r- S ALrfRNArrvE S .' • /1 rat 11 mass I•CENi=NNIAL PARK Ul S C A YNE i (-!Il• c. . 110 I1II I1I01111 -11 ❑I1rn1i. Ir1 itihI1U1If1lll�•l}: _- IIIII .1II. It-:-1M1111.11I -f -IIi �►mIIJ Il}N .�1L111 ., nil Mtn i't`I '� ,1 tt ,!! III [1 , . _LI � 1x� :�.�,tfli': •- ..1 :11l I1 IFI1Fli}r.l_ -I ,1.- litil ILII fi IIIII I Il i ;1JI » 111111111.11 II i I-1-- )'► i -If 11 N 1I i41� [4111-111 _1 IIIf111111 I g11UII(l lI 11111111! ►1�1I 'I 1 '_ I1111iinlll' 1f t IIi1 �EEH I11 I till It I131}hz11 H 1 i 11I1 [11 �L (Ifll_l•� 111(1;i 1,'t �E r ��,ME��11I!1)1-1,,1. � , 1; N[1111%11.1'1 • j�il I i IIIII it 1'111 + ,��_,.,. 1t.1�r:ilil�I� I IfIt •:a sass 1146 UOWNIOWN MIAYI 1111III �I! IVAII Il. 111II 11 •t Y 1111111 I 111 11 I 1 r- CLAUGHION ISLAND DEVELOPMENT 016, 1) 1 Y' ;` - r, UaLJLI ffy1 .I{ .,1 cit�i��r� �1il�tYi� II I � • _ )s PAIIK 1 "�KTI[liil (1114 1uiiIILi1_,j,„ AI -Grove 1Z- 11 PM At.i-ERNAT/✓E 6 ���__,ll 1 g: I " _ I 'l � _ f-` l YI(iI lr- 1 t 1 1 111 1,, ,,A .1 C 1(iii-0.11:;iiiiii,iiiii riii Hi fl'111I IIIWW111[{ �l{IIIII J F {l l 1 N t;- �u�� 116 1111(I1E I�I�I� I rrrr �I( I1l''IIII�� II ((ff ((TTI' iilll► mil �I i i rr f �R 7 lllllllll�•f fIIi1-Wllllllihil li C1 �1�.� i� u I >-,1i1111111(.ly J�1fll . , _ Ifl' 1t1 I(fl llf tgAij[ _ ;_. l-. I ; ludii�� % 111114 ti •!Ii11PI41i illi ii'Ii 111 11�1, 1JI ... ►11111f �11 �911i ,1111 Il .ii11101.1-111 I 11I4 / 1 IE i ilull11. 1Erri-ll{1lll�i�1lUUI 111 1 1 iiE ilt r 11- HFN1i (F EH III I 111111111I1111-i ! 11E1fii l;1 fH Hi_it . Y III fill M QUO i nt Ell -CENTENNIAL PARK UISCAYNE FiTc111111111111-__• III (1:11rd IllI i9.4,i E t ..OPh1EN1 11 rl) tl~ IIIII� 1 - ! r/ ii►r>I±l�l tf/I 11!1 •� i 1 11 DOWNTOWN MIAMI 11AI 33 The two-way "C" shuttle portion of this alternate begins at the DuPont Plaza area development station and proceeds west on the south side of the 1-95 distributor, along portions of SE 4th Street, transitioning to SE 3rd Street. At SE 3rd Street and 2nd Avenue the route turns north to and through the downtown government center. From the northern end of the government center the route proceeds east along NW 5th Street and transitions to the east -west portion of the FEC railroad. At NE 2nd Avenue the people mover alignment leaves the FEC and turns north, adjacent to the rapid transit alignment, with its northern terminal integrated with the rapid transit station located in the block north of NE 8th Street along NE 2nd Avenue. Two-way shuttle service along this "C" line connects a total of seven stations. Two of the stations are shared with rapid transit, while the two terminal stations also provide transfer to the north - south line of this alternate. t�. Alternatives Analysis Methodology 34 A number of effectiveness measures were generated using computerized simulations of alternative people mover systems. These measures consist of total people mover (PM) system ridership, PM line and station loadings, accessibility measures, and impacts on regional transit ridership. The simulation approach utilizes programs contained in the Urban Mass Transpor- tation Administration's Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) and the Federal Highway Administration's program battery (PLANPAC) together with a number of manual techniques. The main elements of the process consist of a calibrated modal split model, a regional rapid transit network, a Downtown walk network, alternative people mover networks, land use, socio-economic, parking data for the study area, and a table of "potential" people mover trips. This table consists of three market segments: trips from rapid transit stations to Downtown destinations, trips from nearby parking areas to Downtown destinations, and trips with both initial origins and final destinations within the study area. As an initial step, the 35 MUATS zones within the study area were subdivided so that the area could be analyzed at an appropriate level of detail. A general criterion used for splitting zones consisted of allowing no more than 10,000 total person trip destinations within any given zone. This resulted in the subdivision of six MUATS traffic zones within the study area and two MUATS traffic zones on the study area boundary. For use in splitting trips to the subdivided zones, factors were developed for each half of the split zones. In the CBD, the ratio of commercial floor area 35 Vas used to develop factors. In residential areas to the northwest and southwest, the ratio of dwelling units was used. In other areas, a detailed investigation of the existing and projected land uses on a block -by -block basis was used to develop zone split factors. A list of these zone conversions is shown in Table III-1. The new set of zones within the study area was then renumbered and termed "PM Zones". Centroids were assigned to the center of each of the PM zones weighted by land use activity within the zone. The refined zone system formed the basis for all network and trip table development. Land use and socio-economic data which was developed for the study area to reflect the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Development Master Plan, was carefully reviewed and refined to reflect the development patterns envisioned in the City of Miami's development plan (An Urban Development and Zoning Plan; Wallace,McHarg,Roberts and Todd). Only a few selected areas required adjustments. Work and nonwork zonal trip ends for the auto and transit modes were then manually modified to reflect these changes in the land use and socio-economic data. Parking capacities for each zone were then established. Data obtained in 1974 Downtown Parking Survey was summarized by PM zone, stratified by on -street versus off-street parking. Projected parking development was added in appropriate areas to develop a distribution of parking capacity for the year 1985. 36 TABLE III-1 MUATS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES CONVERTED TO PEOPLE MOVER ZONES PM ZONE TAZ FACTOR 1 91 1.00 2 90 1.00 3 93 1.00 4 95 1.00 5 94 1.00 6 98 0.81 7 98 0.19 8 97 0.70 9 21 1.00 10 20 1.00 11 19 1.00 12 57 1.00 13 17 0.40 14 17 0.60 15 18 0.50 16 18 0.50 17 11 0.68 18 11 0.32 19 16 0.46 20 16 0.54 PM ZONE TAZ FACTOR 21 15 1.00 22 12 1.00 23 13 1.00 24 14 1.00 25 10 1.00 26 9 1.00 27 7 1.00 28 6 1.00 29 5 1.00 30 58 1.00 31 2 1.00 32 8 1.00 33 3 1.00 34 4 1.00 35 23 0.50 36 22 1.00 37 60 1.00 38 24 1.00 39 25 0.35 40 1 1.00 41 23 0.50 is 37 Pecking demand for work trips was established by factoring the total etternal-internal (with respect to the study area) auto person trips to the Downtown area by an average auto occupancy factor of 1.25. Total demand for non -work trips was developed using an average auto occupancy factor of 1.5 and an average turnover rate of three per day. (i.e. each work purpose vehicle destination was converted to a demand for one daily parking space, while three non -work purpose destinations were required for each daily parking space). The average auto occupancies were based on the regional auto occupancy rates which were obtained in the Southeast Florida Re3ional Transportation Study (see Table 111-2). These rates were modified to reflect recently obtained auto occupancy data for peak hour traffic on major arterials leading into the Downtown area. This parking demand, which was stratified by work and non -work, was then distributed to parking areas using the PLANPAC program ALOCAT, Persons on work trips were assumed to be willing to travel farther from parking lot to final destination than persons on non -work. On -street parking capacity was only used to satisfy non -work parking demands. The output from ALOCAT was then recoded for input to UTPS program UMODEL, which was used to build a trip table in UTPS format. This table represents one of the three segments which comprise the total market trip table. The second segment, consisting of trips from rapid transit stations to Downtown destinations was extracted directly from the regional transit trip table and transit networks. This involved a process which, through the use ofspecialized fare links, produced results similar to the "Select Link Analysis" which is often performed with FHWA format networks. 38 TABLE III-2 StFATS AUTO OCCUPANCY RATES TRIP PURPOSE 1964 Boous Based Work Shop School Social -Recreation Miscellaneous Non -Home Based Total Auto Driver Trips z Number in Car Total Auto Driver Trips Auto Occupancy = 39 Finally, the third segment, consisting of total person trips totally Within the study area,was generated directly from the total person trip table using UTPS program USQUEX. This table was then added to the other two tables to create a table of "market trips", stratified by work and non -work. The subsequent use of this table in a modal split process is based on the following assumptions: 1. Auto is not considered to be an alternate mode for market trips due to the extreme inconvenience associated with its use for short trips within the Downtown area; 2. Surface bus is not considered to be an alternate mode for market trips because of the out-of-pocket cost differential between bus and PM (the study area was carefully designated to insure that this differential would be a determining factor in mode choice); 3. External -internal transit trips using only surface bus were not considered to be part of the total market trip table because the localized distribution associated with the surface bus mode would tend to preclude the need for a PM system in most cases. The next step in the process involved the coding of detailed PM zone based networks. In developing a walk network, the PM zone centroids were overlaid on a small scale base map, and mean walking distances between centroids scaled to the nearest 50 feet. In these measurements, consideration was given to impediments to pedestrian travel. From this,a pedestrian Aeeess map was prepared and readied for computer analysis utilizing the UTPS battery. In coding the pedestrian access network, three levels of walk speeds were used depending on the geographic location of each link and known pedestrian activity and vehicular traffic conflicts. Distance for pedestrian links were coded to the nearest one -hundredth of a mile and pedestrian link speeds coded to the nearest tenth of a mile per hour. Having coded all walk network links,the UTPS programs UNET, UPATH and UPSUM were used to build the network, build minimum time paths (paths through centroids permitted), and skim the paths. Alternative PM networks were coded in UTPS format with the PM treated as a transit mode, and non -transit walk links used as centroid connectors. As with the walk network, minimum time paths were then built and skimmed. Skim times were stratified by in -vehicle (on PM mode) and out -of -vehicle (walking and waiting) times. Network characteristics in terms of speeds and headways were coded to reflect the network descriptions which are contained in a previous section. Using the market trip table and the skims for the walk network and alternative PM networks, a modal split was performed using UMODEL. Based on the assumptions described above, this amounted to a split between walk and PM to produce total PM ridership estimates. Times accumulated over all walk and wait portions of trips were treated as out -of -vehicle times (i.e. weighted by a factor of 2.5 versus a factor of 1.0 for in -vehicle times in the disutility measure). Bias constants were set to favor the walk mode. Out-of-pocket costs were only included for tests of alternative PM fare structures. The basic work and non -work modal split parameters were developed from the four -purpose zonal level and two -purpose sketch 41 level modal split models which were developed for the Rapid Transit Preliminary Engineering Program (Metropolitan Dade County - Development and Calibration of Mode Choice Models, Office of Transportation Administration). The PM trip table which resulted from this process was then assigned to the appropriate PM network to obtain line and station loadings. The impact on regional transit ridership was estimated for the recommended PM alternative based on a sketch of the sensitivity of the logit modal split model to changes in trip time. Existing modal splits for each zone were "backed through" the logit curves to obtain average disutilities for each zone. The change in trip time due to the inclusion of the PM network was then converted to a change in disutility which was then passed through the disutility curves to obtain the change in modal split. Aggregation errors which normally occur when using non -linear equation forms were taken into account. Finally, accessibility measures were generated using the land use and socio-economic data for the study area and the walk and PM network skims. UMODEL was used to determine the number of jobs, hotels, and other activities within a certain walking time or PM riding time of parking lots, rapid transit stations, and other trip origination points within the study area. 42 m- o- m m tV, , valuation of Alternative Routes A. Evaluation Structure The methodology for the evaluation of the six previously described alternative DPM routes must, necessarily, en- compass the various impacts such systems would have on the City of Miami's Downtown area and associated neigh- borhoods in 1985. As descrti..bed earlier, the land uses and anticipated development patterns for the City include provisions for potential people mover systems. Some of the previous studies identified the various service characteristics, land use disruptions, and esthetic impacts of their respective alternatives. The evaluation structure used herein extended somewhat those criteria for evaluating the proposed DPM projects to include more information on the interrelationships between existing and proposed transportation and land use policies. The criteria against which each alternative was evaluated were developed in Milestone 1 and are identified in Table IV-1. Along with these criteria are suggested measures of performance. Table IV-2 contains the Evaluation Matrix utilized in determining the total TABLE IV-1 GOALS, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND EVALUATIVE CRITERIA GOAL: Improve the viability of the downtown Miami area through better transportation systems. OBJECTIVE: To foster land use patterns consistant with long-range plans. CRITERIA - A: Be supportive of desired land use patterns. STANDARDS a - Provide efficient connections major activity centers. between b - Link najority activity centers. c - Provide access to areas of greatest joint use of value capture potential. CRITERIA - B: Reduce inefficient land use patterns caused by present facilities. STANDARDS a - Reduce use of valuable land for on -site parking. b - Provide parking on fringe of downtown area. MEASURES: 1 - Travel time between major 00 points. 1 - Number of existing activity centers linked. 2 - Number of future activity centers linked. 3 - Number of jobs, commercial floor space, hotel rooms and public facilities connected by 5 minute trip time. 1 - Number of large scale future develop- ments with access to system (500'). 2 - Number of "opportunity areas" linked. MEASURES: 1 - Number of acres of $20.00 sq. foot land now used for parking with access to system (500'). 1 - Number of acres of 1985 parking out- side CBD cote with access to system (500'). tiIiwlA+'iR' ImIIIII'IINIIIIililpmlllll4VrilpMAMMIO'°MM!. 111 III �i +i, I1 I� IIIIII� I!. i I0III1I'IIII III IlIII IIi�III Ill 1 TABLE 1 V- 1 Jcont inued) oi 11 011 1'III I L'I.I':'L'I.IA - 1: CRITERIA C: c - Reduce land needed for transportation facilities. Stimulate public and private development opportunities within the downtown area. STANDARDS a - Provide access to major areas of private investment. b - Encourage new high intensity urban development. 1 - Amount of land taken for system. 2 - Reduction in area used for parking within CBD core. 3 - Reduction in arca used for rapid transit facilities. 4 - Potential for joint use of system with other proposed transportation facilities (incl. pedestrian areas). MEASURES: 1 - Number of acres of $75.00 per sq. fc land accessible to system (500").. 2 - Number of "opportunity areas accessible to system (500'). 3 - Major retail areas accessible to system (500'). 1 - Plblic facilities accessible to system (500'). 2 - Number of acres eligible for zoning incentives made accessible (500'). 3 - Number of parking spaces not needed on site in areas of $50.00 sq. foot land due to system accessibility (500.). OBJECTIVE: Improve transportation effectiveness within the downtown area. CRITERIA - A: Utilizes technology appropriate with long-range MEASURES: planning objectives. STANDARDS a - IIas 30 second - 2 minute avg. headway 1 somplianceiwith performance capability. s. b - Is fully automated. 1 - Compliance with performance specifications. !I� PlifliiJHH' 111 1 1 CRITERIA - A: CRITERIA - B: TABLE IV-1 (continued) c - Compatible with near term operational needs (3 - 5 yrs). d - Capable of satisfying 198 operational needs. Improves existing levels of transportation service. STANDARDS a - Accessible to existing activity centers. b - Increases transit useags over present levels. c - Could be integrated with existing transportation services. CRITERIA - C: Provides cost-effective alternative for long-range transportation needs. STANDARDS a - Cost effectiveness in comparison with 1985 transit plan. b - Maximize passenger/operating cost ratio. CRITERIA - D: Minimize duplication of transit services. STANDARDS a - Minimize demand for heavy rail ridership within area. b - Maximize transfer ridership to system. 1 - Normative standard: 1 - Normative standard: MEASURES: 1 - Number of present activity centers accessible (500'). 1 - Daily future ridership projections vs. present ridership levels. 1 - Normative standard. MEASURES: 1 - Annual operating cost. 2 - Annualized total cost. 1 - Annual operating cost. 2 - Annualized total cost. ' 3 - Ridership corecast. MEASURES: 1 - Ridership forecast. 1 - Ridership forecast. mummy ;ea: P1�P}!kl l44u11911W 111111 MI',..11191g1111111 01, 11 ..:®IAA, 0111 1!111AII,#!!plIRII11III1P@Ilq! 111111111111 19111111 '1'ABLF IV-1 (continued) CRITERIA - E: Improve accessibility within downtown area. STANDARDS a - Be accessible to major residential and hotel areas. (1000+ units). b - Connect major pedestrian concentrations. c - Promote use by elderly and handicapped. d - Maximize access to remote parking areas. e - Maximize auto/transit transfers. f - Interface with major transit transfer points. CRITERIA - F: Provide support to overall TSM activities. I ' STANDARDS a - Allow reduction in 1985 parking needs. i f 9 P7 7 9R'dR7�r7!1�1a !TI��°�r �!. n1lw 7-17 nlir�',J14!i ingnil,IPl 11 l '"" � 19 1�lu�j'i111� ���I���i! i���l II��jVir'r���l��l��ll���uhl dh�lly�ll��l,l'�i19, III ICI' f MEASURES: 1 - Numbers of residential units accessible (500'). 1 - Normative standard. 1 - Normative standard. 1 - Acres of remote parking accessible (500'). 1 - Ridership forecast. 1 - Ridership forecast. MEASURES: 1 - Acres of remote parking accessible (500'). 2 - Ridership forecast. 3 Number of parking spaces in high land value areas. 71111 11111MpVlMplIII PUI' p11111111111 Il ll11 11119 1111111 q I rn CORRIDOR SEC`•:ENTS EAST/WEST C I I J NORTH/SOUTH I I TAL'LE IV-2 /I / q /0 , ti / ' f ' �1 ;y S 4,: v : rJ 'r O ( Ci 0 J �J, f O / � •G ''Y fi v `'� r ^r '" W G �r C ' r O %ti G •4 'Y 'y .y • i �O c^-7 O -.I C. 2.4 ^/ 0 'V Jv Z) ry , L .r �v ^O �i G 'j O t9 Y G uv v [` (� ^r c� 7 y fin G J •y �O r ', L "N. ' , ;r :J 1 O r O • r.. ~ /cd •lr. J ;,.'• r/.^n� •✓ .C' ".� C' 'r• ✓ VN fJ G/:7 _ a,' '� /:.J vl L ^� ;J / ,:/ , C'� J V O' `", r,. CO '\. /^'v i.1 �•� -� ./ :� '�/ ') r 'V r'H y^� rtiy •'/ ` �' J/ G Y /-..l /J~ LCl :., / vim ,J �. :: ^ 'v 4,, h f J tiJ �J f�,. Z .f 01 S ;n /� '77 4:- C' / > C/7 'Y C f ✓ �'�+'/G ` • �,y /vC/�} y / /y // �/ /., .o ///r /V J /,• 4v e. '� J .'"/ .,i /',/ //^ ti; /`/' ..�•., .ri '.y n„ '4 ��.. Q ^/ � ` • i/ 'N/ V, /'�y �' / ^ 'V r •: • G �. •ry •y .;' '/ .�" '; n ti v ` ,y ti, "v v 'y r y ii ry L / v ti / /y j Cv 'ti 4'v v — r r1 v / •^ 'Y V O •r 'v V O 'Y C /'y ' . / ti fi 'J C ^/O ^: ry `/G" ^/ J ry%1 O C i/C .r C/ O 'y C O/ 'C' -) / /'�' / v `C '^i/ /ti ti 0. v .• •(, ^ ,' ✓ 'Y • G 'Y/� ;N •''/ C j •y C ' { • 1 fi . C = y J C'•- / J ' Q. I G V rJ '� ^O U ^i :.' 'O Cr r _J ^^/ J , G ^:/ ` ^< 4 G / ^J ram` v C� fi / G C ti '`�i :, 1• /0 . `J ••/ r /F F_. Q. ^J 'Y D' .: /_ L f • v C / :/ r ,7 7 F� O r1/ C; /i: /�' '`, 0 ..: /ti �� :J ✓/.J G :J Q Q y .,:7 /., N^1. 7 �Y C Syr '` N 'A ` n� / :), G SOUTH Ex'TE::SION I K I I. L. f NORTH EXTENSION -- A f • T$I rll li I I LL �f I I I I it I II i �II�IIUI�Ipli�llll ply ip I !! a I�!II p��i aii d9l''iIMll11 1111 Mop 'll!'�II II I! IIII II Ip m asure of performance for each of the various alter- natives. (A detailed discussion of the formulation of these criteria and the associated evaluation matrix is contained in Milestone 1.) In order to assess the various categories associated with this matrix, each alternative was fully tested and costed out. The computer simulation test results are discussed in subsection C and the development of "order -of -magnitude" costs are documented in the next section. The final section reports on the different findings by category of the evaluation matrix for each alternative. Additionally, some comparative analysis with respect to the findings contained in the evaluation matrix is documented for the purpose of recommending the best DPM system routing alter- native. B. Order -of -Magnitude Costs 1. Capital Costs Order -of -Magnitude capital costs for the six grade - separated, fixed -guideway DPM alternatives, summarized in Tables IV-3— IV-8, are based on the conceptual drawings and definitions for the fixed facilities and operating subsystems as described in the three previously identified studies. The cost elements indicated on the summary table include the following items: TABLE IV-3 Ot.bER-OF-MAuNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Right -of -Way Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency Subtotal TOTAL DPM ROUTE . ALTERNATIVE 1 50 MOICT Maar lOmmw TABLE IV-4 ORDER OF -MAGNITUDE CAPITAL CO.5_TS (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Right -of -Way Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency Subtotal TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2 • DIM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 3 O I Eft-OP-MAuNITUDE CAPITA. COS $ '(1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Right -of -Way Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency Subtotal TOTAL TABLE IV-6 ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Right -of -Way Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency Subtotal TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4 53 TABLE IV-7 ORDER-OF-MAUNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Right -of -Way Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency Subtotal TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5 TABLE IV-8 ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Right -of -Way Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency Subtotal TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 6 54 MINIM • Guideway covers the costs for construction of all tainline structure including demolition, excavation, foundations, columns, aerial superstructure, running surfaces and guidance surfaces, emergency walkways, utility relocation, and maintenance and pavement restoration. • Stations cover the costs of the station structure, including access structures, architecturp.l finishes, lighting and other electrical equipment, mechanical equipment including escalators and elevators, fare collection equipment including fare gates and money changers, and station graphics. • Electrification includes costs for all equipment and facilities for vehicle propulsion power, starting at the supply point, extending through the various transit system distribution and trans- formation facilities, and including the power rail on the guideway, the power system supervisory control, and the substation enclosures. • Control and communication includes the design, in- stallation, warranty, and testing of electrical and electronic facilities and equipment to operate the system automatically, including a control console, data transmission system, block circuits, station logic and control, wayside antenna, cables and acces- sories, onboard vehicle control and communication equipment, closed circuit television equipment and cables, telephones, radios, and public address system. • Maintenance and storage facilities include the main- tenance building, storage and access guideways, switches, site work, paving, fencing, shop equipment, lighting, and building power and plumbing. • Right-of-Wav includes the cost of purchasing the land and/or easements required for the system route, stations, and maintenance and storage facilities. • Vehicles include the design, installation, warranty, and testing of the car body, auxiliaries, and propulsion and controls. • System testing is an allowance for testing the installed system prior to revenue operations. 56 Efigineering and construction management includes the system supplier's costs for design and construction inspection and supervision, including subcontractors, of all system elements. Contingency is an allowance for undefined or unknown items or conditions that might develop during design and construction. The following assumptions have been made in the pre- paration of the cost estimate: • The estimate is based on labor and material prices and conditions in the southeastern Florida area as of June 1975. • No state or local taxes have been assumed. • The estimate is based on engineering and construction being performed on a one -shift standard work week. • The estimate does not include additional monies, if required, for the hiring and training of minority workers. • The cost of additional environmental studies and any costs resulting from these studies, such as added work and construction delays, are not included. • The implementing agency's administrative, legal, and engineering costs are not included. • The cost of preparing capital grant applications, if federal funds are applied for, has not been included. 2. Operating Costs Order -of -magnitude operating costs for the six grade - separated, fixed -guideway DPM Alternatives were developed by analyzing the labor, materials, and power requirements of each system, since there are no existing operating cost data available for similar systems in commercial operation. The operating costs are on an annual basis and expressed in 1975 dollars. The operating cost estimating technique involves an estimation of manpower requirements, labor rates (including all fringe benefits), material expenses, y (2) Train operations The train operations cost category includes labor costs for central control operating personnel and drawbridge attendantsmommw Mra MEW immt power costs, and other expenses, on a cost category, work area, or semidepartmental basis. These cate- gories are as follows: i Power cost (demand and energy) • Train operations • Station operations • Track, structures, and wayside equipment maintenance • Vehicle maintenance and storage • Fare collection system operation • Security • Liability and property insurance • General and administrative staff and expenses (1) Power Cost (Demand and Energy) These costs are based upon the average power consumption for a single empty vehicle mile on a given route of the system, the daily operating schedule for the system, the average power con- sumption per single passenger mile, the passenger miles of travel on each route, and the power rate schedule. Auxiliary power costs for stations, yards, the drawbridge maintenance areas, etc. are also included. The power rate schedule used to develop operating costs in 1975 dollars is Florida Power and Light Company's schedule GS dated January 28, 1975 with a further fuel ad- justment allowance of $6 per 1,000 kw hr. This rate schedule was chosen to reflect the assump- tion that each transit substation has separate feeds from the utility company and would thus have separate metering. The overall unit cost for operation of the rail system (energy and demand) based upon this schedule is approximately $0.026 per kw hr (1975 $). (3) Station Operations This category includes station custodians (cleaners) and station cleaning materials and supplies. Supervision labor is also allowed for. 58 (4) Tracks, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Included in this category is labor for supervisors, foremen, mechanical, electrical, and structural maintainers, electrical technicians, track in— spectors, trackmen, helpers, structure cleaners, power distribution system maintainers, substation electricians, and fare collection equipment maintainers. Materials expense would cover power rail and running surface replacement, escalator and elevator maintenance, computer systems maintenance, and other miscellaneous expense items. (5) (7) Security This category includes all labor for security guards, watchmen, and roving security officers. (8) Liability and Property Insurance This expense item covers premiums for liability and property insurance and is estimated on a per passenger trip basis using current MTA statistics as a yardstick. (9) General and Administrative Staff and Expenses This category covers all managerial, accounting, Vehicle Maintenance and Storage This cost category includes all labor and materials expense for the operations shop and yard, for vehicle custodial cleaning in the yard area, for vehicle washing, and for vehicle inspection. Labor categories include supervisors, foremen, mechanics, electricians, helpers, repairmen, hostlers, car inspectors, car cleaners, car washers, clerks, secretaries, storekeepers, and other miscellaneous labor categories. Materials for car cleaning, car washing, and shop operations (consumable items) are also included. • • Fare Collection System Operation • This item includes labor for money collectors. 1 Materials expenses include tickets, transfers, and other miscellaneous items. I 1 SO payroll, public relations, personnel services, legal, clerical, and general secretarial labor. Materials expenses cover general office supplies and overhead. The costs for each alternative are shown in Tables IV-9 through IV-14. These costs are in 1975 dollars and are based on the assumption that the grade - separated, fixed guideway alternative will be operated as part of the MTA system. TAME IV-9 ARD,ER-'O 'MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) DPM ROUTE ALTERNA.1VE Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL TABLE IV-10 O R OF.BMAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2 62 TABLE IV-11 (ttbE t-OF-MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 3 TABLE IV-12 f .Ett OF -MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4 Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL TABLE IV-13 ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5 TABLE IV-14 ORDER--OF-MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 6 Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL INIEMMEIIMPle yr EP num ammw MEM a=- DRAFT MILESTONE 3 REPORT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER (DPM) PROJECT FOR THE MIAMI CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MAY 1976 12111.7= r-- a•--== r DRAFT MILESTONE 3 REPORT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER (DPM) PROJECT FOR THE MIAMI CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MAY 1976 IMMBR P =Imo Ewa ,11M111111•111.111•11111MMIIIIIIMIIIMII 1111111 11111 1111M 1111.1111 IIIII DRAFT MILESTONE 3 REPORT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER (DPM) PROJECT FOR THE MIAMI CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT MAY 1976 tttttoduction: The Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) by his announcement in April 1976 invited proposals to his Administration from responsible local authorities outlining plans for emplacing a Downtown People Mover (DPM) system, if selected by the Federal Government for such a demonstration project. The DPM vehicle technologies to be considered were prescribed by UMTA to be restricted to those that are, essentially, fully engineered and proven as well as fully automated - the decision as to which would be finally emplaced to be based upon competitive bidding. This would require performance type specifications since practically all DPM systems now existing differ from each other in many respects. The purpose therefore, of the Downtown People Mover Project in the City of Miami downtown area is the selection, design, procurement and emplacement of a fully automated people mover system in the Miami CBD area. This system will consist of a grade -separated, electrically propelled, automatically controlled and automatically guided transit system operating on an exclusive fixed -guideway. The proposed Downtown People Mover (DPM) will be a relatively simple system capable of providing a reliable and economical solution to the localized circulation problems existing in the congested downtown Miami area. In order to accomplish this objective as expeditiously as possible, the Miami DPM will be one of the existing people mover technologies with minimum modification to adapt it to local conditions. This people mover system will be selected by means of a competitive procurement process, based on performance specifications and service criteria furnishing route and station locations and other constraints. Conclusions and Recommendations: in study programs previously carried out for the County, a substantial review of DPM vehicle technologies has been performed. The "Collection - Distribution System Analysis" - (Special Task 1 of the Kaiser Engineers study), completed in July 1975, is the most recent of three studies over the past six years which has applicability to this project. Based on these previous studies, the following functional, physical and operational characteristics of the DPM have been identified by consultants involved to the City and to the County as being appropriate to the needs of this area for a DPM system. The following summarizes the Kaiser appraisal taken from Special Task 1 (July 1975): a. Vehicles Vehicles should be about 30 ft long, 8 to 9 ft wide, and about 10 ft high. Nominal vehicle capacity should be 40 passengers including one-third seated, and peak capacity would be 60 patrons. The vehicles should be air conditioned with bright, attractive, and easily maintained interiors. Two biparting doors should be provided on each side with sufficient width to insure 20-second average dwell times during peak demand periods. Vehicles should be capable of being combined into three -car trains. The vehicles should be positively guided by mechanical means and propelled by electric motors that draw their propulsion power from power rails on the guideway. It has been assumed that the motors would be series do motors controlled by phase control rectifiers on board, and that the propulsion power on the guideway would be 480 vols ac. See following examples of vehicle systems. Vehicle performance should be as follows: Maximum cruise speed Normal acceleration Normal deceleration Emergency deceleration 30 mph 2.2 mph/sec 3.0 mph/sec 5.5 mph/sec 017 The control system should operate the vehicles automatically, without an attendant, on headways as low as 60 seconds, and provide the following functions: Vehicle protection to detect vehicles and maintain safe separation Automatic vehicle operation to limit speeds, stop at stations, control station dwells, open vehicle doors, and control vehicle movements - Line supervision to adjust headways, dispatch vehicles,and monitor equipment operation The central control, supervisory control, and necessary administration facilities should be located in the rapid transit system's control and communications building located just north of Government Center. c. Communication Systems The communication systems should provide two-way voice communication between central control and each vehicle, and maintenance personnel at either stations or wayside. One-way voice communications (public address system) should be provided between central control and station platforms, and a one-way closed circuit television system would monitor the station platforms and fare collection areas. 1 1 Fra • d. Travel Time The maximum waiting time should be 2 minutes during most of the day. The size of the trains can be changed during off-peak periods, thereby reacting to changes in demand without reducing service frequency. During evening hours the maximum waiting time would be increased to about 5 minutes. Travel time reliability would be good since the system operation is independent of traffic and weather conditions. e. Ride Quality The automatic fixed -guideway transit system should provide a controlled high -quality ride with smooth acceleration and deceleration. Stops would occur only at stations, which would be less frequent than with the other modes. During peak periods a higher percentage of passengers would be standing than with the bus system. However, the relatively wide doors and aisle and the lack of steps would make loading and unloading during peak periods easier. The vehicles should be air conditioned. The aerial guideway should provide the riders with new and interesting vistas of the city which would add to the pleasantness of the trip. Candidate Vehicle Technologies: The following vehicle technologies have been identified as existing DPM systems capable of meeting tha various requirements of the proposed Miami DPM. The systems described are not intended to be a complete list of appropriate technologies, but indicate a potential 1;st of bidders who could respond to performance and service criteria type invitations for bid and accompanying contract specifications. (Automatically Controlled Transportation) Developer: Ford Motor Company Transportation Systems Operation Development Status: System tested and demonstrated at TRANSPO '72 and currently under construction in Dearborn, Michigan and Bradley Airport, Connecticut System Description: The Ford ACT system is a Light Guideway Transit system with service point-to-point or in collection/ distribution, utilizing driverless rubber -tired, electrically propelled vehicles which operate under computer control on a passive exclusive guideway to transport both people and cargo. The system will operate as a simple shuttle, simple network, or a short headway, complex demand -responsive system through addition of wayside modular units. In the demand mode, passengers select their destination on - demand, board the vehicle, and travel directly to their destination, or make a minimum number of stops enroute. The system could operate on fixed schedules during peak loads or on -demand during off-peak periods. Stations can be on-line or off-line. Vehicle Capacity: Maximun capacity: 10 seated - 14 standing Crush capacity: 10 seated - 20 standing Vehicle Description: Length: 24.75 ft. Width: 6.67 ft. Height: 8.67 ft. Passenger space: 3.36 ft.2/psg. Guideway: Type: U-shaped running surface with vertical side walls for guidance. Support: Rubber tire wheels on concrete surface Guidance: Rubber tire wheels on concrete sidewalls Control: Automatic Propulsion: electric motor Energy source: electric power collected from rail along guideway Minimum curve: 75' radius Maximum grade: 6% Normal maximum speed: 30 mph VW AEROSPACE CORPORATION'S AIRTRANS Developer: LTV Aerospace Corporation Vought Systems Division Development status: In operation at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport since January 1974 System Description: AIRTRANS is a completely automated Light Guideway Transit system specifically designed as the ground transportation system, serving passengers, personnel, baggage, mail, supplies, and refuse removal for the new Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas Airport. Driverless vehicles operate as single units or in pairs (future expansion to triplet) as a collection and distribution system with both on-line and off-line stations. The network covers a limited area with exclusive guideways. Routes and schedules are fixed; however, changes can be commanded by a central automatic controller. Vehicle capacity: Maximum capacity: 16 seated - 24 standing Crush capacity: 16 seated - 44 standing Vehicle description: Length: 21 ft. Width: 7 ft. Height: 10 ft. Passenger space: 3.9 ft.2/psgr. MMIMM BEENE MMEMM MENEM ce_ MEW Guideway: Type: U-shaped roadway Support: Rubber tire wheels on concrete surface Guidance: Rubber tire wheels on concrete sidewalls Control: Automatic Propulsion: Electric motor Energy source: Electric power collected from rail along guideway Minimum curve: 150' radius Maximum grade: 8% Normal maximum speed: 17 mph 1 WESTtNdloUSR TRANSIT EXPRESSWAY Developer: Westinghouse Electric Corp. Transportation Division Development status: System developed and tested for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Similar systems are in operation at Tampa Airport since 1971 and Seattle -Tacoma Airport since 1973, and under construction at Miami International Airport and Busch Gardens. System Description: The Transit Expressway is a totally automated system for transporting passengers, in a limited area along a line or around loops, in rubber -tired electrically propelled vehicles, over exclusive guideways, between on-line stations. Service is scheduled based upon anticipated passenger demand. The Tampa Airport installation operates a single vehicle on its exclusive guideway as essentially a horizontal elevator. The Seattle/Tacoma Airport operates trains of vehicles on two separate loops with a separate shuttle link over which passengers may transfer between loops. Vehicle Capacity: Tampa: 0 seated - 100 standing Seattle -Tacoma: 12 seated - 90 standing Vehiele Description: Length: 20' to 36' depending on application Width: 9.33 ft. Height: 11 ft. Passenger space: 2.5 ft.2/standing Guideway: Type: two flat riding surfaces with center guide beam Support: rubber tire wheels on concrete surface Guidance: rubber tire wheels on central I-beam below support surface Control: Automatic Propulsion: Electric Motor Energy source: Electric power collected from rail below the vehicle Minimum curve: 75' radius Maximum grade: 10% Normal Maximum speed: 55 mph ALWEG MONORAIL E Developers: Alweg Gmbh - Hitachi Ltd., E.M.S. Electronic Monorail Sales Ltd., Rapid Transport Development Co. Ltd. Development Status: Variations of the Alweg Monorail System are in operation in Tokyo, Seattle and at Disneyland and Disneyworld. System Description: The Alweg Monorail system is composed of rubber tired vehicle trains operated in straddle fashion on an exclusive elevated monorail. The vehicles are designed to be operated in pairs or in trains of paired vehicles (4 to 8 cars per train). Fully automated operation is employed; however, drivers are employed aboard each train. Stations are on-line with line -haul service in a scheduled mode (similar to conventional high capacity heavy rail transit systems. However, the vehicles are of lighter weight, 55,000 lbs. (25,000 lbs.) empty, and the elevated guideway requires less space than conventional heavy rail, hence a lower installa- tion cost. Vehicle Capacity: Maximum capacity: 270 passengers (twin cat unit) Crush capacity: 540 passengers (twin car unit) Vehicle description: Length: 51.18 ft. Width: 9.65 ft. Height 10.99 ft. Passenger space: -- Guideway: .Type: Monorail type guideway Support: Rubber tire wheels on concrete beam Guidance: Rubber tire wheels on sides of support beam. Control: Manual Propulsion: Electric Motor Energy Source: Electric power collected from side of support beam Minimum curve: 98 ft. radius Maximum grade: 10% Normal Maximum Speed: 60 mph. 1 •f aa.�d:.t14 Y.+1.,c,7:i 1-! 1TrAil •aT f a� .+ii�ii:�W�.LtY9tr l�x• .. ..., j •! ter.. r. = . ..e. r, . -.4 r)r,••••!tw I�.1l11•+MA r.•. • r vM •1 .-a4 y"rC9'L 4 : �• . _ GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — FORD "ACT" D velop:la:nt str,tirs Seated car acity Normal full load Length Support Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source Minimum curve Maximum grade Normal maximum weed System tested and demonstrated at TRANSPO '72 and currently under construction in Dear- born, Michigan and Bradley Airport, Conn. -10• 30* 24'5" Rubber -tired wheels on concrete surface Rubber -tired wheels on concrete sidewalls Automatic Electric motor Electric power collected from rail along guideway 75' radius 6% 30 mph* 'Information is for the Bradley Airport and Dearborn applir-ationc. Larger (100-passenger) and faster (6O-mph) vehicles are being planr ud, Development status Seated capacity Normal full Toad Length Support Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source Minimum curve Maximum grade Normal maximum speed GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — LTV AEROSPACE CORP.'S AIRTRANS In operation at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport since January 1974 16 40 20'5" Rubber tires on concrete surface Rubber tires on concrete guideway sidewalks Automatic Electric motor Electric power collected from rail along guideway 150' radius 0% 17 mph NM - is III"111111111111111111111lll'1IIIIIIII111I11l1IIRI'llpla9d'4 111 . 11111,1 mul imimisiio■ EMINEIIIIIII IIIIII■IINI IIIIIIIIII II P'JI 311 44.1 tti =rs It] Development status Seated capacity Normal full load Length Support Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source Minimum cwve Maximum grade Normal maximum speed • 1 GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — LTV AEROSPACE CORP.'S AIRTRANS In operation at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport since January 1974 16 40 20'5" Rubber tires on concrete surface Rubber tires on concrete guideway sidewalks Automatic Electric motor Electric power collected from rail along guideway 150' radius a% 17 mph el ffnEd MIIMEW EMI MEP NEM • .1, . • • • • . • • -••:4.4* ' .•:' • . r ' ' • t . `7.4' 't3 i" • ' • • . ; • • • .• . . . • ••;‘`.1',' .4.0iNira:41:1 • At' GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — LTV AEROSPACE CORP.'S AIRTRANS Development status Seated capacity Normal full load Length Support Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source Minimum curve Maximum grEich; Normal maxi muin speed • In operation at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport since January 1974 16 40 20'5" Rubber tires on concrete surface Rubber tires on concrete guideway sidewalks Automatic Electric motor Electric power collected from rail along guideway 150radius 8% 17 mph - l 4-4-t . . !..' ".1•1' ..!..I.'t "::: .t.:!",::.?.. ' -ii..4.Lte,.. ----- .,, ....;. ,_ . _. ... :!.• i. t. ,....._ ....' -, .45 -... I, 1 -- 14. ,-. •,,,,, , , I . L'4•44......... . ' ::- .. .,:'.: ;•:, : '-: .. :.',1:17,iii.., V,. . - •••• ••••1•••••• ••••• •.• ; 01111100 1111 • .1 %Y. ..* • • • -.11 ..•-•••• , • . •..• 141-P . • • i Fr: ('..--,*--:---- . ioll J " GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" —WESTINGHOUSE TRANSIT EXPRESSWAY Develo;^-4?-!: tJs Seated caPacity r,yrna i. load Length S4pport Guidan:e Control Propulsion Enen:ry' sourze gra:le NoTrilal r-IG\ s:,eed • 1117.," • System developed and tested for the Port Authority of tklieg,heny County, Pennsylvania. Similar systems are under construction at hiliarni International Airport and Busch Gardens, and in operation at Tampa Airport sinc' 1971 and Sei:ttle-Tacoma Airport since 1973. o - 28 depending on application Up to 70 depending on number of seats 20' to 36' depending on application Rubber -tired wheels on concrete surface Rubber -tired wheels on central 1 beam below support surfece Automatic Electric motor Electric power collected from rail below the vehicle 75' radius 10% 55 mph ' .i Lt3 • • Y• ' .,7 r • t ..one •.. r.'he ;'-'wry : ' �.'t` a:-:v'�i.[e.l GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — ALWEG MONORAIL Development stratus Seated ca;-i:city Normal full load Length Suppor t Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source Minimum curve Maximum grade Normal speed Variations of the Alweg monorail system are in operation in Tokyo and Seattle, and at Disneyland and Disneyworld Up to 124 per tw "-car unit* 120' per two -car unit* Rubber -tired wheels on concrete beam Rubber -tired wheels on sides of support beam Manual Electric motor Electric power collected from side of support beam 60 mph Three-Lar :,nits and othr:r combinations arc possible. The units r in be joined into a train. UMW DOWNTOWN MIAMI PEOPLE MOVER STUDY MILESTONE REPORT #4 LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES 1 1 Jam-% %-)/ DOWNTOWN MIAMI PEOPLE MOVER STUDY MILESTONE REPORT #4 LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES sw� MMIW IIIIMMENSW -1111111115111..1 Milestone Report 4 - Land Use, Development, and Right -of -Way Policies I. Introduction and Summary II. The Downtown Development Plan A. Goals B. Development Objectives C. Land Use Plan D. Transportation and Parking Plan III. Land Use and Development Factors Influencing Plans for the People Mover System A. Existing conditions B. Functional areas C. Development opportunity areas D. Transportation Constraints IV, Station Impact A. Compatibility with existing land use B. Conformance with land use plans C. Hard and Soft Areas D. Public and Private Uwnership E. Land Acquisition F. Improved Accessibility G. Value Recapture H. Joint Development V. Land Use, Development, and Right -of -Way Policies A. System Policies B. Right -of -Way Policies C. Station Location Policies D. Parking Policies E. Construction and Displacement Policies F. Urban Design Policies INTRODUCTION AND Si'MM.ARZ' Land use, development and right -of-way policies for a People -Mover in Downtown Miami are derived from a series of coordinated, com- prehensive plans which have been approved by local ,governments. These are: Downtown Miami 1973 1'185: An l; rhan Development and Zoning Plan, Wallace, Mc}-Iarg, Roberts and Todd (W,MRT). December 1973 prepared for the City of Miami and Downtown Development Authority and approved by the Miami City Con:.. fission in April 1975. Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan, Beiswenger- Hoch and Associate.,, January 1974 prepared for the Florida De- partment of Transportation. Joint Technical Staff Review of the Conceptual Transportation Plan, July 1974 prepared by a joint City/County/Stite DOT staff and ap- proved by Dade County Transit Improvement Program Milestone Reports 1-8 Kaiser Engineers (July 1974-July 1975) prepared for Metropolitan Dade Count) ..no approved by the Board of County Commissioners in April 1975. The principal emphasis is on the Milestone 3 Report - Development and Land Use Policy and the Mini -System Report. Comprehensive Development Master Plan for :Metropolitan Dade County accepted and approved by the Board of County Commissioners in December 1974 and April 1975. Only minor policy refinements and selection among reasonably similar alternatives are required to define the Downtown People Mover System. Chapters III and iV present those Land use and development factors that would influence the planning of the People Mover and the converse -the impact of the People Mover on land use. Chapter V summarizes policies drawn from the planning studies, augmented by specific policies and data pertaining to the People Mover alignment and stations. IMM EMIIM MMIEK It. tt-IE DOWNTOWN DEVET.OP,MENT PLAN A. Goals for Downtown The future of Downtown has been forecast in several previous plans and reports. From an examination of previous plans the following goals were the most frequently stated and have received wide sup- port: Increase Downtown Employment Increase Downtown Residential Development Improve the Quality of the Downtown Environment Improve Movement Through and Within Downtown These stated goals for Downtown are entirely consistent with the transportation goals of the Metropolitan Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, as follows: Provide access to employment and the facilities and services of the entire metropolitan area; plan for mobility, opportunity, variety, energy conservation and minimum travel times and costs, safety, corn - fort and cony nie,:ce while traveling; and provide for efficiency, economy, and a well-balanced, in- tegrated transportation system within Dade County without detracting from the quality of life of the community. Public or mass transportation should be given top priority as a positive tool to support and improve the viability of the County and the region. Provide a system of transportation facilities which will anticipate the need for the movement of people and storage of goods and vehicles. Coordinate and integrate the County transportation facilities with surrounding activities so that these facilities contribute to the enrichment of the physical environment of Dade County. The achievement of the goals for Downtown depends upon certain factors which constrain or promote development. Development i5 a 1•''tiicti(in hi Itegion:tl Population and Employment Gro‘.vt h Since Downtown is an integral part. of the Dade County Region, its growth will correspond to regional development. The Down- town share of the growth is expressed as an "attraction rate". Thus the attraction rate of the Study Area depends on its success in competition with other areas such as Coral Gables, North Miami Beach and Miami 1 each. Development Depends on Relative Accessib?''ty Downtown presently has the best access in the region by auto and by bus. Ilowever, congestion is beginning to grow at peak hour, which can constrain future development intensity or discourage potential developers from locating within the Study Area. In areas of high development intensity the vehicular circulation system to and from parking concentrations is also important in rating accessi- bility. Unless employees can find parking :.;i;iin a short distance from their place of employment, the relative ;ttractiveness of that building site diminishes. Also, the proposed mass rapid transit network could greatly improve the accessibility of the Study Area and reduce the reliance on the automobile. Development. Depends on Specialized Activities not Available r,1: cwhere in the Region Recent public improvements such as the Bayfront Park, Miami River Walk and similar amenities will increase the attractiveness of Downtown for commercial and residential development. In ad- dition the establishment of a Government Center will offer special attraction for law offices, real estate and finance offices and other businesses requiring easy access to these specialized activities. Development Activities Require Specific Economies Related to Location Which They Can Afford The nature of conducting business today require certain land uses to locate in the Downtown Core. These are mostly prime office uses which can afford to pay the highest rent for their location. As technology changes, other land uses may compete for the highest intensity areas or movement technology may reduce the requirement for such close proximity. However, in the short-range, the loca- tional requirements of most activities can be reasonably predicted based on land value, accessibility, and amenity requirements of the activity. 3 B. 1)eve lopment i! e, i_'_ e Long-range development t, ,' ent i tls in the -Miami Region are st rong, and I)o‘Vntov,;, "‘n 1•1 k t ;t �Iit,:;tantial share el that growth. The cumulative eftc,_ts of public and private investments now underway and planned will ma'-e Dm.,.ntown more attractive and accessible than ever before. '1;ut to insure orderly development, the City must subscribe to a coordinated development framework. The following development ob leer ives form the basis of the plan. Develop Amenities and Catalysts l3ayfront Park inprovernents and expansion and the Miami River Walk will drania:icail; increase the attractiveness of the water edge of Downtown, stimulating and enhancing private development. But internal improvements are also necessary. The Government Center, developed in conienction \vit.h a linear park along the FEC Railroad, will balance new private development occurring along Biscayne Boule- vard. A large-scale residential development in the presently under- utilized area north of the Community College should be developed as a large in -town, water -related community. In addition, activity streets, streets lined with retail and other active uses with high quality pedestrian in-.provements, should he devea.,,,ed connecting ex- isting and new development and providing day and evening activities. Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest Development Potential Downtown is composed t three major activity zones: the Flagler Street Core, Mi.;,, ,•.•. (*ere and Hotel Row along Biscayne Boulevard. Brickell Avenue can he considered another office -retail -residential zone outside the Si t;r, , Area. The most significant opportunity areas lie within the corriri„r along Biscayne Bay and inland along Flagler Street. Rapid transit should connect these areas to reinforce the ex- isting retail core and to provide regional transit connections as close as possible to n:aior employment concentrations. Locate New Development in Relationship to Infrastructure Capacity Infrastructure is the public network of streets, transit stops and parking facilities which can he measured in terms of peak hour capacity. To accommodate the dramatic growth in the Study Area between 1973 and 1085, location of new development and parking concentrations should he related to street capacity, and transit stops should be located near employment concentrations. Connect New Development with a Pedestrian Circulation System With employment increasing almost 50% by 1985, pedestrian im- provements are required to improve the environmental quality of Downtown. reduce conflicts between the pedestrian and automobile and take maximum advantage of direct connections between transit stations and surrounding employment. Improvements include land- scaped streets, arcades, second level walkways and elevated plazas. 4 bwektp Amenities end Catalysts Locate Nevi Development in Relation to Infrastructure Capacity 5 Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest Development Potential Connect New Development with a Pedesu System • E an Circulation • _•14 The 1985 De_veloprnent Plan is organized to respond to the two existing commercial centers along Biscayne Boulevard: the Flagler Street eta it and Office Core and the Midtown Core. Flagler St.rc.-.. is reinforced on the west by the new Government Center and its auyiliary development and on the east by major office growth in Dupont Plaz,i and north of. Flagler Street along Biscayne f;oi;_c, r:i. The ,Midtown Core remains primarily re- tail Errc:il 1•_2,,F.es 111 office and resider.iial as spin-off development to Venetia. The linear r: eve.,,:;mert .,Jrridor extending from Dupont Plaza to Plaza Venetia ir.: :ryes r: complementary mixture of activities. Included are re`_,:i., ;)f t:: , hotel, residential and entertainment uses to stim;;.a to D:'.\vri:c\vn activity along the length of I3ayfront Park. one of the Lc„.or,'s most important amenities. Connected to this ,:orr'i Icl:' 7 < rr. ;L:r intown r esidenti<,l community, the T Miami -Dade College and a zone ft;,• .-,•vntown service functions and off-:-it!'cct .rt:lrg. I'he southern terminus of this corricto~ conr_ects to the Miami River Walk and maior r•csidential- commer:ial developrr;e r.., ,,,est of the Brickell Avenue Bridge. Office The am,;;a,,. ice space forecast between 1972 and 1985 is the equivate ! of one First: Federal Building annually for the nex;. 12. •, eii rs, and rnoe,t of this space will locate near the existing 3ff:co core. Office development will occur, if certain irnproverr,ents 1 ri c.ctitrols are initiated to prevent negative irnp?:cts; .,._ , erefcre, rev.. office space is the key to the Do�tm_t.)”.'r, :_ e� ciop:nent Plan. Residential, retail and hotel develo,,Dment deperd upon sustained office growth. Residential Residential .evclop:nent in Downtown Miami must be related to significant arr.er ities of a quality to comptet with other areas in the regiui,. Bayfron_ Park and Miami River Walk will cer- tainly be attra(- .ivn for adjacent development in the near future. In the long-r rn,e atlr itional public action will he required. New In-; c • ,. :'.esidcntiai Community: The economic forecast it;c;i_:1 es Gila, a large-scale, moderate density, mixed ;.nc„rnc c&,rrs'nu..nity is a possibility Downtown. The acp:-opriate location for such a developrnent w•oula i.c r.:,• th of the Community College to 1-395 and east of the '. C Railroad. This area presently contains only a AIIIIIIIIII1I1I Cc;ritr,3' C.' i. ill1114111 G (rxi��stritiC" ( ,ir K; F 14 " - W Ww very small residential population, is under-utilized and has enough area for a sig- nificantly large development to include retail and other community services. The illustrative Development Plan indicates a new community of approximately 7000 dwelling units with supporting facilities organized around a major park and lake system. implementation of this proposal would require public -private cooperation with the City providing land assembly assistance, write -downs, or other actions. Although developing this community will be an enormous task, the benefits for Downtown would be significant. A large, socially, racially and economically mixed residential population will increase the attraction of Downtown to the regional pop- ulation and, in turn, will stimulate further development. the community will also give existing NDP-3 residents a wider choiee of living environi—nts and allow re- habilitation and selective redevelopment of the NDP-3 area with no relocation out- side of Downtown necessary, Residentiat Development in the Plagler Street Core: Residential development in the existing office and retail core is desirable and achievable. However, due to high land costs only condominiums can be anticipated, since high-rise apartments for sale are the only residential type that can compete with office development. In addition, to attract residents to the Core, the Downtown environment must be improved dramatically, including public parks, landscaping, evening activities and, perhaps most important, resident se, city. Existing Residential Subareas: New development in Downtown will provide benefits to the existing population; increasing Downtown employment will provide increased job opportunities, The proposed new community will provide new housing alternatives for existing residents; that is particularly important for the elderly now living in Downtown areas most susceptible to new development. Major new parks will provide expanded recreational opportunities. To complement this nev. ciev:-if pment, the City in cooperation with existing residents, should establish programs Population Composition in the Study Area -- 7970 Composition of Housing Stock Within the Study Area Thousands of Residents 16+ 14.065 14 • 12+ tn4 8 6 4 2 Total 7,678 3,219 2,965 20% Over 62 Black Spanish Thousands of Dwelling Units 6 4 2 i,932 Total 6,1 73 78% 530 208 3% Single 10+ Owner Family Units Occupied Units ftt‘ existing neighborhoods. In the short range this Should include investigations to avoid the negative impacts of increased traffic downtown, street land- scaping, and a program to improve public services in the central area. In the long range when Federal housing programs are clarified, rehabilitation and selective redevelopment should occur with the City and existing residents cooperating in an action plan. Retail and Entertainment Retail activity in Downtown is not expected to expand signifi.can± lv; hut, with a larger resident population and increasing employment, conditions of current facilities should improve and a moderate increase in space can be expected. The most important new retail activities are places of entertainment and restaurants of regional importance. These hould be energetically encouraged. In addition, the cont:- 'oils retail activity along Flagler Street should be. maintained; all new de- velopments should have active spaces on the ground floor containing retail. personal services, entertainment and restaurants. Hotel and 7,,'nte1 Hotel development is expected in the form of renovation of existing space, but a modest amount of new space is likely as Downtown develops into an important commercial center. If the environment of Downtown is significantly improved, the new Port of Miami could stimulate Downtown tourism, which would encourage hotel development. The most appropriate location for new hotels and motels is along Biscayne Boulevard within easy walking distance of the re- tail core and the improved Bayfront Park. Transportation and Parking Plan The movement system for Downtown is planned not only to keep pace with development, ')ut also to provide a pleasant, convenient system that anticipates :Ind guides new development. In the short range auto- mobile transportation and parking are the critical issues; in the long- range the location of mass rapid transit stations and internal transit movement become major concerns. It should be emphasized that transportation is critical for Downtown development. Before regional rapid transit is operating, street improvements and a parking pro- gram must be implemented in order to allow a significant amount of new development. 9 t I .A. ". 1 1 I 1 1-1 1 1 I I ' I .1. ' • . „ 11:1i..i „ --....1., •••11 i I* 1 ...', 1 ii .... Tr....f Y .,, , , ,-• i . / ..., . 1 -- ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN • t Regional Rapid Transit Sustained office growth Downtown is dependent upon a high level of mass rapid transit service. Beyond 1980, depen- dence on the automobile comparable to 1973 would produce traffic and parking demands far in excess of Downtown's capacity, resulting in a reduced attraction rate for office development. Therefore, mass rapid transit is a major com- ponent of the 1985 Urban Development Plan. The regional mass rapid transit system alignment and Down- town station locations have pending final en8:..eering studies. The following principles have guided Downtown system align- ment and station locations: 1. Regional rapid transit stations are located as close as possible to existing and future employ- ment and retail concentrations. 2. Employment concentrations Downtown should be interconnected with some form of mass transit. 3. Employment concentrations iit -'nt:own should be linked to new development north and south. 4. Employment concentrations Downtown should be linked to regional intercept and fringe parking by regional rapid transit or other forms of mass trans- portation. 5. Transit guideways and stations in Downtown should, where possible, allow integration of future buildings using air rights and direct pedestrian connections from stations to surrounding buildings. The regional rapid transit system as recommended in the Mile- stone 8 Report, by Kaiser Engineers includes Stage I - the North - South Route - within the Downtown. This Stage, funded for final engineering by I:MTA enters the Downtown on the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way with stations in the Brickell Area and Government Center and continues northerly to N. llth Street before turning westerly. Stage I1 - the East-West Route - enters the Downtown from the west following the Flagler Street corridor, through the Government Center over N. 1st Street and turns northerly via NE 2nd Avenue, terminating at N. 9th Street, with stations at Government Center, Miami Avenue, Miami -Dade Community College and NE 9th Street. Stage III would continue the Stage II Route over the McArthur Causeway to Miami 13each. In addition to the regional system, a people -mover is recom- mended to parallel the East 2nd and 3rd Avenue regional system. It continues to the north with stops at the Transportation Center and the Midtown Core and extends to the vicinity of the Jul�.a Tuttle Causeway or beyond. preferably terminating at a regional parking intercept. The people -mover also con- tinues to the south with a station at Dupont Plaza, crossing the Brickell Avenue Bridge and serving the Brickell Avenue development corridor. The southern extension would also terminate near a regional parking intercept in the vicinity of the Rickenbacker Causeway. An expansion of this system to connect area_ o.ithin Downtown with peripheral and fri nge parking concc..trations should be considered. The people -mover should also -ve Downtown off -site parking concentrations to the major office develop- ments in Dupont Plaza and the Riscayne-2nd Avenue Corridor. The recommended alignment turns from the main north -south people -mover at the Dupont Plaza station to the reconstructed SW 4th Street right-of-way, Stops are located near the recom- mended off -site parking concentrations under the I-95 Express- way ramps. The route then continues north along NW 2nd Avenue serving \Vest Flagler Street and Government Center offices and parking concentrations. TurninL oast, the people - mover then reconnects with the north -south route and could continue to the New Port on Dodge Island. Similar alignments have been suggested in Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan and the Kaiser Mini -Systems Study. Tal.en together, these alignments form a series of reasonable alternatives. Vehicular Traffic Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan recom- mends the following immediate actions to imp:•ove vehicular circulation Downtown: Prohibit curb cuts on critical Downtown streets. 2. Continue and expand operation of the staggered work hours/car pool program. 3. Widen SE 2nd Street 4. Reconstruct and widen SE 4th Street 5. Extend East 3rd Avenue to NE 1st Street In addition to these immediate actions, solution to the transpor- tation problems in Dupont Plaza is necessary before any new development can occur on those four blocks. The scheme pro- posed by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates requires public expenditures to alter the 1-95 Expressway approach, construct approach ramps to parking garages, and improve through traffic movement. Clearly, this cannot be undertaken on a piecemeal 12 basis: and, if development cannot locate in Dupont Plaza be- cause of delayed public action, it will move elsewhere, not necessarily within Downtown. Longer range vehicular transportation requirements include widening of Biscayne Boulevard from NE 6th Street to I-395; extension of NE 3rd Avenue to NE 5th Street to allow increased access to new development; and extension of NW 1st Avenue along the FEC Railroad to serve the increased access require- ments in Downtown, particularly the Government Center. The new development that is forecast for Downtown coupled with the advent of regional rapid transit makes parking policies and annual monitoring of parking spaces especially critical in terms of street congestion and transit ridership. The following poli- cies are recommended; 1. Strictly enforce on -street parking regulations. 2. Moving traffic should take precedur..- , over parking spaces in the utilization of existing streets. 3. Limit the amount of parking spaces in the C BD in favor of an over -supply elsewhere. 4. Introduce regional intercept parking lots along expressways and rapid transit routes for people destined downtown. 5. Augment the "C"-shape system of peripheral parking lots within the Downtown on underutilized land, principally under expressways and fringe parking lots adjacent to Downtown. 6. Maintain the present policy of not requiring developers to provide off-street parking, pending annual reviews of park- ing supply, demand and transit ridership. 13 { ``t tt VEHICULAR -TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING 1 • 0.1.101111000111111. 1 I vAPn ,; t E.IE ;.ai,...r4t, t.i' i 14 III, LAND l;SE AND DE\ E:LOPMMEV'I FAC;'T(> ;S i'Er:C_NG PLANS FOR THE PEOPLE MOVER SVS'II�:'.; A. EXISTING Downtown conditions provide a basis for formulating goals and objectives, space forecasting, and determining what directions of change are possible. Downtown Miami is a Specialized Core of the Region. The automobile has been a major determinant of the form of character at the Miami Region; the same is true for Downtown. Traditional Down- town activities exist both within the Study Area .nd in its context area. Often complementary activities are widely separated. such as the clay - time office employment on Flagler Street and concentrations of restaurants on North Biscayne Boulevard. Yet Downtown needs to balance its heavy daytime use with evening activity, its poorer neighborhoods with a diverse residential. population. Parking Lots Interrupt the Continuity of Downtown. Development intensity drops abruptly north and south of Flagler Street and west of Hotel Row on Biscayne Boulevard. s fringe area now has a primary function as surface parking lots. This is often the case when speculation increases, since a parking lot frequently offers a developer the greatest short-term net return. However, this condition interrupts Downtown activities, leaving areas of Downton unsupported by other functions. This is the case today with Dupont Plaza and the vacant land along Biscavne I3 .,: and across from Bicentennial Park. Large Underutilized Areas Exist in Downtown. The Miami Riverfront, the manufacturing -wholesaling -warehousing district north of N. E. 6th Street, and the area west of the F. E. C. Railroad along Flagler Street are all underutilized today. These areas all have a potential for change or re\italization, but major public improvements are necessary to stimulate action. One example is the planned Government Center. Restricted Opportunity for Diverse Groups to Live Downtown. The existing housing areas in Downtown serve primarily low and moderate income minority groups: elderly, Black and Spanish-speaking. New housing in the surrounding area is primarily subsidized or public housing; the exception is along the high amenity bayfront north and south of the Study Area. Potential Downtown Environmental Quality is Unrealized. The edge of Biscayne Bay offers an excellent amenity, and new develop- ment is responding. Improvement of the Miami Riverfront and Flagler 15 Street are now underway. However, additional improvements are required to bring the Downtown environment to its potential: extensive use of vegetation to shade pedestrian streets, covered pedestrian walk -ways, Downtown parks to provide areas for relaxation, and i.eduction of conflict between pedestrian and traffic movement. Traffic Congestion. To date Miami has not been faced with an entire system of over capacity streets. However, the beginnings are evident in Dupont Plaza and along North Biscayne Boulevard. Parking location in relation to street capacity is also a critical issue that must be dealt with immediately. The anticipated problems of peak hour traffic, generated by parking concentrations at One Biscayne Tower and the First Federal Building, must be solved in the short-range and be a stimulus for continuous examination of parking policies. B. FUNCTIONAL AREAS AND LINKAGES Reflecting the historic development of the city and the functional and economic requirements of different uses, areas can be delineated which have similar characteristics. Each of the sub -areas described below are integrated parts of the existing Downtown socio-economic and functional structure. Some of these areas, such as the Office Core, will play a significant role in the future development of Downtown. Other areas, which are becoming obsolescent with changing regional economic and activity structures and evolving requirements of the activities themselves, are becoming less significant and will provide opportunities for change. The Downtown Office Core. The general location of the Downtown Office Core is along Flagler Street and S. E. 1st Street with concentrations of office employment from the County Court House to Biscayne Boulevard. Approximately 4 million square feet of office space is in this area, representing 42% of the regional inventory and supporting 20, 000 employees. The center of office activity is shifting to the east of East 2nd Avenue, where most recent construction has occurred. Intensity of office development along Flagler Street generally falls within Floor Area Ratios (F.A.R.) of 8 to 12. Along Biscayne Boulevard intensities are higher: 100 North Biscayne Building has an F.A.R. of 24. Building sizes along Flagler Street are relatively small, averaging 150, 000 square feet with average per floor leasable areas of 10, 000 square feet. Recent office buildings oriented toward Biscayne Boulevard 16 —,7111IMMA ; ,7.tne()Is pue alesopum • buir11:-)einuulAl HST ilelaH cs)01110 =3 SVaiV 1VNOLIONMIJ NaLi rXV '•• • li . ‘,4,-.: , ••,. t a 4', v 1 tl:tilliJ ri ZWfillate 1 - E 1- •••••••., ]H00 NAAGI • ."t! r'!"••: i.:;-.1§^„.1., ;141: 7''."e fl. •;`,11, ' • r - , - • - "1 • „c.„ , • AAO'ci 1 :Li %Niel/P.41 V.V.* • . •••••,- • - ,•"1 1! 1 , ' -1— ....,..., . rtLo ,'7- - ..,,... 1 t ' ..•''' • / • at.tommtbratiiteme.P.......**Vti • \\L t • CIV831-1 AVM irit• , • ;••- Lif'f.-) • : 4c)0 - 30 .1.Hbci • • Ajft ".77!•.- 1•11.^:t•MV4(:)03Eid 4 • .‘ VA0 1(11, N' a • ; ; t , / t ' ;,• I ; I \ . I; 1.131,1alsv , t11 itrrt !!:'f I Is t f n - IVO • • to .41:1•L?,r+-77 at\ ) ••tui.;;•; h.i., 4:1/ Fil f.j...".11;#± #1 WI t .t..*14,2!.. h. 1 t '' : r..,.... t..... ____....... A ... — t :,. it I, • - ' 1.1 q I 4 1 I ..t F'RE DOMINAN T CY Eq_ A( .' r-I - t : 'I -,' RESIDENTIAL CO1',AN,113,1' ' 1. 2 - --PCORE •I . - : 1:-...V.? • I • t,i•q•-4-11E ..BA: PMIDESITIAL - • PART OF NOP - 3 - • I r ti`CRALD r N,DIOWN ' TAIL f1 119.1‘...:104./0+1i t • • I • , • • Ili „A.m. c be;;;;,..; .4.4Z•24')itlt.....f, i .. ozgo (.4"_".'11-`'WE.f.lq, CENTUr' ..:`,' ...1 .,.r; - .I.'...;,.17.'•'. . , • . i '.., 'Ir!-.;;. ' t' . -1 - Flo ,t t#1; .7 G.A,rtk 1 . N‘ -1 • .., V.F..16L,t`',T`PIP, .- .- '.1 g. ''.. ' .i :.:1 C`t• ;4,, t ;-il ---.: ,-• .7 LJ ...., '''`'ilt . •, .... .s...-'''''. ' DOWNTOWN ; ,.• • —. ... 7 OmOE CORE i. .s•--. MM : ..\ \,.. • - • 7,,24•„: I Mil. ••••••a. ' • * 0,V119,104 C:=1 Of 14,1 ;1, trq, Wholesale and irage 1 7 AO. RINA -t ROW nt AVN-I, OWN f AL COHE CA MX 4-11011 :SI. AND: F UNCTIONAL AREAS reflect size ranges for prime office space built in other cities: 100 North Biscayne, 325,000 square feet; 100 South Biscayne, 350,000 square feet; First Federal Building, 480,000 square feet; and One Biscayne Tower, 750,000 sqeare feet. Activity patterns \vithin the Oilic Ciire are weighted toward banking, savings and loan institutions, a n d other financial activities. Ground floor spaces art, generally active; that is. they are occupied by retail, service establishments or banking chambers. Recent buildings have parking under or attached tu the office space; older structures rely on the large supply of surface parking to the north and south of Flagler Street. However, as new office space is built, an ever increasing demand for new parking will require multiple level structures to meet all day parking, requirements. Downtown Retail Core. The Downtown Retail Core is one of a number of significant retail concentrations in the region, including older centintl bnsiness districts such as Coral Gables and more recent regional shopping centers such as Dadetand Mall. The Flagler Street Area has traditionally served as a retail center for the central area of Miami. This function continues today, and Downtown shoppers are predominantly Black and Spanish- speaking. HOWCV(• r , the great number of patrons has kept Downtown retail sales ntable. The growing concentration of office workers and ntn,.• res.idential development should also serve to keep retail sates stabilized. Four department stores located nenr the intersection of Miami Avenue and Flagler Street form the center of the Core with apparel shops lying east along Flagler and along Miami Avenue. Other retail and service establishments are located along N.E. and S. E. lst Streets and along the streets intersectinn Flagler. According to the Doxiaciis Study, 12 the C. B. D. had $107, 644, 000 in sales in 1964. This was about $60 per square foot. The proposed retail development at Plaza Venetia may affect the Do\vntov,,n Retail Core, however. increased office develop- ment and good transit access can sustain both centers. The access to parking by shoppers is another critical factor in determining the future of the Flagler Street businesses. Nev office construction will add demand to existing parking .7,,arages and possibly make auto access to the Retail Core even more difficult than it is today. Midtown Core. Jordan Marsh , Jeffersons and Sears Department Stores form the nucleus of the Midtown Core, complemented by the Lindsay Hopkins Education 18 Center and the Mi;rnu Herald l;uildir•:,. t:Vit.h the addition of the.• )ropr)se•d Otani Intr,rnationa1/Plaza Venetia, this area will be one r)f the largest activity concentrations in the region employing over 8,000. It is an auteroobile r,r•ie•nte.el center relating to the region, pa rtieularly the residential areas in Ti';cayne Bay and Miami Beach across the Venetial Causeway. A lthoueh the Midtown Core is an intense reeionai d,•velopment, the prnpnse d rapid transit network shows no plans for a stop near the Midtown Core. This means the majority of the 8,000 employees will cr)nti nun: to ri.',y (..in automobile access, existing bus routes, or the minibu y.,tem. F. E. C. Railroad Manufacturing, Wholesaling and Warehousing. The concentration of manufacturir,;. wholesaling and warehousing originally developed alc)nt, the F. E. C. Railroad and the Municipal Railroa:l in conjunction w0-1-h the old Port of Miami and as a service. area to the Downtown Office and Retail Cores. This corridor extends to the north of the Study Area. to the Garment Center, and to the west along the• Seaboard Coastline railroad anti V. 20th Street. Since warehousing is the predominant use within C.is corridor, the labor force i.- relatively low, totaling less than 1, i-;00 en-:ployeus, Other significant employment areas exist along the railroad north of the Study Area. Much of the area is currently vacant or under- utilized. Hotel Row. Hotel Row, fronting Bayfront Park along Biscayne Boulevard from F laeler Street to N. E. 7t.h Street, consists of Large, older hotels which \vere developed for resort accommodations near the Miami Retail Core and Biscayne Bay. Miami Beach has reduced the area's significance as a winter resort: and, consequently, the hotels have functioned primarily in recent years as accommodations for visiting businessmen. Currently. the heaviest occupancy rate is in the summer months, reflecting the increase of tourists from Latin America and Cuban visitors from other areas of the United State s vacationing in Al iam i . Brickell Area. That portion of the Iirickell Area, extending south of the Miami River to Ric.kenbaker Causeway fronting on Biscayne Bay has seen substantial office and residential development since the early 1960's with acceler- ated development in the 1970's. Approximately 3 million square feet of office space concentrated at the north end and 4 million square feet of residential apartmeentihoteel space south of 10th Street has been constructed in this period. 19 Residential Sub -Areas There are four residential sub -areas in the Study Area which are distinguishable by population characteristics and housing type. Overtown. Lying south of 1-395 between 1-95 and the F. E. C. Railroad, the NDP-3 Area within the Study Area has a population of approximately 7,000. occupying more than 2, 100 dwelling units. Over 995) of the residents are Black. The majority of the population is young with less than 10% over 62 years of age. Median family income is low with 32% of the households fa liing below the poverty line. Over 65% of the labor force is unemployed or underemployed. The residents are largely employed in retail sales, services, and domestic labor. A large proportion of the families have female heads -of - household. Housing types are mixed N.vith both single family ` ,.ched and walk- up apartments represented in significant numbers. The residential density of the area averages over 40 people per gross acre. Median household size is 3. 3. The major non-residential activities consist- ing of retail, entertainment, and services are located within a commercial strip along N. W. 2nd Street. An area similar ,n physical composition to the NDP-3 Area lies north of I-195 below the Miami Cernentery and east of the F. E. C. Railroad. However, when compared to the population within the NDP-3 Area, the residents show greater diversity: 15°7o are over 62 years of age, 13'',, are Black and 290,1 are Spanish-speaking. Although the median family income exceeds $7, 100, over 20% of the families fall below., the poverty line. The downtown residential area lies within the Downtown Core and extends north to 1-395. The total population within this arca is approximately 2, 700 with an average household size of 1. 2 The population is predominantly elderly with 45% over 62. Over 26% of the population is Black and 30 %n is Spanish. The majority of the population is located south of the F. E. C. Railroad, predominantly in residential or "retirement" hotels. The annual median family income is over $5, 200, but more than 20°70 of the households fall below the poverty line. The Biscayne Bay Residential Area lying north of I-395 along the Bay contains a population of over 1, 000. Less than 1°70 of the residents are Black; 26% are Spanish. Over 31% of the population is over 62. 20 Although the annual roedian family income is over $7, 200, ap- proximately 18% of the residents fall below the poverty line. The housing types within the area include residential hotels and many large single family dwellings converted to apartments. C. DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AREAS Opportunity areas are the probable receptacles for new development. The alloca'ion of the space forecast into these areas, as shown on the illustrative Plan, represents a probable future for Downtown Miami. Of course, other futures are possible, but the illustrative solution defines a desirable and feasible future state which serves as a basis for recommended public action and zoning controls. The areas of greatest commercial development potential during the 1973-1985- period will be in the Dupont Plaza Area, the Biscayne-2nd Avenue Corridor and Brickell. To a lesser extent commercial development is ceria:n to occur in and adjacent tc, the Government Center and the Midtown Gore. The Biscayne Bay-. :it and Miami River Subareas have excellent potentials for residential development. Dupont Plaza Area. Dupont Plaza is important for Downtown. Development will provide linkages to Rrickeli A• mile on the south and can etin-rulate develop- ment on the currently underutilized parcels along the Miami River. However, transportation irnproverncnts are required for any new development to occur. The four vacant blocks in Dupont Plaza plus the ::.rea proposed for Miami Center can accommodate almost 2.5 million square feet of new office space, 740 hotel rooms, 1300 dwelling units and as much as 80, 000 square feet of retail space. If less office space were developed, additional residential space could be accommodated. Bi scayne Boulevard-2nd Avenue Area. This area is the most attractive for commercial development after Dupont Plaza. Although the front portions of many of the blocks are occupied by developments considered as "givens", almost the entire frontage along NE 2nd Avenue can be available for intense new develop- ment. The Miami -Dade Community College, a recommended regional rapid transit station and a new Downtown urban park will contribute to increased development potentials and positive Downtown environment. This area has a capacity for more than 3.5 million square feet of retail space. A significant number of new dwelling units could also be developed. 21 9 -4i I • • - -- • - _L. .. J.— - • .; I „ • .pi iI ti. i • , 1, 1 r.,..._ -I --,==.,i-•,,;:„..L., L 1 ....,..„____ii. -., Uj.....-; , -i , • '! intilaiii MIAMI RIVERFRONT 22 lj • le= 1. IttIVItY044 •••-•t •-• . • /‘ J , . . ... 1VC-7,1":%•• a .1 LAJPOtIT "IT!" A - I r (7, OPPORTUNITY AREAS OM el ••• el 11I or I Claughton Island This single owner residential community is programmed to include 3,000 apartment units, 1, 200 hotel rooms, office and retail space. Brickell Area This area has become a prestige address for single -owner office buildings and luxury apartments. Underdeveloped land offers the opportunity to gradually transition to higher uses. Government Center Area. A Downtown Government Center has been proposed for some time, and a recent plan has been completed. This project will enhance Downtown by providing an "internal" catalyst for redeveloping the existing underutilized area. The possibility of a major Government Office Center has already stimulated development along West Flagler Street. and will stimulate similar development acl' - ,-,!nt to the bound- aries. Midtown Core Area Omni International is a major new retail development which is now underway. Over 600, 000 square feet of retail space will he develop- ed, complemented by new office and residential space and a merchan- dise mart. This will transform the Midtown Core into a major regional employment concentration and should stimulate niodr.rate amounts of additional office and residential development. Miami Riverfront Area and Biscayne Bayfront Arras These two areas have the highest amenity potential in Downtown and are therefore appropriate locations for new.Downtown residential devel- oprr:cnt. A total of over 2300 new dwelling units could be accommodated in the areas while vastly improving environmental quality. The Miami River Walk and Bicentennial Park are necessary stimulants to develop- ment. The programmed Miami Convention Center will add to this potent ial. D. TRANSPORTATION CONSTRAINTS The movement requirements of high intensity development vary with the type of use. Residential development requires easy access to public streets throughout the day; whereas, office development requires access at peak hour in the morning and evening. 23 The State of Florida Department of Transportation and the firm of Bc iawenger-Hoch and Associates were given the responsibility for investigating transportation in Downtown Miami and producing_ a cone eptual transportation plan. Using block -by -block land use inforrel;et.ron, transportation demand w:e 5 calculated at peak hour. Comparing demand in specific block with capacity indicates potential const raints. In 1972, prior to the opening of One Biscayne and First Federal, most of the streets in the Study Arca were operating under capacity at peak hour. However, with no increa.s, in system capacity, major development opportunity areas, such as Dupont Plaza, will be constrained by the inability of the present movement system to serve new development. The planned regional rapid transit system can reduces traffic constraints by promoting a greater percentage of work trips by public transport- ation. The period before• rapid transit is in operation is critical for proper location of new development and parking garages in relation to street capacity. The One .Biscayne -First Federal block contains 1, 2 30, 000 square feet of office and 1,420 parking spaces. The employment in this block will exceed b000 persons. Even if a lower percentage than the estimat- ed current 80% arrive by automobile, it is clear that the provided spaces will not meet the total parking demand. Yet an analysis by Beiswenger-Hoch : r»' Associates indicates that peak hour egress front the garages can barely be handled by the existing streets. Further- more, parking for additional high intensity development will only increase congestion. The development of the Dupont Plaza Area will continue to be constrain- ed unless cerrunrtments to major traffic improvements are made. Even then I3eiswenger-Hoch and Associates has indicated that parking in excess of 5000 cars will overload the new Dupont Plaza Area system capacity. Although the Dupont Plaza Area is most constrained, other areas such as N. E. 2nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard are at capacity now, and future development of an intensity over F.A.R. 12 could overload the street system. Areas which are presently under capacity are located far away from office concentrations and carry little probability for new development. Transportation constraints can be eliminated in a number of ways, such as: adding new lanes, prohibiting intense development in congested areas, and promoting staggered work hours. However, the most important tool is public monitoring and control of the parking supply, since the location of parking, rather than employment, is the major generator cf congestion. 24 ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS The WMRT proposed downtown zoning revisions specifically recommend: Mixed use development -through the encouragement of residential uses throughout downtown. Incentive zoning - by first limiting the allowed intensity of development, then awarding development incentives for the provision of public amenities. A design plan, showing rmndatory public amenities to be supplied by private developers. Pedestrian amenities by warding development incentives for the voluntary provision of arcades, through -block connections, landscaped pedestrian paths, and urba.' open spaces (mini -parks). Integration with the rapid transit system, by requirir second -level pedestrian connections (pediways) to rapid transit stations and award- ing incentives to developments in proximity to rapid transit stations. F. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS The following list summarizes projects planned, programmed or under way in the downtown a rca. Miami Convention Curter The City has purchased a 5 acre site on the north bank of the Miami River adjacent to and immediately west of the Brickcll Avenue Bridge and on the block west of the Howard Johnson Motel. Approximately $10 million is programmed for a convention center capable of seating 7000 people. The architectural firm of Ferendino, Grafton, Spillis, Candela, has been selected and they are proceeding to develop a program and contract documents. It is anticipated that the construc- tion contract would be awarded in 1976 with an 18-month construction period. In addition the University of Miami is consideii ng adding the $3. 2 million Knight Continuing Education Center to this complex. Watson Island The City intends to solicit RFP's from private developers for the future development of this island as an "international theme" park. 25 1=10- iiicentennial/Bayfront Park Construction contracts have been awarded for the development of Bicentennial Park generally north of NE 9th Street (extended) to McArthur Causeway following plans prepared by Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates. Substantial completion is expected this summer in time for the Bicentennial although the full program including a restaurant will not be completed until later. Edward D. Stone, Jr, and Associates have also been engaged by the City to put forward proposals for the redeveloprn;ent of Bayfront Park and planning is going ahead on that. Funding for both parks is from the "Parks for People" bond issue. FEC Property Between Bicentennial and Bayfront Park exists substantial private ownerships generally controlled by the Florida East Coast Railroad. By recent court order the City has gained "quick ':e" for certain parcels facing on Biscayne Boulevard which the City will probably develop as a green belt to shield the remaining railroad property. The City is also proceeding in court to acquire this remaining rail- road property, although this may involve extensive litigation. Omni International/Plaza Venetia Complex This is a $75 million hotel and shopping complex including a new Penney' s store to be built next to and north of the midtown Jordan Marsh store with completion scheduled for early 1977. Plaza Venetia (Venetian Rambler site) is an apartment complex of approximately 300 units proposed imrriediatcly north of the Venetian Causeway fronting on Biscayne Bay and is currently undergoing re -zoning hearings. The remainder of Plaza Venetia would be developed on the vacant parking lot immediately north of this site, and east of Omni. Development on this last site is expected in the next 5 years. Claughton Island This is a $225 million residential, hotel and commercial development on the 44 acre island in Biscayne Bay connected by a bridge to SE 8th Street. The developers hope to start on the 15 year long project this year. The complete program includes approximately 3000 apartment units, 2 - 600 room hotels, commercial and office space. People's National Bank This new building recently opened on the corner of NE 2nd Avenue and 4th Street, directly on the Stage II rapid transit alignment. 26 Dade County Art Museum The Dade County Art Museum Study prepared by the firm of Harold Malt and Associates proposed a series of alternative sites in the downtown area. Listed in rank order are the following sites: 1. Bicentennial Park 2. Margaret Pace Park 3. Watson Island 4. Biscayne Boulevard at approximately 9th Street 5. Bayfront Park 6. Government Center 7. Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables Approximately $7 million is available from the Dade County Decade of Progress under the general heading of "cultural." Some of this money could be used for the art museum. Downtown Transportation Plan The report "Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan" prepared by the firm of Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates in 1973 for the Florida Department of Transportation recommended the following improvements within downtown: a. Dupont Plaza Transportation Improvements FDOT has held public hearing on multi -level ramp structure intended to accommodate I=95 feeder/Biscayne Boulevard and Brickell Avenue/Biscayne Boulevard traffic movements. Cost estimate is $80 million. Dade County has Advanced $300,000 for preliminary engineering. b. Brickell Bridge Replacement c. Miami Avenue Bridge Replacement - FDOT is holding public hearings on bridge replacement. • SW 2nd Avenue Bridge Replacement - scheduled by Dade County. • SW 1st Street Bridge Replacement - scheduled by Dade County. • SE 2nd Street Widening North 1st Street Capacity Improvement h. East 3rd Avenue Improvement i. SE 4th Street Widening (see Miami Avenue Bridge Replacement) 27 Biscayne Boulevard -Port Boulevard Grade Separation Biscayne Boulevard Widening from approximately North 5th Street to North 12th Street. Government Center The consulting firm of Connell/Met calf/Eddy has prepared two milestone reports for Government Center for the Dade County Depart- ment of Public Works. Proposed are approximately 4.0 million square feet of office space on the 30 acre site hour:lie by Flagler Street and NW 5th Street, from I-95 to the FEC richt-of-way. The Miatnti Police Headquarters and the related parking ramp have been substantially completed and are almost ready for occupancy. Ground has been broken for Phase I (168, 500 square feet) of the State of Florida Regional Service Center; total development will be 632,000 square feet- by the year 2000. This is also the site of a main down- town library to be funded from Decade of Progress funds. This is also the location for the main terminal of the pr:' ed rapid transit system. Dade County has completed acquisition of almost all remain- ing property in the area. No other funding has been identified for the remaining buildings proposed. Federal Building Annex The General Services Administration is proposing to add 100, 000 square feet of office space to the existing federal courthouse in the block bound- ed by N. Miami Avenue and N. 1st Avenue from NE 3rd Street to NE 4th Street and is proceeding into property acquisition. Other Downtown Parks Projects The first phase of the Miami River Walkway has been completed, extending from the Bri-'kell Avenue Bridge to the Downtown ''Y" along the southern periphery of the Convention Center site. Phase II of the Miami River Walkway, extending from the "Y" to the Miami Avenue Bridge is planned and approximately one-half of the $400, 000 cost has been identified, represented by DDA and City CDfunds. A start on construction is anticipated this year. Fort Dallas Park is immediately west of the Downtown "Y" occupying a parcel approximately 150 feet wide and 100 feet deep facing the Miami River. It is proposed to develop this park and move the old Ft. Dallas Barracks from their existing location at Lummus Park to this site. Development costs are approximately $100, 000 funded by Parks for People bond issue. Consultants are Scully/Seymour. 28 Friendship Plaza, an underexpressway parking area and pedestrian plaza is being developed under the I-395 expressway, from Biscayne Boulevard westerly to NE 2nd Avenue. This is being funded by bonds from the Off -Street Parking Authority, and by funds from the County Manager's Office and City of Miarni CD funds. Completion of construct- ion is anticipated July, 1976. 46 West Flagler Mini -Park is being planned and is intended to proceed to construction this year. This occupies a lot approximately 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep across from the Dade County Courthouse on Flagler Street. Consultants are O'Leary/Shafer; with funding from the ''Parks for People" bond issue. Latin Community Riverfront Park lies on the west bank of the Miami River from SW 2nd to 4th St'.eets east of SW 4th Avenue. Commerce Plaza is proposed on the east side of the Miami River opposite the Latin Community Riverfront Park frr n SW lst Street to I-95. Other parks projects include the North Miami Avenue Mini -Park at NE 14th Street funded by City CD; a proposed NW 2nd Avenue Mini -Park between NW 7th and 8th Streets; and a proposed Sawyer Park (Miami - Dade Board of Women Realtors) on the west side of NW 2nd Avenue between NW 6th and 7th Streets. Downtown Miami 1973-1975: An Urban Development and Zoning Plan This report was prepared by the consulting firm of Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd for the Downtown Development Authority and the City of Miarni in 1973 and provides the follovi ng proposals: 1. New zoning districts and requirements and substantial re -zoning. 2. Bonus incentives 3. Required public anienitie s 4. Encouragem2 nt of housing 5. Pedways (second level pedestrian walkways). 6. Landscaped streets and waterfront paths requirement 7. Proposed NE 3rd Avenue park between Flagler Street and NE 2nd Street. 8. Proposed a personal rapid transit system from Omni to the Brickell Area. 9. Proposes a New Town -in -Town for the area bounded by NE 7th Street, 1-395, NE 2nd Avenue and the FEC right-of-way (Biscayne West National Architectural Design Competition). 29 Regional Rapid Transit System Approximately $15 million has been advanced by the Urban Mass Transit Administration for final engineering of Stage I - the North - South Route - which follows the Florida East Coast Railroad right- of-way through Downtown. Approximately $1. 32 million is available from the Dade County "Decade of Progress" bond issue as the local share of this system. While Stages II and III have been planned, no definitive program or schedule has been decided upon. Port of Miami Over the past 10 years, the Port of Miami on Dodge Island has emerged as "Cruise Capital of the World." Continued improvements are programmed at the Port. G. PUBLIC POLICY POSITIONS The Comprehensive Development Master Plan Metropolitan Dade County was adopted and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners in two separate actions. On December 4, 1974, it adopted and accept- ed the Metropolitan Development Policies (Ordinance 74 -100) and on March 31, 1975 similar action was taken on the Environmental Protect- ion Guide and Metropolitan Development Guide (Ordinance 75-22). Downtown Miami, L'. r 19;-55: An Urban Development and Zoning Plan was presented by WMRT to the Miami City Commission on December 13, 1973, and the Commission approved the Plan on April 23, 1975. Public hearings are continuing on rece nmended zoning ordinance revisions. The Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Trar„portation Plan was presented by BHA on January 16, 1974. Following from that meeting the City, County and State DOT decided to form a joint technical staff to review the transportation plan. The Joint Technical Staff Review of the conceptual plan was printed and published in July 1974. Kaiser Engineers prepared a series of Milestone Reports defining the Regional Rapid Transit System. Stage I was accepted by the County Commission and supported by the City Commission. At the request of the Miami City Commission, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to extend the Kaiser contract to prepare a Collection -Distribution System Analyses (July 1975), which included a mini system study for the Downtown. STATION IMPACT The (and use aspects of the people -mover station area provide a multi- faceted influence zone that, of necessity, must indicate the compatibility of potential station -related de\elnorneiit kvith both existing and proposed development patterns or strategies. The broad considerations should include potential conflicts with exis+iria land use or activity patterns. conformance with proposed de !:.pi -new plans, and public development policies and regulatory plans Loath as zoning. A. Compatibility with Exi sir, I,rai,d l'se Perhaps the most basis. factor 1., considering an influence area around a station is the aefinitt„n oareas where potential changes are acceptable or not <z cepl. a');e to the existing land use pattern. Areas of potential coi;:li. t. represent the limits of station develop- ment influence, particularly when existin:; at long-range land use relationships need to be maintained. In 1i,,Fi, ration influences, however, certain existing land use patterns nm. a longer be valid and need to undergo change. " ;;c. key here that potertial conflict areas are valid as a large kale measure, and should not necessarily be used as a final date ;-rinination that changes are to be avoided. B. Conformance v.itr. I ar:d 1 se 1-lain=, As with existing !and utie catlerns, tile planned development pattern has areas that rnav be cor,ipatihie. or inc_ornpatibie with potential station area development. .`.;i.ice co:rnprehensive development plans serve as the .rameworl. fop' chc.;nn aiinl future growth pressures, they are an essential cor is erari,,r ; ere. f t`:e t•. ion is being developed in a planned "activity node' area, '.hen :t iften,, that planned higher intensity use area nia\ co: iorni to pot:en-dal needs in the station area. C. Ilard and Soft Areas Influence areas will ..a:try depending on how susceptible to change structures and properties are and how resistant. to change certain areas are due to socia i nrd anttenity considerations. Determining land availability in a station area necessitates identifying "hard" (indicating permanence; and "soft" (indicating transition potential) areas and their proximity to the station site. D. Public versus Private Ownership Ownership of land. .whether pu)1ic or private, will have a great deal. of effect on station influence zones. One major aspect is that in many station areas land ownership will be highly fractionalized, 31 Land Acquisition The acquisition of right-of—way for the development of the transit system has an immediate effect, because it involves the direct removal of sorrie existing land uses, and replacement by other, new uses. For the most part, these replacements are directly related to the transit system itself - r'ta icon structures, parking lots, and access areas. Some land, however, may be acgeired which is needed during development of the systern, but which ma,,- :evert back to the private market once (1 veluprnei t is complete. 'nrough the ,judicious use of land use controls, this surplus land may, n feasible, serve to set the pattern for all development around the station. F. Improved Accessibility The acquisition of land r.as the most direct effect upon land use, but the most profound and often dramatic effects arise from the increased accessibility created by the location of a transit station in an area. Improved accessibility does not aiways cause r land use changes, other factors must also be present. In general„tie greater the cur- rent market demand in an area prier to developn-rent of the transit system, the greater the etrobability that substantial development will occur. Transit stations it-, existing commercial areas may cause either strengthening c,: exi:».ir.rt character or redevelopment to a higher level of commercial activity. The degree of change in either case depends upon the existing character of the area as well as the level of activity generated by the transit station it eel:. However it should not be as- sumed that the location of a transit station in a deteriorated area is solely sufficient t,e gu?raI'iee reet?.J:'loen-..ent. The potential for land use changes created by transit stations is a phenomenon which can and should be managed in order to produce changes which benefit the public. Transie-induced growth can cause even greater congestion or, the streets than that which the transit system was designed to alleviate. it can also cause the quick congestion of the transit system itself. Stich cor.getion may occur if unbridled develop- ment is permitted to create more traffic generators than can be ac- commodated by the combined r:•a:%si+ and street systesm. Since the capacity of those two systems will be a known quantity, a reaonsably close relationship between that capacity and new concentrations of de- velopment can be maintained by avoiding uncontrolled development. O. Value Capture Value capture policy is a means whereby land adjacent to transpor- tation facilities (transit stops) is purchased, managed, or controlled in order for the public to share in potential financial and community development benefits from the facility not otherwise possible. The value of a parcel of lard is partly determined by its accessibility. The greater the improvement in accessibility the `neater the likeli- hood that the land will appreciate in value. It can be argued that the increased value is unearned because it is not a re.- .'t of any effort. or expenditure by the private is ndowne r. If the public agency could "recapture" the vahie create-1 by the public development, there would be a corresponding reduction in public cost. A great deal of the iucrcase:i -:aele win Le automatically recaptured by general tax revenues. The City of Miami and Dade County have the advantage of being tenth the developer of the transit facility and the agencies receiving general tax revenue. 1r, ae ' 'on, the possibilities will be explored of utilizing other means of value: recapture such as special taxing districts. H. Joint Development With the constr'IcYee of a people -mover system in downtown Miami there is a putential for the planning and implementation of both transit improvements and the development of private property. This concept, known as joint development, has two basic, complementary meanings. First, it has a "physical planning" or "spatial" meaning in terms of the proposed patterne o land escs, including the transit improvement and network c;i local services affected by that improvement, within the transit corridor. It also has an ''implement inu" or ' administrative and financial" meaning in terns of the actions taken and financing or funding made available jointly by he local government agencies and private organizations and individuals to construct the transit improvement and to develop, redevelop or adjust the land uses and network of local services within the transit corridor pursuant to the corridor Areas offering potential for joint development ventures include all currently underdevel opeci properties in the study area. *From report of the ULI Transportation Task Force, Development Policies for Urban Mass Transit Station Areas. 33 V. LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT ANL) RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES This subsection presents an integrated set of recommended policy guidelines for general application to people mover station/land use policies and right- of-way policies. A. System Policies r Provide efficient connections between major activity centers. Encourage new high intensity urban development by'-• king to pritne opportunity- areas. Excellence in architecture, engin•7ering and urban design will be pursued in stations and structures. Adequate light and air will be provided in all affected rights -of -way under stations and structures. The system should be accessible to the elderly auC Handicapped. B. Right -of -Way Policies Joint development opportunities will be pursued to the maximum extent possible se, that the value of the public investment may be recaptured for th• gee .ral public. Route alignments '].l be located according to the following priorities: 1. Joint development opportunities 2. Public rights -of -way 3. Currently underdeveloped property (parking lots) preferably by easement. Developed private property will be avoided, except to provide for necessary horizontal curves. Public rights -of -way, where large subsurface infrastructure invest- ments (sewer, water, telephone, electrical) have been made, will be avoided. Route alignment should allow the affected street to function satisfactorily. If route placement severely reduces the street function than a) the route should be moved or b) the street should be closed. Streets would be closed only where transportation system management concepts can be combined with urban design features. Separate, wherever possible, pedestrian and vehicular travel patterns in areas adjacent to stations. 34 Clearance under strui:terr:s should 16 feet, except when an alignment crosses a railroad right-of-way in which case the clear ance should be 22 feet. C. Station Location Policies Stations should be accessible to high volumes of pedestrian traffic and minimize vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. Therefore stations will be located according to the following priorities: 1. High volume activity cente:•s (or large parking c• ':entrations) 2. Joint development opportunities 3. Over intersections in the public right-of-way. In station areas, ensure thet the of noise from station -related sources do not exceed the criteria ndclines established by the U. S. Department of Housing and (urban I-)evelopment, the Urban Mass Transit Administration, and the Institute of Rapid Transit. Stations will be no closer than 1000 feet apart. Parking Policies Stations serving activity centers will not provide parking; parking will be discouraged. ` tat.ion.s should be accessible to peripheral parking lots or ;.are;, ;:ar .ing concentrations. Parking in peripheral areas will he encouraq,,.°d. The current policy of not requiring the private provision of off- street parking in the Downtown will be continued. Off-street parking spaces will be lin-,itcd to a maxirnur:, of 1200 spaces per block, or by the adjacent street capacity. In certain area: to be served by the People -Mover, where off-street parking is currently required, the off-street parking requirement may be waived, upon application to and approval of, the appropriate review agencies. Construction and Displacement Policies Displacement will be minimized. All displacees will receive the benefits of the federal. Uniform Relocation Act. Where partial takes are necessary, every effort will be made to maximize the value of the remnant parcel. Efforts will be made to minimize disruption during normal working hours by construction scheduling. Every effort will be made to guarantee the businessman the beneficial use of his property during normal working hours. Every effort will be made to assure that normal pedestrian and vehicular Rows will be maintained. 35 Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to ensure control of soild waste materials produced during the construction proces s. Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to minimize the impact upon surrounding areas of noise produced by construction equipment. Control fully all water runoff from transit facilities. Connect storm drainage systems associated with transit facilities to the local storm sewer system, if any; and connect sanitary sewer systems in transit stations to the appropriate sewer treatment facilities. Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to ensure maximum control of dust, exhaust emissions, and other air pollu- tants during the construction process. F. Urban Design Policies Adopt coordinated signage requirements as part of station area plans. Adopt visual con1m.uiication and street accessories standards as part of station area plans. Adopt "defensible space" urban design criteria which minimize physical features that promote high crime situations in station areas. PROJECT PROPOSAL DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY AND CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA TABLE OF CONTENTS PART INTRODUCTION I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM Description of the System System Technology System Costs and Staging II. LOCAL PROJECT OBJECTIVES III. NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Service Patterns Feasibility and Transferability Economic and Development Impacts Institutional Patterns mmmmliwar MEMEW mommmm NM fr MMEt MEE MMiE MIES MEMONW SOMIMInirdi itema IMINAVX IMIER NIINPLAM 1V. COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT V. PROJECT PROPOSAL FEATURES 1.0 Adequacy of Planning and Decision Making Milestone No. 1 System Concept and Criteria Milestone No. 2 Alternative Routes Analysis Milestone No. 3 Alternative Vehicles Analysis Milestone No. 4 Land Use Development and Right -of -Way Policies Milestone No. 5 Route Alignment and Station Locations Milestone No. 6 Final System Plan 2.0 Consistency of the Project with Regional Transportation Planning Status of Transportation Planning Consistency with Regional Transportation Planning 3.0 Local Support 4.0 Local Financial Resources ji 32 63 117 135 188 ENZ- PART 5.0 Financing Operations and Maintenance Costs 286 6.0 Technological Resources to Implement and Operate the System 7.0 Project Compliance VI. COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT VII. ASSURANCE OF OPERATION pia 288 291 294 INTRODUCTION 4etropolitan Dade County is the southernmost of three southeast Florida counties characterized as Florida's Gold Coast. Although the County comprises more than 2,100 square miles, much of its western area is occupied by the Everglades and by water conservation areas which limit development to the portion of the County along the coast. The developed and developable portions therefore consist of a north -south oriented band bounded on the east by Biscayne Bay and the Atlantic Ocean, on the north by Broward County, on the south by Monroe County including the Florida Keys, and on the west by the Everglades and water conservation areas. The County experienced a population growth of 156 percent in the 20 years between 1950 and 1970. Conservative projections are that inten- sive growth will continue in the future with an anticipated increase of another 37 percent by 1985, an average growth over the 35 year period of over 7 percent annually. Because of the restricted area available for development, population density is relatively high as compared with other urban areas. The 1970 urban population of 1,247,000 persons was contained in a developed area of 247 square miles, or a density of over 5,000 persons per square mile. The City of Miami which is the only diversified regional activity center had a density of in excess of 10,000 persons per square mile in 1970. This spectacular urban growth of the County has been caused primarily by its natural environmental features. It has warm and pleasant subtropical climate, outdoor recreational facilities, and a beautiful setting. These very features make the County extremely sensitive environmentally, since degradation in the quality of its air, its water, its vegetation or its abundant wildlife would destroy its primary assets. With a 1975 population of about 1,450,000 the total demand for transpor- tation in the County is now approximately 3.6 million person trips per day. This demand is expected to increase to about five and a half million daily trips when the County reaches its projected 1985 population of 1,736,000, augmented by approximately 200,000 daily winter tourists. The County grew up with the automobile and is strongly oriented to its use. Automobile ownership is among the highest in the nation, with an estimated 1.13 automobiles per household in 1973. The result is that most of the expressways and major arterial highways carry traffic con- siderably in excess of their design capacities. 0n a portion of South Dixie Highway, the major arterial to the south, daily vehicular traffic volume approaches 227 percent of design capacity. Portions of Interstate I-95, the only interstate highway in the County and the major thorough- fare to the north, carry daily traffic of up to 150 percent of design capacity. 0n the other hand, there is a large number of families below the poverty level while about 14 percent of the population is over the age of 65. Despite the high average rate of automobile ownership, about one family in five owns no car and is completely transit dependent. The growth of population and travel demand is cause for concern over the capability of preserving the quality of life in the County and the City of Miami and of meeting the mobility requirements of its people. v Moreover, the vitality of the Central Business District of the City of Miami is of critical importance to the overall development pattern within the metropolitan area. It is against this background that the downtown people mover project proposal has been prepared by the people of the Greater Miami area. It is with the promising prospect of successful design development, implementa— tion, and operation that the project proposal is submitted to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for review and consideration for funding as part of the national completion for downtown people mover systems. vi UMW ie • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 _1 1 1 PART I DESCRIPTION OF THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM Ott Juice 25, 1976, the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County formally} adopted a project proposal for a downtown people mover system. The following is a description of the adopted system. Description of the System The DPM is a system of automatically controlled transit vehicles operating on a 3.7 mile double -tracked, fixed, and elevated guideway. Specifically, the recommended system and its alignment, is shown in Figure 1 on the following page. The DPM system is composed of a loop and a north -south leg. The loop follows North 5th Street, the Florida East Coast right-of-way on the west, South 1st Street, S.E. 1st Avenue, S.E. 2nd Street on the south and Biscayne Boulevard on the west. The northern portion of the leg follows Biscayne Boulevard from N.E. 5th Street to N.E. lith Street. The southern portion of the leg follows S.E. 2nd Avenue and Brickell Avenue from S.E. 2nd Street over the Miami Ri•.er to S.E. loth Street where it turns westerly along S.E. loth Street to the Brickell Avenue Rapid Transit Station on the Florida East Coast right-of-way. Two stations will interface with the proposed rapid transit system - Brickell Avenue and the Downtown Government Center. Fifteen other stations are spaced throughout the 3.7 mile length, based on a 1,000-foot station spacing to serve major activity centers. On the loop, stations are recommended at Port Boulevard, Community College. Government Center -North, South Miami Avenue, Dallas Park, Dupont Plaza, Flagler Street and aiamarira. On the northern leg, stations are recommended at N.E. 8th Street, Bicentennial Park, N.E. 14th Street and Omni. On the southern leg, stations are recommended DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER 4 t49117 19•14SIT SPIICIII1 SUS ,441131 SUS s SUS SOUTIS II le 74 s SUS SOURS , 2 3 9 le 14s 0o4012 19 11.21.2• 111.33 24.3e g • A ' 14' 1 1 .4. .. . 4 I. :. .•; ' It:......... •. /...----- ;: I . 7:. ' . , -.; ,-„, • ,.. „ 10 11 FUTURE YEAR 2000 TRANSIT NETWORK 3 at $tickell Point, Tamiami Trail and S.E. loth Street. A storage yard will be located in the F.E.C. right-of-way north of N.W. 5th Street. Passenger volumes of at least 40,000 patrons per day are forecast to utilize the system. System Technology The recommended route alignment and forecasted passenger volumes are amenable to several candidate vehicle technologies. one of these technologies will be selected through a competitive procurement process. In general, however, vehicles are anticipated to be about 30 feet long with a normal capacity of approximately 50 persons. The vehicles would be automatically controlled, positively guided by mechanical means in the guideway and propelled by on -board electric motors deriving propulsion power from power rails within the guideway. The guideway will be elevated above the street in public right-of-way and will be mounted on columns. Stations will have fare collection and validation systems, stairs or escalators, and provisions for the handicapped. It is intended that stations will be interconnected with adjacent activity centers through second -level pedestrian connectors, the cost of which would be borne by the private sector. Systems Costs and Staging This total system will cost an estimated $83 million. For development purposes, it is recommended that the system be staged into two phases. Stage I is a total of 3.3 miles in length and will cost an estimated $73.8 million. Stage II adds .4 mile at an additional cost of $9.4 million. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 Of the total cost, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration is asked to fund 80 percent of the net project costs. If this proposal is approved, the Florida Department of Transportation will fund 10 percent, Metropolitan Dade County will fund 5 percent, and the City of Miami will fund 3 percent. A special taxing district will be created by Metropolitan Dade County to fund 2 percent through assessments based on proximity of benefiting properties to the people mover system. Full advantage will be taken for joint development opportunities by which private enterprise might partici- pate in the cost of the system and thereby reduce the cost to the various governments involved. Further cost -sharing will be identified as part of parallel routes and interfacing stations with the proposed rapid transit system. The operating costs of the system will approximate S2,238,000 per year in wages, energy and maintenance and will be partly supported through fares. If deficits occur in operating costs, they will be borne by subsidies for public transportation to the Metropolitan Dade County Transit Agency, from Section 5 funds from UMTA, and for other revenue funds of Metropolitan Dade County. The recommended system shown in Figure 1 shows the relationships to Stage I of the Rapid Transit System now under final engineering in Metropolitan Dade County. Also shown are the 72 bus routes for the entire metropolitan area which daily provide service to some 200,000 transit riders. The recommended system emphasized integration of these modes from the design stages through full operation. 0n the following page, Figure 2 shows the features of the funding plan. Stage of the plan constitutes the specific funding request which is part of this project proposal. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT Agency Costs Capital Costs Stage I 3.3 Miles UMTA — Section 3 Federal and Urban System Funds (Design and Construction of Miami River 3ridge Structure) Florida Department of Transportation Metropolitan Dade County City of Miami $58 116,000 950,000 7,389,000 3,695,000 2,217,000 Private Sector through Special Taxing District 1,478,000 TOTAL COSTS $73,839,000 Stage II .4 Miles UMTA — Section 3 Florida Department of Transportation Metropolitan Dade County City of Miami Private Sector through Special Taxing District $7,520,000 940,000 470,000 282,000 188,000 TOTAL COSTS $9,400,000 PART II LOCAL PROJECT OBJECTIVES A downtown people mover system represents a major aspect of the identifiable needs of the downtown Miami area. Since 1967 both the City of :Miami and Dade County have recognized the vital importance of the CBD. Planning studies directed towards improving the center's vitality through land use, economic and transportation improvements have directed public and private attention to specific improvement programs and implementation measures. The objectives stated below are the common base of programs and projects designed to satisfy the overall goal of strengthening downtown Miami's 1 role within the metropolitan area and region. These objectives as related to the Downtown People Mover Project are: (1) Metropolitan Dade County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) adopted in March, 1975, identifies the downtown Miami area as the sole "diversified regional activity center" for the entire region. The City of Miami's comprehensive planning efforts also acknowledge the vital importance of the downtown area to the city's economic and social vitality. A key objective of the People Mover Project is to maintain and strengthen the downtown area as the principal activity center of this region. (2) Development catalysts to the downtown Miami area vital to make the area competitive with other regions and within the region. In addition, private and public developments either currently programmed or forecast for the near future need special support to 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 (3) stimulate redevelopment of various sections of the downtown area, An objective of this project is to stimulate the development and redevelopment of several different parts of the central business district. The desire to reduce traffic congestion and stimulate transit usage within the region is an objective of the adopted Dade County CDMP and the regional transportation plan adopted by the Miami Urban Area Transportation (;HATS). 7 (4) The public/private financial interface in sharing the costs of transportation and other transportation -related improvements is an objective of the system. An objective of this project is to demonstrate that reduced private outlays for on -site parking and transportation costs resulting from downtown locations can be transferred to public outlays and user benefits. Benefits to all sectors of downtown activities, therefore, will serve to off -set possible downtown locational drawbacks without undue public cost burdens. (5) An important objective of this project is to provide for increased accessibility to downtown facilities, public and private. In particular, achievement of this objective will enable downtown workers, tourists and the large numbers of transit dependents who utilize downtown facilities to better utilize the unique facilities of the area. (6) Increased transit modal efficiencies and cost savings are an objective of this system. Present inefficient downtown shuttle systems which 8 have slow travel times, high operating costs, and corresponding low usage would be replaced with a more attractive system resulting in higher usage anu lower per rider costs. In addition, increased system accessibility and capacity levels could reduce the need for elements of the Stages II orIII of the rapid transit system, while increasing overall transit usage and reducing capital costs. The overall goal of these six objectives is to strengthen the role of the downtown area as the center of a rapidly growing metropolitan area and enable it to act as the hub of the region's economic and social activity, The developmental objectives of adopted regional planning programs and the enormous benefits to the metropolitan area of reenforcing the downtown area's influence have great long-term attributes as greater Miami and the entire Southeast Florida "Gold Coast" grow into one of the nation's largest urban concentrations. These local objectives offer many parallels to stated national goals by emphasizing the importance of downtowns. There is a desire to revitalize downtown, a recognition of the importance of transportation and transit modal efficiencies in serving downtowns, the need to link public and private in- vestments in cooperative methods, the regional impact of increasing transit usage into dense activity centers, and finally, the importance of making unique downtown facilities accessible to all segments of the region's populace. These are the local objectives of the project. 1 1 i t i i 1 1 1 1 PART III ttA1t NAL SrGNZF'ICANCE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT the proposed Downtown People Mover Project has national significance for a variety of reasons. The dimensions of the Project indicate that its national relevance falls into four major areas. These areas include the service pattern implications, the feasibility and transferability implications, the economic development and impact implications, and the implications of the institutional structures that exist to complete successfully the project as a national model. Service Patterns The proposed Downtown People :lover Project envisions a service pattern which provides for cross platform links with the first stage of the new start rail rapid transit system currently under final engineering in Metropolitan Dade County. Funding of the proposed People Mover Project would permit the design, construction, and operation of the rail rapid transit system in tandem with the People Mcver System. Thus, there is complete initial interface between the two systems. Current and future feeder bus systems providing service to the downtown area could be linked into the people mover stations in an integrated fashion to maximize modal efficiencies. This mode of operation would provide for maximum throughput of people and enhanced service quality throughout the central business district and adjacent activity centers. Finally, the legal authority of Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami to regulate taxicabs and the authority of Dade County to carry out the taxicab rate i0 making functions offers an opportunity for the project to focus on shaping para-transit services and for -hire vehicle and taxi services into an inte- grated transportation system within the central business district that emphasizes maximum utilization of each of the modes. Feasibility and Transferability The alternatives analysis, incremental analyses, and cost effectiveness evaluation methodology which have been employed to lead to the policy decisions on the proposed system offer a unique opportunity which has national significance. The feasibility of the proposed system both at a regional and downtown level has been established in the planning process and has demonstrated that the alternatives analysis and incremental analy- ses can be utilized to lead to effective local decision making. At the same time, this methodology can and should be utilized throughout the design, construction, testing, and operational stages of the Downtown People Mover System in order to obtain hard data on all cost effective- ness aspects of an automated people mover system. The trade-off implications of substituting the people mover for a :major part of the Stage III rapid transit system offer a unique national opportunity to test the consequences, both positive and negative. Thus, the evaluation base established in the planning and decision -making stages has transferability nationally to other projects of a similar nature as well as projects related more generally to public mass transportation. Economic and Development Impacts As is demonstrated in Part V of this project proposal, a number of major lkt MIME 1 1 1 i 1 1 private and public sector developments are underway in the Miami central business district. A large number of additional developments are currently on the horizon. The commitments to finance a portion of the non-federal share by the private sector through the creation of a special taxing district is in itself a development of major national significance which needs careful review, promotion, and evaluation. The recommendation by the private sector that a special taxing district be created is indicative of the recognition of the joint development opportunities and value capture possibilities which will evolve from the design, con- struction, and operation of the Downtown People Mover System. The spin- offs of this initial decision are of great potential in terms of both the positive economic impacts upon the downtown development patterns as well as the downtown circulation systems currently in existence and pro- jected to be in operation by 1985. The detailed data base available at the present time by the applicant provides an ideal framework within which to promote specific joint development projects, to insure value capture benefits, to evaluate the economic impacts of a people mover system, and to initiate alternative evaluations of system services. Each of the factors leads to the conclusion that major breakthroughs are distinctly possible in transit financing, as well as the development and redevelop- ment of central business district. Institutional Patterns The project proposal includes a set of institutional arrangements which perhaps are unique and have relevance to the emerging development of new institutional structures and arrangements in major metropolitan areas throughout the United States. Metropolitan Dade County is a regional 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 government created in 1957 which exercises general purpose governmental powers. It is responsible exclusively for all transportation functions within the urbanized area. As such it operates the surface bus system, is responsible for the design, development, and operation of the rapid transit system, carries out all regional transportation planning and implementation functions, and is responsible for the development and maintenance of the comprehensive development master plan for the urbanized area. The City of Miami has detailed land -use and development responsibilities for the central business district and is responsible for the control of zoning in the area. By use of a variety of policies and techniques outlined in Part V below, the City of Miami along with Metropolitan Dade County is in a position to insure coordinated development of the central business district around the proposed people over alignment and station locations. Major revisions to the City's zoning ordinance utilizes the downtown people :Hover as a stimulus to zoning incentive concepts and revised mandatory features. Included in this project proposal has been heavy involvement of private sector represented primarily by the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Development Authority. Both organizations have recommended private sector contributions in the amount of 2 percent to the non-federal share of the capital costs. In addition, the Florida Depart- ment of Transportation has commited to funding 10 percent of the total cost of the system or one-half the non-federal share. Of equal importance, the Florida Department of Transportation is commited to carrying out the design of a bridge structure across the Miami River with federal aid urban system IS funds as part of the overall design of that structure which is to be constructed within the next three to five years. The design contractor will have responsibility for designing an integrated bridge structure in the event the proposed project is approved. More importantly, Metropolitan Dade County and the Florida Department of Transportation have agreed to utilize federal aid urban system funds to finance the bridge structure, including the people mover guideway, from federal aid urban system funds as a single integrated unit. The institutional arrange- ments and patterns established are in themselves, of considerable national significance because they demonstrate that local, regional, and state governmental structures can work together with the private sector to devise funding plans and develop community commitment to decisions which involve the sharing of cost on an equitable basis and the development of potentials for insuring the successful implementation of the demonstration program upon its completion and the placement of the system into revenue service. In summary, the national relevance of the proposed project is that it most likely will be the only instance in the United States where the first cage of a rail rapid transit system can be designed in tandem with a downtown people mover system. Moreover, construction and operation of the two systems can be scheduled in a manner that is simultaneous. By way of testing feasibility and transferability implications, the proposed project has established the alternatives analysis and cost effectiveness evaluation bases for evaluating and assessing the trade-off benefits of the third stage of the proposed rapid transit system for an extension of the people mover system. The cost and benefit measures are sufficiently well defined to 1 1 1 1 1 14 pettit this evaluation on a continuing basis well in advance at the time hard decisions would have to be made about the cost of rapid vs. people mover construction and operation. Finally, the economic impact and development relevance revolves around the private sector and public sector commitments f.o insuring the system is a major part of the development. Moreover, the proportional sharing of cost opens up a unique opportunity to test and validate the opportunities for joint development and value capture within the setting of the central business district and in the context of a regional rapid transit system. • 1 1 1 1 1 1 w 1 1 1 1 1 COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT The purpose of this part is to demonstrate conclusively that the costs of installation of the system are commensurate with the benefits. The methodology selected for this analysis was cost -benefit comparisons. Benefits were converted to total, capital and operating, project costs over the period 1977 to 2020. The recommended system costs of $83,186,260 capital costs and $2,237,606 were used in the analysis. Costs and benefits were discounted to present value using discount rates of 4%, 7% and 10%. The results are presented in Figure 2. In addition to these benefits, non -quantifiable benefits are also described. In many respects the non -quantifiable benefits are of equal, if not greater significance, than the quantifiable benefits. Benefits of the Project The Downtown People Mover Project will have benefits which affect a wide range of public and private interests. Public benefits result from ease of travel in the downtown area, a reduction in vehicular congestion on downtown streets, a reduction in downtown parking costs as less spaces are built on high value land, an increase in tax revenue from increased property value in the CBD, and a strengthening of the area economy which can result from a more viable Central Business District. Benefits to the private sector result from increased accessibility to business estab- lishments, increased property values, reduced need to provide on -site parking, and incentives designed to stimulate development of private property in station areas. 16 the single most significant benefit of the project which may be quantified and directly related to project costs is travel time savings resulting from implementation of the DPM. These travel time savings have been developed by comparing two different transit 1985 networks in the study area. The first network consists of the 1985 recommended plan for a rapid transit system with six rapid transit stations at S.W. loth Street, Government Center, N.W. 8th Street, Miami Avenue, Miami -Dade College, and N.E. 9th Street. The second 1985 network consits of these stations with a superimposed people mover system in the recommended system configuration. This analysis has indicated a daily travel time savings of the second network over the first network of 6,733 daily hours. These time savings were converted to dollar value at the rate of $3.00 per hour. Ridership on the system was presumed to increase in accord with the general population growth of the region and 1985 operating costs for the system were presumed to grow at 60 percent of the ridership increase. Direct travel time savings was the only performance measure quantified precisely. However, these savings are by no means the only benefits of the project. In order to estimate the effects of other quantifiable benefits, conservative estimates of their magnitude were made and included in the analysis procedure. Parking cost savings to users were estimated to amount to at least $2,250 per day. Underlying these savings is the presumption that less parking would be constructed on high value land in accordance with the 1985 CBD plan and these spaces would shift to fringe parking. At least 3,000 spaces are so affected. Since the fringe parking is less expensive, auto users who no longer park in the core would save the difference in daily parking costs. MC- r 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 17 Persons who travel through or to downtown by bus will benefit by increased efficiency in bus routing made possible by the poeple mover. In addition, more direct bus routing by means of eleminating the need to circulate in the downtown area will also result in operating cost savings for MTA. Calculating only the estimated two minute savings for these bus patrons yields a daily savings of 1,167 hours. A reduction of 4,000 route miles saved daily and increased downtown operating speeds amounts to a daily bus operating cost savings of $4,400. Persons who continue to travel in and through the downtown are by automobile will experience shorter trip time, since less congestion would occur on the street system. Also commercial vehicles serving retail and other business establishments in the downtown area would benefit from reduced delays. An average time savings of 30 seconds for all vehicles passing across the CBD cordon line in 1985 amounts to a daily savings of over 5,400 hours. Based on the presumption that land values will be enhanced through develop- ment of the People 'IOver System, a unique private sector financing plan is proposed to bring a portion of this gain into the public sector. This value capture strategy will offset of the cost of the total system or about $1,660,000. This return is based on a sliding scale of property tax assessments based on station accessibility. Increase land values have thus been reflected in the benefit cost calculations by directly reducing the capital cost of the project by this amount of private sector financing. A final benefit which is calculable is the reduced rapid transit system cost which is possible when two rapid transit stations are deleted from the transit network. This change results in a slightly decreased direct travel time savings (6,700 compared to 6,733 hours per day). However, a i 1 1 1 18 het capital cost savings of $9,000,000 accrues to the rapid transit program. To properly assess the benefits resulting from this deletion, it would be necessary to add rapid transit costs and benefits to the People :•lover calculations and compute an overall change in cost -benefit ratio. Since such an analysis is beyond the scope of this study, the impact of this $9,000,000 savings was estimated by deleting the $9,000,000 from People Mover System capital costs. Figure 1 on the following page summarizes these project benefits. The results of the cost benefit analysis are presented in Figure 2. In summary, quantifiable benefits offset from 1`, to 256 0 of the project costs depending on benefits considered and discount rate used to calculate present value. Mid -range calculations show a cost -benefit ratio of 1.87 Since assumptions used in the calculations were generally conservative, it is concluded that the project may be considered justified on the basis of quantifiable benefits alone. Such quantifiable benefits, however, do not present a true picture of all benefits which result from the People Mover installation. Not included in the prior calculations are the following non -quantifiable benefits: Non -Quantifiable Benefits h.duction in Parking Construction on High Value Land - Although it is not envisioned that total parking needs would be greatly reduced by the DPM, there would be a positive shift of parking spaces from the core are on site spaces to fringe areas. Mandatory zoning requirements and incentives are proposed which would reduce or eliminate required parking ratios in the vicinity of DPM and rapid transit stations. FIGURE 1 BENEFITS OF THE DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT Travel Time Savings DPM Users Bus Users Auto Users TOTAL $11,955,300 $6,030,000 Annually 1,050,300 4,875,000 Parking Cost Savings $ 675,000 Bus Operating Cost Savings 1,320,000 Total Annual Savings $13,950,300 Other Capital Cost Savings Rapid Transit System Costs Private Sector Financing TOTAL $ 9,000,000 1,664,000 $10,664,000 MEP mow MU Ek NNW MEL MEW FIGURE 2 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT Present Value Present Value Benefit Discount of Total Costs of Benefits Cost Rate 1977-2020 1977-2020 Ratio 4;' 7% 10% $109,858,237 $ 89,158,572 $ 77,120,364 $280,799,U 3 $166,308,688 $108,688,237 2.56 1.87 1.41 21 Increased Economic Activity - This benefit would result from a combination 1 of reduced congestion, increased destination opportunities, reduced parking construction required, and other primary benefits. As dollars are released from the need to pay for these travel costs, they can be channeled to other sectors of the economy. Environmental Considerations - Several forms of environmental benefits are directly attributable to this project. They take the following pattern: (1) Dislocation savings would be possible as a result of segment rerouting to the proposed Stage II of the rapid transit system. The maximum Stage II rapid transit disruption costs are estimated at $10.5 million in right-of-way, $1.8 million in relocation savings, and a potential annual tax loss from these properties of $.2 million. Rerouting of the rapid transit line coordinated with the proposed DPM system would reduce these costs by varying margins. (2) Increased accessibility within the downtown area would provide substantial benefits to several groups. Approximately 28% of all current transit users are over 60 years of age. This group plus a large population of disabled persons would derive great benefits from a level entry DPM system as opposed to pedestrian or surface transit mode options now available for movement within the downtown area. Although precise cost benefits are not calcuable, an Psti.mated 11,000 daily users from these socio- economic classes would utilize the DPM system, thus resulting in considerable benefits to these special groups. 22 Cultural and recreational facilities are among those areas directly Served by the DPM system. Two major parks located on Biscayne Bay, Bayfront and Bicentennial Park, the Convention Center, and the Downtown Government Center with its central regional public library and art museum will be linked by a single transit mode. Although the benefits of this linkage are difficult to quantify above direct travel time savings, the convenience to thousands of daily users is anticipated to be quite large. (4) Visual and athestic benefits of the system were instrumental in the decision making processes leading towards system development. The Biscayne Boulevard segment of the system and the Miami River crossing were calculated to offer unique visual opportunities for DPM patrons to experience urban and waterfront views including Biscayne Bay, the Port, and the large park areas along it. These attributes were felt to have benefits to regular and occasional users alike that would enhance the proposed DPM system over other options. (5) Noise created by the DPM system has not been estimated. However, a rubber -tired system propelled by electric traction motors will have very distinct advantages over surface buses, trucks, and automobiles which now are the only available vehicular transportation modes in the downtown area. (6) Air pollution in downtown will be reduced both by the electric propulsion system of the DPM and by the easing of congestion with its higher levels of fuel consumption. 1 1 1 1 23 In suttmary, the quantifiable benefits show clearly the project is justified. Those benefits not quantified further indicate the overall benefits of the system. PART V PROJECT PROPOSAL FEATURES The intent of this Part is to provide the detailed information and documen- tation necessary to demonstrate that Metropolitan Dade County has met the criteria and standards necessary to qualify the project proposal for UMTA consideration. There are a total of seven sections in this part which include: 1.0 Adequacy of Planning and Decision Making 2.0 Consistancy with Regional Transportation Planning 3.0 Community Support 4.0 Adequacy of Financial Resources 5.0 Financing Operatings and Maintenance Costs 6.0 Technological Resources to Implement and Operate the System 7.0 Project Compliance Each of the sections addresses specific requirements. It is noted initially that the detail base for planning and decision making for the project proposal is contained in Section 1.0, Adequacy of Planning, which includes a series of Milestone Reports from which the financing plan, community support, and other key elements have emerged during the past two months. 1.0 ADEQUACY OF PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING 1 1 1 1 t 25 The People Mover System for Downtown Miami represents a key element in the long range plans of both the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County for improving the urban area's most important activity center. Both land use and transportation plans for the downtown area have recommended people mover systems to accommodate the area's internal needs as well as to compliment the County's urban transit and highway networks. A series of downtown plans for the City of Miami prepared over the last ten years have also stressed the importance of improving internal circulation within the area and have included recommended automated guideway systems, pedestrian access improvements and various auto constraint concepts. The project planning included the activities and relationships that were necessary in order for the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County working in conjunction with the private sector to prepare a project proposal for a Downtown People Mover System as announced by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in April, 1976. The letter of interest expressing the desire of Dade County to work with the City of Miami and the private sector to prepare a proposal was signed by the County Manager on May 10, 1976, and transmitted to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration in accordance with the 26 ii%Sttuctions. Figure 1 on the following page shows the structure, the process, and the decision points necessary to submit the project proposal by June 30, 1976. 1.1 The Structure The structure for preparing the project proposal included three levels. The first level was that of the City of Miami Commission and the Dade County Board of County Commissioners which are the publicly elected policy making bodies for the City and County. These organizations individually and jointly made all of the final policy decisions related to the project proposal in terms of public sector policy. A second level of organization consisted of a policy committee and related subcommittees. The policy committee was composed primarily of representatives of private organizations and public agencies which were closely related to and directly involved in the development and improvement of the central business district of the City of Miami. Specifically, representatives of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Development Authority who function in policy capa- cities within those organizations composed the policy committee. The policy committee was responsible for providing specific guidance to the staff on various work papers and reports to ensure their accuracy and completeness. In addition, the policy committee worked with associates and members of the organizations they represented in order to obtain adequate private sector commitment to the proposed project. ad ad Jag 4of -410:;URi 'AO Adif Mr Jar ow Jar 11111111 ISM PLANNING CHART !OWleiI'OWN PEOP LE ?AOVEF SYSTEMS 0 ADE COUNTY - MIAMI, FLOE I DA . I':1RTICIPANT/ACTIVITIES 5/12 5/19 5/26 6/10 1, PU`3I_IC BODY RI?VIEUS AND DECISIONS City of Miami Metropolitan Dade County 2. POLICY CO?L'IITTEE REVIEWS :1!JD RI:COH; ENDATIONS • . 3. STAFF'I.CTIVITIES Phase I - Project Planning MS-1 --INS-2 I__iL';___j_5 MS-3 i MS-2 I. 11•IS-4 MS-1 1. System Concept and Criteria —1 MS-1 2. Alternate Route Analysis 3. Vehicle Technology 4. Liind Use, Development and RiLht-of-Way Policies 5. 'Alignment and Station • Locations . 6. Tic Systems Plans • TNS57-1 MS-6 rIS-5 tIS-6 PIS-5 MS-6 G/23 PuLir and Pro jcc'. S'.lbr^Ission Pio}cCC Prot . i. Phase .II - Project Proposal Accomplishment of Nationul GoaLs 2. Adequacy of Planning Process Consistency With Transportation Plan Project Finnnci_ne2, --"'" 5. Community Commitment and Support . Management Capacity 7. Grant Application (Sec. 3.) .1Ih °I'p l"'9'lllill 411 "PI'Ipillllp!Illi 11 MIONISW 28 A final role and responsibility of the policy committee was to keep all individuals in the organizations represented informed of progress, problems, and developments as they occurred. 1.2 The Staff The staff was composed of representatives of the City of Miami, Metropolitan Dade County, and the Florida Department of Transportation. The functions of the staff were to prepare the necessary documents for decision making purposes by the policy committee and the publicly elected officials as well as the elements of the project proposal itself. The staff functioned as a set of teams which were responsible for focusing on specific aspects of the project proposal in order that the entire set of documents for decision making was prepared on a timely basis. 1.3 The Products The products of this planning process which resulted in the project proposal for a Downtown People Mover System were intended to produce an orderly decision making process and project proposal process. The products included into two sets of documents. The first set includes a series of six milestone reports. These six reports focus on specific decision points that are key elements of the overall project proposal. The second set of documents includes a series of seven elements which in total amount to the project proposal itself. 29 The milestone reports coming out of the planning process were not intended to be a new Downtown People Mover Study. Rather, the milestone reports assemble all of the previous planning work and put them in the framework necessary for specific decision making. In some cases it was necessary to work from a variety of documents in order to assemble the milestone reports. For example, the alternatives analysis have been recommended Also, it included the document included the specific routes by various studies over the past five that years. transportation modeling, coding, and runs necessary to show ridership on the various people mover alternatives. Similarly, the land use, development, and right-of-way policies report was an integration of various development studies, reports, and other documents that have been considered in various studies in the past but never specifically adopted as a people mover system by the governing bodies of the City and County as policies to be im- plemented. The second set of products includes the specific documents anticipated by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for its review and decision making purposes. The announcements of the Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration anticipate that urbanized areas interested in submitting project proposals must be in a position to demonstrate in substantial detail that adequate work has been done on the planning end, that adequate management capacity exists, and that adequate commitments have been made by both the public and private sector. The 1 project proposal documents included are intended to meet this requirement. 1 1 1 1 1 30 1.4 The Decision Points All totaled, there were three major decision points in the process of preparing the project proposal. In addition, there were a number of second level decision points which were confirmed and adopted by the policy makers at the time they made the major decisions. The first set of decision points involves the work plan itself and the system concept and criteria characteristics which are critical to the definition of the people mover system, the evaluation of alternatives for the people mover system, and the manner in which land use and development policies can be implemented in order to ensure that the people mover system is successful in accomplishing its objectives. In short, Milestones 1 through 4 shown on Figure 1. A second set of decision points involved the specific alignment and station locations to be included as the best alternative. Finally, the third set of decisions included the project financing and specific operating cost commitments as well as commitments to the project pro- posal itself. The first set of decisions was completed at a joint public hearing held by the Board of County Commissioners and the City Commissioners of the City of Miami on May 19, 1976. The second set of decisions was made on June 4, 1976, and confirmed by Resolutions 31 Of the Board of County Commissioners and the Miami City Commission on June 15, 1976 and June 17, 1976 respectively. These Resolutions are attached to the end of Milestone 6 for the convenience of the reader. The final set of decisions occurred at the time of the public hearing and adoption of the project proposal on June 25, 1976, which also is attached along with a copy of the notice of public hearing. In summary, the project planning for the Downtown Miami People Mover System is a six part study. It encompasses a total evaluation of past plans, technical standards and an analysis of project alternatives. To a degree the Milestone Reports are repetitive, primarily because of the necessity to ensure dicision makers have the full perspective at the time decisions are made. Milestone 6 incorporates the major conclusions of the five earlier reports, their findings and recommendations, into a comprehensive overview of the planning and analysis effort and describes the recommended system as well as its physical, financial, urban development and staging aspects. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT MILESTONE REPORT NO. 1 SYSTEM CONCEPT AND CRITERIA mimmw TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Purpose and Scope Section 2: Downtown Miami .16 Section 3: Previous Studies ..41 Section 4: Evaluation Methodology 54 Section 5: Goals, Objectives and Quantifiable Standards Section 6: Corridor Evaluation 34 to PURPOSE AND SCOPE The downtown Miami area is the largest concentration of employment, retail government and special services found in the entire South Florida region. The .9 sq mile Central Business District is identified on Dade County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) as the only diversified regional activity center for the entire metropolitan area. When coupled with the adjacent activity centers, to the south along Brickell Avenue and to the north along Biscayne Boulevard, the magnitude of this concen- tration of resources is apparent. Many of the current problems in the area are the result of inadequate transportation links between these three centers. Rapid development in the activity centers to the north and south of the present CBD (downtown core), and the development of the Government Center complex on the western edge of the core area will aggravate this problem still further. Although the three centers contain 12 to 15% of all Dade County jobs according to 1973 estimates and 1985 projections, the two rapidly growing sub -centers plus the Government Center area are not well linked together except through existing street and shuttle bus systems that traverse the existing core area. The approximate one mile spacing between these activity centers, the barrier formed by the Miami River, and the Florida East Coast Railroad's connection to the Port of Miami serve as additional internal barriers. In recognition of this growing problem several studies have evaluated the downtown area's transportation and land use problems, within a regional planning context. Joint State, Dade County and City of Miami MWTE s 35 efforts have contributed towards these studies. The Downtown Miami - A Conceptual Transportation Plan; Downtown Miami 1973 - 1985 - An Urban Development and Zoning Plan; and Collection - Distribution System Analysis have all pointed out this internal movement problem. All three reports have proposed rapid transit/downtown people mover systems to achieve regional and sub -regional transportation objectives. The purpose of this report, a joint Metropolitan Dade County/City of Miami endeavor, is to examine the various transportation concepts proposed for the downtown area, review them, and finally establish a framework for evaluation, testing, and critical comparison. As a result, a "best" alternative would be brought forth for implementation to solve the transportation problems and long-range development needs of the area. The objectives of the previous downtown area studies, the refinement of the 1985 transportation plan; and the possibility of better integration/interface of rapid rail and downtown people mover concepts establishes the thrust of this effort. MIN i. DOWNTOWN MIAMI 36 Downtown Miami is changing rapidly. Over one million square feet of new office space has recently been completed. Brickell Avenue, south of the core area is emerging as a strong commercial and residential concentration; and OMNI, a major retail development, is now underway in the Midtown Core. In addition to commercial development, Central Miami is growing as an institutional center with the Miaml-Dade Community College, the YWCA Building, the planned Government Center and recently proposed convention facilities. If downtown continues to grow at the current pace, employment in 1985 could double that of 1970. Over five million square feet of new office space and as many as 7000 new dwelling units are forecast for downtown by 1985. Public projects, such as the Miami River Walk have been partially completed and a committment has been made to construct the first stage of a rapid transit system. These actions provide a potential for downtown Miami to become an attractive and vital city center; a center providing broad opportunities for work, living and leisure for all the citizens of the region. However, for this potential to become a reality, public projects must be designed to stimulate private development, and, in turn, private development must contribute to a better downtown environment. This private contribution includes new developments interfacing with street capacity, parking locations and rapid transit stations, as well as an improved pedestrian environment. Downtown Miami is composed of many activity nodes but seven major functional areas are of prime importance. These areas are: the Government Center, the Retail Core along Flagler Street, the Office 37 Core (including DuPont Plaza), Brickell Avenue, the Community College, Hotel Row extending north on Biscayne Boulevard from Flagler Street, and the Midtown Retail Core. Long range development potentials in the Miami region are strong, and Downtown can attract a substantial share of that growth. The cumulative effects of public and private investments now underway and planned will make Downtown more attractive and accessible than ever before. Bayfront Park improvements and expansion, and the Miami River Walk will dramatically increase the attractiveness of the water edge of the Downtown, stimulating and enhancing private development. The Government Center, developed in conjunction with a linear park along the FEC Railroad, will balance new private development occurring along Biscayne Boulevard. #24- mr mE Mr- MAJOR FUNCTIONAL AREAS Sa 1. Downtown Office Core The general location of the Downtown Office Core is along Flagler and S.E. First Streets, with heaviest concentrations of office employment east of Miami Avenue to Biscayne Boulevard. Activity patterns within the Office Core are weighted toward banking, savings and loan institutions, and other financial activity. The ground floor areas, however, are generally active and occupied by retail, service establishments and/or banking chambers. The DuPont Plaza area anchors the southeast corner of the Downtown Office Area. Potential development provides linkages with the Brickell Avenue area (immediately across the Miami River and to the south) stimulating development on currently underutilized parcels along the River; already in this area a measure of development has taken place with the construction of the new YWCA building, the Miami River Walk and the new Hc.,ard Johnson's multi -story hotel. The City of Miami's recent commitment to a convention facility along the riverfront adds a very realistic activity center that will enhance the goals and objectives of the central city environment. 2. Downtown Retail Core The Downtown Retail Core is one of a number of significant retail concentrations in the region. Flagler Street has traditionally served as a retail center for the central area of Miami. Several major department stores are located along Flagler Street and Miami Avenue. Other retail and service establishments are 11.1•11N111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111I 1111 39 located along the adjacent streets intersecting or parallel to Flagler Street. This Downtown Retail Core serves both local residents and the increasing number of tourists visiting Miami every year. 3, The Midtown Retail Core In the Midtown Retail Core a new intense regional development also provides significant retail activity and office employment to Miami's central district. This development is found on Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue. It includes several major department stores, a new hotel/office development, a major public school facility and administrative center, assorted retail stores, and the headquarters of Miami's two major news- papers. Nearby there is a concentration of light manufacturing, wholesaling and warehousing activity in close proximity to the new Port of Miami. These two activity centers are linked by a service railroad spur which extends to other major industrial areas such as the Garment District, and wholesaling areas in the fringes of downtown Miami. 4. Hotel Row Although Hotel Row, along Biscayne Boulevard fronting the Bayfront and Bicentennial Parks, consits of larger and older hotels, these establishments provide a significant service of accommodating visiting businessmen and tourists from abroad, mainly Central and South America. 11 5: Community College The Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue area although containing the initial development of Miami, also contains newer developments such as the Miami -Dade Community College, the proposed new -town - in -town, and a major intercity bus station. 6. The Government Center The Downtown Government Center is emerging as a major functional area by virtue of the recent completion of the City of Miami new Police Headquarters and the commitment by the State of Florida to build there a Regional Service Center. Additional elements of the Government Center such as proposed major facilities by Dade County and the Federal Government are well into the planning stages signifying that this area will provide a major activity node and redevelopment opportunity. This area is linked to the proposed rapid transit system by bus and rail station. 7. Brickell Avenue The Brickell Avenue area has developed within recent years as a major office and residential activity center. Many private corporations have established their modern administrative centers in this area, and hotel/motel activity has continued to develop. A rapid transit station will service this high employment area in future years. 1 1 41 III. PREVIOUS STUDIES Since 1973, three major studies concerned with transportation in downtown Miami have postulated people mover systems to ease downtown circulation problems. In each case the Downtown People Mover (DPM) has been directly linked to Proposed Regional Rapid Transit Facilities and intended to function as a feeder/distributor to that system. These studies are: 1. Kaiser Engineers and Wilbur Smith and Associates, Collection -Distribution System Analysis - Special Task 1, (Dade County Transit Improvement Program, July 1975) 2. Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd, Downtown Miami 1973-1985 - An Urban Development and Zoning Plan, (The City of Miami, Florida, November 1973) 3. Beiswenger, Hoch and Associates. Inc., Downtown Miami - A Conceptual Transportation Plan, (The State of Florida Department of Transportation, September 1973) A total of six possible DPM routing schemes were identified in these reports. Major functional areas served included the Government Center, The Retail Core along Flagler Street, The Office Core including DuPont Plaza/Brickell Avenue, the Community College, Hotel Row extending north from Flagler Street, and the Midtown Retail Core. In addition. downtown residential areas were identified and linked into the system as appropriate to their size and location. In the following pages these six alternatives are described in further detail. 1 1 1 1 1 Source: Kaiser Engineers Study, Reference #1 System Concept: A one direction loop and a two direction shuttle are combined to provide service to activity areas along Brickell Avenue in the core area and extending north to midtown. The single track guideway in the core area is intended to minimize visual impact and space requirements. Operational Concepts: Patrons desiring to travel from one line to destinations on the other line would be required to utilize one of the two transfer stations. A short one-way loop is required so that travel times in opposite directions do not become unreasonably long. The direction of travel on the loop could change to correspond to the peak direction of flow. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - 1.4 mi. Double track guideway length - 2.9 mi. Functional areas served - 6 Vehicle units required for two min. headway - 15 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 58 plus spares Number of Junctions - None Number of intra-mode transfer stations - 2 Number of water crossings - 2 DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER 43 0 1000 FEET CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 2000 • Ell - 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 Source: Kaiser Engineers Study, Reference #1 System Concept: The one direction loop of Alternative 1 is retained, but Biscayne Blvd., rather than East 2nd Avenue, is the alignment for the north -south line. The same general activity areas are served with the exception that the north - south line is not adjacent to the proposed Convention Center. The additional width of Biscayne B1•.d. is more readily adaptable to the two track structure. Operational Concepts: The two transfer stations of Alternative =F1 are replaced by a single transfer at Flagler Street and Biscayne Blvd. This requires some trans- fering patrons to travel more than halfway around the loop. The two lines are designed to be operated as entirely independent services. The Bayfront Park area is afforded high accessibility. 44 Characteristics: Single track guideway length - 1.4 mi. Double track guideway length - 2.8 mi. Functional areas served - 6 Vehicle units required for two minute headway - 15 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 55 plus spares Number of Junctions - None Number of intra-mode transfer stations - 1 Number of water crossings = 2 N.W. 7 Av.. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER IIII OF alat FARK 1 mazgasamaszl I. 45 0 1000 2000 FEET CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND : ALTERNATIVE 2 IMININE 46 AL "E'RNATIVE 3 Source t Kaiser Engineer's Study, Reference #1 System Concept: The utilization of existing F.E.C. right-of-way is maximized through use of the east -west section north of N. W. First Street. Transfers would be required to move from points along the north line to points along the south line. All major activity centers in downtown are served. The single track loop in the core area is retained. Operational Concepts: Three basic lines are provided, a loop, a north line, and a south line. The south end of the north line and the north end of the south line coincide with the loop. Because of headway restrictions around the loop, minimum headways cn the north or south line would be one minute for a system with 30-second capability on the loop and four minutes for a system with two - minute capability on the loop. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - 1.4 mi. Double track guideway length - 2.9 mi. Functional areas served - 6 Vehicle units required for two minute headway - 18 plus spares* Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 46 plus spares** Number of junctions - 2 Number of intra-mode transfer stations - 2 Number of water crossings - * 1 min. headway on loop. ** 30 sec. headway presumed on loop only, 1 min. outside loop MEM 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 w. N.W. 20 St. N.W. 5 St. S.W. 8 St. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER COljm 01.1. n .4161i lM 111 5 1111 "" !! Qr �IPARK ,431 =WiMEZZES I) 5 Petim atigi L 47 0 1000 2000 FEET 4U 4 CO CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 3 IIMEMEINe EIMMENW 48 ALi'tRNAtivt 4 Source: Beiswenger, Hoch Study, Reference #3 System Concept: A two way loop serves only the core area. Particular attention is paid to connecting the Government Center, the proposed Convention Center, DuPont Plaza and the Community College. The primary function of the DPN in this instance is collection/distribution of trips to and from the rail rapid transit line. Operational Concepts: The two way loop allows for return trips to be made along the same route as the original trip. In the event of a breakdown on one direction of the loop, the system could remain in operation as a single track loop until repairs are made. Extensions could be accomplished either through the addition of junctions or with separate lines and intramodal transfer facilities. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - none Double track guideway length - 1.6 mi. Functional areas served - 4 Vehicle units required for two min. headway - 6 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30 sec. headway - 25 plus spares Number of junctions - none Number of intramode transfer stations - none Number of water crossings - none DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER N.W. 20 St iinamcla.,‘„-%26.,:kzar,„11, w. N.W. 5 St � yr ti 4 Iz p ov, 01°` ro.011I III SC El IN fed! Qe-s cc® 0 49 1000 2000 FEET WATSON ISLAND CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 4 56 AttRNATVE 5 $dunce: Beiswenger, Hoch Study, Reference #3 System Concept: A smaller two-way loop than that proposed for Alternative 4 is provided. The Community College is two blocks from the nearest station, but improved access is provided to the Flagler Street commercial area. The Government Center, DuPont Plaza area and proposed Convention Center received direct service. Operational Concepts: As in Alternative 4, the loop provides service in two directions. One less station than Alternative 4, coupled with a slightly shorter total route length, allows for the system requiring fewest vehicles of any considered. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - none Double track guideway length - 1.3 mi. Functional areas served - Vehicle units required for a two minute headway - 6 plus spares Vehicle units required for a 30-second headway - 21 plus spares Number of junctions - none Number of intra-mode transfer stations - none Number of water crossings - none 1 1 N.W. 20 St. �..�mil.....111k11. 1 w 1 • Q • W. N.W. 5 St. FLAGLER St. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER x• WAY 0 1 a+ 0 1000 FEET CLAUGHTON ISLAND., 51 2000 LEGEND: ALTERNATIVE 5 Source: Wallace, McHarg, Roberts & Todd Study, Reference #2 System Concept: Two separate two way lines are located in such a fashion as to provide full service to major offstreet parking areas as well as the rail rapid transit system. It is presumed that the commercial core along Flagler Street would be serviced by systems other than DPM. Service to DuPont Plaza is emphasized by the location of a transfer station in that area. Operational Concepts: Both lines are located with water crossings which entail potential service interruptions when lift bridges must be opened. Two intra-modal transfer points and two way operation on both lines provide a maximum number of routing possibilities to reach a given destination. Characteristics: Single track guideway length - none Double track guideway length - 4.3 mi. Functional areas served - 4 Vehicle units required for two minute headway - 18 plus spares Vehicle units required for 30-second headway - 69 plus spares Number of junctions - none Number of intra-mode transfer stations - two Number of water crossings - two fits 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 2000 c, DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER 0 1000 FEET CLAUGHTON ISLAND LEGEND= ALTERNATIVE 6 54 IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The work done in previous land use and transportation studies, both for the region and the downtown Miami area, provides the basis for developing the Downtown People Mover (DPM) System. This Milestone #1, "System Concepts and Criteria", coupled with other reports will develop the framework for the planned system. The other reports cover detailed approaches to the following: Milestone 02: Milestone 03: Milestone ;#4: Milestone ;# 5: Milestone #6: Alternative Routes Analysis Vehicle Technology Land Use, Development and Right -of -Way Policies Route Alignment and Station Location Final System Plan. Using the iterative process shown on the following page, this planning and development program will be able to assess the impact of various alternatives against the stated goals and objectives included in this report. The Joint Review of the work performed by County, City, Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce officials will guide the efforts undertaken by professional staff. In order to develop an overall base from which alternative concepts can be judged, the goals and objectives of the system have been defined. This process brought the three studies regarding downtown circulation into a common framework. In the next section of this report, these goal and objective statements are refined into criteria and quantita- tive standards. V. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND QUANTIFIABLE STANDARDS The planning policies of Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami have placed astrong emphasis on the need to recognize the downtown Miami area as the major metropolitan activity center. The existing Central Business District and adjacent activity centers presently act in this capacity and long range planning objectives propose to continue this relationship. The goal of this entire effort is to "improve the viability of the Downtown Miami area through better transportation systems." The regional scale land use and transportation plans (i.e. the Comprehensive Development Master Plan and the Miami Urban Area Transportation Study) have defined the role of the down- town area. The City of Miami's Downtown Urban Development and Zoning Plan and Neighborhood Development Plans have established the area's land use and policy planning framework. As described in the preceding section the various proposed internal downtown transportation systems differ from each other in varying degrees trying to accomplish the same objectives. Therefore this section of the report attempts to clarify those objectives and describe criteria and quantifiable standards by which different concepts can be evaluated. The following pages shm.7 t:,e progression from the overall goal of the program, stated above. The two basic objectives are amplified by several specific sub-objectives/criteria against which the alternative concepts can be evaluated. These sub-objectives/criteria are defined by specific quantifiable standards wherever possible to minimize subjective evaluation and to produce specific information regarding the effect of proposed alternative. Nevertheless, normative standards are used whenever specific quantifiable data are not relevant .� .i . 4 . a/ AO 4 s s : ! ! 10 4 4 4 COALS, OBJECTIVES AND EVALUJATIVE CRITERIA GOAL: Improve the viability of the downtown Miami area through better transportation systems. OBJECTIVE: To foster land use patterns consistant with long-range plans. CRITERIA - A: Be supportive of desired land use patterns. MEASURES: STANDARDS a - Provide efficient connections between 1 - Travel time between major O/D points. major activity centers. b - Link majority activity centers. c - Provide access to areas of greatest joint use and value capture potential. 1 - Number of existing activity centers linked. 2 - Number of future activity centers linked. 3 - Number of jobs, commercial floor space, hotel rooms and public facilities with access to system (500'). 1 - Number of large scale future develop- ments with access to system (500'). 2 - Number of "opportunity areas" linked. CRITERIA - B: Reduce inefficient land use patterns caused MEASURES: by present facilities. STANDARDS a - Reduce use of valuable land for on -site parking. b - Provide parking on fringe of downtown area. 1 - Number of acres of high value land now used for parking with access to system (500'). 1 - Number of acres of 1985 parking out- side CBD core with access to system (500'). i a 9 4 4 CRITERIA - B: c - Reduce land needed for transportation facilities. CRITERIA C: Stimulate public and private development opportunities within the downtown area. STANDARDS a - Provide access to major areas private investment. .4 _1r 4 1 - Amount of land taken for system. 2 - Reduction in area used for parking within CBD core. 3 - Reduction in area used for rapid transit facilities. 4 - Potential for joint use of system with other proposed transportation facilities (incl. pedestrian areas). MEASURES: of 1 - Number of acres of high value land accessible to system (500"). 2 - Number of "opportunity areas accessible to system (500'). 3 - Major retail areas accessible (500'). b - Encourage new high intensity urban development. system to 1 - Public facilities accessible to system (500'). 2 - Number of acres eligible for zoning incentives made accessible (500'). 3 - Number of parking spaces not needed on site in areas of high value land due to system accessibility (500'). OBJECTIVE: Improve transportation effectiveness within the downtown area. CRITERIA - A: Utilizes technology appropriate with long-range MEASURES: planning objectives. STANDARDS a - Has 30 second - 2 minute avg. headway 1 - Compliance with performance capability. specifications. b - Is fully automated. 1 - Compliance with performance specifications. , r I11.1111111 4 4 4 Ji JO' c - Compatible with near term operational needs (3 - 5 yrs). d - Capable of satisfying 1985 operational needs. CRITERIA - B: Improves existing levels of transportation service. STANDARDS a - Accessible to existing activity centers. b - Increases transit useage over present levels. c - Could be integrated with existing transportation services. CRITERIA - C: Provides cost-effective alternative for long-range transportation needs. STANDARDS a - Cost effectiveness in comparison with 1985 transit plan. b - Maximize passenger/operating cost ratio. CRITERIA - D: Minimize duplication of transit services. STANDARDS a - Minimize demand for heavy rail ridership within area. b - Maximize transfer ridership to system. 1 - Normative standard: 1 - Normative standard: MEASURES: 1 - Number of present activity centers accessible (500'). 1 - Daily future ridership projections vs. present ridership levels. 1 - Normative standard. MEASURES: 1 - Annual operating cost_ 2 - Annualized total cost. 1 - Annual operating cost. 2 - Annualized total cost. 3 - Ridership forecast. MEASURES: 1 - Ridership forecast. 1 - Ridership forecast. a a 1 +t ,1 4 a a - as CRITERIA - E: Improve accessibility within downtown area. MEASURES: STANDARDS a - Be accessible to major residential and 1 - Numbers of residential units hotel areas. accessible (500'). b - Connect major pedestrian concentrations. 1 - Normative standard. c - Promote use by elderly and handicapped. 1 - Normative standard. d - Maximize access to remote parking areas. 1 - Acres of remote parking accessible (500'). e - Maximize auto/transit transfers. 1 - Ridership forecast. f - Interface with major transit transfer 1 - Ridership forecast. points. CRITERIA - F: Provide support to overall TSM activities. MEASURES: STANDARDS a - Allow reduction in 1985 parking needs. 1 - Acres of remote parking accessible (500'). 2 - Ridership forecast. 3 - Number of parking spaces in high land value areas. r1,21.1111= �III1��...11111111 LIIII 60 VI. GbRRTOR EVALUATION the six alternative schemes postulated in the three previous studies have been consolidated into corridor segments (approximately 500' wide). These corridor segments will be evaluated in light of the established purpose of this study. The corridor segments are grouped for purposes of comparison into four categories. These categories include east/west segments, north/south segments, north extensions and south extensions. The results of these comparisons are illustrated on the summary evaluation matrix. Alternative 1 Corridor Segments: A, E, F, G, H, I, L, M 11 n 11 11 2 3 4 5 6 9' n '9 11 A, E, F, G, H, I, L, M A, C, D, F, G, H, I, L, M F, G, H, I F, G, H, I A, C, B, J, H, K, M Although many of these corridors are identical, they represent proposed alignments on adjacent streets within 500' of each other, or possible one-way/vs. two-way vehicle movements within identical corridors. The purpose of this corridor/segment description is to allow system evaluation to compare various segments of the different alternatives based upon corridor impacts in an attempt to evaluate overall system impacts before a final system concept is developed. The evaluation matrix on the next page outlines the format whereby the corridor segments of the various proposals can be evaluated against a common set of quantifiable standards. ..,Iii.111M111)1111)111f1elmr111111111111111111111 11111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111 11 Corridor E-W 1 DG EH So.E4t. L No. Lxt. A Systculs 1 2 3 5 6 AI 4 4 4 Al 4 we we we Ae ▪ me 4ale M I M • IM • fl 4C 4; • ; ••• U ••C f V • ▪ a If &J ".3 0 • 1 3 2 • 3 O 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 4 14 1!. 13 8 30 ,11 r 77777r .1,77imi 9 9 10 1(1 11 r: f : •J . . I 0) .),440 2,050 2,') 11) 6,220 6,220 4,600 6,220 9,7/0 8,e3O 22,110 5,550 13,4u0 65,041 56,858 54,1/1 32,135 31,1.50 40,410 CORRIDOR SEGMENT EVALUATION MATRIX DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM 11 I : A 2,I4n 380 350 550 550 1,000 550 1,360 1,040 1,550 300 2,980 9,010 8,666 7,050 3,550 4,770 f,1 1r 1111" - r.0) 120 1,040 9)) 1,800 90 3,240 690 700 2(h) 1,410 5,903 4,•546 3,403 4,175 3,210 3,420 :.urcber c.i 2 0 6 6 5 4 4 6 11 Ci/ f"r1! 0- 0 0 n 0 2 8 8 2 2 7 4) 0 0 4 5 &r. c r. 4,1 73- 1 101 101 1,362 101 1,362 6,373 8,964 731 2,867 2,950 :a 9,510 /96 47,280 10,244 796 41,819 9,101 796 45,122 4,895 4,904 17,485 6,452 2,781 17,075 5,169 3,70(1 42,994 6k1,: "MI1111 rii' , a..1 a, (I C C J 44 11 C 144 C W co 4 110 250 110 110 285 110 1,200 2,170 3,800 890 1,770 4,760 4,346 2,925 1,195 695 2,415 ra 1040 n 4.) c: " • 4. 0 'CI 0 W C 'U 0 ▪ (T, u c • •••• a.1 0 0 • , a 43 4- ^ • • 11 • •^I • O .7f: ci t-4 . .5 .5 .tt .5 .4 .6 A 5 .9 2.7 92.5 1.45/t.io 2.5 88.4 1.4S/2.90 2.6 90.0 1.4S/ s io 1.1 43.7 1.60 .9 39.4 1.)). 3.1 98.6 4.411 8 In 10 10 16 10 16 295 324 )49 161 337 48 06 57 4.04 O 14 (4(4 O m O r-• -; C a ;4 :14,-. :C = • C ' r: •-• •-• - - / 43 2,nn/ 419 419 10 .,62 In 419 21) 3, 3 7)7 8,9t14 1. I , IS1 4 - 9,404 IT) - - 19,814 •3)3 11,517 25) 11,552 11.) 11,553 111/ 7,840 : ha 12,230 • 10M A as DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT MILESTONE REPORT NO. 2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS T. Introduction it. Alternative Downtown People Mover System Routes III. Alternative Analysis Methodology IV. Evaluation of Atlernatives V. Recommendations Page ....64 65 78 86 114 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 64 INTRODUCTION The emphasis of this chapter is to document the methods and assumptions used to examine and evaluate various alternative "Downtown People Mover" system routes. As defined in the work plan prepared by the County and City, the scope of this chapter is as follows: 1. Review all studies conducted over the last five years for Downtown Miami which recommended various people -mover alternatives and assemble all feasible recommendations such that a detailed alternatives analysis could be conducted. 2. Develop alternative routing patterns in conjunction with alternative Downtown Rapid Transit Station spacing assumptions and associated 1975 and 1985 data bases for use in performing a micro -analysis of the alternative routes via computerized simulation. 3. Prepare travel demand forecasts based on 1985 land use assumptions, socio-economic profiles and operational trans- portation system concepts. Estimate system patronage and loading patterns for each alternative route for 1985. 4. Prepare "order -of -magnitude" estimates of capital and operating costs for each of the alternative routes being analyzed. 5. Evaluate such alternative route using the ridership, land use and cost criteria previously identified, and select corridor - level routing patterns that could be recommended for a detailed alignment analysis in Milestone V and subsequently marginal analysis M▪ ENEM M▪ ENEM MOMMENK its ALTERNATIVE DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM ROUTES A+ Previous Studies The six alternative people mover system routes analyzed were derived from three previous studies focused specifically on downtown Miami's land use and transportation since 1970. No new alternative fixed guideway routes are analyzed. The three studies and six route alternatives are: 1) "Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transporta- tion Plan", two routes; 2) "Downtown Miami 1973-1985", one route; and 3) "Collection -Distribution System Analysis", Dade County Transit Improvement Program, three routes. The routing patterns of the six alternatives identified as potential collector -distributor, grade -separated, fixed -guideway downtown people movers are described in the following sections. B. Route Descriptions Alternative 1 Alternative 1, shown in Figure II-1 consists of a one-way loop serving the high -demand activities within the downtown core area, and a north -south shuttle service via N.E. 2nd Avenue between the Brickell AvenueiClaughton Island developments and the Omni Development in the midtown retail area (in the vicinity of Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 17th Street). A transfer is required between the north -south line and the core loop. The single guideway, one-way loop alignment identified to serve the downtown core (the area from Biscayne Bay to Interstate Route 95 and between the Miami River and N.E. 4th Street) starts at the Government Center rapid transit station. From V 1 1 1 1 • • ,-.%.,N.‘lrorrioximi rouratt • lerri Ter..2.r.IF ! ; 1 i :. 17.1.: -. i_t •Tr 1 7 i i f 1 1 111 i 1 Id II I. I1 1 _ __.' I I . 1 . ; , '''.. • \ . • . - • 4 • • • '• '.?‘ . , I • : t ....•• • ' •.: ' A ‘ , ' [ - •-- - ••• _ : . I , •e , I I: i /T-. --,-•••=' ' '1 ' ' . I ''' ' .J.-. . ] 2,- r< • '-'...'''"-Z.z.L____:. '- - .-. ,• , ; • , , , . , . --,..:_. - -..„..• :' ..------- - • " " I I I . ' --,... III '''..! "I i: i :i i I! : :: ; ' j''.... ',-...**-7. - P-'--- • .. '''' - 11 ' t• ' ;.: : ',I -1 :, : - - 1 1! 1 ..1 1 ii : 11 i :: 1 ! i -, ..,.,' c il ,,, -1-,1,- • .--,..--,,:,, -- 11 ,,-, i! -i li ,i •,' I i:• :. I. i'i -.• i . .,.• : 11 I I\ ' II GP [iltir -... • rt H11 i: I !: 1 , I. , rr, ' Hi., :::11),,t ivic ".- - .-- 11. i il ' 1. il -I. i[ . 1 Li i 1 k H.,11.0 1 j„ .• si,,,o . ........ - . % ii (0nRincil 2.T. 410 I 1 ' • • • 1 • a aJ -Z .,... .......-- „i ii.ii 1Ill 1 11 7;"7.--'7 .7 -7,17."....17 1-' 1-111 •T" — — - -1-1j1..-'!",..110 t 1 ,,,, ,..,., 1-- •-- ; .-.ri lki , i •i_, ! j ri:U,EI R.ll! IL "I. l ii.i.. -1 ,,L..11i,ii ",•:i:i, 1••'i :_• : I 1;_i, "/.i's,!1•:!'/;'. ,T•::'., ::1;I. i!!r;:I!•!.-!S.,!•1:.'.,-1.!.'.i;t::,':..:.1,.4-111•:-T;1 1 I-1 I 1 -/`/;ii:11 "1 I LI !L L s 1,; Ii 1 IiI1 I2iIii 1Ui::Tz;i'_:!•:T1.I!• -'):',:I;1;!, '1Y,,!•, I, ! ii•i ,1•. 1 1171;-• 1.i 77,:., .:;::"-,/,r,r* T ' i• .."- i7S-•77;!;1"111 ii•I;fl••T'sli ill!! .,i r . ;';'. q..'tlisj'Iti,•T',"is:1111111 IIIIIIIII':I II Id iiii:,:,!iy 1,, ! ,, ii P., ,.ii,i', iiiiH'iih...'viti:-i.l.P,... 7:'T T.il! /..i/•••••••••Ma M..= 74:77:7,6•1,10, ••••••• ........1 ......!: 7: I...., . , J.', Ii• •,Iill ... .__:, • - ,./PP -' • ..;' ' . • ' . , - . .. •••• . ''' --• ' ' .. .14_,,::.1...t.,„2.1._iii,......t..r,:t:_rwartr •. •Itt.:.u.i.t. i :,.., • iiIII:011111-111.11,111.11 11 ii, VI-1 I 11t.! . : I. lit IT 1!1. 1• . • 1111• 11;1, 1i't .1/.'./1?:ljji'I1L!T'7,.4H..1,.P I. ,:lIi41I111I12:I-1;14:117,J1..'f411 i1'14',111i;''. •''..... I, 1. 11Ii, . I1-: :1, '1( 11Ii 1l C Ii TVri I nALF7INA11; I11 . I _11•,' ' 1t1,,1Vi/;H...i71Ii1I:,.,,. •.:,.,:.-;,,:L:.,.„.:. ..•i,..,:',...c!1,.;..,,.:.1,-..•L<.1.r:-t,1 LI 1iI I1 i /:1 75rviriTi1 7W1,„.1.1 09LLE9EJ ;,.:. ncci 1 I ' 4141,014 , • 1 I 1 ..`..1A " .... •' . '' : 1 i I LI 1-1 ; 11 4' • • • "' \ : .' [ ' • i • 1 „ i \ nooi 4 .1116.01'11r1 I CI 1.114,1 C.:I Mt-NTI-t I I 416„AL ,• • • II I • \ \ , - Sa. , , ... ..... ... 4..0 • . • • 71710!!--•:_77,;..1.;: H; Iii'lr::.` , ,,,;,1 \ ii I 1 4.1 4. , • . .. ., ;', ;''''; li ': I'lii'''', •, riill"lq .:1:1;•;.1, li ; j 111-1 ) I [1, Ili ,,, • . ..1.--.1...1,' ....„. ..... ,f , )4tTtot p I.; „ 4 • 11 I T• PLAZA vt Dt ETA ; • E3I ; H 0 LW' CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT :1 • 11.1 A-xGuRe.- 22-i RAYFRONT ;' -- - ' PARK : - - 7 T1 ) • iti 1 , i , /11 ''',... ' I. 1 _,/ 2DPA1 A creAwArsve ' Id 1.10 roil' is ono RI -CENTENNIAL PARK It 1 Y7: 1 1 . • . ;'. I Ij • I , • 10 IWO DOWNTOWN MIAMI , •••. , • I 61 there it runs south paralleling the south corridor rapid transit line to S.W. 1st Street. It then turns east and proceeds along S.W. lst Street to Biscayne Boulevard where it follows the median of Biscayne Boulevard to V.E. 2nd Street. At this point the system proceeds west along N.E. 2nd Street to the north corridor rapid transit line. The loop is closed to the south, at the Government Center rapid transit station. Seven stations would be provided on the loop at the Government Center rapid transit station, and in the vicinities of S.W. 1st Street and South Miami Avenue, S.E. 1st Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue, Biscayne Boulevard and S.E. lst Street, Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. lst, N.E. 2nd Avenue and N.E. 2nd Street, and North Miami Avenue at N.E. 2nd Street. The direction of travel on the loop would be changed to correspond to the peak direction of flow. The north -south line of this alternate provides two-way directional service which originates in the Brickell Avenue area at the S.W. loth Street rapid transit system. The line parallels the rapid transit system from S.W. loth Street to S.W. 13th Street, then turns east along S.W. 13th Street to Brickell Avenue. At Brickell Avenue the line would turn north in the median of Brickell Avenue from S.E. 13th Street to S.E. 8th Street and in private right-of-way on the north side of S.E. 8th Street from Brickell Avenue to a new transit bridge over to Claughton Island. On Claughton Island the alignment • 1 • o • to -t.''1721M1-711:r. r1D1,1 ;, , 1 1, ! ; : f ! • '' ! !! I I , I ! !:IIII. ! • __ - • ' ' '' .... . . . . - . f. I: 7i 7f ..._ •-•-•-, .-.]..-,;: - :'ss---..,:..,..._i__L... 1 I t 1 , . „ , . . , ."---.... :: Sm l•1 .:..,, 41,' a... i, tia 1 j.,-11111,.1,1.,:j-c-, II is ? i -1171,,I IT RGpv li i '1.1', ', l'...1.,; I 'I 11 1 [ !! [ , [•,;, 1-1; 1,,11,[..i.• li li i 1c&,;,,,. tit tiNt lc ‘ , . ! 1 i ,.. . ri I_ : jr-litRilv' 11 Zi'll.'1 II illfilliii:li 71E. : '11Ceilill'L46111; 1:11: I i r. •• • e / ! „ ! ; -f• - ; 1 '" ••,• '! -: Al' ! ..• I ' I/ I i 6 i• ! I u • • I 0 if• • - %;1! 1 +EP "PP OL- 481.11. 4.48111Va gstir CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT I I, !! J1 ,...-Ti 1 ':1.-, ,i;f r1"1 „. F • H: "I .i. 1 .,--- ,„„, ,'I ; 11.• ', ' 'I,, • .,,I1ll f10 , -: li i./ 'i 1 iI ,I 'i6..,,UV:.1,( ..1,---i•i,;i1,-i---l-1 - i.;d,-,..,..fn:',:5:-1!,,'-rf'--o-'H,--Ifr..l1l' !!;..111I11111 1.7:•!'11:;;.-,..1,..;-.., - .'t',..x,..'..i_Lt-'._ttr-•_:,'i..i•:....7,t'- i.'-71;.. ,,•,i.'. 7.r'/i:.i-;./.i.,'/1.,....I• i..'.:'4.•' i .1Ff.." i.,i•:i.',i...7i,.•, '...Ii...,:i,t.•. /51 I Ii 6j ': , j,'i. '•1I ;eIi,iI1lI ff;2,1,1 .12•:'i1.!i0'i+Nr.r!,1Ii 4'T,t, 4,jL.•II.J1..II r1E I t"i l 1 1 u„,i"4 f81{1 iml I,I I,iiii.111i ii1 1f i:il[t711rtrij,,t.iii,i'i::'l1i.l:ii,11! 1!,ii.! i1 •i,.,'itI 1 r;!., [1 j1- •I1 rtt-h.1!"-It.7.-_97-- [1;'!/;iii!!;11111fIn-r-11,4,1 I 11 -,--;:i ,.;',i 1, • lipq,,,' .. I 1 //liii-F:Iii.,,h[1:1'illiwthuirtlIr-i4:... . ,I 1. .„. , III '' lily ilf,pr• i.,... , ,,, ,H..• ;.; ,,, i „ , , 1 ... ... :11NEWN 1 li t'il co (vitj Y i .1 !AREA tl, i 1 .,!ii -;11,,11 -,,, -0 El:171flt,!!) itti.rt, ri 1 AIL ..H. .1! ! l' ,i;:ii WI !phi ! ---;-7C,.5;r1:;i,,•Nmii„14I,ErL,,105;!aqil1;.i.1..1 ,.. 10 ; , ir1i•:l:;•tA.:.•. ,111--,,1y.11..1i1,-.11'I-1.! T•'H ,..1'•1rL:-,,-1,, 1.i:H.1,I. ,1tI 1 COMUNITI . 1 r1i.I r C,LLEE 1;1i 1 khi Ii hij i, II - .i:• . •••1110 j , li• ' 01',It41 OE \ftl_()I'MEN II :: ..I. BAYFUON r PARK Estooke z .2) PM A A.rer.e.w2 7.r we 2 PARK DOWItTOWN MtAMi II API IMPOIRIPPROL,. , „ „111 11,1 I 69 ra OW w On OW And stations would be planned to fit the approved development. A new transit bridge with lift span and 35-ft clearance would cross the Miami River just east of the DuPont Plaza Hotel. (The minimum 75 ft. clearance required for a fixed span is not practical for the collection -distribution system route). Within the downtown core.the alignment follows Biscayne Boulevard Way and along the edge of N.E. 2nd Avenue from Biscayne Boulevard Way to V.E. 1st Street. From N.E. 1st Street to N.E. loth Street the alignment continues adjacent to the rapid transit line across Biscayne Boulevard and through the corner of Bicentennial Park. Here the route diverges from the proposed rapid transit line and crosses over Interstate 395. North of the expressway the line "would be located in the middle of Bay Shore Drive until reaching the terminal station at the Omni Development near N.E. 17th Street. The nine stations of this line that are in addition to rapid transit and loop stations are located so that all developed areas along the route are within approximately 600 ft. walking distance. Alternative 2 This alternative, shown in Figure I1-2, is the same as Alternative 1 except for the section of the north -south line between the Miami River and N.E. llth Street. This alternative's north -south line would be in the median of Biscayne Boulevard to Port Boulevard (approximately N.E. 6th Street) where it makes a transition to the east side. A transfer station to the downtown core loop would be located at the eastern end of Flagler Street. u it 1101111110110 1 'I 111111111 1147'11-1-1-n,-ral • • I ; ; ' ' I =•-••=:: - 1 ! --rrsritf . , :•, ...... •1 ' •3 . . , , , , i • % '11 1 11 IIF ''''.- - . '' I ---::----:-'---'4•'';'''-- ---- ,1' 4.1. ' - • 1 ''''-:-- •••'..' _ ......••••...-- 1 , i 1 • 1 : I il.',,,.., • k. f.,...•-2--.. - :: - Z...4.- --_ t'...* ."-: -I 1" 'l II I I I ", I II I 4• I [ 1 ,,11 71 F ! I ILI; I ' i. .S.,liTtiAl I -Ai D ti. 1!1 4...I.....,l ...''D.i[; :i . . 1 f.,(r•f "1i.1)a i I' t o I , 1'; t0 , •1I tip[1r' ' t -t, .* 't 1.Ptii..till 1.1111i .1,, ..1 k ; !I 1 1! '; '• I' I. . - iiI ; • - •'' ' • Wi'l 4,0 11, ,:-.; 1 /,. I 1 , I I.; • • !1 i • \ • i • . i 0 ., Emick , • i . • a a a1 .2 -11 1-'-'77-7-'''Frirr :111!Trri .. I :` i , : • ' ; ,.. ill: I ; ! i ,/ ,..• - • . i; ,• • / , ; ; ,I ,., :.1 tx.:11:!.. ii r , 4 1,1Dupo T PLAZA • , 0 i•• . ' 't 4I '171 ; • Br ' • . , i 1/ i.„-- ..... , ........e ,.,-- ( CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT ' \-....._ l'.!;• • ErCuRe 2:0P/4i A‘TFRNAT-TVC - " t•ttit..0.-4•04,t.:10Q.4.4 0..1; •04.3.4P ;04;:tiZ '; 7.; 114; t • 47:410 t • F t•-•xit • ; rro • t !,•F•445, tegg 1! t !OA 07:4 3 ttTeti., 6; „ ••; Rai; t -.2z. ;4 ,:k4 qt,tIftt§f t ;;A:' .0 ;!. ! ; - t, I r1-7 ',(E t• IFI 1\1 i 1‘1 i 1..1 9Lli'qt!!!!`1:9111 I .1.) 1 1 . • !I i 1, ''1 '1 / .., t 1, ; • - . , - 1' '1!!..1I,r / P.t!!!:'.1./ 1 1 tII f' ;::' ii,i .i 't t II ! ii !''._..-.1;''''''t! ' --„ it!! i 11 , ,,!: ri j Ili; Iii!iiii ••..,..' !:',..,-1!!i:J., i ...',-,,'.!..::t II! i 11.!!..!!.'•'1.::!,_',11 iiii.!!!...,!!•,:ffil ditto'', Hilo tid!!!4ilt.ittHi 1 -,... ' : ' •.,:,!' - yr:;:' it) i' 1 ,7::!:,!!!u! . i [1 fli 1...;.,1 : !.!.:1 I 1 i III II,,Th.:. .)) , , ti.,- ,••••••••••.,,;,... ,:,•- 2. - thil•;,..., ts t • • b I) ,Llitair.IIIIII!!!! :I !I P.. .!,, III!.:,1!..!!;„• , !!!, 11 ! 1 1.,ii,H111.1,! It 11..1.1!.! if III! -rttr- ...t.....47,,. , _ - t r • 1 rt,•----,`,-,srvii • 11,1 ,t .. --.....!...;:'-'5f.:.i' I il, 7.111 i ,' 11° il• II ti I I I Ill'ilT•It. 4.(' Li..)11. H Trill'ii111,.1:1'111[ 17; 11111111iilLiiII:(1 4ililki.1 II i..:111:: 11•;11171r1111:4...!...,' I-11! 1 . I: 1/11 : >:///111:1: ',!.•[1.' I t' 1;!!.1111.!1. II 11. I I H I I.Crt'v 1 11 PI !LP P'/? //: Ill!r''';11 ..!;" if :7 I lt ,.. I. ./. • _, . • .,Y. . il Li'...!! t II HI 11 111 it!! 111 11 1 I.'il • • • ' • • ••• / • .- --- .: .. 1 :AFI RROI(N.17,/ '.• .!'ll'' _1-.. 17',,.11. , • • Ilt . 11 71' ' --- 4-- ----...,, - - '111.1, (11 11111 NEW COPIA;N litY` I 1, 70, i I :11 r I ! I 711 ttr.d I: I:1 rLh. 1 i 1.1 i-' ..• I : 11 .1 I .. ()I)MLN r Ji BI-CEN TENNIAL ^ PARK II i c1. .1 t .V; t • t •:! V.; i ;01...; ttt,..„0:t.0..ttint40,Agezi,iiItte..;;;;;";Itirc;;;;;;AttatAttAft,titl.i..... ••••,-.0,...• .1 VI) DOWATOWII MIAMI ...; • ••• • :4.-IL'iI'4,iidiKiit;:tii;:N11:4iielr 4.4,4. • 11 Alternative 3 This alternative shown in Figure II-3 differs from the first two in that a transfer would not be required to go from the core loop to the north or south areas. The alignment of the loop would be the same as that of the first two alternatives. The south line would be the same as Alternative 2 from the S.W. loth Street rapid transit station to Biscayne Boulevard and S.E. 1st Street. However, in this alternative the south line merges with the core loop at N.W. 1st Avenue and N.W. 2nd Street and proceeds north parallel to the north corridor rapid transit line to N.W. 5th Street. It then turns east along the Florida East Coast Railroad to V.E. 2nd Avenue. From this point north, the alignment is basically the same as Alternatives 1 and 2. The operating plan of Alternative 3 would have three lines which share the core loop single guideway. The loop would operate counterclockwise and the direction not changed to correspond to the peak flow. The south line would operate from the S.W. loth Street rapid transit station to the loop, travel around the loop, and return to the S.W. loth Street station. The north line would operate from the northern Omni Development area to the loop, around the loop, and return north to the Omni Development area. Alternative 4 As shown in Figure II-4, this Alternative 4 provides only a loop through the center of the downtown core area. Starting r79.777nr".1 I, , „.„ ..„ fEtw 11 _„. .; ,.:,:.• .• • ,• ri - -.."-••••,,,;. - ,- i - _-•-•-:„.........-----______: _ •,.. 4 • -•••'-**----- -: ...:•%.. __" ...:-..:--,- • ' ', 1 :; . ; ..I ' i: !*,.° .1 , ------1!-- /".a• ---=',...— I: 1, I. , . • i ' il" --.1.'.1.4‘. lit II i 1.. ; *.. ;-: : ,• 1 '1 -' ...' !, ' . -- , Xil !HAI !I I ii II •T /II t'. 1 I 1 ', ..." ' * .... t !. I li I, i* ' r.-- ,..! le. I-- ll'Ul1,11 Hr.' 'HIT ilki -) 1 ...., I .) • . * *t .• I , 1 :. •1,I , 1 .. Y“aill,Illi i ' •• i ' *'••!! Il• 1,14 1-.0niiiiii !a 1.11 tIrittil, ./. I IlillYi'' 1.1.I•''I'I' II-II,.'W.1,:1:;i,1...,.1 ' "1• \ [ • I • - 1 11 r', 'I:. I . 1j 41',,. • 1 ' .. -, ,... • , . .. :(...., :I.' iii;" Lf i '-1, ;••.: 1 \ '1,kr:••• '', : y''''j i11,111 • I j 1; f; 1; . • .• ii, -.-1' )) i•L! T.9i., tP:Ar- k:A;..rf;tri I4, :q•.,/E, ,,,: /,/.-.,..•'• ,", ,, 1 ''; I1J i' Y'cr1:c::.::•'..r ; i.i ' 1 kT'"' i,J .- : 1; / i, . , 1e'!I : r,811 i'' '/i / i/i ! /,,/,7 i!i1D111;01Tlil',f1 A1 •\\ ...------- • .. r CLAUGtiTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT ,-----/ -..--;:---,i.--rn- -, --.• Ir•- I ! • , ,/ , i".! 1 ;.' I irii„!, 1.-- ' .i.i.;,,!I ., I4I,Vi 1..iI1 y„1,i._•1Ti1' _•!. r'11i‘r.'tI, 3i . 1,i, 11 irl/- il, .111'•..1.11,''.1'1Ij'iii' 1 4T [,I—n1i• ,i_il .II1...L !...,'•..;)•:,,, "i'11...4-, ' ..;.1,,•.,.,..,4h i 1 - -,7:,_L1. _ 1;;:-:•:1', 7:.•1i1l ;-,;,1!I ::,ii11.:./:,•:,.;./1,.1&.1m]) -..C.'.A,•,i1I,k'714.'L I 1 ' I Or 114R 1 iVl I.P'(1:;1,i1Hli 1111-11III'.11Iy4'r ,l I:7./'':I11IiI h ih1.I1111111!IIII11)lITttTf11 I..1717r• 1l1!II Ii itiit11j1ydlLf ;ilj I. '_:I,, 'ii,c1ti:( 1i fill Iii.P:11111.1tdill .......11... .T.,...—t..41.........1.3...,.............41,— -1-/•---.-"!--77777.!:-....74' 2,_?,./.4 : ! 1 ! . . 1 1 11 ,111 • i.11•...i J. i• ;..1:. Li r:IIIIIII:11[11'41ti 1111 11111 11 III Hp/ .•• 1 I I : • 1 11 1.i'•,1411:1_11.1,',Iiiii.:;;IIH:Ilitliiri-ittnt[iii,_ 1 11ill, .11L,,/ 1;1! :,1111,,....,.• ii ...; I y, :I iii1.1,.1.1:1,..i u1,1,1,i1711•-?.. ' ' • . , , .i!!...11ti:ril.11 1111!;•.-.1.1.'„1 11 ',1",•'''-'""il:' - -,17-1., , 11....111 lijqiii'i,-!,!.:JiiiJil',,i-H.,;i1 ll r'i l 'I'lj 'ffirl:li [1: Ti-;•'.'ifi F',l 111-.:Jilillii.:.;(' - N+4'd hi4til liti. 1 '1_. t , i 1 1 I 1 OrOiCEi-d1111‘L 1 !II ' '• • •• •-•—•••••.* i i I I I ,• 1:11. 1-cciRE 2r— 4 s• • '.'" 1 .7 BM/FRONT • HI - ). PA111: / 1 Z7:7/4" Ass ER mArs ve 4 • N Mt Of WM BICENTENNIAL PARK 11 IsCAY • :1 1. J • ... chit 41DLV1OI.N t1,1 :' • j 111:: 1 ' - : ; , : , • . : .. • i ; i . 11 i • H 1. • • . 1 „ . \' ...,:ii,„, !I I Hi,' , ! r • I II ,i, , , 00WhIOWN MIAMi -1r 11111111 111 -7- MMEOMMEME 1, N ti 1 ti 1 north from the government center rapid transit station, the toute proceeds east to a point approximately midway between N.E. 2nd Avenue and Biscayne Boulevard and south from here into the DuPont Plaza Area (S.E. 2nd Street and 3rd Avenues) where one of the loop's seven stations is located. The corridor then continues west along S.E. 2nd and 1st Streets to S.W. 1st Avenue, and follows S.W. 1st Avenue northward back into the proposed rapid transit terminal. Although the two-way operation over this route is more complex than one-way service, the two-way operation provides quick service, reduces the possibilities of a complete system break- down, and the construction/right-of-way cost differential between the two operations should be relatively small. In addition to the government center rapid transit station, people mover access is provided at seven locations along the two-way route shown in Figure II-4. Alternative 5 This alternative is basically the same as Alternative 4, except the full core rapid transit system and its downtown stations are assumed which lessen the extent of the people mover. As shown in Figure II-5 the northern leg of the Alternate 5 route traverses N.E. 1st Street from N.W. 1st Court to N.E. 3rd Avenue. Five ti people mover access points are provided in addition to the I sow government center/rapid transit station. A two-way operation is assumed. • MEW 74 Alternative 6 This alternate people rover alignment, depicted in Figure I1-6 has two separate lines - one to serve the linear development corridors along Biscayne Bay from the Brickell Avenue Development south of the Miami River on north to the Omni Development at approximately N.E. 16th Street, while the other links downtown parking and employment concentrations. Both lines tie to the full core rapid transit system stations in the downtown area. The linear north -south line starts at the S.W. loth Street rapid transit station and follows the alignments of Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in reaching Brickell Avenue. The line proceeds north along Brickell Avenue in crossing the Miami River. Through the proposed DuPont Plaza area development the lines shifts northeasterly to N.E. 3rd Avenue, follows N.E. 3rd Avenue to N.E. 2nd Street, then transitions back to and follows N.E. 3rd Avenue, to N.E. 2nd Street, then transitions back to and follows N.E. 2nd Avenue to N.E. 15th Street. At this point the alignment veers northeasterly to the northern terminal immediately west of Biscayne Boulevard at N.E. 16th Street. Nine stations are located along this two-way people mover alignment, with three of the stations integrated with the core rapid transit line. wp Pa 4 4.14Ermi;g %.I•iI .,•-.,1y!1t1.i:I ,1i.1s11.! ,'.,,:1._id. .I11,I,. :.1 . -i -iII1:'I, 1. ;1,•i, .. ,_ „;. .: 1i.,„1..-:,-..i,_'. ,. _,,, , •-,1i.ftf,„;....,11,..1 ..',„. :C'',-..,1.",_,' _.: _ .4,..,,,.•;,. I "•.,,,,[,:.-7- .I1•- •..1•....;..:;,.-,...-.',.ii,- . .i,--iil. 1 i, ti•I- " , . 1 -if - . 1 iiT111i 1 .1i1l1 .- 1.„1MI!11!;1i' 41,P...•,..•:._i, EV,' •.1,1.,1i1 ,, , I •'..0 \,,.l'i , "1 _, - L1I1i 3 -iI1'j:4,.-1- i .1 '.'-ilin) i l ' I 1 t1irIT q-LT R 1 1 L!!l1 i ,4, iI; 11;,"i 11li.*..i. il .l ,_ •• i, ,, 7,1 •It,,Ii;, 1, ,,,, ,. _ 1, 1._ ‘1,,, • 1,:• i I .....iiilii iiiliFli ' -,H,:..";_il,-.1 ., •,,i;',1";411' I ' :!! ,„ ! :. I - • •• • ." 1-16( lilt' coilt.'tuou rt.x. it P'11); iiPilftriff I 1,11 flail I 11,211111P. illil II II iiI!_.:•.I!I IJIIIIIIII://: !1-111-5 tImiiihiiirill ii:'.j.":::Th I lir; ,, 441 1 t1 . - , :. . ',••••.,,',./....1.•illil.ili 1 061.,.. 4 Ii1 1111111LHilftiNiitiiI: I .'11-: *\• “ r •••1 - 1.4". kyli iktt teas . -;,••••-•;.; =7:-......--14 •••• '''17 - • • • .• , • ::-.1 11,1 1 ' - ' i • .\ L.. I:' illii11:11i11'21 111!i-11 1111! [II li IF. 1 .[L/ 411;i11 [I 11.11-)-741:**-4i-511,111 If .1 [V. / j;1 Ilft;1.11H H il I i; riiiii riTi.").Z4/4,j11.111.i ... i 4:j/:e/p. I1i. .c.P.:.17i: ‘If.7t./"-1i,i,;p•!.,1 • ii... ,.,:. 1,.4) •,-t•I. v• .If:r•, .r i,!I .-•':. ,„ 1.1..• ,?./1E,? 'Ii11.t,".-.ifiii -...'.; ,•:./ :.1,..i,!...-,,: ,!-.,/li--••:-:i, : - ',i•., -ii1•, f / /-i ./ -:'.r -1•.,,- .-1 ,1i:1. I " ;•--P-j./,- ;'.,-•. /,Ll'•, i.'f:I, I L,i1 1 , ,,ti;!, [ ' 1 C'. i,1ir•!--. i, I, ,••L1,;6.,.,Ll,-:,-E,1.,•. ,(i'i. .1.111, • 1--I . . ••.• ,i., 1I t -11:1C-1,a jI ..VHi, iIrr./f.4 ..,.- .;‘.•,.I'I'I ..,' ••- ...:..Thit•.i,I.1 l.!li'I..j.!'•l:--..,. ., ••. I PIi!•.l:—...I,1I1T.:1I .,1.;,1:9.1":,1,:.:.'.,..!:..'h....!.l.1it1!I1.• 11.'...:l i1-'k[,i'r!.•C.t..it1i.:Ii:..-;"it;iI1l:-i11' .-.IhOii0Ii!ii-ifiiI.111Mi1.riI: :i'Iti1 ] 1i1 1 i iij111)1 :.11 1 1i1 iH /liVCi .l;11/I 1It F1r1:iiljlf -i-rl LI ' /t11 L1 t i—iii1 i i i /! / ,1 - 711-i0i:1 IIi'JI1 Iji.i:4I!!II1I.;li;I ZA t'I11"...i[11 , ,i•ii ,1i/ if 'i _, ii1,1 BI,AY!JEyiN, Ii.P,i:OfirlICEAA 1I I , v' 1 Il E3AYFIONT BI-CENTENNIAL , f,.fI1 : 1 • • i ' 1 ' • . 1-)) ' " , PARK ,, .- - PARK \ \ ! ., t ' II' 1 ' I tt• t•• t... CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT .^- • R or 7Pfrf AA.reAtAharrvd- S to rut 0 SIMI .1111(1111111“ OOWkIOWN MIAMI 11 1 LJI ••• I! • ; • . • ' 1 . I '711 • " • , . ' • I I I • ! • . ! 1 H — . ri• • 1\ ;; - • ; II. .:-;• '1111 \ C,1 I • . r• 1 • . • • • : - • I , 1, II •.; 1; ; .1 I f .I ;:,•., ! ! i i..1. 1 1 1 4 • , / I , 1 1 i :I; i 1 - -1 1 - 1-, 1- • 1 i 1 14 -. 1 1 I ...•....i.'s! I' .'; ; '' li -di L11/.1111i, • • ,f;-' , " . •• Mkt) 1 i • • ' ... ' ' 4 ••• ,01/%11 1 1"t" • ,.........4.... 1 tt 1 71177. . 1111.f• ; .1 i . i, : .i. ' I: 4 ; i 1 ,, 17." ." ilfi I 1, ',0 i.:1 i : I I, :1 i i; ll •',. I ' '' ' . I • '.1 . r• \ jo4 1 141 fl ; ;1"11,'Irilill'Ikii.r.', ii . '. 1,I i ; ' 11.; , II i i :;i: I r:1 1: . )' .nli-P:e: i • 11 1 11 i i! .4— Eile/S17;_,'"1,b ; itib--Afr • 'it gib gib 4. ago . . ; ( t •-- 1 0 - ,.,.....,.. 1_•.i ; )'117' . -4-1 A _1, .;-,“•.,..,.jiy1,t,.-.•.-.-.-. V 1 " / 11 ! 11I11 ii 1I I'I I,, , i 1 -------• r -- - .1 ' : ' I l• ' 1•;!11111' ! 111111111!!, I '1•T1 CF Fri t 1 ' .• • •_, !,• C.. 1 Dtlf0 1 •, I / ! it4414U ; • •:11 !! 11f41. [-(AV • CI VI): ! I 1 11' ' CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT '1 • 1 ' . • \ - - - ••.? .1.1AYFIZONT •• • i•11 h • '• PARK Eraciac 2Z- 6 7PI-1 A LTERNAT/ VC 6 I I .11'1111 11 r.111 . . .1 1;. 74; - -- I 1,L 1•r " ',I.." /IN! .1.11 1 , :al:ID:111111 11'1111111111(1.11J.Hti:1 • 11 s ,t 1:11I 4] FITIL: 1111111 1 I!111 i1!([1; !1 LIAM] 1 rn 11 i 11111 • " tc--;tI'4liin:2-1i1 i4'-7.ii 1 [•i 111r111::11117 ' /-,,1ti111 1'i,HIT"T.11 I1 :T-ik1:11411 I 111:11i:!17 •/• 4:11::.1[.11 : E1 1 ,1t,,,:,'1 rlN-;1•:,:i1,,i1r 1 - (1L,11.m1:11„ 4' .11 1 11 111:1:1Ii]i.1:••• f. r.T.:.11; .111, 11 • 14.-fd Hi 1 ; I I I 1 PIO FOP 11 uIl 7 II 41•TrIa.. 161,41,1161 IHJ 1; I-1 11 • • • •••• :• LI I 11 I Or4i I -A: _OPMEN '1 • .1 1_171,11 1111-1: 81•CENTENNIAL PAM( It 1 C A Y • , • \IHT ; I I 1.-111.!.11:11. i1 1 V ID mist 11.40 DOWNTOWN MIAMI J. 77 %,1 -i • The two-way "C" shuttle portion of this alternate begins at the DuPont Plaza area development station and proceeds west on the south side of the 1-95 distributor, along portions of S.E. 4th Street, transitioning to S.E. 3rd Street. At S.E. 3rd Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue the route turns north to and through the downtown government center. From the northern end of the government center the route proceeds east along N.W. 5th Street and transitions to the east -west portion of the FEC railroad. At N.E. 2nd Avenue the people mover alignment leaves the FEC and turns north, adjacent to the rapid transit station located in the block north of N.E. 8th Street along N.E. 2nd Avenue. Two-way shuttle service along this "C" line connects a total of seven stations. Two of the stations are shared with rapid transit, while the two terminal stations also provide transfer to the north -south line of this alternate. Or 78 tit. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY A number of effectiveness measures were generated using computerized simulations of alternative people mover systems. These measures .r consist of total people mover (PM) system ridership, PM line and station loadings, accessibility measures, and impacts on regional transit ridership. The simulation approach utilizes programs contained in the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's Urban Transportation Planning System (UTPS) and the Federal Highway Administration's program battery (PLANPAC) together with a number • of manual techniques. The main elements of the process consist • of a calibrated modal split model, a calibrated trip distribution model, a regional rapid transit network, a downtown walk network, • alternative people mover networks, land use, socio-economic, parking data for the study area, and a table of "potential" people • mover trips. This table consists of three market segments: trips from rapid transit static.ns to downtown destinations, trips from nearby parking areas to downtown destinations, and trips with both initial origins and final destinations within the study area. r • As an initial step, the 35 Miami Urban Area Transportation Study (MIJATS) zones within the study area were subdivided so that the area could be analyzed at an appropriate level of detail. A general criterion used for splitting zones consisted of allowing no more than 10,000 total person trip destinations within any given zone. This resulted in the subdivision of six MUATS traffic zones within the study area and two MUATS traffic zones on the study area boundary. For use in splitting trips to the subdivided zones, factors were developed for each half of the split zones. 79 •1 4111 • 11. In the CBD, the ratio of commercial floor area was used to develop factors. In residential areas to the northwest and southwest, the ratio of dwelling units was used. In other areas, a detailed investigation of the existing and projected land uses on a block - by -block basis was used to develop zone split factors. A list of these zone conversions is shown in Table III-1. The new set of zones within the study area was then renumbered and termed "PM Zones". Centroids were assigned to the center of each of the PM zones weighted by land use activity within the zone. The refined zone system formed the basis for all network and trip table development. Land use and socio-economic data which was developed for the study area to reflect the adopted 1985 Comprehensive Development Master Plan, was carefully reviewed and refined to reflect the development patterns envisioned in the City of Miami's development plan (An Urban Development and Zoning Plan; Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd). Only a few selected areas required adjustments. Work and nonwork zonal trip ends for the auto and transit modes were then manually modified to reflect these changes in the land use and socio-economic data. Parking capacities for each zone were then established. Data obtained in 1974 Downtown Parking Survey was summarized by PM _ zone, stratified by on -street versus off-street parking. Projected parking development was added in appropriate areas to develop a • distribution of parking capacity for the year 1985. ON TABLE III-1 MATS TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES CONVERTED TO PEOPLE MOVER ZONES FM ZONE TAZ FACTOR 1 91 1.00 2 90 1.00 3 93 1.00 4 95 1.00 5 94 1.00 6 98 0.81 7 98 0.19 8 97 0.70 9 21 1.00 10 20 1.00 11 19 1.00 12 57 1.00 13 17 0.40 14 17 0.60 15 18 0.50 16 18 0.50 17 11 0.68 18 11 0.32 19 16 0.46 20 16 0.54 PM ZONE TAZ FACTOR 21 15 1.00 22 12 1.00 23 13 1.00 24 14 1.00 25 10 1.00 26 9 1.00 27 7 1.00 28 6 1.00 29 5 1.00 30 58 1.00 31 2 1.00 32 8 1.00 33 3 1.00 34 4 1.00 35 23 0.50 36 22 1.00 37 60 1.00 38 24 1.00 39 25 0.35 40 1 1.00 41 23 0.50 81 'atking demand for work trips was established by factoring a por- tion of the total external -internal (with respect to the study area) auto -person trips to the Downtown area by an average auto occupancy factor of 1.25. Total demand for non -work trips was developed using an average auto occupancy factor of 1.5 and an average turnover rate of three per day, i.e., each work purpose vehicle destination was converted to a demand for one daily parking space, while three non -work purpose destinations were required for each daily parking space. Only those trips which were either attracted to the study area (i.e., home -based trip end located outside of the study area) or were produced within the study area for a non -home -based purpose were used. Home- . Based trip productions within the study area occurred mainly in residen- tial areas for which lengthy trips from parking areas to residences were not observed. (Thus, these were not included in the table to be distributed to parking areas.) The average auto occupancies were based on the regional auto occupancy rates which were obtained in the South- east Florida Regional Transportation Study (see Table III-2). These rates were modified to reflect recently obtained auto occupancy data for peak hour traffic on major arterials leading into the downtown area. Olt This parking demand, which was stratified by work and non -work, was then distributed to parking areas using a Gravity Model technique. Gravity Model "F-factors" were developed by modifying the regional "F- factors" to reflect the shorter maximum travel distances associated with trips within the study area. On -street parking capacity was only used to satisfy non -work parking demands. The portion of off-street parking which was allocated to all -day parking (from Parking Survey data) w: 82 WAS only used to satisfy work demands. The remainder of off-street parking was split between work and non -work demands. The zone -to -zone travel times required as input to the Gravity Model program (GM) were changed for each test to reflect the attributes of the people mover alternative being tested. The trip table which resulted represents one of the three segments comprising the total market trip table. The second segment, consisting of trips from rapid transit stations to downtown destinations was developed using the regional transit trip table. To accomplish this, a regional table of transit trips which utilize rapid transit lines was generated. Downtown rapid transit sta- tions which serviced each of the zones in the study area were determined from the regional transit network. Downtown trips in the table of "rapid transit trips" were then linked to the appropriate station and the second segment of the market trip table was built based on these linkages using PLANPAC program TRPTAB. TABLE III-2 SEFRTS AUTO OCCUPANCY RATES TRIP PURPOSE 1964 1973 Home -Based Work Shop School Social -Recreation Miscellaneous Non-Hcme-Based 1.12 1. 63 1.41 1.86 1.91 1.42 1.14 1.60 1.21 1. 74 1. 72 1.63 Auto Occupancy = Total Auto Driver Trips x Number in Car Total Auto Driver Trips AI finally, the third segment, consisting of total person trips totally Within the study area,was generated directly from the total person trip table using UTPS program USQUEX. This table was then added to the other two tables to create a table of ";market trips", stratified by work and non -work. The subsequent use of this table in a modal split process is based on the following assumptions: 1. Auto is not considered to be an alternate mode for market trips due to the extreme inconvenience associated with its use for short trips within the Downtown area; 2. Surface bus is not considered to be an alternate mode for market trips because of the out-of-pocket cost differential between bus and PM (the study area was carefully designated to insure that this differential would be a determining factor in mode choice); 3. External -internal transit trips using only surface bus were not considered to be part of the total market trip table because the localized distribution associated with the surface bus mode would tend to preclude the need for a PM system in most cases. The next step in the process involved the coding of detailed PM zone - based networks. In developing a walk network, the P:1 zone centroids were overlaid on a small scale base map, and mean walking distances between centroids scaled to the nearest 50 feet. In these measurements, consideration was given to impediments to pedestrian travel. From this,a pedestrian 84 aCcess map was prepared and readied for computer analysis utilizing the U1 S battery. In coding the pedestrian access network, three levels of walk speeds were used depending on the geographic location of each link and known pedestrian activity: and vehicular traffic conflicts. Distance for pedestrian links were coded to the nearest one -hundredth of a mile and pedestrian link speeds coded to the nearest tenth of a mile per hour. Having coded all walk. network links, the UTPS programs UNET, CPATH and UPSUM were used to build the network, build minimum time paths (paths through centroids permitted), and skim the paths. Alternative PAS networks were coded in UTPS format with the PM treated as a transit mode, and non -transit walk links used as centroid connectors. As with the walk network, minimum time paths were then built and skimmed. Skim times were stratified by in -vehicle (on PM mode) and out -of -vehicle (walking and waiting) times. Network characteristics in terms of speeds and headways were coded to reflect the network descriptions which are contained in a previous section. Using the market trip table and the skims for the walk network and alternative PM networks, a modal split was performed using UMODEL. Based on the assumptions described above, this amounted to a split between walk and PM to produce total PM ridership estimates. Times accumulated over all walk and wait portions of trips were treated as out -of -vehicle times (i.e. weighted by a factor of 2.5 versus a factor of 1.0 for in -vehicle times in the disutility measure). Bias constants were set to favor the walk mode. Out -of -rocket costs were only included for tests of alternative PM fare structures. The basic work and non -work modal split parameters were developed from the four -purpose zonal level and two -purpose sketch i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 85 level modal split models which were developed for the Rapid Transit Preliminary Engineering Program (Metropolitan Dade County - Development and Calibration of Mode Choice Models, office of Transportation Administration). The PM trip table which resulted from this process was then split from a production/attraction format to an origin/destina- tion format and assigned to the appropriate PM network to obtain line and station loadings. The impact on regional transit ridership was estimated for the recommended PM alternative based on a sketch of the sensitivity of the logit modal split model to changes in trip time. Existing modal splits for each zone were "backed through" the logit curves to obtain average disutilities for each zone. The change in trip time due to the inclu- sion of the PM network was then converted to a change in disutility curves to obtain the change in modal split. Aggregation errors which normally occur when using non -linear equation forms were taken into account. Finally, accessibility measures were generated using the land use and socio-economic data for the study area and the walk and PM network skims. Accessibility measures were manually accumulated using this data, with adjustments made to reflect aggregation errors associated with some of the larger zones. 86 tV. VALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES A. Order -of -Magnitude Costs 1. Order-of-'tagnitude capital costs for the six grade -separated, fixed -guideway DPM alternatives, summarized in Tables IV-1 through IV-6, are based on the conceptual drawings and definitions for the fixed facilities and operating subsystems as described in the three previously identified studies. The cost elements indicated on the summary table include the following items: Guideway covers the costs for construction of all mainline structure including demolition. excavation, foundations, columns, aerial superstructure, running surfaces and guidance surfaces, emergency walkways, utility relocation, and maintenance and pavement restoration. Stations cover the costs of the station structure, including access structures, architectural finishes, lighting and other electrical equipment, ,mechanical equipment including escalators and elevators, fare collection equipment including fare gates and money changers, and station graphics. Electrification includes costs for all equipment and facilities for vehicle propulsion power, starting at the supply point, extending through the various transit system distribution and transformation facilities, and including the power rail on the guideway, the power system supervisor.: control, and the sub- station enclosures. Control and communication includes the design, installation, warranty, and testing of electrical and electronic facilities and equipment to operate the system automatically, including a control console, data transmission system, block circuits, station logic and control, wayside antenna, cables and accessories, onboard vehicle control and communication equipment, closed circuit television equipment and cables, telephones, radios, and public address system. 8/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A Maintenance and storage facilities include the maintenance building, storage and access guideways, switches, site work, paving, fencing, shop equipment, lighting, and building power and plumbing. Vehicles include the design, installation, warranty, and testing of the car body, auxiliaries, and propulsion and controls. System testing is an allowance for testing the installed system prior to the revenue operations. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A TABLE IV-1 ORDER=0E-MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS1 (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Vehicles Systems Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency TOTAL 1Excludes ROW Costs DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1 $ 30 , 549 ,.000 9,890,000 5,181,000 6,220,000 1,215,000 15,075,000 250,000 68,380,000 7,864,000 76,244,000 11,437,000 87,681,000 IpEE 89 TABLE IV-2 ORDER,-0E-MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS' DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency TOTAL 'Excludes ROW Costs DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2 $ 29,034,000 9,360,000 5,044,000 6,055,000 1,199,000 14,400,000 250,000 65,342,000 7,514,000 72,856,000 10,928,000 $ 83,784,000 r i i 1 i i i i i 1 i i i i i 1 1 TABLE IV-3 ORbER~OF-MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS1.._. (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management 7,646,000 Total Direct and Indirect Cost 74,129,000 Contingency 11,119,000 90 DP4 ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 3 $29,792,000 9,360,000 5,113,000 6,137,000 1,206,000 14,625,000 250,000 TOTAL $85,248,000 66,483,000 1 Excludes ROW Costs ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS.1..,, (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency TOTAL 1 Excludes ROW Costs DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4 $11,816,000 4,239,000 3,642,000 4,3/2,000 1,034,000 6,975,000 250,000 32,328,000 3,718,000 36,046,000 5,407,000 $41,453,000 i 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 TABLE IV-5 OEDER,OF-MAGNITUDE CAPITAL C05TS1 (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management Total Direct and Indirect Cost Contingency TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5 $10,149,000 3,709,000 3,491,000 4,190,000 1,016,000 6,300,000 250,000 29,105,000 3,347,000 32,452,000 4,868,000 $37,320,000 • 1 93 IBMIK TABLE IV.-6 0RbER,,OF-MAGNITUDE CAPITAL COSTS_'. (1975 Dollars) DIRECT COST Guideway Stations Electrification Control and Communication Maintenance and Storage Vehicles System Testing Total Direct Cost INDIRECT COST Engineering and Construction Management 8,382,000 Total Direct and Indirect Cost 81,269,000 Contingency 12,190,000 DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 6 $33.023,000 9,007,090 5,566,000 6,681,000 1,260,000 17,100,000 250,000 72,887,000 TOTAL $93,459,000 1 Excludes ROW costs mm▪ w MEM mmm mm▪ w 94 Engineering and construction management includes the systedi supplier's costs for design and construction inspection and supervision, including subcontractors, of all system elements. Contingency is an allowance for undefined or unknown items or conditions that might develop during design and construction. The following assumptions have been made in the preparation of the cost estimate: The estimate is based on labor and material prices and conditions in the southeastern Florida area as of June 1975. No state or local taxes have been assumed. The estimate is based on engineering and construction being performed on a one -shift standard work week. The estimate does not include additional monies, if required, for the hiring and training of minority workers. The cost of additional environmental studies and any costs resulting from these studies, such as added work and construction delays, are not included. The implementing agency's administrative, legal, and engineering costs are not included. The cost of preparing capital grant applications, if federal funds are applied for, has not been included. 2. Operating Costs Order -of -magnitude operating costs for the six grade -separated, fixed -guideway DPM Alternatives were develoled by analyzing the labor, materials, and power requirements of each system, since there are no existing operating cost data available for similar systems in commercial operation. The operating costs are on an annual basis and expressed in 1975 dollars. The operating cost estimating technique involves an estimation of manpower requirements, labor rates (including all fringe benefits), material expenses, power costs, and other expenses, on a cost category, work area, or semidepartmental basis. These categories are as follows: Power cost (demand and energy) Train operations Station Operations Track, structures, and wayside equipment maintenance Vehicle maintenance and storage Fare collection system operation Security Liability and property insurance General and administrative staff and expenses (1) Power Cost (Demand and Energy) These costs are based upon the average power consumption for a single empty vehicle mile on a given route of the system, the daily operating schedule for the system, the average power consumption per single passenger mile, the passenger miles of travel on each route, and the power rate schedule. Auxiliary power costs for stations, yards, the drawbridge maintenance areas, etc. are also included. The power rate schedule used to develop operating costs in 1975 dollars is Florida Power and Light Company's schedule CS dated January 28, 1975 with a further fuel adjustment allowance of S6 per 1,000 kw hr. This rate schedule was chosen to reflect the assumption that each transit substation has separate feeds from the utility company and would thus have separate metering. The overall unit cost for operation of the rail system (energy and demand) based upon this schedule is approximately $0.026 per kw hr. (1975 S). (2) Train Operations The train operations cost category includes labor costs for central control operating personnel and drawbridge attendants. (3) Station operations This category includes station custodians (cleaners) and station cleaning materials and supplies. Supervision IIMEM mmmmormm MMERMW mrim EliMawr i11111111.,- 96 labor is also included. (4) Tracks, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Included in this category is labor for supervisors, foremen, ;mechanical, electrical, and structural maintainers, electrical technicians, track inspectors, trackmen, helpers, structure cleaners, power distribution system maintainers, substation electricians, and fare collection equipment maintainers. Materials expense would cover power rail and running surface replacement, escalator and elevator maintenance, computer systems maintenance, and other miscellaneous expense items. (5) Vehicle Maintenance and Storage This cost category includes all labcr and materials expense for the operations shop and yard, for vehicle custodial cleaning in the yard area, for vehicle washing, and for vehicle inspection. Labor categories include supervisors, foremen, mechanics, electricians, helpers, repairmen, hostlers, car inspectors, car cleaners, car washers, clerks, secretaries, storekeepers, and other miscellaneous labor categories. Materials for car cleaning, car washing, and shop operations (ccnsumable items) are also included. (6) Fare Collection System Operation This item includes labor for :Honey collectors. Materials expenses include tickets, transfers, and other miscellaneous items. (/) Security This category includes all labor for security guards, watchmen, and roving security officers. (8) Liability and Property Insurance This expense item covers premiums for liability and property insurance and is estimated on a per passenger trip basis using current MTA statistics as a yardstick. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 97 CO) General and Administrative Staff and Expenses This category covers all managerial, accounting, payroll, public relations, personnel services, legal, clerical, and general secretarial labor. Materials expenses cover general office supplies and overhead. The costs for each alternative are shown in Tables IV-7 through IV-12. These costs are in 1975 dollars and are based on the assumption that the grade -separated, fixed guideway alternative will be operated as part of the MTA system. 98 TABLE IV- 7 ORDER -OF -MAGNITUDE OPERATING. COSTS (1975 Dollars) potter Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehkcle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Admini::trative Staff and Expenses DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 1 $ 706,000 266,000 128,000 375,000 587 000 76,000 113,000 301,000 256,000 TOTAL $2,308,000 1 TABLE IV-8 0111EtyOF-MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 2 S 636,000 239,000 122,000 355,000 561,000 72,000 108,000 173,000 256,000 $2,522,000 i TABLE IV-9 0.cb 1t-OP-MAGNITUDE OPERATING_COSTS (1975 Dollars) Power Cnst Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL UPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 3 $ 665,000 266,000 122,000 365,000 569,000 72,000 108,000 190,000 256,000 $2,613,000 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE IV-. 10 C?.ttDER—OF-MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL DPM ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 4 $ 119,000 45,000 49,000 154,000 271,000 70,000 43,000 74,000 256,000 $1,081,000 r TABLE IV-11 Dt$E t=SOP-MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) Power Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses DP`i ROUTE ALTERNATIVE 5 $ 90,000 34,000 43,000 132,000 245,000 25,000 38,000 73,000 256,000 i TABLE IV-12 O1thEt-OF-MAGNITUDE OPERATING COSTS (1975 Dollars) Pottier Cost Train Operations Station Operations Track, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Fare Collection System Operation Security Liability and Property Insurance General and Administrative Staff and Expenses TOTAL DPM ROUTE • ALTERNATIVE 6 S 928,000 349,000 104,000 430,000 666,000 61,000 92,000 133,000 256,00O $3,069,000 1 1 1 1 1 in II 11 11 w Comparison of Alternative Routes Comparative Service Characteristics Each of the fixed -guideway transit alternatives offers varying levels of transit service. Specifically, they differ in the number of transfers required, the amount of accessibility afforded due to the area being served, travel time and projected patronage. The principle service differences for each of the six alternatives are as follows: a. Alternative 1 (1) Advantages Good service would be provided to the DuPont Plaza and Riverfront Park area. Direct service without transfer would be provided from the north -south line to the CBD retail core, the community college, and the Past corridor rapid transit line. The CBD loop could be reversed to correspond with peak direction flow. Two stations provide transfers between the lines. With the north -south line bisecting the CBD loop, some indirection of travel on the CBD loop can be reduced by transferring. In essence, two CBD loops are provided. The CBD loop would be completely independent of the north -south line and thus could not be interrupted by the Miami River bridge open- ings, or other service interruptions on the north -south line. 105 More frequent service would be possible over all segments of each line than with Alternative 3 since the lines would not share a common guide- way. (2) Disadvantages Transfers would be required from the Government Center, Government Center rapid transit station, Biscayne Boulevard office area, and Bayfront Park to locations on the north -south line. The suggested new community north of NE 7 Street and the residential area north of the Government Center would not be served directly. Due to transfers allowed and used between the lines and the one-way operation of the loop, a large imbalance in directional flow results on the north -south line for that segment that bisects the CBD Loop. Some indirection of travel is caused by the one-way operation of the CBD loop. (3) System Service Attributes On System Daily Passenger Hours of Travel Daily Passenger Miles of Travel Average Time per Trip (Minutes) Average Passenger Speed on System (mph) Total Downtown Area Mean Weighted Interchange Time (minutes) Mean Reduction from Walk Network (minutes) Percent Reduction from Walk Network 2,800 37,400 3.7 13.3 14.9 12.6 45.8 (4) Patronage Patronage is forecast at approximately 47,300 person -trips per day to use this system in 1985. Slightly more than one-third of these would be travelling to and from work, while the balance ate for other purposes. b. Alternative 2 (1) Advantages Direct service without transfer would be provided from the Biscayne Boulevard office area and recreational facilities to all other areas along the north -south line. The CBD loop could be reversed to correspond with peak directional flow. The CBD loop would be completely independent of the north -south line and thus would not be interrupted by the Miami River bridge openings. More frequent service would be possible on each line than with Alternative 3 since the lines would not share a common guideway. (2) Disadvantages Transfers would be required from the Government Center, Government Center rapid transit station, and the CBD retail core to the areas along the north -south line. The north -south line would have longer walking distances to the center of the DuPont Plaza area, Riverfront Park, and the community college. The north -south line would not interface directly with the east corridor rapid transit line. The suggested new community north ofNE7th Street and the resieential area north of the Government Center would not be served. 107 1, i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sottte indirection of travel would be required due to the one-way loop Operation and due to the single station providing transfers between the CBD loop and north -south line. (3) System Service Attributes 0n System Daily Passenger Hours of Travel Daily Passenger Miles of Travel Average Time per Trip (minutes) Average Passenger Speed on System (mph) Total Downtown Area Mean Weighted Interchange Time (minutes) Mean Reduction from Walk Network (minutes) Percent Reduction from Walk Network 2,700 58,200 4.2 14.0 17.2 10.3 37.4 (4) Patronage Approximately 41,800 person -trips per day are forecasted in 1985. 0f these, about 14,000 would be work trips. c. Alternative 3 (1) Advantages No transfers would be required from the north and south lines to the CBD core. A transfer would be required from the south line to the north line; however, this would be an across -the -platform transfer. A total of seven stations are available for this transfer movement to smooth the load. Good interface with the east corridor rapid transit line would be provided. 108 the suggested new community north of NE 7 Street and the residential area just north of the Government Center would be served. (2) Disadvantages Service frequency on the north and south lines would be limited due to the sharing of the common CBD loop guideway. Complex switching is involved and may not be operationally feasible for the desired short headways. Miami River bridge openings could interrupt service on not only the CBD loops, but the entire system. The Dupont Plaza and Riverfront Park area would not be served as well as with Alternatives 1, 4, 5, and 6. Service to the community college, while similar to that offered by Alternative 2, is not served as well as Alternatives 1 and 6. Travelers from the Government Center rapid transit station to the north line would first have to travel around the CBD loop. No service is provided from the south to the northern extremities without transferring. (3) System Service Attributes On System Daily Passenger Hours of Travel Daily Passenger Miles of Travel Average Time per Trip (minutes) Average Passenger Speed on System (mph) Total Downtown Area Mean Weighted Interchange Time (minutes) Mean Reduction from Walk Network (minutes) Percent Reduction from Walk Network 3,300 41,900 4.5 12.8 17.1 10.4 37.8 169 i i 1 1 1 1 111 -(fit)_....., patronage Patronage forecast is for approximately 45,300 person -trips per day to use this alternative in 1985. Thirty-six percent of these trips would be for the purpose of getting to and from work. d. Alternative A (1) Advantages Unlike Alternatives 2, 3 and 5, excellent service is provided to the community college. The center of the Dupont Plaza area is served with minimal walking distance. All stations are connected without requiring line -to -line transfers. Two-way operation of the loop lessens indirection of travel. Two-way operation allows provision of directional service in the event the opposite direction is temporarily interrupted. Service is not constrained by bascule bridge openings across the Miami River. Station and link loadings are relatively uniform, providing relatively efficient operation. (2) Disadvantages Linkages are not provided between high pedestrian activity areas and peripheral parking areas aside from those near the west and south of the government center. 110 No service is available to connect rapid transit stations and the downtown cote with Omni, Claughton Island, or the new residential area in the vicinity of North 7 Street. (3) System Service Attributes On System Daily Passenger Hours of Travel 500 Daily Passenger Miles of Travel 6,000 Average Time per Trip (minutes) 1,7 Average Passenger Speed on System (mph) 12.7 Total Downtown Area Mean Weighted Interchange Time (minutes) Mean Reduction from Walk Network (minutes) Percent Reduction from Walk Network 20.6 6.9 25.0 (4) Patronage Daily 1985 ridership is estimated to be 17,500 person -trips. Work trips account for 36.0% or 6,300 of the total. e. Alternative 5 (1) Advantages All of the advantages of Alternative 5 prevail for Alternative 5, ex- cept service to the community college requires additional walking. (2) Disadvantages All of the disadvantages of Alternative 4 hold for this alternate, with the addition of a further reduced service area. (3) System Service Attributes On System Daily Passenger Hours of Travel 400 Daily Passenger Miles of Travel 4,600 Average Time per Trip (minutes) 1.3 Average Passenger Speed on System (mph) 12.8 1 1 1 1 1 Total Downtown Area Mean Weighted Interchange Time (minutes) Mean Reduction from Walk Network (minutes) Percent Reduction from Walk Network 21,4 61 22,3 (4) Patronage For 1985 daily ridership on the system totals 17,100 person -trips. 31.0% will be made for work purposes, while the remaining 11,700 can be expected to use the system for other purposes. f. Alternative 6 (1) Advantages In relation to Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, more direct service connects the downtown core with the rapidly -developing area south of the Miami River. The two-way "C" shuttle connects numerous peripheral parking areas with the Riverfront, Convention Center, Dupont Plaza area, government center and government center rapid transit station. Because they are operated as separate lines, "C" shuttle service is not constrained by bascule bridge openings along the north -south line, and each line could provide equivalent frequency. Two-way operation on the "C" shuttle lessens indirection of travel along the areas it serves, in comparison to the one-way CBD core loop services of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. Direct north -south service connects the downtown core with Omni, the rapidly -developing office areas south of the Miami River, the DuPont Plaza area, the community college, and the new community area in the vicinity of North 7th Street. _(2)_ Disadvantages The government center and government center rapid transit station are not linked to the core office and retail area without a transfer to the north -south line. Claughton Island's retail, commercial, office and residential develop- ment requires substantial walking or other forms of transportation to link with the north -south line. Due in part to the necessity to transfer between the government center rapid transit station or peripheral parking areas along the "C" shuttle to the north -south line in order to reach the CBD core area, the north - south line experiences relatively heavy loads as it passes through the CBD core. Erratic and/or surge loads in this area may result in pertabation of erratic or disruptive service frequencies along the remainder of the north -south line. (3) System Service Attributes 0n System Daily Passenger Hours of Travel Daily Passenger `files of Travel Average Time per Trip (minutes) Average Passenger Speed on System (mph) Total Downtown Area Mean Weighted Interchange Time (minutes) Mean Reduction from Walk Network (minutes) Percent Reduction from Walk Network 2,100 31,200 3.1 14.6 17.0 10.5 38.0 (4) Patronage The forecast 1985 volume of this alternative is approximately 43,000 person-trips/day. 34.9%, or 15,000 of these trips are made for work purposes while the remaining 28,000 trips are taken on the people mover for shopping, socio-recreational, school, non -home based and other non - work purposes. 1 1 1 1 Selecting Alternatives for Further Analysis All six alternatives were previously identified in terms of their advantages and disadvantages as regards comparative service level characteristics. It is necessary to select from among these the two or three most promising alternatives for more detailed analysis. In this "narrowing" process selections are based in part on the routing pat- terns that maximize the various service level characteristics for the several activity centers and other major trip attractors as identified in Milestone 1. The evaluation matrix, assembled in a previous sec- tion, forms another major data base required for the selection process. Further, the following table provides insight into the relative cost- effectiveness of the alternatives. Capital Dollars Invested Per Daily Rider RELATIVE COST-EFFECTIVENESS (1975 Dollars) Alternative 1 3 4 5 6 1,854 2,004 1,881 2,368 2,182 2,173 Equivalent Annual 242 260 245 298 272 288 Dollars Invested Per Daily Rider* *Equivalent Annual Dollars = 0.1 (Capital) + Operating Other measures of cost-effectiveness can be computed but may be somewhat misleading when comparing among some alternatives that are significantly different in their extent, while other systems differ only in routing and ability to allow passengers to transfer between lines. As the table shows, Alternatives 1 and 3 appear to be the most cost-effective from a ridership standpoint. PECO*IENDATIONS On the basis of the comparative findings, two candidates, Alter- natives 4 and 5, are found to be undesirable in terms of service areal accessibility levels, and cost-effectiveness. Thus, these two are eliminated from further consideration. There are a number of severe operational difficulties with Alter- native 3. Switching problems will be encountered in attempting to merge and split two different lines at two different points along the single track Downtown loop. Also, openings of the bascule bridge which spans the Miami River will impede the movement of the entire people mover system since both operating lines must utilize the same track in the CBD core loop. Additionally, movements in a north -south direc- tion are forced into a circuitous route with transferring required. Mainly because of the operational problems described above, Alternative 3 is not considered to be viable and thus is also eliminated from further consideration. Of the remaining candidate systems, Alternative 1 attracted the greatest ridership, provided the highest level of accessibility in most of the criterion categories, and has a relatively high rating in terms of cost-effectiveness. Alternative 2 is very similar to Alternative 1, with the main difference occurring in the provision of service to the Dupont Plaza Area, and the alignment of the north -south line through the core of downtown Miami. It is felt that these service differences and routing patterns shouldbe investigated at a finer level of detail. Based on these findings, it is recommended that Alternative 1 and the service perturbations of Alternative 2 be considered for further analysis. 115 finally, Alternative 6 provides a different service concept. The CBD "C" shuttle is operated in two directions and is wider than the one-way core loops of Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. The shuttle provides service to peripheral areas not covered by Alternatives 1, 2, or 3. However, while the shuttle surrounds the area of highest anticipated activity downtown, it does not serve it directly. A leg to Claughton Island is not included, thus providing a more direct route from Brickell Avenue to the CBD and points north. Alternative 3 per- formed reasonably well in many of the '_riterion categories, but not as well as 1, 2, or 3 in cost-effec'.iveness terms. Therefore, to further test the effects of this alternative concept, it is recommended that Alternative 6, particularly the north -south alignment, be con- sidered for refined analyFis in Milestones 5 and 6. DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT MILESTONE REPORT N0, 3 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY TAKE 0P CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Conclusions and Recommendations i , ,,119 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 118 I. INTRODUCTION The Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) by his announcement in April 1976 invited proposals to his Administration from responsible local authorities outlining plans for emplacing a Downtown People Mover (DPM) system, if selected by the Federal Government for such a demonstration project. The DPM vehicle technologies to be considered were prescribed by UMTA to be restricted to those that are, essentially, fully engineered and proven as well as fully automated - the decision as to which would be finally emplaced to be based upon competitive bidding. This would require performance type specifications since practically all DPM systems now existing differ from each other in many respects. The purpose, therefore, of the Downtown People Mover Project in the City of Miami downtown area is the selection, design, procurement and emplacement of a fully automated people mover system in the Miami downtown area. This system will consist of a grade -separated, electrically propelled, automatically controlled and automatically guided transit system operating on an exclusive fixed -guideway. The proposed Downtown People Mover (DPM) will be a relatively simple system capable of providing a reliable and economical solution to the localized circulation problems existing in the congested downtown Miami area. In order to accomplish this objective as expeditiously as possible, the Miami DPM will be one of the existing people mover technologies with minimum modification to adapt it to local conditions. This people mover system will be selected by means of a competitive procurement process, based on performance specifications and service criteria furnishing route and station locations and other constraints. 119 II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS In study programs previously carried out for the County, a substantial review of DPM vehicle technologies has been performed. The "Collection - Distribution System Analysis" - (Special Task 1 of the Kaiser Engineers study), completed in July 1975, is the most recent of three studies over the past six years which has applicability to this project. Based on these previous studies, the following functional, physical and operational characteristics of the DPM have been identified by consultants as being appropriate to the needs of this area for a DPM system. The following summarizes the Kaiser appraisal taken from Special Task T (July 1975): a. Vehicles Vehicles should be about 30 ft long, 8 to 9 ft wide, and about 10 ft high. Nominal vehicle capacity should be 40 passengers including one-third seated, and peak capacity would be 60 patrons. The vehicles should be air conditioned with bright, attractive, and easily maintained interiors. Two biparting doors should be provided on each side with sufficient width to insure 20-second average dwell times during peak demand periods. Vehicle should be capable of being combined into three -car trains. The vehicles should be positively guided by mechanical means and propelled by electric motors that draw their propulsion power from power rails on the guideway. It has been assumed that the motors would be series DC motors controlled by phase control rectifiers on board, and that the propulsion power on the guideway would be 480 volts AC. See following examples of vehicle systems. Vehicle performance should be as follows: Maximum cruise speed 30 mph Normal acceleration 2.2 mph/sec Normal deceleration 3.0 mph/sec Emergency deceleration 5.5 mph/sec 3 ConttolSystem The control system should operate the vehicles automatically§ without an attendant, on headways as low as 60 seconds, and provide the following functions: Vehicle protection to detect other vehicles and maintain safe separation - Automatic vehicle operation to limit speeds, stop at stations, control station dwells, open vehicle doors, and control vehicle movements - Line supervision to adjust headways, dispatch vehicles,and monitor equipment operation The central control, supervisory control, and necessary administration facilities should be located in the rapid transit system's control and communications building located just north of Government Center. c. Communication Systems The communication systems should provide two-way voice communication between central control and each vehicle, and maintenance personnel at either stations or wayside. One-way voice communications (public address system) should be provided between central control and station platforms, and a one-way closed circuit television system would monitor the station platforms and fare collection areas. 121 travel Time The maximum waiting time should be 2 minutes during most of the day. The size of the trains can be changed during off-peak periods, thereby reacting to changes in demand without reducing service frequency. During evening hours the Maximum waiting time would be increased to about 5 minutes. Travel time reliability would be good since the system operation is independent of traffic and weather conditions. e. Ride Quality The automatic fixed -guideway transit system should provide a controlled high -quality ride with smooth acceleration and deceleration. Stops would occur only at stations, which would be less frequent than with the other modes. During peak periods a higher percentage of passengers would be standing than with the bus system. However, the relatively wide doors and aisle and the lack of steps would ,make loading and unloading during peak periods easier. The vehicles should be air conditioned. The aerial guideway should provide the riders with new and interesting vistas of the city which would add to the pleasantness of the trip. Candidate Vehicle Technologies: The following vehicle technologies have been identified as existing DPM systems capable of meeting the various requirements of the proposed Miami DPM. The systems described are not intended to be a complete list of appropriate technologies, but indicate a potential list of bidders who could respond to performance and service criteria type invitations for bid and accompanying contract specifications. ACT (Automatically Controlled Transportation) Developer: Ford Motor Company Transportation Systems Operation Development Status: System tested and demonstrated at TRANSPO '72 and currently under construction in Dearborn, Michigan and Bradley Airport, Connecticut System Description: The Ford ACT system is a Light Guideway Transit system with service point-to-point or in collection/ distribution, utilizing driverless rubber -tired, electrically propelled vehicles which operate under computer control on a passive exclusive guideway to transport both people and cargo. The system will operate as a simple shuttle, simple network, or a short headway, complex demand -responsive system through addition of wayside modular units. In the demand mode, passengers select their destination on - demand, board the vehicle, and travel directly to their destination, or make a minimum number of stops enroute. The system could operate on fixed schedules during peak loads or on -demand during off-peak periods. Stations can be on-line or off-line. Vehicle Capacity: Maximun capacity: 10 seated - 14 standing Crush capacity: 10 seated - 20 standing Vehicle Description: Length: 24.75 ft. Width: 6.67 ft. Height: 8.67 ft. Passenger space: 3.36 ft.1/psgr. Guideway: Type: U-shaped running surface with vertical side walls for guidance. Support: Rubber tire wheels on concrete surface Guidance: Rubber tire wheels on concrete sidewalls Control: Automatic Propulsion: electric motor Energy source: electric power collected from rail along guideway Minimum curve: 75' radius Maximum grade: 67a Normal maximum speed: 30 mph LTV AEROSPACE CORPORATION'S AIRTRANS Developer: LTV Aerospace Corporation Vought Systems Division Development status: In operation at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport since January 1974 System Description: AIRTRANS is a completely automated Light Guideway Transit system specifically designed as the ground transportation system, serving passengers, personnel, baggage, mail, supplies, and refuse removal for the new Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. Driverless vehicles operate as single units or in pairs (future expansion to triplet) as a collection and distribution system with both on-line and off-line stations. The network covers a limited area with exclusive guideways. Routes and schedules are fixed; however, changes can be commanded by a central automatic controller. Vehicle capacity: Maximum capacity: 16 seated - 24 standing Crush capacity: 16 seated - 44 standing Vehicle description: Length: 21 ft. Width: 7 ft. Height: 10 ft. Passenger space: 3.9 ft.h/psgr, kuideway: Type: U-shaped roadway Support: Rubber tire wheels on concrete surface Guidance: Rubber tire wheels on concrete sidewalls Control: Automatic Propulsion: Electric motor Energy source: Electric power collected from rail along guideway Minimum curve: 150' radius Maximum grade: 8% Normal maximum speed: 17 mph 126 WESTNGHOUSE TRANSIT EXPRESSWAY Developer: Westinghouse Electric Corp. Transportation Division Development status: System developed and tested for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Similar systems are in operation at Tampa Airport since 1971 and Seattle -Tacoma Airport since 1973, and under construction at Miami International Airport and Busch Gardens, Tampa. System bescription: The Transit Expressway is a totally automated system for transporting passengers: in a limited area along a line or around loops, in rubber -tired electrically propelled vehicles, over exclusive guideways, and between on-line stations. Service is scheduled based upon anticipated passenger demand. The Tampa Airport installation operates a single vehicle on its exclusive guideway as essentially a horizontal elevator. The Seattle/Tacoma Airport operates trains of vehicles on two separate loops with a separate shuttle link over which passengers may transfer between loops. Vehicle Capacity: Tampa: 0 seated - 100 standing Seattle -Tacoma: 12 seated - 90 standing itetitie Description: Length: 20' to 36' depending on application Width: 9.33 ft. Height: 11 ft. Passenger space: 2,5 ft,2/Standing Guideway: Type: two flat riding surfaces with center guide beam Support: rubber tire wheels on concrete surface Guidance: rubber tire wheels on central I-beam below support surface Control: Automatic Propulsion: Electric Motor Energy source: Electric power collected from rail below the vehicle, Minimum curve: 75' radius Maximum grade: 10% Normal Maximum speed: 55 mph ALWEG MONORAIL Developers: Alweg Gmbh - Hitachi Ltd., E.M.S. Electronic Monorail Sales Ltd., Rapid Transport Development Co. Ltd. Development Status: Variations of the Alweg Monorail System are ih operation in Tokyo, Seattle, and at Disneyland and Disnevworld. System Description: The Alweg Monorail system is composed of rubber tired vehicle trains operated in straddle fashion on an exclusive elevated monorail. The vehicles are designed to be operated in pairs or in trains of cars per train). Fully automated operation is employed; however, drivers are employed aboard each train. paired vehicles (µ to 8 Stations are on-line with line -haul service in a scheduled mode (similar to conventional high capacity heavy rail transit systems. However, the vehicles are of lighter weight, 55,000 lbs. (25,000 lbs.) empty, and the elevated guideway requires less space than conventional heavy rail, hence a lower installa- tion cost. Vehicle Capacity: Maximum capacity: 270 passengers (twin cat unit) Crush capacity: 540 passengers (twin car unit) Vehicle description: Length: 51.18 ft. Width: 9.65 ft. Height 10.99 ft. Passenger space: -- Guideway: Type: Monorail type guideway Support: Rubber tire wheels on concrete beam Guidance: Rubber tire wheels Control: Manual Propulsion: Electric Motcr Energy Source: Electric power collected from side of support beam Minimum curve: 96 ft. radius Maximum grade: 10% Normal Maximum Speed: 60 mph. on sides of support beam. • •••.•;:.;tft ,«. ri ...t ,-•••• ,...{.. 1111111247.-;:k 'i•'''.-?..''''?Nieft 130 • • i ' • • t")';i. A•4 •Jr.'" \".1,4sts GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — FORD "ACT" Develcur•ent status Seated capacity Normal full load Length Suocort Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source inimum curve Maximum grade Normal maximum speed System tested and demonstrated at TRANSPO 72 and currently under construction in Dear. born, Michigan and Bradley Airport, Conn. 6 • 10* 30* 245" Rubber -tired wheels on concrete surface Rubber -tired wheels on concrete sidewalis Automatic Electric motor Electric power collected from rail along guideway 75radius 6`)/0 30 mph* *Information is for tne Bradley Airport and Dearborn applications. Larger I100-passenger) and faster (60-mph) vehicles are being plannea. 111111 11111 I I 11 11111111111111IPIPIRIP r r r r r r r r I 20'5" Rubber tires on concrete surface Rubber tires on concrete guideway sidewalks Automatic Electric motor 4 4,`\ GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — LTV AEROSPACE CORP.'S AIRTRANS Development status Seated capacity Normal full load Length Support Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source Electric power collected from rail along guideway Minimum curve 150' radius Maximum grade 8% Normal maximum speed 17 mph I1 In operation at Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport since January 1974 16 40 132 GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — WESTINGHOUSE TRANSIT EXPRESSWAY Development status Seated capacity Normal full load Length Support Guidance Control — Propulsic n Energy source Minimum curie Maximum grade Normal maximum speed System developed and tested for the Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Similar systems are under construction at Miami International Airport and Busch Gardens, and in operation at Tampa Airport since 1971 and Seattle -Tacoma Airport since ' 1973. 0 - 28 depending on application Up to 70 depending on number of seats 20' to 36' depending on application Rubber -tired wheels on concrete surface Rubber -tired wheels on central I beam below support surface Automatic Electric motor Electric power collected from rail below the vehicle 75' radius 10% 55 mph r r r f f F f I f f f r r 13 GRADE -SEPARATED, FIXED -GUIDEWAY "PEOPLE MOVER" — ALWEG MONORAIL Development status Seated :acacia Normal full load Length Sucoort Guidance Control Propulsion Energy source Minimum Cure Maxi:num grade Normal maximum speed Variations of the Alweg monorail system are in operation in Tokyo and Seattle, and at Disneyland and Disneyworld Up to 124 per two -car unit' 120' per two -car unit• Rubber -tired wheels on concrete beam Rubber -tired wheels on sides of support beam Manual Electric motor Electric power collected from side of support beam 60 mph 'Three -car units and other combinations are possible. The units can be loined into a train, a 1 1 r 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Results Milestone 2 Patronage Estimates: Alternative Max. one—way Ma :, tta`ion Plow (on & transfer Link Load —Peak Hr. peak hr. one—way 1 2600 pass/hr. 1700 pass/hr. 2 2700 2200 3 3500 1300 4 900 1200 5 900 1300 6 1400 1500 From the above, it appears a system capability of approximately 5400 passengers/hour is required, in order to provide an adequate factor of safety. Assuming 30 second headways and minor •vehicle modifications, all previously discussed vehicle technologies appear to meet the reluirements discussed herein, with the possible exception of ACT (Automatically Controlled Transportation), whose ability to accommodate the estimated patronage is doubtful. In conclusion, the identified vehicle technologies, with minor modifications, indicate a potential list of bidders able to respond to performance and service criteria type invitations for bids for the proposed Miami DPM. 1 1 DOWNTOWN MIAMI PEOPLE MOVER STUDY MILESTONE REPORT N0, 4 LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT, AND RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES i 1 - i wi TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: Introduction and Summary Section 2: The Downtown Development Plan Section 3: Land Use and Development Factors Influencing Plans for the People `lover System 157 Section 4: People Mover Station Location Policies ...178 Section 5: Land Use, Development, and Right -of -Way Policies 183 137 139 136 117 I► INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Land use, development and right-of-way policies for a People -Mover in Downtown Miami are derived from a series of coordinated, com- prehensive plans which have been approved by local governments. These are: ai Downtown Miami 1973-1985: An Urban Development and Zoning Plan, Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd (WMRT), December 1973 prepared for the City of Miami and Downtown Development Authority and approved by the Miami City Commission in April 1975. Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan, Beiswenger- Hoch and Associates, January 1974 prepared for the Florida Department of Transportation. Joint Technical Staff Review of the Conceptual Transportation Plan, July 1974 prepared by a joint City/County/State DOT staff and approved by the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County. Dade County Transit Improvement Program Milestone Reports 1-8 Kaiser Engineers (July 1974-July 1975) prepared for Metropolitan Dade County and approved by the Board of County Commissioners in April 1975. The principal emphasis is on the Milestone 3 Report, Development and Land Use Policy and the Mini -System Report. i 118 1 1 'I 1 Comprehensive Development Master Plan for Metropolitan Dade County accepted and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in December, 1974 and April, 1975. Only minor policy refinements and selection among reasonably similar concepts are required to define the Downtown People Mover System (DPM). Chapters III and IV present those land use and development factors that would influence the planning of the DMP as well as the impact of the DPM on land use. Chapter V summarizes policies drawn from the planning studies, augmented by specific policies and data pertaining to the DPM alignment and stations. it, THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN A, Goals for Downtown The future of Downtown has been forecast in several previous plans and reports. From an examination of previous plans the following goals were the most frequently stated and have received wide support: Increase Downtown Employment Increase Downtown Resident-ial Development Improve the Quality of the Downtown Environment Improve Movement Through and Within Downtown These stated goals for downtown are entirely consistent with the transportation policies of the Metropolitan Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, as follows: "Provide access to employment and the facilities and services of the entire metropolitan area; plan for mobility, opportunity, variety, energy conservation and minimum travel times and costs, safety, comfort and convenience while traveling; and provide for efficiency, economy, and a well—balanced, integrated transportation system within Dade County without detracting from the quality of life of the community." • "Public or mass transportation should be given top priority as a positive tool to support and improve the storage of goods and vehicles." s an 140 • "Provide a system of transportation facilities which will anticipate the need for the movement of people and storage of goods and vehicles." i "Coordinate and integrate the County transportation facilities with surrounding activitie::3 so that these facilities contribute to the enrichment of the physical environment of Dade County." The achievement of the goals for downtown depends upon satisfying certain factors which constrain or promote development. These include: (1) Employment Growth Since downtown is an integral part of the Dade County Region, its growth will correspond to regional development. The down— town share of the growth is expressed as an "attraction rate". Thus the attraction rate of the Study Area depends on its success in competition with other areas such as Coral Gables, North Miami Beach and Miami Beach. (2) Development Depends on Relative Accessibility Downtown presently has the best access in the region by auto and by bus. However, the congestion that is beginning to grow at peak hour can constrain future development intensity or discourage potential developers from locating within the Study Area. In areas of high development intensity the vehicular circulation system to and from parking concentrations is also F 141 1 important in rating accessibility. Unless employees can find parking within a short distance from their place of employment, the relative attractiveness of that building site diminishes. Also, the proposed mass rapid transit network could greatly improve the accessibility of the Study Area and reduce the reliance on the automobile. (3) Development Depends on Specialized Activities not Available Elsewhere in the Region Recent public improvements such as the Bicentennial Park, Miami River Walk and similar amenities will increase the attractiveness of downtown for commercial and residential development. In addition the establishment of a Government Center will offer special attraction for law offices, real estate and finance offices and other businesses requiring easy access to these specialized activities. (4) Development Activities Require Soecific Economies Related to Location Which They Can Afford The nature of conducting business today require certain land uses to locate in the Downtown Core. These are mostly prime office uses which can afford to pay the highest rent for their location. As technology changes, other land uses may compete for the highest intensity areas or movement technology may reduce the requirement for such close proximity. However, in the short-range, the locational requirements of most activities can be reasonably predicted based on land value, accessibility, and amenity requirements of the activity. Development Objectives Long-range development potentials in the Miami Region are strong, and downtown can attract a substantial share of that growth. The cumulative effects of public and private investments now underway and planned will :Hake downtown more attractive and accessible than ever before. But to insure orderly development, the City must subscribe to a coordinated development framework. The following development objectives are shown on the following page and form the basis of the Plan: (1) Develop Amenities and Catalysts Bayfront Park improvements and expansion, and the Miami River Walk will dramatically increase the attractiveness of the water edge of downtown, stimulating and enhancing private development. But internal improvements are also necessary. The Government Center, developed in conjunction with a linear park along the FEC Railroad, will balance new private development occurring along Biscayne Boulevard. A large-scale residential development in the presently under-utilized area north of the Community College should be developed as a large in -town, water -related community. In addition, activity streets, streets lined with retail and other active uses with high quality pedestrian improvements, should be developed connecting existing and new development and providing day and evening activities. (2) Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest Development Potential Downtown is composed of three major activity zones: The Flagier Street Core, Midtown Core and Hotel Row along Biscayne Boulevard. Brickell Avenue can be considered another office -retail -residential Develop Amenities and Catalysts Join Activity Centers and Areas of Highest Development Potertial FIGURE 1 ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES Locate New Development in Relation to Infrastructure Capacity 143 Connect New Development with a Pedestrian Circulation System L • • • • � R J • _ •t.•zj� - -4Y . it • ' :, ' +r AI 1 144 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g 1 1 zone outside the Study Area. The most significant opportunity areas lie within the corridor along Biscayne Bay and inland along Flagler Street. Rapid transit should connect these areas to reinforce the existing retail core and to provide regional transit connections as close as possible to major employment concentrations. (3) Locate New Development in Relationship to Infrastructure Capacity Infrastructure is the public network of streets, transit stops and parking facilities which can be measured in terms of peak hour capacity. To accommodate the dramatic growth in the Study Area between 1973 and 1985, location of new development and parking concentrations should be related to street capacity, and transit stops should be located near employment concentrations. (4) Connect New Development with a Pedestrian Circulation System With employment increasing almost 50% by 1985, pedestrian oriented projects are required to improve the environmental quality of downtown, reduce conflicts between the pedestrian and automobiles and take maximum advantage of direct connections between transit stations and surrounding employment. Improvements include land— scaped streets, arcades, second level walkways and elevated plazas. The Land Use Plan The 1985 Development Plan is organized to respond to the two existing commercial centers along Biscayne Boulevard: the Flagler Street RetailiOffice Core and the Midtown Core. 14S 1 1 7 1 1 1 Flagler Street is reinforced on the west by the new Government Center and its auxiliary development and on the east by major office growth in Dupont Plaza and north of Flagler Street along Biscayne Boulevard. The Midtown Core remains primarily retail with small increases as spin-off development to the Omni Develop- ment. This is illustrated in Figure 2 on the following page. The linear development corridor extending from Dupont Plaza to the Omni Development includes a complementary mixture of activities. Included are retail, office, hotel residential and entertainment uses to stimulate downtown activity along the length of Bayfront and Bicentennial Parks, one of the region's most important amenities. Connected to this corridor is a major in -town residential community, the Miami -Dade Community College and a zone for downtown service functions and off-street parking. The southern terminus of this corridor connects to the Miami River Walk and major residential -commercial development west of the Brickell Avenue Bridge. (1) Office The amount of office space forecast between 1972 and 1985 is equal to adding a First Federal Building annually for the next 12 years, and most of this space will locate near the existing office core. Office development will occur if certain improvements and controls are initiated to prevent negative impacts; and, therefore, new office space is the key to the Downtown Development Plan. Residential, EP EMI RIM s FIGURE 2 1985 LAND USE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 146 ilnrIrmnprIvrTrIl • A!iiiiif(lfifli Central Ccr;merc,a © Gereral Corrrr€rcar C 11772 IrG stral D - Pt,;;,C r3C';.i es E 2It1 Jp Commerc a!/ Residert,ai F . Parks and Recreation G ETD Residential (rgn ciensty) H " -�i Resodenaa; + ;-rd densty) 1985 LAND USE 1 147 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 7 retail and hotel development depend upon sustained office growth. (2) Residential Residential development in Downtown Miami must be related to significant amenities of a quality to compete with other areas in the region. Bayfront Park and Miami River Walk will certainly be attractive for adjacent development in the near future. In the long-range additional public action will be required. New In -Town Residential Community: The economic forecast indicates that a large-scale, moderate density, mixed income community is a possibility downtown. The most appropriate location for such a development would be north of the Community College to I-395 and east of the FEC Railroad. This area presently contains only a very small residential population, is under-utilized and has enough area for a significantly large development to include retail and other community services. The Illustrative Development Plan indicates a new community of approxi- mately 7000 dwelling units with supporting facilities organized around a major park and lake system. Imple- mentation of this proposal would require public -private cooperation with the City providing land assembly assistance, write -downs, or other actions. Although 1 148 1 1 1 1 1 1 ,1 1 1 1 1 1 developing this community will be an enormous task, the benefits for downtown would be significant. A large, socially, racially and economically mixed residential population will increase the attraction of downtown to the regional population and, in turn, will stimulate further development. The community will also give existing `'DP-3 residents a wide choice of living environments and allow rehabilitation and selective redevelopment of the NDP-3 area with no relocation outside of downtown necessary. Residential Development in the Flagler Street Core: Residential development in t':e existing office and retail core is desirable and achievable. However, due to high land costs only condominiums can be anticipated, since high-rise apartments for sale are the only residential type that can compete with office development. In addition, to attract residents to the Core, the downtown environment must be improved dramatically, including public parks, landscaping, evening activities and, perhaps most important, resident security. Existing Residential Subareas: New development in downtown will provide benefits to the existing population; increasing downtown employment will provide increase job opportunities. The proposed new community will provide new housing alternatives for existing residents; that is particularly important for the elderly now living in downtown areas most I 149 susceptible to new development. Major new parks will provide expanded recreational opportunities. To comple- ment this new development, the City in cooperation with existing residents, should establish programs for existing neighborhoods. In the short range this should include investigations to avoid the negative impacts of increased traffic downtown, street land- scaping, and a program to improve public services in the central area. In the long range when Federal housing programs are clarified, rehabilitation and selective redevelopment should occur with the City and existing residents cooperating in an action plan. (3) Retail and Entertainment Retail activity in downtown is not expected to expand significantly; but, with a larger resident population and increasing employment, conditions of current facilities should improve and a moderate increase in space can be expected. The most important new retail activities are places of entertainment and restaurants of regional importance. These should be energetically encouraged. In addition, the continuous retail activity along Flagler Street should be maintained; all new developments should have active spaces on the ground floor containing retail, personal services, entertain- ment and restaurants. 10 (4) Hotel and Motel Hotel development is expected in the form of renovation of existing space, but a modest amount of new space is likely as downtown develops into an important commercial and convention center. The most appropriate location for new hotels and motels is along Biscayne Boulevard within easy walking distance of the retail core and the proposed convention center. These concepts are illustrated in Figure 3 on the following page. Transportation and Parking Plan The movement system for downtown is planned not only to keep pace with development, but also to provide a pleasant, convenience system that anticipates and guides new development. In the short range automobile transportation and parking are the critical issues; in the long-range the location of mass rapid transit stations and internal transit movement become major concerns. It should be emphasized that transportation is critical for downtown develop- ment. Before regional rapid transit is operating, street improve- ments and a parking program must be implemented in order to allow a significant amount of new development. (1) Regional Rapid Transit Sustained office growth downtown is dependent upon a high level of mass rapid transit service. Beyond 1980, depen- dence on the automobile comparable to 1973 would produce traffic and parking demands far in excess of downtown's ro4,444,4,3111111116. FIGURE 3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 151 •1 .a.--..;••=•"-_-..**0*- - .,11-........; ..i. - 7 - -V "7"-. - :.:••••-•--""-_ .... I V--7J — - =ssirm-- El - 11 3 i r - --- • • — 1._ ••• '‘• - Jr--- 2 • • .1._t • • - •-• :I...., • 7 • I--L-. • • I - - • ' r f-r---A.=-- ....-: .. ,., ,-,-- ., .,.--,.- •,..--,— —., -.7---a....* 1 i..y1X.- . ..._.- c:;, .11j,. • jil_r_.._-_:._,=_ ---.0lic-:, ...-::.:- '-`,..,'" -•-... ."---;-. 1-----i • • --__ ....----,- -72.4=- =1----1--• ' - . .,...., ,,..,....,,,....._,9'''-1,...,1. --‘• ...,.......-...7.2,._-_,..... -.:•'.':7'-- ----74-.L...'"- 7-.77---.-t:::\;7`.:,,. 1,21.11--H'i --i:.--‘72-.-:::::•;:‘.Th' -----7-s. - , rm..,-• ,i_ii: - - • _ .71..,.-: - •:%.!--..1'2.--•• 1 • ---. -9 : 7.7::::,.....L.,: • ..'"77: :I. .'1.1.T..__..z...71).n‘.....-,17-__I.`"• •-• ""' ..:7 'T.:;-%J. 2„._ •.• •-,,- • --. - . , . • - •, -NM t • 1 Y.: E • !:. • - • - - _ • •▪ - , • -747:41, c--c01,.-cf:- 0, ..1 cloriv3 3 • 4.-1/4— -L" • J • itt j''':':'-'-'-'=-...---:-.4:L'.1"....."- --" •., tF.,,setirt ....- 1 r..... '..__ _ •___-_:; 1 ' -.7-...2:::- .. .42— • ' '77N..., i..? ILLUSTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1,11:1 I ;I tt I Z..; sr" 11,111 152 capacity, resulting in a reduced attraction rate for office development. Therefore, mass rapid transit is a major com- ponent of the 1985 Urban Development Plan. The regional mass rapid transit system alignment and downtown station locations have pending final engineering studies. The following principles have guided downtown system alignment and station locations: 1. Regional rapid transit stations are located as close as possible to existing and future employ- ment and retail concentrations. 2. Employment concentrations downtown should be interconnected with some form of mass transit. . Employment concentrations downtown should be linked to new development north and south. 4. Employment concentrations downtown should be linked to regional intercept and fringe parking by regional rapid transit or other forms of mass trans- portation. 5. Transit guideways and stations in downtown should, where possible, allow integration of future buildings using air rights and direct pedestrian connections from stations to surrounding buildings. 153 The regional rapid transit system as recommended in the Mile- stone 8 Report, by Kaiser Engineers, includes Stage I - the North -South Route - within downtown. This Stage, funded for final engineering by UMTA, enters the downtown on the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way with stations in the Brickell Area and Government Center and continues northerly to N. llth Street before turning westerly. Stage II - the East-West Route - enters the downtown from the west following the Flagler Street and turns northerly via N.E. 2nd Avenue, terminating at N. 9th Street, with stations at Government Center, Miami Avenue, Miami -Dade Community College and N.E. 9th Street. Stage III would continue the Stage II Route over the McArthur Causeway to Miami Beach. In addition to the regional system, a people -mover is recommended to parallel the East 2nd and 3rd Avenue regional system. It continues to the north with stops at the Transportation Center and the Midtown Core and extends to the vicinity of the Julia Tuttle Causeway or beyond, preferably terminating at a regional parking intercept. The people -mover also continues to the south with a station at Dupont Plaza, crossing the Brickell Avenue Bridge and serving the Brickell Avenue development corridor. _ .rl. 11 154 An expansion of this system to connect areas within downtown with peripheral and fringe parking concentrations should be considered. The people -mover should also serve downtown off -site parking concentrations to the major office develop- ments in Dupont Plaza and the Biscayne-2nd Avenue Corridor. The recommended alignment turns from the main north -south people -mover at the Dupont Plaza station to the reconstructed S.W. 4th Street right-of-way. Stops are located near the recommended off -site parking concentrations under the 1-95 Expressway ramps. The route then continues north along N.W. 2nd Avenue serving West Flagler Street and the Government Center offices and parking concentrations. Turning east, the people -mover then reconnects with the north -south route and could continue to the New Port on Dodge Island. Similar alignments have been suggested in Downtown Miami: 1 A Conceptual Transportation Plan and the Kaiser Mini -Systems Study. Taken together, these alignments form a series of 1 reasonable alternatives. (2) Vehicular Traffic Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan recommends the following immediate actions to improve vehicular circulation downtown: Prohibit curb cuts on critical downtown streets. Continue and expand operation of the staggered work hours/car pool program. 3. Widen S.E. 2nd Street. 4. Reconstruct and widen S.E. 4th Street. 5. Extend East 3rd Avenue to V.E. 1st Street. In addition to these immediate actions, solution to the transportation problems in Dupont Plaza is necessary before any new development can occur on those four blocks. The scheme proposed by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates requires public expenditures to alter the I-95 Expressway approach, construct approach ramps to parking garages, and improve through traffic movement. Clearly, this cannot be under- taken on a piecemeal basis; and, if development cannot locate in Dupont Plaza because of delayed public action, it will move elsewhere, not necessarily within downtown. Longer range vehicular transportation requirements include widening of Biscayne Boulevard from N.E. nth Street to 1-395; extension of N.E. 3rd Avenue to N.E. 5th Street to allow increased access to new development; and extension of N.W. 1st Avenue along the FEC Railroad to serve the increased access requirements in downtown, particularly the Government Center. The new development that is forecast for downtown coupled with the advent of regional rapid transit makes parking 156 policies and annual monitoring of parking spaces especially critical in terms of street congestion and transit ridership. The following policies are recommended: 1. Strictly enforce on -street parking regulations. 2. Moving traffic should take precedence over parking spaces in the utilization of existing streets. 3. Limit the amount of parking spaces in the CBD in favor of an over -supply elsewhere. Introduce regional intercept parking lots along expressways and rapid transit routes for people destined downtown. 5. Augment the "C"-shape system of peripheral parking lots within the downtown on underutilized land, principally under expressways and fringe parking lots adjacent to downtown. 6. Maintain the present policy of not requiring developers to provide off-street parking, pending annual reviews of parking supply, demand and transit ridership. l Ilimalliiiiiii iiiiIIIIIIIIMIN IIII 151 TTT. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT FACTORS INFLUENCING PLANS FOR THE PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM A. Existing Conditions Downtown Downtown conditions provide a basis for formulating goals and objectives, space forecasting, and determing what directions of change are possible. (1) Downtown Miami is a Specialized Core of the Region. The automobile has been a major determinant of the form of character at the Miami Region; the same is true for downtown. Traditional downtown activities exist both within the Study Area and in its context area. Often complementary activities are widely separated, such as the daytime office employment on Flagler Street and concentrations of restaurants on North Biscayne Boulevard. Yet downtown needs to balance its heavy daytime use with evening activity, its poorer neighborhoods with a diverse residential population. (2) Parking Lots Interrupt the Continuity of Downtown. Development intensity drops abruptly north and south of Flagler Street and west of Hotel Row on Biscayne Boulevard. This fringe area now has a primary function as surface parking lots. This is often the case when speculation increases, since a parking lot frequently offers a developer the greatest short-term net return. However, this condition interrupts downtown activities, leaving areas of downtown unsupported by other functions. This is the case today with Dupont Plaza and the vacant land along Biscayne Boulevard across from Bicentennial Park. logplpoilgll1111111!111i11'I Ite (3) Large Underutilized Areas Exist in Downtown. The Miami Riverfront, the manufacturing -wholesaling -warehousing district north of N.E. 6th Street, and the area west of the FEC Railroad along Flagler Street are all underutilized today. These areas all have a potential for change or revitalization, but major public improvements are necessary to stimulate action. One example is the programmed Government Center. (4) Restricted Opportunity for Diverse Groups to Live Downtown. The existing housing areas in downtown serve primarily low and moderate income minority groups: elderly, Black and Spanish- speaking. New housing in the surrounding area is primarily subsidized or public housing; the exception is along the high amenity bayfront north and south of the Study Area. (5) Potential Downtown Environmental Quality is Unrealized. The edge of Biscayne Bay offers an excellent amenity, and new development is responding. Improvement of the Miami Riverfront and Flagler Street are now underway. However, additional improvements are required to bring the downtown environment to its potential: extensive use of vegetation to shade pedestrian streets, covered pedestrian walk -ways, downtown parks to provide areas for relaxation, and reduction of conflict between pedestrian and traffic movement. Ill li'Il'III1111111111IIh11111IIPl1iiP4NO,n P ., IIR 150 4 (6) Traffic Congestion. Miami only recently has been faced with a crisis in the capacity of streets. However, crisis conditions are evident in Dupont Plaza and along North Biscayne Boulevard. Parking location in relation to street capacity is also a critical issue that must be dealt with immediately. The anticipated problems of peak hour traffic, generated by parking must be solved in the short-range and be a stimulus for continuous examination of parking policies. Bb Functional Areas and Linkages Reflecting the historic development of the city and the functional and economic requirements of different uses, areas can be deli- neated which have similar characteristics. Each of the sub -areas described below are integrated parts of the existing downtown socio-economic and functional structure. Some of these areas, such as the Office Core, will play a significant role in the future development of downtown. Other areas, which are becoming obsolescent with changing regional economic and activity structures and evolving requirements of the activities them- selves, are becoming less significant. The functional areas are depicted in Figure 4 below. (1) The Downtown Office Core. The general location of the Downtown Office Core is along Flagler Street and S.E. 1st Street with concentrations of office employment from the County Court House to Biscayne FIGURE :► FUNCTIONAL AREAS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 166 4 PREDOMINANTLY BLACK RESIDENTIAL CC`; `'U"JiT PART OF NDP - 3 MENTAPV EMICARCN 1 _ Cif TEA I I ;,.� ; MIDTOWN RETAIL CCRE MIAMI HERALD E,SCAY"IE, BAf IDENTIAL 67. • \AREA EE'NG Avl[.uIPE.Q FC R- Lic :i:PNA.r E?i�CE'v 'j - i j..-ES.DE:41-7 1-C7 ELS EL.rE7LY CCCLR*i+t1/ t` CI.nT ` `V.t rNwSAri:0 - i t /fr CLD 1T Q j MARINA HOTEL ROW ,aA'FPONT PARK L2PARV I • 1 \ DOWNTOWN __)OFFICE CORE DOWNTCWN RETAIL CORE CLAUGHTON ISLAND/ FUNCTIONAL AREAS CI Of ce '"'' Hctel Retail Pub c Facility _ Manufacturing, Wholesale and Storage • 1 161 1 1 .41 1 1 1 '1 1 Boulevard. Approximately 4 million square feet of office space are in this area, representing 42'', of the regional inventory. The center of office activity is shifting to the east of East 2nd Avenue, where most recent construction has occurred. Intensity of office development along Flagler Street generally falls within Floor Area Ratios (F.A.R.) of 8 to 12. Along Biscayne Boulevard intensities are higher: 100 North Biscayne Building has an F.A.R. of 24. Building sizes along Flagler Street are relatively small, averaging 130,000 square feet with average per floor leasable areas of 10,000 square feet. Recent office buildings oriented toward Biscayne Boulevard reflect size ranges for prime office space built in other cities: 100 North Biscayne, 325,000 square feet; 100 South Biscayne, 350,000 square feet; First Federal Building, 480,000 square feet; and One Biscayne Tower, 750,000 square feet. Activity patterns within the Office Core are weighted toward banking, savings and loan institutions, and other financial activities. Ground floor spaces are generally active; that is, they are occupied by retail, service establishments or banking chambers. Recent buildings have parking under or attached to the office space; older structures rely on the large supply of surface parking to the north and south of Flagler Street. However, as new office space is built, an ever increasing demand for new parking will require multiple level structures to meet all -day parking requirements. 162 1 (2) Downtown Retail Core. The Downtown Retail Core is one of a number of significant retail concentrations in the region, including earlier central business districts such as Coral Gables and more recent regional shopping centers such as Dadeland Mall. The Flagler Street Area has traditionally served as a retail center for the central area of Miami. This function continues today, and downtown shoppers are predominantly Black and Spanish-speaking. However, the great number of patrons has kept downtown retail sales relatively stable. The growing concentration of office workers and new residential development should also serve to keep retail sales stabilized. Four department stores located near the intersection of Miami Avenue and Flagler Street form the center of the Core with apparel shops lying east along Flagler and along Miami Avenue. Other retail and service establishments are located along N.E. and S.E. 1st Streets and along the streets intersecting Flagler. According to the Doxiadis Study the C.B.D. had S107.644,00 0 in sales in 1964. This was about S60 per square foot. The proposed retail development at Plaza Venetia may affect the Downtown Retail Core; however, increased office development and good transit access can sustain both centers. The access to parking by shoppers is another critical factor in determining the future of the Flagler Street businesses. New office construction will add demand to existing parking garages and possibly make auto access to the Retail Core even more difficult than it is today. 1 Ia L 11 161 ( ) Midtown Core. Jordan Marsh, Jefferson's and Sears Department Stores form the nucleus of the Midtown Core, complemented by the Lindsey Hopkins Education Center and the Miami Herald Building. With the addition of the proposed Omni International/Plaza Venetia, this area will be one of the largest activity concentrations in the region employing over 8,000. It is an automobile oriented center relating to the region, particularly the residential areas in Biscayne Bay and Miami Beach across the Venetian Causeway. Although the :Midtown Core is an intense regional development, the proposed rapid transit network shows no plans for a stop near the Midtown Core. This means the majority of the 8,000 employees will continue to rely on automobile access, existing bus routes, or a shuttle system. (4) F.E.C. Railroad Manufacturing, wholesaling and Warehousing. The concentration of manufacturing, wholesaling and warehousing originally developed along the F.E.C. Railroad and the Municipal Railroad in conjunction with the old Port of 'Miami and as a service area to the Downtown Office and Retail Cores. This corridcr extends to the north of the Study Area, to the Garment Center, and to the west along the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and N.W. 20th Street. Since warehousing is the predominant use within this corridor, the labor force is relatively low, totaling less than 1,800 employees. Other significant employment areas u mr••9l- 164 exist along the railroad north of the Study Area. Much of the area is currently vacant or underutilized, although Greyhound Bus Lines recently opened a modern bus terminal in this area. (5) Hotel Row Hotel Row, fronting Bayfront Park along Biscayne Boulevard from Flagler Street to N.E. 7th Street, consists of large, older hotels which were developed for resort accommodations near the Miami Retail Core and Biscayne Bay. Miami Beach has reduced the area's significance as a winter resort; and, consequently, the hotels have functioned primarily in recent years as accommodations for visiting businessmen. Currently, the heaviest occupancy rate is in the summer months, reflecting the increase of tourists from Latin America and Cuban visitors from other areas of the United States vacationing in Miami. (6) Brickell Area That portion of Brickell Avenue, extending south of the Miami River to the Rickenbacker Causeway fronting on Biscayne Bay, has seen substantial office and residential development since the early 1960's with accelerated development in the 1970's. Approximately 3 million square feet of office space concentrated at the north end and 4 million square feet of residential apartment/hotel space south of 10th Street has been constructed in this period. l' !1@'I'i lom naua�'n wririirI`NIII l",IIAiIno IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPgIll 0 16t (7) Residential Sub -Areas There are four residential sub -areas in the Study Area which are distinguishable by population characteristics and housing type. Lying south of I-395 between 1-95 and the F.E.C. Railroad, the 'tDP-3 Area within the Study Area has a population of approximately 7,000 occupying more than 2,100 dwelling units. Over 99% of the residents are Black. The majority of the population is young with less than 10% over 62 years of age. Median family income is low with 32% of the households falling below the poverty line. Over 65% of the labor force is unemployed or underemployed. The residents are largely employed in retail sales, services, and domestic labor. A large proportion of the families have female heads -of -household. Housing types are mixed with both single family detached and walk- up apartments represented in significant numbers. The residential density of the area averages over 40 people per gross acre. Median household size is 3.3. The major non-residential activities consist- ing of retail, entertainment, and services are located within a commercial strip along N.W. 3nd Street. An area similar in physical composition to the NDP-3 Area lies north of 1-395 below the Miami Cementery and east of the F.E.C. Railroad. However, when compared to the population within the NDP-3 Area, the residents show greater diversity: 15% are over I' IPRNII IIIIl UPI I Iq 1 166 62 years of age, 13% are Black and 29% are Spanish-speaking. Although the median family income exceeds $7,100, over 20% of thc. families fall below the poverty line. The downtown residential area lies within the Downtown Core and ex- tends north to 1-395. The total population within this area is approximately 2,700 with an average household size of 1.2. The population is predominantly elderly with 45% over 62. Over 26% of the population is Black and 36% is Spanish. The majority of the population is located south of the F.E.C. Railroad, predominantly in residential or "retirement" hotels. The annual median family income is over $5,200, but more than 20% of the households fall below the poverty line. The Biscayne Bay Residential Area lying north of I-395 along the Bay contains a population of over 1,000. Less than 1% of the residents are Black; 26% are Spanish. Over 31% of the population is over 62 years of age. Although the annual median family income is over $7,200, approxi- mately 18% of the residents fall below the poverty line. The housing types within the area include residential hotels and many large single family dwellings converted to apartments. C. Development Opportunity Areas Opportunity areas are the probable receptacles for new development. The allocation of the space forecast into these areas, as shown on the illustrative Plan, represents a probable future for downtown Miami. Of course, other futures are possible, but the illustrative solution defines a desirable and feasible future state which serves I111111AlIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIh''I!II"II11111IIIINIIII 1111q1 167 a§ a basis for recommended public action and zoning controls. the areas of greatest commercial development potential during the 1973-1985 period will be in the Dupont Plaza Area, the Biscayne-2nd Avenue Corridor and Brickell. To a lesser extent commercial development is certain to occur in and adjacent to the Government Center and the Midtown Core. The Biscayne Bay - front and Miami River Subareas have excellent potentials for residential development, all of which are shown in Figure 5. (1) Dupont Plaza Area Dupont Plaza is important for downtown. Development will provide linkages to Brickell Avenue on the south and can stimulate develop- ment on the currently underutilized parcels along the Miami River. However, transportation improvements are required for any new development to occur. The four vacant blocks in Dupont Plaza plus the area proposed for Miami Center can accommodate almost 2.5 million square feet of new office space, 740 hotel rooms, 1300 dwelling units and as much as 80,000 square feet of retail space. If less office space were developed, additional residential space could be accommodated. (2) Biscayne Boulevard-2nd Avenue Area This area is the most attractive for commercial development after Dupont Plaza. Although the front portions of many of the blocks are occupied by developments considered as "givens", almost the entire frontage along N.E. 2nd Avenue can be available for intense new development. The Miami -Dade Community College, a recommended 168 regional rapid transit station and a new downtown urban park will contribute to increased development potentials and positive downtown environment. This area has a capacity for more than 3.5 million square feet of retail space. A significant number of new dwelling units could also be developed. (3) Claughton Island This single owner residential community is programmed to include 3,000 apartment units, 1,200 hotel rooms, office and retail space. (4) Brickell Area This area has become a prestige address for single -owner office buildings and luxury apartments. Underdeveloped land offers the opportunity of gradual transition to higher uses. (5) Government Center Area A Downtown Government Center has been proposed for some time, and a recent plan has been completed. This project will enhance downtown by providing an "internal" catalyst for redeveloping the existing underutilized area. The possibility of a major Government Office Center has already stimulated development along West Flagler Street and will stimulate similar development adjacent to the boundaries. The new headquarters of the City of Miami Police Department was inaugurated recently. II111 IIIli1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII!II 160 (6) Midtown Core Area Omni International is a major new retail development which is now underway. Over 600,000 square feet of retail space will be developed, complemented by new office and residential space and a merchandise mart. This will transform the Midtown Core into a major regional employment concentration and should stimulate moderate amounts of additional office and residential development. (7) Miami Riverfront Area and Biscayne Bayfront Areas These two areas have the highest amenity potential in downtown and are therefore appropriate locations for new downtown residential development. A total of over 2300 new dwelling units could be accommodated in the areas while vastly improving environmental quality. The Miami River Walk and Bicentennial Park are necessary stimulants to development. The programmed Miami Convention Center will add to this potential. D. Transportation Constraints The movement requirements of high intensity development vary with the type of use. Residential development requires easy access to public streets throughout the day; whereas, office development requires access at peak hour in the morning and evening. The State of Florida Department of Transportation and the firm of Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates were given the responsibility of investigating transportation in downtown Miami and producing a conceptual transportation plan. Using block -by -block land use 110 itifotmation, transportation demand was calculated at peak hour: Comparing demand in specific block with capacity indicates potential constraints. In 1972, prior to the opening of One Biscayne Tower and First Federal Building, most of the streets in the Study Area were operating under capacity at peak hour. However, with no increase in system capacity, major development opportunity areas, such as Dupont Plaza, will be constrained by the inability of the present movement system to serve new development. The programmed regional rapid transit system can reduce traffic constraints by promoting a greater percentage of work trips by public transportation. The period before rapid transit is in operation is critical for proper location of new development and parking garages in relation to street capacity. Yet, an analysis by Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates indicates that peak hour egress from the garages can barely be handled by the existing streets. Furthermore, parking for additional high intensity development will only increase congestion. The development of the Dupont Plaza Area will continue to be constrained unless commitments to major transit and traffic improve- ments are made. Even then Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates has indicated 171 that parking in excess of 5,000 cars will overload the new Dupont Plaza Area system capacity. Although the Dupont Plaza Area is most constrained, other areas such as N.E. 2nd Street and Biscayne Boulevard are at capacity now, and future development of an intensity over F.A.R. 12 could overload the street system. Areas which are presently under capacity are located far away from office concentrations and carry little probability for new development. Transportation constraints can be eliminated in a number of ways, such as: adding new lanes, prohibiting intense develop- ment in congested areas, and promoting staggered work hours. However, the most important tool is public monitoring and control of the parking supply, since the location of parking, rather than employment, is the major generator of congestion. E. Zoning Recommendations The Proposed downtown zoning revisions specifically recommend: Mixed use development -through the encouragement of residential uses throughout downtown. Incentive zoning by first limiting the allowed intensity of development, then awarding development incentives for the provision of public amenities. A design plan showing mandatory public amenities to be supplied by private developers. iI�IlPlllp gll;I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111 112 7 w w • Pedestrian amenities by awarding development incentives for the voluntary provision of arcades, through -block connections, land- scaped pedestrian paths, and urban open spaces (mini -parks). Integration with the rapid transit system, by requiring second - level pedestrian connections (pediways) to rapid transit stations and awarding incentives to developments in proximity to rapid transit stations. Public and Private Projects The following list summarizes projects planned, programmed or under way in the downtown area. (1) Miami Convention Center The City has purchased a 5-acre site on the north bank of the Miami River adjacent to and immediately west of the Brickell Avenue Bridge and on the block west of the Howard Johnson Motel. Approximately $10 million is programmed for a convention center capable of seating 7,000 people. The architectural firm of Ferendino, Grafton, Spillis, Candela, has been selected and they are proceeding to develop a program and contract documents. It is anticipated that the construction contract would be awarded in 1976 with an 18-month construction period. In addition the University of Miami is considering adding the $3.2 million Knight Continuing Education Center to this complex. (2) Watson Island The City intends to solicit Requests for Proposals from private developers for the future development of this island as an "international theme" park. (3) Bicentennial/Bayfront Parks Construction is now well underway for the development of Bicentennial Park generally north of V.E. 9th Street (extended) to McArthur Causeway following plans prepared by Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates. Substantial completion is expected this summer in time for the Bicentennial although the full program including a restaurant will not be completed until later. Funding for both parks is provided by the "Parks for People" bond issue. (4) F.E.C. Property Between Bicentennial and Bayfront Parks exist substantial private ownerships generally controlled by the Florida East Coast Railroad. By recent court order the City has gained "quick take" for certain parcels facing on Biscayne Boulevard which the Cit:.' will probably develop as a green belt to shield the remaining railroad property. The City is also proceeding in court to acquire this remaining railroad property, although this may involve extensive litigation. (5) Omni International/Plaza Venetia Complex This is a $75 million hotel and shopping complex including a new J.C. Penney's store is being built next to and north of the midtown 174 • Jordan Marsh store with completion scheduled for early 1977. Plaza Venetia (Venetian Rambler site) is an apartment complex of approximately 300 units proposed immediately north of the Venetian Causeway fronting on 3iscayne Bay and is currently undergoing re -zoning hearings. The remainder of Plaza Venetia would be developed on the vacant parking lot immediately north of this site, and east of Omni. Development on this last site is expected in the next 5 years. (6) Claughton Island This is a S225 million residential, hotel and commercial develop - went on the 44 acre island in Biscayne Bay connected by a bridge to S.E. 8th Street. The developers hope to start on the 15 year long project this year. The complete program includes approximately 3,000 apartment units, two 600 room hotels, commercial and office space. (7) People's National Bank This new building recently opened on the corner of N.E. 2nd Avenue and 4th Street, close to the Stage II rapid transit alignment. (8) Dade County Art Museum The Dade County Art Museum Study has been prepared by a recognized firm in the field. It proposed a series of alternative sites in the downtown area. Listed in rank order are the following sites; 175 1. Bicentennial Park 2, Margaret Pace Park 3, Watson Island 4. Biscayne Boulevard at approximately 9th Street 5. Bayfront Park 6. Government Center 7. Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables Approximately $7 million is available from the Dade County Decade of Progress under the general heading of "cultural." Some of this money could be used for the art museum. (9) Downtown Transportation Plan The study "Downtown Miami: A Conceptual Transportation Plan" prepared by the firm of Beiswenger-Hoch and Associates in 1973 for the Florida Department of Transportation recommended the following improvements within downtown: r tir • M • w 1. Dupont Plaza Transportation Improvements FDOT has held public hearing on multi -level ramp structure intended to accommodate 1-95 feeder/Biscayne Boulevard and Brickell Avenue/Biscayne Boulevard traffic movements. Cost estimate is $80 million. Dade County has advanced $300,000 for preliminary engineering studies. 2. Brickell Bridge Replacement 3. Miami Avenue Bridge Replacement by FDOT. The project is in preliminary engineering at present. S.W. 2nd Avenue Bridge Replacement S.W. 1st Street Bridge Replacement i► S.E. 2nd Street Widening North 1st Street Capacity Improvement East 3rd Avenue Improvement 9. Biscayne Boulevard -Port Boulevard Grade Separation 10. Biscayne Boulevard Widening from approximately North 5th Street to North 12th Street. (10) Government Center The consulting firm of Connell/Metcalf/Eddy has prepared two milestone reports for Government Center for the Dade County Department of Public Works. Proposed are approximately 4.0 million square feet of office space on the 30 acre site bounded by Flagler Street and N.W. 5th Street, from I-95 to the F.E.C. right-of-way. The Miami Police Headquarters and the related parking ramp have been completed and were inaugurated recently. Ground has been broken for Phase I (168,500 square feet) of the State of Florida Regional Service Center; total development will be 632,000 square feet by the year 2000. This is also the site of a main downtown ibtafy to be funded from Decade of Progress funds. This is also the location for the main terminal of the proposed rapid transit system. Dade County has completed acquisition of almost all remaining property in the area. :to other funding has been identified for the remaining buildings proposed. (11) Federal Building Annex The General Services Administration is committed to add 100,000 square feet of office space to the existing federal courthouse in the block bounded by North Miami Avenue and North 1st Avenue from N.E. 3rd Street to N.E. 4th Street and is proceeding into property acquisition. (12) Other Downtown Parks Projects The first phase of the Miami River Walkway has been completed, extending from the Brickell Avenue Bridge to the new YWCA building along the southern periphery of the Convention Center site. Phase II of the Miami River Walkway, extending from the "Y" to the Miami Avenue Bridge is planned and approximately one-half of the $400,000 cost has been identified, representing both private and City funds. A start on construction is anticipated this year. Fort Dallas Park is immediately west of the Downtown "Y" occupying a parcel approximately 150 feet wide and 100 feet deep facing the Miami River. It is proposed to develop this park and move the old Ft. Dallas Barracks from their existing location at Lummus Park to this site. 178 Sir IV tti, PEOPLE MOVER STATION LOCATION POLICIES The land use aspects of the people -mover station area provide a multi- faceted influence zone that, of necessity, must indicate the compatibility of potential station -related development with both existing and proposed development patterns or strategies. The broad considerations should include potential conflicts with existing land use or activity patterns, conformance with proposed development plans, and public development policies and regulatory plans such as zoning. A. Compatibility with Existing Land Use Perhaps the most basic factor in considering an influence area around a station is the definition of areas where potential changes are acceptable or not acceptable to the existing land use pattern. Areas of potential conflict represent the limits of station develop- ment influence, particularly when existing or long-range land use relationships need to be maintained. In light of station influences, however, certain existing land use patterns may no longer be valid and need to undergo change. The key here is that potential conflict areas are valid as a large scale measure, and should not necessarily be used as a final determination that changes are to be avoided. B. Conformance with Land Use Plans As with existing land use patterns, the planned development pattern has areas that may be compatible or incompatible with potential station area development. Since comprehensive development plans serve as the framework for channeling future growth pressures, they are an essential consideration here. If the station is being developed in a planned "activity node" area, then it is likely II§ that planned highet intensity use areas may conform to potential needs in the station area. Hard and Soft Areas Influence areas will vary depending on how susceptible to change structures and properties are and how resistant to change certain areas are due to social and amenity considerations. Determining land availability in a station area necessitates identifying "hard" (indicating permanence) and "soft" (indicating transition potential) areas and their proximity to the station site. Public versus Private Ownership Ownership of land, whether public or private, will have a great deal of effect on station influence zones. One major aspect is that in many station areas land ownership will be highly fractionalized. E. Land Acquisition The acquisition of right-of-way for the development of the transit system has an immediate effect, because it involves the direct removal of some existing land uses, and replacement by other, new uses. For the most part, these replacements are directly related to the transit system itself - station structures, parking lots, and access areas. Some land, however, may be acquired which is needed during development of the system, but which may revert back to the private market once development is complete. Through the judicious use of land use controls, this surplus land may, when feasible, serve to set the pattern for all development around the station. 186 tt toVed Accessibility The acquisition of land has the most direct effect upon land uses but the most profound and often dramatic effects arise from the increased accessibility created by the location of a transit station in an area. Improved accessibility does not always cause major land use changes, other factors must also be present. In general, the greater the current market demand in an area prior to development of the transit system, the greater the probability that substantial development will occur. Transit stations in existing commercial areas may cause either strengthening of existing character or redevelopment to a higher level of commercial activity. The degree of change in either case depends upon the existing character of the area as well as the level of activity generated by the transit station itself. However, it should not be assumed that the location of a transit station in a deteriorated area is solely sufficient to guarantee redevelopment. The potential for land use changes created by the DPM stations is a phenomenon which can and should be managed in order to produce changes which benefit the public. Transit -induced growth can cause even greater congestion on the streets than that •rhich the transit system was designed to alleviate. It can also cause the quick congestion of the transit system itself. Such congestion may occur if unbridled development is permitted to create more traffic generators than can be accommodated by the combined transit and street system. Since the capacity of those two 181 systems will be a known quantity, a reasonably close relationship between that capacity and new concentrations of development can be Maintained by avoiding uncontrolled development. Value Capture Value capture policy is a means whereby land adjacent to trans- portation facilities (transit stops) is purchased, managed, or controlled in order for the public to share in potential financial and community development benefits from the facility not otherwise possible. The value of a parcel of land is partly determine by its accessibility. The greater the improvement in accessibility the greater the likelihood that the land will appreciate in value. It can be argued that the increased value is unearned because it is not a result of any effort or expenditure by the private landowner. If the public agency could "recapture" the value created by the public development, there would be a corresponding reduction in public cost. A great deal of the increased value will be automatically recaptured by general tax revenues. The City of Miami and Dade County have the advantage of being both the developer of the transit facility and the agencies receiving general tax revenue. In addition, the possibilities will be explored of utilizing other means of value recapture such as special taxing districts. Joint Development 44ith the construction of a people -mover system in downtown Miami there is a potential for the planning and implementation of both transit improvements and the development of private property. This concept, known as joint development, has two basic, com- plementary meanings. First, it has a "physical planning" or "spatial" meaning in terms of the proposed patterns of land uses, including the transit improvement and network of local services affected by that improvement, within the transit corridor. It also has an "implementing" or "administrative and financial" meaning in terms of the actions taken and financing or funding made available jointly by the local government agencies and private organizations and individuals to construct the transit improve- ment and to develop, redevelop or adjust the land uses and network of local services within the transit corridor pursuant to the corridor plan.* Areas offering potential for joint development ventures include all currently underdeveloped properties in the study area. *From report of the ULI Transportation Task Force, Development Policies for Urban Mass Transit Station Areas. 1 18 w A NM LAND USE, DEVELOPMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY POLICIES This subsection presents an integrated set of recommended policy guide= lines for general application to people mover station/land use policies and right-of-way policies. A. System Policies Provide efficient connections between major activity centers. Encourage new high intensity urban development by linking to prime opportunity areas. Excellence in architecture, engineering and urban design will be pursued in stations and structures. Adequate light and air will be provided in all affected rights - of -way under stations and structures. The system should be accessible to the elderly and handicapped. Right -of -Way Policies Joint development opportunities will be pursued to the maximum extent possible so that the value of the public investment may be recaptured for the general public. Route alignments will be located according to the following priorities: 1. Joint development opportunities 2. Public rights -of -way 3. Currently underdeveloped property (parking lots) preferably by easement. 184 beveloped private property will be avoided, except to provide for necessary structural needs. Public rights -of -way, where large subsurface infrastructure investments (sewer, water, telephone, electrical) have been made, will be avoided. Route alignment should allow the affected street to function satisfactorily. If route placement severely reduces the street function then (a) the route should be :roved, or (b) the street should be closed. Streets would be closed only where Transportation System management concepts can be combined with urban design features. Separate, wherever possible, pedestrian and vehicular travel patterns in areas adjacent to stations. Clearance under structures should be 17 feet, except when an alignment crosses a railroad right-of-way in which case the clearance should be 22 feet. Station Location Policies Stations should be accessible to high volumes of pedestrian traffic and minimize vehicular/pedestrian conflicts. Therefore stations will be located according to the following priorities: 1. High volume activity centers (or large parking concentrations) 2. Joint development opportunities 3. Over intersections in the public right-of-way. ■ 185 IR OP • tti Station areas, ensure that the levels of noise from station - related sources do not exceed the criteria guidelines established by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Urban Mass Transit Administration, and the Institute of Rapid Transit. Stations will be no closer than 1,000 feet apart unless there is sufficient demand to justify closer spacing. Parking Policies Stations serving activity centers will not provide parking, P arking will be discouraged. Stations should be accessible to peripheral parking lots or large parking concentrations. Parking in peripheral areas will be encouraged. The current policy of not requiring the private provision of off-street parking in the downtown will be continued. Off- street parking spaces will be limited to a maximum of 1,200 spaces per block, or by the adjacent street capacity. In certain areas to be served by the People -Mover, where off- street parking is currently required, the off-street parking requirement may be waived, upon application to and approval of, the appropriate review agencies. Construction and Displacement Policies Displacement will be minimized. All displacees will receive the benefits of the federal Uniform Relocation Act. Where partial takes are necessary, every effort will be made to maximize the value of the remnant parcel. a N A 0 IIle 186 Effdtts will be made to minimize disruption during normal working hours by construction scheduling. Every effort will be made to guarantee the businessman the beneficial use of his property during normal working hours. Every effort will be made to assure that normal pedestrian and vehicular flows will be maintained. Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to ensure control of solid waste materials produced during the construction process. Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to minimize the impact upon surrounding areas of noise produced by construction equipment. Control fully all water runoff from transit facilities. Connect storm drainage systems associated with transit facilities to the local storm sewer system, if any; and connect sanitary sewer systems in transit stations to the appropriate sewer treatment facilities. Include detailed specifications in construction contracts to ensure maximum control of dust, exhaust emissions, and other air pollutants during the construction process. Urban Design Policies Adopt coordinated graphics requirements as part of station area plans. prOOF1111111411,11PIMPIIIM!!IIMIR! rik kis M 187 Adopt visual communication and street accessories standards as part of station area plans. Adopt "defensible space" urban design criteria which minimize physical features that promote high crime situations in station areas. DOWNTOWN MIAMI PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT MILESTONE REPORT NO, 5 ROUTE ALIGNMENT AND STATION LOCATION r 189 `Pat .E OF coNtENts Overview of Milestone Report Nos. 1 = 4 I1, Route Alignment Evaluation tII Evaluation Matrix IV. Station Locations Page 190 199 209 212 90 : OVERVIEW OF MILESTONE REPORT NOS. 1 - Milestone Report 5, System Alignment and Station Location reviews the efforts of the four earlier milestone reports to develop a single suggested alignment for Miami's proposed Downtown People Mover (DPM). This report examines the suggested corridor concepts, presented in Milestone 2, "Alternative Route Analysis;" the evaluation level matrix and policies forwarded from Milestone 4, "Land Use Develop- ment and Right -of -Way Policies;" thus examining specific alignment and station location alternatives to develop a recommended 1985 DPM System. Milestone 1 - System Concept and Criteria This report reviews previous planning concepts and develops definitive criteria for selecting a single people mover plan to best serve the needs of the downtown area. Milestone 2 - Alternative Route Analysis The systems analysis conducted in Milestone 2 proposed that Alternatives 1, 2 and 6 with service modifications appear to best serve the needs of the area. This was based on the ridership levels that these systems could expect to attract estimated on 1985 land use and transportation forecasts made for the downtown area. The daily ridership forecasts for these three systems ranged from a high of over 47,000 for Alterna- tive 1, to a low of over 42,000 for Alternative 6, with.the full regional rapid transit system in place. 101 Milestone 3 - Vehicle Technology Milestone 3 Vehicle Technology identified several candidate technologies which are judged to basically satisfy the requirements of the Downtown People Mover, with only minor modifications. These are: 1. Ford ACT 2. LTV 3. Westinghouse 4. Alweg Figures on the four following pages show the stations and structures representative of most of the candidate technologies. Technology number 4 -- Alweg -- is a monorail with different track characteristics but with the same overall structural requirements. Some other candidate technologies have structural requirements that represent various combinations of these illustrated and are not shown. Milestone + - Land Use, Development and Right -of -Way Policies In Milestone +, station location policies are established. Stations should be located where they will be accessible to high volumes of pedestrian traffic, minimize vehicular/pedestrian conflicts, and require a minimum of right-of-way acquisition. Stations should be located according to the following priorities: 1. High volume activity centers and opportunity areas (or large parking concentrations) 2. Joint development opportunities 3. Adjacent to street intersections in the public right-of-way II II HUB 192 14/A L KkVAov" i I r 1 SINGLE GUIDEWAY TYPICAL SECTION FIGURE 1 193 ;1117RACK i RACK IEr IMO DOUBLE GUIDEWAY TYPICAL SECTION FIGURE 2 1 TICKETING ARE4 ELS;44TC.4 _ T 90'-v ` PL4TF..,4'A4 1 T/N'GG AREA, :: S4Az,•9Tv.? .a,VO ST J /.4.> w,'T,. /.ti' 4:V £ 'i57//0; BUit O/.VG i.,. s:.a..,:; Id U- , 'j r '' I7-RACA- PLAN EAA/OP ✓ r /LG//VG L;n/t Ir, rgA 1".=XT VO .r tl -XrST. � _.1sioE��.ic.: • 1 1 i;. 1 ,5t/P%✓2,?7" SECTION SINGLE GUIDEWAY TYPICAL PASSENGER STATION FIGURE 3 J J J a J .—a---- j—_ -__-A-- 90 = 0 " r.- 4'4.r ELE.' l 1 I . 1 - 1 1 1 1 I I - t r� I _1 I %�L ATf✓^.i n l I I I I I PLAN TH.-iL Tt 4CA s:c� 20 - o" 5!0 ! --Z� -O„ --"-� SECTION DOUBLE GUIQEWAY CENTER PLATFORM STATION FIGURE 4 1/440 un 196 It is further assumed that consideration will be given to possible second level pedestrian connections and street level pedestrian systems (arcades and through -block connections) in locating stations. Stations are to be located no closer than 1,000 feet to maximize system speed and are intended to serve a walking radius of 600 feet. Stations should be provided to serve the following existing and commited activity centers: 1. Biscayne Boulevard Financial District 2. Hotel Row The Flagler Street Retail Core and Miami -Dade Community College are already designated to be served by Stage II of the Dade County Rapid Transit System. Stations should serve the following designated "opportunity areas" identified in current planning efforts and which already have significant development underway. 1. Convention Center/Dupont Plaza 2. Midtown Core 3. Brickell Avenue The system should be capable of future expansion to service proposed opportunities areas" anticipated to be developing by 1985. 1. Claughton Island 2. Watson Island 3. New Town -In -Town (N.E. 5 - l0th Streets) 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 101 The proposed Downtown Government Center is an "opportunity area" now undergoing development which will be served by the main terminal of Stage I of the Dade County Rapid Transit System and provides a logical interface for transferring patrons to the DPM. Milestone 4 established that DPM routes should be located with regard to the following development and land use priorities. 1. In conjunction with joint development opportunities 2. Be located in public right-of-way 3. Utilize currently underdeveloped property (parking lots) preferably by obtaining easements rather than direct acquisition. Developed private property would be avoided, except for necessary technical requirements. Public right-of-way with large concentrations of utilities would be avoided. -ad- • — —aa .d J liii!�iiII!!{l !_1f!II!ll!!1-. `�� '141'�,.tit; j�_'_11{fJ1--1 ►I ii'!(;,1 -- i r II , I l ��, lillill�� •' •1. I LL !4l-,, 1. , 1 ILf- ,4_ �,,! I f 1,-- ii .1.,•III I -I- il - I� L 1 -- _____________,_-__. _ ._ ,.,..,._.-1[ , ., ki.H i: . _..... . , .:. ,ii, - _ , , ii . 1 1 - -- .-__ r‘\) 1 \ • •iii , _, • (i II I i , J ,•�( (Jt Illlli"li'I � l}i t I 1=Z `1/l 1,II61(I// �' ' iii1l ('! l.l�� 1 �rr.� ,;1 11r l�l�l�r�rt!I��i:� I '�! l ll`'� !"` I i I ill rh ' T li: _ I f ii iI,tlji •!!11 .i f "__ �I(il,f L i , �r�ul�:il (ii lhllfl ft;; ; i llfip i {{I11,1111)11,PiliiiiI,' ��+11It 1 ( .� (iQl!lll( l,'�,lil , 'r�ili Lil' �J+IIi(1I1II_.,f,-��j'1 1r,;.:l(�L,I�,,' ,I. I1�I !:r�{{' Jf ;I 1`!I 1 JJyyI I)j �ft !—,, II IIIii.li:i +i' [I`�[['I� l[[ll I +I 11i lt! ' ll.11 ow 9 . U.'illI1[ij', ,iii((r{ fI71GillW;il(l(. IfIII I!I [[ it .1.1.1.11III 1.i 1. 1(-1!11(1 ,11 (ll, ,r.l rl-;--:u.�:! L.f. 111 .1111I� / I .., . .. 1. �I�: �� h 1�1 I:�I�J�L; �� f1..��..� �y-r.. -.. I a, lam'-- - _ _ �1 � L• •7 w.� �• y��.....1�....ua.i _ \ `" 7I — Sri l,l I 1 I I 1.1111 II [I ( litv`iiei'I 1 11y11 11j.1! [i it Ht. 1, '�I_ �.,�.`t ," r."f?th dill [ll-11[;'`i 11 Ti I[ [( [[ ff �� ,';/,1Illllill�i►;r►,�t, 'tip( ��?,, i ( , � i, l,:' - I� 't �/i;[Ilii i' 1(±IlnUi!il HI t!,O11!I���jiF 1I.f I 11 I ',`E [if ' 11 !► 1! !.► 11 II II I, ;� ,, ;I I I t V . ,, li l:l n ull�i!} UI , I .;J I ;��,i, LI i l 1 ,� luw�[ ;; '�i'I ;Hill fi[[ Irl I I, tIIII`Ill n I ; I l a j o "�� cl : 1 t1 ! CCitI I N I I lii .1,1 1111111 iil_{i111 t11((Iil ('I A ,rr i I ttA I '1 ' I ii i iii,lii-pp1lli llil _ f ;�1 tl � 1 it. ( i;;; II (I• . I I [ �`\_._� � -,- 1, ;III±�((±ILtI(lii[lilfllltil°11!I'( �• if ( ��• �;'�i�;,;/'�., ! ( — 3L II I!1 �, in �C����IUt�,..�.. I -- - Fi, l►,I�.(li,it (� ��II���?i �II ���( 1.791:("'�41'.1 "r''.,ar',l11r7, �1l, 1' j '� �U''��ii I I C' l_L[ �t�.II I� I 1(( II L,I I)'l�„�1 �� �, .�.: _ 1. allU..0 , rl C l I�I,I [ ,I)t •�- I ��If�� ir .. " '• / ! L4 . , / ..y MM rr.. a,; . ,M , M . . r • ,,' To' , ,. , i Wi_` r. a +• r -- r — 1 "�'�.'II+.� r •�s � �l�l{ � i 1 �l 1��;� �f' �:i ! �� �' I '� �[ l I �Ullll l • „ Ill���`�1 III 11i1 jrj I I� 1�[ I i f / / .� �,�� / 1- VUf �U�J�A i I I I I ■ ■ �.-:.Z; I I 1 I ��t�.�. �!L- ; i 1 �... �[ I I ( fi_Li,. „.i �� ! �/ �!� // ':1 li .t11 ...IL�f'}mi+l{ I�l,•'�� II IJll��a'_ - \ -,..�. ri1.�i..�a •4...rra.r.lai.tit*,.. ' .. i� I llll'. r1Y1C!/�1 l I l I yy �a�� �1,.`\ T� i. I f' I �.� III O, II,L �� ,. I aj1 / I t , ' I1 ' 0,(111 1A1V1 _01,i.11:11l - I [31•CENTENI+IAL l II j lilt -&. Pi1;Oh}Ii71 - --- ---"l PARK ;\i�l'lII. l '.il' il! ��I tl �� } �� i 1. �, II III] j !� ,l:l ( itr,;IilOVM LII:all 0-4 rn M t.• CL UGHTON ISLAND Dt:A LOri�IENT / 14 i S C A Y• f� t: 4 �L • 1, s +ui ;t1;. 11 .t n m t 9§ ROUTE ALIGNMENT EVALUATION Each of the three segments of the DPM system will be evaluated in detail. Each segment has been sub -divided into links as shown in Figure 5, and identified by letters that will allow micro -level examination of possible route alignments to satisfy the overall conceptual service pattern. Selection of the precise links are based upon the same evaluation criteria that were used to review the conceptual route alignments evaluated in the first four milestone reports. These are the same links first described in Milestone Report No. 2. Each of the three segments, CBD loop, northern leg and southern leg are described by listing their various composite link alternatives. Then these combinations are reviewed and a recommended link combinaticn sequence is selected as an element of the final recommended system. A. CBD LOOP Alternative alignments consideredfor this portion of the DPM System include: 1. North Segment C N 5th Street F N 3rd Street 2. East Segment EH-1 Biscayne Boulevard EH-2 E 3rd Avenue EH-3 E 2nd Avenue .9 .1 1 1 .1 11 1 1 200 k.outh,Segment t-j. S tst Street t-2 S 2nd Street 3 South of I-95 ramps . West Segment DO FEC right-of-way W 2nd Avenue The North segment of the loop is recommended to utilize North 5th Street (link-C) for the following reasons: 1. It offers a stimulus for the redevelopment of a deteriorating area, as per the New -Town -in -Town concept in the Wallace- McHarg plan. 2. There is a 70' right-of-way as opposed to 50' on North 3rd Street, allowing the disruption of existing traffic and pedestrian flows to be minimized. 3. Major utility concentrations on North 3rd Street should be avoided. 4. This alignment is within 600 feet walking distance of the downtown Community College campus, the new State Office building in the Government Center, Federal court, the main U.S. Post Office, and has prime peripheral parking garage sites that can be developed. 5. It would be most adaptable to serve a future westward extension into the Government Center area. 6. It allows easy -connection into the proposed transit mainten- ance facility in the FEC right-of-way between N.W. 6th and 7th Streets. '1 7 ., 1 1 201 the East Segment of the CBD Loop could be located anywhere on or between Biscayne Boulevard and East 2nd Avenue in order to serve both of these activity corridors, However, Biscayne Boulevard (Link - EH-1) is the preferred alignment because: 1. The DPM line and stations can be developed over the parking area currently within the public right-of-way without interfering with traffic flow, and with minimal reduction in the number of parking spaces; 2. During construction of the DPM, no disruption of business and traffic flow would occur; 3. A DPM line on Biscayne Boulevard gives high exposure and direct access to Bayfront Park, and offers a scenic view of the park and Biscayne Bay to riders of the system that is considered to be of unique asthetic quality; 4. A DPM alignment on East 2nd Avenue would cause major disruption to existing development due to the narrow right-of-way (50 - 60'),intense vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and already restricted sunlight illumination along the street; 5. Construction of the DPM system along an East 3rd Avenue alignment would require demolition of one or more buildings in the block between East Flagler Street and N.E. 1st Street. It would also require the acquisition of easements through parking areas on private property from N.E. 2nd Street to N.E. 5th Street which could be more costly than the Biscayne Boulevard alignment; ti -11 1 111 1 1 202 i. With the Biscayne Boulevard alternative, all curves in the system can be accomplished with a radii not less than 150', whereas on North 2nd or 3rd Avenue this is not possible, and A potential link to the Port of Miami is possible with this alignment. The presumption has been made that the cross-section of Biscayne Boulevard between S.E. 2nd Avenue and N.E. 5th Street would be revised in accordance with Beiswenger-Hoch Downtown Miami Transportation Plan recommendations. This means that the parking, currently located in the median of the Boulevard would be moved to the western side of the street and that four moving lanes of traffic in each direction and a 24' planted median would be located on the east side. This allows the current and future traffic flow to be satisfied as well as meet the needs of major parades and events which use the street. For the Southern Segment of the CBD loop. A combination of South 1st Street and South 2nd Street is recommended. South 1st Street (Link I-1) is the preferred alignment in the western part of this concept for the following reasons: 1. It provides the best access to the Flagler Street activity corridor; 2. It has the widest right-of-way (70') of the three alternative alignments, allowing minimal disruption of existing pedestrian and vehicular flows; and 203 I.It does not involve problems with clearance over the I-95 tamps, as do the other alternative alignments. The alignment shifts southward to S.E. 2nd Street (link I-2) from S.E. 1st Street at S.E. 2nd Avenue to connect to Biscayne Boulevard because there is inadequate space at the intersection of S.E. 1st Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue to accommodate the turning radii necessary for the link to the southern leg of the DPM. In addition, the shift to S.E. 2nd Street also gives improved access of the Convention Center and Dupont Plaza, while remaining within 600' walking distance of the Flagler Street Core. For the Western Segment of the CBD Loop, only the FEC right-of- way was given serious consideration for the alignment because: 1. It is necessary to provide a transfer link to the Government Center rapid transit station located within the FEC right-of- 2. The location is within walking distance of most of the Government Center area to the west of the alignment, as well as a substantial area of the CBD core to the east; and 3. Joint development with the rapid transit line offers cost savings, and minimizes disruption of traffic flow and taking of private property. NORTHERN LFG Alternative alignments identified for the north leg of the DPM: system include: I I I 1 I 204 (1) CBD Loop to Bicentennial Park - A-1 N.B► 2id Avenue A-2 Biscayne Boulevard (2) Bicentennial Park to ;Midtown Core - A-3 Biscayne Boulevard A-4 North Bayshore Drive The northern leg alignment along Biscayne Boulevard is recommended up to Bicentennial Park because: 1. It provides visibility to the Bayfront and Bicentennial Parks and Bayfront activities; 2. It provides accessibility and development stimulus to the Biscayne Boulevard "opportunity area," and the underdeveloped area west of N.E. 2nd Avenue identified as a new town "opportunity area;" 3. It minimizes the number of curves necessary to link other portions of the DPM system; 4. It provides unique aesthetic impacts to system users; 5. It better links downtown cultural and recreation facilities. North of Bicentennial Park ridership figures show little variation between the aittrnative alignments, but Biscayne Boulevard is recommended because: 1. It provides the best access to the Mid -town retail center along Biscayne Boulevard and the Lindsey Hopkins Educational Center, as well as providing adequate service to the Omni, Miami -Herald and Plaza Venetia development areas; 2. The horizontal curves involved in the North Bayshore Drive (link A-4) alternatives are difficult to engineer; and 205 There is potential for the future expansion of the system to link Watson Island a major cultural and recreation area via the MacArthur Casueway into the Biscayne Boulevard alignment. 4 SOUTH LEG The alternatives for the south leg of the People Mover system involve the following segments as illustrated in Figure 5. (1) CBD Loop to S.E. 8th St. K S.E. 2nd Avenue/Brickell Avenue L Claughton Island (2) S.E. 8th Street to Rapid Transit M-1 Brickell Ave./S.E. 13th St. M-2 Brickell Ave./South loth St. The recommended Southern Alignment is S.E. 2nd Avenue and Brickell Avenue. This gives: 1. The developers of Claughton Island the joint -development opportunity of adding a shuttle link across an existing bridge to connect with the main DPM system on Brickell Avenue; 2. The S.E. 2nd Avenue alignment creates direct access to the Convention Center and riverfront park area, Dupont Plaza opportunity area, and Dupont Plaza Hotel; 3. The river crossing at the Brickell Avenue bridge eliminates the need for new crossing point beyond the mouth of the river, which may be visually objectionable; 1 9 1 206 The penetration of the People .'lover System through the Brickell Avenue corridor between the Miami River and S.E. 8th Street creates accessibility to existing and potential large scale developments which would not be possible if this area were circumvented by a route to Claughton Island. The recommended south leg alignment separates from the CBD Loop at S.E. 3rd Avenue rather than at S.E. 2nd Avenue because there is an insufficient turning radius available at the corner of South 1st Street and S.E. 2nd Avenue. The southernmost segment of the recommended DPM system links the Brickell Avenue corridor with the S.W. l0th Street Rapid Transit Station. South 10th Street is suggested as the east -west connecting alignment in order to save the unnecessary track mileage involved in the South 13th Street alignment, with only minor ridership increase. The entire recommended system alignment concept is shown on Figure 6. FliA �. �� :tI i 1-�4Pilft-Nr' , ; It ',� f s/ a1'� • •""Ir...I...;..,..'.r.. ! l r r . i/ , /• - 1-. .' �.1 .,• „ ,. 1 - . ;' 1 `' / i I i' ' 1 i 11 I �'., , 11 `. ., L' Af1kA ,1 + I 1 r I / , scA•rre..„,. i..: I -•- t i i 1 c�NI:ICL- �1;tEr1. i! .�"N , \;+I I { I I. 1, rw •Fes':' w"'rn''�'. II I Ir lil1li_11 I j 1! 1 11 iI I I I II it i i ti 11 j-I1r II1- -- .4 I. 1! I1 1' 'f ,• 1 1 1 ,1 '.I ; ;•11, ' I iI ILL , 1j J 11A111 f 1,r1r1 Gn1,NIuot+ 4.41 • i; �. l,' ' • y` • •,(I II�II LI � f1 I rll I I ,I. CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT 3AV ITIOUT PARK" 11I 11i I 11 1 II l ,It ., ( 1 I 1 ; II -% ( I 1I 1I1'' _ •i ___;(";.,-----:;3:11T I ! I: 1 +: It I 1 { 1 ;1 ' . 1 f11� �!;{ 1 f[n•111 . .117 f1� I I y 11 11 `111 {T1�I1,iiglu il. (�I �����►I...►I..I !a �f��i lillll. II! 1 1 a}{Il,l,wl r � r y ....�.-- 11 �y T•r♦ :1 1.' III II •\il! I=i II 111I1 It;, try%/rl'{ t'll / III+I'I j..11l,,f {IIII i tea. 1:.� •.„;, 1� I ` / j•� �' i I I I I t! j I i 1 I I � I �V,', i I 1 ' i ill. ,.• i �I1 I rI C} ttt II f ) I I[ is [ � �I 1 I1�.'!�/./" � 11 :1t �� lr {,'•11, (1 [ {il l{1 i; I,1 NEW J[ i i t�, I I „ :1,, its i! II 1;/ 1 I 2 A I 1,1 j ! r :II iOj'/IINUN1r 1 I I �1 �ll�f t�1�11111 irlfl'� i 1,1 • �rl 1�!I UOLLE�7E� I I I+ t•. 77.1 ut,tc'I �1 I i li I1-iyCj, Y[_1 1 Jl +I I.1 FI I IA 1 it?rf?I[.{ :1111 } i 1 �1 j j SIC! Tf!1i!u 1,, • it �•�• ii iQN11J) f)EV[1�OI LSLIiII 11 �� [. •11� � I \r BI•CENFENNIAL •��Ilj({1il � llt PARK \\ i. li I S C A Y N 1. I 1 I, iI.1 i `-i I I I, ! u: I i {i:I l l i 111 I I. 'I I r,. /' I -.1 I III.I1I1 iii.; It 19:�1 I 'III I , 1111{..i111i 'l 1 I., 11;;1;'l(';I1'll1:{{?(1'i• 1 -. �' • I. *Ail 11•. GO'. T0WN 111I4M11 .I II, I• i. It 't 0 • 14 14 -4 -,11 _4 -id .___4 _4 __411 _A A A A C..rr1Jor E-W Se6171,40.s (1 F 1 N-S DC: 1:11 So.Ext. K No. Ext. A 1 2 3 4 5 6 (1 14 14 11 8 10 0 4 c 44 T m . C m '),4- 40 2,53 6,220 6,220 4,600 6,220 9,770 , 22,310 5,J1D 4 13,400 9 65,043 10 54, 373 32,335 -i0,410 CORRIDOR SEGMENT EVALUATION MATRIX DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM 2,1- 46 380 150 550 551) 1,0(10 5-)0 1,360 1,040 1,550 )00 2,980 9,030 8,666 7,050 3,550 4,770 4,014 I .4 .r. 0 44 13 0 . = 4., al 4-. 510 120 1,040 90 90 1,800 90 1,240 690 700 200 1,410 5,903 4,346 3,401 4,775 1,210 3,420 IJ a , rroi ' W 4-1 ul 4-4 1"- W 41 471 • r. 1 > / 44 ,7 .31 .4 C V C 0 M 4-4 M M M 0 4w kJ 0.1 n .0 n - 4 4 6 (1 11 1 1) 8 8 7 2 2 7 :c 44 44 44 v. • t u co n. ▪ •a 0.41 0 W ,44 7 .1 (1 11 1 0 0 1 1 0 4 4 4 1 1 5 xum�,e,'uf .r1 0 m 73- 1 101 101 1,362 101 1,362 6,373 8,964 •14 '-13 4.:4f 8. (111 M 14 C. 0 V G W C 44 1. "-'-1 . C4 01 Q 4:44 44 43- 231 2,867 2,950 .44 .14 ts 0 9,510 796 47,280 111,244 /96 41,819 9,101 796 45,322 4.095 4,904 11,485 6,452 2,781 17,075 5,169 3,700 42,994 110 250 110 110 285 110 1,200 2,170 3,800 890 1,770 4,760 4,346 2,925 1,195 695 2,415 0 ..1,-4 la 0 0 a 4)1 •••-4 4-4 M '11 8.4: a. . C -• 44 "--1 C •••-. 44 ▪ 0 - W u .43 ,r, 44 U43. Q • 0 C M • C U 0 •T/ r. ••-' (•-• 4.) .0 44 0 .54 1.• k-. 84. 51414 4.4. • t.41 74. • 1 O a. T .5 .5 .5 .8 .2 .1 5 :1: .6 9 .5 .9 8 16 10 10 16 10 lo 295 324 11 419 419 1,362 419 6,111 8,964 1,381 9,404 2.7 92.5 1.4s/1.10 349 19,814 2.5 88.4 L.45/2.90 30 17,517 2.6 90.0 1.45/1.00 337 11,552 1.1 41.7 1.63) 48 11,558 .9 39.4 1. 10 66 7,840 3.1 98.6 4.40 57 12,210 4:44 •441 C C O M ts) u 111 ora or, u c • c 4.1 434 J 444 4/1 E: li : 444-. C < •-• 2N 4 20 20 lb 2(3 57 .,7 15 1 155 311 255 115 11/ 107 108 209 tttl EVALUATION MATRIX The Evaluation Matrix based on system evaluation concepts developed in Milestone No. 1 and the alternative route analysis above is designed to allow comparison of the various alternative concepts that have been proposed for the DPM system. The quantitative measures are shown in Figure 7 on the following page. Although the various elements were not weighted for comparison purposes, some clear observations can be drawn that support some conceptual alterna- tives over others as better satisfying the system's objectives. In the series of criteria regarding "improving transportation effective- ness" developed in Milestone No. 1, System Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 rank so highly in comparison to Alternative Nos.4 and 5 as to eliminate those systems from serious consideration as part of a total 1985 downtown system, in spite of their lower capital and operating costs. The capital costs for systems Nos.4 and 5 are in fact higher than the other systems on a per passenger cost basis. Systems 1-3 and 6 costs range from $1,956-S2,290 per daily rider while Systems 4 and 5 cost from $2,390-$2,500 per daily rider. In addition, the reduced accessibility of systems 4 and 5 fail to satisfy land use and develop- ment objectives that are vital in evaluating DPM conceptual systems. System Nos.1-3 link the greatest number of existing activity centers, while No. 6 links more future development centers. All four concepts are accessible to a far greater number of jobs than are system Nos. 4 and 5, although Alternative No. 1 is far superior in this regard than any other proposal. It is over 14% higher than the second best system, No. 2, and nearly 61% higher than Alternative No. 6. 210 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 This trend holds true for retail jobs accessibility, a measure used to quantify service to retail centers. System No. 1 also ranks superior for accessibility to hotel accommodations and residential units. System Nos. 1-3 and 6 are relatively equally accessible to public facilities, large scale developments, and future "opportunity areas". System Nos. 1-3 provide the most access to parking facilities on high value land, while No. 6 links with the greatest number of "remote" parking spaces thus satisfying criteria related to reducing the need for on -site parking and promoting fringe parking. Alternative systems Nos. 1 and 2 are accessible, however, to the greatest number of total parking spaces. Likewise they are accessible to the greatest land area recommended for special zoning incentives, high intensity land uses, and together with System No. 3 service the greatest amount of high value land. A review of all four of these systems shows that ridership potential is great on all of them. The success of Alternative No. 1 seems to be its excellent CBD core accessibility, characteristics shared in part with Systems Nos. 2 and 3, and its connections to the north and south of the core area. System No. 6, while not as accessible in the CBD core area or to the Claughton Island "opportunity area", does a highly successful job of capturing ridership from the midtown business area, Brickell Avenue and the Miami River Front area. Therefore, the recommendations made in Milestone 2, in conjunction with land use, development and right-of-way policies of Milestone 4, indicate that examination of Systems Nos. 1 and 2 and the service to future development characteristics of No. 6 should set the basis for 211 1 1 1 1 1 Milestone No, 5, Route Aligntnent and Station Location recotmnendatiottsi ire 1 STATION LOCATIONS The proposed alignment developed in Part II of this report took into account accessibility offered by potential route locations to desired existing and future "activity centers" and "opportunity areas." A rough analysis of station spacing concepts indicated that close spacing was desireable to maximize system ridership over originally perceived time savings from longer station spacing. Figure 8 shows this analysis. The proposed People Mover system stations are shown schematically on Figure 9. These stations have been located to provide convenient access to all important activity centers, existing and proposed. The criteria set forth in Milestone 1 and 4 served as guidelines, particularly the 600 foot maximum walking distance and 1000 foot minimum station spacing criteria although these were modified in some areas to provide better overall service. Additional study will be necessary before the exact siting and configuration of the stations can be fixed. This will be an element of final system design. A. CBD LOOP 1. Government Center Station This station would be located within or adjacent to the the rapid transit terminal, providing for direct transfer between systems. This connection is the key to providing efficient and convenience service from the surrounding region to the downtown employment, retail, and entertainment activities. In addition, this station provides pedestrian access to the Government Center, the western portion of the Flagler core, and peripheral parking. 1 J J .4 ..! .4 J J .4 .4 . .4 .4 .4 4 A FIGURE 8 (Ridership per day) 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 IWO i STATION SPACING ANALYSIS DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER t 500 1.000 2000 3000 (Average Station Spacing in Feet) Alt. A - Recommended alignment with 1000 foot spacing Alt. B - Recommended alignment with 500-600 foot spacing Alt. C - Recommended alignment with 1200 foot spacing 4 'II li .-.._„_,.. _. ..14. ,\'''V ...--&-4....,=:, ''' • ...-.-.....•-....-•-, . "Z. .-- -...-...... -..--......,.....-..-.....L.-.......... 4 '''---. 1: . _..._„ • o_____ u • -- • 7'. 77. — -; • ..,, ...._..„...,_-. . 4., ...._....,c-_:.--•_..._..„. ---1— • \ \ . ---..........--„.----,,---.-_-_:-/, -_-....:._-:,:,,_. ..:77... 1--• -',,,\r=_ c „----___ _ _.-7-:,....„:".....7-- - •;-.=--. --/' — . • -- :-..-1-' t....' /:_-.". ...7:7_ ''. : -...:--' '-__ :7..._ . - - - :E.; __-•:.---___.- --.. :_-__;:-.72 - •.--7.' -_--- -...-:-.: ,..- Z: 1,,____ , ' \ '' : --- 1 --------"' ••• ' t.---;=:7- - ---. -- : A % t • —__ , _...,,,,,,,,:?),,,4k ......4-_-_:=_-_-----• _ ___,....:._: — ,—. _ • -, .. _ ___ . -4 \ '' •-_____.• — :---.....1..- .Z.--- "•.- -... - A\ \ --1 =7 7: i't• mo - - • _ • - -J C Z o I 11 S., • . • 11: • • • •••••••• 1 1 . • , : : — .r— # • ___ — I. ...----- • • •- --• •____ ENT C 7E7 ;. • T ; I' E.' L.. 214 .i;TREET FIGURE 9 DOWUTOWN MAW Government Center North This is at N.W. 4th Street, provides access to the new Stage office building, the City of Miami Police Building, and other future developments in the Government Center. This station will also provide the primary DPM System link to peripheral parking when several parking structures are developed in this area. 3. College Station This station is located on N.E. 5th Street at N.E. 1st Avenue, serves the Downtown Campus of Miami -Dade Junior College and the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse. It will also create a stimulus for the development of the proposed New -Town -in -Town in the area north of this station. 4. Port Boulevard The station primarily serves as a transfer station for the North Leg of the DPM System, and as a potential future link with the Port of Miami. This station is also necessary to provide accessibility to a portion of the Biscayne Boulevard opportunity area. 5. Miamarina Station This is located on Biscayne Boulevard at N.E. 3rd Street. It provides access to the opportunity areas along Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 2nd Avenue as well as to Bayfront Park and the Miamarina. In addition, northbound riders are just one blcok from Miami Dade Community College. 6. Flagler Street Station The station serves as the major service point for Bayfront Park and for the high density hotel, office and retail 216 centers along Biscayne Boulevard; Flagler Street and E, 2nd Avenue. 7, Dupont Plaza Station The facility is located on S.E. 2nd Street at S.E. 3td Avenue. It serves the financial district and future developments in Dupont Plaza and Ball Point. It is also necessary as a transfer station to the South Leg of the DPI system.. 8. Dallas Park Station The station is located on S.E. 2nd Street at S.E. 1st Avenue. It is the major service point for the hotel and retail area of the planned Convention Center. It also provides access to a portion of the office and retail center along Flagler Street, and to the new Fort Dallas Park, Miami River Walkway and YWCA. 9. South Miami Avenue Station This station provides easy access to the heart of the Flagler Street core area, and to peripheral parking facilities near the 1-95 ramps. • . NORTH LEG 10. Port Boulevard Station This would provide direct transfers between the CBD loop and the North Leg. 11. N.E. 8th Street Station This would provide access to the major development oppor- tunity areas of Bayfront Park Expansion, Biscayne Boulevard and the New -Town -in -Town. 1 21 12. Bicentennial Park Station This station services the Park and offers flexibility to the future expansion of the People Mover System. This station could be the connecting link for lines to Watson Island and Miami Beach. 13. N.E. 14th Street Station This provides pedestrian access to Lindsey Hopkins, the mid -town retail core, and the Miami Herald facility. 14. Omni Station This station provides the link to the Omni/Plaza Venetia development complex. SOUTH LEG 15. Dupont Plaza Station This station would link the North -South line uith the CBD loop. 16. Convention Center Station This station is located at S.E. 4th Street. It provides direct access to the convention hall and meeting facilities of the Convention Center and the Dupont Plaza opportunity area. It is also convenient to the riverfront development and the existing Dupont Plaza Hotel. 17. Brickell Point Station The facility is located on Brickell Avenue at S.E. 5th Street. It provides access to the existing and planned hotel, residential and office development just south of the Miami River. IV; 218 A^ Tamlami Trail This station would serve the hotel and office development. of the 8rickell Avenue area, north of S.E. 8tb Street. Also, it would also serve as a transfer link to the future Claugbtoo Island shuttle line. 19^ S.E. lOtb Street Station The facility is located near the intersection of X.E. lOtb Street and Drickell Avenue. It serves the reo1deut1a1° hotel and office development of the Brickell 'Corridor between S.E. 6th Street and S.E. 9th Street. 20. 8rickell Rapid Transit Station This links the People Mover System to the mm10 Rapid Transit line, allowing commuters from Southwest Dade to exit the Rapid Transit and quickly reach destinations in the QrickeIl / � DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT MILESTONE REPORT NO. 6 FINAL SYSTEM PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Description of Recommended System It. Cost Estimates of Recommended System Incremental Analysis IV. Benefits of the Project 220 Page 221 226 234 DESCRIPTION OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM The Downtown People Mover (DPM) is a system of automatically controlled transit vehicles operating on a 3.2 mile double -tracked fixed elevated guideway to facilitate the movement of pedestrians in Downtown Miami. The recommended alignment and station locations are shown on Figure 1 on the following page. The recommended alignment is composed of a loop, a north leg and a south leg. The loop follows the North 5th Street, the Florida East Coast right-of-way on the west, South 1st Street/S.E. 1st Avenue/S.E. 2nd Street on the south and Biscayne Boulevard on the west. The north leg follows Biscayne Boulevard from N.E. 5th Street to N.E. lith Street. The south leg follows S.E. 2nd Avenue and Brickell Avenue from S.E. 2nd Street over the Miami River to S.E. 10th Street where it turns westerly along S.E. loth Street to the Brickell Rapid Transit Station on the Florida East Coast right-of-way. Two stations will interface with the proposed rapid transit system, Brickell and Government Center. Fifteen other stations are recommended based on a 1,000 foot station spacing to serve major activity centers. On the loop, stations are recommended at: Port Boulevard, Community College, Government Center - North, South Miami Avenue, Dallas Park, Dupont Plaza, Flagler Street and Miamarina. On the north leg, stations are recommended at N.E. 8th Street, Bicentennial Park, N.E. 14th Street and Omni. On the south leg, stations are recommended at Brickell Point, Tamiami Trail and S.E. loth Street. A storage yard will be located at the F.E.C. right-of-way north of N.W. 5th Street. Passenger volumes of 40,000 patrons per day are forecast. A • .. ,.. [_,:._ f .,:,.. 1 1..Tijiiki I. - 1 r._-_, i I -_I-:-11-_-LitH-1-:ii- Ltd L.:_1.-J . - • . I I . .. r- I f -:::;-.- 1 -_....----_=- -- _-,- .--------z.---. • • .-• 11:!( .1-I__ _I -1 - 1 - :?...‹,:, ' • . I L - ,: ‘0 .1 r._-_ 1 i.l.i ii i :i -1-"_-- .• - Tt__ __ - :J1 - --- ( --C 4 -1 1 Fr--- ---- ..1"r1 .''7.-,--,..-•‘- \., , _ t, -----, •, _ _. _-_ _ i-A I -',..------f------:., 11 ,----;"%.--- / fr ii —1 i 1 I ,,-- 1 _-1 ;..-1,,.. ' )>-,'-----... Ill 7(11 r [ I- 'cl _-/e_ ,i(- I: __-.1.1 :4•:•.-, i 1 _'- ff[ -I-1 [k il 11 11 11 --1 1 iii ., , Crminna p.r. tittill4i' 13 :?:..-1 il II Ii ',C.u: i 11 r-i--_ 4 T-f- i :11 1-1 if ii •-_. t-l-ski 0 : - c-, , ,... :.. il..ci....___. i i i ,.... ii ? —111 1 vi -- i— • r CLAUGHTON ISLAND DEVELOPMENT rn 0 1 !• • 111.11;k 1 ,-cli,idt.ti • ((--; i : - Ns..4,44_1 • iy: • - , o ,.. iffi'r,.(11 I 1 -1 Fi,vi, ,s, 1 i Aiwp.] 1.11\ ' ..,..___ , .---- 1 i 0 .--; , ,....: s,..... „. ; , 0 7 -- pm J • / ..• ---d( ,, /..'!:•••,, '.4 - --...' Ir•i•., ;•* I/ . : • ' r tn r--3 ..i; l'l 1'J 04 3)/ r 1- c!- .-:-,--1-.11:Pili;1. 7- -I 1 ifillii[111).//17111-411111_,111:1,11,3,1,11-1-.11,i L-11 7 _7 Eli 1 :7 -_-_ - 7 ./ - - -- ii -- II Elltig I. i_:iii/1 111 [ i-_-_1711H(r-,1- -{1._11---4-_--1;1111;111! = -: vdilill , i iilliiiiirlid iiiiiilifif[1-111i'iiiiifl- - ..i . .-- 1141 - °II- . - 'FIT ift111-1[14-1'il[5"IliFfilrillilli giiiii. !mil i_ . ii Ili! intif !Igo 11 II .10,16 LEI 1 /iL L1111E11111' 11_.I '.'i '‘:), ,._..L---f-L::::11,1 i711tri.ii J 1 - lir) 1 'II Till TIFF 11-1.%1 - - j1; f:7/011111 1-1-11-113—•LLIIII. 1,1,._ It (73,; HT! j-,,_ (1 i i 141 ) ( 1 1 j Ii- ..4.1.- iii :it'll u.w _ aiLluiltn 1 11 , //I.} IIII1, 0 Till,ii--0-1 c -11IL i ,1 1111-_11/ -TT- tiiip-r,,t1111111111!111 t 1'71 _ _ : -1,, lill.,111,1111/.11111„ ifirti 101 itic.R.1.-Li.1.11i I ill ill: ca it.it,i, vzz- z_ __ t _ _-_-.: — .._i 1 1 ''.. lii[11111.1irOUJI-Iti Lffililtiid pi_ - _ : - _ 1; I {"11H}lii-6i1-- [Frit:FR-L117 1ift11-11111:1 7414.11011-111111E 7 r*i 19 01-CENT PAR r BISCAYNE VIAL VII Bill 11111 BOUTOWN: MIAMI B A Y '9 Yfir -1 221 the recommended route alignment and forecast passenger volumes are alienable to at least four vehicle technologies, ALWEG, Fort ACT, Westinghouse, and LTV. From all prospective candidate technologies, a specific technology will be selected through competition bidding. In general, vehicles will be about 30 feet long with a normal capacity of about 50 persons. Peak capacity per vehicle would be 60 patrons. The vehicles would be automatically controlled, positively guided by mechanical means in the guideway and propelled by on -board electric motors deriving propulsion power from power rails in the guideway. The 20' to 24' wide guideway will be elevated at least 16'6" above the street and mounted on T columns. Stations will have fare collection/validation systems, stairs or escalators and provisions for the handicapped. It is intended that stations will be inter- connected with adjacent activity centers through second -level pedestrian connectors, pedways, the cost of which would be borne by private interests. The preferred method of operation is three routes: (a) loop -counterclock- wise, (b) exterior west line running south, and (c) exterior east line running north. This results in a combined shuttle and loop operation which may be accomplished through use of switching only at the Omni and Brickell stations. This system will cost an estimated $83 million Of the total cost, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration is being asked to fund 80 percent net costs after specific private and public commitments are deducted including the federal urban system funding. If this proposal is approved, the Florida Department of Transportation 22.1 .1 The recommended route alignment and forecast passenger volumes are at►enable to at least four vehicle technologies, ALWEG, Fort ACT, Westinghouse, and LTV. From all prospective candidate technologies, a specific technology will be selected through competition bidding. In general, vehicles will be about 30 feet long with a normal capacity of about 50 persons. Peak capacity per vehicle would be 60 patrons. The vehicles would be automatically controlled, positively guided by mechanical means in the guideway and propelled by on -board electric motors deriving propulsion power from power rails in the guideway. The 20' to 24' wide guideway will be elevated at least 16'6" above the street and mounted on T columns. Stations will have fare collection/validation systems, stairs or escalators and provisions for the handicapped. It is intended that stations will be inter- connected with adjacent activity centers through second -level pedestrian connectors, pedways, the cost of which would be borne by private interests. The preferred method of operation is three routes: (a) loop -counterclock- wise, (b) exterior west line running south, and (c) exterior east line running north. This results in a combined shuttle and loop operation which may be accomplished through use of switching only at the Omni and Brickell stations. This system will cost an estimated $83 million 0f the total cost, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration is being asked to fund 80 percent net costs after specific private and public commitments are deducted including the federal urban system funding. If this proposal is approved, the Florida Department of Transportation 224 Will fund 10 percent, Metropolitan Dade County will fund 5 percent, and the City of Miami will fund 3 percent. At the request of the private sector, a special tax assessment district will be created by Metropolitan Dade County to fund 2 percent through assessments based on proximity to the transit line of benefitting properties. Full advantage will be sought of joint development opportunities by which private enterprise might participate in the cost of the system and thereby reduce the cost to the various governments involved. Further cost -sharing will be identified as part of parallel routes and interfacing stations of the proposed rapid transit system. The operating costs of the system is estimated at $2,238,000 per year which includes wages, energy and maintenance will be supported in part through fares. If deficits occur in operating costs, they will be borne by subsidies for public transportation to the Metropolitan Transit Agency from the general revenue funds of Metropolitan Dade County, from Section 5 funds, and other tax sources if they become available. Completion of the DPM is visualized according to the following schedule: 1. Submission of Proposals for the Project 2. Announcement of Selected Sites by UMTA 3. Submission of Capital Grant Applications 4. Award of Capital Grants for the Preparation Phase (Preliminary Engineering) by UMTA 5. Submission of Draft EIA by Grantee June 30, 1976 October, 1976 December, 1976 January, 1977 April, 1977 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Submission of Preliminary Engineering Results Including Performance Specifications Atgtist4 1977 7. Submission of Amendatory Capital Grant Application for Project Implementation October, 1977 8. Distribution of Performance Specifications to Manufacturer October, 1977 9. Award of Capital Grant for the Implementation Phase (Construction) December, 1977 10. Review of System Manufacturer's Design and Equipment Status February, 1978 11. Selection of System Manufacturer March, 1978 12. Completion of System A&E Design June, 1978 13. Selection of Construction Contractors July, 1978 14. Construction and Installation Complete December, 1979 15. Technological Qualification Complete March, 1980 16. System Integration Complete August, 1980 17. Initiate Public Operations of System October, 1980 18. Completion of Socio-Economic Studies December, 1981 To take full advantage of the development to be engendered by the DPM the zoning ordinance of the City of Miami in accordance with Milestone 4 Development Policies will be revised to award bonus incentives to developments in proximity to DPM and rapid transit stations, to award incentives for construction of pedways, to seek joint development opportunities, and to limit the amount of off-street parking in the downtown. it COST ESTIMATES OF RECOMMENDED SYSTEM The methodology for preparing revised capital and operating cost estimates is as follows for the recommended system using updated unit costs. Guide- way and station configuration assumed in the Rapid Transit Preliminary Engineering program are used. To a degree the transit expressway vehicle and guideway costs form the basis for this estimate, but care has been taken to appropriately generalize from more detailed designs. The operating costs are based on.the presumption of either two car trains at 80 second minimum headways or three car trains at two minute headways. Order -of -magnitude capital cost elements include the following items: 1. Guideway covers the costs for construction of all mainline structure including demolition, excavation, foundations, columns, aerial superstructure, running surfaces and guidance surfaces, emergency walkways, utility relocation and maintenance and pavement restoration. 2. Stations cover the costs of the station structures, including access structures, architectural finishes, lighting and other electrical equipment, mechanical equipment including escalators and elevators, rare collection equipment including fare gates and money changers, and station graphics. 3. Electrification includes costs for all equipment and facilities for vehicle propulsion power, starting at the supply point, extending through the various transit system distribution and transformation facilities, and including the power rail on the guideway, the power system supervisory control, and the sub- station enclosures. 1 1 1 1 1 1 _1 _1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 Control and communication includes the design, installation, warranty, and testing of electrical and electronic facilities and equipment to operate the system automatically, including a control console, data transmission system, block circuits, station logic and control, wayside antenna, cables and accessories, onboard vehicle control and communication equip- ment, closed circuit television equipment and cables, telephones, radios, and public address system. 5. Maintenance and storage facilities include the maintenance building, storage and access guideways, switches, site, work, paving, fencing, shop equipment, lighting, and building power and plumbing. 6. Right-of-way includes the cost of purchasing the land and/or easements required for the system route, stations, and main- tenance and storage facilities. 7. Vehicles include the design, installation, warranty, and testing of the car body, auxiliaries, and propulsion and controls. 8. System testing, is an allowance for testing the installed system prior to revenue operations. 9. Engineering and construction management includes the system supplier's costs for design and construction inspection and supervision, including subcontractors, of all system elements. 10. Contingency is an allowance for undefined or unknown items or conditions that might develop during design and construction. 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 2 228 UNIT COSTS FOR DOWNTOWN MIAMI DPM SYSTEM Structure .:=_ie':_ (Ft) Single Guideway ♦: 25 25-35 35-45 45-55 55-65 Base Cost Tangent, per LP $ 720 $ 775 $ 830 $ 880 $ 940 With Sharp Curve, per LF 870 930 1,000 1,060 1,120 With Flat Curve, per LF 800 850 900 960 1,010 Pass. Station 90' Platf. $390,000 $410,000 $435,000 $460,000 $485,000 Double Guideway - Base Cost Tangent, per LF $ 1,075 $ 1,160 $ 1,240 $ 1,320 $ 1,400 With Sharp Curve, per LP 1,350 1,450 1,550 1,650 1,750 With Flat Curve, per LF 1,240 -4,340 1,430 1,520 1,600 Pass. Station 90' Ctr.Platf.$500,000 $560,000 $620,000 $680,000 $740,000 NOTE: These unit costs do not include costs for utility relocations. Electrification (480V AC) (including distribution and substations) Control & Communication System (including onboard vehicle equipment) Vehicles (rubber tired, 30' long) In Addition Cost of: Maintenance Storage Facility Right-of-way Acquisition System Testing (1/3 to 1/2 percent of all direct costs) Engineering & Construction Mg (112 of direct cost Contingencies (20 percent of direct plus indirect costs) $130/single track ft $150/single track ft $275,000 each FIGURE 3 220 CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE REC0MENDED SYSTEM Element Costs Guideways DT 19590' j 91,075 ST 1232' $ 720 Addit. for river crossing Addit. for highway crossing Sharp curves DT 3(188) x $275 addit. ST 4(188) x $150 addit, Switches 18 @ 840,000 Stations (1) Sta. DT, SP (45' H) ? S870,000* (1) Sta. DT, CP (45' H) $620,000 (10) Sta. DT, CP (25' H) @ $500,000 (6) Sta. DT, SP (25' H) 3 S780,000** *2 x S. 35 ,000 **2 :; S390,000 Electrification DT 19590' @ S260 ST 1232' @ $130 Control & Communication DT 19590' C? S300 ST 1232' 8150 Taint. & Storage Fixed Vehicles (cars) Equiv. ST = 2(19590) + 1232 - 828 = 39,584' (39,584' = 5280) x 6 veh/mi = 45 cars 45 cars >: 1.10 (10% spares) = 50 cars 50 cars 275,000 System Testing 20% Contingency :{ 1.20 13% Eng'g. & Constr. Mgt. x 1.13 40,400 riders = 82059/rider Note: DT - Double Track SP - Side Platform ST - Single Track CP - Center Platform 21,059,250 887,040 379,750 79, 000 413,600 112,800 720,000 23,651,440 870,000 620,000 5,000,000 4,680,000 11,170,000 5,093,400 160,160 5,253,560 5,877,000 184,800 6,061,800 1,210,000 13, 750 ,000 250,000 61,346,800 73,616,160 83,186,260 2 3o Order 14 of magnitude operating cost elements include the following items: Power Cost (Demand and Energy) These costs are based upon the average power consumption for a single empty vehicle mile on a given route of the system, the daily operating schedule for the system, the average power consumption per single passenger mile, the passenger miles of travel on each route, and the power rate schedule. Auxiliary power costs for stations, yards, the drawbridge maintenance areas as well are included. The power rate schedule used to develop operating costs in 1975 dollars is Florida Power and Light Company's schedule GS dated January 28, 1975 with a further fuel adjustment allowance of $6 per 1,000 kw hr. This rate schedule was chosen to reflect the assumption that each transit substation has separate feeds from the utility company and would thus have separate metering. The overall unit cost for operation of the rail system (energy and demand) based upon this schedule is approximately SO.026 per kw hr (1975 S). 2. Train Operations The train operations cost_ category includes labor costs for central control operating personnel and drawbridge attendants. 3. Station Operations This category includes station custodians (cleaners) and station cleaning materials and supplies. Supervision labor is also allowed for in the cost estimate. 211 `tracks, Structures, and Wayside Equipment Maintenance Included in this category is labor for supervisors, foremen, mechanical, electrical, and structural maintainers, electrical technicians, track inspectors, trackrnen, helpers, structure cleaners, power distribution system maintainers, substation electricians, and fare collection equipment maintainers. Materials expense would cover power rail and running surface replacement, escalator and elevator maintenance, computer systems maintenance, and other miscellaneous expense items. 5. Vehicle Maintenance and Storage • 1 This cost category includes all labor and materials expense for the operations shop and yard, for vehicle custodial clean- ing in the yard area, for vehicle washing, and for vehicle in- spection. Labor categories include supervisors, foremen, mechanics, electricians, helpers, repairmen, hostlers, car inspectors, car cleaners, car washers, clerks, secretaries, storekeepers and other miscellaneous labor categories. Materials for car cleaning, car washing, and shop operations are also included. Fare Collection System Operation This item includes labor for money collectors. Materials expenses include tickets, transfers, and other miscellaneous items. Security This category includes all labor for security guards, watch- men, and roving security officers. Liability and Property Insurance This expense item covers premiums for liability and property insurance and is estimated on a per passenger trip basis using current MTA statistics as a yardstick. General and Administrative Staff and Expenses This category covers all managerial, accounting, payroll, public relations, personnel services, legal, clerical, and general secretarial labor. Materials expenses cover general office supplies and overhead. These costs are detailed in Figure 4 on the following page. 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIGURE 4 OPERATING COSTS FOR THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM Element Costs Power Cost Equiv. Single Track = 2(19,590') + 1,232' = 40,412' 40,412' = 5,280' = 7,654 miles x 45 vehicles = 344.42= 345 vehicle -miles 345 vehicle -miles @ S1,521 Train Oper. 345 vehicle -miles @ $572.4 Station Doer. 18 sta. @ $6,100 Track, Struct. & Equipt. Maint. 7,654 miles 0 S49,331 = Vehicle Maint. & Storage (45 vehicles + 5 spares) @ $8,758 437,900 $ 524,745 197,478 109,800 377,579 Fare Collection 18 sta. @ S3,600 Security 18 sta. ? $5,400 Liability 40,400 riders @ $4.26 General and Administrative Total Operating Cost 64,800 9 7, 200 172,104 256,000 $2,237,606 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 tits 1i'iREMENtAL ANALYSIS 1: General Description The purpose of incremental Analysis is to determine the cost and ridership implications of implementing various combinations of increments of the full recommended system. This provides information required for the development of a staging plan which ensures that high priority corridors receive immediate attention and that the initial stage to be implemented provides the most effective combination of increments when compared with all other available combinations. A staging scheme also acts to temporarily distribute the fiscal burden and allows for maximum flexibility in responding to changing conditions. A number of incremental systems have been developed which tend to service corridors having high priority needs and which are capable of efficient operation in themselves. For each of the systems analyzed, performance measures of ridership and cost estimates were developed. For the purpose of this study, rider- ship estimates were generated through a computerized simulation of each alternative as described in Milestone No. 2. Cost estimates were based on the capital costs presented in the previous section of this Milestone. Each incremental system should be designed so as to show relatively small differences in cost and ridership between systems, while still covering the full range of possible combinations of service areas as defined by the full system. For the recommended Downtown People Mover System, average incremental lengths were selected to be equivalent to the average station spacing of approximately 1,000 feet, Selected Incremental Systems In addition to the recommended system (Alternative 10) as described in Section 1 of this Milestone, one single -loop system (Alternative 11), one extended system (Alternative 12), and 17 incremental systems (Alternatives 13 through 29) were tested. These systems are shown in Figures 5 through 9 below. The single -loop system is based on a single-track downtown loop with two operating lines similar to the lines described for Alternative 3. One line would run from Omni southward to the loop, circle around the loop in a counterclockwise direction, and then depart from the loop at the point of entry and return to Omni. The other line would originate at the S.E. llth Street Rapid Transit station, proceed northward to the loop, circle around the loop in a counterclockwise direction, depart from the loop at the point of entry and return to the S.E. llth Street station. Alternative 12, the extended system, consists of the same track configuration and operating strategy of Alternative 10, except that the southern leg is extended to S.E. 13th Street before turning westward towards the S.E. llth Street rapid transit station. This system provides better access to the south Brickell area while introducing more indirect routings for persons desiring to travel from the llth Street rapid transit station to points north along Brickell Avenue. FIGURE 5 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES 236 1 i •1 1 -- ALTERNATIVE 10 i Recommended Plan ALTERNATIVE II • Single track loop - • • • _AJ3N"0!I 1 1 1 1 ALTERNATIVE 12 . t .• _ • 1 rti • South extension to S.W. • i 13th Street ALTERNATIVE 13 --- . • 1 . ► • :,'L :'.i 3NTO .1 I .3 L A 0 -27 - i-- ;Tom, Deletion of connection to Brickell R.T. Station !! III II �I I!!lRR!F1I� FIGURE 6 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 14 • -- •-_ y J .v D Deletion of south line below Tamaimi Trail Station ALTERNATIVE 16 . -„ i. LA'+D Deletion of entire south line 237 ALTERNATIVE 15 • 2 1 • • • ;..ArD Deletionofsouth line below Brickell Point Station • ALTERNATIVE 17 • \` W • • • .71 • ILA;rD Deletion of north line above N.E. 14th Street Station FIGURE 7 218 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 18 1 � CLAJ3N O I • L LAID Deletion of north line above Bicentennial 11 Park Station 1 1 1 ALTERNATIVE 20 • • • • • • • Al Deletion of entire north line ALTERNATIVE 19 .._-------- •— -' . • Deletion of north line above N.E. 8th Street Station ALTERNATIVE 21 • • • Wit_ ....._ — i • =; • \:_ - �-� s r-.- r �) Deletion of north line above Bicentennial Park Station and south line below Tamaimi Trail Station. eaffx 9 the 17 incremental systems were designed to encompass the full range of viable permutations of increments without requiring the investigation of unreasonably small variations. Service levels were held constant for each of the systems. These systems can be divided into two main groups; those with a complete downtown loop and those with a partial downtown loop. The partial downtown loop originates at the Government Center rapid transit station and proceeds to the east through the core of the CBD. The full loop includes the partial loop and extends further through the high opportunity area located immediately to the north and west of the CBD. In consideration of the existing and projected development patterns in the down— town area, these two loop configurations span the range of reasonable loop increments servicing the CBD. These two loop patterns are then overlayed on a number of combinations of north/south extensions as follows. Alternatives 13 through 15 are the same as Alternative 10 except that the southern legs terminate along Brickell Avenue at S.E. loth Street, S.E. Eth Street, and S.E. 6th Street, respectively. Alternative 16 represents Alternative 10 with the entire southern leg eliminated. The next four incremental systems are formed by retaining the downtown loop and southern leg of the recommended system and incrementally cutting back the northern leg. The northern legs for Alternatives 17 through 19 terminate along Biscayne Boulevard at N.E. 14th Street, N.E. llth Street, and N.E. bth Street, respectively. Alternative 20 contains no northern leg. FIGURE 8 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 22 • — �_ ' 1 /.. C L A J a',' 0 `I Deletion of entire north and entire south line 240 ALTERNATIVE 23 • Hr f l l l.J•.�. t 4 _ CLAU H;0t1 t, \ ISLAND —_-----• i -^? -- , Deletion of north leg of loop 1 1 ALTERNATIVE 24 — — . • 1 ram-• 1 r'. • _� t , • - 1 a Lit .` J Deletion of north leg of loop and south line ■ below Tamairni Trail Station ALTERNATIVE 25 .�_-w-.11. -fir^•. - - --_ Y _ :a• i 1- '�� Deletion of north leg of loop, south line below Tamiami Trail Station and north line above Bicentennial Park Station 1 .3LA:4 FIGURE 8 240 i. I 1 1 1 1 INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 22 71 • — • - • Deletion of entire north and entire south line ALTERNATIVE 23 H—I'h:) ,.�--- --�. i "-� —•—__ - 4 J y _ • ter• — CL `,tJGH70�� isL..`.!1D f _ t, Deletion of north leg of loop 1 ALTERNATIVE 24 • • . • ♦ . • • • -- • ..7 1 4 • , 7' Deletion of north leg of loop and south line 1 below Tamaimi Trail Station ALTERNATIVE 25 • • _ is •. ram--- •^• i .. • • • • Deletion of north leg of loop, south line below Tamiami Trail Station and north line above Bicentennial Park Station FIGURE 241 • INCREMENTAL ANALYSIS ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 26 —I1:� -,-- -- —_ �`-_ .- r "• . -J� �� '�'1 L :CC4Tnn . •._ _. •.� �—._. _ _ ` -- , :..; t . ti. 15 LA N D 1 Deletion of north leg of loop and south line ALTERNATIVE 27 • • i ' � y —' • • .-- i .1 .� C OnT- • 1 2 A 1 X`• ,'—`` .• •` /. C:.AJGHTOti • Deletion of north leg of loop, south line, and north line above Bicentennial Park Station ALTERNATIVE 28 • I- " ; •.1•.l 1 .—. ,.-.- •j _-r. —� y .•:3at' C • '• 'te• /' }i ._ • •v r �• CLA'.: i.".7001 • Deletion of north leg of loop, south line, and north line above Port Boulevard ALTERNATIVE 29 ' N. _ --, _ - --' - - ./• - •.r-- • . • -'!„ • ,� •,,• a 1 ' • • •1 • Deletion of north leg of loop, south line, and north line above Flagler Street Station Alternative 21 consists of a full downtown loop with a partial northern leg terminating at Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. llth Street, and a partial southern leg terminating Brickell Avenue and S.E. 8th Street. The final "full loop" system, Alternative 22, consists of the full downtown loop without legs to the north or south. The last 7 incremental systems are based on the partial downtown loop concept. Alternative 23 represents full northern and southern legs in combination with the partial downtown loop. Alternative 24 is the same as Alternative 23 except that the southern leg terminates at Brickell Avenue and S.E. 8th Street. Likewise, Alternative 25 is the same as Alternative 24, except that the northern leg terminates at Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. llth Street. Alternative 26 consists of a partial downtown loop with a full northern leg and no southern leg. Alternatives 27 through 29 are the same as Alternative 26 except that the northern leg terminates along Biscayne Boulevard at N.E. llth Street, N.E. 5th Street, and E. Flagler Street, respectively. 3. Cost and Ridership Analysis Measures of total capital cost and average daily ridership were developed for each of the incremental systems as described in the above teat. The results are shown in Figure 10. The number of daily riders per $million also is shown in capital 241 Cost for each system, which provides a measure of cost, effectiveness. It is estimated that the recommended system (Alternative 10) will carry approximately 40,400 riders per day. The total capital cost for the system based on the incremental analysis costing techniques described previously will amount to $87.4 million, resulting in an average of 462 daily riders per million dollars of investment. Alternative 11, which is the full recommended system with a single-track downtown loop, showed somewhat better performance than the recommended system in terms of cost-effectiveness. However, a number of significant problems, some of which have been discussed previously in relation to Alternative 3, tend to rule out this alternative. The most important of these concerns the question of flexibility and expandability. Analysis of the link loadings for Alternative 3, which was a similar single -loop system, show that the maximum one-way hourly loadings, based on mean confidence -level estimates, approach 7,000 persons per hour for 1985. Thus, within ten years, the system will have reached its capacity, with further expansion requiring the extremely costly addition of a second guideway in the downtown area. In addition, there are a number of operational problems associated with a single-track loop such as switching difficulties and the influence of bridge openings on the entire system rather than just a portion of the system as is the case with the recommended system. i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tTatkt 10 DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER INCREMENTAL SYSTEMS COST AND RIDERSHIP ESTIMATES Daily Riders Per Capita? Cost Daily $ Million in Capital Cost Alternative No. ($ Millions) Ridership ($ Millions/Rider) 10 87.4 40400 11 72.5 37600 12 90.5 41600 13 82.7 39900 14 77.7 39100 15 74.1 372-00 16 65.4 30200 17 82.8 39000 18 78.3 38200 19 73.9 36300 20 67.3 30100 21 68.5 36800 22 45.3 22400 23 75.9 40200 24 66.1 39000 25 56.9 36200 26 53.8 30400 27 44.6 27800 28 33.7 21000 29 25.1 16700 462 519 460 482 503 502 462 471 488 491 447 537 494 530 590 636 565 623 623 665 245 Ah extension of the southern leg of the recommended system to S.E. 13th Street (Alternative 12) resulted in an additional 1,100 daily riders using the system. However, the S3.1 million capital cost required to build this addition, when compared with the increase in ridership, shows a somewhat lower cost- effectiveness value which indicates that such an extension is not justified. Two main observations can be made concerning Alternatives 13 through 16, which represent successive cut -backs of the southern leg of the system. First, terminating the system at Brickell Avenue and S.E. 8th Street, and thus removing the two stations at Brickell Avenue and S.E. loth Street and at the S.E. llth Street rapid transit station (Alternative 14) results in a decrease of only 1,300 daily riders. This is reflected in the cost-effectiveness values, which indicate that Alternative 14 is the most cost-effective of the southern leg options. Second, the removal of a river crossing (Alternative 16) has a significant effect upon ridership, with 7,000 daily riders lost when compared with a system that crosses the river and terminates just a short distance to the south of the river (Alternative 15). This would indicate that service to at least some portion of the Brickell area is desirable. The extremities of the northern leg have somewhat more importance than the southern leg, as indicated by a loss of 2,200 daily riders associated with deleting the system 246 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ 1 beyond the station at Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. llth Street (Alternative 18). This is a reflection of the loss of service to the important Omni activity center to the north. Deletion of the southernmost portion of the northern leg serving the N.E. 9th Street rapid transit station (Alternative 20) shows a significant drop in ridership of 6,100 riders. A combination of partial northern and southern legs in addition to a full downtown loop (Alternative 21) performs reasonably well from a cost-effectiveness standpoint with a value of 537. However, the lack of service on the northern leg to the Omni activity center is not supportive of the accepted land use plan. In addition, major opportunities for joint development and value capture are lost by not servicing this future sub - metropolitan activity center. These disadvantages would seem to outweigh the cost-effectiveness performance. The full loop system with no north/south legs (Alternative 22) is clearly inefficient both in terms of cost-effectiveness and consistency with the land use plan. The lack of service to both the Omni and Brickell areas is reflected in a loss of over 14,000 daily riders when compared with a loop having only partial legs serving areas to the north and south (Alternative 21). Alternatives 23 through 29 represent incremental systems containing partial downtown loops. Two of these, Alternatives 23 and 24, appear to be especially promising. Alternative 23, which includes the full extent of both the northern and southern 246 beyond the station at Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. llth Street (Alternative 18). This is a reflection of the loss of service to the important Omni activity center to the north. Deletion of the southernmost portion of the northern leg serving the N.E. 9th Street rapid transit station (Alternative 20) shows a significant drop in ridership of 6,100 riders. A combination of partial northern and southern legs in addition to a full downtown loop (Alternative 21) performs reasonably well from a cost-effectiveness standpoint with a value of 537. However, the lack of service on the northern leg to the Omni activity center is not supportive of the accepted land use plan. In addition, major opportunities for joint development and value capture are lost by not servicing this future sub - metropolitan activity center. These disadvantages would seem to outweigh the cost-effectiveness performance. The full loop system with no north/south legs (Alternative 22) is clearly inefficient both in terms of cost-effectiveness and consistency with the land use plan. The lack of service to both the Omni and Brickell areas is reflected in a loss of over 14,000 daily riders when compared with a loop having only partial legs serving areas to the north and south (Alternative 21). Alternatives 23 through 29 represent incremental systems containing partial downtown loops. Two of these, Alternatives 23 and 24, appear to be especially promising. Alternative 23, which includes the full extent of both the northern and southern 247 legs of the recommended system, produces the highest ridership of any incremental system at 40,200 daily riders. At a total capital cost of $75.9 million, a reasonably good cost-effective- ness value of 530 is indicated. Terminating the southern leg of such a system at Brickell Avenue and S.E. 8th Street (Alternative 24) results in a loss of 1,200 daily riders. However, the substantial savings in capital costs is reflected in the improved cost-effectiveness measure of 590. Both systems have the advantage of providing service to all three activity centers within the study area. Alternative 25, which represents a partial downtown loop with partial legs to the north and south, is appealing in considera- tion of cost-effectiveness performance. However, the same disadvantages as were described for Alternative 21 would apply for this system also. Specifically, these include inconsistency with the land use plan and loss of joint development and value capture opportunities. Alternatives 26 through 29 represent a partial downtown loop with a single northern leg terminating along Biscayne Boulevard at N.E. l7th Street, N.E. llth Street, N.E. 5th Street, and Flagler Street respectively. Although some very good cost- effectiveness measures can be observed, severe deficiencies are noted in terms of servicing activity centers, allowing for joint development and value capture, and promoting the development of off -site parking facilities within the CBD and thus allowing for alternate use of high -value land. Staging Plan Based on the incremental analysis, Alternative 23 is selected as the most appropriate Stage 1 system. Alternative 23 includes a partial loop originating at the Government Center rapid transit station, proceeding east through the CBD, and connecting with a north/south line which extends from S.E. loth Street and the S.E. llth Street rapid transit station to Biscayne Boulevard and N.E. 17th Street. This recommendation is made in light of the previously described advantages in terms of cost-effectiveness, consistency with development objectives, and the provision of opportunities for joint development and value capture. Given that the Stage 1 system is chosen to be Alternative 23, examination of the cost-effectiveness results shown in the previous section reveals that closing the loop along N.E. 5th Street would become Stage 2 of the system. Extensions to be examined upon funding of Stage 1 would include the substitution of the DPM for the rapid transit system to Miami Beach and the extension to Claughton Island to be financed from private sector funds. 1 —Al FIGURE 11 RECOMMENDED STAGING PLAN ALTERNATIVE 23 `i1j I I-F; 1 ,_ r ,1; .: ____. -11i4-'21\..),_-_,- Lil 1-,4i1 3.-- i)r'_:_- - .• - ----,-- , __It__ ii....i.,:_,... _ , ......_":::_,_..:.:_______.---• :::.• __. .__''' .,...,11j_ . c ---, ii ; Hi- : . (1,1:y i. z_ ri .s.-.-1 -.. w _Iltn s r 1, �,. ,..1 \.'� \i'.5'. 47.4_,{‘,‘, 11-111-1__ Stage I • 1' Total Cost Annual Operating Cost Daily Ridership System Length 1: [i a ;FRONT- 1: PA it X p •CLAUGN•1-0N is {LAND $73.8 million $1.9 million 40,200 3.3 miles ALTERNATIVE 10 •_ \ i •\ / CLAUG}ITON -; ii:- ' /1 Li La;►o Stage II Total Cost Annual Operating Cost Daily Ridership System Length $83.2 miil3om $2.2 million 40,400 3.7 miles IIII1 II1II 11 III 1 11 11 II II ' 1 I' III I I I'I 111 I I 1 1 I 1 11 1I I I 11111 11 I I m m1I1 p I III 1 I 11 250 FIGURE 12 CAPITAL COSTS FOR STAGE 1, ALTERNATIVE 23 Element Costs Guideways DT 2410' @ $1,075 Sharp curves 2 (188') @ $275 Stations (1) Sta. DT, CP (25'H) @ $500,000 (1) Sta. DT, SP (25'H) @ $780,000* *(2x390,000) Electrification 2410' DT @ $260 Control & Communication 2410' DT @ $300 Vehicles Equiv. ST = 2(2410') = 4820' (4820 = 5280') x 6 veh./mile = 5.477 veh. x 1.10 (10' spares) = 6 vehicles 6 veh. S275,000 Additional Direct Cost Direct Cost - Alternative 24 Direct Cost -Alternative 23 20% Contingency (x 1.20) 13% Eng. & Constr. Mgt. (x 1.13) = 40,200 riders = $1,837/rider Note: DT - Double Track SP - Side Platform ST - Single Track CP - Center Platform $2,590,750 103,400 2,694,150 500,000 780,000 1,280,000 626,000 723,000 1,650,000 6,973,150 47,480,900 $54,454,050 $65,344,860 S73,839,691 FIGURE 13 OPERATING COSTS FOR STAGE 1, .ALTERNATIVE 23 251 Element Cost Power Cost Equiv. ST = 2(15,170/) + 376' = 30,716' 30,716' = 5,280' = 5.817 miles x 34 vehicles = 197.79 veh.-miles = 198 veh.-miles 198 veh.-miles r3 $1,521 Train 0per. 198 vehicle -miles @ $572.4 Station Oper. 15 Sta. @ $6,100 Track, Struct. & Equipt. Maint. 5,817 miles @ $49,331 Vehicle Maint. & Storage 38 vehicles @ $8,758 Fare Collection 15 Sta. @ $3,600 Security 15 Sta. @ $5,400 Liability 39,000 riders @ $4.26 Gen. & Admin. Fixed Total 0per. Cost Note: ST — Single Track $ 301,158 115,335 91,500 286,978 332,804 54,000 81,000 166,140 256.000 $1,682,915 1 1 1 1 1 _1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tV. BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT The Downtown People Mover Project will have benefits which affect a wide range of public and private interests. Public benefits result from ease of travel in the downtown area, a reduction in vehicular congestion on downtown streets, a reduction in downtown parking costs as less spaces are built on high value land, an increase in tax revenue from increased property value in the CBD, and a strengthening of the area economy which can result from a more viable Central Business District. Benefits to the private sector result from increased accessibility to business establishments, increased property values, reduced need to provide on -site parking, and incentives designed to stimulate development of private property in station areas. The single most significant benefit of the project which may be quantified and directly related to project costs is travel time savings resulting from implementation of the DPM. These travel time savings have been developed by comparing two different transit 1985 networks in the study area. The first network consists of the 1985 recommended plan for a rapid transit system with six rapid transit stations; S.W. 10th Street, Government Center, N.W. 8th Street, Miami Avenue, Miami -Dade College, and N.E. 9th Street. The second 1985 network consists of these stations with a superimposed people mover system in the Alternative 10 configuration. This analysis has indicated a daily travel time savings of the second network over the first net- work of 6,733 daily hours. These time savings were converted to dollar value at the rate of $3.00 per hour. Ridership on the system was presumed to increase in accord with the general population growth of the region i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 and 1085 operating costs fot the system were ptesttined to grow at 60 percent Of the ridership increase. Direct travel time savings was the only performance measure accurately quantified. However, these savings are by no means the only benefits of the project. In order to estimate the effects of other quantifiable benefits, conservative estimates of their magnitude were made and included in the analysis procedure. Parking cost savings to users were estimated to amount to at least $2,250 per day. Underlying these savings is the presumption that less parking would be constructed on high value land in accordance with the 1985 CBD plan and these spaces would shift to fringe parking. At- least 3,000 spaces are so affected. Since the fringe parking is less expensive, auto users who no longer park in the core would save the difference in daily parking costs. Persons who travel through or to downtown by bus will benefit by increased efficiency in bus routing made possible by the People Mover. In addition, more direct bus routing (i.e., eliminating the need to circulate in the downtown area) will also result in operating cost savings for MTA. Calculating only the estimated two minute savings for these bus patrons yields a daily savings of 1,167 hours. A reduction of 4,000 route miles saved daily and increased downtown operating speeds amounts to a daily bus operating cost savings of $4,400. • 24 Persons who continue to travel in and through the downtown area by automobile will experience shorter trip time, since less congestion would occur on the street system. Also commercial vehicles serving retail and other business establishments in the downtown aia would benefit from reduced delays. An average time savings of 30 seconds for all vehicles passing across the CBD cordon line in 1985 amounts to a daily savings of over 5,400 hours. Based on the presumption that land values will be enhanced through development of the People Mover System, a unique private sector financing plan is proposed to bring a portion of this gain into the public sector. This value capture strategy will offset 2% of the cost of the total system or about $1,660,000. This return is based on a sliding scale of property tax assessments based on station accessibility. Increase land values have thus been reflected in the - benefit cost calculations by directly reducing the capital cost of the project by this amount of private sector financing. A final benefit which is calculable is the reduced rapid transit system cost which is possible when two rapid transit stations are deleted from the transit network. This change results in a slightly decreased direct travel time savings (6,700 compared to 6,733 hours per day). However, a net capital cost savings of $9,000,000 accrues to the rapid transit program. To properly assess the benefits resulting from this deletion, it would be necessary to add rapid transit costs and benefits to the People Mover calculations and compute an overall change in cost -benefit ratio. Since such an analysis is beyond the scope of this study, the impact of this $9,000,000 savings was estimated by deleting the $9,000,000 from People Mover System capital costs. ,. ■ 255 Figure 14 summarizes these project benefits. The results of the cost benefit analysis are presented in Figure 15. In summary, quantifiable benefits offset from 141% to 256% of the project costs depending on benefits considered and discount rate used to calculate present value. Mid -range calculations show a cost -benefit ratio of 1.87. Since assumptions used in the calculations were generally conservative, it is concluded that the project may be considered justified on the basis of quantifiable benefits alone. Such quantifiable benefits, however, do not present a true picture of all benefits which result from the People Mover installation. Not included in the prior calculations are the following benefits which were, for the purposes of this study, determined to be non -quantifiable. Reduction in Parking Construction on High Value Land - Although it is not envisioned that total parking needs would be greatly reduced by the DPM, there would be a positive shift of parking spaces from the core area on site spaces to fringe areas. Mandatory zoning requirements and incentives are proposed which would reduce or eliminate required parking ratios in the vicinity of DPM and rapid transit stations. Increased Economic Activity - This benefit would result from a combination of reduced congestion, increased destination opportunities, reduced parking construction required, and other primary benefits. As dollars are released from the need to pay for these travel costs, they can be channeled to other sectors of the economy. f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 256 FIGURE 14 BENEFITS OF THE DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT Travel Time Savings DPM Users Bus Users Auto Users TOTAL Parking Cost Savings Bus Operating Cost Savings Total Annual Savings $6,030,000 Annually 1,050,300 4,875,000 $11,955,300 675,000 1,320,000 $13,950,300 Other Capital Cost Savings Rapid Transit System Costs $9,000,000 Private Sector Financing 1,664,000 TOTAL $10,664,000 ViGUkt 15 BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS bOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT Present Value Present Value Benefit Discount of Total Costs of Benefits Cost Rate 1977-2020 1977-2020 Ratio 4 S109,858,237 • $280,799,443 7% $ 89,158,572 $166,308,688 10% $ 77,120,364 $108,688,237 2.56 258 Environmental Considerations - Several forms of environmental benefits are directly attributable to this project. They take the following pattern: 1. Dislocation savings would be possible as a result of segment rerouting to the proposed Stage II of the rapid transit system. The maximum Stage II rapid transit disruption costs are estimated at $10.5 million in right-of-way, $1.8 million in relocation savings, and a potential annual tax loss from these properties of 8.2 million. Rerouting of the rapid transit line coordinated with the proposed DPM system would reduce these costs by varying margins. 2. Increased accessibility within the downtown area would provide substantial benefits to several groups. Approximately 28% of all current transit users are over 60 years of age. This group plus a large population of disabled persons would derive great benefits from a level entry DPM system as opposed to pedestrian or surface transit mode options now available for movement within the downtown area. Although precise cost benefits are not calcuable, an estimated 11,000 daily users from these socio-economic classes would utilize the DPM system, thus resulting in considerable benefits to these special groups. 3. Cultural and recreational facilities are among those areas directly served by the DPM system. Two major parks located on Biscayne Bay, Bayfront and Bicentennial Park, the 259 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Convention Center, and the Downtown Government Center with its central regional public library and art museum will be linked by a single transit mode. Although the benefits of this linkage are difficult to quantify above direct travel time savings, the convenience to thousands of daily users is anticipated to be quite large. 4. Visual and athestic benefits of the system were instrumental in the decision making processes leading towards system development. The Biscayne Boulevard segment of the system and the Miami River crossing were calculated, to offer unique visual opportunities for DPM patrons to experience urban and waterfront views including Biscayne Bay, the Port, and the large park areas along it. These attributes were felt to have benefits to regular and occasional users alike that would enhance the proposed DPM system over other options. 5. Noise created by the DPM system has not been estimated. However, a rubber —tired system propelled by electric traction motors will have very distinct advantages over surface buses, trucks, and automobiles which now are the only available vehicular transportation modes in the downtown area. 6. Air pollution in downtown will be reduced both by the electric propulsion system of the DPM and by the easing of congestion 111 with its higher levels of fuel consumption. 1 1 In summary, the quantifiable benefits show clearly the project is justified. Those benefits not quantified further indicate the overall benefits of the system. 260 2.0 CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING The Miami Urban Area Transportation Study ('•HATS) is organized to provide Dade County with continuous, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning in conformance with federal requirements. MUATS is a joint effort of local and state agencies which contribute funds and manpower towards the assimilation of technical data and the preparation of findings for transportation and transportation -related matters. In turn, this information provides a sound basis upon which future urban development issues can be discussed and evaluated by the various decision -making bodies which transportation improvements will be programmed for construction. The transportation planning area in Dade County is coterminous with that of comprehensive development planning. The Metropolitan Government Charter of Dade County gives the County total transportation planning and implementation powers. Metropolitan Dade County also has all land use powers in unincorporated areas, and it can establish minimum land use standards for incorporated areas. This unique coincidence of powers allows for the coordination of transportation and land use developments in a fashion that has few parallels in the United States. After adoption of the Metropolitan Charter in 1957 region -wide planning began. With the adoption by the Dade County Commission in 1965 of a General Land Use Master Plan, an initial comprehensive plan became a guide for growth and development. This master plan contained a transportation element as well as a development plan for land use. Since this beginning, both land use and transportation planning have been continuous activities carried out by the appropriate planning agencies. 261 Status of Transportation Planning MUATS began work on the first 1985 transportation concept in 1964 and completed its plan in 1969. The five year effort which culminated in the plan proposals included elements for highways, mass transit, seaports, airports, and terminals. The transportation plan represented a detailing of the transportation element of the General Land Use `caster Plan adopted in 1965. The plan contained recommendations for an extensive network of new expressways both in the already urbanized areas of the County and stretching out beyong the then urban fringe, providing new accessibility to land suitable for urban uses. To meet forecast travel demands, the street and highway plan for 1985 recommended an estimated $800 to $900 million (1969 dollars) program for the addition of nine expressways, the development of eight express streets and the improvement and extension of arterial streets. Of the nine expressways, three have been implemented or are in the process of implementation, while the remaining six have been either deleted or reexamined for need. In 1971 and 1972 a series of public hearings on the MUATS 1969 plan were held throughout the County. These hearings revealed strong opposition from neighborhood groups to many of the expressway proposals contained in the plan. As a result, MUATS had an analysis undertaken to determine the implications for the County's transportation network of the deletion of some of the proposed expressways. This analysis, called the "Controversial Corridors Review," was undertaken late in 1972 and completed in 1974. It resulted in the recommendation that six expressways either be deleted in their entirety or be substantially shortened. The 262 Review concluded that the original MUATS arterial improvements plus additional recommendations in the Review and currently contemplated transit improvements would constitute the most acceptable transporta- tion network for 1985. The original 1969 MUATS plan also recommended a program of surface bus improvements and grade -separated transit facilities to be implemented by 1985 to satisfactorily accommodate future travel demands. The original plan envisioned a new rapid transit system connecting Interama, Miami Beach, downtown Miami and Miami International Airport together with a busway on the mainland to accommodate projected north -south movements. Consistency with Regional Transportation Planning Beginning in 1969 a series of transit technical studies was conducted to determine the feasibility of elements of the plan and to identify the transit facilities required to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing population of the County. The latter studies, completed in 1972, recommended the development of a rapid transit system and tenta- tively identified the scope and magnitude of such a system, estimated to cost $805 million. During these technical studies estimates of system benefit, cost, and operating expenses were closely examined, together with alternative measures to fund the County's proportionate share of the total system cost. On the basi of this information the electorate of Dade County, by a 61.4% margin, agreed in 1972 to tax themselves via a $132.5 million general obligation bond issue to be backed by property taxes. 1 1 1 .l 1 l 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 Co11ection-distribution systems were a part of the proposed MUATS transit technical study long-range element. The details of these systems were described in the fifth interim report prepared during the technical study. A necessary part of the transit system in Dade County would be a series of "People -Mover" systems to distribute passengers from rapid transit stations to principal traffic generators in the immediate area. The form of these systems would vary, from a single, elevated speedwalk to a highly sophisticated, multi -stop system at other locations. The major specific site suggested to benefit from the installation of a people mover system was downtown Miami. Upon adoption of the feasibility study by MUATS, it lead to a Rapid Transit Preliminary Engineering study for Dade County's Transit Improvement Program. Completed in 1975, the study also recommended a people mover system for the downtown Miami area. The recommendations of the Transit Improvement Program have been adopted by the :MATS Policy Committee and the Board of County Commissioners as part of the MUATS 1985 transportation plan. Other ongoing planning activities related to regional transportation planning include: updating of the MUATS plan to the year 2000, con- tinuation of the South Florida Regional Transportation Study, a joint effort involving Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties, and a number of short-range transportation improvement projects designed to provide higher levels of public transportation. In summary, the planning effort conducted by the County is comprehensive. It has as its 264 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 objective the maintenance of the quality of life in Dade County through careful management of growth and development, and through provision of those services, including efficient transportation, required to sustain that quality of life. The metropolitan structure of the County government places land use control, transportation facilities, community services and necessary financial resources under the policy control of the Board of Commissioners and the executive management of the County :tanager. This structure permits adopted plans to be carried out in programs authorized for rapid transit development as well as in other modes of transportation. 265 360 LOCAL SUPPORT During the past five years at least three major studies by consulting firms have recommended downtown people mover systems in the central business district of the City of Miami. Project studies by Kaiser Engineers, Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, and Beiswenger, Hoch and Associates have been accepted by the local governing officials. With the announcement by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration on April 6, 1976, that a national competition would be conducted to select three cities for carrying out a national demonstration program, public officials began meetings with leadership in the private sector. From this series of meetings, emerged a local commitment to proceed with the preparation of a project proposal. During the month of May, 1976, the Downtown Action Committee of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce designated a special committee to work with the City of Miami and Metropolitan Dade County in preparing the Downtown People Mover Project Proposal. At the same time, the Downtown Development Authority staff and Board became directly involved in the decision to proceed with the project application. A total of four public meetings called jointly by the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County and City Commissioners of the City of Miami were held during the months of May and June to review publicly for all interested citizens and the press milestone reports and to make public decisions based on the reports. iliMMORPRIIIIITIIII 266 As part of this proposal there is attached copies of the Resolutions endorsing the funding plan and the route alignment and station locations by the Board of County Commissioners dated June 15, 1976, and the Miami City Commission dated June 17, 1976. Also attached are copies of the recommendations of the Downtown Development Authority dated June 10, 1976, and the endorsements by Resolution of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce. The public hearing on the project conducted June 25, 1976, was widely advertised in the press and copies of that advertisement are attached to the proposal. The results of the public hearing clearly reflect community support for the project. Also, they reflect commitments on the part of the private sector to participate in the financing of the project as well as commitments on the part of local public officials to insure financial support for the project. Attached are several letters of commitment from both the private and public sector. Metropolitan Dade County which has responsibility for all transportation functions in the urbanized area has fully endorsed the proposed people mover system. This means that the Metropolitan Transit Agency which is the designated recipient of Section 5 funds also fully support the project. Equally important, Metropolitan Dade County which acts as the MPO has fully endorsed the project. Finally, the A-95 review Agency for the Metropolitan area is the Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department which has officially endorsed the project by letter dated June 23, 1976, a copy of which is attached. 267 tit summary, all major elements of the local community have endorsed and ate fully supportive of the project proposal for the Downtown People Mover System in the central business district of the City of Miami. Moreover, the financial support of the Florida Department of Transportation which is commited in writing as part of the section on financial resources, is indicative of state governmental support for the proposed project. 268 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1616 ONE BISCAYNE TONER MIAM1, FLORIDA 33131 TEL. 1305) 579.6675 Honorable Mayor & Metropolitan Dade County Commissioners Dade County Courthouse 73 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida June 14, 1976 Dear Hon. Mayor & Commissioners Subject: Financing for People Mover System The Downtown Development Authority has thoroughly reviewed and discussed the proposal that the Downtown Development Authority pay for 2% of the cost for the proposed People Mover System, as a part of the "local" contribution. A definitive review of the taxing and bonding authority of the Downtown Development Authority of the City of Miami clearly indicates that we cannot produce the amount of resources suggested, through existing law. A change in the taxing capability of the Downtown Development Authority will require a referendum. A detailed review of this and other alter- natives is reflected in the attached memorandum to the Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors. Nonetheless, the Downtown Development Authority Board does recognize that adjacent and nearby properties will benefit greater than others through- out this community and therefore subscribes to some form of additional participation in return for those benefits. The Downtown Development Authority Hoard feels that you should consider creating "special districts", based on benefits gained, as authorized by the Metropolitan Dade County Charter, to fulfill this objective. The authorization in the Metro Charter is the only existing law known to us through which this can be accomplished without a public referendum. For these purposes, the Board of Directors of the Downtown Development Authority approved the following recommendations at their Regular Meeting held on June 11, 1976: 1. The Downtown Development Authority strongly endorses and supports the proposed concept for the Downtown People Mover System, as reflected in the 5 Milestone Reports and the final recommendations. 2. Advise Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami of the observations reflected in the memorandum dated June 10, 1976. 3. Request Metropolitan Dade County to consider funding the "private sector participation" through the creation of "special districts" as authorized in the Metro Charter. III 1111111p11111111111 a r Hon, Mayor and Metropolitan Dade County Commissioners June 14, 1976 4. Request Metropolitan Dade County to consider separate "service districts" reflecting graduated assessments based on "benefits" anticipated to the owners of property in the vicinity of the system. 5. Request assistance of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce in obtaining community and business support for this funding method. 6. Direct the Executive Director of the Downtown Development Authority to appear before the Metropolitan Dade County Commission and present these recommendations. Respectfully Submitted for the Board of the Downtown Development Authority Lucius C. Williams, Executive Director DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LCW:dd Attachment 270 DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 1616 ONE BISCAY`JE TO':JER 1IAVI, FLORIDA 33131 TEL. 13051 5796675 TO! Downtown Development Authority DATE* June 100 1976 Board of Directors FROM: Lucius C. Williams, Executive Director DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SUBJECT: Proposal that Downtown Development Authority Pay 2% of the cost for the Downtown People Mover System. I have read of the "approved" proposal that the Downtown Development Authority fund 2% ($1,660,000) of the local contribution for the Downtown People Mover System. Eventhough I was aware that the Authority might be asked to participate to the extent legally possible, I was never advised or consulted on the possible participation of $1,660,000. In fact, I have been unable to determine where that formula came from. As I interpret the State Law and the City of Miami Ordinance, the Downtown Development Authority can sell bonds only for "short term operational funds" and revenue bonds (see Exhibit 1). The People Mover System does not fit into either of these catagories and therefore I must conclude, our total commitment would be the proceeds of the taxable year in which the payment (obligation) is incurred; approxi- mately $250,000. Future year's receipts may not be "obligated" nor "committed" under existing law. To increase our annual receipts to provide for this kind of one-time payment, will require a vote of the electors in the district. A second option would be the historic right of a city to create a "special improvement district" for this purpose. A review of the City of Miami Charter (see Exhibit 2) clearly indicates that Miami can create these type districts only for highways, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, sidewalks, curb sewers, street improvements and water main improvements. A third responsibility would be to consider a "special tax district" for this specific purpose. The 1968 revision to the State Constitution requires a "vote of the electors" to create any such district (see Exhibit 3). The only provision of existing law that I am aware of which could produce revenues from adjacent property owners (private sector partici- pation) without a "vote of the electors" is found in the Metro Dade County Charter (see Exhibit 4). The Metro Charter, which is a part of the State Constitution, clearly establishes authorization to create "special districts" and levy of "additional taxes" to pay for the "essential service". 271 Pane 2. __June_ 10, 1976 A cursory review of the proposed systems service area indicates that even with a small graduated special assessment, the 2% private sector participation can be paid off over a four (4) year period, including interest. (Accordingly, the service districts should be created for 4 years and should be abolished thereafter. The basis of the referenced financial conclusion is a projection of special assessments at three different rates, based on proximity to transit line: YELLOW - Est. Val. 375 Million x 1 mill = $375,000.00 Annually GREEN - Est. Val. $200 Million x / mill = $100,000.00 Annually RED - Est. Val. $ 80 Million x ', mill = $ 20,000.00 annually Annual Special Tax Receipts $495,000.00 4 Years x $495,000 per year = $1,980,000. This tabulation is to establish possible methodology based on "good" estimates of existing tax valuation. It can, of course, be totally changed or revised. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Advise Metropolitan Dade County and the City of Miami of these observations (these are not legal opinions which will require substantial research by competent attorneys). 2. Request Metropolitan Dade County to consider funding the "private sector participation" through the creation of "special districts" as authorized in the Charter and shown in Exhibit 4. 3. Request Metropolitan Dade County to consider separate "service districts" reflecting graduated assessments based on "benefits" anticipated to the owners of property in the vicinity of the system 4. Request assistance of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce 5.n obtaining community and business support for this funding method. 1 _ ▪ s § 13-7 (h) To make and enter into powers all dental to the exercise of its its duties- to a ' dense (i) Borrow' mone or a short term .►t ev and rior to thori . ed and the chairman and of o eration folluwin . the a`sessme to issue evidences collection o e tax prior to the issuance of evi- dence indeb e►ness, such loans to be signed by the secretaryofindebtedness bt the authority • therefor and the commission o the clence of indebtedness for such loans the hoard shall r� present the plan and need )rove such evidence of indebtedness by athe au- thority must approve rate of interest to thority resolusuch debt shall be the lu wett rate eofyinterest available on et to such per cent per annum. The authority shall bold notc exceed' with respect to any debt created shall hold the city hereunder. (Ord. No. 7370, a 6, 7 ; Ord. No. 7652.. §'1-) 1)ot%NT0WN DEVELOPMENT contracts necessary or inci- and the performance of ruined by resolution of the auti' provisions hereof, and to s•' agreement by and bet, \--1* �t • �\ tr `1`/. l\ \r company having �./; ;,cal\ i' .all mature at state; provide •',�,• �•��' t�, from their date, such time �j; �,•i `.�c,\\t,•,, ' not exceeding sit per and.i �\•• t\:: c; \ .( i. ,t�o't` ,eemed by it necessary or c \� ; ;( ,• C,t' ���' _ton and nlarketing of the rev - `,NA . \) .'`' I\( • c•�\ \\ upon ten (lays published notice in �� l?tii!-\'1. •''1 \ .: the authority is located or with the �o,� �� 0s \-',) t, t ,emission of the city at private sale. at the %• 1/• \: :,- t lip 1 c 7� t ; `' _.nable, including the entry into binding agree- , `.`1 t .,,c \ { \ c} `) j ., corporate trustees, undoemployment underwriters, 1)i,y-le ment, tsrs .N•c.' i evenue bonds, and the emp ) `•' ..,essary expc.'nse of issuance, for the Servi(•es of consultants on valuations, costs and feasibility of undert:li.in'g, leventle; to he anticcil)ated and other financial n,•tttt -.., a1 111tt'cttire, en- § 13-7 (k) The board, subject to the need and plan therefor being first presented to the commission of the cyand tsr approval aa- evidenced by the adoption of an appropriate such plan, mat it;ue, n gotiate and sell. in accor- darice applicable provisions -or -the laws of the state, dance with the app_; � except as otherwise herein provided, revenue bonds of the 1all or any part n c'nlle3, to pay of the cult of any project, projects or purpose of this article upon such terms and conditions, tnanP and form, hall be and lt t v- 1ch details, conditions and ►) onsistent with the '` bond by a trust hank or trust )r without the 112 Sec. 112. Arc ll }3I 1 � ,i t2 FR. L'•'�} (. }'C out}}1 t mL,{tth h; c}1lvi t.�. I1tli ts Mot' is �3 ,J( 1 l'11.\1i114 C pv f c) r ,. t+t �>' Ic•S :c,`'~at�1\ c,\ai'r'-''rE,(,t c}t- 1t 1 ut�c\p 1 ,1` p�1t\ ,t tnt :tll stet:C.\`�: -r t::\°it pVr'\t1t' t.!lit ill,t (,1rlt• :1 .;�.ti � t\,��1 t\ ...,,1 In:::1(.::,\ 11t„Ilt' atl+t Ial•.,•II llli• c\a aiFr +t Il hV tht h; ,.a ` Sec. 113. Act to take etTect immediately. 11 j1t1 1,1e1 niitll' :I This :Att :kill talc• t•ticet in):tll'tli:ttt•1> I law.' �cc. 111. Loc•tl imtil'utenit'nl�--Street dctelopntettt` and \t:r- 1 0,..t1 iliil)r&1\ rn;t•nis v. i;t, ll !u;iv 1,e niat ` 1\ 11it It in:1', he t'tr\ id 1l for Ili avc4.4c- 1 1` Lhtilrn iliami, riff the 111yt t`( .11:1 . t, t.l t1.t,.,. ter main inlpro\ cmrntti. (1•:itIL \\It ll -1 t 1111'll i),' \ irlll \ ;11t'tl I,‘ '-:,111 t `.•11r lfutiu ill ±llt.' , it, 1'l:1-'1,,ci:,11 :1- ,'lye, 111•\1'l`11'il'.t'lii 1,t1 :It.rtllu`.1•ftlt'hi� tl.i�<t�, it, 1,0 l' l iri r1;1 \1 „ 1'1:1 1)e Illatle a:1tr 1'^t 1111,\It1'1l tlil' Illltill)'.11-1,t•t'lal ii111H'i1\i:G'.t•I11 �. 1'.:11' 1 city 1 .14t'Ir tt 1 1. bowl,: and other\\t t', Ull+tlhe to 1;:11, all t 114t !tt\ t', of er 1R•o\,.j1111 of :.toile.- Ill l,,t-t1Ithe illy :n11 where 1111t Ir1 l;llrrlrllt tllt'm\\ itll. ons ( hart�r, 11 \ 1,11t 192.9.) t)i s.UII >,-t t tt,1l .tti. (('. 1 3'_ _9- , .11! t if h, A, l 1f ,.. t. 1 (irct of -1n1t ndn„ nt. '1•'t'1- _, �1 h•tt etnhr Iced in street tkc\ elupnteul • Su:. 11:!. �i:une— opening, widen - in; f 1 ;1 II\\'a)'ti, and, if the cu{I;nti> tt su (•Lass (. Street developments embrace the 1.'1_ and' c\l t it)11 0 ), ,1 ; , "' 1.,.,t 1. I rioting; thereof. (I'. 1 �,t; t,f t.rut.r: , the : , t,l, ,I t • � 1.1. � , ,•, i:1i• j 1: ••rI t.f -‘1n, uttpll•IIt.- tl,, • '• .).ttl, .. L,_ •t ;r1;o\•e. 1- Ediitien twit.- t. 187 IV- V"' N1 -A' Art. 7, § S ci)N,11'11"111()N --19u,s iti.NItitON fit of coo,t;.• - -- P.11t ‘101-1'1.e:i ,ta volorem t- ,ty.t. for li:itt 1 . V 1 '1'‘I'V 1 01:i . 1:,%1111311' Speci al d i s1 1- i ct \Olt 'IA "approved 1.-)y voto ot i lie el ect of s" . - put torcomli..-ci DI 1'11.1131A i tIct nail‘ ci pal ..--;orvi cot:, , 1,0 "1 cvy acid I k 10Klai tia:-;t'S" (WI 01011 approv 1.1 of e.lectors) (it) ('ituittit, .:l•)1411/1 district, anti motticipn alitic, :Ila. anti § 9• Imr.ti tivkes ,i di:A ti,:ts may. be atititorizett IA law to Itt‘.1.- ail ‘al..,1 vtit 111-.0. iiro att111rit.tql by gericrol 1:1‘k: to le\ y (Aber fortio,ir 1.,,Tucti% e piblioic.-;, eNcept akt •,:ilai.,to ta..(-- on 1.211•1`' lwr--,•TI:ti 1.1-0Pv1-L :Intl t:i\t-., putti,i1,it,t,11) Iiii:t e40.._4,t..0.i. n. II)) Ail v.iloreto t:1,..-.-, -•., liis‘x of 1.1\r•-; ick It ,1 tow 1•1!,!. 1.-..Y- Mciit of 'kook ;itt,1 Livor-• Iv\ 'wit for i.vi to,1, !o,t ito,ir.:•-c tl.„;•,11 tv,‘„ •"';"%z \‘' I" I` "till'"1 L'.1 l'. ‘Vt.' VC OW 01.',.1..1, i,, ;Ile' t. 1,:: 14f lict 111,i 11..,•!, ,I., loll V, 111,1.1% C \t•111)11 tit III j:1\..1 i'.1... hi• !t. \ I. ki CI. k'..' . -- f' t:C f‘.11.0'.1h.:, li.l'It, 411.crt OW :17-- '"•• yak,- irt gc.ti ,. 1 ,(.• ;illoi t.4;i1:',Ihte 1,c1"- -1.:11 pl,,pot t'.. : ft11:,111..1111.- ty pIllp, t• '. t,'Il Will ,; for :III W,l111i. I1i:1 IttitTo-i,-. it 1: mili.•;: fot. .011 zi 10,01 pttisto,...,•.;, tt•rt milk: at4,1 I,,t- .stte, i-..1 Ov...-A:ict, .. iiiiiih,,,!,, „„ti.„„•.,,,.,1 1,, 1,,,„- :t1,1,1•,,v,„tt.1...ct,),•.- _,, ___. -.__—_________ _ of lIcelU told.:. t.tvin IDA '11 holly e\t‘mpt, fr,,111 taN4.1.. tiCtli. A c.otoity Willi Iiin.,_ottioi, iiqtllittt t it:.5 atily. to •',1.. c.t. r..: :tothr.rii,.41 by 1;IV:. it,,, 1: ;1.1(111.11111;11 t:IAC.ti N\ ;thin Oltliffilt!,,_:fd:„.til. -1'1W illItilielpal plit 111-.1!-. :Itch i Contrttentar!.. T•ib•! It' It* rtthr de! Suls,or I intl ;O. vitt; „vier tli 1611, mill 11111111, tit 1,.% .,:1t11t.1.1 uithin ttie 0,1 It .11-0 ntt It :114111,1t:.•.1 l4 it,. tti t.%\* 1 tii.o ;ill 1‘...il toot,: Imo 1••• to. ), otr.1 t.c., oil it t • r. 1..x.- 1 th- tit. Itt•‘ •1••ll • t•tit 11.1,11 !••... ti..•tts'tlitt'a tit It ii:OttItt. 'anti tittiti IC11,31011 • Itt. ...tit Ill ti IC% Alt (,t \ piot••• ••• • 1,1••titt••t••,! 1ti t• 142 LIU 1)A1)1t. 1 (J(> 1 ', i Itttl 4 1.1) PIO% tat! t tittral 1.0(1rill. t le i.."1:;:!t,:t1.Cit• tit trn; rttt. cll.*. ;.•titi l'• ' Ct)rtt 114 :Mitt CCP' *,C ‘ • ce`-' .... -_ .1... f ,-,• - - :- , , statiolN. - „,-c A ,:-.7.e k.-) 1.,_•• " - ' '.k.' 0.(V ., Ls• ak ,,„4 °- ‘`-' v • 0=• ..•tr ..,.xi\';.---, 4 . c,,‘:, , ,z,,,•C .., 1..t., . e _01 littifitrill 11,•;tlih :01.1 - ,....!..i.r., f°C 1,-.,0. _.e• :-.-'%• . p.ii.I.,. I)! . -.•,.‘,•-, 1,1..r..‘2.1..itt.,1•, ,co -,..3•2 . ,•ii,-,„ toivari, It4“_.ttl11-,., ;:t1,1 4,tit•-t" r. it',,..kv't.O. ;A:i•t. .111;tti al I a( Ott t, anti in-Itt,tti., • - ' 1.,-.tit.1.1t.•11 awl ,.t41ttilnt,-1- 11,1u.1, z,Ituix t...1 .tr:,-:•.t.,-. urban t.t.i.wv, ai, tilii.:-t-f‘Ittittu. flii.,.1. ,trti I' ,..1. -.--. 1..t.r..r_.•• ..th 1.,,,., . ,;(..:11 ,•............ , - .....: t. it' 1,......... ,t,t.,•rucc1-., , tt, ',...r• II, . ,l,trAtt. 1 1- ;•:,,. ,t; cr:1-, :, t ' r.t, -•. pt.iq.tt ,tui,. (9)l'i,$',16,• itt,,I t t-e.til.tl, ,,:. 1),‘1 itt..t ti.,,,ili, t.:t.11'; - t,t c. ‘ttl,. 8ni-1 1-,1...t,t;:tt.att.), .....•. .1.2..-i.,:t "...,1 ,,Itstic,:,.11 :tut! ‘, ...Iry st11,111:L ic1,1 0,1, . 0..i.t..: ( tit) t.,,•,.. awl t‘l;,•, t_ t.t \ ..., 0.ii‘i 4.0 ;-i;,1 .1. -:,•,...!ti,,,,,,:.:. llot,_ l'ti‘‘ Zill 1 t''..litotill lit, kill' . :Atli' '—'10 ipl,i^. !'t ...•:,-...,.' l't 1.1 it tc Al.,..•:., ::11,1 titl, t ,.....11.1,,;,-. ,••,' it1.1.1,,...,•,;.,.,,.. itt st„,t, 1".1111,,•1. ",,.., slit ,-,.., t t,, .....1: 1..:-.11t.i.o..•. ..:, h.! 11140. '.%i,'it 1),‘ 1,1.V..• , i i ) 1:', ot'Allit:ttik -. ,.•-•;10.11 ;11 :11,•1..,..... ...:,.1 11.1,,,I., iitii.A.,,,:, tit .( Co, I , v, ail in \1/41tich Ilt.,,,\ L, !..,',1‘ .•, .; 1),.. c,? anti 1.0 I.' 111.i.it t t IOU, .c.1(.' 1 • 1"..,..*.i.t1 co:;!., ,11, 1-,, ....,,,Lr•......! l;it'llait•-•., 's, • 441i''.., -41..1 . ,,.. V, AI, -. -.1;1'. • r. 10.•:7;_,:•,.._-_. ;Old ...01l;Wt• 1*,,1.1.111,0.1 :int! Ili -;,0-,t1. .1.1,.jr...1.!0. .C.1.1. III l, i'l. l'___„______ ,. ;CIO '.;t1 1:1C110.6 , .1.I.tt :WI ‘1,',.'-. .\11 i',.i.'.1".‘ ft,r z.0.10.717-7171"' :.."‘. 1).• 1.1"0‘.1.,le‘!. **.,,,. •I'cit-t.• C':....11,.."0-, :,tict'131 .`. •-•,' • Illi'lli •, .elit I al L12..s..;,....:"...1. 1. 111'4.1ll•t • I al.... 1.'.1.4 1.l1,1 0.:. (.,o,„•::.- k',•11;t:.i..,..,,....,..:.., —_ — 1. s 11* RFC/ts 6/16/76 Mot. 76-545 RESOLUTION NO. i6-617 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT EXPRESSLY INDICATING THE AGREEMENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THE PRO- POSED BREAKDOWN OF FUNDING FOR THE EIGHTY-THREE MILLION DOLLAR INITIAL COST OUTLAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEM" AND SPECIFICALLY APPROVING THE. PROPOSED 3% ASSESS- MENT AS THE CITY OF MIAMI'S SHARE CF THE PROJECT COST. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CO}EMISSION CF THE CITY OF i•1IlMI* FLORIDA: Section 1. It is the intent of the City Commission to hereby expressly indicate its agreement with the following breakdown of funding for the $83,000,000.00 initial cost outlay in connection with the construction of the "People Mover System"; further the Commission specifically approves the herein proposed 3% assessment as the City of Miami's share of such cost: 1976. "80% FEDERAL FUNDS 10% STATE FUNDS 5% COUNTY FUNDS 3% CITY FUNDS 2% D.D.A. FUNDS TOTAL PASSED AND ADOPTED = 67.4 MILLION 3.3 MILLION = 4.2 MILLION 2.8 MILLION 1.4 MILLION 83 MILLION DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS DOLLARS" this 17 day Of r ' /.1 -= SOUTHERN PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: JUNE MAURICE A, FERRE Robert F. Clar.. Assistant City Attorney APPRCJED,AS TO FORA AND CORRECTNESS: 3Sohn S. Lloya ity Attorney MAYOR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 gtA'PE OP FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF DADE CITY OF MIAMI ) I, H. D. Southern, Clerk of the City of Miami, Florida, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing page contains a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by the City Commission of Miami, Florida at a meeting held on the , day of 19.r- and designated Resolution 275 No.. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the City of Miami, Florida this day of 19 H. D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA 1976. RFC:ps 6-16-76 Motion 76-544 RESOLUTION NO. 76-616 A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO FULLY ACCEPT THE PROPOSED ROUTING OF THE DOWNTOWN MIAMI "PEOPLE :LOVER SYSTEM" AS SET FORTH IN THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO, AND FURTHER APPROVING THE ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT OF THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SYSTEM ON N.E. 3RD AVENUE IN THE EVENT PLACEMENT ON BISCAYNE BOULEVARD IS NOT POSSIBLE. $E IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. It is the intent of the City Comission to express its full acceptance of the proposed routing of the down- town "People Mover System" in the City of Miami as set forth in the attached map. Further, if the eastern leg or alignment of the system cannot be placed on Biscayne Boulevard, the Commission agrees that said leg or alignment can be placed on Northeast Third Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17 day of ATTEST: boa -;tip � D. SOUTHERN City Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: -I3 Robert F. Clark, Asst.City Attorney' APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Jain s. L oyd, City Att key JUNE MAURICE A. FERRE MAYO R 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t' ATh OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF DADE CITY OF MIAMI ) I, H. D. Southern, Clerk of the City of Miami, Florida, do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing page contains a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by the City Commission of Miami, Florida at a meeting held on the day of 19 and designated Resolution WITNESS my nand and the official seal of the City cf Miami, Florida this day of T/ I 19. H. D. SOUTHERN CITY CLERK CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA i 1 MEMoRANDUM i:onorable .:ayor F_Ind ...:"'hers , � 7'J'?r d of Count-�.,'•-,i53;';.nei'S Cc .. :Tanai_r .4•�_ CATE SUBJECT 278 pn _....'.^.t : Tt-cr-A_"_r,, _.. 5( .)1 June 1-5 , 1976 Prcc'n•7ied _^nwrtowr ^ve1 Financing �_,n Authority _ _.`: for Peonle .•:cver System As a follow-up to the June 4, 1976 meeting between the board o. County Commissioners, the City Commission ^o: the City cf , representatives of the Downtown De�:e_otme t Aut hority, , andrepre ves othe Greater:Tiami Ch=mber of Commerce the Downtown re';e_op;: -nt Authority ri : ca'_ d o_ Directors met on June 10, 1976 to discuss _n detail the pr rose'.. financing plan for the Downtown People .:over System. This plan n as discussed on June 4, 1976, provides that the non-federal share in a total amount of approximately : ' c . o million wr..uld be met as follows: (1) $ 3 3 million or 10 percent from the Florid=. Department of Transportation; (2) $4.2 million or 5 percent by ;,ietropolitan Dade County; (3) y2. 4: million or 3 percent by the City of :ia.T11i; and (4) 1.55 million or 2 percent by the Downtown Development Authority or other structural ar ran=,e:.,ents. The me.etin7 of the aoard of rentors o_ t.^e -o into.... :'�'ve10 ment Authority on June 10, 1976, provided an e:,:tremely ± terestir.s' dis- cussi cn of the entire conoeUt of the Downtown Peecle o . rer ar.d �' resulted in the Ppnrov=1 in rrir.ciple an,d enders _me^t of the Downtown People 'ever ~ysteri ario the _=narc_rg pl art. .:r. Lucius C. Williams, Lxec'uti veDirector °resented a caper which analyzed the alternat';es va 1 a1''le to DD.I ?rid the pr±'vate sector. Tt concluded that ? more appropriate rnroach would be to request that iTetrorol_tari Dade County cons_ er fun'ing a srec_? district for tr,e on •'a sector :ha e "' di-�1 l ar purposes of CCii7trlC)�at=?':� �_. to O r of v__c.._ S to financing the construction of the People Nover System. Attached for vcur information is a copy of that paper. It is my understanding that both NI'. Williams and :,rrs. Barbara Levenson representing the Greater :'.tea'"; Ch tuber of Commerce Downtown Aotior. Committee slant to make present=`ions in support of this concept and approach at the time you consider the t'rcposFd Feso l'uticn and "':anacer's Ye-.orandum entitled • r-^_. in and _n o 1=ncin" ?lan for the Downtown People i'"over c'•yste.^.;." reoom:tendatio^s and approaches su-.7=sted in this pa„er have considerable merit and deserve careful attention by the _'oard of County _ 'fir iss_oners . DWK/ j s 279 on Azenta Item :do. 5 .=)(_ ) _o Honorable :.:ayor and ::e-t._ .. Board __County c ..-issic.._-s SL3JEC' Cewey jr. _..Teri... iu. .'a^.a,,e. June n'e 15, C 6 Foutin.g an, -+na. _ ng Plan fcr the _.•.4ntc ,,n _ eoole i'._yer Sys en the Gast three r7pe2Ss a total C: :free ;...t L;eettinzs '.a;e••bems.. held u'et:ree.. _::e Ecard o:Cr.:u, :_..:-.insi hers. ..^.e C:-- ' di i of the City _ .fia-ice - ti _ 1e aeve_dpmentsf . sl'.. a .._eo V J_ posa_ _ ._. ra _wnto. . Feople !,:over • System. •t1H these - -2 - s - . . esentat_ves .... __ .... -.. ...dill drys ..._- .,dll _.._ .._ - - .-.e ✓: ...c'�rn .: — - ee .,:'.e`... _. .2. . _a'_ Ch,Mcer o- Commerce and tha Townttwn nt Authority. The erst recent meeting the .j�__.. . _.':{r .,_'es was hell ne :1 1376 at .._ _f 2:00 p.m. The subject ... of that __tins was the reuting ef theproposed Fern__ ..c•.-e- System and the financing _ plan. _n the preparation _ the pro_t ocsa_ and . _-., a series of X -es` been'--_ ea-e- These i _u,e. (_) System doll -nt Criteria; •2) Alternative 7cutes Analysis; and Figr _C_-.a ?o inees (5)AlignmentStation Locations; and (%) Final t _ m Flan. At ,.w conclusion 3f the discussion concerning .a_es.one 5 on June , 1975, the :Liam. Citv Commission on _ec-mmen at`_Cn of Commission__ Flummer -=' a _te plan --- the Proposed :own:own People :.:over ste . _.. .._.a: :he -od___cation. __n- J_s�e^ moving :he -h-so --e - .. __ _ ... ..__ . --.. dill_ _.. _.. east , from the --,.... • haled 7rt ..tend_ ___g-'-_n. to a .__JC ne-cline. __' alignment. Also a minor notification was made the southern a__;n.-.env o :he loop to`: it to Scut.. -.... Street which will provide a .• ^.sta via_ JL ithecovet access to ._ propose: convention center. _"e a..a_::eu..._. shows ori ginal -a_ recommendation aJ' .___ as the changes made in ..._ a___ the meeting or. June _,7'i. it is important .. that the original _ alignmentnor th- sou.^,':as approved as an acceptable alternative in r.._ even_ that tee -._Jc ._ . cull . a= a alignment could not Je made woo.,:able. :e prsposed financingn _2_.._s _ .. ant approved died _n principle _ _nc_-0C... a .. __e- '- elements.- - FireF4ret, the to:a' est-atea cost of the _w.1 . .. People 77over System_ z_-a:e,y ..._-__on. ne revues: from . _ ...:a. ,mount,_0 ..'_3'__..r Pr . .-----.. _- '58.r 2' " -n Aid-_ .,' - _ este.- from _.._ . __. .,a .. __r _.....r - r3n-.,_. tat_.... which has _-^e - 3 e--er -..ten: to commit Jin nice .- - - '--tall . _� .;,Y__•; contri- • :e =.2 _. 5percent of the total cost. The 7ity of • •.rc-1i_ cc...._ _.lute 7 percent cs..t oe ------n. : _ na_+. , the private sett.. threuzn the-_ Tc ..dill ..the._ or s..er arrangement: .;c.._.. _in._-_ -- - tn_ rota_ cost . or $_.cc ..._1 •-hdz -.. ,:mrov,e _n ~ r..e --4n2-ants _n the "1_... inz tre.2eso. io -'---_-..r rr.a., the ...vard ..17i..- .r._.._:J__..-__ _-_: and -Itoptthis financing !ar or an amendment tnerets for furtner_-•en . 2ra te"e"'ng 4n the project wn'on...-_- r_ .. -_ e' . _ ... -i ��fJ ._ b'1_^_e th=sreect - _'__ ._ter'- ... attachments will •.1, ne nn end of _ . .. of __.'•..ne25, - .._.. _�.. _ �e ...__si_1976 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ..?S01:, i2N J:PROPOSAL :2 - 280 (-:_?.'.AS Obis S:ard ..estres adbm,:lLsn tne outlihed _.t331ed :o znis .es:_^:_:.., _._ :._e reasons ..._'_..ea . ner?in, {=35:.. a's OF DAD? -.__. =a?r_ _;es r'J.:_:;g and __.._'::=`_..a " _ ...OS._ Sowntovn People :: ver ztem, and a'.:.... --des "? 3nager to o. care and s::_,^`_: a ?rO„ect Fr----2' :p .ne _rtan.3:3 ?rasp:.: Ti._ . ,re4o.ni, resolutt.an was offered by 0=issioner o ndied _ :s adoption. nation was 3e„onded b•;-._za_:ner _..d n being to a :o`.', vote was as ..__.''i:.. .ea_ Vain Sidney Levin l.__r3 Oes e eerly B anes 7. y=2:.._ Redford, J. :'tay - :.nzreupon tne resolutton duly passed adopted day June, '976 :. : _S^i J:i: , -�JR_:JA { • • h•n.•nrlr 281 • ....ems-.+:••7.: is" WA•1 OU ISLAND �:;t •"�1i1 • :.i_...,..i'._ _ _ a._-l'- i ce+ ' // - • ▪ • • • a 3' r.... �.. . �� 'OJ1I 1 1 t e t 282 CI' Transportation N \IH•'n s uu, r la S?3)4. ia.cne', ;;fL$I 442 4772 TQf.; aP99 J 1,•. r.PtE. SECRETARY Nay 23, 1976 Dr. John A. Dyer Transpt,.•tation Coordinator Metropolitan Dade County 911 Courthouse Miami, Florida 33130 Dear Dr. Dyer: We are pleased to acknowledge your interest in submitting a proposal to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for a Downtown People Mover (DPM) system in the Miami urbanized area. As you are aware, only three candidates I,will be selected, nationwide, to implement the design on a DPM system, and the Florida Department of Transportation is vitally interested in committing resources to assure that one -or -more candidates are chosen in the State of Florida. We feel that the City of Miami possesses the characteristics and service requirements suited for such a project and we pledge cur full support to your proposal. Our understanding, in retards to funding participation by UMTA, is that the program will be 307 Federal funds and 2O'; Local funds. In keeping with our policy of providing capital assistance in the amount of one-half the non -Federal share, we will take acton, at the appropriate time, to program ten percent of the total eiicible project costs in the Department's Work Program. Florida Department of Transportation participation will include both the project design and construction phases. our keeping us advised on the status cf the proposal is necessary to this programing action and will be very much appreciated. Mr. Bill Walsh, the Department's District Mass Transit Operations Engineer, will be your contact, in matters related to the DPM proposal for your city. It is suggested that he be copied on all correspondence related to the project and participate in all local meetings regarding technical and policy discussions or the project. We are looking forward to working with you on this new transporation system for your city. WWrM: rb cc: W. K. Fowler E. Walsh Sincerely, William biller, Director Division of Mass Transit 0perations 281 460 LOCAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES The applicant has secured local financial resources to fund the local share of the capital cost of the proposed project. These resources have been firmly identified. The approach used in identifying local financial resources was to insure that there was a degree of equity in the funding of the capital cost based upon benefits received from the project. In accordance with this concept of the Board of County Commissioners and City Commissioners of the City of Miami agreed formally in a public meeting on June 4, 1976 along with representatives of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Development Authority that a sharing plan should be worked out. The financial sharing plan approved on June 4, 1976 and confirmed later by Resolutions of the Board of County Commissioners and the City of Miami Commission on June 15, 1976 and June 17, 1976 respectively is as follows: (1) State of Florida Department of Transportation 10 percent of total costs or 50;:, of the non-federal share which amounts to an estimated $ 7 .389 :pillion (2) Metropolitan Dade County 5 percent of the total costs which amounts to $3.695 million. (3) The City of Miami 3 percent of the total cost or $2.217 million. (4) The private sector through the Downtown Development Authority or other funding arrangements 2 percent or approximately $1.478 million. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Upon careful examination by the Downtown Development Authority of its options in terms of levying additional taxes, it was concluded that a more appropriate meansfor the private sector to provide its 2 percent share would be the creation of a special taxing district by Metropolitan Dade County upon approval of the project proposal. The recommendations of the Downtown Development Authority were made formally to the Board of County Commissioners on June 15, 1976 at its regular meeting. These recommendations are contained in the attached report from the Executive Director which was adopted by the Downtown Development Authority at its regular meeting on June 10, 1976. The Board of County Commissioners accepted the report and agreed to proceed along the general policy direction recommended by the Down- town Development Authority. The creation of a special taxing district would require a formal ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners which would take place only upon approval of project proposal. In addition to this funding plan, the Florida Department of Transportation has commited in writing to fund 10 percent of the total capital cost. The letter from the Director of Mass Transit Operations of the Florida Department of Transportation is attached. The non-federal share funding from Metropolitan Dade County will be provided by funds from the Decade of Progress Bond Issue which was passed in 1972 by a 2 to 1 majority. This Bond Issue provided for up to $132.5 million to be expended on a unified transportation system for Metropolitan Dade County including a fixed guideway rapid transit 285 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 system, an improved feeder bus system, and other capital improvements as required to insure an integrated transportation system. Accordingly, these financial resources are firmly identified. The City of Miami is commited to funding 3 percent of the total project cost which will come from funds presently allocated from Bond Issues to construct a convention center in the central business district and supporting facilities. These bond funds are currently available as are those for Metropolitan Dade County. r 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 26 560 FINANCING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS The operating cost of the DPM is calculated in 1975 dollars to be $1.9 million annually for Stage 1 and $2.2 million annually for the complete system. These costs would be borne by Dade County's Metropolitan Transit Agency (MTA). The MTA currently spends $600,000 to $700,000 annually to operate its downtown Miami shuttle systems, which operate at minimal 10 cent fares. The costs are already included in the MTA's annual operating budget and represent about 2 percent of total operating and maintenance costs. The DPM projects almost a ten -fold increase in ridership over existing inefficient shuttle operations. This would reduce annual per rider operating costs from a current 67 cents per trip to about 18 cents per trip based on ridership and operating cost estimates. The projected budget for Stage 1 rapid transit maintenance and operations for support elements is estimated to be $70-80 million in 1975 dollars. Thus the cost of the DPM would be proportionately smaller than current downtown operations and anticipates extremely low subsidy levels. The projected MTA budget for FY 1977 is nearly $36.2 million. The budget revenue comes from the following sources: Farebox Revenues County Direct Support Bond Proceeds Other Local Sources State Direct Support L'MTA Section 5 Funds $14.4 million 11.7 million 1.8 million .2 million .2 million 7.9 million $36.2 million 287 1 1 V I 5 5 1 r The commitment of Dade County to use its own funds to support transit operations, as well as other fund sources is well established. Future operating fund deficits are anticipated to use additional local funds to support transit operations and receive further state and federal support. By 1985 the deficit of $30 million plus will be covered in a manner similar to current procedures. Anticipated new tax sources and a growing property tax base will allow Metropolitan Dade County to meet long range operating requirements. 288 6,0 TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT AND OPERATE THE SYSTEM The Metropolitan Transit Agency (MTA) is the principal mass transit operator inDade County. Organized as the Metropolitan Transit Authority in 1961 to unify the numerous private transit operators into a single public system, the former authority was placed by ordinance under the direct control of the County ,Manager in 1974 and became an agency of the Metropolitan Government. In 1975, the MTA acquired the only other public transit system in the County, the Coral Gables Municipal Bus System, co form a single public transit operator providing county -wide service. The current MTA bus fleet numbers 514 vehicles of various makes, types and ages. To provide needed improvements in levels of service and expansions and extensions of service, an additional 140 standard size buses are being delivered in July, 1976. Further, a capital grant application has been submitted to the urban Mass Transportation Administration for the purchase of an additional 100 buses for delivery in 1977. Thirty-two minibuses are also programmed for procurement to be utilized in shuttle services between the various activity centers of central Miami. Depending on the rate of retirement of older buses, the MTA fleet should number from 650 to 700 buses by the end of 1977. The MTA currently operates 72 separate scheduled bus routes carrying 200,000 passengers daily over 2,463 round trip routes miles for a total of about 54,000 bus miles and 4,900 bus hours on an average weekday. In fiscal year 1974-75, over 61,000,000 passengers 289 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 were carried. These routes extend from southern Broward County in the north to Homestead/Florida City in the south, and in the central part of Dade County from Florida International University in the west to Collins Avenue on Miami Beach in the east. Service is provided in 26 of 27 municipalities and in the unincorporated areas of the County. Operating headways vary by route from 15 minutes to 60 minutes in base periods and from approximately 10 minutes to 60 minutes in peak periods. Full descriptions of MTA operations, the transit network, and current ridership characteristics are contained in references 1, 2, 3, and 4 identified below. Administratively and organizationally the MTA operates as a County agency under the County Manager. The Director of the MTA is in charge of administering all services within the organization and reports directly to the Transportation Coordinator for Dade County. The budget of the MTA for Fiscal Year 1975-1976 is in excess of $32 million with an operating staff of over 1350 personnel. To provide technical and policy support to the daily operations of the MTA is one of the responsibilities of the Office of Transportation Administration. This office was created in 1973 within the Office of the County Manager. It functions under the direction of the Transportation Coordinator who is directly responsible to the County Manager. The staff capabilities of the Transportation Coordinator's Office includes all aspects of the preliminary engineering program for the rapid transit system as well as planning, coordinating and implementing ground transportation 290 activities. With the startup of final engineering for Stage 1 of the Rapid Transit System, OTA will assume all primary responsibilities for planning, and integrating all transit services within the County. In summary, the financial, technological and administrative resources of Dade County's Metropolitan Government have been combined into a unique and effective organization capable of coordinating and implementing all transit and transportation services in a responsive and cost-effective manner with due regard for proper multi -modal interface. These services include all bus and special involvement programs that help make up the policy base of all Dade County's transportation program, as well as the MUATS program guiding all regional transportation planning. REFERENCES 1. Year 2000 Plan Update: Interim Report II - Existing Ground Transportation Conditions, MUATS, September, 1975 2. Milestone I: Bus Transit Network; Milestone II: Bus Operations, Draft Milestone Reports, Dade County Transportation Planning and Development Program, OTA, February, 1976 3. Dade County Transit Ridership Study, OTA, October, 1975 4. Special Task 2, Bus Operations Support Facilities, Dade County Transit Improvement Program, OTA, April, 1976 I"i�iil39i�1'Ifl<e�,lll!II' 11 lfll III I'l l'I 740 POJECT COMPLIANCE Metropolitan Dade County has undertaken a substantial upgrading of its transit operations based upon its approved Transit Development Program. A programmed expansion of its surface transit fleet included in the Miami urban Area Transportation Study increases the transit operations size to nearly 1,000 units by 1982. In addition, the Stage I rapid transit segment of the 1985 Transit Improvement Program is scheduled to be completed by FY 1982. Currently, Metropolitan Dade County has several capital grants approved by UMTA under Section 3 funding. These are: FL-03-0026 - A capital grant for equipment purchases and and improvements (110 transit buses; 30 express buses; 20 mini buses; and 12 vehicles for elderly and handicapped services) $16,961,170. FL-03-0036 - A capital grant for Stage I rapid transit final engineering and development $18,970,000. FL-03-0042 - A capital grant tor purchase of private transit operator (11 transit buses and 20 bus shelters) $534,710. FL-03-0043 - A capital grant for equipment purchase and improvements (100 transit buses, 2 satellite maintenance facilities and expansion of existing bus maintenance facility) $24,993,000. 22 All giants have signed 13(c) agreements as part of the proposals. The ability of Metropolitan Dade County to comply with require- ments under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended is well established. The attached Certification is intended to provide assurance that Dade County will comply with all UMTA requirements in the event the people mover project is approved. MINIM MW M. 1 11 1 A 1 1 COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED CERTIFICATION Mr- METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY HEREBY CERTIFIES THAT, in the development of this project proposal leading to an application for a Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Grant under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, it: 1. Has afforded adequate opportunity for public hearings pursuant to adequate prior notice, and has held such hearings, in accordance with the requirements set forth by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration. Has considered the economic and social effects of this proposed project and its impact on the environment, including requirements under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and other applicable Federal environmental statutes, and its consistency with goals and objectives of such urban planning as has been promulgated by the community. 3. Has found that this proposed project is consistent with official plans for the comprehensive development of the urban area. 4. Has found that the project is made in the best overall public interest taking into consideration the need for fast, safe, and efficient transporta- tion, public services, and conservation of environ- ment and natural resources and the cost of eliminating or minimizing any adverse effects. Date Dewey W. Knight, Jr. Interim County Manager 294 1 1 11 r 11 11 11 N 1 1 1 1 1 1 PART VI COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT This part contains assurance by Metropolitan Dade County that UMTA requirements regarding competitive procurement will be met. Initial outlines of a Request For Proposals from suppliers are provided as a suggested approach to these requirements. There are a total of five sections in this part which include: 1.0 ASSURANCE 2.0 INSTRUCTIONS TO SUPPLIERS 3.0 GENERAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS 4.0 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION 5.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 293 111 - • VI 1 - 1,0 AsS0 ANCE METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY DOWNTOWN PEOPLE MOVER PROJECT COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS The undersigned hereby certifies that Metropolitan Dade County upon securing approval for the Downtown People Mover Project will initiate a process designed to select, through a competitive procurement process, one of the existing people mover technologies with minimum modifications to adapt it for urban deployment. The process used by the County will be submitted to Urban Mass Transportation Administration for approval and concurrence prior to solicitation of proposals. Date Dewey W. Knight, Jr. Interim County Manager Metropolitan Dade County MUM- Ma 206 KID ma 2.6 INSTRUCTIONS TO SUPPLIERS General Instructions General instructions will provide suppliers with detailed instructions regarding schedule for project completion, procedures for submission of bids and additional conditions not contained in this document. Technical Qualifications Of Suppliers It is the intention of the County to award a contract to a supplier who furnishes satisfactory evidence of the requisite experience and ability, and possesses sufficient capital, facilities, and plant to enable the work to proceed successfully and properly and to complete it within the time named in the contract. mg Each supplier shall be a corporation in good standing and have regularly engaged in the design, manufacture and installation of passenger transportation systems, and shall have satisfactorily completed at least one installation of comparable difficulty. The Supplier shall have designed and manufactured components similar to the equipment specified herein. Each supplier shall submit with their proposal the following evidence of their own and their subcontractor's experience and ability: (1) A statement in detail giving evidence of previous experience in the design and manufacture of systems of comparable diffi- ■ culty to that specified herein. The statement shall describe the system, the location, date of installation, and.the name and address of the owner of the system. 201 1 (2) A tabulation of installations of equipment components of similar type to the equipment to be furnished under these Specifications. The tabulation shall describe the applica- tion and capability of the equipment and give the names and addresses of the present owners of the equipment. (3) Evidence that supplier has personnel and staff thoroughly familiar by training and experience with the problems associated with design and construction of similar complexity. Provide names of principals of organization concerned with this project and short resume of each background experience. (4) Information on owned manufacturing facilities and plant to demonstrate that substantial portions of the system will be manufactured in plants owned and operated by the supplier. Engineering Documentation Description of the proposed system and subsystems shall be sub- mitted in sufficient technical detail to permit evaluation of the supplier's designs. In order to facilitate the evaluation of the bid, the supplier shall provide documents incorporating the following information. Basic System Operation (1) Discussion of the size of trains in the system as a function of capacity. (2) Typical operating timetables of the trains under manufacturer's suggested operating procedures. Substantiation of dwell times and passenger flows as affected by design shall be provided. (3) Typical speed -distance profiles of trains operating in the system. Guideways (1) Description of the type of guideway to be used and indications of their allowable tolerances. Should tolerances which are abnormally tight for steel and concrete construction be re- quired, description of how the tolerances are to be achieved and maintained. (2) Maximum -envelope drawings showing clearances under worst -case conditions. (3) Sketches of typical guideway cross -sections showing the type and location of guideway and power distribution systems. Pro- tective devices for the power distribution system shall also be shown. 298 Platfort and Stations (1) Descriptions of three typical station tyres tequited ih t•hi system: Center Platform Side Platform Interface with Rapid Transit Station (2) Plans and cross -sections showing typical conditions of struc= tures, escalators, stairs, ramps, elevators, connections to elevated pedestrian ways, connections to adjacent commercial spaces, etc. (3) Details of access control, emergency exits fire protection and train loading limitations. (4) Description of typical structural systems to meet varying requirements of this system. (5) Discussion of all aspects of operation of stations. (6) Verification of capacities meeting long range requirements. (7) Special requirements of turn around stations and operations. (8) Design criteria for detail :inishing and ancillary services within station enclosures. (9) Description of platform door (train screen) features, if applicabies, including emergency opening procedures, if any. (10) Discussion of the arrangements to provide emergency exits for all passengers regardless of vehicle location in the station. Maintenance and Storage (1) Layouts of the proposed maintenance areas, illustrating work areas and demonstrating the capacity for the required number of vehicles. Passenger Vehicles (1) Sketches and/or photographs of proposed vehicle interiors showing seat, stanchion, and door arrangements, approximate locations of lighting and air conditioning equipment, operator's control panel, annunciation devices, and emergency telephone. Plan views illustrating the areas allotted per passenger shall also be provided. 299 (2) Btief description of the air-conditioning system, indicating type and .capacity. Assurance of adequacy to the regions climate is essencial. (3) Discussion of how the noise criteria are to be met. (4) Description of the safety features of the vehicle door. (5). Discussion of the traction system, including: (a) General description of the concept used. (b) Capability to meet all acceleration and jerk requirements. (c) Bidder's design values used in determining system capacity. (d) Overload capability of the devices. (e) Maximum design operating speed. (f) Typical power -power factor/load/speed diagrams. (g) Dynamic braking methods, if used. (h) Methods of achieving platform door alignments, if applicable. (i) Provisions for vehicle load compensation, if required. (j) Consideration of conservation of energy. (6) Description of the vehicle suspension system including: (a) Brief general discussion of the components and principles involved. (b) Means of vehicle leveling, if required. (c) Approximate natural frequency of the vehicle on the suspension system (in any mode deemed critical by the supplier). (7) Sketches and description of the vehicle guidance system. (8) Sketches and description of the vehicle's braking systems, with emphasis on safety features. (9) Discussion of the supplier's approach to vehicle interchangeability. - I'TIi'ilpRl 1 30b 1 1 1 1 1 A 1 1 (1D) Description of the coupling devices to be used, along with any special procedures required for coupling vehicles. (11) Estimate vehicle weight. Train Control System (1) General operating and equipment description including wayside, guideway and vehicle -carried subsystems, and the manner in which they are related. (2) General description of the modes of operation alternatives for the normal, maintenance, and emergency conditions. (3) General description of the safety aspects of the system showing the portion which provide the absolute safety func- tion. (4) General description of the monitoring system to be provided. (5) General description of the aspects of the system which provide for the automatic operation, flexibility of scheduling and routing. (6) General description of braking systems and how they are controlled. (7) Description of the method of train detection and location. (8) Description of signal transmission and detection. (9) Above descriptions should include the effects of noise, environment, etc. on the system. (1Q General description of the communication system giving out- standing features and fail-safe operation. Power Distribution System (1) General considerations (sources, safety_, continuity of services, economics, initial installed capacity and building schedule). (2) Single line diagram showing substation locations, connections to guideway, transformer ratings, power factor correction, disconnect and circuit breaker arrangementsand provisions for remote control. (3) Power system overload and fault protection provisions. (4) Diagram showing power rail arrangement including section isolation :methods and proposed power rail protection. (5) Switching provisions for supplying power during emergency and maintenance modes of system operation. 101 (6) Profile of system power requirements and power factor during the continuous mode of system operation. Switches (1) General arrangement and location of switches. (2) Description of the procedure involved in transferring or switching trains and vehicles. (3) Discussion of the safety and reliability devices and pro., cedures associated or planned with the switches. Capital Equipment and Installation Costs Develop capital equipment and installation costs both in "per -unit" and in "per -system" for all elements of the ?eople-Mover System. Guideway, Electrification, Guidance, Controls, switches or trans- fer tables, storage and ;maintenance yards, guideway supports, vehicles, spares, stations, etc. Operating Costs Develop costs for system operation in accordance with the requirements of described under "OPERATING COSTS EXCLUSIVE OF MAINTENANCE". Schedule Prepare a work schedule to identify major design, construction, installation, and test ;milestones. Technical Scope of Bids The supplier shall provide bids covering the cost of (1) capital equipment and installation; (2) a five-year maintenance contract; and (3) operating costs for the system exclusive of maintenance. Capital Equipment and Installation Costs The supplier shall provide bids covering the capacity requirements defined under "TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS". In order to provide a basis for comparative cost evaluation of the bids, the supplier shall submit the information requested under "CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS" in the Proposal as a part of the bid. Five -Year Maintenance Contract A specific provision of the entire package is that the successful supplier may be required to enter into a 5-year maintenance contract IIIIIIIII■II! eiI.101IIIU1.IIe P'IIII! II!I1!!lio1gigHipUippplppfogIli p 302 with the County, such contract to take effect at the point of the issuance of the certificate of substantial completion and acceptance by the County. A bid shall be submitted covering the complete maintenance of the system. The bid shall include the provision for all labor and all materials required for the maintenance of the system. The bid shall set forth the number of personnel required and responsible for the contract dispatcher's functions and supervision of the system operation. The bid will exclude routine car interior janitorial services. Additionally the successful supplier must agree to enter into a second period of five years upon the conclusion of the first five years of the maintenance contract agreement at a mutually negotiated agreeable cost. The supplier shall specifically identify the number and the type/ categories of personnel to be supplied for such maintenance contract. It is understood that a minimum requirement is established of maintenance personnel to be specifically assigned to the People Mover and be on call and available at all times whenever the system is in operation. The bid shall also set forth and include all costs of materials and spare parts for the five year maintenance period and is to be made a part of this bid. Operating Costs Exclusive of Maintenance Estimates of the cost for system operation shall be submitted in two parts; one part to cover the personnel required for central dis- patcher functions and supervision of system operation and the other to cover the electrical power costs for operating the system. The supplier shall fill in values for each direct and personnel operating cost element (each personnel, power, maintenance, upkeep, spares replacement, insurance, management and administration, janitorial, etc) and shall submit this information as a part of the bid. The dollar amounts will be understood to be for information purposes only and will not enter into the total bid. With respect to operating personnel the supplier shall specifically identify the number and type of operating personnel (personnel to be provided by the County) to meet the system capacity requirements. With respect to power costs, the supplier shall estimate the cost of power consumed by the system based upon its continuous operation at load factors of 50 to 70 percent of the system capacity requirements, or as estimated by supplier. Estimates of annual power costs to meet these requirements shall be based upon the local electric power rate structure. 162 A Additional Technical Conditions Training of Personnel The supplier shall provide a training plan outline which sets forth the number of personnel required to both operate and to maintain the system. Further, he shall set forth the categories, classi— fications, educational levels to perform the various function of the system. The supplier shall provide adequate initial training for the system operating personnel, who will be County's employees and will be totally responsible for operating the People Mover from the central operations area. The supplier shall identify and specify the levels of training, both skill and educational, required of all personnel employed in the System. The supplier shall provide the training necessary to ensure competence in the operation of the complete People Mover by County's personnel. The training shall be conducted on the site. The supplier shall provide instructors, literature and necessary equipment to train the necessary personnel. The supplier shall also provide for initial training of County's maintenance personnel should the County choose to provide his own ;maintenance personnel instead of entering into a separate maintenance contract. Completion of training is prerequisite for final acceptance of the system. The supplier shall include the cost of supplying all manuals and/or instructional materials required for training of both operating and maintenance personnel. Such documents shall be supplied as a part of the People Mover Contract. Operational And Maintenance Manuals The supplier shall include the cost of supplying all operation and maintenance manuals. These manuals shall document all operations and maintenance procedures in a clear, concise fashion and shall be assembled under separate covers. Before publication, rough draft copies of these manuals shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County. The supplier shall identify and specify the levels of training both skill and educational, required for all personnel employed in the system. The operations manual shall as a minimum contain in addition to general information the following items: ww. 1 0 Additional Technical Conditions Training of Personnel The supplier shall provide a training plan outline which sets forth the number of personnel required to both operate and to maintain the system. Further, he shall set forth the categories, classi- fications, educational levels to perform the various function of the system. The supplier shall provide adequate initial training for the system operating personnel, who will be County's employees and will be totally responsible for operating the People Mover from the central operations area. The supplier shall identify and specify the levels of training, both skill and educational, required of all personnel employed in the System. The supplier shall provide the training necessary to ensure competence in the operation of the complete People Mover by County's personnel. The training shall be conducted on the site. The supplier shall provide instruc`ors. literature and necessary equipment to train the necessary personnel. The supplier shall also provide for initial training of County's maintenance personnel should the County choose to provide his own ;maintenance personnel instead of entering into a separate maintenance contract. Completion of training is prerequisite for final acceptance of the system. The supplier shall include the cost of supplying all manuals and/or instructional materials required for training of both operating and maintenance personnel. Such documents shall be supplied as a part of the People Mover Contract. Operational And Maintenance Manuals The supplier shall include the cost of supplying all operation and maintenance manuals. These manuals shall document all operations and maintenance procedures in a clear. concise fashion and shall be assembled under separate covers. Before publication, rough draft copies of these manuals shall be submitted for final review and approval by the County. The supplier shall identify and specify the levels of training both skill and educational, required for all personnel employed in the system. The operations manual shall as a minimum contain in addition to general information the following items: 304 (1) Detailed description of all People Mover controls and displays on the central console and their functional role in systems operations. (2) Detailed description of all People Mover controls remote from the central console area, their functional role, and the conditions under which they may be operated by maintenance personnel. (3) Detailed description of all People Mover operating procedures including start up, shutdown, mode changing, etc. (4) Procedures which affect system safety shall be specifically identified. (5) All emergency procedures including equipment breakdowns, power outages, switch failures, etc. In maintenance of subsystems requiring actual operation of a vehicle or train, it will be permissible to use the guideway system during the low traffic density hours. The maintenance manual shall as a minimum contain general information and the following items: (1) Preventive maintenance and overhaul schedules for all system components. (2) Descriptions of maintenance procedures for all system components. (3) Description of systems operation including interactions between major subsystem elements. (4) Detailed descriptions of individual system components and circuits including clearances, tolerances, circuit operations, test point voltages, waveforms, etc., with references to system drawing as applicable. (5) Detailed description of operational procedures for local operation of passenger vehicles, emergency vehicle operation, manual controls for switches, vehicle and station doors, etc. (6) Detailed description of test equipment operation and procedures for its correct use in equipment maintenance. Reports And Drawings The contract drawings to be supplied by the County Project Office and forwarded under separate cover provide the parameters within which the supplier must design, fabricate and install the operating People Mover. 305 Work Scheduling The following represent important milestones in the construction and installation schedule and in the People Mover operation schedule which must be met: Pre -Bid Conference Proposal Due Date Selection of Supplier Contract Start Date Completion of Building -Related Construction Completion and Turnover of Opera- tion of System The supplier shall be responsible for coordinating and scheduling all of his on -site work to compatibly mesh with the above schedule. As a part of the bid package the supplier shall provide a schedule of important People Mover design installation and checkout milestones which he will follow in carrying out his work. The supplier shall prepare and submit for approval a C.P.M. diagram showing the timing and sequence of the major steps in the construction program. Coordination The supplier shall coordinate and cooperate with contractors for adjacent and overlapping work and afford them reasonable opportunity for the introduction and storage of their materials and the execution of their work. Spare Equipment The supplier shall provide a complete listing of spare equipment recommended. The listing shall be divided into general equipment categories and the recommended spares itemized under each. This spare equipment is not the maintenance material required for repairs, maintenance, etc. but is equipment which is considered necessary to the operation of the installation. These are capital investments and are backup items for the entire installation during its life. Quality Assurance The supplier shall follow quality workmanship practices throughout va 1 306 * * 111 construction and finishing of all equipment for the People ?cover. This shall include the selection of components of superior quality for their specific application and environment, and their operation under design conditions that provide adequate factors of safety to assure long trouble -free services. Particular attention shall be paid to neatness of assembly, ease of maintenance and quality control throughout all aspects of the People Mover design, construction and installation processes. Attention shall be given to: freedom from defects, burrs and sharp edges; thoroughness of soldering, welding, brazing, riveting, cleaning and painting; neatness in wiring, harnessing, fitting and final finishing including close alignment of all front panel controls and other parts, and tightness of all assembly screws, bolts and fasteners. System Test The supplier shall be responsible for the prepration of complete test plans, including but not limited to reliability, maintainability and safety, covering both in -plant testing of People Mover assemblies and subassemblies and on -site testing of the People Mover, or portions thereof, after installation and debugging has been completed. The supplier shall submit the in -plant and on -site test plans to the Authority for his approval no less than 60 days prior to the time such tests are to be conducted. Following approval of the test plan(s) by the County, the supplier shall conduct the tests and prepare a report summarizing the detailed results of the tests. Both the in -plant and on -site test reports shall be submitted to the County for its approval. In no case shall an assembly or sub -assembly be shipped from the supplier's plant to the site until the Authority has approved the test reports covering that equipment or like equipment of identical design and construction. A Design Approval A The supplier shall obtain approval of his preliminary design concepts from the County before undertaking the final design and fabrication of the People Mover. Submittal of the system design for approval shall be made no less than 45 days prior to the date on which response • from the County is required, and in accordance with the schedule of work specified by the supplier. For design approval the supplier shall furnish information to the County in sufficient detail to completely document his basic design. This shall include specifications on commercially available hardware intended for use in the system. It shall also include design drawings, 307 design calculations, and such explanatory information as is needed to facilitate understanding of the People Mover design by experts in the applicable fields. Drawings for the electrical/electronic design shall include circuit diagrams in complete schematic forms. Detailed electrical component assembly and wiring diagrams are not required. To document the :mechanical design, mechanical schematics, and mechanical assembly drawings shall be provided. In no case shall the County approval relieve the supplier of his responsibility to produce a system capable of meeting all of the requirements of this specification. If the County shall require a modification in the supplier's design for reasons other than failure to meet the Performance Specifications, the cost of such modifications shall be subject to negotiation on an equitable cost basis. Interpretations Suppliers desiring further information, or further interpretation of the Contract Documents must make request for such information to the County prior to thirty days before the proposal submission, wherever possible, answers to such requests will be given in writing to all suppliers, in addendum form. No other explanation or interpretation will be considered official or binding. Should a supplier find discrepancies in, or omissions from, the Contract Documents, or should he be in doubt as to their meaning, he should at once notify the County in order that a written addendum may be sent to all suppliers. Addenda When necessary, prior to bid date, addendum letters will be ;nailed to each supplier covering amplifications of changes that are of sufficient importance, to merit being incorporated as part of the Contract Documents. 308 3,0 GENERAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS Separate documents will accompany this Performance Specification to cover and request General and Special Provisions, They will cover the following: Surety Bonds and Insurance Proposal Forms - Alternatives Addenda and Delenda Contractual Documents Safety, Sanitation, Utilities and Occupational Hazards CPN, Schedule, Progress and Acceptance Special Rights and Limitations Payments and Related Matters Warranties, Indemnifications, Claims, Patents and Legal Relations Forms Rights Soil Reports li Illi11MIIIII'IIIl!it ill!llmP!ii ICI pRrilIlRI"1 SMSt • 309 4,0 PHYSICAL AND OPERATIONAL DESCRIPTION The following outlines the product of a project analysis required prior to solicitation of bids. It is a result of analysis of route, guideway and station concept alternatives. Physical Description (1) General (a) Narrative Description (b) Plan of People Mover Guideway and Stations (2) Guideway Alignment (a) Detail guideway alignment plans (3) Guideway Profile (a) Loop Profile (b) North leg profile (c) South leg profile (d) Detail profiles including pedestrian ways (e) Detail profiles of bridge crossing at Miami River (4) Station Concepts (a) Typical plans, Sections, Elevations, and Foundation plans for: Center Platform Station Side Platform Station Station connecting with Area Rapid Transit (b) Plans, Sections, Elevations and Foundation plans for: Integrated Station at OMNI Integrated Station at Convention Center Stations with integrated pedestrian access to adjoining developments. (5) Maintenance and Storage Facility (a) Plans, Sections, Elevations and Foundation plans. (6) Pedestrian Access bridges (a) Typical Plans and Sections 316 $ (7) Guideway and Foundation Concepts (a) Typical plans and Sections Operational Description (1) Demand Analysis (a) Hourly patronage estimates (b) Arrivals at major Activity Centers (c) Peak Hour Demand Analysis (2) System Capacity (a) Current and Future Capacities (3) System Load Factors (a) Peak hour load factors (b) Annual load factors (c) Stations load factors (4) Operational Concept (a) Vehicle Performance and Travel Times (b) Guideway Schematic Layout (c) Peak hour Operation (d) Daily Operation (e) Time Distance, Speed Diagram (f) Time Distance Relationships (g) Headways (5) Power Requirements (a) Car -Mile Consumption (b) Peak Hour Consumption (c) Maximum Day Consumption (d) Normal Day Consumption (e) Annual Power Consumption (6) Operating and Maintenance Costs (a) Maintenance of guideway and Structures (b) Maintenance of Equipment (c) Power Costs (d) Provisions of Services (e) Injuries and Damages (f) Administrativo and General (g) Summary of Annual Operations and Maintenance Costs. 31.1 References (1) Topo Surveys (2) Right of Way Surveys (3) Surface Weather Observation Fla. (6) Land Use Maps (5) General Area Plans (6) Downtown Master Plan (7) Parking Facilities (8) Project Overview and Objectives (9) Design for Pedestrians and Level of Serviee Concepts General Research (10) Briefing Documents 1 J12 5,0 TEC1NICAL SPECIFICATIONS The following outlines the scope of technical petfoffiatice specs= fications to be included with Request For Proposal documents: Scope of Work System Components System Operations (1) Passenger Flow (2) Seating Requirements System Constraints (1) Space Constraints (a) Right -of -Way (b) Guideway (c) Central Control Space (d) Power Distribution Equipment Space (e) Maintenance Facility (2) Environmental Constraints (3) (4) (a) Ambient Temperature Range (b) Ambient Noise Levels (c) Precipitation Duty Cycle Design Life System Reliability and Availability (1) Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) (2) Mean Time to Restore (MTTR) (3) Reliability and Availability Performance Values (4) Acceptance Safety (1) Fail -Safe Design Principle (2) Equipment Failures (3) Failure Mode Analysis (4) Failure Mode Review (5) Procedural Errors ffeRi 313 Emissions (1) Noise Levels (a) Interior (b) Exterior (2) Electromagnetic Emissions (a) Interference (b) Susceptibility Subsystem Requirements (1) Passenger Vehicles (a) Performance Acceleration Jerk Vehicle Ride (b) Structural Factors Dimensional Constraints Vehicle Exterior Structural Integrity Car Body and Couplings Vehicle Support and Guidance Components Couplings Windows Doors Watertightness of Vehicle and Doors (a) Platform Door Alignment (b) Interior Illumination (c) Guidance System (d) Suspension System (e) Propulsion System (f) Braking System (g) Interior Features Flooring Doors Stanchions and Handrails Seats Ceiling Graphics 314 (a) Vehicle Safety Features Fire Extinguishers Grounding Emergency Exits (a) Emergency Power (b) Hoisting Provisions (c) Communications (d) Direction of Travel (e) Onboard Controls and Displays (f) Environmental Control Feature (1) Control System (a) Functions (b) Vehicle Protection General Controller Stopping Distances Braking Systems Vehicle Door Emergency Platform Door or Gate Vehicle Separation Protection System Independence Vehicle Detection Absolute Speed Enforcement Permissible Speed -Displacement Boundaries Broken Train Protection Roll -Back Protection Signal Transmission and Detection Equipment Malfunctions Station Fires and Threats Interlocking Requirements (a) Control Operations Control Modes Station Processing Holding of Vehicles Uninterrupted Service Local Control of Vehicles Control Functions Acceleration and Jerk Velocity Limits Vehicle Control Interaction Vehicle Interaction Vehicle Spacing Station Dwell Time Programmed Stopping Vehicle Door Opening Vehicle Door Closing (1) (a) bepattute Test General Equipment Capabilities Location Accessibility Reliability Scope Malfunctions Alarms Test Reset Control Brakes Equipment Doors Vehicle -Mounted Cortrol Equipment On -Board Switching Equipment Test Results Test Scheduling Time Allowance Permanent Record (a) Communication System Operating Environment On -Board Communications Vehicle Paging Platforms and Stations (a) Control of Access (b) Train Screen (c) Doors and Frames (d) Emergency Exits (e) Fire Protection (f) Train Loading Limitation (1) Guideway and Support Structures (a) General Description (b) Physical Restrictions (c) Superelevation (d) Curvature Horizontal Curvature and Alignment Vertical Curvature and Alignment (a) Guideway Construction Materials and Finishes Steel Concrete Aluminum 316 1 Pv FP Ps JP (a) Attachments to Buildings and Grounds (b) Ovettravel Buffers (c) Special Tolerances (d) Design Critical Loads (e) Safety (1) Power Subsystem (a) General Subsystem Design Circuits and Equipment Supplied by County Circuits and Equipment Supplied by Contractor (a) Physical Restrictions Location on Guideway (a) Available AC Power Primary Power Auxiliary Power (a) Design Requirements Circuit Breakers Power Distribution Ground Fault Detection Power Rail Protection Rail Sections Installed Capacity Voltage Regulation Maintainability Power Factor Correction (a) Controls Metering Switching Fault and Overload Protection General Protective Grounding (1) Maintenance and Storage (a) Vehicle Storage Area (b) Tools and Diagnostic Test Equipment (c) Facilities for Moving Vehicles (1) Switches and Transfer Mechanism (a) Types of Switching 317 ■ (b) Basic Principles for Switching Mechanisms (o) Required Functions Alignment Detection Actuating Power Removal Locking Locking Detection Point Detection (a) Interlocking (b) Operating Time (c) Control Modes (d) Inclement Weather Operation 318 PART VII ASSURANCE OF OPERATION METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY HEREBY ASSURES THAT, upon completion of the installation, successful testing, and initial public operation, it will continue to operate the system. Date Dewey W. Knight, Jr. Interim County Manager