USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

An un-cataloged item [C01-00445] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
An un-cataloged item C01-00445 from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications USF.
Physical Description:
Book

Subjects

Genre:
letter   ( marcgt )

Notes

General Note:
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
usfldc doi - C01-00445
usfldc handle - c1.445
System ID:
SFS0032466:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

CENTER for URBAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH ECONOMIC IMPACT OF BRICKELL AVENUE BRIDGE OPENINGS Final Report December 2002 Prepared for: MIAMI DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

PAGE 2

Miami Downtown Development Authority First Union Financial Center 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1818 Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 579-6675 Fax: (305) 371-2423 Projects Manager: Adam Paul Luk i n Center for Urban Transportation Research University o f South Florida 4202 E F owler Avenue, CUTlOO Tampa, Florida 33620-5375 Telephone: (81 3) 974-3120 Fax: (813) 974-5168 Project Director: Joel Volinski Project Managers: Nilgiln Kamp Victoria Perk

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS I I N TROD U CTION ...... .......... .. ....... ...................................... .. .. .. .. .. ..... ... . .. .. ............ 1 I I VALUE O F LOST TIME .. ......... .. .. .. ..... ...... ............. ... ......... .. .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .... .. . 2 FIELDWORK ..... ...................... . . ...................... .. .. .. .. .. .......... ...... .... . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. 2 ANNUAL DM_ E LoSS .......... .................. ........ ........ ......... . .... ...... .... ...... .. .. ..... .... .. .. 5 VALUE OF TIME .... . .... .... . . .... . ............................... ......... .... .......... . ... ... . . .... ...... ...... 6 TOTAL VALUE O F TIMB LOS T . .. ... ... .. .. .. ..... ......... .......... .... .. ..... ... . . ....... . ............... 6 OTI-IER OBSERVATIONS ... .. : .... .... . ...... . ............. ............................. ......... .... . ..... .... ..... 7 ID. SUMl\'fARY 0 F INTERVIE\VS ... ..... ..... .. .. ..... .. ..... .. .. ......... ....... ...... ..... ...... ....... 8 LOST BUSINESSES .. .... .. .............. ............ .. ....... ........... ............ ..... .......... .................. 8 OFFICE SPACE OWNERS, LBASORS, AND MANAGERS ... . ... . . . ...... .. . .... . .. . ...... . . . I 0 OTHER INTERVIEWS .. . . .. ... .. . .. .. ...... .... . ... . .... . .. .. .. .. .. . .... .............................. .. 13 IV. OTHER IMPACTS .............. ....... .. .. ..... .. ... . ..... ................... ... ... ............. ............... 14 PROPE.RT. Y V ALOES . .. ... ..... ... .. ... ... .. ..... .. .. . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .... . .... ..... . .. .. . . . . .. .. . .. 1 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .. . ... .. . . .. .. . . .. .. ...... ... ......... .. ... ...... .. . ...... .. .. .. ......... 15 BUSINESS DELIVERY COSTS .. .. .. . . . . .. ... .... .. . .. ....... .... .... ... . ........ ........ ..... . .... 16 V. S UMl\tlAR.Y AND CONCLU S IONS ........ ..... .. ..... ........... .. ..... .. .. ........ .. ......... ........ . 17 AP PE N DI X A (DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDOR S INCLUDED IN 1HE FIELDWORK) . : . l8 APPE N D I X B ............. ........ : . ..... .................. .. ......... ..... .. ..... .. .. .. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 3 1 LIST OF BUSINESSES AND OTHER 0RGANTZA TION S CONTACTED .......... ..... .... ..... ...... 31 APPENDIX C ......... ....... .. ..... .. .. .. .. ........ ........... ..... ..... .... ......... ....... ..... . ........ . ................ . 32 BRiilFING ON BRICKllLL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES (SEPTEMBER 18, 2002) : 32

PAGE 4

I. INTRODUCTION The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) was retained by the Miami Downtown Development Authority (DDA) in May 2002 to conduct an economic impact analysis of the Brickell A venue Bridge openings on downtown Miami. The Brickell Avenue Bridge crosses the Miami River in downtown Miami where the river joins Biscayne Bay. This waterway is a major navigable artery for the city, carrying both commercial and recreational vessels. Miami's downtown development encouraged the c ity to build several new bridges across the Miami River during the late 1920s to improve the movement of traffic generally in a north-south direction. As part of these new bridges, the Brickell Avenue Bridge opened in 1929. The bridge was renovated between 1993 and 1995 and reopened in December 1995. The new bridge is 50 percent higher than the original one. Curfews on bridge openings during the morning and afternoon rush hours during the week (7:30AM to 9:00AM and 4:30PM to 6:00PM) have b een in place for all vessels until recently. In the beginning of October 2002, a new rule went into effect allowing tugboats with a tow to be exempt from the curfew. The bridge opens on demand during weekends and weekdays outside of the curfew periods. Given the adverse effects of bridge openings on traffic conditions in the area, the DDA requested a study that would measure the ext ent of these effects on downtown Miami. . Impa cts addressed in this sti1dy inc lude travel time delays and resulting loss of productivity, business relocation, environmental costs in terms of vehicle emissions, property values, business delivery costs, and other qualitative impacts. This report provides the finding s of our analysis. Primary steps in the analysis included: discussions and interviews with representatives of the DDA, area businesses, brokerage firms, city, county and state transportat ion officials, and others; fieldwork measuring the duration of trips in the study area when the Brickell Bridge was open versus when it was closed. Other data collected during the fieldwork included queue lengths, the number of vehicles crossing the bridge, and vehicle occupancy rates; secondary research on r elevant variab les includ in g traffic counts, area demographic information, office space occupancy and rental rates, property values, and others; and li terature search on the value of time, environmental costs, business delivery costs, and other related issues. The primary purpose of this analysis is to obtain an u nderstanding of to w hat extent Brickell Bridge openings are harmful to the business community in downtown Miami. It should be noted that impacts measured in this report are based on the current conditions in downtown Miami and do not take into account the potential effects of new developments that are under construction or are being planned/proposed. Page I

PAGE 5

Economic Impact of Briclrell Avenue Bridge Openings II. VALUE OF LOST TIME In 01;-der to quantify the dollar value of time lost due to Brickell Bridge openings, CUTR collected data on average vehicle delays when the bridge was open. In addition, based on secondary data sources and existing literature on the subject, these delays were converted to a dollar value of time lost. This section provides a summary of this research and analysis. Fieldwork T he fieldwork involved collecting data on average delays experienced due to bridge openings and included the following steps. The measurement/study area boundaries included I-95 to the west, Biscayne Bay to the east, 15'h Street to the south, and 1 ., Street to the north. Based on discussions with representatives from David P l ummer and Associates who are currently preparing a Downtown Transportation Master Plan, three routes/corridors within the measurement area that are heavily affected by bridge openings.were identified. . These routes were supplemented with eight ''random" routes. Random routes were selected by following actual driv ers in the study area: The purpose of including random routes was to ensure the r epresentation of all areas within the study area boundaries and not to bias data by limiting the evaluation to heavily affected corridors. The map on the following page illustra te s the study area and alii! routes. A detailed description and individual map of each route can be found in Appendix A. The fieldwork was conducted over a two-day period, which took place in September 2002 on a Tuesday and a Wednesday. Holidays or other special days, vacation seasons (such as the summer), beginning and end of the week, etc. were avoided in an effort to collect data on "representative" days. In addition, per DDA's request, the fieldwork was conducted between 9:00AM and 4:30PM to capture the effects of bridge openings on the business community. Given the bridge opening curfews during rush hours (from 7:30AM to 9:00AM and from 4:30PM and 6:00 PM), the 9:00 AM to 4:30PM time period reflects the hours during which business activities could be affected by bridge openings. Page2

PAGE 6

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings All route 1 route 1 retum A route 1 retum B route 2 .. routa 2 ntiJm A route 2 return B rou1e 3 routa 3 return route 4 rout e 5 route 6 roule 7 route 8 route 9 route tO route 1 1 Page3

PAGE 7

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings During the fieldwork, CUTR collected several data items : )> trip durations and timing on ihe 11 specified routes throughout the day. This information was then ma tc hed to bridge opening times to determine average trip duration on each route when the bridge was open versus when it was closed; )> number of vehicles crossing the bridge in both direction s; )> vehicle occupancy rate (people per vehicle}; and )> queue lengths on Brickell A venue, 2nd Avenue, and Bayshore Boulevard. U pon collection of data, each trip was evaluated to determine whether it was affected by a bridge opening based on the location of the vehicle at the time of the bridge opening. Results of the fieldwork suggested that, on average, 15 percent of the trips that cross the Brickell Bridge are affected by bridge openings. The average delay experienced by these vehicles was approximately 5.5 minutes (five minutes and 30 seconds). The 5.5-minute delay represents doubling of travel time for affected vehicles. The average trip time for vehicles crossing the bridge increased from 5.5 minutes whe n the bridge was closed to I I minutes when t he bridge was opened, an increase of I 00 percent. Approximately 14 percent trips that did not cross the bridge \verc also affected by Brickell Bridge openings; however, the average delay experienced by these vehicles was only 1.6 minutes (one minute and 36 seconds). This delay represents a 47 percent increase in average trip time (from 3.5 minutes when bridge is down to 5.1 minutes when bridge is up). The margin of error for the average length of trips that took place when the b ridge was closed is 14 seconds while for those that were affected by bridge openings is 58 seconds with a 95 percent level of confidence. The following table presents a summary of trip durations for each route. Routes I through 5 and Route 8 (indicated in bold} included trips that crossed the Brickell Bridge and therefore were mote heavily affected by bridge openings. Page4

PAGE 8

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Summary ofTri p J>arations by Route Avg. De l ay A.g. Delay A/fcc l ed by bridg e Openings Unof/cCUd by lJridgt Openings Due to bridge Due to Other Average* Range* Range* Openings f:aelon Route I 9.78 5.00 1 5.00 4.50 2.00 9 .00 5.28 . 2.50 Route 2 9.69 6.00 16 .00 4 25 2.00 8 .00 5 .44 2.25 RouteJ 14 .85 9.00 20.00 8.36 5.00 17 .00 5.99 3 .86 Route4 10.80 9.00 13.00 7 18 s.oo 10.00 3 .62 2.18 Route 5 9.00 8 .00 10.00 6.62 s.oo 9 .00 2 38 1 .62 Routc6 7 .00 7 .00 7 00 4.33 3 00 6.00 2 67 1.33 Route 1 5.50 4 .00 8 .00 4.27 2.00 6.00 1.23 2 .27 Route 8 9.33 8.00 u .oo 6.29 4.00 10 00 3 .04 2.29 Route 9 3 00 3 00 3.00 2.63 2 00 3 00 0.37 0.6 3 Rout e t.Q 5.40 4 .00 8 .00 4.35 3 .00 6.00 1.05 1.35 Route 11 4 .00 4 00 4 .00 2.35 1.00 4 00 1.65 1.35 lit minutes. P leue note that 4eelmab represent peroentase of a m.inute, not t h e toU!l seconds. For example, 9 8 ninut(s means 9 minutes and 48 seconds.. Note: A total of 463 tr ips "'
PAGE 9

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Value of Time CUTR also estimated the appropriate hourly wage figure used in this analysis. Because hourly wage rate data for workers in the Brickell area or downtown Miami were not readily available, several figures were used to reach the appropriate rate: the number of employees by industry sector in downtown Miami obtained from the Beacon Council, 2001 per capita income for various industry sectors in Miami-Dade County from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 2000 per capita personal income for the Miami PMSA from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A weighted average per capita income figure for downtown workers was calculated based on the number of employees and average income in each industry. Figures were inflated to 2002 dollars using Miami's Consumer Price Index (CPI) obtained also from the Beacon Council. Upon conclusion of this research, an average annual per capita earnings of $40,000 and a gross hourly wage rate of$19.23 were used for this analysis. A review ofl.iterawre on value oftime issues revealed that in the past, researchers used anywhere from 20 percent to I 00 percent of the hourly wage rate in estimating the value of travel time. The US Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary uses 50 percent of the wage ra te for personal trips and 100 percent of the wage rate for business trips. Given this wide range, the lack of information on trip purpose of vehicles trave ling in the Brickell area, and the fact that most trips that take place between 9:00 AM and 4:30 PM are likely to be business related trips (meetings, etc. instead of arriving/leaving work), the midpoint of75 percent was used in estimating the portion of the gross wage rate to be used for travel value. This resulted in an hourly value of time of$14.42. Total Value of Time Lost Multiplying the annual time lost by the average hourly rate of$14.42 provided a total lost time value of approximately $1.1 million. The following table summarizes the impact of Brickell Bridge openings. Value of Time Loss (Due to Brickell Bridge Openings) Anpual vehicle delays 1 Annual people delays 1 Average value of travel time Annual Value of People Delays 2 1 Rounded to the 100. 2 Rounded to the nearest 1 ,000. 60,000 hours 77,900 hours $14.42 $1,124,000 Page6 (

PAGE 10

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Ope11ings Again, this amount represents the annual value of time lost due to Brickell Bridge openings during the weekdays between AM and 4:30 PM under the current conditions. Impacts of new/future deveiopinents are not included in this estimate. In addition, impacts measured are based on the two-day fieldwo rk in Sept ember Results may vary if fieldwork were conducted in a different week or month. Finally, there may be additional losses due to individuals hav ing to leave earlier to accommodate a potential bridge opening. However, measuring this additional impact would require an in depth surveying of the wor ke rs in the area to understand thei r travel habits and is beyond the scope of this study. Other Observations Other observations regarding traffic conditions in the Brickell area during the fieldwork period are summarized below. Brickell Bridge openings tend to last a pproximat ely 10 minu tes when a cargo/freight boat or multiple boats cross. The bridge stays open for about five minutes for individua l r ecreational boats. In terms of queue lengths, the longest queues observed were those that went to SE lZill Street on the south side of the bridge and to NE I" Street on the north side of the bridge In addition, the 1-95 off ramp also experienced back -u ps. Fieldwork personnel noticed that drivers do beco!XIe impatient quickly during traffic back-ups and start honking their horns, which creates a high noise level. In addition, drivers and pedestrians do not always follow traffic rules. Our observers noticed that pedestrians frequently jaywalked and cars and scooters/motorcycles ran through red li ghts. Two major factors that contribute to traffic congestion in addition to bridge openings are the construction activity in the Brickell area and accidents The fieldwork personnel noted five separate accidents during the two-day period. Another factor that contributed to the congestion was occasional double-parked cars in certain s t reets. Page?

PAGE 11

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Ill. SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS CUTR conducted surveys and interviews with various groups, including: representatives of businesses that relocated away from the Brickell area/downtown Miami; representatives of real estate companies/brokerage finns that are active in the Brickell area/downtown Miami; o property owners; o city/county/state transportation officials; and o others as appropriate. The contaCt names were obtained from the DDA and supplemented by int erviewed parties and CUTR. These discussions focused on reasons for businesses to leave downtown Miami, traffic congestion in downtown, traffic congestion due to Brickell Bridge openings, and other i ssues Survey responses are summarized in this section. It is importan t to note that these responses represent specific comments of various parties. In most cases, comments presented here are limited to those views that were shared by multiple representatives. They are neither, however, r epresentative of all respondents, nor do they necessarily represent the opinions of CUTR. A list of organizations contacted is included in Appendil\ B. Lost Businesses CUTR completed interviews with eight major businesses that re located away from downtown Miami to unders tand their reasons for leaving downtown. The list of businesses was provided by the DDA and supplemented by information provided by the lessors and managers of office space in the area. Of these eight businesses, seven moved to Coral Gables and one to the Airport West area. Approximately 75 percent of the respondents stated that lower rental rate s in Coral Gables and the Airport West area were the primary reasons for their move. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the businesses moved because they needed larger space than what they had in downtown Miami and were not able to get it there. Finally, approximately percent of the respondents stated that their new loca tion was more convenient to their employees and/or clients. All of the respondents stated that traffic congestion in the downtown area (either because of Brickell Bridge or otherwise) was not the driving factor for their move. Approximately 25 percent of respondents stated traffic congestion in downtown Miami was an additional benefit of leaving downtown while 63 percent stated tha t traffic is worse in Coral Gables or that they had more public transportation options in the Brickell area/downtown Miami. The following table presents the office space rental rates for the Brickell area, Miami Commercial Business District (CBD), Coral Gables, and the Airport West area during the PageS

PAGE 12

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Opeiiliigs first quarter of2002. Although these figures are quoted rates and do not reflect any discounts that may have been given to individual companies, rental rates in the Brickell area for all classes of office SPace are higher than Coral Gables and Airport West, which supports the experience of businesses interviewed. In addition, the rates quoted for the Miami CBD for Class A office space are higher than those in Coral Gables and the Airport West area Office Space Rental Rates (per sf per year) (First Quarter 2002) Brickell Class A ClassB ClassC All Office Space 1\'liami CBD Class A Class B ClassC All Office Space Coral Gables Class A Class B Class C All Office Space Airport/'West Dade Class A ClassB Class C All Office Space Quoted Rental Rates Range $20.00 $19.00 $17.50 $17.50 $25.50 $16.00 $8.00 $8.00 $19.00 $17.00 $15.50 $15.50 $35.00 $3 3.00 $24.00 $35.00 $38.00 $28.50 $30.00 $38.00 $35.00 $28.00 $29.00 $35.00 $27.25 $25.00 $22 .00 $20.00 $16.90 $14.00 $14.00 $27.25 Mean $31.03 $24.90 $22 .56 $27.42 $31.39 $21.93 $15.72 $24.84 $28.78 $23.83 $21.33 $25.52 $24.47 $20.80 $17.17 $21.87 Source: Rea1Dara loformation Systems, Inc. Change Since IQ 2001 -4.58% -2.81% 4.01% -3.31% 0.64% -5.23% -2.72% -1.35% -1.57% 0.89% 5.65% 0 .67% -1.53% 7.11% 0.35% 2.53% Page9

PAGE 13

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Office Space Owners, Leasors; and Managers CUTR completed sutveys with 17 owners, leasors and managers of office space located in Brickell and downtown Miami The discussions addressed feedback/complaints received from tenants, issues related to overall traffic congestion in the area as well as that due to Brickell Bridge openings, trends in the office market in the Brickell area and downtown Miami, and other related issues. The following paragraphs provide a summazy of these intetviews. Approximately 30 percent of the respondents stated that they have not received any complaints about the area, traffic congestion, or any other issues from their tenants. This group explained that the Brickell address is very valuable and well known throughout Latin America. The remaining 70 percent indicated that their tenants do complain about the traffic in the area, Brickell Bridge openings, parking in downtown Miami (cost, surcharge, and availability), and other issues such as the presence of homeless, broken sidewalks, etc. in the area. However, when asked about reasons for businesses to move out ofBrickeli and downtown Miami, only 12 percent of all respondents believed the traffic congestion was the primary reason. AJ.lproximate1y 35 percent of all respondents stated that tow er rental rates in surrowtding neighborhoods (Coral Gables, Airport west, etc.) as well as proximity to where decision-makers live are the primazy reasons for businesses to relocate away from Brickell/downtown Miami. In addition, some buildings lost tenants to other buildings still within Brickell or downtown Miami (e.g., some businesses move further south on Brickell Avenue to avoid traffic from the bridge openings, etc.). Leasing agents were concerned about the possibility oflosing potential tenants due to Brickell's and downtown Miami's image in tenns ofthe traffic congestion. However, none of the parties who mentioned tliis concern conducted SUtveys with prospective tenants whq visited the buildings, but decided not to rent. All of the regpondents concurred that the traffic congestion is a problem in the area and bridge openings compound it. They describe the traffic congestion and bridge openings as "nuisance," "more of a personal discomfort," "consistent source of irritation," "infuriating and frustrating," and "small headache, not a migraine." One regpondent mentioned that he schedules his business meetings outside of his office at a location that is less likely to be affected by bridge openings not to inconvenience his clients. Some of the respondents stated that because the bridge opens on demand, they always have to plan for an opening if their destination requires crossing the bridge. This causes them to lose time even when the bridge does not open during their specific trip. Interviewed parties also indicated that openings and related traffic during the lunch period are some of the worst effects of the bridge openings. Some individuals defined the lunch period Page 10

PAGE 14

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings from 11 AM to 1 PM, while others defined it as noon to 2 PM. Respondents also expressed concern about the future traffic conditions once the deve l opments that are currently u n der construction or being planned/propose d are completed. Some of the suggestions offered by this group iflcluded allowing twoway traffic on gth Street, considering the possibility of a tunnel, adopting staggered work hours so that not all workers arrive and leave work and go to lunch at the same time; improving mass transit and increasing the pub li c awareness about mass transit options; and placing a curfew on the bridge during lunch time. As mentioned by the majority of the professionals in the office market industry, the Brickell area continues to be popular for businesses despite the traffic congestion. The following table compares office occupancy rates in various parts of Miami-Dade County during the first quarters of2001 and 2002. Page 11

PAGE 15

Economic Impact of Brickell Avellue Bridge Openings Office S pace Occupancy Rates (First Quarter 2001 and 2002) Occupancy Rat<'s Total Rentable Space First Quarter First Quarter 2002 2001 Change 2002 2001 %Change Brickell Class A 94.72% 94.32% 0.40% 2,299,937 2,309,699 -0.42% C lass B 91.32% 95.55% -4.23% 2,485,638 2,483,986 0.07% Class C 87.81% 91.29% -3.48% 416,350 416,350 0 .00% All Ojfiu Space 92.54% 94.67% -2.13% 5, 201,925 5 ,2 10,035 -0.16% MiamiCBD C1assA 91.93% 95.94% -4.01% 3,148,640. 3,349,686 -6.000/o Class B 92.28% 86.45% 5.83% 1,966,688 1,732,584 13.51% Class C 82.16% 88.74% -6.58% 1,632,776 1;633,875 -0.07% All Office Space 89.67% 91.74% -2.07% 6,748,104 6 716,145 0.48% Coral Gables Class A 84.200/o 82.99% 1.21 % 1,892,064 1,63?,569 15.47% Class B 89.91% 93.77% -3.86% 1,658,517 1,874,560 -11.52% Class C 83.09% 91.46% -8.37% 795,720 846,469 -6.00% All Office Space 86.18% 89.27% -3.09% 4,346,301 4,359,598 ..Q.31% Airport/West Dade Class A 70.06% 77.94% -7.88% 3,309,040 2,804,314 18.000/o ClassB 85.12% 91.41% .{;.29% 3,695,341 3 ,352,238 10.24% ClassC 85.66% 94.30% -8.64% 989,873 888,213 ll.45% All Office Space 78.96% 86.42% -7.46% 7,994,254 7,044,765 13.48% Source: RcalDsta Information Systems Inc. As illustrated, the Bric kell area enjoys high occupancy rates. Further, in tbe first quarter of2002, the occupancy r ates for a ll classes of office space were higher in Brickell than compe t ing neighborhoods. Altho u gh the increased supply of Class A office space in Coral Gables from 2001 to 2002 (15 percent increase) may partially be the reason for this area s relatively low Class A office occupancy rate (84 percent), the occupancy rates for Class A office space in Brickell (95 percent) and in M iami CBD (92 percent) were still strong in comparison to comp et ing neighborhoods in the first quarter of2002. Page 1 2

PAGE 16

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Other Interviews CUTR also conducted interviews wit4 other parties including operators of hotels/restaurants located close to the Brickell Avenue Bridge and city and state transportation officials. The results of these surveys are summarized in the following paragraphs Operators of hotels that are proximate to the Brickell Bridge explained that th eir guests complain about noise levels (traffic, boats, bridge, etc.) and traffic congestion while getting in and out oftl).e hotels. They mentioned that when the traffic backs up, drivers who are unsure about the reason become impatient and create a hazardous environment. One hotel manager and one restaurant operator felt that they lost bus in ess because of their proximate location to the bridge. However, this business was lost to hotel s and restaurants in other parts of downtown. Respondents provided the following suggestions for traffic improvements: )> p l acing signage at appropriate locations to let drivers know the reason for congestion is a bridge opening; )> synchronizing 'traffic lights with the bridge openings; )> scheduled openings (not on demand) for pleasur e boats'; and )> a tunnel connecting north and south sides of the bridge or raising the bridge heig ht for fewer openings. CUTR also had discussions with representatives from the City of Miami Transportatio n P lannin g Office, Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization, and Coast Guard. Representatives of the City explained some of the initiatives that are being taken to relieve the congestion around Brickell Bridge. A list of these initiatives is provided in Appendix C. Other issue s emphasized during these in terviews included revenues generated from the Miami River traffic and the difficulty of identifying recreational boats that are used for personaVpleasure putposes versus commercial putposes. Page 13

PAGE 17

Economic Impact of Bri ckell Avenue Bridge dpen.iiigs IV. OTHER IMPACTS This section summarizes other impacts mat may result from Brickell Avenue Bridge openings, including: Property Value Comparison Environmental Impacts Cost of Business Delivery Property Values One of the concerns regarding the impacts of the Brickell Avenue Bridge openings was th e adverse effe ct on property values in downtown Miami. Based on information obtained from the Miami-Dade Property Appraiser's Office, assessed property values for office buildings in downtown Miami are compared to those in Coral Gables business district and the Airport West area. The following table provides a summary of these values. Property Values for Office Space (2001 Assessment) Property Value per sf of Office Space Downtown Mia m i Airport West Coral Gables Business District Sotuee: Miami-Dade County Property Appraiser Darabase S90 $84 $73 As illustrated, total pro p erty value per square foot of office space ranges from $73 in Coral Gables to $90 in downtown tyiiami. Although figures kept by the County Appraisers Office d o not necessarily reflect the market value of a property, based on these available data, it appears that the property values in the downtown Miami area are higher than those in Coral Gables and the Airport West area. It spould be noted that representatives o fMiami-Dade County Property Appraiser's Office stated that rental rates are better indicators of properties' market values than assessed property values or recent sales, which coul d be lower or higher than the true market value. Recent rental rate information is presented in Sect i on JII'(Summary oflnterviews) ofthis report. Page 14

PAGE 18

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Environmental Impacts Above certain concentrations, air pollutants (s\lch as carbon-monoxide, nitrogen-oxide, etc.) caused by vehicle emissions can cause or exacerbate health problems and/or increase mortality rateS. Emission rates are higher during idling, congested traffic conditions than at free flow conditions. The degree of damage from air pollutio n also depends on geography, weather conditions, and other factors. When the Brickell Bridge is in the open position, the vehicles on either side are either idling or slowing down as they join the queue. After the bridge closes, t h e vehicl es that were wait in g travel more slowly than free-flow cond i tions as the queue clears. These slower traffic conditions result in an environmental impact v ia the release of additional volatile organic chemicals (vehicle emissions) into the air Data from the fieldwork task of this study were used to detennine the average vehicle speeds for trips that were affected by bridge openings and for trips that were unaffected by bridge openings. Using a tool called the Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model (SPASM) vehicle emissions for three components of the volatile organic compounds (VOC) were determ ined for the average speeds of observed trips that were both aff e cted and unaffected by bridge openings. T he SPASM framewo rk provides emissions data for various vehicle-op-erating speeds in grams per mile for a single vehicle. The table below presents ; based on the data collected dur i ng the fieldwork task ofthi s study, the VOC emissions, in grams per mile, for a single vehicle making an average trip through the Brickell area As the table shows, a vehicle making an average trip affected by an opening of the Bricke ll B ridge emits nearly 60 percent more volatile organic compounds when compared to the same trip not affected by a bridge opening. This result is based on a comparison of the average speeds for trips affected unaffected by bridge openings. For the same trip a vehicl e affec t ed by a bridge opening was found to travel at an average speed o f 12 miles per hour, while a vehicle u n affected by the bridge was found to have an average speed of slightly more than 23 miles per hour. Single Vehicle Emissions for an Average Trip Through Brickell (Grams per Mile) Hydro-Carbons CarbonMonoxide Nit rogen-Oxide Trip Unaffected by Bridge 2.33 18.56 1.71 Trip Affected by Bridge 3 73 30.42 1.75 Difference 60 .09% 63.90% 2.34% Sour:cc: Sketch Planning Analysis Spreadsheet Model Total VOC 22 .60 35.90 58.85% Page 15

PAGE 19

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings The following table s hows how the addit i onal vehicle emissions resulting from Brickell Bridge openings impact total annual vehicle eniissi ons in the Brickell area on weekdays between 9 :00AM and 4:30PM. lf all trips in the Brickell area during this time could be compl eted without e n countering the effects of a bridge opening, the result would be 280.4 tons of volatile organic compou nds emitted into the air. However, as determined earlier in this study 15 percent of the total trips are by the bridge opening and, as a result, 24 addit ional tons of volatile organic compounds ar e emitted This represents a nine perce n t increase in vehicle emissi ons, ove rall. Imp ac t of Vehicle Em iss i o n s in th e Bri ckell A r ea (Tons) Hydro-Carbons Carbon-Monoxide Nitrogen-Oxide Total VOC All Trips Unaffected* 28.87 230 37 21.17 280.41 15% of Trips Affected** 31.39 251.80 21.24 30 4.43 Absolute Difference 2.52 21.43 0 .07 Percenl Difference 8.73% 9 30% 0.33% *The s cenario with all trips unaffected represents a base case where no weekday trips between 9:00 AM and 4:30PM are b y bridge openings. The fieldwork found that, on average, 15% of weekday trips between 9:00AM and 4:30PM are affected by openings; therefore, this represents the current scenario. Source: Sketch Pl anning Analysis Sp readsheet Model B us i ness D elivery Co s t s It is rea s onab l e to assume that traffic congestion re l ated to Brickell Bridge openings also affects business delivery to some extent. Business delivery i n cludes th e delivery of products and services by truck as well as automobile. Some s tu dies w ere foun d in the literature relat ing to busi ness delivery costs. One particular study, a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) report ent i tled Economic Implications of Conge s tion attemp t ed t o esti m ate congestion cost impacts on business delivery. However, it was determined that this information was hot applicable t o the Bricke ll area, because of the report's emphasis on the mining, agriculture, and manufacturing industries. Aecording to the Beacon Council, agriculture represents only 0 1 percent of the total business activity in downtown Miarni and manufacturing represen t s 3.6 p e rcent, while retail trade fmance, insura n ce, real estate, and other services account for 74.1 percent of the business activity in the area For this analysis, it is assumed that any productivity loss or time delay related t o business delivery in the Bric k ell area is accounted for i n the average v ehicle delays collected from the fieldwork and discussed in Sect i on II (Value of Lost Time). Page 16 24.02 8. 57%

PAGE 20

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bi'lt!ge Opii1iirigs V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS As mentioned previously, this study evaluated the negative economic affects of travel time delays due to.Brickell Avenue Bridge openings. Several methods and approaches were used in this analysis. Thi s section provides a summary of our findings. The analysis estimated the dollar value of lost time/productivity from travel delays at $1.1 million annually in 2002 dollars. This estimate represents the value of lost time under current con ditions and does not take into account the effects of new developments Further, additional time losses due to some individuals leaving their offices earlier because of the possibility of a bridge opening are not included in this estimate. Although most of the individuals and businesses complain about traffic congestion in the area and feel that Brickell Avenue Bridge openings are compounding the congestion, none of the businesses that moved away from downtown did so because of traffic congestion. Lower rental rates and larger office space availability in surrounding neighborhoods were Cited as primary reasons for leaving. Although none of the businesses moved away from downtown due to Brickell Bridge openings, some of the office .buildings lost tenants to other buildings in ihe Brickell area/downtown Miami. Sitilliarly, the loss of individual businesses due to bridge openings, such as hotels and restaurants nearby the bridge, are gains to other downtown businesses and do not represent net losses to downtown Miami. Interviews and surveys conducted also revealed that many parties are concerned about the image of the Brickell area and downt own Miami in terms of traffic congestion and that this negativ e image may cause loss of prospective tenants. These individuals pointed out reducing traffic congestion may be one way for downtown Miami to gain advantage over other neighborhoods such as Coral Gables and the Airport West area. Observations made during the fieldwork as well as input received during the surveys suggest that bridge openings do negatively effect the quality o f life i n the area. High noise levels, aggravation/irritation of drivers, impatience with the traffic, and not obeying traffic laws tend to create a hazardous environment. In addition, the congestion in the area may be limiting certain safety measures (such as access for emergency vehicles, etc.). An analysis of additional air pollution created due to bridge openings indicates that, on an average trip, an individual vehicle affected by the bridge emits 60 percent more pollution than if it were not affected. Overall, on weekdays between 9:00AM and 4:30PM, Brickell Bridge openings lead to a nine percent increase in vehicle emissions annually Page 17

PAGE 21

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Opeili11gs APPENDIX A This appendix provides a description of II routes selected for the fieldwork as well as maps illustrating the routes. As men tioned previously, tne first three routes. were selected based on CUTR's observations and discussions with representatives ofDavid Plummer and Associates while the remaining eighi routes were selected by following random drivers in the area. Route 1: Starts on 15th street and Brickell, heads north on Brickell going over the bridge, and makes an immediate right. The driver returns using the following two alternative routes: -Follows Biscayne B lv d (US I) until SE 2"4 Street. Makes a left on SE zo4 Street, then heads south on Brickell until 15m Street. Makes a left on SE 3111 Avenue until Flagler. Makes a left on Flagler, goes to SE zd Avenue (Brickell) then heads south on Brickell until IS'" Street. Route 2: Starts at the Guard House in Brickell Key, goes westbound on SE &'" Street making a right on Brickell, goes over the bridge and makes an immediate right. Returns to Key using the follow ing two routes: -Follows Biscayne Blvd (US !). until SE 2"4 Street. Makes a left on SE z'-4 Street, then heads south on Brickell until SE &'" Street. Makes a left on SE &'" Street and goes until the Guard House. -Makes a left on SE 3'd Avenue until Flagler. Makes a left on F lagler, then heads south on Brickell until SE gm Street. Makes a left on SE gu. Street and goes until the Guard House. Route 3: Heads easton SW s Street from SW zd Avenue to Brickell Avenue. Makes a left on Brickell and goes over the bridge. Makes an immediate right. Return route: Makes a left on SE 3'd Avenue and a left on Flagler, makes a left on SW zd Avenue, then makes another left on SW 1., Street. Continues until Brickell Avenue then heads south on Brickell until SE 7th Street. Makes a right on SE 7'" Street; makes a left on SW zd Avenue. Random Routes: Route 4: Starts at 1420 Bayshore Drive and heads north on Bayshore Drive. Goes to SE 8th Street and takes a left. Goes to Brickell Avenue and takes a right. Goes over the Brickell Bridge, then makes a left onto SE 3rd Avenue. Heads north on SE 3rd Avenue to SE 1st Street, then east on SE 1st Street and the trip ends just before Biscayne Boulevard Page 18

PAGE 22

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Ope1iings Route 5: This route starts at the intersection of Biscayne Boulevard and Flagler Street, with the car headi n g west on Flagler. Goes west on Flagler until SE 2nd Avenue and takes a left Continues south on SE 2nd Avenue and goes over the Brickell Bridge and makes a right at SE 7th Street and proceeds west to SW 3rd Avenue. The trip ends there. . Route 6: This route starts at SW 1st Avenue and 13th Street (Coral Way). The driver heads east on 13th Street and makes a left at South Miami Avenue. Goes north on South Miami Avenue, then goes n orth for a block to SE 1st Street and makes a right, and goes about a block to 168 SE 1st Street. Route 7: Route #7 starts at the intersectio n ofSW lst Street and SW 1st Avenue The driver heads east on SW lst Street and keeps going to Biscayne Boulevard. Takes a left at Biscayne Boulevard and goes north to Northeast l'st Street where the rou te ends Route 8: This route starts at the intersection ofNE lsi Street and NE 2 n d Avenue, heads south on NE 2nd Avenue. Goes over the Brickell Bridge and makes a right on S B 7th Street. Goes west on SE 7th Street, and then takes a left at SW 2nd Avenue. Goes south on SW 2nd Avenue to 13th Street (Coral Way). Route 8 ends here . Route 9: Ro u te #9 starts at the intersection of 13th Street and SW 1st Avenue, heading east on 13th Street until Brickell Avenue. Takes arigh t onto Brickell Avenue and goes south to SE 15th Street. Takes a left on Street and goes east (bending left a t the water) to 1420 Bayshore Drive. Route #9 ends here. Route 10: Route #10 starts in front of the guardhouse at Brickell Key, headi n g west Goes west on the bridge until it becomes SE 8th Street. Continues heading west until Brickell Avenue. Ta k es a right on Brickell Avenue, and then makes a left on SE 7th Street, and goes west to SW 3rd Avenue. Route #10 ends here. Route 11: This route starts at the comer o f S E 6th Street and Brickell Avenue, with the car ready to take aright on Brickell Avenue. Proceeds south on Brickell to SE 15th Street. The route ends there. Page 19

PAGE 23

" Economic Impact of Brick// Avenue Bridge Openihgs .. :.. > . Route 1 . i : . . ';, . .. .. --routo 1 -ruuiO 1 reiUm A -roula 1 relum B Page2 0

PAGE 24

Economic Impact of Brickell A venue Bfidge Opi!liiiigs Route 2 >. ,;; ... .. :; . ... ' --r oule2 -r oute 2 return A Page 21

PAGE 25

Economic Impact of Brickell A. venue Bridge Openings Route 3 Wl2nd s V'l_ fl.t!gler S\ I '1.8-et$\ ., swet!i t -N A SWftl$\ SW9!hS\ SelbSI i! .. l f i -route3 an 'lOttS\ <1c;..s -n>ute 3 ratum Page22

PAGE 26

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Opeiiings Route 4 .. ... . >::: .. Page23

PAGE 27

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings 5 /4\h Sl NE 4'b S\ "" 1,\, lSI SE j.ISI _ska.. sl . . . . . ;2. "' J "' SW lOb)>! SW IOhSI _j 'I 14', I -' .. Page24

PAGE 28

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings sw "" 6 Page25

PAGE 29

Economic Impact of Bricu/1 Avenue Bridge Openings S\ .... - . I . Route 7 Sl .. . ... : .,, ....... . . . ., . . .... Page26

PAGE 30

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings r 1 . : ; lfswd1hsl svn onsl Route 8 SW\\1 Sl -sW "' --+-----'=!=----' sw ...... "" s' :!.. Sl Page27

PAGE 31

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Route 9 sw Page 28

PAGE 32

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Route 10 . Page29

PAGE 33

Economic hnpact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Route 11 Page 30

PAGE 34

Economic Impact of Brickell Bridge Openings APPENDIX B List of Businesses and Other Organizations Contacted I. ABC Management S ervices 2. Allen Morris Company 3. American Ventures 4. Atlantic Security Bank 5. BAC 6. Bank of Boston International 7. Bank of Costa Rica 8. Brickell Area Association 9. CB Richard Ellis 10. City Club II. City ofMiami 12. Coast Guard 13. CRESA Partners 14. Cushman and Wakefield 15. David Plummer and Associates 16. Downtown NET 17. Dupont Plaza Hotel 18. E'lorida East Coast Realty 19. Grubb & Ellis 20. Hote l Intercontinental 21. Hyatt Regency Hotel 22. Insign ia/ESG 23. Intemational Bank ofMiami 24. Italian Consulate 25. Jones Lang LaSalle 26. Kapustin Corporation 27. LaSalle Bank 28. L&B Property Managers 29. Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization 30. Miami Downtown Plaza Hotel 31. Orange Bowl Committee 32. Prcmisys Real Estate Services, Inc. 33. Rok Enterprises 34. Shorenstein Company 35. SunTrust Intemational Center 36. Taylor and Mathias 37. Terremark Worldwide, Inc. 38. Ticketmaster Page 31

PAGE 35

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings APPENDIXC BRIEFING ON BRICKELL TRANSPORTATION ISSUES (September 18, 2002) Provided by the City of Miami Two-Way Conversion SW 8 Street SW 8 Street is presently one-way eastbound from 1-95 to Brickell Avenue. It is "paired" with SW 7 Street, which is one-way westbound. East of Brickell Avenue, SW 8 Street is two-way, serving Brickell Key. When traffic on northbound Bric ke ll Avenue is backed up due to Brickell bridge openings, it blocks traffic trying to exit from Brickell Key on SW 8 Street. o Because SW 8 Street is eastbound only to Brickell Avenue, the exiting Brickell Key traffic must tum north to SW 7 Street to access I -95. When the movement is blocked, the traffic can't move. o This is n't simply an inconvenience-emergency vehicles, i f present, are blocked too, raismg potential life/safety issues. The one-way pattern also restricis access to busmesses along SW 8 Street. Because traffic can approach businesses ill only one direction it is often n e cessary to circle the blocks to gain access. o This is not only inconvenient, but creates traffic congestion at adjoining intersections The problem is particularly acute between SW 2 Avenue and I-95, due to restrict i ons imposed by I-95 ramps. Brickell Avenue to I-95 (Full implementation requires apProval by Florida Department o(TraJJSportation, Miami-Dade County, or botlt): A study has been completed showing that converting SW 8 Street to two-way operation would facilitate traffic movement, increase access to adjo ining businesses, improve access to 1-95 and the Miami Avenue Bridge, and free the Brickell Key exiting movement. o The p.m. "rush hour" traffic would gam two westbound lanes to 1-95, facilitating this movement. o In t erchange modifications to I-95 access could split the 7 and 8 Street traffic for optimum effic iency. To achieve this conversion, a Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) study needs to be performed. Following its completion, the project can be designed and let for construction by th e F lor ida Department of Transportation (FDOT). o By doing the PD&B itself, the City can save about three years toward completion of the project. Funds to do so are bei11g sought from the Downtown DRI impact fees. Page32

PAGE 36

Economic Impact of Brickell Aven11e Bridge Openings Brickell Avenue to MiamiAve11ue (Full impleme11tatio11 requires apProval by Florida Department o( Tra11sportatio11, Miami-Dade Countv, or hotll): o An interim plan to relieve the Brickell Key situation is now being implemented by the City and FDOT It will convert SW 8 Street to two way operation for the single bloek between Brickell Avenue and Miami Avenue allowing a !-lane westbound movement on SW 8 Street froiXI Brickell Avenue to Miami Avenue, where it can tum north to the Miami Avenue Bridge, or to SW 7 Street, where it can then go west to I-95. This in terim plan requires advance dedication of the zoned right of-way along the north side of SW 8 Street between the Metromover and Miami Avenues. The dedication documents and deed are being prepared at the present time. This plan will also require signalization, signage, pavement and curb changes to accomplish, and can be done within a year after right-of-way is secured. Modification of signal timing to synchronize with Brickell Bridge openings has been accomplished; video surveillance for real-time adjustments is under consideration, and an alternative rou tes plan has been prepared and distributed by the Police Department. Modification of signal timing to allow more "green time" to exit Brickell Key has been implemented. The change results in longer queues on northbound Brickell, but within acceptabl e limits considering the relief granted to Brickell Key traffic. o Regulation of construction permits, hours of operation, and requiremen ts for off -s ite parking for construction workers is being considered. 1-95 to SW 27 Ave11ue (Full impleme11tation requires approval by Florida Departme111 of Transportation, Miami-Dade Cou11lv, or both): SW 8 Street, Calle Ocho, between 1-95 and SW 27 Avenue, passes through the heart of Littl e Havana, and is the "Main Street" for that community. SW 8 Street is one-way eastbound over the e n tire d i stance from SW 27 Avenue .to I-95. o Operating in a one-way configuration designed to facilitate inbound workday traffic from tbe suburbs to downtown, SW 8 Street moves high volumes of fast-moving traffic that seriously interferes with the street's function as access to businesses and the Little Havana residential neighborhoods. o Moreover, morning inbound traffic rarely stops to do errands or other business. In the evening, the homeward -bound traffic travels along SW 7 Street, which is one-way westbound and has virtually no business-es along it. Dedicating three lanes of the street to traffic, and allowing for parallel parking on each side (essential due to the high-density urban character of the business Page33

PAGE 37

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings area) reduces sidewalk width below the minimwn desirable for pedestrian movement. o A study to analyze conversion of SW 8 Street to two-way traffic, increasing the width of sidewalks and prov i ding for beautification of the roadway, has been completed, and is under review by the City and FDOT. Because SW 8 Street is a State highway FDOTapproval will be required for any changes that are recomme nded. o At. the request of the City Commission consultants have been selected and are preparing an 'ec,onomic and marketability study to evaluate the economic benefits and disadvantages of one-and-two-way operations in Little Havana. o If it is not feasible to effect the two-way conversion at this time, an alternative presen ted by the study i s reversing the flow ofSW 8 Street to westbound one-way operatio n to improve access to businesses during the afternoon homeward-bound trip. T w o-way M iami Avenue, bo t h si d es o f M iami Avenue Br i dge o The Miami Avenue Bridge i s u n derutilized, while Brickell and SW 2 Avenue bridges (currently being replaced) are heavily used. o Reason: traffic is diverted at each end ofMiami Avenue Bridge, forcing it into a street pattern that increases intersection congestion and makes access to adjoining properties difficult. Drivers ch<;)ose SW 2 Avenue or Brickell bridges instead . o More traffic would use Miami Avenue Bridge if it coul d continue directly north and south from the bridge to the street grid. o This would be especially true of northbound traffic, which is forced into some of the most congested downtown int ersections. o (The same thing is true northbound on Brickell Bridge, where traffic is forced into the DuPont Plaza onf>.way pattern) Miami Avenue North o[River (Full implementation requires approval by Florida Department o[Transportat i on, Miami-Dade Coun{Jb or both): o City of Miami has requested that the Miami-Dade County Public Wor k s Department (MDPW) consider making Miami Avenue two-way northbound to S. 1 Street, so (I) a left-tum can be made at S. 3 Street and (2) traffic can access I-95 at S 2 Street. o (This is the same traffic pattern that existed before the Miami Avenue bridge replacement many years ago). o MDPW agreed to (I), but not (2) without further study of traffic operations and signalization issues o This would complement the planned two-way conversion of Flagler Street, wherein the one-way pair of S and N 1 Streets become the main east -west carriers Page34

PAGE 38

Economic Impact of Brickell Avenue Bridge Openings Miami Avenue Soutl o{River (Full implementation requires approval by Florida Departme11t of Transportation, Miami-Dade CouJJty, or botlt): Following conversion of the northbound movement, the City will request a similar action for the southbound Miami Avenue traffic, so that properties fronting on Miami Avenue will have the benefit of two-way access. o Thi s pattern will reduce the amount of southbound traffic now using SW 1 Avenue between the river and SW 7/8 Streets, and set the stage for a future tunnel connecting SW l Aven u e under the Miami River. Wllen finally completed, the two-way conversion will result in this traffic pattern for the Miami Avenue bridge: o Two of the three northbound lanes over the bridge will tum east to SE l Avenue, as now, and one lane will continue north to SW 2 or SW l Street ; o Two of the three southbound lanes over the bridge will tum west to SW I Avenue, as now, and one lane will continue south as part of a two-way Miami Avenue over i ts l ength. Downtown Transportation Master Plan {DTMP) {Full implementation requires approval by Florida Department of Transportation, Miami Dade County, or both) . Initiative by Commissioner Winton, who stressed need for a comprehensive, long range, detailed plan for filture transportation i n the downtown area. o Tri ggered by question ofwhe$her replacement of SW 2Avenue Bridge would preclude any further consideration of a tunnel crossing of the Miami River between downtown and Blickell. o Answer: no, but a long-range p lan that addresses all aspects of downtown transportation is essent ial to justifY a tunnel (or any other public investment in major transportation projects). Study will cost up to $750,000, commenced early 2001; final report now in preparation. A major feature of the DTMP js a sophisticated computer model that can depict existing and future traffic conditions under varying developmental assumptions and scenarios, and can be continually updated as conditions change. o This will allow m uch more accurate forecasting of transportation conditions, and will permit evaluation of various alternatives to maximize efficiency of the system. o The technology that allows this type of modeling is quite n ew, and Miami will be demonstrating its effectiveness. o Brickell area is the critical test of the DTMP's proposals: o Newest and most intensive downtown redevelopment is happening in Brickell o Many people moving to Blickell from suburbs to escape traffic congestion and long commutes. Page35 i

PAGE 39

Economic Impact of Brickell Avemte Bridge Openings o Recommendations in the Il1MP wih require many years for full implementation, but many can be implemented in the near-tenn. o Increased provision of mass transit service is the key to continued development and redevelopmen t downtown. "Brickell Buildout" Study, Miami River to SW 25 Road Rapid development and redevelopment of the Brickell Avenue corridor between the Miami River and SW 25/SW 26 Roads (Rickenbacker Causeway) has raised concerns regarding traffic congestion in that area. o A question repeatedly asked is how much more development can take place before traffic congestion becomes intolerable. To address these concerns, the Downtown Transportation Master Plan (DTMP) will produce a computerized model that will simulate future traffic according to a variety of development assumptions and scenarios. o This will allow planners to test the effects of development, and update the database for the model as building occurs. To provide input to the DTMP, a detailed study is underway to forecast what traffic conditions might be expected if Brickell continues t o build out at close to the maximum allowed by existing zoning, and what transportation alternatives to private passenger vehicles can be recommended. While this Study cannot provide the varjety of assumptions and developmental scenarios that the model can test, i t \viii nonetheless estimate an "ultimate". buildout and identify the critical intersections where traffic congestion is likely to be problematical. DuPont Plaza Two-Way Conversion (Full implementation requires approval by Flori da Department of Transportation Miami-Dade County, or both) The traffic circulation system now used it rthe DuPont Plaza area forces all traffic destined for 1-95 or Brickell Avenue to pass through the intersection ofNE 2nd Avenue S!ld NE 2nd Street, creating a bottleneck that causes queuing for many blocks in both directions when the Brickell Bridge opens. An application for funding under the Transportation Outreach Prog(am (TOPS) was filed November 7, 2000, and was awarded $480,000 for FY '01-'02 to : prepare the Project Development & Environment (PD&E) study to recommend a solution t o the traffic circulation problem. Subsequently, a JPA with FDOT to prepare the PD&E has been authorized by the Miami City Commission, and the consultant contract was awarded to David Plummer & Associates by the City Commission on June 13, 2002. The project kickoff meeting was held September 18, 2002, and it is anticipated that the study will be completed by mid-2003. An additional $1.3 million funding from TOPS has been authorized for FY '02'03 for project design that will be based on the alternative selected in the PD&E. Subsequent funding has yet to be secured for construction of the preferred alternative. Page 36

PAGE 40

Economic Impact of Brickell Ave11ue Bridge Openings Tunnel Under Miami River at S.W. 1st Avenue (Full implementation requires approval by Florida Department of Transportation, Miami Dade County, or both) Location is workable, according to preliminary field study. Project bas been included in 2025 Long Range Transport a tion Plan. Study des ign will be completed as part ofBrickell Traffic Congestion Mitiga tion District {TCMD) plan. Page37


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s flunnn| ||||ineng
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00445
2 USFLDC DOI
0 245
[An un-cataloged item [C01-00445] from Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].]
500
Full cataloging of this resource is underway and will replace this temporary record when complete.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF]
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.445