Project Update June 2019 1 Project Update – Why Flagler? The SMART Plan identified Flagler Street as one of the Premium Transit Corridors that will directly support the mobility of our future population and employment growth TPO [MPO] Resolution #26-16 Resolution endorsing the Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) plan and directing the TPO [MPO] Executive Director to work with the TPO Fiscal Priorities Committee to determine the costs and potential sources of funding for Project Development and Environmental studies for said projects. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Flagler Street 2 Project Goals Begin Project End Project Note: Infrastructure improvements end at 5th Avenue, west of the bridge over the Miami River 3 Evaluate Bus Rapid Transit Identify ideal location for BRT Right Side BRT Option Car Reversible Center Lane and Right Side BRT Option 0 Center Lanes 0 BRT Option 4 Existing Conditions Urbanized Corridor Project Length (miles) 20 Number of Unsignalized 119 Intersections Number of Signalized 71 Intersections Daily Traffic Volume (AADT) Highest number of Vehicles 57,600 per Day (FDOT Database) Daily Transit Ridership (Average Weekday Riders) Route 11 and Route 51 14,300 5 Existing Typical Sections 6-Lane Section SR 90/US 41/SW 8th Street - SW 147th Avenue to SW 107th Avenue Flagler Street - SR 985/NW/SW 107th Avenue to SR 826/Palmetto Expressway SR 985/NW/SW 107th Avenue – SW 8th Street to NW 12th Street NW 12th Street - SR 985/NW 107th Avenue to NW 122nd Avenue 4-Lane Section Flagler Street - SR 826/Palmetto Expressway to NW 24th Avenue One-Way Pair Section st th Flagler Street/1 Street – NW/SW 24 Avenue 6’ - 6’ - to NW/SW 6th Avenue Note: Bike lanes are dis-continuous throughout the corridor and are currently provided on Flagler Street near FIU at 107th Avenue and the eastern section of the Corridor. 6 Tier 1 Input Data Analysis Evaluation Parameters Initial Typical Section Crafting the Solution – Process Traffic Counts Community acceptance Viable Alternatives Parking Inventory Travel Demand (2015 and 2040 No-Build) Parking impacts Alternatives Market Analysis No-Build Capital Costs (LRE) System capacity No-Build, TSM Existing Typical Section TSM O&M Costs (per mile) Compatibility with other modes and 3 Build Existing Right-of-Way Potential Build Right-of-Way Traffic operation Alternatives Existing Environmental Alternatives Environmental InitialCapital and O&M costs Features Viable (desktop/field) Alternatives Tier 1 No-Build Alternatives TSM&O No-Build Tier 2 Analysis TSM&O Conceptual Plans PotentialEvaluation Build 3 Build Alternatives Input Data Travel Demand AlternativesParameters Viable Design Traffic (2015 and 2040 No-Build) Mobility, connectivity, (Existing, Opening, and Design Year) Traffic Operation and accessibility Recommended Alternatives (Synchro, VISSIM, Multimodal LOS) Ridership Efficient use of limited Alternatives No-Build (SERPM Opening and Design Year) Capital Costs (FTA) TSM Parking Inventory O&M Costs (detailed) Viableresources RecommendedNo-Build, TSM and 3 Build Intersection Treatment Right-of-Way Environmental impacts 1 Build Alternative Alternatives Land-Use Environmental AlternativesTOD and economic Alternative Environmental (Detailed Social, Cultural, Natural) No-developmentBuild No-Build LandTier Use 2 TSM&OModel balance Stations TSM&O 3 Build Alternatives 1 Build Alternative Public Involvement Public Analysis Tier 3 Input Data Traffic Counts Preliminary PlansRecommendedTravel Demand Parking Inventory Capital Costs (FTA) Traffic Operation Final Selection of Recommended Market Analysis (2015 and 2040 No-Build) Alternative (Synchro, VISSIM, Multimodal Recommended Locally Preferred Alternatives Existing Typical Section TierO&M Costs3 (detailed) No-Build LOS) No-Build Existing Right-of-Way Right-of-Way TSM&OEnvironmental Alternative Alternative TSM Existing Environmental Features Stations 1 Build(Detailed Alternative Social, Cultural, 1 Build Alternative Capital Costs ITS Natural, Noise) O&M Costs Segment Level Land Use/TOD 7 Project Alternatives No-Build Alternative No change from existing conditions Transportation System Management & Operation (TSM&O) Existing roadway geometry, improved transit service Alternative 1 : Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with Business Access and Transit (BAT) Lane Alternative 2 : Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with Exclusive Reversible Car Center Lane Alternative 3 : Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with Exclusive Bus Center Lanes 8 Alternative 1: BRT with Business Access and Transit (BAT) Lane . Cons Roadway Configuration 1. Loss of roadway capacity/lane Re-purpose curbside lane in each repurposing direction to allow bus only and right 2. Traffic diversion to other streets (23% turning vehicles AM/20% PM) 3. Access management impacts at Transit Improvement station locations 3 new BRT Routes 4. Limited space for enforcement Dedicated new transit lane New stations . Pros 1. Maintains curbside access to businesses Service Frequency and residences BRT Dolphin – 10/15 minutes 2. Maintains left turns and mid-block BRT Panther – 10/15 minutes access 3. Increases transit speed and ridership BRT Tamiami – 20/30 minutes 4. Improved transit infrastructure and Route 11 – 15/20 minutes service On- Street Parking 9 Transit Options - Alternative 1 Simulation – 6-Lane Option 10 Alternative 2: BRT with Exclusive Reversible Car Center Lane Roadway Configuration . Cons Re-purpose curbside lane in each 1. Loss of roadway capacity/lane direction to allow bus only and right repurposing and left turns elimination turning vehicles 2. Traffic diversion to other streets (11% AM/19% PM) Reversible car lane in median 3. Access management impacts at station Transit Improvement locations 3 new BRT Routes 4. Limited space for enforcement Dedicated new transit lane . Pros New stations 1. Maintains curbside access to businesses Service Frequency and residences 2. Maintains existing number of lanes in BRT Dolphin – 10/15 minutes peak direction BRT Panther – 10/15 minutes 3. Increases transit speed and ridership BRT Tamiami – 20/30 minutes 4. Improved transit infrastructure and Route 11 – 15/20 minutes service On- Street Parking 11 Transit Options – Alternative 2 Simulation – 4-Lane Section 12 Alternative 3: BRT with Exclusive Bus Center Lanes . Cons Roadway Configuration 1. Loss of roadway capacity/lane Re-purpose center lane in each repurposing direction to allow bus only 2. Traffic diversion to other streets (23% AM/20% PM) Transit Improvement 3. Access management impacts at 3 new BRT Routes station locations Dedicated new transit lane 4. Limited space for enforcement New stations . Pros Service Frequency 1. Maintains curbside access to businesses BRT Dolphin – 10/15 minutes and residences BRT Panther – 10/15 minutes 2. Maintains left turns at major intersections 3. Dedicated BRT only lanes (No local bus BRT Tamiami – 20/30 minutes use) Route 11 – 15/20 minutes 4. Improved transit infrastructure and service On- Street Parking 13 Transit Options – Alternative 3 Simulation – 6-Lane Option 14 Tier 2 Alternatives Evaluation . Approach . Criteria Evaluated • Matrix developed by Technical • Project Cost Oversight Committee (FDOT, DTPW, • Travel Operation and Safety TPO, and Consultants) • Multimodal Measures • More than 80 different criteria were • Social and Economic Environment assessed • Cultural Environment • Natural Environment • Physical Environment • Stakeholder Comment/Public Sentiment 15 Project Cost (2018$) 16 Travel Operation and Safety Note: Travel time estimated between NW/SW 72nd Avenue and NW/SW 2nd Avenue(Vissim model). 17 Multimodal Measures 18 Social and Economic Environment * * Gantries placed every 300 to 600 feet to show direction of reversible lane by time of day 19 Environmental – Cultural/Natural . Each Build Alternative scores the same across the following criteria: • Recreational areas • Protected species and habitat impacts • Floodplains • Historic and archeological sites 20 Environmental - Physical . Each Build Alternative scores the same across the following criteria: • Vibration Impact Assessment • Energy Use • Resiliency to sea level rise 21 Stakeholder Comments/Public Sentiment Participated in 38 meetings to date, with 20 more anticipated. Extensive Workshops . Outreach to Key Stakeholders • Elected Official & Public Kick-Off Meetings • Dolphin Mall • 3 Project Advisory Committee Meetings • Mall of the Americas • 3 Corridor Workshops (East, West, Central) • International Mall • 3 Alternative Public Workshop Meetings • Flagler Corporate Center • Live Healthy Little Havana . Outreach to Elected Officials • Little Havana Neighbors Association • County Mayor . Coordination with Key Public Partners • County Commissioners • Florida International University • Transportation Chair • Florida’s Turnpike . Outreach to Local Municipalities • Miami-Dade Expressway Authority • City of Doral • Miami-Dade County Aviation Department • City of Sweetwater • Miami Downtown Development • City of Miami • 3 Local NET Offices, including Little Havana • Downtown Development Authority . Potential Resolutions • To be determined from upcoming additional outreach 22 Tier 2 Evaluation Matrix Carried through Recommended PD&E Process Alternative Note: Alternative 1 is also recommended to move to Tier 3 23 Next Steps • Ongoing Public Involvement • Three Public Workshops • Community Meetings, Miami-Dade County Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), and Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) Committees • TPO Endorsement of Recommended Alternative • Environmental Class of Action Determination • Complete