PRESENTATION TO THE MIAMI-DADE TPO BPAC October 23, 2018
2
SHARING THE RESULTS OF THE CORRIDOR PLANNING STUDY FROM THE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST PERSPECTIVE 3
STUDY AREA Traverses the following Serves the following communities and jurisdictions: communities south of the study limits: City of Miami ▪ Town of Cutler Bay City of Coral Gables ▪ ▪ City of Homestead City of South Miami ▪ ▪ Florida City Community of Kendall ▪ ▪ Village of Pinecrest ▪ FDOT Context Classification Segment Limit C4 – Urban General (30-45 MPH Allowable Design Speed Range) C5 – Urban Center (25-35 MPH Allowable Design Speed Range) 4 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
FDOT CONTEXT CLASSIFICATION • FDOT Complete Streets Policy – Adopted 2014 • Defined Context Classifications that link land use and transportation solutions • Context Classification implemented through Florida Design Manual (FDM) – beginning January 2018 FM ID 433455-4-52-01 SW 26 th Avenue to I-95 C2T-Rural C6-Urban C1- C2- C3R- C3C- C4-Urban C5-Urban Town Core Natural Rural Suburban Suburban General Center Residential Commercial 5
SMART PLAN COORDINATION • DTPW is conducting the South Dade Transitway PD&E • FDOT US 1 Study focused from Kendall Drive to I-95 • Coordination is on- going 6
COMMUTE PATTERNS 106,500 Working Population (Workers who live + who live & work + who commute into the corridor to work) 6% Of County Residents 10% Of County Jobs Work Inflow / Outflow (1 mile of Study Corridor) 95,063 11,392 49,243 Employees Coming Residents Live & Work Residents Leaving the into the Study Area to in the Study Area Study Area to Work Work 7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates
COMMUTE MODE CHOICE Corridor has very similar commute mode splits ▪ when compared to the County average Under 1% difference for walking & biking ▪ Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates 8
US 1 TRIP LENGTHS Only 2% of trips are travelling ▪ 2% through the corridor 9% Less than 50% of trips travel ▪ more than 3 miles 45% Many of the trips are to reach the ▪ Regional Expressways 44% I-95 ▪ Don Shula Expressway ▪ Snapper Creek Expressway ▪ Trip Length Palmetto Expressway ▪ Short (<3 mi) Intermediate (3-7 mi) Long (7-11 mi) Through (>11 mi) Source: Bluetooth Data Collection, Winter 2016/2017 Note: Origin-Destination data was collected from SW 152 nd Street to I-95 from the earlier stage of the project, pre-SMART Plan efforts for the 9 South Dade Transitway
ROADWAY DESIGN & CONGESTION 6-lane divided facility ▪ Existing traffic volumes: 69,000 and 97,000 ▪ vehicles per day Significant recurring and non-recurring congestion ▪ Majority of intersections operate at LOS E or F ▪ during the peak period (PM Peak is worse than AM) Peak conditions are spreading ▪ Population and employment in the study area will ▪ continue to increase
CORRIDOR NEEDS IDENTIFIED Reduce the effects of daily traffic congestion Reduce auto crashes Increase safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists Improve access to Metrorail, Metrobus and corridor destinations by all modes Encourage new development and redevelopment that attains a higher percentage of walk, transit and bicycle trip-making 11
NEED: INCREASE SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE FOR BICYCLISTS & PEDESTRIANS Crashes between 2011-2015: ▪ 61 pedestrian crashes ▪ 52 bicycle crashes ▪ 5 of 13 total fatalities were cyclists or pedestrians ▪ All Crashes Transit Stops City Limit Metrorail Least Greatest Fatality 12 Source: FDOT CARS, 2011 - 2015 Note: Map limits are from the earlier stage of the project, pre-SMART Plan efforts for the South Dade Transitway
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORK Legend Metrorail Station Study Area Walking & Bicycling Facilities Bike Lane Shared Use Path 13 Connectivity Opportunities Bike Facility Gap
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE NETWORK No on-street bicycle facilities ▪ M-Path/Underline provides parallel facility on west ▪ side of US 1 Sidewalks along the east side of US 1 with gaps ▪ Average distance between signalized pedestrian ▪ crossings = 1500’ Typical pedestrian out-of-direction travel is 285 ▪ seconds (4.8 minutes) Based on Origin/Destination located 500’ from the ▪ intersection 14
NEED: IMPROVE ACCESS TO METRORAIL, METROBUS AND CORRIDOR DESTINATIONS BY ALL MODES Transit stations are ▪ difficult to access by all modes High peak demand on ▪ Metrorail creates standing room only conditions Park-n-Ride is heavily ▪ utilized & reaches capacity at many locations Drive-up access to ▪ stations is challenging SMART Plan and other ▪ projects planned and/or programmed 15
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT & SCREENING PROCESS • Distinct standalone corridor- wide “traditional” capacity - focused alternatives were found not applicable • Adjusted alternative development process approach TIER 1 Develop long list of strategies & identify feasibility Focus on strategies that are most likely to meet the specific needs TIER 2 Identify which locations need which strategies Package strategies for implementation 16
HOW DID WE RATE STRATEGIES? • Rated strategies (High, Medium, Low) based on their ability to meet the needs: – Reduce the effects of daily traffic congestion – Reduce auto crashes – Increase safety and convenience for pedestrians & bicyclists – Improve access to Metrorail, Metrobus and corridor destinations by all modes • Over 70 Strategies were screened Need: Reduce effects of daily traffic congestion Objective 1: Reduce signal related congestion Objective 2: Manage congestion along US 1 for local/shorter distance trips to destinations along US 1 Objective 3: Manage congestion along US 1 for local access to/from regional expressways (I-95, Snapper Creek and Palmetto Expressways) Objective 4: Provide opportunities for local trip-making without accessing US 1 Tier 1 Assessment Type of Strategies Obj # Key Relevant Data/Observations Strat # Tier 1 Evaluation Measures Considered Rating Explanation Many intersections signals are operating over capacity Potential to reduce signal related delay for trips H Bypass signals and conflicting traffic 1 (v/c ratio = 1.2 - 2.0) along US 1 PM conditions are the worst; AM conditions are still bad Potential to reduce signal related delay for side H Remove through traffic from the intersection street trips Grade Separated 17 Most signals are timed for US 1 throughput - will be 1 Capital Costs Benefit L Construction of large ramps, tunnels and/or bridges Intersections difficult to get more throughput out of signal timing Congested peak will spread Right of Way Impact Benefit L Have to purchase large segments of developed land to allow for ramps Business Access Impact Benefit L Ramps may restrict access to corner businesses Potential to reduce signal related delay for trips H Long-distance through traffic will be improved. Average vehicle e onal %- s ld e ew o ved
NEED #3: INCREASE SAFETY & CONVENIENCE FOR PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS Strategies Moving to Reason for not moving to Tier 2? Tier 2? Pedestrian overpasses for Yes N/A crossing US-1 Signal timing adjustments to Yes N/A meet MUTCD prescribed single- stage crossing Refuge islands through cross- Yes N/A walk/crossing zone Streetscape Improvements Yes N/A Increase personal safety Maybe Potential to integrate with existing camera through security cameras systems being operated by others (not FDOT) (coordinate opportunities to do this with Project Advisory Team (PAT) members) Change intersection geometry Yes N/A to shorten travel pathways Remove channelized free-flow Yes N/A right turn lanes along US 1 or add control where skew requires channelization Lower progression speed to Yes N/A reduce off-peak speeds 18
NEED #3: INCREASE SAFETY & CONVENIENCE FOR PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS (CONT.) Strategy Moving to Reason for not moving Tier 2? to Tier 2? Create parallel walking and biking route Yes N/A with pedestrian and bicycle scale wayfinding along the east of US 1 Create shared use path (10' min) or Yes N/A wider sidewalk adjacent to US1 on east side and where M-Path is separated from US 1 Ped connections across US-1 at 1/4- Yes N/A mile intervals; priority at Metrorail and UM; daily shopping and job locations (hospital); areas with high bus transfers High visibility crosswalks and signage Yes N/A Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon No Unlikely compliance due to limited use (RRFB) and impact on 6 lane roadways Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) No Unlikely compliance due to limited use and impact on 6 lane roadways Full Signal Yes N/A Ped in-ground lighting Yes N/A 19
NEED #3: INCREASE SAFETY & CONVENIENCE FOR PEDESTRIANS & BICYCLISTS (CONT.) Strategy Moving to Reason for not moving Tier 2? to Tier 2? Eliminate Right-turn-on-red (RTOR) Yes N/A Leading pedestrian/bicycle intervals Yes N/A (LPI/LBI) Eliminate Permissive Left-turns Yes N/A Pedestrian countdown signals Yes N/A High visibility crosswalks and signage Yes N/A Separated bike facility along east side Yes N/A of US 1 (may be achieved through parallel network rather than on-street bike lane) Local street network connections to Yes N/A support access to M-Path Connected system of protected bike Yes N/A lanes on local and FDOT cross streets 20
Recommend
More recommend
