Department of Transportation and Public Works

Beach Corridor Rapid Transit Project

Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust (CITT)

December 18, 2019
Meeting Agenda
• Project Overview
• Alternatives Analysis Process
• Tier 1 Analysis Results
• Tier 2 Technologies
• Tier 2 Alternatives
• Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria
• Evaluation Results/Summary
• Public Engagement
• Recommended Solutions (LPA)
• Next Steps
• FTA Capital Investment Grant Rating
• Implementation Schedule
1
Project Overview – Project Location

2
Project Overview: Historical Timeline

Beach Corridor
Rapid Transit
Project

3 3
Project Overview – Purpose and Need

• Selected as one of the six SMART Plan Rapid

Transit Corridors
• Major east-west connection
• High levels of traffic congestion
• Need to serve major regional economic engines

4
Project Overview – Project Goals

• Provide direct, convenient and comfortable rapid transit service to existing and
future planned land uses
• Provide enhanced transit connections
• Promote pedestrian and bicycle-friendly solutions

5
Alternatives Analysis Process
Technology Alternatives Input Data Analysis Evaluation Parameters Legend

• Light Rail Transit (LRT) • Traffic/Transit Conditions • Representative Conceptual • Transit Performance
• Heavy Rail Transit • Land Use Alignments • Economic and Community Tier 1
• Monorail • Population/Employment • Capital Costs Development Tier 2
• Personal Rapid Transit • Environmental • Feasibility • Cost and Feasibility
• Aerial Cable Car • Structural • Right-of-Way Impacts • Environmental Effects
• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Land Use
• Autonomous Vehicles • Environmental
• Automated People Mover • Structural
(APM)

Viable Alternatives Input Data Analysis

• No Build • Demographics • Preliminary Plans
• APM • Traffic Counts • Capital Costs
• Monorail • Parking Inventory • O&M Costs Final Locally
• BRT • Market Analysis • Right-of-Way Recommended Preferred
• LRT • Right-of-Way • Stations Alternative NEPA
Class of Alternative for
• Structural • Travel Demand/Ridership (Locally Preferred FTA Project
• Environmental • Traffic Operations Alternative) Action
• Environmental Development
o Socioeconomic
o Natural resources
o Cultural and Historic
o Aesthetics/Visual
o Noise and Vibration

Public Involvement

6
Tier 1 Analysis Results
• Eliminated dedicated lane options south of I-395 due to
congestion
• Eliminated Aerial Cable Transit, Personal Rapid Transit and
Heavy Rail technologies
• Completed Corridor Analysis (Miami Avenue preferred over Aerial Cable Transit
Biscayne or NE 2nd Avenue)
• Recommended technologies to move forward into Tier 2
– Monorail
– Metromover/APM
–
–
BRT/Express Bus
LRT/Streetcar
X
Personal Rapid Transit
Heavy Rail Transit

7
Tier 2 Technologies –
Numbers Vary by Manufacturer and Future Specifications

8
Tier 2 Alternatives- Trunkline and Extensions
Trunk line (Bay
Crossing from
Herald
Plaza/Museum Park
Metromover station
to Washington
Avenue and 5th
Street)

Miami
Miami
Beach
Extension
Extension
From
From
Metromover
Washington
School Board
Avenue and
Station to N.
5th Street to
Miami
Convention
Avenue and
Center area
41st Street

9
Tier 2 Alternatives

• Project Alternatives by mode and trunk line/extensions

• Trunkline Definition Meets Federal Criteria for:
– Independent Utility
– Logical Termini
• Allows for Mix of Modes and/or Phased Implementation

10
Project Alignments – Automated People Mover (APM)

Automated People Mover (APM)

5.6 miles/10 stations

11
 APM Miami Avenue APM adjacent to I-395 West Bridge

APM Bay Crossing (MacArthur Causeway) APM Miami Beach (5th Street Median)

*These renderings are representatives and not actual

12
Typical Sections- APM

APM - North Miami Avenue and 5th Street sections APM – Trunkline/BayCrossing

13
Project Alignments – Monorail

Monorail

3.3 miles/4 stations

14
Monorail adjacent to I-395 West Bridge Monorail Bay Crossing (MacArthur Causeway)

Monorail Miami Beach (5th Street Median)

*These renderings are representatives and not actual

15
Typical Sections- Monorail

Monorail - 5th Street section Monorail- Trunkline/BayCrossing

16
Project Alignments – Light Rail/Streetcar (LRT)

Light Rail Transit

7.5 miles/17 stations

17
 LRT Miami Avenue LRT adjacent to I-395 West Bridge

LRT Bay Crossing (MacArthur Causeway) LRT Miami Beach (5th Street Median)

*These renderings are representatives and not actual

18
Typical Sections- LRT

LRT Section - 5th Street

19
Project Alignments – Bus Rapid Transit

Bus Rapid Transit

I-195 option 10.8 miles/11 stations • I-395 option 6.6 miles/10 stations

20
 BRT I-195 Widened Bridge BRT I-395 Widened Bridge

BRT Indian Creek Drive (one lane reduction) BRT Miami Beach 5th street (one lane reduction)

*These renderings are representatives and not actual

21
Typical Sections- BRT

22
Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria

Transit and Multimodal Performance Cost and Feasibility

• Ridership • Capital Cost
• Travel Time • Operations and Maintenance Cost
• Interoperability/Modal Integration • Lifecycle Cost (Secondary Measure)
• Passenger Capacity (Secondary Measure)
• Resiliency (Secondary Measure)
Environmental Effects • Time to Construct (Secondary Measure)
• Natural Resources
• Cultural Resources (Historic/Archaeological)
• Aesthetics and Visual
• Noise and Vibration
• Traffic Impacts
• Construction Impacts (Secondary Measure)

23
Evaluation Criteria

• All Criteria Rated from Lower Performing to Higher Performing

– Lower Cost/Impact = Higher Performance
– Higher Environmental Impact = Lower Performance
– Higher Ridership = Higher Performance
– Slower Travel Time = Lower Performance

Lower Performing Higher Performing

1 2 3 4 5

24
Evaluation Results: Transit and Multi Modal Performance**

APM LRT Monorail BRT-I-395 BRT-I-195

Average Weekday
Ridership Ridership
15,700-28,600 14,600-21,800 15,700-23,500 8,500-13,000 8,500-13,000

Travel Time Minutes-End to End 22 24 22 21 23

Interoperability/
Most Trip Pairs Require
Modal One-Seat Rides To/from Downtown From Midtown to Beach
Transfer
From Downtown to Beach From Downtown to Beach
Integration

**Total Project elements:

APM- Miami Extension and Trunkline/Bay Crossing; Bus connections to Convention Center
LRT- Continuous from Design District to Convention Center
Monorail- APM for Miami Extension; Monorail Trunkline/Bay Crossing; Bus connections to Convention Center
BRT- Continuous BRT system from Downtown To Beach via I-395/Washington or via I-195/Collins Avenue

25
Evaluation Results: Ridership (2015)

• Ridership estimated using STOPS model V2.5

Technology Bay Crossing / Trunkline
Bay Crossing + Miami Extension +
Beach Extension
Herald/Museum Park - Beach

APM (One-Seat Ride)1 8,100-12,100 19,000-28,600

APM (Transfer)1 6,200-9,200 15,700-23,500
Monorail1 6,200-9,200 15,700-23,500
LRT2 5,000-7,600 14,600-21,800
BRT I-3953 N/A 8,500-13,000
BRT I-1953 N/A 8,500-13,000
1 May add 3,000 – 5,400 riders from parallel/duplicate routes 113, 119, 120
2 Added ridership would be lower due to walk distance from Omni/Herald bus terminal
3 See project alignment description

26
Evaluation Results: Transit Travel Time

Travel Time (Minutes)

APM EB WB
Trunkline (Herald Plaza - Beach) 6 6
Beach Express (Gov Ctr - Beach) 13 13
APM NB SB
Miami Extension (Gov Ctr - Design District) 22 17*
Design District Express (Gov Ctr - Design District) 15 15
Monorail EB WB
Trunkline (Herald Plaza - Beach) 6 6
Gov Ctr – Herald Plaza (Express) 7 7
LRT EB WB
Design District - Bay Crossing - Beach 24 23
BRT EB WB
OTV - Beach via I-195 25 21
OTV - Beach via I-395 22 18

* NB follows downtown loop counterclockwise

27
Evaluation Results: Cost and Feasibility- 2019$**

APM LRT Monorail BRT I-395 BRT I-195

Capital Cost Total 2019 $ $1,022,250,000 $1,136,900,000 $1,079,300,000 $366,800,000 $244,200,000

Operations and
Annual Total (2019 $) $19,100,000 $17,600,000 $16,500,000 $5,500,000 $6,100,000
Maintenance Cost

30 Year Discounted
Lifecycle Cost Capital, O&M & Major $1,444,000,000 $1,506,000,000 $1,440,000,000 $499,000,000 $392,000,000
Maintenance

Elevated guideway and Limited opportunity to Elevated guideway and

Mitigation of Sea Level No mitigation of sea level rise No mitigation of sea level
Resiliency Rise Impacts
stations provides mitigation mitigate sea level rise outside stations provides mitigation
risks rise risks
of predicted sea level rise. of Bay Crossing of predicted sea level rise.

Design-Bid-Build Delivery
Time to Construct (Months)
48 54 48 33 - 36 33 - 36

*All costs include contingency 20-25%

**Total Project elements:
APM- Miami Extension and Trunkline/Bay Crossing; Bus connections to Convention Center
LRT- Continuous from Design District to Convention Center
Monorail- APM for Miami Extension; Monorail Trunkline/Bay Crossing; Bus connections to Convention Center
BRT- Continuous BRT system from Downtown To Beach via I-395/Washington or via I-195/Collins Avenue

28
Evaluation Results: Project Cost 2019$- Total and Segments
Operations and Maintenance (millions)
Alternative Total Trunkline Only
APM $19,100,000 $9,900,000
Monorail $16,500,000 $7,200,000
LRT $17,600,000 $9,100,000
BRT (I-195) $6,100,000 N/A
BRT (I-395) $5,500,000 N/A
Capital Cost (millions)
Alternative
Total Trunkline Only
No Build $0 $0
APM $1,022,250,000 $631.6
Monorail $1,079,300,000 $681.7
LRT $1,136,900,000 $647.5/$732.3**
BRT (I-195) $244,200,000 N/A
BRT (I-395) $366,800,000 N/A
**Capital Cost for LRT Trunkline with and without ROW acquisition for Maintenance and Storage Facility(estimated cost-
$85 million-no land availability for 6ac).

Total Project elements:

APM- Miami Extension and Trunkline/Bay Crossing; Bus connections to Convention Center
LRT- Continuous from Design District to Convention Center
Monorail- APM for Miami Extension; Monorail Trunkline/Bay Crossing; Bus connections to Convention Center
BRT- Continuous BRT system from Downtown To Beach via I-395/Washington or via I-195/Collins Avenue

29
Evaluation Results: Environmental Effects- Total Project

APM LRT Monorail BRT-I-395 BRT-I-195

Direct Impacts to seagrass, coral
Significant impacts to coral. Bridge widening on I-195
Direct Impacts to seagrass, coral and mangrove; additional
Water Resources, Habitat Direct impacts to seagrass, coral Permitting and mitigation would would result in seagrass
Natural Resources and Animals
and mangrove; small increase in indirect (shading) impacts;
and mangroves be challenging-significant risk to impacts that would require
impervious surface greater increase in impervious
cost & duration of project. permitting and mitigation.
surface

# of Listed/Eligible
Cultural
Historic/Archaeological 34 144 33 2 0
Resources Resources

Elevated guideway / stations

Aesthetics and Elevated guideway / stations impact views in Bay Crossing Elevated guideway / stations Buses/stops will have limited Buses/stops will have
Views and Streetscape
Visual impact views and streetscape segment; less impact in at- impact views and streetscape impact on view shed limited impact on view shed
grade segments

5 Moderate/24 Severe
Number and Severity of
Noise and 2 Moderate Residential Residential Impacts, 3 9 Moderate/1 Severe
Impacts by Type of No Impacts No Impacts
Vibration Property/Use
Impacts Moderate/3 Severe Residential Impacts
Institutional Impacts

At-grade segments impact Arterial segments impact Arterial segments impact

Impact to Existing Traffic No impacts to at-grade traffic No impacts to at-grade traffic
Traffic Impacts Lanes due to elevated guideway
traffic by dedicating lanes to
due to elevated guideway
traffic by dedicating lanes to traffic by dedicating lanes
transit traffic to traffic

30
Evaluation Summary-Key Differentiators
Transit and Multimodal Performance
• Rail options have similar ridership, capacity, speed and cost for Bay Crossing
• BRT options have lower ridership due to higher travel times, more traffic conflicts
and attractiveness of mode
• LRT has the highest vehicle capacity and highest cost
Environmental Effects
• Monorail and APM modes are similar for the Bay Crossing (rubber tires=less noise)
• BRT on widened MacArthur Causeway has greatest impact to natural resources
• LRT has more traffic, noise and construction impacts in Miami/Midtown
• APM and Monorail (elevated) have more visual and cultural impacts in
Miami/Midtown than at-grade LRT
Cost and Feasibility
• APM and Monorail costs approximately equal
• LRT cost higher but similar range
• BRT is significantly lower cost
31
Evaluation Summary-Results

• Rail Modes Are Higher Performing and Higher Cost Than BRT

• BRT Capacity and Ridership May Not Meet Purpose and Need

• LRT Impacts Are Higher Than APM/Monorail

• APM/Monorail-Similar Bay Crossing trunk line performance

• Funding Potential May Be Key Consideration Given Similar Performance

32
Public Engagement
• Elected Official/Agency Kick-Off (Two Meetings)
• Public Kick-Off (Three Meetings)
• Alternatives Workshops (Four Workshops)
• Live stream of public workshops reached more than
5,000 people and generated 567 engagements
• Project website, email and social media interaction
• Project Advisory Group (Three Meetings)
• City of Miami Commission and City of Miami Beach
Commission (Four Presentations)
• Overtown Community Oversight Board, Downtown
Development Authority and other groups (Five
Presentations)
• Briefings with elected officials from the County,
Miami, Miami Beach and other municipalities (More
than 55 briefings)

33
Recommended Solutions

• Recommended solutions thru a Locally Preferred

Alternative

– APM for the Miami extension from existing

Metromover at School Board station to Design
District

– Elevated rubber tire vehicle (APM/Monorail) for the

Trunkline (Herald Plaza/Museum Park Metromover
station to Washington and 5th Street)

– Bus/Trolley on dedicated lanes for the Miami Beach

extension from Washington and 5th Street to the
Convention Center

34
Next Steps

• Endorsement from Transportation Planning Organization Governing Board

• Prepare a Class of Action determination request for Federal Transit Administration

• Complete environmental document

• Enter into FTA New Starts process

35
FTA Capital Investment Grant Rating

New and Small Starts Project Evaluation and Rating

Individual Criteria Ratings Summary Ratings Overall Rating

Mobility Improvements (16%)

Environmental Benefits (16%)
Congestion Relief (16%)
Project Justification
(50% of Overall Rating)
Cost-Effectiveness (16%)
*Must be at least “Medium”
Economic Development (16%) For project to get “Medium”
Or better Overall Rating Overall Project Rating
Land Use (16%)

Current Condition (25%) Local Financial Commitment

Commitment of Funds (25%) (50% of Overall Rating)
Reliability/Capacity (50%) *Must be at least “Medium”
For project to get “Medium”
Or better Overall Rating

36
FTA Cost Effectiveness-Total Annualized Cost (current$)

37
 FTA Implementation Schedule

FTA FTA FTA Construction

Determination Submit Review and Request Plus Rail
Locally Complete FTA New Project To enter into FTA Congressional Full System
Preferred Environmental Starts Development Preliminary Final Recommendation Application Funding Start Testing Revenue
Alternative Document Application Process Engineering Design (If Viable) If Viable Grant Design-Build (4 years) Service

December 2019 August 2020 December 2020 December 2022 2022-2024 2024 Fall 2024 2025 2025 2029 2030

38
Project Team

For more information:

Kiranmai Chirumamilla, E.I., DTPW Project Manager
Phone: 786-469-5283

Your feedback
Email: Kiranmai.chirumamilla@miamidade.gov

Odalys Delgado, AICP, Consultant Project Manager

is important!
Phone: 305-507-5583
Email: Odalys.Delgado@parsons.com

Yvette Holt, Consultant Public Information Officer (PIO)

Phone: 305-335-0924
Email: Yvette@Holtcommunications.net

39